Letters

Spart fusion

I appreciated the exchanges I had with comrades of the CPGB at Communist University - in particular the openness of your organisation to engage in frank political debate. However, when it comes to the pages of Weekly Worker, we feel you engage our organisation in an unserious manner.

A few weeks ago, you falsely claimed the Spartacist League supported the Iranian regime. Last week we had comrade Macnair’s letter entitled “Spart leopard” (August 28), whose purpose seems to be to cast a shadow over us. In it he implies we still hold the aim of effectuating “short-term raiding” operations on other organisations. Again, it seems no attempt was made to look at our actual position, which is clearly laid out in the current issue of Spartacist:

“The perspective of the ICL is to work toward a political realignment in the international left. We must seek to regroup the truly revolutionary elements that are today spread across various organisations as a result of coincidence and political unclarity. Our objective is not ultimately to win one or two members from other organisations, but to engage in a genuine fusion process with much larger forces” (‘The crisis in the Marxist left and the tasks of the ICL’ Spartacist no70).

We have no problem exchanging vigorous polemics, but for the exercise to be productive it needs to hold some relation to what we write and do. We do not ask that you forget our past, which we certainly do not, but we do ask that your critique of our politics be based on more than impressions from decades ago and lurid tales about our late comrade, Jim Robertson.

If I raise these points, it is not to whine, but to propose that our respective organisations engage each other in a more serious and sustained manner. Let’s get real and deal with the politics at hand. The founding of a new left party in Britain offers a chance to change the overall direction of British politics. We believe it is also an important opportunity for the splintered communist forces to clarify their differences and work together. However, in both cases there is a big difference between latent potential and real potential.

There can be no doubt that, left to their own devices, the leaders of Your Party will repeat the disaster of Corbyn No1. In the same way there is no reason to doubt that most communist organisations will act in their usual self-interested sectarian ways. Thus, if we want the outcome to be different, we must act to make it so.

To this end we think it makes sense for our two organisations to seriously engage with each other and look for ways to work together. First, because we seem to align on certain important principles regarding the new left party: opposition to a coalition with the Greens, to Zionism and to support for Ukraine. Second, because we both share the aim of political clarification and regroupment within the communist left. If you are interested in our proposal, we think an obvious first step would be to exchange views on our perspectives towards Your Party (we will be publishing a substantial article in the coming days).

Of course, we are two very small organisations, but we think that fruitful exchanges could exercise broader influence on the far left. It certainly could raise the level of political debate among communists and put pressure on other groups to work together in building a left pole in the new party.

Gabriel Perrault
Spartacist League

Spart legacy

While I usually find Mike Macnair’s articles enlightening, I was a bit confused by his letter last week. Now, I’m not an expert on all aspects of Spartacist history, but I do have a sizable stack of the bound volumes of Workers Vanguard that I have to explain to visiting guests unfamiliar with Trotskyist intrigue, so perhaps that lends me some credibility.

Anyhow, comrade Macnair correctly asserts that much has changed within the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) since the 2019 death of their long-time leader, James Robertson. However, I find the rearward analysis a bit convoluted. How can one accuse the Spartacist League of “Oehlerism” (characteristically referring to Hugo Oehler, who refused to take up Trotsky’s perspective of entry into the French Socialist Party in the mid-1930s), while earlier pointing out an example of the SL’s tactic of entry in the 1970s? Furthermore, how can he insist on the SL’s Oehleresque orientation, while noting how the Spartacists contend that the continuity of orthodox Trotskyism flows through Cannon and the American Socialist Workers Party, and then pointing out its strategic entries into different American formations?! Make it make sense, please.

The Spartacists historically are far from perfect, whether viewing them through an orthodox Trotskyist lens or a general communist one (they’d argue they are one and the same, but they’d at least admit their history is that of mistakes - more recently, lots of them). I think comrade Macnair sort of twists logic to fit a preconceived notion of the SL/ICL’s history, which then boils down to the sort of sub-political commentary on Robertson being a drunk. The International Bolshevik Tendency made a similar comment about Robertson at the January 2024 debate between the ICL and the League for the Fourth International.

It’s often stated that after a certain point in the International Spartacist Tendency (forerunner to the ICL) there was a policy of ‘what Robertson says goes’ (my words). I can point to some examples where that wasn’t the case, but that’s a larger subject. What I will say is that, now that Robertson is gone and the ICL is reorienting, his organisation certainly goes much further than his legacy probably would have liked.

C Duran
email

YP inaccuracies

I am sure comrade Farzad Kamangar did her best to report what she thought I and others had argued for at the recent aggregate of CPGB members and supporters (‘Political clarity vital’, August 28), but there are some glaring inaccuracies in what she wrote that demand correction.

First of all, I plead ‘guilty’ to what seems to be her main criticism of the amendments that I and some other comrades presented to the PCC’s theses on Your Party: “Personally I think the comrades’ intention is to recruit a larger number of comrades”, she writes.

Err … yes, that is true, very true. I find it rather worrying that comrade Kamangar and the PCC seem to have a problem with that. The CPGB has by far the best politics of any group on the left in Britain or internationally. It stands out from the myriad of confessional sects, on the one hand, and unprincipled broad fronts, on the other. What other group fights for principled politics in the open and democratic way the CPGB and its publication, the Weekly Worker, does? We are a hugely important political trend that punches far above its weight. But our numbers are miniscule, particularly in light of the challenges in the current period.

Of course we should grow - in fact we must grow. Not in a sectarian way, which ignores the real world and is only concerned with itself. But in order to fight as effectively as possible for principled Marxist politics in Your Party and beyond, with the aim of building a real Communist Party. How do we do that? I believe the PCC’s theses are fine as far as they go. They correctly assess the problems with Corbyn’s politics and the kind of struggles we will have to face.

But they contain nothing concrete about how to go about that fight. How should we most efficiently intervene? How will we try and win over those people who are, for example, inspired by Mike Macnair’s book Revolutionary strategy, but who remain wedded to political projects that are weak on the anti-Semitism smear campaign and/or gravitate towards social-imperialist positions on Ukraine? Where is the plan? What will we do, concretely? In this hugely fluid political period it is clearly not enough to simply carry on as we are.

Because there were no practical proposals from the PCC, our amendments tried to put some flesh on the bones - basically, to get the ball rolling. We proposed that, for example, we should “explore setting up a ‘Communist Caucus’ with others who share our ideas”; that we “develop a study/education and discussion programme, ideally with others in this political trend”; that we take steps to improve the Weekly Worker and “ensure it plays a leading role in cohering communist forces in YP” and that we develop “a political platform for use in YP”, which outlines our key demands and political proposals for our work there.

We should take inspiration and build on the political work we did in the Labour Party. I still question if it was correct not to make Labour Party Marxists into a real membership organisation. Nevertheless, we made quite a splash, particularly at Labour Party conference time, when our daily edition of Red Pages influenced many debates, reporting openly about political disagreements and developments. We should build on that experience for our intervention in Your Party.

It is a shame that the PCC seems to have taken our rather modest proposals as a hostile attack - and from a “rightwing liquidationist faction” at that. I did joke that this alleged faction would have to be called the “action faction”, as there is no alternative political project behind it. We do not seek to overthrow the PCC or change our politics vis-à-vis Your Party. But we are arguing that the organisation can do much better in terms of the concrete application of those politics. Perhaps in formulating this or that proposal, PCC comrades got the impression we are trying to subordinate the CPGB to other political trends. That is not correct.

Comrade Kamangar, for example, claims that those moving the amendments “believe that a less aggressive tone in the Weekly Worker and a more ‘movementist’ approach will resolve the issue and bring significant numbers into the CPGB”.

I have gone through the transcript of our aggregate, helpfully produced by Zoom, and I cannot find a single reference to “movementist”, by anybody, not even in a different version of the phrase. Which is odd, because the comrade has put the word in quote marks. None of us mentioned anything about a “less aggressive tone” either. Not even in passing.

The comrade also profoundly misunderstands one of our amendments. She writes in reference to point 11, which lists some key demands from the CPGB’s Draft programme: “In the proposed amendments, they attempt to make only a very brief reference to our programme … and replace it with a sub-minimum programme.”

This is not true. Our amendment did not seek to “replace” our programme, but we sought to develop - additionally - specific propaganda around some parts of the programme relevant to our work in YP. For instance, to develop a ‘political platform’, which could be made into a leaflet, a nicely designed graphic, etc. That is obviously a good idea.

The most controversial amendment was our proposal that the Weekly Worker should “play a leading role in cohering communist forces in YP”. This urged the editorial team to think about ideas on how this could be achieved, including that the “editorial team could [emphasis added] consider co-option and providing structured access to pages for comrades outside our ranks, always ensuring we retain full control”. This has been misinterpreted as a demand that the Weekly Worker must immediately appoint rightwingers to take over the paper and ruin it, basically, by arguing for moderation and nicer language.

Readers of the Weekly Worker will be pleased to hear that we intend no such thing. We simply proposed options that the editorial team might consider in its attempt to “ensure it plays a leading role in cohering communist forces in YP”. As should be obvious, this proposal is very much dependent on the pro-communist forces in YP moving closer together: for example, around a Communist Caucus. Would it not be excellent if those forces started to understand how useful a tool the Weekly Worker is in the fight for a Communist Party? If they started to see it as their paper, submitting reports, handing it out at YP meetings, etc? Our proposals are aimed at making the Weekly Worker into an indispensable weapon for communists operating in YP.

There is, unfortunately, no sign of such a Communist Caucus coming together on a national level - yet (though there is a local caucus being launched in Manchester). This makes it all the more important that the CPGB ups its game.

It is interesting that comrade Kamangar states that “the editorial team is, in effect, the PCC, so this amounts to saying the PCC should coopt non-CPGB members”. Is it always the case that the Weekly Worker editorial team and the PCC must be one and the same? Clearly not. We had until recently an editor who was not a member of the PCC. I understand that the current arrangement has more to do with real-life pressures rather than a political principle. It is bizarre to imply that this has to remain the way it currently is.

Of course, the PCC has political responsibility for the Weekly Worker - and should retain control over the paper, no question. But is it really inconceivable that there could be a wider editorial team, containing non-PCC members? With proper responsibilities for particular sections, for example? Why could you not co-opt somebody who, hypothetically, commissions and chases up articles around Your Party to fill a weekly supplement, particularly if such a supplement were an integral part of a Communist Caucus in YP? Why must that person automatically become a member of the PCC? This is nonsense. The overall political responsibility would clearly remain with the editor-in-chief, as we clearly state in the amendment, “always ensuring we [ie, the PCC] retain full control”.

These key practical proposals were held over to the next aggregate for time reasons. If the PCC shows it is taking some serious steps to move forward our intervention in Your Party, then I don’t think there is necessarily a need to move (all of) them. They were conceived as a way to get things moving, to start a discussion on how we can take a more serious lead to at least try and win to our programme the growing trend of pro-partyist communist forces in YP, rather than just adopt a ‘wait and see’ approach. This was our only reason for moving the proposals.

It is never nice to be criticised, but, rather than feeling defensive and dismissing our proposals as coming from a “rightwing liquidationist faction”, the PCC would do well to take them as a starting point to develop and strengthen our intervention in YP.

Carla Roberts
email

YP nature

On August 30 I was at the local launch meeting of the Jeremy Corbyn Party for the two London boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley, along with about 80 other people. There was a very large poster on the wall, reading: “It’s Your Party. What do you want to call it?” A dozen or so wrote their proposals for the name beneath.

The comrade who opened the meeting declared himself to be a member of Socialist Alternative, while a minority of others present included those from the Socialist Workers Party, SPEW, and RS21 - as well as myself, a member of the CPGB. Lots of others did not identify themselves as members/supporters of any left group (though I’m sure comrades from other left groups were there too).

The SA comrade who spoke first said that it was now essential for us to organise, since “the enemy’s at the gates” - in the shape of Reform UK. He announced that the meeting would soon be divided into small groups of eight to 10, so that everyone would be able to speak (if only to others in those small groups) and share their ideas about the political priorities the JCP ought to adopt.

In the group I attended - as in all the others - participants were asked to state the policies, both national and local, that Your Party ought to prioritise. In my group (and I suspect in all the others) the main ones were tax the rich, defend and expand the NHS, reinstate proper funding for education and other services, including those run by local councils, and renationalise all former publicly owned institutions. Anti-protest measures must be ended and we must mount opposition to the racist measures proposed against asylum-seekers - and, of course, oppose Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there were also proposed policies that could easily be adopted by pro-establishment parties, not least taking genuine action to halt climate change, but also adopting better measures to end pollution, stop speeding on roads and defend ‘safe spaces’.

For my part, I stressed that the main question right now was the nature of the party we needed - one that aimed to end capitalism and establish the rule of the working class. I also emphasised that what was needed was international action - not just to combat climate change and end the Israeli genocide, etc, but to abolish the system of exploitation and establish socialism worldwide.

For the final half hour we all went back to the main hall, where a spokesperson from each of the groups that had just met (appointed beforehand, not by those present) outlined the (national and local) political priorities discussed in those groups. There were then about 10 minutes left for a broader discussion - very useful!

Rod Wells
Greenwich

YP grassroots

I helped to convene and organise the initial grassroots meeting of Your Party in Cardiff last week. There had been a Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition/Socialist Party meeting a few weeks prior, but to my knowledge that was pretty much only attended by SPEW members and their trade union supporters in Cardiff.

There were a few Revolutionary Communist Party comrades in attendance at the meeting I helped organise (alongside two ex-members of the official CPB, who cursed the Eurocommunist liquidators!). I was doing it in my personal capacity and not as a member of the organisations I am a part of (Welsh Underground Network and Plaid Gomiwnyddol Cymru).

We’ve established an interim steering group to help with organising in the meantime.

Finlay Crawford
Cardiff

YP left reformist

I see that I have made it into a resolution unanimously passed on August 24 at the CPGB aggregate on the new Your Party, which you call the “Jeremy Corbyn party”.

Unfortunately the resolution is inaccurate. It states: “Some, like Tony Greenstein, have called for bans and proscriptions. That would mean a witch-hunt from day one.” Perhaps I can clarify this statement before it passes into folklore.

I do not believe that the new party, whatever its name is, should have left sects masquerading as parties, entering it for the sole purpose of recruitment to their sect rather than helping build the new party itself. I would be in favour of the new party adopting such a policy, given the destructive and fratricidal nature of the left sects over the years.

I am not, however, in favour of enforcement of the ban through witch-hunts, lists of proscribed organisations or similar bureaucratic paraphernalia. The mere disapproval of such tactics by the membership should be enough for the left sects to get the message. I am in favour of left groups and currents organising around the different papers and arguing their politics, whilst at the same time taking part with other members in building what I hope will become a mass left-reformist party.

The history of the left in Britain is a history of failure and no group epitomises this more than the CPGB. One of the results of this is the growth of a far-right party, Reform, which, according to current polling, will form the next government. That should worry everyone on the left. The Starmer party is clearly incapable of opposing Farage, since all it does is to echo Farage’s talking points. Hence the need for the new party.

It means accepting that in the current climate forming a revolutionary socialist party is impossible for the simple reason that we are not in revolutionary or pre-revolutionary times. We will have to ally with forces to our right who agree on such minor things like the right to protest, freedom of speech and association, and opposition to the deployment of terrorism laws to outlaw protest groups like Palestine Action.

I note that the CPGB recognises that the new party came out of the mass Palestine solidarity movement in Britain. (It wasn’t so long ago that you were openly contemptuous of what you termed “movement politics”.) I also welcome the fact that you have abandoned the futile attempt to unite various micro-sects into a slightly larger sect and that you are now devoting your energies to the new Your Party. I just hope that the CPGB does more than simply offer it a programme!

Tony Greenstein
Brighton

YP Bennites

Carol Taylor of the Republican Labour Education Forum has sent the following letter to Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana:

“There are real issues and problems that have to be addressed about the name, character-ideology, strategy and programme of ‘Your Party’. Discussions and debates may seem ‘divisive’, but it is sensible that differences are brought out and made transparent as a way we can find the lessons from the past that can be applied for the future.

“1. We propose the circulation of Tony Benn’s 1992 Commonwealth Bill to Your Party supporters. This sets out constitutional proposals for a democratic republic. It provides a useful starting point for a wider discussion in the labour movement on a written constitution.

“2. The republican principle of the sovereignty of the people and hence ‘democracy from below’ is the foundation of democratic organisation - states, trade unions and parties. In our view, this principle of sovereignty applies to the membership of Your Party and ought to be included in the party rules.

“3. The application of the republican principle of sovereignty means that all representatives of the party must be regularly elected, accountable and subject to recall. In our view, this principle ought to be included in the party rules.

“4. We highlight Benn’s proposal for an English parliament to stand alongside the existing Scottish and Welsh parliaments.

“5. We highlight Benn’s proposal to end all jurisdiction of the British crown in Ireland.

“6. We propose the end of all jurisdiction of the British crown over England, Scotland and Wales. In each nation, sovereignty is vested in the people. These ‘free’ nations will be able to negotiate new constitutional relations with each other if they choose.

“7. Your Party must not adopt the national structure of a British Labour Party, with subordinate Scottish and Welsh parties. There must be autonomous English, Scottish and Welsh parties. There should be a liaison or coordinating committee of the three parties. We suggest that, as a social republican party, Sinn Féin be invited to send representatives to this committee.”

Steve Freeman
RLEF

YP time waste

An entirely justifiable first response to urgings to join the ranks of the latest iteration of class betrayal and treachery, Your Party, would be to say, ‘For crying out loud, here we go trotting down that cracked and potholed old road yet again, having learned nothing whatsoever from past experience!’ Join up and attempt intervention at the serious level of building a programme for genuine socialism, become demonised and labelled as ‘wreckers’, then duly banned - so finding yourselves right back at square one.

Most simply put, all of it as an entire waste of time and effort immeasurably better spent on continuing to do what we do as revolutionaries, whilst leaving Labourites to do what they do so extremely well without us - that filthy, and arguably even deliberate, calculated class betrayal of workers and decent-minded progressives!

But a next batch of thoughts might well throw up how there’s no real harm done in going through the old routine - that music hall shtick - so just go along with it, if only for the sheer amusement of watching uninspired operatives on both sides of the stage doing their thing. But, then again, where the matters involved are in fact of the utmost importance not only nationally, but globally, Ukrainians, Russians and, of course, Gazans and Palestinians (amongst all other victims within modern-day capitalism) could be provided with a lead, a template: a demonstration of how Bolshevik-modal revolutionary politics is the sole way forward towards authentic liberation.

Lecture over! ‘Best of luck’ inside Your Party’s predictable recycling of complicity in the status quo - its inevitable ghastliness and utterly deplorable lack of any transcendency. See y’all on the other side!

Bruno Kretzschmar
email

YP broad front

I know you see your letters page as open, but I take a broad view of the letters published in socialist newspapers. You control your own letters page, as all others do, so a choice is open to publish, here, there or anywhere. I don’t want to be constricted by one single editorial office, nor should anyone else. And, since I am not in any way associated with your paper or its ‘cells’, I am free to use other papers to attack from afar.

It’s a broad front, but in total it contains the entire socialist movement in Britain. Whether communication doesn’t take place in a formal sense between parties, or however critical it may be of other parties, it is an interconnected front that doesn’t stop its work, but can’t be unaware in various ways or levels of the broad-front action and thinking of other parties and papers. That isn’t grammatical, but I hope you see what I mean!

The proof I would like to see of the 700,000 sign-up of Your Party - and what all of us would like to see - is it turning into much improved sales of the only press that can properly serve it: the socialist press. Let it be our gold rush. Together only can our socialist movement successfully challenge, then overcome, the British state.

Elijah Traven
Hull