Marxism 2004
Private matters, state affairs
There were many good things in Dave Crouch’s opening on ‘The
Bolsheviks and religion’ on the Sunday morning. The comrade
outlined the purpose of the opening as threefold.
First, to illustrate the way in which Leninism and Stalinism were
polar opposites. Second, to show how “religion played an enormous
role” in the 1917 revolution, how “religious people played
a role in leading it and in building a new society”. Third,
precisely because that revolution was the high point in human history,
starting from its lessons allows us to see much further, to help
us orientate politically in a period of “intensifying radicalism”.
Essentially, the SWP is attempting to equip its cadre with the theoretical
underpinning necessary for a new orientation - something you could
glean from the way members contributed to the debate and the repetition
of certain arguments. Lindsey German had spoken of a “new working
class” in the opening rally: clearly the leadership is also
envisaging a new SWP. As comrade Crouch himself put it, “There
is a stereotype about what a socialist looks like … possibly
quite similar to me - white, male. If we are going to reach out
to the new generation of anti-capitalists of all generations - of
all ages, colours and creeds - then we have to get that stereotype
out of our heads.”
|
Enjoy this article?
How about showing
us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a
substantial amount of money. Our only source for that financial
backing comes from people like you: readers and supporters of our
newspaper. You may not agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma,
but we know that 1000s of comrades appreciate our open, critical
and democratic press.
Click
here to find out how you can donate to the Summer Offensive
2004, our annual fundraising drive.
|
|
So, given the SWP’s current work with sections of the muslim
population, this session was an important one. It allows us to see
the strengths and (potentially fatal) weaknesses in the comrades’
intervention in this field.
Essentially, comrade Crouch expanded on ideas outlined in his article
‘Bolsheviks and islam’ that appeared in the Socialist
Review of December 2003 (see Jack Conrad’s comments in Weekly
Worker February 26). In a very useful talk, he looked at the Bolsheviks’
championing of the democratic rights of persecuted religious minorities
under tsarism; how this principled approach attracted a great many
religious people and communities to the banner of the communists;
how after the revolution, the new revolutionary government’s
commitment to religious freedom saw the flourishing of many religious
organisations and trends and how, finally, the heights achieved
by the revolution were swamped by the dire, war-ravaged poverty
of Soviet society, exemplified by the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy
and its attack on religious liberties.
The comrade’s ambiguities on some key questions were telling,
however. For example, he said this on the conditions of membership
of a working class party: “Of course, Marxism is an atheist
world view. But in no way was atheism seen as a condition of membership
of Marxist parties. This was the very explicitly expressed view
of the Bolsheviks in the early years of the 20th century and the
first years of the revolution. The attitude was that religion was
the individual affair, the private affair of every citizen.”
This mixes up two things: namely, the communist attitude to members
of the party who may have religious prejudices and the neutral attitude
of the state to the private views of its citizens. In fact, Lenin’s
stance was that, for party members, “religion is not a private
affair”, but is the concern of “the whole party, the whole
of the proletariat” (VI Lenin CW Vol 10, Moscow 1977, pp84-85).
Similarly, Dave cited Lenin’s “love affair” with
Father Gapon, the priest and police dupe who initially headed the
nascent mass movement that led to the 1905 revolution in Russia.
However, he failed to emphasise that the Bolsheviks’ relationship
with Gapon - sensitive though it might have been - was not one of
diplomatic accommodation. It fact, they wound “an iron ring”
around Gapon, “a ring from which he could not have broken loose
even if he had wanted to”, says Trotsky in his work, 1905.
Thus, because of communist agitation and pressure based on their
programmatic intransigence, the petition Gapon intended to submit
to the tsar contained - as well as humble pleas about such matters
as workshops open to the winter weather - the revolutionary demand
for a Constituent Assembly elected by “universal, secret and
equal suffrage”.
As ever, the debate saw rank and file SWPers take the ambiguities
in their leaders’ statement and, in their eagerness to please,
turn them into political systems. Thus, we had some comrades telling
us that the concessions Bolshevism was forced to make to religious
groups during the exigencies of the civil war - faith schools, restoration
of church property, etc - were less “tactics”, more like
“principles”. This was something comrade Crouch tried
to correct to an extent in his summing up.
Concluding, he also underlined that he did not “think for a
moment that you can be a consistent anti-capitalist fighter and
apply a religious explanation of the world to that struggle. Ultimately,
we are materialists because … that materialist analysis of
history is what enables an effective fightback.”
A comment that would seem to imply that the comrade does not see
religion in the party as purely a “private affair”.
Sean Powell
Don't call the devil 'angel'
"Socialists must keep their distance from secularism. Secularism
is considered progressive, but it is not. The consequence of secularism
is that muslim schools cannot be built. That is what secularism
is all about.” Wild applause followed this particular strange
contribution from a young member of the SWP’s section in France,
which has recently joined the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire
as a faction.
Speaking from the platform during the meeting on ‘Islam, secularism
and socialism’, Antoine Boulangé reflected the complete
political confusion that has been engendered by the leadership of
the SWP in London and its opportunist courtship of islam. Eg, the
SWP has dropped principle after principle so that Respect becomes
acceptable to the Muslim Association of Britain. In France, it seems
the SWP’s co-thinkers have bent the stick too far against the
majority of the left, which at best adopted an equivocal attitude
towards, and at worst actually supported, the ban on wearing the
veil in schools.
It was not just Antoine’s stick that snapped in the meeting.
His comrade, Esme Choonara (Socialist Worker platform in the Scottish
Socialist Party), declared: “I do not accept that there is
such a thing as islamic fundamentalism. Islam is not our enemy”.
Both comrades were rather eloquently put in their place by the third
platform speaker, Gilbert Achcar from the LCR, who gave a speech
that was critical of the SWP: “There is a difference between
atheism and secularism. Secularism is very important to the socialist
programme,” he said. He expressed the view that “socialists
are against the state ban on the veil, but we must also speak out
against any attempt to impose the veil - be it by a state or by
family pressure.”
He then turned his fire on Respect, warning that “we should
be very wary of making alliances with forces who do not belong to
the workers’ movement”. He argued that the SWP should
follow the old advice of “marching separately, but striking
together” (which was later ridiculed by comrade Choonara, who
said that she was “proud to have been marching with muslims
on the anti-war demos”, taking the quote rather too literally).
Comrade Achcar then quoted Trotsky: “You can make an alliance
with the devil, but don’t call him an angel.”
However, he warned against “compromising on principled policies.
Socialists always have to wage the ideological struggle. Secularism
and women’s rights are always of utmost importance. Marxists
can underplay their atheism, but they should never sell their soul
- to speak in religious terms”, he said - and predictably received
only lukewarm applause from the majority in the packed meeting,
with many SWP members shaking their heads.
For some reason, Elaine Heffernan was the only SWP comrade called
to speak from the floor. Her criticism was pretty mild, particularly
compared to the kinds of attacks we are subjected to for promoting
pretty much the same view as the LCR comrade: “In Gilbert’s
world view we could not engage with muslims at all, because we would
have to put conditions on their involvement,” she said. I did
not hear comrade Achcar mention any such conditions.
Tina Becker
|
