British Trotskyists and the Class Struggle in World War 2

British Trotskyists and the class struggle in World War 2 By Di Parkin In every coun government, which must not stop short government." Lenin. the str conduc agitatic gle against one g an imperiali: for the defeat st of

OWI

war, that "Either the class proletarian existence struggle is a crime a safety of the father Luxembu struggle also duri jainst na land al; the wi ›nal in perative law or the cl est and of peac 1e of ass the Between 938-44 a deba itish Trotskyist movement as ionary class war was to be co ter-imperialist world war.

At issue was how the policy of revolutionary defeatism argued by Lenin and Luxemburg was to be implemented.

Just as the first inter-imperialist world war had scythed through the workers movement dividing principled inter- nationalists from the cringing collaborators and chauvinists of the Second International, so the second major struggle of world imperialism to redivide the world's spoils and markets amongst itself also acted to divide the international workers movement. War was seen as peace and the class alli for nationalist line-ups.

Whole sections of the labour elsewhere capitulated lock, stock bourgeoisie. Labour and trade un involved in coalition and collabo the Tories, the army and the ruling n the name of a so-called te to ndt took how icted place the pol during with thi icy of revol- a period of something entirely different from ances of peace time were abandoned leadership i and barrel ion leaders ration with class a w war the as in n Britain and to their own were entirely the Church, hole. 'def Page democracy the working class wa ially harnessed to the war effort, in the war munitions sector, rose.

The Labour Party in coalition with the Tories trade union leadership, operating an "industrial willingly and eagerly handed the working class ir hands of its enemy-not Hitler the fascist gangst Churchill the 'democratic' brigand. The Trotskyist Youth for Socialism put it thus: "The Labour leaders have responded to a man in asserting that the working class is ready to die for the principles proclaimed by Chamberlain as the guiding lights of British policy. Once again the labour leaders are giving the name 'National Unity' to their betrayal of the workers to the boss class war."

Bevin, as Minister of Labour, presided in the name of a war against fascism' over measures which tied the working class to the state more than any other period this century: measures of the most draconian and repressive nature such as the 'Essential Works Order' or the Transference of Labour*. Under the former the right to strike was lost, and under the latter, workers were compulsorily transferred to jobs of the government's choice. This was used as a method of victimisation and rate cutting and both measures lead to large numbers of workers being imprisoned for taking industrial action s merc whilst essly and d vrofits, part ict: tor- icularly and the truce', ito the er, but paper, Workers were also imprisoned for lateness and absenteeism and in a period of coalition government had no opportunity to express an independent class position.

Meanwhile 'His Majesty's British Communist Party.

following some of the most rapid and neck-breaking twists of policy in its snaky history took the position, following Germany's invasion of Russia, of total support for the war and were without exaggeration the most dedicated

supporters of rate-cutting, strike breaking and raising the rate of exploitation in the interest of the 'democratic brigand. Through their control of Joint Production Com- mittees they sacrificed everything for increased production.

[See Socialist Press number 29 for an article on wartime Joint Production Committees and the Communist Party's role in them]. In International of Spring 197 the international Marxist Group reprints an article by Brian Pearce which looks at this period of our history. It clearly distinguishes between the treacherous class collaboration of the Comm- unist Party in this period and the principled position of revolutionary internationalism and defeatism being argued by the Trotskyist movement.

Pearce, however, presents the history a little too pat firstly he writes as if the "Marxists" were a unified bo with one policy and he also entirely ignores some of t problems in the policy of the group he does write abou the Workers International League.

In 1938 the British Trotskyist movement was divided into two major sections. Several groups had just merged to form the Revolutionary Socialist League (RSL) around Harber and C. L.R. James, the West Indian cricketer.

This group was the recognised British Section of the Fourth International, (and it is to this group which Pearce gives no mention!). The one group which remained outside this unification was the larger Workers International League (WIL), who published the paper Youth for Socialism, (later Socialist Appeal). In the leadership were Ted Grant and Jock Haston and other leading cadres included Sid Bidwell (now a Tribunite MP) and Gerry Healy (now leader of the Workers Revolutionary Party).

The two groups differed principally on the question of entrism into the Labour Party and on their attitude towards the war; they were to fuse (basically on the WIL's positions) to form the Revolutionary Communist Party in 1944. The RSL argued a view on the war which, whilst very clearly and intransigently defeatist and having not the least truck with any chauvinism on the part of the masses, veered near to a position of having no truck with the masses at all, to an abandonment of the Transitional Programme and an ultimatist wishing things were other than they were' position.

The WIL did not stray in sectarian fashion away from the masses and was able to build a sizable base in the working class. The WIL was seen as the group which took up struggle on the industrial and political front as well as in the army. But it was not sufficiently firm on the question of the seizure of state power. Seeing the Transitional Programme as a bridge to the socialist revol- ution, both objectively in the fight for its demands and subjectively in the development of working class conscious- ness and the proletarian military policy as the wartime form of that programme, they failed to stress adequately that proceedina across that bridge was not a simple stroll on a Sunday break w relations In e the WIL with the The 1914 of blu afternoon but required a radical ith what had gone before-a total of production and of the state.

and cha definitive nge in the xamining the policies of firstly the RSL these clear strengths and weaknesses and two positions should become clear.

RSL position can be seen as following in much more orthodox fashion. The that the task was not to defend one and then problems nin's line SL stated nperialist Page against another; but to fight for the system which causes war. The RSL's

TURN THE IMPERIALIST WA

reas the WIL argued:

TURN THE IMPER

ONARY WAR

In their

ALIST

Fight overth slogan

R INTI

row of was:

) A CI

"We in Britain, workers and comrades, have our war to fight. True it is a war against Hitler and the German fascists and the German ruling class. But the front line trenches opposed to us are manned not by the German ruling class but by ... the whole exploit- ing gang of British capitalist thieves and robbers whose weight we have born on our backs all these years. It is by fighting them and never relaxing in that fight that we do the best service to the British working class, the German working class and humanity as a whole."

But by 1943 the RSL had entirely abandoned any 1y fight against the German bourgeoisie: "It is impossible for the proletariat to strike a blow in war time at the enemy bourgeoisie without striking at the proletariat of the enemy country and thus aiding its own bourgeoisie."

Thus they would have no truck with any Ived British workers in a battle with Hitler: "A revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot but desire the defeat of its own government. The main enemy is at home. Every blow struck by the workers against British imperialism weakens its military strength and every military defeat weakens its power of resisting the workers' onslaught. Thus all military defeats of British imperialism are desired by revolution- ary workers. Thus a military defeat resulting from the growth of the revolutionary movement is infinitely more beneficial to the proletariat and to the whole people than military victory assured by civil peace."

This policy was in a perverse way nationalist; it involved the German working class and the allied working class wanting different and opposite military solutions to the war, rather than fighting on a common international position. Even fraternization with German soldiers was seen as only a weapon against the British bourgeoisie. This policy bears resemblances to the one criticised by Trotsky in 'Learn to Think', , August 1938.

"An irreconcilable attitude against bourgeois militarism does not signify at all that the proletariat in all cases enters into a struggle against its own "national" army. At least the workers would not interfere with soldiers who are extinguishing a fire or rescuing drowning people from a flood; on the contrary, they would help side by side with the soldiers and fraternize with them. And the question is not exhausted merely by cases of elemental calamities. If the French fascists should make an attempt today at a coup d'etat and the Daladier government found itself forced to move troops against the fascists, the revol- utionary workers while maintaining their complete political independence, would fight against the fascists alongside of these troops. Thus in a number of cases the workers are forced not only to permit and tolerate, but actively to support the practical measures of the bourgeois government. In ninety cases out of actually place a minus sign places a plus sign. In ten cases policy which a hundred the workers where the bourgeoisie however they are forced

to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bour- geoisie bearing only the opposite sign-this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolution ary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to e interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as uch to the war period as to the period of peace."

The RSL, however, not taking note of int-that a continuation o enin defeatism did not imply epet ›rt i thi "ten cases" wuh the da: he surgi oisie t th od 1a onary iddns affixe irkers. An d pre Trotsky s of revil- give ç to protection for workers, pointing out the better provision An example of such a case is the demand for greater air Ni For the RSL however to demand better aid raid xal ne: de c ins. WO are:

ISL

in middle class areas compared with the badly hit East End.

ell protection was to take an offensive against the German oter mic 10 las: working class. the 1 wa lass. "Any ment for constitutes or proseci imperialist ution." Did memt nationalist ntarily she ty of p its most e RSL : tional ist cle th fem ive the ure: ›rot iteg of take tion par of bl ral the the riali or im

CIV

he alist

I PO

tion We crali of Ipe imperialist war with the call for the Socialist Revol- an Itior wal the internationalist conscience stay outside during air raids.

voluntarily shelter in inadequate shelters? Here we have the Did members of the RSL heroically and with great it absurdity of putting a minus where the bourgeoisie puts a sers «f const Iter in utting extrei diff ind volu absu plus ItS elte

LATI

ne Inte out whe WOt WIl out most clearly in the period after the 1940 fall of France when these groups were arguing for the arming of the th International and SWP positions on the war was to come The RSL difference with the WIL and with the Fourth Th na irenc d/VIS workers. First it is necessary to examine the basis of the

FOI

) the s ner proli vas a nontl loped 1940, only one month after Trotsky's assassination and undoubtedly developed in discussion with him, drawing on his discussions and conversations particularly on conscrip- This policy was adopted by the SWP in September I0 thi ine dev. is at idly

SSIO!

In ver

ISSI

SU tion and attacking pacifism.

ind ian uldi tand uc and I Enu:

OUT

militarism and permanen das chall *Confronted with these facts of universal t wat utionary party do? Shall we stand aside and simply say lat JE vers. the revo simply say air? No we this whole viduals can and enslave in. Equally you have enough to long as go too. me as utionary party ina dan's anvad

IDIO IAN

with tha s var int raff cannot do inat. ve ao nos approve system of exploitation whereby private take possession of the means of product cannot do that. We do not approve of this whole UI indi ion: the masses. we are against it but don tabstd with war. We say: 'Very well Mr Capitalist decided it is so and we were not strong prevent it. Your war is not our war, but so mass of the proletariat goes with it, we will will raise our own independent program army in the military orces, in the ame way it the factory'" in we lane. were t programme Thus I rotsk, arg "We cannot escape fi inside the machine we can American workers do not Hitlor and to those who olu the ine arn the serve nt to Let sply • The ers army, ament, etc ter future is to pene militarization but the class line. The be conquered by us have a peace 'But Hitler does refore we say: We with workers' . If we are not and if we are trate-into the rker will ogramme ith a work ers' goverı for a bet our sb ne." Amer Trotsky urged that his comrades should be "the best , as they have to be the best workers and even called them "proletarian revolutionary militarists' stressing wa sav programme the wo not want a peace pi will defend the US w officers, with a work pacifists, wi wait active revolu nists, wholi lilitar nach (American Problems, August 1940) OU STi he id (ot Bel ar res: great The reason for this was that Trotsky, understanding the hostility of the masses towards Hitler, wanted to turn that hostility against the native capitalist state and did not merely stand aside in sectarian fashion proclaiming: You should not feel like this.

"to Trotsky's policy. Programme itself, started from where the workers were: the Transitional this: 1 am a socialist and you are a patriot. Good. We "For instance in the trade union we can argue like 83790 28032 will discuss the differences between us. But we should iki sult len agree that the workers be trained at government expense to become military experts."

vil disc •th nse ua 11 141 From that Cannon argued that the workers "require a program of military struggle against the foreign invaders which ensures their class independence." Cannon and the 1 revolutionary war, under their own leadership.

InT WIL argued that they were prepared to fight Hitler in a One of the 12 points of the programme of the WIL was therefore trade union control of military training of the demand for the arming of the workers, along with a demand to break the industrial truce and the coalition.

socialist programme against the British ruling class and the The demand for the arming of the workers started he ker th 19 from the position of the masses, their hostility to Hitler and their desire to resist invasion. The WIL saw that this hostility had some class content, an interest in defending workers' own organisations and democratic gains, but the The fall of France was a significant turning point. For the RSL it was the point where the WIL began to RSL believed it to be entirely chauvinist.

accomodate to chauvinism and defencism. The two groups disputed the causes of the fall of France. The RSL said it was because the workers had not wished to fight on the side of gangster France against brigand Germany and had said "a The WIL explained the defeat by pointing out that the French ruling class had not been committed to a fight against fascism, had been quite happy to collaborate and Evidence from bourgeois commentators supports the plague on both your houses".

had refused to lead a fight or to arm the workers of France.

thi implementit om the way revolutionarie por ope efus Mili def the rlel Page 29 War when revolutionaries had refused to fight. Now revol- ren wil Lavi to fight, rather than the French workers.

"Up to the last there were men like Weygand who feared above everything a popular rising organised by IA1. ast ryt 10 who d by

the Communists. Rather than that they were prepared to accept the German terms; even when France was on the point of being defeated the police were still actively rounding up Communists and communist sympathisers, whereas for the last year there had been little attempt to round up fascist sympathizers."

(What Happened to France?, Gordon Wate Making this assessment the WIL argued: "The ruling class of France completely incapable of offering resistance to the Nazi legions. Franc by the capitalists. How will in be workers must be armed.' But in the view of the tulation to chauvinism. "Nowhere is there any sugges the interests of the working cla after the resources of the country control of the workers, and that place the workers have no i defence." a propaganda exercise again yet on the other it blurred re of the class relations of of society as a whole. "If capitalists were genuinely interested in increased production they would hand over to the workers. The Labour Party and Communist Party have capitulated completely to Churchill and finance capital. For workers control to ensure decent conditions. For workers control to ensure maximum production." Yet this distorts the purpose of workers control of particular enterprises under a capitalist state. Workers control is intended to protect and defend the working class-not to line pockets of the owners of super-efficient enterprises. The WIL, however, went so far as to give uncritical support to the case of the Nottingham engineer- ing factory where the shop stewards committee had control over earnings and conditions and where production rose.

To applaud increased production for private profit in the interests of imperialist war-whether or not that production is under the 'control' of the workers-is a dangerous step towards defencism.

A distinction needs to be made between production of tanks, guns and supplies for defence of a workers state (the Soviet Union) and production for a state which like Britain was enslaving not only British workers but whole nations of colonial masses. There is no need here to go into complex questions on the position of workers in capitalist allies of the workers state. The first priority in any case is that the defence of the interests of the workers state can only be achieved through resolute defence of the political independence of the workers movement in every country.

Trotsky argued in "Learn to Think" that this might even mean that in the name of internationalism and long term independence workers might need to continue producing arms for a workers state or a rebellious cause, even if this meant producing under the control of the capitalists at that moment or even breaking a strike in order to do so. was and natu part t capitalist waste and chaos he question of the essential the particular factory, as a Brita showed itself any effective se was betrayed defended? The tion that it is only in ss to resist invasion have come under the until this has taken nterest in national Slogans such as officers under trade RSL only appropri class antagonism'. Arguing for them at other mes, they said, was in fact reactionary. They also argued that to call for workers' control of production at this period was reactionary.

In the positions of the RSL in their undialectical and rigid attempt to force reality into fixed categories, there wa was considerable flight from reality-a refusal to face the question of how workers were to be broken from their defencist positions, how their hostility to Hitler was to be turned to a hostility to all that Hitler represented, including, in its different form, bourgeois democracy. The RSL turned away from the method of the Transitional Programme as revealed in the following statement: "The Transitional Programme consists of a series of partial demands to be fought for by our movements under appropriate conditions and designed to lead up to the conquest of power. It is the task of our International to select such of these partial demands (Harber, RSL Internal Bulletin, 'Arm the Workers or Election o union control were according ate 'under conditions of shar f army to the pening "Even if a general maritime strike broke out (in fascist Italy) at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favour of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt; otherwise they would be no more than wretched trade unionists-not proletarian revolutionists."

Yet this of course in no way justifies the handing over the workers movement to the capitalist allies of the kers state. Nor does it justify increased production, for profit and political ends of the capitalists even under as are applicable to a given section at was never intended that all should immediately necessary." (Harber in RSL Internal Bulletin, Summer 194 This was the rock the RSL foundered on, keeping the from the kind of healthy relationship with the worki class held by the WIL. Nonetheless, the RSL avoided the opposite opportunism in a way that the WIL did not.

a given time. be regarded It as of WOt the workers control. Connecting with the feeling and experience of the masses, it is also necessary to wage a fight with them. The RSL were unable to do the former and the WIL failed in the latter task. The RSL attempted to repeat the slogans of 1914-18 and failed to have a 'programme for war", standing on the sidelines in sectarian fashion.

The WIL, however, even while engaging in a living daily struggle in the working class, leading and supporting strikes, and even while its leaders were being imprisoned for doing so, failed sharply enough to argue against the war.

It is not possible to award points or prizes for positions taken in history. It is necessary to draw the lessons of method involved, of the need to pose demands adequate to the objective situation that are able to connect with the existing consciousness of the working class without succumbing or adapting to backward elements Page 30 On one major issue the WIL failed sufficiently to take issue with the nationalist, defencist side to the feeling of the masses. This was the question of increased production.

The demand for this by the bourgeoisie was one of its chief weapons against the working class.

In the name of increased production, conditions, health and all established standards sacrificed. The Communist Party spearheaded applauded every drive to attack the rates and conditio work through Joint Production Committees The WIL opposed these committees.

notion that under the control of the Id or should be increased production.

Yet the WIL did argue that production eased 'under workers control". On the one h the coU wages, were and ns of They capital opposed ists there Id

TIS

Left in the Limelight In this regular together material nationally, to m views they may savoured anew. 1 for this feature fea fro ake vell Ve wit tu re in 'Trotskyism Today' we aim to bring a wide range of sources on the left inter- available to our readers information and otherwise miss, or which we feel should be invite readers to submit suggested material h or without their own comments.

De Ann pointed out that the opposition against the amendment was the same argument that was used by those against the 8 hour day.