Weekly Worker 567 Thursday March 10 2005

Letters

2am knock
With reference to your review of my book A brief history of 1917: Russia’s year of revolution, thank you, at least, Ted North, for bothering to do it. I don’t mind being called “stupid” - that’s par for the course for a writer - but I do take offence at being labelled “dishonest” (‘Trotting out time-honoured falsehoods’, February 24).

If there’s any dishonesty then it has to be your claim that I’ve compared the campaign to eliminate Russia’s propertied classes with Nazi genocide. What I did say, on page 5, was that the move to force people into manual labour had “overtones” of the terrible brutality inflicted upon the Jews by the Nazis when they arrived in Austria. The Anschluss occurred in 1938, and anyone familiar with the period will recall that the Nazis forced Jews, among other menial tasks, to scrub pavements, sweep streets and clean toilets. This was appalling, but I didn’t use the word “genocide” in this context.

Many - not all - of the Nazis’ victims appeared to be from similar social classes as those who were placed under forced labour orders in Russia in 1918. It was a historical comparison intended to illustrate the politics behind removing someone from their normal occupation and plunging them into a different working environment. If I had compared this to what the Nazis did in World War II, then it would indeed have been “stupid” - but I didn’t.

I went to Russia with an open mind and simply asked elderly people about the revolutionary period and Lenin in particular. I began from a standpoint of having a high regard for Lenin and came away with him being slightly dislodged from his pedestal. I did not blatantly say that “Marxism makes too many demands of human nature” - I said that it has been argued thus, and “often to great effect”. So, therefore, in expressing an opinion, I’m “stupid” and “dishonest”.

The review of my book touches on only a very small percentage of the content, that which, I suspect, must run in opposition to whatever the current policy of the CPGB is. After spending much of my life as a manual worker, and at times a member of the Communist Party and other hopeful vanguards of the revolution, it is painful to be branded by such dedicated banner-bearers as Ted North as a “reactionary”. No doubt when parliament has been stormed, and the CPGB is in power, then I can expect the knock on the door at 2am. That is, of course, unless the Yanks get me first.
Roy Bainton
email

Lenin’s alliance
Peter Manson claims I’m arguing like a parrot and distorting Lenin (Letters, March 3).
Unfortunately for the comrade facts are stubborn things and it is absolutely clear from the historical record that Lenin considered there to have been some kind of bloc between the Bolsheviks and the provisional government against Kornilov. Writing in September 1917, Lenin described the opposition to Kornilov as follows: “An alliance of the Bolsheviks with the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks against the Cadets, against the bourgeoisie, has not been tried; or, to be more precise, such an alliance has been tried on one front only, for five days only, from August 26 to August 31, the period of the Kornilov revolt ...” (‘The Russian Revolution and civil war’, September 29 1917, CW Vol 26, pp35-36). So here we have Lenin talking of an “alliance” between the provisional government and the Bolsheviks in opposing Kornilov.

As both Peter and I agree, it is absolutely clear that Lenin opposed giving any political support to the provisional government, so he must have been talking about some other kind of bloc/alliance/support. I think ‘military’ does the trick and clearly distinguishes between the two qualitatively different types of bloc/alliance/support. If the CPGB want to find some historical justification for their denial of this basic revolutionary Marxist approach then they are going to have to find it elsewhere than the writings of Lenin.

As regards Serbia and the alleged “genocide” which supposedly the CPGB never talked about, I would refer Peter to various articles in Weekly Worker from the time that backed up the lie, or at least were ambiguous on the question, and were used as part of the justification for your bloc (military or was it political?) with the KLA/Nato forces in Kosova. Anyone interested can just use the search facility on your website. But much more recently than that - CPGB member Phil Kent continued the lie when he referred to “the Serbian policy of genocide and forced expulsions” (Letters, January 20).
Simon Keller
email

Babbling
Karal Radek babbles: “So presumably Little views countries that are importers of capital as being the victims of imperialism. If this is true then it is the United States of America - which, in 2004, imported 70% of all capital flows - which is the greatest victim of imperialism” (Letters, March 3).

This is so silly it hardly deserves a response, but I’ll respond anyway. Imperialist countries are both exporters and importers of capital, for imperialism is a two-way street between imperialist countries. However, for victim countries, imperialism is a one-way street. For example, you can count the number of Mexican companies in the USA that repatriate American capital as virtually zero. Even companies such as Tecate and Corona (manufacturers of beer) keep the bulk of their capital in US banks.
Paul Hampton babbles: “The record of the USSR in eastern Europe from 1939 and especially after 1945 certainly suggests its behaviour was imperialist, in the broad sense of the term: ie, expansionary, exploitative and oppressive. To ‘defend the USSR’ during that period makes no sense - particularly since by then the last residues of workers’ rule had long since been eliminated by Stalin” (Letters, March 3).

The defence of the USSR was the defence of the collective property forms that came into existence when the bourgeoisie of Russia was forcibly expropriated by the revolution, and Stalin was forced to defend those gains, even though the working class was politically expropriated by the Stalinist bureaucracy. It’s those social gains (collectivised property) that we defended, not the political apparatus of Stalin which we called upon the Soviet working class to overthrow through political (as opposed to social) revolution.

The imperialist character of a country is not defined by its being expansionary or oppressive, but rather by its being exploitative. The USSR did not exploit the workers of other countries, for Stalin was forced to collectivise the means of production in those countries, and that collectivisation was defensible. Hampton is a bourgeois moralist, and so he likes to throw words around such as ‘imperialist’ to describe people he detests. But unfortunately, Paul, imperialism has a definition, and the USSR was never, ever, imperialist.

To Paul, there was no difference between Stalin and Hitler. So, why then was Germany out to smash the Soviet revolution? He continues: “The point of the category ‘sub-imperialism’ is to understand the behaviour of states such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Israel, South Africa (and no doubt others) that industrialised to some degree after World War II and have had ambitions to be the dominant regional power.”

All capitalist countries that are victims of imperialism aspire to be imperialist, just as many workers aspire to become bosses, but, alas, they cannot, for the imperialists are not about to permit this. In a country such as Mexico or the Philippines, a capitalist can borrow capital from a bank for a labour-intensive venture, but no bank will lend him even one cent for a venture that engages in research and development. Why? Because the banks are owned by the foreign imperialists. In fact, promising to require banks to make capital available for such R and D ventures is what got presidential candidate ‘Ninoy’ Aquino assassinated.

Paul, you need to reed In our image - America’s empire in the Philippines by Stanley Karnow (after you’ve finished reading Our morals and theirs by Leon Trotsky).
Michael Little
Seattle

Pro-life
I deem it necessary to elaborate on a few points I made in a previous letter (February 24).

I regard myself as being a pro-life feminist and a socialist (I never adopted the pro-choice position in my heart, by the way - I was making a compromise towards my comrades, which I now regret in many ways).

However much of a contradiction the above position may seem to some people, I outline my opposition to abortion from a socialist and feminist perspective as thus:
Abortion is a tool of male oppression that is degrading to the female body and to our reproductive functions. It serves the needs of the liberal playboy, who views us as sex objects. He is the liberal wing of the patriarchy, and I oppose his values just as I do those of rightwing men who view women as breeding machines.

Abortion suits the needs and fits in with the values of late capitalist society and its consumer culture. The working class are driven to it by the poverty and other social problems caused by capitalist and male oppression. Sections of the liberal bourgeoisie find that it nicely fits in with their money-driven, careerist values: a child is seen as a consumer object, not as a being in itself.

The slogan ‘the right to choose’ is meaningless, as it suits consumer capitalism, which offers us a wide range of meaningless ‘choices’. I am in favour of giving women real choices that do not involve risking both their physical and mental health. This involves better contraception and information about our bodies, maternity and paternity leave, crèches and support, financial and otherwise, for women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances. I also hold that men have a duty not to leave the burden of childbearing and rearing to women, hence I hold that fathers should spend more time with their children. Fortunately many fathers are already doing this.

I believe the foetus to be a human being with the same right to life as a child already born. Children have rights that are separate from the ‘choices’ their parents make - the right not to be abused or subject to infanticide is one such right. I extend this right to children not yet born.

If we ever achieve a socialist society it is my view that the demand for abortion will disappear, along with cruelty to animals, male oppression and all the other evils of a class society.
Liz Hoskings
email

Miners’ strike
The media is doing a bit to remember the miners’ strike, so I want to go on record as saying that I stand by Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers, unlike some who deserted them. In the latter category I place Kim Howells, who on the Daily Politics TV show said that the Labour Party rejected the Marxist revolutionary way which was what the strike was about.

The strike was not just about the Marxist revolutionary way - it wasn’t that Arthur Scargill planned to use the miners to bring down the British government. He reacted spontaneously to economic war waged against his members by the Thatcher government, who in cohorts with the British establishment had been planning to bring down the NUM since the defeat of the Heath government. What else does a class-conscious trade union leader do, when his members are going to lose their livelihoods and communities?

Arthur chose to fight. They may have lost, but it was a glorious defeat, which gave us valuable lessons. And I think that they almost won, in spite of the treachery and brutality from the opposition. What was required for victory was secondary action and the right to welfare and strike pay. Secondary action could have been possible, but was outlawed. Trade unions and others, including the Labour Party, should have unequivocally called for action outside the law - ie, non-compliance - and stood by those breaking the law.

Obviously Mr Howells and the like aren’t workers, because they would realise that in 20 years the exploitation of the working class has increased hugely. Even Mr Blair has admitted that it takes two workers in a household to meet the cost of living. And now Mr Alan Johnson, former leader of the Communications Workers Union, wants to do away with the official retirement age because it can’t be afforded.
Lila Patel
email

Simple message
The Communist Party Draft programme is a good read, and I agree with all points in the ‘Immediate demands’ section. However, it is all very well having these long texts for those interested to read them, but some of the people who would most benefit from the ideas in the programme are not interested or cannot access these documents easily.

What communism needs is a clear and simple message to be put out to the people it matters to. I live in an area where many would benefit greatly from communism. However, I know for a fact that a lot of the people are just not bothered to read long and complicated texts on communism. A simple, clear message must be devised to secure support.
Liam Duffy
email

Wrong name
I am not a member of the IWW, but I am a pedant. In the last couple of issues you have listed one of their events in the ‘Action’ column as being organised by the “International Workers of the World”. Given that this is the IWW centenary year (see http://www.iww.org), there’s been plenty of time to notice that they are called the Industrial Workers of the World.

Joe Hill must wobble in his grave whenever he sees left groups get his organisation’s name so wrong.
Ross Bradshaw
Birmingham

No censorship
In response to Nick Bird’s letter, ‘SWP and theatre’, I would like to say that Nick is quite right to point out that a large section of Patrick Connellan’s article in Socialist Review is devoted to exploring the plot of the play Behtzi and he explains very well the irrational logic of the protestors (Weekly Worker March 3). However, I am not sure how this can be considered an argument against the censorship of the arts. Is it really relevant where the violent scenes depicted in the play take place and whether the protestors have logical grounds to be offended?

Anyone who is in favour of free expression should fully support the right of the author and company to put on the play and of the audience to see it; they should condemn the actions of the Sikh protestors who smashed up the theatre and threatened to kill the writer. But Patrick seems to reserve his criticism for the theatre: “It was to the Birmingham Rep’s shame that it felt forced to abandon the play in the face of the violent threats.”

I think it also says something that this issue was not covered by the SWP’s weekly paper Socialist Worker. Patrick’s article appears over a month after the event, tucked away in the ‘Arts review’ section on page 32 of Socialist Review. This news item was covered very widely in the national press and on TV. Even Colin Baker in the definitely non-revolutionary Bucks Free Press was able to find space to point out that “The use of violent means to silence debate must be vigorously challenged by all of us, whatever our faith, belief or opinions” and concludes by reminding us that “Nazis started out burning books”.

Nick asks me which oppressed groups I would like to see vilified and persecuted more often. Well, none really. What does worry me is that theatres and playwrights will look at the events surrounding the Birmingham Rep and think twice about staging plays they fear might offend and provoke similar reactions from whomever. We have since seen Christian Voice protest over the BBC showing of Jerry Springer, the opera and more recently pressurise the cancer charity Maggie into refusing a £3,000 donation from a charity performance of the show. A nationwide tour of the musical is now under threat, as its backers come under pressure and local theatres are threatened with protests.

Finally, Nick suggests I might see the new forces in Respect and the anti-war movement as a problem rather than an opportunity. I think there is an opportunity to engage with ordinary people from all kinds backgrounds who are open to working class principles. But there will always be problems if we shy away from debating issues such as censorship and vigorously defending the right of free expression - in the mistaken belief that those new forces will automatically reject such a rational approach.
Steve Whitehall-Smith
London

Print this page