Weekly Worker 569 Thursday March 24 2005

Letters

Class line
In his article, ‘Drawing the class line’, Mark Fischer claims that, “... given the popular frontist nature of Respect, we regard it as vital to emphasise the centrality of class” (Weekly Worker March 17). However, he then goes on to advocate a vote for the self-same popular frontist organisation! Well, to be more precise, for the “working class politicians” in the popular front.

And how are we to tell who is a “working class politician”? Unfortunately we are told that there is no test they can be put to and that the CPGB’s “intention is not to cross every programmatic ‘T’ or dot every theoretical ‘I’. We take as our starting point the real movement of the working class, as it exists in all its complexity and contradictions.”

So apparently programme doesn’t really matter - you can be a “working class politician” while standing on a programme that advocates class collaboration as the way forward (ie, all Respect candidates). This reduces the concept of “working class politician” to a merely sociological conception and indeed that is the criterion Mark employs for the rest of his article. Whatever happened to the centrality of programme, comrades?

Writing in the same issue, Jack Conrad says: “The principles of Marxism - eg, as presented in our CPGB Draft programme - matter” - and the CPGB’s “strength” comes from “when we steadfastly uphold our principles and seek ways to inform the real movement of the working class with them”. Well, apparently not when it comes to the small issue of working class independence.

There actually is a simple test that can be applied to parliamentary candidates in deciding if they are “working class politicians”- if the term is to be understood as anything other than a sociological snapshot. We simply ask ourselves this question about the candidates - are they standing on a programme that is based in some clear way on the advocacy of independence of the working class?

Why does the CPGB not apply this simple rule of thumb? The only answer I can come up with is that it would mean they would not be able to call for votes to members of the Socialist Workers Party standing on Respect’s popular frontist programme. They would therefore run the risk of losing their appeal as an alternative home for disenchanted SWP leftists (well at least the handful who might think the CPGB is a viable alternative) - which is what the CPGB’s tactics in recent years are really all about, it would seem. The guiding ‘principle’ being, join up to whatever is the latest SWP front group and be left critics. In other words, the CPGB is putting opportunist and sectarian organisational manoeuvring before programmatic principle. Shame on you.
John Watson
email

Pressing issues
Mark Fischer’s ‘Drawing the class line’ has the makings of a good article. It is refreshing to see class as a central theme of the political analysis, compared to those of the SWP et al.

However, the continual use of the occupation of Iraq as a dominant issue seems to be diverting you from addressing the real concerns of working class people. You talk about it, you occasionally march against it, and you talk some more about it, but realistically you are not going to end the occupation of Iraq. There are much more pressing issues closer to home which preoccupy the agendas of working class people, and should therefore dominate the agendas of working class activists: housing, pensions, crime, workers’ rights, elderly care and neighbourhood neglect, for starters.

For all the talk of “working class politicians” in the article, it was odd that the Independent Working Class Association was not mentioned. Obviously you would disagree with their refusal to make the war a dominant issue. However, they are an important component of the working class political landscape. They have announced they are standing a candidate, Maurice Leen, in the Oxford East constituency in the coming general election. Maurice is a tenant support worker and says: “I’m standing in Oxford so that here at least there is the choice of a working class candidate who is prepared to fight for the interests of working class people.” He also says: “I intend to use the election campaign to bring the issues that most affect ordinary people in Oxford to the forefront of public debate and highlight the relentless attack on working class lifestyles and livelihoods that has been going on for more than two decades”.

Readers can find out more information at www.iwca-oxford.org.uk and donate to this worthy working class campaign.
Mick O’Conaill
Dublin

Rightward drift
I know recently there has been speculation on the rightward drift of Respect, but we in the Green Party were somewhat surprised to see Lindsey German speaking at the Castle Hotel in Neath at a Stop the War Coalition1 meeting. The Castle Hotel is a stronghold of the Countryside Alliance and is where the Banwen hunt starts from on Boxing Days.

Is this an SWP strategy to recruit amongst the hunting, shooting and fishing constituency of the middle and upper classes?
Martyn Shrewsbury
Wales Green Party

Cultish
I used to be an SWP member and your page about migration is spot on in its criticism (‘It’s quite nice today, George’, March 10).

For a long time (well, since the early 90s), the SWP in my area looked down on working class contacts and recent members who had different ideas to those of the local branch committee members. It was a bit cultish. And, of course, Cliff was right and the local committee were wrong. I think the problem with the SWP is that, essentially, its organisation is bordering on the Stalinist. Maybe saying that is too far, but something happens to comrades once they get onto the branch committee.

I remember taking friends to SWP meetings. These friends were normal, everyday people who expressed an interest in socialism. Anyway, no comrades would speak to them because they did not give the ‘right’ responses when asked about issues of the day.

This reminds me about what Cliff said about racism and picket lines. He is right. Comrades should understand that sometimes action is more important than words. Action is how one engages with the world; words either elucidate or obfuscate.
Chris Vincent
email

Autonomy
Oh dear, Mark Fischer is getting his own concepts in a twist over feminism (Letters, March 17). Whilst I absolutely agree with him over abortion, I certainly disagree (though no doubt he knows it) over his own lazy political interpretation of women’s autonomy.

He states that he hasn’t the time or energy to dissect Liz Hoskings’ anti-abortion ideas and frankly I don’t either, because rational political debate is nigh impossible to have with anti-abortionists, as the notion of choice (which includes abortion) is what they oppose. Liz Hoskings argues that she supports “real choices”, but doesn’t include abortion. That is not choice: that is restricting choice.

But, contrary to comrade Fischer’s myopic understanding of feminism, what Liz Hoskings is actually arguing just ain’t feminism - or for that matter socialist. In saying that, it certainly saps my energy when I have to explain the fundamental differences between autonomy and separatism to comrade Fischer time and time again. And according to comrade Fischer it is about what is in our heads, as opposed to what’s in our undies! Way hey, a fantastic stab at humour, but a clumsy, reductionist and unsophisticated argument nevertheless.

What about the power relationships which exist in this society between men and women? Obviously, comrade Fischer doesn’t recognise the dialectical relationship between social phenomena such as the oppression of women and class society. Autonomy is a way for women to organise collectively, build confidence and develop ideas. I support women’s autonomy, but I am sure comrade Fischer will automatically accuse me of separatism.

I would actively encourage men to support a woman’s right to choose, but what is so wrong with women organising autonomously? And I agree with Anne Mc Shane’s arguments that, with the recent attacks from the media, religious leaders and politicians on reducing time limits, with vile and pernicious groups like Christian Voice threatening to picket clinics performing abortions, and with an election looming, it is vital to defend a woman’s right to choose (‘Respect silent on abortion’, March 17).
And for me that includes support for women’s autonomy.
Louise Whittle
email

Slanderous
I object strongly to Mark Fischer’s implication that I support the leafleting of patients outside medical facilities that perform abortions.

I have never taken part in such activities and neither do I approve of them. I have nowhere implied that I do. I suggest the man retracts his slanderous statement or at least gives me an apology. I am not the only leftist in the world who opposes abortion: I simply have the guts to state my position. If other people fail to state it, this is not surprising, judging by the cold shoulder they receive from so-called ‘comrades’. I state my position from and to the left, not with the right.

By the way, I have no interest in the contents of Mr Fischer’s underwear. Neither do I object to men having views on abortion, for or against, but in my experience men who shout loudly for abortion rights often can be very ill informed of what they are talking about. I do not doubt most have good motives, but I am highly dubious of the motives of some (and this goes as equally for rightwing ‘pro-life’ men as some liberal of left ‘pro-choice’ ones).
Liz Hoskings
London

Influence
Your article on abortion was just what I was looking for - thank you (‘Battling for control’ Weekly Worker May 13 2004). I am an FE tutor, about to cover the influence of the women’s movement on contraception. I got the additional info I wanted from your site.
Lesley Seeley
email

Cymuned
In Bob Davies’s report on the seminar, ‘Identity and language rights in Europe’, at the European Social Forum last year, he states that Cymuned (whose name he misspells, pointing to an embarrassing lack of research) “campaigns for exclusive use of the Welsh language” (Weekly Worker October 21 2004).
This is an entirely unfounded statement, based on the kind of uninformed, knee-jerk response that minority groups have to face far too often. Cymuned is an anti-colonisation movement which campaigns for greater understanding of the importance of the Welsh language, and for intervention (in favour of local people) in the out-of-control capitalist housing market. The most radical policies we have suggested recommend adopting existing policies in the Channel Islands, Devon and Yorkshire, so they are proven and workable.

In calling Cymuned reactionary, Mr Davies clearly fails to recognise that the only functional way to oppose uncontrolled globalisation is through strengthening and promoting minority cultures and languages. This does not have to be exclusive - in fact, studies show that learning the local language when moving to a new area makes an enormous difference to how quickly newcomers can become integrated in their new community.

Cymuned has never opposed the purchasing of property by non-Welsh-speaking Welsh people, and unfortunately it appears that much of Mr Davies’s reaction is based on out-of-date stereotypes. His questions from the floor were answered as fully as was possible, given the time restrictions, and if he had stayed to discuss his points further I would have been happy to talk to him.

Cymuned is currently campaigning for official recognition of the existence of the Fro Gymraeg - those parts of Cymru (Wales) where over 50% of the indigenous population speak Cymraeg - as a first step towards developing sensible and sensitive policies to make sure that Cymraeg will not be driven out of existence by the McDonalds-ation of the world.

We would be glad to receive support for our Declaration of the Fro Gymraeg (see www.petitiononline.com/cymuned) from those who understand that celebrating diversity and promoting minorities is the most powerful response to the damaging effects of globalisation - we believe strongly that it is time for mainstream social activists to forge stronger links with minority language activists, and we would be delighted to see comments on our petition from socially aware people in any country at all.
Aran Jones
Chief executive, Cymuned

Rifondazione
Franco Russo has obviously learned nothing from the disastrous experience of the Brazilian PT (‘Betraying socialism’, March 17).

He, and the other hopeless muddleheads in the leadership of Rifondazione, evidently propose to repeat this farce. To these people history is bunk - there is nothing to be learned from it: we must disavow it and start again. They are seemingly unable to “think historically - that is, to compare and foresee”, as Trotsky put it in his History of the Russian Revolution.

Marxists cannot, under any circumstances, participate in a bourgeois government. The very act of joining such a government is a betrayal of working class independence. The Brazilian PT and Rifondazione are repeating the errors of the POUM and the anarchists, both of which joined the bourgeois Catalan government during the Spanish civil war. Trotsky sharply denounced this, even though he regarded the POUM leader, Andres Nin, as a comrade and a friend.

Russo should study the disputes currently going on in Brazilian left. The Trotskyist USFI section, Democracia Socialista, split over this very question of participation in a bourgeois government, although senator Helena Heloisa took her time about making her mind up. She initially supported participation in the government. Resolutions to the January 2003 USFI world congress from the International Left Tendency called for an inquiry into the DS’s participation in the government and for its expulsion unless it immediately withdrew with a full self-criticism. These calls were ignored and the USFI swept the issue under the carpet.

But the issue would not go away. And it would seem that the reactionary policies of Lula in government eventually penetrated the USFI’s slow-witted consciousness and some sections of its membership have since come out against this policy. The USFI Irish sympathising section, Socialist Democracy, issued a declaration opposing participation in the government last year. Heloisa Helena was expelled from the PT for resisting the betrayals of Lula and the USFI minister for agrarian reform, Miguel Rosetto.

Discussion bulletin No6 (January 2005) of the Cliffite International Socialist Tendency contains an article, ‘In response to Callinicos and Smith’, by French Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire political bureau member François Sabado. Sabado writes: “So we need flexibility to establish electoral alliances. But, where these alliances are confronted with the question of government, we cannot duck the issue … doing so would run the risk either of paralysis or of the disintegration of the coalitions we’re setting up. Those building an anti-capitalist party, a medium and long-term project, must clarify their positions on the governmental question. This debate is an issue for the whole of the radical left internationally: should we take part in or support governments dominated by social-liberalism?

“The response of the Brazilian PT to this question, along with Rifondazione Comunista in Italy and the communist parties of the European left, is positive. These parties either run, or are preparing to support or to take part in, this type of government. We think, as all historical experience teaches us, that this is a serious error. This kind of participation subordinates the labour movement to the interests of the ruling classes. It curbs the dynamic of mass mobilisation. It creates disillusionment and demoralisation. That’s the basis of our opposition to the politics of class conciliation.”

Curiously, Sabado does not mention the complicity of the USFI Brazilian section in this “class conciliation”. However, it is not without significance that a leading member of the USFI’s strongest European section should have made such a declaration. How do those who have long since written off the USFI, or denounced it as “counterrevolutionary”, explain developments like the Sabado declaration, the resolution by the USFI Irish section and the rebellion by Heloisa Helena?
S Williams
email

Fascinating splits
The article on the PRC congress was quite interesting and informative, but I question a few points - in particular the claim that what you call the “Ferrandoist” current, Progetto Comunista, has declined over the past few years (‘From anti-capitalism to serving capitalism’, March 10).

I would say it has actually grown. Crude percentages can be misleading. Firstly, as the article correctly points out, there has been a large recruitment of paper members over the past few months, which all the oppositions have voiced unease about.

Secondly, the vote in 2001 was artificially high, since at that point PC was the only opposition, whereas now people have a choice. Thirdly, at that time the “Ferrandoist” group was Proposta, the Italian section of the International Trotskyist Opposition, which was simply the largest group inside PC; since then, with the decision of the ITO to dissolve itself into the Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International, PC has consolidated itself into the Italian section of the CRFI, although this did involve getting rid of Falce Martello, a small group of Grant-Woods supporters who had been a negative presence.

Bear in mind that the “Ferrandoists” arose as a group who were expelled from Bandiera Rosa, the USFI group - now they have more support than Bandiera Rosa, albeit by only two votes. The article did not elaborate on its allegations against this group. However, I hope the Weekly Worker will continue its generally serious coverage of developments in the PRC.
Pat Gallacher
Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International

Fighting alliances
So now ‘Enso White’ enters the fray to argue the CPGB’s case (Letters, March 17).

Apparently Enso has failed to read the full exchange, as it was not just a question of Lenin opposing the giving of political support to the provisional government, but also to the Mensheviks and SRs separately.

Peter Manson originally quoted ‘Rumours of a conspiracy’, which includes the following reference: “… a Bolshevik would tell the Mensheviks: ‘We shall fight, of course, but we refuse to enter into any political alliance whatever with you, refuse to express the least confidence in you’” (Weekly Worker February17). Peter also referred to a later document that made the same point: “Lenin wrote his letter, ‘To the central committee of the RSDLP’, as the revolt of the counterrevolutionary general Kornilov menaced Petrograd. Yet, even with black reaction at the gates, Lenin blasted as ‘absolutely wrong and unprincipled’ those ‘people (like Volodarsky) who slide into defencism or (like other Bolsheviks) into a bloc with the Socialist Revolutionaries, into supporting the provisional government’.”

But now we have comrade Enso saying: “That is what he was still calling for in September 1917. He was not looking back fondly to a five-day alliance between the Bolsheviks and the provisional government in August 1917. There was no such alliance. But there was a fighting alliance between the Bolsheviks and the other socialist parties ... not in defence of the provisional government, but the revolutionary situation and dual power. A subtle distinction, perhaps. But a real one nonetheless.”
But the question that remains is - does the CPGB consider that this “fighting alliance” between the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries meant the Bolsheviks were entering into a “political alliance” with the Mensheviks and SRs? Let us remind ourselves again what Lenin said about such an idea in ‘Rumours of a conspiracy’: “We shall fight, of course, but we refuse to enter into any political alliance whatever with you, refuse to express the least confidence in you.”

I’ll accept the term “fighting” as an alternative for “military” and it would seem that despite themselves the CPGB comrades do in fact recognise that there is a distinction between “political alliances” and “fighting alliances” - which is the point I have been making all along.
Simon Keller
email

CPGB ‘international’
Enso White is confused. He says: “Here in Britain we cannot offer ‘military support’ to the Iraqi resistance.” Yes, we can. Money and practical aid can be sent from the relatively wealthy British left to aid the armed insurgencies of oppressed nations. It was done in previous decades for the Nicaraguan revolution, the Chilean resistance, the Irish republican struggle and the anti-apartheid movement, to name just a few.

Secondly, White assumes that “we” (the CPGB?) are just a British organisation. Therein lies the misconception and the error. A truly Marxist organisation would be an international organisation from its inception. Over the decades of the CPGB’s existence it could have made strenuous efforts to establish sections in the Middle East, including Iraq. Problem is that the CPGB does not even see the need to do this. So, on the one hand, we get complaints that aiding the Iraqi insurgency means aiding ‘muslim fundamentalism’, yet the CPGB (and other like-minded Anglo-centric sects) makes almost zero efforts to establish even the nucleus of a Marxist alternative leadership in other countries. At most, the question of international organisation is an afterthought.

War may well be the continuation of politics, but this confuses different kinds of political support. It is perfectly possible, and indeed essential, to give practical solidarity (support) to a colonial liberation movement without endorsing the political programme of its bankrupt political leadership. We give support because it is a liberation movement in an oppressed nation. Period. Many British socialists gave support to the Nicaraguan revolution or the Irish liberation movement without politically endorsing the bankrupt politics of the Sandinistas or Sinn Féin, which, in all these cases, eventually led to a collapse of that movement.

Practical solidarity, economic and military, is indeed a continuation of politics. But please don’t confuse the issues. This is especially important in countries that are non-christian and very different to our ‘own’ culturally (this, more than anything else, actually explains a lot of the confusion on the Anglo-American left). The crucial point of all of this being that it is possible, and very necessary, to give support to islamic-led anti-imperialist movements by giving practical support without endorsing the reactionary political programmes of the Taliban or the Mehdi Army on social questions related to, say, women or gays. Attempts to confuse these two types of support are disingenuous.

The same methodology applies, incidentally to domestic alliances with anti-war muslims in Respect. Marxists must continue to patiently argue the case on, for example, abortion within coalitions like Respect. We can never cease to argue our positions on such questions or accept the backward positions held by the older, and also some of the younger, generation of Asians. Question is: can we do it in such a way as to maximise the chances of a productive outcome? Or are we motivated solely by narrow organisational egoism? Are we in politics to merely grind our own narrow axes, while losing sight of the bigger opportunities to preserve something from four years of war and anti-war?
Bill Davies
email

Imperialism
Shachtmanite Karal Radek asks: “If the United States ‘national market is saturated’, then why is it a net importer of capital?” (Letters March 17).

Had Karal read my letters, rather than skimming through them, he wouldn’t be asking this question. The imperialist character of a country is not determined by whether a country is or isn’t a net importer, but rather by whether a country’s businesses are exploiting labour in foreign countries with the objective of repatriating the invested capital. It’s what is done with the exported capital that matters.

As with the subject of religion, this argument is going to go on and on, because the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty is an organisation with a pro-imperialist programme, for equating imperialism’s victims with the imperialists is in actuality lending political support to the imperialists, and the bourgeois-liberal AWL knows this.
Michael Little
Seattle

From beyond
Whatever the merits, if any, of the discussion on imperialism between ‘Radek’ and Little, I am curious as to where the former is writing from. Is Karal sitting in a socialist Valhalla bashing away at his PC next to Doris A Stokes with her news from beyond?

Whatever would his Bolshevik near-namesake, Karl, have to say about this?
Mischa Moselle
email

Print this page