Imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy in crisis: Political revolution in Czechoslovakia. Statement by the International Committee of the Fourth International

[p029] The Soviet bureaucracy, an active support for imperialism WITH the military intervention in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet bureaucracy takes to a new level the politics which make it the ally of world imperial- ism in crisis. Whilst on the one hand it attempts to crush the Czechoslovak proletariat, at the same time it strives jointly with imperialism to isolate the Chinese Revolution from the international proletariat and to open up China to capitalist penetration. The Soviet Union broke off economic and technical co-operation with China. It led a campaign against the leaders of the Chinese CP, accusing them of being prepared to set off a world thermo-nuclear war ‘to satisfy their great power nationalistic and expansionist designs’. It supported the Indian capitalist class in a war against China. The massive military intervention of US imperialism in Vietnam took place under the umbrella of this campaign against the Chinese Revo- lution and the leaders of the Chinese CP. In the name of ‘peace’, the Soviet bureaucracy conscientiously patrols imperialism’s rear. At Tash- kent, with the congratulations of world imperialism, it arranged a compromise between the Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisies. A continuation of the war between India and Pakistan could have brought disaster to the bourgeoisies of those countries, with their precarious economic and social equilibrium, and thereby opened up a revolutionary situation throughout Asia, in the rear of imperialism. In no matter what part of the world, Africa, Asia, South America, the Soviet bureaucracy supports the national bourgeoisie, in accordance with Suslov’s theories. By these actions, the Soviet bureaucracy is in effect upholding imperialist domination, helping to prepare reactionary coups d’etat stirred up by imperialism as Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p030] (II) Kremlin policy serves imperialism Immediate aid to imperialism WORLD imperialism was not taken in. Johnson, de Gaulle and Wilson stated once again that ‘co- existence must continue’ and they could do noth- ing for Czechoslovakia. Moscow’s representative at the UN took pains to explain that the military intervention in Czechoslo- vakia was an integral part of the policy of ‘peaceful co-existence’. As if that were not enough, Moscow sent ambassadors to Washington, London, Paris, Bonn and even to Athens, to explain first the reasons for the military intervention, and secondly the content and significance of the Moscow diktat, to all the capitalist governments. World imperialism took immediate advantage of the counter-revolutionary action of the Kremlin. It attempted to throw the international working class into confusion. US imperialism, in search of a quick solution to the Vietnam question, had already used Soviet policy to force the government of North Vietnam and the NLF to accept a political agreement guaranteeing its own presence. The US was afraid that the working class in Japan, the United States and Europe might embark on far-reaching revolutionary struggles, challenging imperialism at its foundations, whilst it was engaged in a counter-revolutionary war against the Vietnamese people. Now, of course, it can carry on its counter- revolutionary war that much more confidently and its political demands will be that much steeper, because it will feel it has a freer hand in the class struggle in the advanced capitalist countries. French capitalism, of course, is not averse to exploiting ‘communist aggression in Czechoslovakia’, to develop the offensive against its own working class. Germany can only benefit from the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. The division of the working class and the hatred of the German working class for Stalinism are essential elements, without which German capitalism would have been unable to hold back the development of the class struggle in West 104 Germany. There can be no doubt that the German bourgeoisie is now in a position to bring in tougher measures against the German working class. The Soviet bureaucracy, an active support for imperialism WITH the military intervention in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet bureaucracy takes to a new level the politics which make it the ally of world imperial- ism in crisis. Whilst on the one hand it attempts to crush the Czechoslovak proletariat, at the same time it strives jointly with imperialism to isolate the Chinese Revolution from the international proletariat and to open up China to capitalist penetration. The Soviet Union broke off economic and technical co-operation with China. It led a campaign against the leaders of the Chinese CP, accusing them of being prepared to set off a world thermo-nuclear war ‘to satisfy their great power nationalistic and expansionist designs’. It supported the Indian capitalist class in a war against China. The massive military intervention of US imperialism in Vietnam took place under the umbrella of this campaign against the Chinese Revo- lution and the leaders of the Chinese CP. In the name of ‘peace’, the Soviet bureaucracy conscientiously patrols imperialism’s rear. At Tash- kent, with the congratulations of world imperialism, it arranged a compromise between the Indian and Pakistani bourgeoisies. A continuation of the war between India and Pakistan could have brought disaster to the bourgeoisies of those countries, with their precarious economic and social equilibrium, and thereby opened upa revolutionary situation throughout Asia, in the rear of imperialism. In no matter what part of the world, Africa, Asia, South America, the Soviet bureaucracy supports the national bourgeoisie, in accordance with Suslov’s theories. By these actions, the Soviet bureaucracy is in effect upholding imperialist domination, helping to prepare reactionary coups d’etat stirred up by imperialism as Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p031] is shown by Indonesia, Ghana and Algeria, and shoring up military and other cliques in South America, which depend directly on imperialism. It openly repudiates all revolutionary action in the advanced capitalist countries. The ‘theories’ about the peaceful road to socialism by parliamentary means, and about each country finding its own path to social- ism, come to the surface exactly when the relations between the classes in the advanced capitalist coun- tries are strained to breaking point and when pre- cisely the unity of the international class struggle is the most immediate question. These ‘theories’ and the politics behind them are brought forward all the more confidently because the bourgeois parliamentary system has become a mere shadow or completely disappeared. The struggle for political power is inseparable from action in defence of the economic and social conquests of the working class, of the rights and concessions it has extracted in the course of more than a century of class struggle. The basic fight for elementary democratic liberties, political rights, trade union rights and independence of the unions from the state, freedom of the press, freedom to organize, demands the united front of all the forces of the working class, which inevitably poses the question of political power. The poisoned fruits of these ‘theories’, raked up from the dustbins of the social democracy, renovated by the Kremlin ‘theoreticians’ and enthusiastically adopted by the CPs in the capitalist countries, are the paralysis of the Greek proletariat, which was handed over with its hands tied behind its back to the mili- tary dictatorship, the prolonging of the French dictatorship and the defeat of the French general strike. The crisis of imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy THE SOVIET bureaucracy carries out this politi- cal line precisely because, contrary to what the ‘theoreticians’ of ‘neo-capitalism’ have to say, capitalism has not surmounted the contradictions which exploded in the course of two world wars and the world economic crisis of 1929. The power of American capitalism, the new rela- tionship of forces within world imperialism, the emphasis on the role of the bourgeois state in creating artificial markets by parasitic expenditure and the arms economy, have brought about a new, gigantic accumulation of capital, during the 20 years following the Second World War. Far from overcoming its chronic historical crisis, world imperialism has reached a stage where this crisis is once more becoming virulent. The whole of bourgeois society is threatened with disintegration. Political revolution in Czechoslovakia The dollar and sterling crises are monetary expressions of the parasitic nature of the capitalist economy and the tendencies towards the explosion of a new economic crisis which would dislocate the world market. The politics of the Soviet bureaucracy are domin- ated by its desperate fear of proletarian revolution and by the need to integrate the economy of the Soviet Union and the East European states into the world market and the international division of labour. But imperialism in crisis is confronted with precise demands. The new capital accumulation demands _super- exploitation of the working class in all the countries where the capitalist mode of production has prevailed, so that the rate of profit may be maintained. It has become indispensible to carry out a complete revision of the structure of the most advanced capitalist coun- tries; to scrap backward sections of the economy, to liquidate the enormous amount of fictitious capital accumulated, particularly in the post-war period, be- cause of the parasitic nature of the system, to chal- lenge the conquests of the working class in the advanced countries, to export capital and commodities on a massive scale, and to switch from an arms economy to a war economy. As a result of the internal contradictions in the capitalist mode of production, social relations are strained to breaking-point. Direct, violent confront- ations between the classes are rapidly increasing, and these, everywhere, force the working class either to pose the question of political power or be ground down under the iron heel of capitalism, as in Spain, Indonesia and Greece, or find the gains they have made continually whittled away by the capitalist class, as is the case now in Italy, Belgium, Germany, England, France, and is on the agenda in the United States, developments which herald just as surely the iron dictatorship of capital. Fearing, as it does, the socialist revolution and the control it has exercised over decisive sections of the international working class being challenged, the Soviet bureaucracy co-operates in ‘disinterested’ fashion with world imperialism, with American im- perialism as well as its less powerful Japanese and European rivals, against the working class. Europe, nerve-centre of the class struggle THE EUROPEAN bourgeoisies have been par- ticularly undermined, and the European front is decisive in the class struggle. All the old imperial- ist powers of Europe are decaying. Prisoners of their own past, when they dominated and divided 105

[p032] is shown by Indonesia, Ghana and Algeria, and shoring up military and other cliques in South America, which depend directly on imperialism. It openly repudiates all revolutionary action in the advanced capitalist countries. The ‘theories’ about the peaceful road to socialism by parliamentary means, and about each country finding its own path to social- ism, come to the surface exactly when the relations between the classes in the advanced capitalist coun- tries are strained to breaking point and when pre- cisely the unity of the international class struggle is the most immediate question. These ‘theories’ and the politics behind them are brought forward all the more confidently because the bourgeois parliamentary system has become a mere shadow or completely disappeared. The struggle for political power is inseparable from action in defence of the economic and social conquests of the working class, of the rights and concessions it has extracted in the course of more than a century of class struggle. The basic fight for elementary democratic liberties, political rights, trade union rights and independence of the unions from the state, freedom of the press, freedom to organize, demands the united front of all the forces of the working class, which inevitably poses the question of political power. The poisoned fruits of these ‘theories’, raked up from the dustbins of the social democracy, renovated by the Kremlin ‘theoreticians’ and enthusiastically adopted by the CPs in the capitalist countries, are the paralysis of the Greek proletariat, which was handed over with its hands tied behind its back to the mili- tary dictatorship, the prolonging of the French dictatorship and the defeat of the French general strike. The crisis of imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy THE SOVIET bureaucracy carries out this politi- cal line precisely because, contrary to what the ‘theoreticians’ of ‘neo-capitalism’ have to say, capitalism has not surmounted the contradictions which exploded in the course of two world wars and the world economic crisis of 1929. The power of American capitalism, the new rela- tionship of forces within world imperialism, the emphasis on the role of the bourgeois state in creating artificial markets by parasitic expenditure and the ‘arms economy, have brought about a new, gigantic accumulation of capital, during the 20 years following the Second World War. Far from overcoming its chronic historical crisis, world imperialism has reached a stage where this crisis is once more becoming virulent. The whole of bourgeois society is threatened with disintegration. Political revolution in Czechoslovakia The dollar and sterling crises are monetary expressions of the parasitic nature of the capitalist economy and the tendencies towards the explosion of a new economic crisis which would dislocate the world market. The politics of the Soviet. bureaucracy are domin- ated by its desperate fear of proletarian revolution and by the need to integrate the economy of the Soviet Union and the East European states into the world market and the international division of labour. But imperialism in crisis is confronted with precise demands. The new capital accumulation demands _ super- exploitation of the working class in all the countries where the capitalist mode of production has prevailed, so that the ‘rate of profit may be maintained. It has become indispensible to carry out a complete revision of the structure of the most advanced capitalist coun- tries; to scrap backward sections of the economy, to liquidate the enormous amount of fictitious capital accumulated, particularly in the post-war period, be- cause of the parasitic nature of the system, to chal- lenge the conquests of the working class in the advanced countries, to export capital and commodities on a massive scale, and to switch from an arms economy to a war economy. As a result of the internal contradictions in the capitalist mode of production, social relations are strained to breaking-point. Direct, violent confront- ations between the classes are rapidly increasing, and these, everywhere, force the working class either to pose the question of political power or be ground down under the iron heel of capitalism, as in Spain, Indonesia and Greece, or find the gains they have made continually whittled away by the capitalist class, as is the case now in Italy, Belgium, Germany, England, France, and is on the agenda in the United States, developments which herald just as surely the iron dictatorship of capital. Fearing, as it does, the socialist revolution and the control it has exercised over decisive sections of the international working class being challenged, the Soviet bureaucracy co-operates in ‘disinterested’ fashion with world imperialism, with American im- perialism as well as its less powerful Japanese and European rivals, against the working class. _ Europe, nerve-centre of the class struggle THE EUROPEAN bourgeoisies have been par- ticularly undermined, and the European front is decisive in the class struggle. All the old imperial- ist powers of Europe are decaying. Prisoners of their own past, when they dominated and divided 105

[p033] Russian intervention (above) plays into the hands of imperialism and the pro-capitalist forces of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union, as did the crushing of the Hungarian revolution in 1956 (below). 106 Fourth International, Winter 1968/196

[p034] up the world, they can neither break away from their past role nor assume its responsibilities. They need the support of US imperialism, and yet their interests are perpetually in violent conflict with America’s. Their only way out lies in opening up new markets for their goods, new fields for capital investment, but they are over-run by American capital. They can continue to exist only as long as US imperialism is committed to armaments and proves capable of switching to a war economy and moving towards war with China, Russia and Eastern Europe. But they could not carry a war economy on their own account. A war would be fatal to them. They are stifled by the restrictions of the nation state and yet unable to reach beyond them. They must, at all costs, find outlets in Eastern Europe, destroy socialist planning and re-introduce capitalism—this is particu- larly the case for German imperialism. Each country needs to carry out these policies for its own benefit; they can in fact only do this collectively by leaning on American imperialism. Economic and social paroxysms are, in any case, unavoidable: the massive elimination of sectors of the economy inherited from a past era, which are no longer competitive, will open up breaches in the ranks of the bourgeoisie and generate violent struggles. The capitalist state must impose the discipline re- quired to safeguard the interests of the capitalist system as a whole, it must impose it on the bour- geoisie and, therefore, and even more important, on the other layers of society. But the working class in the capitalist countries constitutes a very powerful force. It has made gains, in the course of decades of struggle, which must now be destroyed, just as the masses of the petty bourgeoisie and small peasantry have to be driven back from the position they occupied up to now. Education and culture are threatened by the deca- dence of the European imperialist powers. Tens of thousands of students must be expelled from univer- sities, from grammiar schools and high schools and their teachers with them. The only ones left will be the best, most advanced students required for technological advance and to run monopoly capitalism. The rest will become white-collared unemployed or police, a disqualified working class, reduced to un- skilled labouring or unemployment. In other words, there will inevitably be enormous class confrontations in Europe, as foreshadowed by the French general strike and the struggles of students and workers. On the outcome of these struggles de- pends the future of Europe and the world. These struggles cannot be dissociated from the struggles of the working class of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Any revolutionary victory by the working class in one of the advanced countries in Europe would have an immediate effect upon the whole European working class. A victorious French general strike would inevitably have meant a revo- Political revolution in Czechoslovakia lutionary mobilization of the Spanish, Italian, Belgian, English and German working classes; it would have given a direct impetus to the political revolution in Eastern Europe. The proletariats in the various Euro- pean countries are linked not only by tradition and historical ties, but also by the fact that no Euro- pean proletariat can take the power without raising the problem of the United Socialist States of Europe. The re-organization of the economy on socialist foun- dations is inconceivable in any European country unless it is extended to the whole of Europe. Panic stations by the bureaucracy THE DEEPER its own crisis becomes, the more clearly the ‘theory’ of socialism in one country is shown to be bankrupt, the more impossible bureaucratic management of the planned economy becomes, the more the Soviet bureaucracy is afraid that the crisis of imperialism will give rise to the socialist revolution, which, in Europe, means the social and the political revolutions being directly linked. In the immediate post-war period, the European bourgeoisie, relying on the might of US imperialism, found it sufficient to contain the working class. It could tolerate the Soviet bureaucracy extending the conquests of the October Revolution, in a degenerated form, to the Eastern European countries. It was able to accommodate itself to the division of Europe into two antagonistic social systems. Now, however, maintaining the status quo, even for a very short space of time, would mean the dis- ruption of capitalism in Europe and throughout the world, and an unprecedented revolutionary crisis. For reasons of its own immediate security, the bureaucracy puts its whole weight behind the power of the bourgeoisie, through the intermediary of the Communist Parties in France, Italy, Belgium and England. It facilitates the offensive against the con- quests of the working class. It denounces every struggle which, like the students’, plays a role in the defence against the reactionary plans of capital and runs the risk of becoming a mobilizing factor for the working class. It divides and sectionalizes the struggles of the working class, misleads it, by bartering, as it did in France, the weapon of the general strike for elections, in the name of ‘the peaceful parliamentary road to socialism’. It directly supports the power of the bourgeoisie all over Europe because its own exis- tence is incompatible with the realization of the United Socialist States of Europe. This is nowhere more apparent than in Germany. In Germany neither imperialism nor the working 107

[p035] up the world, they can neither break away from their past role nor assume its responsibilities. They need the support of US imperialism, and yet their interests are perpetually in violent conflict with America’s. Their only way out lies in opening up new markets for their goods, new fields for capital investment, but they are over-run by American capital. They can continue to exist only as long as US imperialism is committed to armaments and proves capable of switching to a war economy and moving towards war with China, Russia and Eastern Europe. But they could not carry a war economy on their own account. A war would be fatal to them. They are stifled by the restrictions of the nation state and yet unable to reach beyond them. They must, at all costs, find outlets in Eastern Europe, destroy socialist planning and re-introduce capitalism—this is particu- larly the case for German imperialism. Each country needs to carry out these policies for its own benefit; they can in fact only do this collectively by leaning on American imperialism. Economic and social paroxysms are, in any case, unavoidable: the massive elimination of sectors of the economy inherited from a past era, which are no longer competitive, will open up breaches in the ranks of the bourgeoisie and generate violent struggles. The capitalist state must impose the discipline re- quired to safeguard the interests of the capitalist system as a whole, it must impose it on the bour- geoisie and, therefore, and even more important, on the other layers of society. But the working class in the capitalist countries constitutes a very powerful force. It has made gains, in the course of decades of struggle, which must now be destroyed, just as the masses of the petty bourgeoisie and small peasantry have to be driven back from the position they occupied up to now. Education and culture are threatened by the deca- dence of the European imperialist powers. Tens of thousands of students must be expelled from univer- sities, from grammar schools and high schools and their teachers with them. The only ones left will be the best, most advanced students required for technological advance and to run monopoly capitalism. The rest will become white-collared unemployed or police, a disqualified working class, reduced to un- skilled labouring or unemployment. In other words, there will inevitably be enormous class confrontations in Europe, as foreshadowed by the French general strike and the struggles of students and workers. On the outcome of these struggles de- pends the future of Europe and the world. These struggles cannot be dissociated from the struggles of the working class of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Any revolutionary victory by the working class in one of the advanced countries in Europe would have an immediate effect upon the whole European working class. A victorious French general strike would inevitably have meant a revo- Political revolution in Czechoslovakia lutionary mobilization of the Spanish, Italian, Belgian, English and German working classes; it would have given a direct impetus to the political revolution in Eastern Europe. The proletariats in the various Euro- pean countries are linked not only by tradition and historical ties, but also by the fact that no Euro- pean proletariat can take the power without raising the problem of the United Socialist States of Europe. The re-organization of the economy on socialist foun- dations is inconceivable in any European country unless it is extended to the whole of Europe. THE DEEPER its own crisis becomes, the more clearly the ‘theory’ of socialism in one country is shown to be bankrupt, the more impossible bureaucratic management of the planned economy becomes, the more the Soviet bureaucracy is afraid that the crisis of imperialism will give rise to the socialist revolution, which, in Europe, means the social and the political revolutions being directly linked. In the immediate post-war period, the European bourgeoisie, relying on the might of US imperialism, found it sufficient to contain the working class. It could tolerate the Soviet bureaucracy extending the conquests of the October Revolution, in a degenerated form, to the Eastern European countries. It was able to accommodate itself to the division of Europe into two antagonistic social systems. Now, however, maintaining the status quo, even for a very short space of time, would mean the dis- ruption of capitalism in Europe and throughout the world, and an unprecedented revolutionary crisis. For reasons of its own immediate security, the bureaucracy puts its whole weight behind the power of the bourgeoisie, through the intermediary of the Communist Parties in France, Italy, Belgium and England. It facilitates the offensive against the con- quests of the working class. It denounces every struggle which, like the students’, plays a role in the defence against the reactionary plans of capital and runs the risk of becoming a mobilizing factor for the working class. It divides and sectionalizes the struggles of the working class, misleads it, by bartering, as it did in France, the weapon of the general strike for elections, in the name of ‘the peaceful parliamentary road to socialism’. It directly supports the power of the bourgeoisie all over Europe because its own exis- tence is incompatible with the realization of the United Socialist States of Europe. This is nowhere more apparent than in Germany. In Germany neither imperialism nor the working 107

[p036] class can, in the long term, tolerate the division of the country. West Germany—the second world capi- talist power—must, at all costs, find a way into Eastern Europe for its capital and goods and re-integrate East Germany into its orbit. Unless this happens, an un- precedented economic and social crisis awaits it. The German working class—in both East and West —can have no perspective for socialism which does not include the unification of Germany, through the expropriation of the bourgeoisie in West Germany and the overthrow of the parasitic bureaucracy in the East, with the workers seizing political power. The work- ing class in power in a united Germany spells the end of the capitalist system in Europe, the end of the rump bureaucracies in Eastern Europe and the Kremlin: the United Socialist States of Europe will be organized on the foundations of German economic strength harmonized with the entire European economy. The Soviet bureaucracy must, no matter what the price, support imperialism against the working class in the advanced capitalist countries. Its intervention in Czechoslovakia is inseparably bound up with this policy. It enables imperialism to put pressure on the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and put in question the conquests of October and their extension. The crisis in planning is an expression of the im- possibility of managing the economies of the Soviet Union and countries of Eastern Europe any longer by bureaucratic methods. The bureaucracy cannot re- sort to the only solution which would permit the defence and strengthening of the gains of October: the working out and execution of the plan by the working class, their own integration into the world economy through the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in the main capitalist countries and the re-construc- tion of these economies on socialist foundations. For, contrary to what renegades from the Fourth International like Mandel are so busy explaining, there can be no ‘participation in management’ in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe or anywhere else, without political power being held and exercised. ‘Planning reforms’ mean that the Soviet and satel- lite bureaucracies are gradually adapting their coun- tries’ economies to the exigencies of the laws of the market, internal and external. These ‘reforms’ are a product of the parasitic nature of the bureaucracies and their obsessive fear of the international working class, causing them to dread the revolutionary con- sequences of their own crisis, linked as it is with the crisis of imperialism, and forcing them to adapt them- selves ever more closely to the requirements of imperialism. World imperialism is perfectly well aware that the best card in its hand as regards the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is the international agent of counter-revolution, the Soviet bureaucracy. Imperialism knows that through the policy they pursue in order to defend their privileges, the Soviet and satellite bureaucracies sap the conquests of October and their extension in Eastern Europe. It appraises the military intervention in Czechoslovakia in terms of and as an element of the counter- revolutionary politics of Stalinism. (IV) The Fourth International and the mortal crisis of the Soviet bureaucracy Acceleration of the crisis in the bureaucracy THE SOVIET bureaucracy was generally hesitant about making a military intervention in Czecho- slovakia. As long as ‘liberalization’ appeared to be a tendency to re-adapt the Czechoslovak economy to the requirements of integration into the world market and the international division of labour, the bureaucracy let it go on. 108 When it was no longer possible to prop up Novotny and the line of complete submission he represented, the bureaucracy hoped that the new Czech leaders would still be able, as had happened in Rumania, to main the rigidity of the apparatus. In the same way, at Cierna and Bratislava, the Kremlin gambled on the ability of the Czech leaders to carry out the injunctions in the Letter of the five Warsaw Pact signatories. It was only as a last desperate measure that the decision was taken to intervene militarily, because the apparatus was disintegrating. The hesitations of the Soviet bureaucracy have nothing in common with a respect for the right of peoples to self-determination. They are bound up Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p037] class can, in the long term, tolerate the division of the country. West Germany—the second world capi- talist power—must, at all costs, find a way into Eastern Europe for its capital and goods and re-integrate East Germany into its orbit. Unless this happens, an un- precedented economic and social crisis awaits it. The German working class—in both East and West —can have no perspective for socialism which does not include the unification of Germany, through the expropriation of the bourgeoisie in West Germany and the overthrow of the parasitic bureaucracy in the East, with the workers seizing political power. The work- ing class in power in a united Germany spells the end of the capitalist system in Europe, the end of the rump bureaucracies in Eastern Europe and the Kremlin: the United Socialist States of Europe will be organized on the foundations of German economic strength harmonized with the entire European economy. The Soviet bureaucracy must, no matter what the price, support imperialism against the working class in the advanced capitalist countries. Its intervention in Czechoslovakia is inseparably bound up with this policy. It enables imperialism to put pressure on the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and put in question the conquests of October and their extension. The crisis in planning is an expression of the im- possibility of managing the economies of the Soviet Union and countries of Eastern Europe any longer by bureaucratic methods. The bureaucracy cannot re- sort to the only solution which would permit the defence and strengthening of the gains of October: the working out and execution of the plan by the working class, their own integration into the world economy through the overthrow of the bourgeoisie in the main capitalist countries and the re-construc- tion of these economies on socialist foundations. For, contrary to what renegades from the Fourth International like Mandel are so busy explaining, there can be no ‘participation in management’ in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe or anywhere else, without political power being held and exercised. ‘Planning reforms’ mean that the Soviet and satel- lite bureaucracies are gradually adapting their coun- tries’ economies to the exigencies of the laws of the market, internal and external. These ‘reforms’ are a product of the parasitic nature of the bureaucracies and their obsessive fear of the international working class, causing them to dread the revolutionary con- sequences of their own crisis, linked as it is with the crisis of imperialism, and forcing them to adapt them- selves ever more closely to the requirements of imperialism. World imperialism is perfectly well aware that the best card in its hand as regards the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe is the international agent of counter-revolution, the Soviet bureaucracy. Imperialism knows that through the policy they pursue in order to defend their privileges, the Soviet and satellite bureaucracies sap the conquests of October and their extension in Eastern Europe. It appraises the military intervention in Czechoslovakia in terms of and as an element of the counter- revolutionary politics of Stalinism. (IV) The Fourth International and the mortal crisis of the Soviet bureaucracy Acceleration of the crisis in the bureaucracy THE SOVIET bureaucracy was generally hesitant about making a military intervention in Czecho- slovakia. As long as ‘liberalization’ appeared to be a tendency to re-adapt the Czechoslovak economy to the requirements of integration into the world market and the international division of labour, the bureaucracy let it go on. 108 When it was no longer possible to prop up Novotny and the line of complete submission he represented, the bureaucracy hoped that the new Czech leaders would still be able, as had happened in Rumania, to main the rigidity of the apparatus. In the same way, at Cierna and Bratislava, the Kremlin gambled on the ability of the Czech leaders to carry out the injunctions in the Letter of the five Warsaw Pact signatories. It was only as a last desperate measure that the decision was taken to intervene militarily, because the apparatus was disintegrating. The hesitations of the Soviet bureaucracy have nothing in common with a respect for the right of peoples to self-determination. They are bound up Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p038] -with the crisis in the international apparatus of Stalinism, which manifests itself even inside the leading group in the Kremlin. The new course adopted after Stalin’s death was the only course open to the Kremlin, although it must lead to the disintegration of the international apparatus. The search for a fresh modus vivendi with im- perialism led to the break with the Chinese bureau- cracy and precipitated a crisis in the Chinese appara- tus. In order to resist the joint pressure of imperial- ism and the Kremlin, the wing of the bureaucracy represented by Mao Tse-tung had to call for a care- fully controlled, distorted mobilization of the masses against the capitulationist, pro-capitalist Moscow wing. The ‘cultural revolution’ brought on to the scene the first demonstrations heralding the political revolution in China. The fight taken up by Mao against an agree- ment with imperialism to the detriment of China mirrors the preoccupations of important layers of the Soviet bureaucracy. They realise that capitulation to imperialism in China, and capitalist penetration, would very soon place in jeopardy the social and economic foundations of the USSR, the basis of their own privilege. They correctly evaluate the ‘planning reforms’ which, in the short term, harm the interests of important layers of the bureaucracy and, in the long term, mean the disintegration of the planned economy, the destruction of the state monopoly of foreign trade, and the penetration of foreign capi- tal, as is happening now in Yugoslavia. The challenge to the hegemony of Moscow afforded by Mao and the wing of the Chinese bureaucracy he represents, have helped to modify on an _ interna- tional scale the relations between the masses and the apparatus of Stalinism, between CP members and the bureaucracy. The new content of the policy of ‘peaceful co- existence’ has set in motion centrifugal forces in the East European states. Rumania is the classic example But these forces also operate in the German Demo- cratic Republic, Hungary and Poland, as well as Czechoslovakia, each bureaucracy seeking to make its own direct link-up with imperialism. The ‘theories’ of the peaceful parliamentary road to socialism, with each country finding the ‘national road’ which suits it best, have re-inforced the ten- dency within the Communist Parties in the advanced capitalist countries to adapt directly to the national bourgeoisie, as the French and Italian. CPs increas- ingly do. In the backward countries, Suslov’s ‘theses’ have destroyed numerous CPs, in Asia, Africa and South America, or have been the cause of crises exploited with varying degrees of effectiveness by the Chinese CP. The military intervention in Czechoslovakia, a desperate last resort, has accelerated the crisis of the Soviet bureaucracy. It is of enormous significance that the Communist Political revolution in Czechoslovakia Parties of Western Europe, all except Luxemburg, came out against the military intervention by the five Warsaw Pact signatories in Czechoslovakia. The attempts by the Kremlin to solder up its international apparatus have been destroyed. Since 1963 the Kremlin has been trying to get a conference of the Communist Parties in Moscow. The pre-conference at Budapest had resigned itself to the non-participation of parties such as the Rumanian, Vietnamese and Cuban parties. At Budapest it was decided that the conference should be held in November in Moscow. The Kremlin attached great importance to this conference. It needed the confer- ence to be able to confront and oppose the Chinese CP, as well as the centrifugal tendencies in the West European Parties, with the declaration that the centre of the world ‘communist and workers’ move- ment’ was Moscow, that the ‘criterion of international- ism’ was fidelity to Moscow, which was the only repository of Leninism and alone represented con- tinuity with the October Revolution. It was necessary to make this declaration in front of the CP machines and their membership, and also vis-a-vis the international working class. It was indispensable if the bureaucracy was to strengthen its hold cver decisive sectors of the international prole- tariat on which its political powers depend. All these efforts have been destroyed. The dislocation of the international apparatus of Stalinism has been precipi- tated. The positions taken up by the West European Communist Parties arise, in the main, from the more advanced stage reached in their direct integration into bourgeois society. in their respective countries, in the course of the last 20 years. But they have other, even more decisive reasons. After Budapest, after the break with China, it is impossible for the CP apparatuses to justify to their own members and to the working class the military intervention in Czechoslovakia. Their policy of adaptation to the capitalist class and to the exigencies of the decaying capitalist system, jeopardizes all the conquests of the working class. Amongst the mass of workers, within the unions controlled by the CP, amongst the membership of the CP, stronger and stronger opposition is developing. Approval of the military intervention in Czecho- slovakia by the CP apparatuses would have destroyed these parties. After the betrayal of the general strike in France support by the leadership of the French CP for the Soviet intervention would have meant the complete disintegration of the French CP. But this decision could only have been taken so unanimously by the West European Parties insofar as it mirrors the in- ternal divisions in the Kremlin, as is proved by the statements of Dolores Ibarurri, who has been in Russia for 30 years and is quite simply an agent of the Soviet CP leadership. 109

[p039] The imparse reached by the Kremlin IMPERIALISM, although it understands and approves of part of the Kremlin apparatus, in- cluding part of the leadership, is worried about the consequences of the military intervention in Czechoslovakia. It is not certain that the inter- vention will be enough to crush the political revolution. To date, the forces of the Czechoslovak working class remain intact, ready to show themselves at the first opportunity and take up the struggle. In East Germany, Poland and Hungary, demonstrations in solidarity with the Czechosovak people and working class have taken place. The occupying troops are un- reliable. They have to be constantly switched around to avoid ‘contamination’. They cannot be stationed for very long like this in contact with the Czecho- slovak people and working class. In Russia, the courageous demonstration led by Pavel Litvinov and Larissa Daniel is incomparably more significant than its size would lead one to expect. It brings to the light of day a profound opposition to the military intervention which mirrors opposition to the Soviet bureaucracy. A blow has been struck at the Rumanian apparatus which had previously been unshaken. The Rumanian working class must be watching the resistance of the Czech working class with mingled anxiety and hope and drawing inspiration from it to fight its own bureaucracy. In spite of Tito’s appeals for calm, the Yugoslav working class has shown its solidarity with the Czech working class, notably in the course of a massive demonstration in Belgrade forced on him by 300,000 workers. If the Kremlin is not able very rapidly to master the situation in Czechoslovakia, the fire which is smouldering will set the whole of Eastern Europe ablaze at a pace which is impossible to predict. The military intervention would then turn back on the satellite and Moscow bureaucracies. The Kremlin masters are not embarrassed with humanitarian feel- ings, but they are visibly hesitating. In order: to master the Czechoslovak people and working class, their resistance must be destroyed by bloody repression. The military occupation has already caused irreparable damage to the international apparatus of Stalinism. Bloody repression carried out by the armies of the Warsaw Pact would destroy it. The political relations between the international working class and the Soviet bureaucracy and between imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy would alter 110 qualitatively. The Soviet bureaucracy would break up into its component parts. One wing would become the immediate, open and direct agent of capitalist restoration and would have to take up the struggle against the Russian working class, which depends for its actual existence on the social and economic rela- tions established by the October Revolution, and against the other layers of the bureaucracy which clung to the gains of October. The crushing of the Hungarian Revolution of workers’ councils by Soviet troops already marked an important stage in the progress towards a closer subordination of Moscow to imperialism and towards a policy leaning more and more heavily on the pro- capitalist social forces in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe—‘Social relations in the Soviet Union live in the consciousness of the masses’, as Trotsky wrote. He explained that the attachment of the masses to these social relations was the only thing preventing the renaissance of bourgeois social relations, to which whole layers of the bureaucracy aspired. The bloody repression of the Czechoslovak working class would open up a period of real civil war in Russia and Eastern Europe. Verification of what might appear to be simply an assertion is afforded by what happened in the Second World War. The heroism of the Russian workers and peasants has no mystique about it. Their existence is conditioned by the factories and collective farms. Capitalist penetration, the destruction of planning and the monopoly of foreign trade, would mean that the productive forces of Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe would be largely destroyed; only those aspects which would complement the capitalist economy would remain. ‘Planning reforms’ have not qualitatively modified the Soviet economy. They are merely directed towards an adaptation to the world market and the re-intro- duction of capitalist norms of production. But they are sufficient to cause hundreds of factor- ies to be closed, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of workers to lose their security of employ- ment and skilled status, and be threatened with permanent unemployment. They are enough for teach- ing to be reformed and thousands and thousands of students to be thrown out of the universities and schools and not find jobs. These phenomena can be seen particularly clearly in the East European coun- tries and they explain the combativity of the youth, which is particularly hard-hit. The economy is not a sort of abstract technical question, as that illustrious tight-rope walker, that supplier upon request of ‘theories’ to petty-bourgeois tendencies in search of a Marxist coloration, the Marxologist Ernest Mandel, seems to think. As Marx said: ‘Economic categories are the théoreti- cal expression of the social relations in production’. The violent crushing of the Czechoslovak working class would shift the political axis around which the Soviet bureaucracy turns, and would constitute the first act in a civil war which it would have to under- take as the direct and immediate agent of capitalist Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p040] IMPERIALISM, although it understands and approves of part of the Kremlin apparatus, in- cluding part of the leadership, is worried about the consequences of the military intervention in Czechoslovakia. It is not certain that the inter- vention will be enough to crush the political revolution. To date, the forces of the Czechoslovak working class remain intact, ready to show themselves at the first opportunity and take up the struggle. In East Germany, Poland and Hungary, demonstrations in solidarity with the Czechosovak people and working class have taken place. The occupying troops are un- reliable. They have to be constantly switched around to avoid ‘contamination’. They cannot be stationed for very long like this in contact with the Czecho- slovak people and working class. In Russia, the courageous demonstration led by Pavel Litvinov and Larissa Daniel is incomparably more significant than its size would lead one to expect. It brings to the light of day a profound opposition to the military intervention which mirrors opposition to the Soviet bureaucracy. A blow has been struck at the Rumanian apparatus which had previously been unshaken. The Rumanian working class must be watching the resistance of the Czech working class with mingled anxiety and hope and drawing inspiration from it to fight its own bureaucracy. In spite of Tito’s appeals for calm, the Yugoslav working class has shown its solidarity with the Czech working class, notably in the course of a massive demonstration in Belgrade forced on him by 300,000 workers. If the Kremlin is not able very rapidly to master the situation in Czechoslovakia, the fire which is smouldering will set the whole of Eastern Europe ablaze at a pace which is impossible to predict. The military intervention would then turn back on the satellite and Moscow bureaucracies. The Kremlin masters are not embarrassed with humanitarian feel- ings, but they are visibly hesitating. In order to master the Czechoslovak people and working class, their resistance must be destroyed by bloody repression. The military occupation has already caused irreparable damage to the international apparatus of Stalinism. Bloody repression carried out by the armies of the Warsaw Pact would destroy it. The political relations between the international working class and the Soviet bureaucracy and between imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy would alter 110 qualitatively. The Soviet bureaucracy would break up into its component parts. One wing would become the immediate, open and direct agent of capitalist restoration and would have to take up the struggle against the Russian working class, which depends for its actual existence on the social and economic rela- tions established by the October Revolution, and against the other layers of the bureaucracy which clung to the gains of October. The crushing of the Hungarian Revolution of workers’ councils by Soviet troops already marked an important stage in the progress towards a closer subordination of Moscow to imperialism and towards a policy leaning more and more heavily on the pro- capitalist social forces in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe—‘Social relations in the Soviet Union live in the consciousness of the masses’, as Trotsky wrote. He explained that the attachment of the masses to these social relations was the only thing preventing the renaissance of bourgeois social relations, to which whole layers of the bureaucracy aspired. The bloody repression of the Czechoslovak working class would open up a period of real civil war in Russia and Eastern Europe. Verification of what might appear to be simply an assertion is afforded by what happened in the Second World War. The heroism of the Russian workers and peasants has no mystique about it. Their existence is conditioned by the factories and collective farms. Capitalist penetration, the destruction of planning and the monopoly of foreign trade, would mean that the productive forces of Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe would be largely destroyed; only those aspects which would complement the capitalist economy would remain. ‘Planning reforms’ have not qualitatively modified the Soviet economy. They are merely directed towards an adaptation to the world market and the re-intro- duction of capitalist norms of production. But they are sufficient to cause hundreds of factor- ies to be closed, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of workers to lose their security of employ- ment and skilled status, and be threatened with permanent unemployment. They are enough for teach- ing to be reformed and thousands and thousands of students to be thrown out of the universities and schools and not find jobs. These phenomena can be seen particularly clearly in the East European coun- tries and they explain the combativity of the youth, which is particularly hard-hit. The economy is not a sort of abstract technical question, as that illustrious tight-rope walker, that supplier upon request of ‘theories’ to petty-bourgeois tendencies in search of a Marxist coloration, the Marxologist Ernest Mandel, seems to think. As Marx said: ‘Economic categories are the theoreti- cal expression of the social relations in production’. The violent crushing of the Czechoslovak working class would shift the political axis around which the Soviet bureaucracy turns, and would constitute the first act in a civil war which it would have to under- take as the direct and immediate agent of capitalist Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p041] restoration against the proletariat in the Soviet Union and East European countries. The deploring by the West European Communist Parties of the military intervention in Czechoslovakia has cut deep into the historical and political bond tying the CPs to the Soviet bureaucracy. The solid- arity of the CPs and their apparatuses sprang from this bond. The ability of the apparatuses to control the Party membership and decisive sectors of the international working class came as a result of the identification with the October Revolution of the Soviet bureaucracy, which was presented as the con- tinuator of October, the repository of the interests of the international working class and leader of the struggle for socialism. Whatever happens, by deploring and condemning the military intervention, the CP leaders have undermined this mystification. Inevitably, a process of differentiation within the CPs, with the formation of oppositions, all sorts of oppositions naturally, and the break-up of the parties, is irreversibly set in motion. A bloody repression would only accelerate this process and make it im- possible to shore up the breach. The WFTU* has also been shaken up. L. Saillant refused to participate in the Congress of the East German Trade Unions, as long as the occupation of Czechoslovakia continued. The military intervention in Czechoslovakia visibly sparked off a crisis in the Kremlin. The game is no- where near played and the Soviet bureaucracy, in the grip of a political crisis, the scope of which is deter- mined by all the implications of the intervention, hesitates. FREY aS the elagc strusol Stipe 3 Te f A 46g AL THE FATE of the Czech proletariat depends on the world proletariat, and at the same time con- ditions it. That is how we must view the stand taken by Castro and his petty-bourgeois clique, by the North Vietnamese government and the Viet- namese Workers’ Party. The petty bourgeois in power in Cuba understand and approve, as does imperialism, the repression of the political revolution by the Kremlin. Balancing between imperialism and the working class, they thus demonstrate which side they will come down on in the end, because they are conscious that the Soviet bureaucracy will deliver them, bound and gagged, to imperialism at the first opportunity, according to its own political requirements. The North Vietnamese government and the Viet- namese Workers’ Party are caught in the trap of their own political line. They based the struggle against American imperialism on the national unity of the entire people. The programme of the National Liber- ation Front freely extends the ‘national union’ to * World Federation of Trade Unions. Political revolution in Czechoslovakia layers of the bourgeoisie in South Vietnam who are looking for a compromise with American imperialism which would guarantee their class interests. Because of this, the heroic resistance of the workers and peasants of Vietnam is placed outside the struggle of the world proletariat for the international socialist revolution. To isolate the struggle of the Vietnamese peasants and workers from the struggles of the world proletariat on the class front, which is its own, is to limit oneself to replying in a military way to American imperialist aggression. Support for the National Liberation Front in its war against United States imperialism is above all a political question of mobilizing the international work- ing class against the imperialist enemy, and the military aspects are subordinate to this revolutionary task. Unconditional support by the international work- ing class for the struggle of North Vietnam and the NLF; at the same time, a constant struggle against Stalinism, of which the politics of the Ho Chi Minh government and the programme of the National Liber- ation Front constitute a deadly dangerous expression for the struggle of the Vietnamese masses. This is the only way to effectively support the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese workers and peasants. The position of the Vietnamese government and the Workers’ Party shows just how much this policy makes them dependent on Moscow, for whom they stand bail. The Soviet bureaucracy does not provide arms ‘for nothing’. Just as in Spain during the Civil War, the provision of arms and specialists is a method it uses to assert its control and political tutelage over the North Vietnamese government and the Vietnam- ese Workers’ Party. US imperialist policy with regard to Vietnam combines military intervention with the use of political methods. It is based on the certainty that the Soviet bureau- cracy will sooner or later be able to force the Viet- namese workers and peasants to capitulate. The crush- ing of the Czech working class by the Kremlin would mean the defeat of the toilers in Vietnam. The state- ments of the North Vietnamese government and the Vietnamese Workers’ Party isolate even further the workers and peasants of Vietnam from the inter- national working class and strengthen American im- perialism. They thus tend to weaken the only force upon which the Vietnamese workers can depend for support. { ze h workinea THE EFFECTIVE solidarity of the world prole- tariat with the Czech proletariat must make itself felt. It is capable of forcing Moscow to retreat. It is not enough for the trade union organizations, 111

[p042] restoration against the proletariat in the Soviet Union and East European countries. The deploring by the West European Communist Parties of the military intervention in Czechoslovakia has cut deep into the historical and political bond tying the CPs to the Soviet bureaucracy. The solid- arity of the CPs and their apparatuses sprang from this bond. The ability of the apparatuses to control the Party membership and decisive sectors of the international working class came as a result of the identification with the October Revolution of the Soviet bureaucracy, which was presented as the con- tinuator of October, the repository of the interests of the international working class and leader of the struggle for socialism. Whatever happens, by deploring and condemning the military intervention, the CP leaders have undermined this mystification. Inevitably, a process of differentiation within the CPs, with the formation of oppositions, all sorts of oppositions naturally, and the break-up of the parties, is irreversibly set in motion. A bloody repression would only accelerate this process and make it im- possible to shore up the breach. The WFTU* has also been shaken up. L. Saillant refused to participate in the Congress of the East German Trade Unions, as long as the occupation of Czechoslovakia continued. The military intervention in Czechoslovakia visibly sparked off a crisis in the Kremlin. The game is no- where near played and the Soviet bureaucracy, in the grip of a political crisis, the scope of which is deter- mined by all the implications of the intervention, hesitates. The implacable logic of the class struggle THE FATE of the Czech proletariat depends on the world proletariat, and at the same time con- ditions it. That is how we must view the stand taken by Castro and his petty-bourgeois clique, by the North Vietnamese government and the Viet- namese Workers’ Party. The petty bourgeois in power in Cuba understand and approve, as does imperialism, the repression of the political revolution by the Kremlin. Balancing between imperialism and the working class, they thus demonstrate which side they will come down on in the end, because they are conscious that the Soviet bureaucracy will deliver them, bound and gagged, to imperialism at the first opportunity, according to its own political requirements. The North Vietnamese government and the Viet- namese Workers’ Party are caught in the trap of their own political line. They based the struggle against American imperialism on the national unity of the entire people. The programme of the National Liber- ation Front freely extends the ‘national union’ to * World Federation of Trade Unions. Political revolution in Czechoslovakia layers of the bourgeoisie in South Vietnam who are looking for a compromise with American imperialism which would guarantee their class interests. Because of this, the heroic resistance of the workers and peasants of Vietnam is placed outside the struggle of the world proletafiat for the international socialist revolution. To isolate the struggle of the Vietnamese peasants and workers from the struggles of the world proletariat on the class front, which is its own, is to limit oneself to replying in a military way to American imperialist aggression. Support for the National Liberation Front in its war against United States imperialism is above all a political question of mobilizing the international work- ing class against the imperialist enemy, and the military aspects are subordinate to this revolutionary task. Unconditional support by the international work- ing class for the struggle of North Vietnam and the NLF; at the same time, a constant struggle against Stalinism, of which the politics of the Ho Chi Minh government and the programme of the National Liber- ation Front constitute a deadly dangerous expression for the struggle of the Vietnamese masses. This is the only way to effectively support the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese workers and peasants. The position of the Vietnamese government and the Workers’ Party shows just how much this policy makes them dependent on Moscow, for whom they stand bail. The Soviet bureaucracy does not provide arms ‘for nothing’. Just as in Spain during the Civil War, the provision of arms and specialists is a method it uses to assert its control and political tutelage over the North Vietnamese government and the Vietnam- ese Workers’ Party. US imperialist policy with regard to Vietnam combines military intervention with the use of political methods. It is based on the certainty that the Soviet bureau- cracy will sooner or later be able to force the Viet- namese workers and peasants to capitulate. The crush- ing of the Czech working class by the Kremlin would mean the defeat of the toilers in Vietnam. The state- ments of the North Vietnamese government and the Vietnamese Workers’ Party isolate even further the workers and peasants of Vietnam from the inter- national working class and strengthen American im- perialism. They thus tend to weaken the only force upon which the Vietnamese workers can depend for support. Effective solidarity with the Czech people and the Czech working class THE EFFECTIVE solidarity of the world prole- tariat with the Czech proletariat must make itself felt. It is capable of forcing Moscow to retreat. It is not enough for the trade union organizations, 111

[p043] the WFTU, to condemn the military intervention by the Soviet bureaucracy. Communist Party members, you cannot accept your leaders coming out on the one hand against this intervention and on the other hand ‘congratulating’ themselves on the Moscow diktat. An active campaign must be launched in the unions for the unconditional withdrawal from Czechoslovakia of the occupying troops and for respect for the demands drawn up by the 14th Congress of the Czech CP. An extraordinary Congress of the WFTU must be called to demand the withdrawal of occupying troops and organize an inter- national struggle to enforce this demand. In the same way, we must demand the liberation from the jails of the Kremlin and satellite bureauc- racies, of all those who, like Pavel Litvinov and Larissa Daniel, courageously organized in the Soviet Union and elsewhere demonstrations in solidarity with the Czech nation and Czech working class. An inseparable fight THIS fight is a part of the enormous struggle for socialism. There is not room in the world for two different social and economic systems. The achievement of the capitalist mode of produc- tion consists in the fact that it has developed the productive forces to a very high level by establishing a world economy, the world market and the inter- national division of labour. Its bankruptcy springs from the fact that it is imprisoned in the old shell, the old social relations in which the productive forces developed. The proletarian revolution and socialism are the reply of the world proletariat to the crisis in the capitalist mode of production, to imperialism, and to the resulting decay in capitalist society. But socialism, if it is to be built, must take in hand and surpass all the achievements of the capitalist mode of production by destroying the old shell and the social relations which hinder the growth of the productive forces. By expropriating the bourgeoisie of the principal means of production, it abolishes capitalist relations of pro- duction which make a worker into a seller of labour power. It replaces the blind laws of the market by the the conscious management of the economy by the producers. For the international division of labour and the unequal, antagonistic relations engendered by capitalism, it substitutes a world economy based on conscious, organized co-operation. The theory of ‘socialism in one country’ and bureau- cratic management of planning are a result of parasitic bureaucracies opposed to the world socialist revolu- tion, of which the Russian Revolution was the first step. They lead to support for imperialism against the proletariat throughout the world. They end in the most brutal repression against the proletariats of Soviet Russia -and Eastern Europe and the de- struction of the revolutionary conquests of October. 112 They prolong the death agony of capitalism which is incapable of developing any further the productive forces. They permit capitalism to bring about, on an ever vaster scale, massive destructions of the produc- tive forces, to bring about decay, barbarism, over the whole face of the globe, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe included. Socialism, because it will provide a fantastic new impetus to the productive forces, is the form of society on which depends any new development of civilization. Socialism will abolish social and national conflicts, the division between manual and intellectual work, and all organs of repression, by doing away with the need for repression. But for socialism to be achieved, workers must take the power and transform the social structure in the capitalist countries, as well as in the countries where the means of production are collectivized, and also where the Soviet and satellite bureaucracies have removed the workers from political power and the management of the economy. The general strike in France, the heroic fight of the workers and peasants of Vietnam, the political revolution which was de- veloping in Czechoslovakia, are different aspects of the same international struggle of the working class for socialism. What is lacking for the workers in each country and the international proletariat is a programme and an organization to direct and unify their struggles. The development of the political revolution in Czecho- slovakia and the counter-revolutionary intervention of the Kremlin, the general strike in France, the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese workers and peasants, entirely confirm the programme of the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky. The political function of the renegades from the FI THE BANKRUPTCY of the renegades from the FI and the criminal responsibility they must bear for attempting to dismantle the FI is now clear. A few years ago they were praising to the skies the ‘liberalization’ of the Soviet bureaucracy and self-reform, a theory dear to the heart of Isaac Deutscher, which people like Pablo, Germain-Mandel Frank and Hansen took up again. In 1956 they sup- perted the ‘liberal’ and ‘reasonable’ Gomulka who according to them, had avoided the ‘exaggerations and indiscretions’ that Imre Nagy had not managed to avoid in the Hungarian Revolution. In the name cf ‘political realism’ they asked the Soviet bureaucracy, in the period immediately following the break with the Chinese bureaucracy, to call a congress of the ‘international communist movement’ to regulate its differences and ensure unity, and they asked to par- ticipate in the Congress ‘in the name of the FI’. Mandel, the ‘theory’ expert, practised his art on ‘neo-capitalism’ as well as ‘planning reforms’. Capital- Fourth International, Winter 1968/1959

[p044] the WFTU, to condemn the military intervention by the Soviet bureaucracy. Communist Party members, you cannot accept your leaders coming out on the one hand against this intervention and on the other hand ‘congratulating’ themselves on the Moscow diktat. An active campaign must be launched in the unions for the unconditional withdrawal from Czechoslovakia of the occupying troops and for respect for the demands drawn up by the 14th Congress of the Czech CP. An extraordinary Congress of the WFTU must be called to demand the withdrawal of occupying troops and organize an inter- national struggle to enforce this demand. In the same way, we must demand the liberation from the jails of the Kremlin and satellite bureauc- racies, of all those who, like Pavel Litvinov and Larissa Daniel, courageously organized in the Soviet Union and elsewhere demonstrations in solidarity with the Czech nation and Czech working class. An inseparable fight THIS fight is a part of the enormous struggle for socialism. There is not room in the world for two different social and economic systems. The achievement of the capitalist mode of produc- tion consists in the fact that it has developed the productive forces to a very high level by establishing a world economy, the world market and the inter- national division of labour. Its bankruptcy springs from the fact that it is imprisoned in the old shell, the old social relations in which the productive forces developed. The proletarian revolution and socialism are the reply of the world proletariat to the crisis in the capitalist mode of production, to imperialism, and to the resulting decay in capitalist society. But socialism, if it is to be built, must take in hand and surpass all the achievements of the capitalist mode of production by destroying the old shell and the social relations which hinder the growth of the productive forces. By expropriating the bourgeoisie of the principal means of production, it abolishes capitalist relations of pro- duction which make a worker into a seller of labour power. It replaces the blind laws of the market by the the conscious management of the economy by the producers. For the international division of labour and the unequal, antagonistic relations engendered by capitalism, it substitutes a world economy based on conscious, organized co-operation. The theory of ‘socialism in one country’ and bureau- cratic management of planning are a result of parasitic bureaucracies opposed to the world socialist revolu- tion, of which the Russian Revolution was the first step. They lead to support for imperialism against the proletariat throughout the world. They end in the most brutal repression against the proletariats of Soviet Russia -and Eastern Europe and the de- struction of the revolutionary conquests of October. 112 They prolong the death agony of capitalism which is incapable of developing any further the productive forces. They permit capitalism to bring about, on an ever vaster scale, massive destructions of the produc- tive forces, to bring about decay, barbarism, over the whole face of the globe, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe included. Socialism, because it will provide a fantastic new impetus to the productive forces, is the form of society on which depends any new development of civilization. Socialism will abolish social and national conflicts, the division between manual and intellectual work, and all organs of repression, by doing away with the need for repression. But for socialism to be achieved, workers must take the power and transform the social structure in the capitalist countries, as well as in the countries where the means of production are collectivized, and also where the Soviet and satellite bureaucracies have removed the workers from political power and the management of the economy. The general strike in France, the heroic fight of the workers and peasants of Vietnam, the political revolution which was de- veloping in Czechoslovakia, are different aspects of the same international struggle of the working class for socialism. What is lacking for the workers in each country and the international proletariat is a programme and an organization to direct and unify their struggles. The development of the political revolution in Czecho- slovakia and the counter-revolutionary intervention of the Kremlin, the general strike in France, the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese workers and peasants, entirely confirm the programme of the Fourth International founded by Leon Trotsky. The political function of the renegades from the FI THE BANKRUPTCY of the renegades from the FI and the criminal responsibility they must bear for attempting to dismantle the FI is now clear. A few years ago they were praising to the skies the ‘liberalization’ of the Soviet bureaucracy and self-reform, a theory dear to the heart of Isaac Deutscher, which people like Pablo, Germain-Mandel Frank and Hansen took up again. In 1956 they sup- ported the ‘liberal’ and ‘reasonable’ Gomulka who according to them, had avoided the ‘exaggerations and indiscretions’ that Imre Nagy had not managed to avoid in the Hungarian Revolution. In the name cof ‘political realism’ they asked the Soviet bureaucracy, in the period immediately following the break with the Chinese bureaucracy, to call a congress of the ‘international communist movement’ to regulate its differences and ensure unity, and they asked to par- ticipate in the Congress ‘in the name of the FI’. Mandel, the ‘theory’ expert, practised his art on ‘neo-capitalism’ as well as ‘planning reforms’. Capital- Fourth International, Winter 1968/1959

[p045] ism, which had become ‘neo’ for the occasion, had managed to stabilize itself; all that was left was to transform it definitively by. ‘structural reforms’. The ‘reforms in planning’ are the result of the struggle between ‘two principles’, the market and the plan. Social forces do not enter into it. Just ‘the Stalinist system was heavy, unwieldy and basically unrealistic’. One of the reasons for the ‘economic reform’ was that the Soviet Union was in danger of ‘missing the oppor- tunity of the third industrial revolution’. The ‘theories’ of this eminent theoretical guide for renegades from the FI bring us to the petty-bourgeois conceptions of the ‘technological civilization’ and its ‘problems’. Pierre Frank as well as Mandel and all their friends argue for a ‘new-look transitional pro- gramme’ which would take into account ‘the rising standard of living of the masses’, ‘full employment’, etc. . . . in short, the ‘civilization of leisure’. Thus, armed from top to toe, they declared that the ‘epicentre’ of world revolution was to be found in the backward countries. Only a few months before the general strike in France and the mounting tide of the political revolution in Czechoslovakia, Mandel, seeking to justify their infamous bloc with the Gaull- ists in the movement of a ‘million francs for Vietnam’, and their collusion with the Stalinist appara- tus during a demonstration in Berlin, wrote, just as the Polish students took up the fight, that there was no revolutionary situation in the advanced countries any more, of course, than in the East European countries and the Soviet Union. At the same time they burdened the toilers of Vietnam with the job of inflicting a military defeat on American imperialism, to shouts of ‘Victory to the NLF’. They condemned China for not bringing about ‘unity of the communist movement’ with the Kremlin in support for the NLF. They then came to see in the NLF leadership and Castro’s petty-bourgeois clique, even if they did occasionally tend to imprison and massacre Trotskyists, the continuators of Bolshevism. They particularly admired Castro and his party who, according to them, had enriched Marxism and added new lessons to the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky. This in no way conflicts with the fact that Pierre Frank, from a rostrum in the Sorbonne, pompously greeted ‘the Sorbonne, the first free territory in the Socialist Republic of France’. It all hangs together and is absolutely coherent: having capitulated to the pressure of imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy, the renegades from the FI become the heralds of the terrified petty bourgeoisie and the ‘theoreticians’ of fantasy. Their political function from now on is to hinder the re-building of the FI by usurping its name. The struggle for the reconstruction of the FI INTERNATIONAL proletarian solidarity is the Political revolution in Czechoslovakia elementary expression of the world unity of the class struggle, the unity of the struggle for social- ism. The International Committee (IC) of the FI, in calling for unconditional support for the Czech people and Czech working class, fights for the re- construction of the FI. The IC has accepted the task of ensuring the continuity of the FI. Even in the darkest days of the rise of Stalinism and the height of its power, in spite of all the crimes and assassinations of thousands and thousands of Trotskyists and Trotsky himself, despite all the vicissitudes, even through all the crimes against the FI, the theoretical and political heritage of the Russian Revolution and the Third International, enriched with the lessons of the struggle against Stalinism, have re- mained alive. This was only possible through the fight of the Left Opposition and Trotsky’s fight to found the FI and the struggle of the IC against the Pabloite liquidationists. These lessons are condensed in the programme of the FI. Henceforward, the joint crisis of imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy merges the processes of the social and the political revolutions: the struggle for workers’ power. But as the Transitional Pro- gramme precisely states : ‘The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership.’ The struggle for workers’ power, for socialism, can only be successful if it is a conscious and therefore an organized process. It demands the re-construction of the FI and the building of its parties in the countries dominated by imperialism, in Russia, in Eastern Europe as in China. The communist party members and the proletariat who henceforward clash directly with Stalinism and its international apparatus, as well as with the social democracy, need a programme, a banner, an organiza- tion. They will be those of the FI. But they will only recognize this programme, this banner and this organization as their own insofar as the organizations which constitute the IC are capable of leading them in the fight. @ For the defence of all the conquests of the working class. @ Unconditional support for the Czechoslovak people and working class. Withdraw all occupy- ing troops. e For the liberation of the victims of Stalinist repression in the Soviet Union and the East European countries. r ) For complete equality between the Slovak and Czech people within the federated Socialist Re- public of Czechoslovakia. @ Unconditional support for the Vietnamese wor- kers and peasants and the defeat of American imperialism. 113

[p046] ism, which had become ‘neo’ for the occasion, had managed to stabilize itself; all that was left was to transform it definitively by ‘structural reforms’. The ‘reforms in planning’ are the result of the struggle between ‘two principles’, the market and the plan. Social forces do not enter into it. Just ‘the Stalinist system was heavy, unwieldy and basically unrealistic’. One of the reasons for the ‘economic reform’ was that the Soviet Union was in danger of ‘missing the oppor- tunity of the third industrial revolution’. The ‘theories’ of this eminent theoretical guide for renegades from the FI bring us to the petty-bourgeois conceptions of the ‘technological civilization’ and its ‘problems’. Pierre Frank as well as Mandel and all their friends argue for a ‘new-look transitional pro- gramme’ which would take into account ‘the rising standard of living of the masses’, ‘full employment’, etc. . . . in short, the ‘civilization of leisure’. Thus, armed from top to toe, they declared that the ‘epicentre’ of world revolution was to be found in the backward countries. Only a few months before the general strike in France and the mounting tide of the political revolution in Czechoslovakia, Mandel, seeking to justify their infamous bloc with the Gaull- ists in the movement of a ‘million francs for Vietnam’, and their collusion with the Stalinist appara- tus during a demonstration in Berlin, wrote, just as the Polish students took up the fight, that there was no revolutionary situation in the advanced countries any more, of course, than in the East European countries and the Soviet Union. At the same time they burdened the toilers of Vietnam with the job of inflicting a military defeat on American imperialism, to shouts of ‘Victory to the NLF’. They condemned China for not bringing about ‘unity of the communist movement’ with the Kremlin in support for the NLF. They then came to see in the NLF leadership and Castro’s petty-bourgeois clique, even if they did occasionally tend to imprison and massacre Trotskyists, the continuators of Bolshevism. They particularly admired Castro and his party who, according to them, had enriched Marxism and added new lessons to the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky. This in no way conflicts with the fact that Pierre Frank, from a rostrum in the Sorbonne, pompously greeted ‘the Sorbonne, the first free territory in the Socialist Republic of France’. It all hangs together and is absolutely coherent: having capitulated to the pressure of imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy, the renegades from the FI become the heralds of the terrified petty bourgeoisie and the ‘theoreticians’ of fantasy. Their political function from now on is to hinder the re-building of the FI by usurping its name. The struggle for the reconstruction of. the FI INTERNATIONAL proletarian solidarity is the Political revolution in Czechoslovakia elementary expression of the world unity of the class struggle, the unity of the struggle for social- ism. The International Committee (IC) of the FI, in calling for unconditional support for the Czech people and Czech working class, fights for the re- construction of the FI. The IC has accepted the task of ensuring the continuity of the FI. Even in the darkest days of the rise of Stalinism and the height of its power, in spite of all the crimes and assassinations of thousands and thousands of Trotskyists and Trotsky himself, despite all the vicissitudes, even through all the crimes against the FI, the theoretical and political heritage of the Russian Revolution and the Third International, enriched with the lessons of the struggle against Stalinism, have re- mained alive. This was only possible through the fight of the Left Opposition and Trotsky’s fight to found the FI and the struggle of the IC against the Pabloite liquidationists. These lessons are condensed in the programme of the FI. Henceforward, the joint crisis of imperialism and the Soviet bureaucracy merges the processes of the social and the political revolutions: the struggle for workers’ power. But as the Transitional Pro- gramme precisely states : ‘The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership.’ The struggle for workers’ power, for socialism, can only be successful if it is a conscious and therefore an organized process. It demands the re-construction of the FI and the building of its parties in the countries dominated by imperialism, in Russia, in Eastern Europe as in China. The communist party members and the proletariat who henceforward clash directly with Stalinism and its international apparatus, as well as with the social democracy, need a programme, a banner, an organiza- tion. They will be those of the FI. But they will only recognize this programme, this banner and this organization as their own insofar as the organizations which constitute the IC are capable of leading them in the fight. @ For the defence of all the conquests of the working class. @ Unconditional support for the Czechoslovak people and working class. Withdraw all occupy- ing troops. @ For the liberation of the victims of Stalinist repression in the Soviet Union and the East European countries. @ For complete equality between the Slovak and Czech people within the federated Socialist Re- public of Czechoslovakia. @ Unconditional support for the Vietnamese wor- kers and peasants and the defeat of American imperialism. 113

[p047] fe) For the united front of the proletariat in every country and of the international proletariat against the capitalist class on the one hand and the Soviet bureaucracy on the other. Py For the political power of the working class everywhere. For the United Socialist States of Europe. & @ For world socialism. The Czech working class comes on to the scene of history once more, this time as part of an international working class which is taking the offensive, as in France and Britain. This working-class offensive co- incides with the capitalists’ necessity of destroying all past gains and organizations of the proletariat. But it also coincides, necessarily, with the acute crisis of Stalinism, of which the Czech intervention is part. Under these conditions, revolutionary parties of the Fourth International can and must be built, around the programme of the Fourth International, in every country. Only such a party can take on the tasks of ensuring the political independence of the working class, through workers’ councils, in Czechoslovakia. Only this will answer the needs of the Czech workers, not the compromises of any section of the bureauc- racy. In Czechoslovakia, as in every other country, the IC of the FI will take up this task, and it calls upon all advanced workers to join in the building of these revolutionary parties in each country and in the re- building of the Fourth International, for the destruc- tion of Stalinism and the victory of the world socialist revolution, of which the political revolution in Eastern Europe and the USSR is an integral part. International Committee of the Fourth International 21/10/68. 6d. 10s. back Paper : 21s. Hard Price cover : PUBLICATIONS LTD. 186a CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, LONDON, S.W.4 3 = o { ao <I a) a Oo o 2 o a a = Lu 3 WHAT IS THE 5 SOVIET UNION 3 AND WHERE o IS IT GOING? 2 Ss =z . 2 a NEW PARK 114 Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p048] @ For the united front of the proletariat in every country and of the international proletariat against the capitalist class on the one hand and the Soviet bureaucracy on the other. @ For the political power of the working class everywhere. @ For the United Socialist States of Europe. @ For world socialism. The Czech working class comes on to the scene of history once more, this time as part of an international working class which is taking the offensive, as in France and Britain. This working-class offensive co- incides with the capitalists’ necessity of destroying all past gains and organizations of the proletariat. But it also coincides, necessarily, with the acute crisis of Stalinism, of which the Czech intervention is part. 6d. 12s. back Paper BETRAYED P AND WHERE IS IT GOING? 30s. Hard cover NEW PARK Price Under these conditions, revolutionary parties of the Fourth International can and must be built, around the programme of the Fourth International, in every country. Only such a party can take on the tasks of ensuring the political independence of the working class, through workers’ councils, in Czechoslovakia. Only this will answer the needs of the Czech workers, not the compromises of any section of the bureauc- racy. In Czechoslovakia, as in every other country, the IC of the FI will take up this task, and it calls upon all advanced workers to join in the building of these revolutionary parties in each country and in the re- building of the Fourth International, for the destruc- tion of Stalinism and the victory of the world socialist revolution, of which the political revolution in Eastern Europe and the USSR is an integral part. International Committee of the Fourth International 21/10/68. 6d. 10s. back: Paper 21s. Hard Price cover : PUBLICATIONS LTD. 186a CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, LONDON, S.W.4 Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p049] Towards a history of the Third International (Part 2) by Tom Kemp From the third to the sixth congress CONTINUING ON the path indicated by Lenin and Trotsky in 1919 the Third International built up in its first four Congresses an invaluable body of analysis and guiding principles of revolutionary practice. During this period it acted as a political general staff, seeking to establish the leadership of the Communist Parties over the working class, drawing up the main strategic lines and rigorously examining and criticizing the tactical course of the national parties. Inevitably the experiences of the Bolshevik Party and the defence of the October Revolution were central to its work. The task, Towards a history of the Third International (Part Il) however, was not to create blindly obedient party leaderships that would mechanically translate Russian experience into another language or simply do as they were told. The situation required in each country a creative development of revolution- ary practice in the light of Marxism and the lessons of the October Revolution. It therefore was vital to bring forward and develop a new type of working-class leadership able to build parties, Bolshevik in character, which would as rapidly as possible take advantage of the revolutionary pos- sibilities of the post-war crisis of capitalism and take power in the advanced countries. 115

[p050] From the third to the sixth congress CONTINUING ON the path indicated by Lenin and Trotsky in 1919 the Third International built up in its first four Congresses an invaluable body of analysis and guiding principles of revolutionary practice. During this period it acted as a political general staff, seeking to establish the leadership of the Communist Parties over the working class, drawing up the main strategic lines and rigorously examining and criticizing the tactical course of the national parties. Inevitably the experiences of the Bolshevik Party and the defence of the October Revolution were central to its work. The task, Towards a history of the Third International (Part II) however, was not to create blindly obedient party leaderships that would mechanically translate Russian experience into another language or simply do as they were told. The situation required in each country a creative development of revolution- ary practice in the light of Marxism and the lessons of the October Revolution. It therefore was vital to bring forward and develop a new type of working-class leadership able to build parties, Bolshevik in character, which would as rapidly as possible take advantage of the revolutionary pos- sibilities of the post-war crisis of capitalism and take power in the advanced countries. 115 Oj

[p051] 1 In the first few years it was taken for granted that Moscow was only the provisional home of the new International and that before long its sessions would be held in one or another of the capitals of Soviet Europe. The inability of the leaderships of the new parties to take advantage of the oppor- tunities, whatever the reason, created new condi- tions for the work of the Comintern. It became apparent by the Third Congress that the revolu- tionary wave had receded, that the bourgeoisie had regained its self-confidence and that a period of capitalist stabilization was at hand. Clearly this required both an adjustment of the strategic line, which had hitherto been based on the immediate possibility of revolution in Central and Western Europe, and the setting of new tactical. guidelines for the national parties. Moreover, in the new situation it was both possible and necessary to take into account the whole world picture. While capitalism had been able to hold up in the ad- vanced countries, the effect of the war had been to stimulate the struggle of the oppressed masses in the colonial and semi-colonial territories. The early 1920s, therefore, saw growing attention being given to these parts of the world where the impact of the October Revolution was still re- verberating. Compressed into a short space of time, therefore, all the great problems of revolutionary Marxism came up for discussion in the light of a great diversity of concrete conditions and forms of practice. Participating in the proceedings and re- sponsible for drawing up the resolutions and theses of the Communist International were not only many enthusiastic and talented young leaders from the other national parties, but also Lenin and his colleagues with their wealth of experience derived from the history of the Bolshevik Party, a successful revolution and the actual tremendous problems of holding power in backward and isolated Russia. Under these conditions, the debates and discussions, both behind the scenes and in open session, and the public documents of the Congresses, were of a particularly high quality. Everyone was aware how much was at stake, that the future of the working class for decades might depend on the decisions which were taken and the extent to which they were translated into prac* . Not surprisingly, the great figures of the k Party, as well as the less experienced more heterogeneous representatives from the other patries, did not automatically agree either about the general line or about its tactical application in the individual countries. Neither the parties nor the International were monolithic; on the contrary there was vigorous debate in which differences were expressed, not through some formal respect for abstract principles of freedom of expression or democracy, but because this was the only way to learn from experience, avoid repeating past mistakes and prepare for the next round of struggle. However, very soon after the Fourth Congress, under the specious slogan of ‘Bolshevization’, the nature and purpose of the Communist International began to change. The source of this change is to be found in the exhaustion and decimation of the working class in Russia and the rise to power of the apparatus men of the party and the state. The degeneration of the party in Russia, a consequence of the failure of the revolution to spread to the advanced countries and thus of the isolation of the first workers’ state in a predominantly peasant and economically backward country, had profound consequences for the international movement. In the first place the struggle within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between the supporters and sycophants of Stalin and the Left Opposition, which remained staunchly attached to the prin- ciples of Bolshevism, had necessarily to be fought out also on the directing bodies of the Communist International and in the national parties. Secondly, the interests of the bureaucracy, as represented by Stalin, but for which leading figures of the Comin- tern such as Bukharin and Zinoviev also made themselves responsible, came to determine the policies of the International and its national sec- tions. The results of this initial degeneration of the Comintern in the 1920s, while the voice of the Opposition had still not been entirely stifled, were disastrous. In a number of countries of Europe and then in China between 1925 and 1927, under the aegis of the Stalinized Comintern, revolutionary movements were destroyed in hopeless adventures or in opportunist combinations, as happened with the Kuomintang. The lessons of history and par- ticularly of the Bolshevik Revolution, which had been embodied in the resolutions and theses of the first four Congresses of the Communist Inter- national, were now being wantonly disregarded. As a derivative of the Stalinist theory of ‘socialism Fourth International, Winter 1968/1969

[p052] in one country’ first enunciated in 1924, a whole new course was imposed on the Communist move- ment which the facile pen of Bukharin fashioned into the draft programme finally adopted at the Sixth Congress of 1928. The period from the Third Congress to 1928, here taken as a whole and summarized in very bald terms, will now be re- viewed in more detail from another angle. Speci- fically we have to consider what principles under- lay the decisions of the last two Congresses held in Lenin’s lifetime, i.e. the Third and the Fourth, and how these were abandoned by Stalin in favour of an empirical and zigzag course whose only guiding principle was protection of the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy. 2 When the Third Congress met in July 1921, it confronted a situation in which it had to be expected that for a period the revolution would remain isolated in Russia and in which the bour- geoisie in the West had been able to re-establish its power on secure foundations and in some cases go over to the offensive. In this kind of situation there was a temptation either to take refuge in ultra-revolutionary gestures which marked an un- willingness to take account of realities or to abandon the preparation for the eventual re- opening of revolutionary possibilities and settle down to routine activity and conciliation with re- formism. In some ways, indeed, the situation resembled that of the 1950s, with rather similar tasks posed for the Marxist movement. It required, for example, a deep analysis of the processes of capitalist development, which was presented by Trotsky with assistance from the Hungarian econ- omist, Eugene Varga, later to become a supporter of Stalin. Coming soon after the disastrous March Action in Germany it also required a firm resist- ance to adventurism and to revolutionary im- patience of the kind which a number of the delegates displayed. The fact that the parties of the Second Inter- national had been able to survive the whirlwind of the war and the post-war revolutionary situations and, despite their class collaboration and betrayals,