Max Shachtman
Articles from The New International
PRE-WAR PERSPECTIVES AND POST-WAR REALITIES
An Analysis of the Politics of the Fourth International
Source: The New International: A Monthly Organ of Revolutionary Marxism Vol 11,
No. 9, December, 1945. Pg. 275-279.
Editor: Max Shachtman
The questions we posed in the September New International have not remained
unanswered. Our questions dealt with the theory that Stalinist Russia is a
"degenerated workers' state," the theory set forth by Trotsky, and now
thoroughly sterilized by the spokesmen of the Socialist Workers Party.
We quoted from a few of the declarations Trotsky had made before the war. He
said repeatedly: If a successful socialist revolution does not follow on the
heels of the war, it will make no difference whether the Stalinist regime gains
a military victory or suffers a military defeat -- "imperialism will sweep away
the regime which issued from the October Revolution"; and "the inner social
contradictions of the Soviet Union must be crushed, not only might, but must,
lead to a bourgeois Bonapartist counter-revolution"; and "no military victory
can save the inheritance of the October Revolution"; and "without the
interference of the October Revolution, the social bases of the Soviet Union
must be crushed, not only in the case of defeat, but also in the case of
victory."
No ambiguity, is there? No possibility of misunderstanding? One would think so.
We simply asked the SWP people to say: Have events confirmed or refuted the
analysis and predictions which Trotsky made in inseparable connection with his
theory? If confirmed, how? If refuted, why? In any case, please answer.
An Embarrassing Predicament
Past experience with attempts to get the Cannonites to discuss the position
which outstandingly distinguishes them in the revolutionary movement have not
been encouraging. Being incorrigible optimists, we made the new attempt. In this
case, patience has been rewarded by more than itself. We received not one answer
to our questions, but two. Better than that. The two are not only not identical
-- thus sparing us the monotony of reiteration -- but different, and not merely
different, but different to the point of being mutually exclusive. Let whoever
wishes to do so speak henceforth about the SWP as a monolithic party. Here, in
any case, is living evidence of the fact that it not only permits the public
avowal and defense of two different positions, but of mutually antagonistic
positions, both of which bear the official stamp! We for our part never asked
for that much. The most rabid democrat could not ask for more.
The first official answer is given by the leaflet of the party himself, in a
speech delivered on the occasion of the 28th anniversary of the Bolshevik
revolution (Militant, Nov. 17, of 1945). We note first of all that Cannon does
not once question the significance of Trotsky's prediction or its inseparable
connection with Trotsky's theory. We note that he goes further -- he reiterates
the prediction. We note finally that he reiterates also the theory that Russia
is still a degenerated workers' state which every worker should defend against
imperialism.
Cannon Ventures Forth
At first blush, this would seem to be impossible. The prediction said so
plainly, didn't it, that if the war ends without a successful socialist
revolution, the Russian workers' state, in any form, is done for. If Russia is
defeated, the Stalin regime and nationalized property (the basis, so called, of
the working-class character of the Russian state) will be wiped out. If Russia
is victorious, then in the absence of the revolution, the "inner social
contradictions not only might but must, lead to a bourgeois Bonapartist
counter-revolution." The revolution -- it is hard but necessary to say -- did
not come; Russia was not defeated but victorious; the bourgeois
counter-revolution did not come; private property has not been restored in
Russia, nationalized property remains supreme. How does Cannon get over these
not inconsiderable obstacles? By a leap which makes the nursery cow's jump over
the moon look like a stroll through the meadow. Here is his salto mortale
described in his own words:
Trotsky predicted that the fate of the Soviet Union would be decided in the war.
That remains our firm conviction. Only we disagree with some people who
carelessly think that the war is over. The war has only passed through one stage
and is now in the process of regroupment and reorganization for the second. The
war is not over, and the revolution which we said would issue from the war in
Europe, is not taken off the agenda. It has only been delayed and postponed,
primarily for lack of leadership, for lack of a sufficiently strong
revolutionary party.
There it is, with all the sweeping simplicity that distingishes true genius! The
prediction? Nothing wrong with it -- absolutely nothing. Whoever thinks
otherwise is a careless thinker. The trouble with such people is, you see, that
they believe the war is over. Well, it just isn't. It has, you should
understand, "only passed through one stage." What stage? The stage of armed,
military struggle, the stage which twice-harebrained, careless thinkers have up
to now called the stage of "war," but which must henceforward be called, among
the careful thinkers of the SWP, by the simple name of "one stage." Into what
stage has it passed? Into the stage of the suspension of armed, military
struggle, the stage which the thrice-ridiculous careless thinkers have up to now
called the stage of "peace" or "imperialist peace," but which shall henceforward
be called by the careful thinkers by the name of "the process of regroupment and
reorganization for the "second" stage. And the second stage? That cannot, it is
clear, be called the resumption of the war, or the outbreak of a new war, since
the war is not over in the first place. It cannot be called the Third World War,
since the Second is not over (the Second, as a matter of fact, never existed --
it was merely the continuation of the process of regroupment and reorganization
which followed the First World War, which in turn is not over because it never
came to an end).
All that is lacking is the names of the "some people who carelessly think that
the war is over," so that the several hundred million other people who today
have a somewhat similar notion may be better able to guard against them. That we
are among them appeals evident. But why should we be condemned to solitary
confinement?
In the May, 1945, Fourth International, theoretical organ of the SWP, we read
that "On the continent of Europe the agony of the imperialist war is thus
concluded; the agony of the imperialist 'peace' has begun." Cannon, out of
restraints imposed upon him by solidarity with his own party comrades, may
content himself with calling the editor of the FI a careless thinker. We see no
need of such restraint. We call him an idiot for saying that the war is over in
Europe. He is doubly an idiot for not keeping quiet till November when he could
have learned from a real authority that the war is not over.
In the October, 1945, Fourth International, E. R. Frank writes that "The
imperialist war in the Far East has ended." He writes that "The United States
emerges out of the second world war as the strongest military power on earth."
How can it emerge from a war when it is still submerged in the war which is not
over? Careless thinker? No, not strong enough. Idiot!
In the November, 1945, Fourth International (the very eve of Cannon's historic
pronouncement!), William R. Warde writes that "The recently concluded war was a
costly as well as risky enterprise for them." What recently concluded war?
Idiot!
All That as Been Demonstrated...
The press of the SWP is obviously written and edited by idiots. Who is not an
idiot? Who thinks carefully? Differ with him all you want, but the truth is the
truth, and the answer is: Cannon. For this, he deserves special recognition. For
example, couldn't a sculptor be assigned the task of making a bust of the
careful thinker to be set in a prominent place of honor in the headquarters of
the SWP? Not an ordinary bust, but a gilded one, of course. It may be objected
that such an exhibition is not compatible with the dignity and morality of a
revolutionary proletarian movement, that it is loathsome Byzantine icon-worship,
that it is typical of Stalinism, that no revolutionist would assent to such a
spectacle, especially if he were himself the subject of the bust. Are these
objections really so cogent? Besides, hasn't the bust already been carved,
gilded and placed? We ask the question with hypocritical innocence.
But enough! Let us try our luck with the second official answer, this time from
the careless thinker who edits the Fourth International. His answer (November,
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the beginning of the document
Go to previous page
Go to next page
Go to the end of document
