Letters

Sloppy

I write concerning John Craig’s article on China and Taiwan in Weekly Worker (March 14). In that article, John claims that “there is no reason to support China ... if it invades Taiwan” because “Beijing’s socialism with Chinese characteristics is quite compatible with capitalist exploitation”.

This bold claim needs clarification and elaboration. Is John arguing that there has been a counterrevolution in China? Is the Chinese bureaucracy a capitalist ruling class? If not, then we must defend China against any US or other imperialist aggression, despite any criticisms of the Chinese regime.

If there has been a counterrevolution in China, we need to understand how, when, and what forces were behind it, the composition of the new Chinese ruling class. In this case, we do not take sides.

There is also the argument that some comrades will put forward that there was never a socialist revolution in China. Most importantly what this points to is the need for an understanding of the class basis of modern China. It is a question which will take considerable research, discussion and debate. However to assert that there are no reasons to support China in a war with Taiwan without first undertaking this research and debate is sloppy, to say the least.

Marcus Larsen
Australia

Impermissible bias

Congratulations on great issues of Weekly Worker. An important advance here in providing scope for the expression of a wide range of individual opinion and argument, especially in the readers’ columns. But what of the signed articles? Is there any underlining of what is accepted as policy, as set out weekly? Or is that a free for all, also?

I ask because of a very poor effort in Weekly Worker (March 14), under the heading ‘Choosing sides’. I do not consider that statements lifted from a Guardian article, written by a ‘China specialist’, are any substitute for Marxist analysis of what is becoming a dangerous hot spot in the possible confrontation of two world powers. It is not permissible in what should be a scientifically-based paper to slip in emotive words conveying bias in such a situation. Taiwan is not “just another part of China”. Formerly Formosa, it is and has always been an integral part of China which was hijacked by the retreating forces of Chiang Kai-Shek, after his failure in the Civil War of 1949, and has been held by the Kuomintang illegally ever since, helped by the backing of the US.

John Gittings is quoted as writing that Beijing “feared” Taiwan might slip out of reach. Li Peng and his committee are pretty down-to-earth and not likely to “fear” but to react to a situation coolly and decisively - hence the warning timed to coincide with the presidential elections, both to Taiwan and the two US aircraft carriers, and forces parading round in the China Seas. The move to independence is a real problem, since the qualitative change of that irreversible nature would lead to prolonged confrontation, not conducive to world peace.

“Meanwhile, Beijing is looking forward to regaining Hong Kong from Britain, and treats Taiwan as a similar case.” Is this John Craig’s view? Or another quote from Gittings? It is not made clear. In any case it is pure speculation. There is no real comparison. The two events being synchronous is accidental. The island part of Hong Kong, together with a strip, Kowloon, on the mainland, was leased to Britain by a previous regime on a hundred-year agreement and is due to be returned, albeit unwillingly and with some strings attached, in 1997. It is not likely to lead to a bloodbath as in other cases.

John Craig concludes with the assertion that the situation in Taiwan will bear watching, but there is no reason to support China: “If it invades Taiwan, it will not bring it socialism.” Really? What a perfectly inane remark. I consider that it shows a complete misunderstanding of the politics involved.

Since you printed this article, news has come through that a group of workers in the hell-hole of exploitation in that American-financed and capitalist island have courageously come out to demand a return to China, burning a US flag and mock-up aircraft carrier. They have no problem with “choosing sides”, it seems.

Mary Carter
North Devon

Debate smothered

Rumours abound that there are differences within the SWP on Ireland, particularly over its condemnation of the IRA for killing “innocent workers” in the Canary Wharf bomb. The pressure of those differences may have led to their holding a meeting on Ireland in London last Monday, which was addressed by Eamonn McCann. However if they do exist they are being kept tightly under wraps by the leadership.

The chair opened the meeting by saying that only questions would be allowed after the speaker. And indeed only 10 minutes of carefully choreographed questioning was tolerated. A member of Lutte Ouvrière managed to break through the blockade to the obvious panic of Julie Waterstone and other SWP hacks. After she had spoken Cliff rushed up to the microphone to slam Lutte Ouvrière and the hacks relaxed. The moment of fear had passed. It was clear that anybody who had a difference, most particularly the membership, would be treated the same way.

McCann spoke at length about his views on Ireland which quite clearly differed with the leadership line. In fact it has been said that McCann resigned a couple of years ago because he was not allowed to express his differences. He is back in the fold now, but still obviously trying to work out his own ideas rather than succumb to pressure. He is looking for political rather than simply trade union solutions.

McCann is popular among some sections of the SWP, but if anybody agreed with him that night they kept their mouths shut. The witchunting atmosphere would have been funny were it not so tragic. Those with differences need to rebel.

Siobhain Mc Loughlin
Brent

Subjective

In the recent March/April issue of Workers News, José Villa castigates Tim Wohlforth’s theory of structural assimilation because of its association with the views of Keith Harvey and his theoretical mentor Quentin R.

The Trotskyist Unity Group would like to publicly state that this subjective justification of a rejection of Wohlforth’s theory - guilt by association, and mention of Wohlforth’s increasing rightwing political trajectory from the mid 1970s - cannot provide the necessary objective criteria for appraising its supposed theoretical limitations in explanatory terms.

Rosa Luxemburg had a more constructive method for evaluating revisionism. In her work, Reform or revolution, she did not define revisionism in terms of which individual has argued for changing political positions. Rather Bernstein’s opportunist rejection of revolutionary politics was based upon the replacement of scientific socialism by an ethical form of socialism which was unable to adequately explain the structural changes within contemporary capitalism.

It is not the revision of past positions which is problematic - Kautsky’s dogmatic approach to defending orthodox Marxism against revisionism - but rather the theoretical basis upon which this revision occurs.

Ironically in this context, Quentin R pointedly refused to make his document available to the TUG - because apparently we have a revisionist position concerning the class character of the former Soviet Union. In other words we possibly have disagreements with him!

Of course none of us are able to objectively appraise his document because neither Quentin, the LRCI, or the LRCI opposition have made it available. Hopefully this situation will shortly be remedied.

Phil Sharpe
TUG

Two doctrines

The Weekly Worker persistently talks of Trotskyism and Stalinism as if two doctrines of similar importance are involved.

Let us be clear about this: whatever errors it may have made, the Third International was a real political, ideological and organisational force that drew the allegiance and dedication of many millions of workers. It really existed as a political and organisational force. This is why ‘Stalinism’ can legitimately be described as Marxism-Leninism in practice.

In contrast Trotsky’s so-called Fourth International, as even someone as sympathetic to Trotskyism as Deutscher noted, never existed in any genuine manner.

Trotskyism never has carried out a revolution anywhere. On the only real occasion when the Trotskyites had some influence, Sri Lanka/Ceylon, they joined forces with a bourgeois party. Recently the only remaining Trotskyist party of any significance, MAS in Argentina, did the same thing.

Is it coincidental that Trotskyism, with the above exception, has no influence whatsoever in the imperialised sectors of the world economy and exists only as a lugubrious ideological current amongst a tiny section of the petty bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries?

In contrast Bob Smith is correct to note (Weekly Worker February 22) that: “Partisan and the Stalin Society generally do have a view which is shared by millions around the world and their particular following in Britain is neither here nor there.”

Comrades, if you do believe that Trotskyism was the legitimate continuation of Marxism-Leninism after 1923 or 1927, depending on the brand of Trotskyism, then it also means that Marxism and Leninism have led to nothing better than small discussion circles amongst the petty bourgeois layers in the imperialist countries.

It means that the forced industrialisation of the Soviet Union, the defeat of fascism in World War II and the Chinese and Vietnamese revolutions were nothing more than historical aberrations led by Stalinists. Basically it means that the whole socialist project is probably a waste of time.

This is why the Trotskyism v Stalinism debate is no ossified historical relic, but vitally important to today. What we are talking about is the veracity of Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary theory of social change.

Ted Hankin and Tony Clark
Partisan

Refreshing politics

A friend sent me a copy of your paper which I liked very much. Your principled approach to revolutionary regroupment was quite refreshing. I wondered if you have any material of a programmatic nature available for purchase - I would like a deeper knowledge of your politics.

I used to read The Leninist with great pleasure, albeit with frequent disagreement, when I lived in London. You’ve come a long way.

Chris Faatz
Vancouver