the transitional programme, its relevance and application for today

8/9/2019 The Transitional Programme, its relevance and application for today

1/36

In Defence of

TrotskyismNo 13

£1 waged, 50p unwaged/low waged, €1.50

The Transitional Programme, its relevance andapplication for today

By John Barry 2014

Afghanistan: Marxist Method vs. Bureaucratic Method By Gerry Downing 1997

Trotsky's Transitional Programme is the method which was

employed by the pioneers of scientific socialism, Marx andEngels, in the Communist Manifesto and was used success-fully by the Bolsheviks to become the method of the first fourcongresses of the Third International. But its Stalinist degen-eration saw it regressing to the old minimum (day to dayachievable reforms) and maximum (some vision of organiza-tion in an unspecified socialist future) demands of the SecondInternational expressed in reformism and sectarianism, just as

social democracy had done decades previously.


2/36

Page 2 The Transitional Programme


Where WeStand

1. WE STAND WITHKARL MARX: ‘The eman-cipation of the workingclasses must be conqueredby the working classesthemselves. The strugglefor the emancipation of the working class means not astruggle for class privileges

and monopolies but forequal rights and duties andthe abolition of all classrule’ (The International

Workingmen’s Association1864, General Rules).2. The capitalist stateconsists, in the last analysis,of ruling-class laws within ajudicial system and deten-

tion centres overseen bythe armed bodies of po-lice/army who are underthe direction and are con-trolled in acts of defence ofcapitalist property rightsagainst the interests of themajority of civil society. The working class must

overthrow the capitaliststate and replace it with a

workers’ state based ondemocra t i c s ov i e t s /

workers’ councils to sup-

press the inevitable counter-revolution of private capi-talist profit against plannedproduction for the satisfac-tion of socialised humanneed.3. We recognise the ne-cessity for revolutionariesto carry out serious ideo-

logical and political struggleas direct participants in thetrade unions (always) andin the mass reformist socialdemocratic bourgeois

workers’ parties despitetheir pro-capitalist leader-ships when conditions arefavourable. Because we seethe trade union bureaucra-

cy and their allies in theLabour party leadership asthe most fundamental ob-stacle to the struggle forpower of the working class,outside of the state forcesand their direct agenciesthemselves, we must fightand defeat and replacethem with a revolutionary

leadership by mobilisingthe base against the pro-capitalist bureaucratic mis-leaders to open the wayforward for the struggle for

workers’ power.4. We are fully in sup-port of all mass mobilisa-tions against the onslaughtof this reactionary Con-LibDem coalition. However,

whilst participating in thisstruggle we will oppose allpolicies which subordinatethe working class to thepolitical agenda of the pet-

ty-bourgeois reformistleaders of the Labour partyand trade unions5. We oppose all immi-gration controls. Interna-tional finance capital roamsthe planet in search ofprofit and imperialist gov-ernments disrupts the lives

of workers and cause thecollapse of whole nations with their direct interven-tion in the Balkans, Iraqand Afghanistan and theirproxy wars in Somalia andthe Democratic Republicof the Congo, etc. Workershave the right to sell theirlabour internationally

wherever they get the bestprice. Only union member-ship and pay rates cancounter employers whoseek to exploit immigrant workers as cheap labour toundermine the gains ofpast struggles.

Socialist Fight produces IDOT.It is a part of the Liaison Com-mittee for the Fourth Interna-

tional with the Liga Comunista,Brazil and the Tendencia Mili-tante Bolchevique, Argentina.

Editor: Gerry Downing Assistant Editor: John BarrySocialist Fight: PO Box 59188,

London, NW2 9LJ, http://

socialistfight.com/[email protected].

Subscribe to Socialist Fight

and In Defence of TrotskyismFour Issues: UK: £12.00, EU:

£14.00Rest of the World: £18.00

Please send donations to helpin their production

Cheques and Standing Ordersto

Socialist Fight Account No. 1Unity Trust Bank, Sort Code

08-60-01, Account. No.20227368.


3/36

The Transitional Programme Page 3

Page 3 The Transitional rogramme

Introduction

The transitional pro-gramme is the method

which was employed by thepioneers of scientific social-ism Marx and Engels in the‘Communist Manifesto’ and

was used successfully by theBolsheviks to become themethod of the first four con-gresses of the Third Interna-tional (AKA the CommunistInternational). After the Third Internationalsuffered bureaucratic degeneration it aban-doned the transitional program and regressedto the old minimum (day to day achievablereforms) and maximum (some vision of or-ganization in an unspecified socialist future)demands of the Second International (AKAthe Socialist International) expressed in re-

formism and sectarianism, just as social de-mocracy had done decades previously. The responsibility of building the revolu-

tionary socialist consciousness rested uponthe shoulders of the Left Opposition of thecommunist movement after this degenera-tion, and then later the Fourth Internationalfounded in 1938 when it was clear the Third

was beyond salvation.

The transitional programme is the onlymethod which can build a socialist con-sciousness in the working class and create abridge, as Trotsky described it between thecurrent consciousness of the majority of

workers and the final conclusion of the classstruggle, that a socialist revolution is neces-sary to save humanity from capitalism. It isof paramount importance for a revolutionary

party to have a correct method to build arevolutionary socialist consciousness in the

working class, otherwise

there will be no overthrow ofcapitalism and the transfor-mation to socialism.Crisis does not result auto-matically to revolution. Impe-rialism (highest form of mo-nopolistic capital) reached amost destructive phase in the1930s and developed into themost murderous and bloody

world slaughter which endedin the industrial extermination of an entirepeople and mass murder through the use ofatomic weapons. Yet despite the huge desireamong the masses in Europe and Asia forsocialism, their misleaders helped prop upimperialism and throw consciousness back-

wards with a massive anti-communist propa-ganda onslaught.

Trotsky was clear that if capitalism survivedthe Second World War it would see a newlease of life for world imperialism and wouldeventually lead to the Third World War.[1]

Today US imperialism dominates the planet,it has no equal and is entering its most preda-tory and destructive phase, as happened withGerman imperialism in the 1930s. The UShas in its sights the semi-oppressed nations

of Russia, China, Iran, Syria and North Ko-rea. The next world war could quickly escalate

into a thermo-nuclear conflict and destroyhumanity. Therefore the need for socialistrevolution is paramount. The importance ofdeveloping transitional demands is preciselybecause the working class as a product ofbourgeois society has a false consciousness

when compared with the objective situation.Kautsky when he was the main theoretician

The Transitional Programme, its relevance andapplication for today By John Barry 2014


4/36


5/36



interests of, a workers democracy or bourgeoisdemocracy? The statement goes on to say:

The organised working class has the po-tential power to stop the cuts and transformsociety.[6]

This gives no indication of what sort of or-ganization the working class requires (a revolu-tionary Leninist party, directed by Marxism of

which Trotskyism is the continuation) or whattype of organisations already exist and the

working class are led by (trade unions, socialdemocratic parties, Stalinist parties) or rathermisled by. The cuts, and apparently this is allthe working class has to fight under capitalism,

have only the potential to be stopped! Thentransform society (to what? How?). The work-ing class if it is led by a revolutionary party canoverthrow capitalism, never mind just stop-ping the current public sector cuts. We thencome to what the SPEW would call transition-al demands, a list composed by their leader-ship in advance we assume, aimed at no one itappears and not giving any direction or inspi-

ration for the working class to organize to takeover society and begin the transformation tosocialism. Here is one of their demands: “Noto privatisation and the Private Finance Initia-tive (PFI). Renationalise all privatised utilitiesand services, with compensation paid only onthe basis of proven need. [7]” They are a bit late off the mark as privatiza-

tion has taken place on a large scale for 30years, and besides it transferred capitalist statedirection over to stock ownership and direc-tion, most of the economy was and banking

was private capitalist ownership, they shouldnot try to confuse state ownership in the past

with socialism. Then the reformist call forrenationalization, back to the ownership of thecapitalist state? Just so as not to upset thebosses and big stock portfolio holders they areeven going to compensate you by some means

test! There are some demands which could beuseful in campaigns but due to the poor re-

formist start of their ‘What we stand for’ would be taken for improvements of the cur-rent society and nothing more. It goes on:

● Tax the super-rich! For a socialist govern-ment to take into public ownership the top 150

companies and banks that dominate the Britisheconomy, and run them under democratic working-class control and management. Com-pensation to be paid only on the basis of prov-en need.

● A democratic socialist plan of productionbased on the interests of the overwhelmingmajority of people, and in a way that safeguardsthe environment [8]

So the same old call from Militant 50 years agofor taking over the top companies (only nowits 150 not 200), running them under workers’control and management, but they don’t indi-cate how, as if the ruling class will nationalisethese companies anyway and grant workersthe management of them. Even then it will beunder capitalist state direction if it is just‘renationalised’. The actual class nature of the

state is never challenged in the statement. There will apparently be a ‘socialist govern-ment’ to do this.

Then thrown in at the end the ‘democraticsocialist plan of production’ and all the otherexamples of a socialist system which is again

vague, and an example of a finished maximumprogram without any bridge to it. They do notformulate demands to raise workers con-sciousness in stages of struggle. As the SPEW

have abandoned work in the Labour Party andthus distanced itself from the working class

with the exception of those in public sectorunions, its demands are aimed at no one inparticular. This obviously bore no results sonow they aim their demands or rather tailorthem to the demands of trade union bureau-crats, particularly in the public sector and eventhe repressive bodies of the state (Prison Of-

ficers Association, POA), but if, as in SPEW’scase, you’re not fighting to overthrow the cap-


6/36



italist state then why not support the employ-ees who staff its repressive apparatus againstthe working class? The Socialist Appeal group fares much bet-

ter and does proclaim revolutionary intentions,

they are also light years ahead in theory com-pared to SPEW. While this group professes tocarry out entry work in the Labour Party theyare actually standing on the side lines and re-fusing to get involved,their fingers still soreafter being burnt inKinnock’s witch huntagainst the left in the

80s. They present aclear challenge to capi-talism and for its re-placement with social-ism through classstruggle, they alsopresent demands

which to start with areuseful for raising class

consciousness and explaining the action which workers should take to destroy the founda-tions of capitalist society. Unfortunately theythen let themselves down by jumping straightinto a Maximum style program of:

“A Socialist government to take over the“commanding heights” of the economy, the top150 monopolies, banks and finance houses, which dominate our lives, without compensa-tion and placed under democratic workers’

control and management. Establish broad com-mittees of workers, students, pensioners, tech-nicians and others to oversee the drawing up ofa democratic socialist plan of production toanswer the needs of society and protect ourenvironment. We shall harness the wonders ofmodern science and technique, not to act as aburden as under capitalism, but instead to raiseour living standards and oversee the abolitionof class divisions.” [9]

Like the SPEW demands it places the em-phasis on a ‘Socialist government’; does not

France have a ‘Socialist government’? We as-sume, given Socialist Appeal’s focus on theLabour Party, that the Parliament with a La-bour majority can form a Socialist govern-ment, not the working class. Similarly to the

SPEW they say this government should ‘takeover’ the top 150 monopolies and nothing elseapparently. Then they usher in everything else

which is included in a socialist society. Socialist Appeal have still not man-aged to throw off their re-formist right centrist herit-age, although they havedone more so then SPEW.

[10]

How should transi-tional demands beformulated?

The Transitional Pro-gramme is not therefore alist of reforms all at onceaimed at nothing thought up

by a small group running a sect, and is notpolicies handed down from an enlightened‘Socialist’ government in response to left de-mands. It must be a fighting program, hittingthe base and structure of capitalist society,directing workers to take control of the mate-rial world and destroy the capitalist state, they

would then need a new program to guide themusing the material they control and can thenbuild socialism through the workers’ state, thetransitional program ‘brings the reader only tothe doorstep’ of socialism. [11] Hence theoriginal ‘Transitional Programme’ was a draftfor the period it was written in and not to beused as a Gospel as some sects do.

Class consciousness is not static and is nothomogeneous in all sections of the workingclass at the same time. Only a minority will ofcourse have a developed class consciousness

of the Marxist understanding of human socialrelations. The majority of the working class


7/36


8/36



of the Comite des Forges, of the Comite desHouilleres, of the Finalys, the Schneiders andthe Staviskys, and to the material and moraladvantage of the labouring people.Real social security and, first of all, unemploy-

ment insurance. Annual vacation of at least onemonth. Retirement pensions permitting one tolive after fifty years of age.Equal wages for equal work. Abolition of thesuper exploitation imposed on women, youngpeople, aliens and colonials.For working women, the same wages andsame rights as for working men. Maternityprotection with supplementary leaves of ab-sence.For young people, wages equal to adults. Ex-tension of study and apprenticeship at thecollective expense. Special hygienic measures.Repeal of all special legislation applying toforeign and colonial workers.[ 16]

France was in the grips of the capitalist crisisat this time and sections of the capitalist rul-ing class had attempted a fascist coup, onlysocial revolution could have bought thesedemands then. Instead there was world war

and then the capitalist upturn as there hadbeen in the late 19th century which meantsocial reforms could be introduced, but today

we are in crisis once again and the gains aregone or being eroded in the imperialist coun-tries.

Some of the basic demands are the samethough. Observing current struggles is im-portant to develop demands and slogans, as

they must resonate with the masses. For ex-ample there are currently various movementsbased on occupations including among poorersections of the working class such as the E15Mothers which have taken on the problemscreated by capitalism which have impover-ished them. Occupations have always been animportant part of class struggle for workersunder capitalism and is also in the original

Transitional Programme concerning factory

occupations. Today we could raise the demand for the

occupation of empty properties to be given tofamilies who need them and become coopera-tives with public funding, or something simi-lar, the final demands must be reachedthrough discussion. In the labour movement

demands could find wide appeal on the leftand be aimed at Labour leaders and especiallyLabour governments. This was the tactic ofsupport for a Labour government which theCommunist Party of Great Britain adoptedduring the early years of the third Internation-al before its degeneration. The CPGB placedthe following demands on the Labour govern-ment:

Full maintenance for unemployed workers attrade union rates.

Nationalization of mines and railways with workers’ control over production.

Full freedom for Ireland, India and Egypt.

Revocation of the policy of armaments. Creditfor Soviet Russia. Scrapping of the shamefultreaty of Versailles.

Workers of Great Britain, no government,

even with the best intentions, will be able tobetter your positions, to break your chains, ifyou yourselves do not bring pressure to bearon the bourgeoisie and compel it to realizeyour growing power. [17]

In the present time demands for a return tounion rights which have been eroded by Toryemployment acts and taxing the rich to payfor public services would find wide support,

and if the rich threaten to move their wealthabroad we should demand trade exchangecontrols and leading from that the demandfor open and transparent accounting of allfinance in the country and global trade andtheir wealth prevented from moving. TheLabour leaders can no longer even promise tonationalize utilities, so even demanding this

would run up against the capitalist state, how-ever capitalist nationalization is not the an-swer, the demand should be the nationaliza-tion under committees of workers and con-


9/36



sumers control and management withoutcapitalists.

If a demand such as this were to take onmass support in the labour movement and itbecame clear the leaders would betray it,

which even under a left wing leadership would be the case for the reformists, and thenthe call for occupation of the utilities could bemade. The same would be made for thebanks, the demand could be made for thetotal appropriation of the banks and financeinstitutions by the state under workers’ con-trol, in contrast to Brown’s buying of thebanks with tax payers money like he did with

RBS and Northern Rock to bailout the capi-talists in 2008. There is a wide desire for decent public

services even among more backward workers,but also distrust of government and big busi-ness of which public services are also seen aspart of or under the influence of. Thereforedemands for public services without unrepre-sentative governments and big capitalists,

would find a hearing among workers and thiscould develop into the understanding that wecould run public services if we occupy themand make them ours. This is transcending thecapitalist state and property relations. When a revolutionary situation does devel-

op and dual power becomes a prospect wemust call on the working class and their or-ganisations to take power from the capitaliststate, as the Bolsheviks did in 1917, whichexposed the political cowardice and impo-tence of the other parties who claimed to leadthe working class such a the Mensheviks andSocial Revolutionaries. We would also exposethe cowardice of the official labour and tradeunion leaders. We must challenge the illusions in the capi-

talist state and the faith in bourgeois democ-racy especially by reformist workers, we must

explain and expose how undemocratic it hasbecome, which most workers know to a de-

gree already. We could appeal to the memoryof the Chartists and call for reforms that capi-talism could never concede. Trotsky did thisin the ‘Programme of Action for France’, in whichhe appealed to reformist socialists to be faith-

ful to ‘the ideas and methods not of the ThirdRepublic but of the Convention of 1793’[18]and called for ‘A single assembly’ to ‘combinethe legislative and executive powers.’ [19]

A similar demand could be made for Brit-ain today, with abolition of the Lords andMonarchy and election of Prime Minister andcabinet by the chamber. We could add thatMPs earn the average of their constituents,

how many right wing Labour MPs wouldthere be then? Also the defence of HumanRights which are currently being eroded willfind wide understanding. The improvementand protection of unemployment, housingand disability benefits is also an importantdemand and links to the question of whocontrols the wealth, and how it should bespent to pick up the devastating effects of

capitalism.Internationalism: Challenging thesocial chauvinistsSocialism cannot be created in one country, itmust be international; the struggle of workersagainst capitalism is worldwide. The defeat of

world imperialism of the USA and theNATO block is of major importance. There-fore we must always agitate for solidarity with

workers in struggle in other nations and na-tional liberation struggles. As we are close again to world war we must

warn the masses of the danger and demandthe dismantling of NATO and the other mili-tary alliances protecting the interests of theUS dollar. In Britain the call for nuclear dis-armament can also be linked to how publicmoney is spent and how it can be put to so-

cially useful projects if workers could havecontrol of public finance. As can a call to


10/36



withdraw all troops from foreign occupation,including Ireland and linked to this the freeingof all Irish political prisoners and prisoners.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq met withmass opposition. If such a situation were to

develop ‘”””into a revolutionary crisis then we would begin calling for trade union rights forthe ranks of the army we could raise the de-mand for theelection of offic-ers but only whenthe soldiers aremutinous duringa revolutionary

crisis, not inpeacetime.

Conclusion The transitionalprogramme is notand cannot be setin stone and usedas a Gospel ofsome kind. Itmust be devel-oped through as

wide a discussion as possible, taking into ac-count the struggles of the day and considerand the objective situation and how it devel-ops. Demands stemming from these strugglescan gain an immediate understanding among

workers. They must be developed in thecourse of struggle, building from one to an-

other. The demands must however be a solu-tion to capitalist crisis which must in the finalanalysis pose to the working class that it canonly be solved by the action of the class takingpower and transcending capitalist propertyrelations. The programme can then be a bridgefrom the struggle today to the socialist revolu-tion of tomorrow.

Notes[ 1] Leon Trotsky, “The World situation and Perspectives”,

Writing of Leon Trotsky (1939-40) (Merit Publishers,

1969), pp 23-24[2] V.I. Lenin, “Dogmatism and ‘Freedom of Criticism’”,

What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement(New York, International Publishers, 1986), pp 39-41[3] Leon Trotsky, “Lenin’s death and the shift of power”,My Life: An attempt at an autobiography , 1930, http://

www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch41.htm[4] Leon Trotsky, “Discussion on the Transitional Pro-gram”, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-1940), (MeritPublishers, 1969), p 43

[5] This introduction to‘What we stand for’appears on the back ofevery edition of ‘TheSocialist’, newspaper ofthe SPEW.[6] ibid

[7] ibid[8] ibid[9] http://

www.socialist.net[10] For more aboutthe history of SPEWand Socialist Appealsee In Defence of

Trotskyism No. 8, TheCWI and IMT: RightCentrist Heirs of Ted

Grant, published bySocialist Fight Group2014

[11] Leon Trotsky, “More Discussion on the TransitionalProgram”, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-1940) (MeritPublishers, 1969), p49[12] Leon Trotsky, The Class, the Party and the Leader-ship, (Cambridge Heath Press, 1982) p6[13] Leon Trotsky, “Discussion on the Transitional Pro-gram”, Writings of Leon Trotsky (1939-1940) (MeritPublishers, 1969), p43[14] Ibid, p44

[15] Ibid[16] Leon Trotsky, “A Program of Action for France”,(1934), http://www.marxist.org/archive /

Trotsky/1934/06/paf.htm#n22[17] Ian Angus, “Communists and the British LabourParty”, Appendix: 1924 Statement on the Labour Govern-ment, Socialist History Project, Documenting the revolu-tionary socialist tradition in Canada, http://

www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/1961-/NDP/British_LP_4.h[18] Leon Trotsky, “A Program of Action for France”,(1934), http://www.marxist.org/archive /

Trotsky/1934/06/paf.htm#n22[19] ibid.


11/36



IntroductionHistorical confusion on Afghanistanexists between Stalinophobic leftgroups who supported the muja-diheen and Stalinophile groups whosupported the 1979 invasion. Theformer included the state capitalistBritish Socialist Workers Party(SWP), the ‘Trotskyist’ Lambertistsof France and the Latin American

Morenoite groups. The latter in-cluded the ex-Trotskyist US Social-ist Workers Party (SWP US), theCommunist Party of Great Britain(CPGB, formerly The Leninist),

Workers Power (though theychanged their line on Stalinism in1987) and the Spartacists League(SL) of the US with their interna-

tional grouping the InternationalCommunist League (ICL). The SLinfamously promoted the obsequi-ous slogan: ‘Hail Red Army in Af-ghanistan’

We have out to prove two maintheses:1. The working class, far from beinga non-existent or an insignificant

factor, was the only hope for devel-oping a genuine socialist revolution.2. Only the transitional methodapplied by revolutionary Marxistscould have defeated the mujadiheenin the circumstances.

Differences within thePDPAIn early 1978 the Peoples Demo-

cratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) was forced to launch a self- preserv-

Afghanistan: Marxist Method vs. Bureaucratic Method

By Gerry Downing 1997

We have reposted this piece to shown that there isa Marxist revolutionary approach to religion and

women’s oppression and that the early Soviet gov-ernment of Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks at-tempted this in a serious way. This stands in con-trast to the Menshevik methods when they were inpower in southern republics like Georgia duringthe Civil War and in stark contrast to the brutallyignorant policies of Stalin and the bureaucracy afterthey triumphed in 1924. This is the method of Len-

in as recounted by Dale Ross (D. L. Reissner), thefirst editor of the Spartacist League’s ‘Women andRevolution ':‘The Bolsheviks viewed the extreme oppression of

women as an indicator of the primitive level of the whole society, but their approach was based onmaterialism, not moralism. They understood thatthe fact that women were veiled and caged, boughtand sold, was but the surface of the problem.

Kalym was not some sinister plot against woman-kind, but the institution which was central to theorganisation of production, integrally connected toland and water rights. Payment of Kalym, often bythe whole clan over a long period of time, commit-ted those involved to an elaborate system of debt,duties and loyalties which ultimately led to partici-pation in the private armies of the local beys(landowners and wholesale merchants). All com-mitments were thus backed up with the threat offeuds and blood vengeance.‘… Lenin warned against prematurely confrontingrespected native institutions, even when theseclearly violated communist principles and Sovietlaw. Instead he proposed to use the Soviet statepower to systematically undermine them while sim-ultaneously demonstrating the superiority of Sovietinstitutions, a policy which had worked well againstthe powerful Russian Orthodox Church.

SF April 2015


12/36



ing coup, the ‘Glorious Saur (April) Revolu-tion. The PDPA was divided between theKhalq and the Parcham factions. In sociolog-ical terms the Khalq faction of Noor Mo-hammed Taraki and Hafizullah Amin was

differentiated from the Parcham faction ofBabrak Karmal and Najibullah by back-ground (urban and rural) and by class origin(lower middle/working class and upper mid-dle) and by tribal originPushtun vs. others (Tajik,Hazara, Uzbek, etc.)However the role of rac-ism in containing the

working class meant thatthe most oppressed

worker from the Hazaratribe were more opposedto the Khalq than to theParcham, as describedbelow. The Khalq wasitself divided between thefollowers of Taraki and

Amin. Amin had hispower base in the Sovietinfluenced army andplayed the major part inthe coup of April 1978.

The Khalq representedthe aspirations of theurban state employeesand lower middle classesaround Kabul and Kan-dahar, swollen since 1954 by Soviet aid. Theytherefore had a working class base, but one

which was dependant on the state for its wages. The Kremlin, of course, favoured theupper middle class who were the most con-servative, the most compromising and bu-reaucratic. They had the least to gain and themost to lose if modernisation should reallyproceed to revolution.

On the other hand the Khalq had much togain in social advancement from modernisa-

tion and were therefore more radical thoughthey also were totally opposed to revolution-ary methods and sought only the same bu-reaucratic ‘revolution’ from above and with-out.

Karmal had made his name by demagogicparliamentary speeches supporting the previ-ous monarchical and then pseudo-republicanregimes. The Saur coup and the Russian in-

vasion enabled him to passhimself off as some typeof a genuine communistfor a period.Many left groups believed

PDPA propaganda aboutthe participation of themasses in the ‘revolution’after the coup. It was therevolution ‘most conspicu-ously from above’ of anyof the so-called revolu-tions in the third world. 1

The ‘revolution’ was basi-

cally the endeavours of thepetit-bourgeois Khalq fac-tion to continue to mod-ernise the Afghanistanstate. They stood in thelong tradition of modernis-es, dating back to ShahZambian in the 18th cen-tury, Lenin’s contemporaryKing Amanullah Khan,

with whom he signed the first Soviet/ Afghanistan friendship treaty in the early1920s, and Sardar Daud Khan, who fell tothe 1978 coup.Daud feared modernisation was going too farand wanted to halt the process. He had be-gun to court reaction and was looking to theUS allies in Iran and Pakistan. The immediateimpulse for the coup was the clear indica-

tions that he was about to liquidate the repre-sentatives of the urban petit-bourgeoisie, the

Bolshevik feminist AlexandraKollontai, in her younger days sheunderstood and fought againstthe oppression of women betterthan Lenin and Trotsky


13/36



PDPA, in April 1978. Two of its central lead-ers were in prison, the rest were waiting to bepicked up and executions could not havebeen far away.It was, in fact, a coup by a section of the

armed forces that were influenced by thepetit bourgeois radicals of the PDPA. Thecharacter of the PDPA was determined bythe large amount of Soviet aid and personneltraining, advisors. etc. At last the modernis-ing, radical petit bourgeoisie had the socialbase provided by Soviet aid to carry out oneof the regular coups that marked the govern-ance of Afghanistan. Of course we should

have critically supported it as a movementagainst semi-feudal reaction which wasbacked by imperialism.Both sections of the PDPA supported thesame programme, a not-quite standard Stalin-ist text that distinguished itself by developinga three-stage rather than the standard two-stage theory of revolution.In analysing the nature of the April 1978

military coup the ICL are broadly correctagainst the CPGB. If we are to call it a revo-lution then we are stretching the concept tocover a revolution without popular participa-tion. The 15,000 strong demonstration fol-lowing the state assassination of Parchamleader Mir Akbar Khyber does not constitutea revolution, though it did indicate a strongbase of support for the PDPA.

The international situation The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on 27December 1979 was the defensive reflex of aSoviet bureaucracy that was entering a crucialphase of its decline. In order to appreciatethe context it is necessary to set the 1978coup by the PDPA in its international con-text. The following quote from AfghanistanPolitics, Economics and Society by Bhabani

Sen Gupta does this:‘The political ambience of 1978 was very

different from that of the late sixties or earlyseventies. Nasserism had died with Nasser.

The emergence of oil power radically alteredpower alignments in the Middle East andPersian Gulf. The Soviet Union had suffered

a severe setback in Egypt. Sadat had signed apeace treaty with Israel. The conservativeforces – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran

– backed by the United States, dominated thepolitics of the Middle East and the Gulf re-gion. The Shah of Iran was using oil moneyand newly acquired military power to reducethe influence of the Soviet Union in the Gulfarea, as well as South Asia.

The Shah wanted the two regions to be lesspolarised between the United States and theSoviet Union, and Afghanistan, with its sur-feit of Soviet influence, was one of the tar-gets of his foreign policy. ‘The political influ-ence of the Soviet Union had diminished inthe Gulf and the Middle East – and even inIndia to some extent, following the installa-tion of the Janata party government in Delhi,

with its declared commitment to ‘genuinenon- alignment’. At the same time the SovietUnion had emerged unmistakable as a globalmilitary power capable of intervening, and

willing to intervene, in national liberationstruggles on behalf of its friends and allies.Soviet military help had proved a decisivefactor in the Vietnam War … Cuban troops,airlifted in Soviet transport planes with heavy

war equipment, determined the fate of therevolutions in Angola and Mozambique…

Whatever the state of Soviet political for-tunes in specific third world regions at specif-ic periods of time, the fact that the SovietUnion was capable of intervening with armson behalf of revolutionary movements andhad the will to intervene., given a decisivelyfavourable balance of forces, undoubtedlymade a vital difference to Third World con-

flicts after 1975. From the 1970s onwards,most successful Marxist-led national libera-


14/36



tion movements owed their victories to Sovi-et military assistance. ’2

The working class in Afghanistan The size of the working class in Afghanistan

is disputed. The industrial workers numberedjust some 20,000 in 1965 and had risen tojust 40,000 out of a population of 15 – 17million by 1978 according to figures from

Afghanistan Politics, Economics and Society’by Bhani Sen Gupta. These figures seem tobe underestimating its size by a factor of ten.

This would make political sense as Bhani SenGupta writes his account from a Stalinist

perspective and would therefore wish toprove that no appreciable working class exist-ed. This would then implicitly justify the So-

viet invasion as socialist revolution was sup-posedly impossible and only the ‘Red Army’could provide the forces to defeat reaction.His figures are contradicted by the US SWP,

who give a figure of 300,000 out of a popula-tion of 20,000,000 in their 1980 pamphlet,

The Truth About Afghanistan by Doug Jen-ness. But Jenness seems to be taking a nar-row definition of working class as simplyindustrial workers. The total working classhad to be much bigger than this because ofthe relatively large state sector arising fromSoviet aid programmes.

Valentine M. Moghadam quotes statistics which give a figure of 593,970 in industry by1975. 3 He quotes the International Labour

Organisation Yearbook of Labour Statistics which gives a total workforce of 1,576,110(calculated from statistics supplied) for com-mercial activities outside Agriculture, hunt-ing, forestry and fishing for 1979. 4 Clearlythen the total working class was in the regionof two million by the late 1970s and certainlya major social constituent of the population.

The industrial and poorer workers are mainly

Hazaras, ethnic Mongols who are descend-ants of Genghis Khan’s army. Their home-

land is North West of Kabul. They are Shi’aMuslims who were clearly inspired by theIranian Revolution. Because of their recentrural origins and the backward nature of Af-ghanistan (90% of the population were illit-

erate) they were at a low level of class con-sciousness. Very little changed for this work-ing class after the coup of April 1978 despiteall the fine promises.

The class had as their leaders the pro-Pekingcommunists who saw ‘Russian Imperialism’as the main enemy and were very addicted tosimply parroting the Peking line, now in-creasingly pro-US. Of course it would have

been impossible to relate to the working classHazaras simply on the basis of class, as Raja

Anwar proposes in the quote below, becausethey were specifically oppressed as a national-ity. This continued under the PDPA.

The use of racial prejudices to control the working class necessitated the imaginativeuse of the theory of permanent revolution – only the working class was capable of uniting

a nation against all national oppression byoverthrowing capitalism and leading the fightagainst imperialism and its agents. It was thisspectre that the PDPA feared most, hencetheir savage repression of the Hazaras, Mao-ists and pro-Peking communists.

Whether any of the opposition Maoistgroups had developed any tactics that com-bined class and national rights in a progres-sive manner we do not know because we lackany details of where they stood. Because theMaoists represented a defeated wing of theChinese bureaucracy they tended to be moreindependent- minded. Clearly only fromthese circles could a revolutionary socialistperspective have begun to emerge. Only if itdeveloped in the direction of permanent rev-olution and Trotskyism could it have begunto provide revolutionary leadership. The

main- stream pro-Peking groups did use thenational question in a counter-revolutionary


15/36



manner and offered no alternative to thePDPA.Of several Maoist workers’ groups set up inthe late 60s, only one, the Groh-i-Karagar,led by Ghulam Dastgir Panjsheri, joined the

PDPA. Clearly that was quite a right-winggroup. The main pro-Chinese communistparty was the SAMA, founded by Dr RahimMahmoodi in 1946 and co-led by his brotherHadi and his nephew Rahman. The followingquote gives a picture of the political influ-ences on the class:‘The Mahmoodi brothers tried to organisethem (the Hazaras) on a tribal and religious

basis instead of raising their class conscious-ness. The Hazaras are still considered themain recruiting ground by pro-Peking com-munists who, after 1980, launched an armedstruggle against Karmal in the Hazarajat re-gion. Consequently there is much weight inthe claim that it was the pro-Peking com-munists who were responsible for most ofthe industrial strikes in Kabul back in the late

1960s and early 1970s. This is borne out bythe fact that Dr Rahim Mahmoodi and DrHadi Mahmoodi were arrested in 1969 fortheir role in a strike that hit the largest statefactory in Janglak. ’5 Babrak Karmal was very much part of theelite reformist establishment before the SaurRevolution. As Anwar points out:‘… only three PDPA leaders were in jail for

varying terms during Zahir Shah’s rule. In

Daud’s second term Taraki and Karmal werein jail for only two days and Amin for one.’ 6 However the pro-Chinese communists, be-cause they led the working class and some

very important strikes were treated far differ-ently:‘In Daud’s second term (1973-1978) Shala-e-

Jared j (the newspaper of the SAMA) sup-porters were singled i out for punishment.

He hanged Dr Rahim Mahmoodi and a num-ber of his pro-Peking followers. A pro- Chi-

na communist Majid Kalkani… initiated anarmed struggle against Daud’s regime, whichcontinued during the years in power of Tara-ki, Amin and Karmal. In 1980 he was arrest-ed and executed by firing squad along with

some pro-Amin Khalqis, the men whom hefought for nearly two years. Both the TajikMaoists and pro-Peking communists, it issaid, shouted ‘Long live Marxism-Leninism’before being put against the wall and shot.’ 7 It is clear from this quote that Majid Kalkani

was driven by oppression and political confu-sion to abandon the working class and launcha peasant guerrilla war in the Maoist tradi-

tion. However some pro-Chinese com-munists remained with the working class atleast until the savage repression of theHazaras on 23 June 1979. It was thereforethe working class, and its political potential,that Zahir Shah and Daud feared the most.Both wings of the PDPA maintained thisclass hostility, though they masked it in theirpropaganda for international audiences by

left-sounding demagogy. The Hazaras are still persecuted in Afghani-stan and Pakistan, they are regarded as trai-tors, their Chinese features tell their originsin the remnants of Ghengis Khan’s armiesand they are thepoorest of workers so oftenembrace Maoism as a liberating ideology

Hostile to the working class The ‘Glorious Saur Revolution’ was indeed

hostile to the working class:‘The revolution had changed nothing in therelationship of employer and employee, ei-ther in the public or the private sector. Thatthis relationship was unequal seemed almosta law of nature, an indisputable fact of life toso many working people in Kabul, happy tohave a job at all, regardless of wage or work-ing condition. Arbitrary and instant dismis-

sals without back wages were commonenough for lowly employees in either sector,


16/36



as I found out from groups of Hazaras work-ing in the capital. Since Hazaras perform thelowest, most menial tasks – being doublydisadvantaged as Shi’a Muslims and a Mon-gol race – I fully expected workers of this

discriminated group to favour the Tarakiregime, with its reforms and its stated rightsfor national minorities. Yet Hazaras scoffedat the idea that benefits would flow to themfrom reforms.‘Whether working in hotels or state offices(in private or state jobs) their relationship

with Tajiks and Pushtuns had not altered atall since the Saur revolution …. ‘Young

Hazaras in school even in the capital stillfaced prejudice if they tried to continue be-yond elementary school. It is hardly surpris-ing, given this background, that manyHazaras who were literate and had a modi-cum of education rejected the Khalqi stateand all it seemed to offer the underprivilegedclasses.‘Instead, many were attracted by the ideas

behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, readingmany Iranian books and tracts by Dr AliShariati, the eminent Iranian philosopher,

who provided a reconstruction of Shi’a Islamrevitalised by Marxism and existentialism,before dying in 1975 an exile in London. 8

The confusion in Iran that was so apparentto all serious Trotskyists who sought to findthe road to the masses via the transitionalmethod existed also in Afghanistan. In Iranall was still to play for while revolutionaryMarxist ideas, and literature, met a huge re-sponse and conflicted with Islamic reaction-ary ideas. It was the task of revolutionaries todistinguish between, and separate, the reli-gion of the oppressor from the religion ofthe oppressed by proving the worth of revo-lutionary Marxist leadership in practice. Onlya small group of Trotskyists within the USFI,

the HKS, who broke from the official USF Isection, the HKE, seriously attempted this.

Of course the ICL’s line of ‘Down with theShah, down with the Mullahs’ could notmake the vital connection with the masses tobegin the task of differentiation betweenrevolution and reaction.

The Red MullahsIn Iran there were many Dr Ali Shariatis.

They were the political descendants of the‘Red Mullahs’ of the 1920s, who sought toprove that socialism and Islam were essen-tially the same. They reflected the class strug-gles fought out within the working class inthe Iranian Shoras in particular between early

1979 and the early 80s. They were the con-duits who corrupted and distorted Marxism,particularly on the issue of women’s oppres-sion, with the able assistance of the TudehParty and some of the fake Trotskyists. Butthe fact that they felt obliged to adopt thisrole spoke of the potential of revolutionaryMarxism in the midst of what was perhapsthe greatest mass movement of the workingclass and oppressed the world has ever seen.But the PDPA hated and despised the Haza-ra working class and only wanted ‘revolutionfrom above and without,’ i.e. for themselves,the middle classes. Even towards some of thepoor and middle ranking workers who werefrom the Pushtun and Tajik tribes, there wasno attempt at any socialist measure or evensimply making capitalism a little more just:‘Another existing grievance in the lower and

middle ranks of the administration was thefailure of the Khalqi state to redeem thepromises made soon after the Saur revolu-tion. to level out the sharp differences insalaries between the various grades of civilservants. There was still a difference of 43times between the highest and lowest salaries,

which descended in nine grades from 70,000to 1,600 afs per month.’ 9

Nepotism was powerful within the Khalqiregime. Taraki and Amin handed out lucra-


17/36


18/36



from time to time. The reactionary national-ism of the Mullahs swept the country afterthe 1979 invasion and collapsed into tribal

warfare with the withdrawal of the Soviettroops and the onslaught of the Taliban.

The Pushtuns do constitute a nation that isdivided by the Durand line, imposed by theBritish Empire, from the rest of the nation inthe North West Frontier province of Paki-stan. Independent Pushtunistan emerged as apolitical slogan at the time of Pakistani inde-pendence in 1947 but there was no realmovement to achieve it. Ironically it mayemerge again as a real possibility if the Tali-

ban, funded mainly by Pakistan now, fail tore-unite the country. In that case they wouldbe tempted to turn against their Pakistaniallies in order to carve out a viable territoryfor themselves. The forging of a multi-nationstate able to develop economically remainsthe task of the working class and the futuresocialist revolution.

Reaction begins to consolidateLess than a year after the coup, in March1979, there was an uprising against the re-gime in the western city of Herat, near theIranian border. Of particular importance hereis the class character of the uprising. Whilst itmust have been led by the Islamic fundamen-talists, the quote from Soviet Politburo mem-ber Kirilenko below points out that: ‘Theinsurrectionists have been joined by a large

number of religious persons, Muslims andamong them a large number ofthe commonpeople.’ And he correctly warns that if Soviettroops go in: ‘In this way we will be forced toa considerable degree to wage war against thepeople.’ It was put down with great ferocityby Amin, with Russian pilots and tank driversleading the massive bombardment of the city.

About 5,000 lives were lost. Significantly all

Russian technical advisers in the city werelynched in the uprising while other foreignnationals, including east European com-

munists, were spared. This crucial incidentgreatly consolidated reaction. Already by thisstage the imposition of ‘revolution fromabove and without’ was having disastrousconsequences. There were big disagreements

on Afghanistan within the Politburo. Asshown by the quotes below, Kirilenko, Gro-myko and Andropov (whom the SL hon-oured by naming a party ‘brigade’ after him),had a greater understanding of how to deal

with reaction that their gung-ho mentors inthe SL. Brezhnev was ailing and the opera-tional decisions seem to have been taken inthe main by Defence Minister Ustinov. It was

on the basis of his apparent freedom to ma-noeuvre in this period that he was mentionedin the western press as the most likely succes-sor to Brezhnev. https://coreyansel.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/screen-shot-2013-10-02-at-6-11-46-pm.png?

w=534&h=352 This extract was supplied on the internet byRolf Martens, a Swedish Marxist-Leninist, in

response to my request. The italicised com-mentaries came with the quotes, the rest aremy own. It has been slightly edited to im-prove the English. After the breaking up ofthe Soviet Union in 1991, many earlier confi-dential Soviet documents were made public,

The source for that quoted below is the issueNo 4 /1994 of the Swedish language maga-zine Afghanistan-Nytt organ of the Swedish

Afghanistan Committee. The minutes of the Politburo discussed theHerat uprising of March 1979, just a monthafter the Iranian Revolution. At the time,almost nine months before the Soviet inva-sion, considerable disturbances took place inthis third-largest city of Afghanistan. On 17March, the Soviet Politburo convened for athree day meeting. During the first two days,Brezhnev was not present.

Gromyko: ‘The situation in Afghanistan hasseriously deteriorated. The centre of disturb-


19/36



ances is now the city of Herat… As is knownfrom earlier telegrams, the 17th Afghan divi-sion is stationed there. It restored order butnow seems in practice to have disintegrated.

The artillery regiment and one infantry regi-

ment that were part of that division havegone over to the side of the insurrectionists. ’

According to Gromyko, the uprising wascaused by thousands of agitators from Paki-stan and Iran who, with US help, had causedchaos in Herat. Over 1,000 people had diedin Herat, he reported. The situation had notbeen adequately metby the Afghan gov-

ernment, Gromykoheld and he contin-ued:‘Typical of the situa-tion is that at 11o’clock this morningI had a conversation

with Amin, who isforeign minister and

the deputy of Taraki,and he expressed noanxiety whatsoeverconcerning the situation in Afghanistan butspoke with Olympic calm about the situationnot being all that complicated (…) Amineven said that the situation in Afghanistan isnormal. He said that not one single case ofinsubordination on the part of the Gover-nors had been registered. (…) ‘Within about

half an hour we got another message, whichsaid that our comrades, the military Chief

Adviser comrade Gorelov and the Charge’d’Affaires comrade Alekseyev had invitedcomrade Taraki to visit them (…) As far asmilitary assistance was l concerned, Tarakisaid in passing that perhaps help will beneeded both on the ground and in the air.

This must be understood to mean that we are

requested to send ground forces as well asaircraft. I hold that we must proceed from

this most important consideration whenhelping Afghanistan; under no circumstancesmust we lose that country.’ Several other speakers expressed their dis-trust of the Afghan government and its heavy

-handed purges of rival Communist factions.Even at that time various proposals forarmed intervention and even for a completeinvasion were put forward within the Polit-buro. Defence minister Ustinov briefly re-ported:‘Tomorrow, 18 March, operative groups will

be sent to Herat’s air-field. ’ He thus indicat-

ed that he was takingthe operational deci-sions whatever thePolitburo decided. Heat the same time pre-sented two possiblelines of action. In theone case, smaller forces

would be sent. ln the

other, the Soviet Union would dispatch twodivisions, or about 3 6,

000 men. The proposals were met with someobjections.Kirilenko: ‘The question arises, against whom

will our Army wage war if we send themthere? Against the insurrectionists, but theinsurrectionists have been joined by a largenumber of religious persons, Muslims andamong them a large number of the commonpeople. In this way we will be forced to aconsiderable degree to wage war against thepeople.’ The following day, Kosygin reportedon his telephone conversation with Taraki.

The anti-aircraft battalion in Herat had alsogone over to the enemy. ‘K the Soviet Uniondoes not help us now, ’ Taraki had said ’we

will not be able to stay in power. ’ This was

understood by both Kosygin and Ustinov asa request for direct military assistance. But

A statue in Harat Commemorates the upris-ing of March 1979. Photo: Charlie Gammell


20/36



still individual Politburo members raisedserious objections to an invasion.

We know Lenin’s teachings Andropov: ‘We know Lenin’s teachings

about the revolutionary situation. Might therebe one in Afghanistan now? Obviously not.

We can only help the revolution in Afghani-stan by means of our bayonets, and this isabsolutely impermissible for us. We cannottake such a risk?Gromyko: ‘I wholly support comrade An-dropov on our having to exclude such ameasure as sending troops into Afghanistan.

The Army is not reliable there. In this caseour Army, if we send it into Afghanistan, willbe an aggressor. (…) We must consider thefact that neither can we justify juridical thesending in of troops. (…) Afghanistan is notsubjected to any (outside) aggression. (…)Furthermore it must be pointed out that the

Afghans themselves have not officially madea request to us concerning the sending oftroops’

The discussions went back and forth and adecision seems to have been reached only onthe third day of the Politburo session, whenBrezhnev was present and unequivocallymade clear that sending in Soviet troopscould not be the right thing to do at this mo-ment. The session was ended by a decisionimmediately to call Taraki to Moscow. Thismeeting did take place on the following day,

20 March. In a rather patriarchal tone, Brezh-nev educated his colleague and warned himon his purges. ’Repression’ Brezhnev said ‘isa sharp weapon which must be used very,

very sparing ’. As the same time, Brezhnev repudiated theidea of dispatching Soviet troops:‘l am saying it quite plainly: This is not neces-sary. It would only play into the enemy’s

hand.’ However it is clear from the account in thenext commentary and from Antony Hyman’s

book, Afghanistan under Soviet Domination,that Soviet air force pilots and tank crews,directed by Ustinov, were very much in ac-tion in Herat, whatever Brezhnev had de-creed.

During Taraki’s continued consultations withKosygin, Gromyko, Ustinov and Ponomarev,Ustinov was able to promise Soviet shipmentof l2 Mi-24-type helicopters. Citing the unre-liability of those Afghan helicopter pilots

who had been trained in the Soviet Union(’Muslim brothers’ or pro-Chinese Q, Tarakiasked for the assistance of pilots and alsotank crews from Cuba, Vietnam or other

socialist countries. This proposal was bluntlyturned down by Kosygin:‘I cannot understand why this question aris-es…The question of sending people who

would climb into your tanks and shoot onyour people. This is a very serious politicalquestion.’

After their meeting with Taraki, Gromyko, Andropov, Ustinov and Ponomarev worked

out a proposal for a decision by the Politbu-ro, in which the Afghan leadership were criti-cised for their suggestion of introducing So-

viet troops into the country. This line was anexpression of ’lack of experience’ and ‘…ithas to be held back also in the case of newanti-government actions in Afghanistan. ’

The unfortunate area of Joda-I-Maiwand (see page 40 for more on this)

The Hazaras were Shi’a co-religionists withthe Heratis. In Kabul, on 23 June 1979, theybegan a procession of about 100 with greenIslamic flags and followed by two buses fullof armed fighters. The procession grew toseveral thousand before the army openedtire. The firing went on for four hours beforethey managed to disperse the crowd. The

wounded were refused treatment in the Ka-

bul Hospital and then the mass purges of theHazaras began: ‘All this month, a massiveround-up took place of suspected opponents


21/36



of the Taraki regime. In the unfortunate areaof Joda-I-Maiwand, troops filled lines of

waiting trucks with the ‘flat noses’ i.e. theMongol-race Hazaras, and sober observersamong Kabul’s citizens speak of 3,000 at

least of the Hazaras, picked casually off thestreet in the main, who disappeared into themass graves of the regime … Among thosekilled in the purges of the intelligentsia weremany socialists and personal friends of both

Taraki and Amin and other prominentKhalqis – left wingers of undoubted progres-sive views… (Surely the pro-Chinese com-munists – GD)’

This massacre and the subsequent purges was the major counter-revolution against the working class. As in the Barcelona May Daysof 1937 the Stalinists smashed the organisa-tions of the working class and thus practicallyguaranteed the victory of reaction. The back-

ward capitulation to nationalism and tribal-ism of the pro- Peking communists (thoughthe racism of the PDPA explains why they

won support in the working class) preventedany powerful impact by consistent Marxistideas, and when the class arose in confusedoutrage at the promises of the Saur‘revolution’ betrayed, they were cut to piecesby Amin’s troops.

The class, therefore, did and does exist andthat strike wave of the late 1960s indicatedthe potential power of even a small workingclass in modern imperialist conditions. And itis the ideology of Marxism, based on thepotential power and leading role of the classin revolution, which must guide a revolution-ary leadership. No revolution has historicallysuperseded the model of Russia 1917 despiteall the attempts to substitute ‘red armies’

whether composed of peasant guerrillas orthe direct armed forces of a Stalinist bureau-cracy for it.

As the period since the Russian Revolutionstretched into three generations the disparity

between the lives of the workers in the SovietBloc and the West (and between East and

West Germany in particular) became moreapparent. Their class consciousness was driv-en to a historically low point by the late

1980s. The Soviet armed forces themselvesbecame increasingly disaffected as the futilityof the war in Afghanistan became clear tothem.

The final turn of the screw The heavy industries, another powerful pillarof the bureaucracy, were increasingly under-capitalised as Afghanistan and Regan’s Star

Wars offensive obliged the bureaucracy todivert ever greater resources towards militaryexpenditure. This whole crisis of under capi-talisation, a bludgeoning military budget andfrustrated expectations of the toiling massesmeant that the bureaucratic methods of de-fending nationalised property relations even-tually ran out of steam. Afghanistan was theexcuse that enabled US imperialism in partic-ular to apply the final turn of the screw, but itmerely hastened the inevitable end.

The overthrow of the Shah in 1979 alteredthe balance of forces in the area against im-perialism (before the new rulers managed tostabilise and defeat the revolutionary strivingsof the masses). If social revolution triumphedin Iran (and this aspiration in the masses wasnot dealt its decisive blow until the counter-revolution of the so- called ‘Revolutionary

Guards’ in September 1980 at the start of theIran-Iraq war) then political revolutionthreatened in the USSR. If Islamic funda-mentalism triumphed then the Soviet Central

Asian Republics, which had a majority ofMuslims, could succumb to Islamic counter-revolution. In either case disaster threatenedthe bureaucrats. Therefore the invasion wasprompted by a number of considerations:

1. The desire of the bureaucracy to have an-other front to attack the Iranian Revolution ifit should develop l into a social revolution,


22/36



thereby threatening political revolution in theUSSR – counter-revolutionary motive.2. Fear that Imperialism itself would supplysufficient arms and other support to the mu-jadiheen to overthrow the PDPA govern-

ment and consolidate a pro-western regime.3. Fear that if Islamic counter-revolutionconsolidated itself in Iran and spread into

Afghanistan it would precipitate counter-revolution in the Soviet Central Asian Re-publics – defence of nationalised propertyrelations as the source of their own privileg-es.4. The ascendancy of the Red Army bureau-

cracy in the Kremlin due to the increasedmilitary spending in response to the US ‘Star

Wars’ military build-up led to increased beliefin military solutions to all problems.5. Desperation at the increasingly criticalinternal economic problems in the USSR andhope that a military victory in Afghanistan

would divert the attention of the masses.

To support or oppose the actualinvasion?

To assist us in deciding whether to supportor oppose the actual invasion we have to firstestablish the facts. Hafizullah Amin was thenew president and plenipotentiary after Sep-tember 1979, when he overthrew and mur-dered his rival, Noor Mohammed Takari andas many of his supporters as he could get hishands on. Takari was just about to do the

same to him. He had invited in Soviet troopsin large numbers to save the regime againstthe mujadiheen counter-revolution. Obvious-ly under instructions from the Kremlin thetroops took advantage of the invitation andproceeded to murder their host and practical-ly his entire government. They then installedBabrak Karmal in power, a former leader ofthe Parcham faction of the PDPA, which

faction Taraki and Amin had attempted andalmost succeeded in liquidating in August

and September 1978.12Karmal had been sent into exile as ambassa-dor to Czechoslovakia a few months before

Amin discovered the Parcham plot against Taraki and his Khalq faction. It is likely that

the plot was an attempt to prevent the liqui-dation of the Parcham faction by Taraki.Karmal was then deposed as ambassador andlived secretly under Moscow’s patronageuntil the day came for his reinstatement onthe back of a Soviet tank.

There were already many thousands of Sovietadvisors in the country. Amin had invited inthe ‘Red Army’ because of the increasing

strength of the mujadiheen attacks, now wellarmed by US imperialism and its allies, whichnow clearly included China. Considerablenumbers of Soviet troops were already inplace and more were expected with govern-ment knowledge. None of this constituted aninvasion and even the CIA did not claim it assuch.

The invasion consisted of the secret dispatch

of huge numbers of extra ‘Red Army’ troops(100,000 is the figure now accepted). Theadvance troops surrounded the barracks ofthe Afghan army and air force units who hadled the 1978 military coup. They then cap-tured Amin’s residence. Food doping by Rus-sian cooks had not worked well enough as

Amin ate little because he was ill. This neces-sitated the very bloody public massacre. Hav-ing disposed of Amin and his immediatefamily they occupied all the governmentbuildings, murdered 97 government officialsand installed their own chosen puppet, Kar-mal.

That is an invasion. The Soviet reason forinstalling Karmal was their perception thatonly he could re-unite the PDPA and appealto the more conservative section of Afghansociety, in particular the upper middle class

and the bourgeoisie and ‘unite the nation’against the mujadiheen. Its aim was to sup-


23/36


24/36



of the world workers’ movement for second-ary and unstable advantages. 13

The fact that in order to defend their ownprivileged positions at the head of the bu-reaucracy the Kremlin leadership often took

measures that safeguarded nationalised prop-erty does not oblige us to give them a blankcheque on this or any other occasion. Thepoint, which Trotsky always emphasised, wasthat the bureaucracy defended these relation-ships by their own, bureaucratic, counter-revolutionary, methods. This type of bureau-cratic ‘defence’ was continually weakeningand undermining the only real and ultimate

way that they could be defended: the classconscious actions of the working class de-fending the nationalised property relations aseconomic basis of socialism, despite andagainst the bureaucracy.

This is how Trotsky explained the matter inrelation to eastern Poland in 1939:‘Foreign policy is the continuation of theinternal. We have never promised to support

all the actions of the Red Army, which is aninstrument in the hands of the Bonapartistbureaucracy. We have promised to defendonly the USSR as a workers’ state and solelythose things within it which belong to a

workers’ state. ‘…In every case the FourthInternational will know how to distinguish

when and where the Red Army is acting sole-ly as an instrument of the Bonapartist reac-tion and where it defends the social base ofthe USSR‘ 14 No doubt with the experience of the disas-trous invasion of Poland in 1920 in mind

Trotsky was opposed to exporting revolutioneven by a healthy workers’ state except in

very favourable circumstances: ‘…But suchan intervention, as part of a revolutionaryinternational policy, must be understood bythe international proletariat, must correspond

to the desires of the toiling masses of thecountry on whose territory the revolutionary

troops enter.” 15 Not even the ICL could claim that these con-ditions were satisfied in the invasion of Af-ghanistan. As Trotsky said of the joint inva-sion of Poland in 1939 by Stalin and Hitler:

‘On the contrary, it (the Kremlin) boastscynically of its combination, which affronts,rightfully, the most elementary democraticfeelings of the oppressed classes and peoplesthroughout the world and thus weakens ex-tremely the international situation of the So-

viet Union. The economic transformation inthe occupied territories do not compensatefor this by even a tenth part. 16

CPGB and ICL support invasionIt is ludicrous to claim, as Eddie Ford does in

Weekly Worker No. 163, that it is correct tosupport the invasion and then toacknowledge;‘… the paradoxical nature of the Soviet inter-

vention in 1979 – which was to extinguishthe flame of the revolution while defendingthe husk that remained. The Soviet bureau-cracy feared social revolution, especially oneon its own doorstep, far more than it wel-comed one – yet it feared imperialist inter-

vention and Islamic-inspired counter-revolution even more.” 17 But is not ‘extinguishing the flame’ of a revo-lution called counter-revolution? Howevercomrade Ford here correctly attacks the ICLfrom the left, at least pointing out that the

manner of the intervention was reactionary, whilst tying himself in knots by supportingthat same intervention. Seemingly uneasyabout his paradox comrade Ford tries again alittle later in his piece:‘It was better to have the Red Army defend-ing the dried out remnants (ashes from theflame extinguished by the ‘Red Army’ ac-cording to The Leninist – GD) of the 1978

Revolution, rather than not at all.” 18 Why is this better? If we accept his assump-tions; that 1978 was a revolution, that popu-


25/36



lar enthusiasm (flame) forthe event still survived by27 December 1979 – asdistinct from preferring itto Islamic counter-

revolution – then it wassurely the duty of all revo-lutionaries to defend andnurture those flames thatthen might sweep and lib-erate the country and con-tinent in time?Since clearly neither Com-rade Ford, nor The Lenin-

ist back then, seriouslybelieved this then it is bestto say why they supportedthe invasion, even if it wasparadoxically reactionaryand develop the argumentto a higher plane than oneof the pro and anti-Soviet‘camps’. They should seek

to establish what revolu-tionaries in the regionshould have done in thosecircumstances.

Were Comrade Ford to do this he might notfind so ridiculous and inconsistent ErnestMandel’s position, (which in our view wasbroadly correct) that it was necessary to op-pose the invasion in the first place but oncethe deed was done, and reaction was enor-mously strengthened because of it, it wasnow incumbent on all serious revolutionariesto demand that Soviet Army stay and fightthat reaction. For a similar reason we wouldoppose a foolish and ill-prepared strike calledby a trade union bureaucracy, but once it wascalled we would demand that the bureaucracygo all out to win that strike – because thebattle was now joined! This is essential united

front tactics – strategically with the massesstruggling against oppression, tactically with

their leaders in order to expose them instruggle and so build a leadership capable of

winning and willing to do so. This was exactly Trotsky’s position on theSoviet invasion of eastern Poland just beforethe war. Stalin had signed the secret proto-cols with Hitler over that and the invasion ofthe Baltic lands, etc. but nevertheless:‘The occupation of eastern Poland by theRed Army is to be sure a ‘lesser evil’ com-pared to the occupation of the same territoryby Nazi troops. But this lesser evil was ob-tained because Hitler was assured of obtain-ing a greater evil. lf somebody sets, or helpsto set, a house on fire and afterwards savesfive out of the ten occupants in order to con-

vert them into his own semi-slaves, that is tobe sure a lesser evil than to have burned the

The Weekly Workers Jack Conrad likes to scrutinise the mean-ing of the death of Jesus but Eddie Ford gets the politics of the

Stalinist bureaucracy complete wrong.“ Also comrade Ford is wrong to assert that: ‘The Soviet bureaucracy feared social revolution, especially oneon its own doorstep, far more than it welcomed one – yet itfeared imperialist intervention and Islamic-inspired counter-revolution even more’ 20 The Soviet bureaucracy feared social revolution more than any-thing else on the planet because it would threaten political revo-lution in the USSR. Islamic reaction would be positively wel-comed by the Kremlin in the face of this ‘horrendous’ prospect,

and that has been their increasing paranoia, displayed in everyaction, internal and in foreign policy, since 1933 at least.”


26/36



entire ten. But it is dubious that this firebugmerits a medal for the rescue. If nonethelessa medal were given to him he should be shotimmediately after as in the case of the hero inone of Victor Hugo’s novels.

And:‘…A trade union led by reactionary fakersorganises a strike against the admission ofBlack workers into a certain branch of indus-try. Shall we support such a shameful strike’?

Of course not. But let us imagine that thebosses, utilising the given strike, make anattempt to crush the trade unions and tomake it impossible in general to organisedself defence of the workers. In this case we

will defend the trade union as a matter ofcourse in spite of its reactionary leadership.

Why is not this same policy applicable to theUSSR?’ 19

Also comrade Ford is wrong to assert that:‘The Soviet bureaucracyfeared social revolution,especially one on its owndoorstep, far more than it

welcomed one – yet itfeared imperialist interven-tion and Islamic-inspiredcounter-revolution evenmore’ 20

The Soviet bureaucracyfeared social revolutionmore than anything else onthe planet because it would

threaten political revolutionin the USSR. Islamic reac-tion would be positively

welcomed by the Kremlin inthe face of this ‘horrendous’prospect, and that has beentheir increasing paranoia,displayed in every action,internal and in foreign poli-cy, since 1933 at least.

‘The only decisivestandpoint’

The ‘flame’ that the CPGBthought was extinguishedby the invasion was onlythen flickering into life,according to the ICL. Indefiance of the Trotskyist

theory of permanent revo-lution the ICL (adopting

Mengele’s Jewish twins, kept alive for medical experiments,liberated from Auschwitz by the Red Army on 27/1/1945. In afront page article of Workers Hammer (April/May 1995), paperof British SL, we are told the ‘Soviet Red Army liberated Ausch- witz’ but nowhere that the war against the Nazis was fought as

a ‘great patriotic war’ and was specifically anti-German and anti- working class. The ‘Red Army’ either allowed the Nazis tocrush workers’ uprisings or crushed them themselves to defeatattempts at socialist revolution in Eastern Europe. Followingthe same policy the communist parties in the west betrayed post-War revolutionary situations in Italy and Greece and pre-revolutionary situations in France and elsewhere. Therefore to ignore the method of the liberation of Auschwitz,not to counterpose the method of the real Red Army of the1920s against the method of the armed forces of the bureaucra-

cy, in Berlin 1945 or in Afghanistan in 1980s, is to perpetrate anhistorical lie on the working class


27/36



Amin’s line) believed the socialist revolution was not possible in Afghanistan because ithad no working class (uniquely in the entireplanet, according to some members).Ludicrously, in attempting to cover for their

capitulation to Stalinism, the ICL demandedthe formations of soviets – led by whom’?

The working class that they had already writ-ten off or its adequate substitute, the ‘Red

Army’? The possibility of ‘revolution from without’ is referred to several times in thearticle and it is clearly their main rational forsupporting the invasion, e.g., in attacking theIMG and the UK SWP (IS as was) they say:

‘For these dregs of the pro-nationalist NewLeft and the wretched ‘Third Camp’ socialdemocrats, counter- revolution from withinis preferable to revolution from without. ’21 In the Winter of 1979/80 they held that:‘Even if the country is incorporated into theSoviet bloc – a tremendous step forwardcompared to present conditions – this canonly today be as a bureaucratically deformed

workers’ state.’ 22 Then they follow with a call for political rev-olution in the USSR and social revolution inIran – no question of calling for one in Af-ghanistan. But by the summer 1980 issuesuch caution was flung to the winds:‘Moreover, the Soviet military occupationraises the possibility of a social revolution inthis wretched, backward country, a possibilitythat did not exist before.’ 23

The ‘Red Army’ was now apparently going tolead, or at least assist, a social revolutionfrom within and not simply bureaucraticallyoverthrow capitalist property relations. Quite

why this possibility was not realised, or nevereven raised its head, is never explained. Theillusions of the ICL in the ‘revolutionary’nature of the Kremlin bureaucrats were neverclearer than in re- reading their 1980 posi-

tions. This was, in fact, a variant of the PDPA the-

ory on why they had to use the army and notorganise the working class and poor peasants.

They also feared and opposed a revolutionfrom below and would only tolerate a‘revolution from without’ for this reason.

We can only react with huge amusement atthe Stalinophilia of the ICL – Brezhnev – arevolutionary to the end! Despite all the hys-terical condemnation of ‘Pabloism’ Pablonever sunk to the level of supporting thebrutal invasion of the ‘Red Army’ to install aconservative reactionary Stalinist politicianand say this raised the possibility of socialrevolution. All that ICL stuff about calling

for soviets, etc., while ignoring the real Af-ghan working class and even denying theirexistence, is so much eye wash.Indeed the ICL held the working class andpoor peasants in such contempt that theyimagined that it was possible to produce thebaby first (the revolution) and then inventthe mother (the working class)! Of course itturned out that it was not a real baby at all

but a shoddy painted Russian doll that fell topieces at the first rattle. We can reasonablyassume that the PDPA and the Kremlin op-erated purely cynically with no such illusions.

The quotes from the Politburo membersabove are an example of this, revolutionaryphrases masking bureaucratic realism. But

Trotskyists should have different politics:‘Our defence of the USSR is carried out un-der the slogan: For Socialism! For the worldrevolution! Against Stalin! ’24 Even where the Kremlin had bureaucraticallytransformed property relations after thePolish invasion i Trotsky warned that:‘This measure, revolutionary in character – ‘the expropriation of the expropriators’ – isin this case achieved in a military bureaucraticfashion. The appeal to independent activityon the part of the masses in the new territo-

ries – and without such an appeal, even if worded with extreme caution, it is impossible


28/36



to constitute a new regime – will on the mor-row undoubtedly be suppressed by ruthlesspolice measures, in order to ensure the pre-ponderance of the bureaucracy over theawakened revolutionary masses.

That is one side of the matter. But there isanother. In order to gain the possibility ofoccupying Poland through a military alliance

with Hitler, the Kremlin deceived and con-tinues to deceive the masses in the USSR andin the whole world. The primary politicalconsideration for us is not the transformationof property relations in this or another area,however important they may be in them-

selves, but rather the change in the con-sciousness and organisation of the worldproletariat, the raising of their capacity fordefending former conquests and accomplish-ing new ones. From this one, the only deci-sive standpoint, the politics of Moscow, tak-en as a whole, completely retains its reaction-ary character and remains the chief obstaclein the road to the world revolution. 25

This latter position of Trotsky’s was aban-doned by the ICL in Afghanistan, Poland andeverywhere else.

Marxist method vs. bureaucraticmethodIt took fifteen years of warfare to subdue theuprisings in the Soviet Central Asian repub-lics caused in the main by Menshevik andStalinist bureaucratic methods. Some conflict

was and is inevitable if the power of the Mul-lahs, Khans and fundamentalists is again tobe broken in the countries of Soviet Central

Asia and in Afghanistan, Iran through to Algeria. What a terrible price humanity mustpay for the marginalisation of the transitionalmethod of the Bolsheviks and the triumph ofthe counter-revolutionary bureaucratic meth-ods of fighting reaction of Stalinism and pet-

ty-bourgeois nationalism in these states.Given imperialism’s support for the muja-diheen and the nature of the terrain victory

was only possible if the PDPA or the ‘Red Army’ combined warfare with the transitionalmethod. A reactionary ideology, such as fun-damentalism, can only be broken by totalmilitary defeat or by a dialectical combination

of warfare and the transitional method.Marxists must use great tactical sensitivity tofight against the oppression of women andfor the material, economic and social ad-

vancement of the working class and the poor.Neither the PDPA nor the ‘Red Army’ wereprepared to fight in this way.In a front pager article of Workers Hammer(April/May 1995), paper of British SL, we are

told the ‘Soviet Red Army liberated Ausch- witz’ but nowhere that the war against theNazis was fought as a ‘great patriotic war’and was specifically anti-German and anti-

working class. The ‘Red Army’ either allowedthe Nazis to crush workers’ uprisings orcrushed them themselves to defeat attemptsat socialist revolution in Eastern Europe.Following the same policy the communist

parties in the west betrayed post-War revolu-tionary situations in Italy and Greece and pre-revolutionary situations in France and else-

where. Therefore to ignore the method of the libera-tion of Auschwitz, not to counterpose themethod of the real Red Army of the 1920sagainst the method of the armed forces ofthe bureaucracy, in Berlin 1945 or in Afghan-istan in 1980s, is to perpetrate an historical lieon the working class. 26 Trotsky always com-bined revolutionary propaganda, guerrilla

warfare and uprisings behind enemy lines with socialist measures in liberated territoryto win over the workers and oppressed mass-es. The bureaucracy could not have possiblycontemplated such revolutionary methods,lest a successful revolution would ensue

which would see the bureaucracy expropriat-

ed as a parasitic social cast.It was possible to drive a wedge between thefeudalists and progressives, between the Mul-


29/36



lahs and the poor and landlesspeasants – if a Marxist regimehad existed in either Kabul orMoscow that desired this endand fought for it. However the

PDPA were so busy schemingand plotting against each otherand murdering their formercomrades wholesale in themost bloodthirsty fashion atthe first opportunity that there

was little time, or inclination,to consider how to propagatetheir revolution among the

workers (who never got a lookin at all from any of the‘revolutionaries’) or the poorand landless peasant masses,

who were supposed to be thereal beneficiaries of the entirerevolution.Moreover they attempted toimpose the ‘revolution’ from above in such a

bureaucratic, heavy handed fashions that itstood no chance. They rode rough-shod overtribal customs and religious sensitivities andprejudices alike. For examples they grantedland to the landless peasants without theprovision of bank credit to fertilise it or buyseed. In consequence the peasants wereforced back to the very landlords who hadbeen expropriated when it was presented tothe peasants by the ‘revolution’ in the first

place. In many cases they had to accept themost humiliating terms and punishmentsfrom these reactionaries, including self- muti-lations, for their ‘anti-Islamic actions’.

The PDPA failed to conduct any preparatorycampaign against all the other reactionarycustoms like women’s oppression, e.g., theselling of daughters in forced marriages – theKalym (bride price) -, etc. They issued

‘binding’ decrees but did not provide any viable alternative. They naturally did not ex-

propriate the landowners by mobilising the

peasants. There were local Jirgah – tribal councils whose

the transitional programme, its relevance and application for today

Documents