Workers' Liberty

Paris, 10th November 2003.

----------------
Present: Bruce Robinson, Vicki Morris, Martin Thomas, Paul Hampton, Dan Nichols, Mark Sandell (all WL), Melissa White (WL Australia), Yves Coleman (Ni Patrie, Ni Frontières), Luc Blomet (Convergences Révolutionnaires - faction of Lutte Ouvrière (LO)), Vincent Présumey (Liaisons), Olivier Delbeke (Liaisons).

Apologies: Worker-communist Party of Iraq, Aulis Kallio, Débat Militant, Bjarke Friborg, Lalit (Mauritius), Yassamine Mather (Workers' Left Unity (Iran))

----------------

Martin Thomas presented the draft statement.
Summary: Workers' Liberty origins - we saw ourselves as part of the Cannonite current of the Trotskyist movement, but particularly hostile to Stalinism.
Always sought discussion with other groups internationally, e.g., links with Lutte Ouvrière since 1967.
In 1987 we concluded from an accumulation of political divergences from the Cannonite mainstream, e.g., our positions on Solidarnosc and on Afghanistan, that we needed to re-examine fundamentals.
In 1987 we called a meeting similar to this one and presented to it a document of the sort of that presented today. That meeting involved an Iranian group in exile, Zbigniew Kowalewski, Workers' Liberty Australia. Nothing came of it organisationally: Why? The left groups in Eastern Europe collapsed, the Iranian group became inactive.
In 1988 we formally changed our position on the USSR, abandoning the old Cannonite position that it was a degenerated workers' state. We studied the history and found that many of our ideas not only on the USSR but on democratic issues, on the nature of the revolutionary party, etc., had been developed already by the Workers' Party US during the 1940s.
The other experience we try to cover in this document is to try to understand Afghan war, the first Gulf War, Kosova war... Our positions are in continuity with the position we took in 1982 in the South Atlantic war. At the time we thought that war was a freak. But we found later that the questions raised in that war were relevant to later wars.
We can hope for a more positive organisational outcome for this meeting. The left is reviving, debate opening up.
But this is not a meeting to set up a new international:
- we are small
- there is much work to be done of redeveloping the political and intellectual culture of the left. It's too far-gone to draw people back to the right path; we are laying out a "new" path. We want a brief statement about what we agree on as the basis for discussion among ourselves and with others.
The main points that might be different from the common stock of the left:
Where are we in history?
- is it that there was an epoch 1917-89 (short 20th-century theory of Hobsbawm)? And that a new period has opened up now? The AWL doesn't think so; OR
- were there other turning points, e.g., 1920s" defeat of the "workers' state"?
I would argue that several turning points must be recognised:
* 1927-33
* 1945: beginning of the end of rival colonial empires; consolidation of Stalinist empire
* 1968-75: reappearance of revolutionary left; emergence of colonial centres as centres of capitalist accumulation; end of colonial liberation struggles; exhaustion of Stalinist revolutions, disasters of Cambodia in 1976 and Afghanistan in 1979. CP takes power in Vietnam and quickly starts to do deals with the IMF, unlike China, Cuba, Yugoslavia that cut themselves off and made major social changes.
* 1989-91: since then the imperialism of free trade has extended from the west and integrated the former Stalinist bloc countries and the Third World)
This picture leads to a number of political conclusions in the statement:
i) Eastern Europe [Stalinist bloc] was not post-capitalist. Socialism must define itself as being as or more radically different from capitalism.
This question is for debate: Bjarke Friborg submitted some amendments to the statement saying that Eastern European states might have been post-capitalist albeit bureaucratic collectivist.
This is an important not academic point; relates to where we are in history.
ii) Democracy, democratic demands. The understanding of democracy post-1945 has become skewed.
For mid-1940s Europe, the Cannonites argued that democratic demands would be less important because socialist revolution was imminent. The Workers' Party disputed that.
The debate petered out. But those who insisted on the centrality of democratic demands were correct.
In the 1960s, with the far-left heavily focused on causes of colonial liberation and bourgeois democracy apparently solid in the metropolitan countries, the left tended to subsume "democratic" into "anti-imperialist". The left's active engagement with a democratic programme was reduced to supporting small states against big powers.
We think the left was right to support the colonial liberation struggles. But that mindset has been carried forward into a period where colonial imperialism no longer dominant. So we have some far-left groups supporting, e.g., Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, etc., because they are in conflict with the big powers. It is anachronistic and wrong.
iii) We don't believe capitalism is in a final crisis. It is absurd to try to prevent European capitalists integrating, or globalisation. Our job is to base ourselves on the contradictions within that development to "push through" to workers' control, etc.
iv) Reinstatement of the idea of the Third Camp. The phrase was coined by Trotsky in the late 1930s. It continues an idea of Engels in the era of the five Great Powers: the task of revolutionaries was to assert a sixth power, the working class.
After 1945, most leftists chose a camp (with criticisms): Stalinist states versus West, colonial peoples against European powers. It is right to support colonial peoples fighting for national liberation. But many conflicts nowadays are between different capitalist powers, neither representing human liberation. Our task is to assert a Third Camp.
European capitalist integration is "development". Our job is neither to try to halt or turn back the capitalist clock, nor to endorse the capitalist version of progress, but to assert a workers' Third Camp on this question.
We can summarise our position as rediscovery of Third Camp working-class politics plus an analysis of the world as it has changed since 1945 and then again since 1991. Those are the basic ideas we want to put forward for discussion.
-----------

Discussion:

LB: On the Third World, I disagree with the reference to "revolutionary Stalinism" in China, Vietnam, etc. The so-called Stalinist movements were mainly bourgeois and pretended to be communist for tactical reasons and to find a superpower to support them. And the idea of the USSR and communism had cachet among the masses. But I agree with Third Camp: e.g., on European integration it is important to have working class defending its own position. LO will propose abstention on the constitution: neither "yes" nor "no" is a satisfactory answer for us.

MS: Stalinist revolutions not "revolutionary" in good, socialist sense. If they were movements of national liberation we supported them to that extent. But in our view, in e.g. Vietnam, these were petit-bourgeois armies that conquered the cities and the working class.

VP: I find some maladroit formulations in the statement (in the French version, anwyay: perhaps a question of translation). E.g., something about Stalinism 'trying to go around capitalism". It talks about the big CPs being Stalinised, but of course the small CPs were too.
The appearance of large number of young "altermondialistes" is linked to a revival of working-class movement and the fall of the Berlin wall.
Two main ideas:
1. Democracy as the basis of socialism very important with regard to Stalinism (there are economic questions, but democracy is important).
Democracy is about power at national and international level. That is what we talk about most in Liaisons: concrete questions of democracy. Down with the Fifth Republic! Chirac out! For a constituent assembly! Up with the general assemblies of workers during the strikes.
The Third Camp means the international politics of the working class. Liaisons is going to say "no" to the European constitution because of its anti-democratic aspects.
2. On our relationship to the Trotskyism of the past, "ni dogme, ni indifférence", "neither dogma, nor indifference" sums it up.

PH: Third World Stalinism was simultaneously anti-capitalist and anti-working class, e.g., China in 1949. Cuba: July 26 Movement grew up apart from the working class, took power through a struggle that came to the city; 1959-60: Castro movement took over the trade union movement.
The dichotomy which says you have to say that Stalinism is either reactionary or revolutionary is false. Stalinism is revolutionary against the bourgeoisie but is simultaneously reactionary against the working class.
Trotsky in the late 1930s said CPs were not just agents of the USSR, but also contained the core of embryonic ruling classes, e.g., in Mexico. That idea was taken up by Shachtman. Stalinist politics are in the working-class movement but not necessarily of the working-class movement.

YC: The statement can't be adopted in one day.
I like this about WL, that it is not "ideological". It deals with the "ordinary" questions which people think about, e.g., it teases out issues around troops out or troops out now? It is willing to consider the difficulties of slogans, sometimes operating like "tightrope walkers". That is important and more interesting than WL's analysis of the USSR with which I don't agree.

DN: On the British left, WL is denounced as Zionist or pro-imperialist because of our "two states" position on Israel-Palestine. George Galloway is seen as anti-imperialist, anti-Israel. He will soon head a left electoral bloc in which all his other positions are disregarded because he is "anti-imperialist".
Globalisation is seen as US domination, so "anti-capitalism" is identified with "anti-US-ism"

OD: The Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) is for two states in Israel-Palestine - reluctantly, and with the US as agent! Versus suicide bombers. We need to state the agency for two states is the working class, we need to win the workers' movement of Israel/Palestine (and elsewhere).

BR: Some points on the broader context for the document, to reply to VP.
Two levels:
- regroupment of left
- rebuilding/reorienting the workers' movement.
How do these fit together?
The South African Marxist Neville Alexander wanted a new First International. It's not a bad idea, but we, the far-left, are not in a position to bring it into being. WL has made some first practical steps in that direction, e.g., through No Sweat. We have built links with new workers' movements in the ex-colonial world with practical support but also with political analysis and discussion, e.g., with the FNPBI in Indonesia. We aim to learn from these movements as well as to teach what we know.
That also shapes our perspective for the "altermondialiste" movement, to orient to the working class.
But we need to be clear what perspectives we are standing on, e.g., in relation to Islamism which is a danger for the workers' movement in, e.g., Indonesia.
The statement has a dual role:
- to state where we stand, to recruit from the existing far-left;
- to offer a perspective for intervening in broader movements.

MS: Far-left in Britain has not recruited from the anti-war movement. Why? Because the movement was weak politically; one of the reasons, the decision to include Islamists on their platform; and gone on to propose electoral campaigns with them. Is it the same in France?
On Europe: WL would abstain on the euro. Why? Question is just pound versus euro. The campaign against the euro in Britain is a campaign led by the right wing. We don't want to support capitalist plans for Europe. To support the anti-euro campaign is to tell the working class that we are against integration of Europe, which we are not.
There's a general problem of having a left politics defined by an anti-, "no" culture. We want to develop positive politics for the working class, so it is not just choosing between different parties of the ruling class.
Question to VP: is it correct to oppose European constitution and by implication support the constitution of France?

VP: The anti-war movement was smaller in France than in the UK. Why?
- France not going to war
- The left's lack of independence from Chirac.
Anecdote: in 1991 Gulf War Saddam Hussein was the bad guy in children's playground games; in 2003 Bush and Blair are the bad guys!
Hopefully May-June strikes will break people's illusions in Chirac. When José Bové was imprisoned, people said "Chirac in jail".
Re Islamists: In France the problem is appearing only now, e.g., Tariq Ramadan invited to speak at the European Social Forum.
Re European constitution: I agree in principle "neither European constitution, nor sovereignists", but... read the text! It merits an independent rejection by the working class. The constitution is "in favour of market economy", for a European army.
Perhaps your UK abstention has the same sense French "no", because we are already in the euro. It is a matter for discussion.
Liaisons associate the question of European constitution with critique of Fifth Republic. Chirac hesitates to have a referendum because it will be against the government as well.

YC: French left never tried to recruit from "Muslims". I distributed a leaflet against Saddam Hussein during anti-war protests, and many non-white people thought I was a traitor! Level of debate has gone very low: people identify themselves with nation or race. The far-left doesn't talk about the working class; it talks about "people", and people identify with their "leaders". For many people on the far-left this is a "mustn't criticise", "white man's" complex.
On Europe, I am not for "no". I see the "no" campaign as endorsement of French propaganda: our democracy is better, we have no problem with religions, we have licit... all nationalistic. "A la français": in such a political climate, we cannot seem to side with this chauvinistic side.

BR: On Europe, WL's position is not just "abstain". We have positive proposals, e.g., democratisation, more power to the European parliament; constituent assembly to choose the constitution.

------------
Amendments / discussion on the statement

MT: First, how to proceed? People should say what they want to change/amplify in the statement. And offer to write something.

OD: In Europe we are trying to regroup the revolutionary left, to orient in an existing movement. We also need to discuss this in the document. LCR is schizophrenic on this question, e.g., won't vote for the Socialist Party in France, but won't criticise our Fourth International comrades in the Brazilian Workers' Party.

VP: It's a very general discussion. Should we produce a text with specific strategic questions/answers/slogans? It would be much bigger.
On the world scale the question of democracy includes the question of Bush, not just a question of the US working class against Bush. The altermondialiste movement addresses this question on a world scale.
Brazil: you have a workers' government... should demand that Lula rules without the bosses/IMF. The democratic demands will differ according to the country.
Shall I write something to add to this text?

YC: The statement is addressed to the far-left and then to the wider movement.
If this is your aim, why do you refer so precisely to the Trotskyist movement? Why name a date for the transformation of the USSR? There are two considerations:
1. Whether the Stalinist USSR was or wasn't a new system of class exploitation.
2. To name the date of the change is a question only interesting to the Trotskyist movement.

MS: Yes to comments on Brazil/France. What is the statement for?

YC: "Workers' government" is a very traditional Trotskyist slogan that people will be unhappy with. But people might agree with "workers' political representation".

MW: I want more on international interconnectedness. I think that is very brittle. We need more about the classical "gravedigger" role... trade union revival is mentioned in the first paragraph, needs to be expanded on in the text.

PH: We've had no discussion today about imperialism, nature of our epoch. What does everyone think? We discussed Stalinism. On the phrase "imperialism of free trade": WL uses this to sum up nature of imperialism since World War 2. We have tried to analyse imperialism today: different from imperialism in the age of Lenin.
This is important because we want to start with "what is". What we say about new workers' movements flows from this analysis.

OD: You can't avoid a clash with "orthodox" Trotskyists who say capitalism has ceased to expand because development of destructive forces has outstripped development of productive forces.
In fact an interaction between "productive" and "destructive" forces is in the DNA, e.g., growth of industry and goods together with destruction of the environment. We are not living in the final crisis of the system.

VP: On imperialism and "imperialism of free trade" - no problem in France with this term, people are used to the term "marchandisation du monde". Is that what you mean?
In my opinion, we are not at the end of capitalism, but we might be at the end of humanity! The contradiction between the productive forces and the social forces of production is growing.
US domination, yes, but there are more and more imperialist forces. There is no real European superstate in the offing. More classic, not colonial wars possible, e.g., China, USSR, India, all superpowers. Third Camp must not choose between them. The imperialist state exists; and there are several of them...

MS: Socialism is the result of an economic crisis within capitalism itself. Marx: working class had to overthrow capitalism by an intervention.
No Sweat is about supporting the new gravediggers of capitalism.
"Imperialism of free trade" is an alternative picture of the world, different from the colonialism that Lenin wrote about. It means an integrated world economy and the US imposing a free market "empire" for capital, not just for a native bourgeoisie. We don't rule out new colonies being created, but that is not the mainstream of imperialism today.

BR: "Imperialism of free trade" is economic domination not expressed through direct political control. Much of the left sees what is happening through the prism of the colonial mechanisms of the past. The WTO, IMF are not just tools of the US.
As regards decline of the productive forces, or not, WL has no position. Different people have different views.

VP: On "imperialism of free trade", I agree with MS's description. But people would like to conquer territory in the future.

MT: To respond to VP on democracy: Clearly the European constitution and the Maastricht accords are not democratic. You can oppose them in the name of something more democratic.
But consider the debate in the 1970s when Britain entered the EU. Treaty of Rome is not democratic. Much of the left voted "no" to entering Europe. Did this "no" clearly stake out a democratic alternative to the Treaty of Rome? In fact no. There were two (undemocratic) bourgeois policies in conflict, and the "no" vote in fact endorsed the more backward-looking one.
We don't choose the questions in a referendum. The Tories want a referendum on the European constitution because they think they will win a "no" and gain from it.
During the Common Market vote the opposition included "workers" but was bourgeois, nationalist. The meaning of the referendum is given by the dominant political forces in play. In principle it's possible to have a different "no", but I wonders whether it is possible to be heard above the general nationalist "no". We would vote for the status quo against a bad change, but here we have two bad status quos.
Other questions:
"Democracy and power": the "people" do not exercise power, ruling classes exercise power.
"Power of the people" can mean a bourgeois democracy where bourgeoisie rules with the consent of the people or workers' power.
Our slogans, as in Trotsky's Transitional Programme, should be guided by the logic of the class struggle. So: constituent assembly slogan for France? Does it have enough social weight or grip to be a useful slogan for the working class movement? Or in the actual relation of forces, is a constituent assembly something to be used by the bourgeoisie to make adjustments? Or will all those adjustments, e.g. abolition of the special features of the 5th Republic, be done in passing by a working class revolution?
On the text, I suggest eight points where we can ask for amendments, additions or redrafts.
1. Reference to Trotskyist "labels". This is not a document for a mass audience, and we are Trotskyists. But it may be better to spell out specifically what we take from Trotsky, on the united front for example, instead of making summary references in the text to Trotsky, and discuss the political substance. I will do that.
2. "Imperialism of free trade". Propose PH draws up an explanatory amendment.
3. "Revolutionary Stalinism" against both the working class and the bourgeoisie, creating new social regimes. PH to write an amendment explaining.
4. Development of the working class as gravedigger of capitalism. MW to draft.
5. Development of the productive forces. I do not think there are big differences on this. It is not necessary to discuss them in the statement.
6. VP suggested we explain the relations between the anti-capitalist movement and the workers' movement. VP write something?
7. OD's point on workers' parties in countries where there are not workers' parties yet, or even trade unions, and the differences with countries where the workers' movement is developed (or rotten!). OD to write a few sentences on a general approach.
8. "Democracy". We're not going to discuss tactical questions for every country. But VP write something on "democracy" generally?

BR: We should provide discussion material on the web, e.g. on productive forces and imperialism of free trade?

YC: USSR: Dating the degeneration. Better to leave the door open. And it doesn't interest anyone! Workers' government is a very specifically "Trotskyist" phrase. Do we mean what it has meant traditionally?

MT: I will write something to explain what I mean.

OD: Counter-revolution in USSR - you can date it any time from spring 1918 to 1945 or 1956 or even 1968. It does matter. I don't like the term "revolutionary stalinism".

MT: PH will produce some sentences on this for discussion. Could YC draft an amendment drawing out the positive points at present covered by general references to Trotskyism?
.
VP: There are many documents that need translating French to English to French, e.g., on European constitution, constituent assembly.
On the European constitution: the status quo is better than what is proposed. Most bourgeois "reforms" are like this. Those who defend the Fifth Republic in France are not against the European constitution. In Britain there are important parts of the bourgeoisie opposed to the euro, not so in France.
In the workers' movement the ruptures on Europe also go with a break with the anti-working class measures of Europe.
The partisans of the Fifth Republic end up being partisans of the European constitution, e.g., Chévènement, Pasqua.
The constituent assembly is not a slogan for the masses, but starts a process of thinking. In the past most French workers wanted to bring the left - Communist Party/Socialist Party - to power, but not any more. How can they get the government they want? They discussed this question in their general assemblies during the strike wave. "We want power" but in what form? "What is an elected representative? They don't do what they're elected to do." These general assemblies elected representatives that were recallable.
Is that the same as soviets? The debate between soviet democracy and bourgeois democracy is covered in the call for a "constituent assembly".
Democracy is not bourgeois or capitalist: it can be limited, destroyed, deformed... we have an interest to say "democracy is us". Democratic demands, economic demands, transitional demands are all necessary and linked. Perhaps this is a right-wing position... we can discuss.
--------------------

Reports from Australia and France

MW reported on the work of WL Australia.
Summary:
Goals: to build a class struggle left wing inside the labour movement; a socialist alternative to third worldist anti-imperialism.
Work in:
- Socialist Alliance; joined in 2001 and have influence beyond our size
- trade union work
- in Sydney, collaboration with Worker-communist Party of Iraq.
- produce a magazine every six weeks and distribute the British publications.
WL Australia started 1999 with five members; now 12.

France
(The French comrades described the current political scene).