Rebuild the Berlin Wall? Socialist Action draws wrong lessons from Eastern Europe
By Patrick Baker and Harry Sloan Few political commentators could honestly claim to have predicted the course of events across Eastern Europe over the last period. The interaction between the mass movements of the working class in the GDR, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR; the manoeuvres of imperialism: combined with the collapse of stalinism have produced a complex picture indeed - from the victory of the National Salvation Front in Romania to the victory of the Hungarian Democratic Forum, the survival of significant support for reformed Communist Parties in the GDR and Czechoslovakia, and so on.
However, the magazine Socialist Action (1) claims that *The events in Eastern Europe pose a simple dynamic'(2). From the outset, we are told, the dominant dynamic was nothing other than towards the restoration of capitalism.
Reading the Socialist Action version of events certainly gives us a simplistic view: but unfortunately not one that is of much use to socialists in understanding or responding to the developments. We are told, for example as a prelude fo Socialist Action's analysis that:
*Anything which weakens the working class and strengthens world capitalism, no matter what its immediate appearance, sets
NOTES
I. Socialist Action is a quarterly journal which. while claiming revolutionary politics, has played an increasingly rightist role in the labour movement for some years. This began with a refusal to criticise the left of the labour bureaucracy during the 1984-5 British miners" strike. More recently it has heen a part of the Labour Left Liaison alliance, frequently leading attacks on forces such as the Socialist Movement, Labour Briefing and Socialist Outlook. They have particularly opposed the 'twin track" stralegy put forward by the Socialist Movement - a strategy of linking forces in the left of the Labour Party to mass movements outside, such as that around the Poll Tax. SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 26, July-August 1990
FEATURES ACHTUNG! SILVERL Wie dann WEST BERLIN Socialist Action 'appalled" as Wall was breached back internationally the fight for equality, freedom, democracy, human dignity and progress".
At first sight this reads as a truism; yet the author, Peter Drew (who appears to share many of the views of Socialist Action theoretician John Ross) makes no attempt to refine this broad statement to come to grips with the contradictions in East Germany and other East European countries. There a strengthening of working class resistance to stalinism served to oust the old regime, and could potentially have represented a major threat to capitalist rule elsewhere in Europe and internationally. However in the absence of serious socialist forces committed to a full programme of political revolution a political vacuum was created that has since been filled in most cases by the emergence of pro-capitalist forces. Is this a simple 'weakening of the working class?" We don't think so.
The confusion is compounded by Drew's insistence upon using the unqualified term "workers' states' to refer to the stalinist regimes of Eastern Europe (which marxists have customarily referred to as deformed or "degenerated workers' states to distinguish them from the revolutionary marxist goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat).
ASSEN
To make matters worse, Drew has also used misplaced quotations from Trotsky in 1940, when he was writing of the potential danger of a military defeat and reconquest of the Soviet Union at the hands of imperialism in World War 2 - as if this offers a direct analogy to the imperialist economic pressures on Easter Europe today.
Even more baffling is Drew's assumption that now the old stalinist parties have been ousted from power and the old bureaucratic regimes have been toppled in much of Eastern Europe, capitalism has already been de facto restored, the "workers" states" destroyed, and "imperialism" is now already fully in control:
*There is no doubt which view ... has been confirmed by the events leading to the beginning of destruction of workers states in Eastern Europe and by the unfolding of events that has since commenced' (...) «Within Eastern Europe itself, imperialism is already leading to wide impoverishment. Real wages in Poland have falles, on the IMF's figures, by 30-40 percent since the beginning of 1990 under the stabilisation plan. Similar, if less drastic plans will be implemented in the rest of Eastern Europe.'
Drew's account ignores the fact that in
Page 11
Poland almost identical austerity plans had been drawn up - and unsuccessfully attempted - by the stalinist regime prior to the election of the Solidamos government.
More dishonest, and more crucial to his mistaken analysis, is the omission of any reference to the role of the working class of Eastem Europe in ousting the old regimes. Drew clearly discounts any revolutionary potential in these mass mobilisations:
"The majority of "Trotskyist' organisations totally misunderstood the dynamic in Eastern Europe - believing it to be moving towards political revolution when the dominant dynamic was to the restoration of capitalism.?
From this standpoint of inglorious isolation, Drew rails against any who sided with the workers of Eastern Europe against their stalinist rulers, or who (like Boris Kagarlitsky and others in the USSR itself as well as socialists in Eastern Europe) have recognised the new scope opened up for independent working class action by the glasnost policies of Gorbachev in the USSR:
*Those engaged in the fight against Imperialism were not those praising Gorbachev for his "democracy", and supporting the events in Eastern Europe, but those appalled by the events in Eastern Europe and that Stalinism had so undermined the states of Eastern Europe as to create capitalist restoration'.
From this sour-faced Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' line of condemning the big gest and most dynamic working class challenge to stalinism since World War Two, Drew concludes that by supporting the workers - many of whom subsequently voted for right wing parties in the absence of any convincing mass socialist leadership - many Trotskyists backed the wrong side. Without Page 12
FEATURES proof or argument, (and shying away from ad- mitting that marxists should - according to his logic - have supported the old regimes against the mass movements) he asserts that: *Another part of Trotskyism supported the capitalist reunification of Germany and the destruction of the East German workers state. This last position has passed over the class line out of the camp of the working class. *Those who support the destruction of workers states and their integration into Imperialist powers are outside the revolu- tionary movement - they support actions dealing historic blows not merely against "The fact that hundreds of thousands were mobilising on the streets of Leipzig, and that political support for New Forum - who clearly opposed capitalist reunification - was around 40 per cent, warrants not a mention in thousands of angry words in Socialist Action" the German working class but against the entire international proletariat. *Such forces have objectively gone over to imperialism - becoming the left wing of the pro-imperialist workers movement ie left social democrats and social democrat- inclined centrists (sic]'. Though Drew names no names of these supposed Trotskyists who favour the demoli- tion of "workers" states", one Trotskyist publication is singled out for vilification: Socialist Outlook is specifically attacked in a box feature attached to Drew's article and headed "Those who make the bureaucracy the main enemy. Condemning our journal for not sharing
Socialist Action's horror at the uprising of millions of East European workers, and for not siding against the strikes, demonstrations and mass struggles of the proletariat, the box takes a few snippets of our analysis deliberately out of context to finger us as one of the currents that has allegedly gone over to imperialism'. The box concludes: "Anyone travelling that road should realise that it has proved completely bankrupt - and should furn round and reverse it.? In fact Socialist Outlook said: *While supporting the historic goal of reunification, again as a step towards a socialist Europe, we demand the GDR workers have the right to say "no" to the plans of Western capital. (4) We later summed this up in the slogan "No to the Kohl Plan - for a United Socialist Germany!" (5). The Socialist Action analysis stands or falls on its appraisal of events in East Germany. Drew's comment on the the overthrow of the Berlin Wall is:
*...many [!] might feel moved by the scenes amid the current downfall of the corrupt and repressive regimes such as those of East Germany, Czechoslovakia. (...) Marxism however has something different to say on the matter' (7).
The fact that hundreds of thousands were mobilising on the streets of Leipzig, and that political support for New Forum - who clearly opposed capitalist reunification - was around 40 per cent, warrants not a mention in thousands of angry words of analysis"! In the
eyes of Socialist Action, the mobilisation of the working class on the streets apparently contained no progressive potential. In their view, from the moment of the ousting of the old Honecker regime, the electoral victory of the CDU 6 months later was inevitable (8); and the collapse of the Berlin Wall signified the victory of imperialism across Eastern Europe. This is rather easier to say in retrospect than for those commenting at the time. Thus the leading paper of the West German bourgeoisie, Die Zeit, said on October 13:
•What is very noticeable is that there is one demand which is not heard - reunification. These intellectual, religious and political spokespersons of reform don't want to abolish the GDR, only to change it.... The capitalist FRG is not their model: they are dreaming once again of 'socialism with a human face'
However Socialist Outlook wamed of the danger: "But the question of reunification is indeed posed, and it will be posed all the more If the reforms in the East are not SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 26, July-August 1990
Implemented' (9) But to claim as do Socialist Ac- fion that no alternative to the CDU victory existed at the time of the mass mobilisations implies that only two strategic possibilities ex- isted in the GDR: the maintenance of one of the most repressive in post-war stalinist regimes Europe, imperialist an nightmare. Thus the fact that the of Germany division was a humiliating, repressive act im- posed on the German working class by imperialism and stalinism is, at best, of little importance to Socialist Action: the 'lesser of two evils becomes apparently the only option - on the basis that stalinist autarchy is preferable to an im- perialist rampage. In this simplistic black and white world, in which the accomplished fact is slavishly worshipped, and workers are al- lowed to choose only between unacceptable alteratives, support for self-determination is obviously no longer a principle, but a catchphrase to be selectively used when it suits. In fact a similar de facto rejection of the right to self determination played a very im- portant role in the marginalisation of New Forum and other left for- ces - but it wins them nothing but praise from Socialist Action! (10) It has become increasingly clear that Socialist Action has dis- counted the possibility of the working class as a social force playing any independent role; and ceased to fight in any serious way to encourage or build political currents that reject both stalinism and imperialism. This can be the only rationale for the new line, which is little more than a belated lament for the ousted stalinist regimes, and a tacit call to revert to traditional stalinist repressive tactics of "Two, three, ... many Berlin Walls'. For decades revolutionary marxists have recognised that stalinism was a cancer in the labour movement: that it had to be swept away for the workers to be able to develop a political leadership based on democratic self-organisa- tion. It was precisely in this sense that the events in the GDR and Czechoslovakia were to be welcomed - as a necessary precondition for the development of independent working class politics. This remains the case, even if there were no sufficiently developed socialist currents able to take advantage of the open- ings that were offered, and the outcome was not a direct progression in the direction that socialists desired. SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 26, July-August 1990
FEATURES "If ... a bourgeois party were to overthrow the ruling Soviet caste, It would find no small number of ready
servants among the present bureaucrats,
administrators, technicians, directors, party secretaries and privileged upper circles in general. A purgation of the state apparatus would, of course, be necessary .... But a bourgeois restoration would
probably have to clean out fewer people than a
revolutionary party. "The chief task of the new power would be to restore
private property in the means of production.... "Notwithstanding that the Soviet bureaucracy has gone far toward preparing a bourgeois restoration,
the new regime would have to introduce in the matter of fors of property and methods of industry
Knot a reform, but a social revolution." Leon Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed 1936) be seen as a victory for the working class. thrust of Trotsky's thought: he is surely talktough questions to answer are :
STALIN
Now leading supporters of Socialist Action go one step further, and inform us that "There are two camps - the camp of the working class and the camp of imperialism.* This is a travesty of marxism. In the 1930s Trotsky ex- And plained that things were not quite so simple. He argued that stalinism was a counterrevolutionary political force within the camp' of the workers" movement. This remains as true today as it was then - and the political defeat of stalinism on a world scale can only
Drew appears to have missed this basic ing partly of himself and Socialist Action when he complains that among those with
*forces that had illusions in the Stalinist bureaucracy and who considered that, whatever its other crimes, they were com-
PROLETARIAT! pensated for by its destruction of the hold of Imperialism in Eastern Europe and the aid given by these states to the struggle against imperialism internationally' his own thwarted illusions in Stalinism are clearly demonstrated in a plain- tive paragraph that shows him finally reaching the point which most Trotskyists have taken for granted since the late 1930s: *1989 shows that Stalinism has now [ emphasis added, Ed] degenerated to the point where it is not merely incapable of overturning capitalism, but it cannot even defend the existing countries in which capitalism has been destroyed". The logic of Socialist Action's simplistic two camp" analysis leads to all kinds of bizarre positions. Lead- ing supporters of Socialist Action have also claimed that revolutionaries cannot call for increased democracy in Cuba because democratic demands are being made by im- perialism! Such a line of argument could have been applied to any of the stalinist states over the last four decades (or indeed during the Mos- cow Trials) - this very argument was used ad nauseam by all the erstwhile apologists of stalinism. It could equal- ly apply to the bloody Beijing bureaucracy today. The reality is that the transformations we have seen across Eastern Europe have ex- pressed profoundly contradictory elements - and have both positive and negative aspects. Among the gains are the cradication of stalinism and the winning of numerous democratic rights; examples of setbacks in- clude the weakness of independent working class organisation and the outright rejection of what most workers see as 'communism' - both bitter legacies of decades of stalinist repression and bureaucratic mismanagement. Page 13
Gorbachev's dangerous market reforms go nowhere, but glasnost has opened up political space for the left: Castro is applauded by
Socialist Action for opposing both
The victory of pro-market, right wing parties in a number of East European countries is largely a consequence of these weaknesses. But does this mean that the inevitable outcome will be capitalist counter-revolution? Such a prognosis underestimates both the political contradictions in the imperialist camp and the practical hurdles in the way of such a sweep ing restoration. It is, in addition, a profoundly pessimistic estimate of the possibilities of establishing independent organisations of the working class.
Let us examine these different factors. The restoration of capitalism requires considerably more than the election of right-wing governments. The construction of an indigenous capitalist class, the restructuring of bankrupt economies without major capital investment - these are tasks that the European Community itself has recognised are long term projects. The different factions within international capital are by no means agreed on how it can be best achieved - as a cursory glance at recent discussions within NATO will show. What is clear is that such a projects threaten social explosion, as we read in a recent report from the EC Commissioner for economic affairs:
*There is obviously a risk that this combined government effort at marketisation and stabilisation will be met by massive strikes and fail. In this case the whole economic programme is in ruins.*
Marketisation without capital investment is a clear recipe for pauperisation, as we have seen in Poland over the last six months. This
Page 14
FEATURES has brought increasing numbers of strikes and decreasing popularity for the govemment. That these attacks on the working class will produce defensive struggles is a fairly safe prediction, particularly given the history of struggle in countries such as Poland; what is necessary, and as yet largely absent, is a politi- cal leadership capable of turning these mobilisations towards the offensive. But Socialist Action denies the possibility "Will Socialist Action withhold its support from strikers unless they sign a pledge to vote the right way at the next elections? Will it develop slogans and policies for the actual fight to come, or confine Itself to bemoaning the loss of the Berlin Wall and arguing how much better life was under stalinist rule?" of such a development in advance - effective- ly claiming that the battle is lost when it has hardly begun. Worse, it gives no clue as to which side it will be on when these struggles do break out. Will Socialist Action withhold its support from strikers unless they sign a pledge to vote the right way at the next elec- tions? Will it develop slogans and policies for the actual fight to come, or confine itself to bemoaning the loss of the Berlin Wall and ar- guing how much better life was under stalinist rule? On one point Socialist Action are right - the stakes in the current situation for the inter- national working class movement are very high. In such a situation, for a joumal claiming to be a part of the revolutionary, anti-stalinist
tradition, the Socialist Action response "Rebuild the Berlin Wall!' is, to use their own political words, ..a confession of bankruptcy'. Revolutionaries have a tremendous respon- sibility in the current situation: both to analyse events as they unfold; and to intervene active- ly in the interests of the working class, whether or not the political environment is receptive in the short term. Political and material aid from socialists in the west to the small left groups that have been formed in recent months in the East could well make a decisive difference to the evolution of these countries over the next few years. Socialist Outlook does not in- tend to cede the political bal- tleground to either imperialism or stalinism; in our view neither have won the day. The former has been all but wiped from the slate as a force in international politics; the latter has many problems ahead - first and foremost, the working class itself. Notes 2. Socialist Action, February/ April 1990, p.15 3. Socialist Action, May/ July 1990 p.9 4. Socialist Outlook, February 1990 p.15 5. Socialist Outlook, March 1990 p.2 6. Socialist Action May/ July p.11 7. Socialist Action, May/ July p.7 8. Socialist Artion, May/ July p.9 9. Socialist Outlook, October 1989 p.26 10. Socialist Action May/ July p.9 SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 26, July-August 1990
From women's