Weekly Worker 406 Thursday November 1 2001
Letters
Democracy and anarchism
Many of Iain Mckay’s points against Bolshevism contain a deal of truth (Weekly Worker October 11). The position of the Weekly Worker is, however, to defend the democratic content of the Bolshevik programme, not any backsliding or compromises forced upon them by adverse circumstances.
Almost all communists of that period - and indeed ourselves in this period - held the view that even the lower stage of communism is impossible in an isolated state no matter how powerful and apparently self-sufficient it is. So the revolution of 1917 was an attempt to spark off revolutions in the most advanced capitalist countries.
Prior to 1917, Lenin advocated the democratic dictatorship (ie, rule) of the workers and the peasantry. After the revolution, he tried to incorporate that alliance between the workers and peasants into the Soviet state. But it could only succeed if the working class could organise an exchange between town and country whereby the peasants would benefit and steadily become proletarianised. Unfortunately the Russian economy collapsed. Many of the soviets too fell apart - and not due to any evil plan of the Bolsheviks.
Comrade Mckay makes the correct point that socialism is meant to be the rule of the working class, but the problem was that the small working class was disintegrating and the needs of the peasantry could not be met. In the circumstances a dictatorship of the revolutionaries was the only way to maintain the revolution, and the key question became the internal discipline and internal democracy of the revolutionaries. I agree that this battle was lost. However I do not agree that the collapse of democracy was in the interests of the Bolsheviks; it destroyed them, the revolution, and led directly, but not inevitably, to Stalin. Fortunately history has proved his system to be an unworkable dream.
We are trying to organise a mass working class movement in the advanced capitalist countries. A revolution capable of finishing the world revolution, not merely sparking it. While I would by and large back Lenin’s approach to the revolution in Russia, I most devoutly hope we avoid the circumstances he faced. There are some kinds of circumstances that revolutionaries are exceptionally well equipped to deal with, but the post-1917 environment was not one of them.
Iain quotes Trotsky on the subject of exceptional circumstances but once again out of context. Trotsky was familiar with defeat and knew that not all situations were easily retrievable. Trotsky criticised and tried to advise the Spanish revolution from its inception. The full meaning of his remarks only becomes apparent when you compare his programme with that of the anarchists. Which was more likely to maximise the working class’s chances of success? It illustrates the general attitude of anarchists to democracy. In ‘normal’ (ie, non-revolutionary) circumstances, anarchists stand aside from democratic politics holding it to be nothing more than bourgeois devilment. Of course, this becomes impossible in a revolution and anarchists are drawn willy-nilly into democratic politics but without an adequate theory.
Another point: the Constituent Assembly became a potential organising base for counterrevolution against the soviets which were the organising base for the revolutionaries. If the forces of revolution had won a majority in the Constituent Assembly, that would certainly have changed the relations between the CA and the soviets. They would have been on the same side. But the CA lagged behind events - the revolution in the countryside, the split between the right and left Socialist Revolutionaries, the necessity of the Bolsheviks taking power to stave off economic disaster. That aside, not only the Bolsheviks supported the closure of the CA. So did the left Socialist Revolutionaries and many of your own anarchists.
By far the biggest problem that anarchists have with democracy is that they do not believe in it. They are for the autonomy of the individual, and opposed to all coercive measures against self-chosen individuals aimed at achieving political unity - in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. Democracy comes with coercion and authority because they are necessary political instruments that even anarchists cannot avoid using any more than anyone else can. Working class democracy does and always has involved authority. However, anarchists, like comrade Mckay, reject all authority - when it is not theirs. Fear of authority leads not to liberation but to paranoia.
Your plan for bottom up democracy through revolutionary councils electing mandated and recallable delegates is excellent. But how does voting by mandated delegates square with your anarchist theory? One supposes that anarchists would refuse to be bound by votes not to their liking. What a jaundiced view of human collectivity and reason. I agree with recalling delegates who betray their position but without authority the whole exercise would be pointless.
For you, the greatest evil is the state - and that must include democracy, for after all democracy is a form of the state. Yet democracy is the only viable revolutionary programme for a class that wants human liberation. The bourgeoisie quickly dropped all pretence at human liberation and adapted democracy into a pseudo-democratic state form that maintains their power. But democracy is still the only means of achieving human liberation. It is a revolutionary class programme.
Democracy - as a habit and a form of culture - will continue to exist
in a classless society but not as a form of state: ie, an armed machine.
Democracy today is about redying the working class, as a political class,
for revolution. Tommrrow it is about returning the state to society to
the point where the state disappears.
Phil Kent
London
Backing fundamentalism
Ian Donovan indeed puts the imperialists to shame in his recent article aimed against Bob Pitt’s stance on the war on Afghanistan (Weekly Worker October 25).
He starts by stating that to apply Trotsky’s policy towards Mussolini’s war on Ethiopia would be nonsensical today, as the imperialists no longer rule by direct colonisation. The fact that direct colonial rule is no longer considered to be economical for the imperialist bourgeoisie does not mean they do not exert influence by other methods. Cuba was never a formal colony of the United states, yet I am sure nobody on the left will dispute the hold of US imperialism in the region prior to 1959.
And who helped bring in to the murderous Pinochet regime in Chile? Comrade Donovan’s argument is weak indeed when one actually looks at and studies the current policies of imperialism. Stating that under-developed countries are now ruled directly by their own bourgeoisie is of no help to his argument either. Has he never heard the term ‘comprador’? Clearly not.
Yet , as was the case with the 1999 Balkans war, he fails to do this. Rather he takes up two paragraphs writing of the ‘fundamentalist threat’ - George W Bush’s bogey. According to him, if the Taliban won the current war against the United States, the same breed of fundamentalist islamism will in fact take over the entire Arab world, along with communal war in India and even possibly nuclear war with Pakistan.
Yes, such a prospect can only be viewed with horror, comrade. Why not in fact come right out with it and call for a victory for American and British imperialism? After all, surely such a prospect is preferable to the hideous domino effect that you described.
“Any war waged by the regime of a backward country is the continuation of its politics by other means”. I beg your pardon comrade, but exactly who was it that called for this war? Was it the Taliban? No. It would be correct to say, then, that this war is a continuation of the politics of US imperialism. This war is all about the right of US imperialism (with its junior partners) to dominate the entire globe. He dismisses the Afghan troops defending themselves from imperialist aggression as “continuing the politics of Islamic fundamentalism by other means”. Those of us who call for the defence of Afghanistan from imperialist assault are therefore giving veiled political support to the reactionary policies of the Taliban.
Communists are against the right of the imperialist bourgeoisie to dominate undeveloped nations. When a semi-colony such as Afghanistan is attacked by imperialism, it is our duty to defend it. This means giving military support to any indigenous forces that are fighting against the imperialist troops, regardless of the political shade of these forces.
The comrade treats with contempt the anti-imperialist sentiment of the Pakistani masses. While their anti-imperialism may indeed be tinged with reactionary ideas of a religious nature, their hatred of US imperialism is a natural and healthy reaction to the dominance of global capital. Such sentiments could be related to and turned in a progressive direction if a revolutionary communist force existed to harness such sentiments. Such a force does not currently exist, hence the sentiments of these masses are exploited by the fundamentalists. Treating anti-imperialist sentiments with such undisguised contempt as comrade Donovan expresses will only serve to alienate them even further.
I would also like to put to the CPGB a practical question. Their double defeatism is of such an abstract nature that I cannot help but wonder what their programme actually is to bring it about. They are of the view that the Afghan masses can somehow take advantage of the imperialist onslaught in order that they can defeat the Taliban. One wonders how they would exactly do this while US bombs are raining down on them.
Liz Hoskings
London
SWP takes sides
At the October 13 demonstration in London, a group from Birmingham included a number of muslim fundamentalists - who with the help of SWP members continually came up with slogans ‘Allaho akbar’ (god is great) and ‘Mohamadan rassoulolah’ (Mohammed is god’s messenger).
Clearly many people (including muslims) who were there to protest against the imperialist attack were not comfortable with these slogans as they had nothing to do with the reason why they were there.
Criticism was voiced then - and since - against the use of such slogans within the ranks of the anti-war coalition. These slogans are muslim fundamentalist slogans, which we should have nothing to do with. In fact, we should actively oppose them.
SWP members, however, reject this point of view. They argue that these slogans merely express muslim sentiment! Furthermore, they support an argument of muslim fundamentalists that the term ‘muslim fundamentalist’ should not be used, since it has racist connotations and offends all muslims who believe in the fundamentals of islam.
Hence, the SWP has reached a new characterisation of fundamentalism. Now muslim fundamentalists are people who believe in the fundamentals of islam.
Through these arguments, the SWP is hoping to hide its adaptation to these reactionary forces. However, we know what is meant by fundamentalism. Many tens of thousands of militants and socialists in Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere have paid with their lives in order to illuminate the real character of fundamentalism.
Surely, the SWP does not expect us to forget these hard won gains of struggle against fundamentalism in order that they can advance their opportunistic adaptation to fundamentalism?
Going back a 100 years, the mullahs in islamic countries were among the most powerful group of people ruling these countries. In each locality/village a mullah was in charge of the judiciary, tax collection, education and even a small army acting as its executive. They were practically part and parcel of the state - most of which were monarchies.
The development of capitalism in these countries - under the influence of imperialism - necessitated a number of important reforms that seriously undermined the powers of the mullahs. Capitalism could not develop effectively when each locality had its own independent judiciary, tax collection, education, etc. So capitalist forces in these countries pushed mullahs out of positions of power in order to create a capitalist state with all the above functions centralised.
It is from here on that we see the formation of a group of mullahs who develop the idea of overthrowing the newly formed state, and replacing it with their own islamic state, which is modelled on the pre-capitalist state they were driven out of. These are the people who are at the heart of the fundamentalist movement and the recapture of the state apparatus is their fundamental objective.
In their propaganda, they claim islam has the answer to everything in this world. They politicise islam and use it as a rallying point for the establishment of islamic states all over the world.
Fundamentalism would not like to be identified in these terms. They would rather have a religious characterisation than a political one. This is because in this way, fundamentalism can hide itself behind the great mass of muslim people and make itself indistinguishable from them.
Fundamentalism is not an ideological movement but a political one, which changes its interpretation of islam according to its earthly needs in each locality. This is why there are sharp difference between different fundamentalist groups and the state.
Their opposition to capitalism or imperialism is totally reactionary and has no progressive content with which socialists can ally themselves. Indeed, where they have gained power, they have killed more socialists and progressive people than any other force has ever done.
According to them, democracy and voting - especially for women - is un-islamic. In their islamic states, the leader (Khalif) has total and supreme power and is chosen by a council of mullahs - the people have no say in the choice. They criticise commercialisation of women in capitalist society, but are for returning women to the situation that existed in the middle ages. The reactionary list is endless and includes all aspects of social and political life.
It is therefore crucial to understand that not all muslims are fundamentalists. Indeed, the great majority are against the way fundamentalists use islam for their political objectives. Many ordinary muslims will not take part in anti-war activities if we allow the SWP to implement its line of adaptation to the ideology of fundamentalism. Socialists should side with progressive muslims and support their democratic demand of separation of mosque and state.
Of course there are many muslims, who as a result of the imperialist attack on Afghanistan, have been and will become politicised. They will join us in opposing the war, however some will bring with them the illusions and ideology of fundamentalism. We have to welcome them with open arms, but this should not mean that we subscribe to their ideology and accommodate to the reactionary influences of fundamentalism by characterising it as ‘muslim sentiment’.
Instead we should explain the political meaning of slogans like ‘god is great’ - we must challenge their ideology without any concessions. These obscure political slogans also separate muslims from non-muslims and stamps a fundamentalist character on the whole of the muslim community’s anti-war activities. This will be utilised by rightwing political forces against the anti-war movement.
We are told that we must be careful not to say things on islam that upset muslim sentiments. This is a coy extension of the fundamentalist argument that there are aspects of islam which should not be discussed because its is blasphemous. The SWP should be warned - if you keep giving ideological backing to these fundamentalist arguments, then these friends of yours will enforce them by force and violence.
During the Iranian revolution, when socialists and militants were under attack from fundamentalism forces, we asked the SWP which side are you on. The SWP however characterised fundamentalists as anti-imperialist and advocated collaborating with them against imperialism.
A few years later with many tens of thousands of socialists murdered and when the real character of fundamentalism becomes clear the SWP seemed to have repented from its position.
It is with regret that we have to ask the SWP once again - which side are you on?
Salman
Birmingham
Higher priorities
In his curt defence of Workers Power’s indefensible position on Afghanistan, comrade Power states that he is “with the oppressed” (Weekly Worker October 25).
The comrade then goes on to say: “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.”
In other words, comrade Power is not really siding “with the oppressed”. Or, to be exact, he sides with some of the oppressed, some of the time … depending on what is the ‘higher priority’ at any one time. Sometimes, as comrade Power indicates, the oppressed should unite with their oppressors.
Comrade Power fails to recognise what should surely be obvious to any Leninist. The mullahs’ anti-aircraft operations are just a continuation of their acid-throwing activities by other, military, and ‘anti-imperialist’, means.
Don Preston
Brighton
