Editorials

[p004] Editorials _ economy and industry. The return of Wilson’s Labour government at this time has welded together even more closely the interests of imperialism and the politics of social-democracy. In Italy, the most right wing of Communist Parties has seen the death of Togliatti, whose services in steering the party away from Marxism were recognised with deep mourning by ‘bourgeois politicians, clerics, and all manner of good citizens. In its policy of ‘structural reforms’ the Italian Communist Party has now openly entered the lists of reformism, and claims recognition as part of the democratic citizenry of the Italian Republic. One of the most valuable acts of this Party in its services to capitalism was finally to vote for Signor Saragat, the right-wing social democrat, as President of the Republic. Thus we have arrived at a point where ‘communists’ must find ways of helping the bourgeois siate to avoid constitutional crisis! In Ceylon tthe ill-fated coalition government, in which Mrs. Bandaranaike had persuaded one-time Trotskyists, N. M. Perera and others, to take office alongside capitalist ministers of the SLFP, has collapsed. Its fall, lke its origin, for ail the demagogy about workers’ control and national unity, was executed by parliamentary floor-crossing in the best ‘imperial’ tradition of subservience to the ruling ‘class. In Africa, for all the intervention of that ‘great force for peace’ the United Nations, the Congo has ‘become once again a bloody battlefield as Tshomibe’s government comes to grips with the popular national forces. Further north in Nigeria, where the more diplomatic handing over of ‘independence’ by the British had created for middle- of-the-roaders everywhere an impression of stability and ‘democracy’, the actions of the young Nigertan working class exploded into the mass of national and agrarian contradictions, which, responding to changing conditions in the world market, threatened to disrupt even the existence of the ‘nation’ in Nigeria. In its general strike on May 31, 1964, the Nigerian working class made a political giant stride in forming a new workers’ party as well as frighten- ing the bourgeoisie to death with their organisation and solidarity, which forced considerable concessions. The frame-up trial of Sidi Kayam, Jonas Kiomasekenagh Abam and Oleshengun Adebayo, and the British University lecturer, Victor Leonard Allen, has rebounded and is incapable of doing anything to save the corrupt ruling clique. Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Commonwealth Spokesman for the British Labour government, told the House of Commons that he was convinced Allen had had a ‘fair and just trial’ and that ‘the Nigerian judiciary is held in very high regard’. Two months later, reports appeared in the press of the whole world about the organised thuggery and intimidation of 93

[p005] opposition leaders in the Nigerian election campaign. This General Election was finally boycotted by the opposition, dozens of whose supporters were killed and hundreds terrorised by organised thugs of the government party, all of whom were released from jail after arrest, while their opposite numbers in other parties were detained by order of . . . the Nigerian judiciary (‘which is held in very high regard’). British workers and socialists will know what to expect from Mr. Bottomley’s friends in the British judiciary. In the Communist Parties of the world, the Soviet- Chinese split is as wide as ever. This despite the sudden removal of Nikita Khrushchev in the same week as the election of President Johnson and Prime Minister Wilson. Khrushchev’s removal blew sky-high the official myth that ‘de-Stalinisation’ had restored ‘Leninist norms of Party life’. Outside the top members of the Soviet bureaucracy, nobody was admitted to any discussion of the politics of Khrushchev’s supporters and opponents. Nor were any of them asked to ratify or even express an opinion on. the matter once it was successfully concluded. Various Communist Party leaders, as in France and Britain, made pathetic journeys to Moscow to ask for a more satisfactory ‘explanation’ to dish up to their supporters, and came away empty-handed. Khrushchev’s fall came after a series of economic and political blunders, particularly in agriculture; it became clearer and clearer from the open nepotism and corruption that the successors of Stalin were only attempting readjustment within the ruling bureaucracy. Khrushchev’s removal will bring no ‘basic changes, It is yet another confirmation of the thesis of Trotsky that the problems of the USSR cannot be resolved in a national, bureaucratic framework, The task of the Russian working class is to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy, re-establish Soviet democracy, and resume its place in the ranks of the ‘international working class behind the leadership of a conscious revolutionary international. The immediate step is the construction of revolu- tionary parties in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and China. All these, and all the political developments in Asia, Latin America and the USA, bring home ever more clearly the impossibility of a revolutionary working-class. orientation in any single country without the international perspective of a com- munist movement. That perspective, developed by Trotsky in continuity with Marx, Engels and Lenin, is the perspective of FOURTH INTERNATIONAL. We shall endeavour not only to spread our circulation to all countries, but in so doing we hope to build the organisation and resources in each country which will make our magazine more and more representa- tive of the whole movement of the international working class. 94 THE POLITICAL and class characterisation of Wilson’s government, elected in October 1964, has proved a remarkable test for all those groups claiming to be Marxists. Not only has the Communist Party of Great Britain decided on a policy of support for the ‘progressive’ aspects and opposition to the ‘reactionary’ aspects of Wilson’s policy, but so-called Trotskyists of the ‘United Secretariat’ in Paris and their British followers have characterised the government as ‘left social-democratic’, and have taken to task the Socialist Labour League for its statements on the capitalist character of the Labour government. It is worthwhile to consider the background ‘to this question. For 50 years, Marxists have written about the political and theoretical bankruptcy of capitalism in its period of decline. So severe and all-embracing is this paralysis that the ruling class completely abandons and brutally rejects all the cultural heritage of human progress, above all the conquests of capitalism’s own ‘heroic’ period of the destruction of feudal privilege and obscurantism. In such a period, when the leading members of the bourgeoisie are either financial tycoons, political and military bosses, or tongue-in-cheek dispensers of lies and deception, a very special task falls to the political and ideological servants of capitalism on the ‘left’. In the second half of the 19th century, there emerged in one country after another mass move- ments of the working class. In some countries these labour movements were from the first organised and led by Marxists, by men and women who saw that the independent historical interests of the working class must be achieved through the conquest of state power in revolution. In others, it was rather a matter of workers gradually recognising through their trade union and democratic struggles the need for independent political organisation, but in this case only for independent political repre- sentation within the framework of bourgeois parliamentary democracy. Even the most highly developed consciousness of a trade union type could co-exist with this parliamentarism. It could, and did, support the development of a relationship with middle-class elements like the Fabians, whose reformist programme for ‘humanised’ capitalism did not clash with the restricted trade union con- sciousness of the organised workers, particularly the better-paid skilled workers, and above all, the rapidly developing trade union bureaucracy. Basing itself in the first place upon the..tradition- ally superior position of Britain im the capitalist world market, this reformism emerged at the head of the Labour Party at the turn of the century, and was consolidated despite all the upheavals of the next decades by the advent of the new stage of imperialism, in which all the great capitalist powers set about the transformation and expansion of their empires into fields for the export of capital and the FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964

[p006] winning of super profits. The latter were used in part to build up the ‘national’ war machines and state apparatus of the advanced countries and to incorporate into this ‘national’ life the leaders of the working-class movement. The very fact of the existence of a Labour move- ment claiming the allegiance of the workers as a class required special measures by the bourgeoisie. These special measures were in the first place the corruption and assurance of complete subservience of the Labour leadership, the bureaucratic heads of the working-class parties and trade unions. Im- perialism is not at all just a period of wealth for the capitalist class ‘but a period of crisis, ‘an epoch of wars and revolutions’. The social-democratic and trade union leaders must be able to guarantee not only the support of the workers for ‘national’ imperialist wars for the re-division of the world but also to provide actual governments when the direct political servants of the ‘bourgeoisie cannot find immediate solutions within the existing frame- work which ensure the continued acquiescence of the working class in the fraud of capitalist demo- cracy. Thus every European country has had its ‘Labour governments’ since the First World War. The alternative, used when necessary, was fascism, the liquidation of the workers as a class. In the earlier stages of capitalism, it had been sufficient for the ruling ‘class to exercise political control over all tendencies in the enfranchised classes, the middle and upper class, resorting only occasionally to bloody violence against the revolt of the masses. But for the organised labour move- ment of the working class special detachments were necessary. It was no longer enough to combine a ‘democratic’ ideology of national consensus with preparedness for repression. The Labour movement must be rendered ineffectual by assuring the loyalty of its leaders to capitalism. The first 20 years of this century brought the fruits of this corruption of ‘the labour lieutenants of capitalism’ in the victory of reformism in the Socialist International, whose leading parties shamefully drove their followers into the carnage of World War I. ‘But this period also brought its opposite, the struggle against revisionism, the creation of the Bolshevik Party, the Russian Revolution, and the foundation of the Communist International, con- sisting of ‘parties of a new type’. Given a leap forward in Marxist theory it was possible to come to ‘the essence of the problem of reformism and imperialism, and not necessary to remain at the level of understanding only the appearance of the strength of capitalism and its ideology. It was the contradictions and conflicts of imperialism, the very strength of the working ‘class as the representatives of a necessary new mode of production, which made it so vital for the imperialists to win the services of reformism. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964 A party basing itself upon the independen’ revolutionary interests of this class, a class which would inevitably ‘be involved in bigger and bigger struggles embracing the whole economic, political and ideological world system of imperialism would find it possible to lead mass movements to revolu- tionary victory. Lenin’s achievements were made on the basis of this perspective. He carried it through only because he knew that the fight against imperialism was nothing if it was not accompanied by a fight against opportunism of all kinds. The election of a Labour government in 1964 is one of the last acts in the painful long-drawn-out decline of British imperialism. Social democracy’s relationship to Britain’s special historical position in world capitalism has finally produced Harold Wilson and a government of craven and avowed servants of monopoly capitalism. Having come to power with the open support of influential sections of the employing class at a time when their traditional party is racked by internal conflict, Wilson and company are prepared to carry out policies to make capitalism more ‘efficient? with much less regard for the special interests of particular sectors of business, and those with particular imperial con- nections or old fashioned diplomatic or military privileges—in short all those who exist on some special ‘British’ economic and political interests— where these prevent him serving most effectively the general interests of monopoly capitalism against the working class, internationally as well as dumestically. His membership of the Labour Party has the added advantage of enabling him to call for the co-operation of the working class. His past association with the left-wing Bevanite movement enables him to gain the support of centrists and even of those Marxists of the revisionist variety. If we look at the major aspects of Wilson’s policy we shall see what kind of role is played by these entrists and revisionists. Only four weeks before the General Election, Wilson was reported in the press as saying ‘there is no economic crisis’. Less than three weeks later, the deputy leader of his party, Brown, warned his audience that Britain faced perhaps ‘the gravest economic crisis in its history’! There had been an agreement between Wilson and the Conservative Party to remain silent on the economic crisis. To put it bluntly, Wilson preferred to ask the working class for their vote but to conspire with the establish- ment to deceive the people. In fact, the unprece- dented balance of payments crisis revealed by the end of 1964 reflects a very grave and insoluble problem for British capitalism. Once in office, Wilson’s government continued the deception, a deception which was absolutely necessary from the point of view of the employers. After having promised cheap loans for house purchasers, the Labourites after the election raised the Bank Rate 95

[p007] to 7 per cent, which brought an immediate increase in interest payments on house mortgages to 63 per cent, Every Labour candidate had promised in- creased old age pensions, and a small increase was legislated in the first weeks of Wilson’s admini- stration. However, the actual payment of the increase was withheld until March 1965, on the grounds that immediate payment would involve an impossible amount of administrative work. Later, Brown admitted what had been clearly the real reason: the economic crisis was so severe that the increase could not be made if Wilson was to retain the confidence of those international bankers who came forward with the biggest monetary ‘rescue operation’ in the history of capitalism. The proposed pensions increase together with other minor concessions was only made in order to create the conditions for wage freezing under the name of an incomes policy. The ‘left’, together with Cousins of the Transport & General Workers’ Union, had no hesitation in accepting positions in this government and playing their part in the deception of the working class. Thus Cousins took his place as Minister of Tech- nology alongside Gunter, Minister of Labour, who had earlier in the same year openly anticipated the replacement of trade unions by state-controlled industrial courts: and this is the government which spokesmen of the United Secretariat chooses to call ‘left social democratic’. This is only the logical conclusion of their consistent opposition to the real fighting forces on the left in the British Labour Party, the Young Socialists. These Young Socialists have found it possible to organise the only effective campaign against the treachery of Wilson, something which is impossible for the revisionists. Indeed, the British adherents of the United Secretariat were faced with a situation where one of their most prominent members actually collaborated with the right wing of the Labour Party, under conditions of police protection, in expelling Young Socialists in London. The Young Socialists are campaigning on a clear issue: the immediate payment and ‘backdating of old age pension increases at a time of rapid inflation. In the given situation, such a demand raises the whole problem of the incapacity of capitalism to meet the basic demands of the working class, Labour government or no Labour government. If the Labour movement can be mobilised on this and all similar issues then a programme of transitional demands comes on the order of the day. It is no accident that the revisionists find them- selves effectively in support of the Labour govern- ment and against those who lead the fight for the working class demands. As in Ceylon, the “Trotsky- ist? revisionists are only the last in line—even if a necessary and sophisticated one—of those who effectively serve capitalism. 96 An analysis of Wilson’s foreign and ‘defence’ policy would reveal even more starkly the capital:st character of his government. Even the official organ of the Soviet press has denounced the imperialist nature of a number of Wilson’s steps: the loan of the Ascension Islands for operations in the Congo; the continuation of Tory policy in Aden and South Arabia; the considerable strengthening of military support for Malaysia; the removal of Cheddi Jagan from power in British Guiana. But in point of fact we are not concerned here with any old-fashioned colonialist. Wilson’s first visit to Johnson after becoming Prime Minister was designed to integrate more closely the whole system of ‘western defence’, The full meaning of Wilson’s rejection of the so-called independent nuclear deter- rent now begins to emerge. Wilson, in his speech to the December Conference of the Labour Party, insisted upon a defence policy in line with ‘economic realities’. In other words he acknowledged the inability of British capitalism to carry out the re- search and investment necessary for modern arma- ments. The way was being prepared for a joint weapons programme with the US in return for Britain’s military resources, including the V-bombers, being placed at the complete disposal of the imperialist alliances. With this accomplished, Wilson did not need any great skill to pacify (perhaps ‘neutralise’ is a better word) the left of his party with demagogic praises for the United Nations as the groundwork of his foreign policy, in contrast to the ‘sacred cows’ of Lord Home which had led him to the blunders of Aden and the Congo. This sabre-rattling in reverse was nothing but the announcement of complete subservience to international capital and reflected very well the fact that Wilson’s government was in pawn to the banks from its first week. Less than a month after the conference, Wilson’s government was sending gunboats and troops to Malaysia and provoking Indonesia to actually leave the United Nations. When the revisionists attack the supporters of the International Committee for their characterisation of the Labour government they take their place along- side the centrist apologists for Wilson, providing them with the most sophisticated arguments, especi- ally against the real opposition in the Labour move- ment. In Britain and all the advanced countries, as in Ceylon, an unmistakeable line, a class line, is now ‘being drawn in real politics which as always is the test of theoretical theses. Pabloism began as a theoretical adaptation to the domination of Stalinism in the Labour movement in the post-war years. Its essence, however, now more clearly revealed, in theory and in practice, was that it provided necessary cover for all the ‘bureaucratic servants of capitalism and fought against the construction of the revolu- tionary alternative. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964

[p008] _ The Strategy of Since this_article was written the SLFP-LSSP coalition government has fallen. The collapse of the coalition serves to illustrate vividly the correctness of the Marxist method employed by the author of this article. From Permanent Revolution to Permanent Coalition By Wilfred Pereira Sri LANKA* can now claim another ‘first’: a ‘Trotskyist party’ has accepted office in a bourgeois government and has thereby accepted responsibility for the stability of that government and for main- taining the capitalist system in Ceylon and protecting imperialist interests under the Soulbury Constitution. Marxists condemn this action of the ‘leaders’ of the LSSP [Lanka Sama Samaja Party (Trotskyist)] as a defection to the camp of the class enemy and a despicable betrayal of the toiling masses these pro- fessed Trotskyists claimed to lead towards the overthrow of capitalism. To this charge, N. M. Perera and his lieutenants, among whom two are fellow Ministers, two Senators, two Parliamentary Secretaries and at least two other, _* Revered Ceylon. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964 behind-the-scenes advisers to their Ministerial com- rades—claim that they have not abandoned either Marxism or their party programme, but that, on the contrary, entry into the SLFPfT government is only a ‘tactic’ whose ultimate objective still remains the establishment of socialism. Tactics If the coalition ‘is a tactic it must not do violence to the fundamental principles on which the general strategy of the party—which is laid down in its programme—is based. Even though a tactic may deviate from the general line of the campaign, involving sometimes even a retreat, it does not abandon the means of winning the campaign, which — oe + Sri Lanka Freedom Party. 97