Slaughter charges that the original article in INTERNATIONAL did not refer to the Communist Party or YCL as Stalinist [illegible] the same [illegible] the main document accepted by the recent World congress of the Fourth International, "The New Rise of World Revolution". [illegible] says "This document of over 40 pages again studiously avoids using the term Stalinism to characterise the bureaucracy of the Communist Parties, with one exception, ie in characterising the betrayals of the French Communist Party in May-June '68 which in all conscience they could hardly miss. In all cases the resolution refers to the "Kremlin apparatus" and the "communist movement" and never to the [illegible] or counter-revolutionary bureaucracy and communist parties of the world."
It is here that we will admit a deep theoretical gulf between ourselves and the SLL; we do not even admit, however, that this gulf is caused by our revision of Trotskyism, but by the SLL's.
'NEW RISE' ANALYSIS OF WORKERS' STATES
In what way does "The New Rise" alter the classical Trotskyist analysis? Does it claim that capitalism exists in the Workers' States? Here is what it says: "In none of these cases was the fundamental underpinning of a workers' state - the elimination of the big bourgeoisie, nationalised ownership of the means of production, controlled planning of major investment projects, the banks and big industry abolished. As long as these bases remain, and the workers have not been defeated by a new bourgeoisie, there can be no capitalist restoration."
Does it embrace the theory of Peaceful Co-existence? Here is what it says: "The Vietnam experience has shown the fallaciousness of the Soviet bureaucracy's theory that the strategy of Peaceful Co-existence would bring a peaceful advance of the revolution throughout the world as a simple result of the change in the global relationship of forces, whereas revolutionary wars or armed insurrections risked becoming transformed into a nuclear world war. In reality, no revolution can advance or win without colliding with imperialist military intervention. Extending the revolution internationally remains the only way to compel imperialism to disperse the forces and weaken it throughout the world.
Does it abandon the perspective of political revolution on the degenerated and deformed workers' states? In several places it analyses the prospects and necessity of such revolutions.
Does it place hope on new sections of the bureaucracy, such as the "technocratic" wing to engineer a change towards genuine workers' democracy and revolutionary participation? Here is what it says: "Nowhere do they [the 'liberal technocrats'] take a stand for workers' self-management even in principle. Everywhere they advocate increased powers for plant managers and more plant autonomy. Greater powers for the managers are meant not only with respect to the central [illegible]. Only a bold programme calling for the full rebirth of socialist democracy based on power exercised by workers' councils, that is, on the programme of political revolution, can bring the workers back on the political scene en masse. The working class is too antagonistic to the bureaucracy in its entirety to let itself be used as a mere auxiliary force in the conflict between two strata in the ruling caste."
FRAGMENTATION
The innovation which "The New Rise" makes, and which differentiates the Fourth International and its British section the IMG from the SLL, is in the assessment it makes of the qualitative stage reached by the process of deepening crisis of the bureaucracies in the Communist Parties and the Workers' States. The resolution stresses four factors involved in this process: "... a slowing down of economic growth coupled with the detrimental effects which the 'economic reforms' of recent years have had for the masses; the crisis in the 'world socialist camp', that is, the crisis in the relationship between the workers' states and the CPs; the bureaucracy's inability to develop a consistent ideological line to take the place of the Stalinist doctrine; the impact on the workers' states of American imperialism's aggressive escalation, of the victorious resistance of the Vietnamese working masses, and of the revival of revolutionary agitation and struggles in Western Europe."
The two factors which are of most relevance to this discussion are the ideological crisis, and the crisis of the relationships between the bureaucracies. In both these areas we are witnessing a fantastic fragmentation, a diversification which contrasts so sharply with the monolithic bloc which Trotsky fought and analysed during his lifetime, that it would be a betrayal of the Marxist method to come along with ideas and attitudes formed 20 years ago. The political questions which Trotskyists have to raise in relation to these parties have altered, the opportunities for Trotskyists to influence and win elements within these parties has altered decisively in our favour, and the attitude of the bureaucracies towards the Trotskyists has of necessity altered. In several countries they are forced to participate with them in united committees for the defence of the Vietnamese revolution, a significant change from the days when Trotskyists were dealt with merely by physical violence (although there is still enough of that going on).
JOHNSTONE'S CRITIQUE - NEED FOR DEBATE
It is as a reflection of this process that Monty Johnstone's article on Trotskyism must be seen. Seeking an answer to the challenge which Trotskyism makes to the CP, unable to rely on the redundant ideology of Stalinist monolithism, or on the old methods of suppression, Monty Johnstone, as the representative of a clearly defined tendency within the British CP, puts forward a political critique, which must be answered on a political level. The tendency which Johnstone represents consists of younger intellectuals who are attracted to the Italian CP's non-dogmatic empirical reformism. Treating the history of the communist movement with a carefree eclecticism he praises Trotsky's contribution to the victory of the October insurrection and the civil war, Trotsky's call for a united front against Nazism and his opposition to the repression of Stalinism. On the other hand he supports Stalin's policy of Socialism in one country, the popular Front orientation, and the Stalinist bureaucracy's line in Spain.
Johnstone nowhere makes a real theoretical assessment of Stalinism, or goes further than a liberal rejection of the more distasteful aspects of the Stalin era, but he does denounce the Moscow trials as frame-ups, and he does call for an end to the lies about Trotsky and Trotskyism, precisely those aspects which had prevented any real political discussion between partisans of the CP's and of Trotskyism. So that, while he can in no sense be said to have made a real break with the Stalinist past of his party, neither is it sufficient to denounce him as "an apologist for Stalinism". The task of Trotskyists is to seize the opportunity for a real discussion which his article holds out. That the SLL and their youth movement have not done so reveals their inability to debate with anyone.
In their fear of getting involved in a genuine discussion the SLL seize upon the paucity of references to Stalinism both in "The New Rise of World Revolution", and in the article which criticised them.
We have already seen that "The New Rise" maintains the classical Trotskyist analysis of the basic theoretical questions involved in the degenerated and deformed workers' states'. Nowhere does it question this heritage; on the contrary its analyses of the new developments in this sector of the world are firmly rooted in this heritage. Slaughter does not directly challenge this. He merely implies that this lack of reference to Stalinism represents a revision of this theory; is this the case?
'STALINISM' A PRECISE SCIENTIFIC TERM
When Trotsky used the term "Stalinism" it had a precise and scientific meaning: the political line of the Soviet bureaucracy, its methods, and the politics of the world movement which gave it unswerving allegiance. As a term denoting the basic social nature of the bureaucratic caste in the workers' states, the political roots of the CPs, and the theoretical heritage from which none of them have as yet broken, it retains its validity.
But in order to express the new dominant feature of these parties, their organisational fragmentation and political diversification, the term 'Stalinist' has lost its usefulness. Does it explain to us the difference between the Chinese and the Italian? Are we to use the same term for the Soviet and the Czechoslovakian CP at the time of the invasion? Or apply the same nomenclature to the bureaucrat swinging a knuckleduster as to the young intellectual willing to discuss ideas.
In order to make the necessary distinction between these present and past manifestations of the CP's, such terms as "the Krushchevite apparatus", and "the communist movement", are not only legitimate, but scientifically necessary.
There is one further, though secondary, reason for being careful about the use of the term 'Stalinist'. Amongst wide layers of new forces on the left, dissident elements in the CPs, the 'New Left', and other non-Trotskyist Marxists, this term has taken on quite a different meaning from that traditionally used by the Trotskyists: for them it refers solely to the period in the CPSU from the triumph of Stalin over the opposition, to the 20th congress. It would of course be possible for Trotskyists to insist that before we can exchange ideas on this subject these forces should accept our definition of Stalinism, but there does not seem to be all that much advantage in doing so.
REASONS TO DEBATE
We have already revealed some of the SLL's contortions in their attempt to avoid open debate. It will not therefore surprise the reader to discover that Slaughter relies on just such terminological abstractions to cover their retreat and [isolate] the IMG. He seizes on our declaration that we would be willing to debate the YCL "... without allowing any secondary issues, such as the title of the debate, whether or not these organisations are Stalinist, or accusations of past misdeeds, to get in the way of a free objective discussion."
Slaughter responds in amazement, "Whether these organisations are Stalinist or not is a secondary issue"! The political responsibility for the physical liquidation of the Left Opposition, and the betrayal of the German and Spanish revolutions - 'a secondary issue'! Every Stalinist will agree, and it is difficult to see just what they and Purdie could disagree on!"
Here we must confess ourselves at a loss to grasp exactly what Slaughter is postulating. Does he mean that the British CP and YCL bear such direct responsibility for these undoubted crimes of the Stalinised Comintern, that there can be no debate between them and Trotskyists unless they first admit to such responsibility? What then is the reason for the debate if the political conclusions the Trotskyists wish to establish must be accepted by the other side before it can proceed? And since common sense will tell that they would never in fact do such a thing, what was the point in challenging them to debate in the first place? But if there is a genuine desire for a debate, then the political conclusions which the Trotskyists wish to establish in that debate, are secondary to agreement on actually getting the debate under way. And it is in this sense that we said these were secondary issues, which should not get in the way of a free discussion.
But if the British CP and its youth movement were simply extensions of classical Stalinism in Britain there would be little chance of them accepting a debate, and less point in trying to achieve one. In fact the British CP has experienced the same fragmentation and diversification that has featured amongst all of its brother parties. (It has cut itself adrift from Moscow on a number of issues, the most important being over the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Currents and tendencies are appearing in its ranks, and it has been forced to take a much less rigid attitude towards cooperating with Marxists to its left.
For these reasons a debate with the CP or YCL could achieve one or several things for Trotskyists: individuals or tendencies could be won over to, or closer to, our theoretical analysis; the process of diversification within the party could be sharpened, impelling sections of the Party to the left; and the Party as a whole could be moved towards cooperating with the Trotskyists and other tendencies in work of immediate value to the British workers or the world revolution.
SLL'S FAILURE TO DEFEND TROTSKYISM
Because the SLL's theoretical analysis of the Communist parties today is inadequate; because they are mortally afraid of exposing their other inadequacies in public debate; they therefore throw away a historic opportunity to defend Trotskyism and extend its influence, and give the opportunity to CP backwoodsmen to represent the Trotskyists as dishonest political cowards.
The SLL has come a long way since it refused to participate in the re-unification of the Fourth International, but its theoretical degeneration has confirmed the conviction of those who did participate, that there can be no Trotskyism in one country.
It is because the IMG is an integral part of the only international revolutionary organisation that, despite its small size, it has no qualms about engaging in debate with any tendency on the left, and the constant stream of distortion about ourselves and the Fourth International in the columns of the SLL's press leaves us unruffled. We are confident that our politics will be vindicated.
Once more we challenge the SLL - debate us! If you object to what we have said here - debate us! If you really believe that we are revising Trotskyism - debate us! If you consider that we have capitulated to the CP - debate us!
If you do not meet this challenge then we, and the rest of the British left, can only conclude that you are unable to answer our criticisms.