13.02.1997

Cosmetic face lift

Around the left

Good news. There are two new leftwing papers on the market. More choice, more views - which can only be a good thing. The first one brashly claims to be the “big-mouthed, broad-minded magazine that will shout what others don’t dare to whisper ... [and] go against the grain”. Splendid. The other states how “it must become a real expression of working people’s lives”. Excellent.

Actually, this is not quite the case. The bold statements above come from longstanding publications, both of which have ‘reinvented’ themselves. Living Marxism- author of the first quote - has decided to cut down on typespace and now calls itself LM - accruing to itself a slight air of mystery, if not romance. This aura of mystery is compounded by the fact that there is not a single reference to the name of the organisation that purportedly publishes LM - ie, the Revolutionary Communist Party. Indeed, the only mention of the words ‘living Marxism’ is to be found on an advert on the back page. The innocent first-time reader would certainly read LM without being aware of the existence of the RCP or the origins of these initials.

The second new publication is The Socialist, formerly Militant (as readers know, Militant Labour is now the Socialist Party). Having said that, it’s similar in appearance to its famous predecessor. The team have just rejigged the paper, by updating some of the typeface and throwing in lots of new logos. Not very revolutionary, it must be said. The same goes for LM, even if the face change is a lot more drastic - more glossier, slick and ‘sexy’.

But what about the content though of these two ‘new’ publications? For good or for bad, it remains the same as before. LM,for one, is no doubt enjoying the free publicity, and notoriety, given to it recently by Ed Vulliamy of The Observer, who intemperately described its views as “poison” and “defamatory” (February 2) with regards to its Bosnia coverage.

Whatever Vulliamy may think, LM (February) certainly contains a whole host of provocative and, for the most part, intelligently written and well researched articles - on Dunblane, abortion, Bosnia, pornography and other controversial subjects. In particular, the article on proposed ‘holocaust denial’ laws offer a counterweight to mainstream liberal views on the matter, views which have seeped considerably into the revolutionary left.

But, ultimately, what is the purpose of the new-look LM? Stubbornly refusing to intervene in real political struggles, divorced from any ‘Partyist’ project, divorced even from its own history and almost too scared to mention unfashionable words like ‘Marxism’, ‘Leninism’ or ‘communism’, all LM has to offer is a narrow intellectualist project which can only end up going nowhere.

Meanwhile, The Socialist has not thrown off its revolutionary garb LM-style, simply the “stock epithet” Militant which apparently “appears too exclusive” (Socialism Today February 1997). Nevertheless it still plods on as normal, brontosaurus like, wedded as ever to its depressing brand of relentless upbeat ‘optimism’. Comrade Peter Taaffe explains how the Socialist Party is “preparing for the socialist century”. The comrade is looking forward look forward to “mass disillusionment” with a Blair government, which “at a certain stage ... will result in a colossal wave of enthusiasm for socialism” (February 7).

Both these papers have engaged in cosmetics, when plastic surgery is probably more in order.

Don Preston