Skip to main content

Full text of "The spark: theoretical organ of Marxist Workers League. Vol. I #3"

See other formats



VOL. 1 NO. 3 

JUNE 1938 



Labor donated. 


Problems of Coining American Revolution -II 


Revolutionary Tactics In Spain 

Thesis on Anarchism & Syndicalism 



--^— - — ■-: ^ 

-— '-■■ 

J~, d rtor/ak- 

S pain .a nd the Intern al! onn.1 Soono 

Tho war in Spain at tho time of this writing presents a vastly differ- 
ent picture in relation to outside influences and t^ resulting 
effects upon tho internal conflict than tho lineup of forces th t ox 
istod hitherto. If one wore to viow the British policy xn Spain, t no 
unstable position which this country has taken you Id loavo a t a loss 
those who attempt to analyze Britain's policy without having a ba^xc 
understanding: of the steady lino of action that Britain must porsuo. 
Her i^tSreSl in fao^Tar* dictated not by ^e Spanish war proper 
but by far greater stakes whoso influence is felt xn tho latter coun- 
try ,lthough thoy exist outside of Spain. This policy narrowing itself 
within tho S channels of tho Anglo -American conflict arises if rem the 
necessity of Groat Britain to conserve h^r strcngth^to ™Wio.d n.r 
trump card, to play a waiting gamo, and to make hor policies conform 

to an ant i -Amor icon bloc. -hn^mor 

At tho beginning of the Spanish uprising, in July 1936, ^ ka**ior 
blows of th? Spanish workers boat at tho citadels of world capitalism 
°nd mado all imperialist nations foar tho ghost of October. Jho basic 
o^fliot of capitalist economy, that of tho worker o gainst the bour- 
goo'lsio! demoted tho sconced pushed into the background the lessor 
ftrugglo of intor-imperialist rivalry. The position of all capitalist 
nrtlSS foil into line with the sabotage of workers* struggle by the 
Peoples Front and tho bent towards one aim- tho crushing of tho wor- 
ked militancy and hegemony over the ^ ! ar. Bat tie ships of capitalist 
nations, including Britain rnd the United States in tho first month, 
threaten/sly bordered the Spanish coast. 

With the consequent turn of class forces within Spaxn, the so 
hoa-monv over tho war by tho workers and tho rebounding push to power 
o? S ihe bourgeois forces within Loyalist territory there jas witnessed 
c, reciprocal change in the policies of tho nations towards Spain. The 
break in tho war from that of civil to ^P ^ 01 "*' J" n "^t:^£ 
saw Britain take a position on the sido of the Loyalist government, 
for this section of tho Spanish capitalist class was connected with 
Groat Britain. (Tho threat of Franco to Groat B ^ it -^^f 1 ^:^ l ^ nos 
Internally Franco imposed harsh requirements *P^J*VJ ^J^rS^ 
which British capitalists owned nominally, and other interest s which 
Britain possessed in different parts of Spain, ^^^^P*? 
importance, tho British lifeline to the Mediterranean, tho Strait ol 
Gibraltar, was being encroached upon by rapacious Germany ^'"JiJ* 
It was all in tho interests of Britain, therefore, to play hor stakes 

^sfL^cha^go^in internal Spain saw a shift in British policy, 
so lit ll produce g change in tho attitude of Unite ^ states imperxa- 
lism toward Spain, It bocamo in tho bost interests of the Unxt.d 
States to allow tho Neutrality Act to remain xn force, to hinder tic 
loyalist capitalist struggle, in ordor to help chop do wnGro^t Bri- 
tain. As was tho case in Ethiopia, the negative blows that were di- 
rected against Great Britain determined the policy of US imperialism. 
England played her stakes with tho Popular Front- tho United Statas 

kopt tho Neutrality Act* , „„««„ *. n nir 

With the subsequent losses of tho Popular Front there again took 
place a shift in British policy, approaches' wore made towards 1 t. ly, 
first, to wocm-the JLnt tor -away from Germany, ^ potential US ally, and 



********* The advances tO Italy pro» 
t *cn to protect the Modi torrajo^ life! InojJ ^ a aatisf;? to^ con* 
vod to be successful. ^SnisriuSh olliSfo. A tri-pewor bloc mfjffto 

loyalist government of mater x ? admlnist ration in the ^i™^^ 
?n tho near futuro to toM. » -^» r X. of Oro.-.t Brit- In, of tho 

p^mntionarr Tgg£jtog 1n Smln ~ 

t posted workers once having ^(torstood tto posltlo^of ^^on-" 
ro i? various times inquired as to ^%^°^p 0siU on concorh- 

ing, for example, a ^occurence o I an ^ tactics, flowing 

sing. What would we pr opose o - an^ho ^ at prcsont 

from our present l too » *^ s^^gh imperialist war? 

urS o the continuance of tin Sp ^ 

vr^il. This would moan in a ® xl 7? -« f«^r would bo the only ironc voi 
tho larooiona'wrtors'. - ' VTOrkors ttt th0 Imporlr.lWt front 

pOW o rt ^inrrw ovonts might conceivably occur if the noo ^ 

r-Ti rift o^Krss gsa" 

tho "l? nr .^ m ™° t " nd an imperialist war, ^oroin tho oia 3 lf fg a fm , 
^rsuhordinatod^tS Wer-eapit allot rivalry, v,ould hooomo 

would iiavo to succumb to action! ^A^^nt imoorialist 

1 How would the actions of ^hoso who support thoprojonti^ ^ 
v/ar logically proceed to their ultimate concl usion? if u* thQQQ 

Tortosa (tho imperialist front) is at P*°sont *°"» ™*ould have to bo 
social-patriots, a continuance of tho "%, ^* ^^piHho Barcelona 
ndvancod and likewise those groups would ^£f *L*et?vc situation at 
Workers. This contradiction must he so for th. °*3£« t h « povolut ionary" 
Tortosa does not change and, if it in in ^ nI ™ nccoSSity ha vc to bo 
principles to support it now, support v^ao Barcelona, 
c- lied for tho Tortosa front upon ^-uprising irw> an immediate 
Hero then tho contradiction would bo posoddom^naing in m 

resolution. She complexity of the ^^"^"jfS^^.oontlnt.os in 
its bareness and force a decisive stand. p °£ ** ™ ^ id thc v , a r at that 
Tortosa, those who ^ ^^f^ J^ont would of noco- 
front. Upon a workers' uprising in Barooxon- u« therefore any- 

sai?y be P a workers* front diroc tod agi na * J|||g^ ra S?ctory positions. 
ono supporting both would find ^^°tL could not bo advanced for the 
Son aid for both fronts, of necessity, could not o mony 0V cr 
wars at Tortosa and Barcelona would both ^™™* wou ? d have to 
one another,i,e; one seeking *° *J*^$52dSSntS antagonism between 
So drovmed out in order to solve the ^^^ t a for S lo ng duration 
imperialist war and civil war. J^^T?* dominance of fundamental 
g°c?!rf °^%T^oX^^\Z m s struggle and all its impllca- 

tl0n i?'the Barcelona uprising boars ^.^S^i^t^'^^ 
being so basic, would root out the gres ont ^ago»l ^ rlso ^ ovQ ^ 
bourgeois forces now arrayed in combat^ it wou^ thQ 3panish scone, 
beyond that war now being wagod ana wouxu ^ nt bo twccn the Fas- 
?n?n ^at would normally ? c ^Z^^ oiS? Jo^rush tho Barcelona 
cist bourgeoisie and ^ G ,^^g i ^f f?°the social-patriots exist? For 
workers. Now, how would ^° n ^^ ^ £ oops fro m tho Tortosa front ^to 
what would happen would bo a m^rcn ox ^ uu £- 3 da „ W ould tho dis- 
Barcoiona to beat back the > workers. Then , c^f^ ; por th 
tinction hotwoon imperialist W.™^ 1 }*^ which would wash away tho 
would only be SSfi front, the civil war front, support?d that front 
*™r>r*-pi^iist warrront causing unuai- ^ v vm-nte for tho defeat- 

d ^hcrc is cno noro tactical ^««*SiSitS23%»SSSg'l??SL 
ing to contradict our go ™^f ° 00 f sl ^Sf„„ comos at a tlmo^hen tho 
ty ^PP^ 1 ? 011 !!.": ?iS *?? „? Miomtlon in tho roar a. 

Won&'ss 8 * b T Q fsoir ,o P ns tho n ^^u n Kordf|ch 

Russian Gonorca Staff oponod tho front ^/^^fScfend Po tro a rad 
Party, still ^^S^I^^^SSrsfand exposed tho reasons for 

whore tho ^ourgooiio practiced ro,xtiona y wo rking class had to 
work of thoir gomosal dofansi-t lUao ana 

practice dofonsism within tho framework of their revolutionary dofoatist 

1 n Such a situation my present itself in Spain. The Loyalist bourgeoi- 
sie, \7hile now conducting the war actively, may tomorrow, on tho throat 
of a workers 5 uprising in tho roar, docido to open up the front to 
Franco. Then wo shall fight. Thon wo shall occomo dofonsists. But until 
that day, our slogan remains as over: down with tho imperialist wan 
Long livo tho rovolutiontl . .. „«„;;«■•*. 

Thus, what would distinguish tho Barcelona uprising from the present 
front in tho last analysis would bo tho basic factor- tho relation 01 
tho class Struggle directly or indirectly to tho war. In Barcelona it 
would bo uppermost demanding, therefore, tho utmost support 01 an re- 
volutionists. Subordination of the class struggle at the proscnt impe- 
rialist war front must bo transformed into a situation where tho 
struggle will dominate. This can bo done only by working for a^ 
from the present imperialist war. Revolutionary dofoatism at the impo- 
ri-list war front at Tortosa is the present lino to bo pursued. Any 
other lino, which supports tho present Spanish war, can only bo labeled 
s^ciol-TDntriotic for it encourages and aids subordination of tho ci,.So 
struFPlo for imperialist interests! An uprising will clearly expo so the 
social-patriots and sorvo to demarcate thoso people from those ^ revolu- 
tionists who at prcsdnt call for a break from tho proscnt Spanish impe- 
rialist war! 


In the first Installment of "Problems of the American Revolution' 
we showed that, whereas for backward countries the slogan of a workers 
and peasants' alliance was correct, for advanced countries, whose dem- 
ocratic tasks were solved long ago, this slogan was totally out of con- 
sideration. Moreover, our analysis has l«d us to this conclusion: that, 
whereas In backward countries the alliance with the peasantry is the 
only way for the small proletariat to conquer power, In advanced coun- 
tries such an alliance precludes th^ possibility for the working class 
ever to seize power, Henc<* we have concluded that here in America one 
either adopts both slogans (for a workers and farmers alliance and a 
workers and farmers government) or none. As for ourselves, we have de- 
clared ourselves opposed to both in relation to America. 

In the last installment we occupied ourselves mainly with the ques- 
tion of a workers and farmers alliance ♦ Now we shall devote most of cur 
attention to the question of a workers and farmers government. First* 
however, in order to give us a clearer view of the American scene, let 
us view the situation in a backward country. The immediate tasks con- 
fronting a working class which has seized power in a backward country 
are primarily of a democratic nature. Since it is burdened by its 
backwardness and surrounded by world capitalist economy, the workers^ 
government in a backwsr d country can undertake only the first steps in 
a socialist direction. With land still functioning In themain on cap- 
italist relationships and many aspects of capitalist industrial rela- 
tionships still prevailing (unequal wage scales), the proletarian^ dic- 
tatorship In a backward country expresses itselfmore in the political 
control of the state by the working class than through the predominance 
of socialist fejf tionships. By understanding this, we grasp the char- 
acter of the Russian revolution and all its complexities. Conscious of 
the backwardness of T spirit Russia, its lack of Industrial development , 
and fee preponderance of peasant population, two erroneous theories 
have been introduced to the working-class movement as so-called solu- 
tions to the problem. The first theory appears to have an ultra-left 
tinge, the second, a right opportunist structure. In reality, however, 
both of these false theories are not opposites, but supplement each 
other and have acommon fundamental agreement. 

The first theory, the ultra-le-t one, contends that it was impos- 
sible in Russia, aM that it is impossible today in backward countries, 
for the small' proletariat to seize power. These people consequently 
conclude, pointing to the backwardness of the country and to the feudal 
elements which Infest the economy, that only a development of capitalist 
modes of production Is the first pre-requlsite for proletarian rule. 
Since thetrsks of the revolutions" in backward countries are of a bour- 
geois-democraticnature, they conclude that a sod. alist revolution is 
pos-ible only after the completion of these democratic tasks. They 
el aim that the March Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, as ^ was also 
the October Revolution in content a bourgeois revolution, but in a Jac- 
obinical form, a form in which the Jacobinical organization, the Bol- 
shevik Party, utilized the proletariat as a driving force in the com- 
pletion of the bourgeois revolution. So claim the ultra-lefts. 

The partisans of a workers aridpeasants government start with the 
same premise as do these ultra-lefts. They also agree that only a 
"widening of capitalist modes of exploitation" could have opened up 
for the Russian working class the possibility of seizing power. Re- 
alizing that the big boir geoisie hd be com counter-revolutionary before 
the tasks of its own revolution were solved, the role which the Bol- 
shevik Party saw for Itself was that of the !r Jacobins of Contemporary 


Russia" - that is, the driving of the bourgeois revolution to its full 
completion in the' establishment of a petty-bourgeois dictatorship 
termed by Lenin, the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat am 

^"Leaving aside, for a moment, the falseness <f ^J^f^l^ 
Bolshevik line, once one accepts the false P^ s %^ more fo rc.tu 1 
and logical than the sterile position of the ultra-lefts, wno pre-re- 
idly bj waiting for the maturing of the conditions considered pxe^e 
quisites for thesocialist revolution. The Bolsheviks not bein^ able 
to conceive that the small proletariat could ^ilize the peasantry as 
an ally in order to push itselfinto power and that the immed J^e tasks 
of the socialist revolution in a backward country were of ade ^cratic 
nature, were only logical in adopting a formula wh J^xn their opinion 
was to create the best conditions for the socialist revolution . 

History has proved the old Bolshevik formula of a workers ** p **f 
ants government to be incorrect. Realizing that Lenin nade a 180 de- 
gree turn and demanded that "tho old Bolshevism be abandone d . It is 
because they realized their error and corrected i in ^ th .t the 
character of the Russian revolution will go do wn in ^f *|*f a * ^J^ 
the first great prolitarian revolution to shake the foundations ol 
world capitalism. 

Lenin's error can be explained on the grounds that it was hard at 
that time to conceive of a socialist revolution being made in alliance 
with a bourgeois-democratic peasantry. The opportunism of the parti- 
sans of a workers and farmers governmem for Amjrio* °^! f f * f 

xolained away, since it is an elementary point that f^rica is not 
faced with the problem of "widening the base for capitalist exploit., 
tion", but with the necessity of eliminating that j oppressing f°r°*; 

The slogan of a workers and peasants government first P^t f ortn 
bv Lenin, was not intended to be applied to all countries. As * mat 
ter Of fact, Lenin explained that this slogan was to take concrete form 
on Russian soil alone. With regards to countries faced wjt ha social- 
ist revolution, Lenin rejected this slogan as sheer opportunism. He 
very clearly saw that, whereas in Russia there was a common basis fo r 
an alliance between the working-class and peasantry, the revolution, i* 
advanced countries, was going to be a one class revolixtion. Bythe 
very fact t hat he defined a worker s and peasants governnnt as widenijft 
the" base for capitalist explo iTaHol S^^ thereforo rejected a two rorm 
class rul e in countrie s w he l^The^o-cTaTi s t revolu tion and not uie de ^ 
T^To^^r^ T oavitalisry ^M^tron was on the order o^n^aa^ The 
pa rtisans o FT'workors anTTarmers government for the United States arc, 
so to speak, copying the petrified, incorrect, Bolshevik formula m a 

doubly incorrect manner. ,;■■•■ , ~-i nss 

One thing must be kept in mind. Lenin conceived of the two class 
alliance and the two class form of rule not as a socialist, but as a 
bourgeois-democratic revolution. The positive contribution hat an 
be drawn from his false position is that for Lenin a two class form of 
government was out of tho question for advanced countries. The nega 
tive sid- of his position was his tie-up of the correct slogan of a 
workers and" peasants alliance with the false concept of the democratic 
dictatorship, through failure to see that only by su ^/* <^^ toke 
could the small, backward proletariat seize power. J?* J^^f^! 
the partisans of a workers and farmers government are making lie o pre 
clsely in tbeir absorbtion of Lenin's incorrect formula for backward 
countries, and their injection of the formula into a situation where 
even Lenin would have cried out that it does not apply. 


Wo can now, understanding this, dolvo into the question of a workers aria 
farmers government in c deeper form, Wo will leave aside for a moment the 
claim made by certrin elements (Trotskyists) that such a formula is only 
a popular means by which the concept of e prolotsrim dictatorship can bo 
oppressed. Suffice it to say that for us, -s Marxists, languago^hes some 
meaning. We choose our ¥/ords. The only w-y the concept of a proletarian 
dict-torship cm be expressed is by calling it by its right name,, P. workers 1 
end farmers government means exactly what it says- a two class form of 
rule- and la no wry can it be confuso-d with the socialist revolution. Those 
who issue this slogan and who justify it on the grounds that they ; 'give it 
a different content" are in reality either covering up their confusion or 
seeking a good pretext with which to hide their opportunisms In the light 

of Lenin ,; s definition of a workers tad peasants government being a petty- 
bourgeois regime, no doubt is left in our minds that the reel content of 
a workers end farmers government, especially when spelled to tho industria- 
lised United States, can be only thrt of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, 

The character of the American revolution end tho form of government it wil? 
institute depend directly upon the tegks of the revolution. Whereas in 
backward countries the Immediate tasks of c proletarian revolution differ 
from the nature of tho government that carries out those tafcks (democratic 
tasks end a socialist revolution), in the United States tho t-sks end tho 
chrracter of the government ere the same,' that is, our socialist tasks 
dictate without any hesitation a one cless form of government. The slogan 
of " workers and farmers government, wrong even if tho United States wore 
faced with democratic tasks (since no such pnimal es r joint rule of wor- 
kers end peasants is over possible), becomes doubly wrong when ono consi- 
ders the immediate tasks of the American revolution to be not democratic?, 
but socialist 

Those who argue for a workers ~nd fermers government for America will 
hevc to specify the democratic tasks of the revolution, tasks which Ameri- 
can capitalism loft unsolved rnd which the Joint dictatorship will hevo 
to complete. How else will the petty-bourgeois fermers be abl'o to express 
their rule? Certainly the potty-bourgeois farmer will not remain a partner- 
in the government If the regime occupies itself with socialist tasks on 
tho agveri-n field, for that would tend to eliminate his status as | petty. 
bourgeois, In seeking to establish this utopian two class form of rule, ho 
partisans of this slogan will not only h-ve to shelve the socialization of 
the dominant part of l~nd as an immediate perspective of the American re- 
volution, but will be forced to strengthen tho petty-bourgeois status of 
the farmer » 

And here wo reach the crux of the problem, Is it possible for the Ameri- 
can working class to socialize the country's industries and permit tho 
dominant £art of land to function under capitrlist relationships? The par- 
tisans of the slogan for a workers and farmers government will have to 
seek just that path in order to satisfy both classes. We deny that the 
-bove path (socialization of Industries and capitalist relationships on 
land) is possible for America. 

American industry and agriculture arc merged to such a groat extent as 
to make it impossible to have one relationship in industry and an alto- 
gether different economic relation, ship in agriculture. To socialize the 
industiros without a corresponding socialization of tho dominant part of 
tho land would be impossible e Industrialized America, a majority of whoso 
population consist of workers, becomes directly dependent upon agricul- 
ture for satisfying its elementary needs. The majority of the nation, 
engaged in highly developed socialist industry cannot face tho contra- 
diction of depending on crude, private capitalist enterprise to 
supply its elementary needs, To allow agriculture to survive and 



orocecd on its old, capitalist, disorganized basis, when all tte mater- 
ial needs for its socialization aroat hand, would be a crime against 
society - besides there exists the impossibility of sucn a si,uetir^ 
actually taking place. The partisans of a worto rs and fjrmoro govorn 
ment, in seeking a solution to the satisfaction of botn classes are 
not only balking up against the impossible but are consciously attempt- 
ing to retard the progress of society. 

A workers' government in a backward country c-nnot continue to 
exist rs such if the alliance with the peasantry threatens to break. 
On the other hand, if the workers' republic in a backward country re- 
mains isolated for a long period, and because of that cannot take fur- 
ther steps in a socialist direction, the alliance must break. bo iou L 
ps the workers' government occupies itself with solving th© > democrat 10 
tasks on the agrarian field, so 'long will the alliance remain intact. 
Once it attempts to take measures on land, the potty- oourgoois 
peasantry will desert the ship. If, as we say, in America the tasks 
on the pgrarian field are of a socialis t nature, consequently, the 
problem of a break in the alliance is out of the question sine no such 
alliance will ever be realized. Such being the case, the tear 01 a 
break-up of proletarian rule, once it conquers in many advanced coun- 
tries, will not be an issue at all since the revolution made will be 
o one class revolution andwill not face destruction as there will be 
no plliance to be broken. To preach a two class alliance for advanced 
countries or, and this is worse, a workers and farmers government, 
means to say that the revolution, even if it conquers in many countries, 
will be faced with destruction once it attempts to socialize the land. 
Since the alliance with the peasantry must in the fi» 1 analysis come 
to a break, these people consequently grarantee us the failure of the^ 
revolution even if it conquers in advanced countris. Such is the logic 
of the opportunist slogan of a two class form of rule. 

In answering our demandas to the exact democratic tasks the wor- 
kers pndfrrmers government will solve, the partis.-ns of the s leg an 
remind us of the small concessions they will be able to offer to the 
farmers, such as the reduction of taxes and the withdrawal of mort- 
gage s. And it is precisely here that their opportunism comes m, ex- 
pressed concretely in the subordination of the workers' interests and 
the championing of the petty-bourgeois cause. Nobody denies that we 
should aid the farmer in his struggle against the banker. That is all 
done to weaken finance capital and prepare the death blow to capitalism. 
There is a difference, however, between supporting the struggle of the 
farmer for immediate demands before we take power, and the proposal to 
strengthen petty-bourgeois economy on landafter the revolution as a 
means of establishing a two form class rule forwhich there is no basis. 
The Russian peasant allied himself with the proletariat because there 
remained basic democratic tasks to be solved such as the btainmg ox 
lnnd, etc. Certainly the small, petty reforms we mentioned above can- 
not be called basic democratic tasks. For such reforms, we repeat, the 
farmer will not join in a workers revolution, knowing very well that 
one of the immediate tasks of the revolution will be the socialization 
of land. It is useless to say that we can put something over on the 
farmer by offering him demagogic promises and, once we are in power, 
forgetting about the promises. The naivete of such an argumeit is sur- 
prising. Workers' revolutions are not made by cheap promises. Yes, 
the bourgeoisie can afford to be demagogic for they tend to oppress 
humanity. We tendto liberate. 


The workers' revolution in America will be a hi tter strufel. saz 
passing even that of the Russian. Victory wxll^othe^ccompli^ea 
one da? but will express itself in a period of oivil war . 1 ^ 

sands of industrial centers will not bo ^ ed P-f^y^ecessities. Con- 
private agricultural enterprises to supply thorn with noce i 
soquently the socialization of land will be a mcasuie^na win irng 

the civil war period itself. It is here that the ^oio.i him at 
the farmers through demagogy falls to pieces. If wo do win 
first by promising to give him reforms, he will only become 
bittcr-d on learning that he has been betrayedand he will, unlike wi 
Rusfian'peasant, -h?, fooled by ;^ite Guard promiso^of land, later 
allied himself with the Bolsheviks, do just the revcroo up 
promises broken ^ ernmont wr ong as it may 

he, pSr SSS serious consideration if ^at is on the o rde r of the 
dny is not a socialit but bourgeois-democratic revolution, i* a 
take a great theoretic^ to establish the ^JjW.^dH? • Toot list 
American revolution. Hence the important question, how can 
revolution express itself in a two class Jorm of ™lej phG nomenon, 

We have explained that under the his tor icd t ri Kir g revolut i on , 
whore the bourgeoisie could not complete the task s o f « ow ^ 
it was possible for a socialist revolution to °J m f*° °J ™ t the 
We have?lways insisted, however, that whereas it J^J^fSpSI* it- 
Russian revolution was a two ol as %™ v °^°?> ^ ?°rule! OnSe, how- 
self under any circumstances in a two elass form or rule. » 
ever, we are agreed that in America there ox 1st no ***** f ° olaaa 
tasks unsolved by capitalism not only docs the P^ "™ ^ fomu i c . 
made revolution consequently fade into ^background 
of a two class form rule becoras doubly impossible. 

With the majority of the Russian j^Jg^Sg* capftalisf' 
and the overwhelming majority J peasants ^^f ^ c ?^ nl ng un- 
rolationships (consequently the nr jority 01 ^« » 

der capitalist relationships), the' Sectarian rule in sue n ^ 

therefore expressed itself more ^the political control i * ^ 

^lufion^cardSgenorato in any ways, all u = Jo JJJtoj j ^ 
America this problem will not come up. The flails* prodom in- 

immediately strike its roots in ^.f^^^f rSlo of the proletariat 
anco of socialist relationships. Tho PoJ 1 "^^ CCO nomy. Conso- 
will bo guaranteed by tho predominance of 80 ?^J; i 2 1 ? boloss dangerous 
quontly, tho fcances of an internal dego f^tion^will ^JJ^ 
for America than it was in Russia. JP»j3£3jb22^ economy had to 
which because of its isolationism «d ^f^^rrxize itselfand 

in us* energy to march forward and overcome all obstacles. 



-**=— ^ - - — - - --—-->— 

/' a) 

March 10, 1938 


War is a continuation of politics. When the insclvable contradiction 
between the contracting markets and the surplus production of commo- 
dities reaches a breaking point war is the leg ical result* The in- 
vasion of semi-colonial China represents in all sense of the word an- ; 
imperialist war carried en by Japanese capitalism for pure and simple 
imperialist purposes: to use China as a source from which to extract 
raw materials and as a market for her surplus goods* The inherent 
weakness <f the economic structure cf Japan, concretised in the unro- 
sourcefulness of the Japanese Empire proper, simply tended to hasten the 
conflagration, in no way altering the basic reason for the war as sig- 
nified by the contradictions of capitalism* The Italian invasion of 
Ethiopia, the Sra nish imperialist war, and now the Sine— Japanese war 
are only sparks* foreshadowing the great flame- a world imperialist war. 
Those countries who lead the race before the game has actually started 
do not show superior strength but weakness. The relatively "sound" 
stability of American and British imperialism enabled these countries 
to avoid these premature encounters, thus saving up their strength for 
the real big struggle that is to come. 

As we have said, China is a semi-colonial country. What distinguishes 
it as a semi-colony is the fact that practically all the imperialist 
bandits, dressed up in diplomatic attire, are utilizing China as a base 
for exploitation, as a source from which to suck out the riches cf the 
land, as a place to invest their capital and, finally, as a reservoir 
from which to extract super-profits. Imperialism cannot and does not 
want to develop China. It keeps it in a state of backwardness, thus 
safeguarding its exploiting interests, a war against imperialist dom- 
ination does not only weaken imperialism thus facilitating the revolu- 
tion of the proletarians in advanced countries but also awakens the 
Chinese proletariat and peasantry to its own economic and political 
needs. When the Chinese worker struggles against imperialism (providing 
he is- not utilized as a pawn in the struggle against one imperialist 
for another) he is in reality struggling against his own boss. When 
the Chinese peasant struggles against imperialism it opens up new pos- 
sibilities for him to struggle against his own landlord since, first, 
he has the opportunity tg use the arms he has not only against the in- 
vading imperialist, but also against his enemy at home- the landlord 
and, secondly, since it happens that quite aten theold landlord would 
rather prefer to secure himself under the guns of the imperialist than 
to risk a fight against the imperialist for fear that ultimately the 
fight might be turned into a struggle against his exploitation as well; 
hence the landlord becomes willing, as a matter of choice, to become 
allied with imperialism and thus the peasant in struggling against im- 
perialism can advance the class struggle in many ways. When the native 
Chinese bourgeoisie struggle against imperialism they are in reality 
fighting for their right to exploit their own people. True, in mat of 
the cases the natige bourgeoisie never achieves its objective. But that 
doesn't mean to say that it doesn't strive for it. In the sense that 
it strives it therefore fights for it and its struggle weakens imperi- 
alism thus aiding the world proletarian revolution. 

The fight that Chian-Kai-Shek is at present putting up against imperi- 
alism, is historically a progressive struggle despite the reactionary 
nature cf Chiang -Kai-Shek and the native bourgeoisie in oppressing the 
Chinese workers and peasants. The striving for national independence 
iv$> * v . - ; i . ■" ' . .-•" - .-.-"'* "ft**^ ~ ** ; i: . ' ; >x-- _~; ' -J r_ ' 

» tb. pert cf the Chinese nat ^™i bn„,. P M^n while err pnagjj 
-■ t a interes ts, at the sa me" time corresponds to ^ EKe interests ol the- 
H ole chinoao y pcDulafeion."T ncIuding' the workers agdpgQgnt^. tfEero- 
a s the Chinese native bourg eoisie is only as yet asplrTngTTor *ts 
right to oppress tts own people the Chinese worter is -^-d} engage im- 
not in aspiration*, but dr actual fighting against a section o f ^ his im 
noria list bosses, the Japanese capitalists. Thus the struggle d the 
Irl^t in cettln* rid of those who mainly oppress them today only fa- 
Slit^tes hlfaspfratlons in getting rid if ,-jJl oppression *°™, f 
eluding native oppression. In this sense, the struggle cf the Chinese 
wn-rkorr gainst foreign imperialist domination is only the first step 
toward a S higher druggie for the proletarian dictatorship. Ever since 
the Japanese invasion of Manchuria the Chinese national bourgeoisie 
Ms Deen retreating steadily. At first it tried to reach a compromise 
wllh Japanese imperialism in the attempt to satisfy the wolf with some 
concessions. Chiang*K*.*-Shek put up some mild resistance in the Man- 
churian conflict but capitulated in the hope that the wolf sould be 
satisfied with Manchuria alone. The wolf swallowed Manchuria and pro^ 
Seeded to grab the Chahar provinces. Again Chiang -Kai-Shek heading the 
Kuo-Min-Tang which is the Party cf the native bourgeoisie, capitulated, 
still Sop inl' that somehow he might be able to reach a compromise with 
japaLse'imlerialism. Finally it became clear to *§• **£»£ '^ lr 
„L 1p that thev had to struggle for, if they didn't struggle, tneir 
Julfwoulf be completely eliminated.' Thus began the resistance on the 
part tf the Kuo-Min-Tang culminating in the present sine- Japanese war. 

The Kuo-Min-Tang is the party cf the national revolution or, better said, 
rt£ mrtv of the Chinese bourgeoisie. Within it there exist various 
factfons* "representing tie interests of different l*p J^ll.t jow- 
ers. These imperialist factions, however, do not <x ntrol the Kuo l,in 
S«tU Thev sir-ply bargain for positions; the American controlled f^c- 
tSn'works for concessions for US imperialism while the British contro- 
lled faction works ?or concessions for English imperialism. Before the 
KuS-Min-TtoR undertook to struggle in open warfare against Japan there 
iare manv ^liberations. The lift section of the Kuo-Min-Tang favored 
ana ami SSSTu policy of struggle while the right wing up to date 
favors a peace with Japan for fear of losing everything if the w.r is 
lost. The resistance on the part of China is conclusive proof that in 
ihi-\i-ru2ale the left wing came out victorious. In this respect it is 
oppcrtun^foVecalllhe Snapping of Chiang-Kai-Shek. The Utoapper" 
\m SSa instance did not represent an ordinary war lord but a certain 
section o? S the C ChInese capitalist class who *Uf * *■ Borgd to^ch a 
measure to convince the general of the ? rrectnasssof their policy. 
5hll Certain section of the capitalistclass was crystallized in the icit 
wii? of the Kuo-Min-Tang which wrs more far-sighted than the old consor- 
va?ivf wS The former understood very well the new turn of the Stal- 
Ini ts ^concluded, quite correctly that there Was no danger d pro- 
letarian or peasant struggle being led by the Stalinists. Realizing rno 
onen betrayal Sf?he Chinese stalinis ts of the Proletarian interests and 
n?tn realizing that there was no Marxist Party in China, the left wing 
of ?he KuoSin-Tang convinced the general that the struggle against lfl- 
periaUsm coSd of confined to purlly nationalistic-bourgeois channels. 

w»« i- the Chinese national bourgeoisie fighting and for whom.? as 
V^tl before no oppressing class fights for abstract principles. The 
?Mnetemti?'al bourgeoisie fights fSr its right to exploit. Looking 
??? from a pure mechanical point Of view, one would conclude: if the 
at it from a pure moo fights for its right to exploit, wherein is 
Shi°S^2 STrogSfvo* »«£?: reply:, th/native bourfeolsie as yet 

has not managed to attain its goal, to bo the sole exploiter tf Chinese 
people* it is striving for that* The real exploiter of China is for* 
oign imperialism* in the struggle against foreign imperialism,, it is- 
true, the native bourgeoisie stands to gain. But whereas the native 
bourgeoisie only stands to gain, the proletariat is already gaining; he 
is engaged in fighting a section of his present main exploiters, for- 
eign imperialism. So there we see that the struggle against imperial- 
ism, if utilized correctly, does not gloss over class differences but 
advances the class struggle; it opens up now possibilities for the wor- 
king class* Struggl&ngr against hit imperialist exploiter the prole- 
tariat deepens the class struggle in the colony and prepares itself for 
the overthrow cf all exploitation, including native oprrossion. But f*. 
that again is not hitting the main point* What is important is the bigg 
that the colonial strugglo deals to world lmporlalteu The most important 
question lit what erracts will a aeroau of aapaaese uttperialism have on 
the struggle fop the world revolution? What effect will it have on the 
Japanese eiaptre? And than again* what effect will it have on the rest 
of the oppressed colonial people? Those are the dominant question! which 
should be asked to help us find why the struggle on the part of China 
is progress ive« 

In our thesis on the National and Colonial Question we have emphasized 
that the major force for world revolution is the proletariat of the adv«* 
anced countries • Consequently we have concluded that what is decisive 
to the wo rld Proletariat is not the victory of the national bourgeoisie 
of the eolojiy W«e the defeat -of tihe imperialist power or powers » i*io f 
without any colonial possessions would hav$ long ago been overthrown by 
the working class* Thus the reason for the progressiva nature of the 
war Ohlna is carrying on becomes clean it Is a blow at imperialism fa~ 
ciliteting the revolution in advanced capitalist countries which are 
decisive for the world revolution* In other words, the struggle of the 
colonial people forms a link in the chain of the world revolution* The 
effects a defeat of Japanese imperialism will have on the other oppressed 
colonial people is obvious* It will enccurftge other colonial people to 
rise up and fight for their freedom from imperialist domination* Thus 
what i3 localized today as only a struggle on the part of the Chinese 
people against Japanese imperialism may tomorrow spread, with a defeat 
of Japanese imperialism* into a struggle against American, British, and 
all imperialism* In this respect the duty of Japanese workers is to work 
for the revolutionary defeat cf their government and army, thus estab~ 
lisbing ocBerertaly a relationship between the struggle of the Chinese 
people for emancipation and the struggle of the Japanese proletariat 
for the proletarian dictatorship. Every hammer blow that the Chinese 
l^eople give to Japanese imperialism is of decisive importance to the 
fate of the Japanese proletarian revolution and vice versa. Every blow 
that the Japanese workers inflict against their government at home is an 
aid to the colonial people; of China*- Bringing it closer to our shores, 
we would conclude that the task of the Marxist Workers League is to 
utilize the struggle of the Chinese people to awaken the Lati^-An*e^ican 
semi-colonial people, the Puerto Ricuns, the J^llllppiAee, and tc <**1\ 
on them to rise up against Yankee imperialism* 

We do no 

say any 





China is 

t in any way doubt that American, British, or we might as well 
imperialist country competing with Japan, profits from the 

China is putting up against Japanese imperialist invasion. They 
however, in a secondary sense, tfe^the sense that a defeat of 

imperialism might not eliminate them completely from the Chinese 
But that is something entirely different from the claim that 

fighting. «an imperialist war for the interests of America or 


Groat Britain. No, we deny tna latter ^en.xonU f .,, Bu , uhat 
struggle some imperialist power xs bound to go * ^ strugg i e . Wo 
in no way alters the progressive nature of the coloni b. 
peree that if a situation arises whereby to ? °°i??J lat power only to 
fir its independence but fights against one imperil 1st P ^ 
substitute it with another, then we would have nothing ^ ^ 
such a war. But that is not the case *"£ °hxna. w^ ican or 
aeainst Japaese imperialism only t °f; ubst " u ^ i " i ^ invasion from Ja- 
B?itisL Today she is confronted with an imperialist g™^ dagger . 
pan. Sho is fighting this invanbaue i ^ c Chinese national 
Rut if America wore to invade China tomorrow, ^ confronte d with an in- 
bourgeoisie would also fight, just as ^.^6,^onf^on resisted> T 
vasion by all imperialist P^ra, tho Choose bourg Velther America 
day she is not conf rented with such a world wide ^ ^ fray# 
nor Great Britain can afford to become *™ x - lng a waiting game, sa- 
?nese two strongest antagoxu fxc powers .re playing ^ ^ n 
ving up their war resources for ™i® °* s t ^ v i 8 able to utilize the 
really decide the fate of China. China today xsaox hen its own 

Resent antagonisms among the ^^^^JJffor a Japanese defeat to, 

hand. It is able to P la V^St!S benefits from Britain, in order to 

at the same time, extract certain heneixts ir content ion that China 

ootain war materials. In contradxstxnctxon to thereon 

is fighting an imperxalist war f °£ ^";" ± or ii me rica profit from 

rrect to analyze it this way « ^™" ^J a £n£ profits from the Bri- 

the Chinese resistance, Chxna on the other nan , p t8 becoine re _ 

tish and American antagonxsms to Japan, tnus 


A victory of t h e ="-30 people over ^apanesoi.perx.Us^i^ ^ 

easily inspire revolts in ^British, ™ g weake ning Japanese 

case the hope of British ^ric*n imperi^^ of China, mght very 

£uj**£ into'fooo™ again* these very same powers. 

very well do we realise that if ^J^^^^trSS^S' 

rialist war. The struggle of the J™*"** eopxe & cage Amerxcan 

come subordinated to ^^P®*" 1 "^!™* to proclaim that "China is 
imperialism would have ^V^^ne tere st to p ^^ be tQ 

fighting for independe nee « b ut ^.^f tnat America's entrance into 
the lie of these phrases and to P°^J ° t annex chlna for herself. In 
S&TJS fnlT^f p b oIieTo?t e evo;u^nar y defeatism would be in oroer. 
Th e task of the Chinese P-letariat is net to keep apart ^-the^lx- 
tary struggle against Japan semper a xst in Japa nese imperialism, 

participate in that struggle. But whxle t ignx 6 ^ independently, 

the proletariat of Chxna must ^^f^^wn organizations, with the 
into its own armed b f J^^'^le "gainst imperialist oppression to 
perspective of carrying the struggle agax n J; ^ lon inc iuding natxve 
Higher plane, to a strugg *« »6^& t ^Jf ? he task of a Marxist 
oppression, for the proletarian dictatorshxp. in Chiang- 

° P P a?ty in China would be to explain to th ^™ whe the struggle 

Kai-Shek is Presently fight x ng Ja panose p ^ rQache d a point 

will have taken on a s k a ?P®^J^n, wno become t urned 

where the fight against ^P?^^"J e ^Sn included, then the same Ohirng- 
^iSeKTilfin 2 ^?: wflila S fove? XO to the side of the imperialist 


counter-involution. We will mar ah separately and stri S n con _ 

Chiang -Kai-Shek, at no time supporting him, .^ ^Jnative tcur- 
fidence in his government, at no time capitulating to the n 

o-eoisie', and when the time comes we will march dono -,.no. 
of course aided by the peasant masses. 

The Marxists of China must raise the demand ^ ^^^^ J^J^ 
imnerialistrroperty, including the property of those *£££* £ Strikes 

tries who at present are not directly involved in th. .truggi 
-gainst imperialist concorns is on the order of the dayll ^ l6no tt &xt 
Est not Z confined to a fight against Japanese toP^ 1 "" riche of 

must not ho confined to a ugwi tt& "-— = ? <^"r~— nY : lnit 4- he 

to a xxRiiu I'^uiii&b caj-j. j-i.x^i?**— - , f rhino i^ "oro^ress 

China. The fact that the struggle on the part of Chin. i rjcg 
and that we support this struggle does not £^ ^^J^Lts as w 
from organizing the workers a ^inst native b|urg ^is interes concerns 
It would he a complete betrayal to ^^^^eo^LtaWis^entB. W 

, \ju ut ouo oc.i-w n^j w MfUnf fhiq would neaii anua 

lW j. p 4-v> betrayers who claim "tnat -cnxb wuux^ mw 

oni.iag native U*S. ?Sj L- would harm the struggle agains^im- 

^d to hesitatrtolo the same in Chinese b^rgeoi. ^™fSeaTantag* 
shall not listen to the betrayers ^o claim that this wou a 
oniiaiag native interests and hence would harm the struggle g 
poriaStaS ^e class struggle must never cejBolI It must h e r .1 
I higher plane, to a political struggle against the state.^ ^ 


trary, the struggle against J^^ 8 ® ^P "^™^ ls intensified, 
successfully if the «i*U«g class ^^le in China is le 

Soon or Iter thenative bourgeoisie is bouno to des ojt tne 6fe 

gainst imperialism if the working class J omes threat t ^ 

sooner we become that threat with the inevitably result aga inst 

tive bourgeoisie will desert the struggl '^^ e ^ r £L struggle on 
&*£££ SS -SSSSS; i -Pe^-m mSsJ be defeated first" would 
be nothing less than betrayal. 

How concretely do we support the struggle of the Chinese people? Does 
it mean that we -eulogize Crhiang-Kai-Shek as the great f*« rolc 

Chinese people"? NoIJl We explain th J Tȣ counts r woiut / .^ 

ofChian-Kai-Shok and his present role in JJPj°"Jgf t ™ ti £ n . Kal . sh ok the 
and Peasants. We explain to the workers that d, spi *| °™ . g the blow 
struggle is historically progress ive since what is deCisi ? 
„4_ ^^■pnMion Do we 90 on the streets coxxogx-xi^k i. -^-.. 
K-i-SheS NoT If we cf collect money from the^meric,.n workers, it 
will go to^ra building a Marxist Party in China it will go tow rd 
,elping the -trugg^ .«* ^V^SEVf^ Chln^we 


independent workers militia we would di !f£ J^, c r ktrs7 hs another 
to Cbiang-Kai-Shek andhave it delivered totho workers adv0CGta the 

T eans rf surfer ting the struggle of the ohinese Peopxe , i^depen- 

stoSing W the workers of any arms shipment to Japan that is I^E^ 
WOT W^arTjE®pSuoh actions are to take f^f^f capitalist 

^™T ^Inf^mfrwl ^^^^T^SSiS to .take 
Wercsts. At no time ao * £PP^ Chinese. When the American 

nese waters i We must y Chinese waters not for any peaceful m- 

SSSaS: ^faf aS-e^T'tea^ SETOSE wo^rs tbal M. 

. .ft, : > COOL 

hatred must not be directed against Japanese as such but against the 
Japanese bosses, as well as against American bosses; that his main 
enemy is at home, in Washington and not in Toykio, that the only real 
effective way of aiding the Chinese people is by struggling for the 
overthrow of American imperialism. We categorically reject the anti- 
Japanese boycott sponsored by Stalinists and American merchants who 
compete with Japanese goods. What we desire is not a consumers boycott, 
which at best is only a petty-bourgeois affair, but workers action in 
form of strikes, which will not only harm Japanese imperialism but also 
American capitalist interests, . workers demonstrations and other mili- 
tant workers action, a strike at the point of consumption is a phili '^ 
tine idea, a reformist panacea, at best an expression of petty-bourf v *a 
radicalism. The workers must eat, the workers must wear clothes! If t«$, 
dcn«t buy frrm Japan, then they will be forced to buy from Germany^ 
Italy, or from other countries w'io se regime amounts to a military dic- 
tatorship. Do the workers in any way benefit if they buy from "democra- 
tic" exploiters? The same capitalist dictatorship exist in these "de- 
rocratic 11 countries as in fascist countries. To teach the workers to 
boycott fascist countries means in essence to smuggle in the idea of 
supporting bourgeois democracy as opposed to fascism. This we rejectli 
We must actively come out against such consumers boycotts for they di- 
vert the workers from the correct path, for they lead the workers into. 
petty-bourg'o'o'i's' 'cha'nh'els of "struggle 11 . 

To tfto Reader 

If you agree or disagree with us, there is one thin g: £^ 
admit- that "The Spark* is a theoretical organ wort J *^ding. « ™ fi 
been an established policy of most pthor »£>*»»• *»* to ostahli^h a 
*nly to read while the waiter is only to write. We J*jh to oa^li-n a 
now precedent. Wo wish to give the reader not only ^^^^^7 
road but to write. Agreeing or di^a^ooing with us you have the 
•rmortunity to express your own thou^its. fho policy of J^^SJ^oa 
t? P peSSci Z o before the wcrktog class. Bittor hiBtorxoal oxporxoncos 
hav? taught us that deep political differences are J^^^ !?* ^J ' 
tS^o disoiMsod among tho selected few, .but in front of the class as a 
whole/ #he correct lino will come oat vxetorious in tho 9***- w lt 

Wo therefore urgb the reader to cemmsiioata to US' immodiatoly. 


John I. Light 

General Delivery 

Now York Oity 

A 3 a reminder wo also liko to inform tho roador that ho janj^oomo -^ 
subscriber to "Tho Spark" and roooivo it 1&J»U to™*?- ******* * 

tho year fw gx&$ ova a<*L^vJ*^«~tl»o ***** * 


_n Anarchism and S^ndlcajj^gm 

- .„ i rjp^or^PCT has thrown 
X. Tns »tte~ ^n^uptcy of ^aUnis^d Soc^l-g-c^, 

raany B worker if ° ^™J s °^X^vers up "• °™ *f ev ° ,*? V no t 

" . ifce reforest and centrist P-ties^tediy attack «-"*£■ 

2, ^ne reiux^ however, the more harm tney u ^ F ll0W can 

m>, p wn re their sttck it, nowevei, v „- anarchism alive* 01 no*. 

^r^Itirof ^cnlar^ .«*£« J-- o?rsS^'^r.att^ ca L , 

very attackers are supporters of the oaur, ^^^^ It is high time 

^"Tr-r-LrtLde^^sSonla^present its vie., . 

chat a Marxist Revolution" on an- 

3. mat MS been said by Lenin in his State Years,, bow - 

f iS^rifsto r^ndf or^or^creti.tion, .ore cianfi- 

c.°tion» ~| ffl UltrD— 

4. Anarchs, is not ^-^^^J.SSS S/doSe the^ove- 
leftism at least ol aims to f allow ^ tion of Marxis,.^ kind 
merit one favor- it is fr ani, characterize anarchism ^loo 
of specimen ^J n | ^ ^tty. bourgeois radical-Ism. Utopian movem ^ 

fch f i L 3 ?""?h%rL^e revolutionary worktngolaaa . fhe »°™J an m0V3 - 
f LS?f of ?SaUty aS his solution conforms to ^ty. q . , narchlam 
a world oi re<iix j influence of the petty duui^ however a 

leftism does net alter its Pf ^-^f^rgeois radical movement al- 
^^^ n no * Q W pq in essence a peo^-juui caine out tor 

Bevolutionaries were a ^"erspecime ^ able f spouting th. 

life al- 

tools of the bourgeoisie. 


* & , i" alwals the case with a utopian po ^^^^^athlo'real- 
5. As " always frQm Bft8 ing e rovohition^r, p is 

atterod by cold *£ii^ n „ s clos3st to its nose do § ±at 

^ 1t v S |:L,se of refill to see the necessity for the pr ^^ ^ 
rr, 33 ? S ^te oower for its own purpose, fore, o ^ ^ 

to use at.-.w ^ - ftda „ p^ it found itseii oiQo ^y ,m, 1G 3V ents 

anarchist Utopia ,«u»der _nd i t he wkingclass^ Ihe 

bourgeoisie, usin t^to ° s to foraot the hopeless confusion 
of Spain are too close vo Uo to iuig, 

found itself in. n .,^„^- 

, i „ a «, th®re are classes there will he a sta - * t est ablieh 
6. as lo fS n ^ n ^h 3 bourgeoisie cannot immediately hope 
at in overthrowing biX ^ 

a classless society. It must cope with tho vast counter-revolutionary 
bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie which are not immediately assimilate 
ei into the now life. Classstruggle between the -oetty-bourgeoisie, bour- 
geoisie and workers even after the revolution is inevitable; the prole- 
tariat must establish its state to gr.-du.-lly liquidate the pottyroour- 
gooisio and bourgeoisie as a class. The proletariat must organize its 
orm state machinery to liquidate the oountor-rsvolvtionary forces _whicn 
-Till exist even after it lies seized power. It is not encu gh to seize 
the land-one must hVve state power to keep these things. Without shat- 
tering the bourgeois state machinery ~nd creating in its pl?co a wor - 
kers state machinery to regulate life, to guard the connuosts^ of one 
revolution, it is impossible to create a socialist society. Those are 
the lessons of Spain. Anarchism up to ft«t3 has not gr-s^ed this -oint 
and therefore understands nothing, "hite declaring itself to be against 
every lend of state, anarchism is, in reality, a hin ranee to tWS es- 
tablishment of a proletarian state and mly helps to preserve the cap- 
italist state. Ho* who gives tho worker a utopian solution thereby gives 
him no solution at all and thus, in re.-lity, a wrong solution. 

7. Blinded ¥ ' its utopia of the immediate introduction of a "Hbsr- 
teri-n ccmmunism ; ', anarchism forgot all about the necessity of scatter- 
ing the Spanish bourgeois state of wiping out the bourgeois police, its 
army and its courts. Neither could it 2 o against its program and estab- 
lish a workers state. In many places the spontaneous movement Ox the 
workers wiped out the bourgeois police. By their own Instincts, the w«r- 
k-r. s ora-rized their own armed detachments. B u t anarchism had nothing 
oositive to offer. It had no progr-m to centralize these armed workers 
forces. It could not tell the workers to establish their own state, for 
that contradicted the -nerchist theories. "While the bourgeoisie was ou- 
st consolidating itself, -nrrchism was busy constructing within ths 
framework of a world capitalist economy its isolated "cl'ssless corn- 
mures its "fro 3" societies . Its attacks against Stalinism are therfore 
smokescreens to hide its fundamental agreement with Stalinism on tne 
theory •f building socialism in one country. 

8. Because anarchism opposed participation in bourgeois elections 
ss tantamount to betrayal, in the dynamic of events It found itsolt 
suooSrtJnp a capitalist Peoples Front electoral bloc, ihese kind ol 
180 decree turns holds true for ultra-leftism as well. Who roas ultra - 
lrftism is the other sid; of the spmo opportunist com, rnarceism is 
reformism turned inside out. Marxists realize only too well the impos- 
sibility of overthrowing the bourgeoisie through' parliament pry actions. 
But «t the s.-me time Marxists know how to utilize bourgeois parliaments. 
Th— us- It solely as a platform from which to expound ' the ir views, 
from which to expose the" promises ofthe bourgeois parliamentarians, and 
ebov- all they utilize the parliamentary platform from which to sum- 
mon the workers to direct mass action against the bourgeoisie end Its 
o-rli-m-ntrry oovernment* It is no accident that those' pure -anarcniot3 
landed u- in a bourgeois cabinet. 'fhoDas Marxists utilize all liber- 
ties wrest el from the bourgeoisie as a springboard^ for thj oW throw 
nf th- bourgeois state, tho bourgeoisie en the other hand utilize cn.s- 
anarchist "purists" to further suppress the workingclass . 

9 'na-c^is^ up to this very dev is aupo#rti»g the Spanish imnsri- 
-li-t wr " T t in fact was greatly responsible for helping to bring a- 
bout tho trrnsfomiation of the civil -ar^ into an mr.erialist^ slaughter. 
Th : -oci-1-ostriotism of the anarchists is not -n accident, ;omo of 
fc ^ ir i.-, rd i n g members in the 1-st World War were ardent supporters of 

, _ ^ (14) 

thoir own imperialists. Shouting empty phrases *bout "general strikes to 
contort wars', 1 tha thought of revolutionary defeatism is far, far removed. 
from thoir Utopian minds * 

' 10. Within tho anarchist movsmont there -ra various groupings disa- 
greeing with each other on some points, but all adoring to the basic 
philosophy of anarchism. One of tho loft -narchist groupings, the Friends 
of Durrutti came into existence trying vary hard to reconcile reality 
vdtb tha utopim theories of anarchism. It too, in clinging to the old 
rnarchist rubbish, -as permeated with ooportunism from its vary founds - 
tion, dosrito tho fact that it fought heroically on tha barricades. *or- 
gotting ail about tho old rnarchist position which opposed any kind 01 
state, it came out for a government of tha CNT-UGT; quita in tho stylo 
of thoir right wing comradas who also isouo tho sama opportunist slogan 
now . 

11. Tha mass following anarchism has in Ipain arrong tha work! ngclass 
doos not altar tha fact that it is a potty bourgeois radical tendency. 
Potty -bourgeois radicalism having such - "revolutionary 1 outward a s^ct 
do;s indeed attract workors, liko many othar pottyObourgeois radical 
movements of tha past which infiltratad tha rmks of t ha workin ? closs. 
But it is safe to pradict that Sp-in will bo tha tombstone of ^narcaism. 
It is tha last pl~co on earth wber ; it had any graat inroads in tho^ 
workingclass. If a Marxist Party had adxistod anarchism would ha va ooon 
discredited much earlier. As tho situation exists it will therefore 
taka a little longer to rid this patty-bourgeois rrdical tendency out 

of tha ranks of labor i 

12. Just as the Anarchist views the strta ss an oppressing force to 
bo abolished immaaiately upon seizure of power, so too, does he loon 
ur.on tha political part./ ca dictatorial. In his abstract concept of 
"Wrn freedom" Which represents his petty-bourgeois ^wloj, th, to- 
rrchist sees the political party, especially ? stronoly c,ntr liz-d on. 
not as an rid but a hindrance to the revolution. Since tha ruostion ol 
?ha oerty and th. State are so bound up together and of fundamental im- 
portance a theoretical error in one must lead to a principled ceviation 
in tha" other, causing confusion. This confusion is represented in v r- 
iOtis shades of Anarchism; from a half-hearted attempt to create som ; 
functioning body, which represents a. political -arty more or leas, to 

f total refaction of any vanguard and depending upon ^^^f/^ssing 
rising of the -ork^ngclrss. But in usance all agree as to tna ©prising 
nature of tha political party. 

13. Thus, since the Anarchist doaf not under st end the necessity of 
r state os a means of maintsL ning workers' power, likewise, t\win% 
from this you hrv a tha complete disregard and rejection of a S^ d ^f 
fore- w- DCh^tst not only overthrow tha old rule, but which must weild 
t° n- oow^ Contrary to the Anarchists "human freedom" concept the 
roIi?ic.l aaJby is not separate and above the workingclass acting as a 
domtr^tin- fore , over it , but is part of the worker-"., arises from them, 
?2F5;S n->w?v -cquiK)d state power for thorn. Every economic class in 
hi tory\^d a y oa?ty and state to seize power for it and to weild the oow- 
ar ?he workerrne^d this too, with one Important modify Lootl£j tho *> * 
for - u-rtv will vary inversely to the -dvancemont of th ; dict,-corori 
a? th~ orolaSriat towrd a classless society. Tha political party and 
the state are co- exist ant; likewise both become extinct upon the dis- 
appearance of claosos. 


_ — ________ _ ( 15 ^_ — , — ^ ^ — 

Syndi call am 
1. Whereas Anrpc&Ism r : cognizes the necessity of a vnguard but con- 
trrdicts itself by saying that "no party Yirs a monopoly over the work- 
ingclrss a , the syndicalists reject completely tho need for political 
action. Even a certain political clause, which was subordinated to the 
whole line of action on the economic field in the IWW manifesto of 
1905, wrs rejected in the later manifesto of 1908, This 1908 mmlfesto 
which today is the preamble of the IWW, presented a full syndicalist 
lino . 

2. In their rejection of political action tho Syndicalists limit 
their activity solely to the economic field. Their me in weapon of 
struggle against crpitalism is the general strike, which forms tho 
height of revolutionrry action for the syndicalist. As a means of 
breaking down tho capitalist system, or as the Syndicalists express it, 
"taking away the power of tho capitalist rnd gaining this power for 
ourselves, " Syndicalism U30S sabotage and the Qtriko'. Th*u constant 
strike nd sabotage, tho Syndicalist hopes to propcre for the day when 
there will take piece the general strike, the culmination of the Syndi- 
calist rctivity against the capitalist class, which will be the comple- 
tion of the "building of tbo new society within the shell of tho old". 
To the Syndicalist, "Every Strike Is c Small Revolution and a Dress 
Rehearsal For the Big One." 

3. The Syridlcalisl desires to form industrial unions $t ich will cm* 
brsico whole industries end evutually "One Big Union" to represent all 
industries within r country* The building ofthese revolutionary indus- 
trial unions will be within"tho old shell of capitrlism", rnd thus the 
new socio ty will see its formation within the old. 

'The concept of "building the now society within the shell of tho 
old", if analyzed carefully, comes Very close to social-democratic re- 
formism. The social-democrat 3 clso bolcivo in -initiating "socialist 
measures" while capitalism continues to exist. Gradually these "so- 
cialist measures" will become the dominant part of the ooonomy of tho 
ccmntry and thus the country mil have thru evolutionary stops enter- 
ed into socialism. T^here you have a opportunist social -democrat! c view. 
Isn l t this exactly what the Syndicalst formula morns? Wherein, however, 
do they differ? The Syndicalist conceiv :>s of a time Aon all the work- 
ers will become organized into industrial unions and then they will 
give the signal to stop working-"the general strike". This general is 
supposed to paralyze the country to such an extent that the capitalist 
will become holploss-"Armies will bo of no avail. Capitalist governments 
may isa&o their mandiates in vein."( pamphlet by Grover H. Perry -pub- 
lished by Iff -"Hie Revolutionrry IWW"), Capitalism then will collapse 
according to the Syndicalist. All that the unions will hrve to will bo 
to discard the doc:yed system rnd £ick up the spoils of victory, thus 
realizing the industrial union society. There isn f t that a wonderful u- 
topia? Micro in is th3 rub? 

Tho mean fault of the Syndicalist is that he daosn r t understand 
the state. By foiling to understand this he understands nothing rnd 
from this flows all his incorrect positions on the various questions. 
First, end foremost capital! am does not collapse. It simply does not 
fall apart by merely- a general strike. Agrinst such a strike the cap- 
italist statowill use tho army, police, navy - -11 the forces at its 
commpnd - in order to break the strike. A strike alone is not the end. 
It is a morns to en end, nad s ometimes a wrong mora s. One should not 
play with general strike. When" utilized in tho interests of the work- 


ers, the general strike becomes a tactic within the whole framework of 
the struggle of the workingclass directed against the bourgeois state. 
Like a demonstration, the general strike Is utilized as a stepping 
stone toward higher forms of struggle culminating in the insurrection a- 
gainst the bourgeois state* At tidies, however, the demonstration is out 
of place and, if called for, might injure the struggle of the workers a- 
gainst capitalism. The same Is true of the general strike. At times 
when the struggle of the workers ha3 already reached a higher plane of 
struggle than the general strike; ie, barricade fighting, insurrection, 
etc* the call for a general strike might very easily become a boomer - 
rng against the workers since it might tend to confine the workers 1 :' \ t 
figjfrt to pure, simple economic boundaries. Conversely, a call for the 
general strike prematurely might exhaust the latent energy of the work- 
ingclass which is coming to the fore, and thus result In further demora- 
lization of the workers. The bourgeoisie will then take advantage of 
this in order to completely drown all seeds of revolt. The main thing to 
remember is that a general strike is a tactic to be used opportunely and 
not a panacea for the overthrow of capitalism. Furthermore, whereas the 
Syndicalist considers the tying up of the industries the end of the 
struggle, we Marxists consider "this a stepping stone toward insurrection 
Workers seizing of factories without a workers armed force to protect 
those factories is a meaningless phrase* It becomes necessary to organ- 
ize workers' militia in order to smash the bourgeois armed forces. Es- 
pecially in such an industrialized country as tho United States, where 
the bourgeoisie is strongly entranced , the civil war may extend for 
years. For this it becomes necessary to organize the fighting State of 
the proletariat; first, to cope with the cohnter- revolution rnd second- 
ly to organize and regulate a normal and functioning economy. To entrust 
all this work to a trade union Is not to understand the character of 
trade unions, A fighting party of the proletariat, steeled in the 
struggle, able to lead, is the only organ which can guarantee a victori- 
ous revolution. 

4. In their total concentration upon tho economic struggle the syn- 
dicalist disregards completely thesd gnificanco of the bourgeois state 
oppardtus. The armed forces of the bourgeoisie and oil tho strength of 
the state that tho capitalists bring into play against the workingclass 
are viewed by tho Syndicalist, not as a form of oppression of tho cap- 
italist state over the workingclass, but merely as a struggle within 
tho economic sphere J boss vs. worker, economically. 

5. It is significant that the syndicalist with his theory of building 
tho "now society withiix the old" completely disregards tho state. And 
here a basic difference between Marxists and Syndicalists comes forth. 
Marxists understand that only through the shattering of the bourgeois 
state and tho setting up of the dictatorship of tho proletariat can tho 
victory of tho workers be assured* The Syndicalist on the other hrnd, 

in his inability to understand the nature of the state, must constantly 
lose any gains thrt ho may make on theeconomic field because of the 
pressu re and power of tho bourgeois state. It is not surprising there- 
fore to see that the role of the Syndicalist end Anarchist in Spain to- 
day is ono of capitulation to tho Spanish bourgeoisie, of treachery to 
tho workingclass. This is due to the failure of those people to under- 
stand tho nature of tho state which forms a sharp blade of tho Marxist 
struggle against the bourgeoisie. 

6. Coincidental with their failure to understand the nature of tho 
state, and directly linked up to this same question is tho foilure of 


tho Syndicalist to recognize the necessity of a political party of tho 
^ V orkingclass, a Marxist party. Tho Syndicalists in failing to sou i nc > 
need of a political party, foils to so. that tho mass does no, load bu, 
must follow, and that to load ono mast build a politico! P^ty, not com- 
posed of just anybody, but of solectod workers traxncd m tno art 01 
struggle, trained to give leadership to tho class; in snort, a party 01 
the revolution. The Syndicalists substitute for -11 this the moaning - 
loss phrase; the class can take care of itself rnd doos not need any 
vanguard « 

7. Tho slogan for a "trade union government" which various centrist 
parties have raised for Spain is nothing loss than a. capitulation to 
syndicalism. There can be no such animal as a trade union government or, 
as the Syndicalist calls it, "an industrial union government. To have 
raised the slogan for a CNT-UGT government in Spain would by no moans 
have given us a workers' government but a government composed ol tno a- 
cants of tho bourgeoisie and serving the interests of capitalism. NO r.~ 
loot the concept that a union is able to cope with problems ol the ate uo. 
Instead wo explain clearly; a union is a form of organization capable ox 
handling mainly day to day economic problems. It contains c houorogGpc- 
ous rroup of workers who are not trainod for revolutionary purposes, it 
is not a form of organiation caeablo of leading political struggles. 
Once a union stops out of its role of fighting mainly for economic do- 
mands it ceases to be a union. That docs not mean to say that a. *»*«* 
cannot here andthore on occasions become involved m political struggle. 
No it her does it mean to say that in times of r revolutionary crisis the 
union cannot arm the workers. But to expect political leadership from 
a union, to expect it to load tho class toward insurrection, is not to 
understand the kind of organization a trado union is. A union is not 
created for the purpose of loading political struggles; it is not an 
organ to handle state power; it is not all-inclusive. Soviets on the o~ 
thcr hand represent all opprossed, not necessarily wage workers. Only 
such a- form of organization which includes all oppressed, led by a 
Marxist party, can make a victorious workers revolution. A workers gov- 
ernment based on Soviets of the workers, soldiers, sailors and the somi- 
prolctarinns is the kind of government for which wc struggle. 

8. The Syndicalist CANNOT understand tho nature of dual power, sim- 
oly because ho doos not understand tho nature of the state. The Syndi- 
calist cannot understand that at times, oven though he has seized some 
factories, ho has hot seized power for tho workingclass (witness J-taly 
and Cat-lonia) nor. can the Syndicalist understand that oven with tho 
seizure of factories, and tho contemporaneous disregard of the bourgeois 
state, ho may run tho factories in tho interests of the bourgeoisie, or 
at tho most may cause the bourgooisio inconvenience. This, because the 
bourgeoisie in maintaining political power, still controls the 1 if o of 
tho country and can exploit the workers in various ways. Only by count- 
orposing thoir own government in contradistinction to that of the 
bourgeoisie, ioTdual power, and then resolving this dual power In I a- 
vor of itself can tho workers sot up their own rule. Any talk acorn; 
seizing factories without the understanding of dual power, no matter 
how resolute and revolutionary, is nothing but misleading Phases which 
blind the workers to tho necessity of political action against the 
class enemy, Without utilizing the economic struggle as a springboard 
for political struggles rg-inst tho bourgeoisie confusion is croatod 
->nd any mention of a workers society is rendered meaningless. In tho 
final analysis, as will bo proved in the struggle, either the Syndica- 
list will join the Marxist in shattering tho bourgeois steito ma tno 

— — — - (19)_ 

setting up of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the Syndicalist 
will find himself on the bourgeois side of the barricades helping to 
fight and destroy the workers rule. There is no other road for the Syn- 
dicalist to take. 

9. We may t& e up one more aspect of Syndicalism - the position of 
the Syndicalist on war. We will discover in this question too, that the 
error of the Syndicalist flows from his misunderstanding of the question 
of the state. Once imperialist war has started, the Syndicalist means 

to end it by his !l revolutionary"weapon- the general strike. Marxists u- 
tilize the general strike as a tactic within the whole framework of the 
struggle against war, which eventually means the working for the mili- 
tary defeat of one's own bourgeois army(rovolutionary defeatism}, in 
order to hasten and direct the struggle of the workers against their 
"own" bourgeoisie ie; civil war. Thus, the Marxist in turning the im- 
perialist war into civil war, trains his guns against the boa rgeois 
state in order to shatter it and set up a workers government. The Syn- 
dicalist, on the other hand, disregarding the bourgeois state, hopes to 
end the imperialist war by the general strike. True a general strike 
may hurt the bourgeoisie in their carrying on of the imperialist war, 
but as long as the bourgeoisie maintain political power the war may 
still bo prosecuted "and the workers protest in the rear be crushed by 
th e bourgeois state apparatus 1 The Syndicalist disregard of the state 
unfortunately, is not shared by the bourgeoisie. We, as Marxists under- 
stand the struggle on the political field- the shattering of the 
bourgeois state (the point where the Anarchist stops) and the setting 
up of the dictatorship of the proletariat. 

10. In conformity with the draft of the Marxist Workers League, we 
have pointed out that the question of who at the particular moment is 

to seize power is a tactical question. In such an industrialized country 
as the United States, a strike in a basic industry might very easily 
prodipitate a revolutionary crisis in which formation of regularly e- 
locted Soviets becomes impossible-, due to lack of time. The factory 
committees thereby take the place of Soviets end it may be possible to 
seize power in the name of these factory committees or in the name of 
the Marxist party. B ut workers' power cannot be seized in the, name of 
unions because of their vory nature and content. Their activity is eco - 
nomic and not political! To step out of their role of economic activity 
and to seize power in the name of trade unions is inconceivable because 
as trade unions they are incapable of reachingVsuch a high political 
plane of struggle. True, at times a trade union may take part in ele- 
mentary forms of political struggle but this is always subordinated to 
the economic activity of the union. The main thing to keep in mind is 
that, whereas syndicalism, delegates to the union an independent role in 
seizing power and disregards the nature of the state, Marxism explains 
that a political party must give leadership and must be in the forefront 
to guide the class toward the establishment and maintaining of state pow- 
er. This the party does thru and by the Soviets. 

Cr itique of Jr otafa ite. Program , p rl _ olo .- 

The perspeotlTeT^-EErTHk of analyzing the ^a 1 *,* ?^ Instance, 

A question my be asked as to the necessity at thlsttae of *#»**** 
onlsalf with this particular brand of P"» d0 :" , ^ 8 ?; t ^„??S ?ield 

of all centrist tendencies, Trotskyism, duo to the historical signifi- 
?Lce of its name -bearer aid because of its greater roknown as an 
"opponent" of l?alinism is most important. The purpose, therefore, will 
ho to orPOse tho falsity of tho claim that Trotskyism has to bo tog tho 
gonuLo ?o?rosenta?i?o It Marxism and to make nil fKiSffS^t^SS 
?rr"ors which has arisen from the orchestral "a^PjJ* S!L L lSJd toS 
?ho tunes by which these modern Peid Pipers are attemptxng to load tho 
messes to tho brink of disaster. 

Marxists recognize the strte as a means of repression of one class over 
another. Tho capitalist dictatorship, ^^^corTOctly states ^ r 
skvite program, no matter the "particular political i0 ^°l m X*$„ nn 

and ere only tho diffcroht moans through which that dictatorship ox 

^rothoTworM thesis put forth In this *£*$*%£ &£_ 

* \~ +.<u rt ^nf^oi fn-nm of tho rulo of ccpitalism, aiiicrxng iuuu.a 
monLlL "ii^il^from tho "Sas™ social dictatorship of to «• 
?romng minority differing from bourgeois democracy only as to the 

moa §o fferfo jffi fcf ^asraisi!^ ssfe- — * *- 

■"^"ThoSnlnfistfng'upfn SHunaamoTt^idontity in social character 
i-t** - cfpitelist dictatorship, tho SWP rocogniMS the 
rise^of tto con?liot between capitalist 'democracy • and '«ci«.,J»„eh 
aomotimos (?) assumos tho sharpost forms, ovon thoso of civil war. 
Thu^ tbi Iretskyite puts the index finger in one •« »f "gSjf?*, 
fascism is basically similar to bourgeois democracy, d ^ring Srom tne 
latter onlv as to the"means" of rule. Both represent capitalist dicta- 
tor,Sp?Tto releases his finger, places his ether index finger to his 
uwxo^x^* tirphe step Y&caerAzes the rise of the conriiax; De-cweon 

c^itafiat democ"racy anf lascisl" ana this "conflict" can "even" take 
the form of "SivU war"! Both ideas contradict each otter, but only one 
etr nas Sard each phrase, one at a time, and thus the contradiction is 

S °rl«italist democracy will go to war in order to defend the "democra- 
*l£» form of Sve?nment- is feat not the highest form of revision equal- 
led on?y by the epS patriotic Stalinist declarations? Washed away are 

TnTb^ie Marxian concepts that wjrj, Internal or exj :ernal, arc™ 
fought for ideological reasons but dominantly £°* ^°*° democracy and 

If there exists such a toasic .^? f ^ c ^^r?Sese capitalists to resort 
fascism, basic in the sense that it causes the se cap is not 

to"civil war", then wo would conclude that J ^f8GOis 

the mother of 'fascism but its opponent ■ «£** "Jf^LSion would be 
for fascism but destroys it, and thus ^ e J;°f*f l^r f rom the Sta- 
te support it. Wherein thon do these Tro J s ^ is ^ ^^ruiy speaking 
UnfstS who are the defenders <* *<^£* <^^JgJi££ In rcalit? 
they don't differ. They only make pretenses of difiering. 
they have fundamental agreement. moro logical, in 

Herein it must bo stated that tho st J^ s J s " r ; ccusing the Trot- 
fact they are intornationalists ,nd are correct in .ccus^g d 

skyists of being ^ tionalis ^ c e^T t ^n: n^ti^nol boundaries? Why must 
the struggle for democracy be limited to ntion.iD ^ ^ 

it be kept confined to artificial f ^iors. 11 « fasclsm can take 
Trotskyists claim, thrt a war between ^™?™ c \£* d \?&l conflict 
place within the confines of a single c^ntry why , 11 involve 

between the two is so basic, cannot ju ^ ^^gJSJ p ra nce fighting 


not forgotten that the "do mocrat Hindenburg ^ndea , tdoffi0cr g t „ Dolfuss 

"She' defense of the fraud of capitaUot^dc^o^esr^ ^h *J^™£ 
of capitalist exploitation- only ^^°;!^ s t ^ d °?nstitutions which 
Fascism of even those lifted democratic right V'Vcould ^ ^ 

capitalism is 'normally 1 compollod to toiora ™* . th ^ t to dof0 nd 

it P better. This quote brings ^t^^^^f^Spita^Ism. And as is 

^^ilf S y ci? : times pointing out^ th^only tho soc^ist -vo^on 

Fascism to smash ^ho ■latter... fj-»imcr~cv. but... we will work to 

vjill de fend bourfioois. de mocracy,. 

Of utmost conto m poran= r s topc^nco «;d oi : decisive ^»gJ««SJ/S 
-n -rrival at a correct position on bourgeois ao ™^ | . . for thoso 
tSeinalysis that Parties make of the Spanish events. This is £> _ 

v;So claim to represent the ^rking class, .* *jrgg J °S 1 this is the 
&£ SP&2S7h£S SSSTSSt'-gSi 1 ^ uS«o test * ~ Spanish 

^^Holevlr^^ort of the military struggle agin -tfcg&g^ S ^ 
nish Civil War has been no t merely consistent ^^^^(^'with 

ward the Spanish worker's revolution." (p.27) 

, ^ 21 ) _ . 

Yes, the SWP is opposed to a war "fought by any and all Imperialist 
states, whether fascist or democratic," because "such wars can only be 
reactionary in character and counter to the interests of the masses and 
the revolution, n Yet bourgeois democracy and Fascism can, in their con- 
flict, assume such forms as "even those of civil war'MI Spain is given 
as a classical example. Let us examine the problem a little more deeply. 

A civil war in Marxian terminology is a war between classes. The 
Prech revolution was a civil war because it was a war between the capi- 
talist class and the feudal. So too was the war in the US, during the 
1860»s, a civil war, because it was a struggle between the capitalist and 
th> slave-owning classes. But between what classes in society is the 
present Spanish war being fought? Between capitalist democracy and 
fascism, answors the Trotskyist program. But you have provided us v/ith 
tho answer to your retort in your very programt Tho capitalist dictator- 
ship , you said above, be it bourgeois democracy or fascism, are^only 
different moans through which that dictatorship expresses itself. 

Again we bog tho answer- between what classes is the present Spanish 
war being fought? A war between bourgeois democracy and fascism mani- 
fests conflict between capitalists of tho samo econo mic class. What, we 
bog to know, is a war between two sections of the same economic class? 
In defining it asa Civil War you are not introducing anything now, you 
aro merely copying the bourgeois definition* 

But members of tho SWP will object- did wo not state that we oppose 
"all wars fought by any and all imperialist states"? Is tho war in Spain 
a war botwoon "imperialist states"? This objection to calling tho war 
in Spain an imperialist war has come from many quarters. Up to now his- 
tory has soon Imperialist war arise from tho ospocially overt contra- 
diction of national boundaries coming into conflict with expanding for- 
cos of production. It is true that imperialist war usually takes *nis 
particular form, of national capitalist classes demarcated by geographi- 
cal boundaries, struggling for imperialist profits, But to mechanically 
transfer this formula within tho boundaries of Spain- to say that tho 
war is being fought botwoon capitalist dictatorships (bourgeois democra- 
cy and fascism), that tho war is boing fought for what any capitalist 
tl Aits for, profits, fiolds for trado and investment, and then to con- 
clude that, duo to tho lack of geographical specifications, the war in 
Spain is a civil war, is to roduco to bourgoois. sophism tho sclonco 01 
Marxism, For what is established as the yardstick of measurement of the 
character of wars- what class pursues tho war and tho aims «f tho war- 
bocomos roducod to geographical factors solely,' Class forces in a war, 
and ntt tho outward geographical manifo stations, allow for an understan- 

The°analogyvulgarly attomptod is to compare tho present Spanish war 
to tho Soptcmbor ovonts of «17 in Russia. Tho Kornllov uprising is brou^it 

oxth as a fitting analogy to tho prosont Spanish war. Only thoso wbo 
submit to subordinating goographical factors to economic factors and ro- 
"n^o to view the class content of a war aro capable of such formal ana 
illogical analogcs. One might as well try to compare it to *g C J™5. 
vcr in the United Stqtes bocauso that too was fought ^7ithin tho confines 
of ono state. But again what is overlooked is tho difference in JTfflUfrT 
of those wars. Koronsky did not fight Kornilov. As a f*tor of ^ct ho 
triod his best to put an ond to tho war. Tho fact that ho was forced to 
fight shows that Koronsky did not havo hegemony of tho war. It was undor 
the leadership of tho Bolshevik party that tho uprising of Kornilov was 
ninpod in the bud. Tho dialoctic of too struggle found tho working 
class leading and fighting against Kornilcv; fighting, mind you, In 
thoir own interests and utilizing, exposing, threatening tho cworjjg 
Koronsky and the bourgeoisie. Tho class content of t hat war was a olvlj 
gar fn/lt yn prosonfced tho confTict botwoon prolotariat 5gg aourgooisie 

TrT Zi a straggle betw een.Komil.ov and KerengSLy fo,fc,S% Sof/hege- 
ST-^Ee war, a sfcft ' irT eTass forces tooFpJace, ^ d * e £Sf I^v/ar would 
°ony of the war, the most Igely possihility would be that ; he ( ^ ^ 
have come to an end. Or 11 ^erensay cnose to P*\ *»?}''* ^«^ar* ■* of the 
wooing class struggle shelved to to e ^kgrou^dU*e ch aiac^ «^» 
war would have then necessarily becon^ changed and toe worKeis^ ^ 
have no interest in pursuing the war sauce it would not oe m 

^fcan'find a comparison of the Kornilov days to Spain ^*l™**„ 
the first few months of the war as an example. ^°^! n ^ 8 S B . The 
a civil war. The workers pursued the war in toeir °^ * nt ^Hussian 
Popular Front played a role simi lar to that of Jerenjg. The *§•"* 
workers had a Marxist party and were able to s ^ e P™^- ^ wer hut 

For those *o have Inquired we have alvraTsmftotained that the incorrect 
oosition on Spain does not stop merely with the cessation of the prosom 
gan"h conflict. A f^se position on >inmeans consequent errors ^ 

STBrt&fflraSl ^ST-S^ ^3~£ in the con. 
crete situations into counter-revolutionery act ivit ^ ^£2^,^. 

;iru ^e 1 'agalnsI a g 5s^;asanSsepara b le part of the preparation for 

the socialist revolution. " (p- 2 ^! _* B Mri1 ,i, war ar e fcl&n&posed 

The same characteristics of tho present Spanish war are ** - £ Qn 

to the American scono and tho very ^J^^LSZ °with tho centrist 
imperialist war within one country, of course ^*Jg% ^ in tho 
ooverup "of the preparation for the ^J^"**®^; a r*ed warfare to 
TO arothe so-called democrats who will ^ G ^ ? r T ^ the Stalinists 
def cnd«democracy«against fascism? ^ it Roosevelt ^ihon oigo 

ought to bo congratulated for ^porting him. ThSv do not caro to ad- 
however, which tho Trotskyists do not J^^^^L the Roosevelt 
vertiso'tho fact that the Rockefeller « ' 7J° the "oconomic 
government favors, are waging a o«tor s^rugg^ b ..^^ lQad 

loyalists" representod by the Morgan ^» a t E u fS2© r one of those 
to internal warfare. It goes without * a J* n gJ^* |;. T^it will give the 

betrayal of the working class. ^.^^ capitalist class would 

Tho fact that two sections of the ^Jj^l subterfuge is not doci- 
wago an economic war covered up ^th pplit 1» WJ f & th0 war . So 
si?e to the Trotskyists in determining *»*£*%£'. boundaries and so 
long as tho war happens to bo confined to nation ought for ideological 
long as the combattant a proclaim the Jf *o_bo fougt tQ 

tho Trotskyist-Monshoviks ^^Pf ^ do material aid. A, gun 

offer the ^'democratic" capitalist side m ^°r 

_ _4„«v, to tho "democratic" capitalists agaxi -j,,*,*^*,,, 

beliefs, then 
civil war and 

-(25) — 

fi -..x.. m * v ,-rrt rri 11 ^ond vou bullets v/ith v/hicn 
to "criticize" politically. Y ^ s ' ^ t Y^t nl3owus to criticize. And 
you might shoot us but, f™nd e agt.lx-t, J. ov us ^ rovolution ", 

thoso very same people claim to PJMJ 1 ™ *°3 hod w capitalists of every 
v/hich, if it came to the fore, Y ' oul * *° °£ U f££t aid which the Trotskyism 
sort- fi domocratic» included- yes, oven with t ha t aid vn ic, f 
presented to thoso capitalists with political criticism 

The centrist confusion persists. In the very next paragraph the program 

^"result of the Poop^s Front,' 2 .V* ™ $i^^% g$£kf& 

experience in both Prance and Pf»»^ of%ho workers, betrayal 
the revolution, the weakening end ^vl(mMi<moi ^£ SWP therefore 
to the war, and in tho end tho victory of Fasciom. xn„ 9 
rejects and combats* ?) Peoples Front ism. noiht. which is 

The uttor contradictory nature of tho P r °^ m a ^ o ^t of Snsonsity and 
there for the discernable oyo, roach °f so nigh a P^^ s °5 f 7 S|° ring y trai n 
incredibility that aroadorimaginos plausibility in £ s carrying 

fn f^oto^^^^ &*»" «"»• 

*"% PopSa^Fron? & leads the fight against Franco Xt^tho 
Popular Front government, army, o^ 1 ^, °tc. w^icn capitalist Po- 
the war. Aiding the war means at this stage to -f i ^ t ^ p ^ 30nc0 of 
oulcr Front which controls tho war since to oro is a ™^ * th 
?ndopondent workers action! But not only doos tfco SWP support ^ ^^ 
in the abstract (which would not ab jolvotho »^» £££g |ocia ^ 
it likowiso supports military aid ^,^%^ t ^|fc acla f tho rovolu- 
in their own words, can only load to tho thrus *«>S ° 7 §* swp thorof0 ro 
Won,., and in the end tho victory of *™*^ oi Jg£ £l its activity 
reject and combat People's Front ism ? On tho °^"g' ^ an » in tho ond 
is directed to aid of tho Jooplos Front I'£*f °^,,^pVcroforo rejects 

Frontism" and tho Trotskyito concept J& act |£ ™£» *£ £ his irapor . < 
Trotskyitos, differing not one iota from i~^ struSSo against Frunco* 
tant principled question, "support tho military strnggxo ^gu. x . 

"hfch P ?n n ac?ion |oans support of u ^urgools to^%ffi^&#^ 
a Stalinist lino? Dospito their loft tfjWJ ana ao p ^ ^^ 

lutiQnary" covorups, tho Trotskyitos, . ^^*°?' *,, up 
Marxian piano as do the open reformist Stalinists!! 

A basic political question is the posi tion a *artj has on ^r . Af tor^ 
^^3Xffl2o^&^ %g$% Sn^ of oo^so, 

^-^f^wrilTdvocSrtS of the class $^J£>& 

the wS rogarolcss °f the consequences for the ^^f^S^i^ 
Llitary struggle; and will try ^ preparole massos ^ SO c ifl iism„ !i 
:-.lsis for the overthrow of US capitalism and zno v. -ouxy 


This is the coro of tho struggle against ^S 1 ^ 8 ^ "of tho 
Trotskyitcs would propose. Ie [this something now. Ij g"^ ooncopt? 
continuance of tho class struggle during tho .gr ^ fQp thQ 
No, it is not something now, Moithor is it ~ *°^ n ^ old Mcnshcvik 
struggle against imperialist war! This * ^ * V noithor victory nor 
line of Trotsky- his line during the ^^J^nLi^ut forth of rovo- 
dofoatl It is the centrist answer to tho lino Lenin pw ^ 

lutiSnary defeatism. What does the Trctskyito Declaration ^ ^ 
"continuance of the class struggle^ during the war ^ ; ^ 

work for the military defeat of our am ^^nmo words ? Tho fact 
Declaration means that, why ^dxdnH xnclud. ^°*° ^ ary do foatism.In 

tho imperialist war at ^ft.JTfg^.' „riSd!» la tho centrist mamor of 
imperialist war, booomos tno actual lino. It io w> formu i c . f 

filing social-patriotiam. ■»^ 1 ^ 1 *'^^5 i£gl*> how tho for - 
feoit^e^^asa^^ol^^^^" — 3 nat that 
""iSTln will advocate tho cohtin f nco of tho^olo.aj atr^o^ri n^ 

i it.av v struggle ," Tho typical. P *^ ^^.^nce to tho Trotskyists As *5fe bo nof, I^^^LlaSi^S defeated or not. They 
whether the ^ ri ?^, c gi tC 4^^ r ^ S s of Sbo consequences of the out- 
arc unconcerned about it- *J€K2n»»? 0+ tl . doos not the mill- 

sj S^'sssriffSs ss °lKI -"oSooroT-roVro?^ 

pleased with such a P^ition? thorough discussion of rcvolu- 

At this point wo will not go into a rno rou h n t r sub > 

tioncry defeatism and its implications. " J- n °* g^tho Second Intor- 
"c? under diseussion. If we were pel emi glstog -^ ^f would b0 nccossa- 
nrtional or other mi s-undor standings of *°^nov has appeared on 

JS to expound on this ^°f*^ n - S ^ un^ldlr of tSe true banner of 
tL scene for quite some time as tho ugolflor 01 r0 j uvcn ated 

Bolshevism, wo ^ol it necessary to point ouj ^ ltes term them- 

I*«lsho^^ - ^ 0ff ° r ' M ° nSh0Vik " 


One other very important ^i^ho^st^S'^ 5^4, 
with tho- Bolshevik Party ^^^"stion^f Trotsky reveal a centrist line. 
Hero too, on this PfI nci P lod ^?^^ n c ?ntr-llzod rovolutionarycadro 

BSSSwii and Bolshovi* ^££^^°^d &^ ££*" 

l£r& She? §S«l!»i?^^r 

shollks from tho Menshcviks J 11 "^A^SSioS™ consolidation of rovolu- 
ward in political clarity and or Sanisation ^ oegs^ numbers , not 
tionary Elements. Trotsky could °gj<^^oopt of tho Party? Ycs- 
l^on!^ *? Menshevikl^ 

Not once, ^o^^^^^^^J^^.^ 'formulas °in 
the independence of tnc party ,s 

— — — — ( 25) 

this section, as in the other parts of tho program, W* ™* fakers on 
correct formations. Tho point fchat int crests most dv^nc d ^rkor^ 
tho party is the attitude tfcr.t the Trotskyit^o fc.vo on ™ analysis 

would- have boon adopted son, tho Socialist Part/, mo con 

is now given, * 4 *.««***<- ioa haver fvnetion- 

"Evcrywhorc, tho Second International rtnd "* ^tics n.v not ' 

cd as a crake set against *ho workers* revolution rnd hav. pro 
merely their inability to lead the workers to J^Sg'^Jors to defeat 
Germany, r.ndAustria- their certainty of condoning tho ^./oricors v 

^^^,lS,ticf^-^ P 8oclnd International no, 1. ffl«J ««•£& 
«! to before they entered it. Did they repudiate the fMw wrong 

back to thoir former lino, giving the plausible excuse vmxv * 
^/folfows^foxplonation for thoir entrance into tho S.clalUt 
Pr ' r »pAn orfn^ tho victory of Hitlor in Gormny, a progressive ferment 

ftS«5S& S^f il^i'SS*. ornate"?™! Sot S s"ls.° 8 ovo q fno W 
"MoTto "k5ba3££*E£ irots^isr, thought ttuot tho ho. stoning 

* JS^"^^a?^4&te8L; Poos g-^tionlst 

? revolutionist Dro-Jcs fror. e. reformist port-/ end does not remote vatta, 
J t ' Xf: "2S: o ~fomist oortv oonnot ho torrcd revolutionist. 



our thought _ 

son of oetion end words booon 

capable of harboring platonie 


™ — ( 26) _ — _-_ 

Thon, f, tho centrists and right wingers (only yesterday militants and 
loft v/ingors). ••utilized their contrel ef the national apparatus to put 
r.n end to party democracy (as if there over was any) and then to expel 
tho revolutionary wing#" 

The whole tenor is that of romorso. Wo wore molested and finally 
driven out« Nowhere is there a dotominod stand taken that, once re- 
cognizing the SP to be of such a nature as th> y describe it, the 1 ro~ 
voluticnists"splitt(this would not of course have erased tho blot that 
is the heritage of Trotskyism as a result of tto French Turn It would 
have, ho\?cvor, dononstratod some semblance of independent" thought on 
tto part of the Trot sky itos) No, follow workers, tho miserable refor- 
mists (imagine I } had tho audacity to "expel tho revolutionary wing"! 
Whore was the audacity of tho so-called revolutionists to split from 
these reformists? A more miserable account could not have been given 
of Mcnshevism in action than these tostifycrs to their own crime have 
Jvcn # No lossons are learned, no errors arc forgotten. Nov/ field of 
adventure are being opened on the horizon for tho Amcr ican section of 
the Trotskyitos, as we will point out in the next paragraph. 

Under tho section of Labor and Farmer -Labor Parties tho program states, 
"For such reasons, tho revolutionary party cannot for a moment com- 
promise with tho program of the Labor n nd Farmer-Labor parties. It must 
consistonly and vigorously put forward its own revolutionary program( I ) 

ap the onl£ solution to tho problems of the workers and of the masses 
genarallyj and must strive at all times to rocruit directly into its 
own ranks ».*Nor can tho revolutionary party properly take the initia- 
tive in advocating tho formation of Labor and Farmer-Labor parties." 

Nov; within this one paragraph a multitude of confusing phrases full 
of centrist content jut forth conspicuously:- M tho revolutionary party 
cannot for a moment compromise with tho program of tte Labor and Farmer- 
Labor parties • " Negatively , as the phrase stands, it is correct. But 
it is a half-truth. Simultaneously with tho refusal of the party to 

"Compromise with the program of the Labor and Farmer-Labor parties, 1 
tho positive blow must be hammered down- the breaking up and splitting 

.. ipohdonco of the revolutionary party 
program proceeds to state that the revolutionary party "must put for- 
ward its revolutionary (?) program" and "must strive at all times to 
rocruit directly into its own ranks." But whore will these "ranks", 
these "revolutionary ranks" be? Will they bo constituted in ^n inde- 
pendent organization or a ,_gauo,us , within the Labor Party ? Tho fact that 
tho Declaration speaks of "putting forth its cw n revolutionary program" 
without saying a word about putting forth its own revolutionary orga - 
l^&ation indicates clearly what tho authors had in mind- tho putting 
forth of their program as a caucus within the Labor Party. Thus wo soo 
Trotskyism emerging from the Socialist swamp only to make preparations 
to onto** into -the Labor Party swamp. If any doubt is as yet left in 
anyone f smind, we will give one more quote which tears the Trotskyist 
mask off; 

" Uncompromising (hearlhearl ) pro/^raminatig independence on the part 
of tho revolutionary (?) party is an indispensable precondition for 

Evidently tho only independence tH&ir Xlio SWP insists upon is tho 
"programmatic" independence I Did our signers of felt s declaration por* 
hap^ «iaftro«. G K otrevchieht leave out the "small" point of organizational 


independence? Has the rather unceremonious expulsion °fjhese eternal 
refofeers left no impression on their inner crannial tissue? Apparently 
not. For there follows the words: Tfl . „ PflT ,4-„ « 

"Whenever (?) the revolutionists find themselves ma Labor Party. .. 

After solemnly "condeming" the Labor party, after s ig ni ^°* n ^\|K e ^ g 
only the "programmatic independence" of the party, the line is laid down 
for "whenever the revolutionists find themselves in a ^abor Party which 
means opening the gates wide for .the SWP's entrance «*° a **?*% Lab?r 
But some will object- why can't individual revolutionists enter a Labor- 
Party? We take no issue with that concept- the entrance of party ^emoers 
into a reformist or centrist outfit to break elements from these parties 
and bring them over to the independent vanguard. But this °^ ° n ^ °® 
done with revolutionists working within~the^other ^ niza ^°f °°^_ 
dentally with the crystillization of issues by the ^?C^f%rt from 
tion on the ou tside . Without the reciprocal and ?oordinattag effort from 
the out side -TEnndependence of the party organizationally and Politi- 
cally- to speak of working within a party or "whenever revolutionists 
find themselves in a Labor party" becomes a sham. The ™|T **«*«£* £he 
SWP does not make the distinction between sending m certain members for 
opponents' activity while the party is organizationally independent 
mikes clear the intent of the centrist tone which is manifest in every 
Important question in the program! A centrist has need to write vrguoly- 
he^ needs elbow room in which to capitulate to a number of things, re- 
taining as revolutionary only phrases* Ta ^r. p^-h-v* 
And to indicate the proximity of the Trotskyitos to the Labor Party. 
"Nevertheless, the labor party movement, from the point of yiew ot_ 
the workers themselves, does reveal a progressive development In general 
towards class consciousness. In Spite of the channels into whjch it is 
led by the bureaucrats, It shows in the masses a growing realization of 
the time character of capitalist politics as summed up J» J^ *°P*£" a n 
and Democratic Parties and a striving for ^pendent political action. 
To stand aside 'completely* from such a development where it compromises 
the bulk of the militant and advanced sections of the workorswould be 
hooelesslv sectarian for the revolutionists J vp.18) 

x According to the Tcotskyitcs, the Labor Party movement becomes pro- 
gressive (since their expulsion, you see, the SP is no more gog^^> B 
because it "reveals a progressive development toward class consc ioi: tsnoss 
But why limit the progressivencss to the Labor Party, gentlemen? If the 
workers move over to the Stalinist Party, would that ^ {o a ^ro 
"progressive movement" of workers away from capitalist politics, or, 
gentlemen, if the workers moved to an organization such as the J™*> 
SAP, or any other organization which you term centrist would that show 
still 8 moro progressive shift of workers? Every political degree th,.t 
the workers "move" is looked upon as progressive, oven though the wor- 
kers crc snarod into a Party which tho SWP refers toes 

"these reformist parties*, acting "in practice and in crisis as bul- 
warks of capitalism and enemies of the socialist revolution. Their fal- 
se program and porspoctivo disorient the masses, turning them aside from 
revolutionary c la ss* struggle, end permit the forces of reaction to con- 
solidate without offoctivo opposition. lp. 17-18^ . 

This movoment of workers tow-rd a labor party reveals at„once a 
"progressive development" and this "progressive do yclopmont acts as 
"one of tho bulwarks of capitalism and oncmios of tho socialist revolu- 
tion." DM anyone over hoar»logic» of that kind? How can any reformist 
organization bo progressive?- how can anything, we bog of you, that acts 
?in^aotIcS anVVcrisis (in practice and in crisis being gonornlizod 
terms themselves, for a reformist party always aasumos ^J.^Si'p^a* s 
bulwark of capitalism and an enomy of the socialist revolution. ? Perhaps 

.... . — , , . ( 28} ■ 

It is only "progressive" for those contemplating entrance into such a 
reformist party , always to be sure with "programmatic independence 
Eternal reform of parties, universal deform of Marxism- trrt is mo 
role of Trotskyism! For Lenin know, and Trotsky forgot, that no rotor- 
mist party or centrist party could bo reformed- m-do revolutionary. 
Above all, Lenin was the outstanding fighter for the independence of 
the vanguard. It is the old Trotsky of 1963, the fighter for non- 
independence of tho vanguard, whom wo, as £onin previously nad to, muot 
struggle against. Tho consistency of Trotslcy on this basic question is 
remarkable' over such a long period o years. H is consistently erroneous 

Wo have analyzed tho position of Trotskyism on tho fundamental ques- 
tions of the day- bourgeois democracy, fascism (which includes Che 
state, army, etc) war and the party. On all thoso fund-mental questions, 
in action, Trotskyism is soon to have more in common with btalmism 
than fioninism. Tho road of departure of Trotskyism from Bolshevism has 
boon clcrrly marked. It is the 1903 child of M nshevism that f rot sky 
has conjured up for his followers. It must bo exposed as such. The 
prostitution of Lenin's work has thrived evor since his death. Trotsky 
has not violated Win's work least. E o vios for this "honor ^ with 
Stalin, only being more troachorous than tho latter due to his lolt 
ohrases and martyrish position on tho political scone. We desire no 
part of Trotsky-" like all centrist tendencies Trotskyism must^bo sma- 
shed end tho goods elements won over to ^oninismt The revolutionary 
tide must find Trotskyism washed ashoro and blowr along by the sands 
of time to appear only in writings dedicated to the archaic study oi 
Monshcvisnu Trotskyism has one diatinction, nevertholcss, of which wo ^ 
would certainly not deprive it- it opportunely submerged itself from ... 
1917 to 1924, to Bolshevism. Lot us now bury Trotskyism with rii duo 
honor, for its putrid corpse emanates odors whoch -'ould contaminato 
that healthy objoct in which Trotskyism once submerged itself, tor oy 
its very nature, "sterile md incapable of leading an off ectivc end 
successful strugglo for the socialist revolution? and with if'toarxism 
therefore, cannot tolerate no conciliation. 


one Dollar Per ye/ii? 



Write to :