Manifesto of the International Committee of the Fourth International – 25 Years After

[p003] of the International Committee of the Fourth International; this declaration of war on opportunism and revisionism is our fighting programme for the new journal. The new journal will carry articles on the workers’ struggle in all parts of the world and eventually it will be published in several languages. We ask all Labour Review supporters in every country to send us increased orders, to contribute material, and above all to use the journal as a weapon for the construction of revolutionary Marxist parties all over the world. The Editors

[p004] 20 year's aiter Manifesto of the International Committee of the Fourth International WENTY-FIVE years after the founding of the Fourth International in 1938, the International Committee of the Fourth International reaffirms the basic programme adopted then: the Tran- sitional Programme. This document proclaimed that only the workers’ revolu- tion could save humanity. It defined the character of the epoch as being determined by the crisis of leadership in the working class. Basing itself on the needs of the working class, the Programme set out to extricate that class from the morass into which it had been led by the old leadership and to lead it to the taking of state power. The Transitional Programme is one of the vital documents of our time. It is to the 20th century what the Communist Manifesto was to the [9th—an analysis of the main trends of world capitalism and an em- bodiment of the historical experience of the world working class over an entire epoch. The bankruptcy of the parties of the Second International had been exposed by the war crisis of 1914, though their grip on a large part of the working class had not been broken. The Third International, founded by Lenin to take its place had, in the hands of Stalin, degenerated into a foreign policy instrument of the Soviet bureaucracy. Under the leaderships of the Second and Third International the working class suffered a series of betrayals and defeats. Hence the need for a New International. The background to the founda- 165 tion of the Fourth International was therefore a prostrate Euro- pean proleiariat. Betrayed by their leaders, the German working class, strongest in Europe, was under the heel of Nazism. ’ The Spanish Republic was being strangled. The Moscow Trials, the final expression of Stalinist degeneration, had reached a terrifying climax. The conference itself was held under the shadow of Munich. The cadres were few, the organisation weak and the odds overwhelming. Trotsky was acutely aware of this, But it was not these subjec‘ive defects that necessitated the adopiion of the programme and the founding of the Fourth International. Most important of all were these great historical events. Tro.sky saw that if the crisis of proletarian leadership could not be solved before or during the coming war, then it would be solved in its revolutionary after- math. Without a programme, however, the revolutionary wave would spend iiself on the imperialist rock. The programme was an indispensable instrument for the triumph of the proletarian party and its leadership of the revolu- tion. 25 years of crisis A QUARTER of a century has passed. It has been a period of unprecedented change. Old empires have crumbled. New states have emerged. Imperialism, weakened by war, has had to make a strategic retreat, handing over old terri- tories to new retainers like Nehru, Nkrumah: and Ben Bella. The national liberation movement has expanded into Africa and Latin America. Fainthearts, sceptics and im- pressionists who have tried to revise the Transitional Programme insist that there have been funda- mental changes in imperialism and Stalinism since 1938.

[p005] - 166 '. Some turned from the building of the Fourth International at the end of the war, declaring that the war devastation, coilapse of pro- duction, famine and chaotic con- ditions in Europe meant that the working class had been declassed, that the struggle had been put back for cen.uries and the socialist revolution postponed. Then, revisionism took on a new guise when, through the treachery of Stalinism and social democracy, imperialism was able ‘to rebuild its foundations in Europe. A .rend, led by Pablo, developed in the Fourth International which ’ placed a quésiion mark over the movement and its Transitional Programme. It concluded that revolutionary conditions would make leaderships revolutionary, irrespec:ive of their origins and previous developments... It claimed that the Stalinist ‘bureaticracy could no_ longer betray in the samé way as before the war. Against the revisionists, the International Committee. was . established in 1953 to build a . Fourth International in the best _ traditions of the First and the Third Internationals and standing on the Transitional Programme. We declare unequivocally that only a world party of Marxists— the Fourth International, as founded by Trotsky—can lead the oppressed to the overturn of decaying imperialism. Its pro- gramme is based on the _ inter- national and historical experiences - Of the oppressed in their struggle for liberation. No other leadership can offer a way out for humanity. The crisis of Imperialism "THE decay of imperialism is _ becoming more and more evident even to the social- _democratic worker beguiled by the past propaganda of his leaders. These leaders them- selves no longer peddle with the same energy their servile talk of thé changed nature of LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 imperialism and the possibilities of the ‘affluent? and ‘full em- ployment’ society. There is a crisis of confidence even in sections of the ruling classes—one reason for the in- volvement of British Tory poli- ticians in the no-.orious scandals. In the imperialist countries the growth of monopoly power pro- ceeds apace. Every state is burdened with monstrous war budgets. Lenin’s dictum that the decay of capi.alism heralded an epoch of wars and revolutions is sharply underlined by the period since the Second World War. Even before the war ended, the dropping of the atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was in effect the first military action of world war three—meant to threaten the Soviet Union. With increasing problems of capitalist markets there goes on in every country an organisation of the economy by the state in the interests of the monopolies. And the so-called ‘technological revolution’ under capitalist property relations is:now bringing bitter fruits for the working people—a permanent layer of workers in unemployment and poverty. _ The prospect for the working class held out by monopoly capitalism in its organising of society is taking outline in the most advanced ‘affluent’ society— America. At its best, it will-mean tolerable living conditions for a section of the working class but with pauperisation and unemploy- ment for large numbers of that class. The decisive struggles to over- ' throw imperialism cannot be con- cluded without the action of the workers in Western Europe, the USA and Japan. In the last three years the proletariat of these countries has waged a series of important struggles. Political and industrial struggles in France, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Britain and the USA make clear that the labour move- ments of the metropolitan coun- tries, which have not suffered a major defeat in the recent period, will always respond to a militant lead. Only the grip of the labour bureaucracies on the workers’ organisations saves capital from defeat. With the slowing down of the boom in Europe and the re- appearance of mass unemploy- ment much sharper struggles are inevitable. This unemployment is not temporary, but a_ conse- quence of the most basic trends in modern capitalism. Many millions of unskilled workers are being thrown perma- nently on the scrap-heap. In every country, it is the younger genera- tion, least dominated by the bureaucracy, which is affected and drawn into struggle. War preparations on an un- precedented scale, which - have been a major factor in main- taining the economic boom, at the same time have generated enor- mous strains in bourgeois econo- mic and political life. Now, as the space satellites take over from the missiles as the main weapon, these preparations enter a new stage, imposing still greater burdens on capitalist industry and finance. Divisions appear within the ruling class and determined leadership by the working class can create the opposition to un- employment and war for a revolutionary victory. Against Bureaucracy "THE bureaueracy of the labour movement has _be- come today the primary cause of the continued survival of imperialism. Struggle against capitalism today is meaningless without an analysis of the role and historical significance of the labour bureaucracy, Stalinist and Social-Democratic, and an irreconcilable struggle to defeat those bureaucracies. In Greece, Italy and France, the leaders, faithful to Stalin and the interests of the Soviet bureau- cracy, held back the post-war upsurge and consciously betrayed it. The economic revival of Western Europe was based on the political defeats of the working

[p006] FWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER class inflicted by the Stalinists and Social-Democrats. On the scales of history, the defeats in Western Europe weigh infinitely more heavy than the dispossession of the capitalists in Eastern Europe. In the capitalist countries, Stalinism bases itself on peaceful co-existence, parliamentary transi- tion to socialism and the gradual evolution of the colonial peoples to self-government. Stalinism in the metropolitan countries is doubly counter- revolutionary because it betrays its own working class and because it helps to oppress the colonial slaves of imperialism. ‘This has been the role of the French and the British Communist parties. S'alinism, since the interests of one of the most powerful bureaucracies in the world, is the most sophisticated and systematic form of reformism. Togliatti, the most sophis‘icated of all, has worked out a complete programme for the reform of Italian capitalism — which — will leave the structure of the state intact. In the other advanced countries the policies of the Communist parties conform to Togliatti’s reformist principles. In place of workers’ power, they are for bourgeois parliamentarianism. The Fourth International brands as a pernicious lie the Stalinist claim that peace can be furthered by summit conferences or by reliance on the United Nations Organisation. We state categoric- ally that secret diplomacy can neither prevent wars nor help the development of socialism. The UNO, like its predecessor the League of Nations, is a ‘thieves’ kitchen’ in the service of im- perialism. Today’s ‘peaceful co-existence’ is more than ever a formula for the conscious deception of the masses in the interests of imperialist survival. When im- perialism has amassed one of the most fearful arsenals of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, when every inch of the planet is under the scrutiny of a satellite, a U2. or a US warship, what grounds are there for believing that the imperialists can be won it represents - to a policy of peace? Militarism and imperialism are inseparably linked. The decline of imperialism forces it to indulge in all kinds of militaristic adventures against the colonial peoples, as in Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, Kenya and Cuba. The possession of nuclear weapons by both power blocs does not mean, as the Stalinists argue, that war is impossible under imperialism, but, on the contrary, that imperialism must be overthrown by proletarian revolution. The Transitional Programme states unequivocally: ‘The only disarmament which can avert or end war is the disarmament of the bourgeoisie by the workers.’ Is this not the lesson of the last 25 years? The Soviet Bureaucracy HE Stalinist bureaucracy has not changed its nature. It © has made its desperate attacks on the ‘cult of the individual’, its ‘liberalisation’ in an attempt to adjust itself to the post-war situation while retaining its grip on the Soviet working class. Only those who wish to be blind can fail to see that it has resolved none of the basic contradictions in Soviet society and the Stalinist movement. The expansion of Stalinism in the period following the war has left the fate of the Soviet Union determined more sharply than ever by the fate of the world revolution. Victory in that revolution will be possible only by building a Marxist leadership of the world’s workers and in the process destroying the Stalinist bureaucracy. Khrushchev’s plea for a non- aggression pact with the US is consistent with his past policy of summit conferences. It is the logical ouicome of his betrayal of the Cuban revolution by conced- ing the imperialist embargo on Cuba after the cynical ‘missiles’ adventure last November. .- . . The summit conferences in 167 Geneva, Camp David and Paris have failed to.advance the cause of socialism and peace by one inch. There is no reason to hope that the non-aggression pacts will succeed where secret diplo- macy has failed. The decision to supply MiG fighters to India to be used against China shows how far removed the Soviet bureaucracy today is from socialism and international work- ing-class solidarity. It is a counter-revolutionary act through and through, confirming once again the words of the Transitional Programme: ‘The bureaucracy which became a reaciionary force in the USSR cannot play a revolutionary role in the world arena.’ The bureaucracy’s desire for a peace agreement with Kennedy stems from reactionary interests, namely, to discipline the Russian workers and the more articulate sections of the incellectuals. It fears the growing tide of political unrest inside Russia more than it does the threat of imperialist encirclement. ‘Communism in a _ single country’ is today revealed to be an impossible and_ reactionary utopia, designed only to cover up the abandonment of communist politics in the rest of the world. At the same time, faced by a powerful working class, it needs, in order to maintain its own position, to be able to increase the output of consumer goods. — It requires a disarmament agreement with the capitalist states to permit transfer of tesources from the arms industries. Such an agreement, by freezing the status quo, will also serve the interests of the bureaucracy, which fears revolution in any corner of the globe as much as it fears the working class in Russia itself. It -is ready to support any agency which seems to be working in this direction, hence its recent support for the Vatican and for the encyclicals of Pope John. It is no accident that it is ready to enter into such combinations, involving as they do abandonment of support for national liberation and. working-class revolutionary movements.

[p007] 168 The Soviet-China Split IN 1956 the Chinese Com- munist Party supported Khrushchev’s repressions in Hungary. Their own position in the present conflict with Moscow exposes the folly of that step and the inadequacies of their political position. In order to complete his ‘victory’, Khrushchev had to divert economic resources to Eastern Europe and turn away from China. More important, the Hungarian repression strengthened Khrushchev’s rightward course of concession to imperialism. This has culminated in an attempted full-scale deal with imperialism and the necessity to completely revise all Marxist conceptions. The depth of the split between Peking and Moscow reflects the contradictions of Stalinism in the post-war world. The Chinese leaders are forced to grope for policies which can open the way to a spread of the revolution. Ever since the Second World War, the Chinese Revolution, because of its proximity to the Pacific, has had to fight its battles in headlong collision with the military and economic aims of US imperialism. This antagonism was expressed most sharply in the Korean war. Yet it is precisely the leaders of this dominant imperialist power with whom Khrushchev tries to reach agreement at the expense of the world revolution. Thus, empirically, the Chinese Communist Party leaders have stumbled across the counter- revolutionary role of the Russian bureaucracy. But the Chinese, still tethered to their Stalinist history, cannot provide the answers to the problems they raise, answers which members of the Communist parties inside and outside the workers’ states will be searching for, now that the Chinese-Russian split is plain for all to see. Only the independent revolu- tionary line of the Fourth Inter- LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 national can provide the explana- tion and the alternative. Against Revisionism INCE its inception, the Marxist movement has had to wage a life and death struggle against _—revisionist trends. In an earlier epoch, revisionism represented the pressure of the petty-bourgeoisie of town and country directly on the labour movement. Today, however, this pressure is concentrated in the labour bureau- cracy which is integrated in vary- ing degrees with the capitalist state machine and the super- structure of world imperialism. The revisionists today are all those who succumb to the pressure of capitalism by adapting the theory and practice of the Marxist movement to the existing bureau- cratic leaderships. What characterises all brands of revisionism today is their denial or underestimation of the role of the international working class as the only independent and revolutionary social force capable of liberating humanity. For these people the working class has ceased to be the subject of history and has become its despised and passive object. Thus the Marxist movement today cannot ignore for a single moment revisionist ideas and trends. Not only the liberation of the working class but its very existence as an independent force is assured only to the extent that an implacable war is waged against revisionism. That is why the International Committee refused to participate in the recent ‘unity’ conference convened by the Pabloite revision- ists in Italy. For ten years now an uninter- rupted struggle has gone on against Pabloite revisionism. Some people in Europe and America who supported us earlier have changed their ideas on Pablo and Pabloism in the course of the last decade. We have not. Pabloism repre- sents to us an advanced form of centrist degeneration in a section of the Trotskyist movement. It arose in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Pablo and his group represented then and do today a declassed, petty-bourgeois clique without any roots in the working class movement, lacking not only training in the Marxist method but also all respect for the- traditions and principles of Trotskyism. Like Burnham and Schachtman, they were overwhelmed by events. Lacking stable roots in the class, they were easily disoriented by the spread of Stalinism, the defeats of the working class, the revival of Social-Democracy and the rise of the native bourgeoisie in many ex-colonial territories. Unable to comprehend the scope and complexity of the crisis afflicting world imperialism, the Pabloites began to revise Marx- ism. The world, they said, was faced with the prospect of ‘cen- turies of degenerated workers’ states’, atomic war was imminent and inevitable, the Soviet bureau-~ cracy would give an impetus to the world revolution and the working class of Europe and America could and would do nothing until World War I broke out—probably in 1954! In order to impose _ this wretched perspective on _ the Fourth International, Pablo and his clique carried through a split which began with the expulsion of the French majority of the PCI in 1952 and culminated with the ‘Open Letter’ of the SWP in 1953. Scepticism towards the working class and adulation of bureau- cracy are the hallmarks of Pabloism. When Stalin died, Pablo, following in the footsteps of Deutscher, informed the world that the ‘liberalisation’ of the bureaucracy had begun. This was an explicit repudiation of the Transitional Programme which states: ‘There is but one party capable of leading the Soviet masses to insurrection—the party of the Fourth International.’ Yet is was precisely this sentence that Pablo excluded from

[p008] TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER the resolution on Stalinism sub- mitted to the IVth Congress of his international organisation, History has already given a fitting answer to his prognosis. When the East German workers rose against Ulbricht and _ the Soviet Army of Occupation, Pablo refused to call for the withdrawal of Soviet troops—in order not to prejudice the struggle of the workers! Again in 1956, Pablo and his International Secretariat tried to give a progressive tinge to the Soviet bureaucracy by acclaiming the November 30 Declaration of the Soviet government on Hungary as an historic document—only four days before the brutal second intervention of the Red Army! In this way they tried to minimise the counter-revolutionary role of the Soviet bureaucracy and by the same token betrayed the heroic resistance of the workers’ councils. It is in Western Europe, however, that the most disastrous effects of Pabloism have become evident. In no single country in Western Europe has a viable revolutionary party been built by Pablo’s group. On the contrary, scores of opportunities have been missed and many groups have been either destroyed or dis- oriented. Why? Because of Pablo’s suicidal tactical turn of entrism ‘sui generis’ (of a special, unique kind) which was determined by the equally suicidal strategy of “‘War—Revolution’. Basing himself on the assump- tion that the workers would flock to their traditional organisations in the event of war—that further, the leaders would become revolu- tionary under the pressure of the workers—then the only question, he believed, confronting the Marxists was to enter these parties —and do nothing to embarrass the bureaucratic leaders. The lessons of the Belgian General Strike have confirmed once again our conviction that nothing but defeat and demorali- sation can result from the strategy and tactics of the International Secretariat. At the first serious challenge from the Belgian capitalists and their state, the forces of the IS instead of leading an independent revolutionary struggle for workers’ power completely subordinated themselves to the strategy of the labour bureaucrats. At no time was a single transitional demand advanced. The ‘structural reforms’ of the SP leaders could not liberate the workers, and the IS by its uncritical support of these pro- grammatic demands reduced itself to an appendage of social democracy. In the words of the Programme: “They have displayed a complete inability to make head or tail of the political situation and draw revolutionary conclu- sions from it. This is the balance sheet of entrism. Pablo has_ rationalised his failure to construct revolutionary. parties in Europe with the ‘theory’ that the ‘epicentre of the revolu- tion’ has moved to the colonial world, and that the only revolu- tionary force in the colonial countries is the peasantry. This is a total perversion of Marxism which must be exposed and com- bated. Now this ‘theory’ finds unadult- erated application in Algeria, where Ben Bella maintains a tenuous hold on the administra- tion with the support of French finance on the one hand and Pablo’s advice on the other. The repression of the Com- munist Party, the rigged elections, the firing on unemployed workers, the arrest of Boudiaf—these and other acts of repression are either ignored or excused by the Pabloites, while the miserable reforms of the government are magnified and dramatised beyond recognition. This proves (if proof is required) that Pabloite revision- ism is the mortal enemy of Trotskyism in the colonial and semi-colonial world. It renounces the task of building revolutionary working-class parties; it embel- lishes bourgeois and __ petty- bourgeois regimes with socialist trappings, and it obscures the real role of finance-capital in the colonies. The task of Marxists in Algeria and elsewhere is not to defend 169 the status quo, but to carry the struggle against imperialism to the bitter end. This cannot be done without the working class and its leadership. - The peasantry, as the Russian Revolution proved, cannot play a leading and independent role in the democratic revolution. Those who, like Pablo, deny or distort this universal truth are traitors to the working class and Marxism. The most instructive example of opportunist degeneration, assisted, if not inspired, by Pablo, is the Lanka Sama Samaja Party in Ceylon. In 1954, at the time of the split in the Fourth Inter- national, the leaders of this party took an equivocal position. (Yet only a few months prior to this a minority advocating a Pabloite policy split from the LSSP. The leaders, however, refused to draw any political con- clusions from this split.) In return, Pablo actively en- couraged the opportunism of the LSSP leaders who today have replaced their revolutionary pre- tensions with the most servile crawling before bourgeois parties and regimes. In 1960, the LSSP, be it noted, was prepared to form a coalition government with Mrs. Bandaranaike and the bourgeois Sri Lanka Freedom Party. These leaders are petty-bour- geois charlatans masquerading as Marxists. If anyone doubts it let him read the Transitional Pro- gramme on the tasks of the International and contrast it with the policies of the LSSP, ‘There is not and there cannot be a place for it in any of the People’s Fronts. It uncom- promisingly gives battle to all political groupings tied to the apron-strings of the bourgeoisie The International Committee is confident that the many hundreds of devoted Communists in the LSSP will successfully reaffirm the principles and programme of the Fourth International and purge the party of revisionism and the revisionists. In the USA, Pabloism has expressed itself belatedly, but in no less malignant form in the

[p009] 170 leadership of the SWP. Despite the fact that the SWP launched the struggle in 1953 against Pablo and made numerous criticisms of his policies in 1953-54, neverthe- less, today they are in all essentials political supporters of Pablo, although for legal reasons they cannot participate in his International. In our opinion, the reason for this retreat must be sought in the failure of the SWP leaders to develop, enrich and concretise the theory of Marxism as Trotsky often urged them to do. - The theoretical decline of the SWP co-incides: with a sudden and. drama‘ic change in the poli- tical life of the country—a change without equal since the formation of the CIO. The policy of the SWP is, therefore. for all gefiuine Marxists a matter of the utmost impor‘ance. The activities of determined Marxists in the US today can, we feel, play a tremendous part in overthrowing imperialism to- morrow and in that way resolve the major problems of our planet. The policy of the SWP on Cuba and the Negro ques‘ion, however, constitutes a grave and imper- missib'e violation of revolutionary duty.. When the Federal govern- ment sent:troops to Arkansas and Mississipi to enforce the ‘dese- gration’ of the educa‘ion system it was the duty .of American Marxists to call upon the workers and Negro .pzople to place no faith: in Federal intervention and to create their -own militia to defend minority rights. Instead, the SWP supported the measures of Eisenhower and Kennedy, and even criticised them for being dilatory! (The same Federal army is today poised for action against Cuba!) — Again, when organised violerice was being “unleashed on the Negroes in the south, the SWP— contrary to all past practice and precedent—called upon the Demo- cratic administration to deputise the Negroes! We feel it wou'd be just as effec‘ive to call upon Mr. Ken-- nedy to institute socialism. By these tactics and slogans the SWP - dees not advance the cause of. LABOUR REVIEW—Summer ‘1963 Negro-Labour unity and enables fakers like Luther King and Malcolm X to maintain their control over the Negro movement. Much work has been done by the SWP around the Cuban revolution and its: defence. But when the time for plain speaking came during the ‘missiles’ crisis last November, the SWP leaders did not criticise the cynical manoeuvres of Khrushchev who tried to use the missile bases in Cuba to get a summit conference with Kennedy. Comrade Dobbs, National Sec- retary of the SWP, speaking before the Militant Labor Forum in New York City, November 9, 1962, said: _ ‘Until we have more informa- tion, I think we should take it rather slowly on the missile question for two reasons: 1) This is not what is most germane ‘o the basic meaning of the crisis and the lessons we draw from it (sic). 2) It’s not a very wise thing to make snap judgments on tactical questions without having all the facts. We should study this aspect of the Cuban question, as we dig more deeply into the lesson of _the crisis ...- International Socialist Review, _ Mol. 24, No. 1, Winter 1962. This attitude contrasts sharply with the impeccable record of the SWP on Korea and the Geneva conference of 1954 «hen the SWP leaders - correctly analysed and denounced the counter-revolution- ary role of the Kremlin without having access to ‘all the facts’. _Comrade Dobbs asks us to ‘dig’, ‘study’. and ‘wait. for all the facts’. But the most important fact is stated explicitly in the programme of the International: ‘Having betrayed the inter- -national’ proletarian revolution .. . the Comintern could not help betraying simultaneously ‘also. the struggle for liberation of the colonial masses . . . The banner on which is emblazoned the struggle for the liberation of ~the colonial and semi- ‘colonial peoples . . . has defini- tely passed into the hands of the Fourth International.’ The task of Trotskyists every- where, we repeat, is to explain the cynical nature of the bureaucracy’s foreign policy, in order that advanced workers may be better prepared to fight it in times of revolutionary crisis—but we do not make apologies for the Soviet leaders at any time. The deviation of a section of the SWP from the path of class struggle and irreconcilable oppo- sition to Stalinism is a symptom of theoretical confusion and poli- tical stagnation. There is only one way out of this blind alley into which the SWP has stumbled. We = say: turn the face of the Party resolu- tely away from the ‘Radical Milieu’ towards the trade unions, ‘he Negro, Puerto Rican and Mexican minorities and, above all, the working-class youth. ‘Only the fresh enthusiasm and aggressive spirit of the youth can guarantee the pre- ‘liminary successes in the struggle — only their successes can return the best elements of the older generation to the road of revolution. Thus it was, thus it will be.’ Transitional Programme. To.a very large extent the future of the SWP depends on the recog- nition of. the fact that the struggle for Negro equality and working- class emancipation must be com- bined with a merciless struggle against revisionism. Notwithstanding the present situation in the party, we are sure that in the coming period the SWP will justify the hopes and desires of Marxists everywhere who look forward to the dawn of the American Revolution under Trot- skyist leadership. The Duty of Marxists (THE International Committee ; has always championed unity of the Fourth Interna-

[p010] TWO IC RESOLUTIONS tional and fought against every attempt to split the movement and destroy its cadre. The recent conference in Italy must be seen not as ‘unity’, but as the political continuation of a split begun in 1953. Real unity of the Fourth Inter- national can come about only through adherence to a correct method, firm principles and a tried and tested programme. Unity which is built on confusion— which does not base itself on the conviction to build a_ world Marxist leadership in competition with all other trends—such unity is a rope of sand. ‘This is a Trotskyist epoch’ say the revisionists. But there is neither confidence nor optimism in this sort of cheerful idiocy. It expresses the attitude of those who have successfully adapted their policies to the needs of petty-bourgeois nationalists and left reformists. Pablo’s international has no future because it is based on the petty-bourgeois—a _ social group without any historic future. We are optimistic about the Inter- national because we base our- selves on the working class and the class struggle which goes on all over the world. We say this is a Trotskyist epoch not because some irrevers- ible process makes it so but because out of firm, principled, independent intervention in the struggles of the working class we will build a world party. The struggle to build the Fourth International is insepar- able from the struggle against revisionism. ‘The Fourth Inter- national sweeps away the quacks, charlatans and unsolicited teachers of morals.’ We call on all those who want to build a true communist leader- ship of the working class: we call 171 on all those who fight for the Transitional Programme: on all those who accept the fundamental proposition of the Founding Conference, that the crisis of leadership can only be resolved through the conscious activity of the Fourth International, to: @ Fight to build the Fourth International as the only moves ment capable of overthrowing imperialism and Stalinism. @ Translate the Transitional Programme into action in every country where Trotskyism exists. @ Work -for the International Conference of Marxists in the Autumn of 1964. INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL JULY 1963 Two resolutions of the International Committee meeting of June, 1963 At its meeting on June 23, 1963, the International Commmittee of the Fourth International passed resolutions on the Negro struggle in the United States, and the persecution of the Peruvian Trotskyist THE NEGRO STRUGGLE THe mounting struggle of the Negro people in the South, and now the spread of the struggle to the Northern industrial cities, indicates that it is moving into a new phase, which is raising critical problems for the labour movement. The existing liberal and pacifist leadership of middle class clergy- men and civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King and_ the NAACP, with their policy of non- violence and limited measures of desegregation, are increasingly unable to satisfy the aspirations of. the Negro -working class, especially the unemployed and the youth. leader Hugo Blanco ' It is, however, from _ these sections of the Negro movement that the present movement receives its most devoted support; the most oppressed sections of the US population cannot be - satisfied with a struggle whose limits are set by the needs of the oppressors. The American Negro workers, often paid only half the wages of a white worker, discriminated against by many unions as well as employers, afflicted by a very high rate of unemployment, are now determined to fight to a finish. Kennedy’s desegregation gestures have had the effect of opening the gates just a little wider for this push against reaction. It is important to underline the class bases of the present move- ment for equal rights. Its first centre, Birmingham, Alabama, is not a vestige of the slave era but one of the world’s largest steel towns. Those in the forefront of the struggle are workers fighting against monopoly capitalism, whose political chief is Kennedy himself. It thus forms part of the movement of the oppressed victims of imperialism throughout the world; it is in no sense the product of an __ exclusively ‘American dilemma’ but a product ‘of the severe contradictions. of capitalism in the advanced coun- tries at its present stage. . It is impossible to carry it forward without the solidarity and

[p011] 172 support of the entire labour move- ment, beginning with that in the US itself. The world-wide implications of the struggle are understood by the ruling class. Kennedy’s foreign policy, and the need for the US to establish profitable relations with the newly emerged ‘inde- pendent’ backward countries, have led the US administration to make certain gestures to solve the segregation problem. This has brought it into open conflict with the white supre- macists in the South who repre- sent, with their petty bourgeois supporters, the most backward side of US capitalism. Kennedy understands that he must break with the extreme segregationists in order to safeguard US capital- ism on a world scale. The leaders of the AFL-CIO, demonstrate once again their role as labour lieutenants of the capi- talist class by their passivity on this question. US capitalism and the Kennedy administration could LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 not withstand a determined move- ment for equal rights were it to be based on a united struggle of the whole working class. The labour leaders fear such a struggle. They are not indepen- dent of monopoly capitalism, but are obliged to serve its every need. Their concern with desegregation goes no further than that of the administration itself. While objective circumstances have forced the Negro workers, students and youth into the position of front line fighters against American capitalism, they thus find themselves bereft of leadership. The middle-class Negro leaders, backed by white liberals, have proved a failure. The official labour leaders remain tied to the coat-tails of the employers. Naturally, therefore, the Negroes are searching for some way out of their situation. The limited successes of the Black Muslims in winning a base in the towns reflect this, but only lead into another blind alley. What is required is a movement which exposes in struggle all the traps set for the Negro masses by the non-violent pacifist leaders, the Kennedy liberals and desegre- gationists, the counsellors in the official labour movement, the fanatical black nationalists—and projects a principled policy based upon uniting the whole American working class against monopoly capitalism. One of the most oppressed sections of the American working class is already on the move. As the contradictions of capitalism reveal themselves, other sections will be drawn into the struggle. The preparation of a new in- dependent working-class pro- gramme and leadership is already overdue and lags behind the objective opportunities. The need for an understanding of the Negro upsurge as part of the struggle against American capitalism is a first requirement if these oppor- tunities are to be grasped. RELEASE HUGO BLANCO! Hvece BLANCO, Trotskyist leader of the mass peasant movement in the Cuzco area of Peru, has been hunted down by the army and is now imprisoned without trial. From information received, it is clear that he requires medical attention and his life is in serious danger. In addition, he has been given no opportunity of seeing a proper lawyer to prepare his defence. Hugo Blanco has led a powerful movement which has dispossessed the big landlords of the Cuzco area and turned over the land to the peasants.- It is in order to repress this movement that he has beén arrested. The duty of the labour move- ment throughout the world is to demand his release and, as a minimum, to ensure through their protests his access to medical treatment and legal advice. The International Committee of the Fourth International calls upon all labour organisations to organise protests inside their own countries against the action of the Peruvian government, Demon- strations, delegations and _ tele- grams to the Peruvian embassies in all countries are urgently necessary. The sections of the Fourth International have the duty of initiating these actions in all countries.

[p012] Revisionism and the Fourth 173 by Cliff Slaughter (Based upon the report on international problems, accepted unanimously by the Fifth Annual Con- ference of the Socialist Labour League, June 1963, London) International Our Conference meets just before the Convention of the Socialist Workers’ Party of the United States, a Convention whose majority will accept a political line opposed to that of the Socialist Labour League, and basically similar to that of the Pablo group in Paris calling itself the Fourth International. For ten years British Trotskyists have condemned the ideas of Pablo and his followers as a revision of Marxism. Concentrating on so-called objective trends towards socialism, the Pabloites accepted the idea that the pressure of the masses would enforce the overthrow of capitalism before the working class resolved its crisis of leadership. Consequently, the existing bureaucratic leaders of the labour movement, or sections of them, would become the leaders of ‘deformed workers’ states’. Thus the overthrow of capitalism would be achieved without the building of revolutionary Marxist parties in the leadership of the working class. Foremost among those who denounced Pablo’s revisions in 1953 was the Socialist Workers’ Party, particularly its oldest leader, James P. Cannon. We must therefore take very seriously the decision of the Socialist Workers’ Party leadership to seek agreement with the Pabloites. In this, we do not proceed with any considerations for the kind of criticism levelled at Trotskyism from the outside, to the effect that continual splits are only a characteristic of sectarianism, Splits have always been necessary preludes to successful class struggles, splits based upon differences of political principle and not upon personal or organisational disputes. The classical examples are the history of the Marxist party in Russia and of the Second International. Advance was only possible by fighting to the end the differences of principle between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, between reformism and revolution. It is not at all an accident that these splits always raise questions which appear super- ficially to be of a very theoretical and abstract character. The revolutionary party of the working class, Lenin insisted, is characterised above all by its revolutionary theory, For the first time in history the overthrow of a ruling class and the victory of a new class is organised deliberately and consciously. In order to grasp its role and be capable of victory the working class needs a scientific theory compre- hending all the spheres of the class struggle, enabling the class to base its strategy and tactics on an understanding of the dynamics of the class struggle, whose secret was revealed by Marx. Theoretical differences therefore require the sharpest and most

[p013] 174 uncompromising struggle, for they lie at the root of political and organisational deviations. In_ this respect the history of the Socialist Labour League is interesting. The Socialist Labour League has insisted that no compromise with Pabloism is possible. In order to expose completely the roots of this revision of Marxism, we have advocated a thorough-going discussion of all the disputed questions since 1953, in order that theoretical clarification can be achieved. On the basis of this clarification, the re-organisation of the Fourth International should then proceed. The Socialist Workers’ Party has for some years advocated a rapprochement between the two tendencies, leaving disputed questions aside until later. In support of this line they have indicated the need to respond to the great opportunities given to Trotskyism by recent developments in the break-up of Stalinism and victories in the national liberation movement. This SWP line is in stark contrast to the ‘Open Letter’ of 1953, published in the SWP’s organ The Militant as a full-scale denunciation of Pabloism. The ‘Open Letter’ pointed out that during the French General Strike and the East German workers’ uprising of 1953, the Pabloites were com- pletely paralysed by their theory that the existing bureaucracies could play a progressive role. This prevented them from giving a clear revolutionary lead. The ‘Open Letter’ showed that this paralysis flowed from Pablo’s revisionism, and concluded that ‘no compromise’, either politically or organisationally, was possible. On this basis the split was complete, and since that time the SWP has formally sympathised with groups like the SLL, affiliated to the International Committee of the Fourth Inter- national, opposed to the Pabloite ‘International Secretariat’. Such splits in the international Marxist movement can, of course, only be justified by the most basic class betrayals. It is absolutely alien to a Marxist approach to advocate unity now, without a full discussion, between those who split in 1953. We believe there is a very clear reason why the SWP can take this course. In 1953 their own tradition of struggle led Cannon and some of the SWP leadership to reject the capitulation to the bureau- cracy implied in Pablo’s ideas. However, this split was not carried far enough. If the differences were big enough to justify a public condemnation and a split in the International, they necessitated a thorough-going theoretical analysis of the class roots of Pablo’s revisions. The struggle against these revisions could only lay the basis for new advances if it gave the Marxist movement a deeper under- standing of the social forces of our epoch which were reflected in Pablo’s revisions. It was not sufficient merely to point to the consequences and insist on a split. Because, in the SWP, the process LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 in effect stopped at that point, the SWP itself remained open to precisely the same influences of world capitalism which produced Pabloism. In recent years the SWP leaders have begun to accept ideas similar to those of Pablo. Influenced par- ticularly by ‘de-Stalinisation’ and the revolutions in Algeria and Cuba, they developed theories that the revolutionary process would not wait for revolution- ary parties to be formed. It is for this reason that the SWP now advocates a return to the old relationship with the Pabloites. It is not true, as the SWP leadership claims, that the Pabloites have moved closer to a Trotskyist position; on the contrary, the SWP has in fact accepted Pablo’s revisionism. In order to avoid a discussion which would reveal the position, and thereby to prevent a clarification of the sources of the split, the SWP has consistently avoided a confrontation of ideas in writing or in conference, and they have now made approaches for agreement with the Pabloites in order to forestall the Conference of International Committee supporters, to meet in the late summer of this year, even though this date was arranged to accommodate a number of sections in other continents, an arrangement of which an SWP leader was aware and to which he raised not a single objection. The indecent haste of this approach to the Pabloites, and the avoidance of a conference of IC supporters, is explained by a number of immediate factors, including: first, the miserable showing of Hansen and Cannon in the short written discussion finally achieved between the SLL and the SWP in late 1962 and early 1963;* second, the critical divisions with the Pablo group, even at top-leadership level; and finally the internal crisis of the SWP leadership, whose right wing, centred on the journal International Socialist Review, has recently collapsed, a number of them abandoning the movement. Cannon’s letter on the Cuban question, in which he defended Khrushchev’s withdrawal of the missiles as a blow for peac2—‘what else could he have done under the given circumstances?’—revealed the depths of the theoretical decline in the SWP. The SLL reaffirms its opinion that the Fourth International will be reconstructed only on the basis of the defeat of Pabloite revisionism, of which the SWP leadership is now the leading spokesman. Our last two conferences (1961 and 1962) have elaborated the political positions upon which our criticism of revisionism is based. In the past year, our position on all the disputed political questions has been confirmed by the course of events, while the line of the Pabloites and the SWP has been thoroughly exposed. * The major documents in this internal discussion will be published in the next few months.

[p014] REVISIONISM 175 The Advanced Countries In all the advanced countries the class contradic- tions have had a sharp expression. In the USA, the struggle in the South against racialist segregation has reached gigantic proportions. Kennedy’s foreign policy, and the need for US imperialism to establish profitable relations with the newly ‘independent’ backward countries, have led the US administration to make certain gestures to solve the segregation problem. But Kennedy’s token struggle coincides with other factors of enormous strength. The action of the Negro working class has for some time been seeking a way of expression independent of the liberal and pacifist leadership of middle-class clergymen and civil leaders like Martin Luther King and the NAACP. This most oppressed section of the American working class, often paid only half the wages of a white worker, discriminated against by many unions as well as employers, suffering from a very high rate of unemployment, is now determined to fight to a finish, and Kennedy’s gestures have had the effect of opening the gates just a little wider for this push against reaction. Birmingham, Alabama is no outpost of the slave era, but one of the biggest modern steel towns in the world. Those in struggle are workers, fighting against modern monopoly capitalism, whose political chief is Kennedy himself. The prime need is a leadership to find ways forward for independent working-class action. Yet in this situation the SWP leadership uses its weekly organ, The Militant, to call upon Kennedy to ‘deputise and arm the Negroes’! As if to say: let’s make Kennedy practise what he preaches. Similarly they criticise Kennedy for hanging back in the serious deployment of Federal troops to enforce de-segregation against the local Birmingham reactionaries. When Martin Luther King and his friends signed some fake agreement with local businessmen to agree to ‘progress’ in these matters, The Militant even here remained unable to thoroughly denounce such class- collaboration, adopting a ‘wait-and-see’ attitude. Here is an abandonment of the teachings of Lenin and Trotsky, and a perfect example of the con- sequences of Pabloite rev:sionism. Tailing behind middle-class leaders like King, the SWP ends up by being able to advocate nothing more than a ‘sharpening-up’ of the attitude of these liberals themselves, thus joining in the array of forces whose role is to disorientate the Negro masses by per- petuating illusions in ‘democratic’ capitalism instead of fighting for an independent course of action and the construction of an independent leadership. Dean Rusk, Kennedy and other imperialist spokes- men made their strategy very clear, insisting that unless ‘something could be done’ about the Negro question, the US was ‘fighting Communism with one leg in a splint’. Recent reports show that, in common with other advanced countries, the USA faces a rapidly mounting problem of youth unemployment. Natur- ally this is most serious among the Negro workers. It is clear that we have here a general tendency in modern capitalism, connected with the type of mass production now required in manufacturing industry. The new upsurge in the Negro struggle is undoubtedly accelerated by this factor. As in Britain and elsewhere, the new forces for mass revolutionary parties can be largely drawn from the struggles of this new generation, as it finds the old leadership utterly incapable of any struggle even for the slightest concessions. The Negro struggle is only one side, in the USA a vitally important one, of this same struggle to create a new leadership out of the struggle against the monopolies’ attempt to impose the burden of their latest problems on the working class. But from the SWP we have seen no analysis of this unemployment problem. A few news stories was all The Militant could muster. That paper gave no impression of any sort of struggle against un- employment in which the SWP was campaigning. And yet even capitalist observers note the persist- ence of five to six million permanently unemployed because of capitalism’s inability to use rationally the most advanced techniques like automation. For all the stress of the Pabloites and the SWP on ‘objective forces’ making for change, it is precisely in the field of analysis of these objective factors on which revolutionary action can be based that the SWP is weakest. Even the struggles of the US miners in abandoned coalfields like Kentucky, where armed battles took place, could not find their way US Negro struggle—‘fight to a finish’

[p015] into the columns of The Militant as campaigning issues. The permanent army of unemployed, the particu- larly high rate of youth unemployment, and the growing fury of the Negro struggle—all of these provide big opportunities for the construction of revolutionary parties and strike a blow at the revisionist idea that the class struggle has temporarily ceased to have major significance in the advanced countries. It is this revisionist notion, a rejection of the central necessity of independent building of parties of the Fourth International, which has made the SWP utterly incapable of intervening in these important struggles. In Germany and France, in Spain and Greece, the same story can be told, making nonsense of the Pabloite theory that the ‘epicentre’ of the revolu- tionary struggle has shifted away from the advanced countries to the backward countries. The Pabloites and the SWP take the continuation of capitalism in the advanced countries to be some natural law, whereas in reality it is a consequence primarily of the betrayal of Social Democracy and Stalinism for 50 years. Revolutionaries have the task of defeating that leadership and equipping the working class for victories, not the task of standing aside and drawing conclusions about the ‘epicentre of revolution’ having moved elsewhere. This theory is a cowardly retreat into the arms of nationalist revolutionaries in the backward countries, not a development of Marxism. In Germany, the metal workers, building workers and others, have forced big concessions from the employers; their strikes and threatened strikes have struck fear into the hearts of the German bosses, who for years have dealt with a proletariat only slowly recovering from the Nazi and wartime des- truction of a whole generation of militants, organisers and _ revolutionaries. The German “economic miracle’ is a corpse which everybody can ‘Following closely on the Belgian General Strike, the miners strike in France... > smell. The Adenauer administration has been rocked by internal divisions and political crises like the Der Spiegel affair. In France, the working class shows that even under the semi-dictatorship of de Gaulle they are strong and determined. Follow- ing closely on the Belgian General Strike, the miners’ strike in France, which called out the support of many other workers, was a mighty demonstration of the power of the European working class. In 1962. the heroic workers of Spain lifted their proud heads and challenged the fascist regime. Their strike won economic concessions but, more important, it opened a new phase of class actions against the Franco terror which will sweep away the so-called ‘democratic opposition’, that revival of the traitorous alliance of Stalinists and spineless liberals. In all those countries of Western Europe, includ- ing Britain, where the workers have the freedom to vote, Parliamentary elections express in a muffled way the consistent striving of the workers to independent class power. In France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Britain, the Communist or Social- Democratic parties have received a constant and massive working-class vote in every election since 1945, despite the cynical betrayals of the leaders of these parties. The need for a leadership in these countries which can free the working class for struggle by building revolutionary parties in deter- mined and day-to-day opposition to these agents of capitalism has been clearly exposed. Such parties must base their struggles on the younger generation which suffers most directly from the latest phase of capitalist exploitation, is free from the weight of decades of defeat, has high expectations and a healthy mistrust of the opportunist leaders. To avoid this responsibility is to leave the youth of these countries open to the influence of pseudo- radical propaganda by fascist agents of the ruling classes become more acute, as in Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Belgium and Britain.

[p016] REVISIONISM In Britain, there is developing a situation where the Labour leadership will be called upon to answer big questions in response to the headlong decline of the ruling class. The term of the next Labour government will be a decisive period for the con- struction of a Marxist party in Britain. The SWP in its international policy is supporting a group which stands in the way of that task. These are the so-called Marxists in the Labour youth movement in Britain whose primary objective has been to oppose the development of a revolutionary leader- ship. With their friends in Tribune, even after that tendency’s pathetic betrayal since Scarborough 1960, they have consistently helped the witch-hunters. These ‘Marxists’ allied also with the group which characterises the USSR as ‘state capitalist’ and which left the Fourth International at the time of the Korean war, unable to take up the defence of China against US imperialism. This alliance had only one foundation—the vital one of opposition to the strategy of building a revolutionary party in Britain. Those who are active in British labour politics can thus see clearly the consequences of the SWP line of support for the Pabloites. This opposition to the building of the Marxist party flows inevitably from the emphasis on the so-called objective facts and the conclusion that someone else is going to lead the overthrow of capitalism, that between capitalism and socialism something else will inter- vene. In Britain then, the liquidationist position of the Pabloites and the SWP (i.e., their abandonment of the construction of revolutionary parties) becomes an important aid to the ruling class, whose primary interest is to assure the continued domination of the opportunists and bureaucrats over the working class. We should not forget that the first major political consequence of Pablo’s revisionism was capitulation to Stalinism, on the grounds that the bureaucracy, or a section of it, would be forced to the left. The SWP similarly began, especially after 1956, to omit reference to the need for political revolution against the Soviet bureaucracy (they placed their judgment of Khrushchev’s intentions higher than the struggle of the Hungarian masses!). They began to talk about ‘de-Stalinisation’ and ‘the fracturing of the Stalinist monolith’ as some natural process, rather than the need to build Marxist parties in opposition to the counter-revolutionary policies of Stalinism. Finally, elements in both the Pabloite and the SWP ranks developed the idea that so strong were the ‘mass pressures for Socialism’ that Stalinism ‘could no longer betray’. Cannon’s support for Khrush- chev over Cuba, and the SWP’s condonement of the French Pabloites’ similar line last year, are the fruits of this overthrow of principle. 177 The Stalinist parties of the advanced countries today have reached a new extreme in their capitula- tion to capitalism, all in the interests of ‘peaceful co-existence’ and ‘peaceful competition’, confirming completely their traditional characterisation by the Trotskyist movement as counter-revolutionary. In Britain, where the trade union leaders engage in open class-collaboration on the National Economic Development Council, the Stalinists, following faithfully Khrushchev’s line, call upon the capitalist state to plan the direction of industry, of research and labour and technicians, to help assure the required rate of growth. In Italy, Togliatti advocates structural reforms which will bring qualitative changes from capitalism to socialism without revolution, and even calls for conditional support for the European Common Market, so long as satisfactory economic agreements are made between the Eastern European countries and the Common Market. Here in the vital sector, in the advanced countries, as the imperialist crisis matures and opens up great oppor- tunities for revolutionary development, the conse- quence of Pabloite revisionism—a complete dis- orientation in face of the counter-revolutionary development of Stalinism—is clearest and most dangerous to the working class. The disputes between the Russian and Chinese Stalinists will add to the contradictions between Stalinism and the needs of the workers, and this will begin to receive a confused expression within the Stalinist parties. Only if Trotskyists develop their independent theory and practice will there emerge from this crisis new revolutionary cadres for the working class. We are thus quite opposed to the analysis given by Pabloite and SWP spokesmen, who find the different confused lines of the world’s Stalinist parties to be so many ‘bits’ of Trotskyism, requiring only a ‘synthesis’. This latest extreme example of the consequences of Pabloite revisionism only highlights the sharpness of capitalism’s contradictions at the present Stage. It is exactly because of this sharpness, the preparation of decisive class struggles, that the theoretical differ- ences now become most acute and must be posed without any confusion or covering up. This theoretical struggle is an essential preparation for the new stage of the class Struggle in the advanced countries. The battle against revisionism marches step by step with the struggle in every country to construct revolutionary parties in determined Opposition to opportunism and centrism. This is the historic responsibility placed upon Marxists in the advanced countries: to prove in action that our orientation of constructing revolutionary parties is correct. Building the SLL in Britain is fighting in the front line of the reconstruction of the Fourth International.

[p017] 178 LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 The Backward Countries In the backward countries a remarkable feature of the recent period has been the growth of the independent organisation and action of the working class, and in some cases, the sharp posing of the decisive political questions of working-class organisa- tion (India and Cuba). In many parts of Africa this has been the case: in Central and South Africa strikes have necessitated repression by armed force; in Nigeria and Ghana, industrial workers have fought bitter strikes against the bourgeois nationalist governments, despite the claims of some of these to promise an ‘African Road to Socialism’; in Algeria and in Guinea, the nationalist governments have been forced to make explicit their opposition to the claims of the working class (Sekou Touré suppressed the teachers’ and students’ movement as a ‘Com- munist’ plot and, only two years after almost ‘qualifying’ for the label ‘workers’ state’ from the revisionists, has returned to the arms of de Gaulle; Ben Bella ruthlessly took over the Algerian TUC through his own nominees, insisting on the pre- dominance of the peasantry). The mass peasant revolts in Latin America have been joined in the last year by mighty strikes of the urban workers, particularly in Argentina and Chile. In Indonesia, the workers have massively demonstrated their insistence on nationalization of foreign holdings; they are restrained only by the complete subordination of the Communist Party to the Soekarno govern- ment. In India, the social-chauvinism of the Com- munist Party prevents it from leading the struggles which are steadily mounting in a deteriorating economic situation. All this is in direct contrast with the theories of the Pabloites and the SWP. One of the funda- mental bases of Trotskyism is the theory of perm- anent revolution. Parties basing themselves on these theories are working-class parties; in backward countries only the working class can lead the revolutionary struggle against imperialism. The easantry needs to be led by a class in the towns which can find the necessary cohesion, discipline and leadership to carry through the struggle to the end. The bourgeo’sie in the epoch of imperialism cannot do this. In such countries it is especially important to stress the proletarian character of the leadership in the worker-peasant alliance; unless this battle is fought, there is every danger of petty-bourgeois degeneration of the political leadership. The Pabloites and the SWP have rejected this outlook, embracing instead the opinion that the peasantry, by its revolutionary actions against imperialism, has proved Marx and his followers wrong. Pablo and his friends now suggest that the working class in these countries is a privileged group, so that the peasantry finds its leaders among intel- lectuals and others on the run from the towns—a ‘Jacobin leadership sui generis’. This is not a theory, but an apology for prostration before the middle-class nationalist leaderships who mislead the peasantry and oppose the independence of the working class. It is in Algeria and Cuba that the consequences of this revision have been most nakedly revealed. In fulfilling his obligations under the Evian agreement with de Gaulle’s government, Ben Bella has banned the Communist Party, not out of any opposition to Stalinism but in fear of the development of any centre for independent working- class organisation. The Militant not only failed to voice a vigorous protest but even printed without comment the statement of an Algerian government spokesman in ‘explanation’ of this repressive action. Pablo himself has ended up as a_ professional functionary in the service of the nationalist govern- ment. The Pabloite sections in Europe and the SWP make great play of the need for a campaign of ‘support’ for the Algerian revolution. But this turns out to mean support for the Ben Bella govern- ment; the supply of ‘progressive’ technicians will somehow preserve Ben Bella from _ imperialist pressure and assure his taking the road of Castro. All this, the rejection of any independent course for the working class or the construction of an inde- pendent working-class party, in fact covers up a situation where professions of ‘“Trotskyism’ are nothing but a disguise for sheer opportunism and support of a government which acts against the working class, as in Ben Bella’s attack on the trade unions in the name of ‘the people’, whom he insisted were predominantly peasants. His demagogic appeals to quell workers’ demonstrations meet with no criticism or opposition from the Pabloite ‘sup- porters of the revolution’. Here again, the role of Pabloism is to stand in the way of the essential Evian—scene of Ben Bella's accord with France

[p018] REVISIONISM construction of revolutionary parties, and thus to contribute to the main need of imperialism in the backward countries, i.e., that the masses remain under the tutelage of petty-bourgeois nationalist leaders, thus preventing their carrying through the struggle against imperialist domination in all its forms. Recent news from Algeria suggests that a strong section of Ben Bella’s government is for the ‘Arab Socialism’ of Nasser and the United Arab Republic. This amounts to nothing more than a para-military dictatorship, the suppression of all independent class and party organisations, a type of corporatism based on State contro! of certain sectors of an under- developed economy. The position of the Pabloites now prevents them from taking a principled course on any of these questions, prevents them from fighting for an independent working-class party in Algeria. All their ‘theories’ of ‘Jacobin leaderships sui generis’ and the non-revolutionary character of the colonial proletariat are in fact at the service of Nasser, Ben Bella and their governments. The abandonment of the theory of the need for workers’ parties in these countries and for working-class leadership of the struggle against imperialism leaves them only miserable servants of the colonial bour- geoisie. Cuba has figured prominently in the disputes between the SWP and the SLL. Here too, Cannon and the SWP leadership have uncritically supported Castro and the July 26th Movement’s leadership. They have welcomed the announcement of the formation of the new ‘United Party of the Socialist Revolution’, a combination of the petty-bourgeois nationalists of the July 26th Movement and the Stalinists, despite the fact that this ‘party’ would clearly be on the Stalinist model. Cannon called on the Cuban Trotskyists to work as a loyal faction within the new party, without being able to give any details of the rights of minorities in this party, indeed in full knowledge of a statement by Ché Guevara about the nature of democratic centralism on Stalinist lines, as well as denunciations of Trotskyism. Cannon knew too that the Cuban Trotskyists had suffered persecution at the hands of the Cuban administration. At the time the SWP explained these repressions as the actions of some over-zealous Stalinist minor official. But they offer no explanation for the continued existence of these restrictions today. The SWP leadership had access to a report three months ago from Canadian Marxists visiting Cuba which revealed this position. This report made it very clear that the State machine in Cuba functions without control from the mass in any way, in the economic or the political spheres. The comrade who gave this report went to Cuba as 179 a supporter of the SWP leadership’s position (and probably remains so); the SWP leadership chose to use other, ‘favourable’ sections of the report and to suppress these ‘awkward’ aspects. This speaks volumes for the political role of revisionism in shielding the enemies of the working class and also for the organisational methods which inevitably flow from unprincipled political positions. One pressing reason for the SWP’s concealing these details was the previous course of their dis- cussion with the SLL. We had rejected the claim of Hansen and his supporters that Cuba was a ‘workers’ state’; it was even referred to as an ‘uncorrupted workers’ regime’. This new first-hand evidence would have ‘complicated’ the headlong drive for unification, in which Hansen had already insisted that the recognition of Cuba as a workers’ State was ‘the acid test’. An important example in this connection is the speech of Castro on March 26, 1962, later reprinted by the SWP, without comment, for circulation in the USA. This speech, entitled by the SWP, ‘Fidel Castro Denounces Bureaucracy and Sectarianism’, was occasioned by the dismissal of an old Stalinist, Anibal Escalante, from a prominent position in the State, on the grounds that he acted bureaucratically and promoted people into positions primarily on the grounds of their Party connections. On examining this speech we insisted it was far from illustrating a move by Castro. away from Stalinist bureaucratic methods towards Socialist democracy, as the SWP leadership thought. On the contrary, Castro insists here precisely on the independence of the State itself from any sort of control. ‘The best revolutionists, the best workers, should be in the nucleus. The party should not weaken itself in order to buttress the state apparatus. The state apparatus must develop its own officials from the ranks. It does not have to have recourse to the nuclei in the people’s farms, in the co- operatives. It does not have to ‘bring in the official from outside; he should simply be promoted from among the workers.’ (Our emphasis.) “Today an official must have authority. A minister must have authority, an administrator must have authority. He must be able to discuss whatever is necessary with the Technical Advisory Council. He must be able to discuss with the masses of workers; with the nucleus. But the administrator must decide; the responsibility must be his.’ These clear statements on the independent power of the State apparatus were covered with the usual popular demogogy which is hailed by some as ‘TV democracy’ but which in fact conceals the continua- tion of a centralised bureaucratic state without soviet or socialist democracy at any time having intervened. Thus Castro says: ‘It is not important who governs—what man

[p019] 180 governs or what his name might be. Who leads is not important—what man leads or what his name might be. The important thing is that he govern well, the important thing is that he lead the revolution where the revolution should go.’ Briefly summarised, this passage means: ‘Fidel knows best.’ For the rest, Castro’s speech ‘denouncing bureau- cracy’ (!) consisted of a series of unfavourable com- parisons between the Stalinist cadres and those of the July 26th Movement, upon whom Castro leant heavily at that time, and a number of illustrations of the bureaucratic abuses for which Escalante was blamed. Castro summed up this series of illustra- tions of graft and privileged appointments behind the backs both of the masses and of the central State apparatus as follows: ‘We have fallen into a problem of castes, not into one of classes, companeros. Let us not give up the principle of class in order to fall into the problem of castes, into that of titles of nobility, into that of privileges, into that of sectarianism, companeros. It is enough to ask: what has this got to do with an ‘uncorrupted workers’ regime’? how could the SWP hail this ‘great speech against bureaucracy’ and not give any accounting of its uncritical support of the conduct of state affairs in the previous months, here so strongly denounced by Castro? Like the Pabloites in Algeria, they are unable to criticise the regime, except where Castro himself decides criticism is in order. The SWP leadership’s insistence on the criterion of nationalization in defining Cuba as a workers’ state blinded them to the political implications of Castro’s relations with the bureaucracy in the USSR. We have insisted all along in the discussion that the international relations of the Cuban revolution, as well as the historical and class basis of its leadership, must be considered as well as the property relations existing at any given time. Castro’s reliance on the Kremlin economically, militarily and to a great extent politically has been a mechanism for betraying the Cuban revolution. The consequence of a failure by the Cuban masses, led by the working class, to break this grip of the petty-bourgeois leadershiv and the Stalinists, will be either the destruction of the gains of the Cuban revolution by American reconquest, or the reaching of a point where Castro, controlling the State apparatus, will swing to a renewed relationship with US capital. The missiles crisis of Autumn 1962 brought out this issue clearly. Khrushchev’s international diplomatic manoeuvres involved the adventuristic use of missile bases in Cuba as a pawn for the negotiation of a new deal with Kennedy, and very nearly brought down the Cuban revolution. The prostration of Cannon and the SWP leadership was complete. All they could LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 do was commend Khrushchev, even calling in as witness those people ‘unaffected by imperialist propaganda’ ... Bertrand Russell and Pandit Nehru! The latter was simultaneously engaged in conducting a chauvinistic frenzy in India against the Chinese People’s Republic, armed not only by the imperialists but also with MIG aircraft supplied by Moscow! FIDEL CASTRO: ‘It is not important who governs—what man governs or what his name might be’ The Cuban crisis did supply an ‘acid test’, and it found the SWP to have left far behind the inter- nationalist politics on which it was based. Its formal-logical approach to the definition of the Cuban state, ignoring its class content, its develop- ment, its relation to imperialism and to world Stalinism, is the methodological consequence of its political decline. Instead of dealing here with the lengthy discussion on the comparison of Cuba with the European deformed workers’ states, we will be satisfied to quote John G. Wright, writing in the SWP internal bulletin itself as long ago as 1950: ‘This sociological approach amounts to the following: we set down two parallel columns and in one column we jot down the outstanding character- istics of the Soviet Union as it is today, in 1950; and in this connection we may, if we so desire, take note of its historical origin in what Comrade E. R. Frank labels as the revolution of a “Classic Type”. ‘In an adjoining column we set down all the buffer states, including Yugoslavia, and see what similarities can be found with the USSR under Stalin —this time without paying any regard whatever to the historical origin of what happened in each of these countries, ignoring who carried out certain measures, why and under what circumstances, ignoring just how they were carried out, who bene- fitted thereby and so on. ‘And at the end, without weighing any of these diverse factors or evaluating them from the class standpoint and ignoring all the dissimilarities— especially that of origin—you conclude that all these similarities constitute an identity. And, there- fore, in Eastern Europe, what you have are revolu- tions of a “new and special type”. What has this

[p020] REVISIONISM in common with our dialectical method? Very little. *., . We are told that we are poor Marxists unless we apply a sociological method with unmistakable academic whiskers on it. It happens to be the formalistic method of comparative sociology which lays stress on dazzling similarities or “common formulas”, regardless of time and place, class and origin. ‘. .. Up to now our Trotskyist school of thought has rejected as false the notion of approaching economic factors, singly or colleciively, as if they led an independent existence; as if they could be weighed and evaluated at any time and any circum- stances separate and apart from their class roots and ciass content, independently of the methods of economic leadership and finally—what is most important!—independently of the political program and leadership involved. Yet all this appears to fall away in the thinking and argumentation of the “workers-statists”. We are presented with bare facts and statistics of nationalizations. The course of events leading up to them, the entire Kremlin policy with all its twists and turns from Potsdam to 1950, not to mention the wartime policies, evaporate into thin air. All this seems to be without apparent importance compared to the decisive “reality” of nationalizations. Assuredly, this bears little resemblance to our method of thinking. 181 ‘Thus far in the discussion there has been con- siderable reference to the 1939-40 dispute with the petty-bourgeois opposition inside the SWP. This is only to be welcomed, But from the standpoint of method the following must be borne in mind. ‘In evaluating the class nature of the USSR, our opponents of 1939-40 denied completely the role of the economic foundation. The polemic, of necessity, stressed this aspect; the subjective factors, their role and impor ance, appeared to fall into a subordinate position. But, in reality, that was not at all the case. Because all of us, and in ‘the first instance Trotsky, never dealt with Soviet nationalized economy “as such”, but invariably stressed its origins in the pro- letarian revolution and its subsequent evolution. We took inio account all the changes introduced by the Kremlin and concluded that the qualitative stage of reversion to capitalism had not yet occurred in their remaining conquests of October.’ (‘The Importance of Method in the Discussion on the Kremlin-Dominated Buffer Zone’, Discussion Bulletin, No. 2, April 1950. Emphasis ours.) One of the most important consequences of the Cuban crisis of 1962, therefore, was that it showed Cannon to have completely abandoned this approach in favour of a crude pragmatism, far removed from dialectical materialism. Cannon and the SLL Finally, we take one aspect of the general line of SWP leadership. When the SLL first approached the SWP for a discussion on the disputed questions, Cannon wrote to members of the SWP National Committee that the SLL’s wrong position would eventually be most cleariy revealed in the consequences of its suicidal domestic policy. The SLL, said Cannon, had embarked on a sectarian binge, and was heading for the formation of an open party outside the Labour Party. The long experience of Cannon in these matters probably led SWP members to expect his predictions to be confirmed. All that happened in this case, in fact, was that Cannon’s retrzat from a revolutionary outlook was fully exposed. The SLL has in fact gone from strength to strength; it has a stronger position in the Labour movement than ever before; it had already at that time fully discussed and decisively rejected the sectarian tendency towards an open party within its own ranks (Behan and others) and no such course has at any time since then been advocated. What was the source of Cannon’s misjudgment? The SLL’s propaganda material at that time (Spring 1961) was primarily concentrated on the struggle which ensued after the Scarborough Labour Party Conference victory for the policy of unilateral nuclear dis- JAMES P. CANNO retreat from a revolutionary outlook fully exposed armament. That victory placed the Tribune Left politically in a position of leadership. Gaitskell and the right-wing majority in the Parliamentary Labour Party decided to flout the Conference decision and

[p021] 182. they organised a right-wing faction to reverse the decision in trade unions and the Labour Party. The Tribune Left abandoned the struggle. In The Newsletter we attacked Gaitskell, exposing his ‘fifth column’ (the ‘Campaign for Democratic Socialism’). We exposed the betrayal of the so-called Left, and demanded a recall Labour Party Conference to call Gaitskell to order. This is what Cannon calls ‘a sectarian binge’. In fact it was the only possible course for Marxists—determined struggle to isolate and defeat the Right, and an exposure of those who paraded as left-wingers but refused to take up the fight. Those Pabloites whom the SWP now support are still able to collaborate happily with these domesticated left-wingers whose only reason for existence is to mislead into a backwater any members of the Labour Party who come into conflict with the official machine, and to oppose those who want LABOUR REVIEW—Summer 1963 to construct a revolutionary party. Here, as in all other cases, the drift of the SWP to Pabloite revisionism disarms the vanguard of the working class by making it easier for opportunists to proceed with their work. This Conference of the SLL reaffirms its deter- mination to proceed along the path of the con- struction of independent revolutionary parties as the main task for Marxists. All talk of ‘reunification’ of the Fourth International before political clarifi- cation of the split of 1953 is contrary to the Marxist method, Our position remains that the basic pre- requisite for a new leap forward in the construction of the Fourth International is the decisive defeat of Pabloite revisionism, including that of the SWP leadership. The SLL supports the forthcoming Conference of the International Committee of the Fourth International. Discussion on the report (extracts) J. MORGAN: The leaders of the Socialist Workers Party have in the past been in the leadership of a theoretical struggle; they undertook a most important theoretical struggle inside their own party in 1939 and 1940 when they said themselves many of the things that we are now saying to them. Cannon wrote The Struggle for a Proletarian Party, outlining many of the ideas which now have to be said against him. In fact he can be condemned out of his own mouth by quoting ‘pages out of his own book. It is necessary to link up the ideas of empiricism and impressionism, characteristic of revisionism in the SWP, with the concept of the adaptation to other class forces, the adaptation to the Stalinist bureau- cracies for which we have attacked and criticised them. Hansen, for example, claims to start with ‘the facts’. I claim everybody starts from the facts, but they draw apparently different conclusions from the facts. What is a ‘fact’? A fact is simply, I think, where you stop understanding and gaining knowledge about a situation. Knowledge is a process and the thing is going on all the time, it develops, but you come to a point where you say, ‘I stop here’ and you choose to call this stopping- place ‘reality’ or ‘the facts’. For example, you can look at the history of the 20th century and the working-class movement, and say that there has been one successful revolu- tion, and there have been many, many failed revolutions. Therefore revolution is out of the question. The facts are that all revolutions except one have failed, and because of these facts you say revolution is out of the question and if we choose to have any activity on politics it will be of a reformist or parlia- mentary kind. But why stop there? Why simply stop at the so-called fact that only one revolution, or perhaps two revolutions in the 20th century have been successful? Why not go on and try to understand and extend your knowledge, and say: very well, in 1917 the Bolshevik Party came to power; why have other revolutions since then failed? Why weren’t the opportunities in Germany taken? Why wasn’t the opportunity in China taken in 19272? Why weren’t the opportunities after the Second World War (1945) in many western Euro- pean countries taken? It would be necessary to go on and extend your knowledge to an understanding of the role of leadership in the working- class movement since 1917, and par- ticularly, of course, the role of Stalinist parties in this. But if you go on and extend your knowledge in this way, and discover other facts, then, of course, you are drawn inevitably to the conclusion that, since the primary factor which has prevented these revolutions from succeeding is the failure of leader- ship, then here is a solution, and you are no longer brought up sharp by ‘the facts’. You understand reality and you can act upon it. This use of analysis as a guide to action contrasts with empiricist thinking which tends to talk about ‘hard’ facts, ‘brute’ facts. Indeed this kind of phrase is very common in the writings of the revisionists: they find the facts to be something unfortunate; the more you find out about the world, the more ‘depressing it appears to become. The SWP’s differences with the Pabloites came out in 1953 and I think the time is significant. The immediate post-war period is characterised as a period of the Stabilisation of capitalism, the

[p022] REVISIONISM—THE DISCUSSION temporary stabilisation of capitalism, and it is in this period that the class pressures of capitalist society, the apparent regaining of strength of the capitalist class, began to impinge strongly. upon the revolutionary movement. It began to appear to some of them that perhaps after all the capitalist class was too strong to overthrow, and there flowed from this a desire to escape from activity in the old capitalist countries. It is then presented as a fact that it is no longer possible successfully to build a working-class party, a Marxist movement, within the work- ing class of the advanced countries. The SWP now accepts what the Pabloites accepted then, that this impossibility was a ‘fact’. It could not be done. But, of course, when we come to ask the revisionists for the objective analysis of the facts behind their conclusions, what do we get? We get extremely vague things, like ‘inevitable left-wing tendencies’, ‘mass pressures’, things which are firstly very vague and hardly at all the things which you would be likely to call ‘hard facts’. Secondly, these ‘facts’ are completely devoid of class content. There is nothing in them at all about the class nature of the societies they are talking about, the class nature of the forces they represent. In spite of their constant talk about mass pressures, they have really failed to understand the significance of class pressure. They fail to understand it because they themselves are, of course, good examples of the consequences of the pressure of alien classes upon the working-class movement, upon the revolutionary movement. So we can see, I think, these things which the empiricists call ‘facts’ are not reality at all. You do not look around and see facts which everybody sees, and simply draw different conclusions from them. What you see in fact, if you are somebody like Hansen, are not facts at all, You do not see reality. You see only appearances, you become victim of illusions, mirages which dominate the mind because of the domination of the ruling class. The revisionist is no longer capable of serious, scientific thinking, that is it say, Marxist thinking. He is no longer capable of seriously sifting through the material of scientific knowledge of society. At some point he stops. He stops and says: it is not possible to build revolutionary movements in the major capitalist countries. He stops there because he is bending under class pressure, and that is the obstacle which prevents him from going on, and that is why the revisionists, despite the past record of some of them, are no longer able to say and do the kind of things that they were able to say and do in 1939 and 1940. CYRIL SMITH: I would like to emphasise once more that the fight against revisionism is not something separate from the day-to-day work of the Socialist Labour League. The fight which we have taken up against the Socialist Workers Party leadership, and against Pabloism, is an integral part of the movement, because the Socialist Labour League is _ itself subject to all the same pressures as are exerted on and are responsible for the betrayal of principles and the departure from the methods of Marxism which we have seen in these other parts of the world movement. When we look at the political and theoretical decline of the cadre of the Socialist Workers Party, many of whom were trained by direct contact with Trotsky himself in the "30s we must avoid seeing it simply as something that has happened to a few individuals, and instead under- stand it as a part of our own history, part of the development of our own movement. It is only if we look at it in this way, and see its connection with the life of the Socialist Labour League itself, that we will really be able to fight revisionism and to take up the root of the ideas against which we fight, because the way in which this tendency looks at theory is quite alien to the whole idea of Marxism. Particularly if you listen to the Pabloite leaders who express revision- ist ideas in a much more sophisti- cated way than the same ideas heard from the United States, it is clear that they look at the works of Trotsky as ideas to be kept on the bookshelf, a set of ideas, a set of theoretical equipment, which has got to be applied to a set of facts, some- thing quite apart from it, as and when required. So then, if the facts 183 look a bit different on a particular day of the week then you have to find some other way round it. For us, the fight against revisionism does not mean simply the ability to say correct things on this or that subject. That isn’t really the question for us. This fight is a part of the whole development of the movement itself, for example of the