Letters

Spart leopard

Both comrade David Passerine of Australia’s Revolutionary Communist Organisation in last week’s letters page, and comrade Ian Spencer in his report of Communist University (‘Fighting spirit renewed’, August 21) make what seem to me to be historically questionable claims about the Spartacists.

Comrade Passerine writes: “Since the death of Jim Robertson, and the broad failure of their long-time strategy of going straight to the masses, the Spartacists globally have moved away from the sectarian positions they are most commonly known for.” For his part, comrade Spencer states “There were interesting contributions from the Spartacist League, which nowadays is far more open to actual discussion with other groups.”

I personally encountered the Spartacists in relation to their entry operations in the Oxford-based Workers Socialist League and in the International Marxist Group/Socialist League around 1980. The Sparts were not, as far as I could tell, committed to going straight to the masses; rather they had a conception that, as a “fighting propaganda group”, they would win forces from the existing far left by a process of splits and fusions.

This approach was not (and is not) in itself invalid, but the problems were three. The first was the Spartacists’ ‘Oehlerism’ (from Hugo Oehler, 1903-83, who led a split from the US Trotskyists opposed to entry in the Socialist and Labour Parties): that is, the belief that there can be no principled opposition without an immediate aim of splitting.

The second was (paradoxically) their ‘Cannonism’ - following Trotskyist leader James P Cannon’s 1930s approaches to the Workers Party led by AJ Muste and to the Socialist Party USA. This was to practice short-term raiding entry to destroy ‘centrist obstacles’, even if the result was not significant growth for the Trotskyists, rapidly pulling forces out.

The third was that - also following Cannon - Jim Robertson was a heavy drinker and identified being ‘proletarian’ with bullying those around him and with certain aspects of Anglo-Saxon-American nativism. The result was a bizarre cult round Robertson.

I understand that the reconstituted International Communist League has at least partly broken with Robertsonism. It is certainly the case that some of their contributions at Communist University were seriously worth engaging with. But how far they have broken with Robertsonism needs, I think, further exploration; misrepresenting what their past weaknesses were does not assist this.

Mike Macnair
Oxford

What name?

Recent suggestions for the name of the Your Party movement have been concerning. ‘Patriotic Taxpayers Party’, ‘Family Futures’ and ‘Peace and Science’ have been suggested and keeping the Your Party moniker is a good outside bet. ‘Anything But Socialism’ could be another.

Whilst ‘Left Party’, backed by Zara Sultana, looks like the odds-on favourite, neither she nor Corbyn seem very keen to involve themselves too much. Given that online phenomena can generate unusual outcomes (the Corbyn surge, similar processes in the Greens/SNP, etc) anything could happen. ‘The People’s Party’, more normally associated with rightist formations, looks like another strong possibility.

It’s important that communists push for a democratic delegate conference to discuss both the name and the politics of the new party. The wildcard of atomised E-voting may well provide a series of dopamine hits, but it doesn’t bode well in terms of functioning or generating crank outcomes and cementing the control of leadership factions!

Paul Cooper
email

Don’t vote!

I have signed up to Your Party, but here is why I will not submit a suggestion on what to call the new party. Yes, it sounds harmless enough, even rather democratic. It’s nice Jeremy Corbyn wants to know my view, right?

Well, call me a cynic, but I suspect there is more to it. That this is something like an experiment by the YP leadership to see how many people will get involved in the Zoomocracy. A test case. If tens of thousands of YP supporters get involved, making all sorts of weird and wonderful proposals, it would be very easy to present this as a very successful first try at ‘online democracy’. Why not carry on? How about we have an online vote on the actual name, too? And why not extend that to the constitution and programme of the party too?

‘One member, one vote’ (OMOV) sounds very democratic and, of course, that is indeed how we should operate on a local level. But on a national level, this would in reality mean the opposite of democracy: it means alienated, isolated, individual members sitting at home, choosing between options selected by somebody, somewhere. It does not build collectivity. There is no space for real discussion, no meaningful debate, no accountability - and, in reality, no actual party. It would be a shell.

And this method is very much open to manipulation from above, even on such a seemingly banal question as the name. Zarah Sultana, for example, has already stated that she prefers ‘Left Party’. Now imagine Jeremy Corbyn starts making noises in that direction too - or just does not say anything on the question. What do we think the result of such a poll will be? Can there be any doubt which option will win - all the while fooling the members that they had a real choice in the matter?

Yes, this is ‘just’ about the name, for now. But this does remind me of the Lansman coup in Momentum, when a majority of the members voted via an oh-so-democratic online referendum to abolish all democratic structures in the organisation - because Corbyn had sent them an email, urging them to do so. Yes, he was probably being played by Jon Lansman, but that’s not much of an excuse. We really must avoid those undemocratic methods of decision-making - and learn from the mistakes of our very recent past.

I fear that, once we start with plebiscites and making decisions merely by clicking ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at home - and it is relatively successful - then it will be seen as a starting signal to carry on just like that and on far more important questions. For example, I can easily imagine a vote on whether the party’s manifesto should contain lovely, simple platitudes like ‘for peace and justice’? Or should we have a more complicated, long programme that explains how capitalism works - and how it could actually be defeated. It would be very hard to make the case for such a programme, when the voters are sitting at home on Zoom (or doing whatever while the meeting is running). This would not be the opposite of the bureaucracy of the Labour Party, which many people hope for - it would actually be worse.

If, however, only 500 proposals or so come in, that might act as a brake on the plans to further expand online voting. These plans will look very attractive to both factions currently quibbling over YP (the difference between Sultana/Feinstein, on the one hand, and Murphy/Schneider, on the other, seem rather marginal). Branches could be sidelined or reduced to mere talking shops, instantly solving the problem of groups like the Socialist Workers Party and Counterfire currently going into and running many of the branches. It would be a good way to avoid cumbersome motions and long-winded debates over this and that formulation.

This kind of decision-making - atomised, unaccountable, without real debate and discussion - is a bureaucrat’s wet dream and a democrat’s nightmare. Say no to online voting and boycott this charade. The fewer people vote, the better.

Tina Becker
Sheffield

Your Partying

God! A meeting on a Friday night, when I should be partying. Well, I thought I’d better go - duty calls.

But, wow, it was different. As I arrived, I saw that it would be packed. It was a room as full of energy as lots of parties of the other kind. This is dozy Devon, but there were 80 people, and 40 more on Zoom. For those in cities, think about the distances, the lack of public transport and the conservative nature of Devon life. The world is changing fast!

The meeting got going with an emphasis on DIY - if the world is to change, we, the mass of ordinary people, must do it. Palestine and anti-fascism were emphasised by the key speakers. We will ensure that MPs and councillors are the members’ servants, not their masters.

There was not much discussion of policy - I think this was right for a ‘party’ that is not yet a party. We broke up into constituency groups - that was revealing - members in small villages, as well as the larger towns.

I was pleased that I did not know most of the people present. We old hacks look forward to merging with members from a wide variety of backgrounds. How do we come together to move forward from this diversity? A small part of that coming together will be the magazine we will set up to discuss our politics, and I hope much more. I suggested the idea and the team so far is people I never knew and from various parts of Devon.

I’m sure that the old political class are more frightened of us than they let on. After last night I think they have reason to be fearful.

Geoff Barr
Exeter

CWO message

With airstrikes, controlled explosions and bulldozers Gaza is being razed to the ground. What still remains of it in the ever-shrinking “humanitarian zone” is now a shooting gallery, where starvation and disease rule the day. The Israeli military does not distinguish between military and civilian targets. The real death toll won’t be known for years to come - if ever.

And, in the background, Israeli settlers seize their opportunity to grab more land in the West Bank. There is no doubt about it: Palestinians in the Levant are reduced to a dispossessed mass, facing extermination and displacement.

As Netanyahu’s administration prepares yet another escalation, it appears that nothing will stand in his way to create a ‘Greater Israel’, no matter the human cost. Warnings from non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations about the dire situation on the ground have simply been ignored. Protests - not just in Israel and Palestine, but all over the world - have been met with repressions. Sanctions, embargoes and boycotts have failed to undermine the military and economic siege. Having the green light from the world’s still dominant superpower, the US, counts for more than all of that.

Why has the international world order been so ineffective at preventing mass killings? The legal framework intends to demarcate what is and isn’t allowed during conflict. However, in the imperialist era there is a tendency for conflicts to become total wars, in which both constant capital (means of production) and variable capital (labour-power) become ‘legitimate’ targets. In the context of pre-existing ethnic and national tensions - some of which predate modern capitalism to tribal and colonial times - the result is the increased likelihood of atrocities taking place, an ever-present possibility of genocidal acts being perpetrated, both by state and non-state actors.

Furthermore, capitalism is a predatory system, it has not developed evenly across the globe, and as a result there exist imperialist centres and capitalist peripheries. The latter often make up the battlefields for the interests of the former, meaning conflicts are often asymmetrical.

The sight of a defenceless population being gradually slaughtered, without ramification, by a regime armed to the teeth has rightly caused moral indignation across the world. But the only way to truly end genocide is to put an end to a system and the social relations which naturally breed it. As workers we remain powerless in the face of this descent into capitalist barbarism until there is a real class movement able to impose its interests on the warmongers, exploiters and oppressors of the world.

To this end, we have to go beyond protests and the actions of small groups. The working class must become an independent social force that sides with no national flags or imperialist camps. By exposing the link between the attacks on our working and living conditions at home and capitalist preparations for war abroad, we can set the foundations for a wider fightback. On this basis, the ‘No War but the Class War’ initiative seeks to unite genuine internationalists from various tendencies in order to bring the internationalist message to the struggles happening in the here and now. Join us - no war but the class war!

Communist Workers’ Organisation
email

Inheritance tax

Last week presenter Lewis Goodall caused a stir on LBC radio when, tongue in cheek, he called for inheritance tax to be levied at 100%.

There’s normally no inheritance tax to pay if either the value of your estate is below the £325,000 threshold or you leave everything above the £325,000 threshold to your spouse, civil partner, a charity or a community amateur sports club. While inheritance tax is currently levied at 40%, communists support Lewis Goodall’s call for it to be raised to 100%.

Opinion polls show that 43% of people support the scrapping of inheritance tax. This is in spite of only four percent of the population having to pay it when they die. Mark Twain famously said that in life only two things are certain - death and taxes. That’s why the Labour government, instead of tweaking inheritance tax, should levy it at 100% on estates valued above the £325,000 threshold.

At the same time, taxes on earned income for working class and middle class people should be made as low as possible. These demands are concrete expressions of the CPGB’s Draft programme when it refers to tax.

John Smithee
Cambridgeshire

Fly the flag

It seems flying the flag is once again en vogue. I recall the first Thatcherite government was very keen to unfurl the butcher’s apron, as it ran roughshod over workers’ rights. We’ve had several such administrations since, but I struggle to remember one so performative in draping itself in the red, white and blue as the current Labour government.

While it may not yet be rampant, the hard right certainly feels the wind in its sails. ‘Patriots’ have rallied, demonstrating their national pride by hosting the union flag and the banner of the saintly - Turkish - George up lampposts across the nation.

Some have even grabbed their paintbrushes and spray-cans, daubing George’s red cross on the humble mini-roundabout and zebra crossing. (Odd, considering that standing on a flag is generally seen as an insult.) And, of course, we have seen angry demonstrations outside asylum hotels across the country, calling on us to ‘save our children’ from whomever lurks inside.

So how did we get to this point?

The UK economy is heavily reliant on migrant labour. Stagnant living standards and a shrinking social wage have made having children a rather expensive enterprise. Average birth-rates across Europe continue their long-term downward trajectory, with fewer women choosing to become parents. Importing ready-made workers fills the gap quickly and cheaply, and further reduces the cost of labour power to capital; outsourcing the raising and educating of the next generation of workers to another country can be very cost-effective.

But where to house them? While the right, in the main (the recent riots in Ballymena being something of an exception), has focused on asylum hotels, many migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees - bar the rich - will end up in poorly maintained housing, or sleeping in unfit rooms above commercial kitchens and other workspaces. They have become fundamental to the political economy of the UK, working in low-paid twilight sectors, reducing the cost of the basket of wage goods and further lowering the cost of labour power.

The response of the workers’ movement must move beyond demonstrations of solidarity, important as these very clearly are. We need to start organising these communities - yes, in trade unions, but also politically, linking this to the struggle against capitalism. The small boats will not stop coming, certainly not while the imperialist powers offload the current crisis onto weaker states and seek to reset geopolitical realities.

There should be red flags flying from lampposts up and down the country; for that to happen we will need to build a mass Communist Party.

Hannah Phipps
email