Gordon Haskell Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From The New International, Vol. XVII No. 5, September–October 1951, pp. 294–296.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
To the Editor:
Comrade Shachtman’s article in the last two issues of the New International entitled Socialist Policy and the War presented an elaboration of the analysis and strategic orientation of the war resolution passed at the last convention of the Independent Socialist League (see Labor Action for July 23, 1951, Independent Socialism and the Third World War).
In the second article, however, there appeared a formulation which although quite correct in itself, is incomplete and also may be so general as to give rise to certain misconceptions about its meaning. I refer to the passage on page 205 of the July- August issue, which reads as follows:
“To maintain political opposition to the war is correct. To continue to prosecute the class struggle is correct. But to prosecute the class struggle in such a way that it would clearly imperil the military position of the government, even to the point where it may be defeated by the enemy and lose the war – that, in the conditions of the Third World War, would be disastrous to the working class and to socialism.”
The reason that misconceptions with regard to this passage are not only possible, but quite likely, is, in the first place, that it seems to employ a classical formula of socialist defensism, that is, of critical, or even “revolutionary” support of the war.
I use the word “seems” advisedly, as a careful reading of this passage in the context of the whole article should disabuse anyone of the notion that any degree of support to American imperialism is being proposed.
The classical formula of critical support to war reads something like this: We will continue to prosecute the class struggle, but only in ways which will not interfere with the government’s prosecution of the war. In other words, this formula subordinates the class struggle to the military and hence diplomatic and hence imperialist interests of the government. In practice, it cannot but mean a suspension of the class struggle in both its economic and political aspects in wartime, or at least its inhibition to a point at which the working class becomes a docile appendage of the capitalist class and its government in the interest of “victory.”
Comrade Shachtman’s formula is, of course, quite different. The critical phrase which differentiates it from the classical formula is “even to the point where it [the government] may be defeated by the enemy and lose the war.” In other words, the limiting criterion by which socialists would be guided in their tactics in the continuing class struggle would be not the military fortunes of the government in general, but only a situation in which a particular action in the class struggle (say a strike) would assure a Stalinist victory not only over the government, but over the working class itself.
Even if this is clear, I feel that the formula still remains so general as to leave out an extremely important element. Although it may be thought that among educated socialists this element may be taken for granted, it is precisely with regard to such “tactical” formulations, i.e., formulations which may be taken as more direct guides to action than is the case with general theoretical propositions, that precision of statement is essential.
The whole article is directed to the conclusion that in World War III socialist policy “must be based on the idea of ‘transforming the imperialist war into a democratic war’ that this can be accomplished only if the working class struggles successfully for a whole series of radically democratic economic and political measures “which would, on the one hand, ‘greatly enhance the military might of the country,’ and which, on the other hand, could not ‘be put into effect without transforming the war from a war of conquest into a just war”; and that in any event such a transformation cannot fully take place under the present regime in the United States or any other capitalist regime, but only under some form of workers’ government.
The objective of the class struggle, when viewed in its broadest terms, is the establishment of such a government. This holds true for us both in peacetime and during a war. Any other consequences it may have must be weighed against the degree to which it advances the workers toward this all-important objective. And it should be almost self-evident that a major class-struggle action which could take place at a time in which the bourgeois government finds itself in such a precarious position that loss of the war to Russia is an imminent possibility is likely to be fraught with major political consequences. In such a situation, the socialists would have to decide whether a continuation and expansion of the struggle would be likely to bring the workers to power (and thus “greatly enhance the military might of the country”), or whether its consequences could be only to deliver the country to conquest by Stalinism. The latter would most likely be true of an irresponsible strike by a relatively small number of workers in a vital industry. A major strike wave in such a context would indicate that the workers had already lost all confidence in the existing government, and that they were actively engaged in a struggle to replace it with one which they believe could prosecute the war against Stalinism successfully.
Although the above may seem to take us into the realm of speculations, I feel that it is desirable to bring out as clearly as possible all the considerations which would guide socialists in their strategic approach to the class struggle in World War III. Thus I believe Comrade Shachtman’s formula would be more precise if it read:
“To maintain political opposition to the war is correct. To continue to prosecute the class struggle is correct. But to prosecute the class struggle in such a way that its only consequence would be to imperil the military position of the government to the point where it may be defeated by the enemy and lose the war – that, in the conditions of the Third World War, would be disastrous to the working class and to socialism.”
Gordon Haskell Archive | Trotskyist Writers’ Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 19 February 2020