Letters

Programme

Two letters in the September 5 edition - from Ansell Eade and Brynhilda Olding - addressed my August 29 article, ‘Solidarity, not sectionalism’, on programme and trans liberation.

Comrade Eade’s letter is broadly sound, recognising that the dictatorship of the proletariat entails substantial disruption, but that we do not aim for forced collectivisation of small businesses and farms and will therefore be concerned with regulation of a mixed economy. He concludes: “If this is the reality of the situation as the minimum programme is implemented in future, then we need to be upfront about it today.” We in the CPGB are upfront about it today in our Draft programme - not only in the sentence at the beginning of the introduction to section 5, ‘Transition to communism’, which comrade Eade quotes, but in the whole of that introduction, and in sub-section 4.3, ‘Economic measures’, in section 4, ‘Character of the revolution’.

I would add to comrade Eade’s points only that we know from historical experience that the USA and its vassal states are very likely to respond to the overthrow of capitalist rule in any country - or even the loss of US direct political control - with siege warfare (euphemistically called ‘sanctions’), with covert operations towards assassinations and sabotage, and with the vigorous promotion by financial and other material aid, publicity, etc, of oppositional groups, including not only self-identified ‘democrats’, but also minority nationalities (whether real or alleged, like the Bolivian lowlander latifundista ‘self-determination’ movement in 2007) and politico-religious groups.

To defeat these operations will need both continental-scale revolution (just as the Russian civil war ended with Red victory in Russia’s continental empire, not only in European Russia), and a willingness to use full-scale German Kriegssozialismus, Russian ‘war communism’, or at least very radical directive planning, as the UK did in 1939-45. Our minimum programme is designed round the rejection of forced collectivisation in favour of a period of transition. But we say, “peacefully if we can, forcefully if we must” - and “forcefully” includes willingness to use such measures.

Comrade Olding’s letter does not take us much further forward. It might be that an actually elaborated argument from her would do so; but this isn’t it. Her conclusion is: “I do not call for the dissolution of the communist movement into a broad coalition of interest groups oppressed by capitalism … But I do call for communists to take the revolutionary leadership that history pushes us into, in every arena of struggle.”

The problem is that her method of argument is precisely that of the “coalition of interest groups oppressed by capitalism”. She begins by saying that my article “fails to fundamentally understand the unique nature of the struggle for trans liberation”. But my method is, on the contrary, precisely to seek not uniqueness, but the commonalities between the struggle for trans liberation and other struggles for liberation, and the (core) struggle for the emancipation of the working class as a class.

Comrade Olding “take[s]umbrage” at my drawing an analogy between the idea that trans is as such an act of resistance against capitalist patriarchy, with the 1970s political idea that being gay or lesbian was as such an act of resistance. She goes on to emphasise that “changing one’s gender is fundamentally a rejection of the capitalist paradigm of social reproduction” - which is exactly the sort of view that 1970s radical gay men and lesbians took of their own identification. She emphasises conservative and mainstream-media ‘othering’ of trans people. This latter point casually downplays the very real risks of queer-bashing and other forms of victimisation experienced by people who were identified by others as gay or lesbian in the 1970s.

What remains - from her letter - as the “unique nature of the struggle for trans liberation” is the cost of medical transitioning. But, while this is certainly distinct from lesbians and gay men, it is part of the common problem of the cost of medical care - taking different forms in different countries, but affecting the working class and the lower middle class more generally.

Comrade Olding argues: “The crucial role that communists play in the fight against capitalism must by necessity require the intervention into arenas not directly related to the class struggle, and winning them over to a basis of class politics. This will include ethnic and religious minorities, as well as sexual and gender ones. This fight must emphasise the fundamental nature of the notion that the negation of class oppression will not in and of itself negate their oppression, but the negation of capitalism is the only way for total human liberation”. This is a half-truth, formulated so as to involve a misconception of what communists can offer.

In the first place, “the class struggle” includes all the divide-and-rule means used by the capitalist class and its state to maintain its rule. This includes right now (but not 10 years ago) the demonisation of trans rights, as well as now (but not 30 years ago) the demonisation of Islam. Suggesting that these are “not directly related to the class struggle” is to legitimise the implicit business-unionism (‘economism’) of the class-gender-race ‘trinity’ idea.

Secondly, the claim that “the negation of class oppression will not in and of itself negate their oppression, but the negation of capitalism is the only way for total human liberation” involves, in the form stated in comrade Olding’s letter, precisely the errors of sub-Eurocommunist and sub-western, soft-Maoist intersectionalism.

This brings us back to comrade Eade’s correct point. Capitalist rule leads, in current life, to conservative and Christianist witch-hunting of trans people. It also leads to US geostrategic policy producing US support for Israeli genocide in Palestine; in the UK, to deregulation resulting in 72 killed at Grenfell Tower, many injured and many more impoverished and living in fear of fire; and so on and on. In order to pass beyond capitalism as such to communism, we have first to pass beyond capitalist political rule. The way out of capitalist political rule has to be through working class political rule, which is posed because the working class as a class needs organised collective action in a way that other oppressed groups don’t. This class perspective is counterposed to the ‘intersectionalist’ perspective.

Mike Macnair
Oxford

Soft?

Leszek Karlik’s arguments for nuclear energy are serious and interesting (‘Another useful innocent’, September 12). I am not enough of an expert to make an independent assessment of them, but it is very good that the Weekly Worker published his piece. However, in the ingress to the article itself, Karlik’s party, Razem, is characterised in a way that requires a critical comment.

If “soft-left” is thought to mean the same as ‘reformist left’ - a view that capitalism can be reformed without any fundamental structural change - then that view does not at all seem to be the one that the Polish comrade argues for. To the contrary, he writes: “When we transition to the eco-socialist economy that we envision for our future, there will be no corporations that bend politicians to their will.” This shows very clearly that the writer argues for nuclear energy in the context of workers’ power: that is, after a radical change in power relations - first perhaps in Europe, but then with an internationalist perspective, in the whole world.

Or maybe the adjective “soft” is meant to be taken not in a political, but in an epistemological, sense. In that case all social sciences, including those with a Marxist approach, are ‘soft’ - in contrast to physics and other fundamental studies of nature.

My guess is that the expression, “soft-left”, is simply a pejorative epithet with neither political nor intellectual content.

Hannu Reime
Helsinki

Pet experts

Comrade GG appears to be deliberately choosing not to understand the difference between two very simple concepts (Letters, September 12). There is a difference between people claiming to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people versus listening to voices from the Palestinian people themselves. And for a paper claiming to be a communist, internationalist paper, it is beyond belief that it does not include articles from the Palestinian communist and wider Marxist perspectives.

I actually think the Weekly Worker is a very good communist paper and unprecedented in the space for debate it allows in the letters pages. I agree with the majority of the articles it publishes, although obviously not everything in them. However, its weak - even blind - spots are genuinely startling.

With the best will in the world, neither Tony Greenstein nor Moshé Machover - nor, I suspect, comrade GG - are Palestinians, let alone Palestinian communists. Yes, very typically, all three praise each other to the skies - they are all such fantastic pro-Palestinian campaigners and wonderful socialists! They say that about each other and about themselves so it must be true!

Greenstein has “friends who are Palestinians” (Letters, September 5), so why bother asking Palestinian communists to write when the Weekly Worker has Greenstein as one of two pet experts? There is no such thing as a Palestinian perspective, says Greenstein, so why not rely on Greenstein to speak on their behalf! The Palestinians are ever so grateful (or should be) for “anti-Zionist Jews” like Greenstein and Machover, who will help liberate them!!

What absolutely insufferable, appalling arrogance, impudence and utter self-aggrandisement! Something of a ‘Messiah complex’ appears to afflict both Greenstein and Machover …

On the point about there being no single Palestinian perspective, of course that is right, but there are more specifically Palestinian communist and Marxist perspectives, so why not try and include these in the Weekly Worker? Yes, ideally in place of Greenstein and Machover.

Comrade GG states correctly I am highly critical of Machover and Greenstein and I have provided extensive reasoning as to why I am critical and why in my judgement I wouldn’t touch either of them with a very long barge pole as pet ‘experts’ on Israel/Palestine.

Jack Conrad in his ‘Ancient myths as today’s weapons’ (September 5) produced the very article exposing the myths and ideologies of the Old Testament that Machover should have done three editions previously, but signally failed to. Was it a pure coincidence that we had Conrad’s article on the Old Testament so quickly after Machover’s dreadful effort? I suspect not.

Comrade GG fails to respond to any of the specific points I raised about Greenstein and Machover, and that is fine - we clearly disagree and have very different perspectives, experiences and probably cultural backgrounds as well. But I suspect my words have had a wider resonance beyond the highly select and narrow Greenstein and Machover fan club: Numbers 1 and 2 members Greenstein and Machover themselves!

GG makes sweeping grandiose comments about me daring to criticise such fine “anti-Zionists” as Greenstein and Machover and on my apparent politics as well! Here, I suspect we start to come close to the real issue at the heart of all this.

Yes, I am a communist and very proud to be so. I am very much in the mainstream communist tradition. I believe in the fundamental Marxist principles that the working classes, the wider working masses and oppressed peoples, should liberate themselves, with the solidarity of working and oppressed people everywhere. They should not rely on ‘liberator messiahs’ to come to their rescue, to tell them what to do, tell them to be grateful for their ‘help’, to wait for the perfect external revolution (designed in King’s College London) to come and save them.

As a communist and internationalist, I pay close attention to what my comrades in the Palestinian and Arab communist movement, parties and groups have to say. They obviously have a range of views and approaches, but ultimately come from the same basic Marxist and communist values, principles and perspectives of seeking the emancipation of all working peoples from imperialism and capitalism.

No doubt our two ‘anti-Zionist’ paragons (plus one or two others) would describe all such (and obviously myself) as “Stalinist”. As it happens, I am not a “Stalinist”, if one is defined as thinking that every single thing that Stalin said or did was 100% correct at all times, or that everything that happened in the Soviet Union was completely justifiable or supportable.

Significant parts of the mainstream communist tradition are highly critical of Stalin and what is more appropriately described as ‘Stalinism’, being approaches, modes of rule, organisation of economy and society which were specifically characteristic of the USSR under his leadership.

Greenstein’s ‘big (and only!) criticism’ of Stalin is that some people who happened to be Jewish were executed or at risk of execution (Letters, September 5). Rather narrow and limited, I have to say, but very revealing.

But the term ‘Stalinist’ as used by Greenstein, Gerry Downing and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, is not used in this more defined and meaningful sense. It is used precisely to attack the whole of the communist tradition. All these are bitterly and hatefully anti-communist to and from their cores. Which is fine. We know where they are coming from and act accordingly.

But I genuinely thought GG from their previous correspondence on other issues was far better than that. I hope I was right.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

One-off ban

Those riots took place just around the corner from where I live in Hull, but I wasn’t brave enough to leave the safety of my flat. I’m all for riots and crimes against retail property and council authority, but not misdirected acts of ignorant savagery.

I haven’t yet had the time to read all of last week’s Weekly Worker - that treat lies in store. But I did take exception to the letter by Bruno Kretzschmar, who is very shy about what country he is writing from, never mind what city. Also, I think you made it blindingly clear why you had taken the unusual step regarding Daniel Lazare. It’s a one-off and precise decision that no-one who calls themselves a humanist, never mind a socialist, should have any problem with.

To use this wise and necessary decision to suggest that a fellow, regular letter writer, Andrew Northall, should also be banned from the letters page is plainly petty-minded, comical and insensitive to what is happening in Gaza. Andrew Northall may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but he’s a committed communist who knows what he’s talking about. The Soviet Union was - and is - a democratic adventure which raised 250 million people out of poverty, war and illiteracy. I say ‘is’, because I view the fall as a temporary phenomenon and we will see its rise again.

Elijah Traven
Hull

Stalinist

I will leave it up to comrade Andrew Northall to reply to the letter of GG from the USA about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I would like to make a few points about GG’s concluding remarks relating to Tony Greenstein’s criticism of Northall as a Stalinist.

For a long time, most of the communist movement have based themselves on an anti-dialectical view of the past, with the partial exception of the leadership of the Communist Party of China under Mao, following Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin back in 1956. In Khrushchev’s view Stalin was all bad. But, when Mao was leading the party in China, he pointed out that there was a positive side to Stalin as well. Most historians and communists will agree, for instance, that without Stalin’s crash industrialisation drive the Nazis would have defeated the Soviet Union. In other words, Stalin played a decisive role in saving Europe and potentially the world from the victory of Nazism and racism.

So, although there was a negative side to Stalin in dealing with his political rivals in the Communist Party, there was also a more important positive side. While there is no reason to deny the negative side, neither should we deny the positive. This applies to all the other great leaders of the communist movement, from Marx to Mao.

Tony Clark
For Democratic Socialism