The Real Lessons of the 1930s

Scan page 5

Hitler: his rise to power made easier by divisions in working class the contemporary capitalist the Stalinists refused to face up worid. It rejects all compromises to the enormity of the blow with the Social Democracy; it inflicted on the workers' governemigrate. the Comintern could still claim All this was forgotten and that in Germany "enormous abandoned in the craven impres- revolutionary energy is being Under Stalin's leadership, the Communist Intenational (Comintern) proved itself incapable of understanding or analysing the actual development of the economic crisis, and completely unable to base its policies on the requirements of the international working class.

As the new Soviet bureaucracy consolidated its grip on power, however, these initial deficiencies were transformed: the Stalinists became increasingly committed to defence of the existing balance of forces and outright opposition to revolutionary struggles that might disrupt that balance:

The complete political bankruptcy of Stalinism and its total lack of any relation to revolutionary Marxism was demonstrated time and time again by the Comintern's failure to understand what fascism was.

The Stalinists were confused over what regimes were fascist and which regimes were simply military/police regimes. But they were disoriented most of all by the decision of the Comintern in 1929 to brand reformist social democracy as "social fascist"

This set of theories was to lead the German CP into a series of tragic adventures and defeats, as it blundered from event to event.

Disarmed

Every regime from 1930 onwards was labelled fascist, ensuring thereby that the German working class was totally disarmed and confused as to the real nature of fascism.

'Thaelman, Remmele and others speak of the fascist coup d'etat of July 20th. At the same time, they warn the workers against the approaching danger of the Hitlerite, that is, the equally fascist; overturn.

Finally, the Social. Democracy is designated just as before as social fascist. The unfolding events are in this way reduced to this: that species of fascism take the power from each other with the aid of "fascist" coups d'etat. Isn't it clear that the whole Stalinist theory was created only for the purpose of gumming up the human brain"

Trotsky What the Stalinists failed to grasp was that fascism is not just another form of strong government; nor is it simply the open dictatorship of monopoly capital.

In fact it is a special form of the 'strong executive' which is characterised by the complete destruction of all workers' organisations and the atomisation of the working class as an organised, material force. Under fascism there is no organised workers' movement.

Thus, to talk, as the Stalinists did, of the "gradual fascisation' of the Weimar Republic and the "process of fascisation of social democracy" was to completely miss out that crucial element which above all differentiated fascism from all other forms of bourgeois rule: the physical destruction of the workers' movement.

Togliatti, later to become the Italian Stalinist leader, had written as early as 1924, after the experience of Mussolini's coup, correctly explaining that:

"All questions as to the relation between fascism and social democracy belong to the same sphere [the irreconcilability of fascism with the existence of the workers' organisations]. It is in this relation that fascism clearly differentiates itself from all other reactionary regimes established hitherto in persecutes it relentlessly; it ment. deprives it of all legal means of existence; it forces it sionism of the Third Period.

In fact, what the Comintern offered was an evolutionary -i.e. reformist-understanding of fascism, completely missing out [as anti-Marxists must] the counter revolutionary content of fascism. For, as Trotsky wrote:

"If the Communist Party is the party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of counterrevolutiônary despair."

Therein lay the unity of the mutually exclusive opposites. But the Comintern ignored the finality which constituted fascism. They failed to heed Trotsky's warning.

"Worker communists, you are thousands, millions, you cannot leave for any place. There are not enough passports for you. Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your kulls and spines like a terrific tank."

Even when fascism had ridden in on the backs of a divided, defeated working class, In 1934, a year after Hitler's seizure of power, the hacks of accumulated."

This was stated even while Thaelmann and the leaders of the German Communist Party were already on their way to the • concentration camps together with countless numbers of trade union and socialist leaders.

Similarly, in Britain, British CP theoretician Robin PalmeDutte, in his book 'Fascism and Social Revolution' argued:

"The German working class revolution is not defeated, despite the temporary retreat of 1933 made inevitable by the whole role of Social Democracy. On the contrary, Germany is nearer to the final victory of the proletarian revolution than any other country in the world.

The fact that the German workers are going through the extremest hell of fascism is the reflection of the fact, not that their movement is more backward, but that it is rélatively more advanced and closer to the With such absurd denials of the brutal reality of the defeat of the working class Stalinist bureaucrats systematically deluded and disarmed the working class in Európe.

More particularly such lying bravado was designed to cover the openly counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism in that defeat.

For, in practice, the policy of the German CP had beenlike that of the fascists-to smash social democracy.

The Stalinists saw social democracy as an enemy because it, like the CP, had a mass base in the workers' movement. In the eyes of the Stalinists it was the SPD, not the fascists, who were seen as the main barrier to proletarian revolution.

Thus, in the infamous 'Red Referendum' in Prussia in August 1931 the German CP actually went so far as to support a Nazi-inspired attempt to remove the Social Democratic administration in Prussia, on the grounds that it was a "blow against reformism"!

The theory that social democracy was in reality 'social fascism' served effectively to wall off CP members from the policy of the united front and the social democratic workers from revolutionary politics:

The "theory" of 'social fascism' failed on the one hand to understand the impossibility of fascism co-existing with any workers' organisations-no matter how right wing-and on the other failed to provide a clear road for the mass of workers tied to • social democracy to travel together with the communist workers.

Only 'such an approach could have demonstrated in practice the bankruptcy of the SPD's reformist leaders, while at the same time defending their organisation.

The refusal to fight for a united front against fascism dealt a death blow to the workers' struggle against the violence of the Nazis.

What was crucially necessary, in the period from 1930-33, was the mass mobilisation of the working class to crush fascism on the streets.

But the theory of social fascism' and its extension, the united front from below" (i.e. that socialist workers should accept lock, stock and barrel the politics of the Communist the road to fascism.

By pronouncing "the social democracy, objectively speaking, is the moderate wing of fascism" the Comintern drove the social democratic workers back into the hands of their reformist leaders because it demanded all or nothing.

The German CP ignored the reality that if those millions of workers had been already willing to commit themselves to the 'all' ie. the proletarian revolution, they would have also already been in the CP!

As Trotsky pointed out:

"The Stalinists confine themselves to a purely psychological, or more exactly, to a purely moral evaluation of those cowardly and avaricious petty bourgeois who head the social democracy ..• The social democracy supports the bourgeois regime, not for the profits of the coal, steel and other magnates, but for the sake of those gains which it itself can obtain as a party ...' It was such gains, in the forms of social reforms, which had drawn the workers to social democracy in the period of the 1920s.

What was required, therefore on the part of the Communists, was a sympathetic understanding of the problems facing those workers who clung to reformism: on the one hand, their desire to fight fascism and drive the fascist gangs off the streets; on the other a lingering belief in the misleading politics of their treacherous reformist leaders who vaccillated and drew back from that struggle at every turn.

That the German CP and the Comintern failed in the face of such a massively explosive revolutionary situation, to win those workers to its banner was the final indictment of Stalin's counter-revolutionary gang. As Trotsky had stated:

"Should the fascists really conquer power, that would mean not only the physical destruction of the Communist Partý, but veritable political bankruptcy for it. An ignominious defeat in a struggle against bands of human rubbish would never be forgiven by the Communist International and its German section by the manymillioned German proletariat. The seizure of power by the fascists would therefore signify the necessity of creating a new revolutionary party, and in all likelihood a new 'International."

It was with such lessons in mind that, in 1938 the Trotskyist Fourth International was launched as the continuator of revolutionary Marxism. It set itself the task of combatting both the betrayals of reformist social democracy and the counter revolutionary Stalinism of the Kremlin gang. It is that tradition which the Workers Socialist League defends today.

MERSEYSIDE

FACTORY CLOSURES Fisher Bendix Leyland Dunlop Meccano -Why campaigas were lost & mhor they can be WOR A WSL Pamphlet Price 27p including postage from WSL, BM Box 5277, Londo WC1V 6XX

Scan page 6

Demonstration in support of Clay Cross stand We welcome readers' letters on any subject, up to 400 words in length. Write to us at Socialist Press, BM Box 5277, From the ultra-left call to "Force the Labour Government to Resign" two yeals ago, to a slogan of "Keep Labour in office at all costs". That is the astonishing political about-face carried through by the Workers Revolutionary The switch became clear at the recall conference last weekend convened by Lambeth Labour Group. Lambeth council leader Ted Knight told the conference that the counci had been forced to impose a supplementary rate increase because "we intend to stay in control of Lambeth" and "we will not hand over to anyone-either Heseltine, the Tories or. the bankers.' Further increase Though Knight focussed chiefly on justifying the supplementary rate increase already imposed, his arguments refer also to the question of a further huge rate increase likely this April to compensate for Tory cuts in the rate support grant.

To accept now that rate increases are an acceptable means of "buying time" and keeping control, is in effect to agree in advance to' a further major retreat in April.

Yet Knight was immediately backed up by a string of WRP speakers. They denounced those who opposed the policy of rate increases as a cut in workers' living standards.

To oppose the increases, said the WRP, is to "sabotage the good work being done in Lambeth" and invite the Tories to step in.

It was hard to believe that this was the same WRP which at the original November 1 conference had voted in fayour of the adopted policy of opposing rate and rent increases as a means of compensating for Tory cuts, and Dear Editor, I wish to reply to your comments on sexism in language as raised by my letter of 17 December 1980.

While I agree that for women to overcome the oppression they suffer under capitalism it is indeed necessary to destroy the material institutions which are responsible for that oppression, I do not agree that this necessarily precludes attempts being made now to develop consciousness and awareness of the extent to which oppression pervades even our language.

Language is not a static phenomenon but is constantly changing, developing and responding to needs.

Thus words such as 'male chauvinism' , 'sexism' ., "sexist' the use of Ms' etc are recent innovations created by the "climate' of the women's liberation movement.

Yet they are comprehensible words with clear, specific meanings.

I believe othe words too will respond to feminist consciousness. The idea that words are merely a "Teflection of institutions" suggests a crudely mechanistic idea of language which denies its active material force and has more in common with Stalinism than Marxism. seeking to supporting. defend any mobilise full-scale strike action to Labour councils or councillors who took such a At the November conference the right wing opposition to action against the cuts had come from NUPE bureaucrat Ron Keating. He declared that his union had no intention of taking action that would "make kamikaze pilots" out of his members.

Arguments Keating did not attend the recall conference last weekend. But his routine right wing arguments were echoed by the WRP speakers!

Time and again the WRP argued in defence of •rate Socialist Press would not, believe, detend racially otiensive language on the grounds that imperialism has first to be overthrown before language uses should be challenged changed. Similarly with working class struggles, the argument that nothing can be changed until everything is changed would surely not be the position of Socialist Press?

I feel your comments reflect a lack of awareness of the offensiveness of words which denigrate or exclude women and a worrying lack of concern for the deep psychological hurt inflicted on girls through their formative years by a language which by constantly presenting the male as the norm, denigrates and denies them.

I fail to comprehend your suggestion that working class women would not understand the substitution of person' for "man'. What premise makes you suppose this?

A mere substitution would not as you point out contribute much to the struggle against sexism by itself but it would if it were to form part of a heightened awareness of language usage towards the aim of women gaining their self-respect.

I would like to remind you increases, condemning every other policy as "adventurist". se ' futile "charge of the Licht Brigade" doomed to certain deleat, and even as an attempt to make "kamikaze pilots" out of the Lambeth councillors!

Veteran WRP member Bob Myers from Rolls Royce went even further along this line to capitulation. His speech horrified delegates by accepting, hook, line and sinker, the bureaucratic argument . of respecting the "viability" of the employer:

"Can you call a workforce out against speed-up when you know it could bankrupt the employer? I say no, you can't," he declared.

Not surprisingly he went on to conclude pessimistically that:

London WCIN 3XX.

that practical guidelines have been drawn up by the NUJ equality working party, McGraw Hill publishers and others.

These provide useful, fully comprehensible and sensible alternative words or phrases or suggestions of how to avoid either stereotyping or ignoring women.

I cannot believe Socialist Press would be compromising its political perspectives if it were to take these seriously, indeed it seems rather to be the very minimum your readers could expect.

Kathy Turner, *The general point made by comrade Turner is taken. But there still remain holes in the English language-one of which is a viable alternative to the word she initially objected tothe term "man' or 'mankind' to refer to the species to which we all belong. Aftermath of Kamikaze raid, "Speed-up will go on, and the working class in Lambeth are going to pay more whether you have a Labour or a Tory With "revolutionary" leadership like this, who needs reformists?

Such "realism" is the timeworn position of the right wing. Callaghan and Healey argued that they had to do unpalatable things in order to keep the Tories out; TUC leaders used the same line to justify the Social Contract.

Now Gerry Healy's WRP are saying that it is necessary to do unpalatable things, like jack up the rates-cutting workers' living standards-to keep the Tories out of Lambeth.

This is the more astounding when we remember that it was London E12 January 1981 Dear Editor, I observe that the Morning Star's account of the Lambeth conference wrongly describes the community councils resolutions as a 'Broad Left' (code name for CP) initiative. It came, of course, entirely from the WRP. The question, however, must be faced-does the CP any longer know its popular front from its backside? 1945: WRP prefer no fight at all! Alan Thornett and the founder members of the Workers Socialist League who were bureaucratically expelled from the WRP in 1974 for alleged "capitulation to social democracy"

So total is the WRP's capitulation now that the Communist Party's daily Morning Star quoted extensively from WRP speeches at the conference which fit completely with the Stalinists' search for a "peaceful road to socialism"

An ill-informed but politically perceptive Star correspondent even attributed the WRP resolutions to the Stalinist-led Broad Left; some compliment for a Trotskyist' intervention!

But in contrast to the WRP's alleged "realism" , the fact is that rate rises must be opposed not only because they transmit the Tory cuts in a different form, but also because such policies cannot keep Ted Knight and other Labour councils in office indefinitely.

The increases will reach the point where they fuel resentment against Labour, and create a backlash at the next elections that could bring the Tories to office.

The WRP now describe rate increases as "the lesser evil" But they must say when this will cease to be the case. What about when they go up again in to appear to growing numbers of workers as actually worse than the cuts. And if there must be a fight, why not now?

The WRP paper Newsline attacks Alae homet for inte struggle waged against the Heath government by the Labour councillors of Clay Cross.

The Clay Cross counciliors stood firm in defiance of Heath's Housing Finance Actbut were left isolated by trade union and Labour bureaucrats. (They were, however, correctly supported at the time by the WRP).

Thornett argued that what is needed now is not one but a number of "Clay Crosses" to lead the struggle against the Tory cuts. He strongly attacked the idea that Knight or anyone else could build a mass movement against the Tories through retreats and compromise.

But WRP members raised their hands to oppose all resolutions calling for a stand to be taken. Instead, WRP motions called for "Community Councils"-junking the WRP's previous correct call for working class councils of action.

Apart from offering a diversion from any fight within the existing organisations of the working class, the WRP's Councils have no discernible purpose. Not one of the six WRP motions offered a single policy for such "councils" to adopt.

And delegates who wondered who the "Community" might be, understood at once when one WRP speaker talked of inviting. in "small shopkeepers"

In fact, the WRP is increasingly open to big employers as well-such as the manager from Schreibers who attended the opening of the WRP's latest gimmick-a youth retraining centre in Liverpool.

Schreiber is currently making hundreds of workers edundant in the North West. But never mind. Vanessa Redgrave declared on television that Tories are welcome to the new centres. No doubt provided they are small shopkeepers members of reactionary "ratepayers" groups, Tories would be just as welcome to join "Community Councils"!

This policy was. soundly rejected by delegates at the Lambeth recall conference, however, whereas the fight to oppose rate and rent increases was carried.

It is time for WRP members to take stock of the position they are in. Their party stands committed to defending rate and rent increases and the sale of council houses.

It has emerged as an advocate of the most right wing arguments against class action.

No wonder some WRP members broke ranks last weekend and refused to vote against a struggle. They should ask where the WRP is going . . . and whether they want to go that way too.

Scan page 7

Part two in a series of articles by Ann McKinley looking at the history and political background to the fight for childcare facilities.

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

agail, and again, and again, and a fight it this lest er mis noe