proletariat'. (Transitional Programme, pp 14-15, New Park edition.)
Our revisionists abandon all that in the name of realpolitik. In other words they return to the old social-democratic combination of the minumum programme and abstract propaganda for
(or, minimum programme camp'). The very idea of revolutionary strategy is abandoned, at least for the reality not only for those either). For as Trotsky made clear:
"The conception of revolutionary strategy took root only in the post-war years, and in the beginning undoubtedly under the influence of military terminology. But it did not by any means take root accidentally. Prior to the war we spoke only of the tacties of the proletarian party; enough to the then prevailing trade-union, parliamentary methods which did not transcend the limits of the day-to-day demands and tasks. the conception of tactics is understood the system of measures that serves a single current task or a single branch of the class struggle. Revolustrategy on of actions which by their association, and growth must lead proletariat to the conquest of power.' (The 3rd International After Lenin, p 57, New Park, London, The unity and dialectic of the three sectors of the world revolution
The line of the 'central anti-imperiialist axis' of the world revolution so dear to Lorimer is squarely opposed of the unity dialectical interaction of the three sectors of the world revolution, which was the basis of the documents adopted by the Reunification Congress of the Fourth International in 1963.
On first sight, this does not seem evident. In the resolution for its 1984 congress the Australian SWP still based itself on a quote from Lenin that explicitly included the struggle of the proletariat of the imperialist countries against its own bourgeoisie as an integral part of the anti-imperialist struggle; it was even put in the front line of that struggle.
But it is clear that Jim Perey Ta central leader of the Australian SWP1 and Lorimer are no longer using the formulation of the 'anti-imperialist axis of the world revolution' in this traditional Leninist sense. Otherwise
International Viewpoint 24 February 1986
Lorimer would not be able to repthe Fourth International for 'downplaying' the 'central character of the revolution for national liberawithin the world revolution. "The anti-imperialist axis of the world becomes in practice the being more radically 'anti-imperialist' results politically in the acceptance of coexistence (albeit conflictual and non-peaceful) with imperialism.
The basis of imperialism, in the Leninist conception of the term, is not the exploitation of the element, but only one element. basis of imperialism is the capitalism monopolies, the trusts imperialist countries and the enormous economic and military power it produces. This is the power which permits the export of capital, the conmarket and subjection of the semi-colonial and dependent countries. Nobody can challenge the fact that reinforce in turn the riches and power of the imperialist bourgeoisies. that does not change the fact that the basis of imperialist power, the their armies is located in the imperialist centres and not in the semi-
It follows that imperialism only be definitively overthrown in these centres and by the proletariat of these centres. The masses of the Third World can weaken it but not the proletariat of the the Third World masses is indispensable for the final defeat of imperialism. What lies behind the idea of the 'Third World axis' of the world revolution, indeed of the international class struggle, is the belief that impericannot be overthrown long period. Only its weakening would be on the agenda. case when they base their claimed over struggles by workers in the imperialist countries on the fact that the former are supposedly, at least potentially, offensive struggles for power, whereas workers' struggles in the imperialist countries are said to be for the moment purely defensive. (4) Let us not waste too much time on the schematic character of this distinction. How many has the class struggle gone in the space of a few months, sometimes a few weeks, from the the defensive and from the defensive to the offensive. The main weakness this conception of 'primacy' and that it takes up different sectors of the world revolution, the various continents, distinct countries like pieces neatly separated a jigsaw puzzle, each having its form and shape established once and for all (or at least for a long period). stantly modified by internal contrapolitical and military global repercussions of the periodic explosions caused by these internal contradictions. Thus a purely defensive struggle like the one against the rise of fascism in Germany between 1930 and 1933 was more important for the fate of the world revolution than the offensive struggle going on at the same time in IndoChina, Indonesia and Outer Mongolia (crowned, incidentally, by success in the latter country. Trotsky was 100 per cent right to say that the 'key to the world situation was in Germany' in that period, character of the class struggle in that
A victory of the German counter-revolution would change the relationship of forces on a world scale much more significantly victory of the revolution in several semi-colonial and colonial countries.
1984 Australian SWP resolution correctly stated that the longer the capitalist crisis lasts, the more rearmament and war and not just war against the unfolding revoluthe Third World) become increasingly the emerging from the very nature of imperialism. But in the path of this march towards a third world war (war-suicide of human civilisation, if not of humanity itself stands formidable obstacle: the power of the international working class and of all its allies in the so-called Third World countries. The anti-war movement is also such an ally.
The imperialist bourgeoisie would have to carry out radical changes in the political climate, in the form of government and the political personnel of its main imperialist centres in order to overcome that resistance against the utter madness of a world war. This would above all require a radical change in the relationship of forces between the classes in these countries, a change not so different from the change in the relationship of forces
In 1927 the only important coun try in the world where there was the immediate possibility of a revolutionary seizure of power was China the most populous country in the world. However the communists who were most passionately in favour of such a move, the International Left Opposition led by Trotsky, never mentioned 'Chinese axis' of the world revolution, let alone an 'anti-imperialist ax is'.
7
signified by Hitler's arrival in power in Germany in 1933 (even if the form of this change can be different from the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in the classical sense of the term).
But for anyone who knows and understands the links that exist between the strength of the workers' movement, the fighting potential of the working class and the relative solidity of democratic rights in bourgeois society, it is clear that a lasting and serious defeat of the defensive struggles presently underway in the imperialist countries would strike a mortal blow against the potential of
The principal obstacle to a third world war and to the crushing of the struggle in many gravest illusion would be to elieve that an increasingly broad and bold anti-war movement, with a more effective impact and tical success could develop alongside a qualitative weakening of the working class in the main imperialist countries. Just as during defeat in the defensive struggles of the Western proletariat would mark a decisive step toward war. Each important workers' victory even of a 'purely defensive' kind) in the West would paralyse at least temporarily imperialism's march to war, including 'partial wars' against the revolution in one or several countries of called Third World.
this scholastic argument over important must in any case be rejected out of hand. The Marxist approach to the problem is presented in Lenin's quote used in the SWP July 1984 congress resolution on the community of interests of the Western proletariat, the proletarian and semi-proletarian masses of the Third World and, we can add today, the proletariat of the bureaucratised unity of the revolution only has its materialist basis in this community of interests.
The most consistent opponents of the Marxist idea of the world socialist revolution as an indissociable unity the three sectors of the community of interests. They claim the Western proletariat has a 'corrupted' character. Our revisionists still do not go so far although the extensive and excessive way in which they use the concept of 'labour aristocracy' leads them dangerously close to this
But if we accept the fundamental identity of workers' interests throughthe method of the transitional programme in the three sectors of the world revolution: this means in all 8 countries, starting from the immediate real demands as long as these are capable of setting in motion broad mobilisations and mass struggles -independently of any scholastic distinction between 'politics' and 'economics' or 'the offensive' defensive'. In each case we assess objectively the real repercussions of these struggles on the international class struggle.
Furthermore subordinating the actual demands and struggles of the proletariat in any country to requirements' of the 'anti-imperialist struggle', interpreted against imperialist dominasolely over the Third World SWP leaders already openly propose this subordination for the of the bureaucratised workers' states.
we call on the latter to accept the 'anti-imperialist axis' of the world struggles on the basis of their immediate demands and concerns. Anyway such an approach is totally utopian. The Polish, Hungarian, Czech (and in the future the Soviet and Chinese) workers will not ask Percy or Lorimer advice about the immediate objectives of their struggles - whether these struggles should be focused against the bureaucratic dictatorship or centre on 'anti-imperialist solidarity' Nobody has the right to tell them that, any more than Lech Walesa or Charter 77 have the right to demand that the Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Palestinian or
African workers subordinate their immediate struggle against imperialism and its local allies to some sort of 'priority' for the anti-bureaucratic struggle in Eastern Europe.
At the same time of course it is a profoundly reactionary utopia. it implies that the political revolution must be delayed until after the fall of, or at least the decisive weakening of. imperialism in the rest of the world. This idea is just as reactionary as the of the Third World should wait for the overthrow of imperialism before their struggle for national liberation can be really started with any chance of
Our concept of the unity of three sectors of the world revolution is founded on the possibility and the all countries to struggle not only for their immediate demands (reforms) but also winning and exercise of power 'world situation as a whole', which may be assessed as 'unfavourable' for a struggle in such and such a sector.
When the working masses are ready to go into a generalised controntation with the government and state, then they have the perfect right to do so. in turn the world situation in favour of revolution and against counterrevolution. Indeed this is the only way of basically changing the relationship of forces in that direction.
We do not see any contradiction, in the present world situation, between workers of the bureaucratised workers' to overthrow, revolutionary action, the bureaucracy's dictatorship and the necessities of the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle in the rest of the world. We are deeply convinced that independently of the ideological confusion that may exist among these workers - which is the product of Stalinism and can only be overcome through the practical experience gained from mass actions - not in action move to support the re-establishment of capitalism. Therefore they will not strengthany practical progress of the anti-bureaucratic political revolution in East Europe or the USSR, any initial establishment of workers' self-management regimes in the economy and society and of workers' selfadministration in the state, will spur on tremendously the anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle in all the capitalist countries where the proletariat already constitutes a majority of the fighters. The concrete experience of the 'Prague Spring' in 1968 and Solidarnosc in 1980-81 confirms this analysis. Reasons for and the dynamic of solidarity with the anti-imperialist struggles in the Third World
Our 'worldwide' and non.'third worldist' concept of the revolution is not at all counterposed to solidarity work with the masses of the semi-colonial and dependent countries that are today in the front line of the struggle against imperialism. It is a key task for revolutionaries throughout the world, particularly in the imperialist strongholds. Furthermore experience proves that the Fourth International needs no lessons from anyone on this.
The difference between our idea of solidarity with anti-imperialist struggles in the semi-colonial and dependent countries and the thinking of those caught up in the logic of 'third worldism' is the following. Revisionists have a tendency to justify the importInternational Viewpoint 24 February 1986
ance of the solidarity movement for basically moral reasons: Third World revolutionaries are the only ones who fight in practice in a revolutionary way against imperialism. Therefore it is a duty of revolutionaries throughout the whole world to give them their support as a priority over any other concern. In addition these revolutionaries are the only ones able to take power in a foreseeable future. So this justifies even more the priority given to supporting their struggle - irrespective of the country where you are
The first of the motives outlined is honourable and we share this position to a large extent. But it is insufficient for inspiring effective and long-term solidarity action. If this combined with the second justification given above, within the frameof a false, immediatist' and impressionist vision of the real process of world revolution, into a dead tive even from the point of view carrying out practical solidarity work.
Solidarity with the victims of imperialist super-exploitation and oppression, who are beginning to resist this barbarism, is a duty for revolutionaries of all countries irrespective of knowing whether this resistance has a chance of leading to a revolutionary victory in the short or medium term.