When Peter Taaffe and Ted Knight debated Ernest Mandel and Livio Maitain

The Case for Prioritizing Colonial Revolutions in 1967

To mark the 50th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in 1967, the three central leaders of the post-war Fourth International spoke at a Marxist symposium in London. When Pierre Frank, Livio Maitan and Ernest Mandel stressed the unity and interrelationship of the struggles in the imperialist, colonial and bureaucratic states, they were countered by two Trotskyist groups which stressed the centrality of the European working class. Both had recently separated from the Fourth International. Ted Knight, spoke from the Socialist Labour League (which had opted out of a reunification in 1963) and Peter Taaffe and another comrade gave the opinion of Militant, the newspaper that reflected the views of the Revolutionary Socialist League (formally a sympathising section of the FI, but in practice not participating in it).

Ernest Mandel argued forcefully that while, in the long run, decisive struggles will occur in the imperialist countries, imperialism can be weakened "much more quickly and much more decisively by a spread of victorious socialist revolutions in the backward countries." He drew a historical parallel to the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in Russia, noting that the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Trotsky, made revolution in backward Russia not primarily to build socialism there, but to weaken world capitalism and facilitate revolution in imperialist countries. Mandel pointedly asked if the American working class in the last three years had contributed as much to weakening American imperialism as the Vietnamese revolution.

He viewed the struggle to defend the Vietnamese revolution as a specific, concrete, and immediate task. He rejected the notion that revolutionaries in the West should wait for a pre-revolutionary situation in their own countries before actively supporting movements like the one in Vietnam. This position, he suggested, amounted to "escapism" and concrete abstentionism, leading to the conclusion that nothing efficient could be done in imperialist countries to help comrades in Vietnam.

Mandel stressed that the Vietnamese revolution, alongside struggles in Cuba and potentially a generalized revolution in Latin America and Asia, had decisively weakened American imperialism, which would, in turn, help the American working class begin its struggle for power. He noted that the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese, the position of the Cuban leadership, and youth demonstrations globally had already forced changes in the policy of official Communist movements. He saw the defense of the Vietnamese revolution as a way to "heighten the anti-capitalist and revolutionary consciousness of the people in Western Europe."

Livio Maitan supported this view, arguing that the concept of world revolution is a concrete reality today and that the only way to counteract imperialist initiative is to engage imperialism simultaneously in many sectors of the world. He highlighted the revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situation existing across Latin America, citing guerrilla movements in various countries. Maitan also emphasized the critical need for material help for revolutionary movements in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, especially for underground work, as these movements often lack their own resources. This material assistance is not just a moral or humanitarian act, but a "highly political problem."

---

The Case for Prioritizing Struggle in Imperialist Countries

Speakers like Ted Knight and Peter Taaffe presented a counter-argument, expressing disagreement with the relative importance attached to the struggle in Vietnam compared to struggles in metropolitan countries. They argued that while supporting the Vietnamese people was essential, it was crucial to recognize the limitations of the struggle in Vietnam, partly because it was based on the peasantry, unlike the Russian Revolution, which was based on the working class.

They contended that it is the struggle of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries that is ultimately decisive. One speaker suggested that putting the struggle against American imperialism in Vietnam before the struggles of the working class in countries like Britain and America turned political perspectives "completely upside down." They stressed that the working class in Britain and America were already moving into opposition against capitalism, even if not yet in a pre-revolutionary situation.

Ted Knight specifically critiqued what he saw as Mandel's "pessimism" regarding the potential for revolution in the advanced countries. He argued that ignoring the situation in Britain, particularly the role of the Labour government and the exposure of social democracy, was a mistake. He believed that a significant contribution to the Vietnamese revolution would be to compel the trade union movement and the Labour Party in Britain to change the government's policy of supporting the Johnson administration's actions in Vietnam. He insisted that the struggles in the metropolitan countries were necessary to carry on the revolutionary struggle and that a victory in Vietnam would be difficult to sustain without victories in the advanced countries.

Another speaker from Militant echoed this, arguing that the student movement, while important, would have no future unless it was related to the struggles of the working class. They urged students and anti-imperialist activists to "move towards the working class" and mobilize them on issues like incomes policy, automation, and unemployment, arguing that these issues were the crucial ones from which imperialism is threatened, "and not in the revolutions in the backward parts of the world."

---

Reconciling the Perspectives: Blending the Tasks

Mandel acknowledged the importance of struggles in the imperialist countries, stating he did not advise British workers to stop or underestimate the struggle against the incomes policy or wage freezes. He saw the problem as a "temporary divorce of the two tasks": defending the colonial revolution and fighting for socialist revolution in the imperialist countries. He argued that revolutionaries must "fight for both, to look towards the future, blending of both, whenever this is possible, but not to forget or to subordinate one to the other." He cited the example of West Berlin, where the defense of the Vietnamese revolution had helped raise anti-capitalist and revolutionary consciousness, leading to public displays of support for revolutionary figures.

He also addressed the role of students, arguing they could make a "tremendous contribution on the field of producing ideas." He gave examples of how revolutionary socialist students could apply their studies (like medicine or industrial conditions) to support both colonial struggles and the working-class movement in their own countries.

While there were sharp disagreements and accusations of "escapism" or "pessimism," the speakers ultimately agreed on the need for a global strategy against imperialism. The core debate revolved around the immediate priorities and the perceived effectiveness and potential of revolutionary movements in different parts of the world, highlighting the challenge of developing a cohesive global approach that effectively links the struggles in the colonial and imperialist countries.

PS Our reader Phillip asked about the original recording of Taaffe. Here’s ten unedited minutes from the Q&A session. Mandel responds to a critic by pointing out that America imperialism is decisive, but in that current moment the struggle in Vietnam was key. Peter Taaffe from Militant responds by alluding to the RSL’s past contribution to the Fourth International’s campaign in Algeria, before the Militant tendency left the FI. If Militant was in Vietnam, they would be fighting alongside the NLF. But in Vietnam, the working class is a minority, and the NLF is not a communist leadership.