Forty Years On: A Look at the Practice of the US SWP

Forty years on: a look at the practice of the US SWP

KEI

last and last year to look a little closer at that Party's current 'turn' into the trade unions, is b TH WHITE uses the occ: year to look a little close the programme on whic sion of the r at that Pa i this turn' han 5 Cul ased niversary of the American SWP rent "turn' into the trade unions Founded 40 years ago in 1938 and with its paper The Militant celebrating its 50th anniversary, the American Socialist Workers Party is one of the most important organisations calling itself Trotskyist in the world today.

Despite being prevented through reactionary US legislation since 1940, from being actually affiliated to any international movement, it has retained a great authority amongst those calling themselves Trotskyists and has been at the centre of most of the important developments within the Trotskyist movement internationally.

Thus in 1953 it was the SWP which took the initiative of issuing the "Open Letter to Trotskyists" which provided a rallying point for those working to defend 'orthodox' Trotskyism against the revisionism of Michel Pablo and his side-kick Ernest Mandel. It was, however, also the SWP w of the International Committee back with the Pabloites in 1963.

Unable to probe the real roots of the post-war crisis of Trotskyism and return to the method of the Transitional Programme, the SWP steadily capitulated to the Pabloites.

With the emergence of the Cuban revolution the SWP was in the forefront of hailing Castro as an 'unconscious Trot- skyist' and capitulation to his petty-h surgeois nationalism.

Even today the SWP laud Castro's counter-revolutionary role in Africa as "a decisiveness and revolutionary courage that we haven't seen since the early days of the Bolshevik revolution". (Militant 15.9.78) The 1963 "reunification" was cemented with a year moratorium which outlawed discussion on any of questions which had split the world movement in 1953.

This cement however did not prevent the issues f raising their heads within the newly formed 'Un Secretariat of the Fourth International' and, by 1969, hich into led the majority political alliance ten the rom ited the Page

SWP

fare was n La in tin a minority America. the ion The positions hardened nd the SWP formed the Leninist Trotskyist Faction in the build-up to the 1974 USFI World Congress. This time the minority position received only a handful fewer votes than Mandel's majority.

Time, and the logic of the majority's lunatic positons on Latin America have substantially changed the balance of forces within the USFI. Today the SWP can claim that its ideas are now dominant within that formation.

The SWP is no longer regarded as the "defender of reformism" within the USFI but is surprisingly seen as the "mature defender of orthodoxy", the organisation which has been "correct all along" on the disastrous guerrillaism of Mandel, Maitan and Frank. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. In the IMG, British Section of the USFI, supporters have emerged, from years of isolati longer the objects of undisguised contempt integrated than ever-and more influential.

the on, but SWP's as no more The purpose of this article is not, therefore, an academic examination of the history of the SWP. It is the beginning of an attempt to examine the politics of one of the most important organisations in the world. If the SW had fought a battle to defend orthodoxy against Mandel then the present dominance of the SWP would have served as a massive step forward for the Fourth International, the world movement with the task of resolving the crisis of proletarian leadership. Elsewhere (Trotskyism Today

the role of the SWP in the faction fights which have wracked the world movement over the last 30 years. In our document "The Poisened Well" we outline the continued refusal of the SWP to return to the real issues posed before us today-the application of the method of the transitional programme, as contrasted with the method of pabloism.

In this article we will deepen our critique of the practice of the SWP, which was begun in our brief analysis of the US Miners' strike published earlier this year in Socialist Press (Nos 113&114).

Our contention is that the SWP's "orthodoxy" is a sham. For the SWP has abandoned the task of providing revolutionary leadership and replaced this with an opportunist relationship with the trade union bureaucracy.

This opportunism was clearly displayed throughout the miners strike and a recent turn by the SWP will no doubt provide us with many other examples in the future.

The September 15th 1978 issue of The Militant carries an article by Jack Barnes (who we understand is now no longer referred to by Mandel's supporters as "the one- armed bandit") entitled "For a Fighting Democratic Labor Movement". Referring to the recently adopted USF "The World Political Situation and the Tasks o International" Barnes says: "The resolution states that new and unprecedented opportunities have opened up for winning industrial workers to the sections of the Fourth International..

To take advantage of this situation and meet this challenge, special efforts are necessary, including the mobilisation of members won previously among other social layers. The resolution points out that these comrades have not yet become part of the industrial working class and its unions and that they should do so without further delay. What is needed is a conscious decision to carry through a complete reorientation of the jobs, political activity and lives of thousands and thousands of comrades". I resolution f the Fourth (Our emphasis) Barnes is "Simply into industry itself the solt workers. party, nothi clear that: sending the majority o and into the industrial u tion to building a mass r (but a ) tactic to facil more". f ou nion evoli itate present cadres is not in and of ionary party of building such a n principle there is nothing wrong in adopting a tactic such as this. We in the WSL do not think, however, that such a turn is necessary in order to train non-industrial cadres as Bolsheviks. The key emphasis should be placed on the correct method of approach to the winning and training of new cadres drawn from the industrial working class. The most important question is what you do when you have forces in the industrial unions!

The mass of SWP members are outside the industrial unions for a very good reason-the SWP for decades aban- doned a working class orientation in favour of a central emphasis on the radicalising petty-bourgeois milieu on the campuses. In the anti-war movement and the struggle against womens oppression the orientation was to the middle class. And in these struggles as in their approach to the question of womens rights, black Chicano oppression, the SWP adapted its programme to avoid the slightest conflict with the forces among whom it was working.

We are preparing a detailed critique of the SWP's activity within the movement But in relation to nationalism can make some brief points.

The current SWP edition of the transitional programme includes "a programme for black liberation". The programme correctly points to the fact that a prerequisite for the liberation of blacks is socialist revolution. However a key point made by the SWP in the programme is the need not for a cross-race proletarian revolutionary party but for a Black Party! against the and womens Vietnam oppressio war. n we The SWP's view that Castro's consistent nationalism amounted to Trotskyism has been transferred to black nationalism. As a result the SWP's whole emphasis on black liberation has been to fight for democratic demands, centred around the inoperable slogan of "self- determination", topped off with a call for a black party.

In the busing struggle for example the SWP limited its intervention to being simply the best builders of support for that struggle. There was no attempt to put forward alongside the busing call a socialist programme which answered the real problem: the need for expanded educa- tion facilities for all, black and white.

Much of the SWP's activity over been around the petty-bourgeois movement. In Britain the SWP's supporters in the IMG and the League for Socialist Action have been at the head of those who have argued for restricting the abortion rights move- ment to a "single-issue campaign". Attempts to link this struggle directly to a struggle against the cuts in the health services are regarded as "sectarian" by these people.

In the USA, too, the SWP has seen itself as organiser of the single issue democratic demand movements.

At present this means broad-based campaigns uncritically supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. When the SWP "turns to the unions" it is simply finding another arena for this same wretched programme. Little emphasis is placed on the ways in which the emergence of struggles by women workers begin to pose confrontation with their oppression. Women in short, are approached simply as women and not as part of the working class as a whole, with a vital role to play in every aspect of its struggles.

the past decade has women's liberation The attitude of the SWP to the struggle to defend jobs and living standards parallels the opportunist attitude to black nationalism and feminism. But in this case the adapta- tion is to the trade union bureaucrats-and not only those of the left talking kind.

The WL has from the first issue of Socialist Press subjected the trade union and labour bureaucrats to merciless attention and criticism. Throughout our history we have sought to bring to the attention of the workers all the twists and turns, the lies and tricks these people practise in their daily betrayal of our class.

Why do we do this? Is it because we are bitter side- line sectarians who believe that simple denunciations and insults are enought to destroy these traitors? No. It is because the building of a revolutionary party depends on the training of workers in an understanding of the role of those people. But more than an understanding is required. Those who come forward to form the core of the revolutionary party must be able to confront and defeat the present trade union and labour leaders in the nitty gritty of the class struggle. They must be trained to fight for the removal of the traitors and their replacement.

Page 23

Barnes' article has next to nothing to say about the trade union leaders other then general truths about their inadequacy. Nowhere will you find even an example of the shifts and manoeuvres these people get up to. Now Barnes could argue that his article was not necessarily the place for analysis. But the fact of the matter is-as we shall see below-that such material as this never features prominently in the pages of Militant.

The WS does not in any way restrict itself to the propaganda work of literary and verbal denunciations.

Alongside this necessary part of mobilising workers against the present leaders goes the physical mobilisation of workers in struggle. In countless instances the WL has led workers in struggle around partial and transitional demands.

We present our programme in neither an opportunist nor a sectarian fashion and within the WL we have fought both these tendencies. A central part of our fight to expose and ultimately remove the misleaders of our class is the tactic of placing demands upon them. Where they take up a partial struggle we support them wholeheartedly and ask them to go further. When they refuse to wage any real struggle, they stand exposed in the face of their supporters.

In his article, quoted above, Barnes lays out the SWP's approach: "We should always remember, when our strategy inside the labour movement three different audiences.

One we talk to the working class as a whole. We have to explain to workers 'You must govern. You must govern this country. Because those who currently govern it are your enemies and are running everything into the ground.

You must form a workers' government'. Thats the goal of the working class as a whole.

Two we talk to the labour movement, a smaller but organised and more conscious audience. We say some additional things to the labour movement. It must defend itself against the attacks that are coming. To do this the labour movement must be transformed. It must become a social movement using union power to fight for its own interests and for the interests of all the exploited and oppressed. It must end its collaboration with the enemy class, which has nothing in store for it but attacks, or it cannot repel the attacks.

Thirdly, we talk to radical minded workers, the radical- minded individuals, those who consider themselves socialists or political radicals. To them we explain over and over again that the key to everything is to build a revo- lutionary socialist party that can organise and lead to a successful conclusion the massive class.

This is where our fight to build a class struggle left- wing of the labour movement comes in. This orientation is stressed in the world political resolution and is key to our work in many countries. It is certainly key for us...

A class struggle left-wing will be much, much bigger than the SWP, its friends and those who work with us. It will be a mass formation of those who more and more will be ready to use class-struggle methods instead of relying on the class collaborationism ul the bureaucracy. It must be an organised formation but around a class-struggle programme..• Today millions of workers are beginning to look for a perspective, for a program into this, even if they haven't yet thought it out. We begin to see such workers in the supporters of the Steelworkers fight back campaign, in the long strike on the Mesabi Iron Range, in the coal miners strike •. Our job is to give a program and a perspective to these millions of workers looking for a new, militant we think about that we talk to Page union movement. lutionary leaders of We the want to Teamsters emulate what did in the mid (Our the revo- 1930s. emphasis The SWP had the chance in the US miners' strike to prove its revolutionary credentials. It failed. But in failing, it also gave an insight into the real content of Barnes' concept of a so-called "class struggle left wing", which is, in essence, little different from the notorious old Pablo/ Mandel notion of a "new mass vanguard".

Throughout the miners' strike the SWP newspaper The Militant gave extensive coverage offering a detailed picture of the strategy and tactics that party pursued.

A study of their record in the strike shows that SWP was totally incapable of posing the real issues giving the necessary revolutionary line for the UMWA.

The tone for the SWP's intervention into the strike was set by the December 16 issue headline "Support Coal Miners Strike". Between then and the end of the dispute, the central theme of the SWP was 'solidarity'. Despite the fact that many thousands of words were written giving he details of the attack on the UMWA and battles being fought out by the miners, The Militant appeared throughout as a paper giving no more than a commentary from a socialist view- point. be sure the SWP were not passive in the face of strike. It is clear that the membership acted in line with February 22 Political Committee statement which gave SWP's top priorities as follows: *To expose the lies and divisive tactics of the corporations. *To help mobilise the broadest possible support miners. *To draw the lessons of this battle for working people.

Within the strike itself the SWP at least in words stressed the centrality of the gains in union democracy coming from the 1972 victory of Miller's Miners for Demo- cracy and the need to extend these gains, to direct them towards class independence, defence of conditions and, from time to time, talked of the need for a Labor Party.

In practice, however, the SWP concentrated on the support element in the strike-setting up support commit- tees, organising rallies and collecting money. The sharp political edge in the struggle--that between the rank and file miners and the Miller leadership-was reported in general terms. In no way did the SWP emphasise the treacherous role of Miller or find ways of developing the struggle against him. A diligent search of the pages of The Militant during the 110-day strike reveals a consistent avoidance of the question of blacking action by supporters of the strike.

Nowhere did the SWP argue for this demand. This is shown starkly in one article, 'Why the mine workers need a Labor Party" (Militant, 3 March 1978) where the SWP declared: "Labor Party representatives in state legislatures would ... vote measures to move scab coal."

But in the same issue of the paper, in an article entitled "How not to support the strike", the SWP makes no call to campaign for the blacking demand and gives the impression of opposition. Attacking the sectarian says: the and the the the Congress and in the against any and all Spartacist League, the another

Trotskyist pretensions 'supports' the miners by introducing union resolutions calling on workers to hot cargo' (boycott) scab coal and demand that the steelworkers immediately go out on strike too".

The author, Shelley Kramer, goes on to attack the idea that sympathy strikes are the central focus for solidarity, putting forward, as an alternative, "support activities that can make headway". But conspicuously absent from the SWP's suggested list is any mention of blacking scab coal.

We can only conclude that the SWP did not regard the fight for blacking to be central to the miners' strike. Yet in this strike the production and shipment of scab coal was an important weapon in the hands of the employers. Further evidence of the SWP's solidarity actions can be seen within the San Francisco Miners Strike Labor-Community Support Coalition'. Despite the fact that a resolution was passed calling for blacking of coal shipments within the area and the SWP did not oppose this resolution, the publicly issued leaflets of the Coalition did not mention this important demand.

And the SWP voted against resolutions from locals in the San Francisco area for sympathy stri support of the miners. union kes in Socialist Press called for the preparation of a general strike if Carter implemented the anti-union Taft-Hartley legislation against the miners. The SWP, however, again restricted its call to further protest rallies by those support- ing the miners. Nowhere did the SWP advocate the prepar- ation of strike action, restricting itself to historical articles about the great struggles against Taft-Harley in the late 1940s. In The Militant (June 23), the SWP attempted to answer the sectarians of the Spartacist League and the Healyite Workers League on the tasks of revolutionaries in the miners' strike. In this article and in the April 28 supple- ment, The Meaning of the Miners' Strike' , those who want to study the real face of the SWP's "turn to the unions" will find the necessary information.

We have already drawn attention to the fact that the essence of the SWP's intervention was to build trade union solidarity with the miners. The implementation of this line was carried out in such a way as to avoid head on conflict with Miller. After the strike was over, the major article "The Meaning of the Miners' Strike" had this to say about the question of leadership: "The reform leadership was swept into office by the mass upsurge in the coalfields. But the new officers-and many of those who elected them-did not realise that it would take a continuing mobilisation of the ranks to Page strengthen and transform the UMWA."

Nowhere is there any direct attack on Miller and co.- simply descriptions of their shortcomings, despite the movement that had arisen demanding their removal!

The SWP in reality see the question of a new leadership in terms of simply the organisation of the rank and file on a class struggle programme. But they are silent in the face of petitions signed by thousands of miners correctly demand- ing Miller's resignation. What is the SWP's attitude to this?

Should miners have signed such a petition?

n our opinion, it was precisely such moves that offered the best openings for revolutionary work in the UMW. And while in our opinion a call for a "special conference" to dump Miller would have been a diversion during the strike, we think that a central focus should have been made on the removal of Miller's authority to run the strike, through the building of strike committees. For example, Miners' Safety Committees could have taken responsibility for running the strike. The SWP avoided all these questions.

Instead, in "The Meaning of the Miners' Strike", the SWP outlines "a strategy to fight back". . Here, they describe the attacks now being launched on workers by employers throughout the USA. The SWP's answer to these attacks is to combine demands for union democracy with the call for a Labor Party. "A Labor Party would. banks and corporations. and technical information workers themselves could process..• "The current chaos of contrived shortages, unexpected gluts, business crisis, and inflation could be replaced with democratic planning of production to meet human needs.

These far-reaching tasks can be carried out only by the power of the government...

"Formation of an independent labor party would be a giant step toward abolishing the rule of a wealthy minority and bringing to power a truly democratic government—a workers' government." Two points can be made on this. The test of this line and whether it is to be implemented in a reformist or revolu- tionary way will be to see whether the SWP now begins to fight in practice for the organisation of elected workers' committees within the mines, within the steel plants and factories to fight for the open the books demand.

Secondly, while the SWP has placed increasi emphasis on the demand for a Labor Party, remained on an abstract, propaganda level.

The SWP continues to stand its own candidates elections and has not begun the practical fight now fighting for the construction of labour slates in elections.

In many ways the coverage given by The Militant was very informative. Articles on who owns the mines, the effects of the employers' profits drive, the dangers of arbitration, the historical fights in the miners' union, were all important background material for those who wanted to counter the lies of the employers and the government. At each stage of the fight the proposed contracts were exam- ined in detail, showing the extent of the "give-back" demands of the employers.

However, at no point did the SWP headline their paper, carry an article or even spell out a sentence calling clearly for miners to reject each contract! To do this would have meant conflicting with the 'left' trade union bureaucracy.

As we shall see below, the SWP prefer to fight for a strategy of "outflanking" rather than confronting the misleaders . fight to open the books of the • with access to all the financial kept secret by the bosses, the take control of the production ng th verbal is has in by

The "class-struggle left-wing" concept, despite talk of programme, should be seen for what it is-an attempt to make common cause with the left and not-so-left union bureaucrats. To campaign directly for rejection of a contract, to fight for blacking or strike committees would have brought SWP "Trotskyists" into conflict with the money-collecting bureaucrats.

The SWP not only avoided but clearly had no concep- tion of how to take up the sharp edge in the miners' strike -the fight to construct new leadership through the building of a revolutionary cadre and the struggle to mobilise workers to remove their existing bureaucratic leaders. But the attitude to Miller was not surprising considering the slavish support given to him by the SWP in the years before.

Miller was elected President of the UMWA in 1972. As the increasingly corrupt Boyle leadership began to lose control of the rank and file a reform movement was launched by union bureaucrat Joseph Yablonski. Yablonski quickly became a focus for militants within the union.

In 1969, Boyle defeated Yablonski in the election for President. Shortly after this, Yablonski and several members of his family were murdered. The election was widely suspected of being rigged and several years later Boyle was indicted for the murders. "Miners for Demo- cracy" was launched out of the reform movement begun by Yablonski. From the beginning, the MF by the methods used to fight those who followed Yablonski state not towards building the workers. Mike Trebovich, head of MFD, complained to the Secretary of Labour of irregularities in the 1969 election.

In May 1972, District Judge W.B. Bryant ruled the election invalid and ordered another one to be held-this time under Labor Department supervision. It was this state-run election which thrust Miller into the UMWA leadership.

Throughout this period it was the duty of revolutionaries to point out the dangers involved in the failure of MFD to guard the independence of the union while recognising the possibilities opened up by the genuine movement in the ranks which produced that movement.

Because Miller represented a development inside the ranks of the miners, a fight with the corrupt Boyle leader- ship, Trotskyists should have given Miller critical support in order to test out his militant noises in practice before the rank and file and prepare the ground for the removal, at a later stage, of Miller himself D was drastically weakened Boyle. The orientation of was towards the capitalist independent power of the The SWP, however, combined electoral support for Miller with capitulation to his politics. In the June 23 issue of the SWP's weekly Militant, Shelley Kramer takes up the Spartacists and the Healyite Workers League in an article "Socialists and the Miners' Strike: where the sectarians go wrong". She is, of course, able to make a strong point against the Spartacists. Writing of the effects of Miller's vicotry she says: "Miners won the right to read, discuss and vote on their contracts-which is why they were able to turn down the coal bosses initial "ball and chain" contract offers. They won the right to elect district officials. This increased the pressure of the ranks when those officials then went to the bargaining table. And miners came to see that they were the ones with the power and their elected leaders were supposed to represent them, which contributed in no small Page way to the spirit and determination of the strikers."

She is also able to attack the Spartacists strongly by showing that their assessment of MFD as "simply another manoevre in the interests of the capitalist class" fitted in well with Boyle's slander against MFD being "that gang of outsiders with support from rich foundations" out to "weaken and destroy the UMWA" However, Kramer then goes on to defend the use of the courts and cites as support for this move the contention that the Trotskyists did it in the 1930s.

In preparing this article a systematic study of Dobbs' series on the Teamsters was made to investigate the SWP's claim that "the Trotskyists did it in the 1930s". Perhaps we shouldn't have bothered. The only example we could find of the courts being used against the bureaucracy was one which the SWP themselves had produced in the article defending Miller's action! Closer inspection of this example reveals little comfort for the SWP, however.

When Teamster President David J. Tobin sent hundreds of thugs into Minneapolis to smash up the Trotskyist dominated Local 544 and "persuade" members to transfer to another local, the Trotskyists decided that it would be tactically incorrect to use the union defence guard to ward off these attacks. This seems to us to have been correct in the circumstan- ces. Organised physical resistance would most likely have invited extra repression from the state and focussed attention entirely on the violence. The Trotskyists, as one tactic amongst several others, obtained a court injunction restraining Tobin's goons from further attacks. The purpose of the injunction was not to turn workers towards the capitalist state for defence, but to publicise the fact that these physical attacks were taking place. We remain uncon- vinced of Dobbs' arguments in defence of the court injunc- tion. What is clear, however, is that fact that: "Both the resort to passive resistance by individual union members and the securing of a restraining order against the goons were secondary tactics-our central effort was directed toward the use of mass action, pointed square- ly at the bosses" (Teamster Bureaucracy p. 133).

This is quite different from the approach taken by Miller, a bureaucrat by nature, who saw the courts as the logical path to tread in his fight to remove Boyle. Revolu- tionaries have the responsibility to point out the dangers of such an approach. The SWP do not seem to think there is any question of a breach in class independence involved in taking another section of the labour movement to the courts! Another 'rank and file' movement of great significance but also tainted by its involvement with the courts is the 'Steelworkers Fight Back' grouping around Ed Sadlowski.

Barnes cites the Steelworkers Fight Back campaign as an area where some of the millions of militants looking for perspective and programme are to be found. Here, as in the miners' strike, the SWP failed to put forward an indepen- dent position. Sadlowski led a campaign against the steel- workers' leader McBride in the last Presidential elections.

Some 300,000 steelworkers voted for Sadlowski's call for "a return to class struggle". Those who stood aside from this movement are criminal abstentionists who refuse to deal with the development of the class struggle as it is- not how they would like it to be.

As with Miller, revolutionaries should electoral support with a critical response have combined to Sadlowski's

programme. The SWP simply supported Sadlowski-stress- ing quotes from him which were the most militant, and largely ignoring the rest. They placed no demands on him to act in a particular way. For example, on occasion Sadlowski talked about the need for a Labor Party. In reality, he remained tied to the Democratic Party link with the trade union bureaucracy.

Nowhere did the SWP demand that Sadlowski take up in practice the fight for the Labor Party. They simply combined support for his campaign with general statements about programme-never connecting the two.

In the same issue of Militant which features Barnes article, there is a major article on steel by Andrew Pulley, himself a steelworker, and a member of the SWP Political Committee. He starts his article by focussing on District 31 of the steel union where Sadlowski had his main base: "Ed Sadlowski in his campaign for USWA President in 1976-77 gave voice to these ideas and sentiments (union democracy and class-conscious use of union power in steel).

Those ideas continue to be expressed by Jim Balanoff who is District 31 director. Ideas that reflect the increasingly radical thinking and moods in the work-force-not only in that area but nationally and in other unions."

Nowhere in the rest of the article is there any other men- tion of Sadlowski-other than a brief comment that he ran a campaign around a "class-struggle" perspective. There is no analysis of where Sadlowski is today in the face of massive attacks on steelworkers.

Maybe we have misjudged the SWP Pulley say that Balanoff continues to around which Sadlowski ran his campaig name does not appear in the rest of Pul lines the activities of District 31.

strands. The SWP continues to refuse these "leaders' to break with the Dem Labor Party. And when it comes to propaganda, the SWP is capable of pi incredible programmatic positions for i be Trotskyist. to pu ocrats their itting seople t demands on and launch a own election out the most who claim to In St Louis ent election end: Full employment now Defend affirmative action for exampl ampaign ha Ratify the ERA Desegregate the schools No Nukes Where are the transitional ‹ of socialism? It seems that their socialist propaganda il are designed to be popular at mainly young people. It is now time to draw positions outlined above.

relation to tne trade unio The SWP argues that the ers. lemands? Wh on occasion n favour of gi —in this case ere is there any talk the SWP drop even ineral slogans which in a leaflet directed together the The basic th threads of the SWP eory of the SWP in is to outflank them. r fire is the employ- n bureaucrats focus for thei . After expre n? Whi ey's ar all, doesn't ss the ideas le Balanoff's ticle, he out- In the miners' strike therefore, they talked about the employers' attacks and the need to resist them (while avoiding any actual call to reject the contracts). Those who attacked Miller. who pointed out that the problem facing the miners was one of leadership, are branded as sectarians.

When a trade union leader, however reactionary, makes a 'good statement, the SWP simply print it-they do not follow this with demands on that leader to take up a fight.

The SWP today lives off its record in the 1930s. Giants of the Trotskyist movement, like Farrell Dobbs, who led thousands of workers in struggle with the bosses and trade union bureaucrats, are evoked to defend the present opportunist practice of the SWP.

In this article we have already exposed the lie that vindication for Miller's use of the courts against Boyle can be found in the record of the Minneapolis Trotskyists.

Unfortunately Dobbs himself has drawn a parallel between the SWP's work today the the method he himself used in the 1930s. "It would be unwise... to begin with efforts to vote incumbent officials out of office so that correct policies might be instituted forthwith by a new leadership... there would be no real prospect of immediately ousting the incumbents, and a false impression could be created that they are immune to removal through an election contest.

"If the rebel forces proceed instead by pressing at the outset for official adoption, or at least tolerance, of policies that will enable the workers to fight off the capitalist assault on their living standards, better results can be ob- tained. As things get worse under the present officers, broadening layers of the membership will become more open-minded toward new ideas and methods of action.

"Awareness will grow that organised labor is on the wrong tack programmatically. Pressures will mount for a major shift in line. When the incumbents fail to respond adequately, more and more workers will come to recog- nise that the leadership personnel must be changed and they will be ready to act accordingly.

"Moves towards reconstruction of the l foregoing manner will very likely become Firstly, they organised solidarity with the Mesabi Iron Range and miners strikes-collection of money and food and resolutions of support. Secondly, they have started a campaign for the steelworkers' right to ratify the union contract. Thirdly, they have campaigned for women's rights for example the ratification of the Equal Rights Amend- ment. They have through this drawn women into the union meetings. Fourthly, they have supported the struggle for black majority rule in South Africa.

Now, while the fight for ratification of the contract is a centrally important fight this needs to be combined with a programme to answer the attacks from the steel bosses-a programme on inflation, cut-backs, speed-up and unemployment, raising centrally workers' need for a Labour party. But in his review of District 31's activities, Pulley sees fit to raise not one example of how the SWP is fighting for the transitional programme within what is obviously a fertile area for revolutionaries to work in. He does not discuss the politics of people like Jim Balanoff.

The SWP, however, make a fair amount of their propaganda around the Labor Party slogan. As the capitalist crisis intensifies and employers' attacks correspondingly sharpen, the traditional leaders of the American working class begin to squirm. Recently such figures as Douglas Fraser have begun to complain of a 'broken partnership' with the capitalists. They talk of reforming the Democratic Party, of creating a 'new alignment'. The Militant of 20-8-78 gives promi- nence to these developments, points out the failure of the bureaucrats to break with the Democratic Party, and calls for a Labor Party. However, there is Page 27 connection between these eadership in the possible mainly

at local union level during the first phase of developments.

But action at that level will in itself serve to put heavy pressure on the lower echelons of the general bureaucratic structure. Instead of the bureaucracy splitting the workers to maintain its sway, the workers will be able to split the bureaucracy in their fight for rank and file control over the unions. "Efforts toward that end can be set in motion along the lines followed in bringing William S. Brown, Patrick J, Corcoran, John T. O'Brien and other union officals over to the workers' side in the fight during the 1930s to build a more effective Teamster organisation... A recent positive example was the 1977 Steelworkers Fight Back campaign of Ed Sadlowski..." (Teamster Bureaucracy pp292-293).

We have quoted extensively from Dobbs because we think that revolutionaries must look carefully at his argu- ments. When it came to finding examples of court actions, the SWP was able to give one example alone from the four- book series. Dobbs' hopes of repeating the "outflanking" tactic today with figures such as Sadlowski as a blunt instrument have to be given some sort of historical precedent. This Dobbs attempts with his references to William S. Brown, J. Corcoran and John T. O'Brien. We must accept that these are the best examples that he can find. Let us look at these people then, and see if there really is any parallel with Sadlowski today. In early 1934, the Trotskyists in Local 574 were prepar- ing a campaign to organise the coalyards. They took the ele- mentary step of seeking broad-based support for strike action within the local Teamster organisation-including the leadership. They were up against the local right-wing and the national leadership of the Teamsters. When the appeal for a strike went to Union President Tobin, he replied with a detailed letter outlining complicated procedure-negotia- tions, arbitration, ballots etc as an alternative to militant action. It was possible to ignore this and quickly win a favourable settlement from the bosses because of the breadth of support locally and the militant tactics used in the strike. This is where Bill S. Brown came in: "Bill Brown, who was in his middle thirties, had worked for years as both a teamster and a truck driver in the transfer industry, which had to do mostly with hauling freight. He had held the presidency of Local 574 for ten years and in 1932 he was made organiser of the Teamsters Joint Council. Bill was a fighter by nature and a gifted speaker, one of the best mass agitators I ever heard. As an activist in the Farmer Labor Party, he was somewhat above average in pol- itical consciousness, even though he lacked a revolutionary understanding of the class struggle. A career as an AFL official was open to him and he might have gone on in that direction if the campaign launched by the Communist League hadn't affected his life.

As it was, Bill's sound class instincts came to the fore.

wanted to give the bosses a real battle, and he welcomed p from people who knew how to organise the fight."

(Teamster Rebellion p 54) He hel This crack in the local bureaucracy was pushed wide open by the building of a rank and file Volunteer Organi- sing Committee. The pressure from the ranks forced the right wing to support the organising drive-a strike was called, fought and won. Now quite where the parallel with we just don't know. Sadlowski rose anti-boss rhetoric: and occasional tal Sadlowski comes in, to prominence with k of a Labor Party Page Democratic Party However, has broken nor has the SWP ever put any pressure on him to do so Furthermore, Sadlowski committed himself in his pre election period to abide by the no-strike "Experimenta Negotiating Agreement" in steel.

Bill Brown, on the other hand, helped organise and win important strikes against the Tobin leadership's directives!

There is a wealth of difference between a Bill Brown and a Sadlowski. In issue 72 of Socialist Press, we carried an article on the US steel industry in which we argued that people like Balanoff and Sadlowski should be given electoral support of a critical nature because of what they represented-a stirring in the rank and file towards class struggle methods and programme. But that electoral support must be coupled with a concrete fight for an alternative programme and demands on those leaders to go further than rhetoric.

We would agree that it is necessary to fight alongside them for the democratisation of the steel union and for the 1L - Die shint in right to ratity the contract ds a mirst step in different from the sort of support given by there is no pressure for them to go further, that they break from the Democrats and struction of a Labor Party.

The SWP's present tactical orientation as no more than occasional empty prop.

a capitulation in practice to the opportu left elements of the bureaucracy.

This stands in sharp contrast to the kind enabled the Minneapolis Trotskyists to win tants as Brown, Corcoran and O'Brien.

certain weaknesses in the development of ganda around the class battles of the time, that. Dut tidu Is the SWP, where and no demand beạin the con- therefore winds aganda, coupled nist programme of work which over such mili- Then, despite political propa- the Trotskyists built their base firmly on their practical intervention into the daily struggles of the working class. Those won to such a position - unlike the Sadlowskis and Millers of today - had shown their capacity and willingness to break from and fight the labour bureaucracy.

When Minneapolis militants went into actic led, guided and organised by Trotskyists. The of the drive towards unionisation-tapped and it was by Dobbs and others-was enough to like Brown to come over. There is a wealth of difference between break bureaucracy through the sheer power of your impla and agitation, and lamely tail-ending a bureaucrat position of relative weakness.

The situation in which Dobbs and the Trotskyists found themselves was one which lent itself to the tactic of out- flanking. In a period of rising militancy, with a vast sur- rounding area open to unionisation and wages struggles, Local 574 (later 544) was able to provide an avenue of struggle against the bosses. In the leadership of these struggles, Dobbs was able to mobilise workers in such a way that they provided a base against Tobin and his agents in the Minneapolis labour movement. Dobbs was able to actually organise workers in struggle against the employers.

The situation the SWP finds itself in today is different.

For example in the steel industry the central attacks are cutbacks, speed-up and unemployment. A programme must be put forward to answer these attacks.

The SWP does print transitional demands on occasion.

Militant carries articles outlining calls for 'open the books', work-sharing on full pay and so on. But these demands are seldom anything more than general statements or electoral n, they were sheer power organised as force people ing the ntation from a

policies. There is little indication carried into practice. For example i no report of any fight carried out 31. This is would bri Sadlowski. The SWP in its trade union rigid theory of "stages": first at a later stage, presumably day-to-day struggle. Another difference we have to point to is the stage of development in the Trotskyist movement. You won't find transitional demands in Dobbs' Teamster books. It was not until the late 1930s that Trotsky fought to take the pro- gramme into the practice of the SWP.

When learning from the 1930s methods of Dobbs, should always remember Trotsky's criticisms of Trotskyist-run Teamster paper North-West Organiser "non-political" and keep in mind the failure of that n Pu arot these demands are Iley's article there is nd them in District not surprising. Any fight ng the SWP into conflict for these demands with Balanoff and work seems in short to have a democratise the union; then, introduce the programme in we the as the Minneapolis strugg Party in the USA. Today we stand 40 years after the adoption of programme. No excuses remain for the SWP to avoid painful task of raising the revolutionary programme conflicting with the dissident bureaucrats.

You can "outflank" the right-wing only when there is a strong left-wing which is actually in motion. But if your strategy is aligning with the most left' section of the bureaucracy, then you have to select that wing whatever its programme happens to be. There are already signs that the SWP's opportunist programme and attempt to "turn the party into industry" are each producing cracks and strains within its own ranks.

But unless the whole method of approach of the leadership is subjected to a ruthless critique, such splits will lead not towards a reaffirmation of Trotsky's programme and prin ciples, but towards sectarian sm and demoralisation advance fight our