Theoretical Pro Гнат Must Be Re

Scan page 6

nuntos fotao Monoiste the Ethiopian butcher, in Havana.

At the end of the previous article we criticised the attempt by the SWP to say in effect that all inter-bureaucratic wars must be manifestations of the world wide struggle between the capitalist class and the working Vass.

We their view attacked' that conflicts material between national bureaucracies play no role as an independent cause of such wars.

This, we argued, was an aspect of a general feature of the SWP's view of Stalinism- a refusal to acknowledge the bureaucracy as a powerful material* force in society.

At every point the power of the bureaucracy is belittled by the SWP, to the point where it appears to be simply • layer which responds to pressures either from imperialism or from the working class.

Parasitic

This makes the SWP unwilling to admit the possibility: that inter-bureaucratic rivalríes can themselves be a cause of war.

In particular it leads them to dismiss the notion that there could be any economic element in motivating the bureaucracies towards agression.

This would violate their "orthodox" view that workers' states are exclusively defensive in their behaviour.

Yet we must question this "orthodoxy". The bureaucracy is after all a parasitic caste which maintains its privileges by feeding off the toiling masses. But at the same time bureaucratic rule is an obstacle to the development of the forces of production in the workers' states, and thus cramps the economic base on which the bureaucracy rests.

So why cannot this contradiction lead to expansionist tendencies on the part of the bureaucracy which flow from a need to augment the surplus value available to one bureaucracy through simple expansion of the territorial base from which it is appropriated?

Why should not Stalinist bureaucrats who feed off the labours of their own working classes seek to ease their internal problems by imposing some form of 'tribute on weaker bureaucracies in other countries?

Comecon

It cannot be denied that there was an element of this in the expansion of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe after the Second World War.

And in the subsequent period the economic arrangements within Comecon have been such as to benefit the Soviet Union at the expense of the other countries.

Unty mort гесешну, perhaps, have there been some changes in this as concessions have had to be made to the growth of anti-Soviet feeling in the other states ol Comecon - feelings which the Moscow bureaucrats recognise as magnifying the pressures towards political Indebtedness And in any case, Soviet aid-or rather the situation of massive indebtedness which arises from it-has undoubtedly been an element in curbing any independent ambitions of the Cuban bureaucracy and ensuring that it does not deviate from the path chosen by the bureaucracy in Moscow.

We pose these questions not in order to give any final answer to them here but rather to insist that they are real questions which demand an answer from Trotskyists and which cannot be dismissed by an appeal to some "orthodox" theory which argues that the bureaucracies pose no threat of war.

Examine

Ernest Mandel, unlike the SWP, does at least begin to discuss some of the pressute towards war that is inherent in the conflicting national interests of the Stalinist bureaucracies.

But when he comes to possible economic motives for war, he dismisses them without discussion.

(ICP April 9, 1979, p345)

Such lines of inquiry demand to be followed up by Trotskyists. Mandel however retreats into the same kind of "orthodoxy" as the SWP.

I пете. 15 annanto Mondol Kampuchean refug *no basic economic reason for wars between workers states.

The ruling bureaucracy can profit from plundering foreign countries ...but this is in no way structurally linWolkers states economie the As an example, he says that:

"it is preposterous to bel ieve that China needs 'colonies to exploit' when it is desperately lacking the resources to exploit 80% of the natural resources known on its own native soil.": (ibid.p345)

So the conclusion is that " the roots of these potential conflicts are political and not Though not fully developed, Mandel's argument on this point seems to be based on some very important theoretical errors which once ees flock into Thailand again involve the belittling of the counter-revolutionary nature of the Stalinist 'bureauIt is assumed that there is a virtually absolute separation between politics and economics in the deformed workers' states. In Mandel's view what is deformed is the political workings of the state and not the functioning of the economy.

This is not only an únwartanted conclusion from the contradictory nature of a deformed •or degenerated workers' state, but it also underestimates the way in which the rule of the bureaucracy distorts the development and operation of the economy from that which would prevail under a workers' democracy.

Bureaucratic economic planning is not a less efficient version of a truly socialist Their correct, becomes It makes qualitative difference.

Mandel, however, seems to ässume: that the deformity of Stalinist-worker states applies only to a compartmentalised political element.

Mandel assumes also that the bureaucracy is capable of rationally developing the economy-hence his argument that the Chinese bureaucracy could not possibly want colonies because it hasn't developed its own natural resources.

Conflict But Mandel does not even begin to consider the possibility that, although not capitalist, Stalinist-ruled states could contain contradiction, which also create behaviour that from an economic standpoint appears irrational.

In developing his purely political theory of inter-bureaucratic conflict, Mandel therefore goes on in his own way to create illusions in the ability of the Stalinist bureaucracy to act rationally in the interests of preserving socialised property.

Because the Stalinist bureaucracy rests upon nationalised property, therefore, argues Mandel, it will act to defend that property.

If inter-bureaucratic wars should occur, the national bureaucracies will be able to keep them under control.

And, he suggests, they can control the consequences of their collaboration with imperialism. (Intercontinental Press/ Inprecor April 16, 1979 pp 346-7).

In reply to this, SWP spokesmen Clark, Feldman, Horowitz and Waters (CFHW)

ask "can we really be so sure"

that inter-bureaucratic wars will be as limited as Mandel believes?

Challenge

challenge appears until its basis clear. What really CFHW worrIeS LInW auvul Mandel's argument is not that he so signally fails to explain the source of war between workers' states, but that he makes even tentative steps towards admitting that such wars can arise from inter-bureaucratic conflict.

"If Comrade l Mandel's vision of the future is accurate" , say CFHW, "then the prospects for humanity are not so bright as the Fourth International has expected up until now"

(ICP, July 16, 1979, p 715).

They go on to dismiss out of hand the danger of such wars because, they argue, the bureaucracy will be prevented from entering them by the strength of the working class.

CFHW's denial of the manifest danger is therefore the outcome of their denial of the importance of the material role of the Stalinist' It flows from their failure to grasp the contradiction between th property for workers sta bureaucratic Ultimately formal "ort] are used to co position-the amounts to a of any quali between a healthy W This means : SWP in prac Trotskyist u the coun role / of Against th ill-founded d not wish to about the proletariat.

But we in for a scientifi new develd have taken p war world, continued glo counter-revol the Stalinist b , Diff These art written as profound differences broken out in the USFI.

Although raises some many of th have arisen new.

They are questions wh centre of the in the postsplit th movement.

But such what is a wo

Scan page 7

This is the final article in a six part seies on the major political and theoretical crisis in the United Secretariat of the Fourth International which has been exposed by the recent wars in The main sources which have been referred to Fred Feldman, "Behind' the Fall of the Pol Pot Regime", Militant Jan. 19, 1979, reprinted in Intercontinental Press/Inprecor, Jan 22, 1979.

"Socialist Revolution in Vietnam", Intercontinental Socialist Review April Steve Clark, Imperialism vs. Workers of the World", Militant March 23, 1979, also reprinted Ernest Mandel, "Behind Differences on Military Conflicts in Southeast Asia" IP/I April 9, 1979.

For further background on the positions of the Workers Socialist League on the post-war evolution and world role of Stalinism see the book Communists Against Revolution (£2.00 inc South East Asia.