Letters

Self-appointed

In the Weekly Worker 116 Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) comments on what he describes as the “leftwing activism” of ex-members of the Gravesend Socialist Workers Party. He notes that “They were at various times secretaries or convenors of the CND branch, miners support group, Anti-Apartheid Movement, Anti-Nazi League, Anti-Poll Tax Union, Health Campaign,” and concedes that “We can respect these comrades for their struggles.” Yet Craig goes on to refute the argument that “this kind of activism is the foundation for a communist party”. He further suggests that “For communist work to have any solid foundation it must be based on revolutionary theory, programme and tactics.”

Dave is of course correct to stress the need for a revolutionary theory and programme and correct to point out that involvement in such activities does not in itself prove adherence to this position. But what he fails to point out is that by the same token neither does involvement in such activity necessarily mean that one has rejected the need for theory and programme. It is perfectly possible to see the need for and work toward the establishment of a revolutionary programme whilst at the same time being involved in such leftwing activism.

In fact not only possible but, I would suggest, absolutely necessary. For where can the revolutionary theory and programme which Dave so correctly advocates come from, unless drawn from the experience gained by working class activists in their everyday struggles? There is only one other source and that is from those with no experience of working class struggle, but who nevertheless see it as their self- appointed task to supply the class with leadership in that struggle.

This question on the role of the working class in the establishment of revolutionary theory is not a new one, and Dave has correctly located its origins in quoting Lenin’s What is to be done? (“Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice.”) It was in this work that Lenin also stated:

“The history of all countries shows that the working class by its own effort is able to develop only trade union consciousness - ie, the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism however grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals.”

It is true that socialist theory originated in the heads of non-worker intellectuals. This is no surprise, for when socialist theory first emerged - the early 1800s - the industrial working class was at the very beginning of its historical existence, small in number, mostly impoverished and illiterate, and thus with little opportunity to have developed a significant level of political class consciousness. However this failure to have risen above trade union consciousness at this particular stage - Lenin wrote his book in 1902 - in no way justifies his assertion that this is a permanent state of affairs (with its obvious corollary that the leadership of non-worker intellectuals will therefore always be required).

In fact this century has shown us several occasions where mass movements of workers, independent of any leadership from non-worker intellectuals, have transcended simple trade union consciousness, and attempted to directly intervene in the social order - the collectivisation movement in Spain during 1936, the workers’ councils during the Hungarian uprising in 1953, the Solidarity movement in Poland in 1981, for instance. These examples show quite clearly that Lenin’s suggestion that “the working class by its own effort is capable of developing only trade union consciousness” is very wrong. And it is also, I would suggest, totally at odds with Marx’s assertion that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.

In fact the very idea that there can exist outside of the working class a theoretical centre which knows the interests of that class better than the class itself is a most dangerous concept.

It means that, should that centre gain political control of the state, and thus be in a position to impose its policies upon society - even those policies which may be opposed by the majority of working people - these can be justified on the basis that the class, being incapable of achieving full political consciousness, cannot be expected to always understand the long-term political wisdom of the centre.

This of course was exactly the logic by which the bureaucracies of the old Eastern bloc justified for so long their own anti-working class policies.

In contrast to what Dave states, it is exactly the sort of leftwing activism engaged in by former members of the Gravesend SWP which provides the best basis for a revolutionary movement; not as an end in itself, but rather as the arena in which is gained the experience and class consciousness necessary for the establishment of working class theory and programme.

Mick O’Farrell
Hertfordshire

Hell on earth?

In Danny Hammill’s review of the Hayward Gallery exhibition Art and Power he finds an “unsettling similarity” between Nazi and Soviet art styles of the 30s, not surprisingly falling into the trap laid by careful choice and juxtaposition.

The ploy of linking fascism to communism in the public mind is not new. We were up against it in our branch in the fifties. Sadly Danny seems unfamiliar with much early work on view in an earlier exhibition recorded in the very fine publication, Soviet Art, 1920s to 1930s, with examples from naturalistic woodland scenes to abstract art and stunning agit-prop posters.

Official ‘socialist realism’ was introduced as the most direct way to change traditional attitudes, encourage and convey to mainly illiterate workers and peasants the reality of the workers’ state by use of posters, paintings and statues glorifying labour.

No stock exchange, no 200 richest families. Why “hell on earth” Danny? When foreign intervention, bloody civil war and famine were overcome, the 30s were a period of intensive development in manufacture, heavy machinery, iron and steel production, materials necessary for the construction of railways, factories, buildings, great hydro-electric schemes for the electrification of the Union that Lenin had called for.

All workers, men and women, were guaranteed a job and a home and education. Those are the facts. The past is our history - do not denigrate it.

Mary Carter
Devon

Bemused

Bob Smith’s column in the Weekly Worker and the entry of some comrades from Open Polemic into the CPGB has certainly brought a sharper focus to the debate around rapprochement. I wish to comment on a couple of issues raised in Bob’s latest column (issue 120).

Bob argues that the CPGB is “highly selective” in its approach to rapprochement. This leaves me somewhat bemused.

I am sure comrade Bob will be the first to admit that the whole process of rapprochement is unlikely to be straightforward. Left organisations have inexhaustible ideas on the question and to win those with views closer to ours will involve numerous debates on numerous issues to establish clarity and the most beneficial way forward.

I think the arguments Bob is pursuing however are in danger of doing the exact opposite to this. Indeed, could it not be said that his agenda promotes exactly what he and ‘For a permanent Party polemic committee’ are trying to avoid and attacking us for - activity over their own particular political agenda and nothing else?

We cannot afford to just sit around and wait for organisations to come to us to debate rapprochement at the expense of other activities. Working under the present low ebb of the class struggle is bad enough: abandoning other work to put ‘all your eggs in one basket’ would leave the organisation passive and insular.

The recent party aggregate typified the dangers of this approach. Whilst I disagreed with others in our organisation that FPPPC’s proposed ‘minimalist statement of intent’ would have prevented debate over the nature of the party, I failed to see the point of it.

Yes, it would have brought debate, but so what? Its content was not that dissimilar to the Weekly Worker’s ‘What we stand for’ column - something that already generates discussion. Surely the issues it would have raised would have sat neatly in the abundant polemic on the horizon over the draft programme?

Finally, I do not think that only the CPGB’s mass work is serious. Indeed, under present conditions, communist work undertaken by any organisation should be saluted. I may not agree with a particular tactic adopted by this or that organisation, and I think it would be necessary to say so. I would certainly not regard them as “beneath contempt” for pursuing a strategy I thought incorrect. It is wrong for Bob to state that all members of the CPGB do so.

Gareth Phillips
East London