A Trotskyist, i.e. false, view of world history
The late Chris Harman was the editor of the Socialist Workers Party¿s paper. In this book, he attempted to write a Marxist history of the world. His method was to rely on good Marxists who did the best studies of each period of history. So for the rise of class societies, he relied on V. Gordon Childe, for the ancient world, on Geoffrey De Ste Croix, for the Middle Ages, on Rodney Hilton, for the great transformation, on Christopher Hill and J. V. Polisensky, for the spread of the new order, on George Rudé, and for the world turned upside down, on Albert Soboul, Marx and Engels. Unfortunately, when it came to the 20th century, he relied only on Trotsky and Tony Cliff. How did Harman, this self-proclaimed revolutionary, deal with the 20th century¿s defining revolution, the great October revolution? He wrote that in 1926 Stalin adopted ¿a completely new doctrine known as ¿socialism in one country¿¿. This ignored Lenin¿s article The United States of Europe slogan, where he wrote, ¿Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and organised its own socialist production, would stand up against the rest of the world, the capitalist world.¿ Harman wrote that Stalin represented a ruling group whose ¿chief characteristic was inertia and complacency¿. Yet this inert and complacent group ¿did break the backbone of private capitalism in Russia, and later did the same in Eastern Europe and China.¿ Even Harman had to acknowledge ¿the economic success of the USSR¿ in the 1930s and its ¿rapid industrial advance¿ in the 1950s and early 1960s. Harman¿s account of World War Two is provably false (see Grover Furr¿s Khrushchev lied for details). Harman wrongly wrote that Stalin ignored the Nazi threat and the warnings of war, that the Red Army was ¿utterly unprepared¿, that Stalin ¿panicked¿ when the Nazis attacked, that he turned to ¿chauvinism¿, that he ¿deported whole peoples¿ for no good reason, and that he ordered Soviet forces to stand back from Warsaw when the Nazis crushed the rising. Harman denied that World War Two was a war between progress and reaction, between democracy and fascism, and even doubted that the Grand Alliance was anti-fascist. His analysis of revolution is fatally flawed by his embrace of the counter-revolutionary notion of state capitalism. Capitalist classes have used the state to develop the economy, but when a working class used the state to develop the economy, the SWP denounced it as practising capitalism. Any use of the state has, apparently, to be capitalist. This dogmatic opposition to the state is anarchism, the polar opposite of Marxism.
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback.
Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.