The Strategy of Betrayal

[p009] The Strategy of BETRAYAL 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 SLFP{ 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 + Sri Lanka Freedom Party. 97

[p010] 98 is to come to grips with the enemy and destroy its forces. For Marxists, the means of reaching their objec- tive of socialism is determined by the nature of capitalist society which manifests itself in the class struggle between the two polar classes, the bour- geoisie and the proletariat. Marxists seek to intervene in that class struggle on the side of the proletariat, to lead it in that struggle and imbue it with a scientific understanding of the nature of that struggle which iis forced on ithe proletariat by the nature of its role in the capitalist economy. . Moreover, the general strategy of the Marxist party is laid down in its revolutionary programme. Revolutionary, because Marxists seek to develop the class struggle to its logical conclusion in the over- throw of the power of the capitalist class by the working class. The tactics employed by a Marxist party, therefore, must always have the perspective of developing the class struggle and at the same time, the fighting forces of the working class must understand the implications of any tactic in which they are involved. The Common Weal Let us now take a close look at this ‘tactic’. In a war neither side enjoys a monopoly of tactics. It is now clear that both the LSSP and the SLFP were using coalition as a tactic. But in such a case one would expect the aims of the two opponents to be completely antagonistic. If they were found to be not so, then we can only conclude that the two sides are engaged in a sham fight, or that one side has capitulated wholesale to the other. You can take your choice. First, what were the aims of the SLFP, what did it hope to get out of a coalition? The Prime Minister made ther intentions very clear when she spoke to the Executive Committee of her Party on May 10, 1964 and she explained why she thought it necessary to ‘initiate talks with the working-class leaders’ to form a coalition: ‘However much progressive work we do we cannot expect any results unless we get the co- operation of the working class. . , . Disruptions, especially strikes and go-slows must be eliminated and the development of the country must proceed. . It is only by travelling on this path [the middle-path defined by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike] ... that we can achieve our purpose.’ She went on to state that Philip Gunawardena and N. M. Perera had informed her that ‘they could form a [coalition] Government on the basis of a common programme. . . . They were of opinion that it was a Government like this which could THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL work for the common weal’. (our emphasis) N. M. Perera, then, appears to have agreed that a coalition could work for the common weal of the bourgeoisie represented by the SLFP and of the toiling masses, and particularly the working class, which the LSSP claims to lead. That is to say that a coalition could reconcile the SLFP policy of the ‘middle-path’ — socialism without shattering the capitalist framework —and the LSSP policy of socialism only by the destruction of the capitalist system. But any sane person can see that such a reconciliation can be effected only by the complete abandonment of its policy ‘by one of the parties to the agreement; there is absolutely no room for compromise ‘between two completely antagonistic policies. If N. M. Perera has led his Party into the coalition it can only be ‘by completely abandoning its Marxist revolutionary programme. The ‘tactic’ of N. M. Perera and his lieutenants appears to be at first sight a peculiar one which plays into the hands of the class enemy. But here our astute tacticians will declare that the SJ.FP does not represent the class enemy; the real enemy is the UNP.* They say that the prime task is to crush the UNP and prevent its comeback; that the SLFP does contain a ‘reactionary’ right wing, but that its ‘progressive’ wing ‘contains ‘leftward-moving forces’ which can be won over to the socialist cause. Let us see then how this tactic is going to help in winning these battles on the way to the final defeat of the class enemy. (1) To prevent the comeback of the UNP. Any Marxist knows that the resurgence of the UNP after its defeat in 1960 is due entirely to the inability of the SLFP government to shatter the capitalist economic base of the UNP’s power. However much the SLFP may denounce the UNP in words it is incapable of smashing the UNP once and for all, ecause the SLFP itself is as firmly bound to that capitalist economic base as the UNP. The quarrel between these two parties is like that of two gangs of robbers over the division of the booty. To take the side of one gang calling it more ‘progressive’ will not help to put down robbery, but will only make us its accomplices. In the same way any socialist policy which does not have the per- spective of shattering the ‘capitalist framework against the resistance of the SLFP itself and not only the UNP, is a sham and a deception of the toiling masses. If the aim of the coalition is to prevent a dictatorship of the ‘Right’ surrendering to the tactic of the SLFP and helping to stabilise its ‘middle- * United National Party. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964

[p011] THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL path policy’ (‘socialism’ within the framework of capitalism!) will have just the contrary result. The abandonment of class struggle and revolutionary perspectives in order to avoid embarrassing the coalition government, in plain words a policy of class collaboration, will find the working class com- pletely disarmed and disoriented if the UNP resorts to what it has now begun to call ‘revolutionary’ methods to dislodge the SLFP-LSSP parliamentary combination. (2) To win over the ‘leftward-moving forces’ in the SLFP and incidentally to convert the Left minority in parliament into a majority. Whatever forces of this nature there are will not be converted by speeches in parliament. It is an axiom of Marxist strategy that they will move only when they are pushed by the masses engaged in active struggle against capitalist exploitation and oppression. But the LSSP policy of class collabora- tion will leave the toiling masses defenceless when the SLFP, the senior partner in the coalition, begins to unload on their backs the burdens of its futile middle-path policies. It will then be too late for the LSSP to think of organising the masses for resistance, for it would already have begun to lose the confidence of the masses. In the absence of an alternative revolu- tionary leadership capable of rallying the toiling masses and taking them forward, fascist demagogues will have a clear road. Besides, this ‘belated attempt ‘by the LSSP to speak the truth to the masses will be construed by the senior partner of the coalition as disruption and a breach of faith; to be followed ‘by ignominious expulsion from the government at a moment most unfavourable to the LSSP. This will certainly not help to raise the LSSP’s prestige in the eyes of either the ‘leftward-moving’ elements in the SILFP or of the masses who still have illusions in the SLFP. (3) To ‘bring pressure’ on the SLFP to take more ‘leftward steps’ within the capitalist framework, in the hope that it will be possible to inveigle the SLFP into socialism before it realises where it is being taken by the LSSP tacticians. This is the typical reformist illusion that a series of reforms will one day result in socialism under the nose of the capitalist class and behind the back of the working class. Marxist revolutionaries include the struggle for reforms in their general revolutionary strategy; but they have learned from past experience that the more uncompromisingly they pursue the class struggle the more decisive will ‘be the nature of the FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964 99 reforms; decisive for the transition to socialism. They also know that the ruling bourgeoisie is too astute and class-conscious to be fooled by the ‘tactics’ of petty-bourgeois reformists into surrender- ing its power. The bourgeoisie knows, just as well as the Marxists, that such petty-bourgeois tactics only succeed in duping the working class. Hence the hatred of the bourgeoisie for the Marxists who expose the fraudulence of such tactics. Marxist Strategy If the LSSP tacticians are Marxists as they claim to be, their aim must be to carry the anti-capitalist struggle forward and help the working class par- ticularly to overcome its illusions in the SLFP’s middle-path policy and in bourgeois parliamentary democracy. In order to mobilise the toiling masses for struggle they must be told the truth about the nature of the SLFP and the coalition and the nature of the struggle they will have to wage to break out of the bonds of \capitalism. It should be the duty of the LSSP to warn the toiling masses whom it professes to lead that whatever the promises of the SLFP, the only ‘progressive’ measures it will implement are those that are advantageous, or at least not harmful, to the bourgeois interests that the SLFP represents; that anything more than this cannot ‘be achieved without the conscious and active extra-parliamentary struggle of the toiling masses that will back up the efforis of their representatives in parliament. The masses must ‘be forewarned, pointing to their past experience of SLFP rule, that progressive measures within the capitalist framework will only bring about further disruption of the economy, and that it will be the masses who will be called upon to bear the burden and make sacrifices while the capitalists make their profits. But the aims of the LSSP tacticians are based on a purely parliamentary perspective which leaves no place whatsoever for the class struggle. On the contrary, class struggle (involving strikes, go-slows, etc.) becomes embarrassing to prospective parlia- mentarians scrounging for votes by appearing to be all things to all men. In such a situation parlia- mentary combinations, coalitions, no-contest pacts, i.e., parliamentary arithmetic, is substituted for revolutionary dynamics as a solution for political crises. Permanent Coalition? If the ultimate aim of the LSSP tacticians is socialism—that is, socialism as Marxists understand it and not as the SLFP is determined to have it, within the framework of capitalism—their tactic of

[p012] 100 N. M. PERERA Chief of the ‘tacticians’ coalition must be in consonance with the perspective of ‘breaking out of the capitalist framework against the determined opposition of the SLFP. Let us for the moment grant N. M. Perera, the chief of the tacticians, his un-Marxist view that socialism can be achieved by parliamentary metns. If that is his plan, the LSSP must eventually defeat the SLFP in an electoral contest in which the country will be asked to choose between Marxist socialism and the SLFP’s brand of socialism. That is the constitutional parliamentary democratic method. But—we find that N. M. Perera, with the complicity of his lieutenants, has committed the LSSP not only to a coalition, but also to a no-contest pact with the SLFP in which he has surrendered the sole power to determine the allocation of ‘seats’ to the leader of the SLFP. Once again we see the tactic ending in surrender. Not only has the LSSP surrendered its independence and its revolutionary programme, abandoning there- with the method of class struggle which is funda- mental to Marxist strategy, but N. M. Perera has abandoned even his own parliamentary means of defeating the SLFP on the road to socialism. This wonderful tactic of coalition appears to be specially devised for surrender all along the line even up to ithe surrender of the final objective. It is a tactic for ‘consolidating’ (to use a favourite word of N. M. Perera’s when speaking about the coalition) the joint role of the SLFP-LSSP combination in the interests of the capitalist class. Our ‘Trotskyist tacticians’ have come a long way from the Theory of the Permanent Revolution which they have new repudiated in favour of the Permanent Coalition. THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL Thus does the substitution of parliamentary for revolutionary means to prevent a dictatorship of the UNP lead to a constitutional dictatorship of the SLFP in the interests of the bourgeoisie with the LSSP functioning as its political police. The stage is now set for a merger of these two Parties, and from there, with the aid of the Public Security Act, it could lead to a ‘One-Party State’. But the working class will disperse these socialist fakers ‘before that. The Major-Domo Speaks Do we need more proof? When N. M. Perera was pleading with the Prime Minister for the inclusion of the entire ULF* in the coalition, the argument he urged was, ‘the SLFP needs the co-operation of the entire working class to con- solidate its policy’. His argument was based not on the needs of the working class but on the urgent necessity of the SLFP! But perhaps this was a ruse of the astute Doctor? We shall see. Let us then listen to the new Finance Minister of Her Brittannic Majesty’s Government in Ceylon. In an interview the gave the Sunday Observer (26-6-64) explaining why he joined the Government, N. M. Perera states: ‘I_ am confident that this mobilisation of the masses, particularly the workers, can be achieved and that the country can move leftwards more rapidly, can consolidate the victories of 1956 and complete other tasks needed for the construction of a Socialist society.’ (our emphasis) Note how he already speaks the language of the SLFP. Whose victory in 1956 is he confident of consolidating? After the experiences of the masses, and particularly the workers, under the SLFP tegime does he still dare to say that they won a victory in 1956? Surely then he must be referring to the ‘victories’ of that section of the national ‘bourgeoisie that the SLFP represents, together with their petty-bourgeois hangers-on and the black marketeers and racketeers who flourish under SLFP rule. As he saw it, ‘a revolutionary process was started in 1956, not through violence but through the ballot. The political power of the capitalist class was attacked, and in many ways broken. But something was left undone. .. . the economic power of this class was not broken.’ He explains why. ‘the main cause was lack of full concerted support * United Left Front. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964

[p013] THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL from the masses, particularly the working class. Thus those gains of 1956 could not be consolidated and were, in fact, threatened.’ [Our emphasis] But now that he has joined the Government, he is confident that the masses, particularly the working class, can be mobilised to do what was left undone up to June 1964. Maligning the Workers What can we gather from this very frank avowal of his plans by N. M. Perera? First, he wants to inspire confidence in the SLFP; to make us believe that it is really interested in ‘breaking the economic power of the capitalist class. Second, he maligns the working class when he accuses it of withholding its support for breaking the economic power of the capitalist class. Third, he seeks a vote of confidence from the bourgeoisie for himself by reaffirming his undertaking to mobilise the working class in order to ‘consolidate’ the SLFP’s gains of 1956 by eliminating the threat of strikes and go-slows. But N. M. Perera was, if you will remember, the leader of the LSSP that had been mobilising the working class for 25 years for the task of breaking the economic power of the (capitalist class. Was it, perhaps, the still lingering revolutionary traditions that had been dinned into the working class by the LSSP that made it withhold its ‘full concerted support? from the SLFP that N. M. Perera now complains about? He and his tactician comrades have not cared to consult the working class, or they would know the answer. Surely these LSSP tacticians, who still claim to be Marxists and Trotskyists, must know that the failure of the SLFP to break the power of the ‘reactionary’ capitalists was due entirely to the refusal of the ‘progressive’ capitalists of the SLFP to shatter the common capitalist economic base of the ‘reactionary’ as well as the ‘progressive’ capitalists. They must also know that if the working class refused its support for ‘consolidating’ the SLFP victory of 1956 it was because it correctly refused to distinguish between ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary’ capitalists; all it was able to recognise was the fact of its exploitation, and it reacted in the only way that a self-respecting working class will react to exploitation. And we can guarantee that it will continue to do so notwithstanding the ‘full concerted’ efforts of Mrs. Bandaranaike and Dr. N. M. Perera to hoodwink and discipline the workers. Revolution by Ballot When N. M. Perera, with the connivance of his lieutenants, attributes the failure to break the economic power of the capitalist class to the lack FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964 101 of support from the working class he is echoing the accusations of Mrs. Bandaranaike and slandering the class he claims to lead. The working class did its best, under a confused and half-hearted leadership, to complete the ‘revolution of 1956’ for its purpose. But it was precisely the SLFP, with its ‘middle-path’ policy, that stood in its way. And it is precisely because the ‘SLFP’s gains of 1956’ were once again being ‘threatened’ by a united working class with its 21 demands that Mrs. Bandaranaike summoned N. M. Perera to her assistance. And while his accomplice, Colvin R. de Silva, was engaged in the JCTUO* asking for ‘another date’, N. M. Perera has obliged the Prime Minister and offered his services for ‘consolidating’ the chief obstacle in the way of the 21 Demands. ‘Revolution by ballot’ was the ideological sign- board put up by the petty-bourgeois pandankarayasf and propagandists of the SLFP after Bandaranaike’s electoral victory over the UNP in 1956, in order to fool the masses into believing that socialism was round the corner and all they had to do was wait with folded hands until the SLFP delivered the goods. N. M. Perera and his lieutenants have taken over this slogan and round it they have devised a ‘tactic? whose purpose is still the same—to stave off the threat to the SLFP’s gains of 1956 from Marxist revolutionary action by the working class. We heartily agree that ‘something was left un- done’ after the defeat of the UNP in 1956. But we know what N. M. Perera and his lieutenants have conveniently forgotten, that it is only the working class that can complete the task that the revolution- ary national bourgeoisie may initiate but can never consummate, the revolutionary socialist task of soiving the social and economic problems of a back- ward semi-colonial country. But unlike N. M. Perera and his accomplices we are confident that the working class WILL accomplish its historic task and will do so only over the corpse of the Coalition which the ‘tacticians’ are trying to make permanent. The. confidence of genuine Trotskyists in the revolutionary potential of the Ceylonese working class flows from the theory of the Permanent Revolution. The tactic of the Permanent Coalition is based on a petty-bourgeois distrust of the working class and, in the last analysis, on the dread of the socialist revolution. Fearing the revolution more than the UNP, the ‘progressives’ have got together and devised a joint tactic to shackle the working class. By means of that tactic it is the working class that will be ‘undone’—so they hope. * Joint Committee of Trades Union Organisation. + Literally, torch-bearer, retainer or stooge.

[p014] 102 Workers’ Councils But the petty-bourgeois pandankarayas and propagandists for the coalition will remind us of the Workers’ Councils and Vigilance Committees which are to be brought into ‘active participation in the process of Government ... and will have positive and creative functions to peform (and) will be in an organised manner ranged against their class enemy with the necessary authority and power of the state machinery to back them in their struggle’. (LSSP Conference Resolution, June, 1964). Will not these organisations give a new stimulus to the class struggle? they will ask. NN. M. Perera’s grandiose promise has already been whittled down to Advisory Committees which will help the government and the employers ‘to obtain the best results’ from their labour. This is quite in keeping with his chief task as watch-dog of the country’s finances—‘cutting down’ on everything he can lay his hands on, excepting the toil and sweat of the working class, The Finance ‘Minister, speaking to trade unions of the Inland Revenue Department on July 7, 1964, said: ‘Trade unions will be given a special role with the formation of Advisory Committees in Departments. However, they could go a step further and do their best to assist the Government in other capacities as well, ‘Trade unions should sustain this Government by performing the role assigned to them in the near future. ‘Trade unions would be made partners [of the Government] by law.’ (our emphasis) Here is the tactician-in-chief deploying his forces! The role he ‘assigns’ to the working class in the new dispensation could not have been expressed more clearly and more economically, and that is ‘to sustain this Government’—this Government formed by the alliance with the SLFP of the reformist LSSP leaders who have not been ‘assigned’ ‘but have voluntarily assumed the role of taming and disciplining the working class by leading it into the close and intimate embrace of the ‘authority and power of the (bourgeois) state machinery’. Guns at their Backs Are there any class-conscious workers who believe that workers’ ‘councils and vigilance committees will be able to function as organs of class struggle—to fight not only the UNP capitalists but the SLFP capitalists as well? These sub-governmental organisations set up under the aegis of the coalition will of necessity have to be organs for assisting in THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL the efficient functioning of the regime, for ‘eliminat- ing strikes and go-slows’ to please the Prime Minister, ‘sustain this government’ to please Dr. N. M. Perera, and ‘consolidate the victory of the SLFP’ to please the capitalist class. The common weal! We can be sure that the capitalist state machinery will be paralysed in trying to distinguish between ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary’ enemies of the work- ing class. But if at any time class-conscious workers seek to use these organisations to develop the class struggle, they will find the ‘authority and power of the (bourgeois) state machinery’ at their backs to remind them of the role that N. M. Perera and his accomplices have ‘assigned’ to them. They will be forefully reminded that strict discipline is needed to carry out this manoeuvre successfully. The ‘other capacities’ in which the Finance Minister expects the Advisory Committees to Sieespsisiniseisyt th: COLVIN R. DE SILVA Perera’s chief accomplice function, will be left to the initiative of the petty- ‘bourgeois pandankarayas whose services will be at a premium, and will consist chiefly in spying and tale-bearing in the name of vigilance against genuine class-conscious workers, to frame them as agents- provocateurs, saboteurs and enemies of the Govern- ment. N. M. Perera and his chief accomplice in the trade union field, Colvin R. de Silva, have already displayed their qualities of leadership in this direction. They have eliminated known revolu- tionaries from the offices they held in the trade unions controlled by the LSSP, and that too without laying any charges against them besides that of ‘political differences’. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964

[p015] THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL State Patronage of Trade Unions It was pointed out long ago by Trotsky that there is ‘one common feature in the . .. degeneration of modern trade union organisations ... it is their drawing closely to and growing together with the state power’. He gave the reason for this ‘state patronage’ in the case of colonial and semi-colonial countries in the following manner: ‘The governments of backward, i.e., colonial and semi-colonial countries, by and large, assume a iBonapartist or semi-Bonapartist character; and differ from one another in this, that some try to orient in a democratic direction, seeking support from workers and peasants, while others install a form close to military-police dictatorship. This likewise determines the fate of the trade unions. They either stand under the special patronage of the state or they are subjected to cruel persecution. Patronage on the part of the state is dictated by two tasks which confront it: first, to draw the working class closer thus gaining a support for resistance against excessive pretensions on the part of imperialism, and at the same time, to discipline the workers themselves by placing them under the control of a bureaucracy.’ He cited the particular case of Mexico where the railways and oil fields had been nationalised, and the trade unions had been given a legal status in their management, ending in their complete sub- jection to the bourgeois state. In this connection he thad this to say: ‘The nationalisation of railways and oil fields in Mexico has of course nothing in common with socialism. It is a measure of state capitalism in a backward country which in this way seeks to defend itself on the one hand against foreign imperialism and on the other hand against its own proletariat. The management of railways, oil fields, etc., through labour organisations, has nothing in cemmon with workers’ control over industry, for in the essence of the matter the management is effected through the labour bureaucracy which is independent of the workers, but in return com- pletely dependent on the bourgeois state. ‘This measure on the part of the ruling class pursues the aim of disciplining the working class, making it more industrious in the service of the common interests of the state, which appear on the surface to merge with the interests of the working class itself. As a matter of fact, the whole task of the bourgeoisie consists in liquidating the trade unions as the organs of the class struggle and substituting in their place the trade union bureau- cracy as the organ of the leadership over the workers by the bourgeois state.’ He warned against the dangers of permitting the trade unions to be stifled in the embrace of the bourgeois state: FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964 103 ‘The statisation of the trade unions was, accord- ing to the conception of the legislators, introduced in the interests of the workers in order to assure them an influence upon the governmental and economic life. But insofar as foreign imperialist capitalism dominates the national state and insofar as it is able, with the assistance of internal re- actionary forces, to overthrow the unstable demo- cracy and replace it with outright fascist dictator- ship, to that extent the legislation relating to the trade unions can easily become a weapon in the hands of imperialist dictatorship.’ (our emphasis) (Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay —Leon Trotsky) But the ‘Trotskyist’ tacticians of the LSSP have, in addition to everything else, abandoned even their memories in order to assume the voluntary role of the SLFP’s political police who will have the full backing of the capitalist state machinery in carrying out their despicable task. Their tactic of entry into the SLFP government is clearly exposed as a perfidious trick to dupe the working class and deliver it gagged and ‘bound into the power of the capitalist class. Homeward Bound Their admiration for the ‘revolution of 1956’ and yearning to ‘consolidate its gains’ are a confirmation of the objective role these renegades have been playing in the proletarian revolutionary movement. The truth of the matter is that these bourgeois and petty-bourgeois revolutionaries have had enough of their self-imposed exile in an alien milieu. We readily grant that during their sojourn with the proletariat they faced not only ostracism but prison and bullets, and made a lasting contribution to the proletarian revolutionary movement. But for them the time has come to consolidate the gains and reap the fruits of the bourgeois nationalist revolution for which they have made great sacrifices, and they have now decided to return home. The unpardonable crime is their attempt to drag the toiling masses behind them and turn them into their servile retainers. If there is a lesson for the working class in this cynical desertion of a leadership, it is that of the necessity for a rigorous surveillance over its leaders, and particularly those who come from another class with their ‘incorrigible predilection for having the best of both worlds. However, we can assure these strategists in betrayal that the working class will not allow itself to be duped. The revolutionary propensities of the proletariat will continue to develop the more their betrayers try to ‘consolidate’ the capitalist order; and with Marxist revolutionaries to guide them

[p016] 104 they will soon be on the move pressing forward to complete what was left undone and can never be done by the revolutionary national bourgeoisie—the destruction of the capitalist economic base of the entire class of exploiters. Camouflage The Prime Minister, on behalf of the ‘progressive’ bourgeoisie, has accepted the penitent wanderers into her fold. But, in spite of the criticism she has had to face about allying herself with ‘Marxists’, she has wisely refrained from demanding that they publicly and categorically repudiate their Marxism, whatever else she may have got them to surrender. She knows her onions and her prodigal sons as well. Their protestations of adherence to Marxism, Trotskyism, revolutionism, far from being embarras- sing, provide her with just the ‘Left’ cover she needs to camouflage her plans to subdue the working class, at least until she can ‘consolidate’ her victory and the profits of the class she serves. But we can confidently predict that these renegades THE STRATEGY OF BETRAYAL who are now eating out of her hand, will before long be compelled to eat their words. And for dessert the working class will ram their filthy lies down the throats of these traitors. The renegade ‘leaders’ of the LSSP have held the stage for a quarter of a century and have earned a reputation in the working-class movement which extends beyond the confines of our little island. But as Trotsky remarked concerning Karl Radek who was one of the leaders of the Russian Revolu- tion, ‘opportunism in politics is all the more dangerous the more camouflaged it is and the greater the personal reputation that covers it’. We cannot permit the personal reputations of the renegades to stand in the way of our criticism or, what is of primary importance, in the way of the working class. The socialist revolution does not stand (or fall) on the personal reputations or sacrifices of ‘leaders’, but on ‘the class consciousness of the workers, their trust in their own forces and their readiness for self-sacrifice in the struggle.’ 10.7.64. (Reprinted from Young Socialist (Ceylon), Vol. 3, No. 2) A SOCIALIST LABOUR LEAGUE PAMPHLET CEYLON: The great betrayal Containing: @ Two reports from Ceylon by G. Healy dealing with the background and developments behind the Lanka Sama Samaja Party Coalition and the role that the United Secretariat in Europe played in this betrayal. @ A reply by the SLL to an attack made on it by the magazine ‘World Outlook’. @ A statement by the International Committee of the Fourth International. @ Complete resolutions submitted by the three tendencies represented at the LSSP Congress of June 1964. @ Correspondence from _ the Secretariat to the LSSP. International CEYLON The great betrayal Two reports from Ceylon - by &. Realy oe Price 1/-. Obtainable from 186a Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AUTUMN-WINTER 1964

[p017] Leon Trotsky