Weekly Worker 405 Thursday October 25 2001

Letters

Afghan coup

Mark Fischer’s introduction to Emine Engin’s extract from The Revolution in Afghanistan reveals much more than the CPGB’s interpretation of the events of April 1978. It actually points to the way in which the CPGB views agency in human history and its failure to break with its Stalinist past.

Comrade Fischer accuses other left groups of dishonesty by omission. However, Fischer himself offers a far from honest appraisal of the PDPA and its seizure of power. His rewriting of history leads him to the political adaptation that he accuses the British left of, except that rather than tailing islamic fundamentalism, he chooses to tail Stalinism.

Fischer’s main errors are encapsulated in one paragraph:

“The PDPA led a genuine democratic revolution in 1978 – there was a mass base in the working class, the intelligentsia and the urban poor. Sweeping reforms were introduced and old privileges swept away. Women in particular benefited. However, the party was deeply split between a revolutionary and an opportunist wing - Khalq and Parcham respectively.”

There are a number of problems with this:

1. April 1978 did not constitute a democratic revolution. It was a coup led by a Stalinist organisation and carried out by its supporters in the army. It was not a revolution based on organs of working class power with the active support of the peasantry, which constituted the overwhelming majority of the population. (Engin’s article is actually quite revealing as to how the PDPA focused its activities on the army, not in order to split it and put it under the political control of the workers, but rather to serve the factional interests of the different wings of the party). That workers and sections of the urban poor and intelligentsia supported the coup does not alter the character of how the regime came to power. The power struggle that took place within the PDPA in late 1979, which resulted in the murder of Tarakki and the ascendancy of Amin, serves further to undermine Fischer’s insistence on the revolutionary character of the overthrow of the Daoud regime. This was a power struggle between two factions of the PDPA based in the army. The working class, and, even less so, the peasants and rural poor, were absent from this struggle.

2. Fischer fails to point out that the reforms, though progressive and vital, particularly for Afghan women, were carried out in a bureaucratic and repressive manner, precisely because of the lack of support for the PDPA throughout Afghanistan. Instead of mobilising the working class, the semi-proletariat and peasantry in the towns and villages to actively take part in the creation of a new democratic state, the PDPA, in true Stalinist fashion, substituted itself for the masses and brutally repressed its opponents, including within its own party.

3. Fischer characterises the Khalq wing of the PDPA, led by Amin as the “revolutionary” wing of the party. Yet Amin’s “communism” and advocacy of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” flowed from his support for the USSR’s counterrevolutionary Stalinist regime. So Amin’s conception of revolution was fundamentally counterrevolutionary. The masses, if they had a role to play at all, would be merely a stage army for an elite bent on taking power and implementing their corrupt version of ‘socialism’.

The reference to Amin as “Afghanistan’s Castro” is interesting on a number of levels (apart from the fact that Castro started out as a bourgeois nationalist forced by events to ally himself to the USSR and carry out the expropriation of capital, rather than by any ideological commitment to Stalinism). If the USSR had not had other plans for Afghanistan, Amin may quite well have found himself presiding over the bureaucratic, counterrevolutionary overthrow of class property relations buoyed up by Soviet support.

But Fischer’s analogy flows in another direction. It is an attempt to garner support for the PDPA by reinforcing the idea that the events of 1978 were somehow akin to the mass anti-imperialist movement in Cuba which was based not only on the working class, but also on the peasantry and, crucially, the rural proletariat.

The masses played an active and necessary role in the overthrow of the Batista regime and putting the J26 movement in power. In Afghanistan the key role was left to the army factions. However analogies between Castro and Amin are not totally out of place: both beheaded what could have constituted genuine anti-imperialist, democratic revolutions (Afghanistan of course had a long way to go down this road). But comrade Fischer, not surprisingly, does not want to draw attention to this similarity.

By pretending that the Khalq wing of the PDPA somehow represented a revolutionary trend, Fischer in fact downplays its role in the growth of islamic reaction in the countryside. The attempt to drag isolated peasant communities into the 20th century was viewed as an imposition by many in the countryside, and lead to their alienation from events in Kabul.

This hostility formed the basis of islamic fundamentalist reaction. So whilst the PDPA may have carried out reforms that benefited women, its role in creating the conditions for the current situation of savage reaction against women is not negligible. Rather than being the “counterrevolutionary opposite of the April Revolution”, it is a product of the PDPA coup.

That a leading member of the CPGB is so keen to be an apologist for the Stalinist PDPA can only make one wonder just how far the organisation has actually gone in breaking from its roots.

Elizabeth Bennett
London

Web applause

I applaud your newspaper, which I have been viewing for sometime now on the web. It seems to be the main source of information on the Socialist Alliance. Your stand for a new party of the left bringing together the different factions is admirable. The opinions of those like Workers Power who do not only refuse to condemn September 11, but also actually back the actions of the Taliban against the western aggressors plays right into the hands of the Hilary Armstrongs and Adam Ingrams of this world.

I am no pacifist, but the actions of Dubya Bush and Tony ‘son of Abraham’ Blair are wrong, and surely, as sensible socialists, whether from revolutionary Marxist or reformist backgrounds, we must conduct ourselves in a way so that the proletariat (who we propose to politically educate) will wish to listen to us, not frighten them off with such infantile chants as are often espoused by the likes of Workers Power and the SWP, backing a vile and counterrevolutionary organisation that would happily slaughter us all, especially us communists and atheists.

Ingram and Armstrong are wrong of course to compare the fascist dictatorship of 30s Germany with the wretched islamic dictatorship of today’s Afghanistan. The great guilt of many in the British bourgeoisie and their representatives as to how Germany had been unfairly treated after the treaty of Versailles, led them to the road of appeasement (which in hindsight we know was wrong) and was reinforced because many of those who were lucky enough to return home from the trenches of France, now had sons of their own who they did not want to send for a rematch.

Three cheers for George Galloway’s comparison of the present so-called war: “its like putting Mike Tyson in the ring with a five year old”; and well done Paul Marsden and all who speak up and refuse to be bullied by their right wing colleagues or Alistair Campbell’s propaganda machine. And what happened to Clare Short, the MP that resigned her shadow cabinet post over Britain’s involvement in the Gulf War? Like many former socialists, she has been sucked into the corridors of power, and she too is just a puppet of the bourgeois politics of consent. Her colleagues David Blunkett and Chaff Straw compete with each other to see who can be the most right wing, with a plethora of new restrictive legislation being suggested. Even The Spectator says that should Blunkett’s proposals against religious hatred pass into law, “there may be a case for prosecuting Tony Blair himself on the grounds that he scorned the beliefs of former England football manager Glenn Hoddle.”

The only hope for us all is an international socialist future, but getting the message across with such a vast biased popular media is a mammoth task. Do carry on doing your bit.

Bryn Jones
e-mail

Mullah’s side

You are wrong in your criticisms of Workers Power’s policy on Afghanistan
(Weekly Worker October 18). They pose the question well. - “Socialists and
anti-war activists will be asked to answer one question: whose side are you
on? Whether you wanted the war or not, now that there is one anyway, who do
you want to win?”.

The answer for any revolutionary socialist is that we are with the oppressed
against the murderous imperialist onslaught on Afghanistan. The oppressed in the current situation is everyone from Afghan kids with bomblets heading  their way, to mullahs operating anti-aircraft guns, even though the latter may be just taking a break from their usual activities, such as throwing acid on women for daring to expose their ankles.

We should offer no political support at all to the Taliban, etc, but we
should offer full military support. The fact that we do not have a  peashooter between us and no Afghan will ever get to read our debate is just a reflection on our ineffectiveness rather than political error. That is why we should call for the victory of Afghanistan over the USA (and the UK etc). Whose side are you on, CPGB?

Clive Power
London

SA paper

It was very encouraging to read Alan Thornett’s article under the heading Move to party in last week’s paper (October 18), where it appears he is moving towards the pro-party position “probably with its own publication”.

The future constitution of the Socialist Alliance and whether or not it needs its own paper was the main subject under discussion at the special meeting on Thursday October 18 in Colchester, where Clive Heemskirk from the Socialist Party and Rob Hoveman from the SWP had kindly come to explain their respective organisation’s proposals that are set out in the pre-conference bulletin. Local members and comrades from Ipswich were in attendance, and right from the outset it was obvious there would be lively debate, as one comrade had submitted and circulated his own written contribution. His paper raised many questions that I am sure not only concern individual members of the Alliance. In brief its main points were:

Certain behaviour amongst component organisations does not engender trust.

Coverage of Socialist Alliance activities in the Socialist Worker and The Socialist is very rare, yet says the comrade, in Colchester this is turning reality on its head, as political activity in the town is at its highest since the time of the miner’s strike. Much of this activity is channelled through the Colchester Socialist Alliance or its members in linked groups, yet there is a deafening silence about this in the left press.

Most platforms have failed to take seriously calls for a Socialist Alliance newspaper or magazine, and he used the example of the SSP’s constitution with the important role of their newspaper with its editor on the executive.

The failure of organisations to show unconditional support for the Socialist Alliance, such as the Socialist Party refusing to pay up after it lost the vote over the national office at the Liaison Committee meeting in July.

Poor procedure. The comrade quoted Trotsky “Democracy is the oxygen of socialism”, and asked how did that match up with the way the December 1 conference has been organised? Who made contributions for the pre-conference document? Who was informed that contributions could be made? When was the deadline for contributions? Is it credible to have a time span of just four weeks from receiving the document for branches to meet, consult and submit amendments?

The comrade then pointed out that the only basis on which he felt a constitution for a top-down centralist body could be framed is on trust, because any constitution is built around the idea of creating rights and obligations, and if that condition cannot be fulfilled then the idea of asking people to take on obligations that they do not really accept is fraught with danger and likely to lead to disaster. Any constitutional arrangement should now read more like a legal contract and less like the Declaration of Independence. This is because the basis of trust has not yet been built. When it has, we can move on.

The final part of the paper criticised the SWP nationally (not locally) for being light minded with regards to the SA, seeing it as just another front, having heard an SWP member (self critically) refer to it as the “electoral wing of the SWP”. He stressed that changes must be made before serious constitutional change can be considered; and the strand organisations must accept a commitment to fund the SA on a less unconditional basis, and membership contributions must be raised significantly so that we are not reliant entirely on the strand organisations.

In conclusion he thought that the constitutional recommendations within the pre-conference document should be rejected, and the authors told to start again. But support should be given to the separate amendments calling for the creation of a newspaper.

Rob Hoveman acknowledged that it was not a perfect situation, but it was early days for the alliance and as more and more individual members join, then the SWP would no longer have that majority of members that so many seem frightened of, and as for a paper, the SWP were the main financial backers of the SA and the money isn’t there for such an expensive item at present. Two Ipswich SWP members spoke up, assuring comrades that they would always vote with their conscience on each issue and not be directed by their leadership should they differ from the party line.

Clive Heemskirk used the history of Labour as an example as to where the SA is at present, stating that Labour had a federal constitution for many years, in fact individual members could not join, you had to be a member of an affiliated organisation. It was obvious to me that the Socialist Party want to progress very slowly, far too slowly in fact. An SP comrade from Ipswich explained his worries of a one member, one vote constitution, using recent Labour history once again to recount the processes that led to the witch-hunt of Militant members culminating in their expulsion.

Another SP member echoed her concerns about the SWP proposals and also stressed the importance of getting trade unionists involved, to which I am sure we would all agree. The likes of the CPB and the Socialist Appeal Tendency seem to believe that you must support whatever party the mass of the unions are affiliated to (even a bourgeois workers’ party that is now fully committed to and backed by capital), and still that long awaited day will come when Labour will be won over to socialism. Come on, face up to it, the day the likes of Ken Jackson and John Monk back socialism, Nelson will get his eye back. However, gradually things are starting to change in the unions, campaigns such as ‘Free the funds’ and ‘Unions fightback’, and socialists being elected in place of the ‘preferred candidate’ are good signs.

I’m sure that any Labour history buff (not just SP members) will remind us that such mighty unions as the engineers and miners maintained their pact with the Liberal Party for some time after the formation of the Labour Representation Committee. Surely, in the course of time, as we work with and support the unions where possible, we will see a mutual respect grow, and contributions from their political funds will come our way. We must then swiftly build a credible alternative to New Labour so that we are the natural party to represent their aspirations.

Discussions went on after the meeting in an extremely friendly atmosphere, comrades from different groups and backgrounds with so much in common. And just to remind those who join nationally, you can pay a monthly contribution of your choice to the Socialist Alliance by direct debit, as I do. I personally hope we move towards a socialist alliance party with the best weekly newspaper the left has ever seen, as soon as possible!

Mervyn Davies
e-mail

Foreign office inaction

Ben Bradshaw and the Foreign Office are being criticised for failing to protest vigorously against the show trial of 52 gay men in Egypt.

Bradshaw, who has Foreign Office responsibility for the Middle East, is “monitoring” the trial, but that is all.

Ben has done nothing serious to show the British government’s disapproval of the witch-hunting of homosexuals by the Egyptian authorities.

Many of these men have been beaten and abused in prison. The response of the Foreign Office is weak and half-hearted. Monitoring the situation is not
good enough. Urgent action is needed to remedy the suffering of the defendants.

Peter Tatchell
London