text:
Tag Archive: organisation
The Marxist theory of the state: Deformed and Degenerated Workers' States and Capitalist States
The Marxist theory of the state:
Deformed and Degenerated Workers' States and Capitalist States
From Socialist Fight (British Section, Liaison Committee for the Fourth International)
The post WWII debate in the Fourth International of the late 1940s and early 1950s on the class character of the 'Buffer States' in Eastern Europe was resurrected in 1989-92 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR following the Yanayev coup and Yeltsin's counter-coup of August 1991. We will see from the struggles we have outlined below that the Stalinist bureaucracies became divided into three camps following the defeat of the Brezhnevites by Gorbachev in 1989; those Gorbechevites on the left who wished to retain the degenerate and deformed workers' states by opening up the economic plan by glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), those in the middle (Yanayev and Deng in China) who sought the restoration of capitalism by slow, planned measures, maintaining the Stalinist bureaucracy as the vehicle of restoration and those on the right like Yeltsin who sought a rapid capitulation to western Imperialism and their own enrichment by plundering the state assets in alliance with western transnational corporations. We can observe at least elements of these three tendencies in most of the counter-revolutionary overturns of 1989-92.
The first debate on the nature of the East European countries behind the 'iron curtain' in the FI in the late 1940s eventually resulted in the correct conclusion that they were deformed workers' states, but much confusion remained. We will look at the position again as it emerged in the debate over the class character of Cuba in the early 1960s and the debate about the class character of Cambodia in the late 1970s following the invasion by Vietnam on 25 December 1978. And of course, as we have mentioned, the debate following the victory of the counter-revolutionary restoration of capitalism in Eastern European and Asian states in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Continue reading →
Tags: alliance, anarchist, anti-capitalist, austria, bolshevik, britain, committee, communist, cwi, east, fifth, fight, for, fourth, grantism, guildford, ibt, imt, initiative, international, labour, league, lenin, liaison, liberation, london, marxist, Michael Proebsting, Militant, new, north, of, organisation, party, power, rcit, rcp, revolutionary, rkob, sf, socialist, south, stalinism, state, surrey, ted grant, tendancy, the, theory, Trotskyism, west, workers, wp, wpb, youth
Health Warning: John Butcher, Surrey County Council and Elmbridge Borough Councillor wants to deny NHS treatment to his constituents! Do not re-elect!
Filed under: Guildford Against Fees & Cuts, Strictly Local - Issues And Campaigns
Even fellow Tories distance themselves from this "crazy fascist"
Yesterday, The VOAG re-published a story about John Butcher, a Conservative Surrey County Councillor for Cobham ward. He has worked out a brilliant scheme for pushing up property values in the county – by driving out everyone who is fat, takes recreational drugs, gorges on junk food or has 'self-inflicted' health problems of any kind. As a member of the council's health committee, he has sent an email to staff suggesting a two-speed NHS in which "patients with self-inflicted morbidity, (mainly smoking, alcohol, narcotics or obesity) or an injury through 'dangerous activities' are placed in a much slower-moving queue". https://suacs.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/john-butcher-surrey-heath-tory-councillor-health-committee-nhs
In a response to the Elmbridge Guardian, which first broke the story, John Butcher added: "If sports can ban performance-enhancing drug use, then entertainment etc. should ban narcotics and alcohol abuse".
"Everyone in, or aspiring to, a position of public responsibility and everyone in a position to influence the public, including entertainers etc, should be asked to sign a voluntary pledge not to take illegal narcotics or consume excessive alcohol, or drive when so affected".
"Anyone who fails to sign that pledge, or who signs it and breaches it, should be excluded from positions of public responsibility and influence. All public organisations, including regulated broadcasters etc, should agree to impose this exclusion".
Fellow Councillor, Karen Randolph was also quoted in the paper. She said: "The views expressed by Councillor Butcher challenge the very credibility of Surrey County Council's Health Overview Scrutiny Committee, of which he is a member. It is highly disturbing that the Conservative administration at SCC has deemed it appropriate to appoint to this committee a councillor who clearly does not support the NHS and who holds such extraordinary views about the responsibilities of the state to its citizens."
Cllr John Butcher also sits on Elbridge Borough Council, where he lists his chief concerns as "Challenging wishy-washiness" and "nebulous do-goodery".
Simon Cook, a Conservative councillor in Cullingworth, Yorkshire called John Butcher "a real deal health fascist" and blogged yesterday: "So if you smoke, drink, drive fast cars round a track or climb rocks (not sure whether Cllr Butcher's 'dangerous activities' includes horse riding and playing rugby) you'll be made to wait longer in the hope that you'll move away from Surrey. Indeed, it seems that Cllr Butcher thinks that, by doing this, all these people with "self-inflicted" illnesses will move to places where the authorities believe in equal treatment".
The real question is: How would John butcher's proposals push up house prices in Surrey, and to whose benefit would it be? John Butcher's argument is that people with illnesses will be repulsed from Surrey, whilst "healthy people will be attracted to the better healthcare that Surrey could afford, having been freed from the burden of treating sick people".
What the councillor is really saying is drive out the poor and less affluent from Surrey (the sick, disabled, smokers obese et al, who are by-and large the less well off) to make lebensraum for his wealthy friends. Bring on the concentration camps.
But let's give the councillor a chance. Let's take his comments on face value. There are 1.08 million residents in Surrey. According to Surrey County Council, one in four adults in Surrey are smokers. Surrey NHS estimates there are 455,000 "hazardous", "harmful" or "binge drinkers" in Surrey. http://www.surreydaat.org.uk/pdf/Alcohol%20Needs%20Assessment.pdf
The Obesity rate in Surrey, lower than the national average, is estimated by Surrey PCT to be at 20% of the population. http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=569&p=0 As for drugs use, there are no statistics for Surrey, but in the South East, according to the ONS, 8.6% of the adult population took illegal drugs last year, with 3.3% of the population described as frequent drug users. http://data.gov.uk
The councillor extended his attack on the unfit and unwell to people engaged in "risky past-times and sports". It's plainly obvious that this is just a smoke screen to hide his real agenda, which is to chase the less affluent, who have a propensity to be less fit, out of Surrey. I can't believe the Councillor is thinking of his horse riding, rugby playing chums when he talks of "dangerous sports". However, taking Cllr Butcher at his word again, we have to take account of horse riding, rugby, perhaps even motor cycling, and a host of other recreational pass-times that might be considered potentially hazardous.
For example, according to Surrey County Council's 2007 Rights Of Way report, there are 20,000 horses in Surrey. A 1998 Gallop poll found 6% of Surrey residents had gone horse riding in that year. http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/176058/ROWIP-main-text.pdf
Where's all this going, what's the point of all these statistics? Well, by my reckoning, if the Councillor had his way, they'd be no-one left in Surrey. His policy certainly wouldn't produce the rise in property prices that he and his chums so desire.
As an aside to these arguments; according to the ONS, Excise duty & VAT raised by the UK Drinks industry amounts to £22bn annually, whilst alcohol consumption costs the nation, through the health service, crime, lost production etc £20bn.
Estimates of the costs to the NHS from smoking varies greatly, one study estimated an annual cost of £610m. Another study (Allender, S- The burden of smoking-related ill health in the UK) estimates the cost to be £2.7bn – whilst the Centre for Health Economics estimates the cost to be between £1.4bn and £1.7bn. According to the HMRC (Revenue & Customs) Tobacco tax revenue last year amounted to £12.1bn.
Another argument, developed by the University of Public Health, Rotterdam indicates that smoking may even save the NHS money. Their study shows that since smokers on average die younger, they do not incur the costs of a lengthy old age or the costly diseases that are associated with it. Their study concluded that the average health cost of a non-smoker was $83,400 whilst the average health cost of a smoker was $72,600.
These fiscal arguments, which clearly show the tax payer incurs no cost from smoking and alcohol consumption, can be equally applied to the sporting activities Cllr Butcher appears so against. In each and every case revenue exceeds the costs.
It's not the first time John Butcher has hit the local headlines. A council employee lodged an official complaint against him in February 2010.
Council proceedings start with a prayer, during which no one is allowed to enter or leave the council chambers. Cllr Butcher arrived late to the 2010 February council meeting- and finding that prayers had already begun, and the door to the chambers closed and guarded by an attendant- he lost his temper. He aggressively forced his way in to the chambers, thrusting the door in to the face of the attendant, injuring him and bruising his face.
An eye-witness told the Surrey Advertiser: "During prayers I became aware of someone attempting to gain entry to the council chamber, through the door being 'guarded' [by the officer], using his body to keep the door shut. It quickly became apparent that this someone had not been deterred by the efforts and they again tried to enter the chamber in a more forceful manner. I then recall [the officer] turning his head towards the door as if to indicate through the frosted glass to the person on the other side that prayers were still ongoing. A very short time afterwards I recall hearing something of a thud as the door hit [the officer] on the side of the head and I witnessed John Butcher stumbling/forcing his way into the chamber through the partially opened door."
After the incident John Butcher refused to apologise to the attendant and denied injuring him, even though there was a council chamber full of witnesses.
Not only are John Butcher's views abhorrent, but as I hope I've shown, they don't even make sense or stand up to any kind of reasoning. Rather than exile the less-well-off, the sick and the disabled from Surrey, it's time to kick John Butcher out of Surrey. Do not re-elect John Butcher to Surrey County Council or Elmbridge Borough Council.
18 Bramble Rise
Cobham Surrey
KT11 2HP
jbutcher@elmbridge.gov.uk
Tags: 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, alcohol, anti, anticapitalism, ballot, borough, butcher, campaign, cannabis, capitalism, cllr, cocaine, committee, community, conservative, council, councillor, county, crime, democrat, drinking, drug, election, elmbridge, guildford, health, heath, heroine, hospital, illness, in, inflicted, john, labour, lib dem, libdem, liberal, meeting, nhs, obesity, of, organisation, overview, party, police, public, scrutiny, self, service, smoking, sport, surrey, tory, treatment, voag, voice, vote, ward
2011 August Uprising One Year On – The VOAG reviews the RKOB's analysis
2011 August Uprising One Year On –
The VOAG reviews the RKOB's analysis
Marking the anniversary of the 2011 August uprising, The VOAG has received with interest a series of documents from the RKOB (Revolutionary Communist Organisation for Liberation). The Austrian RKOB originated as a left wing split from the LFI (League for the Fifth International), and has since founded the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency of which it is the Austrian section.
The VOAG would like to thank the RKOB for coming over to Britain in solidarity with the workers and youth who bravely fought Street battles against the police in defiance of austerity, unemployment, police harassment and oppression.
The VOAG would like to applaud the RKOB for its internationalism and sincerity. Whilst the RKOB sent a delegation from Austria, many Trotskyist groups based in London were no where to be seen on the streets of London. Left wing groups in Britain, as the RKOB have pointed out, limited themselves to standing on the sidelines, issuing impotent statements of half hearted sympathy and understanding toward the workers and youth. Many within the Labour movement even condemned the communities that participated in the resistance, labeling them rioters.
The VOAG also congratulates the RKOB on its forthright analysis of those August Days and the attitudes of the British labour movement toward them. (4) The uprising was a test which the labour movement universally failed. The RKOB asked the question "What Would A Revolutionary Organisation Have Done" (3) The RKOB says a revolutionary party would: "have criticised all those reformist and centrist forces which restrict themselves to merely explain[ing] why the poor and oppressed take to the streets,(…) or who only call for abstract solidarity without raising a finger for practical participation and support for the uprising."
A revolutionary organisation would have visited the communities, distributed propaganda, and directed those involved in the uprising, as much as was possible, away from targeting small shops and personal property and towards multinational chain stores, police stations and barricades. How embarrassing, how utterly shameful that this work had to be done by a group based in Austria, whilst so called revolutionaries in London stayed at home, ignoring historical opportunities to make connections with working class youth and their communities.
As a member of the LFI –known in Britain as Workers Power, (since expelled for being working class and left-wing) I was amazed at the attitude of my own organization toward the protests. The RKOB correctly criticises Workers Power for not participating in the uprising, even though its annual international youth camp was taking place only two miles away from some of the protests.
The VOAG agrees with the RKOB's characterisation of the uprising and its conclusion that the lower working classes are central to the struggles to come. The VOAG echoes the RKOB's criticisms of groups like Workers Power for being petty-bourgeois and for turning their back on the poorer, oppressed layers of the working class, in favour of the labour aristocracy and organised workers.
However The VOAG considers the RKOB has strayed too far in the opposite direction. It puts too much emphasis on the youth and the poorer, more oppressed sections of the working class. It is true that: " after the mass protests of the youth in the education sector and the strikes of the trade unions, the lower strata of the working class and migrants have now entered the battlefield of class struggle with their uprising". (1)
And further: "It is precisely the poorer, the lower, the oppressed layers of the working class – including the young, the racially and nationally oppressed layers – that are often ready to resist against the massive oppression and exploitation. And this part of the working class constitutes the largest mass, the heart of our class. How absurd is – given the present development – the theory of the League for the Fifth International that the labour aristocracy constitutes the core layer of the working class (at least in imperialist countries like the UK). In fact, this part of our class is – as Lenin put it – "the craft-union, narrow-minded, selfish, case-hardened, covetous, and petty-bourgeois "labour aristocracy", imperialist-minded, and imperialist-corrupted, (…). That is incontestable. In contrast to the false assumption of LFI, the oppressed, the lower layers of the working class can play a central role in taking the class struggle against capitalist oppression on to the streets. This is what we see today in Great Britain."(1)
However, the corollary of the petty-bourgeois tendencies of the labour aristocracy and trades unions is the alienation and lack of leadership of the unorganised precariate, youth and unemployed. Like it or not only the organised labour movement – however aristocratic- as expressed through the unions, has the ability, organisation and wherewithal to mount effective strike action and economic resistance to capitalism. It still comes down to who has the economic power in society. And it is they, the organised labour movement, in their aristocratic unions – with their ability to withdraw their labour in a general strike – that hold the power in society.
Whilst the poorer and oppressed layers of the working class can provide a vital push from below, the organised labour movement can give their resistance organisation and economic clout. Both these categories of the working class have positive and progressive features as well as negative and reactionary features.
The RKOB writes: "it confirmed to us how serious the political mistakes of the unions are not to organize lower layers of the workers en mass": These aren't mistakes. The Trades Union bureaucracy wants nothing to do with the lower working class. The bureaucracy is implacably opposed to the radicalisation that would surely follow a serious recruitment drive among the precariate, unemployed and poor.
For this reason the VOAG agrees with the RKOB when it: "advocates that the labour movement organises the most oppressed layers." (2) That we need a: "revolutionary Workers International with nationally rooted combat parties…based on the working class and in particular the lower and middle strata." (5) And that our goal must be: "an indefinite general strike in connection with the organising of youth uprisings".(2)
Workers Power, who along with other pretendy trot groups, have clearly chosen petty-bourgeois and labour aristocratic forces over the precariate, youth and unemployed. We as Marxists choose scientific socialism. We make objective assessments of how the class struggle is playing itself out, based on an analysis of the constantly shifting interplay of class forces. We don't seek to subjectively counter pose one force against another; we seek a revolutionary alliance of these forces.
Note: The VOAG broadly agrees with the RKOB's analysis. However – No.4: Five Days That Shook Britain is an excellent document that summarises the attitudes and positions of a number of left groups toward the uprising. If you decide to read any of the original documents linked below, The VOAG recommends you definitely read this one.
These Are Not Riots – RCIT 10-08-2011
The August Uprising Report Of The RKOB Delegation – RCIT 13-08-11
What Would A Revolutionary Organisation Have Done – RCIT 18-08-11
Five Days That Shook Britain – RCIT 01-09-11
On The Anniversary Of The August Uprising – RCIT 07-08-12
Revolutionary Communist Organisation for Liberation (RKOB)
Tags: 2011, anarchist, anti, anti-capitalism, aristocracy, august, austrian, capitalism, capitalist, communist, fith, for, guildford, in, initiative, international, labour, league, lfi, liberation, london, michael, of, organisation, party, police, power, probsting, rcit, revolutionary, riots, rkob, sociaety, socialist, south, student, suac, suacs, surrey, surrey united anti capitalist society, tendency, the, trotskyist, union, united, uprising, voag, voice, workers
Where is the LFI drifting? An Open Letter to Workers Power from Michael Probsting, former leading member of Workers Power, Austria
Where is the LFI drifting?
In April 2011, a left-wing faction in the LFI, the Bolshevik Opposition, was bureaucraticaly expelled from the League for the Fifth International. The majority of the faction were members of the Austrian Section, who went on to form the RKOB (Revolutionary Communist Organisation) – and recently founded a new international, the RCIT (Revolutionary Communist International Tendency).
The VOAG recieved a copy of an open letter to all present and former comrades of the LFI (published below). Whilst the VOAG doesn't agree with everything in the letter, we support its general line and are in total accord with the specific criticisms levelled at Workers Power.
The VOAG is preparing a reply to the letter, which will appear on the blog shortly, but in the meantime, we have taken the step to publish this letter in full because it echoes so closely our own criticisms.
A Letter from the RCIT (Revolutionary Communist International Tendency) to the LFI comrades, 11.5.2012
Dear comrades of the LFI,
We address you in this letter because several of our cadre were member
of the LFI until recently. In the last 12 months we have seen divisions,
expulsion and splits in the League for the Fifth International. In April
2011 five cadres from the Austrian section, who have formed the
"Bolshevik Opposition" faction, were bureaucratically expelled by the
LFI's IEC majority. Amongst them were two members of the International
Executive Committee (IEC) and three members of the leadership of the
youth organisation REVOLUTION in Austria. Around this time a Tamil
comrade from the central leadership of the Sri Lanka section,
responsible for the union work amongst the plantation workers, resigned
too. And several months later a number of members from the Pakistani
section (including a Central Committee member), who had formed the
"Left Opposition" faction, left the LFI. Together with other comrades
we have joined forces and formed — also with former LFI members in the
USA — an international organisation, the Revolutionary Communist
International Tendency (RCIT).
Politically our origin is in the struggle against the LFI's majority
opportunist adaption towards the union bureaucracy, the reformist and
centrist left and its lack of orientation towards workers and nationally
oppressed.
However shortly after these expulsion and splits the LFI majority split
itself. Recently a number of members resigned from the LFI, amongst them
4 IEC members, central leaders from the British section and the central
leader of the Austrian respectively the Czech section. They are a
right-wing centrist, liquidationist split reflecting the pressure of the
progressive petty-bourgeois strata at the universities and in the
occupation movement.
So as a result, all in all in the last 12 month the LFI has lost half of
its IEC members and — since the congress in summer 2010 — up to 1/3 of
its total membership.
What are the main issues of this letter?
In this letter we point out that:
1. It is the duty of Marxists to make clear which class character
political forces have. The leadership of the LFI has /NOT/ made clear
which class character the liquidationist, petty bourgeois split has.
2. This happens because of the adaption from the leadership of the LFI
towards the petty-bourgeois milieu! In the united front Anticapitalist
initiatives projects which WPB joined they don't have a sharp
revolutionary profile and are very soft in criticizing centrist forces
or don't criticise them at all in public. They are even talking about
the "revolutionary left" when they mean the centrist left.
3. The LFI itself is in its composition dominated by activists coming
from petty bourgeois/intellectual layers or the upper strata of the
working class since many years. It has a massive lack of workers from
the broad mass of the proletariat and from the oppressed.
4. Therefore its political degeneration into centrism is related to the
reluctance over years to correct the bad class composition of the LFI.
The organisation has developed an opportunist approach towards the
politics of libertarian and other petty-bourgeois forces!
5. We characterise the reluctance to win workers and oppressed in deeds
(not only as promises and intentions) as part of the problem of
"aristocratism" that goes hand in hand with the opportunism. It means
the orientation to aristocratic layers and the accommodation to various
positions and prejudices of the labour aristocracy.
6. One expression of this was the rejection of the slogan "/For a
Socialist Tamil Eelam/" in Sri Lanka. It was a consequence of
accommodation towards prejudices amongst the petty-bourgeois
intellectuals and the aristocratic layers in the working class. We as
RCIT are demanding not only a Socialist Tamil Eelam but also an "Azad,
Socialist Kashmir" and an "Azad, Socialist Baluchistan" in Pakistan.
7. We sharply critisise the LFI leadership for pushing the organisation
to refuse participate in the August Uprising of tens of thousands of
working class youth in Britain in summer 2011. This was criminal
especially because it happened in London at the same time as the REVO
summer camp, where many comrades from the LFI and REVOLUTION came
together. Active participation was rejected by the leaders of the LFI
and they didn't even sent a delegation of members to be in the
proletarian districts where the uprisings happened during the nights.
They rather preferred to have a summer camp with the slogan "summer,
sun, socialism" (this was the headline of their report) where the
focus was on discussions and drinking instead of being part of the class
struggle on the burning streets of London. It is a joke to agitate once
or twice in the proletarian districts during the day and to hide in the
camp by night when the uprising takes place. Such a leadership is not
capable to lead sections in semi colonial countries with sharp state
oppression. It demonstrated a lack of revolutionary audacity. This was
centrism in deeds and a betrayal of revolutionary principles.
8. Comrades, mistakes can happen, even grave mistakes can happen. But
the worst thing is not to make mistakes, but to fail in recognising
them, not to learn from them and not to make the necessary sharp
9. The LFI has undertaken a sharp centrist degeneration. It is no wonder
that the LFI has shrunken massively.
10. We call all members of the LFI to break with the policy of centrist
degeneration which is dominating now the LFI. Comrades, correct these
fatal mistakes! Reorient the LFI towards the workers and oppressed!
Why did this happen?
Let us see how the LFI leadership characterises the split of the
right-wing liquidationists around Luke Cooper, Simon Hardy (both from
Britain), Roman Riedl (Austria) and Martin Mikula (Czech Republic). In
its Statement on Resignations from the British Section of the League
from 28.4.2012, the International Secretariat (IS) of the LFI correctly
criticises the right-wing splitters for their rejection of democratic
centralism and the need for a programmatically homogenous organisation.
The IS states: "Their argument was simply copied wholesale from the
quasi-libertarian critiques of Leninism and Trotskyism presently
fashionable on the English-speaking left." The IS also describes their
views: "The majority correctly characterised these proposals as
liquidationist, both in the political sense, in terms of dissolving our
programme and principles, and the organisational sense, in terms of
dissolving our tendency."
It is however characteristic that the IS, while describing correctly
several features of this right-wing split fails to go beyond such a
description and to give it a clear political class characterisation.
As a result it fails to analyse, characterise and understand the context
of this split.
We characterise the group around Cooper, Hardy, Riedl and Mikula as a
right-wing, liquidationist split. As all political tendencies and
phenomena in a class society it has a class character. As Marxists we
have to point out what sort of class character the liquidationist split
has. It is a petty-bourgeois, extreme right-centrist current. It
reflects their capitulation towards the pressure of the progressive
petty-bourgeois layers (dominated by university students and (pseudo-)
intellectuals) who have an important influence in the occupation
movement and amongst the left-wing university milieu.
Adaption towards the petty-bourgeois milieu
However the LFI leadership does not give a clear class character of the
split and indeed is even incapable to understand the need of it. Why?
Firstly because it would force them to rethink their own orientation
since it orientates itself to the same petty-bourgeois milieu since
years as the right-wing liquidationists are doing. Secondly because it
would force them to ask themselves how it could happen that a
significant sector of its leadership and membership openly repudiates
Leninism and Trotskyism. And thirdly they would have to ask themselves
why the same leaders with whom together they enthusiastically expelled
future RCIT cadre in April 2011, why these same people desert the
organisation and Trotskyism only 12 month later (after they had started
in Britain an internal campaign for their liquidationist views for at
least half a year)!
For us in the RCIT this development is not surprising and only the
logical consequence of the process of centrist degeneration which the
LFI unfortunately has undergone in the recent past. Already in late 2009
today RCIT cadres who at that time had the majority in the Austrian
LFI section fought against the liquidationist tendencies which
comrade Riedl and others showed during the intervention in a mass
university strike in Austria. They rejected our proposals to intervene
openly as members of the LFI and they refused to publicly criticise the
wrong policy of the centrists and the left-reformist and libertarian
forces which provided the leadership of the movement. Similarly we
fought against the "new discoveries" of Riedl and others in 2010 that
the IMT (Grant, Woods, Lal Khan) and centrism as such "are a current of
Marxism", albeit not a revolutionary one. And we emphasised against
Riedl and others that the reformist bureaucracy does not betray the
workers because of their "wrong ideologies and lack of understanding".
This is a false, idealistic explain. As Marxists we say it happens
because as bureaucrats they have a material interest in controlling and
pacifying the working class, they are corrupted and they are therefore
also linked with the capitalist state and class.
These internal struggles dealt with questions touching the principles of
Marxism, in particular the relationship between the revolutionary
vanguard, its petty-bourgeois and labour reformist opponents and sectors
of the masses. These were debates which anticipated a number of issues
around which the splits/expulsion of the Bolsheviks by the LFI majority
occurred in 2011 and around which the split of the right-wing
liquidationists in spring 2012 took place.
The left-wing inside the LFI and later cadres of the RCIT defended the
traditional Marxist position which the LFI, when it was still a
revolutionary organisation, had defended too. But the majority of the
LFI leadership wavered. Several of them sympathised more with Riedls
positions rather than ours but they hesitated to openly wage a
political-ideological struggle against us. So they all agreed that the
LFI leadership should not take a position on these debates. In short
they proved incapable to understand the task of revolutionary cadres to
defend Marxist principles always and from the beginning. They only
started to formally defend some of these principles when the right-wing
proposed to dissolve the organisation and hence a split was already
around the corner.
It is indicative that the LFI majority planned and executed very quickly
the expulsion of the "Bolshevik Opposition" comrades only a few weeks
after they formed a faction in Austria. On the other hand they didn't
see any reason to expel the right-wing liquidationists despite their
open renunciation of Bolshevism. Would the Cooper Hardy Riedl Mikula
group have been less determined to build their "undogmatic
anticapitalist networks" and would they have not resigned in mid-April
2012, they would still have a place in the LFI. In fact the LFI
leadership actively hopes to win them back as they wrote in their
"Statement on Resignations". "We can only hope that our former
comrades draw this lesson from their own experience quickly, and return
to our ranks to build a disciplined international organisation with a
clear programme". In another statement of the LFI leadership this still
existing closeness to the right-wing liquidationist was made even clearer:
"We regret their decision, as they are all talented people, many of
whom played an important role in the student movement in 2010-11. While
we recognise that there has been a significant divergence in our views
over the last seven months, we had hoped that the debate we conducted at
our national conference last month and our International Council meeting
at Easter could have continued within our ranks. We were disappointed
that the comrades chose to leave after such a short discussion. We have
made it clear to Simon and the others that we will continue to work with
them wherever that is practical and principled. Given the continued
similarity of our political views we expect those occasions to be many
and frequent." (Reply from Richard Brenner (LFI) to split statement of
right-wing, 14.4.2012,
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/a-simple-proposal-for-a-new-anticapitalist-left)
The practice of the past 12 month has shown that while the LFI
leadership is totally hostile to the Bolsheviks it is soft and
well-coming to the right-wing liquidationists. They see themselves much
closer to the later.
This is in itself an expression of the centrist character of the
present-day leadership of the LFI. In Trotsky's days the centrist Stalin
leadership exclaimed that it is "fighting resolutely both against the
left-wing and the right.-wing danger" inside the Communist Party.
Trotsky explained that this equation of the currents to the right and to
the left of the Marxist line demonstrates itself a petty-bourgeois,
centrist position:
"The central idea of the present campaign, that Marxist politics in
general consists in a struggle against the right and against the left
with the same irreconcilable spirit, is thoroughly absurd. To the right
of Marxist politics stands the mighty world of imperialism with its
still enormous agency of collaborationists. There is the enemy. To the
left of the Marxist line there can be only wrong tendencies within the
proletariat itself, infantile disorder in the party, and so forth. The
most extreme expression of this false 'leftism' is anarchism. But
anarchism's strength and influence are all the smaller and less
significant the more resolutely, the more determinedly, the more
consistently the revolutionary party fights against opportunism. That is
precisely the special historical merit of Bolshevism. In its annals, the
struggle against the left always bore an episodic and subordinated
character. The Stalinist formula of the struggle 'with the same
intransigence' against the right and the left is not a Bolshevik formula
but the traditional formula of petty-bourgeois radicalism, whose entire
history has been nothing but struggle against 'reaction' on one hand and
against the proletarian revolution on the other hand." (Leon Trotsky:
Crisis in the Right-Center Bloc (1928); in: Leon Trotsky: The Challenge
of the Left Opposition (1928-29), p. 302f.)
In fact the present-day leadership of the LFI fought with a much more
"irreconcilable spirit" against the left-wing and expelled them when
their leaders posed a potential danger inside the IEC. On the other hand
they tried every possible compromise and still sending olive branches
and appeals to the right-wing liquidationists to come back.
The chimera and the truth about the Bolshevik united front tactic
What is the reason for this? It is because the LFI's leadership itself
is politically confused and has become left-centrist in 2011. (Although
we would not say that all members have left the former Bolshevik
tradition of the LFI and thus it is possible that there might be future
internal struggles around key issues in the context of the degeneration
process of the LFI as a whole.) It is no accident that they and the
right-wingers together attacked and expelled us because of our as
they called it "sectarianism". They accused the Bolsheviks who later
formed the RCIT that they have an "ultra-left understanding of the
united front tactic."
What the LFI and WPB leadership is hiding behind this chimera is its
own growing opportunism. As we have shown with a number of quotes (see
for this the preface to our essay on the Fifth International in our
English-language journal Revolutionary Communism No. 2, p. 26-28;
http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/what-sort-of-fifth-international-do-we-need)
the comrades see the reasons for the left-reformist trade union
bureaucrats failure in the recent mass struggles against the Tory LibDem
government in their "refusal to think outside the box" and their
"fear of the anti-union laws" not their inability to struggle in
the interest of the workers because of their material interests as
bureaucrats. They also identify as the main problem of the left not
their petty-bourgeois, centrist or left-reformist policy and
subordination to the labour bureaucracy but their "divisions and
fragmentations". In its latest proposal for a political platform of the
Anticapitalist Initiative WPB repeats this position:
"The leaders of the major unions have postponed and fragmented the
fight back called for by their members. The pensions struggle which
had the potential to unify the movement has been cynically sabotaged
by right wing union leaders, and discoordinated by 'left wing' union
leaders afraid of the anti-union laws. (…) The failure of the official
leaderships has been compounded by two key factors: withered and weakened state of workplace organisation, and the inability of the revolutionary left organisations to transcend
their fragmentation.
Instead they project their division into the
anti-cuts struggle, building rival anti-cuts campaigns where a powerful
united front is needed. " (Workers Power: Draft Proposal for Political
Basis for the Anti-capitalist Initiative, 21.4.2012,
http://southlondonanticapitalists.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/building-a-new-left-a-great-start/;
our emphasis)
In effect the remaining left-centrist WPB leadership spreads the same
nonsensical idea that there exists not a centrist left but a
"revolutionary left" and the problem is that it remains fragmented. In
the past we in the revolutionary LFI laughed about such nonsense. Today,
the Neo-LFI leadership repeats this stupidity itself! If the various
centrist groups would be united in one big centrist organisation … it
would be a unified obstacle, and not an instrument to overcome the
crisis of leadership. Why? Because the centrist left is not
revolutionary, it is centrist. This means they possess a wrong, centrist
method, strategy and tactic. It means that they are politically adapting
and dependent of the labour bureaucracy. THIS is the main reason why
"the left" cannot challenge the official labour movement leadership!
In addition to this the LFI/WPB leadership also adapts to the
libertarian sentiments which are strong amongst the petty-bourgeois
sectors of the university student and in the occupation movement. In
contrast to the past when we intervened in non-revolutionary
organisations, the WPB proposal does not deal with the question of power
and therefore lacks the slogan for a workers government.
The LFI WPB's leadership whole orientation towards the "Anti-capitalist
Initiative" (ACI) is in itself opportunistically flawed. According to
all reports which have been published this initiative attracted less
people to its foundation conference on 28th April than the number of
people who attended the WPB Anti-capitalism event last autumn. About half
of the 70-80 people present were members of Workers Power and its two
right-wing splits (the Permanent Revolution group and the Cooper/Hardy
group). The rest of the participants were in their majority divided
between various organised and unorganised leftists and some libertarian
university students.
This ACI is neither a reflection of the radicalisation of sectors of the
working class or proletarian youth. Nor does it reflect sectors of
centrism which are moving to the left. It is rather a combination of
centrists moving to the right (who are questioning the "shibboleths" of
the revolutionary pre-party organisations, of Bolshevism, who are
wondering if Leninism might have been responsible for Stalinism etc.)
and some libertarian university students. In short according to all
accounts it is a small petty-bourgeois combination of right-wing
centrists and libertarian forces. While the LFI/WPB's leadership
correctly criticised the right-wing splitters for their capitulation
towards libertarian views, they themselves orientate to the same milieu
and opportunistically adapt their propaganda to it.
How we did it in the past
This is a break from our revolutionary tradition in the past. While the
LFI majority (at that time the left-centrists and the right-wing
liquidationist were united against us, the Bolshevik wing in the LFI)
accused us of a "sectarian" approach to reformism and centrism, the
opposite was and is true. In the 2000s we had proven in practice by our
work in the Austrian section that we are capable much better than the
rest of the LFI in Europe to intersect with militant sectors of the
masses, putting demands on the bureaucracy and repeatedly force the
reformists and centrists into united front initiatives with us and
combine this with an intransigent revolutionary profile. We initiated or
co-initiated a number of demonstrations and school student strikes with
thousands of participants. As a result our leading comrades could
several times address in speeches thousands of workers and youth at
demonstrations. (Some of them you can see at our youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com revolutioncommunism
http://www.youtube.com/revolutioncommunism
We also played an
initiating and leading role in an electoral left alliance in summer 2008
(called "THE LEFT"). But in opposite to the LFI/WPB's leadership policy
today we did this with a revolutionary programme and with a sharp
profile from the beginning. Our slogan "Expropriate the super-rich!"
enraged the bourgeois media and annoyed the left-reformists and
centrists inside the alliance. But we also won sympathises and through
our focus on on-the-ground agitation in a working class district in
Vienna we recruited a number of workers and youth. The reports about all
this can still be found in the section "Austria" on the LFI's website.
And on the RCIT website you will find a report, photos and videos of the
internationalist MayDay 2012 demonstration in Vienna with 1.500
participants organised by a united front in which the Austrian RCIT
comrades played a leading role. In all these years we had not only a
sharp, revolutionary, public profile but also a sharp critic against the
centrist forces.
In contrast when WPB won a leading position in a mass movement as it
did in the university student movement in 2010 — it unfortunately
collapsed into opportunist adaption towards the petty-bourgeois milieu.
When the mass movement hit the streets against the austerity plans of
the Cameron government in autumn 2010 and the general strike slogan
became an important tactic, the WPB leadership rejected agitation for a
general strike and even criticised the SWP for raising this slogan as
"too advanced"! Instead of engaging in a sharp political struggle
against the various centrist and libertarian forces, the WPB leadership
looked for a peaceful co-existence with them in various left-wing
university student alliances. In the end LFI/WPB became centrist itself
and instead of growing it lost 1/3 of its members in Britain.
Similarly the LFI section in Austria nearly all of them university
students declined politically and organisationally after our
expulsion. They announced in public a self-criticism that they want to
correct the "one-sided", "superficial" positions on Palestine and many
other issues which the Austrian section published under our leadership
in the past decade. Since then not a single document has appeared which
proved the so-called "one-sidedness" of our past positions or which
contained better, "more differentiated" positions. The ideological class
struggle against left-reformism and centrism has de facto disappeared
from the LFI Austria propaganda. No theoretical document has been
published. They also ceased the publication of their e-mail newsletter,
suspended the publication of its paper for half a year and hardly had
any public meetings in the past 12 months. At the same time the Austrian
RCIT section has not only published a monthly paper, two issues of its
theoretical journal, run a regularly updated website and newsletter but
also worked hard and successfully to recruit a number of workers and
working class youth (including migrants from the lower strata of the
working class). And at the same time it participated actively in the
formation process of the RCIT. In fact Austria is a model for the
charlatanry of the LFI majority's critique against us. They argued for
our expulsion as a need "to prevent a damage of the section in Austria".
Well, since they "saved" the Austrian section from the Bolsheviks, it
hasn't produced any theory, hardly any kind of propaganda and hardly any
public meetings took place — this is the new work mode of the sections
since then. In addition to it, Riedl who was encouraged from the LFI to
lead the section played a central role in the liquidationist split, and
the one or other will follow him soon. If this is a successful way to
prevent damage, than we hope that we had not learn anything of it.
What is the cause of the centrist degeneration?
All these failures and adaption's towards centrism are not accidently.
The right-wing split is just the most consistent form of the political
degeneration which the LFI has undergone in the recent past. These
fundamental problems are related to a wrong understanding of the tasks
of a revolutionary communist organisation in the present period.
A central task of a communist pre-party organisation is to speak out the
truth as it sees it. Unfortunately in the last years a number of LFI
cadres have shared the post-modernist, neo-Gramscian method of Luke
Cooper which is alien to the materialist dialectic. As a result the LFI
majority overthrew at its Congress in 2010 our traditional method of
characterising historical periods. Hence they rejected our analyses of
the period after 2001 as "pre-revolutionary" and of the present period
as "revolutionary". The same petty-bourgeois method led them to reject
the Leninist position that the labour aristocracy is a small top layer
in the working class which is politically backward and bribed by the
bourgeoisie. They rather believe that the labour aristocracy is the best
organised and most militant sector of the class who gets privileges
because of its class struggle. While the LFI leadership
opportunistically overstate the progressive character of the labour
aristocracy, it underestimates the importance of the middle and lower
strata of the working class and of the national oppressed layers. This
is why they reject our analyses of migrants in imperialist countries as
"in their huge majority nationally oppressed and super-exploited layers
of the working class." At the same time they tend to welcome
assimilation of migrants into the majority nation as progressive. This
is why we advocate the complete equality of languages of minorities and
the abolition of the state language as the Bolsheviks did (again against
the opposition of a substantial minority at the LFI congress in 2010).
This is why we advocate support for an independent state of oppressed
nations if they have demonstrated in past struggles that they wish for
this. We combine it with the perspective of working class power. This is
why the RCIT advocates a "Socialist Tamil Eelam" in Sri Lanka and an
"Azad, Socialist Kashmir" and an "Azad, Socialist Baluchistan" in
This includes the propaganda and agitation of the necessary strategies
and tactics for the working class struggle. It also includes the warning
of the vanguard from its wrong friends — the right-wing and left-wing
labour bureaucrats and the centrists of various colours. It means
calling things by their name. That's why the unambiguous advocacy of
revolutionary tactics, the sharp criticism of the reformist and centrist
forces, the class characterisation of movements and political formations
etc. are indispensable for a communist pre-party organisation.
Why did the LFI degenerate so quickly in the last years? Why did a whole
sector of its leadership cadre renounce Leninism and Trotskyism and
denounce the task of building revolutionary organisations? Of course
there are several reasons but the most important factor is that the LFI
in most sections has a bad class composition, a dominance of university
students, intellectuals and labour aristocrats since many years. It is a
joke to have such a composition over years in imperialist countries
where the working class (especially the lower and middle strata)
represents the absolute majority of the population. This is a serious
problem particularly in the new historic period where the class struggle
from above and from below is sharpening enormously. In such a period the
pressures not only from the bourgeoisie but also from the various
sectors of the progressive petty bourgeoisie and the labour bureaucracy
are increasing enormously. The worse the class composition of a
revolutionary organisation is, the more difficult it is to stand against
these political and ideological pressures.
Trotsky once remarked that "..the more the party is petty-bourgeois in
its composition, the more it is dependent upon the changes in the
official public opinion." (Leon Trotsky: From a Scratch To the
Danger of Gangrene (1940); in Leon Trotsky: In Defense of Marxism, New
York 1990, p. 113;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/21-scratch1.htm)
Indeed the recent degeneration of the LFI is a living proof for Trotsky
observation. The right-wing liquidationist split and the shift of the
LFI to the right is a reflection of the public opinion in the labour
movement and the petty-bourgeois intelligenzija (via the occupation
movement etc.).
A bad class composition is not a disaster in itself … under the
pre-condition that the organisation recognises this situation as a
serious weakness which leads to degeneration if it is not overcome after
a certain, rather shorter than longer, period and therefore undertakes
bold and decisive measures to improve the class composition. This is why
in the years before our expulsion from the LFI — we proposed and
fought for a number of measures for the proletarisation of the LFI and
the Austrian section. As well as we not only argued but also tried to
initiate projects to win more young proletarian people, migrants and
women to the LFI. One of these projects was the building of womens
collectives, followed by a womens organisation in Austria which focused
on building roots of the organisation in a proletarian district. While
several LFI leaders expressed agreement in general for some of the
positions and projects no serious steps were undertaken and in the end
we were denounced as "workerists". The LFI leaders even made sure to
dissolve the women organisation in Austria.
The leadership explicitly rejected the idea that a bad class composition
is a problem for the LFI. It claimed that in small organisation the
class composition is necessary and unavoidable like this. In a letter to
the LSR conference in February 2011 the leadership of the German section
wrote that the social composition of the fighting propaganda group like
the LFI sections "will have a disproportional high share of university
students or better educated, political interested workers (skilled
workers)". The reason they gave is: "because of the dominant role of
propaganda". The Austrian supporters of the LFI majority argued
similarly in a statement: "It is perfectly natural that fighting
propaganda groups tend because of its very high requirements for a
membership tendentially not to be dominated by the lowest layers."
In other words fighting for the working class interest with a communist
programme requires … "education", i.e. bourgeois education. Therefore,
according to the LFI leadership, the mass of the global working class —
particularly in the semi-colonial world — which posses a relatively
lower level of education it is rather difficult to meet the requirements
of the type of communist organisation the LFI wants to build. For the
LFI leaders, the well-educated intellectuals and labour aristocrats (of
whom disproportionally many live in the imperialist countries) are more
fit. For us this is no Marxism. Is it really "perfectly natural" to
build an organisation which should make the future revolutionary party
possible, that has the goal to free the working class and all oppressed,
that such an organisation is not lead, not even dominated in its
composition by workers, women, migrants, oppressed nations although they
are the absolute majority in the world? It is only "perfectly natural"
in the halls of the universities in the imperialist countries, but in
the rest of the world it is just "perfectly pervert".
As a side note it is not without irony that exactly those people who
lectured us about the difficulty for workers from the lower strata to
meet the "very high requirements for a membership", that exactly the
same people who authored these lines deserted the LFI only one year
later. The truth is the opposite: it is much more difficult for the
petty-bourgeois intellectuals to meet the "very high requirements for a
membership/" than for the workers! The truth is that for workers
(excluding the small layer of bribed aristocrats) it is easier to
understand the Marxist Weltanschauung of their class and to fight for
it than for the non-proletarian layers. We have to ask ourselves: Is it
healthier to have an organisation of mainly workers and working class
youth, even if some of them leave the organisation due to their hard
living conditions and therefore the lack of energy and time? Or should
Marxist prefer an organisation of petty-bourgeois intellectuals and
labour aristocrats who do not carry Marxist positions into the working
class but push the organisation to break with Bolshevism and try to
reconcile the political activity with their lifestyle? Ours is the first
option. And the LFI? Did we not see in the last years a huge increase of
mainly university students who instead of dedicating their life to the
cause of working class liberation struggle preferred to reconcile the
political activity with their lifestyle?!
Trotsky on the question of the class composition of communist pre-party
In contrast to the views of the LFI leadership Trotskyadvised the
Bolshevik-Leninists in all phases in the 1920s and 1930s to orientate
themselves mainly to the workers and here in particular the mass of the
workers and not to the privileged layers or even the university
students. For example in 1929 — immediately after the foundation of the
Communist League of America — he wrote about the need to find a way to
the oppressed layers of the proletariat:
"The trade union bureaucrats, like the bureaucrats of false Communism,
live in the atmosphere of aristocratic prejudices of the upper strata of
the workers. It will be tragedy it the Oppositionists are infected even
in the slightest degree with these qualities. We must not only reject
and condemn these prejudices; we must burn them out of our consciousness
to the last trace; we must find the road to the most deprived, to the
darkest strata of the proletariat, beginning with the Negro, whom
capitalist society has converted into Pariah and who must learn to see
in us his revolutionary brothers. And this depends wholly upon our
energy and devotion to the work." (Leon Trotsky: A Letter to the
American Trotskyists (1929), in Trotsky Writings 1929, p. 133f.)
In another document in 1932 he argued in favour of a different approach
towards intellectuals than towards workers, in particular from the lower
strata. What he said would be most likely denounced as "workerism" by
the present-day LFI leaders if it would come from our pen and not
from Trotsky's:
"When ten intellectuals, whether in Paris, Berlin, or New York, who
have already been members of various organizations, address themselves
to us with a request to be taken into our midst, I would offer the
following advice: Put them through a series of tests on all the
programmatic questions; wet them in the rain, dry them in the sun, and
then after a new and careful examination accept maybe one or two.
The case is radically altered when ten workers connected with the
masses turn to us. The difference in our attitude to a petty-bourgeois
group and to the proletarian group does not require any explanation. But
if a proletarian group functions in an area where there are workers of
different races, and in spite of this remains composed solely of workers
of a privileged nationality, then I am inclined to view them with
suspicion. Are we not dealing perhaps with the labor aristocracy? Isn't
the group infected with slave-holding prejudices, active or passive?
It is an entirely different matter when we are approached by a group of
Negro workers. Here I am prepared to take it for granted in advance that
we shall achieve agreement with them, even if such an agreement is not
actual as yet. Because the Negro workers, by virtue of their whole
position, do not and cannot strive to degrade anybody, oppress anybody,
or deprive anybody of his rights. They do not seek privileges and cannot
rise to the top except on the road of the international revolution.
We can and we must find a way to the consciousness of the Negro
workers, the Chinese workers, the Indian workers, and all the oppressed
in the human ocean of the colored races to whom belongs the decisive
word in the development of mankind. (Leon Trotsky: Closer to the
Proletarians of the Colored Races (1932), in: Trotsky Writings 1932, p. 112)
In a discussion Trotsky had during his visit in Kopenhagen 1932 he
advised comrades about their attitude towards a student or an academic,
that "the workers movement for its part must regard him with the
greatest scepticism. (…) When he has worked with the workers movement
this way (for three, four or five years), then the fact that he was an
academican is forgotten, the social difference disappear. (Leon
Trotsky: On Students and Intellectuals (1932), in: Trotsky Writings
1932, p. 333)
We in the RCIT have the view that a communist pre-party organisation
should orientate itself to the working class and not the petty-bourgeois
intellectuals and labour aristocrats. Unfortunately the LFI rejects this
and has become a victim of what wecall "aristocratism" the
orientation to aristocratic layers and the accommodation to various
This is related to the distortion of the concept of the "fighting
propaganda group" by the present-day leadership of the LFI. In their
recent "/Statement on Resignations…" they described their view of the
"fighting propaganda group" as follows: "We stand by our
self-understanding as a group whose principal task is to defend and
develop the revolutionary programme and to address the major questions
of strategy and tactics facing the working class in its living struggles./"
This reflects a completely one-sided, un-dialectical understanding of
the tasks of a Bolshevik pre-party organisation. Yes, of course its task
is to "defend and develop the revolutionary programme and to address
the major questions of strategy and tactics". But this alone is not
sufficient and even a passive propaganda circle could do this. What is
the value of a programme and of strategies and tactics IF they are not
transmitted into the class and its vanguard, IF they are not translated
into recruiting workers and proletarian youth members who are fighting
for this programme and who have roots in the class, IF they therefore do
not lead to a communist pre-party organisation with a mainly working
class composition?!
If a communist organisation does not achieve this, it is not a "fighting
propaganda group" but rather a "commenting propaganda group" which is
isolated from the working class and the oppressed layers.
*Ignoring the August Uprising in Britain as the synthesis of theory
and practice of Aristocratism*
The wrong analysis of the class positions of the labour aristocracy and
the lower and middle strata of the working class as well as the nature
of national oppression of migrants on one hand and the wrong
understanding of the tasks of a communist pre-party organisation on the
other hand found their culmination, its test in practice, in the
position of the LFI/WPB/REVOLUTION leadership during the August
Uprising in Britain in summer 2011. This was an Uprising of the working
class youth, black and migrants after the police killed a black father
of four children, Mark Duggan. According to figures of Scotland Yard,
more than 30.000 youth participated in this uprising which lasted for 5
days. As a completely spontaneous uprising it included a number of
lootings. But in the first line it was an uprising against police
repression. (Our analysis, perspectives and tactics can be read on our
website: Nina Gunic' and Michael Pröbsting: The strategic task: From
the uprising to the revolution! These are not "riots" this is an
uprising of the poor in the cities of Britain!,
http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/britain-uprising-of-the-poor;
The August Uprising in Britain – A Report of the RKOB delegation on its
visit in London in August 2011.
http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/britain-report-from-uprising;//Michael
Pröbsting: What would a revolutionary organisation have done? August
uprising of the poor, the nationally and racially oppressed in Britain.
http://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/europe/britain-august-uprising/;
Michael Pröbsting: Five days that shook Britain but didn't wake up the
left. The bankruptcy of the left during the August uprising of the
oppressed in Britain: Its features, its roots and the way forward,
http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/britain-left-and-the-uprising/) This character was, despite some wavering, occasionally acknowledged
even by the LFI/WPB leadership itself. After the Uprising the British
comrades wrote in a statement "The August 2011 riots will be remembered
as a working class youth uprising against repression, racism and the
recession. Workers Power stands solidly with the youth and against the
police." (Workers Power: The political situation in Britain after the
August uprising; Resolution on the political situation after the riots,
19.8.2011,
http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2011/08/political-situation-after-the-august-uprising)
However despite this literary recognition of the character of this mass
uprising (which was contradicted in other statement), the
LFI/WPB/REVOLUTION leadership strongly opposed any participation and a
call for this in this Uprising. During the same time as the Uprising
took place REVOLUTION had its international summer camp close to London.
Given the progressive and mass character of the uprising a number of
young members of REVOLUTION wanted to join and support the uprising. But
the leadership — including Hardy, Cooper, Riedl and the present-day LFI
leaders — all categorically opposed any practical support and
participation in the uprising. Despite the words quoted above, in fact
the leadership saw the uprising as a predominately backward,
un-political, and criminal or even reactionary event. This abstention
from an important class struggle event was even legitimised by the
argument that one does not know the conditions in the area. Leaving
aside that not knowing the concrete circumstances in a city did not stop
us in the revolutionary past of the LFI to intervene in mass struggles
(for example in Genoa/Italy in 2001, in Gleneagles/Britain in 2005 or in
Heiligendamm/Germany 2007), it is a damaging acknowledgment if the
comrades do not know and don't have any connection to the area in an
important working class district in London (Tottenham) where the LFI has
its strongest branch since more than 35 years!
In fact this event demonstrated the practical consequences of
aristocratism and a petty-bourgeois decadence of middle class people. In
a report called "Summer, sun, socialism – that was our international
summer camp this year'" the comrades told the public about
"interesting workshops" and the "opportunity of sports and leisure
facilities of the camping grounds". "Every day we watched the events
of the 'riots' in London and discussed about it at the Camp plenary. So
we adopted for example a resolution and an international united front
call against police violence and about the conditions for the British
youth. Since as a youth organization we also like to fete, we had in the
evening parties at a big camp fire or in the community tent." (see
http://www.onesolutionrevolution.de/?p=1645) How can an organization
call itself "revolutionary" if it prefers to have parties and drink a
lot every evening, while at the same time thousands of youth fight
against the police on the streets only a few kilometers away!?
Comrades, mistakes can happen, even grave mistakes can happen. But the
worst thing is not to make mistakes, but to fail in recognising them,
not to learn from them and not to make the necessary sharp corrections.
If this happens a constant repetition and deepening of the mistakes are
unavoidable. And indeed as we have shown in this letter and in other
documents this is what happened with the LFI in the last year. This is a
shame given the enormous possibilities of class struggle in the present
period to build a strong international revolutionary organisation. But
one cannot achieve this without an unambiguous Bolshevik method and a
revolutionary programme which is applied to the concrete practical and
theoretical questions of the class struggle. We have summarised our
analysis, our lessens and our programme in "The Revolutionary Communist
Manifesto" (which can be read online at the moment only in English
and German language on the RCIT website http://www.thecommunists.net
http://www.thecommunists.net). We would welcome to debate this
programme with you.
Comrades, we have drawn our conclusions from the past experience. After
the bureaucratic expulsion of the "Bolshevik Opposition" in April 2011
and the left-wing splits in other countries comrades in Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, USA and Austria have joined forces with other militants and
founded the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT). We
stand for the continuity of the revolutionary tradition which the LFI
represented in the past. We call all members of the LFI to break with
the policy of centrist degeneration which is dominating the LFI.
Bolshevik Greetings,
Michael Pröbsting and Shujat Liaqat (for the RCIT)
Further Reading: Workers Power Conference 2012: Divisions, Expulsions, Appeals And Split – The VOAG Investigates.
Tags: 2012, anti, anti-capitalist, august, bolshevik, capitalist, communist, conference, cooper, division, east, expulsion, faction, fifth, for, guildford, hardy, initiative, international, labour, league, lfi, london, luke, manchester, michael, north, opposition, organisation, party, power, probsting, rcit, revolution, revolutionary, riots, rkob, simon, socialist, south, split, students, surrey, tendency, the, union, workers, workers power, wpb, youth


text:
(Redirected from Liu (surname))
For other uses, see Liu (disambiguation).
See also: Liǔ and Liao (surname)
劉 / 刘 (/ljoʊ/ or /ljuː/[1]) is a East Asian surname. pinyin: Liú in Mandarin Chinese, Lau4 in Cantonese. It is the family name of the Han dynasty emperors. The character 劉 originally meant 'kill', but is now used only as a surname. Today, it is the 4th most common surname in Mainland China as well as one of the most popular surnames in the world.[2][3]
Liú surname in traditional Chinese characters
Liú ([ljǒu]) (Pinyin)
Lau4
Lâu (Pe̍h-ōe-jī)
Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean
Old Chinese
Variant form(s)
Liú (Mandarin)
Lau (Cantonese)
Lieu (Shanghainese)
Lưu (Vietnamese)
Yoo, Ryu (Korean)
Yoo (Korean surname)
2 Origin
4 Prominent people with the family name 劉
4.1 Historical figures
4.2 Contemporary
DistributionEdit
In 2019 劉 was the fourth most common surname in Mainland China.[4] Additionally, it was the most common surname in Jiangxi province. In 2013 it was found to be the 5th most common surname, shared by 67,700,000 people or 5.1% of the population, with the province with the most people being Shandong.[5]
OriginEdit
One source is that they descend from the Qí (祁) clan of Emperor Yao. For example the founding emperor of the Han Dynasty (one of China's golden ages), Liu Bang (Emperor Gaozu of Han) was a descendant of Emperor Yao.
Another origin is from the Jī (姬) clan of King Qing of Zhou. For example, Duke Kang of Liu [zh], the youngest son of King Qing of Zhou, founded the State of Liu [zh] and his descendants took state names as surname.
Liu was a place name in ancient China (located in present-day Henan). The Liu family name has two main origins from this place name.
Kongjia, the fourteenth King of the Xia dynasty, was given a male and a female dragon as a reward for his obedience to the god of heaven, but could not train them, so he hired a dragon-trainer named Liu Lei (劉累), who had learned how to train dragons from Huanlong. Liu Lei was a descendant of Emperor Yao, won the admiration of King KongJia for his skill in raising dragons. In order to reward Liu Lei, King KongJia granted him Liu (place) as his fief. Liu Lei took the name of his fief as his family name. One day, the female dragon died unexpectedly, so Liu Lei secretly chopped her up, cooked her meat, and served it to the king, who loved it so much that he demanded Liu Lei to serve him the same meal again. Since Liu Lei had no means of procuring more dragon meat, he fled the palace. Liu Lei was the first person surnamed Liu in Chinese history, and his descendant Liu Bang founded the Han Dynasty.
During the Zhou dynasty, King Ding of Zhou granted Liu (place) to his younger brother Ji Jizi (姬季子) as a fief. Ji Jizi also took his fief name as his family name. Liu became a State and Ji Jizi ruled the State of Liu as Duke Kang of Liu. After more than a hundred years under the rule of the Liu family, the State of Liu was destroyed by the central government of the Zhou Dynasty.
Liu was the ruling family of the Han dynasty, one of the most prosperous and influential empires in Chinese history. After the Chen Sheng Wu Guang uprising overthrew the Qin, the Han dynasty was founded by Emperor Liu Bang. Later, Emperor Liu Che helped expand the Han dynasty even further, ushering in a golden age for China.
The Han dynasty had 30 emperors were surnamed Liu, making it among the Chinese dynasties that had the most emperors. The Han dynasty lasted 400 years, making it one of the longest lasting Chinese empires in history. The Han is what gives its name to the Han people as well as Han characters / Hanzi / Chinese characters.
Even after the Han dynasty, several Liu continued to hold power within China including Liu Bei (written about in Records of the Three Kingdoms) and Liu Yuan (Han Zhao).
Over history, several non-Han Chinese people have converted to the Liu surname, including Xiongnu and Turks.
Prominent people with the family name 劉Edit
Historical figuresEdit
Duke Kang of Liu [zh], son of King Qing of Zhou and founder of the State of Liu [zh]
Liu Bang, Founder of the Han dynasty as Emperor Gaozu of Han
Liu Jiao (King of Chu), the younger brother of Liu Bang and famous scholar
Liu Ying, Second Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Heng, Fifth Emperor of the Han dynasty
Liu Qi, Sixth Emperor of the Han dynasty
Liu Che, Seventh Emperor of the Han dynasty known for expanding the Han Dynasty to its fullest extent and for a long reign of 54 years
Liu An (King of Huainan), advisor to his nephew, Emperor Wu of Han. Best known for editing the (139 BCE) Huainanzi compendium of Daoist, Confucianist, and Legalist teachings
Liu Sheng (King of Zhongshan), the direct ancestor of the Shu Han emperors, had more than 120 sons
Liu Xiang, government official, scholar, and author of who lived during the Han Dynasty
Liu Fuling, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu He, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Xun, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Shi, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Ao, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Xin, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Kan, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Xin, astronomer, historian, and editor during the Han Dynasty
Liu Xuan, Emperor Gengshi of the Han Dynasty
Liu Ju, crown prince of Western Han Dynasty
Liu Yan (Xin dynasty), general and older brother of Liu Xiu
Liu Xiu, The restorer of the Han Dynasty and the founding emperor of the Eastern Han Dynasty
Liu Dai, politician during the Eastern Han Dynasty
Liu Yan (Han dynasty warlord), politician and warlord during the Eastern Han Dynasty
Liu Biao, warlord during the late Eastern Han Dynasty
Liu Zhuang, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Da, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Zhao, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Hu, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Bao, Emperor of the Han Dynasty
Liu Zhi, Emperor of the Han dynasty
Liu Hong, Emperor of the Han dynasty
Liu Xie, Last emperor of the Han dynasty
Liu Bei (161–223), Founding emperor of Shu Han
Liu Shan (207–271), Second emperor of Shu Han
Liu Hong, astronomer and mathematician of the Han dynasty
Liu Hui, mathematician during The Three Kingdoms period
Liu Yan (Shu Han), general during the Three Kingdoms Period
Liu Ji (Three Kingdoms), official of Eastern Wu
Liu Kun, general, poet and musician of the Western Jin
Liu Yuan, First emperor of Han Zhao
Liu He, Second emperor of Han Zhao
Liu cong, Third emperor of Han Zhao
Liu Can, Fourth emperor of Han Zhao
Liu Yao, Fifth emperor of Han Zhao
Empress Liu E, Empress of Han Zhao
Liu Yu, Founder of the Liu Song as Emperor Wu of Liu Song
Liu Yilong, Emperor Wen of Liu Song
Empress Liu, Empress of Northern Song
Liu Sanjie, folk music singer during the Southern Song Dynasty
Liu Chuyu, princess of Liu Song Dynasty
Liu Ziye, emperor of Liu Song Dynasty
Emperor Ming of Song, emperor of Liu Song Dynasty
Liu Zhiyuan, Founding emperor of Later Han
Liu Chong, Founding emperor of Northern Han
Liu Yan, Founding emperor of Southern Han
Liu Rengui, chancellor and general of the Tang Dynasty
Liu Xiangdao, chancellor of the Tang Dynasty
Liu Ji (general), general of the Tang Dynasty
Liu Ji (Tang chancellor), chancellor of the Tang Dynasty
Liu Yan (Tang dynasty), Chinese economist and politician during the Tang dynasty
Liu Zhan, chancellor and official of the Tang Dynasty
Liu Chongwang, chancellor of the Tang Dynasty
Liu Changqing, famous poet and politician
Liu Yuxi, famous poet and statesman
Liu Kezhuang, famous poet of southern song
Liu Xu, chancellor of Later Tang and Later Jin
Liu Bingzhong, chancellor of the Yuan dynasty
Liu Bowen, famous poet, statesman, strategist and thinker
Liu Tongxun, politician of the Qing dynasty
Liu Yong, politician and calligrapher of the Qing dynasty
Liu Mingchuan, First Governor of Taiwan
Liu Ji (politician), (born 1887), 11th Republic-era mayor of Beijing.
ContemporaryEdit
Natasha Liu Bordizzo, Australian Chinese actress
Claire Liu, American tennis player
Cecilia Liu, Chinese actress
Andy Lau, Hong Kong actor, singer
Andrew Lau, Hong Kong filmmaker and actor
Kei May Lau, Hong Kong engineer
Lucy Liu, American actress
Will Liu, Taiwanese singer
Liu Wen-cheng, (born 1952),Taiwanese singer and actor
Simu Liu, Chinese-Canadian actor
Laurin Liu (born 1990), Canadian politician
Yoo Jae-suk, South Korean comedian
Isaac Liu (born 1991), New Zealand Rugby League player
Lexie Liu, Chinese singer, rapper and songwriter
Shaolin Sándor Liu, Chinese-Hungarian short track speed skater
José María Liu, Taiwan representative to Spain
Liu Shaoqi, PRC politician, former Chinese President
Liu Bocheng, PRC military commander
Liu Ye, (born 1978), Chinese actor
Liu Wen (born 1988), fashion model
Liu Haoran, Chinese actor
Hawick Lau, Chinese actor
Lau Dan, Chinese actor
Liu Yifei, singer/actress
Liu Kwok Wa (born 1978), Hongkonger badminton player
Henry Lau, Chinese-Canadian singer, member of Super Junior-M
Liu Chao-shiuan, Kuomintang politician
Anthony Liu, figure skater
Liu Cheng-hung, Magistrate of Miaoli County (2005–2014)
Liu Cheng-ying, Magistrate of Lienchiang County
Liu Chien-sin, Deputy Secretary General to the President of the Republic of China
Liu Chih-kung, Deputy Secretary-General of National Security Council of the Republic of China (2010–2012)
Liu Chih-yun, Deputy International Commissioner of the Boy Scouts of China
Liu Ching-chung, Minister of Hakka Affairs Council (2014–2016)
Christine Liu, American artist and neuroscientist
Cixin Liu (simplified Chinese: 刘慈欣; traditional Chinese: 劉慈欣; pinyin: Liú Cíxīn; born 1963) Chinese science fiction author
Liu Xiaobo, PRC dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Evelyn Lau, writer
Liu Fuzhi, PRC politician
Liu Guoliang, table tennis player
Liu Haichao (born 1998), Chinese badminton player
Liu Huaqing (1916–2011), PRC politician
Liu Huan (born 1963), Chinese singer-songwriter
Liu I-chou, Chairperson of Central Election Commission of the Republic of China (2015–2017)
Liu Jinru (born 2000), Chinese artistic gymnast
Lau Kar-leung, actor, choreographer and director
Ken Liu, Chinese-American author
Liu Kuo-chuan, former Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs Commission of the Republic of China
Liu Yuh-san, Secretary-General of the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China (2005–2007)
Liu Yu-you, Magistrate of Nantou County (1973–1981)
Pete Lau (aka Liu Zuohu; born 1975), Chinese entrepreneur and co-founder of OnePlus
Sidney Lau, Hong Kong linguist
Liu Sola, singer, composer, and writer
Tai-Ping Liu (born 1945), Taiwanese mathematician
John Liu, New York City Comptroller
Tats Lau, Hong Kong actor and musician
Liu Wenhui, warlord and PRC politician
Liu Xiang, Olympic winner and World Record holder
Liu Yalou, general
Liu Yunshan, PRC politician
Liu Zhixuan, Chinese basketball player
Liu Yunpeng, Chinese high jumper
Alysa Liu, figure skater
Liu Kwang-ching Historian of China.
Liu Hong Mei (1982–2005), Chinese murder victim killed in Singapore
Tasha Low (born 1993), Singaporean singer and actress
Liu Yangyang (born 2000), Taiwanese singer, member of WayV
Liu Qiangdong (born 1973), internet entrepreneur and founder of Jd.com
Amber Liu (singer) (born 1992), singer and rapper, member of South Korean girl group f(x) (musical group)
Liu Yuxin (singer), (born 1997), singer and rapper, member of Chinese girl group THE9
Liu Shishi, (born 1987), Chinese actress
Liu Xiaoqing, (born 1955), Chinese actress and businesswoman
Liu Yan (actress), (born 1980), Chinese actress and singer
Liu Tao, (born 1978), Chinese actress
Liu Haikuan, (born 1994), Chinese actor
Liu Ruilin, (born 1990), Chinese actor
Liu Yuning, (born 1990), Chinese singer and actor
Liu Yijun (actor), (born 1970), Chinese actor
Liu Yue (footballer, born 1975), Chinese footballer
Yu Liu (entrepreneur), (born 1986), Chinese entrepreneur
Liu Tong (actor), (born 1993), Chinese actor and model
Tony Liu, (born 1952), Hong Kong actor and martial artist
John Liu (actor), (born 1944), Taiwanese actor and martial artist
Eric Liu, (born 1968), American writer, former Deputy Assistant for the United States Domestic Policy Council
Henry Liu, (born 1932), Taiwanese-American writer and journalist
Liu Shiwen, (born 1991), Chinese table tennis player, five-time World Cup champion
Liu Yiqian, (born 1963), autodidact billionaire investor and art collector.
Sam Liu, American animation producer
Liu Yang (astronaut), (born 1978), Chinese astronaut, a crew member of Shenzhou 9, becoming the first Chinese woman in space
Liu Xijun, (born 1988), Chinese pop singer
Liu Liyang, (born 1982), Chinese singer, DJ, producer and actress.
Rene Liu, (born 1970), Taiwanese singer-songwriter, actress, director and writer
Jasper Liu, (born 1986), Taiwanese actor, model, and musician
Liu Chia-chang, (born 1940), Taiwanese songwriter, singer, screenwriter
Liu Xiening, (born 1996), Chinese singer and dancer and former member of South Korean girl group Gugudan
Liu Fang, (born 1974), Chinese–Canadian musician and one of the most prominent pipa players in the world.
Liu Xin (cyclist), (born 1986), Chinese road bicycle racer
Liu Xin (news anchor), (born 1975), host and journalist for CGTN
Liu Xin (badminton), (born 1990), Chinese professional badminton singles player
Liu Xin (food scientist), (born 1957)
Liu Yuan (musician), (born 1960), one of the two prominent jazz musicians in China
Liu Liangmo, (born 1909), musician and Chinese Christian leader
Liu Zhuang (musician), (born 1932), musician
Liu Yang (violinist), winner of China's 5th National Violin Competition
Esther Liu, (born 1988), Taiwanese actress
Serena Liu, (born 1975), Taiwanese dancer and actress
Liu Yan (dancer), (born 1982), classical Chinese dancer
Liu Yan (figure skater), (born 1984), former competitive figure skater
Liu Yan (scientist), Chinese Antarctic researcher
Yan Liu (geographer), Australian geographer
Liu He (politician), (born 1952), Chinese economist and politician
Liu Ji (footballer), (born 1990), Chinese football player
Ji Liu (pianist), (born 1990), Chinese concert pianist
Liu Chang (tennis), Chinese tennis player
Liu Nannan, Chinese tennis player
Liu Weijuan, Chinese tennis player
Liu Jia, Chinese Austrian table tennis player
Liu Shuhua, Chinese tennis player
Liu Yanni, Chinese tennis player
Liu Shaozhuo, Chinese tennis player
Liu Fangzhou, (born 1995), Chinese tennis player
Liu Wanting, Chinese tennis player
Juan Liu, American table tennis player
Liu Siyu, Chinese tennis player
Na Liu, British table tennis player
Liu Jing (table tennis), (born 1988), Chinese para table tennis player
Liu Xiaotong, (born 1990), Chinese volleyball player
Liu Yanhan, Chinese volleyball player
Liu Dan (volleyball), volleyball player
Liu Changcheng (volleyball), Chinese volleyball player
Liu Libin, Chinese volleyball player
Liu Lijuan (sitting volleyball), Chinese Paralympic sitting volleyball
Liu Wei (basketball), (born 1980) Chinese basketball player
Liu Chuanxing, Chinese basketball player for Australia's Brisbane Bullets
Liu Xiaoyu (basketball), Chinense basketball player
Liu Jing (swimmer), Chinese swimmer
Liu Xiang (swimmer), (born 1996) Chinese competitive swimmer
Liu Daomin, Chinese Paralympic swimmer
Liu Yaxin, Chinese competitive swimmer
Liu Zige, Chinese world record holding swimmer
Liu Ou, Chinese synchronized swimmer
Liu Limin, Chinese butterfly stroke swimmer
Liu Benying, Chinese Paralympic swimmer gold medalist
Liu Yu (para swimmer), Chinese paralympic gold medalist
Liu Xiaohan, Chinese freestyle swimmer
Liu Yuntao, Chinese Paralympic swimmer
Liu Lan, Chinese swimmer
Liu Fengqi, Chinese Paralympic swimmer
Leanne Liu, (born 1959) Hong Kong actress
Liu Wai-hung, Hong Kong actor
Liu Kai-chi, (born 1953), Hong Kong actor
Liu Kuan-ting, (born 1988), Taiwanese actor
Bernice Liu, (born 1979), Canadian actress, singer, model
Liu Jun, (born 1997), Malaysian choreographer
Liu Xueyi, (born 1990), Chinese actor
Liu Jiayu, Chinese snowboarder
Liu Wei (artist), Chinese artist
K. J. Ray Liu (born 1961), Chinese-American scientist, educator, and entrepreneur
Liu Yun (actress), (born 1982), Chinese actress
Annie Liu, (born 1981), Hong Kong actress
^ "Liu Shaoqi". Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
^ 张、王、李、赵谁最多—2010年人口普查姓氏结构和分布特点. China Statistics Bureau. 23 June 2014.
^ 最新版百家姓排行榜出炉:王姓成中国第一大姓 [Latest surname ranking: Wang is the number one surname in China]. Xinhua News Agency (in Chinese). 2013-04-15. Retrieved 2013-11-21.
^ "新京报 - 好新闻,无止境".
^ 中国四百大姓, 袁义达, 邱家儒, Beijing Book Co. Inc., 1 January 2013
Chinese surname history: Liu
This page lists people with the surname Liu.
If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to the link.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liu&oldid=1065782556"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Fitness & Health, Sport & Exercise Science
Kenyan long distance runners, why do they win marathons?
Kenyan long distance runners and those from Ethiopia have won the London Marathon 8 years in a row now but why? We examine the reasons for their dominance.
The phenomenon of Kenyan long distance runners
Mary Keitany of Kenya won her third London Marathon in 2017, while fellow Kenyan Daniel Wanjiru, won the men's race in 2:05:48. It came as no real surprise that Kenyan long-distance runners dominated once again. For the last 15 years, the male winners have all come from East Africa (12 from Kenya, three from Ethiopia). The East African women have been just as dominant too, in the last 8 years all the winners have been born in Kenya or Ethiopia, but why?
The dominance of African nations, particularly Kenyan long-distance runners is one of the fascinating topics in exercise performance physiology.
In 2015 the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance published an Analysis of the Kenyan Distance-Running Phenomenon.
The data emphasised the emergence of African distance runners is primarily a Kenyan phenomenon, driven by the Kalenjin tribe and in particular the Nandi subtribe. This supports the complex interaction between genotype, phenotype and socioeconomic factors driving the remarkable dominance of Kenyan long-distance runners.
The author of the study analysed male track distance events from 800m upwards from all the major global athletics championships from 1964 to 2013 and the annual Top-25 world marathon performances since 1990.
The percentage of top-25 marathon performances and medals won by Kenyan and Kalenjin runners have increased over time with Nandi subtribe outperforming the rest of the world outside Africa. However, Europe, North America, Oceania, Asia and South America decreased over time in top marathon performances and track medals won.
The complex physiology that underpins running performance is multifactorial, so the rise and subsequent disproportionate success of a relatively small population is unlikely to be explained by any single factor.
The aim of the study was to characterise, in detail, the ethnicity of Kenya's most successful international male runners and to track the relative success of various ethnic groups or subtribes over time and in distance-running events (marathons compared with track).
The authors found that the tribe and subtribe distribution were different in the marathon than in the track: Maasais were more likely to feature in medals won in shorter track events. This was also the case for Marakwets and Pokots. On the other hand, Keiyos, Kikuyus, Kipsigis, Sabaots and Tugens were more likely to succeed in the marathon than in shorter track events.
The Kalenjin tribe, which consists of approximately 12% (about 5m people) of the Kenyan population account for 29% and 34% of all global track medals and elite marathon performances, respectively. Further analysis of ethnic groups reveals that while medals and elite performances originate from six distinct tribes and seven Kalenjin subtribes, one of which, Nandis, consisting of just under 1m people, have won 72 medals (47% of Kenya's total), a number higher than the combined total of North America, South America, Asia and Oceania.
Since 1990 the Nandi subtribe has outperformed every continent with the exception of Africa in terms of distance track medals won and elite marathon performances. Explanations for this highly concentrated endurance-running success have included physiological, environmental, cultural and genetic factors and have been reviewed extensively. The disproportionate representation of a specific tribe and subtribe among a population's successful runners can be interpreted to support all these factors. In support of genetic and physiological factors, genotypical and phenotypical characteristics that may predispose a person or group of people to running success would be expected to be highly preserved within given subtribes.
For instance, it has been reported that there is a strong relationship between performance-mediated attractiveness and reproductive success, which suggests that human endurance capacity has been subject to sexual selection in our evolutionary past. Similarly, although attributing the success of Kenyan long-distance runners to a genetic explanation seems premature, it is noteworthy that Kenyans present high frequencies of desirable genotypes of certain performance-linked genes. A typical example is ACTN3, which encodes the protein alpha-actinin-3 and is almost exclusively expressed in sarcomeres of fast glycolytic type II fibres responsible for the generation of rapid forceful contractions. Two variants in this gene, R and X, have been identified, with the RR variant polymorphism strongly associated with sprint performance. In this regard, Yang et al have found that the XX genotype, which is nondesirable for elite sprint running performance, is almost nonexistent in Kenyans. While single gene associations with performance are oversimplified for numerous reasons, we nevertheless cannot exclude a role for genetics in our findings. In contrast, the authors note that social, environmental, lifestyle and cultural factors would be expected to exert effects on tribes that are, by definition, tightly geographically and linguistically bound.
As well as being physiologically gifted it is often argued that Kenyan long-distance runners are mentally tougher than most. Many come from poor families and becoming a professional runner will eradicate poverty for them and their families. Some say Kenyans have just learnt to embrace the pain better than other nations when running.
If you'd like to understand more about the Kenyan dominance. Check out the article for further in-depth analysis – Analysis of the Kenyan Distance-Running Phenomenon.
Does running in heat and humidity affect athletic performance?
This entry was posted in: Fitness & Health, Sport & Exercise Science
Tagged with: Genetics, Marathon, Physiology, Running
Pingback: Ultramarathon Daily News, Mon, Apr 24 - Ultramarathon News, Podcasts, and Product Reviews
Previous PostWin a Kindle Fire and a copy of Daniels' Running Formula
Next PostSee Dr Karageorghis and Ruth Duncan speak at the Elite Sports Expo


text:
(1841-07-13)July 13, 1841
Vienna, Austrian Empire
April 11, 1918(1918-04-11) (aged 76)
Vienna, Austria-Hungary
Austria-Hungarian
Floodgate, Nußdorf, Vienna
Karlsplatz Stadtbahn Station
Majolica House
Postal Office Savings Bank Building
Kirche am Steinhof
Rumbach Synagogue
Viennese Wiener Stadtbahn
Otto Koloman Wagner (13 July 1841 – 11 April 1918) was an Austrian architect and urban planner. He influenced the development of his hometown Vienna at the turn from the 19th to the 20th century. He also was the architect of important landmarks.
Life[change | change source]
Otto Wagner was born in the Penzing district of Vienna. He studied in Berlin and Vienna. After work as brick layer he started as architect. His first buildings were in the historism style. In the late 1880s he became a proponent of the realism style. In 1890 he designed a city plan for Vienna but only the railway netwerk Wiener Stadtbahn was built. In 1894 he became Professor of Architecture at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna.In 1896 he published a textbook entitled Modern Architecture in which he wrote down his ideas about the role of the architect, it based on his first lecture in the Academy. He called for an architecture based on modern materials and modern construction methods. In 1897, he joined Gustav Klimt, Joseph Maria Olbrich, Josef Hoffmann and Koloman Moser shortly after they founded the "Vienna Secession" artistic group. He died in 1918 in Vienna.
Works of Otto Wagner[change | change source]
Otto Wagner Villa
Anker-Haus, Wien;Am Graben
Railway station; Karlsplatz
Kirche Am Steinhof interior
Otto Wagner Museum in Vienna
Great Buildings Online
Images of several Wagner buildings
Otto Wagner at WOKA (de/en)
Majolica House in Vienna by Otto Wagner (with drawings and photos)
AEIOU - Das österreichische Kulturinformationssystem
Digitized books from the architecture collection of AMS Historica, the digital library of the University of Bologna.
(German) Einige skizzen 1, Wien, 1905.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Otto Wagner.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_Wagner&oldid=6610776"
Austrian architects
People from Vienna
Urban planners
Pages using infobox architect with unknown parameters