Letters

No easy answers

Though I can fully understand Ian Driver’s decision to leave the Socialist Labour Party (see Weekly Worker October 2), it is nevertheless to be regretted.

For an isolated individual there is clearly little to be gained from working in the SLP, except demoralisation and personal attacks from witch hunting thugs and sadly alienated Stalinists.

However, Ian Driver with his respected, unsectarian reputation in the SLP was a key figure in the fight to overcome the fragmentation of the left inside the SLP. Whether as individuals or groupings, what has been incredible in the whole development of the SLP has been the difficulty the left has had in coming together to agree a minimum programme of action.

Of course great strides were made in this direction with the Revolutionary Platform and the Campaign for a Democratic SLP, bringing together groups and individuals from many different backgrounds into partisan debate and joint approaches and activity.

Ian Driver was part of this process, which began to see the left inside the SLP, however tentatively, begin to cohere. It also began to link its work to that of the Socialist Alliances and a more general unity or rapprochement process with groups such as Scottish Militant Labour. The CPGB was a major proponent of such a course.

With congress just two months away, this is now an important time in developing the unity of the left in the SLP. Of course many will stand determinedly outside any such unity and hopelessly pursue their own narrow goals. The process of forging any kind of left voice, left unity, or democratic organisation is a long, hard struggle. Even those healthy forces in the SLP will not be won to a revolutionary and open organisation overnight.

Sadly I doubt that Ian will find much success if he does choose to go back to New Labour. Clearly, if he does, the atmosphere will be no less uncomfortable than in the SLP. There the struggle for working class politics is even more marginalised.

The problem is that there are no easy answers to be found at the moment - either in the Labour Party or the SLP. In the absence of any spontaneous answers being thrown up by the class itself, we have to begin the rather less exciting work of laying the theoretical and practical basis of organisational solutions ourselves. These organisational solutions will not be found by tracing over old formulas. I hope, wherever Ian goes, he will join with the struggle that the CPGB is trying to engage the left in. If the left can at least begin to provide a way forward it can become a powerful force in the hands of the mass of the class.

Lee-Anne Bates
London

National socialism

Two issues have arisen in the debate with Scottish Militant Labour - Richie Venton and national socialism. On the question of Richie Venton being called a sectarian, then we either have to ‘put up or shut up’. My instinct on this one was ‘shut up’. This means to withdraw the accusation and apologise to Richie (which is the honourable way to withdraw). Then we can concentrate all our fire on the question of national socialism.

Unfortunately Nick Clarke doesn’t do that and tries to justify the allegation. In reading Nick’s comments about Richie (Weekly Worker September 18), I can’t help thinking of the old adage, ‘When you are in a hole, stop digging’. It seems to me that Nick has got his shovel and spade out.

First there is a difference between calling an individual a “sectarian” rather than an organisation or a political line. There are individuals in our movement who are sectarian in their approach, and I think they should be exposed. Equally there are comrades in sectarian organisations who are personally fairly non-sectarian. On a personal level I have never met Richie Venton and can’t comment about his behaviour in this respect.

Public exposure is a good antidote to sectarianism. But we cannot casually toss labels around. We must provide a full explanation of a serious allegation. However, whilst I am pleased that Nick has provided an explanation, I am somewhat perplexed by it.

He says that Richie’s work as industrial organiser has been exemplary. He then explains that the reason Richie was called sectarian was because of a political position he adopted at the Socialist Party National Committee. Richie argued that his small organisation (SML) should “change its name to ‘Scottish Socialist Party’ and drop the Scottish Socialist Alliance”. If a small group calling itself a party is defined as sectarian, then this must include the Communist Party of Great Britain. But if it is merely that Richie favours dropping the SSA, then we need a more substantial argument. Why should Richie be singled out, rather than the whole group of comrades who hold that political view? If you are not going to withdraw this allegation, it would be better to depersonalise this somewhat and explain fully why this particular political position is sectarian.

However, I am in agreement with the CPGB on the question of national socialism. There is an obvious parallel with anarchism. Anarchism is a petty bourgeois ideology. There are rightwing anarchists as well as leftwing anarchists. There is also rightwing national socialism (ie, fascist national socialism) as well as leftwing national socialism (ie, reformist national socialism - eg, Bennites, and revolutionary national socialists, such as the Socialist Workers Party).

Nobody has accused SML of being fascist national socialists. Whether SML should be considered to be reformist national socialists or revolutionary national socialists is a debatable point. They seem to me to have a foot in both camps. Revolutionary national socialists all believe in the national socialist revolution. The Stalinists, for example, all see Russia, China and Cuba, etc as national ‘socialist revolutions’. The SWP think that Russia was the only ‘socialist revolution’ in one county.

Is it not true that the CPGB accepts the theory of the national socialist revolution? They too have not broken fully with the theory of national socialism. I am sure the CPGB comrades will not get all upset and suggest I am calling them fascists. There is a serious issue to be debated here and SML should enter that debate properly rather than go round crying about how they have been mortally offended.

Dave Craig
Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP)

More national socialism

Your correspondent John Blackston (Weekly Worker September 18), supported by Peter Manson, argues that the term ‘national socialist’ has been “around on the left for a century”.

That may be so, and individuals such as Shaw may have used the term as a means of personally describing their political thoughts, but until the advent of Hitler’s National Socialist Party it was never (contrary to what Manson says) a universally accepted scientific definition or name for an historical movement. Since the victory of Hitler’s National Socialist movement, the use of the term ‘national socialist’ has always referred to fascism.

If anyone is accused of being a national socialist, an experienced member of the left will immediately assume that the person is accused of being a fascist. A newcomer to the political field will seek a definition and check with any dictionary where that person will find Hitler’s Nazi Party described as being ‘national socialist’.

Finally it must be recognised that from a Marxist point of view the term ‘national socialist’, apart from being the name of the Nazi Party, is an unscientific definition when applied to what is considered genuine socialist organisations. It is not a question of a ‘misused name’: from a Marxist standpoint it is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible to be a socialist if one is nationalist to the exclusion of internationalism.

Paul Conley
London