Weekly Worker 414 Thursday January 10 2002
Letters
Wrong slogans
Now that the first phase of US imperialism’s so-called ‘war against terrorism’ has ended, I should like to offer some criticisms of the slogans which were put forward and the tactics employed by the CPGB in pursuing the fight for correct politics within the Socialist Alliance and the anti-war movement.
I am unapologetic that these criticisms are all directed from the left. Whilst I do not dispute that the Party’s approach was based upon a sincere attempt to assert an independent and internationalist working class position, I feel that our cutting edge was blunted by a tendency towards ‘dumbing down’. It is not my purpose to try to analyse the causes of this drift in our politics, except that I will state that a major influence is our engagement with political organisations to our right and in particular, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty.
We were entirely correct to fight for implacable opposition to the Taliban and to islamic fundamentalism in general and our exclusion, by the Socialist Workers Party, from the executive committee of the Stop the War Coalition was a small price to pay for this principled stand. The SWP, Workers Power and sundry Trotskyist remnants which called for support for the Taliban in the face of the US military assault all stand shame-faced.
Our slogan, ‘No to imperialism and fundamentalism’, was not a fully rounded one, however, and our propaganda around it was one-sided. This left us weakened in taking on the SWP’s politics.
Firstly, islamic fundamentalism is not the polar opposite of imperialism. In our emphasis upon classifying the phenomenon as a “reactionary anti-capitalism”, we failed to clearly explain that it is a conjunctural and partial anti-imperialism. The erstwhile imperialist sponsorship of the Taliban and other anti-working class islamic fundamentalisms received only brief treatment. These contradictions need to be fully explained if we are to counter the SWP’s promotion of non-proletarian anti-capitalisms and to win the argument that the working class is the only consistent anti-capitalist force and the only one which is capable of superseding capital positively.
Secondly and more importantly, we handed the SWP a powerful weapon to use against us in our failure to include ‘and Zionism’ in the slogan. Zionism is of course, a reactionary and consistent pro-capitalism and, in failing to address the phenomenon, we enabled the SWP to gain some credence for a charge that we were not on the side of the oppressed. The Taliban were a soft target. The Israeli state is a much harder one. Our axis with the AWL may well have been unachievable if we had fought for opposition to Zionism. It was an argument that we were wrong to avoid.
The dumbing down came with the slogan, ‘Solidarity with all victims of terror, in the US and around the world’. It sounded like an emanation from any of the talking shops of the world’s bourgeois ‘peace processes’. Not only did we fail to define ‘terror’ but, in adopting such a neutral statement, we again gave credence to the charge that we fail to side with the oppressed. We ducked the requirement to explain that the military actions of oppressed peoples against their oppressors are not terrorism; that the violence of the oppressed cannot be equated with the violence of the oppressor. This is elementary communist politics.
Related to this issue, of course, was the controversy over the use or non-use in describing the September 11 attacks in the left press and in the statements made by the Socialist Alliance of the word ‘condemn’. In an edition of the Weekly Worker which was put to bed a little over 24 hours after news of the enormity of the attacks broke and at a time when the question of responsibility for them was still very much unanswered, our comrade editor stated, “… we unreservedly condemn the barbaric acts perpetrated in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh; just as we condemn the institutions of capital that ultimately bear responsibility for provoking them” (Weekly Worker September 13).
In a statement issued to the Socialist Alliance executive committee, over the signatures of John Rees and Rob Hoveman, the SWP pointed out that, “The language of ‘condemnation’ is that which is always required of socialists and national liberation movements by the media and the ruling class. It would have been better to avoid it for that reason” (Weekly Worker September 20). The SWP comrades were entirely correct on this point.
Language is of great importance in politics. Adopting the language of bourgeois consensus is a serious sign of weakness in a working class organisation. Linguistic unanimity is one of the ways in which the existence of her majesty’s Conservative Party, Liberal Party and Labour Party are constantly reaffirmed. We do not want the bourgeoisie, or more importantly the workers, to start thinking they have a her majesty’s Communist Party.
The SWP were, of course, subsequently defeated on this matter. This was not a result of the criticism from ourselves, the AWL, or the Socialist Party in England and Wales: rather it was a concession to the prominent ex-Labourites, the courtship of whom is of such importance to the SWP in terms of maintaining their pretended “united front of a special kind”. That we joined the pack in hounding them on the issue has not been the source of any gain. Rather, we allowed the SWP to appear as the hard revolutionaries to the class conscious workers coming newly to politics.
Finally, I must defend, against comrade Ian Donovan, our entirely correct slogan, ‘For democracy and secularism everywhere’. This slogan expresses in clear and direct terms the essence of the fight for proletarian revolutionary method. The socialist revolution is precisely a flood-tide of democracy; the entry of the masses onto the stage of history; and the seizure by the workers of control over every aspect of their lives. The complete separation of church from state is a component of this process and it is one that it is correct to emphasise in the current world historical conjuncture.
Of equal importance however, is the word ‘everywhere’. It has significance in locating the process in social as well as geographical terms. Comrade Donovan, again attacking the SWP from the right, lambastes Paul Holborrow, who in debate with the bourgeois journalist David Aaronovitch had called for “a democratic secular Palestine”, (Weekly Worker December 20). Sorry, Ian, but “everywhere” has only one meaning. Are you opposed to the slogan, or are you entering a special case plea for Palestine? If, as I suspect, it is the latter, then why?
Ian continues: “Brother (sic) Aaronovitch noted that this demand leaves no room for any national rights of Israeli jews - something that may not particularly bother those influenced by the softness on Arab nationalism prevalent on the left, but which appears to many ordinary people to have a genocidal logic”. I fail to appreciate how a call for a democratic secular Palestine constitutes “softness on Arab nationalism”. Surely, it implies linguistic, cultural and social equality. In opposing the demand, Ian does a rather more convincing job in demonstrating that it is he who is soft on jewish nationalism. The appeal to the phantom hosts of “ordinary people” who perceive “a genocidal logic” in the application of this communist slogan, betrays polemical desperation. Come on, Ian, you can do better than this. Please explain why you think that jews and Arabs cannot live side by side in the same country as equals.
We need to give careful consideration to our tactics and the slogans we propose in the next phase of the struggle for socialism. It is important that our approach is consistent, comprehensive and firmly grounded in class-based, not rhetorical-neutral politics.
John Pearson
Manchester
SP praise
As a member of the Socialist Party I have enjoyed your in-depth analysis of current events, especially the debate concerning the Socialist Alliance, which after the December conference I thought we as a party should have remained in to see how it went.
I would be grateful if you could send me a back copy of the paper which relates to the conference and the position of the Socialist Party leaving the Socialist Alliance and your own position.
Peter Vincent
Harrow
SSP diplomacy
The intention of my article on John Maclean (Weekly Worker December 13) was most certainly not, as comrade Tom Delargy claims, to pave the way for the expulsion of CPGB supporters from the Scottish Socialist Party (Letters, December 20). Rather it was an attempt to fill in the gaps in Dave Sherry and Gerry Cairns’s narrative.
Comrade Delargy begins his polemic by disputing the authorship of the Scottish Socialist Voice’s double-page spread on John Maclean (November 30). My unwritten assumption of joint authorship is for him “without justification”. For him it is “reasonable to conclude that the major piece, ‘A working class hero’, was penned by Dave, while the other, ‘John Maclean and the war’, was a Cairns production”.
Why it is “reasonable” to conclude this is not explained. The justification for my point of view is the introduction to the feature, which has both comrades Sherry and Cairns ‘taking a look’ at Maclean’s legacy. There is no individual signature on either article to indicate that either is the exclusive property of one writer. Given all this, it is a perfectly reasonable and ‘justified’ assumption that both authors share responsibility for what is written. Of course, it is possible that a misleading impression was created by editorial intervention, but one can only deal with political views as they are presented, not as one believes them to be in the heads of the authors.
Because comrade Delargy attributes sole authorship of ‘A working class hero’ to Sherry, any criticism of it is assumed to be an attack on Sherry personally. I would not quibble with comrade Delargy’s brief biographies of Sherry and Cairns, or his characterisation of their respective politics.
I never denounced Dave Sherry as a ‘left nationalist’, as comrade Delargy asserts (though I did talk about left nationalists in general). In fact, only once throughout the entire article did I actually make an assertion about the individual politics of the authors and then that was about Gerry Cairns, not Dave Sherry. However, as comrade Delargy himself argues, I do feel that Sherry “could be criticised for diplomatically censoring himself” - or perhaps allowing his views to be misrepresented.
The core problem with the article as it is presented is its whole raison d’être. It is concerned not with a ‘warts and all’ materialist investigation of the subject, but an idealistic, god-building project in the service of nationalist ideology. Consequently difficult issues are fudged or airbrushed completely out of existence.
Finally, I find nothing to particularly “celebrate” in the fact that the phrases cited by Tom were included in the article. SSV is the paper of an avowedly socialist organisation. Getting words like ‘internationalism’, ‘workers’ power’ and ‘revolution’ into print should not be the cause of rejoicing. Maybe Tom thinks that the Weekly Worker should self-indulgently crack open the champagne every time the word ‘communism’ appears in its pages?
James Mallory
London
RCN democracy
Tom Delargy’s letter wants to blame the split in the Republican Communist Network along national lines on “democratic federalism” (Weekly Worker November 29). This is based on his misunderstanding. Democratic federalism means majority decision-making with non-binding decisions.
It means that the RCN could have a majority view on Ireland, Palestine, Kosovo or Scotland. But any minority, with an opposed view, would not be bound to carry out action in support of it. They could speak out against actions or publicly criticise the majority view. In other words the minority has a degree of autonomy that democratic centralism would not allow.
The CPGB and Revolutionary Democratic Group accepted this for the RCN, but the Communist Tendency did not. The CT wanted a veto, not an opt-out. The position of the CT was virtually the same as the Socialist Party in the Socialist Alliance. We called this ‘consensus federalism’. There could be no policy if there was not consensus. The RCN (Scotland) has no policy on the national question because there is no consensus. Neither the CPGB, RDG or CT were arguing for democratic centralism in the RCN. Nobody seriously thinks that democratic centralism would have prevented the RCN splitting.
Tom says he is “very pleased that the CPGB majority has never intervened in the SA under the banner of the RCN. If Dave Craig and his RDG comrades were prepared to accept majority votes in the RCN then there would be no problem.” Then in fact there was no problem, because we did accept majority votes. In fact the CPGB only had about equal numbers as the RDG in the RCN (England). But we would have had no problem if they had had more members and more votes.
Had the CPGB first brought their ‘For a democratic and effective SA’ statement to the RCN we may still not have supported it. We may still have publicly criticised it. But a majority of the RCN may have backed it. Perhaps the RDG might have been divided over it? The RDG would still had our right to oppose an RCN majority position. We thought it provided left cover for the anti-party splitter bloc headed by the SWP.
Then of course it would have found its way to RCN (Britain) and Scottish comrades, like Tom, Bob Goupillot, etc could have had their say. What a shame that we spent the last RCN (Britain) meeting discussing what comrades thought about the CPGB in general, instead of discussing the real tactics and initiatives we were involved in on the ground.
Who knows what would have happened had the CPGB brought their ‘democratic and effective’ platform to the RCN first? Of course they would have had to demand the RCN held a meeting to discuss tactics. Whether such an engagement would have changed minds or modified positions on either side we cannot tell. But it would have been a different process to the CPGB telling us that they already had support for various leading SA members like Mike Marqusee and if we wanted to sign it we could ‘take it or leave it’.
Surely it is a good idea if all those who claim to be republican communists try to find a way of uniting, despite our differences. Unity is not easy, but we have to keep trying. After all the CPGB, CT and RDG all say we are united in agreeing with republicanism, revolutionary democracy, workers’ power, international socialist revolution and world communism. So I do agree with Tom when he says: “If Allan Armstrong, Nick Clarke, etc had no problem with this set of membership criteria, then they had no right [in the communist morality sense - DC] to split the organisation along nationalist [or national] lines”.
Dave Craig
RDG
Web sabotage
Marxist.com has been the victim of a deliberate act of politically motivated aggression. On Thursday January 3, our web server was hacked into by unidentified individuals, with the clear intention of destroying our site.
The attackers aimed to silence us by stopping the server from working. As a result of this sabotage a number of websites were deleted, including ‘In defence of Marxism’ (www.marxist.com), Socialist Appeal (www.socialist.net) and various international sites.
There is absolutely no doubt that the attack was politically-motivated and directed specifically against ‘In defence of Marxism’ and allied sites. Only our sites were targeted. Other, non-political, sites hosted by the same server were not touched. Since we had quite tight security, it is clear that this was a very professional operation, and that the perpetrators took a lot of time and trouble to carry out their sabotage.
The consequences of this attack have been quite serious. They succeeded not only in deleting a number of websites, but also in deleting a number of files which effectively stopped the server as a whole from working.
The enemies of Marxism, lacking the ability, intelligence or courage to meet us in the open and answer our arguments in free debate, are obliged to act in the shadows and utilise sabotage, hooliganism and other dirty methods in an attempt to defeat free speech.
The best answer to the enemies of Marxism is not just to renew the publication of Marxist.com, but to improve the website and extend its scope. As an immediate task we need to adopt certain measures which will make us virtually immune against any future attacks. But we need your assistance. It is to this that we now address an urgent appeal. Please send us messages of solidarity and cash donations via http://www.marxist.com/news/sabotage.asp
Our message to your organisation is very simple: what has happened to us today can happen to you tomorrow. If the perpetrators are allowed to succeed, it will establish a most dangerous principle: that any group on the left that wants to express its opinions on the internet can be silenced by sabotage.
The attack on Marxist.com is not just an attack against us: it is an attack against the principle of free speech and democracy. We ask you to respond urgently, to rally round in defence of the most elementary principles upon which the labour movement was built.
Alan Woods
editor, marxist.com
No authority
Phil Kent (Letters, November 1) states that 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.” However, the point is that it was jettisoned as soon as they got into power. Why did they manage to “backslide” so easily and without regret? Does that suggest a “democratic content”? Far from it. And it bodes ill that advocating the “dictatorship of the party” can be considered a “compromise”!
Kent argues that, “Prior to 1917, Lenin advocated the democratic dictatorship (ie, rule) of the workers and the peasantry.” Actually, before and during 1917 Lenin equated the rule of the workers with rule by the Bolshevik Party. After 1917, “many soviets” did not “simply [fall] apart - and not due to any evil plan by the Bolsheviks” - rather, they were deliberately disbanded by force when the Bolsheviks lost soviet elections. By 1919, Lenin was arguing: “Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position.” In 1920, Zinoviev was arguing at the Comintern that, “The dictatorship of the proletariat is at the same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party.” The path is clear. Any political ideology that confuses party power with working class power will obviously see democracy as less than essential.
Kent states that I am quoting Trotsky “out of context” when I used him to refute the argument that “exceptional circumstances” can explain this change. Far from it. Anarchists have long argued that a social revolution would be marked by economic disruption and, therefore, to blame the degeneration of Bolshevism on the economy collapsing is hardly convincing. Unless you think a revolution is a walk in the park, you will have to recognise that it will face “exceptional circumstances”. That the followers of Bolshevism continue to justify the dictatorial policies of the Bolsheviks in these terms suggests a similar process will occur again. To argue, as Kent does, that “in the circumstances a dictatorship of the revolutionaries was the only way to maintain the revolution” suggests that Bolshevism (unlike anarchism) sees working class power and freedom as something which can be left out (if need be) without harming the nature of the revolution.
He argues that, “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 raises the questions, what was his advice and what was his programme? In Trotsky’s words: “Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship.” In case this is not clear enough, in the same letter he talked about the “objective necessity” of the “revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party”, explicitly rejecting the idea that “the party dictatorship could be replaced by the ‘dictatorship’ of the whole toiling people without any party”. He stressed that the “revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counterrevolution” (L Trotsky Writings 1936-37 pp513-4).
Now, “which was more likely to maximise the working class’s chances of success?” Party dictatorship (Trotsky) or a federation of self-managed workers’ councils (anarchism)?
Even after the rise of Stalin, Trotsky was still advocating party dictatorship! Does this suggest a “backslide” due to “exceptional circumstances”? So, rather than defend the “democratic content” of Bolshevism, I would suggest investigating Bolshevik ideology and understand why it could so easily, and with no regrets, take the positions it did.
Kent then turns to anarchism. He argues that “working class democracy does and always has involved authority”. Far from it. The most radical forms of working class self-organisation have been based on self-management and the rejection of hierarchy (“authority”). Like Engels, he fails to understand revolution from a working class perspective. In class society, workers are subject to the authority of the boss and the state. Revolution involves working class people making their own decisions within self-managed class organisations and so it means the destruction of authority. As Russia shows, a revolution which creates a “revolutionary” authority soon ends up seeing it use coercion against the very class it claims to represent!
Kent wonders how my “plan for bottom-up democracy through revolutionary councils electing mandated and recallable delegates … squares with [my] anarchist theory”. Quite easily. By governing ourselves we exclude others governing us. He supposes that “anarchists would refuse to be bound by votes not to their liking. What a jaundiced view of human collectivity and reason.” What is jaundiced is an ideology that cannot envision human cooperation without “coercion” or being subject to hierarchical power (“authority”). Are human beings really so backward that they cannot work together without the master’s stick? Luckily, anarchism has a more positive perspective on humanity.
Kent comments that “fear of authority leads not to liberation, but to paranoia”. Only someone with little faith in humanity could dismiss the desire for participation and accountability at the heart of anarchism in such terms. It also reminds me of Trotsky’s argument that workers should not fear state-appointed managers and officers because the Bolsheviks were in power. Elections, mandates and recall (“fear of authority”) are essential to ensure that we do not have dictatorship. History shows that it is not “paranoia” to oppose top-down, centralised power and to insist that working class people govern themselves - it is liberation.
Socialism must be based on freedom (both individual and collective) if it is to succeed and that implies collective self-discipline. It means recognising that there is a difference between cooperation and coercion. It also means recognising that the majority can be wrong. I look forward to Kent explaining why the anti-war minority in the German Social Democrats was right to betray socialism by submitting to the pro-war majority in 1914. And the fate of Social Democracy confirmed the reason why anarchists “stand aside from democratic politics” - participation in bourgeois politics destroys the radicalism of those involved.
Kent argues that “all democracy is a form of the state”. What an impoverished perspective on human social relations and organisation! Really, “democracy” takes many forms, the vast majority of them not remotely state-like (ie, based on centralised power in the hands of a few). As he himself recognised by noting that democracy will “continue to exist in a classless society but not as a form of state”. Ironically, Kent is arguing that self-management is possible, but only after the revolution. I will note the obvious contradiction - how do people become capable of self-government post-revolution if they do not practise it now and during a revolution?
Democracy, he stresses, “is the only viable revolutionary programme for a class that wants human liberation”. Surely communism is the only such “viable” programme? Statist “democracy” simply becomes a “pseudo-democratic” form that maintains minority power (hence bourgeois and Bolshevik support for it). As such, Kent is correct to argue that “democracy” is a “revolutionary class programme” - that of the bourgeoisie. We can do better than them, surely? Can we not envision a programme based on achieving real human liberation by the abolition of wage labour and the state by self-management (ie, a system of workers’ councils)?
Kent argues that, for me, “the greatest evil is the state”. How boring - the usual Marxist invention that anarchists view the state as the “greatest evil”! Anarchists see many evils in the world (eg, capitalism) and do not say one is greater than the rest - we aim to abolish all of them! Similarly, anarchists reject the simplistic Marxist idea that the state is “an armed machine”. This fails to address the real issue: namely that of power. Anarchists from Bakunin onward have taken it as a truism that a revolution would need to be defended.
The real question is, who has the power? Is it the working class, in its own class organisations, or will it be a “revolutionary” government, a small minority of leaders at the top using the state machine to impose their own concept of socialism onto the masses? Bolshevism clearly supports the latter.
Iain McKay
email
Gib lies
I am frankly amazed that you published such an inaccurate, insulting and defamatory response to my ‘letter from Gibraltar’ as ‘Joe Garcia’ of Malaga (Weekly Worker December 13). As the name is the same as a local politician, I suspect you are having your leg, or worse, pulled. However, it’s so easy to demolish the hatred and lies contained in that letter.
When the Spanish dictator Franco closed the frontier, it was designed to destroy the economy of Gibraltar. It failed. At the time, our economic base was HM Dockyard. This employed a large number of Spaniards from La Linea. Their government thus prevented them going to work.
Garcia’s implication is that we get some ‘subsidy’ from the UK and Spain. The fact is that we do not - the economy of Gibraltar is self-sufficient. In a town with a population of 30,000 it’s just not possible to provide all specialist healthcare needs, and some of these, like dialysis, are outsourced. The government of Gibraltar pays for these services, including sending patients to the UK for operations; we do not rely on Spanish charity, or for that matter any subsidy from the UK.
As regards Gibraltarians driving to Malaga, they certainly do because Spain prevents flights operating to Madrid and destinations other than the UK from our Gibraltar airport. This is part of their general harassment package. Gibraltarians are a happy bunch of people with no ‘sworn enemies’ and on a personal level get on fine with Spaniards. It’s just that they can’t understand the tactics of politicians in Madrid who relentlessly continue to try and undermine the economy of Gibraltar.
What is undeniable is that Gibraltar and Spain are both members of the EU, that one of its aims is the free movement of goods and services, and this is restricted at a frontier with a single line for cars to cross. That Gibraltar athletes and sportsmen are discriminated against when competing in international competitions in Spain.
And that the Spanish foreign office pay journalists to spread lies and misinformation about Gibraltar. But I doubt that the laughable garbage from your reader in Malaga would earn him even 30 pesetas - or the equivalent in euros.
Jim Watt
Gibraltar
Time warp
On behalf of the executive committee, I am writing you to advise you of the formation of this new organisation, the International Council for Friendship and Solidarity with Soviet People, which was formed at a world conference in the city of Toronto, Canada in September of 2001.
Its aims, as adopted at the conference are to stimulate and coordinate on a world scale common lines of action in order to help the peoples of the USSR in the resurrection of socialism and also the Soviet Union; to try and raise resources as needed in order to support these aims, and also to help the people of the USSR not only morally, but also with all the help deemed necessary.
We are hopeful that this information is of interest to you and you join with us in building a strong international movement of support for the Soviet people.
WV Ratsma
Toronto
