TROTSKYISM HAS failed to re-situate the Leninist tbeory of party-class relations because of ils anaigsis of the historical epoch. In practice, this analysis appears as an over-emphasis oo the problem of leadership, an exaggerated bellef that the lack of correct leadership is the cause of ander-development of the class struggle und the failure to seize power.
The Trotskyist conception of the epoch BAs Tema ncd ststic and lesds to un undialectical separation of 'objective" and 'subjective" factors. Take this quate fram the Revolutionary Communist Group:
In the imperialist epoch capitalism suffers from a deep and protonged crisis which can only be resolved if there exists a тетродаг ралу capapis or wuuung the mass of the class to its programme The maintenance of capitalism rests, not on sis marcrial foundations for those ard in docay — but on the immaturity and backwardness of the working class and its CaUA SIP "The various sharp political turns and of periods advance with periods of reaction, spring not from changes in the economic base. hut from Impulses of a purely super structural character. In this epoch the outcome of the crisis rests on the sublective factor; the understanding, organiabon sau determination ol the revolu tonary party. ('Our Tasks and MetbRevolunionary Communisr No 1, page 5)
in this statement can be seen most of the weaknesses of Trotskyism. Firstly, it is absurd to see an undifferentiared period or 'epoch" which stretches from the first uarter of thit century to today. To state is the International Marxist Group does that this 'Imperialist stage of capitalism is th opi m watil a detre ni se TOTE SS CO TUAKE I MENDIONES Ifn is to show, as Lenin pur it, 'the actuality of revolution', it revolutionary movement with a mechani. cal "law" which, when it doesn't operale, requires substitute factor af explanaton. In this "epoch', when capitalism is supposedly finished and stagnant as a force, "temporary" factors save to be used to pover the inadequacy of Inc analysis. Focso inciuor, Jor virt0u) Trotskyist simply backward iadership, fut aleooa all or one of.
spending, the role of the dollar and nto-colonial exploitation.
TRANSFORMATION Withour denying the role of these Factors, our criticism of Troiskytim in that it will not recognise the profound transtotmations or cacicalisco tilated in the 1930g, 40s and 50h under the influence of Keynesianisat, etc. selves perlectly cleár, Wo are not capitu some form of "revisionism"
BE Cr s aobuu conaas. we believe that the post-war reforms froze that process and now provide a different set of problems as these changes coliapse into a new crisis.
The changer in the relations between working class, capital and state have GCLSVC SCOIC CI Or SLAIC By using wages as a motor of capitalist development (enpouraging consumption involving the State directiy in economic and social management, by attempting to further incorporation of the trade unions: DOL 10 mention other TEC AN CIRE TITER HCSHE other financial and monetary relations between states - the system was given a new lease of life.
Trotskyiam fails to recognise the totality and importance of these changes in the class conscibusness. Trotsky and his later followers failed to recognise the importof revolutionary iaddies the SOCIALIST CHALLENGE 7 July 1977 = foundations. The crisis was due 1o combination of two forcel Firt strugele of the workin conomic and social needs: for in divoroed trom productivity and a deci level of social services. This has te forced the second factor: the competi ETIOS TRELAERISILAUDI Cnc crisis is not a question of over-producti or demand management, It is a product