INTRODUCTION
At
every major turning point, it is necessary to go back to the fundamentals of the movement.
The split in the old organisation, and the implementation by the Taaffite sect of the
British turn necessitates a re-examination of our tactics and strategy, in the light of
past experience, the current situation, and future perspectives.
For Marxists, perspectives is a science, but tactics is an art, which cannot be
learned by rote. There is no cook-book which can supply us with the "correct
recipe" to be applied in a given situation. One of the fundamental errors of the
Taaffe sect was to look for ready-made formulae, which they believed, wrongly, would give
them a short-cut to the task of party-building.
They believed they had arrived at entirely "new" ideas to fit a
"new" situation. In reality, they are very old ideas, sectarian and ultraleft
ideas, which Lenin dealt with more than half a century ago, and which our tendency has
combated since its inception. The only authority a Marxist leadership can have is a moral
and political authority. The leading clique of the old organisation were compelled to
resort to expulsions because they were unable to answer the political case of the
Opposition. This is the sign of a bankrupt tendency, both in a political and
organisational sense.
The meaning of the factional struggle, in a political sense, was the defence of the
genuine traditions and ideas of the Marxist tendency. The Opposition waged a struggle, not
to build a new organisation with "new ideas," but, on the contrary, to recover
the genuine ideas, programme and methods of Trotskyism.
Every important historical turning-point tends to lead to internal struggles within
the Marxist movement, over policy, perspectives, tactics and strategy. A healthy tendency,
the leadership of which is confident of its ideas, can resolve such inevitable conflicts
without crises and splits.
The astonishing speed of the political degeneration of this new sect indicates that
these people have completely abandoned the most basic ideas of the tendency. In their
haste to develop "new ideas" (which are not new at all), they have fallen over
themselves to ditch every one of the principles we defended in the past. This approach
dooms them to disaster.
By contrast, the great Marxist thinkers of the past, when faced with new situations
and problems, began by re-stating the fundamental ideas of Marxism. Theory, as old Engels
explained, is a guide to action. Trotsky in the 1930s, faced with the problem of the
degeneration of the Soviet Union, went back to re-examine the fundamental teachings of
Marx, Engels and Lenin on the state. The same was true of comrade EG in the period
following 1945. Without this, you will inevitably lose your bearings, particularly in a
complex historical situation like the present.
Over the past four decades and more, we have accumulated a colossal experience in
the field of party-building and work in the mass organisations. Together with the works of
the great Marxist teachers of the past, this provides us with an unshakable foundation
upon which to build.
The fundamental position on this question was already put forward in the 1959
document on work in the mass organisations. What we are dealing with here is the
relationship between the small forces of Marxism and the living movement of the
proletariat and its historically-evolved organisations. This goes through a whole series
of stages, with constant changes, reflecting the ebbs and flows of the class struggle. The
working class does not automatically arrive at revolutionary conclusions. If that were so,
the task of party-building would be redundant. Our task would be a simple one, if the
movement of the working class took place in a straight line. But this is not the case.
Over a long historical period, the working class comes to understand the need for
organisation. Without organisation, the proletariat is merely raw material for
exploitation. Through the establishment of organisations, both of a trade union and, on a
higher level, of a political character, the working class begins to express itself as a
class, with an independent identity. In the language of Marx, it passes from a class
"in itself" to a class "for itself."
This development takes place over a long historical period through all kinds of
struggles, involving the participation, not just of the minority of more or less conscious
activists, but of the "politically untutored masses," who, in general, are
awakened to active participation in political (or even trade union) life only on the basis
of great events.
On the basis of great historical events, the working class begins to create mass
organisations, to defend its interests. These historically-evolved organisations - the
trade unions, co-operatives, and workers' parties - represent the germ of a new society
within the old. They serve to mobilise, organise, train and educate the class.
PRESSURES
OF CAPITALISM
However,
these organisations are formed within the womb of capitalist society, and are subject to
the pressures of capitalism, which inevitably produce bureaucratic deformations.
Organisations born in struggle, tend to degenerate when the pressure of the masses is
removed. These pressures are intensified in periods of economic upswing or even during
temporary booms.
Workers do not engage in struggle merely for the sake of it. Under conditions where
the bourgeoisie is able, for a time, to grant concessions and reforms, the workers tend to
try to find a way out by individual means, by "working hard," overtime, and so
on.
The pressures of capitalism have the most pernicious effects at the tops of the
movement.. The tendency of the labour bureaucracy to separate itself from the
rank-and-file and fall under the influence of bourgeois ideas is always multiplied a
thousandfold whenever the pressure of the class is diminished. That is a law which can be
historically demonstrated.
Where the capitalists are able to grant concessions and reforms, the majority of
workers do not see the need for active participation in the movement. This leads to a
further degeneration of the leadership, which, in turn, becomes a factor leading to an
increase in apathy, scepticism and cynicism among wide layers of workers towards the
traditional organisations.
These are the bare bones of a complicated equation of social forces. Other factors
have influenced the evolution of the mass organisations over the period of almost half a
century since the end of World War Two. One of the most monstrous elements in the
situation has been the role of Stalinism in the labour movement. From a powerful agent of
revolution, the "Communist" International became transformed into a gigantic
agency of counter-revolution, particularly in the period from 1943 on. This poisoned and
distorted millions of the most advanced workers for nearly three generations, enormously
complicating the task of the socialist transformation of society.
Time and time again, even in the period of the post-war upswing in world
capitalism, the workers moved to take power - in France 1968, in Italy 1969, in Portugal
in 1974-75, in Spain during the latter years of the Franco dictatorship, in Argentina,
Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and
virtually the whole ex-colonial world throughout the entire period. Yet each time, the
workers were blocked by the Social Democratic and Stalinist leaderships.
In the world of geology, volcanic eruptions are relatively infrequent events. When
they occur, the lava flows in a violent and irresistible fashion. However, when the lava
cools, it forms a thick crust which serves to hold back the flow of molten rock. It can
take a long time for sufficient pressure to build up to produce another explosion. But
sooner or later, the apparently impregnable crust is broken, and a new advance occurs.
In the same way, the conservative layer of trade union officials and "labour
leaders" appear to exercise firm control over the workers' organisations. But history
shows that no power on earth can destroy the instinctive will of the working-class to
change society. The workers will inevitably move to transform and re-transform their
organisations.
In order to work out our perspectives and tactics, it is necessary to have an
overall view of the development of the mass organisations - as they were in the past, as
they are in the present, and as they will necessarily become in the future.
MARX
AND ENGELS
A
revolutionary party, for a Marxist, is in the first place PROGRAMME, METHOD, IDEAS AND TRADITIONS, and only
in the second place, an organisation and an apparatus (important as these undoubtedly are)
in order to carry these ideas to the broadest layers of the working people.
The Marxist party, from the very beginning, must base itself on theory and
programme, which is the summing up of the general historical experience of the
proletariat. Without this, we are nothing. We begin with the slow and painstaking work of
cadre building, which forms the backbone of the party throughout its entire lifetime.
That is the first half of the problem. But only the first half. The second half is
more complicated: how to reach the mass of the workers with our ideas and programme? This
is not at all a simple question.
For the sectarian, of course, there is no problem here. It is enough to quote Lenin
on the need for an "independent revolutionary party." They merely proclaim
themselves as such, and call on the workers to join them!
The need to build an independent revolutionary party is ABC for Marxists. However,
after the ABC, there are more letters in the alphabet, and a child who only repeated the
first three after a few years at school would not be considered very bright.
In his article, Sectarianism, Centrism and
the Fourth International (1935), Trotsky characterises sectarianism as follows:
"The sectarian looks upon the life of
society as a great school, with himself as a teacher there. In his opinion, the working
class should put aside its less important matters, and assemble in solid rank around his
rostrum. Then the task would be solved.
"Though he swears by Marxism in every sentence, the sectarian is the direct
negation of dialectical materialism, which takes experience as its point of departure and
always returns to it. A sectarian does not understand the dialectical action and reaction
between a finished programme and a living - that is to say, imperfect and unfinished -
mass struggle... Sectarianism is hostile to
dialectics (not in words but in action) in the sense that it turns its back upon the
actual development of the working class." (Trotsky, Writings, 1935-36, p.153).
In the founding document of the Marxist movement, The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explain
that "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class
parties.
"They have no interest separate and
apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
"They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape
and mould the proletarian movement.
"The Communist are distinguished from the other working class parties by this
only: 1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they
point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat,
independently of all nationality. 2) In the various stages of development which the
struggle of the working class has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent
the interests of the movement as a whole.
"The Communists are, therefore, on the one hand, practically, the most
advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section
which pushes forward all others: on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the
great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march,
the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement." (Marx
and Engels, Selected works, Vol.1, pp.119-120).
Marx and Engels began their political activity as a faction of the democratic party
in Germany. Given the prevailing conditions, that was inevitable. In his article, "Marx and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
(1848-1849)," Engels recalled that the small forces of the Communist League, an
underground propaganda group which had evolved out of the former "League of the
Just," was irresistibly drawn into the mass revolutionary democratic movement in
Germany, the 1848 revolution. "The few
hundred separate League members," he wrote "vanished in the enormous mass that
had been suddenly hurled into the movement. Thus, the German proletariat at first appeared
on the political stage as the extreme democratic party." (Marx and Engels, Selected
works, Vol.3, p.166).
SKILLFUL
TACTICS
The
founders of scientific socialism always set out from the movement as it existed, and
applied the most skillful tactics in order to connect with the real mass movement and
fertilise it with the programme of revolutionary Marxism. This meant, initially, appearing
as the extreme left wing of the democratic movement. Marx's work around the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung was a model of revolutionary agitation which combined the fight for the
most advanced democratic demands with an implacable defence of the independent class
standpoint of the proletariat.
"In this way," Engels explains,
"when we founded a big newspaper in Germany, our banner was determined as a matter of
course. It could only be that of democracy, but that of a democracy which everywhere
emphasised in every point the specific proletarian character which it could not yet
inscribe once for all on its banner. If we did not want to do that, if we did not want to
take up the movement, adhere to its already existing, most advanced, actually proletarian
side and push it further, then there was nothing left for us to do but to preach communism
in a little provincial sheet and found a tiny sect instead of a great party of action. But
we had already been spoilt for the role of preachers in the wilderness, we had studied the
Utopians too well for that, nor was it for that we had drafted our programme." (Marx
and Engels, Selected Works, Vol.3, p.166).
After the defeat of the revolutions of 1848-49, There was a big development of the
productive forces under capitalism, which was still in its progressive phase. Marx and
Engels had not foreseen this, and based their perspective on a relatively rapid recovery
of the revolutionary movement. Only later did they realise their mistake, and re-adjust
their perspectives and tactics accordingly. Needless to say, this was not a mistake of
method, but only of timing. Similar "mistakes" have been made many times by
Marxists in the past, particularly in the field of economic perspectives which is
notoriously difficult, among other reasons, because of the delay in statistics, as Engels
explains. Such errors, which are inevitable, in no way invalidate the scientific nature of
Marxist perspectives, but merely underline the enormous complexity of prediction in a
field which involves infinitely more variables than, for example, astronomy.
For a period of two decades, revolution was off the agenda, Marx and Engels
painfully reorganised what was left of the Communist League in 1850, and set about
developing and deepening the theory of socialism, educating the cadres in one's and twos.
Breaking demonstrably with the small groups of "revolutionary" exiles,
Marx and Engels turned their attention to the British labour movement, first the
Chartists, for whose press they contributed regularly, and then the trade unions.
The Communist League was, from the beginning, an international organisation.
However, the formation of the International Workingman's Association (the First
International) in 1864 represented a qualitative step forward.
On 27th January, 1887, Engels summed up their experience in a letter: "When we returned to Germany in Spring 1848, we
joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of gaining the ear of the working
class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx
founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working
class Socialists of that period could join it - Proudhonists, Pierre-Lerouxists, and even
the more advanced section of the English Trade Unions; and it was only through this
latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and
absorbing all these minor sects, with the exception of the Anarchists, whose sudden
appearance in various countries was the effect of the violent bourgeois reaction after the
Commune and could therefore safely be left by us to die out of itself, as it did. Had we from 1864-73 insisted on
working together only with those who openly adopted our platform - Where should we be
today? I think all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the
general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or
hiding our own distinct position and even organisation, and I am afraid that if the German
American choose a different line they will commit a great mistake..."
The historical task of the First International was to establish the main
principles, programme, strategy and tactics of revolutionary Marxism on a world scale.
However, at its inception, the IWA was not a Marxist International, but an extremely
heterogeneous organisation, composed of British reformist trade unionists, French
Proudhonists, Italian followers of Mazzini, anarchists, and the like. By combining
firmness on principles with great tactical flexibility, gradually Marx and Engels won over
the majority. In a letter to Engels, Marx explained that he had to use extreme
tactfulness, especially when combating the prejudices of the British trade unionists. In a
marvelously appropriate phrase, Marx said that he was always "mild in manner, but bold in content."
That sums up the approach of Marxists when working in reformist workers' organisations.
The IWA succeeded in laying the theoretical foundations for a genuine revolutionary
International. But it never was a real mass workers' International. It was really an
anticipation of the future. The defeat of the Paris Commune had a disorienting effect on
the small forces of the First International, which entered into crisis, aggravated by the
intrigues of the Bakuninists (anarchists). In order to prevent the International from
falling into the hands of the Bakuninists, Marx and Engels first moved the centre to
America, and then decided to wind it up in 1872. While defending the principle of
internationalism, for a period, Marx and Engels were without an international
organisation.
THE
SECOND INTERNATIONAL
The
Socialist International (Second International), launched in 1889, began where the First
International had left off. Unlike the latter, the Second International began as a mass
International which gathered and organised millions of workers. It had mass parties and
trade unions in Germany, France, Britain, Belgium, etc. Moreover, it stood, at least in
words, on the basis of revolutionary Marxism. Thus, the future of world socialism appeared
to be guaranteed.
However, the misfortune of the Second International was to be formed during a long
period of capitalist upswing. This set its stamp on the mentality of the leading layer of
the Social Democratic parties and trade unions.
The period of 1871-1914 was the classical period of Social Democracy. On the basis
of a long period of economic growth, it was possible for capitalism to give concessions to
the working class, or, more correctly, to its upper layer. The trade unions grew in
strength, two to three million in Germany and Britain, 300,000 in France, and so on.
In general, it was a period of reforms, not revolution. There were exceptions, like
the Russian Revolution of 1905, but that was not the general character of the period.
Although they formally adhered to the idea of socialism, in practice, the Social
Democratic leaders in Germany, France, Britain, etc. were carrying out reformist policies.
This was revealed very early on by Bernstein in his famous aphorism "The movement is everything. The final goal is
nothing."
Before 1914, Lenin, Trotsky, Liebknecht and Luxemburg were all Social Democrats. In
reality, they were conducting a struggle for the genuine revolutionary policy of Marxism
inside the Second International.
However, the only one who really understood the role of the revolutionary party was
Lenin. Even Trotsky, despite his correct appraisal of the perspectives for the Russian
Revolution, was confused on this question up till 1917.
Rosa Luxemburg was an outstanding revolutionary, who tried to combat the reformist
policies of the SPD leadership by laying heavy stress on the spontaneous movement of the
class and the general strike. She understood better than Lenin the role of Kautsky and the
so-called German "Lefts" (in reality centrists), mainly because she could see
them at close quarters. Lenin initially had illusions in Kautsky and regarded himself as
an "orthodox Kautskyite" almost up to the First World War.
Only Lenin systematically set out to create a firm and consistent Marxist party,
carrying matters to the point of a split in 1912 - two years before the split in the
International. However, for a period of almost ten years, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks
acted as two factions of one party - the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, which
from 1905 was the mass party of the Russian working class.
Had Rosa Luxemburg acted in the same way, organising a revolutionary faction in the
SPD prior to 1914, the Marxist tendency would have been in a incomparably stronger
position during the First World War.
As it was, the German Spartacists found themselves in a relatively weak position,
despite the presence in their ranks of recognised leaders of the working class, such as
Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Mehring and Joegiches. At the start of the German revolution in
November 1918, the revolutionary wing had no more than 2000 members throughout Germany
(only 50 in Berlin, according to a report of Radek).
Of course, it is natural that the revolutionary wing should be a small minority at
the beginning of the revolution, when the politically inexperienced masses burst on the
arena of history, and inevitably gravitate towards the traditional mass organisations and
their leaders. Furthermore, the difficulties of the German Marxists were increased by the
fact that both Luxemburg and Liebknecht were in prison.
However, these factors do not exhaust the question, but only further underline the
absolute necessity of a strong cadre organisation, which cannot be improvised, or thrown
up by events, but must be prepared in advance, through years of patient work.
LENIN'S
CONCEPTION
This
was precisely the great advantage of Lenin's conception of the party, as opposed to the
approach of Rosa Luxemburg. In her struggle against the hide-bound reformist bureaucracy
of the SPD, she placed colossal emphasis on the spontaneous movement of the class. This
argument had a progressive side, but also contained a weakness. The spontaneous
revolutionary activity of the class is the fundamental element in every revolution. But a
revolutionary situation, by its very nature, cannot be long-lasting. Either it leads to a
revolutionary change in society, or, if the opportunity is missed, it will end in a
terrible defeat, the effect of which may last for years.
In order to take advantage of a revolutionary situation, the presence of the
subjective factor - the revolutionary party and its leadership - is necessary. The very
speed of events in a revolution rules out the possibility of the proletariat working out
all the necessary lessons on the basis of "trial and error." There is little
room for experiment, and every failure is paid for at a terrible cost. The experience of
the German revolution of 1919-23 is a clear demonstration of that fact.
Unlike Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg failed to build a solid cadre organisation prior to
the outbreak of the revolution. The lack of steeled and educated cadres led the
Spartacists into a series of errors, with fatal results. In fact, at the first Spartacist
congress in December 1918, Luxemburg and Liebknecht were in a minority on the question of
participating in elections.
While Rosa Luxemburg clearly understood the importance of facing toward the mass
organisations, the young and inexperienced members of the party had an impatient and
ultraleft position which helped to isolate them from the mass of social democratic
workers, and especially the leftward moving supporters of the "Independent"
social democrats.
Under the pressure of the masses, the "Lefts" had split away from the SDP
in April 1917, with 120.000 members. At first, the Spartacists correctly joined the
"Independents" (the USPD), but then split away prematurely at the end of 1918,
on the grounds that "to remain any longer would
seriously compromise our duty to the proletariat and to the cause of socialism and
revolution." (The German Revolution and the Debate on Soviet Power, p.169).
It is clear from the records that Rosa Luxemburg had doubts about leaving the USPD,
and Joegiches was firmly against. But , having failed to create an educated Marxist cadre,
they were compelled to go along with the ultraleft mood of the young rank-and-file, who
had moved a bit too far ahead of the class.
That this was a mistake was demonstrated by the subsequent evolution of the USPD.
Through the experience of the revolution, the rank-and-file moved sharply to the left and
came into conflict with the centrist leaders. In October 1920, at the congress of Halle,
the USPD split, and a majority joined the Communist party. The rump hung on until 1922,
when most of its leaders - naturally - "went home" to the SDP.
THE
THIRD INTERNATIONAL
Rosa
Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were undoubtedly giants. But when they were killed in 1919,
the leadership of the revolution was
decapitated. This fact shows the tremendous importance of the role of the individual in
history. It is true that the movement of the working class will take place, with us or
without us. No-one can break the will of the workers to change society. But that is not
sufficient. The German workers fought like tigers in the period 1918-23. If Luxemburg and
Liebknecht had not been killed, the German workers would have undoubtedly taken power in
1923.
The same was true of the great Irish revolutionary, James Conolly, whose death in
1916 deprived the Irish workers of leadership. Like Luxemburg and Liebknecht, Connolly had
not built a revolutionary party, based on consistent Marxist principles.
"The Third International arose directly
out of the imperialist war," Trotsky explains. "It is true that long before it, widely different
tendencies had been struggling within the
Second International: but even the furthest left of these, represented by Lenin, was far
from the thought that the revolutionary unity of the working class would have to be
created by a complete break with the Social Democracy. The opportunist degeneration of the
workers' parties, closely connected with the period of flowering of capitalism at the end
of the last and the beginning of the present
century, was completely revealed only at the moment when the war bluntly posed the
question: With the national bourgeoisie or against it? Political development made a sudden
leap in 1914: to use Hegel' s phrase, the accumulation of quantitative changes suddenly
acquired a qualitative character." (Trotsky, Writings, 1935-36, p.84).
When was the Communist International founded? This apparently simple question has
more than one answer. In a sense, you could say that the International was founded in
1914, when Lenin broke with the old International, and proclaimed the need for a new
International. He even rejected the name "Social Democrat," calling it a
"dirty shirt" which must be changed for a new one.
Yet Lenin, at this time, was completely isolated. Trotsky calculates that he was in
touch with perhaps a couple of dozen co-thinkers in exile. At the Conference of socialist
opponents of the War at Zimmerwald in 1915, Lenin joked that you could put all the
internationalists in the world into two stagecoaches. And yet the new International
already existed - as a programme and an idea - as early as 1914.
Nevertheless, the mass forces of the Communist International were only formed on
the basis of great events, in the period 1917-23. In most cases, the mass parties of the
new International were formed out of splits in the old parties of the Second
International.
The sects are fond of quoting Lenin's writings from the period 1914-17, when he
insisted repeatedly on the need for a radical break with the Social Democracy, "that stinking corpse," as Rosa
Luxemburg called it.
"But Lenin had in mind a break with
reformists as the inevitable consequence of a struggle against them, and not an act of
salvation regardless of time and place. He required a split with the social patriots not
in order to save his own soul but in order to tear the masses away from social
patriotism." (Trotsky, Writings 1935-36, p.156).
After the October Revolution, Communist tendencies emerged in all the old Social
Democratic Parties. In France, the Communists won a majority of the Socialist Party at the
Congress of Tours (1920). The right wing split away with 30,000 and the Communist Party
was formed with 130,000 members. Nevertheless, the old reformist leaders still maintained
a base among the more backward and inert layers of the class.
The German Social Democrats had split in April 1917, when the centrist wing led by
Kautsky set up the Independent Social Democratic Party. This mass centrist party in turn
split in October 1920, at the congress of Halle. The majority fused with the Spartacists
to form the Communist Party of Germany, a mass party with 21 daily newspapers.
Similar developments occurred in Czechoslovakia, Italy, Bulgaria, Norway and other
countries.
"LEFT-WING
COMMUNISM"
The
Third (Communist) International stood on a qualitatively higher level than either of its
two predecessors. Like the IWA, at the high-point of its development, the 3rd
International stood for a clear revolutionary, internationalist programme. Like the Second
International, it had a mass base of millions. Once again, it appeared that the fate of
the world revolution was in good hands.
Unfortunately, most of the leaderships of the new Communist parties were young and inexperienced. They lacked the theoretical
grounding and experience of the leaders of the Russian party. They made mistakes, mainly
of an ultra-left character in the first period.
At the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin and Trotsky waged a struggle against
the "infantile disorder" of ultra-leftism. The Manifesto of the Second Congress,
written by Trotsky, states that:
"The Communist International is the
world party of proletarian uprising and proletarian dictatorship. It has no aims and tasks
separate and apart from those of the working class itself. The pretensions of the tiny
sects, each of which wants to save the working class in its own manner, are alien and
hostile to the spirit of the Communist International. It does not possess any panaceas or
magic formulas but bases itself on the past and present international experience of the
working class; it purges that experience of all blunders and deviations; it generalises
the conquests made and recognises only such revolutionary formulas as are formulas of mass
action." (Trotsky, The First Five Years of the Comintern, Vol.1, p.131).
The same document adds:
"Waging a merciless struggle against
reformism in the trade unions and against parliamentary cretinism and careerism, the
Communist International at the same time condemns all sectarian summonses to leave the
ranks of the multi-millioned trade union organisations or to turn one's back upon
parliamentary and municipal institutions. The Communists do not separate themselves from
the masses who are being deceived and betrayed by the reformists and the patriots, but
engage the latter in an irreconcilable struggle within the mass organisations and
institutions established by bourgeois society, in order to overthrow them the more surely
and the more quickly."
Ultraleft moods, reflecting impatience and inexperience, were widespread among
sections of the Communist leaders in Britain, Germany, Holland and Italy. The usual
manifestations were a rejection of parliamentary electoral work, a refusal to work in
reformist trade unions, and a sectarian attitude to the mass reformist parties.
Lenin and Trotsky combated these ideas by advocating the United Front tactic as a
means of creating a bridge to the mass of Social Democratic workers. In the case of
Britain, they went further, advocating that the C.P. should try to affiliate to the Labour
Party.
Lenin's book "Left Wing Communism - an
Infantile Disorder" was written to answer the arguments of the "Lefts,"
which re-appear at every stage in the writings of the sects. Lenin explained that it was a
crime to split away the advanced workers from the mass, and that such tactics, far from
undermining the trade union bureaucracy, actually serves to strengthen it:
"To refuse to work in the reactionary
trade unions means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of workers
under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour
aristocrats, or "workers who have become completely bourgeois ...
"If you want to help the "masses" and win the sympathy and support
of the "masses," you should not fear difficulties or pin-pricks, chicanery,
insults and persecution from the "leaders" (who, being opportunists and
social-chauvinists, are in most cases directly or indirectly connected with the
bourgeoisie and the police), but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.
you must be capable of any sacrifice, of overcoming the greatest obstacles, in order to
carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and
patiently in those institutions, societies and associations - even the most reactionary -
in which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses are to be found." (Lenin, Collected
Works, Vol.31, p.53).
Lenin explained how the Bolsheviks even conducted illegal work in the
"Zubatov" unions, set up by the Tsarist police to keep the workers away from
revolutionary ideas.
The Second Congress of the Comintern debated the question of the Labour Party and
decided to advise the British CP to apply for affiliation. This was reluctantly accepted
by the British leadership, but they couched their application in such sectarian terms that
they invited rejection. This ultra-leftism was gradually corrected and allowed the young
Communist Party to build up a significant base in the Labour Party.
Lenin advised the small British C.P. to turn towards the trade unions and the
Labour Party. In elections, he advised the Party only to put up candidates in a few safe
seats, where there was no risk of splitting the vote and letting in the Tories and
Liberals, and giving critical support to the Labour candidate in all other seats:
"We would put up our candidates in a
very few but absolutely safe constituencies, namely, constituencies where our candidate
would not give any seats to the Liberals at the expense of the Labour candidates. We would
take part in the election campaign, distribute leaflets agitating for communism, and in
all constituencies where we have no candidates, we would urge the electors to vote for the
Labour candidate and against the bourgeois candidates." (Lenin, Collected Works,
Vol.31, p.88).
Lenin's policy was eventually implemented by the CP and, for a time, achieved very
good results. Despite its mistakes, the CP got a significant echo in the Labour Party in
Britain, and began to make inroads into the social Democratic workers everywhere.
Had the Communist Parties remained on a Leninist basis, the success of the
revolution would have been guaranteed. But the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union
played havoc with the still immature leaderships of the Communist Parties abroad. The
ultra-left zig-zag of the Russian bureaucracy led to the policy of the "Third
Period" and "social fascism," with disastrous effects for the Comintern.
The worst result was in Germany, where the insane policy of "social
fascism" split and paralysed the powerful German labour movement, and allowed Hitler
to come to power in 1933.
After
the expulsion of the Left Opposition in 1927, and his enforced removal from the Soviet
Union a year later, Trotsky began the painful task of re-grouping the forces which
remained loyal to genuine Leninism on an international scale.
The forces of the International Left Opposition were numerically weak and isolated.
Trotsky initially held the perspective of the reform of the Communist Parties, linked to
the perspective of the reform of the Soviet Union. The Stalinist bureaucracy had not yet completely consolidated its rule, although
every new set-back of the international revolution led to further disappointment of the
Soviet workers, and helped to deepen the process of bureaucratic degeneration.
TURNING
POINT
A qualitative
turning-point was the victory of Hitler in Germany. Stalin did not want Hitler to win, any
more than he had willed the defeat of the Chinese revolution of 1925-27. But the policy of
Stalin made defeat inevitable in both cases.
Trotsky anticipated that the victory of Hitler, which he predicted on the basis of
the policies of Moscow, would provoke a crisis in the Communist Parties. But by 1933, the
process of Stalinisation of the Comintern had reached a point where all internal life had
been stifled. There was no crisis, hardly a ripple, following the greatest defeat of any working class in history. No lessons were
drawn. On the contrary, the Stalinist leaders proclaimed that Hitler's rule was the
prelude to revolution in Germany: "After Hitler, our turn!". Trotsky drew the
conclusion that an international which was incapable of reacting in the face of such a
defeat, was dead.
Up till 1934, the International Left Opposition (ILO) had oriented to the Communist
Parties. Where possible, faction work was organised. But even where they were expelled and
forced to operate as independent organisations, the Trotskyists still regarded themselves
as an expelled faction of the CP, and conducted themselves as such.
However, after 1934, Trotsky realised the need for a different tactic. The road to the Communist workers was, in effect,
blocked. The tactic of orienting to the CP's
had been correct, but in the given historical
circumstances, was no longer viable. Despite its crimes, the bureaucracy was still playing
a relatively progressive role in developing the productive forces, although at five times
the cost of capitalism. The brilliant
achievements of the first five-year plan captured the imagination of millions of workers
and youth in the West. The warnings of Trotsky to the members of the Communist Parties
fell on deaf ears.
Lenin once remarked that "history knows
all kinds of transformations." The false policies of the Stalinists had
drastically reduced the influence of the Communist Parties. As a result, the old reformist
Social Democratic parties began to experience a new lease of life.
The world slump of 1929-31, the rise of fascism in Italy, Germany and Austria, the
Spanish Asturian Commune (1934), provoked an increasing sense of alarm in the working
class and a ferment in the Social Democratic parties. The growing polarisation of society
led to the rapid crystallisation of mass left wings and centrist currents, creating
favourable conditions for the intervention of a Marxist current.
In Britain, the experience of the MacDonald Labour Government and the 1931
betrayal, resulted in a profound radicalisation of the labour movement. As early as 1932,
the Independent Labour Party split away from the Labour Party, with about 100,000 workers.
Trotsky proposed entry into the ILP to the British Trotskyists. However, most of the older
comrades refused to enter. Only a section of the more inexperienced comrades joined and
did not get much results. However, Trotsky's writings on the ILP, like "In the Middle of the Road" remain
classical statements of Marxism particularly on the subject of Centrism.
In his polemic with the leaders of the ILP, Trotsky criticised them for breaking
with the Labour Party at the wrong time and on the wrong issue. (Instead of picking a
political issue, which could be understood by the mass of Labour workers, they broke away
on an organisational question - the independence of the ILP's parliamentary caucus) :
" The ILP split from the Labour Party
chiefly for the sake of keeping the independence of its
parliamentary fraction. We do not intend here to discuss whether the split was correct at
the given moment, and whether the ILP gleaned
from it the expected advantages. We don't think so. But it remains a fact about every
revolutionary organisation in England that its attitude to the masses and to the class is
almost coincident with its attitude toward the Labour Party, which bases itself upon the
trade unions. At this time, the question of whether to function inside the Labour Party or
outside it is not a principled question, but a question of actual opportunities. In any
case, without a strong fraction in the trade unions, and consequently in the Labour Party itself , the ILP is doomed to impotence even
today." (Trotsky. Writings 1935-36, pp.141-143).
Trotsky's method is absolutely clear from these lines. In Britain, where millions
of workers are organised in and around the trade unions and the Labour Party, even a party
of 100,000 is little more than a big sect. What would he say today about the fussing and
fiddling of the minuscule groups on the fringes of the Labour Party?.
Trotsky's advice to the ILP was three-fold: a) work out a genuine Marxist policy b) turn your backs on the Stalinists and face
towards the trade unions and the Labour Party and c) join the Fourth International.
Even though the ILP had a considerable base among the advanced workers, Trotsky
still insisted that they should penetrate the Labour Party, which still enjoyed the
support of millions of workers. Brushing aside the excuses of the ILP leaders - that there
was no real left in the Labour Party, that they would be expelled, and so on - he argued
for work inside the LP:
"The policy of the opposition in the
Labour Party is unspeakably bad. But this only means that it is necessary to counterpose
to it inside the Labour Party another, a correct Marxist policy. That isn't so easy? Of
course not! But one must know how to hide one's activities from the police vigilance of
Sir Walter Citrine and his agents until the proper time. But isn't it a fact that a
Marxist faction would not succeed in changing the structure and policy of the Labour
Party? With this we are entirely in accord: the bureaucracy will not surrender. But the
revolutionists, functioning outside and inside, can and must succeed in winning over tens
and hundreds of thousands of workers." (Trotsky, ibid, p.142).
ROLE
OF CENTRISM
The
centrist leaders of the ILP chose to ignore Trotsky's advice, making ironic remarks about "dictators from the heights of Oslo."
However, in the meantime, the Labour Party moved to the left in opposition. The mass of
workers could not see a fundamental difference between the policies of Labour and the ILP.
In such a situation, they inevitably rallied to the bigger party. In the absence of a
clear Marxist alternative inside the ILP, the Stalinists won over those who were looking
for a revolutionary alternative. The rest of the ILP leaders eventually drifted back to
the Labour Party, on a purely reformist basis.
The 1930s was the classical period of Centrism, which can be defined as a tendency
standing in between left reformism and genuine revolutionary Marxism. Centrism is not a
fixed phenomenon, but almost invariably has a temporary, unstable and transitory
character. It is true that there can be groups, or even individuals, of an organically
centrist type. But the phenomenon we are here dealing with is altogether different - the
phenomenon of mass centrist currents, which are usually a manifestation of the first
confused strivings of the masses to break with reformism and move in a revolutionary
direction. The opposite phenomenon is also possible - where a formerly revolutionary
organisation degenerates and moves to the right, passing through a centrist phase, on its
way back to reformism. It is therefore not sufficient to characterise a particular
grouping as " centrist" , it is necessary to draw an arrow to indicate in which
direction it is moving.
Writing in 1935, Trotsky characterises centrism in the following manner:
"The oppositionist moods and tendencies
bear today a predominantly centrist character, that is, intermediate between social
patriotism and revolution. Under conditions when the traditional mass organisations are in
the process of collapse and decomposition, centrism represents in many cases an inevitable
transitional stage even for progressive working class groupings. Marxists must be able to
find access to all such tendencies, in order by example and propaganda to speed their
passage to the revolutionary road. In this, the condition for success is irreconcilable
criticism of the centrist leadership, exposure of the attempts to create a Two-and-a-Half
International, and a ceaseless explanation of the fact that the revolutionary tasks of our
epoch doom beforehand to ignominious bankruptcy those unifications which are hybrid and
amorphous". (Trotsky. Writings 1935-36, pp24-25).
A bold orientation towards centrist currents and parties was a key part of
Trotsky's tactics in the 1930's. As early as
1933, he was the author of "The Declaration of Four," for the creation of a new
International, signed by the International Left Opposition, together with three small
centrist parties - the German SAP, and two Dutch groups - the OSP and the RSP.
Much more important however, was the development of
mass centrist currents within the existing Social Democratic Parties. The ILP was
the first important example of this. In September 1933, Trotsky wrote to the British
Trotskyists:
"I
continue to believe that the fate of our British section in the next couple of years
depends on a correct attitude to the ILP" (Trotsky, Writings, 1933-34, p.100).
After the rise of Hitler, mass centrist currents crystallised rapidly in the
Socialist Parties in the rest of Europe, starting
with France. In February 1934, after Hitler's victory, the French fascists of the Croix de
Feu staged an armed demonstration in Paris. The French Stalinists, instead of combining in
action with the Socialist workers to defeat the fascist threat, in effect solidarised with
the attack on the government of the "Radical Fascist" Daladier! Had the movement
succeeded in bringing down the Radical government, the fascists could have come to power
in France in 1934.
The French Socialist Party (the SFIO) shaken by the events, moved sharply to the
left, broke with the Radicals and expelled the right wing of the parliamentary faction
(the "Neos") who insisted in supporting Daladier.
In Belgium, too, the Social Democratic leader de Man put forward a radical-sounding
Plan.
In all of Trotsky's writings on these questions, we see his brilliant grasp of the
dialectical method. Trotsky did not see the mass organisations as something fixed and
static, but in their life and development through internal contradictions.
Under conditions of convulsive crisis of capitalism, it is unthinkable that the
traditional mass organisations of the working class should remain unaffected. The tendency
towards polarisation between the classes inevitably finds its echo in an increasing
polarisation to the left and right of the Socialist parties, giving rise to internal
convulsions, crises and splits.
At a certain point, this process gives rise to mass left reformist or centrist
currents. For Marxists, the term "centrism" is not a term of abuse but has a
scientific content, denoting a tendency which stands mid-way between left reformism and
genuine revolutionary Marxism.
In the revolutionary period from 1917 to 1923, mass centrist currents emerged in
most of the parties of the Second International and formed the basis for the creation of
mass parties of the Communist International.
At that time, the existence of a powerful pole of attraction in the form of the
October Revolution meant that large numbers of advanced workers could be quickly won to
the banner of revolutionary Marxism.
In the early 1920s, the problem of reaching the Social Democratic workers was
solved by Lenin's policy of the United Front. This tactic, expressed as 'march separately,
but strike together', allowed the Communists to build bridges to the rank and file of the
reformist organisations.
However, the United Front tactic is only possible between mass organisations. It
does not apply to small groups, although the sects do not appear to grasp this elementary
truth. For a sect to propose a united front to, say, the British Labour Party, or the
Peronist in Argentina, would be like an ant proposing a united front to an elephant. The
elephant would neither see nor hear the ant, but would merely turn around and squash its
would-be ally in the process.
In the 1930s, Trotsky proposed the entry tactic as a means of overcoming the
isolation and weakness of the forces of Trotskyism. The development of centrist currents
within Social Democracy was an inevitable phase in the leftward shift of the masses. The
attitude of revolutionaries to such development was, and is, of vital importance in the
fight to extend the ideas of Marxism to the widest layers of the class.
"There are honest centrist moods of the masses,
and there are consciously lying centrists designs of old parliamentary cheats of the
masses. But such designs have become necessary precisely because of the shift of the party
base to the left. In essence the matter stands no differently also with the British Labour
Party, although in tempo and in phenomenal form it is quite different." (Trotsky,
Writings, 1933-34, p.265 ).
Under conditions of general social crisis, right reformism enters into crisis, passing from reforms to counter-reforms.
Under such conditions, crisis and splits in the reformist parties are inevitable, as are
the emergence of centrist and left reformist currents:
"Viewed historically, reformism has
completely lost its social basis. Without reforms there is no reformism, without
prosperous capitalism, no reforms. The right-reformist wing becomes anti-reformist in the
sense that it helps the bourgeoisie, directly or indirectly, to smash the old conquests of
the working class. It is false to consider the Neo-Socialists a working-class party. The
split did not weaken the old French Socialist Party; It strengthened it since, after the
cleansing, the party enjoys greater confidence on the part of the workers. But it must
adapt itself to this confidence, and the form of this adaptation is called centrism".
(Trotsky, Writings, 1933-34, p.266).
The threat of fascism and the Bonapartist tendencies in the bourgeois state
intensified the contradictions in the Social Democratic parties from top to bottom,
opening up enormous possibilities.
THE
TRAGEDY OF SPAIN
The most tragic
consequences of a failure to seize the opportunities in the socialist organisations
occurred in Spain. Alarmed by the events in
Germany and Austria, the Socialist leaders attempted to resist the clerical-fascist CEDA
by a general strike and armed uprising. This led to the Asturian Commune of 1934, the
defeat of which led to a wave of repression and the "two black years" - the
"bienio negro."
However, the defeat had a far-reaching effect on the Socialist Party (PSOE), the
Young Socialists (JSE) and the Socialist trade union, the UGT, which rapidly moved to the
left. The JSE, in particular, moved far to the left, looking for revolutionary ideas.
In 1935 the Spanish Young Socialists publicly broke with the Second and Third
Internationals and came out for a new revolutionary International. The leaders of the JSE
appealed to the Spanish Trotskyists, led by Andres Nin, to join them, in order to create a
genuine revolutionary party and International.
At the time, the Spanish CP had been reduced to a sect of only 800 members by its
ultraleft madness. The "Left Communists" of Andres Nin probably had more
members, mainly in Catalonia. The Young Socialists had about 100,000 mainly working-class
members, steeled in revolutionary struggle
and wide open to the ideas of Trotskyism.
Yet Nin refused to join a "Social Democratic" organisation, despite
Trotsky's insistence, preferring to link up with a small centrist party in Catalonia to
form an "independent party" - the POUM. Trotsky broke with Nin and denounced his
actions as a betrayal. This was the truth of the matter. By refusing to accept the JSE's offer,
Nin handed the Socialist Youth to the Stalinists on a plate. In a short time, they invited the leaders of the JSE to Moscow, where
they succeeded in corrupting them. By winning over the Young Socialists, the Stalinists
got a mass base in Spain, which they used to
strangle the revolution.
It is interesting to note that Largo Caballero, who led the left wing of the
Socialist Party and the UGT had previously been a member of the right wing and had even
been a privy councillor in the government of the dictator Primo de Rivera, for a short
time.
"THE
FRENCH TURN"
After
vomiting out the "Neos," the French Socialist Party moved rapidly to the left. A
centrist current formed in the SFIO around Marcel Pivert. From 1934, Trotsky attempted to
convince the French Trotskyists to enter the Socialist Party. In his writings around the
"French Turn", is to be found a
classical exposition of the theory and practice of work
in the mass organisations.
Many of the Trotskyists argued against entry into the Socialist Party in terms
which have since become all too familiar - "We need an independent party",
"Lenin advocated a break with reformism", "How can revolutionaries join a
Social Democratic party", "We would be expelled", "We could not defend
our programme," and so on.
By contrast, we see the dialectical genius of Trotsky, who understood that the mass
organisations are not something fixed, once and for all, but reflect the real life and
movement of the masses, and are full of internal
contradictions. In the context of a convulsive crisis of society, it was unthinkable that
the contradictions of capitalism should not
be reflected in the mass organisations, both the trade unions and the political parties.
Trotsky outlined the main conditions for
entrism, which existed at that time (a) general crisis of capitalist society, provoking
moods of discontent among the masses who begin to look for a way out (b) crisis of the
capitalist state, the threat of fascism and bonapartist tendencies (c) linked to this, a
crisis of the reformist leadership which tends to lose its grip on the party (d) a ferment
in the mass organisations and development of a critical mood towards the leadership (e)
the crystallisation of mass left-wing or centrist tendencies.
These conditions would evidently not exist to the same extent in every case.
However, at this time, all of them were present in France and other countries also. Above
all, the threat of fascism acted as a catalyst, enormously speeding up the process of
internal differentiation.
"The crisis of the democratic state and
the crisis of the Social Democratic party develop in parallel, but opposite, directions.
Whereas the state marches towards fascism across the Bonapartist stage, the Socialist
Party approaches a life-and-death struggle with fascism across a "loyal,"
quasi-parliamentary opposition to the Bonapartist state." (Trotsky, Writings,
1934-35, p.47).
Nevertheless, as in Britain and Spain, the French Trotskyists resisted the
proposal. One of the main reasons for Trotsky's insistence on a turn to the mass
organisation was the bad social composition of the Trotskyists, their lack of a base in
the unions and factories. The "French turn" was intended as a way of overcoming
the bad habits of the French section, the tendency to look inwards and waste time on
internal squabbles, instead of building real links with the working class.
Inevitably, Trotsky's argument met with stiff resistance, which he patiently but
firmly answered. What were we really renouncing?
"But we have nothing to renounce. We
merely admit that our organisation is too weak to establish for itself a practical
independent role in the struggles that
are
looming ahead of us." (Trotsky, Writings, 1934-35, p.36).
And again in the same article ("The League Faced with a Turn; July
1934"):
"But the proletarian party must be
independent. Quite so. But the League is not yet a party. It is an embryo, and an embryo
needs covering and nourishment in order to develop." (ibid, p.38).
TROTSKY'S
METHOD
Trotsky's method, like
that of Marx and Lenin, was a combination of two
things: an implacable defence of ideas and principles, and an extremely flexible approach
to tactics and organisational questions. This is summed up in the "Open letter for
the Fourth International", written in the spring of 1935:
"Any attempt to prescribe an identical
course for all countries would be fatal. Depending upon national conditions, upon the
degree of the decomposition of the old working class organisations, and finally upon the
state of their own forces at a given moment, the Marxists (the revolutionary socialists,
the internationalists, the Bolshevik-Leninists) can come forward, now as an independent
organisation, now as a faction in one of the old parties or trade unions. Surely, no
matter what the time or the arena may be, this factional work serves only as a stage on
the road of creating the new parties of the Fourth International - parties which may be
created either through the regroupment of the revolutionary elements of the old
organisations, or through the agency of independent organisations. But on whatever arena,
and whatever the methods of functioning, they are bound to speak in the name of
unqualified principles and clear revolutionary slogans. They do not play hide-and-seek
with the working class; they do not conceal their aims; they do not substitute diplomacy
and combinations for a principled struggle. Marxists at all times and under all conditions
openly say what is." (Trotsky, Writings, 1935-36, pp.25-26).
In contrast to the sects, including the latest sect of the Taaffites, Trotsky did
not adopt a tone of shrill denunciation when dealing with the reformists, but followed
Lenin's slogan:
PATIENTLY
EXPLAIN
Trotsky, who understood well both the mass organisations and the psychology of the
workers, recommended the Trotskyists to adopt a patient, positive and friendly attitude,
as we see in his letter to Cannon (March 1936) on "How to work in the SP" when
he says the following:
"So far as the criticism of the centrist
leadership is concerned, it is very important to pay attention to this: that this
criticism should not lose itself on side issues which can only irritate the Socialist
following, but should be concentrated upon well chosen and important questions. There is a
certain danger that our comrades will react in meetings with mockery and contempt to the
centrist superficialities and platitudes.
From the very beginning this may create an unfavourable atmosphere for us. For the simple
member who does not have the necessary political training, it is difficult to raise
himself to the level of our criticism, and therefore irony (even the most deserved) can
have a disturbing, suspicion-arousing, and exasperating effect upon the rank and file.
This gives the centrist leaders the opportunity to mobilise these sentiments against us.
Therefore, the greatest patience, a calm, friendly tone, are indispensable."
(Trotsky, Writings, 1935-36, p268).
From the same letter, it is clear that Trotsky was unhappy with the way the French
Trotskyists had carried out work in the SP:
"Besides in France, also, far too much
energy was expended upon the frequently purely phraseological "exposure" of the
leaders, and too little for a more deep-going work at the base, especially among the
youth." (ibid, p.267).
Limited gains were made, but undoubtedly much more could have been won, if the Trotskyists had understood and carried out
Trotsky's method.
In general, it is clear that the Trotskyists at that time had no real understanding
of how to conduct work in the mass organisations. They either adopted an ultraleft tone,
or else concealed their ideas, on an opportunist basis. They evidently did not understand
a word of Trotsky's advice.
In any case, the "turn" did not last more than a few years in any
country. This was not an accident. The "classical" conception of entry, worked
out by Trotsky was a short-term tactic, which flowed from a general perspective. Trotsky
believed that the Second World War, which he correctly predicted a long time before, would
produce a revolutionary wave on the lines of 1917-23. His main emphasis was on the
building of the Fourth International on the basis of independent revolutionary parties.
The purpose of entry into the Socialist parties was to gain the maximum number of cadres
to prepare for this perspective.
TROTSKY'S
PERSPECTIVE FALSIFIED
This is not
the place to deal with the extremely complex unfolding of the Second World War. War is the
most complicated of all equations. The result of the Second World War was foreseen by
nobody. Neither Trotsky nor Roosevelt, neither Hitler nor Stalin.
As predicted by Trotsky, the War gave a tremendous impetus to revolution in Italy,
Greece, France, Britain, Eastern Europe and the Colonial countries. But, for reasons not anticipated by Trotsky, the
revolutionary wave was headed off by the betrayals of Stalinism and reformism. In place of
revolution in Western Europe, we had counter-revolution in a democratic form. In Eastern
Europe, the Stalinists took over and set up new deformed workers states, in the image of
Stalin's Moscow.
The betrayal of the Stalinists and reformists provided the political precondition
for a new period of capitalist upswing from 1948-73. Thus the perspectives worked out by
Trotsky in 1938 was falsified by history.
The degeneration and collapse of the Fourth International after Trotsky's death was
mainly due to objective factors - mighty economic upswings of world capitalism, the
renewed illusion in reformism and Stalinism, meant that, for a whole period, the forces of
genuine Marxism could not expect big gains.
In war, in periods of advance, good generals are important. But in a period of
retreat, they are more important still. With good generals, you can retreat in good order,
with a minimum of losses, keeping your forces intact, to prepare for a more favourable
situation. With bad generals, you turn a defeat into
a rout.
We cannot go here into the details of the disastrous policies pursued by the
leaders of the so-called Fourth International. These are dealt with elsewhere (see
"The Programme of the International"). Suffice it to say that not one of these
people was capable of analysing the new situation, or adjusting to it. That spelled
disaster for the International, which was still-born.
The real traditions of Trotskyism were kept alive by comrade EG and the other
leaders of the British section, which soon came into conflict with the leadership of the
so-called "Fourth". The details of this struggle falls outside the scope of this
document, but it is not accidental that one of the main issues of disagreement was the
question of the mass organisations.
However, the outbreak of War cut across this work. The youth were conscripted into
the army. Soon afterwards, the Labour leaders entered the wartime coalition with the
Tories. They did not contest elections. Since the Labour Party is first and foremost an
electoral machine, the party effectively ceased to exist during the war years. The
branches rarely even met.
On the other hand, there were possibilities in the Communist Party, particularly
after Russia's entry into the War in 1941. In the first phase, from 1939 to 1941, the
Stalinists adopted an ultraleft caricature of Leninist "defeatism." Following
the Kremlin's line, their position was really one of "peace, on Hitler's terms."
Then, after the Nazi invasion of Russia, they did a 180y somersault, and came out with a
crude patriotic line. For the rest of the war, they acted as the worst strikebreakers.
This provoked a crisis in their ranks. The best CP workers were open to the ideas
of Trotskyism. Partly in order to reach these workers, the WIL launched on an open tactic
during the war. There was nothing to be gained from the Labour Party, in the concrete
conditions. The WIL made important gains from the CP, and also did a certain amount of
faction work in the ILP, winning over two divisions in the North-East of England.
In 1944, the WIL fused with a smaller Trotskyist group to form the RCP, which had
about 500 mainly working-class members. However, even at that time, the British
Trotskyists were absolutely clear that it would be necessary to enter the Labour Party at
a given stage. The whole orientation of the RCP was towards the labour movement. It
maintained a friendly attitude towards the Labour workers, while firmly defending the
revolutionary programme of Marxism.
In the period immediately following the War, Britain entered a prerevolutionary
situation. The mood of the workers and soldiers was for a fundamental change in society.
During the War, the British Trotskyists had built a solid organisation based mainly on
industrial workers, shop stewards and conveners, many of whom had come over from the
Communist Party.
The RCP had a good base in industry, but even in the best days, still faced towards
the Labour Party, especially the youth.
However, the Labour government elected in 1945 was the first and last Labour
government which carried out major reforms. The creation of the Welfare State, extensive
nationalisation and other reforms created big illusions in reformism.
Thus, for a time (nobody knew how long
it would be), the road to the Labour workers was largely blocked. On the other hand, the
victory of Russia in the war, and the creation of new deformed workers' states in Eastern
Europe and China reinforced the illusion of the CP rank-and-file in Stalinism. Thus, the
forces of genuine Marxism were cut off from their main avenue of youth. Only small gains
were possible, no matter what tactics were employed.
The leaders of the "Fourth" had an entirely false perspective. They
argued that Trotsky's original perspective remained 100% correct. In 1938, Trotsky had
said that "in ten years, not one stone upon another would be left of the old
organisations". When this was pointed out to one of these "leaders" in
1947, his reply to the British leaders was: "Well, there's still one year to
go!."
Pablo, Mandel and the others, developed the theory of entrism "sui generis" (of a peculiar
type). According to this, there would be a mass left wing in all the main parties and
therefore the Marxists must immediately join them on an opportunist basis, with their
mouths closed. This policy of "deep entrism" stood Trotsky's ideas on their
head. They were firmly resisted by the RCP leaders who explained that the conditions for
entry were absent at that time.
Failing to convince the British comrades by argument, the leaders of the
"Fourth" deliberately provoked the split-off of a small minority, led by Gerry
Healy, who joined the Labour Party in 1947 at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and
using the wrong methods.
Two years later, in order to try and maintain the unity of the RCP leadership, a
section of which was demoralised by the split with the International, it was agreed to
re-unite on the basis of entry into the Labour Party.
Although the conditions did not exist, comrades EG and JD felt that, given the
unfavourable objective situation, it would only be possible to make small gains, whether
inside or outside of the Labour Party. It did not make a fundamental difference. On the
other hand, everyone was agreed that they would have to enter the Party, sooner or later.
No-one imagined that the post-war upswing would last as long as it did.
What was disastrous was not the entry into the Labour Party as such, but the
shameful conduct of Healy and co, who took advantage of the position to expel all his
opponents and effectively wreck the organisation.
By 1950, the small group of comrades who survived the shipwreck of the RCP began to
re-organise on the basis of work in the Labour Party. This was not on the basis of a
previously worked out strategy, but was a matter of necessity. With only about 30
comrades, under conditions prevailing in the 1950s, it would have been madness to
contemplate building outside the Labour Party.
Healy entered at the wrong time, with the idea of "building the left" in
conjunction with the left reformists of Tribune. This adventure naturally ended in tears
and expulsion. As EG predicted, the Healyites joined at the wrong time and subsequently
left at the wrong time. However, a certain amount of damage was done by them which caused additional problems for the Marxists.
Following the inevitable logic of such groups, the Healyites swung from the most
cowardly opportunism to the most insane ultraleftism, breaking from the Labour Party in
the late 1950s and setting up as an "independent party" - the SLL.
Our tendency continued to work patiently in the LP and put forward the perspective
that the Labour leaders would re-organise the Young Socialists and that this would be the
most fruitful area to work in.
After the general election defeat of 1959, the Labour leaders set up the Young
Socialists again (it had been closed down for a number of years). This coincided with a
national apprentices strike in 1960 and the development of a mass anti-nuclear movement
around CND. The YS attracted a large number of young people as we predicted.
However, our small numbers and lack of material resources meant that our ability to
intervene was limited. On the other hand, the Healyites, who had foreseen nothing, and had
a wrong tactic, used their apparatus to get inside the YS and take it over. Their
irresponsible hooliganism and ultra-left tactics brought the Youth into collision with the
bureaucracy, which led to the YS being closed down again in the mid-1960s.
The sects all argued that in the post-war period the character of the Social
Democracy had somehow experience a qualitative change, and that, therefore, the argument
of Lenin and Trotsky no longer applied. But what did the difference consist of? After 40
years of capitalist upswing, the forces of Marxism in the advanced capitalist countries
had been thrown right back. If there was a difference compared to the period when Lenin
wrote "Left Wing Communism", that consisted of the fact that the Marxist wing
was infinitely weaker, whereas the illusions in reformism - that is, in the most general
expression, the illusion that it was possible to solve the problems of the working class
on the basis of capitalism, were enormously increased. That remains the case up to the
present time.
The long period of capitalist upswing has, on the other hand, served to set the
seal upon the reformist degeneration of all the Social Democratic and "Communist
" parties. However, that did not mean
that there was a fundamental change in the relation of the class towards these parties,
which still have enormous reserves of support in the masses.
This was revealed in France in May 1968, when the workers launched the biggest
revolutionary general strike in history, at the height of the period of economic upswing.
Less than four million workers were organised in unions, yet ten million occupied the
factories.
The sects, particularly Mandel, had written off the French workers as backward,
bourgeoisified and "Americanised". The French followers of Mandel had split away
from the Communist Youth to "unfurl the banner" of an independent organisation a
short time before. When the events took place, they found themselves completely isolated.
The perspective of the Marxist tendency were completely confirmed by the experience
of 1968 in France. The workers, once roused to action, poured into the mass organisations.
Whole factories became unionised overnight. The Communist union CGT was the main force,
but the most explosive growth took place in the Socialist union, the CFDT. This had
previously been a Catholic union, but had been completely transformed and pushed to the
left. In 1968, it stood to the left of the CGT advocating a radical-sounding policy of "autogestion" (workers' control).
The rapid growth of the CFDT provided a basis for the re-emergence of the Socialist
Party, which in the previous period had been almost reduced to a sect, with 4% of the
vote. Now the SP attracted a numerous layer of leftward moving workers and youth, who were repelled by the Stalinist bureaucracy of the CP.
The fact that the SP subsequently displaced the CP as the main workers' party in France is
an indication of the processes which can take place.
However, despite everything, the "Communist" party also grew by leaps and
bounds in 1968. In the course of the general strike, thousands of workers joined the CP
which set up more than 80 new branches in the Paris region alone. This fact alone shows
how pitifully out of touch the French "Trotskyists" were.
It is true that the sects in France managed to establish themselves as fairly
sizable groupings at this time, mainly based
on the students, but also with a certain number of individual workers who had moved a bit
too far ahead of the class. The centrist PSU also grew, but subsequently collapsed. Its
leader Rocard joined the Socialist Party, where he ended up on the right. But these groups
utterly failed to penetrate the mass movement of the French workers. Their
"successes" evaporated like a drop of water on a hot stove. Far from challenging
the Stalinist and reformist bureaucracies, they performed a useful service to the latter,
syphoning off the discontented radicalised element and wasting their efforts in
meaningless ultraleft gestures.
The experience of 1968 deserves the most careful study to show how the working
class move in a revolutionary situation. It is also an object lesson in the criminal
nature of ultraleftism and the impermissibility of splitting away the advanced element
from the rest of the class.
AN
UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESS
Every period of capitalist development tends to be different. The long period of
capitalist expansion between 1871-1914 led to the reformist-nationalist degeneration of
the Second International. The period between the wars, by contrast, was a period of storm
and stress, of economic, social and political
convulsions, of revolution and counter-revolution. This was inevitably mirrored in the
mass organisations of the working class.
The period of the 1930's was characterised mainly by the rise of mass centrist
currents. However, in the period of the postwar economic upswing, this has been the
exception, rather than the rule. The case of the Italian PSIUP in the sixties is one of
the few noticeable examples. This left current split from the Italian SP in the mid-60s
with 400,000 supporters. If there had been strong Marxist tendency in Italy, they could
have been won. However, the Italian Mandelites were wasting their time with the
Proletarian Democracy sect, and the PSIUP was soon captured by the Stalinists and merged
with the PCI.
In general, however, such splits as have taken place in the last period have mainly
been to the right - as in Britain, Australia, Japan and even Luxemburg.
Throughout the 1950's and most of the 1960's, the British Labour Party and the
trade unions were dominated by the extreme right wing. In Liverpool, London, and other
areas, workers who tried to join the Labour Party were told by the right wing officials
that if was "full up." Even the moderately left wing Tribunites were subject to
persecution and expulsions.
The Wilson government, elected in 1964 and again in 1966, carried out a right wing
policy, and attempted to push through anti Trade union legislation. Party membership dropped. For the first time in
history, miners' lodges were threatening to disaffiliate.
Under these circumstances, the sects abandoned the Labour Party. First the
Healyites, then the Cliff group (which became the SWP). The tiny Mandelite sect, which had
been pursuing the deepest of deep entry, now suddenly declared that the Labour Party was a
bourgeois party, and called on workers to abstain in the 1970 general election (not that
anyone heard them).
The party branches were empty, and, as a result of the Healyite adventurism, the
Youth organisation was practically destroyed. The bureaucracy closed down the Conference
and the federations, and introduced severe restrictions on the functioning of the Youth. Only the Marxist
tendency remained - to the derision of the ultra-left. Within five years, the YS was
relaunched, and the Marxists won a clear majority.
Therefore, the decision was shown to be absolutely correct. The Tories won the 1970
election, and immediately introduced the anti-trade union Industrial Relations Act. Within
a couple of years the entire position was transformed. Under pressure from below, the TUC
was compelled to call a demonstration, which was the biggest since the days of the
Chartists. Thus, the change of mood was channelled through the mass organisations,
beginning with the unions.
The shift to the left began earlier with the election of left union leaders such as
Jack Jones (Transport and General Workers) and Hugh (now "Lord") Scanlon of the
engineers (AEU). The radicalisation on the industrial front was given a tremendous boost
by the two big miners' strikes, in 1972 and 1974, the second of which brought down the
Tory government.
The change in the unions was quickly reflected in the Labour Party, with the rise
of the Left led by Tony Benn and Eric Heffer. On this basis, the Marxists built up their
positions in the movement. This was only possible because we did not succumb to the
pressure of ultra-leftism, but stayed in the Labour Party, while others all left.
This is the "secret" of the success of the Marxist tendency in Britain -
an historical breakthrough with no parallel in the past, which has now been criminally
thrown away, in the same way that an irresponsible young libertine fritters away the
inheritance painfully built up by his father over a lifetime of patient hard work.
THE
1970s
The mass organisations do not develop in a straight line but, directly or
indirectly, reflect the processes at work in the working class and in society generally.
The recession of 1973-74 put an end to the period of general capitalist upswing
which had lasted since 1948. This was the first serious recession since the war. Prior to
that the cyclical recessions of the upswing had been very superficial, and had been barely
noticed by the workers, while living standards generally increased.
The 1970s were of a completely different character either to the period which went
before or the subsequent period of 1982-90.
In this period we saw the revolutions in Greece, Portugal and Spain, a big strike
wave in Britain, a prerevolutionary ferment in Italy. The ferment in society was reflected
in terrorist moods among the youth especially in Italy and Germany.
In contrast to the period of "democratic" illusions in the 1950s and 60s,
the European bourgeois was preparing for a decisive showdown with the working class. The
"Gladio" conspiracy proves beyond doubt that the ruling class was preparing for
military dictatorships in Italy, Spain, Britain, Norway and Belgium. In Britain, Brigadier
Frank Kitson was openly talking about a coup. It has since emerged that sections of the
ruling class and the military in "democratic" Britain had even contemplated a
coup against the Labour Government of Harold Wilson in the late 1960s.
However, in this period, the pendulum of society swung far to the left. In
Portugal, after nearly half a century of Fascist and Bonapartist rule, on the First of May
1974, one million people demonstrated on the streets of Lisbon. Since the total population
of Portugal was only 8 million people, this shows the extraordinary sweep of the
revolution. This demonstration was composed, not only of workers but of soldiers and
sailors, arms in hand. Many of the officers were members of the CP, or even Marxists. In
reality, power was in the hands of the working class. Only the actions of the leaders of
the CP and SP - especially the Stalinists in the first instance - saved capitalism.
In the following months and years, the Portuguese workers tried time and again to
bring about a revolutionary transformation of society, only to be thwarted by their
leaders. In March 1975, after the defeat of Spinola's coup and the nationalisation of the
banks, an action forced on the MFA government by mass action from below, The Times of
London stated in an editorial that "Capitalism in Portugal is dead". Yet the SP
and CP leaders succeeded in preventing what could have been a peaceful transfer of power to the workers and
peasants.
Once again, the Portuguese revolution shows how the masses move. Before 1974, the
Portuguese Socialist Party was little more than an emigre sect. However, once the masses
moved into action, they inevitably turned to the Communist and Socialist parties and, of
course, the trade unions.
The PSP was initially at a disadvantage in relation to the PCP. In order to compete
with the Stalinists, the SP leaders adopted a very left phraseology. Mario Soares talked
about the "dictatorship of the
proletariat". They even published some articles by Trotsky on the freedom of the
press in their paper, as part of their campaign against the Stalinists. This reflected the
enormous revolutionary mood developing in society.
As in the 1930s the general crisis of society was the basis for a sharp turn to the
left in the socialist parties and the rapid development of left-wing and centrist
currents.
There was a similar process in Spain, where Felipe Gonzalez and the other PSOE
leaders called themselves Marxists and made demagogic "left" speeches. This
process naturally went furthest in the Young Socialist (JSE) where the Marxists made
important progress, even in the difficult conditions of underground work.
In Greece, following the overthrow of the Junta in 1974, Andreas Papandreou
launched the PASOK which rapidly moved in a centrist direction and overtook the CP (KKE)
as the main working class party.
In Britain, the left wing in effect took over the Labour Party. In France and
Italy, there was a strong movement in the direction of a "United Left" of the CP
and SPs of both countries.
It is no accident that the Marxist tendency in Britain and Spain achieved a
breakthrough precisely at this time. In general the success of our work in the mass
organisations is determined, on the one hand, by the objective situation and, on the other
hand, by the existence of patient, long term preparatory work, which lays the basis for
reaching large numbers of leftward moving workers and youth when conditions are ripe.
The objective conditions in the 1970s were exceptionally favourable for work in the
mass organisations. That does not, however, mean that these conditions were everywhere and
at all times equally favourable. Even in a revolution there
are periods of reaction, and in reactionary periods there can be elements of
revolution. But the general movement was to the left for most of the period under
consideration.
However such a favourable situation cannot last forever. If the working class does
not take advantage of the situation to change society, inevitably the movement ebbs, the
moment is lost, and the majority of workers sink into inactivity and indifference, which
can last for some time.
It is not purely a matter of the economic cycle, although this undoubtedly has a
great importance. But it is necessary to analyse the movement of the working class
concretely, through all its manifold phases, and not confine oneself to generalities about
"consciousness." In general, human consciousness is not something fixed, but is
extraordinarily complex, contradictory, and subject both to long delays (a tendency to lag
behind events, including changes in the economic cycle) and also the opposite, sharp and
sudden changes.
If the consciousness of the masses automatically reflected the real movement of
society and the productive forces, then the need for the construction of a revolutionary
party would disappear. The same would be true if the working class were one homogeneous
mass, with the same level of consciousness. But it is not so.
Different layers draw different conclusions at different times. Certain layers
enter into battle at the same time as other layers withdraw from the struggle, beaten and
demoralised. Moreover, the consciousness is not only conditioned by what is, but also by
the whole previous development - past memories, habits, routine and tradition which, in
the words of Marx, "weighs like an Alp"
on the human mind. It is precisely the lag in the consciousness of the masses, and the
inevitability that this delay will be overcome by a sudden and explosive leap which is the
reason why revolution is possible and, ultimately, unavoidable.
Trotsky explains that, above all in the modern epoch, the crisis of humanity can be
reduced to the crisis of proletarian leadership. That was clearly shown in the 1970s, in
Portugal, Greece, Spain, and many other countries.
It particularly shows the role of left reformism and centrism. It appears to be a
law that the centrist leaders, to the degree that they draw close to "power"
(i.e. government) gradually drop their "left" phrases and move to the right,
adopting a statesmanlike (i.e. bourgeois) image.
The demoralisation of the Spanish and Portuguese workers was caused, not by the
economic cycle, but by the tremendous sense of betrayal when it dawned upon them that
their hopes and aspirations had been frustrated by the leadership. After years of struggle
and sacrifice, they realised that they had come very close to taking power, but that power
had escaped their grasp. The glaring contrast between what was possible, and what had
actually been attained, gave rise to a burning sense of frustration, anger and despair. As
quickly as they had joined the mass organisations, many thousands of worker activists left
them. Under these concrete circumstances, the onset of mass unemployment at the end of the
decade, far from exercising a radicalising effect, had precisely the opposite effect.
Even so, the desire of the workers to change society was shown, a few years later,
by the massive electoral victories of the Socialist Parties of France, Greece and Spain.
These victories were unprecedented in history. In the 1930s, let us remember, the
Socialist Parties always had to rule in coalition with the Republicans in Spain and the
Radicals in France. The success of the PASOK in Greece was even more sweeping, not only in
the towns, but in the countryside. This showed, yet again, the enormous reserves of
support of the mass organisations.
THE
EX-COLONIAL COUNTRIES
The bulk of
this document deals with work in the mass organisations in the advanced capitalist
countries. However, since 1974, the Marxist tendency has also acquired a valuable
experience in work in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This experience bears out the
general line of our analysis of the role of the mass organisations. The general law
remains the same - that when the masses move into action, they tend to express themselves
through the traditional mass organisations. The task of the Marxists in the ex-colonial
countries is to penetrate these organisations, in order to find a road to the workers and
the youth.
The differences that exist derive mainly from the more complex class relations in
society, the weight of the peasantry, and the tradition of anti-imperialist struggle,
which, in a number of instances, has led to the formation of peculiar political formations
which are under the political domination of bourgeois elements, but nevertheless have a
mass working-class base.
The political situation in the different countries of the "Third World"
presents such a huge variety, that it is impossible to deal with it comprehensively in a
single document. Each country has its national peculiarities, which must be taken into
account.
A country like Chile has a labour movement broadly comparable to the traditional
workers' parties in Europe. But this is rather an exception. In Argentina, there is a
small Communist Party, and the Socialists hardly exist. The majority of Argentine workers
look to the Peronists, a bourgeois movement of a most peculiar character, with a wide
range of tendencies, from ultraleft to open fascists. However, from a Marxist point of
view, the key factor is the link with the Unions which have a decisive weight in the
Argentine working class.
The Peronist workers have a very revolutionary tradition, which has been displayed
many times, noticeably in the 1940s and early 1970s. The confused and contradictory ideas
of Peronism took root under the first government of Peron, which gave big concessions to
the working class, at a time when Argentine capitalism was benefiting from the post-war
boom, with huge exports of corn and beef to the European market. At one stage, Argentina
was the tenth industrial power in the world. Now all that has collapsed.
The second experience of a Peron government in the early 1970s was completely
different. Under conditions of crisis, the inner differentiation of the Peronist movement
proceeded apace. The rapid crystallisation of a left wing around the Peronist youth and
the Montoneros showed the revolutionary potential of the Argentine proletariat.
The Montoneros and the Peronist Youth were groping
towards a revolutionary Marxist position. Had there been a strong Marxist wing, they could
undoubtedly have been won over. There is a powerful analogy with the Spanish Young
Socialists in 1935. However, in the absence of the subjective factor, the opportunity was
lost. Important sections of the Argentinian youth drifted into guerrillaism and individual
terrorism, with disastrous results. The defeat of the movement led to a military coup.
Tens of thousands of the best youth paid with their lives.
The third experience of Peronism has been different to the past. The terrible
crisis of Argentine capitalism means that reforms are no longer on the order of the day.
Peron is no longer present, and the present leadership under Menem has gone far to the
right, attacking the workers and carrying out a policy of privatisation which is the
opposite of the Peronist programme in the past.
This has caused colossal demoralisation, deepened by a profound slump and mass
unemployment. The Peronist leaders have learned from the past, and have prevented the
re-establishment of the Youth. The Montoneros have gone so far to the right, they have
actually been flirting with the most reactionary wing of the armed forces, who are
plotting a new coup.
Even so, there is the beginning of an opposition inside the Peronist trade unions.
The crisis will inevitably provoke new movements of the workers, which will inevitably
have an effect inside the Peronist movement, starting with the unions.
It is a measure of the sickness of world capitalism that the imperialists should
put pressure on the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America to carry through a
programme of privatisation.
This will lead to disaster. In such weak and backward economies, the
nationalisation of public amenities (railways, telecommunications, airlines, electricity)
and also the banks, is absolutely necessary even for the national bourgeoisie.
In the past this was understood by Peron, who carried out a programme of
nationalisation, though without breaking with capitalism. The "opening up" of
Argentina to imperialism will have catastrophic results, and prepare the way for the
defeat of Menem, and the return of the bourgeois Radicals on an even more reactionary
programme.
This, in turn, will prepare the ground for a big swing to the left. The policy of
nationalisation which has been "out of fashion," will become popular once again.
There will inevitably be a fierce reaction against "market economics," not only
in Argentina, but in all of Latin America. This, in turn, will create favourable
conditions once more for the work of the Marxists inside the Peronist movement.
In Pakistan, the revolutionary movement of 1969 brought to the fore the Pakistan
People's Party (PPP). Its leader, Bhutto, was compelled to use the most radical - sounding
"revolutionary" demagogy. The leadership of the PPP consists of bourgeois, and
even feudal landlords. Nevertheless, its base consists overwhelmingly of workers and
peasants, who support socialist ideas and are looking for a revolutionary way out.
In 1969, power was, in reality, in the hands of the workers and peasants of
Pakistan. The failure of Bhutto to carry out the revolution led to a nightmare - the
break-away of Bangladesh with terrible slaughter, a new war with India, and a new
dictatorship.
The execution of Bhutto made him into a martyr. After the fall of the Zia
dictatorship, the masses placed their hopes once again in the PPP, under the leadership of
Bhutto's daughter, Benazir. But even more than her father, Benazir Bhutto was completely
under the control of the landlords and capitalists, and particularly, the army. Having
used the PPP government to do the dirty work, the ruling class got rid of Benazir and
installed a reactionary Islamic government.
In Pakistan there is no real tradition of Stalinism, and there is no Social
Democratic party. The mass of the workers and poor peasants still look to the PPP because
there is no alternative.
As a result of the contradictions between the President and the prime minister,
Nawaz Sharif has been removed from office. The conflict at the top is a reflection of the
deep crisis of Pakistan capitalism. The President, Ghulam Ishaq, is playing a
semi-Bonapartist role, trying to cobble together a new government, involving the PPP.
New elections are due to be held, and, if they are not rigged (which is not so
likely now, because of the conflict between Sharif and Ishaq), the PPP should win.
Benazir
Bhutto, fearful of the pressure of the masses, does not want a majority PPP government.
She has surrounded herself with "allies" precisely in order to avoid this. She
wants to enter a coalition. However, the fall of Nawaz Sharif was the result of the crisis
of Pakistani society. The new government will
be under enormous pressure from the outset - from the masses demanding measures in their
interest, and from the landlords, capitalists, and the military, demanding measures to cut
living standards and restore
"order."
The new period of storm and stress will see a swing of the workers, peasants and
petit bourgeois to the PPP. Under conditions of crisis, the ferment within the party will
create big opportunities for the Pakistani Marxists in the future.
The pioneering work of the Pakistan Marxists has made good progress in a very short
space of time. As the crisis of Pakistan capitalism develops, the ideas of Marxism will
inevitably get a big audience, among the youth, the workers, the women and the poor
peasants. But this work can only come to fruition in and through the PPP and its mass
periphery.
What is true of the Peronists and the PPP is even more true of the ANC in South
Africa. Formally, the ANC was founded as a bourgeois-nationalist organisation. However,
its mass base is overwhelmingly composed of black proletarians and semi-proletarians,
including the most revolutionary sections of the youth.
For more than two decades, but particularly over the past ten years, the South
African proletariat has displayed a degree of revolutionary consciousness, heroism and
elan which can only be compared to the Chinese working class in 1923-27 or the Spanish
proletariat in 1931-37.
The Marxist tendency predicted from the start that the South African workers would
inevitably express themselves through the medium of the ANC. This has been shown to be
absolutely correct. Our perspective of a revolutionary movement based on the black
proletariat in South Africa was also shown to be correct, as against the insane tactic of
guerrilla war advocated by the ANC leadership in the past. The birth of COSATU was a
striking confirmation of the perspectives of the Marxists.
The policy of class collaboration being pursued by Mandela and the ANC leadership
(supported by the leaders of the SACP) has already led to growing discontent in the
rank-and-file of the ANC. This will inevitable develop, because a "compromise"
with De Klerk is only possible on the basis of a complete sell-out by the ANC leadership.
The glaring contrast between the aspirations of the mass of the blacks and the reality of
life in a "democratic" capitalist South Africa will cause an explosion of anger.
This means the inevitability of crises and splits in the ANC.
The assassination of Chris Hani acted as a catalyst to release the pent-up anger
and frustration of the masses of black South Africans. The popularity of Hani -possibly
even greater than that of Mandela - was because the masses saw him as standing for a
"communist" - i.e. revolutionary - solution to their problems. It seems that his
murder was not a spontaneous act, but part of a plan which apparently included the
assassination of Mandela, and even de Klerk. This indicates the explosive nature of the
situation in South Africa.
The general strike called in protest was completely successful, as on previous
occasions. The road to revolution was open, had the ANC leaders desired it. However, the
latter used the movement as a safety valve. In the absence of a revolutionary leadership,
the movement which followed unfortunately involved the murder of some whites, raising the
ghastly spectre of polarisation along racial lines.
All this shows that the policy of "compromise" pursued by the ANC leaders
will inevitable lead to disaster. The mass of blacks want jobs, homes, health and social
services and a living wage. This is ruled out by the crisis of capitalism.
Even if they could succeed in getting an ANC-NP government, the ANC leaders would
be compelled to act as the puppets of the white ruling class, unleashing repression
against the youth and the working class, in an effort to maintain a government which would
essentially mean the defence of the power and privilege of the white elite, and no real
change in the conditions of the black majority.
De Klerk wants a coalition government of the ANC-NP as a means of keeping
everything else intact - with only a thin layer of middle-class blacks benefiting. This is
a formula for future convulsions. The ANC leaders could not maintain this without
provoking massive upheavals in the townships, in society generally, and within the ANC
itself.
Events, including the movement after the Hani assassination, have revealed that the
ANC has the overwhelming support of the proletariat and the youth. The ANC can, however,
be rapidly caught up in internal convulsions unless they produce the results anticipated
by their mass following. That is the essential contradiction. An opposition will
inevitably begin to develop within the ranks of the ANC, which can seek a new road. The
policy of compromise and class collaboration is the road to disaster and demoralisation of
the masses.
Under these conditions, even a small Marxist current inside the ANC could quickly
get a powerful echo for its ideas. Unfortunately, the South African Taaffite sect has
developed on ultraleft lines, which has completely cut them off from the ANC
rank-and-file.
The small forces of genuine Marxism in South Africa have the task of re-grouping
and winning the cadres in ones and twos. However, despite all the difficulties, tremendous
possibilities will open up for work in the ANC, SACP and COSATU in the convulsive period
which now opens up.
THE
1980s
The
further elaboration of the tactics of work in the mass organisations realised by our
tendency over a period of 40 years represents an extension and deepening of the ideas of
the great Marxist teachers.
However, Marxists have never made a fetish of any organisational form or tactic.
The golden rule is at all times to find a way of connecting with the working class,
beginning with the active layer. This necessitates taking advantage of each and every
possibility which presents itself at each stage, while keeping firmly in mind the general
orientation and strategy.
The way in which Marxists link up with the most advanced and militant sections of
the youth and the workers must be worked out concretely in each country at each stage,
combining in a creative manner absolute firmness in the defence of programme and ideas
with absolute flexibility in the field of tactics.
It is not possible for small groups of revolutionaries to reach the mass of the
working class by a direct route. It is only possible indirectly, by winning over the
advanced workers in the shop stewards committees, trade union branches, Socialist and
Communist Party, and, of course, the youth.
Historical periods do not fit into neat compartments (the 70s, the 80s). They are
not determined by the arbitrary divisions of the calendar, but by the anarchic movement of
the productive forces, and the elemental force of the class struggle. Therefore, when we
refer to the 1970s and the 1980s as different periods, this is a rough approximation, used
for the sake of convenience and brevity. It is not meant to be taken literally - there are
important differences in different countries - however, when dealing with general
processes, this division can serve a useful purpose.
In general, the history of the last ten years or so stands in sharp contrast to the
decade which preceded it.
"There is a tide in the affairs of
men," wrote Shakespeare. The same can be said of the class struggle. Periods of
great movements and exertion are followed by periods of lull and apparent quiescence.
Engels explained that there are periods in which twenty years passes as a single day, and
others in which the history of twenty years can be summed up in 24 hours. The task of a
revolutionary party is to prepare for such periods, understanding that small revolutionary
organisations cannot determine the march of events. In difficult or unfavourable
situations, as Trotsky explains, it is necessary to dig in, educate cadres, and conquer
positions in the labour organisations which can serve as a base for advance when more
favourable conditions emerge. At the same time, it is necessary to take advantage of every
opportunity.
The task of building the party bears a certain analogy to climbing a steep cliff.
If one looks up to the top, the task appears virtually impossible. But instead of looking
up to the summit, it is necessary to look for a small crack to put a foot on, then
another, and another, until, finally the summit is reached.
The past decade has undoubtedly provided opportunities in every country - the
miners' strike in Britain, the general strike in Spain, the militant movements of the
Italian and Greek working class, the 35-hour movement in Germany, etc. But, in general,
the movement of the mass organisations, in contrast to the 1970s, has been to the right -
and, furthermore, far to the right.
This was a most peculiar period for the mass organisations. In most advanced
capitalist countries, the workers' parties were empty, probably more so than at any time
in the past. Relieved of the pressure of the class, the Socialist leaders went far to the
right. The left reformist wing, which had been powerful in the previous period, collapsed
everywhere.
When one observes a phenomenon like this, not in one or two cases, but in all
countries, to a greater or lesser extent, then it cannot be an accident, but must
correspond to profound processes at work in society and the working class itself.
It cannot be disputed that these phenomena have a material basis. And it is clear
that this is linked to the boom of 1982-90.
Every boom in history has had a similar effect, increasing the illusions in the
masses that they can solve their problems within the framework of the system. The worker
tries to improve his life as an individual, not as part of the class. He undermines his
health and family life, working long hours, overtime, weekend working, taking two jobs,
and so on. By these means, he obtains the little "luxuries" that make life worth
living - a colour Television, a video, a dishwasher, a second-hand car, even a house, all
bought on credit, of course.
It is true that the contradictions of capitalism, far from being eliminated, have
been intensified: there has been an increase in exploitation through speed-ups and
productivity deals, an increase of absolute and relative surplus-value, to use Marx's
expression. But the worker accepts that, so long as there is an ABSOLUTE increase in the
purchasing power and living standard of the family, which is further augmented by women
and young people working for low wages on temporary contracts.
In the period of heightened class struggle in the 1970s, a section of the workers
were beginning (only beginning) to draw revolutionary conclusions from their experience.
But that was cut across by the boom of 1982-90. It cannot be said that in general (there
have been exceptions, such as the magnificent British Miners' strike) the workers have
been drawing revolutionary conclusions in the last period. The general tendency has been
to try to find a way out within the capitalist system. Now, that process seems to have
reached its limit. But for a number of years, it had a big effect on the movement.
Freed from pressure from below, the Socialist and trade union leaders moved far to
the right. This, in turn, served to further repel the workers who dropped out of activity.
Never in history have the labour leaders been so remote from the working class, so open
and blatant in their espousal of bourgeois ideas. That process, however, is also reaching
its limits.
The 1980s were characterised generally as a period of right-wing bourgeois
governments - Reagan and Bush in the USA, Thatcher, and now Major in Britain, Kohl in
Germany, and so on. Where Social Democratic or Labour governments were elected, they
carried out policies which were fundamentally no different to the bourgeois: in Spain,
France, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Despite their anti-working class policies, these governments remained in power for
a long time, on the strength of the boom. Now that situation is changing. The French
Socialists have suffered a humiliating defeat. It is most likely that Felipe Gonzalez will
lose his absolute majority in the next elections.
In Britain, the Conservative government is now the most unpopular government since
records began. In Sweden there has been a massive wave of strikes against the bourgeois
government. In Germany, Kohl, who achieved great popularity as a result of unification, is
now in deep trouble. In the USA, George Bush, the "hero of the Gulf War" was
defeated as a direct result of the recession. A decade of Republican rule has been ended
by the victory of the Democrats.
In Italy, the impasse of capitalism is reflected in the crisis of the entire
political and parliamentary system. The epidemic of scandals affects all the leading
parties. The depth of the crisis can only be compared to the Dreyfuss scandal in France a
hundred years ago, which nearly led to civil war. Lenin thought that a revolution could
take place in France at that time, in the middle of an economic upswing, because of the
political crisis. In fact, if there existed a strong revolutionary party, Italy would be
on the eve of revolution at the present time.
The political crisis also exists in other capitalist countries - in Japan, Denmark
and Canada. The widespread nature of the crisis is a clear indication that we are now
entering into an entirely new period in world politics.
A
NEW PERIOD
Revolutionary tendencies do not exist in a vacuum. They are subject to the
pressures of capitalism, like the class as a whole. These pressures can have an effect in
our ranks, to the degree that we have not sufficiently raised the theoretical level of all
the comrades to understand the nature of the period through which we are passing.
After a long period of objective difficulties, a certain subjective tiredness can
creep in. There can be a certain level of frustration
at the slowness of our advance. However, it would be fatal to confuse that
tiredness with the real mood of the class, or permit moods of frustration to dictate our
policy and tactics.
There is an additional problem which can affect the Marxist vanguard at the present
time. We are not generally in contact with the mass of the workers. In the main, we are in
touch with the active layer of the class - that layer which has been most affected by the
problems of the last period.
These are people who have made big sacrifices in the past. But they are not
Marxists and have no perspective for the future and do not understand the movement of the
class. They are disappointed by past defeats, repelled by the corrupt right-wing
leadership, and in a state of despair.
The collapse of Stalinism was the "last straw" for a layer of workers,
especially in the orbit of the CP, but also left reformists who looked to Moscow. Of
course, one cannot under-estimate the effects of this. However, it would be a serious
mistake also to over-estimate them. The move towards capitalism in Russia - if it is
completed - would represent a serious set-back. But it would not be decisive. Let us not
forget that Trotsky put forward the possibility of capitalist restoration as a result of
the military defeat of the Soviet Union in the War, at the same time as he advanced the
perspective of world revolution. Moreover, the effects of the collapse of Stalinism affect
some layers more than others, and are greater in some countries than others. They cannot
be long-lasting, nor do they affect the perspectives for a new upswing of the class
struggle.
DISORIENTATION
OF ACTIVISTS
Undoubtedly, a layer
of the activists are confused and disoriented. Unless we are absolutely clear and firm,
this can rub off on our own comrades.
The Taaffe group were undoubtedly affected by the ephemeral moods of society, and
buckled under the pressures of alien classes. These moods affected a section of the
leadership, who exchanged the Marxist method for eclecticism, empiricism and
impressionism.
They threw the traditions of the Marxist movement overboard, like so much
superfluous ballast. As a result, they will be blown hither and thither by every
capricious breeze. They have completely lost their bearings.
Their mistake is to exaggerate their forces, displaying a complete lack of
proportion. All history shows that the masses, when they enter into struggle, always tend
to look for the road of least resistance. They will always express themselves through the
big, well-known organisations, the unions and the traditional parties. They will try, time
and again, to transform these parties. Only on the basis of colossal historical events
will the working class, having repeatedly tried to change these organisations, begin to
look for an alternative.
The idea that a small organisation of a thousand or so people can compete with the
Labour Party is ludicrous in the extreme. It would be ludicrous for a party ten times that
size. Trotsky even considered the ILP, with 100.000 supporters, as a propaganda sect. What
would he say of the Taaffites?
In reality, the workers will not even notice these people. When the class begins to
move, they will be left high and dry. It is highly unlikely that they will ever get back
into the LP. They are systematically miseducating the unfortunate young people who fall
under their influence with hair-brained ultraleftism. They have not the slightest idea of
how to move a resolution, argue a case, or even speak the same language as the Labour
workers. At some time in the future, when they have burnt their fingers with their
adventurist "turn," it is possible that they will attempt to crawl back to the
LP on an opportunist policy. From ultraleftism to opportunism and back again - that is
always the way! However, they would not find it so easy. First, a massive split in their
ranks would not be easy to get them to change. Even if they did, those who joined would
soon drop out, having failed to make any impact. They would sink like a stone. Moreover,
if we do our work in the next period, educating cadres, conquering positions, and building
up a periphery of sympathisers by patient
work, we will be strategically posed to take advantage of the left wing, once it began to
develop. We will be in "on the ground floor."
The main thing to understand is that THE SITUATION HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO CHANGE ON A
WORLD SCALE. Unfortunately, Marxists tend to be the most conservative people. There is a
tendency to look backwards, to mull over the problems and difficulties of the past period,
and not see the fundamental change which has taken place.
Of course, that does not mean that all our problems are solved, that the masses
will now flood into the mass organisations, tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. The process is
in its early beginnings. It is a mistake to confuse the ninth month of pregnancy for the
first. But it is an even bigger mistake to deny that the act of conception has taken
place.
The present period can be characterised as a transitional period, in which elements
of the old mingle with elements of the new. Important layers of the activists are still
under the influence of past defeats. Many of them are pessimistic and sceptical. But once
the fresh winds of the class struggle begin to blow, the best of them will be
reinvigorated.
On the other hand, there is the beginning of renovation of the active layer with
the incorporation of new blood, a new generation of young workers who lack the traditions
of the old generation, and will have to learn all the old lessons again through painful
experience.
PASOK
Of course, the position is not the same in every country. For the whole of the last
period the Greek working class has been in the vanguard of the European revolution,
reflecting the great traditions of the Greek proletariat and the calamitous position of
Greek capitalism. The PASOK has generally stood to the left of the European Social
Democracy, although, there too, there has been a movement to the right.
The experience of PASOK holds very serious lessons for the whole of the European
labour movement. In the course of its not very long history, the PASOK has
"emptied" and "filled up" several times in the course of its
existence. In effect, its membership has been totally renewed. This will occur many times
in the future, and not only in Greece.
At the present time most of the Socialist Parties are empty, or full of bureaucrats
and careerist. But that will change. The splits at the top of the British Labour Party
between the 'modernisers' around Smith and the 'traditionalists' around Morris and
Edmunds, are a harbinger of what is to come. The defeat of the right's original proposals
to break the link between the party and the unions, reflect the limits of how far the
right can go. The leadership have been forced to come out for full employment. It
represents the beginnings of a recoil against the right wing. The witch-hunt has also run
its course for the time being, and the youth wing is being relaunched. Of course, the
Taaffites, mesmerised by their open party, are incapable of detecting these changes.
The sects wrote off the French Socialist Party in 1968, but were proven to be
wrong. In France the SP has suffered a heavy defeat as a result of right wing policies.
But the experience of a right-wing bourgeois government in conditions of social crisis
will lead to convulsions. The French proletariat has a glorious tradition of struggle.
They will soon re-learn those traditions. Marx said that France was the country where the
class-struggle was always fought to the finish. That will prove to be a prophetic
statement in the coming period.
In opposition, the French SP will come under the pressure of a radicalised labour
movement. Sooner or later, the workers will look for a political alternative. The sects in
France, though bigger than elsewhere, cannot provide it. The CP has declined in strength,
although it still has important reserves, and can grow. But the SP will be the main arena
of struggle. At a given stage, the extreme right wingers like Rocard can be vomited out,
preparing the way for a big swing to the left.
In Spain also, the PSOE after ten years in government, is virtually empty. But even
before a big movement of the workers, there are cracks opening up in the leadership. A
section of the extreme right wing, the "renovators," want to break the link with
socialism and the working-class, and transform the PSOE into an openly bourgeois party.
These elements represent the open agents of Capital inside the PSOE.
On the other hand, the party apparatus, represented by Alfonso Guerra, is uneasy
about the rapid drift to the right. Unlike the extreme right wing, who can rely upon good
jobs in the boards of directors of banks and big business "for services
rendered," the rest of the parliamentary party and the party functionaries are afraid
of losing the election. They do not want the Socialist Party to be destroyed. But Gonzalez
and the right wing appear to be indifferent to what happens to the PSOE. Either way, their
future is guaranteed. Their only concern is to do the dirty work of big business, their
paymasters, and to hell with the consequences.
At the moment, the split at the top of the PSOE appears to be merely a conflict
between different factions of the bureaucracy, with little or no political content. But
that can change very quickly.
The policy of cuts by the Gonzalez government and the crisis hitting the Spanish
economy have resulted in a rise in support for the IU (United Left), the Communist
Party-led alliance. Marxists should turn towards it and in areas where there are
favourable possibilities they should join. This would in no way cut across our general
orientation to the Socialist Party.
The Spanish union leaders, both the UGT and CCOO. would like nothing better than to
do a deal with Felipe Gonzalez - that is particularly true of Gutirrez, the right wing
leader of the CCOO. But all the attempts have so far failed. While it cannot be ruled out
that some kind of a deal may be stitched up, it would not be long lasting, would rapidly
break down, ushering in a new period of class conflict. The revolutionary temper of the
Spanish workers was shown in the 24-hour general strike on 14th December 1988. That was
only a dress rehearsal for what will happen in the next period.
Spanish capitalism had the highest rate of growth of any European country during
the boom. Now the slump has hit Spain harder than the rest, cruelly exposing the weakness
of Spanish capitalism. That fact is the key to the next chapter in Spanish history.
Already there have been contacts between Redondo, leader of the UGT, and Guerra.
Under the pressure of the working class, the hairline crack between Gonzalez and his
ex-lieutenant can become an open split, especially when the PSOE loses the majority.
Gonzalez may attempt to put together a coalition with the Basque and Catalan
bourgeois nationalists. But this would be an extremely weak and unstable government, which
probably would not last long under conditions of crisis. Most likely, the break-up of such
a coalition would prepare the way for the return of a right wing bourgeois government. It
is highly unlikely that the PSOE could remain united under such circumstances.
The extreme right-wing "renovators" are the open agents of the bourgeois
in the Socialist Party. At any time they can cross the floor of parliament and join the
bourgeois. They could bring the government down on a vote of confidence, and then use the
king's powers to form a government with the right wing. Such a coalition of the bourgeois
and the right-wing socialists would probably win a landslide in a subsequent general
election. The bourgeois, having used and discredited the PSOE, would not hesitate to split
the party, and attempt to destroy it.
That would not be the end of the PSOE. Quite the contrary. The elimination of the
extreme right wing would be the prior condition for the complete renovation of the
Socialist Party, which would rapidly recover lost ground in opposition. The stage would
then be set, at a given moment, for the election of a left PSOE government.
The last period was characterised as a period of democratic illusions. But the
experience of the 1970s shows that bourgeois democracy in the period of capitalist decay
is a very sickly plant. The threat of left-wing socialist parties coming to power would
set the alarm-bells ringing in the board-rooms and officers' mess. Inevitably, there will
be conspiracies and attempted coups, and even the possibility of new monstrous bonapartist
regimes, like that of the Greek colonels in the 1960s. Spain, Italy and Greece herself are
prime candidates for at least attempted coups in the next period. But Britain and even
France are not so far behind. Despite all the noise they make, the fascist parties are
very small, although extremely violent and virulent. Discredited by memories of the past,
they are unlikely to attract the mass of the petit bourgeois. Moreover, after the
experience of Hitler and Mussolini, the bankers and capitalists are not likely to want to
hand power to fascist lunatics, who would be difficult to control. They prefer the more
"gentlemanly" officer caste, over whom they think they will have more influence.
They will use the fascist gangs as auxiliaries to terrorise the working class, but prefer
reaction in the form of a military police-state. However, as the experience of the Greek
Junta shows, such a regime would be a nightmare for the working class.
The threat of reaction will itself act as a powerful radicalising force. The
workers will demand action to defeat the fascist gangs and conspirators. The labour
leaders, with endless vacillations, will be compelled to sanction at least some actions to
save their skin. General Strikes, massive mobilisations, and even actual civil war can
result from this. Long before reaction could succeed in any developed capitalist society,
the working class will be faced, on many occasions, with the chance of taking power. Under
such conditions, the ideas of Marxism will find an ever-increasing audience in the labour
organisations - on condition that we are there to put them forward in a clear and skillful
manner, while fighting shoulder to shoulder with the rest of our class to defend every
gain, to fight for every meaningful reform, to combat reaction in all its forms, and to
PATIENTLY EXPLAIN at every juncture, the need for a revolutionary transformation of
society.
Thus, the whole situation has turned full-circle. The situation that existed from
1948-73 will be seen, in retrospect, to have been an historical exception, which, in all
likelihood, will never be repeated. The boom of 1982-90 was a temporary respite for
capitalism, but has now exhausted itself, for reasons we have explained elsewhere.
The euphoria of the bourgeois after the fall of the Berlin Wall has rapidly turned
into its opposite. As the Financial Times remarked acidly: If it were not for the crisis of "communism,"
everyone would now be talking about the crisis of capitalism. The strategists of
capital look with dread to the future. It is gradually dawning on the consciousness of
their more intelligent representatives that their system now finds itself in a massive
historical impasse.
The Marxists should take heed of this fact, for, in the long run, it is the only
fact which matters. The temporary success of right reformism is doomed to melt away like
snow in Summer. The right reformist leaders themselves will be brushed aside in the next
period. Already the Socialist rank-and-file is beginning to have doubts about the ability
of the "great men" of yesterday, who promised them everything, and have
delivered only unemployment, falling living standards and electoral defeat.
The right reformists regard themselves as great statesmanlike realists, but in
reality understand nothing. For their part, the left reformists understand even less. They
would like to go back to the policies of Keynesianism and reform - but without breaking
with capitalism. That is to say, they would like to go back to the old programme of the
right reformists, which has been thoroughly discredited by the experience of socialist
government everywhere.
Part of the reason for the collapse of left reformism in the last period is that
they are organically incapable of offering a consistent alternative, or of putting up a
serious fight against the right reformists. The latter are infinitely bolder, more
decisive and more determined, because they are the direct agents of big business, and feel
themselves backed by the bankers and capitalists who control the money and the media. On
the other hand, the Marxists are equally consistent and determined, because we represent
the standpoint of the working class. The left-reformist leaders inevitably represent a
petit-bourgeois trend, which by its very nature is unstable, inconsistent and vacillating.
Their hatred of the right wing is parallelled by their fear of and hostility to the
"dogmatic and sectarian Marxists." It is the mentality of the petit-bourgeois
who curses the banks and big trusts, but is equally furious about the workers, their
unions and strikes.
Experience shows that the "Lefts" are incapable of organising any
coherent opposition to the right wing. The right reformists, as open agents of the
bourgeois, are always much bolder, more consistent and more decisive than the muddled
"Lefts." They lose no opportunity to attack the Left, when they are in the
saddle. But the Lefts always try to conciliate the right whenever they get a measure of
power. They are particularly allergic to mobilising and organising the rank-and-file
Socialist workers to fight the right wing. They fear that it might "get out of
hand," i.e. the workers might go beyond the bounds laid down by them and demand real
socialist policies.
The Left will come to life normally only when workers begin to get active in the
party. Therefore, while we should keep a close eye on developments, it would be wrong to
attach too much importance to the hundred and one half-baked "initiatives" of
the left reformists, involving the establishment of all kinds of committees representing
no-one but themselves, which inevitably end in nothing. The mass left wing cannot be
"built" in an artificial way, but must reflect a genuine movement of the class
around issues which directly affect working people.
However, under conditions of extreme social crisis, as Trotsky explains, even left
reformists can go much further than they intend.
We should, therefore, be vigilant, follow closely the internal life of the party,
attend meetings, do the work, move resolutions, and generally seize each and every
opportunity.
However, it is still early days. The main work is still in the youth and in the
unions, which are the key to the Socialist Parties.
THE
TRADE UNIONS
The
trade unions are, one way or another, linked to the socialist or communist parties. In
some cases, such as Britain, there is an organic link. The British trade unions created
the Labour Party and are affiliated directly to it. The struggle to defend the link with
the unions is one of the key issues in the Labour Party at the present time. In other
countries, it was the party which created the unions. But, whether direct or indirect, the
connection is always present, and is a decisive factor in the political equation. Not for
nothing do the bourgeois constantly rage about the link between the workers' parties and
the unions, representing the Socialist leaders as "prisoners" of the unions,
while remaining silent about the direct (and profitable) links which bind the bourgeois
parties to the banks and big monopolies.
As the most basic organisations of the class, the unions have maintained their hold
on the masses in all countries, despite temporary fluctuations in the level of membership.
For a revolutionary tendency, work in the trade unions is a categorical imperative at all
times. The writings of Lenin and the resolutions and theses of the first four congresses
of the Communist International explain the necessity to work in even the most reactionary
unions, and the impermissibility of leaving the unions or splitting away the advanced
workers from the mass.
The Marxist tendency will be built, first and foremost, by systematic work in the
trade unions. But this work naturally leads on to work in the political organisations of
the class also.
The internal life of the unions is a faithful barometer of the rise and fall of the
class struggle and the activity of the masses. At certain times, the trade unions will
fill out with the active participation of millions of workers. At others, they will be at
a very low ebb, with only a small number of members active. But at all times it is
necessary to maintain the work in the trade unions.
In periods of social crisis, the most advanced workers will become dissatisfied
with the limitations of trade union work alone, and will begin to seek a way out through
the political organisations. As a rule, they will not look to small revolutionary groups,
even where they may sympathise with their ideas, but will inevitably express themselves
through the traditional workers' parties, which are closely linked to their trade unions.
Marxists must therefore be present in these organisations, in order to give a conscious
expression to the aspirations of the workers. It must always be borne in mind that the
workers will move time and time again to transform the trade unions and the political
organisations of the class.
The law which was worked out by this tendency decades ago remains unconditionally
correct. In every case, the masses, where they begin to seek a political expression, will
inevitably turn to their traditional mass organisations.
As a result of a powerful historical combination of forces, the Marxist tendency
has been reduced to a small minority, more or less isolated from the class. This situation
will inevitably change in the future, but on one condition: that we maintain our
orientation to the mass organisations, and conduct patient and systematic revolutionary
work within them.
THE
YOUTH
Since
the inception of the tendency, work in the unions as been parallelled by systematic work
amongst the youth. Given the social position of youth, it has always been a main spring in
the development of the revolutionary movement. "He
who has the youth, has the future", stated Lenin. We would add, and Lenin would
agree, especially under present conditions, "he
who develops youth cadres, has the future". In his book "In Defence of Marxism", Trotsky urged
the leadership of the American SWP to politically ground its youth cadres in the
fundamentals of Marxism and integrate them into the working class movement. The trade
unions and the youth have therefore been considered the twin pillars of our work and
activity.
The
vital importance of winning the youth to Marxism was continually stressed by Trotsky in
his advice to the small Trotskyist groups in the 1930's. As we mentioned earlier, it was
precisely the failure of the Nin group in Spain to enter the Spanish Young Socialists that
led to the them being captured by the Stalinists, and ultimately led to the shipwreck of
the revolution.
The
building of the tendency in Britain, from its earliest beginnings, was through the youth,
especially its support in the YS. This in turn, also provided us with the vehicle for the
building of international contacts and the construction of the basic cadres of the
international itself.
It was
no accident that the prime target of the Labour bureaucracy's witch hunt against us
internationally, was the youth organisation where we built our influence. In Denmark, out
of panic at our success elsewhere, the bureaucracy took action in the youth organisation
before we had formally established a group. In
Spain, the YS was closed down. In Ireland, Sweden, Belgium and elsewhere, a witch hunt was
undertaken in the youth. In Britain, using salami tactics and bureaucratic manoeuvres, the
YS was reduced to a shell.
However,
where we were blocked in the official youth organisation, and fighting to maintain our
positions, we nevertheless adopted a flexible approach. In Spain, for instance, we
established the 'Youth for Socialism' campaign, and later the School Students Union, which
proved to be an outstanding asset. Where no official youth organisation exists, the SE was
able to establish itself in the vacuum that opened up. Under our leadership, it has
mobilised millions of youth in campaigns and strikes against government cuts in education
and anti-student legislation, also in protests against the Gulf War. Though this organisation we have been able to
influence events in the labour movement, building points of support and even influencing
the development of the general strikes of December 1988, and the 25th
November this year. It has also been at the forefront of
local and regional disputes affected large groups of workers.
Internationally,
with the development of the witch hunt, and the official channels being partially or
totally blocked, the need arose for greater flexibility, combining work in the official
structures with more independent work. This resulted in the establishment of ad-hoc bodies
through which we could develop our youth work, such as the YTURC in Britain.
However,
with the increasing development of sectarian tendencies within the old organisation, many
official youth organisations were gradually abandoned needlessly for independent work.
Instead of a flexible, but balanced approach - as characterised by our earlier work - the
difficulties in the official structures were over exaggerated, leading to a complete
abandonment of the YS.
Given
the departure of the Taaffites from the LP in Britain, the Labour leadership, as in 1959
and 1965, have now taken the decision to re-launch the official youth organisation and
lowering the age limit to 27.
The
Militant is now attempting to construct a mass independent youth organisation, completely
divorced from the labour movement, based on the single issue of racism and the abandonment
of socialist policies. As was stated by their spokesperson in a radio interview, their
youth organisation welcomed Liberals and Conservatives provided they were against racism!
As with their doomed attempt to form a Black organisation on opportunist black nationalist
lines, their opportunist youth movement will
meet a similar fate.
The
departure of Militant and the new developments in the labour movement will provide us in
Britain with opportunities for our development - provided we work on a principled basis
with great tact and flexibility.
The
need for Marxists to work systematically in the official youth organisations of the mass
parties, taking into consideration the concrete conditions in each country, is of vital
importance. These organisations will fill out as the youth turn towards political
activity. However, we can accelerate this process. as where we build our influence, we can
turn these organisations into genuine campaigning bodies, taking up the issues facing the
youth. As events radicalise the youth, they will become increasingly open to our ideas. In
Belgium, the YS has been affected by the growth of Vlams Bloc which has provided a fertile
ground for our organisation. A new situation is opening up with a number of our expelled
comrades being taken back into membership. In Greece, our organisation made a marvellous
intervention into the first 800-strong
congress of the PASOK youth, where two comrades were elected onto the executive committee.
At
this stage, in a number of countries, the large layer of youth have been alienated from
the traditional parties. Some, mainly petty bourgeois youth, have been pushed towards
anarchistic ideas. However, as the crisis develops, the youth, which is a barometer of the
underlying processes, will move very quickly into action and play a key role in
revitalising the labour movement. It will tend to be the younger, fresher layers of the
proletariat that will come to the fore. This is beginning to happen. The strikes in Italy,
Belgium and France is a symptom of the unrest that will develop on a European and world
scale. Young workers will provide the backbone for this change.
CAPITALIST
CRISIS AND THE GROWTH OF WORKING-CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS
The
main idea that we must grasp is that there has been a decisive change in the objective
situation. The boom in world capitalism of 1982-90, which set its stamp on the previous
period, has now definitely ended. The recession in the "Anglo-Saxon" countries
has been followed by economic crises in Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Spain. The recovery
in the USA and, especially, Britain has a very feeble and unstable character. On the other
hand, the rapid growth of protectionist tendencies, explained in the document, threatens
to undermine the whole basis of the growth of capitalism since 1945 - world trade.
The
last twelve months have provided ample material to demonstrate the beginnings of a
profound change, not only in the economic situation, but also in the psychology of the
masses: the defeat of the Republicans in the USA, the fall of the Socialists in France, of
Schlueter in Denmark, and the crises and splits in the ruling parties and coalitions in
Germany, Japan, Britain, and, above all, Italy, is an indication of a growing social and
political ferment.
The
crisis of US capitalism is shown by the fact that George Bush, at the end of the Gulf War,
had the highest popularity rating of any US President in history, yet lost the elections.
The discontent and ferment in the middle class was reflected in the support for Perot,
who, even after withdrawing from the campaign, got 20% of the vote.
The
beneficiaries of the discontent in society were, in the end, the Democrats. Clinton's
programme of public expenditure, however was insignificant. His real programme of "America first" represents precisely a
programme of protectionism and an attempt to solve the problems of the US economy by
intervening forcefully on world markets.
The
provocative statements of the new US administration on world trade are hardly a good
augury for the GATT negotiations. Already Washington has taken a protectionist stance on
steel and procurement sales, and threatened the EC with retaliation if no deal is reached
on agriculture.
The
problem is that all the other capitalist powers are following the same path. This is shown
by the spate of competitive devaluations, which are reminiscent of the 1930s. The Japanese
continue to run a big trade surplus with the US. The French are threatening to veto a deal
on agriculture. And despite a big fall in the value of the dollar, the US economy has not
benefited significantly in the last period. This seems to indicate that the intervention
on world markets will not provide the answer, as it did in the past, and will produce an
open conflict with Europe and Japan.
SICKNESS
OF CAPITALISM
The
sickness of capitalism was shown by the fact that, even in the boom period, the bourgeois
continued to close down industry and attack the welfare state and the gains of the working
class. This will have an effect on the consciousness, not only of the workers, but big
sections of the middle class in all countries in the next period.
In the
long period of capitalist upswing from 1948 to 1973, the recessions which took place were
shallow and not long-lasting. Their effects were barely noticed by the working class.
However, the present period is entirely different, as shown by the length and depth of the
recession in the USA and Britain, and the enormous difficulties in getting out of it.
On the other hand, if the workers have been through a period of debilitating
defeats, then a slump can mean further demoralisation and passivity, and the workers will
only begin to respond when there is the beginning of a new boom.
In the
past, Trotsky pointed to the fact that the working-class, where it is checked on the
industrial front, tends to seek a solution in the political field.
The
experience of capitalist crisis over a period, will gradually undermine these illusions.
But this is not an automatic process, and will require time, and great events which will
shake society from top to bottom.
In
Spain, on the other hand, a period of rapid economic growth partly served to blunt the
edge of the movement. Despite this, there were two general strikes, and a whole series of
fierce defensive battles of those sections faced with "reconversion." However,
in absolute terms, living standards increased (although at the cost of the workers' health
and family life). For example, the average wage rose from 29% to 66% of the German level.
Now
the Spanish economy has experienced a sharp fall. The weakness of Spanish capitalism has
been brutally exposed. The capitalists are demanding deep cuts in living standards. But
the Spanish working class has emerged strengthened from the boom. Its forces are intact.
Under these circumstances, any attempt to pass the bill for the crisis of Spanish
capitalism to the working class will lead to a social explosion. Let the Spanish bosses
reduce the wages, not to 29%, but to 60% of the German level, and that will provoke the
most fierce resistance.
As a
general rule, an upturn in the economy gives an impetus to economic struggles for higher
wages, while, in a recession (or small slump), one could expect to see all kinds of
defensive struggles, which, under certain circumstances, can become transformed into
offensive struggles, up to and including factory occupations, and general strikes.
However,
this is not an absolute rule. It depends on the concrete circumstances of each country,
which are different from every other country, not only because the economic cycle is
different, but because of different traditions, different levels of organisations and so
on.
The
main thing to understand is that neither booms nor slumps in and of themselves lead to
radicalisation, or its opposite. It is above all the rapid transition from boom to slump
and back to boom which undermines social and political stability, removes the old
certainties, and causes the workers to begin to question the existing social order. In any
event, on the basis of capitalism, there is no way out for society. Gradually, through
their experience -both positive and negative - the workers, beginning with the most
conscious and active layer will come to understand this and draw the necessary
conclusions.
WE
DO NOT CHANGE COURSE!
Where,
as in Spain, we have won important positions through our independent work, these positions
must be defended and reinforced. Our most important weapon is the youth organisation,
which can provide an invaluable bridge both to the youth, who are at present not in any
organisation, and to the mass organisations, as a result of the marvellous work in the
past. At the same time, it is necessary to prepare the youth for a turn to the mass
organisations which will begin to enter into crisis, as shown by the split in the
leadership of the PSOE.
In
Italy, we have a unique situation where, for the first time in history, a Trotskyist
tendency has succeeded in establishing itself as a recognised tendency among the Communist
workers and youth. This is an enormous achievement.
The
impasse of Italian society expresses itself in the crisis of all the existing parties,
including the workers' parties. This was already anticipated in the split in the former
"Communist" party, with the creation of the PDS and RC. The crisis has also
shaken the trade unions. The emergence of the left current "Essere Sindicato" is
important as a symptom and an anticipation. The leaders of this trend, naturally, want to
organise exclusively at the top, and not in the rank-and-file. However, the discontent and
frustration of the workers is running very deep. New explosions are inevitable, both in
the unions and the workers' parties, which will open up new opportunities for the Marxist
tendency. Italy, together with Greece, Spain, and now also Britain, belongs to the group
of weak capitalist powers in Europe. The profound crisis of Italian capitalism will create
condition for the most extreme radicalisation of the workers and youth, along with an
extreme polarisation to the left and right, which will inevitably find its expression
inside the workers' organisations, as is the 1930s.
SUBJECTIVE
FACTOR
The
weakness of the subjective factor means that there will be a long drawn-out process in all
the main capitalist countries. The enormous accumulated power of the working class - a
thousand times stronger than before the War - means
that the bourgeois cannot move quickly towards
Bonapartist reaction, although that tendency will be present all the time, Amato's attempt
to rule by decree is only one indication of this. But the social reserves of reaction in
Italy and all other countries have been whittled away over the decades of
industrialisation. The peasantry has been reduced to a small minority. The white collar
workers have moved far closer to the industrial working class.
In
many countries, such as Germany, the mass of students went over to Nazism before the War,
because the working class did not show a way out. Now, the general movement of the
students is to the left. However, in the future that can change into its opposite, if the
working class does not offer an alternative.
Because
of the absence of the subjective factor, the middle layers are displaying enormous
volatility. Losing faith in the traditional "establishment" parties, they can
swing all over the place - to the right, the left, and back again. If the Socialist and
Communist leaders offered a serious way out, they would support a revolutionary
transformation, as happened in France in 1968, when the French farmers set up barricades
and distributed free food to the striking workers. The Europe of the monopolies offers no
future to the farmers, fishermen and small business people. On the contrary, they are
being crushed by the banks and big monopolies. To the degree that the working class do not
offer a revolutionary alternative, layers of the middle class, in despair, can swing
towards reaction, in the form of right-wing demagogues like Le Pen in France, the Italian
Northern League, the German Republicans, and the like. But tomorrow, the same farmers and
middle class people can throw their weight behind the proletariat in struggle. As someone
once said: "Whatever the current Bible of the petit bourgeoisie, its God is always
Power." A revolutionary movement of workers to transform society would attract the
support of the oppressed layer of the middle class. The "moderate" speeches of
the right wing reformists in parliament merely repel them, and drive them into the arms of
reaction.
The
coming period will be much more similar to the 1930s than the period of the past 40 years.
Over a period, the ideas of Marxism will begin to get an echo in the masses, beginning
with the active layer in the trade unions and mass workers' parties. This will create the
conditions for the transformation of small groups into mass revolutionary tendencies.
There
is, however, one condition: that we do not allow ourselves to be knocked off course - that
we remain absolutely firm in defence of our ideas, tactics, and methods of work. WE DO NOT CHANGE COURSE! In this way, we will
begin to grow rapidly when conditions change. But for the present, patience is required.
For every one or two that we can recruit AND TRAIN
at present, we will win tens and hundreds in the future.
1st
November, 1993