[Socialist Party Membership Bulletin, February 1997, p. 13-24. Unfortunately my text is a bit incomplete, sometimes I had to guess a bit, most of all in para 76]
1) It is difficult to understand why Roger Silverman considers that our name change is „an appropriate point“ to make this contribution. He attempts to deal with some aspects of the history of our organisation and in particular the position adopted by Militant in relation to perspectives for Stalinism in the 1980s. He also touches on the name debate, which for the overwhelming majority of the comrades is now in the past. He had every opportunity to contribute, in a written form, to the very full internal debate on the issues around the name change. It is strange that he only now engages in this discussion after we have taken the decision.
2) The points that he raises on the history of the organisation are not correct, both in point of fact and in the analysis he makes. In answering Roger I have to retrace some important events in the history of our organisation.
3) Roger has produced a false picture of how Militant developed, It is only possible here to deal with some of his errors. The split in Militant in 1991-92 found Roger on the side of the ‚majority‘. Yet if one reads his article it is difficult to understand why he supported the majority against Ted Grant and Alan Woods.
1950 and 1990
4) Ted Grant’s position at the end of the Second World War and subsequently, is contrasted favourably with the alleged position of the majority on a whole series of questions in the 1980s, but particularly on the collapse of Stalinism in 1989-90. Ted Grant did, as Roger Silverman points out, correctly modify Trotsky’s pre-war perspectives. In opposition to other Trotskyist leaders at the time, he better understood the situation that followed the Second World War. Through the betrayal of the social democrats and Stalinists, capitalism was able to carry through a counter-revolution in a ‚democratic form” – that is, to defeat the revolutionary waves which accompanied the defeat of Hitler’s regime in Europe and restore capitalism while maintaining parliamentary forms of democracy. The extension of Stalinism to Eastern Europe and China, and the phenomenon of „proletarian Bonapartism‘, was anticipated by Ted Grant.
5) However, he did not arrive at a generally correct analysis of Stalinism without hesitation or making mistakes. Unlike Roger, Ted Grant was the first later on to admit this. To begin with he took a frankly ’state capitalist‘ position on the character of the regimes of Eastern Europe. Indeed, following him, Jock Haston, the general secretary of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), publicly advocated a ’state capitalist‘ position. Moreover, there is a lot of evidence to show that Tony Cliff, in developing his theories of ’state capitalism‘, was prompted by the initial mistakes of Ted Grant and the leadership of the RCP. To his credit, Ted corrected his initial mistake and managed to provide an analysis of the phenomenon of Stalinism, of proletarian Bonapartism, which allowed Marxists to come to terms with the post-1945 situation. The same Ted Grant, however, was not as successful in the field of tactics. He made a mistake in effectively dissolving the remnants of the RCP into the Labour Party in 1949-50.
On the Collapse of Stalinism
6) The account of Militant’s alleged position on the Stalinist states, as recounted by Roger, is shot through with contradictions. On the one hand, he writes: „We have no reason to apologise for our penetrating analysis of the gathering crisis in the Stalinist states.“ Presumably he means that in the articles that he wrote, including the pamphlet (formally co-authored with Ted Grant) Bureaucratism and Workers‘ Power, there was adequate explanation of what was happening in the Stalinist states His pamphlet, which was generally useful, was not free of error, as he himself will probably admit now. Not only did he not concede the possibility of capitalist restoration but used dubious figures on the amounts of wastage in the Soviet Union, usually plucked from the air by Ted Grant. For instance, Ted Grant maintained (and Roger used this also) that in the 1960s and 1970s between 25%-50% of production was wasted in the Soviet union.
7) He states: „Our underlying weakness was that the possibility of capitalist restoration was categorically ruled out. It was considered that the historical decay of capitalism had closed off this option for all time. Indeed, the very idea was derided: to turn the clock back to capitalism in Russia was as unthinkable as to return to feudalism in Britain.“ The last sentence is frankly ludicrous.
8) The analogy between capitalist restoration and ‚the return‘ of feudalism was never made in relation to the Soviet Union. ‚Feudalism‘ was mentioned only in relation to perspectives for a future workers‘ State in Britain and the advanced capitalist countries. Our argument went as follows. In the 17th century bourgeois revolution in Britain, Oliver Cromwell had to use the sword to suppress feudal counter-revolution. Lenin and Trotsky had to use force to defeat a bourgeois counter-revolution in Russia. These methods were necessary in the case of Russia, because it was an isolated, backward country with a much lower productivity of labour than the most advanced capitalist countries.
9) However, if the revolution was to take place in Britain and spread to a series of advanced industrial countries, the defeat of counterrevolution would not require the kind of force as in Russia. In modern capitalist Britain, the idea of a return to Merrie England‘ would appear ludicrous. So, also with the establishment of a democratic, socialist Britain in a socialist Europe (with a much higher productivity of labour than the highest level of capitalism), the return of capitalism would appear outlandish, We mistakenly thought that the capitalist restoration was ruled out in the Soviet Union, but we never used such a categorical analogy as comparing this to the return of feudalism. It is frankly astounding that Roger can be so muddled on this analogy
Our Analysis
10) For the sake of clarity it is necessary to restate here the foundations of our analysis of the phenomenon of Stalinism and how it relates to Trotsky’s position. Trotsky, in Revolution Betrayed in particular, puts forward the perspective that the collapse of Stalinism would result either in the return to capitalism or the establishment, through a political revolution, of genuine workers‘ democracy. He goes to some length in Revolution Betrayed to show that the bureaucracy, or at least a significant wing of the bureaucracy, on the basis of a social counter-revolution, could evolve in the direction of a new bourgeoisie.
11) However, in his last writings, particularly in his uncompleted Biography of Stalin, he somewhat modifies this by pointing to the weakness of capitalism on a world scale and the trends towards ’statisation‘ of the economy. Mistakes were made by those who repeat the phrases of Trotsky without understanding the spirit and the changed conditions which sometimes make the statements or tentative perspectives of Trotsky no longer valid.
12) During the Second World War and after was one such time. Natalia Sedova, Trotsky’s partner, who had suffered so much at the hands of Stalin and Stalinism, concluded that the Soviet Union and the gains of the planned economy would be liquidated. But not only was the Nazi invasion defeated but Stalinism arose from the Second World War enormously strengthened, with its rule extended to parts of Eastern Europe, and later China. Therefore, it was quite correct to rule out for the foreseeable future the possibility of a bourgeois restoration.
13) Indeed Roger argues: „Prior to the 1980s, capitalist restoration in the Stalinist states was unthinkable. The tendency was right in demonstrating that the workers, most classically in Hungary in 1956, but also in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and in Poland in 1970-71, were pursuing the programme of the political revolution for workers‘ democracy. In the 1960s, there was still genuine popular pride at the technological progress of the USSR, symbolised most graphically in its space exploits. Khrushchev could still plausibly boast of overtaking the USA, and even of ‚achieving communism‘, by 1980.“ He then argues that we had Trotsky’s perspective and moreover, „in the 1950s and 1960s this bold revision of Trotsky’s prognosis was perfectly justified“.
A Major Mistake?
14) He then argues, quite wrongly, that „We still maintained this position unchanged right up to the end of 1989. Here again our perspectives had become fossilised … This was a collective mistake of the tendency, no matter what tentative challenges were raised behind closed doors. The author of this article freely admits to insisting as late as 1988 that there was no question of capitalist restoration in Burma, let alone the USSR.“
15) He claims that this was „a major mistake“. Firstly, it is not true that the previous position that a bourgeois restoration was not possible was maintained „unchanged right up to the end of 1989“, That was the position of Roger but not of myself and others who had begun to pose the question of a bourgeois restoration much earlier than this. Indeed, at the CWI Congress in December 1988, on behalf of a number of comrades I raised the possibility of a bourgeois counter-revolution. It is true this was raised tentatively; I spoke of setting a „hare running“. But as we explained in The Rise of Militant, the demonstrations of workers which greeted Thatcher’s visit to Poland had compelled a number of us to rethink the previous position.
16) Roger was not one of those who attempted to do this. On the contrary, both on the trip to the Congress and at the Congress itself in discussions with myself and Peter Hadden, he ruled out the possibility of restoration. He based himself on Trotsky’s analysis in the past: „The transformation of the bureaucracy into a bourgeoisie would only be done by a bitter civil war,“ Roger stated in his speech at our 1988 Congress. He added that to accept that this could be done without „civil war“ would be, according to Trotsky (and Roger Silverman), to „run the film of reformism backwards“. He did not foresee a bourgeois restoration, but he fails to give credit to those who did anticipate such a development and „belatedly“ attempted to rearm the organisation accordingly.
17) Roger partially concedes this: „To its honour, the majority recognised past mistakes.“ But he upbraids us because, „Nevertheless, none of what actually transpired had been anticipated before the event. Where in the past the tendency could triumphantly republish its old perspectives documents, it was now reduced to improvising perfectly plausible arguments… ex post facto.“
18) Was it predictable in the 1980s that a bourgeois restoration was the most likely outcome in the Stalinist states? In our book we quote from John Lloyd, Financial Times correspondent in Russia, which shows just how unprepared the most intelligent representatives of capitalism were for this possibility. He wrote: „East Germany has no mass movement on the horizon … Czechoslovakia’s leadership cannot allow the questioning of the source of its legitimacy in the Soviet invasion of 1968 … Hungary faces dissidents, but not yet a proletariat aroused. Bulgaria will introduce Soviet-style reforms. without yet Soviet-style chaos or fledgling democracy. Romania and Albania are clamped in iron.“
What Others Said
19) Did any other organisation with forces in some of the Stalinist states fare any better? The USFI (Mandelites) had contacts and even supporters in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland and yet they denied the possibility of bourgeois restoration as it was unfolding before their eyes. The LIT denied that it had been carried through until very recently.
20) How did Roger himself fare when it came to perspectives? He admits that up to 1988 he ruled out bourgeois restoration. But he held this position for a longer period than 1988, much longer than those he seeks to criticise now. For instance, when he visited Poland in 1990, in a resolution he wrote for a group which he had ‚won‘ to the CWI (which disintegrated when he left Poland), he wrote the following: „The Polish workers will never (our emphasis) submit to such attacks, however, without a bitter fight. They will be forced to struggle and in the process they will rediscover afresh all their best militant traditions of 1905, 1918, 1923, 1936, 1944, 1956, 1970-74 and 1980-81.“
21) So while capitalist restoration was recognised by Roger (it could hardly be denied) he still had the rosy perspective that the Polish workers would never submit. We, on the contrary, recognised that they would reap a bitter harvest from bourgeois restoration before a real movement of resistance would grow.
22) Roger is asking not for correct perspectives which are a working hypotheses, but for a blue print. Engels commented in his famous Introduction to The Class Struggle In France, that only after the event, particularly when it comes to the complex workings of the economy, is it possible to have a complete picture of the processes unfolding. Engels was talking of the position of capitalism in mid-nineteenth century Britain, for instance, with the advantages of a bourgeois democratic regime in terms of information, etc.
Correct Perspectives Not Enough
23) Let us envisage the situation that would have resulted, for our organisation, from the ex post facto perspective of Roger that bourgeois restoration was the only possible outcome following the collapse of Stalinism. Would we have emerged strengthened merely by the elaboration of correct perspectives, assuming that Roger’s perspectives are correct? The answer would be no. Correct perspectives in and of themselves do not guarantee success, particularly when they predict historical setbacks. The triumph of the counter-revolution in China in 1927 was predicted by Trotsky, because of the false policies of Stalin and Bukharin in advancing critical support for Chiang Kai-Shek, When the Canton commune was drowned in blood, a young Left Oppositionist approached Trotsky exhilarated at the vindication of the Left Opposition’s perspective. Trotsky had to pour a bucket of water over his young supporter, pointing out that the defeat of the Chinese revolution would further dishearten the Russian proletariat which in turn, would make it less receptive to the ideas of the Left Opposition.
24) No matter what our perspective, the collapse of Stalinism and, following this, the colossal ideological offensive of the bourgeois, the move to the right of the workers‘ organisations, etc., were bound to weaken the attractive power of genuine Marxism for a period. It would have been fatal, however, to persist with an analysis which events were demonstrating no longer adequately fitted the situation. This is what the ex-minority wanted to do. We, on the other hand, sought to reorientate and rearm politically our organisation in Britain and internationally with what was taking place in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
25) This has allowed us not only to preserve our forces but to successfully intervene in some major movements in the 1990s. Other organisations have either disintegrated or are in the process of disintegrating because they were incapable of understanding the new political landscape flowing from the collapse of Stalinism. Roger says absolutely nothing about this new period other than it has been a „difficult“ period.
26) There is absolutely nothing in his article which would have indicated how we could have correctly orientated our cadres and members in the very difficult historical period of the first part of the 1990s. Apart from dismissing alleged „failures“ of the organisation – the campaign on the Criminal Justice Bill the campaign against VAT on fuel, etc. ~ there is nothing in his article to indicate how Trotskyists should have worked in Britain and internationally.
27) Correct perspectives are important. And our organisation has shown the necessary flexibility and boldness in re-examining the question of the traditional organisations of the proletariat, including the Labour Party, which no other organisation has undertaken. There are many other questions of perspectives, on nationalism, on events in the colonial and semi-colonial world, on developments in the Stalinist countries, in which only our organisation has taken a generally correct position. But perspectives are only a rough approximation of the way events are likely to develop. In this period above all, of unprecedented flux in class relations On a national and international scale, ossified, rigid perspectives are totally inadequate. I am afraid this is a side of the issue which Roger has not even begun to think about.
Rigid Perspectives Inadequate
28) But as we point out in The Rise of Militant: „One of the difficulties for Marxists in correctly assessing the mood in the Stalinist states was the totalitarian character of these regimes. The assembling of a sizeable force, able to gauge the mood of the masses, was difficult, if not impossible, because of the pervasive grip of the police and severe repression. This was the case even in those regimes. like Poland and to some extent Hungary, where the hold of the Stalinists had been considerably loosened. Even then it would not have been possible to have easily corrected what subsequently proved to be an inaccurate assessment of the mood of the masses in these states as it was developing in the 1980s. Indeed, the consciousness was very confused, particularly in countries such as East Germany and the Soviet Union.“
29) All of this is dismissed by Roger. Based upon the 1980s economic upswing, which he clearly misunderstands (we will deal with this later), it should have been possible to have automatically concluded that the advantages of capitalism over any other alternative would have been clear to the masses in the Stalinist states. Is this not a form of crude „economic determinism“ which fails to see consciousness as it evolves and is determined by many factors not just the economic ones? It was not just economic developments in the west which shaped the consciousness of the masses of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
30) Contrary to what Roger implies, in previous movements of the working class, in East Germany in 1953, in Hungary 1956, in Poland 1956, 1970-71 and 1979-81, as well as in Czechoslovakia in 1968, there were some illusions in capitalism. In Hungary there were fascist elements who participated in the battle against the Red Army. But in general they occupied a subordinate role, as the masses strove unconsciously to make the political revolution. In Czechoslovakia in 1968, there was a pro-market mood amongst the students and many workers. Even in Poland in 1980-81, while under the banner of the Catholic church, there were strong pro-capitalist elements, but the main demands of Solidarity tended in the direction of a political revolution. It was the crushing of this movement by the Stalinist military bureaucratic figure of Jaruzelski which shattered illusions that progress was possible on the basis of ’socialism‘.
31) The impasse of the planned economy on the basis of bureaucratic rule even affected those bureaucrats who had made the Stalinist counter-revolution. Jaruzelski subsequently admitted the failure of his military coup and ’socialism‘. Undoubtedly, economic developments in western Europe, Japan and the USA in the 1980s reinforced the idea that the only hope for the Polish masses lay in emulating the west. This was dramatically demonstrated by the visits of Thatcher and Bush in particular (the Pope’s visit, given the strong association of Polish nationalism with the Catholic church, was less of an indicator of developments in Poland in the latter part of the 1980s) which showed to us the changing mood of the masses.
The Real Strength of Reaction
32) Roger claims that we have a tendency to „underestimate the strength of reaction … nationally and internationally“. This leads him to make some serious mistakes. He gives an example: „More regard should have been given to such clear warning signs as the adulation of the Pope in Poland and the erection of a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square“. He lumps together the situation in Poland with that of China, which was quite different. We did note these features and gave them the proper weight in the movement in China. We wrote in The Rise of Militant that: „When they marched in their thousands they [the Chinese students in Tiananmen Square in 1989] sang the Internationale. It is true that alongside of this was an imitation ‚Statue of Liberty‘ in Tiananmen Square. This undoubtedly showed the confused consciousness, which was inevitable in the first period after the emergence from the dark night of totalitarianism. But their slogans showed that the students were searching in the direction of a political revolution. ‚Long Live Freedom, Long Live Democracy… Down With Tyranny and Dictatorship’… Moreover, they indicated a sure instinct in seeking to link up with the workers who in turn greeted them as they marched past factories, offices and building sites: ‚Long Live the Workers!‘ shouted the students. ‚Long Live the Students‘ came back the workers‘ reply.“ Moreover Steve Jolly, who went to China on our behalf from Australia, spoke to a mass meeting in Tiananmen Square where he put forward a programme for workers‘ democracy which received enthusiastic support from the mass of the students gathered there. The Chinese bureaucracy decided to drown this movement in blood, precisely because it threatened to link up with the proletariat, which would have posed the possibility of a political revolution.
33) Today in China, given the events of Eastern Europe and Russia and the disillusionment that followed the Tiananmen Square massacre, any new democratic movement will probably start off with pronounced pro-capitalist tendencies. But to argue that the potential for a political revolution was not there in Tiananmen Square in 1989 because of the raising of the Statue of Liberty is precisely to fall into the trap of ‚impressionism‘ which Roger accuses us of suffering from.
34) He is no less inaccurate in his description of events in Eastern Europe and Russia. The clear implication in everything that he writes is that because of the economic developments in the west, and the stagnation and even regression in Russia and Eastern Europe, that a pro-capitalist sentiment existed uniformly throughout the Stalinist states prior to 1989.
35) In The Rise of Militant we deal extensively with the developments in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and answer the arguments of those who, like Roger, clearly now believe that it was „inevitable“ and „objectively determined“ that events would develop in the way that they did. We replied: „In the revolutions in Eastern Europe there had been moves towards a revolution – a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucratic Stalinist totalitarian elite – and alongside it a counter-revolution to eliminate the planned economy and restore capitalism. In Eastern Europe, revolutions had leapt from one country to another as in 1848 … The mass of the working class, let alone the peasantry, do not go into a revolution with a prepared plan of social reconstruction but mainly with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old regime. This is particularly the case in a movement against a totalitarian one-party regime where the working class is denied full access to information and the media or the right to exchange ideas. What was remarkable in all the movements in Eastern Europe and even in the Soviet Union was that there were, at first, elements of a programme for a political revolution, this was shown in the demands for free elections, independent trade unions, a free press, and above all, the elimination of the bureaucracy’s bloated privileges.“
Eastern Europe
36) Can Roger argue against the general proposition contained in these lines if we look at the events in East Germany, in Romania, and even in Czechoslovakia? In East Germany the masses began the movement with demonstrations against the bureaucratic elite and singing the Internationale. In Romania we had almost a classical uprising of the working class. To begin with the masses sought concessions within the framework of the planned economy. But the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the comparison which the masses were then able to draw between living standards in the west and those in the east, combined with the revulsion felt at the lush living of the bureaucratic elite, all contributed to pushing these regimes along the road to a return to capitalism. But it was correct for us to have argued at that stage – and now – that events could take a different course given the presence of a party with a programme for a political revolution. We obviously were referring to a mass party which, if the initial cadres had been present, could have developed quickly.
37) Roger refers to the past formula of „twenty cadres“ in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, a phrase often on his lips, as with others, when he spoke about events under Stalinism and was particularly linked to the events in the Hungarian revolution in 1956. A significant cadre force of hundreds, perhaps thousands at most, with a clear idea of the political revolution and its tasks, would have been able to create a mass party and transform the situation in Hungary in 1956.
38) In making criticisms of Militant’s present position Roger is in danger of disavowing completely his past. Concentrating as he was on international work and based in India during most of the 1980s. it was not possible for him to see the development of Militant in that period. This is why his comments about the alleged role of Militant in the 1980s, as well as of internal differences at that stage, are so off the mark.
Other Differences
39) His comments about the differences over the 1987 Wall Street crash, South Africa, the Gulf War, and the 1991 coup in Russia, are wrong. At that time, never mind now, what became the majority in Militant did link together the issues on which we had differences with Ted Grant and Alan Woods. One trend, the majority, were attempting to come to terms with the changes which had taken place in the 1980s, while the minority clung to „ossified perspectives“.
40) And what was the role of Roger during these disputes? In general, he never took a position. The comrades who actively challenged „an entire world view“ which had become „redundant“ were those he now seeks to criticise. He argues: „The crisis in the tendency arose from the conservative pressures holding it back from accomplishing the same task in 1989 as had been done so effectively by Grant in 1945. It sprang from the renewed need to challenge outmoded perspectives, and launch a free and uninhibited discussion to illuminate the new global balance of forces.“
41) Firstly, there has never been a period more „free“ or „uninhibited“ in Militant’s history than the discussion that took place in 1989 and afterwards. Only by coming to terms with what had happened in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and presenting a realistic balance sheet of past achievements and deficiencies was it possible for Militant and the Committee for a Workers‘ International to retain its cadres largely intact.
42) The analysis we made of the situation in 1989 and afterwards has stood the test of time. Nowhere does Roger sketch out an alternative perspective other than saying we underestimated the possibilities of bourgeois restoration in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. What are the „new global balances of forces“ which Roger speaks about? Where does he disagree with the documents of the organisation, particularly the 1993 World Congress documents?
43) We pointed out there that the effects of the collapse of Stalinism were mainly on the ’subjective factor‘. The bourgeois had scored an ideological victory but neither the position of the working class, its potential power, nor the position of the bourgeois had been fundamentally altered. The situation is entirely different to the 1930s when the working class suffered a number of serious defeats with the victory of fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain.
44) We had to argue, in the post-1989 situation, against some in our own ranks, such as the former leader of the South African section, Paul Storey, who mistakenly argued that capitalism was about to undergo a rebirth. He based this upon the development of new technology and the „vast new Markets“ that would open up for capitalism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Roger Silverman should read or reread the documents which were produced at this stage. We refer in particular to the economic documents adopted at the 1993 World Congress and the material of Lynn Walsh in reply to the arguments of Paul Storey.
A Floundering Perspective?
45) it is necessary for him to do this because it is clear that he has completely misunderstood the economic situation in the 1980s. He writes: „All these perspectives had floundered on an inadequate characterisation of the world economy during the 1980s.“ But his account of our analysis of the 1980s is false. He writes that we only „very belatedly“ came round to an appreciation of the real economic character of the period. But, even as he himself hints, in 1984-85 the IS, which included Ted Grant, Alan Woods, Peter Taaffe, Bob Labi, Roger Silverman, Paul (South Africa), and John Throne, recognised that the huge expenditure in arms as well as the super-exploitation of the colonial world would mean that the boom would go on longer than we earlier anticipated.
46) Later, the majority argued against Ted Grant when he persisted in predicting a slump after the financial crash of October 1987 and refused to recognise that massive reflation of the world economy by the main economic powers was stimulating a new spurt of growth, accompanied by frenzied speculation and the piling up of debt.
47) It needs to be added that Roger did not participate in the formulation of these ideas. Moreover, the IS’s position was challenged by some German comrades who believed that it was likely that capitalism would shortly experience another recession. Through discussion they were convinced of the IS’s arguments and in effect changed their perspectives from a possible victory of the SPD in the upcoming elections, to one where it was now likely that the CDU would win.
48) But Roger is entirely wrong when he refers to a „real organic expansion of the economy, and spectacularly so in micro-electronics, where capitalism was (and is) still manifestly revolutionising a major sector of the productive forces. In spite of continuing high levels of unemployment and drastic cuts in the social wage. the actual expansion of the economy had a profound effect on general perceptions.“
49) Firstly, there is no „organic expansion“ of capitalism, which would mean a sustained, world-wide upswing. Roger refers to the „couple of freak interruptions in the 1970s“ which he claims „could plausibly be attributed to unexpected fluctuations in oil prices, due to peculiar extraneous accidents (the OPEC cartel, the Iranian revolution…“
50) This is a superficial explanation of what was happening economically in the 1980s. The slump of 1974-75 was not a „freak interruption“ but represented the end of the 25-year post-war upswing from 1950 to 1975. Since then, despite the recoveries of 1975-79 and in the 1980s, capitalism has been in a ‚depressionary‘ phase. The inexorable growth of unemployment, the ruthless attacks on living standards, particularly in the US and Britain have had a profound effect on „general perceptions but are not in accordance with Roger Silverman’s schema. It has led to enormous discontent accompanied by stratification, or layering, even within the working class. There has been no “real organic expansion“ of the economy along the lines of what happened from 1950 to 1975.
51) Some economies experienced a growth in manufacturing industry, but in general the 1980s brought to most of the capitalist world, and particularly Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, an attack on the living standards of the working class, Thatcher managed to win three general elections in Britain by a combination of tax concessions, the effects of the Falklands War in 1982, and the capitulation of the Labour and trade union leaders.
52) In no way could Thatcher’s victory be represented as a popular acceptance of the viability of capitalism. The idea that the productive forces in the advanced capitalist countries had undergone an enormous strengthening through micro-electronics was and is a delusion. As we explained in answer to Paul, the application of new technology, while creating some new, dynamic sectors, has in general resulted in a big increase in unemployment rather than revolutionising the productive forces in general.
Britain
53) The most incredible parts of Roger’s statement are centred on his comments on the 1980s with reference to events in Britain. He argues that we enjoyed not only enormous reserves of political capital accumulated over three decades, but also confidence, youth, élan, experience, virtuoso presentational and organisational skills and strong roots in the labour movement.“ But according to him, „paradoxically, by a curious twist of timing, our greatest practical glories came in the 1980s, a period when [he alleges] our theoretical heritage was already failing.“
54) In a curious perversion of logic, Militant was successful not because of its theoretical heritage but because of its ideological corrosion. On the contrary, the successes of the 1980s were a combination of theoretical preparation, tactical flair and initiative, and an ability to intervene, in good season, to shape events where we represented a force, as in Liverpool or in the poll tax battle Unfortunately, Roger neither participated in the formulation of the strategy and tactics which made this possible, nor was he practically involved in the movement in Britain (as he was mostly in India over a 15-year period).
55) Roger argues that Militant underestimated the consequences of the defeat of the miners‘ strike and therefore was unprepared for the „Ice Age“ that followed. Completely misunderstanding the character of the period, he says the defeat of the miners in 1984-85 was „not unlike that following the defeat of the 1926 general strike. This should not have been unexpected. The tendency had made prophetic warnings of the dire consequences of a defeat for the miners and print workers, etc. That these warnings were subsequently underplayed after the defeat of these strikes, and later even derided as pessimism, falsely depreciates their validity.“
56) Everything is wrong here. It was absolutely correct in the course of the battle to point to the deleterious consequences of a defeat of the miners. But it would have been equally mistaken to have compared, as Roger does, the defeat of the miners to the defeat of the 1926 general strike. Following the 1926 defeat the rail workers and miners were 40% worse off than in 1914. The split within the miners‘ unions was not overcome for ten years. Few major industrial battles or big demonstrations developed in the aftermath of the 1926 defeat.
Miners‘ Defeat
57) The aftermath of the 1984-85 miners‘ strike was not an „Ice Age“ in terms of industrial struggle; there were major battles in the health sector, with very big demonstrations amongst printers, engineers and others. The number of days lost in strikes declined in the year following the miners‘ strike (1986) to just under two million. But in 1987 it increased to three-and-a-half million, to just over this figure in 1988, and to four million in 1989. The defeat of the miners in 1926, on the industrial plane, resulted in a swing to the political plane and the coming to power of the Labour government of 1929. The 1984-85 miners‘ defeat did not signify. as the SWP argued at the time, that industrial struggle was off the agenda. It was, and still is, ‚pessimism‘ to have compared the end of the miners‘ strike to the defeat of the 1926 general strike.
58) Roger quotes from a Militant special at the end of the strike. The author of this document perhaps overstated the case when referring to the „beginning of a whole new era of intensified class struggle“. But, in appraising the position of the organisation at that stage, it is necessary to differentiate between a public statement which attempted to counter the demoralisation amongst workers at the outcome of the strike, and the sober assessment we made in internal documents of the consequences of the miners‘ defeat. Roger will find nothing similar in the sober assessments that we made internally at the end of the miners‘ strike.
59) It is true, as I have argued subsequently, that it is clear that Thatcher came to power in 1979 with the aim of avenging the defeat of the Tories at the hands of the miners in 1974, but also to decisively alter the class balance of forces in Britain. It was my opinion (not necessarily shared by other comrades) that the section of the British bourgeois represented by Thatcher had deliberately set out to break the power of the industrial proletariat, including consciously opting for a policy of ‚deindustrialisation‘. They were allowed to do this because of the cushion of North Sea oil. But, even given this, it is entirely wrong to present the 1980s as a catalogue of inevitable defeats. There were bitter battles of the print workers, the health workers, the ambulance workers, which punctuated the whole of the 1980s (The Rise of Militant deals in detail with this).
60) To have adopted the philosophy of Roger could have led our comrades to not only fold up their tents and retreat from the industrial field, but would have left them unprepared for the mighty poll tax battle. Unbelievably, he describes this battle as „something of an anomaly, attributable to the personal stubbornness and gross miscalculations of Thatcher, who had overridden the warnings of her class and her own cabinet.“ It seems that „this. battle did not have the historical inevitability of the conflicts with the miners and with Liverpool.“
Liverpool and the Poll Tax
61) Again, everything here is wrong. Why should the battle against the miners and Liverpool be quoted as historically inevitable and the battle over the poll tax not? After all, Thatcher could have retreated on the miners‘ issue. She did so in 1981. There was nothing „absolutely inevitable“ in the battle with Liverpool, if you leave out of account the need for the capitalist class as a whole to cut back the power of Labour and the working class in local government.
62) The poll tax was also linked to the struggles of the miners and Liverpool. Firstly, the miners had inspired the next generation to take up the cudgel (witness the school strikes in Britain in 1985) and prepared the generation who fought the poll tax battle through to a victorious conclusion. The poll tax was introduced, moreover, because of the battles in local government earlier in the decade, which involved most spectacularly the Liverpool conflict. It was an attempt, as with the struggle against Liverpool and other councils. to cut back on the spending of local authorities. Thatcher considered this measure as the ‚flagship‘ of her government. Therefore, for Roger to declare that it was „an anomaly“ is entirely wrong. It resulted in the removal of Thatcher and big splits in the Tory party.
63) It is equally wrong, in fact incredible, to argue that once the Tory party had dismissed Thatcher that „the mass movement that had taken such a frightening form was quickly dissipated“. The effects of the poll tax lingered long after its formal removal and put its stamp on the psychology of the masses in Britain. It has become the benchmark for all struggles in Britain: the battle against rail privatisation has been described, as the poll tax on wheels‘.
Militant Labour – a Disappointment?
64) Nobody who has participated in our ranks in the 1990s will agree with Roger that we are disappointed that Militant Labour has not taken off as a viable organisation, „despite some very creditable election results“. He claims; „We were disappointed in our hope that Militant Labour in Britain as a whole would take off as it had in Scotland, despite some very creditable election results. For all our comrades‘ magnificent efforts and partial successes, we were similarly disappointed in our attempts to build stable mass youth or black movements, or to launch sustained campaigns against racism, to resist the Criminal Justice Bill, to withhold VAT on fuel bills, or other issues. Our most successful achievement has been our campaign against domestic violence.“ Yet our intervention on these and other issues, particularly the Youth Against Racism in Europe, has earned us big support from groups, workers and organisations who hitherto have adopted disdainful, or even semi-hostile and hostile attitudes towards our organisation.
65) In view of our record in the battle against racism it is all the more surprising that he has argued that in general we tended to pay insufficient attention to reactionary features in popular consciousness. If this was the case, why did we play such a prominent role in the battle against racism in Britain and in Europe?
Portugal 1976
66) Let us take other examples, like the Portuguese revolution. In April 1976, I wrote an article for Militant in which the central theme was the danger of counter-revolution. I wrote: „Since November the counter-revolution has made enormous advances and is undoubtedly gathering its forces for a ‚final reckoning‘ with the Portuguese working class … Lock-outs and other provocations are being organised by the private employers. The big and medium-sized farmers have organised the small peasants and are threatening a food blockade and starvation of ‚Red Lisbon‘.“
67) We warned that Spinola, who had attempted a Kornilov-type coup in March 1975, which pushed the revolution further to the left, was „hovering on the border of Portugal … with the 15,000 ex-secret policemen“ in the so-called ‚Portuguese Liberation Army‘. We went on to point out: „The reaction is hoping immediately for a majority for the PPD, led by Carneiro, an MP in Caetano’s fascist parliament, and the CDS (the conservative centre-democrats) in the forthcoming elections … They hope that this will open the flood gates of the counter-revolution – the de-nationalisation of industry and the land, the clipping of the power of the unions, and further purges of the left in the army and the state.“
68) Later on we pointed to the potential Bonapartist figure of Eanes, who was the chief of the army and had a base amongst the middle class, particularly amongst the upper layers of the rural petit bourgeoisie. If anything we overestimated, at that stage, the possibility of civil war and of a bloody triumph of reaction along the lines of Chile in 1973. The balance of class forces, both in Portugal, Europe and the world, meant that such measures were extremely risky for the bourgeois. Moreover, they had an alternative in the form of the Socialist Party leadership of Soares. Soares played a similar role in Portugal to that of the German SPD leadership of Noske and Scheidemann in derailing the revolution of 1918. They represented the counter-revolution in a ‚democratic form‘. In Portugal, the counter-revolution developed over a much more protracted period of time because of mass support for the measures of nationalisation, and land reforms, from the period 1974-75 and the extreme weakness of the Portuguese bourgeoisie.
69) It is therefore quite wrong for Roger to accuse us of underestimating the possibilities of reaction or of paying insufficient attention to reactionary features in popular consciousness. If this was the case, why is it that we launched the very successful campaign against racism around the YRE in the earlier part of the 1990s? Unfortunately, it is Roger who invariably made this kind of mistake, owing to his tendency towards triumphalism, rather than those he criticises in his contribution.
70) In India, for instance, in the lead up to the demolition of on the Ayodhya temple by the Hindi chauvinists and semi-fascist BJP in 1990 he categorically ruled out the possibility of such an attack. This was on the basis of the traditions and power of the Indian working class which would prevent such a development from taking place.
Walton By-election
71) Roger is again mistaken when he deals with the origins of the split in 1990-91 and the issues around which it developed. He writes: „The most immediate and furious controversy arose over the correct and courageous decision to stand a Militant candidate in the Walton by-election.” In fact, we did not stand a ‚Militant candidate‘; Lesley Mahmood stood under the banner of ‚Real Labour‘. Ted Grant and Alan Woods did oppose our Real-Labour tactic, but this was not the decisive issue, as Roger well knows, around which the majority and minority first developed. It was precisely on organisational questions which, as we recognised at the time, were linked to political differences that had existed in the whole previous period.
72) Our differences with Ted Grant on Afghanistan, South Africa, Namibia, the Gulf War and many other issues had a common thread. What became the majority recognised that big changes had taken place in the 1980s which would mean, for instance, the defeat and undermining of the Afghanistan regime of Najibullah. The Russian bureaucracy had changed its policy from supporting the establishment of proletarian Bonapartist regimes to actively discouraging their formation.
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, South Africa
73) We recognised this early on, for instance in the case of Nicaragua. We recognised that the Sandinistas, who wished initially to expropriate capitalism and landlordism in Nicaragua, were dissuaded from going down this path by the Russian bureaucracy, which was not prepared to underwrite, economically, a Cuban-type regime In Nicaragua. Fidel Castro also discouraged the Sandinistas from completing the revolution. This issue was discussed at national and international meetings in the early 1980s. It is therefore not true, as Roger implies, that we never anticipated an broad outline the development of events In Nicaragua. In fact, we and Ted Grant were at one in our analysis of what was going on in Nicaragua.
74) Unfortunately, neither Ted Grant nor Roger applied the analysis made to Nicaragua to events in Afghanistan, South Africa, etc. The Russian bureaucracy, under Brezhnev, had moved into Afghanistan in 1979-80. But by the end of the 1980s it was clear that the decisive sections of the Russian bureaucracy, particularly with the coming to power of Gorbachev, were no longer prepared to underwrite, militarily or economically, the Najibullah regime. We therefore posed the possibility of the liquidation of this regime and the triumph of counter-revolution. This was hotly disputed, to say the least, by Ted Grant. Alan Woods and others (we do not know what the opinion of Roger was on this issue at that time). Similar fact were at work in South Africa and in Namibia, as we have explained elsewhere (see The Rise Militant, chapter 34).
Bourgeoisification and the Change of Name
75) It is when he turns to „Militant’s future“ – particularly perspectives for the traditional mass organisations that Roger demonstrates how much he is out of touch. The latter part of his statement is in effect a polemic against us both on the name change and on perspectives for a new workers party in Britain. He has every right to make : these points but he previously did not choose (apart from one verbal intervention in his branch and at a London aggregate) to expound his views in a written form during the very extensive internal discussion which took place in the six months leading up to the Special Conference which voted on the name change. And now he wants to start a polemic on the issue when it is quite clear he does not understand fully the situation with regard to the Labour Party today nor what we have been arguing in relation to a „new mass workers‘ party”.
76) At one stage, he refers to the ‚bourgeoisification‘ of the social democratic parties which have [?] left a space for the emergence of new left, radical [?] revolutionary formations. But then he writes: “It is true that ‚New Labour’s‘ abandonment even of traditional reformist policies, its rejection of Clause Four, the reduced role of the trade unions, and its open plans to completely sever the link with the trade unions, have gone a long way towards changing the party’s class character. Just as, at the time of Noske and Scheidemann, it was necessary to work towards the creation of a new workers‘ party (the USPD [the Independent Social Democrats]), so today it is necessary to recognise the qualitative change in the Labour Party since the accession of Blair, and to call for the creation of a Socialist Party.“ He goes on: „Nevertheless, the question cannot be left there. Even without trade-union affiliations, let alone a socialist clause in its constitution, the SPD did later once again become the main workers‘ party of Germany.“
77) In 1918-19 the task of Marxists was not to argue for a „new workers‘ party“ along the lines of the centrist party of Kautsky, the USPD. The task was to create mass Communist Parties. This was when there was a strong pole of attraction in the form of the Russian revolution for such a project.
78) The situation facing us and the working class today is entirely different. We have explained this in our written material in the debate on the name change (see Members Bulletins 17-20). We are not calling for the creation of a ’socialist party‘ but of a „mass workers‘ party“. It is entirely false for Roger to argue that Militant is arrogating to itself the name of the mass workers‘ party which is still to be created, He is out of touch with the thorough debate on the name change that has taken place in our ranks over a six-month period. In one part of his article he appears to accept the process of bourgeoisification of the Labour Party. On the other hand, he seems to advance the position that the process has not yet been complete and that the trade unions may succeed in „reclaiming the Labour Party“. This is not the position of the leadership of Militant nor the great majority of our ranks.
79) We hold the position that the process has been completed and that the Labour Party is now a bourgeois party, it is only a matter of time before the trade union link is either completely severed or so emasculated that the trade unions will no longer be able to determine the fate of the Labour Party. Far more important than this is the growing disenchantment with Labour by substantial sections of the working class, a clear recognition that there is very little difference between the Tories and the Labour Party, between the policies of Blair and Major.
Ruthless Honesty
80) This does not mean to say that Marxists could not advocate a vote for Labour. As Roger himself is aware, under certain conditions we have advocated critical support for petit bourgeois-radical parties in the colonial world, particularly in Asia (for the PPP in Pakistan at a certain stage, for the Sri Lanka Freedom Party). But that does not alter the characterisation that we have made of the Labour Party. The idea that our proposal to change the name of our organisation was not related to our perspectives is entirely false. We have answered this point in the documents of the EC and therefore it is not necessary to elaborate the points here.
81) Roger unfortunately comes out with meaningless statements: „It is precisely at such times that theory becomes paramount. If the times do not allow for razor-sharp perspectives, then at the very least what is needed is a ruthlessly honest appraisal of the balance of forces. To refuse to recognise a setback can turn it into a rout.“
82) What does this mean in terms of an analysis of the present and future situation? There is not a word in this article as to how and in what way Militant should orientate itself in the present or future. It is the present leadership of the organisation which has sought to be ruthlessly honest in appraising the situation and the balance of forces. Based upon this we have changed the name of our organisation, we have given a more precise explanation of the level of consciousness in Britain and throughout the capitalist world, and we have also pointed towards the changes which are coming, which will allow us to make gains both politically and organisationally.
83) Roger’s article is, I am afraid, a misguided rewriting of our history which can do nothing to prepare us for the tasks which loom in the development of a viable revolutionary party in Britain in the next few years.
Schreibe einen Kommentar