There is no doubt that the emergence of 'Bennism' as a force in the labour movement has left most of the revolutionary left in confusion.
The reasons for these confusions are not accidental. Bennite policies occupy the peculiar position of simultaneously failing to challenge the historic interests of capitalism (the capitalist state and the capitalist economy)-and therefore failing to solve any long term problems of the working class-while also going against the immediate interests of the ruling class.
ABSTAIN
The most obviously inadequate response is simply to say that even the most radical 'Bennite' policies cannot solve the problems facing the working class, which is really to abstain on the question. This is the view which is put across, for example, by the International Socialists when they content themselves with writing that Benn 'has no answer at all to the problems facing workers here and throughout the world' (Socialist Worker, 29 May). There is no doubt that this statement is perfectly true-but unfortunately it does not solve the problem of what attitude revolutionaries should take towards Bennism.
Revolutionaries do not at all abstain on questions which do not solve the basic problems confronting the working class. For example, a wage claim can at best transfer resources to the working class and cause a short-term increase in the standard of living of the workers. It certainly does not solve any of the basic problems confronting the working class. But would any socialist therefore conclude from this that the working class movement should be abstentionist on wage claims?
SHORT TERM As for Benn's policies themselves, certainly they provide no long term answer to the problems of the working class. But the short term effects of such policies, if applied in any radical form, would have very different effects to the policies of Wilson or the Tories.
Wilson or Thatcher's policies mean an immediate reduction in the living standards of the working class and a giant leap in unemployment. Any radical form of Bennite But if 'abstentionism' is a wrong policy, should revolutionaries therefore follow the Militant in demanding the implementation of Benn's policies as set out in Labour Party conference resolutions? Some revolutionaries, claiming to be guided by Trotsky's writings of the 1930s, have suggested this as the correct line of action.
Where undoubtedly the advocates of implement your programme are more correct than the "abstentionists' is in understanding that just because a particular policy is reformist, and cannot solve the long term problems of the working class, this does not at all mean that revolutionary socialists cannot demand that such a policy is implemented. For example, Trotsky characterised the de Man' plan in Belgium as a programme of state capitalism that the Social Democracy passes off as socialism', yet at the same time he demanded that the Belgian Trotskyists take as one of their cenimplementation of this plan.
He wrote: "The criticism of the plan has been made many times. If we had to present a plan to the Belgian proletariat this plan would have an altogether different aspect. Unfortunately the Belgian proletariat gave this mandate not to us but to the Belgian Labour Party, and the plan reflects two facts: the pressure of the proletariat on the Party and the conservative character of this party...
"Allow me comrades, to recall a classic example. The Russian Social Revolutionary Party formulated in May 1917 its plan, that is to say its agrarian programme ... What was the attitude of the Bolsheviks? They criticised the internal contradictions and inadequacies of the programme. But, before all, they ? policies and the problems that would arise in attempting to implement them. This week he concludes by looking at the attitude that revolutionaries should take to these proposals.
recognised that the realisation of this programme would mean an enormous advantage for the peasants, for the whole people. The Bolsheviks did everything to draw the peasants into the struggle for their plan. They even finished by inscribing the plan into their programme of action ...
nor treason. It was the true policy of Marxist realism... The revolutionary policy consists in demanding that the Belgian Labour Party take power in order to put its own plan into effect.' correct, but does this mean that a that whenever left reformists draw up a plan which, even if only in a short term sense, is in the interests of the working class, then revolutionary socialists must demand that it is implemented?
A moment's thought would show that this view is nonsense. Revolutionaries demand the implementation of an imperfect programme only if no other real option exists in the situation. Thus the the implementation of the imperfect land programme of the Social Revolutionaries in 1917 was not just because it was abstractly' a step forward, but because concretely NO CHOICE No significant forces, at that point in time, could be polarised around the actual programme of the programme of the left Social Revoluconanes between the land programme of the Bolsheviks and the land programme of the Social Revolutionaries, but the Social Revolutionaries and the continuation of landlordism.
Similarly the period in which Trotsky was writing, the 1930s, was one when the working class was suffering mass unemployment and had been hit by great defeats. Under these circumstances it was absurd to say that the choice facing the of the reformists.
"This policy was neither trickery ETERNAL RULE?
There is no doubt that on the de Man plan Trotsky was absolutely sort of eternal rule exists which says reason why the Bolsheviks demanded there was no other progressive option Bolsheviks and against the imperfect The choice was not only between the land programme of ANDREW WIARD as far as it will go. working class, the possibility inherent in the situation, was whether to start the struggle on a revolutionary programme or on the left programme of the reformists. The only real choice was between whether to launch no struggle at all or to launch one on the left programme The whole working class could be polarised behind the reformist policy but no significant forces could be polarised behind any revolutionary alternative. Only after some sort of struggle had been started would it be possible to seriously talk of a revolutionary programme as a real alternative to that of the reformists. It was for this reason that Trotsky said that revolutionaries, while all the time pointing out the inadequacy of the de Man plan, must concentrate their main resources on demanding a real struggle to implement this inadequate programme.
The situation of the working class today is very different. The Benn proposals are not a banner around which the whole working class has grouped. On the contrary, Benn's proposals are only the first stage in thrashing out an alternative programme for the labour movement.
It is of course possible, even likely, that after a certain period a particular set of left reformist policies. will be thrashed out which will polarise the labour movement and group around it the most militant sections of the working class. Under these circumstances revolutionary socialists should not hesitate to demand the implementation of these plans. But for now the task of revolutionaries is not to demand the implementation of the very first policies which emerge from this debate within the working class, but to join in the discussion in order both to win the maximum number of workers to revolutionary policies and to push the whole process to the left While revolutionary socialists must support particular proposals of Benn - for example, the nationalisation of shipbuilding and the aircraft industry - they should not call for the implementation of the Benn proposais. Instead tney must cent rally counterpose a socialist programme-based on a sliding scale of wages and nationalisation under workers control against unemployBut while revolutionary socialists should not call for the implementation of Benn's programme, this does not at all mean that they should not take any position on the clash which appears increasingly likely between Wilson and Benn Just because a particular struggle is between two bureaucrats, neither o whose programmes can be supported, this does not mean that the working class should be neutral in In fact, there are at least three reasons why socialists should adopt an attitude of fighting with the Bennites against Wilson rather than saying 'a curse on both your houses Firstly, as we have seen, an equals sign cannot be put between the programme of Benn and that of the present dominant section of the Labour leadership.
Secondly - reflecting the diff erences in programme - lined up be hind Benn would be the forces of the left of the Labour Party and the overwhelming bulk of the rank and file leadership of the working class. while lined up behind Wilson would be the right wing sections of the Labour bureaucracy and the bourgcoisie. A defeat for the Bennites would be a significant victory for the most right wing forces and socialists cannot be neutral in such a fight. Thirdly, again reflecting this line up of forces, any move by Wilson against Benn would concrete ly be a preparation for even more Imperial Typewriters occupation-again, open attacks on the whole working class, with the Benn-Wilson struggle marking the opening shots in a war over this question Socialists would therefore have to take up their attitude to the WilsonBenn clash not in terms of the personalities involved, but in terms of what such a clash signalled in terms of the policies being prepared by Wilson.
The attitude which revolution aries should adopt to Bennism should therefore be very clear: No support for the programme of the Bennites, but defence of the Bennite
----- pull-quotes -----
SOCIALIST PROGRAMME