Editorial

[page 25]

expressed here do not necessarily reflect the ideas of the Editorial Board. We reserve the right to shorten excessively long letters.

paralysed

by

Dear Comrades,

Following on from the article by comrades Robert Schiffle and Steve Morgan in the last issue of the Militant International Review, on the crushing of the Austrian Socialists by the Fascists in 1934, I thought that some of the comments and ideas of some of the participants in the short 1934 civil war would underline further the analysis made in the article.

In G E R Gedye's book, Fallen Bastions (Left Book Club, now out of print) which is about the victory of Dollfuss and then the Nazis the bankruptcy of the socialist leaders is shown quite sharply.

The ruling class made clear in advance their hatred of, and their determination to destroy the Austrian workers and their party. For instance Gedye talks of the comments of a retired General 'One day we are going to stop the business in Vienna by fair means or foul. Parquet floors and shower baths for workers indeed—you might as well put Persian carpets in a pigsty and feed the sow on caviare"

This is just one example of the general opinions of the Austrian rulers at that time, an opinion which was later to be underlined with Howitzers and mortars. As if these were not enough warning of the horror for workers to come there were other ominous signs, for instance, the collapse of the Boden Credit Anstadt bank which caused the 1929 world slump. Credit Anstadts collapse was caused

in part by its pouring of

money into the reactionary clerical party and the arming of the counter-revolutionary

and fascist Hiemwehr legions

which together with the day to day killing and terrorism by the right was giving clear war-

ning for the future.

So given this evidence of the ruling classes determination to destroy the labour movement where did the labour leaders stand: to fight against the capitalists on the ground of revolution, to expropriate the economy and power of the obvious threat to the Austrian working class?

No, it would seem not! The leaders of the Austrian socialists instead were looking for compromise with Dollfuss. Ot course they were 'for a fight' but only if they were attacked first by the Hiemwehr and only to defend Austrian democracy.

The position of the socialist leaders is born out in a discussion between G E R Gedye and Oscar Pollak, editor of the socialists paper the Arbieter-Zietung, as to what the socialists should do to fight Dollfuss. Pollak says: - The point is this, we have definite proof that Dollfuss and the Heimwehr have decided to make a counter revolutionary push by force of arms within the next four weeks. We shall fight in the defence of the republic—that is decided. But if we wait for the government we shall be at a grave disadvantage. We want to know from you what sort of press we shall get in the

capitalist papers generally (apart from the extreme reac-

tionary organs) of Great Bri-

tain and America, if we decide to strike before the govern-

ment have completed their

plans. You know the situation

well enough to realise that even if we do, not we but the fascists will be the aggressors—it will be a purely defensive measure on our part. Will the Anglo-Saxon press understand this?"

Gedye's advice to Pollak was... 'That whatever the provocation and whatever the facts, except for the socialist press and one or two liberal and moderate conservative organs, you will be depicted as 'bloodthirsty revolutionaries' who are stabbing in the back Austria's 'gallant little chancellor' at the moment of his fight to preserve Austrian liberty. Of course I may be wrong and the judgement given on such action will naturally vary in different newspaper offices".

"That is very sad news" replied Pollak 'but it only corresponds to what I felt myself. Thank you, I shall report to the party. You must not ask me to tell you later what decision has been taken and you must forget this talk."

So the socialists it seems were more worried as to how they would be portrayed by the capitalist press than by the perilous situation confronting the Austrian socialists at that time. A first class strategy...for defeat.

Had the socialist leaders prepared their ranks for full scale battle with the Heimwehr they would not have stood alone. In France the workers

were lining up to take on the

fascist Croix de Feu Kamelots

de Roi. In Spain there was the

socialist insurection against

Gil Robles and the Asturian commune. The wider population in Austria too would have rallied to a bold lead by the socialists. In 1934 Hitler had not fully consolidated his power. A successful revolution in Austria would have totally undermined the Nazis and opened up new revolutionary unrest in Germany.

But even during the civil war these alledged Marxists' paralysed their followers in the final struggle against Dollfuss. So concerned was Otto Bauer and other SPD leaders for respectability that they called upon the ranks to respect private property. Despite this the workers responded heroically and fought the Hiemwehr to a standstill.

But whereas the SPD leaders looked to keeping property intact Dollfuss and the Hiemwehr had no such "manners" and levelled all the workers houses with Howitzers and bombs.

Given that the workers fought in 1934 against the fascists it layed the basis later on for the workers resistance the 05 which fought against the Nazis.

But the failure of the socialists to take power in 1934 resulted in the strengthening of Hitler and in 1938 Austria became a province of Nazi Germany. Reformists always have the desire to avoid conflicts but they always come off the worst-with the working class paying the price.

Yours fraternally

T P White

Hackney South

strikes' that followed the first imperialist world war. I stated in a contribution at the September Marxist Weekend School in London that Folkestone was hardly the most socialist or revolutionary of towns, but this review comes as a timely reminder to me that I was really being too quick to dismiss the history of my home town.

eakening

the state

Dear Comrades,

I've just received the latest MIR, and several things that I think are worthy of note occured to me.

First, I have to thank Clive Heemskerk for the review of The Soldiers Strikes of 1919. The thing that drew my attention to this was the mention of Folkestone (where I live) and its central place in the 'military

[page 26]

Indeed, this history, although written by a Stalinist, should act as a salutary warning to the various tiny groups and sects which inhabit the outskirts of the labour movement, and who often mock the Labour Party Young Socialists and Militant supporters for calling for trade union rights for the armed forces. In doing this they ignore not only British but also international history. The record of 'discipline' in the British forces across the centuries is one of the most mutinous in the world. The most recent examples are of course covered up. Still, a few do filter out, such as near mutinies on ships in the Solent upon return from the Falklands war, the reason being that the vessels were made to 'queue up', allowing the Tories the maximum glory when each vessel returned, one-by-one.

The little groups that mock the supporters of Militant make no effort to say what they would do to split and weaken the armed forces in the event of a revolutionary situation in Britain. By ignoring calls to win recruits to Marxism within the armed forces they imagine that in a revolutionary crisis the state forces will disolve of themselves! This certainly wasn't the way that the Bolsheviks viewed the question of the army at the time of the October Revolution. They approached the barracks, and by so doing, won over the troops to the side of the revolution.

In Britain, even if only ten per cent of troops were won over in this way, then such gains would still be of the greatest significance. Locally, I live a few hundred yards from Shorncliffe Army Camp, where during the miners'

strike, hundreds of police were camped. So an approach to the armed forces locally faces active workers, even in such a place as Folkestone. Furthermore, such actions will be of the most decisive importance to the course of events in South-East Kent, particularly as Kent could be a likely starting point for reaction.

To say a few words on the recent changes to the MIR. The increase in the number of pages indicates the growing support for the ideas of Marxism, and also must act as a spur to comrades to sell the MIR. The editors have constantly stressed the importance of sales of the MIR as the key to further improvements in the quality of the MIR. A local discussion by supporters of the MIR has given me the confidence to ask regular paper sales to buy the International Review, and to raise in this way the question both of the

importance of theory and finance to the workers movement. As a final note, I also look forward to the MIR having the card covers restored, rather than the paper ones on the latest issue, though, of course, having said that, such a step is dependent once again on sales.

So comrades, we have the best theoretical journal and the ideas that are capable of changing society. To fall behind, to lose ground, or to fail in our tasks simply through lack of finance will be a criminal betrayal of future generations. I send my thanks to the editorial staff of the MIR for the production of the journal and for the recent improvements and look forward to a more regular Militant International Review.

Fraternally

Kevin Blake

Folkestone

and Hythe LPYS

MIR 29 famine article

controversy

Dear Comrades,

I was disgusted with an article in Militant International Review No 29 on famine which advanced factory farming methods as a benefit to mankind. I hardly think that the chickens, pigs and calves which are imprisoned in cages and crates for all their short, miserable lives would agree with this assertion.

These animals are denied their basic behavioural needs and are kept extremely cruelly, often permanently in the dark and treated regularly with drugs or special diets.

Factory farming is one of the most callous faces of capitalism and should be abolished rather than encouraged.

Yours fraternally

Richard Wheatley

Castle Donnington

Dear Comrades,

The new feature, 'Science and Socialism' in the MIR is to be welcomed. However, technological advances have to be viewed in context. Articles

in the popular press and even in respected scientific journals often serve to glamourise or exaggerate the impact that new technologies can have. Nowhere is this more true than in agriculture. There is little doubt that the inequalities of food resources between the developed and underdeveloped world and between classes in both societies could be ameliorated or solved with socialist planning. In most cases the production and distribution of pesticides and artificial fertilisers are in the hands of the multinationals, their sale without socialist planning in developing countries during the so-called "greenrevolution' created havoc. Nationalising these multinationals under democratic workers control and management would accelerate the acquisition of new technology because research and production can be shared between what are now secretive and competing companies.

A number of technologies were dealt with in the article

27

'Tr WC Far

ird irld nin

on famine in MIR No 29. Single cell protein to replace conventional foodstuffs has faced a number of problems. The most successful plant for producing this material is at ICI at Billingham. This is Europe's only commercial producer, with an output of 700,000 tonnes per year. The fermenter for growing the fungal cells is incredibly complicated and expensive, not the ideal technology for the developing countries.

Soil fertility has become a major problem in many parts of the world because of poor soil, intensive cultivation and

the growth of non-leguminous crops. The use of artificial fertiliser is very expensive and a large number of biologists have been employed in attempts to genetically engineer plants to enable them to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. Leguminous plants already have this ability. In some climates soil nitrates can be seriously depleted by growing more than one crop on the same soil year in, year out. Quite obviously these crops are for export to earn foreign exchange, for example tea, coffee, grain and so on. Genetic engineering may one

[page 27]

MIR Spring 1986: Letters

day solve these problems but

it is still a long way off. These

biological initiatives have been

forced by enviromental,

economic and political con-

straints and should not be seen

as the only solution. Increas-

ing use of lugumes such as

soya for humans and lupins

for cattle, along with crop

rotation and a re-distribution

of existing fertiliser produc-

tion could solve many

problems.

Research by private in-

dustry and, increasingly,

public laboratories is

motivated by the promise of

quick profits. The accelerating

crisis of world capitalism has

brought the micro-electronic

boom to an end, and the pro-

mised boom in bio-technology

seems to be faltering. We can-

not afford to leave the respon-

sibility for researching answers

for problems such as famine

to big business interests.

Despite the obvious problems of the Soviet bureaucratic

caste, central planning of

in Russian

resources

biotechnological research can be seen as being a more serious approach even to many

Western scientists, than the anarchy of Western

capitalism. Research programmes and goals have been planned a decade in advance and the bureaucracy 'has to provide effective conditions for the rapid development of the modern field of biological sciences and for the wide use of the respective achievements in agriculture, medicine and industry for the benefit of the Soviet people" *

Comrade Hensman in his article is correct in saying that science can solve many of humanity's problems but it will not do so under capitalism. New advances will be used to extract greater profits from the people of all countries. Socialist planned economies could free existing resources, redistribute them and plan their use for the benefit of all, not the greedy few. Science is used by capitalists as a panacea to solve the world's problems. We must not fall into their trap, instead we must realise that to solve the world crisis we must consciously work for the socialist transformation of society. Science will then come

into its own freed from the fetters of big business interests and play a full role in releasing workers from the horrors of famine and the drudgery of their work.

Yours fraternally

Gwyn P Morris

Biotechnology Centre

Cranfield Institute

of Technology

* See Pete Dickinson's article (pp 30-32) on Science and Stalinism - Editors.

Dear Comrades,

May I congratulate Jim Hensman on an excellent article on famine in the summer edition of the MIR, no 29. Jim precisely showed that famines are caused by the capitalist system and the possibilities that exist on the basis of a planned socialist economy. The profit system cannot support the human race, yet research and production for need would enable the world to be released from the chains of starvation.

However, I was disturbed by one passage in the article which appeared to advocate the 'factory farming' of animals. This was all the more surprising since the author had set out before (and after) this passage, the facts which show it to be totally unnecessary, never mind barbaric and inhumane. For example:

'Levels of five times this

current.. (level of produc-

tion per acre) have already

been acheived and theoret-

ically yields over ten times

present western levels are

possible." p17.

'Ninety per cent of grain

produced in the US goes to

feed livestock-enough to

feed Africa and South

America' p18 (my

emphasis).

«Meat substitute.. has

even been prefered to real

meat" and it is possible to

"produce food out of

everything from wood-

pulp and chicken feathers

to cow manure!" p18.

'Eighty-six per cent of the

world's undernourished

live in countries where food

production kept pace with

population" p18.

There are endless quotes I could use from Jim's own ar-

28

ticle in which he shows exactly why such barbaric treatment of animals need only be a sympton of capitalism. Of particular interest are the figures on land use (or lack of it).

'0.23 per cent of landowners, one in every 400, control over half the land in the Third World. This land, nearly always the most fertile, is often kept unused or grossly underexploited by these large landowners... the best land is used for export crops." p18.

•The

over 200,000 square

Dear Comrades,

In reference to the article Famine: 'The divine hand of providence?" in the summer issue (no 29) of the MIR; trom paragraph one on page 18 I think this is very misleading. It was as if you actually advocate the torture, slaughter and exploitation of animals even more so under a socialist society with expansion in factory farming and vivesection. The article says there are: "All sorts of fascinating possibilities such as cows the size of elephants. The pro-

JIM HENSMAN REPLIES:

The article certainly did not intend to condone the methods used in factory farming. My apologies to anyone who got the impression that it did. The aim of the parts of the article concerned was to illustrate the fact that dramatic increases have taken place in productivity of meat as well as plant crops. However, as was pointed out in relation to the over-intensive use of fertilisers in grain production, some of the methods used to achieve this increased productivity have had disastrous effects and certainly cannot be supported. With regard to meat production, improvements caused by selective breeding, better nutrition and disease control have substantially increased pro-

miles of cropland in the US

deliberately kept idle could

have fed the whole of

Africa on its own." p19.

With these facts staring him in the face why does Comrade Hensman spend time gloating that "a typical high output poultry farm...can produce 200,000 chickens annually per person employed", the farming of fish (also very cruel) and such like?

Forward to Socialism

Yours fraternally

David Winfield

Cambridge PS I'm not a vegetarian

spects are really only limited by the imagination"

i wonder by this do you mean the oppression of animals under a socialist society would be even greater than in our present day evil capitalist societies where animals are executed and tortured for profit. I think that piece of the article can be very misleading and easily misinterpreted.

Yours fraternally

Mark Murphy

Huddersfield LPYS PS. I would also like to congratulate you on the summer issue of the MIR.

ductivity without being detrimental to the animals and poultry concerned. The argument put forward by sections of the food industry that factory farming methods are necessary to keep productivity high and provide cheap food is in fact a myth. As the BBC TV programme "Down on the Factory Farm" shown in 1979 demonstrated, livestock and poultry farming can be carried out competitively without

using these methods. But under the present profit system where the welfare of human beings let alone animals is not an important consideration, farming methods that are cruel to animals will inevitably be used. As David Winfield rightly says, the mistreatment of animals is a symptom of capitalism.

[page 28]