In Defence of Marxism

In Defence of Marxism Editorial Statement

The In Defence of Marxism web site and the organisation that publishes it, the International Marxist Tendency, aims to provide an analysis of capitalist society and the class struggle that ensues from it. We develop a perspective of where we think society is going and finally we offer a programme to the workers of the world with which to combat this system and eventually achieve a socialist society, a society where exploitation and injustice will become things of the barbaric capitalist past. And in all countries where we are present we actively intervene within the labour movement to build a genuine Marxist left opposition, whose final aim is that of offering the working class a revolutionary leadership.

Internationally there are many other tendencies attempting to offer their alternatives. We have our differences with many of these as exemplified by our approach to the labour movement, by our method of work and by our fundamental ideas, which anyone can access by looking at the wide variety of articles on our website. Our readers can judge for themselves by reading the material on the key issues at stake. However, occasionally we encounter not "polemics", not genuine disagreement with our ideas and methods, but out and out falsification of our position. We believe that if activists in the movement are to benefit from any exchange of ideas, then at the very least those involved should quote honestly from what their opponents actually say and write.

It is the easiest thing in the world to raise a straw man in order then to knock him down. To falsify the position of an opponent in order to then ridicule his or her position serves no meaningful purpose. It does not help workers and youth to understand what is really at stake. It may give the writer a feeling of self-satisfaction, but it certainly does not enhance his or her standing within the wider labour movement. We would rather have an honest debate about what we stand for and answer any genuine criticisms of our real positions.

It would never have occurred to Engels to falsify the arguments of Dühring in order to score cheap debating points. In all the polemics of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky we see a most scrupulous attitude towards the quoting of their opponents. That is why they always quoted at length and never tore isolated phrases out of context in order to distort the positions they were answering. The reason for this is very simple. For a genuine Marxist tendency, the purpose of a polemic is neither to score points nor to insult the other side but to RAISE THE THEORETICAL LEVEL OF THE CADRES.

A dishonest method

In the past we have occasionally had to deal with dishonest criticisms, but we generally prefer not to enter into polemics with the pseudo-Trotskyist sects who masquerade as the "Fourth International". These organizations that vegetate on the fringes of the workers' movement are constantly attacking each other, in an atmosphere of hysterical denunciations. This brand of sterile factionalism has nothing whatever to do with the real ideas and methods of Leon Trotsky, and tends to alienate workers and turn them against Trotskyism in general.

We usually ignore the attacks of the sects, who really represent only themselves. There are times however, when we feel obliged to put the record straight. In the age of the internet it is possible for even the most insignificant group to put into circulation the most incredible falsifications and misrepresentations of our positions. We are therefore compelled to spend a little time to explain where we really stand. Unfortunately, in this article we have to deal with a case of falsification.

We therefore ask our readers to show a little patience as we dedicate here some time and space in answering the slanders, insinuations and blatant lies about the International Marxist Tendency published by the French language journal, La Vérité [the theoretical magazine of yet another group claiming to be the Fourth International] in its issue N° 48 (nouvelle série) February 2006. The group behind this publication is better known as the "Lambertists", one of the many splinter groups that emerged from the debris of the old Fourth International at the end of the Second World War, and that is how we will refer to them throughout this text.

Dishonest methods in polemics do not educate the cadres but rather miseducate them. This was not the method of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky but the disgraceful caricature of Zinoviev and Stalin which destroyed the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International. And it will destroy the so-called Trotskyist tendencies that have long ago abandoned the ideas, methods and traditions of Trotsky. The latest split of the Lambertist organization is further proof of this assertion.

The crisis of the Lambertists is only the latest episode in the ignominious disintegration of the sects that emerged from the degeneration of the Fourth International after the death of Trotsky. In one way or another, all these organizations that loudly proclaim themselves as the Fourth International are in crisis, splitting and disintegrating. They are utterly incapable of providing a theoretical explanation for the most important phenomena in the world today, from the collapse of Stalinism to the Venezuelan Revolution. Above all, they are organically incapable of orienting to the real movement of the masses. They stand condemned as an irrelevant footnote to history.

The International Marxist Tendency (IMT) is the only Trotskyist tendency in the world that has proved its viability, not just in theory, where our record is second to none, but in practice, by our serious and systematic work to propagate the genuine ideas of Marxism-Leninism (Trotskyism) in the mass organizations of the working class. The IMT was the only tendency to explain the real meaning of the Venezuelan Revolution and to actively intervene in it. This is a fact that nobody can dispute. What annoys comrade Lambert and his colleagues is precisely this fact: that we were able to find a road to the masses, where they (and all the other 57 varieties of "Trotskyism") have failed to do so.

It is our successes that have prompted the furious attacks of the sects. The Lambertists have just lost the big majority of their Brazilian section, which was one of the biggest and most important sections outside France. Part of the reason for the split was undoubtedly the total inability of the Lambertist leaders to understand the nature of the revolution that is unfolding in Latin America. They adopted the same mechanical and formalistic schemes to the Venezuelan Revolution that has characterized their whole outlook for decades. As a result they were completely unable to intervene in the Revolution.

This has raised questions in the minds of their members, especially in Latin America. The comrades of their Brazilian section made a serious attempt to establish contacts with the revolutionary tendencies in Venezuela, and this brought them into contact with the comrades of the CMR, who are playing a leading role in the occupied factories movement in Venezuela. This was apparently the reason why they were expelled.

Having seen how they distort, misrepresent and completely falsify the political positions of the IMT, we can only presume that the O Trabalho group have been subjected to the same school of falsification, and we express our sympathies to them. And since the motivation for the attacks against our tendency was the conflict with the majority of the Brazilian section, we will begin by clarifying the question of our relations with them.

Our relations with O Trabalho

In their May edition (N° 49-50) the Lambertists dedicate about half of the journal to recent events that have unfolded within the Brazilian section of their international grouping. There they repeat many of the slanders raised in the February issue. We do not wish to enter here into the conflict that erupted in Brazil. But one of the main accusations against the leaders of their Brazilian section, known as the O Trabalho group, was that they had been secretly working in collaboration with the IMT.

Here we see an excellent example of the kind of hysteria and paranoia that constitutes the usual atmosphere inside the "Trotskyist" sects in every country. Instead of dealing seriously with political differences - which will inevitably arise from time to time - the leaders immediately detect some kind of plot against themselves. They react with shrill accusations, personal attacks and bureaucratic measures. This is a finished recipe for internal crises and splits. The leaders do not care about the damage caused to the organization, as long as their personal authority is safeguarded.

As a matter of fact, the accusation of factional collaboration between O Trabalho and the International Marxist Tendency is completely untrue. Our contact with the Brazilian comrades of O Trabalho came about as a result of the work of our Venezuelan comrades of the CMR. As we have already explained, they have been playing the leading role in the movement of the occupied factories in Venezuela and therefore naturally attracted the attentions of Serge Goulart of the O Trabalho group who is a leading figure within the movement of the occupied factories in Brazil.

Comrade Goulart and the other workers involved in the occupied factories in Brazil had come under attack from the state. They issued a public appeal for solidarity from workers around the world, and they also specifically requested that we help in this campaign. We responded to this appeal, as we would respond to any request by workers under attack. As a result of the efforts of Marxist.com many of our worker comrades with positions in the labour movement in their respective countries raised the issue and sent letters of support. That was as far as the connection went. How far the Lambertist International campaigned on behalf of their Brazilian comrades, we are not sure. But our impression is, not very much.

In the meantime the conflict between the Lambertist international leadership and their Brazilian section has led to a split. The international leadership of the Lambertists has waged a furious campaign against the majority of the O Trabalho group. In the February edition of La Vérité many references are made to the "Woods-Grant tendency" - that is, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) - under the title "A propos de la politique du courant Grant-Woods", and it is with this article that we mainly deal with here.

As an indication of the unscrupulous methods used by these comrades, they commence their attack on the IMT by attacking another tendency that has absolutely nothing to do with us. They point the finger at the so-called "Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International" (USFI), the Mandelite tendency. The reason for this blatant distortion is clear. They wish to unload onto the shoulders of the IMT some of the opportunist positions adopted by the USFI.

The method of La Vérité is the method of the Stalinists that Trotsky described as the amalgam. What we have here is a case of guilt by association, except that this association has been established in the texts of the Lambertists and nowhere else. We regret to inform our Lambertist critics that we have nothing whatsoever to do with this organisation and cannot be held responsible for anything they do or say. This "confusion" of La Vérité is no accident (although it is true that they are confused on just about everything).

In Brazil the Mandelites had a minister in the Lula government supporting its reactionary policies. This led to a split and now there are two groups supporting the "Unified Secretariat". This is absolutely characteristic of the organic opportunism of the Mandelites in general. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with our tendency, which always opposed the revisionist ideas of Mandel and co. and as a result broke decisively with the USFI in 1965 and has had no contact with this organization since then.

The problem here is that the readers of La Vérité do not know anything about the IMT (the "Woods-Grant International") because they do not know the real history of the Fourth International. La Vérité wants to keep them in ignorance by deliberately spreading lies and confusion. They deliberately mix everything up: Pablo, Mandel, Woods-Grant. Our first task is therefore to shed a little light on the history of the movement, in the hope that La Vérité might at last begin to live up to its name.

When did the Fourth degenerate?

The roots of the political and organizational degeneration of the Fourth can be traced back to the death of Trotsky. All the leaders of the Fourth without exception - Pablo, Frank, Cannon, Mandel, Healy and Lambert (insofar as the last two can be considered leaders at that time) bear a collective responsibility for this. But that is something that Lambert has carefully concealed from his rank and file for decades. They have been kept in ignorance of the real story of the International and instead they have been fed the fairy story that the Fourth International was OK until 1953 when it mysteriously degenerated. The time has come to put an end to this fairy story and tell the truth. [See Appendix at the end of this article, The origins of the collapse of the Fourth International]

We will deal later with the long list of distortions of our present day positions. Let us begin by putting the historical record straight. The author does not bother himself by dealing seriously with the history of the Fourth International. He dare not enter into the details because the historical record would be acutely embarrassing for Lambert. Instead of dealing with the question properly, he modestly confined himself to footnotes. In these footnotes, the "tendency founded by Ted Grant" is presented as the "rightists" within the Fourth International at the end of the Second World War.

What is the justification for this allegation? Where is the documentary evidence, the quotations, the resolutions? Not a single shred of evidence is advanced for this scandalous assertion. The reason is that it has not the slightest basis in fact. This is not the place to publish a documented history of the Fourth, but we intend in the next few months to deal with this question and to republish the writings of comrade Ted Grant, which will completely demolish the myth that the British section (the RCP) represented a "rightist deviation". On the contrary! The record shows clearly that the RCP alone stood for the defence of Trotsky's ideas, methods and policies, whereas the official leadership of the Fourth was wrong on every major issue. The mistakes of Pablo, Cannon, Mandel, Frank and co. were what demoralised the cadres of the International and caused internal crises and splits that destroyed it.

The hopelessly incorrect line of the leaders of the International is outlined by Ted Grant in the Program of the International (this and other works from the period can be found at the Ted Grant Archive). Of course, anyone can make a mistake. But a serious leadership is prepared to listen to criticism, correct mistakes and learn from them. The problem arises when a leadership is not prepared to admit a mistake and continues to repeat the same mistakes. In such a case we are no longer dealing with mistakes but a tendency.

An incorrect political line must sooner or later manifest itself in incorrect organizational methods and an unhealthy internal regime. We explained many times to the leadership of the International that the only authority it can have is a political and moral authority. The leadership must convince the membership by patient argument, not by bureaucratic means, intimidation and threats. But a leadership that lacks the necessary political and moral authority will inevitably resort to organizational methods in an attempt to silence criticism.

When Lenin and Trotsky stood at the head of mass Communist Parties in the early days of the Communist International, they always dealt with differences (and there were many!) in a patient way. It would never have occurred to them to treat the Bordigists or the German and British "Lefts", for example, by presenting them with ultimatums and expulsions. That is a finished recipe for the destruction of the International. Those were the methods that were introduced into the CI by Zinoviev and Stalin. The reason for this is that they were unable to answer critics by loyal political argument. They did not have the necessary political and moral authority and therefore attempted to use organizational means to solve political problems.

This was the case with the leaders of the Fourth after Trotsky's death. Unable to answer the arguments of the British comrades in the period 1944-50, they resorted to intrigues and organizational manoeuvres. That is to say, they adopted Zinovievist methods. They could never win a majority of the British section through a democratic discussion and therefore manoeuvred with a small minority led by Gerry Healy to split the section and expel the majority. These are the same methods that Lambert and Gluckstein are now using to expel the majority of their Brazilian section. Who was responsible for these methods in the first place? It was Pablo, along with Cannon, Mandel, Frank and all the other so-called leaders of the International. Lambert learned these methods from them - and he has proved to be a most adept pupil of the Pablo school.

Cannon, despite his faults, was probably the best of them. At least he had been a workers' leader and played an important role in assembling the first Trotskyist cadres in the early days of the Left Opposition. But Cannon was never a theoretician. He was an organizer and agitator. And although Trotsky supported the political stand of the SWP majority against the petty bourgeois opposition of Schachtman, he never condoned Cannon's organizational methods, which necessarily led to a split. Even before the War, Cannon used Zinovievist organizational methods against our tendency (See History of British Trotskyism). Such methods will inevitably destroy any organization that uses them. The fate of the American SWP and of the whole of the Fourth International should provide a sobering warning to this effect.

While Trotsky was alive, it was unthinkable that Zinovievist methods should be tolerated in the International. But after his death the arrogant and pretentious leaders of the Fourth abandoned the patient method of explanation that the Old man had always used in favour of the "big stick". Lenin once warned Bukharin, when he was chairman of the CI: "You want obedience: you will get obedient fools". Pablo, Cannon, Mandel and Frank could not tolerate criticism (just like Lambert and Gluckstein today). When the positions of the RCP were shown to be correct, one after another (China, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Yugoslavia etc.), they reacted by fomenting a split in the British section, using their agent - Gerry Healy. The RCP was expelled and destroyed by these Zinovievist methods - methods that have nothing in common with those of Trotsky but which have been faithfully copied by Lambert - from Pablo!

Incorrect perspectives

In footnote 1of the Lambertist article we read the following:

"After the collapse of the RCP, Grant and his followers developed certain ideas that they shared with the Pabloites, in particular the position that the productive forces had the capacity to develop, which led them to maintain that the social democracy had a historical future."

This little note manages to include a mistake in every sentence, and sometimes two. The RCP did not "collapse". As we have explained, it was deliberately destroyed by the "Pabloite" leadership that was faithfully being followed by the likes of Pierre Lambert and Gerry Healy at the time. Contrary to the absurd myth so assiduously spread by Lambert, the RCP was not "Pabloite" but (unlike Lambert) was implacably opposed to the line of Pablo and the rest of the leaders of the International. The original British Pabloite was in fact - Gerry Healy. In Britain, Healy was the most dedicated follower of Pablo and slavishly followed all his master's instructions from Paris. On one occasion he even "got the line" by telegram (see History of British Trotskyism for details).

As a matter of fact, Pablo and his stooge Healy had almost no support inside the British section. All the intrigues of the International leadership had no effect on the members, overwhelmingly proletarian in composition, who remained faithful to the ideas and methods of Trotsky that were defended by Ted Grant and the RCP leadership. That is why the International leadership decided to wreck the British section. Their slogan was always the same: "rule or ruin". That is also the slogan of Lambert and Gluckstein. That is why they have just lost their Brazilian section. That is why they will never build a serious revolutionary International in a thousand years.

The author then goes on to state (without even blushing) that, "Grant and his followers developed certain ideas that they shared with the Pabloites". Now this is really something! If the RCP really had so much in common with Pablo and co., why did the latter unceremoniously expel them from the International? Here we leave behind the rational universe and enter into the fairy tale world of Alice in Wonderland, where everything is stood on its head.

The historical record will show that, in fact, Ted Grant had NOTHING in common with the ideas and perspectives defended by Pablo, Mandel, Cannon, Healy - and Lambert. These perspectives were a hundred percent incorrect and undermined the authority of the Fourth International, not just with the advanced workers who hitherto had looked with a certain sympathy to Trotsky, but with the cadres of the Trotskyist movement itself. Here we have the real cause of the degeneration and collapse of the Fourth International. The split of 1953 was not the starting point of the degeneration but its inevitable result. The whole lamentable history of that organization ever since has been one crisis and split after another.

What were the perspectives advanced by Pablo and co - with the complete support of Lambert and Healy - after the Second World War? They had the idea of an immediate slump, war and revolution. They denied any possibility of even a temporary stabilization of capitalism in Europe and instead put forward the perspective of dictatorship and Bonapartism. From these perspectives flow certain tactics. Pablo and the others put forward the tactic of deep entrism ("entrism sui generis"), that is, the Trotskyists must immediately enter the Social Democratic and Stalinist parties, which, according to this perspective, would immediately enter into crisis, permitting the Trotskyists to form mass parties of the Fourth International overnight.

Every one of these propositions was falsified by the march of events. They were based on a complete misunderstanding of what Trotsky had written in 1938, when he said that within ten years not one stone upon another would be left of the old Internationals (that is to say, the Social Democracy and Stalinism) and the Fourth International would become the decisive force on the planet. But like any perspective, this prognosis had a provisional character. Marxist perspectives are not a blueprint to which events must conform. That is an idealist conception that has nothing in common with materialist dialectics. Marxists must carefully study the objective situation and bring their perspectives constantly up to date. Our perspectives must be examined in the light of experience, and either modified or, if necessary, rejected, on the basis of the latter.

Trotsky based his prognosis of 1938 on an approximate analogy with the situation that developed out of the First World War. But war is the most complicated of all equations, as Napoleon pointed out. The Second World War developed in a way that not even a genius like Trotsky could have anticipated. In particular, the spectacular victories of the Red Army changed everything. Incidentally, the perspectives of Stalin, Hitler, Roosevelt and Churchill were also exploded by the actual development of events. We do not have space here to deal with this in more detail. But an analysis of the developments in world capitalism after 1945 can be found in the writings of Ted Grant, particularly Will There be a Slump? (1960).

To state it bluntly: the then leaders of the Fourth International completely misunderstood the real objective situation that emerged from the Second World War, and because of their false perspective they destroyed the Fourth International. The establishment of deformed workers' states in the countries of Eastern Europe and the victory of the Chinese Red Army posed new theoretical problems for the Fourth, and yet again the leadership revealed a complete incapacity to understand what was happening. At first they maintained that Eastern Europe and China were capitalist regimes. Then, without any theoretical explanation of their past position, they changed 180 degrees. Overnight they pronounced Tito's Yugoslavia after the break with Stalin to be a healthy workers' state. This was the method of Zinovievist political impressionism - constant theoretical vacillations, changing the line with no explanation from A to B and back again.

Ted Grant's position

The resolution adopted by the International Pre-Conference of the Fourth International in April 1946 (The New Imperialist Peace and the Building of the Parties of the Fourth International - April 1946), was permeated with the false perspective of the impending revolutionary crisis, the impossibility of a general economic recovery of capitalism and therefore it highlighted the excellent possibilities to develop the forces of the Fourth International. All this of course was false and eventually led to one crisis after another of the organization, and to its final collapse.

They were equally wrong on the perspectives for Stalinism and the USSR. In 1946 the perspectives of the then leadership of the Fourth International were that through "the combined economic, political and diplomatic pressure and the military threats of American and British imperialism" the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union could collapse. The complete opposite was the truth. Ted Grant, together with the leadership of the RCP, attempted to correct this mistaken prognosis. On our website we provide all the historical documentation for this and other questions.

The British RCP saw that, because of the new balance of forces in Europe caused by the victory of the Red Army, and because of the class balance of forces, it was impossible for the ruling class to impose reaction immediately. The British comrades characterised the regimes in Western Europe (France, Belgium, Holland, Italy) as regimes of counter-revolution in a democratic form, while the likes of Pierre Frank insisted that the perspective for Western Europe was one of Bonapartist dictatorship.

Ted Grant, the leading theoretician of the RCP, attempted to correct the false positions of the then leadership of the "Fourth International". For a more detailed account of this we suggest reading all the articles that can be find in our section on the Fourth International. At the time, in his reply to Pierre Frank, Ted wrote: "Among the cadres of the Fourth International, there are comrades who have not sufficiently understood this lesson. They continue to live on the 'revenue from a few ready-made abstractions' instead of concretising or partially rectifying previous generalisations." That was the root of the problem.

The leadership ignored the arguments of the British section and blindly maintained their false position. In vain the British comrades pointed out the changed situation and the need for a re-evaluation of perspectives. In vain they pointed to the symptoms of an economic revival after the war. In vain they explained to the leaders of the International that because the Post-War Labour Government in Britain was carrying out most of its programme, the conditions for entry into the Labour Party were absent. All the arguments of the RCP fell on deaf ears. Such was the stupidity of these gentlemen that when one of the representatives of the American SWP was asked in 1947 about Trotsky's 1938 prediction that within ten years not one stone upon another would be left of the Social Democracy and Stalinism, he replied with a straight face that there was still one year left!

In his Open Letter to B.S.F.I. (September/October 1950) Ted Grant outlined the new world situation that arose from the War and warned the International:

"These factors have resulted in an unparalleled development, which could not have been foreseen by any of the Marxist teachers: the extension of Stalinism as a social phenomenon over half Europe, over the Chinese sub-continent and with the possibility of spreading over the whole of Asia.

"This poses new theoretical problems to be worked out by the Marxist movement. Under conditions of isolation and paucity of forces, new historical factors could not but result in a theoretical crisis of the movement, posing the problem of its very existence and survival."

There is not the slightest doubt that if Trotsky had still been alive in 1945 he would have immediately seen the need to re-evaluate the situation in the light of events. But the so-called leaders of the Fourth were incapable of doing this. They were simply not up to the level of the tasks posed by history. For them, matters were very simple: all they had to do was to repeat like a mantra what Trotsky had written in 1938. That is to say, they treated perspectives, not in a Marxist but in a metaphysical way. They slavishly repeated the words of Trotsky without understanding Trotsky's method. In the same way a parrot will repeat sounds that resemble human speech but without the slightest understanding of their meaning.

The fact is that every one of the positions defended by the "Pabloite" leadership of the Fourth after the War, and slavishly supported by Lambert and Healy, were shown to be false, and every one of the basic positions defended by Ted Grant and the RCP were shown to be correct. That is what Lambert and Gluckstein cannot stomach. That is why they have tried for so long to hide the facts and falsify the history of the Fourth International from their followers. That is why they consistently distort our positions and misrepresent them in miserable footnotes. A tendency that bases itself upon falsification will itself end up as a miserable footnote to history. As Trotsky pointed out, the locomotive of history is truth, not lies.

The economic cycle and the class struggle

Our friendly critic attributes to the RCP "in particular the position that the productive forces had the capacity to develop, which led them to maintain that the social democracy had a historical future."

The author of these lines may be politically illiterate but surely there was no need to punish logic and the French language as well as to mangle Marxism? What is this gibberish supposed to mean? The productive forces always have the "capacity" to develop, in the same way that most men and women have the "capacity" to think. Whether or not this manifests itself in an actual development of production or in individuals who actually think is quite another matter. In the case of the Lambertists, the latter proposition may be open to serious question.

As we have seen, the leaders of the Fourth had a completely false perspective after 1945 - NOT JUST ON THE ECONOMY BUT ON EVERYTHING ELSE. Our friendly critic carefully selects just one question (the development of the productive forces) where he imagines (incorrectly) that he is on safe ground, forgetting all the rest. Pablo, Mandel and co. predicted an immediate slump (and an immediate war, Bonapartism and revolution). Let us ask our critic a straight question: WERE THESE PERSPECTIVES CORRECT - YES OR NO? There is only one answer possible: these perspectives had absolutely nothing in common with the real situation. They were false in every particular, from the first line to the last. It is no use at all attempting to resort to sophism to wriggle out of this fact, which is most unpalatable for Lambert, since he (unlike Ted Grant) not only shared "certain ideas" with the Pabloites, but was in complete agreement with all these ideas.

It is not possible to separate just one element (the productive forces) from what was an entirely incorrect perspective. Their perspective of immediate slump was only part of their general lack of understanding of the real processes taking place on a world scale. The leaders of the Fourth International were denying any possibility of economic recovery and consequently were predicting revolution (or Bonapartist dictatorship, or war...) just around the corner. They were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union, when in actual fact the Stalinist regime in Russia had emerged enormously strengthened from the War.

One of the major debates immediately after the Second World War was: would there be any possibility of a boom and revival of capitalism? Cannon, Mandel, Pablo, Healy and the other leaders of the then Fourth International, based themselves on an entirely formalistic interpretation of Trotsky's (correct) statement that capitalism was in its "death agony". They interpreted this (incorrectly) to mean that there could henceforth be no question of an economic recovery after the War.

Such a position was entirely at variance with the Marxist method. It was answered in advance by Lenin, who, in polemicising against the so-called Left Communists in the CI, pointed out that there was no such thing as a "final crisis of capitalism". As long as the working class did not overthrow it, capitalism could always find a way out of even the deepest crisis. He and Trotsky did not even rule out, as a theoretical possibility, that capitalism might experience a considerable upswing in the future, if the proletariat did not show a way out through the socialist revolution.

How did Trotsky pose the question of the class struggle and the economic cycle? In his article, Flood-tide, written in 1921, Trotsky makes the following observation:

"The capitalist world enters a period of industrial upswing. Booms alternate with depressions-an organic law of capitalist society. The current boom nowise indicates the establishment of equilibrium in the class structure. A crisis frequently helps the growth of anarchist and reformist moods among the workers. The boom will help fuse the working masses." (The First Five Years of the Communist International, vol. 2, p. 74)

What conclusions did Trotsky draw from the economic revival? Did he conclude that it signified the end of the class struggle? Did it signify the inevitable victory of reformism, or a "rightist deviation" as our Lambertist critics would put it? Far from it! We can see from the above quotation what Trotsky's position was. Unlike Pablo and Lambert, Trotsky had a Marxist attitude towards economic perspectives. The idea that slump necessarily signifies revolution and boom counterrevolution is completely incorrect. It is typical of the undialectical formalism that is the inevitable trait of the thinking of ultra left sectarians in every period.

Trotsky had to explain to the "Lefts" the ABCs of Marxism. The relation between the economic cycle and the class struggle is not direct and mechanical as the Lefts imagined, but contradictory and dialectical. He explains in a balanced way that a boom can have positive effects in fusing the working class, healing the wounds of past defeats and raising its confidence. Let Trotsky speak for himself:

"The capitalist press is beating the drums over the successes of economic "rehabilitation" and the perspectives of a new epoch of capitalist stability. These ecstasies are just as groundless as the complementary fears of the "lefts" who believe that the revolution must grow out of the uninterrupted aggravation of the crisis. In reality, while the coming commercial and industrial prosperity implies economically new riches for the top circles of the bourgeoisie, all the political advantages will accrue to us. The tendencies toward unification within the working class are only an expression of the growing will to action. If the workers are today demanding that for the sake of the struggle against the bourgeoisie the Communists reach an agreement with the Independents and with the Social Democrats, then on the morrow-to the extent that the movement grows in its mass scope-these same workers will become convinced that only the Communist Party offers them leadership in the revolutionary struggle. The first wave of the flood-tide lifts up all the labour organizations, impelling them to arrive at an agreement. But the self-same fate awaits the Social Democrats and the Independents: they will be engulfed one after the other in the next waves of the revolutionary flood-tide.

"Does this mean-in contrast to partisans of the theory the offensive-that it is not the crisis but the coming economic revival which is bound to lead directly to the victory of the proletariat? Such a categorical assertion would be unfounded. We have already shown above that there exists not a mechanical but a complex dialectical interdependence between the economic conjuncture and the character of the class struggle. It suffices for understanding the future that we are entering the period of revival far better armed than we entered the period of crisis. In the most important countries on the European continent we possess powerful Communist parties. The break in the conjuncture undoubtedly opens up before us the possibility of an offensive-not only in the economic field, but also in politics. It is a fruitless occupation to engage now in speculations as to where this offensive will end. It is just beginning, just coming into sight.

"A sophist may raise the objection that if we grant that the further industrial revival need not necessarily lead us directly to victory, then a new industrial cycle will obviously take place, signifying another step toward the restoration of capitalist equilibrium. In that case wouldn't there actually arise the danger of a new epoch of capitalist restoration? To this one might reply as follows: If the Communist Party fails to grow; if the proletariat fails to gain experience; if the proletariat fails to resist in a more and more far-reaching and irreconcilable revolutionary way; if it fails to pass over at the first opportunity from defence to offence, then the mechanics of capitalist development, supplemented by the manoeuvres of the bourgeois state, would doubtless accomplish their work in the long run. Entire countries would be hurled back economically into barbarism; tens of millions of human beings would perish from hunger, with despair in their hearts, and upon their bones some new sort of equilibrium of the capitalist world would be restored. But such a perspective is sheer abstraction. On the way toward this speculative capitalist equilibrium there are many gigantic obstacles: the chaos of the world market, the disruption of currency systems, the sway of militarism, the threat of war, the lack of confidence in the future. The elemental forces of capitalism are seeking avenues of escape amid heaps of obstacles. But these same elemental forces lash the working class and impel it forward. The development of the working class does not cease even when it retreats. For, while losing positions, it accumulates experience and consolidates its party. It marches forward. The working class is one of the conditions of social development, one of the factors of this development, and moreover its most important factor because it embodies the future.

"The basic curve of industrial development is searching for upward avenues. Movement is rendered complex by cyclical fluctuations, which in the post-war conditions resemble spasms. It is naturally impossible to foretell at which point of development there will occur such a combination of objective and subjective conditions as will produce a revolutionary overturn. Nor is it possible to foretell whether this will occur in the course of the impending revival, at its beginning, or toward its end, or with the coming of a new cycle. Suffice it for us that the tempo of development does to a considerable measure depend upon us, upon our party, upon its tactics. It is of utmost importance to take into account the new economic turn which can open a new stage of fusing the ranks and in preparing a victorious offensive. For the revolutionary party to understand that which is, already implies in and of itself an abridgement of all time intervals and the moving up of dates." (ibid., pp. 83-4)

Is this not perfectly clear? Trotsky explains the complex dialectical relation between the economic cycle and the class struggle, which condition each other, but not in a mechanical way. It is possible that a slump could demoralize the workers and postpone revolutionary developments for a number of years. The economic slump that followed the defeat of the 1905 revolution in Russia had just such an effect, and Trotsky correctly predicted that an economic revival would be needed before the workers took the road of revolution again. This is precisely what happened in the period 1911-14.

It should be noted that Trotsky in the above extract poses the theoretical possibility of a future period of upswing in capitalism ("a new epoch of capitalist restoration") if the Communist Parties failed to take power. He regarded this as unlikely - an abstract perspective - because the perspective was one of victorious socialist revolutions led by the Communist International. In 1921 the possibility of the bureaucratic degeneration of the Russian Revolution was not even a remote consideration. But the isolation of the October Revolution in conditions of extreme material and cultural backwardness (because of the betrayals of European Social Democracy) led to the Stalinist degeneration, which undermined the CI as an instrument for socialist revolution. This, in turn, led to the defeat of the revolution in China, Germany, Spain, etc., which in turn led directly to the Second World War.

The balanced way in which Trotsky (and also Lenin, who had the same position) dealt with this question is in complete contrast to the childishness of the "Left Communists", whose method was a mechanical vulgarisation of Marxism. The "Lefts" denied any possibility of a revival of the productive forces, considering any such idea as tantamount to the abandonment of a revolutionary perspective and a capitulation to reformism and Social Democracy. They attacked both Lenin and Trotsky as "rightists" for the crime of explaining the facts of life to them. But subsequent developments demonstrated that Lenin and Trotsky were right and the "Left Communists" hopelessly wrong.

As a footnote we should add that, despite the seriousness of their political differences, it never occurred to Lenin and Trotsky to propose the expulsion of the "Lefts" or to use the formidable apparatus of the Communist International to suppress them. They used the political debate to educate the cadres of the International and answered d the arguments of their opponents patiently. That was the correct, Leninist, way to handle differences within the organization. The method of Lambert-Gluckstein is not.

‘Say what is!'

The situation that arose after 1945 was not like the situation after the end of the First World War. The victories of the Red Army and the revolutionary wave that swept Europe forced US imperialism to underwrite European capitalism for fear of "Communism". On the other hand, contrary to Trotsky's prediction in 1938, the old organizations of the Social Democracy and Stalinism succeeded in placing themselves at the head of the movement and derailing it. The counterrevolution took place in a democratic form (as happened in Germany in 1918-20).

This was the political precondition for an economic revival and a stabilisation of capitalism, which reinforced the hold of the Social Democracy over the masses in Britain and other countries. On the other hand, the victories of Stalinism in Eastern Europe and China, following the spectacular victories of the Red Army during the War, increased the illusions in Stalinism among the masses. Contrary to Trotsky's expectations, Stalinism and reformism were reinforced for a whole historical period.

Ted Grant explained the reasons for the post-war upswing in capitalism in the following terms:

"What then are the basic reasons for the developments of the post-second world war economy?

1. The political failure of the Stalinists and the social democrats, in Britain and Western Europe, created the political climate for a recovery of capitalism.

2. The effects of the war, in the destruction of consumer and capital goods, created a big market (war has effects similar to, but deeper than, a slump in the destruction of capital). These effects, according to United Nations' statisticians, only disappeared in 1958.

3. The Marshall Plan and other economic aid assisted the recovery of Western Europe.

4. The enormously increased investment in industry.

5. The growth of new industry - plastics, aluminium, rockets, electronics, atomic energy and by-products.

6. The increasing output of the newer industries - chemicals, artificial fibres, synthetic rubber, plastics, rapid rise in light metals, aluminium, magnesium, electric household equipment, natural gas, electric energy, building activity.

7. The enormous amounts of fictitious capital, created by the armaments expenditure, which amount to 10 per cent of the national income in Britain and America.

8. The new market for capital and engineering products, created by the weakening of imperialism in the undeveloped countries, which has given the local bourgeoisie the increased opportunity to develop industry on a greater scale than ever before.

9. All these factors interact on one another. The increased demand for raw materials, through the development of industry in the metropolitan countries in its turn, reacts on the undeveloped countries and vice-versa.

10. The increasing trade, especially in capital goods and engineering products, between the capitalist countries, consequent on the increased economic investment, in its turn acts as a spur.

11. The role of state intervention in stimulating economic activity." (From Will there be a slump?).

How did the leaders of the Fourth deal with this situation? They understood nothing. Their arguments are like a carbon copy of the so-called Left Communists in the period 1920-1924. They categorically stated that the world economy would remain in "stagnation and slump." Even when the facts were carved on their noses, and the capitalist economy began to revive, they refused to take this into account. As late as 1947, when no serious person could deny that there was an economic revival in Europe, they still refused to acknowledge their mistake. Then, in an attempt to cover their bare backside, they proclaimed that, although there was some economic growth (they could hardly say anything else!), capitalism could not reach the level of production attained pre-war.

This was an entirely arbitrary and unscientific assertion, not founded either on Marxist economic theory or on the facts. It was merely an attempt to save some face in the light of an objective situation that was in open conflict with their predictions. For these people, the most important question was not the education of the cadres but only the maintenance of the prestige of the leaders: a disastrous policy with disastrous results! In practice the "ceiling" on the growth of the productive forces they had put forward so light-mindedly was soon broken and capitalism entered into an economic upswing that lasted for over two decades.

If Marxism were a collection of ready-made formulas, rather than a scientific method, then every petty sectarian in history would be as great as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky put together. But things are not so simple. The British Marxists, gathered around the leadership of the RCP, using the method of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, questioned this position and were the first to point out that world capitalism was entering a period of revival. They explained the need to reorient the forces of the Fourth International on the basis of an analysis of what was really taking place.

The productive forces

On this question Pierre Lambert developed a very strange variety of sectarian misunderstanding. He and his followers simply stuck to the previous position of denying that there had been any development of the productive forces. Amazingly they stick to this position to this very day. They seem to fear the very idea that the productive forces can actually develop, for they feel this would lead to the conclusion that revolution is impossible. Such a conclusion is entirely unwarranted. It is a mechanical caricature of Marxism that was answered long ago by Lenin and Trotsky, as we have seen.

Marx explained long ago that it is the very development of the productive forces that makes revolution inevitable. It strengthens the working class and in the end increases the contradictions within the system. The development of the productive forces in Europe since 1945, it is true, caused serious problems for the revolutionary movement. It was the objective basis for the isolation of the proletarian vanguard and the decline of the Fourth International. But it also had the effect of strengthening the working class, healing the scars of the defeats of the past. It has mercilessly whittled away the peasantry in Italy, France, Spain and Germany, and in so doing it has weakened the social base of reaction.

The enormous development of the productive forces in China at the present time, by strengthening the proletariat, is creating the conditions for a powerful revolutionary upsurge in the next period. It must not be forgotten that the biggest revolutionary general strike in history, in France 1968, came at the peak of the post-war economic upswing. This is sufficient proof that it is not at all necessary to deny the possibility of development of the productive forces under capitalism in order to maintain a revolutionary policy and perspective.

The leaders of the RCP were the only ones who kept their heads and maintained a firm course based on the real ideas of Lenin and Trotsky. For this "crime" they are now assailed by our friends in Paris as "rightists". This is no accident. As we have already seen, the "Left" Communists also described Lenin and Trotsky as "rightists", and for exactly the same reason. Marx was quite right when he said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. The "Left" Communists did a lot of damage with their ultra left tactics and policies, like the "theory of the offensive" which led to a serious defeat of the German working class in 1921. That was a tragedy. But the antics of Lambert, Healy, Pablo, Cannon and Frank were only a farce. They did not have the influence in the working class that the German "Lefts" had in order to test their "theories" in practice. With the wisdom of hindsight, perhaps that was not a bad thing.

The long period of economic upswing lasted till the first serious recession of 1973-4. For a whole period, at least in the advanced capitalist countries, capitalism was in a position to grant concessions and reforms to the workers (the national health service, pension schemes, etc.). In such a situation to simply repeat that capitalism cannot recover and that revolution is around the corner was to fly in the face of reality. Thus, they completely disorientated the cadres of the Fourth International.

Lenin once said that an ultra left is an opportunist who is afraid of his own opportunism. That is confirmed by the whole evolution of all the tendencies that emerged from the old leadership of the Fourth International. Over the past decades we have seen every conceivable (and some inconceivable) combinations of ultra left and opportunist deviations. These groups constantly swing from ultra-leftism to opportunism and back again. Having started with a caricature of Trotsky's position that assumed that every dot and comma the Old Man wrote was literally correct, they then concluded that the "old ideas" were useless and unceremoniously ditched them. An extreme case was the American SWP, who no longer claims to be Trotskyist even in words. But, in reality, the others are no better.

Only when it became abundantly obvious that capitalism was experiencing an economic upswing of considerable proportions did these so-called "Trotskyists" accept that there had been a recovery. Then, typically, they did a 180-degree somersault and went to the opposite extreme. The tendency around Ernest Mandel - which became the so-called United Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) - developed a perspective of decades of social peace in the advanced capitalist countries, based on the idea that capitalism had somehow resolved some of its fundamental contradictions through Keynesian deficit financing and state intervention. They even theorised the idea of the "bourgeoisification" of the working class. The events of 1968 in France took them completely by surprise.

As for Lambert and his followers, they reacted to the situation by simply closing their eyes to reality, like a frightened child who hides his head under the blankets in case he sees a ghost. We would ask our Lambertist friends a question: Have the productive forces developed since the end of the Second World War? Or are they still at the level of 1938 as they claim? The answer is clear to anyone who looks at the statistics. For that matter, it is clear simply by living in the real world. The problem with all the sectarians is precisely that they do not live in this world at all.

With their customary Alice in Wonderland logic, the Lambertists have worked out a neat syllogism: a) Grant predicted an economic boom after the War, b) therefore he believed that reformism and Social Democracy could survive, c) therefore he is in favour of Social Democracy. How any intelligent person could accept such a logic really passes all understanding. But let us ask our friendly critic another straight question: Has the influence of the Social Democracy been maintained within the international labour movement since the end of the Second World War, yes or no? For those of us who still inhabit the planet earth, this question really answers itself. For sectarian extraterrestrials, we can never be sure.

It is really very simple. The massive economic upswing between 1948 and 1973 was precisely the material base upon which reformist illusions were fostered within the labour movement. In the advanced capitalist countries, at least, the economic upswing allowed for a certain social and political stability. Those were the conditions that enormously strengthened the social democracy within the labour movement. Not to take that into account would be flying in the face of reality. This has meant that the small forces of genuine Marxism were isolated from the masses and working under difficult conditions for a whole historical period. That is the objective reason why the Fourth International failed to develop in the way that Trotsky had anticipated in 1938. We were swimming against the tide.

In no way did the position of the RCP contain any illusions about the viability of the capitalist system. They simply stated what was actually happening. They understood that capitalism was going through a temporary revival and that eventually crisis would set in again. They did not imagine that the economic upswing would last as long as it did. They also understood that this recovery would lead temporarily to a strengthening of reformist illusions among the ranks of the labour movement. As a matter of fact, reformism has been strengthened for a whole historical period, while the forces of genuine Marxism (Trotskyism) have been thrown back. This is an indisputable fact. But the real reason why the Fourth International was destroyed in this period cannot be explained purely in terms of the difficult objective situation.

The objective difficulties are only half the story. We cannot leave aside the subjective factor, the quality of the leadership. The role played by the "leadership" was crucial and utterly negative. The first rule of dialectical materialism is: always say what is. Marxists set out from the real situation, no matter how unpalatable. In order to reorient the forces of the Forth International, it was absolutely necessary to take account of the new objective situation. This is what the leadership of the Fourth were unable to do. They proved to be completely inadequate to the needs of the situation and as a result, made a whole series of mistakes that wrecked the International.

In a war, the importance of good generals when an army is advancing is decisive. But it is even more decisive when the army is compelled to retreat. In such circumstances, with good generals, the army can retreat in good order, keeping its losses to a minimum, enabling the army to entrench itself, and prepare for a new offensive when conditions permit it. But bad generals will always turn a retreat into a rout. That is what happened to the Fourth International.

Britain

The footnote already alluded to draws a most peculiar conclusion from the economic perspectives of the RCP. They say that the recognition of an economic recovery after the War led them to maintain that, "the social democracy had a historical future." Well, six decades later what does La Vérité have to say about the Social Democracy? Does it still exist or not? Evidently, it does, and it still has a hold over millions of workers.

In Britain, the Labour Party regularly receives the votes of millions of workers, despite the abominable policies of Blair. The workers are very critical of Blair, who is hated by the activists. Yet, after nine years of New Labour, all the attempts of the sects to build a serious alternative to the Labour Party have failed abysmally. The Socialist Alliance collapsed. Now the Scottish Socialist Party has split. The other sectarian grouplets are not even worth mentioning.

What is the reason for this strange situation? It is very simple: the British workers see no viable alternative to the Labour Party. Insofar as they do not vote Labour, they do not vote at all. That may be a very unpalatable fact for some people, but it is a fact nonetheless. The main trade unions are still affiliated to Labour and provide it with most of its funds. They also still have fifty percent of the votes at Labour Party conference. In other words, Blair has failed to break the Labour Party from the unions. This is a decisive question for future perspectives for the British working class.

The question of the Labour Party was always a central question for the British Marxists. Lenin dealt with it many times, especially in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. Trotsky wrote even more on the Labour Party, and the need for the British Trotskyists to conduct serious and systematic work in it. For anyone with the slightest knowledge of Marxist theory and the real conditions in Britain, the need to work in the Labour Party is an ABC question. But the sects always howl with rage at any such suggestion. For them, work in the Labour Party is the same as - supporting Blair!

Such an argument is simply childish. But that is too generous! A child of six would understand that it is possible to work in the Labour Party and fight against Blair. As a matter of fact, the only way to fight effectively against Blair is by conducting a struggle in the Labour Party and the unions that are inseparably linked to the Labour Party. That is the only way to build a viable Marxist tendency in Britain.

The argument that, by working in the Labour Party we will discredit ourselves by associating with the right wing traitors is not new. It was already answered by Lenin in his debates with the British "Left Communists" like Willie Gallagher:

"Comrade Gallacher is wrong in asserting that by advocating affiliation to the Labour Party we shall repel the best elements among the British workers. We must test this by experience. We are convinced that all the resolutions and decisions that will be adopted by our Congress will be published in all British revolutionary socialist newspapers and that all the branches and sections will be able to discuss them.

"The entire content of our resolutions shows with crystal clarity that we are representatives of working-class revolutionary tactics in all countries and that our aim is to fight against the old reformism and opportunism. The events reveal that our tactics are indeed defeating the old reformism." (Speech On Affiliation To The British Labour Party, August 6., The Second Congress Of The Communist International, July 19-August 7, 1920).

Anyone who reads the Socialist Appeal or our website, Marxist.com, can be left in no doubt that we stand for the programme and policies of revolutionary Marxism, and that in the Labour Party and trade unions in Britain we are indeed "fighting against the old reformism and opportunism." Despite these obvious facts, La Vérité feels free to repeat the scandalous claim that the British Socialist Appeal in some way supports Blair! They quote from an article, Britain: Blair must go but Brown is no better, written by Phil Mitchinson, and say the following:

"A question is therefore posed: should Blair the ‘privatiser', Blair the butcher of Irak, of the Labour Party be chased out? The Grant-Woods group declares itself as the ‘Marxist faction' in the Labour Party. So what is their position? On October 4, 2005, just after the party congress had taken place, they published an article under the title ‘Blair must go'. But then they hurry to add ‘but Brown is no better'. Apart from the replacement of Blair by another individual who ‘is no better', are there no other issues that concern the activists of the Labour Party?"

How do the Lambertists interpret what we say? They say the following:

"What should one conclude? That to remove Blair is impossible? That in any case whoever replaces him ‘would be no better'?"

Right from the very beginning we see the crude and dishonest method adopted by the author of this attack. Tony Blair is finished. He will have to stand down as leader of the Labour Party in a few months. Some British Trade Union leaders are preparing to back Brown in his bid to become the next leader of the Labour Party. The purpose of the article in Socialist Appeal was to combat the illusions being sown within the British labour movement that somehow Brown would be better than Blair, when in actual fact he has loyally served the interests of British capital as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet again, La Vérité stands the truth on its head.

Our readers can look at our October 2005 article for themselves, but we will just quote the last three paragraphs to make clear where we stand:

"There must be a real challenge to the Blair/Brown big business agenda at every level of the labour movement. We cannot wait two, three, or four more years. Those union leaders who have been backing Brown must wake up to reality. The alarm must be sounded by the ranks. If the trade unions united their resources behind a real left candidate they could have a big influence. No support should be given to any candidate who does not support withdrawing troops from Iraq, who does not oppose privatisation, support renationalising the railways, and abolishing the anti-union laws. This is a minimum requirement.

"A left candidate like John McDonnell, for example, even if he did not win a leadership election could open the door to real debate about the need for socialist policies throughout the movement.

"The process of questioning in society, of changes in the unions, which has already begun, will not go away. The task of socialists and trade unionists must not be to rally around any candidate who might win, regardless of their policy, but instead to organise the discontent, the searching, the mounting militancy in British society into a real force for change. Change inside the labour movement, and change inside the Labour Party, as steps toward the change that really matters - the radical socialist transformation of society."

Having begun with this vulgar misrepresentation of our position the author then continues:

"One has to wait until November 10... to find another article in the Woods-Grant publications."

Our friendly critic has not even done his homework properly. He conveniently ignores another article by Phil Mitchinson, "War on terror" used as an excuse to whittle away elementary civil liberties in Britain, published on October 25, 2005. That article is dedicated to Blair's attack on civil liberties, and our readers can see the text at the link above.

The November 10 article, The last but one nail in Blair's coffin, is then quoted in a further attempt to prove that the Marxist tendency in Britain supports Tony Blair. How do they do this? By mistranslating a phrase from English into French. In the original English the article says:

"This first parliamentary defeat for Blair may prove to be the penultimate nail in his coffin. When will he go? That question cannot be answered with any certainty. Not a day too soon obviously."

In English "Not a day too soon" means, "the sooner he goes, the better". But in the French our Lambertist author translates "Not a day too soon" as "Pas de sitôt, de toute evidence". This means "not so soon, obviously". Any French reader would conclude from this that the British Socialist Appeal's position is that Blair will not go too soon. The real translation into French would have been "Pas (un jour) trop tôt", or else "Il est grand temps" (it is about time!) i.e. it should have happened sooner.

Not happy with falsifying the translation, the Lambertists then add their own spin to the meaning and say:

"Here we then have the message that this ‘Marxist' fraction addresses to the activists of the Labour Party and the trade unions, "Blair ne peut pas, ne doit pas partir." This means "Blair cannot and must not go".

This is the exact opposite of the position defended in every single one of the articles that have appeared in the Socialist Appeal on this subject. If this is a joke, it is in very bad taste. Not even our most implacable opponents in Britain (and we have a few) have ever accused us of supporting Blair. Yet our friendly Lambertist critic does so without the slightest hesitation - and without even a smile! To clarify the point further we will quote two paragraphs from the very same November 10 article:

"Blair's defeat yesterday brings the downfall of Blairism that much closer and is therefore to be welcomed. However this is far from the end of the matter, on the contrary it is only the beginning. A new chapter has been opened in the struggle for the Labour Party. Parliamentary rebellions can play an important role in that process especially if they are linked to the struggle throughout the rest of the labour movement. That struggle cannot have as its aim the puny ambition of replacing Blair with Brown or some other clone, it must set its sights higher. The cause must be to reclaim Labour for the working class, and to fight for socialist policies."

And:

"There is only one force that can defeat Blair - the trade unions and the party rank and file. It is not just in parliamentary voting lobbies, but inside the labour movement that Blair and co must be defeated. What is needed now is a militant trade union defence of jobs and pensions combined with a struggle against the Blairites, in defence of civil liberties, and for socialist policies inside Labour."

In dealing with the position of our British comrades of the Socialist Appeal, it is worth listing some of the titles of their journal over the past period.

Issue 119, February 2004, "Lies on Iraq, lies on fees... Make Blair Pay"

Issue 126, October 2004: "Troops out of Iraq. No to Blairism! Fight for Socialist policies!

Issue 131, April 2005: "Don't let the Tories in... and kick them out of Labour"

Issue 133, June 2005: "Unions must drive Blairism out"

Issue 141, April 2006: "Lies, deceit, corruption... Blair must GO!"

Issue 143, June 2006: "Ditch Blairism now"

Issue 144, July/August 2006: "Left Must Challenge Blair and Brown"

Issue 145, September 2006: "Labour Needs Socialism Not Blairism"

These are our front-page headlines. We believe they speak for themselves.

European Union

After falsifying our position on Britain they then move on to our position on the European Union. Again they attempt to present the opposite of what we stand for. What are we supposed to defend? Nothing at all. They claim that we are indifferent on this question. Yes! We are so indifferent that we wrote a lengthy document on it, which is a small book. This was written by Alan Woods in June 1997 and is called A Socialist Alternative to the European Union. They quote from this in their usual selective manner:

"We are neither for nor against withdrawal from the EU on the basis of capitalism. The interests of the working class [are] not represented in either case... Nevertheless, we should not be under the illusion, as are the lefts, that the austerity measures are simply due to Maastricht. Maastricht is used as an excuse or smoke screen for the cuts and attacks taking place throughout Europe. These attacks would have taken place with or without Maastricht."

To this they add their own translation (and we have already seen that they are excellent translators):

"Translation: as socialism has not been realised, the policy and the institutions of the European Union are questions of indifference to the working classes of Europe. But on what planet do our great ‘revolutionaries' live?"

We believe that we live on a planet called earth, where as a rule the laws of logic apply in normal debate. But what kind of a debate is it where one systematically falsifies the arguments of an opponent. Again the method here is dishonest, as it cuts out what does not suit the preconceived views of the author. This is a typically Stalinist method that has nothing to do with the honest and democratic traditions of the Trotskyist movement.

To clarify what was said in that article, instead of taking quotes out of context, let us dispense with the amiable services of our "translator" and allow the author to speak for himself. The following quotes give the real position of our tendency on the European Union. We have underlined the extract they quote out of context and in all later quotes we will use the same method of underlining what they quote out of context:

"Our position on the EU is similar to the position Marx took in the controversy about free trade or protectionism that time. He explained that the interests of the working class are neither for free trade nor protectionism, but international socialism. That the debate on free trade reflected the interests of different sections of the ruling class. It was a trap to take sides in this dispute, and the workers' movement had to take an independent political stance. Similarly with us. We are neither for nor against withdrawal from the EU on the basis of capitalism. The interests of the working class [are] not represented in either case."

And again:

"The European Union is nothing more than a capitalist club, a glorified customs union, established to promote the interests of European big business. It has nothing in common with the interests of the working class. That is our starting point. Our opposition to the EU is exactly the same as our opposition to capitalism or capitalism generally. We take a clear independent class position. The only alternative to the capitalist EU [is] the Socialist United States of Europe.

"This is our general position. However, it is necessary to link the general demands to a concrete programme of struggle against all attempts to put the burden of the crisis of capitalism on the shoulders of the working class, the old, the unemployed, the sick, the women and youth. There is growing opposition in the Labour movement, especially on the left, against the Maastricht criteria for monetary union. We are opposed to Maastricht, as we are opposed to all capitalist measures against the working class. Nevertheless, we should not be under the illusion, as are the lefts, that the austerity measures are simply due to Maastricht. Maastricht is used as an excuse or smoke screen for the cuts and attacks taking place throughout Europe. These attacks would have taken place with or without Maastricht. According to the right wing Economist, "labour costs are too high". They must be driven down to put European capitalism back on its feet. This situation arises from the crisis of capitalism itself. That is the reason why austerity measures are taking place simultaneously throughout the capitalist world, from Europe to Japan and the United States.

"Despite all the contradictions, the main capitalist powers in Europe, especially the Germans and French, are determined to push ahead with a European currency. The plan is to introduce it at the beginning of 1999. But this can be easily blown off course with the advent of a new world recession. What is our view of a European currency? Firstly, we cannot consider it in the abstract. Who is introducing it and why is it being introduced? Under capitalism, we have to oppose the introduction of a single currency, as it will be used to cut living standards. Obviously, in a socialist Europe, a common currency would be introduced to facilitate planning and exchange. But under capitalism it is a different question. It is not an abstract issue of just being for or against the principle of a single currency - we have to take into account concretely how its implementation will be used to carry through attacks on living standards, etc. In other words we have to draw out all the implications and consequences for the working class of a single currency on the basis of capitalism. In any referendum we would advocate a 'No' vote to the single currency, and argue the case for a socialist Europe."

Here the method of quoting used by our friendly critic stands revealed in all its glory. He conveniently omits the sentence that says, "We are opposed to Maastricht, as we are opposed to all capitalist measures against the working class." Why did he omit this? Because it utterly negates his argument that we are "indifferent to the Maastricht Treaty".

In further attempting to portray our position as one that sees the EU as somehow progressive, they quote from EU Constitution debacle - The real nature of European Union exposed written by Roberto Sarti and Fred Weston in December 2003:

"Maastricht, the euro, and all the other agreements, have had the effect of internationalising the class struggle within the borders of the EU. Everywhere the workers are coming up against the same policies. Everywhere, pensions, welfare benefits, education, public transport, are all under attack. And everywhere we see strikes and demonstrations against these measures, from Austria to Greece, from Italy to Spain. No country is immune from this process."

All this paragraph states is something which is quite obvious to any intelligent observer. As the Maastricht agreement involves applying the same cuts in social spending throughout the EU, the same attacks on pensions and education and so on, it provokes a similar reaction in all the member states. The workers of Europe mobilise against these attacks. We cannot understand what is wrong in stating what is so obvious. What is their objection? They attempt to ridicule our statement by saying "So, the European Union is an engine that stimulates class struggle..." This is like ridiculing someone who says that the existence of capitalism stimulates class struggle and then attacking him for having illusions in capitalism!

They continue by returning once more to Alan Woods' A Socialist Alternative to the European Union, where they quote the following:

"The separate national markets of Britain, France, Germany, and the others, were far too small for the giant monopolies. The Common Market was created in an attempt to overcome this limitation. The big monopolies looked forward to an unrestricted regional market of hundreds of millions, and beyond that to the world market. On the basis of the economic upswing, the European capitalists were largely successful in establishing this glorified customs union, where the abolition of tariffs between the countries of the Common Market and a common tariff with the rest of the world served to develop and stimulate world trade."

In passing they manage once more to mistranslate. In the French instead of "glorified customs union" we have "glorious customs union", i.e. instead of "union douanière glorifiée" we have "glorieuse union douanière". The difference is clear to anyone who wishes to understand it. The first mistranslation (on Blair) could be accepted as a mistake, but now it appears to be a pattern. Why bother translating what is actually said when you can transform the meaning into its opposite for the purpose of a polemic?

In any case a lengthier quote puts the whole piece into its proper context:

"The Common Market was established as an attempt by the European bourgeois to overcome the narrow confines of the nation state, with its limited market. Historically the nation state played an essential role in developing capitalism, which served in the first instance to protect and develop the home market. However, with the development of communications, technique, science, multinational companies, and the world market, the productive forces came into conflict with the limitation of national state boundaries as well as private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism and the nation state from being a source of enormous progress became a colossal fetter and impediment to the harmonious development of production. This contradiction reflected itself in the world wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45 and the crisis of the inter-war period.

"The development of world trade in the post war period allowed the capitalist system to overcome this contradiction, at any rate partially and for a temporary period. The separate national markets of Britain, France, Germany, and the others, were far too small for the giant monopolies. The Common Market was created in an attempt to overcome this limitation. The big monopolies looked forward to an unrestricted regional market of hundreds of millions, and beyond that to the world market. On the basis of the economic upswing, the European capitalists were largely successful in establishing this glorified customs union, where the abolition of tariffs between the countries of the Common Market and a common tariff with the rest of the world served to develop and stimulate world trade."

Once again our erstwhile critic commits the sin of omission. As you can see in their quote, a fundamentally important sentence is simply left out: "The development of world trade in the post war period allowed the capitalist system to overcome this contradiction, at any rate partially and for a temporary period." [Our emphasis].

Never have we stated that capitalism has been able to resolve its fundamental contradictions. The European Union was the capitalists' attempt to get round the fundamental obstacle of the nation state by building a bigger market, but as we explain consistently throughout all our articles on this question, they cannot completely remove the nation states and they cannot achieve a genuine unification of the EU into one single state. We merely point out that on the basis of the post-war boom they were able "partially" and for a "temporary period" to overcome some of the basic contradictions. It does not take much to understand that if capitalism is going through the longest and strongest boom in its history there would be more room for manoeuvre for the various national capitalist classes. That in no way implies that there has been a fundamental change in the system. The same laws as established by Marx continue to operate, and inevitably at some stage the system will enter into a severe crisis.

After Alan Woods, it is the turn of Maarten Vanheuverswyn to have his article quoted out of context in order to prove the opposite of what he is actually stating. His article, European Union faces deepest crisis in its history, written in June 2005 is quoted, but again conveniently leaving out elements which would contradict the attempts of the Lambertist author to distort. What we have here is an attempt to present our position as being one of support for the EU. This is how they quote:

"Although the broad analysis worked out by the Marxists has been proved to be correct (as the present crisis demonstrates), the expansion of the European Union from the original six countries to 25, and the integration of their economies has gone far further than we originally anticipated. This was mainly due to the development of world trade and the general upswing in world capitalism in the period 1948-74, from which they all benefited.

"All this was predicated on a high rate of economic growth. This gave rise to a significant development of the productive forces for a time. In this context, the closer integration of the economies of the main European powers was in the interests of all of them."

We have already made our position on the EU very clear. But again they add their own comment on the above quote which further distorts what we really say. They say the following:

"Yes, you have read properly, this tendency claims that the European Union has been an instrument for developing the productive forces, stimulating the development of the world market! And moreover, the creation of this ‘common market' has allowed for the unification of the workers' struggle across Europe.

"If this corresponds to the facts, then indeed - as Messrs Grant and Woods do - one would have to support in a barely critical manner the European Union, the unification of the national markets into vaster markets seeing that the regime of private property of the means of production allows for the development of the productive forces, and in particular of the main one among these, the working class. But in what world do we live?"

We do not know what world they are living in, except that it is one in which distortion and lies are apparently acceptable methods in discussing political ideas. Here they carry out a slight of hand like a magician, confusing one thing with another and making other things disappear. They ignore the fact that comrade Vanheuverswyn specifically referred to the period 1948-1974, that period in history which saw the biggest development of the productive forces on a world scale, not only in the history of capitalism but in the whole of human history. It was that powerful development that laid the basis for the partial success in achieving economic integration within the borders of the EU.

It is true that since 1974 the rate of growth has significantly slowed down, and that in the past few years it has become almost stagnant. On this basis national contradictions between the EU member states are growing. The attempts to impose a European Constitution have been stalled. This all flows from the crisis of the system as a whole. But to deny that there has been any growth is to fly in the face of reality.

The slogan of the United States of Europe

When dealing with the EU it is necessary to proceed from fundamentals. Already in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explained that capitalism develops a world market. The present phenomenon of globalisation was already anticipated in the pages of the Communist Manifesto. The most important manifestation of the present epoch is the crushing domination of the world market that cuts the ground from under the feet of the old nation states.

The crisis of humanity represents the fact that capitalism is no longer capable of developing the productive forces as it did in the past. The main barriers to the development of the productive forces on a world scale are on the one hand private ownership of the means of production and on the other hand the nation state. It is the task of the socialist revolution is to eliminate these barriers and eliminate the nation state, establishing world socialism.

The EU was a tacit admission by the European bourgeoisie that the growth of the productive forces had outstripped the narrow confines of the nation state - particularly the states of Europe, which found themselves squeezed between the might of US imperialism on the one hand and Stalinist Russia on the other hand. They attempted to form a trading bloc that would compensate their weakness. The original idea of French imperialism was that they would dominate Europe, with Germany as a second-class partner, but it did not work out like that. This is all explained in A Socialist Alternative to the EU by Alan Woods.

The idea that Europe could be united under capitalism is, as Lenin explained long ago, a reactionary utopia. It is reactionary because it would represent another imperialist bloc. It is utopian because the bourgeoisie is incapable of uniting Europe. The national contradictions are too strong to permit the unification of Europe, which would be a progressive development. But it is only possible through the expropriation of the banks and monopolies. Only the working class can bring about the unification of Europe by revolutionary means. The slogan of the Socialist United States of Europe (and a Latin American Socialist Federation) is a reflection of this fact.

In A Socialist Alternative to the EU we read:

"Over a hundred years ago, Karl Marx explained that, in the struggle between the Tories and Liberals over Free Trade versus Protectionism, the working class had to maintain an independent position. We were in favour neither of one thing or the other. This was merely a struggle between different wings of the ruling class (landowners and manufacturers) in which the workers had no interest.

"The present debate on EMU bears a striking resemblance to the controversy on free trade in the last century. Then as now, there was a sharp difference of opinion between various wings of the ruling class in Britain. The landed aristocracy, for its own purposes, defended protectionism, while the rising industrial bourgeoisie, defending its own interests, advocated free trade. (Needless to say, at that time, the weaker bourgeoisies of France and Germany were all in favour of protectionism). In the course of this struggle, which became extremely heated, the rival wings of the ruling class both sought to enlist the support of the working class. What was the position of Marx and Engels? They adopted a firm position of class independence, and resolutely advised the workers to refuse support to either one of the two sides. This was despite the fact that, in the abstract, one could argue that free trade was more progressive than protectionism. However, questions of this kind can never be settled "in the abstract". It is necessary to pose the question concretely, that is to say, from a class point of view. And it is clear that the interests of the working class [were] not served by either of these policies. Only a socialist policy can serve the interests of the working people. That remains as true today as 150 years ago, when Marx delivered his speech on free trade. The issues are somewhat different, but the principles are identical."

Our critics yet again quote out of context the following remark by Alan Woods:

"What future could there be for small states like Britain, France, or even Germany in isolation? The idea of combining the economic resources of Europe - and the whole world - is a progressive aim which shows the only serious way forward out of the present crisis of humanity. The two main obstacles which are preventing the further development of industry, agriculture, science and technique on a world scale are private ownership of the means of production and the nation state."

By leaving out what comes before and after this quote, they leave the reader with the impression that we believe the EU is somehow progressive. That is entirely false. It is the same Stalinist method of selective quoting. If we reproduce the quote in full, it shows precisely the opposite of what our Lambertist intended:

"Opposition to the Europe of the monopolies does not mean that we must support the kind of "national independence" advocated by the Eurosceptics. The policy of national self-sufficiency ("autarchy") has failed everywhere where it was tried, and must inevitably fail in the modern epoch when everything is decided by the world economy. The attempt to build "socialism in one country" led to a disaster in Russia and China, although they were both mighty economies based on the resources of sub-continents. What future could there be for small states like Britain, France, or even Germany in isolation? The idea of combining the economic resources of Europe - and the whole world - is a progressive aim which shows the only serious way forward out of the present crisis of humanity. The two main obstacles which are preventing the further development of industry, agriculture, science and technique on a world scale are private ownership of the means of production and the nation state. Only by eliminating these obstacles can society break the shackles that fetter its development. Thus, the real alternative to the capitalist EU is not "national independence" but the Socialist United States of Europe.

"The idea of a capitalist united Europe, as Lenin long ago explained, is a reactionary utopia. On the one hand, it is impossible to achieve a genuinely united Europe on a capitalist basis. The separate national interests of each capitalist class rules this out. In reality, what is proposed by the EU and Maastricht is very far from this. But even if they could achieve it, then it would be entirely reactionary, as it could only be brought about by the most brutal means. Hitler attempted this by military conquest and occupation."

But let us turn the argument around for a moment. Let us ask what position the Lambertists take on the EU. For reasons known only to themselves, the Lambertists have developed a fetish about the EU, which they regard as the origins and cause of all our problems. They issue a peremptory demand to everybody: for or against the EU! To which we shrug our shoulders and reply: against. However, this reply does not at all exhaust the question. It is necessary to say why we oppose it, from what class standpoint, and what we propose to put in its place.

That it is necessary to oppose the capitalist EU is self-evident. But it is possible to oppose the EU from many different standpoints - not all of them progressive. In every European country the extreme right wing reactionaries also oppose the EU. In every campaign and referendum on this issue these elements raise their head: fascists, xenophobes, racists and reactionary chauvinists like Le Pen, Haider and the right wing of the British Tory Party. Oh yes, these are very definitely against Maastricht and all its works. But they do so from the standpoint of the most reactionary sections of the ruling class.

When the Lambertists accuse us of being "indifferent" to the EU, what do they mean? That we ignore it? But that is plainly not the case: we have a very clear position on this question. What then: that we are for the EU? This argument has just about as much validity as the argument that we are "for Tony Blair", that is, none at all. But that does not stop our friends from across the Channel from saying it anyway. As the journalists of the yellow press say: "Why let the facts spoil a good story?" No, what they mean is that the genuine Trotskyists of the IMT are against the EU and in favour of the Socialist United States of Europe. That was good enough for Trotsky and it is good enough for us. But it seems it is not quite good enough for Lambert and Gluckstein.

Marxism has nothing in common with nationalism and chauvinism. No concessions whatsoever must be made to this poison that can disorient the working class, lower its class consciousness and foster illusions in such ideas as "national sovereignty". The left reformists and Stalinists take a wrong position on this and even make concessions to the right wing on the so-called defence of sovereignty - which is an absolute abomination from the standpoint of Marxism and Leninism, and above all, of Trotskyism. It would be nice to think that our friendly critic was able to understand at least some of this. Unfortunately, our experience so far gives us no grounds for optimism on such a supposition.

In all their written material they put a heavy emphasis on the defence of national sovereignty against the European Union. Now, to the best of our knowledge, France is not a colonial country fighting for national independence. On the contrary, France is an imperialist nation that exploits its former colonies in North Africa, Africa and the Caribbean. The slogans of bourgeois democracy in France lost all progressive significance a long time ago - approximately 210 years to be exact.

The slogan of national sovereignty had a progressive, indeed a revolutionary, content in the period when revolutionary France was fighting for its survival against Britain, Austria and Prussia. But it had already become a reactionary slogan by 1870, and by 1914 was denounced by Lenin as a betrayal of the international working class. To attempt to revive it now, in the epoch of imperialist decay, even indirectly, is a complete betrayal of the most elementary principles of Lenin and Trotsky and a complete abandonment of proletarian internationalism.

The Lambertists in France in fact blame all the evils of capitalism on the Maastricht agreement. [For more on this, see the section below which deals with France]. That is completely incorrect. Any idea that the French bourgeoisie is in some way better than the "European" bourgeoisie, or that the position of the French working class would be better if France left the EU and was "independent" (whatever that might mean today) is entirely false. To adopt such a position would be equivalent to the abandonment of a class standpoint.

One could draw the conclusion from this that the French bourgeoisie or the British, or any national bourgeoisie in Europe, would not be attacking the gains of the working class in their own countries if it were not for the European Union! But these attacks are dictated by the needs of capitalism today, with or without Maastricht. The whole point is to break with the futile argument about whether we should be in or out of the EU and to raise an independent working class alternative. This we clearly do in all our material.

What can our Lambertist friends say in answer to this? Maybe they will accuse us of not being sufficiently "concrete" in our opposition to the capitalist EU. "It is all very well to advocate socialism, but first we must do ‘A', ‘B' or ‘C'. For example, first we must withdraw from the EU and then we can talk about socialism." We are well accustomed to such arguments - from the Left reformists and Stalinists, whose "practical" solutions invariably imply surrender to the bourgeoisie. The Menshevik-Stalinist theory of stages constantly presents itself in different disguises, always as a "concrete" and "practical" alternative - to socialism.

Maybe our friendly critic will reply that it is not sufficient merely to advocate socialism, that it is necessary to struggle for all kinds of transitional demands, including democratic demands. We would be the last ones to disagree with this. In the epoch of imperialist decay it is necessary to fight for every meaningful reform and every democratic demand insofar as it retains its validity. This would include the defence of oppressed nations to determine their own affairs without the interference of imperialism. When the Iraqis or Venezuelans demand this right, we must defend it. But this emphatically does not apply to the "national rights" of imperialist nations like France or Britain.

The IMT takes an independent class position on the European Union. We give no support to the EU, but neither do we support a nationalist position, which is what the reformist left and Stalinists always do when they oppose membership of the EU. We prefer to stick to the method of Marx and explain that inside or outside the European Union as long as there is capitalism there would not be a fundamental difference as far as the working class is concerned. What is required is not to confuse the working class with nationalist demagogy but to fight for socialism and to raise the demand for the Socialist United States of Europe as the only real alternative to the Europe of the monopolies.

France

Our Lambertist friends devote a significant portion of their text to attacking the policy of the Marxist paper and website La Riposte. But yet again what they attack are not the real ideas and policies of these comrades, but a flagrant and deliberate distortion of them. To begin with, they raise the question of the appraisal of the Jospin government (1997-2002) in the text published by La Riposte under the title PCF: program, strategy and participation in government [PCF: stratégie électorale, programme et participation gouvernementale]:

"If, ‘on all fundamental questions, the policies applied by Jospin were based on the defence of capitalist interests' La Riposte notes nonetheless that ‘the few positive measures of his government - such as the CMU, and the law on the 35 hour week - did not prevent a general decline in the living conditions of the majority of the population'."

This is followed by a further quote from La Riposte:

"In the policies applied by the ‘plural left' from 1997, all was not negative. In spite of their limits, the emplois-jeunes [youth jobs] were a step forward. As was the CMU. However, taken as a whole, the policies carried out by the government were a mixture of botched and insufficient social reforms, on the one hand, and, on the other, of reactionary counter-reforms taken directly from the Alain Juppé ‘plan'."

All this would appear to be clear enough. But our critics then say "Let us take the main measures which La Riposte considers as ‘positive' " and go on to explain the shortcomings and unacceptable aspects of these different measures, such as the fact that the introduction of the 35 hour week was often accompanied by the annualisation of working hours and hand-outs to the employers, or that the emplois-jeunes were limited-term contracts (up to five years) which often served to replace permanent contract workers. But clearly this is exactly what La Riposte is referring to when it says that these reforms were "botched and insufficient".

Is this really so difficult to understand? Since our Lambertist critics do not appear to grasp the relation between Marxism and reforms, let us quote Lenin on the subject. In his article, Marxism and Reformism, written in September 12, 1913. Lenin explains the difference between Marxism and reformism:

"Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.

"The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.

"And conversely, workers who have assimilated Marx 's theory, i.e., realised the inevitability of wage-slavery so long as capitalist rule remains, will not be fooled by any bourgeois reforms. Understanding that where capitalism continues to exist reforms cannot be either enduring or far reaching, the workers fight for better conditions and use them to intensify the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle.

"The stronger reformist influence is among the workers the weaker they are, the greater their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the easier it is for the bourgeoisie to nullify reforms by various subterfuges. The more independent the working-class movement, the deeper and broader its aims, and the freer it is from reformist narrowness the easier it is for the workers to retain and utilise improvements." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 13, pp. 372-75.)

How clearly Lenin explained this question! This quotation could be applied precisely to the situation in France. The working class will always fight for reforms, wage increases and other partial demands, "for measures that improve the conditions of the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class", in Lenin's words. Indeed, without the day-to-day struggle for advance under capitalism, the socialist revolution would be impossible. Our difference with the reformists is not that they advocate reforms, but that they do not fight in a determined way for reforms, that they capitulate to the bourgeois, compromise and end up by carrying out a policy of counter-reforms.

The point is that under present day conditions no meaningful and long-lasting reforms are possible under capitalism. Everywhere, the bourgeoisie is taking back the concessions that they gave in the past under the pressure of the working class and its organisations. The welfare state is being undermined and destroyed. The only way to defend the gains of the past is by an all-out struggle with the bourgeoisie that will inevitably pose the question of power. That is self-evident to any Marxist. But does that mean that the struggle of reforms is no longer necessary. Such a conclusion would be entirely false and would serve to isolate the Marxists from the working class, who understand the need to fight to defend wages and conditions against the depredations of Capital.

The Lambertists are indignant because La Riposte supported the demand for a 35-hour week and certain other reforms. They consider that these reforms had nothing positive about them, that they were in fact reactionary counter-reforms. If that was the case, they must explain why the right-wing parties had originally intended to abolish the law introducing the 35-hour week completely. And they must also explain why the labour movement in France fought against this, forcing the right wing to back down on this issue, limiting itself to various reactionary amendments.

The same is true of the CMU, which offers a minimal level of medical cover to sections of the population deprived of this prior to the measure. The CMU does not go far enough. Of course! The comrades characterised it as "botched and insufficient", but it is nonetheless a step forward and any attempt of the bourgeois to remove it must be vigorously resisted, just as it was correct to oppose the abolition of the emplois-jeunes, in spite of their deficiencies, by the Raffarin government.

Marxists will always defend even the smallest reform that tends to improve the conditions of the workers and the youth, while at the same time explaining that the only way to guarantee a lasting improvement in living standards is through the socialist transformation of society. Whoever is not prepared to defend the ground won by the working class in the past will never be able to lead them to the taking of power in the future. All this is ABC to a Marxist but it is a book sealed by seven seals for sectarian muddle heads.

La Riposte and the PCF

Ours critics then move on to the question of the attitude of La Riposte towards the participation of the French Communist Party (PCF) in a future left government, in which the Socialist Party (PS) would have a majority. They quote the reply of La Riposte to the question "Should the PCF agree to govern with the PS?"

"Not under any conditions. For us, it should be out of the question to participate in a left government, which, like the Jospin government, massively privatises and, on all fundamental questions, adapts its policy to the interests of the capitalists. The PCF should say that it is prepared to govern with the leadership of the PS on the condition that they commit themselves to decisive measures to defend the interests of the workers and break the control of the capitalists on the economy."

La Vérité states that this means that La Riposte is in favour of PCF participation in a future left government. But for anyone who can read, the above quotation makes it perfectly clear that the position taken by La Riposte is that this participation is conditional, that it depends on the content of the programme of the government. Once again, what we have here is not a criticism of the policies of La Riposte, but a deliberate and dishonest misrepresentation of these policies.

The argument then lodged against this position is that it:

"...does not say that, as with the Jospin government, the first condition for (this commitment) would be to break with Maastricht and the European Union, a will expressed by the majority of the people in voting ‘no' on May 29 2005!"

This brings us to the point which has become a veritable idée fixe among the Lambertists, namely the need for France to break with the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union, of which, so they claim, La Riposte is a fervent supporter, and even that Grant and Woods see the Maastricht Treaty as "a point of support for the class struggle in Europe!" On this, as on many other questions, it is not difficult to show that La Vérité, (The Truth) is in fact full of the most outrageous lies. What is true, however, is that La Riposte does not oppose the European Union for the same reasons as La Vérité, which counterposes to capitalist "Maastricht" and to the reactionary European Union, the defence of the equally capitalist and reactionary "French Republic", which it appears to consider as being progressive.

But before moving on to the European question, let us first of all clear up the question of PCF policy and its participation in a future left government. Our critics write:

"La Riposte salutes in passing Marie-George Buffet, the general secretary of the PCF, who: "is right - better late than never - when she says that the left lost because it "did not dare to face up to the defenders of capitalism", going from "concession to concession" and from "adaptation to adaptation" to capitalist interests."

Annoyance with this quote from La Riposte is then expressed in the following terms:

"But is not that which characterises the policy of Marie-George Buffet, precisely to seek an agreement to govern with those in the Socialist Party who openly support the application of European directives?"

But how does this remark invalidate the point made by La Riposte? Was Buffet right, or was she wrong, in saying that the reason for the failure of the previous left government was its failure to face up to capitalism, and the concessions made to the capitalists? Yes or no? Clearly the answer is yes. And when La Riposte says "better late than never", it simply means that this should have been stated and acted upon during the left government, and not only after the defeat of 2002. Where is the problem? Here again, our critics brandish their puny little sword but strike no blows.

Lenin always said that the truth is concrete. The French workers have passed through the experience of the right wing Raffarin government. They have fought it with mass strikes and demonstrations in the best traditions of the French labour movement. There have been uprisings of the dispossessed youth. The Establishment was rocked by the defeat in the referendum on the European Constitution. All this points to a decisive change of mood in French society. This was commented on even by Chirac, who said: "there is a profound malaise in French society."

The stage is being prepared for a big shift to the left in France. The masses will want to kick out the discredited Raffarin government. But what will they put in its place? The sects in France - including the Lambertist sect - had big ideas about their prospects, based on a protest vote at a time when the working class was disillusioned with the policies of the Socialists and Communists. The French sects imagined they would be in a position to challenge the traditional mass organisations. But now all these illusions have been reduced to dust. In the last presidential elections the PT candidate got... 0,5%.

The working class does not understand small organisations. As a rule they pass them by unnoticed. Only a series of exceptional circumstances allowed the "Trotskyist" candidates to attract a respectable vote a few years ago. Now the situation has changed and all these groups are in crisis. The masses will turn again to the SP and CP as night follows day. In the next period the question will be posed of a Left government in France.

What should our attitude be? The only correct position would be to call on the workers to eject the right wing and to vote for the workers' parties - that is, the CP and SP. But the main role of the French Marxists is to "patiently explain" that a Left government must carry out socialist policies: the nationalisation under workers' control and management of the banks and financial institutions and the big monopolies. Without this, the reformist leaders will once again be compelled to carry out policies in the interests of Capital, this time with deep cuts, preparing the way for an even more reactionary right-wing government in the future.

Maastricht - once again!

Having attempted - and failed - to discredit La Riposte, the Lambertists then return to their idée fixe, the EU and Maastricht. They attribute to the French comrades the idea that the greatest danger to workers comes "from those who criticise Maastricht, the euro and the European Union!" Here our critics' impudence reached unheard-of levels. What was the position taken by the French comrades in the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty? Did they support it? No. Did they call for an abstention? No. They called for a "no" vote. Therefore, either the Lambertists are unable to read French, or they are yet again deliberately telling lies.

La Riposte indeed criticized the arguments of various elements on the French left who oppose the European Union not from the point of view of working class internationalism, but from the narrow nationalist perspective of "national sovereignty" and the independence of the French capitalist republic. They criticized the standpoint of petty bourgeois nationalism and reformism. That is to say, they criticized the standpoint that is shared by the French Lambertists. And they were quite right to do so. Naturally, this Marxist criticism of a petty bourgeois nationalist standpoint fills the Lambertists with rage:

"Polemicising against those who "call upon the workers to oppose the European Union in order to avoid, as they say, selling "national sovereignty", La Riposte declares: "There too, we find ourselves on completely nationalist grounds, which contain not the slightest atom of progressive or socialist content."

From this opposition to the European Union from a clear internationalist and working class standpoint, our critics brazenly conclude that for La Riposte, opposition to privatisation and the social conquests of the past is reactionary! This is quite simply nonsense of the most stupid kind. La Riposte has consistently and vigorously opposed all privatisations, carried out under both left and right-wing governments, and for the representatives of the Parti des Travailleurs [as the Lambertists are known in France] to pretend otherwise is purely and simply the most barefaced lying, both to their own membership, and to whatever readers they might have outside of their own organisation.

For instance, in the same text published by La Riposte from which they quoted earlier (PCF: program, strategy and participation in government), we read:

"We must demand the inclusion in the party programme of the nationalisation, under democratic workers' control, of all the banks, without exception, of all the big industrial enterprises and all major distribution networks. Socialism does not mean the nationalisation of tiny companies, cafés and bakeries, but communists must tirelessly explain that the backbone of the national economy must be torn out of the hands of the capitalists and placed firmly in the public sector under the democratic control and management of the workers. In this manner, and only in this manner, could a future left government give itself the means to carry out a vast programme of social reform, including a reduction of the working week, increased wages, a guaranteed job for all, and the provision of the necessary financial resources for high quality publics services available to all."

And this position is blithely "translated" by La Vérité as meaning that "opposition to privatisation is reactionary"! Churchill once said that the best form of defence is attack. These distortions are like the cloud of ink that is squirted by a squid when fleeing from a predator. They realise that they are in a weak and indefensible position on the EU, and they try to cover their backside by engaging in a whole series of slanderous attacks on those who are upholding a consistent Marxist, internationalist and class position. But this transparent manoeuvre is doomed to fail. No amount of distortions and lies can conceal their complete abandonment of a class position on the EU question.

La Riposte opposes the capitalist European Union, but, unlike the Parti des Travailleurs, it does not do so on the basis of the so-called defence of the equally capitalist and reactionary French Republic. It does not pretend that this capitalist republic is based on "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" (how can there be equality between exploiters and exploited?), neither does it decorate its declarations with the colours of the national flag, images of "Marianne", and other bourgeois nationalist patriotic symbols. La Riposte advocates the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of a socialist republic in France and of a socialist federation of Europe. For the Lambertists this amounts to supporting the European Union! This is really cynicism of a higher type, previously unknown in the ranks of the Trotskyist movement.

La Riposte called for a "no" vote at the time of the referendum. However, is it true, as the Lambertists maintain, that the Maastricht Treaty is the fundamental cause of the counter-reforms presently being carried out in all the member states? No, it is not true! The same counter-reforms are being carried out everywhere in the capitalist world, and not only in those countries that signed the Treaty. These counter-reforms are the result of the crisis of the capitalist system. The social conquests of the past are incompatible with the continued existence of capitalism. This, and not the Maastricht Treaty, is the real reason for the constant attacks made against the rights and living conditions of the workers.

To put matters as simply as possible: if the Maastricht Treaty had not been ratified, the position of workers under capitalism would not be fundamentally different. Anyone who doubts this need only consider the defeat of the Constitutional Treaty in 2005. La Riposte opposed the Constitution, called for a "no" vote, but explained in advance that the defeat of this Treaty would solve nothing in and of itself. This has proved to be perfectly correct. Since the defeat of the constitution, repeated attacks have been made by governmen