[page 17]
The American 'Irangate' crisis revealed that money raised from the sale of arms to Iran had been used to finance the Nicaraguan 'Contras'. Once again the future of the Nicaraguan revolution is being raised Perspectives for the Nicaraguan revolution in the minds of workers and youth throughout the world. JULY 1979 saw the overthrow of the hated Somoza dictatorship after 40 years of ruthless repression. It helped to fan anew the flames of the revolutionary struggles which were sweeping through Central and Latin America. Nicaragua's revolution helped enthuse the youth throughout South America, sections of which have looked to this insurrectionary movement as an example to be emulated. This development alone warrants a thorough study of the Nicaraguan revolution in order to clarify the tasks before the workers and youth in such countries as Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Events in Nicaragua have also brought US imperialism to the brink of a direct military intervention and the financing of the Contras to the tune of over US $100m. US imperialism has been terrified at the prospect of revolution sweeping throughout Central America, bringing down the puppet regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala etc where the revolution has been unfolding apace. It of revolution throughout Central America, with its inevitable consequences in South America, By Alejandro Rojas which has compelled Reagan and US Imperialism to try and 'snuff out' the 'example' of Nicaragua.
There can be no doubt that the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship heralded a tremendous step forward for the workers and peasants of Nicaragua, especially when weighed against the nightmare of increasing poverty and misery throughout the continent. Under the Somoza dictatorship, preventable diseases killed over 307 of children in the countryside. Since the revolution, infant mortality has been cut from 33% to 8% and over 1 million people were vaccinated in a mass campaign against polio. Consumption of corn has risen by 33%, beans by 40% and rice by 30%. In the final years of the Somoza dictatorship a total of 1,000 doctors throughout Nicaragua were visited a total of 200,000 times. Since the revolution 500 doctors have qualified every year and have visited patients 6 A massive literacy campaign has been carried out, sending armies of teachers and students to the countryside to help eradicate illiteracy. Prior to the revolution it was estimated that 75% of the population had never read a book and that over 50% were illiterate! This rate has now been reduced to 147 and 1,200 schools have been constructed. Such developments are clearly supported by all activists in the Labour movement. They have however resulted in many youth developing illusions in the leadership of the Sandinistas, imagining that the socialist revolution is being carried through. Marxism supports every gain and step forward taken by the exploited masses of Nicaragua and is implacably opposed to US imperialism in its attempts to crush the revolution. However in doing so Marxists cannot and must not reduce themselves to the role of mere cheer leaders. This is especially the case when those gains conquered are threatened by counter revolution. It is necessary to analyse the processes in the revolution and explain how the gains made can best be defended
[page 18]
developed. Such is the case with the Nicaraguan revolution.
The key issue, which goes right to the heart of the matter in Nicaragua and Central America in general, is the theory of the Permanent revolution and the question of the class character of the revolution. For throughout the Colonial world, especially in Central and America, an enormous movement of the masses has taken place. Only three years ago the whole of South America was one gigantic concentration camp. Today only two military police dictatorships remain, in Chile and Paraguay. It has been the movement of the workers, youth and exploited masses that has resulted in the downfall of these regimes. As we shall see later, the same was true in Nicaragua. In these countries the immediate task posed has been that of resolving the issues of the bourgeois revolution. That is, the development of industry, the resolution of the land question, securing a unified, independent, nation state establishment of a stable parliamentary democracy. In varying degrees these issues lie at the heart of the tasks immediately posed throughout Latin Permanent revolution As Trotsky and Lenin explained, in the modern epoch the problem is that these issues cannot be resolved by the national capitalist class in the colonial countries because they are too weak. Bound to the landlords and in the last analysis to the coat tails of the more powerful imperialist powers, the national capitalist class is wholly unable to play any independent or progressive role. The economies of the colonial countries are dominated by the multi-nationals which have used them as a source of cheap labour and to secure raw materials and minerals. Which class, then, is capable of resolving these fundamental problems, critical to the further development of society? As the experience of the Russian Revolution brilliantly demonstrated it is only the industrial working class, with the support of the poor peasants and exploited layers of society, who can carry out this task. For even in the backward colonial countries, with investment by the imperialist powers and, to a certain extent with the capitalist class, an industrial working class has been created.
However, upon seizing power such a class would not be able to confine itself merely to the question of the bourgeois revolution but, by very necessity, it would transgress such limits and go over to the tasks of the socialist revolution, with the nationalisation of the economy and a centralised plan of production based upon a system of workers' democracy. To lay the basis for the construction of a socialist society, the revolution must be developed beyond the narrow constraints of the backward and underdeveloped nations to the advanced capitalist countries. Thus whilst the revolution may begin in a colonial country, if it is to result in the building of a socialist society it must be developed on an international scale. Such were the ideas of the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. The failure of the international revolution left the USSR isolated, with a backward economy and horrendous shortages which, with the attempts to crush the revolution by imperialism, opened the way for a political counter-revolution in the 1920s. Whilst leaving intact the economic basis of the 1917 revolution (the nationalised planned economy, the political counterrevolution destroyed workers' democracy and replaced it with a bureaucratic caste - a clique which has now abandoned any idea of world revolution and instead acts as a counter revolutionary brake on such developments in order to protect its own position. For the development of the revolution on an international level would bring with it a political revolution restoring workers democracy.
In the recent epoch, in the course of the unfolding of the Colonial Revolution, a new twist has developed. The revolution has been carried through in some countries, but in a distorted way. Such has been the impasse of society that, despite the absence of a genuine mass Marxist force, capitalism and landlordism has been overthrown. However it has not been replaced with a workers' democracy but with a state apparatus in the image of Moscow today rather than that of 1917. At the top of such regimes have been placed guerrilla groupings, students and intellectuals or even radical layers of the officer caste of the army. When assuming power, such leaders never did so with the perspective of completing the revolution. They were pushed into doing so in part by the pressure of the masses and, for example, as in the case of Cuba, because of the reaction of imperialism in the form of an economic boycott. Such regimes, as in Cuba, China, Syria etc have been very popular and enjoyed tremendous support as the benefits of a nationalised planned economy have been felt. Whilst marking a break with landlordism and capitalism and as such representing a tremendous step forward, this development has not, however, signified the socialist revolution and regimes of workers democracy.
The absence of a regime of workers' democracy has been rooted in the nature of these revolutions, and in particular the absence of a conscious leading role being played by the proletariat, which finds its highest expression in a mass Marxist Party. For it is only the working class which can lead the socialist transformation of society. When other groupings attempt to do so, the best that can be achieved is the social revolution in a distorted form and the establishment of a bureaucratic one party totalitarian regime.
It is these crucial aspects of the Colonial and Permanent revolution which are now of critical importance if a path leading to the successful development of the socialist revolution is to be found in relation to Nicaragua, and the threat of counter revolution, by US Imperialism and the Contras, is to be defeated. To do so it is necessary to look at the historical development of Nicaragua, especially taking into account the role played by the national bourgeois, the working class and the peasantry. The historical development of Nicaragua Like all of the countries of Central ana Southern America, Nicaragua has been consistently plundered and exploited by imperialism. Conquered by Spain in 1523, Nicaragua was ruthlessly bled white under colonial rule. Some successful resistance was waged by the Miskito Indians on the Atlantic coast. Later, they were given some support from Britain which at that stage wanted a base for its own operations in the area against the Spanish, French and finally the North American powers. This support was in exchange for British imperialism being able to exploit the area with a relatively free hand. Three hundred years of Spanish colonialisation saw Nicaragua turned into a slave-exporting base to such countries as Santa Domingo, Ecuador, Peru and Chile. Being a member of the Central American Federation, it was granted 'independence' in 1821 and slavery was abolished in 1824. Servile labour however continued throughout the 19th century. By this time two clear groupings had emerged amongst the ruling class. The first was the so-called 'Liberal' wing, based around such areas as the Pacific coastal port of Corinto. Largely drawn from small proprietors, artisans and others, they formed a budding retail merchant class which was politically touched by the great French revolution, and stood as vigorous supporters of free trade. Weighed against them was an arch conservative aristocratic clique of landlords. Whilst the 'Liberal'
regimes were perhaps slightly less repressive when they had the upper hand, they rapidly demonstrated their weakness. They were totally incapable of standing up to the dominating influence of North American imperialism and in the last analysis were always dragged along by its coat tails— usually after a few protests against US "excesses', which may have damaged their
[page 19]
MIR Spring 1987: Nicaragua particular interests. They were incapable of following the traditions of the rising French bourgeois, from whom they nevertheless drew a certain verbal 'radicalism'.
The conservative clique never even bothered attempting to put up a 'radical' mask, but accepted the mantle of outright collaboration with US imperialism from the very beginning. They were nevertheless a powerful grouping basing themselves upon the coffee markets which up until 1950 accounted for 50% of Nicaraguan exports.
Thus the Nicaraguan bourgeois was from the outset weak and feeble, especially when pitched against the mighty imperial powers. As such they were unable to play any substantially independent and certainly not a progessive role. They were unable to come anywhere near completing the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, which the 'Liberals' had so enviously watched their French counterparts do historically. In the last analysis they accepted the role of being little more than coupon clippers for imperialism. Between these two groupings a bitter struggle was fought out in the form of military coups, dictatorships and civil war, with US imperialism, as it developed, playing the role of arbiter by supporting which ever served its purpose best at the time. The discovery of gold in 1843 brought with it increased interest in Central America especially with the prospect of constructing a canal coast-to-coast for the shipment of gold and other raw materials. In August 1849, Roberto Ramirez, as Supreme Director of Nicaragua, signed the first contract allowing for the construction of such a canal. At the same time the Legislative Assembly accepted the principle of "absolute exclusion of foreign intervention in the state's internal affairs and calling upon other Central American states to do likewise." As events demonstrated, such a declaration was more of a dream of how the Nicaraguan ruling class would have For when US imperialism cracked the whip, they jumped in a flash and accepted the 'realities' of life. They were too weak to make any serious stand and feared any mobilisation of the Nicaraguan masses with whom they would have come into collision. Civil war broke out in 1850 bringing to power the extreme reactionary, Prutos Chamorro. This provoked a revolt by the 'Liberals' who, under the leadership of Jerez and Castellon, landed a small military force at El Realejo in 1854. This 'Liberal' grouping immediately started peace talks in order to try and secure some concessions. The offer was rejected and the 'Liberals' turned North to get the help of an American mercenary, William Walker. He, in return for lavish payments, offered a force of about 300 Honduras Contra (FDN) activity Esteli Gulf of Fonseca Chinandega Leon Lake Managua Corinto Masaya Pacific Ocean Managua ¿ Granada Rivas • 20%020 lomes 40 60 miles National capital Provincial capital - Pan American Highway He landed in 1855-with men.
Nicaraguan citizenship and the self- Nicaraguan ruling class had enlisted the support of a renowned slave holder from the South who had his own objectives to sieze control not only of Nicaragua, but of the whole of Central America as a base from which to reinforce the southern slave states of North America. Rising power of US imperialism Walker seized power and installed his puppet Rivas as President while he, in reality, ruled from the wings. So reactionary and ruthless were his methods of rule that even Rivas was repelled. Summoning all of Central America to his support, Rivas rebelled in 1856, beginning the so-called 'National War'. In response, Walker had himself appointed as President of Nicaragua and El Salvador. Walker's drive to conquer all of Central America brought him into conflict with British imperialism for he tried to spread his influence into the coastal areas of the Miskito Indians-then a British colony which later was incorporated into Nicaragua. Walker was defeated in 1857, whereupon he returned to North America to launch a further attack in 1860. At this stage the Northern states of America clearly did not want a victory for Walker which would have bolstered the position of the Southern states. They were also beginning to look towards Central America as a potential area for development themselves. Walker was captured by a British gunboat, turned over to the government in Honduras, where he was put up against a wall and shot. The whole • Jinotega zelaya Bluefields:
Sake Nicaragua Penas Blancas Costa Rica Atlantic Ocean Caribbe Cuba sea Nicaragua Pacific Ocean incident clearly demonstrated the role of the 'Liberal' wing of the Nicaraguan ruling class. The way was formally opened for US penetration of Nicaragua with the signing of the Cassirisarra treaty in 1859. The 'Liberals' eventually took Managua in 1893, after a series of risings. In 1894 they annexed the Miskito coast, paying British Imperialism US $15 million for it in 'compensation'.
This was the period of the rising power of US imperialism, which was increasingly squeezing out the major European capitalist powers. The policy of so-called 'dollar diplomacy' was adopted. Loans were given to certain countries throughout the region. In return the US was granted the exclusive rights of trade and exploited mineral and other raw materials. In reality it meant that the states concerned were signed over to US imperialism to do with as they wished. Terms were imposed to protect investments, banks and railways which, if not adhered to, resulted in the automatic right of military intervention. In 1893 the Nationalist Liberal Party came to power. It was offered arms to 'unify Central America' in return for the
[page 20]
US being given exclusive rights to build and operate a canal linking coast to coast. President Zelaya refused. The US thus engineered his downfall and US troops invaded Nicaragua for the first time in 1909. A presidential stooge of US Imperialism was put in power, Diaz. He immediately agreed to the following "proposals': the abolition of all state monopolies; an agreement to pay the external debt; to guarantee the interests of all foreign nationals; all Nicaraguan customs departments, Post Offices, national Banks, railways and harbours to be placed under the control of US creditor banks. The terms were so harsh that once again the 'Liberals' revolted in 1912. 2,700 US marines landed to crush the revolt. Diaz was again 'elected' President, receiving 4,000 votes from a population of 800,000.
US imperialism was determined to maintain total control of Nicaragua, largely out of its own interest in the construction of a canal. US marines were permanently stationed in Nicaragua until 1925. Elections were held two months after their withdrawal, only to be followed by another coup by the Conservatives under the leadership of Chamorro. Once again civil war raged with widespread attacks undertaken against US investments. The rebellion was led by Vice President Mocada. US troops were once again sent in. Peace terms were offered and accepted by Mocada on behalf of the 'Liberal' officers. There was, however, one exception: Sandino, or as he became known, 'the free man's general'. He refused to accept the peace offer and began a guerilla war which lasted until 1932.
ment, limited though it was, terrified capitalism and US imperialism. As a result over 800 fully armed US marines were sent in an attempt to crush the guerrillas when they only numbered between 50 and 100 armed men. Sandino and his army conducted what can only be described as an extremely heroic struggle which has left a powerful tradition throughout Central and, to a certain extent, Southern America. At first they suffered some defeats but later won some very convincing military victories against the US and Nicaraguan forces.
The regime became enraged when it first failed to crush this movement, unleashing a reign of terror against the peasant masses. Mass executions, tortures and beatings took place in a completely indiscriminate manner. It served, however, only to increase the sympathy for Sandino's army. The National Guard undertook much of the repression, having been established at the behest of US imperialism and then officered by it. One example of the ruthlessness deployed was in Ocotal, a small town which was looted by a group of peasants who were not from Sandino's forces. The result was a mass bombing raid, killing over 300 in one attack. In Managua 70 bombers were flown in from the US and used in the countryside and throughout the country. After a brief interlude of negotiations US troops went onto the offensive. All those taken prisoner were immediately executed. The infamous 'waistcoat' torture was established, whereby the victims had both arms cut off.
Against seemingly incredible odds and with few weapons the struggle was continued for some years. In 1932, after being given an assurance that US troops would be withdrawn and the safety of his fighters promised, Sandino agreed to surrender. It was a disastrous mistake from which many lessons can be learned, not least in the situation which has developed in the recent period. As the guerrillas drifted into the cities the so-called 'safety promised to his men proved nonexistent. They were taken by the National Guard and executed, under the orders of Somoza.
Later Sandino, after dining with government officials, was himself killed. Even in his death the dominance of US imperialism and the collaboration it enjoyed with the national bourgeois was clearly exposed. Somoza went to the President, declaring, "I have come from the US Embassy where I have had a conference with Ambassador Arturo Bliss, who has assured me that the government in Washington recommends the elimination of Augusto Sandino for considering him a disturber of peace in the country."
Sandino conducted an heroic struggle. However heroism is not enough for a successful struggle. In his analysis and
method lay a fundamental weakness which would deny him victory - a weakness which unfortunately exists amongst the FSLN leadership today. For Sandino the struggle was purely military, the aim being to force US troops from Nicaraguan soil. Even if this aim had been achieved he failed to see that without a social revolution imperialism would still dominate economically. Moreover, it would do so working hand in glove with the national bourgeois.
As a result, he refused to allow the struggle to develop onto the social questions and would not recognise the existence of a struggle between the classes within Nicaragua. The movement was purely national, with no orientation towards winning and mobilising the support of the exploited masses throughout Central America, which could clearly have been achieved. How, after all, could a small nation such as Nicaragua defeat a mighty imperial power alone, without a class content to the movement?
The Somoza dictatorship
For Sandino it was thus "essentially a national thing". Whilst correctly concluding that "only the peasants and workers will go to the end", , he did not grasp the necessary conclusion in relation to the social revolution, and made no real effort to build a base amongst the urban centres which were growing up at the time. The possibilities to win the young urban masses support for the revolution throughout Central America was demonstrated by events which took place in El Salvador where, in the first and last 'free' elections held in 1931 the Labour Party was brought to power on the basis of a movement for land reform and a movement in the cities. In 1932 this was followed by local elections which resulted in large gains for the Communist Party. Even at this stage 10% of the workforce were organised into trade unions. An insurrection was called by the Communist Party, somewhat prematurely, and was crushed. However, these events clearly indicated what possibilities existed at the time.
Sandino however took another course: "Neither extreme right nor extreme left but a united front is our slogan. This being the case it is not illogical that our struggle should get co-operation from all social classes without "ism's or classifications."
With the withdrawal of American troops, a debate opened up within the Sandinistas over the developing social revolution. Sandino opposed it, having supported the expulsion of the 'Communists' from his army beforehand. In part this was undoubtedly due to the ultra-left stand of 'social fascism' etc adopted by the Comintern at the time, but
21
The free man's general
Sandino's stand rallied the sympathies of thousands of peasants and the urban masses. Having been betrayed by the 'Liberals' and embued with a hatred of US imperialism, his struggle captured the imagination throughout Nicaragua and Central America. Moreover, it drew international support with the memory of the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution of 1927 and the British General Strike of 1926, and was viewed by the activists who were touched by it as another struggle against imperialism. Banners supporting Sandino were even reported to have been carried in Peking in 1927.
The guerrilla army which started with only 27 recruits quickly grew and rose at its height to an armed force of about 3,000. Its support came mainly from peasants and the urban poor, not only from Nicaragua but throughout Central and Southern America. In its ranks were to be found youth from South America, Central America and even some Europeans and a few from Asia. This move-
[page 21]
Left: Sandino, the 'Freeman's General'. Right: Nicaraguan soldiers, part of the Sandinista's forces. Including the militias over 150,000 people are under arms in Nicaragua today. Photo: Piers Cavendish (Reflex). it clearly indicated the fundamental weakness in the analysis of the 'free man's 'patriotic group'
general'. A established which urged Sandino to surrender, end the war and "allow stable conditions for business" to be established under the 'Liberal' Sacasa who was President at that time. Sandino accepted and was then assassinated in 1934 after dining with Sacasa and Samoza. The assassination prepared the way for a coup by the National Guard. Jarquin was named President, who then called rigged elections which brought Somoza to power in January 1937. Elections were banned in all the municipalities and the Presidential term extended. It opened the way for 40 years of dictatorship backed, and indeed brought to power, by US imperialism. Somoza became nothing more than a puppet for US imperialism. However, despite this ruthless repression, all opposition was not crushed. Most significantly in Managua it centred around the CTM (the Workers Confederation of Managua) with over 3,000 semi-underground in members conditions.
Somoza was assassinated in 1956, his place being taken firstly by his elder son who then, upon his death, passed power to his younger brother.
Somoza dictatorship was The a nightmare for the masses of Nicaragua, resulting in the slaughter of tens of thousands which went side by side with grinding poverty and misery. An estimated 30% of the population lacked 22 anything approaching an adequate diet. As in all the colonial countries the industrialisation which took place brought with it no benefits in a material sense for the young proletariat in the cities. This living hell for the mass of the Nicaraguan population was mirrored by the accumulation of a massive fortune by the Somoza family. By 1979 it was estimated to have amounted to US $150 million inside the country and millions more invested abroad. Apart from this, Somoza owned 150 separate industrial plants accounting for 257 of all industry and over 10% of cultivatable land. He also owned the only airline, a television station, a newspaper and the Mercedes Benz distribution agency.
Economic development of Nicaragua Somoza saw his primary role, apart from increasing his own personal fortune, as defending the interests of US imperialism. As his son put it, his father "the only national leader the US could count on to bat 1000% for it in the United Nations." US imperialism regarded the Somoza dictatorship certainly as 'one of theirs, if being somewhat embarrassed by certain 'excesses'. As Franklin Roosevelt put it, "Somoza may be a son of a bitch. But he is our son of a bitch." Somoza ensured that in effect the entire state apparatus was transformed into his own private army, certainly this was the case as far as the 7,500 strong National Guard was concerned. To prevent it becoming infected by any movement of the peasants or workers, Somoza ensured that it was separated from the rest of society and privileges. Good wages were paid and to prevent officers striking up too friendly a relationship with the troops, they were regularly moved around, most being sent to the USA for training. Between 1946 and 1973, 4,120 officers and soldiers were officially sent to the US for these purposes. Nicaragua assumed a vital strategic role for the operations of US imperialism throughout Central America. It was from here that the ill-fated Bay of Pigs operation to crush the Cuban revolution was launched in 1961.
Over the preceding thirty years unrecognisable. Widespread industrialisation had taken place, largely by direct investment from multinationals and also by loans being given to the national bourgeois, who by Central American standards were relatively powerful. These loans and investments ensured that imthe lion's share and had perialism dominated the economy. Thus by 1972 the foreign debt stood at US $255 million, rising to a staggering US $1,000 million by 1978. The US had important investments in critical sectors of the economy but the national bourgeois had an important influence in light industry. The industrialisation largely took place throughout the 1950s, resulting in the strengthening of the industrial working
[page 22]
class as thousands of ex-peasants came into the cities, especially Managua, from the countryside
Cotton overtook coffee, livestock and sugar as the main basis of the economy. Output rose from 3,300 tonnes in 1950 to 125,000 tonnes in 1965. By 1970 light industry was equal to agriculture as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. By 1976 it was slightly ahead at 24% as compared to 23%. As a result, the agricultural population fell from 60% of the total in 1960 to 44% by 1977. The urban workers employed in industry, construction and mining constituted 16-18% of the total workforce by 1975—a greater percentage than in pre-revolutionary Russia.
Even in land relations an important development was under way with a certain establishment of capitalist land relations. The concentration of land into a few hands went alongside the growth of land labourers as opposed to peasants— who still constituted the majority. A tiny clique of 1,600 (1.5%) people held 45.1% of all cultivated land and 20.3% held a further 41.1%. The poorest 78% of peasants held a mere 17% of the land. The total number of agricultural labourers stood at 310,000.
Struggles
of the 1970's
Nicaragua, like the rest of the colonial world, never enjoyed the fruits of the boom years of capitalism, the cream being carried off by the imperialist powers. However, between 1969 and 1974 a recession hit the Nicaraguan economy which had devastating effects. During this period 292 factories, or 37% of the total, closed down. Inflation also rose. The grave digger of capitalist society, the industrial proletariat, moved into action during this period, as a young and fresh working class. The industrialisation had aroused tremendous expectations amongst the workers. However, when these expectations were not fulfilled and the economy moved into recession, the proletariat began to flex its muscles and use its newly aquired strength. It coincided with a movement amongst the peasants and a struggle being conducted by the FSLN guerrillas, and culminated in the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship in July 1979.
Throughout the 1970's a considerable movement of the working class took place in the cities. Strikes broke out amongst the teachers, construction workers and health workers. These struggles were mirrored by a movement in the countryside of land seizures and vicious battles involving the National Guard. It was during this movement that the FSLN began to gain an authority and reputation amongst the peasants and land labourers. Because of the lack of any other serious force, after
a period of time it also gained a reputation in the cities partly because it was against the FSLN that the hated regime directed a large part of its propaganda and repression. This movement of the workers and peasants terrified both US imperialism and the Somoza dictatorship. Above anything else both the imperialist powers and the national bourgeois of the colonial countries fear a movement of the masses.
By 1977 the construction workers had again been drawn into struggle and demonstrated themselves to be one of the most militant sections of the Nicaraguan proletariat. In the countryside a civil war was in effect taking place. In 1978 major struggles erupted at Leon Esteli, Chirandega and Masaya between the National Guard and armed groups. Eventually the National Guard bombed these small towns killing over 6,000. Masaya held out against the assault for a week. The heroism and determination to struggle was tremendous. In the two years preceding the fall of the dictatorship a staggering 50,000 or 2% of the entire population was killed.
Sections of the national bourgeois, fearing such developments, began to move into opposition against the dictatorship. Adopting a strategy of trying to ease out the regime, they hoped to be able to control the movement of the workers and peasants. In this they were wholly unsuccessful, at least in part due to the determination of Somoza to hang on to power. These divisions had begun to appear as early as 1970 with a split opening up between the Conservative Party and Somoza's National Liberal Party and were reinforced in the light of the earthquake which hit Nicaragua in 1972, destroying Managua. Foreign aid was rushed in, but little found its way to assist those capitalists who had seen their factories and investments destroyed and who needed compensation and the rebuilding of the infrastructure which capitalism requires—none found its way to help the workers and peasants. Somoza, on the other hand, was able to line his pockets still further.
Given the conditions which were developing, had a genuine Marxist party existed, the revolution could have been developed along the more classical lines of events in Russia of 1917, bringing to power a regime of workers democracy, as a springboard to developing the revolution throughout Central and Southern America and then to the advanced capitalist countries and even the USA. The three objective conditions for revolution laid down by Lenin existed. The bourgeois was split under the pressure of' the movement of the masses. The middle layers of society were increasingly radicalised and being brought into the struggle as demonstrated by the strikes
amongst the teachers and health workers. A massive movement was under way in the countryside and the working class was willing to struggle. It was the lack of the fourth condition, a Marxist party, which resulted in the revolution taking a distorted and somewhat peculiar route.
In December 1974 a section of the bourgeois formed what they called a "broad front', the Democratic Liberation Union, UDEL, with certain trade union organisations. Seeing the development of the revolution US imperialism began to look at possible ways to prevent an explosion and gave their backing to UDEL as a possible 'Liberal' alternative to the dictatorship.
The Sandinista FSLN had carried out a series of guerrilla attacks during this period which had provoked a massive wave of repression. Somoza calculated that he had crushed them and lifted the State of Emergency in 1977. However, rather than intimidating the movement,, this wave of repression provoked an enormous reaction. In November 1977, UDEL published an appeal calling for a 'democratic alternative' to Somoza which would include the FSLN. The appeal was carried in the conservative daily, La Prensa which was edited by UDEL leader Chamorro. As a resuit Chamorro was assassinated in 1978. Revolution sometimes needs the whip of counter revolution, for this killing unleashed a new and decisive movement.
The overthrow
Somoza
UDEL and the trade unions called a general strike to coincide with Chamorros funeral. An estimated 120,000 participated. It was a crucial turning point for the revolution and for the first time a generalised urban mobilisation took place. It terrified those bourgeois who, up until then, had thrown their support behind UDEL. As a result, in July 1978, they established a new organisation, FAO, which was made up of sections of the bourgeois and one wing of the FSLN, Las Terceristas. This undertook negotiations with the USA to try and establish a 'moderate' solution to the crisis. The FSLN withdrew when negotiations with the USA opened. The FAO then undertook direct negotiations with Somoza. The bourgeois were desperate to try and prevent a social explosion. As a result of its negotiations with Somoza, the FAO lost most of the influence which it had built up amongst the masses. Events had driven the workers and peasants beyond the idea of a "chat' with the hated dictator.
The FSLN had been conducting a struggle in the countryside, and due to the lack of an organised alternative, had also developed a powerful reputation within
23
[page 23]
MIR Spring 1987: Nicaragua
the cities. This was despite the fact that it was a small organisation of no more than 500 armed activists at any given point in time. It was divided into three fractions advocating a variety of ideas, but dominated by the idea of a guerrilla struggle, as a substitute for the conscious movement of the working class, with the support of the poor peasants, to seize power.
By February 1979, a new organisation had been established including the three fractions of the FSLN, some trade unions and a few minor bourgeois groupings. Having previously been compelled to suspend military activity, by March the unified FSLN opened a new offensive. The regime was totally isolated, with only the National Guard prepared to lend it any support.
A massive social explosion erupted, and the FSLN then issued a call for a mobilisation of the masses. On June 10th a spontaneous general strike broke out in Managua. Sections of the National Guard tried to make a stand but were overwhelmed by the enormous movement which took place. The regime was overthrown and beaten. The National Guard fled, later to form the basis of the present day 'Contras'
From Costa Rica, in exile, the Sandinista leaders returned and announced the formation of a Provisional Government made up of three Sandinistas and two bourgeois politicians. They marched into Managua and found themselves placed at the head of the movement. The Provisional Government was renamed the Junta of National Reconstruction- JGRN
The Sandinistas
The bourgeois state machine had collapsed! What, however, has replaced it? And what are the perspectives for the Nicaraguan revolution? In order to more fully understand the class basis of the state which has been established, and answer the two questions posed above, it is necessary first of all to look at the ideas and history of the FSLN.
In the light of such a rising the impression has been implanted that the Sandinistas are carrying through the socialist revolution. Unfortunately it has been their failure to do exactly that which is now putting the revolution in jeopardy. Above all else, the socialist revolution consists of a conscious movement by the proletariat to take power into its hands, through the establishment of a workers' democracy, based upon the lessons of the experiences of the Paris Commune of 1871 and then clarified in the Russian Revolution of 1917. Lenin summarised such a state to rest on the following fundamentals: the abolition of the standing army and its replacement with the arm- 24
Choice Befor
MIR No 27, Autumn 1984 with Bob Labi's article on Marxism and the Nicaraguan
evolution. Price 75p from World Socialis
ooks, 3/13 Hepscott Road, London E 5HB.
ing of the people, all officials to be elected and subject to immediate recall a anytime, all officials to receive the same wages as a skilled worker, popular participation in all administration and the rotation of senior positions with the management and control of society by workers' councils-Soviets.
A state apparatus based upon these foundations unfortunately does not exist in Nicaragua at the present time. Moreover, the regime was overthrown by a spontaneous rising from below, rather than a conscious movement by the proletariat to seize power. Into this movenent has been iniected the ideas of guer rillaism which have particularly eclipsec the method of proletarian struggle, due to the guerrilla movement which took place and the ideas of the FSLN. Thus we have seen the development of a revolution which has lacked the decisive leadership of the proletariat in conscious form, and impregnated with the false ideas of guerrillaism.
Compare this with the October revolution in Russia, which had been consciously prepared by the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky and where the proletariat was embued with the perspective of the international revolution to ensure the success of the revolution and allow for the construction of a socialist society.
In other similar situations the revolution has been carried through. but in a distorted manner. In Cuba, for example, capitalism was abolished but instead of a regime of workers' democracy, a bureaucratic one party totalitarian state was established. A regime which was, and to a lesser extent still is today, enormously popular, but which is not a workers' democracy. In Nicaragua however, the Sandinistas have not taken the revolution to a conclusion, in the sense of overthrowing capitalism, which still predominates in relation to the economy.
Thus the Sandinistas have found themselves at the head of a new state apparatus, and permitted capitalism to predominate in the market place! What has given rise to this apparently curious phenomenen?
Unfortunately, the leadership of the FSLN have not learnt from the experience of the Russian Revolution nor of the international working class. Tragically they have fallen not under the influence of the Bolshevism of Lenin and Trotsky but have taken up the mantle of Menshevism. For in reality they have accepted the socalled two stages theory. They held a perspective that a 'progressive' wing of capitalism existed, that with the fall of the dictatorship a period of capitalist development would be necessary during which they could share power with the bourgeois. They had no perspective for the socialist revolution. For the Sandinistas it is fundamentally a 'national affair'. If such a perspective was doomed to failure from the standpoint of the socialist revolution in 1927, then how much more so is it today? With the increased monopolisation of capitalism and the development of the world market, no revolution or nation can set itself aside from either the international market nor, for a successful revolution, from its development to an international level. From the standpoint of Marxism and the interests of the world revolution and those of the Nicaraguan workers and peasants, the issue is not the good intentions or otherwise of the FSLN leadership. Their heroism is not the issue. The question is how to obtain a lasting victory for the masses as a whole.
Guerrilla struggle
The FSLN traces its history back to 1962, being created by Carlos Fonseca, Silvio Mayorga and Tomas Borge. Many of its founding members were drawn from the pro-Moscow orientated PSN (Nicaraguan Socialist Party), fundamentally because they were disatisfied with the lack of a serious or combative struggle being waged against the dictatorship. At the same time they had been tremendously inspired by the development of the revolution in Cuba. Fonseca had met Che Guevara in Cuba one year after the FSLN began its campaign inside Nicaragua. Its initial strategy was that of a classical guerrilla struggle in the countryside. By taking up arms they hoped to be able to develop the conflict to the point where, with the sympathies of the mass of the peasants, a victory could be achieved. Between 1962 and 1967 such a struggle was undertaken.
This method was false from beginning to end, especially given the industrial development of the country in the preceding years. With its handful of
[page 24]
members the FSLN tried to substitute
itself for a movement of the masses,
especially in the towns. By basing itself
on a movement of the workers in the
towns and a movement of the peasants
in the countryside, and with a Marxist
programme, perspective and party, the
revolution could have resulted in the
establishment of a workers' democracy.
But for the leaders of the FSLN such
ideas were a closed book.
Marxism has always explained that it
is the industrial workers, organised
together in the factories and workplaces,
who are compelled to struggle as a class,
and which will play the decisive role in the
revolution. Behind their banner other ex-
ploited layers, such as the poor peasants,
intellectuals, students and the urban pet-
ty bourgeois can be drawn. Any attempt
‹o substitute a tiny organisation for such
a movement can never result in the
establishment of a workers democracy
which is the basis for the resolution of the
problems of the bourgeois democratic
revolution, through the development of the socialist revolution at an international level. Any organisation which attempts to substitute itself for such a movement will inevitably become isolated from the masses, leading to mistrust and a contempt for the masses, thus laying the seeds for a bureaucratic clique at a later stage.
Marxism strives for the maximum participation by the working class peasantry. However, in doing so, it in no way rejects the necessity for the masses to take up arms, including the peasantry organising a war in the countryside, which in Nicaragua would assume a critical role: but always as an auxiliary to a movement in the towns. The Sandanista leaders, however, viewed the movement in the towns as auxiliary, and even imagined that a relatively small organisation would conduct such a struggle. The attitude of the FSLN was underlined by Daniel Ortega when he declared, we underestimated the masses." Thus, even amongst the peasantry, whilst developing widespread sympathy and support, no attempt was made to build a mass party.
By 1970 the FSLN had suffered some heavy defeats and was forced to suspend its activity for a period. This led to an open discussion within the FSLN. Three clear tendencies had developed: a majority led by Ortega, 'Las Terceristas'; the GPP (the Prolonged Guerrilla War) under the leadership of Tomas Borge; and the smallest, 'the Proletarian Tendency' under the leadership of Jaime Wheelock.
A clear majority favoured some kind of guerrilla war, although some differences existed as to which kind. 'Las Terceristas' favoured taking the campaign to the cities following the example of the Tupamaros in Uruguay, after which they hoped the working class would follow them and their bombing campaign. But
Daniel Ortega such a campaign at best would lower the consciousness of the working class, for only the working class can carry through its own emancipation. 'Why should we fight if they will do it for us?' would inevitably be the most positive outcome of such a position. No effort was made by the 'Terceristas' to build a party of the proletariat in the cities. At the same time, they supported an alliance with certain sections of the national bourgeoisie.
The GPP favoured a long struggle in the countryside with no reference to the cities at all. The 'Proletarian Tendency' argued that the FSLN must root itself amongst the working class. Whilst this signified a step forward, they lacked the necessary programme to do so. In 1975 the 'Proletarian Tendency' was expelled from the FSLN. It was with a clear majority favouring a guerrilla struggle that the FSLN found itself in power in 1979.
Character of the state
With the smashing of the Somoza state apparatus the FSLN has become the state apparatus. The hypocrisy of US imperialism in its denunciation of the 'repression' in Nicaragua has surpassed all levels, for Nicaragua in reality has been the most democratic state in Central America since the revolution in 1979. The elections which were held in 1984 indicated the overwhelming support that the FLN has enjoyed. Within four days over 80% of all those over the age of 16 had registered to vote and gave Ortega a greater measure of support than that achieved by Reagan in the US Presidential elections. However the state apparatus which has been constructed will not allow the management of society to be in the hands of the workers and poor peasants. In essence once again it has boiled down to 'we will do it on your behalf'. The state apparatus has been modelled on Cuba, and as such, despite the tremendous enthusiasm which still exists for the revolution, it would be a mistake to think that genuine workers' democracy, beginning to lay the basis for the socialist
construction of society, now exists in
Nicaragua. This applies to both the state
apparatus and property relations.
Moreover, on its present course, nor is it
capable of moving in such a direction.
The character of the state apparatus is
a retlection of the FSLN itself. As an
organisation it never took on the
characteristics of a healthy workers' par-
ty. It was and still is a tightly controlled
organisation which excludes the mass of
workers and peasants from its ranks.
Thus by January 1981, nearly two years
after the revolution, it had a mere 500
members. This was increased to 5,000 and
again to 12,000. Even now membership is narrow and restricted to a selected few,
who are given specialised training for
Government appointments. The San-
dinistas argue that the restrictions on
membership have been necessary to pre-
vent the infiltration of counter revolutionaries and careerists. Measures to safeguard against such threats are clearly required. However, exactly the opposite has occurred. A party with a mass, active and above all politically conscious membership is the way to safeguard against such a development. A party with a restricted membership, which as we shall see is not controlled by the working class, will pave the way for a rising and privileged group at the top.
This restrictive nature of the party finds its further reflection in the state apparatus. For here control and management is not in the hands of the working class and peasantry. All direction and policy making is instead in the hands of the FSLN leadership, specifically the National Directorate. Since the elections the President has had the major powers concentrated in his hands. The Sandinistas point to the development of mass organisations of the trade unions (CST), rural workers associations (ATC), the youth movement (MJ19) and above all the Sandinista Defense Committees(CDS), as the basis of control by the masses. The explosive growth of these organisations after the revolution is undeniable and illustrates the support for the Sandinistas and the enthusiasm for the
25
[page 25]
MIR Spring 1987: Nicaragua revolution. The CDSs number 12,000, estimated participation of 500,000. However, power is not in their hands. The CDSs, it is true, have a certain autonomy over local issues of a day to day character. However they are more in the mode of a transition belt for FSLN leaders to pass the decisions down. At the same time they act as a sounding board for a certain consultation. They do not control or determine policy and neither is the government under their control. It is often pointed out that this is the function of the National Assembly. This however has little effective power which is firmly concentrated in the so-called This apparatus in no way compares with the Soviet democracy which existed after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Lenin and Trotsky fought against any development of careerism or bureaucracy, but not by preventing workers from entering the party.
Membership of the Bolsheviks exploded from 8,000 in February to 240,000 on the eve of the October revolution. The Communist Party of Russia degenerated because of the objective conditions which developed, most specifically the defeat of the world revolution at the time. The Soviet form of government was not comparable with the CDSs in Nicaragua. The Soviets made up the government and determined policy at national and local level. They were elected from the workplaces, with delegates from the peasants and soldiers. All were subject to recall at any time. Economy still in private By contrast, in Nicaragua the state apparatus, although popular, still has the characteristics of those which emerged in Cuba, China, Yugoslavia and others regimes which in the early period enjoyed tremendous support, but not regimes of workers' democracy.
These regimes however carried out the landlordism capitalism, thus marking a step forward. This has not been undertaken by the Sandinistas. In Nicaragua the economy is still in private hands.
With the coming of the revolution the bourgeois overwhelmingly passed over to support the Contras, and are determined to crush the revolution. Some of these bourgeois were taken into the government by the Sandinistas in the early stages of the movement. Arturo Cruz leader of the CDN, was actually brought into the government in 1980. He in effect endorsed US intervention and denounced the elections as 'undemocratic'. The two original bourgeois representatives in the Government passed over to the contras almost immediately. The national bourgeois will not accept the Sandinista state because it is not their state. This is despite the attempts of the Sandinistas to appease them, flowing from their belief in the existence of the non-existent 'progressive wing' of the bourgeois. For the bourgeois to rule they need their own state apparatus upon which to rely. The Sandinistas, contrary to popular belief, have not taken over the decisive sections of the economy. As they themselves explained in their programme, Plan for Struggle: " At the same time, we set ourselves the aim of regulating the participation in our country's development of foreign capital from other states and private companies within the mixed economy framework (my emphasis) which offers room both for the functioning of the enterprises of the peoples property sector and for those in the hands of the private owners that correspond to the interests of national development... " In reality, it has meant that the capitalist class still have control of the economy. This is so despite the fact that the properties of Somoza were nationalised: 168 factories, accounting for 25% of industrial plant and employing 13,000 of the 65,000 strong industrial proletariat. However it still left 60% of the economy in private hands. Thus the multi- national giants of Exxon and General Mills were left untouched. In fact the JGRN decreed in its proclamation number 3, that finance, mining, fishing and all plants belonging to Somoza could be nationalised. In relation to the agricultural sector, private ownership has been even more dominant. Eabier Garvstiaga of the Ministry of Planning claimed in 1981 "very few people realise that 80% of agricultural production is in the hands of the private sector as is 75%, of industrial production." A more detailed breakdown illustrates the point still further: 72% of cotton production, 53% of coffee, 58% of cattle and 51%0 of sugar production remain in private hands. Some would claim that these figures give agricultural sector most of the land is held by small land owners. Such a claim once again does noi stand up to reality. Despite quite a widespread land distribution programme the 200,000 smallest farmers still only have 1100 of the land. Reality is Such a situation has left the Sandinistas in the worst of beth possible worlds. They have terrified, or the masses have terrified, the bourgeois, but by leaving the economy in their hands have left it open to sabotage and chaos. For the bourgeois, as well as having given support to the Contras have, from the beginning, embarked on a programme of economic destabilisation.
The capitalists demonstrated their gratitude for the massive state subsidies and reductions in on profits by a massive detaxes capitalisation programme and strike of investment. Thus the public sector contributed 15% to GDP in 1977 and 41% in 1980. This was in part due to some nationalisations but also due to the reduction in the GDP because of the sabotage by the bourgeois. The economy is thus functioning at 60% of capacity. This has been worsened by the accumulation of a massive foreign debt which by 1981 meant that 40% of all export earnings went to service it.
Following the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship it is clear that a Marxist party would have encountered some problems in a small backward country like Nicaragua. However it has been made worse by the refusal of the Sandinista regime to take over the commanding heights of the economy and establish a centralised democratic state plan of production under democratic workers control and management. On the other hand they have reinforced the problems and strengthened the hand of US imperialism by a refusal to try and spread the revolution throughout Central and Southern America and establish a Socialist Federation of Central and Southern American States, which would be the only way to resolve the problems and develop a socialist society in a country such as Nicaragua.
Role of Moscow The Sandinista leaders view the matter as 'a national affair'. Imperialism does not! Thus Tomas Borge declared on May "With the victory of the revolution a new phase begins. It is still necessary to unite the widest possible strata of Nicaraguan society to confront the common enemy of all Nicaraguans, which is US imperialism. This new phase, after victory, puts the main emphasis on the defense of the nation, on the struggle sovereignty respected, on the right of selfdetermination and the need to unite all Nicaraguan patriots to confront a huge and cruel enemy." All Marxists support the right to self determination and oppose the threat of US imperialism. Such tasks will not be accomplished, however, by refusing to appeal to the workers and exploited masses of North and South America. It will not be done by appealing to the national bourgeois who are supporting the Contras and destabilising the The question is clearly posed as to why the FSLN has refused to adopt the necessary measures and complete the revolution, albeit in a distorted way. As already explained, in part this was due to the entirely false understanding of the FSLN leadership in relation to the role of the national bourgeois. However this in itself is a reflection of the influence of the
[page 26]
Moscow bureaucracy which has played a decisive role in holding back the revolution. Indeed at a certain stage the Sandinistas leaders were preparing to abolish capitalism and landlordism, although in a distorted form, but the Stalinist bureaucracy held them back. The Stalinist bureaucracy in Moscow has completely abandoned any perspective for the world revolution - indeed, they fear its development. For the unfolding of the world revolution and the establishing of genuine workers' democracies would inevitably act as a pole of attraction to the workers in the Stalinist states. It would unleash convulsions, not heralding a return to capitalism but ushering in the political revolution and the restoration of workers' democracy in the USSR and its establishment in Eastern Europe, China and the other deformed workers' states. Such a process would mean the overthrow of the bureaucracy itself.
Therefore on a world scale they have sought to come to an agreement with the imperialist powers and have opposed any development of the revolution, even in a distorted form, which would upset the balance. They have thus striven to prevent the completion of the social revolution in Nicaragua because of the effect it would have throughout the area, substantially damaging the interests of US imperialism. The same process could be seen in relation to Cuba. Moscow's bureaucratic clique did not want the revolution. Moreover neither Che Guevara nor Fidel Castro had any perspective of a 'socialist' revolution prior to or when they came to power. They were compelled to carry through the social revolution because of the objective situation in which they found themselves, partly due to the pressure of the masses and also because of the blockade by US imperialism which controlled 90 per cent of the economy. The Stalinist bureaucracy were thus presented with an accomplished fact which they then had no alternative but to accept. Cuba was then "brought into the fold' in order to manage and contain the situation.
The role of Moscow in holding back the Nicaraguan revolution can be clearly seen in the April 1985 visit by Ortega to Moscow to plead for arms and support to complete the revolution. He returned empty handed, save for US $200 million which was exactly what he got from the EEC countries. The Kremlin above all else has been trying to maintain the "balance' in the region. As the British journal the Times pointed out, "the Kremlin is not eager to become more closely drawn into a proxy war with the US in Central America" . When a State of Emergency was declared in November 1984 to meet the threat of US intervention, the same journal reported, 66 .. a small number of older model MIGS
allegedly destined for Nicaragua have remained in Cuba, embargoed by Dr. Castro." Such pressure has largely been carried out through the agency of Havana which has encouraged the Sandinistas to hold back the revolution. Speaking in Nicaragua on January 11th 1985, Castro endorsed the 'mixed economy': "Yesterday we had the opportunity to hear Comrade Daniel Ortega's speech, and I must congratulate him for it. It was serious and responsible. He explained the Sandinista Fronts' goals in every sector—for a mixed economy and political pluralism and even a foreign investment law... I know there is also room within your conception of a mixed economy. You can have a capitalist economy. What you undoubtedly will not have, and this is the most essential thing, is a Government at the service of the capitalists." Hardly a perspective for the socialist revolution!
Such comments clearly indicate the brake which the bureaucracies of Cuba and Moscow have placed upon the revolution. The Sandinista leaders have been prepared to accept it because unfortunately they have lacked an understanding about the character of the revolution and have no perspective or programme for the world revolution. Potentially their programme and methods will put in danger the revolution itself.
Perspectives for
revolution
The Nicaraguan revolution is under threat on two fronts. On the one side the prospects of US military intervention have been very real. On the other there has been the Contra war and attempts by the bourgeois to destabilise the Sandinistas with a perspective to overthrow them. Despite the refusal of the Sandinistas to nationalise the economy the bourgeois and US imperialism will not accept the continued existence of the Sandinista state. This 'halfway' position has lasted for more than seven years and may last longer still but it cannot go on indefinitely.
There have been two issues which have held US imperialism back from direct intervention. Firstly, the repercussions throughout Central and Southern America. Secondly, when faced with this prospect, the Sandinistas have assistad them by keeping the revolution in check.
Had US imperialism intervened it would have unleashed a massive movement throughout the continent. Massive demonstrations, in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Bolivia etc would have taken place. American embassies would have been burnt to the ground along with US investments. In this sense it would have given an impetus to the revolution throughout the continent. For this reason they have held back. An intervention in
the long term would not have solved the problems of US imperialism. In the short term it would have snuffed out 'the example' which Nicaragua has given to the workers and youth throughout the Southern Americas. It is elementary that should the US intervene, as is a possibility, Marxism would fight against it explaining the policy, programme and most effective way to combat it. It would however, meet with tremendous resistance and in reality be an unwinnable war from the long term point of view. The Times correctly summed up the situation: •'When 500 or so hard core Sandinista guerrillas overthrew the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, rusty pistols, shotguns and sport rifles were the most common weaponary in their makeshift arsenal. Their triumph over much better equiped forces of roughly equal size was an impressive testimony to what could be achieved by commitment and courage. And the worst mistake Washington could make, in its unrelenting campaign against the Sandinistas, is to think or doubt that the excited young people who last week were chanting 'No pasaran' are utterly committed to defending their country against even more intimidating odds."
The Sandinistas have over 150,000 under arms, including the militias which have been established. It would be a bloody fight, but once having decided upon such a course of action, US imperialism would have 'ho choice but to see it through to a conclusion. It may mean mass bombings, for example like those which were carried out in Vietnam or Kampuchea where a staggering 10% of the population was wiped out. However, after a period, American forces would be successful in taking the cities. It would however be a pyrrhic victory. The youth would take to the countryside and the American army would be under permanent siege from the mass of the population, with no prospect of a definitive victory. Such a development would inevitably lead to demoralisation after a period. The initial support for the war which US imperialism would be able to engender would turn into its opposite after a period. In that sense a movement similar to that which unfolded around the Vietnam war would develop. The army within Nicaragua, with demoralisation, drug abuse, alcoholism etc would begin to disintegrate as it did in Vietnam. The withdrawal of the occupation forces would be posed and along with it defeat and a fresh victory for the Sandinistas and this time, after such an experience, the establishment of a regime similar to that in Cuba, with the completion of the social revolution, albeit in a distorted form.
US imperialism has seemingly pulled back from intervention at this stage, for fear of the consequences. However, US intervention is not the only danger fac-
27
[page 27]
MIR Spring 1987: Nicaragua ing the Nicaraguan revolution. bourgeois hope that the support enjoyed by the Sandinistas will be eaten away by the frustrations and disatisfaction which is developing because of the economic crisis and consequential shortages etc. With developing disatisfaction, they then hope to split the Sandinistas, possibly using the Church around such figures as Bishop Obando and then bring sections of the Contras into the Government and in effect overturn the existing state apparatus and replace it with their own. The economically has certainly given bourgeois some ground for developing such a perspective.
Given the support currently enjoyed by the Sandinistas, the Contras alone could not overthrow the regime. Recent reports have indicated a plummeting in the morale of the Contras. The recent injections of US aid will allow them to continue, but not seriously posing a direct challenge to the FSLN, who still enjoy the support of the majority of the masses within Nicaragua. According to Alfonso of the right wing United Nicaraguan Opposition (a fraction of the Contras), of the 23,000 claimed members only 6-7,000 are active. In the South, ARDE (Democratic Revolutionary Alliance), is reduced to 3,000 fighters and further South the infamous FDN commander, El Negro, (The Black One),is down to a mere twenty fighters. The base of the Sandinistas must therefore be eaten away. This is one of the reasons the bourgeois has ensured that economic sabotage is most effective. The measures they and US imperialism have taken have undoubtedly been effective. Coupled with the slump in world commodity prices the economy has been devastaterl, to a degree that would have been preventable had the Sandinistas taken over the commanding heights of the economy and instituted a democractic state plan of production. Living standards have fallen dramatically with the economy having its worst performance every year since 1984 when compared with the situation prior to 1979. Inflation now stands at 400%, higher than that ever recorded under the Somoza dictatorship. A massive black market has developed upon which it is now estimated that 130,000 earn their living directly. Unemployment is higher than under the Somoza dictatorship. This situation led to a spate strikes and even food riots in Managua. As a result the government introduced a State of Emergency, under the cover of the threat of US intervention and banned all strikes, with government proclamations issued attacking the 'excesses' of the workers. The FSLN leadership point to the fact that they are compelled to spend 40% of the GNP on the military, to prepare for a US intervention. Marxısm would not criticise them for that. However, with a plan of production more resources would be available and with the creation of a genuine workers' democracy any sacrifices that were necessary would be accepted by the proletariat in the interests of their government, as for example was demonstrated in post revolutionary Russia.
In Nicaragua, already a certain scepticism is developing which is reflected in the FSLN journals and trade union publications. Letters asking 'why wont you listen to us?' have appeared. The Sandinistas still enjoy enormous support but dissent and even opposition are beginning to develop. The main reason it has not developed further is the threat of US intervention, which paradoxically has checked the development of more unrest against the inadequacies of the Sandinistas. However, such a situation cannot develop indefinitely.
The Miskito Indians Some supporters of the FSL. argue that had they completed the social revolution it would have provoked an intervention by US imperialism. Yet all of the concessions given by the Sandinistas have in no way diminished the determination of imperialism to overthrow them. The experience of the Russian Revolution in this respect is essential for the international workers' movement. Twenty one armies from the imperial powers intervened to try and crush the revolution. They were fought back by the Red Army under Trotsky's leadership in no small measure because of the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the world revolution. They went to the workers of Europe and appealed to the rank and file of the intervening armies in a class manner. By approaching the question in this manner they forced the withdrawal of the imperial powers after they had witnessed the soldiers lending their support to the revolution. Were the Sandinistas to adopt a Marxist approach to the revolution through the expropriation of the commanding heights of the economy, the spreading of the revolution throughout Central America and a class appeal to the American workers and soldiers, they would ensure the defeat of American Imperialism. The un-Marxist approach of the Sandinista leadership has also been demonstrated in relation to the policy towards the Miskito Indians which has cost the FSLN dearly in terms of support. Thousands of them could have been recruited as the most committed fighters against imperialism, had the been prepared to grant them autonomous rights as they were asking for. By doing so they could have gained the confidence of this section of the masses and then within the context of a democratically planned socialist economy could have guaranteed them language and cultural rights, and integrated them into the revolution—in other words, by adopting the attitude of Lenin and Trotsky towards the national minorities. The failure to do so drove thousands into the arms of the counter-revolutionary Contras.
About 80,000 Indians live on the East Coast, mostly in the North East as virtually the sole inhabitants. The refusal to grant or offer any autonomy was then followed by enforced mass resettlement schemes. In 1982 10,000 were forced out of their villages along the Rio Coco by the Sandinistas, who believed a Contra base existed in the area. The Contras had won a certain basis amongst them by offering autonomy. The resettlement programme was carried through ruthlessly with no sensitivity at all. The Saklan village on the Rio Coco was typical. It had a population of 1,500. It was 'evacuated' and then burnt to the ground.
It is true that after having first hand experience of the Contras, many have abandoned them. According to one report 30,000 have returned to Nicaragua from Honduras and other bases being used by the Contras. It is nevertheless an indication of the mistaken methods and policies being adopted by the Sandinistas. As we have explained in this article, the only way to defeat the threat of counter revolution is by the completion of the revolution, that is to say, the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a workers' democracy. Any delay will only give the bourgeois the opportunity to prepare and organise reaction. The establishment of a workers' democracy in a small country like Nicaragua will not immediately lead to a socialist society. This would be impossible given the scarcities and backwardness which exist and need to be overcome. To accomplish such a task the revolution of a socialist character would be necessary in at least a number of the advanced capitalist countries, or alternatively the political revolution in the Stalinist states. The victory of the working class in a small country like Nicaragua cannot complete the world revolution. It can however begin it. For of a workers'
the establishment democracy in even a small country can detonate a movement and act as a pole of attraction in the more advanced countries of South America. And a victory in any one of these countries would change the entire international situation and herald the overthrow of capitalism and Stalinism. It is in this context that the crucial importance of the proletariat in such small countries adopting a Marxist programme, and the lessons of the Nicaraguan revolution, must be seen. November 1986
[page 28]
Economic Notes
Bry Bob MicKee
Prospects for the
world economy
WHAT ARE the prospects
for the world capitalist
economy in 1987? This time
last year, this column
predicted a slowing of
growth of production in the
major capitalist nations, particularly the USA and Europe, with the danger of a major recession or slump.
A full scale collapse of production and trade has not materialised yet, but the major advanced capitalist economies continue their very sluggish growth. In the world's largest economy, the USA, industrial production stagnated throughout 1986, and began to decline into 1987. While consumer and government spending continued to race along in Reagan's money boom economy, domestic industry was unable to meet this demand, being swamped by the continued flood of cheaper German, Japanese, Canadian and Asian imports.
As a result the US trade deficit reached over $170 billion in 1986. The US economy can no longer go
Prospects for thei
third world
The economic future of the ex-colonial countries, dominated by the banks and multinationals of the advanced
imperialist economies looks grimmer, if that is possible! The dramatic drop in oil prices has had shocking effects on the Arab oil states who have been forced to cut back drastically on social and development spending (while naturally preserving military spending to maintain their absolutist regimes).
Countries like Nigeria have been driven into mountainous debt burdens that threaten the very fabric of their economies.
on financing this deficit by
attracting Japanese and
European investment funds
with high interest rates without plunging into serious recession. But the alternative policy of devaluing the dollar to make US industrial exports more competitive has so far failed. This is because while the dollar has fallen against Japanese and German currencies, they are not the most important markets for US goods, constituting only 15 per cent of its export markets. Canada, Latin America and the semiindustrialised Asian countries of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, account for over half of US exports. And in these countries the dollar has actually increased in value!
Protectionism
The other hope of the US capitalists was that as they tightened their workers belts by government spending cuts, they could expand markets for their industries by forcing Europe and Japan to expand their economies and provide new markets for
Take oil rich Mexico,
under the shadow of
American imperialism. In
1986 its GNP fell by 4 per
cent, one of the largest declines for decades. Real
wages have fallen 40-50 per cent since 1982, back to the level of 20 years ago. Inflation is now at 100 per cent a year, and unemployment on official figures at 14 per cent (much higher in reality). Government spending, in a desperate attempt to maintain markets, has spiralled out of control. Borrowing from foreign banks has reached such proportions that new loans are just used to pay off debt and interest repayments for old loans. Now even the US banks are reluctant to lend anything further and yet if they do not, Mexico may be forced to declare itself
US goods. But that has not
proved easy. Europe remains
in relative stagnation with
growth at around 2.5 per
cent and unlikely to rise
above that over the next
year. Each European nation,
fearful of inflation, refuses to fuel their economy with too
much government spending, while hoping that their rivals will expand so that the slower spending nation can take advantage of the others' markets for their exports.
Similarly, it is estimated that for the USA to reduce its massive $170 billion trade deficit by a modest $30 billion over five years, the US economy would have to grow at half the rate of Europe. That is the prospect of deep recession swaying before US capitalism. And a recession in the USA must hit economies like the UK for whom the Americans are the biggest single export market.
Nevertheless, many economic forecasters predict a slightly improved growth rate for the advanced capitalist nations in 1987. They base this prediction on the fall in oil prices reducing costs for in-
bankrupt and default on the loans. The burden of debt
repayment has sucked out
wealth created in the countries of Latin America and for those who depend on high oil price exports to pay off their debts, a catastrophe is on the agenda.
And it is not just in the oil producing countries. Until recently, Brazil was held up as the model economy of the third world. An export boom, made possible by US economic expansion, had lifted off the economy. Inflation dropped, wages went ahead and debts were repaid. But now the situation has sharply reversed. The US capitalists are cutting back on Brazillian goods, profits from industry and agriculture have been taken out by the multinationals and yet the banks continue
dustry and on renewed protectionist measures against Asian and Japanese imports, so that Europe and the USA can expand their exports.
Growth for advanced capitalism in 1987 is to be at the expense of the developing countries, particularly those with oil or with industries. However, once the juggernaunt of protection gains a grip, then every nation may retaliate against the other and so lower world trade overall, driving down production.
USA GNP
It must always be remembered that the economic upturn of 1982-6 has been one of the weakest in the history of post war capitalism. The USA has been the leader in this revival, fuelled by military spending and foreign borrowing. But between 1978 and 1986 real GNP has risen by only 2.4 per cent per year on average, well below its historical average of 3.5 per cent, making the last eight years the longest period of relative economic stagnation since the 1930s!
to demand the repayment of
their loans. Now the new Brazillian civilian capitalist government has introduced a l vicious austerity programme, just days after being elected on promises of new social spending! And with the advanced capitalist nations planning more proectionist quotas on Brazillian goods, the future is bleak.
The continuing danger is that a number of key third world borrowers may default on their repayment throwing several important international banks into bankruptcy. They could only be bailed out by government support at the expense of capitalists and workers in the advanced nations, again opening up the possibility of a steep cutback in production and trade.
29
[page 29]
Aids, biological warfare and the CIA AIDS IS not bad news for everybody: the share price of two pharmaceutical giants has shot ahead as the disease has spread. The value of shares in the company, Welcome, has bounded up by a third on the strength of their involvement in the drug AZT.
565 There are now reported cases in Britain but it is estimated that 30,000 people are carrying the virus. The scale of the problem in world other parts of the could lead to potential catastrophe. 9,000 are expected to die of the disease in the USA this year with another 1.5 million infected with the virus.
The spread of Aids in the underdeveloped world has been virtually ignored by the capitalist West. In Uganda, a consultant for the World Health Organisation has estimated that 30 per cent of the population has contracted the virus, equally divided between men and women.
Medical uncertainty The response of the government in this country has been belated, inadequate and hypocritical. They were happy to do nothing when Aids was sweeping through Africa and appeared only to affect homosexuals here. When the problem could be ignored no longer they have opportunistically whipped up a campaign against 'the permissive society', fitting it in with their reactionary campaign for a return to Victorian values.
Aids stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and is caused by a virus which infects a single type of white blood cell, called T4 lymphocyte. Aids is a sexually transmitted disease where the virus is passed on 30 Science Report mainly through blood and semen. The effect of the virus can be dormant for five to seven years before it is triggered into activity, possibly by stress, poor health or drugs. At this point the immune defence of the body collapses because the antibody produced by the body to fight the infection is ineffective.
This makes the individual susceptible to various forms of cancer, pneumonia and general infections which would normally be no threat. It is still not certain what percentage of people infected with the virus will eventually get the symptoms of Aids. Initially it was thought that the figure could be as low as 10 per cent, but more recent research has indicated that 75 per cent could be at risk.
So far no cure for Aids has been found. There has been a promising development recently when it was found that the anti-cancer drug AZT was also effective against Aids. This however is not a cure, since it does not eliminate the virus, but It appears to relieve the There symptoms.
are effects side serious however.
What is needed now is an enormous research programme to develop a vaccine. The demand for the nationalisation of the drug companies is even more crucial now; the battle against Aids can't be left to profit hungry the monopolies, a massive properly coordinated research campaign must be launched immediately. By its nature this will mean an intensive trial and error operation which if done quickly could give a real possibility of finding a cure. The £20 million spent so far on advertising is insignificant compared to the amount that needs to be channelled into basic research. Even this money would be negligible compared to the expenditure on Trident missiles.
Scientists are not certain AIDS OUGLA Dany AMBER iary of POLICEMAN AIDS ying Mu SATURDAY DIES OF ANDSNAR where the virus originated. There have been persistent press reports that it is man made, produced by genetic engineering techniques in a CIA laboratory. The Sunday Express reported that the virus had been produced at Fort Detrick in Maryland in Building 550. There is of course no way of verifying this story, but the leading Harley Street specialist Dr John Seale has put forward the theory that the virus was man made.
A man-made virus?
It is undoubtedly true that biological and chemical warfare establishments, East and West, are working on the production of potentially lethal viruses and it is quite possible that one leaked out accidentally. During the Second World War experiments were done on a remote island off the coast of Scotland to test the effecof using the Antiveness thrax bacillus in biological warfare. Small bombs containing the germ were detonated and the effect was observed on sheep tethered at various distances from where the bomb was dropped. Within a few days the first sheep had died from Anthrax. A survey by the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down in 1979 showed that the area is still contaminated with virulent micro-organisms.
The Biological Weapons Convention, signed by all the By Pete Dickenson I COLOUR ALBUM "
SOCCER Playe told EXCLUSIVE main powers in 1972, was supposed to outlaw biological warfare. In reality, the clauses permitting defensive measures to be taken made a mockery of the Treaty. For example, developing new strains of mosquito to carry deadly diseases is permissible as long as only the males are used, because they don't bite and are not therefore offensive classed as weapons! The head of a US funded research centre was expelled from Pakistan in 1982 amid allegations that research was being done on the use of mosquitos in germ warfare.
In the past ten years the emphasis has moved to producing deadly viruses in the laboratory using genetic engineering techniques. According to Dr Richard Goldstein of Harvard Medical School, quoted in Nature in 1982, scientists have been asked by the US military about using these genetic engineering or techniques biological warfare agents.
The US Army has applied for the money to build a new biological warfare test facility at Dugway in Utah. The plans call for the site to have the capability to do cloning experiments on virulent agents, although they are testing the effectiveness of protective suits. But to do this means producing the deadly viruses to use in the experiment, 'in substantial volumes' according to their own request. There would,
[page 30]
of course, be nothing to stop the stockpiles being used for offensive purposes at some time in the future.
The production of a virus, such as Aids, which breaks down the immune defences of the body would inevitably be of great interest in biological warfare because of its enormous destructive power. Research into it could be easily justified on defensive grounds.
Even if the allegations about Aids are not true, the spread of the virus gives a glimpse of the horrors of biological warfare which, in its own way, could be as bad as nuclear war.
Destroying the
environment in
Russia
THE DESTRUCTION of the environment in the Ukraine after the Chernobyl disaster is the most shocking example of preventable damage to nature in the Soviet Union, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. A book* written secretly by a disaffected high official and smuggled out of the country has revealed a criminal and wanton disregard by the bureaucracy, not only of the environment, but of all aspects of health and safety of workers.
Pollution
The truth of a book like this, by its nature, cannot be positively proved, but the wealth of scientific detail and the obvious close involvement of the author in many of the events described, make it a convincing document. It reveals the huge gap between the protection theoretically provided by the law in health, safety and environmental questions and the reality, as is the case in other aspects of life under Stalinism.
As the author correctly states, the existence of a plan of production should mean that Russia is in the forefront of health, safety and environmental protec-
THE INVENTIVENESS OF MAN SHALL
ATOMS FOR PEACE
$3% 33393 389
tion. The reality is totally
divorced from the hypocritical claims of the Kremlin to lead the world in this area.
In the large city of Donetsk, in the mining region of the South, lung cancer rates among the general population (not miners) are 300 per cent above average due to air pollution. In Leninogorsk, a city of 100,000 in Kazakstan, the concentration of lead in the air has been measured at 440 times the maximum permissible level. There is a well established link between lead concentration and brain damage in children. Dozens of similar cases of air pollution are reported in the book.
The magazine Sanitation and Health reported that 50 per cent of the male population of Tatarsk in Siberia suffered from impotence due to the high levels of the metal boron in the water supply.
The blustering and demagogy of the top leaders make matters worse.
Khruschev's campaign to drain 10 million hectares (about 30,000 square miles) of swampland to make agriculture more productive was a disaster. The project consumed
enormous resources but all the experts involved knew it would result in turning the swamps, not into productive agricultural land, but into deserts due to soil erosion. No-one dared contradict the
Great Leader with the result that it is now estimated that over one million square miles have undergone soil erosion, which represents nearly half of all agricultural land.
The rapacious life style of the bureaucracy is threatening rare species of wild animals due to the large hunting expeditions which are very popular with the top brass. Marshall Batitskii, commander of the strategic missile forces, organised a hunt of polar bears in 1976. The odds were heavily stacked in the Marshall's favour since he was firing with a machine gun from a specifically converted helicopter. Not to be outdone, some of his subordinates stationed near Lake Baikal in the far east decided to make absolutely sure of success in their battle with the wild by employing heat seeking ground to ground guided missiles. Tally Ho!
ureaucratic
misrule
The analysis of the author on the measures needed to rectify the situation is interesting. At one point he says: "the inability of our economy to realise its scientific potential is just as much a cause of the degradation of nature as the poor productivity of collective farm agriculture'. He goes on to say that scientific advance
can only be achieved under certain social conditions and concludes: "Wherever one traces the thread of ecology it always leads deep into the social and economic structure of society"
By this he makes it clear that he means the role in society played by • the bureaucracy who don't suffer from the same ecological and pollution problems as the overwhelming majority of the population. For this reason he thinks there is little chance of reform in the ruling caste.
At this point his analysis stops, leaving it in mid-air. In fact, bad health and safety conditions and the destruction of the environment are inevitable consequences of bureaucratic misrule. The logical conclusion, having denied the possibility of reform, is to advocate the political revolution itself, as Marxists do, as the only way to solve the problems of society.
The author was not prepared to take this step which would conflict with his own position at the top of the Stalinist apparatus. Despite this the book is a damn ing indictment of the criminal role of the bureaucracy in systematically poisioning the population.
* The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union by Boris Komarov la pseudonym). Pluto Press.
31
[page 31]
LetTerS
Send letters to MIR, 3 - 13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB. The views
expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas of the Editorial Board.
We reserve the right to shorten excessively long letters.
Question on Lysenko article
Dear Comrades,
May I congratulate you on the much improved MIR. Not only is the layout, printing and illustration better, but the whole journal seems to have taken on a lively, fresh approach, and every time I finish reading it I wait impatiently for the next issue.
The whole journal stands as a testament to the editors, and the comrades concerned with its publication, and their attempts to overcome all the problems in providing workers and youth with a clear and concise theoretical insight into the struggles of the past, and those that loom in the future.
I am particularly impressed with the Science and Socialism" articles. I have always been very interested in the sciences, although I have no academic qualifications, and have always sought to improve my knowledge on them.
It is in conjunction with my interest with science that I am writing this letter. I have always been completely baffled by astronomy, and the laws and theories of gravity, and I was wondering whether it was possible, or even practical, for
business most of the time. It is the routine collection of facts using a preconceived methodology and drawing upon a sum of knowledge which is deemed to be true. This plods on until there is a major overhaul characterised by the advent of deep divisions and massive amounts of new material-which not only adds to the present sum of knowledge but makes much of the previous obsolete. Such revolutions in scientific thought occur only rarely eg
Molecular Darwinism, biology, nuclear physics etc and then not merely as a result of the genius of particular individuais..
In summary the ruling or predominant class fund science and as such operate control of the direction of research (as you said). This means it is their patronage which can bring about a ma-
Pete Dickenson (perhaps this isn't his field) to write an article on this subject. If this isn't possible could he point me in the direction of a few decent books on it.
I have just read a book, Einstein's Universe by Nigel Calder, that didn't help me at all. In fact it posed more questions than it answered. It describes itself as "a laymans guide to the universe" but it is anything but.
The latest article in Science and Socialism" on Lysenko is very good, but I did feel that the passage after the subheading "Theories of Evolution and Genetics" presupposed comrades having a background knowledge in advance of reading it, and, therefore, made it more difficult to understand. For example, what does the sentence «Chromosomes are arrays of many genes" mean?
With that slight criticism aside, congratulations. I am confident that the MIR will go from strength to strength, and continue to develop.
Fraternally
Kevin Churchill
Derby
jor change in the sum of knowledge etc drawn upon whilst practising 'normal'
science (a revolution according to Kuhn). Therefore the criteria by which a new theory is judged is the sum of knowledge found acceptable, except in a revolutionary change of policy. In this case pressure from extreme social or technical change etc along with the increasing limits met using the old theory can become the prime motivation for change.
Following the French revolution radical scientists, like Lamark, were the first to question the stranglehold of Genesis on biology. Major social upheavals inflict psychological and cultural changes that can not help but effect scientific work.
Therefore such a change as you describe ie greater contact with the proletariat, lessening
Science, society and the
history of scientific theories
Dear Comrades,
Regarding your article in MIR 33 on Lysenkoism which I read recently. I found no disagreement with its general tone but would like to take this opportunity to question some of the statements concerning the methodology of science and its relationship to society (of interest to me as a Marxist and a scientist). Today scientists enjoy unrivaled endorsement as honest and objective workers, due to admiration of the twin tools of logic and scientific method. Big business abuses this in order to give credence to their
portraying marketing, themselves as having our interests at heart. Similarly the state dresses up coercion and racism with its paid advisors and experts. Therefore it is a highly important question as to how we approach science and how we regard scientific data.
I can not see why on the one hand you contend science to be the hand maiden of the bourgeois but hold to the objectivity of scientific data although theories are allowed subjective (economic?) intervention. For example, pure water boils at 100 degrees celsius at normal atmospheric pressure. But the boiling point of water is not fixed, it changes with atmospheric pressure and • relative purity. Such a value is merely an approximate standard by which to measure temperature. The dialectics of Mendelism are not
unique, nothing is truly fixed or immutable--that is not
32
mysticism but the nature of things. We actively fix the criteria by which all things are judged in order to quantify and make predictions on events. These criteria are flexible.
Therefore all measurements are judged by fixed standards which are open to social intervention. Another point is the methodology of experiments which determines the results obtained. Firstly it must be remembered that we have only our perception of the world to act upon and the nature of the real world is only revealed by the success with which we relate to it eg the productivity of our exploitation of nature. The observation of an organism or event requires intervention and the limitation of all variables, except the one being observed, to within reasonable limits. The more narrow the confines of the experiment then the less accurate is our generalisation and application of the results to the real world. The reduction of the whole to smaller points to make study easier Isolates each point. In fact the sum of all the points is more than the whole.
It is clear then that we obrain by study an approximation of reality, quantified, classified and suitable to test and base predictions upon. Its success is judged by the ac-
curacy of these predictions
and the consequent increases in the productivity or pro-
fitability of the exploitation of
the environment.
Science is a pretty
[page 32]
PETE DICKENSON SEAL COMMENT:
There are no immediate plans to write an article on astronomy so we will recommend a few books which cover a range of assumed background knowledge:
1) Astronomy Today by Fred Hoyle, published by Heineman.
2) The fabric of the Heavens by Toulmin and Goodfield, published by Penguin.
3) Einstein for Beginners by Schwartz and McGuiness, published by Writers and Readers, Beginners books.
The book by Toulmin and Goodfield has a chapter on celestial mechanics, taking up the laws and theory of gravity. Einstein for Beginners is in a cartoon form, which some people find useful. The book by Fred Hoyle is up to date and covers most of the latest developments. Also, John Gribbin has written a number of popular paperbacks on astronomy.
The section on genetics in the Lysenko article does need very careful study.
There is a difficulty in explaining complicated scientific ideas without using technical terms which assume a background
of expertise barriers etc would dramatically alter science for the better and we should not be afraid to say it. For too long science has had its own way. Because they control knowledge (and jealously guard it) scientists claim privileges and an autonomy which few enjoy and which too few don't question. The present system exploits animals, humans and nature, produces a poor return on its investment and is disproportionately white, male and middle class. The coming revolution by orientating science to the interests of the toilers, must improve it with fresh life blood, must throw open the locked doors of the libraries and fellowships to all and harness its resources in our interests. Then, and only then, shall we be able to say that science deserves the regard due to it-the regard suitable to
knowledge of the subject.
We try to avoid using such terms wherever possible but sometimes they must be used and where they are we try to explain them in as condensed a way as possible in the interests of space and the flow of the argument.
The section on genetics in the Lysenko article is very condensed and needs to be read very carefully, possibly more than once.
On your particular point on genes and chromosomes, there are 48 chromosomes in each living cell. Each one is different in size and consists of an extremely slender long filament coil in a tight helical spiral. Under magnification it can be seen that each chromosome comprises hundreds thousands of separate genetic elements, called genes, each of which has a fixed place in the length of the chromosome and plays its own special role in the development process.
It is the genetic material which determines the nature of the cells in the next generation, and which ensures replication of the correct structures and combination of celis.
the force that shall free 1 toilers from the oppression labour and disease.
Yours in comradeship
Frank Wood BSC
he of
Some of the points raised in the letter, particularly on the methodology of science, the history of scientific theories and the nature of perception, will be dealt with in future editions of the MIR - Editors.
Back issues of the MIR with articles on science are available from World Socialist Books, London E9 5HB, including:
An appraisal of Engel's theory of human developmeniby John Pickard, MIR 26, 75р.
Famine, 'the divine hand of providence'?, by Jim Hensman, MIR 29, 80p.
The Lysenko Viv Seal, MIR
controversy, by 33, 90p.
Selling the MIR
Dear Comrades,
I have been an avid reader of the MIR for some years and must confess that I have not taken the sales of the journal particularly seriously in the past.
With the arrival of the latest edition I decided I would put my mind to selling it-and was pleasantly surprised with the results. I approached regular paper sales, including a former regular reader I bumped into in the pub-and to my surprise sold 9 plus my own.I haven't exhausted all the possibilities yet!
Readers shouldn't think that because it is a large publication and costs 90p that people won't buy it. Anyone who buys the Militant should be approached. There are plenty of people who want to find out more about Militant's
What happene
Dear Comrades,
I very much enjoy reading the MIR, particularly Science and Socialism, and Science Reports. Articles like these show how broad a Marxist outlook on life is. I am however a bit puzzled by some points mentioned in your article on Chernobyl in MIR 33.
On positive feedback, 1 understand that unlike chemical reactors, nuclear reactors are not affected by temperature changes of a few hundred degrees or so. The nuclear force is much stronger than the electro-magnetic force. I do not understand how the increase in steam in the core can accelerate the nuclear reaction.
In a nuclear reactor in a power station, neutrons bombard unstable Uranium 235 atoms causing them to decay and producing more neutrons which may or may not bombard other Uranium atoms.
The neutron supply in this chain reaction is crucial to the course of nuclear reaction.
In a small mass of Uranium, most neutrons escape and only a few are captured to propagate the chain. Above a certain critical mass, however, sufficient neutrons
ideas, especially with all the publicity the witch-hunt has created. The MIR provides the opportunity to carry a more in depth theoretical analysis than a 16 page weekly paper can. This creates a market for the journal.
There has never been more need for a comprehensive theoretical analysis of political events and we badly need to increase the sales of the MIR so we can increase its financial viability and frequency.
I don't believe there is anything particularly special about the people 1 sell to and if a systematic approach is adopted everyone can greatly increase their sales.
Yours fraternally
Clive Walder
Brighton Kemptown
Labour Party
dat Chernobyl?.
are captured by other atoms to cause a build up of neutrons, thus an aoceleration of reaction occurs. It must be remembered at each stage that energy is released because the mass of the radiation products is less than the original mass—mass becomes energy.
If this accleration goes unchecked then a thermonuclear explosion results-an atom bomb.
In the reactor, the supply is regulated ways:
1) The ejected neutrons may be too fast to be captured by other Uranium atoms.
Graphite is used as a moderator to słow down these neutrons to facilitate their capture and thus their subsequent reaction. The moderator does this but does not moderate the reaction as you have said.
2) Surplus neutrons are absorbed in a reaction that does not regenerate them. Boron or Cadmium rods are inserted in the pile for this purpose.
In addition to the nuclear reactors, several dangerous chemical reactions can occur as a result of the very restrictive materials and high temperatures. These may well disrupt supposed safety
33
neutron in two
[page 33]
MIR Spring 1987: Letters measures. Steam reacts with hot graphite and Uranium to produce Hydrogen which is of course flammable. Graphite and Uranium may both catch fire-the latter producing an uncontrollable smoke of radioactive Uranium Oxides. And so on.
I would also like to know what an RBMK reactor is.
The whole nuclear question shows clearly that technology and science are limited to class interests and society in general, and to get the best benefits from these for all entails a change of society.
I look forward to clarification on these points in a future issue and hope that there will be more articles on science in future MIR's.
Yours fraternally Colin Toogood PETE DICKENSON REPLIES:
The water which circulates past the reactor core not only carries away heat but absorbs neutrons. When the accident occured the water was replaced by steam, which can absorb fewer neutrons, and this caused a sudden increase in reactivity (speed of the nuclear reaction). This in turn generated more heat and therefore more steam and so on. (See Nature on 4 September 1986 for a detailed account of the IAEA post mortem on Chernobyl).
I am puzzled by your comment that in my article I incorrectly described the action of the moderator in the RBMK reactor, since | did not attempt to do this. I only gave the briefest mention of the moderator, trying in one sentence to give an indication of its general role. I think it would be wrong to go into more technical detail than this because oily a small minority of readers background knowledge to Nevertheless, description is very clear and many comrades, I'm will find it interesting. For a description of the RBMK Nature mentioned above.
34 Hungary THE ARTICLE on the inspiring events of Hungary 1956 underlined their importance for Marxists revolution went further than in any of the other uprisings in post war Eastern Europe and is the best indicator we have of the course of the political revolution which will the parasitic Immediately the workers moved into bureaucrats were powerless, suspended in mid-air. Power was in the hands of the The initial demands were raised by intellectuals; they were moderate in tone and many of them (for greater national independence etc) were not in principle unacceptable bureaucracy. Initially the Yugoslav bureaucracy supported the movement and opposed the first Russian invasion seeing a potential ally in pursuing its national interest Resentment of national oppression was undoubtedly an important element in the revolution but the workers put their own stamp on events and their own organisations, the Workers' Councils, took real power. Even the politician and eyewitness, Herbert Ripka, "There were no governmental leadership... Workers' Councils took over the management of the factories, and they became the living organs of a rising democracy and the effective instruments of fighting revolution." The official UN report said that: "The Workers'
emerged from the revolution as the only organs commanding the support of the overwhelming majority of the Kovago, Secretary Jozef General of the Peasant Party 1956, writing in as an academic in the American "56: Power in workers hands '70s, confirmed the strength of the desire for democracy-"a Titoist solution was unacceptable to of the the mass population"-and admits that the reason that his Party failnationalisation was not just a 'tactical manoeuvre' to avoid aggravating the Russians:
"The truth is also that the nadustries had been accepted by the majority of the population as the natural cure for the ills of the past." Hundreds of thousands approved the slogan: "We won't give back the land or the factories." Power was flowing towards the Workers' Councils.
If such ideas spread, they would be just as much a threat to the privilege and position of the Yugoslav bureaucracy as well as Russia. Thus, once the direction of events had become clear, the Yugoslavs supported the second Russian invasion (China performed a similar somersault).
Bela Kiraly, the freedom fighters Chief of Staff, has commented on the second indomestic forces that could have toppled the regime...I have no shadow of doubt that after 1 November the USSR democratic socialist state of Hungary." In other words, Kadar regime bureaucratic counter revolution was installed by force of Russian arms and could find no remaining base within Hungarian society.
brought the regime of Imre Nagy to an end. He had been more of a figurehead than a leader of the masses. The record of the Miskolc council illustrates this. They supported Nagy as head of the government but organised a militia when he called for workers to hand back their arms and censored him when he brought leaders of the Pea- The initiative and importance of the Workers' Councils was even more sharply revealed after the defeat of the armed resistance when Nagy fell and Kadar took control of all the official institutions of massive general strike against which the new government was impotent. Kadar was forced to recognise, in words, the role of the Councils and both forces, held negotiations with On 27 November the Central Workers' Council passed a statement: "We protest against the arguments of the unions' according to which the Workers' Councils should be organisations having purely economic functions. We can categorically state that the real interests of the working class in Hungary are represented by the Workers' Councils, and that in addition there is no stronger political power then theirs." On 6 December plans were made to create a National Workers' Council with permanent presidium, structure. In addition a workers' parliament, composacross the country was to be formed. It was only after an extended period of repression Councils were Although none of the witnesses quoted above were Trotskyists, it is possible from their accounts to make out the outline of the political revolution foretold by Trotsky. A enlightened bureaucrats, but by the workers, renewing the traditions of 1917. If this much was possible in a couple of months without a conscious revolutionary party, have been possible with such a group to acclerate the process and clarify demands, particularly with respect to international solidarity.
Yours fraternally
[page 34]