It's called the Second Russian Revolution. This time, however, it's not a
revolution of hope but a "revolution" of despair. Neither Boris Yeltsin nor his
imperialist mentors know where they are going or really what the future is for
million of citizens of what was the Soviet Union. The reality is that what
happened in Russia was not a revolution but a counter-revolution. Although a
general strike was called with a minority of workers participating the
leadership is in no way that of the proletariat but that of newly developed
middle classes and sections of the bureaucracy. These bureaucrats have been
hankering to become bourgeois for a long time.
There has been a movement towards capitalism going on for some time. The last
issue of Moscow News put out before the coup claimed the majority of workers
would prefer to work for a boss. Establishing capitalism threatened the
positions of sections the bureaucracy who responded with their bureaucratic way
- with a military coup. These bureaucrats had no social base. And as the
bureaucracy was divided, the armed forces could be split and the coup defeated.
Capitalist restoration can not be fought through the stalinist bureaucracy.
There are very serious problems for the counter�revolutionaries . It is not
enough to want capitalism, the point is to establish it. And this is easier said
than done. Capitalism is an economic system dominated by a law of value. In the
Soviet Union the law of value was abolished by the October Revolution. The
October Revolution was, however, strangled by a bureaucratic counter-revolution.
Capitalism has a distribution mechanism -- the market. Under real communism we
will establish a distribution mechanism based on workers' control. But the
stalinist bureaucracy only produced inefficiency. Production was uncoordinated.
The result was that there was no link made between supply and demand. Queues and
shortages and poor quality became a consistent feature of Soviet life. Some
commentators, including members of the International Socialist Organisation,
have claimed shortages are merely an exercise in disciplining the working class.
This may be true to a degree. But the inefficiency in turn hurts the bureaucracy
who also were hampered by poor quality products.
The introduction of capitalism requires changing the role of banking and money.
Legislation must be introduced to introduce private ownership of the means of
production. Yeltsin and Gorbachev are attempting to facilitate these changes by
becoming a Bonapartist dictatorship with the Supreme Soviet merely their rubber
stamp.
Serious problems are posed for Gorbachev and Yeltsin by the national question.
This was an important part of the counter-revolution. And many had faith in
rogues like Yeltsin to satisfy the national grievances which the Stalinists had
treated with contempt. In Russia there is widespread resentment about the
Russian Federation subsidising the outer nationalities. But the problem with the
break-up is the co-ordination of resources. The tendency towards capitalism is
going at a different rate in different countries. In Uzbekistan the Communist
Party is still in authority with a different name and has indicated that only
minor reforms will be made. But in Kazakhstan there is wholesale support for
capitalism.
The World Bank would also appreciate a centralised authority for negotiations.
They hanker for the days when Gorbachev was the man in charge. They could rely
on him. Now things are not quite so clear cut.
Yeltsin has made it clear that there will be no tampering permitted with the
Russian Federation. In other word, those minority nations within this Federation
will also face tanks and the guns if they rebel just as before the "revolution".
For Yeltsin the right of self-determination for nations is extremely limited.
Gorbachev and Yeltsin are pinning their hopes on imperialist investment and aid.
Imperialists will only invest if they can be assured of profit. And assuring
capitalists that Soviet Union is efficient for their exploitation is a difficult
task. There is, after all, an economic crisis in the West.
"There is no hard currency without pain" is the World Bank's message. And the
pain will be mainly suffered by the working class. In their pursuit of
capitalist economic rationality, the new capitalists dispense with perhaps
millions of jobs and introduce massive inflation. What promises to be the future
for the working class of the former Soviet Union is all the disadvantages of
both systems -- capitalism and stalinism. The scarcities of commodities will
remain but not the stable prices for basic goods. Unemployment will intensify.
All this means austerity for workers of Russia and throughout the Soviet Union.
Despite the bureaucracy and inefficiency Soviet workers did not have to suffer
from inflation. Basic commodities, especially food, was kept at a basic low
price. Rent control was an accepted feature of society. All this is being
terminated. Unemployment has existed previously due to bureaucratic
inefficiency. And has been relatively minor. Now unemployment is going to strike
with a vengeance. And there is no social security system which adequately
provides safety net. Thousands will be evicted, unable to afford the rents
required by the privatised rental market. The capitalists will require a massive
reduction in wages in order for the Soviet economy to satisfy the requirements
of the World Bank. The Bank is counselling them not to fear inflation.
There is only one way of fighting this -- organising the working class for real
communism. The Soviet working class must organise now or face austerity! Factory
committees must be organised now to fight the privatisation. Real planning must
be introduced through workers' control. Whilst proletarian revolutionaries can
not be party to bourgeois national movements, we must show the working class
that under communism -- real communism -- the right on nations to
self-determination will be fully recognised.
Equal right to all cultures and languages must be recognised now!
Down with great Russian chauvinism!
Build a real communist Party!
Down with the CPSU!
It is only the proletariat that should deal with criminal bureaucrats not the
nascent capitalists. We must oppose the illegality of the fake Communist Party
especially when rank and file workers support it.
The demise of the Soviet Union has serious implications internationally. The
mere physical existence of the Soviet Union has been an inspiration to the world
proletariat. This is true despite the counter-revolutionary role of the
parasitic bureaucracy. The bureaucracy used this authority to strangle
revolutions. The massive counter�revolution is being used to demobilise workers
internationally. In the Philippines, for example, Corizon Aquino has declared
the New Peoples' Army to be finished, discredited by the demise of the USSR. A
marxist analysis of the Soviet Union's degeneration is required for the defence
of proletarian revolution internationally. It is only Trotskyism that has been
able to supply the analysis required.
The left has a responsibility to explain this degeneration. The analysis of some
tendencies has been exposed as thoroughly inadequate. The Socialist Alternative
(previously known as Communist League) told us not so long ago that the revolts
against stalinism constituted "political revolution". This has been shown to be
totally untrue. The Democratic Socialist Party in 1989 told us that Gorbachev
was restoring "peoples' power". They recently decided they were in error. But
this error was made during a period when a few of leading D.S.P. cadre went to
Moscow and through the Eastern block. They were unable in this period to
perceive the absence of peoples' power!
But the tendency that has most to answer for is the Socialist Party of
Australia, formed in support of the military occupation of Czechoslovakia by the
Warsaw Pact. The SPA do attack the coup as an "adventurist action" although they
are in agreement with its fundamental aims. But why wasn't the invasion of
Czechoslovakia also an adventure. After all, whilst the force was greater, the
imposed government there hardly had more support qualitatively. The SPA do
attack capitalist restorationists Gorbachev and Yeltsin. But they don't explain
why their opposition had no mass support. For the last two decades the SPA has
hammered the line that the USSR had "real democracy" and "real peoples' power".
So why was this overthrown so easily? The SPA have denounced all talk of
bureaucracy as being a "Trotskyist and imperialist slander". Now this has been
exposed from within the Soviet Union and has strangled the Soviet Union. For
years the SPA also informed us that the Soviet Union was winning the peaceful
competition between capitalism and socialism. What happens now that it has lost?
It is simply not enough to scape-goat individuals. Gorbachev and Yeltsin
wouldn�t have won without major degeneration within the Soviet Union.
The reconstruction of international Communism -- Trotskyism -- is a dire
necessity for saving the Soviet Union for communism and for class struggle
internationally. The international working class require answers as to what
went wrong. After all, to many throughout the world the degenerated Soviet Union
is hardly an inspiring model for the future society. If these lessons can be
learnt a new workers' state established in the Soviet Union could once again
become the beacon of world revolution. But this can only be done if stalinism is
confronted, lock stock and barrel
East Timor: Labor's Shame
It has taken a bloody massacre of students to bring Timor to the attention of
the Australian public. It was horrific and totally unjustified. But by Timorese
standards it's merely a drop in the ocean. Since 1975 an estimated 100,000
people have been murdered by the Indonesian butchers -- about one quarter of the
population. And Australian Governments - both Labor and Liberal -- have been
well aware of this bloody record. Yet they've maintained cordial relation�ships
with the Indonesian Junta. In fact, just two years ago, the Hawke Government
negotiated a deal with Indonesia dividing up the Timor Sea so they could plunder
the oil in the seabed together. Naturally, the Timorese get nothing out of the
deal. Australia has a very real material interest in maintaining the Junta with
its brutal repression.
During 1974 the Portuguese bourgeoisie experienced a major crisis. Mass
mobilisations of workers and soldiers revolted. There was a potentially
revolutionary situation. During this period, the colonies of Portugal revolted.
Mozambique, Angola and East Timor achieved their independence. For East Timor,
however, this independence was very brief - almost a month during November and
December 1975. Their independence was met with the guns and tanks of the
Indonesian Army. This invasion had the support of the Whitlam Government and the
Fraser government that succeeded it.
Indonesia could never tolerate an independent Timor. Indonesia is in fact, not a
nation but a prison house of nations, all of which are brutally repressed. An
independent Timor would create a movement for national rights throughout
Indonesia which would threaten the junta. In no way could the junta let the
Timorese set a precedent.
Such a movement, albeit led by bourgeois forces, could give impetus to a
revolutionary proletarian movement which might, if victorious, establish a
workers' state. Whilst in no way should Trotskyists dissolve the class interest
of the proletariat and liquidate into nationalist movements, we must support the
military victory of these movements over the Indonesian Junta.
Fretelin, which became established as the leadership of the Timorese people,
started off as a working class party based on plantation workers. Fretelin
deserted the working class to become a national bourgeois party. When it was
clear that an independent Timor would be invaded, their response was to call on
the United Nations to intervene and Portugal to re-occupy. ft also hoped to
appeal to Ministers of the Labor Government hoping that respectability in
Australia's eyes would deter Indonesia. This perspective proved to be a failure
at the bloody expense of the Timorese people. Ever since there has been appeal
to the U.N. from Fretelin delegations. They have appealed in vain.
In Australia, there was a solidarity movement which unfortunately shared
Fretelin's legalistic perspective. The Campaign for an Independent East Timor
(CIET), led by Denis Freney of the now defunct Communist Party, pursued
Fretelin's quest for legality within Australia, appealing to bourgeois
respectability and the Australian Democrats. There was a degree of working class
mobilisation which involved Communist Party unionists such as waterside workers.
In fact the Timor Moritorium had a stronger working class component than the
movement against the Gulf War. But this mobilisation was subordinated to the
pursuit of respectability. Both in Australia and Timor, the key to fighting
imperialism is the working class. In Timor it was the responsibility of class
conscious proletarians to take the leadership away from Fretelin. Victory
required extending the struggle beyond the boundaries of Timor, throughout
Indonesia.
The Hawke Government has been crying crocodile tears about the murdered
students. What sickening hypocrisy! Indonesia would not have succeeded without
the support of both this Labor government and the previous Whitlam government.
Hawke knows full well, the whole story about Indonesia's devastating Invasion.
Within the ALP, Timor has been a significant factional question raised by the
"Left" against the Right. The Left's stand may have been token but even that was
unacceptable to the Hawke Right Wing. The reality was that to administer the
system on capital's terms required any repudiation of even a token opposition to
Indonesia. And Hawke was never one to hesitate in obeying the system dictates.
It is to be hoped that with the exposure of the killings, all this will blow up
in Hawke's face. Meanwhile the working class of this country have a
responsibility to initiate direct action against Indonesia and against
Australia's complicity.
The Hawke Government has been crying crocodile tears about the murdered
students. What sickening hypocrisy! Indonesia would not have succeeded without
the support of both this Labor government and the previous Whitlam government.
Hawke knows full well, the whole story about Indonesia's devastating Invasion.
Within the ALP, Timor has been a significant factional question raised by the
"Left" against the Right. The Left's stand may have been token but even that was
unacceptable to the Hawke Right Wing. The reality was that to administer the
system on capital's terms required any repudiation of even a token opposition to
Indonesia. And Hawke was never one to hesitate in obeying the system dictates.
It is to be hoped that with the exposure of the killings, all this will blow up
in Hawke's face. Meanwhile the working class of this country have a
responsibility to initiate direct action against Indonesia and against
Australia's complicity.
Imperialist peace in Kampuchea
Prince Sihanouk has just returned to Phnom Pehn. He has returned in triumph. He
is the unanimous choice of every faction to lead Kampuchea, endorsed by the
imperialists and every stalinist faction. For the last two years the real
question has been how to negotiate his succession to power. The Vietnamese
sponsored Hun Sen regime have for years stated their preparedness to hand over
to any regime on the condition that it did not include the murderous Pol Pot or
his cronies. Both Sihanouk or the forces led by the Buddhist Sonn Sann have been
reluctant to take the offer. After all, that would leave them open to the charge
of collusion with the invader and give Pol Pot the authority of defending
Kampuchean independence. So Sihanouk has been in a military block with Pol Pot.
The contending stalinists have more hatred for each other than for the bourgeois
forces.
This is the fruits of stalinism ! Thousands of lives were lost thanks to Vietnam
agreeing to Sihanouk becoming head of state and killing and jailing members of
the Communist Party ...many thousands were killed in the struggle against Lon
Nol...millions were killed by Pol Pot...millions have been killed in the war
against the Vietnamese invasion which has lasted over ten years. And all this
has achieved is to make a feudal prince Kampuchea's head of state.
Pol Pot has been denounced as a brutal murderer. So he is. This has political
roots. It stems from his stalinism. Pol Pot has merely pursued the logic of
stalinism far more brutally consistently than the Vietnamese. The stalinist
strategy for the East was and is, liquidating the proletariat into an alliance
dominated by the national bourgeoisie and the peasantry. Pol Pot showed the
anti-proletarian consequences of this strategy.
Linked to nationalism is racism. But the selling-out of the Kampuchean
revolution by Vietnam accentuated Pol Pot's racist hostility towards Vietnamese.
Vietnam also concluded an agreement with Thailand to partition the ocean at the
expense of Kampuchea. Vietnam is responsible, equally with Kampuchea for
refusing to negotiate the boundary question in a revolutionary way. The war was
started not in defence of the Kampuchean proletariat but in response to Pol
Pot's Kampuchean regime trying to reclaim territory by force.
Since 1979 the Vietnamese and their sponsored regime have been at war with Pol
Pot and feudal allies. Given the poor level of organisation of the proletariat
the only resolution of the war is the total subordination of the stalinists to
the leadership of Prince Sihanouk. What a disgusting and bloody indictment of
counter-revolutionary stalinism. The Trotskyist analysis of stalinist
nationalism has been confirmed at the bloody expense of the Indo�chinese masses.
Australia's foreign Minister Gareth Evans has played a key rote in arranging
this solution. He has played an invaluable role in cementing the alliance
between Sihanouk and Hun Sen and persuading the U.S. that this is an acceptable
solution. Evans is promising that any attempt from Pol Pot to rock the boat will
be met with U.N. troops. Australia will, of course, be offering to contribute to
the delegation. So once again we could see Australian troops in South East Asia.
Sent by a Labor Government this time! This intervention must be categorically
opposed by class conscious workers. Imperialism can play no progressive role in
South East Asia, under the banner of the United Nations or otherwise.
NO TO ALL IMPERIALIST INTERVENTION (INCLUDING AUSTRALIAN)!
DOWN WITH THE REACTIONARY UNITED NATIONS!
FOR A REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS AND SMALL FARMERS GOVERNMENT IN KAMPUCHEA!
DOWN WITH ALL STALINISTS DEFEAT THE REAC�TIONARY FEUDALISTS!
NO TO ANY BOURGEOIS COALITION GOVERNMENT!
BUILD TROTSKYIST PARTIES THROUGHOUT INDOCHINA!
Smash Newstart!
Newstart is the latest initiative of the Hawke Government to undermine the
Social Security system. The philosophy of this government and every government
since and including Whitlam has been -- if you can't fight unemployment fight
the unemployed! The previous effort of the Hawke government was the Dole Squad.
A special operations division recruited from ex-security guards and military
personnel especially chosen for their lack of sympathy for the unemployed. They
were kept separate from unionists who might influence them.
Newstart represents a qualitative change in the Social Security system. This is
true irrespective of how soft or painless the agreements may be. What's
fundamental is that for the first time The dole is received not as a right but
subject to agreement. It is from this precedent that the agreements can be made
tougher and tougher. This is for the future. At the moment the government wants
to soft sell the system to nullify any opposition. There are some right-wingers
amongst Social Security staff who are using their new found power to bludgeon
the unemployed.These workers are embarrassing the government. Any exposure of
the implementation of Newstart might lead to people challenging the whole
system. However the government must take full responsibility for these
bureaucrats. After all it is thanks to Newstart that they are given the power.
No doubt the defenders of Newstart will say that the unemployed person "agrees".
But this is an agreement made with a gun pointed to the head. An unemployed
person for example "accepted" that he had to attend the CES three times a week
on the assurance that the alternative was to attend five days!
Part and parcel of the Newstart project is forcing the unemployed to do special
courses. These "educate' the unemployed that unemployment is their
responsibility. The unemployed as well as"work experience" are encouraged to
work for the bosses for nothing! Well there is a small part of the course on
unions. No doubt this will placate some opposition. However this in no way
miti�gates the overwhelming message -- that the unemployed should compete as
individuals to undermine the unionised workforce. These courses are paving the
way for systematic work for the dole. They are also a sheer waste of the
unemployed person's time. Thanks to Newstart there are now thousands of
unemployed forklift drivers. It is simply a myth that training will overcome the
crisis of the system.
Newstart is a serious attack on the unemployed and must be opposed at every
level. Workers at Social Security and CES must take industrial action.Unions
affected must black ban "work experience" Strong militant unemployed
organisations must be built for direct action at the dole office. This action
must be linked to a struggle to bring down the Hawke Government - for a
revolutionary workers and small farmers government. Of course a Hewson Liberal
Government will attack harder but as Newstart shows Hawke is paving the way for
Hewson.
New Zealand elections: Labour landslides to victory.
Helen Clark, leader of the New Zealand Labour Party and prime minister, has
total dominance of New Zealand bourgeois politics. Victory for Clark Labour is a
virtual certainty. Current opinion polls estimate NZLP support to be 48% of the
total vote. The Nationals have a mere 24%. The rest is shared by minor parties.
Clark has the support of the major classes within New Zealand. The ruling class
like her as an economic rationalist. They know that they have nothing to fear
and everything to gain from Clark Labour. She may not be quite as ruth�less
about rationalism as Roger Douglas. But what she loses on efficiency, she gains
by getting popular consent for ruling class attacks.
Being a woman and "politically correct" she is in favour with sections of the
middle class. She has also liberalised the ECA anti-union legislation. This has
allowed unions to organise on a grass roots level. This they appreciate. They,
on the whole, have no offensive ambitions. The unions appreciate the breathing
space.
Whereas Clark shows that she is a leader, Nationals have no direction for the
future. People also remember how painful the previous government was. Such pain
is now not necessary. So why vote for National? They face a flogging. Nationals
are so puny that they are not even the real opposition in terms of the major
issues debated. The largest supported minor party (according to current opinion
polls) is the Greens. Their major issue is genetic engineering. There is indeed
concern and paranoia about the prospects of introducing genetically modified
crops to New Zealand. Certainly the Greens are the most consistent opponents of
genetically modified crops. But this opposition is reactionary. The fact that
mankind can make better food (etc.) by genetically engineering crops is
progressive.
It can be pointed out that capitalism might stuff it up, using gm crops in a way
which might harm the environment. but capitalism can stuff up anything. Should
we not have industry as, under capitalism, it might mean pollution? The Greens
are ant-social progress. Their paradigm is both reactionary and utopian.
One member of New Zealand's Socialist Workers Organisation (in solidarity with
the ISO) showed his colours by arguing, in a Sydney meeting, that mass rallies
through Auckland against genetic engineering could, with correct intervention,
produce a revolutionary vanguard. There were middle class protests around a
reactionary demand.
The Greens are replacing the Alliance (also opponents of ge) as the main party
of New Zealand middle class radicalism. The war against terrorism divided the
Alliance. Those backing Jim Anderton split in support of the war drive. This
split, now called Progressive Coalition, has one percent support. The Alliance
has less than point five. Its future as a mainstream party seems doomed.
Another issue which is part of the public debate is racism. Here the main racist
argument against the government is being made by Winston Peters of New Zealand
First. He is tapping NZ chauvinism very effectively and whipping up the same
sort of paranoia against non-Anglo immigrants as John Howard and Pauline Hanson.
Winston Peters led an anti-economic rationalist split from the Nationals. His
racism has intensified. Now he even opposes Maori electorates.
The other issue NZ First is dishing up to the electorate is law and order. Both
they and ACT NZ want tougher jail sentences. ACT NZ is a new right economic
rationalist party formed by Labour's finance minister Roger Douglas and led by
former NZLP leader Richard Prebbles. Whilst they diverge strongly from NZ First,
who support state intervention, they sound very similar on non-economic issues
-- racist and reactionary. Currently Act NZ is less racist because it is
courting Asian businessmen who have NZ nationality. Both are competing for
sections of the middle class.
None of the above is worthy of any working class sup�port. The working class are
totally excluded from the New Zealand political agenda. And this is the fault of
the far left, notably the Socialist Action League (which became Communist
League) Workers' Communist League and the Communist Party (which is now
Socialist Workers' Organisation). None of these groupings have fought for the
independence of the working class from the capitalist state. Yet it is the
working class who have suffered and will continue to suffer from the crisis of
capitalism.
It is urgent that a revolutionary communist party be built. Such a party would
stand for parliament. They should do so on the basis that the only government
that can serve our interests is one based on independent workers' and oppressed
people's power. For a workers' and small farmers' government!
Helen Clark might seem humane in her interpretation of the monetarist agenda.
There are plenty of people who are suffering right now. Make no mistake, when
the economic crisis hits harder she will take the gloves off and hit working and
unemployed people even harder. Or alternatively, make way for an extreme right
party which will. We must be prepared for this by building a political alternative to Labour.
Continued from RED15
The International Committee remained a block between the supporters of Healy
and Lambert. In 1973 this block exploded. Many significant issues were raised in
the division. Three main ones were: the Lambertist reformist practice of calling
for parliamentary unity between the Socialist Party and the Communist Party; the
rejection of the importance of dialectical materialism by the Lambertists who
counterposed concrete political questions; the Arab revolution which was denied
by the Lambert Tendency. These differences were nothing new. They involved
positions which both sides had openly expressed for the previous ten years. The
International Committee was, truly, a rotten block.
The Healy tendency has been exposed for its thuggery and chauvinism. This was a
feature of the Lambertists, too. Their refusal to built a workers' movement
against French control of Algeria was to say the least, disgraceful. They are
also known for their thuggery against a tendency, led by the Hungarian Varga,
which broke from their ranks. Now Varga is hardly a principled character. But he
has not warranted the slander and violence metered out to his supporters. The
Varga tendency is fundamentally an economist, syndicalist tendency.
The potentially revolutionary situation in Portugal split the unity of the
so-called United Secretariat. The majority, led by Ernst Mandel, supported the
Armed Forces Movement which was at the leadership of many of the struggles. The
supporters of the US S. W.P. known internationally as the LeninistTrotskyist
Faction, made orthodox criticisms. They pointed out that the A.F.M. was part of
the state. However what they counterposed was a parliamentary government. They
also opposed revolutionary forces seizing the Republica newspaper in the name of
opposing censorship. Trotskyists must defend the right of revolutionary forces
and especially the working class to takeover the bosses' press unconditionally.
In 1979, within the United Secretariat, thetwo main factions decided to bury
their differences and a whole series of fusions were forced internationally.
Their two journals, InterContinental Press and Imprecorr, were fused into one.
In Australia it meant the forced fusion between the Socialist Workers' Party
with the Majority supporters �- the Communist League. In reality this meant the
liquidation of the Communist League. However internationally, many of the L.T.F.
supporters didn't come to the party and remained as the L.T.T. These included
the supporters of the Argentinian Nahuel Moreno.
Nicaragua The bourgeois revolution in Nicaragua in 1979 prompted the next split
from the United Secretariat. During the revolution some L.T.T. supporters went
to Nicaragua to arm the working class. These constituted the Simon Bolivar
Brigade. In their bid to show their loyalty to the Sandinistas, the United
Secretariat enthused over their repression. They stabbed their comrades in the
back. This split off both the L.T.T. and the Bolshevik Faction. These united
with the Lambert Tendency internationally and constituted the Fourth
International Committee. This rotten block was to last three years. It exploded
when the Morenoites and the Lambertists took different positions over the
Malvinas War (when Argentina claimed them and Britain fought for them back).The
Morenoites defended Argentina.
The Nicaraguan revolution was to have a significant impact on the United
Secretariat. After, all if the Sandinistas were revolutionary, as they all
believed, why have a Fourth International? The so-called Fourth International
was struggling to establish a political basis for its existence. The Australian
S.W.P. was the vanguard of liquidation and argued point blank that Trotskyists,
counterposing themselves as a separate political tendency, were wrong. They
pursued comradely relations with the hard line pro�Moscow stalinist SPA. They
concluded that permanent revolution was wrong and rehashed stalinist arguments
about Trotsky"underestimating the peasantry".
For the US S.W.P., the move in a similar direction has been slower. They too
repudiate permanent revolution and the Fourth International. They are more loyal
to the Labour Party than the Australians. The Australians prefer middle-class
Green and stalinist allies. The majority defended their existence by pointing
out that the Sandinistas and Castro did not believe in a Fourth International.
But they indicated that they would welcome them in their ranks. They too
liquidated the political difference between stalinism and Trotskyism. Their
formal defence of the Fourth International was only organisational.
The degeneration process wit hin the British Socialist Labour League which
became Workers' Revolutionary Party has produced quite a few pseudo-Trotskyist
tendencies. The most notable being the Workers' Socialist League led by Cowley
shop steward Alan Thornett. The formation of this was influenced by British
supporters of the O.C.I. However this was done covertly due to understandable
distrust of that tendency from the W.S.L. ranks. The W.S.L of Thornett was an
economist tendency which identified with Healyite entrism into the British
Labour Party. Healy's entrism was thoroughly and utterly treacherous. Their
paper Socialist Outlook covered for Nye Bevan even when he became Minister for
Labour and jailed workers! The W.S.L. eventually became swallowed up by the
International Communist League of Sean Matgamna. Despite the name of the fused
organisation, W.S.L., the politics of Matgamna dominated.
Also developing from the Workers' Revolutionary Party was the pro-stalinist
grouping called the Workers' Party led by Steven Johns and Royston Bull. However
the greatest number of new organisations developed with the expulsion of guru
Gerry Healy from the W.R.P. Healy was expelled when allegations were made about
him using his party position to pressure young women within the W.R.P. to give
him sexual favours. Initially, there was merely the pro-Healy W.R.P. and the
anti-Healy W.R.P. However from both sides there has been many splits. All of
these have failed to make a proper analysis. One tendency led by Banda has
become stalinist. The Bandaites oppose the formation of the Fourth International
and defend the record of the Stalinists in Vietnam proclaiming them as
revolutionaries. Healy subsequent left his wing of the W.R.P. complaining about
the lack of theoretical basis within the pro-Healy WRP. led by Sheila Torrence.
A relatively serious tendency led by Richard Price broke from the pro-Healy wing
to form the Workers' International League regretting their support for Healy.
After the expulsion of Healy an important division developed between the
Workers' Revolutionary Party led by Cliff Slaughter and the International
Committee. The W.R.P. argued that the whole of the LC.F.I. had degenerated. The
Workers' League US led by Dave North and the Australian Socialist League (and
others) defended the authority of the International Committee. In Australia they
expelled the Sandford group who rejected this. How principled the LC.F.I. is can
be shown by the book by David North called The Heritage We Defend. This book
totally whitewashes the treacherous role of Healy in the British Labour Party.
Until recently the Australian Socialist Labour League resurrected a Healy
slogan: DEMAND THE LEFTS EXPEL THE RIGHT WING FROM THE LABOUR PARTY.
This slogan merely reinforced the Lefts who are guilty not merely of covering
for the right but for treacherous protectionist schemes such as Australia
Reconstructed. In Australia those who were expelled from the S.L.L. have embrace
the Marenoite tendency. This is true for both the Communist League which became
Socialist Alternative and their breakaway called Communist Intervention. Whilst
both these tendencies both demand tha the S.L.L. account for its past, they
refuse to confront serious criticisms made of the Moreno tendency. These
criticisms are made not merely by the LC.F.I. or the Spartacist Tendencies but
many other such as Workers' Power, and the Matgamnaites. This speaks volumes for
their revolutionary integrity.
A whole series of pseudo-Trotskyist tendencies also developed out of the
degeneration of the British International Socialists who became known as the
Socialist Workers' Party. These split stem from the collapse of the economist
method of the I.S./S.W.P. In Britain the LS. developed and grew out of the rank
and file and shop steward movement. The growth of these was linked to the
post-war growth of productive forces which was in Britain, linked to the growth
of trade union militancy .IS/S.W.P. cashed in on this by liquidating their
politics. They built rank and file groups on a very low level, based on
immediate bread and butter demands. What LS.IS.W.P. ignored was that for
Marxists, class consciousness is not defined on this level, but in terms of the
objective interest of the working class in opposition to the capitalist state.
The I.S./S.W. P. failed to organise on the revolutionary political level.
Therefore when the crisis hit it became far more difficult to fight on the
trade union level and the rank and file groups collapsed. This stimulated many
splits, many of the splitters identified with Trotskyism. The most significant
of these being the Matgamna tendency (initially called Workers' Fight), Workers'
Power, and the Revolutionary Communist Group.
The Matgamna tendency fundamentally identified with the Healyite Socialist
Outlook. This meant an orientation to the Labour Party amounting to deep
enterism. The Matgamnaites eventually got swallowed up in the Labour Party
framework adapting to Tony Benn and becoming chauvinist on Ireland, Palestine
and the Malvinas war. Initially, after their expulsion from the I.S./S.W. P.,
they fused with another tendency, Workers' Power and became the International
Communist League. There were, indeed, differences in direction. Although they
both appeared to be formally similar, Workers' Power were and are an economist
tendency whose main orientation is building rank and file groups in the trade
unions. The programmes for these are more advanced than the LS./ S.W.P. Workers'
Power also stress the need for a general strike to give themselves revolutionary
credentials. But they don't link their demand to a revolutionary pro�gramme. By
merely organising rank and file groups they are merely organising on the trade
union level. By raising the question of a general strike outside of a context of
a revolutionary programme they are preparing the working class to be smashed.
The general strike poses the question of power without resolving it-preparing
the working class for the use of force.
Another tendency which developed out of the International Socialists is the
Revolutionary Communist Group which has a significant breakaway known as the
Revolutionary Communist Party. The R.C.P. argues correctly that the R.C.G. has
broken from its fundamental principles Our Tasks and Methods. The R.C.G.,
contrary to the other tendencies, made a very serious analysis of LS. economism
and argued for very strongly for the need to fight chauvinism. Both the R.C.G.
and the R.C.P argue that virtualy no criticism is permitted of nationalist
forces fighting the British state. The R.C.G. go further by arguing that the
IR.A. of Ireland and the A.N.C. of South Africa are revolutionary tendencies.
This leads logically to socialism in one country-Stalinism. And the R.C.G. have
taken this path and repudiated Trotskyism. The R.C.P. on the other hand deny the
importance of nationalised property relations in the Soviet Union. They even
supported the reunification of Germ any which strengthened German imperialism as
well as selling out the nationalised property relations. As well, their
rejection of the Transitional Programme on the basis of its non-relevance to the
post-war capitalist boom is in practice replaced with a minimum programme at
least in relation to some of their election manifestos.
TO BE CONCLUDED NEXT ISSUE OF RED