Editorial

[page 2]

Militant International Review 1 Mentmore Terrace, London E8 PN Editor: Alan Woods Cover design: Alan Hardman Contents Editorial The choice before the Labour Party By Lynn Walsh Letter to the Editor ...

Marxism and the Nicaraguan Revolution ..

By Bob Labi The Asturian Commune ...21 By Steve Poole Economic notes .

By Bob McKee Book Reviews ..

Printed by Cambridge Heath Press (TU) Ltd., 1 Mentmore Terrace, London. E8 3PN .. 1 • ...4 ..10 ..12 ..25 • .....26 1 Editorial The miners, the TUC and 'New Realism'

THIS YEARS'S TUC Conference put the official stamp on the demise of the badly misnamed "New Realism'

, which only twelve months earlier was being trumpeted by the right wing as the only viable policy for the labour movement.

The enthusiastic reception given by the delegates to Arthur Scargill, reflecting widespread support for the miners' cause, forced the right wing - with the exception of the hard core of arrogant, knownothing backwoodsmen like Hammond and Lyons and Sirs-to fall into line.

This was a complete reversal of last year's TUC—a reversal which the Marxist tendency represented by Militant and the MIR was alone in predicting.

People like Bill Sirs have long ago given up all thought of changing society. Imagining themselves to be great "realists'

, they are, in practice, the blindest of utopians. They do not understand even the most elementary truth; that if the mining industry is decimated, the steel industry will be next for a furavalanche of closures ther and redundancies. If the miners go down to defeat, that would be the signal for an all-out attack on all sections of the working class. If, at the end of the day, Ravenscraig and Lianwern are saved, that will be no thanks to Sirs and the other Neanderthal men of the TUC right, but thanks to the heroic struggle waged by the miners.

The more intelligent right wing leaders have dimly trade union begun to understand just this. The miners' strike has marked an entirely new stage in the development of the class struggle, not on-

[page 3]

MIR

984; Editorial

Len Murray: One year later his policy of "New Realism' lies in ruins. Photo: Dave Sinclair.

outright victory for the miners could be on the cards. Either of these two variants would mark the beginning of the end of Thatcher's dominance in the Tory Party.

There are certain moments in history when fundamental changes are taking place in society but are not always clearly visible to the masses, to governments or leaders. The miners' strike in Britain represents just such an historic watershed for the trade unions and the Labour Party.

ly in Britain, but internationally. This year's TUC represented a shift to the left. But the mood of the TUC was only a pale reflection of the underlying trend of radicalisation among the rank-and-file activists.

In spite of the unprecedented campaign in the mass media, the so-called "back to work movement" was a miserable flop. The government and the Coal Board know that, as the Autumn relentlessly advances, the prospects of an all-out victory for the miners- even without decisive action by other sections-becomes an ever-increasing possibility. The mood in the striking areas is absolutely solid.

The headlines in the press, highlighting the return to work of a handful of scabs only served to reveal desperation. In the event, they had the opposite effect to that intended, provoking a massive increase in the number of miners involved in picketing. Now, with the advent of cold weather, the possibility of power cuts and the gradual shut-down of industry begins to loom large in the calculations of the ruling class.

At the time of writing, the outcome of the strike is still undecided. The possibility exists, despite the public bravado of the government and the Coal Board, of some kind of compromise settlement being put forward, which would, in

practice, concede most of the

miners' points.

On the other hand, it cannot be

excluded that Thatcher will dig in

her heels and attempt to "slog it

out" . If that is the case, all hell

could break out this Winter, with a

situation similar to that of the

"three-day week" period under the

Heath government.

Whatever the outcome, there is

precious little comfort for the rul-

ing class. An outright defeat for the

miners is ruled out. Even a botch-

ed "compromise"' would, in effect,

be similar to the "compromise"

over Liverpool, which represented

a 90% victory for the Council and

a humiliating set-back for the

Tories. If the dispute drags on into

the Winter, the possibility of an

Faced with the upturn of militancy, the right wing feels itself embattled on both the political and industrial fronts. But nobody should imagine that the right will give up without a struggle. And nowhere is this fact more clearly illustrated than in the Labour Party.

One section of the Labour right has already gone over openly to the camp of the enemy. The SDP-so beloved of Hobsbawm and his friends- now stands well to the right of the Liberals. Yet not so long ago, Owen, Rogers, Williams and Jenkins were the darlings of the Labour right, and many within the

Party leadership still secretly nourish hopes of attracting these renegades back "into the fold"

while viciously persecuting and expelling supporters of Militant.

In reality, the split-off of the SDP represented only one branch of a dual tactic. Healey, Hattersley and the rest have stayed behind to carry on the dirty work from within. Unfortunately, Neil Kinnock has now openly thrown in his lot with the right.

Those who shouted the loudest about "unity'' have done most to undermine the unity of the Labour Party, rubbing salt into all the old wounds by re-opening the controversy on re-selection.

The idea has been falsely put forward that the so-called "one-manone-vote" option is somehow more democratic than the present system. What are the facts?

Under the present system, every Party member has the right to come along to his or her branch meeting, listen to the argument, ask questions, participate democratically in the discussion, and, finally, to mandate the delegates who will eventually vote on the issue.

[page 4]

Mobilisation of activists by the Broad Left Organising Committee to lobby TUC Conference in support of the miners. ker OFTS BACK THE MINERS BLOG 24 MR 24 НГ GENERAL GENER STARKE TRIK Photo: Dave Sinclair.

The system proposed by the right-with the support of Neil Kinnock - would open a Pandora's box of rigged elections, graveyard votes and Tammany Hall tactics which would permit the most blatant and direct interference of the press and TV in the internal affairs of the Labour Party. Democratic discussion at branch level would be replaced by "voting cattle''

little or no idea of the real issues involved.

We would remind these "democratic'

ladies and gentlemen that, in a general or local election, only invalids are allowed to vote by post. In order to vote, you have at least to go to the polls. Yet Labour Party members are not supposed to be capable of making the effort to go to their branch to express an opinion! This is a blatant attempt to dissolve the Labour Party into the Labour electorate, with fatal consequences for Labour as a party.

the appeals of the In reality, right wing to "democracy' are entirely hypocritical. In the past, these same MPs were quite con- BLOC 24 HR GENERAL STRIKE BACK THE MINERS tent to base themselves on "rotten boroughs'

of badly attended unrepresentative GMCs, which guaranteed them comfortable, well-paid jobs for life. Only now, when the rank-and-file is beginning to fight to make the leadership accountable, do these ladies and gentlemen begin to complain.

Supporters of Militant have been in the forefront of the fight for indemocracy and socialist ternal policies in the Labour Party and the trade unions. That is why the right wing has waged a hysterical campaign in favour of the witchhunting and expulsions of Marxists from the Labour Party. They would like to wreck the Labour Party before finally moving over to join their friends in the SDP.

Unfortunately, these manoeuvres of the Labour right have not been seriously countered by the Tribune left. There is even talk about watering down the socialist content of Clause IV and abandoning the idea of nationalisation in favour of some amorphous formula of "control". This backsliding must be firmly resisted. The Marxists 3 OrAD BLOC 24 HR 20HR CENER AL GENERAL STRIKE STRIKE MACK TH BLOC HR 24 HR BAL GENERAL IKE STRIKE BACK THE NHHEN who support the Militant and MIR will not accept without a fight the abandonment of the socialist aims of the Labour Party. Irrespective of what the Tribune does, the big majority of class concious Labour workers will support the fight waged by Militant to transform the Labour Party into a fighting instrument to change society.

The events of the last year, in particular the magnificent miners' strike, have begun to transform the psychology of large numbers of the most active workers in the trade unions and the Labour Party. Beginning with the miners- the salt of the earth-there is a growing realisation that, on the basis of capitalism, the workers and their families have no future except poverty, unemployment and degradation. To use the phrase of Thatcher: "There is no alternative" -except to fight with all the power of organised Labour against an unjust and oppressive system. There is no alternative but the struggle for socialism. That is the genuine New Realism which is being born out of struggle. It is the only road which offer real hope of success.

[page 5]

MIR Sept 1984; Labour Party

The choice before the Labour Party

By Lynn Walsh

THE OUTCOME of the miners' strike will be an issue of over-riding importance for this year's annual Labour Party conference. The preliminary agenda includes over two dozen resolutions on the strike, particularly condemning the brutal tactics being used by the police on Thatcher's orders. Two other issues which feature prominently are the coming battle in local government against the government's "rate-capping" measures and the fight against the cuts now devastating the National Health Service. At the same time, however, delegates to conference will be weighing up the balance sheet of the year since Neil Kinnock's election as Party leader. There will be massive rank-and-file opposition to the attempts by the leadership of the Parliamentary Party to swing the party back to the right, particularly on economic policy, and to undermine the existing procedure for the reselection of MPs, due to be set in motion again at the beginning of 1985.

There can be few Labour Party members who fail to recognise the signficance of the miners' struggle and the importance for the whole labour movement of their winning a decisive victory. There was overwhelming support tor the National Executive's call, moved by the Young Socialists' representative Steve Morgan, for a 50p a week levy in support of the miners. Although this has not been organised from Party headquarters, many Labour Party members have been involved in demonstrations, days of action, and have been collecting money and food to sustain the miners.

There is enormous anger in the Party, however, at the leadership's failure to give unequivocal support to the NUM, and especially at criticism of the strike from Peter Shore, Roy Hattersley, and more guardedly from Neil Kinnock. The strike was several weeks old before Neil Kinnock came out clearly in support. Even then, this support was tempered by public criticism. The Daily Mirror head-lined Kinnock's statements in support of a ballot, which had become the slogan of the right wing of the NUM, of right wingers in the TUC like Chapple and Duffy, and predictably of the capitalist press. The Shadow Cabinet was slow, to say the least, even in using its allocation of Parliamentary time to debate the issue of the strike. While criticising the unprecedented para-military tactics of the police, evidently planned and organised nationally from the very beginning, spokesmen like Hattersley and Shore have appeared far more concerned to condemn the violence of pickets. They are blind to the fact that in the all-out class war provoked by Thatcher, the only way to avoid violent conflict on the picket lines is to come out in favour of the TUC, the trade unions, and the Labour Party itself mobilising decisive support from the ranks of the labour movement in order to secure a rapid victory for the miners. With growing demands from trade unionists for the TUC to call a 24-hour general strike in support of the NUM, Kinnock actually attempted to cut across this, claiming that "this is not the way British trade unionism works". Not only is Neil's knowledge of work-

ing class history limited, but he attempted to shortcircuit the arguments for general . strike action to demonstrate the strength of the movement and prepare for further action by glibly dismissing them as "the big bang theory"

Instead, the leadership of the Shadow Cabinet, through Stan Orme MP, have acted as a broker for the terms of the National Coal Board-desperately attempting behind the scenes to persuade the NUM leadership to settle the strike on what they consider to be the favourable terms of the NCB. This stance reflects the view, evidently made clear in off-the-record briefings from Kinnock's advisors to the press, that the miners' strike will be harmful to Labour's electoral prospects. Do they imagine that defeat for the miners would improve Labour's prospects? In any case, even if their pessimistic assessment were true, what kind of Labour leaders are they who will support workers' struggles only when they are "popular" or when they are guaranteed in advance to produce electoral success?

However, recent events have refuted the Shadow Cabinet's viewpoint. During the strike Labour has made gains in Parliamentary by-elections, in the local elections in May, and also in the Euro-elections. This development was admitted by Roy Hattersley in his regular column for the Wall Street Journal (26 June), a paper, of course, not read by many Labour Party members: "Yet during the 15 weeks of the strike Labour has inched up in the opinion polls and actually become the most popular Party for the first time since the Falklands campaign'

Despite a massive media campaign of denunciation and personal vilification, Tony Benn, who has boldly supported the miners (and more recently supported the call for a general strike in support of the NUM), won a resounding victory in the Chesterfield by-election Although they were systematically played down by the press, which might be expected, Labour made big gains in the local council elections, with the Tories losing overall control even in "true-blue" areas like Cheltenham, Eastbourne, and other parts of the South East. The most significant feature of the local election results, moreover, was that Labour made the biggest gains where the left is strongest, for instance in Manchester and above all in Liverpool. And, notwithstanding, working class voters' marked lack of interest in the EEC, Labour also chalked up gains in the June Euroelections, winning 14 additional seats.

From the indications that a series of strikes during the so-called "Winter of Discontent" in 1978-79 helped to undermine the position of the Callaghan government, Kinnock and co-thinkers have drawn the entirely false conclusion that strikes always inevitably damage Labour's prospects. However, strikes damage Labour governments because they are a symptom of Labour's failure to solve the problems facing workers. Under Tory governments it is a ditterent question. Industrial strug gles against the bosses and their Tory representatives arouse the sympathy of the class, rally workers towards the labour movement, and raise the level of classconsciousness and militancy amongst wide layers of the workers. The miners' action has drawn on huge reservoirs of class sympathy, and among the advanced

[page 6]

Under pressure of Labour's right and the Tory press, Neil Kinnock has re-opened the battle of re-selection. Photo: Dave Sinclair.

workers it has re-awakened the feeling that it is possible to struggle and to force Thatcher and her bigbusiness backers to retreat. This is why the strike has brought a significant turn towards Labour in recent elections and even in the opinion polls sponsored by the capitalist press, one poll giving Labour a 3% lead in mid- August.

Undoubtedly it is true that Labour should have made far bigger gains given the situation facing most workers, with mass unemployment and a continuous driving down of living standards. From the point of view of using parliament as a platform to expose the Government and rally support to Labour, the shadow cabinet should have been far more effective, particularly given the splits and crises which have riven the Tory leadership since Thatcher's "landslide" last year. Labour would have won sweeping victories in recent elections, hammering the Tories and obliterating support for the Liberal-SDP Alliance, if the Labour leaders had put forward a bold alternative and mobilised the Party and its support amongst trade unionists in mass campaigning activity.

This is demonstrated by the success of the magnificent struggle of Liverpool's Labour Council against Tory cuts. On this issue too, the Labour leadership through its local government spokesmen John Cunningham ana Jack Straw, advised Liverpool Council to call off the struggle and accept terms which would have meant a 60% rate increase and massive job losses and cuts. To the workers of Liverpool who participated in an unprecedented local campaign of demonstrations, public meetings, and industrial action, Neil Kinnock could offer only "train-loads of sympathy" —advising them in practice to capitulate to Jenkin's threats. Liverpool could not win a struggle and would alienate support from Labour-this was evidently Kinnock's thinking. However, Liverpool smashed the Liberals and Tories in the local elections, gaining additional seats on the Council. In the light of this mass endorsement of the Council's policy at the polls, and forced to recognise that the Council would be backed by massive industrial action, Jenkin caved in and offered Liverpool concessions which will allow the Council to implement about 80% of its programme. Labour workers in other cities

5

faced with similar problems are now demanding to know when their councillors will be taking "the Liverpool road"

The present rightward course of the Labour leadership, which will have disastrous consequences for the movement unless it is reversed, stems from the failure of Kinnock and the "new left" to understand the real reasons for Labour's defeat last year. It is ironic indeed that they should still cling to the thesis of Eric Hobsbawm, a prominent theorist of the Communist Party and a veritable Professor of Pessimism who acts as a kind of psychotherapist for despondent Labour leaders. His explanation for Labour's defeat, which was avidly republished by The Guardian, was that the working class has swung to the right, that "upwardly mobile" sections of salaried workers have moved away from the labour movement, and that sympathy for socialism has been submerged in an upsurge of ideological support for Thatcherism. Yet in his recent book, the dissident Tory ex-Minister Frances Pym admits that Thatcher's "landslide", , a 144 seat majority based on a reduced share of the vote over 1979, was the result of the special conditions which prevailed immediately after the Falklands War. As he put it, a "true verdict" was never delivered on the Tory government. Pym's explanation leaves aside, of course, the failure of the Labour leaders to argue the case for the radical policies of the manifesto, the open attacks on Party policy from prominent ex-Ministers like Callaghan and Healy, and the failure of the Party to organise an effective election campaign. But the open opposition of Fym Heath, Gilmour, and other prominent Tory "wets" reflects the underlying weakness of the Thatcher government. For a government which won a landslide victory-as professor Hobsbawm would have it-on the basis of a swing to the right in society and a profound upsurge in ideological support for conservatism, Thatcher's government has taken an inexplicable battering. Even the right-wing capitalist Economist (7 July), which once fervently supported Thatcher, confessed that her "second government is stepping up to become Britain's most inept since the war." Protests at the banning of trade unions at GCHQ, massive opposition to the at-

[page 7]

MIK sept 1904; Laoour r tempt to abolish the GLC and next year's GLC elections, and above all her failure to win a quick and easy victory over the miners, have undermined support for the government even in the South and South East, as the Tory defeat in Portsmouth South showed. These developments, for anyone whose mind is not clouded by professor Hobsbawm's notions, confirm Militant's analysis: that Thatcher's 1983 victory was just a "moment" in the class struggle, and it in no way altered the underlying balance of class forces in society, which are still overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the working class. What is lacking is a leadership of the labour movement prepared to take a bold stand on the interests of the working class and to give a lead with socialist policies.

While the class has begun to move against the Tory government, and the miners have demonstrated the enormous class determination and tenacity of the workers once they swing into action, the Labour leadership under the aegis of Kinnock, whose election as leader many workers welcomed under the impression that it would consolidate Labour's swing to the left, has moved sharply back towards the right. In elections for the shadow cabinet, the PLP gave 9 of the 15 places to outand-out right-wingers. The "balance" of the front bench is tilted decidedly to the right, with the "old right" like Shore, Healy, Silkin, Hattersley and Kaufman taking key positions, backed up by younger right-wingers like Radice, Cunningham and Straw. The witch-hunt against Militant, which Jim Mortimer, the General Secretary, assured last year's conference would be ended after the expulsion of the five members of the Editorial Board, has been continued with the expulsion of six Militant supporters in Blackburn, a Militant supporter in the Rhondda, and moves against Militant supporters and other left wingers in a number of constituency parties. This has gone hand in hand with moves by the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party to bury Labour's radical policies and to undermine democratic mandatory re-selection of MPs.

Right ignores conference decisions

LAST OCTOBER many Labour Party members welcomed the election of the "dream ticket" of Kinnock and Hattersley as leader and deputy leader believing that it would end the turmoil within the party. The mood after Labour's election defeat was overwhelmingly in favour of unity, but unity on the basis of the reforms and policies endorsed by a big majority of the party at recent annual conferences. From the word go, however, the new leadership set about reviving the failed policies of the old right-wing leadership. In the name of rejecting "ideology" and "vanguardism", and of generally "refining" the Party's policy, Kinnock even hinted at the need to loosen the links with the trade unions, the working class base of the party, and at abandoning the Party's commitment to nationalisation embodied in Clause IV, part 4, of the Party's constitution. In other words, the "new lett' turns out to be the old right in a new guise, with Neil Kinnock following in the footsteps of past leaders like Attlee, Wilson and Foot, who rose on the left but led from the right.

In the period after Labour's conference, Kinnock's tactic appeared to be to avoid as far as possible any discussion of policy, despite the fact that the Tory government

Hattersley- would give support to an incomes policy in the next Labour government.

was being shaken by one crisis and scandal after another, and workers were turning back towards Labour for an alternative. Even some of Kinnock's trendy advisers now admit that they went too far in persuading him to develop a new "popular image". . "If they had their time over again," reported the Sunday Times (5 August), "there are many who would try to dissuade Kinnock from performing Tracey Ullman's pop video, or doing Singing in the Rain. 'They were born of an overhasty scramble to attract young voters, admits one of Kinnock's kitchen cabinet. 'We were too desperate to get away from the image of 1983'." Workers were clearly not impressed by these antics, which appear to be modelled on US Presidential-style campaigning rather than seriously taking up the issues facing the working class.

While eschewing public discussion of Labour's policies, however, the leadership of the Parliamentary Party quickly set up a series of study groups of its own, clearly intending to by-pass the National Executive Committee in formulating policies for a future Labour government. All the signs are that, like Harold Wilson in the past, the Kinnock-Hattersley leadership will attempt to ignore conference decisions and decide the contents of Labour's next manifesto for itself.

During the leadership election campaign, Hattersley made it clear that he "would not consider himself to be bound by conference decisions". More recently, he has boldly proclaimed that his "summer sermons" of last year are "no longer heresy". By what he calls a process of "democratic osmosis"-in reality, undemocratic revision-the Party leadership has re-adopted the policies advocated by the right-wing of the Parliamentary Party.

Appointed Shadow Chancellor by Kinnock, Hattersley

[page 8]

set up a "brains trust" which reportedly meets at his room at Westminster on Mondays. The Financial Times (14 February) which is clearly much better informed about its deliberations than the Labour Party, reported that this group "consists of three bankers and brokers from the City and five academics (four of whom are professors), all of whom prefer to be anonymous." Undoubtedly, one of the main purposes of these Shadow Cabinet deliberations is to reassure big business that a future Labour government, with Hattersley as Chancellor, would pose no threat to the "mixed economy" , ie. to capitalism.

In a major policy statement, given as a speech to the Ruskin Fellowship Committee on 15 May (published in Tribune, 1 July, 1984) Hattersley outlined economic policies for the next Labour government. From within the socialistic verbiage the capitalist commentators were quick to draw out the important points. The next Labour government would adopt an incomes policy. It would increase state expenditure and would consider a "small budget deficit desirable". But Labour ministers, according to Hattersiey, would no longer regard "a massive increase in etfective demand... (as) a certain and automatic remedy….." . There could not be "a dash for growth"

Hattersley has belatedly but correctly come to the conclusion that the Keynesian policies of the post-war period will no longer work in the period of organic capitalist crisis. However, reassurance to big business on this score offers no consolation to workers. In the absence of any proposals for genuine socialist measures to take over ownership and control of the commanding heights of the economy and to introduce socialist planning of production, the Labour leadership is once again in a position of offering reformism without reforms. The statement laboriously explains what a Labour government will not be able to achieve, while conspiciously offering very little in the way of improvements in workers' living standards.

Kinnock himself, on several occasions, has confirmed that this is the approach of the Shadow Cabinet. At the party's Scottish conference in Perth in March, Kinnock revived the old excuse that the last Labour government was defeated because there was a "backwash of overexpectation". Under the next Labour government, he told delegates, "We're not going to be able to say 'yes' to everything". This puts a question mark over all the radical reforms adopted as policy by recent conferences. It is a return to the disastrous line adopted by James Callaghan in the 1979 election campaign. Promise nothing and the workers will not be disappointed when they get nothing. Apparently, the right wing Parliamentary leaders have not woken up to the fact that working people judge Labour governments, not by whether they implement the fine print of the manifesto, but by whether in practice they begin to solve the every-day problems facing workers. Kinnock and the right wing team with which he has surrounded himself are blind to the fact that experience of the crisis, which has deepened sharply since the last Labour government, has forced politically conscious sections of workers to the conclusion that there is no way out within the framework of capitalism: only fundamental socialist policies can provide solutions. But, as now appears customary with Neil, he does not take up the issue but attempts to dismiss it with a glib phrase-as "spray-on socialism". Workers might retort that he is still advocating "elastoplast reformism"- attempting, moreover, to re-use a plaster that long ago lost its stick.

The Party conferences re-affirmed support for radical policies in the conferences which followed the 1979 defeat not simply because delegates, representing party activists, favoured left-wing resolutions. The swing to the left on policy reflected conclusions drawn by wide sections of the working class from the experience of the Wilson-Callaghan government. That the policies of the right wing which dominated that government were a disastrous failure. That the ideas of reformism, given the world-wide crisis of capitalism and the special crisis in Britain, were finished. That there is no way out within the diseased framework of the present system and that only rounded-out socialist policies based on the implementation of Clause IV, part 4, can provide a way out for the working class. These lessons will not be forgotten by the workers, particularly the active members of the trade unions and the party

Divine Right of MPs"

UNDER PRESSURE of Labour's right-wing and the capitalist press Neil Kinnock has also reopened the battle over re-selection. He gave backing to a proposal for an optional "one member one vote" ballot on re-selection which was put to the July meeting of the National Executive Committee, and passed by 15 votes to 12. This move is an attempt to safeguard the position of rightwing members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to "protect" them against re-selection by their General Management Committees. Significantly, the optional ballot will apply to sitting MPs only, not to the selection of candidates generally.

Quite a number of right-wingers would not be sitting in Parliament now if they had been obliged to face reselection before last year's general election. The postponement of re-selection in many areas, which resulted from the delay in implementing the new constituency boundaries (ineptly and unsuccessfully challenged by Labour's front bench in the High Court), enabled the NEC to impose a re-selection procedure which in most parties effectively ruled out any challenge to the sitting MP. This saved the political bacon of 20 or 30 MPs who long ago lost the political support of their local parties.

Ever since Neil Kinnock became leader, supposedly as a figure who would end the battle within the party, a continuous stream of right-wingers have traipsed through his room at Westminster demanding action to safeguard them against "party activists" … A majority of the present shadow cabinet were included among the 70 signatories on a letter to the Party's general secretary calling for a change in the re-selection procedure.

Predictably, the Solidarity organisation, whose policy on most issues is indistinguishable from that of the Social Democratic Party, has been to the forefront. Early in July, Kinnock had a secret meeting with the Solidarity group-which includes Roy Hattersley, Peter Shore, John Smith, and other Shadow Cabinet members-to discuss the proposals. "Solidarity" reported The Times (4 August, 1984), 'in its latest newsletter to members, says, 'the need to fight at constituency and branch level is, if anything, greater than ever before. It may be tempting to argue that the internal battle is over and that Solidarity should now quietly fade away. Certainly there will be no prizes for a high profile which suggests the party is in turmoil'." Clear-

[page 9]

MIK sept 1904; Lavour t ly, the right advocate "unity" only on their own termson the basis of "protection from left-wing activists" (members who attend meetings), guarantees that radical conference policies will be ditched, and that there will be a further purge of Militant supporters and other leftwingers. This is evident from the Solidarity newsletter, which makes it clear that optional ballots are just a first step towards mandatory ballots—and that they intend to continue to fight for this beyond this year's Party conference.

Naturally, these lobbyists for a return to the "divine right" of MPs to hold their seat in perpetuity have been vociferously backed by the capitalist press. The Sunday Times, whose political columns are like a weekly propaganda bulletin for Labour's right wat Neil Kinminence on 22 July to the story that nock.. has been warned by Shadow Cabinet ministers and right-wing labour MPs that the Party's recovery is threatened by left-wing moves in the constituencies to dismiss 25 sitting Labour MPs as candidates in the next general election." Their list includes two shadow cabinet members, Peter Shore and John Silkin, as well as the Chief Whip, Michael Cocks (who was only reelected Chief Whip by the Parliamentary Party after being forced to a third round of the ballot). Other newspapers produced lists which included other names

The mass circulation Daily Mirror, however, went even further. Immediately prior to the July NEC meeting, the Mirror launched a campaign under the slogan "Fight for the Labour Party" ', with blown-up features on its front and centre pages over three days. Victory for Labour, according to the Mirror, necessitates dealing with the "far left" or "lunatic left" . This campaign may not be unconnected with the fact that the Mirror has just been bought by big business tycoon Robert Maxwell, himself a former right-wing MP. Maxwell is currently under threat of expulsion from his own local party, Oxiord East, because of his action against the print unions. In answer to the print unions' fight to save jobs in Maxwell's British Printing and Communications Corporation, Maxwell has used the Tories' anti-trade union legislation against SOGAT' 82 and the NGA, applying to the High Court for the sequestration of their funds.

Labour's National Executive, proclaimed the Mirror (25 July), "must decide today whether to start to win the next election or to repeat the mistakes which lost the last. It can either widen democracy within the party or tighten the grip of the undemocratic and unrepresentative left. It can either strengthen the authority of Neil Kinnock or torpedo his chances of

becoming the next prime minister... ". Featured prominently in its Save the Right campaign were "front line" MPs Peter Shore and Frank Field, "two outstanding MPs", , according to the Mirror.

"Peter Shore is one of Labour's most respected, ex-

perienced and powerful MPs. In 1980 and again last year

he was a contender for the Party leadership. ..

The Mirror conveniently forgot to remind its readers of Shore's derisory vote in the leadership contest. Shore

has consistently opposed the Party's policies on the

economy and in relation to defence. He wants a return to the disastrous pro-capitalist polices of the 1974-79 Labour government, and scarcely attempts to conceal

the fact that further reforms are ruled out in the pre

sent economic crisis. For twenty years he has represented an inner-city constituency, Bethnal Green

and Stepney, where workers have suffered the worst ef-

= 1984• Tinhour Fl

fects of Labour's failure to reverse the decline of British capitalism. It is the effects of the crisis, not "conspiracies" dreamed up by the Daily Mirror which has shattered support for Shore and his policies. Overwhelming votes of no confidence in Shore prior to the last general election demonstrated clearly that he has lost his basis of support in his constituency party.

The Mirror's other "front-line" favourite was Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead. This democrat, who according to Fleet Street, is "threatened" by the re-selection process has already-very democratically-threatened his constituency party that it he is de-selected he will stand against Labour.

The Daily Mirror, a paper of big business which masquerades as pro-Labour in order the better to deceive its working class readers, pretends that it is out of concern for Labour's chances of winning the next general election. This is pure hypocrisy. The Times, however, recently blurted out the truth. The strategists of big business (unlike the Labour leaders) are far from being deceived by Professor Hobsbawm's thesis. They recognise that massive workers' battles, like the miners' strike and other struggles to come, will catastrophically undermine support from the Tories and bring a swing to Labour on the political plane.

"Pendulums swing" , warned The Times (24 July), "and it would be rash to suppose that there are no circumstances in which the pendulum could swing to Labour despite the fact that the left seized all the inner citadels and was ready to act as a dominant force once the Party had been taken over. It is therefore in the national as well as in the Party interest that Labour should remain as broad based as possible and as democratic. Mr Kinnock's effort, belated and half-hearted though it is, deserves support"

The strategists of capital want to ensure that the next Labour government will be dominated by a right wing leadership committed to pro-capitalist polices that will provide no threat to the wealth and power of the capitalist class. That is what motivates their campaign to undermine and if possible reverse re-selection-not

any concern for Labour's electoral prospects.

However, the issue is far from decided yet. Kinnock has supported a half-measure because he is aware of the

storm of opposition which will be provoked by any at-

tempt to undermine re-selection. The constituency parties' delegates at conference will be overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal. There will also be strong opposition within the trade union delegations, because the "one member, one vote" procedure effectively disenfranchises the unions affiliated to constituency parties. Kinnock has gained the support of a number of trade union leaders only by making the ballot optional. Even if the leadership succeeds in getting the proposal through conference in October in time to assist right wing MPs who

may face re-selection from the beginning of next year,

the battle will not be over.

When re-selection was carried through in 1981, in the

aftermath of the disastrous defeat of the 1974-79

Labour government, it was seen as a long overdue, ir-

reversible reform in Party democracy. Far from express-

ing the "narrow" aims of "unrepresentative" Party ac-

tivists, the change reflected the conclusions drawn by

much wider layers of the working class-that there

should be no return to the failed reformist policies of

Labour's right wing and that the Party's rank and file

should be able to select representatives prepared to fight

for workers' interests. Mandatory re-selection through

delegates to General Management Committees puts the

8

[page 10]

Tony Benn. The ideas of the left will gain despite the manoeuvres of the right wing on reselection.

selection procedure in the hands of representatives of active Party members who are involved in building the Party, discussing policy, and who are familiar with the record of MPs. The capitalist class and their echoes within the Parliamentary Party denounce this, not because it is undemocratic, but because they hope that with the "one member, one vote" procedure they will be able to influence the outcome of re-selection through pressure of the media on less active layers of Party members. Once again, the capitalists are claiming the right not only of choosing the leaders of their own party but of the Labour Party as well Clearly, in constituencies where there is an overwhelming majority on the left, GMCs will vote against the ballot option. However, where a sitting right-wing MP is challenged there will be enormous pressure through the capitalist media for a ballot. Where ballots are decided on, the local and national media will pull out all the stops to secure the re-selection of right-wing MPs. There is also the danger that the new rules, which will inevitably be much more complicated, will give far more scope for de-selected MP's to challenge decisions and for the National Executive Committee to intervene. This will open up the possibility of a whole series of enquiries conducted by the NEC's mis-named Appeals and Arbitration Committee, in reality a Star Chamber which has taken over responsibility for organising witch-hunts against the lett.

On the other hand, the right are deluded if they think vote" will automatically that "one member, one safeguard the position of the right-wingers. They claim that the activists are "unrepresentative". . However, the old membership of the Labour Party declined under the stewardship of the right. The worst decline has been in areas dominated and represented by right wing MPs. New members coming into the Party, especially youth, and industrial workers, are overwhelmingly on the left. In most areas only a trickle of industrial workers have come in to the Party in the recent period. In the next period more and more industrial militants will turn towards the Labour Party, carrying over their industrial struggles into the political arena. Whatever the manoeuvres taken by the leadership, this will mean a further swing to the left in the Labour Party. While in the short term, therefore, the right-wing may bolster the position of a few of the right-wingers who face reselection, a resort to "one member one vote" right succeed in making it compulsory, will not save right-wingers indefinitely. Even in the coming round of re-selection, if the left campaigns correctly and takes all the issues to the membership, right wing MPs could be decisively defeated in membership ballots and replaced by parliamentary candidates who reflect the outlook of the present membership.

One thing is clear, however: Kinnock's support for a change in re-selection marked the end of his honeymoon as leader. On this issue he has come forward openly as the spokesman of the right. The fact that the Kinnock camp itselt has split on this issue, with Robin Cook and others like Norman Buchan coming out in opposition, is an indication of the battle which will be opened up. No going back KINNOCK WILL not be allowed a free hand to turn back the clock. The Party's ranks, beginning at this year's conference, will fight tenaciously against the political counter-revolution being waged by the PLP's right-wing leaders. In particular, the industrial workers who will increasingly come into the party in the next period, will massively reinforce the demand for policies based on the commitment to a fundamental socialist transformation of society.

This means a programme based on the implementation of Clause IV, part 4, which under conditions of present-day capitalism means the taking over of the banks and the 200 big monopolies which dominate the economy. This should be done on the basis of minimum compensation on the basis of proven need. Nationalised industries should be run under democratic workers' control and management, providing the basis for a socialist plan of production. At the same time, linked to this the Party should campaign for immediate improvements in workers' living standards through the implementation of £100 minimum wage for all workers, the 35-hour week without loss of pay, restoration of the cuts in the NHS, education, housing etc, and a massive programme of public works to provide jobs and muchneeded facilities. Whereas there will be no enthusiasm among workers for a return to the discredited right wing policies of the past Labour governments, there would be enormous support for a socialist programme if it was explained and campaigned for.

There is growing support for such a programme among active sections of the labour movement, especially among those involved in the struggle of the miners. This is reflected in the growth of support for Militant, which has been singled out as the target of the right wing's witch-hunt. The perspectives we outlined immediately after the general election are already being borne out, and our programme, based on the ideas of Marxism, is increasingly recognised by workers as the only viable answer to the crisis in the system and the class policies of the Tory government. We are confident that Marxism will go from strength to strength in the trade unions and the Labour Party in the coming months, and those around Militant will certainly be to the forefront of the battle to defend Party democracy and socialist policies at this year's Annual Conference.

9

[page 11]

Appeasement, war and resistance Letters Russian soldiers reach Berlin in 1945. THE CAPITALIST press, media, and politicians fell over themselves to get in on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day binge. They portrayed themselves as the guardians of "democracy" and "freedom"

studiously neglect to outline their real role.

Hitler was appeased by the Tories, because they saw him as a bulwark against Communism and social revolution. Hitler's and Mussolini's policies of destroying the German and Italian labour movements, were applauded by Churchill. In 1927 he commented on Mussolini's "gentle and simple , his "detatched poise in bearing", spite of so many burdens and dangers"

, and declared, been an Italian I am sure that I should have been with you wholeheartedly from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism"

Even when Hitler's expansionist foreign policy began to become a problem-ie a threat to British and French financial and imperial interests-this still did not change the Tories' fundamental assessment MIR Sept 1984; Letter :

The ideas expressed in this section do not necessarily reflect the views of the MIR Editorial Board. The of the value of Hitler as an anti- Communist battering ram. Hence the desperate attempts by Chamberlain's Conservative government to 'appease' Hitler in . They the West; in order to attain this end the British Conservatives were willing to turn a blind eye to the persecutions of Jews in Germany, and to countenance the sacrifice of the 'democratic' states of Spain, Austria, and Czechoslovakia to fascism. So much for their highflown claims to be the defenders of democracy against fascism, good against evil.

Hitler's expansionist plans did not actually envisage the direct "if I had it eventually dawned on certain sections of the British ruling class vast continental power, capable of Soviet Russia, then inevitably that first class power'. But only when in their faces by the invasion of British ruling class jolted into Germany.

subjugation of Britain. Nevertheless that, if Germany was to become the performing a 'surgical operation' on then?

would mean 'the end of Britain as a the reality of this threat was thrust Poland in September 1939 were the doing something. They declared war 10 •Editors reserve the right to shorten letters which are excessively long. in a display of determination to defend their own power and prestige. But display was all that this was. Despite all the grand talk of detending poor Poland the.

British establishment still had no real intention of fighting Nazi Not for nothing are the first months of war known as the 'Phoney War'. Even after the nominal declaration of war the British establishment were still preoccupied with thoughts of hitting back at the socialist 'cancer' represented by the USSR. As late as June 1940, on the very eve of the Battle of Britain, and at the very moment of the fall of France, they were still discussing bombing the Soviet oil-fields at Baku, to attempt to draw Hitler into an anti- Soviet alliance. Where were their concerns for the victims of fascism Neither did Churchill's appointment as war-leader in May 1940 signify the emergence of a leadership determined to fight fascism; it was simply that the British establishment was reluctantly concluding that it was

[page 12]

going to have to fight to preserve Its great power position. But now that British capitalism had found itself in conflict with Germany, it found itself too, in 1941, in a peculiar alliance with its old enemy: Soviet Russia! This was indeed a strange alliance. The British establishment still regarded the Soviet Union, and the threat of social revolution which, in spite of everything, it represented for them, as ultimately the greater danger.

Churchill's propaganda talked of a great alliance against fascism. But in practice he hoped two birds would be disposed of with one stone: that the continental powers would destroy each other. Churchill stood aside to await this conclusion. While the Nazi and Soviet giants enjoined their titanic struggle Churchill kept apart. British operations in 1942 and 1943 concentrated on preparing a position in North Africa, ready to intervene in Southern Europe and to secure the Balkans against the Soviet Union. The real war against Nazi Germany was meanwhile being fought by the Russians.

Stalingrad shattered the calculations of British capitalism. The two giants did not destroy each other. The Soviet planned economy, despite the enormities and bureaucratic inefficiencies of Stalin's dictatorship, proved far more resilient than they had ever imagined. Within months of turning the Nazi advance at Stalingrad, the Red Army had broken the back of the Wehrmacht; and it was sweeping westwards across the plains of Central Europe.

Now came the moment for the much vaunted D-Day. Urgent action was needed, to counter the spectre which had suddenly arisen: Germany prostrate before the Red Army and revolution! Only one factor mitigated against this prospect, although Churchill and the Western capitalist leaders had not fully grasped it themselves, and this was that for their own reasons Stalin and the Russian bureaucracy had no wish to provoke genuine revolutionary socialist movements in Europe. But, this factor allowed, it does not alter the fact that the strategies adopted by Churchill, Roosevelt and Trueman, just like Chamberlain's earlier policy of appeasement, were fundamentally determined to secure capitalism against revolution, at every stage the German problem was secondary. The brave propaganda of fighting fascism and defending democracy was just so much cant designed to dupe the workers at 1945.

where British and American forces had a free hand, such as Italy and as quickly as possible with former members of the fascist and collaborationist regimes, in order to re-establish 'safe' right-wing rule. The attitude of the British capitalist establishment to the resistance movements stands in stark constrast with their initial appeasement, and later rueful grappling with the fascist Axis powers. The resistance movements united the most militant and resistance leaders were often politically rather confused, but the character of the movements was Konni Zilliacus of Gateshead summed up the character of the resistance thus in 1943:

were the stronghold of he wrote, the great landowners are the the underground resistance and are dominated by the working class. Such reconstruction programmes as the outside world show clearly in character. The French, underground fighters regard public ownership of banking, national control of the whole foundation for political Churchill at the Yalta Conference - February It is no accident that in the areas Greece, accommodation was reached determined anti-fascist fighters. The unmistakable. Left-wing Labour MP "Just as the propertied class appeasement and collaboration,"

"and big business and economic taproots of fascism, so movements, although they have become nation-wide, originated in have come to the knowledge of that the resistance movements are almost without exception left Yugoslav, Czechoslovak, Belgian, Dutch, Polish, Italian and Greek transport and key industries, and economic system as the essential democracy, and as the only way of dealing with the elements of society that have proved fundamentally hostile to the rights of the common people, and have literally sold out to fascism."

What was the attitude of Churchill and the Conservatives to these resistance movements? These champions of freedom and democracy, "good" against "bad", these British Conservatives, what did they do? They spared no effort, strained every nerve, and broke down every barrier; to achieve what?; to make sure the resistance did not come to power.

In France and Italy the resistance were disarmed as a matter of priority. Power was given to right wing generals De Gaulle and Badoglio, the latter a former member of Mussolini's fascist Grand Council. Nazis such as Klaus Barbie at Lyons were enlisted to fight the resistance, then allowed to go free. In Greece and Belgium Churchill used British troops to actually fight against and destroy the main resistance units as soon as the Axis troops had been cleared out! In Germany fraternisation with ordinary German workers was absolutely forbidden. "You have entered Germany: fraternisation is a crime!" read the notices.

In all this a particularly reprehensible role was played by Stalin, the Russian bureaucracy, and the Communist Party leaders.

As part of a deal on spheres of influence cynically struck with Churchill they aided in the reestablishment of repressive rightwing regimes in the West. Indeed in most cases they acted, along with right-wing labour bureaucrats, as a 'radical' and 'democratic'

veneer to give these new regimes credibility. Harold Laski, the left wing Labour NEC chairman, had no illusions as to what was being done: he railed against the deception of a "farcical list of 'free elections' (which) is everywhere a technique for keeping old and evil vested interests in power"

A war between thieves, a struggle for power between British and German capital-the workers had no interest in that war. But "keeping old and evil vested interests in power"-now that affected the workers. Then as now, in World War Two as in Latin America, all the talk by that Thatchers and Reagans, the Churchills and Roosevelts, of concern for freedom was just so much hypocrisy.

Ian Hunter Sacriston Labour Party

[page 13]

MIR Sept 1984: Nicaragua

Marxism and the Nicaraguan revolution

ARISING OUT of the Autumn 1983 issue of the Militant International Review, which was dedicated exclusively to the revolutionary process in Latin America, we are pleased to see that there has been quite a lot of discussion among our readers.

One of the issues which has given rise to the keenest interest has been the position taken by this journal on the revolutionary developments in Central America in general, and Nicaragua in particular.

For reasons of space, and because the main ques-

tion under consideration was the revolution in Latin America itself, these questions were only touched upon in passing. For a more detailed account of our position on Central America, we refer our readers to the article written by Ted Grant in the Militant (5 August, 1983, No. 662).

In view of the interest expressed in this issue, we publish here a further contribution to the discussion, by Bob Labi, which has special relevance to the problems of the Nicaraguan revolution. - Editor

THE OVERTHROW of the Somoza dictatorship in 1979 has undoubtedly helped to fan a new wave of revolutionary struggle throughout

Central America. The Sandinista victory rekindled the idea of insurrectionary struggle among the young fighters battling against the dictatorships and repressive regimes of Latin America. The undoubted social advances which have been made in Nicaragua since 1979 have also inspired those fighting

against capitalism around the world.

This has also enabled the Sandinistas to develop a wide following in many countries. The fundamental basis for this support is the absolutely firm desire among socialists and workers to defend the Nicaraguan revolution against reaction, especially the US financed counterrevolutionaries. But at the same time Marxists cannot be mere cheerleaders. It is vitally necessary to draw the correct lessons from every struggle and so enhance the working class's understanding of the tasks it faces in struggling to overthrow capitalism.

Unfortunately, there are those in the labour movement, and particularly on the sectarian fringes, who let their enthusiasm for the Nicaraguan revolution take the place of Marxist analysis. This is not a new phenomenon. It is similar to the uncritical, or virtually uncritical, support which many self-proclaimed "Marxists" gave to Stalin in the 1930s, Tito in the late 1940s and Mao in the 1960s. These people completely forgot, or never knew, the fundamentals of

By Bob Lab

Belize Mexico

Guatemala

El Salvador

500 km

Marxism in their rush to

idealise these regimes.

Because of the obvious

and important gains

represented by the revolu-

tion, which we fully sup-

port, many comrades, par-

ticularly among the youth,

have tended to develop an

entirely idealised concep-

tion both of the nature of

the Nicaraguan revolu-

tion, and of the class

character and role of the

Sandinista leadership. We

do not for a moment deny

the heroism of the San-

dinistas, or the sincerity of

their intentions. However,

Marxist analysis does not

base itself on examining

the personal qualities of

the Sandinista leadership,

but rather on the question

of whether or not the pro-

letariat, as a class, is in

power in Nicaragua. The

fact that at the present time there is overwhelming support for the Sandinista regime does not automatically mean that the working class is in power. Similarly the fact that the Sandinista leadership make speeches about socialism does not result in Marxists adopting an uncritical approach to them. We do not judge people merely by what they say but, more importantly, by what they do.

The general impression is created that the Sandinistas are somehow "carrying through the socialist revolution". But what does the socialist revolution reaily consist of! Above all else the socialist revolution is the conscious movement of the working class to take power into its hands. The working class exercises its control over society through a workers' democracy, based on the principles developed in the 12

Honduras

NICARAGUA L

• Managua

Costa Rica

[page 14]

1871 Paris Commune, the first period of the Russian revolution and the 1956 Hungarian revolution.

These principles, expressed by Lenin in State and Revolution, provide the litmus test as to whether or not a socialist revolution has taken place. Summarised briefly these principles are:

* No standing army, but the armed people. * All officials, managers etc. to be regularly elected by the workers' organisations, with the immediate right of recall.

* All officials to receive worker.

* Popular participation in all adminsitrative duties; the direct management and control of society by workers' councils (Soviets).

The Stalinist political counter-revolution in Russia during the 1920s crushed the workers' democracy based on these principles which had existed in Russia and attempted to bury forever these four points of Lenin.

The degeneration of the Russian revolution and the development of Stalinist regimes in other countries following the Second World War also gave rise to great confusion within the international labour movement as to what consitutes a socialist revolution and a socialist society. The enhanced strength of Stalinism after 1945, the delay in the revolution in the advanced capitalist countries and the postwar weakness of the forces of Marxism resulted in the distorted development of the revolution in many countries.

The revolutions which took place in Eastern Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Syria, Ethiopia etc, certainly led to the overthrow of capitalism (something which still cannot be said to have occurred in Nicaragua, although it is not excluded in the future). Private ownership of the means of production was replaced by nationalised economies with planned production. That certainly represented a gigantic step forward, and, as such, was welcomed by the Marxists. However, the distorted way in which these revolutions were carried out inevitably led to the establishment of one party, bureaucratic totalitarian police states and a new form of slavery for the working class. This despite the fact that, in the initial stages at least, these regimes all had an extremely "popular" character and were enthusiastically greeted by the masses.

Why did this take place? Was it the product of accident, misunderstanding or "bad luck"? On the contrary, it was rooted in the nature of these revolutions which took place without the conscious leading role of the proletariat, the highest expression of which is the Marxist revolutionary party.

Only the working class, organised in democratic revolutionary councils, or soviets, can lead to the socialist transformation of society. No other class or social group-whether peasants, lumpenproletarians, students, bureaucrats, guerillas or radical army officers-can play the same role. And whenever some other social group attempts to substitute itself for the proletariat in the revolution, the result is a foregone conclusion. Even in the most favourable out-

13

the same wages as a skilled

Military parade last year.

Photo: Pietro Gigli (I.F.L.).

come, where such a movement succeeds in overthrowing landlordism and capitalism, the best which can be hoped for is a new kind of totalitarian bureaucratic slavery which can last for decades until the working class becomes strong enough to overthrow it by a new political revolution and begin to move in the direction of real socialism, by purging the state of bureaucratic parasitism and creating a genuine, democratic workers' state, or "semi-state", to use Lenin's own expression, based on workers' democracy. From the beginning of these 'revolutions' control was firmly in the hands of an elite which sought to create a bureaucratic regime modelled on the Stalinist regime in the USSR. Thus we had the development of what Marxists call proletarian bonapartist regimes in many parts of the world.

However, in the case of Nicaragua, the Sandinista leadership, under the pressure of the Russian and Cuban bureaucracies, has not even carried the process of the expropration of capitalism to a final con-

[page 15]

MIR Sept 1984:

clusion. Because of this policy, it is not completely excluded that capitalist reaction might still succeed in throttl ing the Nicaraguan revolution at birth. This fact alone illustrates the completely un-Marxist nature of the Sandinista leadership and its narrow, nationalist conception of the revolution as well as the criminal role of Cuban and Russian Stalinism, which do not want to further complicate their relations with US imperialism by being openly seen to support the elimination of capitalism in Central America.

Moscow and Havana have clearly put heavy pressure on the Sandinistas to adopt a "moderate" stand and try to "do a deal" with Washington. That largely explains the vain attempt to conciliate what is left of the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie with all kinds of concessions, which only serve to embolden these brazen counter-revolutionaries and heighten the risk of United States invasion. Far from being a "realistic" policy, it will have disastrous consequences.

If the Sandinistas were genuine Marxist Leninists, they would carry through the revolution to its final conclusion, expropriating the bourgeoisie, and then make a revolutionary appeal to the workers and peasants of Central and Latin America, and also of North America, to come to their aid. On a purely Nicaraguan-or, for that matter, on a purely Central American-basis, there is no possibility for victory. Here the lesson of the permanent revolution is posed point-blank: either the revolution spreads to other countries, beginning with Central and Latin America, or it is doomed. The explosive situation in the entire sub-continent is a powerful reserve for the revolution, provided a bold internationalist revolutionary policy is pursued. But on the basis of illusory "realism", diplomatic manoeuvres and half-policies, there is no hope whatever.

The widespread confusion about the nature of the Nicaraguan regime is based on a superficial appraisal of the great enthusiasm which undoubtedly exists among the masses for the gains of the revolution. Similar enthusiasm existed not only in Yugoslavia, China and Cuba in the early stages of the revolution, but also in Stalin's Russia in the period of the first Five Year Plans, before the nightmare of the purge trials drowned the last remnants of October in a sea of blood. While the nature of the Sandinista regime is clearly very different from that of Stalin in Russia, it would be a fundamental mistake to imagine either that it represented a genuine workers' democracy, or that it was capable, on its present course, of evolving in that direction.

Many supporters of the

14

Nicaragua

1821-Independence from Spain won by Central American Federation, of which Nicaragua was a part. 1843-Break up of Central American Federation.

1909 - US troops invade Nicaragua to prevent President Zelaya building a rival to the Panama Canal with German and Japanese backing.

Nicargua in effect becomes a semicolony of USA.

1912-US troops again intervene to crush Liberal-led national uprising, after which a permanent force of US Marines are based in Nicargua.

1925 - US Marines withdrawn from Nicargua. Two months later civil war starts out after Conservatives break their coalition with the Liberals and seize power in coup. US troops immediately return.

1927- Liberals agree to surrender on US terms, but one Liberal leader, General Sandino, refuses and continues to fight on with his 300 strong force based in the north.

1932-With promise that US Marines will leave (which they did in 1933) Sandino agrees to stop fighting after receiving guarantees for some peasant co-operatives.

1934 - Sandino killed as he attends banquest in the Presidential Palace in a plot arranged by Somoza, then head of the Nicaraguan National Guard, and the US Ambassador.

1936-Somoza seizes power and used his position to eventually

hronoloav of Nic

gy

become the richest person Central America. Somoza was assasinated in 1956 and was succeeded by his eldest son, who in turn was replaced by his younger brother after his death in 1967. By 1979 the Somoza family had a fortune of $ 150 million inside Nicargua plus millions more abroad.

1958-New Sandinista guerrilla campaign under General Raudeles opens up in the north of the country. 1962-foundations of FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) by Carlos Fonseca Amador, Silvio Mayorga and Tomas | Borge.

Fonseca was a former member of the PSN (the pro-Moscow communist party) who had met Che Guevara in Cuba after being wounded in 1959 with the Sandinista guerillas.

1963 - FSLN begins guerilla activity.

1970- After heavy defeats the FSLN suspends all military activity. 1972-Earthquake destroys the Nicaraguan capital Managua.

1974 - FSLN restarts military activity a few days after the formation of the Democratic Liberation Union (UDEL), a 'popular front of liberal capitalists and workers'

organisations.

1975- FSLN majority expel the 'Proletarian Tendency' led by Jaime Wheelock which opposes all military adventurism and argued for the FSLN to root itself first in the

Sandinistas point

huge growth in popular organisations since 1979 and say that this proves in practice that the Sandinistas cannot develop into a bureaucratic elite. Certainly the growth in these organisations is very impressive, but in reality they do not exercise ultimate power. The real control of Nicaragua is in the hands of the Sandinistas' own party, the FSLN, which has a very restricted membership.

Out of a total population of only 3,000,000 in Nicaragua there are 100,000 members of the Sandinista Workers' Federation (CST), 40,000 members in the Rural Workers' Association (ATC), 70,000 in the farmers union (UNAG), 70,000 in the women's organisation (AMLAE), 50,000 in the Sandinista youth movement (MJ19), 500,000 in the 12,000 local Sandinista Defence Committees (CDS) and 80,000 in the militia (MPS). IN 1979 only 25,000 workers were in trade unions now there are over 250,000 workers in the CST and other trade unions. The growth of these mass organisations represents an important advance of urban and rural workers, peasants and youth taking the first steps in developing their class consciousness.

But while these organisations have expanded, the FSLN itself has remained very small. It is very hard to find membership figures for the Sandinistas' own party, but it was reported that in January 1981 the

[page 16]

History

araguan

proletariat.

1976— Further division within the FSLN between the majority 'Tercerista' tendency and the 'protracted people's war' tendency (GPP). The Tercerists, led by Daniel Ortega favoured comando-type actions, urban guerrilla activity similar to that of the Uruguayan Tupamaros, an orientation toward an earlier uprising and supported the idea of broad alliances with sections of the bourgeosie. The GPP, led originally by Tomas Borge, wanted to maintain a strategy of rural guerilla warfare.

1977-Somoza lifts state of emergency after apparently crushing FSLN, but one month later Tercetista tendency of FSLN launches new attacks. In November UDEL publish appeal calling for the creation of a democratic alternative to Somoza regime which should include FSLN.

1978-Assassination by Somoza of UDEL leader and 'La Prensa' movement against regime. 120,000 attend Chamorro's funeral, employers and unions call general strike FSLN stage more attacks.

- July, formation of FAO, a broad opposition front linking together forces ranging from the MDN, led by the millionaire industrialist Alfonso Robelo, to the FSLN Terceristas. The Terceristas carried on military attacks while the 'proletarian tendency' and GPP

wings carried on widespread political work. Uprisings and strikes develop throughout the country, although the September movement in Leon and Esteli is suppressed with the loss of 6,000 lives.

- November Terceristas break from FAO in protest at US interference in talks between the FAO and Somoza.

1979-February formation of Natonal Patriotic Front (FPN) by the Sandinistas, trade unions, MPU (a front of popular organisations) and some minor bourgeois groups.

-March: Reunification of FSLN and resumption of its military offensive amid continuing mass movements. Steadily new fronts were opened up.

-June: spontaneous uprising in the capital, Managua. Formation of exile provisional government made up of 3 Sandinistas and their supporters and two capitalists.

—July entry of Sandinistas into Managua marks the end of civil war which killed over 50,000 (2% of Nicaragua's population). At this time the FSLN had no more than 500 members. On July 20 the provisional government became the Government Junta of National Reconstruction (JGRN) with a 3 to 2 Sandinista majority and the assets of the Somoza family nationalised. Today the two original capitalist members of the Junta support the 'Contras'

FSLN has 500 members and planned to double this to 1,000 by the summer of 1981. It has also been reported that it is not planned to increase the FSLN membership above 5,000.

Even when the mass organisations have grown rapidly there have been severe limitations on the development of their own internal democracy. Thus the CST (Sandinista Workers' Federation) held its First Congress in 1983, three and a half years after it was formed!

In reality the Sandinistas' attitude to the masses is that they are acting on their behalf. Instead of rely. ing on the workers themselves to run society the Sandinista leaders see the workers as 'too immature', thus the FSLN must be kept tiny. That is the reason why no elections for any type of government were organised during the first five years of the revolution.

The Sandinistas' attitude of getting the masses merely to rubber stamp their decisions was illustrated in their paper Barricada which claimed that the attendance of 500,000 at the rally to mark the first anniversary of Somoza's overthow meant that "the people have voted" to approve the FSLN's policies. We only have to compare this approach to that of the Bolsheviks after 1917 to see that the Sandinistas are light years away from the programme of Lenin and Trotsky.

15

The Sandinistas point to the huge size of the mass organisations as a sign of the population's inolvement in decision making. But while it is true that there is plenty of local decision making, for example through the CDSs, the major decisions are taken by the tiny FSLN, an organisation which has arbitrarily set a limit on its size irrespective of the qualities of those who may wish to join it.

While Lenin and Trotsky sought to

prevent careerists joining the

Bolsheviks after coming to power in

1917 they never sought to prevent tried

and tested revolutionary workers

becoming members. The Sandinista

leaders' approach, apart from display-

ing a lack of confidence in the working

class, carries with it the seeds of the

development of a new ruling elite.

At this moment of writing, the San-

dinistas are holding elections in

Nicaragua. The main purpose of these

elections was clearly an attempt to ap-

pease US and world imperialism and of-

fer a palm leaf to the internal bourgeois

opposition. They have attempted to find

some theoretical justification for this

policy by resorting to the absolutely

false and discredited theory of the "two

stages" invented by Stalin. There is no

"democratic" bourgeoisie in Nicaragua.

The bourgeoisie is on the side of the

counter revolutionary "Contras" . They

have brazenly boycotted the elections and made use of the concessions offered by the Sandinistas as a platform to organise support for armed reaction.

It is clear that these elections will result in an overwhelming victory for the Sandinistas. The bourgeois parties, openly identified with the counter-revolution, are thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the masses. The correct thing to do under these circumstances would be for the Sandinistas to base themselves on this popular vote of confidence to carry through the revolutionary process to the end, nationalising the property of the reactionary Nicaraguan bourgeoisie on the basis of the democratic administration and control of the working class. The existing mass organisations, trade unions, popular committees could be linked up and broadened to include every section of the working class, housewives, farmers and militiamen to provide the basis of a democratic workers' state and an invincible bulwark against the counter revolution.

Such a step would have an electrifying effect upon the workers not only of Central and Latin America, but also upon those of the USA itself. Coupled with a revolutionary internationalist appeal, it would have a similar effect to the earthquake produced by the Bolshevik revolution all over the world. And if Nicaragua is a backward peasant country, it should

[page 17]

MIR Sept 1984: Nicaragua:

not to be forgotten that Russia then was like India now. The decisive factor here is not the relative weakness of the proletariat in relation to the peasantry in Nicaragua, (in reality, mainly agricultural labourers, which is not at all the same), but the weakness of the leadership of the proletariat in Nicaragua and on a world scale. With a different policy, the outcome would be entirely different.

The failure of the Sandinistas to carry through the revolution to completion by expropriating the existing capitalists means that the direction of the Nicaraguan revolution has not yet been decisively settled. It is not at all excluded that, under certain conditions, the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie, backed up by imperialism, could begin to push the process into reverse.

whole economic dislocation, low living standards and the sabotage of the capitalists themselves, could create discontent among the more backward layers, leading at a certain stage to a counter-revolutionary situation, a split among the Sandinistas and a rightist coup. Paradoxically, it is the policy of Reagan and the threat of open counterrevolution posed by the "Contras"

which at present is cutting the ground from under the feet of the internal opposition which is increasingly being tarred with the same brush. The masses may not be quite clear on what they want but they are perfectly clear on what they do not want: they will fight like tigers against any attempt to reimpose the old Somoza dictatorship by As we have stated before, if Reagan could wait some years, there might be serious possibility that the Nicaraguan revolution, stuck half-way, would succumb to its internal contradictions and permit the triumph of bourgeois counter-revolution from within. But the whole point is that Reagan and US imperialism cannot wait. The dangers posed by even a distorted and incomplete revolution in the explosive context of Central America are too great to be tolerated. Everything points in the direction of an open US intervention against both El Salvador and Nicaragua, especially in the likely event of Reagan winning the next election. Unfortunately, the policies of the Sandinista leadership are only preparing the ground for such a turn. Their attempted concessions will have no effect. Only a bold revolutionary policy can stay the hand of imperialism. Only the complete carrying through of the revolution can guarantee its success. But that cannot be confined to the borders of a tiny, artificial country like Nicaragua. The very survival of the revolution, let alone its development, The Nicauraguan revolution has achieved great social advances such as in education.

Photo: Pietro Gigli (I.F.L.).

Sugar cane refinery, taken over by the agrarian reform. Photo: Jenny Mathews.

ple may be.

16 760 depends on its rapid spread, at least to the rest of Central America, and then to Latin America, North America, and the rest of the world. Even the nationalisation and planning of the economy, however, would not be sufficient to define the Nicaraguan regime as "socialist". '. Despite the unquestionably progressive nature of the nationalised, planned economies of Cuba, China, the USSR and the other deformed workers' states, the working class is still held in chains under the rule of a privileged bureaucratic elite. And this is inevitably the case where the revolution is carried out by a guerrillaist minority acting in the name of the proletariat, no matter how heroic, sincere or well-meaning these peo- Marxism bases itself on the working class, as the only class which can establish socialism, not for any Wour sentimental reasons or as an arbitrary choice, but 'Cont

[page 18]

ne fighters in a major area of conflict with Honduran based

Photo: Pietro Gigli (I.F.L.).

17

because of the social role of the proletariat in production and because it is the only class in society with an instinctive socialist, collectivist consciousness, derived from its very conditions of existence. By contrast, the consciousness of the peasant, the intellectual, the student or the lumpenproletarian, steeped in individualism and moulded in the psychology of the small proprietor, or the army officer, used to the system of command and blind obedience, is least of all fitted for the task of organising society along democratic collectivist lines.

Without workers' democracy the overthrow of capitalism can only lead to the creation of a regime of proletarian bonapartism. Such a regime while being able to develop society to a certain extent because it rests on a planned nationalised economy, would place before the working class the task of carrying through a new, political, revolution before society could begin to move towards socialism.

The basis of workers' democracy is that the proletariat as a class controls a society. Through its class organisations-trade unions, workers' councils, political parties-the proletariat (and, in a country like Nicaragua, in alliance with the poor peasantry) determines what takes place. This is the essence of the socialist revolution, the fact that the proletariat, acting as a collective body, takes power. On the other hand guerilla struggle, on its own, can never result in a workers' democracy because it bases itself on the idea of creating an armed force which will take over the urban areas, the home of the proletariat, from outside.

In other words the guerillaists see the working class playing an auxilliary role, a policy which resulted in a severe defeat for the Salvadorean revolution in 1980. The guerillaist strategy, which is not the same as one based on the need for a working class led insurrection, leads to the guerilla army taking power, not the class organisations of the proletariat. The only way this can be avoided is if the guerilla struggle is seen as an auxilliary to that of the urban working class.

The ruling bureaucratic elites in China, Vietnam and Cuba developed precisely from the leaderships of the victorious guerilla armies. In Nicaragua, although it was the Managua working class which finally overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in July 1979, political power passed into the hands of the FSLN. Despite the fact that, as Sandinista leader Humberto Ortega has admitted, the movement of the Nicaraguan workers forced the FSLN to change its guerilla strategy of aiming to surround the towns, the Sandinistas were seen as leaders of the revolution by virtue of their long heroic struggle against Somoza. Without workers democracy a decisive break with capitalism in Nicaragua would inevitably

[page 19]

Sandinista forces near the Honduran border. Military intervention by the US is likely :MIR Sept 1984: Nicaragua 2 lead to the development of a torm of proletarian bonapartism (i.e. Stalinism) whatever good intentions the Sandinistas have.

dinistas eeple lance attempted decisively an ast reluctance capitalism by comparing their economic policies with those of the Bolsheviks in the early 1920s. Any comparison between Nicaragua today and Russia in the early days of the revolution is completely false because, as already has been explained, a regime of workers' democracy, control through Soviets and a mass Bolshevik party existed at that time under Lenin and Trotsky.

The introduction of the New Economic Policy in 1921, which allowed greater scope to capitalists and rich peasants in Russia, was a retreat in economic policy forced on the Bolsheviks because of the defeat of the socialist revolution in Europe and the devastation caused by the civil war. But despite the NEP the commanding heights of the economy and all foreign trade remained nationalised under the control of a relatively democratic workers' state. Clearly in a country like Nicaragua, which has a large element of small, petit-bourgeois capitalist producers and traders, Marxists would only advocate the immediate nationalisation of the larger concerns, foreign owned companies, banks and foreign trade.

However, the Sandinistas have gone out of their way to try to reassure the local capitalists and the foreign governments that they want to preserve a 'mixed economy'

leaders, One of the main FSLN Tomas Borge, has again and again spoken of the Sandinistas' desire to maintain a mixed economy. He told the Paris Le Monde that "we don't talk about political pluralism and a mixed economy to please the Americans. This is our programme." (December 19, 1982.) But in another interview a few days earlier in the Lima La Republica Borge complain- 'We provide ed that:

businessmen with many concessions, credits, facilities, but many of them remain discontented. They will not resign themselves to losing political power" (December 12, 1982).

That neatly sums up the dilemma facing the Sandinistas. The 1979 revolution smashed the old state machine, it left the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie with no "armed bodies of men" with which to guarantee their rule. Without such a guarantee in the form of at least a relatively secure capitalist state machine the capitalists will not invest and without investment a capitalist to move decisively against mainland.

if Reagan wins the election.

18 economy cannot function. But instead of removing the major capitalists and beginning to plan the economy the Sandinistas try to appease them, a policy which has been at least partly pushed onto them by the Russian and Cuban leaderships who are reluctant to provoke a confrontation with US imperialism by aiding the establishment of the first proletarian bonapartist regime on the American The failure to clearly break with capitalism has helped to worsen Nicaragua's economic plight and, more importantly, has not stopped Reagan from seeking to crush the revolution. Reagan will keep on trying to secure a victory for reaction because the continued unfolding of the Nicarag an revolution is encouraging revolutionary struggles throughout Central America. No matter what compromises the Sandinistas try to make with capitalism or the US government Reagan will maintain his policy unless there is a movement within the USA itself or the revolution successfully spreads to other Central

[page 20]

American countries. In fact the FSLN's policies of trying not to provoke Reagan are very dangerous because the best safeguard for the continuation of the revolution is the consolidation of a workers' democracy within Nicaragua and an internationalist appeal to the workers and peasants in the Americas to follow this example.

However as Alan Woods pointed out in Winter 1983/4 MIR the Sandinistas'

policies are not accidental, they flow from the FSLN's leaders' acceptance of "the ideas of 'two-stages' theory of the revolution... Capitalism in Nicaragua, as in the whole of Central America, is absolutely rotten, corrupt and There is no way forward on this degenerate.

(capitalist) basis for the Nicaraguan revolution. And yet the Sandinistas persist in a vain attempt to maintain some kind of private sector in the Nicaraguan economy. It is a mistake to imagine that capitalism has been eliminated in Nicaragua at the present time. Instead, we have an extremely peculiar state of affairs where, on the one hand the old Somoza state has been utterly smashed-the state in the Marxist sense is armed bodies of men in defence of particular property relationships-and an entirely new state has been set up in Nicaragua controlled by the Sandinistas. And yet, according to the latest figures 60% of the land (and industry) remains in private hands. The economic power of the bourgeoisie therefore has not been decisively destroyed in Nicaragua. Therein lies the danger.

'This situation cannot exist for any length of time. Either the Sandinistas, leaning on the workers and peasants, will carry through the process to the end and nationalise the economy, or else it is not excluded under certain conditions, that the bourgeoisie might gather fresh forces around itself and extinguish the new state."

The contradictory situation where the capitalists still control the economy but not the state will not last forever. It can only be resolved by either the state taking over the bulk of the economy through nationalisation or by the victory of the counter revolution allowing the bourgeoisie to create a new capitalist state. The tragedy is that the Sandinistas are giving the capitalists the oportunity to develop the counter-revolution, the economy and their attempts to reach political agreements with sections of the Nicaraguan bourgeoisie.

The utterly counter-revolutionary nature of the Nicaraguan capitalists is seen in the original refusal of their main political alliance, the CDN, to take part in the elections scheduled for November unless the Sandinistas agree to negotiate with the armed bands of 'Contras' attacking the country. In mid-August the CDN suddenly withdrew this demand. The Guardian reported that "Several Latin American and European governments had privately informed the CDN that their excuse for boycotting the elections was inadequate. Many were also irritated that the CDN had allowed itself to become so closely identified with the Contras. " (16 August 1984.) In other words the counter-revolution's foreign backers told the CDN to alter its approach in order soundirg x.::

::= terventior agars: :::

revolution The capitaliss si:?:

that an election box:::

by their parties wil tide the public just. la.

:ca.

tion for an even greate.

level of US sponsored in.

tervention against the revolution if Reagan is reelected. Clearly there is no possibility that the Nicaraguar bourge:: reconciled to the revolution, yet site star are not prepared to take firm action afars FE! like the CDN which clearly are the politica the 'Contra' thugs, possibly in the vain hope ::: :..* gesture will stop Reagan's intervention. This is the result of the FSLN leaders accepta=:: of the 'two stage' theory of the Stalinists tra: :: necessary to create the "democratic dictatorsris :: the proletariat and peasantry" (sometimes io= mistakenly called a 'workers' and farmers' ment') as a separate and distinct stage before a workers' democracy is built on the basis of a plann. ed nationalised economy.

This led to the FSLN attempting all the time to reach agreement with the so-called 'democratic capitalists, when in fact there is no such thing as a democratic bourgeoisie in Nicaragua. Leaving aside a tiny handful of unrepresentative capitalist politicians who think they can personally gain from work. ing with the regime, the bulk of the capitalists are determined to crush the revolution. But the 'two stages' theory has meant that the FSLN leaders have been reluctant to renove the capitalists' main internal base through nationalisation. Indeed most of the main leaders of the 'Contras' are bourgeois leaders who were once included by the Sandinistas in their 'revolutionary' government. Arturo Cruz, the erstwhile CDN Presidential candidate who until recently was demanding talks with the Contras, was in fact appointed by the FSLN to the Junta ruling Nicaragua in May 1980 in the place of another capitalist leader who resigned from the Junta protesting against the Sandinistas' policies. Today Cruz is repaying his former sponsors by giving Reagan an excuse to intervene because of the 'undemocratic' elections.

This theory of the Stalinists is meant to be based on what occurred during the Russian revolution, but in fact it is the complete opposite. There never was a period when Lenin and the Bolsheviks collaborated in government with capitalists' leaders, yet perverting everything that Lenin had ever fought for the Stalinists always argue for co-operation with the socalled 'democratic' capitalists.

Shamefully these ideas are now being repeated by the former followers of Trotsky in the US Socialist Workers Party who have now capitulated to Stalinism. These renegades from Marxism have completely distorted the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin

[page 21]

MIR Sept 1984: Nicaragua:

Militias returning from patrol on the Honduran border. and Trotsky to create a completely new stage, which they call a "workers' and farmers' government", , between capitalism and a workers' democracy where the main sectors of the economy are not yet nationalised. Faced with the difficulty of reconciling this position with that of Marxism an SWP leader was forced to make a "clarification" in a footnote to a recent article admitting that "Marx, Engels, Lenin and others used workers' democracy in a sense that also encompasses a state in which political power has been wrested from the exploiting classes and taken into the hands of the proletariat and its allies, but in which socialist property forms (1.e. a planned economy) do not yet predominate." (page 92 New International No. 3).

The US SWP is forced to admit that "Lenin used many different terms in the years following the October victory to describe the revolutionary process the Bolshevik Party was leading: dictatorship of the proletariat, workers'

and peasants' government, socialist state, soviet republic, dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasants, proletarian state etc" (page 64). This quite clearly shows that these renegades are attempting to give a completely new meaning to the demand for a workers' and peasants' government, one which implies the continued existence of a capitalist economy and ends up as a justification for the Sandinistas' refusal to move decisively against the bourgeoisie, a policy which puts the very future of the revolution in danger. As we have explained before only through the completion of the Nicaraguan revolution, i.e. the overthrow 20 Photo: Jenny Mathews.

of capitalism, is there any chance to defeat the counter-revolution. Any delay or hesitation displayed towards crushing the capitalists will only give them further opportunity to organise reaction. Clearly even the establishment of a workers' democracy in Nicaragua will not immediately lead to socialism. A socialist society can only be built on the basis of overcoming all forms of scarcity through the raising of the productivity of labour to far higher levels than have ever been achieved under capitalism. For this to take place capitalism, and therefore imperialism, must be overthrown in at least in a number of the most advanced capitalist countries, or, alternatively Stalinism overthrown in the Soviet Union. But while small underdeveloped, countries like Nicaragua cannot complete the world socialist revolution they can begin it.

The victory of the socialist revolution in Nicaragua would not only help transform Central America but it would have a profound effect on the major Latin American countries like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile etc. The establishment of a workers' democracy in any of these major countries would change the entire world situation and herald the final defeat of capitalism and Stalinism. This is why it is so impor tant that even in small countries like Nicaragua, with a population half the size of London, for the working class to be armed with Marxist policies. A victory for the programme of Marxism in a single country today would be the green light for the beginning of the world revolution which will transform all humanity.

[page 22]