Weekly Worker 417 Thursday January 31 2002
Letters
No ISO support
Peter Manson complains that Workers Power is not willing to financially support the International Socialist Organisation Zimbabwe, sister organisation of the British Socialist Workers Party (Weekly Worker January 24). The CPGB has launched a campaign to get the Socialist Alliance to raise money for the ISO of Zimbabwe.
This is something revolutionary organisations do for parties when they are in political solidarity with their ideas and practice, where the policies and actions of that organisation will take the working class forward to political power. Clearly the CPGB thinks the ISO is such an organisation, as you say, “the ISO is practically alone in putting forward revolutionary working class politics in Zimbabwe and the Socialist Alliance must show practical solidarity”.
We disagree. The Movement for Democratic Change, despite being led by a trade union leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, is a classic popular front - now dominated by the politics of the commercial white farmers. In the words of the ISO themselves, it is a party that has “adopted rightwing politics, supporting neo-liberal policies and the free market” and, one could add, is backed to the hilt by British imperialism. Yet the ISO continues to remain part of the MDC and to call on the workers to vote for it in the presidential elections. A revolutionary organisation would have broken openly with the MDC as it adopted such rightwing policies - alerting the workers to the betrayal about to be carried out and tried to rally them to a revolutionary socialist alternative.
The fact that the ISO did not do so should come as no surprise. It is led by a tendency (the SWP’s International Socialist Tendency) that continues to call for a vote for the ANC in South Africa, as it implements a neo-liberal economic programme, attacks the workers and privatises state industries; a tendency that at the same time calls for a vote for the radical populist Nader in the US elections rather than fighting for a workers’ party.
The CPGB seems to think supporting a popular front run by a major section of the Zimbabwe bourgeoisie is a minor tactical error. This is perhaps not surprising if you come from a Stalinist tradition that pioneered this tactic of tying the working class to the coat-tails of the capitalists. The CPGB might want the Socialist Alliance to build support for the ISO and its policies (or more accurately involve it in one of their manoeuvres against the SWP) - but this won’t take the Zimbabwe workers one step forward.
Stuart King
Workers Power
Broad campaign
We would not support a call to raise money specifically for the ISO. The reason for this is quite simply because of the scale of our political differences with the comrades over strategy in Zimbabwe, especially with regard to their role in the MDC.
It seems to us that your proposal would imply a degree of political support for the ISO that the League for a Revolutionary Communist International would simply not agree with. However, we would of course support both solidarity and fundraising for the Zimbabwe left and labour movement in the context of a Mugabe crackdown (against, for example, the ZTUC, the ISO and others) and would be interested to know whether or not the CPGB has any proposals for such a broad campaign.
Mark Hoskisson
Workers Power
SA indies
I read the reports of the SA independents’ conference in Birmingham on January 19 (Weekly Worker January 24). It appears to have gone well and met its objectives, which are necessarily very limited - to ensure that independents can raise any policy views, get feedback, etc.
In fact, perversely, the indy initiative has the possibility of getting too much weight behind it. Indies represent no one but themselves and cover the whole spectrum of views and should not have the overweighted representation they have now. And whilst I agree with the SA paper proposal it would be wrong to say the indies support it, because of course we have various views.
It would also be wrong to say that all of us think being an independent is in itself a good thing and that it is necessarily positive to build the SA through upping the percentage of indies. Of course all additional members are welcome but certainly some of us want to be in a party. We just don’t think any of the current parties are worth joining.
The Weekly Worker is dead right in its attacks on anonymity in the reporting of meetings like the indy conference. If we want to lead, we need to get our names known!
Clive Power
London
Print my name
I was interested to read Mark Fischer’s comments regarding the “coy” comrades who attended the SA independents’ conference in Birmingham on January 19. Well, I attended this gathering and you have my permission to publish my name as many times as you want to. I must say that the only reason that I did not oppose Will McMahon’s suggestion at the time was because I was taken totally by surprise when he raised the issue.
However, there may be a number of other reasons why many comrades were reluctant to have their names mentioned in the report other than the “prissy PC nonsense” that Mark talks about. I travelled up to Birmingham with three other comrades from London and we were not at all sure what sort of meeting we would be attending. Was it going to be a genuine attempt to cohere the independents as a ‘pressure group’ within the alliance or was it an attempt by those close to the SWP to find out who the ‘new dissidents’ were? In the event, I think the conference actually served both purposes but if this uncertainty was widespread among those attending then it probably contributed to people’s reluctance to giving out their names at this time.
Another reason might be that many of the independents are former members of the SWP and they know, from their own bitter experience, exactly how unpleasant things can become for you if you consistently dissent from that party’s political line, particularly if you have the temerity to start raising questions about democracy within that organisation.
Alternatively, some comrades may be deliberately keeping their heads down at the moment in order to ‘network’ more easily with other comrades who have a more consistent attitude to the alliance than the SWP. I am sure there are many other genuine reasons that could be given as well.
So let me put my cards on the table, for what it is worth. Although I thought the conference was a very worthwhile event, I think that some of the new national officers present displayed some incredible naivety about the prospects for the SA and the role that the SWP are now going to play within it. We now have a constitution, drawn up by the SWP, that anticipates “the future growth of the alliance” when it was that very organisation that virtually abandoned the SA in September to launch the Stop the War Coalition. In south London, many of the SA groups have subsequently collapsed and Vauxhall, where I am a member, has badly stalled and is now much weaker than it was when it began the general election campaign in June 2001. We are virtually starting from scratch again. The SWP still ludicrously seem to regard the SA as primarily an ‘electoral front’, although this has not stopped them from introducing their very bureaucratic methods into our organisation.
So while I would accept that the only way to deal with this in the medium to long term is to build the ‘independent’ current within the SA and thereby reduce the relative weight of the SWP, I do not think we actually have the time to do this. Some independents are already dropping out and we only have about three months before the SWP is likely to put the SA on the backburner again. I’m not sure what the answer is, to be honest. What I am sure of is that a prompt launch of an SA paper will make it much harder for the SWP to downgrade its activity in the alliance after May 2.
Pete Weller
Vauxhall
Ethics
Surely the idea of an unethical socialist is a contradiction in terms? It is true that there have been people who have used their contacts on the left to get wealth, fame and power for themselves, their families and friends. Involvement in bourgeois parliamentary politics and trade union careerism continues to have this corrupting tendency.
Some of these people may still call themselves ‘socialists’. Marxists understand them as social democrats. Social democrats believe that short-term improvements in workers’ conditions under capitalism are more desirable or realisable than a rationally planned, classless society under workers’ democratic control worldwide.
It is also true that, in the last century, people who called themselves socialists presided over the extermination of millions of people in purges and forced collectivisations in the former Soviet Union, China and elsewhere. They claimed to be building socialism isolated from the rest of the capitalist world.
Marxists understand these people as Stalinists. Stalinists had only one end in view. This was preserving themselves as a privileged bureaucratic elite until conditions enabled them to be integrated within the international capitalist class.
I am therefore curious to understand why Michael Malkin states that ‘ethical socialist’ means the same as ‘liberal’ - these terms being “objectively interchangeable” (Weekly Worker January 10). I wondered whether this was a subtle attack on Mike Marqusee of the Socialist Alliance who argues for an ethical opposition to war in the same issue.
If so, the attack is misdirected. Marqusee is no liberal. He clearly has no tolerance for the liberal apologists of the wastefulness of a declining capitalism and the wars it generates. Marqusee’s emphasis is on the sanctity of human life. His ethical inspiration appears to be closer to a religious form of humanism than a liberal tolerance of economic oppression.
Religion continues to be a pole of attraction in the struggle for workers’ liberation. Religious leaders are often the first to condemn state violence against workers. They are also quick to condemn workers who use force to defend themselves against the violence of the police and army. The judeo-christian-islamic traditions preach submission to god and inculcate attitudes of subservience to secular authority. They also support protests against injustice and oppression. Religion is the original form of cross-class collaboration.
In a revolutionary situation, religious workers will find their beliefs challenged. Many will break from their leaders. In a pre-revolutionary situation, it is therefore crucial for socialists to sustain a continuous critique of religion in their literature, discussions and debates. When socialists and religious believers come together in collective opposition to capitalism and war, this provides a wonderful opportunity for socialists to develop this form of critical practice.
It is true that no ruling class in history has given up power without a violent and bloody fight. On the other hand, the proposition that the present ruling class will choose to unleash a worldwide civil war rather than accept defeat is not an a priori truth. Pragmatists within the bourgeoisie are likely to argue that the risk of civil war is either too great or that it cannot be won. A section of the bourgeoisie wants to stay alive, whether or not they are forcibly removed from power.
Neither a violent nor a non-violent revolution is therefore inevitable. Given that class war as civil war may be a dreadful and unwelcome aspect of the future transition to socialism, an ethical socialism cannot preach the sanctity and inviolability of human life, as Marqusee suggests. Human life is sacred only for the religious. If christians choose to ‘turn the other cheek’ and invite the enemy to destroy their own and their loved ones’ lives, they may be guaranteed a heavenly life after death. Socialists have no such assurance.
Marxists consider human life to be alienated and subject to various forms of distortion and irrationality. For example, given that the working class has lost so many leaders as the result of wars, social democracy and Stalinism, there is a vast amount of undischarged grief, anger, fear, revenge, despair and distrust within our movement. A preoccupation with these feelings can distort thought and generate forms of irrational behaviour.
Our humanism will ensure that feelings about the past will not obscure and confuse our judgement of the present. A socialist humanist might argue that the sacrifice of the life of a single worker to the cause of organising for socialism is unjustified. Martyrdom is a religious idea with no place in the struggle for a rational world society.
An ethical socialism would therefore attempt to preserve, extend and enlarge the spheres of safety, security, health and education for every worker who joins the struggle for liberation. An ethical socialist movement would be reminded continually of the slogan ‘An injury to one of our class is an injury to all’.
Paul Smith
Glasgow
Workers’ check
I read James Mallory’s piece on the upper house with great interest, especially his discussion of “extreme democracy” as opposed to “checks and balances” (Weekly Worker January 17). While I think I understand the gist of his point - that existing moderations on democracy are designed to blunt any systemic change - I believe the subject deserves further scrutiny.
I will readily grant that the phrase ‘checks and balances’ refers solely to the arrangements of bourgeois democracy which enshrine the current two-house system. I agree with James that the unicameral legislature he describes will be more susceptible to pressure from below. It is the vagaries of this pressure which can become troubling.
In this context, it makes perfect sense to counterpoise extreme democracy or post-revolutionary democracy - possibly in the form of soviets or workers’ councils - to current arrangements. But the concept of checks and balances is to prevent quick and easy shifts in the constitution of government. It seems obvious that we will need some form of protection from revolutionary Bonapartism to prevent the shutting down of democratic organs.
One possible suggestion is something like ‘The armed people will defend their new-found institutions’. This answer oversimplifies the problem. ‘The armed people’ can be convinced (unfortunately) to surrender their freedoms. If radical democracy takes the form of people’s councils, it’s a fair bet that a range of opinion will be found inside, and that factions and ‘parties’ will organise to put specific proposals and platforms forward.
What if one of those is a Bonapartist party, reliant on one or another hero of the revolution? What if this party approaches a majority, and wishes to stifle debate in the face of likely counterrevolutionary behaviour? Let’s simplify the situation by saying that delegates are instantly recallable and there is widespread participation in the councils, making them true participatory democracies.
Options include: a) allowing debate to be stifled; b) assuming the armed people will rise up against an immensely popular hero/group at the crucial moment; c) figuring out which is the ‘true party of the revolution’ and clamping down on everyone else; d) banning parties and organisations (although who would enforce this, or indeed any other proscription?); and e) building into the practice of radical democracy some mechanisms which will make it very difficult for people or groups to shut it down or curb it.
Option e) is a kind of socialist check and balance system. I think it’s an important part of socialist ‘constitution-building’, and deserves some debate.
Mike Metelits
London
Greengrass
Derek Hunter is probably unaware of just how spot on he is when he refers to the “effectiveness of the hidden censorial machine at the disposal of the UK ruling class” which has prevented films such as Bloody Sunday being shown (Weekly Worker January 24). And the fact that a man such as Greengrass is involved in such a film is a perfect illustration of Hunter’s point.
It was Greenarse who sought to undermine those of us engaged in the fairly successful struggle in east London against Stoke Newington police station in the early 1990s by reneging on an agreement that 2020 television make a film about people fighting police brutality, and then went on live radio to condemn those who claimed Stoke Newington police were running amok!
Greengrass is only capable of making a radical film when it is safe to do so - ie, after the dust has settled and others have fought (and died) in order to establish the legitimacy of anti-state movements and arguments.
Mark Metcalf
Sunderland
Brilliant
Congratulations on your fantastically relevant front page, which, it’s fair to say, caught the prevailing mood of the population and summed up what everyone was thinking: “Socialist Alliance needs a paper” (January 17)! The working class has been chattering more than the chattering classes this week, such is the excitement of the prospect of an SA paper, and with it partyism.
This latest brilliance of the CPGB just goes to show how closely connected to the proletariat they are. When I was thinking that low pay, hospitals, rail strikes or the parasitic monarchy were what the proletariat were interested in, I was wrong!
Seriously though (is seriousness allowed in the Weekly Worker?), this latest headline shows how the CPGB fails to carry out the Bolshevik - ie, communist - duty of linking present consciousness to the need to change society, and fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Benjamin Benn
Coventry
