WeeklyWorker

Letters

BRS transition

Mike Macnair’s response article, ‘Minimum programme again’ (June 27), was quite hard to follow. Trying to engage in the eclectic mix of argumentation, completely false assertions, distracting, meandering and irrelevant subject matter, etc is a bit like trying to juggle jellyfish with very slippery hands. If this is an example of a legal brain in action, no wonder it is one of the least regarded of professions.

Mike’s critique of Britain’s road to socialism embarrassingly falls flat on its face at the first hurdle. He asserts its “immediate demands” are all about “economic issues” and ignore “constitutional” or “democratic” questions. Absolutely false. Chapter 5 is headed ‘Alternative economic and political strategy’ and states the aim is to develop a comprehensive class struggle, including “on three main distinct, but interconnected, fronts: the economic, the political and the ideological and cultural” (my emphases).

This chapter sets out a whole set of political and democratic demands - alongside (of course) economic, social and cultural - so how Mike can assert the programme is “economistic” is beyond me. As Jack Conrad put it - referring to the immediate demands in his Draft programme (although I argue that they hold equally for those in BRS, and I quote not to cause mischief, but simply because I agree with him and like the wording) - these are “the economic, social and democratic measures that are needed if the peoples of Britain are to live a full and decent life”. I also agree it is likely these “demands can only securely, genuinely, comprehensively be realised by way of revolution” (‘Programme makers’ June 13).

In BRS, immediate demands proceed from the real needs of the working class in the here and now. They are explicitly not limited by what capitalism says it can afford or are achievable, and in their individual - but, more importantly, in their comprehensive, interconnected and joined-up - nature, point to the ultimate need for the working class to take state power for itself and to establish socialism.

Just as it would be wrong to ignore or downplay political and constitutional questions, especially the question of working class rule, it would be equally wrong to ignore or downplay those economic issues which are immediately about working class living standards, as Mike appears to do, in favour of the former. All these demands are about creating the economic, social and political space and capacity for the working class to develop and exercise its leading and independent role in society.

BRS argues that the fight for the adoption of such a comprehensive, alternative political and economic strategy will help develop a mass democratic movement, based on the working class (and alliances with wider strata of the working population), which is determined to impose its interests and leading role on society, in place of those of the capitalist class.

If this were to produce a ‘left government’ - ie, a government based on the interests of the working class - including via a general election, the implementation of such a programme would require major inroads into the wealth and power (so economic and political) of the capitalist class. This in turn would result in a major intensification and sharpening of comprehensive class struggle, which we would hope to resolve through the complete overthrow of the rule of the capitalist class, to be replaced by the political and economic rule of the working class: ie, socialism.

So, yes, it is entirely appropriate to use the term ‘socialist’ to describe this “overthrow of the rule of the capitalist class” - not because it introduces “instant socialism” as per the Socialist Party of Great Britain, or is “economistic”, (or even Bakuninist! A most weird conjecture by MM), but precisely because it has the aspiration of establishing full socialism and then full communism. Establishing the political and state power of the working class must come before the establishment of socialism proper. Clear enough, Mike?

Yes, ‘the day after’ such a socialist revolution, we would still have capitalism, but the new working class state would proceed immediately to expropriate the big capitalists and start to establish socialism in the economy and thereby in wider society. There is no reason or expectation that any such socialist revolution would be confined to just one of the advanced capitalist states - there is every reason to expect (and hope), given capitalism, imperialism and the working class all being international, socialist revolution would break out across a number of countries (perhaps even a continent) in the first instance.

But communists in Britain “must, of course, first of all settle matters with [our] own bourgeoisie” (Marx’s Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848). This is not to advocate “socialism in one country”, but simply that communists in Britain (or in any country) are responsible for the development of revolutionary consciousness and the socialist revolution in their own countries.

Mike claims I argue “for a transitional phase of socialism beyond the phase of working class rule, but before communism” - but Jack Conrad, talking of his Draft programme (which Mike is supposed to “accept”), refers “to the epoch of the transition from capitalism, by way of socialism, to communism” – which is what exactly I did in my letter of June 20.

Socialism can be clearly defined as the period from the point of the establishment of the working class state power - the political and economic rule of the working class - to the point of true global communism, in which all vestiges of the former capitalism, including states, classes themselves, means of government, money, markets, etc, have disappeared.

‘Full or developed socialism’ would be the later stage of this, where a large number of countries have been socialist for a while, the material, social and cultural needs of working people are increasingly met and satisfied, but material incentives and rewards are still required to encourage socially useful and productive work. The (working class) state apparatus would still be required to ‘hold down’ the former overthrown classes, and to defend the socialist countries against those of existing capitalism and imperialism. The USSR of the 1960s was clearly a far more advanced, complex and sophisticated society than that of the 1930s, for example.

Rather than see socialism as a “transition” between capitalism and communism, I would see it more as a series of processes and stages, in which the building blocks and main elements of the new socialist/communist society are consciously built up by the working class over time - socialist and communist consciousness as much as the material forces of production. There are no ‘Chinese walls’ between the stages of socialism and of communism.

It will take time for socialist revolutions to spread around the globe, time to reorganise and develop socially useful production to meet the real needs of the people, time to develop and implement an effective economic mechanism for socialist democratic economic planning, time for the overthrown classes to lose their hostility, desire and capacity for capitalist restoration, and time for full communist consciousness to develop throughout the whole working population, for people to work freely to produce socially necessary goods and services.

Obviously, the quicker all this happens, the better, but we can’t guarantee it will be achieved rapidly: it might take generations.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

BRS first

Mike Macnair claims that Britain’s road to socialism is an “economic issues first” programme, comparing it to the Trotskyist transitional programme, Bakunin’s opposition to ‘political revolution’ and Possibilism. This critique, honestly, does not make much sense, since BRS has a significant amount of distinctly political (ie, relating to the constitution, media, etc, rather than economic policies or social reforms) demands and policies.

Section 5 lists the details of a programme for a socialist government. It starts by detailing how the class struggle that intensifies once a leftwing government is elected has three components: the economic, political and ideological. The section then continues by listing the various policies of the Left wing programme that are directly political. For example,

Section 6 (‘Towards socialism and communism’), which describes a “second stage” of the revolutionary process following the election of a leftwing government committed to the Left Wing Programme, details a further series of political policies, which include:

n “The police, secret services and armed forces will have to be made fully and openly answerable to elected representatives of the people at national and British levels. Their functions and priorities will need to be reviewed and, in some respects, altered fundamentally.”

n “The state’s corps of military reservists would have to be expanded and linked with large workplaces and local working-class communities. The trade union movement could be involved in its recruitment, education and administration. Over time, reflecting the development of an independent foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence, the balance of resources will tilt away from a full-time selective professional army towards popular military reservists with specialised professional units.”

With all of this considered, it’s rather apparent how Britain’s road to socialism isn’t “economic first” and that the programme is very much concerned with the transfer of state power from the bourgeoisie to the workers.

Bernardo Creadli
Oxfordshire

Own petard

As much as I admire Eddie Ford, and read everything he writes with interest and (often) delight, it seems to me that he has misstated something historically important in dealing with the Farage farrago (‘Nigel’s me too moment’ July 4).

He writes: “According to Reform rules, every potential candidate is asked to declare their past or present political affiliations - specifically whether they have ever been a member of the BNP. This is reminiscent of The House UnAmerican Activities Committee asking people: ‘Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?’ If you give the wrong answer, you are out - a sinner cannot repent in Nigel Farage’s party.”

The whole point of the question, ‘Are you now or have you ever been ...’, as put to hundreds of people called to testify in front of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, was that there was no right answer. If you said, ‘No, I never was’, you were confronted by ‘friends’ who had testified that they saw you at meetings or demonstrations. Even going to a ‘Stop the execution of the Rosenbergs’ demo was enough to brand you a ‘fellow traveller’, if not an actual communist.

If you said, ‘Yes, I was a member, but I left’, then you were guilty of at one point having been a communist, and who on earth would believe you had changed your spots? Malevolent trees spread poisonous branches. Of course, there were those who refused to answer or, what was worse, refused to name others, and as a result lost their jobs and were unable to work for years. The Hollywood Ten, amongst others, went to prison.

In Arthur Miller’s The crucible, an allegory of the HUAC hearings, and loosely based on the Salem Witch Trials in 1662-63, the question was: “ Did you consort with the devil?” As much as you protested that you never did, the girls’ spectral testimony was enough to show you were guilty and everything you owned was forfeited to the state. Your family was homeless and penniless. If you agreed you did consort with the devil that got you hanged.

One person, Giles Corey, having watched his wife hanged, was then himself accused. A simple man, knowing that he had never consorted with the devil, realised (too late) that his wife had been innocent too. So he refused to plead - that way his land remained with his family. His death was not so simple as hanging. He was laid in a field and huge stones were heaped on his chest to get him to plead. It is said that, as they placed the last stone on him, which crushed his chest, he was being asked, “Do you have anything to say?” and his reply was, “More weight!”

So repentance was never allowed in either of the historical episodes. The difference with the Farage party was not that Reform candidate Raymond Saint (is there a more incongruous name?) was ‘not allowed to repent’, for example. It was that he lied by omission. A response either way might have brought the same result - but in his case, he was, as they say, hoist by his own petard.

Gaby Rubin
London

Interesting

Tony Clark makes some interesting points (Letters, July 4). However, I make no apologies for calling for the legal regulation of all drugs by the state - a polite term for the legalisation of drugs. Humans have taken mind-altering drugs for thousands of years, and will continue to do so under communism.

Tony must answer this question - does he want the supply of drugs to continue to be under the control of drug cartels, organised crime and petty dealers? The result is that the drug cartels, with their militias, who control the supply of cocaine, are destabilising the states of South and Central America, including Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico.

The same goes for the supply of heroin from countries such as Afghanistan. The result is that hundreds of heroin addicts die each year. The UK has had pilot studies to give addicts heroin via doctor-led clinics. This follows the example of Switzerland, where this model has led to the eradication of the illegal heroin market and a big reduction in the number of new heroin addicts.

As the sacked government advisor, professor David Nutt, has said, taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding. The conclusion is that ecstasy, along with cocaine, should be made available via specially licensed pharmacies.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the UK market for cannabis is £10 billion a year, which currently is in the hands of organised crime and petty dealers. Cannabis should be made available from independent shops. A ten-percent tax would yield £1 billion a year to the treasury, which could then be spent on public services and a public health campaign aimed at teenagers. The legal regulation of all drugs would also allow quality control and labelling

Tony also makes some interesting points about the Labour Party and Labourism. As Carla Roberts remarked in one of her recent articles, the defeat of Corbynism has driven many people on the left completely mad, leading them to change from auto-Labourism to auto-anti-Labourism. I am one of those who have been taught a big lesson from the defeat of Corbynism: namely that socialism cannot come via a Labour government, but only through a workers’ government led by a mass communist party.

Dialectically my views on the Labour Party and Labourism are in a state of gradual change. I am currently reading the book, Labour: a party fit for imperialism, by Robert Clough, a leading member of the Revolutionary Communist Group. The book explains that the Labour Party and its leaders have always been supporters of British imperialism, including in its opposition to the struggle of Ireland and India for independence.

I recommend the book to Tony and all other comrades, as it puts Sir Keir Starmer’s New Labour government into historical perspective.

John Smithee
Cambridgeshire

Post-election

 

Although Labour, as expected, achieved a ‘landslide’, a lengthy analysis will no doubt follow about the legitimacy of its mandate, when looking at some of the data from the election results. Labour’s vote share of around 34% - up just two points - is one of the lowest vote shares to win a majority, let alone a landslide.

In a secret ballot, it could never be proven definitively how many of the votes were cast for Labour, as opposed to against the Tories. We are only able to extrapolate trends or suggestions from the data. Votes cast for Keir Starmer personally were 18,884. In 2017 that was 41,343 and in 2019 36,641. Labour secured 12,877,918 votes in 2017 under Corbyn, followed by 10,269,051 in 2019. Starmer’s Labour secured 9,634,399. Against this we see the Tories were reduced to a vote share of 24%, dropping by 20 points. The Scottish National Party vote also collapsed in Scotland, losing 35 seats. Extrapolate away!

Despite securing fewer votes than Corbyn in the previous two elections, Starmer’s Labour has been allocated 65% of the seats for just a 34% share of the vote. This must put pressure on to our already creaking ‘democratic’ system of ‘first part the post’. Reform UK, aided by the disproportionate platform and coverage, got 14% of the vote and were allocated just five seats, meaning the right will also no doubt highlight this particular flaw in FPTP.

Despite securing only five seats, as opposed to the 13 the exit polls predicted, Reform will continue to achieve a disproportionate amount of coverage, which will allow them to shape much of the debate (this has already been happening in much of the media election coverage). The Greens, who secured four seats, and pro-Palestine independents, who won five, will not receive anywhere near the coverage Reform will - another flaw in our ‘democracy’. Nigel Farage was able to influence much of the election debate without the platform of parliament. The day after he called this the “immigration election”, Starmer called Sunak “the most liberal prime minister we’ve ever had” in relation to immigration. So we can expect Farage and his Reform colleagues to be able to shape future debates in this parliament and in the media - and no doubt watch Starmer’s subsequent, reactionary lurches rightwards.

Most worryingly, when Starmer’s Labour doesn’t deliver the ‘change’ it has promised (hampered as it is by the economic system to which we are all currently enslaved) it will leave a space that will likely be filled by ‘Faragism’ - either by Reform itself, a reorganised Tory Party or an ugly combination of the two. You could get 9/1 on Farage being the PM to follow Starmer at the bookies a day before the election.

I have yet to be convinced that the situation involving Emmanuel Macron, the far right and the stumbling of social democracy in France currently is not how Labour and Britain will look in a few years time. My worry would be that the ‘left’ in Britain would not be able to organise in time to keep the far right from winning significant power, like the comrades may have been able to do in France.

So the election is over, but, as we said before, the struggle continues. At present I don’t think we’re in a position to comprehensively fill the void a Starmer government is likely to leave, unfortunately. So the task will be to negate the impact of Faragism as best we can, highlight the inherent failures of social democracy, fight for a change to the voting system, and work to build a genuine Communist Party able to intervene in events in the future.

Carl Collins
email

Tolerance

Despite any howls of derision, accusations of clinical-calibre grandiosity or just simple absurdity it invokes, I’d like to make an appeal. The sole motivation of the Weekly Worker is how, without a unified, consolidated and concretely internationalist Communist Party, all of us will remain lost - nothing much more than dust. My appeal now follows.

In vast distinction to any purported ‘landslide’ towards the Labour Party, last week’s events represent nothing more than ongoing stabilisation of the status quo. It wasn’t Labour that ‘won’ the election: the capitalist paradigm took that prize via continuation of its combined omni-fraud and grand-scale hoax. Yet again it secured the perpetuation of delusional ‘investment’ by our UK co-citizens in terms of any respect either for personal dignity or common good on a global dimension. What can be recognised by all communists (from within whatever particular little crevices of our multiple fragmentation!) is further huge damage to societal health.

Our 21st-century communism notably fails to secure either primary engagement or subsequent traction with such health - not just in a physical sense, but in terms of spirit and soul. Meanwhile, we have Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Georgia Meloni and other pre-fascistic eruptions.

Go figure - not in terms of detailed analyses of data around constituency voting patterns; nothing along the lines of that oh so fucking clever Labour Party deployment of triangulations within equally clever-dick analyses of demographics (aka psephology), etc. No, where surely 21st-century communism must both immediately and with internally directed dialecticism ‘go figure’ is in terms of our unique responsibility to humankind, to Planet Earth.

Bruno Kretzschmar
Email