Letters

Main problem

Peter Manson (Weekly Worker May 16) challenges the theory of permanent revolution in a most eclectic fashion. He appears to have no theory of his own. His criticisms are a cobbling together of bits and pieces from Stalinism, from the Revolutionary Democratic Group and from Trotskyism. He is trying hard to hide exactly where he is coming from, and with good reason.

Peter suggests that “The main problem we have is that we cannot build socialism in Britain alone ... If we do not succeed in spreading the revolution, we will fail.” This idea comes from orthodox Trotskyism. But it is quite compatible with what the RDG says.

We argue that if the national revolution leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, it will degenerate unless it spreads and becomes an international socialist revolution. National socialism is a utopian dream. Why Peter thinks he could make this point as the main argument against the RDG, heaven only knows.

Yet Peter’s words expose the fact that he is dabbling in leftism. The main problem, once we have established the dictatorship of the proletariat, is not the main problem now. The main problem now is how to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat in the UK. It is the problem of the democratic revolution - the revolutionary democratic road to workers’ power.

The main problem for communists in the UK is the fact that our movement is dominated by parliamentary and syndicalist roads to socialist revolution. These strategies reject the concept of democratic revolution. Instead of preparing the working class movement for democratic revolution, they are holding back the movement.

Peter, in attacking the democratic revolution, is either a parliamentary or syndicalist roader or an unwitting ally whose eclectic theory is giving them aid and comfort. What the parliamentary and syndicalist roaders have in common is the Stalinist theory of bourgeois democratic revolution. They need this theory to ‘rule out’ the only alternative.

On the question of democratic revolution, Peter is bobbing and weaving. He knows he stands accused of holding the Stalinist theory, but he is trying to keep this fact hidden. So let us see if we can pin him down. So far two positions have been argued.

The exploited and oppressed masses across the world are struggling for democracy and self-government. In every country under capitalism there is a ‘democratic deficit’. Even the so-called democratic USA has a massive gap between the claims of democracy and the reality of a country ruled by a minority, the capitalist class. The idea that the USA has reached such a high level of democracy that there is no basis for a mass democratic movement is nonsense. The civil rights movement of the 1960s disproved that idea.

The universal democratic revolution does not occur simultaneously, but unevenly. The universal struggle for democracy becomes a revolutionary struggle in particular societies at particular moments in history - the national democratic revolution.

The alternative view is that democratic aspirations of the masses are satisfied in advanced countries but not backward ones. It is only in these backward counties that democratic revolution is possible. It can happen in Iran, Iraq, South Africa or Nicaragua. But it is impossible in the UK, France or the USA. This theory is held by the Socialist Workers Party (syndicalist road), Militant Labour (parliamentary road) and Peter himself.

Peter doesn’t believe that democratic revolution is possible or desirable in the UK. It is therefore misleading for him to debate with me the revolution’s internal stages. It is a disguise to cover up the fact that he holds to the Stalinist theory.

Peter’s view is that the democratic revolution, which cannot happen in the UK, will nevertheless have internal stages. The stages of this non-revolution cannot be predicted. They are a matter for historians not revolutionary parties which seek to lead the revolution. This brings me back to my starting point. Peter has no consistent theory of revolution. For a revolutionary that is a fundamental flaw.

My one question for Peter is whether his theory of democratic revolution is a universal theory or a particular theory for ‘backward’ countries?

Dave Craig
RDG

Why the SLP?

Your attitude to the Socialist Labour Party is interesting in that you appear to be supporting it on the basis that it provides an opportunity to create a genuinely socialist party, committed to a “complete and utter change in society”, to quote what Scargill once said.

Is it possible to explain why you are supporting the creation of a new party to achieve this when my understanding was that a genuinely revolutionary and socialist party committed to the achievement of socialism, and nothing else, already exists - in the form of the Socialist Party of Great Britain?

This party tells me that in their long history since 1904, they have never supported a way for capitalist interests; they have stood firmly against reformism and the illusion capitalism can somehow be made decent; they have never flinched from advocating revolution as their goal; and have kept alive unsullied the great socialist vision of common ownership and democratic control.

If you disagree with these claims, can you explain why?

If you agree with these claims why do you argue that socialists should join a new and undefined SLP, rather than the already existing and proven SPGB?

Andrew Northall
Northamptonshire

Iraqi Kurdistan

Tens of thousands of workers and toilers celebrated International Workers’ Day in Iraqi Kurdistan. The event which was organised by the Worker Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI) and a number of other organisations and attended by more than 200,000 people, was held in the cities of Suleimanya, Arbil, Duhok, Akra, Daratoo, Kifri, Kalar, Diana, Darbandikan, Piramagroon, Ranya and Halabja during the period between the end of April and the beginning of May.

May Day activities included a wall of freedom on which people expressed their opinions about the current situation; cartoon and photographic exhibitions on workers’ and toilers’ living conditions; street theatres, which were received enthusiastically by the locals - in addition to various cultural activities, poetry recitals and sporting activities.

A number of resolutions and letters of protest signed by workers and toilers were presented to the authorities, to the ruling nationalist parties in Kurdistan and also to the United Nations.

These resolutions and letters were regarding the current situation: poverty, the lack of political freedom, the murder and terrorising of women, the political future of Iraqi Kurdistan, and the terrorist action of the Ba’ath regime against worker activists. The events also included messages given by a number of speakers from the WCPI on the current situation and living conditions, and the party’s viewpoint on its solution to end the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. Among the speakers were a number of party leadership cadres - including Nasik Ahmed and Tahir Hassan, members of the political bureau, in addition to Jamal Muhsin,  secretary of the Unemployed Union Organisation.

It is worth mentioning that during the May Day celebrations, armed men of the KDP assaulted and tortured people in Duhok. They tore down banners, leaflets and placards of the workers’ organisations, followed and tortured members of the organising committee and arrested a number of them.

WCPI
Organisation abroad

Absolutism

Tony Clark of Partisan has a peculiar notion of science - and of Marxism (Weekly Worker May 23). Apparently, there are “two historical views” concerning Stalin. No more, no less. What is more, only one of these views is correct - take your pick.

However, Tony has obviously already decided in advance which is the correct version of history. Criticising the Open Polemic comrades’ notion of a multanimous party, Clark writes: “Differences can be aired but can never be resolved ... So if a majority believes that, for instance, Stalin defended the revolution, that will be the party line. If they lose their majority, perhaps even by one vote, then the new party line will mean that Stalin betrayed the revolution.”

Sounds OK so far. As long as the “new party line” (either ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Stalin) is not programmatically enshrined or becomes some sort of condition of membership, thus acting as a sectarian barrier to revolutionary unity, then the majority view should be ‘accepted’ - and the minority should fight to become the majority, as is their right and duty.

Not for Tony. If the ‘anti-Stalin’ view becomes a majority, this “would mean that Marxism could no longer be regarded as a science”. If the ‘pro-Stalin’ view so happens to be in the majority that would be a completely different matter, I presume, and Marxism would be a science again.

Tony Clark and Partisan want to build a sect based around the mono-idea that Stalin defended the revolution, and that all other views are “Trotskyist” - therefore unscientific, therefore reactionary. In the hands of Partisan, ‘Marxism’ is just a polite term for Stalinism and ‘science’ another term for ideological absolutism.

Geoff Harris
Bolton

Party line?

It seems to me that comrade Clark is still fighting the battles of 40 years ago. Why on earth would the party want to take a vote on whether Stalin defended or betrayed the revolution? Why do we need to have a ‘Party line’ on the question? Strangely enough, very few workers actually seem to want us to discuss the character or politics of this one man. But if they do, individual comrades can state their open views, just as they can on any number of issues.

We want to build a Party capable of leading millions. Does comrade Clark expect the members of such an organisation to hold identical opinions on every issue? What is necessary, whatever your views, is disciplined action over agreed, concrete issues. That is what scares the Partisan comrades.

If they are really serious about fighting for revolution, the fact that they would find themselves in a tiny minority in the CPGB ought not to deter them.

Eric Williams
South London

Liaison committee

During the latter part of 1995 the League for a Revolutionary Communist International suffered significant splits in its ranks. For five years the League had been moving rightwards. The pressure for this movement resulted from the unfolding events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It represented a capitulation by the leadership of the League to the democratic (neo-liberal) counter-revolution.

This degeneration of the League was crystallised by the events in Bosnia, when the League failed to defend the Bosnian Serbs when they were attacked (bombed) by Nato, and when instead they called for the imperialists to arm their allies in the region.

We seek to preserve and develop the progressive LRCI tradition in its healthy period and appeal to all those who share this ambition to join us.

We have therefore decided to create a liaison committee to embrace all the comrades from Latin America, New Zealand and Europe who share this goal. Initially the committee will be based on fraternal relations between the groups and individuals from different countries. Its purpose will be to unify, coordinate and facilitate discussion between the groups.

Its aim will be to forge principled revolutionary regroupment on an international democratic centralist basis. To all those militants in the various opportunist and sectarian fragments of degenerated Trotskyism we extend our welcome, and call on you to work with us in the vital task of regenerating Marxism in the wake of the collapse of the degenerated workers’ states.

CWG (New Zealand), PO (Bolivia), Circulo PO (Peru), Ex-LRCI supporters in Europe