stand on the issues involved in the Ernest Tate Case, hence the bizarre title of Wohlforth's statement: "Spartacist Joins Revisionists Against Fourth International."
Robertson, we should imagine, must feel grateful to Wohlforth for this small assistance in the rather sticky job of trying to remove the loathsome taint of "political similarity" between the Spartacist group and an outfit that so clearly echoes the abominations of "third period" Stalinism.
- WOHLFORTH'S STAND ON THE ERNEST TATE CASE
[Below we publish the full text of a statement on the Ernest Tate Case which appeared in the February 13 issue of the Bulletin edited by Tim Wohlforth. The original title of the statement is "Spartacist Joins Revisionists Against Fourth International" and it is: claimed to be "by political committee workers league." The subheads appear as shown in the original. We have taken the liberty of correcting some obvious typographical errors. Joseph Hansen has supplied footnotes to help clarify the more obscure or contradictory points. These are identified in each instance. The emphasis appears as shown in the original. ]
* * *
On November 2lst, 1966, Farrell Dobbs, National Secretary of the Socialist Workers Party, wrote to James Robertson, National Chairman of the Spartacist League about the so-called "Tate Affair." "We trust that you will clarify your stand -- and its relation to your expression of political solidarity with Healy -- in an adequate way and as rapidly as possible," Dobbs demanded.
Robertson hastened to oblige Dobbs, the man who sent condolences to Kennedy's widow. And so the lead editorial of Spartacist #9 is entitled: "Oust Healy!" This. is the real political relationship between Spartacist and the SWP. This is the concrete meaning of the statement in our Perspectives Resolution: "The Spartacist must be understood as a 'left' expression of the nationalism and revisionism of the SWP."
Let us now take a look at the Tate Affair. Our purpose is not so much to fass judgement on the facts of the case, about which we know little,(1) but rather to discuss how such a question should be approached. It seems that there was an altercation between stewards at a large meeting in London, sponsored by the Socialist Labour League and Ernest Tate who was selling literature in front of this meeting. Tate claims he was beaten because he was selling literature critical of the SLL and of Gerry Healy, national secretary of the SLL.
However, as previously reported in the Bulletin, two papers which printed Tate's charges issued apologies to Comrade Healy stating in part: "We have since been informed that Mr. Healy asked a steward to clear the pavement in front of the entrance of the Hall so that passengers alighting from coaches would not be delayed in getting to the meeting, that he certainly did nothing to prevent the writer of the letter from selling literature; and others were selling literature on each side of the entrance without any interference."(2) These are the basic facts as known to us and as known to Spartacist.
first task
Our first task is to put this incident within the context of the class struggle. Trotsky deals with this question with great thoroughness in his "Their Morals and Ours." When attacked for having hostages during the Russian Civil War Trotsky responded: "The petty-bourgeois moralist thinks episodically, in fragments, in clumps, being incapable
(1) It is odd, in view of this professed ignorance and the extreme seriousness of the case, that Wohlforth does not join Robertson in demanding a workers' commission of inquiry. -- J.H.
(2) The two papers were Peace News and the Socialist Leader. They published legal retractions that were almost identical in text. They referred first to having published a letter by Ernest Tate in which he accused "Mr. Gerry Healy, National Secretary of the Socialist Labour League, of having instigated several of his supporters to assault and prevent him from selling literature outside Caxton Hall, where an SLL meeting was being held." Then came the alibi provided by the distinguished client of the solicitors: "We have been informed that Mr. Healy asked a steward to clear the pavement in front of the entrance of the Hall so that passengers alighting from coaches would not be delayed in getting to the meeting; that he did nothing to prevent Mr. Tate or anyone else from selling literature; and that. others were selling literature at each side of the entrance without interference." Both retractions then “sincerely apologise to Mr. Healy for having published the suggestion that he employs violence or seeks to curtail freedom of expres-— sion.
It is particularly instructive that Wohlforth omitted quoting the sentence including the actual apology. It goes counter to his defense of Healy's "right" to use violence against workers who disagree with the SLL. -- J.H.
of approaching phenomena in their internal connection. Artificially set apart, the question of hostages for him is a particular moral problem, independent of those general conditions which engender armed conflict between classes."
This is Spartacist's method. The SWP raises this incident and the Spartacist judges it without exploring its context! the politics of the forces involved in the incident, the relation of these forces to the class struggle. On the basis of its moral evaluation of this isolated incident the Spartacist concluded: "Oust Healy. "(3)
We are reminded of two recent incidents within the trade union movement which may help illustrate this point. During the New York City Welfare strike conducted by the SSEU a person turned up in front of a strike meeting distributing a piece of literature entitled: "Strike? An Obsolete Weapon." The leaflet turned out to be an open appeal for scabbing against the strike. It ended up by urging welfare workers to get in touch with the Socialist Labor Party, a sectarian group opposed to working in legitimate unions.
One SSEU militant, stumbling to the meeting after 8 hours on the picket line in bitterly cold weather, took one look at this leaflet and began to work over the person distributing it. As far as this militant was concerned this "socialist" gentleman was as much a scab as somebody crossing the picket line. (4)
Earlier this fall a group of thugs descended upon James Morrissey, the leader of a rank and file opposition within the National Maritime Union, and beat him up with lead pipes. Morrissey's crime, no doubt, was distributing literature critical of NMU President Joe Curran. How do we judge these two incidents? Are they of equal weight? Are they really identical? We hold that despite a formal identity they are in reality opposites in content. In the case of Morrissey violence was being used to terrorize the rank and file workers who were struggling to make their union a more effective weapon for fighting the bosses. In the case of our "socialist scab," violence was being used to terrorize those who would break the unity of the working class against the bosses, those who act as the agents of the class enemy.
A strike without some sort of intimidation and terror, yes terror, against those who. seek to break the unity of the class is not serious.(5) An unserious strike is a blow against the working class. Violence used to terrorize workers when they seek to battle the bosses and the bosses' agents, the union bureaucracy, is unforgivable, crim-— inal, intolerable.
(3) Spartacist maintained that the incident was not isolated. Spartacist.cited its own experiences with Healy, offered to submit fresh evidence to a bona fide workers' investigating commission, and pointed to the two incidents in the current scandal -- the beating inflicted on Ernest Tate and Healy's appealing to the bourgeois courts. Wohlforth's argument that the beating was an "isolated incident" stands, of course, in contradiction to his view that it was morally justified. In fact, in the very next paragraph, trying to put up a case for Healy, Wohlforth seeks to show empirically that it -is quite customary in the labor movement to reply to political arguments with physical violence and that this often warrants applause. -- J.H.
(4) If this alleged incident is not simply a concoction, the worker obviously reflected the notorious political backwardness of the American proletariat and was sadly in need of attending a class where he could learn about working-class democracy and elementary morality in the conduct of political disputes within the labor movement as well as gain a correct understanding of the views held by a leaflet distributor willing to brave "bitterly cold weather" to bring what he thought (if mistakenly) was a socialist message to striking workers. The Socialist Labor party is well known in the American radical movement as an ossified sect with no influence in the unions, fanatically devoted to the program and memory of Daniel De Leon, one of the pioneers of American socialism. The fact remains that the American working class can still learn much from De Leon's writings although he has been superseded in the field of theory by the contributions of the Russians who led the October Revolution. It is sad that one of the members of this conmpletely uninfluential group should have been beaten and still sadder that Wohlforth should feel under compulsion to hail the beating and even label it as morally good. -- J.H.
(5) In the days of the Stalinist terror against working-class political opponents, the standard excuse advanced by Stalin's hatchetmen for using physical violence to stamp out dissidence, was that their opponents, particularly the "Trotskyites," were breaking the "unity" of the working class. Wohlforth at one time understood the falseness of this. argument to perfection. As a newly converted "conditional" supporter of Mao, he appears to have undergone a "cultural revolution" on this as well as some other important items. -- J.H.
The only way we could thus make a decision as to who was right or wrong in the above cases was to go beyond the act of violence itself to get at the politics of the participants. There is no other way for Marxists to proceed.
classic position
The first question then is who is Ernest Tate: what are his politics; how does he fit into the class struggle? Tate is the representative in England of the Socialist Workers Party. His specific task is to peddle SWP literature throughout England and to work together with the SWP's political co-thinkers in Europe -- the Pabloite revisionists like Germain, Frank and the little British Pabloite grouplets.
The SWP and its international friends have become the agents of capitalism within the working class movement.(6) This is the classic centrist role they are playing all the more clearly and openly as every day passes. Can there be any doubt about this?
What is the position of the SLL? This too is crystal clear. The SLL is the only organization in England to battle consistently and unceasingly for the interests of the working class. As the SLL sums up its relations with the SWP: "It is a fight between the working class and the servants of the class enemy." (See SLL declaration "Course of the Socialist Workers Party" in Jan. 2nd Bulletin.)(7)
The relationship between these two international forces -- the Fourth International and the Pabloite Revisionists -~ is symbolized by this confrontation with Tate. Less than two weeks before the meeting in question, the Young Socialists and the French Revoltes youth has sought to defend the Hungarian Revolution during the international demonstration at Liege. Tate's political collaborators sought to prevent the SLL and YS members from carrying a banner supporting the Hungarian Revolution. These finks even went so far as to seek police help in preventing our comrades from carrying this banner.(8) Tate then shows up in front of the SLL meeting also organized to defend the Hungarian Revolution to peddle a pamphlet containing scandal which, interestingly enough, originates with Spartacist.(9)
When the SLL and YS raise a banner defending the Hungarian Revolution in Liege Tate's political allies bloc with the Belgian Stalinists and call the cops. When the SLL holds Hungarian memorial meeting in London Tate turns up to sell his political smut.(10) These are the politics of the contending forces in front of Caxton Hall.
political scabs
Tate and his political allies represent political scabs of the worst sort. These gentlemen have been instrumental in aiding the right wing of the British Labour Party in expelling our comrades. These gentlemen have a habit of calling the cops against our com-
(6) Wohlforth comes late to the field. This charge was invented decades ago by the Stalinists. Its age does not improve its flavor. -- J.H.
(7) In other words, Healy serves as prosecuting attorney; Healy serves as judge; Healy's stewards carry out the sentence; and Healy's altar boy Wohlforth pipes the moral sermons. An efficient system! Credit for perfecting, if not inventing this megalomaniac way of drawing the class line properly belongs, however, to Stalin. -- J.H.
(8) Wohlforth appears to be counting on the ignorance of readers of the Bulletin. The slander which he repeats here first. appeared in The Newsletter. It was exposed in detail by Henri Valin in an article "The Healy School of Falsification." See World Outlook January 27, p. 104.
(9) The unmentionable pamphlet, Healy "Reconstructs" the Fourth International, contains documents originating from all three of the tendencies that attended a conference of the "International Committee" in London last April. An introduction, "Sectarianism and Tinpot Despotism -- An Example for the Textbooks," attempts to draw some of the main political lessons. A copy of the pamphlet can be obtained by sending $.35 to the Socialist Workers Party, 874 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10003. -- J.H.
(10) "Smut." In this obscure way Wohlforth may be referring to the letters written by Healy which were a prominent part of the documents in the pamphlet, Healy "Reconstructs" the Fourth International. It is true that these letters need to be read to be believed. However Healy has not denied their authenticity, and the internal evidence shows them to be genuine. -- J.H.
rades. These gentlemen bloc with the Stalinists everywhere -- in Belgium, France, England, U.S. -- against the interests of the working class.(11)
On the other hand the SLL has consistently championed the interests of the working class. It has fought in every corner of England exposing the role of Wilson as a servant of capitalism. It has exposed the fake lefts who refuse to fight Wilson seriously. It has reached out to the young workers of Britain and built a strong working class youth movement.
‘The SWP comes along and writes us a letter accusing the SLL of "the poisonous methods that were the hallmark of Stalinism in its worst period." We cannot help but. view this “moral indignation" in the same light as we would that of a supporter of Joseph Curran who attacked SSEU militants for reviving trade union. hooliganism. (12)
The truth is that the SWP is presently in a political bloc with the Stalinists. As we pointed out in the last issue of the Bulletin the SWP is collaborating with the CP to limit the struggle against the Vietnam War to politics acceptable to pacifist — Muste. Today the SLL and its comrades in the International Committee throughout the world consistently expose this political bloc of the revisionists with the Kremlin's agents and call for the military victory of the National Liberation Front.
spartacist
Where does Spartacist stand in this principled political struggle? The Spartacist views itself as_a "supporter of the IC." It speaks of "the political similarity between the Spartacist League and the SLL." On the other hand an earlier issue of the Spartacist ‘characterizes the SWP as moving "from centrism to reformisn.
Spartacist is very broad minded about it all. They are very happy to overlook their proclaimed political solidarity with the SLL and supposed political antipathy with the SWP. Everything is to be subordinated to a clear stand -- on an incident in front of Caxton Hall, taken out of context, distorted by the revisionists and used by them in a war against principled Trotskyists.
The Spartacist's role in this affair is even more reprehensible than that of the SWP. The SWP makes no bones about it. They are the political opponents of the SLL and the Tate affair is just one weapon -- admittedly a slimy one -- to usé in this war. —
But Spartacist claims political solidarity with those it slanders and attacks. These "moral" people find nothing immoral in exchanging slander and scuttlebut with the revisionists and uniting with them in a common organizational struggle against Healy. Dobbs asks Robertson where he stands. Robertson gets up and yells: "Oust Healy." First the SWP peddles Spartacist's organizational criticisms of the IC. Now Spartacist peddles SWP's organizational criticisms of the IC.
common front
The relationship is clear. The real politics of the SWP and Spartacist require © a common front against the common enemy. The difference between reform and revolution must be subordinated to the mutual hostility to the revolutionary camp. ;
We state that this organizational bloc of the political smut peddlers is the politics of the Spartacist while its supposed adherence to "revolutionary principles" is an artificial formal declaration unrelated to Spartacist politics—in-action.
We warn Spartacist: There is presently a war going on between revolutionary Trotskyists represented by the International Committee and revisionist agents of capital represented by the SWP-Germain-Frank Pabloite formation. You are on the other side in this war. Henceforth we will have no relations with you.
eee (11) Wohlforth's capacity to testify on the occurrence of unspecified alleged incidents in many countries may appear surprising in view of his professed ignorance about the facts of the Ernest Tate Case. The enigma is easily resolved. Wohlforth is simply displaying in hs his own fashion his familiarity with the area of London known as> Billings-— gate. -- : (12) Ana what about Wohlforth's silence concerning Healy's hiring solicitors and pringing the full majesty of the law of the class’ enemy down upon a working-class political opponent and two working-class newspapers because they sought ‘to publicize a beating that Wohlforth approves? This spectacular silence provides a convincing measure of the worth of his "moral indignation." -- J.H.
THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF SOUTH AFRICA
By K.A. Jordaan
(Continued from last issue. ]
The CPSA Seek the Retention of Race Categories
We have seen that, far from basing themselves on the most exploited sections of the people, as every genuine Communist party does, the CPSA stood in dread of then, fearing the "racial" consequences of their mass mobilisation. When they were organised at times then the CP simply used them as a pawn in order to negotiate from strength with the ruling class for petty reforms; and this they did with scant regard for the lives, the sacrifices and the morale of the black masses.
The attitude of the CP to the race divisions in Azania is intimately connected with their collaborationist politics and their limited democratic objectives. Their goal of a multiracial imperialist state in Azania rules out a class approach to politics completely. Instead, the CP operate purely within the assumptions of the race divisions laid down by the despotic state.
As a predominantly white organisation, the CP could have done a service to the movement if they had attempted to work among the white workers, especially the Afrikaaner workers, and helped to bring them to their working class senses. Not that whites should only organise whites and blacks organise blacks, but they were obviously more accessible to the economically less privileged white workers than the black leaders of the movement. They could have made propaganda among the white workers by showing that, because they are used by imperialism and the Afrikaaner bourgeoisie as an instrument for the oppression of the blacks, the ruling classes thereby strengthen their domination over them. The working class consciousness of the whites can be aroused by showing that, while the wages of the blacks remain low and the wages of the whites high, the latter are constantly being exposed to the threat of wage cuts by the employers who would try, by the most devious routes, to hire cheaper labour irrespective of colour. This is in fact one of the objects of so-called Border Industries. In the words of Marx, they can be taught the lesson that "Labour with a white skin cannot emancipate itself where labour with a black skin is branded." On this basis some measure of working class solidarity between white and black workers can finally be forged. But the CP preoccupation with race categories and their interest in the imperialist connection even ruled out such a narrow class approach.
The CP concern is how “men of different races (can) live and work together in harmony and peace -- to cooperate for the good of all." They seek to be all things to. all men and end up by being nothing to anybody. "All the peoples," says Fischer, ",..must be given a voice in their own affairs and in the whole of the country which © they work in and they must be taught that races can live and work together in harmony."
The CP do not even measure up to the Liberal party of South Africa that have opted for a nonracial democracy under which there will be no distinctions based on race and each is. simply regarded as. a human being, and not a member of a distinctive species. Emphasis is placed by the CP on the Freedom Charter of the Congress Alliance which foreshadows the retention of the race categories in a democratic South Africa. It says: "All people shall have equal rights to use their own language, and to develop their own folk culture and customs"; and: "All national groups shall be protected by law against insults to their race and national pride."
In the colonial world, imperialism's traditional policy is the division of the people by exploiting tribal, religious and race differences. This is part of the policy of divide and rule. Imperialism is thus able to establish its hegemony over the colonies and semicolonies on the basis of such differences.
To this day imperialism fosters such racial differences in order to thwart the movement for national unification and full independence.
In Azania imperialism and the Afrikaaner bourgeoisie had erected within the framework of an integrated society the barriers of race in order to exclude the Africans from the body politic on the grounds of their “inferiority" and the need to safeguard the cultural "supremacy" of the white race. This served as the basis for the economic superexploitation of the Africans. The creation of “Cape Coloured" and "Indian" groups, with just so much social privilege as will keep them apart from the Africans, yet not enough to close the social gulf between them and the whites, was designed to sow the seeds of race divisions among the oppressed so that the whites could maintain their supremacy. These groups were calculated to act as social buffers for a small white mi-
nority against a turbulent black majority and in this way maintain a social equilibrium. Quite obviously also, as the PAC communiqué with the ex-Coloured People's Congress ob-~ served, "the myth of white purity and superiority would have exploded if they had been incorporated in the white power structure.
Race divisions and their forcible perpetuation by the rulers are part and parcel of the proletarianisation of labour and its superexploitation on the grounds of cultural differences, artificially sponsored and forcibly maintained. At bottom, therefore, race differences are political-class conflicts. "But race," says Engels, “is itself an economic factor.“ All movements towards cultural assimilation are therefore anathema to the ruling classes, because cultural assimilation diminishes the exploitative possibilities. The rulers need to show that "inferior" groups do not have the capacity to assimilate the "higher" culture of the rulers and their supporters, and in this way try to justify the territorial and cultural segregation of the brown and black people and thus ensure their continued exploitation.
The rulers of South Africa encourage cultural parallelism by endowing each group with a special culture and exhorting them to develop along their own lines and take pride in their race and customs. It has truly been stated that "dominant races have a vested interest in the perpetuity of the cultures of weaker races."
With the rapid politicalization of the masses in Azania and the growing awareness that, despite their forcible division on racial lines, all of them share a community of interests, they are sloughing off "Colouredism," "Indianism" and. tribalism in order to form a unified national movement. For the CP and the Congress Alliance to peddle such things as "race pride" and emphasising the need to maintain race differences is the most abject capitulation to the white racialists that we can find anywhere .
The emphasis on race pride and customs that divide us is an insidious attempt by "progressive" whites in the movement to preserve their identity and prevent themselves from being swamped by a black majority. The CP therefore repeatedly refer to the position of the whites as a special group in a democratic Azania, because they are seeking a built-in bill of rights for the white minority as a form of protection against. the dangers of black majority rule~ This is not only a manifestation of racial fears, but race prejudice. ;
The CP envisage the retention of the race categories in a future Azania because their political goal excludes the abolition of the exploitative relations in which these categories are rooted. So that the CP-ANC clamour for "race harmony" and "race tolerance" is an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable interests of the exploited black masses with imperial and local capitalist interests and thereby keep the liberation movement within the bounds of the existing property relations. The emphasis on race pride is consequently calculated to undermine the growing class solidarity between the black and brown workers and to blunt the edge of the class struggle between capital and labour.
Interracial cooperation is a special technique to keep in check the pretensions of the black masses and gain security against them. On the other hand, revolutionary socialists form a unified organisation that transcends the barriers of race and that is squarely based on the most downtrodden sections. The most exploited and militant workers and poor peasants cannot have any race discrimination. How can they when they are victims of race discrimination every minute of the day? They realise that at the root of race discrimination lies economic exploitation that must be tackled in a most revolutionary way. The racial fears and animosities of other groups do not enter into their reckoning. But it is precisely when they are on the move that the class positions of the more privileged layers take on the form of racial fears and animosities. Since in some way these relatively privileged groups are already committed to the struggle, something must be done to contain the growing mass movement. So by the well-known device of transferred diagnosis, they attribute their own racialism to the militant workers, warn them not to alienate the support of well-meaning sections by going it alone, and call on them not to stir up racialism by making "unreasonable" demands and embarking on a "reck~ less" course of action.
The CP may have a difficulty which we must try to meet if they contend that, by reason of the all-pervading influence of race and racialism down the centuries, one cannot expect the feelings of race and race prejudice to evaporate into thin air on the very morrow of the revolution. No one is saying this. Indeed, the task of eliminating the haunting traditions of racialism and race feeling will continue for some time after the revolution.
What we do say is that it ill becomes a revolutionary leadership simply ‘to re-. flect passively the consciousness of the masses. The duty is to transform a race con-
sciousness into a national consciousness so that people do not look at their problems through the prism of the time-hallowed race categories. Above all, the mass of the people must develop a class consciousness that can alone undermine and finally eliminate feelings of race. ;
With the consummation of the revolution therefore the new state abolishes the statutory race categories so that all simply become members of a. single nation, without special tr:atment or special representation for any section of the nation on the grounds of physical appearance and colour difference. It is as much in the interests of the erstwhile white minority as it is in the interests of all to cooperate simply as human beings. For to perpetuate differences on such lines is to conspire to perpetuate racialism.
The establishment of such a unified nation -- so necessary for the development of the productive forces -- on the basis of complete equality does not preclude but in fact guarantees the rights of every individual to practice those customs (religion, language, etc.) he holds dear. This is an elementary principle. The continued existence of religious communities like the Jews, Moslems and Indians’ in a nonracial Azania does not contradict the principle that in relation.to the state and political representation all are treated as individuals.
If the CP are concerned over the place of a white minority in a democratic Azania and seek to retain it as a distinct group, so that, according to Fischer, it may secure a "fair share" of political and economic power, then they are holding the revolution to ransom and entrenching that very racialism among the whites which they fear in the blacks. Indeed, how can a dictatorship of workers and poor peasants embracing the majority of the nation, share power with a privileged group that moreover elects to stand aloof from that nation?
The CP may profitably reflect on the policy which the French CP followed in Algeria for a long time during the civil war. For, in the interests of the French settlers in Algeria and as a manifestation of their national chauvinism the French CP persistently called for the retention of Algeria as an inextricable part of France. This disastrous policy exacerbated the race feelings among the colons and encouraged them to make a last ditch stand, when the French CP with their professed Marxist principles should have exhorted them to cooperate with the revolutionary forces to help rid the country of French imperialism and in this way shorten the civil war.
Marx says that for a “total" revolution, as opposed to a "partial" revolution, a class must be organised that is not in but of civil society. "There must be formed a sphere of society," he continues, “which claims no traditional status but only human status...a sphere...which has a universal character because its sufferings are universal and which does not claim a particular redress because the wrong which is done it is not a particular wrong but a wrong in general."
In Azania the downtrodden blacks are outside the body politic, although their labours sustain an official or civil society in which they are not recognised. They form the backbone of "total" revolution; and on their accession to power they will not cling to their traditional status as blacks, but will simply claim human status. Liberation from their universal sufferings therefore also signifies the liberation of the whole nation. Their assumption of human status means its extension to all other groups as well. And with that the race categories so beloved by the CP are dissolved.
Birth of a New Azania -- By CP's Immaculate Conception?
There is no historical proof that the ruling classes surrender without a bitter struggle. Fischer's reference to the peaceful extension by imperialism of independence to the African states is of course illusory. What happened was that under colonial mass pressure imperialism was forced to groom a new "native" ruling class to act as the cus-— todian of her vested interests in the African country. At the same time the introduction of black majority rule under a bourgeois parliamentary system was designed to canalise the aspirations of the masses and act as the fagade for the continuing dictatorship of the imperialist interest. In this way formal political independence came to stabilise imperial rule at a higher level, and helped to preempt a revolution.
The rulers stay in power as long as they have the necessary force to defend their positions. To talk to them about legal change is useless, because the law itself is the instrument of the old order and serves to guard the existing property relations. To be sure, the law contrives to entrench the position of the dominant class by preaching against the use of violence so that the armed might of the state may use violence as its monopoly against the threat of revolution.
In this respect, the Rhodesian crisis holds important lessons which we are sure will not be lost on the dedicated revolutionaries of Southern Africa. One is that while, on the one hand, Britain warns the liberation movement in Zimbabwe to follow the constitutional path to independence, on the other hand, she is quite prepared to stand idly by when Smith seizes independence by force and rules by violence, because his regime can still guarantee, in view of the prevailing weakness of the liberation forces, the protection-of the imperial interest. For it is patently clear that imperialism does not use force against movements and regimes of the extreme right if they can keep in check the pretensions of the revolutionary forces and safeguard vested interests. The other lesson is that Britain will intervene swiftly to crush a growing liberation struggle that threatens "law and order" in Zimbabwe, and then prepare the ground very carefully for a neocolonialist solution: with a black leadership who, with the support of a middle class, carefully groomed and brainwashed, can come to "a proper understanding" with the South African regime and Portugal with the view to preserving the massive foreign interests in the African subcontinent. Which means -~ and this is the third lesson -- that a negotiated independence is no independence whatsoever.
It is the lesson of history that the most all-embracing liberation of a people can be brought about only by an armed revolution of the most sweeping kind. For no ruling class gives up of its own volition its economic and political power. That a man's property is finally worth far more than his very life is a Machiavellian dictum borne out by the struggle to the death of the dominant classes in defence of their possessions. Attempts to argue with them rationally to surrender do not help, because they are asked to give up, at their own expense, to those on whom their privileged positions depend. It is presumptuous cheek on the part of the CP to expect the South African ruling classes to respond to "reasonable requests" and to alert them to the dangers of revolution so that they would introduce reforms with the consent of the people.
The ruling classes do not listen to "reason" unless it has the support of superior force; and when they do respond peacefully, then this is only in order to avert their own downfall by introducing petty reforms in order to derail a revolution. The institution on “one man, one vote" in the various African states is a case in point.
It has been proved by history that attempts to bring about social change by methods of conciliation and moderation lead to a greater loss of blood than methods of armed revolution. The vacillations of the Spanish Republicans in the thirties resulted in the death and persecution of well-nigh half the population of Spain, and paved the way for the fascist reaction. On the other hand a decisive break with the past by the most revolutionary methods does not only lead to more permanent gains, but helps to save more lives in the long term. How many people in Azania do not die every year of hunger and overwork, persecution and police massacres? Must millions more continue to die just because a peaceful way out must be found? Such "humanitarianism" does not consider human feeling.
We are arguing about elementary matters. The imperialists, the Soviet bureaucracy and the various Social Democratic parties of Western Europe warn the people of the colonies not to use force to settle their problems and enjoin on them to attain their independence by peaceful methods. But this does not prevent them from sanctioning the use of force, if only after the event, when they give recognition to those favourably disposed governments that come to power as a result of military coups.
Whether one wants a "partial" revolution or a "total" revolution depends on the methods one invokes to achieve either. In dealing with means and ends Rosa Luxemburg: drew a distinction between the aims of the reformist and the revolutionary socialist. She writes:
',..péople who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power -- a social revolution -~ do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to: the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society, they take a stand for slight changes in the old society."
The downtrodden masses of Azania have a vested interest in the most radical break with the existing order. In the words of Marx, they are "not opposed to particular conse-~ quences but (are) totally opposed to the assumption of the...political system." They naturally take to armed struggle, because they are incessantly subjected to violence.
The assassination of Verwoerd does not alter the situation in Azania, but the masses were none the less jubilant, because they realise, in the words of Malcolm X, when he commented on President Kennedy" s assassination, that the chickens are coming home to roost.
A proposal has recently been made by the revisionists and agents of the imperialist powers that the blacks should now be given training in the administrative aspects of government (naturally by imperialist agencies) so that when the time comes they will be fully prepared to work the machinery of state in Azania. It is certainly a convenient arrangement whereby the blacks become enmeshed in the administrative machinery to serve and be subordinate to the economic and military power of imperialisn.
But the black masses of Azania will prepare themselves to handle all aspects of their own affairs not in the houses of the rich nor in academic seminars whose job is to brainwash and to confuse. They will equip themselves only in the veld and forests, the mountains and high grasslands, of their own country where a life and death struggle will teach them to organise, to learn techniques, to improvise and to produce. The use of violence as an end in itself is naturally not the answer.
It is only by changing their environment in the furnace of a revolution that Azanians can also change themselves and be fit to master their own affairs.
[The end. ]