American Imperialism to keep its global dominance are going after the workers’ states; semi-Colonies; and other Imperialist blocks such as the EU The sanctions resolutions passed by both houses in America last week is very dangerous. It has caused m massive reaction by Russia as the key nationalised industries are targeted and the state apparatus which defend these nationalised industries/sectors of economy from capitalist takeover.

This sanction move against Russia is a major concession to the neo-Cons. American Imperialism is testing the reaction of the Russian bureaucracy. As I argued three to four months ago on Facebook and Twitter the Trump administration would have tendencies towards greater adventurism than the George W Bush administration because we are in a period of the worse capitalist crisis. This has the potential of having a bigger mass movement to prevent nuclear suicide of World War 3. The first move by the Russian bureaucracy yesterday is to expel nearly 700 American Imperialist personal from Russia. There are now diplomatic tensions between Russia and Poland. Russia has threatened to impose sanctions on Poland if they dismantle statues to Soviet Union soldiers fighting in World War 2.

There was a major move to the right in the anti-war movement and it reflected itself by the Centrist groups going right Centrist in their attitude to Imperialist interventions within Libya; Syria; and Ukraine. This has played into the neo-Con’s hands. By the neo-Cons going too far with the potential threat of World War 3 being so obvious there is going to be a major left shift. The fight against Imperialist drive to World War 3 could deepen the radicalization among hundreds of millions workers and middle class layers within Imperialist countries. Coming out of these mass mobilizations could begin to seriously threaten capitalist rule. If this begins to happens millions of workers can develop an anti-capitalist consciousness concretely demanding the end of austerity; and to end all Imperialist wars by millions of workers preventing this.

If the Centrist groups do not move to the left to this deepening radicalization and change towards higher anti-Imperialist consciousness will not last very long in the mass movement. The next bit is going to be very sharp polemical because the lessons of why the neo-Cons under Trump are in a position to threaten the world with the anti-war movement considerably weaker than Bush. In my opinion this because Obama’s adventures were not effectively challenged by the anti-war movement due to the left not seeing the role of Imperialism in counter-revolutions in attempts to re-colonise Libya and Syria; and serious moves to attempt capitalist restoration within Ukraine. Lenin’s famous slogan is always to give those on the left room to retreat of they move in the correct direction and break from a wrong course.

Trotskyists should take advantage of the neo-Con’s mistakes to overthrow capitalism at the first chance. One key idea Trotskyists need to win the anti-war movement is not to support Imperialist interventions led by the liberal Bourgeoisie. In order to deal with the methodological mistakes on the left who support pro-imperialist forces in the workers’ states and semi-Colonies. I am starting to read the dispute on the class nature of the Soviet Union in the internal documents of the American SWP between 1930 and 1940 by supporters of Trotsky defending thee workers’ state expanding to other countries and those who called themselves 3rd Campers who opposed this. Most of this Shactmanite minority who called themselves 3rd Campers dumped defend defence of the workers’ states. Due to this on most occasions they did not support the workers’ states in their military struggle with Imperialism and other capitalist states. One of the contradictions of all the 3rd campers is the logic there is nothing to defend in the workers’ states due either due to the extreme brutality of Stalinism or Capitalist inroads. In practice at times when the workers’ states are threatened by attempts at capitalist restoration or the workers’ states become stronger and capitalist elements are defeated some of the gains within the workers’ states become obvious. If they do not defend the workers’ states when there are serious threats of capitalist restoration they isolate themselves from those radicalizing.

One example of this complex dialectic is what Imperialism and capitalist elements were pressuring the Yeltsin wing of the Stalinist bureaucracy to carry out mass privatisations and firing of millions of workers. This they did not get away with due to some Stalinist bureaucrats did not want to be unemployed by losing their power. Gaider the first prime minister under Yeltsin in 1992 tried these policies. He got way with rising prices of hundreds in percentage terms. Due to many Stalinist bureaucrats losing out in Gaider’s mass privatisation proposals he either resigned or was fired within weeks or months. Chemerydroin from the state-owned energy sector, soon replaced keeping capitalist restoration at bay from this section of bureaucrats. There was some resistance by workers to capitalist inroads and bureaucratic pillage. Due to the stalemate within the bureaucracy; the Stalinists holding the anti-Yeltsin fight due to threat of that fight could deepen processes towards incipient political revolution; and fear any further unrest more unrest will strengthen capitalist forces to the right of the Yeltsin wing of the bureaucracy.

Orwell when he wrote Animal Farm echoed Trotsky’s analysis that the working class fear overthrowing Stalinism because they do not want capitalism restored. What attitude should have Russian Trotskyists had to this inter-Stalinist battle over extent of capitalist inroads during the Yeltsin period? How do Russian Trotskyists defend the workers’ state and advance our programme of political revolution? Within the framework of defending Russia as a workers’ state independent of all Stalinist factions, what strategies and tactics for Russian Trotskyists to advance and lead the political revolution? IN conjuncture with the Transitional Method Russian Trotskyists would have supported the mass unrest against privatisation and big cutbacks to public services. We would support all struggles to expropriated Russian capitalists and to fight for what remains of Stalinism due to their social inequality caused by their bureaucratic rule. Trotskyists would have pose demands on the Stalinists fighting capitalist restoration in order to widen the schism. Another purpose of this united front tactic within the programme and strategy of defending workers’ state is to expose over time the limitations of Stalinism over time in defending their prilvigies. When millions of workers in struggle against capitalist restoration it is easier to win them to the perspective of political revolution. If Russian Trotskyists cannot carry out political revolution, especially if capitalists threaten the workers’ states the struggle against Stalinism is subordinate to defence of the workers’ states. This is what Trotskyists mean by unconditional defence of the workers’ states.

The main methodological mistake of those who argue Russia and Eastern Europe are not workers’ states is that they confuse norm with its realities being ruled by Stalinism except for early years of Russian revolution and Cuba. Trotsky and American Trotskyists such as Joseph Hansen and Jim Cannon argued most revolutionaries know the varieties of unions. It has been in less developed countries where socialist revolutions have occurred. The only time a workers’ state had any inroads within Imperialist countries was when the Soviet Red Army occupied parts of Germany and Austria. In East Germany the workers’ state had to be freshly industrialised because before the Red Army invaded, Eastern Germany was backward due to the dominance of Junker Aristocratic landlords. Capitalism was salvaged in Austria by the Red Army withdrawing troops in 1955. Trotsky argued in his polemics to liberals and Anarchists such as Simone Weil in a 1933 work entitled “Class nature of the Soviet State” that you have gangsters from the Mafia; Clergy; and fascists under capitalism. You have gangsters under Stalinism under the workers’ states. This argument of Stalinist and Capitalist gangsters being the same is not a new argument. Trotsky argued against this aforementioned 1933 work. In a 1937 work by Trotsky “not a Bourgeois and not a workers’ state” in arguing against revisionists James Burnham and Joseph Carter that the Soviet Union was neither a workers’ state or capitalist, that you cannot confuse social content of workers’ state whose Stalinist rule distorts norms of workers’ states. Trotsky argued in the beginning of the internal dispute with the Shactmanite wing of the SWP that except for threats of capitalist restoration, Trotskyists resolve the norm and reality of workers’ states by the revolutionary overthrow of Stalinism through political revolution.

Trotskyists both defend the Russian and Chinese workers’ states against any force aligned with Imperialism against them. We are in favour of them making blows however hesitant against world capitalism. In line with Trotsky and pre-4th International (International Communist League – ICL) 1934 resolution called “War and the 4th International” we do not support the bureaucracies making opportunist alliance blocks with Imperialist powers such as the EU. There is talk of a full trade war between the EU; Russia; and America. If this happens British Capitalism could be squssed even more. This could deepen the radicalization and revolutionary processes among the masses!