W(JRIIERS ,,1N(JIJI1R' 25¢No. 284 :~: Jl~1J 3 July 1981

Zimberoff/Sygma

one place where U.S. imperialism canmonitor Soviet missile tests from launchthrough flight over Siberia to dispersionof warheads. Together the ChineseStalinists and their CIA "advisers"gather the most sensitive military

continued on page 8

Haigand Deng seal anti-Soviet military alliance in big step towardWWIII.

Soviets that two years ago-whenWashington lost its "listening stations"in Iran with the mullah victory over theU.S.-backed shah-the U.S. built asuper spy station embedded in theSinkiang mountains near the Sovietborder. The Chinese spy statIOn is the

,.

cans to deepen their military commit­ment in El Salvador and againstNicara~ua and Cuba. Surely··an-at- ...tempted military "roll-back" in Angolaand Namibia, to be fronted by SouthAfrica, is foreseen. But the one-family­run Saudi Arabia and the hated Zia ofPakistan are less than slender reeds.And as for Begin's Israel: whom thegods would destroy, they first makemad. Considt'rable arm-twisting ofWest European allies and increasinglyof an uneasy Japan are also in the cardsif an effective Chinese/American bloc isto be consummated-at a cost ofhundreds of billions of dollars from aneconomically weakened United States.And for what? It's a lot easier to huntdown and forcibly abort black welfaremothers ("Right to Life" not withstand­ing) than to try the same on the RedArmy.

Now Haig shouts in the face of the

IIII

• •nil- oVle

General Haig's announcement lastweek at the end of his China trip that theU.S. will arm Peking with "lethalweapons" IS ti1e most dangerous provo­cation against the USSR since this mostprovocative Reagan regime took officesix months ago. It is not merely anotherfinesse of "China card" diplomacy. Thedeepening U.S./China alliance has nowbecome an openly declared anti-Sovietmilitary axis-a deal for action againstthe Soviets and to "increase the politi­cal, economic, and, yes, military pres­sures on Vietnam" (New York Times, 18June). Like the Japanese invasion ofManchuria in 1931, now recognized asthe very first shots of World War II, theU.S./China arms deal may well be thedirect prelude to WWIII.

Joint American/Chinese militarysupport to anti-Russian Afghans andanti-Vietnamese Cambodians is envi­sioned. The Chinese bless the Ameri-

Defend Vietnam andthe Soviet Union!

Bani-Sadr On the Run­Ayatollahs .Blown Away

Iran in ChaosJUNE 28--Last night Teheran experi­enced probably the most spectacularterrorist action of recent times. A largesection of the political rulers of Iranwere wiped out by a powerful bombplaced in a meeting of the IslamicRepublican Party (lRP), the politicalvehicle of "imam" Khomeini. Amongthe 72 dead was top IRP leader, chiefjustice ayatollah Beheshti; Prime Minis­ter Rajai was injured. While the actionwas attributed to an anti-clerical Islamicgroup, both leftist guerrillas and U.S.imperialism have also been accused of

responsibility. And in fact, the rule ofthe dominant clerical faction has beenso oppressive that forces from just aboutany point on the political compass couldhave thought they had cause to plant thefateful explosive charge.

Little more than two years after thefall of the hated shah, Iran's "IslamicRepublic" stands on the verge of totalanarchy. Large-scale street fightingswept the country as Khomeini and theIslamic clerical fanatics drove "moder­ate" president Abolhassan Bani-Sadrout of office and into hiding. Supporters

of Bani-Sadr, notably the well-armedradical-Islamic Mujahedin guerrillas,battled pasdaran ("revolutionaryguards") and the hezbollahi (clerical­fascist gangs). Fighting in Teheran,Shiraz, Meshed, Qum, Zahidan, Ahwazand other cities left scores dead andhundreds injured. After the presidentwent underground June I I, the mullahslaunched a wave of executions ofleftistsand any prominent Bani-Sadr support­ers they could get their hands on.

Now these reactionary terrorists-in­turbans are on the receiving end, asmany of their key leaders were blown tosmithereens. But if the mullahs weather'this crisis and keep their hold on thestate apparatus, they will extract aterrible vengeance on their enemies. Theleft will face a bloodbath as neverbefore. More than ever, what is desper­ately needed in Iran is the working classmobilized to fight for its own classpower. Proletarian revolution or bloodyIslamic reaction: the choice is clearer inIran today than at any time since theouster of the Pahlavi dynasty. And thekey is a Trotskyist party, built on theprogram of permanent revolution,

fighting for proletarian leadership of theoppressed rather than support to sectorsof the ruling classes-whether snahs,ayatollahs or impotent "liberals."

"Islamic Revolution" Deepens

In the end, the only force willing tofight for the hapless Bani-Sadr, electedin January 1980 with 75 percent of thepopular vote, was the left. In Teheran onJune 20, 100,000 turned out for ademonstration called by the Mujahedinon behalf of the beleaguered president.Pasdaran opened fire to disperse thecrowds while gangs of kill-erazy hezbol­lahi attacked with knives, chains andclubs. After a three-hour battle that leftTeheran's Mossadeq Avenue lookinglike downtown Beirut, the severalthousand Mujahedin militants werereportedly outnumbered by the fascistthugs, who were rushed to the scene intrucks. Nineteen were reported killedand 200 injured. Fifteen of thosearrested were executed the next morn­ing. Ayatollah Khalkhali, the notorious"hanging judge" who had hurried backfrom a tour of the USSR, demanded

continued on page 9

SL: Don't Tread on Us!

Australian SWP Thugs AttackAnti-Imperialist Contingent

3 July 1981

Marxist Working-Class Biweeklyof the Spartacist League of the U.S.

EDITOR Jan Norden

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Charles Burroughs

PRODUCTION Darlene Kamlura (Manager),Noa~, Wilner

No. 284

CIRCULATION MANAGER Karen Wyatt

EDITORIAL BOARD George Foster. LIZGordon, Mark Kellermann, James Robertson,Joseph Seymour, Marlone Stamberg

Workers Vanguard (USPS 098-770) publishedbiweekly, skipping an Issue In August and aweek In December, by the Spartaclst PubliShingCo, 41 Warren Street. New York, NY 10007Telephone 732-7862 (Edltonal) 732-7861(BUSiness) Address all correspondence to, Box1377, GPO, New York, NY 10116 Domesticsubscnptlons $300/24 Issues Second-classpostage paid at New York, NY

Opinions expressed In Signed articles or lettersdo not necessan!y express the edltonalviewpoint

WORKERSVANGUARD

lame. Our slogan, "Defence of Cuba andthe USSR Begins in El Salvador," theywrite, is a "'left' cover for imperialistpropaganda." Some cover! What kindof imperialist calls for this? The SWP'srefusal to raise demands in defence ofthedeformed and degenerated workersstates, the ultimate and declared targetsof U.S. imperialism's worldwide anti­Soviet drive c\lrrently focused' onE\Salvador, is an attempt to cosy up tolabor reformists and bourgeois politi­cians for whom this is anathema. Amain speaker at previous CISCACrallies was Don Chipp, whom anAustralasian Spartacist article dubbed"EI Salvador dove, Vietnam hawk,Imperialist turkey." SWP/CISCAChero Chipp was formerly minister forthe navy during Australia's involvementin the Vietnam War.

The SWP complains a lot about thefront-page photograph in the Washing­ton Post of the Anti-Imperialist Contin­gent at the May 3 Pentagon protest,claiming that the prominent coveragewas due to the fact that the Post "is oneof the chief organs of U.S. imperialist'liberalism'." So now imperialist liberalsnot only like the slogan "Defend theSoviet Union," but yearn to put picturesof leftist militants demanding "MilitaryVictory to Salvadoran Leftists" on theirfront pages! What the SWP/CISCAC

continued on page JJ

Australasian Spartacist

Sydney, June 13: Reformists cannot silence supporters of military victoryfor Salvadoran left.

SWP/CISCAC as they launched theirthug attack.

The SWP is evidently feeling somepressure. For years they have attemptedto ignore the SL as "irrelevant ultraleft­ists," but in the last two weeks they have~pewed out: a 'full-page printed leafletagainst the Spartacist League; a full­page article attacking the SL in the 17June issue of Direct Action; and asecond, four-page printed leaflet tryingto spread the lie that "Sectarians Try toDisrupt Sydney EI Salvador March."Cynically they excuse their bloodyattack by saying the Contingent refusedto take "the place assigned to them" inthe march. This refers to their brazenattempt to force the Anti-ImperialistContingent to march at the end of theline. But even this bogus argument'is acomplete fraud as their attempts toprovoke a clash started well before themarch began.

Politically their attempt to justifyanti-communist exclusionism is just as

WV Photo

Hands Off EI Salvador, Thatcher Outof Northern Ireland!" and "Foran IrishWorkers Republic!" For good measureSL signs added, "Abolish the LicensingHours and the House of Lords!""Abolish the Monarchy!" and "Recallthe Fate of Charles I."

The demonstrators chanted, 'ThePrince of Death Must Go!" and"There's Blood on Your Hands!" TheSpartacist League also marched in theprotest, carrying signs with sloganssuch as "Smash H-Block!" "BritishTroops Out of Ireland!" "Reagan

Members of the International Socialists(IS), who in days previous had claimedto support military victory of theSalvadoran leftists, stood with the

consulate rally as a "provocation" andthrew up two lines of goons organisedinto chains of heavies with linked armsto block off the Anti-Imperialist Con­tingent. Four megaphones were lined upto chant in unison into our ranks inorder to drown out Spartacist chants.Their goons started pushing even as thecrowd was building, trying to provoke afight then and there. As the march beganand the Contingent moved out into thestreet, SWP/CISCAC thugs tried toblock us off. Pushing them in front, weadvanced toward the line of march untilcops arrived.

Meanwhile, fist-swinging, kickinggoons attacked Anti-Imperialist Con­tingent marchers from the side, rippingbadges off demonstrators and trying totear down our lead banner. Althoughthe SWP/CISCAC managed to rip thebanner calling for "Military Victory tothe Leftist Insurgents" (showing graphi­cally where they stand), and despitecontinued SWP/CISCAC harassmentall along the march route, the Contin­gent marched, militantly chanting, tothe consulate to hold our protest outsidethe main symbol of U.S. imperialism inSydney.

The SWP assault was a premeditatedattack. Clearly they were willing todisrupt their own demonstration inorder to prevent communist demands

'and slogans from being seen or heard.As our leaflet distributed the foilowingday said:

"The CISCACjSWP rally was in factbuilt in opposition to the call formilitary victory to the left-wing insur­gents. Their demands for 'U.S. out' and'Self determination for the people of EISalvador' camouflage their support fora negotiated deal with the junta andtheir scandalous refusal to openly take aside in the civil war raging in ElSalvador."

With cries of"Stuff It, Charlie!" and"Brits Out of Ireland!" 5,000 protesters"greeted" Charles Mountbatten,Prince of Wales, when the heir to theBritish crown arrived at New YorkCity's Lincoln Center June 17 to seethe Royal Ballet. The jeering demon­strators marched to the sound ofskirling bagpipes, waved banners andbanged dustbin lids to protest theBritish murder of Irish Republicanhunger strikers in the H-Block cells ofNorthern Ireland's Long Kesh concen­tration camp.

The tuxedoed upper crust dining atthe $ I,OOO-a-ticket feed inside peeredat the largely Irish-American demon­strators through plate glass windows.No doubt they felt more secureknowing that New York's MayorKoch had spent $300,000 to station1,300 horse and foot cops to protectthe bonnie prince from the'wrath of thecrowd. The British press waxed indig­nant about the disrespect the "mob" inNew York showed to' the chinlessinbred scion of England's parasiticroyal family, but Charlie got no morethan he deserved.

H-Block Protesters Revile Prince

SYDNEY-EI Salvador protests aredividing into two camps in Australia aswell, as the small-time reformists showtheir "concern" ... to draw the blood lineagainst revolution. Recently, the Social­ist Workers Party (SWP), little brothersof the American SWP, and the SWP­run Committee in Solidarity withCentral America and the Caribbean(CISCAC), in a desperate attempt toseal off the communists, launched one ofthe worst thug attacks here in years.

In the June 13 demonstration atSydney Town Hall Square,' SWP/CISCAC goons (with a little help fromthe Eurocommunists of the CommunistParty of Australia) attacked the 70-manAnti-Imperialist Contingent as it wasmoving into the line of march. Butdespite the reformists' fists and kicksand their attempt to mobilise the copsagainst the left, they were not able tosilence the Anti-Imperialist Contingent,sponsored by the Spartacist League.And a week later in Melbourne, threeContingent speakers managed to ad­dress the crowd of some 300 EI Salvadorprotesters at City Square, despiterenewed attempts by SWP/CISCAC tothwart them.

In the weeks leading up to the June 13and June 20 Sydney and Melbournemarches, there had been a constantpolitical struggle in planning meetingsand public forums. SWP/CISCAC hadconsistently voted down or suppressedSpartacist motions calling for "MilitaryVictory to the Leftist Insurgents in ElSalvador" and repeatedly refused toallow an Anti-Imperialist Contingentspeaker on the rally platform. Butdespite their best efforts to keep outrevolutionary politics, they were afraidthat many in the June 13 demo would beattracted to the Contingent call for arally for leftist military victory, to be heldin front of the U.S. consulate.

As the marchers were forming up atTown Hall Square, SWP/CISCACwent around denouncing the U.S.

2 WORKERS VANGUARD

Militant Caucus Gains in Rouge Elections

It'll Take Class-Struggle Leadership to MakeUAWa Fighting Union!

For the trade unions to go forward,resolute struggle against capitalist rule isrequired. Such a struggle means theforging of a vanguard revolutionarysocialist (Trotskyist) party to finallyabolish capitalism and establish work­ers'rule.

With a respectable voting base, theRMC now has its work cut out for it.They face the task of winning the mostadvanced and class-conscious workersto the program of proletarian power.There are many auto workers, particu­larly among the black proletariat, whorealize they have no future under racistU.S. capitalism. The RMC must drivehome the crucial difference between aclass-struggle program and the dead­end of the bankrupt labor reformists,and recruit from among these subjec­tively revolutionary workers those whowill unflinchingly defend the class line,from Detroit to El Salvador to theSoviet Union. It is only such militantswho will prove capable of leading autoworkers to victory in the class battlesthat lie ahead.•

unionism without a revolutionary per­spective. Forty years ago, Leon Trotskywrote that in this epoch:

"Impossible are the independent orsemi-independent reformist trade un­ions. Wholly possible are revolutionarytrade unions which not only are notstockholders of imperialist policy butwhich set as their task the directoverthrow of the rule of capitalism. Inthe epoch of imperialist decay the tradeunions can be really independent onlyto the extent that they are conscious ofbeing, in action, the organs ofproletari­an revolution."

-"Trade Unions in the Epoch ofImperialist Decay"

What cynical demagoguery! The "out­siders" are all with Coleman YoUIlg! Hisassault on city workers was planned bythe notorious New York union-bustingfinancier Felix Rohatyn and FordMotor Co. executive Fred Secrest. Theauto barons, businessmen and finan­ciers have contributed tens of thousandsof dollars to the "Vote Yes-DetroitCommittee" because they would like toswell their corporate profits and tum

continued on page 11

3

unions in Poland like UAW presidentDoug Fraser"! Like Fraser, who likeVictor Reuther and his CIA friendsunder the cover of "free and democratictrade unions" are trying to organizecounterrevolution in Poland! TheCMDUAW / RWL, meanwhile,marched with the pro-Democratic PartyPAM in Washington May 3.

The CMDUAW's guru Sollenbergeris a pretty funny bird for a union groupto be hooked up with; his RWLpublishes 3,000-word articles defendingscabbing. Bloc partner Rothe is a morerun-of-the-mill labor reformist: he justcalls crossing picket lines a "tactical"question. But what sets these ballot-boxhustlers spinning is when class-strugglemilitants organize the ranks for militantaction to fight layoffs and racist attacks.Rothe opposed the November 10 anti­Klan demonstration while the RWL/CMDUAW denounced it as a "fraud."And when the Rouge Militant Caucustried to organize sit-downs to stoplayoffs at Ford, the CMDUAW echoedthe bureaucracy by denouncing it as a"gimmick" and "just a wildcat out of theblue" ("Local 600 Fighter," 5 March)!Rothe and CMDUAW won't takeaction without Fraser's sanction-andthat means no action at all.

Reformism can't deliver becausecapitalism can't deliver. IndustrialDetroit has become the best symbol ofthe decay of U.S. capitalism: DodgeMain leveled, major plants working atone-third capacity or shut down, thenumber of workers at Ford Rouge downfrom 35,000 to 20,000 since 1973. Andthe "U-Ain't-Working" UAW is the bestexample of the bankruptcy of trade

UAW's DougFraser supports

ColemanYoung's wage­

slashing taxhike.

o(5.cc..>~._--

Young's racist union-busting plan tomake the workers pay for the bosses'financial mess. Vote no, but remember:Whether or not Young gets the OK fromthe voters, the pay cuts, layoffs andslashes in city services are coming. Theonly thing that will stop them is a strikeby city workers.

Coleman Young says he is out to"save" Detroit. He says a "yes" vote onJune 23 is a vote for "freedom," to saveDetroit from "outsiders" and "bigots."

Coleman Young's Anti-Union Tax HikeI·'t

of Peter Sollenberger. The UFS was atypical lowest-common-denominatorelectoral lash-up of various fake "mili­tants" which quickly fell apart. Theircandidate for president quit before theelection complaining of being "used,"and came out for the incumbentRinaldi! And their first vice-presidentialcandidate gooned for Rinaldi againstthe Rouge Militant Caucus (RMC) at ademonstration at Ford headquarters!

The RMC, a class-struggle caucus,ran Frank Hicks for president andCharles Dubois for first vice presi­dent-receiving 1,681 and 1,090 votesrespectively. It was the RMC which ledthe fight to drive out from I1he Rougetwo Klan-hooded foremen who paradedthrough the Dearborn Assembly Plant;they also took the lead in mobilizingRouge workers for the 500-stronglabor/black demonstration in KennedySquare, heavily built by the SpartacistLeague, that kept the Klan fromcelebrating the Greensboro massacre inDetroit on 10 November 1979.

The Rouge Militant Caucus doesn'tbelieve that class struggle stops at theplant gates, and fights for internationalworking-class solidarity. It broughtpeople from the Rouge to WashingtonMay 3 to march with the Anti­Imperialist Contingent for a left-wingvictory in EI Salvador against thebloody American-backed junta. And itcalled for military defense of the SovietUnion against U.S. imperialism. Thiscontrasted sharply with the UFS, whichlines up explicitly with the SolidarityHouse bureaucrats. The "600 Organiz­er" of J im Rothe wrote in October 1980,"We support free and democratic trade

The auto bosses, bankers and Demo­cratic Party politicians who run Detroitare out to bust the city workers unionswith the same concession blackmail theypulled at Chrysler. The June 23 vote onthe tax hike is just a referendum on

In a special election held on Tuesday,June 23 Detroit residents voted3 to 2 toraise the city's income tax as part of athree-pronged plan by Mayor ColemanYoung and the Michigan state legisla­ture to bail the city out of imminentbankruptcy by making the largely blackpopulation pay for it. Phase Two andThree involve wresting wage conces­sions from the 30 municipal unions anddraining union pension funds into long­term city bonds to the tune of $125mil/ion.

This special election, backed by ahigh-powered prupaganda campaign,was in large part a referendum onYoung himself and represents the voteofconfidence he is now using to go afterthe black city workers. Young isdemanding that AFSCMEagree to atwo-year pay freeze in return for a one­year ban on layoffs, which means givingup two 6 percent wage raises scheduledfor each of the next two years whichwere won through a bitter strikejust lastsummer.

We reprint below a leaflet distributedto the city workers by the DetroitSpartacist League before the Tuesdayelections:

DETROIT-Last month local electionswere held in the United Auto Workers(UAW), but nowadays the smug unionbureaucracy is offering nothing buttakeaways to the ranks. While unionpresident Doug Fraser sits on the boardof directors of Chrysler, some 20 to 25percent of Detroit's .auto workers arelaid off-and most of these unemployedknow they might never find a way backinto the factories. Plant after plant hasbeen closed while first Chrysler and nowFord blackmail the remaining workerswith the threat of more job losses."Friend of labor" Democratic mayorColeman Young has even importedFelix Rohatyn of New York City's "BigMAC" to do a similar job of wage­gouging on Detroit's city workers.Meanwhile race terrorists like the Klanand the Nazis have been given a greenlight to move against blacks, while thecops escalate their own racist attacks onminorities. And the Reagan governmentis moving to cut back unemploymentand welfare benefits and even socialsecurity.

In today's America, the labor refor­mists not only cannot deliver on thecrumbs they used to offer, now they giveback past union gains in order toenforce the bosses' austerity program!And the economic crisis has meant thatthose parties and forces in the labormovement who promise social changethrough reform of capitalism havewithered. Trade-union reformism hasnothing to offer. Thus in the UnitedMine Workers, "reform" bureaucratsArnold Miller and now Sam Churchhave lost all credibility as they repeated­ly tried to sell devastating takeawaycontracts. Only the ranks' obstinate 110­day strike in 1977-78 and a 72-day strikethis year, against their own leadership,managed to stave off defeats whichcould destroy the union. In the UnitedSteelworkers dissident "Fightback"leaders Ed Sadlowski and Jim Balanoffdid not lift a finger against plant closingsand failed to challenge the ENA no­strike agreement despite earlier toughtalk. They became so unpopular thatSadlowski lost the national election in1977 and Balanoff couldn't even get re­elected as District 31 director thisspring.

In the UAW River Rouge electionsalso, rank-and-file members cannot findany real difference between the incum­bent Solidarity House gang and assort­ed out-bureaucrat challengers. Many ofthe reformists of years past are now outof the picture: the old United NationalCaucus and allied Independent SkilledTrades Council around Pete Kelley havevirtually disappeared. This time around,ISTC leader Al Gardner, head of theLocal 600 Tool and Die Unit, endorsedRouge president Mike Rinaldi forreelection. General Baker, former leaderof the League of Revolutionary BlackWorkers, ran this time on the slate offormer Local 600 president WalterDorosh. But despite Rinaldi's miserablerecord, the Dorosh slate with itsReutherite rhetoric was thoroughlytrounced (12,000 to 5,000) in thepresidential race at the largest UAWlocal.

But a United Front Slate (UFS) wasfielded to revive the bankrupt reformisttradition at Local 600. It was backed byJim Rothe's "600 Organizer" and the so-

. called Committee for a Militant andDemocratic UAW (CMDUAW), sup­ported by the Ann Arbor cult/sectRevolutionary Workers League (RWL)

3 JULY 1981

French CP Ca~itulates to the Atlanticist Mitterrand

We Trotskyists Defend the USSR!And of course from the beginning it wasimpossible to vote for Mitterrand for hisprogram of anti-Sovietism and alliancewith the bourgeoisie, including theGaullists. Even after Vitry some Com­munist militants, in particular aroundthe group I.e Communiste, wanted tovote Marchais only for class independ­ence and against Mitterrand. It is easy tounderstand the desire to vote againstMitterrand and for the defense of theSoviet Union against imperialism: theproblem is that you cannot vote for thechauvinist campaign launched afterVitry and at the same time for working­class independence. Vitry is opposed toeverything Communists stand for.

But this capitulation, this disgustingbetrayal, is neither new nor qualitative.Communist militants who are attractedto the I.e Communiste group and whothink that the leadership of the PCF isno longer simply opportunist but hasbecome reformist, who even think­Trotskyist heresy!-that it is time to callfor a new party, must ask themselvessome questions. The popular fronts in the'30s-'40s coincided with periods when theFrench bourgeoisie needed an alliancewith the Soviet bureaucracy. So thePCF did not have to choose betweenloyalty to its "own" bourgeoisie via thepopular front and the Soviet Union.Was PCF ministers' support to themassacres of Setifand Madagascar after"Liberation" any better than Vitry? WasPCF ministers' support for sendingFrench troops to Vietnam better thanthe PCF's current support for NATOand the force de frappe? Marchaiscan corne out in favor of a "good"popular front to the recent CentralCommittee meeting. The fact is that inevery popular front the losers are theworking class.

No, comrades, th~ decisive betrayalby the PCF goes back much further. Itgoes back to the factors behind thePCF's support to the first popular frontin 1936. The decisive betrayal of theStalinist parties goes back to 1933,when the German CP, with the agree­ment of the Communist Internationalunder Stalin, took the line of "afterHitler us," thus allowing Hitler to takepower without a shot being fired by themost powerful CP in Europe. TheLaval-Stalin pact (accepting French"national defense") consolidated thisbetrayal for the CP, eliminating the lastobstacles to its support to its "own"bourgeoisie under the popular front.Ever since then the line of the PCF hasbeen fundamentally the same. Thequestion is not Marchais' presentdisgusting antics, his willingness tosupport imperialist-backed counterrev­olution in Afghanistan and the intro­duction of U.S. nuclear missiles inEurope for a seat next to Dreyfus [ex­chairman of Renault]; the question isStalinism.

Our opposition to Stalinism hasnothing to do with whimpering Euro­communists like Elleinstein or Fiszbin.In fact, after vigorously denouncingthem for social-democratic class col­laboration, the PCF leadership has ...adopted their program! They refuse tosupport the Red Army against thebarbarous Afghan reactionaries, whowant to imprison women in veils, shootschool teachers and flay Russianprisoners-and all this in the name of"human rights" no doubt! They aban­don Moscow and Leningrad to imperi­alist dreams of nuclear first strikes andgive backhanded support to John PaulII and Walesa. No wonder Fiszbindemands an immediate Party confer­ence: for all his polemics against theEurocommunists at the latest Central

Vitry: Turn the BulldozersAgainst the Bourgeoisie!

The racist attack against immigrantworkers in Vitry demonstrated that thePCF leadership had no interest inconducting a campaign of even partialand deformed class independence fromthe bourgeoisie. Vitry was not merely adisgusting display of racism (as theliberals and [Eurocommunist] Ellein­steins would have us believe) buteffectively sabotaged workers' strugglesby setting French and immigrant work­ers at each others' throats. This was thecentral point for us as proletarianrevolutionaries: the PCF chauvinistcampaign concretized by the Vitryatrocity dealt- a real blow to commonaction by French and immigrant work­ers in plants such as Renault andelsewhere.

This campaign showed that Marchaiswas willing to go to any lengths to provehis loyalty to the bourgeoisie. Vitry wasin fact a prelude to the Communistministers' entry into Mitterrand'sNA TO popular front. Increasingly, all­sided chauvinism (hostility to immi­grant workers, "produce French" prop­aganda, campaign of opposition to"Kraut steel," etc.) became theonly clear political statement of the PCFcampaign, making it impossible for anyself-respecting militant, much less arevolutionary, to vote for Marchais.

electoral support for Marchais if thePCF continued its original positionswas to be able to demonstrate to PCFmilitants that these questions-classindependence, the popular front, de­fense of the Soviet Union against im­perialism and capitalist-restorationistforces-led logically to a consistentrevolutionary program, the program ofTrotskyism.

democrats and bourgeois forces, doesn'tthis mean that we should reject thepopular front in principle?" Doesn't thepopular front demoralize and disarmthe workers (in order to guard itsbourgeois bloc partners) in exchange forillusory promises of social reform?Don't popular fronts in power end upopening the gates to reaction (Franco,Petain, Pinochet)? The PCF leadershipstudiously avoided these questions, ofcourse, because they raise the spectre ofTrotskyism.

It is only the Trotskyists who haveforthrightly and consistently denouncedthe disastrous consequences of thepopular front for the working class! Ouraim in calling for a savagely critical

campaign, decided to rip up their partycard, as did many after May '68, itwould be a step in the right direction.

How Did It Happen?

But it is not enough to hate thesocial-democratic. and Eurocommunisttraitors and want to defend the USSRagainst imperialism. You have to knowhow, and to do that, understand whathas happened.

Last October the PCF was singing adifferent tune. You refused support tothe NATO supporter Mitterrand. Youdenounced the PS for seeking a blocwith the Gaullists and even verballyrecognized that every time the PCF hadsupported a popular front the bourgeoi­sie had won and the workers movementhad lost. It was for this reason that theLigue Trotskyste de France projectedcritical electoral support to the Stalinistbureaucrat Marchais if the PCF contin­ued on that course. We looked for achance to vote for a working-class partythat was not in a bloc with bourgeoisforces and, in the midst of the bourgeoi­sie's hysterical anti-Soviet drive, sup­ported the Soviet intervention in Af­ghanistan and opposed the Pershings.At the same time we never had anyillusions where the notoriously chauvin­ist PCF leadership would line up in adecisive conflict between their ownimperialist bourgeoisie and the Sovietdegenerated workers state. Marchais'long-standing support to the force defrappe (nuclear weapons)-a policy go­ing back to the historic vote for the mili­tary budget of the Laval governmentin 1935-defines the Stalinist PCF as theleft tail of french imperialist militarism.

The PCF's initial left rhetoric raisedinteresting questions for PCF militants."If our party made serious errors in '36,'44 and '72 by allying with the social

i:;l'~Der Spiegel

Marchais (left) and Mitterrand at the Elysee Palace: French imperialism'stwin labor lieutenants.

the CP "merely" had to guarantee thesuppression of workers' demands instruggle-"you have to know how toend a strike" and "strikes are the arm ofthe trusts"-this is different. In ex­change for second-rate ministerialportfolios, the PCF has explicitly linedup with the pro-NATO cold warriorsagainst the Soviet Union precisely inthis period of renewed anti-Sovietism,when Reagan wants to teach Cuba andthe USSR "a bloody lesson" by massa­cring Salvadoran workers and peasants,when U.S. imperialism prepares to armthe ferociously anti-Soviet Pekingbureaucracy! If CP militants, fed upwith Marchais' lies and the CP'sgroveling before Reagan's Cold War

-includes Spartacist

Make checks payable/mail to:Spartacist Publishing Co.Box 1377 GPONew York, NY 10116

24 issues-$3Introductory offer (6 issues) $1International rates: 24 Issues-$12 airmail!

$3 seamail6 introductory issues-$3 airmail

Name _

AddressCityState Zip _

Marxist Working-Class Biweeklyof the Spartacist League

WfJltNEItS""t;I/,/t1J

EXCERPTED FROM LE BOLCHEVIKSUPPLEMENT, JULY 1981

284

On the night of June 23 dramatic last­minute negotiations between the PS[Sodalist Party] and the PCF[Commu­nist Party of France] arrived at a"governmental agreement" permittingthe PCF to occupy four seats in theMitterrand government. The "govern­mental agreement" and the entry ofCommunist ministers is a "historicevent" all right: the PCF has droppedeven the pretense of defending theUSSR against Western imperialism'sCold War offensive. The agreementrepresented a major capitulation byMarchais & Co. to the PS' anti-Sovietpositions:• Now the PCF echoes Mitterrand'spro-NATO call for nuclear "equilibri­um," equating the Pershings of NATOimperialism with the Soviet SS20s,necessary for the defense of thedegenerated/deformed workers statesof the Warsaw Pact.• A straight-out call for withdrawal ofSoviet troops from Afghanistan wherethey confront CIA-backed forces ofIslamic reaction.• Jumping on the NATO bandwagonover Poland.• Topping it off, what amounts to a no­strike pledge in the factories in the nameof "governmental solidarity."

The day after the PCF ministersembraced the Mitterrand government,the Ligue Trotskyste de France [LTF]held a picket line in Paris-the onlyone in France-protesting an anti­Communist, anti-Soviet meeting onAfghanistan and the PCF's grovelingrepudiation of any semblance of Sovietdefensism. The meeting, called by theSP, the CFDT [PS-led union federa­tion], the OCI [Internationalist Com­munist Organization]-dominated stu­dent union and others, called for Soviettroops to withdraw from Afghanistanand for support to the Afghan reaction­aries. The spirited picket line raised theslogans of "Victory to the Red Army inAfghanistan!" "We Trotskyists Defendthe Soviet Union!" "Communist Minis­ters in NATO Popular Front: Betrayal!"and "Members of the PCF: RejectAbandonment of Soviet Union!" Thepicket attracted considerable attention,including from CGT [PCF-led unionfederation] bureaucrats leaving work atthe Bourse du Travail.

Eight months ago the PCF leadershipwas pointing out that every time thePCF had supported a popular front-in1936, '44 and 'n-the bourgeoisie won:"three times is enough!" No, it is threetimes too many, and now they are at itagain! But unlike 1936 and 1944 when

4 WORKERS VANGUARD

Sygma

__"-..Ii...

While Carter Stews.Sovtet Army IIolIs IIac:k Afghan Mullahs

Hail Red Army,ii,;l~§~~~g==~'E~'::"'"

"Is there anything left of the primitiveleftist energies which once characterizedthe young USec cadres who builtbarricades in the Paris streets in May '68and carried Vietcong flags in the radical'mobilizations' over Vietnam? Or have'the children of '68' grown up throughyears of tailing popular frontism intoordinary anti-Soviet social democrats?"

-'''Third Camp' Fever in theUSee," WV No. 253, 4 Apri\1980

The recent pro-imperialist line shift onAfghanistan is a large step in the USeccadres' becoming ordinary anti-Sovietsocial democrats, followers and would­be successors of Mitterrand and Benn.

It is now clearer than ever that onlythe international Spartacist tendencyupholds the Trotskyist program ofunconditional military defense of thedegenerated and deformed workersstates, through socialist revolution inthe capitalist countries and politicalrevolution against the Stalinist bureauc­racies. Now more than ever, "Hail RedArmy in Afghanistan!".

triggered an explosion of Soviet defeat­ism in the European USec sections, weasked:

Afghanistan posed Russianquestion pointblank.

chiefs and mullahs fighting the Sovietarmy and its left-nationalist allies wouldbe judged reactionary by the standardsof Genghis Khan! Hoping to gull theinnocent, the USec invents a "thirdcamp" in Afghanistan: "These progres­sive forces are forced to struggle againstboth the occupation power and theright-wing rebels and imperialism, theresolution states." But all talk about"progressive" anti-Soviet forces fightingin. Afghanistan cannot hide the USec'ssupport to imperialist-backed feudalistcounterrevolution.

The reformist American SocialistWorkers Party, which surprisinglyinitially supported the Soviet interven­tion, anticipated by a few months theMandelites' rightward line shift. Only afew USec sections, notably the sluggishSwedish KAF and the remote Austra­lian SWP, still oppose the criminal callfor withdrawal. But given the rapidsocial-democratization of the USec as awhole, even their minimal posture ofSoviet defensism over Afghanistan isbut a faint echo of the not-so-distantpast.

And when the Red Army intervention

"In the conflict between the reactionarycoalition and imperialism on the oneside and the Soviet troops and the [Ieft­nationalist] PDPA government on theother, the demand for Afghan nationalsovereignty in the name of the right ofpeoples to self-determination would benothing but a democratic guise for theaims of reaction and imperialism. Thewithdrawal of the Soviet troops wouldin no way assure any freedom for theAfghan nationalities to decide their owncourse. It would only open the way forthe installation of a reactionary regimeoppressing the workers and peasants, aregime beholden to Washington, whichwould consolidate Washington's posi­tion in the region."

-Intercontinental Press,3 March 1980

What, then, has changed since thesewords were written? Certainly not thewar in Afghanistan. The issues therehave remained substantially the samesince the massive Soviet intervention inlate December 1979. What has changedis the USec. The rightward motion ofthe European-based Mandelite currentis so rapid that it now calls for what littleover a year ago it characterized as "ademocratic guise for the aims ofreaction and imperialism"! Throwingoverboard the remnants of New Left­ism, the European USec sections aretalking about liquidating into the pro­NATO social-democratic parties ofFrancois Mitterrand, Tony Benn andHelmut Schmidt.Its pro-imperialist lineshift on Afghanistan gives the lie to anyclaim that such an entry would bedesigned to win working-class militantsto Trotskyism, a decisive element ofwhich is the defense of the Soviet Unionagainst imperialism.

In fact, according to the KAFaccount, the USec's new line on Afghan­istan is even more counterrevolutionarythan the stated position of Mitterrandor Tony Benn. Mandel & Co. are notjust calling for withdrawal but for actualsupport to some of the anti-Sovietguerrillas: "Instead, the progressiveforces which grow out of the nationalstruggle against the occupation must besupported," says the paraphrase byInternationalen. "Progressive forces"?!The landlords, moneylenders, tribal

The title read: "For an End to theSoviet Occupation of Afghanistan! Forthe National Rights of the AfghaniPeoples!" A communique by NATO's'foreign ministers, perhaps? Or anotherU.S. State Department brief for someUnited Nations debate? No. This is anew appeal coming out of a Maymeeting of the International ExecutiveCommittee of the pseudo-TrotskyistUnited Secretariat (USec) as recountedin Internationalen (18 June), organ of itsSwedish section, the KommunistiskaArbetarforbundet (KAF).

Fake·Trotsk~istsHo~ on NATO Bandwag~

USee Calls for Soviet TroopsOut of Afghanistan

Everyone in the world knows that thewithdrawal of Soviet troops fromAfghanistan would be a big step towardthe triumph of bloody counterrevolu­tion in its most barbaric form-theenslavement of women to the veil, pre­capitalist exploitation of the peasantry,physical extermination of the coun­try's small modernizing intelligentsia.Everyone knows this would mean afanatically anti-Soviet government onthe southern border of the USSR.Western imperialism has thereforemade the demand for Soviet withdrawalfrom Afghanistan a major focus of its ­current Cold War offensive. That is whythe French Communist Party (PCF)had to reverse its previous support forthe Soviet presence in Afghanistan toobtain a few minor ministries in aNATO-allied government. And that isalso why Ernest Mandel's USee, too,has recently changed its line.

Unlike Marchais' PCF, the USec hasnot actually reversed its position, since itnever supported the Soviet interventionagainst the Islamic reactionaries tobegin with. Moreover, alarge minorityof the organization, whose most promi­nent spokesman was Tariq Ali, joinedthe imperialist "Soviet troops out"chorus from the outset. The Mandelitecenter hedged the question. Whilestrongly condemning the Soviet inter­vention, it stopped short of the outrightcounterrevolutionary demand for with­drawal. A USec majority resolution inlate January 1980 stated correctly:

Committee meeting, it is their line that- Marchais is carrying out!

The PCF leadership has for a longtime been pulled between its loyalty tothe Kremlin and its desire to ally withthe "progressive" bourgeoisie in apopular front in the name of "socialismin French colors." The Eurocommunistshave resolved this dilemma by simplyseeking an alliance with the bourgeoisieand its social-democratic lackeys. To­day they point the way for the PCFleadership. Where will Marchais, Fiter­man & Co. stop?

For a Revolutionary Oppositionto the Popular Front!

The Mitterrand government not onlypromises more nuclear missiles, it alsopromises capitalist austerity. And theCommunist ministers will have morethan their share of the dirty work to do.To the extent that their positions are notlaughably minor, they 'are dangerous.Fiterman will break railway and subwayworkers strikes and keep the NATOlJlunitions rolling, too. Ralite willadminister cuts in social services andhealth care.

Meanwhile, the "governmental agree­ment" binds PCF militants in the plants

hand and foot. The CGT vies with theCFDT to assure Mitterrand, Delors &Co. that the "social peace" will berespected. [CGT head] Seguy's positionon the 35-hour week is not differentfrom [CFDT leader] Maire's: the 35­hour week by ... 1985. Where is themilitant action that Seguy and Marchaispromised us? It doesn't exist! The CGTtops are so dead-set against strike actionthat they have even refused to advanceany precise demands!

We say no to the "social peace"-tearup the governmental agreement in theplants! We can expect nothing from the"new majority" except what we wrest byour own power. Fighting for even themost elementary needs of the workingclass means a break with parliamentar­ism and the popular front. TodayMarchais goes further than Thorez everdared: his line is "you have to know howto prevent strikes!" And should theworkers fight against policies imple­mented by.cP ministers, we can only beproud that "strikes are the arm of theTrotskyists!"

"Far" Left?But not for the "far" left. The OCI

openly called for a vote for Mitterrandin the first round. And as for the LCR

[Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire],it has come out against strikes againstthe government on the grounds thatthey will only "aid the right." As if aprostrate working class weren't thebiggest gift we could give the reaction­aries! [LCR organ] Rouge headlines,"The PC and the PS are the majority,the bosses must give in!" Politely?

Krivine & Co. are now thinking ofjoining the social-democratic parties,and not just in France. Perhaps he wantsto follow in the footsteps of his pal RegisDebray, ex-guerrillaist turned "social­ist" courtier, and become a "Trotskyistminister." It is clear that the LCR andthe rest of the "far" left have nothing incommon with Trotsky or Trotskyism.Legislate the 35-hour week into exis­tence? Confronted by the popular frontin the '30s, Trotsky raised an extra­parliamentary perspective: committeesof action, a general strike, workersmilitias, expropriation of the bourgeoi­sie. A workers government is not a PC­PS government, it is what the Bolshe­viks set up in October 19 I7!

The parliamentary framework is adead end. Even without the presence ofJobert, Dreyfus, etc., a PC-PS coalitionwould promise only capitalist repres-

sion and austerity with a rose-coloredveneer: "democratic" cops, "democrat­ic" expulsion of immigrants, "democrat­ic" layoffs and a "democratic" force defrappe. It is not on the basis of aparliamentary bloc between these twoeager servants of crisis-ridden capital­ism that a workers government pre­pared to expropriate the capitalists andbreak their resistance, not politelyasking them to go away, will come intobeing. For this the working class mustcreate organs of proletarian power(soviets) as the basis for its rule, underthe leadership of a Leninist vanguardparty.

The PCF gave up any claim to thisrole long before it formally dropped thedictatorship of the proletariat from itsprogram. Militants of the PCF: Defendthe gains of October! The PCF is noplace to be a communist! If you breakwith Mitterrand's "Communist" errandboys, if you want to defend the SovietUnion, if you want to build a trulyrevolutionary Leninist party, you will beconfronted with the question of Trot­sky, the .true continuator of Lenin;Trotsky who built the Red Army todefeat the bourgeoisie in the imperialistintervention. We Trotskyists are theparty of the Russian Revolution!.

3 JULY 1981 5

USee's Turn toSocial Democracy

Following Socialist candidate Fran­90is Mitterrand's victory in the MayFrench presidential elections, the ab­sence of an explosive upsurge of classstruggle was deafening. Commentatorsremarked that it was a long way fromthe mass radicalization of May '68, andfarther still from the victory of the firstpopular front in May '36 which eruptedin a grandiose general strike. Then acentrist leader proclaimed "everything ispossible" and Trotsky announced, "theFrench Revolution has begun." Buttoday virtually the entire French left,from social-democratic and CommunistParty reformists to the ostensiblyTrotskyist trio (LO/LCR/OCI) agreethat everything is not possible and dotheir best to hold back the masses, inorder not to "aid the right."

The contradiction between this pusil­lanimous response and Trotsky's revo­lutionary communist program wasdramatic. Where the Trotskyists in the1930s men:ilessly denounced the class­collaborationist roadblock of the popu­lar front, which treacherously ties theworkers to sectors of the bourgeoisie,today the Ligue Communiste Revolu­tionnaire (LCR-French section of theUnited Secretariat [USee]) called Mit­terrand's election achieved with Gaullistsupport a "First Victory" (Rouge, 15-21May). The USee's Spanish LCR waseven more rapturous, announcing"Mit­terrand Won: Oh, la, la, c'est magni­fique!" (Combate, 14-21 May). FrenchLCR leader Alain Krivine even with­drew an earlier call for a general strike,in order not to embarrass their new"comrade president." .

This flagrant capitulation to thesocial-democratic wave was neither newnor a particularly French disease withthe USee. Rather it expresses theincreasing social-democratization of thepseudo-Trotskyist followers of ErnestMandel in recent years. In Germany, aninitial bare majority in the USee'sGruppe Internationale Marxisten(GIM) against voting for HelmutSchmidt's SPD in the 1980 elections wasoverturned by placing the section inreceivership to Mandel, whose lieuten­ants pushed through a pro-SPDposition. The increasing strength of the

Labour "lefts" around MP Tony Bennin Britain has already led variouscentrist Trotskyoids there to submergethemselves in the Labour Party, and theUSee's International Marxist Group(IMG) is looking to liquidate into thismilieu as well.

Entrism Sui Degeneris

This general reorientation has pro­duced what could be called the USee's"British turn" to social democracy. Anarticle by the 1M G national secretary inIntercontinental Press stated: "It isbecoming necessary for substantialnumbers of revolutionary socialists tojoin the Labour Party ...." Internally,an 1M G bulletin reported that "inWestern Europe as a whole" the USecwas investigating "the possibilities offighting for Trotskyist ideas among theranks of workers in these ['mass Com­munist and Socialist'] parties." Theentrist perspective is indeed beingpursued throughout West Europe. InSweden the USec representative at theKAF congress in May called for entryinto the social democracy, even thoughthe latter had just expelled the "Offen­siv" group (linked to Ted Grant's loyal­left Militant tendency in the BritishLabour Party) as being too "leftist." InItaly, an internal bulletin of the USee'sLCR argued that "future factionalwork" in the Communist Party is "theorganizational channel through whichthe most interesting processes forbuilding the party can appear."

Thus the European Mandelites,plagued in recent months with disarrayand disorientation, are poised for aliquidationist plunge into the massreformist parties of the sort whichmarked the political destruction of theFourth International nearly 30 yearsago. The policy of "entrism sui generis"authored by Michel Pablo posed aperiod of long-term entry into thesocial-democratic and Stalinist partiesin hopes of pressuring the bureaucraciesto the left. No longer were independentTrotskyist parties necessary to leadproletarian revolutions, the Pabloistsreasoned; "blunted instruments" weresufficient. This subsequently blossomed

Fake-Trotskyists tailMitterrand (left).

into political support to the Castroregime in Cuba (labeled "unconsciousMarxists") and a series of petty­bourgeois "vanguards." Now the Pablo­ist/Mandelites have come full circle.

The USec has been a federation ofrightward-moving centrist and deeplyreformjst sections for some time. It hasnothing to do with a democratic­centralist Trotskyist international. End­lessly chasing after the "main chance,"rather than intervening with the Bolshe­vik program, the militants from thebarricades of 1968 have grown tamewith time and the accumulation of USecbetrayals. But as the Krivines and TariqAlis now seek the company of the Bennsand Mitterrands, a number ofrevolutionary-minded militants haverejected the centrist swamp in order tofight for Trotskyism. This is so threaten­ing to the USee tops that they haveresorted to the crudest political expul­sion in Britain to purge 16 members of

Francolon/Gamma

the Communist Faction (CF) (see articlepage 7).

In addition, several comrades haverecently resigned from the French LCRand German GIM in solidarity with theinternational Spartacist tendency. To­gether with the CF, which now hasfraternal relations with the iSt,this represents the greatest singleaccretion of USec cadre to thebanner of authentic Trotskyism yet seenin Europe. We excerpt below theresignation by comrades Bernhard andClaudius from the German GIM; anaccompanying article describes thestruggle of comrade Demo, an autoworker militant in the CGT laborfederation, against the anti-Leninistcourse of the LCR. These militants havechosen sides to fight for internationalproletarian revolution. Their experiencepoints the way to others who refuse tofollow the Mandelites' long march fromChe to Mitterrand.•

Trotskyists Break From United secretariat

--

LeR Auto MilitantJoins LTF

The Ligue Communiste Revolution­naire (LCR), French section of theUnited Secretariat is quite comfortablewith Mitterrand's popular front inFrance, proclaiming itself the "third"component [after the PCF and PS] ofthe new majority while pretending thatthe "fourth," bourgeois, componentisn't part of this alliance. But it'sJobert [Gaullist Minister of ForeignCommerce] and Faure [Left RadicalMinister of Justice] who have theministries and it's the MRG [LeftRadicals] and the "left" Gaullists whowill get the seats in parliament whilethe LCR only constitutes the fifthwheel on the cart. For LCR memberswho don't want to collapse into thesocial democracy, who refuse to be in

6 '

the same majority as Jobert and [LeftRadical] Crepeau, who want to fight atthe side of the other workers againstthe bourgeoisie and Mitterrand's pop­ular front there is an alternative-therevolutionary program upheld by theLigue Trotskyste de France.

Recently a worker at the Renault­Cle~n car plant for ten years, and amember of the CGT who has been amember of the LCR for two years,resigned from the LCR in solidaritywith this program. Comrade Demosbegan his opposition to the class­collaborationist politics of the LCRlast October. In a document printed inthe internal bulletin of the Rouenbranch he criticized the LCR's politicalsupport to "Union dans les Luttes," acollection of Eurocommunists, dissi­dent Communist Party members andsocial democrats who campaigned foran electoral accord between the PCF

continued on page 10

Resignation FromGIM

"The greatest honor for a genuinerevolutionist today is to remain a'sectarian' in the eyes of philistines,whimperers and superficial thinkers."

-Leon Trotsky, Writings [1929]

After more than a year of program­matic opposition to the headlongrightward course of the GIM andUnited Secretariat we are convincedthat there is only one perspective forcomrades who want to struggle for theinternational proletarian revolution: toget oUi of this bankrupt organization;for a serious discussion with the Trot­skyist League of Germany.

Ronald Reagan's Cold War offensive,prepared by Carter, poses the questionof the defense of the social gains of theOctober Revolution against imperial-

ism (despite the Stalinist bureaucracy,which must be overthrown by theproletarian political revolution) as thedividing line for Trotskyists, just as itwas in Trotsky's last political struggle­against the petty-bourgeois oppositionof Shachtman. But the GIM presentsitself as the appendage of petty­bourgeois pacifism instead of strugglingagainst imperialist war and the threatagainst the workers states. ("The mainenemy is at home.") After an interludeof over ten years in various "new massvanguard" movements, after jumpingon and off one bandwagon after another(guerrillaism, feminism, anti-nuclearpower, etc.) the GIM threw the switchesagain most recently after Strauss ran forelection-back to its home station, thesocial democracy. Trotskyist politicscontinue to go by the wayside or end upunder the wheels. The slogan is "united­front orientation" vis-a-vis the SPD,and the GIM itself is degenerating

continued on page 11

WORKERS VANGUARD

British IMG:"Sparts" Under the Beds!

ney and seven other IMGers wassuppressed. While the leadership urgedtrade-union and Labour Party branchesto back the campaign "against themissiles," the Harney document,"Warning! Disarmament Slogans OnlyDisarm the Working Class," argued that"it is emphatically not our job to buildCND";

"In - view of our leadership's wildenthusing over our 'successes' in thisfield, it will no doubt come as somewhatof a shock to many comrades todiscover how unambiguously opposedto 'disarmament programmes' wereLenin and Trotsky. We will, of course,be accused of being 'sectarian'-so werethey; of being 'abstentionist'-so werethey; of putting forward 'abstract' and'lifeless' proposals-so were they. Theydid, however, lead a 'mass movement'that succeeded in disarming the bour­geoisie; the Bolshevik revolution."[original emphasis]

The document pointed to the real targetof the European Cruise missiles: theSoviet Union.

At this point the CommunistTendency was formed, with supportersin eight IMG branches. The IMGleadership was becoming increasinglyuneasy. By this time they had discovereda new "main chance": the rift in theLabour Party. They threw themselvesinto becoming the best boosters for"left" reformist Tony Benn. From thispoint forward, the left oppositionists'days in the IMG were numbered. TheCommunist Tendency members pro­posed motions in their IMG branchesdemanding repudiation of a SocialistChallenge article which offered explicitsupport to Benn's reformist program "asfar as it goes." The motion, whichpassed unanimously in one branch, readin part:

"Socialist Challenge has given itspolitical support to Benn's call for a'non-nuclear defence strategy' for Brit­ish imperialism. Support for ANYpolicy for capitalist defence spending isa violation of the historic principles ofthe Communist movement expressed inLiebknecht's slogan 'Not a penny, not aman, to the imperialist government'."

The IMG Executive Committeeadmitted in a letter to the HemelHempstead branch on 22 April 1981that the Socialist Challenge statement"doesn't at all express our position onhow revolutionaries can take advantageof the Benn campaign. The sentence

continued on page 10

Spartacistcontingentdenouncespro-NATOLabouritelefts inLondonmarchagainstCruisemissiles,June 1980.

u;u~~Cl.(fl

c:§

&i

IMG: Into the Bennitecamp, out with therevolutionaries.

Let the left !Hi luiiirdl

BACKBENN'SCAMPAIGN=::-;; .=--~-::.:.:"":::-::,;:--. '"--- -.::-..==::-....::-- ...~-='=.,..--=.:I:..:.:r::

;~=":.~c::

than any other resolution presented tothe conference.

With the outbreak of the Iran/Iraqwar, the IMG's line led to defense ofKhomeini's "holy war". against the"infidel" Iraqis. This was challenged byIMG cadre Tony Vanzler in his docu­ment, "Iran: 'Best Defenders' or Revolu­tionary Defeatists?":

"For Leninists the wars of the exploitersare an opportunity for the oppressed torise up and throw off their shackles­not to reinforce them. If there is any'gain' of the past two years of turmoil inIran it is only this-the Khomeiniregime has not yet consolidated itselffully and the Iranian capitalist state isless stable than under the Shah. Thisshould be our point of departure-andthat calls for a sharp struggle, with nomincing of words-against the politicsof those who seek not to overthrow thatstate, but to strengthen it."

By fall 1980 it was clear that theCliffites were not interested in theIMG's overtures, even with Sovietdefensism buried. So the leadershipturned its attention to a new target: the"Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament"(CND). Although (or because) disorien­tation was rife in the IMG over this newturn, the document submitted by Har-

cornerstone of the Faction program.But it was the IMG's prostration beforethe mullah-led "Iranian Revolution"which first provoked comradeHarney-whose ten years in the IMGincludes stints on the Central Commit­tee, Political Committee and ControlCommission-to initiate the fight in late1979. As Harney put it recently:

"Perhaps I didn't know a lot about Iranat that time, but one thing I knew wasthat there was no way a movement ledby feudalistic Persian-chauvinist reli­gious fanatics like Khomeini was goingto 'open up' the road to proletarianrevolution!"

The IMG had abandoned its over­tures toward various small-changestate-capitalist groupings and was mak­ing its bid for the big time: Tony Cliffsstate-cap Socialist Workers Party(SWP). Tariq Ali, main advocate of aswan dive into the Cliffites, authoredSocialist Challenge's front-page head­line, "Soviet Troops Out of Afghani­stan!" Even after the IMG pulled backfrom blocking with the imperialists incalling for withdrawal, Ali insisted, "Iam unrepentant on Afghanistall" (So­cialist Challenge, 6 March 1980).

At the February 1980 IMG nationalconference, comrade Harney presentedhis document, "So You Thought De­fense of the Soviet Union Was Not aCentral Issue?" In it he argued:

"When the Soviet bureaucracy orderedthe Red Army into Afghanistan, theyunwittingly triggered a programmatictime-bomb that has been ticking awayin the IMG. As part of our 'regroup­ment project,' the IMG leadership hasbeen playing down the issue of thedefence of the USSR, treating it as anentirely secondary, expendable part ofour programme.... When the leaders ofboth major tendencies argued thatdefence of the USSR is not a burningissue today, they revealed how far theyhave already moved towards the S W P'sposition. Defence of the USSR againstimperialism and internal counterrevo­lution is always a central question forTrotskyists." [original emphasis]

At the conference, Harney's positionsupporting the Red Army presence inAfghanistan received 20 percent of thedelegate votes, while a resolution movedby him demanding recognition thatdefense of the Soviet Union is aprincipled question for rev­olutionaries-thus repudiating. thepolitical basis of the SWP fusionproject-was passed by a larger margin

The leadership of the InternationalMarxist Group (lMG), British sectionof the "United Secretariat of the FourthInternational" (USec), is continuing topurge the organization of insidiouscreeping Spartacism. Following themass political expulsion of 16 membersof the Communist Faction (CF) (seeWV No. 282, 5 June 1981), the IMG iscontinuing to browbeat its membership,backing up its threats with furtherexpulsions. The leadership's howlsagainst "infiltrators" and "secret plots"must seem pretty empty to memberswho know the CF cadres as long-timeIMGers whose oppositional programdeveloped during more than a year ofpolitical struggle. While the reasons forthe hysteria are clear-to make the 1MG"safe" for Labour Party entry and toinnoculate the ranks against leftcriticism-the methods are hardly likelyto instill confidence among a member­ship which has never been permittedeven to see some of the key factiondocuments.

Against the rightward motion of thecentrist IMG, the Communist Factionled the only political resistance. Theheightened Cold War mood has hadpowerful corrosive effects on the IMG'score cadre, which entered politicalactivity as the "children of May '68."The pressures have generated a sharprightward drift, demoralization andsignificant defections from the IMG.Latest rumor has it that long-time IMG"star" Tariq Ali was "lapsed" recentlyfor non-payment of dues, though hecontinues to present himself as a"Fourth International" spokesman. TheIMG has staggered from crisis to crisiswith one failing get-rich-quick schemeafter another. Years of incessant fac­tional warfare (at the peak the IMGcounted six organized tendencies) neverescaped a framework of centrist impres­sionism and served only to dull thepolitical senses. But with the Commu­nist Faction it was different. Theirlightning-swift bureaucratic expulsion,on explicitly political grounds, contrastswith the sluggishness the leadershipdisplayed in dealing politically withtheir challenge. The questions posed willnot be disappeared by any bureaucraticpurge-they are the questions of theday.

The Russian question emerged as the

3 JULY 1981 7

Spartacist League Forum and Film Showing

Marcyite ExclusionAttempt Fails

Lessons of 1932· Insurrection in EI SalvadorSL Speaker: Mike West

FILM:"May 3 Anti-Imperialist Contingent in Washington"

Friday, July 10, 7:30 p.m. Saturday, July 11, 7:30 p.m.UC Extension 145 Dwinelle55 Laguna St., Room 202 UC BerkeleySAN FRANCISCO BERKELEYFor more information: (415) 863-6963 For more information: (415) 835-1535

U.S./ChinaWar Axis ...(continued from page 1)

intelligence to use against the Russians:missile range, accuracy, payload, com­munications guidance.

The shift to an announced militaryalliance opens the way for Peking tomodernize its arsenal with u.s. guid­ance systems for strategic weapons,anti-tank missiles, fighter planes, adelivery system for its primitive nuclearweapons and every kind of combathardware. Just how much of this warmachinery the Chinese military canabsorb and pay for in the immediatefuture is not now known. But nextmonth, their generals will be taking theshort march to the Pentagon with a

.considerable shopping list.Even Cyrus Vance, Carter's hapless

Secretary of State, called the deal"needlessly provocative and smack[ing]of bear-baiting" (New York Times, June24). But the baited Russian bearresponded with deliberately measuredlanguage in a Pravda article underofficial signature, calling the armsagreement "highly dangerous," and "anescalation of reckless policy" (New YorkTimes, June 28). The Russians havewarned many times of the consequencesof the U.S. arming China with strategicweapons. And this week again Russiawarned simply and without bluster that

SAN FRANCISCO-The would-betoughs of Sam Marcy's WorkersWorld Party/Youth Against Warand Fascism (WWP / YAWF)thought they could violently suppressSpartacist League revolutionarycriticism of their popular-frontistcreature, the People's Antiwar Mobi­lization (PAM) at its "first openmeeting" here on June 18. Theyfound out differently.

The YAWF goons, stationed out­side the meeting hall to "patrol"Spartacist salesmen, and otherYAWFers hovering in the rear of theroom never got a chance to grab thethree-foot wooden clubs they hadstashed within easy reach. After a 20­minute presentation motivatingPAM's "All-People's Congress"scheduled for next September, thefirst person called on in the discus­sion was a Spartacist. He attackedYAWF/ PAM's class-eollaboration­ist scheme to channel growing dis­content with Reagan reaction behindthe liberal Democrats. In less than aminute, the chair was hystericallytrying to cut the SL spokesman off,YAWFers in the room began jeeringand heckling in an attempt to drownhim out, and a four-man YAWFgoon squad moved in to physicallysilence him.

But Spartacist supporters, includ­ing several burly trade unionists,immediately rose and cut off theYAWF thugs. One SL supporteradvised the lead Marcyite, "Don'tdo that. Why don't you look around,think about it and go sit down." Only

"nobody should doubt that the Sovietpeople, who have good nerves andpowerful means of curbing aggression,will not yield to provocations and will beable to stand up for themselves, todefend the interests of their friends andallies."

The Russian perception of the U.S./China axis is well known. Few thingsthis side of an actual U.S. militaryadventure against the Soviet Union,Cuba or the Eastern bloc could be asprovocative as the arming of China. Theview from the Kremlin is that China iseven more likely than the U.S. tosqueeze the nuclear trigger in a bout offanatical anti-Soviet frenzy and miscal­culated geo-political strategy. And theSoviets may well be right. It is more thantheir traditional fear of encirclement byhostile powers that accounts for theirobsession with China. Mao and his heirshave seemed quite crazed in their view ofnuclear war. The most recent Pravdaarticle, for instance, notes that "Pekinghas its own interests to pursue, namelyto set the United States and the SovietUnion against each other so as to be ableto dominate the world after a nuclearconflict." And this view of China is notnew. Khrushchev recalled a conversa­tion with Mao Tse-tung as they sun­bathed at poolside in Peking in 1954:

"Mao replied by trying to assure me thatthe Atomic bomb was a paper tiger!'Listen Comrade Khrushchev,' he said.'All you have to do is provoke theAmericans into military action and I'llgive you as many military divisions as

a momentary glance around con­viHced the YAWF bully boy of thewisdom of this course, and he and hiscohorts did as they were told.

A number of Spartacists weresubsequently called on by the chair,and focused the rest of the discussion.Unable to physically silence us,YAWF grew increasingly hysterical,interrupting and cat-calling. At onepoint, the meeting's chairman eventried (unsuccessfully) to silence aSpartacist speaker by rushing intothe audience and placing her nandover his mouth! Unable to withstandour political exposure and making adisruptive mess of their own forum,the meeting's organizers abruptly cutoff discussion and rushed to adjournthe meeting.

Compared with YAWF, which hasnever had much of a presence on theWest Coast, the Spartacist Leaguerepresents a sizable and respectedforce in the Bay Area left. We have awell-deserved reputation for respect­ing and insisting on workers democ­racy in public meetings of the left, ourown as well as all others. AfterYAWF/PAM's cordoning off of theSpartacist-initiated Anti-ImperialistContingent in Washington May 3,and their failed attempt to preventthe SL from protesting Marcy'scounterrevolutionary support toimperialist liberals at a WWP meet­ing in NYC June 6, we warned thosewho would exclude and attack thecommunists: " ... if you try to silenceour revolutionary message with fists,boots and broken bottles, then youare again at risk."

you need to crush them-a hundred,two hundred, one thousand divisions.' Itried to explain to him that one or twomissiles could turn all the divisions inChina to dust. But he wouldn't evenlisten. And obviously regarded me as acoward."

-Khrushchev Remembers, 1970

The U.S./China war axis is certainly asinister and strangely complementaryaffair. Reagan and Haig dream of beingthe victorious survivors of a nuclear waragainst Russia due to high-tech "StarWars" weapons superiority, while theirRussian-hating allies in Peking nurturesurvival fantasies based on technologi­cal underdevelopment-sheer numbers.

It was Carter and Brzezinski' wholaunched the present thrust toward warwith the Soviets, and Reagan hasescalated it dangerously. There are somethings the Russians cannot abide, andReagan knows it. When Harold Brown,Carter's defense secretary, went toChina to point the way toward overtmilitary collaboration, we wrote:

"It is simply too dangerous for theRussians if the U.S. doomsday machin­ery is placed in the hands of the Chinese.For the Russians playing the China cardis no diplomatic game; it is a matter oflife and death."

-"Russians Fed Up," WV No.249, 8 February 1980

For the Russians, taking out theChinese strategic weapons is not at allunthinkable. Last January, LeonidBrezhnev pounded a desk in Paris andlaid out the Chinese tripwire for WorldWar III. He was quoted by the presidentof the French national assembly assaYing:

"Believe me. after the destruction ofChinese nuclear sites by our missiles.there won't be much time for theAmericans to choose between thedefense of their Chinese allies andpeaceful co-existence with us."

-New York Times, 30 January1980

Vietnam, Poland ... the World

When China gets the guns, Chinaintends to use them. As Haig and thePeking leaders exchanged smiles, toastsand condemnations of the "main en­emy," Soviet "expansionism," they alsoagreed on the regional "danger." Rus­sia's ally Vietnam is the more immediatetarget in the global war against "Soviethegemonism." The U.S. imperialistslong to punish Vietnam not onlybecause of the Vietnamese militaryvictory-historic evidence of U.S.decline-but also because an attack onVietnam fits into Reagan's overall anti­Soviet containment strategy. Reagan/Haig are looking to demonstrateAmerican military power. The targetsare Afghanistan, Vietnam, El Salvador,and perhaps Angola/Namibia.

So when Haig went from Peking to ameeting of ASEAN in Manila it wasVietnam in his gunsights. A StateDepartment official said the U.S. "willseek, if we can, to find ways to increasethe political, economic, and yes, mili­tary pressure on Vietnam" (New YorkTimes, 18 June). Given the recent rise ofattacks against the Vietnamese on theirborders, the U.S.fChina war axis maybe planning another attempt at a"bloody lesson."

The 1979 invasion of Vietnam byChina should have been a watershed forMaoists who had been born intopolitical life as supporters of the VietCong against U.S. imperialism. Butthose pseudo-leftists who didn't backChina outright wailed over the spectacleof two "socialist countries" at war witheach other. At the time the SpartacistLeague emphasized that China wasacting de facto with U.S. complicity,demanding "China Don't Be Cat's Pawfor U.S. Imperialism," and calling onthe Soviet Union to honor its treaty withVietnam. Now the overt U.S./Chinaalliance has confirmed that analysis.Thus a future attempt to "teach Vietnama bloody lesson" will more likely be acombined imperialist and Chineseattack on a deformed workers state, partof a wider U.S. military thrust againstthe Soviet Union.

If Vietnam is the immediate target, itis Poland which casts the darkestshadow over the China arms deal. Theprecise military results for China cannotbe known until the weapons are actuallyin Peking's hands. Thus more than onecommentator has treated the announce­ment as a mystery while some speculatethat it might be a mistake which couldget Haig into trouble with the WhiteHouse. But the announcement wasintended as a political provocationprecisely calculated and of globalproportion.

Consider the timing and effect of theannouncement. Since April when ,Cas­par Weinberger spoke about the "link­age" between China arms sales and apossible Russian invasion of Poland,U.S. liberals have talked about holdingup arms to China as a "deterrent" and"bargaining chip" with the Soviets. Thatis why Vance is screaming about theChina arms deal as playing all the U.S.'China high cards in "no trump." Hemeans that now the U.S. has nothingmore to offer the Soviets in the way of adeal.

But he mistakes the Reagan purposecompletely, which is not to deter theRussians, but to provoke them. Theannouncement is thus finely tuned andcalculated to urge the Russians towardan invasion of Poland. Reagan andHaig want nothing more than to seeRussian tanks roll into Warsaw andGdansk. They want to see the Russiansdragged into a massive bloodbath inPoland while their troops are tied downat the Chinese border. So go ahead, saysReagan. There is no SALT. No bargainsover Chinese guns. Nothing.

Reagan's goading of Russia overChina is part of a strategy of globalconfrontation. He is now talking openlyof the "end" of Communism, whilepushing for nuclear end-game. Lastweek, against the background of theChina arms deal, multimillion-dollarweapons packages for Pakistan ("non­proliferation" be damned), the RapidDeployment Force, the build-up ofstrategic and conventional forces inEurope and a projected trillion-dollarwar budget, Reagan made the generalcase. "Communism," he said, is an"aberration ... not a normal way ofliving for human beings." We are seeing"the beginning of the end" (WashingtonPost, 19 June). .

While the talks were going on inChina, Reagan spoke of Poland as the"first beginning cracks" in Sovietdomination of Eastern Europe. Thecomment was supposed to be "off thecuff," but it was quite calculated. Asbourgeois Russia-expert Hedrick Smithwrote in the New York Times (18 June):"That kind of remark from an Americanofficial is likely to harden the Kremlin'sresolve to curb the movement forliberalization in Poland and possiblypush ahead with military interventiondespite the upheaval that is likely toensue." When liberals like Cyrus Vancewail that Reagan has misplayed hisforeign policy hand, that he has tooearly and too provocatively "played theChina card," they assume that he isengaged in a game of diplomaticpressure tactics. In fact it is a big steptoward war.

Defend the Soviet Union!

Where does the U.S. anti-Communistwar strategy leave its "Chicom" ally?"You can't say that China will beMarxist forever," an American officialrecently told nervous Southeast Asianministers at Manila. Indeed, any "secu-

, rity" China imagines it can purchase

"'\SUBSCRIBE

YOUNG SPARTACUSmonthly paper of the

Spartacus Youth League$2/9 issues

Make payable/mail to: Spartacus YouthPublishing Co. Box 825. Canal Street PO.New York. New York 10013

8 WORKERS VANGUARD

ChicagoTues: 5:30-9:00 pm, Sat 2:00-5:30 pm523 S Plymouth Court, 3rd FloorChicago, Illinois Phone (312) 427-0003

Spartacist League/Spartacus Youth League

Public Offices-MARXIST LlTERATURE-

Bay AreaFri .. 5:0D-8:00 p.m, Sat 3:00-600 pm1634 Telegraph, 3rd Floor (near 17th Street)Oakland, California Phone: (415) tl35-1535

Trotskyist Leagueof Canada

TorontoSat LOD-500 pm299 Queen St. W. Suite 502Toronto,Ontano Phone: (416) 593-4138

New York CityTues. 6:00-9:00 p.m., Sal 12:00-4:00 pm41 Warren SI (one block belowChambers St. near Church SI)New York, NY Phone: (212) 267"1025

to the Tudeh as Khomeini's loyal leftservants, while the Minority found itselfin a de facto alliance with the Mujahedinas reluctant opponents of the dominantIRP. The Minority reportedly partici­pated in the pro-Bani-Sadr protests,fighting the fascist hezbollahi.

Nonetheless, the Fedayeen Minorityare caught in a fundamental contradic­tion. They believe in some kind of"anti­imperialist, democratic" revolution thatis not socialist. Their "two-stage revolu­tion" dogma dictates that they mustsupport some bourgeois-democraticforce. But where are the bourgeoisdemocrats in the "Iranian revolution"?Compared to a Beheshti or Khalkhali,Bani-Sadr might look like something ofa bourgeois democrat. But even this"moderate" clericalist politician was noforce at all in resisting the feudalistreactionaries. Iran today offers but thelatest proof that the "progressive anti­imperialist" bourgeoisie, which accord­ing to Stalinist doctrine must carry out a"democratic" revolution before theproletariat can establish its own classrule, is a fiction and a suicidal illusion.

What is needed in Iran is a Trotskyistparty which hammers home that prole­tarian revolution is the real alternativeto capitalist bonapartist rule upholdingthe social backwardness and imperialistsubjugation, whether this takes the formof shah monarchy, Shi'ite theocracy or amilitary dictatorship. Such a commu­nist vanguard would organize workersmilitias to defend the left, champion theright of the oppressed nationalities toself-determination, agitate in the armedforces against the reactionary national­ist war with Iraq, calling instead for aclass war against the bourgeoisie onboth sides of the Shatt-al-Arab, andfight for the liberation of women fromthe veil and other forms of feudal-bour­geois oppression. Trotskyists struggle towin subjective revolutionaries from allthe tendencies of the Iranian left to theprogram of permanent revolution. Notshah or ayatollah or general, but aworkers and peasants government!.

The Myth of a "ProgressiveBourgeoisie"

If the ayatollahs had the power toeasily sweep away Bani-Sadr, it is inlarge measure because of the criminallyopportunist policies of the Iranian left.When Khomeini's reactionary Shi'iteclerics were leading a mass movementagainst the bloody dictatorship of theshah, the entire Iranian left supportedthe "Islamic revolution" and the newregime. At that time only the interna­tional Spartacist tendency warned thatthe mullahs' rule would be just asreactionary as the shah's and insistentlycounterposed a proletarian revolution­ary alternative. We wrote: "This is not avictory for the working masses. Today,Iran belongs to middle-class Islamicreaction in a bloody alliance with asection of the same officer corps whichhas dealt out decades of death andoppression on behalf of the Pahlavis"("Mullahs Win," WV No. 225, 16February 1979).

The pro-Moscow Tudeh party, whichbowed before the "imam" as its allies inKurdistan were targets of terror bomb­ing and its own Arab comrades in theKhuzistan oilfields had their strikesbroken by pasdaran, is still trying tohide behind Khomeini. The cynicalStalinists had no illusions about Bani­Sadr's power; they knew he was a loser.But their own fantasy of an everlasting"detente" with the Islamic fanatics is adangerous pipe dream. The recentbanning of the Tudeh press, Mardom,was just a small warning of things tocome. And if the Tudeh leaders thinkthat ayatollah Khalkhali's recent"friendship mission" to Moscow willmean friendship with them, they shouldrecall Chiang Kai-shek, who in the mid­1920s at least professed to be a radicalbourgeois democrat.

The fall of Bani-Sadr has all butforced the rival Fedayeen guerrillaorganizations onto opposite sides of thebarricades. Last year this radical popu­list organization split, with the Minoritymore critical of the regime. Since thenthe Fedayeen Majority has moved close

APIslamic "Revolutionary" headquarters in rubble. A Forghan conclusion?

shopkeepers who in the past have beenstaunch supporters of the clerics-shutdown the same day.

Obviously alarmed by this show ofopposition to the .ayatollahs' rule,Khomeini denounced Bani-Sadr's callfor anti-regime protest and threatenedto deal with him "as I have dealt with theshah." The next day the imam sackedBani-Sadr as commander-in-chief ofthemilitary, his last remaining position ofpower. Not one military commanderrallied to his chief's defense. Thepresidential palace was besieged byhezbollahi chanting "Death to Bani­Sadr!" And that was the last day thepresident of Iran was seen in public. Histaped messages from underground stillprofess his loyalty to Khomeini and hiswillingness to return to face trialprovided he be granted three hours ofradio time!

dancy, they are blown to bits by theterrorist bombs of. .. Shi'ite Islamicfundamentalists, perhaps. On June 27,Khomeini's chief military aide, Hojatol­islam Sayed Ali Khameini, had histirade in a Teheran mosque cut shortwhen a booby-trapped cassette recorderexploded in his face. This was just foropeners. The following night as ayatol­lah Beheshti addressed a weekly meetingof the Islamic Revolutionary Party, abomb in a nearby trash bin turned thebuilding into rubble. In addition to thechief justice, at least 20 members of theMajlis (parliament), four cabinet minis­ters and six deputy cabinet ministersmet their maker.

The government attributes thesebombings to a shadowy organization ofShi'ite fundamentalists. The officialnews agency, Pars, reported a notefound in the wreckage: "This is the firstgift of Forghan." Forghan is reputed tobe a group of ultra-dogmatic Islamicclerics who oppose mullahs participat­ing in political life, sort of an Iranianversion of Jehovah's Witnesses withbombs. There have also been rumors oflinks to former Savakis (members of theshah's murderous secret police). Despitethe turmoil in the Khomeiniite rulingcircles, this dramatic terrorist act cannotdecisively alter the balance of politicalforces to the benefit of the exploitedmasses. The fate of the mullahs' regimewill be decided not by well-placedbombs, but by class struggle in thefactories, fields and streets.

The rout of the "Western moderate"Bani-Sadr and his coterie dramaticallyexposes the left's illusions in the "Islam­ic revolution." Although elected by anoverwhelming majority of the vote, hewas never more than a semi-secularfigurehead. Real political power hasalways been the monopoly of themullahs who placed themselves at thehead of the mass movement whichtoppled the hated Pahlavi monarchy.Their "Islamic revolution" which theleft in Iran and internationally haileduncritically was based on a priestly castewhich organized through the mosque,propagandized and rallied from theminarets and terrorized its opponentswith the pasdaran and hezbollahi.

With their control of the Majlis,backed up by the submachine guns ofthe pasdaran, the Islamic fundamental­ists were able to chop away at Bani­Sadr's official powers. When he tried toappoint his prime minister according tothe "Islamic Constitution," his clericalrivals simply changed the rules of thegame and used their parliamentarymajority to install their own man.

One of the reasons Bani-Sadr sur­vived in office as long as he did wasbecause of the protection of the imamKhomeini, whose backing was crucial inhis electoral victory in the first place. Hewould whine to his mentor Khomeiniand occasionally snipe at his fundamen­talist foes, but only inveighed against"dictatorship" when his own neck wasnext on the chopping block. Rememberit was Bani-Sadr who promoted the"Islamification" of the universities, acampaign of terror aimed at driving theleft out of their strongholds. And whenit came to suppressing the just strugglesof the Kurds, Turkomans and otheroppressed nationalities in Iran, heproved himself as rabid a Persianchauvinist as Khomeini or Beheshti.Before the reactionary border war withIraq broke out, Bani-Sadr declared:"First ofall, we must purge Kurdistan ofarmed political groups in order to beable to face the [Iraqi] Ba'ath regime."

But these services on behalf ofclericalreaction and Persian chauvinism werenot enough to save him. The turningpoint came when he called for nation­wide protests against the government'sclosing of his newspaper, Islamic Revo­lution, along with five others. The nextday a hundred thousand peoplestreamed into downtown Teheran todemonstrate support to Bani-Sadr.Perhaps even more significant was thefact that the Teheran bazaar-the small

that another 35 be executed by evening.According to Teheran radio, on

January 22 six leftists held in EvinPrison, the infamous dungeon where theshah had jailed and tortured his oppo­nents, were executed. The victimsincluded Mohsen Fazel, a leader of theeclectic Stalinist Peykar group; andSaiid Soltanpour, a well-knownplaywright-poet and supporter of theleft-populist Fedayeen (Minority). Sol­tanpour, a prominent opponent of theshah whose arrest produced interna­tional protest, was condemned to deathfor having "bad records"! A few dayslater the government announced thatfive Bani-Sadr supporters had beenexecuted and eight Baha'is, adherents ofan Iranian-founded religious sect re­garded by the Shi'ite clerics as heretics,had also been put before the firingsquad. By the end of the week 60victims, mainly leftists, had fallen to themullahs' killing machine.

Yet at the very moment that theayatollahs celebrate their bloody ascen-

with a U.S. military alliance willbackfire. American imperialism is hos­tile to the expropriation of capitalismeverywhere. The Reagan governmentparticularly is anxious to see theeventual restoration of capitalism inChina. And their handling of the issue ofTaiwan is the tip-off.

The "sellout of Taiwan" has long beena hot issue between U.S. bourgeoisliberals and the far right. So far theReagan administration, sensitive to theTaiwan issue with its natural constituen­cy, and Deng & Co. who for internalpolitical reasons cannot appear to be"soft on Taiwan" have submerged theissue of Taiwan to their overriding anti­Sovietism. Despite wrangling amongU. S. liberals and conservatives, the anti­Soviet war drive is a bipartisan consen­sus in the bourgeoisie. The V.S./Chinaaxis was developed steadily fromNixon/Kissinger through Carter/Brzezinski to Reagan/Haig.

This administration remembers themaps from the 1950s with rings ofcontainment around the VSSR and theyare out to make it real. From Japan,through Asia and the Middle East andinto Europe, Reagan is surroundingRussia with firepower meant to contain,isolate and ultimately destroy theUSSR. In this conflict there can be noneutrals. Trotskyists unconditionallydefend against imperialism the Sovietbureaucratically degenerated workersstate and the remaining social/economic conquests of the OctoberRevolution!

In 1969, the SL noted the "objectivepossibility-given the tremendous in­dustrial and military capacity of theSoviet Union-of a U.S. deal withChina" ("Development and Tactics ofthe Spartacist League"). All of theStalinist bureaucracies, whether Rus­sian, Chinese-Mao or Deng-or Viet­namese share the anti-internationalconception of "socialism in one coun­try." In its name they stab one another inthe back seeking deals with imperialismfor illusory national "advantages." TheRussian Stalinist bureaucracy is one ofthe most conciliatory outfits imagin­able. But there are limits, as Hitlerfound out.

Socialist revolution in the capitalistWest is indispensable in order to destroyimperialist militarism-and to sweepaway the Haigs, Weinbergers and Rea­gans who would incinerate the world intheir anti-Soviet crusade. And in thedegenerated/deformed workers statesnot simply economic advancement butsurvival itselfdemands that the workers,led by a Trotskyist vanguard party, oustthe Stalinist betrayers who bind them tothe class enemy. As the V.S./China waraxis threatens to turn the Cold Warnuclear hot, one had better believe thatthe very existence of the planet dependson this.•

Iran...(continued from page 1)

3 JULY 1981 9

~

-'

TROTSKYIST LEAGUE OF CANADA

SPARTACIST LEAGUE LOCAL DIRECTORY

~'--wc... """~

$3.00Order from/pay to:

Communist FactionBM CF, London, WC1N 3XX, England

Auto MilitantJoins LTF ...(continued from page 6)

and the Socialist Party:'The Call of the One Hundred is a callto reconstruct the popular-front Unionof the Left 'in struggles.' Those whoarc nostalgic for the Union of theLeft-Eurocommunists, Socialist Par­tv members. nonaffiliated militants­have made an appeal to sign apetition. To amend this petition onstruggles. the general strike. does notsuffice to generate an anti-popular­front content. This is only. as Trotskysaid. an appeal for a 'fighting popularfront.' To say today that such acampaign is in contradiction with thedivisive policies of the bureaucraticapparatuses is true, But on what basis?The intention of the majority ofinitiators and signatories is nothingother than the reconstruction of theUnion of the Left (disarming theworking class). The question for us isnot to propose a united front on thebasis of 'unity' in general. With suchan intervention we appeal to the mostbackward elements of the workingclass. For the advanced workers it is a'vague and confusing' intervention asthe call for unity of the apparatusesbecomes the principal axis of ourprogram."

In a more recent document, "No,Mitterrand's Victory Is Not a 'FirstVictory' for the Working Class,"comrade Demos exposed Krivine andcompany's present capitulation to thepopular front: "Mitterrand's victoryunmasked the LCR's real politics. Tojustify its support to Mitterrand it hadexplained that throwing out Giscardwas the way to encourage workers'struggles. But now you can't find callsfor strikes to win our demandsanywhere in Rouge and even lessmention of the general strike." ForKrivine the task of the hour is ... tovote: "Today our task is to reinforceand consolidate the united mobiliza­tion. Together we must impose aparliamentary majority of the partiesof the workers movement." ---.. ~.

The LCR leaders have beenaccumulating the proof that its "dy­namic" is one of parliamentarism: onMay 4 at the Mutualite Krivineexplained that "we aren't going to goon a general strike to bring downMitterrand because the alternativewould be Chirac, the right wing" whileRouge called for a sort of referendumon the 35-hour workweek (!) and anLCR spokesman exclaimed, "We aren'tgoing to go for all or nothing"(Liberation, 19 May). Indeed! Theexplanation for this right turn is quiteclear. As Trotsky said, "The use of thegeneral strike is absolutely incompati­ble with the strategy of the popularfront which means an alliance with thebourgeoisie, that is the submission ofthe proletariat to the bourgeoisie"("The Hour of Decision Approaches").Support the workers or support thepopular front-you have to choose.Comrade Demos presented this choiceto the militants of the LCR:

"Deceive, calm, demoralize and defeatthe working class, that's the aim of thepopular front.... If tomorrow theworkers begin to fight at Cleon andoppose Mitterrand they will turn to usand accuse us of having hid the truth,of having strengthened illusions inMitterrand and of being responsiblefor putting a bourgeois governmentinto power.... 'Don't play into thehands of reaction.' Now that's a newformulation in our newspaper. Com­rade Krivine should leave this argu­ment to the bureaucrats who seek toprevent or break a strike."Krivine continues a little later: 'Manyworkers ask us for guarantees thatthey won't be betrayed one more time.Well, the only guarantee is of coursetheir own mobilization. But it is alsonecessary to have a strong revolution­ary organization ... capable of simul­taneously avoiding opportunist orextremist undertakings.' What is this'mobilization'? Marchais also talksabout 'mobilizations' but it is to avoidcalling concretely for a strike. What isthis 'extremist undertakings'? I'veheard that too often in the mouths ofRenault bureaucrats to not prick upmy ears at that. It is necessary to say

organization?" the CF wrote:"To the question of whether the IMGand the USFI [United Secretariat] arerevolutionary Marxist, we reply: wehave yet to lead the working class topower., .."The leadership has suppressed ourdisarmament document for fivemonths, and is witch-hunting membersof the Communist Faction withStalinist-style accusations of 'factional­ism,' and demanding a 'loyalty oath' asthe implicit price for the circulation ofour document to the membership andour further participation in the discus­sion, While this behaviour is not in itselfa decisive proof that the IMG and USFIare nor revolutionary Marxist, it ishighly suggestive that this is indeed thecase,"

The IMG leadership focuses itshysteria on one point which is simplymade up. On almost every page of the"Dossier" and twice in the eight­paragraph article which appeared inSocialist Challenge, they repeat that theCF characterized the IMG as "counter­revolutionary." From refusing to grantthe IMG leadership a vote of "revolu­tionary" confidence in advance ofdiscussion to writing off the IMG as"counterrevolutionary"-this is notonly not logical, it is wrong. And it wasnever the CF's position. But the I MGleadership must "quote" this "position"over and over again in its cheapattempts to rally organizational loyaltyagainst the CF.

For the IMG and USec, the definitionof the word "revolutionary" comesdown to whom you want to sell out to.But for serious revolutionists, a realdoubt of the revolutionary nature of aleadership is the only justification fororganizing one's supporters as afaetion.The CF made this point explicitly. Infact, even the IMG's own organizationalrules admit that:

"A faction flows from the situationwhere it is held that other currentsinside the organisation, generally theleadership, are threatening the existenceof the organisation as a revolutionaryforce through programmatic revisions,not merely errors but betrayals of theclass struggle ... the revolutionary char­acter of the current against which thestruggle is being waged is at least calledinto question."

Supposedly, factions are permitted inthe IMG. But IMGers beware! To"suggest" that the IMG may not berevolutionary is "disloyal." Anddisloyalmembers are expelled!

The Communist Faction, five ofwhose members were IMG members ofmore than ten years' standing, is called abunch of "infiltrators" who sought tocarry out a "wrecking operation in theIMG." And future left critics will betreated in the same way. The IMGleadership has now expelled anotherIMG member simply for raising amotion in his branch protesting theexpulsions! This betrays a certain lackof confidence by the leadership, as doesthe motion passed in the Oxford branchforbidding IMG members to attend anSL public forum this month.

In the introduction to the "Dossier,"the IMG leadership Spart-baits futureoppositions in advance:

"The IMG is well aware of the sort ofoperations that the Spartacists run. Weare fully conscious of the fact that theymay well have left sleepers in ourorganisation with the aim of forming asecond wave .... I think we may haveincreased confidence now that we havethe right methods ...."

The "methods" in which the IMG has"increased confidence" are politicalexpulsion and sinister Healy-style slan­ders that the SL is a "weapon designedsolely to smash up left-wing organisa­tions." This is a delicate way ofchargingthat the CF is not just not part of theIMG-perhaps it is not part of theworkers movement at all?

The "Dossier" is an open-endedthreat aimed at the IMG membership:don't dare object to the IMG's calls forSoviet troops out of Afghanistan, betternot criticize the great Iranian revolu­tion, and above all don't get in the wayof our courtship ofTony Benn. This wasthe first political expulsion in the historyof the IMG, but it isn't going to bethe last..

WinnipegBox 3952. Station BWinnipeg, Manitoba(204) 589-7214

Los AngelesBox 26282Edendale StationLos Angeles, CA 90026(213) 662-1564

Madisonc/o SYLBox 2074Madison, WI 53701(608) 255-2342

New YorkBox 444Canal Street StationNew York, NY 10013(212) 267-1025

San FranciscoBox 5712San Francisco, CA 94101(415) 863-6963

to turn in the CF as Spartacist "agents."We wonder: if he lies to the IMGleadership, and he lied to his fellow CFmembers, whose curiosity is he reallysatisfying?

Edwards' statement is aimed atmaking the Spartacist tendency soundas weird as possible, of course. Even so,we come off sort of impressive. As soonas Edwards signed an agreement forjoint work, he was welcomed in goodfaith. The whole internal life of the SLwas opened up to him. He was treatedlike a member. He was told that the CFwould be proportionately representedon the SL's leading bodies. Armed withthis presumed tale of terror, he rushedback to the IMG to provoke theexpulsion of the CF.

Nine CF members were expelled as"members of a separate party, viz, theinternational Spartacist tendency." All16 were expelled as "members of adisloyal faction by virtue of the fact thatthey defend the statement of the CFdated May 12 1981 which clearlyindicated that, in the view of themembers of the CF it is necessary tobuild a separate party to that of the IMGand Fl." The statement referred to (seeWV No. 282) says nothing of the kind.In answer to the leadership's demandthat the CF "unambiguously" answerthe question, "do you consider theFourth International and its BritishSection to be a revolutionary Marxist

PURGEIN

IMG

Documents of theCommunist Faction

of the IMGL Pw111 J

intimidate future left critics in advance.The pretext for the expulsions was the

testimony of one Phil Edwards of theWolverhampton IMG. The "Dossier"features his statement, full of dim-wittedinaccuracies a uJ !ies, where he descri bessigning a "contract" with the SpartacistLeague of Britain (SI.) for joint workbased on the program of the CommunistTendency and the international Sparta­cist tendency's nine points for revolu­tionary regroupment. Edwards claims:"I read this and I signed. I signed inorder to find out what was going on. Ihad made up my mind earlier on this."But did this oh-so-loyal IMGer confidein his leadership about his little spygambit? Not a word-until he decided

Vancouver .Box 26, Station AVancouver, B.C.(604) 681-2422

ChicagoBox 6441, Main POChicago, IL 60680(312) 427-0003

ClevelandBox 6765Cleveland, OH 44101(216) 621-5138

DetroitBox 32717Detroit, MI 48232(313) 868-9095

HoustonBox 26474Houston, TX 77207

TorontoBox 7198, Station AToronto. Ontario(416) 593-4138

Ann Arborc/o SYLP,O. Box 8364Ann Arbor. MI 48107(313) 662-0587

BostonBox 840, Central StationCambridge, MA 02139(617) 492-3928

National OfficeBox 1377, GPONew York, NY 10116(212) 732-7860

Berkeley/OaklandPO. Box 935Oakland, CA 94604(415) 835-1535

IMG...(continued from page 7)

could be taken to imply that we givesome sort of support to Benn's overallprogramme, as opposed to specificpoints. This was wrong." The lettercontinued:

"But what shocks us is your demand fora public repudiation of this statementon the basis that it represents 'a grossconcession to Benn's social democraticpatriotism.' This thoroughly hostilereaction could only imply that youthink that Socialist Challenge and theIMG are actually supporting Benn'sprogramme in a consistent fashion."

What?-publicly account for errors?Perhaps the error wasn't seriousenough? Or maybe it wasn't an error ....

The Labour Party entrist course hadbeen decreed by the leadership inadvance of a membership discussion.An IMG document stated: "In WesternEurope as a whole the Fourth Interna­tional is urging supporters in the massCommunist Parties and Socialist Par­ties to investigate the possibilities offighting for Trotskyist ideas among theranks of the workers in these parties."This is of a piece with French USechoncho Alain Krivine's statement thathis group considers itself the "thirdcomponent" of the Mitterrand govern­mental majority.

The letter to the Hemel HempsteadIMG also contained this ominouswarning: "Is the Hemel branch undersome sort of pressure from the Sparta­cists?" This signaled the leadership'sintentions toward the Communist Ten­dency. The situation was coming to ahead. The tendency announced theformation of the Communist Faction.One week later they were expelled enmasse.

Three days later, the Political Com­mittee came out with a "Dossier on theExpulsion of the Communist Faction."Along with the full panoply of misstate­ment, innuendo and slander, the "Dossi­er" contains the IMG leadership's firstattempt at a comprehensive reply to theCF politics. Only when they had donetheir best to guarantee that nobody wasleft inside the organization to defend CFpositions did the IMG leadership feelcompetent to attempt a politicalresponse-much of it an attack .ondocuments the membership has stillnever seen. The tone of the "Dossier" ismock cloak-and-dagger and it isn't hardto discern the IMG leadership's relief athaving found an organizational pretextfor getting rid of a faction whose politicshad already been made quite clear andquite identifiably "Spart" (or would theIMG like to claim there was anyone elseon the British left that hailed the RedArmy in Afghanistan from a Trotskyiststandpoint?) "In the view of the PC thepolitical and organizational clarifica­tion of the nature of the CF represents again for the organisation" says the"Statement from the Political Commit­tee," because now preconference discus­sion will not be "diverted" into consider­ing the CF's political positions. Themain point of the "Dossier" is to

.~

1110 WORKERS VANGUARD

clearly to the working class: it is thepopular front which leads to reaction."

Comrade Demos also had to fightthe proposal of Jerome, a leader of theMatti faction at Rouen, to do an entryinto the Socialist Party, the ultimateconclusion of the opportunist policiesof support to the popular front. Withthe LCR's current positions such anentry could only be a liquidation in theservice of social democracy. But this"entrism" may soon be the officialscheme of the United Secretariat. Asshown by the expulsion of the Com­munist Faction of the IMG, theleadership of the IMG understandsthat the future choice for the membersof its organization will be socialdemocracy or Spartacism. We hopethat other members of the IMG andLCR will also understand it and thatthey'll make the choice of Trotskyismand the international Spartacisttendency.

GIM ...(continued from page 6)progressively into an external (so far)faction of social democracy.

The crisis ofhumanity is the crisis ofproletarian leadership: this sentencefrom the Transitional Program is todaymore valid than ever before. But it getsclearer and clearer: the so-called"Fourth International" will never beable to solve this crisis. We have seenhow this "Fourth International" becamethe apologist for the clerical reactionaryKhomeini and how in Nicaragua,capitulating to the FSLN, the perspec­tive for fl Trotskyist party was sabo­taged and its own comrades weredenounced. We saw how the line ofsupport to the bourgeois SPD/FDPcoalition was rammed through and hownow the pro-capitalist DGB and SPDtrade-union bureaucracy is called uponto bring its influence to bear inPoland-which means nothing otherthan paving the way for the socialcounterrevolution. We have seen thisInternational put out to pasture did noteven manage to draw the class line inAfghanistan and take sides with the RedArmy against the reactionary mullahsand khans, whose social program meansonly the enslavement of women, as wellas the slaughtering and skinning alive ofcommunist schoolteachers. But for usthe question is at all times and in allcases the class standpoint: we had a sidein Stalingrad and we have one inAfghanistan! We've had enough! Wewant to build a Leninist party which willlead the working class to the revolution­ary seizure of power before it is toolate-the GIM is nothing but anobstacle on the path to this goal.

Since the National Conference inFebruary 1980 where a majority of theorganization was against electoralsupport for the SPD, there have been afew changes in the GIM. Then, for thefirst time since Portugal, there were thebeginnings of a halfway political discus­sion. But since the Extraordinary NC inJune 1980 the GIM has been "homoge­nized" by the pro-SPD leadership on theSPD line....

In contrast to the unprincipled"middle swamp" of T5 we have tried tobase our criticism of the GIM/USFI[United Secretariat] on the numerousrecent exampJes of this organization'scapitulation: in Nicaragua, Iran, Af­ghanistan, Poland-where it unitedwith Heinz "All power to the madonna"Brandt (Kritik No. 27) and applauded"Rural Solidarity," an organization ofsmall-time rural employers, repre­senting a strong potentially counter­revolutionary force. We have soughtthe causes of the growing social­democratization of the GIM, which islogically bound to lead to liquidationinto the SPD/Jusos/Falken [Jusos arethe SPD youth, Falken the students andschoolchildren]. ...

For us it has become clearer andclearer that only the internationalSpartacist tendency (iSt) maintains and

3 JULY 1981

continues the tradition of Trotskyism.At the time, the Revolutionary Tenden­cy (predecessor nucleus of the SpartacistLeague/US) struggled against the capit­ulation of the SWP to Castro's Stalin­ism.... Whereas the entire internationalleft outdid itself enthusing over theIranian "Revolution" only the iSt point­ed out the absolute irreconcilability ofthe interests of women, the nationalminorities and the workers with thereactionary Islamic movement andmade the connection with the questionof the proletarian seizure of power. ...

Comrades, Mandel said some timeago that one could only pray for theG1M. We can imagine something better.We want to struggle for the worldwideproletarian revolution and not be"partners in dialogue" for Glotz, Voigtand von Oertsen [popular social demo­crats] or sell reformist/pacifist fairytales such as "Jobs not Armaments"(Was Tun No. 310, 14 April) until animperialist war decides the question ofsocialism or barbarism in favor of thelatter (see our document, "For revolu­tionary anti-militarism" in [G1M]RundbriefNo. 4, 27 March). Therefore,we are breaking with the GIM, whichcannot be reformed, on a comprehen­sive programmatic basis. We are resign­ing from this rotten organization inorder to take up contact. with theinternational Spartacist tendency, withthe TLD. We call upon all comrades inthe GIM who want to see the proletariatin power to contact us to discuss thisperspective.

Break with Pabloite opportunism!Forward to the rebirth of the FourthInternational!Long live the proletarian worldrevolution! .

Bernhard, FreiburgClaudius, West Berlin

AustralianSWP...(continued from page 2)reformists are really trying to do is tomake the same argument as Stalin whenhe opposed workers revolution inSpain: to say that raising communistslogans could scare off the middle class,and thus the Trotskyists and other"ultraleftists" would have to be "liqui­dated" for the benefit of "democratic"imperialism.

Of course the SWP, which due to ahistorical hangover occasionally refersto itself as Trotskyist, is afraid to say thisopenly. Their leaflet even claims, "Wefully support, not only their [EI Salva­doran leftists'] military victory, but theirpolitical victory, and the creation of anFDR government." This from peoplewho not only oppose raising this "as aslogan for the mass movement," buteven try to rip down banners for militaryvictory and attack those carrying them!As for their "political victory," the FDRis a popular front tying the leftist workerand peasant organisations to dissidentChristian Democrat and "social­democratic" bourgeois politicians. Thistreacherous policy of class collabora­tion was the axis of Stalin's counterrev­olutionary programme in Spain, and it isnot surprising that the two-bit reformistgangsters of today resort to anti­communist thuggery to carry it out.

Having failed to silence the revolu­tionaries with violence, the littleScheidemanns and Noskes of the SWP/CISCAC are now relying on lies. But asthe American Workers World/YAWF/PAM outfit led by Sam Marcy, would­be bedfellow of U.S. Democrats BellaAbzug and Teddy Kennedy, found outto their chagrin June 6, those anti­communist attacks can boomerangbadly (see "YAWF Goons BeatenAttacking SL Demo," Workers Van­guard No. 283, 19 June). We warn thosecounterrevolutionaries who would keepEI Salvador protests safe for reformismby excluding communists: Don't treadon us!.

Post Office ...(continued from page 12)nothing and 200 militant unionists werevindictively fired by Bolger. Now Billerclaims to be fighting for amnesty for thefired workers, but if he hadn't been alousy scab herder in 1978 there wouldn'thave been any fired workers. And ifhe'sso hot to win amnesty for the victimizedmilitants, why did he help scuttle aresolution at last year's conventionwhich would have mandated "that theamnesty issue must be resolved with thereinstatement of all fired workers beforeany contract can be signed or agreedto"?

No Contract, No Work!At that same Detroit convention

Biller's New York local submitted amotion "that this Convention assert itssteadfast devotion to the principal [sic]of 'no l::ontract-no work'" and makesure "that this fundamental principle isnot treated by the Postal Service as anempty formula." But who made "anempty. formula" of "no contract, nowork" in 1978? And who is preparing todo the same thing today? At the June 25postal workers' rally at the New YorkG PO, Biller's hand-picked successor asNew York local president, Josie McMil­lian, told workers that on July 20 Billerand Sombrotto would determine "ifBolger has been bargaining in good faithor not." The meaning of that remarkwas made clear when local APWU andNALC bureaucrats tried to shut upworkers chanting "no contract, nowork!"

The leaders of the 1978 wildcat at theNew York Bulk center, now known asthe Postal Workers Defense Committee(formerly the "Good Contract Commit­tee," the "Workers Unity" group and"Outlaw") has attracted some supportamong APWU and Mailhandlers unionmilitants over the past several years. Butthe record of these hopped-up refor­mists, who are politically supported bythe Maoist rump group RevolutionaryWorkers Headquarters, does not in factoffer anything to postal workers lookingfor class-struggle leadership. The De­fense Committee has consistentlybacked every out-of-office bureaucratand disgruntled loser who took theAPWU to court over election results.The outcome of these suits has been todrag the capitalist state's Labor Depart­ment into the internal affairs of theunion and to put control of New YorkMetro local elections in the hands of thesame government that hires Bolger andthe Postal Inspectors to harass andterrorize postal workers.

These supposed "radicals" have neverpresented more than a narrowly focusedtrade-unionist viewpoint in their publi­cations. They have never openly chal­lenged the APWU's reliance on "friendof labor" Democrats and Republicansby posing the need for independent classpolitics. Most importantly they havenever aspired to be anything more thana left pressure group on Moe Biller. Lastyear they called for votes to Biller inboth local and national elections.Defense Committee leader Kenny Lein­er, who has twice won election asAPWU mailhandler vice preSident, hasbeen rewarded for his support to Billerwith his own column in the union'sAmerican Postal Worker-in whichnothing Biller does not approve of canappear. It would seem that Leiner & Co.are taking the same political path asMoe Biller himself-from reformist"socialism" to the mainline trade-unionbureaucracy.

Postal workers occupy a strategicposition in the economy. Without asmooth flow of mail, banks, insurancecompanies, stock brokerages, utilitiesand other mail-centered businesseswould lose millions of dollars a day. Bigbusiness is visibly worried at theprospect of a postal strike come July.Yet Biller, Sombrotto & Co. have madeno preparation to fight, much less win abitterly contested strike. Reagan canthreaten to pull a Nixon and send in the

army, but to paraphrase John L. Lewis,you can't sort letters with bayonets.Postal workers demonstrated in 1970that they have the power to win theirdemands for job safety and security, forcost-of-living protection and for am­nesty for the fired strikers. What isneeded is above all a class-struggleleadership worthy of the workers theypresume to lead.•

Tax Hike...(cont inued from page 3)this black/labor town into a bastion ofthe open shop.

All opposition to this wage-cutting,tax hike proposal is labeled "racist." Yetduring the city workers strike lastsummer, it was Young who handed thecity over to the "outsiders" and racists ofthe Republican Party. Most of down­town Detroit was cordoned off from itsblack residents and Young told thestriking city workers to eat beans "'tillhell freezes over!"

It was Young's police force thatprotected the Nazi bunkers on Vernorand Fenkell in 1977. In November 1979,Young threatened to arrest those whowanted to stop the Klan from marchingin downtown Detroit to "celebrate" themassacre of five anti-fascist militants inGreensboro, N.C. The anti-Klan rally,initiated by Ford Rouge militants whohad just driven two Klan-hoodedforemen out of the their plant, and builtby the Spartacist League, took placedespite Young's threats and was the firstmass labor/black anti-fascist mobiliza­tion in Detroit in decades. ColemanYoung and his cops are the enemies ofworking people and black youth-andno amount of talk about "freedom" willchange that!

Young and his banker buddies aregetting lots of experienced help from theUAWand Teamster bureaucrats. TheUAW gave Young's committee $40,000in auto workers dues money and loan­ed him Marc Stepp and Buddy Battle topush his wage-slashing. The AFSCMEofficials say they are opposed toYoung's anti-labor referendum. Butthey did nothing while Young threw4,600 city workers on the street over thelast four years, and now Young'sbragging about it! It was Lloyd Simpsonwho gave up three-man crews ongarbage trucks. It was Simpson & Co.who rammed home the rotten contractlast .summer and refused to shut downCobo Hall and Joe Louis Arena to winthe strike. He didn't want to ruinYoung's "party" for Ronald Reagan.The AFSCME bureaucrats are not to betrusted! They sell out the workers bychaining them to anti-labor DemocraticParty politicians.

Detroit is cecaying fast. A "yes" votefor Young's union-busting will not saveDetroit any more than the millions ofdollars squeezed out of Chrysler work­ers saved Dodge Main or Lynch Road.Young's "Chrysler solution" for the citymeans workers bleed while the corpora­tions get tax breaks and the bankerssuck the city dry. A strike by cityworkers with a militant leadership couldstop the arrogant Young in his tracks.Linked with tens of thousands of autoworkers, this could spark a counter­offensive by labor against the capitalistausterity drive. Make the bosses pay!Cancel the debt to the avaricious banks!No layoffs, no concessions, no cuts incity services! Expropriate the banks!For a workers party to fight for aworkers government! •

SPARTACISTBound Volume

No. 1Spartacist Issues 1-20

February 1964-July1971

$25.00Order from/make checks payable to:Spartacist PublishingBox 1377 GPO, NY, NY 10116

11

W'liIlEliS VIIN'tJllli'Postal Workers in Nationwide Picket

New York Times

Army strikebreaker during 1970 postal wildcat: Sort the mail withbayonets?

I,,· I..1····;....

IIr~~Tt'

SHtJUI.OERWE WILL

STAND AGA~ST"UTTLE GENERAL

BOLGERFOR JUSTiCE~-~ ..

BUNCH 3b MYiC/MAPU,APWI

letter carriers walked out, defying theirnational leadership. They were quicklyjoined by clerks and mailhandlers, notonly in New York, but throughout thecountry. Despite deliberate strike­breaking sabotage by virtually everynational and local union official, youngand black militants took the lead,keeping the strike going for eight daysand defying Nixon's attempt to breakthe walkout with army scabs. New Yorkletter carriers burned NALC presidentJames Rademacher in effigy and hungup signs reading: "Dump the Rat-WeHave No National Leader."

Today, as in 1970, the main problemconfronting postal workers is the lack ofany real class-struggle leadership. WhenMoe Biller ran for president of theAPWU last year his campaign brochuredescribed him as "Leader of the 1970Postal Strike and 1974 Bulk Strike." Heobviously was hoping nobody remem­bered the truth. In 1970 Biller at firstgave in to the massive sentiment amongclerks not to cross picket lines set up bythe letter carriers. But workers who werethere remember booing Biller off thepodium at the Statler Hilton Hotel fortrying to get the strikers back to worklater. Four years later, when workers in·his local staged a wildcat strike toprotest arbitrary shift changes, theDaily World (25 January 1974) reportedthat "Moe Biller, president of the NewYork Metro area postal union, went tothe picket line of the New York Bulk andForeign Mail Center here this morningto tell the workers to report to work."

In 1978 Biller again played the role ofstrikebreaker when Bulk workers hon­ored his call for "No contract, no work"and set up picket lines when the contractexpired. "Biller: Back the Bulk!" theychanted, but Biller went back to bed.Had he called out the New York local, anational postal strike would havebecome a de facto reality. Instead he did

continued on page 11

--

1970 Strike Showed the Way

Before postal workers went on thepathbreaking, illegal strike in 1970 theywere grossly underpaid and representedby what were little better than companyunions. After the strike, wages increasedand five weak unions merged to formthe APWU. Another result was thePostal Reorganization Act, whichestablished the semi-autonomous Post­al Service in place of the Post OfficeDepartment, allowing legal collectivebargaining with the federal governmentfor the first time. The 1970 strikeelectrified the labor movement and alsohad a profound effect on young radicals,many of whom for the first timerecognized in the postal workers' mili­tant struggle the power of the workingclass in action.

"The great historic importance of thepostal strike," the Spartacist Leaguewrote at the time, "is that it is the firstmajor strike against the federal govern­ment" (Spartacist leaflet, 23 March1970). It started when New York City

WV PhotoAngry Postal ranks demonstrate in tront of Neo.... "e.~ O\h':s 61"'0.June 25.

safetv record. McDermott was crushedto d~ath in a conveyor belt on whichmanagement had deliberately removedsafety cutoffs. As the Wall StreetJournal (7 January) pointed out, thePostal Service has "an occupationalinjury rate that is one of the federalgovernment's worst and more thantwice as bad as private industry's."COLA and job security were also theissues in 1978. At that time a miserablecontract was overwhelmingly rejected·by the membership because it put a"cap" on the COLA and compromisedthe Post Office's traditional "no layoff"policy. After wildcats on both coastswere crushed, an arbitrator uncappedthe COLA but ruled that all workershired after 1978 would be subject tolayoff. The unions now have pledged tokeep the full COLA and fight to restorethe "no layoff" clause.

After two months of managementdelays and appeals, the government'sown National Labor Relations Boardtold the Postal Service that its petitionfor the NLRB to force the unions toform a unified bargaining unit was "asolution to which it isn't entitled."Bolger finally turned up at the bargain­ing table but "Stonewall Bill" is obvi­ously in no mood for serious negotia­tions. He hopes to drag out thebargaining past the expiration of thecontract and force takeaway demandson the postal workers.

Sitting across the table from Bolgerare APWU president Moe Biller andNALC leader Vinnie Sombrotto. Bothare long-time New York local presidentswho won election as national presidentslast year largely as a protest against thedisastrous 1978 contract. Biller, aformer Communist Party supporter and22-year New York Metro local presi­dent, comes from the union's historiccenter of militancy, where young Viet­nam vets and Maoist-backed dissidentslaunched a wildcat strike against the1978 contract. Sombrotto comes fromNALC Branch 36, where letter carrierslaunched the great postal strike of 1970.Both were talking militant last fall,pledging that if Bolger tried to put alimit on cost-of-living raises, therewould be "no mail to deliver on July21st" (Union Mail, December 1980).

The key issues at stake are on-the-jobsafety, job security in the midst of anautomation drive and an unlimited cost­of-living allowance (COLA). The deathby management murder of mailhandlerMichael McDermott in 1979 highlight­ed the Postal Service's horrendous

On July 20 the contract betweenunions representing 600,000 postalworkers and the U.S. Postal Serviceexpires. With hard-line PostmasterGeneral William Bolger virtually refus­ing to bargain, and with the two majorpostal unions led by newly electedpresidents who came to office pledgingmore militant policies, the stage is set fora showdown in the biggest labornegotiations of the year.

A nationwide picket was called June25 as a "warning" by the unions. In NewYork about 3,000 postal workersmarched in front of the GPO. But theofficial demands were limited to suchhalf-hearted slogans as "2, 4, 6, 8­Bolger must negotiate." What is neededfor the postal unions to win against theviciously anti-labor Reagan administra­tion is a solid national strike, surpassingeven the 1970 postal strike in militancyand solidarity. Postal workers have anopportunity to once again lead theAmerican working class in struggle ... orget badly shafted by a management thathas no intention of being "reasonable."

Bolger, unaffectionately known as"the little general," is just the man tospearhead Reagan's union-busting of­fensive. In April, on the eve of schedulednegotiations for a new postal labor pact,Bolger unilaterally announced thatthere would be no bargaining. Heoutright refused to meet with unionnegotiators, using as an excuse the factthat two small unions, the Rural LetterCarriers and Mailhandlers, wantedbargaining separate from the big Ameri­can Postal Workers Union (APWU)and National Association of LetterCarriers (NALC).

StrikeAgainstReagan PostalUnion-Busting!

12 3 JULY 1981

--