A retrograde step for the Marxist movement: a reply to Cde Yaffe

A retrograde step for the Marxist movement the working class movement confirmed this elementary because it arises out of the social relations of capitalism.

a reply to Cde Yaffe

1. IN DEFENCE OF 'OUR TASKS AND METHODS'

(a) Bourgeois ideology and the struggle for the Leninist party The Revolutionary Communist Group (RCG) was born out of a struggle against the economist response of the International Socialists (IS) to the greatest upsurge in working class militancy in Britain since the Second World War. In its founding document, 'Our Tasks and Methods', the RCG advanced a political strategy distinct on the left(1). Whereas the IS and other groups saw the question of party-building in terms of organisational growth, 'Our Tasks and Methods' was based on a Marxist assessment of the period. Drawing on the early Bolsheviks' experience of party-building, but focussing above all on today's conditions, it argued that the sharpening of the class struggle would sweep off their feet those organisations that neglect the struggle for the Marxist method. It contended that they would end up tailing the working class movement and become an obstacle to the development of a revolutionary vanguard. This was no defeatist conjecture, but the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from any serious consideration of the road to power for the working class. In Lessons of October, Trotsky attacked the 'superficial and agitational' approach of those leaders who underestimate the strength of the ruling class: 'They never see any obstacles or difficulties until they come into a head-on collision with them.

The capacity for surmounting real obstacles by means of bombastic phrases, the tendency to evince lofty optimism on all questions ... is inevitably transformed into its polar opposite when the hour for decisive action strikes. "(2) It was such failures of revolutionary leadership that sealed the fate of the proletariat in Hungary, Italy, Germany, Spain and elsewhere in the decades following the Russian Revolution. From these events the RCG drew clear conclusions. The stage of building. a revolutionary cadre organisation could not be skipped i more than half a century of betrayals and defeats for lesson. The Spanish Civil War showed how an ill-prepared leadership would itself prove an obstacle to revolutionary advance. Trotsky remarked: "To the left of all the other parties in Spain stood the POUM.. But it was precisely this party that played a fatal role in the development of the Spanish Revolution. It could not become a mass party - because in order to do so it was first necessary to overthrow the old parties and it was possible to overthrow them only by an irreconcilable struggle, by a merciless exposure of their bourgeois character. Yet the POUM while criticising the old parties subordinated itself to them on all fundamental questions. It participated in the "People's" election bloc; entered the government which liquidated workers' committees, engaged in a struggle to reconstitute this governmental coalition...

A centrist party invariably acts as a brake upon the revolution, must each time smash its own head, and may bring about the collapse of the revolution. (3) From the outset, the strength of the RCG lay in its understanding of the power of bourgeois ideology and in its recognition of the objective tasks that face revolutionaries. The RCG argued that the historic task of the proletariat - the overthrow of capitalism could only be achieved if a political leadership able to withstand, and combat, the pressures of bourgeois ideology within the working class was forged. While other groups on the left sought merely to give the existing consciousness of the class a more militant character, the RCG understood that a revolutionary party would only be built through challenging the existing reformist consciousness of the class; spontaneity, the instinctive class response of the proletariat, could not be given a revolutionary content until the party itself had strong roots in the class. For this reason, the RCG believed that all worship of spontaneity had to be fought: the spontaneous struggles of the class are inevitably dominated by bourgeois ideas and will neces sarily be contained within a reformist perspective.

The RCG's understanding of the strength of bourgeois ideology in the working class rested on an analysis of its material basis. Bourgeois ideology is more fully developed and more cohesive than socialist ideology 3

In capitalist society the contractual relationship between labour and capital appears to be free and equal. The worker gets a 'fair day's wage' for his work; wage labour masks the fact that the worker produces more value than he receives in the form of a wage. The extraction of surplus-labour through the capital-wage labour relationship hides the manner in which the worker is exploited. The ideological framework of capitalism is further reinforced by the apparent voluntary nature of the contractual relationship between labour and capital. The compulsion to sell his labourpower seems to the worker a natural one arising out of his natural wants; it does not appear as one imposed by the social relations of production. The labourer exists for and thus belongs to capital before he has sold himself to it, but this bondage is 'concealed by the periodic sale of himself, by his change of masters, and by the oscillation in the market price of labour power (4). As the productive powers of social labour are further developed, the view that machinery itself is the productive force gains strength(5). The post-war period of capitalist expansion reinforced this view: the considerable development of the forces of production since 1945 has strengthened the material basis for reformism in the working class.

It is true that capitalism unifies the proletariat at an economic level, for by bringing large numbers of workers together to produce in common, it helps to create class consciousness. But again, this consciousness is not of itself revolutionary, even at the stage of open conflict between capital and labour. In Italy, in 1920, workers peacefully vacated the factories they had occupied for weeks, thus allowing the bourgeoisie to consolidate its forces. A unified revolutionary will had not been developed or given organisational expression in the preceding period. As long as the leadership of the proletariat had not consciously understood the social cause of capitalist crisis, its challenge to the bourgeoisie could be undermined by its own lack of direction. In Italy, the absence of revolutionary leadership allowed the bourgeoisie to sit out the upsurge of 1920 and wait until the working class exhausted itself.

Unless a revolutionary vanguard exists, the proletariat will be fragmented in its opposition to capital. It will fall under the influence of syndicalism and left-reformism and sections will succumb to chauvinism and racism.

The domination of bourgeois ideas over the proletariat is further given strength by the activities of the bureaucratic trade union layer that mediates between the working class and the ruling class.

This layer continually exercises its power to blunt the spontaneous struggles of militant workers. Similarly, in the sphere of parliamentary politics, Social Democracy thwarts the left-reformist tendencies emerging in sections of the proletariat, frequently containing their demands by adopting them in diluted forms. But the dominance of the trade union bureaucracy and the Social Democrats is merely an expression of the dominance of bourgeois ideas over the class as a whole. Even when workers go beyond the constraints imposed by the bureaucracy and achieve partial victories through their struggles, these victories in and of themselves cannot free the spontaneous struggles of the class from the confines of capitalist ideology. To concentrate on the betrayals of 4 the reformist leadership at the expense of considering the entire ideological framework of bourgeois society is to overestimate the political preparedness of the working class. Correspondingly, it is to underestimate the task of revolutionaries in presenting a socialist outlook to the proletariat. The economic battles of the class cannot be given a revolutionary character unless the political groundwork has been laid by means of the struggle against bourgeois ideology.

For Lenin, training the proletariat in support for the struggles of oppressed strata and in a full understanding.

of all other classes in society was an essential part of this. By demonstrating that capitalism is a system that necessarily has to deny democracy - and hence the 'principles' of freedom and equality on which it claims to rest - it could be exposed as reactionary. A study of other classes would not only school the proletariat in democracy, but would also teach it the relevance of materialist analysis: In reality, it is possible to "raise the activity of the working masses" only when this activity is not restricted to "political agitation on an economic basis" ... Working class consciousness cannot be genuine political consciousness unless the workers are trained to respond to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence, and abuse, no matter what class is affected ... The consciousness of the working masses cannot be genuine class-consciousness, unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from topical, political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population. (6) Such an approach is foreign to much of today's left.

The Workers Socialist League (WL), for instance, denies that democratic struggles are central in the fight to change the consciousness of the class. They: '... disagree fundamentally with your [the RCG, Ed] assessment that the question of Ireland is "the key issue in challenging the reformist perspectives". '(7) In a single sentence, everything that Lenin argued about the need for ideological preparation of the class is thrown to the winds. Ireland is the only country in Western Europe annexed by a foreign army of occupation. The brutality of this army is well documented: hundreds of men, women and children have died at its hands over the past eight years. But nevertheless the British working class has failed to respond to this repression, and for this reason the WSL refuses to see' Ireland as central to changing the consciousness of the British working class. Lenin's approach. was the direct opposite of this. He recognised that the working class could not gain a revolutionary consciousness unless it was trained in the struggle for democracy. It was the 'bounden duty' of revolutionaries to emphasise the struggle for democratic rights, even if their argüments initially met with little response from workers. No other course was possible: Why do the Russian workers still manifest little revolutionary activity in response to the brutal treatment of the people by the police, the persecution of religious sects, the flogging of peasants. ?: Is it

struggles over wages and conditions. The strength of • Transitional Programme: because the "'economic struggle" does not "stimulate" them to this...? To adopt such an opinion, we repeat, is merely to direct the charge where it does not belong, to blame the working masses for one's own philistinism (or Bernsteinism). We must blame ourseives, our lagging behind the mass movement, for still being unable to organise sufficiently wide, striking, and rapid exposures of all the shameful outrages.'(8) It was this recognition of the need to transform the present consciousness of the class that was central to 'Our Tasks and Methods' and to all of the RCG's work, and it was this that determined the political questions which were made a priority - namely those which confronted nationalism and chauvinism in the working class movement. (b) The Leninist party and the programme The programme of the party is the synthesis of an understanding of capital at its current moment of development, and of the path to the seizure of state power. This is first of all stated in terms of the general , characteristics of the epoch, the decay of capitalism and the tendency to stagnation. The programme must also demonstrate its relevance to existing conditions; it has to understand and depict in detail the specific tendencies of the current period and their corresponding reflections in the spheres of politics and ideology.

The radical left only understands the question of programme in a one-sided and partial manner, if at all.

On the one hand the programme is seen as a notebook of immediate and empirical observations: on the other it is accorded the status of an epochal text whose guidelines are eternal; sections of the left see the 1938 founding programme of the Fourth International in this way. The first, pragmatic, camp is characterised by a rejection of any theoretical basis for a programme and often of the need for a programme altogether. In the case of the IS (now the Socialist Workers Party), for instance, programmatic statements are replaced with periodic balance sheets that ignore the strength of reformism: 'If the coming year is like the last, the position looks bleak. Not since 1967 have so few workers' taken strike action as in the first half of 1976 ... But there are grounds for optimism. Militancy has been at a low ebb not primarily because men like Jones and Scanlon command the unswerving loyalty and trust ..of millions of trade unionists. Many companies have passed through a period of depleted order books, short time and low profits. Workers are disinclined to fight hard for money which they don't believe is there to be had. But now once more, large sectors of British capitalism are vulnerable to effective strike action. The order books are filling up, exports are rising, and there is plenty of money in the bank. (9) Here the IS measures its prospects by the amount of money in the capitalist bank. At times of crisis it finds itself marking time, until the rising tide of capitalist prosperity removes the damper on working class militancy and paves the way for bigger and better 5 reformism is only understood in terms of loyalty to 'men like Jones and Scanlon'. If the IS can do no more than react to developments in the class, the same adaptation to prevailing moods and consciousness underlies the recent move into the Labour Party by other sections of the left. This change has not been prompted by any scientific analysis, but is simply another frustrated 'tactical' response to the downturn in the economic struggles of the class.

In August 1975 the Political Committee (PC) of the RCG summed up its differences with the radical left as follows: The priorities outlined in Tasks and Methods are not advanced in relation to this or that likely variant. It is based upon a materialist assessment of what has to be done regardless of shifts in day to day struggles...

The British left can only see party building in terms of activities that are extensions of the debates and struggles that exist in the labour movement ... the need for the ideological preparation of the working class is not understood as the pressure of isolation has the last word. (10) The blind adherents of the 1938 Programme come under this indictment, no less than the empiricist left.

They seek to convince the vanguard of the seventies with the programme of the thirties. Their formal recognition of the need for a programme can only be reconciled with a quick route to the masses by choosing a programme off-the-peg. The comrades who resigned from the RCG to join the Workers Socialist League expressed this very clearly: When today's conditions take on more and more the characteristics of the thirties ... the epochal significance of the Transitional Programme becomes obvious. '(11) Not all groups which adhere to the 1938 Programme put matters so crudely. Recognising that things have changed since 1938, sections of the radical left seek pragmatically to update the 1938 Programme. The League for Socialist Action (LSA) for instance, claims to defend the method - rather than the letter - of the Transitional Programme: 'The task of marxists is not to repeat parrot fashion the demands stemming from conditions operating over 30 years ago (despite the fact many of these demands still remain valid today). It is, using the method of the programme, to modify and adaptit to the very real changes in the objective situation that have taken place in the intervening decades. Such changes include the creation of nuclear warfare, the rise of new workers states from China to Cuba, the growth of revolutionary nationalism and of the women's liberation movement.'(12) However, despite the many qualifications designed to take into account developments in the post-war period, the LSA still argues for the applicability of the 1938 Programme to today. With its only proviso the need to 'adjust' the Transitional Programme so as to 'expand' on certain demands and 'remove others', the LSA invokes Trotsky to confirm that the 1938 Programme: '...is a programme of action from today until the beginning of the socialist revolution. (13) The International Marxist Group (IMG) agrees and argues that all that is needed is to 'concretise' the

'Such a programme in the entire period leading to the revolutionary crisis and working class seizure of power can only be the full Transitional Programme of the Fourth International ... However, in the method taught by Trotsky in his theses of the first four Congresses of the Comintern, Strategy and Tactics in the Imperialist Epoch, and his many writings and analyses, it is also necessary to concretise this programme in every conjuncture so as to encapsulate the chief and most central tasks which confront the working class and its allies in any particular conjuncture.'(14) Reservations about making a few changes or concretising the 1938 Programme notwithstanding, the IMG and the LSA are left with the 1938 Programme in its essentials. However the problem with using the 1938 Programme as the programme of a revolutionary party in today's conditions lies not simply in the fact that things have changed or that the programme remains to be concretised. Not only are the material conditions today vastly different to those of 1938, in that the post-war boom has witnessed the greatest ever expansion of capitalist production, but the consciousness of the working class has come to reflect the whole experience of the past period. How can a programme which is not based on an assessment of the experiences of the working class movement of the crucial last 40 years be concretised for today?

Trotsky wrote about the 1938 Programme: 'This programme is not a new invention of one man.

It is derived from the long experience of the Bolshe viks. I want to emphasize that it is not one man's invention, that it comes from long collective experience of the revolutionaries. It is the application of old principles to this situation. (15) If Trotsky was able to assimilate the previous experience of the working class into the 1938 Programme, this programme could not relate in advance to the experience and consciousness of the working class in the 1970s. The massive defeats suffered by the proletariat through fascism and the Second World War tremendously accelerated the erosion of Marxist ideas in the working class that had already begun. The political impact of the post-war boom has further destroyed political clarity in the workers' movement.

Today's working class - its consciousness and its organisation - are a product of an experience which cannot be understood through the 'concretisation' of the 1938 Programme. Revolutionaries can show the relevance of the experience of the Bolshevik movement for today. But showing the relevance of, say, the Leninist party is different to 'concretising' the programmatic conclusions of the pre-war period. Starting from the previous experience of the working class movement, the 1938 Programme was already a concrete expression of existing objective conditions (pre-war stage of capital accumulation, the balance of class forces, the theoretical and practical conquests of the revolutionary movement). To attempt to reconcretise this programme for the specific conditions of capitalism today is to devalue Marxism. Marxists must begin with a materialist analysis of today's conditions and, from that starting point, develop a programme adequate to arm the proletariat for the struggles ahead. This programme 6 must be based on an understanding of the accumulation of capital in the post-war period: It must grasp the specific expression of reformism in this period and provide a critique of these bourgeois ideas in the workers' movement. The programme must reflect the experience of the vanguard in struggling for revolutionary positions in the working class.

The conception of a programme outlined in 'Our Tasks and Methods' represented a total break with the 'Our Tasks and Methods' did not argue for left. updating old programmes; instead it posed the necessity of carrying out a materialist analysis of the fundamental questions facing the movement that would provide the necessary basis for programmatic development. 'Our Tasks and Methods' also recognised that the development of a programme had to be integral to the experience of the vanguard. Hence a very clear relationship was drawn between the development of a programme and the training of a vanguard.

(c) The relation of the programme to the vanguard The programme is a resumé of the tasks that flow from an understanding of the current moment of capitalism, and a guide to how these tasks can be achieved. As such it only becomes a living force through a dialogue with the vanguard of the proletariat. Seen in this light, the vanguard is a political entity. The vanguard is frequently interpreted on the left in a sociological way as being the most militant sections of the working class, or as strata drawn into action on specific issues - for instance, women, blacks or students. In the absence of an adequate conception of the programme, the vanguard must inevitably be viewed in this way. In 'Our Tasks and Methods', the connection between programme and vanguard was drawn out as follows: 'The concept "vanguard" implies "leading", "hegemonic": a section of the class which both recognises the independent interests of the class and is prepared to lead a struggle for a correspondingly independent strategy.'(16) Thus, the vanguard of the class is the bearer of the programme. It can only emerge and mature along with the development of the programme itself.

How does the vanguard emerge? In 'Our Tasks and Methods', it was argued that workers would become open to revolutionary ideas, that is, would constitute elements of a potential vanguard, as soon as they came up against the barriers of reformism. As soon as, in other words, their traditional methods of struggle could take them no further. The struggles of the working class in the early seventies did not indicate, however, that these barriers of reformism had been reached. They were seen not as struggles against the state but against the Tory government. The period from the Saltley confrontation between miners and police in 1972 to the three-day week in 1974 was the most militant period in British labour history since the Second World War, but it did not mean the end of traditional methods of struggle. Rather, it was these very struggles that ensured Labour's victory in the 1974 elections. Only as the Labour government proved incapable of granting significant reforms — only as the level of unemployment began, in mid-1975, to surpass the peak it had reached under the Tories - did the working class come

The absence of a Marxist tradition in the working a way forward for the movement.

up against the barriers of reformism, in the sense of directly experiencing the impotence and class collaboration of its own leadership. Far from developing a potential vanguard, this experience eroded the confidence of the working class and led to the signing of the 'social contract'. Thus it was shown that not every economic downturn leads to a heightened political consciousness in the working class. The working class came up against the barriers of reformism which contained its advance.

However, it would be wrong to conclude that the only alternatives posed for the working class today are those of revolution on the one hand or cuts in living standards on the other. It will be from a reformist standpoint that workers will search for a solution to the problems they face. Thus today we can see that all the radical plans to beat the 'British crisis' that are offered as alternatives to the policy of the Labour government are merely an expression of 'left' reformism. The election of a Labour government has represented a dead end for the working class, but the manifold strategies of left-reformism are waiting in the wings; pressure will grow for import controls; sections of the left will. demand 'industrial democracy' as compensation for attacks on the living standards of the working class. Not untit such steps are discredited, not until their ultimate logic - the heightening of inter-imperialist tensions and the integration of the trade union movement into the state - is sensed, will the potential vanguard comprise more than a few of the most advanced workers. Only when the advanced sections of the working class link a rejection of these solutions with a recognition that they are the logical outcome of the reformist approach will they become open to a revolutionary alternative. In the past the RCG correctly argued that: 'Given the strength of reformism, the working class will first support the national solution of their old leadership. The political solution of an independent proletarian perspective will not be taken up by the masses until the apparently new political solutions of the reformists is discredited ... Given the above analysis the struggle to develop a Marxist tradition becomes the issue facing revolutionaries. The very development of a vanguard is inconceivable unless the struggle to establish a Marxist tradition is waged.'

. (17) class was borne out by the attitude taken by the British left to the Common Market referendum of 1975. Among the various left groups, agreement was virtually unanimous that the duty of socialists was to oppose Britain's entry into the Common Market and thus to call for a NO vote. The radical left was not interested in advancing a political strategy for the working class on the EEC that was ideologically independent of all bourgeois options. Rather it decided that it wanted to follow the NO campaign pioneered by the Tribunites and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). As Socialist Worker put it: 'A NO vote, that is to say, a defeat for the bia business, Tory, Liberal and right-wing Labour coalition on this issue, is in our interests. We are part of the left. We can no more abstain in this confrontation than we could abstain in last yèar's elections. The arena for our internationalist message is inside the NO 7 camp. That is where the vast majority of class •conscious workers are. That is where we belong.'(18) For the IS it was a question of being with the 'vast majority' of what it terms "class-conscious workers' _ that is all workers to the left of pro-Marketeer Roy Jenkins. After all, if the IS refused to go along with the NO vote they would leave the field open to the opportunism of the Communist Party who : 'would be able to pretend that their own disgusting chauvinism and alliances with Powell were the only alternative to the Jenkinsites and the Market.'(19) It is unfortunate that the IS did not attempt to explain how, by joining the CP's campaign, it could combat its chauvinism and opportunism. The IS argued that an abstentionist policy would imply a refusal to hinder what they saw as British capital's plan to strengthen itself, a cry that was taken up by other left groups. The IMG declared in Red Weekly that: 'Anything that weakens it [the EEC, Ed] tilts the relation of class forces in favour of the working class on both an international and a national level. It is for this reason that the IMG will be calling for a vote against British membership. (20) According to the simple logic of Red Weekly anything that economically weakens big capital somehow must be in the interests of the working class. But, the materialist method is not quite so straightforward. The proletariat needs an independent orientation, not one that is determined at each instant by the moves of. big capital. If it were the case that the interests of the working class were always served by adopting a position diametrically opposed to big capital, there: could be no legitimate arguments against the imposition of import controls or bans on the export of capital. Are not these also moves that would 'objectively weaken capital' in the sense understood by the left? Are not these steps also supported by many of what IS terms 'class-conscious workers'?

Only a revolutionary abstentionist position on the EEC could express the independent interests of the working In arguing this the RCG emphasised the class. re-emergence of inter-imperialist rivalries and the corresponding strengthening of chauvinist ideology in the working class, It stressed that the working class had no interest in supporting' one capitalist option over another: neither British nor European capital could offer The absence of a Marxist tradition in the working class movement means that revolutionary ideas will often be met with indifference. Positions which defend the overall interests of the class will frequently be unpopular and the arguments supporting these positions will often appear difficult. Nevertheless revolution-.

aries must advance them. Lenin wrote: 'The objection will also probably be raised that the working class masses are not yet able to understand the idea of the political struggle, an idea that is comprehensible only to certain, more developed workers.

To this objection, which we hear so frequently from "young"" Russian Social-Democrats, our answer is that, firstly, Social-Democracy has everywhere and always been, and cannot but be the representative of the class-conscious, and not of the non-class conscious, workers and that there cannot be anything more dangerous and more criminal than the

demagogic speculation on the underdevelopment of the workers. If the criterion of activity were that which is immediately, directly, and to the greatest degree accessible to the broadest masses, we should have to preach anti-semitism ... (21) vanguard, and the road to the vanguard has to start from the most advanced elements — elements who can be won to a recognition of the need to build a Marxist tradition in the working class.

At least as late as November 1975, this task of 'rebuilding the Marxist tradition' was the perspective of the RCG. Cde Yatfe, quoting the Political Committee (PC) Report to Conference, remarked: 'It is still true to say that: "The RCG's justification for existence lies precisely in its determination to develop an independent proletarian perspective. The backwardness of the British movement should not blind us to the unique opportunity we have in attracting those workers and intellectuals who demand political answers to the problems facing the working class."

But the process will be that much harder and much less dramatic than we imagined. '(22) Throughout the following months, as the bourgeoisie's ideological and economic offensive intensified, demoralisation in the class was mirrored by the desperate opportunism of the left. As it began to lose its members and periphery, pressure mounted on the left to look beyond the current setbacks towards the mass struggles that would develop as disenchantment with the Labour government grew. Arguing for a principled revolutionary standpoint provoked immediate hostility, for the left was concerned above all to overcome its isolation through adaptation.

The pressure of political isolation had an impact on the RCG as well. From April 1976 onwards, the majority of the PC of the RCG began to argue for a 'turn to the class'. In April the turn reflected itself in talk of building the RCG 'independently', through bypassing the radical left. Cde Yaffe wrote: empting to bud an agith trait rather ver are to them.'(23) It is indeed necessary to break with the methods of the radical left in order to train a vanguard. But this will not be achieved by abandoning the struggle against the - opportunist standpoint of the radical left. Cde Yaffe's 'turn to the class' implied that: 'Our main orientation was not to the radical left but to reformist workers and at this time, the Communist Party. (24) In choosing an 'orientation', the decisive factor for Cde Yaffe - the factor that sent him scurrying in the direction of the CPGB - was that of social composition. Cde Yaffe found in social composition the root of all the problems involved in building a revolutionary organisation. Treating the radical left as a class, he adduced its non-revolutionary nature from its social position: 'This kind of nonsense, the dishonesty and selfdeception which we have encountered in all our work with the radical left is possible precisely because the "revolutionary" movement is predominantly petty bourgeois. (25) • This concern with social composition showed how the pressure of isolation was beginning to interfere with a • rational assessment of the objective tasks. Lenin argued against this standpoint as follows: 'Our wiseacres, however, at a time when Russian Social Democracy is passing through a crisis entirely due to the lack of sufficiently trained, developed and experienced leaders to guide the spontaneously awakening masses, cry out with the profundity of fools: "It is a bad business when the movement does not proceed from the rank and file."

"A committee of students is of no use; it is not stable." Quite true. But the conclusion to be drawn from this is that we must have a committee of professional revolutionaries and it is immaterial whether a student or a worker is capable of becoming a professional revolutionary. (26) For Lenin, the task of the day was to destroy the opportunist accommodation to the existing trade union consciousness of the class that characterised economism. It was this objective task that determined his emphasis on an organisation of professional revolutionaries. This is the clear message that runs throughout all Lenin's writings until the defeat of economism as the dominant trend in the movement. Looking back on What is to be done? five years later, Lenin defended it against those who saw it as one-sided: 'Iskra fought for an organisation of professional revolutionaries. It fought with especial vigour in 1901. and 1902, vanquished Economism the then dominant trend, and finally created this organisation in 1903 ...

And now, when the fight for this organisation has long been won, when the seed has ripened, and the harvest gathered people come along and tell us: "You exaggerated the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries!" Is this not ridiculous?'(27) Cde Yaffe has enjoyed no such victory over economism. Yet he is anxious to leap over the stage of training professional revolutionaries in favour of tactical turns to the class: •Propaganda directed at the Communist Party should become a vital part of our work. This is not only because the Communist Party has a working class .

base, but also because it offers the clearest and consistent expression [sic] of left reformism. ' (28) It was later made clear that Cde Yaffe was far more interested in the 'working class base' of the CPGB than in its programme. Ideological clarification via 'propaganda directed at the Communist Party' became an 'orientation' towards splitting the CPGB itself: we have attempted to ferment the split in the That split has to be brought about to offer a revolutionary tendency like ours some fertile ground to argue our standpoint in the labour movement. '(29) Cde Yaffe's approach recalls the blatant workerism of the International Socialists: We are interested in action in the working movement, tenants, etc. So we are interested in the CP which has real forces on the ground. We are not interested in little groups without a working class base. Of course we want to work with militants of any political tendency where we can get agreement. But, generally speaking, we are not too concerned about the attitude of the IMG, the "Militant" group, etc.

and certainly we do not waste much time on them. If 8

they agree with us, fine. If they don't and want to argue, let them go their way; we will go ours.'(30) It needs to be said that among the factors distancing the IS from Cde Yaffe is that the former, at any rate, has never had any pretensions to reestablishing a Marxist tradition. (d) Building a cadre organisation Revolutionary organisation - structure, constitution, method of political clarification inside and outside the party - is the form of interaction between programme and vanguard. In 'Our Tasks and Methods' it was noted that: 'Revolutionary organisation is not a mere form which arises automatically with the development of revolutionary theory. The organisational form must be adequate to the tasks of revolutionaries in developing a correct programme and fighting for it in the working class. (31) Just as political ideas remain no more than theoretical concepts until their consequences for practice are drawn out, so too the political orientation of the revolutionary party can only express itself concretely through its organisational form, the way in which it to the movement and the organisational relates structures it adopts to carry on its activity.

Understanding this, Lenin regarded organisational questions as directly linked with political tasks. In a period of what Lenin called 'theoretical disorder the chief task of revolutionaries had to be the struggle for a clear principled line: a struggle waged by expressing all differences clearly and sharply: 'As long as we had no unity on the fundamental questions of programme and tactics, we bluntly admitted that we were living in a period of disunity and separate circles, we bluntly declared that before we could unite, lines of demarcation must be drawn ...'(32) The struggle for clarity which characterised the formation of the Russian party proved to be the exception rather than the rule: In the other parties of the Second International, by contrast, all shades of political opinion coexisted. Lacking an organisational expression, the fight against opportunism could not assume therefore a sharp form. Without any clear lines of demarcation . drawn in the preceding period the Second International fell apart at the outbreak of the First World War. As Lukacs pointed out, the struggle within the International was conducted in a purely intellectual way: differences were expressed as disputes over the formal correctness of this or that theory. Because of their reluctance to harden their differences into a systematic political perspective the opportunists could not be isolated: 'If the war with opportunism is conceived exclusively as an intellectual conflict within the party it must obviously be waged so as to put the whole emphasis on convincing the supporters of opportunism and on achieving a majority within the party. Naturally it follows that the struggle against opportunism will disintegrate into a series of individual skirmishes in which the ally of yesterday can become the opponent of today and vice versa. A war against opportunism as a tendency cannot crystallise out... (33) 9 Thus political battles have to be fought not only at the level of ideas but at the level of organisation as well: Furthermore, organisational form has to be adequate to the political content of the struggle to ensure that this content is expressed in the sharpest way. The politics of an organisation are not just a collection of theoretical positions which it has developed or which it supports.

Rather, an organisation establishes its political identity by the totality of these ideas and the strategic line by which it attempts to translate them into a material force., The politics of the old RCG did not just reside in the major theoretical gains it made for the movement. The political consequences of these gains also had to be fought for. For this reason the activities of the RCG its relation to the potential vanguard - took the form of a sustained polemic against the prevailing opportunism of the left. Only in the course of this struggle could the membership be developed to learn the Marxist method in practice. Conversely, given this objective of ideological struggle, the task inside the organisation was to prepare the membership theoretically to the highest level. Only a rounded theoretical understanding could begin to equip comrades for the task of reasserting the ideas of Marxism - ideas that have had no currency in the class for several decades. In line with this, all members were required to carry out work in the various theoretical workgroups of the organisation. These units were seen as vital to the overall development of members to the level of cadres. The necessity was to forge future leaders, and this could only be ensured by developing comrades to the stage where they could critically analyse all aspects of capitalist society.

Democratic centralism is the organisational basis which makes this political development possible. The two poles of democracy and centralism are not opposed in the sense of two conflicting principles: rather they form an integral whole. Democratic debate can only ensure the political development of the membership and the political homogenisation of the organisation as a whole if it is given centralised political direction.

Conversely, centralism can only be effective if it trains all members to play an active part in determining the group's direction. The totality of this approach constitutes the organisational form of the party, and the strategy it adopts for relating to the vanguard and the, class.

(e) Sectarianism and the radical left The left not only rejects the struggle against opportunism; but also sees it as disruptive and as a barrier to 'real struggle. Thus the fight against opportunism is seen as 'sectarian' and theory is regarded as separate from practice. The Women and the Cuts Conference in February 1976 brought this out very clearly. The RCG argued at the conference that the divisions in the working class movement in face of the public sector cuts could only be overcome from a revolutionary standpoint. As long as opposition to the cuts remained on a reformist level, it could only amount to an ineffective rearguard action. An understanding had to be created at the conference of why the cuts were necessary for capitalism, and of how they were related to the oppression of women. The radical left argued that debate on such questions would be divisive: but it

offered no political basis for uniting the working class.

The Workers League report of the conference summed up the prevalent attitude: "...unproductive sectarian debate ...

diverted this conference from its most important tasks. While discussion of theory and its implementation is crucial, this sort of disruption only alienates many nonaligned delegates from "theory" and "politics" which seem unrelated to their struggles ... (34) Here theory is seen as 'crucial', but not if it alienates people. An insistence on drawing a distinction between a reformist and a revolutionary basis for a campaign is termed 'disruptive'. The 'many non-aligned delegates' are to be allowed to get on with their struggles, unhampered by 'theory' or 'politics'. The logic of the radical left's criticism is to abdicate the role of revolutionary leadership altogether, under the guise of non-sectarianism. The position adopted by radical left groups at this conference was no isolated occurrence but was indicative of a general trend. The fear of alienating the 'non-aligned' means that adherence to revolutionary principles becomes a tactical question.

Thus the IMG could argue that the 'excellent' demands Troops Out Now, Self-determination for the Irish People' need not be adhered to: "The TOM demands are both excellent. They should be fought for everywhere support can be won for them. But the sectarians are wrong. They are wrong because although many people can be mobilised in opposition to the British presence in Ireland, not all - perhaps not even most - will agree with the TOM demands. Obviously it is necessary to debate with these people, to convince them of the role of the troops and the need to pull them out right now. But you can only have that debate if the actions are already underway. It is no use and no help at all to make your principles a barrier to convincing others that those principles are right. (35) Here principles are seen as an optional and cumbersome extra. The implicit assumption is that the stage of • ideological preparation of the vanguard has been completed; all that remains is a mere quantitative growth of its ranks. It seems that there is now no need •to emphasise propaganda or to insist. on ideological demarcation. But how can this stage be complete when such theoretical disorder exists on the left? How can revolutionary principles be given any meaning at all if they are continually jettisoned in an attempt to reach the masses? And how can a cadre be trained in the political 'marsh' (36) defined by these positions?

The left fears its own isolation to such an extent that it is prepared to try any opportunist manoeuvre to gain the ear of the masses. It is thus fiercely opposed to 'sectarian', principled struggle, which it sees as if it assumes an Frequently, political debate itself, organisational form is also seen in this light. The IMG complains of the intransigence of 'small groups': 'The proliferation of small groups and sects on the Trotskyist left leaves most militants bemused and seriously harms the winning of politically conscious workers and students to revolutionary socialism. '(37) Here the IMG denies that the fragmentation of the left has any cause other than a refusal to unite. The logic of this is expressed when it calls indiscriminately for the unification of the 'Trotskyist left': 10 ...the International Marxist Group, while it has many disagreements on particular issues with organisations such as the Workers Socialist League, International- Communist League and the supporters of the Chartist newspaper, nevertheless recognises these as revolutionary organisations. It therefore seeks to unity its forces with these organisations. (38) and later, under the heading 'Sectarian Politics' 'It is to be hoped that the ICL will sort out the contradictions in their positions, stop their absurd attempt to claim that the IMG is not a revolutionary organisation and will seek to unify their forces with the IMG.'

(39) This placing of organisational unity above political agreement is characteristic of the opportunism that dominates the left. It is just another form of the short cuts taken by the left in its search for numerical growth.

The real problem - the ideological fragmentation of the left - is ignored, and quick cures are sought on an.

organisational level. The struggle against opportunism must go hand in hand with a struggle against this method of blurring argued that sharp struggle and demarcation was especially necessary when as today the most general principles and the fundamental aims of revolutionary policy were at issue: 'Undoubtedly, this struggle has many unattractive features ... Today, in retrospect, we can clearly see which of the circles was really in a position to act as a base of operations ... But at that time ... the controversy could be resolved only through struggle ... the struggle that they waged posed the key problems of the Social-Democratic movement in the sharpest possible manner and solved them in an irreconcilable revolutionary spirit, thereby creating a firm basis for broad party activity. ' (40) For the left, however, it is the 'unattractive features' of the struggle that are paramount. Afraid to wage a principled struggle or to sharpen differences lest it offend the 'non-aligned', the left adapts to the most backward prejudices that dominate the movement. The destructive power of the opportunist trend gathers strength behind the stern mask of the opponents of 'sectarianism'. (f) Cde Yaffe joins the 'non-sectarians' The following indicates how Cde Yaffe's position developed between March and November 1976.

'The Women and the Cuts Conference demonstrated once again that the RCG is regarded as "sectarian" because it insists on putting over a principled revolutionary standpoint. It will necessarily appear that way until we begin to build roots in the working class movement. Nevertheless, it is vital to make this stand against the radical left for it is a central part of the : struggle for ideological leadership of the working class movement.'(41) 'The dangers now facing us are those of sectarianism. This expresses itself as a refusal to come to terms with the tactical and strategical adjustments needed to take our positions into the working class

movement. It is a position which puts the RCG before the overall interests of the working class. '(42) The fear of isolation which reflects itself in a desire to appear 'non-sectarian' stamps every page of A Turning Point. Like a captain who mutinies on his own ship, Cde Yaffe has begun to appropriate and use the language previously employed by the radical left in attacks on the

RCG.

Though previously Cde Yaffe had regarded sectarianism as merely. the form in which a 'principled revolutionary standpoint' necessarily had to appear, within the śhort space of eight months 'sectarianism' had turned from appearance to reality. The interests of the working class would now be best served by a complete change in the RCG's political line, by a complete change of its previous organisational form.

Far from fighting for clear ideological demarcation, the majority faction, as we shall show, now curbs criticism of the CPGB on South Africa, and argues on the Irish question: We would have welcomed the presence of the CPGB in the Troops Out Movement on the basis and only on the basis of the minimum demands: Troops Out Now, Self-determination for the Irish People. We would have defended them against sectarian attacks within , the Troops Out Movement should the occasion have arisen.'(43) The majority well recognises the unpalatable - if undeniable - fact that the CPGB is not amongst the few forces who, at least nominally, support a principled stand on the Irish question. Nevertheless, writing as if things could be different, the majority proceeds to conjure up a fantastic scene in which the CPGB, participating in a principled solidarity campaign, is attacked by the wretched sectarians of the petitbourgeois radical left. By showing its willingness to defend the CPGB - even if in the context of an impossible dream - the majority will be able to remain "principled' on the one hand, while appearing 'reasonable' on the other. What is most remarkable about this new-found method is that it ceases to fight opportunism as a trend in the movement. Rather, the politics of the CPGB are now portrayed as unaccountable lapses or accidental errors. Lenin's approach was the exact opposite. Criticising lay in its failure to explain social chauvinism as a necessary consequence of the opportunism that held sway in the International: 'This is wrong from the standpoint of theory for it is impossible to account for the "betrayal" without linking it up with opportunism as a trend with a. long history behind it, the history of the whole Second International' (44) Not only was it wrong rom a theoretical standpoint, but it was 'a mistake from the practical political standpoint' as well. Lenin argued that the degeneration could only be overcome through exposing the opportunism that led to the Second International's collapse.

than clarify vital questions for the movement. It portrays the social-chauvinist position of the CPGB on Ireland as an unfortunate quirk of its political line, not as a necessary consequence of it. Furthermore, it argues that it would be wrong to emphasise or sharpen differences between the RCG and the CPGB: "Preaching to the CPGB, announcing our own purity on the question lin this case South Africa, Edl, wil enable the CPGB to dismiss our criticism as ultra left and sectarian, and what is more to convince cean.

that this is the case. "(45) The central criterion is now what 'others' will think: political demarcation is ruled out, as the training of a political vanguard is rejected in favour of appearing reasonable to the CPGB and others.

(g) Cde Yaffe's finest hour The majority faction chose to execute its about-face at the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) Conference on 6th November 1976 (46). At an RCG Executive Committee meeting in early November, Cde Yaffe and the majority faction opposed and defeated a motion put by the PC minority which argued that if 'anti-working class views' were expressed at the conference, RCG comrades had a duty to combat them. Arguing that 'sectarianism in this case ... must inevitably assume the form of chauvinism, Cde Yaffe put his case as follows: 'Insofar as the CPGB supports the demands of the liberation movement for the isolation of South Africa we consider it the height of sectarianism and in this , context chauvinism to use public meetings called to support the South African struggle for the purpose of conducting a struggle within the British labour movement against the CPGB'.(47) In the following sections we will show how his new-found definition of chauvinism is in full accord with his changed political practice.

2. 'A TURNING POINT'... THE RETROGRADE STEP

The arguments presented in A Turning Point, the newly adopted perspective of the RCG, relate primarily to tactical considerations, questions of administration and and to the organisation, psychology of the PC minority. Insofar as political points are advanced, they are asserted, rather than argued for. It therefore becomes necessary to make explicit what is only implicit in A Turning Point. We do this by referring to other material of the majority faction where the consequences of A Turning Point emerge more clearly. In this section we deal with the majority faction's approach to the question of solidarity work and South Africa. For the majority faction the question of South Africa provided a means of demonstrating a 'nonsectarian' approach to the CPGB. The subordination of the task of training a vanguard to that of seeking splits in the CPGB has led to the development of an opportunist position on solidarity work. The first major consequence of the RCG's adaptation to the CPGB has been its abandonment of the struggle for proletarian internationalism. We shall show that the goal of appearing 'reasonable' to the CPGB leads the RCG to 'reconcile Marxism with opportunism.

The political consequences of the majority faction's orientation to the CPGB were made explicit during a 11

other nations 'in defence of the fatherland' during the . revolutionary leadership with the phrase of a bourgeois class paid the same price for the abandonment of chauvinism in the working class — a task which was • dispute about the RCG's intervention at an Anti- Apartheid Movement Conference. The majority faction instructed RCG members not to criticise the chauvinist politics of the CPGB at this Conference. The decision not to confront the chauvinism of the CPGB was made not as a tactic, but as a point of principle. The PC minority argued that the RCG must take up the CPGB's chauvinist standpoint. For this, it was characterised in the following way by the majority faction: 'The violation of the fundamental principles of internationalism by three PC members (JH CD FR) has become clear in their recent attitude to a conference called by the Anti-Apartheid Movement.'(48) When we examine their charge of the 'violation of the fundamental principles of internationalism', we find that it refers to our insistence on fighting the reactionary politics of the CPGB on South Africa. The discovery of these new 'fundamental principles of internationalism' - which are never explained - marks a rejection of the principles which guided the solidarity work of the RCG in the past. (a) From Proletarian Internationalism...

With the deepening of the world crisis of capitalism, inter-imperialist rivalries have emerged with renewed force. The intensification of capitalist .competition expresses itself in the growing antagonism between different national capitals. Thus each nation-state attempts to protect its own industries in order to solve the crisis; protectionist measures, such as dumping charges and quotas, have been imposed by all advanced nations, and tariffs have been placed upon international competitors. The dominance of reformism in the working class has allowed 'national-interest' arguments to gain strength. Indeed, as the crisis deepens, less and less of a distinction is made by reformists between 'the British people' and the working class. The CPGB, advancing its 'British solution' to a 'British' crisis, writes: 'But we are already being "retaliated" against. What is the flood of imports if not an effort by international capitalist giants to take over markets from Britishbased industries? ... Import controls are urgently needed as an emergency measure against a trade war which is being waged against the British people here and now.'(49) greatest dangers facing the movement. The defence of the independent interests of the working class cannot be separated from a consistent struggle for proletarian internationalism. For the RCG in the past, the struggle for proletarian internationalism was a fundamental task. It was recognised that the overthrow of capitalism was inconceivable if the international proletariat remained divided along national lines: this was the lesson to be drawn from the past defeats of the working class movement. The social-chauvinist Second International had led millions of workers to die fighting the workers of First World War. Twenty five years later the working 12 internationalism by the Stalinised Third International.

The objective importance of fighting for international solidarity arose, therefore, not from moral considerations, but from its centrality to the defence of the international proletariat.

For Lenin, international solidarity in defence of the oppressed nations was directly connected with the struggle against social-chauvinism in the oppressor nation: 'It means that the action is twofold ... (a) first, it is the "action" of the nationally oppressed proletariat and peasantry jointly with the nationally oppressed bourgeoisie against the oppressor nation; (b) second, it is the "action" of the proletariat, or of its classconscious section, in the oppressor nation against the bourgeoisie of that nation and all the elements that follow it. (50) This understanding led the old RCG to insist that solidarity with liberation movements of oppressed nations must combine aiding those movements in their struggle against imperialism with the attempt to free British workers from their political alliance with the British imperialist ruling class. The impossibility of giving real solidarity to the struggles of the oppressed without combatting nationalism in the working class of the oppressor nation was drawn out by the RCG in relation to Ireland: 'This approach is twofold: giving concrete solidarity to the national struggle of the Irish people and advancing the revolutionary independence of the British working class. (51) A struggle against nationalism and chauvinism in the British labour movement was seen as the only way to provide effective solidarity with the oppressed. The failure of reformism to support the struggles of the oppressed had to be exposed. The old RCG's participation in solidarity movements was never separated from confronting chauvinism inside and outside those movements. This was the reason why, in its founding document, the RCG insisted on the right to advance its own independent positions: 'Our participation in these movements is dependent on the demands of the movement, eg self-determination for the Irish people, being consistent with our programme. Within the movement we will put forward our own independent positions and attempt to attract support for our political approach, but the acceptance by the movement as a whole of our positions in full is not a condition for our participation in such movements. '(52) The adaptation of today's RCG to the CPGB has led to its abandonment of a principled approach to solidarity work. The majority faction has developed its new. 'principles of internationalism' through attacking the PC minority's insistence on the need to combat chauvinism at the AAM Conference. According to the maority faction, the PC minority: ...wished to use this conference for the purpose of attacking the position of the CPGB, so furthering the "interests" of the RCG. This we had no right to do.'

(53) The majority faction has dismissed the role of liberal. We no longer have the right to confront

Communist at that Congress to get up and state that overcome British chauvinism.

formerly seen as a necessary element of revolutionary solidarity. This task has been reduced by the majority faction to a literary prerogative: 'As always we reserve our right to criticise in our Journals all groups with whom we disagree: (54) A non-aggression pact with the CPGB has replaced political struggle against the ideas of that organisation.

This is a bankrupt approach: unless revolutionaries oppose opportunist and chauvinist tendencies in the working class, the ideological basis for effective solidarity will not exist; internationalism will be reduced to sympathy for 'the poor and the oppressed'.

At the Second Congress of the Communist International (1920), Radek, speaking for the Bolsheviks, criticised British communists whose solidarity with the oppressed extended no further than their newspapers, and drew particular attention to their failure to confront the social-chauvinism of the British labour leadership: 'Radek: The Labour Congress of Scarborough has adopted an important resolution demanding the independence of India and Egypt. There was not a the Macdonalds are supporting the English bourgeoisie and beguiling the English workers in speaking of the independence of India, Ireland and Egypt ...

We regret very much that our comrades in the Labour Party did not tear the masks from the faces of these hypocrites. The International will judge the English comrades not by the articles they write in the "Call' and in the "Workers' Dreadnought" but by the number of comrades who are thrown into prison for agitation on the colonial question. We draw the attention of the English comrades to the fact that it is their duty to support the Irish movement with all the means at their disposal; that it is their duty to carry on agitation among English troops; that it is their duty to oppose with all possible force the policy of English transport and railway workers allowing the transportation of troops into Ireland. It is very easy at present to take a stand against intervention in Russia for even the Left Wing of the bourgeoisie is opposed to it. It is much harder for the English comrades to stand up for Irish independence, and to carry on anti-militarist activity. But just this hard work we are justified in demanding of the English comrades... (55) By upbraiding the British communists for their failure to expose the phoney internationalism of reformists, the Communist International made it clear that proletarian internationalism could not be separated from confronting chauvinism head-on. ... to petit-bourgeois moralism The separation of solidarity with oppressed peoples from the struggle against chauvinism in the oppressor country places the majority faction in the camp of those petit-bourgeois moralists who degrade the term 'solidarity' to mean helping the underdog. This moralistic approach to internationalism attempts to aid the oppressed without exposing imperialism and bourgeois ideas at home. • In its work on Ireland in the Troops Out Movement (TOM), the RCG had to confront not only chauvinism in the British working class, but also that standpoint •which saw the task of aiding the Irish people as distinct 13 from the task of fighting chauvinism. The TOM leadership divorced the democratic struggle of the Irish people from the class struggle as a whole. It could therefore say: •...TOM is specifically the sort of broad-based and flexible movement which can achieve its aims on the basis of very limited demands and it will do so in the interests of the Irish people, and not in the interest of achieving "revolutionary clarity for the British working class". Unlike the RCG we hope the TOM Will soon no longer be necessary - the sooner the better, and we will take all the short-cuts we can to ensure troops are withdrawn. (56) Through dismissing the need for 'revolutionary clarity' in the British working class, the TOM leadership dismissed the only basis for effective solidarity. Against the moralists of TOM, the old RCG argued that solidarity could only be effective on the basis of independent working class struggle against the British State. What separated revolutionary internationalism from moral internationalism was its determination to Rather than confront the unavoidable barrier of British chauvinism, the TOM adapted itself to chauvinist arguments, arguments that portrayed the war in Ireland as an intolerable burden on the British State. As the 'failure of TOM became more and more evident, its leadership attempted to build new alliances on an opportunist political basis. The CPGB's formal support for the slogan of self-determination provided a vehicle for this. That the CPGB's support for self-determination involves its very denial - a British imposed Bill of Rights, and opposition to the demand Troops Out Now - was of no importance to the moralists. Instead of struggling for principled demarcation between the hypocritical internationalism of the CPGB and the revolutionary slogan of Troops Out Now, they were prepared to drop the demand for immediate withdrawal at every occasion. As the RCG's Statement of Resignation from the Troops Out Movement correctly noted: 'over the last eighteen months... TOM has failed to mobilise for a single major event under the banner of its own slogans. Instead, it posed as a mild-mannered, harmless reformist, politely requesting "Free Speech on Ireland" (5 October 1975), tactfully suggesting an "End to British Involvement in Ireland" (1 February 1976) and modestly proposing a "Progressive policy to assist the Irish" (Labour Movement Delegation, September 1976). By means of these manoeuvres, it hoped to seduce the CP into "unity in action" and force its much-sought-after (though never found), war weary liberals and downtrodden taxpayers onto the streets. (57) The majority faction's orientation to the CPGB has led it to apply the bankrupt politics of TOM to the South African question. Just as TOM was prepared to forget that the CPGB's formal support for self-determination was in reality support for a different form of British rule : in Ireland, so the majority faction is prepared to take the CPGB's support for the 'isolation of South Africa' at its face value: 'In so far as the CPGB supports the demands of the • liberation movement for the isolation of South Africa we consider it the height of sectarianism and in this

context chauvinism to use public meetings called to , support the South African struggle for the purpose of conducting a struggle within the British labour movement against the CPGB. (58) In the 'interests' of the South African liberation struggle the majority faction is happy to apologise for the CPGB.

Leave aside the fact that the CPGB's 'support for isolation has as its central plank the chauvinist demand for repatriation of capital to Britain (59) - that is seen as a question for the British labour movement: here we are concerned with the South African struggle and: ...if the liberation movement chooses to share a platform with the CPGB, as it has done, it is not for the RCG - at a solidarity meeting - to attack the CG. (60) Alongside the moralists of the TOM, the moralists of the majority separate the struggle for solidarity with oppressed peoples from the struggle against bourgeois ideas in the working class. Just as the TOM actively seeks opportunist 'united fronts' with the CPGB 'in the interests of the Irish people', so the majority faction keeps silent about the chauvinism of the CPGB ostensibly in order to 'help' the South African liberation movement. The RCG's diplomatic approach to solidarity work signifies its rejection of the task of training a vanguard.

Without ideologically arming sections of the working class with the principles of proletarian internationalism, the solidarity movement will not establish firm foundations in the workers' movement, and can have only a transitory character. The majority's assertion that revolutionaries have no 'right' to fight for their views inside a solidarity movement shows the consequences of its new-found 'principles of internationalism'; the struggle against chauvinism in the British labour movement is no longer at the centre of the RCG's solidarity work. Rather, the majority has opted for building a solidarity movement on a basis that cannot confront the reformist consciousness of. British workers, but which it hopes will further its end of seeking splits in the CPGB.

(b) The charge of chauvinism is a charge into the CPGB The charge of chauvinism hurled by the majority faction at the PC minority is as empty as its charge of 'sectarianișm'. Nevertheless, we must explain how it can be that the determination to confront chauvinism can itself be characterised as 'chauvinist'. The charge is nothing new - it was aimed at the old RCG by the TOM leadership: 'the RCG give the impression of seeing TOM as a battleground for different theories on Ireland ... The RCG position leads very dangerously near to something of which they themselves accuse others: British chauvinism.'(61) For the petit-bourgeois moralist, principled ideological struggle can indeed appear 'chauvinist. Seeking a short cut to the CPGB; the majority faction will not let 'sectarian' ideological demarcation serve as an obstacle.

And when the question of South Africa is raised, the charge of 'sectarianism' can easily be turned into the charge of 'chauvinism'. Cde Yaffe and the majority faction have perfected this game: 14 'The RCG must and will fully discuss the South Africa question ... We shall then be better equipped to participate fully in this campaign but on a non-sectarian basis. For sectarianism in this case ... must inevitably assume the form of chauvinism.'(62) As was the case with the charge of 'sectarianism', the majority's charge of 'chauvinism' is most revealing about the RCG's new political standpoint. It is worth quoting the RCG's new characterisation of 'chauvinism: 'Members of the RCG have no right to approach the South African liberation movement as though they, comrades in a British group, have the right to decide when and where their leadership is needed. This reflects the deeply entrenched imperialist mentality that has soured the British labour movement throughout its history ... land led] ... our chauvinists to place a disgusting condition on the work of the ANC/AAM in this country. (63) Comrades who are accustomed to the precise political characterisations of the old RCG will be surprised to find that openly criticising the CPGB would have been 'placing a disgusting condition' on the ANC/AAM, and that 'comrades in a British group' have no right to Though in the past the RCG defined chauvinism as 'support for a particular imperialist nation state in its relations with other nation states' (64), today it is defined as arguing honestly and openly for proletarian internationalist principles.

The 'non-sectarian' courtesy of the majority faction towards the CPGB also extends to the ANC/AAM. The majority faction replaces proletarian internationalism with flattery: 'The ANC is a broad organisation embracing classes and strata of all oppressed peoples of South Africa.

The question which concerns us here is not whether it is "right" or "left" oriented, but whether it is a revolutionary or reactionary national movement.' (65) Toying with the words 'broad', 'right', 'left', 'revolutionary', 'reactionary', the RCG searches for a word which will avoid the sticky problem of characterising the ANC for what it is — a bourgeois-democratic movement. Later, we are told that the PC. minority must believe that the ANC is reactionary, 'since otherwise they would be compelled to give full support to the ANC in its struggle for the overthrow of white supremacy' (66) But our unconditional support for the destruction of the apartheid regime does not absolve us from criticising the politics of the ANC/AAM. As Leninists, we reject Cde Yaffe's plea that 'comrades in a British group do not have the right to criticise the ANC'(67).

In fact, the right to criticise the ANC was not the issue at the AAM Conference. The red herring raised by the majority displays the petit-bourgeois moralism that underlies their new position. However, it should not be allowed to obscure the central question. It was the rejection of our responsibility to criticise the CPGB that was at the heart of the charge of 'chauvinism'. Like the charge of 'sectarianism', this position flows from the RCG's new orientation to the CPGB. The 'principles' of internationalism that the RCG has recently discovered demand that it appeals to the British labour movement's moral concern for South African workers, but refrains

from attacking the chauvinism that is the barrier to effective solidarity. This new standpoint was illustratec in another of the 'very damaging disputes' Cde Yaffe communes gage it aide tr Revolutionary Communist 5(68).

The paragraph illustrates both the RCG's refusal to criticise the CPGB's role within the South African cause: The RCG is aware of the long-standing association of the CPGB and the ANC (South Africa). Many CP members in Britain have for long devoted themselves to the South African cause. Some have risked life and limb going to South Africa in support of the struggle.

But they too have an interest in opposing the leadership of their party and fighting for an end to the chauvinism that is part of its political line. Only on the basis of proletarian internationalism can their devoto liberation in South Africa-assume real tion meaning. We are convinced that many of its members when confronted with the chauvinism of the CPGB will come out unequivocally against import controls, and the entire paraphernalia of "national' solutions. (69) confuses the individual heroism of CP members with the CPGB's role as a political organisation. To talk about the CPGB's relationship to a section of the South African liberation movement in this favourable way is to forget that the national-reformist politics of the CPGB are an obstacle to the struggle for national liberation. The only basis for acknowledging the CPGB in this fashion is one of liberal moralism. Taking the subjective commitment of individuals as his starting point, Cde Yaffe wishes to make their 'devotion ... assume real meaning'.

Secondly, the paragraph tries to make proletarian internationalists out of individual CP members by 'confronting' them with the chauvinism that is 'part of (sic) the CPGB's political line. We are told that many of its members, when confronted with the chauvinism of the CPGB, will come out 'unequivocally against import controls, and the entire paraphernalia of "national" solutions'. Here we have an attempt to challenge 'part of' the CPGB's line - the part that. is chauvinist - by appealing to its 'devoted" sections and showing them the incompatibility of the two separate standpoints. In fact, the CPGB's social-chauvinism and moral internationalism are entirely compatible. An internationalist section of the British working class will only emerge through the struggle against chauvinism and nationalism, not through appeals to the moral sentiments of individual CP members. For Cde Yaffe, the rejection of this paragraph by three PC members was further evidence of their sectarianism: '...3 PC members .. could not support that article because it acknowledged the long-standing relation of the CPGB with the ANC (South Africa). It was said that this standpoint "fails to confront the standpoint of the CPGB on South Africa". But not to start from this relation, and from there to show it cannot 15 assume real meaning unless on the basis of proletarian internationalism is ultra-leftism, the form sectarianism is beginning to take in our group."(70) The old RCG recognised that no. effective campaign could be built on the basis of moral internationalism. Its pamphlet, Ireland: British Labour and British Imperialism(71), took the form of a polemic against the CPGB's reformist perspective for this reason. Now, however, Cde Yaffe sets himself a different task - that of lending 'real meaning' to the CPGB's moral internationalism.

Instead of showing the chauvinist logic that runs throughout reformist politics, thereby posing the need for a revolutionary solution to the demands of the oppressed, Cde Yaffe speculates on the possibility of 'devoted' sections of the CPGB abandoning reformism in favour of principled revolutionary politics. This is the significance of his statement: 'We are convinced that many of its members when confronted with the chauvinism of the CPGB will come out unequivocally against import controls, and the entire paraphernalia of "national" solutions. '72 For our part we are certain that precisely because socialchauvinism and moral internationalism are entirely compatible it is all the more necessary to combat the politics of the CGB directly. As the PC minority stated before their expulsion: It would be wrong to denounce the CPGB in a hysterical way, but it is necessary that all illusions in the CP's position are crushed. Any worker breaking from the CP will not be won to a revolutionary standpoint unless our critique of the CP is unambiguous and no credence is given to the CP's moralistic "internationalism " on South Africa."(73) (c) Ideas that speak for themselves On a closer inspectionof the Majority's views we find that speaking at the AAM conference would not only have been 'chauvinist, but completely superfluous; first, because the conference had a 'consistently anticapitalist content' of its own; and, secondly, because there were others, 'just as able as we are', who would make sure that Marxism 'was influencing the debates in the labour movement': '...Here we have one of the most important conferences held in this country by the AAM, a conference which showed tremendous promise. Trade Union and labour movement delegates from all over Britain came to the conference for the purposes of strengthening the solidarity campaign with the South African liberation struggle. The attack on Apartheid had a consistently anti-capitalist content to it and in this sense was a resounding success. (74) The phrase 'the attack on apartheid had a consistently anti-capitalist content to it' is the PC majority's next justification for the enforced silence of RCG comrades at this conference. We shall be most interested to hear about the 'consistently anti-capitalist content' of the speeches by Michael O'Leary (Minister of Labour in the Dublin government - notorious for its repression of anti-imperialists), Ernie Clark (Executive Committee member of the CPGB), and others at the AAM Conference. In the meantime, Cde Yaffe has discovered a way of lending the consistent anti-capitalist content of the contributions 'real meaning', without: actually

having to do it himself. There are others, 'just as able as we are', who come forward at exactly the right moment: 'As it so happens anyone reading recent material on South Africa or having attended the conference would realise that the South African left is just as able as we are. It was the South African comrades who managed to have the tendency of the rate of profit to fall discussed in an audience of over 300 British trade union and labour movement delegates - a task we ourselves have yet to accomplish. (75) For Cde Yaffe: 'The fact that through the Good and Williams pamphlet Marxism was influencing the debates in the labour movement was an enormous step forward for the movement. Anyone who denies this is not only sectarian but thoroughly chauvinist. They have forgotten that our aim is to reestablish a marxist tradition in the movement.'(76) and he continues 'Comrades, the RCG did not discover the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Marx did that.'(77) The point of all this is to justify not taking up the CGB's chauvinism directly: instead, 'ideas' must.be allowed to do their work. The South African comrades, though 'just as able as we are', sometimes, for 'reasons best known to themselves': 'do not deal with this opportunism in the ranks of the working class. (78) However, they do talk about the falling rate of profit in front of large audiences, and this is what impresses Cde Yaffe most of all. As for the content of their arguments: 'The fact that these views are taken up in a particular way in the South African movement lies beyond our immediate consideration. (79) But it is precisely the particular way in which views are taken up in the movement that interests revolutionaries. It is quite possible for contradictory ideas to coexist so long as their consequences are not drawn out. The law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall was all the rage at the AAM Conference because it was legitimate to speak about this formula in neutral terms.

This is what Cde Yaffe has in mind when he says that we must: '..make Marxism an acceptable standpoint within the labour movement.'(80) Making Marxism 'acceptabie' means being content that at the conference Ruth First expounded upon the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and appealed to arguments about the national interest - and that the contradiction was nowhere pointed out. Similarly, it means being content that John Forrester (Deputy General Secretary (AUEW/TASS) said he agreed wholeheartedly with the 'doctrine' of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and went on - unopposed - to argue a nationalist position. • Cde Yaffe's new version of 're-establishing a Marxist tradition' consists of being glad that some of the ideas of Marx, in a garbled form, have become fashionable in certain circles. Such a view ignores the fact that Marxist ideas, far from 'influencing the debates in the labour movement', were being distorted at that conference.

'Marxism' was being used as a cover for chauvinist positions. This is nothing new - opportunists have been using the language of Marxism for decades in the - 16 workers' movement to obscure their real intentions. In justifying the fact that no-one at the conference drew out the contradictions between different sets of ideas, Cde Yaffe is legitimising the views of opportunists.

(d) How Cde Yaffe 'reconciles' Marxism with opportunism The majority faction's eagerness to appear 'nonsectarian' has led it to leave ideas to speak for themselves. The significance of this new approach should not be underestimated, for Marx's ideas have frequently been distorted and used for opportunist ends. In the past Social Democracy and Stalinism used 'Marxism' to justify policies of class collaboration. Lenin characterised the bankrupt politics of Kautsky as: '...a blend of loyalty to Marxism in word and subordination to opportunism in deed.'(81) and accused him of turning Marx 'into a common liberal' (82). Unless their political consequences are drawn out, the revolutionary significance of Marx's categories is lost. By letting ideas speak for themselves, Cde Yaffe's contribution on the South African question 'reconciles' Marxism with opportunism; his failure to confront chauvinism in the working class movement leads to the degradation of Marxism. The majority faction's final excuse for not criticisng the CPGB at the AAM conference is that it has done so elsewhere - in its theoretical journal (83). Cde Yaffe's article on South Africa takes the form of an 'extended commentary' on a pamphlet written by Good and Williams(84). In his Editorial to Revolutionary Communist 5, Cde Yaffe argues that the Good and Williams pamphlet places solidarity work with the South African liberation movement on a: firm revolutionary basis. They show conclusively how the struggle in support of liberation in Southern Africa is inseparable from the struggle for socialism in Britain. Without a correct revolutionary theory the opportunities that the crisis in Britain opens for solidarity work will be irretrievably lost. '(85) We would be only too pleased to share Cde Yaffe's high regard for this pamphlet if it did indeed demonstrate 'how the struggle in support of liberation in of the Southern Africa is inseparable from the struggle for socialism in Britain'. However, an aspect of the pamphlet which Cde Yaffe delicately characterises as 'curious', for us expresses the absence of a revolutionary standpoint in the pamphlet as a whole. Cde Yaffe remarks: 'This bringsus to the only curious feature of the Good and Williams pamphlet. For reasons known best to the authors they do not deal with this opportunism in the ranks of the working class. ' (86) What for Cde Yaffe is a 'curious feature' is for us a factor of fundamental importance. Good and Williams' failure to deal with opportunism expresses their inability to fight chauvinism in the British working class and therefcre undermines the basis for effective solidarity with the South African liberation movement.

struggle for socialism in Britain'. On the contrary, the . out. Good and Williams do the opposite. By starting from (i) The curious feature of Good and Williams We must look carefully at the Good and Williams pamphlet, as it is the basis for Cde Yaffe's article. For us, there is nothing 'curious' about the absence of a critique of opportunism in the Good and Williams pamphlet: the pamphlet Cde Yaffe regards as providing the 'solid revolutionary basis' for solidarity work on the South African question, does not merely fail to deal with opportunism but sets out to reconcile Marxism with opportunism. Good and Williams argue the case for working class solidarity with the struggles of the South African liberation movement by attempting to show that the ending of apartheid is in the interests of the British working class. They say that the maintenance of apartheid poses dangers for the British working class and therefore call on British workers to isolate the apartheid regime. They draw on the Marxist theory of investment in Britain would be a reduction in British workers' living standards: This last point is their strongest argument and the point Cde Yaffe seizes upon. He writes: 'This leads us to the revolutionary significance of the Good and Williams pamphlet. It is true that the export of capital from Britain to South Africa deepens the recession and thereby generates unemployment in Britain. But it is equally true that if the capitalists were to invest in. Britain rather than South Africa, unemployment in Britain would still result. From this it follows that the struggle in this country to bring about a complete blockade of South Africa must be directly linked to the struggle for socialism in Britain.'

(87) However, from the argument that wherever capital is invested 'unemployment in Britain would still result' it does not follow, as Cde Yaffe suggests, that solidarity with South Africa 'must be directly linked to the only way in which this link can be made is through a struggle for proletarian internationalism - through with nationalist views. Since Good and Williams do not take up chauvinist trends within the working class, their arguments about the dangers of apartheid will only be interpreted from the standpoint of nationalism. They argue: ...For British capital invested in South Africa to find a profitable outlet in Britain, a large increase in unemployment and an even greater reduction in living standards would be required. But the export of capital to South Africa serves to strengthen the , power of British companies over British workers. It is therefore in the immediate interests of the workers in Britain that they fight in solidarity with the workers in South Africa. ' (88) and 'South Africa's apartheid economy has enabled the British corporations to open a "second front" in their attack on the British workers. The profitability of the corporations in this country, as we have shown, can be restored only at the expense of the workers. But if the workers do not accept a lowering of their living standards capital will be transferred to South Africa where higher profits are to be made. It follows therefore that the struggle of workers in Britain to defend their hard won gains is inseparable from the struggle of the South African workers for their basic democratic rights. '(89) There is no direct correlation between defence of jobs in Britain and a principled struggle against apartheid.

Because Good and Williams do not confront nationalism in the working class, their message is that it is in the immediate interests of the British workers to support the liberation movement because the continued export of capital to South Africa strengthens the hand of the corporations over British workers. The British worker cannot be won to a position of support, for the South African liberation movement merely by means of appeals to the defence of 'hard won gains'. So long as the argument is conducted at this level, it will always be the case that the apparent immediate self-interest of British workers — as against workers of other countries — will prevail. It is nothing new to try and reconcile the interests of workers as British workers with their interests as part of an international class. Reformists frequently dress up their chauvinist demands as acts of international solidarity; they call for import controls as a way of isolating 'reactionary' regimes: they call for a ban on the export of British capital for similar altruistic reasons.

Outlining the Tribune group's strategy to solve 'Britain's' crisis recently, Labour MP Arthur Latham said '...included control of the export of capital. "We must stop the outflow of capital to South Africa for ... Import controls were needed urgently...!

in reality, there are no internationalist by-products to be gained from pursuing nationalist ends; the chauvinist logic of the reformist programme must be fully drawn what appears to be in British workers' immediate interests and not confronting the national standpoint, they end up lending respectability to the views of reformists. An internationalist purpose cannot be lent to struggles with a nationalist content. British workers, taking action to protect their jobs, are just as likely to call for an economic blockade of Japan, the US and Germany as of South Africa. British Leyland workers, who have passed resolutions in support of trade union rights in South Africa, have also opposed the 'export of jobs' to Germany (91). Good and Williams build their basis for solidarity work on arguments that seek to reconcile British chauvinism with proletarian inter- 'nationalism; Chrysler's 'second front' in South Africa is the reason why Chrysler workers have an immediate interest in supporting the struggles of South African workers (92). It remains to be seen if there. are 'internationalist' reasons why British Leyland workers have an interest in isolating Germany.

When arguing for international solidarity in the past, the starting point for the RCG was not British workers' 'hard won gains', but rather the necessity to achieve political independence from their own bourgèoisie. In relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for example, the RCG criticised those who wanted to

national liberation movements in Southern Africa is the CPGB as part of its task of training a vanguard.

substitute a struggle for the defence of British workers' 'hard won gains' in the sphere of legal and democratic rights for the struggle against the British state's imperialist role in Ireland: 'The rationale for this orientation has been that trade unionists will readily see the threat of repressive legislation to trade unionism. This economistic appeal to the labour movement fails to grasp the fact that a • narrow approach to "civil rights" in no way challenges the chauvinism in the working class ... The only way in which the question of repressive legislation can be taken up and effectively fought is in the context in which it arose - Ireland.'(93) • In its desire to appeal to the existing consciousness of the class the left completely lost sight of the real issue - the occupation of Ireland by the British army. The struggle for solidarity with the oppressed is a political struggle to train a vanguard in the working class in a spirit of uncompromising opposition to 'its own' ruling class. Good and Williams have chosen another path. They have provided arguments that show how the cheap labour force in South Africa poses a threat to the jobs of British workers. The 'curious' feature of Good and Williams is in fact at the heart of their politics - arguing for solidarity with South Africa without undermining the dominance of nationalist ideas in the British working class movement. This failure to struggle for proletarian internationalism is one of the hallmarks of opportunism.

Thus we are not surprised to find that the pamphlet does not merely fail to deal with opportunism, but goes out of its way to lend credence to the views of the CPGB. The title page of the pamphlet carries the following quotation from an article by former General Secretary of the CPGB, John Gollan: ''We felt the spirit and the strength of internationalism in our struggle'' and the pamphlet concludes by quoting Gollan's thoughts more fully: 'The strength to be drawn from international solidarity is incalculable. As John Gollan recalls in Comment: "I remember after the slaughter of Sharpeville when 69 Africans were shot down in cold blood, we sent a comrade to South Africa with £1,000. He sought out the illegal leadership of our party and handed over this small donation as a token of our solidarity.

Eighteen months later I met comrade Moses Kotane, the Secretary of the South African Party, and he said 'You will never know the effect. Our people have just been gunned down in the most inhuman circumstances, and then a British Communist turns up and says, "How can we help?" We felt the spirit and the strength of internationalism in our struggle. '' (95) Good and Williams' services to John Gollan extend beyond quoting him approvingly in their pamphlet - by providing a 'Marxist' version of reformist arguments they have lent respectability to the CPGB's views.

Platitudes about internationalism and socialism serve as a cover for their failure to combat the chauvinist standpoint. The CPGB is also capable of talking about the common interest all workers have in fighting for socialism: 'To take a stand against apartheid and to support the not only an act of internationalist solidarity by the :18 British labour and progressive movement. It is in the direct interest of the British working people as well.

The big British monopolies which exploit the black workers of Southern Africa are the same monopolies which exploit the British workers, push up prices, hold_back wages, put 1½ million on the dole and clamour for more and more cuts in social services.

No less than 49 of the top 100 companies in Britain are operating in South Africa. We and the black people of South Africa have a common enemy, the giant firms. We should, therefore, strengthen our common fight. Every measure of help to the national liberation movements is an aid to our ownstruggle here for better wages and conditions, for jobs and security, and to end monopoly rule and usher in socialism. (96) But in the same breath it argues that: '...it is criminal that at a time of mass unemployment, partly arising because of the lack of domestic investment, British enterprises such as British Steel, or Leylands, should be planning further investment in South Africa. In any case, a liberated southern Africa would provide possibilities for a big expansion of trade with Britain ...'(97) Unless the chauvinist standpoint that underlies the CPGB's 'internationalism' is criticised explicitly, and the impossibility of fighting for internationalism on reformist basis shown through this critique, the struggle for internationalism in the British working class is just an empty phrase. The appeal for solidarity will founder on the nationalist views that dominate the workers' movement. Mike Terry, CPGB member and Executive Secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, expressed this candidly when he wrote in the Morning Star: 'In Britain shop stewards at Leyland and Pilkington have expressed their solidarity with their fellow workers in South Africa. However, the trade union movement in general in Britain has been reluctant to move into action precisely because of the extensive economic links between Britain and South Africa.

Britain is the major foreign investor in South Africa and is that country's leading trade partner.'(98) to lay the basis for What is required in order international solidarity, is a thorough critique of the moralism that postures as internationalism on the South African question - and disguises the chauvinist content that is inherent in reformist politics.

Good and Williams' position is representative of the standpoint we have already discussed in relation to the TOM. It separates the interests of the South African masses from those of British workers, in spite of its professed aim of showing the connection between the two. As we have seen, Cde Yaffe has adopted the outlook of a petit-bourgeois moralist. It is a view that accords well with the position of Good and Williams, and with the perspective of fomenting splits in the

CPGB.

(il) Cde Yaffe's critique of the CPGB Cde Yaffe seeks to correct the 'curious feature' of Good and Williams, and attempts to provide a critique of the CPGB. In the past, the RCG criticised the positions of Now, this task recedes into the background as Cde

Yaffe's new orientation to the CPGB comes to the fore.

Cde Yaffe provides neither a revolutionary critique nor an independent alternative to the CPGB. This is the case because throughout his commentary there is an attempt to set up a contradiction between the CPGB's opposition to apartheid and its national-reformism, rather than a demonstration of the necessary link between the two. The CPGB's position on the relationship between the two sides of its national reformist programme is clear: ...we have never regarded our internationalist position as being in any way in conflict with our devotion to the British working people and our desire to do everything possible to assist them to establish their own democratic power in Britain ... This is how we understand our patriotic duty alongside our internationalist duty. (99) This is why the CPGB finds it possible to reconcile its devotion to the British people with its devotion to the South African cause: domination. (100) For the CPGB it is a question of 'democratic' Britain isolating reactionary regimes like that in South Africa.

Whilst paying lip-service to Britain's role as an imperialist power and its special role in maintaining has no future. It asks the question 'which side is Britain on?', and replies: 'For Britain to be dragged behind those sordid manoeuvres lie of the US, West Germany, France, Ed] would not only be a blow against the justified struggle of the national liberation movements of southern Africa. It would also prejudice Britain's future relations with the African continent ...'(101) The CPGB calls on the British state to dissociate itself from the 'sordid manoeuvres' of other imperialist powers. It follows therefore, that the solidarity campaign should be built on the basis of an appeal to British 'democracy', 'justice' and so on. It has no choice but to conduct its struggle for 'internationalism' on the basis of nationalist arguments, since it sees the British state as an agency for democratic change in the African continent - just as it calls on the British state to implement a democratic 'Bill of Rights' in Ireland. The CPGB's patriotism necessarily expresses itself as allegiance to the British capitalist state.

However 'devoted' CPGB members may be to the South African 'cause', their reformism necessarily leads them to take the interests of British capital as their basis(102). Their nationalism cannot be separated from their reformism, and is the content of their moral internationalism. But because the 'interests of Britain' are antagonistic to the interests not just of black South African workers but of all oppressed peoples, revolutionaries can lend no credence to moral internationalism, but on the contrary must wage an irreconcilable struggle against it. .. Cde Yaffe does the very opposite. He attempts to establish contradictions' between the CPGB's position on South Africa - its slogan for the isolation of the apartheid regime — and its position on other questions.

The central point - that the programme of the CPGB is 19 chauvinist — whether on South Africa, Ireland, import controls or immigration - is lost. By appealing to those CPGB members who are 'devoted' to the South African 'cause', Cde Yaffe has done nothing to undermine the reformist standpoint that heals the. breach between internationalism and nationalism.

He asks how CPGB member Joan Bellamy can support the struggle for the liberation of South Africa, yet also support immigration controls (103). Furthermore, he asks how the CPGB can be for black majority rule in South Africa, but fail to support the struggle for self-determination in Ireland (104). And still more curious, he asks how the CPGB can be against restrictive laws in South Africa while having members in its ranks who support an incomes policy for Britain (105). Cde Yaffe's twenty questions approach to political debate leaves us guessing. Instead of showing how these 'contradictions' are entirely compatible for the national-reformist, instead of showing the inability of reformism to. give consistent support to the oppressed, he calls on the nationalist, Joan Bellamy, to 'fight nationalism' (106). According to Cde Yaffe the programme of the CPGB is not chauvinist - chauvinism is 'part of its political line' (107). The CPGB is not anti-working class - "it allows its members to express anti-working class views' (108). Cde Yaffe seems reluctant to call things by their real name, but nevertheless issues threats. Singling out CPGB member David Purdy, who argues the need for wage restraint in Britain, Cde Yaffe says he will not believe in the CPGB's opposition to apartheid so long as it has such members in its ranks: 'So long as the CPGB allows its members to express anti-working class views in their journal, we cannot take seriously their opposition to Apartheid. (109) We cannot 'take seriously' Cde Yaffe's opposition to the CPGB when he finds a contradiction in the fact that (some of) its members are for wage restraint here, though it is against restrictive laws in South Africa. The possibility that these contradictions may be resolved is raised when Cde Yaffe draws a parallel between the 'white chauvinism' of Bunting, and the CPGB's capitulation to British chauvinism on Ireland; Bunting, after all, was expelled from the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) and, according to Cde Yaffe's version of history, the CPSA 'to its credit' 'waged an attack on white chauvinism'(110). Perhaps the same can happen here? In search of a split in the CPGB, Cde Yaffe draws out inconsistencies in its positions, rather than attack its politics as a whole. His position is opportunist, for Cde Yaffe explicitly seeks to reconcile the irreconcilable. Cde Yaffe takes up certain of the more reactionary consequences of the CPGB's programme and says 'how can the CPGB tolerate certain members in its ranks?', without showing that these positions are necessary consequences of the CPGB's programme (111). He has reconciled the CPGB's Marxist rhetoric with its opportunism. He goes out of his way to sow illusions in the possibility of the CPGB's internationalism 'overthrowing' its nationalism.

The interests of the South African liberation movement and of the British working class have not been furthered by Cde Yaffe's critique. The practical consequence of his failure to deal systematically with

Cde Yaffe's attempt to reconcile Marxism with oppor- And Cde Yaffe certainly has an ally in Ernest Mandel, tunism follows from the new turn towards the CPGB. who agrees that there are great opportunities today the CPGB's chauvinism is to hold back the struggle for proletarian internationalism in the British working The result of using South Africa for narrow ends, for the purpose of 'fermenting splits' in the CPGB, is the abandonment of a principled internationalist position.

(f) The Turn summed up Trotsky wrote: ...opportunism expresses itself not only in moods of "gradualism but also in political impatience: it frequently seeks to reap where it has not sown, to realise successes which do not correspond to its influence. (112) It is precisely the desire to 'reap where it has not sown' that has led the RCG to seek splits in the CPGB. What are described by Cde Yaffe as: ...the tactical and strategical adjustments needed to take our positions into the working class movement' (113) amount to a rejection of the RCG's former position on solidarity work; confronting chauvinism to win and train a vanguard in the working class is regarded by the RCG today as 'chauvinist'. For the old RCG the struggle for internationalism was central to the process of winning a vanguard; the vanguard was defined politically, by its independence the vanguard is from bourgeois ideology. Today, identified with sections of reformist workers, in and around the CPGB. The RCG's orientation is: 'not to the radical left but to reformist workers and at this time, the Communist Party.'(114) The vanguard has become defined, not by its political independence, but by its organisational relationship to the CPGB. The very purpose of taking up the struggle for international solidarity has been stood on its head; the RCG is today engaged in 'solidarity work' on the South African question for the short-term end of 'fermenting splits' in the CPGB. It prizes the organisational unity of the AAM and advises its comrades to be 'non-sectarian' for precisely the same opportunist reasons that have led the radical left to discard revolutionary principles in such campaigns in the past. By refusing to attack the chauvinism of the CPGB the RCG has in practice abandoned the struggle for proletarian internationalism.

Thus, the South African question is used for narrow ends, to make inroads into the CPGB, instead of being seen as an important question for training a vanguard in the working class in the principles of internationalism.

That the RCG today is seeking out its 'fertile ground' in the CPGB, rather than the Labour Party, is a feature that distinguishes it from a host of other radical left The methods it pursues however, have everything in common with the opportunism of the radical left. And indeed, the orientation towards the CPGB is not so new. Others have been 'convinced' about the likelihood of winning sections of the CPGB to revolutionary politics in the past, on the basis of a 'dynamic and flexible' approach: the 'non-sectarian', following resolution was adopted by the Fourth International in 1954:- The crisis in thése parties [the CPs, Ed] can lead the: major part of the communist cadres to come close to the Fourth International and even join its ranks. This on condition that the Trotskyist organisations fulfil their task of revolutionary leadership of the masses and adopt a dynamic and flexible attitude toward the communist militants by seeking a common basis in action which would facilitate their transition to Trotskyism.'(115) which must not be lost: ... revolutionary marxist currents today have a much more powerful weapon than in the past to use in dialogues with workers and Communist cadres and to apply in following a policy of rapprochement and unity in action' (116) The policy of rapprochement towards the CP has been A developed by Cde Dornhorst elsewhere (117).

Turning Point expresses the rejection of the RCG's founding document 'Our Tasks and Methods'. It does this most strikingly in relation to the abandonment of the task of training a vanguard in favour of seeking splits in the CPGB. In this instance the turn has been expressed through an opportunist approach to solidarity work on South Africa. It follows from this perspective that comrades who rejected A Turning Point had to be charged with 'sectarianism' and 'chauvinism'. Cde Yaffe's document seeks to justify the opportunist turn of the RCG, but can do so only by rejecting the entire political approach of 'Our Tasks and Methods'.

3. THE ABANDONMENT OF

'OUR TASKS AND METHODS'

In 'Our Tasks and Methods' it was argued: 'These tasks; of developing a programme and winning the potential vanguard, must go together with the development of a revolutionary organisation and the training of a revolutionary cadre. Only a democratic centralist organisation of committed revolutionaries can develop such a programme and fight to win the potential vanguard to it. It is to carry out these threefold tasks that we have formed the Revolutionary Communist Group. '(118) It was the recognition of the combined nature of the tasks of training a vanguard, developing a programme and building a cadre organisation together with the determination to carry out these tasks that provided the revolutionary starting point for the RCG. All the work of the RCG was to be consciously related to the three-fold tasks outlined in its founding document. As against the radical left, the RCG engaged in activity not for activity's sake, but in order to train a vanguard around the struggle to develop a programme. Out of these tasks grew the necessity to build a cadre organisation.

As we have shown in the previous sections, the RCG's abandonment of 'Our Tasks and Methods' is most strikingly expressed in its rejection of the need to win and train a vanguard in the working class movement. However, the rejection of the concept of a polițical vanguard has been paralleled by a change in approach to the tasks of developing a programme and the building of a cadre organisation. In this section we 20

shali outline how A Turning Point has led to a fundamental break with the principled approach to partybuilding on which the RCG was founded.

(a) From winning the vanguard to talking to reformist workers The liquidation of the RCG's defining political principles did not take place in isolation from developments in the rest of the movement. The acquiescence of workers to a fall in their living standards in the name of the 'national interest' has thrown the radical left into a state of disarray. It has had little scope for gaining any influence in the movement by tailing or posing more radical alternatives to the existing struggles of the class; and unable to gain any significant influence in the working ciass, it has sought organisational means to overcome its isolation, thus failing to confront the real barriers to winning sections of the class politically. The radical left has not even paused to ask itself how the militancy of the preceding period could have given way to demoralisation, and therefore does not recognise why the political basis of the trade union struggles of the past has proved so inadequate today.

As nationalism and chauvinism gain ground in the movement, it is all the more difficult to counterpose an alternative to the dominant class-collaborationist ideas.

Only those in the workers' movement who have broken with the reformist view of the state will be able to lead the struggle to defend the independent interests of the working class. It follows that the struggle to win and train a vanguard in the working class is the central task facing revolutionaries today.

The tendencies of the radical left draw a very different conclusion from the adverse conditions of today. Their isolation leads them to see the few principles to which • they formerly held, and sometimes even their independent organisational identity, as obstacles to their work.

The urge to overcome these obstacles has led the radical left in the direction of outright opportunism. The RCG has not been immune to the effects of isolation. Its rejection of the need to train a vanguard was preceded by a process which demonstrated the group's inability to withstand these pressures. A few examples suffice to show how the tendency to react pragmatically to events eventually led to the rejection of the task of training a From month to month the RCG discovered new 'priorities'. In February 1976 the RCG's National Activities Report (NAR), written by Cde Yaffe, recognised the downturn in working class militancy and called for a period of consolidation: 'The aim is to use the ebb in the class struggle to prepare our propaganda material, and attempt to make contact with sections of the potential vanguard before a new upsurge in working class resistance to the attacks on living standards etc takes place. (119) Consolidation was to be a priority for the RCG in February. Yet, four months later, Cde Yaffe's National Activities Report struck a different note: By June, the RCG was at a 'turning point': "The organisation is at a turning point. The large attendance at the London fortnightly forums and the much higher quality of contacts we are attracting are indications of this ... A central question, therefore, 21 faces the RCG. Can the RCG begin the process of taking its ideas into the working class movement?'

(120) Shifts in perspectives took place without any political justification. The question - 'Can the RCG begin the process of taking its ideas into the working class movement?' - was a pragmatic response to the fact that more people were coming to the RCG public forums in London and contact work had improved. New 'perspectives' were floated like trial balloons throughout 1976. Cde Yaffe wrote in April: 'We should now consider whether some of our comrades should begin the process of building a base for the RCG in certain trade unions. (121) No discussion on trade union work, no explanation about what building a 'base' involves, or even about which trade unions were under consideration, was felt to be necessary. Two months later, the NAR nonchalantly presented 'RCG bulletins as the way forward to a newspaper.'

(122) Again, no explanation about the political relationship of bulletins to a newspaper was offered; there was no discussion on what a revolutionary newspaper should contain. Wishful thinking increasingly replaced a serious assessment of the group's capabilities, as the RCG turned away from the tasks it had originally set itself. Such political instability reflected a failure to relate the activities of the organisation consciously to the three-fold tasks outlined in 'Our Tasks and Methods'. By November 1976, the RCG was at a 'turning point' yet again. In the document that was to precipitate the split, Cde Yaffe wrote: 'The RCG is at a turning point; its isolation is ending - its propagation of Marxist ideas is being seized upon by an ever-increasing number of people in many parts of the world. (123) This time, an absence of political justification goes hand in hand with fantasies about the ending of the RCG's isolation: In this latest document the necessary outcome of the previous period of political instability is indicated by the rejection of the RCG's former conception of the vanguard. In the past, the RCG had argued that the vanguard would only be trained through ideological struggle against all reformist trends in the movement. Hence it could not be identified as the existing militant leadership of the working class.

However this political conception of a vanguard which had been central to the old RCG is now replaced by a sociological definition of the vanguard that has far more in common with that of the radical left. For the RCG the potential vanguard is to be found amongst 'reformist workers'. The feature that distinguishes the RCG from the rest of the radical left is that it expects to find these reformist workers in and around the CPGB.

As Cde Yaffe recently put it: 'Our main orientation was not to the radical left but to reformist workers and at this time, the Communist Party. (124) This new orientation to reformists in the movement instead of one to those who have begun to break from reformism - represents a clear rejection of the task of training a vanguard. Previously the RCG had recognised that there could be no short cuts to establishing

These adjustments in form do not merely imply a So, all that remains is: Marxism as a political force within the working class; this could only be achieved through the training of a revolutionary vanguard which could fight for these ideas. Now however, the RCG thinks it has found an altogether easier way to end its orientation to reformist workers! It is this step which has exacerbated the tendencies towards opportunism in the RCG. The necessity for ideological struggle against reformist ideas as a way of training a vanguard is subordinated to 'intervening in the CPGB' and talking to reformist workers. The fear of 'sectarianism' expressed together with in A Turning Point, expression in relation to South Africa and the CPGB are symptomatic of this trend. Cde Yaffe is no longer interested in confronting the politics of the CPGB in order to train a vanguard; he is more preoccupied with 'not preaching to the CPGB' and 'not announcing our own purity' on key political questions.

For the RCG, tactical considerations require that it no longer appear 'sectarian'; its arguments have to be presented in a more palatable form than in the past.

change in language, but a new political orientation: propaganda is no longer advanced to train a vanguard but to appeal to the 'reformist worker'. The approach contained in A Turning Point was vividly drawn out by one of Cde Yaffe's supporters, Cde Marlowe: •...we are no longer arguing with the mentally exhausted and panic stricken radical left ... we will have to start from the way that reformist workers see the world and transform that outlook.'(125) Crude abuse of the radical left is coupled with a new perspective; we need 'no longer' argue with the radical left — in other words the struggle for ideas is replaced by talking to reformist workers. Driven on by the pressure of isolation the RCG has developed an orientation towards the CPGB at the expense of confronting the task of training a vanguard.

(b) Abandoning the struggle for the revolutionary programme Just as A Turning Point discovered that the RCG's "isolation is ending', that it no longer had to argue with the radical left and could now have an orientation towards reformist workers, so too it noted that it had solved most of the major programmatic questions facing the movement. Like the radical left, the RCG has given in to the temptation of paying lip-service to the need for revolutionary theory while providing the working class with inadequate ideas.

The new orientation towards reformist workers has led to an underestimation of the necessity for ideological struggle. It is not surprising, therefore, that the reiection of the task of training a vanguard is coupled with a lowering of standards for theoretical work.

Intervening in the CPGB and arguing with reformist workers means that training a vanguard around the development of a programme now becomes redundant.

The task of arming the working class movement ideologically recedes into the background as the RCG's mote pragmatic needs come to the fore.

One of the main strengths of the old RCG was its determination to confront fundamental theoretical questions in order to develop a programme adequate to today's conditions. 'Our Tasks and Methods' rejected the view that a revamped version of past programmes would suffice for today. It was recognised that the Marxist tradition had been destroyed in the working class movement and that therefore the RCG was faced with the task of developing a revolutionary programme based on a materialist analysis of today's conditions.

Systematic theoretical work was seen as a precondition for the training of the vanguard.

In A Turning Point Cde Yaffe complains that: Theoretical work was to be a priority in the last period. This has not been the case. (126) Having conceded that there was a problem, does Cde Yaffe pause to examine why 'this has not been the case' and how this state of affairs can be rectified? Not at all.

Despite the RCG's negligence in producing theoretical work, it nevertheless has: ...the political arguments to begin the struggle to build a revolutionary movement in Britain and make Marxism an acceptable standpoint within the labour movement.'(127) '...to discuss how we can get material in a form that is directly related to the struggles of the working class.'

Cde Yaffe is only paying lip-service to the necessity for more theoretical work. How can we take seriously an argument which concedes that barely any theoretical work has been done, only to switch immediately to talk about getting material in a form 'directly related' to the struggles of the working class? Just like the 'theoreticians' of the radical left, Cde Yaffe utters platitudes about the importance of theory, but makes do with whatever is at hand. The lowering of standards that accompanies the majority's perspective is clearly spelt out in Cde Yaffe's plan to 'reorganise' the workgroups "The time has come to bring about a basic unity between work groups and caucuses. '(129) What does this mean? That the task of developing a programme through the theoretical workgroups has been achieved? But we have just heard that the workgroups have barely been functioning and little theoretical work has been produced. So what is this 'basic unity' Cde Yaffe speaks of? It turns out that the main rationale for the 'reorganisation' is as follows: 'For most comrades it is impossible to be in a work group and caucus covering different areas of work.

In the end both aspects of their work suffer, and they despair of ever completing adequately the tasks they face.'(130) Touching concern for overburdened and despairing comrades serves as a justification for reorganising things so that all theoretical work will in future be "directly related' to the latest set of 'priorities'. The Stalinism workgroup is to be disbanded because: ...work on the question must be directly related to our perspective for work in relation to the CPGB.

Otherwise the work will have an academic character.'

(131) So it turns out that there is 'a perspective for work in relation to the CPGB' — a perspective that has never been discussed in the organisation and did not originate from the Stalinism workgroup - which will determine what is and is not 'academic' in future. The real import 22

of getting material 'in a form that is directly related to towards reformist workers and the CPGB is now considered 'academic' Theoretical work no longer serves as a means for developing a programme: it has been reduced to providing material for a quick pay-off. Cde Yaffe's article on South Africa becomes the paradigm for future theoretical work. The article does not even pretend to contain a materialist analysis of South Africa but is 'directly related to ... work in relation to the CPGB'.

This lowering of standards of theoretical work necessarily flows from the RCG's new turn.

In the past, the RCG recognised that rigorous theoretical work was absolutely essential for the building of a Marxist tradition in the working class. A scientific analysis of the Soviet Union for instance was seen as necessary both to counter bourgeois ideology on this question ('look at "socialist' Russia') and to provide a firm foundation for our struggle against Stalinism. The new ACG's aims have become more modest. According to A Turning Point, work on the USSR will only continue 'if resources permit' and will be done mainly majority faction's philistine rejection as 'academic' of all questions that are not within their orbit is the necessary consequence of their abandonment of 'Our Tasks and Methods'. (c) The political destruction of the RCG Having emptied the concepts 'vanguard' and 'programme' of their political content, the majority faction has now no need to insist on the training of a cadre to develop a programme and win the potential vanguard.

The term 'cadre' is itself emptied of political content.

Thus we find in A Turning Point: The task now is to develop a cadre which can intervene and influence the struggles of the working class' (133) The task facing a cadre is always to 'intervene and influence the struggles of the working class'.

struggle to rebuild the Marxist tradition - to develop, discuss and argue for revolutionary propaganda - must constantly be waged. This struggle has to be engaged in, irrespective of the shifts in the level of day to day struggles of the working class. 'Our Tasks and Methods' correctly noted that: 'On the contrary, it is precisely an intensification of the class struggle which demands of the party the highest theoretical accuracy, political clarity and organisational thoroughness. (134) standards could not be jstrisoned in favour of a tum to Thus 'Our Tasks Methods' argued that 'intervening' in the class.

The RCG today no longer holds to the conception of a cadre trained in the struggle to develop a programme.

On the contrary, its new conception of cadre is one that is trained to transmit ready-made ideas to the working class. The cadre is now seen as a force, primed for.

direct intervention in the working class. Thus Cde Yaffe can boast: 'We have already developed a method of work which will politically enable us to intervene in any major 23 developments which involve such issues. (135) 'Such issues' turn out to be the questions of the Soviet Union and the Communist Parties worldwide questions on which the RCG has not yet developed a position. The real task of a cadre today - that of analysing and developing positions on such issues - is downgraded in favour of 'intervention'. The existence of a 'method of work' absolves Cde Yaffe from the task of working out programmatic positions. Having downgraded the programmatic tasks of the organisation to what is required to win 'reformist workers', and replaced ideological struggle with the notion that ideas can speak for themselves, the role of the membership has been adjusted to serve these new ends. The RCG has adopted the conception of a cadre that is prominent on the radical left; one that 'can intervene and influence the struggles of the working class' but plays no part in developing the programme which determines the In 'Our Tasks and Methods' it was argued that only ...composed of revolutionary cadres and organised on a democratic centralist basis will be capable of carrying out the tasks of developing a programme It is this political understanding of what a cadre is that has been thrown aside by the majority faction; the 'cadre' now responds pragmatically to developments in In the past, the RCG argued that the development of a revolutionary programme must take place through •...a disciplined discussion, without clique or personal ties, in which the political consequences of our theory Today, the majority faction has been forced to resort to precisely those methods it rejected in the past. Over half of A Turning Point is devoted to personal slander directed at the expelled PC members. According to Cde Yaffe, all the problems facing the organisation can.

basically be put down to one individual - Cde Harrison.

The concluding section of his document - The 'JH must overcome her petty egoism and the political consequences of this attitude, if she is to fulfill her role as National Activities Organiser and play a constructive part in meetings of the EC and PC. If she fails to do this; she will simply continue to disrupt the leadership of the organisation, and will become an obstacle to the healthy development of the RCG.'

(138) Earlier we were informed: 'Many problems exist for London Branch and the failure to resolve them is due to the relations JH has with other PC members in London. (139) This is the level of political debate that is considered acceptable in the RCG today - a level that is totally unacceptable for revolutionaries.

Abandoning the task of building a cadre has as its necessary corollary the personalisation of political questions. Political opposition is met with personal abuse; discussion and debate are dominated by slander.

The short cuts that the majority faction has taken towards reformist workers and the CPGB find their reflection in the internal life of the group. Political opposition can only be dealt with by administrative

measures. Having abandoned 'Our Tasks and Methods' the majority faction ignores the real problems confronting revolutionaries in this period. Instead it chooses to invent the bogeyman of 'sectarianism', and 'chauvinism'. In the end, the majority faction is forced to personalise 'the danger facing the group' and make the 'obstacie development' of the RCG. This is the justification for the political destruction of the organisation.

(d) Conclusion The widespread acceptance of reformist solutions to the crisis in the working class underlines the necessity to confront the three-fold tasks that are outlined in 'Our Tasks and Methods'. Because the radical left has ignored the perspective for party-building advanced there, the pressures that are a result of the downturn in working class militancy have had a major impact upon it: opportunist tendencies have been reinforced as different organisations invoke 'tactics' to overcome their isolation. As we have shown, the RCG has not been immune to these developrents. The adoption of A Turning Point by the majority faction and the expulsion of nearly half the membership of the RCG express the political destruction of that organisation.

itself the task of continuing the struggle for the training of a vanguard, the development of a programme and the building of a cadre organisation. We have written this document for two reasons. First because we demand that the majority faction replies publicly to the arguments presented here. The differences that underlie the split in the RCG must be fully and openly debated. Secondly, we wish to stimulate discussion on the lessons of the split in the movement as a whole. The degeneration of the RCG serves as a negative example to those attempting to re-establish the Marxist tradition in the working class. Comrades who have begun to see the dead end that results from the radical left's method of party-building, and are approach that will confront the problems facing the working class today, should examine the political conclusions that are drawn in this document. Our aim is to ensure that the lessons of the split in the RCG become part of the general experience of the revolutionary movement. Chris Davies and Judith Harrison

FOOTNOTES

to the healthy Wishart 1972 p827 ment 4, August 1975 p4 1976 p60 tion Pathfinder 1974 p129 16 17 Socialist Worker 8 March 1975 18 Quoted in Workers Fight No 99 19 Red Weekly 30 January 1975 20 21 22 December 1975 p2 D Yaffe A Turning Point p45 24 25 26 27 p102, first emphasis added 28 looking for a political D Yaffe A Turning Point p46 29 30 1973 p7 31 32 33 Workers News 13 March 1976 34 Red Weekly 29 January 1976 35 36 37 38 39 40 pp104-6 42 D Yaffe A Turning Pcint p45 43 the RCG, Judith Harrison, 44 45 D Yaffe A Turning Point p46 46 24 1 RCG 'Our Tasks and Methods: the founding document of the RCG' Revolutionary Communist 1 January 1975 p3 2 L Trotsky 'Lessons of October' in The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25) Pathfinder 1975 pp255-6 3 L Trotsky 'The Class, the Party and the Leadership' in T Cliff et al Party and Class Pluto 1971 pp75-6 4 K Marx Capital Vol 1 Lawrence and Wishart 1974 p542 Similarly, the organisation of the workforce in its capitalist form appears to inject it with its productive potential: the development of relative surplus whereby the productive powers of social labour are deve loped, these productive powers and the social interrelations of labour in the direct labour process seem transferred from labour to capital. Capital thus becomes a very mystic being since all of labour's social productive forces appear to be due to capital, and seem to issue from the womb of capital itself. K Marx Capital Vol 3 Lawrence and V I Lenin 'What is to be Done?' Collected Works 5 p412 Reply from Socialist Press to RCG May 1975 reprinted in RCG Discussion Bulletin 5, June 1975 p13 V I Lenin 'What is to be Done?' op cit pp413-4 International Socialism 91, September 1976 p4 RCG Report of the Political Committee Conference Docu- Birmingham Branch of the RCG Letter of Resignation, RCG Discussion Bulletin 6, October 1975 p13 Socialist Action Vol 2 No 1 December 1976 p32 'The Programme we Need' in International Vol 3 No 2 Winter 15 L Trotsky The Transitional Programme for Socialist Revolu- RCG 'Our Tasks and Methods' op cit p9 RCG Report of the Political Committee op cit p3 V I Lenin 'Apropos of the Profession de Foi' CW 4 p291 D Yaffe Post Conference Report of the Political Committee 23 D Yaffe 'At what stage are we at?' Supplement to RCG Internal Discussion Bulletin April 1976 p18 D Yaffe 'At what stage are we at?' op cit p18 V I Lenin 'What is to be Done?' op cit p462 V I Lenin 'Preface to the Collection Twelve Years' CW 13 D Yaffe 'At what stage are we at?' op cit p22 D Hallas 'The United Front Tactic and the Communist Party' Internal Bulletin of the International Socialists May/June RCG 'Our Tasks and Methods' op cit p12 V I Lenin One Step Forward, Two Steps Back' CW 7 p385 G Lukacs History and Class Consciousness Merlin 1971 p286 The term 'marsh' was used by Lenin in 'One Step Forward, Two Steps Back' to refer to the unprincipled alliance of opportunists in the Menshevik camp.

IMG leaflet for a public meeting on 15 February 1977 A Jones 'First Principles' Red Weekly 15 July 1976 A Jones 'Sectarian Politics,' in Red Weekly 22 July 1976 V i Lenin "Preface to the Collection Twelve Years' op cit 41 D Yaffe 'National Activities Report' in RCG Internal Discussion Bulletin April 1976, our emphasis RCG Statement on the Expulsion of a Chauvinist Grouping in Frank Richards, Chris Davies (Statement) 17 November 1976 p2 V : Lenin 'The Junius Pamphler' CW 22 pp306-7 A one day delegate conference organised by the Anti-Apartheid Movement 6 November 1976 - Southern Africa and the British Trade Union and Labour Movement

47 RCG Statement p4 48 Statement op cit p1 49 Morning Star 7 February 1976 50 V I Lenin Economism' CW 23 p62 •51 1976 p28 'Our Tasks and Methods' op cit p12 52 53 D Yaffe A Turning Point our emphasis p45 Statement op cit p3 ments October 1975 p11 57 ment October 1976 p6 58 Statement op cit p4 59 Britain on? CPGB 1976 60 Statement op cit p2 emphasis in original 61 ments op cit p11 62 Statement op cit p3 63 Ibid 64 munist 2 May 1975 p17 65 Statement op cit p4 66 Ibid 67 necessary. See, for example, tion', op cit, especially pp15 and 16 68 RCG Revolutionary Communist 5 November 1976 69 Working Class' Revolutionary Communist 5 p63 70 D Yaffe A Turning Point p46 Working Class' op cit p63 73 RCG Political Committee minutes October 1976 74 Statement op cit p1 D Yaffe A Turning Point p45 75 76 Ibid p46 77 Ibid 78 D Yatte 'South Africa..' op cit p59 79 D Yaffe A Turning Point p45 /80 Ibid 81 Kautsky' CW 28 p230 82 Ibid p231 83 Statement op cit p3 84 1976 85 D. Yaffe Editorial Revolutionary Communist 5 p1 86 D Yaffe 'South Africa ..' op cit p59 87 Ibid pp57-8 D' Good and M Williams op cit p4 Ibid p22 Morning Star 16 February 1977 p1 Morning Star 31 January 1977 pl 91 D Good and M Williams op cit pp4 and 22 92 RCG 'Britain and the Irish Revolution' op cit p19 D Good and M Williams op cit cover 96 Ibid p5 our emphasis 97 98 Morning Star 13 January 1977 p2 99 J Woddis Nationalism and Internationalism CPGB p27 100 p1 Ibid pl 101 102 the following grounds: 'A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist RCG Ireland: British Labour and British Imperialism March K Radek 2nd Congress Cl, Fifth Session 16 July 1920 p115-6 Troops Out Movement National Delegate Conference Docu- RCG Statement of Resignation from the Troops Out Move- See for example, J Woddis Southern Africa - which side is Troops Out Moverent National Delegate Conference Docu- RCG 'Britain and the Irish Revolution' Revolutionary Com- Statement op cit p3 Whilst in the past the RCG has opposed the chauvinist attacks of the left on the military campaign of the Irish republican movement, it has not hesitated to Criticise the political programme of the movement, where 'Britain and the Irish Revolu- D.Yaffe 'South Africa: International Solidarity and the British RCG Ireland: British Labour and British Imperialism op cit D Yaffe 'South Africa: International Solidarity and the British V i Lenin 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade D Good and M Williams South Africa: The Crisis in Britain and the Apartheid Economy Anti-Apartheid Movement June J Woddis Southern Africa - Which side is Britain on? op cit J Woddis Southern Africa - which side is Britain on? op cit Thus the CPGB argues its case for isolating South Africa on 25 trade could Southern Africa... op cit p5 103 D Yaffe 'South Africa..' op cit p59 104 Ibid p63 105 Ibid p60 106 Ibid p59 107 Ibid p63 108 Ibid p60 109 Ibid 110 Ibid p61 Period' line. material, Cde Yaffe writes: in the ranks of the CPGB differently from the against the views of the Purdyites ...

interest we have in CPGB's 'working class' positions.

caricature of the RCG's past approach.

stand at over £600 million - or nearly 4 per cent of total exports - and are thus more important for our future. This be jeopardised if our exporters were to continue to cling to trade with South Africa.' j Woddis To the credit of the CPSA it has waged an attack on "white chauvinism". Bunting himself was expelled from the CPSA in 1931'. The 'attack on "white chauvinism' is . a myth; by the time Bunting was expelled, it was not for white chauvinism but for opposition to the CPSA's 'Third 'The expelled members were not accused of being chauvinists or of opposing the black republic policy' (H J and R E Simons Class and Colour In South Africa 1850-1950 Penguin 1969 pp448-9). Cde Yaffe has not even bothered to read the book he cites as his source of infor- Keen to convince us that there is no difference at all between the way. certain CP members' views are taken up in this article, and the way this has been done in the RCG's past 'The Purdyites are a bourgeois tendency within the CP.

Our attitude to them has been to regard them as outside the ranks of the working class. We argue this to the "opportunists" within the CP - a characterisation that adequately covers the leadership tendency which adapts to the moods of the working class. The Editorial in Revolutionary Communist 3/4 - an editorial which has not been criticised by FR, JH, CD — expresses this position clearly.

It asks the CP how it can have anti-working class views like those of Purdy in its organisation/publications etc. Our articles have treated, as did the editorial, the opportunists While sharply criticising them, we have attempted to ferment the split in the CPGB by urging them to fight We have never treated these two tendencies politically in the same way.

To do so would have been to go against the fundamental seeing a split in the CPGB.

positions of JH, CD, FR on the South African article therefore, opposed directly the previous practice of the group.

This has to be made clear! (A Turning Point p46) In his attempt to make 'clear' that we have always been engaged in 'fermenting splits' in the CPGB, Cde Yaffe forgets to quote the relevant passage from the Editorial, 'The working class will wish to know how the British Communist Party can have in its ranks Devine, Steedman, and others who propagate the position that high wages etc.

inflation, when in popular pamphlets the CP asserts that workers are not to blame for inflation' (Revolutionary Communist 3/4 Editorial p3) In the Editorial the RCG first of all addresses itself to the working class, not to this or that tendency in the CPGB. It did not urge the 'opportunists' to fight the 'Purdyites'. It said 'the working class will wish to know' the following; how can the CPGB's popular pamphlets argue that workers are not to blame for inflation when its 'theoreticians' argue they are? It attacked the explicit revisionism of Devine, Steedman and others in order to expose the CP's inability to defend the working class against inflation. It did not distinguish between 'bourgeois' and 'working class' tendencies, nor did it favour one brand of reformism against another. It posed the question in order to bring out the sham character of the What Cde Yaffe wants to do is pretend that the RCG has always used the method he today employs in his article on South Africa - and hence to accuse the PC minority of rejecting long established positions. His method of 'questioning' however diverges sharply from that which was used in the Editorial in Revolutionary Communist 3/4; it is an utter

112 'L Trotsky The First Five Years of the Communist Interna.

tional, Vol 1 New Park Publications p13 113 D Yaffe A Turning Point p45 114 Ibid 115 M Pablo Resolution adopted at the Fourth World Congress of the Fourth International 1954, cited in The Development and Disintegration of World Stalinism, Education for Socialists pamphlet, Socialist Workers Party (US) March 1970 p25 116 Intercontinental Press Vol 14 No 44, 22 November 1976 p1666 117 See Stalinism, The Communist Party and the RCG's new tum op cit 118 'Our Tasks and Methods' op cit p3 119 D Yaffe 'National Activities Report' (NAR) in RCG Internal Discussion Bulletin (IDB) February 1976 p5 120 D Yaffe 'NAR' IDB July 1976 pl 121 D Yaffe 'At what stage are we at?' op cit p22 122 D Yaffe 'NAR' IDB July 1976 p5 123 D Yaffe A Turning Point p49 124 T Marlowe Notes on the Manchester Labour Movement Ibid p45 125 Bulletin No 2' IDB, October 1976 p33 126 D Yaffe A Turning Point p46 127 Ibid p45 128 Ibid p46 129 Ibid 130 Ibid 131 • Ibidp47 132 Ibid 133 D Yaffe A Turning Pointp45 134 'Our Tasks and Methods' op cit p9 135 D Yaffe A Turning Pointp45 136 'Our Tasks and Methods' op cit p12 137 Ibid p11 138 D Yaffe A Turning Point p49 139 Ibid p48

HANDS OFF IRELAND!

Labour movement bulletin written by RCT members.

Includes Lessons of TOM', articles on political prisoners and British torture in Ireland Only 10p + 10p postage from

BM RCT

LONDON

WC1V 6XX

10 copies or more post free 26