 |
||||
|
||||
|
Socialist Outlook : SO/10 - Summer 2006
The British Left and the Anti-Imperialist Struggle
Ernie Tate joined the Canadian section of the Fourth International in the 1950s and in the mid-1960s was assigned by the International to help build the movement in Britain. Here he discusses with Chris Brooks the task of building solidarity. CB: When you came to Britain in the 1960s, a correct approach to the colonial revolution seemed to be an acid test for revolutionaries. ET: Any time there’s an upsurge in the colonial revolution, you’ll find that there are difficulties in trying to relate to it. Pierre Frank (A central leader of the Fourth International in the four decades after world war two) used to say it is part of the legacy of living in a major imperialist country that had a mighty empire: inevitably the working class expresses some of the ideas of their ruling class. Let me go back to the time in 1966 when we were organizing the International Marxist Group (IMG, then the British section of the Fourth International) and responding to the call by the FI for all sections and supporters to make Vietnam a priority. Our comrades here led the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign (VSC) and when the VSC began to grow, the International Socialist’s interest perked up. We had several discussions with them and eventually they became part of a broader coalition for organizing the mass mobilizations against the war. We had the impression they regarded the solidarity work as a bit of a waste of time and a diversion from the ‘real’ class struggle. And they weren’t alone in this: these views were common on the left. Even today, the comrades of the SWP will emphasise how a success in an anti-privatisation struggle here would be a beacon for the workers in Latin America, and would be therefore a more substantial contribution than solidarity movements. They’ve also argued, and some of our own comrades would do the same, that the real reason we are involved in such struggles is to help us win recruits. Of course, there’s an element of truth in this, but we should answer: ‘No; solidarity in defence of the struggles for national independence in the Third World is a valid end in itself.’ It doesn’t require anything else. We don’t set preconditions. We have to see it as a critical part of the international class struggle, even though as socialists we place special emphasis on those struggles that have the possibility of going beyond capitalism. The labour and socialist movement has a miserably inconsistent record of solidarity. Perhaps we might be raising it in the wrong way if we say it’s a moral imperative? I would argue it’s a political imperative that arises out of our internationalism. The Fourth International, and the revolutionary communist movement going back to Marx and Engels, has had this attitude: the absolutely critical nature of the struggle against imperialism in the Third World and the absolute centrality of helping that struggle achieve victory. It’s not about passive solidarity, or only about passing resolutions in trade union conventions, but of doing concrete things to frustrate our own imperialism’s policies in the third world, thereby striking a blow against them. Two big events influenced my generation – and of course shaped the politics of the entire Fourth International at the time: the Cuban and Algerian Revolutions. They deepened our understanding of the entire anti-imperialist struggle and brought to the fore the need for a united front tactic. These revolutions developed in a very radical direction. In Algeria in 1962, prior to independence, the now famous Tripoli programme was adopted by the FLN, and opened up the possibility of a socialist republic. We characterized Ben Bella’s regime as a workers’ and farmers’ government. It was our French comrades who led the way in carrying out practical solidarity work during that struggle against French colonialism. They helped the resistance materially. I remember Pierre Frank telling me that our comrades suffered severe repression because of this. Many were jailed and victimized. What about the Cuban Revolution? How did the FI respond to that? The Cuban Revolution is a case where imperialism was defeated. But I must admit, as it unfolded in the early sixties, it presented our comrades in North America with some theoretical difficulties. We, like many in the North American left, had certain ideas about how the colonial revolution would unfold and if you look at our press at the time, you can see expressions of this. We had a very mechanical interpretation of Permanent Revolution (Leon Trotsky’s theory that, in underdeveloped countries democratic tasks could only be accomplished by socialist revolution led by the working class at the head of the peasantry). How could you have a revolution without a revolutionary Marxist party, without the programme of Lenin and Trotsky, we asked? We had these kinds of questions but our strength was in our ability to look at the actual process going on in Cuba. Leading comrades visited the island. We finally did not decide the issue in an ideological way (even though we give great weight to the power of our traditions and what we have learnt) the decisive question was what was happening in the class struggle. In North America, the American Socialist Workers Party (then the section of the FI) led the way on this, especially Joe Hansen. As the Cuban revolution unfolded, it became obvious to us that this was a revolution like no other in the recent past: no Stalinist party at the helm; the mobilisation of the landless and unemployed, of the working class and the peasants; a very rapid radicalisation of the revolution; the smashing of the old state and the coming into existence of a new revolutionary leadership like we’d never seen before and which laid the basis for a new kind of society. The British SWP’s theory of state capitalism prevented them from grasping the true significance of what happened 1959. (The theory of state capitalism argues Cuba is a capitalist state in which Castro leads a capitalist class.) For example, they were unable to explain the hostility of imperialism towards the USSR, or even to this day the hostility of the United States to the Cuban revolution, in a substantive, theoretical way, in terms of Marxism, or why Cuba would establish solidarity and non-exploitive trading relations with Venezuela and with the government of Bolivia. I think it’s worthwhile to go back and look at the Cuban revolution again, to see how it developed: not only in terms of its history, but how it expresses itself today. What are the conquests of that revolution? We should appreciate that revolutionary leaderships in all underdeveloped countries on coming to power, confront a legacy of low productive capacity. Where do they get capital to expand the economy and solve the immense social problems they have inherited? The power of the state cannot be reduced because they face a ferocious imperialist enemy and class privilege cannot be totally eliminated. I’m not suggesting we be blind to problems in Cuba. The bureaucracy is a constant problem. I think many Cubans understand this, including the leadership of the Communist Party and there is no evidence it has been corrupted by privilege. It’s not an ideal proletarian democracy by any means; anyone who says so, is mistaken. I see it as a revolutionary dictatorship. There are deformations. I’m always a little frustrated when I’m in Cuba unable to obtain information about what’s going on in the world. Even though you get CNN and the various international TV cable channels in your hotel room, it is virtually impossible to buy foreign newspapers. Granma (official organ of the government) can be found here and there, but even that takes some effort. There’s no right to strike, which is a mistaken policy. This is essentially a political problem, a question of class consciousness, but the officials and workers I’ve met explain that the Cuban Communist Party and the workers through their unions participate in the preparation of the national budget and the allocation of resources. They say that if you allowed such freedoms in its planned economy, it’s possible the more strategically placed sectors of the working class would enrich themselves at the expense of the working people as a whole. It’s a transitional society between socialism and capitalism. SWP theory makes no room for that possibility. They should first look at what the revolution has achieved. It pushed back imperialism and achieved national independence. It has gone a long way in solving the huge problems of racism and the oppression of women. On a whole series of indices, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the severe economic difficulties they’ve faced, they’re away ahead of the rest of Latin America. That’s what we should discuss with the SWP comrades: what’s the nature of this revolution. We should be confronting their sectarian positions; in the process, we’ll help educate ourselves and the entire left, and we might even help change the line of the SWP. The Cubans are in bitter struggle with the US which has been trying to overthrow their government for almost 50 years, with bombings, an invasion, systematic violent sabotage campaigns against their economy and hundreds of assassinations attempts against their leadership. The not-so-Cold War didn’t end for Cuba. The SWP’s leadership of the antiwar movement in Britain and Canada suggests they can move considerably from previous sectarian positions; maybe you’ll change their line on Cuba. Further reading: Fallacies of State Capitalism contains a 1990s debate between Chris Harman, of the SWP, and Ernest Mandel, a leader of the Fourth International. This 125 page book costs £5 including postage from Socialist Outlook, PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU.
|
|
||
Ernie Tate joined the Canadian section of the Fourth International in the 1950s and in the mid-1960s was assigned by the International to help build the movement in Britain.