organised by CND present government and replace it by one likelv to give us a better deal.
Indeed this is now the most important issue of all, namely whether the Labour Party with its democratic machinery is to be allowed to continue or Members of the party, left, right, and centre need reassurance that we are still a democratic party with trade unions, constituencies and other affiliated organisations able to go to annual conterence and resolve our differences by the normal process of voting.
There is a crisis of representation at present when people simply do not know what role the party members are expected to play under the principles of new realism. Opinion We have always had differences of opinion as you would expect within the Labour Party, but we have always also known that after due debate a decision would be reached that would be clear and straight forward and that next year we could discuss the matter again.
It is not certain that this democratic procedure is a part of the leader's view of the future of the party as he sees it.
That is why, when the electoral college meets, the central issue will be about the nature legitimacy and democracy of the party as well as about the individual policy questions that have emerged during the course of the campaign.
Finally I believe we should be clear on the outcome. It is interesting that a few years back we were told that if we were ike David Owen or David Steel we would have a tremendous electoral success. In reality the centre parties have split and split again. David Steel will be remembered as the man who destroyed the party he led.
Pressure It is interesting that the Harris poll in the Observer found that 14 percent of the entire British population said that they supported me — which is over six million people. That is above the David Steel vote and far higher than the Owen parthe left of the Labour party is not a separate political party. without doubt a very large body of opinion, I would say larger than the centre party, which would like to put pressure on the Labour Party in a contrary direction to its current path.
The leadership campaign — not the outcome which is constrained within the electoral college — will bring out a very important element in British politics. I believe it is one we must build on in the year ahead tersley defeating Hattersley.
would be between number of votes for Heffer.
of dealing with the present situation. Incoherent member up to today nobogy knows damental matter Similarly on with the unions.
policy review or not.
But there is come out with a clear policy Nor has Prescott any not supported the NO READER of Socialist Action is likely to be considering voting for Roy Hattersley in the deputy leadership election. Indeed in the CLPs, although not in the unions, Hatwill be crushingly defeated. self-organisation. On the basis of previous years voting 75 per cent of the CLPs are likely to TO TeLE vote against Neil Kinnock's running partner. But a candidate who is being promoted, and who will receive a knows significant vote, is John Prescott. Prescott also has a real chance of Socialist Action has no doubt that in a second round of voting Prescott should be supported against Hattersley - and union votes make it clear that a run off Hattersley Prescott. The Campaign Group would gain, and Benn and Heffer would increase their votes, if they made it clear now that in a second round they would be voting for Prescott against the right.
But this also makes it very important elections. to understand why socialists should vote for Eric Heffer in the first round and why This is above all a question of policies nock's - the fact that the soft left, which supports Prescott, has no answers to the key confronting the Labour Party.
John Prescott does not present a programme which is even remotely capable His attack Indeed one of the most striking things is how difficult it is to find out what Prescott's positions are. He was a of the Productive and Competitive Economy working group of the policy review — the key economic committee. Yet he was not present for any of final meetings of the committee which decided on the document. Right wherer Prescott is in favour of the policy document which emerged or not. As this document abandons the party's position T8TELO. on public ownership, and is completely economicalv inconerent. this is a tun tne trade unions Prescott has clearly called for closer links But no one knows wnetner ne supports te oocument or People at Work which emerged from the One area where John Prescott has Is on unilateralism. He has made it clear he tions -stands for a unilateralist defence policy - which is excellent. But he has not made clear where he stands on Britain in the World - the policy review document on international and defence policy.
known progressive positions on the issues which aren't in the review but should be. He has Labour Women's Action Committee - and did not even bother to reply to WAC's request to deputy leadership candidates to clarify their positions on the key issues for women in the party. He has never supported Black Sections or black Prescott has never taken a position for British withdrawal The reason that Prescott has avoided committing himself to virtually any definite policies is twofold. Firstly no one where he stands. Secondly because posing the policy issues raises the question of his relation to Kinnock.
Kinnock has treated Prescott in a disgraceful fashion. Prescott came second in the elections to the Shadow Cabinet - undoubtedly entitling him to a top job. But instead Kinnock, as part of his bloc with the right, appointed right wingers to all the key posts - John Smith as shadow chancellor, Gerald Kaufmann as shadow foreign secretary, and Roy Hattersley as shadow Home Secretary. Prescott was made energy spokesperson — junior to people he easidefeated in the shadow cabinet Insulting Even more disgraceful were Kinremarks when John Prescott made his first withdrawal, earlier this year, from running for deputy leader. Instead of welcoming this as a step to party unity - which was why Kinnock had argued against the contest - Kinnoc spent his time insulting Prescott and making threats. This episode showed up Kinnock for the shallow, petty individual he is - unworthy to lead a great party.
on Prescott undoubtedly discredited Kinnock.
But Prescott not only has no clear positions on the policy review but his own proposals are wrong. For example writing in Tribune on 3 June Prescott argued, outlining his basic platform: We must learn the lesson from the last elecnon, when our laxanon ponc mess. For example, it is not credible for Labour to suggest that our policies for full employment or our policies for in.
vesting in the health service, funded by can be tinanced on a programme of low taxation. It can't and the electorate knows it can't. Socialism is about the language of priorities. We need to argue our case, not duck the issues.
In other words Prescott argues that Labour should fight the next election as the party of high taxation. Its programme of social reform and economic reconstruction should be achieved not at the expense of capital but by taxing sections of the working class. The real opeconomic policies through attacking military spending, foreign investment, public ownership and the City of London - are not advocated by Prescott.
The truth is this would be electorally disastrous - and the right can show it would be disastrous. If Labour attempts to finance its economic programme by taxing the working class, not by attacking capital, it will simply split the working class irrevocably and eliminate ar possibility of a Labour government.
Prescott's programme is not mere unclear but wrong Finally Prescott's position is fatal flawed by the fact that he is unequivoca ly calling for a vote for Kinnock. Presco says he is defending unilateralism, defe ding the unions, fighting for full emplo ment, detending public ownership bi that he is urging a vote for the chief pe son, Kinnock, who is attacking all the: policies!
This is completely incoherent. If ti Policy Review is to be rejected, which must, then it is necessary to vote again Kinnock.
Prescott by running against Ha tersley is attacking the key link in the pa ty — the soft left's alliance with the rig in the party. As Kinnock's entire strateş is based on allying the so called soft le with the right wing a victory for Presco would be a devastating defeat for Ki nock. It would place the soft left charge of the party and leave it with r excuses for not carrying out its policie policy alternative to both the Poli Review and the fudging of Prescott. F stands clearly for public ownership, f rejecting the attacks on trade unic rigats, for unwateransm, for reducuon defence spending, for British withdraw and for defence democracy in the party.
Support On black self-organisation women's rights in the party we think Ei Heffer was clearly wrong in the past n to vote for Black Sections - although the final NEC meeting he attended voted in favour. But even on this issue clearly sought a short term compromi acceptable to Black Sections where Prescott has done nothing. Prescott h never indicated support for the deman of WAC whereas Heffer supports thei Heffer's positions on women and bla people are clearly superior to Prescot • although women and black peop will undoubtedly wish to get rid Hattersley.
The choice is clear. Socialists shou vote for Eric Heffer in the first round express i a socialist alternative to t Policy Review and Kinnock. This shou be used as a basis to win votes for Heffi and the other Campaign Group ca didates, in the NEC elections.in the s cond round Prescott should be voted f against Hattersley in order to defeat ti right.
It should be pointed out to those co sidering voting for Prescott in the fir round of the deputy leadership contest because of the necessity to defeat Ha tersley - that the only way to cast a cle socialist vote, and vote against the Poli Review, is to support Heffer. And th this will in no way conflict with t possibility of defeating the right. On t contrary the greater the dynamic f socialist candidates, and that mea Benn and Heffer, the better the chanc to defeat the right.
here is Gorbachev going? Socialist Action R TWENTY years of imity under Brezhnev the tempo economic pments in the Soviet Union iccelerated. Mikhail Gorv is fighting for economic political reforms aiming to strengthen role of et mechanisms in the Soviet my. irbachev's case for market ed economic reform rests on he describes as the pre-crisis on' of the Soviet economy: If we at the economic indicators of 1 separately from these factors we te that over four five-year plan is we knew no increase in the abgrowth of the national income even began declining in the carly Gorbachev, February 1988).
edmond O'Neill nce 1975, for the first time since evolution of 1917, the Soviet ›my is falling behind the United ; in relative growth in size of their ›mies. In 1975 Soviet production types reached 58 per cent the size e US economy. By 1983 it had ned to 56 percent and has since nued to fall behind. 1 the last two years, as a result of declining price of which her with exports of other raw rials had staved off the crisis for a id, there has been a significant ill fall in foreign trade million roubles in 1985 to 128.9 in roubles in 1987. Trade with the capitalist economies fell by 30 per over the same period.
The reforms carried out under Gorev's programmes of "Perestroika' 'Glasnost' have to date made little ict in reviving the Soviet economy ence Gorbachev's strong denuncia; of conservative ms and calls for their acceleration. ey measure Gorbachev requires ever, a major increase of prices -sh have not been raised on basic ssities since 1962 - would certaine as unpopular with the Soviet king class as similar measures have 1 in Poland.
Immobility What the changes made under Gornev clearly raise however is their tion to the Soviet state itself. In parlar what is their relation to the deep ions which were covered over durthe repression of Stalin and the imbility of Brezhnev? king at the nature of the USSR The state created by the 1917 revolu1 in the Soviet union is a workers' e defending public ownership of the in means of production. Within this nework degree of market chanisms are necessary and benefit economy. It is not possible for any te to repress the market and in some as, notably the distribution of conner goods, the market will be for turies the most efficient mechanism distribution.
But the course being followed by irbachev goes further than this -i to the restoration of capitalism but accommodate with DOST mestically and on the internationa! Id. To grasp that it is necessary to exline the historical roots of the proems in the Soviet Union.
Contrary to the expectations of arxists at the time the first socialist that which created the SSR, took place in ckward country in Europe. Russia in 1917 combined a small ctor of large scale industry with a gantic peasant economy in which prepitalist economic edominated. The October revolution, om the economic point of view, had a sal character. The working class took ate power. In industry it expropriated pitalism. But in agriculture the workg class opened the way to real comJuly 1988 modity relations of production for the first time. The large landowners were expropriated. Land was radically redistributed. Without these shifts the peasants would never have supported the Soviet state. The number of individual farms increased from 17/18 million in 1917 to 25 million in 1928.
The Soviet economy from its inception theretore CalC under a cua. pressure of the market - externally from the capitalist world economy and internally from peasant production and the remnants of small scale capitalism in the Soviet economy. The internal and external capitalist forces naturally had a tendency to come together dangerous combination.
The economic problems this raised began to become acute in the 1920s. None of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party had believed in 1917 workers' state in an overwhelmingly peasant, and backward country, could persist for long without the extension of the socialist revolution to the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe. As Lenin wrote in 1921: Even prior to the revolution, as well as atter it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist countries, otherwise would perish. Notwithstanding this conviction did our utmost to preserve the Soviet system under any circumstances and at all costs, because we know that we are working not only for ourselves but also for the international revolution Lenin's line was vindicated not merely in the Soviet Union but internationally. Without the existence of the Soviet Union, the victories of the Chinese, we namese Cuban Nicaraguan revolutions would not have been possible - nor could they have survived.
But capitalism in the advanced capitalist states proved stronger than Lenin and the carly Bolsheviks had foreseen. The revolution spread to the advanced countries.
Seventy years after 1917 the USSR has become the second greatest military power in the world, with the third largest economy, but it remains surrounded far stronger economies than its own.
This economic strength of imperialism is just as real a threat to the Soviet Union, and other workers states, as is the military strength of capitalism.
Lenin warned of this in one of his last speeches to the Soviet Communist Party when he spoke of: a test to which we shall be put by the Russian and international market to which we are subordinated, with which we are connected and from which we cannot escape!
Two systems Within the USSR itself, and even more in the surrounding capitalist world, two systems of production, embodied in different classes, exist. The first is the planned economy of the Soviet Union linked to the rise of the working class. The second is capitalist system of production. Between the two in the 1920s lay the great mass of the peasantry - - petty bourgeois in strict class terms. One of these two systems of production would inevitably finally prevail. Either the revolution commenced in the USSR would finally lead to the overthrow of capitalism in its main international centres, or, in the long run, capitalism would be restored in the USSR itself.
The political choices embodied in these key class questions began to develop in the Soviet Union in the 1920s in the three fundamental trends of the Soviet Communist Party — symbolised by Bukharin, Trotsky, and Stalin. In the 1920s Bukharin, now rehabilitated under Gorbachev, advocated a course of accommodating with capitalism both internally and internationally. Internally he addressed the famous slogan to the peasants of "Enrich yourselves' — a call 5% INDUSTRY GRICULTURE that a recently taken up word for word in SOCIES China.
Bukharin called for a popular tront alliance with sections of capital.
Theoretically Bukharin agreed with Stalin, and rejected Trotsky, in advocating the idea of building socialism in one country' - that is the belief that it was possible to construct a developed socialist society in the Soviet Union without the international extension of not socialist revolution. The social basis of Bukarin's policy, as with Stalin, was the growing Soviet bureaucracy which put its own privileges above the interests of the workers' state and the international class struggle. capitalist The alternative to both Bukharin and Stalin was Trotsky who pointed out the economically politically reactionary, character of the theory of 'socialism in one country: The passing of power from the hands of Tsarism and the bourgeoisie into the hands of the neither the processes nor the laws of world economy. To be sure, for a certain time after the October revolution, the economic ties between the Union and the world market were weakened. But it would be a monstrous mistake to make a generalisation of a phenomenon that was merely a brief stage in the dialectical process. The international division of labour and the supra-national character productive forces not only retain, but will increase twofold and tenfold their significance for the Soviet Union in proportion to the degree of Soviet economic ascent.
in the crisis of Soviet trade and Soviet economy over the last two decades. As the Soviet economy has become more complex so has its necessity to turn towards the international increased.
the reactionary political consequences of socialism in one country': The new doctrine proclaims that socialism can be built on the basis of the national state if only there is no intervention.
From this there can and must follow early 1930s (...) a collaborationist policy towards the foreign bourgeoisie with the object guarantee the parties in the Comintern assumes, SOVIET ECONOMIC GROWTH Average annual rate 1970 1974 1982 4.4 3.4 29 4.2 1.6 -11 56 6.1 -01 0 5.1 SOURCE: SOVIET STATISTICAL REPOR Internationally conquest of power.
itself achieving national shortest time.
Tempo utopian, abstract tempo, that 15, proletariat abolishes national the same Soviet systematically standards until the victorious of modern the USSR.
This reality is what is asserting itself Soviet Bukharin Furthermore Trotsky pointed out taxing the construction of antagonism main historical question. The task of nationalised industry.
huge the cities.
1986 peasants with 50 with methods therefore, an auxiliary character; their mission is to protect the USSR from intervention and not to fight for the Trotsky argued that the decisive question was to strengthen the position of the working class within the USSR to link this the international class struggle: "A realistic programme for an isolated workers state cannot set itself the goal of independence from world economy, much less of constructing a Stalin, in socialist SOCICLy *The task is not to attain the maximum tempo industrialisation), but the optimum the best, that which follows from both internal and world economic conditions, strengthens the position of the proletariat, prepares the elements of the future international socialist society, and at time, and above all, improves the living OTTe proletariat and strengthens its alliance with the non-exploiting masses of the countryside.
This prospect must remain in force for the whole preparatory period, that is.
revolution in the advanced countries liberates the Soviet its present isolated position: Trotsky maintained that the only finally coherent alternative to his policy was that of Bukharin - • and that Bukharin's course would finally end in posing the restoration of capitalism in In the struggle in the 1920s in the Trotsky nor пение! emerged victorious Bukharin's policy was applied in the mid-1920s. It strengthened the richest section of the peasantry. By April 1926 58 per cent of all surplus grain was in the hands six per cent of the peasantry.
Private trade flourished and industry was developed 'at a snail's pace. Trotsky's proposal to accelerate industrialisation, and thereby strengthen the position of the working class, by richest peasants were denounced as robbing the peasants.
Because Russian industry was not sufficiently developed to supply the emerging rich peasants with the goods they needed the result was sharpening between growing capitalism in agriculture and trade and The crisis came to a head in 1928 when the richer peasants responded to the lack of industrial goods, and the price differential between industrial and agricultural products, with a more and more stubborn grain strike - choking off food supplies to Stalin responded by breaking with buknarm and anempung to suppress the basic contradictions of Soviet society through naked repression. his meant concretely the liquidation of the kulaks (rich peasants) as a class and forcible collectivisation of agriculture. It meant that more than 1.5 million rich were expropriated deported; forced collectivisation percent of the peasants 'enlisted' in collective farms within seven weeks (!); crash industrialisation; ultra-centralisation of the economy; the suppression of all opposition and the adoption of the goal of catching up outstripping' the main capitalist powers within ten years (that is by 19411) The result of Stalin's was throw Soviet agriculture back by years catastrophe from which it has still not recovered - and to institutionalise the ultra-centralisation of the economy which is an element of the Soviet economic crisis today.
The stagnation which has emerged in the last twenty years is precisely the impasse into which the Soviet economy has been led by Stalin's attempt by administrative means to avoid the key choice between the fundamental lines embodied in the views of Bukharin and Trotsky. Stalin liquidated his political but he proved quite incapable of liquidating the fundamental contradictions which confront the Soviet economy.
Bukharin Whilst maintaining the framework of 'socialism in one country Gorbachev stands for a partial break with and Brezhnev, and a move towards the politics of Bukharin - that is a break in the direction of still further accommodating capitalism Soviet Union and internationally.
The negative consequences of this policy in the USSR itself will become apparent over time. But the reactionary consequences on the field of foreign policy are already quite clear. Gorbachev is not only - correctly - work ing for the maximum progress in nuclear disarmament; he is carrying through a sharp right turn in Soviet foreign policy and putting pressure on the USSR's allies around the world to retreat from regional conflicts with the imperialism.
Deng's policy in China, which has been pursuing a more radical version of the same course is even clearer. He is quoted in Hong Kong's pro-Peking Wen Wei Po newspaper as telling to Chissano, President of Mozambique:
*Judging by China's experience, I advise you not to adopt socialism, at least no unclearly principled socialism. According to the Guardian the commentary accompanying the leader says that the intention was to give a clear indication to third world countries, including China's neighbours that Peking was no longer interested in 'fervently inciting and sup porting their communist movements and anti-government plots In the Soviet Union itself exam have been cancelled in Soviet schools because the history books are being rewritten in the light of Glasnost. One consequence has already been the rehabilitation of Bukharin - whose policies are, after all, being applied by Gorbachev - and in recent days also of Zinoviev and Kamenev, all victims of Stalin's show trials and purges. It is no accident that the major leader of the Russian revolution who has not to date been rehabilitated is the one who stood for the only basic alternative to the line of socialism in one country and to the bureaucracy which imposed it - Leon Trotsky.
Socialist Action July 1988
----- pull-quotes -----
of averting intervention, as this will socialism, that is to say, will solve the
PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION TO ECONOMIC GROWTH 1966-70 1971-75 1976-80 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 41 39 49