home

contact

action

theory

resources

what we fight for

programme

join

search

university

links

european social forum

our history

related articles

Enjoy the
Weekly Worker?
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

Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX or donate online:

Weekly Worker 542 Thursday September 2 2004

Communist University 2004

Learning from difference

Members and friends of the CPGB, and visitors from at least 14 other leftwing and progressive organisations, took part in this year’s Communist University, in London from August 14 to 21. Comrades enjoyed the opportunity to debate a range of topics and to get to know other members and supporters from around the country.

The main theme of the week was the principal question facing the working class movement - the party our class needs and how it will be created. The very first session was a debate on ‘What sort of workers’ party’ between Hillel Ticktin, editor of Critique, Steve Freeman of the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform, and Marcus Ström (CPGB). Comrade Ticktin said the system of capital is in economic and political crisis, with parliament no longer able to legitimise it, so there is an opening on the left for a party, as well as the objective need for one. But it had to be a Marxist party united around a common programme - it will take leadership, organisation and planning to defeat the bourgeoisie. We need to leave behind the sectarianism of the past.

Comrade Freeman argued for a broader-based Republican Socialist Party as a transitional stage towards a revolutionary communist party, which, he said, could not be achieved in current conditions. Disputing this, comrade Ström replied that divorcing republicanism from Marxism leads only to reformism, but pointed out that the differences between the three speakers were those concerned with overcoming the divisions on the left.

A comradely and constructive debate followed, with 18 speakers from a range of groups. Most expressed a desire for left unity. In all sessions of Communist University there was ample time for debate and all comrades were encouraged to fully explain their positions. Manny Neira of the newly formed Red Party said the problem of sectarianism is not related to the number of Marxist groups (which presumably excused his unprincipled departure from the CPGB to set up yet another one). The Marxist party should not be an ideologically defined organisation, but the most conscious element of the working class, he said. Alan Davis of the International Bolshevik Tendency said the workers’ party must be internationalist and committed to working class independence, so it must give no support to Ken Livingstone, the anti-war movement, or the Respect coalition. Comrade Alan from the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty agreed the workers’ party must organise the working class free from any bourgeois political influences and also from islamic fundamentalist influences - the reason the AWL also refuses the support Respect, he said. Another IBT comrade said programmatic, rather than organisational, questions should be primary. John Bridge (CPGB) criticised the IBT for advocating a totally arid caricature of Bolshevism. Lenin, for example, urged the early CPGB to vote for Ramsay MacDonald, despite the Labour Party’s social chauvinism, commitment to maintain the British empire and promise to invite Liberals and technocrats into the cabinet. As for comrade Freeman, his was a Marxism for the inner circle of initiates, a Marxism deferred, a Marxism for the future, never for today.

In his summing up comrade Ticktin said Marxists cannot make any concessions to nationalism or reformism. He saw objective signs of movement towards left unity, and stated that the defeat of Stalinism gives us the opportunity to move towards a genuinely revolutionary party.

Comrade Ticktin spoke more about the Leninist conception of a party the next day, when he opened the debate on Lenin’s What is to be done? - the first of four sessions devoted to his works. In each case the historical and political environment was explained and the book’s main themes discussed, then the lessons for our own situation were debated by the speaker and the audience. As communists we do not take Lenin’s writings out of context and use them as holy writ: we seek to apply his scientific method to our own situation. Steve Freeman spoke on Two tactics of social democracy, comparing the republicanism of the Bolsheviks in 1905 with that needed today in Britain. He stated that, although the two situations are very different, now as then republicanism does not just mean pensioning off the royal family; it means a constituent assembly and a provisional government.

Mark Fischer spoke on ‘Leftwing’ communism and its lessons for today. In the current period we should arm ourselves with an understanding of leftism, a phenomenon which recurs in reaction to the opportunism of the right and due to immaturity and lack of experience in the party. He pointed out that during the debates at Communist University both our former Red Platform and, in a programmatically more theorised way, also the IBT were demonstrating leftism in their desire to keep themselves pure by avoiding ‘contamination’ from non-working class forces. Mike Macnair spoke on State and revolution. He argued that Lenin had not fully answered the key question of what the state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat should be and what structural forms will tie the state to the proletariat. These problems will need to be worked out by a future workers’ party.

Following up on his recent series of articles in the Weekly Worker, comrade Macnair also introduced a session on imperialism, outlining and critiquing not only Lenin’s book on the subject but also different theories before and since, from Parvus and Hilferding to the new ‘ultra imperialism’ theory adopted by the AWL - which, he said, underpins a raft of positions adopted by the group, including its softness on Zionism and its refusal to call for troops out of Iraq.

Communist University also included openings by a guest speakers on a wide range of subjects. Continuing the theme of analysing present-day imperialism, Alan Freeman, economist and joint editor of the forthcoming book The politics of empire, spoke about ‘Europe - challenges and prospects’. He outlined two rival theories, the globalisation model followed by many liberal academic sociologists, and the idea that imperialism has not fundamentally changed its nature, before giving his own analysis. He described how nations are in crisis but are necessary for capitalism, and how the European Union has started to construct the legal forms of a nation but has not yet developed an ethnic or territorial identity.

During the debate differences emerged on the question of which sections of the world working class will take the leading role in making revolution. Comrade Tina Becker argued that the working class of the US and Europe must lead the fight against imperialism, while comrade Freeman said the workers in the south are more numerous, have better unions, and are extremely militant. Obviously the lessons of the Russian Revolution show that workers in backward countries can indeed take the lead, said comrade Bridge, but without the advanced countries being won degeneration and counterrevolution are inevitable.

The devastating effect of imperialism on the majority of the world’s population described in comrade Alan Freeman’s opening, was highlighted even more starkly in comrade Mehdi Kia’s talk on ‘Global health and global capitalism’. There must be a crash programme of emergency measures to head off the impending catastrophe of Aids/HIV.

On a more cheerful note, Mike Marqusee gave a talk on ‘Popular music and the chimes of freedom - Bob Dylan in the 1960s’. Outlining the development of Dylan’s music from early protest songs to his deliberate rejection of his political past, comrade Marqusee provided a stimulating insight into the complex relationship between artistic genius and social movements.

National Union of Mineworkers militant Dave Douglass introduced a debate on ‘The historical significance of the miners’ Great Strike’. He gave a first-hand account of the politicisation of strikers and their growing solidarity with other struggles, and described how the striking miners, continuing the long tradition of working class resistance in Britain, opened a new chapter in the class war, proving it is not just a thing of the past. His syndicalism was challenged by CPGB members and others present who believe that class consciousness is only the beginning, and that to take state power the class needs a programme and a revolutionary vanguard organisation. Comrade Mark Fischer said it is hard to describe to younger comrades what the miners’ strike was like, given the current low level of class struggle - when the class moves it is awesome to see. He outlined the errors and shortcomings of left, but said this abject failure does not negate the need for a genuine party to organise the class. Dave Douglass rejected this, claiming the NUM was “more effective and more principled than any group on offer”.

Other guest speakers included Sean Matgamna of the AWL, who defended his organisation’s position on Israel/Palestine, and Mohsen Karim of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq on ‘Iraq, fighting on two fronts’. The CPGB does not agree with the WCPI on main and secondary enemies or on the question of a foreign intervention force to replace the US-UK occupation, and these differences were debated at length (the comrade’s speech is reproduced on p7 - ed).

Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell spoke on ‘Is it wrong to criticise the oppressed?’ His answer was no. He castigated liberals and socialists who fail to criticise the Robert Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe for fear of being called racists or imperialists, or because they think the legacy of white colonialism somehow excuses Mugabe’s actions. Tyranny is tyranny, whatever the colour of the tyrant. Focusing on the work of his organisation, Outrage, against oppression of gays and lesbians, Peter Tatchell described the plight of gay men in Jamaica and Outrage’s efforts to publicise and campaign against it, and also their campaign against singers whose lyrics encourage the murder of gays. He referred to the recent controversy, covered in the Weekly Worker, of his organisation’s criticism of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation for its turning a blind eye to homophobia. Gays and lesbians in Palestine are treated as badly as in Jamaica, he said. He denied the accusation that to raise these issues weakens the Palestinian struggle, which he said he had always supported and will continue to do so. The ones who weaken the Palestinian struggle, he said, are the homophobes who set straight Palestinians against gay Palestinians. He described his attempts to enter into dialogue with the PLO, which are at last starting to bear fruit.

The question of Respect and our work in and criticisms of it, and related questions of religion, islam and women’s rights, was another theme running through Communist University. Comrade Cameron Richards introduced the session on ‘Was Respect supportable?’ Comrades from other organisations noted with interest that a member of the minority view in the CPGB was asked to open the debate with a 45-minute talk - an example of the sort of openness the CPGB values as a source of strength, but which would be unthinkable in most left organisations.

Comrade Richards repeated his opinion that it was wrong for the CPGB to call for a vote for Respect candidates who are members of the Muslim Association of Britain. He said the MAB is a reactionary organisation alien to the principles of secularism, democracy and equality to which we adhere. Respect is an anti-left unity project, he said, and the SWP tolerates toadies but has declared it no longer wants to have anything to do with the “sectarian” left.

Speaking in the debate from the majority position, comrade Bridge said this is because of our motions to the January conference and our criticisms of the SWP. We have proved the best way to fight the SWP is up close. Comrade Ström said that in calling for a vote for Respect we have not sacrificed any principles or lost anything. We are trying to expose the SWP leadership to its membership and at the same time attract elements of the anti-war movement who are moving towards socialist ideas. It was interesting to hear the views of members of other groups and trends. Comrade Hillel Ticktin described Respect as two steps back and possibly one step forward - he could not support it, but it did demonstrate the impulse towards left unity. Mark Osborn of the AWL described MAB as muslim communalist and criticised Respect for giving it credibility among the muslim community. The SWP is leaving the white working class to the Liberals and the BNP - a breach of basic principles of what socialists should do, he said. Steve Freeman, whose position in favour of a republican socialist party is well known to readers of this paper, said he cannot support Respect because it is not republican, not socialist, and not a party. Despite that, he voted for Respect’s London list on June 10.

In its electoralist rush to embrace those to its right, including MAB, the SWP leadership risks becoming an apologist for political islam and toning down its atheism. In contrast, Communist University devoted a session to debating how communists should combat religion. Comrade Maurice Bernal asserted that all forms of religion are philosophically incompatible with Marxist materialism. Although christianity seems to be in decline, he said, the influence of islam is rising. However, religion can never be combated by suppression: it is both ethically unacceptable and counterproductive - the blood of martyrs fertilises the ground of faith. Religion is a product of alienation, but our aim must be to overcome people’s alienation, and to give them the power to control their lives and realise their full human potential.

Dave Crouch (SWP) and Gerry Byrne (Red Party) debated ‘The Bolsheviks and islam’, giving a historical perspective to the problem. In the context of the SWP’s willingness to abandon the ‘shibboleth’ of women’s rights as part of its compromise with MAB, Comrade Anne Mc Shane spoke about ‘Women’s oppression and the right to choose’, focusing on the history of abortion rights and how they are now under threat.

Our orientation is not only to Respect: we also work in the SSP, the Labour Party and trade unions. SSP members Sandy McBurney and Gregor Gall debated the question, ‘Independence for Scotland, a socialist demand?’, Graham Bash from Labour Left Briefing again spoke on ‘Revolutionaries and the Labour Party’, and Greg Tucker (RMT) and Lee Rock (PCSU) debated ‘How awkward are the awkward squad?’ We hope to have full accounts of many of these sessions in future issues of the Weekly Worker.
Mary Godwin

Print this page