OUTLOOK IN THE NINETIES, millions of women and men have taken part in mobilisations against the evils of capitalism and the bureaucratic dictatorships. This reflects the fact that humanity face widening dangers. Ecological, military, social and economic devastation faces millions of people. Many more people recognise the barbaric nature of capitalism. In a situation where the inability of the social democratic an communist parties to provide socialist solutions is becoming clearer, the task of creating new leaderships remains ahead. Socialist Outlook is written and sold by socialists committed to this struggle. We are the British supporters of the world-wide marxist organisation, the Fourth International. We stand for the revolutionary transformation of society and a pluralist, socialist democracy world wide. The overall goal which we pursue is the emancipation of al human beings from every form of exploitation, oppression, alienation and violence. Socialism must be under the control of ordinary people, democratic, pluralist, multi-party, feminist ecologist, anti-militarist and internationalist. It must abolish wage slavery and national oppression. The working class is the backbone of unity among all the exploited and oppressed. The working class and its allies must uncompromisingly fight against capitalism and for a clear programme of action in order to gradually acquire the experience and consciousness needed to defeat capitalism at the decisive moment of crisis. The movements of women, lesbians and gay men, and black people to fight their particular forms of oppression make an essential contribution to the struggle for a different society. They are organised around the principle "None so fit to break the chains as those who wear them".
The whole working class needs to fully commit itself to these struggles. Furthermore we fight for a strategic alliance between workers and these organisations - an alliance which respects their legitimate autonomy. and a revolutionary International, we aim to guide and encompass the global interests of the workers and oppressed. By building a united vival of the human race. If you think this is worth fighting for, and you like what you read in Socialist Outlook, why not join us? Drop a line to the address on this page, and we'll be in touch. By simultaneously building revolutionary organisations in each country struggle against exploitation and oppression we aim to ensure the surCHARLIE Van Gelderen says in his review of Bill Hunter's book Lifelong Apprenticeship: The Life and Times of a Revolutionary, "because of his long and active participation in the movement, this (book) is almost a short history of British Trotskyism, its triumphs and failures." (SO No 13). The review begins, but does not continue, in a promising way.
One of the points Van Gelderen ignores is the important question of the Fourth International and the Italian revolutionary situation at the end of the 2nd World War. There was a revolutionary upsurge in Italy; "The problems which Trotsky had been trying to answer were posed immediately before the leaders of the Fourth International". Hunter.
However, the points, which Goldman and Morrow (that Hunter quotes) raised about how the transitional programme was to be developed in relation to facing tasks of leadership in Italy weré answered with generalisations.
Van Gelderen was in Italy during the war with the British army and worked with US comrades and others to help re-establish contacts with revolutionaries and to develop the Fourth International, so he must have some thoughts on this central question.
Van Gelderen agrees that 'British exceptionalism' is an important question for the Trotskyist movement in Britain, that is the refusal to carry through the International struggle of Trotsky above purely national considerations. However, his cussing. Perhaps because of this Van Gelderen mis-informs the reader, "It is a pity that Bill did not perceive that this weakness in the Workers International League's (WIL) refusal to participate in the unification which preceded the Founding conference of the Fourth International in 1938."
Charlie ignores Chapter 5 of Hunter's book - called the "Formation of the WILl yet this deals with this question and in fact takes up those who said that the WIL should not be called antiinternationalist.
Bill Hunter quotes from Rae Hunter's notes in the chapter: "The Fourth International conference condemned the split and the non-attendance of the WIL as "anti-internationalism". The split was not on political differences but on a subjective basis of personal attacks that had been made on Ralph Lee (which were unfounded)....
"In fact, international relations and the first Congress of the Fourth International assumed less importance than the relations between the WIL and the leaders of the Revolutionary Socialist League. Therein lies the anti-internationalism of the split of 1938."
Because of space, I cannot give all the details but the chapter should be read - although it seems Van Gelderen did not do so. It appears the reviewer is trying to make Bill out as a follower of anti-internationalism because he does not write from Charlie's particular view of what interna tionalism means, he does so by ignoring large chunks of the book.
He says "Pabloism was not born with the Rise and Decline of Don't miss an issue: SUBSCRIBE now!
20 pages of internationalist news, views and marxist OVERSEAS subscribers 12 issues for just £20.
@urlonli, PLUS one year of International £30.
PLEASE send me • 12 issues of Socialist.
Dutloak • 12 issues of Socialise @Duelopent plus International Viewpoint. I enclose f...
Name Address Phone SEND TO: Socialist Outlook, PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU We welcome readers' letters on any topic. Letters over 400 words may be cut for space reasons. Write to Socialist Outlook, PO Box 1109, London N4 2UU. email: [email protected] Stalinism, which was written in 1953", implying that this is what Hunter says. Actually, Hunter says that Pablo and Mandel changed their position around 1948-50. =3.
It is also interesting that he makes no comment on the observation in the book that Mandel boasted, at the time, of drafting the above named document. This information is all in the same chapter.
I do not agree with his assessment of Pablo and he ignores Mandel's close support for Pablo which is shown in the book. He just implies that Mandel carried the struggle forward for the Fourth International and therefore helps to prevent a critical reexamination of more than just Mandel.
The question to answer is why the reviewer does give such a one-sided interpretation of the book, and of history. This way of writing history and reviews is something Hunter shows he is strongly opposed to.
Martin Ralph _Age ---