Nupe Nupe "trike Strike

Scan page 7

Exempted from political revolution: Fidel Castro tween socialism and communism. Transgression begins only when socialism and communism as a movement or as a state is subordinated not to the actual course of the class struggle, not to the material conditions of the historical process but to the supra-social and supra historical abstraction "democracy", which in reality is a weapon of self-defence serving the bourgeoisie against the proletarian dictatorship.

"If during the epoch of the Gotha Programme it was still possible to see in the word social democracy only an incorrect and non-scientific name for a proletarian party; whose spirit was nealthy, then the entire subsequent history of bourgeois and 'social' democracy turns the banner of "democratic communism (?)' into the banner of an outright class betrayal"

With the USFI now ready to compromise even on the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat, there are obviously dire consequences for the other elements of the Transitional We have already seen that the XI Congress documents, so full of generalisations, even truisms, contain no allusion whatever to the practical experience of any of the USFI's sections. In particular there is no example given of the fight for transitional demands in the working class.

One reason why this fight is clearly not waged by USFI sections is doubtless because their leadership appear completely confused on what the demands really are.

They are, in the true Pabloite tradition, preoccupied instead with finding ready-made "revolutionary" layers with whom they have simply to fuse on the basis of "class struggle" demands which fall far short of transitional demands.

The necessary political fight for programme is supplanted by organisational "turns" and manoeuvres.

Thus the World Document simply lays stress on "continuing the proletarian orientation"

The only demand it puts forward for this orientation is to campaign for a shorter working week without loss of pay.

lis demancin practice amounts to tailending the bureaucrats' favourite demand of a 35 hour week-a demand which is already policy of virtually every trade union in the imperialist countries-and the subject of endless empty tubthumping speeches by fake left reformists.

But the document on Europe is more honest on the USFI's "proletarian orientation" , making it clear that this means in reality orientating petty bourgeois people into proletarian workplaces"If the leaderships do not consciously organise the shift into this new stage [sending members into industry) comrades will naturally tend to take jobs in nonindustrial sectors, often as a result of the kind of education they have received."

That could be regarded as simply a difference of tacticsand the traditions of the workers' movement are certainly different in other coun tries, possibly more favourable to such a gamble.

But what we can say without any doubt is that without a clear perspective and programme on which to take up this work, the cadres sent into the factories will end up floundering lamely behind left reformist and Stalinist currents.

Not only does the USFI offer no such programme, but it has replaced the bewildering Mandelite notion of the "new mass vanguard" with the equally bankrupt and bewildering SWP concept of the "class struggle left wing"

No perspective It is worth noting that while this. concept comes from the American SWP, there is yet again in the Xith Congress documents no political perspective whatever for the struggle for Trotskyism in the USA, no reference to the experiences and work of the SWP.

Instead their ideas are to be foisted on USFI sections everywhere else!

It is worth examining the way in which the grandiose visions conjured up by the initial use of the phrase "class struggle left wing" end up as the most miserable adaptation to existing levels o consciousness within the working class.

It starts off sounding really "All these factors point up the importance of building class struggle left wing to win the leadership of the unions away from the SP and CP apparatuses ..."

But such a vision has its problems:

"There is no class struggle lett wing now, not even an incipient one, in any European union."

Yet the USFI doesn't look on the black side:

"NONETHELESS, broad layers of workers are seeking new answers to the problems ith which they are confronte nd can be won to such a per spective."

From this general truism, the document goes on to list a few emerging opposition tendencies; but it states categorically that "'The growth of such opposition currents cannot lead, through simple numerical accretion, to the formation of a real class struggle left wing. Oppositions that appear now and again against a leadership, or a simple grouping of revolutionaries in a union, cannot be confused with a class struggle left wing."

"To have a class struggle left wing, you have to have a class-struggle orientation [?] and a programme offering an alternative to the class collaborationist policy of the reformists, as well as a relatively high level of organisation and leadership."

But all these grand pretensions are soon abandoned.

"Nonetheless, the appea rance of the opposition currents described above is an important step in the formation of a class struggle left wing. In fact these groupings propose demands that represent components of a class-struggle programme."

So the conclusion is that:

"In the present phase, our wark in the unions must focus particularly on these various USFI fails to orientate to working opposition groupings."

Who will the USFI go for? Left talking bureaucrats, among others:

"The class struggle left wing that we are fighting to build will include people who are union leaders now and will be won to this perspective...' To complete the abrupt descent from the glimpse into the imaginary pent-house of the ¡deal "class struggle left wing" to the real basement of tail ending 'left' talking currents of Stalinists, reformists and centrists, the document declares that:

"'In order to stimulate this process of differentiation and to advance the development of groupings offering elements of a class struggle programme, we may bloc with currents supporting progressive positions"'-a blank cheque to link up with anyone!

This whole section-'Work in the Trade Union Movement"- is divorced completely from any concept of the fight for transitional demands.

Indeed its programme is carefully defined as no more than "an alternative to the class collaborationist policy of the reformists."

The references to transitional demands are separated from this by many pages of almost incoherent rambling.

On page 28 we see a quote from the Transitional Programme stressing the need for a system of transitional demands as the bridge between the present demands and the socialist programme of the revolution.

Ramshackle

But the sketchy demands that follow include no examination of the ways in which the fight to mobilise workers in struggle for the transitional demands offers a means of exposing and discrediting the existing reformist and Stalinist leaders.

It would be possible to make many other points about the confused'and ramshackle list of demands cobbled together by a USFI leadership that clearly has little intention of and no idea how to fight in practice for demands which conflict with the existing trade union consciousness of their would-be "class struggle left wing" their attitude to the question of "anti-nuke" and ecology campaigns which in many countries they support uncritically, without spelling out any specifically socialist perspective.

In the USA the SWP-backed anti-nuke campaign combines opportunist blocs with variegated petty bourgeois groups with advocating the use of coal-no doubt to the delight of the capitalist mine owners.

The USFI document on the fight against women's oppression specifically opposes the building of a communist women's movement or a primary orientation to working class women:

"Our support for and work to build the independent women's liberation movement distinguishes the Fourth International today from many sectarian groups that claim to stand on Marxist orthodoxy as represented by their interpretations of the resolutions of the first four congresses of the Third International. Such groups reject the construction of any women's organisations except those tied directly to and under the political control of their party.

4. There is no contradiction between building the independent women's liberation movement and building a revolutionary Marxist party of women and men.

The struggle, for socialism requires both a mass feminist novement and a mass revolutionary Marxist party. The two serve different functions. The former mobilises women in struggle around their needs and through their own independent forms of organization. The latter provides leadership, through programme and action, for the working class and its allies, including women, and uncompromisingly orients all facets of the class struggle toward a combined drive to abolish capitalism.

There is no objective basis for a separate revolutionary Marxist women's organisation."

This whole passage ignores the vital leading role of proletarian women and the organised labour movement in the struggle against women's oppression. And under the guise of opposing a "separate revolutionary Marxist women's organisation" the USFI in practice give up the struggle to combat the bougeois feminist currents that lead the existing women's liberation movements, and abandon any struggle to draw class lines within these movements.

The present day catalogue of errors and transparent political bankruptcy of the USFI on these questions is not a development out of the blue.

As is the case of every historical event or "fact" • today's reality is the product of yesterday's contradictions, yesterday's processes.

In the case of the USFI, today's wrong positions are the result of yesterday's unanswered questions-combined with a persistent, stubborn refusal to examine the experiences of the past.

Scan page 8

Page 8 SOCIALIST PRESS, Wednesday 24 October 1979