[page 41]
Book Reviews "THE DAY when international socialism will judge the crimes committed in the past ten years is not far off. Nothing will be forgotten and nothing will be forgiven. History is "The leader of genius' (Stalin), harsh.
'the Father of the people', 'the Sun of Socialism' will have to account for what he has done"
So wrote Ignace Reiss, a leading member of the Stalinist secret police who broke with Stalinism in 1937, declared himself a Trotskyist and was subsequently murdered by the GPU. But, unfortunately, Branson's book is not an honest account of the betrayals of the working class by Stalin in the 1930's. Her book, which would have been better entitled "A selected history of the Communist Party of Great Britain" ignores, covers up and if not all, of the key distorts most, issues of the thirties and shows Branson and todays Communist Parties as inheritors of the Stalinist traditions of falsification.
A Marxist history of the C.P.G.B. would have explained the Stalinism, the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and its effects on the Communist Party. Branson, however, merely relates selected details, ignores the worst aspects of Stalinist policies and dismisses Stalinism as being caus- "flaws in the system which permitted terrible injustices to occur". In the late twenties the swing to the right in the Soviet Union caused by Stalin's policy of building up the position of the Kulaks, the rich peasantry, and the alliances formed internationally between Communists and procapitalist Parties as in China or with right wing Trade Union leaders as in Britain, had become a threat to the continued existence of Stalin and his bureaucratic regime. Te preserve its position the bureaucracy was forced to turn against the Kulaks.
Stalin moved, forcing the different Communist Parties to follow, from a position of opportunism to ultraleftism. Capitalism was deemed to be in its final stage before collapse, the 'Third Period', and Social Democrats were to be treated as traitors, as social fascists'.
What did this policy mean in practice? Branson dismisses it as an ultraleft phase in the Party's history without even explaining the lengths to which the policy was carried. She forgets to mention, for example, that the tiny British Communist Party was solemnly instructed to physically break-up meetings of the Labour Party.
As Harry Pollitt, then General History of the Communist Party of Great Britain By Noreen Branson, Published by Lawrence and Wishart, 1985, £6.95 Reviewed by Dave Campbell Secretary, wrote in the Daily Worker on the 29th January 1930:
'There should not be a Labour meeting held anywhere, but that the revolutionary workers in that district such meetings and fight against the speakers, whoever they are, so-called left, right or centre. They should never be allowed to address meetings. This will bring us into conflict with the authorities but this must be done. The fight can no longer be conducted in a passive manner" In the unions too, this policy led to the isolation of the Communist Party. In South Wales, the Miner's Federation was openly condemned in the pages of the Daily Worker as Social Fascist.
Ultra-leftism Branson relates how this period, "class against class" as it was called, had a devastating effect on the CPGB. In the first 18 months, Party membership dropped from 7,000 to under 3,000. By 1930, it reached an all time low of 2,555.
Branson, however, excuses this 'little detail' of lunatic ultra-leftism when she argues:
''The fact is that a line of extreme sectarianism is one to which Marxists have been prone ever since Karl Marx himself fought against it. When under pressure, an isolationist and ultra-left posture has often been the outcome." In fact, this new policy was a result of the ditching of the aim of international socialist revolution and its conscious betrayal by Stalin. Branson cannot explain it herself because she, and her Party, have also relegated the aim of socialism to the distant future. The 'class against class' policy was not to continue indefinitely. Lenin pointed out that it was necessary "to condemn a false policy in order to pave 42 HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN 1927-1941 the way for a correct policy". But Branson, while discarding the "third period" policies as "a disaster" mere- Ly embraces the same criminal policies that Lenin had condemned Stalin for in 1917: the policy of class collaboration and Popular Frontism.
The entire history of the inter-war years was one of a struggle between the classes to dominate society. Having allowed the rise of Fascism in Germany and the defeat of the General Strike in Britain, the Communist International had relinquished its claim to be the organisation that would achieve the world revolution. After turning its back on the inherent strength of the international Labour movement, Stalinism more and more sought aid and succour from other groups in society. As Branson puts it: "The object must be to transform and democratise the state machine, and to change the Parliamentary system, not to 'replace' it. So began work on a different concept: that of a British Road to socialism Having condemned Irotsky's policy of the United Front during the "class against class" period, the Communist realising that Hitler was a serious threat did a complete about-turn by introducing the Popular Front policy. Lenin had consistently opposed collaboration with capitalists of any shade but in Branson's own words:
"Not only must Communists seek to establish unity with Social Democratic organisations but they must try to bring out a wide anti-Fascist peoples front involving classes other than the proletariat, namely the peasantry and middle class"
The Popular Front tactic meant watering down policies and expectations in order to "attract" middle class No mistakes were acknowledged or explanations given by the Communist International with this dramatic change of policy. In fact, no Congress of the International even took place
[page 42]
between the sixth, in 1928 and the seventh in late 1935. Despite this, the British Communist Party, no longer having a Marxist leadership, blindly followed the dictates of Stalin and the bureaucracy in Russia and took up the new line with enthusiasm.
In Spain, this policy led directly to the defeat of the working class and forty years of fascist rule because, as Branson puts it:
"the Communists believed that if you wanted to achieve the socialist revolution, you must first defeat the fascists and that meant uniting with non socialists and the preservation of the present republican government"
What Branson doesn't explain is, if the Popular Front policy was correct, why wasn't Franco defeated? Unfortunately, Stalin's criminal policies in Spain were repeated in France in the 1930's, with horrific consequences in Chile in the 1970s and are still adhered to today by communists of all shades.
The logic of this policy in Spain was that any independent action by the workers to win the war was opposed by the Communists often at the point of a gun. Whilst the Communist Parties in Spain and Britain collaborated with capitalism, socialist parties were not let off so lightly.
CP supports show trials
Victor Serge, who witnessed the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War as a Bolshevik sympathiser described how the Stalinists attacked the POUM, a socialist party created by former supporters of Trotsky such as Nin and Andrade which, despite its entry into the capitalist government in Barcelona, had attracted thousands of the best militants looking for a revolutionary struggle to defeat Franco. In March 1937, Serge:
"met a young woman whose eyes were wide open with terror. I am afraid, she said, to believe what I've just heard. A prominent Communist from Spain has been to see my husband. I heard him say that in Barcelona, they're getting ready to liquidate thousands of anarchists and POUM militants, and that its going along very nicely...
Indeed thousands of anti fascists were murdered by Stalin's agents in Spain, and Nin, the leader of the POUM 'disappeared' and was never seen again.
Of course, Branson attempts to justify this, and the attacks made by the CPGB on the Independent Labour Party (the nearest British equivalent to the POUM) by sneering:
"it was hardly surprising that the POUM should be regarded as traitors, and the behaviour of the ILP in supporting the POUM should be looked
on in disgust"
The chapters in Branson's book on Trotskyism, the 1930's show trials and the war in Spain are so full of inaccuracies and half truths that it is impossible to correct them all in a short review. In them, she shows her true colours as an honoured inheritor of the traditions of Stalin. As she puts it:
'The trials and mass arrests were, of course, an outward manifestation of Stalin's determination to eliminate anyone who might offer a challenge to his personal supremacy. But, in Britain at the time, Communist Party members as a whole accepted the confessions made by those accused at their face value, firmly believed the charges made and thought that those executed had met with their just desserts. Later generations were to find this attitude incredible and accusations were made, both inside and outside the party suggesting that the leaders of the British Communist Party were fully aware of the terrible injustices perpetrated by the Stalin regime but connived at a cover up.
Those who made such accusations fail to understand the situation at the time" . (My emphasis-DC).
Acting as an apologist for Stalin and the leaders of the British Communist Party, nowhere does Branson explain how such horrific crimes could be carried out in the name of socialism. Nor does Branson anywhere condemn Stalin's purges. On the contrary, by the cynical manipulation of dates, she creates the impression that the attacks on Trotsky were merely political differences that may at times have got a bit 'out of hand'
'But it was the issue of the POUM that caused the greatest anger against Trotskyism amongst the Communists... In his closing speech at the 1937 British Party Congress, Pollitt called on members to give 'careful and painstaking explanations' about the POUM to the ILP comrades they met. Every argument had to be countered, he said, with clear answers; not with labels or phrases, so that they could see that what they had thought of as revolutionary was in fact counterrevolutionary.
"Everything said from the platform during this Congress was careful and objective. But shortly afterwards, allegations that the POUM leaders were conscious traitors acting on behalf of the fascist Franco began to receive credence... anger at the splitting tactics of the POUM was to lead to the acceptance of totally false allegations concerning Trotskyists"
The 1937 Congress took place in May. According to Branson: 'Nobody in Britain had paid much attention to the POUM until May 1937 when news came of fighting in Catalonia behind
43
the Spanish Republican lines .
Yet, the Daily Worker had been slavishly reporting the show trials tak• ing place in the Soviet Union as accomplished fact since December 1934 as the following extracts show:
"It is now revealed that the terrorist group composed of Zinovier- Trotskyist elements who planned and carried out Kirov's murder were connected with a certain foreign consulate in Leningrad, received financial help from it, and were relying on the help of military intervention by certain foreign powers." (28 December 1934)
"Crowning infamy of all this is the evidence showing how they (Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev) were linked with the Nazi Secret Police which provided false passports for their agents. So they stand revealed as tools of a world fascist attack". (17 August 1936)
"Shoot the Reptiles" (24 August 1936)
"It is for the working class of Britain to deal with those who in this country constitute themselves the defenders of the Trotskyists and thereby assist fascism and strike a blow at socialism all over the world" (25 January 1937).
The CP and the war
The material interests, in other words, the continuation of the priveleged position of the Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union was at stake. No lie, no slander, no action was too much to defeat the only force capable of overthrowing Stalinism, that is international socialism as advocated by Trotsky. Stalin's loyal agents in Britain, the CPGB slavishly obeyed the whims of the Soviet bureaucracy in their task.
But the main fear in the eyes of the workers in the late thirties was the build up to the second world war. The First Congress of the Communist International, when Lenin still guided its policies explained that:
"The continued rule of finance capital will lead either to the complete destruction of civilised society or to an unprecedented increase in the level of exploitation and enslavement, to political reaction and a policy of armament, and eventually to new destructive wars"
So, in apportioning the blame for the war, a significant proportion has to be placed on the shoulders of the Communist Parties for their betrayal of the socialist revolution in Europe.
Having betrayed the international working class, Stalinism was forced more and more to rely on alliances with the capitalists to avoid the threat of invasion of the Soviet Union. Branson explains how:
'Communists believed that the
[page 43]
MIR Spring 1986: Book Reviews! fascist powers could be restrained by means of collective security through the 'League of Nations', which meant that governments should combine to impose sanctions on any nation that attacked another"
How ironic! The First Congress of the Communist International had 'The 'League of Nations', should it come into formal existence, will only have the significance of a holy alliance of capitalists bent on crushing the workers' revolution. Propaganda for the 'League of Nations' though, is the best way of confusing the revolutionary consciousness of the working class. It replaces the idea of an International of revolutionary workers republics with the idea of an Internaassociation democracies, attainable through a coalition between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie..
'The revolutionary proletariats of all countries of the world must wage a resolute struggle against the 'Wilsonian' notion of a 'League of Nations' and protest against entry into this union of plunder, exploitation and imperialist counter-revolution." British imperialism had no interest in signing pacts to defend the Soviet Union. After accusing and executing his opponents on trumped up charges of being agents of Fascism, Stalin turned to Hitler and signed the Hitler- Stalin pact. Branson excuses this by "the truth was that the refusal of the British to come to an agreement with the Soviet Union had left the latter with little alternative".
Branson's excuse contradicts that given at the time. The "World News and Views", published from the CPGB on 31st August 1940 stated: forgotten is that for a number of months before the conclusion of the pact, Britain and France had made persistent attempts to harness the Soviet Union for their imperialist aims"
Whatever the excuse, the real truth was that Stalin now considered the workers movements in the different countries as bargaining counters to be used and discarded as he felt fit in his wheeling and dealing with imperialism and Fascism.
Attempting to justify the pact, Branson explains that:
"It was not a mutual assistance pact or an alliance".
But the World News and Views told the truth in August 1940:
"Just as there was no doubt that collaboration between the Soviet Union and Germany in the sphere of foreign policy fully corresponds with the inwrote :
to his own intrigues, treachery and crimes. with the murderer."
Here is the paper's full comment: uling classes of the capi.
: world have lost a faithful the working class.
have lost an agent of long shevik Party on all the most im- From World News and Views, 31 August 1940, published at the CPGB HQ. terests of both sides, so, too, it is indisputable that successfully developing Soviet-German economic relations completely corresponds to these The Hitler-Stalin pact was not a purely economic-military alliance. Pari of the deal was for Stalin to stop firancing the different Communist Parties in those countries under Hitler's jackboot. Khrushchev, Stalin's successor in his famous speech to the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU revealed how:
'When Hitler was preparing to atack Poland, Stalin helped him. He shot all the Polish Communists in the USSR and outlawed the Polish Communist Party"
So, too, in Germany, Stalin connived with Hitler to destroy the base and support of the German Communist Party. Branson explains in her book that many records and minutes of the Communist Party from that period were destroyed for security reasons. But much of this material is still in existance. Why does Branson not bother to mention any of it?
In turn, the CPGB stepped up its campaign for peace. Supposed opposition to war was cloaked in terms of class collaboration with talk of a 'Peoples Government' and excuses for Hitler. On the 1st February, 1940, for example, the Daily Worker editorial "Hitler repeated once again that war was thrust on him by Britain. Against this historical fact there was no reply. Britain declared war, not Germany But, behind the smokescreen of the Hitler-Stalin pact, Hitler had prepared for, and, in June 1941 carried out, the invasion of the Soviet Union. By now, the CPGB was well practised, as able executor of Russian foreign policy, of completely reversing its position. From peace at any cost, the CP now changed its position to uncritical support of the British government's World News and Views Death of an International Spy Last week Leon Trotsky died of wounds in Mexico City after he had been attacked by one of his associates. Commenting upon his death, PRAVDA, central daily paper uf the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, "Trotsky, who organised the villainous murder of Kiroy, Kuibysher and Maxim Gorky, fell prey This was the inglorious end to the life of this despicable individual, who went down to the grave branded stamp of the international spy and war, phrases calculated to deceive weakened in evory way of resistance of the Red because of this, Lenin f‹ He opposed Lenin and the Bolto visit the Eastern an war efforts. Churchill, who in 1918-1919 had been the key organiser in the British military intervention to try and put down the new Soviet state, became the hero of the Communist Party. As Branson put it:
"If Churchill was prepared to show solidarity with the Soviet Union, and to take a stand against the known views of the 'appeasers' both in and outside his government, then surely the Party must stop campaigning for his downfall".
On 4th -July 1941, the Central Committee agreed to:
"Support every measure of the government designed to secure victory in the common cause for the complete defeat and destruction of Hitlerism". For Communists in Britain, this meant becoming open agents of the imperialist war machine. In the name of 'increased production' the Communist Party sabotaged strikes and made no-strike deals with the employers. They even opposed Independent Labour candidates standing in by-elections during the course of the war. In return for their loyal support, the government allowed the Daily Worker to resume publication in September 1941 (it had been banned in January).
In one paragraph, Branson passes over the abolition by Stalin of the Communist International in 1943. Throughout the book she pours scorn on Trotsky for preacting that the rise of Stalin and the bureaucracy in Russia and their theory of 'Socialism in one country' would turn the different Communist Parties into "border guards of the Soviet state" However, even the selected facts that she relates unintentionally confirm Trotsky's brilliant prediction. But unfortunately, the true and complete history of the Communist Party of Great Britain still remains to be written.
[page 44]
The Chilean Communist Party and the road to socialism By Carmelo Furci Published by Zed Books 1984 £6.50 Reviewed by Martin Gonzalez The Chilean Communist Party and the Road to Socialism VENEREMOS THE CHILEAN Communist Party is unique within Latin America in that it was the first workers party to be set up, and because of the enormous strength that the party has had since it's foundation. In fact the PCCh is the biggest CP on the South American This loyalty towards the traditional organisations is both a testament to the workers sense of unity within their ranks and to the thousands of young workers, many of whom have given their lives to strengthen the struggle for socialism through the CP. However in reading through Carmelo Furci's book it is incredible to see how many opportunities the PCCh for the socialist has had, and lost, transformation of society, given it's strength within the workers move ment. The book actually is an indictment of the leaders of the PCCh for their total inability to take the opportunities presented to them by the enormous working class movements that have developed over the past decades. The job of Marxists is to draw out the lessons from a history such as that of the Chilean workers and to analyse the events and mistakes made by the leaders of the movement. Although Furci provides some very good information with facts and figures, much of the time he seems to give the impression that defeats were inevitable, thereby laying the blame on the workers, rather than on the leaders. What is apparent from the whole of the period from the adoption of the Popular Front strategy by the PCCh in 1935 up until 1973, and in its basic analysis at the present time, is the underlying theory that the Chilean national capitalist class still has a role to play within society and can develop the economy. This is despite the whole history of the Chilean class struggle where the Chilean capitalist class has been shown to be a totally weak and parasitical class, never hesitating to ally itself with US imperialism to attempt to crush the workers movement. The Chilean Communist Party was originally founded by Luis Emilio Recabarren, who understood the need to create a separate working class party standing under it's own banner, independant of the capitalist parties. Recabarren proposed that the POS, as it was called then, join the Communist International after a visit to the Soviet Union in 1920.
Popular Frontism The PCCh soon became affected however by the struggle that was taking place in the Comintern between Stalin and Trotsky. In Chile this was reflected by the attempt of an emerg. to impose an ing bureaucracy undemocratic structure on the party and by the adoption of the Stalinist theory of 'social fascism'. By 1933, the differences between the two wings of the party climaxed, with the setting up of the 'Communist Left', a group which split from the official CP and applied to join Trotsky's Fourth International. Recabarren in fact commited suicide in 1924 over, some say, the attempt at a takeover of the PCCh by this new bureaucratic wing. The split off from the Communist party eventually went on to form the Chilean Socialist Party precisley as a result of the struggle against Stalinist ideas and methods.
Following the lead of the Stalinist Comintern, in 1935 the Chilean Communist Party adopted the idea of the Popular Front. The basic "theoretical" foundation for Popular Frontism was the belief that the national bourgeoisie could develop production and independence from US imperialism. Therefore, the so-called theoreticians of the Comintern adopted the idea that all the CP's should support and make pacts and alliances with parties representing the interests of the national bourgeoisie.
As the 7th Congress of the PCCh the victories of the Popular Front in Spain and France, opened the way in our party towards the idea that the National Bourgeoisie had a place in the National Liberation move- . The programme of the Popular Front was that of defending the interests of the Chilean bosses as supporting basic reforms within the existing system. However, once the Popular Front actually won the elections the so-called progressive sector of the bourgeoisie inevitably turned out to be totally against the interests of the workers, particularly when the country found itself affected with economic problems. By 1946 President Videla broke openly with the CP, arrested the leaders and passed the Ley Maldita' which banned the PCCh.
• Furci argues that the PCCh was strenghtened as a result of the Popular Front experience, mainly because the vote for the PCCh reached an all time high of 17% in the August 1947 elections, and that it was only the intervention of US imperialism that caused the break up of the Popular Front government.
In reality however, the PCCh threw away an opportunity to destroy the illusions of sections of the masses with the main representative of the Chilean bourgeoisie who needed no pressure from US imperialism to attack the workers movement. The PCCh could have fought the election on the basis of a united front with the Socialist Party, calling for the socialist transformation of society.
The conclusion however that the CP leadership drew from this defeat, was that there were sectors of the bourgeoisie that were 'closer to imperialism' and could therefore play no progressive role. Therefore, theoreticians of the party concluded that the workers parties must form an alliance, which would include some representatives of the manufacturing' bourgeoisie. This came to be known as the 'Frente de Liberacion Nacional'. This new strategy of the PCCh formally recognised that the workers parties must form the leadership of this alliance, but it still accepted the progressive role of sectors of the bourgeoisie that could develop society. The policy was argued along the following lines "
the bourgeoisie is an ally of imperialism and the oligarchy is wrong In certain situations the bourgeoisie is inclined towards them, but this situation is transitionary and not permanent, and we could modify it if we polarize the contradictions." This "analysis" has shown itself to
[page 45]
MIR Spring 1986: Book Reviews
be totally incorrect. And even the PCCh had to face up to the fact that the national bourgeoisie was totally at one with imperialism with regard to the need to exploit and attack the working class.
The PCCh and the SP went on to form the FRAP coalition as an electoral alliance in the 1958 presidential elections. Salvador Allende polled an incredible 28.9 per cent of the vote, only 2.9 per cent behind the Conservatives who won the elections. This showed the possibility of a victory for a workers' party coalition, without the inclusion of bosses parties.
During the sixties, the PCCh adopted the idea of the 'Peaceful Road to Socialism'. . This was based upon the belief that the forces of the state were neutral, simply there to protect the homeland and the constitution. This meant in effect that socialism could be introduced peacefully, through parliament, without using arms as a defensive or offensive measure against the army, police or other forces. This theory was based upon the relatively stable political history of Chile compared to other Latin American countries. However, Chilean history had not been free of army intervention, and the belief that the army would never intervene in politics was to prove fatal in the 1973 coup d'etat where the government and the workers were left defenceless.
Lessons of 1970-73
In the 1964 elections the FRAP polled 38.5% of the vote. Only a coalition of the major bourgeois parties managed to keep the workers parties out of government. The conclusion of the PCCh was " ... the country refused us victory because we were the sole leaders. We have to build a popular movement aimed at a government with a broader social and political basis," ie alliances have to be made with non- working class parties.
By 1970, the Chilean capitalist class was totally demoralized and split in the face of a working class offensive. The Christian Democrats were totally discredited. The PCCh looked around desperately for pacts and alliances with the centre. Because of the general left shift within the masses, the Radical Party had also changed it's stance and found its way into the newly formed Popular Unity coalition as well as some other small bourgeois parties. The author regards the inclusion of the Radicals as a historic victory for the Popular Unity because it split the right and allowed the PU government to come to power.
Certain agreements with parties such as the Radicals or MAPU (a splitoff from the Christian Democrats)
were not necessarily incorrect. But the
key consideration should have been
that the workers' parties within the
Popular Unity maintain and act on the
programme of the socialist transfor-
mation of society.
The Bolsheviks in Russia were at
times prepared to make blocs with the
Mensheviks or Social Revolutionaries
on practical matters and even, on cer-
tain occasions, to organise common electoral lists. But at no time did they form any programatic bloc or subordinate themselves politically or organisationally to the Mensheviks or to the Russian equivalents of the Chilean Radicals. However as was to be seen, the inclusion of the Radicals
was used countless times by both the PCCh and Socialist leaders as an excuse to limit the reforms of the Popular Unity goverment.
In the 1970 Presidential elections, the PU coalition, seen as the workers alternative, won the elections. Furci raises two major issues which were to be crucial to the government, relations with the Christian Democrats and the question of the army.
The author, and the PCCh, saw the main task of the PU to ensure good relations with the Christian Democrats to stop it moving to the right. Furci draws parallels with the "ideal" situation in Italy where the PCI and the Christian Democrats enjoy a healthy co-habitation as 'constructive critics' of each other. Therefore from the first day of the PU Allende, supported by the PCCh, attempted to make alliances with the Christian Democrats in parliament to ensure their support.
The problem however that the PCCh faced was that as the economic situation worsened society began • to polarize with the workers demanding attacks upon capitalist property and with the bosses, including the Christan Democrats, eventually adopting a procoup position keeping in line with their true class interests. The determination of the PCCh to keep the support of the Christian Democrats proved fruitless and the Popular Unity government was eventually drowned in blood without a murmur of protest from the so-called 'progressive bourgeoisie'
Because of the insistence of the PCCh on the 'Peaceful Road to Socialism' no defensive plans for the government were drawn up and no attempt was made to alter the composition of the armed forces. As Furci himself states "Popular Unity was a Constitutional government duly elected to govern, and it was assumed that the armed forces would not only not defy the government, but would also be 'neutral' in any political and social conflict." The only attempt made to win the army to the side of the
46
A Militant
Publication
Lessonsof Chile
Lessons of Chile by Jorge Martinez. 70k including postage from: World Socialist Books, 3 - 13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB.
government was to offer the generals
places within the cabinet and through
higher pay awards to officers, who
were on the whole hostile to the
government. No appeal was made to
the rank and file soldiers who were far
more sympathetic to the Popular
Unity.
When the coup took place on 11
September 1973, all the illusions and
blunders of the PCCh were paid for in the blood of 50,000 workers including
many Communist workers and rank and file leaders.
Some of the conclusions that Furci reaches when analysing the Popular Unity period are incredible. The author makes statements such as "the Chilean experiment showed the importance of the PDC (Christian Democrats) as a political force that could form part of a progressive government". • The author also blames the fact that there was no agreement within the Popular Unity about policy, ie that there was not agreement on the PCCh policy of alliances and retreat on reforms.
Today the PCCh, as well as Furci have reached totally wrong conclusions about the period between 1970 and 1973. Although the PCCh has now accepted the use of arms to defend the movement, it has not learnt one lesson about the character of the state and the armed forces being instruments of the ruling class, or of the role of the national bourgeoisie represented by their parties. Incredibly the PCCh is repeating the same basic slogans of alliances with the Christian Democrats. Unfortunately the Chilean workers will have to re-learn through their experiences the role of the Christian Democrats and of reformism. This time however they will have the recent experience of the period of 1970 to 1973 to draw upon, which will eventually bury Stalinism and the traitorous policies of class alliances.
[page 46]
BECOME A If you agree with what we stand for, don't wait on the sidelines! Militant has grown from a four-page monthly to a masses of workers and youth with Marxist ideas. Name I enclose a donation of f.... I pledge f Please send a copy of Militant every week: (UK rates) 13 issues £5.00 C 26 issues £10.00 52 issues £20.00• I wish to sell Militant. Send me Total enclosed: £_ Return to Militant, 3 - 13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB. Militant SUPPORTER!
- Address • Phone.
_ to Militant's fighting fund D _ weekly/monthly to the fighting fund • copies every week O (Cheques payable to 'Militant')