Hitherto, philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it. Karl Marx
Economic & Philosophic Science Review
(Weekly.  Subscriptions £10/3 months;  £30/p.a.) (P&P Bulletin Publications. PO Box 50, London SW17 9NL)(GPO Regd.)
No 887 Tuesday January 21 1997                                                                                                                 10p

Fresh effort by middle-class Trots to hold back the SLP. Only the insufferable individualist conceit of these psychotic armchair 'revolutionaries' allows their conspiratorial entryism to denounce the SLP as 'undemocratic'. Their real petty-bourgeois obsession is to ensure a workers state is never built in Britain. Their non-Marxist illusions in 'democracy' are pure CIA-fed anti-communism, continuing their counter-revolutionary anti-Soviet traditions, and now helping imperialism dominate Serbia.

The modern Trot equivalents of the "alliance of bourgeois intellectuals directed against the workers" that Lenin overcame to build the Bolshevik Party, - sects led by Martov, Plekhanov, and Trotsky, - (see Review 885), - are trying new entryist stunts to subvert the SLP.

Where the ludicrously misnamed 'Revolutionary Platform' and 'Revolutionary Caucuses' left off largely defeated, a new-sounding 'Left Network' has taken up the provocations.

Almost word for word, it is the same old fraudulent 'grass-roots democracy' gimmick that petty-bourgeois individualism has campaigned for against Marxist philosophy (of proletarian dictatorship) since its foundation.

Insultingly, these fake 'lefts' begin: 

"The main focus for the Left Network will be the struggle for democracy in our (!) new Party.

It was unanimously agreed to organise a campaign for democracy in the SLP.

Without an urgent injection of democracy, we are in danger of creating a lifeless body.

We agreed that the most pressing matter for comrades is to form Constituency SLPs within the next two to three weeks, and comrades are urged to pass Resolution II to amend the constitution's membership clauses...which prevent the organisation of tendencies and factions, and prevent the membership/affiliation of other socialist organisations.

The coordinating committee also urges comrades to move for their branches/CSLPs to sponsor the campaign for a democratic SLP. This will help in the promotion of the Feb 15th 'Left Network' conference in London."

It is vital that the campaign for a democratic SLP stand a single slate for the national executive committee at the forthcoming May Congress."

The hate-filled treachery to the SLP by these 'members' in branding the party before all the world as "undemocratic", is equalled in unpleasantness only by their farcical conceit that allows them to posture as "revolutionaries".

They are, in fact, the most obnoxious self-righteous charlatans with a middle-class individualist mentality that the workers movement could ever fall foul of. Their shallow posturing around 'democratic rights' and 'rank-and-file democracy' is just a sour echo of decades of anti-communism drummed into Western workers' heads by the international monopoly-imperialist system, exploiting every bogus 'democracy' racket that has ever been invented. The Socialist Labour Party would be making a suicidal mistake if it went soft on its original intention to keep Trotskyite entryist cuckoos out of its nest.

They could cause havoc, not because they might do well as members of the SLP as such, but because they represent a class ideology which is entirely hostile to the real interests of the working class.

The petty-bourgeoisie suffers under monopoly-capitalist imperialism, or imagines it does, - and thinks it wants to get rid of the 'free market' dominated by finance capital, and replace it with socialism. 

Unscientifically, however, and eternally deluded by the philistine opportunism of its class position, always seeking immediate advantage for itself in alliance with the working class or, mostly, with the big bourgeoisie, - these essentially middle-class individualists never fully reckon with capitalism as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

This is the only actual power structure of any free-market system, and can never possibly be challenged by parliamentary democracy which was invented by the bourgeoisie.

Capital's dictatorship can only be challenged by a workers state abolishing capitalism.

Scientifically, - and historically, to confirm it, - that then means the dictatorship of the proletariat. No capitalist ruling class has ever been overthrown anywhere by anything else, and never will be.

At this point, the mentality of all petty-bourgeois individualism, in all its millions of different disguises, experiences unshakable and incurable fear and dread.

These different Trotskyite sects who have wormed their way into the SLP like dry rot, have identified themselves instantly in their anti-communist instincts by campaigning against Arthur Scargill as "Stalin-dictator", as the Weekly Worker termed him, the bible of the Left Opposition.

The Socialist Labour Party is a million miles from remotely addressing any such subject as a possible workers state, and still further removed from even mentioning such a culture shock as the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is a centrist party, currently proclaiming only its intention to "abolish capitalism".

But it is a very determined workers party with a real desire to fight for socialism, come what may.

And it already has a healthy instinct to distrust sectarian Trotskyite entryism, - the "alliance of bourgeois intellectuals directed against the workers" that Lenin fought against to build the Bolshevik Party.

Even at such an early point of the SLP's development, the Stalinophobia of decades of relentless anti-communism drummed into petty-bourgeois minds by imperialism's all-powerful ubiquitous propaganda machinery, takes over.

The automatic posture of every reactionary Trotskyite sect that has ever lived is "where are my democratic rights?".

The moment that the SLP showed some serious form to build a real workers party to fight for the abolition of capitalism, these petty-bourgeois Trots began their disruptive capers.

They will invent the most astonishing subterfuges, and tell any lies to anybody, to blackguard all those who launched the SLP and all those who support its further development along the same lines.

Their great game is to pose as "the only real socialists", or "the only real democrats", or "the only real revolutionaries", - depending on who is the audience they wish to put off from having confidence and trust in the present course of the SLP.

Hence the 'Left Network' slyly emerges out of the messy mistakes of the 'Revolutionary Platform', with no kinship recognised. All things to all men.

The first thing they like doing is kidding themselves and others about how influential they are, and how brilliantly they pretend to be triumphing over the SLP's defences against Trot entryism.

Their pretence is pure fantasy. These hoax 'revolutionaries' with middle-class mentalities are all born losers. Their incurable philosophy is defeatism (see endless past Reviews on the subject, and see below). 

Their next trick is the thinly-disguised stunts that will get them what they really want out of the SLP.

Their racket about the constitution is all too obvious. They are not interested in a 'democratic constitution' at all. All of these Trotskyite sects are appalling tyrannies in their own backyards, and all have the most dreadfully treacherous and back-stabbing histories of personal relations and betrayals.

They are built on posturing self-righteousness and hypocrisy. The CPGB, for example, decrees as one of its own rules for avoiding expulsion: 

"No conducting political relations and activities without the knowledge of the Party".

But, of course, when it comes to the rules of the Socialist Labour Party, these CPGB entryists first conduct their hidden agenda activities to the maximum possible, out of sight of the SLP leadership, - and then scream blue murder whenever they are caught at it and threatened with expulsion. "What about my democratic rights" the sickeningly cynical and disruptive cry goes up.

And the only basis on which backward workers fall for this disgusting humbug, of course, is naïve anti-communism, the most damaging enemy of working-class struggle in all history.

The Trot pose for a 'democratic constitution' is, obviously, to achieve the very opposite of 'democracy'. What they want it for is to allow a completely open door for all the Trot sects under the sun, - all 57 varieties, - to pile into the SLP and turn it into the biggest swamp of self-righteous posturing, manoeuvring, and manipulation ever suffered by a workers party. To the entryist mentality which merely wants to futilely 'play' at fighting for socialism in a never-ending fantasising pretence, as Trotskyism has always done, - there is safety in numbers.

A similar hoax lies behind the entryists' wish to challenge the SLP on electoral policy, which they claim has been imposed "without discussion".

"In such circumstances" 

adds the 'Left Network' pompously and deceitfully,

"it is entirely undemocratic for the NEC to have determined the policy of the new Party".

What they really mean, of course, is that they want to sabotage the SLP's intention to eventually challenge the Labour Party in every constituency in Britain in order that a fake-'left' coalition of candidates should be put up representing the entire Trotskyite swamp, - the Militant challenging Labour in some seats, the CPGB in others, etc.

There is nothing "undemocratic" about the SLP's electoral policy at all. It quite simply wishes to challenge for office on as wide a front as possible. It is these entryist liars who are grotesquely subverting democracy, - joining the SLP under false pretences so that they can hold back the SLP in favour of Trotskyite sectarian posturing, - on the hustings and everywhere else.

And why should the SLP's electoral policy be particularly selected out for branding as "undemocratic" above all the other party policies which have had to be chosen by the party leadership without benefit yet of full conference approval specifically, - as was how three quarters of all current SLP policy has had to be approved temporarily, in such an early period of shortage of conference time?

Only because changing the electoral policy is of special interest to the Trot entryist disrupters, and for no other reason.

The question Marxist-Leninist science has always insisted on asking when "democratic rights" have been demanded within and around the workers movement and the general parliamentary racket, is "democracy for who?".

The bourgeois democracy which has allowed world domination by monopoly-finance capital appears to allow the freedom of the press, assembly, and political representation to workers just as much as to the ruling class.

But the reality is that the press and television, and the news agencies, are totally owned and controlled by their richest owners, investors, and state supervisory committees which are all completely ruling-class in character.

Workers are allowed "freedom of the press" only because they are never going to be able to compete on the slick sleaze-governed news stands and radio and television schedules with the monopoly-finance groups and bourgeois-minded controlling committees which finally dictate what reaches the masses in terms of propaganda. From the cradle to the grave, it amounts to total domination by anti-communist ideology.

Workers have "freedom of assembly", but it is the bourgeoisie which has the money and the ownership to guarantee themselves as plentiful and convenient assembly as their class could ever want wherever they choose to assemble.

Workers organisations are always struggling for somewhere to meet, and always struggling to pay for it. And when workers assembly does start to get too big and threatening from capitalism's point of view, there are instantly plenty of laws on hand to decree a perceived "threat to public order", etc, if the crowds either refuse to not meet at all, or refuse to disperse when ordered.

So in the first place, it is a complete fraud for these middle-class-minded 'left opposition' Trots to demand of the Socialist Labour Party their 'democratic rights'. It is the most treacherous parasitism. It is from the ruling-class racket that any serious-minded workers or socialists will demand and fight for their "democratic rights".

The SLP is a party formed by workers who have come together precisely to demand and fight for their democratic rights in their own way against the capitalist system with a view to eventually abolishing capitalism altogether.

Any other groups of socialists or workers who do not like capitalism and who wish to go their own way about doing something to achieve their aims, are free to form parties likewise. There are at least already 57 varieties of parties or sects to choose from, and there is no ban on forming 57 more if workers do not like what is on offer already.

So what is this insane, disruptive, and treacherous behaviour for so-called 'workers and socialists' to "enter" the SLP, knowing that they do not agree with the sort of party it wishes to become, - solely in order to challenge the SLP for their bogus "democratic rights" to change the whole nature of the SLP the minute it has been launched.?

Counter-revolutionary behaviour is what it is, - actions deliberately designed to help frustrate the declared method of operation, organisation, and purposes of the Socialist Labour Party before it has even got off the ground.

Let these 'socialists' and 'revolutionaries' of the Trotskyite 'left opposition' go and form their own swamp party of all the 57 varieties where they can manoeuvre and manipulate to poach each others members to their heart's content. Let them keep out of the SLP, or be booted out as soon as possible.

In the second place, these 'revolutionaries' tell total lies anyway about what workers democracy should be all about.

The only historical science of the overthrow of capitalism is Marxism-Leninism, and the achievements and methods of the Bolshevik Party were the great practical laboratory.

Leninism's final conclusion was that factionalism was an anti-communist, counter-revolutionary curse inflicted on the workers movement by elements hostile to the real interests of building the workers state and socialism.

Here are some of Lenin's arguments in the discussions on the workers state's trade-union policies leading up to the final ban on all factions and platforms inside the Bolshevik Party overwhelmingly voted for as its Tenth Congress in 1921:

On the contrary, there is an objective logic in factional struggles which inevitably leads even the best of men—if they persist in their mistaken attitude—into a state which differs little if at all from unprincipled demagogy. That is the lesson of the entire history of factional wars (for example, the alliance of the Vperyodists and the Mensheviks against the Bolsheviks18). That is why we must make a study not only of the nature of the disagreements in the abstract, but also of their concrete development and change at the various stages of the struggle. This development was summed up in the January 17 discussion.19 Neither the "shake-up" nor the "new production tasks" can any longer be advocated (because all the efficient and sensible ideas went into Rudzutak's theses). The alternative then is to find what Lassalle called "the physical strength of mind" (and character) to admit the mistake, rectify it and turn over this page of the history of the RC.P., or—to cling to the remaining allies, no matter who they are, and "ignore" the principles altogether. There remain only the adherents of "democracy" ad nauseam. And Bukharin is sliding down towards them and syndicalism.

The "Sapronovites" have gone so far as to insist in the same thesis (3) on a "profound crisis" and a "bureaucratic necrosis'' of the trade unions, while proposing, as being "absolutely" necessary, the "extension of the trade unions' rights in production"...probably because of their "bureaucratic necrosis"? Can this group be taken seriously? They had heard the talk about the role of the trade unions in production, and wishing to outshout the others, blurted out: "extension of rights" on the occasion of "bureaucratic necrosis".

We have now added to our platform the following: We must combat the ideological discord and the unsound elements of the opposition who talk themselves into repudiating all "militarisation of industry", and not only the "appointments method", which has been the prevailing one up to now, but all "appointments", that is, in the last analysis, repudiating the Party's leading role in relation to the non-Party masses. We must combat the syndicalist deviation, which will kill the Party unless it is entirely cured of it. 

The Party Crisis January 1921

To illustrate my point, and to proceed at once to the heart of the matter, let me read you the chief of Trotsky's theses. In his pamphlet,  towards the end of thesis No.  12, he writes:

"We observe the fact that as economic tasks move into the foreground, many trade unionists take an ever more aggressive and uncompromising stand against the prospect of 'coalescence' and the practical conclusions that follow from it. Among them we find Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky.

"What is more, many trade unionists, balking at the new tasks and methods, tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of corporative exclusiveness and hostility for the new men who are being drawn into the given branch of the economy, thereby actually fostering the survivals of craft-unionism among the organised workers."

I could quote many similar passages from Trotsky's pamphlet. I ask, by way of factional statement: Is it becoming for such an influential person, such a prominent leader, to attack his Party comrades in this way? I am sure that 99 per cent of the comrades, excepting those involved in the quarrel, will say that this should not be done.

The revolutionary interest is higher than formal democracy. But it is fundamentally wrong to approach the subject in such haste at the present moment. It won't do at all. This point says that many trade unionists tend to cultivate in their midst a spirit of hostility and exclusiveness. What does that mean? What sort of talk is this? Is it the right kind of language? Is it the right approach? I had earlier said that I might succeed in acting as a "buffer" and staying out of the discussion, because it is harmful to fight with Trotsky—it does the Republic, the Party, and all of us a lot of harm—but when this pamphlet came out, I felt I had to speak up.

Trotsky writes that "many trade unionists tend to cultivate a spirit of hostility for the new men". How so? If that is true, those who are doing so should be named. Since this is not done, it is merely a shake-up, a bureaucratic approach to the business. Even if there is a spirit of hostility for the new men, one should not say a thing like that. Trotsky accuses Lozovsky and Tomsky of bureaucratic practices. I would say the reverse is true. It is no use reading any further because the approach has spoiled everything; he has poured a spoonful of tar into the honey, and no matter how much honey he may add now, the whole is already spoiled.

Whose fault is it that many trade unionists tend to cultivate a spirit of hostility for the new men?

We must sort things out and get at the substance. And it is that a spirit of hostility has been aroused among the masses by a number of tactless actions. My opponent asserts that certain people have been cultivating a spirit of hostility. This shows that the question is seen in the wrong light. We must sort things out. The All-Russia Conference was held in November, and that is where the "shake-up" catchword was launched. Trotsky was wrong in uttering it. Politically it is clear that such an approach will cause a split and bring down the dictatorship of the proletariat.

We must understand that trade unions are not government departments, like People's Commissariats, but comprise the whole organised proletariat: that they are a special type of institution and cannot be approached in this way. And when there arose this question of a wrong approach, latent with the danger of a split, I said: "Don't talk about any broad discussion for the time being; go to the commission and examine the matter carefully over there." But the comrades said: "No. we can't do that; it is a violation of democracy. " Comrade Bukharin went so far as to talk about the "sacred slogan of workers' democracy". Those are his very words. When I read that I nearly crossed myself. (Laughter.) I insist that a mistake always has a modest beginning and then grows up. Disagreements always start from small things. A slight cut is commonplace, but if it festers, it may result in a fatal illness. And this thing here is a festering wound. In November, there was talk about a shake-up; by December, it had become a big mistake.

That is all there is to it. It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words.

Even the best workers make mistakes. There are excellent workers in Tsektran, and we shall appoint them, and correct their bureaucratic excesses. Comrade Trotsky says that Comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky—trade unionists both—are guilty of cultivating in their midst a spirit of hostility for the new men. But this is monstrous. Only someone in the lunatic fringe can say a thing like that.

This haste leads to arguments, platforms and accusations, and eventually creates the impression that everything is rotten.

You know when people fall out it only takes them a couple of days to start abusing each other's relatives down to the tenth generation. You ask: "What are you quarrelling over?" "Oh, his aunt was this, and his grandfather was that." "I don't mean now; how did the whole thing start?" It turns out that in the course of two days a heap of disagreements has piled up.

To start a factional struggle and accuse Tomsky of cultivating among the masses a spirit of hostility for the Tsektranites is utterly to distort the facts,  absolutely to spoil all the work, and entirely to damage all relations with the trade unions. But the trade unions embrace the whole proletariat. If this thing is persisted in and voted on by platforms, it will lead to the downfall of the Soviet power.

That is just why Trotsky's whole approach is wrong. I could have analysed any one of his theses, but it would take me hours, and you would all be bored to death. Every thesis reveals the same thoroughly wrong approach!

We are not renouncing either the method of appointment, or the dictatorship. This will not be tolerated by workers with a twenty years' schooling in Russia. If we condone this mistake, we shall surely be brought down. It is a mistake, and that is the root of the matter.

We are not renouncing the dictatorship, or one-man management; these remain, I will support them, but I refuse to defend excesses and stupidity.

About enhancing the role of the trade unions in production, I replied on December 30 and in the press, and said that we have Comrade Rudzutak's resolution, which was adopted at the Conference on November 5.

There's no point, therefore, in quarrelling like children and raising factional disagreements. Has Comrade Trotsky brought up any new tasks? No, he hasn't. The fact is that his new points are all worse than the old ones. Comrade Trotsky is campaigning to get the Party to condemn those who are balking at new tasks, and Tomsky and Lozovsky have been named as the greatest sinners.

Rudzutak's resolution is couched in clearer and simpler language, and has nothing in it like "production atmosphere" or "industrial democracy". It says clearly that every trade union member must be aware of the vital necessity of increasing productivity in the country. It is put in simple and intelligible language. All this is stated better than in Trotsky's theses, and more fully, because bonuses in kind and disciplinary courts have been added. Without the latter, all this talk of getting the transport system going and improving things is humbug. Let us set up commissions and disciplinary courts. In this matter Tsektran has allowed excesses. We propose calling a spade a spade: it is no use covering up excesses with new tasks; they must be corrected. We have no intention of renouncing coercion. No sober-minded worker would go so far as to say that we could now dispense with coercion, or that we could dissolve the trade unions, or let them have the whole of industry. Marxists have been combating syndicalism all over the world. We have been fighting in the Party for over twenty years, and we have given the workers visual proof that the Party is a special kind of thing which needs forward-looking men prepared for sacrifice; that it does make mistakes, but corrects them; that it guides and selects men who know the way and the obstacles before us. It does not deceive the workers. It never makes promises that cannot be kept. And if you skip the trade unions you will make a hash of everything we have achieved over the past three years.

I take mandatory nominations to mean that they will be made under the direction of the Party's Central Committee. But in that case, what are the rights we are giving them? There will then be no chance of having a bloc. The workers and the peasants are two distinct classes. Let us talk about vesting the rights in the trade unions when electricity has spread over the whole country—if we manage to achieve this in twenty years it will be incredibly quick work, for it cannot be done quickly. To talk about it before then will be deceiving the workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most stable thing in the world because it has won confidence by its deeds, and because the Party took great care to prevent diffusion.

What does that mean?

Does every worker know how to run the state? People working in the practical sphere know that this is not true, that millions of our organised workers are going through what we always said the trade unions were, namely, a school of communism and administration. When they have attended this school for a number of years they will have learned to administer, but the going is slow. We have not even abolished illiteracy. We know that workers in touch with peasants are liable to fall for non-proletarian slogans. How many of the workers have been engaged in government? A few thousand throughout Russia and no more. If we say that it is not the Party but the trade unions that put up the candidates and administrate, it may sound very democratic and might help us to catch a few votes, but not for long. It will be fatal for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

To govern you need an army of steeled revolutionary Communists. We have it, and it is called the Party. All this syndicalist nonsense about mandatory nominations of producers must go into the wastepaper basket. To proceed on those lines would mean thrusting the Party aside and making the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia impossible. This is the view I believe it to be my Party duty to put to you. It is, in my opinion, enunciated in the form of practical propositions in the platform called Draft Decision of the Tenth Congress of the R.C.P. and signed by Lenin, Zinoviev, Tomsky, Rudzutak, Kalinin, Kamenev, Lozovsky, Petrovsky, Sergeyev and Stalin.

The Second all-Russia Congress of Miners  January 1921

All class-conscious workers must clearly realise that factionalism of any kind is harmful and impermissible, for no matter how members of individual groups may desire to safeguard Party unity, factionalism in practice inevitably leads to the weakening of teamwork and to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the governing Party, who have wormed their way into it, to widen the cleavage and to use it for counter-revolutionary purposes.

In this question, propaganda should consist, on the one hand, in a comprehensive explanation of the harmfulness and danger of factionalism from the standpoint of Party unity and of achieving unanimity of will among the vanguard of the proletariat as the fundamental condition for the success of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and, on the other hand, in an explanation of the peculiar features of the latest tactical devices of the enemies of the Soviet power. These enemies, having realised the hopelessness of counter-revolution under an openly whiteguard flag, are now doing their utmost to utilise the disagreements within the Russian Communist Party and to further the counter-revolution in one way or another by transferring power to a political group which is outwardly closest to recognition of the Soviet power.

Propaganda must also teach the lessons of preceding revolutions, in which the counter-revolution made a point of supporting the opposition to the extreme revolutionary party which stood closest to the latter, in order to undermine and overthrow the revolutionary dictatorship and thus pave the way for the subsequent complete victory of the counter-revolution, of the capitalists and landowners.

In the practical struggle against factionalism, every organisation of the Party must take strict measures to prevent all factional actions.

Moreover, every critic must see to it that the form of his criticism takes account of the position of the Party, surrounded as it is by a ring of enemies, and that the content of his criticism is such that, by directly participating in Soviet and Party work, he can test the rectification of the errors of the Party or of individual Party members in practice. Analyses of the Party's general line, estimates of its practical experience, check-ups of the fulfilment of its decisions, studies of methods of rectifying errors, etc., must under no circumstances be submitted for preliminary discussion to groups formed on the basis of "platforms", etc., but must in all cases be submitted for discussion directly to all the members of the Party.

Rejecting in principle the deviation towards syndicalism and anarchism, which is examined in a special resolution,70 and instructing the Central Committee to secure the complete elimination of all factionalism, the Congress at the same time declares that every practical proposal concerning questions to which the so-called Workers' Opposition group, for example, has devoted special attention, such as purging the Party of non-proletarian and unreliable elements, combating bureaucratic practices, developing democracy and workers' initiative, etc., must be examined with the greatest care and tested in practice. The Party must know that we have not taken all the necessary measures in regard to these questions because of various obstacles, but that, while ruthlessly rejecting impractical and factional pseudo-criticism, the Party will unceasingly continue—trying out new methods—to fight with all the means at its disposal against the evils of bureaucracy, for the extension of democracy and initiative, for detecting, exposing and expelling from the Party elements that have wormed their way into its ranks, etc.

The Congress, therefore, hereby declares dissolved and orders the immediate dissolution of all groups without exception formed on the basis of one platform or another (such as the Workers' Opposition group,  the Democratic Centralism group, etc.). Non-observance of this decision of the Congress shall entail unconditional and instant expulsion from the Party.

This, I repeat, does not cut short theoretical discussion. Proposals to amend the Programme may be made; no one has suggested that this should be prohibited. We do not think that our Programme is so perfect as not to require any modification whatever; but just now we have no formal proposals, nor have we allocated any time for the examination of this question. If we read the Programme carefully we shall find the following: "The trade unions...should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration", etc. The words, "should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration", should be underlined. And a few lines above that we read: "On the strength of the laws...the trade unions participate in all the local and central organs of industrial management." We know that it took decades to build up capitalist industry, with the assistance of all the advanced countries of the world. Are we so childish as to think that we can complete this process so quickly at this time of dire distress and impoverishment, in a country with a mass of peasants, with workers in a minority, and a proletarian vanguard bleeding and in a state of prostration? We have not even laid the main foundation, we have only begun to give an experimental definition of industrial management with the participation of the trade unions. In such a situation, when the statistics tell us that 60 per cent of the members of management boards are workers, it is quite impossible to try to interpret the words in the Programme— "The trade unions... should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration",  etc.—á la Shlyapnikov.

An authentic interpretation of the Programme will enable us to combine the necessary tactical solidarity and unity with the necessary freedom of discussion, and this is emphasised at the end of the resolution. What does it say in essence? Point 6 reads:

"In view of all this, the Congress of the R.C.P., emphatically rejecting the said ideas, as being expressive of a syndicalist and anarchist deviation, deems it necessary, first, to wage an unswerving and systematic struggle against these ideas; secondly, to recognise the propaganda of these ideas as being incompatible with membership of the R.C.P.

Tenth Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)  March 1921

In view of Lenin's alarm at Trotsky's charge that some party trade unionists were deliberately cultivating a spirit of corporative exclusiveness and hostility towards new economic tasks and manpower, anticipating that such outspoken accusations would themselves create bad feeling and make the work of the socialist revolution even more difficult, what could be said against the present-day Trotskyites factionalising inside the SLP which throws around accusations against the SLP majority of the following utterly destructive and contemptuous kind:

Expect gerrymandering and underhand manoeuvering. Correspondence will be lost in the post or mislaid. Branches will be closed, forgotten or not recognised. Resolutions will be ruled out of order or referred to the NEC. Two dozen different constitutional 'amendments' from two dozen different branches will allow the NEC to divide and rule by arranging it that what they find most detestable be talked off the agenda. In all likelihood the NEC will have in reserve their own batch of amendments and will encourage others to submit their own amendments to soak up time.

On these two short subsections pivots the whole system of witch-hunting and fear. They have been used to void and cower comrades. They are used to justify anti-communism and the imposition of a bureaucratic regime.

President Arthur Scargill coolly informs public rallies that his draft constitution is no draft, but binding law. It was "adopted" by the membership at the inaugural conference of May 4, he maintains. The Fiscites make exactly the same mendacious claim.

The draft constitution is being used to straightjacket the SLP politically and organisationally. Nevertheless the ham-fisted way in which it is being done shows how fragile the leadership considers its hold over the SLP. Bureaucratic manipulation and barefaced lying are not signs of strength, but profound weakness.

This petty-bourgeois individualism, reeking of Trotsky's "everything is rotten" defeatism, regards anything SLP beyond Weekly Worker or Revolutionary Platform involvement as "anti-democratic", "anti-communist", "McCarthyite", "they wish to atomise us", "wrecking", "sectarian", "to the glory and edification (sic!) of the leadership", "loathsome little life forms in the SLP", "the slimy invertebrates of the SLP right", "little confidence in struggle and militancy", "great confidence in the scheming and manoeuvring of the various bureaucracies", "like flies unto shit, witch hunters attract all manner of embittered failures, would-be sadists, and sectarian misfits. The Fiscites readily welcomed the Stalin Society into the SLP", "oscillation between the iron grip of bureaucratic control and the opposition emerging from advanced workers", etc etc, - all that from just one issue (Nov 7) of the Weekly Worker.

Entering a workers party in order to deliberately build a 'platform' hostile to the aims and personnel of the leadership of that party, - is the work of people with the counter-revolutionary mentality of petty-bourgeois individualism.

The SLP would be foolish to tolerate such anti-party platforms itself, and it should encourage its branches to help weed out this entryist nonsense, which wants to build, not the SLP, but its own party, but via filching the name and prestige of the Socialist Labour Party.

The biggest farce about the Trotskyite petty-bourgeois mentality is its ultra-left posturing, its superficial pretence of being more Marxist than Marx, and more Leninist than Lenin.

Their quite staggering contempt for the heroic guerrilla-war raid by the Tupac Amaru liberation movement of Peruvian Indians in seizing the Japanese Embassy in Lima and the entire imperialist diplomatic corps with it, - see last week's Review, - is typical of the inability of the CPGB, the leading Trot entryists into the SLP, to understand the first thing about anti-imperialist revolution and its international solidarity strategies.

Lenin's scorn for his 'left' contemporaries' inability to grasp what a gigantic and significant anti-imperialist blow was the Easter Rising in Dublin 1916 by nationalists against British rule, - dismissed as an insignificant intellectualist putsch by shallow anti-Marxists, - still rings true to describe the philistine self-righteous stupidity and opportunism of the present generation of Trotskyite individualists.

The same Weekly Worker which poured out its defeatist drivel against the Tupac Amaru triumphant feat, inspiring little people worldwide to rise up against imperialism, struck an even more reactionary pose in trying to explain the situation in Serbia.

Once again, it is the Trots' ignorance of the ABC of Marxism, - their basic petty-bourgeois class discord with the philosophy of the working class, - which exposes their dangerous and opportunist shallowness.

Democracy for who, Marxism always asks. (Read Lenin's brilliant demolition of the notion of 'abstract', or 'pure', or 'general' democracy in his book [The]Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky).

The idiot CPGB Trots mindlessly declare:

It is the job of revolutionaries, in Serbia and outside, to champion the cause of democracy in an unflinching and unbending manner.

Pompous and meaningless twaddle. Democracy for who?

There is supposedly 'democracy' now in Russia. And who is it benefiting? The Mafia, monopoly-capitalist crooks of all kinds, and the international imperialist conspiracy against the socialist interests of the working class everywhere.

Who says so? Everyone says so. A new socialist revolution at some point in Russia? Inevitable. They should never have given up their workers state in the first place, -  as the majority of ordinary people in Russia now agree (and they would have won the last presidential election if control of the ballot had not been in the corrupt hands of the Yeltsin gang of imperialist stooges and Mafia mobsters.)

So democracy for who in Serbia?

Even these irresponsible and reactionary Trot 'revolutionaries' admit that the anti-Milosevic protests reek of Yugoslav fascist nationalism of the 1950s:

Proletarian internationalism has withered away and any sort of working class agenda in the 'anti-Milosevic' movement has been hard to detect. Indeed, judging by all the accounts which have reached us, the most bitter and fervent critics of the Belgrade regime have come from the right - some of which has a fascistic character.

A closer look at the demonstrations reveals that some of the most prominent figures in it have emphatically non-leftwing credentials. As Socialist Review, the theoretical journal of the Socialist Workers Party, puts it, “the street protesters were not led by leftwingers", pointing the finger at Vuk Draskovic, the "most conspicuous spokesman of the Zajedno coalition" (January). The SWP is certainly correct on this point. Draskovic is the leader of the Serbian Renewal Movement, which has far right associations.

Even though he has managed with some degree of success to present his 'liberal' face to the west - he has recently been courted, gingerly no doubt, by US officials - his political orientation remains towards 'romantic' Serbian nationalism. People close to him say he is "obsessed" with rehabilitating the war time Cetnik leader Drazna Mihajlovic - not a good sign.

In December, Ljubisa Ristic, a government member, denounced the demonstrators as a "Cetnik assault on Belgrade" (quoted in The Guardian December 17 1996) - a reference to the rightwing nationalist movement in Yugoslavia during World War II which vehemently opposed the Tito-led anti-fascist partisans.

Milosevic may be an unappetising nationalist-revisionist himself, and his regime an unsavoury one.

But what kind of blind anti-communist insanity is it that could make any serious 'revolutionaries' turn their back on the great gains of the Yugoslav workers state which Milosevic's uncertain 'socialism' is at least attempting to maintain in some form or other, in order to openly side with clearly fascistic anti-communist demonstrators?

What foolishness, to start with, to believe all the imperialist propaganda about the supposed size of the anti-Milosevic protests.

What even greater stupidity to note US imperialism's interest in promoting Vuk Draskovic as a reliable anti-communist, but to then make excuses for Washington that his fascist inclinations might have put the Americans off a bit!

Fascism is imperialism, but called fascism and given a bad name when the older-established imperialisms (America, Britain, France, etc) can no longer tolerate competitive imperialist pressure from the new imperialist powers like Germany, Italy, and Japan, and have lost a bit of confidence in the promotion of Hitler, Mussolini, etc, as the West initially did as a "bulwark against communism".

Fascism merely makes an open virtue of its anti-communist colonial tyranny which believes in the right of one nation to dominate another, and believes in a whole hierarchy of class superiority. Imperialism believes in exactly the same reactionary nonsense, but is more discrete about it. All the supposed extra tyrannies of fascism's colonial and class-war domination, - concentration camps, blitzkrieg, apartheid, hostage-taking, brainwashing, mass hidden medical and warfare experiments, lying propaganda, etc, - were all perfected by the Western imperialist system in the genocidal subjugation of the Americas, Africa, and Asia long before the newer imperialist powers had even got going in the 20th century.

Milosevic may be a sad case, - but these 'mass protests' which the Western imperialist media have so gone overboard in promoting and advertising in recent weeks, are clearly the target of a massive conspiracy to install stooge imperialist regimes throughout ex-Yugoslavia, as have already been inflicted on Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, etc.

The revisionist nationalism of Milosevic & Co in Serbia is now only a sad relic of the heroic Yugoslav communist revolution under Tito, but these Serbs do have an impressive history of independent communist struggle going all the way back to their support for Lenin in his revolutionary opposition to WWI when all the rest of the Second International (bar one or two other tiny parties) had capitulated to social chauvinism.

The dubiousness of the Milosevic regime makes it impossible for revolutionary internationalists to support the Serb government.

But the clearly unsavoury stooge-imperialist nature of the 'opposition' clearly makes it imperative for revolutionaries to wholeheartedly oppose the conspiracy ranged against Milosevic which is entirely financed, inspired, and promoted by the West.

Rely on the Trots, once again, to get everything absolutely the wrong way round, - continuing their long despicable reactionary record of back-stabbing against the workers states, and even against the remnants of the workers states. Build Leninism. JH

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-Leninist struggles).

Class war, not justice, rules the USA.

LOS ANGELES, the attractive metropolis of the world's most dynamic country, is becoming more famous by the day within the United States and is a center of contradictions, where you run the risk of being murdered and may be convicted or acquitted of a crime regardless of your guilt or innocence.

Naturally, if you are black or Latino, you run a much higher risk of being found guilty in a court of law or being murdered by the police, in a city which seems to synthesize the discrimination prevailing within the United States.

A place with more African-American and Hispanic residents than whites, Los Angeles has recently witnessed many violent acts of a racist nature, with a similar level of retaliatory acts and social disturbances springing up among the minorities.

The city has scarcely recovered from the billion-dollar damage caused by the largest riots in the history of the United States, in reaction to the first trial in which the policemen accused of beating the African-American Rodney King were acquitted in April 1992.

The vociferous protest — somewhat remedied with the subsequent conviction, in another trial, of two of the four policemen filmed beating King for a traffic offense — broke all destruction records — 10 000 businesses set afire — and the mobilization of some 13 000 troops including police, Marines and National Guardsmen.

The city of Los Angeles also has the dubious honor of hosting other extraordinary events which shook the country and the world, such as the imprisonment of black citizens Clarence Chance and Benny Powell, who were eventually proven innocent after having served 17 years in jail.

Tried in December 1975, Chance and Powell, who were young men at that time, were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a policeman. Only in 1992 was it proven that they were innocent and that false evidence had been used against them.

But the most spectacular case against a black or Latino and the most sensational case of the use of false evidence by the Los Angeles police — which is highly specialized in getting innocent people locked up — ended this October, with the verdict exonerating former football star Orenthal James Simpson.

After a trial in which it was never really clear whether he was guilty or not of the murder of his ex-wife and one of her friends, the African-American Simpson was declared innocent and the U.S. government breathed a sigh of relief that the probability of further bloody incidents had been eliminated. This time the black man was acquitted.

It has been described as being the most mysterious murder of the century, the most publicized trial ever, the trial of the century, as greatly awaited as the arrival of man on the moon in 1969.  Whether he is innocent or guilty — and 60 to 70 percent of the U.S. population believe him to be guilty — what is certain is that the trial has served as a reminder to the country that racism in the United States is as alive as ever.

The Simpson case has shown that in Los Angeles, as in other parts of the United States, evidence is fabricated in order to put innocent people on trial for racial motives. It has also been confirmed that the police officer who found evidence such as the bloody glove had a record of racist activity.

The Simpson case has been compared by the press to the Sacco and Vanzetti case because of the passions it aroused in the general public. Indeed, it is said that the whole country stood still during the ten minutes in which the verdict was announced on national television. Furthermore, it revealed clear differences in thinking among the main racial groups of the United States and raised a large question mark over the social future of the world's most powerful country.

If anyone were to be taken to court for legal manipulation and violence against minorities, it would surely be the Los Angeles police department for having the worst record among all the cities of the United! States.

Just recently, the Mexican-American Ban Association (MABA) decided to make a request to the Justice Department for an investigation into 11 cases of Hispanics murdered by Los Angeles police.

Lawyer Luis Carrillo said that his organization will request that homicide charges be filed against the guilty police officers, who have not been tried despite sufficient evidence against them.

The MABA report includes the cases of three Hispanics killed by individuals, one murdered by a fireman and another one given a brutal beating by a police officer.

But the most renowned cases are those of five Mexican immigrants murdered at gunpoint by Los Angeles police with the MABA's strongest accusation being the unnecessary use of lethal force and evident racial prejudice.

According to Carrillo, the five cases have not gone to trial because the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has refused to bring charges against the officers involved, despite the fact that in all the cases the sheriff's agents acted with negligence, abruptness and prejudice against the Hispanics.

Why do these incidents keep happening in Los Angeles and in the rest of the United States?

At the time of the Rodney King case, a Gallup poll demonstrated that 68 percent of the black population felt that the legal structures of the United States were influenced by racial ideas that were disfavorable to them.

Furthermore, an official report has revealed that 1100 murders were registered in Los Angeles during the course of a year, that the unemployment rate had risen to 11.2 percent and that over one quarter of all the jobs lost in the United States because of the recession had been located in Los Angeles.

Of no less significance is the fact that in South Central Los Angeles, the area which served as the backdrop for the worst racial disturbances in U.S. history (after the initial acquittal of King's attackers), 55 percent of the black people were unemployed. •

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

Intensified U.S. blockade rejected by European Union, Latin American Parliament, CARICOM, Rio Group, Canada, Mexico, Russia and many other governments

Organizations and integrationist groups, the majority of governments and hundreds of social and political institutions throughout the world have firmly rejected the passage by the U.S. Congress of the Helms-Burton Bill, designed to intensify the economic and commercial blockade against Cuba.

U.S. allies such as the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico, and powerful members of the Security Council such as Russia and China criticized the measure, which for the first time incorporates the U.S. blockade against Cuba into U.S. legislation.

Other regional groups such as the Latin American Parliament and the Rio Group — which includes the majority of Latin American states — condemned or voiced disapproval for the new measures.

The EU,  also made up of traditional U.S. business partners, including four of the Group of Seven (G-7), says that the bill violates international law due to its extraterritorial nature. As a result it also contravenes the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO), where the EU has threatened to appeal the matter.

Members of the EU Troika (Spain, Italy and Ireland) expressed their concern to Edward Casey, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Latin America.

Members of the Rio Group, meanwhile, stated that the passage of the bill affected the sovereignty of states, as it would make national norms extraterritorial, thus contradicting WTO principles.

The Latin American Parliament expressed a similar view, calling upon all the region's legislatures and states to voice their opposition to the new anti-Cuba bill. It stated that the Helms-Burton Bill violates  international law and interferes with peace and friendship between nations.

The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), meeting with top Canadian officials, reiterated its "energetic rejection" of the bill aimed at stepping up the "embargo."

After three days of high-level meetings, both parties issued a communiqué stating that the bill was extraterritorial, as it persists in applying U.S. laws in third countries.

Individually, the highest levels of the Canadian government have recently expressed their strong disagreement with the new commercial pressures, which affect the business that Canada and other countries do with Cuba.

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stressed that the Helms-Burton Bill will not substantially affect business proceeding from his country, Cuba's main business partner.

Another of Cuba's main commercial partners, Mexico, officially rejected the bill, warning that it would challenge the legislation's damaging influence on bilateral trade, based on WTO norms. Canada immediately backed this initiative. 

The Russian Duma (lower house) ratified the adoption of measures in response to the bill.

In a resolution passed by 2B8 votes in favor, one against and one abstention, it expressed its "absolute disagreement" with the provocation of Brothers to the Rescue" and the U.S. Congress.

A Russian Foreign Ministry declaration expressed a similar viewpoint and. stated that Russia would respond to the tightening of sanctions against Cuba with an increase in trade with Cuba.

International press agencies such as EFE (Spain),  AFP (France) and Xinjua (China) echoed the worldwide rejection to the U.S. legislation, describing it as "an international wave of opposition to the blockade," "strong opposition" and "no support for sanctions against Cuba."

U.S. Representative Jose Serrano proposes a review of the circumstances and, once and for all, the United States' "lack of relations" with Cuba, reported Prensa Latina from Washington.

He pointed out that the United States has diplomatic relations with China, Viet Nam and North Korea, but not with Cuba,  because of Miami politics.

The U.S. congressman lamented the incident which took place in Cuban airspace, and pointed out that it was a result of an act of provocation which Washington could have avoided.

In statements published in El Diarlo La Prensa of New York, the legislator stated the opinion that this was a result of the lack of relations between the two countries.

Serrano expressed regret that human lives had been lost, but added that in the Cuban-American community, there were groups taking part in provocative actions against Havana.

The U.S. daily The Journal of Commerce described the Helms-Burton Bill as incorrect in its attempt to intensify economic sanctions against Cuba, said NOTIMEX.

They described it as a policy which hadn't worked for 30 years and which isn't going to work now, and that the United States was merely using it as another way of focusing in on the Cuban issue.

The Journal of Commerce considers the Helms-Burton Bill as a new way of applying sanctions, an "opportunistic triumph" for William Clinton's foreign policy.

A demonstration in support of Cuba took place outside that country's diplomatic mission to the UN, in New York City.

Members of the Cuban-American community, the cultural institution Casa de las Americas, and U.S. political and social organizations carried placards in support of the Cuban Revolution and chanted slogans against the blockade over loudspeakers.

The demonstration was also attended by members of the Cuban Information Project, representatives of Harlem's black community and the Puerto Rican and Dominican communities.

This gathering was taking place when a group of seven persons attempted to mount a picket against the Cuban diplomats and their families, but given the magnitude of the support activity they decided to keep quiet.

Vladimir Villegas, Venezuelan deputy and president of the Chamber of Deputies' Human Rights Commission, stated that the United States is deliberately exacerbating tensions between Washington and Havana, in order to intensify the blockade of Cuba.

In a statement to Prensa Latina. the legislator said that the Cuban issue should not be used in the U.S. for demagogical purposes at the cost of a people already under attack, and as a way to gain the vote of the Cuban community in Miami.

The U.S. government's attitude not only works against Cuba, but against U.S. relations with Latin America as a whole, and it is evident that there are U.S. sectors opposed to exacerbating those contradictions.  •