Debating main and secondary enemies
The main business of the July aggregate of CPGB members was developing
our common attitude on Iraq and the resistance to the occupation.
Two sets of theses on Iraq, written by Mike Macnair and Ian Donovan
respectively, along with a motion from Marcus Ström, were discussed.
After a long debate the aggregate voted to accept both the motion
and comrade Macnair’s theses, by large majorities. Comrade
Donovan was unable to attend through illness and his theses were
not put to the vote. Comrade Ström’s motion was passed
unamended, while comrade Macnair’s theses were accepted after
minor amendments.
Comrade Macnair spoke first. He said that, as we are formulating
our line on Iraq in a situation of relative ignorance of what is
happening on the ground, we have to clearly distinguish between
our proposals for the tasks of the British left, about which we
can be fairly definite, and our suggestions to the communists in
Iraq, which can only be tentative and based on long-term strategy.
|
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.
|
|
Comrade Macnair said the occupation of Iraq can have no progressive
role. He disagreed with those on the left, particularly the Alliance
for Workers’ Liberty, who are, to say the least, ambiguous
and uncertain about this. Communists are for the defeat of our own
state. However, we are proletarian internationalists, who believe
the creation of socialism is the role of the working class movement
worldwide. Therefore, we should be in solidarity with the Iraqi
workers’ movement, but not with the islamist or Ba’athist
militias who are fighting the occupation, as these are not working
class forces. When the imperialists leave, either on their own accord
or because they are forced out, only a national movement led by
the working class can provide security and stability for the Iraqi
masses and prevent an Afghanistan-like catastrophe.
Section one of his theses, said comrade Macnair, is revolutionary
defeatist regarding British troops and calls for their withdrawal
from Iraq. Section two calls for solidarity with the Iraqi workers’
movement - in the interests of common humanity, as well as proletarian
internationalism. Sections three and four relate to the tasks of
communists in Iraq and the underlying dynamic of Iraqi society.
Our advice to the Iraqi communists, he said, is to have a united
front strategy based on clear objectives. It is not a global programme,
but an immediate programme on how to prevent the threatened catastrophe.
Comrade Ström, while stating that comrade Macnair’s document
was not in contradiction to his own motion, criticised it as too
long and detailed. We do not need to write a programme for communists
in Iraq. Other speakers agreed with this comment - comrade Bridge
said the more you write, and the more detailed you are, the more
likely you are to include errors. Comrade Ström wanted to identify
more emphatically the main enemy of the working class in Iraq and
the world. He did not think it should be implied that the islamists/Ba’athists
and the imperialists are equal enemies. We are for the victory of
the democratic, secular and working class forces, but, if we had
to choose between imperialism and pre-capitalist or reactionary
anti-capitalist forces, we would go for the latter.
Comrade Ström agreed that it is profoundly wrong to think that
imperialism is somehow more
democratic than political islam. Where democratic advances have
been won under capitalism, they have resulted either from working
class pressure, the need to shore up support at home or a combination
of both. He also agreed with comrade Macnair that the imperialists
are running out of options in Iraq and will be forced to do deals
with the islamists.
Much of the discussion following the two openings concerned the
question of what it means to say imperialism is the main enemy of
the Iraqi working class. Comrade Peter Manson criticised Mike Macnair’s
theses for failing to make it clear that, even though trade union
activists in Iraq are under attack by the islamists, it would still
be objectively progressive if the imperialists were defeated by
the forces of islamic reaction. He said that there was a difference
between recognising that fact and actually taking direct steps to
bring it about - something we most emphatically do not do.
Comrade Anne Mc Shane said our political propaganda should emphasise
support for progressive and secular forces in their struggle against
islamic reaction for leadership of the resistance to imperialism.
She voted against comrade Ström’s theses, because in her
view he did not sufficiently emphasise the importance of progressive
forces coming to the fore in the leadership of the resistance. Comrade
Patrick Presland approved of the emphasis on secularism in comrade
Macnair’s document. He said that in advocating revolutionary
defeatism, we should ask: by whom and with what consequences for
the working class? It would not be a good thing for Iraqi workers
if imperialism was expelled by the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr. There
are secular and progressive forces in Iraq to whom we can give principled
support, but, said comrade Presland, he did not agree that it does
not matter who defeats imperialism.
Comrade John Bridge said leftwing forces in Iraq should take the
lead in opposing imperialism, so as to gain support among the people
and thus be strong enough to resist the murderous attacks of the
islamists. Phil Kent pointed out that having a main enemy does not
mean you stop fighting your other enemies. However, Ian Mahoney
made the point that, if you have two enemies who are also fighting
each other, it is not usually a good idea to take on both at once.
He said, if communists in Britain were in a position to do so, they
should sabotage the war effort of our ‘own’ imperialists,
even if that meant objectively helping reactionary forces. But we
fight for a progressive outcome: unlike the Socialist Workers Party,
we do not seek to whitewash political islam.
Responding to these points, comrade Macnair claimed that there is
no chance of the islamist forces securing a military victory over
imperialism. Furthermore, when the US-backed regime in Iran was
overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini, it led in the long run to a change
in the balance of world forces in favour of imperialism at the expense
of the working class - within a few years the new regime was doing
deals with the imperialists, while Iranian working class forces
had been decimated. In Iraq, while no doubt the rank and file of
the islamic resistance want to fight imperialism to the death, their
leaders are willing to cooperate in their own interests with the
occupiers, as we have seen already. The coming to power of the likes
of al-Sadr would be just another exit strategy for the imperialist,
even if not their preferred one - they could rule Iraq through him.
For Iraqi communists, said comrade Macnair, it is nonsense to say
that if two enemies want to assassinate you, you should prefer death
at the hands of the smaller one. There has to be a third option
- that of building up our own, working class forces.
We must start from the point of view of the world revolution, comrade
Bridge replied. US imperialism is the main enemy. In working out
our strategy it is essential to locate first the main enemy, then
the secondary enemy, in order to determine tactics. Locating the
main enemy does not mean suspending the fight against the secondary
enemy. But it is conceivable to enter into a situation where there
is episodic cooperating with the secondary enemy against the main
enemy. He pointed to the deal Soviet Russia made with Weimar Germany
in the early 1920s as an example of the breadth of tactics available
to communists. We are forced to resort to such alliances because
of weakness, not strength - a situation that undoubtedly applies
in Iraq right now.
Comrade Manson did not agree with comrade Macnair that the imperialists
cannot be defeated. A combination of opposition on the ground in
Iraq and the internal contradictions of imperialism could see them
forced out. Comrade Kent said that, while he agreed that an Iraqi
theocracy would not necessarily be a defeat for imperialism, that
is not the exit strategy the imperialists would prefer - they would
like to back up their claims that the war was fought to set the
Iraqis free with at least some pretence of democratic structures.
The most desirable outcome, and our primary task, is the defeat
of imperialism, said comrade Tina Becker, and the theses should
make this clear. However, it would be wrong to say we do not care
who defeats imperialism.
In his summing up at the end of the debate, comrade Macnair said
he hoped that, having seen what happened to their Iranian comrades
in a similar situation, communists in Iraq would not fall into the
trap of entering into an ‘iron front’ with al-Sadr. He
was against the defeat of imperialism by islamic forces. For internal
consumption in Britain to say, ‘Rather al-Sadr than the US-UK’
might be a useful slogan, but from the point of view of the situation
in Iraq that would be meaningless, since it could not be achieved.
And if the British left were to advocate such an outcome to the
communists in Iraq it would be dangerously incorrect, moving us
closer to the position of the SWP.
Summer Offensive
Members discussed the slow progress of this year’s Summer Offensive,
our annual fundraising drive. In contrast to previous years, opportunities
for raising money are much reduced, both for individuals and for
the collective. In 2001 and 2002 the Socialist Alliance provided
a relatively favourable environment for CPGB work, and last year
comrades were able to bring in large amounts through the sale of
badges and other material during the anti-war upsurge. This year
the Party has to rely much more on its own members and supporters.
Ian Mahoney reported that Weekly Worker readers and CPGB sympathisers
are responding well to the call for funds, including our readers
on the internet. But, because of the difficult political environment,
as well as some technical hitches, the Provisional Central Committee
has decided to extend the SO until August 14 - allowing us to make
one last concerted effort to reach our £30,000 target. Even
so, it may be that we will fall short. Speakers in the discussion
agreed that we should not hide such problems - we should be honest
about any failure to meet the target.
Comrades gave examples of fundraising activity, such as a sponsored
exercise rowing session, book sales and socials. Comrade Sarah McDonald
announced a pub quiz organised jointly by CPGB and Scottish Socialist
Party members in Dundee. Questions in the quiz will focus on socialism
and working class history and will thus play a part in educating
the working class and aiding recruitment. Other comrades stressed
the importance of contacts and Weekly Worker articles on the Offensive.
Communist University
Comrade John Bridge gave a short account of preparations for Communist
University 2004. Because of the changed political climate - specifically
the collapse of the Socialist Alliance and the re-intensification
of sectarian antagonisms on the left, fewer comrades from other
left groups are expected than at previous Communist Universities.
Comrade Bridge described CU 2004 as an opportunity for the CPGB
to collectively engage with tricky political and theoretical problems,
and to educate ourselves. If we educate others in the process that
will be a bonus.
He outlined two themes which will run through CU 2004. First, Lenin.
Eighty years after his death his books continue to have great relevance.
Several key works will be discussed - among others What is to be
done?, introduced by Hillel Ticktin, and Leftwing communism, an
infantile disorder, introduced by Mark Fischer. The second theme
is religion and what should be our attitude to it. This is especially
relevant in the current period - the SWP, as part of its electoralist
drive to get votes for the sake of votes, is busily discarding ‘shibboleths’
which might be deemed unacceptable by orthodox muslim thought. Hence
SWPers now appear to be denying that the Bolsheviks had a commitment
to atheism within their programme. Comrades agreed that religion
is a crucial subject to discuss now.
Other subjects and speakers were suggested. Comrade Presland proposed
developments in the Labour Party and our relationship with it as
a theme, and other comrades suggested having a forum on the first
weekend of CU in which as many forces as possible could be brought
together from among those who want to build a new workers’
party. Respect was another topic comrades were keen to deal with
at CU. Comrade Becker said Respect has caused some demoralisation
and fragmentation on the left, but we need to put forward the need
for a party within the coalition. The draft programme contains a
session on ‘Were we right to support Respect?’, but several
comrades felt it would also be useful to discuss where Respect is
going and how we should relate to it in the future. A similar preference
when it came to other themes and subjects.
On behalf of the PCC, comrade Bridge welcomed these and other ideas
and promised that the draft programme for CU 2004 would be quickly
revised.
Mary Godwin
|
