[A favourite argument used by the International Marxist…]

Scan page 6

A favourite argument used by the International Marxist Group to justify their opportunist 'Socialist Unity' campaign for fusion with centrist groups is that any political group that has not 'crossed class lines' must be regarded as revolutionary' - regardless of how inadequate its programme or method of work.

Anyone who rejects this minimal basis for 'unity? and seeks through a deepened discussion to establish a serious political assessment of the group concerned and a real basis for agreement is branded as a sectarian.

But the complete inabbility of the IMG's approach to provide a basis for a principled Trotskyist international is clearly revealed by an examinațion of the bitter lessons of the betrayal carried out by the USFI's Sri Lanka section in 1964.

The events.

A membership conference of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party, the Sri Lanka section of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International was held on 7 June, 1964.

At that conference a majority of the members voted in favour of forming a coalition government with the bourgeois Sri Lanka Fréedom Party, led by Mrs. Bandaranaike.

This decision is correctly seen as one of the greatest betrayals in the history of the Trotskyist movement.

Despite its modest numbers-at the time the LSSP had less than 1,000 members-the party not only had MPs in the Parliament, but a tradition of standing as the only workers party with mass support. It was considerably stronger than the Stalinist party.

Mrs. Bandaranaike's motives in bringing the "Trotskyist' LSSP into her government were clear enough.

Close to •The government was close to collapse in the face of a determined wave of strikes and moves to unify the whole trade union movement behind, "21 points' of programme-a step accomplished in September 1963.

'As with • all "Popular Front" forms of rule, the bourgéoisie turn to incorporate opportunist sections of the working class leadership into their government only as a desperate last resort.

And Mrs. Bandaranaike's gamble paid off. The effect of the coalition was to give her the leeway to save Sri Lankan capitalism at the expense of the working class -thanks to the LSSP. The background.

How did the "Trotskyist" LSSP wind up in this position? Was it simply an unpredictabic the cla: dif: but Int cos poI FoI req nat wh LS: Int and opportunist lurch by the No, there had on a number of occasions been clear pointers to the direction that leadership had been headed in, and the development of the LSSP over the preceding ten years had helped lay the basis for the betrayal of 1964.

In the split in the Fourth International that took place in 1953, the LSSP had at first supported some of the positions of the International Committee.

The IC was formed after the split on the basis of a political lead from the US Socialist Workers Party, opposing the opportunist line on Stalinism argued by Michel Pablo, Ernest Mandel and the forces that supported them.

Unity at The LSSP howev er saW • primary issue 1 not as rification of the pi olitical ferences that had arisen t as keeping the l Fourth ernational together r at all its.

They proposed a • postnement of the sch eduled urth World Congr ess, as uested by the Interional Committee but en this was refusi ed the SP remained with 1 Pablo's ernational Secr 'etariat 1 participated it the Fourth Congress in 1954.

In explaining the LSSP's capitulation in 1964, Mandel argued that the first indication of opportunism was at the Fourth World Congress, where 'the LSSP moved an amendment to the document "The Rise and Fall of Stalinism' Changed line?

Their amendment sought to change a call for freedom for all working class parties to a call for freedom for all parties after the socialist . It would be interesting in view of the current position of the USFI to know whether Mandel still believes such a line to be opportunist-and if not, why not.

But 1954 was only a minor mistake compared with the opportunist election policy adopted by the LSSP in 1956. The party adopted the position of "responsive cooperation" with the Bandaranaike Even Mandel admits this showed "signs of wavering"

The LSSP abandoned this stance only after race riots had erupted as a result of Bandaranaike's policies.

Mandel in retrospect argues that this hasty change by the LSSP was:

"the positive side of its