[page 1]
ON TROTSKYISM AND THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL
TWO ESSAYS BY PHIL HEARSE:
"ON-THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL BIG FLAME ON TROTSKYISM" 30p ONgE
[page 2]
i97@ is the tenth anniversary of the May-June wonsing in France, the Tet offensive in Vistnam and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, The tan years since these hisroric events have been ten years of turmoil and crisis for international capitalam. in Vietnam the revolution has bean victorious, mt Portugal a prerevolutionary situation developed, and in Chile a revolution an the march was drowned in blood. But these ten yeears have also seen both the massive growth, and the turmai and crisis of the revolutionary /eft. Amongst the movements and currents which emerged from the events of ‘G3 rhe Trotskyist movement has bean only 2 iminornty — it some countries a strong minority, in others much weaker. All the event since 1968, the wictories and the defeats, each in their own way demonstrated the validity of the Trotskyist programma, The illusions of T968, the iiusions of spontaneism, libertarianism, Maoism and crude workeriam, have been dashed against the continued strength of refornism and the masive reserves of both adaptability and repression of the capitalist system itself.
Ten pears after 1964 it is passible to speak of a crisis of the revolutionary left, a crisis which cannot be overcome except by answering crucial political questions. No amount of revolutionary’ oravedo, no organisational manoeuvres, can reolace political answers
‘nm this pamphiet we fave tatan up a number of themes which we belleve are vital if the ravalutianary left is going to be able to consalidare /teelf, avercame tr fragmentation and grownd ftg fight against the reformist mis-leaders of the working class on a sure oragammatic basic, in the first assay we attempt to answer many of tha misconceptions about international revolutionary organisation and the Fourth |nterational, In particular we have haan concensed to ragly to the distortions characteristic of the current of apinien reoresented by the coolous writings of Quncan Hallas on this question, and efso certain points made by the varety of groupings whe embrace the struggle against what they ragard as ‘nabloism | In the second part we have attempted a first reoly ta the lang pamphiat on Trotskyisen by the comrades of Big Flame. We Seireve that thei ideas on this question renresant 9 whole series of misconceptions common. in the Europasn far ieft, particularly common in the crisis-ridden and disintegrating (tralian organisations — Lorra Continua, Avangueraia Operaia and jf Manifesto.
Phil Hearse April 1978.
Paga 1
[page 3]
1. The need for a revolutionary international
The Fourth International asserts that in the epoch of imperialism, in the struggle for socialist victory, an international organisation of the revolutionary vanguard remains a permanent necessity — whether it consists of mass parties or small groups, Why?
The advant of the apoch of imperialism, the spread of the capitelet mode of production over the face of the earth, created a unifiad world economy and with it the apoch of world politics. This unity of the world economy is not a ‘simple’ unity, but a contradictory unity characterised by an international division of labour — between tha imperialist countries and tha colonial and semi-colonial countries, and between the imperialist countries themselves. Davalapments in Imermational capitalism after the second world war — the apread of multi-national corporations and the consequent ‘internationalisation’ of huga amounts of capital — have strengthened these basic trends | in imperialism. Socialism, @ society charactarisad by the abolition of the state and money, and the supression of commodity production, can thus only exist as an international eystam., While profetarian revolutions are victoriou: only in one or several countries, and international Imperialism is far from defeated, tha abolition of the state is impossible — ‘armed bodies of men‘ are moet definitely still needed. Moreover, the suppression ol commodity production requires the progressive abolition of scarcity, since soarcity necessarily implies the continuation of money, the commodity form, wage labour and the market, But the abolition of scarcity, aspecially in poor and backwards countries which have seen the vietory of proletarian revolutions (Cuba, China, Vietnam) is inconceiwahin without a gradual overcoming of the international division of labour. Without the defeat of imperialism in the advanced Western economies, socialism in more backward countries is a Utopian pipedream,
[page 4]
The Maoist and Stalinist myths of ‘national self-reliance’ and socialism in one country are not just incorrect because they abandon a perspective of international revolution, bul vitally because they are based on the illusion that the resources of a single country can overcome the problerns of industralisation and scarcity. Lenin and Trotsky conceived ot the Bolshevik revolution as the first stap in the European revolution, not as the opening of the building of socialism in Russia alone: the vietory of revolution in advanced Europe, and especially in Germany, would alone open up the possibility of socialism in Russia. The victory of no proletarian revolution & ‘final’ or ‘secure’ until the whole imperalist system is overthrown; it would be absolutely illusory ta imagine that imperialism hay reconciled itself to the permanent ‘loss' of huge areas of what were previously part of the world permanent ‘loss’ of huoe areas of what were previously part of the world capitalist market. None of this implies thal it is impossible to begin the process of constructing socialism in one, or several countries, but only the liberation of the productive foras on a world scale, only world planning, can begin to defeat scarcity. Socialism is, therefore, by definition a world system. Socialist revolution li an international revelution. The struggle for socialism takes place between two huge classes on an international scale — the world bourgeoisie and the world working class.
These general propositions, the international nature of socialism and the socialist revolution, are readily agread to by most revolutionary socialists Im Britain, But they are fraquantiy qualified with the proposition thal although tha socialist revolution is an international revolution, the form it takes is thet of national clasi struagles, in national boundries, between fundamentally national classes. Thus the nation state ls the fundamental terrain of the class struggle, requiring national revolutionary organisations built Within ane Eountry,
Thare is an important grain of truth in these arguments, but thay are partial and incomplete because they see only one side of the question, Although the world class struggle is indead structured into ‘national’ seqments, nevertheless there is mo such thing aa a ‘purely national’ class struggle. In any particular country, neither the stakes or the consequences of the struggle are purely national, nor are the social and political forces involved. Thay are all, at least in part, a function of the international tifuation and the strength and organisation of social forces on a world seale. In practice, Unis means that the imperialist bourgeoisie although structured into national units, increasingly ‘intemationalises’ its waging of the class struggle. For example, was United States imperialism prepared to meekly allow the class struggle to simply proceed along ‘national’ lines, in Chile and in Vietnam? Or is the struggle of the Palestinians against Zionism a purely ‘national’ struggle? The ruling class in every imperialist country realisas that ‘international’ or “foreign” events affect its vital interests just as do ‘natinnal’ avents Thus. international imperialism consciously organises and marshale its forces internationally in order to prevant defeats at a national level, to modify the relationship of forces in its favour in every particular nation. At a formal level this international intervention by imperialism is crystallised into a series of counter-ravolutionary military alliances (NATO, CENTO, SEATO), At an informal level it consists of a whole network of co-operation between diplomatic services, security forces, government agencies of every kind, multinational companies and so forth. Tha consequence is that every national struggle for socialism, sooner or later and generally sooner, will come up against the whale weight of international imparialism. Even if this intervention doesn't take the form of military aggression, imperialism has many other strings to its bow. A fascinating Page
[page 5]
example is the way in which the workers onslaught In Portugal was checked. Here the workers struggle wasn't drowned in blood, but sant reeling under tha anticommunist, ‘democratic’ counter-revolution led by tha Socialist Party of Mario Soares. But this wasn’t &@ purely ‘national’ event. Soares was supported financially, politically and diplomatically by the whole of Western European social democracy — fram Mitterand and Rocard in France, to Schmidt in Germany and Callaghan In Britain. And this intervention was sanctioned by all the leading imperialist powers, withoul exception,
Once again, the example of Vietnam is aven more revealing. The struggle fought out there could hardly have been more ‘international’. Not only were the combatants on the imperiatist side international, but tha strugole was won,not only by the heroism of the Vietnamese peasants and werkers but also by the material aid fren the workers states (however paltry) but by the intervantion of tens of thousands of militants the warld over to isolate US imperialism politically.
The international consequences of national struggles have to be consciously prepared for. Every victorious revolution has eventually had to face the armed might of imperial: ism — the counter-ravolutionary invasion of Aussia by niimarous powers, the attempted invasions of Cuba by Amarican-backed exiles, the struggle between the US and China in Korea, It would be foolish to believe that thesa things will mot happen again. Only international intervention can ensure tha isolation and defeat of such counter-revolutionary attempts.
As we have seen, the results of every ‘national struggle’ affect the relationship of forces and the wital interests of the contending classes averywhera. It is quite bizarre to consider any particular struggle the ‘property’ of tha working. class in that country. All the European bourgeoisies have been concerned about the revolutionary dynamic which could have been unleashed by the Portuquese strupgle or a victory of the Union of the Left in France. That's why they combined to defeat these developments, But since each struggle atfects the vital interests of the working class everywhere, revolutionaries cannot ha content to passively ‘support’ other struggles, without a critical opinion of their davelopment, tha steps which should be taken, the political tasks involved, For ravolutionaries it’s a question of using every resourca, avery scrap of political weight internationally to modify the rasults on a national basis. International organisation Is inseparable from this task.
How to build a revolutionary international?
In face of the developments in intemational capitalism outlined above, including the internationalgation of its counterrevolutionary and repressive functions, the international co-ordination of workers struggles and the intervention of the vanguard is an urgent task. Such co-ordination cannot be improvised on a plece-meal basis. The orying need is for a mass revolutionary international, with sections deeply implanted in the working class. Starting with the existing revolutionary forces, how can we begin this task? For some comrades the answer is ‘link up workers struggles, discuss, but above all .......... wait’. This is how Duncan Hallas puts it:
Page 4
[page 6]
“There cannot be purely national socialist organisation, It is one of the merits of the various Trotskyist organisations to have emphasised this fundamental truth.
Yet the conclusion is often drawn from it: ‘one must start with the International’ is another example of the distorting influence of the over concentration on ‘leadership’....... To develop a real current on internationalism — and without such a currant all talk of an International is self-deception — It Is necessary to start by linking the struggles of workers in one country with those of others, This means starting where workers actually exist, namely in the various countries. It means putting sside grandiose ideas like ‘International laadership’, ‘World Congresses’ and the like in favour of humdrum tasks of propaganda and agitation in one's own country together with developing meaningful international links, which however limitad at first are meaningful to workers outside the sectarian milieu..... meetings and discussions between socialist qrouplets in various countries are ascantial.....° (1)
Let us note straight away that this approach abandons all attempts to build an se | national political tendency in favour of ‘humdrum tasks’ and ‘meetings and discussions’. In this respect, such an argument abandons tha revolutionary left in each particular. country to its own spontaneous davelopment, @ nciculols approach which we cisciins below. Further, in 1978 the notion that there does not ewist ‘a réal current of inter nationalism’ in the workers movement in many countries is decictecly antiquated. But the real objection ta Hallas’ approach fs its abandonment of the possibility of the Marxler vanguard in each country co-ordinating its activity and developing a common analysis of the world situation and political tasks, These pogsibilities exist even when revolutionary groups are very small; but they cannot be realised without a common framework for discussion, @ parmanant organisational structure and at least a limited dovisian of labour, and a commoniy-accepted way of making decisions and agreeing on political analysis. If some comrades find the names actually given to these essential mechanisms (International leadership, world cangress, international axecutive committee atc) ‘grandiose’ then that is a very secondary abjection which can easily ba dealt with. The real problem is whether an internationally agreed analysis is possible, agreement on internationally coordinated intervention is possible or whether these things are merely ‘fictions’ and ‘selfdeception’. For example, was it ‘self-deception’ when the Fourth International orientated its sections at the 1965 world congress to building mass campaigns an Vietnam? Or did it find some concrete resuit in the central role of the SWP in the US anti-war movement, the central role at the IMG in the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign or tha central role of Lhe JCA in building the Comite Vietnam in France? Was it ‘a fiction’ when the French and Swiss sections sat about jointly linking up the struggle of French and Swiss workers during the strike at the Lip watch factory — a decision which led to some concreta, not just Verbal, linking up of workers struggles internationally in the form ot joint demon: strations attended by workers in wateh factories in both France and Switzerland. Or again, was itsimply a fiction when the whole weight of the Fourth International wea used to win over a substantial section of the Basque nationalist movement to Trotskyism. Without the intervention of the International, and especially the influence of the French section on the ETA—6 comrades, Trotskyam would be in an incomparably weaker state than it % today in Spain. |sit pure fietion that Trotskyiel organisations have bean built in several East European countries, undar repression and in the most difficull circumstances, an accomplishment which would have been literally impossible withaut the permanent work of militants from many countries in Western Europe? We could add Page 5
[page 7]
endlessly to this list of examples. They all testify, against the international passivity of Hallas, to the possibility of meaningful intamational work by revolutionaries. Such things are not possible, however, if contact between the marxist vanguard Is limited to “meetings and discussions between grouplets in various countries, Permanent joint action requires an agreed programme and a joint organisational framework: if everything has to be discussed from scratch in “meetings and discussions”, then nothing practically gets done. The many conferences held by the French organisation “‘Lutte Ouvriere”, several times attended by Gritish (S(SWP), demonstrate that conferences without programmatic agreement or organisatianal framework modify nothing, For comrade Hallas, at for all of us, existence determines consciousness. His polemic represents he rationalisation of a nationally-based group, albeit a large one, which finds itelf at sea on the international terrain.
The emergence of mass parties and the existing revolutionary left Mess revolutionary parties do not suddenly emerge full blown, They have to be consciously and systamatically built. In many countries of course there axist organ isations which claim te be dedicated to this objective. However, revolutionary marxists cannot be content to leave things at that. The groups which claim to be dedicated to building revolutionary parties are extremely diverse in ideology and organisational methods. In some countries they hardly exist. Ir is impossible to rest content with the existing Movement without having an opinign about the respective roles and ments of the different organisations. Soma of the Maoist organisations, for example, practice an extremea- ultradef and sectarian ultimatism: others support elliances with their own bourgeoisie. Other groups — like the || Manifesto current in Italy — tail along behind their respective Communist parties ag ‘critical’ but ultimataly subordinate, oppositions. Such forces are not simply and without qualification the core of future revolutionary Parties; often, as in the case of the sectarian Maoist formations, they ara an obstacle to the amergence of such parties, discrediting revolutionary politics in the eyes of many workers, This contradictory state of the international revolutionary left has been nicely stated in the fallowing way:
“we-are faced, for a number of years, with a situation in which formations that are not fully Marxist deminat the revolutionary left in most countries where the struggle is most developed (e.g. the Maoist and semi-Maoist formations dominate in Argentina, Chile compete with tha Maoists in Portugal)". (SWP Cantral Committees document on international work Sept. 76).
We can argue a bit with the geography and generalisation of this statement, but the sentiment which it expresses is fully justified, It would have been more relevant to point to the situation im Italy and West Germany. The origins of this problem are not hard to find. The near-destruction of the revolutionary marxist tradition by Stalinism has led to a situation where the re-building of revolutionary organisations and tha ra-appropriation of revolutionary marxist politics — especially after 1969-by broad broad new forces, has taken place in a complex and contradictory fashion. New forces won towards revolutionary Positions emerging in many cases from the left of existing Communist parties have not completely broken with the theoretical problematic of Stalinism. This is classically Page &
[page 8]
of PDUP Rosgana Rogsanda and Lueclo Magri demonstrated by tha case of Il Manifesto in Italy. Its core was expelled from the Italian Communist Party (PCI) at the end of the 1960s for Teftism’, But its leading group, around Rossanda and Magri, never fully broke from Stalinist Positions (for exampla on intemal Party organisation and ‘national independance’), Combining neo-Stalinist Positions with revolutionary marist criticisms of the PCI in an eclectic mish-mash Failing to develop an homogenous politics ar cadre, the organisation has been through AUMEerouUS internal crises, and has ended up going back on one of ite cantral concarns — the key role of workers Councils in tha seizure of power. Now it sees [ts central role as left Pressure on the PCI, In Rossanda's words “making the 34 million legs of the PC} march to the tune of || Manifesta"'. The logic of such a position is not difficult to unravel — and the PCI's new overtures to Magri and Rossanda ere not difficult to work out either; the PCI is Preparing for some new members on its left, Crucial in this whale development has been the absence of a firmly-+ooted revolutionary marxist organis ation capable of intervaning to win these centrist forces to fully revolutionary marxict Positions. || Manifeste's experience has been repeated in slightly different ways by the other two major organisations of the Italian far left. This represents a major tragedy for the European revolutionary movement as a whole, These huge organisations, numbering nearly 50,000 militants at one time, each with daily papers are being fritterad away because of their inability to answer cantral Guastions of orientation which are ABC to Marxists,
No modification in the state of the existing revolutionary left internationally withour @ co-ordinated struggle by revolutionary marxists, Any national revolutionary Organisation which takes its own ideas seriously, must attempt an international intervention; and this immediately poses the question of international organisation. Any other approach simply laads te constructing alliances with the most diverse trands, a Practice totally incapable of contributing anything to changing the face of the revolutionary lett. Thus for example the British SWP collaborated for years with Lutte Ouvriare in Franca and Avanguardia Operaia in Italy, without changing anything or influencing anyone This Page 7
[page 9]
failure was intimately linked to its opposition to ‘artificial’ and ‘fictional’ international organisation. An international organisation on the basis of ravolutionary marxism is the decisive tool for fecomposing the far lett and defeating the centrist currents, An important recognition of at least part of this truth is the following interesting passaga:—
“...0n8 particular form that weariness with attempts at political intervention internationally takes is.... ‘rank and filism at the international level’ — the belief that our job at the moment is to build rank-and-file links between workers internationally, especially within the multinationals. This is to substitute a trade unionist approach for the political intervention that alone can help build the revolutionary Parties that ara needed: what is more, il is a ulopien project given the relationship of forces vis-a-vis the revolutionary left in all countries at the moment, ¢.g., our comrades in British Leytand cannot even establish viable links between Birmingham and Oxford, let alone between Birmingham and Milan”. (SWP Cantral Committaa Document Sept. '76 — their emphasis! .
This constitutes an important recognition of the political nature of international tasks. It goes without saying that we think the SWP comrades fall to fully draw out the logic of their position. We deal with this problem below. World Revolution and the Crisis of Leadership “Crists of leadership” is a short-hand term easily parodied or mis-represented. In the 1950s and early "GOs it was easy to point out that the prospects tor socialist revolution were not just hampered by the “betrayals’ af the reformist leaderships, but more tunelamentally by the decline in the general level of class consclousness and combativity of the working class, itself a product of the Jong imperialist boom. Critics of Trotskylim could easily point out that tha term “‘crisis of leadership” seemed to imply that if the leadership were changed, everything would be OK, Thus Trotskyists who comtantly referred to the “crisis of leadership" seemed to be (and occasionally were) quilty of having an extremely voluntaristic view of how to move forward. All the bon mots and wise-cracks about ‘parachuting leaderships’ and ‘self-appointed vanquards' have their origin in this critique. What the critics themselves forgot is that the consciousness of the working class is at least partially a function of the politics of its leadership. Historically, the problem of established laaderships of the working class far ahead of the consciousness of the masses has not been exactly huge, But the reverse js true. Time and again the working class has reached aut to challenge capitalism, only to be thrown back by conservative leaderships. With the general change in the level of class militancy and consciousness after 1968 the full import and meaning of the crisis of leadership has become abundantly clear. Since 1968 revolutionary or pre-+revolutionary situations have developed in a number of countries — France, Bolivia, Chile, Portugal. Each time the revolutionary process has lacked nothing in terms of working class participation, anthusiasm and ingenuity, but hat foundered on the betrayals of the Stalinist and Social Damocratic leaders — and also in the latter two caseq on the confusion and dispersal of the revolutionary left,
These defeats,partial in France and Portugal, but massive and crushing in the case of Chile, have demonstrated that it i mot enough to have a massive mobilisation of the © working class, or a very high lawel of class consciousness to ensure victory. For example, Page B
[page 10]
the Chilean warking class during the early 1970s displayed nat only prodigious feats of Practical militancy and self-organisation, but also a fantastically high level of class consciousness and political understanding, which in many ways bring to mind the Spanish working class before the revolution was betrayed and liquidated. But it was also in Chile that the defeat was most crushing and devastating, Spontaneous militancy and class consciousness are not enough to ensure victory. For that, it is both necessary to defeat the reformist tendencies in the workers movement and to give the militancy and consciousness of the working class an organised axpressian — in the form of a revolutionary Party — capable of not only of dealing with the reformists, but also of outmanoeuvering the right, promoting the self-organisation of the masses and defining a line of march towards insurrection.
It goes without saying that in both Chile and Portugal the influence of the reformists did not go uncontested: in Chile tha Unidad Popular was challenged on its left by the MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left), and in Portugal the CP and SP had to contend with a multiplicity of ‘revolutionary’ groups. But in neither case was an adequate instrument for challenging the reformists established. In Chile the MIR combined opportunism with outbursts of sectarianism towards the militants at the base of the reformist partias. Miguel Enriquez, leader of the MIA, frequently suggested that the Allende government could be pressurised in completing the transition to workers power. On the other hand, the MIR‘s unilateral establishment, of ‘dual power’ organisations as fiefs and front organisations for tha MIA itself expressed its sectarian face towards the militants of and mais support for the reformist parties. Now, we don't raise the wrong policy of the MIR to suggest, as do certain foolish sectarians, that the defeat in Chile was the primary responsibility of the MIR. It is possibla — but unprovable one way or the other — that given the short period of time between the coming to power of Allende and the counterravolutionary coup it was objectively impossible to break the masses from their reformist leaderships. im any case, the first responsibility lies with the Social Democratic and Stalinist mis-laadars themselves, But what the example of the Chilean MIA does demonstrate is that the more existance of groups which aspire ta the title ‘revolutionary’ is not enough even to begin to solve the problem of working class leadership, But we can go even further. The examples of Chile and Portugal, and in a different way of Italy, show that avan the existence of a widespread ‘ravolutionary’ consciousness inside the working Page 9
[page 11]
slass — tens of thousands of workers who hate the bourgeois state, who believe in the seming af tha working class and insurrection, even this is not enough /f that revolutionary ninority Js not armed with the strategy and tactics, and the onganisationa! means, to win te policy in the heart of the workers movement, tt is entiraly improbable that such ‘arganisational means’ will be spontaneously created during a pre-revolutionary of revolutionary crisis. Revolutionary strategy cannot be improvised from first principles in the heat of battle: it requires an organisation which has assimilated the decisive lessons of the long history of workers struggles.
We can now return to the Trotskyist conception of the crisis of laadarship, All the examples we have referred to Portugal, Chile, Italy — show that against voluntarist conceptions, revolutionary parties or big organisations of the revollitionary venquerd, ara indeed the product of spontaneous Upsurges of the working class itself, No Trotskyist seriously beliaves that the creation of a revolutionary leadership is possible outside of time or circurnstances, But the creation of a programmatically adequate revolutionary instrument is not the automatic or inevitable outcome of working class upaurges: That requires the fusion of working class upsurge and the revolutionary maraist programma, But programmes of a revolutionary character don't exist outside of their ‘bearers’; they have no meaning in a workers movements which lacks the militants ta fight for them. We can express this by saying that the creation of « Maret party which has assimilated the decisive elements of revelutionary strategy and tactics 6 extremely unlikely to occur outside of prolonged preparation, over many years, outside of the pre-revolutionury or revolutionary situation itself. That preparation, the prolonged ideological and political battle for Marxism, is the fruit of permanant work.
Three currents in the world workers movement
Trotsky once remarked, in a famous passage (2) that the situation in amy country vas an uneven crystallisation of the elements of the world process. The Marxist enception of the ‘lawfulness’ of revolutionary developments, their susceptibility to alysis using the categories of Marxism, derives Irom the fact that if eny particular wolutionary struggle is indeed unique, its uniqueness stems not from the fact that every: ‘ing about it is completely diferent from ewery other struggle — as the advocates of ‘ational roads to socialism’ believe — but from the fact that the factors it has in common are Combined in an original fashion. Using this method, it is easy to see that the ditferent organisations of the workers movement represent currents present intemationally. The overwhelmingly most powerful are of course the Stalinist and Social Democratic currents, Both these currents represent definite social forces and are the products of world-historic defeats of the working class, Social democracy represents the product of the co-option of the Second International, and its historic betrayal of the international working class in 1914, Stalinism is the product of the dageneration of the Soviet state and the Bolshevik party — and with it the Third International. These currents represent respectively the social weight of the international bourgeoisie and the stalinist-bureaucracy /naice the workers movement. Naturally, we think thet the third fundamental current in the workers movement — unhappily somewhat weaker — is the revolutionary marxist current. Net all the organisations of this current are inside the Fourth International, and the precise reasons for this are discussed in the next section. The fight to recompose the workers movement, and to defeat the reformist tendencies is therefore profoundly an Page 10
[page 12]
| |
international struggle, The maxim of using all possible strangth available internationally to modity the results in a revolutionary direction, is precisely what justifies the need for international organisation. The results achieved by the Fourth International so far in building revolutionary marxist organisations are par excellence the results of international work, In the evolution of virtually avery section of the Fourth International, and especially the stronger ones, the intervention and assistance — material and political — of the Intamational has been decisively important. Those who oppose international organisation are quilty of ‘sponteneism on the international terrain’. For revolutionaries te abandon international organisation would amount to a foolish self-denial of the possibilities of using revolutionary resources in the most efficient way,
[page 13]
Organisation and Cadres on an international basis It is quite possible for a purely national organisation to develop an analysis of the development of the world situation and the tasks of revolutionaries. Indeed every national revolutionary organisation attempts to do this to @ greater or lesser extent. However, there are great problems for national organisations in doing so effectively. From a Marxist point of view, the major problem for a nationally-based group is the absence of the possibility for verification of their analysis by practice: the link between theory and practice is broken. The immense advantage of an international organisation is that the experiences and views of cadres and organisations in many countries can be used to verify and enrich the analysis of the world situation. In that sense, it is really only possible for an international organisation to begin to approximate to 2 rounded view of world developments which can be tested in practice
But the problem goes beyond this. Because we live in the era of world politics and world economy, an analysis of each ‘national’ situation is impossible without a firm wiew of its links with the international situation. Purely national organisations inevitably tend to develop one-sided views on the basis of their portial nationally-based experience. This goes beyond broad ranging analyses of the international and national situations right down to small-scale tactical conceptions,
A revolutionary programme is by definition an international programme: it is enrichad by international application. The Fourth International attempts to build organisations and cadres on the basis of the experiences and practice of all its sections, By continually subjecting the practice of each section to the scrutiny and debate of cadres on a worldwide basis it is much easier to check the development of nationally-based daviatians and arrors. Trotsky once expressed this in the follawing way:
“It is possible for a national group to maintain a constant revolutionary course only Hf it firmly connected in one organisation with co-thinkers throughout the world and maintains a constant theoretical and political collaboration with them” (3)
The Foundation of the Fourth International
Few militants within the ambit of the British revolutionary left doubt the value of Trotsky’s opposition to Stalinism, his relentiess exposure of the criminal role of the Stalinised Comintern in China and Germany and his campaign against the frama-up of the Moseow trials and the bureaucratic deganeration of the Soviety Union. But the actual foundation of the Fourth International is not so universally applauded. On this question, we are frequently met with two types of argument, First, the position of Isaec Deutscher, who together with the other Polish Left Oppasitionists opposed the foundation of the Fl in 1938. (In his "Prophet Outcast’ Deutscher polermicises at length in defence of the arguments of the Poles at the founding congress, as if making a posterior ‘objective’ judgement. Later he modestly concedes in a footnote; ‘| was tha author of this argument’), Deutscher is scathing about the foundation of the Fl, to which he refers a Trotsky’s fiasco with the Fourth International’. According to Deutscher Trotsky erred in founding a new intemational without support from the masses: the objective Page 12
[page 14]
conditions were overwhelmingly unfavourable, the founding of a new International would be an‘empty gesture’. At this point in time, of course, the argument of Deutscher and the Poles was an argument from within the camp of the International Left Opposition about how best to bring anew International into existence, Subsequently Dewtscher's argument became more complex. In his postscript to Trotsky’s biography f'Vietory in Defaar’) he postulates the possibility of the victory of Trotsky’s political ideas and revolutionary omimism gesoite the defeat or irrelevance of Trotskyist {in the broadest sense) organisations, He bases this hypothesis — which [Is tentative to be sure — on two phenomena a) de-Stalinisation in the Soviet Union and b) the emergence of ‘new’ revolutionary forces, such as Maoism, outside the framework of Trotskyism and Stalinism — especially in the ‘third world’, Deutcher’s optimism about the possibility of peacetul development and ‘de-Stalinisation’ in the Soviet Union now seems decidedly antiquated. Even though his argument was written in the early 60s, and Deutscher himself never lived to see such things a5 the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, he oi witness such events as the invasion of Hungary. Let us not forget that Deutscher could not bring himself to support the Hungarian workers uprising in 1956. Despite his tentative uncertainty about peaceful development in Russia, #7 prectice he did not support moves towards political revolution, In looking for ‘objective’ forces that would carry out Trotsky’s political project in Russia, Dewtscher adapted to Stalinism. Moreover, his appreciation of Magism and other ‘new’ revolutionary forces Deutscher seems decidedly uncritical. His later judgements about the Fourth International have to be viewed against the background of these political accommodations.
[page 15]
The argument of Duncan Hallas (Against the Stream, (5 53), while borrowing much from Deutscher, hes an essentially different focus, According to Hallas, the foundation of the Fl was promised on a definite political perspactve — Trowky's view that the Second World War would lead to a defeat of Stalinism and a new revolutionary upsurge. To meet this upsurge it was necessary to proclaim a new revolutionary banner, 2 ‘spotless and untarnished ravolutionary banner which would rally millions ‘within ten years’. The logic of Hallas‘s argument is that because the perspective was wrong (however realistic it seemed at the time), the political project represented by the Fl — its perspective — was dogmatic and utopian and inevitably led to crisis and degeneration (ultimately, according to Hallas leading to ‘Pabloism’}.
At one level Halles’s arqument is marely footiing and triviel, He argues (1S 53, p37) that the proclamation of the Fourth International merely meant the re-naming of the International Left Opposition. Trotsky many tinves answered this trivial argument by gaving, in effect (4), our opponents already refer to our international tandency as “The Fourth International’ we renard ourselves a6 the central ideological pre-cursor of the future Fourth International, so let's call ourselves by the right name. Provided no one actually believed that the proclamation of the Fourth International meant the establish: ment of the mass Fl, the mame was of secondary consequence.
But Hallas’ argument was to have an important. kernel of truth, Undoubtedly part of Trotsky’s rationale for the foundation of the Fl, was his belief in the impending revolutionary wave which would be generated by the World War, Although Trotsky got many elements of that development right, his central wiew of The coming deteat of stalinism was wrong. Mevertheless, his view thet the second world war would involve big upheavals, that jopportunities would be opening up to more firmly actablich the revolutionary movement, was absolutely right. Seen from tha perspective of 1938, the notion of clearly establishing a revolutionary current, which would be more than just a submerged tendency In the workers movement, Was not unreasonable. The whole chain of Hallas’s reasoning deperuls on accepting his conclusion — that the establishment of the Fl on the perspective of 4 mass revolutionary development paralysed the F| after the war, and led to its ‘pabloite’ degeneration. Since we don’t accept that conclusion {see below), there seems no reason to accapt Its premises.
Over and against all these arguments, the view expressed an behalf of the leadership af the International Lett Opposition at the founding congress by Pierre Naville are extremely convincing. Naville argued that it was macessary to put an end to the ambiguous situation that existed of numerous groups sympathetic to the ‘idea’ of the Fourth International, to organise 3 properly defined international tendency of those who were prepared to work systematically for the creation of a mass Fi, with a commonly accepted programme and a properly functioning international leadership. This was the best way to prepare for the future, and establish continuity of programme and cadres. The name ‘Fourth International’ emphasised the central role, the mecessity, of this international tendency in bringing into existence the future mass Fourth International.
We said that the perspective of a mass revolutionary upsurge was just part of Trotsky rationale for establishing the Fl. It is impossible not to be struck by the fact that Trots argued (unsuccessfully) for the establishment of the Fl before he had adopted the Page id
[page 16]
spective of the impending revolutionary upsurge. That seems to us to be decisive evidence that Trotsky had in mind the essential preparatory role of @ firmly established international organisation, irrespective of thls or that perspective. And when all is said and done, comrade Hallas cannot bring himself to unambiguously say that the founding ! of the Fourth International was wrong — merely that the perspective which he believes lad to its founding had some unfortunate consequences. But if the founding of the FI had a rationale other than the perspective, the persepctive wasn't devised just lo greet the founding of the Fl! Without the founding of the Fl, it would have presented just the same problams of reorientation for the International lett opposition, except that the Trotskyist movement would have probably been in even worse an organisational state to deal with the problems.
The Political Evolution of the Fl: the myth of ‘Pabloism’
Even amongst those who accept the correctness of Trotsky’s founding of the Fourth international, there is a very common argument, found in organisations as diverse as the British SWP and the International Spartacist tendency. This argument says that the failure (partial or complete, depending on the protagonists) of Trotsky's perspectives to develop aftar the Second World War — with the victory of the revolution in Yugoslavia and China under the leadership of Stalinist forces, together with the expansion of Stalinism in Eastern Europe, and the stabilisation and boom in capitalism, threw the FI into a massive crisis. The result of this crisis wes the organisational fragmentation and political collapse of the Fl, which reached its nadir in the develapment of ‘Pabloism’. This disease 'pabloism’ took over tha Fourth International, and ever since it has been characterised by ‘sdaptatianism’, liquidation to Stalinism/Social Democrecy/petty-bourgacis nationalism/studentism ete,, etc., or as Michael Kidron once pur it:
“unique fugitive accent — the easy shift from urban workers to “third world’ passants, to students as the revolutionary focus; the rapid transition fram reforms to structural reforms to direct action as the current tactic; the indiscriminate loving up to the....dissident and not so dissidant bureaucracies of both Stalinism and Social Democracy’. (5).
These arqumants are the result of a double confusion about the discussions which took place in the Fourth International after World War Wand the subsequent theories and tactics of the Fl, In the first place, it is of course true that a long discussion took place about the “buffer zone” in Eastern Europe, a discussion marked by a great deal of tentativeness and condusion — but this wes only to be expected, Faced with complataly new and unexpected phenomena, not only in the ‘buffer zona’ but also in Yugoslavia and China, it was entirely predictable that a prolonged and difficult disctssion should be needed to analyse these developments. As far as the prognosis of crisis in Western capital: ism was concerned, this was indead an incorrect perspective, but hardly anyone of any political tendency analysed this development correctly, What is decisive in the argumentation about the ‘pabloist” course of tha Fl is the famous theses of the Third World Congress (the famous ‘war-revelution" theses) and the assessment of the Fl of the course of the colonial revolution. Tha sense of the theses of the Third Congress was that in a situation of increasing capitalist crisis, there was an Increasing polarisation into two ‘world camps’, Thare was a grave danger of a third world war, which would take the form of a ‘war-revolution’. Under the pressure of the ‘coming war’ sections of the reformist Page 15
[page 17]
parties, in particular the Communist parties, would move to the left. In order to influence thase davalopmants it was necessary for revolutionary marxists to enter the mass parties to win these left4noving currents and rapidly build marxist parties.
It is easy to see now that this whole perspective was catastrophist, Nonatheless, it was formulated at a time whan the Korean Wer was in full swing, when there had been a military confrontation over East Berlin (the Berlin blockade), when McCarthyism was rampant in the USA, and when many of the Communist Parties were moving sharply to the left. ‘The Coming War’ didn’t sound so ridiculous against the backdrop of these developments. Between 1950 and 1952, tha French Communist party took a violent lurch to the left, indeed many of its tactics (violent street actions which led to the deaths of many workers — seven PCF militants were killed by the police in one day in Paris) were uiftra-left. In this kind of atmosphere, the notion of a swing to the left by sections of the CPs was not incredible.
The sleight of hand used by the ‘anti-pabloites’ is the argument that Pablo and the F| argued against the need to build mdependent revolutionary parties and believed that the existing Stalinist parties could substitute ‘under the pressure of the masses’. This argument is a violation of both the spirit and the letter of Pablo's argument. ‘Entrism Sui generis’, an entry te influence the leftward-moving currents was specifically and explicitly aimed at building such partias. Lat the much-maligned comrade Pablo speak for himseal?:
“We are entering....banking on the great possibility which axists af seeing these parties, placed under new conditions, develop centrist tendencies which will lead a whole stage of radiciglisation of the masses and of the objective revolutionary Processes in their respective countries. Wa wish in reality from the inside of these tandencias to amplify and accelerate their laft-cantrist ripening and contast avan with the centrist leaders for the entire leadership of these tendencies.....Does this mean that the reformist partes will become revolutionary parties and that we are entering not to destroy but to strengthen them? No, the reformist parties such as they are will never be transformed into revolutionary parties, but under exceptional pressure of the masses they can be transformed into centrist parties either in their entirety or in part.....Wa are not entering with the illusion of transforming them into révolutionary parties but to help in the development of their centrist tendencies and to give it leadership". (6).
This perspective was outlinad against a whole conception of the development of revolutionary crisis throwing the grip of the Soviet bureaucracy on all the Stalinist parties into crisis. Pablo reasoned that it was idealist to imagine that under the pressure of working class upsurge the Communist Parties would remain simply and unconditionally expressions of the will of the Soviet bureaucracy, This notion of a crisis of Stalinism wes exactly in line with Trotsky 's view that revolutionary upsurge would create immense difficultues for international Stalinism and eventually destroy it. In the event, although the war-revolution thesis turned out to be incorrect, its organisational consequence, entrism, praved to be entirely justified. During the 1950s and early ‘60s the major differentiations within the workers movement took the form of centrist and socialdemocratic currents within the mass parties. Entrism was only significantly applied by the Fl in me Communist Parties — the French and Italian: many more sections Page 16
[page 18]
orientated towards the social democratic parties without any illusion that they could become centrist or revolutionary parties. Tha perspective of building independent revolutionary parties was never given up. Even during the period of the ‘warrevolution’ perspective, Pablo's view was that:
“the task of revolutionary marxists is to work in the interior of these movements to finally accelerate the maturing of the real left tendencies from which will come the essential forces of the revolutionary parties of tomorrow". (7).
The second element of the political development of the Fl which is painted to by the myth-makers of ‘anti-pabloism’ was its conception of the development of the colonial ravolution. These myths go under the headings of ‘capitulation to petty-bourgeois nationalism’ and ‘abandonment of the central role of the working class’. In reality the International wes concerned to show, that with the temporary stabilisation of Western capitalism, the colonial and semi-celonial countries had become the focus of revolutionary davelopments in the world. This hardly involved ‘abandonment of the central rola of the working class’, if the central role of the working class is conceived as being the ultimately decisive question in the world revolution. It isn't necessary to be a genius to work out that in a period of temporary capitalist stabilisation, economic strikes amongst western workers don’t quite have the same meaning es the seizure of power in China, the revolutionary struggle in Indochina, the defeat of imperialism in Cuba, the long war of liberation in Algeria and so forth, Whatever the precise analysis of the outcome af these struggles, the profoundly revolutionary potential which they contained should have been obvious to all. The sleight-of-hand of tha anti-pabolite myth-makers in this case is the identification of the perspective of the Fl with the positions of the various ‘third-worldists’ of the Lin Piao/Baran-Sweezy variety who theorised this whole davelopment into the view that revolution would first conquer all the colonial and semicolonial countries, the ‘countryside’ would surround the ‘cities’ on an international scale. This type of outlook has always bean combatted by the Fourth International.
The key theoretical failing of the ‘“anti-pabloite’ critics of the Fourth International has always been a sectarian incomprehension of the new forms of developmant of the world revolutionary process. Jealously guarding the programmatic acquisitions of Trotskyism — and in particular the revolutionary role of the working class and its political indapendence — the anti-pabloites have failed to understand the uneveness of revolutionary developments and their original combinations. Thus all the things that the Fl has got decisively right — the crisis of Stalinism (which is still working itself out in the form of “Eurocommunism’ and the contradictions between the soviet bursaucracy and the national stalinist parties), the upsurge of the colonial revolution, the conjunctural role of the student movemant in the late ‘60s, were in general misunderstood. Kidron’s notion of the “unique fugitive accent” of tha Fourth International is at bottom a vulgar psychological argument: in this view the FI is characterised by ‘the urge to capitulate’, but in an indiscriminate fashion (hence ‘third world peasants’, students, social democracy, Stalinism all fit the bill), Much more coherent, but equally incorrect, is the version by which the FI's “pabloism” is typically a capitulation to sta/inism. The error in this version is its mythical-demonic view of the Communist parties of the world as an ‘expressive totality’; all equally stalinised, all equally representing the interests of the Stalinist bureaucratic caste, all with the same relationship to the masses, all equally Page 17
[page 19]
monolithic. An incomprehension of the crisis of stalinism automatically follows: what also follows is a total absance of any tactical appreciation of how to intervena in stalinigm’s crisis. Seen in this light, the response of the Fourth International to the complex developments in the European Communist parties, virtually the only organisation of the far left able to intervene in the debates around ‘Eurgcommunisn and to appreciate the Inevitable emergence of centrist currents within this development, is a direct and logical continuation of the elaboration begun in the early 1050s.
There is a final irony to all the accusations of “pabloism’, namely that after 25 years of ‘iquidation’ and “capitulation to stalinism’, the Fourth Intemational by some curious quirk has not actually succeeded in liquidating itself into anything. But in actually considerably building its arganitations. Doubtless this is a clever pint to prepare some more spectacuiar liquication at a future stage!
The Programmatic Basis of the Fourth International and the international marxist vanguard.
Revolutionary organisations are based an programmatic agreement, not on total agree ment of a theoratical character. OF onursa, theoretical disagreements can ultimately lead to programmaric differences, but only in tha last analysis, This was tha sansa of Trotsky's position on the differences in the American SWP over the class nature of Russia, Trogky asked: what does this or that analysis change in our programma, in the practical tasks which we advocate? The long period of molation of the Trotskyist movement alter the second world wer gave rise to numerous splits which had no justitiabla programmatic basis: in small and polated organisations iL was all loo easy to splil over every and any difference, Today, the task which faces us is to overcome the remaining significant results of that fragmentation. Total agreement over history (especially over tha history of the Trotskyist movamant itself), and total theoretical agreement are impossible to achieve. Indeed, not only is it impossible, but total theoretical agreement would imply the building of monolithic organisations, not organisations open to all who accept the revolutionary marxist programme, irrespective of tactical or secondary differences, That is why the Fourth International is today embarked on a project of attempting to regroup all thosa who adhere to the basics of the marxist prigramme Into a single international organisation. Within that process, of course, the militants of the Fourth International will fight for their own political and theoretical positions.
The basics of the revolutionary marxist programme are very simple. First, it involves a6 far as the advanced capitalist countries are concerned, an insistence on the central role af the working class and its political independence, the revolutionary character of the transition to socialism, and the goal of soviets as the means and embodiment of workert power. Within that, it involves tha commitment to work in the mass organisations a consequently the united frant. Even this very simple definition immediately draws line between revolutionaries and the ‘Euro-centrist’ currents and tendancies of t Poulantzas/Miliband/I| Manifesto variaty who want to combine parliarnent and soviets who believe in @ strategy of “pressurising’ left governments. It also draws a line again currents of the ‘Militant’ variety, who with their theory of an ‘enabling act’ put revolutionary character of the transition into question.
Page 1B
[page 20]
As far as the so-called ‘Communist’ countries are concerned, the basis of the Marxist programme is the fight for socialist democracy. the revolutionary overthrow of the existing state apparatuses and the establishment of workers councils, The question of the class nature of these regimes is for the decisive question. Already thera exist within the framework of the Fl both ‘state capitalist’ and “hureaucratic collectivist’ minorities. The fundamental line of divide here is against all the Deutscherite and apologetic tendencies who postulate the possibility of the ‘self-reform’ of the bureaucracies,
In the colonial and se mi-colonia!l countries the decisive programmatic question i the fight for the alliance between the working class and the poor peasants under the political laadarship of the working class. The line of divide which remains fundamental is against those whe advocate a “stages' strategy, of alliances with the ‘national bourgeoisie’.
Of course what we have outlined here are just the basics of the revolutionary marxist programma. Hut even these few points serve immediately to differentiate those who are fundamentally in the revolutionary camp and those who are not. For example, virtually every major European centrist organisation (e.g. the major Italian organisations and the French PSU) ere excluded by these criteria, In concrete cases there cen be numerous secondary programmatic or other obstacles to the unification of the organisations who accept these basic programmatic planks. Ultimately, the sctual policy of an organisation in practice if the decisive criterion. What it important is tha recognition of tha necessity to work towards the unification of all the revolutionary forces, nationally and intar nationally, This approach involves an acceptance by the Fourth International that there remain important revolutionary forces outside it own ranks, and thet this disunity serves only to weaken the revolutionary marxist vanguard against the retormists and centrists of all kinds, The preconditions for beginning the process of unification of the ravelutionary forces include an acceptance of tha need for workers damocracy, including the right to tendencies and factions inside the revolutionary organisations and the acceptance of the need tor joint work amongst revolutionaries as the precondition for the verification of the possibility of unity.
The Reality of the Fourth International Today
A standard ploy amongst opponents of the Fourth International for many years was the ‘which Fourth International are you talking about’ argument. This was based on the existence of several groupings claiming to be the ‘Fourth International’. After the raunificatian of the two major components of world Trotskyism in 1963, basically three groupings claimed the title Fourth International — Posadas' grouping in Latin America, the Healy-Lambert ‘Intarnational Committea’ and USF]. Today, no one seriously disputes that the USF! the Fourth International, Die-hands like Duncan Hallas may refer to the IMG as ‘tha Gritish section of the largest grouping claiming to be the Fourth International’, but his intransigence is not shared by those who edit the British SWP's international bulletin. Both the Posadas and Healy-Lambert groupings have decayed and split into very little (although Lambert's organisation still has significance in France}, But today the overwhelming majority of those claiming allegiance to Trotskyism support the USFI, What rola does the Fourth International play today?
Page 19
[page 21]
The only internationally organised revolutionary current After the upheavals of the late 1960s, the ‘revolutionary’ lett was split into a number of competing tandencies. Three of these tendencies had significance on an international scale — the Trowkyist, Maoist and pro-Cuban (the ‘OLAAS current’). Today both the Madist and pro<uhan currents have gone into an acute crisis. As far as the pro-Chinese currents are concerned, they were always hampered by the refusal of the Chinese to organise internationally, This refusal was justified by the Chinese by the theory of ‘national self-reliance’ — a souped-up version of ‘socialism in one country’ and “National roads to socialism’. More fundamentally, these currents are experiencing @ crisis in part because of the more or less openly counterrevolutionary nature of Chinese foreign policy, but also because of the contrast between the hopes aroused by the ‘cultural revalution’ and the transparently undemocratic practices of the Chinese party and state apparatus. Hardest hit, naturally, have been the orthodox Stalino Manis! organisations. Other organisations with a Manist inspiration, but with enough theoretical flexibility to be able to swivel their Maoist themes — organisations like the KB in West Garmany and the three large Italian far lett organisations — have been able to weather the storm more easily. But they have been able to do this only at the price of progressively distancing themselves from the positions of the Chingse leadership. For example, ever 1) Manifesto in Italy, slavish worshippers of Mao, have been forced to admit the possibility that the Chinese bureaucracy employs political repression against it: opponents. In Scandinavia, the decline of the Maoist organisations haa been dramatic, and this example demonstrates the importance of revolutionary marxist organkations baing abla ta give tha Maoists crisis a helping hand.
In 1966 the Cuban leadership established the Organnation of Latin American Solidarity to co-ordinate the revolutionary struggles on a continental basis. This "OLAS current’, which never had real organisational structure, rs today a good a dead. Two factors combined to kill it; the manifest bankruptcy of the tactical prescriptions of the Cubans, and the sharp right-wing shift of the Cuban laadership. Numerous defeats have shattered the illusions of a decade ago. Starting with the defeat of Guevara's group in Bolivie, one by one the guerilla groups have been deteated, even when they turned to urban guerilla warfare, The Cuban leadership itself, instead of assessing these defeats and precising a revolutionary strategy, hai progressively accommodated itself to the Soviet bureaucracy and re-built its bridges to the ‘orthodox’ pro-Moscow Communist | parties in Latin America, Thus Cestro’s essential role in relation to the Chilean avants wae to sanction the Popular Unity project, with only the mildest and most tentative critical noises. Of course the evolution of the Cuban leadership springs out of the failure to extend the revolution in Latin America. The reflux of revolutionary advance was always bound to have an ideological reflection in a leadership that was never fully Marxist. In any event, in terms of precsing a strategy on even a continental basis, the Cuban leadership hardly provided anything more concrete than the demand for guerilla warare. It never aspired to any type of global political intervention.
The decline of the Maoist and pro-Cuban has considerably moditied the position of the Fourth International: Trotskyism today is the only organised revolutionary tandency onan international scale. 11 it is possible to say today that the Fourth Intemational has activities and cadres in 60 countries, way beyond the strenath of the Fourth International . Page 20
[page 22]
at its founding, it is also possible to say something more significant, namely that for the first time the most important Trotskyist organisations have developed along way beyond being small propaganda groups, Thea largest and most influential sections of the Fourth international — a in France and Spain — are nationally known organisations, which more and more take on the aspect of being ‘small parties’ rather than tiny vanguard groups. While the main strength of the Fourth International since 1966 has tended to be predominantly European, this situation is being modified by the re-composition of the Latin American vanguard, with the beginnings of powerful Trotskyist organisations in particular in Mexico and Columbia. In North America the Trotskyist onjanisations are quasihegemonic on the far left; the upsurge of labour militancy, for example in the American steel and mining industrias, has created the basis for an important turn towards proletarianising these organisations. In all the countries where the forces of Trotskyism have been split (for example Canada, Portugal, Australia, etc) the supporters of the Fourth International have already, or are in the process, of regrouping into a single organisation, This is a reflection of the fact that although the Fourth International has since 1969 been through a prolonged internal debate, including the formation of two international tendencies, the political differences have been overcome withoul recourse to splitting the international or by expulsions Without making the slightest concession ta bluff of triamphalism, the reality of the Fourth International today is that while it is a long way off creating mass revolutionary parties, its organisations have never been stronger or more implanted in mass movements and the working class. It is the only force which can be seriously said to be building a ‘world party of socialist revolution’.
MOTES
ft) Buncaa Malis: “Towers a Revolutionary Sociaiiet Policy’ in Parry + Claes, Photo Press, 1969.
i2) Preface ro the German edition of Pernenent Revolvrion.
{3/ ‘On the Unificarion of the Brivih Section” in Documents of the Fourth International,
(4) ‘For thea Faurth International?
No! The Faurth foternational! jn international val. fae. 4
(5) MM. Kidoon: Maginet Marxism in International Socialism April/May 1969,
(6) M. Pablo: “Entrism of a Special Tyre
(7) MM, Paitvo: ‘The Coming War"
Page 21
[page 23]
DOBSON JUST TIP] OF THE ICEBERG
ATL a In EA WEE The 9 iveegagie fae Per al om Briar
Ow TS MELT Teg OPER
Bimingham NAC demonsiaten Oot 29 oo Abortion: ate a TOME FOR | SCRE) Te feats: ores and 4
“A professional, well researched newspaper far broader based than its socialist rivals’’ — Evening Standard July 8 1977. Produced weekly. Contributors include: Tariq Ali fediter], John Berger, Robin Blackburn, Margaret Coulson , Terry Eagleton, David Edgar, John Fowles, Peter Fuller, Ernest Mandel, Cathy Porter, Sheila Rowbotham, Fay Weldon, Sub, rates: 6 months £5.00; 12 months £10.00. overseas airmail £16.50 surface £10.00 Socialist Challenge, 328 Upper Street, London N1 2XOQ.
Page 22
[page 24]
BIG FLAME ON TROTSKYISM
Recently there has been much practical co-operation between the militants of Big Flame and the IMG, especially in the Socialist Unity election campaigns. All the more reason then, because of the respect we have acquired for these comrackes, to start to seriously answer their critique of Trotskyism, presented in the pamphlet by Paul Thompson and Guy Lewis (1). In the framework of this article we can only begin the task; Big Flame’s text Is extremely lengthy and we don’t intend here to answer it point by paint. Hopefully, however, this short piece will serve to prompt @ rejoinder from Big Flame and a continuation of the discussion.
The ‘methodological errors’ of Trotskyism
Big Flame start with the accusation, repeated from the Mao-Stalinist Mavrakia that Trotskyism is hampered by certain methodological errors — ‘principled dogmatism’ which doesnt allow new experiences to be reflected at the level of thea development of theory, and inability to analyse a conjuncture in its specificity, an inability to differentiate between differant ‘levels’ of the contradictions between classes and social forces, This ‘static and unchanging concern to impose abstract principles on simost any situation” has been a key weakness of Trotskyism. This accusation is coupled an attack on a passage by John Aobens to the effect that new experiences in the class struggle must be re-integrated within the theoretical framework of Tratskyism:
“We think that Trotskyism has much to learn from the Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions just as it had from the unsuccessful revolutions of Spain 1936, France 1968, Bolivia 1971 etc. The point is however that it is total theory that dafines the parts..... the contributions of Guevara and others are of great value if redefined in terms of Trotskysm™. (2)
This passage by Robens confirms the views of Thompson and Lawis on the dasire of Trotkyists to subordinate everything to certain abstract and timeless dogmas. In truth, these accusations against Trotskyism are not new, but have been repeated many times. :
As we stated above, Trotskyism starts from a conception of world economics and world politics, It doasn't seek to impose ‘abstract principles’ on the analysis of new situations, but to analyse each concrete conjuncture with the aid of certain abstractions, i.e., certain theoretical concepts worked up from the history of the international class struggle. It seeks to locate concrete events within an overall conception of the davealopment of the international class struggle, Two points should be made here. First, this method of approach is absolutely in conformity with the Marxist method in general — it is impossible to analyse anyting without the use of certain abstractions. But secondly, it is an absolute mis-reading of the history of Trotskyism to repeat, as cdes Thompson and Lewis do, the absurdities of Regis Debray, who alleges that the conceptions of Trotskyism are unchanging. New syntheses and abstractions are constantly worked up from the intervention of the Trotskyist movement, which we hope enable us to undarstand new phanomana both in terms of their specificity and their continuity. Ta give a concrete example: the ‘abstraction’ — ‘Stalinism’. !f it were really the case that the Trotskyist movement had a dogmatic and abstract conception of all those movements and parties which have their origin in the stalinised Comintern, then surely we should Page 23
[page 25]
expect the Fourth International to merely repeat that Stalinism is Stalinism, it hes certain timeless features etc., etc. But when we come to actually look at the analyses made by the Trotskyist movermant of developments amongst thosa parties, then we see an over-riding concern to analyse these phenomena in their specificity. The Sino-Soviel dispute, the role of the Vietnamese communist party, the development of ‘Euro- Communism’ have all bean met by the Trotskyist movement with an attempt to define thé "laws of motion’ of these developments which give us an inkling of their ‘specificity’. To put it another way, what would be the situation if every new development, avery new ‘conjuncture’ was totally original, totally specific,totally new? It would mean that the whole corpus of Marxist theory was totally useless. Completely new theoretical tools would have to be developed for each new situation. The methodological key to this problem is the famous proposition of Marx"s that ‘the concrete is concrete because it is the unity of many abstractions’, To oppose ‘conjunctures in their specificity’ to ‘abstract Principles’ is to collapse Marxist epistemology into the empiricist opposition between the ‘general’ and the ‘particular’; and in that case the particular can conform to the general in any way you like. in other words, Marxist theory gets ditched, rather than developed, in face of the new or the unexpected. In this respect, the attampt of the Big Flame comrades to oppose ‘maintaining doctrinal purity’ to ‘flexibility in adapting to new conditions’ & particularly unconvincing, Flemibility to adapting to new conditions, without this flaxibility being guided by a concrete Understanding of the meaning and dynamic of these new conditions (which can only be developed from certain abstractions) has an unfortunate history iin tha marxist movement, ‘
It is generally referred to by such names as ‘opportunism’ or ‘tail-ending’, {tt leads to the ‘undogmatic’ POUM joining the Spanish Popular Front, the undogmatic PSU defending French ‘national Independence’ and so on, In their introduction, the Big Flame comrades take issua with Robens‘ assertion that Marxist theory can “....give an analysis of the inner mechanism of entire processes — from the causes of the Cuban, Chinese and Bolivian revolutions to the imternal crisis of the workers states, to the revolutionary events of May “GB”. They argue that: “Unfortunately, no single analysis is possible, precisely because there is no ‘inner mechanism’ that motivates such widely differing processes”. (3) If what the comrades are arguing is that the ‘inner mechanism’ of each of these processes is not identical, then of course they are right. But at a more fundamental level, each of these struggles is a constituent part of the world class struggle, between the world proletariat and the world bourgeoisie, which has an independant existence, and its own laws of motion. If the comrades deny this basic Leninist notion, then for them intemationalism cannot be based aon the intemational consequences of national struggles — in other words is not essential — but merely on moral solidarity.
Finally, the comrades don't develop the allegation of Trotskyism’s ‘inability to distinguish between various lewel of contradictions between classes and social forces (economic, legal-political, ideological etc)’, but this seers like a rather obvious reference ta Trotskyist analyses of Russia — where this ‘inability’ is alleged by the followers of the Battieheim school of ‘state capitaliem’. Without answering this allagation in detail, we would assert that the Trotskyist analysis of the Soviet Linion is precisely an example of the ability to distinguish these levels, in their unity and contradiction. A simple ‘determinist’ analysis of Russia would hardly come up with so rich, complex and contradictory a formulation as the Trotskyist conception of Plussia as a transitional society. The Bettleheim/Poulantzas school, from which Mavrakis and Big Flame have Page 24
[page 26]
borrowed in making this criticism is characterised precisely by its scholastic destructuring of the concept of the ‘social relations of production’ as the datarmining level of social reality — which is after all the basis of Marxism. Once you allow, ai does | Bettleheim, for ‘ideological’ and ‘political’ relations of production, then of course you have a theory of ‘levels’, but unfortunately a theary which abandons socio-economic determinism, and thereby Marxism,
intercontinental Press combined wih LE PVOCOP is the new united weekly reflecting the revolutionary Marxist views of the Fourth International. It includes: * Weekly in-depth reporting and analysis of the major world developments. * Resolutions, documents, declarations and articles of the sections of the Fourth International and its leading committees as well as other revolutionary organisations. * Important documents and interviews — most not available elsewhere.
The journal is printed in New York and airfreighted to London for more rapid distribution to subscribers in Europe, Rates in Europe are as follows:
Introductory offer Gmonths 1 year 10 issues 2Zd4issues 48 issues Britain and Ireland £2.50 £5.00 £9.00 Continental Europe £4.00 £8.00 £13.00 Continental Europe (air) — £11.00 £19.00 DON'T MISS A SINGLE ISSUE. SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Please send me ... issues for which | enclose £....
All cheques/POs should be made payable to ‘Intercontinental Press’ and sent to Intercontinental Press/Inprecor, P.O. Box 50, London N] 2XP, England. For subscription rates outside Europe please write to: Intercontinental Press/Inprecor, P.O.
Box 116, Varrick Street Station, New York, N.Y. 10014, USA, Page 25
[page 27]
| in thair review of Trotsky's role as a laader of the early Soviet state, the comrades note that Trotsky was slow and reluctant to draw the conclusion of thebureaucratic degeneration of the revolution, unlike the Workers Opposition and others. There is a certain amount of truth in these criticisms, notwithstanding the evident difficulty at the time of comprehending what ware very novel phenomena. But this criticism from Big Flame jars a litthe whan it is put in the same pamphlet which criticises Trotskyism for its ultraleft impatience and distrust of the ‘institutionalisad power of revolutions’ — In other words the axisting stale apparetusas in China, Guba and such countries as Angola, Decidedly, the comrades of Big Flame don't have the same excuses and objective difficulties that Trotsky had in analysing Russia. When the comrades deal with China, their apologetic tone reaches the level of maivete. First, they repaat the Maoist dogma that the continuing upheavals in China are a continuation of ‘class struggle’, and quote Maoapprovingly in saying that: " there are still remnants of the overthrown landlord and comprador class, there is still @ bowrgeomie and the re-moulding of the pettybourgeoisie has pnly just started. The class struggle is by mo means over..." In saying this Mao was being very modest, This statement comes from 1966, the opening of the Cultural Revolution (the ‘Bombard the Headquarters’ phase) and was obviously part of his “theoretical” justification for unleashing the Red Guards against his factional opponents. it is part and parcel of the justification for calling his opponents ‘class enemies’ {top party people in authority taking the capitalist road). Doubtless, there are still remnants of the former bourgeoies and petty bourgeoisie in existence. But no one in 1966 could possibly believe that they had not been utterly defeated and isolated. There is-still "class struggle’ in the sanse of @ struggle of the working class to establish its direct political power, but not in Mao's sense of a struggle to defeat the bourgeoisie. From this point of view, we can't at all accept the Big Flame view that the outcome of the struggle against the bourpeoisié is not definitely decided, What is missing from Big Flame’s account of China is the concept of bureaucracy. And it Is very easy to see why. Since Big Flama criticise the Trotskyist conception of bureaucracy as ‘a mechanical separation at base and supemtructure’, for them to conceda the éxistence of a bureaucratic caste dominating the party and stat! apparatus would have an important consequence in terms of the “base” — i.¢, it would be to concede that the revolution has been defeated, proletarian power does mot exist, and (‘bureaucratic’) state collectivism axists a6 in Russia. Thus while noting the failure to institutionalise organisations of mass democracy, the comrades make a half-hearted attempt to justify the possibility that thera is mass Participation in planning “from below’, despite its evident absence from central policy decisions. In our opinion, the defeat of the radical tendencies in the Cultural revolution, signified by tha establishment im 1967 of the ‘three in one committeas’ under the domination of the army (PLA) signified the destruction of mass participation in dacisian-making. When the comrades say:
‘Workers are involved in planning and decision making through ‘workers management teams’. However, real power appears to rest with the ‘Revolutionary Committees' which are clearly partyded". (4).
they seem close to admitting that China is bureaucratised fram top to bottom. No wonder they take refuge in the notion that class struggle will determine whether the building of socialism continues, We say to the comrades of Big Flame: you are faced with Page 26
[page 28]
a choice. Ejthar you go on covering up for China as ‘a challenge to the mechanical and fatalistic concepts of Trotskyism’ (in which case You will be forced either to deny reality Or abandon your own ideas on workers democracy), or you will be forced to take the unpalatable step of characterising China as bureaucratic collectivist, The only way out of the dilemma is to accpe the Trotskyist conception of bureaucracy. Naturally, this will involve abandoning your ‘mechanical and fatalistic’ idea that a “transitional society’ between capitalism and socialism is impossible Finally, doesn't it seem a little bit odd to criticise Trotskyism for its inability to grasp the contradictions between different ‘levels’, and at the same time assert that the Trotskyist conception of a bureaucratic caste on the basis of collectivised, non-capitalist relations of production, is 'a mechanical separation of the base and superstructure’?
Incidentally, when we come to look at Angola arMazambique jt really is not good enough merely ta wiew these governments as “the institutionalisation of revolutionary power’. In the first place the uttarly undemocratic nature of these regimes doesn't need to be demonstrated. Secondly, the class character of these regimes needs ta be analysed, There are numerous regimes an the face of the earth that describe themselves as ‘socialist’ and even ‘revolutionary’. If you abandon the ‘social relations of production’ as the decisive criterion for determining the class nature of a particular society, then theoretical chaos ensures. Petty bourgeois nationalist regimes get dressed up as tha institutionalisation of revolutionary power, whereas workers stats run the risk of falling into the category of bureaucratic collectivism.
Permanent Revolution and the Transition to Socialism In dealing with the historical experiance of Russia, Big Flame criticise bot the conceptions of “‘parmanent revolution’ advocated by Trotsky and Stalinigm’s ‘socialism if one country’. Socialism in one country is criticised because of its abandonmant of an internationalist perspective, but ‘parmanent revolution’ is eriticised for nol providing any concrate answers to the prabiems of building socialism in a society where the revolution has been victiorious — in this case Russia:
Page 27
[page 29]
“Trotsky fought a lonely battle against Stalinism but his struggle was too often impaired by the abstractnass of his ideas. The theory of permanent revolution offered little in tha way of concrete ideas to resolve the predicament. In 1926 Trotsky wrote: “It is clear to us that the victory of the proletarian revolution is impossible without the world revalution’’, What hope then for Russia? Not surprisingly, Trotsky was ousted from power and Staelin was able to characterise Trotsky"s theory as “permanant hopelessness", (5).
Here, and in the development of their argument, the comrades are beginning ta repeat the essence of Stalinist criticisms of Trotsky, despite their criticism of ‘socialism in one country’. This is not because the comrades are themselves Stalinists, far from it, but because they have accepted certain wrong theoretical positions of Staliniam, in particular the Stalinist definitions of socialism and communism, In the first place, it's obviously not the case that Trotsky mere/y advocated ‘world revolution’ as the solution to all Russia’s problems, On the contrary, it was precisely Trotsky and the Left Opposition which took up the need to begin the process of industrialisation, im 1923, Trotsky saw this a5 part of the process of strengthening the social weight of the working class, and weakening the power of the kulaks who had grown strong during the period of NEP, In ‘The New Course’ he combined the call for a beginning of industrialisation with the idea of gradually beginning the collectivisation of the peasantry. These proposals were not at all cunterposed to the perspective of ‘permanent revolution’, but part of the same project-doing everything possible te strengthen the power of the working class nationally and internationally. There was nothing in the least bit “utopian” about such a project, as Big Flame assert.
The theoretical error of Big Flame is well demonstrated in the followirig passage:
“The Trotskyist view ts that while the dictatorship of the proletariat can be achieved in one country ‘it cannot proceed to the higher stage of socialism’ (Rlobeans p. 24)....this can only lead to the fatalistic view that the developmant of the productive forces will be retarded, leading to a bureaucratisation that cannot be solved internally.....Here economism and fatalism go hand in hand, ignoring the human factor, consciows action and political leadership, This machanical notion of base and superstructure gives so much weight to the problems of ‘scarcity’.
Scarcity does not necessarily lead to internal degeneration”. (6).
We agree with Big Flame that scarcity does not necessarily lead ta internal degeneration, in the sense of a crystallised bureaucratic caste. Trotsky and Trotskyist have never said that this is ‘inevitable’, We ao argue that there are inevitable problems of bureaucracy — in the sense of administrative ‘red tape’ and social inequality if there is scarcity, but bureaucratic degeneration is not inevitable. Qur whole project of ‘political revolution’ in the workers states, and the demands we put forward in favour of socialist democracy, ara avidence of our view that the problem of bureaucratic degeneration can be solved internally, precisaly by ‘the human factor, conscious action and political leadership". But that is not the end of the matter,
When Aobens correctly argues that ‘the higher stage of socialism’ cannot ba achieved in a single country he [is raterring to a society in which the state end commodity Page 26
[page 30]
production have been suppressed (and with them money and wage+abour). This Leninist definition of socialism is not accepted by Big Flame, who repeat this definition as their definition of communism (p, 36). For Trot skyists, communism i¢ defined as that stage characterised by the abolition of the social division of /ebour, not implied by the abolition of the state and commodity production. The problem with the positions of Big Flame on this question is that they lack the Leninist-Trotskyist concept of a transitional society, the dictatorship of the proletariat. In ‘Economics and Politics in the Epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ (selected works, volume 3, p. 295) Lanin clearly explains that ‘socialism means the abolition of classes’. But how could classes be abolished without the suppression of wage labour and commodity production, in other words of scarcity. It is precisely idealism to believe that ‘political leadership’ can overcome this objective problem within the framework of a single country.
|? Big Flame want to argue that within the framework of a single country it is possible, by the application of democratic socialist norms, to prevent the emergence of a bureaucratic caste, to have democratically centralised national Panning, to progressively overcome social inequality, then we can only agree with them. But that is something quite differant to the transition to socialism. No miraculous feat of ‘political leadership’ can avercome the objective constraints of scarcity, and the continued existence of the state, inevitable within the framework of a single country.
Leninist Organisation and the Vanguard On the question of Leninist organisation, which is the core of their critique of Trotskyism, the comrades present a complex argument which is a development of the positions theorised by Adriano Soffri, former leader of Lotta Continua, the Italian revolutionary organisation, The precise consequences of these positions for Lotta Continua’s developmant we discuss below, Given the complexity, and in some places vagueness of this argument, it is difficult to reproduce it In its entirety — comrades should read it for themselves. Centrally, Big Flames suggest that the Leninist theory of organisation, as developed by Lenin and taken over wholesale by the Trotskyists, was in part historically specific to the situation in Russia and Europe during the aarly part of the century. Because of important changes in capitalism since then, the changes in the composition and mature of the working class and changes in the triangular relationship between the working class, capital and the state, much of the Leninist theary is mo longer applicable. This doesn't lead to the necessity to dump Leninism, but to re-situate Laninism in a number of crucial ways, which Trotskyists have been incapable of doing, These crucial changes include a) a change In the clear-cut distinction between ‘trade union’ and “palitical’ struggles, always over-emphasisedby Lenin, and hence the much greater potential today for struggles taking a spontaneously anti-capitalist, socialist direction. This is in part a function of a much increased role of the state, which changes the conditions of struggle both inside the factory and in society in general b) the change in the ‘terrain of struggle’, due to the change in the composition of the working class, its de-skilling, massification etc., together with other social changes, gives rise te a whole spectrum of new movements and struggles which Trotskyists have been slow to comprehend. Trotskyists have generally remained within a narrow ‘workerist” conception of the working class as industrial workers, and have not understood autonomous movements of students, women etc. Tha ‘re-situation’ of Leninism that arises from these changes acceptance of the need for a revolutionary party as the
[page 31]
A. SOFRI ee —=_ generaliser and political centraliser of struggles, but a raacrion of the need for 3 fullyfledged party structure while the party is being built. Instead a more open structure is needed; the party is built ‘trom the bottom up’. Cansequantly the programme of the party is not something developed a priori and then fought for, but emerges fram the practice and experience of the new vanguards, and their eventual unification in the perty.
On the basis of these positions, the following sins and inadequacies of Trotskyism are elaborated a) a failure to understand that consciousness is not simply brought about by the intervention of ‘the party’ but is potentially present, to a greater or lesser degree, in the ‘conditions of emergence’ of the struggles, Consciousness is not simply brought from ‘the outside’. b) a ‘structural/administrative’ concept of the need for the party c) a ‘parmanent danger of an authoritarian and elitist relationship between the Leninist party and the class’ d) ‘a vulgarised and over-estimated notion of leadership’, which leads to the belie? that ....leadership can be transplanted on top of @ struggle; whether or not the struggle has undergone sufficient transformation and maturation’. «) a manipulative attitude towards autonomous movements. This is a weighty series of accusations and arguments: tha kay to it all lies in a wery significant littl phrase which the comracias use, that Trotskyists put ‘consciousness and ideology at the centre of analysis, as the determining factor in the level of struggles’. Big Flame are absolutely correct to locate the differences here.
Page 30
[page 32]
Ideological domination of the working class The argument of Big Flame on this question is not without marit. To paraphrase a wall-known formula, it contains a rational shall, concealing a thoroughly mystified kernal. What the comrades are correct about is that the Fourth International has not completely succeeded in re-situating Leninist organisation in terms of late capitalism. The objective roots of this problem are clear. For a whole period tha Trotskyist organistions, through no fault of their own, led an existence as small propaganda groups, often within the mass parties. This situation abruptly changed in the © late 19605 when many new problems of revalutionary organisation were posed for the first time in a generation. A whole number of questions of daaling with the party: vanguard-masses relationship were posed to organisatians which had grown very rapidly in a short spaca of time. The response of the Trotskyist organisations was a violent reappropriation of Lenin's arguments — ‘ultra-Laninism’ was the order of the day, Two points should be made hera. First, the composition of the organisations at that time — with a high proportion of students and other intellectuals was conductive to “ultra- Leninist’ organisational tetishisms. Second, the more important, the emergence of large Trotkyist organisations frequently took place in violent political conflict with mare-orless explicitly anti-Leninist forces, in particular the Mao-spontaneigts of the Gauche Proletetienne variety, but alsa economist and workerist tendencies. These tendencies frequently collapsed revolutionary organisation inte ‘the movement’, basing themselves on the ‘inherently and spontaneously’ revolutionary nature of the masses — populism in the real and not just polemical sense. Trotskyists in response to these currents waged a bitter programmatic battle around the letter of Lenin's texts. Politically the consequence of this was the stress on the relative separation of the party from the vanguard ‘and the vanguard from the masses — the strict selection of cadres on the basis of the most rigorous ideological criteria, guarding ideological orthodaxy and so forth. In our opinion this was a necessary political battle to fight, The strict reiteration of Lenin's organisational theories wat a precondition for furthar proaress. However, a gradual transformation of the Trotskyist organisations to a less abstract account of the meaning of Leninist organisation could only be a function of new experiences of mass work, which the Fourth International has begun to acquire during the 1970s, This is a process which is still in a very embryonic stage. What is invalved is both a number of questions of internal organisation — in particular the precise norms and modes of functioning necessary for an organisation with an increasing number of worker militants — and also some questions of the relationship between the party and various mass movements. We would argue that wa have made progress on these questions (for example the considerable elaboration carried out on the question of the womens movement) but that it is idealist to imagine that all these problems can be solved by what Big Fiame refer to a5 ‘theoretical homework", New experience: of mass work will be decisive,
Where then do we disagree with Big Flama? First their argument contains a good deal of polemical caricature, in which all the Trotskyist groups are held to have the same features of ultravanguardism ate. Fair enough, polemical exaggeration generally plays a certain role in these debates, but in all honesty it is difficult to sustain The argument that the organisations of the Fourth International have been characterised by a complete incomprehension of the womens movement, student movement etc., or have played a simple parasitic role in relation to them. So let's draw the line between polemic and dishonesty on that.
Page 31
[page 33]
[page 34]
But at 2 theoretical level, where wa differ with the Big Flame comrades is that in our opinion their attempt to re-situate Leninist organisational theory runs the risk of jettian ing a decisive element of that theory. When they say about modern capitalism: * some conditions of struggle encourage struggles to take on a political, 1.4, anti-capitalist, basis, which in turn makes for greater potentiality for the devalopmant of socialist consciousness. We would argue that these conditions are present in modern relations between working class, capital and the state — as experienced in peoples daily lives in the factory, community or college.......!1 is necessary to restore a materialist emphasis about the form and content of class atruggles im line with Marx's formulation that — ‘social being determines social cansciousness”.
Putting consciousness and ideningy at the centre of analysis .... fixes social baing in-such a rigid way...” (7). they are beginning to put in question the ideological daminatian of the working class, arvel 10 suggest that it can be overcome spontanaously. Lenin always argued, it was central to his theory of organisation, that the working class was dominated economically, politically and jdvo/agically. |t seems as if the comrades are arguing that in modern conditions it is much more egy for the working class directly to reach socialist consciousness throwgh struggfe: the ideological role of the party, and with it the importance of the programme are down-played. But when Big Flame quote as part of the evidence for the changes that have brought this about:
« ..conditions of modern capitalism have changed, most of which hawe gone unnoticed by Trotskyism. The state is & larger and more complex sat of structures if particular the reformist parties are more strangly rooted, with @ correspanding weakening of the revolutionary left..." (8), how these changes modify the situation in favour of a lessening of the ideological domination of the working class by bourgeois ideology. Surely these tendencies would tend to rednforce and strangthen that domination? The argument is not whether the many changes in capitalism do or do not tend to more readily lend an ‘anti-capitalist’ objective dynamic to struggles: we can arqua about this one way or the other, and frankly we don't see much evidence for it. But what is more important is the second stage in Big Flame's argument that a greater potentiality exists for the emergence af socialist consciousness. Now either this can mean that the ground is more fartila for socialist intervantion, of fl can mean that a greater potentiality exists for socialist consciousness to ernerge spontaneously. If this latter meaning is what the comrades have in mind, than they have revised the central element of Lenin's theory of organisation and class consciousness, namely the radical difference between bourgeois ideology and socialist consciousness, and the latter as uniquely the product of revolutionary political intervention. We can hardly accuse Big Flame of denying the need for socialist intervention: but their theory contains an important ambiguity on this point which is not fully davaloped. Let's finally note that the materialist notion which the comrades quate approvingly that ‘social being determines consciousness’ is more complex than they seem to think. ‘Social being’ of course includes ideas, ideology, the ideological effects of the state and reformist parties etc.
Page33
[page 35]
Socialist Intervention and the problem of “exteriority’
If Big Flame do not deny the need for socialist intervention, their whole text is concerned to show the dangers of what might be called ‘external’, ‘ultra-vanguardist’ intervention, According to this model (pp, 20—23), wrongly attributed to the Trotskyists, Political consciousness, is developed by party intellactuals outside the working class and then taken into the working class from the ‘outside’. This then leads to the problem of ‘parachuting leaderships', artificially trying 10 takeover struggles from the outside etc.
A number of points have to be made about this caricature of Trotskyist theory and practice. First, socialist intervention takes numerous forms — leaflets, speeches, slogans, ete. — which are developed from marxist theory, but not its immediate product. But Marxist theary, if it was first developed by bourgeois intellectuals (an historical factor in the emergence of Marxitm) was not developed outside the working class movemant — ie., it was not just @ speculative development but part of a political intervention and practice. It is now the property of much wider forces than just ‘party intellectusls’. All that is meant by socialist consciousness coming from the ‘outside’ is mot Lenin's historically contingent repetition of Kautsky’s thesis on the role of intellectuals, but rather that socialist consciousness comes from ‘outside’ the sphera of normal or spontaneous relationships on the factory floor or in society in general — i@,, it is the product of socialist intervention, The problem of ‘exteriority’ which so concerns Big Flame can only appear as @ problem when revolutionaries are not firmly rooted in the workers movement. We can only agraa with Big Flame when they urge that revolutionaries must be part of the masi movements, and give leadership from within. Who could possibly disagree with that? Hut the objective problem of the lack of implantation of revolutionaries can only be gradually overcame. Further, this lack of implantation cannot stand in the way of intervening in key strugggles, even with linn ted means at a propaganda level, because that is the only way to begin to solve the problem. For example, every socialist group worthy of the name intervened around Grunwick’s and the Firefighters struggle, despite their lack of implantation; and avery group had o position on how best to develop the struggle, To merely support these struggles, without a critical view of their course, in the name of respecting the ‘autonomy’ of aach group of workers has a very simple consequence — capitulation to the trade union bureaucracy and the class politicians of the bourgeoisie who will ‘intervene from the outside’ whatever their ‘degree of implantation’.
But there is one respect in which the intervention of revolutionaries is necessarily ‘exterior’, Evan when revolutionaries intervene from within a struggle, they do so on the basis of certain programmatic conceptions which exist a priori, which have been developed by the revolutionary organisations through the process of revolutionary intervention and its theorisation (and this is the ‘theoretical production’ which Big Flame dislike so much). Any othar conception of revolutionary intervention leads either to a complete separatian between programme and practice, or to simple empiricist practice based on a sense of smell. Big Flame‘’s incomprehension of this is demonstrated when thay say: "politics is less of an outside factor that organisations have to bring inte the struggle. Rather they have to direct, generalise discover it from within the struggle...” (9).
[page 36]
There is no way in which revolutionary socialist politics can be ‘disonveread” within a struggle and generalised. If it were a question of generalising struggles within which socialist politics were already present, then this would lead to precisely what the comrades describe as a structural/administrative conception of the party. Once again. there is nothing in the Trotskyist theory which destroys the possibility of a modification and enrichment of the programme on the basis of new experiences of the spontaneous struggles of the class. But the theorisatian of the experiences of the Class struggle takes place necessarily ‘externally’, in the revolutionary socialist organisations, not within this or that struggle.
Programme, party, new vanguards In dealing with transitional demands the hasic accusation made by Big Flame is that the method of transitional demands is propagandistic, designed marely to axpose the reformists and ‘raise consciousness’:
“it is worth nating that the concept of ‘raising consciousness’ in the transitional model is waak, H is built on @ rationalist model where penple’s consciousness can be raised in a ‘battle of ideas’. Trotskyist, often explain that it is their aim to debate with reformists and expose them in front of the masses......"" (p. 25).
There is no denying that some small Trotskyist groups have nothing but a propagandist practice, hut that has more to do with the physiognomy of sects than the method of transitional demands. Transitional demands ara designed not to ‘raise consciousness’ in a rationalist fashion, but to present concrete objectives which link any particular struggle with the overall fight for power, The point is not just to present dis-embodied socialist Propaganda, but to show a way forward in which the working class can begin to challange capitalist power in practice. But the task of ‘raising consciousness’ is inseperable from this process of presenting cancrete objectives which can be organised for and fought around. Big Flame explicitly recognise the problem of the split between immediate demands and general socialist propaganda, characteristic of reformism. But when they present their own solution af ‘medium term' demands (p. 26) it is absolutely unelaar in what way their conception differs from ours: in fact their explanation seems like a simple re-wording of transitional demands. And when they include in their examples of their ‘medium term’ demands such things as the sliding scale of wages, work or full pay and soforth, then our suspicions are a bit confirmed.....At any rate their whole critique of transitional demands is based on the caricature that transitional demands are abstract, rationalist, propaganda devices to ‘expose’ the reformists. Once again we plead ‘not guilty’.
The final point of Big Flarme’s critique we want to take up is the relationship between the party and the ‘new vanguards’. Ouring the past ten years a whole series of mass movements have areen;: in Britain movements of students, women, black workers and so forth, Big Flame want to defend the ‘autanamy' of these movements. But autonomy from what? Naturally Trotskyists will also want to defend the organisational integrity of these movements, their rights to make their own democratic decisions withoul interference from ‘raiding parties’ of whatever kind, their rights to self-organisation and so on, But we do not defend their ‘autonomy’ from revolutionary socialist politics, that is to say from the historic interests of the working class. On the contrary, Page 35
[page 37]
wa fight to link these movements with the strugagie of the working class Like Big Flame we want to fuse the ‘vanguard of the vanguerds’ jn the revolutionary party, but on what batie? And this is where the problem precisely. arises. Because the fact of the melter 1s that it is impossible to argue that the predominant jdeglogy of these movements is spontaneously and automatically socialist. In many cases the job of revolutionaries will he to fight against the stream of these movemant. Tha political fusion of the vanquard of these movements has to take place on the basis of marxist politics, Otherwise, what we gel is an assembly of differing groupings in the heart of the revolutionary party, who import inte the vanguard organisation all the one-sidedness characteristic of these movements in their ‘spontaneous’ development. An axplosian invariably follows.
The experience of the Italian organisation Lotta Continua, the inépirers and mentors of Bin Flame is instructive. By tailing the spontangous development of the movement, by its lack of ideological homogeneity, Lotta Continua brought all the contradictory currents of the Italian wanquard into its wterior. Faced with important political Lurns by the PCI, and the conflicts between the different vanguards represented Internally (characteristically women warsus workers) Lotta Continua has gnne into a massive crisis, such that it hardly exists a3 a nationally structured organisation. This crisis and decomposition has its roots In all the themes expounded by Big Flame — under estimation of the ideological role of the party, denunciation of ‘leadership’ and ‘external vanquards’, attempting to build the party ‘from the bottom upwards’ withour definite programmatic bases or secure organisational structures. Instead of oiving leadership, Lotta Continua has become the victim of the ‘spontaneous’ disor ientation of the Italian vanguard. It would be interesting to know what conclusions Big Flame draw from the experience af the organisation which inspires them,
(ft) Paul Thompson # Cory Lewis: The Aevolution Unfinished: A critmue of Trotaxyinem — Bay Fiama 1977.
(2) John Aobens: Stalinism, imperial + Permanent evolution
@) Op. elt po.
/ inva, 2.47
iS) Nia. 00.
(6) ied, pa,
(7) ihr. p20.
a) ibid
() bad Page 36
[page 38]