Labour Youth to the Fore

[p001] Labour Youth to the fore EDITORS: TOM KEMP, CLIFF SLAUGH asace ¥ Winter 1962/3 ; = APR 2 oe i The Sino-Soviet conflict ines practice in Marxism e and dialectical materialism ayoltt nd the intelligentsia Book reviews

[p002] FR Nive see w <y. Labour Youth to the fore EDITORS: TOM KEMP, CLIFF SLAUGHTER . 9 ; 186A Clapham High Street, London S.W. 4 Winter 62.'3 ih. f = a 7 Ma The Sino-Soviet conflict eory and practice in Marxism TWO SHILLINGS Book reviews

[p003] Cover picture: THE DISCUSSION HAS BEGUN Rome, December 1962 at the time of the Italian Communist Party Congress. Chinese representative, Chao Yi-ming addresses a party branch. At extreme left is Berlinguer, an M.P.

[p004] 121 Statement issued by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Labour League The Sino-Soviet Conflict THE open dispute between the leaderships of the Chinese and Soviet Communist Parties marks a new stage in the crisis of the Stalinist bureaucracy. In a period of sharpening class struggle and of growing _ difficulties for imperialism, the issues raised are of fundamental importance for the whole world labour movement. Khrushchev and his henchmen will be unable to prevent an open discussion taking place throughout the Communist Parties. Because of the nature of the differences, the crisis goes beyond mere criticism and shakes especi- ally the leading cadres of the Communist Parties. Whatever the Chinese leaders may intend, the clarification of the issues they raise will involve a challenge to Stalinism. Since the Chinese pose certain basic questions, these cannot be answered without a thorough examination of the history of the international Communist movement and an under- standing of its degeneration. The issues in the dispute can be grouped under four main headings: (a) Has imperialism changed? Using the Italian and Yugoslav Communist Parties as dummies, the Chinese accuse Khrushchev of trying to ‘prettify’ US imperialism. They quote the Italian party as welcoming Eisenhower to Rome in 1959, and add: ‘Now we hear some people saying that Kennedy is even more concerned about world peace than Eisenhower and that Kennedy showed his concern for the maintenance of peace during the Caribbean crisis.” Whereas the Soviet leaders maintain that this is the epoch of the victory of socialism in peaceful competition with imperialism, the Chinese correctly argue that this is the epoch of decaying imperialism and that the victory of socialism will only be guaranteed when imperialism is overthrown by proletarian revolution. The Chinese Communist Party leaders also accuse Togliatti of revising Lenin’s theory of imperialism and severely criticize him for advocating joint exploitation of colonial and under-developed terri- tories by the USA and the USSR. They indicate further that Togliatti’s and Khrushchev’s ideas about the relation of the modern state to monopoly capitalism are completely removed from, if not diametrically opposed to, the teachings of Lenin. In particular they reject Togliatti’s programme of ‘structural reforms’ as reformist, illusory and com- parable to the eclectic rubbish served out by Kautsky and Bernstein. While agreeing with much of what the Chinese say and imply, it is nevertheless correct to point out that the Chinese Communist Party criticism deals only with the very recent history of the Italian Communist Party—and leaves unexplained the re- formist degeneration of this party and its leadership. For example the Chinese say nothing of Togliatti’s leadership (or lack of it) during and immediately after the Second World War, when the Italian Party leaders, on orders from Moscow, deliberately restrained the masses and helped Italian capitalism to survive its worst crisis since 1921. To discuss Togliatti is to discuss Stalin. Unfortunately, the Chinese in trying to separate the patron from the protégé only succeed in confounding militant Italian Communists on this vital question. (b) Can peace be safeguarded by negotiations? The Chinese denounce those who misrepresent them as saying that socialism will come only through an inevitable nuclear war. While agreeing that nego- tiations with imperialism are often necessary, the Chinese challenge the conception that world peace can be achieved simply by relying on the ‘good intentions’ of imperialism. Instead, they emphasize that ‘to achieve world peace it is necessary to rely mainly on the strength of the masses of the people of the world and on their struggles’. Thus, while they continue to talk about Lenin’s mythical ‘principles for peaceful co-existence’ and the possi- bility of ‘banning’ nuclear weapons, they raise the

[p005] 122 Italy 1945: armed partisans in the streets The Communist leadership abandoned revolution whole issue of whether this line is compatible with class struggle. (c) Do revolutionary movements threaten peace? In particular the Chinese expose the fallacy that colonial peopies can peacefuliy co-exist with imperialism and its corollary: that national liberation struggles become a threat to world peace. This also involves a discussion of the relation of Marxists to nationalist movements. This thesis of the Chinese on the relation between revolution and war in the epoch of imperialism constitutes one of their most cogently argued—and positive—criticisms of contemporary Stalinism. It has a particular appli- cation to Britain where the Communist Party leaders always and everywhere maintain that ‘peace is indivisible’, ‘above classes’ and is an indispensable precondition for socialism. To all this pacifist jargon the Chinese reply: ‘In the eyes of modern revisionists, any revolution and any action that supports revolution runs counter to the “logic of survival”, now that atomic and nuclear weapons exist. In fact, what they call the “logic of survival” is the logic of slaves, a logic that would paralyse the revolutionary will of the people of all countries The Marxist-Leninists are firmly against this slave logic and maintain that the people should emancipate themselves. This is a law of social development which no one can resist...’ CLeninism and Modern Revisionism’, Red Flag, No. 1, 1963). The correctness of this idea is illustrated by the lesson of Cuba where US imperialism has failed to daunt the people by its threats and sabre-rattling, and the forced removal of rockets and bombers. (d) Can capitalism be overthrown peacefully? They accuse the Italian Communist leadership of abandoning revolution. They deny the possibility LABOUR REVIEW—Winter 1963 of a purely parliamentary transition to socialism, as propounded by the Italian Communist Party leaders. The position of the Italian leaders is shared by the majority of the world Stalinist leaders— including, of course, the British. Khrushchev himself has revealed that the real architect of the ‘British Road to Socialism’ was not Lenin, or even Gollan, but Stalin—thus destroying both Gollan’s claim to originality and the Chinese contention that Stalin was the continuator of Lenin’s policy. The Chinese intuitively realize that from a false conception of the epoch all kinds of pacifist and reformist illusions are bound to spring. This is amply revealed in the reply of Togliatti to the Chinese when he states: ‘It is possible, on the other hand, in today’s conditions in the world [our emphasis] to develop the movement of the masses on such a scale that the ruling groups will be paralysed by it and the perspective is opening of radical economic and democratic changes by the eaceful road and without passing through the trial of civil war. After 22 years of fascist terror, imperialist war and _ bloody partisan struggle, Togliatti assures the Italian working class that the ruling class of Italy will be paralysed by the people! This is the same class that paid and sustained Mussolini and attempted even so recently as 1960 to establish an authoritarian regime ‘which sprinkled the squares of some Italian cities with dead’.* [Togliatti]. On the contrary! It is the cretinous policy of Togliatti that disarms, disorients and ultimately paralyses the revolutionary will of the working class—and paves the way once again for fascism. Togliatti tries to counterpose class struggle to civil war. This is a dishonest and unMarxist argument. * Rinascita, January 12, 1963. Italy 1960: In Reggio, Emilia The dead sprinkle the squares

[p006] THE SINO-SOVIET CONFLICT Civil war is the highest expression of the law of class struggle. Civil war resolves the question of proletarian or capitalist dictatorship. Victorious civil war of the working class presupposes the existence of a revolutionary combat party armed with a programme and policy adequate to the needs of the class. The Italian and British Communist Parties reject such a policy. The Chinese, on the other hand, while they talk of revolution and civil war, have failed to advance such a programme for the European Communist Parties. Only the Transitional Programme of the Fourth International can and will answer the historical questions posed before the European and colonial workers, There is no other programme. The supporters of Khrushchev, especially in parties like the British and Italian, see in his viewpoint a justification of their own opportunism. The Chinese, on the other hand, apart from the Albanians (who have their own reasons) have support from the North Korean, Viet Minh and Malayan parties, all of which have been involved in struggles against imperialism. They also have supporters in the left-wing group of the Indian Communist Party, as well as factions in the rest of the Communist Parties. A world conference of Communist Parties as proposed by the Chinese would be a valuable aid to political clarification, but only if a free discussion could take place. The plea by the British leaders for an end to public debate (the statement was made publicly!) is a hypocritical attempt to gag the critics of Gollan’s pro-Khrushchev line. Even Togliatti and Khrushchev are prepared to concede the legitimacy of the Chinese demand. Those who are searching for a return to the Leninist road and who at this stage rally round the Chinese arguments, must go much deeper into the historical significance of the discussion. The Chinese statements rarely venture further back than the 1960 statement of the 81 Communist parties. This com- promise document, which tried to build a paper bridge between irreconcilable political positions, can do nothing but confuse the issues. In its latest statement referring to the 1960 Manifesto of the 81 Communist parties, the Chinese party admits that it made ‘necessary compromises on certain matters’ in order to achieve unanimity. What these com- promises were we have not yet been told. The Chinese leaders, who stumbled empirically into the conflict, partly as a result of the economic problems they faced in the 1950s cannot explain how their opponents’ ideas originate. The Chinese revolution, like the Yugoslav, took place in defiance of Stalin’s orders. This empirically determined conflict with Stalinism is the basic cause of the Mao-Khrushchev split, as of the Tito-Stalin conflict. But the Titoites, who moved some way to 123 the left in 1949-50 did not maintain that position. After backing, in the United Nations, the US inter- vention in Korea, in August 1950, they slid over to the right. Only a conscious break with the history of Stalinism can prevent the Chinese Party going through a similar process. The remarks of the Chinese about ‘bourgeois restoration’ in Yugoslavia (and thus, presumably in Russia also) are an example of the theoretical dangers inherent in their method. Whatever our criticisms of the Soviet and Yugoslav economies, a return to the bureaucratic centralism of Stalin’s time is no way to correct these errors. On the contrary, it is only through the overthrow of the Soviet bureaucracy that socialist planning can develop. The Chinese approach to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia betrays an astonishing naivete and a frightening ignorance of elementary political economy and Marxist sociology. It is not only specious; it is dangerous and opens the door wide to another form of revisionism—‘state capitalism’. The fact that capitalist methods of payment and bourgeois norms of distribution prevail does not make the USSR any more capitalist than China. It only proves that the USSR, far from being a biblical paradise or a proletarian inferno, is, in fact, a transitional society between capitalism and socialism: a degenerated workers’ state ruled by a powerful bureaucracy and abounding in economic and political contradictions which will be resolved only by extending the revolution into Europe and America. The bureaucracy has distorted and betrayed the property relations established by the October revolution, but it has not overthrown them. Trotsky in his classic analysis The Revolution Betrayed made this point clear: ‘Another difference is no less important. The Soviet bureaucracy has expropriated the proletariat politically in order, by methods of its own, to defend the social conquests. But the very fact of its appropriation of political power in a country where the principal means of production are in the hands of the state, creates a new and hitherto unknown relation between the bureaucracy and the riches of the nation. The means of production belong to the state. But the state, so to speak, “belongs” to the bureaucracy. If these as yet wholly new relations should solidify, become the norm and be legalized, whether with or without resistance from the workers, they would, in the long run, lead to a complete liquidation of the social conquests of the proletarian revolution. But to speak of that now is at least premature. The proletariat has not yet said its last word. The bureaucracy has not yet created social supports for its dominion in the form of special types of property. It is compelled to defend state property as the

[p007] 124 source of its power and its income. In this aspect of its activity it still remains a weapon of pro- letarian dictatorship.’ The Chinese supported Khrushchev in suppressing the Hungarian workers’ uprising. According to them this was a counter-revolution aimed at restoring capitalism in Hungary. If this were true, it would make their politics even more untenable and self- contradictory. If Khrushchev was not prepared to allow capitalism to be restored in Hungary, what grounds are there for assuming he will restore capitalism in the Soviet Union? Such vulgar ‘dialectics’ only help the Togliattis and prevent a real analysis of bureaucracy and its role in the workers’ state. , Just as the Chinese Communist Party leaders failed to assess objectively the motive forces of the Hungarian uprising, so too today they commit a similar folly in judging Yugoslav economy and society. While correctly criticizing many aspects of Yugoslav foreign policy and socialist theory, they fail to see or consciously ignore the enduring achievements of the Yugoslav Revolution in the decentralization of administration, planning of economy and the social management of enterprises. The introduction of market relations and the principle of profitability in industry within the context of state ownership and social management does not constitute a new form of capitalism as the Chinese suggest. In fact it is a significant and welcome departure from the administrative and bureaucratically centralised system of planning which prevails in the USSR. Before the Chinese begin to accuse the Yugoslavs of kowtowing to imperialism, they should ask them- selves why it is that Yugoslavia is in this position today. Was it not the criminal and reactionary policy of Stalin-Molotov towards Yugoslavia — a policy little different from that pursued by Khrush- chev towards Albania — that forced the Yugoslavs to make economic and even military agreements with the West? If the Yugoslavs revise Marxism today, a good part of the responsibility rests with Stalin. The opportunism of Khrushchev is only a con- tinuation under modern conditions of Stalin’s theory of ‘socialism in one country’. This denial of internationalism, expressing the needs of the Soviet bureaucrats, led to the destruction of the Communist International, and the betrayal of revolutionary movements. , By identifying Stalin’s brutality with Bolshevik intransigence and by refusing to draw on the history of the Left Opposition’s fight against Stalinism, Mao prevents a real exposure of Khrush- chev’s opportunism. LABOUR REVIEW—Winter 1963 For example, without a study of the dialectical relationship between the ‘Third Period’ policies of 1928-33 and the right-wing policies preceding and following them, criticism of the Russian leaders today could easily fall into ultra-left errors—and even ultra-right errors as in the case of Tito. For Gollan and the leaders of the British Com- munist Party, the public ventilation of grievances and the discussion of principles is extremely dis- tasteful. To these bureaucrats, theory is a closed book and the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Kremlin. But serious Marxists will welcome and critically appraise every left-wing critique of Stalinism, no matter how muddled, naive and mis- informed it may be. The Chinese Communist Party has raised a number of important fundamental issues. We un- conditionally defend their right to propagate their views and we shall give them every assistance to do so. But we do not identify ourselves with Maoism ——nor do we apologise for its crimes and blunders. We remain its most severe critics because we think that only the policy and programme of the Fourth International embodying the experience of the world working class can assist and guide the European and American working class to find the road to the Socialist revolution. The Chinese Communist Party makes an important contribution by opening the necessary discussion, but it is not a decisive one. From this standpoint, the Sino-Soviet dispute remains an important inter- lude in the struggle for the world socialist revolution. It is not a question of an abstract argument about whose ideas come closest to the formulae of true Bolshevism. On that count, the Chinese are correct on most points against Khrushchey and Togliatti. What is more important is to see the outbreak of this controversy as an expression of the enormity of the gaping contradiction between Stalinism, based on the theory of ‘socialism in one country’, and the present stage of the crisis of imperialism, including its relations with the ‘Eastern bloc’. Forced as they are to confront the forces of imperialism from their own particular political and military position, the Chinese Communists are forced to point out the discrepancy between the needs of anti-imperialist struggle and the Khrushchev formulae of ‘peaceful co-existence’ and ‘parliamentary roads’, This is only the beginning of a situation in which a con- scious revolutionary leadership will be built. In conclusion, we affirm that the task of British Marxists is not to worship the accomplished fact, or abstain in serious disputes—but to accept what is good and historically correct and reject what is bad, unscientific and reactionary in the theory and practice of the Chinese revolution. (28.2.63)

[p008] 125 Editorial: Labour Youth to the Fore ONE of the last acts of Hugh Gaitskell before his death was to nominate Mrs. Braddock, MP, as chairman of the youth sub-committee of the Labour Party. It is reported that both he and George Brown, MP, abandoned their parliamentary duties for that evening in order to vote on what was obviously a most decisive issue for them. The death of George Brinham, formerly chairman of this committee, under circumstances which led to the trial and discharge of a teenage youth for his murder, was responsible for the vacancy. George Brinham was for many years in charge of the Labour Party’s youth work. His addiction to homo- sexuality was undoubtedly known to his closest colleagues. They were prepared to condone this because he could be relied on to act in a most vicious way against left-wing youth. It was he who summoned the police to the Young Socialists con- ference last Easter to keep a close watch on supporters of the youth paper Keep Left. It was he who was responsible for organizing the suspension of three members of the National Committee of the Young Socialists which ultimately led to their expulsion from the Labour Party last December. The reliance which the right wing placed on such a man revealed their fear of the left-wing evolution of the youth movement. Despite the witch-hunting the Young Socialists remain, and are growing into, the most active and lively section of the Labour movement. The influence and expansion of the proscribed youth paper Keep Left is a_ striking testimony to this. The demonstration of over 1,000 young people against unemployment in London early in January is another confirmation that the Young Socialists are determined to play a big part in the fight against the unemployment and anti- working-class policies of the Tory government. It is becoming impossible for the right wing to drive them out. Although there are only two right- wing members out of the 11 members of the National Committee of the YS elected last Easter now functioning on that body, the right wing still hold back in their final decision regarding the future of this movement. Right at the moment when they are faced with the collapse of their official organi- zation, they are still forced to affirm that they will continue with it. To dispense with the youth movement now would be to dispense with the most active fighters against Toryism in the coming general election. But to continue with it also demands a high price from the right wing. The youth of today can be the party leaders of tomorrow, no matter what action the ageing witch-hunters may take. For every one who is expelled from the YS, ten more equally militant young people can take his or her place. There is no let-up in the number of young people who will be available for political activity in the coming months. Long unemployment queues, a high proportion of which are youth, outside the Labour Exchanges provide a fertile ground for recruitment. A colourful demonstration against unemployment ffires the imagination of young people who have long been forgotten by the adult party. In other words, the real defeat which the right wing has suffered has its roots in the appeal and initiative of the left wing around its youth paper, Keep Left. This left wing has demonstrated its capacity to organise youth who have never before been seriously concerned with politics. The future of the Young Socialist movement lies in its determination to recruit such young people, but it cannot recruit them on the basis of political argu- ment alone. It has to engage in activity which will inspire them to see socialist policies in a new light. An alternative to the heavy hand of the right-wing bureaucracy can only be provided through cam- paigns that unite youth around demands which basically affect their living conditions. Thus the fight to ban overtime so that more young people will be employed makes sense in all of the distressed areas. However, the fight against overtime today must not be confused with the ban on over- time which was often imposed during the boom period. Overtime today is required by the speed-up engendered by automation and the introduction of rationalized methods of production. It is, therefore, as essential as unemployment to the capitalists who need to extract the last ounce of surplus profit from their employees. This fight against overtime can disrupt the entire production plans of the capitalists. It must, therefore, be expected that they will fight back against all attempts on the part of trade union organization to cut out overtime and employ fresh labour. On this issue the Young Socialists can mobilize thousands of youth, who in turn can inspire and persuade trades councils and shop stewards’ com- mittees to wage a real struggle against unemploy- ment. From this it is only a step towards launching a campaign for the nationalization of all those industries affected by unemployment. The Young Socialists are now the real hope for Labour because it is through their struggle that the demand for nationalization can be raised once again inside the movement in a way that will rally tens of thousands of adult workers in the trade unions and the Labour Party. They are the main force for political and industrial change. . Adult labour should throw all its strength behind them,

[p009] 126 LENIN’s studies of Hegel in 1914-16 were under- taken in the midst of an all-out fight against revision- ism in the international socialist movement. It is characteristic that present-day ‘Communists’, falsely claiming to follow Lenin, find it necessary to con- demn the Marxists of today, the Trotskyists, as ‘armchair theorists’ who devote their time to books and history instead of getting on with the practical tasks (i.e., the tasks of capitulating to imperialism). Similarly, even some of those who call themselves Trotskyists express surprise and derision when the Marxists insist on tracing current political differences to their philosophical and methodological roots. Lenin certainly regarded his work on Hegel’s Logic as an absolutely necessary part of his struggle against revisionism. Why was this? Because in the struggle to defeat and overthrow false ideas in the Socialist International, it was mecessary to re-discover the essential dialectical view of the relation between theory and practice.! 1. See article by C. Smith in this issue. LABOUR REVIEW—Winter 1963