HOW RED ARE THE GREENS?

"We may be, as Chris Trotter said on the recent Assignment programme, the most RED Green Party in the world, but we value the individual as much as society. We are communitarian, internationalist and libertarian all at the same time!", said Rod Donald, Green Party MP, in his Co-Leader’s address to the Green Party Annual General Meeting on the 1^st of June 2002. In fact, Donald’s words said more about a certain political commentator's lack of left-wing credentials than they did about the inherent contradictions that are a feature of social democratic politics. Like Labour and the Alliance, the Greens are no revolutionaries – they do not want to overthrow capitalism and free workers from the bonds of wage slavery. Unlike Labour and the Alliance, though, the Greens make no claim to represent workers. In this article we look at the class roots of the Greens and show that for workers they are part of the problem not the solution.

[From Class Struggle 46 August/September 2002]

Greens are anti-worker

Green policy is anti-worker and pro-business, despite the fact that it substitutes the small business for the large company or corporation. The Green Charter on social responsibility calls for "just distribution of social and natural resources", but calling an economy green, non-big business or communal doesn't hide the fact that resources are going to be utilised according to market demand, not human need. Competition always lurks beneath the co-operative façade the Greens like to give themselves. The Green social vision of eco-Nirvana is the ideology of the petty bourgeois that rejects the reality of its historic class position between capitalists and workers and tries to create policy of classless social harmony.

The Greens’ "Thinking Beyond Tomorrow" economic policy is saturated with trendy phrases like ‘eco nation’, but all it offers is a ‘middle class’ ideology generated in a vacuum away from the forces that touch the daily lives of the vast majority of workers who are urbanised and under the clutches of bosses no different from the petit-bourgeois small business persons of the sort of economy the Greens favour. Talk of "employer-employee partnerships", just about sums up the Greens industrial relations policy in three words. Like the Employment Contracts Act of old, the Greens’ industrial relations policy makes no mention of unions or workers’ organisations. For the Greens we are all members of a ‘community’, not a class, and ‘Partnership’ is the magic word for work relations. A worrying sign, considering that their demand for "doing more with less for longer" sounds like the antidote to a progressive workers demand for a shorter working week.

As part of their policy, the Greens want to encourage small businesses to show ‘social responsibility’ by providing unpaid and voluntary work to the ‘community’. They don’t seem to think about the workers who would remain tied to their employers outside of normal working time so that the boss could earn good social PR and a healthy eco-tax rebate at the same time. The Universal Basic Income, which was adopted by the Values Party before it evolved into the Greens, has not become official Green policy simply because the low level of productivity expected from an eco-economy is unable to sustain its viability. It is for this reason alone that the Greens with their euphemistic terms push the importance of unpaid work.

Green Economic nationalism

Green capitalism is also ‘New Zealand First’ capitalism. The Greens call on the state to protect NZ business from overseas business. Not that the Greens are opposed to exports – they want a ‘clean green’ niche ‘brand’ capitalism in NZ which can get its products into the global marketplace. Clean and green is best for people, as well as profits, because it means capitalism puts on its human, GE-free face, showing an economy that is sustainable and people-oriented. But does it really?

"Re-nationalisation" of public assets sold to private companies fails to get a satisfactory mention from the Greens. All they would renationalise are components of the rail network, and they would do this principally for environmental freight /cost reasons. With the demand for fast door to door transfer of goods, which is favourable to road transport, it is difficult to see the cost benefits to consumers if handling from road to rail to road is undertaken without a fully socialised, renationalised economy.

The Greens like to condemn the 1989 bargain $660million sell off of Air NZ, but they have never called for the re-nationalisation of the airline, only for the keeping of an equity stake majority share. When Brierley investments 30% share holding in Air NZ came up for sale in 2001, the response by the Greens was to push the government to buy out those shares to stop them going overseas, instead of taking over the remaining shares and thus nationalising the airline for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Later in 2001, after years of private mismanagement brought the airline close to collapse, the Labour government rescued the airline resulting in an equity stake of 80% ownership. Pleasing to the Greens, but not the same as 100% nationalisation. It's not good enough to take the economic nationalist line that New Zealanders should own Air NZ if that relationship is not spelled out clearly. Private NZ ownership is no different to overseas ownership with profits going to the few and not those who produce the wealth.

In the electricity market the Greens have shown a similar attitude toward privatisation. In 1999, Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons criticised the National government’s decision to introduce regulations to prevent electricity companies speculating on inflated values, the purchase and selling of lines to one another. She justified her stand on the grounds that the consumer would suffer price increases because lines companies would need to re-coup their expected losses before regulations were enforced. That was scare-mongering at the least, and a sell out to the deregulated market where price rises have become the norm anyway. No criticism was made by the Greens of the sell off and fragmentation of the taxpayer owned electricity network. The Greens do not support a return to nationalised electricity - they see competition as being the best regulator of pricing.

The Greens’ only input into any form of electricity market regulation is their demand that the market be made to be more transparent by the introduction of variable charges on lines and by the ending of the practice of including lines and retail charges on the same bill. Though not a socialist demand, re-nationalising of the power network would bring more transparency and accountability than anything being demanded by the Greens. Pricing would be directly a function of the ability to supply [production] and distribute and not retail.

Renationalisation of course goes against the Green philosophy of fragmented and localised services, which it regards as essential to re-empowering communities. Communities are valued over the wider society, which is perceived as being centralised and impersonal. The "communitarian" and kowtowing to individualism that Rod Donald speaks of is clear, and clearly opposed to the natural justice that would see public assets built by workers run by workers.

Opposition to ‘free trade’ has the same petty bourgeois class roots as other Green policies. The obsession with protecting the local market to the exclusion of others weakens any pretence of being internationalist by denying efficiencies that could be achieved by other producers in other countries. Rod Donald’s condemnation of the Singapore/NZ Free Trade Agreement is based on the belief that Indonesian workers should stay in their villages rather than work in ‘free trade’ zones. Donald ignores that the history of class struggle is one of workers forced out of rural poverty into jobs where they fight to get better wages and conditions. Local protection also hits the NZ worker, who is forced to spend beyond what is necessary to preserve the profits of local bosses.

The inference is quite clear. Green internationalism only exists in paying lip service to international agencies coming to the rescue of ‘exploited’ Third World workers. It refuses to back the workers’ solidarity uniting workers of all countries that expresses true internationalism. Socialist economics requires centralised planning totally under workers control and ownership on all levels between local and international. Green co-op economics goes nowhere near that basic demand. Indeed it strives to maintain a state of exchange differential between communities so that profit still remains a basis by which commodities are converted to capital.

Greens cannot defend 'nature'

If the Green objective is to present capitalism with a human face by turning the "class" issue into an ecological one, by which humanity is seen as a subordinate component of nature, similar to its subjugation by a ruling class, then it raises an interesting question about the boundaries of human intellectual potential and creativity. Whilst we are mere specks of dust in the cosmos and understanding our place in it is important, it should not be used as an argument to justify the need to defend capitalism in order to express our relationship to nature. Labour, the measure of value, is after all part of nature. But capitalism has gone well beyond its use-by date and is busy destroying nature. The Greens’ apology for capitalism hides the reality that capitalism has already prepared the conditions for socialism where ‘value’ is created directly from nature and does not have to be turned into capital. The task for us as workers, is to selflessly share that value out to all in all of its manifestations. This is the basic socialist demand.

The issue of GE more than any other has shown how closely the Greens’ environmentalism is tied to their pro-capitalist economic agenda. In opposing GE, the Greens focus almost exclusively on the threat it poses to the organics industry, without ever noticing the fact that "organic" means expensive and out of reach for ordinary workers and the poor. Like luxury yachts, organics is the domain of the elite who can afford it, a high value commodity targeted at a particular niche market.

The Greens may have no confidence in commercial exploitation of GE, but they rely on the capitalist state (with a Green party in government of course) to regulate GE. There is no understanding that only under workers’ control (initially scientists and technicians who are knowledge workers) does GE become subordinated to the needs of society and not profits. It should be up to workers not green capitalists to decide whether GE is safe.

Greens Personality lineup

When the Values Party was launched in 1972, it became the worlds first Green Party, and was composed of people who cut their political teeth during the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations of the 60's. Unfortunately, anti-imperialism did not manifest itself in Values Party policy - the Values Party never thought of itself as a workers’ party and never opposed capitalism. Tony Kunowsky, who led Values between 1975-1979, even went on to become a financial high flyer in the New Zealand corporate scene.

Many prominent members of today’s Green Party are wealthy, with many like Jeneatte Fitzsimmons having holdings in large properties. Bankers and entrepreneurs seem more common than trade unionists. Figures such as Keith Locke and Sue Bradford, who are a part of the Green front-line, bring with them experiences and views that are common to many on the NZ left, but come from backgrounds more associated with union bureaucracy and semi-reformist rather than revolutionary politics.

Locke's long association with the Socialist Action League (a forerunner of today’s Communist League) is loudly omitted from his Green Party official profile, as if to make himself more acceptable to his new comrades. His initiatives in Parliament against repressive anti-terrorism legislation (see our article War, Terror and Democratic Rights) have endeared him to many who perceive the Greens as being more representative of the left than the corpse-like Alliance.

Locke’s credibility rates high among many who know his long years of involvement in anti-war and human rights issues. Unfortunately, Locke’s support for the United Nations and phony international courts as an instrument for global peace and justice too often puts him on the wrong side of the class divide. In the last decade the UN has been the world’s deadliest killing machine, taking millions of lives with its sanctions on Iraq and its bombing of small nations like Yugoslavia. Locke knows full well that the UN is a mere tool of the US and other imperialist powers, so his capitulation to Green acceptance of the UN as a benevolent force destroys his credibility among true anti-imperialists.

SWP Opportunism

The left should be concerned that progressive workers who have become for good reasons disillusioned with Labour and the Alliance might turn to the Greens, when the Greens offer no positive alternative.

The opportunistic call by the Socialist Workers Organisation for a vote for the Greens during the recent snap elections is indicative of the marked deterioration of supposedly left elements in NZ. How can a party that stands for workers’ power support a party that neither has nor wants a working class base? As unpalatable as it was, critical support for Labour during the elections only was necessary because many workers still felt that Labour best represented their interests. Such illusions will be smashed only by putting Labour into power and proving that Labour is against their interests. Throwing a vote away to the Greens merely fragmented any potential Labour support by reducing its ability to carry out its full neo-liberal agenda unimpeded and thus expose itself.

The important question to be asked is, does the Green agenda support the re-empowerment of workers without the spectre of bosses hanging over them? The short and unequivocal answer is, no! The challenge for the Left is not to allow itself to be sucked in by Green rhetoric about a "co-operative". Such a future is actively opposed to "workers collective solidarity."

DOMESTIC WAR ON TERROR

What is the future of our civil liberties? Election candidates will be asked probing questions on their views about the state of liberties in New Zealand, either by the media or by members of the public. People can be forgiven for not asking these questions, given that there has been little coverage of the issues in the media. This, at a time when two of the most insidious pieces of legislation to encroach on New Zealanders’ civil rights are currently going through Parliament. These two laws are the Terrorism Suppression Bill and Paul Swain’s anti-hacking legislation.

[From Class Struggle 46 August/September 2002]

Terrorism Suppression Bill

The anti terrorism legislation takes a broad brush approach to the word “terrorist” which could even include such groups as Greenpeace. Further, it promises severe penalties for ‘supporting’ terrorist groups. Again, the sweep of the legislation potentially means left groups in New Zealand with links to overseas national liberation and revolutionary groups could be in trouble. As an aside, one wonders if any of the thousands of dollars raised annually in NZ for state of Israel will lead to charges of supporting terrorism! It is highly unlikely since the term terrorism means what the US defines as terrorism.

At a Select Committee hearing in Auckland, MP Graham Kelly told leftist groups appearing that all would be well and harked back to his anti-Vietnam days of protesting, saying he had no interest in targeting New Zealand’s left. In essence his message was “just trust us”.

The legislation also provides for secret trials and suppression of information where it is deemed in the interests of national security. The Prime Minister will be one of the few people in this “inner circle” of secrecy. Once again, the message from the Government is “trust us, we know what we’re doing.”

Police powers to invade your computer

The anti-hacking legislation started life as (supposedly) a completely different piece of legislation all together. For a couple of years now there have been complaints (mainly from businesses) that there are no (or insufficient) penalties to stop people hacking into other people’s computers. Businesses lamented the damage that could be done by such people by using viruses or Trojans. [A Trojan is a form of virus that once in your computer can give outsiders assess to your computer and the ability to delete or modify your files.]

The need for such legislation is questionable, given that up-to-date virus protection and judicious use of a firewall can prevent computers being compromised.

But the legislation has now mutated into something much more dangerous. At the 11^th hour, amendments were added to the legislation to exempt police and security intelligence services from the legislation. On application to a High Court Judge, they will be able to hack into people’s computers to get information on them.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be drawn into this snooping campaign, because they will have equipment that monitors e mail. The FBI and CIA already use tools such as Echelon to check for key words which may indicate suspicious activity. Next time you send an email to a friend in the US, use such words as “bomb” “President Bush” and “kill” if you want to get observed by the intelligence communities. This is not fantasy: it has actually happened to at least one New Zealander who used a few words (in a completely harmless way) and found out she was the target of the US government as a possible terrorist threat.

The justification for this gross invasion of privacy is the supposed need to combat so-called “cyber crime.” When asked what and how widespread this “cyber crime” actually is the proponents of the legislation become defensive and will not give any details.

The fact is that “cyber crime” is largely a myth. What little takes place can and is detected through existing methods. Further, anyone who wants to get around the new legislation will be able to do so by using encrypted email and anonymous surfing. What the legislation does is give the authorities the right to have unparalleled assess to the personal correspondence of anyone who owns a computer. It would be like giving the state the ability to randomly open mail for a vast majority of New Zealanders. The email snooping part of legislation is little more than a fishing expedition of the worst and most invasive kind. No wonder civil libertarians are concerned. Some Internet Service Providers such as Alan Marsden of “Planet Internet” have voiced concern as well. And yet again, the Government’s retort has been “trust us, we won’t use such legislation lightly.”

From previous experience in matters both economic and social, New Zealand workers should take such assurances for what they are: worthless.

Why this attack on democratic rights?

If the official reasons for the ‘anti-terrorist’ and ‘anti-hacking’ legislation don’t stack up, we have to ask what’s really driving Labour’s attack on civil liberties. It is clear that both pieces of legislation follow hot on the heels of similar action by the United States and British governments. We know that the United States, in particular, urged other countries to follow its lead in legislating against civil liberties after S 11. The pushing through of these laws says more about our desire to suck up to the US and buy back into their good books than it does about any desire to tackle crime and terrorism. These laws are part of an ongoing campaign by this Government to appease its large capitalist masters. The eagerness with which New Zealand was willing to commit troops to the Imperialist war in Afghanistan was sickening, and now it seems we are becoming more and more a part of the US spying network.

We know that US and New Zealand police and intelligence officials have been meeting to discuss ‘anti-terrorism’ but we don’t know any details of the discussions: a disturbing shroud of secrecy surrounds them. Attempts by activists such as Nicky Hager to find out what was discussed have met with a wall of silence and denial. The open society is closed for business, it would seem.

Criminalising Workers

We need only look at the US to see the effects of ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation. Longshoreman are being threatened with losing their jobs under the Maritime Security Act if they have been convicted of felonies and Trade Unionists could lose their legal protection under the new Patriot Act.

In the latest move Bush is threatening to callout the National Guard if the Longshore workers go on strike. An international solidarity campaign is building (info on http://www.ilwu.org)

A recent article circulated on the left-wing Internet discussion group OCPPR highlighted this and other attacks on workers that are taking place, and included the comment:

“Mumia Abu-Jamal and nearly 2,000,000 others who are mostly Black and Brown are trapped in a prison system that is one of the fastest growing industries in the country. Mumia Abu-Jamal like others has been fighting against a system that is stacked against poor”

The comments about the prison system are something New Zealand should take note of as well. Despite calls from the right (particularly ACT and National) for tougher and longer sentences, it is worth noting that we are second only to the US in rates of imprisonment already. Interestingly, both the US and New Zealand have some of the highest rates of violent crime in the OECD. So much for the belief that longer sentences are a deterrent to such activity. US activists and unionists are to the fore in fighting for the release of Black activists like Mumia, framed and jailed for their politics. We have to be in the fore here too.

The British Model

Our proposed legislation is closely related to that of the US and the UK. Contrary to popular belief, the US and UK laws are not a direct result of September 11 - they were well in train before the events of that day. However what did result from September 11 was an added impetus to push through such laws with an even wider brief. It has also meant many people who might otherwise oppose the laws, have fallen in behind their masters. Middle of the road social democrats in England, Europe and so-called liberal democrats in the US suddenly showed their true colours in clambering to support such legislation. The only opposition to this legislation has come from Marxists, some Greens and some civil libertarians.

The Observer newspaper in England has reported that the Government there is now driving a move to increase email snooping across the European Union. If the plans go ahead millions of emails, other Internet information and telephone records would be made available to police and intelligence services. It reports that the law changes would mean Companies that run internet sites will be required to retain passwords used by individuals, record which website addresses are visited, and keep details of webpages looked at and any credit card or bank details used for subscriptions. The information retained about emails will include who sent the message, where the email went, the contents of the email, and the time and date the email was sent.

'It is typical that such a significant change in the control over private information is being worked out in secret,' said Dr Ian Brown, a leading expert on data privacy and director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

'It does seem to have been Britain that has put pressure on other member states to put in place this type of legislation. In 99 per cent of cases it will be used properly, but what about the other one per cent? There is not enough scrutiny of what is going on.' [The Observer, Kamal Ahmed, political editor, Sunday June 9, 2002]

There are recent reports that one of the Ministers pushing these sorts of policies, David Blunkett, is having a rethink, in the light of sustained criticism of the open ended process being proposed. But even if these ideas do not become law, substantial in-roads have already been made into individual freedoms in the European Union.

Stuff capitalists’ spies and snoops!

The scope and nature of these laws shows that they are more about an attempt to control workers and dissent than anything to do with terrorism or so-called “cyber crime.” They are part of an increasing tendency towards stripping away democratic rights won by workers over the decades. It is of little surprise that unionists and leftists in the United States have become one of the first targets of the new legislation.

The on-going crisis ridden nature of capitalism has lead to the capitalists locking up and spying on more people than ever.

Workers must see these types of laws for what they are. Not only are they attacks and retrenchments of hard-won rights, they represent an ongoing and increasingly vicious attack on workers. They have little or nothing to do with terrorism and cyber crime and everything to do with repression! We must oppose such laws vigorously and highlight what are they are really about, what they really mean to workers and who is behind them at every opportunity. We must rebuild our unions as fighting, democratic organisations capable of defending not only our workplace gains but of our democratic rights!

Demand that the CTU takes a stand against the Terrorism Suppression Bill and the anti-hacking bill!

For an Independent Inquiry into the killing of Steven Wallace!

For trade union support of the Palestinian unions!

Strike against the Anti-Terrorism Bill! Strike against the Anti-Hacker Bill!

IRAQ AND THE NEW ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

From Class Struggle 46 August/September 2002

As the dark clouds of Desert Storm Mk 2 loom over Iraq and the entire Middle East, clouds are appearing on the horizons of many of the Western governments directly or indirectly backing George Bush jnr’s war. From Britain to Australia to Auckland, a storm of protest is building at the West’s plans for yet another Third World War against a poor and desperate people. In Britain dozens of MPs, nine trade unions representing millions of workers, and two thousand religious leaders have all written to Tony ‘Tory’ Blair demanding that war plans be abandoned, and a huge rally is being planned to coincide with the beginning of an important Labour Party conference at the end of September. In Sydney, 200 groups responded to a call circulated recently to set up an anti-war campaign. In Auckland, where the left is very small and weak, about 70 people recently turned up to an anti-war planning meeting. The CWG has been protesting imperialist aggression against Iraq for well over a decade now, taking part in marches and pickets and running numerous articles in Class Struggle. For us, the sight of an emerging international movement against a new all-out war is a great encouragement. The emerging movement is also however also a great challenge, because many of its members have very different ideas from us about what the war drive means and how it can be stopped.

A Popular Front

The arguments of the foes of the new war on Iraq are often peppered with references to ‘international law’, to the UN, and to ‘Christian morality’. As Marxists, we have no faith in any of these forces to stop a new war on Iraq. The United Nations and international law are part of our problem, not part of its solution – the UN, after all, gave its blessing to Desert Storm Mk 1, and continues to enforce the trade sanctions that have killed well over a million Iraqis. And appeals to morality are unlikely to do have much effect on imperialism, a system that worships only the accumulation of capital.

The fact is that the emergent anti-war movement bears all the hallmarks of a Popular Front. A Popular Front is an alliance between the working class and a section of the capitalist class. In Britain, many anti-war workers are joining forces with religious leaders, pro-peace business leaders, and right-wing politicians of the Liberal and even Conservative parties. In Britain and elsewhere, many business leaders and politicians are opposed to war not out of concern for the Iraqi people but because they support the European Union, which is the US’s imperialist rival in the Middle East.

The pro-Europe forces think that countries like Britain would benefit from other Europeans states’ bids for trade and oil extraction deals with the Middle East, and that an occupation of Iraq by the US will ruin these bids. Because it is militarily much weaker than the US, the EU likes to work through the UN and ‘international law’, and this makes it seem to some, including many in New Zealand, like a ‘nice’ imperialist power compared to the ‘nasty’ US. Let’s not forget, though, that this ‘nice’ imperialist power was an enthusiastic player for the wrong side in Desert Storm Mk 1, and has since dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Yugoslavia in two different wars!

Marxists oppose Popular Fronts because they agree with Marx that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the working class itself’. Big Bill Haywood made the same point another way when he said that ‘the employer class and the working class have nothing in common’. Historically, the Popular Front has been better at starting wars than ending them: the First World War, which was also the first great inter-imperialist war, was started when the leaders of the workers’ parties in different European countries abandoned Marxist principles and supported the war plans of their opposing ruling classes. Today, workers are in a Popular Front to stop war, not start it, but they nevertheless risk being used as pawns in another power game between rival imperialists. In calling for a ‘UN solution’ and for ‘the rule of international law’ they play into the hands of the Euro-imperialists.

Who Can Stop the War?

If politicians and the United Nations can’t stop the war on Iraq, who can? We can answer this question by looking at two imperialist wars that were brought grinding to a halt – the First World War, which was stopped on the Eastern Front by the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the Vietnam War, which Vietnamese anti-imperialists eventually ended in 1975. In both 1917 and 1975, it was anti-war action by a particular group, the working class, which secured victories for peace. We should not be surprised that the same social force was responsible for stopping wars so separated in time and space, because the working class is the universal opposition that capitalism and imperialism create in very country on every continent. It is workers, after all, who suffer the most from war. They are the ones dying in understaffed hospitals, when million-dollar bombs fall on their brothers and sisters in ‘enemy’ cities. They are the ones who are told to ‘tighten their belts’, as war is used as an excuse to cut wages. They are the ones who travel home from the front in body bags.

The international working class is not only the group most affected by war – it is the group most able to stop war. The entire imperialist war machine would grind to a halt in days, if workers in the arms and transport industries simply folded their arms and refused to work. No imperialist army can capture or hold ground if the uniformed workers in its ranks refuse to shoot the workers on the other side. The movement that ended the Vietnam War proved the common interests and power of the international working class, by getting millions out on the street and out on strike around the world, and sparking endless mutinies in the US-led armies in South Vietnam.

An international movement against the war on Iraq can only succeed if it acknowledges that it is supporting the direct resistance of the Iraqi people. When US planes are bombing Iraqi schools and hospitals, how can we not support the Iraqis trying to shoot them down? As the Interview with an Iraqi Communist published in this issue of Class Struggle shows, Saddam is a creature of imperialism. The US has decided it wants to replace Saddam with a friendlier dictator, but a defeat for Iraq will only strengthen the force that creates Saddams all over the world. A defeat for the US, on the other hand, might give the Iraqi people the strength and confidence to get rid of Saddam. Iraqis are the first line of defence against imperialist war, but they must be backed up by workers internationally, if they are to defeat the US and its allies.

From Minority to Majority

Because only a small minority of the emerging movement against war on Iraq currently agrees with our working class, internationalist answer to war, we on the revolutionary left face some tough choices. We must decide, and quickly, how we are going to deal with the majority of the movement which has illusions in the UN and in ‘good’ imperialists. One way of dealing with the situation would be to decide not to work with the majority who have taken views that don’t fit the revolutionary mould, and to focus on building a ‘pure’ movement of anti-war activists with the correct, anti-imperialist ideas. At the other extreme, revolutionaries could decide to put their independent politics aside, and work within the broad movement for reformist aims like a ‘UN solution’.

The CWG believes that both of these approaches are wrong. We call the first approach sectarianism, and we call the second approach opportunism. Sectarianism is wrong because a ‘pure’ politics is no use without large force to put it into action, and opportunism is wrong because a large force is no use without the right politics. We think that revolutionaries must try and avoid the extremes of sectarianism and opportunism, by working with the emerging anti-war movement while also promoting their independent politics wherever possible. If the revolutionary left can get support for its politics and practice in the broad Popular Front, then the pro-imperialist components of the front will expose themselves for what they are, and be booted out by workers.

In Auckland, the CWG has a number of members and supporters active in the Anti Imperialist Coalition. The AIC is a United Front, or a collection of groups and individuals with politics in the working class alone, and it aims to intervene in the emerging broad movement against a new war on Iraq using a ‘two-track’ strategy. The AIC argues that a successful anti-war movement must be broad, must be democratic, and must have a strong anti-imperialist current. In other words, the AIC is committed to building the movement as a whole and to building an anti-imperialist current inside it.

During the movement against the invasion of Afghanistan last year, the AIC worked inside the broad Popular Front Anti-War Coalition, arguing successfully for an anti-UN line and a ban on pro-war speakers at rallies. At the same time, the AIC organised its own independent meetings and protests outside the AWC, in order to further promote its politics. For instance, the AIC sometimes publicised upcoming AWC-organised marches by holding street corner ‘speak in’ meetings in working class areas which it also used to promote its own agenda and politics.

We think that the AIC’s approach to anti-war work offers a positive alternative to the dead-ends of sectarianism, on the one hand, and opportunism, on the other.

Get involved with the AIC! Visit the coalition’s website and read its anti-war bulletin at http://www.antiimperialist.org.nz/

The AIC meets every Wednesday at 7.30 pm at Trades Hall, 147 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn Auckland. Phone 025 280 0080 Email: anti_imperialist@hotmail.com

INTERVIEW WITH AN IRAQI COMMUNIST

Iraq History 1

Interview with an Iraqi Communist

[From Class Struggle 46 August/September 2002]

Recently a Class Struggle supporter spoke to an Iraqi communist about the history of Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in Iraq. The interview makes it clear that Saddam Hussein has been used by both the US and the former USSR as a tool in the cold war. But Saddam has also built his regime by playing off one against the other. While Class Struggle defends Iraq against imperialist war and sanctions this is not to support Saddam’s regime in any way. Quite the reverse it is to create the conditions for an uprising of Iraqi workers and the creation of a Workers’ and Peasants’ government.

Tell us a little about Saddam’s background.

Saddam Hussein was born to a very poor family in a village called Al Awja, which is next to the town of Tikrit. As a young boy he stole eggs, and he stole chickens, things like that, so that his family could eat. He was a typical victim of poverty and backwardness. He became a gun man, a thug for the Ba'ath Party. In 1959 he participated in the failed assassination attempt on Iraqi leader General Kassem. Then he went into exile in Cairo. Saddam went back to Iraq after the Ba'ath took power.

What can you tell us about the CIA’s role in bringing Saddam and the Baath to power?

The Ba'ath Party and the United States were afraid that Iraq was going communist. The visits to the American embassy by Saddam Hussein and other members of the Ba'ath Party had one purpose, and one purpose only: to co-operate with the Americans towards the overthrow of General Kassem in Iraq. Kassem was slightly pro-communist. Kassem was dependant on the Iraqi Communist Party. A popular communist slogan of the time was “there is no leader but Kareem”, an adaptation of an Islamic oath “there is no god but Allah”. The US wanted to get rid of that danger. Allen Dulles, then CIA chief, described Iraq as the most dangerous part of the earth in front of a congressional committee. The Ba'ath thought Kassem was their enemy, so there was a mutuality there.

The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. An electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the Baathist forces. They supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close, and that continued for some time after the coup. There was an exchange of information between the two sides: it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.

Not long after the coup the Soviet Union turns to Saddam. He personally leads a delegation to Moscow. What game is the Soviet Union playing?

What game? The game is unnamed, but the Iraqi workers were the ones being played. Alliances of convenience don't last very long. The Ba'ath Party was committed to certain things which American foreign policy could not tolerate.

Why? The things they needed, the Baathis couldn't get from the United States. They needed help economically and they needed arms. And the United States was not in the business of openly supplying arms to Arab countries to re-equip themselves for another round of fighting against Israel. The marriage of convenience was over. Saddam knew he could get the arms from Russia and he journeyed to Russia--this was his first trip outside Iraq apart from his exile. And he got what he wanted.

In 1972, Iraq and the Soviet Union signed a treaty of friendship and co-operation. They wanted to seal the co-operation taking place between them in a formal alliance. The reason Saddam signed that treaty of friendship and co-operation was because that obligated the local communist party, which was still very strong, to co-operate with the Ba'ath Party, which was still not strong. Of course the Russians loved an opportunity to have a hold on Iraq and they signed the treaty and told the local communist party to join the Iraqi government. That alliance internally did not last very long. But the external one was on and off for a very long time. The Soviet Union at one point thought Iraq was a more important ally than Egypt. Its army always acquitted itself in battle better than the Egyptian army. Unlike Egypt, Iraq was a wealthy country. It was the gateway to the Gulf. It represented a more immediate threat to the West's lifeline than Egypt did.

Do we know whether or not Saddam has actually studied Stalin's tactics?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam studied Stalin. Stalin is his hero. Stalin came from a humble background. Stalin was brought up by a mother. Stalin used thugs. Stalin used the security service. Stalin hated his army. And so does Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein models himself after Stalin more than any other man in history. He has a full library of books about Stalin. He reads about him, and when he was a young man--even before he attained any measure of power--he used to prowl around the offices of the Ba'ath Party telling people 'wait until I take over this country. I will make a Stalin state out of it yet.' People used to laugh him off. They shouldn't have. It was a very serious proposition indeed.

Saddam Hussein borrowed from Stalinism. He had his security people trained in Eastern Europe, particularly East Germany. Then he brought them back to Iraq and he taught them how to use the tribal linkage to eliminate people. They used Stalinist methods to discover people who were opposed to the regime, after that came the tribal methods, when Saddam said 'don't get rid of Abdullah, get rid of his whole family. Don’t leave a single member of his family that might one day assassinate us.' And that made it a perfect system for Iraq. It is practically fool-proof.

In the early seventies, Saddam started out controlling one small department called the Peasants Department. At that time the Ba'ath regime, for a very brief period of time, paid lip service to bringing democracy to Iraq. Came the time for them to assign the job of head of the security system, no one from the inner circle wanted the job. Everybody said 'this is a dirty job. I don't want it.' Saddam Hussein raised his hand and said 'I want the job. I'll take over the security system.'

He took over the security system, called it the Department of General Relations and proceeded to expand it. This was his first step towards attaining power. In no time at all, Saddam was head of Security, he was head of the Peasants Department, he was head of Relations with the Kurds, he was head of the committee that controlled the oil. He was head of the committee that controlled relations with the Arab countries. He was head of the Workers Syndicate. In everything but name, he was head of government.

There was a conflict between all these departments that Saddam controlled so tightly and the armed forces. The armed forces is the one organization capable of overthrowing the government. Saddam proceeded to emasculate the army and place his professional soldier relations from Tikrit in key positions. For example, his brother-in-law became Chief of Staff of the Army. And of course soon enough, like all people who are dictators, who are jealous of the army, he appointed himself General and eventually like Stalin he became Field Marshal. Saddam’s hatred for the army as a rival culminates in his starting vicious wars against his neighbours, wars where the high number of casualties in the army was not only accepted, but welcomed.

In July of 1979, after the Iranian revolution, Saddam, still officially only vice-president, makes a visit to Amman, capital of Jordan. And, at the same time, he meets with CIA agents there. What is he doing? And what are the consequences of this trip?

Before starting the war with Iran, Saddam Hussein went on a tour of several Arab countries. His first stop was Amman in Jordan. And there he had two things he did not have in other places: an indirect line to the Americans through King Hussein, who has always been a “friend” of America, and, the possibility of meeting three senior CIA agents who were there, not to spy on Jordan, but to use Jordan as a listening post for the rest of the Middle East.

There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam discussed his plans to invade Iran with King Hussein. There is considerable evidence that he discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents that King Hussein prevailed on him to meet with. After that he flew to Saudi Arabia and there is a record of him telling King Fahd that he is going to invade Iran, and then after that, I think he had a stop-over in Kuwait and he did the same thing. What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.

So you can look at this picture as having begun with this tour that Saddam took immediately before he invaded Iran. He was protecting his back with conservative regimes. With pro-West regimes. He was not protecting his back with the USSR. As a matter of fact the USSR cut off the flow of arms to Iraq once it invaded Iran. And Saddam had to rely exclusively on Western armament for three years until the USSR changed its mind and start selling to him again. They saw that they were losing out in Iraq because the West was willing to give him everything he wanted.

You have told us about the links of the Baath to the CIA, to the USSR, yet you remain a communist, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union?

There will be future generations, future battles. The defeat and the deformed nature of the Soviet Union does not legitimize imperialism. It simply means that we have to do better next time, be more vigilant. The world communist movement cannot survive another betrayal of the scale of the 3^rd International’s.

There is no doubt that Stalinism played a huge role in bringing the Baath to power. The Communist movement needs to understand this fact, and learn from it. There will be future generations of fighters such as yourself, who will succeed. What you told me earlier about resistance in Iraq is testament to the strength of the Iraqi movement. After thirty years of repression, the Baathists still have to contend with an Iraqi proletarian revolt. How do you defeat a movement like ours?

Iraq History 2

The Fire Last Time: Workers Revolution in Iraq, 1991

Here are some excerpts from an article that details the workers’ uprising that swept much of Iraq at the beginning of 1991. These details will surprise many readers, because a deliberate policy of disinformation has led many people to identify the 1991 rebellion with Kurdish nationalism and Shiite fundamentalist Islamism, not working class revolution.

The background to the events of 1991 was the widespread violent resistance to the Iran-Iraq war by worker in both countries. Demonstrations and mass desertions, sabotage and strikes, widespread killings of cops and army officers, and even attacks on forces loyal to the state by battalion-sized groups of armed deserters all occurred in Iraq in the 1980s. Indeed, the resistance to the Iran-Iraq War was perhaps the most extensive opposition to a war effort anywhere in the world since the wave of revolutions that ended World War I.

Before the launching of the US-UN invasion in early 1991, the general situation in Iraq was very explosive. From the moment that the Coalition warplanes started dropping their tons of bombs on the South of Iraq at first, workers started moving up to Baghdad, fleeing famine and desolation. They were immediately joined by thousands of starving deserters. In the face of this situation, the Iraqi State had no other solution but to move more reliable troops from the North into the area to prevent these thousands of proletarians from fleeing to Baghdad. But by moving these more loyal troops to the South, the Iraqi State destabilized even more the situation in the North. Uprisings took place nearly everywhere, as soon as the war stopped. Basra, in the South, and Mossoul, Arbil, Kirkuk, and Sulaimania, in the North, were all in a state of insurrection by March.

Thousands of militants from various regions converged in the North - Turks from Kirkuk, Iranians who had fled the war and repression at the time in Iran, and so on. Because cities such as Halabja and Qal'at Dizah had been decimated by Saddam a few years before, they took refuge around Sulaimania, where more than 70,000 militants organised themselves for revolution. Despite the media's insistence on the entirely spontaneous nature of the uprising in Sulaimania, it is now clear that it was the result of intense organization undertaken by vanguard minorities. Their militant activity was intense in the six months before the uprising. A group called Communist Perspective was formed and their publication, The Worker, was distributed amongst militants. When riots broke out during the occupation of Kuwait, comrades from Communist Perspective organized debates with other militant minorities.

The militants decided to seize Sulaimania on the 8th of March at 1300 hours. Groups were formed and given specific targets - barracks, police stations, secret police and information headquarters, the "United Nations Hotel", and main entrances to the city... The army could sense the growing hatred and tension and was forecasting that something would blow. Nevertheless, the offensive on Sulaimania took them by surprise - the city was attacked from all sides simultaneously. In the course of the attack in the city, more and more workers joined the fighting.

When the barracks were taken over, arms were distributed to proletarians prepared to fight. They were given orders to attack milk stores (milk had been rationed), and to attack prisons and release prisoners. Like every significant proletarian insurrection, the struggle was against the State itself, and aimed to attack all its manifestations: military, police, public buildings, parties, and security and property documents. On hearing that the Baathists had hidden in a park outside the town, proletarians descended on it, shouting: "Long live the Shura - abolish the State!" "We want soviets!"

Soon the Shuras ("Shura" means "workers' council" in Persian and Kurdish) movement was born. Workers wanted to use the Shuras to organise a new society in place of the state and the capitalists they had seized power from. There were 56 Shuras in Sulaimania in the beginning, including the Refuse Collectors, Cement, Cloth, Cigarette, and Sugar factory workers' Shuras. Existing Shuras would call for people to set up further ones in their own areas. However, many of them had widely conflicting viewpoints and so people would tend to join the Shura most closely representing their own ideas. The "exploited" organized themselves into Shuras in most camps, villages, and towns in liberated areas of Kurdistan. Slogans used by the Shuras included ‘The only alternative to the Baathist regime is the Shuras’, ‘Freedom of speech, opinion, and organization’, ‘For a 35 hour working week’, ‘Equal rights for men and women’ ‘We demand Workers' Councils, not parliamentary democracy’, and ‘We should be armed to safeguard the Shuras' rule’.

The insurgent workers refused to let Kurdish nationalists enter the cities. The latter then tried to encircle the cities, meeting this way many soldiers on their way home from the front. The encircling of the cities by the nationalist parties allowed them to make the world believe that they were "in control" of these cities; but the only control that they actually assumed was the control of the repression of proletarians returning home from the front.

In the South of Iraq, uprisings started as the allies' land offensive began. The workers' situation became increasingly unbearable due to massive bombings of Basra, Ammarah, Naseriyah, Najaf, and Karbala. Organised minorities centralized their activities and struggles took place around all these cities.

Contrary to everything that has been said about the religious nature of the movement, religion played no part in the proletarians' struggle. Najaf and Karbala are sacred cities for Shiites but the uprising had nothing to do with Islam, despite what the bourgeois press try to make us believe. Workers used sacred sites to hang Baathists. Mausoleums were riddled with bullets and angry workers pissed in the mosques. Difficult, therefore, to talk of "religious fanaticism!" The Allies had reached the gates of Najaf and Karbala at the time of the uprisings there.

Neither the government, the nationalists, nor the Allied forces managed to control the situation in Iraq in March 1991. This is why they had to form an alliance. In the South, it was clear that the US-led force halted its land offensive to permit the Iraqi Army to carry out an attack on the insurgents. As the Iraqi Army descended on the cities, chaos ensued and deserters fled in all directions. Some asked for asylum and aid from the Allied troops but were told, "we'll give you something to drink if you're thirsty, but only in exchange for your weapons." They were then sent back, unarmed, to the city to be massacred, in what was just one example of collaboration between Saddam and the Allies against the uprising.

The army and the nationalists retook Sulaimania in mid-April. Now, following the reinvasion of towns by the Barbaric Baathist regime, social and political perspectives are as before with famine, misery, poverty, unemployment threatening the lives of workers more than ever. However, the dissatisfaction that sprung up well before the uprising will continue to spur on a battle against this world, carrying the memories of the uprising with it.

The above excerpts come from a much longer article published in Communism #7, the April 1992 issue of the central review in English of the Internationalist Communist Group, under the title The Unknown Insurrection: Armed Uprising and Workers' Councils in Iraq, 1991. The ICG, which had supporters and contacts in Iraq during the March 1991 rebellion, has a website at http://www.geocities.com/Paris/6368/

TROTSKYISTS IN CHINA: PART 1

1925-27 - A revolution betrayed

[from Class Struggle 46 August/September 2002]

One of the most common slanders directed at Trotskyism by Stalinists and their fellow travellers (which have included at various times social democrats, anarchists and nationalists) is that Trotskyists have not played any signficant part in revolutions, or worse, have been counter-revolutionaries. Leaving aside Trotsky's leading role in the Bolshevik Revolution after July 1917, especially as the Commissar for War and Commander of the Red Army, and his subsequent prominent role in the Left Opposition, all of which are exhaustively documented for those who want to know, the best place to begin investigating whether or not this charge is true is China in the 1920’s

China was the first major test of the ability of Comintern (The Communist International of parties set up after the Bolshevik Revolution) to lead a revolution in another backward country after the Russian revolution. Here we can clearly compare the role played by the Stalinists and that played by the Oppositionists and Trotskyists. We may even find that the historic record reverses the charges and that it is the Stalinists who are charged with counter-revolution.

We draw heavily on quotes and fraternally plagiarise passages from Revolutionary History 2, (4) Spring 1990. We have adopted the English spellings of Chinese names used in that Journal. Leon Trotsky on China (Monad, 1976) is also an invaluable source for the Opposition Documents of this period written by Trotsky and has an important introduction by Peng Shuzi (Shu-tse), the outstanding original Chinese Trotskyist. The Platform of the Joint Opposition of 1927 has a section headed "The Defeat of the Chinese Revolution and its Causes" which presents the view of all the oppositionists, and not only that of Trotskyists.

The Second Chinese Revolution

The place to start is the years 1925-27. Despite the Left Opposition's attempts to overturn it, the Comintern under Stalin forced the armed workers and peasants into a military alliance with the Guomintang under the leadership of General Chiang Kai-shek. (1)[1] The bourgeois nationalist Guomintang (KMT) organisation was even made a 'sympathising’ section of the Comintern. This policy was known as the 'bloc of four classes'. That is the workers and peasants had to unite with the petty bourgeois and the national bourgeoisie against the landords and the Japanese. Practically this class collaborationist bloc of four classes meant that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) militia was put under the command of the bourgeois leader of the KMT, General Chiang Kai-shek. (2)

When the CCP began to pose a threat to the KMT Chiang Kai-shek turned on the party and massacred thousands of communist militants in these years. (3) The Comintern looked for more 'left’ bourgeois leaders and blocked with two left bourgeois politicans, Wang Jingwei and his Wuhan government, and then Feng Yuxiang the 'Christian General'. This disarmed the CCP and in particular its militant leadership. (4)

Then the Comintern took a sudden lurch to the left and proclaimed a workers’ insurrection. The resulting uprising is known as the "autumn harvest", and was a disastrous defeat. The Guomintang’s massacre of the Canton Commune alone left 5700 dead in a few days. The Stalinists talked about these uprisings as a "new revolutionary wave". In fact this was an adventurist policy that sealed the defeat of the Second Chinese revolution. Thousands of peasants were massacred in the countryside, and the workers movement in the cities was smashed. (5)

So here we have a zig-zag in tactics that led to the massacre of many peasants and workers. Who was responsible? Counter-revolutionary Trotskyists? No!

"The Russian opposition and Trotsky battled against the policy of the Communist International and Stalin. They battled against the zig-zags, denounced the policy of class collaboration which handed over the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese workers to the hangman Chiang Kai-shek, put forward the slogan of 'soviets' when Stalin was busy applying the brake to the peasant movement, and condemned the adventurist, putschist line which followed. At each stage the Russian Opposition denounced the mistakes and dangers in Stalin's policy. The documents of the Opposition tried to warn the party of the dangers to which this policy was exposing the Chinese Revolution, as well as the inevitable repercussions on the USSR and the world revolution" (RH p.7). (6)

These criticisms did not reach the rank and file of the CCP because there was as yet no Chinese Left Opposition and the Opposition’s views on China were suppressed in the USSR. Had these criticisms been known then the independent resistance put up by Peng Shuzi and Cheng Duxiu who both became leading Oppositionists after 1929 would have been strengthened. So Stalin and his henchmen must bear total responsibility for the counter-revolution. Had Stalin fought for an independent, armed proletariat and poor peasantry, then even if these forces had been defeated he could not be accused of responsiblity for that defeat. But he did not and he can be so charged.

Origin of the Left Opposition

The Left Opposition arrived in China as the result of Chinese students being exposed to the LO in Russia while attending universities and military colleges. Before 1925 Chinese students were not warm supporters of Stalin, but neither were they oppositionists. Most went to two universities, the University of the People of the East under its Stalinist director Boris Choumiatsky, and Sun Yat-sen University under Karl Radek and Adolf Joffe, two leading Trotskyists.

After Chiang Kai-shek turned on the CCP and massacred its best militants, the CCP sent between 600 and 800 students mainly to Sun Yat-sen University in Moscow. These students had learned the hard way that they had to become proficient in the military arts and not place their hopes in bourgeois generals. By 1927 many of the Chinese students were participating in LO activities in Russia. Radek was sacked and a number of students were expelled to China. A faction adopting the name "Our Word" was to become the first Chinese opposition group.

Amember of ‘Our Word’ called Wang Wenyuan recounted his comrades’ rapid education in the realities of Stalinism:

"We knew very little about the internal struggles that were going on in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In Wuhan we had been told that Lenin had been succeeded by Stalin, who was now the leader of the Communist movement both in Russia and the world, whereas Trotsky was consumed by personal ambition, was a romantic, and was a militarist man of the Chiang Kai-shek type" (RH, 8)

Despite their desire to understand why the revolution in China had failed the students were wary of expressing their support for the opposition:

"None of us dared or wanted to express support for the Opposition, which had, after all, been denounced as counter-revolutionary...We were very careful about what we said in the course of these discussions...We behaved in this way only because words like "party", "central committee" and "majority" had such a sacred and authoritative ring about them that none of us dared or was equipped to challenge them." (RH, 8)

Participating in an opposition counter-demonstration on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution, and seeing a film on the October Revolution allowed these students for the first time to glimpse the real role of Trotsky in making and defending the revolution.

Wang Wenyuan describes how he spend the time between October and December 1927 studying the important documents of the period, in particular those which related to three important issues, the Anglo-Russian Trade Union Committee, Socialist Construction in the Soviet Union, and the strategy and tactics employed in the Chinese Revolution.

On the issue of the Chinese Revolution he realised that the blame that Stalin placed on the Chinese CCP leaders for the defeat of the revolution was an attempt to evade responsibility for originating the strategy and tactics himself. It was Stalin who had to be judged as to the correctness of entering the Guomindang and subjecting the party to Chiang Kai-shek and the tactic of the 'bloc of four classes'. But Wang had yet to read the Opposition documents or make direct contact with Oppositionists.

When Wang met Luo Han, a student who had contacts with the Oppositionists at Sun Yat-sen University, he was introduced to other Oppositionists and and able to discuss some of their documents with him. Meanwhile the Oppositionists were now being driven out of the party, harassed by the police and sacked from their jobs. Wang arrived at a conclusion about the Chinese Revolution:

"The depth of defeat...was becoming more and more apparent, and we soon realised that it was an illusion to think that after a few months' military training we could return to China and turn back the wheel of history. We were upset by the arbitrary and bureaucratic way in which the Stalinists conducted the inner-party struggle, and the suffocating atmosphere which this created - the gulf between what we thought and what we were allowed to say, between our sympathies and the demand of discipline, grew wider and wider - all 600 of us had just left behind a revolution, and we were restless and full of energy. For young rebels like us, a life of peace and quiet was worse than death." (RH, 9)

A struggle followed between Stalinists and Oppositionists for control of the Moscow Branch of the CCP. The Stalinists won. Meanwhile Wang and Fan Jinpiao read more of the documents of the Opposition. Wang found:

"The arguments and warnings of the Opposition, especially those concerned with the Chinese Revolution, were so obviously true and have so often been confirmed in practice, that I could not help nodding vigorously in agreement as I pored eagerly over them...I now realised that...the ill-conceived policies which had led to the defeat of the Chinese Revolution...had been warned against in advance and could have been avoided." (RH, 9)

He found himself in agreement also on the other key questions. He copied the documents of the Opposition into a series of small notebooks that were to become invaluable in spreading the word.

"From then on I became a "Bolshevik-Leninist" (as the Oppositionists were called at that time)."

During 1928 growing numbers of Chinese students became Oppositionists and a Chinese Opposition was formed in Moscow. About 150 out of the 400 students at Sun Yat-sen University were members or sympathisers. Increasingly, Russian Oppositionists were being arrested and imprisoned. Before long the Chinese students were also under attack. In early 1929 the GPU arrested and removed more than 200 'Trotskyists' from the University. Their leader Chao Yenching hanged himself the next day. Sun Yat-sen University was closed as a "Trotskyist lair". None of those arrested and imprisoned in Russia ever saw China again.

The Chinese Opposition could not be silenced so quickly and easily however. A group of about 10 students who had returned and were expelled from the CCP in 1928 formed 'Our Word' in 1929. They formed opposition groups in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing. A second group of students which included Wang got back to China via Korea in September 1929. They reentered the CCP as a secret "October' faction. Wang became a close associate of Chou En-lai in Shanghai.

Liu Renjing returned after having met Rosmer in Paris and Trotsky in Prinkipo. He rejected the idea of joining the CCP and fighting for the Opposition policies in the rank and file. He openly declared himself a Trotskyist and set about forming a separate party, the Militant.

Founding of the Left Opposition

Thus in 1929 three Oppositionist groups existed, two outside the CCP and one a secret faction inside it. Around the same time some of the old leaders of the CCP began moving towards the Opposition. Chen Duxiu, who had been removed from his post as General Secretary of the Party as part of the Stalinist witchhunt after 1927, came out against the Guomingtang leadership. He won over some older members such as Peng Shuzi, Zheng Chaolin, Ho Tzuchen, Yin Kuan, Chaolin, Hotzuchen, Yin Kuan and Ma Yufu and rapidly gained support in the rank and file. Chen and his supporters studied the Opposition documents brought back by the students and now understood the role they had played as Stalin's instruments in the years 1925- 27.

Chen Duxiu was a major acquisition to the Opposition. He was born in 1879, the same year as Trotsky, and was a member of a prominent Mandarin family. He became politically active in 1904 and was influential in the leadership of the nationalist movement that culminated in the first Chinese Revolution, the movement of May 4 1919, for which he was imprisoned. He became a professor at the University of Beijing and by June 1920 he had been won to Marxism. He became General Secretary of the Party in 1921 and led it through the period 1925-27. Because he refused to take responsibility for his role in the defeat of the revolution and allow Stalin to shift the blame away from himself, he was removed as General Secretary.

Chen's conversion to the Opposition created a crisis in the CCP. Stalin and the Stalinist leadership of the CCP conspired to expel Chen's supporters and on 15 November 1929 Chen was himself expelled. He responded with An Open Letter to All the Comrades of the Party. Five days later, 81 old Communists who had had or still had responsibilities in the party made public a text entitled Our Political Position. This declaration came out openly in favour of Trotsky: 'If we had had the political leadership of Trotsky before 1927, we would perhaps have been able to lead the Chinese Revolution on the road to victory." (RH, 12)

These older Communists, who were mainly intellectuals from Shanghai who had joined the party in May 1919, formed the Proletarian Faction. They included Peng Shuzi, a former propaganda chief and editor of the party paper, and Kao Yuhan and Wang Tuching who also held similar positions. The Proletarian Faction spread to most of the other cities including Hong Kong and Macao and reached several hundred in numbers.

Uniting the four opposition groups was a difficult task given the difference in age and experience and the fact that the younger Trotskyists were not at all forgiving of the Proletarian Faction members' role in the defeat of the revolution. Yet they had documents that explained the causes of this defeat and the 'young guard ' and the 'old guard' could now look to the future. Here too they had problems as Chen was convinced that the Third Chinese Revolution would only complete the national democratic revolution, and would not be a socialist revolution. In other words he thought that the national bourgeoisie could complete the national revolution, while almost everybody else argued that they were compradors in the pay of imperialism. He was characterised by Lui Renjing as 'right-wing'. All the factions vied to get Trotsky's support.

Trotsky conducted a extensive correspondence. He welcomed Chen's move towards the Opposition in 1929, writing that 'It goes without saying we can only rejoice in this". When he got Chen's Open Letter Trotsky wrote (22 August 1930):

"I think that this letter is an excellent document. Perfectly clear, correct positions are put forward in reply to every important question; particularly in relation to the "democratic dictatorship", comrade Duxiu adopts an absolutely correct position. At the same time you are writing to me that, if you cannot unite with Chen Duxiu, it is because he still seems to favour the "democratic dictatorship". I think that this is a decisive problem...There can be no compromise on this question. But it is clear that comrade Chen has a correct position in his letter...In the past he has made mistakes, but now he is aware of this. To understand one's past mistakes is profitable for revolutionaries and for cadres." (RH, 14) (7)

It was Trotsky's endorsement that won over the youth to Chen. On 8 January 1931 Trotsky wrote a long and urgent plea calling upon the various fractions to form a 'negotiating committee' in preparation for unity.

Trotsky's sense of urgency was tragically shown to be correct by the 'Jiangsu Affair'. A number of other influential cadre in the party were moving away from Stalinism. They were comrades associated with Li Lisan who was expelled in January 1931, including He Mengxiong, head of the party in Jiangsu, and his associates Liu Weihan, a trade unionist, and Li Juiji, a leader of the Communist Youth section of the CCP. Luo Zhanglong, a leader of the General Union of All-Chinese Labour, was also expelled. These new oppositionists were called 'conciliators', 'rightists', 'opportunists' and 'liquidationists' because they believed that the party had to re-establish its base in the trade unions in the cities instead of relying upon the Red Army and its bloc with the KMT. In this they were clearly moving in the direction of the Left Opposition (RH, 14).

He Mengxiong won over the provincial committee in Jiangsu. But He and 24 of his comrades were arrested by the British police in Shanghai and handed over to the party authorities. The "Jiangsu 25" refused to capitulate and were all executed at Lungwha, near Shanghai on 7 February 1931. This tragedy was to mark the end of the period of relative tolerance towards oppositionists and the beginning of the ruthless Stalinist measures to crush the Left Opposition in China at all costs.

On May 1 1931 the four groups of oppositionists, Our Word, October, Militant and Proletarian Faction, met for three days in Shanghai and united as the "Left Opposition of the Chinese Communist Party”. It took as the name for its journal 'The Spark'. The delegates represented 483 members all up. Chen's view that the bourgeoisie was capable of resolving the democratic tasks was overwhelmingly defeated and he accepted the majority view that "only the Dictatorship of the Proletariat could solve the democratic tasks." Unanimity was also achieved on the Constituent Assembly, the nature of the Chinese Revolution, and the soviets. The leadership of the United Opposition was drawn from all sides of the old divisions: Chen Duxiu, Peng Shuzi, Song Fengchon, Chen Yimou, Wang Wenyuan, Zhao Qi, Luo Han and Zhen Chaolin (RH, 14).

Revolutionary Conclusions

In looking at this vital period of history what conclusions can we draw? First, the true nature of the causes of the defeat of the Chinese Revolution were understood at the time by a number of exceptional comrades of differing ages, differing experience and differing class origins. Some like Chen and Peng were intellectual Bolsheviks who were in the leadership of the CCP during the Revolution. Peng was exemplary in his fight to reverse the Comintern line after his return to China in 1924. Chen buckled in 1923 but recovered to fight alongside Peng to get the CCP out of the KMT from 1925 onwards. Others were students like Wang, who, burning to understand what went wrong, arrived at the truth by finding the documents in Russia. Others again, like the 'Jiangsu 25' who were mainly unionists and local party officials, arrived at the truth by virtue of their immersion in the rank and file of the labour movement and party apparatus. They were snuffed out before they could fuse with the Oppositionists.

Second, all, without exception, had to fight the secrecy and repression of the Stalinist party apparatus to find this truth. When they found it, they became a threat to the Stalinist leadership and many paid with their lives. The hundreds of students arrested and imprisoned in Moscow; the expulsions and executions after 1929, and finally the persecution of the Party in league with the KMT led to many arrests of the Opposition leaders in 1931 and drove the membership further underground. Despite this systematic Stalinist and nationalist repression, the Opposition survived. But that is another story. (8)

All in all, following the tragic events of 1925-1927, the years between 1927 and 1931 saw a remarkable convergence, with the best communists from all sides being drawn towards the Left Opposition by a desire to fight inside and outside the party to create a new leadership that would not repeat the mistakes of the Second Revolution in making the Third. This was evident in the unanimity of the resolutions at the founding conference of the United Opposition.

Returning to the question raised at the beginning, as to whether Trotskyists have made or betrayed revolutions, what can be said about China? In the Soviet Union the Trotskyists warned of the causes of the defeat of the Second Chinese Revolution and attacked the Stalinist ‘bloc of four classes’. In China, some of Trotskyism’s future leaders independently fought for Bolshevik positions on the national question. They subsequently recognised that had they overturned the Comintern’s veto the revolution could have succeeded. They went on to form the Left Opposition and fought for the re-arming of the party, and for the uniting the poor peasantry with the urban working classes. If they failed to win the Third Revolution it was because the Stalinists and the Guomintang conspired to eliminate them as a force for revolution.

Without the Trotskyists in the leadership the Stalinists succeeded in bringing about an incomplete socialist revolution only in 1949. That revolution led to the formation of a degenerate workers' state in which workers never held power. The consequence of that is that today, the Stalinist bureaucracy that came to power in 1949 has converted itself into a new bourgeoisie and has restored capitalism in China. (9)

As Trotsky said many times, an incomplete socialist revolution is prey to capitalist counter-revolution unless the workers rise up and overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy. Without a Trotskyist leadership this was never going to happen. The responsibility for the capitalist counter-revolution therefore goes back to the Stalinist betrayal of 1925-27.

Visit the Revolutionary History website at (http://www.revolutionary-history.co.uk)

NOTES

(1) In August 1922 Maring (Sneevliet) arrived in Shanghai with instruction from the Comintern. These were: CCP members were to join the Guomintang as individuals so as to inflluence the national democratic revolution from inside that organisation. Shuzi reports that all the CCP Central Committee opposed this liquidation of the party into the Guomintang. Maring threatened the CCP with Comintern ‘discipline’ and the CCP buckled with the facesaver that the question would be decided at the CCP’s Third Congress. Zinoviev raised the question at the Russian CP Politburo meeting in January 1923. “Except for Trotsky, all the others, such as Stalin, Zinoviev and Bukharin, approved having CCP members join the KMT (Guomintang). The Executive Committee of the Comintern passed a formal resolution along the same lines on January 12 1923. (LTOC, 38). There followed a joint resolution between the Comintern (Joffe) and the KMT (Sun Yat-sen) on January 26. The CCP Third Congress of June 1923 voted for the change of line after a sharp debate. Thus the Menshevik turn was complete.

(2) The ‘bloc of four classes’ was against the existing CCP program adopted at its second national Congress in July 1922 which laid down the method for the proletariat to form a united front of workers, poor peasants and petty bourgeois in support of the democratic revolution, maintaining its armed independence from these other classes. As Peng Shuzi writes, this approach was in line with Lenin’s “Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions” of July 1920, in particular the section “…the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks. i.e. those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into temporary alliances with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form… (LTOC, 36)

(3) Chiang Kai-shek’s coups were the bourgeoisies’ reaction to the Second Chinese revolution that started in 1925 with the ‘May 30 Incident’ when British police killed seven workers during a mass protest in Shanghai. This was rapidly followed by anti-imperialist uprisings and strikes which were met with more repression. The bourgeoisie reacted in fear to this powerful expression of working class struggle understanding that if it did not suppress it, it too would be overthrown. Because of the Comintern’s policy of collaboration many CCP militants were killed. By October of that year Peng and Chen moved on the CCP Central Committee that the “CCP quit the KMT and only cooperate with it outside the party”. This motion was vetoed by the Comintern representative who argued that the CCP should use the upcoming Second Congress of the KMT “to push the whole party into the hands of the left wing, and thus take over the leadership of the national revolutionary movement”. (LTOC, 52). This move failed, and two months later Chiang Kai-shek launched his bloody coup on March 20, 1926.

(4) Not only militarily but ideologically. Peng Shuzi writes how some of the CCP leadership quickly joined the KMT and exaggerated the revolutionary potential of the bourgeoisie. Leading this type of work was Mao Tse-tung. Mao published an article at the time in which he stated that the bourgeois-democratic revolution was the task of the “people as a whole. Bourgeoisie, workers, peasants, students and teachers…but because of historical necessity… the work of the bourgeoisie…in the national revolution is both more urgent and more important than the work that the rest of the people should take upon themselves.” (LTOC, 41). General Secretary Chen Duxiu and other leaders also backtracked and began to sing the Guomintang’s praises. However, the Bolshevik core of the leadership did not surrender and an internal party struggle continued. Peng Shuzi writes that when he returned to China in 1924 he challenged the Menshevik turn. He was made editor of the party theoretical journal and wrote articles arguing that China’s revolution must follow the same path as the October revolution. He wrote that: “…the bourgeoisie due to its close ties with the warlords and imperialists, could never lead the national revolution …Moreover, because of its fear of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie would inevitably become reactionary…only the working class can become the leader of the national revolution.” (LTOC,47).

(5) Peng Shuzi warned of the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek’s counter-revolution through 1925, 1926 and 1927. Under the Comintern’s ‘collaboration’ policy the CCP militants were sitting ducks. By 1927 the revolutionary workers and peasants had formed semi-autonomous organsisations while still tied to the KMT.Chiang turned on the workers and peasants who had been his battle fodder in the Northern Expedition; he closed the unions and peasant associations and assassinated the leaders. He prepared his second coup, a massive massacre of thousands of the best young revolutionary fighters in Shanghai in April 12 1927 with the blessing of the Comintern. “This, then, was Stalin’s final reward for his policy of KMT-CCP collaboration, his unconditional support of the Chiang-led Northern Expedition, his concealment and defense of all of Chiang’s counter-revolutionary activity, and his hopes for Chiang’s success in destroying imperialism and the warlords and completing the struggle for national independence.” (LTOC, 63).

(6) The Editor’s Preface to Leon Trotsky on China [and the documents reproduced in that book] makes it clear that Deutscher is wrong when he states that the Trotskyists’ claim that the “Opposition had from the beginning unremittingly resisted Stalin’s and Bukharin’s ‘betrayal of the Chinese Revolution’ was a legend” since between April 1926 and March 1927 neither Trotsky nor any other Opposition leader “ took up the issue”(The Prophet Unarmed,p 321). On the contrary, “in April 1926 he [Trotsky] demanded in the Soviet Politburo the CCP’s immediate withdrawal from the Kuomintang and its independent struggle for the leadership of the Chinese workers and peasants.”. Also on September 27 1926, Trotsky put a formal resolution [“The Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang”] to the Politburo demanding a change in the CCP’s course in China and calling for “its immediate withdrawal from the Kuomintang. These were followed by two other formal resolutions BEFORE Chiang Kai-shek’s coup, March 31, 1927 [“To the Politburo of the AUCP(B) Central Committee” , and April 3, 1927 [“Class Relations in the Chinese Revolution”]. (LTOC, 23).

(7) In referring to the ‘democratic dictatorship’ Trotsky means the ‘democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry’ which was Lenin’s formulation for a bourgeois democratic stage of the Russian revolution led by the proletariat and the poor peasants. Lenin changed this conception to the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ in April 1917 in line with Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution to signify that the democratic stage of the revolution in Russia would be completed only by means of a socilialist revolution. In China after 1925 it became clear that the national bourgeoisie was reactionary, and that the completion of the democratic tasks of land reform and national unity would require a socialist revolution i.e. permanent revolution. This also made the demand for a ‘democratic dictatorship’ of the workers and peasants reactionary since it did not pose the overthrow of the bourgeoise state forces now mobilised in the form of the Guanmintang, In September 1927 Trotsky wrote: “For us it is no longer a question of the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, but of the dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the inexhaustible masses of the urban and rural poor – a dictatorship that poses for itself the objective of solving the most urgent and vital problems of the country and its working masses and in the process inevitably passes over to the path of making socialist inroads on property relations” (LTOC, 266).

(8) We plan to continue this series ‘On Trotskyists in China’ in future issues of Class Struggle

(9) For our analysis of the restoration of capitalism in China see Class Struggle #40 August/September 2001