Letters
SWP communists?
To put the record straight and briefly explain why we do not support an open letter to the SWP central committee on the subject of communist regroupment and unity, I’m obliged to reply to the letter entitled ‘Communist League’ in the Weekly Worker (July 27), and jointly signed by the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) and the Provisional Central Committee of the CPGB.
The first point I make is my letter of June 28, which you refer to, was addressed solely to the CPGB and not you and the RDG. In the letter I wrote, “We look forward to your reply.” I was very surprised to then be sent and read the letter from you and the RDG which refers quite selectively to only one part of the RWT’s letter of June 28.
The joint letter on the ‘Communist League’ states you “apologise for the fact that you initially had very little time to consider your attitude to the open letter”. It was never a matter of time. In fact I understand the CPGB were approached by the RDG about the idea of an open letter to the SWP central committee and you drafted one in response and sent it to the RDG. They redrafted this which was the one sent to us and that we had before us at the June 24 RWT aggregate. I can also assure you here and now this and the more general question of regroupment were very thoroughly debated and the letter of June 28 I sent to you carried the decisions taken as a result of this thorough debate.
For the record, the RDG never approached the RWT about the idea of an open letter to the SWP central committee and we were never sent a copy of your first draft (open letter) to the RDG.
Comrades, it will be absolutely impossible to achieve any form of communist regroupment, unity or party if such methods, which were used in the drafting process for the open letter to the SWP central committee, are the ‘order of the day’ or are used again in the future. Such methods cannot possibly inspire the confidence so vital for any process of regroupment or unity to be successful.
Regards some of the reasons why we don’t and will not support the idea of an open letter to the SWP central committee calling on them to participate in communist regroupment and unity. Since the RDG are co-signatories to the letter on the ‘Communist League’, I can do no better than quote the part on this subject from the letter of July 3 I sent to the RDG informing them of our aggregate decisions relative to them:
“We have considerable disagreements with the contents of and will not sign the draft open letter from the RDG and PCC CPGB to the SWP central committee.
“We disagree with your factional orientation on the SWP and this open letter has your factional position stamped all over it.
“We consider the SWP irreformable in a democratic, never mind communist direction. It is grossly illusionary to contend, as the open letter (draft) does, that the SWP could ever become a social or political force for ‘uniting our movement into a communist party’. The revolution in Ireland, the miners’ strike nor the massive anti-poll tax rebellion didn’t and couldn’t even begin to do it, so what chance the RDG and CPGB?”
I end this letter by asking a couple of questions of the CPGB. Do you now agree with the RDG’s factional orientation on the SWP and, given the joint open letter, do you think the SWP can be reforged into a communist party?
Mark Fischer replies:
In answer to your specific questions, our key strategic perspective remains unchanged. The central task facing communists is to reforge the Communist Party, a process that must include principled rapprochement between existing revolutionaries, as well as winning new forces.
Such a process can - indeed must - incorporate substantial numbers from an organisation such as the SWP. This is why the CPGB has identified the SWP, along with Militant Labour, as one of our major opponents.
We would add that there are more substantial matters to discuss in the process of communist rapprochement. We look forward to further exchanges.
Brian Higgins
Secretary, Republican Worker Tendency
‘Communist’ in name
I enjoy your weekly paper, which I see as a useful arena for discussion for Communists from all sides at present in Britain.
I myself belong to the CPB, but this doesn’t stop me and others working across barriers within our British movement of Communist groups, parties and factions.
Hopefully in time, sooner rather than later, we will have only one Communist Party, which may campaign in elections, in communities throughout the nation - a real alternative to the Labour Party, as the working class shifts support to the left and to a Communist Party built of many factions.
I do welcome the work of your Party and efforts to unite communists, but at present don’t think the SWP or Militant Labour would be keen to join to renew a larger CP. So you may well get more success from building links with present groups and factions who are ‘communist’ in name.
In the future months I look forward to a move to a larger Weekly Worker and even a monthly magazine/journal showing your theory and views for new communist unity in reforming a larger and more dynamic Communist Party for challenging Labour all over Britain as a long road to future gains.
I do not like your continued sectarian views against the CPB or Morning Star, which you say is not worth buying, reading or supporting. But a least we have a daily paper which all communists from all shades of opinion should support as a daily tool and weapon against the Tory press each day.
If in time your faction starts a new Daily Worker as a challenger of your politics, two communist papers are better than one to campaign for a communist movement for change on behalf of the British working class.
Finally, I am not the only one in the CPB who eventually wants only one Communist Party - so we can challenge Labour as we attack the Tory’s policies, which hold and support the capitalist system and abuse working people everyday. Some of us look forward to true communist growth together in unity.
Andy Melville
Reading
Victorian chauvinism
Phil Kent in his article, ‘Reactionary jamboree’ (Weekly Worker 105), has brought to life some 19th century opinions in order to justify his own ‘non-historic’ view. Those are that all the Slav Serbs, Croats and Muslims of the Balkans have existed as mere ‘hired butchers’. He uses the no less chauvinist opinions of Frederick Engels and turns them into a universal category.
It is a shame some Marxists remain who have ignored the work of Roman Rosdolsky which smashed the view of Engels on this question. By the way Rosdolsky was a Ukrainian communist - hardly a non-historic nation, but Engels thought so!
The idea that nations, just as classes, are a ready-made predetermined fact, not subject to historical development, is alien to Marxism. Engels introduced Eurocentric (even German) chauvinism into his communism in 1848. He viewed Croats as a nation of “cut-throats”. Why? Because they could not side with their oppressors. This led Engels to pander to the most reactionary opinions.
He was wrong and blind to the very reasons why this had arisen. The bourgeois republicans of Austria and Hungary in their nationality policies were no different from the monarchy they sought to overthrow. They could not even support the right of Croatians to have their own language. These most basic democratic demands are hardly those of ‘non-historic’ peoples. History, Phil, is not something decided on by 19th century bigots: it is shaped by human beings making their own history.
In fact, Phil, it has not been acting as ‘hired butchers’ that has guaranteed the existence of Croats, etc, but the opposite: it has been uniting in struggle against rulers and occupants - something you consider them incapable of as ‘non-historic’ peoples. Those such as the revolutionary ‘Green Movement’ in 1918/19 which, inspired by Bolshevism, united Croats, Muslims and Serbs against Austria and the reactionary independent Serb state. They sought a democratic federation and social revolution. Who hired the resistance movement which fought Croat Ustase, Serb Cetniks and German Nazis? They acted on their own.
These ‘non-historic peoples’ have shown resilience and determination throughout history. This reality shows this term as fancy dressing to justify opinions common to those who live in imperialist states. We’ve all heard ‘barbarians’, ‘savages’, ‘cut-throats’, etc.
There is a second part of your argument that has its roots in your ‘non-historic’ views - a recognition of the legitimacy of ethnic nationalism: “At the moment only separation seems to offer the possibility of a future working class politics.” A certain Serb Marxist, Markovic, thinks so too. He ended up supporting Milosevic, for that is the logic of ethnicity as the definition of a nation.
The only thing standing in the way of these ethnic states is the existence of what is left of multi-ethnic communities such as Tuzla, where the commander of Bosnian forces is a Serb!
If ethnic separatism is the only way forward for the working class, then surely that means the victory of the Greater Serbian project. Maybe you couldn’t stomach saying that openly. Better an abstract view of class struggle above real human relations and history.
Phil Kent replies:
I do not think that Engels was being chauvinistic with his designation of the South Slavs as non-historic peoples. They wanted nothing to do with the working class, universal brotherhood or the common ownership of the means of production, but to maintain their old culture and blood feuds. For this end they hired themselves out to the most reactionary regimes in the region: Austria and Russia. In short they were determined to live in the past, not to create the future. Rosdolsky agreed with Engels on this.
Rosdolsky did not argue in favour of nationalism of any sort, but supported Lenin’s policy of integrating nations together voluntarily, not at gunpoint. His point was that the Russian Revolution was led by the working class - which opened the way for nations, historic and otherwise, to come together free of the burden of ancient fears and hatreds in order to defend their real interests.
The present Balkans war is led by reactionaries, determined to return the region to the politics of the past. Also, irrespective of who comes off best in the present fighting, the area is bound to become an arena for imperialist rivalries with each little statelet scrabbling for advantage over the others. Bosnia is not the multi-ethnic seed from which Yugoslavia can be reforged, but a bone for the dogs of war to fight over.
The working class needs a socialist solution, but we need to start fighting for it in the present - concrete - reactionary circumstances. My argument was that the best chance our class has in developing an independent progressive position in ex-Yugoslavia is to support democracy. Democracy in the reality of ethnic cleansing must start with the national question, because without that being resolved there is no basis for ordinary people to feel secure enough to support one another against their nationalist leaders in practice.
To touch on a related issue which I believe is close to your heart - namely, the right of Scotland to independence. If one Serbian general makes Bosnia the progressive solution, do not all the Scottish generals in the British army make unity with England the multi-national progressive answer we should fight for?
Chris Ford
RWT supporter