Martin Shaw gets into a worse mess when, to his credit, he tries to argue politically. He forgets the essence of the theory of the permanent revolution; namely that there is no revolutionary role whatsoever for the bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped countries; that because of this any revolution in those countries which does not take place under the leadership of the working class and which does not set itself socialist tasks (as opposed, please note, to establishing socialism) is doomed to impotence,
We Trotskyists believe that the evolution of the colonial revolution since the end of the second world war gives ample confirmation of this theory — wherever colonial revolutions have taken place under bourgeois leadership they have been quite unable to solve any of the fundamental problems, Whether the country's leadership has donned a 'socialist', anti-imperialist garb (Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Burma, Tanzania, etc) or not, has made little difference, These countries have made little progress in either raising living standards or industrialisation.
On the contrary, those countries which have had proletarian revolutions (distorted and deformed as they might be) and carried out a social transformation have made striking advances. (We do not say socialism has been established in these countries.) We have only to compare the difference between China and India to see this.
I will agree that these revolutions have been carried out in a bureaucratic or empirical manner; that because of the world-wide crisis of proletarian leadership these revolutions have been mediated through forms very different from the classical (ie, pre-1914) marxist schema (eg, in China via a peasant army which was led by a party which had its origins in the marxist movement; in Cuba via a petty-bourgeois tendency which empirically adopted marxism-leninism in face of the objective situation). But none of this either challenges the class nature of these regimes nor the theory of the permanent revolution,
Their 'exceptionalism' is nothing new: wasn't the October Revolution carried out in an under-developed country, with a comparatively small working class and led by a secret underground party (I almost joined Nigel Harris, Kautsky, and the Mensheviks in saying 'small clique')?
There were plenty of people around in 1917 and afterwards who said that one couldn't have a proletarian revolution in Russia because of the small size of its working class; besides some of the Mensheviks they included the Austro-Marxists, the SPGB, the right wings of the SLP and BSP, etc — some of them even called the Soviet Union state capitalist in those days.
Marxists have never defined the class nature of a society in terms of its political forms, and those who seek to describe Russia, China, Eastern Europe, North Vietnam, Cuba, etc, as state capitalist or to use Martin Shaw's non-marxist terminology, 'peasant-based, statist petty-bourgeois' (it should be noted that in the latter [illegible] to do so on a sociological analysis of [illegible].
(1) If we define Cuba as a state capitalist regime, or in the style of Martin Shaw, a peasant-based, statist petty bourgeois regime, we have some difficulty in explaining its revolutionary foreign policy. I hope Nigel Harris and Martin Shaw will not deny that the Cubans support revolutionary movements in Latin America (by saying this I am not agreeing with everything they do), I trust that our state capitalist twins will not deny that the Cuban Government makes a revolutionary call for the overthrow of almost all the other Latin American regimes. (I wonder if comrades Harris and Shaw would go so far as to say that Che Guevara went into the Bolivian jungle in order to establish a state capitalist regime in that country?)
Marxists have believed that since the early part of this century, capitalism has outlived its progressive role and yet, according to the theoreticians of state capitalism, here we have a capitalist regime trying to spread revolution.
(2) How does the Vietnamese revolution fit in with this theory? Are we to believe with Chris Harman that the North Vietnamese are struggling to establish a state capitalist regime in the south? How do Martin Shaw and Nigel Harris square this with members of IS carrying NLF flags on demonstrations and chanting 'Victory to the NLF'? — surely international socialists should not call for the victory of one (state) capitalist regime over another (private enterprise) capitalist regime. (I have been told — horror of horrors — that IS members have been heard to shout "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh)
[illegible] an explanation based upon this absurd thesis is quite incapable of explaining the nature and heroism of the Vietnamese struggle. Isn't the only rational explanation of the depth of this struggle the fact that the Vietnamese are also waging a social struggle and that the peasants and workers are so fervent in their support of the NLF and DRV because this support expresses their class as well as their national aspirations?
There is a way round these contradictions, one which resolves them and which would make life easier for our state capitalist friends; that is to say that marxists have been wrong about the period we live in, that in certain countries, capitalism, in its state capitalist form, can still play a progressive role.
That would explain Cuba's foreign policy, that would explain the Vietnamese revolution's tenacity. But unfortunately for the Kidrons, Harrises and Shaws of this world other consequences would follow.
It is a basic premise of marxism that NO social system disappears until it has outlived its historical role. Unlike the utopian socialists, Marxists believe that 'mankind does not set itself tasks it cannot achieve', Regardless of men's wills a social system is only ripe for social revolution when its relations of production (the class forms) have come into irreconcilable conflict with the further development of the means of production and social advance:— in the era of imperialism, this has to be viewed from an international point of view — this is another aspect of the theory of permanent revolution. If we accept the Proposition that state capitalism still has a progressive role to play in the underdeveloped countries, then because we are not utopians we have to face the facts and elaborate a policy which is in harmony with history and the perspective of the coming progressive state capitalist revolution in our practical politics.
I am sure that Kidron, Harris and Shaw will hold up their hands in horror at this suggestion, but such a view is in harmony with their positions. Kidron 'explains' the LSSP calling upon the Ceylon working class to make sacrifices in the interests of making capitalism more competitive. Why not go the whole hog and call upon them to make a state capitalist revolution? That, if we are to judge correctly the other 'state capitalist' revolutions in China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc, would really make Ceylonese capitalism much more competitive,
Harris says that the Indian marxists have to concentrate on Economic demands until the working class is a significant force — what better way of achieving this than to support a 'state capitalist' revolution? This would, after all, bring to power a new class which would accumulate capital and, as Marx taught us, the other side of the coin of the accumulation of capital is the creation of a strong working class,
Shaw has his peasant-based statist petty-bourgeois regimes ...... surely 'state capitalism' is an advance on whatever he means by that,
Such is the logical conclusion of the very revolutionary sounding theory of state capitalism. Unfortunately for the state capitalist theoreticians of IS, theory does matter and incorrect theories have a logic. Because they reflect the class pressure on the people advocating them, there is an irresistible tendency for them to be taken to their logical conclusion,
Saying this does not challenge the socialist credentials of the people holding them. In fact firm criticism must be seen as an attempt to stop this process.
Martin Shaw will have none of this; linking his comrade Kidron's views with those of Burnham and Shachtman is a smear tactic. One would think from reading his letter that it is the merest of coincidences that Mike Kidron and the bureaucratic collectivists (Burnham and Shachtman) both hold different theories from Trotsky about the class nature of the Soviet Union. The truth is very different.
There is a high degree of affinity between Mike Kidron's views and those of the bureaucratic collectivists, in their essence, in their origin and even in the sphere of organisation, Explaining his differences with Trotsky, James Burnham wrote:
'The dominant, the fundamental issues in the present dispute are two, one involving the entire International, the other particularly the SWP, The first is the central political issue. This has been clarified and amplified by the course of events and the discussion. What it concerns is the problem of the strategic orientation of the fourth international in the present phase of the second world war...'
'The second central issue is the question of the regime in the [illegible]'
'The practical politics of every active and serious political organisation is normally governed by what might be called a strategic focus, an axis around which the major part of agitation and action revolves ... Today there are two tendencies in the Fourth International, They are differentiated by the fact that they propose two sharply different strategical orientations, different axes to govern their practical politics.'
'The Trotsky-Cannon [illegible] proposes the strategy of defence of the Stalinist bureaucracy as the lesser evil ...'
'The opposition, nationally and internationally, proposes the strategy of the third camp ...'
It is quite wrong to say that the Burnham-Shachtman opposition was on the basis of the theory of bureaucratic collectivism, The issue was that of, as Burnham makes quite clear, defencism versus the strategy of the third camp, I would argue that the essence of the differences between the state capitalist theoreticians of IS and the Fourth International is on exactly the same basis,
The third camp position of state capitalism used to be made absolutely explicit in the banner headline of its old paper, Socialist Review: 'Neither Washington Nor Moscow'. This was to make it absolutely clear that in the conflict between Washington and Moscow, the Socialist Review group would be neutral, The position of the Fourth is and always has been for the unconditional defence of the property relations that Moscow represents,
Indeed, in its message of greetings to readers in January 1957, Socialist Review said: 'The Labour Movement is on the high road to learning, through its own experience, the way to Third Camp, international socialism for which this paper stands',
The practical proof of all this is shown by an examination of the origins of the state capitalist tendency in this country. These are markedly similar to the origins of the Burnham-Shachtman group in the United States. Both groups originated in a similar situation and under similar pressures. As will be well-known to many readers of International the bureaucratic collectivists originated in the period just before the second world war. In this period the left movement was subject to fantastic pressures because of the crimes and somersaults of the Soviet bureaucracy. The signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact was followed by the invasion of Poland, the occupation of the Baltic republics and the war with Finland. The latter especially was occasion for a tremendous anti-Soviet press campaign. All this affected the Trotskyist movement and the discussion began on the basis of the question: how could the Soviet Union remain a workers state when it behaved like an imperialist one? This, of course, was linked with the Moscow trials and complete suppression of workers democracy in Russia.
The bureaucratic collectivists may have given a new name to this phenomenon (which does, incidentally, get them involved in real mental gymnastics which Cliff has made great play of) but they agree with the state capitalists on the fundamental issue: defencism could no longer be the correct policy.
The Socialist Review group originated in the aftermath of the outbreak of the Korean war. There was a witch-hunt against the left at the onset of the Cold War much facilitated by the crimes of Stalinism, especially the purges in Eastern Europe. Under these circumstances, some members of the British section of the Fourth International wavered and opposed the policy of defencism of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, Early issues of Socialist Review make this clear.
In issue number one, in an article by Bill Ainsworth entitled Whither 'Socialist Outlook' (the entry paper of the Trotskyist movement at that time) we read: 'Since the outbreak of war in Korea, the Socialist Outlook has campaigned for full and unconditional support for the Stalinist forces in Korea, who (so it claims) are conducting a genuine struggle for national and social liberation of the oppressed Korean people ... This attitude, of course, is fundamentally identical with that of the Stalinists and their fellow-travellers'. One only has to substitute the word Vietnam for Korea to see what a right wing policy that was.
In issue number two, in an article by one V. Karalasingham (another leader of the LSSP!) under the rubric 'The War In Korea' we read: 'Our Third Force position — "Neither Western Capitalism nor Stalinist Totalitarianism" — demands that we lend no support to either camp in Korea...'
This article, incidentally, although originally in Janata, the organ of the right-wing Socialist Party of India, was described as having been quoted in the Shachtmanite paper Labour Action.
Lastly in the sphere of organisation, surely Martin Shaw is aware of the close links between the Socialist Review group and the Shachtmanite Independent Socialist League, which continued up until the latter organisation was dissolved by Shachtman in the late 1950s. Let me remind him of some facts:
Throughout the middle 1950s the press of the Socialist Review group advertised and distributed the press of the ISL, The New International and Labour Action
In its list of 'independent socialist literature' the Socialist Review frequently publicised books by Max Shachtman including his Fight for Socialism and Struggle for a New Course (his introduction to Trotsky's New Course). Owen Roberts, described as Labor Action's London correspondent, was a frequent and regular contributor. Members of the ISL coming to Britain were generally active in the Socialist Review group, One of them, named Sergio Junco, specialised in anti-Castro articles in Young Guard at the height of the US administration's activities against Cuba, Another ISL supporter, Andre Giacometti, specialised in articles on Algeria which were viciously anti-FLN and pro-MNA.
One might argue that this was in the past and once Shachtman had shown his true colours by going into the extreme right wing Socialist Party the connection ended. This is quite incorrect — IS maintains its links with the third camp bureaucratic collectivists to this very day.
When the ISL was dissolved some of its younger members were bitterly opposed to going into the Socialist Party. Some joined the SWP and helped to form the Young Socialist Alliance, others grouped around Hal Draper eventually formed the Independent Socialist Clubs,
The former group shed their bureaucratic collectivism (though for accuracy's sake it must be said that some of them are now supporters of Healy), the latter retained, in essence, the old policies.
In the paper of the ISC, Independent Socialist, consisting to a large extent of reprints from Socialist Worker and International Socialism, one can find its programme. One reads:
'We stand for a socialist policy which is completely independent of and opposed to both of the reactionary systems of exploitation [illegible] ... We are en route toward a Third Camp of those who reject both [illegible] blocs and their military preparations. In Vietnam, we favour not only popular revolution against American domination, but also the rejection by the masses involved of the Communist leadership of the NLF ...' (no victory for the NLF for them!)
One can almost smell the shades of Burnham.
As if to make the point absolutely clear, the ISC had a conference recently and launched an organisation called, guess what, International Socialism, Will Martin Shaw continue to say that to link IS theoreticians with the theories of Shachtman is a smear? If he thinks that this indeed is a smear he should request the leadership of his organisation to stop associating with the American bureaucratic collectivists.
I hope the editors of International will allow a bit more room for this already overlong article to say a little about some of the other points raised in the criticism of my letter.
Martin Shaw surely knows that Anil Moonesinghe maintained contact with IS and espoused state capitalist theories within the LSSP. He should realise that the whole purpose of my letter was to point to the dangerous consequences of the anti-marxist theory of state capitalism and not to saddle IS with responsibility for the LSSP's degeneration.
As for the role of the Fourth International, Shaw merely repeats the slanders of Healy in laying the blame of the LSSP's degeneration on that body. As pointed out many times before, the leadership of the Fourth International criticised, sometimes publicly, the LSSP over a period of years, Healy, incidentally, has a major portion of the blame for this degeneration because of his refusal to take part in the 1963 reunification. Had his organisation done so, the moral authority of the Fourth International would have been much greater in opposing the opportunists in the LSSP, As it was, when criticised they pointed to the division in the Fourth International,
Martin Shaw seems to think that the Fourth International should [illegible] the LSSP before it went into the coalition. He applies [illegible] standards: if he thinks that the method of [illegible] should be used to settle political differences before these are expressed as deeds, he should start in his organisation, where whole [illegible]
(1) they were really stung because of the serious conclusions one could draw from the appearance of the Kidron article. They should not blame me for that but the editors of Socialist Worker, Instead of trying to divert attention from Mike Kidron's serious political mistakes they should join those comrades within IS who have protested against the appearance of the article.
(2) they chose to regard the letter as an attack on the socialist credentials of their organisation — it was not, as is shown by my appeal to members of IS to struggle against Kidron's and Harris's theories. In the absence, anywhere, of authoritative statements as to where IS stands on these vital questions I chose to assume that the majority of members (and maybe even the leaders) of IS would oppose them.
Was I right or wrong — only time will tell. Am I naive in thinking that the majority of members of IS will reject state capitalism when they realise its anti-revolutionary consequences?