Oliver MacDonald comes out with the ome old. noarv mvin. in nis article in Red Weekly (8 July), he says that the theory of state capitalism and the International Socialism group came into existence when the Korean War broke out. In response to intense pressure from the media and public opinion, these comrades capitulated. Anyone who examines the evidence will see that this is incorrect.
In the early 1940s, the theory of state capitalism developed among American Trotskyists, in particular Raya Dunayevskaya and CLR James. By 194. some britis rotsKVIsts-TaesC included Duncan Hallas and myselfaccepted the theory. In the discussion journal Left (June 1948), I propounded the position publicly for the first time. a more deanee statement ortne case appeared a few months later: Tony Cliff wrote a 140-page internal document that circulated inside the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Let me emonasise inat all thIs occurred two or more years before the outbreak of the Korean War. In no way can it be regarded as a response to it.
By 1950, the RCP had disbanded and 'The Group', led by Gerry Healy, was the official section of the Fourth internationa. within me Group. not the slightest hint of disagreement with Healy was permitted. Most of those com rades who accepted the theory of state capitalism did not leave the organisation- they were expelled. In my case, the Manchester branch of 'The Group' threw me out without bothering to invite me to une meeting Those expelled, nominally 34 in number. formed the Socialist Review Group, the precursor or Is. Our paper took a principled line on the Korean EDITORS REPLY ......
It is important to clarify what exactly was the position of the socialist Review group (predecessor of IS) on Korea - and what trepresented The theory of state capitalism led to the political position of 'neither Western capitalism nor Stalinist totalitarianism'. Applying this view to Korea, SR held the opinion that neither victory for the American-backed Southern government nor victory for the North Koreans would be of any benefit to the Korean people.
Yet even SR admitted that a North Korean victory 'will mean the abolition ot cabitalists ane ancores ones oT IS, p.75). What appears to have fixated SR was the presence of Russian troops -although IS didn't protest over the presence. perhaps the crucial presence, of state capitalist Cuban troops backing the MPLA in Angola. Could it have anything to do with the fact that support for liberation forces is now much more acceptable than it was during the cold war?
Let Oliver MacDonald for anyone else) examine the evidence. Socialist Review consistently attacked the Labour Government tor supportingindeed, even sending troops-to support the United States in Korea. At the same time, we linked the fight against war with the struggle against the British ruling class. As Karl Liebknecht said: "The enemy is at home."
by contrast wiw tne socials! Review, 'The Group' had a very weak-kneed policy. It published the Socialist Outlook, a paper that was basically left Labour. Along with banner headlines like "Bevan gives the lead the workers want, appeared articles by an odd assortment of Members of Parliament. These included Bessie Braddock and Harold (now Lord) Davies, who later became Harold Wilson's personal private secretary. In manv respects. 'The Group and Socialist Outlook had a more soggy line than many supporters of Wedgwood Benn today.
If Oliver MacDonald wants to find evidence of comrades capitulating under pressure, he would be better advised to look in the direction of The Group' rather than the Socialist Review. RAYMOND CHALLINOR wynitev bav.
SR's 'neutrality' on Korea had certain political consequences. In 1950 SR members inside the Labour Party, grouped around what was called the Socialist Fellowship, refused even to support a resolution to the Labou Party conference which demanded Western witnarawal trom norea:
'If one sees no alternative to Bevin's policy, and "Hands Off Korea" is no alternative wetner soonsoree ov use Daily Worker or Socialist Outlook, then perforce one votes for Bevin...... The Stalinist alternative proposed by certain sections of Socialist Fellowship means a sell-out to Stalin, whatever its oppon ents may argue to the contrary' ISR, VOR NOT a refusal to support a resolution calling on the Western imperialists to withdraw. This made all talk about fighting the enemy 'at home' largely meaningless, because it failed to confront the chauvinist trump card of the bourgeoisie.
Dy me state Thus the effect of SR's neutrality was different from the internal workings of an economy dominated by private capitalist ownership of the means of production. In a capitalist economy the government cannot dictate the allocation of investment resources or labour power or any oT tne Tundamental economic resource unless it is prepared to challenge the power or the owners or tne means or production. This is because economic power is owned privately, not publicly On the other hand, in the Soviet economv al mese economic questions can be sorted out only by those who manage the state, those who form the government. Because of the fact that the means of production are owned ov ine state economic manacement car be done in no other way than by the conscious decisions of the government, planning the allocation of eco Breaking into a shop during the Gdansk food riots in 1970 which brought down Gomulka 3. OWNERSHIP AND THE MODE OF PRODUCTION o understano lust what is at stake here, we really have to go back to what comrade Hallsworth calls the ABC of Marxism. Marx took the view that once you had discovered the nature of the mode of production in a society, you coula sein to work out me entire evnamics or develooment or the societ as a whole. The mode of production refers to the basic system of class relations between people in the sphere of economic activity.
Let us look at how this works under both private capitalism and the econo mies of the Soviet type. What is it in the capitalist mode of production that makes the capitalist economy grow and develoo? It is the economic competitior via the market between private capital-