The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
[Submitted to the International Internal Discussion Bulletin by the Fourth Internationalist Caucus in the National Committee of the SWP.]
There is a new consciousness among working people the world over as a result of the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s. This has forced austerity programs in the imperialist centers (through threats of layoffs and plant closings, as well as through direct government cutbacks), in the colonial and semicolonial countries (imposed by the International Monetary Fund as a precondition for further credit), and in the bureaucratized workers' states (through the state power controlled by the bureaucracy itself).
The struggles, both big and small, of working people against these attacks on their living standards, and against the governments which enforce these attacks, combined with the other fights—for self-determination of oppressed nations, for civil liberties and human rights, and against oppression of all kinds—form a single, common class struggle on a world scale. The victory of the Canadian Chrysler workers, the toppling of Somoza in Nicaragua, or the shah of Iran, the continued resistance of the Polish workers, all contribute to an unstable international situation which forces the imperialist bourgeoisie and its allies—the neocolonial ruling classes and the Stalinist and Social Democratic bureaucracies—to fight a war on many fronts, thus making a decisive counterrevolutionary victory on any one of them much more difficult. Today, more than ever before, it is the interrelationship and interconnections between the three sectors of the world revolution that will be decisive for every struggle.
An understanding of the broad sweep of the international capitalist crisis and its myriad forms and manifestations, the varied opportunities it poses for revolutionary Marxists, its impact on all three sectors of the world revolution, and the links between those sectors, can help us see why it is one-sided to say simply, as the central leadership of the SWP does, that Nicaragua and the Central American revolution are the epicenter of all politics in the world today; why it is wrong to conclude that other struggles are subordinate. Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. are central, but just as important they are also component parts of a larger revolutionary process. Each element in this process has its own specific dynamics. But each one is related to and to a large degree dependent on the others.
Events in Central America take place in an international context which creates major difficulties for the counterrevolutionary efforts of the imperialist powers, unlike the days when the U.S. could simply invade a country (Guatemala, 1954, or the Dominican Republic, 1965) or during the beginning phase of the Vietnam conflict. The revolutionary struggles in Central America and the Caribbean contribute to, and gain from, the many other developments in the international class struggle.
By correctly grasping this overall character of the world revolutionary process—the context of the dramatic and important events going on in Central America and in Grenada—we can properly appreciate the specific developments taking place in that part of the world. In Nicaragua and Grenada proletarian revolutionary forces have taken governmental power and are wielding it in the interests of the workers and peasants, against the interests of imperialism and the native ruling classes. The workers' and the peasants' governments in these countries have taken measures to consolidate the power of the toilers: organizing, mobilizing, and arming the masses; and undertaking extensive campaigns to raise their level of cultural and political understanding. Although a decisive showdown has not yet occurred with the still dominant economic power of the bourgeoisie, the general trend is in the direction of the creation of a workers' state resting on nationalized property.
In El Salvador we see similar revolutionary forces in the FMLN-FDR who have a perspective of conquering governmental power as the Sandinistas did in Nicaragua; and there appears to be every likelihood of their success. The revolutionary proletarian forces in the FMLN-FDR are moving forward with this perspective, and have rejected subordination of their struggle to the more “moderate” interests of their bourgeois and petty-bourgeois coalition partners. It is in this respect that the FMLN-FDR differs qualitatively from popular front coalitions between workers' and bourgeois parties.
Similar struggles, with similar potential, though at a much more preliminary stage of development, are occurring in other countries in the region, such as Guatemala.
The influence and importance of Cuba in all of these revolutions is enormous. The forces leading all of these developments are a part of what has come to be called the Castroist current; and the course of the Central American and Caribbean revolution decisively demonstrates what we have always pointed to as the basic revolutionary character of this current—its determination to fight for the needs of the masses, and its refusal to subordinate those needs to any kind of deal with imperialism.
We have also recognized, and must continue to recognize, that Castroism, as a distinct ideological current, suffers from a number of theoretical and programmatic weaknesses resulting from its specific historical development and the dependence of the Cuban workers' state on the USSR for material assistance. These weaknesses have resulted, in cases like Chile for example, in political support by the Castroists to the Allende regime, which contributed to the political disarming of the Chilean masses. Similar policies have been followed with regard to bourgeois political figures such as Velasco in Peru, Torrijos in Panama, and Manley in Jamaica. But up to now it has not been its weaknesses, but the proletarian revolutionary perspectives of this current which have proven decisive for the specific conditions in Central America and the Caribbean today.
The course of the revolutions in Nicaragua and Grenada, like the Cuban revolution before them, stand as striking confirmation of the theory of permanent revolution as developed by Leon Trotsky, and defended over the years by the Fourth International. Many have charged that permanent revolution is deficient in its understanding of the need for an alliance with the peasantry, and also that it misunderstands the question of whether socialist or national-democratic tasks will predominate in the initial stages of a revolutionary process in the less developed countries. But the difference between permanent revolution and all counterposed strategies for the colonial revolution has, in reality, nothing to do with these questions. These are slanders, first launched by Stalin, and repeated since the 1920s by all opponents of revolutionary Marxism. Such accusations cannot be substantiated, and in fact will be thoroughly refuted by any serious study of Trotsky's writings, or of the programmatic documents and practice of the Fourth International.
The real difference between permanent revolution and other revolutionary strategies is over what kind of government can forge the worker-peasant alliance and carry out even the national and bourgeois-democratic tasks of the revolution. Since the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Chinese revolution of 1925-27, revolutionary Marxists have definitively answered this question by saying that only a government dominated by the proletariat can accomplish these tasks. This is the form that the alliance of the workers and peasants takes. And although such a government may begin by concentrating on bourgeois-democratic tasks, it cannot limit itself to these, and will in fact be immediately faced with the necessity of taking measures against bourgeois property.
The validity of this perspective is confirmed by the experiences in Central America and the Caribbean today. As these revolutions deepen and develop it becomes clearer and clearer that the only real alternatives available in the colonial world are between continued subservience to the rule of imperialism and the world market on the one hand, and a decisive break with this tyranny and the establishment of a workers' state based on nationalized property and a planned economy on the other. Only a predominantly proletarian government can clearly and resolutely move forward with this perspective. It is the proletarian revolutionary character of the FSLN and the NJM which makes the further progress of these revolutions possible.
This does not say anything about the exact tempo of development in any specific case, the exact forms of class alliances, or what concessions might be necessary or desirable for such a proletarian government. But the overall direction in which the revolution must move is clear—it must create a workers' state, or it will be destroyed. The Castroist leadership in Cuba correctly solved this problem. The New Jewel Movement and the Sandinistas show every indication of doing the same. El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. will also be unable to find any other solution to meeting the demands of the masses if the revolutionary forces succeed in conquering power, and this will be the natural course of these revolutions—following the example of the Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Grenadans before them.
Revolutionary Marxists, particularly in the United States, must demonstrate our wholehearted and unconditional support for the revolutionary process unfolding in Central America and the Caribbean. We can do this by mobilizing direct political and material support, as well as by building the broadest possible united front opposition to U.S. aid for counterrevolutionary forces, or direct intervention by Washington with its own troops. Supporting the struggles of the Grenadans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and other peoples against imperialism and for socialism is an inherent part of fighting for the socialist revolution in the United States of America.
Submitted April 9, 1983
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive