Weekly Worker 403 Thursday October 11 2001

Letters

Abolish authority

I see that my article has produced some debate (Weekly Worker August 23).

Phil Kent (Letters, September 6) argues that Lenin’s “preferred model was for an open, legal, public organisation”. Looking at the 21 conditions for entry into the Communist International we find a somewhat different position. The parties adhering to the Comintern were “obliged everywhere to create a parallel illegal organisation which at the decisive moment will help the Party to do its duty to the revolution.”

Needless to say, this illegal organisation would be the real controlling body, as it would have to be made up of trusted communists and its members could only be appointed from above. Open, legal, public? Closed, illegal and secret would be a better description. And supporters of Bolshevism attack Bakunin for his secrecy!

Kent argues that anarchists are not in favour of centralism, but rather seek a federal system. True, but federalism exists to coordinate joint activity, and so anarchism does emphasise “the need for disciplined unity in action”, but this unity comes from below.

He argues that anarchism raises “individualistic concerns of the various elements - with the concomitant risk of encouraging narrow interests against universal ones”. The Bolsheviks partly justified their undermining of workers’ democracy precisely in these terms. By pure coincidence, the “universal” interests happened to coincide with the needs of Bolshevik power. Kent fails to understand that the centralised structures he stresses raise narrow interests over universal ones - those of the handful of people at the centre who have real power.

He argues that anarchism will be “built exclusively from the bottom up, as if the most underprivileged, desperate sections of society actually had all the answers”. Anarchists argue for a mass, working class revolution. If working class people do not have “all the answers” then who does? If socialism is not built from below, by the working class, then who builds it from above? Clearly the party. In this Kent echoes Lenin, who argued, “From above as well as from below”, and that “renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism”.

As the experience of Bolshevism in power showed, “from above” was far more powerful. Indeed, it soon became party dictatorship, with the Bolsheviks arguing explicitly that democracy would mean the defeat of the revolution. This is best seen from March 1923, when the central committee summed up the lessons of the revolution and stated that “the party of the Bolsheviks proved able to stand out fearlessly against the vacillations within its own class, vacillations which, with the slightest weakness in the vanguard, could turn into an unprecedented defeat for the proletariat.” Vacillations, of course, are expressed by democracy. Little wonder the statement rejects it: “The dictatorship of the working class finds its expression in the dictatorship of the party.”

This position, I stress, was being argued by all the leading Bolsheviks from at least 1919. Zinoviev argued it during the discussion on the Party at the Second Congress of the Comintern. Trotsky and Lenin did not disagree (quite the reverse!). Even after the rise of Stalin, the need for party dictatorship was stressed (the 1927 Platform of the Joint Opposition argued for “the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realised only through the dictatorship of the party”). And Kent argues that anarchists “do not try to build unity around the majority, but expect a revolutionary elite, taught principally by harsh experience, to force the majority into action”!

Does the working class have “all the answers”? Perhaps not, but they have more answers than a self-perpetuating elite who justify their power because the working class makes what it considers mistakes!

He finishes by arguing that the “Bolshevik programme was democratic”. In that case, why did they reject democracy at every turn? The Bolshevik programme, for example, called upon the creation of a Constituent Assembly. It was called and then disbanded, as it did not have a Bolshevik majority. The same thing happened with soviets in the spring of 1918 (and the committees in the army as well as the factory committees). Kent argues that “it is true that under the impact of the White terror democracy collapsed”. Yet this destruction of democracy occurred before the start of the civil war. However, as this is a common argument, I will ignore that slight problem and address its logic.

To refute it, I need only quote Trotsky. In 1937, he argued that the “leaders of the CNT ... explained their open betrayal of the theory of anarchism by the pressure of ‘exceptional circumstances’ … Naturally, civil war is not a peaceful and ordinary but an ‘exceptional circumstance’. Every serious revolutionary organisation, however, prepares precisely for ‘exceptional circumstances’.” If Kent’s argument was factually correct (and let me stress that it is not) then it is a damning indictment of Leninism. Not that Trotsky was in favour of democracy during a revolution. In the same year he was talking about the “objective necessity” of the “revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party”. Indeed, the “revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counterrevolution”.

Kent echoes this position by stating that the CPGB “think the Bolsheviks were right to try and hang onto power in the hope of the revolution spreading, which offered the only real hope of a civilised outcome”. I thought it was the working class which was meant to have power under socialism?

Eddie Ford’s article on Bakunin was truly terrible (September 6). The usual quoting of Bakunin from his pre-anarchist days (perhaps we can discredit fascism by quoting Mussolini when he was a Marxist?). The usual quoting of anti-Bakunin ‘authorities’ as if they were objective. And, of course, the usual disgraceful selective quoting from Bakunin’s works.

Ford ends by stating: “In our view our anarchist comrades should also reconsider their dogmatic and essentially elitist rejection of democracy. Far from representing a barrier to genuine self-liberation - which must be the act of the majority - democracy is our main weapon against capitalism, bureaucracy and counterrevolution.”

Tell that to the Bolsheviks! They rejected democracy repeatedly when the majority rejected them. Rather than submit themselves to the “democratic will of the majority”, they raised the dictatorship of the party to an ideological truism. Yet he calls anarchists elitists! Nor does he explain how working with others as equals is “elitist”. And accepting the decisions of a majority before you know what they are is the true dogma.

And what kind of “democracy” do you have in mind? As indicated in my original article, anarchists argue for working class self-management of the class struggle and revolution. Workers’ councils organised and run from below, based on assemblies who elect mandated and recallable delegates. It implies collective decision-making and coordination of common affairs.

It also means rejecting what Bakunin called “the authoritarian conception of discipline” which “always signifies despotism on the one hand and blind automatic submission to authority on the other”. Rather, we must organise a new kind of discipline, which is “voluntary and intelligently understood” and “necessary whenever a greater number of individuals undertake any kind of collective work or action”. This is “simply the voluntary and considered coordination of all individual efforts for a common purpose ... In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere realisation of the will of all ... this is the only true discipline, the discipline necessary for the organisation of freedom.” In other words, self-management.

Rather than “control” authority, we must abolish it and manage our own affairs directly and collectively (because those in authority will have the effective power, not those “controlling” them). It seems ironic to call anarchists elitists when, in practice, “democracy” under both capitalism and ‘socialism’ means running a society from the top down by a handful of individuals who claim to know what the majority wants. Is a society where the decisions that affect millions are made by 19 people of the central committee “democratic”? If so, no wonder more and more people are embracing anarchism.

Iain McKay
e-mail

Buffers

On October 7 Railtrack finally hit the buffers. Lawyers acting for transport secretary Steven Byers applied to the high court for the company to be declared bankrupt, and for a winding up order.

The government has announced it will set up a ‘not for profit’ company to run the network - nationalisation by any other name. Byers stated this was the first move of a fundamental restructuring of the industry. He has already announced the merging of the Strategic Rail Authority and the office of the rail regulator. This left Railtrack’s shares worthless and the shareholders threatening the government with court action. Railtrack’s chairman, John Robinson, despite Byers’ attempt to buy him off with the chairmanship of the new company, has not contained his anger, bitterly criticising the government’s actions and launching a challenge in the high court.

The demise of Railtrack will be welcomed by the rail unions, but it will do nothing to bring the railways under democratic control, despite the promise of ‘worker directors’. Far from giving the railways a new lease of life, this action is already getting bogged down in conflicting interests and will no doubt become a long and costly battle in the high court. Meanwhile the railways will totter on without any strategic direction.

Peter Grant
Manchester

Pro-party

As a recent signatory to the statement ‘For an effective and democratic Socialist Alliance’, I read with interest the comments from Dave Craig and the Revolutionary Democratic Group (Weekly Worker September 27).

Looking at the signatories, it is obvious that what unites them is a desire to move forward from a position where the Socialist Alliance is a party de jure to one where it is a party de facto. There are many differences as to the nature and structure of a party - many would be unhappy with the CPGB’s concept of democratic centralism - but all agree a party is an obvious next step.

These differences need to be debated, not behind closed doors by a self-appointed elite, but in an open process in which all members can fully participate. Nobody wants to be in an organisation ruled by a bureaucratic clique with an iron fist, where the rank and file has the sole choice of doing what it’s told or leaving.

As history tends not to wait for those wanting to make it, is better to go for a party sooner than later. Perhaps the statement can be amended to make it clear that the signatories are pro-party and maybe a timetable for the formation of a party could be included.

It is harsh reality that the Socialist Alliance, or any of the organisations involved in it, has no significant influence on or support among the working class. That is why we need a party as the best way to rectify this.

The party must guarantee the rights of both minorities and majorities. Minorities must have access to the party press, the right to distribute their own material, speak and be heard at meetings and put up slates of candidates for election to office. Perhaps there should be a trigger so that when a platform gets the support of x percent of members or x percent of votes at a conference it gets automatic representation on leading committees.

I think that political education and socialist theory are vital. But they can’t be the rigid imposition of a party line. They must be part of a process in which the false antitheses between theoreticians and activists is destroyed.

Anyway, I hope that the signatories will accept comrade Craig’s amendments and that he and the RDG will be able to work to ensure the statement is accepted by the Socialist Alliance.

Terry Liddle
South London

Inability

I’m sure like me other comrades have been amused by the Socialist Workers Party’s inability to use the word ‘condemn’ in relation to the reactionary terrorist outrages in the United States.

In particular, I was intrigued by the formulation it put forward for the founding document of the Stop the War Coalition. From a psychological point of view, it is instructive. It states: “We in no way condone the attacks in New York …” (my emphasis Weekly Worker September 27).

First, New York was not the only US city attacked, of course. A hijacked plane - with civilian victims on board - was flown into one wing of the Pentagon in Washington. Because this was a ‘military’ target, are we meant to infer that the SWP does condone that outrage?

Of course, one may say that our attitude to the US military and its HQ should be different to twin towers filled with thousands of workers in New York. However, our attitude to the group that launched the strikes is the key. We only condone attacks on military targets when those launching them represent a programme that has a progressive content of some sort. Ultimately, what makes an attack ‘legitimate’ is the legitimacy of the struggle that produces it, not the fact that the chosen target is no friend of the working class. The SWP’s geo-political selectiveness is very instructive.

Then the word ‘condone’ is a bizarre one to use in this context at all. My dictionary defines the word thus: “to forgive, to pass over without blame, to excuse, atone for”.

The notion that a serious working class organisation could ever have entertained the notion of ‘forgiving’ or ‘passing over’ these atrocities “without blame” is grotesque in the first place. For example, what would we think of a statement that started: ‘While we in no way condone Auschwitz or the invasion of Poland, we have to understand that the west is reaping the bitter fruits of its policy towards Germany since the Treaty of Versailles …’?

Clearly, the SWP’s reticence reflects its political softness on fundamentalism. I note also that Workers Power - a puny group that seems to be attempting to redefine itself as a pint-size but muscle-bound SWP - has also failed to comment on the terrorist attack in Washington.

Such organisations should come clean. If they offer political support - however critical - to the attack on the Pentagon, they should say so.

Ceri Rhys
London

Rightwing

I wonder how you determine Arrow (Active Resistance to the Roots of War) to be a “rightwing peace group” (Weekly Worker October 4). Of course it is entirely up to you to describe our suggested platform as “legalistic pacifism”, but it hardly sounds rightwing to me.

Perhaps we can discuss the matter in a comradely fashion on our mass sitdown in Whitehall on Sunday October 21 (meet 1pm, Temple Place, London WC2).

Milan Rai
Arrow

Blunkett’s law

David Blunkett’s proposed new legislation outlawing incitement to religious hatred is divisive, discriminatory and dangerous.

Why should religion be given special, privileged legal protection? If there is going to be a new law against incitement, it should cover belief, faith and opinion - not just religion. It should also be extended to protect all vulnerable social groups, including travellers, people with HIV, and lesbians and gay men.

There is a serious danger that this legislation could extend the blasphemy laws by stealth, undermining freedom of speech and stifling legitimate satire and criticism of religious beliefs and institutions. Muslims rightly want protection against hate crimes, yet many muslim leaders promote prejudice and discrimination against women and homosexuals. They want tolerance and protection for themselves, but are not prepared to support tolerance and protection for others.

A law against incitement to religious hatred could be abused to prosecute people like Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins and others critics of religious superstition. It might also be misused against feminist and gay organisations protesting against religious intolerance.

In 1994, I was prosecuted for protesting outside a rally of islamic fundamentalists who were advocating the murder of homosexuals. I was charged under the Public Order Act for displaying a placard that read: ‘Iran beheads and burns queers’ - a reference to the means by which Iran executes lesbians and gay men. The prosecution alleged that this placard caused offence to muslims and was likely to incite public disorder. The charge was thrown out, but it illustrates how easily the law can be abused to suppress legitimate protests against religious bigotry.

I would support David Blunkett’s new law only if it is limited to incitement that is likely to result in imminent violence or harassment, and only if it offered protection to people based on their belief, faith or opinion and to other vulnerable social groups such as travellers, lesbians and gay men, and people with HIV. The mere causing of insult or offence should not be a crime. The right to insult and offend others is a benchmark of freedom of speech. As much as I deplore homophobia, I defend the right of homophobes to express their opinions.

This new law reverses the government’s refusal to get tough with anti-religious hate crimes during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill in 1998. Three years ago, ministers vetoed an amendment they commissioned me to draft, which would have extended the tough new penalties for race hate crimes to hate crimes against religious and sexual minorities.

Peter Tatchell
London