Letters

Lenin rules

Lars T Lih expresses his shocked indignation at the implication that Lenin was a ‘hypocrite’ (‘The strange case of the closeted Lenin’, December 4). He has, quite rightly, homed in on the weak point in what is in general a sensible and well-argued article by Kevin Corr and Gareth Jenkins (‘The case of the disappearing Lenin’, International Socialism October 2014). They quote Lunacharsky as relating that Lenin told him: “If we have a majority in the central committee we will demand the strictest discipline”, but in the event of the Mensheviks winning a majority Lenin replied: “We won’t permit the idea of unity to tie a noose around our necks and we shall in no circumstances permit the Mensheviks to lead us by the rope.”

Lih is quite right to be shocked at the apparent approval of this statement. Unfortunately he fails to go beyond shock to analysis. Did Lenin actually say such a thing and, if so, how should Leninists respond to it? Corr/Jenkins quote it from Tony Cliff’s biography, which gives a reference to Lunacharsky’s memoirs in Russian; I haven’t been able to establish if an English translation exists.

There is, of course, one possible interpretation of the words that could be developed. That is that, while the vast majority of us ordinary hobbledehoys should follow the rules, gifted leaders like Lenin (and a few of his self-appointed followers) are entitled by virtue of their special leadership skills to rise above the rules and break them if they feel it is necessary to do so. I don’t think Corr/Jenkins actually believe this, but they are on a slippery slope leading in that direction.

But otherwise the passage poses a serious problem for any ‘Leninist’ (as opposed to those of us who simply admire and study Lenin as a great revolutionary leader). For Lenin’s position here is quite simply indefensible (which is why he had the good sense not to put it in writing, but merely say it privately to a comrade). He is saying, ‘I will obey the rules - and insist others obey them - if I have the majority, but not if I am in a minority.’ Simple logic shows that it is unacceptable (and I trust nobody will try to defend it by invoking the superiority of ‘dialectical’ logic). Moreover, I think it points to a problem at the very heart of ‘democratic centralism’.

In the course of a recent debate I was frequently told that democratic centralism requires the acceptance of majority decisions. The example often quoted was a strike, where we vote and then all implement the agreed decision (an unlikely scenario; it’s a rare union that doesn’t have a few scabs). This ignores rather more difficult situations: what do I do if I am the treasurer of a union branch which votes to make a financial donation to the English Defence League? (Resign, but with maximum delay, so as to give the branch time to reconsider?)

Any organisation needs rules and, unless most members obey the rules most of the time, the organisation will fall apart. But the rules, and indeed the organisation, are not ends in themselves, but means to a revolutionary end. And sometimes revolutionaries find themselves in unforeseen and unprecedented situations, where ‘Leninism’ does not offer a ready-made solution and they have no resource other than to think for themselves.

Ian Birchall
email

Déjà vu

Members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are understandably very scant in expressing their appreciation of other political parties and perhaps even rarer with our compliments. Emphasising that I write as a mere humble member and in no way talk for the SPGB, I commend the Weekly Worker on its principled stand in regards to immigration and, in particular, their exposure of the mealy-mouthed arguments and political-fence-sitting opportunism shown by some on the left.

Eddie Ford’s article (‘Anti-migrant snake oil’, December 4) reminded us that the battle against xenophobia is a long and recurring one and, as for my own party, mere months after its founding, an article appeared addressing anti-immigration laws (www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1905/no-07-march-1905/talks-train). Even if simply out of historical interest, it’s worth a read, but the article has the echoes of déjà vu and could well have been written yesterday.

Alan Johnstone
SPGB

Qs for Eddie

I’ve got a couple of questions about Eddie Ford’s ‘Anti-migrant snake oil’ article, to which I hope he’ll respond, as I’m genuinely confused.

I did understand the last paragraph clearly; and I agree that countries are a nonsense and that, as communists, we should be urging their dissolution, with some alacrity. Having read the article, I’ve also just looked on the CPGB website to try to understand the position on Europe and the European Union, but it hasn’t really clarified matters. “Working within and against the EU” was one notable phrase - which sort of makes sense. But, in which case, why doesn’t the CPGB join forces with the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, European Anti-Capitalist Left or Party of the European Left, with their fairly similar approaches?

And I’d urge caution when citing Norway in any argument about this stuff. Perhaps Eddie has spent time there recently? So he’ll know what the mood is among many/most Norwegians about incomers to their country? Many/most Norwegians are certainly no friend of the migrant, the internationalist or the radical socialist.

Eddie writes: “Even the slightest hint that the British government was planning to leave the EU would see the City - capital at its most fluid - relocate to a safer haven abroad, and in one stroke 20% or more of the UK’s tax base would vanish into the ether.” Does this mean that Eddie wants London to continue to be one of the principal homes of choice for international finance capital, and that he is frightened by it not being so?

“Der Spiegel ran a very plausible story saying that, in the view of Merkel and the German foreign ministry, Cameron was pushing his country toward a ‘point of no return’ with his talk about imposing an upper limit for immigration from EU member-states.”

Does this mean that Eddie agrees with Angela Merkel’s particular reasoning for why EU citizens should be able to seek work all over the EU and, if yes, why?

“Then again, it is not just Merkel or the European Commission that thinks an EU exit would be madness. Just listen to the Confederation of British Industry, which you could described as the industrial wing of the bourgeoisie, as opposed to the banking/finance wing. An overwhelming majority of CBI members are adamantly opposed to Britain waltzing out of the EU, considering it reckless.”

Does this mean that Eddie agrees with the arguments of the CBI, and that he thinks it would be reckless, from a business perspective, for Britain to leave the EU?

John Fisher
email

Roy Bhaskar

Roy Bhaskar (1944-2014) developed an innovative form of philosophical realism, which was applied to the natural and social sciences. Bhaskar’s death prompts the question: Was critical realism (CR) an appropriate philosophy to uphold Marxism? The highlight of his output was Dialectic: the pulse of freedom, published in 1993, in which his dialectical critical realism (DCR) was an understanding of the history of philosophy containing a highly critical interpretation of Hegel’s dialectic, but being more sympathetic to Marx.

What was the relationship of DCR to Marxism? Some commentators, such as his co-thinker, Andrew Collier, considered DCR to be an appropriate contemporary philosophy for Marxism. This point seemed to be substantiated by Bhaskar’s perspective of a dialectic of freedom, which could be defined as the struggle against capitalism and for a better future. However, Bhaskar’s criticisms of Marx did raise questions about the relationship of his approach to Marx. These issues were never resolved, because Bhaskar underwent a religious turn, becoming preoccupied by issues of spirituality. But it was still possible to detect a philosophy of emancipation in these later works.

My own personal recollection of Roy Bhaskar was from his appearances at the frequent CR events. He always gave the major speech and had the quality of explaining complicated philosophical questions in a digestible way. He had charisma and was the effective leader of a leftwing philosophical movement. Possibly his greatest legacy was to create a school of thought including capable exponents of CR, such as Margaret Archer, Andrew Collier and Alan Norrie.

A prominent example of a dogmatic reaction to CR was that Alan Woods and Ted Grant in their well-known Reason in revolt: Marxist philosophy and modern science (1995) didn’t mention CR at all. Rather, to put it in proper perspective, Bhaskar in philosophy - as a kind of unorthodox Engels - was as important as Mészáros has been for Marxist orthodoxy.

Bhaskar showed that epistemology isn’t identical with ontology. But what then is the status of epistemology? Here Marxists can go back to Kant. Then we must move on to Hegel, even if Bhaskar is somewhat negative about that great dialectician in the 1993 work.

Phil Walden
email

Abuse abstention

Does anyone know whether the Communist Platform within Left Unity is intending to gather support for a policy on child sexual abuse? Child sexual abuse is a ruling using sexual means. It is neither trivial nor rare: one in six children are sexually abused - every fourth girl, every eighth boy, according to The paedophile next door, broadcast on Channel 4 last month. Letters to the Weekly Worker on sexual matters aren’t on this, but on two other topics: prostitution and the age of consent. Why is that?

Scientific communists try to end all exploitation and oppression, advocating the current distribution of goods and services according to a mix of individual work and need. Of all oppressions, that of children, especially sexual abuse, is the least examined scientifically; indeed, could anyone even list five inquiries consistent with a scientific communist standpoint?

A Left Unity member in Brighton recently went to the trouble of addressing this serious deficiency. He listed over 30 questions as a contribution to his branch’s discussion of the topic. It produced a motion that was passed at LU’s policy conference a few weeks ago. Communist Platform supporters abstained to much derision. It brought to mind a Weekly Worker article which had this as the editor’s introduction: “Till the left starts to make headway, get used to being viewed as mad” (‘Nutters like us’, October 24).

The LU member in question wrote a blog post criticising the abstaining (bit.ly/facingreality). I suggest that the Weekly Worker editor invite this comrade to put his case in an article. As the comrade says, why should this topic be the preserve of reactionaries?

Jara Handala
email

No to extremism

What is more extreme, for a chief constable of a major city like Manchester, than knowing your citizens are leaving your country and flying halfway around the world, to illegally enter a foreign country and then take up arms against a native people?

What is more extreme than knowing your citizens are brutally displacing citizens of a foreign land, carrying out acts of murder, which have been described as “war crimes” by the international community, and then glorifying genocide, by posting celebratory pictures of gruesome images onto a variety of social networks?

These are the points which seemed to have been missed by Sir Peter Fahy, the chief constable for Greater Manchester police, in his recent public statements warning against the alleged “drift towards a police state”. Apparently, it’s no longer the job of the police to define what counts as extremism and he said the government, academics and civil society needed to decide where the line fell between free speech and extremist ideology.

What is striking about the comments of Sir Peter are some clear failures to address certain points, which in the British debate on modern counterterrorism strategy has always been lacking in substance. Not once has the chief constable sought to clarify to Manchester’s Iraqi and Kurdish populations, which number around 18,000 people, why those leaving to join Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have mostly been British-born Pakistanis, white converts or of African heritage.

The chief constable, Manchester city council, along with the government’s counter-extremism strategy, Prevent, have also made no meaningful efforts to engage with anyone outside the Muslim community, including Manchester’s Iraqi and Syrian Christians, Jewish, Turkmen and Yazidi communities. You would think this alone would assist the authorities in establishing a clearer picture of the actions of Britain’s IS members and in providing support to those British first-, second-, third- and fourth-generation Iraqis, whose families are being most greatly affected.

The Greater Manchester police, while having given some emphasis to counterterrorism awareness, through mostly a helpline number and the occasional public statement, have equally failed to provide any direction to Manchester residents regarding the legal steps that should be taken if someone was to encounter a returning member of Islamic State, or should recognise them in Manchester, Britain’s only self-declared “city of peace”.

Overall, I found the statements of Sir Peter Fahy to be unhelpful and, while I would agree that wider society has a role to play in defining what it views to be ‘extreme’, the fact that Greater Manchester police appear to be unclear as to what they view to be extreme has resulted in free reign for Islamic State and a justifiable feeling of insecurity among those who the Greater Manchester police are supposed to protect.

Hussein Al-alak
Manchester