Wanted: Mavor KenMore they hate him,m o r e w e w a n t h i m

Pages 4 and 5

K u r d i s t a n

F u n d a m e n t a lerrors by the PKKPage 9 to 11

S o c i a l i s t N e t w o r k

Liverpool meeting: aGreat Beginning?Page 24

soc ia i s tdemocracy

for a critical marxism • no 8 • januar̂ f̂ebruar}̂ 2000 • £1

Indonesia, Mexico, Timor:

S o c i a l i s tr e v o i u t i o n o rd e m o c r a t i cdictatorship?

Seventy years after Leon Trotsky's 'The Permanent Revolution',Doug Lorimer thinks the theory failed to fit the century. Phil

Hearse replies, in an ongoing debate with Australia'sDemoctgt ic jocial ist ja i ty;_Page5j j__2^

socialist democracy ejan/feb 2000 • 1

Socialist Democracy readers griiiL e t t e r s

s o c i a l i s tdemocracy

for a cr i t ical marxismNo 8 january/february 2000

h t tP i /Zmembe r s . t r i ood . co .uk /s o c i a l i s t d e m /

C o n t e n t s

L e t t e r s 2

Bui lding a New LeftA Livingstone 4Ken: The lesser evil 5The New Rules 6

W o r l d O u t l o o k

Germany: Unions 8K u r d i s t a n : P K K 10

Portugal: Left Bloc 12C h i n a : 5 0 Y e a r s 13T i m o r : S o c i a l i s t s 1 4

In dep thP e r m a n e n t R e v o l u t i o n 1 6

Obituary: Amaya 2 3

Soc ia l i s t Ne twork 2 4

Published by Socialist Democracy.E d i t o r i a l : s d e d i t o r s O i n a m e . c o mG e n e r a l : s o c d e m @ i n a m e . c o mT e l : 0 7 0 5 0 8 0 4 0 3 8F a x : 0 7 0 5 0 8 0 4 0 3 9

N e w a d d r e s s :Chris Brooks, BM Box 6834,London, WCIN 3XX

Signed articles represent the viewsof cont r ibutors .This issue © the authors, Jan 2000Printed by Intype, London 0181 9477 8 6 3

Subscriptions:Six issues £5£5 for all our back issuesCheques payable to 'SocialistDemocracy'. If Socialist Democracymerges with a another publication,subscriptions will be carried over.

Sign up with Ken & Tony?

.\ftcr reading your journal. 1thought I would make someobscr\-ations for your letters page.

i'irstly, I agree that .WVI.,Outlook and - most importantly -J.l.B supporters do good Labourwork, although 1 am surprised youneglect to mention Socialist Appeal,who are now the only full entristtendency in this country.

I also agree that it' the entristsand Trots jump out they wouldproduce in all probability a 'fuck-up'.'Iherefore, 1 find your positionrather stratigc. Why tiot work insideand outs ide the Labour Par t \ ' in thesame non-sectarian manner as youdo now, with the exception of theunncccssaiA' and frui t less attacks ont h e C P C l B ?

Inside the Labour Party youcould relate to the 50,000 or so anti-HIairite members and strugglealongside them, therefore preparingthe best grounds for a future left.split from I.about and the creationof a part)' similar to Italy's PRC',which was a left split from the massbourgeois workers' part)'.

Yo u r s f o r s o c i a l i s mW i l l M a t t h e w s

H o w b i z a r r e

Anmyyl Gyjeillioii, Dear ComradesThe past couple of issues of SocialistDemocraiy surest there are positivemoves towards a green left partythat dumps the old orthodox leftbaggage.

' I ' h c r e h a v e b e e n m o v e s a n dfailures in the past, but I believe theScottish Socialist Part)''s electoralbreakthrough • based on grassrootsc a m p a i g n i n g - h e r a l d s a r e a lopportunit)' to realign politics inS c o t l a n d , W a l e s , I r e l a n d a n dLngland.

But if Sodalist Democraiy is tos e r i o u s l y c o n f r o n t t h e o l do r t h o d o x i e s a n d b u i l d a l i b e r t a r i a nsocialist part)- it needs to get to gripswith the changed realit)' of theDisunited Kingdom.

\ 'our edi tor ia l refers to the needfor an SSP-type part)- throughoutthe UK. I low bizarre. I'd argue that

t h e S S P ' s s u c c e s s i s b a s e d o n i t s

support for an independent socialistScotland and a willingness to breakw i t h o l d B r i t i s h l e f t n o t i o n s a b o u tnat ional l iberat ion.

This tends to be a good thing inLatin ,\merica and Africa, less g(X)din Lurope, and a definite no-no onthe Br i t ish main land. I don ' t be l ieve

the left in Wales, Scotland or the sixcounties will accept a UK-wideorganisation.

The British state is part of theproblem and the evidence ofmilitar)-c o n t r o l i n I r e l a n d a n d s o c i a l a n deconomic experiments in Wales andScotland (e.g. the poll tax andquango rule) suggest that the rulingc l a s s u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t t h e r e a r ed i f f e ren t na t i ona l d imens ions w i t h i n

that s tate, even i f the le f t hastraditionally buried its head in thesand.

1 lere in Wales, the Scottish

experience has been followed closelya n d t h e We l s h S o c i a l i s t A l l i a n c e i s

already up and running. We've gotan awful long way to go before wecatch up with Scotland but thealienation with Labour is ver)' realand riaid Cymru will not be able tokeep both its traditional culturalnationalists and new leftwing votershappy for long.

O f c o u r s e t h e b o t t o m l i n er e m a i n s t h e s a m e i n a l l o u r

respective countries. We fought thepoll tax, we fought with the miners,we want workers' self-managementa n d a d e c e n t r a l i s e d s o c i a l i s m t h a t

cares for the environment.But until socialists in Lngland

recognise and respect the differencest h a t a l s o e x i s t , t h e n t h i smetropolitan m\-opia will continueto hinder the left.

1 hope Sodaiist Democraiy canhelp develop a new libertariansocialist organisation in 1 -ingland,one that recognises the nationalquestion is not just an issue inKosova, Kurdistan or Ireland.

The SSP has shown that thechoice is not one of nationalism orinternational socialism. There is, asTory l^lur might never sav, a thirdw a ) ' - s o c i a l i s m a n d n a t i o n a ll i be ra t i on .

Yn frawdol, fraternallyMarc Jones, Wrecsam

PS To find out what's going on inWales should read Y Faner Goch,

the Welsh Socialist monthly paper.Available for just £6 for 12 issuesfrom Y Faner Goch, PO Box 661,Wrecsam, LLll IQU.

P u z z l e d

I bought Socialist Democraiy No 7because i t contains a document fromthe former members o f the Soc ia l is t

Bart)- here in I.iverpool. 1 got toknow a number of these people overthe two and half years that weworked together in support of thedockers .

Wliile it would be wrong to saythat 1 find myself in politicalagreement with them, I do not forone minute doubt their sincerit)' ortheir commitment ttj working classstruggle.

I've looked at Socialist Democrayhoping to find the same level ofopenness to consider radical andeven heretical ideas as exists here,but 1 have to admit that I am rather

puzzled by the nature of the projectwhich you seem to have set foryour.<elves. Vou say in the editorialthat you are, with others, in aprocess that could take an importantstep towards creadng a new cultureon the British left: one rejecting thecongenital absolutism of BritishTrotskyism.

All well and good, but the resto f t h e a r t i c l e s e e m s t o m e t o c a s tdoubt on your willingne.ss to taketoo many steps in this process.Moreover this is further complicatedby your wish to be as inclusive aspossible. You want to bring intobeing a new socialist part)' |which[needs to be a socialist green part)-,encompassing the best from thew o r k e r s a n d t r a d e u n i o n m o v e m e n tb u t a l s o o t h e r t r a d i t i o n s : t h ewomen's movement, the anti-racist

campaigns and the new politics likethe various direct action networksand campaigns.Now this really gave me pause forthought. Many of these othertraditions came into existence anddefine themselves preciselv inopposition to what thev havee.xperienced as the best from theworkers and trade union movement- more about that later.

2 # socialist democracy # jan/feb 2000

us on our strategy and tactics

That is, they have come intoexistence precisely because of tlieinability' of the left (howeverdefined) to cater for, understand, ordevelop the kind of critique tiiatwould meet their needs.

So when one of your readers.says 'if you lot really aren't a bunchof Trots and really arc into greenissues/feminism, how come therearen't any articles on green issues orfeminism in the magazine?', thisreally is a very pointed question.

Perhaps the answer to it lies int h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n 1 h a v e o u t l i n e d

a b o v e , ' i ' h i s i s r e a l a n d m u s t b eworked through - and this may,indeed probably wi l l - meanabandoning what has always beenthought of as traditional left politics,cer ta in ly those flowing f romI'rotskyism. Are you prepared tocontemplate this?

I lence my puzzlement at yourproject - to build a new part)' of theleft. In attempting this you seem to

' wan t t o a t t r ac t and i nvo l ve a who le

group of activists without yourselvesseemingly having too seriously

, reconsider your own politics. This isusually called having your cake andeating it.

Building a new part)- of the leftprobably seems self-evident to you,but it contains many assumptionsabout the people that you have-i den t i fied as you r po ten t i a lconstituency, assumptions that arc-simply unrealistic to make.

Perhaps your experience-convinces you otherwise. But if 1can give- an example from my ownexperience- perhaps it will make clearwhat 1 mean. During the dockers'dispute, a meeting was organised towhich all the- kinds of people whompresumably you would want toi n v o l v e i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n w e r einvite-d.

jimmy Nolan came- representingthe- dockers, (diff Slaughter and DotGibson were also there. We- mightc h a r a c t e r i s e - t h e m a s t h e o l d l e f t .

Young eco-activists came- as well aso n e - o r t w o R e c l a i m t h e - S t r e e t s

people and of course me. 1 am 49years old and content to call myself ac o m m u n i s t .

I was visibly struck by thecontrasts in the meeting, 'i'hisbecame- even more marked after thecontribution by jimmy Nolan, who

was listened to in silence, but whosecontribution generated so muchopposition from tiie younger peoplethere.

Some- (rf these even went so faras to declare their opposition to theconce-pt of socialism which jimmyhad simply employed withoutdefining, presumably believing thateverA'one shared and accepted thesame- understanding.

You can therefore- imagine- thatwith such a wide divergence inattitude and approach, nothing ofany concrete use- came- out of themeeting. 1 .ater, 1 made it mybusiness to find out why some ofthese young people were so adamantin rejecting socialism. Althoughsome- of the answers I got betrayedignorance- of some- issues andnaivete, it soon emerged that therew a s a r a t i o n a l k e r n e l t o t h e i r

opposition, which it is important forus to understand.

First, they understood socialismas meaning state control of theirl i ves , accompan ied by everincreasing growth of industr)' withits consequent pollution, and aw o r l d w h e r e - w o r k e r s w e r e c o n t e n t

to stay as passive consumers ofmate-rial wealth.

Second, thev- conceived of thesoc ia l i s t movement as fo r the mos t

part undemocratic, hierarchicallyorganised, patriarchal and at bestdismissive, if not actively hostile totheir concerns.

Third, they saw socialist formsof organisation and especiallyparties, but also trade- unions, asuniformly top down, bureaucraticorgani-sations, impossible to changeand interested only in power, whichthey defined in capitalist terms aspower over people rather than the-power that enables people to dothings for themselves.

Fourth, the) ' were total lydismissive of formal democracy as itexists in western countries. 'I'heyappeared to have no interest inelections and certainly had no wishto represent anyone other thanthemselves.

They contrasted an empt)'democracy of form, voting as apassive mass, as against a democracyof action, with themselves as active

subjects, even though they were a

minority, pursuing its own interests,consciously organising itself.

T h e w o r d s a r e m i n e b e c a u s e

they mostly would not employ theseterms, nor was this as well workedout as 1 have implied.

T h e v o u t l i n e d a n a l t e r n a t i v e -vision - one where how they lived/acted/ worked today was directlyl inked to the form and content o f a

societ)' they wanted to bring abouttomorrow. These last two pointswould obviously have a bearing onthe 'new part)' of the left' which youare talking about.

Now, please tell me what theb e s t f r o m t h e w o r k e r s a n d t r a d eunion movement is, that you say willcombine with this t) pc of new socialmovement that has already arisen.P l e a s e t e l l w h a t i t i s t h a t c a n b e

salvaged from what I conceive to bethe terminal decline of the left, thatwill materially and concretely helpthese people - or ourselves?

Please be assured that this is nota rhetorical question. Although 1cannot speak for any of the formerSocialist Part)' members here onMerseyside, I know that they, someof the former dockers and others arc-a lso wonder ing about theseque-stions. Attempts to work outan.swers to these and other questionswill in my view be the real future ofany new movement , no t a t tempts tobuild a new part)' of the left.

Please also be assured that the

questions 1 put here are not made inan effort to get us to accommodateto the status quo. Rather they arc-borne out o f the b i t ter rea l isat ion ofthe defeats we have suffered.

We rea l l y canno t go onpretending that the old models ofpart)' and union with their associatedforms of political activity - electoralpolitics, lobbies and the like - willa n s w e r o u r n e e d s i n t o t h e n e x tmillennium. Are you prepared toc o n s i d e r t h i s a n d s i m i l a r

propositions?Dave Graham, Merseyside.

A note in reply

Dave touches on a number of pointsabout how the people aroundSocialist Democracy and some oft h e m a r e e a s i e r t o a d d r e s s t h a no t h e r .

First, nothing represents the viewsof the editors in the magazine apartfrom the stuff signed by them. Moreto the point though, our editorsaren't political commissars, just thecomrades whose turn it is to put themagazine together.Second, when we say we want tokeep the best from the past alive,w e d o n ' t m e a n t h a t t h e m o s tdistinctive contributions of - say, theT r o t s k y i s t m o v e m e n t - a r enecessarily the best ones. Nor dowe mean we want to keep them'alive' in propaganda pickle jars, inthe hope we have enough for thefuture. No, all we mean is that ifthere is something good from thepast, then we want those peoplewho know, or appreciate what'sgood from, that experience to helpus present that experience to thenext generation.As you say, many young peoplehave no trouble throwing away thebaggage from the past that doesn'tmake sense to them. However it'salso our view that there are goodexperiences from the past that wecan't do much with today, and weshould keep those around andexperiment with them when wecan, to see if they still can work.Surely it remains the case that theworking class movement madesome significant gains that might beuseful in the future.For example, trades unions are apretty good idea, as is the notion ofm a s s p a r t i c i p a t o r y d e m o c r a c y.Similarly, Marxism really helps somepeople to understand the world andtheir own place in it and, in thatway, helps those people to maketheir struggles successful.We'd like to hear the views of otherr e a d e r s .

" Duncan Chappie

socialist demoa^cy •jan/feb 2000 • 3

Building a new party of the ieftA Livingstone victory?

Nick Long, Chair,L o n d o n S o c i a i i s t A i l i a n c e

T h e d i s i l l u s i o n m e n tw i t h N e w L a b o u rsince the general

e l e c t i o n h a sprobably seen

thou isands leave theparty, and hundreds

of aggressiveBlalrltes join,

shifting the LondonLabour Party

membership furtherto the right

It is becoming clear that theoutcome of Labour 's 'select ionprocess' for its candidate forLondon mayor could well come toshape the outcome of left politicsfor the next decade.

F o r t h o s e s o c i a l i s t s w h o a r c

seeking to build a mass leftalternative to the labour Part}' itposes real opportunities. It maymean a reconsideration of tactics int h e s h o r t t e r m i f K e n w i n s ,

especially in London, with the aimof seeking to cleave away a largesection of the 1 x)ndon LabourPart}', trade unions and workingpeople to a New J^ft politicalformation in the long term.

A number of scenarios couldunfold. Ken is facing a massiveonslaught from the Blairitemachine. These attacks are likely tobe counter product ive andbackfire. This is happening, withDobson losing support and goingb a c k w a r d s . B u t t h e o d d s a r c

heavily stacked against Ken. IfD o b s o n f a i l s t o t a k e o f f h e w i l lface pressure to withdraw in favourof Jackson, or the Blairite machine-will switch in favour of Jackson.Any measure will be taken to stopK e n .

Key decisions preventing Kenfrom winning in the electioncollege have probably already beentaken. The barring of a number ofkey unions in London - RMT,Bectu, Aslef and MSI' - add up tomore than 20% of Ken's likely votein the trade union section, 'i'hose inMSP seeking to overturn this arcalready facing disciplinar}' action,indicating that the Blairitcs hadtheir strateg}' planned k)ng ago andsee this as a crucial element.

The unprecedented decision ofthe GMB, to split its v(jte will givesupport to Ken's opponents andfragment his vote. These measureswill mean it is unlikely that Kenwill gain the required minimum7 0 % v o t e i n t h e t r a d e u n i o n ss e c t i o n t h a t h e n e e d s t o s t a n d achance.

The shoehorning in of Blairitcsat the top of the Furopean Mf'lPlist and into the CiL/\ seats will also

give Dobson crucial backing. ThepayroU vote and the pressure of thewhip's office on lx)ndon MPs willd e l i v e r a s o l i d b l o c k o f v o t e s t o

Dobson. Numbered ballot paperscould see a reappearance in theMPs' section of the college. Theresult is likely to mean that morethan 80% of this part of theelection college swings behindD o b s o n .

K e n i s l i k e l y t r ) g a i noverwhelming support in theconstituency section, but this isunlikely to reach the required 70%.A number of irregularities havecome to light in this part of thecollege. The disillusionment withNew labour since the generalelect ion has probably seenthousands leave the party, andhundreds of a^cssivc Blairitcsjoin, shifting the London LabourParty membership further to theright. Membership of the LondonLabour Part}' is a closely guardedsecret, but 1 would however bea m a / e d t o s e e t h e l e v e l o findividual membership of the partyin the capital at anything near60,000. The true figure is likely tobe around 40,000-50,000. The Go-op Part}', for example, affiliates at50,000 but has less than 250m e m b e r s i n L o n d o n . T h e F a b i a n

Societ}' is also likely to have adoptsimilar tactics.

I f , h o w e v e r. K e n w e r e t os e c u r e t h e L a b o u r n o m i n a t i o n f o r

mayor, this would change thepolitical landscape for the left. Anyl i k e l i h o o d o f a l e f t b r e a k w i t h

Labour, especially in London,w o u l d b e c h o k e d o f f . K e n a s

mayor would be the only show intown. The balance of forces wi th inthe l.^bour party and movementw o u l d h a v e b e e n a l t e r e d

considerably and forward march oft h e B l a i r i t c s w o u l d h a v e b e e nchecked.

H u n d r e d s o f d i s i l l u s i o n e d

l ^ibour Part}' socialists would againbecome active, many who haddrifted out of the party wouldrejoin, and the prospect of turningthe IxMidon Labour Part}' back tosocialist politics - in support ofKen - would be opened up. Int h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t w o u l d b efoolish to not join with this processand engage with the Labour Party.The struggle to defend Ken and hisprogressive agenda and secure hisr e n o m i n a t i o n w o u l d i n v o l v e a

massive struggle against the labour

establishment. By 2004, this couldhave reached a dramatic cr is is and

help in the formation of a new leftpart}'.

The reality, however, is thatK e n L i v i n g s t o n e i s f a c i n gn u m e r i c a l d e f e a t b u t w i l l w i n t h emoral and political argument. Thequestion that then presents itself iswill Ken, despite his assurances,stand as an independent? As theelection process proceeds. Ken willbe giving the rigged processincreasing legitimacy and will findi t d i f fi c u l t t o c o u n t e n a n c e a n

independent challenge.I f K e n d o e s b r e a k w i t h t h e

Labour Party, all well and good. Alls o c i a l i s t s o u t s i d e J . ^ b o u r s h o u l dseek to join and build any newpolitical formation that unfolds.The ramifications could spreadthroughout the country and thel a b o u r m o v e m e n t .

The likely scenario is thatdespite a massive outcry. Ken willaccept the stitch up. If thathappens, the left should thenconsider launching a new left part}'in the new year to capitalise on thisdisillusionment, and seek to havesocialist candidates for mayor andthe assembly.

The prospect of trade unioncandidates for the GLA l ist scats is

already on the agenda. A new leftpart}' could be up and runningbefore the general election andspread rapidly, helped by Blair'senthusiasm for elected boroughand city mayors. We are alreadyseeing the rapid development ofScottish Socialist Part}', aided bythe Scottish parliament and theprospect of PR in local elections.

The last week in February -when labour's election collegeresult is given - could trigger off acourse of events that shape leftpoli t ics throughout the nextdecade.

4 • socialist democracy •jan/feb 2000

Building a new party of the ieftLivingstone is the iesser evii

I'lic ongoing game of bluff andcountcrbluff bcnvccn Tony Blairand Ken J -ivingstone over theLabour nomination for Mayor of1 -ondon has succeeded in propelling1 avingstcjne and his record as leaderof the CiL(^ in the 1980s back intothe pcjlitical limelight.

. \ s B l a i r h a s f o u n d o u t t o h i s

c o s t t h i s h a s b e e n v e r \ - m u c h t o] .ivingstone's advantage. It iscertainly tnie that Livingstone hasbeen outstanding tactically so farw h i l s t t h e M i l l b a n k m a c h i n e h a sm a d e b l u n d e r a f t e r b l u n d e r . B u tclever tactics alone cannot explainthe overwhelming support forLivingst(jne in 1 xjndon. Clearly thereis growing dissatisfaction amongstl . a b o u r ' s t r a d i t i o n a l b a s e w i t h t h e

whole New Labour project. Butpresently such dissatisfaction isunlikely to be translated into masselectoral support for any Socialistal ternat ive to New Labour as i t wi l lnot be seen as credib le. I loweverwhat i s seen as c red ib le i s where

existing left labour politicians withan existing base are prepared tobreak ranks. Only in this context caiiwe understand how lef t Labour MPD e n n i s ( i a n a v a n c o u l d w i n L a l k i r kWest as an Independent in theScott ish Parl iamentan.' election after

he had been prevented fromstanding as a Labour candidate, bycontrast the Scott ish Social ist Part\ 'f a i l e d t o w i n a n d i n d e e d c a m e

nowhere winning a ScottishParliamentar\' seat. It is clear that the'Canavan factor lay beliind thedecision to allow Ken Livingstoneto s tand fo r Labour nomina t ion as

Mayor. The assumption being thatI avingstone would stand andprobably win as an Independentcandidate if prevented fromstanding for the labour nomination.The assessment of Blair and Co is

clearly that 1 .ivingstone as a I aibourMayor is a lesser evil and would bee a s i e r t o c o n t r o l t h a n a s a n

Independent Mayor. .\s laibourMayor Livingstone would be aprisoner surrounded by Blairitecounc i l l o rs on the Grea te r London

Authorit)'. If Livingstone fought asan Independent there wouldconceivably be 1 .ivingstones u p p o r t e r s c o n t e s t i n g t h econstituencies and proportional listfor the GL.\ election in May 2000,some t)f whom would get elected. It

would clearly be an entirely differentball game. I xtting I .ivingstone standf o r t h e L a b o u r n o m i n a t i o n

represents a damage limitationexercise on the part of Blair.However whilst Livingstone is ntjBlairite his credentials as a left wingopponent of Blair are highly suspect.I .ivingstone's opposition to thep r i v a t i s a t i o n o f D i n d o nUnderground merelv leads him tomeekly advocate the issue of publicb o n d s i n o r d e r t r ) fi n a n c e t h e

development of the Underground,in other words he is saying don't selloff the Underground just mortgageit off instead. Issuing public bondsmay be a lesser evil to privatisationof but it hardly represents a Socialistal ternat ive. Interest wi l l have to be

paid on the bonds but where will itcome from? Higher fairs? Lowerwages? Reduced safet)'? I.ivingstonetoday is as much a product of therightward evolution of mainstreambourgeois politics in Britain as TonyBlair. I lis recent sii|iport for theNato bombings of Yugoslaviaplaced him to the right of many ofhis allies on the l .abour left (Benn,(k)rbyn et al) and obviously shtKkedmany. But even before the Natobombings Livingstone had been onrecord describing himself as being in90% agreement with Tony Blair. Itspeaks volumes for Tony Blair'scontrol freaker)^ and outrightparanoia that he is intransicallyopposed to a man who claims to bein 90% agreement with him! Whilstthe I.abour Part)' may retain thesupport and affiliation of the tradeunions New Labour is a t|ualitativelydifferent t)pe of part)' to OldLabour. Old Labour was a part)'based primarily on the trade unionbureaucraq' whilst New Labourrests primarily on a bloc between thetrade union bureaucracy and the'modern is ing ' o r 'Luropeanintegrationist' wing of the rulingc l a s s . G i v e n t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a lfraction of the ruling class now seeLabour as their preferred part)' ofgovernment the days when it waspossible to argue for a I .abour voteas a class vote have disappeared, andthey have disappeared for good.1 lowever whilst Socialists must now

argue against a Labour vote ingeneral this formulation must not beinterpreted in a formalistic manneras some will be tempted to do.

l l i e r e w i l l b e e x c e p t i o n a lc i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e i t w i l l b e

tactically correct to vote forind iv idua l l e f t 1 .abour cand ida teswhere they are seen as leftopponents of the leadership. IfLivingstone does win the Labournomination for Mayor he will almostce r ta in l y become such an'exceptional circumstance'. 1 lowevera vote for Livingstone as Mayorunder such circumstances must be a

vote for I .ivingstone as an individualie despite rather than because he isthe official Labour candidate.

There are many left reformistsand even a few 'Marxists' still in theLabour Part)' who are undoubtedlysalivating over the current debacleconcerning the Ix)ndon Mayor,seeing it as a means to revive thefortunes of the I .abour left. But theLabour lef t cannot be revived,whereas it was once a sinking ship itis now a wreck at the bottom of theocean. .As a man Livingstone is farless than the myth created aroundhim and the Brent Last Labour iMP

o f t h e 1 9 9 0 s i s a s h a d o w o f h i sfo rmer se l f as G l .G leader i n the

early 1980s. 1980s revivalism may beall the rage but any attempt withinthe labour Part)' to recreate theBenn i te upsu rge o f wh ichLivingstone's GLC} was a part will bedoomed to fail. There is obviouslyanger and outrage amongst manyrank and file I .abour Part)' membersin London against the bureaucratichurdles placed in Livingstone's pathto prevent him getting the I .abournomination for Mayor. But the onlyreason why Livingstone has got sofar is because he has organised ab a s e b o t h i n s i d e a n d o u t s i d e t h eL a b o u r p a r t y t o fi g h t a nIndependent campaign for Mayor ifnecessar)'. Wliether he stands as thel a b o u r c a n d i d a t e o r a s a n

Independent Livingstone must besupported for all his political defects..A Livingstone victor)' would be ad e f e a t f o r B l a i r a n d N e w L a b o u rand it would be seen as such. Gnlythrough supporting the Livingstonecampaign (liowever critically) w<}uldit be possible for Socialists tt) takethe fight to build a Socialistalternat ive that is both outside and

against the Labour Part)' to a widermass audience.

P a t r i c k S c o t t

T h e L a b o u r l e f tcannot be revived,

w h e r e a s i t w a s o n c ea sinking ship it is

n o w a w r e c k a t t h eb o t t o m o f t h e o c e a n

soc ia l is t democracy • jan / feb 2000 • 5

The new rules for revolutionariesPart 2: Growing revolutionary

Chris Brooks ^

T h e ^ ' D o n ' t s ' '

Don't use people, oruse them up

D o n ' t u s e ' t h e

apparatus' as thekey index of success

Don't think youalready know whatyou need to know

D o n ' t t h i n k a b o u to f f - t h e - s h e l f

s o l u t i o n s

D o n ' t f e a r r i s k s

1] Part one of this article, Them i s t a k e s t h a t l e a d t o s a dcaricatures of Leninism, appearedin SodaiistDemocracy!.

A strong trend is emergingof act iv is ts work ing for ananticapitalist party in Englanda n d W a l e s . R e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w h o

want to draw this party togetherare shifting away from narrow-m i n d e d a n d o v e r - c e n t r a l i s e d

'party patriotism', which hasd o m i n a t e d m u c h o f t h e f a r l e f ti n t h e E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n gc o u n t r i e s . W e h a v e s o m e i d e a sa b o u t t h e v a l u e s t h a t M a r x i s t s

should champion and how weshould approach differences,either amongst ourselves or withradical organisations that don'tyet share our project.

goalsN e t w o r k s o f a c t i v i s t s w o n ' t

survive if the goal is simplysurvival. Our groups arc voluntarj'organisations whose supportershave many calls on their time. Togrow, a group of people have to bemore than a pole of contestation -simph- proposing a view orcomment on the passing of events.

We have to become poles ofattraction, so that pressure buildsup for different but similar trendsof opinion to unite. That involvessetting three sets of ambitiousgoals.

I'irstly, the emerging nationalnetwork of people has to be aneffective framework for developinginitiatives that expand and unitet h e c o n s t i t u e n c i e s f o r a n e w l e f t

part) ' . We do not want anr>rg;inisation that dictates tactics toits members. 1 lowever, we have tobuild socialist organisations that areable to help members combinetheir energies and work together.So the network has to prioritiseo n e o r t w o a r e a s w h e r e i t c a nm a x i m i s e t i i e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i t smembers. In that way, we can learna s a n e t w o r k a n d l e a r n f r o m t h e

people we work alongside.Secondly, the network needs to

mark out i ts mission. Iweiyorg-anisation needs a vision of whatit is working towards. We can then

see what the gaps are betweenthere and here. The mission of this

t r e n d i n t h e m o v e m e n t i s n o t t om a k e a s o c i a l i s t r e v o l u t i o n b u trather more modesty, to help drawinto being the most pluralist andbroadly based anticapitalist part)'we can. We have to look at the best

e x a m p l e s o f h o w o t h e rorganisations, in Scotland, liuropeand elsewhere, have been able tod o t h a t - a n d a i m t o m a t c h o re x c e e d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h o s e

organisatiotis.'i'hirdly, we have to allow our

members to meet their goals betterthrough taking part in our network.We want to bu i ld a network where

people are happy to spend theirtime. Our goals must includemaking sure our networks arecommunities of solidarit)' andsupport. People should be able togain something from taking part:experience and ideas, skills andinformation, a certain amount ofaffirmation and self-awareness, fun,and more.

Too many Marxists live off theaccumulated capital of (Capital. Ourorganisations should provide moreopenings than book learning.l'!specially in non-revolutionar)'periods like this, we need openlyand consciously to set goals abouthow we work together as groups,how we decide things, how weresolve conflict, how we grow(jurselves as an activist communit)',how we can help individuals whowant to improve their personalabilities, how we organise and whatethical standards we aim for.

Do look abroad'i 'he in te rna t iona l d imens ion i s

important even for a network thatw o n ' t c l o n e i t s e l f i n o t h e r

ctjuntries, as the Socialist WorkersParty and Socialist Part)'/Militanthave. 'I'hese organisations seem toh a v e t h e v i e w t h a t t h e w o r l d i s

simply a single political economywith one generalised form ofexploitation and class struggle. Ifthere is one class strujg^le aroundthe world, then the movement' s

experience in one countr)' [thisone, as it happens] must be valid inever o ther.

As a result, they fight forsocialist organisations in differentcountries to have tactics, slogansand cultural values veiy similar tothat of their parent'. In reality, theeconomic, political and ideologicalpeculiarities of countries mean thatsearching for universal truths in theexperience of a single organisationcan be dangerous. It was suchm e s s i a n i c n a t i o n a l i s m t h a td i s o r i e n t e d m a n y o f t h ecommunist parties.

That said, the employers'offensive, which has unfolded overthe last cjuarter-centur) ' , isincreasingly global, as is the crisisin anticapitalist organisations. Inthe same way that emplo\'ers andgovernments look globally forexamples of how to attack us, wehave to look globally to find waysto organise, solidarise and learn.

Building a new green, socialistand anticapitalist part)' in I'aiglandand Wales will mean looking tol e a r n f r o m t h e s u c c e s s e s a n d

failures of activists, especially inScot land and ins ide the euro-zone.In many ways, Britain has been alaborator)' for the liuropean rulingrich: they look to adopt Anglo-S a x o n n e o l i b e r a l i s m f o rthemselves. The anticapitalistmovement is stronger in l -^urolandthan it is in England and Wales,where the trade union mcn'ementwas beaten and largely brokenduring the years of Thatcherism.

A systematic political dialoguebetween socialists in this countr)'and abroad would allow us to gainfrom their experiences, currentlyricher than ours, and allow them tolearn from the struggle in thiscountry against the employers'o f f ens i ve .

Dialogue needs to be startedwith groups l ike (iommunistRefoundation in Italy, the UnitedLeft in Spain, the DemocraticSocialist Part)' in Germany, thef ourth International, the left in theG r e e n P a r t i e s a n d t h e u n i t e d

anticapitalist electoral campaigns inDenmark, Portugal, l-rance andelsewhere.

Do set ambi t ious

6 • sociaiist democracy • jan/feb 2000

building New Left organisationspluralist networks of activists

I n t e r n a t i o n a l s o i i c l a r i t A ' a n dcollaboration is also vital. W'c have-to take up our place in movementlike the campaigns (or cancellingthird world debt, for aid to Bcjsniaand Kosova and for greater cooperation between radicals.

Do get peoplefrom differentleft traditions togalvaniset h e m s e l v e s

togetherThe benefits of making this

s y n t h e s i s o f e x p e r i e n c einternationally have to be replicatedin Britain, 'i'o build an organisationc a p a b l e o f e x p l o i t i n g t h eopportunities of the coming years,it needs to continually synthesisexperiences for the differentanticapitalist traditions here ando v e r s e a s .

In the same way that theexample of one country will not beenough, neither can a leadershipbased upon a single person orsingle tradition. We need a pluralistand experimental approach, whichc o m b i n e s d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s a n dalso uses the experience ofcollaboration to galvanise theirunit}-.

The .\nglo-Saxon version ofLeninism held that only anauthoritative leadership, with asingle approach to disputedques t i ons , can p ro tec t anorganisation from ct^rrosion ande n e r g i s e i t . T h e p r a c t i c a lapplication of this polic\- often hadcontrar}' effects. By forcing theirorganisations to rapidh' convergeon a single policy, such leadersactually cut short discussion,ossified half-formed positions,presented other views as disputesover inner-party leadership andopen ly a imed to e l im ina ted i s a g r e e m e n t f r o m t h eorganisation.

T h i s p r e v e n t e d t h o s eorganisations from doing what wew i s h t o d o . W e w a n t t o b u i l d a

pluralist organisation, that is acommunity of solidarit}- andsupport between anticapitalistactivists, in which different politicaltradi t i t jns cross- fer t i l ise.

If the next period is one inwhich past positions will beruthlessly tested by the nextgeneration and in the comingstruggles, we need to unify on thebasis of accepting and celebratingthe diversit}' of our organisationsand galvanising our organisationsthrough common work, ratherthan by fight.

Do find ways tocompromise andb a l a n c ed i l e m m a s

We want an org-anisation thatc a n b e m u c h m o r e t h a n a

respectful discussion club. Wewant an organisation of conscious,committed, anticapitalist activistswhose activit}' is used to help thema n d o t h e r s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e

world, whose understanding of theworld commits them to help buildthe constituency for a new red-green par ty, who wi l l worktogether as activists to increase thespace- for anticapitalist activit}' andthought.

That is an ambitious goal,which means that the organisationitself has to be able to speak anda c t i n i t s n a m e d e s p i t edisagreements. We don't want thekind of organisation that tells itsmembers what ttj do or say.However it has to be able to allowthe vast majority of activists to findways to use the organisation towork together and aid the widerstruggle. I'hat has to be done evenif people don't see eye to eye.

^'es - we want compromise. Itwould be great if different pointsof view can work together inimportant areas of agreement byfinding ways to live with difference

o n o t h e r i s s u e s . . S o m e t i m e s t h e

disagreements between people arc-so big that working jointly onminor questions would seemr i d i c u l i j u s . i ' h a t ' s l i f e . B u t o f t e n

people who agree on what needs tobe done today do not worktogether because they expect thatthey will disagree on what theyn e e d t o d o n e x t m o n t h o r n e x t

year. Such a refu.sal is a defeat foreveiA'one involved.

1'Everyone's point t>f view isbased on partial knowledge. .Ml ourexplanatitjns are partial and all arc-partially true. By working togetherw h e r e w e c a n w e m a k e i t m o r e

likely that we will move closer tothe right and most useful point of

Do become a

moving targetS o m e o t h e r c u r r e n t s i n t h e

workers', social and anticapitalistmovements will disagree withc-vc-r}'thing written here. They willaim to crush currents l ike ours and

the objective situation is ver}- poorfor the whole anticapitalist struggle.The odds arc- stacked against ushugely.

What is to be done? The onlyadvantage we have is our flcxibilit}'.We have to rapidly develop andimprove - moving into activity andpolitical development as fast as wccan. We need to draw in as much

experience as we can - encouragingpeople to create, experiment,innovate and take risks. Wc- have tobecome a moving target - neitherfearing failure and criticism norfailing to learn from them.

T h e " D o V

D o s e t a m b i t i o u s

goa is

D o l o o k a b r o a d

Do get people fromd i f f e r e n t l e f tt r a d i t i o n s t o

ga lvan iset h e m s e l v e s

t o g e t h e r

Do find ways tocompromise and

b a l a n c e d i l e m m a s

D o b e c o m e a

moving target

7 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000

GermanyFarewell to the working

B o d o Z e u n e r

Despite all theun ion -emp loyeragreements on

social partnerships,a n d a i l t h e u n i o n s '

a t tempts tof u n c t i o n a s

in te rmed ia ryorgan isat ions,

find ing commonground between the

interests of wagelabour and capital,

t h e t r a d e u n i o n sh a d t o r e m a i n

representat ives oft h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e

employees

The collapse of the SPD inr e c e n t e l e c t i o n s h a s r e n e w e d t h e

debate about the charac ter o fthe party and its relations to theworking class. In the radical leftnewspaper SoZ^ HeinerHalberstadt has predicted aregression to a two-party-systemo n t h e U S - A m e r i c a n m o d e l ,w i t h t he SPD becoming abourgeois party like the USD e m o c r a t s .

B e r l i n - b a s e d p o l i t i c a ls c i e n t i s t B o d o Z e u n e r

disagrees. He made thefollowing presentation to thePolitical Forum of the country'slargest trade union, IG Metall.

T r a d e u n i o n s i n G e r m a n yalways were political. The firstworkers' protection orgiinisationsdeveloped in conjunction withpolitical parties, above all the socialdemocra t i c movement bu t a l so thecentre and the liberals.

As political entities, the tradeunions always wanted to representmore than just their actualmembers. In pr inc ip le theyu n d e r s t o o d t h e m s e l v e s t o b e

organisations of the working classas a whole, of al l personsdependent upon their labour.

But there was also a division ofl a b o u r b e t w e e n t h e s o c i a l

d e m o c r a t i c , ( ' h r i s t i a n a n dc o m m u n i s t t r a d e u n i o n s . . \ n dwithin each political 'family',everj'one agreed that trade unionsshould take care of the evendayeconomic matters while the partieswould be re.^ponsible for the greattjuestions of politics, above all thequestions of state.

U n t i l 1 9 3 3 t h e s o c i a l

democratic unions accepted thisdivision of labour, though theynever submitted unconditionally tothe leading role of the party, liket h e c o m m u n i s t R G O t r a d e u n i o n s .There were exceptions. In 1933 thes o c i a l d e m o c r a t i c A D G B u n i o n s

attempted to make overtures toH i t l e r , t h o u g h t h e S o c i a lDemocratic Parly did not.

After 1945, West Germany'strade unions were organised in anew, formally non-party GermanC ^ o n f e d e r a t i o n o f I ' r a d e U n i o n s

(DGB). But there was a de factodivision of labour with the SPD.

0 \ ' e r t i m e , h o w e v e r , t h eunions became increasingly skilleda t i n d e p e n d e n t p o l i t i c a li n t e r v e n t i o n s , e v e n w i t h t h econservative CDU party. 'Cio-determination' in the miningindustry was agreed between thetrade union leadership and Konrad. A d e n a u e r , a c o n s e r \ ' a t i v eChance l l o r.

This system of labour divisionwas broken in 1959, when the SPDabandoned many principles ofsocial democracy at its historicGodesberg conference. Two yearslater, the DGB also approved aprogram embracing the markete c o n o m y.

But they did not follow in theSPD in declaring themselves nolonger the part)' of the workingclass but a party of the people. Itwas the SPD, not the unions, thatnow aspired to represent, consider,and bring into harmony all interestsin societ)', even those of theemployers.

T h e t r a d e u n i o n s c o u l d n o t

just become 'peoples' unions',representing equally the interests ofthe employers and those of theemployees. Despite all the union-employer agreements on socialpartnerships, and all the unions'a t t e m p t s t o f u n c t i o n a sintermediar)' organisations, findingcommon ground between theinterests of wage labour andcapital, the trade unions had toremain representatives of theinterests of the employees.

l l i e y r e m a i n e d afundamentally single social part)'.They knew that moving away fromt h i s w o u l d d i l u t e t h e i r r e a s o n f o re x i s t e n c e . U n i o n l e a d e r s a l s owanted to be taken seriously bytheir social partners and by thegovernment. This required them tostake out a distinctive position.

I t i s n o a c c i d e n t t h a t

immediately after the Ciode.sbergProgramme, independent currentsand initiatives appeared within thetrade unions for the first t ime,

opposing the course of the SPD orat least put t ing foward anemphasis that differed from that ofthe SPD leadership.

IG Metall (the metal workersunion) under Otto Brenner wasespecially important. SPD leader

I l e r b e r t We h n e r t r i e d t o b a n t h eleftist student group SDS, but withBrenner's support, a left wingfo rmed w i th i n i t and l a te r became

the germinating seed of the '68m o v e m e n t .

In later years, IG Metall andthe p r in t and paper un ionc o m p l e t e l y o p p o s e d S P Dj u s t i fi c a t i o n o f G e r m a n y ' s'emergency laws'. .At least onesection of the DGB begun to stepbeyond the traditional division ofl a b o u r b e t w e e n u n i o n s a n d t h e

SDP, and take independentpolitical positions and independentpo l i t i ca l ac t iv i t ies as t radeun ion is ts .

In 1999, the SPD has takena n o t h e r q u a l i t a t i v e l e a p ,comparable to the Bad Godesbergprogramme. And so, once again,the trade unions face the problemof redefining their role.

l''ort)' years ago, the SPDwanted to be a left people's part)' int h e r e f o r m i s t t r a d i t i o n o f t h elabour movement. Today, the wingthat won the internal powerstruggle against l,afontaine wantst o t r a n s f o r m t h e S P D i n t o amodern ncolibcral part)'. Schroederwants the part)' to occupy a sociallyand structurally undefined middle-ground.

This means explicitly anddemonstratively abandoning thepolitical tradition of the labourm o v e m e n t . T h e s e t r a d i t i o n s h a v eb e c o m e a b u r d e n t o S c h r o e d e r .

Tony Blair, who has showed thatone can win elections that way,inspires him. Blair is ver)' proud ofh i s d i s t a n t s t a n c e f r o m t h e t r a d eun ions .

Programmatically, 1959 meantrejection of the class struggle, oft h e M a r x i s t t r a d i t i o n , o f t h eexpectation of a collapse ofcapitalism and the ultimate goal ofthe largest poss ib le soc ia lownership of the means ofproduction.

It meant a turn to Keynesiandemand management, to strongs t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n t h a t s e e k s t o

provide equit)' in distribution. Itwas an attempt to utilise themechanisms of the market - capital,profit and accumulation - in orderto civilise and to regulate for thecommon good.

8 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000

c l a s s ? N o t s o f a s t . . .

I'hc proj^rammatic thcon-corresponded with governmentalpractice after the part\- took powei".Karl Schiller, one of the architectsof the Ciodesberg Program, put itinto practice after 1966 as financem i n i s t e r .

A t t h a t t i m e , t h e s o c i a ldemocratic economic-politicalconceptualisation seemed modernand creative. It differed markedlyf r o m t h e o l d - f a s h i o n e d e c o n o m i c

l ibera l ism o f the conservat ive CDUand the l iberal POP.

I t meant orchestrated act ion totie together the trade unions, theemployers and the Bundesbank inthe administration of the economy.

But in 1999 the Keynesianwing of the SPD, represented bypart)' chairperson and financeminister ],afontaine, lost the battlefor the programme and policies.They lost precisely because theSPD was now in government, aftera long period of opposition. Thepart) ' chairperson, GerhardtS c h r o e d e r , w a s n o w f e d e r a lchance l l o r.

S c h r o e d e r h a d o f t e n s t r e s s e dthat the SPD was a part)- ofprogramme. But little is knownabout what he really believes abouteconomic and social cjuestions. Weare given sayings about how there-is no specifically .social democraticeconomic policy, that he is thechancellor of al l Germans, andthat, without the agreement of theeconomy, he can do nothing.

(confronted by persistent massunemployment, German votersd e c i d e d t h a t t h e S P D w a s m o r e -

competent than the (T])U/I'DP.But this was not on the basis of a

clearly delineated concept, certainlynot from the Schroeder wing.

I he only certainties appear tobe saying goodbye to Keynes,Schiller and Lafontaine and turningtowards the ideologically andmaterially dominant neoliberal andmonetarist ideas of deregulationand a minimal state.

T h e s t a t e i s c o n c e i v e d a s anational C(jmpetitive institution.Like a private enterprise, it has to

cultivate and compete for thefavour of big capital. Schroeder'steam more or less accept theneoclassical e.xplanation forunemployment, the theor)- thatstates that the price of labour is toohigh.

I t i s h a r d t o d i s c e r n w h a tw o u l d d e m a r c a t e a n y t h i n gspecifically social democratic insuch a policy. .\ policy orientedt o w a r d s t h e n e w c e n t r e w a n t s t oh a v e l i t t l e t o d o w i t h t h e

disadvantage-d and the losers in thee c o n o m i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

processes.In other words, the qualitative

jump of 1959 meant the turningaway of the SPD from thet r a d i t i o n s o f M a r x i s m . T h e

qualitative jump of 1999 meansturning away from the traditions ofthe workers' movement altogether.

In their distrust of the state,Bla i r and Schroeder endeavour notto do less than their predecessorsT h a t c h e r a n d K o h l . S o m e t i m e s

they speak of an 'active' state thatwill 'lead'. But this only means ther e d u c t i o n o f s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n

o r i e n t e d t o w a r d s t h e c o m m o n

good. The 'tax burden on hardwork and entrepreneurship' isdefined as 'too high'. They havediscove-re-d a 'burden of regulation.'that needs to be reduced.

On the issue of public service,t h e ' m o d e r n s o c i a l d e m o c r a t s 'descend into the vocabular)' of theimpersonal. They are concernedwith 'rigorously guarding thequalit)' of public services anderadicating bad performance'.

The re i s a l so a ba r racks t one

concerning labour relations. Blaira n d S c h r o e d e r a r e s u r e t h a t t h e' t r a d i t i o n a l c o n fl i c t s i n t h e

workplace must be eliminated'.Social inequalit)' will not only betolerated but str iven for.

T h e r e i s a n e w, e l u s i v e -distinction between 'equalit)'' and'social equit)-'. 'Grc-ativit)' andoutstanding performance' call forhigher compensation.

T h e l o s e r s o f t h emodernisation process on the

other hand are to ld - th reatened -

tha t 'modern soc ia l democra ts a re

transforming the safet)' net ofentitlements into a spring board forself reliance'. A low wage sector isd e s i r a b l e i n o r d e r t o d e c r e a s e -

unemployment.' M o d e r n s o c i a l d e m o c r a t s '

promote a societ)' in which allpersons will confront each other incompetition as owners of 'capital'.I 'he loser wi l l lose even more andthe winner win yet more.

'i'he already evident and eversharpening divisions in societ)' art-no problem for them. They art-aiming at a 'new centre'. Theymean exactly what one formergeneral secretan,- of the I-DP meantwhen he praised his part)' as the'part)' of the better paid'.

So it is completely ideologicallycons is ten t tha t the FDP f rac t ion o fthe l-ederal Congress presents theB l a i r - S c h r o e d e r d e c l a r a t i o n a s i t smotion t<j congress.

I f t h e S P D u n d e r S c h r o e d e r

definitively separated itself fromthe political traditions of thew o r k e r s m o v e m e n t , t h e n t h et r a d i t i o n a l d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u rbetween SDP and trade unions haslost any basis.

The SDP cannot be - and doesnot want to be - the political armo f a m o v e m e n t w h o s e e c o n o m i c

arm is constituted by the trade-un ions .

.\ completely new questiona r i s e s f o r t h e t r a d e u n i o n s . W i l l

they want to continue the politicalt r a d i t i o n s o f t h e w o r k e r s

movement, without being tied to aparticular part)'?

T h i s m e a n s r e l y i n g o nthemselves, and building alliancewith other social groupings. Itmeans remaining equidistant fromall political parties.

. \ n a l t e r n a t i v e i s a l s o

c o n c e i v a b l e . I t c o u l d b e c a l l e d

Anglo-Americanisation. Therew o u l d b e n o s o c i a l d e m o c r a t i c

part)' anymore, like in the US.\and, increasingly, in Britain.

I ' h e t r a d e u n i o n s w o u l d

develop as particular and mutually

competi t ive interest groups,representing their respectivemembers, withcnit any politicallymotivated class solidarity.

In th is scenar io , the t radeunions would accept the thesis thatthe tradition of a once socialist ands o c i a l d e n u j c r a t i c w o r k e r s

m o v e m e n t h a s e x h a u s t e d i t s e l f

politically. .And, as the electionresearch specialists argue, there areno more traditional left-right socio-economically based polit icalconflic t l ines.

T h e G e r m a n t r a d e u n i o n s

must open a discussion. Do weaccept or reject this thesis of theend of the workers ' movement?

'Th is d iscuss ion has no t a t a l lbeen superseded by the formulaicc o m p r o m i s e s o f t h e D G Bprogramme adopted in Dresden.(An the contrar)', I think that apolitical programme that can be abasis for action, and that docs not

disappear at once into the filingcabinet, is needed now more thane v e r .

Otherwise, the trade unions arethreatened with a rapid descentinto polit ical oblivion in themaelstrom of increased globalcompetition between nationalstates, with unions more and morefrequently entrapped in blackmaillike 'social partnership' agreements.

U n t i l n o w, G e r m a n t r a d eu n i o n s w e r e c o n n e c t e d t o t h eSocial Democratic Part)', as part ofa t r a d i t i o n a l d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u rw i t h i n t h e w o r k e r s ' m o v e m e n t .

But, in 1999, the Social DemocraticPart)' said goodbye to the politicalt r a d i t i o n o f t h e w o r k e r sm o v e m e n t .

The question facing the trade-unions is as follows: are we willing,are we strong enough, to be the.sole carr iers of th is t radi t ion,without any connection to anyparticular part)'?

'This independent politicisationis certainly preferable to thealternative path: the reduction ofour demands to an interest-groupparticularism, like in the Americanm o d e l .

9 # socialist democracy • jan/feb 2000

Sdaha t t i n Ce l i k'Who Cr i t ic ises The PKK?'

I n t e r v i e w W i t hKurdish journal ist

a n d a u t h o rS e l a h a t t i n C e l i k .

Celik, who nowresides in Cologne,

Germany, hasw r i t t e n f o r s e v e r a l

publ icat ions,including Ozgur

GundemMd OzgurP o U t i k a , H e h a s a l s o

published severalb o o k s a n d a r t i c l e s .In 1998, his book

C r i m i n a l S t a t e w a s

published inG e r m a n . I n t h i s

work, Celikd e s c r i b e s t h e

cooperat ionb e t w e e n t h e

Turkish state, themafia, and the

contra-guerr i l las. InAugust this year hew a s t h e v i c t i m o f ab r u t a l a s s a u l t . H e

was seriously hurt,a n d i t i s s t i l l n o tk n o w n w h o w a s

responsible for thea t t a c k

Q: The Turkish governmentpassed an amnesty law at theend of August, and also aclemency law for KurdistanWorkers' Party (PKK) membersw h o v o l u n t a r i l y s u r r e n d e rthemse lves to the au thor i t i es .P r e s i d e n t D e m i r e l r e f u s e d t o

sign the bills, however, becausehe sa id they d idn ' t go fa renough. Is th is a pos i t i ver e a c t i o n t o t h e P K K ' s c e s s a t i o nof its armed struggle?

A: A l though the o ffic ia le x c u s e f o r b o t h l a w s w a s t h e

Kurdish question, the Kurds willn o t b e n e fi t f r o m t h e s e l a w s i n

any way. The amnesty lawexcludes prisoners who werec o n v i c t e d o f a c t i v i t i e s i n

oppos i t i on to the s ta te o rK e m a l i s m .

D e e d s t h a t w e r e c o n s i d e r e da n t i - t e r r o r i s t a c t i v i t i e s a r e

treated differently than actionsduring which police or soldiersw e r e k i l l e d o r w o u n d e d . T h a tmeans the amnesty law willbenefit the state gangs andcontra-guerrillas, but not thePKK members o r gue r r i l l afighters. Not even people whowere impr isoned for s implysupporting the PKK wil l begranted amnesty.

The clemency law is aimedat PKK functionaries, guerrillacommanders , and o the rs whotook part in armed actions, buton l y i f t hey hand i n t he i rweapons and other materials. Ift hey g i ve i n f o rma t i on anddocumen ts to t he au tho r i t i es ,which could prevent fu tureactions against the state, thenthe law will apply to them.

D e a t h s e n t e n c e s w i l l b e

reduced to nine years in prison,a n d l i f e s e n t e n c e s r e d u c e d t o s i x

years. Demirel didn't sign theb i l l s a n d s e n t t h e m b a c k t o

parliament for reconsiderationbecause the involved powers,inc luding the USA, weren' twi l l ing to compromise wi thTurkey on this issue.

It's not yet clear what finalform the amnesty and clemencylaws wi l l have. I expect moreclauses to be added concerningthe guerrillas, stipulating thatthey must surrender with theirw e a p o n s . A n k a r a r e m a i n s

opposed to a general amnestyfor the PKK, because this wouldmean returning at least 30,000politicised people to the society.That , o f course, is not in thestate's interest. It's quite clear tosee that Turkey is not willing tom a k e e v e n t h e s l i g h t e s tc o n c e s s i o n t o t h e P K K a n d t h eK u r d s .

Q : B u t P r e s i d e n t D e m i r e lmet recently with mayors fromthe pro-Kurdish HADEP party,to talk specifically about thep r o b l e m s i n t h e K u r d i s hprovinces. Isn't that a sign ofprogress?

A : B e f o r e t h e g e n e r a lelection in April 1999, Ankarawas preparing to ban HADEP.Suddenly they backed off. Ther e a s o n f o r t h i s w a s O c a l a n ' s

trial, and his statements to thecourt in which he, perhapsunknowing ly, accepted theTu r k i s h s t a t e i n i t s c u r r e n t f o r m .T h i s m a d e a b a n o f H A D E P

u n n e c e s s a r y .T h e T u r k i s h s t a t e h a s b e e n

able to remove the politicalc h a r a c t e r f r o m t h e K u r d i s h

Quest ion and reduce i t to thelevel of social problems in theeastern provinces. To do this,t h e s t a t e n e e d s H A D E P.

The party only gained 5% oft h e v o t e n a t i o n - w i d e i n t h e

general election, but elected themayors of 30 Kurdish cities.Without having any influence onpo l i t i cs in Ankara , HADEPa s s u m e d c o n t r o l o v e r K u r d i s hcities damaged by the war ands u f f e r i n g f r o m t h e d e b t sincurred by the war.

D e m i r e l t o l d t h e H A D E P

mayors that even the PKKaccepts the state borders ofTurkey and a reduction of theKurdish question to one of ap r o b l e m o f l a n g u a g e a n dc u l t u r e . S o n o w H A D E P c o u l dremain a legal party and neednot make any broad-reachingd e m a n d s .

D e m i r e l e a l l e d o n H A D E Pnot to promote separatism, andsaid: 'If you obey our warnings,the state will give you economicaid and will not prevent youfrom reeeiving economic aidfrom Europe.' HADEP has little

o t h e r c h o i c e a t t h e m o m e n t t h a nto accept this offer being forcedo n t h e m .

Q: What will become of then a t i o n a l l i b e r a t i o n m o v e m e n t i nK u r d i s t a n n o w ?

A: By now, it should be clearto most people that the PKKwas not making any advancess i n c e t h e m i d - 1 9 9 0 s . T h e i rdemand to be recognised as aparty at war and their appealsfor peace and democracy foundn o r e s o n a n c e . N e i t h e r i n

Turkey, nor in the Westernstates allied with Turkey.

S o t h e P K K w a s f o r c e d t o

continue the armed struggle.The party became rigid in itsr e p e t i t i o n a n d s t a g n a t i o n .Ocalan tried to break throughthis stalemate by means of hischarisma. But the politics of thePKK was still characterised byd e f e a t s a n d m i s t a k e s .

These problems becamei n c r e a s i n g l y s e v e r e . T h ekidnapping of Ocalan and thetr ial against him have onlym a d e t h i s s i t u a t i o n w o r s e .

At first , the president ia lc o u n c i l o f t h e P K K d e c l a r e d t h a tthe word of the imprisonedchairman would only remainvalid as long as he was incontact with the people and thep a r t y .

L a t e r i t w a s s a i d t h a tOcalan's statements from prisonwere binding orders no matterwhat the circumstances. Manypeople interpreted this action bythe presidential council as asign that secret talks wereunderway between Turkey andthe PKK, and people expectedt h a t fi r s t t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h eKurdish people, then the PKK,a n d t h e n O c a l a n w o u l d b e c o m ethe subject of the proceedings.

B u t t h e K u r d i s h n a t i o n a l

question never came up duringt h e t r i a l . T h e s t a t e d i d a l l i tc o u l d t o p o r t r a y t h e P K Kchairman imprisoned on Imralias the head of a terrorist group.T h e c o n fl i c t w i t h t h e P K K w a s

portrayed as a plot by foreignpowers directed against Turkey,and ultimately against the Kurdsas we l l .

10 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000

The v ic t ims of th is po l i t ica l , and organisat ionalconspiracy were killed and concessions, \vithout getting thewounded policemen, soldiers, slightest thing from the otherand village guards and their side. That is very difficult tofamilies. The Kurds killed by comprehend,the state were nothing morethan terrorists, it was said. Then Q: Has this position of thethe Kurdish Question was PKK leadership unleashedreduced to a matter of language contradictions within Kurdishand cul ture, a problem that society?c o u l d b e r e s o l v e d i n t e r n a l l y b y A : Ye s , m a s s i v e a n dTurkey, which was, it was said, dramatic contradictions. Theon the path to demoeracy. Kurdish society and the PKK

militants are still in a great stateQ: What role did Abdullah of shock. The Kemalist eoncept,

Oca lan p l ay i n t h i s? Tu rkey ' s v i s i on o f t he s ta te , andA; The statements that the concept o f a pan-Turk ish

Oealan made during his defence empire which denies theand after the trial gave the existence of other peoples, all ofimpression that he accepted the which were previously rejected,state's concept. He said the are now accepted by the PKK.Kurds had never s tar ted an In the past , Kemal ism wasuprising in order to separate described as fascistic, but nowthemselves from Turkey. This is it's presented as somethingn o t e v e n i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t , g o o d a n d a d m i r a b l e . M o s tO c a l a n s a i d . K u r d s s i m p l y c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d

He even said that autonomy this. And yet no one is allowedi s u n r e a l i s t i c , a n d t h a t A t a t u r k t o r a i s e h i s o r h e r v o i c e i n' was never anti-Kurdish. The opposition to this new line.goal of the Kurdish people, he While the PKK makes one

t sa id , was to be par t o f a concess ion a f te r another to thedemocratic Turkey. What Turkish state, they damn peopleOcalan has been saying is in who demand democracy in theircont rad icdon to the prev ious own ranks, and in Kurd ishideo logy and po l idcs o f the soc ie ty.P K K . Q : C a n t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t o

In the past, comrades who the official PKK line even bespent years in prison were openly expressed?de famed as ' con fused A : Eve ryone i s d i scuss ingimprisoned personalities' within the present developments andthe PKK if they wore prison asking the question of nationaluniforms even once, or if they, responsibility. I'm speaking ofin a moment of weakness, national responsibil i ty, becauseappealed for lenieney, appeals the PKK st i l l has a greatwhich they soon retracted the influence on the Kurdish people,same day, or if they sang the even in its present situation. ButTurkish national anthem after the discussions are not reallybeing subjected to severe f ree. There is no t radi t ion oft o r t u r e . f r e e d o m o f e x p r e s s i o n b y

Now, however, the par ty is indiv iduals wi th in Kurdishtelling people to unconditionally society,throw down their weapons andsurrender, and the presidential Q: You have been affectedcouncil supports this. What's by that personally. Because ofmore, the party has declared your criticisms of the presentthat i t wi l l wage i ts pol i t ical PKK pol i t ics, , most Kurdishstruggle on the basis of, and media refuse to publish yourwithin the conflnes of, the so- writings, and your wxitings arec a l l e d n e w w o r l d o r d e r t h a t t h e b a n n e d f r o m t h e t a b l e s a tUSA is seeking to impose even Kurdish public events. Ono n t h e M i d d l e E a s t . A u g u s t 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 , y o u w e r e

The PKK is making at tacked in your home. Was thatfundamenta l i deo log ica l , a re la ted inc iden t?11 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000

A: Four young men, Turkso r K u r d s , a s s a u l t e d m e . Iimmediately thought they wereK u r d s , b e c a u s e I h a d f e a r e ds u c h a n a t t a c k f o r s o m e t i m enow. But I didn't recognise anyo f t h e m .

It was evening, and I was onthe phone to a friend, whensuddenly someone knocked onmy door. After I opened thedoor, they rushed in. Theyoverpowered me and poundedm e o n t h e h e a d a n d f a c e . I

guess it must have lasted aboutt e n m i n u t e s . T h e n t h e yd i s a p p e a r e d . B l o o d w a sstreaming from my nose and myfront teeth were broken. Myc l o t h e s a n d t h e e n t i r e r o o mw e r e s m e a r e d w i t h b l o o d .

The first to protest againstt h i s a t t a c k w a s t h e a i d

o r g a n i s a t i o n ' M e d i c oI n t e r n a t i o n a l ' . T h e n t h eN a t i o n a l L i b e r a t i o n F r o n t o fK u r d i s t a n ( E R N K ) r e l e a s e d as ta tement condemning thea t t a c k . B u t t h i s s t a t e m e n t w a s

only distributed in German; itwas neither published in OzgurP o l i t i k a n o r b r o a d c a s t o n

Medya TV. Quite the contrary:I n O z g u r P o l i t i k a I w a sd e f a m e d a n d c r i t i c i s e d .

B u t s o m e K u r d i s hi n t e l l e c t u a l s d i d p r o t e s t ,including the Kurdish section ofPEN. The Union of Journalistsf r o m K u r d i s t a n d i d n o t t a k e a

stand, even though many oft h e i r m e m b e r s a r e f r i e n d s o fm i n e .

And although I spoke withthe Kurdistan parl iament inexile, they also gave no reaction.

I h a v e c r i t i c i s e d t h e

developments around the trialagainst Abdullah Ocalan. In mydiscussions with people, I makeclear my sense of unease andm y p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e s edevelopments. Certain circlesfelt that my criticisms put theirinterests in danger. But I nevertried to make myself the centreo f t h e d i s c u s s i o n . B u t i t ' s b i t t e rt o k n o w t h a t t h e K u r d s w o n ' t

allow freedom of expression.

T h e s t a t e m e n t s t h a tOcalan made during

h i s d e f e n c e a n dafter the trial gavethe impression that

he accepted thestate's concept. Hes a i d t h e K u r d s h a d

n e v e r s t a r t e d a n

uprising in order tosepara te

t h e m s e l v e s f r o mTurkey. This is not

e v e n i n t h e i r

interest, Ocalan said

Selahat t in Cel ik

T h o u s a n d s o fguerrilla fighters,their supporters

among the people,and ultimately

millions of peoplehave paid a high

price for thisstruggle. Now they

are expecting amorai catastrophe,

o n e w h i c h h a s

actually alreadybegun

12 • socialist democracy •

Q: Is it possible to lay thef o u n d a t i o n s f o r a n o p e nd i s c u s s i o n ?

A : T h e K u r d i s h

organisations, especially thePKK, should extend the hand ofreconciliation and democracywhich they are holding out tot h e T u r k i s h s t a t e t o t h e K u r d sa s w e l l , a n d s h o w s e r i o u su n d e r s t a n d i n g f o r t h e i r' c r i t i c i s m s .

First, the PKK should cometo terms with its own history.Because, as the product of theh e a v y s t r u g g l e t h e y w e r ewaging, they shed a lot of bloodwithin their own ranks - perhapsjustly, perhaps unjustly - so theyn e e d t o m a k e a n e n d t o t h a t

history. And that can only bedone by the PKK leadership. It h i n k t h a t s h o u l d b e o n e o f t h e

primary goals of the upcominge x t r a o r d i n a r y P K K p a r t yc o n g r e s s .

Q: It 's certain the PKK willstand fully behind this new lineat the congress?

A: Yes, and it's certain thatt h e P K K w i l l d o a l l i t c a n f o r

Ocalan, but that's part of itsresponsibility as an organisationand that's also a moral duty. Butwhat can't be accepted is thatthe politics of a party are beingdirected from inside a prison.

A n d t h e P K K s h o u l d b ec a r e f u l w h e n i t d e a l s w i t h i t s

ideological-pol i t ical theorieswith respect to the existence oft h e K u r d i s h n a t i o n . T h e P K K

p l a y e d a d e c i s i v e r o l e i nd e v e l o p i n g t h e n a t i o n a ld e m a n d s o f t h e K u r d s . B u t i tcannot maintain a monopolyo v e r t h e s e d e m a n d s f o r e v e r.

The party should come tot h e d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e K u r d i s h

people are not bound to acceptt h e c o m m a n d s ^ ^ i c h t h e yissued under pressure from thes t a t e .

T h e s t a t e s i n v o l v e d i n t h ecurrent phase, especially theUSA, are selling their interestst o t h e K u r d s a s g o o d w i l lp o l i t i c s . T h e P K K , w h i c hburned many of its bridges int h e p a s t , s h o u l d r e t u r ni n t e r n a t i o n a l s o l i d a r i t y t o i t sf o r m e r h i g h i m p o r t a n c e .

j a n / f e b 2 0 0 0

B e c a u s e s o l i d a r i t y a m o n gpeoples has much more valuet h a n t h e l e f t o v e r s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t

compet ing in te res ts o f thepolitics of various states.

Q: Such decisions can onlyc o m e a b o u t a s t h e r e s u l t o f a n

open discussion, however. Isn'tit more likely that the PKK willd e s t r o y i t s e l f d u e t o i n t e r n a lfeuding?

A : T h e P K K h a s - b e t t e r l a t e

than never - recognised thenecessity of changing. But theymust seek to guarantee thei n v o l v e m e n t o f t h e m a s s e s i n

b u i l d i n g o p i n i o n s w i t h i nKurdish institutions, media, anda s s o c i a t i o n s . A n d t h e P K Kshould take measures to givephysical support to the militantsw h o a r e n o w i n a s t a t e o f

hopelessness.T h o u s a n d s o f g u e r r i l l a

fighters, their supporters amongthe peop le , and u l t imate lymillions of people have paid ahigh price for this struggle.Now they are expecting a moralcatastrophe, one which hasactually already begun. Thef o r c e s w h i c h a r e b e i n gw i t h d r a w n t o s o u t h K u r d i s t a n

should at all costs avoid beingd r a w n i n t o c l a s h e s w i t h t h e

KDP, because the strings of theKDP are pulled by the Turkishs t a t e .

T h e K u r d i s h i s s u e c o u l d

increasingly become separatedfrom the PKK The unorganiseds t r u c t u r e s c o u l d t h e n b e

problematic, and at the samet i m e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s c o u l dsu r face w i th in the PKK wh ichw o u l d m a k e i n t e r n a l c l a s h e s

unavoidable. At any rate, it'sc l e a r t h a t t h e T u r k i s h s t a t e w i l lnot hesitate to profit from thissituation. Turkey is alreadytrying to provoke trouble withint h e p a r t y a n d t o t h e r e b ystrengthen those forces which inturn strengthen the position ofthe Turkish government.

• Interview by Jorg Hilbert,p u b l i s h e d i n J u n g e W e l t ,September 25,1999

PortugalI n t h e r e c e n t P o r t u g u e s eparliamentart' elections, the l-eftB l o c k o b t a i n e d 2 . 5 % o f t h e v o t e sand will form a new parliamentaiygroup with two MPs.The Block is a movement bringingtogether the PSR (Portuguesesection of Fourth International),the UDP (e.\-Maoists) and manyindependents.The result represents a significanti n c r e a s e i n t h e n u m b e r o f L e f tBlock votes to 130,000, more than

doubling the 60,000 in June'sFuropean election. Supporters arepredominantly young and urbanFrancisco Louca CChico") from theP S R a n d L u i s F a z e n d a f r o m t h eU D P w e r e e l e c t e d i n t h e L i s b o n

region, where the Block had itsbest result (4.9%). r-azenda is theleading light in the UDP and hehas already some experience asMP, as the UDP had one place onthe Communist Part)' list in 1991.

The People's Republic of ChinaAfter the first fifty yearsIt is half a cciiturj' since the(.'iiincse revolution scored a victorj'and the People's Republic of Chinawas set up, and with the changes inthe relations of production and inclass relations, the economyacquired possibilities for rapidgrowth.

According to official statistics,China's GDP rose from 67.9bnyuan in 1952 to 7,955.3bn yuan in1998, an average annual growthrate of 7.7%, which was higherthan the average annual growthrate of 3% in the world. This figurehas been the pride of the Chineseg o v e r n m e n t .

Rapid growth took place in thelast decade. Up to 1978, the GDPwas only 362.4bn Noian, whichmeans that under Mao Zedong'sleadership - in 26 years includingthe disruptions of productionduring the great leap forward, thepeople's communes and thecu l tu ra l revo lu t i on - t he GDPincreased by only about four timesfrom a ver)' low starting point. Itw a s i n 1 9 8 7 t h a t t h e G D Pexceeded Itrn yuan, an increase oftwo times in nine years. From 1987to 1998, in 11 years, the GDP rose6.3 t imes.

However, such a rapid increasein the last two decades was partiallya result of the rapid developmentof the private economy. Forinstance, of the total industrialoutput of 1996 and 1997, the state-owned economy constituted 28.5%and 25.5% respectively, whereasthe private economy constituted71.5% and 74.5% respectively.

It must be noted that the rapideconomic growth was at theexpense of major politicalconcessions on the road to gradualcapitalist restoration. In the March1999 National People's Gongresswhen the Gonstitution was revised,the private economy and individualeconomy, formerly reg-arded asplaying a 'supplementary' role, hadtheir status enhanced to that of'being an important component inthe socialist market economy'.Lately, the standing committee ofthe NPG endorsed the law onindividually owned enterprises,which aimed to encourage andsafeguard the development ofprivate economic units.

The official figures showedthat by the end of 1998, registeredindividually owned enterprisesamounted to 442,000. 'I'here wereabout 31.2 million self-employedi n d u s t r i a l a n d c o m m e r c i a lenterprises.

With Ghina treading the pathtowa rds cap i t a l i sm , soc i a lpolarisation and the increasing gapbetween the rich and the poor havebeen more acute. In the early yearsof the Reform, 'Pen-ThousandYuan Households' was once thename of the nouveau riche. In lateryears, over a hundred 'Hundred-iMi l l ion Yuan Households ' hademerged.

A recent report said that'currendy, the savings in Ghinaamounts to almost 6tm vuan,mostly concentrated in the handsof 15-16% of high-incomehouseholds.' The deposits of thesehigh-income households amountedto 4 to 5trn yuan, which was overhalf the GDP for 1998, and four orfive times the total revenue of thecountr)'.

But at the other end, althoughp r o d u c t i v i t y ' h a s r i s e n ,unemployment and layoffs arc therule of the day. I'he minister ofGhinese labour and social securityreported to the standing committeeof the NPG in .August that in thefirst half of 1999, temporar)' layoffsin state-owned enterprisesamounted to 7.42m workers, ofwhich 5.4m had not been allocateda new job.

Fach temporari ly laid-offworker received a li\'ing allowanceof 170 yuan a month, but even thismeagre sum of money, someenterprises in some areas did notmanage to distribute in time. Asum of 1.37bn yuan was still owedto pensioners of state-ownedenterprises.

The Ghinese bureaucracy hasdeprived workers of their power tobe master of the enterprises and todemocratically manage and operatethe enterprises. With command inthe hands of a small minority ofgreedy and incompetentbureaucrats, inefficiency and lowproductivity' have been a feature ofthe enterprises, and have causedthe call for reforms over a longperiod. I lowever, the reforms havebeen mostly in vain.

At the end of 1997, a total of6 ,599 (39.1%) s ta te-ownedenterpri.ses were in deficit. The netdeficit was 29.3bn yuan in 1997,and 55.8bn yuan in 1998. .About80% of state-owned enteiprises arein debt.

However, if they are allallowed to go bankrupt, therepercussions on bank loans andgeneral savings from the people,and on enormous unemployment,will surely cause serious disruptionsof social stability'. This is one majorreason yvhy the Gommunist Party-of Ghina (GGP) has been reluctantto push through the bankruptcy ofstate-owned enterprises.

I t m u s t a l . s o b e n o t e d t h a tstatc-oyvned and collectively-oyvnedenterprises still occupy a primary'position in large and medium scaleenterprises, with 70% and 64%weight respectively. Jiang Zemin, inhis speech commemorating the78th anniversarj' of the formationof the GGP, stressed that state-o w n e d a s s e t s a m o u n t e d t o 8 t r n

yuan, forming the prime basis ofthe national economy.

He warned of the greed of'some comrades' who attempted touse their political power to seizestate assets, and if these peoplewere not contained, state assetsyvould be eventually emptied.

This speech indicates that theGGP leaders are still compelled togive lip service to Marxism andsocialism, and that the gains of ther e v o l u t i o n i n t h e f o r m o f l a b o u rand soc ia l yve l fa re , and an t i -capitalist ideology', cannot be easilyr e m o v e d . T h e d i s c o n t e n t a n dprotest breyving among yvorkershave exerted a strong pressure onthe leaders, serving as a barrier to ageneral capitalist restoration inGhina.

Zhang Kai

The d i scon ten t andprotest brewingamong workersh a v e e x e r t e d a

strong pressure onthe leaders, serving

as a ba r r i e r t o a

general capital istr e s t o r a t i o n i n C h i n a

Reprinted from October ReviewVol.26 Issue 4 1999

13 • socialist democracy • jan/feb 2000

Socialist Party of TimorMobilising the people's power

T h e C h i n e s e p r o l e t a r i a t , f r o m M a x L a n ec l a s s c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f a c t u a l

interest, do not support theprivat isat ion of state-ownedenterprises. Workers' actions havebeen taken in the past years againstprivatisation.

The Chinese Youth Journal inBeijing reported on the followingcase on June 4 this year In Hefei,the provincial capital of AnhuiProvince, over 2,000 workers hadt r a n s f e r r e d f r o m s t a t e - o w n e d

enterprises to enterprises run byjoint ventures, where they enjoyedtwo times the wages and could geta monthly income of 1,000 yuan.H o w e v e r, m o s t w o r k e r s l a t e rpreferred to quit and wait for workrearrangement by their formerstate-owned enterprises, receivingonly a small stipend of basic livingal lowance. The reason was tha t inthe new job, labour intensit)' wasdouble that of the original job, andc o n t r o l w a s s t r i c t . D i s m i s s a l o f

workers was frequent, hence therewas no sense of job security.

P o r C h i n a ' s e c o n o m i c r e f o r mto be effectively conducted to thebenefit of the majorit}' of thepeople, a radical democratic reformis indispensable. Wthout workersa s s u m i n g r e a l p o w e r ,bureaucratism and corruption oft h e c a d r e s c a n n o t b e c o m b a t e d .The CCP has refused any politicald e m o c r a t i c r e f o r m , a n d h a sc r a c k e d d o w n o n p e o p l edemanding democrat isat ion.Autocracy has been maintained bythe repression of dissent.

Por the celebration of the 50th

anniversary, llObn yuan had beenspent on renovations in the capital.To reduce air pollution in orderthat the military parade could beclearly visible, 25 factor iesincluding the Beijing Steelworksi-actory were asked to stopproduction for 11 days, and theestimated loss was 100m yuan.

T h e m o b i l i s a t i o n o f s e v e r a lhundred thousand people for themass parade was aimed to put up afacade of strength and pride, yetthey could not cover up thegrimness of life in (diina today.

14 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000

Shalar Kosi is the secretarj'general of the Socialist Part}' ofTimor (PS'l). In an interview withAustralia's Green Left Weekly, hestressed that the crucial questionf o r s o c i a l i s t s i n l A s t T i m o r i s

building bases among the people.' O n e o f t h e f r a m e w o r k s f o r

t h i s h a s b e e n t h e f o r m a t i o n t h i s

year of groupings in differentsectors', he explained. 'Thesei n c l u d e t h e W o r k e r s ' S o c i a l i s t

A l l iance, the Peasant Socia l is tA l l i a n c e , t h e S o c i a l i s t Yo u t hA l l i a n c e , S o c i a l i s t A l l i a n c e o fWomen and a Socialist Study(Yntre. They are all at the earlystages of development, althoughmany workers outside P.ast Timor,such as in Lampung, are alreadyorganised.

'In East 'I'imor, we have the

beginnings of bases among portworkers, construction workers anddrivers. Among coffee farmers,both small owners and labourers,we have some ce l l s t ha t a re a l so

developing co-operatives.'A t h e m e i n S h a l a r K o s i ' s

analysis is the necessity of astrateg}' of mass action, both forthe independence struggle and fora socialist East ' i ' imor.

' W e t h i n k t h e c h a n c e s o f

victor}- in the referendum arcgood', he said,' but we would havepreferred that the movement rejectthe UN agreement on May 5 andthen apply pressure through massa c t i o n s f o r o n e w h e r e t h eIndonesian army wasn't in chargeof security for the referendum,l iven now, we th ink that thereshould be more pressure appliedtlArough mass action, throughpeople's power.'

'I'he PST, which was formed asa party in 1997, is not a member oft h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l f o r T i m o r e s e

Resistance (CNR'l) nor of Fretilin.O n e o f t h e r e a s o n s i s t h a t t h eC'NRT docs not recognise the 1975declaration of independence thatformed the Democratic Republicof East Timor (DRE'lJ. There areother differences too. such as onperjple's power as a central tactic.

The PS T has helped form thePeople's (Council for the Defenceof the Republic ((d'D) whichorganised demonstrations soonafter the May 5 UN agreement wassigned. The (iPD, said Kosi, is a

loose network, including manynon-part}' people who still supportt h e D R E ' T .

'But now we are workingtogether with'Xanana Gusmao andt h e C N R ' T t o m o b i l i s e f o r t h ereferendum. We also support thep r o p o s a l f o r a c o a l i t i o ngovernment after a referendumvictor}', which includes the currentpro- integration forces.'

The PS'T was representedamong the pro-independencegroups that participated in therecent 'dialogue' between pro-Jakarta and independence groupsin Jakarta, which also includedfigures such as Ramos I lorta.

According to Kosi, a coalitiongovernment should have only twotasks: to keep the administrationgoing and to prepare generalelections. 'We want free multi-partyelections as soon as possible after acoalition government can beformed. Six months is preferable,but definitely no more than twoyears.

'We would like to see a secondr e f e r e n d u m a l s o , o n w h e t h e r

people wish to reestablish theDemocratic Republic of EastTimor that was proclaimed in1975. The people should have theright to have their say on that too.'

Kosi expressed caution onwhether Jakarta would abide by ther e s u l t s o f t h e r e f e r e n d u m i f t h e

independence option won. 'Therewas still a question whether theIndonesian army ('I'Nl) wouldwithdraw as required and whetheri t w o u l d l e a v e a r m e d m i l i t i a sb e h i n d .

'Again, we wi l l need tomobilise people's power. We willneed stronger organised basesamong the people.'

Kosi stated that people's powerwould be as effective as the role of

Falintil, the resistance army.His tory had shown that

guerrilla struggle and people'spower can be a very powerfulc o m b i n a t i o n . ' W e a l s o h a v e n o

problem with the disarming ofFalintil together with the militias.This will open up more space,

m a k i n g i t e a s i e r f o r m a s smobilising.'

Mc was confident that the pro- have brandintegration mil i t ias could be and (x-ntradefeated in this manner. ' They have worker grotno basis, apart from the backing 'On Aufrom the ITS'I. They will wither an open leiunder the force of people's power. chairpersonBut we must still recognise the Dili. Ourdanger that a withdrawing 'INI socialist foim a y t r ) ' t o s t a r t a c i v i l w a r. ' f r o m t h e u i

Kosi also emphasised that a their presenkey part of defeating the we can winoccupation was co-operation with strengthen (the Indonesian democratic As partmovement. 'We worked together open, thewith the PRD (People's newspaperDemocratic Part)'], for example, in Tuba. Tw<the 1994 occupations of the Dutch publishedand Russian embassies. The months, anc''toggles in l iast Timor and of it continuI n d o n e s i a c a n n o t a n d m u s t n o t b e ' W e h :s e p a r a t e d . ' c o p i e s i n

While a united front to win the members sireferendum, establish a transitional and sympatcoalition government and force the not also (INI to withdraw remains the current policentral tactical priorit)-, Kosi relation to tlemphasised that laying the basis for the situationa socialist IZast Timor remained the carries educfundamental goal of the PST. IZast Timon

'Of course, at the moment, the well as the |people look to Xanana as the in the regionleader or symbol of the fight for The PS'lindependence. Or they relate to but Kosi tiFretilin as the organisation that much furthfought for independence in the youth, hav1970s. Our influence at this point education fti s l i m i t e d . We h a v e n o i l l u s i o n s h a d e s t a babout that. But we also think that organisationthe prospects for the socialist although 'movement in East Timor are completely dg o o d . ' T h i s a i

Behind this optimism is the socialist-orie;a s s e s s m e n t t h a t a n I Z a s t T i m o r e s e f a i l e d i n t i n

capitalism has not yet taken root towards aand that building a socialist IZast unit\',Timor would not require great disconnectinefforts to demolish a deeply rooted from F'retili( a p i t a l i s t s j ' s t e m . w i t h t h e c

It is also based on the PSTs Democrat-oi£ ssessment that while both Xanana [Timorese 1£nd F'retilin have great authorit)' non-part\' i£ nd popularitx', they have not student grouI eveloped functioning partj' Xanana's resstructures among the people. 'The and the forn(oming period will be a period of Clouncil ofileological clarification among all (CNRM).t le political forces', Kosi added. .\ccordir

'The I'ST is still small, with 1981 andabout 300 cadre in East Timor and elements ins ightly less in Indonesia, i'he 300 retreat. Somi i IZast Timor include 70 new guerrilla mcr lembers who have just been from the strut trough classes. In Indonesia, weJ \5 • socialist democracy • jan/feb 2000

have branches covering East Javaand (Zentral Java as well as theworker groupings in I .ampung.

'On August 1, the PST set upan open legal office in Dili. Ourchairperson, Saruntu, is based inDili. Our position is that thesocialist forces should come outfrom the underground and declaretheir presence. This is the only waywe can win people to our ideas andstrengthen our base.'

As part of this coming into theopen, the PST has launched anewspaper in a tabloid format.Tu b a . Tw o i s s u e s h a v e b e e n

published over the last twomonths, and the party is confidentof it continuing on a regular basis.

'We have d i s t r i bu ted 5000

cop ies in Eas t Timor. Ourmembers sell them to supportersand sympathisers. The newspapernot also debates and analysescurrent political developments inrelat ion to the UN referendum and

the situation in IZast Timor but alsocarries educational material on theIZast Timorese social structure aswell as the prospects for socialismin the region as a whole.'

The PST was formed in 1997,but Kosi traces its origins backmuch further. .\ few left-wingyouth, having received someeducation from leftists in I-retilin,had established the youthorganisat ion Ojet i l in 1981a l t h o u g h ' O j e t i l n o w i s acompletely different organisation'.

This at tempt to bui ld asocialist-oriented youth groupf a i l e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a t r e n d

towards a politics of 'nationalu n i t ) ' , w h i c h i n c l u d e ddisconnecting the guerrilla forcesfrom Fretilin, a rapprochementwith the conseri 'at ive Christ ianD e m o c r a t - o r i e n t e d U D T[Timorese Democratic Unionj, anon-part)' orientation by otherstudent groups such as Renetil andXanana's resignation from l-retilinand the formation of the NationalCZouncil of Maubere Resistance(CNRM).

.According to Kosi, between1981 and 1989 the left-winge lemen ts i n t he res i s tance was i n

r e t r e a t . S o m e l e f t l e a d e r s i n t h e

guerrilla movement disappearedfrom the struggle.

Then in December 1989, threeof the original members of the1981 Ojetil formed the ClandestineStudent Front for the Liberation ofIZast Timor (F'eclitil). This wasbased outside IZast Timor. Its firstaction was a joint protest withR e n e t i l a n d u n a f fi l i a t e d I Z a s tTimorese students in Jakartaagainst the 1991 Santa Cruzmassacre. In December 1991, ten

people gathered to form theTimorese Socialist Association.

In the initial period, said Kosi,the PST was the subject ofconsiderable slander and gossip,even to the extent of rumours thatthe head of the PS'l" was AbilioAraujo, a former president ofFretilin who became a pro-Jakartafigure.

'However, by 1995 we wereable to establish formal contactwith Xanana Gusmao and engagein some co-operation, whilemaintaining our right to makecriticisms and to stay outside ofCNRT. Actually, we were alsoready to join l"'retilin if I-retilin wasable to t ransform i tse l f in to aunited front of left or progressiveforces within CNRT, but it seemsF'retilin wants to be a part)' of itsown, perhaps with a socialdemocratic platform. Maybe therewill be possibilities of a coalition inthe future. '

Kosi explained that the PSTssocialism bases itself on Marxismand rejects the Stalinist version.'We also tr)' to learn from thecontributions of revolutionar)'socialist leaders, such as Lenin andTrotsky. But we are short ofreadings and materials, so we arcstill studying.

'We think that the social istforces throughout the Asia-Pacificregion need to collaborate andwork out common approaches toissues. This region is going to be acentre of conflict between socialistand capitalist forces in the comingperiod, especially with the realpotential for social revolution inIndonesia. An early victor)' fors o c i a l i s m i n I Z a s t T i m o r w i t h i t s

weakly developed indigenouscapitalism and its small size andpopulation could also be aninspiration for socialist forcesthroughout the region.'

This region is goingto be a centre ofc o n fl i c t b e t w e e n

s o c i a i i s t a n dcapitaiist forces inthe coming period,especially with thereal potential for

soc ia l revo lu t i on i nI n d o n e s i a

EmiHo Brodziak Amaya 1938-99Man who brought The Dawn

P a u l C l a r k e

Emilio played ac e n t r a l r o l e i n

writing andproducing the LUS

paper Umbral(Dawn); on thegiant electr ic i ty

w o r k e r sd e m o n s t r a t i o n o nMarch 18 this year

personally soldm o r e t h a n 1 0 0

copies

To c o n t a c t t h e L U S e - m a i l :

m a t n i i l a r m 9 9 @ . v a h o o . c o m

L inks: anIn te rna t i ona l

journal ofSoc ia l i s tRenewal . In thecur rent issue:S o d a i i s m a n dNa t i ona l i sm

16 • socialist democracy •

More tlian 200 people packedthe auditorium at 1-con 'I'rotsky'shouse in Mexico City to pay tributeto the memor)' of iimilio Amaya,who died on October 10 at the ageof 61.

A t t h e t i m e o f l i i s d e a t hL m i l i o w a s t h e n a t i o n a l

c o o r d i n a t o r o f t h e C o - o r d i n a d o r aIntersindical Primero de Mayo, anda leading member of the Liga de laUnidad Socialista (LUS).

Opening the meeting, ManuelAguilar Mora, a leader of the LUS,explained Emilio's histor)'. The sonof a Po l i sh f a t he r and a Mex i can

mother, Emilio Amaya joined therevolutionary movement in theearly 1960s, becoming a memberof the Liga Obrera Marxista.

He participated in thel968student movement, and in thesame year helped to found theG r u p o C o m m u n i s t aIntcrnacionalista. In 1976 he was af o u n d e r m e m b e r o f t h e P R ' P

(Mexican section of the I'ourthInternational).

Because he worked in publicadministration, he had to keep alow profile, and was for a longtime confined to journalistic,publishing and internal party tasks.For more than 20 years he wrote,under a pseudonym, a column inthe daily paper Uno Mas Uno,defending workers' struggle andsoc ia l i sm.

Unt i l the t ime o f h is death hew a s a m e m b e r o f t h e c o u n c i l o fthe Siglo X'einte Uno publishinghouse. In the 1970s he worked forseveral years in France, where hew a s a m e m b e r o f t h e L a t i n

American fraction of tlic LigueC o m m u n i s t e R e v o l u t i o n n a i r e .

In the early 1990s, the PUTsuffered a severe internal crisis,and eventually split into twogroups. The part of the PUTluiiilio stayed with decided inI'ebruar)' 1996 to dissolve theorganisation and go into theZapatista movement. Emilio joinedthe opposition groups, led by(aime Gon/alez and ManuelAguilar Mora, which rejected thismove and decided to fight for anopen Marxist organisation. Twomonths later they founded theL U S .

In 1994, Emilio found himselfin a financial position to devoteh i m s e l f f u l l - t i m e t o t h e

revolutionarj' movement. Fromthat point on he devoted literallyall his time to the struggles of theMexican workers, being a fixtureon ever)' demonstration of theworkers and the left. Me helped, in1995, to found the Primero deMayo left opposition trade unionfront, and became its principalorganiser.

In the last year much of histime was taken up with the(jrganisation of the NationalR e s i s t a n c e F r o n t t o d e f e n d t h e

e lec t r ic i t ) ' indust ry aga ins tprivatisation. He played a centralrole in writing and producing thel .US paper Umbral (Dawn); on theg i a n t c l c c t r i c i t ) ' w o r k e r sd e m o n s t r a t i o n o n M a r c h 1 8 t h i s

year personally sold more than 100copies.

In the past nine months hespent an increasing amount of time

A d v e r t i s m e n tMarx, Engels and Lenin

on the national question.N o r m D i x o n * I r i s hnationalism and the peaceprocess, inter\de\v withBernadette McAliskey •T h e r i g h t t o s e l f -determination in Kashmir,Farooq Sulehria • Nationaloppression and the collapseof Yugoslavia, MichaelKaradjis • Palestine andIsrael after the elections,Adam Hanieh • Program of

j a n / f e b 2 0 0 0

the Rebolusyonarj^ongPartido ng Manggagawa •T h e u n i n t e r r u p t e dr e v o l u t i o n i n t h e

Ph i l i pp ines , Re ihanaM o h i d e e n • T h e l e f t i nPakistan: a brief histor}%Farooq Sulehria • Marxismor Bauerite nadonalism?,Doug Lorimer • A long andstill relevant debate, JohnN e b a u e r • I n t e r n a t i o n a lW o r k e r s M o v e m e n t N e w s .

working to support to epic students t r i ke a t UN.AM (Na t iona lA u t o n o m o u s U n i v e r s i t y o fMexico). He also found time to beactive in protests against the USwar against Yugctslavia, and againstthe 1 ndonesian-sponsoredmassacre in East Timor.

1 .ike many on the Mexican left,he was active in support of the17Z1.N, which recognised tlic roleo f t h e I n t e r s i n d i c a l P r i m e r o d e -

Mayo by sending a delegation ofmasked Zapatistas to lead theIntcrsindical's contingent on thisyear's May Day march.

The speakers at the meetingdemons t ra ted the es teem in wh ichEmilio was held. Fifteen workers'and peasant organisations sentspeakers to the meeting, and manymore sent messages.

N o t a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n s w e r e

made by a member of thee x e c u t i v e o f t h e S i n d i c a t oMexicano de I'-'lectricistas (SMIi),whose members are to the fo re inthe anti-privatisation fight; and bya companera from the ConsejoGeneral de Huclga (CGH), thebody leading the student strike.

l e a d e r s o f t h e M o v i m i e n t oProletario Independientc and theP a r t i d o O b r e r a S o c i a l i s t a a l s o

spoke. A moving tribute to hisdevotion to the social ist cause wasmade by his wife, Rcyna Brodziak.'Pile banner placed on the podiumby the Primero de Mayo read:' Y o u r m e m o r \ ' l i v e s o n i n o u r

struggle'.

T o c o n t a c t L I N K S s e n d

your correspondence to:Post Office Box 515,B R O A D W A Y N S W 2 0 0 7

A u s t r a l i a .

Telephone: +61 2 96901230Facsimi le: +61 2 9690 1381

Email: links@dsp.org.au.B r o w s e :

h t t n : / A v w w. d s n . o r e . a u / l i n k s /

Permanent Revolution' today

Although developedalmost a century ago, thec l a s s i c a l M a r x i s t t h e o r i e sof the dynamics of worldr e v o l u t i o n r e m a i n c e n t r a lto socialist strategy in then e w m i l l e n n i u m . B u t t h a tdoesn't mean they shouid

be treated as holy writ.

I n 1 9 9 8 t h e D e m o c r a t i cSocialist Party (DSP) of

Austral ia publ ished apamphlet by leading

member Doug Lor imer,criticising Trotsky's idea ofpermanent revo lu t ion and

coun te rpos ing the' revolutionary-democratic

dictatorship of theproletariat and peasantry'.

Bad call, guys.

This is a heavily editedversion of a reply by Phil

Hearse, a SocialistDemocracy suppor te r

currently based in Mexico.

Why the debate?

In the fight for socialistrenewal, international collaborationc a n n o t b e o n t h e b a s i s o f t o t a l

agreement on theory, strateg)' ortact ics.

•All or some of the members of

organisations the DSP seeksc o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h i i o l d - o r t e n dt o w a r d s - t h e p e r m a n e n trevolution theory. I'hese includet h e s e c t i o n s o f t h e P ' o u r t h

International, the Scottish SocialistPart)', the Pakistani 1-abour Part)',the NSSP in Sri Lanka, Solidarit)'i n t h e U S A a n d S o c i a l i s t

Democracy in Lngland and Wales.Quite correctly, the DSP has

not been swayed by pet tydiplomacy in forthright criticism ofpermanent revolution in a verypolemical pamphlet. This critiquefo l lows the same cons t ruc t i ve and

comradely policy.W e m a i n t a i n L o r i m e r ' s

conclusion - that permanentrevolution is 'an inferior guide torevolutionar)' action compared tothe Leninist theon,' and policy of at w o - s t a g e , u n i n t e r r u p t e drevolution' is wrong. In fact, thereverse is true.

• 1 .orimcr's pamphlet is basedon the obviously false assumptiont h a t t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h i r dworld countries today is similar topre-1917 Russia or 1920s China,with the peasantr)' overwhelminglydominant numerically. 1 le docs notmention that this is today untrue inm o s t d o m i n a t e d a n d s e m i c o l o n i a lcoun t r i es .

• 1 .orimer confines his critiquet o t h e e . x p e r i e n c e o fprerevolutionar)' Russia and (diina,a n d d o e s n o t d i s c u s s e i t h e r t h eother revolutionar)' experiences ofthe 20th centur)', or post-'i rotskyrethinks in the light of subsequentexperience. In his introductionL o r i m e r w r i t e s : ' 1 h a v e a l s o n o t

a t t e m p t e d t o t a k e u p t h einnumerab le d i s t o r t i o t i s o f Len in ' sviews on the class dynamics of theRussian revolution made by laterTrotskyists and writers influencedby 'i'rotskyism, preferring insteadto concentrate on the originalsource of these distor t ions, ieTrotsky himself.' (p9).

' I ' h u s i n t o t h e d u s t b i n o f'innumerable distortions' go IsaacD e u t s c h e r , M a r c e l L i e b m a n ,

Lrnest Mandel, and two ver)'important works which deal withthese problems - Norman Cieras'Leg-acy of Rosa Luxemburg andMichael Lowy's Politics of UnevenDevelopment - not to mentionworks of non-Marxists such as LI 1

Cart. Lowy's book in particularanswers in advance every singlepoint that Lorimer makes.

• ' I 'he pamphlet fai ls to

recognise that solutions to then a t i o n a l a n d d e m o c r a t i c t a s k s o fthe revo lu t i on - where th i rd wor ld

c o u n t r i e s h a v e a c h i e v e d f o r m a l

independence, but are still grippedby imperialist finance capital -c a n n o t h a p p e n w i t h o u tanticapitalist measures, ie tasks ofthe soc ia l i s t revo lu t ion . 1 low can

any state achieve real nationalliberation today without breakingthe grip of the transnationalcorporations. World Bank, IMF,a n d d o m e s t i c b a n k s a n d fi n a n c ehouses?

• I t s a c c o u n t o f t h e d e b a t e s

i n s i d e t h e R u s s i a n S o c i a lD e m o c r a t i c L a b o u r P a r t y(RSDLP) up to October 1917ignore the contradictions andinconsistencies in 1-enin's position,and falsely caricature Trotsky's.

• Lorimer gives a false pictureof the post-1923 struggles inR u s s i a a n d e l s e w h e r e b e t w e e n

partisans of the two-stage andpermanent revolution positions.This effectively writes out thestruggle against Stalinism and itsneomenshevik stageist theory.

• Paradoxical ly, Lor imercomes up with definitions of whatthe revolutiona r)'-democraticdictatorship might mean inpractice that come close topermanent revolution. Theseconcessions give back to iVotskyw i t h t h e l e f t h a n d w h a t L o r i m e rthinks he has taken away with theright. We are left with an eclecticand dangerous ly con fusedm i s h m a s h .

The centra l s t rategicproblem: class alliances in

t h e d o m i n a t e d c o u n t r i e s

The crux of 1 .orimer's critiqueof 'iVotsky is the claim that tomove towards socialist revolution,it is fii-st necessar)' to completebourgeois-democratic revolution.

Paradoxical ly,Lorimer comes upw i t h d e fi n i t i o n s o f

w h a t t h e

revo lu t ionary -d e m o c r a t i c

dictatorship mightmean in practice

t h a t c o m e c l o s e t o

pe rmanen tr e v o l u t i o n

soc ia l i s t demoa^cy • j an / f eb 2000 • 17

1 rotsky failed to understandthis, he maintains.

I'o complete the bourgeoisdemocrat ic revolut ion, i t isneccssarj' to forge an alliancebetween the working class and thewhole peasantr)', on the basis ofnational and democratic demands,] .orimer believes.

This all iance can then takep o w e r i n t h e f o r m o f a' r e v o l u t i o n a r ) ' d e m o c r a t i cdictatorship cjf the proletariat andpeasantry'. It will include the'pea.sant bourgeoisie', and can thenproceed to complete the bourgeoisdemocratic revolution, in particularland re fo rm.

Only then can a break with thepeasant bourgeoisie take place andt h e t r a n s i t i o n t o s o c i a l i s trevolution be posed. This forms an'uninterrupted' process, but with ad e fi n i t e a n d d i s t i n c t ' n a t i o n a ldemocratic' stage. It is thus a 'two-stage' revolution.

Lo r imc r a rgues : TheBolsheviks projected a line ofmarch that was necessarj' for theworking class to take and holdpower in Russia. The Bolsheviksrecognised that a soc ia l is trevolution could only be carriedout in Russia if the majorit)' of thepopulation (the workers and poorpeasants) supported it.

'But the majority of workers,and above all the masses of poorpeasants could only be won tosuppo r t a soc ia l i s t r evo lu t i onthrough their own experience instrujple.'As long as the bourgeoisdemocra t i c revo lu t ion was no t

completed, the Bolsheviks argued,the poor peasants would remainuni ted wi th the peasantbourgeoisie in the struggle againstthe landlords and would not seetheir problems stemmed not onlyfrom the vestiges of feudalism inRussia (the autocracy andlandlord ism) but a lso f romcapitalism.

'As long as this remained thecase, the revolutionarj' proletariatwould be unable to rally themajority of the country'spopulation, ie the semiproletariansection of the peasantr)', to theperspective of carrj'ing out a.socialist revolution.' (Lorimcr pi 9).

Incidentally, I am not veryhappy with the phrase 'peasantbourgeoisie'. It would be muchmore accurate to say the richpeasants - or kulaks -were a sectionof the pett)' bourgeoisie.

But here I have not disputedthe term 'peasant bourgeoisie'ever)' time I .orimer uses it.

Lven if this were an adequate-account of what happened inRussia - which it is not - would itbe applicable as a general schema

for the third world today? l-orSouth Korea, Argentina, Mexico,Brazi l , Iran and South .Afr ica?Social changes in the dominatedcountries exclude such a strateg)' ap r i o r i , becau . se t he c l asscomposition of these countries -and the relative numerical weightof the different classes on a worldscale - has changed dramatically.

In 1929 Trotsky could write:'Not only the agrarian, but also thenational cjuestion, assigns to thepeasantrj' - the overwhelmingmajorit)' in the backward countries- an exceptional place in thed e m o c r a t i c r e v o l u t i o n . '(Permanent Revolution p276.)

l.orimer writes: 'Trotsky'sinabilit)' to clearly understand thata proletarian-socialist revolutionc o u l d n o t b e c a r r i e d o u t i n a

peasant countr)- except on thebasis of the completion of thetasks of the peasant-democraticrevolution, led him to identify theBolshevik perspective with that ofMenshevism.' (1 .orimer p70).

Lor imer goes on to h isconclusion - that permanentrevolution is an 'inferior' guide torevolutionar)' action comparedwith what he takes to be Lenin's

theor)' - straight from his polemicabout Trf)tsky's theor)' 'in apeasant country', without a nod inthe directioti of the fact that todaythat most third world countries arcnot 'peasant' countries at all.

.As ].dwy, writing about the1848 Communis t Mani festo and i tsrelevance fijr today, puts it, theManifesto's call for internationalworking class unit)- 'was a visionaryone. In 1848 the proletariat wasstill only a minorit)' in mostEuropean societies, not to mentionthe rest of the world.

'Today the mass of wageworkers exploited by capital -industrial workers, white collarworkers, services employees, daylabourers, farmhands - comprisesthe majorit) ' of the world'spopulation. It is by far and awaythe most important force in theclass struggle against the globalcapitalist system, and the axisa r o u n d w h i c h a l l o t h e r s o c i a lforces other social struggles cana n d m u s t o r i e n t t h e m s e l v e s . '

(Monthly Review, November 1998,pp22-3);

\ X 4 i i l e 1 - o r i m e r a b s t r a c t s

d i r ec t l y f r om the Russ ianexperience to contemporar)'conditions, the changes de.scribcdby Low)' have altered the relativeweight of the classes withinspecific countries and not just on aworld scale.

The Mexican example

In Mexico individual peasantfarmers with their own plots ofland are a small minorit)' of thepopulation. Already in 1960, some50% of the Mexican populationlived in towns. Today the figure isaround 75% (compared with about15% in 1917 Russia). More than20% of the roughly 98mpopulation live in Mexico (iity.The rural population is in itsmajorit)' composed not of peasantsbut of agricultural labourers,working for a wage, and often onlyseasonally and intermittentlyemployed.

In the cities, the proletarianpopulation lives side by side withthe urban poor, often engaged inpett)' trade and criminal activity.But even here, the urban poor areoften disguised proletarians.

'The vast majorit)' of the100,000 'ambulantes' in MexicoGit)' - street traders - are actuallyemployees of the mafia-capitalistswho con t ro l t he s t r ee t t r ade .Another huge sector of the urbanpopulation is engaged in homeworking, producing ever)'thingfrom clothes to fireworks in theirbackrooms and back yards.

'These people, de.spite the factthat they may own their own pitiful'means of production', are alsodisguised proletarians, .selling theirproducts to the vastly richcapitalists who control the tradefor a pittance.

What do these changes in the.social structure over the last 40years mean for socialist strateg) ? .Asociety like Mexico is very differentfrom prerevolutionar)' Russia, notjust from in social structure butf r o m i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h eagrarian c|uestion, whichdominated the thinking of RussianMarxists about the peasantr)'.

Lenin and 'Trotsky debatedhow to overthrow a semifeudal

aristocracy based on landed estates.B u t i n M e x i c o t h e r e i s n osemifeudal aristocracy.

Instead there is agribusiness,the thorough permeation ofagriculture by capitalist socialrelations. The enemies of the ruralpoor are Mexican capitalist farmersand international, especiallyA m e r i c a n , t r a n s n a t i o n a lcorporations.

Insofar as one can talk aboutlatifundia in Mexico, it takes theform of big farms, linked toagr ibus iness and the rura lbourgeoisie, not a semifeudalaristocracy.

Demands of the rural poorcome right up against the nationaland international bourgeoisie, andare therefore directly linked with

the anticapitalist (not antifeudal)struggle.

'This is obvious to virtually thewhole Mexican left, and reflectedin the ideology of the main peasantorganisations of struggle, who aresocialist, anticapitalist and explicitlylinked with the urban left. 'There isno push whatsoever to create anindependent peasant party,counterposed to proletarian andsocia l is t demands.

If the left and progressiveparties fight for the allegiance ofthe rural poor, it is against therightwing bourgeois parties,particularly tlie governing PRI.

'The battle for the allegiance ofthe rural poor is directly betweenthe work ing c lass and thebourgeoisie. A worker-peasant-indigenous peoples' alliance -which already exists in skeletonform - will be under the politicalleadership of the working class.

\firtually the whole Mexicanfar left puts forward the slogan 'ungobierno obrcra, compesino,idigena y popular' (a workers,peasants, indigenous and populargovernment). Such a governmentcould not be anything but thedictatorship of the proletariat, ie asocialist government.

' T h e r e c a n b e n o t a l k o f a nalliance with the 'peasantbourgeoisie' against the semifeudalaristocracy, because there is nopeasant bourgeoisie and nosemifeudal aristocraq'.

D o e s t h i s m e a n t h a t t h edemands of the peasants and therural poor - in particular 'land tothe tiller' - are irrelevant or totallysecondar)'? Not at all. Peasants andindigenous peoples' struggles haveenormous we ight , and areextremely popular wi th theprogressive sections of the urbanworkers. But it does mean that thecrucial class in any revolutionar)'transition is the working classitse l f .

Spectacular growth in theurban population in many thirdworld countries is directly linked tothe rise of capitalist social relationsi n a g r i c u l t u r e a n d t h es u b o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e r u r a l

population to agribu.siness.Gountless peasants have been

transformed into landless ruralworkers, often employed for only asmall part of the year and living am i s e r a b l e , s e m i - s t a r \ ' a t i o nexis tence.

Mass migration to the cities isa logical move for the rural poor.I'A'cn the forlorn existence of theurban poor normally beats stayingin the coun t r ) -s ide . Bu t aparadoxical effect of theseprocesses is to heighten, ratherthan diminish, the importance ofthe land question.

IS • socialist democracy • jan/feb 2000

/Vgribusincss tcnd.s to involvec o u n t e r - r e f o r m s i n c o u n t r i e swhere l imi ted land reform has

already taken place. Mexico is aclear example.

Individual or collective landownership by the peasantry cannotbe a solution to rural poverty solong as agribusiness monopoli.sesthe purchase and marketing ofagricultural produce. Peasantsbecome the indirect employees ofnational and international capital.

Owning your own plot of landand/or being part of a peasantcollective, while not freeing you ofyour subordination to agribusiness,is going to give you moreeconomic possibilities than being alandless labourer.

T h a t ' s w h y l a n d l e s smovements l i ke Brax i l ' s MST havesuch enormous popularit)'. Butthey fight against not a semifcudalaristocracy, but against thed o m e s t i c a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l

capitalist/agribusiness nexus.' I T i e s e m o v e m e n t s t e n d t o

spontaneously anticapitalistideolog}' and ally themselves withthe urban left. They do notconstitute the social and politicalbasis for an 'independent' peasantpart)' countcrposed to the 1 x'ft.

E n d o f t h e s e m i f e u d a i

a r i s t o c r a c y

O u t s i d e s o m e l i m i t e d c a s e slike rural Pakistan or parts of pre-1994 Chiapas, where the socialr e l a t i o n s o f b o n d e d l a b o u r a n d

semis laver ) ' pers is ted, thesemifeudai aristocracy is defunct.

On an international scale, thesemifeudai aristocracy is (or was) ahangover from the feudal mode ofproduction, which in a world morecapitalist than ever no longerexists.

Russia in 1917 was a vcr\'peculiar social formation. It was animperialist countr)-, financiallydependent on western imperialistpowers (especially P'rance andBritain). Yet simultaneously, it hada semifeudai rural class and a hugemajor i ty of peasants in i tspopulation. Wliere exactly can youfi n d a s i m i l a r s o c i a l f o r m a t i o n i nthe world today?

O n e c o u n t r ) ' w h i c h i soverwhelmingly peasant is ofcourse the largest - (^hina. Todayonly about 450m people, about athird of the population, live inci t ies.

T h i s i s a m u c h b i g g e rproportion than in 1917 Russia,and China indeed has some of the

largest concentrations of theproletariat in the world. And thereis indeed a peasant bourgeoisie, the

kulak class created by DengXiat)ping's late 1970s economicreforms which brf)ke up thepeasant communes, and have ledt o ( C h i n a ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n t o a

capitalist state.However, Lorimer's theoiy

could not possibly apply tocontemporar)' (diina. The peasantbourgeoisie will not struggle forland reform against a nonexistentsemifeudai landlord class. It willfight tooth and nail to defend itsgains, together with the urbanbourgeoisie, against the urbanproletariat and the rural workers.Class struggle will develop alongthe axis of anticapitalist struggle,under the proletariat's hegemony.

N a t i o n a l a n d d e m o c r a t i ct a s k s i n t h e e r a o f

neoiiberai globalisation

N e o l i b e r a l i s m - t h e l a t e s tphase of imperialism - has clampedthe scmicolonial and dependentc o u n t r i e s u n d e r t h e m o s t h a r s h

regime of exploitation since the eraof direct imperialist occupation.

The experience of the Asian'tigers' and 'dragons' has disprovedthe idea tha t the .se coun t r i es a re

independent centres of capitala c c u m u l a t i o n t o r i v a l t h e

imperialist powers, and showntheir financial dependence of theWestern imperialist centres.

[ fowever much i t maysometimes strain at the leash, thebourgeoisie in these countries isb o u n d h a n d t o f o o t t o t h e

imperialists.The ideologies of bourgeois

and pett)' bourgeois nationalismwhich swept the third world in the1950s and 1960s , have been.seriously undermined. The Nassersand Nehrus of yester)'ear havebeen replaced by pale imitations,unwilling to take the faintestindependent step -against theimperialist powers. The nationaloppression of the semicolonial anddependent countries has deepenedand not lessened.

b ' r o m t h e s e f a c t o r s , w ec o n c l u d e t h a t d e m o c r a t i c a n dnational t)uestions (including landreform) remain central in thesecountr ies.

D S P w r i t e r N o r m D i x o n h a s

recently made the point that thestruggle for national liberation ismore than ever an anti-imperialiststruggle.

Me argues: 'The struggle forn a t i o n a l l i b e r a t i o n h a s s h i f t e d

overwhelmingly to demands to endt h e t h i r d w o r l d ' s s u b s e r v i e n c e t othe dictates of the World Bank and

IMP, rejection (»f the austerityprograms formulated by these

imperiaIist-contrf)lled institutions,and the demand to cancel foreigndebt. As a result, the labour ands o c i a l i s t m o v e m e n t s a r e m o r e

centrally placed and essential in thestruggle for national liberation thanever before.' (Marx, Pingels andI,enin on the National Question,I.inks no 13). Exactly. Real nationalliberation today means breakingthe dominance of imperialistfinance capital over the peoples ofthe exploited countries. This is atask of the socialist revolution, notthe democra t i c revo lu t ion .

The 'complet ion ' o f thenational-democratic revolution, isinconceivable withrmt anticapitalistmeasures (e.g. the establishment ofa monopoly of foreign trade, then a t i o n a l i s a t i o n o f t h e b a n k s a n dfinance houses, a regime ofw o r k e r s c o n t r o l o v e r t h e fi n a n c ehouses and big monopolies, and THG NdSSCfS dllClthe expropriation of - or at least NGhrUS Ofthe state control and supervisionof - transnational corporations). yGSteryear 113VG

If I.x>rimcr insists that all these bGGIl rGpldCGCl bymeasures arc compatible with the rialo iiti.il j.1 Z-tl-ij:,national democratic revolution, P"'® imitatlOnS/carried out by what he calls a unwilling to takG'special form of the dictatorship of thG fsintGStthe proletariat', he has really justbaptised the first steps of socialist indGpGndGnt stGprevolution with another name and SgainSt thGa g r e e s i n e s s e n c e w i t h p e r m a n e n t . - .. e v o l u t i o n i m p e r i a l i s t p o w e r s .

If not, then he is going to be ThG nationalthe partisan of a 'democraticrevolution-, vrhich in ttnluy'. Oppr̂ lOll Of theconditions utterly fails to solve the SGmicolonial andnational and democratic tasks of dGDGndentt h e r e v o l u t i o n . " ,

As Trotsky in his writings on COUntnGS haSChina argued: "I'he most extreme dGGpGnGd and nOta g r a r i a n r e v o l u t i o n , t h e g e n e r a l . .division of the land (which will IGSSGnGOnaturally be supported by thecommunist part)' to the veiy end)will not by itself provide a way outof the economic blind alley. Chinarequires just as urgently nationalunit)' and economic sovereignt)',that is customs autonomy, or morecorrectly a monopoly of ff)reignt r a d e . A n d t h i s m e a n s

emancipation from imperialism.'(I'he Third International after1 xnin. Pathfinder edition, pi83).

These continuing importanceo f t h e n a t i o n a l a n d d e m o c r a t i c

questions makes worker-peasanta l l i ances cen t red on t hese i s suesessential for mobilising the forcesof anti-imperialist, anticapitalist,t rans i t i on .

But a decisive issue facing therevolutionar)' movement in thirdworld countries today is how toarticulate the question of classindependence, ie working classindependence of strategic allianceswith the bourgeoisie.

sociaiist democracy •jan/feb 2000 • 19

There arc no cook-book recipes.Tactical and conjunctural allianceswi th forces f rom bourgeoisnationalist and pett)- bourgeoisnationalist traditions are absolutelyinevitable in this period, in specificcampaigns and movements, 'i'his isdifferent to a strategic alliance,such as that envisaged in theS t a l i n i s t - M e n s h c v i k v e r s i o n o f t h e

two-stage theor)'.Revolutionar)' forces have to

advance the objective of a workers'and peasants ' government ,politically led by the working classand supported by the poorpeasants and other oppressedgroups. This can only be the firststage of the dictatorship of theproletariat.

T h e D S P o n I n d o n e s i a

If Lorimer does not attempt todemonst ra te h is theor ) ' byre ference to contemporar ) 'conditions, DSP writer James\'assilopoulos has attempted to dot h i s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o I n d o n e s i a

(Uninterrupted Revolution, GLW373).

\'assilopoulos polemicisesagainst the views of the Australiansupporters of Cliff. But in doing sohe makes an entirely failed attemptto squeeze Indonesia into the opticof 1917 Russia.

He starts off by conceding thatsocial realit)' is entirely differentb e t w e e n t h e t w o c o u n t r i e s : ' M o wcan I x:nin's policy of uninterruptedrevolution be applied in Indonesiatoday? Indonesia is a capitalistcountr)' oppressed by imperialism.Russia was a weak imperialistpower, with survivals of feudalrelations in the countr)'side.'

So far, so good. But: 'Themain significance of the RussianRevolut ion for Indonesia l ies in thefact that in Indonesia, like Russiain 1917, the working class is in aminority. A socialist revolutionc a n n o t o c c u r w i t h o u t t h e a c t i v e

support of the poor peasants.' B e f o r e t h e 1 9 9 7 e c o n o m i c

c r i s i s , t h e r e w e r e s o m e 8 6 memployed workers out of apopulation of 200m in Indonesia.'

Although numbers will havefallen since the Asian crash, this isan enormous percentage of theeconomically active population. AsLenin correct ly noted: 'Thestrength of the proletariat in anycapitalist countiy is infinitelygreater than the proportion of theproletariat in the total population.T h i s i s d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

p ro l e ta r i a t i s i n econom iccommand of the central points andn e r v e c e n t r e s o f t h e e n t i r e

capitalist system of economy, andbecause the proletariat expresseseconomically and politically the

real interests of the vast majority ofthe toilers under capitalism.' (\'ILenin, 'I'he Year 1919).

N'assilopoulos continues:' A b o u t 1 0 . 5 m w o r k e r s a r e

employed in manufacturing, 30min service and mining industries,and 46m in agriculture. In thec i t i e s t h e r e a r e m i l l i o n s o f u r b a n

p o o r , m a n y o f w h o m a r esemiproletarians, having onlyfKcasional waged work, andengaging in pett)' trading activitiesfor surv ival . '

By any Marxist definitionwhatsoever, N'assilopoulos haslisted more than 40m proletarianworkers, even if we were to takethe fiilse step of discounting ruralworkers. That is 20% of the whole

population, a much biggt-'tpercentage than the Russianproletariat in 1917.

I le goes on: 'If Indonesia is tohave a soc ia l i s t revo lu t ion , arevolutionar)' alliance between theworking class and the tens ofm i l l i o n s o f r u r a l a n d u r b a n

semiproletarians will have to beforged ... To forge such an alliancethe revolutionar)' workers will haveto champion the immediate needsof the peasant masses, whichcentre on winning democracy andl a n d r e f o r m .

'The majorit)' of Indonesia'srural population are sti l llandownitig peasants. In the early1 9 8 0 s , a l m o s t 1 6 m s m a l llandowners grew subsistence andcash crops on some 16m hectares.'

Mow can 16m small peasantlandowners be a majorit)' against4 6 m r u r a l w o r k e r s ? T h e

economically active majorit)' in thecountr)'side are rural proletarians -at least on the basis of the figureswhich \'assilop<Julos quotes.

N'assilopoulos continues: 'AMarxist part)' in Indonesia todaywould need to build a revolution as

two-stages of one uninterruptedprocess. In the first stage, analliance would have to be forgedb e t w e e n t h e w o r k e r s a n d t h ewhole of the peasantry. It wouldalso have to include campusstudents (who largely come fromurban bourgeois and middle classfamilies) and the urban poor.'

NVliatever happened to theagricultural workers, then? 'Onceincluded, the vast majorit)' of thisalliance would be composed ofproletarians and 'semiproletarians'- those directly exploited by capital.

Such an alliance, centringinitially on democratic and nationaltasks, would be inevitably be underthe organisational and politicalhegemony of the working class.

N'ictory would be, as explainedby the theory of permanentrevolution, the dictatorship r)f the

proletariat, the first step of thesocial ist revolut i { )n.

N'assilopoulos argues that asa l l i a n c e s b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l

groupings must be made, theymust be of the same r)'pe as the(DSP's account of) the worker-peasant alliance in Russia.

ITfectively, the party is tryingto make Indonesia's urban poora n d r u r a l l a b o u r e r s a n e r s a t z

Russian peasantry. It is making anunwitting 'workerist' error in itsconception of the proletariat.

The proletariat today, in everycountr)', is an immensely diverse,s t ra t i fied and va r i ed c l ass . I n t he

imperialist countries serviceworkers of all kinds make up anenormous percentage of theworking class, sometimes a biggerproportion than in manufacturing.

T h e d e fi n i t i o n o f t h e

proletariat is not that it works inmanufacturing, but the wagelabour-capital relationship and theappropriation of surplus valuefrom the labourers by the capitalistclass.

N V e c a n s e e t h e f a l s e

counterpositions involved in thetwo-stage dr>gma in an astoundingsection of N'assilopoulos' polemic.Under the heading 'Socialistrevolution now?' he argues:-

'Should the PRD (Indonesia'sm o s t i m p o r t a n t l e f t w i n gorganisation) be calling for ani m m e d i a t e s o c i a l i s t r e v o l u t i o n

today? Such a call would have nom a s s r e s o n a n c e b e c a u s e t h e

working class does not havesuffic ien t c lass consc iousness and

organisation to cany it out and thepoor peasants are inert.'

I f t h e A u s t r a l i a n C l i f fi t e s d oi n d e e d a d v o c a t e ' i m m e d i a t esocialist revolution today', they areout to lunch. Any serious debatebetween the two-stage andpermanentist perspectives inIndones ia wou ld be abou t ove ra l l

strategic perspectives.C a n t h e n a t i o n a l a n d

democrat ic tasks of the Indonesian

revolution, in particular landreform and freeing of the countiyfrom imperialist domination besolved other than through a hugenat iona l a l l iance which invo lves a tits centre its massive proletariatand semiproletariat?

A n d c o u l d s u c h a n a l l i a n c e

possibly be under the hegemonyand leadership of any class but theworking class? NVon't such analliance, if it is victorious, comeimmediately and massively intoconflict with local capital andimperialism, not 'semifeudalism'?

A n d h o w c o u l d a v i c t o r i o u sI n d o n e s i a n r e v o l u t i o n a v o i d a ni m m e d i a t e a n d d i r e c t c l a s h w i t hthe long-term interests of local

capitalism and world, especially,US imperialism?

T h e d e b a t e i n s i d e t h eR S D L P

Lorimer's pamphlet attemptsto prove 'Trotsky's identificationo f B o l s h e v i k p o l i c y w i t hMenshevism' had become by theearly 1930s a 'grotesque absurdit)''(1 .orimer pp67 ff).

C o u l d t h i s b e t h e s a m e

T r o t s k y w h o w r o t e T h r e eConceptions of the RussianRevolution (NB: three, not two ),in which he scrupuloush' explainedt h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

Bolshevism, Menshevism and hisown pre-1917 views? (I'rotsky,NVritings 1939-40). Moreover,Trotsky painstakingly explains thed i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e t h r e eviews in two chapters I listoiy ofthe Russian Revolut ion.

Lorimer refers to Trotsky'smagnum opus as 'providing anincomparable Marxist expositiono f t h e e v e n t s t h a t l e d t o t h e

Bolshevik victor)' in 1917'. Has heforgotten that this whole book iswritten from the perspective ofpermanent revolution?

If Lorimer is right about theTrotsky's views on the Bolsheviksand Menshcviks, then at the coreo f th is book is 'g ro tesquea b s u r d i t ) ' ' b o r d e r i n g o nfalsification. Strange then, that hes h o u l d r e c o m m e n d i t s

'incomparable Marxist exposition'.In Three Conceptions, Trotsky

s t r e s s e s t h e t e n s i o n s a n dc o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n I x n i n ' s

policy, and the fundamentalchange of 1917.

T h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n L e n i n ' s

policy, according to Trotsky, wason the one hand that he correctlyi d e n t i fi e d t h a t t h e R u s s i a n

bourgeoisie would not lead its'own' bourgeois revolution, whileat the same time failing to see thelogical consequences of this.

If the working class in alliancewith the peasant i) ' led therevolution and took power, itw o u l d n o t a n d c o u l d n o t l i m i titself solely to the tasks of thebourgeois revolution.

Indeed, in the medium andlong term, there cannot be acontradiction between the class(es)which hold the power, and thesocial programme they implement.

According to Trotsky's (andTrotskyist) explanat ion, theworking class, supported by thepoor peasantr)', seized power in asocial ist revolut ion in 1917.

Proceeding to solve thedemocratic tasks of the revolution,they combined this with tasks oft h e s o c i a l i s t r e v o l u t i o n f r o m t h e

beginning.20 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000

Trotsky's account fits in wellwith a Lenin speech in 1921: 'Wesolved the problems of thebourgeois-democratic revolution inpassing, as a 'byproduct' ourmain and genuinely proletarian-revolutionary, socialist activities.We have always said that reformsa r c a b y p r o d u c t o f t h erevolutionary class struggle. Wesaid - and proved it by deeds - thatbourgeois-democratic reforms area byproduct of the proletarian, ie,of the socialist revolution (\'lLenin, Speech on the fourthanniversarj' of the revolution).̂

'ITie logic of the Trotskjistposition is this: there is no socialistr e v o l u t i o n i n a n y c o u n t i yw h a t s r x ; v e r , a d v a n c e d o r'backward', which will carr)' outthe social ist tasks of the revolut ion

' a l l a t o n c e * . ' I T i i s i s a n a b s u r d

position which I^rimer wronglyattributes to Trotsky.

As Marx and Engcls e.xplaincdin the Communist Manifesto, theworking dass will seize power 'andthen by degrees' socialise thee c o n o m y.

'llie timing of the socialisationof basic industry is a complexquestion. It crucially depends onthe issue of whether the workingclass (and its allies) are socially andtechnically capable of runningindustry themselves.

I n t h e a d v a n c e d c o u n t r i e s

where the working class has ahigher educational and culturallevel, the transition ti'i'e willprobably be short. Indeed the ideathat the US, British, Canadbn orI'rench bourgeoisie would go onconducting normal business forany length of time under aworkers' government is farf e t c h e d .

A workers' government in animperialist country would face asustained counter-revolutionaryoffensive, and need to take moreor less immediate steps toexpropriate the major industries,banks and finance houses.

L o r i m e r ' s c o n c e s s i o n s t ope rmanen t r evo lu t i on

I n t r y i n g t o d e fi n e t h echaracter of the regime whiche x i s t e d a f t e r O c t o b e r 1 9 1 7 ,Ix)rimer ties himself up in rather'permanent' knots, and comesclose to rewriting Trotsky's therjry.

Ixjrimer says: 'A revolutionaryworker-peasant dictatorship, orstate power, could only come intobeing if the workers in the citiesoverthrew and replaced stateins t i t u t i ons o f t he t sa r i s t l and lo rd -

capitalist state with their ownorgans of state power. The

workers would use the state powerthey had conquered to rally thep e a s a n t r y a s a w h o l e t oconsummate the bourgeois-democratic revolution and then,once the peasants came intoc o n fl i c t w i t h t h e p e a s a n tbourgeoisie, to rally the poorpeasants in the struggle for thet r a n s i t i o n t o s o c i a l i s m . ' I ' h e

proletarian-peasant dictatorshipwould therefore be the first stageof the proletarian dictatorship inRussia, or as Trotsky himselfdescribed in Results and Prospects,a "special form of proletariandictatorship in the bourgeoisrevolution'.' (Lorimer p 41).

And again; 'A state powerwhich organises the working class,in alliance with the peasantry as awhole, to suppress the resistanceof the big landowners andindustrialists in order to carry toc o m p l e t i o n a d e m o c r a t i crevolut ion would a lso be a form of

p ro le ta r ian d ic ta to rsh ip , o fworking class state power.

'But it would not yet be thesocial ist dictatorship of theproletariat, ie a state power thato^itises the working class and thescmiproletar ian elements tosuppress the resistance of thecapitalists to the "abolition ofbourgeois propert)' in city andvillage'. It would be a special formof proletarian state power in thebourgeois democratic revolution, arevolutionary-democraticdictatorship of the proletariat andthe peasantry.' (Lorimer p 59).

Lorimer knows very well thatthe Bolsheviks routinely describedtheir regime from the first day ofthe revolution as the dictatorshipof the proletariat. But in acceptingthis to be the case, Ixrrimer isforced towards permancntistperspectives. Who was it exactly int h e R S D L P b e f o r e 1 9 1 7 w h o s a i dthat solving the national anddemocratic tasks would require thedictatorship of the proletariat?Wasn't it the author of the theoryof permanent revolution?

Compare what Ixwimer sayswith a passage he himself quotesfrom Trotsky: 'No matter what thefirst episodic first stages of therevo lu t ion might be in theindividual countries, the realisationof the revolutionary alliancebetween the proletariat and thepeasantry is conceivable only underthe lc*adership of the proletarianvanguard ... 'lliis in turn meansthat the victory of the democraticrevolution is conceivable onlythrough the dictatorship of theproletariat which bases itself uponthe alliance with the peasantry ands o l v e s fi r s t t h e t a s k s o f t h e

bourgeois revolution.' (PermanentRevolution, in l-orimer p74).

Now, there is a difference inemphasis between this quote andwhat Ixrrimer says. But thesimilarit)' of positions - a worker-peasant alliance to create theproletarian dictatorship and solvet h e d e m o c r a t i c t a s k s - w i l l b e

immediately obvious.Bu t ne i t he r pos i t i on I s

anything like that defended by thelx:nin or 1905 or 1908. If that werenot tmough, under the impact ofevents Ix'nin not t>nly changed hisposition, but demanded a changeof the Bolshevik programme inApril 1917.

Lenin: from ^bourgeoisrepublic' to ^Commune

s t a t e '

Against the Menshevik notionof subordinating the revolution tothe liberal bourgeoisie, Ix:nin andthe Bolsheviks developed the ideat h a t t h e d e m o c r a t i c r e v o l u t i o nwould be led by the workers andpeasants against the resistance ofthe bourgeoisie itself.

Thus they developed the ideaof the "workers' and peasants'democratic dictatorship'democratic because it would carrythrough the democratic revolution.B u t t h e d c m ( K r a t i c r e v o l u t i o n d i dnot mean going beyond capitalism.

I n T w o T a c t i c s o f S o c i a l

Democracy in the DemocraticRevolution (1905), Ixmin noted:'Marxists are absolutely convincedof the bourgeois character of theRussian revolut ion. What does th ism e a n ? I t m e a n s t h a t t h edemocra t i c re fo rms tha t become a

nccessit)' for Russia do not inthemselves imply the underminingof capitalism, the undermining ofbourgeois rule.

'On the contrary, they will, forthe first time, clear the ground forthe wide and rapid, r.uropcnn andnot Asiatic, development ofcapitalism; they will, for the firsttime, make it possible for thebourgeoisie to rule as a class.'(Collected Works volume 9, p 29).

A question to I.orimcr. Is thiswhat happened in 1917? CompareIxnin's view with what 'I'rotskywrote in the very next year, 1906.

""I'he immediate task of thesocial democracy will be to bringt h e d e m o c r a t i c r e v o l u t i o n t o

completion. But once in control,the pn)letarian party will not bea b l e t o c o n fi n e i t s e l f t o t h e

democratic programme, but will beforced to adopt socialist measures'.(I*rcface to the Russian edition ofMarx's writings on the ParisCommune).

C a n t h e n a t i o n a la n d d e m o c r a t i c

t a s k s o f t h eI n d o n e s i a n

revolution, inparticular land

reform and freeingof the country from

imperialistd o m i n a t i o n b e

s o l v e d o t h e r t h a n

through a hugen a t i o n a l a l l i a n c e

wh ich invo lves a t i t sc e n t r e i t s m a s s i v e

proletariat andsemiproletariat?

socialist democracf •jan/teb2000 • 21

N o w, w h i c h o f t h e s e t w oquotations - Trotsky's or J .enin's -best explains what happened in1 9 1 7 - 1 8 ? T h e a n s w e r i s o b v i o u s .Ixnin at the same time stressed (a)the bourgeois character of therevolution, and (b) the needpolitically to sweep aside thebourgeoisie. Trotsky identified atension in these ideas, 'i hey facedlog ica l and no t d ia lec t i ca lc o n t r a d i c t i o n . I l o w c o u l d t h e

workers and peasants be put inpower and then merely preside-over the '1 European' developmentof capitalism?

Trotsky noted: '"i'he politicaldomination of the proletariat isincompatible with its economicens lavement . No mat ter underwhat political flag the proletariathas come to ptjwer, it is obliged totake the path of socialist policy. Itwould be the greatest utopianismto believe that the proletariat,having been raised to politicaldomination by the internal •mechanism of the bourgeoisrevolution can, even if it so desires,limit its mission to the creation ofrepublican-democratic conditionsfor the social domination of the

bourgeo is ie . ' ( l l esu l t s andP r o s p e c t s , i n P e r m a n e n tRevo lu t i on , Pa thfinde r ed i t i onpplOl-2).

I.cnin argued that Fcbruar)-1 9 1 7 c r e a t e d t h e d e m o c r a t i c

dictatorship of the proletariat andpeasantry 'in a certain form and acertain way. Now a radical changewas needed in Bolshevik strateg)'.The proletariat would have to sci/epower in a socialist revolution,supported by the poor peasants.

He noted: 'No one, no force,can overthrow the bourgeoiscounter-revolutionaries except therevolutionary proletariat. Now,after the experience of July 1917, itis the revolutionary proletariat thatmust independently take over statepower. Without that the victor)' ofthe revolution is impossible. Theonly solution is for power to be inthe hands of the proletariat, andfor the latter to be supported b\'the poor peasants or semi-proletarians. .And we have alreadyind ica ted the fac to rs tha t canenormously acce lerate th issolution. (On Slogans, July 1917).

L e n i n w r o t e o n e o f h i s m o s t

important works against thisbackground. State and Revolution.It argued the Russian revolution 'isn o w ( e a r l y A u g u s t 1 9 1 7 )completing the first stage of itsdevelopment; but this revolutionas a whole can only be understoodas a link in a chain of socialistproletarian revolutions beingcaused by the imperialist war.'

Lessons of Spain

W h e n F r a n c o l e d a f a s c i s t -

militar)' putsch in June 1936, theworkers and peasants of Spain rose-up in a revolution, successful inmany important areas, especiallyCatalonia and its capital Barcelona.Spontaneously the workerssocialised just about ever\-thing. Inthe count r \s ide too , land wasco l lec t i v i sed .

But the revolut ion was crushed

way before the fascist victor)', by aright-wing republican alliance, whoshock troops, flank guards,antirevolutionar)' murderers andt o r t u r e r s w e r e t h e C o m m u n i s t

Part)', and especially its Russian-organised GPU contingents.

'I'he Spanish revolution wassmashed in the name of a rigidtwo-stage theor)': first win thenational and democratic struggleagainst the fascists, and only thenbegin the struggle for socialism.

Against this perspective,Trotsky counterposed permanentrevolution. Even though Spain wasa weak imperialist country likeRussia, Trotsky insisted on thecen t ra l i t ) ' o f t he na t iona l ,democratic and land questions.

These questions centrallyconcerned the building of anal l iance including the poorpeasants and agricultural labourers,under the leadership of theworking class, capable of defeatingf a s c i s t r e a c t i o n . S o l u t i o n s h a d t o

go hand-in-hand with the measuresof socialisation taken immediatelyand spontaneously by the workingclass itself.

Any two-stage theor)' - indeed,any attempt to delay, prevent orobstruct spontaneous socialisation- meant repressing the revolution,which is exactly what the Stalinistsd id .

Lor imer 's theor) ' cannotexplain the blood of Spain. Ifna t iona l and democra t i c revo lu t ionhas to be achieved first, beforem e a s u r e s o f s o c i a l i s a t i o n ; i fcombining socialist measures withn a t i o n a l a n d d e m < K : r a t i c t a s k s

simultaneously is a priori incorrect;then the actions of the workingclass in Barcelona were ultraleft,

exactly as the Stalinists said .

Two-Stage theory

Accounting for all the disasterswhich the two-stage theory createdf o r t h e t h i r d w o r l d m a s s e s w o u l d

require a krng book. 1 want to referto two more modern experiences,Indonesia and South .Africa.

Prior to the Suharto militarycoup in 1965, the IndonesianCiommunist Party under Aidits u b o r d i n a t e d t h e I n d o n e s i a nm a s s e s t o a n a t i o n a l ' a n t i -

imperialist' alliance with thebourgeois nationalist governmentof Sukarno.

'Phis fitted perfectly with theofficial national unit)' ideology oft h e I n d o n e s i a n s t a t e . I n s t e a d o f

mobilising the Indonesian massesaround a class independentist lineas the economic situation gotprogressively worse, the PKl actedgave left cover to Sukarno. Thepart)' was disastrously unpreparedfor the militar)'-Islamic coup whichf o l l o w e d .

As James Balowski correctlyexplained in a recent issue ofGreen Left Weekly: 'The PKIadhered to the Stal in ist /Maoisttheor)' of revolution: a nationaldemocratic first 'stage' in whichstate power is exercised by a 'blocof four classes' (the nationalistbourgeoisie, the pett)' bourgeoisie,the peasantry and the workingclass) would consolidate capitalism.After an extended and unspecifiedperiod of time, a distinct socialiststage would begin.'

Any attempt to reforge arevo lu t ionary movement inIndonesia has of course to criticallyappropriate the strategic errors ofthe Aidit leadership, and thus bebased on a militant rejection oftwo-stage theory.

In South Africa, prior to the1994 transition, the South AfricanC o m m u n i s t P a r t ) ' ( S A C P )completely subordinated itself tothe procapitalist policies of theANC. Crucial ly, when classindependentist forces emerged inthe trade unions in the late 1980.s,around first FOSATU and thenCOSATU, the SACP acted as thecentral conduit for reintegratingt h e m i l i t a n t s i n t o t h e A N Ccoalition, through fusion with theSACP/ANC t rade un ion cent reS A C T U .

The strategic question in SouthAfrica was not, as some ultraleftists

thought, socialist revolution versust h e n a t i o n a l d e m o c r a t i c

antiapartheid struggle. It wasr a t h e r, w h i c h c l a s s w i l l t a k eleadersh ip o f the na t iona ldemocratic struggle?

That quest ion has beenanswered in practice. On the oneh a n d , w e h a v e a n e o l i b e r a lgovernment AN(] government,headed by a former leader of theSACP, and graduate of theMoscow Len in Schoo l , ThaboMbeki. On the other, a growingmass struggle - led by the unions -against the AN(^ government.

Numerous other experiencesshowing the disaster of the two-stage theory could be listed, fromt h e s u b o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e M i d d l eEast Communist part ies tobourgeois nationalism in the shapeof Nasserism and Ba'athism; the

s u b c j r d i n a t i o n o f o f fi c i a l L a t i nAmer i can (Commun ism to na t i ona l

bourgeois forces, tai lendingPeronism and forming the rightwing of the Chilean popular frontin 1970-73, literally disarming theworkers; and the (dM and theCPl(M) tailending Congress inIndia, even forming coalitions withmore right-wing forces to prop upthe bourgeois order.

Lorimer says: 'Any attempt tob u i l d a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l m o v e m e n tthat is really based, as Cannon putit more than 50 years ago, on arevival of 'genuine Marxism as itwas expounded and practised int h e R u s s i a n r e v o l u t i o n a n d i n t h e

early days of the CommunistInternational, cannot avoid dealingwith the misrepresentations ofBolshevik policy made by Trotskyin the 1920s and 1930s.' (I.orimerp8).

I t w o u l d h a v e b e e n b e t t e r t o

say: 'Any attempt to rebuild thei n t e r n a t i o n a l s o c i a l i s t m o v e m e n tcannot avoid dealing with ther o t t e n M e n s h e v i k - S t a l i n i s t t w o -

stages theor)' of revolution, whichfor decades was fought from thep e r s p e c t i v e o f p e r m a n e n tr e v o l u t i o n ' .

W e a k n e s s e s o f t h epe rmanen t r evo lu t i on

theory

W e a d m i t t h a t t h e r e a r cweaknesses in the permanentrevolution theor)', stemming fromthe ambiguities involved in thenotions of 'bourgeois democratic'a n d ' n a t i o n a l d e m o c r a t i c 'r e v o l u t i o n s .

Bourgeois revolut ions inBritain and France broke the holdof feudal relations of productionand cleared the way for the fulldevelopment of capitalism. Fromthis Marxists imputed a paradigmof general 'tasks' of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, whichi n c l u d e d t h e a b o l i t i o n o f f e u d a lrelations in the countiysidc, andthe creation of national unity andindependence.

These fac to rs were cons idereda p re requ is i te fo r the fu l ldevelopment of capitalism, whichrequired a unified national marketand a free labour force capable ofbeing proletarianised. The fulldevelopment of capitalism wastaken to mean the beginning ofindust r ia l i sa t ion .

From this, many Marxistsd r e w t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e

beginnings of industrialisation inthe semicolonial countries, and theach ievement o f bas ic tasks o f the

bourgeois revolution, were - in theepoch of imperialism - impossiblewithout the conquest of power bythe working class.

22 • socialist democracy • jan/feb 2000

It was hdii that imperialistdomination complctclv blocked theroad to al l nat ional-democrat icreforms and even partialiiuliistrialisacion. Trotsky seemedto lend credence to these ideas insome his writings.

The experience of the 20thcentury has partiallv contradictedthe idea that in the epoch ofimperialism, basic tasks of thebourgeois revolution cannot becarried out by the nationalistbourgeo is ie . In manv lessdeveloped countries there has beena partial solution of the tasks of thebourgeois revolut ion underbourgeois or petty bourgeoisnationalist leaderships.

I 'or example, Mexico between1910 and 1920 saw a bourgeoisrevolution led by the peasantiv andsections of the bourgeoisie itself. .\'state capitalist' model of capitalaccumulat ion was ini t iated and

partial industrialisation begun.Radical land reform in favour

of the peasantry was carried out inthe 1930s under Tazaro Cardenas.. \ form of parl iamentan-democracy - severely controlled -was established. The leadingMarxist historian of this process,.\dolfo Cilty, argues that therevolution was 'incomplete' and'interrupted'. This is correct fromone angle.

Real democracy was not. andh a s n o t b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d . R e a lnational independence cannot existwhile the country is under thetutelage of US imperialism.Breaking the grip of imperialism isa task of the socialist revolution.

On the other hand, did therevolution do away with the lastvestiges of semifeudal relations,a n d d i d i t e s t a b l i s h t h e b a s i s f o r

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a nunambiguously capitalist country,and free wage labour? Obviously itd i d . I n t h i s s e n s e i t w a s a'succe.ssful' bourgeois revolution.

Wliat nationalist strugglesunder bourgeois or petr\- bourgeoisleadership have been incapable ofdo ing i s es tab l i sh ing newimperialisms to rival the existingones . i ' hey have a l l beensubordinated to imperialism. 'Real'naticmal independence cannot beachieved outside the conquest ofpower by the working class.

Brazil. Mexico, Taiwan, SouthKorea, .\rgentijia, India demolishthe idea that imperialism is acomplete block to anv form ofindustrialisation. These countries,

among rnhers, have achieved apartial, but dependent, industrialdevelopment. The traditionalm o d e l o f s e m i c o l o n i a l c o u n t r i e s -

exporters of raw materials.

importers of manufactures - doesnot fit these examples. Witich iswhy some Marxists have preferredto call them 'dependent semi-indust r ia l ised count r ies ' .

I t w o u l d b e m o r e u s e f u l t o

distinguish the tasks of the nationaldemocratic revolution as beingdistinct, at least partially, from thebourgeois revolutitui per se.

I t t h i s i s done , t hen i t makessense to say that real democracv.real national independence, realnational unity can f)nlv achieved bvthe conquest of power bv theworking class and its allies (or ifLorimer jirefers: a special form ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat).

. \ f te r a l l . the dec la red a ims o f

the bourget)js revtdution - libertv.equality and fraternitv - could onlvever be achieved by the socialistrevo lu t ion anvwav.

Underestimating the roleof the proletariat,

underest imat ing the ro leof the party

The final irony of Lorimer'spatnphlet is that - despite itsi n t e n t i o n t o t a k e a s t a n d f o r

Lenin ism and Bolshevism - i t ends

up underestimating the role of theproletariat, and thus the role of therevolutionary party.

L o r i m e r w a n t s t o d e f e n d t h ei d e a t h a t i n t h e c o u n t r i e s

oppressed by imperialism, it is firstnecessary to forge an alliance with'the whole peasantry' including themisnamed peasant bourgeoisie, tocomplete the bourgeois-democraticr e v o l u t i o n .

1 lowever, the pe-asantry is adeclining force worldwide, and thepeasant bourgeoisie a theoreticala n a c h r o n i s m . D S P t h e o r \ ' i n s t e a d

assigits the urban poor and theagricultural labourers directlvexploited by capital the rolepreviously assigned to 'the wholepeasaiitn''.

S ince DSP theon ' cons ide rs i t

necessary to forge an alliance ont h e b a s i s o f n a t i o n a l a n ddemocra t ic demands wi th the rura land urban poor, it follows that itconsiders that these forces wi l l be

under the political leadership ofnon-proletarian political forces,and specifically not under theleadership of the revolutionarypart)'.

In Russia the Lorimer theoryconsiders that the peasants wereunder the leadership of a peasantpart\'. the .Social Revolutionaries,a n d t h a t t h e B o l s h e v i k a l l i a n c ew i t h t h e L e f t . S R s w a s k e v t o

cementing a worker-pea.santall iance.

But it is very difficult toimagine what the contemporaiya n a l o g u e o f t h e . S o c i a l i s tRevolutionaries might be in theghettos and barrios of the growingcit ies of the third wijr ld.

The urban jioor are oftenproletar ians in the most directs e n s e t h e m s e l v e s . T h e r e a r ehundreds of thousands of factoryworkers , const ruc t ion workers ,transport workers, governmentemployees, personal ser\'ants andworkers in the tourism, cateringa n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t i n d u s t r i e s w h o

live in the huge poor barrios ofIztapalapa. lndi<js \'erdes and LaX'illa in Mexico City. They livecheek by jowl witii semijiroletarianstreet tr.jders, home workers and

unemployed.There is no political force

which can take the leadership inthe poor barrios independent ofboth the bourgeoisie and theproletariat. There is no candidatef o r a n ' a l l i a n c e ' o n a d e m o c r a t i cbasis.

On the contrary, revolutionaryforces must fight for the leadershipof the struggles around housinga n d o t h e r a m e n i t i e s w h i c hd o m i n a t e t h e b a r r i o s . T h e s e a r e -

class, not national or democratic,demands .

i-iqiially, the struggles of therural poor increasingly come upagainst agr ibus iness. rura lbourgeois and capitalist farmer-landlords. The forces of capitalistreaction will themselves try toestablish - through clieiitalism andviolent repression - a mass baseamong the rural poor.

In today's conditions it ismostly fruitless to try to findideologically independent peasantorganisations to form an alliancew i t h .

Revolutionar\- and progressiveforces among workers wi l lspontaneously ally with the combatorganisations of the rural poor,who in general reciprocate. 'Theworker-peasant alliance today isoverwhelminglv an anti-imperialist,anticapitalist alliance.

'The idea that there could be a'democratic stage' other than aw o r k e r s ' a n d p e a s a n t s 'government, the dictatorship ofthe proletariat, whicli could solvethe na t iona l and democra t i c tasksof the revolution, is extremelydangerous and is potentially opento al l k inds of opportunistinterpretations.

The experience ofthe 20th century

has partiallyc o n t r a d i c t e d t h ei d e a t h a t i n t h e

epoch ofimperialism, basic

t a s k s o f t h e

bourgeo isr e v o l u t i o n c a n n o tbe carried out by

t h e n a t i o n a l i s t

bourgeois ie

To o r d e r T r o t s k y ' s t h e o r y o fpermanent revolution, a Leninistaitique: Resistance Books, 1998.con tac t dsp@dsD.o rq .auHearse's critique prompted a replyby Lorimer and a rejoinder fromHearse. To get a unabridged copyof this article and the subsequente x c h a n g e , c o n t a c tD e h e a r s e @ v a h o o . c o m .

socialist democracy • jan/feb 2000 • 23

Socialist Network reportAfter the Socialist Party

I n O c t o b e r 1 9 9 9 a r o u n d 6 0

people former Socialist Partyactivists from Liverpool, SouthWales, London, Nottingham andS c o t l a n d a t t e n d e d a s e r i e s o f

workshops in St George's HotelLiverpool on a variety of themes.I a t t e n d e d a s a a n o h s e n ' c r ,which meant that priorit\- in theplenary sessions was given to SFcontributors, as i t was intendedto be a means by which theymight be able to work out a wayf o r \ v a r d .

A large number of papersh a d b e e n p r o d u c e d f o rd i s c u s s i o n a n d r e a d e r s w h o a r cinterested should ask for copiesfrom the conference organisers.Although many themes had beenset down fo r d iscuss ion , th reea r e a s h u n g o v e r a l l t h ed e l i b e r a t i o n s .

First, the crisis of capitalism.Many of these activists still secthe necessity of locating andu n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e p r e s e n tperiod, by which they still meanthe prospects of a slump ordepression and so on.

G i v e n t h e h i s t o r y a n darguments over globalisationwhich have led to expulsions andsuspensions from the SF, this isperhaps understandable.

Nevertheless it was a verystrained beginning, as manypeople were also cither unwillingor unable to contr ibute [ in anycase a plenary session is perhapsn o t t h e b e s t .

I t m a y a l s o b e t h a t s o m epeople, at least, are moving awayf r o m t h e v i e w t h a t s e e s t h e'crisis' as underpinning theirwhole political outlook. It mayeven be that esoteric argumentsover falling rates of profit oru n d e r - c o n s u m p t i o n a r e n ol o n g e r s e e n a s t h e n e c e s s a r ybackdrop to the struggle fors o c i a l i s m .

Tiiis would be a step forwardin my view. It would allow us allto move away from the view weh a v e i n h e r i t e d f r o m t h e l e f t t h a t

the working class are merely theblind beasts of revolt, driven byi m p e r s o n a l e c o n o m i c f o r c e s ,needing the specialist help of

scientifically trained intellectualsto work out a way forward for us.

Instead we might be able tolook at more subjective factorswithin our o\vn struggle. Thesejust might give us a better clueas to how to proceed and thiswill have the added advantage ofsho\%-ing how our struggle todayis intimately linked to the kind ofsociety we want to sec tomorrow.

This latter theme was hardly

de \ ' c loped, desp i te severa lspeakers posing the need for usa l l t o e l a b o r a t e a n d d i f f e r e n t i a t e

a conception of socialism andc o m m u n i s m .

S e v e r a l o f t h e p a p e r spresented argued for someversion of the Scottish Socialist

Farty south of the border, but thearguments made for this werel a r g e l y t a c t i c a l a n dorganisational.

I t i s no t c l ea r t o me wha t t he

project of the SSF is and it didnot seem that people at thecon fe rence were a l l t ha t c lea reither. Ferhaps for this reasonthe argument was not pushed toa d e fi n i t e c o n c l u s i o n f o r o r

against.This was a correct result, i f

not the conscious decision of any

participant. What the SSF can beand \%41! become is something wec o u l d a l l l e a r n f r o m .

Being prematurely pushedinto taking up hard and fast foror against positions - for whichthere Is no need - wil l preventthat necessaiy learning.

T h e t h i r d t h e m e w a s t h e o n e

that provoked most discussion,not surprisingly since it reflectedthe actual experiences of most ofthose present. This discussionc e n t r e d r o u n d t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d

form of any new organisation orparty that might be proposed.

Only a few speakers werewilling to defend the notion ofdemocratic central ism, and thenonly as an ideal, rather than inthe form in which they hadexperienced it within the SF.

In a ver> ' w ide rang ingdiscussion, points were madearguing for an open, pluralista n d d e m o c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e ,e n a b l i n g d i v e r s e a n d e v e n

opposing viewpoints to worktogether.

B u t t r e s s i n g t h i s a r g u m e n twere proposals for a change inapproach, language and even theattitude of militants, both to onea n o t h e r a n d t o o t h e r s o u t s i d e .

It was argued that only bybeing open and willing to admitthat [ex] SF members did nothave all the answers could anyprogress be made towardsunifying the disparate socialgroupings who arc in struggle.

Whi le I have a l ready notedthat proposals for a new partywere not put, there was moresupport for the notion of thec r e a t i o n o f s o m e f o r u m ( amagazine or bulletin?) where thei d e a s s e t o u t a b o v e c o u l d b ee l a b o r a t e d . T h e r e s e e m e d t o b e

r e a l i s a t i o n t h a t f o r t h e m o m e n tthe process was more importantthan the end result, which in anycase could not be concretely laido u t .

This may mean that there arcd i f f e r e n c e s w h i c h h a v e y e t t oc o m e o u t . I t m a y b e t h a ta t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s t h e S S F a n dw h a t i t d o e s w i l l b e s o m e k i n d o ftouchstone in this process.

Mv impression was that witha f e w e x c e p t i o n s , m o s tparticipants had no problemsw i t h a n y o f t h e p a r t i c u l a rh e r e s i e s t h a t w e r e b e i n gdiscussed. Must part icular lythere was very little problem withthe accusa t ion tha t t hey wereliquidationists, a term used bythe SF leadership to describet h e m .

It is clear that this particulargrouping arc now well beyondthe ideological and .intellectualcontrol of the SF. How far theywill develop their critique will toa large extent depend on howseriously other people respond totheir desire for open and pluralistd e b a t e a n d a l s o o n h o w f a r s u c h

people are themselves will ing toa b a n d o n o l d o u t l o o k s a n d h a b i t sof mind in taking part in such aproject.

D a v e G r a h a m

Only a few speakerswere will ing to

de fend the no t ion o fd e m o c r a t i c

centralism, and thenonly as an ideal,

r a t h e r t h a n i n t h eform in which theyhad experienced itw i t h i n t h e S o c i a l i s t

Party

24 • social ist democracy • jan/feb 2000