Political Power Grows out of the Barrel of a Gun

Writing in actual defence of peaceful transition to socialism a certain M. Williams of the pro-Russian New Zealand Socialist Unity Party stated "at this very moment events in Chile are providing an educational back-drop from which we can all learn." ('NZ Tribune', October 1970, p. 5). The words remain, but the lessons are different. Chilean experience, a "unique revolutionary experience" according to the absurd Gus Hall, leader of the CPUSA, has in fact confirmed the basic Marxist principle that it is impossible for the working class to simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its Own purposes. The working class and its allies have to smash the old state machinery and replace it with its own.

At no time in Chile had the question of state power been settled in favour of the working class. Even if one accept that the executive branch controlled by Popular Unity represented worker's power (which I do not), the Congress remained firmly in the hands of the bourgeois parties. More importantly, the main components of state power — the armed forces and the police-remained committed to the bourgeoisie. As long as Popular Unity was prepared to observe bourgeois legality, the armed forces remained "neutral". Once the bourgeoisie called on them, they went into action. The policy of toadying to the military pursued by the Socialist and "Communist" parties, like the policy of concessions to the right-wing, was always bankrupt. Without a new army and new police force under worker leadership, Popular Unity could remain in power only as long as it did not threaten the interests of Chile's ruling classes.

In the tragic days in Chile, Enver Hoxha's remarkable far-sighted warnings ring out more loudly. Refuting the ridiculous Khrushchov at the meeting of 81 communist end workers' parties in 1960 in Moscow, Enver Hoxha said: "We should be prepared and prepared well for both eventualities, especially for power by violence, for if we are well prepared for this eventuality, the other eventuality has more chance of success. The bourgeoisie may allow you to sing psalms, but then it deals you a fascist blow to the head and crushes you because you have not trained the necessary cadres to attack, nor done illegal work, you have not prepared a place where you can be protected and still work, nor the means to fight. We should forestall this tragic eventuality."

Allende was a courageous and tragic figure. When it became clear that the bourgeoisie were calling for his overthrow, he rejected their invitations to resign. He declared that he would end his term or be taken out with his body riddled with bullets. But as Guevara demonstrated in Bolivia, courage alone is not enough . Without Marxism-Leninism, no revolutionary movement can lead the working class and its allies to the seizure of state power. The Chilean reformers, for all their "Marxist" gloss, increasingly grew isolated from the working class in reality; like all petty-bourgeois reformers they failed to mobilise the working class to launch a revolutionary offensive, despite their repeated declarations of their determination to do so if the need arose.

Khrushchov has his Allende. The revisionists around the world will bury their Chilean dead with the usual hypocritical psalms of "peace". But will they bury their counter-revolutionary ideas?