Letters

Transformative

Neil Davidson distinguishes two kinds of class struggle: “Class struggle within a system and class struggle that can transform a system. Slaves fighting against slave masters, peasants fighting against feudal lords - these are struggles that take place within slavery and feudalism; they do not have the intent or capacity of transforming society” (‘Pulling the handbrake’, April 12).

Davidson further differentiates between a political revolution, which is about power in the state, and social revolution, which changes society. He asserts though that Marxists like Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood separate bourgeois revolutions like the English in the 17th century from capitalism, when we all know it was a socially transformative revolution.

On the contrary, the point made by these historians was that the social revolution which was uniquely capitalism began in the 14th century in England. This was not just an expansion of trade and markets ‘freed’ from the shackles of previous social formations stretching back into universal history, but an unprecedented occurrence, in which feudal lords introduced new relations of labour and rent into the lives of their underlings, many of whose number had been wiped out by bubonic plague.

Over the next two centuries capitalism’s entirely new mode of appropriating value, with its imperative to profit, produced tensions, which resulted in representatives of the bourgeoisie and the royalist aristocracy clashing over power in the state during the 1640s: a long social revolution, culminating in a political revolution.

Perhaps we might take some comfort these days from the observation that a social revolution can take time to develop into a political one.

Mike Belbin
email

Open mind

Not wishing to be pedantic, but by cutting my reply to Lars T Lih’s article on the secret treaties (‘Biography of a sister slogan’, April 5), no doubt in order to save space, the editor removed two crucial paragraphs from my letter of April 12. As a result, he inadvertently weakened my argument.

In chronological order, the first cut was a quote from Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution (1919). This quotes in turn from Lenin’s article in Pravda, vis-à-vis his attack on Kamenev’s now notorious editorial of March 15 1917: “On April 4, the day after his arrival in Petrograd, Lenin came out decisively against the position of Pravda on the question of war and peace. He wrote: ‘No support whatever to the Provisional Government! We must expose the utter deception of its promises, especially with regard to the renunciation of annexations. There must be an exposure instead of this inadmissible ‘demand’ - which can only sow illusions - that this government, a capitalist government, should cease to be imperialistic’” (Proletarskaya Revolyutsia p131).

The second cut is from Lenin himself in the first of his Letters to the party. It concerns his reference to the “commune state”. Once again, he is attacking Kamenev and co, in order to point out the gulf that now existed between himself and the supporters of ‘old Bolshevism’. The latter continued to believe in a reality that was no longer there, upon which the strategy of the ‘democratic revolution’ was based, whereas Lenin now realised that the war had brought about a new reality, wherein the bourgeoisie were tied to the apron strings of their imperialist allies. Hence the existing strategy would lead to ignominious defeat. Therefore, in his April theses, he calls for a new strategy - ie, the struggle for a “commune state”, as a basis for a social revolution, which was now required (although this was contingent on the success of the revolution in the west).

In order to resolve the crisis of leadership regarding the revolution, Lenin decides to go over the heads of Kamenev and co and appeal to party members directly, prior to the party conference at the end of April. Therefore, he writes that “the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies” is “the ‘revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ already accomplished in reality.” Thus, “A new and different task now faces us: to effect a split within this dictatorship between the proletarian elements (the anti-defencist, internationalist, ‘communist’ elements, who stand for a transition to the commune) and the small-proprietor, petty-bourgeois elements (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, … the Socialist Revolutionaries and other revolutionary defencists, who are opposed to moving towards the commune and are in favour of ‘supporting’ the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois government)” (‘Assessment of the present situation’, April 1917).

The main point of difference between Lih and myself as a defender of Trotsky’s position (albeit with an open mind, in contrast to the dogmatism of others) is this: there is always the danger that a revolutionary party can degenerate politically in the course of the struggle - ie, from revolutionism to reformism, opportunism and defencism. When this happens, a fundamental break occurs within the continuity of the movement as a whole (eg, the betrayal of the Second International by German Social Democracy in 1914; the betrayal of the Third International by Stalin after Lenin’s death).

The question of continuity is not just about following organisational norms - ie, democratic centralism (which seems to be the basis of Lih’s argument). These were still in place during the revolutionary year of 1917, despite everything. But the banning of factions within the Bolshevik Party in 1921 constituted a break in the continuity of the movement in that sense as well. (This was, of course, a symptom of its degeneration under the weight of the imperialist-backed counterrevolution: concretely the terrible cost of the civil war, which required an ‘iron dictatorship’ if the revolution was to survive at all.) But, for obvious reasons, the first is the more important. When political degeneration occurs, this will inevitably lead to the second anyway.

Finally, If Lih’s scholarship is to be taken seriously by revolutionary Marxists, then he should have made such a distinction right from the start of his series on the Russian Revolution. He should also reiterate this point at the start of each new episode, including his latest one. Otherwise, his understanding of the Russian language, along with his extensive investigation of the archives, is to no avail. It also opens the door to reformism.

Rex Dunn
email

We were there

I appreciate Tony Greenstein is not all-seeing, but his claim that only Brighton Momentum had their banner at the Gaza protest is disproven by photographs from the event, which show members of Brent Momentum with their banner (‘Another agenda’, April 12). The banner and members of Brent Momentum have been busy supporting the Jewish Voice for Labour opposition to the anti-Corbyn Board of Deputies rally and joining the protest against bombing Syria this week (alongside several other Momentum branches).

Locally, we have been on picket lines opposing academisation and also rallied the local Constituency Labour Party and Labour councillors against anti-Semitic graffiti targeting local Jewish residents. Opposing imperialism, neoliberalism, Zionism and anti-Semitism to date this year, whilst campaigning in Brent and Westminster for the May local elections, we are looking for fresh challenges.

Whether we are Jon Lansman’s idea of Momentum is another matter.

Graham Durham
London

Unworthy victims

In their book Manufacturing consent Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky distinguished between two kinds of victims: the worthy and the unworthy. The ‘worthy victims’ are the victims (real and alleged) of leaders on the US enemies list, such as Bashar al-Assad. The ‘unworthy victims’ are those of the US and its client states, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

For example, there are the 50,000 Yemeni children who have died of starvation because of Saudi Arabia’s total blockade of Yemen. They are ignored by the ‘international community’ and the mainstream media. There is no outrage from the US when Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman drops US-manufactured bombs from US-manufactured airplanes and indiscriminately slaughters Yemeni men, women and children.

Meanwhile, for weeks now tens of thousands of Gazans have been legally protesting for their right to return to their homes in Palestine. There is no outrage when Netanyahu and his regime orders Israeli soldiers to massacre them - hundreds of Palestinians have been gunned down. US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is not going to hold up pictures of dead Palestinian children - instead she will shield Netanyahu from criticism, and accuse his critics of being anti-Semitic. Netanyahu has also killed and wounded journalists reporting from Gaza. They too are unworthy victims, so there is no outcry from the mainstream media - as there is when Vladimir Putin is accused of doing the same.

Haley says that Putin is an obstructionist for vetoing a UN resolution condemning Assad for an alleged chemical weapons attack, without any evidence that Syria was responsible. The US tried to block an investigation by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but the OPCW says it will investigate anyway.

The unproven allegation comes from US-backed terrorists that have been waging a war against the Syrian people for over seven years. It has been widely reported and documented that the alleged chemical weapon attacks, supposedly perpetrated by Assad, have been false flags and faked. The terrorists have been reported as having chemical weapons in their arsenal, so if they were used they could have come from them.

It is well known that the US has been behind the war against Assad, as it backs terrorists in ‘regime change’ projects more generally. The dead and wounded resulting from US aggression during the 21st century number in the millions in over half a dozen countries. The mainstream media ignores all this, and the US people mainly go about their day-to-day activities as if nothing is happening. Since the US is allegedly a democracy and has freedom of the press, then its citizens and the mainstream media are responsible for the actions of their government. Ignorance of the law about what their government is doing is not an excuse.

Under international law the Palestinians have a right to resist the illegal military occupation of Palestine that has been going on since 1967. But Israel does not have the right to impose collective punishment, deny refugees the right to return home, confiscate land, impose indefinite detention, torture prisoners and restrict the free movement of civilians; nor to confine them in inhumane living conditions in Gaza. Israel is acting no differently than the Nazis did in 1939, when they enclosed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Just like the Warsaw Ghetto, Gaza is unlivable: the people are starving, the water is contaminated, disease is rampant, and Israel has systematically destroyed their homes and civilian infrastructure.

Israel routinely shoots to kill anyone entering a ‘no man’s land’ buffer zone inside Gaza. It even has remote-controlled machine guns and other indiscriminate instruments of death. When tens of thousands of unarmed demonstrators approached the buffer zone, Israeli military snipers were prepared to massacre them. The demonstrations in commemoration of Land Day and protests for the right to return had been announced in advance, yet Israel opened fire and massacred demonstrators.

Under international law commanders giving the orders to shoot unarmed civilians, and individual soldiers who do so, could be charged with wars crimes by the International Criminal Court. But that is not likely to happen any time soon, because the US protects Israel and allows Netanyahu to literally get away with murder. After all, his victims are ‘unworthy’.

David William Pear
Florida

Hypocrisy

The decision by Theresa May to join the USA and France in bombing Syria last weekend, and without even consulting parliament, has been condemned by the Rugby Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. Although we totally oppose the use of chemical weapons by anyone at any time, there is no proof that chemical weapons were used last week in Douma, and, if they were, who used them.

If chemical weapons have been used, it is just as likely that the opposition forces used them as Assad. Britain, France and the USA attacking Syria is likely to kill more innocent civilians and make peace in the region even harder to obtain. It will also be seen as yet another unwanted interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, and another attack on Islam. We oppose the ‘western’ attack on Syria whether or not parliament voted for it, which it hasn’t. It does not reflect public opinion.

The hypocrisy of those in the government who cite apparent use of chemical weapons to justify western intervention is unbelievable. Twelve months into the present conflict in Syria, the Tory government allowed chemicals - including potassium and sodium fluoride, key ingredients in the manufacture of the deadly nerve gas, sarin - to be exported to Syria despite 12 months of civil war. When Saddam Hussein killed 3,000 of his own people with chemical weapons in 1988, the west did nothing. What did the west do when the USA used Agent Orange and napalm in Vietnam, and Israel used white phosphorous in Gaza?

Western invasions in recent years have all led to untold bloodshed and suffering, both in the invaded country and in terms of increased terrorism worldwide. This attack on Syria will not help solve the civil war, which is causing so much suffering. Over half a million Syrians have been killed during the present conflict. It will further inflame the conflict, as we have seen with previous US- and/or UK-led interventions in recent history - Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, for example. It is likely to worsen the deteriorating relationship Britain has with Russia, given Russia’s support for the Assad regime, and we can only speculate on what would happen if a US/UK air strike killed Russian technicians or soldiers.

There was little popular support for this weekend’s attack on Syria. This Tory government is sadly out of touch, and they should understand that their policies could precipitate a major world conflict. Instead, what the government should be doing is commit to working towards peace in the region.

Pete McLaren
Rugby Tusc

New MP

A Chambers and Partners band-one legal practice is now on standby to pursue an action to bring about a coroner’s inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly; an action before the International Criminal Court against those who had brought slavery back to Libya; and an action before the High Court of Justiciary of Scotland, inviting it to exercise its declaratory power against Tony Blair and his accomplices in the aggression against Iraq. We are, of course, also keeping a very close eye on the situation in Syria. All of these actions are to begin immediately upon my election to the House of Commons.

And my case as a legally persecuted political dissident has been referred to Amnesty International. I do not even have a trial date now, even though it is rightly a criminal offence in itself not to turn up to one’s trial. The legal persecution of me, which has been going on for over a year, was initiated only in order to deter me from seeking public office or to prevent my election to it, and its continuation is only to one or both of those ends. As of today, Amnesty International is on the case.

David Lindsay
Prospective candidate, North West Durham