[page 2]
The Right's Pyrrhic victory Militant International Review 3-13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB Editor: Alan Woods Contents Editorial: The Right's Prryhic victory . . . Marxism and Parliament: How will society be transformed? . . . . ... By Rob Sewell Labour in Power: Lessons of the Second and Third Labour Governments . .
By Ted Grant Hungary 1956 and the Political revolution.
By Phil Hutchinson Science Report.
By Pete Dickenson ON THE face of it, this year's Labour Party conference put the clock back thirty years. Behind the glossy image and rose-tinted_razzamataz, more reminiscent of a Tory Party jamboree than a Labour Party conference, lay the crude reality of wholesale manipulation, "stitching-up"' of the votes and almost total suppression of free debate and discussion. The conference chairman —a consumate representative Tendency- Neanderthal blatantly rigged the debates and even interfered with the voting, going to the extreme of refusing to count votes against!
Had these methods been used at a conference when the left was in a majority, Fleet Street would have been foaming at the mouth (witness the scandalous press manipulation of the CPSA election) but, in the words of one prominent press baron "these are our friends, and you don't attack your friends."
Consequently, the conference was praised as an outstanding success, for its "professionalism" and "public relations". Yes, and maybe the sharp turn to the right had a little bit to do with it too...
In recent years, the right wing have By Bill Boyle ...3 By Bob McKee ... 7 Science and Socialism: The Lysenko controversy......
By Viv Seal 12 By Alan Woods .. 18 Strike at Vorkuta Labour .. 25 Book Reviews Editorial lost the political argument. Labour's rank and file has asserted its control over policy and its right to decide who will represent Labour in parliament. The right wing have never accepted these democratic gains. With the backing of "soft-left" - now the so-called distinguishable from the right- they are attempting to push the party right back to the dark ages of the 1950s, when "the Divine Right of MP's" was unquestioned, when conference was a rubber stamp for a handful of right wing trade union barons and Barker and Gunter wielded the proscribed list to Expulsion vote fixed in advance There is no doubt that the right wing clique around Kinnock would like to go back to those days. That was shown in the expulsion of the Liverpool Militant supporters. They were expelledlet us not forget-for the "crime" of Printed by Militant Publications, 3/13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB. ISBN 0906582 121 Comment: 'Communist' New Realism- A CP pamphlet reviewed. . ........... 26 28 Economic Notes..........
....30 The History of Bolshevism, Part Five: The Second Congress, 1903.. 35 43 camp: An eyewitness account. 46 implementing conference policies and standing up to the Tory government, refusing to implement cuts and sackings. That the magnificent movement in Liverpool ended in defeat was not the fault of the council, the Liverpool Labour Party or the people of Liverpool who backed the council to the end. The responsibility lies elsewhere: with those Labour Groups, supposedly dominated by the "left"
, who gave up without firing a shot; with those trade union leaders who connived to undermine the resistance of the Liverpool workers; but above all with the national leadership of the Labour Party which did everything in its power to sabotage the movement in Liverpool. The expulsion of men and women who have dedicated their lives to the cause of Labour and who are presently facing disqualification, vicious fines and the loss of their homes and possessions, represented a shameful action with no parallel in the whole of Labour's history.
Some people wonder why the Liverpool comrades refused to participate in the proceedings. If this had been a genuine chance to appeal to Labour's rank-and-file, if those concerned had 3
[page 3]
been given the minimum time necessary to explain their case in public, then there is no doubt that they would have spoken. But to participate in a show trial, with a paltry five minutes (chairman's interruptions and orchestrated barracking permitting) behind closed doors, would have been to give credence to a kangaroo court. To imagine that, by so doing, the results would have been any different is to fool oneself as to the nature of this farce.
The result was rigged well in advance. Many trade union leaders, afraid to allow their delegates to make up their own minds, had made their decision binding in advance. As in Alice in Wonderland, it was a case of "verdict first and trial afterwards." In the case of the NUM, where the delegation voted to oppose the expulsions, the union's vote was nevertheless cast in favour! Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the comrades concerned decided to stage a demonstration of protest, by walking out of the conference and appealing to the mass of Labour members and voters, over the head of the party leadership and its machine.
Tories in retreat
That this conference was rigged from start to finish is not seriously open to doubt. But this fact does not totally explain what happened in Blackpool. The conferences in the 1950's and 1960's were also "stage-managed" Yet the authoritarian behaviour of the platform at least evoked protests from the delegates. The general mood at the beginning of this year's conference was one of reluctant acquiescence to the manoeuvrings of the platform, although they became so blatant that by the end of the week the delegates discontent became manifest. The voice of the rank and file was effectively silenced. The debates were dominated by a dreary succession of right wing parliamentary candidates and general secretaries. Why were they allowed to get away with it?
After seven years of Thatcherism, there is a powerful urge for unity to defeat the Tories. The right wing clique which temporarily has succeeded in dominating the NEC has taken advantage of this deeply-felt mood to go on the offensive.
Not so long ago, Kinnock and all the other Labour leaders - both "left" and right-were convinced that Labour could not win the next election. Only the Marxist tendency represented by Militant and the MIR predicted that Labour could win a majority. Now that prediction has proved to be correct.
4
Urbano Teléfono
Interurbano
Internacional
Spanish PM, Gonzalez, much admired by Neil Kinnock, is carrying out a policy of cuts and closures even worse than that of Thatcher.
Just a few days before this edition went to print, a Harris poll conducted on behalf of Channel 4 TV in the marginal seat of Calder Valley showed the way things are moving. With the 1983 figures in brackets, the poll gave Labour 42 per cent (27), Conservatives 36 per cent (43.6) and the Alliance a mere 22 per cent (29.4). This shows that the writing is on the wall for Thatcher. Realising that the Alliance was taking support from the Tories, not Labour, the media have pulled the rug from under, playing up the splits between the Liberals and the SDP. This spells disaster for the Alliance which was a media creation from the very beginning. The Tories themselves are in deep trouble. Thatcher is universally hated. The idea that they could win an election with a smear campaign based on defence is a non-starter. Elections are lost or won, not on foreign policy, but on social issues, housing, health and above all unemployment. On all these counts the Tories stand condemned.
Much to the amazement of Neil Kinnock and his supporters, Labour is moving into the lead. Understanding nothing of the processes which underlie social development, these people, who a few months ago were solemnly denying the possibility of a Labour victory, have now convinced themselves that the successes are due to - Neil Kinnock. As if such a radical turn-around in the consciousness of the masses can be explained by the kind of tie the leader is wearing, or the cut of his suit or the colour of his socks! These latter-day water diviners evidently believe that Labour must be "sold"' to the electorate just like soap powder!
The fact
this
public opinion reflects the shift-long ago predicted by the Marxists- of the working class from the industrial front to the political plane. And let us remind ourselves that none of this would have been possible without the social earthquake brought about by the miners' strike. The Labour Party owes its success- not to the rose in Neil Kinnock's buttonhole-but to the heroic struggle of the miners and the powerful psychological impact it had on all classes. The miners' strike caused an abyss to open up between the classes. And the Labour Party has now become-despite, not because of, its leadership— the main beneficiary of the polarisation within society.
Neil Kinnock's speech
Throughout the lifetime of the Thatcher government, the trade union leaders have shown themselves to be woefully inadequate to the task of fighting to defend the workers' interests. Desperate to prevent another Tory government, they are falling over one another to pledge 101 per cent loyalty to Neil Kinnock. Bowing to the pressure of the media, they have moved sharply to the right in the mistaken belief that "respectability" and "moderation" will allow them to win friends and influence people. Thus the former "left" leaders of NUPE, who voted against the expulsion of the Militant editorial board in 1983, have now lined up with the Hammonds and Jordans to expel the Liverpool Eight.
In this stampede to the right, the exlefts in the unions were joined by a legion of ex-lefts in the constituencies. Livingstone, Blunkett, the LCC and all the other middle-class "trendy" lefts have scrambled onto the Kinnock band
Photo: Dave Sinclair
[page 4]
What Neil Kinnock intends to do is to promise nothing. In so doing he unwittingly promises everything! Sonian ey waggon. To their shame, a section of these elements also voted for the Neil Kinnock's hour long speech got the kind of four minute standing ovation normally associated with a Tory conference. Even Tony Benn applaud ed. But what, exactly, were they applauding?
Apart from the promise of one million jobs- which will be welcomed by all workers-there was no solid commitment to anything in particular. We had a kind of Cook's tour of Nicaragua, South Africa and a few other places. But interestingly enough, there was no mention of the experience of socialist governments nearer to home: not a word about France, Spain and Greece. Comrade Kinnock's silence was no accident. The defeat of the Mitterand government in France and the recent debacle of PASOK in the local elections in Greece are a warning to Labour. It is impossible to serve two masters. It is impossible to defend jobs, and living standards without a complete break with capitalism. That is the lesson of Greece and France; and Spain, where Gonzalez (much admired by Neil Kinnock) is carrying out a policy of cuts and closures even worse than that of Thatcher, will not be far behind. All socialists and trade unionists want to see the defeat of Thatcher and the election of a Labour government. But that, in and of itself, will solve nothing. We must also ask ourselves erst what policy this government will carry out. Felipe Gonzalez also promised the creation of 800,000 jobs prior to his election. The only result has been an increase of unemployment to over 3 million in Spain. Unless government takes over the banks, incompanies monopolies, under workers' control and management, as the prior condition for the democratic planning of the economy, exactly the same will happen Labour and big business Evidently, what Neil Kinnock intended to do was to promise nothing. In the unwittingly promised everything. Because everyone will read into Labour's policy anything and everything they desire!
Nor will Kinnock and the right wing succeed in pacifying big business. The Sunday Telegraph (20 July 1986) commented acidly on Labour's "new 'In this cynical world, people in the city find the very reasonableness of the spokesmen unnerving. The historic pattern has been for an incoming Labour government breathing fire and brimstone to become as tame as a lamb when faced with harsh reality. '''Now it's different' one broker warns: 'They sound so nice, perhaps for the first time in history their bite will be worse than their bark.''' Photo: Dave Sinclair Of course, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in these lines. The strategists of capital are not afraid of Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley, who have gone to great lengths (from Liverpool to the Berlin Wall) to demonstrate their trustworthiness. But they are mortally afraid of the class forces which lie and which behind the Labour Party, would move into action under a Labour government. That is why they will never be reconciled to the Labour Party, as long as it retains its umbilical link to the trade unions and the working class. Their policy towards a Labour government-as in France, Greece and Spain — will be to "use and discredit.' This conference, paradoxically, served to arouse the expectations of housewifes, millions of workers, unemployed, young people and pensioners. They are not particularly interested in pink roses and neatly pressed suits. They are concerned about jobs, a living wage, a decent home to live in. A Labour government will stand or fall on its ability to meet these needs. And on a capitalist basis, this is ruled out.
In spite of Kinnock and the right wing, the election of a Labour government is still the most likely perspective. In the worst variant, Labour will be the biggest party in the next parliament. After an initial honeymoon period, there will be an inevitable recoil, as the government passes from a policy of reforms to counter-reforms. Those 5
[page 5]
MIR Autumn 1986: Editorial
short-sighted trade union leaders who now imagine that a Labour government will solve all their problems will suffer a rude awakening, when their members realise they have been cheated. The present swing to the right will give way to an even bigger swing to the left, not only in the Labour Party but also in the unions.
End of a chapter
In the recent period, the active membership of the Labour Party has been swamped by an influx of middleclass 'trendy" elements, many of whom would be equally at home in the Liberal Party. Some of the more honest ones will be won to the ideas of Marxism on the basis of events. But the majority, having no perspective and no anchor in the working class or in theory, will drop out of politics, demoralised by the experience of a counter-reformist Labour government. This will prepare the way for a massive influx of workers from the trade unions who will join the Labour Party in order to fight the right wing and bring about a change of course.
This conference was the end of a chapter, but not the end of the story. The idea of a return to the bad old days of the 1950's is completely utopian. The strength of the right wing then was
based upon the post-war boom, with full employment and rising living standards. Now Labour will come to power in conditions of capitalist crisis, with nothing to offer except the kind of "austerity" programme we now see in Greece, Spain and France. Reformism without reforms-or with counterreforms-is something which appeals to nobody.
Only the ideas of Marxism, defended by the Militant and Militant International Review and no-one else explain the nature of the crisis and the only way out. Let the capitalist media and "their friends" in the right wing of the Labour Party crow about the alleged "demise" of Militant. The real mood of society found no echo in this conference, and less still in the rags of Fleet Street. It is a serious mood which will not take easily to being trifled with, or be fobbed off by "image" without substance and form without content. That mood was shown by the seamen's strike, by the Lucas strike, by the dogged determination of the London printworkers. This shows the real face of British Labour. That is what guarantees the success of Marxism in the future. The right wing can expel and persecute individual Marxists and class fighters. But the ideas of Marxism, which cannot be expelled, will finally be vindicated.
Building support
for the MIR
for the
THE MILITANT International Review has always striven, through the clear ideas of Marxism, to aid workers active in the struggles of the labour movement to draw the necessary lessons for future battles from a study of past and current events. To this end we have carried a combination of articles dealing with contemporary events, polemical articles on the programme and perspectives of the Labour leaders, studies of major episodes from the history of the labour movement, to articles on the latest international developments. But the Editors have always been conscious that providing written material is only part of the process of education in the ideas of Marxism. It is equally important to discuss the articies, to draw out on the basis of active participation in the debates and discussions taking place in the movement, their application to current developments.
In this respect a model of how to proceed is contained in a letter recently recieved by the Editors from one of our South Wales readers: "Supporters of the Militant in Llanelli were recently asked to organise a trade union Marxist Discussion Class, in which we hope to use the MIR as the basis for discussion. The 'lost' traditions of the South Wales valleys, of socialist and Marxist forums for workers to discuss important events in society, are now being revived by the Marxists in the Labour Party. Workers in the TGWU, USDAW, EEPTU, GMBATU and NUR have already expressed an interest in this venture. Issues agendered for discussion so far include the World economy. the Anglo-Irish Agreement, South Africa, the class nature of Russia, and Nicaragua. At the first meeting the modest proposal for monthly Discussion Classes was countered by demands for fortnightly moving to weekly meetings. This underlines the thirst for theory amongst trade union activists and shows the potential for a more regular MIR."
This excellent initiative could be repeated in every area and even added to with local 'MIR Public Debates' with opponents of Marxism being organised, to further clarify Marxist ideas. Combined with a throughgoing drive to increase the sales of the MIR, the full potential of our journal could be realised and the financial base secured to take the next steps in its improvement and more frequent production.
Militant
International Review
be now...!
supscr
Guarantee your regular copy of the Militant International Review. Take out a years subscription, four issues for £4.50 (postage and packing included), £5.00 overseas. Fill in the form below and send to: World Socialist Books, 3/13 Hepscott Road, London E9 5HB. Cheques payable to 'World Socialist Books'
Please send me a years subscription to the Militant Review, starting with issue No 34, Spring 1987
Name.
Address
i enclose £4.50 (UK/Ireland) £5.00 (Overseas). 6
[page 6]
society be
forces have accumulated 1,200 rounds of C.S. gas, whose locations is kept top secret. There are also 20,000 rounds of plastic bullets immediately available, with fresh stocks supplied at short notice.
For the new period of class struggle opening up in Britain, firearms have been brought into service by the Metropolitan police. These weapons range from the .38 Smith and Wesson (used in the Waldorf shooting) to the Enfield 'Enforcer' rifles with telescopic sights, Remington Pump action shotguns (able to tire US gas) and Heskler and Kock sub-machine guns. The latter can empty, a 15 round magazine in seconds..
In the miners strike, specially trained police were organised into Police Support Units, used to spearhead the mass arrests, curfews and road blocks. A staggering 11,000 miners were arrested during the dispute, many under the Conspiracy Laws of 1875 and the Public Order Act of 1936—originally aimed at Mosely's fascists but kept on the statute books to be used against the labour movement. The civil and criminal laws-interpreted by reactionary judges-were used against the strikers on a scale without precedent this century.
These class measures and laws were used to defend the class interests of the British bourgeois. Their strategy was to crush the miners at all costs (they spent some £8,000 million), as a means of inflicting a defeat on the working class as a whole. However, this strategy ended in absolute tatters causing deep class polarisation and resulting in the outstanding political fund ballot victories and the drastic undermining of the Tories' electorally.
The ruthless nature of the British bourgeois is nothing new. The whole history of British capitalism and its domination of one quarter of humanity was carried through by the most violent and bloody means. The democratic rights that we experience today-the right to vote, strike, assembly, free speech, free press, organise etc-were not granted by a
benevolent ruling class. On the con-
trary, they were fought for by the
working class against the most bitter repression from the bourgeoisie and
their state apparatus. These hard-won
democratic rights are, in reality,
elements of the new socialist society
within the old-elements of workers
THE MINERS strike of 1984-85 was far more than an industrial dispute. It was in outline a class war waged against the Tory government. It was a political struggle unparalleled in Britain probably since the General Strike of 1926. The British bourgeoisie attempted to use the forces of the state-the police and law courts-to break the coal strike. After 12 months of heroic struggle, as a result of the abject failure of the trade union leadership to mobilise the latent support amongst the rank and file, the miners were eventually defeated.
However, this hollow victory for Thatcher resulted not in stability for the ruling class but in the undermining of the social fabric of British society. There has not been such a class polarisation in Britain for the last 70 years. The strike affected all classes and strata of the population. It has opened up a new chapter in British history, in marking the dividing line between the past period of relative tranquillity and that of new mass upheavals.
In the minds of hundreds of thousands of miners, print workers and others, the role of the state apparatus has been clearly exposed as a weapon of the ruling class. The ideapeddled by the bourgeois and its reformist allies in the labour movementof a neutral state, standing above politics, has been severely undermined.
The miners' strike
The miners' strike saw the emergence of a national police force centrally directed by the dictate of the Thatcher government through the Chief Constables' quasi-official National Reporting Centre. Prepared and drilled as a semi-militarist force, supplied with riot gear, visor helmets, padded jackets, shields and batons, it organised to saturate the mining areas.
Three years before the strike, the government carefully prepared their strikebreaking forces. Central to this was the beefing up of the police. In 1983, 5,000 Metropolitan police officers were given specialist riot training for a four-day period. About 17% of them were trained in the use of firearms. Many lessons were drawn from the experiences of the RUC in Northern Ireland. As a result, in England and Wales alone, the police
democracy itself. They directly assist the labour movement in developing its strength, cohesion, and consciousness, in preparation for the overthrow of capitalism. These democratic rights are not an end in themselves, but are a means to an end—a socialist society based on a much more radical form of democracy. That is why Marxists have always consistently fought to defend democratic rights against those who have sought to limit or end those rights.
In Britain attempts to organise trade unions were met with vicious state repression by the bourgeois. The Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 outlawed the unions and forced them underground as workers' secret societies. A bare minimum of rights of association were won by the Acts of 1824 and 1825, but new laws were invented to take their place like the crime of unlawful oath-taking, used to deport the Tolpuddle martyrs. Strike action in breach of contract remained a criminal offence until the repeal of the Master and Servants Act in the 1860s. Literally thousands of activists were jailed or hanged in the struggle to build trade unions.
History of struggle
From 1870 onwards the unions were formally lawful but the bourgeois and their judges invented new legislation to ban strike action. The crimes of conspiracy to obstruct an owner's "freedom of action" and conspiracy in restraint of trade were brought in. When these were repealed the judges simply created the civil law offence of conspiracy where the employers could sue for damages. The limited legal right to picket was in effect removed by interpreting it as illegal "watching and besetting." (Conspiracy Act 1875).
The right to organise into effective trade unions was only won after a ferocious class struggle for over a century. It was the willingness of the pioneers of our movement to break the class laws of the Liberal and Tory governments-with all the jailings and repression-that gave us that basic freedom today.
However, the Thatcher government, reflecting the class interests of the
bourgeois, has attempted to turn the clock back. The Employment Acts of
1980 and 1982, and the Trade Union
Act of 1984, have undermined union
7
[page 7]
MIR Autumn 1986: Marxism and Parliament- "immunities" from liability for damage and opened them to court ac- The blatant use of Tory judges' interpretation of laws in the miners' strike was a deliberate class decision. Thousands were arrested in blanket arrests, picketing was blocked. Nottingham and other counties became no go areas. The NUM's funds were sequestrated and the courts imposed an official receiver to run the union. In the words of Arthur Scargill:
unelected judges representing Britain's ruling class have taken away at a stroke the rights and independence of British trade unions, won through long and bitter struggle over the past 185 years." The recent restriction imposed by the courts on picketing the Wapping printworks and other Mur. doch plants again underlines the class nature of the courts and laws. The struggle for the right to vote was a similar story. It was only out of the fear of the spread of revolution from Europe, the mass demonstrations and riots at home, that prompted the ruling class to introduce a partial extension of the vote in 1832-to a small sector of the middle class. The Chartist Movement-which embodied the first independent workers' party formed to bring about democratic rights-particularly the right to vote. The ruling class met Chartism with repression, but as the movement subsided they felt compelled to concede, in a greatly diluted form, many of the Chartists demands. Reforms were the result of a mass movement which, at its height, took on a revolutionary complexion. The urban male working class had to wait until 1867 when Disraeli pushed through the Second Reform Act in the aftermath of the defeat of the Southern States in the American Civil War. In 1918, under the impact of the Russian Revolution, and the revolutionary wave sweeping Europe, the British bourgeois were forced to widen the franchise and allow women to vote for the first time. It was reform from above to prevent revolution from below. Only in 1928 was the state forced to allow women to vote at the age of 21. Youth between 18 and 21 were denied the vote until 1969. Nevertheless, even today, complete parliamentary democracy has not been achieved. There still remains the undemocratic feudal leftovers of the unelected House of Lords and hereditary monarchy. The demands of for their abolition-the former is official Labour Party policy since 1978—have been met with wild hysteria from the bourgeois press and the right wing in the Labour Party. The House of Lords, a bastion of reactionaries, has been consistently used to block and delay progressive legislation. Although abolished by Cromwell in 1649 during the English bourgeois revolution, it was restored and used as an undemocratic device by the new capitalist class. Its powers are used to maintain the status quo or defend the interests of the British bourgeois. The English bourgeois revolution also put an end to the monarchy with the execution of Charles I. The restoration in 1660, whilst maintaining the subordination of Crown to Parliament, nevertheless established a further weapon that could be used against any threat to the new order. It was reserve weapon: only in the last resort would the "neutrality" of the monarchy be discarded in order to prevent socialist change.
Role of the Monarchy The monarchy can and will be used in Britain against a future left Labour government as it was in Australia in November 1975. The then Governor- General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, still appointed by the Queen, used the Crown's prerogative to bring down the government of Gough Whitlam. Due to the obstruction of the Liberal and National parties, Whitlam went to see Kerr to get "Royal Assent" for half-senate elections to bolster his parliamentary position. Kerr, the Queen's representative, not only refused but sacked him and placed the Liberal leader, Fraser, as Prime Minister in his place! All this without an election, or any democratic procedure. In the words of a Professor Connell, "if there remained any lingering doubt about the class nature of Australian politics, the events of 1975 must have resolved it. There is hardly a clearer case in the recent history of the 'Western democracies' of the way a threatened ruling class is able to mobilise fragments of state power, business connections, financial resources and legitimacy given to them by a dominant culture, in a campaign to remove an offending government."
How much more would this be the case here if the bourgeois were faced with a left Labour government? Even Norman Crowther-Hunt writing in the Guardian warned that governments would find it virtually impossible to abolish the Lords without their own consent; this is because Her Majesty the Queen would certainly spring to their Despite the "royalist" loyalty of Labour's right, the early pioneers of our movement realised the danger 'The throne represents the power of 'caste' rule,"
said Keir Hardie.
Even the then left-reformist Stafford Cripps in the early 1930s stated: "when the Labour Party comes to power they must act rapidly and it will be necessary to deal with the House of Lords and the influence of the City of London. There is no doubt that we shall have to overcome opposition from Buckingham Palace and other places as well." (Stafford Cripps by E Estorish, p125) The right wing of the labour movement, backed by the capitalist media, have attempted continually to blacken, distort and slander the ideas of Militant. Their constant refrain is that Marxism "totalitarian", "undemocratic" and "antiparliamentarian". Such a position was put at length by Ian Aitken and Anthony Wright in the Guardian (28 April 1986), who came out clearly for a political witch-hunt within the Labour Party. For them it was simple, all those who hold Marxist views are beyond the political pale and should be expelled (along with Clause IV) from the 'moderate' Labour Party. However, these articles were used by the leading "left" Labour Co- Geoff Hodgson, to distort further Militant's ideas. For him, Militant sup porters are socialists "of a kind" who uphold a twisted version of Clause "(Guardian, 30 April 1986) Militant, he says correctly, are of Lenin and Trotsky.
However, the latter "oppose the principle of the rule of law, and propose the breaking up of parliament. They advocate class rule based simply on force, and unrestricted by laws. Parliament is to be replaced by 'Soviets." This justifies his view that these ideas "place orthodox Trotskyists and Leninists beyond the boundaries of any democratic party."
To begin with, it is interesting that Hodgson fails to mention Marx or Engels. It has become fashiónable in some trendy "left" circles to contrast the "acceptable" Marx and Engels to the "unacceptable" Lenin and Trotsky. It is a pale reflection of the same school of opportunists during the First World War who opposed Marx and Engels to Lenin. In point of fact the ideas of Marxism have a rich history to which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky have made enormous contributions based on the experiences of their times. The foundations and principles were established by Marx and Engels, but in the epoch of the world war and the October revolution, Lenin developed further and extended those
[page 8]
Chilean dictator Pinochet. The Times justified the overthrow of the Allende government: "a reasonable military man could in good faith have thought it his constitutional duty to principles. In the epoch of fascism and Stalinism, it was Trotsky who made the outstanding contribution to Marxist thought. In the post-war period the supporters of Militant have again added to and deepened the fundamental ideas of Marxism.
Through interpretation and isolated snippets, Hodgson puts words into the mouths of Lenin and Trotsky. Even if these statements were correct-which they are not-Marxists do not simply repeat word for word like some gospel what Lenin or Trotsky said on every occasion without reference to the cirthe more general cumstances or to elaboration of their ideas. Marxism is no dogma, but above all a method of understanding, a guide to action. LCC distort Marxist Hodgson states that Marxists are opposed to the "principles of the rule of law." But Hodgson is talking in the realm of moral abstractions. For Marxists truth is always concrete. The highest objective for the proletariat is the transformation of society. All methods are good which raise the class consciousness of the workers, their cohesion and trust in their own forces to carry through their historic mission. The actions and methods that are bad are those which lower the consciousness and spirit of the workers and increase their subservience to capitalist society.
Again, truth is concrete. Are Marxists therefore opposed to all laws? Obviously not. We are in favour of laws that benefit working people: laws against child labour. restricting the hours of work, health and safety, etc. Hodgson's assertion is subterfuge. Nevertheless we oppose those class laws that undermine the position of working people. The whole history of the labour movement has been a strug gle against such laws imposed by big business. As was demonstrated earlier, all the democratic rights we have today were conquered struggle against the laws of capitalis: society. The bourgeoisie's interpreiation of the "rule of law" is wha: is in their class interests at a particular time and place. They bend, twist or der! laws to their liking. For the working class, it what concerns abstract, but what turthers their inas a class, develops their strength, cohesion and consciousness. The idea put forward by Hodgson that we want to 'smash parliamentary democracy' is completely untrue. Unlike the sectarian grouplets on the fringe of the labour movement, we have stressed that a socialist Britain intervene."
can be accomplished through parliament, backed by the mobilised power of the labour movement outside. This will, however, only be accomplished it the Labour Party and trade unions are won to a clear Marxist programme, and their power used to effect a rapid and complete socialist transformation Even an official Labour Party discussion paper (No 3) posed the question of parliament a few years ago: "The big question is: can socialism be achieved through Parliament? Will those reactionary forces who oppose a truly socialist society allow it to happen? No-one can give an answer to that question. There have been plenty of examples where democratically elected, progressive socialist governments have been overthrown by force. The most recent was in Chile, once described as the Britain of Latin America. Hitler destroyed democracy in Germany. Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, the colonels in Greece, the nilitary in Turkey... So democrac could be destroyed here. That possibility has to be recognised. Labour, however, will never do anything to endanger our democracy. It is opposed to the use ot torce to remove opposing political forces. The only time it would ever resort to force would be in the defence of democracy ..The Labour Party is not a pacifist party. It believes it is essential to fight to preserve our democratic way of life. There are occasions when antidemocratic forces have to be dealt with in a democratic society. But it is essential to make sure that in the process all the basic democratic rights of the people are developed.*, preserved and further Marxists would not disagree with the great majority of this statement. Photo: Jacob Sutton (Gamma). However, to the question of whether reactionary forces will oppose the socialist transformation there is no doubt. The British bourgeois will use every means-particularly extraparliamentary-to sabotage such an attempt.
Clement Attlee, in justifying the labour movement using extraparliamentary action in his book Labour in Perspective, points out that there are those who "believe, as soon as it is found that democracy is no longer prepared to be the hand maid of Capitalism, the supporters of the present system will reject it. They think that any attempt to deal with fundamentals will be met by forcible resistance... It is idle to deny that there is this possibility." (Pgs 113-114) We would say that is more than a possibility. The whole of history points in that direction.
A military coup?
In 1912 when a Liberal government (under enormous pressure) attempted to introduce a Home Rule Bill for Ireland against the wishes of the ruling class, it was met with massive the resistance trom the bourgeois, Tory Party and the tops of the state apparatus. When its class interests are at stake, the bourgeois is prepared to cast aside democracy. The Tory Party supported the armed revolt of Sir Edward Carson and 20,000 Protestants in the North against the British government. In 1914 the Tory leader, Bonar Law, went so far as to support the mutiny of the British officer corp at Curragh, which effectively ended the Irish Home Rule Bill. Much more recently in 1977, the Tory theoretician Sir Ian Gilmour, in his book Inside Right justified the en-
[page 9]
MIR Autumn 1986: Marxism and Parliament ding of democracy. This is no isolated crank, but a leading Tory strategist who today is regarded as a 'wet'. "Conservatives do not worship democracy. For them majority rule is a device...majorities do not always see where their best interests lie and then act upon their understanding. For Conservatives, therefore, democracy is a means to an end not an end in itself. In Dr Hayek's words, democracy 'is not an ultimate or absolute value and must be judged by what it will achieve.' And if it is leading to an end that is undesirable or is inconsistent with itself, then there is a theoretical case for ending it.
'Numbers in a state, said Burke, 'are always of consideration, but they are not the whole consideration.' In practice, no alternative to majority rule exists, though it has to be used in conjunction with other devices. And in the Conservative Party unlike the Labour Party there is no extreme wing which hankers after the death of parliamentary democracy and the imposition of dictatorship. If our free institutions are overthrown or totally perverted, the Left not the Right will be responsible. There is no danger of a right wing coup. Only if the constitution had already been destroyed by the Left, might the Right react and the Left find itself overthrown in its turn by a counter-coup from the Right." Contained here is the justification for ending the rights to organise, vote, strike, free speech, etc! As an aside he there is no alternative to parliamentary democracy-at the moment. But the strategists of capital and the tops of the armed forces in Britain have discussed openly over the last 15 years the possibility of a military coup. Many examples have been given in the Militant pamphlet "The State" of conspiracies in 1968, 1974 and 1979. General Kitsonreflecting the views of the officer caste-has talked of the necessity for the military to "take over against terrorist plots and conspiracies" that could occur in Britain.
Again the tops of the police are discussing their role. The Chief of Police of Greater Manchester, Anderton, stated openly on 16 October 1976: "I think that from the police point of view that my task in the future...that basic crimes as suchtheft, burglary, even violent crimeswill not be a predominant feature. What will be the matter of greatest concern to me will be the covert and ultimately overt attempt to overthrow democracy, or subvert the authority of and in fact, themselves in acts of sedition designed to destroy our parliamentary system and the democratic government in this country."
In 1982 he spoke of the left in the folowing terms:
"A quiet revolution is taking place around us and the prize is political power to be wielded against the most cherished elements of the establishment, including the monarchy. It is as much the duty of the police to guard against this as it is to guard against crime. I sense and see in our midst an enemy more dangerous, insidious, and ruthless, than any faced since the Second World War."
The last part of the quote from Gilmour is nothing more-leaving aside the window dressing-than justification for a military coup in Britain. The actions of Allende in Chile in 1973 in ratifying nationalisations following occupations by the workers, were interpreted as a violation of the Constitution by the Chilean bourgeois. The Christian Democrats-Chile's equivalent to the Tory Party-called for the military to overthrow the democratically elected Allende government. The British bourgeois, through The Times (15/9/73) rushed to give its support to the military coup: "'The circumstances were such that a reasonable military man could in good faith have thought it his constitutional duty to intervene."
These people would clearly act in giving such support to a British Pinochet where their property interests were at stake. An Enabling Bill It is not from the left or the labour movement that the threat of civil war will come-but from the bourgeois and its political and military representatives. The Labour Party education sheet states: "The first few months of a Labour Government can be decisive. It is the time when essential legislation can be enacted." We would say the first few days are decisive. The document points to the obstructions that will be placed in the way of the government by the House of Lords, but then talks of "reform of the machinery.. especially of the Civil Service" "lessening" the power of the Treasury. Although this should be supported, it fails to grasp the central issue, and "parliamentary cretinism. of Marx, falls into, in the words If a Labour government was to break with capitalism and take over the 200 monopolies, banks and insurance companies under democratic workers control and management, it would have to take immediate emergency measures.
Enabling legislation would have to rapidly carried through, giving the government decisive powers to implement the necessary measures. This would be vital to prevent the representatives of big business from exploiting the archaic procedures of parliament to delay and block Labour's policies they attempted to use their economic power, control of the press, etc. to undermine the government. At the same time, such bold measures by a Labour government could only be successful if backed up by the mobilisation of the labour movement and wider sections of the people outside parliament.
This is nothing new. The right wing have abandoned any idea of socialist transformation. They remain the key defenders of bourgeois society in the present epoch. The trendy 'lefts' have absolutely no idea or perspective of how socialism can be brought about. Their dilemma would be best summed up by the arch-Fabian, Sidney Webb: How could the transition to a socialist state be accomplished? 'All I know is that I don't know how to do it.' However, under the colossal experience of the 1931 debacle large layers in the labour movement abandoned the ideas of gradualism. Under pressure of workers radicalised by the crisis, some of the Labour leaders, at least in words, gave expression to the bankruptcy of reformism. None other than Stafford Cripps, later right-wing Chancellor of the Exchequer in Atlee's post-war government, said "reformism had to be abandoned." In 1934 Tawney dismissed gradualism with the phrase: "'onions can be eaten leaf by leaf, but you cannot skin a live tiger claw by claw." These leaders momentarily admitted the demise of reformism, but without drawing the necessary conclusions. It is ironic that today Tawney is frequently quoted in support of the policies advocated by Neil Kinnock! Many others, including Attlee called for a new Labour government to introduce emergency or enabling legislation to dispense with parliamentary etiquette. Ironically the Heath government in February 1971 used enabling legislation to nationalise the bankrupt Rolls Royce in less than The "left" Hodgson says Lenin and Trotsky advocated "force" as opposed to winning a majority for their ideas. This is an echo of the false arguments of the bourgeois and their right-wind"violent revolution." allies about Marxists truth is Marxists stand for a peaceful transformation of society. We no more want violence than we want to catch the plague.
than ten days before his assassination by a Stalinist agent,
[page 10]
Trotsky made his position absolutely
clear to his American supporters:
"In this case, as in any others, we
should speak the truth as it is; name-
ly, the best, the most economical and
favorable method for the masses
would be to achieve the transforma-
tion of this society by democratic
means. The democracy is also
necessary for the organization and
education of the masses. That is why
we are always ready to defend the
democratic rights of the people by our
own means. However, we know on the
basis of tremendous historical ex-
perience that the Sixty Families will
never permit the democratic realiza-
tion of socialist principles. At a given
moment the Sixty Families will in-
evitably overthrow, or try to over-
throw, the democratic institutions and
replace them by a reactionary dictator-
ship. This is what happened in Italy,
in Germany, and in the last days in
France-not to mention the lesser
countries. We say in advance that we
are ready to reject such an attempt
with arms in hands, and crush the
fascist dictatorship by a proletarian
dictatorship.
The Russian Revolution
The only amendment we need to
make to Trotsky's statement, because
the events of the last forty years have indelibly stained the term, is to change "proletarian dictatorship" to "pro-
letarian democracy." It was Marx who
first raised the question of the "Dic-
tatorship of the Proletariat" to characterise the new workers' state based upon the involvement and consent of the majority-as opposed to the "dictatorship of capital." However, given the monstrous totalitarian dictatorships that have arisen in Gemany, Italy, Spain and also the Stalinist regimes, the connotations of totalitarian repression associated with the word "dictatorship" have blotted out the meaning intended by Marx: "predominant rule." Today the correct term to capture the true meaning is "workers democracy."
Despite Hodgson's ignorant accusations, the aim of the Bolsheviks in 1917 was to secure peaceful change in society. As late as 9 October 1917, Lenin was offering "to help to do everything possible to secure the last chance for a peaceful development of the revolution." And later in the article he says: "Having seized power, the Soviets could still at present-and this is probably their last chance-secure a peaceful development of the revolution, peaceful elections of the deputies by the peopie, a peaceful struggle of parties inside the Soviets, a testing of
the programmes of various parties in
practice, a peaceful passing of power
from one party to another." (My em.
phasis). So much for the Bolsheviks
violent blood-thirsty means!
In the words of Trotsky, the co
leader of the revolution "All the efforts
of the party from April to July had
been directed towards making possi-
ble a peaceful development of the
revolution through the Soviets. 'Pa-
tiently explain'-that had been the key
to the Bolsheviks' policy." (History of
the Russian Revolution p816).
The October revolution itself was
almost bloodless due to its mass sup-
port. The small number of fatalities
Landlords and hairesistan at the
ting to prevent the election-through
the Congress of the Soviets-of a
Bolshevik government. It was the 21
armies of intervention-sent to crush
the revolution in blood by the
imperialists-that led to the civil war
and bloodshed.
The Revolution represented the
greatest event in history. It ushered
in the most democratic form of govern-
ment with democratic management
and control of society and a state bas-
ed upon workers and peasant councils.
Unfortunately, the isolation of the
workers' state, together with the
economic backwardness of Russia, led
to its degeneration and the emergence
of a totalitarian bureaucracy under the
figurehead of Stalin.
In Britain, the social and economic
conditions are entirely different. The
balance of class forces is overwhelmingly in favour of the working class. The middle layers of society have been drawn behind the labour movement with the increased unionisation of white collar workers. Sixty years ago these layers, civil servants, teachers and students, scabbed on the General Strike. Today they have experienced a growing radicalisation. This has recently been graphically illustrated by the election of John Macreadie as General Secretary of the CPSA.
The British working class-the oldest in the world-has deep rooted democratic traditions and a high cultural level. Once it becomes conscious of its strength as a class it will be invincible in the struggle to transform society on socialist lines. Once it rises to its feet no power on earth will stop it.
The post war boom has come to an end. We have now entered the epoch of the death agony of capitalism. The bourgeois will attempt to take back the gains of the past. Ultimately, the existence of all democratic rights is at stake. Big business sees the rights won by workers and the strength of the
labour movement as an obstacle to
unloading the full burden of the crisis
on to the backs of the workers. Under
Thatcher the capitalists have mounted
a massive onslaught on the post-war
gains of the movement. If the next
Labour government fails to carry out
socialist measures big business,
through even more reactionary
representatives than Thatcher, will at-
tempt to take the assault even further.
If a future left Labour government,
under massive pressure from the work-
ing class, takes measures which
threaten the power and wealth of the
ruling class but fails to carry through
a socialist transformation of society,
then the capitalists would use their
levers of economic power with the sup-
port of the tops of the police, army and
civil service, supplemented by the
mobilisation of reactionary extra-
parliamentary forces, to try to smash
the power of the organised workers. At
a certain stage in the future, they will
seek a decisive showdown with the
working class through a Royalist-
bonapartist coup on the lines of Chile.
Such perspectives are being discussed
at the present juncture by the military
and police chiefs, although the
bourgeois will hesitate many times
before they launch such drastic
measures.
Workers' democracy
Such a bloody scenario can only be avoided if the labour movement is transformed and re-armed with a Marxist leadership with a clear programme for the socialist change of society: A socialist Britain would dramatically extend the democratic rights of every worker from the political to the economic field. Democracy is not a side issue for Marxists, but a necessary vital component in the movement towards socialism and the end of exploitation of mankind. No longer would art, science, culture and the keys of government be confined to a privileged minority. A democratic workers' state in Britain, using the advances of modern science, would liquidate poverty, squalor and suffering. It would give time, by dramatically reducing the working week, to working people to enable them to participate fully in the democratic running of industry, the state and society in general. Such a democratic regime would become a beacon to workers in the crisis ridden capitalist West and the totalitarian regimes of the East. It would become the beginning of the transformation on socialist lines of the entire globe. Real democracy, rule by the majority, would then become a reality.
[page 11]