A reply to some sectarians
WHAT MARX DID
It is a truism to say that the best way to help the Vietnamese people would be to win worker's power in Britain. This profound argument, which can be used in all situations and at any time until we have actually achieved workers' power in Britain, is typical of the kind of sophistry that one expects from the S.P.G.B. and other such sects. It certainly was not the view of Marx that it was a diversion to campaign specifically in solidarity with struggles in other countries.
In the special issue of THE WEEK* in which we argued against the various critics of the solidarity [illegible] course, dealt fully with all the important forces in the anti-Vietnam war movement and we think that subsequent events have vindicated our arguments (in fact, many of our antagonists claim to have shifted their position now). However, one line of argument was not considered. Movements like those around the British MILITANT are not [illegible] terminology and claim to be the "true marxists".
Basically these comrades argue thus: all marxists must, of course, support the victory of the Viet[illegible] capitalism and its representatives, notably, the Wilson Government. Activities like the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, because they divert forces away from the struggle against the wage freeze, etc., and because they are not understood by the workers don't help the Vietnamese people but can even be said to do their cause harm. A further argument these comrades bring in is that THE WEEK [illegible] of the Vietnamese leadership.
We shall leave aside our estimate of the extent to which these comrades do struggle against the Wilson Government; sufficient be it to mention that when we were engaged in a vicious struggle against Transport House inside the Nottingham Labour Party, the MILITANT, alone of left-wing newspapers, remained silent and that privately supporters of that paper accused us of adventurism because we struggled too vigorously against Wilson before consolidating our base.
If anyone thinks that this is an overstatement note how the ultra-left Socialist Labour League and the opportunist "left" M.P.s reach an identical view of Black Power. They both characterise it as black racialism or even black fascism, and regard it as equally reprehensible as white racialism.
Throughout Marx's leadership of the First International, that body supported and organised in support of the working people of other lands. Nor was this activity confined to support of strikes or such events as the Paris Commune. The various national struggles of Europe were supported most vigorously. Marx polemicised most stridently with the MILITANTS of his day, especially on their attitude towards Ireland.
[illegible] "...the British Socialist who fails to support by all possible means the uprisings in Ireland, Egypt and India against the London plutocracy - such a socialist deserves to be branded with infamy, if not with a bullet, but in no case merits either a mandate or the confidence of the proletariat......" ("The First Five Years of the Comintern, Volume 1", page 125)
We wouldn't go quite so far as Trotsky on the question of the bullet but we think that these words embody a true socialist approach towards the struggles of the working people of other lands.
IS THE V.S.C. NECESSARY?
Having disposed of the myth that this view approximates in any way with that of the practice of marxists, let us take a closer look at the theory underlying it. First of all, it is based upon a distortion of the position of the people who are most active in such movements as the V.S.C.. It is a complete lie to say that these people do not struggle against the wage freeze or against other aspects of the Government's policies. This argument is smuggled in to obscure the fact that in reality most of the supporters of the MILITANT, despite their lip service, do nothing to support the people of Vietnam. This is not the argument at all. The dispute pivots around the question of whether or not one wages a particular struggle over and above one's normal day-to-day activities within the British Labour movement, [illegible] with its own forms of organisation is that the Labour Party and trade unions have ceased, by and large, to be effective vehicles for such campaigns. Can we really expect the Labour Party, which cannot even be won for a programme of action for mild reforms, to be the means by which we show our solidarity with the Vietnamese people? Of course we cannot. Confining oneself to fighting within the Labour Party means limiting one's perspectives to the passing of resolutions which will be either rejected or ignored. It means telling the Vietnamese people that we can do nothing public to assist their struggle until we have won decisive influence in the Labour Party.
Taking the fight on to the streets through united front committees means that we can give encouragement to the Vietnamese people's struggle and that we can appeal directly to others to join the struggle. The effects of this method of working are quite well-known: when the vast majority of the youth of this country will not go near the activity in support of the Vietnamese people, [illegible].
Nor is this activity contrary to a campaign to win the Labour movement for the solidarity position. The very fact that the solidarity movement has established itself as a force on the political scene exerts a pressure on members of the Labour Party and, in particular, inspires the remaining left wingers the party to continue with their struggle.
Furthermore, because the V.S.C. is led by people who understand clearly the need to influence the Labour movement, the thousands of young people drawn into solidarity action are now being directed towards that end.
In fact, working in this way is essential if we are to achieve workers' power in Britain. In the past there have been mighty movements in Britain on wages and other reformist demands. These movements have quickly dispersed because of the weakness of socialist consciousness within them.
If we are to build a movement which will achieve workers' power it must overcome this problem. This will not be done by compromising with the reactionary ideas of backward workers. To not take up such questions as Vietnam "because the workers do not understand them" is a form of opportunism. It also hinders the development of socialist consciousness and has dire practical consequences: at the decisive moment socialist consciousness is vital to take the movement forward. The struggle for solidarity with the people of Vietnam is an important way to build socialist consciousness. It is part of the way we can link reformist demands with wider political questions.
CRITICISING HO CHI MINH
To the charge that we have not subjected the leadership of the Vietnamese Revolution to a thorough going critique we plead guilty. Such an assessment is, of course, [illegible] for the education of cadres. Those around THE WEEK write for, read and distribute other journals, whose main function is the education of cadres, which have made this [illegible].
However, it needs to be said that there is more to this argument. In politics priorities can often mean more than written programmes. We proceed from the priority that it is the duty of all socialists to assist a living revolution engaged in a life and death struggle with imperialism. If we have a small journal we are faced with making a choice of what to publish. This choice is based upon our priorities. It's the same with others: those who choose to concentrate on printing articles on what Ho Chi Minh did to the Indo-Chinese Trotskyists in the 1940's have decided that it is more important that their readers know about this question than it is for them to help the Vietnamese people. That is our choice.
The fate of the Vietnamese anti-stalinists is an important question for an evaluation of the Ho Chi Minh leadership and must be dealt with in the appropriate place. But today people are fighting with guns in their hands against U.S. imperialism, taking part in the living struggle of solidarity with these people. Refusal to take part in that campaign or a luke-warm attitude towards it because of historical questions is sectarian and in many cases reflects capitulation in face of anti-communist propaganda.
The struggle of the Vietnamese people has inspired and regenerated the entire socialist and revolutionary movement all over the world. The fact that U.S. imperialism has been unable to defeat the Vietnamese people has profound revolutionary consequences for us all. Put another way, we can say that if the Vietnamese Revolution were defeated the prospects for world socialism, and this includes British socialism, will be very much weaker for a whole period. Thus by helping the Vietnamese people in their struggle we are also fighting to create better world conditions for the achievement of British socialism. The slogan "Workers of the World, Unite!" is self-interested as well as being morally correct.
We believe that this is the way one's priorities should be decided. This is the way we have decided ours and time will show (and, we think, has shown) who is the best fighter against British capitalism. We look forward to seeing our sectarian friends doing more than selling their papers and passing resolutions.
* VIETNAM AND THE LEFT - an answer to some critics available from: THE WEEK, 8 Toynbee St., London E.1., costing 9d, post paid.