Mg: Why We Have Resigned

Scan page 5

IMG National Secretary Pennington with Tariq Ali. unionism. means the of the worl demonstration, Russia 191 • and trade unionism ideological enslavement cers by the bourgeoisie".

The final blow, however, that discredited the 'economists was dealt in the practice of the movement: In the city oi Rostov, November 1902, a powerful political movement arose out of what was initially an economic grievance. Meetings lasting several days attracted over 40,000 people whom the police were unable to disperse.

At the head of the movement were two Rostove workers, also Iskra comrades, called Stravsky and Gusey.

• The demonstrators took up the arguments of Iskra and many workers were brought forward and trained for leadership in the future revolution. his movement had nothing in common with the subordinate role the economists' had assigned for the working class.

An organisation was formed around Iskra composed of some 150 revolutionaries, A committee was formed which had the task of drafting programme and convening an All-Russian party congress. This draft, written mostly by Lenin and Plekhanov was prepared in time for the congress but the major disputes centred around the party rules for membership.

This seemingly unimportant dispute would appear to be about words but it had very important political consequences.

The Menshevik position, argued by Martov, allowed anyone to call himself a party member. As a result anyone? including middle class academics, could declare themselves as party members. Lenin fought this position relentlessly, challenging Martov's argument:

" 'The more widespread the Title of Party member, the better,' argued Martoy, without, however, explaining the benefit of a widespread title which did not correspond to fact. Can it be denied that control over Party members who do not belong to a farty organisation is a mere fiction? A widespread fiction is not beneficial but harmful"

Lurking behind this disagreement about organisation, lay tow very different political trends. The Bolsheviks sought to preserve a tight, disciplined, and Icentralised party which would (enable the working class to lead the struggle seize state By dissolving the party into ter mass, the Mensheviks were creating not a vanguard party, but a party of the rearguard, following the tail of the masses and therefore prey to the dominance of other classes, like the liberal bourgeoisie. Lenin showed this clearly when he opposed Martov's proposal that Martor "every striker" could "proclaim himself a Party member":

"In this statement Cde Martov instantly carries his mistake to the point of absurdity, by lowering Social Democracy to the level of mere strike-making ... We could only rejoice if the Social-Democrats succeeded in directing every strike, for it is their plain and unquestionable duty to direct every manifestation of the class struggle. •.. But we should be tail-enders if we were to identily this primary form of struggle, which ... is no more than a trade unionist form, with the al-round and conscious Social-Democratic struggle".

OPPORTUNISM At each stage in the development of the Russian party, opportunism sought to dissolve the proletarian character of the movement. Although the Second Congress of Russian Social Democracy ended in a split, and its forces halved, it was the faction fight waged by Lenin which defended the political and organisational independence of the party against the Mensheviks.

The leading role of the working class, the political and organisational independence of the party, are inseparable: a weakening in one of these spheres results, as the reactionary history of Menshevism demonstrates, in the abandonment of three principles.

Through sometimes complex factional strife and conflict, the essential weapon of working class revolution was being forged, a party steeled in principle.

The world wide offensive of the working class puts to the test all those organisations which claim to be revolutionary'. The central tasks which face the working class in carrying through this offensive to the end, to the revolutionary seizure of power, is blocked in the main not by the strength of the capitalist class, but by the feebleness of the counter revolutionary labour bureaucracy, both Stalinist and social democratic.

Every revolutionary organisation has to be able to put forward a programme which can combine the taking forward of the struggle against capitalism and at the same time resolve the crisis of leadership through the building of the revolutionary party.

In Portugal the revolution has been put in danger precisely because the Stalinists and Socialist Party refuse to break from the bourgeois Armed Forces Movement and lead independent action of the working class. In Spain the Stalinists offer "national reconciliation" to the bourgeoisie, In Italy they plead for a "historical compromise" with the bosses, and in Britain it is the Labour government ably aided by all sections of the Trade Union bureaucracy which leads the attack on the working class.

The role of these Stalinists and labour fakers is their desperate attempt to demobilise the offensive of the working class which poses a threat not only to capitalism but to these bureaucrats as well.

The task of the Trotskyist movement is to outline and to take into practice the correct methods tor engaging in all the struggles of the working class and challenging for revolutionary leadership which can take forward the fight for workers power and socialism.

The IMG is now preparing for its 1976 Conference through opening a discussion on a "Draft Statement of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International" - The British Crisis and the Way Out for the Working Class.

This document, far from drawing a correct and honest balance sheet of the line of the IMG and the USFI, in effect confirms the present liquidationist and opportunist positions of the John Ross leadership.

In Portugal the USFI group, the Liga Communista Internationalista (LCI) signed the pact for the Popular Front, and gave their support to a bourgeois government. Ernest Mandel, secretary of the attempted to evade responsibilty for such a state of affairs, yet in the document drafted for Britain, far from learning from the experiences of being used as a pawn by the Stalinists in their bureaucratic manoeuvres, he offers the same services to the reformist Labour Party in Britain.

This takes the form of subjecting the struggles of the working class to the manipulations of the Labour Party bureaucracy and particularly of the 'lefts'. . Mandel explains it's vital to remove the Wilson leadership and says that in the next 12-18 months "the only credible alternative to Wilson is an alternative policy, programme and leadership inside the Labour Party" • (page B, emphasis added). Anything else, he says, would be "unrealistic"

He informs workers that "the emergence of such an alternative leadership is necessary precondition, for a generalised successful defence and counter-attack" (emphasis added). So the "realist' Mandel informs the thousands of workers who have taken action against the policies of the Labour government that their struggles will only be successful if Benn, and the other 'left" bureaucrats replace Wilson.

This falls into line with the positions that have been developed by comrade Clynes in his 'Perspectives' document that appeared at the National Committee meetings in September and November. This document spells out the nature of the "class struggle left wing" that it is claimed is going to resolve the crisis of SPELT OUT the Commune later and and The Red Weekly has spelt out the Communist Party and Tribune group, as well as militant workers bodies such as the National Abortion Canpaign and the Institute for Workers Control, and also 'left' groups. Clynes says: "in the last analysis, the project of the class struggle left wing signifies the struggle for leadership by the revolutionary Marxist vanguard. But in the process broader forces will contribute to the building of the class struggle left wing" (Clynes - "Perspectives,_ P 10 Internal Information Bulletin, undated but probably October 1975).

In short, Mandel and Clynes propose to evade the burning question of the hour, the building of an alternative, revolutionary leadership. For the time being they meekly stand aside for the 'lefts" of the Tribune group.

PABLOITE

Such positions are the direct outcome of the Pabloite heritage which has always 'projected' other forces than Trotskyists to resolve the crisis of leadership just for the moment'. These people have been saying the same thing for over twenty years!

The correct course, the application in practice of the method of the Transitional rejected Pretenme has been majority has been leadership of the IMG.

In place of a clear fight for a programme which bases itself on the independent mobilisation of the working class, they counterpose the "Action Programme" which Clynes has described as a series of "centralised State measures"

Thus all the talk about transitional demands in the Red Weekly is merely propaganda, and is not based on a struggle in the unions for the workers control demands of Trotsky's programme -the sliding scale of wages, Open the Books, work sharing without loss of pay. None of these demands can be achieved just by resolution-passing or articles in organisational put forward impose them.

John Strawson. Mark Hyde.

Dave Rafferty.

In addition, on Jant further comrades res positions. These are: Maureen Hector. Joyce Cleaver.

Martin McClean, newspe pers; definite metho is ha e to be which can actually WHICH CLASS?

Each of these demands poses the question of which class will rule. But for the IMG and Ernest Mandel such questions are only for the "transitional programme in its totality" not for the action programme! We are told "the idea of generalised workers control over the whole economy, of workers councils • • • of challenging bourgeois state institutions" (page E VIII of USFI document) is to be kept back for propaganda only.

Thus for the IMG the 'Action Programme' , far from being a series of transitional demands, is merely souped-up reformism.

At the beginning of December, the Second Conference of the Trotskyist Opposition of the IMG took place, at which there was unanimity that the workers Socialist League represented major gain for the working class.

Whereas the IMG liquidated itself into propaganda blocs such as the TOM and the NAC, the WSL fought openly in the unions for the transitional programme. Whereas the IMG continually complained of the unfavourable balance of forces between the revolutionaries and the reformists, the WSL understood Trotsky's advice to the French Communist League in the 1930s:

"The relationship of forces has to be changed, not concealed. It is necessary to go to the masses" (Writings 1934-5).

We therefore decided to resign from the IMG in order to take part in the building: of the Workers Socialist League, knowing that in that practice we would contribute more to the understanding of the IMG membership of the Transitional Programme, than all the documents the IMG Pre-Conference discussion.

We appeal to all members of the IMG and especially to remaining supporters of the Trotskyist Opposition to join the real struggle against those like Mandel, Ross and Clynes who tie the working class to the manoeuvres of the "left' bureaucracy, in front of the working class, in the actual practice of the struggle for leadership in the mass movement.

For the Workers Socialist League! For the Fourth International!

Scan page 6

SOCIALIST PR lednesda • Jnuay 14th, 19; ESS,

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

ROSTOV EVENTS 1902

BOLSHE OR MENSHEVISM NSH