Socialists and the Summit

[p004] (1) Socialists and the Summit HEN the leaders of all the great ‘Socialist’ parties of Europe in 1914 broke their pledge to have nothing to do with imperialist wars, Lenin led the split away to a new type of Party and a new, Third International. To finally differentiate these working-class organizations from the agents of the class enemy who controlled the Socialist Second Inter- national, the title ‘Communist’ was adopted. This was meant to imply a firm revolutionary working-class internationalism, with the logical conclusion that the workers of any country should not support their ‘own’ capitalists against another country in war but should ‘turn the imperialist war into a civil war.” Meanwhile, British and French ‘socialists’ defended democracy from German militarism and dictatorship, and German ‘socialists’ defended their ‘modern, edvanced capitalism’ from the ‘decadent imperialism’ of the west and the Tsarist autocracy in the East. Tenin insisted that since ‘war is the continuation of politics hy other means’ the common interest of workers in separate countries must override any consideration of the ‘national interest’ in war as in peace. wing Social Democracy to Khrushchev and the Communist Parties, these principles are ignored in the discussion of international nolitics. This is quite in character for Gaitskell and Mollet, with all their claims to represent ‘the nation’ rather than any particular class! but among the Stalinists also we find a complete reversal of all the very principles on which the Communist movement was founded. This is shown most clearly in the myths that are being built up around Khrushchev’s visit to the United States and the prospect of Summit talks. In the name of ‘peaceful coexistence’ and ‘peaceful competition’ all mention of the nature of imperialism and of international working-class ection against war is dropped. The illusion is deliberately fostered that talks and agreements between statesmen can somehow decide I N the Socialist movement today, from the Right- some 1 New Labour candidates for the election include: 41 bar- risters and solicitors; 9 doctors; 41 teachers; 24 journalists; and 9 company directors. As a matter of fact, one in every nine of the present Labour MPs is a company director. Daily Express Sept. 11, 1959. whether there shall be peace or war. Of course, in order for that to be acceptable to socialists it has to ‘be bolstered with other arguments. So we are now told that it is the pressure of the peace movement that has ‘forced’ the capitalist politicians io the Summit, that if the pressure of public opinion is kept up, they will be forced to sign peace pacts, that nly the removal of the danger of war creates a reasonable atmosphere in which socialists can work for their political ends. basic principle that only the organized fight of the working class, in alliance with the colonial and oppressed peoples everywhere, can put an end to the danger of war. It was a great misiake to suppose that the leaders of the Second International were simply . GAINST ail this there must be squarely posed the ‘misguided and could be changed by pressure from within their own organizations. It is an even more drastic blunder to suppose that whole sections of the bourgeoisie can begin to act on behalf of the working class. The extent to which such an argument can go is shown by the line of the Daily Worker during the visit — of Eisenhower to Europe. This was expressed under the headline ‘Diehards Harry Tke’. Somehow the representative of the most powerful imperialist state in the world had become someone to support against the ‘real’ reactionaries, who range from the worst Republi- can backwoodsman in the USA to the rulers of Western Germany. This superficial method of ‘finding the main enemy” once removed from the framework of a class analysis can lead to some amazing conclusions. For instance, the American Communist Party recently opposed the nomination of independent Socialist candidates in the: American elections, insisting that along with the American union leaders they must support the ‘pro- gressive’ elements in the Democratic Party (against the main enemy, the Republicans). Now they presumably support the ‘progressive’ Republican Eisenhower when he appeals for courtesy to Khrushchev from the trade union leaders who plagued the Russian premier with questions about Hungary and dictatorship. Eisenhower agrees to talk to Khrushchev: AFL president Meany refuses. Now if willingness to talk to the Russians, peaceful coexistence, is the criterion of “progressiveness’, 65

[p005] LABOUR REVIEW perhaps the American CP will change its electoral policy to ‘support for the progressive elements in the Republican party!’ . HE insistence on the especially reactionary T character of the Adenauer government in Western Germany has, of course, a certain basis in fact. The German monopolists of the Krupp variety are as strongly established as ever, many ex-Nazis are in high places, and there are powerful elements who demand the preparation of a war to recover the East German territory which was returned to Poland in 1945. But Khrushchev in his article in the September issue of the American journal Foreign Affairs, and the Daily Worker in many articles, have attempted to paint a picture of Western Germany as an exception to the general rule of Western imperialism. Certainly some sections of the capitalist class are more consciously “warmongers’ than others, but surely Marxists must be tepelled by the element of chauvinism that creeps into the Stalinist argument at this point. There is a deliberate cultivation of the image of a traditionally militaristic and aggressive German nation, whose instincts must be carefully guarded against by the peoples of the world. There are two reasons why Socialists can fall easily into this trap. The first is a failure to challenge the assumption behind all the “Summit Talks’ arguments, viz. that it is the intentions and statements of national leaders which decide whether we shall have war or peace. If this were true, of course, propaganda campaigns to impress changing public opinion on these leaders would be the most important factor in the fight for peace. But between Socialists it should not be necessary to say that while at definite points in history individual intentions and decisions are vital, great historical questions are settled by the struggle of classes on the basis of contradictions in the economic structure of society. Marxists have the duty to constantly explain this to the working class, affirming that U.S. imperialism is the core of world reaction in this epoch. N the second place, the supporters of ‘peace’ cam- [ee around the demands for Summit talks are caught in the trap of the theory of the ‘two camps’. The U.S represents world capitalism and the USSR world socialism, it is said. Unless these two camps decide to have peaceful relations, there is no prospect of progress, and all other tasks are subordinated to this one. ‘This theory has now been supplemented by the theory of ‘peaceful competition’ between US capitalism and Russian ‘socialism’. Khrushchev says in his Foreign Affairs article that he and his colleagues 66 October-November 1959 challenge the rulers of the US to such a competition, in order to find out ‘which economic system is the best.’ Of course Khrushchev has his tongue in his cheek, he expects Russia to advance much faster and probably expects inevitable periodic breakdowns in American capitalism. But that is not enough. Let us assume that Russian economic expansion goes ahead perfectly smoothly and overtakes the US and that the US politicians keep their promise not to make war (and what assumptions these are!). Where do we go from there? From the objective historical point of view it has long been obvious that the capitalist system is economically unfit to develop science and industry to the full. Khrushchev’s ‘experiment’ might provide another more or less convincing example of this fact. But the replacement of one social system by another is not at all a matter of the old simply becoming out-of- date! There has to appear on the historical scene a class capable of smashing the old state power and carrying through a revolution. In the history of the world, not a few social systems have stagnated and declined or been drowned in blood: their economic contradictions led to social breakdown, but there did not appear in time a class capable of giving birth to a new form of society. For socialism to replace capital- ism, the working class has to undergo a long preparation in struggle, a training in strategy and tactics in which it sheds illusions about the enemy class arid becomes con- scious of its mission in history under the leadership of a Marxist party.’ The contradiction which must be faced, therefore, is this. If the independent revolutionary politics of the working class, the daily exposure of capitalism in all its forms, is completely neglected in the interests of putting pressure on the progressive capitalists to maintain peaceful relations with Khrushchev, what on earth will it matter how superior Socialism in Russia proves. itself, since there will be no force in the capitalist countries capable of the conquest of power. The ‘Parliamentary Road to Socialism’ of the Communist Parties only confirms this contradiction between Stalinism and the historic interests of the working class. ANY of our ‘new left’ socialists, among them M some who have broken from Stalinism, have broken away from the ‘two camps theory’ in words but not in fact. They stress against the Stalinist theory of the two camps the possibility of ‘neutralism’ and ‘disengagement’. But they are caught in the same trap as the Stalinists, basing their calculations on the relation between governments and the signing of agree- ments, not upon the working class. These same people criticize the Marxists for stressing the need to construct revolutionary parties by participating in all the struggles k §

[p006] SOCIALISTS AND THE SUMMIT of the working class. They say that we might as well recognize that revolutions are not on the agenda, and meanwhile any steps towards relaxation of tension such as are brought about by Summit conferences are to be’ welcomed, providing calmer conditions for socialists to do their work. Therefore we should not be ‘sectarian’ and should remain tactfully silent about the class character of the politicians who go to the Summit. They thus end up by relying precisely on the leaders of the ‘two camps’ whose predominance they verbally challenge. The only way out of these contradictions is to recog- nize that the working class of the world is the basic force in world politics, opposed by one main enemy, the bourgeoisie, led at this time by the American imperialists. In between these two main forces stand the bureaucratic organisms of Stalinism and Social Democracy. On a world scale’ the first of these is now enormously more significant than the second, because of its‘ base in the nationalized economy and military strength of the USSR. These bureaucracies are not the representatives of the interests of the working class, even though they feed on the working-class movement and its achievements. Their specific character is the product of periods of defeat for the working class. Social Democracy represents the corruption of the Socialist movement by imperialism and the betrayal of Social Democracy in the 1914-1918 war. Stalinism represents the defeat of the international working class. after 1921 in Germany, China and the British General Strike. Both of these tendencies have consolidated on the basis of these defeats and the consequent period of depression, war and post-war boom. Both have dis- covered a modus vivendi with modern capitalism. The Social Democracy, based on the new middle-classes and the Labour bureaucracy, and Stalinism, based on the Soviet bureaucracy, are interested in the ‘pressurizing” of the capitalists to peaceful coexistence, at home and abroad, as opposed to the development of independent class politics. Who then will meet at the Summit? The represen- tatives of US imperialism, Republican or Democrat, the representatives of British imperialism, Tory or Social Democratic, and the Stalinist leaders of the Soviet bureaucracy. In point of fact the most important ‘camp’ in world politics will not be represented, and it will be a conference of leaders who fear the strength of the working class and will come to agreements based on the hopeful assumption, each in his own terms, that the struggle of the working class can be arrested. Thus the working class is the common enemy that must be ‘contained’. This common front against the working class will not be the subject of precise written agree- ments: the Soviet bureaucracy defends nationalized property in the USSR by methods of its own, not relying on the development of the revolutionary movement; the capitalists faced with the colonial revolution and the threat of economic crisis and by industrial struggles, will be grateful for Khrushchev’s guarantee of the peaceful intentions of Stalinism which holds back the working- class movement wherever the Communist Parties have influence. The post-war agreements in the classical Summit meetings at Yalta and Potsdam were surely sharp enough lessons. Paraded as conferences of wise men to decide the peace and prosperity of the world, they were in fact the scene for the decision to drop atomic bombs and to carve the world into ‘spheres of influence’. Thus the Greek workers in 1945 were sacrificed to the deal made by Stalin; Greece was a Western sphere of influence, the Northern Balkans a Russian sphere. In France and Italy, Communist Parties in the leadership of the armed masses gave up their arms and joined the governments of the de Gaulles and the Catholics. In Britain the CP called for a ‘National’ Government of Communist, Labour and progressive Conservatives! ‘These were the class consequences of Summit conferences. ARXISTS must take their stand firmly. Only Mie strengthening and growing revolutionary consciousness of the working class is a safeguard against war. Defeats for the working class are in the long run steps towards war, and such defeats are prepared by all those who spread illusions about forces other than the working class itself achieving peace. Macmillan is not a ‘representative’ whom we push to the Summit, he is a leader of the class enemy who must be defeated. He does not represent the working class in any shape or form. If he goes to the Summit and makes agreements, they will be in the interests of his class, not of the working class. The first thing Marxists must say to the working class about such people is: they have been on the Summit too long; our job is to get them off, not to keep them there. When Socialists forget the elementary rule of judging all political questions first by the criterion of working- class struggle, they must be proceeding from a basic theoretical mistake. It is in the idea of ‘the pressure of the peace movement’ or ‘the pressure of the masses” forcing the reactionary politicians to pursue progressive policies that this comes out most clearly. Eisenhower is not carrying out a ‘more progressive’ policy than Dulles, but is expressing the special tactical needs of American imperialism against the same enemy that Dulles fought, the working class. Eisenhower was asked at a Press conference on August 12 this year if his invitation to Khrushchev signified a reversal of US bd 67

[p007] LABOUR REVIEW policy. He replied with his usual degree of articulate- ness: ‘This is far from a reversal. Mr Dulles and I used to discuss this thing with others of the State Cepartment.... Now, finally, oh—I think in the later months of 1958 we began to ’ feel that the methods that we were pursuing had to be _ reinforced by something a little different .... Now, he and I got around to a decision, but later So we began to work on this thing. And I gave the subject to two or three ’ of my trusted associates in the State Department and said, “Now let’s try to total up the balance’. And so when it came into the beginning of July, this decision was made, and I _ invited him.”2 There is little doubt that the decision for a tactical ‘shift in policy was influenced by the Republican defeat in the November elections and was meant to redress the balance for the presidential election of 1960. Here in Britain. Macmillan and Gaitskell campaign in the election by each appealing that he is the most worthy Summit representative to meet Mr K. Thus the Com- munist Party had helped to decide the framework within ‘which the ‘men of the people’ fight for votes by deceiving the people. : statesmen make history finds its appropriate com- “plement in the mechanical theory that some ‘broad, generalized ‘pressure from below’ pushes the reactionary politicians bit- by bit along the road to Hee. then the idealist notion that the ideas of I progress. Just how this ‘reflection’ of pressure ‘takes’ ‘place no-one ever bothers to explain. ‘This is a complete falsification of Marxism, whose central concept is that of the revolutionary practice of the working class, a practice based on consciousness. of its own position in society as against its enemies. In a sense it is true that. 2 The Militant. Aug. 24, 1959. (i) = After the HE results of the General Election have plunged 4 is Labour Party into its most serious crisis since the end of the war. This was to be expected. “As long ago as February 1950 when the swing towards the Tories threatened to restore their losses of 1945, the official leaders of the Labour Party, both Bevanite and Right-wing, have scrupulously avoided ‘a serious political discussion on the problems before ‘the British Labour movement. Instead we have had threats and counter-threats followed in the end by an unprincipled compromise between Bevan and Gaitskell. _ This came.to a head when both sides united on the eve of the election to proscribe the Socialist Labour League. Not one single charge was produced against the League which would go to show that its contribu- tion -was anything but in the interests of the Labour Party. An unscrupulous witch-hunt directed from 68 October-November 1959 the coming together of the heads of states is a ‘reflection’ of mass pressure. That ‘reflection’ is not an automatic, mechanical process. The governments concerned rep- resent definite class forces and they respond to the development of the class struggle—in the colonial revolution, in the capitalist countries, and in the Soviet orbit also—according to the class forces they represent. Under no circumstances can the interests of the masses be represented except by their own independent political parties, geared to the prosecution of the class struggle in all its forms and to the creation of an inter- national revolutionary movement. Far from responding to the pressure of the masses, and far from entering into ‘peaceful competition’ at the end ‘of which’ they will presumably retire from the historical arena, recognizing that their function is com- pleted, on the contrary ‘the greater the danger, all the more does the class, like the individual, exert its vital forces in the struggle for self-preservation .... All (the) varied and rich experience which has entered into the blood and marrow of bourgeois ruling circles has now been mobilized by them in order to maintain themselves. in power at any cost. And they act more resourcefully,. cunningly, ruthlessly, all the more clearly their leaders. take cognizance of the threatening danger.” : ‘ Only those Socialists who consistently explain to the workers the nature of the class enemy and the realities of the struggle for power are worthy of the name. Those who fail to check the spreading of the illusion of Khrushchev’s peaceful coexistence are only helping the preparation of great defeats for the working class and for the Soviet Union itself in the future: : 3. L. D. Trotsky ‘The School of Revolutionary Strategy’ in The _ First Five Years of the Comintern, vol. ii; p.5. General Election Fleet Street touched off a drive whose main aim was to prevent a discussion on the problems which face Labour. As a result the Labour Party today consists of a large mass of people who are thoroughly confused and, in some cases, demoralized as a result of such mis- leadership. During the weeks preceding the general election they worked themselves to a standstill, hoping against: hope that a Labour government might be elected. The majority of active Labour supporters © had very few illusions in the policy of the party, but they were guided by a blind faith that somehow or other something would emerge from the election. T he reality is a Tory victory of considerable proportions. - It will be little use Mr Bevan blaming Mr Gaitskell or Mr Gaitskell blaming Mr Cousins. They all must share the blame and responsibility. What is needed