Letters

Basic mistake

John Sandy has now twice referred to my letter in Weekly Worker 121 and raised a number of points which deserve an answer. Firstly he challenges my view that revolutionary theory comes from “the experience gained by activists in the course of their everyday struggles”, suggesting instead that it is “elaborated by both advanced workers and by non-proletarian intellectuals who have thrown in their lot with the working class” (Weekly Worker 122).

Certainly I have no problem with John’s view of the role of advanced workers - it is exactly what I was arguing. And what else would these advanced workers base their theories upon, other than the experience they have gained during their active participation in the class struggle? But why does John also insist that these workers must rely also upon “non-proletarian intellectuals”?

The whole gist of my argument was that, even if it was perhaps inevitable that in 1902 the underdeveloped state of Russian capitalism and the corresponding backwardness of the Russian working class made it inevitable that leadership of the revolutionary movement would fall to non-proletarian elements, this does not apply today in respect of industrially advanced states. Surely the very fact that there exists in these states the advanced workers referred to by John renders the need for any reliance upon non-proletarian elements as obsolete.

John then goes on to challenge my assertion that “the very idea that there can exist outside of the working class a theoretical centre which knows the interests of the class better than the class itself is a most dangerous concept”, suggesting that this is nothing more than an ‘Aunt Sally’ originating from an anarcho-libertarian outlook. He continues in this vein by asking Ted Rowlands, who defends my argument to a point, to name those who agree with it.

This smear by association method of argument is of course the hallmark of those who cannot or will not address the actual point under debate, and its shallow character is easily revealed. Anarchists also stand for the overthrow of capitalism, John. Does this mean that Marxists should abandon this demand?

Anarchists also defend the concept of “From each according to his means; to each according to his needs.” Does that rule this concept out? Of course not. Any argument should stand or fall upon its own merits, and not upon the basis of who supports or opposes it. The real ‘Aunt Sally’ here is John’s attempt to dismiss my point, without stating any real intellectual argument against it.

Finally John suggests that I have missed the essence of What is to be done? Well I do not think that I have, but I most certainly do think that it is an essence which has little relevance to the tasks facing us today. In fact it is arguable that the essence of What is to be done? had become obsolete at a much earlier stage. As early as 1907, one particularly celebrated figure, in referring to that work, was to talk of “the basic mistake of those who now ... treat the pamphlet apart from its connections with the concrete historical situation of a definite and now long-past period in the history of our party”. The author of those words - VI Lenin.

Mick O’Farrell
Hertfordshire

Ex-worker

In reply to John Sandy’s comments (Weekly Worker 127), I acknowledge he was correct in pointing out my slip-up in lumping together non-proletarian and advanced workers in the fashion I did. Oddly it may seem to him, but I can assure him I certainly do recognise the existence of advanced workers (what I would prefer to call class conscious workers) and also that there are varying degrees of intellect among non-proletarian intellectuals.

To perpetually highlight these differences only creates unnecessary antagonisms. If any of the categories which make up the workers’ movement have policies or theories which enhance the class struggle, these should be accepted on merit, regardless of whether those responsible for it are academics or workers.

I must point out that in no way do I extol (which means in my dictionary, “praise enthusiastically”) Mick’s statement that “the very idea that there can exist outside the working class a theoretical centre which knows the interests of the working class better than the working class itself is a most dangerous concept.” This statement of Mick’s was linked to the other point he made, about the “source of revolutionary theory emanating from the everyday experience of the struggles of the class”. There is only one other source and that is from those with no experience of working class struggle, who nevertheless see it as their “self-appointed task to supply the class with leadership in that struggle”. It is merely with this that I agree.

John is most decidedly wrong in attributing ideas he has himself formulated to me: ie, “that in becoming capable of the independent elaboration in theory the worker ceases to be a worker and becomes something else.” Perhaps John is doing a little too much elaborating.

Regarding the theoretically fragmented advanced workers influencing the SLP. Most would agree the importance of unity around a common theoretical programme of all the movement. However we cannot tell the world to stop revolving until we can reach agreements. Communists must surely involve themselves in life’s struggle as they arise whilst still endeavouring to find that elusive unity.

Ted Rowlands
Bishop Auckland

CPUK

I welcome Jane Berryman’s question regarding the necessity of a CPUK in last week’s Weekly Worker. We have always made clear that we regard a centralised Communist Party of Great Britain to overthrow the state that oppresses us all as a vital organisational weapon of the working class.

The revolutionary struggle in the north of Ireland for a united Ireland was a special circumstance. Nevertheless, as the negotiations towards an imperialist-brokered peace advance, we have raised the necessity for a Communist Party of the United Kingdom and attempted to engage revolutionaries in the north in discussions around this. Certainly communist unity for workers in Britain and Ireland must be the way forward for the liberation struggle.

This is why we have also raised the slogan - to the extent that the bourgeoisies of Europe come together - ‘For a Communist Party of the European Union’.

Lee-Anne Bates
editor, Weekly Worker

Simple socialism

Several hundred people attended an SWP rally at the Hackney Empire last Sunday. Titled ‘Is socialism possible?’, the meeting began with testimonies from Nigerian and Turkish comrades about the iniquitous Asylum Seekers Bill. Then a docker spoke succinctly about their strike in Liverpool, the need for unity and the lack of union backing.

Paul Foot preferred to ask whether capitalism was possible, because he thinks the facts for socialism are simple. On sure ground, he cleverly mocked Lord Hanson, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair. He ended by saying the main point of the meeting was to build the SWP Hackney branch. He didn’t mention the SLP.

Tony Cliff spoke last, saying that workers today are able to look in two directions - they are able to see the Labour Party for what they really are whilst voting them into power, and see the need for an alternative to Labour without knowing how or when it would arrive. The essential movement then was the recruitment of more SWP members, which would be simple (and quick) because socialism was simple.

The French strikes were important. Mobilisation was all. That process would throw up change and the leaders of change. With a humble flourish he said he would not be one of the leaders because he would be useless at it. He did not mention the SLP either. The meeting finished after his speech without public debate.

Political rallies use rhetoric and propaganda - devices to establish lines of least resistance to promote solidarity. Yet drain the subject (socialism) of content and you impoverish the form - leaving a static, unknowable, simple thing indeed.

Paul Hill
Hackney

Workers arrested

The dictator regime of the Iraqi Ba’ath government has detained seven leading labour movement activists, including Ahmed Salem, Haider Abdul-Jabbar, Falih Maktuf and Ahmed Addul-Sattar.

In addition to the persecution and execution of labour leaders, security forces have shot strikers and demonstrators, and imprisoned many others.

The Iraqi working class is living in very difficult circumstances, working up to 16 hours a day for very low wages. Thousands of workers are employed under military rules without the protection of health and safety laws. Trade union strikes and demonstrations are banned.

But strikes have been increasing, culminating in recent protests against the referendum of Saddam Hussein for a further seven years’ presidency.

These seven leaders and other political prisoners in the regime’s jails are in real danger. We appeal to you to help save their lives by putting pressure on the Ba’ath regime through its embassies and consulates all over the world.

The International Solidarity Committee with the workers’ movement in Iraq