Letters

General strike

Jack Conrad’s four-page article on the general strike is simply an excuse to repeat really tired, hoary old myths about the apparent impracticality of anarchism against a self-congratulatory appreciation of Marxist-Leninist scriptures on the fundamental need for the party (‘The general strike and classical Marxism’, August 4). Never in recent times have so many straw men tripped over pots calling the kettle black as appear in this article.

It features petulant feet-stamping against the historic apparent foolishness of Bakunin and even Luxemburg in not seeing the need to be ruled by some superior special body elevated above us all by their enlightened and far-sighted vision of the future. The notion that the working class and its revolutionary aspirations are like children playing with dangerous toys they do not understand and need close personal supervision over, was the conclusion of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It’s ironic that this simile was used in polemic against the Mensheviks then.

Nobody has ever suggested that a general strike, once begun, in and of itself somehow guarantees a successful conquest of power by the working class. Or that somehow, spontaneously and without theory, alternative visions and structures would magically take over society.

Marx did not invent class struggle nor even the awareness of class struggle or conclusions to be drawn from it. Marx - and even more so Lenin - were very latecomers to centuries of ideas of how society, community, the class would organise itself after seizing power from the ruling class.

Since the time of the Peasants’ Revolt, and within the civil war, the peasantry and agricultural labourers had long been aware that they, and not the owners, were the source of produce and bounty on the land. That they, and not the kings, aristocrats or landowners, managed and organised food production and harvests. That the skill was theirs of countless generations. That together and in cooperation, collectives and communes, the land, agriculture and farming could be taken over by them directly and run in the interests of all. Secret societies and bonds, brotherhoods and political alliances of all sorts had planned short-term actions, resistance, wage struggles, but also for ideas of revolution and creating commonwealths of regions, nations and continents.

With the birth of the industrial revolution the proletariat developed the most ingenious industrial skills, techniques and on-the-job skills. Whole plants, mines, docks and shipyards in effect were organised and built by the workers themselves with technical professional assistance. It soon became clear that we could do all this, that we could run all of this ourselves if we took it over, and ‘workers’ control’ became the watchword of early industry.

Neither Marx nor Lenin invented these aspirations, visions and struggles. The form of political expression was, as would be expected, dictated by the nature of the society, law and state in which the masses found themselves, but the form of organisation in which they met, discussed and planned were not meant to be the model for the society they wished to create and allow to flourish. Most of these ideas of alternative societies would by any yardstick be classed as anarchist (or more particularly communist, as there would have been no such distinction at this time, prior to Marx and his insistence on being the one truth, the way and the light).

So really Bakunin’s ideas on building revolutionary cells (of necessity secret) to carry through revolutionary class struggle and insurrection are not meant to be models for the society we are trying to bring about. The problem for Lenin - and now Jack - is that the formation of the Bolsheviks was never supposed to be a thing in itself either. Power was supposed to rest with the democratic workers’ and soldiers’ committees and councils - the soviets. That was supposed to be the instrument of class rule, not the Bolshevik party central committee and ultimately party secretary.

This is where the pots and kettles come in. The anarchists never have and never will envisage that we rule anyone, or that, whatever shape our political organisation takes, it is not the instrument of class power, which lies directly in whatever popular and mass form the working class at that time and place and circumstance decide to rest it in. The watchword of the Industrial Workers of the World was the general strike, which would indeed seize from the ruling class control of the means of production, and distribution and control of society. But, in the event of the general strike being applied to seize control of society, rather than a self-defence move of limited aims, then the organ of class rule would be rested in the democratic industrial unions.

The vision of the industrial union predates the soviets, but was the same idea: one industry, one union of all workers; a confederation of all industry and communities and workplaces. This would be the means of fighting in the here and now for increased terms and conditions. It would also be the instrument of class administration on the other side of a working class revolution. In this model, a structure for world regulation of everything, from village and town and region through to a world council of industry and society, had been elaborated. This being the regulation and coordination of things rather than a governance of people.

So it is really disingenuous for Jack to continue flogging the straw man they have made. Anarchists and workers themselves, without political labels and titles, have long thought through how we would replace rule by capitalism or landlords or the state as such. The general strike as a defensive weapon was deployed from the middle of the 17th century - either as a turnout of all workers in a particular trade or skill, or across the board in the city or region of all trades and all skills in collective action. This in itself kills the myth that somehow without ‘the party’, which didn’t exist then, workers could only hold sectional interests.

My book on General Strikes on the Liverpool Waterfront 1830-90: a struggle for organisation (Fonthill) demonstrates that workers in so-called unskilled work, dockers of all descriptions, alongside seafarers and skilled engineers and artisans, although organised in their respective professions, were well conscious of themselves as a single, exploited class, whose interests were the same. Nobody needed some party to tell them that.

To suggest that the working class has ever thought a general strike, without direction or political purpose, would spontaneously transform into a successful defeat of the bourgeoisie is just nonsense, Jack, and you know that, as did Marx.

The Grand National Holiday of the Chartists was not an alternative to either political agitation or armed struggle; it was a tactic linked to both. The proletariat was just coming to dominate the stage and flex its muscles as a conscious class. To do this now with political demands for class justice and the franchise was revolutionary of itself. Nobody - but nobody - ever thought this was going to sweep the entrenched land-owning aristocracy or the rising industrial manufacturers and imperialists from power; of course not. Thornley was the only Durham mine to join that general strike, and its banner was the invited pride of place for the first of the Durham Big Meetings. Its legend was built not on the fact they had struck - the 1830s had seen the most bitter and violent of miners’ strikes throughout Durham and Northumberland - it was there to mark its political conclusions and actions. The physical force wing of Chartism was rooted in the early miners’ union and leaders and our organisation as a national union, but a union with a political consciousness.

I find Jack’s decision to launch an attack on working class anarchism at this time odd. Would that anarchism in Britain were still rooted in solid proletarian struggles and polemics at the pulse of workers’ day-to-day lives. Sadly both anarchism and far-left ‘socialism’ are so far removed from the life of ordinary working people and struggles of the class at work in unions and communities that this can only be an academic historic reflection. Identity politics, left liberal fashion politics, southern liberal PC agendas and debating one’s own genitals and belly buttons are far more likely to engage anarchist or socialist agendas these days rather than whether an industrial general strike will bring about a change of society.

Which leads me to conclude that the threat to use the law to impose more restrictions and prohibitions on unions - particularly those on rail and transport - must be met by a general strike of all unions and all workers. This will, of course, be a defensive strike of limited aims, but it is a line in the sand. If organised labour does not respond to this through a collective, all-out, unlimited general strike, then we really will lose all capacity to fight back on the most basic principle of workers/human rights - never mind a historic change in the nature and values of human society.

David J Douglass
South Shields

No apology

There was no need to apologise to Simon Pirani (‘Factcheck’, Letters, August 4). His article in the Durham miners’ gala brochure might appear to be separate from the accompanying ‘Factcheck’ of Russia’s war aims, but it was still written by Simon. He does not make this clear in his angry letter, but, in an exchange of emails between Simon, myself and other old pals and comrades, he wrote:

“Jim has quoted my ‘Factcheck’ piece from the miners’ gala article. Well, I had 150+ words to answer each of those questions, and you’ve only given the one-word summary. But even in 150 words I obviously couldn’t do them justice. So if they seemed ‘extremely superficial’, well, that’s the best I could do for a general readership. Sorry for my poor communication skills. I’ve covered each of these issues on my blog in a fair bit of detail (have a look on the ‘Site contents’ under ‘The war in Ukraine 2022’).”

One can note Simon’s “my ‘Factcheck’ piece”. My “one-word summary” of each ‘fact’ were as here:

“I read your piece, ‘Factcheck: Russia’s war aims’, when I got the brochure, so before the Weekly Worker article, and thought it was nonsense.

“Is Russia resisting Nato expansion? No ...

“Is Russia “deNazifying” Ukraine? No …

“Is Russia defending Russian-speaking Ukrainians? No …”

Simon objected to my “one word” summaries, but I think they cover the ground pretty well.

Simon has many Ukrainian friends. So it is not surprising that he supports them and, as has been said many times in the Weekly Worker and at the online Communist Forum, if this was a straightforward case of ‘Russia versus Ukraine’, we would support Ukraine against aggression. But, it is not such a simple case. The USA wants to assert its world hegemony against Russia and then its only real challenger, China.

The US has already made significant gains, with France and Germany saying ‘How high?’ when the US says ‘Jump!’. Sweden and Finland look set to join Nato, with the Saab ‘defence’ company salivating at arms contract opportunities. And, of course, arms manufacturers, especially US ones, are over the moon - along with fossil fuel companies.

The USA wants to weaken Russia, as some politicians have been remarkably frank about, and preferably see it broken up under respectful and compliant rulers, so as to join the encirclement of China. It would seem in the last few days and weeks that the USA is not waiting for Russia to fall before pursuing its aims with China.

So, as many others on the left have said, not only the Weekly Worker, this is a proxy war between the US and Russia, to be waged to the last drop of Ukrainian blood (and not a few on the right have said that too).

So where do we, in the CPGB, stand? The main enemy is at home - and that applies to the ruling class in Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the latter’s bosses in the US. So the main enemy of the Ukrainians is its own ruling class (or the ‘oligarchs’, as they were called before the invasion).

It may be deemed to be fantasy that the Ukrainian working class might take on their rulers, and the Russian working class do so too. There is no mass party in any country at the moment leading such a movement, but it is certainly needed. If it can’t happen (not true) or doesn’t happen (we live in hope and determination), then we’re all screwed - by war, climate change and economic havoc.

Jim Nelson
email

All about inflation

Nancy Pelosi did not visit Taiwan because the US government is a multi-headed monster or because Biden has gone Awol or because of imperial overstretch (‘Pulling the dragon’s tail’, August 4). No, Nancy Pelosi went to Taiwan to crack the whip - not against China, but against the middle and working classes.

Left economists talk about money always in positive terms: it is a means of payment, a measure of value, etc, but they never dwell on its repressive nature. Money is like the slave-master’s whip - only much more effective. While the whip leaves scars and makes the slave unfit for work, money simply compels the worker, forcing him to act as his master demands.

The west has entered a phase of severe crisis, brought about by its relative decline, a demented liberal ideology, its increasing difficulty in plundering the world’s resources, its inability to squeeze economies of scale, a slowdown in labour-saving technology and tackling climate issues, while preserving the anarchy of the market and a layer of workers that have too much economic power.

The aim of the war in Ukraine is the cost of living crisis and from that perspective the war is going very well for the west. And the provocation against China is to ensure the cost of living crisis continues unabated. In other words, the war against Russia and China is but a proxy war against the masses of the imperialist centre. Think of it like austerity, part two.

A number of recent reports point to this: for example, it is estimated that by 2024 the number of households with no savings will double, as will the number of families with no disposable income, and there is clear evidence of general immiseration. We can all see this immiseration coming, but the government pretends they are powerless to do anything, while all the time they are doing everything to exacerbate it. My advice to anyone when listening to those in power, be they a government minister, a business leader or the head of a bank, is to believe the exact opposite of what the person is saying or at the very least be aware that you are almost certainly being lied to. I mean, what better way to bring inflation under control than start a conflict with China?!

What are the consequences of these economic factors? More workers will be forced to come out of retirement, many are less likely to resign from their job or retire early, others will be forced to work more hours and for more years. In other words, all the problems employers have been talking about disappear in an instant. Of course, this being capitalism, the ensuing anarchy will blow back in their faces.

The left economists might miss the repressive nature of money, but the bourgeois certainly do not - they use this whip to control the masses. In fact, it is the only economic solution they employ at the general level. The International Monetary Fund has recently come out and advised governments to just let inflation rise in order to deal with the ‘climate crisis’. People will simply have to use less energy. No plan from the IMF to rationally control energy usage, no - simply let inflation rip and see where it takes us!

Steve Cousins
email

China’s confidence

I liked Dan Lazare’s article on the Taiwan visit of the mad witch, Pelosi. I’ve read quite a few articles analysing that visit, but this one is the best of the lot outside China’s English language media. It’s a unique look at the situation, which for better or worse is always the most honest and informative way of writing about anything.

There’s too much shit out there. What makes the situation intolerable for me is that I’m highly selective in what I read. This excludes the western media, as it is monolithic when it comes to foreign affairs (I call it the Nato media). I had expected better from my news reading, but the fear of a US war with China meant that everyone jumped on the ‘moderation boat’ with much advice and warnings and lack of confidence that China could succeed in settling the matter militarily at this time.

Anyone who accesses China’s English-language media will see and hear their absolute confidence in crushing the Taiwan separatist regime under the Democratic Progressive Party. It’s China’s military confidence which opens up the full range of possibilities other than military to throttle the province in slow fashion, with the military used as a psychological weapon to undermine and weaken the regime and crack apart the population. The main opposition party in Taiwan, which favours better and closer relations with the mainland, may have lost the last two elections, but this doesn’t rule them out from forming the government in the future.

The question is, how is this very unsettled time playing on the political dynamics in Taiwan? I don’t have much knowledge of internal Taiwan politics, but it might pay you well to have a look at this in future articles. I know that relations between the two main parties are not on the rosy side and secessionist mania by the ruling party is making things worse between them. And there is going to be a continuation of economic pressure on Taiwan by China. The mainland is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, external market for Taiwan business. It’s highly profitable and must have a powering effect on the Taiwan economy - and in fact be a mainstay of political support for the ruling DPP.

So they’re shooting themselves in the foot, not acting sensibly at all.

Elijah Traven
Hull

Draw the line

This week’s issue of the Weekly Worker (August 4) had some great and thought-provoking articles on US-China relations, links between Middle-Eastern and British elites, internal Labour politics and a wonderful supplement on the general strike in classical Marxism. Unfortunately, the reading experience was soured by John Smithee’s bizarre letter - ostensibly a review about the film Good luck to you, Leo Grande - which ended with the disturbing suggestion that the best way to teach men to respect women was for them to have their first sexual experiences with prostitutes.

I understand that the topic of sex work and how best to relate to it can be heated on the far left, but this was not only politically unhelpful as a jumping-off point for any future discussion, but seemed to reflect the opposite of respect for women on the author’s part. No-one has any entitlement to women’s bodies for sexual gratification, whether or not the women are employed as sex workers. And if the suggestion is that some women are to continue to provide sexual services as a commodity into a socialist future this also seems anti-communist. If comrade Smithee or anyone else wants to learn to respect women I could suggest simply relating to them as human beings first, rather than sex objects, might be a better start.

I appreciate that the weird and wonderful array of views on display in the Weekly Worker letters is a point of pride for the editors, but I suggest they might consider in future drawing a line under printing one man’s lurid sexual fantasies as a minimum.

James Tansey
South-West communist

Dehumanising

I am not quite sure where John Smithee finds the “rampant feminism” that is spreading like wildfire. Ever heard of first, second and third waves of feminism? This discussion has been going on for a long, long time. The arguments about strip clubs, lap dancing clubs and escorts, etc are about the objectivisation and sometimes victimisation of women, and not about their freedom.

What sex means and how women should be treated (and frankly, comrade Smithee, it is not all about the clitoris) were discussed in some detail in letters between Inessa Armand and Lenin in 1915. Lenin’s view was that the slogan, ‘free love’, was a bourgeois, not a proletarian, demand and therefore should be avoided. He felt that free love was not an antidote to a ‘loveless marriage’, but the latter should be contrasted to a marriage of love (Collected works Vol 34, Letter to Inessa Armand, January 17 1915).

The idea that all young men should have their first sexual experience with an “escort” is dehumanising. Women are not commodities to be used and discarded. Neither are men, for that matter, and I don’t find the fact that women can now hire men as sex partners particularly uplifting. Both men and women are thus commodified.

Partners of any sexual persuasion should be able to discuss between themselves their sexual proclivities, and it is a measure of the lack of education in sexual matters, and the squeamishness with which our society treats such things, that they often cannot.

Hiring the opposite (or the same) sex for sexual gratification does not teach us how to respect and treat others. Instead, it shows just how far from real relationships we can get.

Gaby Rubin
email

Conflation

You may know I am campaigning to get Gaza city twinned with my hometown, Edinburgh. I have now become the target of Zionists, who declare my project to be a challenge to Israel’s right to exist. They set out to tar me at every opportunity - most recently by the Zionist Jewish Telegraph, which claimed I said the holocaust was exaggerated, which is a lie.

What I actually said was: “Israel exaggerates the holocaust for political ends.” I made the statement to the then GMB union Scottish secretary, Gary Smith (now national secretary) because I sought to intentionally breach the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which declares (amongst other things) that it is anti-Semitic to state that Israel is a racist endeavour or exaggerates the holocaust. Smith, an avowed Zionist, had me expelled from the union.

The IHRA definition was invented purely to protect Israel from criticism, as it continues to remove the Palestinians from their land. In 2018, I had published a petition calling upon Labourites to declare that “Israel is a racist endeavour” and over 2,650 have signed it. I pointed out to the JT that it was this action that saw me investigated by the Labour Party.

To say, “Israel exaggerates the holocaust for political ends”, is very different from saying, ‘The holocaust was exaggerated’. In an effort to explain my statement, I had pointed out that of the 11 million killed in the holocaust, as far as Israel presents history, the slaughter was purely about six million Jews. I observed that Israeli university courses on the holocaust ignore non-Jews: there is no mention of the millions of Russians, Poles, Roma and others murdered en masse by the Nazis.

Even Israelis admit they exploit the holocaust. Israeli former minister of education, Shulamit Aloni, was asked in a US interview: “Often, when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called anti-Semitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?” Aloni replied: “Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticising Israel, then we bring up the holocaust ...”

I believe that The Guardian, another pro-Zionist publication, is no better. I was criticised in a Guardian article, which alleged I had spoken at a Keep Talking meeting alongside holocaust deniers. When I pointed out that I was the only one on the platform that evening and a holocaust denier had simply asked a question from the audience, The Guardian argued that they were factually correct, in that both of us had actually “spoken” at the meeting! It was this kind of ridiculous guilt by association that led to my establishing the Campaign Against Bogus Antisemitism.

I believe we need to speak to holocaust-deniers at every opportunity, to explain why they are wrong. Shouting and shunning them achieves little, for it only pushes them into the shadows, where their lies fester and multiply.

I call upon readers to visit the Campaign Against Bogus Anti-Semitism’s website, (www.bogusantisemitism.org), to find out why the UK has, since the IHRA definition was introduced in 2014, seen a rise in ‘anti-Semitism’. I consider it’s because a different, pro-Israel definition has been promulgated. This twisted IHRA definition purports to claim that pro-Palestine anti-racist campaigners are no better than Hitler. It is promoted by Zionists to justify their apartheid regime and Israel’s murderous attacks upon the Palestinian people. And so, as more and more UK citizens protest at Israel’s crimes, more and more ‘anti-Semites’ are ‘exposed’ in the press. Any politician that mentions it is an issue is hounded out of their party!

In fact, the IHRA definition has been adopted by all major political parties except the Greens. It has been adopted by 40% of local authorities, and all the major trade unions, except the PCS. It has been adopted by the police, the UK government, the Scottish parliament and many universities. As a result, many have suffered for declaring Israel to be racist, through being fired, suspended or expelled. JT readers are told there is an ever-rising tide of anti-Semitism in the UK when in truth it is the opposite. I sense this scaremongering is designed to maintain hysteria and to drive more Jews to move to Israel, to assist the government there in its incessant land-grab. No-one I know, even Palestinians, bears ill will against Jews. However, they detest Zionism, which is a political creed. No longer should we allow anti-Zionism to be conflated with anti-Semitism.

Pete Gregson
Campaign Against Bogus Anti‑Semitism