Communist for Beginners

Educational Seriesfor New Members

workers power

A short course for candidate members

www.fifthinternational.org New member series H 3

1) Karl Marx: from capitalism to communism What is the difference between socialism and communism? How can we get from a capitalist society with all its problems, divisions andinequalities to a communist society?

Reading:Socialism: the transition to communism (pg 4-5)

2) Which road: reform or revolution?Can capitalism be reformed out of existence or does it need to be overthrown in a revolution? What attitude do socialists take to the state? Shouldsocialists participate in elections? How do we break people from reformist ideas?

Reading:Which road: reform or revolution, by Karen Petrie (pg 6-7)The Russian revolution of 1917, by Kuldip Sandhu (pg 8-9)Communist policy: elections and revolution, by Richard Brenner (pg 10)

3) Party and programmeDoes socialist consciousness arise spontaneously amongst the masses? How should socialists organise themselves to give leadership to the work-ing class vanguard? What type of party do we need? What type of programme does it need?

Reading:The revolutionary programme, by Mark Harrison (pg 12-13)Why we need a revolutionary party (pg 14-15)The Workers’ Answer to the Crisis (online at workerspower.com)

4) Key struggle (a): the working class and the unionsWhat are trade unions? How can we make the trade unions fight in a determined way for our interests? How do we challenge the bureaucracy andtransform the unions into militant and fighting organisations?

Reading:The trouble with the unions, by Kate Foster (pg 16-17)Communist policy: committees of action, by Joy Macready (pg 18)For a rank and file movement in our unions, by Jeremy Drinkall (pg 19-21)

5) Key struggle (b): the fight against imperialism and warWhat is the relationship between capitalism and war? How attitude should socialists take in wars between imperialist powers that dominate thesystem and other states? Should socialists take sides?

Reading:Marxism on war, by Jenny Scott (pg 22-23)Communist policy: anti-imperialism and workers’ revolution, by Luke Cooper (pg 24)Communist policy: the resistance and the working class (pg 25)

6) Key struggle (c): opposing racism, fighting fascismHow did modern racism develop? What is the nature of fascism? How can we stop the rise of fascist organisations and defend the working class andblack and Asian communities?

Reading:Communist policy: stopping the BNP, by John Bowman (pg 26)Communist policy: antifascist defence league, by Luke Cooper (pg 27)The struggle against fascism (pg 28)

Contents

Published by Workers Power, July 2010 with articles from the archives of Workers Power magazine.

This is an educational series to be taken by all new Workers Power members during their three-month candidate membership. Educational discussions around each of the six topics should takeplace every one or two weeks. The course provides an introduction to the fundamental ideas ofrevolutionary Marxism and the Workers Power tradition.


capitalism but set out the measuresthat a working class government,brought to power by a democraticrevolution, would need to take tobegin the transition to socialism.

These included the abolition ofprivate ownership of land, a pro-gressive tax to drain away the wealthof the capitalists, the centralisationof credit in a national bank, stateownership of transport and com-munications, planned extension ofproduction to meet need and freestate education for all children.

In one sense, Marx’s predic-tions were brilliantly confirmedwithin months. Revolutions shookEurope later in 1848. But thecourse of events revealed a flaw inthis first communist programme.Even where democratic rights werewon, as in France, they were notenough to overthrow capitalism.

Out on the streets, the workingclass was confronted by the armedmight of the state. Soldiers andpolicemen, disciplined and con-trolled by officers from the richerclasses, enforced laws backed up bytheir officers’ relatives in the judi-ciary. They massacred the work-ers of Paris and were given medalsto commemorate it.

Marx, himself imprisoned dur-ing the German revolution, andEngels, who fought in the defeatedrevolutionary army, later drew aforthright conclusion. Given thehuman material that made up thestate, with its millions of links tothe ruling class, there was no pos-sibility that a democratic govern-ment could overthrow the bour-geoisie by an “Act of Parliament”.The rest of the state machine wouldsimply refuse to carry out ordersand would overthrow the electedgovernment.

At first, that was as far as Marxwent. Determined not to makethe mistake of the utopians bydreaming up personal recipes forthe future, he did not return to the

question until the class strugglegave him new evidence. In 1871,after France had been defeated byPrussia, the French governmentagreed to dismantle the defences ofParis. However, the majority ofParisians opposed this, mobilisedto stop the guns being moved andforced the government itself to flee.

Paris CommuneFor three months, Paris had no gov-ernment, no state apparatus, in theordinary sense of the word. For thefirst time, working class men andwomen took charge of a moderncapital city. They created their ownsystem of “government”, a radicaldemocracy, the “Paris Commune”in which delegates were electedby universal suffrage from each citydistrict.

The delegates had responsibilityfor the defence of the city, distrib-uting what food was available andformulating the laws by whichthe city would now live. They metin public and their decisions wereenforced by the people themselves– when they declared the eight hourday and a minimum wage theydid not need a judicial commissionto work out how to introduce it.

Well aware of how popular rep-resentatives could become corrupt-ed by power, the Commune decreedthat no official would receive morethan a worker’s wage and that alldelegates were immediatelyrecallable by their electors. Realaccountability, not the emptydemocracy which allows an MP,once elected, to ignore the electorsfor the next five years!

Marx saw in the Paris Communemore than just an episodic adven-ture in democracy. He realised thatit had revealed the key to the prob-lem of how forces created by capi-talist society could, through revo-lutionary struggle, transformthemselves into the first stage ofthe new society.

The existing state had to besmashed, that he already knew, butParis showed how a new form ofsocial organisation, the commune,could carry out those functions ofstate power that would still be nec-essary during the transition, suchas defence, reconstruction and eco-nomic organisation, without form-ing a new oppressive apparatusstanding above the people.

More than that, because the pop-ulation as a whole now had respon-sibility for “government”, individ-uals were themselves transformed.Attitudes and assumptions that hadbeen formed under capitalist rulewere left behind. It was not yetsocialism, but the road to socialism– the transition period – had beenopened.

Marx developed his conclusionsfurther in the mid-1870s by sketch-ing out what he thought could besaid with some certainty about thistransitional period. In the aftermathof revolution, the economic systemwould be whatever had been creat-ed by capitalism.

Marx assumed that the firsttask of the new commune statewould be to get the economy work-ing again. All who could would berequired to work and, since thecommune would have confiscatedthe wealth of the bourgeoisie, soci-ety would make rapid stridestowards economic equality.

However, although utilisingexisting industrial capacity on arationally planned basis would be ahuge step forward, society wouldstill be marked by its origins in cap-italism. Inequality would bereduced but the actual scale of pro-duction would still be limited. Inthe longer run, it would be neces-sary for society to transform that aswell. Regional and national inequal-ities had to be overcome.

Reversing the dramatic under-development of vast areas of theglobe would require planned re-

allocation of resources and the cre-ation of a genuinely democraticdivision of labour within a globaleconomy.

Marx, therefore, further refinedthe concept of a “transition socie-ty” and introduced the idea that thedevelopment of communist socie-ty would take place in two phases.In the first stage, “socialism” ashe called it, the commune state wasstill necessary both to defeat allattempts at counter-revolution andto reconstruct the internationaleconomic system on an egalitarianand planned basis.

Democratic dictatorshipThis, Marx called, the “dictatorshipof the proletariat”. Dictatorship isfrequently counterposed to democ-racy. Yet for Marx the concept ofdictatorship was necessary and jus-tified. Indeed, it was a very demo-cratic dictatorship. Democratic,that is, for the vast majority, theworking class; dictatorial over thebosses who would try to sabotageprogress and crush the new regimethrough counter-revolution.

How long this transition wouldtake was not predictable but Marxpointed out that the more suc-cessful the commune was the lessnecessary it would become. Oncethe bourgeoisie had been elimi-nated as a class, for example,there would be no need for mili-tary organisation or defenceexpenditure.

In the longer term, the transi-tion would be completed whensociety no longer needed a politi-cal force, a state of any sort, inorder to organise production anddistribution.

Administration would still benecessary but in an egalitarian soci-ety this would not involve thesubordination of one part of thepopulation by another, it wouldno longer be “political”. This wouldbe communist society.”

4 H New member series www.workerspower.com

STRAP GOES HERE

What is the differencebetween socialism andcommunism? How can

we get from a capitalist societywith all its problems, divisionsand inequalities to a commu-nist society?

Karl Marx was not the first tocondemn capitalism for thepoverty and inequality that it cre-ates, neither was he the first tofight for a society in which pover-ty and inequality would be erad-icated. But he was the first torealise that capitalism itself wouldcreate the forces capable of over-throwing it.

Before Marx, utopian socialists,such as Fourier and Owen,believed that an alternative socie-ty could be built within capitalism.They drew up plans for societiesin which neither exploitationnor oppression were needed tomaintain economic production.Once these model communitieswere established they would rap-idly prove to be superior to whatalready existed.

That was where the problemsstarted. Fourier hoped to winfinancial backing from a wealthypatron, and declared that he wouldbe available every day to discussthe details. Alas, as he waited, theyears passed. He grew older as cap-italism grew stronger.

Totally dedicated to the veryend, nonetheless, he built noth-ing. Owen, himself a very wealthyman, invested his fortune in buy-ing territory in America for histown of New Harmony, but wasdefrauded by his business partnerand had to return home withnothing accomplished.

Marx realised that societies donot develop as a result of cleverplans or individual dedication.Adam Smith described capitalismafter it had developed out of feu-dal society. The capitalist systemdid not develop because Adam

Smith set out a vision of what itmight be like.

Socialism, understood as a soci-ety in which the economy wassocially owned and output wasshared equally, would not be creat-ed, fully developed, separate fromexisting capitalist society. Instead,in historic terms, there would bea period during which capitalistsociety would be transformed intosocialist society, a “transitional”period.

The struggle for a more justand genuinely human society,therefore, could not turn its backon the actually existing capitalistsociety. Just as a worker can onlywork with the tools and raw mate-rials that are available, humanityin general could only create a newsociety with the “raw materials”provided by society’s past develop-ment.

What were these “raw materials”?At first sight there appeared to betwo:

• the physical apparatus of pro-duction or, “means of produc-tion” – machinery, factories,railways etc.

• the people who made up anysociety.

Whoever was going to changesociety would themselves be a prod-uct of existing society. Tomorrow’ssociety would be built by today’speople using, initially, today’s tech-nology.

One of Marx’s most brilliantinsights was his realisation thatthere was, in fact, a third factor insociety that had to be taken intoaccount. In order to use the tech-nology of production, “people” hadbecome organised in a very definiteway.

A small number, the capitalists,owned and controlled the “meansof production” while a vastly greaternumber, the working class, actual-ly operated them. The workers hadno real choice in the matter because

their only means of survival was thewage they could earn from the cap-italists. Marx called this third ele-ment the “relations of production”.

Although not as immediatelyobvious, it was the third element,the relations of production, that wasthe most important in terms ofchanging society. Even in Marx’sday, technical progress had made itpossible to produce enough foreverybody to have a decent standardof living. Poverty was a result ofsocial relations, the unequal sharesin the output, not the limitationsof technology.

It was precisely the living condi-tions of the working class, coupledwith its centrality within produc-tion, that would create the socialforce, the revolutionary workingclass, that could transform socie-ty into socialism.

The same social relations alsomeant that the capitalists had everyreason to keep things as they were.

And they had very effective meansof preventing change. The wholeorganisation of society protectedthem.

They had the best living condi-tions, the best education, each gen-eration was trained to take over con-trol and, in addition, the lawprotected their wealth and wasbacked up by the more physicalmeans of defence: policemen, sol-diers, prisons – in a word, the state.

Marx’s political strategy, there-fore, had to begin from this under-standing of society; the means ofproduction for a better societyalready existed, the working classneeded that better society but thecapitalists, protected by the state,were determined to prevent anychange. His first attempt to devel-op a way of overthrowing thisminority was presented in the Com-munist Manifesto of 1848.

In the Manifesto, Marx not onlydelivered a devastating attack on

Socialism: the transi tion to communismKARL MARX: FROM CAPITALISM TO COMMUNISM


recruiting sergeants for Germanimperialism in 1914 but by theirattitude to the workers' revolutionin Russia, led by the Bolsheviks,in 1917. These leaders declaredthemselves to be the sworn enemyof this revolution, of its sovietswhich acted as a real democraticalternative to parliament, and itsmilitia which was the direct oppo-site of the hierarchical capitalistarmy that the SPD now regarded asits own.

After four years of war, and withGermany defeated, the Germanworkers wanted revolutionarychange as well. The Spartakists, aparty formed by Luxemburg andKarl Liebknecht, became the van-guard of the revolution of late 1918.The SDP leaders revealed wheretheir real class loyalties lay. Theycrushed the revolution, and brieflysilenced the voice of revolution-ary socialism. In January 1919, RosaLuxemberg and Karl Liebknechtwere brutally murdered on ordersfrom the SPD leadership, their bod-ies dumped into a Berlin canal.

Reformism revealed itself as nolonger a strand of opinion withinthe workers' movement but as theagent of the ruling class within thatmovement dedicated to counter-revolution and willing to contem-plate only those reforms that cap-italism could afford.

Reformism in BritainThe radical variant of the reformiststrategy in a country like Britain,embodied most famously by TonyBenn, argues that the struggle forreforms should be conducted on awide front, but fundamental socialchange should be brought aboutprimarily in the House of Com-mons. Extra-parliamentary strug-gle is an adjunct, not an alternative,in Benn's version of the peacefulroad to socialism.

Benn's case is based on the ideathat parliament is the key loca-

tion of power in Britain and otherwestern countries. This is his firstand most important mistake. Ofcourse, governments can tinkerwith the system, increase taxes alittle and introduce the odd reform-ing law. But the capitalists havebeen very careful over many yearsto ensure that their real politicalpower is located outside of parlia-ment, in places where it will not fallinto untrustworthy hands.

Any reform that seriously chal-lenges the property rights of bigbusiness will be met with resistanceby the real power of the capitaliststate – the unelected civil service,judiciary, the armed forces, secretservices and the police. It will bemet by the economic sabotage ofbig business and the banks. Theywill order flights of capital to crip-ple a government if they think itis overstepping their boundaries.

The state apparatus defends rul-ing class power and privilegeagainst the threat of working classrevolt. A major strike or workers'demonstration will be met with thefull repressive force of this state yetcapitalists will be protected by iteven when they are busy sabotag-ing government policies, carry-ing out mass sackings or enforcingpay cuts.

The experience of every attemptto utilise parliamentary means inthe struggle for socialism has high-lighted the crucial significanceof the state apparatus. In Russiaafter the February 1917 overthrowof the Tsar, the workers looked tothe Provisional government tomeet their needs. When the peas-ants demanded land and the work-ers the factories, the governmentsuddenly proved powerless con-fronting the landowners, the boss-es and the military.

While one wing of the move-ment – the Mensheviks – put theirfaith in peaceful reform, the Bol-sheviks recognised that only the

armed might of workers' and peas-ants' militias combined with thepower of workers' councils (sovi-ets) could secure the basis for asocialist society.

The insurrection in October 1917was able to take power from the cap-italists precisely because the work-ers had built their own alternativepower structures.

Without these alternatives,without a revolutionary partyleading a revolution reformismwill always fil l the gap. AndReformism's strategy can have farmore tragic consequences thanjust a missed opportunity. In 1973in Chile, after Salvador Allende'sleft-wing government attemptedto implement a programme ofradical reforms, the bosseslaunched a bloody coup againstthe workers.

The workers were left defence-less and the socialist government

powerless. All their decrees cameto nothing. The real power of thebosses' state was revealed in all itsbrutal horror in a Santiago footballstadium where army troops mur-dered thousands of workers andradical students.

We have to ensure that this les-son is learnt once and for all by themajority of the working class. Thecentury now ending has seencountless opportunities to rid theglobe of capitalism squandered byreformist leaders, all too often end-ing in tragedy.

This is why the necessity for rev-olutionary force, organised by themass of workers with the unam-biguous aim of smashing the mil-itary power ofthe capitalist state andreplacing it with the power of theworkers militia, based on thedemocracy of workers' councils,is the only strategy that can securea socialist victory.


STRAP GOES HERE

By Karen Petrie, Sept 1998

For more than three decadesMarx and Engels arguedthat a revolution was the

only way workers could achieve asocialist society. For them revolu-tionary crises emerged inevitablyout of the conflict between class-es in capitalist society. Capitalismcreates the possibility and neces-sity for revolution. In the form ofthe “proletariat”, it also creates itsown “grave-diggers”.

Marx and Engels did not rejecta peaceful parliamentary road tosocialism out of some demonicbloodlust but because they recog-nised that no ruling class in his-tory had ever ceded its power andwealth without a fight. Moderncapitalism itself triumphed overthe old feudal order in a series ofviolent revolutions (notably inEngland and France).

There is, however, a traditionwith deep and powerful roots inthe workers' movement which hasoften claimed the goal of social-ism but argued that the path to itwas the gradual transformation ofsociety through reforms. Its sup-porters have maintained that cap-italism's worst aspects could betamed and eventually modifiedinto a new kind of society thatfavoured workers' interests.

This political ideology has manyadvocates and several variants,both left and right-wing. It alsohas a name: reformism.

Capitalism has known periodsof expansion and boom whenmany workers have seen their liv-ing standards rise. Probably thelongest such period stretched fromthe end of the Second World Waruntil the early 1970s. But capi-talism, despite such periods; is ahighly unstable economic systemthat plunges society into period-ic crisis. The profit system createssuch fierce competition betweencapitalist corporations and nation

states that trade wars and, even-tually, military conflicts erupt.

Many reformists accept that cap-italism is a system prone to crisis.But they argue that it is possible touse a parliamentary majority andgovernment office to pursuereforms that will alleviate such acrisis.

Measures such as regulatingcompetition, nationalising someindustries, injecting more publicspending into the economy and thepartial redistribution of wealth fromthe rich to the poor by taxation usedto be at the core of the reformistprogramme.

In the reformist schema the legit-imacy of parliamentary democracymeans that, despite opposition fromsections of the ruling class, changecan still come about peacefully.Enabling acts and ministerialdecrees replace the need for violentrevolution.

�Social Democratic PartyIronically, this strategy gained itsclearest expression at the end of the19th century in a mass workingclass organisation Marx and Engelshad helped to found; the GermanSocial Democratic Party (SPD).lnthe 1880s and 1890s capitalism wasenjoying a period of expansion andrelative stability. Colonial conquestsin Asia and Africa and the begin-ning of the imperialist stage of cap-italist development had deliveredsuper profits and improved livingstandards for many European work-ers.

German industry grew rapidlyduring these years.

Trade unions and parties like theSPD organised hundreds of thou-sands of workers in struggles forbetter wages, public health provi-sion and democratic rights, result-ing in tangible gains for the work-ing class. At the same time theygained parliamentary representa-tion.

These developments under-pinned the emerging view insidethe SPD and other workers' parties,that capitalism could be reformedfrom above. In Britain, this percep-tion shaped the programme andpractice of the Labour Party.

In Germany, Eduard Bernstein,a very influential SPD thinker,explicitly abandoned the strugglefor revolutionary socialism, claim-ing that Marx and Engels were fun-damentally wrong about capital-ism's tendency to crisis anddeclaring that the revolutionaryroad was utopian. He promoted theview that Germany would contin-ue to prosper and that workers,under the paternal guidance of theSPD's parliamentary leadership,could move towards a gradualsocialist transformation.

A battle of ideas developed with-in the SPD that would profoundlyinfluence the socialist movementinternationally. The Polish-bornMarxist, Rosa Luxemburg,launched a defence of basic Marx-ist principles against Bernstein inher pamphlet, Reform or revolu-tion.

World WarDespite Luxemburg's battles with-in the SPD, Bernstein's reformismgained influence and served to jus-tify many an SPD retreat. When

capitalist stability gave way to thecatastrophic First World War, theSPD leadership supported the Ger-man state's war effort. The SPD'sprogramme had, in fact, strength-ened capitalism by directing work-ers' anger away from the bosses' sys-tem itself into a doomed attempt tomake it more humane.

Reformist logic – the commit-ment to managing capitalism inex-orably leads to the defence of thatsystem – led the German SPD lead-ership to support their bosses whenthey plunged Germany and Europeinto a frenzy of inter-imperialist car-nage. Luxemburg had clearly antic-ipated the danger of this logic. Sherecognised that whether workersstruggle to reform the capitaliststate or overthrow it is not a ques-tion of different paths on the sameroad or towards the same goal:

“That is why people who pro-nounce themselves in favour of themethod of legislative reform inplace of and in contradistinction tothe conquest of political power andsocial revolution, do not reallychoose a more tranquil, calmer andslower road to the same goal but adifferent goal. Instead of taking astand for the establishment of a newsociety they take a stand for surfacemodification of the old society.”

She was proved right not only bythe SPD leadership's becoming

Which road: reform or revolution?WHICH ROAD: REFORM OR REVOLUTION

Rosa Luxemburg

Eduard Bernstein


were now armed with a programmewith which they could win the mass-es to the goal of soviet power.

The mass of workers were deeplydistrustful of the Provisional Gov-ernment. Workers' resolutions weresent direct to the soviets. Disen-chantment with the war was lead-ing more and more soldiers to jointhe soviets. By June more than 20million workers, soldiers and peas-ants were represented in the firstAll-Russian Soviet Congress. Theleaders of the soviets however,still gave support to the Provi-sional Government it was in thesecircumstances that the Bolsheviksraised the slogan of “All Power tothe Soviets!”

The aim of this slogan was toforce the soviet leaders, who werestill mostly Mensheviks and SocialRevolutionaries (SRs), to fight fora workers' and peasants' govern-ment based on the soviets, and toend their compromises with theProvisional Government. The slo-gan was in no way an indication thatthe Bolsheviks had illusions inthe soviet leaders. Rather it wasaimed at breaking the mass of peo-ple from their continued supportfor the reformist leaders.

It worked, Bolshevik supportcontinued to grow. In the naval portof Kronstadt they, along with theLeft SRs had a majority in the sovi-et and declared themselves the solepower in the city. Fearful of thegrowing feeling amongst the mass-es, the Provisional Governmentinvited leaders of the PetrogradSoviet to join them. In acceptingthis offer the soviet “compromis-ers” steadily lost support amongstthe workers and peasants. The Bol-sheviks exploited the contradictionof the reformists' position with theslogan “Down with the ten capital-ist ministers against those who hadjoined the government.

The Bolsheviks were gaining

support in Petrograd but they werenot as strong in the provinces.Lenin realised this but some on thefar left of the party didn't. Theyraised the call for an insurrec-tion. Lenin argued against it,stating, “if we're now able to seizepower, it is naive to think that wewould be able to hold it”. The basisof any form of revolutionary gov-ernment would have to be the sovi-ets in which the Bolsheviks werestill a minority.

Counter-revolutionDespite these warnings the soldiers,workers and sailors could not berestrained. The Bolsheviks wereeventually proved right as the ill-timed insurgency led to a serioustactical defeat.

The defeat of the “July Days” ush-ered in a period of counter-revo-lutionary repression. Workers andsoldiers were beaten up and throwninto the canals. The presses of Prav-da were smashed up and the Bol-shevik headquarters were ransackedand seized. Many leading Bolshe-viks were arrested and otherswere forced underground.

The victory against the workersled to a growing mood of confidenceamongst the bourgeoisie. Brusilov,the Commander-in-Chief of thearmy, demanded the complete andtotal restoration of military disci-pline. Kerensky, the leader of thegovernment, whose own survivaldepended on his ability to balancethe interests of the bourgeoisie withthose of the soviets, played for timeby dismissing him. The resultingright-wing revolt led to an attempt-ed coup by General Kornilov.

At the same time support for theBolsheviks amongst the workersbegan to recover. The Bolshevikswon majorities in elections inthe working class districts of Pet-rograd. Of the delegates to theAll Russian Factory Committees

Conference held in August 82 percent were Bolsheviks.

As Kornilov's forces marched onPetrograd soviets and factory com-mittees across the city vowed todefend the revolution. The work-ers demanded arms and Kerenskyhad little option but to hand themover. The Bolsheviks utilised theunited front tactic fighting along-side Kerensky against Kornilov,while keeping up a relentless cri-tique of him and his Mensheviksupporters.

Workers’ governmentThese tactics proved a huge suc-cess. In September the PetrogradSoviet voted overwhelmingly for aBolshevik resolution calling for arevolutionary workers' and peas-ants' government. They steadilyWon control of the majority of sovi-ets across Russia. The party hadbecome the national party of theRussian working class. The slogan“All Power to the Soviets!” couldnow only mean a Bolshevik-ledseizure of power.

Kerensky tried to shore up hisfailing regime, proposing a totallyundemocratic five-person direc-torate. Meanwhile, he looked for anopportunity to move against theBolsheviks. At the beginning ofOctober he attempted to movethe garrison out of Petrograd,removing soldiers who wereincreasingly influenced by the Bol-sheviks. The move caused an out-cry. A meeting of the EgerskyGuards Regiment on 12 Octobercalled for soviet power and stated:

“The pulling out of the revolu-tionary garrison from Petrogradis needed only by the privilegedbourgeoisie as a means of stiflingthe revolution.”

On 21 October the Military Rev-olutionary Committee (MRC)established by the Petrograd Sovi-et to defend the revolution

announced that no order shouldbe considered valid unless coun-tersigned by the MRC.

On 24 October Kerensky orderedthe arrest of the MRC and the Bol-shevik leaders, and the closure ofthe Bolshevik press. By the earlyhours of 25 October the order hadbeen countermanded and the press-es were running again. The MRChad done more than just counter-mand Kerensky. They ordered theinsurrection that was to result inthe creation of the first workers'state. The MRC's forces took con-trol of the railway stations, junc-tions, the telegraph, phoneexchange and the state bank. TheProvisional Government of Alexan-der Kerensky had been overthrown.

Later that day Red Guards andsailors stormed the Winter Palace.Over the coming days and weeksvictory was won throughout thetowns and cities of Russia.

InsurrectionSuch was the mass support of theBolshevik led revolution in Petro-grad that hardly a shot was firedduring the insurrection. Althoughthere was a greater level of fightingin some other cities, across Rus-sia as a whole it was precisely thismajority support that enabled theBolsheviks not only to launch a suc-cessful insurrection but usher ina workers' state able to withstandthe terrible onslaught launched bythe Russian bourgeoisie and itsimperialist allies in the civil warthat followed.

The Bolsheviks had resolved,in practice, the question that hadso vexed the Russian Marxistmovement in the precedingdecades – namely what kind ofrevolution would overthrow theTsar. The answer given by the Bol-sheviks was clear, a workers'socialist revolution as part of aworld revolution.


STRAP GOES HERE

By Kuldip Sandhu, Winter 1999-0

On 25 October 1917 the Sec-ond All Russian Congressof Soviets voted to take

power and established the world'sfirst soviet republic.

The year 1917 had begun verydifferently. Russia was a develop-ing capitalist country with an auto-cratic Tsarist state. Large factories,with a small but highly concen-trated working class, co-existedwith a huge peasant populationand an archaic state regime.

The contradictions within Rus-sia were exacerbated by the war.By February opposition to the warand the economic crisis whichensued led to a massive generalstrike in the capital, Petrograd.

The spark that ignited the strikecame from a strike of womenworkers on International Women'sDay.

On the morning of 23 Februarywomen workers took to the streetsdemanding bread. They marchedto neighbouring factories seekingsupport from male workers. Bymid-morning ten factories wereshut and 27,000 workers were onstrike, by the end of the day 61 percent of all factory workers in theVyborg district, some 59,800 work-ers, were on strike. In the follow-ing days the strike grew and theTsar sent in troops to quell theworkers. Women continued to playan important role as the revolut-lon developed, here described byTrotsky:

“They go up to the cordonsmore boldly than men, take holdof the rifles, beseech, almost com-mand: 'Put down your bayonets -join us' the soldiers are excited,ashamed, exchange anxiousglances, waver; someone makesup his mind first, and the bayonetsrise guiltily above the shoulders ofthe advancing crowd. The barrieris opened, a joyous 'Hurrah' shakes

the air.” Soldiers deserted and mutinied.

The Tsarist regime crumbled with-in days. It was replaced by theProvisional Government, madeup of bourgeois politicians. But theworkers who had made the revolu-tion also built their own organisa-tions: factory committees, workers'militia and the workers and soldiers'soviets.

Dual PowerThe fall of Tsar Nicholas only servedto deepen the contradictions at thelevel of state power. A situation ofdual power began – that is, powerwas split between the bourgeoisieon the one hand and the workingclass on the other. This situation, afeature of revolutionary situations,could not last forever. Either theworkers or the bosses would haveto become the sole power in theland.

The majority of the delegates tothe Petrograd Soviet including itsMenshevik (reformist) leaders sup-ported the provisional governmentThey saw the February uprisingas a bourgeois democratic revolu-tion which would logically result ina bourgeois government.

The soviets resolved to form an“observation committee” to watchover the provisional government.They intended to establish strictcontrol on behalf of the workingmasses who saw them as the voiceof their struggles. The bourgeoisiemeanwhile looked upon the Provi-sional Government as their bastionagainst those very same struggles.

For the working class to triumphthey could not merely rely on thematurity of the objective situation,nor could they rely solely on thespontaneous struggle of the mass-es as had been proved by the failedrevolution of 1905. A victorioussocialist revolution requires a sub-jective force; in the subsequentOctober revolution that force wasthe Bolshevik party.

The Bolsheviks showed an abil-ity to develop a strategically correctunderstanding of the February rev-olution and what followed. This wasnot automatic, it was forgedthrough democratic debate withinthe party and through the experi-ence of the living struggle. Initial-ly, many leading Bolsheviks shareda view similar to that of the leadersof the Petrograd Soviet. Theseincluded the editorial board of Prav-

da, made up of Stalin, Muranov andKamenev. They wrote:

“As far as we are concerned whatmatters now is not the overthrowof capitalism but the overthrow ofautocracy and feudalism.”

It was Lenin, at the time still inexile, who led the fight. He saw theRussian Revolution as a componentpart of the international revolu-tion against capitalism itself. Inthe soviets, militia and factory com-mittees he saw the embryo of a stateof an entirely new sort In his “Let-ters from Afar” he wrote that the Pet-rograd Soviet should regard itself asthe basis of a new government, coun-terposed to the provisional goyern-ment. Anyone arguing that theworkers should support the Provi-sional Government would be “a trai-tor to the working class”, said Lenin.

April ThesisOn his return from exile Lenin cod-ified his position in his “April The-ses” arguing that with the forma-tion of the soviets the proletariathad attained a higher form ofdemocracy than could ever beachieved under a parliamentarydemocracy. The soviets were repre-sentative of all the exploited andoppressed groups. They were basedon the principle of direct elec-tions, recallability and the abolitionafbureaucratic privilege. Lenindescribed going back to a parliamen-tary republic from the Soviet ofWorkers' Deputies as a “retro-grade step”. The “April Theses”called for the “abolition of the police,the army and the “bureaucracy”,and for all of these functions to passto the whole armed people.

Lenin's allies within the partywere the largely proletarian leftwing. After three weeks of fiercedebate and bitter criticism theyeventually won out. The importanceof this victory cannot be underesti-mated. Because of it the Bolsheviks

The Russian rev olution of 1917WHICH ROAD: REFORM OR REVOLUTION

Demonstration at the Winter Palace

Communist policy: electionsand RevolutionBy Richard Brenner, March 2010

We only have the right tovote in this countrybecause working class

people fought for it.Every right we have – the right

to assemble, the right to freespeech, the right to form unionsand the right to vote – was notgranted freely to the people, butwas forced out of the ruling classthrough campaigns of mass action.

In 1832 the ruling class extend-ed the vote – but only to peoplewith property and money. So inthe 1840s the first mass politicalmovement of workers was formed– the Chartists – to fight for theright to vote. It gathered mil-lions of names on a great petition,held giant marches and rallies,launched an armed uprising inWales in 1839 and called a gener-al strike in 1842: the first in Britishhistory.

The heroic struggles of the Suf-fragettes led to women being giventhe vote in 1918 – but only at theage of 30! Under the impact of theRussian Revolution the same lawin 1918 for the first time allowedall workers to vote. But it wasnot until 1928 that women wereallowed to vote at the same ageas men.

Election restrictionsToday elections are still not com-pletely free and fair in Britain. At16 we are old enough to marry, oldenough to work and be exploited,but still not allowed to vote.

Not all our votes count. Theundemocratic first-past-the-postsystem means that all the votes forunsuccessful constituency can-didates are discounted. A systemof proportional representationwould ensure that all parties wererepresented according to theirshare of the vote – but the main

parties resist it.The elected House – the Com-

mons – still doesn’t have fullpower. The unelected House ofLords can obstruct and delay laws.And Britain is still not a republic.The Queen is not just a touristattraction but has the power todeclare war, the power to dis-solve a parliament, and the powerto appoint and dismiss prime min-isters. If there is a hung parliamentafter this election, the power of thisunelected hereditary monarch willcome into play.

One government after anotherstrips away the rights of the peo-ple. MI5 and MI6 use tortureagainst British citizens to forcethem into confessions. The HighCourt ruled it illegal for a groupof Muslims to chant slogans accus-ing Britain’s army of occupation inIraq of ‘murder’ – despite the factthat there are documented cases ofsoldiers murdering civilians in thisillegal and unpopular war. Perfect-ly legal demonstrations against thebanks in the City of London last yearwere herded into police pens andone bystander was even killed bypolice thugs.

The fight for democratic rightsgoes on, and it is resisted by the richminority of capitalists who ruleBritain. All the more reason to stepup the fight to extend our rights,and to use what rights we have tofight for a government of the work-ing class.

In the coming election, commu-nists should stand candidates wherewe can, on a clear revolutionaryprogramme. That is what Work-ers Power supporter JeremyDrinkall is doing in Vauxhall, SouthLondon, where he is standing onthe ANTICAPITALIST ticket.

When revolutionaries stand inelections, they do so to raise sup-port for workers’ struggles outside

parliament, in the workplace andon the streets. They put forwardpolicies that address the immedi-ate needs of working class people,like investment in jobs and hous-ing, and link it to the need to dis-possess the rich capitalists – forexample by taking over the banks,taxing the rich, and taking the bigcompanies into state hands underworkers’ control, without compen-sation. Communist candidatesoppose our rulers’ wars, call for thewithdrawal of troops from overseas,and support strikes and occupationsagainst job losses.

A communist candidate is notlike a normal candidate of one ofthe capitalist parties. Because theyare part of a disciplined commu-nist organisation, which holds allits members accountable to itsdemocratic decisions, a commu-nist candidate cannot just pursuetheir own whims, is obliged touphold a fighting working classpolicy, and agrees in advance totake only the average wage of askilled worker, donating the restof their large salary to the work-ing class movement. No expens-es scandals, duck islands and sec-ond homes for us!

Socialist societyCommunists believe that even if600 communist MPs were electedto the House of Commons, the realpower in society – the unelectedpolice and army chiefs, the facelesscivil servants who rule behind thescenes – would quickly move tooverthrow us, rather than sit bypeacefully as we took away theirwealth and shared it among thepeople.

That is why, election or noelection, communists always sayclearly: to get rid of the rule ofthe capitalists, to remove theircontrol of society’s wealth andthe riches we create, to establisha fair, socialist system based ona democratic plan of produc-tion in place of inequality andmarket madness – it will be nec-essary to smash the capitalists’state forces in a revolution. Thatwill take the action of millions ofpeople, organised and led by arevolutionary anti-capitalistparty.

It is to build that party – win-ning new recruits across the coun-try – that communists devote theirefforts in the coming electioncampaign.


The world is witnessing dra-matic and far-reachingchanges. The global credit

crunch has turned into an historicfinancial crisis. A series of corpo-rations - some of them major iconsof American capitalism - have col-lapsed into bankruptcy, beenforced into takeovers or werenationalised.

And we are still only at the begin-ning. Major recessions now loomin world's major economic includ-ing Britain. Major corporations arealready fighting to stay alive in afrenzied bout of takeovers. Stateswill also desperately seek to shift

the worst effects of the crisis ontoone another.

There is one thing, however, thatcapitalists and ruling politicians willagree on: to make the working classpay for the economic crisis. Job loss-es, unemployment, pay cuts andhome repossessions are on the way.But the working class did nothingto cause the crisis - so why shouldwe pay for it? We shouldn't.

We urgently need to draw up aplan of action to resist thisonslaught. What sort of organisa-tion do we need? What demandsshould we fight for? What tacticsshould we fight around? These

are the crucial questions our classfaces today. A Workers' Answer tothe Crisis is addressed to these ques-tions and problems.

But it also goes further. In the21st century, if we are to avoiddecades more war, poverty andexploitation, then resistance to thebosses' attacks must - more thanever - be linked to the overthrow ofcapitalism and a socialist world.

This is why A Workers' Answerto the Crisis proposes a strategy thatlinks our immediate struggles tothe socialist goal.

It is not a manifesto of reformsfor parliamentary legislation but a

set of proposals for working classaction on the streets and in theworkplaces.

Every one of the policies we raiseaddresses the immediate interestsof our class. None of of the solu-tions we propose are compatiblewith the capitalist system. Each andevery one of them underminesthe ability of the capitalists toexploit us.

A Workers' Answer to the Crisisis the British action programme ofthe revolutionary socialist organi-sation, Workers Power. If you agreewith it, we urge you to join us andhelp turn it into a reality.

The workers’answer to the crisis


STRAP GOES HEREWHICH ROAD: REFORM OR REVOLUTION

An action programme for the working class in Britain

Get your copy of the The Workers Answer to the Crisis fromyour local Workers Power branch, or online athttp://tinyurl.com/workers-answer

From Protest to PowerFor further reading...

All history proves that the capitalists will never relinquish their property peacefully – to claim otherwise in

the age of ‘Shock and Awe’ is either hopeless naivety or wilful deception. There is only one way: their appara-

tus of state repression must be overthrown by force. The capitalists’ monopoly of military power – armies, police

and security forces, prison systems, civil servants, judiciaries – must be smashed to pieces and replaced with

the rule of the working people themselves.

This can be done – the majority of humanity can cast off the tiny minority of parasites. It will take mass

organisation, an unambiguous strategy and, when the hour strikes, courageous and ruthless action.

Some may baulk at this, but the alternative to revolution is not decades of undisturbed peace. Basing a

global civilisation on the empowerment of a few thousand and the impoverishment of six billion is like lodg-

ing depth charges in the planetary core. If the logic of capitalism is left to unfold, our world will be torn apart

by starvation, disease, poverty, environmental catastrophe, and war.

In the struggle against capitalism, greater energy is equivalent to greater humanity. For with the suppres-

sion of our exploiters and an end to the tyranny of profit, human history can truly begin.

Available online at FIFTHINTERNATIONAL.ORG


the modern epoch of imperialistcapitalism.

As well as incorporating the rev-olutionary movement’s historicprinciples, the programme had tograsp the lessons of recent revolu-tionary struggles. It was not a life-less, abstract schema but a guide toaction in the existing world. Assuch, it also had to elaborate thekey revolutionary tactics for theclass struggle. And it had to be aninternational programme, capableof spreading the fight against cap-italism globally .

The 1938 Transitional Pro-gramme codified all these essentialaspects. Just as it was a re-elabo-ration of previous programmes sotoday it has required re-elaboration.But its method and structure, itskey demands and many of its tac-tics hold good for today. Above allelse it spelled out the transitionalmethod – the key to revolutionarystrategy today. Trotsky summed themethod up as follows:

“The strategic task of the nextperiod . . . consists in overcomingthe contradiction between thematurity of the objective revolu-tionary conditions and the imma-turity of the proletariat and its van-guard (the confusion anddisappointment of the older gener-ation, the inexperience of theyounger generation). It is necessaryto help the masses in the process ofthe daily struggle to find the bridgebetween the present demands andthe socialist programme of revolu-tion. This bridge should include asystem of transitional demands,stemming from today’s condi-tions and from today’s conscious-ness of wide layers of the workingclass and unalterably leading to onefinal conclusion: the conquest ofpower by the proletariat.”

The fight for workers’ control,exercised by new forms of workers’power, is central to the system of

transitional demands. To the extentthat these demands are won thecapitalist’s power – in both the eco-nomic and political spheres – is inEngels’ phrase “encroached upon”.

he question is, how do suchdemands work in practice? Let ustake one example from today’s sit-uation that illustrates Trotsky’spoint.

Unemployment is beginning tohit hard at what is left of Britain’sfactories.

Clearly, the issue of job cuts atRover, for example, is both imme-diate – 2,500 sackings are threat-ened – and poses the question ofcapitalism’s general crisis-riddencharacter. It highlights once morecapitalism’s callous indifference toworking class needs. Workers willwant to defend their jobs, butwith Labour politicians blamingthem and with union leaders will-ing to negotiate away their remain-ing rights, the danger is that thefight will be misled and go down todefeat, not because the workers lackthe will, but because they lack acoherent political answer, a transi-tional answer.

Revolutionaries at Rover couldturn this situation around throughthe use of transitional demands.They begin with action. Workersneed to occupy the threatened plant(Longbridge). Such action imme-diately poses the questions of con-trol and ownership since it meansthe workers seizing the bosses’plant and machinery. Action likethis requires new and fresh organ-isation. The occupied plant mustbe run by elected workers’ commit-tees, and must be guarded bydefence teams, both made account-able to regular workforce massmeetings.

This action puts immediate pres-sure on the bosses and the govern-ment, but it needs to have a goal. IfBMW cannot guarantee every job

then Rover must be re-nationalised(it used to be British Leyland). Thebosses, post-privatisation, havemade a mint. Now these bosses aresaying the workers are expendable.Our answer is the bosses areexpendable. They must not receivea penny in compensation for theirmismanagement. We must open uptheir accounts so that everyone cansee the way in which they have runthe company.

But on its own seizing the plantback from the bosses – and forcingLabour to nationalise the indus-try – will not guarantee future jobsunless a regime of workers’ controlis established. This means controlover the speed and intensity ofwork. It means control over thehours worked so that the grind-ing working week can be cut (to 35hours immediately) with no loss ofpay or bonuses and so that duringlulls work can be shared out amongthe workforce with nobody hav-ing to be sacked.

Bridge to revolutionDemands such as these defendthe needs and the interests of theworkers against the bosses’ ruth-less drive for profits. They hit at thebosses’ control of the plant. Theyconflict with capitalist priorities.They organise the workers as anindependent class force. And theypose much wider questions of con-trol over government and industry.Is the government to act in theinterests of the workers by meetingthese demands? If not then let ushave a workers’ government thatwill. Is the rest of industry going tosit back faced with such a struggleor will it recognise the danger andgo on to attack other sections ofworkers? If it does then the work-ers’ action and demands must bespread to other sections of workers,generalising the struggle more andmore.

In this way transitional demandscan both relate to the immediateneeds of the workers and pose thequestion of power. When combinedwith militant action and overseenby new forms of working classorganisation they begin to show thereal possibility of workers’ power inthe here and now. They serve as the“bridge” Trotsky talked about.

Whether or not such demandscan be realised under capitalism –i.e. whether in the eyes of the boss-es and their reformist supportersin the Labour Party and the unionsthey are “realistic” – is not the mainpoint. Such gains cannot be main-tained indefinitely unless capital-ism itself is overthrown.

But these transitional demandshave a burning relevance whena capitalist boss tells 2,500 peo-ple that they are expendable.Indeed, the realism of suchdemands can only grow when thelikes of Bank of England bossEddie George can openly tell tensof thousands more that they mustlose their jobs for the “good of thewhole economy”.

To those who say transitionaldemands are “too advanced” for theworkers, we say it is not the job ofrevolutionaries to put forwarddemands that we know are inade-quate (and we know because of thebitter legacy of previous crises thathave caused mass unemployment)to save jobs.

Workers currently dominated byreformist ideas may indeed thinkwhat we are saying is too advancedbut through the fight for a revolu-tionary action programme a partycan win ever wider popularity for itto challenge and overcome thebackward ideas that lead straight tothe dole queue and show that thenew ideas can lead to socialism’striumph.

That is the importance of thetransitional programme today.


STRAP GOES HERE

By Mark Harrison, Nov 1998

The revolutionary Marxistmovement has developedmany programmes, begin-

ning 150 years ago with the Com-munist Manifesto by Karl Marx andFriedrich Engels. Sixty years agoLeon Trotsky founded the FourthInternational on the basis of theTransitional Programme.

For all political parties a pro-gramme states what it stands forand its policies once in govern-ment. For bourgeois parties it is astatement of what they will dofor (or to) us when they gain office.

For revolutionary organisationsthe programme is more. It is astatement of what we stand for, butit is also outlines what the work-ers and oppressed should fight forin the here and now. UnlikeLabour’s election manifesto it isnot a series of passive policy state-ments. It is rather, as Trotsky calledit, “a manual of action for mil-lions”. It is something we fight forthe working class as a whole totake up.

The Marxist movement has pro-duced a number of programmeshistorically precisely because therevolutionary programme has tobe relevant to the current classstruggle and to the stage of capi-talist development. It is a livingthing, tested and corrected inthe course of struggle, by the expe-rience both of the revolutionaryorganisation and of the workersengaged in action.

But while there have been manyprogrammes, some elements haveremained the same. The reasonsfor this are:

• that the fundamental princi-ples of the Marxist programmehave changed little in 150years – our critique of capital-ism, our belief in the needfor workers’ power and social-ism, for example;

• that the method of develop-ing a programme that pointsout the road to the revolutionhas remained constant – it iswhat we call a “transitional”method.

The transitional method devel-oped as a response to the firstserious undermining of the revo-lutionary programme of Marx andEngels. While the Communist Man-ifesto outlined an elementary pro-gramme for the “transition” tosocialism, the major working classparties formed in the later nine-teenth century, especially theGerman Social Democratic Party(SPD), gradually abandoned thisidea of a transition (and later rev-olution) altogether.

In its place they developed a min-imum programme (a set ofdemands for reforms within capi-talism) and a maximum pro-gramme (socialism). The conceptof a bridge between the two wasconsidered unimportant.

The SPD grew rapidly and wonparliamentary representation. Butit came under increasing pressure

to adapt to capitalism. Its minimumdemands were often important andradical, supportable even today(arming the people, for example).While the transitional programmehas replaced the minimum pro-gramme for Marxists, the fightaround reforms (minimumdemands) remains important andcan kickstart many struggles.

But the minimum demands didnot, taken as a whole, constitute aprogramme for a revolution. Anymention of socialism as the move-ment’s goal became the stuff ofSunday speeches, separated by agrowing chasm from the SPD’sactual programme and practice asit became ever more reformist.

It was Engels, writing in 1891,who first spotted the problem withthe minimum/maximum approach.When he saw the SPD’s draft pro-gramme (“the Erfurt Programme”)he wrote:

“The political demands of thedraft have one great fault. It lacksprecisely what should have beensaid. If all ten demands were grant-ed we should indeed have more

diverse means of achieving ourmain political aim, but the aim itselfwould in no wise have beenachieved.”

Engels saw that the fight forreforms, though important, ran therisk of becoming the fight for thereform of capitalism rather than forits revolutionary overthrow. Hisdoubts were confirmed by the SPD’sevolution into a reformist party.

After the Bolsheviks successful-ly re-elaborated the transitionalmethod in the Russian Revolu-tion of 1917, the international rev-olutionary movement, the Com-munist International, looked backto Marx and Engels and their tran-sitional method in order to avoidthe pitfalls of the SPD-style mini-mum/maximum programme.

Tragically, the Russian revolu-tion’s internal defeat – at the handsof Stalin and his bureaucrats –cut short the debate in the Com-munist International and it was leftto Trotsky (exiled and eventuallymurdered by Stalin) to keep the rev-olutionary flame alight and formu-late a transitional programme for

The revolutionary programmePARTY AND PROGRAMME


standing of capitalism, an under-standing of its entire system ofexploitation and oppression and aprogramme of action to fight it.Without this the spontaneous strug-gle is limited to trade union,reformist consciousness.

Lenin called the spontaneousdevelopment of trade union con-sciousness “the ideological enslave-ment of the workers by the bour-geoisie”. Trade union consciousnessand political reformism – the nat-ural political expression of tradeunionism – are bourgeois politi-cal ideologies even though they arebased on workers’ organisations.And the strength of such ideologyis that it is perpetrated on a dailybasis by the vast propagandamachine – now infinitely moreextensive than in Lenin’s day – ofthe press, the broadcasting mediaand so on. As Lenin noted:

“ . . . bourgeois ideology isfar older in origin than social-ist ideology... it is more fullydeveloped, and... it has at its dis-posal immeasurably more meansof dissemination.”

Of course none of this means thatthe party stands aside from the dayto day struggle of the class, bring-ing socialist consciousness fromwithout in a passive and sectarianway. Far from it. The party rootsitself in the working class. It learnsfrom and generalises the lessons ofits struggles, past and present. Itserves as the memory of the classas well as its vanguard.

But if it was simply an organi-sational tool for uniting workingclass struggles as they unfold itwould be little more than a glori-fied, albeit militant, trade union. Inorder to both learn from and teachthe working class the party musthave a programme of action fordefeating capitalism and not justameliorating its worst effects.

Today many activists object to

the idea of a revolutionary partybecause they are against “lead-ers”. As the revolutionary partyunashamedly seeks to lead theworking class activists in variousprotest movements, local cam-paigns and so on, they declarethemselves to be “against par-ties”.

The history of so many parties– from the Stalinist bureaucraticmonstrosities, to the clique domi-nated reformist social democraticparties and the so-called “Trotsky-ist” or “revolutionary” parties andsects, run like feudal fiefdoms byunaccountable leaders – gives plen-ty of cause for suspicion. But twothings prove that the genuinely rev-olutionary party is different.

Democratic centralismThe first is the concept of demo-cratic centralism itself. Some arguethis is a bureaucratic and undemo-cratic way of organising. Quitethe opposite. Democratic central-ism means the maximum level ofdebate and discussion within theparty over the correct tactics andprogramme to adopt.But when adecision has been reached, then thegreatest unity must be presentedby the party to the working class.Capital is a highly centralised socialforce. To overthrow it we must haveunity in action.

The working class spontaneous-ly gravitates towards democraticcentralist types of organisation dur-ing times of struggle. The impor-tance of unity and solidarity are wellunderstood by workers on strike.Decisions are made about tacticsand strategy in an open and dem-ocratic environment.But anybodywho breaks with the decision of themajority once a vote has been taken,becomes a strike breaker, a traitorand a scab.This democracy must bepreserved at all costs and onlyever temporarily suspended when

repression or illegality make nor-mal democratic functioning prac-tically impossible. It is vital for hold-ing the leaders of the party toaccount, for allowing dissentersto air their views and to allowmistakes to be corrected. It is theonly guarantee against organisa-tional degeneration.

Centralism, the intervention intothe external world is the other. Forwithout it, with a free-for-all byparty members of different views,nobody would be accountable, nopolicy could be tested and cor-rected, no leader held responsiblefor a success or a mistake. The partythat acted without centralismwould become a laughing stock andquickly fall apart. Centralism inaction is equally a guarantee againstdegeneration.

AccountabilityThe second factor that marks outthe revolutionary party is that it isopen in its quest for leadership ofthe working class. It “disdains” asKarl Marx said “to conceal itsviews”.And those who say “no lead-ers” are always, but always, led bycliques or charismatic individualswho direct operations and make thekey decisions. The differencebetween them and revolutionaryleaders is that we believe inaccountability. Our leaders are cho-sen and can be replaced.

After all, every struggle requiresand finds leadership. Without it, ona picket line for example, the policewill have a field day. Our side willhave nobody directing our forcesto the key points of the strugglewhile the police commanders directtheirs to the best effect. In realitystrike committees and militantsselected as picket leaders demon-strate the way in which workersin struggle can find a leadership.

And in every wider struggle lead-erships emerge. While reformist

consciousness prevails that leader-ship will be reformist. And the cost,in strikes, in campaigns, in thestruggle for progressive legislation,is that we are sold out or sold shortby these leaders.

Revolutionary leadership willbreak the hold of the reformists andwin the support of the masses of theworking class. Like the Bolshe-viks in 1917, we do not do this bytricks or deceit but by proving our-selves the most consistent fightersfor the interests of the workingclass, we do it by placing our-selves at the forefront of every strug-gle, by acting, as Lenin said, as “trib-unes of the people”.

Above all, without revolutionaryleadership, the revolution cannottriumph. In Indonensia a powerfuluprising overthrew a rotten regime.It mobilised thousands upon thou-sands demanding change. But sud-denly it stalled, not because themasses were satisfied.Poverty andhunger are still rife but the leadersof that revolution favoured a com-promise with a wing of the oldregime. Their leadership deliber-ately held back the revolution andwill try to kill it off altogether oncethey have satisfied their own limit-ed demands for democratic reform.

Only a revolutionary leadershipcan take this movement forward toa victory over the decaying capital-ism that spells misery for millionsof Indonesians.

The revolutionary party needs tobe organised and prepared at all lev-els. From the intervention intoworkers’ meetings, to leadingstrikes and participating in revolu-tionary struggles, the party mustbe politically and organisationallyprepared.A revolutionary party willunite those workers who havelearnt the lessons of their strugglesin a single organisation that canutilise these lessons to lead theentire working class.


STRAP GOES HERE

In February 1917 the workers,soldiers, sailors and peasantsof Russia revolted against the

slaughter of the First World Warand the tyrannical regime of TsarNicholas II. The workers, sol-diers and sailors in the main citiesorganised themselves, sponta-neously, in workers’ councils (sovi-ets).

Delegates from the different fac-tories, working class districtsand from different regiments inthe army constituted an alterna-tive power, based on direct work-ing class democracy. Workers, sol-diers and sailors elected delegatesfrom mass meetings to the sovi-et.Direct representatives, theywere accountable and recallableto the workers who elected them.But this did not lead to the work-ers and their allies taking powerimmediately.

The representatives of the mostpopular parties in the soviets,the Mensheviks and the SocialRevolutionaries, believed that Rus-sia was not ready for a socialist rev-olution and instead proceeded toorganise a series of short lived gov-ernments with the main bourgeoispoliticians. They resisted the callfor “all power to the soviets” infavour of ceding power to the bour-geois Provisional Government.

Within the soviets the Bolshe-vik Party challenged these partieswith clear revolutionarypolicies.The Bolsheviks fought towin all power for the soviets.Through patient explanation theBolsheviks defeated the bourgeoisparties in the soviets and wonthe mass of workers and soldiersto insurrection. Soviets led by Bol-sheviks were the key to revolution-ary victory.

The Bolshevik Party did notappear from nowhere in 1917. Itoriginated within the RussianSocial Democratic and Labour

Party (RSDLP), a party which unit-ed all revolutionary Marxists in theRussian empire at the start of thecentury.In 1903 a row broke outat the RSDLP’s founding congress.What appeared to be at first a minororganisational question, over whatit meant to be a member of theparty, proved to be a key politicalquestion in the fight for revolution.

enin, the leader of the Bolshevikfaction, argued in line with whathad up until then been the com-mon position of the entire leader-ship of the RSDLP, that the organ-isation needed to be a militant,professional and centralised organ-isation.Its members would haveto be under the discipline of oneof the party organisations and fightfor the party programme, what waslater to become known as demo-cratic centralism.

The party would be organiseddemocratically, with freedom of dis-cussion among the members lead-

ing to a vote on the party’s pro-gramme, policies, tactics and action.Once a decision had been made thenevery member of the party would beobliged to fight for it.

Lenin won a majority at the 1903congress after a number of hisopponents walked out. (Bolshevikis the Russian word for majority).The minority, Mensheviks, (fromthe Russian word for minority)argued for a looser form of organ-isation. They refused to acceptthe right of the congress to electthe editorial board of the partypaper, Iskra.

This was not just a question of theformal constitution of the party butwas directly related to the politicaltasks of the Social Democrats. In theprevious year, Lenin wrote a veryimportant work, What is to beDone?, that remains a vital guide forrevolutionaries in the struggle today.

Lenin explained that without aconscious political leadership, a

party, the working class’ econom-ic struggle inside the workplace willnot, spontaneously, generate a rev-olutionary socialistconsciousness.The party is the bear-er of that consciousness, fightingwithin every sphere of class strug-gle against capitalism and oppres-sion – not just within the workplaceover economic issues – to win theworking class and oppressed to therevolutionary programme.

Capitalism conceals the exploita-tion and oppression that is inherentwithin it. Selling your labour seemsto be a fair deal. It appears to be a“free” contract between a boss anda worker. Systematic exploitation isnot immediately obvious, even if theeffects of it, like low pay are.And it isprecisely the fight over the effects– the fight for a better deal, “a fairday’s pay for a fair day’s work”, forreforms within capitalism – thatworkers spontaneously take up. Togo beyond this requires an under-

Why we need a rev olutionary partyPARTY AND PROGRAMME

VI Lenin


poses, they must now learn to actdeliberately as organising centresof the working class in the broadinterests of its complete emancipa-tion. They must aid every social andpolitical movement tending in thatdirection. Considering themselves,and acting as, the champions andrepresentatives of the whole work-ing class, they cannot fail to enlistnon-society men into their ranks.They must look carefully after theinterests of the worst paid trades,such as the agricultural labour-ers, rendered powerless by excep-tional circumstances. They mustconvince the workers at large thattheir efforts, far from being narrowand selfish, aim at the emancipa-tion of the downtrodden millions.”

Before such unions could be builtthe working class had to learn abloody lesson. The German work-ers' movement grew rapidly at theend of the nineteenth century andsoon overtook the British unions.Membership of the unions rosefrom a quarter of a million in the1890s, to 2.6 million in 1912. Butwhile formally committed to Marx-ist politics, the German unionsbecame a breeding ground forreformism.

BetrayalRosa Luxemburg foresaw the dan-ger but she was not able to avertit. Even Lenin later admitted thatthe rest of the revolutionary work-ers' movement had been slow torecognise the danger. The leader-ship of the unions and the GermanSocial Democratic Party were tobetray the whole working class. Atthe outbreak of the World War in1914 they sided with the bosses inthe war and millions of workerswere sent to their deaths in defenceof capitalism. The British unionsand the Labour Party did the same.The reformist character of puretrade unionism revealed itself as a

bloody defender of capitalist order.The need for the rank and file of theunions to organise themselves tooverthrow the bureaucracy alsobecame crystal clear.

The Russian Revolution of 1917,however, showed the alternative. Itraised the real possibility of the rev-olutionary transformation of theunions on condition that a revo-lutionary workers party – fightingcapitalism on every front, not juston economic questions – could bebuilt and could win leadershipinside the working class. As earlyas March 1920 one of the Bolshe-vik leaders, Zinoviev, was calling fora new international of trade unionsto counter the rotten reformism ofthe old pre-war unions.

In Moscow in 1921 the First Con-gress of the Red International ofLabour Unions took place. Theyagreed an action programme whichstill reads like a breath of fresh airto anyone stuck in the claustropho-bic bureaucratic structures of aunion today.

The action programme calls forworkers to come together intoindustrially based unions to over-come the craft divisions that mightexist in one factory or workshop.They call for factory committeesand for such committees to be trulyrepresentative of all workers.Despite the success of the Bolshe-viks in leading the Russian Revolu-tion they oppose attempts by any-one party to monopolise control:

“The factory committee must beelected by the workers engaged inthe given enterprise, independent-ly of the political creed they profess.The task of the supporters of theRed International of Trade Unionsis to involve all the workers of agiven enterprise in the election ofthe representative organ. Theattempt to elect the factory com-mittee exclusively from adherentsof the same party, and the casting

aside of the broad, nonparty rankand file workers, should be severe-ly condemned.”

The RILU issued a rallying call tothe workers of the world for everyfactory to become “a citadel of rev-olution”. Demands within the actionprogramme were to oppose any jobloss, to open the books of anyemployer claiming that they couldnot afford to keep people on and tooccupy any factory threatened withclosure. The RILU warned of thepotential of the bosses attacking anysign of militancy amongst work-ers and called for strike militias andself defence squads. Opposing allattempts to divide workers, the RILUcalled for full equality for womenworkers. Aware of the potential dan-ger from the bureaucracy, they werefor breaking any cosy collectiveagreement with the bosses. Theycalled for workers' control, not col-laboration. The Bolsheviks in theRILU warned against limiting thetrade union struggle and pointed tothe importance of political leader-ship:

“Every economic struggle is alsoa political one; that is a general classstruggle. Such a struggle can onlyacquire a really revolutionary char-acter, no matter how many work-ers it may involve, and be carriedthrough for the greatest benefit ofthe entire working class, whenthe revolutionary trade unionsact in perfect unity with the Com-munist Party in each respectivecountry. To divide the theory andpractice of the struggle of the work-ing class into two distinct parts isextremely detrimental.”

Russian revolutionThe experience of the RussianRevolution and the formation of theRlLU had an electrifying effect uponthe unions within Europe. In Britainthe 1920s saw political strikes aimedat stopping the British intervention

against the revolution in Russia,massive strikes in the mines andin engineering and the formationof the Communist Party-led Minor-ity Movement, a rank and file move-ment initially launched to challengethe bureaucracy. The upsurge in theunions culminated with the Gener-al Strike of 1926. But by then therevolution had been undermined bythe growing cancer of Stalinism andthe CP delivered up the Britishworkers to the leaders of the TUCwho duly sold them out.

Any examination of the unionsof today will reveal that we can stillrecognise the limitations highlight-ed by Marx, Engels, Luxemburg andLenin. We are frequently told thatpolitics should be kept out of theunion. Workers remain divided inseparate unions in many work-places. In schools it is a commonoccurrence for there to be five dif-ferent unions. And union fat catsthink nothing about sabotagingeach other in the fight for singleunion “sweetheart” deals with man-agement.

Reformism and bureaucracyThe bureaucracy still clings toour backs like a bloated leech. Theytry to sell us credit cards, ratherthan fight for our future. And ourleaders continue to sell us out.

The task of transforming theunions still confronts us today.But we can learn important les-sons from the history of ourmovement. One of the key les-sons is that such a transforma-tion cannot take place withouta political struggle. And whilefighting, rank and file controlledunions would be an enormousstep forward for the workingclass, they are no substitute fora revolutionary workers' partyif they are to be able to play theirpart in the task of over-throwingcapitalism.


STRAP GOES HERE

By Kate Foster, April 1999

Many workers will recog-nise Karl Marx's descrip-tion of unions as

“schools of struggle” when theyrecall their first picket line: organ-ising yourselves, attempting tocover all the entrances, arguingwith other workers, learning whocan be trusted, squaring up to thecops. No trade unionist forgetsthe first victory: seeing a hatedmanager silenced and cowed,workers going into work confi-dent and looking forward to thenext battle.

Yet the experience of organis-ing a union can also be drab, frus-trating and disheartening: unionbureaucrats telling you your strikeis over; endless small meetings,mired in routine and governed bypetty rules; seeing the union lead-ers wolfing their meat and two vegat the poshest hotel in town atunion conference.

The experience of trade unionsreflects the nature of the unionsin the class struggle: they are con-tradictory.

Unions can take the workingclass forward and they are anessential weapon in our armouryagainst the bosses. But they arealso used to defuse struggles andrestrict the fighting capacity of theclass.

Throughout their history theunions have been faced with thedilemma of fighting within the sys-tem or fighting to smash it.

In many countries, even tothis day, unions begin as illegalorganisations. Historically inEurope they arose as workersrealised that their strength lay incollective organisation. A singleworker could not resist thedemands of the bosses, but com-bining together with other work-ers gave them strength. In Britain,in the late 18th and early 19th cen-

turies, these combinations wereshort, sporadic and illegal. Work-ers organised themselves aroundimmediate demands on the bosses.As capitalism developed, so toodid the unions.

By the mid-19th century theunions had become more sophisti-cated. Unions fought for the legalright to exist and became more per-manent formations. Engels wrote:“As schools of war, the unions areunexcelled.”

A class for its selfFor Marx and Engels unions playedan important part in the develop-ment of class consciousness. Theyargued that the working classbecause of its position in produc-tion, that of wage labourer, con-stituted a distinct social class. It wasa class “in itself”. However, work-ers did not automatically see theircommon interests. As wage labour-ers, receiving individually from thecapitalist their own wage, theyappear to be atomised. Yet to resistthe bosses they must find collectiv-ity, solidarity and political class con-sciousness. The working class mustbecome a class “for itself'. Organ-ising in a union could be a steptowards this, Marx and Engels said.

But the early revolutionarysocialists were also aware of the lim-itations of trade unionism. Unionsby their very nature tended to limitthemselves to the economic classstruggle. Based in the workplace,the spontaneous demands of theunions were around jobs, pay andconditions – economic rather thanpolitical demands. Limited to fight-ing against the individual capital-ists and not fighting to get rid ofcapitalism itself, meant that theunions were constantly having todefend themselves as the capital-ist's profits rose or fell.

As Rosa Luxemburg later wrote,limiting the struggle to economic

demands meant the unions werecondemned to repeat the Greekmyth of “the labour of Sisyphus”– the man condemned for eterni-ty to attempt to push a great boul-der up the hill only to see it rolldown again every evening. Anyonewho has battled with managementover cuts or pay will recognise theanalogy.

But there was another danger.Marx pointed out that unless theworking class could be won torevolutionary politics the unionswould become influenced by anoth-er kind of politics – the politics ofthe bourgeoisie. In particular, tradeunionism's self proclaimed goalof fighting for “a fair day's pay fora fair day's work” accepted the termsof the capitalist wages system. It didnot seek to abolish that system.

Marx argued that it was notpossible for unions to remain polit-ically neutral. And as capitalism andthe unions matured, he was provedcorrect.

“Pure unionism”The political ideas of “pure tradeunionism”, focused around eco-nomic demands, inevitably evolvedinto reformism. The belief that it ispossible to reform capitalism, tomake it more amenable to theworking class, to fight the bossesfor concessions but not to over-throw them, flows from limitingthe class struggle to purely econom-ic, and frequently merely section-al, demands.

Reformist politics were lodged inpure trade unionism. With thedevelopment in the late 19th cen-tury of a distinct “labour aristocra-cy” a material base for a reformistbureaucracy emerged in the unions,as well as reformist political partieslinked to this bureaucracy.

As capitalism expanded in thenewly industrialised nations ofEurope and the United States, mas-

sive profits were made from exploit-ing the workers and the new mar-kets of the under-developed coun-tries. Imperialist capitalism wasborn. Colonial super-profits allowedcapitalism to pay certain groupsof skilled workers higher wages andgrant them better conditions.Skilled labour shortages allowedsome workers to push for anddefend their relatively privilegedstatus. The gap between the high-est and the lowest paid workersgrew rapidly, between the labouraristocracy and the masses.

In a letter to William Morris,Engels described the condition ofcertain workers as improving sig-nificantly since 1848:

“The best proof of this is thefact that for more than fifteen yearsnot only have their employers beenwith them but they with theiremployers, upon exceedingly goodterms. They form an aristocracyamong the working class; they havesucceeded in enforcing for them-selves a relatively comfortable posi-tion, and they accept it as final.”

This development coincided withthe creation of legal and morepermanent trade unions, able to paysome officials to work specificallyfor the union. These union lead-ers and officials were to become themeans by which bourgeois ideasand interests were introduced intothe labour movement. This bureau-cracy's very existence dependedupon, and remains dependent upon,the continuation of capitalism. Thebureaucrats become arbitersbetween capital and labour, butalways accepting the terms of ref-erence of capitalism itself.

By the time of their deaths Marxand Engels recognised that forthe working class to move for-ward new types of unions wouldhave to be built – class struggleunions:

“Apart from their original pur-

The trouble with the unionsKEY STRUGGLE (A): THE WORKING CLASS AND THE UNIONS


KEY STRUGGLE (A): THE WORKING CLASS AND THE UNIONS

By Joy Macready, Oct 2009

The mainstream parties'assessment of the extent ofthe pubic sector cutbacks

needed – an estimated 10-20% cutsin the health sector, £2bn cuts ineducation, 10 per cent savingsacross government departments –is staggering. Their representativesand their loyal friends in the media,however, never mention that it iscaused by the gaping hole left inthe public purse from the £1.3 tril-lion bailout of the banks.

Meanwhile, private sector boss-es are using the recession torelocate production, sack workers,cut their wages and steal fromtheir pensions. Share prices andprofit margins may be recovering,but this is not enough for thegreedy capitalists; they want toinflict further damage on workingclass families and communities.

SolidarityBut already we see the signs of amilitant fightback. Occupationsare leading the way: Visteon, TwoSisters, Prisme, Waterford, andVestas, to name a few. Parents andteachers in Glasgow and Lewishamoccupied their schools to pre-vent closure. Postal workers areballoting for a national strikeagainst redundancies and reduc-tions in hours and wages. TowerHamlets College lecturers took all-out indefinite action for fourweeks, while Leeds bin workers arestill all out.

The list of struggles showsthat it is not just the public sectorthat is under attack, but also theprivate sector; it is not just work-ers fighting back against servicecuts, but the users of worseningservices. Although the public sec-tor is in the direct firing line of thegovernment, all workers will beaffected by cuts in housing, health-care or education.

As Marxists, we do not just livein the realm of ideas and theory,

but we put our theory into practice.The challenge is to find a way to linkthese struggles together, overcom-ing the division between public andprivate, between providers andusers, and between the variousunions. Those struggles listed aboveare inspiring but all are isolatedto a degree.

Within the different struggles,Workers Power has argued for localcommittees of action to uniteactivists at a community level. TheVestas solidarity committees, whichattracted workers from many dif-ferent unions, community andgreen activists, and socialist organ-isations, were an encouraging stepin this direction. But we need amore permanent form of organisa-tion that goes beyond the limitedscope of one struggle, one strike orone issue – committees of actionthat can be mobilised to fight on anumber of fronts at the same time.

Such committees can reactquickly to events, overcome divi-sions between workers in differ-ent unions, and also bring intostruggle the unemployed who havebeen thrown out of work. Theyshould also include users of pub-lic services; as the government andbosses try to lay the blame for dete-riorating services at the feet of pub-lic sector workers, pubic opinionmust be won to the struggle of theseworkers for quality services.

Unity from belowBritain has developed organs ofclass struggle like this in the past.During the 1926 General Strike,councils of action were built by thetrades councils in each town andcity – all working class political,industrial, co-operative and unem-ployed organisations were repre-sented, and, importantly, womenwere also heavily involved. Theycounteracted the “poisonous andpernicious propaganda” of the gov-ernment and the employers' organ-isations and even took control of

food supplies, organised defencecorps against scabs and the policeand army, and directly controlledthe strike locally.

Miners’ strikeIn 1984, during the Great Miners'Strike, a network of Miners' Sup-port Committees criss-crossed thecountry, providing vital solidaritylike food supplies, Christmas pres-ents for the miners' children, speak-ers to factories to explain why theminers' needed support, campaign-ing against police harassment ofstrikers and mobilising support forthe picket lines.

But, say the sceptics, Britaintoday is not at that level of classstruggle – the working class doesnot have the “confidence” or thefighting spirit to create committeesof action. This is a self-defeatingargument. In every area wherethere is struggle, strikers can putout the call for committees of actionand rally support from others.The committees will in turn helpto boost confidence and raise fight-ing spirit.

Take the Vestas struggle, forexample, where workers occu-pied a plant that made blades forwind power when bossesannounced its closure. It was thesolidarity movement – the cli-mate camp and CampaignAgainst Climate Change – thatencouraged the workers to occu-py the plant. If solidarity com-mittees could be built for Vestas,then why not for other struggles?By building committees of actionin every town and city, moreworkers will feel able to take mil-itant action and the general levelof the class struggle will rise. Butto do this, they must do morethan simply raise donations, holdmeetings and stand on picketlines, crucial though these actsare. They can start to become analternative centre of power insociety.

Alternative powerWhat do we mean by “an alterna-tive centre of power”? Three things.

First, we know from bitter expe-rience that the trade union leadersoften sabotage our struggles, sell-ing them short, calling off action,disuniting strikes. Committees ofaction can help thwart such treach-ery by building unity from below.

Second, committees of action canalso lay the basis for a political alter-native to Labour – a basis fromwhich to build a new anti-capital-ist party in Britain, one that willfight for the interests of the work-ing class.

Committing to a new party is nota precondition to joining the localcommittees of action – many work-ers who still look to Labour orwho are against all parties can berallied to them. But, because thesewill be engaged in the local strug-gles, because they will be comingup against the government's cutsand attacks, many will begin torealise that only a working classpolitical party can secure general,society-wide victories for our classthrough fighting for the overthrowof the capitalist system and the for-mation of a workers' government.

Finally, a government of theworkers would be based not on anunelected civil service bureaucra-cy, unelected generals, unelectedmillionaires in the boardrooms, and600-odd MPs who are elected everyfive years but are free to break theirpromises itself. It could be based ondemocratic organisations of work-ing class delegates from below,workers' councils with all delegatesrecallable by the workers who votedfor them. The formation of com-mittees for action is a step in thatdirection – a step towards an alter-native centre of power for the wholeof society.

For more on committees ofaction, go to:www.workerspower.com

Committees of action



Jeremy Dewar, Feb 2010

This is an ideal time for a rankand file conference. Thegreat financial crash of

2007-08 has been followed by thelongest and deepest recession sincethe Second World War. The boss-es, and the Labour Governmentthat serves them, are hell bent onmake the working class pay thecost of bailing out their system.Workers in the years ahead face analternative; resist or see our jobs,pensions, social services wiped outand real wages slashed.

And already there is resistanceand a few victories. Just look at the92 per cent vote of 13,000 BritishAirways cabin crew against thecompany's plans to impose as manyas 4,900 job losses by 1 April. A 12-day strike over the Christmasholiday period might have cost BAbetween 20 and 30 million poundsa day. BA was on the ropes, so areactionary judge took away theworkers right to strike by rulingthe ballot invalid. Nevertheless theyare balloting again and could strikeas early as 1 March.

Then there was the first strikein the IT sector. 454 Fujitsu work-ers took nine days of action bythe end of last month and are plan-ning another three this month.They are fighting plans for 1000job losses, extension of a pay freezeand the closure of the final salarypension scheme. Sodhexo cater-ing workers in North Devon NHSTrust, denied a pay rise for threeyears, have notched up a victory.Then there is the PCS nationalstrike ballot on 4 February againstthe abolition of the civil servicecompensation scheme.

True, resistance has not yetdeveloped into a class-wide count-er-attack. This is due in no small

measure to the fact that most unionleaders have applied the brakeswhenever they could in order toprop up the embattled Labourgovernment.

In the run-up to an election theleaders of the big unions, especial-ly in the public sector, will do all theycan to head off strikes embarrass-ing for Brown. But in private com-panies, as the economy picks up andprofits start to recover, workers willfeel more confidence to fight joblosses and cuts in wages and pen-sion. In the public service, whoev-er wins the election, workers willface the biggest onslaught on theirjobs and conditions since the early1980s.

Build from belowIt is vital we learn the lessons fromrecent struggles. The biggest lessonis that we face defeat if we leavethe leadership of struggles to thefull time officials, who repeatedly

sell us out or sell us short. An exam-ple of a monumental sell-out wasthe action of Unite fulltime conven-ers and national officials who didnothing to defend the jobs of 850agency workers at the Cowley BMWmini plan.

An example of the “sell-short” wasCWU leader Billy Hayes in the postafter militant rank and file action inaction in London and elsewhere hadmanagement on the ropes. TheNovember Interim Agreement, set-tled for by the executive, led to fewimprovements in some offices, butby calling off the action without abinding permanent agreement theydoomed posties to another bitterbattle when management returnsto the attack, as they surely will.

Another example, the British Air-ways cabin crew dispute wherebranch militants won the vote forstrike action but Unite leader DerekSimpson, whilst calling the judge'sstrike ban “a disgraceful day for

democracy” simultaneously leakedto the press his view that a decisionto strike at Christmas was “over thetop.” Now Simpson has pledged inadvance that, whatever the result ofthe re-ballot, Unite will not callstrikes over the Easter holiday peri-od.

How can we stop this kind of sab-otage? Firstly by warning that sell-outs by the officials are a real pos-sibility at the beginning of everydispute. The syndicalists and thecommunists of the 1920s alwayssaid, “Watch Your Leaders”. Evenbetter would be Control your Lead-ers. We can do this by organisingstrike committees, elected by massmeetings held regularly during adispute.

We should demand that the offi-cials report regularly to them andthat rank and file representativesare present at all negotiation andthey should not be bound by secre-cy or confidentiality. Lastly we need

For a rank and filemovement in our unions


2. Around concrete demands for union con-solidation and reorganisation.

3. Around the necessity for creating a new ide-ology amongst the union membership.

4. Around the necessity of training and devel-oping a new leadership to replace the old.”

The NMM set out to transform the local tradescouncils into fighting organisations of the wholelabour movement, changing their constitutionsto incorporate delegates from workplace com-mittees, political organisations, co-operativesand college students, as well as union branch-es. It fought to have them affiliated to the TUCto make its pressure felt within the official struc-tures.

This is a model for the committees of actionwe need today.

But the communists did not rest there, com-munist party member JR Campbell wrote:

“It should be clear to members of minoritygroups, however, that their task consists of some-thing more than demanding slightly higherwages than the officials are prepared to demand…That 'something more' is the popularisation ofthe conception of trade unionism, not merely asa reformist force under capitalism, but as a rev-olutionary instrument for participating in thestruggle for power, and after the struggle forpower, playing a part in the management of indus-try.”

This was not just for the contemplation of partymembers or lengthy articles either.

“Every candidate for even the most insignifi-cant post,” wrote Campbell, should stand on arevolutionary platform. While the communistssupported the left officials against the right andstrove to transform the “muddled and incom-plete left wing viewpoint of the more progressive

leaders into a real revolutionary viewpoint”, theywarned against reliance on them and never for-got their “main activity must be devoted tocapturing the masses”.

The NMM fought for concrete slogans, likeunemployed benefits set at the minimum wageand a six hour day, as well as society-widedemands, like workers' control of industry anda workers' government, fully utilizing the methodof transitional demands. But this did not limitits growth.

By 1925 its conference gathered delegates rep-resenting 750,000 members. It played a massiverole in revitalizing a defeated, shrinking anddemoralized union movement and paved the wayfor the 1926 General Strike.

Unfortunately, the NMM did not survive thepolitical degeneration of the Communist Inter-national into Stalinism and it failed to warn work-ers of the inevitable betrayal of the TUC in theGeneral Strike. That degeneration was notinevitable for many reasons, but in any case itdoesn't erase the positive legacy. It is a modelof what can be achieved today, given the politi-cal will. Rank and file organisation today has tobe political, has to be militantly anticapitalist.It should play a leading role in the building of anew, anticapitalist, working class party in Britainand internationally too.

Right To WorkThe Right To Work conference has the oppor-tunity to take the first steps towards building areal rank and file organisation. We want a rankand file movement capable of acting independ-ently of the officials whenever they obstructthe fightback and we want to say this openly andexplicitly.

Socialist Workers Party (SWP) leaders have inthe past argued that they cannot “substitutethemselves for a non-existent movement”. Butthis misses the point. We can in a measuredand realistic way take steps to bring such a move-ment into view – but we have to state our aimsclearly and popularise them among the alreadyexisting layer of militants looking for big answersto the capitalism's big crisis.

As Leon Trotsky wrote in the Transitional Pro-gramme, we must “strive not only to renew thetop leadership of the trade unions” and create“independent militant organisations” but do sowithout “flinching even in the face of a directbreak with the conservative apparatus of the tradeunions”.

We will over the coming months and yearshave plenty of opportunities to advance the work-ers' movement in Britain.

Let's seize them.


to insist that no final agreement is reached with-out the opportunity for discussion of it and vot-ing on it by mass meetings of the strikers.

Another historic slogan first raised by Clyde-side shop stewards in the First World War is avital guide to action today. With the union offi-cials where possible, without them where nec-essary. It means that not only that we need toretain or gain to control over our own disputesbut to initiate them whenever the union leadersrefuse to act. This not pie-in-the-sky wishfulthinking, either.

A number of disputes last year started with-out official backing. Visteon, Vestas, Prisme…the list is quite a long one. The last two occupa-tions started before the workers even joined aunion! While the postal strike would not havegone national at all if it hadn't been for theLondon offices kick starting the action back inthe summer of '09.

Action CommitteesBy uniting rank and file militants from each andevery union into local organisations that candeliver action – strikes, solidarity, demos and ral-lies we can help every section that takes action.

Such organisations sprang up around the Vis-teon and Vestas occupations and, most notably,the national post strike. In the case of Vestas,workers commented that they could not havedone what they did without the solidarity groups.

Rob Williams, a Unite convenor at Linamarcar parts plant, was victimised for his role in per-suading Bridgend Ford workers to agree to strikein support of the Visteon workers. But not onlydid the threatened solidarity action force Fordto cough up the workers' redundancy money, thespirit of solidarity spread and Rob won his ownjob back.

Workers Power campaign to transform thesesolidarity groups into committees of action bynot dissolving them after each dispute, but keep-ing them going and broadening them, drawingin delegates from as many workplaces and unionsas possible. Of course such committees can onlysurvive in a period of more intense class strug-gle, but that's precisely what we anticipate. Indeedthe 700 or so individuals and delegates comingto the Right To Work conference are testimonyto the fact that thousands of activists know weare facing a co-ordinated attack and need a co-ordinated response.

The National Shop Stewards Network, for fearof offending RMT officials and due in no smallpart to the influence of the Socialist Party, hasseveral times refused Workers Power's propos-al to take up the slogan, 'with the union offi-cials where possible, without them where nec-essary'.

Right To Work to its credit has done so, bothat its founding conference last June and again atlast month's steering committee. Now we have

to move from words to deeds. We need to sup-port workers once they take unofficial action,but also prepare the way for such action now.The best way to do this is to form rank and filemovements democratically uniting the most far-sighted and determined militants inside everyunion and across the trade union movement.

TraditionThere is an excellent tradition in Britain of build-ing rank and file movements. It goes back over100 years to the years just before and during theFirst World War. Union and Labour leaders calledfor their members to “make sacrifices” andsupport the mass slaughter in the trenches dur-ing the war. A network of shop stewards, direct-ly elected representatives of the rank and file,sprang up across the country to defend the mem-bers pay conditions and oppose conscription.

In 1921 the post-war crisis hit. Workers' wagesfell – by up to 24 per cent per cent by 1924. Unem-ployment topped two million. The right wingunion leaders again hampered the workers' fight-back; union membership fell. It was in 1924, inthis difficult climate, that the young communistparty launched the National Minority Movement(NMM) in the unions.

The party's paper set out its aims:“In every union the rank and file forces must

be gathered1. Around a fighting programme.



same principles, but with oneimportant difference. In Kosova,Milosevic himself is engaged in areactionary war of ethnic cleansing.We therefore make a distinctionbetween the war in Kosova andthe war in Serbia itself. Differentclass issues are at stake in each war.We are against the policy being con-tinued in Kosova – reactionary,nationalist ethnic cleansing, andtherefore do not support Serbia. Weare against the policy being contin-ued by Nato – subordination of theBalkans and therefore do not sup-port Nato. In Serbia itself, however,the justified defence of an ex-Stal-inist country in transition to becom-ing a capitalist semi-colony againstimperialism means we do supportSerbia's struggle against Nato.

Some “Marxists” throw up theirhands at this and plead for easy,catch-all solutions. But war pro-vides no easy answers. Wars can rap-idly change their character. Only bya class analysis, an understandingof the politics of each war, can weunderstand why some wars are justand some are unjust and onlythus can we determine whose sidewe are on, if any.

This method has proved vital forrevolutionaries in many wars, butnone more so than the two worldwars of this century. Both, despitethe so called “anti-fascist” charac-ter of the Allied war effort in theSecond World War, were unjustwars as far as Britain, the USA,France, Germany, Japan and theother imperialist states were con-cerned.

World WarsNeither world war was fought topreserve democracy. Both werefought in order to re-divide theworld for exploitation between

the imperialist powers. They wereunjust, imperialist wars.

As Lenin put it with regard to theFirst World War:

“Picture to yourselves a slaveowner who owned 100 slaves war-ring against a slave owner whoowned 200 slaves for a more 'just'distribution of slaves. Clearly, theapplication of the term 'defensive'war, or 'war for the defence ofthefatherland', in such a case would behistorically false, and in practicewould be sheer deception of thecommon people ... Precisely in thisway are the present day imperialistbourgeoisie deceiving the peoplesby means of 'national' ideology andthe term 'defence of the fatherland'in the present war between slaveowners for fortifying and strength-ening slavery.”

Revolutionary defeatismLenin formulated a policy for Marx-ists that went beyond simplyanalysing the class character of warsand supporting or opposing them.He developed the policy of revolu-tionary defeatism -waging the classstruggle in your own countryagainst your own bourgeoisie evenat the cost of it being defeated inwar – as a means of creating theconditions under which imperial-ist war could be transformed into acivil war, a war by workers on theirown ruling class. He argued:

“A revolutionary class cannot butwish for the defeat of its govern-ment in a reactionary war, cannotfail to see that its military reversesfacilitate its overthrow. Socialistsmust explain to the masses thatthey have no other road of salvationexcept the revolutionary overthrowof 'their' governments, and thatadvantage must be taken of thesegovernments' embarrassments In

the present war precisely for thispurpose.”

The successful application of thispolicy led directly to the Russian Rev-olution and the establishment of theworld's first workers' state. But eventhe establishment of such a state, ina single country, will not eradicatewar and its attendant horrors.

SocialismUntil the socialist revolution is vic-torious on a global scale – freeingthe world from the economic andnational competition that causeswar – the capitalists will resist eachand every worker' revolution sincethey stand to lose their fortunes,their privileges and their politicalrule. Always and everywhere theywill fight arms in hand to defeatworkers' revolution. Civil war to

defeat them will be necessary. It isa stage towards the creation of aworld free from war, and such anobjective justifies the use of warlikemeans to achieve it.

That is another reason whyMarxists are not pacifists and arenot in favour of general andabstract calls for “disarmament”.We know we cannot defeat a pow-erful enemy other than by revolu-tion and civil war.

To win such a war we need arms.We are for the disarmament of thebosses' by the armed working class.As Engels put it: “If the workingclass was to overcome the bour-geoisie it would first have to mas-ter the art and strategy of war.” ToSay otherwise is a deception, onethat will result in wars withoutend.


STRAP GOES HERE

By Jenny Scott, May 1999

War is a bloody and brutalbusiness. Our rulersdeliberately air-brush

the images we get of the wars theyare involved in. The Gulf waragainst Iraq in 1991, was present-ed by the media as a computer cho-reographed fireworks show inaid of “democracy”. Later, the pic-tures of hundreds of mangled andcharred bodies on the road toBasra came to light. Iraqis hadbeen wantonly slaughtered by theUS, British and other forces.

We are now being treated to thesame sort of propaganda barrageas our rulers blanket bomb theBalkans. They are having a hard-er time of it given Nato's “mistake”in bombing a refugee column andits targeting of journalists, tele-vision technicians and make-upartists at the Serbian televisionheadquarters. But to soften theimpact of the scenes of carnage,this time much emphasis is beingplaced on the “humanitarian”objectives of the Nato onslaught.

Unlike our rulers Marxists nevertry to prettify war in order to jus-tify it. We tell the truth. Part of thattruth is that war is an inevitableproduct of a class divided societyand a world divided into compet-ing nations. It is also a necessarypart of the struggle to overthrowclass society.

PacifismUnlike pacifists who reject all warssocialists oppose some wars, sup-port others and will be preparedto wage war against the capitalistenemy. Our aim is to create a worldfree of national divisions and inwhich classes have been abolished:world socialism. Only such a worldcan get rid of war altogether and

to achieve what we will have tofight, arms in hand.

Clausewitz, a nineteenth cen-tury German soldier and philoso-pher, provided an important insightinto wars when he wrote:

“We see, therefore, that war is notmerely a political act, but also a realpolitical instrument, a continua-tion of political commerce, a car-rying out of the same by othermeans.”

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotskyall took Clausewitz's insistence thatwar was not something separatefrom politics as their starting pointfor analysing wars. They went on toanalyse the class character of eachparticular war. Writing during thecarnage of the First World War,Lenin noted that the key questionswere, ''what caused that war, whatclasses are waging it, and what his-torico-economic conditions gaverise to it.”

By posing these questions Lenindrew the conclusion that there wereboth just and unjust wars. In theformer category he included warsfought “by nations oppressed byimperialism -Ireland's war for inde-pendence for example. In the lattercategory he pointed to the war thenbeing waged between the majorimperialist powers. He recognisedthat beneath the superficial ques-tion of''who fired the first shot?”,lay the important fact that thosepowers were fighting each other inorder to divide the world betweenthemselves. He wrote:

“This is a war firstly, to fortify theenslavement of the colonies bymeans of a 'fairer' distributionand subsequent more 'concerted'exploitation of them; secondly, tofortify the oppression of othernations within the 'great' power's,for both Austria and Russia (Russia

more and much worse than Aus-tria) maintain their rule by suchoppression, intensifying it by meansof war; and thirdy, to fortify and pro-long wage slavery, for the workingclass is split up and suppressed,while the capitalists gain, makingfortunes out of the war, aggravat-ing national prejudices and inten-sifying reaction, which has raisedits head in all countries, even in thefreest and most republican.”

ImperialismThe imperialist system describedby Lenin – and the wars waged bythe “great powers” in that systemretain the same reactionary char-acteristics he noted. The principaldifference is that since the secondworld wars most of the oppressedcountries have been transformedfrom colonies into semi-colonies.That is, colonies that have beengiven, or have won, formal inde-pendence but remain subordinat-ed to the economic power and polit-ical pressure of imperialism.

Imperialism goes to waragainst such countries in thename of “democracy” – againstthe “military dictator” Galtieri ofArgentina in the Falklands/Malv-inas in 1982, against the “tyrant”Saddam Hussein in 1991 (andagain in 2003) and against the“new Hitler” Milosevic during theBalkans war.

Socialists recognise that this“democratic” pretext is a lie. In eachcase imperialism has used andbacked the dictators in questionwhen it suited them. Only whenthey went against imperialism's willand threatened to upset its worldorder-and the profits of its mulina-tionals or the stability of the regionsit seeks to control – does imperi-alism turn against these countries.

Socialists have a clean con-science. We have fought thesedictators while they were imperial-ism's friends and we will continueto fight them despite them becom-ing its enemies. But, in each casethe concrete question in the warsby imperialism is not the fate of thedictators themselves – Thatcher hadno wish to overthrow Galtieri, Sad-dam Hussein was kept in powercourtesy of George Bush and Milo-sevic may yet be used as the guar-antor of stability in the Balkans –but the subordination of theoppressed nation to the will ofim-perialism. If imperialism succeeds,it represents a defeat for workersinternationally.

The Gulf war was fought by theimperialist-led coalition to keep Iraqin this subordinate state and to endany threat to their exploitation ofthe area.

The imperialists' claim that theywere fighting for democracy againsta cruel dictator was a lie. Kuwait –the country invaded by Iraq and“liberated” by imperialism – was avile dictatorship in which workersand peasants were denied any dem-ocratic rights whatsoever. Its royalfamily, restored by the “liberation”,set about reinforcing its dictator-ship under the protection of theUSA and Britain.

The importance of this exampleis that it demonstrates why Marx-ists were not simply against the warin the Gulf. We were against impe-rialism's war on Iraq, a war wagedfor oil and political control of theGulf region. We supported Iraq'swar against imperialism. This wasa just war – even though it wasbeing waged under a leadershipwhich we want to see destroyed bythe workers and peasants of Iraq.

In the Balkans today we apply the

KEY STRUGGLE (B): AGAINST IMPERIALISM AND WAR

Marxism: on war


One of the most contentiousissues in the antiwar move-ment is the resistance of the

Iraqi and Afghan people to the USand British occupations. What atti-tude should those of us, who opposeBush and Brown's war, take to thepeople in Basra, Baghdad andHelmand, who are taking up armsagainst the occupying troops?

Some - especially supporters ofCND - will tell us straight away thatno support can be given to any formof violence. Communists reject thispacifist argument on moral as wellas logical grounds. If this were true,then every national liberation strug-gle, every slave rebellion, every pop-ular revolution in history shouldnever have happened.

This helpless pacifist attitude onlyever disarms the oppressed andnever the oppressor. Communistsjudge our attitude to armed con-flicts from an entirely differentstandpoint. We ask which side in aconflict - if any - is pursuing aimsthat take forward the struggle forgenuine national liberation, fordemocratic rights and socialism.

How, then, should we view thespecific conflict today in Iraq? Wehave to begin by assessing the bigpicture. The over-riding aim ofthe forces resisting the British andthe Americans is to drive the occu-pying armies out of Iraq andAfghanistan. Is this a goal that theworking class shares?

It is. The invasion and occupa-tion of Iraq and Afghanistan weregross violations of the democraticrights of their peoples, of their self-determination. The fact that theirregimes were dictatorial did notgive another power the right to “lib-erate them” or “bring them democ-

racy.” In fact the imperialist occu-piers have done neither, but havehelped themselves to Iraq's invalu-able oil reserves, and forcibly pri-vatised the Iraqi economy, openingit up to exploitation by huge USmultinationals.

Communists therefore not onlysupport the right of the people ofAfghanistan and Iraq to resist thisrape and pillage of their coun-tries, but also aim to help them.This does not mean engaging instupid terrorist actions in Britainthat only help the government whipup hatred for “the enemy” and bringin ever more repressive laws.

It does mean campaigning tomobilise a mass movement of work-ing class people and youth toobstruct the government's wardrive, to take direct action to cut offits arms supplies, to call on soldiersto refuse to fight for Bush, Brownand the oil barons.

At this point in the discussion,the reformists in the working classmovement, like the Labour MPsand the trade union leaders, willstart raising the spectre of radicalIslamism. Turncoat ex-leftist jour-nalists like Nick Cohen of TheObserver, Christopher Hitchens andDavid Aaronovitch, in the violentlanguage that they reserve exclu-sively for the left, will accuse com-munists of capitulating to rightwing or even fascist Islamists, ofdisregarding the rights of women,of pandering to anti-Semitism, oreven, as Aaronovitch wrote of thispaper, of being “Taliban Trots”.

Quite apart from the fact thatcommunists fully expect to bedenounced by such people, theirargument wilfully misrepresentsboth the whole history of com-

munist policy towards Islamistresistance movements and the tac-tics that communists propose todayfor the advance of the struggle inIraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq today the working classmovement - the new trade unionsand the communist parties - shouldbe organising an independent forceof workers and youth to participatein the resistance. That they havefailed to do so leaves the initiativeentirely in the hands of the Islamistforces.

Iraq and Afghanistan are awashwith weapons; the working classorganisations could create a mili-tia, if they only had the will. Iraq'ssecular traditions, and its long his-tory of communist organisation,would mean that the workers couldprovide a pole of attraction forthose, who want to fight the occu-pation but are committed to democ-racy and socialism rather than toIslamist policies.

What approach would a work-ing class force take to the otherresistance organisations? It wouldmaintain its independence, andit would also appeal for unitedaction against the occupiers, tomaximise opportunities for vic-tory. It could frame its appeal forunited action in such a way as tomobilise the greatest possible sup-port from the working class andthe youth, who currently look tothe Islamists because they arethe only forces struggling againstthe invaders.

They would appeal to the otherresistance organisations to mobilisethe women as well as the men, chal-lenging the sexism and discrimina-tion that Islamists can never chal-lenge and wish to institutionalise

still further. They would fight fortrade union action against theimperialist multinationals andthe puppet government.

They would fight to bring theworking class to the head of thestruggle to liberate Iraq, and to wingreater support than the Islamistorganisations, so that once theoccupiers are expelled, the work-ing class itself can establish a gov-ernment of its own, a socialist gov-ernment based on direct workingclass democracy. One thing is indis-putable; whoever leads the move-ment against the Americans andthe British today will rule Iraqtomorrow when the occupation isdefeated.

This policy was first codified bythe revolutionary CommunistInternational in the early 1920s. Itis called the anti-imperialist unit-ed front, and its necessity todayis very clear in the case of Iraq.That is why, all around the world,communists of every countryshould support the resistance tothe American and British occupa-tion, and should work to encour-age Iraqi and Afghan workers, poorpeasants, revolutionary youth andsocialists to form an independentcomponent of the resistance,struggling to come to the head ofthe movement, to develop therebellion against national oppres-sion into a revolution againstimperialism and the rule of thecapitalists.

For the policy of the anti-impe-rialist united front to become onceagain a guiding principle of theworking class around the world,we need one thing: a new Com-munist International, a FifthInternational.


STRAP GOES HERE

By Luke Cooper, June 2007

The 21st century has beenmarked by a series of aggres-sive imperialist wars waged

by the United States to achieve“another American century”, thatis, to maintain its global predomi-nance. The resistance inAfghanistan and Iraq has deliveredheavy blows to the “war on ter-ror” on its first battlegrounds. Indoing so, the insurgents are notonly fighting for the liberation oftheir countries but, whatever theirconscious goals, form part of a glob-al struggle against imperialism.

But what is imperialism? It isnot simply the domination ofone state over another; it is thecurrent stage of the capitalistworld system. Huge industrial andretailing companies, banks andinvestment firms - Siemens, Cit-igroup, HSBC, Halliburton, BP,Toyota, Wal-Mart, etc. - domi-nate global markets. Their inter-ests are policed by the military,diplomatic and political might ofthe great powers.

This creates a systematic divi-sion of the world between imperi-alist states and their corporations,who together dominate and exploitcolonial and semi-colonial coun-tries, whose independence is moreapparent than real. It is preciselybecause Marxists recognise thisthat they support without pre-con-dition all those struggling againstimperialist domination.

AccommodationMany on the left in the imperial-ist countries baulk at such a posi-tion. For example, the Alliance forWorkers Liberty in Britain refus-es to even call for the troops to bepulled out of Iraq. They argue thatthe trade unions in Iraq would bedestroyed by clerical Islamistforces in the resistance were

this to happen.Not only does this make the

imperialist troops the guardians ofthe labour movement - when in factthey are the main threat to it - butit assumes working class and social-ist forces cannot come to the headand win the leadership of the anti-imperialist struggle. Ultimately,such politics are a concession to theillusions in capitalism maintainedamongst the better-paid and skilledworkers in the imperialist countriesby the trade union and reformistleaders. They have nothing in com-mon with the positions of KarlMarx, V.I. Lenin or Leon Trotsky.

But it would be an equal andopposite error to believe that eachand every force presently obliged tofight US imperialism represents anadequate leadership for that strug-gle. Indeed such “anti-imperialism”has very real limits and dangers.For example, the Campo Anti-Impe-rialista held a conference this yearwhere members of the Iraqi resist-ance - represented by the largelySunni Iraqi Patriot Alliance - spokein Europe for the first time. The CAIcomrades argued that a global anti-imperialist front was needed, inwhich the leading force should bethe Iraqi resistance, whatever pol-itics it advanced.

The hopelessness of such a proj-ect became very clear when IPA del-egates revealed their Iraqi patriot-ism was linked to anti-Iranianchauvinism, angrily rejecting callsfor the defence of Iran if it wasattacked by the United States. It wasprecisely their narrow bourgeoisnationalism that stopped them tak-ing a principled, internationaliststance. This showed the utopianism,not to mention grave practical dan-gers, of attempting to form an inter-national front around the leader-ship of bourgeois nationalists.

Just as it is possible to accommo-

date to reactionary consciousnessin the imperialist states, so too is itpossible to make equally wrongaccommodations to third worldnationalism, by calling it “anti-imperialism”. Such nationalistsmight be fighting this particularimperialist power here and now(and, as such, certainly deserve ourunconditional support) but tomor-row they may support the same oranother imperialist power, becauseit is offering them assistance againsta rival semi-colonial state.

Proletarian internationalismIn contrast, Marxists advance anindependent, working class policyand leadership in the struggleagainst imperialism in semi-colo-nial and imperialist countries alike.Imperialism, like the previousstages of capitalist development, isbased upon the exploitation of thetoiling masses by a small, para-sitic class that profits from work-ers' labour by owning the factories,the land and the banks. The work-ing class is able not only to paral-yse the economy by mass strikeaction but also to take over and runit to build a new society. That is whyworkers have a decisive and lead-ing role in the struggle againstimperialism.

In 1935, Trotsky, the Russian rev-olutionary, argued that the Com-munist International, under theleadership of Joseph Stalin, hadabandoned the fight for workingclass power and instead formedblocs to support the rule of “pro-gressive” bourgeois forces:

“It is no accident that in thepolicy of the Comintern, as well asthat of the reformists, purely neg-ative formulations predominate, likeanti-imperialism, anti-fascism, anti-war struggle, without any classdelimitations and without a revolu-tionary programme of action. Such

formulations are absolutely neces-sary for the policies of masqueradeblocs (the Anti-Imperialist League,the Amsterdam-Pleyel CommitteeAgainst War and Fascism and so on).All these blocs and congresses andcommittees have as their task toscreen the passivity, the cowardiceand the incapacity to solve thosetasks that compose the very essenceof the class struggle of the proletari-at.” (Centrist Alchemy or Marxism?)

For Trotsky - and the Leaguefor the Fifth International - theunited front, whether that of work-ers against their own ruling classor an anti-imperialist united frontagainst foreign invaders, like theUSA and Britain today, has to beclearly distinguished from the Stal-inist policy of the popular front.

As Trotsky and the early Commu-nist International argued, it isboth legitimate and necessary forcommunists to strike tacticalalliances for action with other polit-ical forces, even with bourgeoisnationalists, in the colonies andsemi-colonies. This is quite differ-ent from communists acceptingan entire stage of subordination tothe leadership of bourgeois forceslet alone fighting for their rule.ForLeninists and Trotskyists, the strug-gle against imperialist dominationmust be absolutely continuous withthe struggle against workers'exploitation and capital. Because thecapitalist class in the semi-coloniescan never finally liberate its peoplefrom imperialism, that which startsas struggle against imperialismmust, to achieve this goal, end in theexpropriation of the “national bour-geoisie”. In this way communistsavoid falling into the pitfall of anti-war, anti-fascist and anti-imperial-ist policies, which ignore both classrealities and the only force thatcan free a country from imperialismfor good: the working class.

Anti-imperialism andworkers revolution

KEY STRUGGLE (B): AGAINST IMPERIALISM AND WAR

Resistance and theworking class


By Luke Cooper, Sept 2009

Anew group calling itself theEnglish Defence League(EDL) is organising a series

of marches trying to intimidateMuslim and Asian communities,under the guise of protests against“Islamic extremism”.

Twice now, in recent weeks, Asianyouth along with white antifascistcampaigners have driven them offthe streets in angry protests inBirmingham.

The EDL marches mark the farright’s return to the streets, on theback of the British National Party’sincreasing electoral success.

The BNP, presenting them-selves as a “respectable party”,remains fascist to the core. Theirelection campaigns are just acover for winning power througha campaign of street terror, cul-minating in a fascist dictatorship.Undercover investigations byjournalists and infiltrators insidethe BNP have consistentlyexposed this as the basic ambi-tion of the BNP leadership.

The EDL, if it is allowed to grow,could become the streetfightingarm of Britain’s resurgent fascistmovement. That is why istmustbe stopped – by any means neces-sary.

Communists see fascist organ-isations as instruments of civil waragainst the working class. Theiraim is to smash the workers’movement, both trade unionand political, and to divide theworking class through murderouscampaigns against racial, religiousand sexual minorities. In thissense the fascists are not a “nor-mal” capitalist party, and so themethods necessary to defeat themcannot be those we use against themaintream capitalist parties. Fas-cism is a weapon of last resortfor the capitalists against theworking class movement: whencapitalism faces a major social cri-sis, the ruling class can turn to thefascist organisations.

No platformIt is because we recognise the rad-ically different character of fascistparties that we believe they have tobe stopped from organising theirforces. This is the policy of “no plat-form”. Wherever fascists seek togrow and develop their influenceand support, communists seek toorganise united action of workers,youth and anti-racists to stop them.Experience shows that when, aswith the National Front in thelate 1970s, they are prevented fromcarrying out their inevitably violentstreet marches, their parties go intocrisis, splinter and collapse.

For these reasons we do notaccept the liberal argument thatthe fascists should be free to organ-ise and make propaganda like anyother party, because this would beto allow them to conduct a cam-paign of terror against Black andAsian communities, trade unionsand socialist organisations.

The fascist EDL marches posethe question of self-defence quitesharply and immediately. Allow-ing the EDL to march – even in thesmall numbers they have been ableto rally so far – would encouragetheir growth and the racist attacksthat always follow their appear-ance. The EDL was formed follow-ing white nationalist riots in Luton– where racist thugs went on arampage.

But it is doesn’t have to be likethis. The heroic and courageousactions of Black and Asian youth inBirmingham show the way.

Not only did the youth have toface racist abuse and attacks fromEDL thugs, but they have also faced

a campaign of repression by thepolice, including a high profile cam-paign in the local media with pho-tos of the antifascist youth whobroke up the EDL demonstrations.

The police have collaboratedclosely with the EDL and soughtthroughout to protect their protestsand their right to march. The policecan never be relied upon to defendworkers’ interests or fight the fas-cists. That is why we oppose callson the state or the police to bantheir marches. State bans will sim-ply rebound on the antifascistforces.

That’s why we need independentworkers’ antifascist organisation.

Antifascist movementThe most high profile antifascistcampaign in Britain is Unite AgainstFascism (UAF) – an alliance of MPsincluding Labour, Liberals andTories, several trade unions, formerLondon Mayor Ken Livingstone andthe Socialist Workers Party.

Though UAF sees the need toprotest against the BNP, it suffersfrom having to limit its argumentsand tactics to what the capitalistpoliticians and figures on the rightwing of the labour movement willaccept.

The return of the fascists to thestreets has created tensions in thealliance. In Birmingham the localUAF group, Birmingham United,refused to organise a protest againstthe second EDL march, fearing vio-lence would break out betweenantifascist youth and the EDL.

In the run up to the march UAFhad lobbied the council and policeto ban the EDL march and plannedto hold a rally with Asian commu-nity leaders, trade unions and coun-cillors in the council chamber atthe same time. But then the policeallowed the EDL to march while thecouncil banned the anti-racist rallyfrom taking place.

It was a worked example of howthe state will back far right groupsagainst challenges from the work-

ers’ movement. Shamefully UAFthen refused to organise a protestciting the danger of violence,leaving it to local antifascists,including to their credit the Social-ist Workers Party, to organise aprotest without them.

The split in UAF exposed the con-tradiction built into the coalitionfrom the outset. In order to keepmore right wing, pacifistic forceson board UAF has to present only aliberal opposition to the BNP, andnot back physical “no platform”.

But the Socialist Workers Party,which is a key component of UAF,does support physical “no plat-form”. If the EDL continue tomarch while UAF refuse to organ-ise counter-protests for fear ofviolence, then the contradictionswithin UAF between these wingscan only widen further.

Antifascist defence leagueThe actions of Black and Asianyouth in Birmingham are an exam-ple to the whole antifascist move-ment. But we shouldn’t simply relyon spontaneous acts of courage. Weneed to take steps towards organ-ised defence squads – a nationalAntifascist Defence League that canrout the EDL wherever they appear.This is particularly important if weare to draw all other sections of theworking class, white as well as blackand Asian youth, into the struggle,and not just leave it to minoritycommunities to defend themselves.

The Socialist Workers Party,while supporting physical “no plat-form” where it happens, has notbeen willing to develop the strug-gle in Birmingham to a higher levelof organisation, an antifascistdefence league, as it would force arupture in UAF.

This is a mistake. We need to learnfrom the experience in Birminghamand generalise the policy of physi-cally confronting the EDL elsewhere,if we are to make sure no commu-nity has to endure their campaignof racist and fascist terror.


STRAP GOES HERE

By John Bowman, June 2009

The BNP’s electoral break-through at the Europeanelections, gaining them two

seats, represents a real and grow-ing danger in these times of eco-nomic crisis.

Their two MEPs will give theparty a new wave of funding fortheir political activities, with largesalaries and expense allowances.More than this, it gives them fur-ther publicity and profile in prepa-ration for the UK general elections,which must be called within a year.

The BNP use elections for pub-licity, but for the eventual aim ofbuilding a violent racist movementon the streets, to break up unionsand other working class organisa-tions, deport black and Asian peo-ple and prepare Britain for wars ofconquest.

Party leader Nick Griffinexplained in 1995 that the BNP arean organisation that backs up itsslogan ‘rights for whites’ with ‘wellaimed boots and fists’. It is thisstrategy that makes the BNP dif-ferent from other parties that standin elections. The BNP is a fascistparty – and in these elections theyhave scored 940,000 votes. Thatmakes them a threat that needs tobe dealt with by the working class– black and white.

So why did a fascist party thatbans non-whites from member-ship, that calls for repatriation ofnon-white people out of the coun-try and that has clear and well-pub-licised neo-Nazi links gain so manyvotes?

The answer is simple – mass dis-illusionment with Labour and theruling elite in business and gov-ernment who are letting livingstandards plummet for millions inthe economic crisis while the richget richer. And the right wingmedia like the Express and Star

have blamed migrants for unem-ployment – which is actually causednot by migrants but by bosses – andthe trade union and Labour lead-ers have failed to answer these lies.

So the BNP has had some suc-cess making foreigners and blackpeople scapegoats for the anger somany feel. They blame them foreverything from the lack of socialhousing to high unemployment –but they link this to strong anti-establishment rhetoric against the‘elite’. This is not socialism – it isjust fakery. But it can work, andsome people mistakenly see a votefor the BNP as a point scoredagainst the parties that have causedthem so much suffering in the past– Labour and the Tories. The BNPdeliberately play on this.

Andrew Brons, one of the BNP’snewly elected MEPs, said in hisacceptance speech, that he knewhis election wasn’t ‘universally pop-ular’ and attacked the ‘onslaught’on the BNP by the media and main-stream political parties. Griffin her-alded his election as a triumphagainst the ‘ruling elite’. The BNP’sracism is only surpassed by theiropportunism – their anti-establish-ment rhetoric was matched by areal toning down of the full realityof their racist policies in their vic-tory speeches.

That hundreds of thousands ofpeople are driven to putting a crossby candidates such as Griffin andBrons in elections is a sign of seri-ous discontent and anger at theestablishment. In 1930, Leon Trot-sky, the Russian revolutionary,wrote that ‘if communism is theparty of revolutionary hope, thenfascism, as a mass movement, is theparty of counter-revolutionarydespair’. These words ring as truetoday as they did then with therecession of 2008-09 continuing todeepen with job cuts, pay cuts,

unemployment and a deterioratingstandard of life for millions ofpeople.

The BNP have raised GordonBrown’s slogan ‘British jobs forBritish workers’, fighting for‘British workers first’ as their goal.The BNP have put this issue tothe forefront of the campaigning– with the slogan even listed nextto their name on the ballot paper.To stop the BNP we need to showhow dividing workers on nationallines weakens our resistance to thebosses and doesn’t save jobs. Theway to protect jobs is a united fightby all workers – and to level up for-eign workers’ pay to equal otherworkers, preventing undercutting.

Another important factor is tomobilise the victims of BNP racisminto a united fight back, Muslims,Asian and black people. Our rally-ing slogan must be “black and whiteunite and fight.”

If we are to really undermine theBNP’s support and rally formerLabour voters to a progressive solu-tion, we need our own party of rev-olutionary hope here in Britain. Weneed an anti-establishment partyof the Left – a genuine anti-capital-ist, internationalist party whichdoesn’t just challenge Labour andthe Tories but challenges the wholesystem of greed and misery whichis pushing people into the arms ofreaction.

Such a party would be able to putforward radical policies that would

really improve peoples’ lives. Itwould argue to tackle unemploy-ment through massive investmentin transport, schools and hospi-tals to be paid for by heavily tax-ing the rich. A new party would beable not only to criticise and exposethe BNP’s racist, anti-working classpolicies but would be able put for-ward real socialist alternativesand drive a wedge between the BNPand their supporters. It would bean activist party that gives a lead tothe resistance and hope in the hereand now.

At some stage the BNP willmove on from its current phaseof seeking mass support throughrespectable electioneering andwill start to assert itself on thestreets, like the national fronttried to do in the 1970s. When thishappens, the answer will be Trot-sky’s policy: a united front of theworking class organisations toconfront them everywhere, andmass popular defence organisa-tions to drive them off the streets.But right now, the fascists inBritain are at the stage of emerg-ing from a fringe sect into a well-known national political party.They have created a strong poleon the far right wing of the polit-ical spectrum – to answer themwe need a strong pole on theleft. Again in Trotsky’s words, inthe fight against fascism threethings are necessary: “a party, aparty and a party.”

Stopping the BNPKEY STRUGGLE (C): OPPOSING RACISM, FIGHTING FASCISM

Antifascist defence League

Marxists Internet Archive – a wealth of classic Marxisttexts in many languages, readable onlineMARXISTS.ORG

League for the Fifth International Website – Internationalnews, theory, and key documentsFIFTHINTERNATIONAL.ORG

Workers Power Website – Britain news and analysisWORKERSPOWER.COM

Revolution Website – Youth news, culture and politicsWORLDREVOLUTION.ORG.UK


KEY STRUGGLE (C): OPPOSING RACISM, FIGHTING FASCISM

As social crisis mounts andsocial democracy in powerproves wanting, the far

right is on the rise across Europe.The growth of fascist front par-ties in Italy, Belgium and Francetestifies to this. Under conditionsof deep crisis, the bourgeoisie canuse a fascist movement to main-tain their rule against the work-ing class. Fascism, a reactionarymass movement mainly recruit-ed from the ranks of a petit-bour-geoisie and lumpenproletariatmade desperate by the crisis ofcapitalism, has as its goal thedestruction of the independentworkers’ movement and theestablishment of the rule offinance capital unfettered byany elements of bourgeois democ-racy whatsoever.

It is a last resort for the bour-geoisie since it involves the sup-pression of its own parliamen-tary representatives. As NaziGermany and Mussolini’s Italyshowed, it is a measure that willbe taken if the situation demandsit. In the semi-colonial coun-tries, fascism can develop as amovement arising out of commu-nalist conflicts or out of reac-tionary clerical movements. Thephraseology of such movementscan sometimes be anti-imperial-ist. But this should not blind us totheir anti-communist, anti-work-ing class nature.

This rhetoric is in the samemould as the demagogic “anti-cap-italism” of the Nazis. With the tri-umph of communalism or clericalfascism in the semi-colonies, the

rule of imperialism will remainintact or even be strengthened.

From the moment that fas-cism emerges, the working classmust wage a merciless struggle tosmash it. Even when it conceals itsmore general aims and concen-trates on spreading the poisonousfumes of race hatred, the workers’united front must be organisedto fight it. We call on all workingclass organisations to build a massworkers’ united front against thefascists.

The workers’ movement shouldnot recognise or respect the dem-ocratic rights of fascist movementsbecause they are instruments ofcivil war against the working classmovement and the oppressed. Butwe do not call for them to bebanned by the capitalist state. The

bourgeoisie cannot be entrustedwith this task since they are theultimate backers of the fascists. Infact, the state will use bans todisarm and hamper resistance tofascism. Instead, the revolution-aries fight to mobilise the workingclass around the slogans: no plat-form for fascists, drive the fascistsout of the workers’ organisations!

We must physically confrontevery fascist mobilisation andorganise workers’ defence units tocombat fascist attacks on theracially oppressed and the work-ers’ movement.

The struggle to defend the dem-ocratic rights of the workers frommilitary dictatorship and fascismwill only be finally won throughthe overthrow of the system thatspawns them: capitalism.

The struggle against fascism

USEFUL WEBSITES

Communist for Beginners

Documents

Transcript of Communist for Beginners