(Bulletin December 1975 p. 8-10)
In recent months a discussion has taken place in the student caucus which has a certain importance for the tendency as a whole. It revolved around the issue of student grants but the discussion naturally touched on the nature of transitional demands, the correct way to pose them and the link between transitional demands and ‚partial‘ or ‚reformist‘ demands. The discussion showed that in the past there has been a tendency to put forward the demands in our programme in an abstract and therefore in an erroneous manner. This arose from the fact that until fairly recently our work was concentrated amongst small circles of student contacts.
But with the growth of our influence in the student Labour field and to a certain extent in the student unions we have been enabled to undertake limited ‚mass work‘. This has been the case particularly on the grants issue. In the course of this work the reaction of students demonstrated that the demands which our comrades were putting forward were inadequate.
To the demands of the ‚Broad Left‘ and the sects for a specific increase in the grant (they of course attempt to out-bid one another – one sect ‚improving‘ by a few pounds the demands of their rivals) we counterposed the idea of a ‚living grant‘ equivalent to the average Industrial wage. It was correctly argued by our comrades that this would be the only way that access to education would be opened up to the working class as a whole. But by itself such a demand appears totally abstract to the mass of students faced with a drastic reduction in the value of their grant. They will be looking for some immediate improvement in their position – at least restoration to the previous value of the grant. There is no contradiction in arguing for a ‚living grant‘ and access to education for all and at the same time inscribing on our banner the demand for an increase in the grant. The actual figure would be determined by the amount that the majority of students consider a realisable target.
The mass of the students undoubtedly consider that the demand for a grant equal to the average industrial wage (equivalent to more than double the present grant), no matter how correct in theory, as ‚unobtainable‘. We of course combat this feeling and point out that this would be entirely possible on the basis of the socialist transformation of society. It also gives us the opportunity of directing students towards the Labour Movement – the only force capable of realising this demand.
Nevertheless, we have to take the mood of students into account. Any competent shop steward or union leader knows that if in a wage claim the target is considered to be too high by the workers, then it is impossible for them to undertake a serious struggle. This will be the case even when it is proved by productivity increases etc., that the claim can be justified. In going into a wage battle the workers must feel that the targets set are achievable. This is even more the case when it comes to students because they are themselves conscious of their limited power.
We lose nothing by combining the demand for a ‚living grant’ – for education to be put on a socialist basis – with a fight against the worsening standards of students. On the contrary, we will gain in support and so will our socialist and transitional demands if we appear as the best advocates and fighters for an immediate improvement in the conditions of students.
In the course of the discussion it was undoubtedly felt by some of the comrades that the points made above amounted to a watering down of our transitional programme on education, a concession to ‚reformism‘ etc. But we should remind ourselves of what Trotsky wrote in the ‚Transitional Programme‘: „The Fourth International does not discard the programme of the old ‚minimal‘ demands to the degree to which these have preserved at least part of their vital forcefulness.”
We do not counterpose reforms or ‚partial‘ demands to transitional demands and the socialist revolution. We support all demands for an improvement in the conditions of the working class under capitalism. But – we point out that today – as at the time when Trotsky wrote the ‚Transitional Programme‘ – every serious attempt to improve the conditions of the working class and students – and even to defend past gains – is „directed against the very base of the bourgeois regime.“
The concessions which the capitalists gave with the left hand in the last twenty five years they are now attempting to take back with the right hand. Hence the spectacle of „reformism without reforms“ and even „counter-reforms“ by the present Labour Government. Against the background of the savage cuts in education recently announced – with further cuts to come – the demand for a restoration of the value of the grant, the call for lifting of the cutbacks in the universities, etc., poses the need for the socialist re-organisation of society and for our demands for education to be put on a socialist basis.
In the course of this and other discussions recently, comments have been made to the effect that all the transitional demands cannot be achieved under capitalism. This is true in general, but, under exceptional conditions in a pre-revolutionary situation, some of the transitional demands can be temporarily realised. For instance, following the revolution in Germany in 1918 and in the period following the victory of the Popular Front in Spain in 1936, the capitalists were forced to concede the 8 hour day. But its implementation was, of course of a purely temporary character. Without the completion of the revolution the capitalists inevitably took back these concessions.
Mistakes of this character can be corrected. But a one-sided presentation of transitional demands in the broad Labour Movement can seriously damage our case. The CP and Left Reformists caricature our case by presenting our transitional demands as „unrealisable“ and therefore utopian. We can facilitate their task if we preface our demands in speeches and articles with phrases like „this cannot be implemented under capitalism.“
Trotsky pointed out in the ‚Transitional Programme‘ that, „‚realisability‘ or ‚unrealisability‘ is in the given instance a question of the relationship of forces, which can only be decided by the struggle. By means of the struggle, no matter what its immediate practical successes may be, the workers will best come to understand the necessity of liquidating capitalist slavery.“ On another occasion, in reply to a letter from his Chinese supporters he wrote: „You ask, ‚is it possible to carry on agitation for a Constituent Assembly while denying it can be achieved?‘ But why should we decide in advance that it cannot be? Of course the masses will support the slogan only if they consider it feasible.“ (our emphasis).
In our propaganda and agitational work on unemployment we advance the slogan of „Work or full pay“ and „Share out the work without loss of pay.“ But we would not be taken very seriously by the working class if we added the qualification that, „this is not achievable under capitalism.“ „Whether it can be achieved or not depends upon you, the workers. If you are prepared to use your colossal power you will see in the struggle whether these basic rights can be implemented. If it is shown that capitalism in incapable of granting this minimum, then replace it with a system that can – a socialist system.“
This is the way to pose transitional demands if we are to find the ear of the working class.
In the course of the struggle for transitional demands, and through their own experiences, the working class, with the help of our tendency, will come to see that their demands on jobs, prices, housing, etc., can be realised only through the socialist revolution.
The successful application of transitional demands will be of key importance for our tendency in the period we are entering.
But, as Trotsky pointed out, if all that was required in every situation was the posing of the whole Transitional Programme every sectarian would be a master strategist. He was anticipating the development of the present-day sects.
What separates genuine Marxism from the counterfeit varieties is the ability to bring forward those aspects of the Transitional Programme which fit the needs of the situation at each stage of development of the workers‘ movement.
It would for instance, be sheer lunacy to advance the slogan of a workers‘ militia in Britain at the present time. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, where workers are being murdered and where Trade Union leaders are now being put on the death lists of the UVF, the idea of a workers‘ militia – a Trade Union Defence Force – is relevant even though it will find an echo only amongst the most advanced workers at this stage.
In Italy also, where the neo-fascists have been allowed to attack with impunity workers and the headquarters of the workers‘ organisations and have resorted to bombings, etc., the slogan of „a workers‘ defence force“ would be welcomed by the mass of workers if advanced by the CP and SP.
The sects, who of course always manage to get things back-to-front, are implacably opposed to, or silent on, the need for a Trade ‚Union Defence Force‘ in Ireland, while some of them-like the ‚Chartists‘ and ‚Workers‘ Fight‘ – have flirted with the idea of a workers‘ militia for Britain!
Our tendency has already demonstrated how transitional demands should be applied. Our slogan for Northern Ireland is one example of this. So also is our transitional programme on workers‘ management for the nationalised industries, which has already found a great response in the car industry. The proposed cut-backs in the nationalised industries will present us with additional ammunition to arouse wider support for our demands on workers‘ management.
More than at any time in the past post-war period, transitional demands can provide us with a lever for reaching wider layers of workers in and conducting real mass work in the future. But we meet with success only if we fill in any gaps in our understanding of transitional demands and how to pose them in the broad Labour Movement.
Tom Pearce [Peter Taaffe]
Schreibe einen Kommentar