Letters

Sub-minimum opportunism

Jack Conrad’s ‘Our slogans and reality’ article (Weekly Worker November 27) admits the ambiguity of the demand for a ‘parliament with full powers’.

The extent of the ambiguity, however, depends on the circumstances in which the demand is put forward. In those of Blair’s rigged Scottish referendum, a ‘parliament with full powers’ could mean a parliament like Westminster subject to the crown, within a reformed constitutional monarchy. Or it could, as Conrad points out, be “a sovereign parliament that can exercise self-determination ... a ‘republican parliament’ or ‘constituent assembly’”. But which was it?

The problem for Conrad is that such a “sovereign parliament” would in essence represent a republic that is a revolutionary situation.

The purpose of a revolutionary minimum programme is to demand and fight to create a revolutionary situation against all attempts to reform and save bourgeois rule. A revolutionary minimum programme is incomplete without both (i) the formal republican demand for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales, and a united Ireland, against the UK state; and (ii) the essential demand for soviets (workers’ councils), without which the working class cannot establish its own state power (the central aim of the transitional programme).

When revolutionaries fall back from the revolutionary minimum programme, into demanding sub-minimum reforms, for whatever reason, they break the unity of the whole revolutionary programme. This is clearly why Dave Craig accuses the CPGB of ‘programmatic liquidation-ism’ (Letters, November 20).

The CPGB sought to exploit the ambiguity of the ‘parliament with full powers’ slogan in an attempt to attract to its camp elements from Scottish Militant Labour who were attached to this uncritical demand. In doing so the CPGB fell into sub-minimum opportunism.

Instead of putting before the working class the revolutionary minimum tactic of the republican boycott - necessary to rally and lead a revolutionary republican movement (“no matter how remote”) - the CPGB allowed itself to pick and choose phrases from its own draft programme, which is conveniently not separated into revolutionary minimum (republican) and transitional (workers’ republic) sections. The comrades have adopted the federal republic as a slogan, but not the revolutionary minimum method.

To use a republican boycott campaign to propagandise for a federal republic would have removed the ambiguity, and raised those influenced by it towards a revolutionary republican perspective.

Peter May
Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP)

Refreshing change

I have read your Draft programme and I find it a most refreshing change to much of what is available from the left anywhere in the world, let alone in Britain.

I was a member of the CPGB from around 1975 to 1977 when I was a student in Britain, and after hearing of the CPGB’s liquidation in the early 1990s, it comes as a pleasant surprise to see you are reforging the CBGB on a revolutionary programme.

I applaud your self-criticism and analysis of the various programmes of the CPGB from For soviet Britain, to the British road to socialism.

Despite the reformism of the British road, the CPGB had the biggest influence among the working class besides the Labour Party. I am confident you can reconstruct that influence you once had as a proletarian party.

Many Trotskyist organisations and even organisations with ‘Marxist -Leninist’ tagged behind their names never had that kind of influence and, looking at their web pages, I see a disturbing trend towards reformism in their approach and demands.

Some of them follow a narrow path of focusing on certain causes, but none I have seen presents as comprehensive a programme for revolution as your Draft programme. This is most probably due to their petty bourgeois roots in the student movement.

While a student I flirted with the former Communist Party of England (Marxist - Leninist), which has now become the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), because of their stance against the Soviet Union, which they denounced as state capitalist. With the demise of the Soviet Union, I flirted with Trotskyism, believing that they had the answers.

I mainly supported the Spartacist League, but found them to be ultra-leftist in their demands and sectarian; and hence they got nowhere with the working class.

I also found the petty bourgeois milieu of hippies, environmentalists, anarchists and aspiring capitalists to be pretty pathetic. But that is not surprising, given the absence of a real revolutionary alternative and the power of bourgeois propaganda and culture shaping the views of the people.

Further the culture which glorifies individualism and the belief in the rights of the individual only contributes towards the atomisation of the people. The attitude among some of them was to try and become rich, so they would be seen as “successful”. Being an environmentalist was seen as the radical thing to be among the so-called ‘Generation X.’

I wish you every success in your efforts to reforge the CPGB and to fight for socialism in Britain and the world.

I have a question though. In your Draft programme, I noticed you said that socialism in one country was not possible. This is similar to the line adopted by the Trotskyists. My question concerns where you stand with regard to Leon Trotsky.

James D’Souza
Indonesia

For optimism, but…

With regard to the ‘Liquidationist confusion’ article(Weekly Worker December 4), I would like to address the opinions voiced by Jack Conrad in paragraph three, concerning the closure of the newspaper, and comrade Linda Addison’s call for a retreat. I will state at the onset that I acknowledge the reply by Jack Conrad was specifically aimed at comrades Nick Clarke and Mary Ward, but I feel its wider resonances and implications are of an essential nature to all members and supporters of the CPGB.

Firstly I would call on all members and supporters to fully oppose any plans to close down the Weekly Worker. The closure of our newspaper can only be understood in the terms of the damage and counterproductive tendencies which it would create. As our masthead proclaims, ‘Towards a daily worker’ must remain our aim.

I would also rebuke any claims that we are a Party of the paper. For a great many people like myself who are both geographically and financially unable to attend seminars, the Weekly Worker is vital, linking us to the Party, and I for one do not think this lessens my commitment in any way.

The bourgeois press, with the exception of individual freak phenomena, always portray events as being isolated and separate, when they are of course, as communists know, connected, and generally the direct result of the brutish, contradictory capitalist system itself. The British bourgeois press also use the monarchy, an outmoded imperialist institution which should now be on the scrap heap along with fascism, to blur and confuse the democratic process towards their own offensive and exploitative ends.

The Weekly Worker negates this bourgeois hypocrisy, and in doing so generates a political consciousness, and this will be vital in the creation of a mass movement.

The second point I wish to address concerns Jack Conrad’s accusation that Linda Addison has called for the Party to make a retreat from political practice and engagement. If I am correct in my understanding of Jack Conrad’s statement he is referring to the article, ‘Strengthening the theoretical roots of our propaganda’ (Weekly Worker October 23), in which comrade Addison suggests that “given the limited impact of our communist propaganda presently, surely our emphasis must be on developing these theoretical roots, both individually and, most crucially, collectively”.

Having re-read this article, I think that Jack Conrad is perhaps being a little unfair. I am not convinced that her suggestion for extended theoretical development is necessarily implying a retreat from our present political practices. On a more fundamental level, I would argue that if our position of Marxism-Leninism - the unity of theory and practice - can be enhanced by her suggestion, then perhaps it should be given some serious consideration.

In conclusion, regarding the ‘Liquidationist confusion’ article, I would like to add that Jack Conrad is clearly a worthy spokesperson and theoretician for the CPGB, and I fully support the opinions and sentiments which are expressed in sections 24-28. He leaves the membership and supporters in no doubt about the correctness of the Party’s principled approach towards communist politics.

For optimism, the truth and continued success.

Kevin Graham
South Cheshire

Theoretical monthly

On reading the Weekly Worker of November 13, two things bother me somewhat. First is the question of the wording of thesis four, to which the Scottish comrades take exception. I must say I agree with them: ‘Fight for what is necessary’ should remain our slogan.

The other is the proposal to close down the Weekly Worker and return to the fortnightly Leninist. This in my view would be disastrous. If anything is required at the present time, it is to endeavour to develop the Weekly Worker to a daily as quickly as possible, and meanwhile aim for another publication - perhaps monthly - alongside the Weekly Worker to deal specifically with theoretical issues.

Tom Winters
Stockton

Too intellectual

I have read the Weekly Worker for over a year and unfortunately I fail to read most articles through. I find a lot of what I read overly intellectual for my understanding. I am a typical low paid worker who would benefit from reading all of what is written.

Others like myself who struggle in capitalism must be able to understand what is written by leftist papers so that they can be enlightened by the truth and therefore convert to socialism. Perhaps the intellectuals of the communist parties should try writing in layman’s terms so that their message gets across to the people, rather than trying to present themselves as skilled writers.

Ron Harris
Maidenhead