Once again why vote Labour?

[p025] Once again: Why vote Labour? REVISIONISTS ANSWERED NOTHING SERVES to illu- strate the political bank- ruptcy and hypocrisy of the revisionists more than their attempts to answer the elementary question: why vote Labour? One group, led by Messrs Blackburn, ‘The Red Mole’, the paper of International Marxist Group (IMG) (Pabloites), Sedgwick and Triesman of International Socialism (IS) and Adrian Mitchell of ‘Black Dwarf’ gave a categorical ‘No’ to this question. Mr Mitchell even called on voters to burn their ballots in front of the polling sta- tions rather than _ spoil them where no one would see. Mr Triesman, writing in ‘The Times’ Minority Viewpoint column, pontificated thus: ‘A Marxist looks askance at the election because he knows that real discussions on real programmes occur when workers take over and control the means of production.’ Another group, no __ less dangerous for its eclectic- ism and theoretical impu- dence, is represented by Pat Jordan of IMG. This man condescendingly _ in- formed his readers in ‘The Red Mole’ thus: ‘I am in favour of the victory of the Labour Party in the election. . . . However, it would be the height of fool- ishness to draw from this the conclusion that revolu- tionaries’ main activity should be that of calling upon people’ to vote Labour. . . . This would, in effect, be adding our weight to those processes which enable the Labour Party to divert the work- ing-class aspirations. . .. To concentrate upon the slogan “Keep the Tories Out” would be merely another way of _ saying “Vote Labour, under present circumstances”.’ (‘The Red Mole’, June 1-15). Mr Jordan’s _lucubrations expressed in basic English can only mean one thing: wish for a Labour victory, but don’t work for it. Once again: Why vote Labour On the contrary do every- thing to disrupt the Labour Party’s election campaign even to the extent of encouraging ‘Irish mili- tants’ to put up candidates against Labourites and the organization of demonstra- tions. ‘Revolutionaries,’ says Mr Jordan, ‘should support all these protest actions. They should take the lead in calling for protest demon- strations and forming ad hoc committees to inject (2?) into the election dis- cussion—at all levels—real issues.’ (Practical proof of this ‘tactic’ was shown at George Brown’s meetings.) In_ these ways Mr _ Jordan hoped to satisfy the sec- tarian abstainers and ‘Third Period’ men like Blackburn without alienat- ing others, such as Mandel and Harsen, who prefer to support Wilson and capitu- late to him. What these tendencies reveal is their complete remote- ness from the real move- ment of the working class and their total indifference to Marxist theory. So much so that the objective con- sequences of their actions are quite reactionary and are, in fact, indistinguish- able from the work of provocateurs. They found themselves in a de facto alliance with Young Conservatives break- ing up Labour Party meet- ings in Nottingham and elsewhere. This is the logi- cal end of the _ protest politics of the Revolution- ary Socialist Students’ Federation (RSSF) and the Vietnam Solidarity Cam- paign (VSC). As we pointed out many months ago, the political content of the _ protest movement was middle-class reformism and pacifism and was therefore aimed against the working class and the struggles to build revolu- tionary leadership. If yesterday the protesters believed that by protesting in Downing St they could force Wilson to turn the helm to the left, then toda they imagine that by spoil- ing Wilson’s prospects ot victory they can force the Labour Party, in opposition, to do what it would not do when it was in power: adopt a socialist policy and provide a left cover for the revisionists to operate in. As Mr Triesman characteris- tically put it: ‘We all eagerly anticipated {in 1964 and 1965] the millenium, but like all late- learners the message finally came through.’ Alas! Having prostrated themselves at the feet of the great god Wilson and scabbed on the Young Socialists when they were expelled by him, they have now — horror of horrors—discovered him to be a fallible Fabian and an imperialist agent to boot. Strange as it may seem, the Socialist Labour League and Young Socialists were vio- lently accused by these reformist simpletons of being ‘ultra-left’, ‘sectarian’ and even ‘disruptive’ for pointing out the character and logic of Wilson's policy only six years ago. We do not claim to be infallible but, unlike the revisionists, we do claim to have learnt consistently from the history of the working class. We do know that Stalinism and Social Democracy are reformist, counter- revolutionary agencies of world imperialism, whose sole task is to betray the working class and prevent it from attaining a _ full socialist consciousness of its historical role and interests. We consider these to be intrinsic features of these bureaucratic excresences. We further understand, by practical experience and theoretical analysis, that neither of these phenome- non will disappear because we condemn them or prove them to be reactionary. Nor must we imagine that a minority of class-conscious workers and a few thou- sand outraged students can substitute themselves for the working class. No revolution has yet been made, nor will it ever be made, by a minority. ‘The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses in historic events.’ (Trot- sky.) Those who placidly imagine that the working class will spontaneously break off from their traditional organizations and _leader- ships and join the revolu- tionary ranks because of propaganda have still to explain the imponderable fact that seven million German workers continued to vote for the rotten socialist cadaver in the Reichstag right up until the Nazis took power in 1933. They did this in spite of, and, more often, because of the formally correct but politi- cally sterile criticism and sectarian tactics of the Ger- man Stalinists. In politics impatience and impetuousity make a dan- gerous substitute for resourcefulness, tenacity and an infinite patience. A socialist who tries to revenge himself on _ the slow, contradictory and oft- times, sluggish development of the mass movement by ‘protests’, stunts and adventures is like a mid- wife who not only confuses the first month of preg- nancy for the ninth, but also tries to induce a nor- mal birth by _ shouting ‘revolutionary’ exhortations to her patient. In this sense the revisionist adventurer is nothing more than a political abortionist. Trotsky, in his preface to the ‘History of the Russian Revolution’, gives some valuable advice to his readers on the dialectic of history: ‘Entirely exceptional condi- tions, independent of the will of persons or parties, are necessary in order to tear off from discontent the fetters of conservatism, and bring the masses to insur- rection. ‘The swift change of mass views and moods in an epoch of revolution thus derive, not from the flexi- bility and mobility of man’s mind, but just the opposite, from its deep conservatism.’ Revolutionists, Marxists, do not ignore this conservatism 13

[p026] Once again: Why vote Labour? REVISIONISTS ANSWERED NOTHING SERVES to illu- strate the political bank- ruptcy and hypocrisy of the revisionists more than their attempts to answer the elementary question: why vote Labour? One group, led by Messrs Blackburn, ‘The Red Mole’, the paper of International Marxist Group (IMG) (Pabloites), Sedgwick and Triesman of International Socialism (IS) and Adrian Mitchell of ‘Black Dwarf’ gave a categorical ‘No’ to this question. Mr Mitchell even called on voters to burn their ballots in front of the polling sta- tions rather than _— spoil them where no one would see, Mr Triesman, writing in ‘The Times’ Minority Viewpoint column, pontificated thus: ‘A Marxist looks askance at the election because he knows that real discussions on real programmes occur when workers take over and control the means of production.’ Another group, no less dangerous for its eclectic- ism and theoretical impu- dence, is represented by Pat Jordan of IMG. This man condescendingly _ in- formed his readers in ‘The Red Mole’ thus: ‘I am in favour of the victory of the Labour Party in the election. . . . However, it would be the height of fool- ishness to draw from this the conclusion that revolu- tionaries’ main activity should be that of calling upon people to vote Labour. .. . This would, in effect, be adding our weight to those processes which enable the Labour Party to divert the work- ing-class aspirations. ... To concentrate upon the slogan “Keep the Tories Out” would be merely another way of saying “Vote Labour, under present circumstances”’,’ (‘The Red Mole’, June 1-15). Mr _—_Jordan’s __lucubrations expressed in basic English can only mean one thing: wish for a Labour victory, but don’t work for it. Once again: Why vote Labour On the contrary do every- thing to disrupt the Labour Party’s election campaign even to the extent of encouraging ‘Irish mili- tants’ to put up candidates against Labourites and the organization of demonstra- tions. ‘Revolutionaries, ‘says Mr Jordan, ‘should support all these protest actions. They should take the lead in calling for protest demon- strations and forming ad hoc committees to inject (2?) into the election dis- cussion—at all levels—real issues.’ (Practical proof of this ‘tactic’ was shown at George. Brown’s meetings.) In_ these ways Mr _ Jordan hoped to satisfy the sec- tarian abstainers and ‘Third Period’ men_ like Blackburn without alienat- ing others, such as Mandel and Hansen, who prefer to support’ Wilson and capitu- late to him. What these tendencies reveal is their complete remote- ness from the real move- ment of the working class and their total indifference to Marxist theory. So much so that the objective con- sequences of their actions are quite reactionary and are, in fact, indistinguish- able from the work of provocateurs. They found themselves in a de facto alliance with Young Conservatives break- ing up Labour Party meet- ings in Nottingham and elsewhere. This is the logi- cal end of the _ protest politics of the Revolution- ary Socialist Students’ Federation (RSSF) and the Vietnam Solidarity Cam- paign (VSC). As we pointed out many months ago, the political content of the _ protest movement was middle-class reformism and pacifism and was therefore aimed against the working class and the struggles to build revolu- tionary leadership. If yesterday the protesters believed that by protesting in Downing St they could force Wilson to turn the helm to the left, then today they imagine that by spoil- ing Wilson’s prospects ot victory they can force the Labour Party, in opposition, to do what it would not do when it was in power: adopt a socialist policy and provide a left cover for the revisionists to operate in. As Mr Triesman characteris- tically put it: ‘We all eagerly anticipated [in 1964 and 1965] the millenium, but like all late- learners the message finally came through.’ Alas! Having prostrated themselves at the feet of the great god Wilson and scabbed on the Young Socialists when they were expelled by him, they have now — horror of horrors—discovered him to be a fallible Fabian and an imperialist agent to boot. Strange as it may seem, the Socialist Labour League and Young Socialists were vio- lently accused ‘by these reformist simpletons of being ‘ultra-left’, ‘sectarian’ and even ‘disruptive’ for pointing out the character and logic of Wilson’s policy only six years ago. We do not claim to be infallible but, unlike the revisionists, we do claim to have learnt consistently from the history of the working class. We do know that Stalinism and Social Democracy are reformist, counter- revolutionary agencies of world imperialism, whose sole task is to betray the working class and prevent it from attaining a full socialist consciousness of its historical role and interests. We consider these to be intrinsic features of these bureaucratic excresences. We further understand, by practical experience and theoretical analysis, that neither of these phenome- non will disappear because we condemn them or prove them to be reactionary. Nor must we imagine that a minority of class-conscious workers and a few thou- sand outraged students can substitute themselves for the working class. No revolution has yet been made, nor will it ever be made, by a minority. ‘The most indubitable feature of a revolution is the direct interference of the masses. in historic events.’ (Trot- sky.) Those who placidly imagine that the working class will spontaneously break off from their traditional organizations and_leader- ships and join the revolu- tionary ranks because of propaganda have still to explain the imponderable fact that seven million German workers continued to vote for the _ rotten socialist cadaver in the Reichstag right up until the Nazis took power in 1933. They did this in spite of, and, more often, because of the formally correct but politi- cally sterile criticism and sectarian tactics of the Ger- man Stalinists. In politics impatience and impetuousity make a dan- gerous substitute for resourcefulness, tenacity and an infinite patience. A socialist who tries to revenge himself on the slow, contradictory and oft- times, sluggish development of the mass movement by ‘protests’, stunts and adventures is like a mid- wife who not only confuses the first month of preg- nancy for the ninth, but also tries to induce a nor- mal birth by — shouting ‘revolutionary’ exhortations to her patient. In this sense the revisionist adventurer is nothing more than a political abortionist. Trotsky, in his preface to the ‘History of the Russian Revolution’, gives some valuable advice to his readers on the dialectic of history: ‘Entirely exceptional condi- tions, independent of the will of persons or parties, are necessary in order to tear off from discontent the fetters of conservatism, and bring the masses to insur- rection. ‘The swift change of mass views and moods in an epoch of revolution thus derive, not from the flexi- bility and mobility of man’s mind, but just the opposite, from its deep conservatism.’ Revolutionists, Marxists, do not ignore this conservatism 13

[p027] or make a virtue out of it. On the contrary, in countries with a long parliamentary tradition and a long his- tory of trade-union strug- gles, the task of revolution- aries is to dialectically com- prehend this ‘conservatism’ and anticipate the emerg- ence of a new revolutionary content out of this old con- servative form. The revisionists with their static, one-sided meta- physical outlook are quite unable to see the unity and conflict of opposites within the working class. For them everything is isclated and eternally changeless — and if they do change they do so not out of internal self-cconflict and self- movement, but only from external causes and condi- tions—like the prodding of a ‘revolutionary’. Thus for them there are the advanced workers and the inert, conservative and amorphous mass of ‘back- ward’ workers living in two water-tight compartments, bearing no relation to each other. For these pecple life is so simple. There are no transitions, no nuances, no contradictions —-everything is agreeably white or disapprovingly black. Listen to ‘The Red Mole’ editor on _ elections and you will see what we mean: ‘The real significance of our activities over the election period then lies not in our advice about voting, but in the type of propaganda we make. We are talking at best to a small politically- conscious layer of the class, feeling its way out of the social-democratic embrace. The important propaganda point is to attempt to break the working class from the false idea that voting ever determined any- thing very much.’ [‘The Red Mole’, June 1-15, 1970}. Floating around in a middle- class limbo the editor has managed to confound all the confusion and oppor- tunist-abstentionist non- sense of revisionism in one paragraph. Contrary to what the editor thinks, it is not the ‘propa- ganda we make’, but what we urge the working class to do that has the greatest impact on its consciousness. Secondly, to address yourself exclusively to a ‘small, politically-conscious layer’ is the worst form of sec- tarianism since it does not seek to unite the experi- ences of the vanguard with the vast mass of the work- ing class and allows the social democracy to main- tain its hold over the backward, conservative lay- ers of the class. Lastly, to suggest that voting never achieved anything to the workers—and that to advanced workers at a time when Powellism and Paisleyism is growing — is stupid, and criminally so. If this crazy idea is correct now, then why wasn’t it correct in 1964 and 1966? Nobody heard Jordan, Blackburn or their publi- cations calling for an abstention then. How unprincipled can they get? Workers voted Labour yester- day not because’ they like Wilson or Brown, but because they hate, despise and fear the Tories and also because they feel that they can exploit the weak- nesses and _ contradictions of the government to their own advantage in increasing their wages and improving their working conditions. They do not expect any great or substantial reforms from Labour like the National Health Service. All they want is a Labour govern- ment from behind whose rickety ramparts they can continue to squeeze the profits of the employers. That is the only reason why . workers will vote Labour. We think the instinct of the workers is sound, but instinct alone is not enough. We urge workers to vote Labour, but we do so fully conscious of the impend- ing economic perils which will compound the politi- cal crisis in Britain and very rapidly bring the work- ers and not only the van- guard face to face with decisive political issues. We urge them, therefore, to fight for our policy and to place no trust in Wilson. We don’t make propaganda alone—we fight to move all sections of the working class against the bureau- cracy. Unlike and in contrast to the revisionists we do this not bv ‘injecting issues’ or by forming ‘ad hoc committees’ which are a diversion, but by building the SLL, YS and All Trades Unions Alli- ance (ATUA) = and by widening the influence and circulation of the Workers Press before, during and after the General Election. In this sense there is little difference between the General Election and a strike led by a reactionary right-wing union. We support the strike while criticizing the limitations of its leadership and warn- ing about possible betrayal. In this way we establish a definite relation with the workers and help’ win important sections away from the bureaucrats. In this way too we enrich our theory and _ practice and prepare for the bigger struggles ahead. The revisionists are like people who refuse to sup- pert the strike because it is led by right wingers and even advise the workers on the futility of strikes and the virtures of guerrilla war and insurrection. The strikers would predict- ably reject such worthless less advice with a few well- -chosen words. We urge all workers, youth and students to reject this dangerous revisionist non- sense. Join the SLL, the YS and build a_ revolutionary alternative to Wilson. Two pamphlets by Leon Trotsky NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS LTD. Culture and Socialism and a Manifesto Art and Revolution Radio, Science, Technique and Society A speech delivered on March 1, 1926, as the inaugural address at the First All-Union Congress of the Society of Friends of Radio. A brilliant anticipation of the major advances of nuclear science and inter-planetary flight. Price: One shilling 1938 under 186a CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, An article compiled by the author from a talk he gave to a Moscow club on February 3, 1926, and a number of other addresses. The Manifesto, the signatures of Andre Breton and Diego Rivera, was in fact drawn up in collabora- tion with Trotsky. Price: Two shillings and sixpence appearing in LONDON SW4 14 Fourth International. Winter 1970/71 -

[p028] or make a virtue out of it. On the contrary, in countries with a long parliamentary tradition and a long _his- tory of trade-union strug- gles, the task of revolution- aries is to dialectically com- prehend this ‘conservatism’ and anticipate the emerg- ence of a new revolutionary content out of this old con- servative form. The revisionists with their static, one-sided meta- physical outlook are quite unable to see the unity and conflict of opposites within the working class. For them everything is isclated and eternally changeless — and if they do change they do so not out of internal self-conflict and self- movement, but only from external causes and condi- tions—like the prodding of a ‘revolutionary’. Thus for them there are the advanced workers and the inert, conservative and amorphous mass of ‘back- ward’ workers living in two water-tight compartments, bearing no relation to each other. For these pecple life is so simple. There are no transitions, no nuances, no contradictions —everything is agreeably white or disapprovingly black. Listen to ‘The Red Mole’ editor on _ elections and you will see what we mean: ‘The real significance of our activities over the election period then lies not in our advice about voting, but in the type of propaganda we make. We are talking at best to a small politically- conscious layer of the class, feeling its way out of the social-democratic embrace. The important propaganda point is to attempt to break the working class from the false idea that voting ever determined any- thing very much.’ [‘The Red Mole’, June 1-15, 1970}. Floating around in a middle- class limbo the editor has managed to confound all the confusion and oppor- tunist-abstentionist ___non- sense of revisionism in one paragraph. Contrary to what the editor thinks, it is not the ‘propa- ganda we make’, but what we urge the working class to do that has the greatest impact on its consciousness. Secondly, to address yourself exclusively to a ‘small, politically-conscious layer’ is the worst form of sec- tarianism since it does not seek to unite the experi- ences of the vanguard with the vast mass of the work- ing class and allows the social democracy to main- tain its hold over the backward, conservative lay- ers of the class. Lastly, to suggest that voting never achieved anything to the workers—and that to advanced workers at a time when Powellism and Paisleyism is growing — is stupid, and criminally so. If this crazy idea is correct now, then why wasn’t it Blackburn or their publi- cations calling for an abstention then. How unprincipled can they get? Workers voted Labour yester- day not because’ they like Wilson or Brown, but because they hate, despise and fear the Tories and also because they feel that they can exploit the weak- nesses and_ contradictions of the government to their own advantage in increasing their wages and improving their working conditions. They do not expect any great or substantial reforms from Labour like the National Health Service. All they want is a Labour govern- ment from behind whose rickety ramparts they can continue to squeeze the profits of the employers. That is the only reason why « workers will vote Labour. We think the instinct of the workers is sound, but instinct alone is not enough. We urge workers to vote Labour, but we do so fully conscious of the impend- ing economic perils which will compound the _politi- cal crisis in Britain and very rapidly bring the work- ers and not only the van- guard face to face with decisive political issues. We urge them, therefore, to fight for our policy and to place no trust in Wilson. We don’t make propaganda alone—we fight to move all sections of the working Unlike and in contrast to the revisionists we do this not by ‘injecting issues’ or by forming ‘ad hoc committees’ which are a diversion, but by building the SLL, YS and All Trades Unions Alli- ance (ATUA) = and by widening the influence and circulation of the Workers Press before, during and after the General Election. In this sense there is little difference between the General Election and a strike led by a reactionary right-wing union. We support the strike while criticizing the limitations of its leadership and warn- ing about possible betrayal. In this way we establish a definite relation with the workers and help’ win important sections away from the bureaucrats, In this way too we enrich our theory and practice and prepare for the _ bigger struggles ahead. The’ revisionists are like people who refuse to sup- port the strike because it is led by right wingers and even advise the workers on the futility of strikes and the virtures of guerrilla war and insurrection. The strikers would predict- ably reject such worthless less advice with a few well- -chosen words. We urge all workers, youth and students to reject this dangerous revisionist non- sense. Join the SLL, the YS correct in 1964 and 1966? Nobody heard Jordan, and build a _ revolutionary class against the bureau- alternative to Wilson. cracy. Two pamphlets by Leon Trotsky NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS LTD. Radio, Science, Technique and Society A speech delivered on March 1, 1926, as the inaugural address at the First All-Union Congress of the Society of Friends of Radio. A brilliant anticipation of the major advances of nuclear science and inter-planetary flight. Price: One shilling 186a CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, Culture and Socialism and a Manifesto Art and Revolution An article compiled by the author from a talk he gave to a Moscow club on February 3, 1926, and a number of other addresses. The Manifesto, appearing in 1938 under the signatures of Andre Breton and Diego Rivera, was in fact drawn up in collabora- tion with Trotsky. Price: Two shillings and sixpence LONDON SW4 14 Fourth International. Winter 1970/71

[p029] Trotskyist policy