Letters

What exactly?

The ‘Around the left’ column (Weekly Worker November 6) states that “clarity is everything;” “vagueness, looseness and ambiguity lead to disaster”; “scientific accuracy is a necessity”; and so on.

Then in the lead article we read: “Bourgeois politics are set for realignment. Working class politics should be too ... the curse of the sects must be ended ... the new conditions demand the organisation of all advanced workers in - the reforged Communist Party of Great Britain.” A conclusion that begs some obvious questions. When precisely was the CPGB deemed to be something other than a sect? And, secondly, by whom?

On page four (‘British candidate wins Irish election’) there is a vague attack on what is described as the “imperialist-sponsored peace process” and ambiguous support for the strategy of the Continuity Army Council:

“The CAC is viewed as an irritating obstacle to progress by Sinn Fein/IRA just as much as by the British state ... Leading CAC members have previously been kidnapped and threatened with a single bullet by the IRA. No one would be surprised if that threat was carried out - while the state looked the other way.”

The rationale being that the republican movement is now merely the glove puppet of the British state and the authentic republican principle is represented only by the CAC. In this mindset, republican principle and the gun are regarded as indivisible; the inference being that you cease to be a republican without one.

It is a scenario currently popular amongst many left groups who were totally dismissive of all previous republican strategies - including, ironically, the armed struggle.

The fly in the ointment is that the strategy behind the ceasefire - TUAS (totally unarmed strategy) - is, like it or not, 100% republican in origin, and predates any of the nonsense about the IRA being made to cry uncle as a result of the collapse of communism, etc. Additionally, in the present scenario it is not SF/IRA, but actually the CAC that is the more vulnerable to manipulation by elements of the British state - although the primary mistake is to confuse the initiative of the oppressed with that of the oppressor.

On page seven (‘Bowing to chauvinism’) the Weekly Worker addresses the ‘difficult’ issue of immigration and border controls. While acknowledging that “many workers see their interests as being diametrically opposed to those of outsiders”, it castigates the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party for “pandering to chauvinism instead of combating it”. The principle beef appears to be the absence on the left of a “strategy to break workers from national chauvinism”.

Until now, that is: “The only principled response that internationalists can make to such chauvinistic outbursts is to demand the abolition of all border controls. In addition, we must organise internationally to end oppression everywhere, so that no worker is forced to leave their home against their will.” End oppression everywhere? Yeah. That will definitely do it. But in he meantime - what exactly?

Clarity, precision, scientific accuracy? It reminds me of Gandhi’s response when asked what he thought of British civilisation: “I think it would be a very good idea,” came the reply.

J Reilly
Red Action

SWP’s national socialism

National socialism is utopian socialism. Like anarchism, it can take a rightwing as well as leftwing form. Like anarchism, its roots are in the politics of the middle class. Part of the middle class looks to rightwing ideas, primarily hostile to the organised working class - hence fascistic national socialism. Part of the middle class is more hostile to the bourgeoisie and sympathetic to the working class - hence left national socialism.

The debate that began over the politics of SML concerns left national socialism and has nothing to do with rightwing, fascistic, national socialism. Those who are deliberately confusing fascism with left national socialism are doing so in order to protect the latter from criticism by international socialists.

I want to reply to William Osborne (Letters, October 23), who asks why I called the SWP “revolutionary national socialist”. The answer is simple - they accept the theory of the national socialist revolution, or socialist revolution in one country. Like the Stalinists, they view October 1917 as a socialist revolution in one country. I accept that they use the term ‘international socialism’, which puts them at odds with Stalinism. In this respect their theory is contradictory.

The term ‘socialist revolution’ is ambiguous. It means different things to different people. By the term ‘socialist revolution’ I mean ‘international socialist revolution’, the transitional stage between world capitalism and world communism. In other words the economic revolution which abolishes the world market based on the law of value, and replaces it with a higher form of internationalism based on world cooperation and planning.

If we cannot introduce socialism in one country, then equally we can’t abolish capitalism in one country. The Russian Revolution neither established socialism nor abolished capitalism. We can no more have a ‘socialist revolution’ in one country than we can have a socialist revolution in one street or one factory. Of course we can have an armed uprising in one street. We can create a political no-go area. But this is popular democratic control of one street, not socialism or socialist revolution.

Because world capitalism is uneven in its development, we can and do have local and regional uprisings and national political revolutions. But in itself, a national revolution must not be confused with the international socialist revolution. A national revolution may lead to an international socialist revolution, but in and of itself is not the same.

If comrade Osborne is going to become a consistent international socialist, he will need to think up some other term to describe national revolutions rather than ‘socialist’.

Dave Craig
Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP)

No autopsy

The Scottish Committee’s ‘Soberly assess the CGSD’ article (Weekly Worker November 13) makes an important mistake in its analysis of the campaign. While quite correctly pointing to factors such as corruption and an old electoral register in accounting for the low turnout on September 11, it effectively talks down the impact of our own campaign.

My argument is this - if we were the only campaign to reflect the mood of a large section of the Scottish people, why should it be “foolish” to “quantify” our impact? I agree that there is little use in having an argument over exact numbers. But if we were right that there was a mood among the mass of the people for something far more than what was on offer, then surely that real constituency responded to our campaign. After all we were merely arguing for something they already felt.

We have said that every strike and demonstration in Scotland in recent years has been coloured by the national question. Did SML successfully lead the mass of the working class of Glasgow into voting for the sop? No, clearly they did not. Despite the lame capitulation of SML and the rest of the left many were not convinced. We had a propaganda campaign where the only piece of agitation was to boycott the ‘rigged referendum’. Our propaganda and our fight was for action in workplaces and on the streets. But our only agitation was for a boycott. If a section of people in Glasgow answer that call we should not deny their existence. After all, as I have already stressed, we were simply echoing the feeling in their own hearts.

The relationship between a small organisation and the mass of the people is generally minimal. But, given the right conditions, it can occupy a relatively vast political space. If it can - as we did - link in and give voice to the political aspirations of the mass of the people, then its impact can be mass. In the environment we worked in throughout the campaign this was generally hard to see - the mood was somewhat latent. However, in the aftermath we should not look simply at our own individual experience when it comes to assessing the campaign.  We need to look at it in the absence of any other alternative, in a situation where we effectively fought for what a significant percentage of the people wanted. We did not conjure up the national question - we gave voice to what already existed. People did not boycott simply because we said it. We were however an important additional ingredient.

In the article the comrades say we should change thesis 20 of our resolution on Scotland to replace “resounding success” with “qualified success”. But that sentence actually reads: “Given our resources and the collapse of almost the entire revolutionary left into the camp of Scotland Forward, the Campaign for Genuine Self- Determination has to be considered a resounding success” (my emphasis).  In other words, the fact that it was resounding is qualified already. If the rest of the SSA had fought, who knows what would have happened. Given the roots of SML within Glasgow and their history of organisation around the council cuts earlier in the year, the impact would have been all the greater. We fought for what was necessary. The fact that others capitulated should not be seen as our failure.

The fight for a federal republic will be a different battle. We will not be linking into a tide of spontaneity, but swimming against it. Even so we must fight to make it a mass campaign. That is why this debate is important. It is what we aim to do in the future that dictates our assessment of past achievements. This debate is not an autopsy.

Anne Murphy
London

Beats me

I cannot for the life of me understand why some of your comrades insist on talking down the achievements of the CGSD. While I watched events from afar south of the border, it seems to me that the campaign was the only one that stood against the consensus, but with the people’s national aspirations.

As an Englishman, I support Scotland’s right to split away, but, as a socialist, I prefer working class unity of all on these islands. From what I have read in the Weekly Worker, the CGSD put forward both these elements.

I read in The Times that it was one of three campaigns. I am sure that Scotland Forward influenced many thousands to vote ‘yes, yes’, even though you could also say that lots of people would have done the same if it had not existed. Think Twice had less success, but still thousands of people must have been persuaded by them to vote ‘no, no’.

So what is wrong with saying that the third campaign also influenced thousands? I know you did not get as much exposure as the big two, and I don’t suppose you had anywhere near as many people helping you, but when you did get on TV or in the papers, you must have had an effect too - especially as you were more in tune with what Scottish people really wanted.

The comrades who don’t want to claim even one or two percent of the abstentions are the most modest communists I have ever come across. You should blow your own trumpet and be proud.

Compared to the others, you were tiny. But as you were the only people advocating a boycott, how you could have had no effect beats me.

Roger Dickson
London