The real counterposition between the fortnightly, mo. 50, social democratic right and the revolutionary socialists is thus not the choice betweer socialism and democracy. It is the choice between socialism, with the support of the majority, and capitalism. The social demo cratic right rejects socialism. For them it is aaventure and cnaos. 1 nate revoranon like sin', said Ebert.) And they are prepared to trample on the will of the majority in order to avoid a break with capitalism.
Moreover, Shirley Williams affirms this openly, proclaiming that in a democracy one can only govern through 'consent'; the alternative would be coercion. The conclusion is clear. When the parliamentary majority is bourgeois, one must bow down before the bourgeoisie, for the bourgeoisie is the majority. When the parliamentary majority is anti-capitalist, one must stil bow down before the bourgeoisie, for fear of breaking with consent and of being forced to move to coercion.
after the events in tien an men square Inis articie by ernest Mandel Is taken from in organ of the United Secretariat of the Fourth
s on the road mara have reductions in grants?
Gemocrats mar uney Olly. with no thes will receiving that assent.
of the majority of the сгасу.
We are still not at right to express his opinions sequences?"
note: LAURENCE SPARHAM that there can be no between inese anenatol obaumany cannot avoid ambiguity.
(IFL)
ial concessions, remain veiled. accentuation tions, painful defence bourgeoisie, democracy acmocratic stale.
hand, suicidal disasters.
democratic rights for during WOrKCES us is the decisive element.
time, that is, CAPITALISM OR DEMOCRACY The hypocrisy of the argument is striking. When Shirley Williams uses the word 'consent' she hints, without saying so clearly, 'consent of the bourgeoisie and only of the bourgeoisie. For who could suggest that in Britain today the unemployed have 'consented' to unemployment, the workers 'consented' to reductions real the pensioners have 'consented" to poverty, the students have 'consented' to In all these cases coercion was most definitely applied, both the coercion of the sity. But such is the logic of the social find it normal to compel the victims of the capitalist econCOUSCH whatsoever, to submit to exploitation. But they are not prepared to eliminate capitalism, except with the assent of the capitalists. Obviously wait quite some time before coercion is applied in only one direction -against the proletariat and even, on co casion, against the clearly expressed desires •VOLCIS Deep is the mystery of this alleged devotion to demoend of the ideological incoherence of Shirley Williams By deliberately confusing democratic rights democracy' (that is, indirect democracy) she plunges into an endless chain of contradictions. She writes: Do you share our belief in the liberty of each individual human being, in his or her beliefs truly and without fear of con Our response is 'yes' without any restrictions, precisely because we are convinced counterposition rights and struggle against the exploitation, degradation and But the response of those who, out of a desire to win the consent of the bourgeoisie, place maintenance of the social status quo on the same level as defence of elementary democratic rights and on a higher level than the struggle against capitalist exploitation So long as the majority of the workers accept the rules of the game of bourgeois society in exchange for reforms and materLOIS contradichon Cal But as soon as contradic aggravation of political crisis, the growing radicalisation sectors of the broad vanguard of the working population, and the growing politicisachoice imposed democratic leaders. of 'consent" of capitalist law and order, then requires restrictions on democratic rights. human being must be free to express his or her opinions without constraint', except if IMPLACABLE LOGIC OF CLASS STRUGGLE In this sense, the identification makes between *representative democracy', institutions of the bourgeoisand government through the 'consent' of the bourgeoisie on the one and the democratic rights on the they are "subversive', revolutionary Marxist, 'anarcho-spontaneist' opinions.
The 2 February issue of the Sun reported that the right-wing Labour MP. Neville Trotter, had accused a group of young revolutionary socialists of having distributed "inflammatory" leaflets VOKCE anarchy"
Newcastle. aim of WaS DEULOUS corporal punishment of the pupils. What convictions are involved here? The dictatorship of the proletariat? Hardly! Simply the need for pupils to organise to fight against corporal punishment and police repression.
Is Shirley Williams in favour of corporal punishment, a barbaric and despotic prac tice if ever there was one? We don't know. Is she prepared to guarantee the right to agitate through the spoken word against this barbaric practice, even if the consequence of this freedom of con viction' as expressed in leaflets is that anarchy TENC hold We regard, but we would be pleased to be have Strong doubts wrong.
If, however, our suspicions are confirmed, what does this mean if not that the "law and order' of the despotic stick wielders is more important to the social democratic leaders than the complete defence of of speech and ine and that they are resort to repression and to limit freedom of the press in order to avoid agitation' and "anarchv'? Then the formula of Shirler Williams becomes: guarantee the right of everv human being to freely express his or her convictions, excep when such expression "law and order' other words, capitalist exploitation.' Let us take another example. Under the social democratic Chancellor Schmidt, any person in West Germany who expresses Marxist opinions, let alone revolutionary Marxist ones, knows that he or she will no longer be able to find a job in the public sector. Doesn't this mean that there is 'fear of consequences and enormou intimidation, especially for the hundreds o thousands of students who have no alternative but to seek employment as teachers in the public schools? We are unaware of any vigorous campaign Shirley Williams in favour of freedom of conviction. speech and the press for Ger revolutionaries and Marxists. doubtedly it must be concluded once more that faced with the choice of defending bourgeois law and order' or 'completely defending the freedom of conviction of all individuals without fear of consequences, the social democratic leaders defend capitalism and restrict democratic It may be objected: The cases you are citing concern ine umitaton or tne rigat only of a few thousands or tens _nousands of revolunonary reject the only possible defence of these democratic rights, which is the unrestricted mobilisation of the masses going beyond the "law and order bourgeoisie In curbing, fragmenting, INSISTS that "proschool leaf- revolutionary minority? against But be that as it democratic rights pretext) for a WOrkers and rate of profit.
school? press, prepared to •We are prepared to tions be written defence of the bourgeoisie, in Helmut laid off?
reasons tian tion' on the part of appropriation Unprefer to wing of the proletariat?
extremists which entails discouraging, RED WEEKLY 10 February 1977 1 dangerous agitators. This objection, however, would be inconsistent from the very since it is Shirley Williams who the need to recognise and guarantee the right of freedom of opinion for all individuals. Why grant this freedom to the (very small) minority which is the big bourgeoisie and refuse to grant it to the may, the concrete dynamic, confirmed by all recent experience, demonstrates that limitation of the minorities" is but the beginning (if not the warners movement nt of the ornat see working class as a whole. In the situation of aggravated social crisis of late capitalism, given the pronounced fall of the average and the prolongation of conditions that hover around stagflation capitalism is less and less able to tolerate the unrestricted right to strike, the freedom to negotiate wages, the free organisation of the workers struggle against the implacable class struggle waged by big capital, particu larly through the introduction of massive structural unemployment. Hence the universal offensive of the bourgeoisie tor ar incomes policy, enthusiastically supported by the social acmocrauc non Now, given the present relationship o class forces, it is impossible to impose ar incomes policy without limiting the right of free expression. How can wildcat strikes be outlawed without also outlawing calls to wildeat strikes? How can factory occupa outlawed witnou suppressing of factory occupations?
How can lay-offs of "dangerous agitators" in the factories be legalised without suppressing me nignt to speak, distribute leaflets, and produce newspapers calling for active solidarity with workers who are The leaders of the West German Social Democratic Party who set the inferna machine of repression in motion in West Germany have already been faced with a situation in which a portion of their own for eations is subopinion ate or resin opinion. Franz Joser strauss, leader of tne runng enris Union in Bavaria, *agitafavour of colecuy of means of production is 'contrary to the constitution" But this call for collective appropriation appears in tne basic programme or lu DGB, the West German trade union federa tion equivalent to the British TUC. Can on be so naive as to fail to understand that for the British bourgeoisie, the witch-hunt in the Labour Party against the Trotskyists is merely the preparation if not the pretext for a repression waged by the employers and the state against the most combative trade union militants and the most combative people in Britain. They only wanted to "keen the workers down' The typical reaction of the social demo aw anu me cocrcion or cconomic neces bow down, and demobilise the masses so as not to provoke reaction'. If the social crisis