27.06.1996

The arse-end of Pabloism

Party Notes

Brian Heron is clearly the leading thinker in the opportunist wing of the Socialist Labour Party. It is important to qualify that statement, of course. As I have pointed out in previous columns, the new organisation starts with a depressing lack of theoretical justification or depth. Characteristically, the architects of the SLP felt impelled to begin with a constitution first, ‘policies’ second.

Heron therefore has little competition. Nevertheless, the man writes well and has the advantage over his present-day social democratic collaborators of possessing a coherent opportunist heritage - that of Pabloism, born in the world Trotskyite movement post 1945.

Trotsky had predicted that World War II would be followed either by the victory of genuinely revolutionary forces in the USSR or its defeat by fascism. In fact, neither alternative was realised and ‘Stalinism’ emerged from the war greatly strengthened. It had even spread beyond the state boundaries of the USSR and overturned capitalist property relations in a number of other countries - another scenario effectively ruled out by pre-war Trotskyism.

Michael Pablo was a leader of the Fourth International who responded to this falsifying of Trotsky’s perspectives by attempting to revise the FI’s programme in a rightist direction. He advocated entryism sui generis (entryism of a special type) into the mass communist parties and other movements. This entryism was ‘special’ as it involved a long-term submersion and the ‘temporary’ abandonment of the fight for a revolutionary programme and party (for a useful discussion, see The Death agony of the Fourth International, produced by the Workers Power group).

What replaced the open organisation of revolutionaries was the iron imperative of an ‘objective process’ which would impel such political forces to fight in a revolutionary way.

The Fourth International Supporters Caucus is obviously an example of this species of mechanical opportunism. Their orientation as “revolutionaries” is not to “expose” left reformists such as Scargill or Benn. Rather it is to unite “with them ... to defend them against the right wing (and infantile ultra-left)” (see Weekly Worker April 18 - reprint of proto-Fisc perspectives document).

Of course, it is correct to view class fighters such as Scargill as different to the rightwing of the bureaucracy. Yet in the name of ‘revolutionary tactics’ the approach of the Fisc acts to obscure the fundamental division in the workers’ movement, a division which is not between left and right reformism. Our movement is cleaved between the polar opposites of reform and revolution, a fundamental line of demarcation that sees Scargill on the same side as the likes of Willis, Monks or Blair.

As Fisc’s fight for a Marxist programme (however it conceives of it) is “subordinate to maintaining the political alliances we have built” (Ibid) with reformists such as Scargill, et al, effectively it exists today as nothing more than a ‘revolutionary’ cover for left reformism in our movement, as foot soldiers for a section of the working class movement’s bureaucracy.

Logically enough, such an orientation has led to a political osmosis as the Fisc and its organisational ancestors have taken on the physiognomy of left social democracy. Thus, we get the incredible claim from Heron that “the leadership of the miners’ strike [1984-5 - MF] is the best leadership that the British class struggle has thrown up since the turn of the century” (letter to Tony Savvas, reprinted in this issue).

In fact, the twentieth century has also seen the class struggle in this country (and internationally, of course) produce a layer of working class leaders of the calibre of Pollitt, Gallagher, McManus, Dutt and Hannington, organic leaders who were united in 1920 in the Communist Party. This combat party represented the highest organisational and political achievement of our class so far, an attempt by the proletariat in Britain to recreate itself as a class for itself, rather than just a class in itself.

See comrade Brian Heron’s thoughts in this issue for an alternative, social democratic view.

Mark Fischer