Capitalism, bourgeois

Scan page 8

bureaucratic leadership of the of production in which the Labour and trade union move- means of production (factories, ment. tools, raw materials, etc) are A historically-evolved mode Early capitalism privately owned by a minority capitalist class-the bourgeoisie, which uses them to accumulate surplus value, profit, through the exploitation of a propertyless working class-the proletariat, which owns nothing but its ability to work.

It is an anarchic system in which each individual capitalist concern competes against each other concern for a share of the market in which the supreme issue is the accumulation of capital, not human need.

Between the two main classes, lies an ill-defined petty-bourgeoisie, which ranges from professional and managerial workers, through intellectuals, self-employed and smail farmers and businessmen.

The petty bourgeoisie in backward capitalist economies overlaps with the peasantrysmall holders on the land.

Both the urban petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry can and must be won to the side of the working class in revolutionary struggles, given a firm leadership and a correct combination of democratic and transitional demands.

If this is not done, then this unstable social stratum will fall under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, providing the raw material for reactionary and even fascist movements designed to smash the working class movement.

Bourgeois ideology is the term used to refer to the system of laws, customs, ideas and philosophy elaborated by the bourgeoisie in defence of its class interests-its private ownership of the means of production and other property, and its "right" to exploit the working class.

Also within the scope of bourgeois ideology are those

Scan page 9

forces destined to overthrow all and propagandist approach to that the CLS put forward the However, the CLS also argued strongly that they never saw it as the role of Communists to build a reformist party and saw it as their task to stress the limitations and dangers of such a party.

"Rather we have constantly stressed that only by a relentless fight against the opportunism embodied in a Labor Party would the workers be able to cross over the bridge the Labor Party offered them, and move to the Proletarian Revolution.

"However, since the Labor Party was not actually formed we were not able to show in practice how entirely different our whole conception and action was from that of the right wing"'. '. (Lovestoneites).

Trotsky had said that the turn to a Labor Party by the bureaucrats would be primarily to head off the development of a communist rarty. • The CLS disagreed. In their view the predominant force behind a Labor Party development woula de not ine ./h. eL- inreat or a Communist Party but a massive movement of the working class.

... even if such a movement were to have in it capitalist elements who are primarily concerned in utilising the Labor Party against Communism and even if those conscious anti-communist elements were dominant the Labor Party movement itself would be unleashing those very anti-Communist plans." Trotsky with Natalia This stress on the dynamic in the situation was one which by the late 30s, Trotsky himslef was to argue.

He changed his positionwhile maintaining the view that the earlier position had been correct for the times but that the times had changed.

He recognised that the upsurge of the American workers in the mid 30s had not led to the expected development of a mass revolutionary Trotsky's emphasis on the dangers of bureaucratic misleaders using the Labor Party movement were as true in the late 30s as they were a few years earlier.

In our opinion Trotsky gives no convincing arguments about the correctness of. the Labor Party demand at one stage and his previous rejection of that demand.

Ine major barrier to ine political development of the American working class has always been its ties with one or other of the capitalist parties.

The demand for a Labor Party is in our opinion a very powerful one in the struggle to develop an independent working class perspective.

The fruits of Cannon's failure ever to take this demand seriously can be seen even today in the present SWP's sectarian the question.

A further example of Cannon's attitude to this question, considered "the most important" by Trotsky, is that in his book The History of American Trotskyism he does not see fit even to mention the Theses on the Labor Party so warmly received by Trotsky.

As a matter of fact Cannon does not even mention the Second Congress of the CLA which was held in September 1931.

However irrelevant the rest of its deliberations might have been, we would have thought that "the most important" question might have merited a brief comment.

In The History of American Trotskyism Cannon devotes two pages to the debate with Weisbord.

In such a short space as this he is not able to deal with anything other than Weisbord's 'mass work' perspective.

It is claimed that Weisbord was not able to do any mass work because he didn't have any members-something quite manifestly false.

Jump over

It is claimed that he wished to "jump over the head of the Cp' and form a new partysomething which Weisbord rejects as a siander, claiming demand for readmission of the Left Opposition to the munist International.

It is claimed that much time was spent debating with Weisbord.

The CLS letters to Trotsky are full of charges that Cannon refused to organise joint work and serious discussions towards fusion, that Cannon refused to come to the aid of the CLS when it was the subject of attack by the state and so on.

So much vituperation on both sides went on that it is not possible to make any serious assessment.

What is clear is that Weisbord did win a section of the CLA and that Cannon was forced to admit him to an internal CLA debate.

In November 1943 writes as follows:

"When I came out of the nine years of the CP I was a first class factional hoodlum. If not, how would i ever have survived? All I knew when somebody started a fight, let them have it." (The SWP in World War. Two, It is not inconceivable that this factional attitude was directed at Weisbord and his group.

For his part Weisbord made it plain that he regarded the Cannon leadership as rotten to the care and vowed to remove it should the CLS and CLA fuse.

"The sole value of the Cannon group is that it has published the writings of L.D. Trotsky in this country."

Despite : Trotsky's partial attempts to smooth the way to a rapprochement, he himself must have known that a fusion would lead to a protracted factional battle.

He suggested the documents of the CLS could usefully be printed in the International Bulletin but went on "Naturally the question will be decided by the American League"

Here he displays an impor tant example of how a national organisation is built with international aid.

He does not give direct orders but invests the national organisation with responsibility for its own area.

This, 'alongside sharp political, programmatic discussion at each point around the central issues is how to construct an international tendency.

From our reading of the letters exchanged between Trotsky and Weisbord it is clear trat there were important mis- 05539-95 over differences = =2503 20 5 eas.

On the main political question-the Labor Party-Trotsky was, in our view, wrong.

Some positions of, the Weisbord group (e.g. on China) don't appear have been debated.

It seems to us that Cannon did not wish for a rapprochement (but it is not possible to say) and that Weisbord was simply prevented from entering the ranks of the Left Opposition.

Certainly Weisbord's attitude to the Cannon leadership was bound to have encouraged factionalism.

The test of history justifies Cannon as against Weisbord. The CLS was never a significant force in the building of the Fourth International, or in the building of anything for that matter.

The CLA went on to play a central role in the history of the world Trotskyist movement.

Precisely how much the CLS's failure resulted from its isolation from the international movement we shall never know know.

But considering the number of times Cannon stresses the centrality of international leadership in the building of his group we can say that that isolation must have played a great part.

We are quite frankly sceptical of Cannon's view that no mass work was possible.

There are always openings if you look for them. Certainly we agree with the centrality of the publishing work and propaganda around it but fail to see in Cannon's account of the period a reflection of Trotsky's view that the task of the Left Opposition was to "put forth propaganda not in a sectarian but in a Marxist manner, that is to say upon the basis of participation in all the life of the proletariat' From the first the WL has seen the need to do "mass work". We have fought the conception of training cadres in a 'discussion circle' While noting Cannon's RATIC statement that the CLA was necessarily turned in on itself and did not, like the present day Spartacists, choose to turn in on itself, we should also point to some of the effects of this.

In his book Cannon talks generally of the problems posed by the CLA's isolation-of the tendency on the part of some to wish tor endless discussions, of the squabbles and factionalism that existed from the earliest years.

No detail Interestingly he does not detail these faction fights and omits to mention Trotsky's letter "On the Situation. in the American • League" (March 1933) which outlined a solution the factionalism centred around the expansion of mass work (which . had incidentiy already begun).

Even Weisbord's charge that the, CLA failed. to win CP workers is partially borne out by Cannon's description of the doubtful human material attracted to the CLA during the period ot its isolation from the class.

In 1932-33 the CLA moved out of its propaganda period and into mass work-primarily work around the unemployed.

As the • errants sharpened the CLA was able to attract larger numbers to its public meetings where Trotsky's analysis and programme for the German working class was put forward.

The debate with Weisbord showed that the CLA had weakesses but on balance these were outweighed by its strengths.

The "three generals without an army" had laid a sound political basis for the growth of the Trotskyist movement in the USA.

While it is necessary for Trotskyists of today to look critically at all aspects of Cannon's history we must remember that we are producing Socialist Press today because of the fight carried out then.

Scan page 10

refusing to defend these in a "semi-consensus" way

----- pull-quotes -----

NION UNION STARVE ЯСАВ

RELES 13000004