[page 27]
25 CLASS STRUGGLES IN ITALY by Roger Silverman The prolonged economic upswing in the Western countries is said to have ensured social stability. Events in the last year alone prove how precarious capitalism is even where it has achieved its most glowing successes: The strike of ten million workers and the occupation of the factories in France last year provided a brilliant indication of the workers' power to overthrew capitalism. The lessons of the French upsurge are doubly underlined by the events in Italy over the past year.
Nowhere has the pustwar boom brought greater social changes than in Italy. No less than in Japan, the face of society has been utterly transformed in the last twenty-five years. Since shaking off the burden of more than twenty years of Fascist tyranny, the working class has grown immeasurably in size, cohesion and confidence. Today it is the turn of Italy's rulers to be paralysed by the strength of the workers.
Never since the birth of the Italian nation has there been a period of stable bourgeois rule. Arriving belatedly, Italian capitalism had a weak social basis. The industrial wurking class in the Northern cities showed as early as in the "Red Week" of June 1914 its hatred of its exploiters and in particular its opposition to the imperialist war. After Italy's entry into the war, there were mass desertions. In the wake of the Russian revolution the workers moved spontaneously to create a workers' republic and link up with their brothers in Russia and the world. From 1919 to 1921, general strike followed general strike. Soviets were formed throughout the country, and 300 factories were occupied in the huge mass movement that swept the country. The leaders of the Socialist Party and the trade unions did nothing to guide the workers towards the conquest of power. In 1921 there was a split and a Communist Party was formed, but it developed too late to be able to provide the leadership of a movement which after three years' heroic struggle was beginning to ebb. The capitalists lost no time in hiring Mussolini's Fascist gangsters - disillusioned petty-bourgeois, reactionary officers and lumpenproletarians, armed to the teeth and protected by police and army - to mount a campaign of terror, using bullets, razors, castor-oil and rope. They lynched 3000 local workers' leaders before being handed full power. Under the Fascist heel the labour Movement was completely smashed, and all internal underground resistance was suppressed by 1934. Meanwhile the Communist. Party, first in Italy and later in exile, was turned into a tool of Stalinism. In 1936, when Stalin was trying to come to an accommudation with Mussolini, the Italian C.P. even issued a programme addressed to "áll Blackshirts and hèroes of the African campaign". In the resistance movement which began to revive after 1940, the influence of the C.P. grew ateadily, despite its opportunism. When the Italian capitalists, together with the top officers and the less lunatic sections of the Fascist. leadership, realised that the Axis powers were bound to lose the war, the Fascist Grand Council deposed Mussolini and appointed Badoglio in his place. Immediately the floodgates burst open and a spontaneous uprising rocked the Northern half of the country. 300,000
[page 28]
26 workers came out on to the streets in Rome, Turin, Milan and Genoa. The Allies bombed the Northern cities mercilessly in order to crush this movement, and then allowed Hitler to occupy the North and re-instal Mussolini. The Communist Party gained a decisive influenče as a result of the wave of radicalisation. Its membership increased from 3000 in 1941, scattered throughout the world, to 400,000, and it was still growing fast. 70% of the partisans were in its ranks. It rose to the occasion by disarming the workers and entering into a coalition, accepting ministerial portfolios under the Fascists' nominee Badoglio and their long-standing protector the King. Once the opportunity for revolution had been wasted and the energies of the people deflected, in Italy as in the rest of Europe at the end of the war, the political basis was laid for the postwar capitalist lease of life.
POSTWAR GROWTH The dizzy pace of industrialisation, in Italy as in Japan, was made possible by the huge reserves of labour power that were available in the : countryside. Herein lies the key to the irreconcilable contradictions within private cars per head of population has risen from 1:120,000 to 1:6. The The annual rate of industrial growth has varied between 6 and 10%. But side by side with the prosperity there remain whole belts of crippling poverty. Sicily still has the worst standard of living in Europe and is run by the notorious Mafia. The Vatican still occupies a privileged position in Italy's political, economic and social life.
The growth of the Italian economy has brought the most lavish benefits to the tiny handful of shareholders. While profits rose by 200% in the period between 1953 and 1960 alone, consumption rose by only 52%. The constant drift from the poverty-stricken South into the towns keeps unemployment high currently at 600,000 and recently as high as 1 million - and this depresses wages. "The Times", advertising Italy to investors, wrote on 22nd April: "The Italian economy is helped by...low-cost labour....There are still large areas of poverty....Full employment is a distant goal....There can be a very coal temptation to take on an underpaid job from a small employer, whatever trade and employees an interest in work which are reminiscent of an age gone by...." The average wage in Italy is 5/10d per hour, compared with 9/5d in West Germany; taking into account the much shorter average working week (34 hours in Italy to 44 in Germany - 4-5 million Italian workers are officially classified as under-employed), this means that the Italian worker receives only half as much pay per week as his German counterpart - about £10. In the South, wages are 20%. lower, even where there are equivalent jobs to those in the industrial North. Although two-fifths of the population still live in the South, they consume only one-fifth of the National Income. It is not surprising that there is a swelling flood of migration to the towns. In 1968 309,000 families left the land, or 6.8% of the agricultural labour force, despite rise of 4.5% in the farm labourers' wages. 2.3% left the land during the previous year. Four fifths of the people that leave the farms are between the ages of 20 and 40%, Only 22% of the population now work on the land.
[page 29]
27 BUREAUCRATISM the best of dier orandon atten and guy pee t degree of inefficiency of the country's bureaucratic machine can hardly be said to provide such circumstances." The "Sunday Times" on 20th April wrote: "In general, all Italy is suffocated by a monstrous boureaucracy....While impeding the reform of everything, including its bloated self, it interferes in every phase of the ordinary citizen's life." Before a new school can be opened, the relevant documents must pass through the hands of 3,166 functionaries. It has been estimated in an official report that, after a law has passed through Parliament, the average project takes 500 days to get over all the bureaucratic hurdles before work can begin, and that some take as long as 900 days. The "residui passivi" - or sums allocated for government expenditure but clogged up in a bureaucratic bottleneck and lying unspent, reached £3,445 million in 1967, of which £185 million was allocated as much as ten years previously. The accumulated total reached a new record of £4,095 million in 1968. Of £312 million allocated two years ago for school building, less than £1 million has been spent.
As a result, education, health and the welfare services are starved of tunds. 100,000 people live in the shanty towns on the outskirts of Rome alone. Recently the major demonstrations in support of the squatters have drawn attention to this scandal. The students' demonstrations highlight the chaos and overcrowding in education, and those of the medical students have likewise shown up the appalling conditions in the hospitals. The legal system is similarly cramped. Iwo million cases are awaiting decision in the courts, and the average period of waiting before going to trial is two years eight months. There is even a special Ministry of Bureaucratic Reform which is as unproductive, parasitic and overstaffed as all the others. One particularly sordid effect of government inefficieney is the condition of the thousands of families made homeless by the Sicilian earthquake. Writing on 9th February, one year after the catastrophe, "The Observer" wrote: "75,000 people...still live in cattle trucks, tents and muddy shanty villages....Millions of pounds in aid have failed to complete a single house....Hunger strikes, marches, epidemics, services of intercession, have failed to stir the innumerable authorities to effective action."
- The results of the administrative chaos equally disastrous for Big Business too. The "Financial Times" wrote on 28th January: "Economic activities are showing clear signs of a slow down in no small measure due to the paralysing inefficiency of Government machinery. The incredible growth of the 'residui passivi'...is causing a deflationary situation when the policies and actions of Parliament and of the Government should be having exactly the opposite effect. Domestic demand is sagging...." The blind anarchic industrial boom has left much of agriculture bare and primitive. Italy is forced to depend for raw materials on foreign trade. So competitive are Italian exports, mainly owing to the fact that the
[page 30]
28
modest rise in labour costs has been far ezceeded by the growth of produc-
by 7% in the last decade. As a result there is strong pressure being brought to bear on Italy to revalue the lire. The Government hoped that a new rise in domestic demand would suck in extra imports and make this unnecessary, and
in the field of social welfare. But the "Financial Times" summed up the problem ruthlessly: "Italy's economic managers grapple with a factious
in their attempt to carry out a reflationary policy....A rise in pensions is dangerous because it cannot be reduced again at will if the economy gets overheated." The alternative of stepping up the public works programme is blocked by administrative sluggishness. But it is pointed out that "if all the unspent funds were to be spent without the usual delays, Italy would be in danger of massive inflation." Any significant reform would bring new dangers in its wake.
The economic indices for 1968 show that the gross national product grew by only 5.7%, which by Italian standards is a disappointing figure. In pay for the pensions increase granted in February will require an annual growth rate of 6-7%. Consumption rose by only 4.2%, and industrial investment was as low as 3.1%. This is a result of the low rate of domestic demand and, of e
IRI lost 1½ million working hours through strikes in 1968, compared with only 72,000 in 1967. The 1968 investment figure reflects the capitalists' growing nervousness; it compares with a rise of 13.2% in 1967. Unemployment rose by 38,000 (though it has since decreased), and as a result of the depopulation of the farms and the primitive level of agriculture, there was a drop of 4.2% in agricultural output. The Minister of the Treasury called the figures "unsatisfactory", and the "Financial Times" (19th February) openly accused the Government of "window dressing'. With up to a million workers unemployed and up to five million under-employed, and while industry is working at littl more than half its capacity, investors are pouring their capital into gold and foreign currency. The "Financial Times" on January 28th called this "a clear sign of economic malaise". Italy now has the third highest hoard of . gold in the world. During 1968 1,500 million dollars left the country. In fact, because of smuggling and widespread fiddles, the "Financial Times" (15th April) informs us that "there is no way of measuring the amount of money which has been moved out of Italy." While the State is forced to int vene in private, enterprise to rationalise and stimulate investment in certain sectors, the employers' organisation Confindustria laments 'tha "private induairy is being cautious because of fears of 'creeping nationalisation'."
THE 1968 ELECTION
The upheavals in France were the climax of ten years' pent-up tensions Amid all the administrative chaos and the warnings of economic difficulties in Italy, the example of the French workers was enough to burst the bubble of the "Italian miracle". Fed up with the poor housing, the unemployment, the low wages, the small pensions, the geographical inequalities and the miserable socdal services, the Italian people vented their feelings first through the ballot box. At the peak of the French general strike, the world
[page 31]
29 capitalists received a new shock. In the Italian general election, in which 93% of the electorate voted, the Socialists had lost ground to the Communist candidates, who gained another 800,000 votes, and to the PSIUP on their left, who at their first election won 1½ million votes. One in three of the electorate voted for a decisive break with capitalism. As the politicians shuffled positions and intrigued for portfulios, patching up another short-lived Centre-Left coalition, and the established parties split wide open on the extent of reforms and the viability of any coalition, the masses took matters into their own hands. When police opened fire on a crowd of Sicilian strikers, killing two of them, 12½ million workers downed tools on 14th November in protest. The official workers' parties and trade unions, principally the C.P., learned the lessons of the French events and were doubly cautious, to the extent of repeatedly staggering what in effect were general strikes, calling out one town after another, one section after another, and limiting the strikes sometimes to a matter of hours or even minutes. Nevertheless, all sections of the population - workers, clerks, reasants, unemployed migrants, students, pupils - became involved. The strike of 1 million state employees on November 19th involved teachers alongside railway workers, and the judges staged a work-to-rule. The 5-minute general strike in defence of the Greek political prisoner Panaghoulis was a tribute to the internationalist consciousness of the workers, and was intended as a warning to "all dictatorial regimes" and to the would-be adventurers in the Italian armed forces.
The students' demonstrations for educational reforms affected nearly all the colleges and universities in the country. Most were already partially or completely occupied. In February the medical students occupied mental hospitals and campaigned together with the patients against their shocking overcrowding and maltreatment. On February 5th the long-drawn-out • negotiations for pension reforms were brought out on to the streets. Iwenty million workers - more than have ever participated in any general strike in history - struck. Huge demonstrations were held in every town, and there was street-fighting in Florence, Turin, Bologna and in Genoa, where 5000 industrial workers occupied the railway track. At the same time students, motorway attendants, petrol-pump concessionaires and orange-growers were all on strike. 'A week later, on February 12th, a new general strike was called, in protest against geographical discrimination in wages. This time the leaders cautiously confined the strike in the industrial strongholds to 3 hours in Milan and Genoa, 2 hours in Turin, and only one hour at Turin's militant Fiat plant. Immediate concessions were made on both issues. Pensions are to be raised from 50 to 80% of pay om retirement, linked by a sliding scale to the cost of living. This will cost £5,400 million over the next ten years. The wage "zoning" system has been abolished, and a minimum wage has been •granted. A dock strike paralysed the country on February 26th. On the 27th, big protest demonstrations greeted the arrival of President Nixon on his "goodwill" tour, and there was more street-fighting in Rome. On March 6th, a vote by the staff at Euratom's main common research centre at Ispra to barricade itself in, as a protest against mass redundancies, was only very narrowly defeated.
MASS STRUGGLES It was against this turbulent setting that the country was rocked by a new police outrage. In Battipaglia, a small town near Naples where only 3000
[page 32]
30 people were employed out of a population of. 25,000, a peaceful demonstration against the threatened closure of a tobacco factory and a sugar factory was fired on. A 19-year old youth and a young schoolmistress were killed, and another 200 were injured. This provoked an immediate local insurrection and a general strike. The town hall was set on fire, As the police beat a hasty retreat, the workers blocked the roads and railways, stoned cars, set up barricades of burning vehicles and besieged the police barracks. A nationwide general strike lasting three hours was called by all three trade union federations, and the Government was forced to concede the hollow promise that the closures "would not take place at least in the coming year", The new upheavals electrified the country, Not only were workers and students affected. The mood of defiance penetrated even prison walls. A large proportior of Italy's 100,000 prisoners are awaiting trial on remand. There is no bail system, and many have been waiting for two years. The 1300 prisoners in Milan's San Vittore jail wrecked 80% of the building, causing £330,000 worth of damage. The 1070 incarcerated in Turin's 115-year-old jail, which was built to hold 600, and the 200 who are crowded up to five in a cell measuring sik feet by nine in Genoa's jail, all joined the mutiny. They were protesting not only at the called the "archaic and savage prison discipline laws", Even prison governors have occupied the Ministry in a protest demonstration. In Palermo, Sicily's capital, explosions plunged half the city in darkness. On May Sth, public transport in Rome was brought to a standstill by an unofficial strike - a rare phenomenon in Italy and a sign of the workers' growing impatience at the timidity of their leaders. Meanwhile, a nationwide work-to-rule by the postmen caused a build-up of 800 tons of mail and 200,000 undelivered telegrams. The filled up to overflowing, and letters and parcels post offices and warehouses had to travel the length and breadth of Italy in 300 railway wagons, with nowhere to store then.
In the South, a mass movement was unleashed of revolutionary dimensions. At Castel Volturno an uprising forced the Christian Democratic municipality to resign. The inhabitants of several towns in the province of Foggia, where methane has been discovered, occupied the wells under the direction of a popular committee, which declared that "poverty is not a punishment from God but the result of a shameful plundering and wasting of resources".. Demonstrations under similar slogans were held in the Taviolere area, and at Cerignola and other towns the labour exchanges were occupied.
In Rome on 20th May 100 senior civil servants occupied part of the Treasury building, as 9000 civil service exec ives struck, and 30,000 others were either on strike or working to rule. Fy this time 100 million letters had piled up as a result of the postmen's dispute, and workers on strike included shipyard workers, stationmasters, taxi-drivers and insurance and social service workers. In June Sicily saw further outbreaks. Bus drivers and other city employees who had not been paid their wages for May occupied Palermo Town Hall for a whole week: 200 farmers tried to take over the regional assembly. Iwo hospitals were taken over by striking staff. The dustmen struck. Workers blocked the railway lines, 100 shipyard workers on June 19th besieged the palace where the "carabinieri" (army poline corps) had their headquarters, and prevented General Giglio, military commander of Sicily, from entering his office.
[page 33]
31 Even in primitive Sardinia, 7000 troops massed for manouvres were prevented from exercising by 500 shepherds and their wives who occupied the site. Beset by titanic mass struggles, the ruling Socialist and Christian Democratic Parties both shattered into splinters, and the coalition government fell to pieces. Again the spontaneous upsurge of the people left the ruling class demoralised and impotent. But the movement unrelentingly pressed ahead. On July 3rd half a million workers struck in Turin for 24 hours against rising rents. A crowd of several thousand, including most of the workers at the Fiat plant, marched through the streets. Barricades were set up, and demonstrators fought 200 riot police and carabinieri. "The Economist" (12th July) reported that "the hard core of student revolutionaries was joined on the barricades by large groups of young workers". On July 4th, there was a national broadcasting strike, and underground workers in Milan struck against bad ventilation. On 10th July, another 24-hour general strike hit Sicily, and the "Sunday Times" (13th July) wrote in alarm that "workers have been out in the streets carrying Maoist banners", 2500 peasants marched in Rome, shouting among other things: "The land to those who work it!" On the same day, there was even a demonstration outside the Ministry of Labour by 500 invalids, many of them without an arm or a leg. The priests have also been swept along by the people's movement. One Florentine priest who sanctioned a sit-in in his eathedral was supported by a march of 1000 parishioners against his suspension. The strikes became so widespread that a special telephone service was installed to give callers the latest information as to which workers wore on strike at any given moment.
POLITICAL CRISIS As the class battles gathered momentum, the political authority of the state - precariously balanced and bureaucratically hidebound even at the best of times - became utterly discredited. In July Italy's 29th postwar government disintegrated, bickering and panic-stricken. The Christian Democrats, traditionally the dominant force in every government, split into eight distinct factions; the Socialist Party, which had eventually healed its long split and united two years ago, losing only a small minority to the new PSIUP, broke into five factious at its Congress in November, which came to blows and broke up in disorder. In July the right wing split away, smashing ther coalition. The world's capitalists were terrified of the consequences, Not only did the crisis wreak havoc in the economy - ruining the tourist trade, almost halting private investment and driving huge sums of capital abroad, thus putting the balance of payments in deficit by £232,6 million in the first four months of the year - but the whole political system was in mortal danger. "The Times" (22nd April) lamented that "the promised social reforms....have been overlooked in the more pressing business of political wanouvring and the absorbing game of preserving the immediate bases of power". The "Financial Times" (15th April) drew the conclusions: "The sad truth is that Italian public opinion is becoming increasingly disenchanted with Italy's parliament and with its brand of democracy....Politics are becoming increasingly divorced from the interests, problems and needs of the man in the street. Strikes, agitation and violence are becoming a permanent feature of Italian life." In an editorial on 7th July headed "Italian Gloom", "The Times" surveyed the wreckage of the principles on which politics has been founded since the war. "That the Christian Democrats were the dominating party in the country and in all
[page 34]
32 coalitions; that they could rely on the active support of the Church; that the Communists were not acceptable partners in a coalition; that the neo-Fascists would not be acceptable either; that the armed forces would be kept out of politics. Nobody now can be sure how long all or any of these assumptions ean continue valid...."
WILL THERE BE A COUP?
There have been rumours of an impending coup d'état. In a recent scandal it was revealed that in 1964, during a similar though less serious Government. crisis, General de Lorenzo, who was head of the Carabinieri and of counterintelligence, was actively plotting to lead an Army putsch and to arrest tens of thousands of militants. The scheme was part of the NATO contingency plan that the military command unrealistically imagine could be operated in any Western country. Even in Greece, the more farsighted capitalist politicians were dismayed at the inevitable repercussions provoked by the colonels' precipitate adventure, and would have preferred to compromise the left parties in a coalition first, so that the masses would be demoralised instead of being on. the attack. In Italy, against a seething population, the military blimps would be quite powerless. When the capitalists tried to use fascists against the Labour Movement in 1958, they were met with mass strikes and were forced to abandon the idea. It is not surprising that now de Lorenzo was compulsorily retired, and General Giglio was summoned to Rome after threatening to use troops to break up strikes and road blocks in Sicily. "The Times" summed up the capitalists' impotent despair. "Although rumours of a Greek-style putsch can probably ba discounted - nobody wants that - they do reflect widespread despair to be done before the autumn brings industrial contracts up for renewal and the government would be no more capable of resolving the country's problems than is the present parliamentary regime." What a gloomy prospect for capitalism, and what an exposure of its weakness!
After weeks of sterile haggling, the Christian Democrats stepped into the vacuum to form a one-party minority government. This cannot last. Only two parliamentary courses remain open to the capitalists: new elections or a new coalition formula.
Advocates of the first course hope that the intensity of the strikes and demonstrations might frighten the middle class and give the Christian Democrats a landslide victory similar to the Gaullists' vote in France last June. But already the 1968 elections brought the CDs an increased vote on the right at the same time as the CP and the PSIUP gained on the left. The same would happen again. All observers agree with the "Financial Times" (7th July) on the probability that "the Communists would gain most from an early election". THE 'POPULAR FRONT'
The other possibility is a government involving the Communist Party. "The Times" (7th August) spelt this out clearly on behalf of world capitalism. "Coalitions...are often a source of strength....Italy's political salvation lies...in the longer term...on the reintegration of the Italian Communist Party... into the national political process. This, of course, means a coalition....The
[page 35]
fact that there are apparently no political leaders there capable of uniting the non-Communist parties into a governing coalition, let alone bringing the Communists safely into a democratic government, is a tragedy from which all Europe will suffer." This dramatic change of heart reflects the recognition by capitalism's best representatives that the Italian Communist Party is at least as reliable as the French, that the last thing that the Stalinist party was involved in damping down the struggles, in exchange for promises of paltry temporary reforms, would for a time disorient the masses and give the ruling class a breathing-space. The "Financial Times" reported as early as April 15th that "many Italians are becoming resigned to the idea that sooner or later the Communists will be brought into the coalition....Just as in the late '50s it was hoped that bringing the Socialists into office would revitalize the Government, ...the same hope is now being pinned on the Communists." On 22nd August the same paper pointed out that "in point of fact they (the C.P.) have been and are thoroughly integrated in the behind-the- Can the C.P. leaders trick the ruling class into signing its own death warrant, by exploiting its parliamentary difficulties? In giving their rankand-file this hope, they are refusing to learn from the bitter experience of the past. In Spain, the entry of the C.P. into the Government, while tying the hands of the working class, frightened the capitalists into the arms of General Franco. The Fascists were backed to the hilt by the same capitalists whose traditional political mouthpieces were compromising the workers' parties in the Republican coalition government. The workers were left politically disarmed and defenceless. The officer caste in France today, on the eve of a new "Popular Front", are already arming in preparation for thir role as a reserve rescue brigade for capitalism once the workers' movement has been derailed. "It is assumed by many senior army officers that the arrival of even only a few communist ministers in a government of the left....would cause them to start clandestine planning for a more active role, if not for a coup." (Charles Douglas-Home writing in "The Times" on May 23rd.) The same is true in Italy and every capitalist state. The conclusion to be drawn is, not to be petrified at the possibility of a coup, not to act as a fire-hose on the workers for fear of "provoking" a reaction, but to organise and warn the people to be fully prepared to repel any would-be dictator as Kornilor in Russia and Kapp in Germany were repelled. Today, by mobilising the enormous power of the multi-millioned Labour Movement and appealing for support from the peasants, students, and the middle class, capitalism could be The C.P. leaders talk about the need for "an alliance with the middle class". They are right in repeating that the middle class must be won or at least neutralised before the workers can achieve victory. But there is a world of difference between the alliance that the Bolsheviks forged in Russia between the workers and the poor peasants, taking the first stride towards the world revolution, and the unholy compromise which the Stalinists patched up in Spain with bourgeois parties, opening the road to the Fascist counterrevolution. These parties are not representatives, but 33 Leaders want is revolution, and scenes give-and-take of Italian national politics".
ended as easily as an elephant swats a flea.
that a coalition in which the workers' own political exploiters
[page 36]
34 of the middle class, reinforcing their basest prejudices to tie them to the cause of big business. To "unite" with such parties creates nothing but a vacuum surrounded by political forces pulling outwards in all directions. To win the middle class, the Communist Party must draw up a programme giving the peasants the land, offering small businessmen cheap credits, showing them how they are exploited by the monopolies and the banks. In this way an invincible alliance could be rallied behind the socialist banner.
THE COMMUNIST PARIY Instead the leaders of the strongest Communist Party in the West are making overtures to the Christian Democrats, or to certain factions within that party. The C.P., according to the "Financial Times" (22nd August) "has certainly made every possible effort to build up for itself an image of democratic and parliamentary respectability". This at a time when the capitalists themselves admit that parliament is exposed to the people as something divorced from their interests! The "Financial Times" in February entitled its report of the C.P. Congress "Respectable Revolutionaries". The left wing of the Christian Democrats is already making what the "Guardian" (17th April) described as "flirtatious noises to the Communists". They were "well received".
On July 9th the "Financial Times" reported that "the Communist Party announced last night that the time was ripe for a radically new left-wing coalition and hinted that they would consider serving in a future government if asked." Big Business decides that its only hope of survival lies in making its direct political agents, and they coyly the leaders of the working class "hint" that they would consider "serving" - "if asked"! But they are in no hurry even to undergo the test of ministerial office. Berlinguer, the Party's deputy leader, said stoically of the cralition: "It will come. Meantime, no Italian government can ignore us and we can also influence government actions very well by staying outside it." Their fear of office has even curbed their parliamentary ambitions. They have announced in unison with the Socialist leaders that they are opposed to new elections which would "only polarise society further and would not solve any problems". The polarisation of society is a product of the class struggle, and any karty bearing the name "communist" would harness the people's revulsion at capitalism to create a new society. Instead the C.P. leaders are openly abetting the discredited capitalist politicians to "solve their problems".
Reichlin, formerly editor of the Communist Party daily "L'Unita" admitted in its pages on May 20th that "a profound popular movement is under way which is aimed at great positive objectives for transforming. the economic structure and, at the same time, relations of class and of power." Why does his party not provide the leadership and co-ordination needed to harness that movement to victory?
No wonder that the leaders are losing the monolithic authority which they once had over the industrial workers. "The Economist" (12th July) reported from the key industrial centre of Turin: "Repeatedly (C.P. and other trade union officials) have tried to ride the revolutionary tiger by joining in the unofficial strikes and by proclaiming huge national strikes....These strikes
[page 37]
receive only lukewarm support, while unofficial stoppages, and possibly violent demonstrations, arouse enthusiasm. In Turin things have reached the point where union officials dare not enter certain workshops. Italian trade unionism was born in Turin. Marzism here is three generations old.... Yet it is here that the unions and the Communist Party are losing their hold." The "Financial Times" (15th April) reports that "membership of the C.P. is declining in favour of forces to its left which are accusing the Party of having gone 'bourgeois'....Violent extremist forces with anarchist leanings In the course of the impending events, whole strata of advanced militants within the CP,the SP and the PSIUP will learn the need for a thoroughgoing Marxist programme generalising the struggles of the workers in industry and in the offices, the peasants, the unemployed and the students, and linking them to the overall fight for socialism. They will have to warn the people of the effects of the "Popular Front" which inevitably will be created sooner or later to prop up the ailing system, and demand instead a government of workers' parties to carry through a socialist programme by mobilising the masses against capitalism. In this way the rank-and-file of all the workers' parties can be won to Marxism and the workers mobilised behind a revolutionary programme. The tremendous struggles taking place today and tomorrow will re-emphasise to workers throughout the world the might of the Labour Movement and the weakness of capitalism even in its As we go to press, the autumn storm, awaited with anxiety by Italian capitalism, has broken. Following further gains made by the engineering workers in Turin, new mass strikes have been called, involving in one week alone two million industrial workers. In Italy, as now in France and in West Germany, the leadership of the trade unions have had to rush to keep in step with the rank-and-file. "Managements are often baffled and bewildered, because they do not know who to argue and bargain with as the official union leaders admit they are not in control while they refuse to disown sudden claims and stoppages." ("Financial Times", 4/9/69.) The growing consciousness within the political wing of the Labour Movement has produced, so early in the development of the great class battles, the birth of an established voice of opposition within the C.P. augurs well for the future radicalisation of the Italian Labour Movement in the event of a "Popular Front" coalition. A mass left wing will undoubtedly be created in these conditions, of a centrist character, clearing the path for a genuine mass • revolutionary party of the workers.
have sprung up well to the left of the Communists."
*** 35 ******
[page 38]
"However, state monopoly regulation exercised in forms and on a scale which meets the interests of monopoly capital and is aimed at preserving its rule, is unable to control the spontaneous forces of the capitalist market. Practically no capitalist state has been able to avoid considerable cyclical flunctuations and slumps in its economy, in some countries periods of rapid industrial growth alternate with periods in which there is a slowdown and often a drop in production. The capitalist system is in the grip of an " The scientific and technological revolution offers mankind unprecedented possibilities to transform nature, to produce immense material wealth and to multiply man's creative capabilities. These possibilities should serve the general welfare, but capitalism is using the scientific and technological revolution to increase its profits and intensify the exploitation of the working people ..... •.....Iven in the most developed capitalist countries, millions of people suffer the torments of unemployment, want and insecurity. Contrary to assertions about the 'revolution in incomes' and "social partnership", capitalist exploitation is in fact increasing. in wages lags far behind the growth rates of labour productivity and the intensification of labour, behind the social needs and even more so behind the growth of monopoly profits. The position of the small farmers continues to deteriorate, and the living conditions of a considerate part of the middle strata are becoming more difficult. "The instability of the capitalist system has increased: Social and political crises are breaking out in many countries, in the course of which the, working people are becoming aware of the necessity of deep "This became primarily evident from the events in France in May and June 1968, from the powerful strike movement there, in which the communists played an important role and the working people made the working class and considerable sections of the intellectuals and students on the one hand, and the Gaullist regime and monopoly rule on the other. This clash opened up new possibilities for the struggle All these factors should lead the Communist Parties in the West, if they had remained revolutionary tendencies to prepare the way for a struggle The middle strata of peasants, white collar workers, small businessmen and shopkeepers can be won only by irreconciliable struggle the policies of the Communist Parties, with the approval of Moscow, is for an agreement with the so-called "progressive" section of the capitalist class. The document notes with approval that the Finnish Communist Party is in the government. Lenin all his life fought against the policies of "coalitionism" or, its modern version, "Popular Frontism". Behind the back of the Popular Front, renction will prepare its forces. Only a class programme, an explanation in class terms, of the contradictions of capitalism and of acute monetary and financial crisis.
• GROWING CRISES.
going and decisive changes.
considerable gains.
for democracy and socialism."!
38 A serious clash took place in that country between The rise
[page 39]
solutions, can solve the problems of the working people. So-called "democratic front" governments can only pave the way for disillusionment and . despair within the working class and the mass of the people. It is not enough to 'expose! the theories and fallacies of capitalism, but to provide an alternative. It is not an accident that constantly neferences are made to imperialism where capitalism would be a better word. And yet mixed up with the demagogic demand for Popular Frontism that "Everywhere the monopoly capitalists try to create the illusion that everything the working people aspire to can be achieved without a revolutionary transformation of the existing system." But how can a revolutionary transformation be achieved without an overthrow of capitalism and preparing the people for this overthrow? Coalition as all history has demonstrated is a gigantic trap for other means of holding the mass of the people in check. Coalitions or Popular Fronts take place only at a time of great difficulty and of social crisis for capitalism. Why should the capitalists or so-called "progressives" who pepresent capitalism come to an agreement with the forces of the working class if the working class and the masses supporting them are not strong enough for its overthrow? If they are strong enough to overthrow capitalism, on the other hand, why should they allow themselves to stop short of precisely overthrowing capitalism and making a "revolutionary transformation of the If the capitalists agree to having communists and socialists in the government that can only be for the purpose of discrediting them in the eyes of the working class. What would be altered in Italy, for example, if the "Communists" were added to the coalition of the Christian Democrats It is not enough to catalogue the crimes of imperialism, of the "guilt for two World Wars", of the racialist maniacs, of Hitler and Mussolini. destruction of capitalism can prevent thr rise of new racial maniacs under conditions of social crisis. It is Big Business which financed armed and organised the Fascist bands for the purpose of destroying the organisations of the working class. It is a crime, a snare, and a delusion to imagine that the needs of the working class, that the interests of the working class, can be served by any other means than by the taking of power and by the establishment of a workers' democracy. It is not for nothing that nowhere in the propaganda aud "theory" of the so-called Communist Parties is an analysis made for the reasons of the victory of Fascism in Co many, Italy and Spain. Nor what happened to the post-war coalitions of "progressive forces" with the Communist Parties in Western Europe. Once they had done the dirty work of saving capitalism from the immediate social crisis they were ignominiously the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries in the Russian Revolution. Every conscientious Labour and Communist worker should study the lessons of the revolutionary victory in 1917, and of the crushing defeats which were brought The section of inter-imperialist contradictions shows the real ideas of the ruling clique in Moscow, and of the sattelites.
"Contradictions are also growing deeper within the ruling circles of imperialist countries, between the most belligerent groups who 39 the working class.
existing system?''
and the Socialists, which held power formerly?
It is capitalism that gave birth to imperialism, expelled from the government.
by Stalinism and reformism in the advanced countri:s.
"PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE"
It only takes place when the capitalists can find no Therefore, only the They played the same role which was played by
[page 40]
gamble on extreme measures, on war, and those who, take into account the new relationship of class forces in the World, and the growing might of the socialist countries, tend to take a more realistic approach to international problems and to solve them in a spirit of peaceful co-asistence between states with different systems." It is necessary and even imperative that in their diplomacy the deformed workers states, like Russia under Lenin and Trotsky, must conduct diplomacy for the purpose of splitting the capitalist countries, and if possible preventing them from presenting a united face to the Bonapartist Lenin and Trotsky conducted such policies. But Lenin openly spoke of the need to ally with the brigands of one group of capitalist countries in order to balance them against the gangsters of another group of countries. At the same time, he explained that it is necessary for the parties of the proletariat, including the Russian Communist Party to explain to the working class that this only represented a temporary relationship of forces. Under no conditions were the Communist Parties to subordinate themselves to "good" capitalist powers as against "bad" capitalist powers. the Soviet Union belonged to the Leogue of Nations did not and could not prevent the break up of this organisation, and the involvement of most of the countries of the World in the bloody disaster of the Second World War. All the capitalist powers were responsible for the Second World War as they were for the first. It was not only the German capitolists who supported Hitler and brought him to power, (leaving aside the criminal responsibility of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties for Hitler's victory), but arm, to take over Austria and Czechoslovakia, because of their fear of the alternative. Fascism came to power because the ruling class at that particular stage could no longer tolerate the existence of the workers organisations. In the next epoch the problem will be posed anew of either the working class taking control into their own hands or suffering new and more terrible defects. It is impossible for agreements between the powers to prevent the development of the social contradictions within the capitalist The United Nations, or in reality the disunited national merely represents a forum for the solutions of secondary problems. It could not even prevent a war between Hondors and El Salvador! It was used in the Congo and in Korea in the interests of imperialism. It, like diplomatic agreements, can only solve secondary problems, but cannot solve the problems HOW NOT TO DEFEND SOVIET UNION "The main link of united action of the anti-Imperialist forces remains the struggle against war and for world peace, against the menace of thermo-nuclear war, and mass extermination which continues to hang over It should be noted too that Stalin in his role of dictator of the Soviet Union and representative of the Bureaucracy, with the dream of "perceful coexistence" and of so called "collective security" helped to precipitate the Second World War. The policies of the Communist Parties were subordinated to chimera of the League of Nations and of the "peace loving powers". For five years Communist Parties or rather the Communist International as it then was ceaselessly propagandised the false notion, hardly to be described as a"theory", of "peace loving" and "warmongering" powers. They demanded workers states.
countries.
mankind".
40 the capitalists of France, Britain and America.
of so-called co-existence of states.
The fact that They helped Hitler to re-
[page 41]
41 an allience between. France, Britin, America and Russia to hold Hitler in check. Then doing a somersault Stalin signed a pact with Hitler which by demoralising the workers of France prepared the way for Hitler's victories and the attack on the Soviet Union. The Communist Parties did a hundred percent turn and discovered the war mongers in the former "peace loving" powers, even demanding peace on Hitler's terms. Hitler had been transformed into a "peace lover". Then with the attack on the Soviet Union the "warmongers of Imperialism", Britain, France and America once again became "democrats and lovers of peace".
Through the whole of the period during the attack on the Soviet Union the Communist Party ceaselessly agitated for a second front to help the sore need of the Soviet Union. Anglo-American Imperialism continued to pile up resources of men, materials and munitions, grudgingly supplying the Soviet Union with 3% of its production. The calculations of the ruling class were clear, Truman in America who later became President, Moore-Brabazon, who was in the Cabinet in Britain, blurted out the truth, which the Communist leaders concealed, that the more Germans and Russians that killed each other the better for Britain and America i.e. of the ruling classes of these countries. At the most critical moment of Hitler's invasion Stalin asked for a million British troops, who curiously enough were strung out across Persia and the Middle East, with even more curiously a million Russian troops facing them, to fight on the Eastern Front together with the Red Army. This was supposed to be in lieu of a Second Front which Curchill said was not possible at that time. Churchill as the representative of British Capitalism "generously" offered to garrison the Caucasus and the Baku oilfields with his million troops for service with their comrades on the Eastern Front. Even Stalin understood what that meant and rejected the offer.
The war dragged on in Europe as a war to the death between Fascist Germany and the Soviet Union. The most developed areas of the Soviet Union were laid waste and the Soviet Union was bled white. Only owing to the traditions of the October Revolution, of the advantages of the planned economy, and of the vastness of Russia, did the Soviet Union survive the attack. Then counter-attacking and advancing from Stalingrad 2,000 miles into Germany. It was only when it became apparent that if they did not make haste they would meet the Russians on the Channel that the "Allies" launched the Second Front. At times these facts which were commented on even by bourgeois historians, are blurted out by the Russian leaders and the leaders of the Communst Parties, at various times of friction between Russia and Anglo-American Imperialism. But neither at the time nor since was the position explained as Lenin would have done to the poeples of the World. The leaders of the Communist Parties of the West have begun to swallow and become infected by their own propaganda, while the Russian and Chinese Bureaucracies cynically play one tune and now and then the opposite, according to the shifting and swaying tides of their own interests. What remains out of the reckoning is the class analysis of national policies. While from the point of view of the working class there is a vital difference between Fascism and Democracy the democratic rights of the working class form the elements of a new society which from the capitalist point of view it is the task of Fascism to erase) both democratic and fascist countries remain Imperialist because of the class nature of the State. In a confused way this document inconsistently says this when it categorises the countries of Imperialism. Marx and Lenin el hasised again and again the need not to play with phrases but to make a class analysis of
[page 42]
42.
countries and the policies which will be derived thereby. While the Monopoly capitalists, the banks and financiers control the economy, it is they, however complex the inter-relations may be, who determinethe policies of the State. This is even more true in this epoch where the monopolies at this stage are intertwined in what the document calls State Monopoly capitalism, under modern conditions, than at any other time in history. "A new World War can be averted by the combined effort of the Socialist countries, the international working class, the national liberation movement, all peqce loving countries, public organisations and mass movements. The defence of peace is, inseparably linked up with the struggle to compel the imperialists to accept peaceful co-existence with states with different social systems, which demands observance of the principles which sovereignity, equality, territorial inviolability of every state, big and small, and noninterference in the internal affairs of other countries, respect for the rights of every people, freedom to decide their social, economic and political system, and the settlement of outstanding international issues by political means through negotiation"
To start with, these principles are trampled on at every turn by the Great Powers and especially the super-Powers. The Russian Bureaucracy itself in fighting for the nation l interest of the ruling caste has brutally suppressed the right of the Czechoslovak peoples, and previously of the Hungarian people, to "choose" in the one case a regime of workers democracy, and in the case of the former even a liberal democratic reforms which did not alter the basic character of the State, but ended the totalitarianism of Novotny and Rakosi.
"PEACE LOVING"?
The area the Russian bureaucracy regarded as their sphere of influence, and would not permit the peoples of Eastern Europe to decide for themselves. If this is the case in countries where capitalism has been destroyed (although it proves that neither democracy nor liberty exist in the Soviet Union and the other Bonapartist workers states how much more does it apply to capitalist countries? Nor does thewnedifying sight of border battles between Russia and China with the conventional methods of modern war, tanks, planes and guns, provide a stimulating and inspiring example of peaceful co-existence to the working class of America, Western Europe and the World). How much more is it the case in the countries of imperialism which were so stingingly indicted in this very pamplet? One does not educate the tiger to eat vegatables. No more can imperialism be tamed without destroying the basis of imperialism. What are "peace loving" countries in comparison with "war loving" countries? To pose the question is to show the ridiculous nature of the description. For how long did Lenin tirelessly repeat the idea of - Clausewitz that "war is the continuation of policy by other means". The document indicts the French, the W.German, the Italian, the American, the British and the Japanese imperialists. But they hold the power in all of these countries. Which then of the great powers is "peace loving""? At times the capitalists powers will support peace at others war depending on their interests and social stress. The document is shot through and through with contradictions. On the one hand a description of imperialism and its crimes, on the other hand mysterious "peace-loving countries". The class
[page 43]
43 analysis of countries and policies is abandoned. Who is to bring peace? How is peace to be obtained? By what means can peace be successfully defended? Lenin said many times that the correct posing of questions provides a correct solution to the problems of the working class and of the working people. It is true that modern weapons, particu "/ly those of the super-powers pose an even more horrifying dilemma than faced the peoples before the First and Second World Wars. The only thing that could have prevented the outbreak of these wars, would have been the victory of the Socialist Revolution in the main capitalist countries. Lenin said that it was a fariy tale that the First World War was the "war to end wars". The deint of German and Japanese imperialism in the Second World War has not meant the blossoming of peace and cluture. It has resulted in any even more horrifying arms race, and the wasting of the substance of the peoples on ever more horrifying means of destruction. Bacteriological, chemical and nuclear weapons are being manufactured. The solemn attempt by the super-powers to maintain nuclear arms for themselves alone has not succeeded. China, France and Great Britain also have nuclear arms. If World War has not taken place it is because war would not be in the interests of imperialism at the present time. It would inevitably result in a nuclear holcaust. It would destroy the goose that hays the golden eggs by destroying, not only civilisation and the wot. ing class, but even possibly most or all of humanity, and turn the planet into a region of radio activity. But the most important reason why there has not been war has been the class relationship of forces.
When Russia was at her weakest in I945 ir comparison with Anglo-American Imperialism, at the end of the Second World war, it was the movement of peoples of Europe, Asia, and Africa and the radicalisation of the working class in America and Britain, which made it impossiblef?fAnglo-American Imperialism to attack the Soviet Union. but in the iin the iter-war the defeats of the working class led to the victory of Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany and the defeat of the workers movements in France, Britain and other countries paralysed the working class and allowed the the imperialists to take to the road of war. At the present time there is an awakening and radicalisation of the peoples in the main capitalists countries. But if this radicalisation, which draws behind it the middle class and. the peasantry, does not reach fruition in the captaring of power by the working class then inevitably it will prepare the way for reaction, and the rise of new Hitlers and Mussolinis. If one imagined that the workers of America, Japan and Western Europe, fail in the coming epaoh to take power into their own hands then the victory of reaction which would thereby be prepared could lead to a Third World War. A madman, an American Hitler, once in power would not hesitate to try a "first strike". There would be no other way than war, as was the case with Hitler and Mussolini. Democracy and the rights of the working class are elements of a new social system within capitalism, which it is the task of reaction and fascism to destroy. But the unstable balance the proso of forces which exist at the present time between the classes cannot be maintained indefinitely. While the economic upswing continues the capitalist powers can come to a robbers agreement with each other, and with the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies. But when the economic upswing will inevitably be succeeded by a downswing, they will regard the very existence of the workers organisations as an unacceptable impediment to their exploitation of the working people. At the present time they are making super profits and therefore tolerate various reforms. The hour will strike when they can longer do so if the working class fails to take qdvantage of the national and international contradictions of capitalien to take power into their own hands.
[page 44]
44 Only the socialist revolution can prevent a Third World War and the destruction of humanity. The document says: "Vass action against imperialism is a condition for implementing the policy of peaceful co-existence. Directed as it is against the warmongers, reactionaries and monopoly arms manufacturers, this policy meets the general interests of the revolutionary struggle against every form of oppression and exploitation, and promotes friendship between all peoples and the development of fruitful economic, scientific, technological and other spheres of co-operation between countries with different social systems in the interest of social progress." Who are the warmongers, who are the reactionaries and monopoly arms manufacturers? "Recent class battles have struck a blow at the illusions spread by partisans of neo-capitalism and reformism, and has given fresh proof of the basic propositions of Marxism-Leninism. In contrast to the right and left opportunisis, the Communist and workers' Parties do not counterpose the fight for deep-going economic and social demands and for advanced democracy against the struggle for socialism, but regard it as a part of the struggle for socialism. The radical democratic changes which will be achieved in the struggle against the monopolies and the economic domination and political power will promote an awareness of the need for socialism among the people." The first part of this quotation is in entire contradiction to the one before and succeeding it. It is only by linking the struggles of the industrial and white-callar workers with the struggle for socialism that even the economic interests and demands of the working class and middle class can be realised for any length of time. There is no special section of the capitalist class which is, in and of itself, reactionery. Against a threat from the working class, the entire capitalist class will close ranks. Friendship between peoples, as the sad examples of China, Russia and Czechoslovakia show, is not a question of pious, pacifist whimperings. The interests of the working class of all countries are one and the same, because the enemy is the same, capitalism-imperialism.It is not a question of an abstract internationalism, but of the actual world division of labour created by capitalism, and reaching an unequalled intensity in the last quarter of a century, which created a basis for the union of peoples. It is maudlin sentimentality to talk of even co-operation between the capitalist powers themselves, except temporarily, let alone "between countries with different social systems in the interests of social progress". It is like the parsons' and priests' de-lamations on the need to assist the poor and hungry and homeless and the "underdeveloned" world, This is preci oly to ignore social realities and fall into the trap of the proponents of neo-capitalism and reformism.
"Socio-differentiation is developing in the newly independent countries. There is a sharpening conflict between the working class, the peasantry and other democratic forces, including the patriotic-mir led sections of the petty bourgeoisie on the one hand, and on the other, imperialism and the forces of domestic reaction, the elements of the na lonal bourgeoisie which are increasingly accepting a deal with imperialism."
And again: "The pressing problems or social development in these states are the object not only of a sharp struggle between the neo-colonialists and the people of these countries, but also of internal social conflicts." This is perfectly true but in and of itself poses the question of the struggle for power by the proletariat wnich can, as in the Russian revolution,
[page 45]
45 carry to a conclusion the tasks of the democratic revolution. Then passing over to the tasks of the socialist revolution, which in its turn cannot be solved on national lines alone. If the bourgeoisie in these backward countries cannot solve the tasks of even the bourgeois revolution which were solved in the past in the industrialised capit list countries, then how can it even be posed that the "progressive" bourgeoisie of France, of Italy, of America for example, in the epoch of imperialist decay can solve the social tasks posed in these countries? The internal social conflicts in both backward and advanced capitalist countries do not arise at the arbitrary whim of this or that reactionary politician, but out of the economic relations of capitalism nationally and internationally.
"Countries which have taken a capitalist road have been unable ; to solve any of the basic problems facing them." This applies just as much to the main capitalist countries as to the backward countries. The document then goes on to say: "the imperialists show special hostility towards states with progressive regimes.... (They)organise counter-revolutionary activities through their agents and back reactionary elements in the state apparatus and the armed forces. They try to utilise anti-communist prejudices to spread discord among patriots." All this is undoubtedly true. But it does not get us any further forward. If, "confronted with rising popular discontent, the internal reactionary forces in these countries are intensifying with imperialist support their assault on democratic freedom," if "they are kindling conflicts between national, ethnic, religious, tribal and linguistic groups", if the imperialists are doing all this in the backward countries and finding allies in the local capitalists, then it is clear that only an implacable struggle nationally and internationally for the overthrow of the landlords and capitalists can solve the problems of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. And by the way, in a caricatured form even the much maligned theory of the permanent revolution is stealthily included in the section on Latin America - "the struggle for genuine national sovereignty and economic independence is intertwined with an acute class struggle against capitalist exploitation and above all, against the foreign or local monopolies of the latifundia." The only problem is that this is not linked with the idea of a socialist revolution as the only means of successfully achieving and consolidating economic, democratic and social demands. Instead, as in the imperialist countries, we are fobbed off with vague formulae. But if the national bourgeoisie in colonial or ex-colonial countries plays the reactionary role which is hinted at in this document, how can it even be suggested that in the main capitalist countries there is a "progressive" bourgeoisie which will not betray as in Spain, France, Italy and Germany, the aspirations of the people at a moment of danger into the hands of reaction?
"STICKS & STONES"
Having shown the horrors of imperialism and, incidentally, this is repeated and emphasised on practically every page of the document, they then go on to deal with what should be done about this. With unconscious humour, they state: "The Communist and Workers' Parties represented at the meeting, aware of their historic responsibility, proposed united action to all Communists of the world, to all opponents of imperialism, and to all who are prepared to fight for peace, freedom and progress." The fact that the "Communists" are not united on fundamental issues is a comment in itself. They then go on confidently to declare that "a new world war can be averted by the combined effort of the socialist countries, the international working class, the
[page 46]
_46 national liberation movement, all perceloving countries, public organisations and mass movemenis. " We have already asked: what are "peaceloving countries"? And we now add: what are "public organisations"? There is only one trifle overlooked in this declamatory statement, and that is the question of HOW? Wagging a finger at the imperialists and saying "naughty, naughty" will not even ruffle a hair of their heads. It is no accident that this conference was reviewed very calmly in the serious organs of the capitalist press in the advanced capitalist countries. It reminds one of the old nursery rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". The only threat that the imperiaiists are interested in is the threat to their power, privileges, income and prestige, like all ruling classes and castes in history. To defend their right to rule and in defence of their profits, for temporary periods they are prepared to sacrifice a part of their income. But if a threat is posed, it cannot remain a question of words, because the imperialists will inevitably organise their resources for reaction, if only a partial attack is made. In France, for example, a great part of the gains made by the working class have already been cancelled out by inflation. This will provoke a further movement of the working class which, if derailed on to the lines of a Popular Front and not carried through to a conclusion, will prepare the way for savage reaction and civil war with countless unnecessary victims. As these lines-are written. the echoes of the demonstrations and of vicious repressive legislation are reverberating from Czechoslovakia. The next paragraph following on the one quoted above piously and hypocritically declares: "'The defence of peace is inseparably linked up with the struggle to combel the imperialists to accept peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems • wich demands observance of the principles of sovereignty, equality, territoric inviolability in every state, big and small, and non-interierence in the internal affairs of other countries, respect for the rights of every people freely to decide their social, economic and political systems, and the settlement of outstanding international issues by political means through negotiation." (Their emphasis.) Again we ask, who is going to enforce this, and how? If the Soviet bureaucracy in defence of what it conceives to be its interests i prepared to flout the public opinion of the international working class and oi "pr gressive" public opinion, how much more would the imperialists act in the same way when they conceive their interests to be threatened? The invasion of Czechoslovakia involved two states with the same social system, where capitalism and landlordism have been overthrown, and which have the same type of ruling bureaucracy. The "defence of peace" is inseparably linked with the struggle îor the overthrow of monopoly capital and of the rotting Soviet bureaucracy.
"9o actions of the Chinese and Russian Bureaucracies have assisted the capitalists in maintaining their hold on the public opinion of the middle class, and even of wide sections of the working class. That is why the statement 1iua the following ring so hollowly.
Tha a attempts of imperialism to overcome its internal conflict by building up international tension and creating hot-beds o: f war, are hampered by the policy of peaceful co-existence. This policy does not imply either the preservation of the social and political status-quo or a waldening of the ideological strusgle. It helps promote the class struggle against imperialism on a national and worlawide scale,"
Again the question that can immediately be asked is how this is done. Of course this is obvious that the Soviet Union and China are not interested in provoking a World War. Even the bureaucratic rulers of these countries, because of the
[page 47]
abolition of capitalisi. and landlordism have not the same pressing need for markets and sources of raw material. It is true that they are bound to have to participate on the World Market, and the World division of labour, but such participation is conditioned by the monopoly of, foreign trade and the state ownership of the means of production. But for the capitalist powers and this whole document is supposed to be against imperialism, imperialism is a condition for the existince of national identities. Though struggling against each other, they have a common soidarity, in the last analysis, agaihst the working class and those countries where capitalism has been abolished. The document in the very next paragraph to that quoted then says:- "Determined class struggle for the abolition of monopolies and their rule for the institution of a genuinely democratic system, and for the establishment of socialist power, whatever may be the road leading to the achievement of this goal, is an inalienable right and duty of the working people and the Communist and Workers Parties in the capitalist countries. The Communists of the World are in solidarity with this just battle."
Again, these are empty words in contradiction with the previous ideas. Itis one one thing for the States where capitalism has been overthrown to offer peaceful co-existence to the capitalist states. (and even here it depends on the relationship of forces, nationally and internationally. Had the Communists e and Socialists of Germany pursued a different policy it was the duty of the Red Army, if it had been true to the doctnine on which it had been founded to have gone to the aid of the German worders in order to prevent Hitler from coming to power. Such a policy linked to a correct international policy on the part of the Soviet Union and the Communist International would have led to the victory of the revolution in Germany and Europe and thus prevented the Second World War.) But the cynicism of Bureaucrats knows no bounds. During the Second World War the Red Army invaded the small Finnish nation to protect the flank of Leningrad. This brought the Finnish capitalists into the war on the side of Hitler, and dealt an enormous blow to the standing and support of the Soviet Union in the eyes of the World working class. But like the Czech events the invasion was dictated, not by consideration of the need to maintain the support of the world working class, but purely from the immediate needs of the national bureaucracy.
If the question is put from the point of view of being for or against peace, only a madman, particularly under modern conditions, would be in favour of war. But every war in the molern capitalist World has been waged under the hypocritical banner of "A struggle for peace". This did not prevent the outbreak of the wars. The condition for peace is precisely the waging of the class struggle " to a conclusion, and the elimination of the causes of war. "Peaceful co-existence, like "collective security" before it, can only provide a breathing space. If the working class and its leadership fail to take advantage of this breathing space, however protracted it may be, they will pave the way for reaction, a new World War,, and perhaps the elimination of civilisation and even mankind. 'The document is full of contradiction throughout. Not a single question is thought through to a conclusion in a manner of Marx or Lenin. Contradictory statements are piled one upon another to make a horrible stew of ideas. In the very next paragraph to the one quoted is this statement which is completely opposed to it:- "Mass action against imperialism is a condition for implementing the policy of peaceful co-existence. Directed as it is againast the war mongers, reactionaries, and monopoly arms manufacturers, this policy meets the general interests of the revolutionary struggle against every form of oppression and exploitation, and promotes friendship between all peoples and the development of fruitful economic, scientific, technological and other spheres of co-operation between countries with different social systems in the interests of social progress."
[page 48]
48 who are the warmongers, reactionaries, and monopoly arms manufacturers? It is true that between different sections of the capitalist class there are conflicting interests, but these pale into insignificance in face of their struggle against the working class. The policy of peaceful co-existence, which replaced that of the discredited theory of "collective security" has now been followed for almost a quarter of a century. Yet never in history have more of the material means of civilisation been squandered in the arms race in all fields. The statement we quoted earlier on the military strength of the Soviet Union shows that she had been compelled, partly because of the reactionary policy of the Soviet bureaucracy, partly for the needs of defence, to pile up huge quantities of all weapons including nuclear arms and a competition with American Imperialism. Thus the policy of the Soviet Union and of China should be the idea of! "promoting friendship between all peoples and fruitful economic scientific and technil rical and other spheres of co-operation." But how? By abandoning revolutionary methods? But even here the whole purpose is non-revolutionary and anti socialist in ideology. To prattle about friendship between peoples without raising the class question is idle chatter. To facilitate mass action against Imperialism would mean offering a joint plan of production over a number of years with the integration of the economy of the main capitalist countries with that of the Soviet Union, or of China. as the case may be, in the interests of raising the standard of living of all. This would be a means of mobilising the peoples of the Western countries and of Japan against capitalism. That is one of the reasons why neither the Chinese nor the Russian bureaucracy imprisoned in the national outlook of their bureaucratic needs cannot even raise the question in this way. Indeed, it is a sociological comment of the greatest significance that in this epoch where productive forces have outgrown the narrow boundaries of the national states, created by capitalism, as well as the private ownership and China. That in Eastern Europe they are not capable of even achieving a limited economic integration which the capitalist powers of the six Common Market countries have achieved, however shaky and weak this economic co-operation might be. What is the point in demogogic references to a World "socialist" system when they cannot even unite their economies into one single harmonious and fruitful economic, scientific and technological plan? HOW TO PREVENT WAR "To preserve peace, the most urgent task is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to enforce the nuclear non-proliferation treaty." It was this policy which was one of the reasons for the break between the Russian and Chinese bureaucracy. A potential super power, the Chinese bureaucracy was determined to have all the most modern weapons of destruction. They were not prepared to place themselves under the umbrella of the Soviet bureaucracy. Like the ruling classes in capitalist countries, the bureaucracy of the deformed workers states hate and fear each other, because they know each other for what they are. They would not trust each other when it comes to a question of their fundamental interests. Thus Britain and France, despite their economic weakness in comparison with the super powers, have attempted to maintain their own nuclear arms. Though the might of these arms in
[page 49]
49 vital interests to obtain these? What can prevent West Germany, Japan, Sweden or Switzerland from manufacturing nuclear weapons if they so desire? And even so, there are now bacteriological and chemical weapons which can be as great a scourge to the peoples, and which any developed scientific and technological power can manufacture.
It is one thing to conduct agitation for nuclear disarmament and the destruction of nuclear weapons and stockpiles, in order to raise the level of understanding of the mass of the people, particularly of the middle strata. It is entirely a different thing to imagine that while Imperialism or Capitalism exists- i.e. the power of the capitalist class to control the economy, and thus to dictate policy- that such a ban could be successful. The whole idea of such a campaign from a Lennint point of view would be to link them with the tasks of overthrowing capitalism. So that in the struggle to ban nuclear weapons the people would come to realise the incompatability of such a demand with the existence of capitalist power. The idea of the so-called "Communists" is apparently to confuse rather than to clarify, because they conduct the struggle against nuclear weapons as if it was an end in itself, and could be achieved while capitalism still remains.
" The basic interests of the peoples demand the intensification of the struggle against militarism in all its forms, particularly against the military industrial complex of the U.S.A. and other imperialist states. To call on all peace loving forces to mount a struggle for a radical, cut-back in military budgets and for general and complete disarmament under effective international control, so as to switch resources now absorbed by the arms race to improving the working peoples lives, promoting the health services and education and rendering assistance to the developing countries."
This is a praiseworthy aim. In fact all the governments, parties and churches pay a lip service to this utopia. It is true that Russia under Lenin and Trotsky also issued propaganda for general and complete disarmament. But this was not to increase illusions but to expose the hypocricy of the governments of the capitalist states. They emp' sised and: re-emphasised again and again that the sole road to disarmament lay in the socialist revolution, the elimination of frontiers and the fraternal collaboration of peoples. Time and again well intentioned scientists and technicians have pointed out the enormous resources which harnessed, planned and organised could provide abundance for all. Want, poverty and deprivation could be aholished and the planets turned into an earthly paradise. Thus the idea empirically of collaboration of classes and nations for the good of all has been a standby of Protestant parsons Buddhists, Bikkus and Catholic theologians. All should cooperate in harmony with all. Only one trifle is left out of account, the dialectic of conflicting interests. The struggle between classes and nations which arises as an inevitable result of the class structure of society. Thus gerral disarmament could only be achieved through the overthrow of the military industrial complex i.e. capitalism.
"The interests of world peace calls for disbandment of military blocks". It is true that in the legend Joshua blew on his horn and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. But paper thuderbolts will not have the same result in the real world. The walls of capitalism are powerful, They can only be breached by the working class armed with the teachings of Marx and Lenin. The army of the working
[page 50]
class cannot be hardened and prepared by the preching of empty pacifist illusions, nor the delusion that there is an easy road to peace in agreement between the capitalist rulers and the Soviet block and China. " The only references to the United Nations are the demands "for the rest- Security Connect oa the an at the papa a let on t Nations like the statements at this conference are stillborn because of the differing interests of the participants. It isizstructive to see how since the war the United Nations has been completely incapable of solving any questions considered of vital importance to the world blocks or their client states. If the United Nations is completely incapable of settling small wars and coercing such countries as South Africa, on the issue of its seizure of S. W. Africa, how much less could it coercethe great powers and even less the The whole document is confused with petit bourgeois ideology. The class basis of rascism, imperialism or war are not simply and clearly loid out so that they could be understood by any worker however politically backward, or the new layers of the middle class, such as the students, awakening to radical ideas. The 'manifestations of Fascism......demands the united action by all. democratic and progressive movements in every country.' The only question which arises is who and what are democratic and progressive movements? Does it include those who benefit by the divisions between the working class and the peoples? Again middle class conceptions ignoring the source of the ideology and practices of racialism. While ill Marxists would support the democratic demand and the statement "we communists are convinced that it is impossible to put an end to a policy of imperialist aggression, to abolish colonialism and neo-colonialism once and for all and uproot Fascism and racial oppression without resolute struggle against the power of monopoly capital and democratic demands which, once won, would weaken the position of a struggle would create favourable conditions for achieving the ultimate goals of the working class movement." But again the question can be asked is not monopoly capital going to prepare its revenge unless it is expropriated? The Labour Government in Britain passed a law making it compulsory to divulge information as to the subventions to political parties by companies. They probably thought that this would frighten the oligarchy. Instead, big companies and small are increasing their subsidies to the Tory party, the party of Big Business in Britain. The only way to struggle against the power of monopoly capital is to prepare its expropriation. The real ider behind this phrase-mongering is shown when they call upon all organisations representing not only the workers and peasants, but 'various groups and social strata.. on realistically minded political leaders of the capitalist countries and on all democratic parties...We invite them all to join in a broad and constructive exchange of opinions on the widest possible range of issues bearing on the anti-imperialist struggle...for...united action with all progressivu, p triotie and peace-loving forces on a national, regional and international scale.' (Our emphasis) Who are these realistically minded political leaders of the capitalist countries? Which are the democratic parties? Who are the progressive, patriotic and peace-loving forces? It is certain that this statement is not politically renlistically minded. Do they super powers?
the anti-Fascist forces imperialism as a whole and strike at 50.
......also greater international support from ......
the very foundations of its rule. Such
[page 51]
mean in Britain, for example, the Tory and Liberal parties, or their equivalent in other countries? But these are the very representatives of that imperialism and neo-colonialism they are struggling against. They are asking Beelzebub to fight against Satan. The forces of vice to espouse racialism, it is impossible to conduct a successful struggle against them. Over the decades the so-called Communist Parties have become more and more degenerate, partly as a result of the bureaucracies of the deformed workers' states, partly as a result of the pressure of capitalism and reformism in the advanced countries, and partly as a result of the abandonment of Marxist theory under the pressare of Stalinism in the past. The striking impression that is made by the document on anyone with a Marxist training would be the lack of transitional demands linking the present consciousness of the working class with the need for a Socialist revolution. The struggle for peace, for bread and for land was linked indissolubly by Lenin and Trotsky in I9I7 with the need for the October revolution. While there is not a revolutionary situation at the present time, a pre-pre-revolutionary situation exists in Italy, and the Communist Party sabotages the struggle by limiting it to economic and democratic demands. It should be remembered that the bourgeoisie changes from the use of a democratic facade, though • with important concessions to the workers through the so-called democratic parties, and when this proves inconvenient, switches to support of the fascist parties, and when the situation demands it; back to support of 'democratic' parties. They prefer democracy because a fascist regime, or even a Bonapartist dictatorship, is enormously expensive. In a fascist regime they only hold power indirectly. But their power can only be broken completely by the taking of the economic power out of their hands, by the accomplishing of the Socialist revolution. There is no other way of guaranteeing peace, higher standards of living, and ending imperialism and racialism. This is IDEAS OF MARX & LENIN " The rise and development of the world socialist system, comprising I4 states and the inspiring in"luence of Socialism on the entire world, have created the pre-requisites for accelerating historical progress, and have opened new prospects for the advance and triumph of Socialism Socialism has chown mankind the prospect of deliverance from imperialism. The new social system, based on public ownership of the means of production and on the power of the working people is capable of ensuring the planned, crisis-free development of the economy in the interests of the people, guaranteeing the social and political rights of the working people, creating the conditions for genuine democracy, for real participation by the broad masses of people in the administration of society, for all round development of the individual and for the equality and friendship This would be true if the workers and peasants had real control of the economy and of the state in their on hands. This was the society envisaged by Marx and lenin as a gociety of transit on towards socialism. But every day new evidence appears from all the countries of the so-colled world socialist : bloc that only the state ownership of proluction and a plan, the bare bones of a workers state, exist at the present time. The jailing of the writers the cause of virtue.
Without a thorough analysis of the only safeguard against reaction and fascism.
throughout the world"
of nations".
51 the class roots of fascism and of
[page 52]
in the Soviet Union, the continued persecution of the Crimean Tartars, the lack of any real liberty or control by the people, the chaos in planning and the waste in the economy, indicate that the statements of this kind are based on the sheerest cynicism. The abuses and malpractice of the bureaucracy did not end with the exposure of the crimes of Stalin. The privileges, power and income of the ruling managers, party leaders, state officials, and army generals, the inequalities and injustices between the workers and the ruling privileged layers is as great or greater than in Stalin's time. In China and in Cuba the "cult of the personality" rages round the figures of Mao and of Castro. The relations between Russia and China and Russia and Czechoslovakia are but symptoms of the relationship within the countries themselves. This I3 years after the 20th Congress was supposed to have ended such abuses. If Socialism was built in the Soviet Union and the other countries the state would have withered away and money, commodity production and the very existence of classes and of castes would have disappeared. At least the process would have begun and be accelerating. The swift economic development of these countries outpacing the economic development of the canitalist countries is proof of the superiority of state ownership and a plan in comparision with private ownership and the anarchy of the market. But the fact that in the decisive field of the productivity of labour the Soviet Union lags behind that of the mightiest: capitalist power, the United States, is proof that not even the foundations of Socialism have been laid in these countries. Yet they boast in the Soviet Union of a transition to communism at the present time when there is far from a withering away of the state and an extension of liberty; in the usual sig-zag a tightening up and a limitation of even the measure of reform under Krushchev. Apart from Czechoslovakia, the revolution starting in backward countries, has meant that the failures in the advanced countries; the Revolution in these countries has been covered over with a layer of repulsive and even monstrous features, which exist in any and its introduction in the other countries of the so-called Socialist bloc by a political revolution which can introduce, not socialism, but a higher version of the living democracy of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky. His successors, like Stalin, represent:
mentioned above. It is in their interests that the ideas of Socialism and internationalism are perverted and corrupted. This whole statement is a proof of the degeneracy of the Communist Parties, especially if one takes seriously the statement in the document of the "preponderance of the forces The fiction that "Socialism has been contructed in these countries leads to the putting forward of all sorts of irreconilable statements. "The building of socialism and its further development rests on the support, participation and initiative of the working people, inspired and led by the working class"! These lines are shot through with contradictions. Under socialism the state will have disappeared. And how under socialism would there be need for "irreconcilable struggle against manifestations of bureaucracy and... the all of society and of industry by society itself. How then could there be manifestations of bureaucracy, when, as tenin put it, wan every one is a bureaucrat, on no-one is a bureaucrat. Bureaucracy is not a question of red tape, but of the existence of a whole caste of officials who utilise their position in their own interests and agcinst those of the people. Engels said that when art, science and overnempt remain the preserve of a minority, totalitarian society. It is only the restoration of peace, democracy and socialism over imperialis."!
round development of socialist democracy" ?
they will always use and abuse their 52 in the Soviet Union the ruling layers Socialism implies the administration positions in their own interests.
[page 53]
This must be so as long as the mass of the people have to work long hours for the bare necessities of existence. The only way out of this vicious circle lies in the conscious control of the working class and in the international overthrow of capitalism in the advanced countries. It is true that in the Soviet Union today the economy is no longer that of the backward economy of I9I7 . Russia today is among the adanced industrial countries of the world. But in contradistinction with the time of Lenin and . Trotsky the situation is now completely different. The workers and peasants have no political rights except to applaud the decisions of their rulers. From being caused by the backwardness of the economy, the bureaucracy, which played a relatively progressive role in assisting the industrial development of the Soviet Union, has now become a reactionary fetter. But having all the levers of power in its own hands, and abusing these in its own interests, they are At the same time they are compelled hypocritically to pretend that greater and greater democracy is being introduced. Yet their intervention in Czechoslovakia was forced on the countries of the Warsaw Pact by their panic even in face of the demagogic slogans of "Socinlism with a human face". They talk of "irreconcilable struggle against manfestations of bureaucracy and by all round development of socialist democracy" when this flies in the face of all their actions. Socialist democracy can only be achieved with a full right of all tendencies to put forward their point of view. What is there to be afraid of when the advantages of Socialism would be so obvious? Any suggestion of a return to the old system would be greeted with laughter. For from this being the case the moment they feel their position being threatened they return to the methods of lies, of slander, of falsification, of repressiions, of beatings and even of imprisonment, which were a feature of the early years of the Stalin dictatorship. While they cannot return to the insane purges of Stalin's later years, in which millions perished, even now according to the in the Soviet Union. It is significant that the Russian Embassy which always picks, up statements in such an authoritative journal of capitalist opinion as the TIMES, has not seen fit to issue a denial. How much cynicism and disgusting hypocricy do these Communist Parties of the world, represented at the Conference, show when they refer to "the nurpriority of human and moral "The formation of the socialist world constitutes an integral part of the class struggle being waged in the international arena. The enemies of socialism are keeping up their attempts to undermine the foundations of the socialist state power, thwart the socialist of society and restore their own rule. To give a firm rebuff to these attempts is an essentiel function of the socialist state, which relies on the wrking people led by the working class and its communist vanguard. We : ve already explained that the only people inside these countries agoinst om the state is protecting itself are the working people. How can it be that impen alism or the forces of counter-r volution could have ev n the remotest possilility of undormining the foundations of the socialists state power if socialism has been achieved in 14 countries or more than a third of the world? If the society were no longer ridden with terrible contradictions, it should surely be the other way around. The imperialists would be powerless to prevent a socialist transformation of society throug out the world. In other words this is just a pretext to smear all opponents of bureaucracy and privilege as the agents of capit-lism. Unfortunately for the bureaucracy it is no longer values" of the 53 not prepared to relinquish this power which would privilegess, prestige and inflated incomes.
Times in an editorial statement there are a million so-called Socialist" societies.
mean an end to their ...
. RE
[page 54]
possible to return to the state of affairs under Stalin. This invention of plots and of enemies of socialism is as near as they can get to it. It is curious that the"enemies of socialism" are not named. Who can they be? Workers, peasants, intellectuals, the working people or perhaps the famous "manifestations or bureauety had been created, how could even the remotest support, apart from insane individuals, be obtained? If there were the "fullest socialist democracy" such attempts if made by the imperialists would be greeted with scorn. From the point of view of the history of the Communist parties, this conference marked a new stage in the disintegration of the world 'communist' movement. In the early years of the Communist International, there was a voluntary discipline and cohesion of the ranks. The Parties based themselves on the ideas of Marx and Lenin, of an internationalism rooted in the interests of the world working class, to which the interests of all sections were subordinate. This in its turn was based on the world economy itself and the world division of labour wheih had been created by capitalism. Thus internationalism was not regarded as a sentimental phrase, but arose from the historical needs of the economy, and of the interests of the workers of all This in its turn was predicated by the fact that socialism - required the efforts of the advanced workers of all countries to achieve its It is part of the contradictory processes of history that at a time when world economy and world division of labour are for more interdependent and intertwined than at any time in the past, the 'communist' countries and the communist parties are moving in more and more diverse directions. The 'theory' of socialism in one country has thus resulted in the complete wrecking of the internationalism of the communist movement. This at a time when distance has been abolished by modern methods of transport and the world is united under the shadow of collective destruction as the only alternative "The delegates to the meeting reaffirmed their common views that relations between the fraternal parties are based on the principle of proletarian internationalism, solidarity and mutual support, respect for independence and equality, and non-interference in each others affairs". This comments But the next section speaks volumes as to the changes which have taken place since the days of Stalin and even of Kruschev, parties have equal rights. As there is no leading centre of the intertationol communist movement, voluntary coordination of actions of parties in order effectively to carry out the tasks before them acquires increased importance". The Russian Communist Party was the dominant party even in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. However under their guidance there was a genuine internationalism on the port of all parties, including the Russian Communist Party, which all voluntarily accepted the discipline of the Internctionol. Under Stalin all other parties were subordinated to the interests of the Russian bureaucracy and its foreign policy. In 1943 Stalin, without even calling a conference, contemptously dissolved the International, but nevertheless the slavish The split between Russin and Yugoslavia dealt death blows to this monolithic 54 cracy? To pose the question is to give th "NATIONAL" ROADS countries.
consummation. • to federation and cooperation of the peoples.
for itself!
subordination remained.
answer. If a harmonious socialist soci- "All
[page 55]
of the first years of the Communist International. On the contrary, in power and out of power, the burerucracies of the communist parties are separated from each other on national lines . While independent of each other, they are not indepen- -dent in the advanced capitalist countries (and in the baokward ones too), of Russias in Czechoslovakia was dictated by the fear not only of the infection of liberal ideas but a breaking away like that of Yugoslavia and of China, This in its turn would have led to the brealing away of all the countries of Eastern Europe and thuss the domination of the Russian bureaucracy over the area, Pious phrases went out of the window when the concrete interests of the Russian Brezhnev and the Russian burenicracy called the conferènce in a desparate endeavour to gain support for their struggle against the Chinese bureaucracy but as the document eloquently testifies, they failed signally to do so. Even this statement is riddled through and through and through with attempts at pious generalities, some parties - including the British party - refused to sign. It must be with a sense of humour that the declaration says that by communists and workers' parties enrich and creatively develope Marxist Leninist theory......." Some enrichment ! Some creation !! Presumably this creativity is in the following sentences which give a finished expression to the nationalist degeneration of the communist patties. " Marxist Leninists are both patriots and internationalists; they reject both national narrow mindedness and negation or underestimation of national interests and striving for hegemony. At the same time the communist parties, the parties of all the working class and the working people are the standard bearers of genuine national interests, unlike the reactionary classes which betray these interests ", Till they come to power the working class has no 'national' interest. Th eworking people have no country as Marx and Engels proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto in I848. National interest by its very character is not above classes but reflects the 'The Communist and Workers' Parties are conducting their activity in diverse and specific conditions, requiring an appropriate approach to the solutions of concrete problems. Ench party, guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism and in keeping with concrete national conditions, fully independently works out its own policy, determines the directions, forms and methods of struggle and, depending on the circumstances, chooses the peaceful or non-peaceful way of transition to socialism and also the forms and methods of building socialism in its own country. At the same time the diverse conditions in which the Communist Parties operate, the different approaches to practical tasks and even differences on certain questions must not hinder concerted international action by fraternal parties, particularly on the basic This is a finished declaration of nationalist "Socialism" and "national not to discuss "differences on certain questions" and tactics and strategy in the different countries what exactly is the point of meeting? If each country Now etch tarty is bureaucracy were involved.
interests of the ruling class. Who indeed are the ruling class?
problems of the anti-imperialist struggle".
55 here has been no retar trepairable shock.
I no return to the internationalism "united action the reactionary classes if not
[page 56]
56 or rather each "Communist" party arbitrarily "chooses" its "own" method of transition, and its "own" "forms and methods of "building Socialism" what Internationalism and of Marxism? While it is true that a peaceful remains of revolution is preferable to a "non-peaceful" one, that precisely is determined by the relationship of class forces, the attitude of the enemy and the planning and foresight of the leadership of the workers' parties. The October revolution in Russia and the German revolution of 1918 were relatively peaceful. In France in 1968 the Socialist revolution could have been accomplished peacefully. But precisely the craven attitude of the so called Communist parties by encouraging the reaction and the "reactionary classes", by a lack of resolution pushing the peasants and middle classes under conditions of crisis to the side of •the capitalists that can make bloodshed and even rivers of blood inevitable. (And what are these "differences"? Is it not the duty of an "international meeting" of parties to discuss their differences openly before their members In Lenin's day differences were raised and before the world working class.
openly and thrashed outso that the level of understanding of the membership should be raised. And without the raising of this level of understanding of the working class as a whole and the rank and file of the party claiming to represent the working class there can be no development of the instrument for achieving Socialism. Socialism is not handed on a plate to the working class by a kindly "leadership". In fact the level of understanding of the Communist Parties is if today if anything lower than that of the Social Democratic Parties of the past. This despite the explosive character of the epoch and the terrible lessons of Fascism, of the defeat of the Spanish and German Revolutions, of the events after the war, of the Chinese Revolution, of the Cuban Revolution and of the revolutionary situations in France and Italy in the last years. In any event the transition to Socialism requires the conscious control by the working class of all fields of activity- the State, industry and the party or parties of the working class themselves.
In the short statement on the Communist and Workers Parties there are a whole series of references to these mysterious "differences" which are unspecified"Communists are aware that our Movement, while scoring great historic victories in the course of its development, has recently encountered serious difficulties. Communists, however, are convinced that these difficulties will be overcome...To find a solution to existing problems which would meet both national and international interests...The Communists and Workers Parties despite some differences of opinion, reaffirm their determination to present a United Front in the struggle against Imperialism...other divergences may last long." Again we would ask why not honestly bring out the divergences and clarify them? If this is not done it can only be because of the vested interests of the bureaucracies, of the Parties in power and of parties which are not organically oprortunist because of the pressure of the economic upswing of the last quarter of a century and their policies over decades. Yesterday they were used as a tool of Russian foreign policy to put forward opportunist policies in the interests of the "Russian Revolution"., in reality of the Russian Bureaucracy. Now having lost all faith in the working class, opportunism has become part and parcel of their policies. They lip service to Socialism but in reality they have gone the way of the Social Democracy before the First World War. Coming a few paragraphs after the unspecified differences between " fraternal Parties" and perhaps the Russians have "eliminated the differences" with the Czechoslovak Party in the recent period, after violatingentirely the whole
[page 57]
57 method of Marx and Lenin, it is the height of effrontery to talk about "the policy of joint and imperialist action(which)demands the ideological and political role of the Marxist-Leninist parties in the world revolutionary process should be enhanced".
The British Party did not endorse the document not because of its eclectic character and its failure to work out a perspective foreither the Socialist or the Capitalist countries but because of "reservations". "At the same time the Executive Committee is unable to give its assent to the document as a whole, since on some matters it has reservations. These reservations have, in the main, been indicated in the speech made by John Gollan in Moscow. They refer specifically to the paragraphs in section two dealing with relation between Socialist Countries and to most of section four dealing with the role and activity of Communist Parties and inter party relations"
Really what is meant is that the E.C. of the British Communist Party 15 objecting to the real purpose of the Conference from the point of view of the Moscow Bureaucracy: that is to mobilise support for their struggle against the Chinese Bureaucracy and to try and reimpose a measure of control on the International Movement. This is shown by the statement immedictely following: "While the principles of relations between Socialist countries and between Communist Parties as laid down in the document are acceptable, the Executive Committee believes that their inclusion goes beyond the main purposes of the document as defined in the agenda". Surely in the history of the Interntional Working Class Movement, if we are to take it at face value, could there be a more light-minded and irresponsible reason for rejecting an "international document". In effect it says we agree with the document but the problems were not defined in the agenda. Apparently it is only a question of procedure that separates it from its brother parties! "Furthermore, if such questions were to be dealt with in the document then they should not have been confined to a mere statement of principle, but should have covered the implementation of these principles in actual life and so enabled a discussion in depth on the problems that have arisen in this field."
While it is true that it is incredibly light-minded to include statements of principle without discussing them fully, nevertheless implementation of principles in actual life follows from the acceptance of these principles. In reality a discussion of the principles and their implementatien would have split the Conference wide open. But merely to reject in the most cowardly way the"decisions" because of a question of procedure and not a question of principle is to reach the lowest depths. This formula is meant not to bring out the differences but to cover them up; at the same time to guarantee the freedom of movement of the leadership of the British Communist Party for the future, unhampered by any party from abroad sticking their snouts into the national soil of Britain which is the prerogative of the "British" Party.
[page 58]
58 TROTSKY'S PREDICTION A break away from Moscow's tutelage would have been a progressive thing if a balance sheet had been adopted of the experience of the Movement over the last five decades. But the break away of the Communist Parties of the West, and it has only been a half break, has taken place for entirely antirevolutionary reasons, and with anti-renolutionary premises. This is shown in the statement of Gollan, which like the document itself contains many correct points, but in effect adopts all the anti-revolutionary aspects of Moscow's policy:
"The struggle to prevent World Wor, end the nuclear menace and ach- ¡eve peaceful co-existence of states, irrespective of their social systems, is vital for humanity and a necessity for any strategy of social revolution. Only a fool would underestimate the danger of World War arising out of the aggressive policies of Imperialism." We have already dealt with this question, so there is no need to develop it further here; except as it affects the policies of the Communist Party in Britain. Gollan proceeds further along to say:
"Two alternatives face Britain. Either to continue down the dangerous and ta tedit take and otty pearl stone ation to work for the ending of military blocks in Europe, and their replacement by a system of European collective security, including recognition of the German Democratic Republic and the post-wer frontiers. The first alternative is the road of nuclear menace and disaster.
The second is the road to peace and security.
We welcome the peace policy of the Socialist countries. Their initiative in Europe through the Budapest appeal is finding an echo. There is a growing identity of views on European security between the people of Western Europe and the Socialist countries." Which Britain is being referred to? The Britain of the working class or the Britain of Imperialism? In the long run there can be no peace without the overthrow of the ruling class. The policy of West German Imperialism is no better and no worse than that of British Imperialism. Elsewhere we have dealt with the arguments in relation to Britain and space forbids that it should be dealt with here. But the cowerdly position of the European Communist Parties comes out clearly on the section dealing with relations between "Socialist States and Communist Parties".
"The agenda for this conference is that which was agreed on at the February 1968 consultative meeting in Budapest, namely one main item - 'Tasks at the present stage of the struggle against Imperinlism, and united action of Communist and Workers Parties and of all anti- Imperialist forces.'
In our view, therefore, the question of relations between Socinlist countries and between Communist Parties is not really appropriate for documents bases on this item.
Of course the differences between some Socialist States hinder their cohesion and therefore do damage to our common cause of the
[page 59]
struggle against Imperialism. But the main document does not deal Comment would be superfluous, but Gollan then goes on:
"If the principles of relations between Socialist States would be fully implemented there would be no problem of relations between them. Ihe repetition of the principles valuable and correct in themselves, does not get us too far. What is needed is to discuss what has gone wrong, and where and in what circumstances these principles have not been fully applied. Is it logical to argue that the conference document must contain paragraphs dealing with relations between Socilaist States, and that delegates should not discuss the concrete application of these principles to events which have been discussed in every Communist Party?.......... And this means -that we should discuss not just the principles, but as they manifest "It is on this basis, presumably, that many delegates have discussed China. Some delegates from Socialist countries have also referred to the political positions of some parties in Western Europe. We have no wish to interfere with anyone's internal affairs" (Our emphasis) •...The Communist Party of China is departing from Marxist Lenninist positions. However, we will not develop out position on this great This statement that "we have no wish to interfere in anybody's internal affairs" really means " mind your own business, don't interfere with us, let the other parties do as they wish, so long as we can do as we like." This "The question of relations between Communist Parties, and the principles governing their role and activity, is not, in our view, relevant to the agenda of this Conference. Each party is sovereign. It alone, through highest authority, its National Congress, can decide its policy, its activities and its role. There is not, and cannot be, any collective body or directive centre which can usurp sovereign rights of parties and decide such matters for them." The material in this article is sufficient comment on the position put forward by Gollan and the Communist Party. It is a brilliant confirmation of the Marxist method in that Trotsky forty years ago predicted the development of just this position on the basis of the "theory" of Socialism themselves in actual life.
issue here."
* in a single country.
+++++++++++++++ Printed and Published by MILITANT INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 197, Kings Cross Road, London W.C.1.
59 with differences, only the principles of relations."
assumes a glaring expression when Gollan says:- Name Address Order M.I.R. now from 197 Kings Cross Road, London W.C.1. Please send me copies of M.I.R. I enclose P.O./Cheque.
[page 60]