19.09.2024

Political organisation is key

Against the background of the escalation of the war in Ukraine, genocide in Gaza and a US election which may influence both, this month’s CPGB aggregate examined the drive to wider international conflict and the left’s political problems. Ian Spencer reports

Jack Conrad of the Provisional Central Committee opened the September 15 aggregate of CPGB comrades and invited guests with his views on the escalating war in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin has stated that the deployment of medium-range missiles to Ukraine - with Nato permission to use them against the Russian Federation - will be taken as “a declaration of war”. Comrade Conrad noted that the Ukrainian conflict, from its outset, has been a Nato proxy war against Russia - one in which Ukraine will bear the brunt of the dead, maimed and wounded. The deployment of British Challenger II and German Leopard tanks and American Himars in a direct attack on Russia is already beyond dispute - namely in the Kursk oblast, where Ukraine has seized a patch of territory.

What then is different about the deployment of British Storm Shadows? After all, Nato drones have already been used against targets deep inside Russia. But drones carry only modest payloads and are vulnerable to counter-measures. The potential impact of medium-range missiles is far greater, due to their destructive capacity and the ability to evade anti-missile defences. They can also neutralise Russian command centres and Putin has already taken steps to move such infrastructure further back from the front line. Medium-range missiles represent an inexorable ‘mission creep’ in a war which is unwinnable by either Ukraine or Russia in the short term.

Crucially, the war needs to be understood in terms of the decline of the US hegemon, continued comrade Conrad. The strategic objective of reducing Russia to a geographically dismembered vassal state was set out by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US national security advisor, in his book, The grand chessboard. Nato’s aim is to create a crisis in Russia, but this is merely the first step. The ultimate geopolitical aim of the USA is the encirclement and containment of China. Currently there is a stalemate in the war and clearly it is in the interest of the US to perpetuate it. At the same time, the war has strengthened China as a supplier to Russia and its defeat would be against Chinese interests. Recent movements on the ground, such as the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk or the possibility that Russia may take Pokrovsk, are unlikely to significantly alter the balance of forces, even if Russia can secure the whole of the Donbass.

It is worth considering the position of the British left regarding the war. Broadly speaking, they fall into three opportunist camps. Firstly, the pro-imperialist camp, typified by the Anticapitalist Resistance and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. Justifying its stance with ‘the right of Ukrainian self-determination’, the AWL is effectively supporting Nato and calling for a more vigorous prosecution of the war. This can ultimately only serve the interests of the ruling class. There is a small pro-Kremlin left, consisting of near extinct outfits such as the New Communist Party and Arthur Scargill’s SLP along with a smattering of Trotskyist sects of one. But the bulk of what passes for the left nowadays hold to a social pacifism typified by the Stop the War Coalition (eg, Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, the Socialist Workers Party, Counterfire and what remains of the Labour left). The illusion is spread that capitalism can be nice and peaceful as long as governments act reasonably and abide by international agreements.

To the left of this block there is a fourth opportunist camp, which might take what superficially appears to be a principled position but holds back on criticisms of the social imperialists and social pacifists out of a fear of offending and therefore damaging future left unity prospects. This block includes what the comrade called Cargo Cult Centrists who make purely verbal claims in favour of the formation of a mass Communist Party but who refuse to seriously talk or otherwise engage with the CPGB.

In arriving at our position, we begin from the stance that the main enemy is at home. Russia is ruled by a rightwing nationalist regime, as is Ukraine. So we do not support Russia just because it is in conflict with Nato. But we do primarily oppose Nato and the UK ruling class, which is a key supporter of the US hegemon. Moreover, we draw out the interconnectedness between the genocide in Gaza, being conducted by Israel as the gendarme of the Middle East, and the war in Ukraine. Both are the consequence of the military expression of US imperialism, aided and abetted by its client states in Nato.

Debate

Comrade Farzad Kamangar stressed the connection of the Ukraine war with the conflicts in the Middle East. Iran has allegedly sold thousands of missiles to Russia in return for assistance with its nuclear programme. The use by the left of terminology such as ‘eastern imperialism’ in relation to powers like Iran fails to understand the distinction between mere territorial gain and imperialism. China plays an exploitative role in third-world countries and is taking a long-term view of itself as a potential leading world power. But it is not enough to take a neutral stance between two imperialisms. The non-equivalence is symbolised by the BBC’s extensive media coverage of the killing of children in Ukraine and the relative silence on the killing of far larger numbers in Gaza.

The confusion of the left in choosing one imperialist camp over another was highlighted by comrade Carla Roberts. She illustrated the contradiction by the case of Greta Thunberg, who, on the one hand, supports Ukraine, but recently made statements in support of Palestine. The criticisms of Prometheus and Communist Future should be seen in the context of their silence on many issues. One possibility, comrade Roberts suggested is an open conference on the war, which other groups could participate in. Comrade Jim Nelson observed that “international law is whatever the USA says it is” and that Nato is already at war with Russia de facto.

Drawing upon historical analogies with the second Balkan war, comrade Mike Macnair argued that the strategy of encirclement was a feature of attempting to contain Germany by the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. If Russia wins this war, it could potentially become an imperialist power, just as Japan became one because of its victory over first China and later Russia. The problem with centrist equivocation is that, without a party with clearly demarcated lines of principle, one ends up being dragged behind the manoeuvres of one or other sections of the ruling class. It is vital to call out opportunism, wherever we see it. Britain is, after all, a co-belligerent with Israel and Ukraine.

Comrade Conrad clarified his position regarding groups such as CF, saying that he was not suggesting it had softened its position on Ukraine because it has accepted financial backing from members in groups like Anticapitalist Resistance and Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century (RS21), but because of the perceived need to fudge issues in order to make friends. The list of affiliates to Ukraine Solidarity Campaign still includes Anticapitalist Resistance and used to include RS21.

Invited guest Tam Dean Burn supported the emphasis by the CPGB on the interconnectedness of the Ukraine and Gaza wars. Many organisations have come out with statements on Gaza, but not Ukraine. Thunberg met Zelensky, he commented, supposedly to look at the environmental impact of the Ukraine war. But, while it is important to understand the relationship between war and climate crisis, we are right to stress the role of US imperialism in all of these issues.

Comrade Conrad suggested that Thunberg is being used by Nato as a “useful idiot”. Russia has indeed caused huge environmental damage and the nuclear issue is particularly important here. But so has Ukraine, often without the mainstream media pointing the finger of guilt.

CU assessment

The second part of the aggregate was opened by comrade Kamangar, who gave a positive report on the quality of the talks given at Communist University. All the speakers who had committed to the event presented excellent talks.

However, Covid has left a legacy in the way people work, she said, and very many more registered for the Zoom sessions than those attending in person - and this included long-standing party comrades. While this had an impact on the quality of the discussion after the presentations, it is a feature of many conferences, and it may be that we must move to a shorter face-to-face CU, possibly supported by other conferences via Zoom.

Comrade Conrad was not in favour of such a proposal, but sympathetic to the notion behind it - debate is marred by a lack of attendees in person. By contrast, comrade Roberts was in favour of moving to a shorter in-person CU, pointing out that an eight-day conference can be physically demanding, as well as difficult for people with childcare and work commitments. She also made a series of suggestions, such as improved advertising of the event, well in advance, and not just in the pages of the Weekly Worker. The CPGB must reach out in terms of communication and recruitment and it had already made valuable steps in that direction, such as the establishment of a designated cell for the task. Potential new members need to have a well-thought-out induction programme, she thought, while chairs need a clear idea of what is expected of them.

Comrade Nelson agreed that we cannot just expect people to turn up, although some other groups manage it a little better. As tiring as it can be, we come to CU for knowledgeable presentations and good-quality discussion. Comrade McShane, agreeing that many organisations had seen a similar decline in attendance at their events, supported the idea of a shorter winter CU to help build for the summer face-to-face event.

Comrade Macnair agreed that online events in spring and winter are a good idea. The nature of CU is closer to being a “cadre school” than the SWP’s annual showcase event, Marxism, which caters for participants at all levels. CU requires a certain level of development, but he agreed with comrade Roberts on the importance of recruitment. On this topic, comrade Roberts pointed out that, while the RCP, for example, enjoyed buoyant recruitment, new members tend to leave in large numbers too. While we only recruit in small numbers, there are many who are politically close to us and may well join. We need to focus on cadre expansion and the development of supporters with a better-defined pathway to membership, possibly including a communist unity school.

Comrade Kamangar pointed out that, while recruitment opportunities were missed in the past, we do make efforts to develop comrades, and the cell is a key place for that. When we consider people who have left, they may have had differences, but never developed them or were prepared to debate. It would be better to have a shorter, more concentrated CU and use the presentations from this and the spring and winter CUs for induction purposes.

Comrade Conrad pointed out that the left in general is in a parlous state. The much vaunted revival of the Young Communist League seems to have come to exactly naught. The Socialist Appeal/RCP success in recruiting young people has been hugely exaggerated. In reality it is a Potemkin village. Internationally too the left is doing badly. For example the Democratic Socialists of America have declined from 100,000 registered members to around half that now. Meanwhile, there has been the complete collapse of the Corbyn project. This has had an adverse effect, but without people learning the lessons.

Instead there is the search by the flotsam and jetsam for the next soft left alliance, broad party, anti-cuts initiative or some other such nonsense. What is needed is commitment to founding a Communist Party.