Letters

Main enemy

In your article ‘“Left Trotskyism” and imperialism’ (Ian Donovan Weekly Worker May 13) you refer to an “acute dilemma” for many would-be socialists and a “naked clash of two principles”.

I believe the detailed logical argument in the article is built on an implicit, incorrect disposition to side with one “principle” against another. While some on the left downplay the oppression of Kosova Albanians you downplay the massive, barbaric bombing of the peoples in ex-Yugoslavia. Many would-be socialists support the remnants of Yugoslavia against Nato for similar reasons for supporting Iraq and Argentina in the past. It was Nato who set the terms for initiating their war - “the main enemy is at home”.

I find your paper refreshingly thoughtful and democratic compared to many other leftwing papers. Many groups seem to utilise an orthodox ‘democratic centralism’ to prevent quality debate amongst the left and seemingly try to impress people that all their members think exactly the same about politics.

Bob Harding
Norwich

Norman wisdom

I have previously made the point that the principle of self-determination has to be subordinated to unconditional opposition to global imperialism.

Now, according to Ian Mahoney (Letters, June 10), this is a “wretched position” because it meant the subordination of Kosovo’s democratic right to secede to the reactionary “war aims” of the Milosevic regime. Marcus Larsen takes up the same theme. At the end of his article, Larsen asserts that

“Capitalism could exploit the two million inhabitants of Kosova for 100 years and still not recoup financially what it has spent in the last few weeks on the war. Surely it is time for people on the left to think again”.

Does Larsen not yet understand that it is the oppressed classes who pay for imperialist war and the imperialist classes that always recoup, in their profits from destruction, exploitation and reconstruction? Does he not yet understand that, in a war between a non-imperialist state and the combined forces of imperialism, the principle of revolutionary defeatism simply does not apply? Does he not yet understand that subordinating the ‘right to secede’ to the unconditional opposition to global imperialism is therefore based on the principle of self-determination for Yugoslavia?

Surely it is time for the ‘CPGB’ to “think again” on the question of revolutionary defeatism.

Dave Norman
London

Clarification

In my letters to the Weekly Worker I was simply trying to point out that a slogan which in one period can advance the cause of workers’ liberty can in another be a rallying call for counterrevolution. The particular democratic demand has to be viewed in the concrete situation within which it is advanced. I accept that this is hardly a brilliant or original insight, but for some reason comrade Conrad chooses to ignore it and chase off in another direction.

Working class direct democracy is superior and counterposed in practice to bourgeois representative democracy. The ruling class will attempt to use illusions in the non-class nature of representative government in order to help derail the development of workers’ power. Democratic counterrevolution is the preferred option for a ruling class confronted by a proletariat that is becoming self-active. Portugal in 1975 is one example. The campaign for a ballot during the miners’ strike is another.

It would seem that comrade Conrad either ignores or downplays this essential contradiction, which can only be transcended by the triumph of proletarian power and destruction of bourgeois rule.

Communists should advance those democratic demands that tend to promote the self-organisation of the working class. It is with this in view that movements for national self-determination in Scotland, Quebec, Basque country, etc should be assessed. None of the above countries are oppressed. The demand for self-determination advanced in these countries is reactionary and should be opposed by communists. However, any attempt to force these countries to remain within a larger state against their will should also be opposed.

Comrade Conrad claims that Scotland is oppressed insofar as the UK does not have a written constitution guaranteeing Scotland’s right to self-determination. He thinks that there is a good chance the UK ruling class would sabotage any move towards Scottish independence. I think he is wrong on both counts. It is taken as read that if Scotland votes for independence it will get it. The debate is about whether the Scots will be better off if they ditch the English. The call for independence is not a demand for more democracy. It does not tend to promote working class self-activity. As for the demand for a federal republic - if the Scots gained a parliament with full powers, why support or negotiate a federal Britain rather than a federal Europe?

I think a more potent way to tackle the influence of nationalism is to point to the fact that the working class in Scotland will not advance its cause by cutting itself off from our comrades in England and Wales and that in the light of increasing globalisation we should rather be uniting to drive back the attack on our living standards through common struggle against capital alongside workers throughout Europe and the world. We should demand a European Constituent Assembly and annual parliaments within this context of promoting a working class fightback.

Comrade Conrad does not address my contention that the right of national self-determination was the slogan under which imperialism and decaying Stalinism organised the fragmentation of the Yugoslavian working class. He is also silent on what exactly is the essential character of Nato’s assault on Serbia. Is not the war about the right of the major imperialist powers to intervene anywhere in order to protect the interests of finance capital? Should our intervention against the war not have this point at its centre rather than calls for independence for Kosovo (in effect a greater Albania or a Nato protectorate or both) and arming of the KLA (which comrade Conrad accepts will repress the working class if given half a chance)?

I am not suggesting that the CPGB are as far down the opportunist road as the AWL, who are currently promoting resolutions in Labour Party and trade union branches calling simply for independence for Kosovo with no mention of opposition to Nato. But for a British organisation to direct the main fire of its propaganda against the Serbs as Nato bombs drop on the people of Yugoslavia does somewhat smell of craven opportunism.

Sandy McBurney
Glasgow

WP U-turn

In June Workers Power made a new U-turn in its electoral tactics. Regarding the European elections it said:

“We call our readers to vote against Labour, and for the Scottish Socialist Party, the Alternative Labour list in the East Midlands, and the Socialist Alliance list in the West Midlands headed by Dave Nellist.”

This represents a 180-degree shift in the policies of a group that for nearly a quarter of a century has called for a vote for Labour. In the 1997 general election WP demanded no vote for Nellist, Sheridan or any SLP candidate. Voting for small left-reformist or centrist candidates was apparently to endorse non-revolutionary programmes; while voting Labour was to be with the workers’ majority.

This method was applied everywhere. In France, for example, they voted for the ‘socialist’ government, despite its measures against workers, youth and immigrants. WP tried in vain to convince 1.6 million radicalised people not to vote for the ‘Trotskyist’ LO/LCR. A minority in the LRCI French section criticised that method. In early 1999 this faction was bureaucratically expelled.

WP explained that they could only vote for “credible anti-war candidates within the workers’ movement ... In all other Euro constituencies we call on readers to spoil their ballot papers by writing, ‘Nato out of the Balkans - independence for Kosova’.” The workers’ party which achieved the most votes - raising an anti-Nato war position - was the SLP. And the only list that had exactly the same slogan on the Kosova war was the ‘Weekly Worker’. However, WP refused to vote for either of them.

We are in favour of defending the Albanians (and the Serbs) against ethnic cleansing, but in the context of Nato’s major military attack we have to be for the victory of Yugoslavia. We cannot back imperialist pawns. WP explained that ‘Weekly Worker’ is an “irrelevant sect”. This is precisely an irrelevant sectarian response.

In London I voted ‘Weekly Worker’ despite its small size and the fact that I seriously disagree with its position in favour of arming the pro-Nato KLA and its strategy for a (bourgeois) federal republic. I wanted to support a broad left front against New Labour. But after the SWP, SP, AWL and ILN failed I decided to critically back a group that fought for that perspective.

I call on my former Workers Power comrades to re-examine their position and to demand a public explanation and open debate.

John Stone
LCMRCI

Instant revolution

I note with interest the results of the Euro elections: ‘Weekly Worker’ (CPGB) -1,724; SPGB - 1,510.

Specifically, I note that the latter party only stood on one list to achieve a similar share of the vote as garnered by the former in two. Further, I note the former party practices a policy of setting out immediate demands so as to attract more workers to the cause, whilst the latter advocates unconditional and immediate revolution. If the aim of the former is to attract more votes through advocating reform, they seem to have failed. Perhaps it is time for a rethink, if the CPGB are actually interested in full socialism.

Bill Martin
SPGB

Election victory

The Socialist Party, standing as ‘Ian Page - Socialist Alternative’ regained the Pepys ward in a by-election on June 10 with the support of Lewisham SA comrades.

The local branch has been fully supportive of the SA and wanted to stand as Socialist Alliance, but came under pressure to stand as Socialist Alternative. My view is that the SP in gaining this seat will strengthen those arguing for closer work in building SAs.

We have another by-election on July 15 in Churchdown ward and the AWL have expressed an interest in standing Jill Mountford under the banner of the Socialist Alliance. The AWL appear to be willing to run an open and inclusive campaign, building the SA rather than the party. The SP have offered to help despite the AWL only a year ago calling for a vote for New Labour in Pepys ward - an indication of the defrosting going on in the left.

Nick Long
Lewisham SA