W(JRKERS V'"(J(J'RIJ

lSC
No.6
BOSTON CONFERENCE
WONAAC
SDonsors

ourgeolsle,
Ousts
Communists
Over the February 11-13 weekend at Boston
University the Women's National Abortion Action
Coalition (WONAAC) Conference met to enthuse
over Bella Abzug's bill, soon to be introduced in
Congress, for repeal of anti-abortion laws. Ab-
zug's representative Jessica Josephson was on
hand to address the Conference on Friday night.
As the opening Friday night session began,
members and supporters of Women and Revolu-
tion, the Spartacist League and Revolutionary
Communist Youth attempted to introduce a reso-
lution barring the class enemy from the platform.
Denied the opportunity to present their resolution,
the Trotskyists chanted when .Josephson began to
speak, "No Ruling Class Speakers-Free Abortion
onDemand-Bella's Rep Off the Stand!" When the
Conference voted the exclusion of the opponents of
dass c'.:..llaboration, they walked out, singing the
Internationale, The Progressive Labor/University
Action Group took no stand on the expulsion or
the issue over which it occurred; the Internation-
al Socialists voted against expulsion, but remain-
ed in the meeting.
The issue of male presence arose in the han-
dling of the expulsions, and the reactionary char-
acter of the feminist practice of male exclusion-
ism was demonstrated once again. The resolution
against bourgeois speakers was rejected for con-
sideration on the excuse that the presence of men
in the session did not allow for any decision to be
made. But the vote for expulsion of the commu-
nists was taken with no qualms about the presence
of men: a revealing lesson in the specious nature
of feminism-Men can't vote to expel the capital-
ists, but their help is welcome to expel the com-
munists!
Though much of the debate at the Conference
centered around "free abortion on demand" vs.
"repeal of all anti-abortion laws," the chief poli-
tical issue remained that of the class character
and orientation of the women's liberation move-
ment. Do we subordinate our struggle, politically
and organizationally, to the bourgeoisie-the class
enemy-or do we wage an uncompromising strug-
gle for the political independence of the working
class, reflected in the independence of its organs I
of struggle? WONAAC is a useful tool in channel-
ing the struggle for women's liberation onto the
dead-end road of impotent, single-issue reform-
ism. The ruling class' Democratic Party garners
votes directly from WONAAC's platform through
politicians like Bella Abzug. The Democrats must
be grateful to WONAAC's leadership (dominated
by the Socialist Workers Party) for delivering
back into the clutches of bourgeois ideology po-
tentially dangerous militant women.
WONAAC's refusal to fight for free abortion
on demand-instead limiting itself strictly to a
legislative fight against anti-abortion laws-is the
programmatic proof-in-the-pudding ofWONAAC' s
subordination of the interests of the working class
to those of the bourgeoisie. The SWPers typical-
ly explained that, of course, they really favored
free abortion on demand, but opposed WONAAC's
taking such a stand. Only two women out of the
1200 attending Saturday night's main plenary ses-
sion raised their hands to indicate they were op-
posed to free abortion in response to SWPer Kip
(continued on page 3)
;c:
March 1972
Unit" Press Intemltlonll
Mao Welcomes Nixon: End of an Illusion
andMao---
"---'
Once again as in the periods preceding World
Wars I and IT the imperialist powers are jockey-
ing for advantage and conducting the most frantic
diplomatic maneuvers. What is new is the equal-
ly frenzied participation of the bureaucracies of
the two giant deformed workers states oppo-
site sides in the quest for alliances and spheres
of influence, under circumstances of nuclear ar-
mament of nearly all the likely belligerants.
At center stage for the moment, Richard Nix-
on and Mao Tse-Tung consummate their semi-
alliance in a "Long March," complete with Nixon
quoting the Red Book and Mao humming "America
the Beautiful," which will decisively shape world
events in the coming period. The more profound
causes of the U. So -China detente must be sought
in the context of global imperialist rivalry_ delib-
erately concealed in the chancelleries of Europe,
Moscow and Tokyo as well as in Washington and
Peking, but darkly visible nevertheless.
-The final evaporation of the rainbow vision of
an American Century came with the collapse of
the international monetary system and the pros-
tration of the American military system in Indo-
china. America reverted to the status of one big
power-the biggest-among many and therefore
needed new alliances of a new type to safeguard
its position.
Counterposed to the weakened position of U. S.
imperialism is the rise of Soviet power and in-
fluence in Asia, Europe and the Near East. In the
eight months since the announcement of the Nixon-
Mao talks the Soviets have launched a counter-
offensive up and down the line: by opening dis-
cussions with Brandt of Germany on a non-
aggression pact and seeking to settle boundaries
in Europe; by supplying the DRV with new weap-
onry and following Podgorny's visit to Hanoi with
a big reception for Vo Duc Tho as the new am-
bassador to Moscow; by condemning recent U. S.
bombings days ahead of the usually prompt Chi-
nese; and finally through spectacular victory as
India's patron in the war with Pakistan while the
U. So and the Chinese favored Pakistan, and Yahya
Khan served as middleman in the pre-Summit
arrangements.
Gromyko's visit to Japan capped off the Russian
offenSive. The re-emergence of Japan as Asia's
industrial and soon-to-be military powerhouse is
a major initial cause of the China-U. S. detente.
The textile war and battle over tariffs between
the U. S. and Japan, as well as Japanese rearm-
ament, has underscored the fact that the U.S.' real
competitor in the Pacific is Japan. In his recent
interview with Americans visiting China Chou de-
voted most time to warnings of a rearmed Japan
including showings of a number of Japanese mili-
tary films. The s p 1 it bet wee n Premier Sato
andhis Defense Minister is over the pace, not the
fact, of militarization.
The Soviets may offer a partial return of the
Kurile Islands off Japan in exchange for a panoply
of benefits including major Japanese capital pene-
tration into Siberia. Japan's powerful industrial
base, short of raw materials and fa c i n g a de-
(continued on page 4
I
J
2
THE LABOR COMMITTEE:
Crackpot Social
Democracy
SECOND OF TWO PARTS
Marcus as a Neo-Capitalist Theorist
Despite Marcus' claims to be the only person
since Luxemburg to understand Marxian econom-
iCS, his analysis of post-war capitalism is quite
similar to mostleft-wing neo-capitalist theorists,
such as Mandel, Sweezy and Kidron. In The Third
Stage of Imperialism, Marcus tells us "The post-
war prosperity of the U.S. economy has been most
directly based on U.S. investment in the advanced
capitalist sectors abroad." In particular, Marcus
sees a general post-war boom based on the re-
construction of the E u r 0 pea n economies which
peaked in the 1957-58 recession, after which the
world economy entered a period of relative stag-
nation. This historical-analytical gem was sold
to W ohlforth and has become part of the Healyite
International Committee's official wisdom. Mar-
cus' theory is 0 u t s tan din g in being just about
completely false. There was no post-war boom-
particularly in the U. S. -and the r e was no sig-
nificant U.S. investment in Europe before 1958.
Despite the impetus ofthe Kor ean War, the U. S.
annual growth rate in the 1950's was only 3.3%,
below its historic norm of 4.0% and well below
the annual growth in the 1960's of 4.9%. Of the
major capitalist nations only West Germany ex-
perienced a significantly higher growth rate in the
1950's than in the 1960's, while the U.S., Japanand
France had distinctly higher growth rates in the
1960's than in the 1950's. Before 1958, U.S. in-
vestment in Europe was small, totalling only $4
billion in asset holdings. It was only after 1958,
with the establishment of the Common Market and
ret urn to general currency convertability, that
American investment in Europe exploded, reaching
$14 billion in assets by 1965. Marcus' theory does
not stand up to the most elementary tests of factual
accuracy.
Throughout Marcus' writings, great importance
is attached to U. S, foreign aid and loans, and to
the Marshall Plan in particular. At the height of
the Marshall Plan in 1949, U.S. foreign aid was
about $5 billion or 2%ofU.S. nftional output. Since
then foreign aid and loans have steadily declined
both absolutely and relative to national output, to-
day constituting about 1/5 of 1% of national output,
State aid and loans could not conceivably have
played the great role Marcus attaches to them.
Equally significant, Marshall Plan aid peaked at
the very time of the first U. S. post-war recession
in 1948-49, a fact which is probably not coinci-
dental as we shall see.
Even had the magnitude ofU. S. foreign aid and
loans bee n significantly greater, could it have
contributed significantly to general world pros-
perity? A positive answer to that question can be
broached from either a Keynesian or a state cap-
italist, but not from a Marxian standpoint. And in
fact, Marcus' analysiS of post-war capitalism
contains significant elements of both Keynesian-
ism and state capitalism. In "Depression Ahead?"
Marcus maintains that since the Roosevelt admin-
istration, the U. S. government has pu r sue d a
fundamentally changed economic policy, which he
summarizes as "credit expansion" (his descrip-
tion of Keynesianism). Marcus' analysis t urn s
out to be a kind of international Keynesianism. If
U. S. government expenditure abroad can produce
an economic boom, as Marcus claims, then so can
domestic government expenditure.
Throughout Marcus' writings, there is a tend-
ency to identify state foreign grants and loans
with private investment as a form of capital out-
flow and a means of a b s 0 r bin g surplus value.
For e i gn aid and state loans are not a form of
"capital, " i. e., a vehicle for the extraction of pro-
fit through the exploitation of labor. (See the ex-
panded treatment of the nature of state expendi-
ture g i v en in "The Myth of Neo-Capitalism" in
RCY Newsletter #10.) The growthof the necessary
overhead expenses of the capitalist system ac-
tually drives the rate of profit down and is not a
source of capitalist boom. Marcus' errors in this
area are truly endless. He identifies profitable
foreign in v est men t with domestic prosperity.
Foreign investment is profitable for the American
capitalist class, but it shifts productive resources
and employment out of the U. S. Shifting produc-
tion to the South certainly benefited New England-
based textile firms. It did not benefit New Eng-
land textile workers . This is why the trade unions
have always opposed runaway shops and, as part
of its nationalist protectionism, the AFL-CIO op-
poses U.S. industrial investment abroad. Despite
the Labor Committee's intense hostility to Third-
World Maoism (in part res p 0 n din g to national
chauvinism), the Labor Committee's own eco-
nomic theories reinforce one of the main ideolog-
ical pillars of ThirdWorldism-that U. S. imperi-
alism is responsible for the supposed prosperity
of the post-war U. S. economy and the relatively
higher living standard of American workers.
In dealing with the expansion of "unproductive
labor" in the corporate and s tat e bureaucracy,
Marcus' analysis is mainstream neo-capitalist
analYSiS, practically identical to that of Sweezy
and Baran, Mandel and the New Leftist Martin
Nicolaus. Thus "Credit is also piped into waste-
ful forms of investment connected to the means of
production and distribution. The number of gov-
ernment and cor po rat e clerks per productive
worker are increased; the number of salesmen
per productive worker rises. Large masses of
capital flow into redundant sales offices, financial
ins tit uti 0 n establishments, purely redundant
'dealerships, ' supermarkets, and so forth, all of
which adds not one penny's worth to the real out-
put of production itself" (The Third of Im-
p'erialism, p. 31-32). This pas sag e could have
been taken right out of Baran and Sweezy's
MonoPQly: Qilllital. Marcus vie w s the corporate
and state bureaucracy and distributive apparatus
as deliberate make-work projects and a conscious
alternative to both profit-taking and productive
investment.
"Unproductive expenditures" are part of the
necessary economic and political overhead of the
capitalist system. They should be seen not as a
means of absorbing surplus value, but as part of
the "constant capital" flow expenses. The expan-
sion of such expenses drives down the rate of
profit. Capitalists are as concerned with econ-
omizing on clerical and distributive workers as
they are on factory operatives. Such "unproduc-
tive" ex pen d it u res may be "redundant" and
"wasteful" from the standpoint of a rational eco-
nomic system (i. e. SOCialism), but are absolute-
ly essential from the standpoint of capitalism.
Marcus' t rea t men t of "unproductive" labor as
waste again reflects his technocratic world-view.
Friedman as a Marxian Economist?
Probably the most succinct statement of Mar-
cus' economic analysis is the following: " im-
perialism can only survive by resorting to various
forms of statism, and we are in a particular period
in which U. S. has established hegemony over the
world and has enjoyed economic prosperity based
on credit expansion" (Conversations w.itb Wohl-
fm:tb, Sess. 7, p. 2).
This statement is in complete contradiction
to the elementary principles of Marxian analysis
of money and credit. Prosperity can not be based
on statism in the form of credit expansion because
the state lacks the power to expand credit. Credit
expansion generally accompanies expanded pro-
duction; it does not cause it.
In the most important dispute over the role of
money in his lifetime, Marx opposed the Currency
School which maintained that the flow of money
was determined by the amount of currency and
WORKERS VANGUARD
WfJRIlERI VANGIJARD
Marxist Working Class Monthly
Published by the Spartacist League
Editorial Board: Liz Gordon, Marv Treiger,
Nick Benjamin (managing editor).
Production manager: Karen Allen.
Circulation manager: Janet Rogers.
West Coast editor: Mark Small.
New England editor: George Foster.
Subscription: $1 yearly (11 issues). Bundle rates
for 10 or more copies. Address: Box 1377, G.P.O.,
New York, N. Y. 10001. Telephone: WA 5-8234.
Opinions expressed in signed articles or letters
do not necessarily express the editorial viewpoint.
bank reserves. He generally supported the Bank-
ing School, which maintained that the flow of money
and credit adjusted to the demands of capitalists
through changes in the velocity of circulation. "As
long as the state of business is such that returns
of loans made are regularly repaid and credit thus
remains unshaken, the expansion and contraction
of circulation depends simply on the requirements
of industrialists and merchants" (Capital, Vol.
III, Ch. 33).
The Currency School was based on the quantity
theory of money, which held the flow of money
expenditure was always proportional to currency
and banks. Marx was an anti-quantity theorist,
upholding the theory of reflux. The theory of re-
flux held that bank notes issued in excess of de-
mand would automatically be extinguished through
loan repayment. "The quantity of c i r c u 1 at i n g
notes is regulated by the rwuirements of com-
merce and every superfluous note wanders back
to its issuing party" (Capital, Vol. III, Ch. 33).
The American Depression demonstrated the va-
lidity of Marx's position; in the middle and late
Thirties, the banks were swimming in excess re-
serves with no borrowers. And despite Marcus'
ins is ten c e that Roosevelt pursued a policy of
credit expansion, in 1938 the Federal Reserve
raised the reserve ratio so as to achieve greater
leverage over bank reserves.
For Marx, the expansion of money and credit
results from, but does not cause increasing out-
put. "The final result is that the mass of curren-
cy required for the expenditure of revenue in-
creases decidedly in periods of prosperity. As for
the currency which is necessary for the trans-
fer of capital for the exclusive use of the capi-
talists, a period of brisk business is at the same
time, a period of the most elastic and easy cred-
it" (ca,p.i1a.l, Vol. III, Ch. 28).
The quantity theory of money has always
played an important ideological role in bourgeois
economics, If the flow of money expenditures is
automatically proportional to the amount of cur-
rency and bank reserves, the traditional bourgeOis
state has considerable control over the economy.
The major 0 p p 0 sit ion to Keypesianism within
bourgeois economics comes from quantity money
theorists headed by Milton Freidman. Freidman
argues that if only the Federal Reserve would al-
low a con s tan t increase in the stock of money,
steady growth and full employment would follow
and no other government "intervention" is nec-
continued on page 6
Spartacist Local Directory
BERKELEY -OAKLAND. Box 852, Main P. 0 .
Berkeley, Calif. 94701. phone: 848-3029.
BOSTON. Box 188, M. 1. T. Sta., Cambridge,
Mass. 02139. phone: 321-3826.
CHICAGO. Box 6471, Main P. 0., Chicago, Ill.
60680. phone: 643-4394.
DENVER. (contact New York)
EUREKA. Box 3061, Eureka, Calif. 95501.
HOUSTON. (contact New York)
LOS ANGELES. Box 38053, Wilcox Sta., Los
Angeles, Calif. 90038. phone: 467-6855.
NEW ORLEANS. (contact New York)
NEW YORK. Box 1377, G. P. 0., New York, N. Y.
10001. phone: WA 5-2426.
SAN DIEGO. Box 22052, Univ. City Sta., San
Diego, Calif. 92122. phone: 453-1436.
SAN FRANCISCO. Box 40574, San FranCiSCO,
CaliL 94140. phone: 826-8259.
STONY BROOK, L. L Box 654, Port Jefferson,
N. Y. 11777. phone: 246-6648.
WASHINGTON,D. phone:
223-1455.
March 1972 3
REPORT:
Rey Holds Educational Weekend
The Revolutionary Communist Youth held an
educational weekend February 19-21 in Boston.
Despite a heavy snowstorm on the first day, over
80 people attended the conference. The education-
al drew in people from as far away as Washington,
D. C. and Pittsburgh. The RCY r a i sed almost
$300 at the conference, which it will use to expand
production of pamphlets and the RCY Newsletter.
Joseph Seymour, RCY National Chairman, and
George Foster, political chairman of the Boston
SpartacistLeague, made a joint presentation
opening the conference on the current world eco-
nomic crisis, the tasks facing the American labor
movement, the heightening of imperialist rivalry
and the drift toward World War ill abetted by the
treachery of the Stalinist bureaucracies. Com-
rade Seymour also analyzed the various theories
of neo-capitalism, products of left-wing capitula-
tion to bourgeois ideology in the period of appar-
ent stabilization of capitalism especially in the
U. S. following World War IT and the subsequent
"cleansing" of the left from the labor movement.
Laura Sawyer, assistant editor of the RCY News-
letter, discussed non-cla$s forms of oppression,
centering on the racial and sexual oppression in
capitalist soc i e t y. Divisions along racial and
sexual lines divide and weaken the working class,
which faces a united bourgeoisie. We strive for
the unity of the class, by developing a transitional
program which attacks the special oppression of
women, blacks and all 0 p pre sse d minorities,
Continued from Page 1
BOSTON
WONAAC
CONFERENCE
Dawson's theatrical query to the body. "But the
masses aren't ready for it yet ... " Sound famil-
iar? This patronizing, hypocritical, tail-ending
opportunism reveals the SWP's cynicism toward
the working class, male and female, as the agent
of revolution, and its abandonment of responsibi-
lity to intervene in the working class to fight for
revolutionary consciousness. How is it that all of
a group like WONAAC can "personally" recognize
the need for free abortion, but not "the masses"?
If "the masses" are so backward, surely it's
WONAAC's job to energetically raise the demand
for free abortion and explain its necessity from
the standpoint of the interests of all the oppress-
ed. What is really behind the SWP's adamant in-
sistence on not demanding free abortion is its de-
sire to remain "respectable" in the eyes of the
defenders of private property-the bourgeoisie
and its politiCians.
On the key issue - class collaboration-Pro-
gressive Labor was silent. PL has jettisoned the
crude but genuine working-class impulse which
led them, with the Spartacist League, to oppose
the presence of the SWP's favorite bourgeois pol-
itician Vance Hartke at the July NPAC gathering
in New York. At the WONAAC Conference they
never called for a break with capitalist politics.
Instead of seeing that the fight against sexual and
racial special oppression requires a complete
program for working-class struggle, PL/UAG
could only inveigh more stridently than their op-
ponents against c the evils of racism and sexual
oppression. Their only propaganda point was that
:WONAAC emphasizes its legalized abortion slo-
gan above the slogan of No Forced Sterilization.
The significance for political clarification of their
proposal for greater stress on "No Forced Steri-
lization" is indicated by the fact that the proposal
passed virtually unopposed. Nor did PL argue
against male exclUSion, a practice they have in
linking this struggle to the class struggle against
capitalism, and by fighting to overcome the false
consciousness which penetrates the more back-
ward sections of the class.
Helen Cantor, RCY National Secretary, spoke
on the role of youth in the revolutionary move-
ment. The RCY rejects absolutely all theories of
"youth vanguardism" (propounded in the U. S. by
the Socialist Workers Party/Young Socialist Al-
liance and now emulated by the Workers League)
which represent a capitulation to petty-bourgeois
illusions. ''Youth'' in itself is neither revolution-
ary nor a class, and cannot sub s tit ute for the
revolutionary vanguard party. We seek to break
the best elements of the radical student movement
from their class background and future expecta-
tions and develop them into professional commu-
nists, through a process of education and strug-
gle. As the youth section of the Spartacist League,
the RCY also partiCipates in communist activity
in the organizations of the working class. The
dedication and sacrifice shown by RCYers in this
struggle fit Lenin's characterization of the young-
er generation as "the future of our movement."
Workshops following the presentations generated
lively discussion on all aspects of the Transition-
al Program and its application in action.
The final day of the conference was devoted to
discussion of the struggle for the Fourth Inter-
national. Liz Gordon, National Secretary of the
Spartacist League, analyzed the history of the
the past opposed. PL has never abandoned its
position on the family as a "fighting unit for so-
Cialism," but in its lurch to the "non-sectarian"
right has buried this position to get closer to the
feminists who hate Marxism but hate the family
too.
In the greatest show of deceit, howev:r, the IS
occupied center stage. More sophisticated than
the muddled PL/UAG, the IS forces nevertheless
stumbled all over themselves in their anti-class-
collaborationist pose. In IS' Free Abortion on
Demand (FAOD) Caucus and on the Conference
floor, the IS voted against a Women and Revolu-
tion proposal demanding exclusion of bourgeois
politicians and repudiation of the Friday expul-
sion of communists. They equivocated on the is-
sue of the class enemy's presence, in their own
resolution, which would have permitted participa-
tion by bourgeois representatives if they or their
parties favored free abortion. The leaflet of in-
vitation to the FOAD Caucus stated that WONAAC
should "not give support to Democratic and Re-
publican Party politicians or put them forward as
spokeswomen," carefully ski r tin g the issue of
"participation" in WONAAC by capitalist politi-
cians to hustle votes.
Women's oppression, like other forms of spe-
cial oppreSSion, affects women of all classes (al-
though working-class women worst). But the so-
lution to the special oppression of women reguires
proletarian revolution. The widespread confusion
over the need for a class-struggle approach to all
social oppression has made the women's libera-
tion movement even easier hustling territory for
bourgeois politicians than the anti-war movement
has been. For that reason self-proclaimed so-
ccialists in the movement have a special responsi-
bility at every juncture to draw an uncompromis-
ing class line. PL and IS have collapsed entirely
in this revolutionary duty, giving left cover to the
SWP's successful efforts to deliver the women's
movement up body and soul to the class whose
ex is ten c e precludes any rea 1 progress, any
secure gains in the s t rug g 1 e a g a i 11 S t special
oppression
For an overview of the relationship between
women's oppression and capitalist SOCiety, see
the article "Toward Women's Liberation" in
#17 -18 The publication Women
and Revolution is available at for six issues.
Fourth International from its inception, dealing
with the more controversial aspects of the strug-
gle against revisionism and Pabloism within the
Fourth International, particularly the role of the
SWP. She noted t hat Cannon beg ant he fight
against Pabloism only w hen its perspective of
organizational liquidationism be cam e evident
within the SWP in the Cochran-Clarke faction in
the ear ly 1950' s. The murder of Trotsky and the
Shachtman split which stripped the party of much
of its theoretical talent, together with the terrible
setbacks of the Cold War period, all facilitated
the SWP's later capitulation to Pabloism. The
current shattered and chaotic state of those
groupings claiming to represent the Fourth Inter-
national makes all the more imperative the neces-
sity to struggle for the r e con s t r u c t ion of the
Fourth International and to resolve what Trotsky
characterized as the crisis of leadership of the
world proletariat.
The conference ended with the singing of the
Internationale. The Boston RCY met that evening
with young people attending the conference who
wanted to know more about the RCY. The educa-
tional value of the weekend, not only for people
just becoming committed to revolutionary poli-
tics, but for the RCY comrades themselves was
tremendous. The understanding of the burning
questions fa c in g the revolutionary movement
which the young comrades will take into struggle
with them will prove invaluable to our movement .
SMC CONfERENCE:
Junior Pop Front
As Y/}i went to press on the weekend of February 25-27, the
SMCheid its Conference in New York. Like the pop frontNPAC
of which it is a part, the SMC demonstrated again the grim de-
termination ofthe SWP /YSA to maintain their alliance with the
liberal bourgeoisie at any cost. The Workers League (WL), In-
ternational SOCialists (IS) and the National Caucus of Labor
Committees (NCLC) again vied with each other in eagerness to
cover for the SWP's betrayals. Of all organized tendencies
presEnt, only the Spartacist League and its youth section, the
Revolutionary Communist Youth, presented a consistent prin-
cipled opposition to the class collaborationism of the SWP-
dominated antiwar movement. (All other organizations di-
rected motions for SMC to carry out. We say destroy SMC!)
True, the liberal bourgeoiSie themselves did not consider
this conference worth attending. But, anxious to harness stu-
dents to their electoral chariot, they dispatched their agents-
youth for McGovern, youth for Muskie, youth for Lindsay-to
the conference, to pick up recruits and votes. Everyone of
these bourgeois organizations was given a position on the pre-
siding committee. The NCLC, which had successfully won a
place on the committee made a show of removing its repre-
sentative in order to put on a left face. Yet in a leaflet they la-
beledas "hooliganism" and defended the expulsions of the Spar-
tacist League and Progressive Labor for their attempt to shout
down Hartke last July. The NCLC wanted SMC without the overt
presence of the bourgeoisie, while touting SMC, NPAC, PCPJ,
and the CP's TUAD as instruments of mass struggle. But even
the NCLC 's contradictory opposition to class collaboration was
superior, if non-Leninist, to the WL's position of loyal opposi-
tion in the pop front-the WL conspicuously abstained on the
crucial SL/RCY motion, presented at the plenary, to exclude
the bourgeoisie-the first time a vote on this question was per-
mitted at SMC/NPAC. The SWP/YSA forces, of course, voted
not to exclude the bourgeois reps. Throughout the conference,
however, the WL furiously denounced the SWP's acquiescence
at the recent Versailles anti-war conference in the exclusion
by the Stalinists of the SWP's own comrades of the French sec-
tion of the United Secretariat. The WL's frenzied attack on this
exclusionism did not prevent them from physically excluding
the SL/RCY from their supposedly-public workshop. Reminis-
cent of Shachtmanism, the WL continuously justified their soli-
darity with the "Trotskyist" sponsors of the bourgeoisie by
furiously denouncing "Stalinism" as the arch-enemy of man-
kind. The WL denounced the rottenness of the SWP while of-
fering support to the SWP election compaign .!!! spite ! its
program.
Despite the SWP's bureaucratic restrictions on political dis-
cussion, the SL/R CY won a significant victory at the labor
workshop with the adoption of its motion to exclude a represen-
tative of youth for McGovern. The YSA then made abundantly
clear its role as chaperone for the bourgeoisie; the YSA alone
spoke against the SL/RCY motions and it alone organized a
walkout from the labor workshop, (Later in the Conference,
SWP'er Debby Bustin defended their not walking out of the Ver-
sailles conference on the grounds of maintaining a popular
"you have to stay inside and argue for your politics"!)
A triumphant American working class will deal deCisively
with the liberal imperialists and their sponsors in the workers'
and radical movement. That day will be hastened by the exclu-
sion of the bourgeoisie in order to ;!.I? the full airing of
political disputes within the working-class movement which
alone can defeat revisionism. No wonder the SWP/YSA and the
WL invite the bourgeoisie and stifle discussion from the left!
-- ...
Three leaflets issued by the SL/RCY at the Conference, "The
War, the Class and the Liberals, " "Protest Workers League
Hypocrisy: For Workers Democracy!" and "On Fools and Char-
latans: The Class Nature of 'Non-Exclusionism'" may be order-
ed through Workers
4
Continued/rom Page 1

Ixon an
pressed economy, is aggressively seeking mar-
kets. If a Moscow-Tokyo accord is reached it will
tend to both stalemate and consolidate the U. S. -
Chinese detente.
The Chinese have now developed a missile with
a delivery radius of 2, 500 miles, capable of reach-
ing Moscow. In the short run this development
tends to heighten Chinese fears of a possible Rus-
sian "preventive" bombing, thus d r i v i n g China
into U. S. arms in proportion to Sino-Soviet an-
tagonism. The U. S. least of all wan t s to see
a single power dominate Eurasia. Russian sup-
port to India in the Sino-Indian border war which
took place ina wasteland peopled by a non-Chinese
and non-Indian national minority as well as the
Sino-Soviet armed clashes over a few islands in
the Ussuri . River indicate the real possibility of
such a war between the two states.
The Laird military budget of $83 billion has
been justified on the basis of "further erosion of
strategic balance with the U.S.S.R." The Soviets
presently lead in land-based missiles and are in-
c rea sin g their missile-submarine force. The
most intense area of competition is in naval arm-
aments and maneuvers in the open sea (particu-
larly in the Mediterranean) with a heavy emphasis
on competition for refueling ports.
The U.S. is actually through a "margin of su-
periority" preparing for a possible future rap-
prochement between Russia and China. There can
be no "security" for a workers state in an
alliance with imperialism. We demand instead
an international bloc along class lines. A united
front in support of the Indochinese revolution would
have tipped the balance long ago.
The "Third Campist" International SOCialists,
refusing to call for a united front of the deformed
workers states against U.S. imperialism in Viet-
nam expraiiis -U. S. r e lu c tan c e to use nuclear
weapons in Vietnam as a result of the pop-
front amorphous anti-war movement in the U. S. :
"Only a wholesale escalation of the war, in-
cluding the use of tactical nuclear weapons,
could conceivably bring an end to the Viet-
namese struggle for self -deter mination - and
this approach has been precluded by the strength
of the American anti-war movement. II
-Workers Power, 18 February-
2 March 1972
The IS is living on pacifist, classless illusions.
The U. S. may yet use nuclear weapons in Viet-
nam. It is held back precisely by its fears of re-
uniting nuclear-armed Russia and China and the
possibility that war will then be inevitable and
its outcome unclear. The IS' horror at the ac-
quisitionofnuclear bombs by the deformed work-
ers states makes them incapable of eten seeing
reality. Regarding the present anti-war move-
ment, the ruling class is relying on it to channel
anti-war sentiment into its hip pocket.
The real danger to the Vietnamese social revo-
lution is the traitorous policies of the various Sta-
linistleaderships which may once again capitulate
in the face of imperialist pressure.
Quid Pro Quo?
The U.S. has just granted the People's Repub-
lic of China the same trade status as the Soviet
Union w h i 1 e leaving North Vietnam, Korea and
Cuba in the category of "least favored nations. "
The unilateral opening of trade channels by the
U. S. raises the question of what China will offer
in return. U.S. -Chinese trade is bound to be limit-
ed due to the low productivity of Chinese indus-
try. The Nixon-Malraux discussion indicates that
Nixon will offer long-term loan credits as the
next step.
The problem of accumulating a significant sur-
plus in the agricultural sector to deepen its indus-
trial base has plagued China throughout the Sixties
and is a major cause of the intense struggles of
the Cultural Revolution. The import of grain in
the wake of the Great Leap Forward, the natural
disasters during the early part of the decade and
the economic disruption during the Cultural Revo-
lution indicate that even the marginal stability of
the bureaucracy hangs on its ability to break out of
the vic i 0 usc i r c I e caused by an insufficient
surplus.
aO
I
-
It is an axiom from which the Chinese cannot
escape that the influence of the world market is
bound to take its toll on workers states, exacer-
bating their deformities and generating capital-
ist restorationist tendencies-if the revolution is
not extended in time to the more productive states
whose prices dominate world trade. The Chinese
theory of "self-reliance" is not only utopian but
reactionary in that it strives to drive the produc-
tive forces back into the national boundaries.
Collaboration for Clique '8 Survival
Chinese foreign policy has gone through a num-
ber of phases but reflects an underlying unity. In
1963, at the height of the Sino-Soviet polemiCS,
the Chinese rei t era ted their conception of the
"Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence." These
included the infamous "non-interference in each
other's internal affairs" clause which the Chinese
have asserted since the foundation of the People's
Republic in 1949.
The con c e p t of "non-interference in e a c h
other's internal affairs" was proclaimed by the
Chinese as Leninist but was in fact introduced by
Stalin in the Thirties. Lenin and Trotsky never
uttered so cynical and hypocritical a conception
as the basis for the foreign policy of a workers
state;they recognized tactical limitations imposed
by imperialist strength, but they never bartered
away Communist Parties for this "principle."
The tactic of coexistence was invoked under
conditions of ext rem e em erg e n c y at Brest-
Litovsk, Trotsky himself, on instructions from
the Central Committee, headed the delegation to
Brest-Litovsk. Trotsky used the platform to talk
over the heads of the German officials to the troops
in the trenches over all Europe to turn their guns
against their own rulers. International class unity
of the proletariat held absolute primacy for the
Bolsheviks. The final treaty was a compromise
and a retreat, The Bolsheviks never painted it up
as a victory or a great step toward socialism and,
most important, continued to orient the European
Communists to making the revolution. In contrast
Stalin and Mao willfully subordinated the class
struggle for t e m p 0 r a r y diplomatic advantage.
Their policy of "non-interference" is much more
than the observation of c e r t a i n restrictions in
state relations necessary for any workers state
surrounded by capitalist states; they extend non-
interference on the diplomatic and military level
to the stifling of struggle by the Communist Par-
ties under their influence abroad, thereby trans-
for min g a temporarily necessary policy of re-
straint into a policy of b e t r a y ~ -
When it is a question of a workers party orient-
ed to another deformed workers state the Chinese,
like their Soviet counterparts, will betray without
so much as the blink of an eye. The Sud an e s e
w 0 r k e r s led by a pro-Soviet Communist Party
staged an adventurous coup last summer in the
Sudan. Crossing class lines in order to edge out
Soviet influence, the Chinese supportedNumeiry's
rightist counter-coup which resulted in the smash-
ing of the CP and the trade unions. On the funda-
mental "principles" of foreign policy, Mao and
Stalin are like "lips and teeth. "
The early phase of Chinese foreign policy em-
braced the 1954 Geneva sellout to which they and
the R u s s ian s were signatories. U.S. hostility
toward China, particularly manifest in the Korean
War, pushed them toward closer relations with
the Soviet Union during the middle Fifties. It was
Chou En-Lai who urged Soviet military action to
smash the Hungarian Workers' Councils in 1956,
reflecting the bureaucracies' dread of the revo-
lutionary proletariat.
The brutal Soviet withdrawal of aid spurred a
new "leftist" period of Chinese for e i g n poliCY
isolated from the de for m e d workers states as
well as the capitalists. Instead of looking toward
and assisting proletarian revolution in the West,
despite Lenin's designation of the era as the "eve
of proletarian revolution," the Chinese universal-
ized the strategy of the Chinese revolution and
called for "self-reliance" and "people's war." The
failure of Maoist parties to achieve success any-
where on the globe and the internal pressures
brought about by Mao's utopian attempt to build
WORKERS VANGUARD
"socialism in one country's consciousness" forced
a disoriented bureaucracy to hastily abandon the
left turn for a sharp tactical right turn, just as
the failure in Germany of the "leftist" tactics of
Stalin's Third Period in the early Thirties led to
the rightist popular fro n t tactic of the middle
Thirties. Left utopian adventurism breeds right
pragmatic capitulationism. The underlying unity
behind the vacillations of Maoist policy has its
roots in the maneuverings of a Bonapartist clique
standing bet wee n imperialism and the interna-
tional proletariat and fearful of both,
The "non-interference" clause has proved most
useful to Mao in the current right turn. It was
used to con d em n the Indian army's actions in
Bangladesh against China's ally Pakistan (although
China shelves the principle when Pakistan med-
dles in Kashmir). The Russian position is exactly
the reverse, since its ally is India. Both oppor-
tunist leaderships are silent on the plight of the
Biharis in Bangladesh, the "Palestinians of the
subcontinent, " who are not permitted to return to
Bihar in India or to West Pakistan and who face
mas sac r e at the hands of Bengali nationalism.
The regimes in Peking and Moscow both noisily
endorse Bandaranaike's suppression in Ceylon of
the Guevarist-type insurrection in the country-
side. In this unholy alliance they are joined by
Pakistan and India, Britain, France and the United
States. The Chinese only exceed the others in that
their supportive aid ($30 million) is refurbished
with dip I 0 mat i c support in the form of Chou's
assertions that the rebellion was all a CIA plot.
These Chi n e s e betrayals, more egregious but
qualitatively identical to previous practice, have
paved the way for the Nixon visit.
New Red Book-Preface by Nixon
The bureaucracy evolves its own methods to
effect t act i c a I turns. These methods include,
above all, maneuvering, purges, cult worship and
ultimately a secret police. The narrow identifica-
tion of Leaders with one or another temporary
policy while the Supreme Arbiter (Stalin or Mao)
stands "beyond al1d above" policy and error cre-
ates enormous instability. It is both an index of
the regime's inflexibility in structure and its con-
siderable "freedom" of action in making various
moves. Without this understanding Mao appears
more and more to the disillusioned "cultural revo-
lutionist" as a dissident Maoist.
The present ascendancy of Chou En-Lai and
the eclipse of Lin Piao and Chen Po-Ta indicate
not a restoration of capitalism (so easily
restored according to the Maoist schema), or a
betrayal of the Cultural R evolution, but rather its
logical extension and continuation-as Mao will be
the first to tell you.
The super-secret purge of Lin Piao and num-
erous top military leaders speaks reams about
the undemocratic essence ofthe Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution - an event neither great, nor
proletarian, nor cultural, nor revolutionary. All
the manufactured and manifestly one-sided denun-
ciations of Liu Shao-Chi which were counted as
evidence of mass de m 0 c rat i c discussion are
thrown by the boards in the simple fact that Lin
Piao'spreface to the Red Book has been removed
in the new English language editions for export
while the domestic Chinese production continues
unabated for an unknowing but suspicious mass.
Itis hardly coincidental that the two heir-
apparents to Mao have been purged at the height
oftheir power. The Ninth Party Congress of April
1969 included in the new Chinese Constitution the
official designation of Lin Piao as the new heir-
apparent. This outrageous repudiation of w 0 r k-
ers democracy exceeds even the s e m i - feu d a 1
practice of the Catholic Church, The Pope may
appoint the College of Cardinals which will in turn
select the next Pope-but he cannot select his suc-
cessor outright. Once succession is formalized
in this way the impulses toward corridor intrigue
reminiscent of Byzantium become irresistable.
Lin Piao is gone. We await only his confession.
Cultural Counterrevolution
The Nixon visit has already had other reper-
cussions on the cultural front. Bereft of principle,
..
March 1972
"The Maoist "Cultural Revolution" was a lit-
mus test for Trotskyists. Only our tendency
pointed out at the time the essential charac-
-- --
ter of the "Cultural Revolution"-an intra-
bureaucracy fight and purge of the Chinese
CPo Wit h the further development of open
armed border clashes bet wee n the Soviet
Union and China, the need of the workers to
overthrow the narrow, nationalist bureaucra-
cies has become even more imperative and
obvious as the only way to create communist
unity against imperialism.
"At the present time, the Vietnam war and
the extreme diplomatic and internal difficul-
ties of the Chinese state have for c e d the
Maoists to maintain greater hostility to im-
perialism and verbally disclaim the U .S.S.R.'s
avowed policy of "peaceful coexistence" while
themselves peacefully coexisting with Japan.
However, we must warn against the growing
objective possibility-given the tremendous
industrial and military capacity of the Soviet
Union-of a U. S. deal with China. Should the
imperialists adjust their policies in terms of
the i r long-run interests (which would take
time, as such factors as U. S. public opinion
would have to be readjusted), the Chi n e s e
would be as willing as the Russians are at
present to build "Socialism in One Country"
through deals with imperialism at the ex-
pense of internationalism. "
- "Development and Tactics of the
Spartacist League," Marxist Bulletin ifJ),
Part II, P. 12, 30 August .1969
Two and a half years ago, while Maoist rhet-
oric was at its "radical" zenith and China ap-
peared to s tan d alone against imperialism
and "m 0 d ern revisionism," the Spartacist
League predicted the possibility of aU. S.-
China bloc. Our analysis, based on profound
class currents operating in the epoch of the
dec a y of imperialism and its Stalinist aM
Maoist derivatives, has been fully vindicated.
creativity and imagination, the bureaucrats turn
the accumulated cultural wealth of mankind on and
off like so much political lubrication. During Feb-
ruary Chinese bookstores issued a dozen or so
titles banned in the Cultural Revolution. These
works include the great bourgeois philosophers
of the French Revolution Montesquieu and Rous-
seau; the giant of European transcendental ideal-
ism of the rationalist school Kant; and the prede-
cessors of Marx and founders of scientific political
economy Adam Smith and Ricardo (the latter de-
veloped the labor theory of value); and finally,
the arch-apologist of ancient slavery Thucydides
who incidentally wrote the first scientific history
on record. His major work provides us with the
only written record corroborating Engels' thesis
based on anthropological studies that the develop-
ment of a material surplus was the prerequisite
of a durable division of society into classes. The
new list of published titles notably excludes Rus-
sian authors indicating a cynical and arbitrary
policy of the Chinese Stalinists toward culture.
Maoist Apologias
Wi If red Burchett, writing for the Guardian.
summed up the apologist's-eye view quite neatly:
''What China has to gain is clear. It is a crown-
ingtriumph of the new, outward-looking phase
of Chinese foreign policy. Entry into the UN by
a thumping majority and a tribute-paying visit
by the President of the superpower of the West
-both within less than six months! Very good.
Very good, Chairman Mao may murmur with
considerable justification. "
- 16 February 1972
Burchett has things upside down. China's en-
try into that Den of Thieves at this par tic u I a r
time is more a consequence of the rapprochement
with the U. S. than its cause. The nature of the
U. S. "defeat" in the UN on the China question is
revealed when we note that eleven of the fourteen
NATO nations either voted for admission or ab-
stained. These robbers were alert to Nixon's tac-
tic of double diplomacy whereby he sought to out-
flank Europe, In the con t ext of China's "new,
5
'I
...,;;
Mao ... and Lin
_____________________ -When Comes the Confession?
Chou
outward-looking" diplomacy (one would think an
"outward" policy would seem threatening to
imperialism) the Europeans rushed to China's side
like Penelope's suitors upon Ulysses' departure.
It was imperialist competition and Chinese col-
laboration rather than acknowledgement of Chi-
nese strength that loomed largest among the mo-
tives for acceptance of China into the UN. China's
sudden silence on the nature of that august body
contrasts sharply with Mao's praise for the late
Bung Karno (Sukarno of Indonesia) when he exited
from "the U. S. controlled United Nations" (Mao
to PKI, May 23, 1965). It is hardly accurate to
conclude from all this, as does for example the
Georgia Communist League that Nixon is crawl-
ing to Peking on his hands and knees.
Indochina Must Go Communist
The Nixon-Mao meeting, contemplated early
in the Nixon administration, is a major gambit
along with the eight-point peace plan to prolong
the Vietnam war and obtain a settlement favor-
able to U. S. imperialism. The brazen step-up of
the bombing on the eve of the journey to the pro-
portions of the most intense phases of the war is
further evidence of Nixon's intent.
Nixon has used the Sum mit to defuse anti-
war sentiment at home in a movement tied to re-
liance on bourgeOis politicians as a result of SWP-
CP anti-war strategy. He has bought time to
experiment with his tactic of mass bombings plus
Vietnamization. Thus Mao in return for precious
little has'handed Nixon a weapon he could not have
obtained even in Moscow. Even if "nothing sub-
stantial" derives from the talks Nixon's gains have
been formidable. Nevertheless the talks do open
up the possibility, despite claims that a "settle-
ment" can only come in Paris, of a new Geneva
with all the principals re-enacting their traitor-
ous roles.
The contradictory interests of Stalinism (in-
herently nationalistic) do not make this a fore-
gone conclusion. Just as Mao broke from Stalin's
recommendation to give up his guns and enter a
coalition with Chiang when the very existence of
Mao and the Eighth Route Army were at stake, so
too the Vietnamese (who are not subordinate to
Moscow or Peking as the European parties of the
old Third Internationai were to Stalin at the end
of World War II) may belatedly resist a settlement
which will bring about their own destruction. Short
of their own physical destruction (and often seem-
ing to court it) these parties are always open to
new betrayals.
The recent plan of the Provisional Revolution-
ary Government does not tie a settlement in Viet-
nam to a settlement within the entire war theater
of the Indochinese peninsula. Just as the original
decision to stop bombing, tied in with the Paris
talks, only freed U. S. bombers for Laotian and
Cambodian m iss ion s (including the Cambodian
invasion during that period) so too an end to the
fighting in Vietnam constitutes a betrayal of the
other Indochinese p e 0 pIe s and guarantees that
the U. S. will r en e w hostilities in Vietnam it-
self, The North Vietnamese, it should be remem-
bered, initially opposed the formation of the NLF
in the late Fifties.
The recent insistence that only "Thieu must
go" is a far greater threat to the Vietnamese
revolution than episodic U. S. military victories.
The Thieu-Ied apparatus conSisting of the secret
police, the army and the bureaucracy would re-
main intact with, of course, the comprador na-
tional bourgeois class upon which it rests. Vic-
tory to the Vietnamese revolution can 0 n I y be
accomplished if the social revolution is carried
through to the end. It is ther-efore necessary to
raise the call for a workers and peasants govern-
ment, halt the subordination of military tactics to
the timetable of U. S. "withdrawal," cease damp-
ening the class struggle in the cities in order to
seduce the compradores, and above all prepare
to smash the reactionary state apparatus in the
context of all U. S. troops out of Southeast Asia.
This program cannot be carried out by the NLF.
Under the best of circumstances and the strongest
of pressures, the best that such a Stalinist lead-
ership on a peasant base can achieve are the real
but reversible gains of a deformed workers state
on the North Vietnamese model. The defeat of the
class enemy in Indochina and the exposure of the
Stalinist formulas for revolution provide a step
toward proletarian rule if a Leninist-Trotskyist
vanguard emerges in Indochina to lead the politi-
cal revolution.
PL, which sees a "Nixon-Mao Viet Swindle"
and Vietnamese collaboration, has unfortunately
completely lost sight of the class line in Vietnam.
They state:
"So, at this point, the only difference between
the Nixon crew and the liberal crew headed up
by McGovern and Ted Kennedy is which set of
national leaders in Vietnam do they want to see
in power. Nixon and Co. feel U. S. profit inter-
ests would be more secure with Thieu and Ky-
possibly with a few "left wingers" thrown in.
The liberals feel that north Vietnam sellout
artists would serve U. S. interests just fine.
They reason that U.S. investments would grow
even greater in that area if the north Vietnam-
ese controlled the government of all Vietnam.
And they have lots of evidence to go on. China
is doing business with the U.S. The Soviets are
doing business with the U. S. So why not the
Vietnamese?
17 February 1972
The _qualitative difference between an NLF vic-
tory and a Thieu-Ky victory is as profound for
Vietnam as the difference between a Mao victory
and a Chiang victory for China in 1949. Either
rightist terror and continued imperialist domina-
tion or a social revolution albeit deformed-which
among other things establishes a monoply of for-
eign trade.
PL's confusion over the class nature 0 f the
Chinese state ("red capitalism") is now reflected
in confusion over the class nature of the Vietna,m-
ese state and is compounded in confusion on the
nature of imperialism. "Doing business" with im-
perialism is an inevitably necessary measure in
the period before the worldwide victory of social-
ism. Even limited acceptance of investment funds
if subordinated!9 social plan and regylated strict-
lY EY state foreigu trade illQllQPJy caI.1 be ad-
vantageous to a w 0 r k e r s state. What PL has
done is to confuse with the necessity of trading on
the world market the counter-revolutionary poli-
cies of the Stalinist bureaucracies t hat barter
away foreign revolutions and the gains of their
"own" workers and peasants for deals with im-
perialism and the advantages for their own bu-
reaucracies. The s e deformed workers states
generate forces for the restoration of capitalism
and in this sense are taking "the capitalist road
rat her than the socialist road." They are not
therefore capitalist even though the bureaucrats
carry a species of bourgeois ideology-Menshe-
vism-in their heads. These regimes politically
disfranchise the masses and betray the interna-
tional proletariat. They must be overthrown by
political revolution.
The fate of world socialism-net only of the
Vietnamese and Chinese revolutions which Stalin-
ism has placed in profound jeopardy-hinges on
the ability in the not distant future of the Leninist-
Trotskyist vanguard to rebuild an international
party (the Fourth International) capable of lead-
ing the world's workers to power. The Nixon-
Mao Summit indicates the time may be shorter
than one might think .
6 WORKERS VANGUARD
Continued/rom Page 2
Crackpot Social Democracy
essary, Marcus' positions are not only contrary
to everything Marx wrote on the subject of money,
but are allied to the most reactionary currents in
bourgeois economics.
The Mysteries of Money and Credit
Marcus observes that in periods of economic
contraction, firms have difficulties in repaying
their debt, and then concludes that the cause of
the crisis is increasing debt s e r vic e and bank
credit policy. That falling output and sales should
cause difficulty in repaying commercial and bank
loans is a n e c e s s a r y result of having a credit
economy. It is only one of many manifestations of
falling production. A more important manifesta-
tion is inability to meet the existing payroll, lead-
ing to layoffs and a shortened work week. During
the Depression, most major American corpora-
tions - G.M., U.S. Steel, Ford - did not go bank-
rupt, but maintained liquidity by laying off most
of their labor force.
Seeing the cause of business contraction in the
greed of bankers, Marcus seems4\:o believe that
banks could pursue very different credit policies.
newyor
"Depression Ahead?" The title can be interpreted
in two ways. If it means that there will be a de-
pression sometime in the future, it is simply a
truism. A more 1 ike 1 y interpretation was that
Marcus was predicting a depression within th e
next few years. Since 1962-65 was the greatest
capital investment boom in American history, the
analysis implied in the title was either false or
meaningless. In the article, Marcus made the flat
prediction, "During the next two years Kennedy
will put the U. S, economy more and more on a
war-economy footing, with corresponding political
and economic forms of regimentation" (ISR, Win-
ter 1961, p. 31). In actuality, Kennedy instituted
a moderate disarmament; the military budget de-
clined 3% in real terms from 1961 to 1965.
The Labor Committee lou d 1 y boasts that it
alone predicted Nixon's wage-price controls. The
assertion is simply untrue. Since the winter of
1970, the Spartacist League has war ned of the
real danger of state wage control. Before that,
the danger was not imminent. Marcus, however,
has predicted that s tat e wage control lay just
around the corner eve r y day for the past ten
9 MARCH 1972 7:30 p.m.
~ WHAT ROAD FOR -
1 MARXISTS? A Debate on Economic Theory, Analysis of the Present Cri-
Sis, and Perspectives for the Future, between the Spartacist
League and the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
T For SL- For NCLC-
602 HAMILTON HALL, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
E JOSEPH SEYMOUR TONY PAPERT
He appears not to realize - partly because 01 hlS
adherence to the quantity theory - that the banks
are the m s e 1 v e s capitalist enterprises, whose
pricing (interest) and sales (credit) policies are
governed by the law of equal return to capital in
all fields of activity. Banks can no more charge
lower interest rates and pursue lax credit poli-
cies if this would drive their rate of profit below
normal, than a manufacturing firm can lower its
prices or allow more liberal commercial credit
if it would mean an unsatisfactory rate of profit.
Debt service is not a drain from productive in-
vestment, a 1 tho ugh it may appear as such to a
corporate manager or bankrupt petty bourgeois.
Depending on the rate of profit, bank interest in-
come will be re-invested as will any other form
of surplus value. In t ere s t is simply one of the
forms of surplus value. And the concentration of
surplus value in financial institutions (banks, in-
surance companies, mutual funds, etc.) is by no
means a negative development in capitalism. As
Lenin observed, c han n eli n g most investment
through the banking system provides a rational
and flexible means of expanding production along
different lines. One of the reasons for the relative .
superiority of American capitalism is its highly
developed financial institutions, while European,
particularly French, capitalism remains burdened
by the ancient family firm.
Mar c us' tendency to view depressions from
the standpoint of the bankers inflicting suffering
on the "productive" capitalists, his ex e m p tin g
banks from the laws of the market and his coun-
terposing of interest to corporate profits reflect
a classic populist conception of capitalism. The
Labor Committee's unsuccessful campaign to in-
gratiate itself with the Communist Party and Young
Workers Liberation League is more than simple
opportunist appetites. The Lab 0 r Committee's
theories are very much in accord with an anti-
monopoly, anti-finance capital coalition.
The Prophet Disarmed
Marcus' cIa i m s of revolutionary leadership
rest strongly on his contention that he uniquely
can make accurate economic predictions. Bol-
stered only by academic idealism and egoism,
Marcus' pretensions as economic seer collapse
under scrutiny. His predictions can be grouped in
three types-specific verifiable assertions t hat
are generally wrong; predictions of developments
probable in the long term which Marcus claims
are imminent; and vague, us u a 11 y apocalyptic
generalities that are little more than meaningless
truisms.
In 1961 Marcus wrote a major economic arti-
cle for the International Socialist Review entitled
years, In "Depression Ahead?" Marcus asserted
that Kennedy would impose a far stronger form of
state economic control than Nixon actually has.
"The only and obvious 'answer' to this problem
is direct government control of the economy,
in the form of price controls, wage controls,
material con t r 0 I s and selective credit con-
trols .. The result will follow along the lines
of German eco:'1.omist Hjalmar Schacht's eco-
nomic reorganization of the Nazi pre-war
economy. That is not to suggest that Kennedy
is going to introduce fascism; merely to imi-
tate many of the economic control procedures
forced upon the pre-war Nazi economy."
- "Depression Ahead?" p. 20
The Labor Committee is equally pleased with
their prediction of the international monetary cri-
sis and dollar devaluation. In 1958, one of the
leading bourgeois authorities on international fi-
nance, Robert Triffen, wrote the highly influen-
tial Gold and the Dollar Crisis. Triffen main-
tained t hat the existing international monetary
system was inherently unstable and would have to
be radically changed through either devaluation of
the dollar or demonetization of gold. Since the
late 1950's, every major bourgeois economist
agreed that the gold exchange standard as devel-
oped at Bretton Woods in 1945 was not long for
this world. Everybody knew that there would .be
some kind of wor Id monetary crisis at some time.
Any serious analysis of the international mone-
tary system must establish what will happen when
and what its effects will be. Marcus predicted the
imminent devaluation of the dollar-in 1961!
Another Marcus "p red i c t ion" is the vague,
apocalyptic "socialism or fascism," "war or ma-
jor social crisis" that is worthless as a piece of
analysis. A typical Marcus statement of this type
is found in "Depression Ahead?" "On the Ameri-
can scene, Kennedy's New Frontier will inevitab-
ly lead to either war or social crisis; it is ex-
tremely probable that that decision will be faced
within the next ten years. "
Just what is the "crisis" which Marcus, with
Wohlforth, is constantly predicting? In the 1965
Spartacist-ACFI talks Marcus offered this gem of
a definition:
"The capitalist manager must try to solve the
basic problem by confronting the working class
and reducing wages. This is what we mean by
economic crisis."
-Conversations With Wohlforth, session 7
With such a definition, anyone can predict "cri-
sis" most of the time and be correct! Marcus and
Wohlforth have stripped the term "crisis" of ob-
jective meaning, save the truism that capitalism
is not a stable system. But every change, shift,
or attempt by the capitalists to reduce wages does
not herald the system's colI a p s e. If the term
"crisis" applies to the normal tensions and ad-
justments of an unstable and irrational social or-
der (war, disarmament, inflation, tax increases,
unemployment, etc., etc.) how will Mar cus and
Wohlforth describe a third major inter-imperialist
war, or a major depression? Will that be
"Armageddon"?
Even if the Marcus definition of "crisis" were
not a fatuous tautology, and even if his predictions
SPARTACIST LEAFLET
free!
December 1971
The Poverty of
Marcusism
PORTRAIT OF A UTOPIAN-REFORMIST CHARLATAN
were concrete and verified (instead of the "Heads
I win, tails you lose," sometime-probably-in-the-
next-ten-years pattern) he would still be guilty of
overestimating the significance of predictions for
the revolutionary movement. Accurate, specific
predictions are important, but they do not accom-
plish the primary tasks of winning the proletariat
to a revolutionary perspective and resisting the
immense pressure toward the infinite varieties of
opportunism. Lenin did not anticipate the moment
of the outbreak of World War I nor the Second In-
ternational's turn toward social chauvinism. He
reacted far m 0 r e resolutely and effectively to
these events, however, than many like Luxemburg
who had anticipated them. A prediction of social
crisis-even if accurate-does not enable a party
to short-cut the process of party building, be-
cause the crisis itself offers no such short-cut.
In France in May of 1968, nothing any of the ex-
isting "Trotskyist" groups could have done might
directly have brought off a revolution. A correct
policy could have pro d u c e d a left split in the
ranks Ofthe Communist Party, however, and
gained for Trotskyism a mass base. The Bolshe-
viks could utilize and direct the revolutionary
mood among the workers in 1917 only because
they were an established mass party of the class.
That is why Lenin said t hat to understand the
success of 1917 it was necessary to understand
the entire history of the Bolsheviks since 1903.
If a social crisis occurs when the revolution-
ary movement is too weak to lead the masses, the
bourgeoisie will be victorious. Trotsky's specific
and correct predictions of German fascism en-
hanced his authority among a small number of
radicals and advanced workers, but he could not
create a coherent body of mass opposition to the
suicidal policies 0 f the Social Democratic and
Stalinist par tie s. And fascism was victorious.
Trotsky did not want the Cassandra role in Ger-
many, China, or Spain. He always stressed that
a sophisticated analysis was no substitute for the
hard job of intervening in the mass organizations
of the working class on the basis of a revolution-
ary program. Predictions not backed up by such
a policy are ruinous dilletantism, sterile
academicism .
Subscribe!
$1.00 YEARLY
INCLUDES SPARTACIST
Name ______________________________ __
Address
City
State __________ _ Zip __
WfJRNERS VIINfiIJIIRIJ
BOX 1377 / G.P.O. / NEW YORK / N.Y. 1.9001
March 1972
Continued/rom Page 8
ILWU STRIKE SETTLEMENT:
... WORKERS DIVIDED
shippers and the union leaders differed only over
the technical aspects of the contract's implemen-
tation. In particular, Bridges demanded that the
shippers put up a $5.5 million fund to pay for the
wage guarantee, rather than pay for the guarantee
directly from the container tax, which Bridges
wanted to use on other fringe benefits. The union
also wanted wage increases to be retroactive to
last November 15. In the long run these expen-
sive demands are .quite cheap since they will al-
low the shippers to automate the longshoremen
out of existence. The employers realized this;
they gave in so mew hat on the issues of retro-
activity and fringe benefits to settle the contract.
Similar ly Gleason has acceded to the capitalist
demands for elimination of thousands of jobs in
exchange for payments into the union welfare and
retirement fund. The three major ILA locals in
Manhattan, traditionally the center of ILA strength,
will soon have fewer than 1,000 regular jobs for
2,500 men. Under the new contract the semen
cannot simply collect their guaranteed wages-
they must travel to other ports in Brooklyn or
New Jersey seeking work, or they can settle for
early retirement. Thus Gleason has simultane-
ously undermined the Guaranteed Wage and given
away thousands of jobs.
The Merger Maneuver
In order to consummate his deal, and avoid a
real mobilization of the working class, Bridges
has staged a search for unity-his sort of unity.
He has sought merger with other unions as a sub-
stitute for a struggle, to s t r eng the n the bu-
reaucracy, and weaken the workers. As an iso-
lated bureaucracy, Bridges & Co. seek the thicker
walls of a larger bur e au c rat i c apparatus to
insulate themselves even more completely from
the ranks. At first Bridges approached the
gangster-ridden ILA bureaucracy-the same one
which the ILWU fought in the founding days of the
1930's and from which it split in 1936. Such
"unity" with Gleason's gang would hardly scare
Nixon & Co. but might have made a good show for
the ILWU members. In any event, the ILWU work-
ers were repelled by the reactionary ILA bu-
reaucracy. A real unity of longshoremen could
only be accomplished over the political corpse of
Gleason & Co., and this of course was not Bridges'
intention. At any rate, the absorption of the lib-
eralILWU leadership, long supported by the CP,
was too much for the red-baiter Gleason, who ap-
parently rejected the deal outright in favor of a
separate peace.
In its typical opportunist fashion, the "Work-
ers League" of Tim Wohlforth tailed after the ap-
petites of the Bridges leadership. The 10 January
BYlletin proclaims on the front page:
"Regardless of the fact that ooth Bridges and
Gleason have steadfastly aVOided a nationwide
strike and have stood by as Nixon used Taft-
Hartley to divide the two coasts, affiliation Q!
the two unions ! absolutely r ~ ~ in the
struggle to defeat Nixon and the shipowners."
[emphasis in original]
What is "absolutely required" is a mass mobi-
lization of the w 0 r k in g class, not bigger bu-
reaucracies. The WL does not even bother to put
any conditions on such a mer g e r, but mer ely
rubber-stamps Bridges' maneuver, thereby aid-
ing in the deception of the few who are listening.
Indeed, "only the Workers League" can make a
merger of labor bureaucracies to obstruct strug-
gle appear as a merger to enhance struggle. Such
is theWohlforthian "dialectic," which was carried
to new heights of absurdity in their article "Crisis
Poses Fight for Marxist Theory":
"In this period the underlying movement of the
working class can find expression at certain
moments only through the reactions of the la-
oor bureaucracy. Thus Meany's actions at Bal
Haroour against Nixon are not to be ridiculed
nor scoffed at but seen as expressing the col-
. lision between classes now developing because
the issue to day is the very survival of the
working c I ass. Similarly while Gleason and
Bridges get together for their own purposes
and will together do their best to prevent the
action of the dockers, their getting together is
the only way at this point the dockers of the
two coasts can unite and this will, in turn, have
explosive impact upon the bureaucrats of both
unions. "
-Bulletin, 17 January 1972
How comforting! Wohlforth has eliminated any
need whatsoever for the conscious intervention of
the advanced workers and their vanguard party to
fi gh t for working-class interests-instead, the
class struggle is developing objectively all on its
own; even Meany's rare anti-Nixon posturing rep-
resents the "collision between classes" (instead
of his need to retain some credibility in order
better to betray!). If any worker criticizes Bridg-
es' maneuvers or Meany's betrayals, both can al-
ways wrap themselves in the pages of the Bul-
letin! If the unity between the two bureaucracies
will have the "explosive impact" foreseen by the
Bull e tin, then one must assume that Bridges,
Gleason and Fitzsimmons are stupid enough to
seek their own destruction. A doubtful conclusion
which presumably requires the power of Wohl-
forthian "method" to grasp-or evade.
WL supporters took a strikingly similar posi-
tion on an earlier merger by and for the bureau-
crats in the Social Service Employees Union in
New York in 1968. The Mage-Morgenstern lead-
ership of the SSEU, faced with heavy attacks by
the city and a membership demoralized by pre-
vious sellouts, sought to panic the membership
into a h e a d Ion g rush to rem erg e wit h the
AFSCME-DC37 bureaucracy, from which the
SSEU had broken in 1964. Together with Progres-
sive Labor supporters, the WL functioned as per-
fect "Marxist" lawyers for the bureaucrats in
arguing for immediate re-merger with no condi-
i;iQllS whatsoever: ----- --
"Only by immediately merging with 371, even
if on unfavorable terms, could the SSEU mem-
bership hope to be in a position of strength
from which to begin bargaining for the 1969
contract. "
-''Reorganization and the SSEU,"
Bulletin, 29 November 1971
Those SSEU members still on the job today can
testify how the merger has meant 0 n 1 y a vast
strengthening 0 f the bureaucracy, producing a
disastrous deterioration of working conditions.
Contrary to WL lies, the Militant Caucus, which
included Spartacist supporters, did not simply
oppose the mer g e r outright, but insisted on a
struggle perspective as the basis for any merger.
This meant especially a fight to defend the union's
democratic structure and its gains wrung from
the city administration during the SSEU's inde-
pendent existence. On February 13, 1968, for ex-
ample, the Militant Caucus submitted to the SSEU
Military Cargo On Move During ILWU StnKe
Executive Board a five-page section-by-section
analysiS of the proposed merger constitution in
an attempt to preserve gains such as the extensive
membership control over the powers of the offi-
cers. By insisting on merger at all costs, the WL
assisted Morgenstern's successful plan to capitu-
late totally to the Gotbaum bureaucracy.
A Marxist must view critically the maneuvers
of class-collaborationist bureaucrats of all vari-
7
ities behind the facade of "unity." The Stalinist
leaders of the deformed workers states m us t
unite in defensive alliances to prevent imperialist
invasion, and capitalist restoration. We defend
the Warsaw Pact to the extent that it fulfills the
defense against imperialism; we are obliged to
denounce it when it covers unity of the bureau-
crats against the political revolution of the work-
ers, as in Czechoslovakia or the Hun gar ian
revolution.
Longshore-Teamster "Unity"?
It now appears that Bridges has found a quiet
home in the Teamster bureaucracy. Both unions
have announced intention to merge-subject of
course to trifles such as membership approval.
The Teamsters' Fitzsimmons, who sits onNixon's
Pay Board, was the only major labor bureaucrat
unreservedly supporting Nixon's wage plan from
the beginning. Thus the merger perspective rep-
resents a capitulation by the weaker Bridges bu-
reaucracy to the stronger, wealthier Teamster
bureaucracy, at the expense of the rank and file.
There is strong evidence that the Teamster-
Longshore "unity" idea was cooked up to sabotage
a strong longshore strike. In mid-January, Sec-
retary of Labor James Hodgson add res sed a
closed meeting of over 300 business executives
of the Commerce and Industry Association in New
York. The Secretary spoke approvingly of the
proposed unity in the belief that it would avert a
Bunetin, 13 December 1971
WL View: Workers Can Crush Capitalists, Keep Meany Too
West Coast Ion g s h 0 restrike by "solving" the
container dispute. He would be 1 e s s eager for
unity between the two unions for a struggle against
the government. On February 11, Einar Mohn, head
of the Western Conference of Teamsters, warned
that the new ILWU contract threatened Teamster
jobs and that the problem could only be solved by
anILWU-Teamster merger. He obviously intend-
ed to pressure the ILWU ranks to approve merger
in order to avoid a fight with the Teamsters. Since
the Teamster leadership has unreservedly backed
Nixon's plans, it becomes apparent that the merg- .
er scheme it favors is designed to destroy the
possibility that th e longshoremen might lead a
counter-offensive against the government.
ILWU longshoremen must approach the ques-
tion of unity with the ILA or the Teamsters on the
basis of a struggle program, approaching both the
East Coast longshoremen and the Teamsters on
the basis of their grievances against the treachery
of their respective leaderships. This requires the
building of rank-and-file caucuses to throw out
the bureaucrats and fight for this perspective:
1. LABOR "LEADERS" OFF THE PAY BOARD!
FOR A GENERAL STRIKE AGAINST ANY
WAGE CONTROLS-GOVERNMENT STAY
OUT OF LABOR STRUGGLES; NO RELIANCE
ON THE CAPITALIST STATE-REPEAL ALL
ANTI-LABOR LAWS SUCH AS TAFT-
HARTLEY-FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISON-
ERS SUCH AS ANGELA DAVIS
2. END UNEMPLOYMENT-FOR ASH 0 R T E R
WORKWEEK WITH AN INCREASE IN PAY,
JOBS FOR ALL! A SLIDING SCALE OF
HOURS AND WAGES-FULL COST-OF-LIVING
ESCALATORS IN ALL CONTRACTS-STRIKES
AGAINST LAYOFFS
3. BREAK FROM THE CAPITALIST PARTIES-
BUILD A WORKERS PARTY BASED ON THE
TRADE UNIONS; TOWARD A WORKERS GOV-
ERNMENT!
4. FOR LABOR STRIKES AGAINST THE WAR:
HALT THE FLOW OF ALL WAR GOODS-FOR
IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL WITH-
DRAWAL OF ALL U. S. FORCES FROM S. E
ASIA-FOR INTERNATIONAL WORKING-
CLASS SOLIDARITY: VICTORY TO THE
VIETNAMESE REVOLUTION!
5. EXPROPRIATION OF INDUSTRY UNDER
WORKERS'CONTROL.
8 WORKERS VANGUARD
'.,
. Behind IL WU Strike Settlement:
BUREAUCRATS AND
GOVERNMENT UNITED,
WORI(ERS DIVIDED
The very existence of the longshore unions on both coasts is threatened by
union bureaucrats' capitulation to government intervention and capitalist at-
tacks. At every turn in last fall's 100-day ILWU strike, Harry Bridges (ILWU)
and Thomas Gleason (ILA) undermined workers' unity, isolated the strike
and softened its impact on the shippers. Gleason tried to keep his East Coast
men on the job even when the ILA contract expired October 1, and only em-
ployer intransigence forced him out. As soon as the Taft-Hartley injunction
was issued, Bridges whipped the ILWU back to work, leaving the ILA out
alone. The government very soon afterward issued a series of injunctions to
get the ILA ports back to work. Then Gleason made his separate peace with
the employers, leaving-ti:Le ILWU to go out alone. When the Taft-Hartley in-
junction against the ILWU expired on December 25, Bridges kept the union
at work for another three weeks before striking again. Barely three weeks
after the renewal of the strike with major issues unsettled, Bridges urged his
men back to work, hoping to avoid striking after February 14 when the Taft-
Hartley injunction on the East Coast expired. Meanwhile Gleason even offered
to workthitty days beyond February 14 to insure no overlap of strikes on both
coasts. The "strike alliance" announced in late October by Bridges-Gleason
is their alliance against a unified longshore strike on both coasts.
Neither Gleason nor Bridges dares attempt a unified workers' answer to
the government assault, since such a mobilization would embolden the work-
ers to destroy the parasitic labor bureaucracy which has so long prevented
such action. The longshore struggle is further undermined by the other labor
bureaucrats-Meany, Woodcock, Fitzsimmons, etc.-who sit on the govern-
ment Pay Board as it rips up union contracts like those of the UAW and lAM.
The labor bureaucrats thus lend cover to the capitalists' government appara-
tus and defuse attempts to mobilize resistance to
the government. When the Pay Board rejected the
aerospace workers' contract (involving paying
workers cost-of-living money owed them from the
previous contract) the best that Woodcock of the
UAWand Smith of the lAM could suggest was tak-
ing the Pay Board, on which they sit, to court! They
dare not resign from the Pay Board since denying
it legitimacy implies strike action against govern-
ment wage repression - a confrontation with the
bourgeois state which owns their political souls and
seats them at the slop-trough of official prestige.
Brooklyn Dock Desolate During ILA Strike
Government pre s sur e soon ended Bridges'
slightly tougher stance in the renewed strike.
Closing the ports of Vancouver, Canada and En-
senada, Mexico was long overdue-large amounts
of scab goods flowed through the two ports during
the I a s t strike. Joint picketing at the Mexican
border by Teamsters and Longshoremen proved
quite effective. Typically, the two ports were soon
reopened-the British Columbia Supreme Court
issued an injunction against the-Vancouver Long-
shoremen, and Bridges and Fitzsimmons removed
the Mexican border pickets on an unconfirmed ru-
mor of an injunction. Bridges continued to allow
m 0 v e men t of military cargo. Both as an act
against government interference, and against the
anti-working-class Indochina war, the union must
halt the flow of all war goods!
Nixon's Phase III
The longshore unions have become a test case
for Phase III of Nixon's attack on the working
class: the outlawing of strikes and the institution
of compulsory arbitration. The government stands
ever more nakedly exposed for what it is-the re-
pressive apparatus of the capitalist class. No re-
liance on the capitalist state! The only defense
for the longshoremen is a massive general strike
against go v ern men t interference and Nixon's
plans. In 1934, the workers of San Francisco went
on general strike in solidarity with the Longshore-
men, who had lost two men to police bullets and
faced the National Guard. If Nixon cannot get what
he wants from the labor bureaucrats, he will re-
sort to troops as he did in the postal strike. The
first step in working-class defense must be to
t h row out the bureaucratic supporters of the
ar med bourgeois state which stands ready to crush
the unions by any means necessary.
The working class is still paying for the class
collaboration carried out by labor bureaucrats
with the support of the Stalinist Communist Party
(see the book review, "Record of Betrayal," in
next issue). DuringWorldWar II both Bridges and
the CP enforced their no-strike pledges by de-
nouncing and undermining strikes which broke
out, like the Montgomery Ward strike of 1944. At
the same time, the CP supported the Democratic
"friends of labor" who soon showed their grat-
itude by helping expel from the unions both the CP
and thousands of union militants in the witchhunt
period. The CIO expelled the ILWU itself in 1950
for CP influence. The net result of CP class col-
laboration was a union movement stripped of its
class-conscious militants, leaving virtually un-
opposed a corrupt, reactionary bureaucracy often
indistinguishable from ordinary gangsters (Glea-
son, Curran, etc.), which usually lacked even the
"progressive" polish of Bridges.
Today Bridges continues his class-collabora-
tionist policy by agreeing to a government arbi-
tration board which can impose binding contracts
for 18-24 months. The fact that the ILWU can
participate with the employers' PMA in selecting
arbitrators means little-labor gains are won by
the power of the strike, now jeopardized by
Bridges' a g r e e men t. Bridges has apparently
turned over to arbitration some very crucial "non-
economic" issues, such as the practice of "steady
men, " which threatens a major gain of the 1934
strike, the union hiring hall.
The CP has wholeheartedly endorsed Bridges'
class-collaborationist policies. Despite the brief
fl u r r y of sniping between Peoples World and
Bridges early in 1971, the CP has no intention of
rejecting or criticizing his policies. They may
abandon Bridges personally, to put on a "left" face
for angry workers like those in Local 10 of the
San Francisco Bay area. In a 22 January editorial
entitled "Full Support for the Longshoremen," PW
heaped praise on the ILWU as a "militant, pro-
gressive voice of labor," and proposed as its idea
of powerful mass support for the Longshoremen
that "Resolutions, post cards, phone calls, letters
must begin to pour into Washington . " Mean-
While, the Democratic "friends of labor" such as
Senator Harrison Williams and Edward Kennedy
beg Nixon to intervene to end the strike so the
Democrats won't bear the stigma in an election
year. Congress soon passed Nixon's bill anyhow.
Empty Victory
Bridges' demands, whether won or not, add up
to empty victory-in other words, to defeat. The
central issue is containerization. In a very few
years containerization will automate away the
longshore job and with it the longshore union-
unless the ILWU together with the lLA, Teamsters
and other unions creates more jobs through the
shorter workweek wit h increases in daily and
weekly pay. The workers must force technologi-
cal improvements to benefit them. Bridges at first
a d van c e d a fight with the Tea m s t e r s over
container-stuffing jobs (see WV, #2), threatening
a jurisdictional battle. Abandoning that idea (the
65,000-member ILWU could not possibly withstand
a serious battle wit h the two million-member
Teamster union), Bridges accepted a royalty plan
which allows the shippers to proceed wit h the
elimination of jobs, in return for $1 per ton to the
union on each container not stuffed by longshore-
men, and a guaranteed annual wage. Bridges has
eve n retreated on the guaranteed annual wage
plan: instead of a guarantee based on40 hours per
week for all registered men, he has accepted a
plan based on 36 hours for "A" men and 18 hours
for "B" men.
The 1961 contract embodied a sim.i1ar erosion
of union strength. It allowed the employers to go
ahead with "Mechanization and Modernization" in
return for the payment of a $30 million special
retirement and wage guarantee fund. That con-
tract also contained provisions which deepened
the division between the "A" and "B" men (see
WV, #2). The wage fund turned out not to be worth
very much-workers later discovered that the em-
ployers had the best of the deal as the size and
strength of the union began to decline rapidly. If
a union allows the employers to eliminate jobs,
no monetary penalty clause can compensate for
the loss in workers' strength.
To top it off, Bridges has again y i e Ide d on
infamous Section 9.43, which allows the
employers to hire "steady men" for certain jobs,
rather than hire on a daily basis through the union
hall. This clause has proven to be an important
factor in weakening the union's control over work-
ing conditions.
With all this, it is surprising that the employ-
ers took until late February to reach agreement
with Bridges. 0 n I y the i r own penny -pinching
mentality prevented it. (The shippers even threat-
ened to halt military cargo in order to scare the
government into intervening, but they quickly re-
tracted their threat-unlike Bridges, the shippers
would not betray the class they represent!) The
continued on page 7