Letters

Is honesty harmful?

In the November 12 issue of the Weekly Worker there is a report on the CPGB’s school ‘Against economism’, which comrades of the Marxist Bulletin attended.

If the CPGB comrades are serious about their so-called ‘Partyism’ and moving forward to a higher degree of political clarity resulting in organisational recomposition, then they are going to have to deal with the real basis of our political differences rather than the misrepresentations for which they are increasingly well known on the left. Unfortunately this article on the economism school continues that fine CPGB tradition of misrepresentation.

To justify their claim that we are “economistic”, something they were unable to do during the day we were present at the school, the article refers to our recent supplement on the current action by railworkers and in particular the defence of victimised unionist Steve Hedley. Comrade Hammill says in his report: “We are informed that ‘railworkers need what all workers need - secure jobs, good pay, strong unions, decent free healthcare, good education, and more leisure time’. Not a mention, you notice, of what workers really need so that they can take control of their own lives - political power to make a revolution.”  Damning stuff indeed - if that was all the leaflet had to say on the question...

But interestingly the very next sentences in the text of the leaflet read as follows - “But militant trade unionism by itself is not enough to get what we need. Any major strike of workers against the bosses comes up sooner or later against the cops, courts and government - the forces of the capitalist state. Instead of trumpeting the virtue of the rank and file in and of itself, we need to build caucuses in the unions around a political programme for working class power that can successfully meet the assaults of the bosses.” The leaflet ends with the call, “Break with the New Labour traitors! Union funds only for pro-working class candidates! For a workers’ party funded by the unions to fight for a workers’ government!”

Perhaps comrade Hammill should take the time to actually read the leaflets he comments on rather than, as we suspect, just ‘report’ on an ill-thought out comment made by a CPGB speaker during the discussion.

Another example of the CPGB’s fine polemics can be found in Weekly Worker (November 19). In an article which announces that the “next phase of the Indonesian revolution has begun”, we find further proof that the comrades of the CPGB simply do not understand what the Trotskyist programme stands for.

Comrade Marcus Larsen writes: “In the hands of the Trotskyites, the ‘bourgeois democratic revolution’ has divided the world in half. In their rigid schema, democratic tasks are to be undertaken primarily by the bourgeoisie. The working class’s task is an abstract ‘socialism’ which is arrived at through transitional demands, which for the Trotskyites are separate and different from democratic demands.” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the core of Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution is that in the colonial and neo-colonial world the democratic and socialist tasks are closely connected and there is no ‘Chinese wall’ between them. These tasks can only be carried out by the proletariat, at the head of all the oppressed masses, against the opposition of the national capitalists and their imperialist backers. The combining of the democratic and socialist tasks is also applicable in the imperialist heartlands, and once again we would refer your comrades to the actual text of our RMT leaflet for an example of how the method of the Transitional Programme combines democratic demands for reforms with more advanced demands up to and including for a workers’ government.

The CPGB’s recent polemics against what they perceive as Trotskyism are either a deliberate distortion of our views or evidence of their inability/unwillingness to grasp political views other than their own. If comrades of the CPGB wanted to find out what we really stand for we would recommend you read our publications! Maybe you want to start with our pamphlet Building the revolutionary party and united front tactics.

Alan Gibson
Marxist Bulletin

Critical support

Traditionally there have been two western European nationalist movements which shared many features in common: the Basques and the Irish. Both the IRA and ETA are armed movements backed by significant support amongst the most oppressed layers of the native population. Both fought against the former larger colonial powers, and combined nationalism and republicanism with socialist rhetoric. The pro-IRA Sinn Féin and the pro-ETA Herri Batasuna are the third largest legal parties in their constituencies and receive electoral support of between 15% and 20%.

Over the last year the Spanish conservative government has mobilised millions in the streets with the aim of crushing the Basque republicans. This was the response that they made when 500 Basque prisoners were on hunger strike and against ETA’s actions. Later Aznar jailed the entire HB leadership and proscribed its daily, Egin. Although the Spanish rightwing and ‘socialist’ parties supported the repression against these ‘terrorists’, the HB’s front increased its vote to around 18%, and more or less 60% voted for pro-independence parties.

We should call on ETA volunteers not to disarm themselves in a ‘peace process’, but to subordinate their actions to the decisions of rank and file workers’ assemblies.

Most of the British left unconditionally defends ETA and HB against repression. However, LRCI/Workers Power is not doing that. Despite claiming to have comrades in Spain, they have never opened their mouths to give the slightest solidarity to the Basque anti-imperialists.

Even worse, they have straightforwardly condemned them. In Trotskyist International No6 the LRCI wrote that the Basque struggle could not be critically supported and described ETA as “totally reactionary”.  “A continued guerrilla struggle against the Spanish state has degenerated into individual terrorism, does not have a democratic or revolutionary character, and cannot be supported by Marxists.”

Marxists reject the nationalists’ strategy and tactics, but they are obliged to defend the Irish or Basque republicans against imperialism.

John Stone
LCMRCI

Left unity

At the second conference of the Scottish Socialist Alliance, I moved, on behalf of the Paisley branch, a motion calling for Socialist Workers Party supporters and Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party to establish left unity consisting of united fronts, open democratic forums and the drawing up of united left slates of candidates for elections. Conference passed it unanimously.

Unfortunately, 18 months on, both SWP and Scottish Socialist Party activists (the SSP being the new SSA) are now leafleting each other’s meetings proposing terms for unity which are unacceptable to each other, and are so far being blatantly and ludicrously unreasonable. Both organisations are, along with the SLP, currently on course to collide spectacularly, allowing the unapologetically pro-business parties, especially the Blairites and the tartan Blairites, to make it safely over the finishing post while we languish in the gutter, all badly bruised, some possibly fatally injured.

Sectarians in all three organisations can, and will, take comfort in having deprived ‘the competition’ from getting any foothold in the Scottish parliament despite the historic opportunity PR gives us. All genuine socialists, however, will feel justifiably bitter. Due to sheer blockheadedness workers, the unemployed, pensioners, students and the homeless will have not a single representative in parliament to give us a voice, to approach every issue from the perspective of putting people before profits, putting welfare before warfare.

As things stand today there would appear to be no way out. Or is there?

The recent ‘Socialism in Scotland’ series of debates at Caledonia University included a long-overdue debate between Alan McCombes of the SSP and Chris Bambery of the SWP. The entire series of debates was sponsored by many trade union branches, including RAH Unison and Paisley University EIS. One way out of our unhappy impasse - I suspect, the only way out - is for the SWP, SSP, SLP (possibly others) to present their candidates to the broad workers’ movement.

Let all socialist organisations attempt to approach every union branch affiliated to the TUC. Let us all unite to convince every worker to help us put together a united left slate as a legitimate challenge to the pro-business parties of New Labour and the SNP. Let all members of participating organisations agree to unite to campaign for whichever candidate is chosen. Let those who refuse to sign a petition calling for such a left slate exclude themselves from determining who our candidates shall be. Let the candidates be chosen following debates at mass meetings organised by union branches (preferably joint work-place meetings with pensioners, students and the unemployed invited). And let every individual who poses as an honest advocate of left unity in the hope of being chosen as the left unity candidate, only to scab on the slate once his/her hopes are dashed - let these individuals be made pariahs in our movement.

Tom Delargy
Paisley