WfJliKEIiS ,,1N(;OI1,, 25¢No. 186 :'-~:)(52J 23 December 1977

Ya'acov Katz/Nofim

Cops restrain angry workers in Tel Aviv at protest rally against government Cairo riots in January sparked by rising food prices.austerity measures last month.

~gyp-tian, Israeli Masses War-WearY

Claude Salhani/Sygma

An Exchang~

RMC: State Department Socialism?/6

War DangerBehind CairoPeace Talks

Five days after his theatrical pilgrim­age to the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem,Egyptian president Anwar Sadat posedas a "messenger of peace" before his ownrather farcical "People's Assembly." Inaddition to justifying his hadj (holypilgrimage) to the Mecca of Zionism, heinvited the participants in the perennialNear East crisis, including the two"superpowers," to attend a conferencein Cairo. Formally this meeting i<; toprepare yet another conference, thatever-elusive Geneva conference whichto the advocates of global detente is themiraculous formula for peace in theNear East.

But so elusive is this elixir that it hasproved next to impossible simply tobring the protagonists to the appointedsite. The original Geneva Conference,convened by the U.S. and USSRfollowing the October 1973 Arab-Israeliwar, lasted exactly one day beforecollapsing with the walkout by one ofthe main combatants, Syria. Sadat'ssojourn in Israel, moreover, renderedGeneva even more remote. It increasedhis isolation among the Arab states andmade it clear that one ofthe main pointsin common between Sadat and Israeliprime minister Menahem Begin wasopposition to Soviet participation in apeace settlement. Thus when the Cairoconference opened on December 14, theparticipants included only Israel, Egypt,the U.S. and the UN.

All the developments in thediplomatic uproar unleashed by Sadat'sJerusalem visit point toward a separatepeace between Israel and Egypt. But farfrom bringing real peace to the NearEast, such an agreement could threatento escalate the Arab-Israeli conflict intodirect military confrontation betweenthe U.S. and the Soviet Union. If Egypt

drops out of the Arab military bloc,Syria then becomes the main "confron­tationist" state. Facing the militarily farsuperior Zionist state alone, Syriawould have to become utterly depend­ent upon Russian aid.

In such a polarized situation the U.S.and Soviet Union could become prison­ers of their own client states. In a warbetween Israel and Syria, the Russians,cut off from the possibility of playing arole in a general Near East settlement,might see themselves forced to interveneever more directly to prevent the defeatof their remaining allies if they are toavoid being frozen out of this strategicregion altogether. But Washington willnot tolerate direct Soviet interventionagainst Israel. Much more so than in theArab-Israel wars of 1967 and 1973, aseparate Israeli-Egyptian peace fol­

'lowed by a military showdown betweenIsrael and Syria could become the sparksetting off World War III.

Begin's "Secret Peace Plan"

During Sadat's Jerusalem journey,Begin didn't yield an inch from pastIsraeli bargaining positions, pointedlydenying that the Zionist state hadconquered any foreign territories. Buthe had to offer some pretense ofbargaining, and last week the awaitedIsraeli response came with Begin's tripto Washington to unveil yet another

Sadat and Begin: A butchers' "peace."

"secret peace plan." Begin offered topiece off Sadat for his de facto recogni­tion of Israel by returning the remainingportion of the Sinai desert not previous­ly returned to Egypt in the Kissinger­negotiated 1974 and 1975 settlements.

Of course, Begin intends to keep thedensely populated Gaza Strip (with its400,000 Palestinian Arabs) and sur­rounding territory as a "security buffer,"a corridor to protect Israeli access to theGulf of Aqaba and especially thestrategic Sharm eI Sheik. His no lessexpansionist predecessors had alreadystaked out this claim by establishing 20Zionist settlements in the Sinai. Inaddition, Begin announced that hewould grant "self-government" to WestBank Palestinians while the Israeligovernment continues its military occu­pation and its annexationist policies of

Zionist settlements and landexpropriations.

In fact, scarcely had Sadat kissedGolda Meir goodbye when Begin ap­proved two more West Bank settlementsby the clerical-fascist Gush Emunim(Block of the Faithful). Begin claimsthat under his new plan West BankPalestinians will also have the right tosettle in Israel. Coming from this anti­Arab genocidal terrorist who murderedand dispersed thousands of Palestiniansto "liberate" the land of "Eretz Israel,"Begin's proposal may be aptly com­pared to Eichmann's offer to "resettle"the Jews in central Europe. Will Beginalso offer Arabs who want to settle inIsrael the site of Deir Yassin, where in1948 his Irgun gangsters murdered 242Palestinian villagers?

continued on page 8

Ruling-ClassFeminist Hustlein Houston

Strikingly absent from the Houstonfollies was any visible, active, radicalmovement for women's liberation. Theheady days of radical feminism, a by­product of the 1960's New Left, are longgone and the movement splintered anddissipated. In its wake there is Ms.magazine-a sort of Redbook with awomen's lib patina, featuring articles onhow to redecorate your apartment and

continued on page 11

cy" and "God, Home and America,"held across town in the Astrodome.Liberal "hip" journalists like JudithCoburn of the Village Voice glibly putdown the 15,OOD-strong fundamentalistmoralists and proto-fascists, insteadenthusing over a few glamourous mediafigures like Gloria Steinem and Demo­cratic Party pols like New York CityCouncil president-elect Carol Bellamy.But while the liberals flamboyantlyembraced following the passage ofeveryplank of their entirely irrelevant "Na­tional Plan," the reactionaries at leastsingled out (and defended) key institu­tions that oppress women under capital­ism: religion, the family and the "freeenterprise system."

As was to be expected the reaction­aries eventually resorted to terroristprovocations. At a Saturday afternoonrally held by "Feminists United," YouthAgainst War and Fascism (YAWF), theNew American Movement and theInternational Socialists, frustrated fas­cists slipped the leash and launchedviciously into the demonstrators. Abouta dozen thugs from the ChristianDefense League precipitated the attack,one of them flaunting a badge allegedlyfrom the police. The notoriously Klan­ridden Houston cops, numerous in thearea, showed up only after the demon­strators themselves had managed tosurround and drive off these hooligans.

Decade of Feminism Leads toHouston

WVPresidential wives on the podium at Houston conference. From left,Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford, Lady Bird Johnson and Lynda Johnson Robb.

.- NorthuplTimeSusan B. Anthony (left), Bella Abzug and Betty Frledan lead runners.

restoration of Medicaid funds forabortions and her vote in Congress(where it counted) for the Hyde Amend­ment which took them away! Needlessto say this revealing contrast was,politely, never made.

Right Wing Mobilizes

One of the most dramatic confirma­tions of the bankruptcy of radicalfeminists' "sisters unite" program wasthe presence of a sizable minority­roughly 20 percent~of right-wingforces at the convention. Many delega­tions from the Deep South and westernstates-including Oklahoma, Utah,Alabama and Mississippi-were com­posed overwhelmingly of reactionaries.Phyllis Schlafly of Illinois, who spear­heads "Stop ERA" forces and hadpredicted that the turnout by hersupporters would "end the women'smovement," explained the failure ofconservatives to dominate the Illinoisstate IWY delegation: "Our womendidn't want to leave their families for anentire weekend and spend it with agroup of lesbians" (Detroit News, ISeptember).

However, elsewhere reactionary forc­es did mobilize. At the Utah state con­ference supporters of the MormonChurch sponsored a resolution callingfor repeal of women's suffrage! And theKu Klux Klan organized heavily for theHouston conference with the compla­cent tolerance of its liberal sponsors.When one delegate challenged the seat­ing of the all-white Mississippi delega­tion-including known fascists-shewas ruthlessly ruled out of order. Andthere was little protest over the fact thata known fascist-Dallas Wood Hig­gins, wife of the Mississippi GrandDragon of the KKK-was a duly seateddelegate.

The right-wingers mainly confinedtheir disruption to delaying maneuverson the floor of the conference and-alarge outside c()unter-rally for "decen-

peasant and Muslim rebels; PrincessAshraf Pahlevi. twin sister of theinfamous torturer, the Shah ofIran; andSilvia Pinto, representing the bloodyChilean junta. It was entirely in keepingwith this precedent, then, that thespeakers platform was graced by no lessthan three "first ladies" of U.S. imperial­ism, Mrs. Carter, Ford and Johnson.

Don't Have to Be a Radical to Bea Feminist

Nationwide live TV coverage andfancy spreads in the glossy newsweeklies struck a note of solemn historicoccasion, heralding the conference asthe most important women's gatheringsince the founding of the feministmovement at Seneca Falls in 1848 andas "an end to the psychological isola­tion" of the women's liberation move­ment. But no public relations hypecould mask the emptiness of theconference. Time magazine prominent­ly featured the discovery of one partici­pant: "I didn't have to be a radical to bea feminist." No indeed.

Neither the much-threatened right­wing disruption nor the much-heralded"grass-roots alternative" really materi­alized outside the coliseum. The morethan 10,000 "observers" retreated to anopulent film festival and a program ofcultural events, "Briefings 'from theTop" lectures by successful womenbureacrats, and "skills clinics" conduct­ed by "sisters" who have really made it.Exhibit booths ranged from the GirlScouts to the Prairie Fire OrganizingCommittee.

Inside the coliseum delegates engagedin an orgy of imitation of a DemocraticParty convention, with signs to denoteeach state delegation. They drapedthemselves with stickers, ribbons, but­tons, placards, confetti, scarves, ba­bushkas, T-shirts, balloons, apples (theNew York delegation) and brassieres(the last waved to a chant of "We didn'tburn them"-i.e., feminism has becomeofficially respectable and can shed theold radical stereotypes).

Delegates and alternates includedmany local, state and federal govern­ment officials who exerted a dominatingideological influence over respectable"feminist homemakers," upward-boundprofessionals and old-time women'sliberationists. Together they formed acommon-denominator liberal coalitionwhich heavily out-voted the confer­ence's minority of right-wing, "pro­family" forces. The assembled bureau­crats and legislators-aspiringgovernors and cabinet members one andall-voted for custodial rights forlesbian mothers, establishment of low­cost federally funded child care andopposition to Carter's vicious welfarereform, secure in the knowledge thatthey were tending their personal constit­uency at no political cost (or obligation)to the government.

The tightly sewn liberal voting blocwas aided from the podium by ahammer-handed Presiding Committeewhich rigidly controlled the speakers,the rigged agenda, the press, the bandand the floor microphones. This was noidle precaution. Consider the embar­rassing effect of a speech on the contrastbetween Chairman Abzug's support forthe conference resoluti"n calling for the

EDITOR: Jan Norden

PRODUCTION MANAGER: Karen Allen

CIRCULATION MANAGER: Mike Beech

EDITORIAL BOARD: Jon Brule, CharlesBurroughs. George Foster, Liz Gordon,James Robertson, Joseph Seymour, MichaelWeinstein

Published weekly, except bi-weekly in Augustand December, by the Spartacist PublishingCo., 260 West Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10013.Telephone: 966-6841 (Editorial), 925-5665(Business). Address all correspondence to:Box 1377, G'p'O., New York, N.Y. 10001.Domestic subscriptions: $5.00 per year.Second-class postage paid at New York, N. Y.

Opinions expressed in signed articles orletters do not necessarily express the editorialviewpoint.

WORKERS"NII/'61)Marxist Working-Class Weeklyofthe Spartacist League ofthe U.S.

HOUSTON-The "InternationalWomen's Year" (lWY) conference heldat the Sam Houston Coliseum over theNovember 17-20 weekend was a totalfraud, even by bourgeois politicalstandards. Amid endless hugging andkissing, the 1,981 delegates predictablypassed a liberal "National Plan" sup­porting Medicaid-funded abortions, theEqual Rights Amendment and opposi­tion to discrimination against homosex­uals. They were duly televised andphotographed by over 1,000 members ofthe bourgeois press who covered theevent with the banal meticulousnessapplied every four years to presidentialnominating circuses.

The resolutions will now be recom­mended to the same capitalistgovernment which for the last severalyears has led an unrelenting assault onthe democratic rights of women andminorities. Congress, which bought andpaid for the conference, has commiteditself only to read the resolutions intothe Congressional Record, which isprobably as far as most of them will go.A more accurate indication of the waythe winds are blowing on Capitol Hill isthe passage of the Hyde Amendmenteliminating government-funded abor­tions for the poor.

This media event was undoubtedlyoriginally conceived as an attempt to co­opt the women's liberation movement.The conference, sponsored by the StateDepartment, was organized by theNational Commission on the Obser­vance of International Women's Yearand funded by Public Law 94-167(authored by Bella Abzug) to the tune ofa cool $5,000,000. However, with thequiescence of the feminist milieu JimmyCarter has soft-pedaled his pro-formasupport to the ERA and the conferencelost its reason for being. Appropriatelythe ho-hum affair was chaired byAbzug, that perennial spokesman forrespectable feminist causes, who recent­ly lost her second election bid in a row.

The conference was modeled on the1975 IWY conference in Mexico City,which provided a platform for suchnotorious murderers as Prime MinisterSirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka,who massacred thousands of Ceyloneseyouth in the 1971 uprising; ImeldaMarcos, wife of the Philippine dictatorknown for his butchery of Communist,

2 WORKERS VANGUARD

SL Protests TV Forum for Fascists

"Genocide Is Not Debatable!"

CHICAGOTuesday 4:30-8:00Saturday 2:00-5:30 p.m.523 South Plymouth Court, 3rd floorChicago, IllinoisPhone 427-0003

SL/SYL PUBLIC OFFICESMarxist LiteratureBAY AREAFriday and Saturday 3:00-6:00 p.m.

1634 Telegraph. 3rd floor(near 17th Street)Oakland, CaliforniaPhone 835-1535

NEW YORKMonday-Friday , 6:30-9:00 p.m.Saturday 1:00-4:00 p.m.260 West Broadway, Room 522New York, New YorkPhone 925-5665

WV Photo

example of the dividing line" betweenthe SL and SWP attitudes towardfascists. Similarly, when the SL initiateda successful protest to prevent Dukefrom speaking on the KPFA radiostation (where he sought to publicize theKlan's vigilante squads against "illegalaliens") this fall, an SWP spokesmanrefused to participate, stating, "Wedon't think they should be deprived apriori of their right of free speech" (see"The Klan Will Not Ride in the BayArea!" WV No. 179,28 October).

The Channel 13 telecast offered thefascists a platform to propagate theirgenocidal provocations. In contrast, thedocull}entary film California Reichrevealed the danger of the Nazis'terrorist threats and gave considerablecoverage to the militant demonstration,initiated by the Spartacus YouthLeague, which drove a Nazi speaker offSan Francisco State University campusin 1975. In this case also the SWP linedup with the liberals in decrying infringe­ments on the fascists' "right" to freespeech "without qualifications" (YoungSocialist, July-August 1975).

The Spartacist League/SpartacusYouth League and the Partisan DefenseCommittee, a class-struggle defenseorganization in a~cordance with theviews of the SL, hold that "Genocide isNot Debatable-No Platform for Fas­cists!" We do not discuss with murder­ers! Nor do we appeal to the capitalistgovernment to ban the bourgeoisie'sterror squads, for in fact such laws willbe used above all to suppress the left.The workers movement and intendedvictims of fascist terror can rely only ontheir own strength to smash thesegenocidal practitioners of capitalistbarbarism.•

KI\K

WV Photo

terrorists could send in membershipapplications. In the commentary sociol­ogist Seymour Martin Lipset ridiculed­the notion that "people going around insheets or Nazi uniforms" could getanywhere. A spokesman for the Ameri­can Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)defended down the line the fascists'"right" to the air waves,' city streets orany other vehicle they could find toadvance their deadly aims.

The liberal media consider that aidingthe fascist publicity drive is a question of"taste" and "professionalism," while thecivil libertarians would like it to be amatter of debate whether all Jews andblacks should be killed! Yet even whilethe Channel 13 TV program was beingaired, the Klan in Houston was in courtdemanding its "right" to use dial-uptelephone recordings calling for racewar and offering a $5,000 bounty forevery non-white killed in an attack!

In the recent period the liberalbourgeoisie has been in rapid retreat onevery social issue, creating a politicalclimate in which the ultra-right scumbreed. The defeat of busing in Boston,racist mobilizations in Chicago and thevictory of anti-homosexual bigotry inMiami have emboldened these vermin,long forced underground, to poke uptheir heads. This is attested to by evermore frequent fascist provocations suchas attempts by the Nazis to march intothe predominantly Jewish Chicagosuburb of Skokie, or recent armed KKK"border patrols" directed against un­documented Mexican workers in theSouthwest.

Having created this reactionary cli­mate, the liberals now bec6me thefascists' best defenders in court. Thusthe ACLU is defending the Klan andNazis across the country, from their"right" to terrorize survivors of Hitler'sdeath camps in, Skokie to their "right" toorganize cross burnings at the Marines'Camp Pendleton. To top it off theymake genocide respectable by offeringthe platform of "debates" on television.Thus the civil libertarians prove thattheir fundamental loyalty is to thecapitalist order, which must protect thefascists as their last desperate defenseagainst proletarian revolution.

Bringing up the liberals' rear are thesocial democrats of the Socialist Work­ers Party (SWP). Mike Kelley, aspokesman for the SWP-Ied U.S.Committee for Justice in Latin Ameri­ca, when .asked to sign the protestmailgram to Channel 13 refused on thegrounds that this campaign was a "clear

Harris/Liaison

Klan chief Duke with his wife.

WNET decided to run a revised versionincorporating much of the originalfootage and tacking on a half-hourcommentary at the end.

This supposedly watered-down ver­sion proved, if anything, more provoc­ative than the first. A Houston docu­mentary about the Klan showed a fascistdisplaying a suitcase full of "NiggersBeware" posters and bumper stickers,and even T-shirts printed with picturesof gas ovens! The only thing missingfrom this sales pitch for genocide was amailing address where race-hating

race was the master race. I think that isthe truth of our times.... America willeither be an all-white America or a deadAmerica."

The response of the interviewers waspathetic. One asked whether Duke had"any sensitivity at all"; the other inresponse to Collins' call to send theentire U.S. black population to Africa,"I'm concerned as a human being aboutthe venom, the vitriol and the hostilityyou seem to feel"!

The Philadelphia/Wilmington show­ing sparked heavy protest, particularlyfrom a number of Jewish groups.Although the program was distributednationally over the Public BroadcastingService television network, only 105 ofthe 270 PBS affiliates aired it with mostmajor northern cities refusing to run theshow. So did Channel 13 in New Yorkoriginally, on the grounds that it was"journalistically unbalanced." But whenthe American Jewish Congress tookcredit for keeping the show off the air,

While program moderator ReginaldBryant was cooing about the goldenopportunity the show afforded killersand victims alike to "sit together andtalk about things," the fascists used theair waves to broadcast their message ofracist terror. Collins, outfitted in fullNazi regalia, called Hitler "the greatestwhite man of all times," and added:

"The swastika represents the highesttruth that our civilization has known.Hitler was right. Hitler said the white

With picket signs reading "Genocideis Not Debatable-No Platform forFascists!" and chants of "TV 13 Publi­cizes, KKK Organizes-Stop the KlanNow!" about 30 people demonstratedDecember 14 in front of New York'sChannel 13/WNET television studiosprotesting the station's planned broad­cast of the program "The Extremists:American Nazis and the KKK." Initiat­ed on short notice by the SpartacistLeague (SL) the demonstration de­nounced the decision of the "publicservice" broadcaster to provide a plat­form for fascist action organizationswhose only use for publicity is to recruitmore killers to their ranks.

The demonstrators stressed that theissue was not free speech but fascistterrorism. One chant went, "No TVTime for Klan Provocations, DebateWon't Stop Fascist Organizations."They also rejected the treacherouspolicy of appealing to the bourgeoisstate to suppress fascists, demanding,"Smash the Nazis, Smash the Klan­Only Workers Defense Guards Can!"The SL intitiated a protest mailgramsent to the station signed by a number oflabor and left organizations and con­cerned individuals, including the Parti­san Defense Committee, the Militant­Solidarity Caucus of the NMU, theMilitant Solidarity Caucus of UAWLocal 906, filmmaker Barbara Kopple,professor James Petras and lawyersGerald Lefcourt and Conrad Lynn.

The Channel 13 program whichprovided a "respectable" platform fromwhich the mod "Grand Wizard" of theLouisiana Klans, David Duke, and thetwo-bit "Fiihrer" of the American NaziParty, Frank Collins, could spew forththeir race-hate provocations, had comeunder heavy fire from the moment planswere announced to show it in New York.The small SL demonstration was anexpression of widely felt outrage whichproduced a flood of literally thousandsof protest phone calls from enragedviewers. But the station managementproclaimed it would not be "pushedaround" by special interest groups oftheoppressed, instead providing air time tothe fascists' recruiting drive under theguise of "free speech."

Controversy around the showactually began last September when thePhiladelphia/Wilmington public televi­sion station WHYY (on an episode ofthe serial "Black Perspective on theNews"!) decided it would be "education­al" to pit the fascists in debate againsttwo liberal black professionals, Harvardhistorian Lawrence Reddick and "hu­man relations expert" Charles King,head of the Atlanta Urban CrisisCenter. The result was a disaster, witheven the liberal New York Times (IIDecember) concluding:

"... Messrs. Duke and Collins wereafforded a relatively unobstructed pathfor their views on the savage nature ofblacks and the manipulative power ofJews. Variety described the result as'appalling' and commented, 'The sumeffect is a propaganda coup for anti­Semitic bigots and white racists'."

23 DECEMBER 1977 -3

'\0"--

•I

Whillam Slegs Down

Labor Routed in Australian Elections

Gough Whitlam speaking at ALP election rally in Sydney November 17.

SYDNEY. 14 December-"A voteagainst socialism." the Sydney MorninKHerald (12 December) headed itseditorial on Saturday's Australianfederal election, the fourth in five years.At last count the ruling LiberallNational Country Party (L/NCP) coali­tion had romped home with a massive50-seat majority over the routed LaborParty (ALP) in the 124-seat House ofRepresentatives (although receivingonly 48 percent of votes cast comparedto the ALP's 40 percent).

Virtually everyone had expectedLabor if not to win at least to take back asubstantial number of seats from therecord LINCP majority won in thelandslide 1975 election which displacedthe ALP government. But, as theMorninK Herald commented. "The twoor three seats won by Labor onSaturday are little more than .flotsamfrom the wreck of 1975, washed up by afavourable redistribution [redrawing ofelectoral boundaries]."

The result. however, could scarcely beconsidered a "vote against socialism."On the contrary, the ALP's electioncampaign was centered around wooingback bourgeois support alienated by thefailure of the last Labor government ofGough Whitlam to, as they saw it,adequately control its reformist tinker­ing or crack down hard enough on theunions. The ALP played down itsprevious meagre attempts at reform tostress former Labor Treasurer Hayden'sausterity budget of 1975. On Medibank,the ALP-introduced national medicalinsurance significantly downgraded bythe Liberals, Whitlam could only snivelthat "the task of restoration will be longand difficult" (Sydney Morning Herald,18 November).'

ALP Grovels Before Bosses

In fact, Labor's main electoral pro­mise was to end the company payroll taxand pay for it by scrapping PrimeMinister Malcolm Fraser's planned cutsin personal income tax, thus enablingmillionaire grazier Fraser (owner oflarge sheep-grazing properties) to adoptthe ludicrous posture of defender of "theman in the street"! In promoting thisgimmick, supposedly designed to createmore jobs, the ALP's real intention wasto demonstrate to the bosses its willing­ness to rebuff its own working-class basein order to promote higher profits.While unemployment was the mainelectoral issue, few could have beenfooled by the crocodile tears for theunemployed shed by Whitlam andFraser and their mutual sanctimoniousdenunciations. Not surprisingly theALP had trouble eliciting much finan­cial support from the trade unions orfiring their ranks with enthusiasm forthis uninspiring electoral bid.

For all Whitlam's grovellings, thebourgeoisie preferred not to entrust thehelm of state to Labor. Not that they areentirely happy with the record of thealoof, aristocratic Fraser. "It's not muchof a choice," press baron RupertMurdoch commented, "between some­one nobody likes and someone nobodytrusts" (Newsweek, 19 December). Thecapitalists were hardly more impressedwith Fraser's election manoeuvre thanthey were with his inept handling ofcurrency devaluations or his otherpolitical faux pas. To make mattersworse, shortly after the campaignopened Fraser found himself with ascandal at his doorstep: Phillip Lynch,the author of the Liberals' austerity (forthe workers) budgets, resigned as

.4

..

treasurer following allegations concern­ing the dealings of his family trustcompany.

Union-Bashing Fizzles

Significantly, the demagogic issue of"union power" on which Fraser hadearlier hoped to center his electiongambit was quietly dropped before thecampaign started. This followed theLiberals' defeat in the 5 NovemberGreensborough. Victoria by-election, aweek after the conclusion of the eleven­week Victoria power strike, where theyhad stood primarily on a union-bashingplatform. After several years of realwage losses and heightened unemploy­ment, and given the present compara­tively low level of industrial disputes,the bosses' attempts to blame therecession on greedy "militant" and"communist" unionists don't hold muchwater. The Victoria Liberal state gov­ernment also had little success whippingup sentiment against the LaTrobepower workers' strike which challengedthe wage-fixing Arbitration Commis­sion's policy of "wage indexation" (wageadjustments which under the guise ofcompensating for inflation reduce realwages).

The general distrust of both majorparties in this more than usually drearyelectoral competition opened the doorto the meteoric rise of Don Chipp's("small-'], liberal") Australian Demo­crats who gained some 10 percent of thevote-a large proportIOn In thIS essen­tially two-party system-giving them atleast one Senate seat. Chipp, a recentdefector from the Liberal Party, wiselyavoided any policies and instead waffled

about "honesty, tolerance andcompassion"-enabling him to cash inon the naivete, sentimentalism andgullibility of his liberal middle-classsupporters.

On election night. when the ALP'signominious defeat had become evident,Gough Whitlam announced that hewould not stand for re-election asLabor's parliamentary leader. Afternavigating Labor to its first federalelection win in 23 years in 1972, only torun aground on the internationalcapitalist recession, Whitlam has nowled the ALP to two successive electiondebacles. From the grandiose vistas of a"new," "reformed" Australia in 1972,Whitlam is now identified in the publiceye with the incompetent bunglings ofhis short-lived social-democratic regimecaught in the vice of the recession. Histechnocratic-liberal policies failed to fita period where the task of any capitalistgovernment is to rapidly take away pastgains of the working class.

Already perceived as a liability,Whitlam had kept somewhat in thebackground during the election, evenpromising to step down as ALP leaderwithin two years if elected. Instead theLabor Party prominently featured BillHayden as its paragon of economic"responsibility" (read: anti-working­class policies). And it is former copHayden who is now the favouredcandidate for Whitlam's successor.Meanwhile, Bob Hawke, president ofthe Australian Council of Trade Unionsand of the ALP-who has been labelled"Houdini Hawke" for his record ofnegotiating last-minute sellouts ofimportant strikes-waits in the wings

ready to step into parliament at someopportune point.

Left Advises Whitlam How to Winthe Election

Ever since the 1975 sacking of theWhitlam government by the appointed,supposedly figurehead, governor­general and the subsequent election ofFraser. the left has resounded with criesof "Bring down the Fraser govern­ment!" LJniquely on the left the Sparta­cist League pointed out at the time that.divorced from any new upsurge in theclass struggle. this seemingly militantslogan could mean nothing but a call fornew elections and a vote of politicalconfidence in the reformist ALP mis­leadership of the working class. Withthe holding of the long-awaited elec­tions the actual content of the fake-lefts'anti-Fraser rhetoric became clearer thanever. The International Socialists' frontpage headline trumpeted excitedly."We've waited two years for this ... "(The Battler, 26 November). With"LABOR CAN WIN" hopefully embla­zoned across the front pages of almostevery "left" publication, each grouppredicated a Labor victory on the ALP'sadopting its particular shopping list ofreforms.

Prominent among these was the fake­Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party ICommunist League (SWP ICL), thathalf-fused hybrid of Joseph Hansen'sAustralian followers and the MandeliteCL. which simply played the role of"left" propagandists for Labor. After aperfunctory disclaimer of confidence inthe ALP leadership the SWPICLdeclared, "This reactionary, capitalistgovernment must be replaced by aLabor government" (Direct Action!MililGnt, 3 November). Was the Whit­lam cabinet any less a capitalist govern­ment then? Perhaps not, but it "couldhave been" according to the SWP/CLl

It "could have." among other things,"legislated a shorter workweek andnationalisation of firms threatening lay­offs to provide more jobs." Like allreformists, the SWPICL really believesdeep down that the bourgeois state isneutral-capable of serving as aninstrument to systematically reformcapitalist society in the workers' inter­ests if only the right party is ingovernment. After the elections thedejected electoral advisors of the SWP ICL moaned, "The final straw wasLabor's low key election campaign as ifthe ALP leadership didn't really want towin" ("Where did Labor go wrong?"Direct Action! Militant, 15 December).

A number of ostensibly revolutionaryorganisations also stood candidates.The social-democratic CommunistParty (CPA) and pro-Moscow SocialistParty candidates, however, presentedno alternative to the parliamentaryreformist road of the ALP. For com­munists to urge a vote for these parties,no matter how critical, would only buildthe authority of these small-time would­be replacements for Whitlam's ALP.

Qaddafi's Messengers on theElection Trail

Also standing three candidates wasthe Healyite Socialist Labour League(SLL), which claims to be far to the leftof the CPA. But for ali its bluster aboutbuilding the "revolutionary party" toreplace the Labor misleaders, the SLLincessantly echoed the reformist pleathat the Labor traitors adopt "socialistpolicies" and contested seats only

WQR,t<E~~~.YAN.~Vl\~.P

TROTSKYIST LEAGUEOF CANADA

SPARTACIST LEAGUELOCAL DIRECTORYANN ARBOR (313) 663-9012

c/o SYL Room 4316Michigan Union. U of MichiganAnn Arbor MI48109

BERKELEY/OAKLAND 1415) 835-1535

Box 23372Oakland. CA 94623

BOSTON. (617) 492-3928Box 188M IT StationCambridge. MA 02139

CHICAGO (312) 427-0003Box 6441 Main POChicago. IL 60680

CLEVELAND . (216) 566-7806Box 6765Cleveland. OH 44101

DETROIT (313) 868-9095Box 663A. General PODetroit. MI 48232

HOUSTONBox 26474Houston. TX 77207

LOS ANGELES. . ... (213) 662-1564Box 26282. Edendale StationLos Angeles. CA 90026

NEW YORK. . (212) 925-2426Box 1377. GPONew York. NY 10001

SAN DIEGOPO Box 2034Chula Vista. CA 92012

SAN FRANCISCO. . ... (415) 863-6963Box 5712San FranCISco. CA 94101

against carefully selected "right-wing"ALP candidates. Moreover, the SLL'selectoral focus on "Victory to the[Palestinian] PLO" underlined that avote to these political bandits wouldhave been a vote for their publicrelations campaign on behalf of anti­communist Libyan dictator, MuamarQaddafi. It would have been a vote, too,for the SLL's opposition to the masspickets needed to win the recent La­Trobe Valley strike; and a vote for theirincessant cop-baiting, slander andviolence against other tendencies in theworkers movement. The SpartacistLeague urged no vote to the SLL.

The ALP is a working-class partyenjoying the support of millions ofworkers. We called for a vote to it on 10December against the bosses' parties asan expression, however limited anddistorted, of the need for an independ­ent working-class alternative to theopen political representatives of thebourgeoisie. But the only real benefit ofhaving the Labor fakers in office is thatit offers revolutionaries the opportunityto expose their treachery in practice. Wedo not, like the revisionists, raise theslogan, "For a Labor government,"because we do not for a moment lendany support to the ALP's administra­tion in office of the bourgeoisie's stateapparatus.

Unlike the revisionists we seek todestroy the influence of the pro­capitalist ALP misleadersip within thew'orking class, to build the Leninistvanguard party in counterposition toit-not to refurbish it with "socialistpolicies." Whitlam, Hawke, Haydenand their ilk must be ousted andreplaced with a revolutionary leadershipof the working class committed not tothe bourgeois parliamentary fraud butto smashing the capitalist state andfighting for a genuine, revolutionaryworkers government. •

NEW YORK

Despite the fact that they were themain immediate target of management'sattack, the CPL supporters in CUPWmanaged to junk their earlier demandthat the local stay out until the suspen­sions we"e dropped with no reprisalsagainst striking 'WOTk~. When"lml1\"'"-~-'-'-­

agement and the union leadershipagreed on a compromise back-to-workagreement on December 13, CPL's TheWorker (21 December) hailed thesettlement as a victory, won only thanksto, its allegedly far-sighted leadership.

Yet the back-to-work accorddefinitively wiped out only two of thenine suspensions (both CPL members)while the other seven workers face aninvestigation of their cases by a manage­ment review board reporting to theDeputy Postmaster General. Further­more, since CPL has no influencewhatsoever among the Toronto LCUCdrivers, its leaflets and Worker articlesdid not even see fit to mention the vitalrole of labor solidarity provided by theother union. After all, writing about theimportance of LCUC support for thestrike would have destroyed CPL'sgrandstanding claim that it aloneprevented the strike's defeat.

The refusal of the CUPWbureaucracy to launch a real struggleagainst the victimizations, violation ofunion work rules and job-cutting bymanagement has led to demoralizationeven within the ranks of the traditional­ly militant CUPW. This was reflected inthe low turnout at the strike vote, thenarrow margin by which the strike votepassed (50 votes out of 800), and theevidence of scabbing at smaller substa­tions during the strike. A definitivevictory can only be achieved by calling anationwide strike of a/l postal workers.This is precisely what the CUPWbureaucracy refuses to do, and in theCPL's uncritical enthusing over the:roronto strike and its neglect of theneed for joint action with the LCUC, itdropped this crucial demand as well.

While today the CPL is clearly undermanagement attack, its supporters inthe union have a long and sordid recordof betraying elementary working-classprinciples. Thus CPLers in TorontoCUPW crossed picket lines to scab at a1975 postal mechanics strike and haverefused to defend supporters of other

continued on page JO

CPL Takes a Dive

inspiring CU PW ILCUC unity in Tor­onto pointed the way forward todefeating management attacks acrossthe country. Not only was the CUPWnow on strike in the most strategic areain the country but LCUC was support­ing the walkout and the postal mechan­ics union had also been without acontract for nearly a year. A TL leafletcalled on CU PW to seize the initiative tolay the basis for a united national strikeof all postal unions, which would win asingle contract for postal workers.

Such a common contract fight couldlead to the creation of a powerfulmerged industrial union in the PostOffice. It could also win key demandslike a shorter workweek at no loss in payto save jobs and make automation servethe workers, a closed shop and unionhiring hall to stop management's use ofnon-union casual and term labor toundermine the strength of the bargain­ing unit. The TL went on to link postalworkers' fight against their employer tothe fight of the entire working classagainst this same government, itsinstitutions and agencies like thePSSRA and the wage-control Anti­Inflation Board, and the capitalist classthey all serve.

Workers Unity Beats Divide-and­Conquer Schemes

During the past few year!Hhe criminalpolicies of the postal union leadershipshave led CUPW and LCUC workers toscab on each others' strikes, weakeningtheir fighting power and further em­boldening the government. Manage­ment sought to exploit these divisionsusing the suspensions to attack CUPWand try to drive militants, including theCPL members, out of the Post Office.But the bosses didn't count on the strongshow of solidarity and class conscious­ness by LCUC shop stewards, whoseorganization of support for the picketlines made the strike effective and gave agreat lift to the strikers' morale. Thissolidarity dealt the key blow to manage­ment's "divide-and-conquer" schemesand prevented the strike from beingsmashed.

Two of the stewards who were mostactive in organizing LCUC support forthe strike, Bob McBurney and LarryBoyes attended the December 10CU PW mass meeting as invited guestsof the CU PW local, McBurney was wellreceived by the 800 or so unionists inattendance when he read an LCUCpress statement defending the strike.The statement reported on a motionwhich had been submitted by McBurneyand adopted unanimously by the LCUCstewards' body calling for an LCUCsolidarity strike in the event that CU PWstayed out against a court injunction.

Despite arguments against a strike byright-wingers in the union who parrotedthe red baiting attacks of the bourgeoispress, the workers voted to go out acrossthe city. Several speakers includingsuspended workers argued that a strikewas an absolute necessity, for manage­ment was clearly on a union-bustingoffensive. Its attempt to suspend electedleaders of the CUPW local was awholesale attack on the postal unionsthemselves-and was a key factorleading both the CUPW and the LCUCleaderships and the union ranks to standbehfnd the victimised militants.

The Trotskyist League of Canada(TL) distributed a leaflet at the meetingand on the picket lines showing how the

logical change and leaving CU PW to goit alone against the government.

In contrast, CUPW president, Jean­Claude Parrot has sought to strike amilitant posture, denouncing manage­ment's schemes for "industrial peace" asa trap for the workers, and demandingunion veto power over technologicalchange. Yet, Parrot's stance is no lessclass-collaborationist. The union isham-strung by government anti-laborlegislation-the Public Service StaffRelations Act (PSSRA), which prohib­its negotiations over technologicalchange and severely limits the right tostrike. But rather than confront thePSSRA head-on through the kind ofmilitant national strike action that builtthe postal union in the mid-1960's,Parrot has merely called for the PostOffice to be transformed into a CrownCorporation, placirtgLhe unions underthe terms of the Canada Labour Code.

While this legislation allows negotia­tions over automation. it too containsmajor restrictions on the right to strike.virtually identical to those in thePSSRA. Moreover, CUPW has beenwithout a contract since last June, andParrot has promised the governmentthat there will be no national strikeduring the Christmas season despite thefact that this is when postal workerswield by far the most economic muscleto enable them to wrest major conces­sions from management.

TORONTO, 18 December-The six­day strike by members of the CanadianUnion of Postal Workers (CUPW)Toronto local last· week demonstratedthe power of labor solidarity in fightingthe bosses' attacks. CUPW workers atthe large South Central postal facility,which handles nearly half the country'smail walked off the job December 7.They were protesting management'sattempt to indefinitely suspend ninemembers (including two executiveboard officials and four shops stewards)for leading a sit-down against the use ofnon-union Christmas help to performjobs contractually assigned to unionworkers. Almost from the start of thestrike, the picket lines were respected bypostal truck drivers in the LetterCarriers Union of Canada (LCUC),effectively halting mail service in Toron­to and leading to a major backlogthroughout the country during the busypre-Christmas season.

Three days later CU PW voted tolaunch a full local strike. Managementand the bourgeois media responded bystepping up their massive anti-unionpropaganda blitz. The press, televisionand radio newscasts screamed that"radical agitators" and "communists"were stirring up labor trouble in the postoffice in order to foment revolution.Newspapers ran front page articles"exposing" the fact that four of thesuspended workers were members of theStalinist Canadian Party of Labour(CPL). Management tried to obtain ananti-strike court injunction againstCUPW and tried to incite workersagainst their union hy red-baiting strikeleaders and actively encouraging andorganizing scabbing.

But the vast majority of unionists heldfirm. At least 80 percent of the SouthCentral employees remained outthroughout the strike, and virtually allLCUC drivers continued to honor theCUPW lines. Even when managementmanaged to orgdnize a convoy of eleventrucks to cross picket lines and pick upmail on December 12, LCUC membersblacked (boycotted) the scab mail andrefused to remove it from the trucks tothe postal stations. By standing unitedin the face of the bosses' attacks andprovocations, the postal unions forcedmanagement to back down on thesuspensions, and a return to work wasnegotiated by the early morning ofDecember 13.

The Toronto strike took place in thecontext of a postal management union­busting drive across the country. ThePost Office is trying to crush CUPW­in the recent past one of the mostmilitant unions in all of Canada-inorder to complete the implementationof a massive automation programme,wh«:h is eliminating thousands of postaljobs and leading to speed-up andworsened working conditions for theremaining workers. Taking advantageof the bureaucratically-engendered craftdivisions among the postal unions(CUPW organizes 24,000 inside work­ers while LCUC has 18,000 outsideworkers and others are in smallerunions), the government has sought toisolate the militant CUPW workers inorder to push through its automationscheme.

The government has wooed theconservative LCUC national leadershipinto a class-collaborationist system ofunion-management consultationsaimed at promoting "industrial har­mony." Preaching faith in managementto solve the workers' problems, LCUCnational president Robert McGarrysigned an insulting sellout contract lastsummer, providing outside postal work­ers with no protection against techno-

Postal Stewards Still Threatened

MilitantStrikers Fend OffCanadian Post Office

. (604) 291-8993

.1416) 366-4107

Sponsored by New York Spartacus YouthLeague For more information call (212)925-5665.

DEMONSTRA nON

Protest Miltonfriedman­Braintruster forPinochet and Begin!Date: December 29Time: 12:15 p.m.Place: New York Hilton, Corner of

54th St. and 6th Ave.

TORONTO.Box 7198. Station AToronto. Ontario

VANCOUVERBox 26. Stalion AVancouver. BC

/

23 DECEMBER 19n -5

RMC: State Department Socialists?

"Muddlers and pacifists of the world, all ye suffering from thepin-pricks of fate, rally to the 'third' camp!"

-L. Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism, 1940

Ex-Trotskyists of the SWP welcome third-camp RMC into party.

II October 1977

To the Editor:

Is it permissible to use any stick tobeat the SWP? You would undoubtedlysay that it isn't since you slam thewretched Healyites for their slandercampaign against Joe Hansen. But onthe very same page on which you justlyattack that campaign ("Healyite Slan­der Mill Grinds On," WV No. 176, 7October 1977) you show that you arenot above mucking around in the sewersof the Stalinist press for what you call"real ammunition" against the SWP.For the nth time Erik Bert has un­masked the SWP as an anti-Soviet, pro­imperialist party. In Bert's torturedreasoning, the third campist RMC[Revolutionary Marxist Committee]has joined the SWP, third campism ispro-imperialist, the SWP is pro­imperialist. I wonder how' such reason­ing can impress you. There is a lot wrongwith it.

Third campism may be a way station

An Exchangein the evolution of a tendency towardsaccommodation with imperialism. Thenagain it may not. It was in the case ofShachtman. It wasn't in the case of theJohnsonites. (By the way, when theSWP took in the Johnsonites in 1947,did that provide "real ammunition" tothe Stalinists?) I presume that Robert­son, Mage and Wohlforth were all thirdcampists in their Shachtmanite daysbefore joining the SWP. They weren'tallies of the State Department, whetherthen or later. How then can you say thatthe RMC has entered theSWPto"builda base for State Department socialism"?The intent of your article was to showthat the SWP is so compromised thateven a Stalinist hack can occasionallyaim a telling blow at them. The effect ofyour article was to show that even youcan occasionally reason like a Stalinisthack. You owe the SWP an apology.Remember that the Trotskyist traditionincludes the struggle against amalgamsand frame-ups. Otherwise you riskstumbling into the path of your formerassociates, the Healyites.

David Herreshoff

October I I. 1977Greetings.

I have a few comments and acomradely criticism of your article "C. P.Nails SW.P." in the Oct. 7 issue ofWorkers Vanguard.

I basically agree with the two mainpoints of your article, one, that S.W.P.with its blatant reformism and its, atbest, lukewarm attitude toward defenseof the workers states adds fuel to theStalinist propaganda fire and secondlythat groups like Revolutionary MarxistCommittee. International Socialists etc.with their false theory of the workersstates being state capitalist and theirsubsequent refusal to defend these statesagainst imperialism is objectivelyagainst the interests of WorldRevolution.

The only problem I have with thearticle is at the end, when you refer tothe R. M.e. as "State Department So­cialists."

That term strongly implies thatgroups like the R. M.e. aren't composedof dedicated militants who sincerelywant a socialist world, but whosepolitical theory is incapable of bringingthat about, but instead that they aregroups that consciously. directly, serveimperialism, e.1.A. or F.B.1. fronts!

I doubt very much if that's what youmeant, but in the interests of political

6

clarity and to avoid even a remoteappearance of an unprincipled slandertowards honest (but politkally wrong)militants I feel that you should avoidthat term in the future.

I would be interested to read yourcomments on the matter.Communist Greetings,Stan WoodsDenver. Colorado

WORKERS VANGUARDREPLIES:

Our article. "Even With Lies-CPNails SWP" (WV No. 176, 7 October)has kicked up quite a fuss. We areattacked for it not only in two letters toWV, but even in the letters column ofthe SWP's Militant. The SWP and itsfriends have good reason to bedefensive.

At issue is the August 1977 fusionbetween the SWP and the formerRevolutionary Marxist Committee(RMC) which had earlier pulled out ofthe decomposing Shachtmanite Revolu­tionary Socialist League. maintainingthe latter group's Stalinophobic line onthe Russian question. The RMCerscontinue to hold that the USSR and theother deformed workers states are "statecapitalist" and thus there is no classbasis for defending them against imperi-

alism. Their "Platform" states that"Stalinist Parties... stand for the com­plete statification of capitalism and theelevation of their own leading strata tothe status of state capitalist bourgeoi­sies" (Revolutionary Marxist PapersNo. II, March 1977).

If the SWP defended this fusion onthe basis that it will help the SWP buildrallies for "human rights for gays" andcozy up to Jimmy Carter's "democratic"anti-Sovietism, life would be easier andpolemics shorter. But the SWP is notready to so explicitly repudiate theTrotskyist position on the Russianquestion. Thus it must yell "slander!" atthose who expose the SWP-RMCfusion as a signpost of the SWP's social­democratic trajectory.

To justify this open-door policy forShachtmanites, the SWP and its friendsmust distort the history of revolutionaryI rotskyism. Often, as with Herre­shoWs letter, these distortions are tossedoff as "common knowledge" and not-so­common "sense." We are taking theoccasion of these two letters to WV tounravel the knot of self-serving obscu­rantism by which the SWP hopes toconceal its real program and appetites.

It is a species of political fantasy to

raise the question of "State Departmentsocialism" as though it were an academ­ic dispute whose main purpose was toseparate various organizations on thepolitical landscape of the left. It is notsimply that one tendency takes aposition in defense of the USSR whileanother does not. These questions arepale ideological reflections of a fero­cious struggle between the Soviet Unionand U.S. imperialism. Positions on theRussian question are shaped by apowerful reality that explodes on thebarricades in Lisbon or the battlefieldsof Angola. The CIA is real. The entirepayload and influence of the capitalistclass is weighted and aimed at thedestruction of the Soviet Union whoseindustrial and military might-despitethe treacherous bureaucracy-standsbetween imperialism and its dreams ofreconquest of the deformed workersstates.

It is because of this overwhelmingreality of a war which runs hot and coldthat political characterizations are not amatter simply of subjective sincerity, asWoods suggests. Under the poundingpressure of the bourgeoisie, subjectivelysincere "anti-Stalinists" are caught up inthe whirlwind of imperialism's assaultupon the USSR. The ruling class knowshow to reward its witting and unwitting

,

apologists. We have no reason to doubtthe sincerity of a Norman Thomas, butneither do we excuse the role that he, anavowed partisan of the working people,played in the service of the StateDepartment. As James Cannon said,describing the political and program­matic content of Stalinophobia:

"The sentiment of hatred and fear ofStalinism. with its police state and itsslave labor camps, its frame-ups and itsmurders of working class opponents, ishealthy, natural, normal and progres­sive. This sentiment goes wrong onlywhen it leads to reconciliation withAmerican imperialism, and to theassignment of the fight against Stalin­ism to that same imperialism. In thelanguage of Trotskyism, that andnothing else is Stalinophobia.... Weshould tell the party members thatStalinophobia is indeed a deadly dis­ease, and that its germs are carried in theair of imperialist America."

-Letter to Farrell Dobbs, 6 April1953

"State Department Socialism"

Both our letter writers object to theuse of the term "State Departmentsocialism" to characterize the RMe.Woods seems unfamiliar with the Trot­skyist movement's use of the term, and

writes that it designates "groups thatconsciously, directly, serve imperialism,CIA or FBI fronts." He takes the term assome kind of cop-bait. But the phrasehas a long tradition of usage byTrotskyists to politically characterize acurrent within the workers movementwhich supported U.S. imperialism's"cold war" against the USSR. Itdescribes "socialists" with a terminalcase of Stalinophobia-those whoseactive role in supporting imperialist"democracy" against Stalinist "totali­tarianism" places them in a politicalbloc with the U.S. State Department.

The term took hold among therevolutionists after the social democratshad formed a bloc with U.S. imperial­ism over the Korean war and had led thegovernment-directed anti-red purges inthe unions. On 28 January 1957 a front­page Militant headline described themerger between the Socialist Party (SP)and the Social Democratic Federation(SDF) in just three words: "StateDepartment 'Socialism'." The articlequoted the social democrats: "Werealize that until universal, enforceabledisarmament can be achieved, the freeworld and its democratically establishedmilitary agencies must be constantly onguard against the military drive of theCommunist dictators"!

These "socialists" had aligned them­selves four-square with the war policiesof the State Department. In the name of"democracy" and "socialism" they hadtaken the line that the main enemy wasthe USSR and its Communist "agents"in the trade unions. As the then­revolutionary SWP said: "The SP-SDFcalls itself 'democratic socialist'. Theirforeign policy resolution, however,strengthens their title to the label, 'StateDepartment socialist'" (Militant, \ 6July 1958).

When the Independent SocialistLeague of Max Shachtman stepped intothis merger of right-wing social demo­crats in 1957, the SWP's Myra TannerWeiss correctly summed up the Shacht­manites' course, from their 1940 splitfrom the SWP to their embrace of theSP: "When Max Shachtman and theISL accept this kind of State Depart­ment 'democracy' and they try to pass itoff as socialism they have passed thepoint of no return from revolutionaryMarxism to reformism" (Militant, 21January 1957). The Shachtmanites tooktheir oath of loyalty to socialdemocracy:

"... We do not subscribe to any creedknown as Leninism or defined as such.We do not subscribe to any creedknown as Trotskyism or defined assuch.... We are strongly in favor of abroad party with full party democracyfor all, which does not demand creedalconformity on all questions.... Suchconformity typifies the sect; it is alien toa living, democratic, socialist politicalmovement. ..."

-New International, Spring-Summer 1958

It is from this Shachtmanite "point of noreturn" that the International Socialists,then the RSL and the RMC, developed.

Herreshoff as Historian

David Herreshoff, as WV readersmay recall, has been a fairly regularcontributor to our letters column. Wehave become accustomed to his selectivehistories of the SWP, designed tosuggest a continuity between yesterday'srevolutionary party and today's reform­ists. We do not mind debating withwould-be repositories of Trotskyisthistory, but we insist that the history beclarified rather than obscured in theprocess.

Unlike Woods, Herreshoff well un­derstands the use of the term "StateDepartment socialism." What he dis­agrees with is our assessment of theSWP-RMC fusion as an important

WORKERS VANGUARD

"State Department socialism" In action: Anti-communist leader Soarespraised the "popular uprising" against Stalinism.

demonstration that the SWP has inpractice dumped the defense of theSoviet Union. He lectures us on thenature of third campism, with examplesfrom the gospel of SWP history accord­ing to David Herreshoff:

"Third campism may be a way station inthe evolution of a tendency towardaccommodation with imperialism.Then again it may not. It was in the caseof Shachtman. It wasn't in the case ofthe Johnsonites."

The unsuspecting reader is supposedto conclude that WV makes nodistinctions-or, worse, that we aremaking an amalgam in order to smearthe RMC. But we recognize an impor­tant political distance between thosetendencies which reject the defense ofthe Soviet Union due to pressure fromtheir own ruling classes and those whodo so out of a primitive workerism andelemental revulsion against the anti­working-class practices of Stalinism.This latter view assumes the angle ofvision of an ultra-left syndicalist who·sees only that the bureaucracy dailygrinds down the working class andcannot recognize that the bureaucracyalso rests upon the gains of a revolutionthat must be defended.

We recognize two traditions of "statecapitalism" within the workers move­ment: an ultra-left tradition that beginswith Bogdanov's Workers Groupamong the anti-NEP formations inLenin's revolutionary Russia and con­tinues through the various anarcho­syndicalist groups-including for in­stance Grandizo Munis, whose splitfrom Trotskyism to state capitalism wasin an ultra-leftist rather than a social­democratic direction; and the right­wing tradition which begins with Kauts­ky's "democratic" critique of"totalitarian" Russia and continuesthrough classic social democracy. Atcertain conjunctures, of course, thesetwo traditions can come together, asthey did in the U.S. over the Koreanwar.

It is not WV but Herreshoff whoconfuses these two traditions. We have

. clearly stated that the R MC is in theShachtmanite tradition. What doeshe say about the RMC? Nothing. Hehazards no defense of the RMC againstthe characterization of "State Depart­ment socialism." Instead he lectures usabout "state capitalist" tendencies ingeneral and reminds us that in 1947 theSWP fused with the "third camp"Johnson-Forrest group. Presumably,because the SWP fused with thisgrouping in 1947, it's okay to fuse withthe RMC in 1977.

In describing the RMC as "building abase for State Department socialism"we are discussing a particular group at aparticular time on a particular trajecto­ry, and with a particular history on theRussian question. Does Herreshoffmean to suggest that the RMC ispolitically similar to the J ohnsonites?Then let him say so. Does the traditionof State Department socialism impingeon the RMC? He would prefer tolecture us that not all "third camp"groups are the same, hoping to justifythe present fusion on the basis of adifferent fusion in 1947 between arevolutionary party and somethingwhich we can all agree was not a "StateDepartment socialist" formation.

The Johnson Fusion in Hindsight

The 1947 Johnsonite-SWP fusionwhich David Herreshoffraisesmakesaninstructive comparison. At first glancethere are some similarities betweenJohnson-Forrest and the RMC. Bothwere Detroit-centered cliques inside aclique-ridden Shachtmanite organiza­tion. Both were "state-cap" minoritieswho claimed to base their fusion onunity over "the American question."There the analogies stop short.

The Johnsonites and even the SWP of1947 believed that the Russian questioncould be t~mporarily placed on the backburner in the face of an expectedexplosion of struggle by the U.S.

, 23 DECEMBER 1977

proletariat, "the coming AmericanRevolution." Both tendencies underesti­mated the pervasive political effects ofthe cold war carried out by a victoriol'sU.S. imperialism with the aid of atreacherous labor bureaucracy pushingthe myth of the "American Century." Infailing to understand that the Russianquestion would continue to be a signaltest of the revolutionary fiber of any

. organization, they made a seriousmiscalculation-as the subsequent fateof the fusion was to demonstrate. Theonset of the Korean war blew the SWP­Johnson fusion apart. This group whichentered in 1947 with a fundamentaldifference over the Russian questiondeparted the SWP intact in 1950-overthe Russian question.

The political basis for the SWP­Johnsonite fusion was laid by Cannon's1946 "Theses on the Coming AmericanRevolution." Although flawed by itsAmerican-centered focus, the thesespresented what the Johnson grouprecognized as the "open, unconcealedperspective of revolution." Proletarianand combative in thrust, it presentsquite a different class axis and spiritthan the lukewarm reformism, elector­alism and petty-bourgeois radicalismwhich the present-day SWP marketsunder the title, "Prospects for AmericanSocialism."

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easyto say that the fusion with the Johnson­ites did not work. As Cannon said inMay 1953: "The Johnsonites werepersonal cultist followers of Johnson asa Messiah ... they all left the party at thesame hour, Eastern Standard Time"(Speeches to the Party). Was theattempt therefore a mistake that shouldhave been recognized by revolutionistsat the time? Something closer topolitical insight than historical hind­sight is needed to address that question.The 1947 fusion must be understoodwithin the context of SWP-WorkersParty (WP-Shachtman's organiza­tion) unity negotiations which had beengoing on (and off) for years.

These unity maneuvers were quiteimportant for the SWP, as the WP was acentrist party which claimed to beTrotskyist. It was the obtrusive forma­tion which occupied the political terrainbetween the revolutionary SWP andsocial-democratic reformism. The unitytactics were meant to produce a periodof "clarification" and to pose to the WPmembership the stark choice betweenthe revolutionary Trotskyism of theSWP and the "State Departmentsocialist camp" where Shachtman'sorganization finally ended up in 1957.

Cannon knew in 1947 that the WPwas moving to the right, but heapparently acceded to the interventionof the International Secretariat, whichdirectly engineered a unity propositionfor Max Shachtman. On the under­standing that the WP would abide bythe discipline and decisions of theupcoming World Congress of theFourth International, Cannon and

Shachtman drew up a unity proposalbetween the SWP and WP which waspublished in February 1947. Discus­sions were carried out with the Johnson­ite clique, which at that time was clearlycommitted to unity with the SWP.

By the summer of 1947 the prospect offusion with the WP as a whole had goneup in smoke. What had happened?"Along came the Truman Doctrine,"explained Cannon to a New Yorkmembership meeting in June: a "newviolent campaign leading to war withthe Soviet Union under the leadership ofTruman and Marshall." The TrumanDoctrine, enunciated in March, sent theWP right wing on a binge of red-baitinganti-Communist activity. Cannon de­clared that the political differences,tested in this new crisis, had brokendown the perspective of unity with theShachtmanites:

"... The Truman Doctrine, the centralquestion of the day, the open announce­ment of American imperialism that theyare going to conquer the world withatomic warfare-we wouldn't eventhink of a joint meeting with theShachtmanites on that."- Writings and Speeches. 1945-1947

Why, then, fuse with the Johnsonites?Precisely because the Johnsonites didnot respond as did the WP right wing,whose main target for attack wasStalinism. As Shachtman swerved rightunder the impact of the imperialistTruman Doctrine inaugurating the"cold war," the Johnsonites swung left,joining with the SWP in declaring thatthe main enemy was at home.

With the breakdown in unity negotia­tions, Cannon forthrightly declared thatthe original proposal was "an error onmy part" in assessing the WP's propo­sals for unity as a "left turn" and acapitulation to the Fourth Internation­al. "To capitulate to the Fourth Interna­tional," he had said, "that is an honor toany revolutionist and a sign that hedoesn't want to capitulate to theAmerican bourgeoisie" (Writings 1945­1947). When the Shachtmanites capitu­lated to the bourgeoisie by solidarizingwith imperialist "anti-Stalinism," unitywas off the agenda. But the Johnsongroup did capitulate to the SWP. The1947 fusion ripped the left arm awayfrom the WP.

The stripping away of the Shacht­manite left wing was a process notfinally completed until 1957. Herre­shoff distorts history again when headds Wohlforth-Robertson-Mage (whobroke from the Independent SocialistLeague at the time of its entry into theSocialist Party) into his equation andimplies that this was another case offusions between the SWP and statecapitalists. In fact, these comrades cameto Trotskyism and the SWP with adefensist position on the Russianquestion. This regroupment was part ofthe resolution of Shachtmanism into itscomponents: "Trotskyism" on the onehand, "State Department socialism" onthe other. As a spokesman for theTrotskyist regroupment which took

place in opposition to the right-social­democratic regroupment of Shachtman,Wohlforth correctly characterized thelatter as representing "state departmentdemocracy" ("What the Radical YouthNeed," Fourth International, Winter1958).

The young Shachtmanites who cameover to the SWP understood thepolitical logic of Shachtman's coursefrom "third camp" Stalinophobe to coldwarrior:

"In 1951 Shachtman wrote:'''Without hesitation or ambiguity, wecan say that the only greater disasterthat humanity could suffer than the waritself, which would be disaster enough ifit broke out, would be the victory ofStalinism as the outcome of the war.'(emphasis added)"With this perspective, the ISL wasforced to seek a basis for its anti-warpolicy in the forces existing within theframework of capitalist imperialism.Twist and turn as it would, it was, iftenuously, tied within that framework."

-James Robertson, "Statementof Resignation from the ISL,"12 April 1957

Entrism and Fusions

Uthe revolutionary SWP of 1947 mayhave erred in trying to assimilate thecultist Johnsonite state cap-ers despiteagreement on the "American question,"the present-day RMC is at least free ofnaivete about the role of the Russianquestion in the current fusion. In animportant July 1977 document, "Roadto Unity" by RMC leader ShelleyKramer, the RMC describes the "dissi­dent" movement in the Soviet bloc asthe "critical question which will subjectthe entire Trotskyist movement to itsmost decisive test since the 1950's"(Revolutionary Marxist Papers No. 14,July 1977).

In its smug articles on the fusion theSWP takes the tack that the RMC wasso impressed by the SWP's Americanperspect;ves that it rejected its "sectari­an" (read Shachtmanite) heritage andopted for the SWP despite differenceson the Russian question. They getindignant over the charge that theRMC-Iess than enthused over theprospects of independent small-groupqistence on the fringes of the crisis­ridden centrist left-"gave up" on anyimpulse toward real Trotskyist politics,embarked on a search for a larger hosiand found the SWP. And they howl"slander!" when anyone attempts toshow (the Communist Party throughdistortions, the SL through politicalanalysis) that an important politicalunderpinning of the fusion is the SWP'sde facto abandonment of Soviet defens­ism as it sucks up to the "democratic"bourgeoisie.

The RMC came to the SWP nominal­lyon an explicit entry tactic. Whetherthis was left window-dressing to reas­sure doubting elements among theRMC ranks that the fusion did notreally represent a sellout to reformism,or whether the RMC leaders reallybelieve they can win the SWP to statecapitalism, remains to be seen. But theRMC vowed to continue its battle forthe "third camp" within the SWP. Apre-fusion RMC internal bulletin dis­cussed the entry.tactic (e.g., the "FrenchTurn" carried out by the Trotskyists inthe 1930's) and stated:

"Through such involvement we, too,seek to erect the structure of a revolu­tionary party on the scaffold we nowhave-our political platform. For us,this effort can begin on a much higherlevel, since most of the Trotskyistmilieu, especially the USec and theSWP, stand on many of the sameprinciples we do."

-"Splits and Fusions in theFormation of the Fourth Inter­national," RMC Internal Bul­letin Vol. llI, No. 12, June 1977

Some months previously, the RMChad discussed its reasons, political andotherwise, for eschewing any suchorientation toward the SL, which itdescribed as a "monolithic organizationwith no established tradition of minori­ty rights ... an intolerance for long term

continued on page 10

7

Israeli half-track passes burning equipment in Golan Heights during 1973 war.

Sergio Zalis

U.S. and other imperialist powersrefused to recognize the new capital andkept their embassies in Tel Aviv. That iswhat makes the Sadat visit to theKnesset in Jerusalem particularly egre­gious to Arab League states: not onlydoes it sanction the existence of Israel, itsanctions Israeli incorporation of theconq uests of the 1967 war.

The Jordanian civil war of 1970 whichalmost brought down the Hashemitethrone, as well as last year's Lebanesecommunal war brought home to theU.S. imperialists the urgency of findingan imperialist solution to the Palestin­ian question. The 1973 war in which theU.S. and USSR came close to a globalnuclear confrontation and the subse­quent oil boycott made it obvious to thevarious imperialist powers that anoverall solution to the Near East crisiswas in their immediate interests. Conse­quently the new Carter administrationin Washington brought in a coterie of

policymakers, including his "Dr.Strangelove" national security advisorZbiginiew Brzezinski, committed to a"comprehensive solution" incorporat­ing the Rabat decisions (recognition ofthe PLO and a West Bank-GazaPalestinian "homeland") and involvingthe Russians at Geneva.

But this option comes directly intoconflict first with Israel, the U.S:traditional client state in the Near East,and with Egypt, which under Sadat isoffering itself up as a new client state toAmerican imperialism. This conflict isutterly inexplicable to New Leftists andother fake-socialist apologists for Arabnationalism who simply equate Zionismwith U.S. imperialism. The Zionistruling class of capitalist Israel will onlybe able to suppress the enormous socialand class contradictions by a policy ofcontinuous territorial expansion andwar mobilization, even when thiscontributes to the overall political

strife. which it feared would spill overinto Syria. But these demands areutterly hypocritical .coming from theBaghdad colonels. who until they madea deal with the Shah of Iran had the bulkof their army mobilized not to fight the"Zionist enemy" but against the Kurdishstruggle for self-determination. EvenIraq's "rejectionist" clients within thePLO-the ALF and PFLP-"rejected"the Iraqi walkout. And the Palestinian"rejectionists" united with the anti­"rejectionist" Arafat leadership of thePLO to endorse a joint communique ofall the remaining participants proposinga "united front" of the PLO with theSyrian army which has been slaughter­ing it for the past two years.

While the Tripoli conference de­nounced the Sadat visit to Jerusalem asan imperialist-Zionist conspiracy, the

"Separate Peace" Is the Road toGlobal War

Jerusalem crowd hails meeting of butchers Begin and Sadat.

rulers of U.S. imperialism acted likevery surprised "conspirators." Ele­ments in Washington see stabilization ofthe Near East as set back by a separatepeace between Egypt and Israel in whichthe Palestinian question is unresolved.Israel still militarily occupies the WestBank and the Golan Heights. That iswhy Sadat's visit to Jerusalem wasopposed not only by "rejectionists" likeLibya and Iraq, but also by reactionaryfeudalistic regimes like Jordan andSaudi Arabia, who fear Sadat's esca­pades may result in his overthrow andthe destabilization of the shaky bona­partist regime in Egypt.

While the U.S. supplied the militaryhardware for Israel's 1967 victory, itopposed Israel's retention of the spoilsof that victory as a threat to stability ofother reactionary regimes in the NearEast. For example, when Israel movedits capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem toconsolidate the spoils of that victory, the

the Bantustans created by South Afri­can apartheid: isolated and economical­Iv unviable remnants of their formerland. Ironically the land now promisedto the PLO as its "homeland," whichwas conquered bylsraelinthe 1967war,was originally annexed by the ArabLeague states in the 1948 war from theformer Palestine. Thus the PLO's jobwas to convince the Palestinian massesthat the butchers of their nation in 1948would be its liberators today. NowEgypt has once again starkly revealedthat the bourgeois Arab rulers are nosaviors of the Palestinian people.

Sadat consulted none of the Arabstates prior to his Jerusalem pilgramage,for obvious reasons. Most vociferous indenouncing his "betrayal" of the Pales­tinian cause were the so-called "rejec­tionists": Libya, Iraq and Iraq's clients

"Rejectionists" Reject EachOther

within the PLO, the Arab LiberationFront (ALF) and the Popular Front forthe Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The"rejectionists" reject any negotiationswith the Zionist state and any solutionother than total military victory overIsrael. The Baghdad colonels called forthe overthrow of Sadat and any otherArab ruler who presumes to talk of asettlement with Israel. The latter ana­thema is clearly directed at theirBa'athist brethren in Damascus.

Sadat disparagingly dismissed the"rejectionists" as "night club militants"whose bellicose rhetoric is inverselyproportional to their real militarycontribution to the struggle againstIsrael. But the "rejectionists" werejoined by Syria, Egypt's main ally in the1967 and 1973 wars and traditionally abitter rival of Iraq for leadership of theBa'athist "Arab Revolution" and for thewaters of the Euphrates. Syria's fear ofan Egyptian-Israeli separate peacewhich would leave it militarily isolateddrove it to denounce Sadat and at leasttemporarily downplay its animosity forIraq by attending the "rejectionist"conference in Tripoli. But Syria, whichbord~rs Israel and has the bulk of itsarmy bogged down strangling Palestin­ian refugee camps in Lebanon, and therest of its army guarding its bordersfrom its Ba'athist rivals in Iraq, ismilitarily too weak and too threatenedto afford to join the "rejectionists"outright.

At the Tripoli conference, Iraqprecipitated its own walkout by de­manding that the participants accept aprogram that was both "tejectionist"and an explicit attack on Syria. Inaddition to calling for repudiation ofUN resolutions 242 and 348 and for nonegotiations with Israel, the Iraqiscalled for a total withdrawal of Syrianforces from Lebanon, total mobilizationagainst the "Zionist enemy," "liberationof all Palestinian and Arab land," and "aclear policy to govern relations betweenthe Palestinian movement and Syria toguarantee independence of movementand freedom of action."

Of course, Damascus has massacredthousands of Palestinians in the courseof suppressing Lebanon's communal

Begin's new-found friend in Cairoremained silent on the merits of the"secret" Israeli plan, but it won for theformer Irgun Fiihrer a Christmas Dayinvitation to Sadat's plush villa inIsrnailia. Meanwhile the Cairo Confer­ence quickly degenerated into a vaude­ville of protocoL held in the ornateMena House. the former palace of thenineteenth-century Khedides, the Tur­kish viceroys of the Ottoman Empire.Here under the Giza pyramids Roose­velt. Churchill and Chiang Kai-shekcame together in J943 to pledge Chinato the "democratic" imperialists.

The PLO was particularly outragedby Sadat's courtship of the butcher ofDeir Yassin, but the Palestinian massesshould not have been surprised. Theconsistent policy of all the Arab states,from the most reactionary emirate to themost radical "socialist" colonel's re­gime, has been to suppress the nationalaspirations of the Palestinians aS,well asthe yearnings of their own toiling massesfor liberation from exploitation.

Following the failure of the 1973Geneva Conference, the "progressive"army officers- and feudal sheiks andkings held a summit meeting of thatlegacy of British imperialism, the ArabLeague. At the meeting held in Rabat,Morocco the Palestine Liberation Or­ganization was named "sole representa­tive of the Palestinian people." The PLOwas given all the trappings and none ofthe substance of state power. Among thetrappings are a seat in the Arab League,an observer's seat at the UN and apromise of a seat at any reconvenedGeneva Conference.

After several days of this burlesquethe four participating delegations fromthe U.S., the UN, Israel and Egyptannounced that "progress had beenmade." But there is more involved herethan Zionist sensibilities to even themost token expression of Palestiniannational existence. Zionism is a racialistideology and Israel is a racialist statebased on the total obliteration of thePalestinian nation.

In exchange the PLO was to settle fora West Bank-Gaza "homeland." This"homeland" has the same" meaning inthis context as it does when applied to

(continued from page 1)The Begin plan is but an empty ploy

to sanctify the oppressive status quo inthe West Bank. Under the presentZionist military occupation, PalestinianArabs may already elect their ownmayors, except they may not organizeparties or nationalist organizations. ThePalestine Liberation Organization(PLO) is banned and propaganda issubject to military censorship. Moremilitant candidates have been deportedor jailed, and any significant decisionmade by such elected mayors must beratified by the local Israeli militarycommander. None of this would changeunder Begin's phony plans for "self­government" in the West Bank.

Sadat's conference opened around atable at which five of the chairsremained empty, for the invited repre­sentatives of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon,the Soviet Union and the PLO, all ofwhom boycotted the conference. Butsince the Zionists refuse to recognize thePLO, they refused to sit at a conferencetable even with a name plate for thePLO before an empty chair. After threelong and heated meetings the name platewas replaced with one reading "Palest­ine." Then the Israeli delegation protest­ed about the presence of an "unidentifi­ed flag" flown outside. The offendingred, white. green and black flag of thePLO was taken down along with theother eight.

Cairo Conference: No Flags, NoNames, Empty Chairs

Peace Talks ...

8 WORKERS VANGUARD

..

destabilization of the Near East andtherefore is directly counterposed to theinterests of Washington. U.S. pressureon Israel to withdraw from the occupiedterritories, an unacceptable policy forthe Zionist establishment, has resultedonly in the election of the moreintransigent Begin regime.

Sadat drew his own conclusions fromthe Begin electoral victory: there wouldbe no peace along the lines of Rabat aslong as Begin was in power. But havingbroken his ties with Moscow, he lackedspare parts, technical maintenancecapacity. new tanks, artillery andinterceptors. Since Egypt was notprepared to fight another war, hisconclusion was: a separate peace withIsrael. Begin. eager to divide his en­emies. has accepted. And the U.S. isreluctantly going along. But anEgyptian-Israeli separate peace would,in the words of the Tripoli communique,indeed transform Syria into the "mainconfrontation state"-and under veryunfavorable circumstances. With Israelarmed to the teeth with the latestsophisticated heavy weaponry andBegin girding for war, Syria's rulersmust escalate their defensive prepara­tions. This means deepening theirreliance on their sole benefactor, theU55 R. with all that this implies in termsof a spiralling arms build-up in the NearEast and increased likelihood of aU .S. /Russian nuclear confrontation.

This perilous situation is also theproduct of the counterrevolutionarypolicy of the Kremlin, which has soughtthrough military bribery to further itsinterests by building up a bloc ofostensibly neutral countries not directlylinked to Western imperialism. Thispolicy of ephemeral influence peddlinghas reaped a reactionary whirlwind asthe Russians are expelled from onecountry after another, beginning withEgypt in 1971 and most recentlySomalia. Had the military aid gone tothe Arab masses instead of theirreactionary rulers, had a Soviet govern­ment committed to extending the gainsof the October Revolution inspiredthese masses to revolutionary struggleagainst their exploiters, the threat of anuclear confrontation over the NearEast would have been taken off theagenda long ago by proletarian revolu­tion. The Stalinist policy of "peacefulcoexistence" merely contributes to thethreat of a global conflagration.

War Weariness and Class War

Both Begin and Sadat are sitting atopvolcanos of explosive social and classcontradictions. Both are in fundamentalagreement with U.S. imperialism, theInternational Monetary Fund, theChilean junta and its advisor, Dr.Milton Friedman, about what to doabout these pressing difficulties: dena­tionalization, destatification, removal offetters on currency and commodityspeculation, inflation; cutbacks in socialservices, subsidies for food and essentialservices; a wage freeze, and so on.

The Friedman/IMF "shock treat-

WorkersVanguard

MARXIST WORKING CLASS WEEKLY OFTHE SPARTACIST LEAGUE

One year subscflption (48 Issues) $5­Introductory oHef 116 Issues) $2 Interna·tional rates 48 lssues-$20 dHmad/$5 seamad, 16 ,ntroductory lssues-$5 aHmat!Make checks payable/mad to SpartaclstPubilshmg Co, Box 1377 GPO, New York,NY 10001

-Includes SPARTACIST

Address

-City

Zip ._Sti'lte --~ 186

SUBSCRIBE NOWI

23 DECEMBER 1977... , ...•••.." .....,,;. 6 ..10',' ~ .... ~# •.. '\,t.#.-.

ment" has its price, of course. In Egyptthis ruthless policy unleashed massivestrikes and rioting last January duringwhich at least 79 people were killed.These riots were the most extensive andnational in scale as have been seen in thehistory of modern Egypt. Likewise inIsrael. the Begin regime's attempts toinstitute similar economic policies lastmonth led to a massive strike wavedefying once again the petty-bourgeoisnationalist myth that the Israeli workingclass is inseparably wedded to its rulersand incapable of class struggle.

In the past the capitalist rulers of theNear East have been able to periodicallydissipate class contradictions in thecha uvinist hysteria of wars of "nationalsalvation." No doubt Sadat exploredthis option briefly with his border clashwith Libya earlier this year. and Beginwith his terror bombing of SouthLebanon. But the Egyptian economymust pay for this diversion with militaryexpenditures amounting to one-fifth ofits national budget. In Israel fully 35percent of the gross national prod uct isdevoted to the military. contributing toan inflation which may reach 50 percentthis year.

Despite a large economic gap. bothEgypt and Israel are impoverished. war­weary nations. The spontaneous j ubila~tion which broke out over the sham"peace" rhetoric of the Sadat/ Begintheatrics demonstrates the intensitywith which this war weariness is feltthroughout the population. Sadat andBegin desperately need distractions totake the minds of the working masses ofIsrael and the Cairo slums off theirdestitution and grinding toil. But nomatter how many flamboyant confer­ences they hold, they will not for long beable to distract the workers from thedecline in their living standards and theterror and intimidation brought aboutby constant militarization. They willnever for a moment delude the Palestini­an youths from the West Bank whobitterly greeted the Egyptian presidentwith the chant. "Sadat Go Home."

The discontent of the Egyptianworkers and peasants, of the West BankArab youth and the Israeli working classmust be harnessed to the program ofpermanent revolution through thecreation of a party of proletarianinternationalism, the reborn FourthInternational. Not national unity butclass unity! Israel out of the occupiedterritories! For the right of self­determination of the Palestinian Arabsand the Hebrew-speaking people! Landto the fellahin! Down with the reaction­ary regimes from Tripoli and Riyadh toCairo and Tel Aviv! For proletarianrevolution in the Near East! •

BE5TELLT!

SPARTACISTDeutsche Ausgabe

Nr. S·Mal 1977 DM 1, .. /65 7

• Vom Grossen Sprung zurRebellion auf dem Tien~An~

Men~Platz: Maos"Sozialismus": WederElektrifizierung noch Sowjets

• Entstehung des kubanischendeformierten Arbeiterstaates

• Rede tiber die Labor Party·Frage

• Die vielen Gesichter undlangen Wellen Ernest Mandels

z'u bestellen iiber:Spartacist Publishing Co., Box1377, GPO, NY, NY 10001, USAoderPostlagerkarte 060277AFrankfurt/Main 1, West Germany

"'"SUBSCRIBE

YOUNG SPARTACUSmonthly paper of the

Spartacus Youth League$2/1 0 Issues

Make payable/mail to: Spartacus YouthPublishing Co., Box 825, Canal Street P.O..

\.. New York, New York 10013

Coal Strike...(continued from page 12)the three scab mines to close upvoluntarily in order to weed out trouble­makers. a proposal which the operatorsspurned. Instead of relying on themilitant ranks. union leaders thenrequested Utah governor Scott Mathes­on close the mines and, predictably, herefused as well.

All three mines opened December 9.Scabs were helicoptered into the Pla­teau compound and buses-their win­dows covered with wire mesh­transported the strikebreakers into theothers behind a "human wall" of over 90Utah Highway Patrolmen. Temporaryrestraining orders have been passed outto over 1.000 striking miners barringinterference with the scabs and a spokes­man for the governor stated that the\'ational Guard was being kept ap­praised of further developments.

Despite the machinations of theMiller regime, the rank-and-file minershave shown no lack of resourcefulnessin waging their strike. However, becauseof the abdication of strike leadership,not only of the Miller bureaucracy butalso the district leaderships, theseactions, undertaken spontaneously bygroups of militants, have remainedpartial and sporadic.

Most importantly, in order to breaktheir isolation, militants must demandnot only that their picket lines berespected, but that active appeals beaddressed to non-union miners to jointhe strike with demands for unionrecognition. Such an appeal, combinedwith the fight for real gains such as fully­funded health and pension benefits nottied to tonnage, would have an impacton thousands of non-union miners. Oneminer in Cabin Creek, West Virginiatold WVthat some of the non-union pitscould be organized in 15 minutes if theInternational would take the time tosign the workers up. But in the WestUM W A organizing efforts have virtual­ly ground to a halt.

The criminal passivity of the Interna­tional is only compounded by its weak­kneed willingness to make miserableconcessions at the bargaining table andits refusal to even call out the entireUMWA. Agreeing that miners shouldpay a portion of their medical expenses,as well as permitting UMWA membersto scab on the strike, can only repel non­union miners.

In the western coal fields eightcontracts have already been settled andanother is expected imminently. Theseare surface sub-bituminous and lignitemines which in 1974 were part of theWestern Surface Agreement with theunion. This year they pulled out of themulti-employer group under that con­tract, forcing the union to negotiate witheach company separately. These "inde­pendents" include giants like Peabodyand Consolidation-the two top produ­cers in the industry-which also ownstruck mines in the East and Midwest.

Miller claimed that the western mineoperators, unlike their counterparts ofthe Bituminous Coil! Operators Assoca­tion, were showing a willingness tobargain on all issues. In several cases the"reasonable" western bosses are theidentical companies which are beingstruck in the East. Furthermore, SteveGalati, UMWA Director of ContractAdministration and co-leader of west­ern negotiations, told WV that thisofficially sanctioned scabbing is takingplace in western districts where otherunion mines are on strike. Galatijustified the current scab policy bypointing to the same practice during thelast strike. First the strip miners workedunder a six-day extension while easternminers struck and were sold out, andthen in February, 1975 " ... these sameminers, these strip miners, was on strikefor some five and half months and thedeep miners worked ...."

Militants must resist this defeatistdivision among the union ranks. AllU.S. and Canadian mines must be

shut down! No union member shouldreturn to work until every union localhas a contract. This must include bothproduction and construction workers,in deep and strip mines both in the Eastand West.

Labor Solidarity Key

Despite the huge stockpiles andcontinuing movement of scab coal, nowing of the UM W A bureaucracy~­

Miller. Patrick or Patterson, the threewarring cliques in last summer'selection-- has advocated an approach tomaritime. rail and steel unions for laborsolidarity action. But union militants,nevertheless. have attempted to takesteps to choke off coal supplies beforethey reach the furnaces and boilers ofthe mills and power companies.

Pickets in Cherry Tree, Pennsylvaniastopped a coal train for eight hourswhich was bound for a Pittsburgh areapower plant. On December 15, 30pickets stood at yard entrances of theNorfolk and Western Railway in Blue­field. West Virginia in an appeal torailroad unionists to "hot cargo" scabcoaL Others picketed in Jazewell andBuchanan counties in Virginia. Onepicket in Bluefield carried a placardinscribed "U nited we stand. divided wefall" and told a reporter the demonstra­tion would continue until "the Nand Wstops moving non-union coal" (B/ue~

field Daily Telegraph, 15 December).When UMWA members threw up apicket line at the Utah Power and LightCompany in protest of non-union coalshipments into the plant, 200 plantemployees honored the lines and re­turned home.

The allies of the miners are the ranksof the U.S. labor movement, particular­ly the workers in related industries suchas steel and railroads. The railroadcontract expires in less than two weeksand management is demanding-a whole­sale r~visionof work rules and red uctionin crew sizes. Steelworkers are groaningunder massive layoffs and the corpora­tions' attempts to rationalize the indus­tryon their backs. A joint strike wagedby these unions could crush the BCOAoffensive, as well as win the justdemands of steel and railroad workers.

The encrusted labor bureaucracy,such as the McBride regime in theSteelworkers, hates and fears the mili­tancy of the miners, and will doeverything to seal off its membershipfrom the coal strikers. But a mass appeallaunched for a united struggle againstthe bosses would receive a sympatheticresponse in the rank and file of the steeland rail unions.

The conduct of the strike cannot beleft in the hands of the treacherousMiller bureaucracy, which has shown itswillingness to abandon demands for theright to strike and full company-paidhealth care; which allows sections of theUMWA to scab; which criminallyrefuses to organize picketing of non­union mines; and which rejects anyappeal for solidarity to other sections ofthe working class. Meanwhile, Miller'sbureaucratic opponents in the UMWA,the Patricks and Pattersons, sit on theirhands and say nothing, perfectly con­tent to let Miller bear sole responsibilityfor defeat.

Militants in the UMWA mustdemand the immediate convening ofmass district meetings, where democrat­ically elected strike committees can beestablished capable of implementing theclass struggle policies necessary forvictory. No Restrictions on the Right toStrike! Organize the Non-Union Mines!Hot-Cargo Coal! For a Joint Strike ofCoal, Steel and Rail Workers! Victoryto the Miners Strike!.

NOTICEWorkers Vanguard is publishedbi-weekly in December. Thenext issue will be dated 6 Janu­ary 197tl

9(,

RMC...(co!1linuedfrom page 7)differences" ("Trotskyist Unificationand the Immediate Tasks of the Revolu­tionary Marxist Committee," Revolu­tionary Marxist Papers No. II, March1977). Of course, the S L is not "mono­lithic" and the baseless charge that SLoppositionists are not accorded "minor­ity rights" is particularly grotesquecoming from a grouping headed towardthe bureaucratic SWP. But the RMCwas correct that the SL would notconsider fusing with an organizationwhich has the RMC's hardened line onthe Russian .question, especially anorganization derived from Shachtman­ism which had not broken from that keyplank in the anti-Marxist Shachtmanitemethodology.

In a Bolshevik organization factional­ism is a crucial mechanism of seriousprogrammatic struggle. A disciplinedcombat party (unlike a social­democratic formation whose "unity"does not derive from program) must be"intolerant" of "long term differences."The RMC had been told in no uncertainterms that the SL would not welcome anentrist maneuver or embrace a "fusion"which included a perspective of perma­nent programmatic divergence on cen­tral questions. In the SWP, the RMCperhaps thinks it has' found a suitableculture medium which will nurture it asa more-or-Iess permanent "state cap"minority.

"Defensism, SWP Style"

But the RMC's primary motivationfor selecting the SWP as the target forfusion was evidently political: to "builda base for State Department socialism."This is the charge that rankles Herresh­off so much, not really because of whatit says about the RMC but because ofwhat it says about the SWP's reformistdegeneration as expressed over theRussian question. A look at the RMCsvoluminous written record of its ratherbrief independent existence will illus­trate what we mean. For the SWP'sflight. from the Trotskyist line on theRussian question is not evident only tous; it is evident to the RMC as well.

In the pre-fusion period the RMCcarried out an extensive examination ofthe SWP's position on the Russian ques­tion-and discovered that behind theSWp's formally Trotskyist line (politi­cal revolution against the Stalinistbureaucratic caste, defense of the gainsof October against imperialism andcounterrevolution) lurked another posi­tion: the SWP's real orientation toward"democratic" anti-Stalinism as ex­pressed in a host of mealy-mouthedpositions on contemporary issues wherethe defense of the deformed workersstates against imperialism is posedconcretely. And the RMC found thesereal politics on the Russian questionquite congenial.

The RMC concluded its documentoutlining "fusion tasks" by proclaimingthe intention to mount "an assaultagainst the wall which has divided'revolutionary defeatist' and 'revolu­tionary defensist' currents within thecamp of Trotskyism." In assessing thesusceptibility of the SWP to this"assault" the RMC had grasped a fact ofcentral importance: that the SWP'srightist renunciation of Trotskyism inall but name is expressed in realbacktracking from Soviet defensism inthe ~oncrete. If the SWP were Trotsky­ist, it would be over Stalinism that thestate-cap RMC could expect to find themost serious obstacles to fusion. But it isprecisely here that the state caps "haveseen positive change in the SWP,"declares the "Stalinism" section of the"Road to Unity" document:

"We believe the SWP has moved awayfrom this pattern of adaptation toStalinism and has returned to a positioncloser to Trotsky's own. This healthyproletarian response to the risingdemands of the class struggle, particu­larly within the Stalinist states, isinterpreted by incurable sectarians like

10

..

the Spartaclsts and the Healyites as acollapse IOto the arms of the L' .S. State[)eoartment."W'hile the S\VP has not re-evaluated itsposition on the .class nature of theStalinist states. its far more revolution­ary approach to the Stalinist parties andto the defense of the USSR allows forgreater practical collaboration betweenus on the tasks of the international classstruggle ... today the SWP is againleading the most consistently revolu­tionary opposition to Stalinism withinthe defensist"majority of the worldmovement.., .

The list which the RMC adduces tosubstantiate this assertion is a politicalpatchwork sewn together by one longthread-the abandonment of defensismfor all practical purposes:

"The Feldman-Johnson debate withRousset on the character of the Viet-

canadianPostal Strike...(continued from page 5)sions (both CPL members) while theother seven workers face an investiga­tion of their cases by a managementreview board reporting to the DeputyPostmaster General. Furthermore,since CPL has no influence whatsoeveramong the Toronto LCUC drivers, itsleaflets and Worker articles did not evensee fit to even mention the vital role oflabor solidarity provided by the otherunion. After all, writing about theimportance of LCUC support for thestrike would have destroyed CPL'sgrandstanding claim that it aloneprevented tht' strike's defeat.

The refusal of the CUPWbureaucracy to launch a real struggleagainst the victimizations, violation ofunion work rules and job-eutting bymanagement has led to demoralizationeven within the ranks of the traditional­ly militant CUPW. This was reflected inthe low turnout at the strike vote, thenarrow margin by which the strike votepassed (50 votes out of 800), and theevidence of scabbing at smaller substa­tions during the strike. A definitivevictory can only be achieved by calling anationwide strike of all postal workers.This is precisely what the CUPWbureaucracy refused to do, and in theCPL's uncritical enthusing over theToronto strike and its neglect of theneed for joint action with the LCUC, itdropped this crucial demand as well.

While today the CPL is clearly undermanagement attack, its supporters inthe union have a long and sordid recordof betraying elementary working-classprinciples. Thus CPLers in TorontoCUPW crossed picket lines to scab at a1975 postal mechanics strike and haverefused to defend supporters of otherleft-wing groups who are under attackby postal management. Despite anoccasional dash of "fight for socialism"rheto.ic, CPL's trade-union work isinfantile reformist economism, center­ing on issues like (literally) the fight forbetter chicken sandwiches in the cafete­ria, combined with criminal sectarian­ism, backstabbing against otherpostal workers, and innumerable op­portunist zigzags.

Speaking on the lessons of the strikeat a forum sponsored by the TrotskyistLeague on December 17, Bob McBur­ney demonstrated how the CPL'ssectarianism and economism flow fromits Stalinist minimum/maximum pro­gram, In contrast to the CPL support­ers' work in CUPW, McBurney hasbeen fighting in the LCUC for severalyears around a full class-struggle pro­gram linking the day-to-day struggles ofthe union to the need for a new leader­ship of the workers movement and arevolutionary workers party whichunlike the social democratic NDP­with its record of breaking strikes.enforcing wage controls and passinganti-labor legislation-will fight for aworkers government based on theexpropriation of the means of produc­tion and a planned economy.•

namese CP, Joseph Hansen's polemicsagainst the decisions of the :\ inthCongress. the SWP's final position onPortugal, Les Evans' articles on China.the LTFs evaluation of the nationalistmovtments in Angola. IntercontinentalPress's coverage of the Euro­Communist trend, Hansen's recentseries on nuclear disarmament, etc,.,."On ... what attitude to take to therising opposition movements in EasternEurope and Russia, the SWP, by virtueof its keen understanding of the impor­tance of democratic struggles, hasestablished one of the most distin­guished records among defensists anddefeatists alike."

These are the crucial politicalquestions where an organization's posi­tion on the Russian question is shown tobe more than inherited formulas.Leaving aside for the moment thequestion of Portugal, let us examine theconcrete programmatic positions whichthe R MC finds reassuring "evidence" of"positive change" opening the door to"practical collaboration" between theSWP and state capitalists.

The SWP spokesmen took Rousset ofthe French USec to task for his fulsomepraises of the "revolutionary" leader­ship of Ho Chi Minh. However, theirpurpose in raising "orthodox" criticismsof the Vietnamese Stalinists was toexcuse the SWP's liberal-pacifist, neu­tral policies in the antiwar movement,where it ducked the elementary respon­sibility for American revolutioni5ts tosupport the military victory ofthe N LF­led forces against their "own"bourgeoisie.

Similarly, Hansen's polemics againstthe pro-guerrillaist, Castroite line of theUSec majority were blows against petty­bourgeois adventurism from the right,in the service of the SWP's legalisticsearch for reformist respectability. TheSWP and the USec faction ("LTF")which it led raised "orthodox" criticismsof the left-nationalist MPLA in Angolain order to maintain, almost until thebitter end, a neutralist stance in a proxywar between U.S./South African impe­rialists (and the Chinese Stalinists) andthe Soviet/Cuban-backed MPLA.

• Hansen's "disarmament" articleshid behind the anti-nuclear concerns ofeco-radicals and liberal pacifists toimply a "plague on both your houses"position between imperialism and theSoviet bloc. The SWP's apologeticgyrations on behalf of all "dissidents"­from cold-war militarists right upto the most apocalyptic religiousobscurantists and pro-tsarist reaction­aries-cater to the so-called "humanrights" campaign of Jimmy Carter,which is merely the sanctimonious maskof imperialism's strategic perspectivedirected toward the destruction of theUSSR.

Indeed, the SWP is a good place forthe RMC to "erect the scaffold" of itsanti-Trotskyist third-eampism-or, aswe said in the vocabulary more commonin the Trotskyist movement, to "build abase for State Department socialism." Itis a fertile ground for a systematicassault on the defensist residues whichnominally stand between the SWP andits appetite to become the mass party ofAmerican social democracy.

Portugal: litmus Test for "StateDepartment Socialists"

The touchstone of"State Departmentsocialism" is its acceptance of bour­geois/imperialist "anti-Stalinism" as alegitimate ally in the fight for "democra­cy" against "totalitarian dictatorship."The critical test in the past period wasPortugal in the summer-fall of 1975.There, the Socialist Party (PS) of MarioSoares consciously played the role madenotorious by Ebert/Noske in 1918-19;Soares himself actually made thisanalogy. And his course not onlycoincided with the interests ofimperialism-he was actually receivingmillions of dollars every month from theCIA, funneled through West Europeansocial-democratic parties! This is admit­ted by the American government itself.

The Portuguese revolutionary crisisunmasked those organizations which in

the service oftne bourgeoisie pervert theTrotskyists' revolutionary opposition to

Stalinism. These groups are Trotskyistin name. social-democratic in action.The SWP-RMC convergence in supportof Soares' PS against the CommunistParty (PCP) and the so-called "ultra­lefts" (in reality centrists and Maoistreformists) was a major factor leading tothe present fusion. It was on the terrainof the living class battles of the Portu­guese workers that the RMC and SWPshowed that their fusion is rooted insupport to the U.S. State Department.

In July-August of 1975 Portugalerupted in anti-Communist demonstra­tions, some initiated by the Catholichierarchy, some by ultra-rightist farm­ers and the largest of them by the PS.Following the burning of a PCP officeby landowners enraged by the agrarianreform law in the central Portuguesetown of Rio Maior in July, similaractions spread throughout northernPortugal as flames leapt from PCPlocals after every "pro-democracy"demonstration. Mario Soares pro­claimed, "The resistance of Rio Maior isexemplary" and a member of the PSleadership told a demonstration in thetown, "here people showed what had tobe done" (Mario Soares, Quelle rf?volu­tion? [1976]).

In this openly counterrevolutionarymobilization the lead was frequentlytaken by fascist elements linked toGeneral Spinola's ELP. Yet Soareshailed the "popular uprising against thePCP" and openly admitted he waswilling to ally with the ELP against theStalinists. The response of the "Trotsky­ists" of the SWP? The Militant of 8August 1975 headlined: "PortugueseMasses Take to Streets to ProtestMoves Toward Dictatorship." If youwant to know what "State Departmentsocialism" is-here it is in practice at acritical flash point of contemporaryhistory. In article after article the SWPexcused the CIA-financed PS, portray­ing it as mobilizing the masses in a leftopposition to the PCP (see "SWP lOCITail Counterrevolution in Portugal,"WV No. 75, 29 August 1975). Some"left" opposition when the fascists areburning Communist Party offices asSoares cheers the "popular uprising"!

And what of the RMC? In aSeptember 1975 article Bruce Landaucriticizes the SWP for being too soft onthe Portuguese Socialist Party, at onepoint going so far as to say "The SWPhands them [the PS workers] over toSoares on a platter." But then, tobalance the scales so to speak, he attacksthe Spartacist League for giving what hecalls a "third period characterization" ofthe PS. The RMC objects in particularto our statement that Soares "has beenacting as a front man for this counterre­volutionary mobilization," and we aretaken to task for failing to see the "two­sided significance" of PS mobilizations.

Overtly at least, this is the response ofpeople who fail to see political struggletaking place in the real world. Weindicated the dual character of the PS asa reformist (i.e., bourgeois) workersparty, and that it had won someworking-class support on the basis ofopposition to the Stalinists' vise on theunions. But while there was a classdifference between the PS and thefascist ELP or the reactionary bishopswith whom it was in tacit alliance, therewas a counterrevolutionary mobiliza­tion in Portugal in the summer of 1975which was patently obvious to reportersof all political tendencies. It was simplynot possible to assert that some of thosecoming to burn down the PCP offices(and those of other leftist groups, by theway) were doing so for rightist reasons,others for leftist reasons. In fact, theR MC tries to carry its fairy-tale dichot­omy into the Socialist Party itself, whichit claims "represent[ed] a threat fromboth the left and the right" to the PCPand MFA!

More fundamentally, aside fromrepeatedly and without a single shred ofevidence asserting that for the SL"apparently the greatest danger to

WORKERS VANGUARD

capitalism comes from the MFA and thePCP... ," the core of the RMC'sargument is that the Socialist Party was"able to successfully present itself. .. asthe sole champion of even bourgeoisdemocracy in the labor movement,"while "the PCP and the MFA have beentrying to set up a bonapartist regime inPortugal to consolidate capitalism on astatist basis" ("Problems of the Portu­guese Revolution," RevolutionaryMarxist Papers No.7, March 1976).Thus it saw the CPIleft MFA bloc as theprincipal reactionary force in thisperiod. The Gon~alves Fifth Provision­al Government represented, if only inintent, the most reactionary form ofbourgeois political rule (save fascism).Against this it defends the ConstituentAssembly which was dominated by aPS-right wing bloc.

In point offact, neither Soares nor theMFA right wing (the Group of Nine)allied with him saw PCP statism as themain danger, but rather the spread ofthe embryos' or germs of dual power.Both said so plainly. ThuS' in a letter toPortuguese president Costa Gomes, thePS leader stipulated his conditions forre-entering the government. Key tothese were:

"0) Reaffirm the principle that theneighborhood commissions and work­ers commissions are forms of people'spower which must be developed, so longas they do not pretend to be a 'parallelpower' to the political-administrativeapparatus of the state...."E) Promulgate legislation severlypunishing the 'armed militias' whichmust be suppressed within a maximumof one month's time, along with the'popular vigilance commissions' andothers which have arms in theirpossession."

- Portugal Socialista, 10 Sep­tember 1975

The Left MFA/CP Fifth ProvisionalGovernment had to tolerate at this timethese germs of dual power because theywere unable to suppress them. The PCPwas never a partisan of the workerscommissions and sought to subordinatethem to the bureaucratic apparatus ofthe unions. But it could not take them ondirectly without blowing apart its ownpower base and thus threatening itsposition in the government. In time thisgovernment would have sought tosuppress these bodies. But in thesummer-fall of 1975 it was the PS whichled the rightist offensive against them.The Spartacist League recognized thedanger this posed and called for militaryblocs with those prepared to defend theseproletarian conquests against the reac­tionary mobilization.

At the time the RMC criticized theSWP's tailing after Soares & Co.However, jn its moves toward fusionwith the Socialist Workers Party theRMC says "we extended our under­standing to democratic struggles inPortugal, Spain..." ("Fusion Confer­ence of the Revolutionary MarxistCommittee," Revolutionary MarxistPapers No. 14, July 1977). And now ithails as one of the evidences of theSWP's "more revolutionary" approachits "final position" on Portugal. We canassure the ex-RMCers, as will JackBarnes, that the SWP did not change itsline on Portugal. Throughout it wasconsistent in defending the shadow of(bourgeois) "democracy" against what itcharacterized as the danger of ultra-leftputschism led by those well-known"ultra-leftists," the Portuguese Commu­nist Party! This just happened to be thesame line as the Portuguese PS ... andthe U.S. State Department. The differ­ence is that Mario Soares got paid forhis troubles while the SWP worked forfree.

CP Nails SWP

The SWP's backhanded abandon­ment of Soviet defensism-the politicalbasis of the present fusion with the"state-cap" RMC-was perceived notonly by the SL, but also by the CP,which exploited it to smear Trotskyismwith the "human rights" politics of theSWP reformists. Our article, "Even withLies, CP Nails SWP," caused particular

23 DECEMBER 1977

irritation to friends of the SWP likeHerreshoff. who attacks us for "reason­[ing] like a Stalinist hack" and defendsthe fusion in the name of the high roadof Trotskyist journalism, "above muck­ing around in the sewers of the Stalinistpress." Presumably, then, responsiblejournalism consists of some sort of blocof all those who call themselvesTrotskyist -against the simple politicaltruth, which even the CP knows how torecognize when it serves its purposes.

The SWP replies to the Dail\' Worldarticle by eXclaiming, "I t lies." Of coursethe Stalinist press often lies. In ourarticle we pointed out some of the CP'sdistortions. But the cynical CP hit thenail on the head when it asked how anorganization which professed any ling­ering commitment to the defense of thegains of October could crawl into bedwith a non-defensist formation tobecome the "best builders" of anti­Soviet "human rights." For theStalinists-who preach illusions in"detente" with Jimmy Carter and mur­der Trotskyist defenders of the SovietUnion against imperialism---to pose thequestion is sheer hypocrisy. But it is still agood question.

In the U.S., which has no massreformist workers party, the "humanrights" campaign is the analogue ofpopular frontism--the formal basis forleftists with no social base to collaboratein the service of the "progressive"bourgeoisie. It is worth noting thatalthough Moscow is the target of theanti-Communist crusade, the CP hashelped push the "human rights" band­wagon wherever possible. The pop­front appeal of classless "democratic"movements under the sway of Demo­cratic Party politics is tailor-made forthe SWP, which hopes to be the newparty of American social democracy,and for the RMC, whose main enemy isultimately the "statist" Soviet Union. Asfor the CP, if it finds itself temporarilyoutflanked among popular frontists bythe SWP offering support to everySolzhenitsyn in and out of the SovietUnion, it can compete by offeringimplicit and sometimes direct electoralsupport to the Democrats.

The real question is not whether theStalinist press habitually lies aboutTrotskyism, but whether the SWP hasin practice dumped the Trotskyist lineon the Russian question as it movestoward reformist reconciliation with thebourgeoisie at home. The SWP canclaim in "Why the CP Lies About theUnification of the Trotskyists" that itstill stands for Soviet defensism, but noteven the Daily World hacks shouldbelieve everything they read in theMilitant.

Whether or not the RMC provescapable of winning a section ofthe SWPto its formal state-capitalist anlaysis, thehost organism has in good measurealready accepted a Soviet defeatistposition. To be sure, the SWP has somepetty factional reasons for embracingthe RMC: to strengthen its "unity"appeals for regroupments with otherforces, for example from the DeLeonistSLP, within which it already has someopen supporters; to strengthen theStalinophobic forces within the USecnow that the USec's major factions haveformally dissolved and the formerantagonists are licking one another'smutually inflicted political wounds. Butthe main value of the fusion for the SWPis symbolic: as a gesture to the bourgeoi­sie that no residues of its Trotskyist pastwill impede the SWP from bidding forthe status of junior partner to U.S.imperialism if the bourgeoisie shouldfind itself compelled to bargain withanti-Stalinist "reds" for a left cover.Right now the SWP is a long way fromthe mass influence which would make ita candidate for such a deal-it has noreal base to sell out. But as it carries outits turn toward the labor bureaucracy,waving its new Shachtmanite fusion asthe bannerof its commitment to anti­Stalinist "democracy," it is confidentthat its time will come.•

HoustonConference...(continuedfrom page 2)get a good (managerial) job-theNational Organization for Women andadvertising agency exploitation of"women's lib" jargon. Even the wives ofimperialists presidents, military dicta­tors and blood-soaked shahs now feelsafe to "come out" as feminists.

But feminism, even in its more radicaldays, always involved collaborationwith bourgeois liberals. "Sisterhood is

Bella Abzug

powerful" means denial of the primacyof the class line, excusing blocs withfemale capitalist politicians and thebourgeois state. Hence the popularityamong feminists of union-busting "af­firmative action" schemes, which placeda handful of token women injobs at theexpense of overturning hard-won trade­union gains and undermining working­class solidarity.

In keeping with the theme ofconstituency politics at Houston, "la­bor" was not entirely ignored. It wasrepresented, however, by union bureau­crats, like Olga Madar of the UnitedAuto Workers, who participated in theinfamous I,OOO-man goon squad thatbroke up the Mack Avenue wildcatstrike in Detroit in 1973, and AddieWyatt of the Amalgamated ButcherWorkers. The pretense of such mislead­ers, both of them prominent spokesmenfor the moribund Coalition of LaborUnion Women (CLUW), to representthe interests of working women isparticularly disgusting. At no timeduring the conference did they oranyone else raise a program forworking-class struggle against the op­pression of women: for union hiringhalls and union-controlled job-trainingprograms to end management discrimi­nation against women and minorities;employer-paid 24-hour child care; ashorter workweek with no cut in pay to

. provide jobs for all, and a workers partyto fight for a workers government.

Left Talis Liberals

Clearly, any self-respecting radicalfeminist-let alone a self-proclaimedMarxist-should have held her nose atthis maladorous farce which the U.S.government staged in Houston. Yet infact those ostensible socialists who mostegregiously picked up the feminist fadhave hailed the IWY conference as"progressive." Are they blind? No, theyare forced into this ludicrous position bythe simple fact that the liberal feministsput forward their program. The reform­ists and centrists had no alternative.

Thus the Prairie Fire OrganizingCommittee insisted, "It is up to us tounite these women on a progressivebasis in Houston." The Socialist Work­ers Party (SWP), the prime exponent ofthe view that "consistent feminism"equals socialism, asserted in the 2December Militant that the conferencewent on record "against the anti-women

policies of the very government spon­soring the event." The same theme wasechoed by YAWF, with the 18 Novem­ber Workers World claiming that"Many state IWY meetings becameforums for progressive women."

Most disoriented of all the "socialistfeminists" at Houston as the Democrat­ic Party crowned itself champion offeminism was undoubtedly the SocialistWorkers Party. A Saturday night SWPforum drew a paltry 150 people, and itsSunday night talk on "Feminism andSocialism" by Betsey Stone netted only40, the vast majority of them SWPers."They're afraid to bring up abortionover there," Stone cried frantically,waving in the direction of the coliseum.When a Spartacist League supporterpointed out that only two hours before,the conference had passed a "reproduc­tive freedom" plank for legalized abor­tion, Stone could only respond, "Well, ifthat is true, then all I can say is 'righton'." Not a word aboutfree abortion ondemand.

This response fairly sums up theSWP's program: "right on!" to bour­geois feminism. Its repsonse to theHouston IWY conference was deter­mined by the fact that the liberal"National Plan" contains virtually theentire SWP program for women'sliberation, though more attractivelypackaged by the U.S. government. Incontrast, the SL program will never beadopted by the class enemy, even in themeaningless for-the-record-only formas at Houston, for its strikes at the heartof the institutions which oppress womanand are vital supports of the capitalistsystem.

While supporting democratic rightsand reforms that must be wrested from";,,,~""""¥/··t~.•{. •

•

the bourgeois state, Marxists point outthat such rights can be guaranteed andconsolidated only by united working­class action to overthrow the rottencapitalist system which requires theoppression and exploitation of women,minorities and of all working people.Full and equal participation of womenin all aspects of social life requiressmashing the bourgeois state andreplacement of the nuclear family. Thetask of proletarian revolution is to laythe basis for a socialist society that willdo away with the oppression of womenonce and for all.

Forward to a women's section of areborn Fourth International! Women'sIi bera tion through proletarianrevolution! •

AustralasianSPARTACIST

a monthly organ of revolutionary Marxism forthe rebirth of the Fourth Internationalpublished by Spartacist Publications for theCentral Committee of the Spartacist League ofAustralia and New Zealand, section of the

international Spartacist tendency

Subscription rates (12 issues):

Australia: $3.00

All other countries, seamall: $3.00

Airmail, Europe and North America: $10.00

All other countries, airmail: $5.00

order from/pay to:Spartacist PublicationsGPO Box 3473Sydney, NSW 2001Australia

11

~

.I

IiI

,I-,~,

'",

~

.,..!!

•!!,t•.~,It

I

-~

WfJliNEliS IIIINIOIlIiI)

UMWA Ranks Shut Scab Mines

The high and increasing percentage ofnon-UMWA coal in the West, whereover 50 percent of U.S. coal reserves arelocated, is a mortal threat to the minersunion. The UMWA's weakness in theWest has made the struggle to stop scabproduction particularly bitter.

A bridge leading to the Plateau Minein Utah was burned December 8 and 40scabs were trapped overnight. Heavyequipment was needed to clear thehighway of 500-pound boulders andfour-inch spikes had been driveninto the road to deter scabbing. Picketsalso stopped operations at the neighbor­ing Swisher and Soldier Creek mines.Union officials asked representatives of

continued on page 9

Miners leave last shift in Cabin Creek at beginning of UMWA strike.

While most scab operations in contract. A hundred riot-equipped statesouthern Ohio have been closed, it has police were rushed to the scene. Butnot been without effort. Shots were unlike last October, when the cops beatexchanged between pickets and supervi- and arrested over 100 strikers and unionsory personnel at one mine; at another, supporters for trying to stop scabs, thispickets trapped foremen inside. In time the outnumbered cops made noPennsylvania strip mine machinery was attempt to remove the pickets. A crucialdestroyed at one scab mine and 30 demand of the striking miners must beminers defied a court order December that no national contract be settled until14 to warn scabs under local and state the Justus mine is UMWA!police escort not to return to work attwo non-union mines. The Western Threat

The same day pickets appeared at aworking mine in Oklahoma for the firsttime. The next day 300 strikers invadedthe only working coal dock in Illinois,where shipments from western U.S.fields were being transferred onto OhioRiver barges. Thirty scabs on hand f1edthe scene: some rode barges downriverwhile others simply ran.

On December 13 at least five truck­loads of coal were dumped alongsideeastern Kentucky highways as 400roving pickets covered that state, Ohioand West Virginia in a 100-car caravan.The contingent made a stop at theJustus mine in Stearns, Kentucky,where 150 miners have been on strike fornearly 17 months seeking a UMWA

Miners Hit Scab CoalBut while Miller and his cohorts have

been shaping up a sell-out, UMWAmembers show no desire to give in. Theyhave tried to make their strike effective,mainly by attempting to shut down thenon-union operations that account fornearly 50 percent of U:S. coal produc­tion. In the union stronghold of WestVirginia, with over 65,000 union miners,little picketing has been required: sheerfear of trying to run coal trucks on theroads has convinced most scab opera­tors to shut down.

But in many areas UMWA controlhas been seriously eroded. In Pennsyl­vania UMWA coal has failed from 72 to60 percent of state production in fiveyears; in Ohio from 75 percent to 50percent in ten years; in Kentucky a tenpercent drop to 42 percent in five years.In Tennessee the union controls only 13percent of the total. Most serious is thesituation in the West. The rapidlyexpanding western mines are only 32percent UMWA and that fraction is fastdeclining. It is in these areas that unionminers have been forced to mobilize toprevent scabbing on their strike.

On December 8 an $180,000 miningauger was dynamited in Viriginia. InIndiana 50 strikers charged a mine andcompany officials complained that acache of guns was discovered missingfrom company buildings. At a nearbycoal dock 300 strikers fought bulldozeroperators who tried to force the picketsoff the road with their machines.

health and pension funding which wascut back by the BCOA last summer, aprovocation that sparked a ten-week,85,000-man wildcat. But to make theircapitulation to the coal operators evenmore abject, the UMWA negotiatorsthemselves are now proposing thatminers pay a portion of future medicalbills.

Undoubtedly all the details of the sell­out being prepared for the miners havenot yet been hammered out behind theclosed doors in Washington, D.C. Butthe main outlines of the union's articlesof surrender are clear. If a tentativeagreement is not announced soon it ismerely a ref1ection of Miller's fear thatsuch a rotton pact will be rejected by theranks, particularly only three weeks intothe strike.

Furthermore, the BCOA itself is notanxious to settle. The steel mills andpower companies have plenty of coalstockpiled and Brennan is no moreeager than Miller to rush into an earlyand risky ratification vote. Well awarethat the UMWA has no strike fund andthat health benefits ended when thestrike began, the bosses want to let theminers get hungrier and colder. Therenegade Brennan-a former researchdirector for the union and now the coaloperators' main spokesman--wants toteach the miners a lesson.

DECEMBER 20-As rank-and-filemembers of the United Mine Workersof America (UMWA) strive for themeans to win their strike, shutting downscab coal operations from the Appala­chians to the Rockies, Arnold Miller isbetraying their struggle with equal vigorat the bargaining table. On December 14the UMWA president reportedly cavedin on the decisive issue of the right tostrike. Asked after that day's bargainingif an agreement could be reachedwithout a right-to-strike provisionprovided the Bituminous Coal Opera­tors Association (BCOA) makes someconcession. Miller blithely replied,"That's what collective bargaining is allabout."

Though details of the deal reachedhave not been formally released,UMWA and BCOA negotiators havereportedly agreed that miners who causewildcats at their own or other mines canbe summarilv fired. Miners who evenrespect pick~t lines can also be disci­plined. In line with the mid-Octoberdecision of the Arbitration ReviewBoard that "roving pickets" could beautomatically dismissed, the agreementis aimed at crushing the miners' keyweapon in the wildcats which rippedthrough the coal fields over the last threeyears.

Agreement on this "right to fire"clause is not only a criminal betrayal ofthe miners' most important demand; italso betrays the historic traditions of thecoal mines. Miller and the BCOA areout to bury the miners' watchword:"Never cross a picket line."

In return for the UMWA tops'effectively abandoning the right tostrike, BCOA chief Joseph Brennan isprepared to drop his demand that thenew contract contain an explicit no­strike clause. And why not? With theright to fire, the BCOA has all its needs.As Business Week (26 December)gloated: "If this clause is in the contract,the operators have little need for a no­strike provision and so the BCOA hasnot surrendered very much."

Brennan has also offered to reducedemands for financial penalties againstwildcatting miners. The BCOA's origi­nal stand amounted to outright robbery:the coal companies would pocket 40percent of strikers' wages in any ten-dayperiod in which a walkout occurred.Brennan now proposes a moredisguised form of theft: a $22-per-dayfine, payable into the health and pensiontrusts. This novel clause has the addi­tional benefit of shifting financialsupport of the funds from a tonnageroyalty directly to the miners' pay­checks. Also part of the this "stabiliza­tion" package is a new draconianabsentee policy: six unexcused misseddays could result in firing.

It was widely anticipated that Millerwould attempt to trade off the right tostrike in exchange for restoration of

Miller Selling Out Miners' Rightto Strike

12 23 DECEMBER 1977