24.10.2024

Different times, different slogans

Just because the Bolsheviks dropped defeatism, does not mean communists should do so today. That is obvious. But, though the CPGB calls for “turning what is a war between reactionary capitalist powers into a civil war”, Carla Roberts says that when engaging with others on the left, it is vital to uphold the phrase ‘revolutionary defeatism’, the ‘main enemy is at home’ slogan and the call for a workers’ militia

It would be easy to be frustrated by Jack Conrad’s lengthy reply (‘Wrong and right war politics’, October 17) to my letter in the previous week’s edition of the Weekly Worker. I had mainly criticised the style of the “statement” on the Ukraine war published by the Provisional Central Committee and that it was missing some of the more well-known slogans around the concept of ‘revolutionary defeatism’ (‘Establishing a principled left’, October 3). In my view, it was a long, numbered news article with superfluous points about weapons systems, far too many filler words and phrases, much ‘implied’ politics and little in terms of sharp, principled points. In other words, it does not fulfil its purpose as a statement that seeks “principled unity” with others on the left.

Because it had already been sent out to other groups and because it was me who had proposed that we issue such a statement at the last CPGB aggregate, I wanted to register my disappointment with the execution of this proposal by the PCC and explain what I would have changed, had I been given the chance. I considered my proposals very much as a set of ‘friendly’ amendments that would have helped to tighten and sharpen up the text, so that it would fulfil its stated purpose.

Comrade Conrad states in his reply that there was no time to send it to members: it had to be sent out quickly, because the US elections might change things dramatically. Surely that is another reason why a statement focusing on political principles rather than news items would have been preferable: it would not be quite as ‘out of date’ in a couple of weeks time.

I am not going to get into what I consider a number of irrelevant side issues in comrade Conrad’s reply. Suffice to say, he criticises things I did not say, including that I claimed “property rights” over the statement and that my proposal to delete certain points meant that I must “disagree with them” or “find them boring”. No, they just do not belong in this type of statement. I am also less impressed by this straw man: “Perhaps, though, if we had included the demand for a people’s militia in the statement, comrade Roberts would have objected that this constitutes a barrier to left unity and cosy cooperation. Unfair? Well, maybe.”

It is not a style of debate that I find particularly useful or convincing. I do not believe it helps to create the kind of culture of open debate and discussion that I know comrade Conrad espouses. One which encourage comrades to think for themselves, so that they feel confident enough to ask questions and voice any criticisms they might have.

Principles, tactics

Having said all that, the exchange does have some merits. It points to some issues where we probably do have real disagreements. I say ‘probably’ because, just like the statement, the article lacks clarity.

I do not believe these are disagreements over political principles, but are of a tactical nature - not that this makes them unimportant: It clearly matters how we argue for our politics and engage with others in order to achieve “principled left unity”.

We agree that in the current wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, communists adopt a position of ‘revolutionary defeatism’ - ie, communists strive to turn the reactionary war into a civil war with the aim of overthrowing the international capitalist state system. But there is disagreement on how should we do so: should we merely imply the concept in our statements or should we openly use the relevant slogans, such as ‘The main enemy is at home’ and ‘Down with the war’? Related to that is the question of how communists make propaganda and agitate against the war and if they should openly argue for the establishment of workers’ defence units (popular militias) to replace the standing army.

I think at the heart of our disagreement is the question of ‘audience’ - who are we actually talking to? The statement is, quite rightly, addressed to “others on the left, individuals and organisations, in Britain and internationally … with a view to cementing principled unity and furthering the struggle against war and capitalism”. So in reality it is small groups and self-confessed communists, most of whom will be well-versed in discussing political questions and principles. It seems obvious that we should propose a clear and sharp political statement to initiate an overdue discussion with them about where we agree - and where we disagree - so that the project of communist regroupment can be progressed. But neither the original PCC statement nor Conrad’s article do that, in my opinion.

In his reply, Conrad discusses at great length how in 1917, the Bolsheviks dropped slogans around the concept of ‘revolutionary defeatism’ and replaced calls like ‘Down with the war!’ with “popular demands, such as ‘Peace without annexations’ and ‘Publish the secret treaties’.”

If Conrad raises this in order to stress that we should always remain flexible about our tactics and treat no slogan as ‘set in stone’ and valid at all times, then I certainly agree. If, however, Conrad means that, just like the Bolsheviks in 1917, we too should drop the slogans, then I must disagree. The latter is certainly implied in his article, though he does not state it clearly.

Skims over

Conrad only skims over why Lenin and the Bolsheviks dropped those slogans. His fellow PCC member Mike Macnair, however, developed the point in his marvellous book Revolutionary strategy. He explains that the concrete circumstances of Russia in 1917 were the reason for the change in tactics. Not because the revolutionary defeatist slogans were necessarily wrong - but because the situation had changed. Macnair, like Conrad, quotes Hal Draper’s seminal book The myth of Lenin’s ‘revolutionary defeatism’ - but disagrees with Draper’s assessment that “the defeat slogan was simply wrong and always implies that you must positively wish for the victory of the other side”.¹

Macnair explains:

What is missing in Draper’s account is that Bolshevik anti-war agitation and organisation among the soldiers did not disappear after April. But the disappearance of the defeat slogan, and the mass defencism, were real. Mass defencism reflected the fact that, as the war had evolved, it had become mainly a war fought on Russian soil, which Russia was losing. The masses could see perfectly well that the liberty they had won in February would not survive German occupation.²

In other words, in Russia in 1917, when the masses heard ‘The main enemy is at home’ or even ‘Down with the war’, they could not help but think that the Bolsheviks campaigned for the (very realistic) victory of the German army - an army that was already inflicting death and destruction on a mass scale on them. The danger of occupation by Germany was a real possibility. And with it not just the threat that the achievements of the February revolution would be lost, but that the continuing revolutionary situation would be destroyed.

Clearly, the Bolsheviks were right to adjust their tactics and drop some slogans, while continuing to fight for the concept of revolutionary defeatism in the ranks of the army (ie, turning the imperialist war into a civil war), with the aim of splitting the army and winning large sections over in the fight for a second, socialist revolution.

But it should be obvious that we are in an entirely different situation today - and we are talking to an entirely different audience: we are addressing small groups on the British left, not the mass of the working class in a revolutionary situation, where even ‘moderate’ slogans were able to mobilise the fired up masses.

Obviously, the British army is not fighting in Ukraine. No British soldier has died (yet). Vladimir Putin is not about to occupy Londongrad and take away what is left of our civil and trade union rights. There is no mass defencist sentiment in Britain’s population (unlike in Russia in 1917).

The war in Ukraine is not yet quite as unpopular as the British government’s support for Israel’s campaign of genocide against the Palestinians. But, in Germany at least, the opposition to the war in Ukraine in the population has been growing steadily and finds reflection in the electoral successes of, on the right, the Alternative für Deutschland and, on the left, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance. This surely is likely to be the trajectory in Britain, too - the longer it goes on, the more unpopular the Ukraine war will become. Rachel Reeves’ forthcoming austerity budget is likely to speed up this development. It is amazing that so far we have heard very little about the fact that we are asked to tighten our belts, because the government has two wars to fight (and finance). This can change quite quickly.

In this situation, the slogans, ‘Down with the war’, ‘The main enemy is at home’ and ‘Disband Nato’, seem to me exactly the right ones to use, especially vis-à-vis the war in the Middle East, but also in Ukraine. They are not the only ones we should use, but they are certainly entirely applicable today.

Of course, ‘revolutionary defeatism’ is not always the correct line to take, even in a non-revolutionary situation like today. Say the US invades Cuba - I presume we would in all likelihood take a Cuba-defencist view, despite our knowledge that the system there has absolutely nothing to do with socialism or the self-liberation of the working class (while, of course, continuing to work towards the overthrow of the capitalist state in the US and Britain).

But the opposite is certainly not the case either - that we have to drop slogans around revolutionary defeatism, just because Lenin and the Bolsheviks did so in 1917, under entirely different political circumstances.

Popular militia

Comrade Conrad also writes that “no-one on the PCC would have raised the slightest objection” to adding the demand for a “popular militia” - but then goes on to say:

… when it comes to assessing a possible Russia-Nato war and phasing into World War III, the demand for a popular militia is tangential. If the world’s standing armies have been dissolved and replaced by ‘popular militia[s] under democratic control’, then big-power (even small-power) conflicts become much, much more difficult, though not impossible. But, to state the obvious, that is not the case.

In other words, he does raise an objection to adding the demand - it is not relevant for today, because there are no militias yet. What an odd argument to make. Clearly, the time to argue for popular militias is precisely when they are not in existence - ie, now. Other members of the PCC have stated that the original statement did not include the demand, because “others on the left would have objected”. So which one is it? Is it (too) controversial on the left, is it tangential or is now not the right time? I think all three arguments are wrong.

It goes without saying that we always have to consider which slogans we put forward to which audience and in which political situation. For example, shouting ‘We need a popular militia!’ at people outside Tesco or putting forward such a motion at a Labour Party branch meeting today would clearly be of limited use. People uneducated in our working class history will hear ‘blood’, ‘violence’, ‘nutcase’ or a combination thereof. (As an aside, had there been even the beginning of a rebellion in the British army over the Iraq war, with troops refusing to go and fight - not impossible to imagine - this could have been an entirely different matter.)

Obviously, none of us today have any influence over members of the army. We are unable to convince any battalions to split from the army and join the mass revolutionary movement in fighting to overthrow the state. The workers’ movement remains entirely defeated, politically and ideologically. But we are talking, concretely, to the revolutionary left. We are still in a period of preparation, of getting our politics right, for the time when the working class does start to move again. We are talking about the kind of things we know need to happen in order to get from where we are to where we want to be.

That is exactly why in our Draft programme we fight for democratic and trade union rights in the existing army - because “every opportunity must be used to take even tentative steps towards this goal [of a popular militia]. As circumstances allow, the working class must equip itself with all weaponry necessary to bring about revolution.”³ This is based on the understanding that, by winning reforms in this direction in the here and now, we will in practice undermine the ability of the armed forces to be used in defence of the capitalist class. The demand for a popular militia is therefore an important weapon in our arsenal - today. An increasingly unpopular war and the threat of World War III seem a very good “opportunity” to discuss the issue.

After all, the international workers’ movement, despite its organisation in the Second International, failed abysmally when confronted with World War I. What do communists need to do differently to avoid the workers’ parties falling in line again behind their respective nation-states, as they did in 1914? As Macnair warns, “The advocates of ‘strategy of patience’ could have prepared the workers’ movement and the society as a whole for the fact that this question would in future be posed. They chose not to.”

Let us not make the same mistake again. We should be bold and forceful about what strategy and tactics the workers’ movement needs to adopt if it actually wants to have a chance of ‘stopping the war’. ‘Implying’ this or that in long texts will simply not do. Yes, we should be skilled in how we put forward what might be difficult slogans and demands. But we should not avoid them, because others on the left “might object”. For a start, they might very well not object. And, even if they do, let us have the argument with them - ideally in open, public forums where the working class can learn from our disagreements.

How to campaign

The second point is related to the issue of slogans - how do we campaign against the war? Conrad goes to great length to criticise the following half-sentence in my proposed amendments: “Towards this goal [of the fight for a Communist Party and a workers’ movement capable of overthrowing the capitalist state], we support boycotts and strikes against the war.”

He writes:

I see myself standing in the tradition of the orthodox Marxism of the Second International, most consistently and effectively upheld throughout World War I by the RSDLP (Bolsheviks). And, of course, as everyone knows, they resolutely opposed the suggestion of organising a ‘general strike against the war’. Pacifist nonsense, as far as a blunt-talking Lenin was concerned.

As should be clear from the context, I did not argue for a “general strike against the war”. Clearly, strikes, boycotts and any other actions against the war effort are a dead end - if that is all you do. A general strike against the war cannot succeed if our movement is not extremely well organised in a party, because it almost immediately poses the question of power, of who runs the country: If we are all on strike, where will we get our food from? Our electricity? Who will run the buses? Etc.

But, clearly, the mass mobilisation of the working class can and should be part of our arsenal when fighting against war and imperialism. A mass Communist Party would surely organise and run demonstrations, strikes, boycotts of weapons shipments and other actions to disrupt the war effort. Without any illusion that these tactics by themselves will succeed - they must always be linked with a strategy for taking power.

Of course, trade unionists and workers often do take direct action against war: for example, the Greek dock workers of the Attica metal and shipbuilding union in Piraeus, who just blocked the loading of a container full of bullets and weapons destined for Israel.⁴ I am sure that comrade Conrad agrees that it is not our job to criticise or condemn them, but celebrate their action and continue to patiently explain what more is needed to actually stop imperialism’s wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.

A number of members and supporters of the CPGB have worked together to prepare an alternative (or perhaps additional) statement on the Ukraine war and the threat of World War III, which we hope can form part of the ongoing discussion. We believe it is written and presented in a manner that is more appropriate to the task at hand - and, yes, contains some of the ‘disputed’ slogans. Of course, the US elections might dramatically change things. But we believe our statement could be easily amended to take that into account - unlike the PCC text. We hope the organisation will take more such initiatives in the near future in order to help bring about the formation of a real, mass Communist Party.

1. M Macnair Revolutionary strategy London 2009, p72.↩︎

2. Ibid p74.↩︎

3. communistparty.co.uk/draft-programme/3-immediate-demands.↩︎

4. See www.902.gr/eidisi/ergazomenoi-symmahia/377035/oi-limenergates-empodizoyn-na-fortosei-container-me-sfaires-gia.↩︎

tk