The fruits of 'Socialism in One Country': diplomatic realignments and the Political Revolution

[p007] The fruits of ‘Socialism in One Country’ Diplomatic realignment and the Political Revolution The diplomatic re-alignments of the past year have been closely related to the developing econo- mic crisis of the capitalist world but also to the inseparable crisis of the Soviet, East European and Chinese Stalinist bureaucracies. The counter- revolutionary character of ‘peaceful co-existence’ has become more apparent and under its aegis the Communist Parties in the capitalist and depend- ent countries of imperialism prepare new betrayals. American imperialism has been foremost in seeking a new agreement with the bureaucracy to uphold the status quo and to give its economy markets and sources of supply in a period of intensified trade war. The Nixon visits to Peking and Moscow have been followed up by trade agreements or discussion about such agreements of a more far-reaching character than anything previously proposed, The superior technology and immense resources in capital of US imperialism enabled it to take advantage of the internal crisis of the countries ruled by the bureaucracy to drive hard bargains. The character of this crisis derives from the Stalinist policy of ‘socialism in one country’ which is adhered to by the Maoists as well as by the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. Every one of these countries is faced with in- soluble economic problems which aggravate the antagonisms between the bureaucracy on the one hand and the working class and the peasantry, especially the collective farm peasantry, on the other, The events in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the continued simmering discontent with the Husak regime, the uprisings in the Baltic ports and the subsequent manoeuvres of the Gierek regime, are sharp expressions of this antogonism. The agrarian crisis in the Soviet Union, which has made necessary the passing of huge contracts for the supply of grain with Capitalist countries, is the latest expression of the bankruptcy of ‘social- ism in one country’. Despite the manpower and resources which are devoted to grain-production the Soviet Union is not self-sufficient any more, taking good years with the bad. Yields are too low, there are enormous wastes and inefficiencies aris- ing from bureaucratic mismanagement, the pea- santry remains resentful and unco-operative. The legacy of forced collectivisation and the baneful effects of the policy of ‘socialism in one country’ expose the Soviet Union to capitalist penetration. The technological lag of Soviet industry is also painfully apparent despite its all-round advance and spectacular successes in some fields. The Soviet consumer remains deprived of a reasonable supply of goods of a quality comparable with those produced under capitalism. The working class sees no diminution in the privileges and power of Editorial the arrogant bureaucratic caste which claims to speak in its name. Worst of all, the bureaucracy is unable to resolve the crisis in the planning sys- tem and is forced to look to the capitalist world to make good its own deficiencies, The policies which, under the heading of ‘social- ism in one country’, led the working class into a series of defeats from the mid-1920s, through the smashing of the German working class to the betrayals which followed the Second World War, leave the Soviet Union itself exposed to Capitalist penetration of a deadly kind. One-sided industrial development, the continued pressure of secular backwardness and the inefficiencies and misman- agement of the bureaucracy itself now make it im- possible for the Soviet Union even to keep up with the capitalist countries without turning to them for capital and technical know-how. The Brezhnev-Kosygin leadership has to admit that the ‘economic reforms’ have not achieved their purpose, It presides over a deep agrarian crisis. It is unable to develop the resources in oil, natural gas and other minerals of the more remote parts of the Soviet Union. The promises made by Khrushchev about raising living standards to the American level have gone by the board. The pro- mises to ‘catch up and outstrip’ the advanced capitalist countries, less frequent than in the boastful days of the Stalin era, have an increas- ingly hollow ring. To safeguard its own position the parasitic bureaucracy turns increasingly to the capitalists for support and assistance in solving its economic problems, The big grain deal with the USA, the joint projects for industrial development which open the way for the penetration of US capital, the plan to develop the resources of Siberia in collaboration with Japanese monopoly capital open up extremely dangerous perspectives. The imperialists will never give up the goal of restoring capitalism in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China. For them every deal and every agreement made with the bureaucracy is seen as a preparation for overthrowing the revolutionary conquests of the working class of those countries. In collusion with the bureaucracy if possible, but if necessary by other means, imperialism: desires to find access to new sources of raw materials and to open up new outlets for its products, The re- incorporation of these countries into the capitalist world market is the logical outcome of the coun- ter-revolutionary role of the bureaucracy. Every agreement made with imperialism is aimed at the working class and revolutionary nationalist and peasant movements. Peaceful co-existence means the betrayal of the Arab revolution as well as a compromise peace which deprives the heroic See

[p008] fighters of Vietnam of their fruits of victory. It means that the Communist Parties turn even fur- ther to the ‘right, pursuing policies of class colla- boration within the framework of bourgeois- democratic institutions. In Britain this means pres- sure politics and even support for a wing of the Tories said to be moderate and willing to enter a European Security Pact with the Soviet Union. In France it means that the Communist Party guarantees to operate within the Bonapartist con- stitution of the Fifth Republic, seeks a renewed. Popular Front with bourgeois politicians and holds back and divides the offensive movement of the working class. In Italy the Communist Party deli- berately cooled down a situation that was becom- ing increasingly revolutionary to become a mild opposition and a guarantor of the status quo. Just as the actions of the bureaucracy inter- nationally, although designed to maintain the exist- ing division of the world, open the way for the imperialist onslaughts on the revolutionary con- quests directly or indirectly following from the Revolution of 1917, so the policies it imposes on the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries, ostensibly intended to advance the interests of the working class, actually prepare the way for be- trayals and defeats, The policy of the Italian Communist Party, far from undermining and isolating the neo-fascists, has pushed many middle class and even working people into their orbit. Unable to offer a clear lead to satisfy the just demands of the masses and clear out the parliamentary scoundrels, the monopoly capitalists and their bureaucratic hirelings, many disillusioned and dissatisfied people look to a strong man and a strong state to answer their problems. The politics of class collaboration and compromise based upon ‘peaceful co-existence’ open the way for defeats, for a fascist revival. Maoist policies are essentially no different be- cause they begin from the national requirements of the Chinese bureaucratic caste which accepts the policy of ‘socialism in one country’, upholds its own version of ‘peaceful co-existence’ and re- nounces support for revolutionary movements in other countries except of a purely formal kind, The liquidation of the ‘cultural revolution’ confirms the ascendancy of the ‘moderate’ wing under Chou En-lai and has meant a rapid rapprochement with imperialism as shown by Nixon’s visit, the agree- ment with Japan and the welcome accorded to Tanaka and the improvement of relations with capitalist countries and regimes such as that of the Shah of Iran. The character and extent of this diplomatic re- versal should not be exaggerated. The Chinese rulers have never disguised their desire to find a compromise with the imperialists provided that certain of their national interests could be recog- nised and protected. It was chiefly the United States which stood in the way of China’s admission to the United Nations, the ‘thieves kitchen’ which Lenin denounced. Now the Peking mandarins show themselves the most devoted and respectful upholders of that institution for maintaining the international status quo and preventing revolution. Imperialist mistrust, based upon a belief in 6 Peking’s revolutionary intentions rather than any” unwillingness on its part to work out a compro- mise agreement was the main obstacle to China’s admission to the UN and the establishment of normal diplomatic relations with the capitalist countries. The required guarantees of good beha- viour have been given, at least tacitly, and the bourgeois press echoes with praise for Peking’s moderation and Chou En-lai’s sterling qualities. Peking has proceeded with indecent haste to establish its respectability. While denouncing the two ‘super-powers’ it goes all out to make agree- ments with the United States today and perhaps tomorrow the Soviet bureaucracy which it still hypocritically denounces for having restored capi- talism. Following this logic it welcomes the en- largement of the European Common Market and fails to carry out any struggle against imperialism in Asia. Throughout the world it sppports petty bourgeois nationalist regimes and movements and opposes any changes which might have revolution- ary consequences. It backed Pakistan against Ban- gladesh and with the complicity of the Soviet bureaucracy is ready to accept a compromise peace in Vietnam along the lines of the Geneva agree- ment of 1954 which succeeded in selling out the Vietnamese revolution at that stage. Maoism is bankrupt and its influence on the movement out- side China has rapidly dwindled. Meanwhile, its conflict with Moscow makes both bureaucracies even more willing to turn to an agreement with imperialism. The crisis of the bureaucracy has now reached a stage where the revolutionary gains of the period since 1917 are in peril. Its desire for self-preserva- tion reveals it more openly as an agency of im- perialism in the workers’ states and the inter- national workers’ movement. The struggle against the bureaucracy is an inseparable part of the struggle against capitalism. Support for the opposi- tion in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China and the preparation of the political revolu- tion for the overthrow of the parasitic bureaucracy has become an urgent task. The struggle of the working class and the com- munist opposition in these countries cannot succeed unless it is based upon the building of revolutionary parties as sections of the Fourth International. The warning of Hungary in 1956, of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Poland in 1970 is absolutely clear on this score, The working class must fight against the exactions of the bureau- cracy, against its crimes and misrule and it has shown time and again that it is ready. The need for revolutionary leadership in the countries ruled by the bureaucracy is an important question which has to be solved in the first instance in those countries. From them will come some of the best cadres and finest fighters for the Fourth Interna- tional, of that we are confident. There are many signs that sections of workers and youth are find- ing their way back to Leninism and that they will be forced to recognise that that means re-establish- ing continuity with the struggle of the Left Opposi- tion, recognising the correctness of Trotsky’s stand and rallying to the banner of the Fourth Inter- national. Fourth International Winter 1972/73

[p009] The abortive Bolivian revolution of August- September 1971 which brought the ClA-sponsored mene of Col Banzer to power has had a consider- able impact on the Trotskyist movement. Not only did these events prove the complete bankruptcy of the revisionist forces of the Unified Secretariat in Latin America, but they also revealed the theoretical degeneration and blatant political opportunism of the Lora-Lambert tendency within the International Committee of the Fourth Inter- national (ICFI). These grave events gave a vital fillip to a discussion on the philosophical and political roots of the opportunism of the POR (Revolutionary Workers’ Party of Bolivia) and its subsequent betrayal of the Bolivian proletariat. No development of Trotskyism we believe is possible without an understanding and assimilation of the lessons of the revolution and counter- revolution in Bolivia 1970. In the interests of such a discussion we are publishing this critique of the ‘Workers’ Vanguard’ statement on the POR. It has ; been submitted for publication by the Greek a “mit sll section of the ICFI. Bolivian miners during street fighting in 1970 WENA ie Rae os 5 dae