[page 35]
Without the correct political leadership the strongest Social Democratic Party in the world proved useless in the face of reaction.
The Fascist counter-revolution, Austria 1934
FROM THE end of the First World War until the victory of reaction in 1934, Austria faced one revolutionary onset after another. Austrian workers proved time after time their readiness for revolutionary struggle. However, despite having the best organised, largest and most proletarian Social Democratic Party in the World, with the most left-wing leadership of all the parties of the Second International, they were defeated just over 50 years ago by the fascist counter-revolution. Austria 1934 was the acid test of centrist leadership (ie. of a leadership which vacillates between reformism and Marxism-revolutionary in words, reformist in deeds). As left reformist and centrist leaders and currents now again begin to emerge in the parties of the Second International, and capitalism increasingly turns to reaction on a world scale, then the lessons of Austria are especially relevant for workers today.
In an anniversary article unfor tunately held over due to lack of space from an earlier edition of the MIR, Steve Morgan and Robert Schiffle, a member of the Austrian SPO, examine the lessons of Austria 1934.
FOLLOWING THE end of the Ist World War and the overthrow of capitalism in Russia, revolutionary upheavals swept though Europe. There were massive strike waves in Britain, France and Italy, and the creation of Soviets in Germany in 1918.
Inspired by the overthrow of the Tsar and the socialist revolution in Tsarist Russia, the Austrian workers brought the edifice of the old Austro- Hungarian Empire crashing down.
•On October 29th 1918 factories and workplaces throughout Vienna sent delegates to Parliament demanding that the Social Democratic leaders mobilise the working class and declare a republic. The Hapsburg monarchy was overthown and Austria was gripped by a series of revolutionary crises. A movement for Soviets quickly developed. Workers councils were formed and armed workers militias established, called the Arbeiter Bataillone, later renamed the Schutzbund. The army collapsed and a situation of dual power developed in which the ruling class were paralysed, while effective power lay in the hands of the working class. In neighbouring
Bavaria and Hungary in 1919, Soviet republics were declared and a revolutionary strike wave swept through Austria. Capitalism dangled on a thin thread. As one Social Democratic leader admitted at the time, "the Austrian working class has had the power to establish a Soviet dictatorship every hour since November 1918"
Only one thing stood in their waythe workers own leaders. While capitalism tottered in Austria and one revolution fed off another throughout Europe, Otto Bauer, the leading 'theoretician' of the Social Democrats, turned reality on its head, and argued that the balance of class forces was not favourable for the working class to take power. He and other Social Democratic leaders did everything possible to confuse and demoralise the workers and derail the revolutionary movement.
They claimed that a socialist republic would lead to economic collapse and starvation as a result of sabotage and food blockades by British and American Imperialism. Therefore, the Austrian workers, they argued, should retreat and wait patiently until socialism was established in Britain, Germany and America.
In reality the socialist victory in Austria would have tremendously accelerated the victory of socialism throughout Europe, and if they had followed the example set by Lenin and Trotsky it could have been achieved with the minimum of effort and sacrifice.
1920s-Fascists
Instead "defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory". . The treachery of the Austrian Social Democratic leaders and their European counterparts allowed capitalism to regain a temporary stability. The bourgeoisie breathed a deep sigh of relief, regrouped its forces and began to prepare the ground for a bloody revenge upon the working class.
During the 1920s the Austrian ruling class began to rebuild its army and fashion the Heimwehren (Home Guard) into a fascist auxilliary force. Although the largest single party in Parliament, the Social Democrats were kept from government, by a coalition of bourgeois and petit bourgeois parties headed by the reactionary Clerical Party. They represented the interests
36
Steve Robert
Morgan Schiffle
of the capitalists, landowners, and church and for years they secretly equipped the Heimwehren and turned a blind eye to its activities.
Ground down by the continuing capitalist crisis and disillusioned in the Social Democrats to whom they had initially turned, sections of the despairing middle classes, students, peasants and lumpen proletarians were increasingly attracted by the demagogy and decermined manner of the fascists. Repelled by the hollow promises and spinelessness of the Social Democratic leaders this mass of 'human dust' as Trotsky described them, was gradually compressed into a battering ram which the capitalists utilised to destroy the workers' organisations in Germany and later Austria.
Financial aid to the fascist Heimwehren poured in from big business, the Bankers' Association, the Catholic Church, and from Hitler and Mussolini. Eventually it was estimated that the Heimwehrn was equipped with sufficient rifles, machine guns and howitzers to arm a half million strong-army!
This, however, was nothing compared to the social and political power which lay at the finger tips of the Social Democrats. The Austrian party was the strongest Social Democratic Party in the world. It was more intertwined with the working class than any other party of the 2nd International. It had over 800,000 members accounting for 25 per cent of the male and 10 per cent of the female population, with flourishing sports and cultural clubs.
Furthermore, the Social Democracy had its own military organisation, the 'Schutzbund' which at its peak numbered 70,000 armed, trained workers with hundreds of thousands of rifles and machine guns at its disposal.
On the electoral front, the Social Democrats commanded 43% of the vote and controlled the Vienna municipal authority for more than a decade. The industrial centres throughout Austria were its bedrock. Mobilised it represented an invincible force.
In comparing the relative strengths of the German Nazis with the Austrian
[page 36]
Social Democracy in 1933, Trotsky ex-
plained that while both commanded
similar electoral support, the social
basis upon which they rested was
decisive; "Whereas the Nazis lean
upon the social by-products which play
a secondary and to a major degree a
parasitic role in the life of the country,
there is behind the Austrian Social
Democracy the flower of the nation.
The actual relative weight of the
Austrian Social Democracy exceeds
over ten times the relative weight of
all the German fascists" • This was
even more so when compared with the
forces of Austrian fascism.
In the last Parliamentary election to be held in Austria in 1930, the fascist
Heimwehren gained only eight seats out of 165 and the Nazis who stood separately failed to win one. The Social
Democrats on the other hand won 72 seats, but were kept from government by a coalition of capitalist parties. Even in the city and parish elections of 1932 where the Nazis gained ground, it was entirely at the expense of the bourgeois parties, and not the Social Democrats.
In 1928 the Nazis were no bigger than 7,000 members. By 1931 it was estimated they had grown to 300,000. Even so when Goebbels visited Vienna in 1933, he addressed a rally of 15,000 compared to the millions who thronged in Germany.
Leadership the
decisive factor
Furthermore the Austrian fascists were riven with divisions. The Styrian Heimwehren alone marched under three different banners-the green and white of Styrian reaction, the black, white and red of German imperialism and the swasticka of the Nazis. Moreover, the semi-Bonapartist governments of the Austrian bourgeois vacillated between the German Nazis and Italian fascism, tending toward closer relations with Mussolini.
The balance of class forces weighed decisively in favour of the Austrian working class. However, in an epoch of revolution and counter-revolution, the subjective factor, the question of leadership, becomes : the important question.
The fascists knew how to achieve power and were determined to do so. The leaders of the Social Democrats on the other hand, had no understanding of the nature of fascism and were terrified of taking power into their own hands. Despite the fact that a few of their leaders showed personal courage when they took up arms against the Nazis in 1934-too little and too latein the last analysis the 'Austro- Marxist' leaders were no different than the leaders of the German Social
Trotsky with some of his supporters in the International Left Opposition. Trotsky described Austro-marxism as "a learned and pompous theory of passivity and capitulation."
Democrats who allowed Hitler to take power without a fight. The only thing which differentiated the Austro- Marxists from the rest of the Second International-and which made them even more dangerous--was their ability to cloak their treachery in the most left-sounding phrases and "revolutionary" speeches. When the May Day crowds had dispersed and they were faced with a concrete situation, however, they were always quick to find reasons why revolutionary action was untimely or counter-productive and to errect some theoretical justification in radical sounding terminology. In the words of Trotsky Austro-Marxism was "a learned and pompous theory of passivity and capitulation" distinguished by "its abhorrence of revolutionary action and its fear of it" '. Each successive crisis proved this over and over again.
In the '20s the fascist Heimwehren began a terrorist campaign against the labour movement. In July 1927 they opened fire on a peaceful Social Democratic demonstration killing a child and a war cripple. The killers were brought before the capitalist courts and acquitted. The next day when the Viennese workers read of their acquital in the Social Democratic daily, the Arbeiterzeitung, a spontaneous protest movement developed. Mass meetings were held in the factories and workplaces and marches began to the city centre. Men, women and children flocked in tens of thousands from the workers' districts in a totally peaceful and unarmed demonstration against the class injustice of the courts.
Suddenly, without provocation, the commandant of the mounted police gave the signal to fire and the cavalry charged into the crowd, sabres bared.
37
Barricades were erected to halt the mounted police, and the workers drove those on foot back into the Palace of Justice.
From inside the police proceeded to empty their ammunition indiscriminately into the crowd. Around the city any gathering of the workers was fired upon by police using dumdum bullets to cause maximum injury.
Incensed the workers burnt the Palace of Justice to the ground. Despite the police brutality, socialist ambulance crews attempted to rescue wounded officers and to rescue those inside from the inferno. For their efforts 11 of them were shot dead by the police.
Role of the
general strike
Street fighting raged throughout the day. In all 86 workers, spouses and children were killed and 1,100 wounded. A general strike was called and Austria was gripped by a revolutionary crisis.
The class nature of the government and state machinery was illuminated in a brilliant light. Their readiness to defend the fascists and to use them with the police to slaughter workers and destroy democracy was clear. The duty of the Social Democrat leaders was to reply with an equally ruthless stand in defence of their class. However, instead of arming the workers and mobilising the Schutzbund to crush reaction and take power, the terrified Social Democratic leaders bellowed for the workers to cease fighting, condemned violence and called on the workers to return to their homes. Without the arming of the workers and mobilising for power, the general strike became a 'demonstra-
[page 37]
MIR
985: Marxis tudies
tion with folded arms'. Within three days it was defeated.
Centrists and their relations on the ultra-left are fond of propagating the slogan of a General Strike in a lightminded manner. It is portrayed as the ultimate weapon in the class struggle and raised from an important tactic to the level of a suprahistorical panacea for all ills. For Marxists, however, the employment of a general strike must first be proceeded by a painstaking analysis of the concrete situation. Trotsky explained that under certain historical conditions a general strike can be used to force the enemy to retreat and to gain partial though temporary gains for the working class. However, in Austria the concrete situation meant that class tensions were reaching their highest pitch. The ruling class was preparing for civil war and the question of power was posed before the working class. In this situation, the general strike in itself is insufficient to guarantee democracy. The defence of democracy demanded that the task of the hour was the seizure of power by the proletariat. This in turn meant the arming of the workers and preparation for insurrection. The general strike in these circumstances provides the basis for mobilising the revolutionary forces for the decisive battle and not an act of defiant fist waving and shouting.
Trotsky explained that "in so far as the general strike remains only a strike it inevitably under these conditions, dooms itself to defeat. In order to snatch victory, the strategy of the strike must grow into the strategy of revolution, it must elevate itself to the level of resolute actions, replying to every blow with a double blow. The strike must be accompanied with and supplemented by the arming of the workers, the disarming of the fascists' bands, the removal of the Bonapartists from power, and the seizure of the material apparatus of the state"
Indeed, Trotsky went on to explain that; "if the leading workers' parties are not prepared to bring the struggle to its conclusion, then the general strike, by sharpening the situation, can only hasten the crushing of the proletariat"
The events of 1927 proved that the Austrian workers were prepared to take the most decisive measures and bring the struggle to its logical conclusion. For the ruling class it was evident that the Social Democracy could no longer be relied upon to keep the masses in check and guarantee the sanctity of capitalism. They turned instead to their second auxilliary, the fascists, and emboldened by the defeat of the general strike and the weakness of the Social Democratic leaders, they moved in the direction of reaction.
In 1929, the world banking crisis was triggered off by the collapse of the main Austrian bank the "Boden- Credit-Anstalt". • With the economy in ruins, with mass unemployment and increasing poverty, the social basis of the bourgeois began to evaporate. Austria passed through a period of semi-Bonapartist dictatorship. The ruling class still hoped, at that stage, to solve their problems without an open break with legality and the dangerous and expensive overhead of civil war and fascist dictatorship. First and foremost it was necessary to emasculate and demoralise the workers' movement. Increasingly they used the military police apparatus against the workers' organisations. The 'Schutzbund' was banned and a campaign of persecution, house searches and the confiscation of weapons began. In order not to utilise the military and police too openly, and too frequently, the fascists were more and more allowed a free hand to carry out the bourgeois's dirty work. Social Democratic offices, workers' clubs and homes were burnt and socialists, communists and trade unionists murdered
On the surface the government distanced itself from the Nazi terrorism. Decree laws were introduced and later a system of lightning courts with the power of the death penalty was established ostensibly to deal with the Nazis. Simultaneously, however, two Heinwehren Nazis were appointed to the posts of Minister of the Interior, with control of the Army and the Police, and another Chief of Police. The courts and laws, of course, were used against the workers' movement and not the Nazis.
State defends
The bourgeois still hoped to be able to neutralise the workers' movement through Bonapartist methods, and to keep the fascists in check with concessions and agreements. The rabid dog of fascism represented an unreliable and dangerous tool. Unchecked, it was possible they could provoke the workers into clashes which might escalate out of control. In preparing for war against the working class the bourgeois preferred to rely on their more reliable representatives rather than the middle-class meglomaniacs amongst the Nazis. Civil war, and a fascist dictatorship is a cost which the bourgeois will only pay when there is no other way out. In its frenzied striving for power, the fascists are even prepared to attack the traditional parties of the ruling class as in Italy and Poland. However, having assumed power they defend the interests of finance capital, while creating a fascist bureaucracy which takes its 'pound of
38
flesh' from capitalism for having destroyed the workers' movement. Trotsky explained that fascism has its own army, own interests and own logic of operation, which can also bring it into sharp conflict with the existing bourgeois parties. Fascism whips up the petit-bourgeois into a state of mass neurosis and to maintain itself it needs to move from one victory to another in a bloodthirsty drive for power. Thus in 1929 and 1931 the fascists attempted two aborted coups and a number of assasination attempts, one of which eventually succeeded in killing the Bonapartist Chancellor Dollfuss after the counter-revolution in 1934.
It was the duty of the workers leaders to utilise the divisions and frictions between the different representatives of capitalism to defeat reaction and prepare the ground for socialist revolution. One decisive defeat for the fascists could break their momentum and roll back their advance. The only reason why the abortive fascist coup in Styria was defeated was because of the swift and decisive actions of the local Social Democratic leaders who armed the workers and prepared for civil war. Had the Social Democrats nationally used that opportunity to mobilise the Austrian workers tables could have been turned and capitalist reaction crushed. Instead it was allowed to continue to arm itself and regroup its forces, while the Social Democrats chloroformed the workers with pacifist phrases.
In his famous Linzer programme Otto Bauer declared: 'The Austrian workers established the democratic republic and forced the bourgeois to accept it. We are going to use this democratic republic in order to secure power by democratic means and spiritual weapons" . He asserted that the bourgeoisie "will not dare to attack democracy so long as the police and the gendarmarie are not on the side of the fascists and the monarchists" While Otto Bauer wielded his "spiritual weapons" the fascists collected machine guns and howitzers, and off-duty police put on fascist uniforms and murdered workers.
As civil war approached and the bourgeois prepared to drown the workers in blood, the Austro-Marxists carried democracy to an absurdity. They argued that Parliamentary democracy was sacrosanct and they could not assume power until they received 51% of the vote. Using their social reforms in the Vienna municipality to maintain their left credentials they whined that although they were strong in Vienna they were still too weak in the countryside to take power.
While the Social Democrats waited for their magical 51%, the fascists
[page 38]
Both Hitler and Mussolini gave financial aid to the fascist Heimwehren, or Home Guard. their programme-the Kerneuturger Oath-"We grasp at over the state. We reject democracy and Parliament. We stand for the principles of the Leadership State". There was no middle road left. The semi-Bonapartist regime would either result in fascist dictatorship or socialist revolution.
The Austro-Marxists totally failed to understand what Engels long ago explained; that in the last analysis the state could be reduced to armed bodies of men with material appendages such The state as gaols, courts, etc.
machinery represented the interests of the capitalists. During periods of boom the capitalists can afford the luxury of material reforms for the workers and a democratic parliamentary appendage which acts as a committee of conciliation between the classes. However, in periods of crisis, when reforms can no longer be afforded and the contradictions and conflicts between the classes threatens the profits and the very economic system of capitalism, conciliation becomes impossible and Parliament is rendered useless. The armed detachments are needed to defend capitalism and smash the work- Capitalists dispense with Parliament The only choice facing the workers is to defend themselves with their own armed detachments, to smash the state machinery of the bourgeoisie and create a workers' state. The surest way to victory was to strike first. To the Austro-Marxists, however this was illegal! Socialism had to wait until they achieved the 51% needed in the bourgeois constitution. As for violence, Bauer stated: "Only if we have to defend democracy against counter-revolution would we be left with no other choice than to fight with violent means". In other words violence was only permissible in the defence of capitalist democracy i.e. in the interests of the bourgeois who no longer had any interest in democracy, and not the establishment of a socialist state. Moreover, effectively argued violence could only be employed once a coup had taken place, but not the day before in order to pre- "not of fighting for democracy, but of not fighting for it". He explained that "democracy in Austria needs not to be defended, but to be built anew on a different basis. Democracy has to be revitalised, it has to be won, and that can only be done through the conquest of power by the working class"
On 4 March, 1933, Chancellor Dollfuss dissolved Parliament on a 'democratic'
ie constitutional technicality. Command of the Army and police was placed in the hands of Major Fey—a Nazi. Dollfuss ruled by decree. Right of assembly was annulled and press censorship introduced. While Dollfuss negotiated with the Nazis and the Italian fascists, the Social Democrats demanded that he implement the democratic constitution and restore Parliament. They offered him a "democratic front" against the Nazis. The Social Democrats totally failed to understand that despite differences and sometimes fierce clashes between the bourgeois parties and the fundamentally they were united as one in their goal to destroy the workers' movement and abolish democracy. The army armed the fascists, the capitalists paid their bills, the courts acquitted their murderers, the police turned a blind eye and the bourgeois government knew full well the situation and helped direct it. The 'democratic' government of Dollfuss was the driving force of reaction-to call for a 'united democratic front' against the Nazis was to hoodwink the working class, to miseducate them as to the real intentions of Dollfuss, and to prepare the ground for their defeat. The only democratic forces which could be relied upon were those of the workers' organisations and parties in a 'united front' independent of the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois parties who stood for reaction, as the only means of defending capitalism. On 11 December Dollfuss declared, "The old Parliament with its leaders and members is gone-never to return... Socialist influence is dead— for ever. I announce the death of Parliament"
On 20 September 39 Dollfuss had taken personal control of the Army, police, gendarmerie, Foreign Affairs and Agriculture. Even so on 19 January, 1934, the daily, Social Democratic the Arbeiterzeitung, declared, "The Social Democratic Party would not hesitate today to give the fullest support to a democratic government in suppressing Nazi terrorism. By rallying the democratic forces... the government could end the uncertainty of recent months." Later that month Dollfuss banned the Arbeiterzeitung. Fascist uprising On 29 January the counter revolutionary uprising began in the Tyrole. Fierce fighting broke out in all the major towns of Austria. In Linz the Social Democratic headquarters was bombarded by artillery. Yet the Social Democratic Party Central Committee met in Vienna and called on the Linz workers to halt their resistance! The Social Democrats feared it would upset Dollfuss whom they call on to restore order by calling a conference of provisional governors!!
In Vienna the army, police fascists occupied municipal buildings, cordoned off the city centre, surrounded the Social Democratic HQ and began to move in on the workers' districts. Because of the past policies of the Social Democrats the workers were totally unprepared both politically and organisationally. A general strike was called which because of the confusion caused by the previous policies of the Social Democrats, received only a patchy response. As the army and fascists surrounded the huge blocks of workers' flats with machine guns, mortars and ar-
[page 39]
A massive Nazi rally at Nuremburg. The forces tillery, the workers tried desperately to arm themselves. The exact whereabouts of the stockpiles of 'Schutzbund' weapons hidden years before in the walls and grounds of the workers' blocks were only known to the 'Schutzbund' leaders and local organisers, many of whom had been arrested, killed or had fled, and failed to divulge their location. The Times' correspondent in Vienna at the time described the scenes:
"In one big block of flats 'Engels House' the workers and their families spent the whole night digging up the yard and probing the walls, the women with bloody hands ripped up the earth only to find nothing. In another block 'Karl Marx House' ..they knew where the weapons were buried in the wall and they were furiously distributed."
"Everywhere where the members of the Schutzbund could find weapons they defended their homes until the ammunition ran out. In many places the police had to use armoured cars and tanks in order to break the resistance. Outside the Larer Hill, the Schutzbund erected a formidable defence system with barricades and proper bunkers which traversed the battle ground between the houses. These "graves" held 2,000 armed Schutzbund scantily clothed, in bad shoes and almost completely without nutrition or drinking water. These 2,000 men lasted three ice-cold February days and nights"
An estimated 2,000 were slaughtered and 5,000 wounded. Tens
of Austrian fascism were far weaker than those
of thousands were rounded up and put
in concentration camps. The trade
union and Social Democratic organisa-
tions of the workers were smashed. Re-
maining activists were murdered,
driven underground or escaped
abroad.
'Austro-Marxists'
In exile some Social Democratie leaders whose policies had laid the basis for the victory of reaction, were quick to 'theorise' on the reasons for the defeat, and to recount stories of their armed resistance. No doubt some showed personal courage-but a clear understanding of the nature of capitalism and the tasks posed by history is necessary if the working class is to be victorious. Time and time again the Austrian workers proved they were prepared for revolutionary struggle, but every opportunity was thrown away by the Austro-Marxist leaders. Each time they recoiled from revolutionary action, fascism became bolder and more aggressive. Large sections of the working class fell into despair and became indifferent. Despite the courageous stand made by thousands of Austrian workers in 1934 the fact cannot be ignored that during the counter-revolution the mass of the proletariat remained passive and confused. The responsibility for that and the consequent defeat of the Austrian working class lies solely on the shoulders of the leaders of the Social Democrats and the false policies they pursued from 1918 onwards. To make
40
of the German Nazis.
a successful revolution a whole period of careful preparation is necessary. The policies of the Social Democrats and their actions over the preceeding 16 years did nothing but prepare the proletariat for defeat. Without the correct political leadership the strongest Social Democratic Party in the world proved useless in the face of reaction.
Trotsky summarised the lessons of the Austrian defeat when he wrote in 1934:
"The courageous struggles of the Austrian workers only prove that the proletariat can be bold and ready to struggle even under the most unfavourable conditions and with the worst leadership. The fact that a few Social Democratic leaders took part in the battles is at best only testimony to their personal valour. But the working class demands political insight and revolutionary courage from its leadership. Personal virtues, and moreover those that are induced by events, cannot substitute for a lack of these qualities... What is necessary, is systematic revolutionary education of the vanguard and winning the trust of the majority of the proletariat in the practical intelligence and daring of the proletarian general staff. Without this precondition victory is completely impossible...Only a leadership that recognises in advance that the revolution is unavoidable, that makes this the fundamental principle guiding its actions and draws all the practical conclusions flowing from this can measure up to the situation at the critical hour"
[page 40]
Book Reviews
Book
POLIC NG
THE
Eated y
BOB FINE & ROBERT MILLAR
Policing The
Miners' Strike Edited by Bob Fin and Robert Millar
Published by
Lawrence and Xiahnnt 100F f1
Edited by Bob Fine
Wishart, 1985 £4.95
Reviewed by Ken Smith
SINCE THE end of the miners' strike there has been an embarrassed reluctance to discuss the lessons of the dispute on the part of the right-wing leaders of the labour and trade union movement. Obviously this has been due in no small measure to the guilty consciences of some of the right wing leaders for their lack of support for the NUM.
However, this silence at the top will not be mirrored below-in the ranks of the trade union movement, for there are many important and urgent lessons to be learnt from the miners' strike, not least on the question of the use of the law.
Throughout the strike the "sanctity of the law" was thrown at the leaders and members of the NUM from every angle; including the leadership of the Labour Party and TUC. At certain points in the strike the condemnation of violence, allegedly attributable to the NUM, resonated from every avenue of central government, the police and the media as part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the strike.
Now after the strike it has been shown that these allegations of violence were made to be more apparent than they were actually real. The acquitals of hundreds of miners on
charges arising from the Orgreave picket line, where the police prosecution fell to shreds due to inadequate evidence, amply demonstrates this to be the case.
Also there has been widespread revulsion and protest at the jailing of Dean Hancock and Russell Shanklin. This has particularly arisen from the arbitrary way in which they received life imprisonment for the death of taxi driver David Wilkie.
Week Co
'ek mmer
Demonstra
at Collier
2 9 8
2 9
3
Marc April April April April April May May May May June June Junc June July July July July July August August August August September September September September
913 1.525 3,207 4,419 3,910 9,968 8,749 8,011 9,648 2,528 4,088 6,277 5,708 7,470 6,934 0,585 9,328 4,723 3,400 5,270 2,753 3,307 1,345 1,561 1,480 1,951 1,955
Chief
(Note: While stopped were
the reliability of these fig nevertheless very substa
It is to the credit of the book Policing the Miners' Strike, that it exposes in advance, (the book was written though not published before the end of the strike) the calculated way in which
41
the so-called "impartial law" was used as an essential weapon as part of an overall strategy to break the strike.
One of the main conclusions any activist in the labour movement would draw from reading this book was how the British ruling class had systematically prepared for over a deçade to inflict a major defeat on the untons and in particular the NUM. Part of the armoury of this strategy was of course the use of the law and the book more than adequately manages to show the different ways in which this was carried out.
The book is a collection of essays and articles mainly from academics and solicitors, which is in fact one of
Numbers stopped
by Police
road-blocks
Toral number of demonstrators who would have been in
coalfied but for
Intercept Policy
3.197 7,378 5,121 4,647 3,355 9,731 7,511 6,819 7,094 4,974 7,351 30,054 7,192 9,504 6,748 1,613 7,874 7,104 3,532 0,427 4,409 1,392
8
58
749
361
76
4.110 5,903 8,328 8,886 7,265 9,699 6,260 4.830 6,742 7.502 1,439 9,33 l 2,900 6,974 3,682 2,198 7,202 1,827 6,932 5,697 7,162 4,699 1,353
2,229 2,312 2,03l
ures cannot be guaranteed ntial)
its shortcomings in that it has a miniscule imput from the miners and their wives and their experience of the use of the law in the strike.
Having said that, the book does give
[page 41]
MIR Autumn 1985: Book Reviews a very good analysis and reasonably good commentary upon the different legal aspects of the strike. In addition it shows that although the law and the full weight of the police force could against a union in struggle, the effective use of the law was limited. At worst, from the government and police point of view, it fuelled up enormous social antagonisms and conflict. Some parts of the book also show the inventiveness of the working class in overcoming such obstacles as police road blocks. This is shown by some miners from Treforgan NUM in South Wales who having been stopped at a road block produced a letter which the local Chief Officer signed and they managed to get all the way to Nottingham without being stopped. To quote from the book itself: "The letter that the Treforgan members produced had been written in Treforgan inviting themselves to Ollerton to address a fictional meeting of working miners! The driver of the car commented: 'If it wasn't for the forgthrough the road block'" (page 142) The article by John Mcllroy shows how ineffective all the so-called "Civil" laws, ie anti-trade union legislation, of the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts were. He clearly illustrates that it was the strategy of the government to use "criminal law" instead, especially at the start of the strike. The use of the civil law through injunctions and sequestrations was only to be used later in the strike when the government was more confident due to the lack of effective solidarity action that had been up to that point delivered by the TUC. Bail conditions-'legal'
block on pickets John Mcllroy explains the reasoning behind this in a quote from the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers. "The Conservative leadership have haunted been enduringly the disasters of the early 1970s. Sensing the possibility of a working majority in Nottinghamshire, they feared that the use of the emotionally charged employment laws directly against their union might drive dissidents back into the welcoming arms of Arthur Scargill. One minister pertinently commeted 'When we passed that legislation (the Employment Acts) it was not in contemplation that a union would be split'."
(page 85) The point is further exemplified by in her Louise Christian article, "Restriction without conviction" , examining the saturation policing of the Nottingham coalfield in the first three months of the strike and the rough arbitrary justice that was handed out to miners, along with some sophisticated methods more akin to those that have been employed in Northern Ireland. The extent of the saturation policing is best illustrated by her through the table showing how many pickets were stopped by road blocks in Nottingham at certain key times throughout the Also, drawing from her own experience as a solicitor during the strike she shows how restrictive bail conditions were used to try and knock out large numbers of miners from "Defendants were usually seen by their solicitor for only a few minutes in 'the cage' and were then shepherded into the dock in groups of about 12 at a time. The charges against each of them were read out. A 'presenting police officer' (who was not the officer involved in arresting them, but one of the half dozen or so officers at the NUM Charge Centre solely engaged in which often contained extremely vague allegations. Many of the charges were 'threatening behaviour' or 'abusive words' likely to cause a breach of the peace. Narratives out at the first court hearing sometimes did not specify the words or threatening behaviour alleged to have been used by the defendant, stating only that all the striking •EUGENE V DEBS SPEAKS GIVEN THE conventional wisdom, it may come as something of a surprise to many readers that the American Socialist Party not only existed but successfully fought many elections. This book points out that in 1912 the Socialist Party had "one thousand of its members elected to political office 42 miners on the picket line concerned had behaved in a threatening manner, had been hostile to the police, been shouting and pushing, etc. Some narratives introduced irrelevant allegations of misbehavior by persons other than the defendent, including, for example, stone throwing, and assaults on the police."
Preparing for future battles In conclusion it is inevitable that eventually there will be a whole plethora of books, documentaries and memoirs produced about the miners' strike. Their true merit and value will ultimately be judged in the assistance they can give to future generations of workers in struggle.
Policing The Miners' Strike is a book which has limitations-a lack of a clear, wider political analysis of the implications of the strike, (which in fairness the book does not have any pretensions of achieving) and the lack of any real input from the miners and their families. Despite that it may accomplish a positive role in alerting workers to prepare for the tactics of the police in future battles and in that respect it is worth buying provided it is viewed as part of a broader political analysis of the strike.
Eugene V Debs speaks Published by Pathfinder Press, 1970 £4.50 Reviewed by Mike Waddington in 337 towns and cities. These included 56 mayors, 305 officials, 155 school officials and four pound keepers". In 1911 Victor Berger became the first socialist elected to Congress on the Socialist Party ticket. Socialists occupied the mayoralties in Schenectady (New York) Berkley (California) and Milwaukee. Eugene Victor Debs (1855-1926), was the founder and inspirer of this party.
Debs was described by Lenin as 'the American Bebel" after the founder of the German Marxist Party, the SPD. He was 5 times candidate for President, his vote steadily accumulating to
[page 42]
the nearly 1 million polled in 1920—when he campaigned as convict NO. 9653 in jail for making an antiwar, pro-Bolshevik speech.
• Debs had come a long way. He was elected to the Indianna State Legislature in 1884 on the Democratic ticket but his experience of the class struggle won him to socialism.
"I was to be baptized in socialism in the roar of conflict. I thank the gods for reserving to this fitfull occasion the fiat 'let there be light'-the light that streams in steady radiance upon the broad way to the socialst republic" (From How I became a Socialist). Debs organised the American Railway Union-in one year recruiting 150,000 members. He won a quick industrial victory but was immediately thrown into the Pullman strike of 1894 where defeat was occasioned by massive violence and intimidation from the bosses and unofficial strike breaking by Gompers the leader of the American Federation of Labour. Debs was thrown into jail for refusing to comply with an injunction.
"This was my first practical lesson in socialism, though wholly unaware that it was called by that name.
Whilst in jail Debs received Marxist literature from Victor Berger, including Volume 1 of Capital. "The writings of Kautsky were so clear and conclusive that I readily grasped not merely his argument, but also caught the spirit of his socialist utteranceand I thank him and all who helped me out of the darkness into light.
1901-Socialist Party
formed
The ARU was disolved in 1897 and reconstituted as the Social Democracy of America which itself became the Social Democratic Party in 1898. It was for this party that Debs first stood for president securing 91,000 votes in 1900. In his manifesto Debs declared, "It is therefore a question not of 'reform', the mask of fraud, but of revolution. The. capitalist system must be overthrown, class rule abolished and wage slavery supplanted by Cooperative industry"
In 1901 the SDP merged with a split off from Daniel De Leon's sectarian Socialist Labour Party to form the Socialist Party (SP)
The 1904 Presidential campaign was launched with the SP members donating half a day's pay-with this money 22 full-time organisers were taken on.
Debs always feared disunity and splits so he always opposed internal disputes, taking it to the ridiculous extent of refusing to attend the SP's annual conference or stand for its EC.
As in the European labour move-
ment at the time there was an overwhelming pressure for unity at all costs which resulted not only in the cohabitation of revolutionaries with right wing reformists but also outright pro-capitalist supporters who sugarcoated themselves with a dusting of Deb's Marxism.
Indeed the success of the SP as a potential dispenser of "the spoils of office" led Debs to denounce careerism and remind the SP why they were fighting.
"All the votes of the people would do us no good if our party ceased to be a revolutionary party, or only incidentally so, while yielding more and more to the pressure to modify the principles and programme of the party for the sake of swelling • the vote... "(Danger Ahead, 1911), adding, "Voting for socialism is not socialism anymore than a menu is a meal"
Again reflecting the processes of the European labour movement, the general upswing of capitalism led the leaders of the SP towards abandoning socialist objectives. In fact Debs only narrowly secured the nomination for president in 1912 (polling 897,000).
Debs opposed a witch-hunt launched by the right wing in 1912, "Let us waste as little time as possible of our militant spirit upon one another. We shall need it all for our capitalist friends"
The SP had a powerful press to which Debs regularly contributedfive dailies, 262 weeklies, 10 monthlies, 46 publications in foreign languages of which eight were dailies. Deb's own Appeal to Reason was the most popular weekly.
With the outbreak of World War One Debs took an internationalist line.
"I am not a capitalist soldier; I am a proletarian revolutionist... I am opposed to every war but one. I am for that war with heart and soul and that is the world-wide war of social revolution...
Trotsky commented in the Commission hearings (p 479):
"It is quite well known that during the war every internationalist was declared to be an agent of the enemy government so it was in the case of...E Debs and others in the US"
The Canton, Ohio speech (1918) is probably Deb's most famous speech, taking up 35 pages in this book. We owe its existence to the government stenographers who recorded the "evidence". The speech made in June to 1,200 people came after Debs had visited three socialists who were in jail for their opposition to the war.
The speech is a brilliant example of Debs at his best. He reviews the Marxist position on war, and compares the role of the German socialists' opposi-
43
tion to the Kaiser before the war with Roosevelt's courting of the "beast" He refers to the socialists languishing in jail.
'They have come to realise, as many of us have, that it. is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting to make democracy safer in the world." Debs declared his support for the Bolshevik revolution.
"Here, in this alert and inspiring assemblage our hearts are with the Bolsheviks of Rassia These heroic men and women, those unconquerable comrades have by their mcomparable valor and sacrifice added fresh lustre to the fame of the international movement.. the Russian revolution proclaimed its glorious triumph in its ring ing and inspiring appeat to the peoples of all the earth
Bolshevik'
Debs, nearly 63 years old, was rewarded with a 10 year jail sentence under the Espionage Act, Just before he went to jail he wrote:
"Lenin and Trotsky were the men of the hour and under their fearless, incorruptible and uncompromising leadership the Russian proletariat has held the fort against the combined assaults of all the ruling class powers of the earth. It is a magnificent spectacle.It stirs the blood and warms the heart of every revolutionist and it challenges the admiration of all the world... from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet I am Bolshevik and proud of it..
It was whilst in jail that Debs, standing for the SP as convict 9653, received nearly one million votes (919,799) for the presidency.
The Russian revolution's impact resulted in the majority of the SP crystalising into an official "Left Wing" , with its own paper, The Age of Revolution. The Left Wing split off, prematurely, in 1919 to form two Communist Parties eventually to unify in 1922. Debs remained within the SP. Debs was amnestied on Christmas Day 1921. He died on 20 October 1926.
Trotsky, who had known Debs in New York, wrote in My Life (p 284):
"Old Eugene Debs stood out prominently among the older generations because of the quenchless inner flame of his socialist idealism. Although he was a romantic and a preacher, and not at all a politician or a leader, he was a sincere revolutionary; yet he succumbed to the influence of people who were in every respect his inferiors"
Debs is worth the read, not as a nostalgic trip into the past but to rediscover the traditions of American struggles for today.
'I am a
[page 43]
MIR Autumn 1985: Book Reviews 'The Soldiers'
Strikes of 1919'
By Andrew Rothstein, Published by the Journeyman Press, 1985. £3.95.
Reviewed by Clive Heemskerk •A REPRESENTATIVE of the soldiers threatened that, if (the armed harbour guard) remained, they would procure their arms from their quarters at the rest camp and forcibly remove the guard. The latter was consequently withdrawn, and the malcontents laced pickets at the approaches to the larbour to prevent British soldiers from entering.
In this way the Morning Post of the 6 January reported one incident in the mutiny of 10,000 soldiers at the Folkestone Transit camp in 1919. The revolt started on the 3 January when 3,000 soldiers about to embark ship for duty in France instead held a mass meeting and decided to march to other rest camps in the area, and then onto Folkestone Town Hall to protest at their retention in uniform despite the conclusion of the armistice to end World War One eight weeks earlier in November 1918. After assurances from the Town Army Commandant that only those who wished to would have to return to France the soldiers marched backed to their camps. However, the following day some of the soldiers were ordered onto ships to They refused the orders and this time set up pickets at the railway station to meet other soldiers returning from leave and, as described in the newspaper report, effectively sealed off the harbour with their pickets. There was another march, strong, to the Town Hall where it was announced that a 'Soldiers Union' had been formed to negotiate with the authorities. This time, with staff hurridly sent down from the Ministry of Labour to defuse the situation, the soldiers demands were met.
The events at Folkestone were the first in a widespread movement which developed throughout the British Armed Forces during January and February 1919 against delays in demobilisation and the conditions in the army. In his book:, "The Soldiers of 1919', first published in Strikes 1980 but now reprinted in paperback, Andrew Rothstein documents over 50 incidences of soldiers and sailors involved in strikes, demonstrations and protest meetings. Drawing on local newspaper reports, War Cabinet papers, War Office records, memoirs of generals and ministers, and the soldiers recollections of the themselves, Rothstein describes events ranging from Stirling, where soldiers stormed the police station to release two arrested demonstrators, to Milford Haven where sailors on the HMS Kilbride went on strike over low pay and hoisted the Red Flag above their ship!
Of course, many of the details of this magnificent movement, which struck terror into the hearts of the ruling class, were suppressed both in the newspapers of the time-Rothstein reports a War Cabinet decision to censor press coverage-and undoubtedly in the military records made available since, especially where the movement took the form of a serious rebellion or where the authorities had to use violence to contain the movement. The Russian Revolution Rothstein, for example, quotes the biographer of Lord Trenchard who, us• ing Trenchard's private records and his report to the War Office, describes how Trenchard led 250 armed soldiers backed by military police to secure the surrender of 5,000 soldiers who had taken over Southampton docks. However, Rothstein could find no hint of a mutiny in Southampton either in the Southampton press or in the War Office papers made available to him at the Public Record Office. Nonetheless, despite such obstacles, he has performed a service to all socialists in providing valuable historical evidence about a significant chapter in the history of the labour movement. The main theme of Rothstein's book is to show how the soldiers strikes of January and february 1919 prevented British imperialism from launching a large-scale intervention to overthrow the Bolsheviks and restore capitalism in Russia. The Russian Revolution acted as a tremendous inspiration to workers throughout Europe. No country was untouched in the months and immediately following revolution. In fact the revolutionary wave unleashed by the victory of the Bolsheviks hastened the end of the First World War. A revolt by the Bulgarian troops who occupied their army headquarters and proclaimed a republic on the 25 September 1918 forced the Bulgarian government to sue for peace. An insurrection by armed workers and soldiers in Budapest on the 30 October, a rising in Prague, and a revolution in Vienna on the 3 November heralded the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire. As late as 21 October 1918 Sir Douglas Haig, the British Commander-in-Chief, predicted that Germany could not be militarily defeated until well into 1919. And yet, just 21 days later on the 11 November, after the revolutionary intervention of the German workers, soldiers and sailors through a naval military at Kiel and a general strike in Berlin, the Kaiser had to flee to Holland and an armistice was signed. Many German towns and cities lay in the hands of the workers. In Bavaria, as in Hungary, a Soviet Republic was established in the spring of 1919.
The British ruling class watched aghast, terrified of the international movement of the workers and determined to crush what they saw as the centre of contagion, the young Russian workers state. As Rothstein records, before the armistice, that "we might have to build up the German Army, as it was important to get Germany on her legs again for the fear of the spread of Bolshevism," a policy actually carried out by the British ruling class. And the War Cabinet, as early as November 1917, had decided to aid the opposition to the Bolsheviks inside Russia. In February 1918 British troops were landed at Murmansk in North Russia. In June 1918 British and other forces occupied Vladivostok in the Far East. In July British troops seized Baku and the oilfields of the Caucasus. In August British, French and American troops occupied Archangel, the most important port in Immediately after the Armistice the British ruling class drew up plans to expand the intervention in support of the 'Whites', the pro-capitalist forces in Russia. A General Staff plan for
[page 44]
occupying Batum and Novorossiisk, for Regular Army volunteers to go to Transcaspia and for reinforcements in Murmansk and Archangel. On the 12 December the War Cabinet agreed to maintain 14 to 20 divisions in addition to the regular army-virtually a war footing! And, in fact, by the 31 December, a full seven weeks after the armistice, just 108,000 out of 6,000,000 soldiers had been demobilised!
But these plans were brought to a shuddering halt by the soldiers movement. Not the least of the obstacles to the capitalist designs was a mutiny at the Archangel front itself when soldiers of the 13th Battalion Yorkshires organised a meeting and refused to advance. This incident was one reflection of the 'unreliable state of the troops' in North Russia who were 'inclined to be mutinous' and accessible to 'active and insidious Bolshevik propaganda', according to a report to the Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff, March 1919.
Strike wave in Britain
Such events had a sobering effect on the military strategists with their plans for increased intervention. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir Henry Wilson, who in November had argued that "Our real danger now is not the Boche, but Bolshevism" and in December had signed the document on 'Military Commitments After Peace is Signed', by the end of January was arguing that the army was a "mine which may go up at any minute" and reluctantly urging the Prime Minister, Lloyd George to get "ready to clear out of Murmansk and Archangel next summer"
These insights provided by Rothstein are a crushing argument against those who maintain that a move by the working class to socialism will always be defeated by a successful intervention by foreign capitalist powers-they give a glimpse of the enormous attractive powers a socialist transformation of society in Britain, based on workers' democracy and appealing to support from workers abroad, would have throughout the world. However, the main lesson that Rothstein draws from these events for the reader is that the soldiers' movement caused " a decisive change in British foreign policy: namely, in the policy of intervention in Russia" (my emphasis-CH). It is this which represents the main weakness of the book.
Through a one-sided emphasis of the effect of the soliders' movement on the foreign policy of the British ruling class, Rothstein fails to show that 'foreign policy' is a reflection of 'domestic policy'. In other words, that
not only were the British capitalists
unable to mobilise the necessary forces
to defeat Bolshevism abroad but that, if there had been a tested, revolutionary leadership at the head of the
working class, then the ruling class
would have been unable to stop
Bolshevism, ie. revolution, at home.
As Trotsky explained about this period, "if the pressure of the proletariat in the first, most critical years of the Soviet Republic proved to be effective enough (in preventing largescale intervention-CH) then it was only because at that time for the workers of Europe it was not a question of exerting pressure, but of strug-
gling for power...The struggle against war is decided not by pressure upon the government but only by the revolutionary struggle for power. The 'pacifist' effects of the proletarian class struggle, like its reformist effects, are only by-products of the revolutionary struggle for power... (From The Permanent Revolution, pp143-144).
This was the real situation throughout the countries of Europe at the end of the First World War, including Britain. As the strikes swept through the armed forces the struggles on the industrial plane, which had gathered pace even in the last months of the war, were building to a crescendo. From the 25 January 40,000 engineering, shipbuilding and municipal workers struck in Belfast for a 44-hour week without loss of pay. Electricity was cut off except to hospitals, the tramworkers came out and the city's gas supply was cut. Belfast was under the control of the working class through the Trades Council and the General Strike Committee. From 27 January over 100,000 dockers, engineers, electricians, steel workers, shipyard workers, builders and miners in Glasgow came out for a 40 hour week. The electricians and engineers in London agreed to strike from 6 February in support of Belfast
Glasgow. The National Adimistrative Council of Shop Stewards, which in January 1920 was to affiliate to the 3rd International, met and demanded the immediate implementation of the 40-hour week. A general strike was inherent in the situation. And at exactly the same time the most serious mutiny of soldiers was taking place in Calais.
Following the arrest of a single soldier "for making a seditious speech" thousands of soldiers from different camps in the Calais area struck and elected delegates to the 'Calais Area Soldiers and Sailors Association', the embryo of a Soviet in all but name. One of the participants in the strike, Alf Kilick, in a pamphlet published by Militant in 1976, described how "In
45
the manner of organisation we were greatly influenced by the Soviet method.. each hut or group of tents to the same number, elected a delegate to the camp committee, and these committees then likewise elected delegates to the central area committee... We issued the daily orders instead of camp officers, and in the Valdelievre camp occupied the headquarters offices"
The Army Command responded by sending the 5th Army Corps under General Byng to suppress the revolt. In the War Office records it was reported that two whole divisions of the 5th Army, three Guards machinegun battalions and four battalions of the Ist and 3rd Army had to be deployed at Calais, St Omer, Etaples, Le Havre, Rouen, Abbeville and Cherbourg to deal with the situation. However, as Alf Killick recalls,
...the first thing the men of the 5th Army did on arriving was to ask us for information as to how we did it and for advice on organisation. They followed our advice and joined the revolt... A really revolutionary situation was developing for which we were not really prepared. We felt, however, that we could not go much further unless we had evidence of support from the workers at home".
Labour leaders
soldiers
But there was no revolutionary movement strong enough to grasp the opportunities presented by the situation. The small revolutionary groups that existed at the time, the forerunners of the Communist Party such as the Socialist Labour Party, the Workers' Socialist Federation and the British Socialist Party, of which Rothstein was a member, were too weak and, in particular, without a strong influence or standing in the workers' traditional organisations, the Labour Party and the official structures of the trade unions. Their past failures to build support for Marxism within the Labour Party weakened their ability to challenge the rightwing Labour leaders and decisively intervene in events. Their weakness left the field clear for the labour and trade union leaders, while verbally opposing the government, to use their authority to stabilise the situation for the capitalists.
Faced with an all-out strike of London electricians the government changed the wartime Defence of the Realm Act regulations to make it an offence for workers to cause power cuts. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers Executive bowed to the government's pressure and suspended the Glasgow, Belfast and London District Committees. The UK Federa-
[page 45]
MIR
1985:
'Military Commitments After Peace Signed' was agreed on December 6th 1918—it included provision for British warships entering the Black Sea and tion of Shipbuilding, Engineering and Allied Trades National Negotiating Body instructed all shipbuilding workers to return to work. With these body blows aimed at the strikes, the Glasgow workers went back on 11 February and the Belfast workers a week later.
In relation to the soldiers' strikes Alf Killick describes the attitude of the Labour leaders in his comment on the role of the Labour paper, the Weekly Herald, "It was a strange coincidence that paralled with our strike a general strike was taking place on the Clyde... unfortunately there was no communication between the two centres of revolt. The only communication we had was with the Weekly Herald, and they were too scared to give any publicity to what was happening across the Channel..
Unfortunately there is no hint of this wider perspective in Rothstein's book. He makes no mention whatsoever of the strikes in Belfast and Glasgow and, while he reports the bare facts of the Calais mutiny he fails to draw out the revolutionary implications of the movement-his only reference to Alf Killick's memoirs is a disparaging footnote saying that they add "no more than the 1929 account of Calais"
Rothstein's ommissions
With these vital ommissions Rothstein underplays the revolutionary potential of the soldiers' strikes against the turbulent background provided by the situation in British society, and in consequence lends support to the idea that 'anti-war pressure' alone is sufficient to cause a "decisive change in foreign policy", above all in questions of war and peace. This is in essence the argument of the 'Communist' Party who separate the struggle against war from the struggle for socialism, maintaining that the 'public opinion' of all classes can force the ruling class, despite their class interests, to politely disarm. Rothstein, who from 1921-44 was the Chief London Correspondent of the Moscow News Agency Tass, is a supporter of the pro- Moscow wing of the "Communist" Party.
Of course the plans of the British ruling class for war in Russia were paralysed by the events of 1919. But this was a by-product of the prerevolutionary situation that faced British capitalism at the end of World War One. This could not be a permanent state of affairs-either the workers would take power or the movement would subside and the
capitalists would regain full control of society, including the army. The capitalists fear of revolution resolves nothing if the result of a prerevolutionary situation, because of the lack of a sufficiently strong revolutionary leadership, leaves the ruling class in power.
In fact, resting on the labour and trade union leaders, the British capitalists were able to ride out the storm of the immediate post-war period-and subsequently use the army in Ireland, India and the rest of the British Empire. And, just 21 years after the revolt of the German sailors and soldiers overthrew the Kaiser and thereby brought about a "decisive change" in the foreign policy of German Imperialism-namely, the end of the war-after the catastrophic defeat of the German workers with the victory of Hitler, the German capitalists found themselves free from the
"pressure" of the workers to embroil their capitalist rivals in a new and terrible war with the slaughter of millions of workers throughout the world.
Correction:
In the last edition of the MIR the editors carried a brief biographical note on one of our regular contributors, Dudley Edwards, who has been active in the labour movement since the age of 17. Our note incorrectly stated that Dudley, who is 79 this year, had been a Labour Party member for 16 years. In fact he has been a member of the Labour Party, following his break with the Communist Party, for 24 years.
Militant
International
Subscribe now....
Special offer
Ta ani 10
1
out a year's subscription to the MIR, four issues for £4.00 lacking included) and select one back issue of the MIR fro 29 which we will send you FREE at the start of your subs
(postage im issues icription.
Fill in the form below and Road, London E9 5HB.
Name
Address
46
send to:
Cheque:
World Socialist Books, 3 - 13 payable to 'World Socialist
Hepscott Books'
[page 46]
Mintant international review Militant Middle Last International -workers Review hold JUNE 1902 ISSUE 22 the key.
Iran.
The bolsle for the 35hoy Trotsky on thepress.
ilitant International Review OCTOBEH 1062 ISSUE 23 509 THE Militant International Review has always aimed, through the clear ideas of Marxism, to aid active workers involved in discussions and debates in the Labour movement to fully understand developments in society and adopt the methods, tactics and programme necessary to advance the struggles of the working class. Unlike other Journals, because we base ourselves on the analysis of Marxism, we are confident that the ideas, prognoses and perspectives that have been explained in the MIR since its inception have stood the test of time when matched against the way events have unfolded.
Now all our readers have the opportunity to buy the back Issues of the MIR from Issue No. 10, March 1976 to Issue No. 28, Winter 1985. Write to World Socialist Books, 3- 13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB, stating which issue(s) you want to purchase, at 80p per copy plus 20p postage and packing (60p postage for 5 copies or more). All cheques to be made payable to World Socialist Books. MIR No. 12 Febuary 1977 CONTENTS: British Perspectives and Tasks for the Labour Movement: the Crisis of British Capitalism and how to Find a Way Out. MIR No. 13 Autumn 1977 CONTENTS: What Next for the Trade Unions? Soweto and the Future of South Africa. Poland: a Regime in Fear of the Workers. Review Article: The Control of Technology. MIR No. 14 Summer 1978 CONTENTS: The Brutal Face of Toryism Behind the Liberal Mask. The Colonial Revolution and the Deformed Workers' States. MIR No. 15 Autumn 1978 CONTENTS:Perspectives for the Spanish Revolution. Sri Lanka Moves Towards Dictatorship. British Çommunist Party in Crisis. MIR No. 16 Winter 1978 CONTENTS: Editorial: Decisive Turn in Britain. Middle East Crisis. The Battle for the 35-hour Week. International Notes. Freedom of the Press and the Working Class MIR No. 17 Autumn 1979 CONTENTS: After the Election - Perspectives for Britain. Ghana at the Crossroads. Iran New Stage of the Revolution. Profits drop. Book Reviews.
MIR No. 18 Winter 1980 CONTENTS: Forward Into the 'Eighties. The Forgotten Revolution: the Hungarian Soviet Republic 1919. Letter from Madrid. MIR No. 19 Spring 1980 CONTENTS: The Crisis of Thatcherism. Russia: Reform or Political Revolution? USA Perspectives. If Sharks Were People and Questions of a Reading Worker-Brecht. Jack London: The Man, the Socialist, the Fighter.
MIR No. 20 Summer 1980 CONTENTS: Britain's crisis: Are import controls the answer? Forty years since Trotsky's assasination. Poland's winter of discontent. MIR No. 21 Winter 1980-81 capitalism faces CONTENTS: British castastrophe. India- The crumbling state. The 1919 Belfast engineering strike MIR No. 22 June 1982 CONTENTS: Falklands War, What lessons for the labour movement? El Salvador: Which way forward for the revolution? Marxism and the state: Who really threatens democracy? MIR No. 23 October 1982 CONTENTS: Labour's Programme '82. Crisis in the Soviet Union. International notes - Brazil/Spain/Banking crisis MIR No. 24 November 1983 CONTENTS: Editorial. Labour after Brighton. Grenada invasion. Argentine elections. Book reviews. Latin America on the brink. Letter from Chile MIR No. 25 Spring 1984 CONTENTS: Editorial. Lenin's last struggle. Andropov and after. The lessons of the Belgian General Strike. George Grotz- The artist and revolutionary. Economic notes. Book reviews MIR No. 26 Summer 1984 CONTENTS: Editorial. Britain the real situation. Character of the European revolution. Engels and human development. Hanging on the Tories' coat tails. Economic notes. Book reviews MIR No. 27 Autumn 1984 CONTENTS: Editorial. The choice before the Labour Party. Letter to the Editor. Marxism and the Nicaraguan revolution. The Asturian Commune. Economic notes. Book reviews MIR No. 28 Winter 1985 CONTENTS: Editorial. Women in revolt. From bureaucrat to dissident. Settling a debt— a short story. Economic notes. A regime on trial. Five letters by Trotsky. Book reviews
[page 47]
Marxist Studies Pamphlets • a series republishing classics of Marxism which are out of print, together with pamphlets 4. In Defence of October by Leon Trotsky 5. The Chinese Revolution by Peter Taaffe We appeal to you to take out a foundation subscription for six pamphlets for £4. We will mail each pamphlet to you as soon as it is printed. Your subscription, will help to put the series onto a sound financial footing and enable Pleasé send me: 1) Stalinism and Bolshevism40p + 20p postage Stalinism and Bolshevism In preparation.
Planned titles.
Name Address dealing with contemporary issues. 40p by Leon Trotsky Marxist Studies by Ted Grant 6. Will there be a Slump? by Ted Grant 7. Menace of Fascism by Ted Grant more rapid production of future titles. * delete as required Cheques payable to: World Socialist Books. Send to 3 - 13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB. The Spanish 3. The Rise and Fall of the Communist International 2) The Spanish Revolution 70p + 20p postage Or: I enclose £4 for titles 1-6/2-7/3-8/1,3-7* 2 Revolution 1931-37 by Ted Grant and Peter Taaffe Marxist Studies 70p