Letters

One-sided

Jim Cullen (Weekly Worker October 21) expresses anger that my review of the IBT’s book raised some criticisms of the IBT and dogmatic ‘orthodox’ Trotskyism that had previously been expressed by his own grouping in the IBT. Jim makes the seemingly damning allegation that “... despite the remarkable similarity between what we said in 1997 and what [Ian Donovan] says now, he not only did not side with us in the IBT fight, but was firmly (if not enthusiastically) in the dogmatist camp of the majority. To rationalise this embarrassing fact, Donovan must attempt to discredit our views, even to the point of misrepresenting them.”

I am not convinced that I was on the ‘wrong’ side of the 1996-7 dispute with comrade Cullen, since I still consider that the IBT majority, at least in formal political terms, was to the left of comrade Cullen’s grouping in its stated view of the revolutionary potential of the proletariat and its anti-chauvinist position on Maastricht (a position essentially the same as the CPGB), notwithstanding their muddled theory and their torpor and hide-in-the-corner fear of political debate. Comrade Cullen is however to be congratulated for writing his political reply - I am not holding my breath waiting for the IBT.

Comrade Cullen argued during the dispute that the 1960s radicalisation was “petty-bourgeois” and further: “Proletarian revolution is normally conceived of as an affair in which an insurgent proletariat pulls sections of the petty bourgeoisie in its train. Here the reverse happened, as the proletariat became swept up in the rebellion of petty-bourgeois youth” (document, November 14 1996). It is true that comrade Cullen added: “Was it possible that at this juncture power could have passed into the hands of the French proletariat? I see no strong reason not to think so” - which shows that my recollection of his position, dimmed by the passage of time, was not precise.

Yet I was not far off the mark - comrade Cullen also wrote that: “Despite fond memories of that year, I am convinced that it, as well as the entire post-war period of which it was the apex, was an aberrant moment in historical time, unlikely ever to return.” If comrade Cullen is complaining about being misunderstood, perhaps that is partially his own fault, due to his somewhat murky and contradictory statements.

Thus, though it would not be absolutely fair to say that comrade Cullen’s position was that “proletarian revolution was not possible in the period of the French May 1968 general strike”, it would be fair to say that comrade Cullen’s position was that in general proletarian revolutionary struggles were not possible in the “aberrant” post-war boom. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the revolutionary potential of the working class in such a period, and therefore, incidental errors of detail aside, my characterisation of comrade Cullen’s current as fundamentally liquidationist still stands.

The core of his argument is that “the class struggle tends as a rule to intensify, and revolutionary situations to become much more common, during periods of prolonged capitalist economic crisis.”

In fact, in periods of labour shortages and high employment/prosperity, the social power of the proletariat is stronger, and its role in the economy more indispensable than ever. Both types of situation reflect different moments in the struggle between capital and labour, and it could equally be argued that economic crises (and particularly mass unemployment) under capitalism are often seen by the bosses as opportunities to inflict long-lasting and historic defeats on the proletariat, thereby blunting its revolutionary potential.

The relationship between consciousness and the power of the working class movement is a complex one, and in truth the real significance of the May 1968 mobilisation was not that the proletariat had been pulled behind a mobilisation of another class. Rather, it was that the struggles of petty bourgeois and working class student youth triggered off a much more powerful explosion in the organised working class in conditions of relative economic prosperity. This is where comrade Cullen’s views are one-sided.

His letter is to my knowledge the first substantial public political pronouncement he has written on any question since the immediate aftermath of his split from the IBT. Comrade Cullen appears to have largely dropped out of political activity as a result of his ‘perspectives’, a fact which, in common with the IBT majority, I do not find that surprising.

Ian Donovan
London

Livingstone

The Weekly Worker has provided an interesting and thoughtful coverage of the saga of Blair, Livingstone and the New Labour candidacy for the London mayoralty. It is a pity then that I had to read in last week’s paper a front page lead in which comrade Jim Blackstock advocates the Communist Party’s taking up a ‘Back Livingstone’ position, even if ‘Red Ken’ were to obtain the New Labour franchise. Comrade Blackstock’s position is a collapse into shabby opportunism and it should be roundly rejected by the Party.

The outlines of a principled communist position with respect to Livingstone and the mayoralty were very competently set down by comrade Maurice Bernal (Weekly Worker June 24). The comrade stressed that of course the Communist Party should support Livingstone’s democratic right to seek nomination and stand for Labour against the Tories, if that is what the Labour membership in London wants.

Comrade Bernal was furthermore correct when, in considering the unlikely scenario of a blocked Livingstone breaking from the Labour Party and standing as an independent, he assessed that many thousands of Labour Party members, not only in London, but throughout Britain might be drawn into support for such a challenge, and that, “In such circumstances, we believe that it would be the duty of communists and revolutionary socialists not just to engage polemically with such a new grouping, but to struggle within it.” I would add that such a struggle should be built around a campaign to win the independent candidacy to a manifesto based upon a minimum platform of working class democratic demands.

The comrade concluded his argument with the statement,

“Whatever the outcome, it is essential for the left to prepare itself to fight for an authentic socialist mayor of London … In the unlikely event that Blair bites the bullet and allows Livingstone to contest the election as Labour’s official candidate, we argue it is the duty of the left to fight for a socialist mayoral candidate: ie, a candidate endorsed by a united front of socialist organisations.”

Now we have comrade Blackstock proposing, “But even if Livingstone ends up as the official Labour candidate - in the teeth of an all-out pro-Dobson Millbank campaign - we should mobilise for his candidacy, but against New Labour”. Apparently the question of what manifesto Livingstone would be standing on is an irrelevancy to comrade Blackstock. He goes on to describe the scenario which he believes should lead the London Socialist Alliance to press ahead with plans for a united left challenge: ie, Livingstone’s acceptance of “a convincing Dobson victory for the Labour nomination in an open contest”. What a miserable perspective! We who held out against the London Socialist Alliance’s collapse in the face of Arthur Scargill’s candidacy in the recent European elections should be the champions of a ‘Back Livingstone’ collapse this time around!

This is not communist politics. We are for furthering working class political independence. We are for communism, not Labourism. We struggle to build a Communist Party designed to self-liberate us from capital. The thought that we should enter the 21st century supporting a fight for ‘old Labour’ against New Labour is almost nauseating.

John Pearson
Manchester

Scottish facts

Gerry Downing’s readiness to leap to the defence of what he perceives to be Marxist principles may be well-intentioned, but he has an unfortunate tendency to launch into polemics against his political opponents without bothering to check the facts. His attack on the Scottish Socialist Party (Letters Weekly Worker October 21) is an example of this.

Gerry objects to the SSP publishing an article by John Palmer of Red Pepper which supported Nato’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Gerry seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that Palmer is a member of the SSP and that his views represent the position of that party. Is he really so ignorant of the SSP’s politics that he believes it supported Nato’s war?

John Palmer’s piece was published alongside another article by an SSP member vigorously opposing Nato’s war. I assume the SSP did so because it recognised that Palmer’s response, of ‘humanitarian support’ for Nato intervention, was shared by many within the reformist left, and that it was necessary to involve these comrades in debate rather than simply to denounce them as stooges of imperialism. This was certainly why, as editor of What next?, I reprinted John Palmer’s article.

The reason why Scottish Socialist Voice is one of the liveliest papers on the left (just compare it with the Socialist Party in England and Wales’s dreary publication The Socialist) is that it has a broad editorial policy and is willing to discuss with people who do not agree with the SSP’s political line. If Gerry Downing wants to take issue with the SSP, in the context of a letter opposing sectarianism towards the Labour Party, he would be better advised to criticise the fact that there are some people the SSP does not want to discuss with.

For although it has engaged in dialogue with opponents of Scottish independence (who form a minority in the SSP itself), with members of the Scottish National Party and even with ‘left’ loyalist Billy Hutchison, SSV shows no interest in a dialogue with anti-Blairites inside the Labour Party.

To pretend that Labour has been purged of any working class content and transformed into a purely bourgeois party may be helpful in persuading some hundreds of individuals to join the SSP, but it is an extremely short-sighted tactic. The SSP is a small political grouping which lacks any substantial popular base outside a geographically limited area around Glasgow. It is highly unlikely that a mass socialist party can be built by recruiting in ones and twos to such an organisation. A real mass party will almost certainly emerge out of developments in the existing workers’ movement, which in Scotland as elsewhere in Britain still includes the Labour Party.

Bob Pitt
London

SSP rebuttal

Gerry Downing says the Scottish Socialist Party is not a real working class alternative. I would like to offer a rebuttal.

Scottish Socialist Voice has a relatively open editorial line. (Strangely enough, some left publications do.) It often publishes articles holding different points of view. Incidentally, a Socialist Labour Party activist in Scotland (they can be counted on the fingers of two hands at best) recently decried the range of opinion to be found in the SSP. However, it is a strength, in my opinion.

Gerry’s viewpoint appears to be just the kind of barren sectarianism which explains why the left in London is so weak. He says the SSP is not the alternative in Scotland? Does he have one?

The SSP is the best thing going in Scotland, warts and all, and I have worked hard for its success. Anybody who is resident in Scotland, calls him or herself a socialist/communist and is not a member of the SSP is a sectarian. That is the reality that Gerry’s ignorant comment fails to express.

James Robertson
Linlithgow

A tad rich

Comrade Gerry Downing is certainly all at sea, as his latest letter graphically illustrates.

Gerry talks about those revolutionaries who oppose Ken Livingstone’s candidacy for London mayor, complaining that they “are simply conflating our understanding with how the mass of the working class see the matter”. Quite right of course.

However, it is a tad rich for Gerry to accuse the CPGB of abandoning the working class merely because we support the right of the British-Irish to self-determination in a united Ireland. The comrade’s dark rumblings about the CPGB “adopting imperialist stooge groups like the loyalists” (and apparently the KLA) amply demonstrates that he is “simply conflating” the Protestant working class into orangeism.

Eddie Ford
Middlesex

Royal puzzle

I am puzzled by Gerry Downing’s politics. He mocks the CPGB’s republicanism, even though it is obviously revolutionary and not Huttonesque. For Gerry Downing the policy of the CPGB is summed up by the slogan, ‘Smash the monarchy and the House of Lords and keep capitalism’.

Would it then be fair to summarise the politics of comrades like Gerry Downing as, ‘Keep the monarchy and the House of Lords and smash capitalism’? Also, why is republicanism fine and dandy in Northern Ireland, but not in England, Scotland and Wales?

John Dart
Bristol

Jewish rights

Mary Godwin’s report of the October 17 CPGB aggregate describes John Pearson as being “alarmed” by Jack Conrad’s comments about the Jewish population in Israel (Weekly Worker October 21). Jack Conrad remarked that there is an “historically established Jewish population” in Israel, and “that they should not be driven into the sea”.

Does comrade Pearson actually deny that there is an “historically established Jewish population” in Israel? Or maybe he thinks that we should all have the decency to keep quiet about it, as it is too inconvenient to think about. Or could it be the case that comrade Pearson thinks that this is a ‘problem’ which needs to be sorted out by applying force against ‘the oppressors’? Does he really expect the Jewish population to simply forget their Jewishness if we threaten to forcibly incorporate them into a new Arab/muslim-dominated Palestine?

Comrade Pearson is quoted as saying that the idea of Jewish self-determination (“national rights”) within the existing territory of Israel would be “an abomination”. This is also exactly the view of Islamic medievalist groups like Hamas.

Brian Dee
Birmingham

Conned good

I note Mary Godwin’s assurance that there is to be no suppression of debate on the British-Irish, even though Jack Conrad’s theses have been voted through. Personally, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I would welcome an early opportunity to explain that Jack is mistaken about the identity of view between the Second International and the Bolsheviks on the application of self-determination to oppressor nations. Has Jack forgotten that the latter collapsed as the social-imperialists, social-opportunists and left centrists in Russia, France, Germany, Britain, etc took issue with Lenin, arguing that the main enemy is not at home but is, rather, in those other nations lining up to infringe ‘their’ nation’s right self-determination?

I would also like to put Jack straight on another point. Jack is wrong about the UVF attitude to a united Ireland. Jack argues they “sought to maintain a united Ireland under Protestant ascendancy ... through the continuation of British rule”. Translated into plain English: the UVF sought not a united Ireland but a United Kingdom. When the hired thugs of British imperialism woke up to the fact that they could no longer enslave the whole of Ireland by sheer brute force, they and their masters fell back upon the partition option, drawing up borders which allowed them to exploit the Ulster Protestants as a ‘democratic’ pretext.

There are many question I approach from a point of view similar to that of the AWL, the organisation I take to be the inspiration behind Jack’s latest brainwave - principally on the attitude to the workers’ movement, once derided by the CPGB as ‘economistic’. However, on the national question, especially as applied to Ireland (and Palestine), I think they are disastrously mistaken. In a brief exchange between Martin Thomas and Mark Osborn on the AWL website, the latter was less than enthusiastic about Jack’s theses. Unlike Martin, Mark is withholding congratulations until the CPGB abandons the conditions Jack claims to place on British-Irish self-determination.

Unfortunately (for me), I fear that the reference to the necessity of “voluntary” reunification of Ireland can only mean that the two “conditions” that are said to be placed on British-Irish self-determination are, probably, not worth the paper they are written on. They constitute, in my opinion, nothing more than a piece of cynical spin-doctoring, a lie deemed necessary to finesse his theses past a sceptical audience and onto the CPGB statute book.

Well done, Jack. You conned them good.

Tom Delargy
Paisley