Letters

Scargill and factions

I congratulate Mark Fischer on his article, ‘What Sort of Party?’ (Weekly Worker May 2). I found his arguments in support of the thesis that “it is impossible [to build the] party of the working class without allowing for the facility of factions” to be wholly convincing.

Mark states that “Arthur Scargill has put the opposition to factions, and the right of tendencies to organise for their views, most starkly”, and he goes on to quote Arthur’s words: “I have left the Labour Party after decades of membership, in order to build the SLP. Why can’t people from other groups do the same?” Arthur is asking a question here, to which Mark’s article offers a reply. If the “other groups” (Scargill’s words) include “socialists and communists [who believe] in the ability of the working class to rule society” (Fischer’s words), then the position of members of those other groups is hardly comparable with that of members of the Labour Party, an organisation which certainly does not believe in the ability of the working class to rule society.

In his paper, Future strategy for the left, comrade Scargill berated rightwing Labour Party leaders for actions which included “expelling the Communist Party from affiliation and introducing bans and proscriptions ...” Indeed, he positions that action as one of the milestones upon the Labour Party’s path of departure from its “aim of abolishing capitalism and establishing a socialist strategy”.

It is clear that comrade Scargill is fully cognisant of the validity of, and necessity for, the participation of communists, and genuine communist parties, in a mass working class party. The Weekly Worker would do well to seek to initiate a debate with comrade Scargill on this issue.

John Pearson
Manchester SLP

Fixed agenda?

In his article, ‘Bourgeois paradigm and democratic tasks’ (May 9), Jack Conrad refers to a discussion which took place at a CPGB seminar on Chile on March 24. He states that I, like comrades Norman and Bayliss, suggested the “paradigm” that “ ... bourgeois revolutions are predetermined and have a fixed agenda which must be completed before anything higher can be embarked upon”.

As this represents just about the opposite of what I have been consistently putting forward, I find it quite astonishing that he can attribute such remarks to me.

I made two very brief interventions, as I perceived that Jack was in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in his haste to counter such stageist nonsense. He asserted that the modern British state contained no features which could be considered remnants of feudalism, and it was this alone which I challenged. It is all very well saying that the monarchy is a pre-feudal institution, but that is mere pedantry, as it lay at the very heart of the feudal state.

To deny this obvious truth is to weaken your entire argument. It does not follow that because such feudal remnants exist they must be destroyed “before anything higher can be embarked upon”. As Jack stated, the monarchy is today a capitalist institution. It has been thoroughly adopted (and adapted) in the service of the bourgeoisie.

The British revolution could be sparked by a mass upsurge over a democratic question - the abolition of the monarchy, self-determination for Scotland and Wales, or something seemingly trivial and therefore totally unpredictable. It could equally develop as a result of a great industrial battle, such as the General Strike or the miners’ Great Strike of 1984-85. In this case the central question of ‘Which class rules?’ arises much more clearly and at an earlier stage.

The final question with which Jack began his article was: “Are the democratic and socialist revolutions necessarily two distinct phenomena?” Of course they are not. That is why I consider that it is not only the Communist Party of Chile, with its fraudulent “democratic revolution”, which must be criticised.

What about the Revolutionary Democratic Group? Starting from the correct premise that building socialism in one country is an impossible task, it therefore lays down a series of carefully drafted, “distinct” stages, limited initially to democratic demands, such as the abolition of the monarchy and the Lords, proportional representation and separate bourgeois parliaments for Scotland and Wales.

In a Weekly Worker article, ‘Revolutionary republicanism’ (February 29), the RDG’s Dave Craig states that his group’s minimum programme is based on a “direct transposition of the Russian Revolution’s stages onto Britain”. He asks: “What is wrong with direct transposition?”

He identifies “at least” three Russian stages which he believes ought to be “transposed” onto Britain: “First, the overthrow of the existing constitution. Second, the emerging dual power republic. Third, the transfer of power to the soviets.”

Dave admits there are differences between Russia 1917 and today’s Britain. But, after all, it worked once, so we ought to try it again.

Now I agree with him that in any process, including revolutionary ones, stages can be identified. These arise because life produces them. Life itself produces new problems and demands that revolutionary leaders set new tasks. Perhaps that will mean discarding previous tasks or adapting them to the new situation. But it is only after the event that it can be clearly seen how the changed circumstances marked a turning point, a new stage. In other words these stages are usually identified retrospectively.

The transposition of Dave’s Russian model means that Britain’s constitutional monarchy must be overthrown before we can contemplate the second stage of dual power. Surely the overthrow will occur as a result of a revolutionary rebellion, culminating in the state’s power being challenged by our own, working class, authority? A period, hopefully short, will occur when it will be touch and go whether it is the bourgeoisie or the revolutionaries who will emerge victorious.

This dual power is not in itself desirable. In an extended form it would probably mean a long and bloody civil war. That is why Dave’s phrasing, the “dual power republic” is a dangerous one. It gives the impression of an institutionalised ‘arrangement’, where the bourgeoisie and ourselves agree lines of demarcation or lay down a set of rules for the battle.

We do not want a “dual power republic”. If the period can be reduced to a fleeting moment, so much the better.

The RDG thinks that the only problem with a theory of stages is that up until now the stages have been wrong. Of course I agree with Dave when he dismisses the “Stalinist/Menshevik theory ... in which a bourgeois democratic stage is separated from a national socialist stage”. But I disagree when he says that it is just a question of pinpointing the right stages.

It is the notion that stages can be predetermined, transposed and universally applied that is wrong. That is why the RDG’s model is just as much stageist as the CPC’s.

The main problem we have is that we cannot build socialism in Britain alone. Yet the working class cannot run capitalism for an extended period. No matter how many of the old institutions we have smashed or how many new, democratic, working class bodies we have created, the bourgeoisie will retain real power where it counts - at the point of production. If we do not succeed in spreading the revolution, we will fail.

Limiting our sights through artificial, predetermined stages will not help us solve that problem.

Peter Manson
South London

Pooling resources

Thank you for your hard work so far through your paper. But, now we have a new party of the left, the SLP, to challenge ‘new’ Labour and beat the capitalists to power in future socialist governments yet to come. But what happened to communist unity in Britain?

I want to see a communist alliance organisation for all parties, groups and Marxist factions who can work together to put up communist candidates against ‘new’ Labour and the Tories in the next general election. We need to re-establish communist politics in the public arena of elections. So what is now stopping the CPGB and other communist groups (CPB, RCP, NCP) working together to form an alliance for once which will build communist unity?

The CPB and the NCP must now reassess their position of supporting ‘new’ Labour and break to support their own communist candidates first, or the SLP at least, in areas of low strength. If all the so-called ‘leaders’ pooled their resources, such as papers and funds, in one direction to support a communist alliance, we would be much stronger in all areas of the country.

In Europe, the ‘communist left’ is already working with the Greens and Socialist Parties to maximise their vote - we should be at least fielding the same candidates as the SLP, under a communist alliance for a communist challenge that we desperately need to build.

Do not sit on the sidelines, but start to participate in a communist movement for Britain, in which all can take part - along our road of reforging communist unity.

Alan McGarity
Reading

Bad English?

There is a terminological error in articles in the Weekly Worker which will lead to a misunderstanding unless corrected.

For example, Andy McLean (Weekly Worker April 18) writes: “It is important to recognise that to have any chance of socialism in Britain we need to have a Britain-wide party organised in Scotland, Wales and England. This has to be done without [original italics] denying the Scottish people the right to self-determination. A federal republic of Scotland, Wales and England would embody that right, enabling voluntary union or voluntary separation.”

I refer to The New Shorter English Dictionary (1993 edition) for the following definitions. Federal - “The nature of a system of government in which several states form a central political unity but remain independent in internal affairs.” Self-determination - “The action of a people in deciding its own allegiance or form of government; free determination of statehood, postulated as a right.”

Obviously, a “federal republic of Scotland, Wales and England” would not embody the right of the Scottish people to self-determination. A confederal republic of Scotland, Wales and England would embody that right. In a confederation the states retain their individual sovereignty.

Ivor Kenna
East London

Dangerous man

Michael Howard and co are making it pretty clear that they intend to introduce, at great cost to the taxpayer - whom they pretend to represent - ID cards for us all and the bugging of private homes to increase security (sic).

We should not be fooled. This is just one more nail in the coffin of what was a ‘relatively’ free society. Michael Howard is without doubt the worst home secretary this country has had in modern times. His intention, to prop up a government by the use of ID cards, bugging, and by doing everything he can to create a repressive police state, will inevitably lead to the same disasters and cost in human life and suffering as have been sadly experienced throughout history, when by some fluke an idiot is put in charge. Even Conservatives should beware of this dangerous man.

Paul Kay
Stevenage