Letters

Two Momentums

The first Haringey Momentum meeting took place on October 27. It was attendance by about 200 people, mostly white and middle-aged - without the presence of Corbyn, other demographics appear to be less likely to attend. Andrew Burgin and Doug Thorpe (Left Unity) had taken up seats in the front row, as had some local Socialist Resistance members.

The first speaker on the panel introduced himself as a Unison activist and long-standing Labour member. He gave a ‘motivational’ speech, arguing for a “new kind of politics”. In his view, this meant that new LP members weren’t interested in “discussing the minutes from the last branch meeting”, but in “getting out there”, “campaigning” and “doing things”. He proceeded to reiterate this basic theme in many different ways.

The second speaker was an elderly lady who had come to the UK from an African country in the 1970s. She recalled the activities of the National Front in Haringey at the time, and how the Tories were adding fuel to the fire. Corbyn, then councillor in Haringey, was always there offering unreserved solidarity, even against the advice of his party colleagues. The bottom line was that we need to get to know each other and rebuild solidarity at a local level, regardless of party or group affiliation. It was probably the most powerful speech of the evening - much better than I am able to reproduce here - although the woman seemed to believe that more recent anti-migrant rhetoric was still primarily directed against black people, including those who have been here for decades. A bit stuck in the 1970s, then - if understandably so due to some bad shit she’d experienced in her time.

Next up were contributions from the floor. SWPers didn’t identify themselves openly as such, but were clearly distinguishable by their tired line: ‘We can’t wait till 2020. We need to hit the streets, so come to the next demonstration and attend the Unite the Resistance conference.’ Supporters of the Socialist Party in England and Wales called upon LP councillors to refuse Tory cuts and set illegal budgets “like back in Liverpool”.

There was a lot of repetition about “getting out there” and “campaigning” from the majority of the audience, most of them experienced labour-movement activists and/or Trots. One couldn’t help the impression that perhaps this was a ‘lost generation’ that had ‘got out there’ and ‘campaigned’ for so many decades that it was simply unable - or unwilling - to imagine any other mode of politics.

Ironically, the few ‘new young members’ who had been deemed unwilling to attend ‘boring meetings and debates’ protested against this patronising characterisation. One shouldn’t leave the politics to the bureaucracy, they said, and, yes, it was important to go through the minutes and be aware what exactly is happening in the party. Rather than confining the rank and file to just being campaigning foot-soldiers for Corbyn, Momentum should demand bottom-up democratisation and members’ control of the party.

As another young member was about to contribute, a woman interrupted and demanded that the chair lets a woman speak - even though none had their hands up at the time. She kept repeating this until a ‘rock dude’ turned to her and said: “Well, just put your hand up and speak, then.” This made her very angry and caused minor disruption to the proceedings.

Members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty made some of the best contributions. I can’t recall them all, but there was something about open borders across Europe, plus the expelled Ed Maltby and Liam McNulty protested against anti-left witch-hunts, saying that there has always been a revolutionary current in the workers’ movement, and we should defend the right of this current to exist and express itself openly.

In the end, the top-table speakers brought things full circle, underlining once more the importance of ‘getting out there’ and ‘campaigning’ to ‘support Corbyn’ instead of getting bogged down in tiresome debates and arguments. One of them said we need to get “every Labour Party candidate elected”, and to argue otherwise is to refuse to support Corbyn. However, there were now “two Labour parties” - one being the PLP and the apparatus; the other being the pro-Corbyn rank and file.

I left with the impression that there were also two Momentums. The ‘invisible dictatorship’ of Socialist Action et al running things behind the scenes, objectively aided by the stupidity of washed-out Trots who just want to ‘get out there’ and ‘campaign’. On the other hand, those who are openly far left/revolutionary and younger members who could prove a bit too critical even for the Momentum apparatchiks’ liking.

Alex Czarnovic
Haringey

Through the mire

Jack Conrad calls on the CPGB to oppose Left Unity national conference resolution 68 on self-determination (‘Anatomy of a conference’, October 15). He is mistaken and should reconsider.

The resolution makes three points:

1. We note the LU manifesto called for the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords, but took no view on the Acts of Union, which bind England with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

2. This conference calls for the abolition of all the Acts of Union, thus ending all jurisdictions by the British crown over the sovereign nations of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

3. By ending all Acts of Union, the people of Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be able to freely choose their future relations with the people of England, whether as independent nations, or in some form of voluntary federal relationship or within the European Union or in whatever form they decide.

Jack is perhaps worried about the threat that opposition to these laws poses to the future of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the British Labour Party and the British road to socialism. This is the danger of national self-determination or indeed greater democracy. If the people have democratic options and rights, they might not do what communists demand. Of course, the CPGB does not want to become CPEW or CPE. But, in voting against this resolution the CPGB, will be putting its own self-preservation before the democratic interests of the working class.

The real argument is in Jack’s criticism of the resolution. He asks: “Does that mean they [the movers] seek the re-establishment of the Irish, Scottish and Welsh feudal monarchies? Probably not. No, the motivation is clear. Instead of the working class in Britain unitedly fighting for a federal republic and international socialism, the two comrades want the break-up of Britain into separate capitalist states. Oppose.”

First, of course, it is logical, if somewhat absurd, to suggest that anybody who aims to abolish the British constitutional monarchy wants to return to the feudal monarchy. Do the CPGB want to get rid of our dear queen to bring back William the Bastard or Henry V? Jack’s words - “Probably not. No, the motivation is clear” - surely applies to the CPGB’s rejection of constitutional monarchy, as it does to the Acts of Union.

So Jack’s real argument is about working class unity and the threat posed to the working class of any democratic reform that does not abolish capitalism. Capitalist states are merging and breaking up. This is quite normal and part of the ongoing struggle between imperialism and democracy. Queen Anne’s bloody Act of Union was central to the formation of British imperialism. It was not a democratic law and has not become so as a result of over two hundred years of the British empire.

The key phrase in the resolution, which Jack ignores, states that Ireland, Scotland and Wales “will be able to freely choose their future relations with the people of England”. Anti-unionism and national self-determination in the UK are the same principle looked at from a democratic angle.

All the Acts of Union were and remain part of the anti-democratic structure of the constitutional monarchy as much as the privy council or the House of Lords. Far from this ‘uniting’ the working class, these laws are responsible for institutionalising class division. This is why the Tories are unionists and the CPGB must not be so - unless you want to drag the name of communism through the mire and drown it in the foul waters of English chauvinism.

Steve Freeman
email

Sniper fire

When he purported to be a Marxist, Tony Clark had a very narrow understanding of the doctrine which consisted of uncritical support for Stalin. Anyone who disagreed with his dogmatic understanding was promptly denounced. In short, his methodology was a type of sectarian authoritarianism. Tony has now ‘discovered’ that Marxism is obsolete, but his method remains the same.

He says: “What I argue is that Marxism has misled communists into believing that modern capitalism was made possible by the circulation of money - or M-C-M, as Marx called it. It is necessary to point out that all the money and labour in the world would not result in a modern industrial society without the energy content available in fossil fuels” (Letters, October 29).

This is correct, but totally one-sided. Without the means for international trade and the development of productive forces, the fossil fuels would have stayed in the ground. In a recent television programme entitled Planet oil, Iain Stewart noted that when oil was initially discovered the only use for it was in oil lamps. With the implementation of electrical lighting it looked as if the usefulness of oil would be short-lived until the Model T Ford started to roll off the production line, which could make use of what until then was considered a waste product of oil - gasoline.

“The 19th century, money-centred view on the development of capitalism, which is shared by Marxism, is obsolete from a scientific perspective. This does not mean that Marx’s analysis of the circulation process was not brilliant,” says Tony. It would be interesting if he could inform us in what way the aforesaid perspective is obsolete, especially as it was formerly ‘brilliant’. Maybe Tony would like to check whether Newton’s 17th century theory of gravitational forces is obsolete by stepping off a high building. In truth he seems to be the latest, if least important, in a long line of former Marxists who blame the doctrine rather than themselves for their conceptual break.

“As for the question of the democratic rule of the people on the basis of socialism, why call this rule a dictatorship, as Marx did - incorrectly, in my view? There is no such thing as a dictatorship without a dictator and, as Lenin pointed out, this means rule unrestrained by any law. And we all know where this can lead.”

Here Tony appears to be making some indirect criticism of his former hero, Joseph Stalin. However, rather than bother to develop a nuanced analysis, Tony accepts the CIA-developed idea of ‘totalitarianism’. Ironically, this comrade, who once was an excellent critic of the petty bourgeois ideology of Trotskyism, appears to be falling into the same black hole of sectarian dogmatism - with the difference that his new and modern ‘theory’ is based upon a particular (mis)understanding of ‘peak oil’.

Tony, finally, leaves us with this thought: “My theme is that Marxism undermines the struggle for socialism”. Again this is a bald assertion with no explanation or evidence thought necessary. Interesting as it is to follow in the Weekly Worker Tony’s angst at his break from Marxism, it would be more productive if occasionally he could provide some evidence to substantiate his hostility. An intelligent and coherent attack on Marxism would be welcomed by me for one, in terms of interrogating the doctrine, but Tony’s continual ignorant sniping serves only to make him appear to be a political dilettante.

Ted Hankin
Nottingham

Close-up

I took out a subscription to Weekly Worker a couple of weeks ago. After reading The Socialist for a lot of years, I can see what they lack and you have: clarity.

I enjoyed the article on China (‘Royal pomp and Hollandisation’, October 29). The difference between an article by you and one by Peter Taaffe is that yours has an elegance about it which no-one in their right minds could ever say about his writings.

I have taken out recent subscriptions to New Worker, Solidarity and Socialist Appeal. I wouldn’t say I necessarily agreed with you about China, but that doesn’t matter. What I can’t stand is being indoctrinated by idiots who won’t listen to a word of criticism. They don’t allow criticism. They are just banging your head with a fixed set of facts. No discussion is possible.

The reason there is no interest in the socialist parties is to do with their own failings. They are not attractive. They don’t speak the common language. They are incoherent. No-one knows what they’re talking about. Confusion reigns. Socialism is in a terrible shape.

Things could be worse. Capitalism itself is entering a mad period of its development. They don’t come much madder than Britain. It lacks a coherent society. Its spoken language is insecure. People make up for this in all kinds of ways, many by not talking much. Everybody is hearing voices in their heads. They are told it’s their conscience. Christ, how do they live with it all?

Elijah Traven
email

Mickey Mouse

Mike Belbin writes: “I was glad to find Rosa Lichtenstein taking time out to praise historical materialism: that is, the application of dialectical thinking to ‘economics, history and politics’” (Letters, October 29).

In fact, I was advocating a historical materialism that has had Hegel’s ideas (upside down, or the ‘right way up’) completely excised (Letters, October 22). The point is that historical materialism is in an incomparably better state than the Mickey Mouse theory - dialectical materialism - we have inherited from Hegel, via Engels. And historical materialism is in that state partly because Hegel’s confused ideas can find no practical application therein, and which are hence merely ornamental; they do no real work. Marxists, of course, nod in the direction of tradition and orthodoxy by employing Hegel’s jargon, but comrades like Mike struggle - obviously to no avail - to make the associated ideas clear, let alone comprehensible.

Mike then says: “Even a theory like natural selection was substantially incomplete until the 20th century.” Indeed, but dialectical materialism has largely remained in the confused and amateurish state in which Engels left it. Not even Mike can inform us with any clarity or consistency what a “quality” is - without, for example, ruling out melting iron or freezing water as a change in “quality” - and, despite being asked several times, he has yet to tell us how long a “leap”/”node” is supposed to last. Mike hasn’t even attempted to specify, just as other dialecticians have yet to specify - apparently this doesn’t even make it on to the edge of the dialectical radar screen - what the thermodynamic contours of a ‘dialectical’ system are, what adding/subtracting energy or matter amounts to, what constitutes such a system/body, or even what the development of one of these is meant to be.

If evolutionary theory had been left in such a threadbare, amateurish and confused state for 150 years, it would rightly be branded Mickey Mouse science too.

Rosa Lichtenstein
email