Letters

Unfounded criticism

Steve Kay accuses me of “displaying ... a lack of empathy” (Weekly Worker 127) in my extremely short article on the Russian elections (Weekly Worker 125). I have to presume that Steve thinks I was too ‘harsh’ on the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and groups like the Russian Communist Workers’ Party.

Well, I do not think so. Steve writes, “The groups in Russia most inclined to damn capitalism to hell are the ones most inclined to hold aloft portraits of Stalin.” Yes, I am sure that is true. The extreme alienation, chaos and ‘dislocation’ (not to mention, of course, sudden pauperisation) produced by capitalist restoration has driven a substantial proportion of the masses into absolute despair. Hence, given the lack of any real alternative, many will find solace in astrology, cults, the Orthodox Church, gambling, alcohol - or the JV Stalin era, when you could walk the streets safely at night. I also realise that for many Russian pensioners - the ones that survived the Nazi and Stalinite terror, that is - the Stalin era was relatively prosperous and secure, if compared to their present-day plight (or, for that matter, the Gorbachev days).

However, it is the first duty of genuine communists to tell the truth, no matter how unpalatable or unfashionable it is. It would be a dereliction of our communist duty if we attempted to peddle illusions or tried to pull an ideological fast one on the masses - even if it did secure some votes. The political programme and leadership of ‘far left’ groups like Communists for the Soviet Union is bankrupt and backward looking - in other words, it is of no use for the working class and all those who fight for its real liberation.

I do not think this shows a lack of empathy with the Russian working class - quite the opposite. After all, in my original article I deliberately emphasised the fact that the 4.6% ‘far left’ vote “shows the potential for a genuine communist revival” - ie, it would be a mistake to dismiss this vote purely as a ‘Stalinist’ irrelevancy or as ‘reactionary’ nostalgia. As regards the CPRF, surely we can all agree that it has an utterly rotten social democratic, chauvinistic ‘programme’, which is hostile to the working class? In Britain the majority of workers voted for the Labour Party, and most of them will vote for ‘new Labour - that did not make it any less anti-working class. Genuine communists in Britain have always striven to break the stranglehold the Labour Party, and Labourism, has over the working class - not because we thought the masses were ‘stupid’ for voting Labour.

Yes, Steve, The Leninist did cite “anti­-Sovietism” as a cardinal sin of our opponents - quite correctly, in my opinion! As I understand it, “anti­-Sovietism” amounted to a craven capitulation to the ‘anti-Stalinist’ (ie, anti-communist) world-view of the bourgeoisie and, in the context of the August counterrevolution, painting ‘red’ the spontaneous anti-communist ‘consciousness’ of the (alienated and exploited) working class. Thus, the majority of Trotskyists - given their cult of spontaneity, chronic lack of ‘Partyism’, religious adherence to Leon Trotsky’s Transitional Programme, Stalinophobia, etc - acted as cheerleaders for the counterrevolution, grotesquely lauding it as the “political revolution” predicted by their revered prophet. The twilight zone really beckons if you remember that these very same organisations were also committed, formally, to the “unconditional defence” of the Soviet Union and that a few - a beautiful example being Workers Power - actually classify Yeltsinite Russia as a “workers’ state”, albeit “moribund” (on the grounds that it is the duty of ‘Marxists’ to defend certain property forms).

The Eurocommunists/Democratic Leftists in the ‘official’ CPGB also suffered from inveterate anti-Sovietism - except in their case it was motivated by anti-communism pure and simple, not by a ‘deformed’ revolutionism.

I think it would be incorrect to conclude that the Weekly Worker is “gradually undergoing an anti-Soviet conversion on the road to Damascus”, as Steve mischievously suggests. We have always been highly critical, to put it mildly, of the Soviet bureaucracy and its leadership, most notably the centrist and terroristic ‘programme’ of JV Stalin. Long may that continue. It seems fairly obvious to me that the Weekly Worker, in this respect anyway, is a continuation of The Leninist - albeit on a higher level and infused by the spirit of communist rapprochement.

Naturally, there were all manner of ‘official communist’ zombies, and still are I’m afraid, who were all too ready to denounce all and any criticism of the Soviet leadership, automatically branding it ‘anti-Soviet’ or, predictably, as ‘Trotskyism’. However, I cannot believe that Steve would want to associate himself with the likes of the Communist Party of Britain or the New Communist Party - or, when it comes down to it, the Stalin Society or Partisan.

Danny Hammill
South London

State terror

I am writing to ask for your support in the Justice for Alton Manning Campaign.

Alton Manning died in Blakenhurst Prison on December 8 1995, and as yet unsatisfactory answers have been given to the circumstances of his death. It has been claimed that seven warders were seen beating him. The Manning family found extensive injuries on his face, head and body.

Alton Manning had been complaining of harassment and violence from police and prison authorities for four years before his death. Just hours before his death, Alton told his mother be believed he would die.

If someone like Alton Manning - an organised and intelligent individual who recorded every incident and followed the bureaucratic procedures the authorities have in place - can be killed, what about other victims who are less articulate and determined than he was?

We aim to make sure that this continual abuse of power by the authorities is highlighted. If we can save one life due to this campaign then it has been worthwhile. We do not want another family to go through what the Manning family and many others before them have been put through.

For petition forms and more information write to: Birmingham Racial Attacks Monitoring Unit, 339 Dudley Road, Winson Green, Birmingham, B18 4HB.

Maxie Hayles
Director, BRAMU

SWP illusions

I notice with amusement that the SWP is getting excited about the recent ‘upsurges’ in strikes. This incurably ‘optimistic’ organisation particularly rejoices in the statistics which show that the number of days lost last year (up to September) through strikes was 293,000, an increase from 280,000 days lost in 1994.

Of course, what Socialist Worker does not tell its readers is that 1994 represented the lowest figures ever recorded! So, there is not much to get excited about - unless you have very low expectations, that is, and somehow believe the number of strikes will ‘inevitably’ increase. Then again, if you believe that strikes/workplace action is the only vehicle for class struggle, it is hardly surprising that you will clutch desperately at straws.

Just for the record, the actual statistics show that ‘days lost’ in 1990 came to 1.9 million and then dropped to 760,000 the next year. 1992 was another miserable year, with only 532,000 days lost. Unlike the Pollyanna SWP, we recognise that the level of class struggle - as measured by strikes - is at a miserable level.

Curiously, a recent issue of Socialist Worker makes the claim that: “Since 1990 the number of strikes, many of them unofficial, has climbed rapidly” (January 20).

Those whom the gods wish to destroy ...

Eddie Ford
South London

Serious analysis

In his letter in Weekly Worker 126 Tom Cowan rebukes me for writing favourably of Bill Hunter and asserts that I have not done my homework on either the history of the docks or Trotskyism. I think comrade Cowan is mistaken on both points.

With regard to the ‘blue’ union (so called because of the colour of its membership card) I do not believe it was the creation of Gerry Healey. For evidence of this I look not to Bill Hunter’s book, but to the autobiography of Frank Deegan, a communist Liverpool docker. Frank Deegan, while a confirmed opponent of Trotskyism and the breakaway to the blue union, puts the blame where it belongs: “It was understandable that many men were disgusted with the official policy of our organisation. Arthur Deakin, general secretary, was notoriously right wing.” Frank Deegan agrees on this with Bill Hunter: the breakaway was a genuine movement of workers responding to a rightwing leadership.

It seems that comrade Cowan, who refers to me as Jones and Bill Hunter as Hunter, is still exorcised by the ghost of Trotskyism which he blames for betrayals of movements throughout the world. The point I was making in the article ‘Inventing a tradition’ was that using such labels confuses rather than enlightens. It is the ex-communist Steve Munby that comrade Cowan calls an “anti-working class element”. I stand by my description of Bill Hunter as a serious and dedicated representative of the best of Trotskyism.

While not a Trotskyist, I come from the Trotskyist tradition through the state capitalist analysis of the SWP. I am proud of the struggle against Stalin that the Trotskyist tradition represents. I also recognise that a future workers’ party must step beyond the simple branding of opponents with a serious analysis of the problems faced by revolutionaries.

The breakaway to the blue union is not alone in the history of unions. There is a more recent example in the EPIU. It was clear that the origin of the EPIU lay in the grip of a rightwing leadership in the EETPU. If comrade Cowan wishes to advance, shouldn’t he deal with the issue that gave rise to division in both the T&G and the EETPU, not indulge in nostalgia? There is no doubt from communist and Trotskyist accounts of the period that there was no “impregnable trade union hold over the docks”. If there had been, why were conditions so poor and thousands of dockers in the north prepared to join in the risky venture of breaking to the blue? It is Frank Deegan again who provides an answer: “The men were very dissatisfied with the service they got from the T&G. Those advocating to leave were able to persuade many thousands to sign forms agreeing to join another organisation.”

Chris Jones
RDG (faction of the SWP)

Left surrender

In Weekly Worker 126 there is a powerful critique of the lack of party democracy in relation to the formation of the Socialist Labour Parry. By Weekly Worker 127 election euphoria seems to have taken control and a vote for the SLP is considered to be a ‘blow for independent working class politics’. This adaptation to electoralism appears to represent a gloss upon the contradiction between Scargill’s bureaucratism and the crucial importance of party democracy if a genuine workers’ party is to be constructed and which is capable of representing forms of leftwing opinion.

The selection of a candidate through a phone call seems indicative of Scargill’s methods. In these circumstances to call for a vote for the SLP is essentially an accommodation to Scargill’s manoeuvres and prepares the way for a ‘left’ surrender to his ultimatist politics. With this in mind its seems increasingly likely that the formation of the Scottish Socialist Federation, or Alliance, could represent nothing more than a regionalist bargaining tool with regards to the May launch of the SLP, rather than the basis of a principled opposition to Scargill’s autocratic control.

Your article also draws attention to the growing SWP support for the SLP in the Hemsworth election. This has occurred because Scargill is for a bureaucratic centralist type of organisation. Hence the SWP leadership recognise a kindred spirit, in relation to Scargill’s antics, rather than their actions being a response to working class pressure or left public opinion. Who will win the race to become Scargill’s willing and compliant footsloggers - the SWP or Militant?

However, the alternative to these reactionary developments is not to retreat to party building ultimatism, as some argue. Rather, if the autocratic constitution of the SLP is not dropped immediately and unconditionally, then the CPGB, Militant and other left reformist forces, should organise their own conference to launch an alternative to the SLP and its attempt to perpetuate Labourism in a new form. Not to do so will amount to a massive accommodation to right reformism and reluctant acceptance of the political project of a trade union bureaucrat.

Phil Sharpe
Trotskyist Unity Group