First Published: Vanguard, Vol. 1, No. 5, June 1964.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Ian Roberts, Paul Saba and Sam Richards
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Session 4 of the C.P.G.B. syllabus is entitled – “Problems of National Liberation.” It commences with an analysis of the main classes to be found in colonial, and former colonial countries. (It is significant that the Communist Party of Great Britain finds space to analyse society in lands overseas, but attempts no analysis in this syllabus of our own society in Britain.) There are several weaknesses in presentation. In particular the fact that the national bourgeoisie cannot lead the fight against imperialism to final victory, because they need imperialist support in order to maintain their often precarious hold over their own people, whom they exploit, is not stressed. It must never be forgotten that, sooner or later, the working class, in alliance with the poorer peasants, and led by its own Marxist-Leninist Party, will have to take the lead in these countries in order to achieve complete victory over imperialism.
Again the role of the state in relation to the struggle for national liberation is completely ignored. Until the working class and poor peasants break up the old apparatus of state bequeathed by the imperialists to the compradores or the national bourgeoisie, and establish their own state power, the basis of which must be the people in arms, they cannot achieve final victory in the struggle to end neo–colonialist control over their countries.
Thus, on page 52, we read that the task facing the governments of the newly independent nations can only be solved by ’nationalisation of the foreign monopolies,’ ’state ownership and control of major industrial developments,’ and ’economic planning’ of the nations’ resources and foreign trade. And that ’not all national bourgeois governments takes these measures with equal vigour.’ But the question is, in whose interests is that state ownership and economic planning? Nationalisation for whom? Planning for whom? The nationalisation of the Suez Canal in Egypt, and the American sugar plantations and refineries in Cuba, are given as examples of the nationalisation of foreign monopolies, but the decisive distinction between the two is not made. The first was the act of the Egyptian national bourgeoisie, the second was the act of the Cuban workers and poorer peasants.
A refusal to make a class analysis, the argument that state action in the abstract is necessarily a good thing, is only an attempt to provide a smokescreen behind which the national bourgeoisie can use the state not only against imperialism but also against the working peoples of their own countries. The task of the government of a country is determined by the class character of that government. Failure to make a class analysis, as in this syllabus, plays directly into the hands of the imperialists.
This is not, of course, to argue for attempts immediately to overthrow every national-bourgeois government. For many years yet some of these governments may continue to play a positive, anti-imperialist role, and, so long as they would do so, to call for their overthrow would be utterly wrong. But it is to argue against attempts to fool the working class and poorer peasants about the true state of affairs in their country. Whether these attempts are made by the capitalists themselves, or by the social-democrats or modern revisionists, they must be exposed.
The conclusion to this fourth session reveals the real aim of the revisionists. It reads:
“The interests of the newly independent countries coincide with those of the people of Britain in economic relations also. Neo-colonialism in retarding the development of these countries restricts economic growth in Britain too. Rapid development, on the other hand, would open up avenues of trade in markets that are (after the socialist countries) capable of the most vigorous expansion.”
“It is in the interests of the British people to assist in this expansion by providing credits and entering into long-term trading agreements. This cannot be done without changing British policy drastically. Reduction in arms expenditure and the withdrawal from overseas war bases are needed both to provide the means of financing credits and to inspire confidence in our peaceful intentions.”
Superficially this might appear to be a reasonable conclusion to the syllabus. But look at it more carefully. A distinction is drawn, in the first paragraph, between these “newly independent countries” and “the socialist countries.” It is recognised, therefore, that they remain within the world capitalist system. And then, in the second paragraph, it is proposed that “The British people... assists (in the expansion of the economies of these countries) by providing credits and entering into long-term trading agreements,” and this requires a “drastic change” in British policy. But this is also to be done before the working class win power in Britain. It is advanced as an aim to be fought for, within the capitalist system. For if this “change in policy” were to follow a political revolution in Britain the syllabus would certainly say so. What the C.P.G.B. is arguing, therefore, in this conclusion, is that we bring pressure to bear upon the imperialist government in Britain to step up “aid” to the under-developed countries within the capitalist world, and pay for it by cutting back on arms expenditure.
But imperialist “aid” only rivets the fetters of neo-colonialism more firmly upon the newly independent countries. Only those who seek to serve British imperialism can make such a call. Exports of capital from imperialist Britain, whether private capital, or in the form of state “aid,” can never be supported by Communists. Our task is to unite with all those struggling against imperialism, and for its final overthrow, and to expose those modern revisionists who seek to perpetuate this evil system.