Letters

SWP quandary

I was staggered and disappointed to read the letter from Lucy Grantz of the Socialist Workers Party ('Reluctant CPGB') in your March 9 issue. I was, after working with the SWP both at my college and through the London Socialist Alliance, beginning to believe that most members of the SWP did not actually conform to the stereotype put about by many on the rest of the left. I am saddened to find that I was wrong.

Lucy seems to think there is some sort of mileage in pointing out that the SWP has many more members than the CPGB does. I do not doubt she is correct - although, not being a member of the CPGB, I have no idea whether you have only five supporters in north east London. It seems almost facile to point out that having more members does not make you any more correct on political questions than anyone else is. This indicates something about political education amongst some members of the SWP, who have to descend to these levels before they are able to make a case for their political views.

As to the point about the Weekly Worker's alleged lack of writings about political factions, also its lack of "anti-state cap polemic", I can hardly imagine that Lucy and I have been reading the same paper. The incessant debates in the Weekly Worker on the minutiae of political factions and their rights (or in the case of the SWP, their lack thereof) actually become a little tiring at times! Without a doubt they stand in stark contrast to the coverage in Socialist Worker: in some 10 years, I do not think I have seen another group's name mentioned once.

The SWP claim that more issue-based debate goes on in their theoretical journals, but even this does not deal in direct debate with other revolutionary organisations on any key questions. The answer to this point usually given by SWPers is that ordinary people "aren't interested" in such debates, and that what they want to do is "get active". God forbid that we should offer them democratic control of organisations and campaigns, still less the opportunity to read debates in an open press and make decisions on this basis ... I would throw Lucy's point back at her: open your press to debate - or tell us all what you're so scared of.

As if this combination of naivety and rank hypocrisy were not enough, Lucy's final paragraph really takes the cake. I am sure her branch organiser will be interested to read her statement that the SWP is currently "confronting/obliterating you in the LSA" with its "revolutionary passion and discipline". Quite apart from the stomach-churning, almost religious zealotry of this statement, isn't it rather contrary to the SWP's current (and quite admirable) attitude of making a conscious effort not to swamp other groups in the LSA?

Once again, we can see the quandary that the SWP finds itself in. As it engages more with the rest of the left, relaxing its 20-year, self-imposed isolation, will it reveal itself to be a constructive revolutionary force? Or will it reveal itself to be an organisation chronically lacking in democratic structure, with a membership so ill-educated that it has to resort to a combination of pointless insults and lies, in order to win political arguments?

SWP quandary
SWP quandary

Norman wisdom

So Lucy Grantz cannot find any reference to an "anti-state cap polemic" in the Weekly Worker. For me, any such polemic would be like an ideological game of 'spot the difference'. After all, the Weekly Worker has to keep up the pretence of being the true inheritor of the old, Third Internationalist CPGB, even though, like the SWP, it rejects any possibility that there can be a form of socialism in one country.

Grantz should ignore the title 'CPGB' and look at the ideological and political content. Perhaps she would then understand why there is a convergence of these two parties within the LSA.

Norman wisdom
Norman wisdom

Beyond our Ken

I would like to challenge the case put forward by Phil Walden for the LSA to stand a candidate against Livingstone. In my letter (Weekly Worker March 9), I agreed that it would be premature for the LSA to rule this out. However, I backed up the CPGB position that everything depends on how Livingstone himself behaves.

Were he to spend 95% of his time attacking the LSA, devoting a mere 5% of it to pointing out his misgivings about details of Blair's politics, and, crucially, if he ran a slate against us, one comprising rightwing mavericks, then the LSA should think again. However, even in that case, I argued, and still do, that the left could only 'consider' standing a candidate.

Phil, by contrast, wrote: "... whatever the SWP do, the LSA must run someone against Livingstone." What if a majority of the political organisations constituting the LSA objected? What Phil is asking for is for indifference as to the falling apart of the fragile left unity so painstakingly put together over the last few months. In my opinion, the LSA would have to proceed by consensus.

Secondly, if we were to stand a candidate for the reasons advocated by Phil (ie, simply because we have intellectually grasped the nature of Livingstone's opportunist politics), we would no doubt come across (and Phil would seem to welcome this) as utterly indifferent to whether, by splitting the 'radical' anti-Blairite vote, our standing helped Blair's stooge get elected. Since this is how we would be presented to the tens of thousand of trade unionists who voted for Ken as the labour movement's candidate for mayor, we would be denounced (with much justification) as sectarian splitters. We would be marching not towards, but away from that enormous potential pool of workers from which we ought to draw sustenance: those we must convince to vote for, to work for and, indeed, to join the LSA!

The method I am advocating here is precisely the one set out so brilliantly by Lenin in Leftwing communism. Lenin chose not to hide his criticisms of Ramsay MacDonald, as if he could. He did, though, argue that propaganda was not enough. The only realistic means of teaching workers that communists' criticisms of MacDonald (and the rest of the Labour leadership) was absolutely justified was by helping to expose these traitors in practice: ie, by thrusting them into government at the earliest opportunity.

As Lenin pointed out, only by adopting the policy of supporting a Labour government like the rope supports the hanged man could communists in Britain gain the ear of the workers. In precisely the same way, it is only by supporting a Livingstone candidacy that the LSA can win the ear of the large section of workers who do have illusions in the man. Only by doing this can we become part of the class, and, thus, in a position from which to shift it in a progressive direction, rather than a sect outside the class, disinterested in exerting any influence at all.

Beyond our Ken
Beyond our Ken

Final word

Previously I have argued for the immediate abolition of the monarchy by working class action from below. I do not make this conditional on the simultaneous abolition of parliament. I have also argued that the regime in Russia between February and October 1917 was a republic - not a workers' republic, but a bourgeois republic. It was an extraordinary bourgeois republic because it had dual power. I rest my case.

Barry Biddulph has obviously lost the argument (Weekly Worker March 9). His case has degenerated into stream of invective against me, much of which is in pseudo-philosophical language. His main argument now is that I am a "self-centred political egotist", who, because I "insist" that the regime between February and October 1917 was a bourgeois republic, am "obstinate" and "dogmatic".

Even if I was the biggest self-centred political egotist in the entire world, it would not change one jot or comma the call for the immediate and unconditional abolition of the monarchy or the fact that the regime in Russia between February and October was a bourgeois republic.

This debate between myself and Barry serves no further useful purpose. Barry refuses to reply to my question of whether he accepts that the Russian bourgeoisie was overthrown in October 1917, not in February 1917. There is nothing further to be said. The CPGB have not stated publicly where they stand on this, but I can tell Barry that privately they agree with me. They live in the real world in which history records the fact that the bourgeoisie republic of Lvov, Kerensky and co was highly unstable because of 'dual power'.

Over and out.

Final word
Final word

AWL lot

Reading the articles on the Alliance for Workers' Liberty conference reminded me of the reasons why I decided to throw my lot in with the AWL. Principally on openness and freedom of thought, combined with a practical ability to intervene into political struggle. If anything, the AWL seems more than willing to engage with new ideas, dare I say reality: the way the world is rather than how we would like it to be. The richness of the organisation is the ability to contain a variety of viewpoints and maintain effectiveness.

The AWL and the CPGB have identical positions on the nature of the Labour Party. However, you label the AWL auto-Labourite because its comrades tactically hold both party cards and do fraction work in the party. The result of which is of course an enhanced capacity to deal with issues such as the Livingstone episode. Frankly the CPGB operated in a similarly auto-Labourite fashion in the SLP.

AWL lot
AWL lot

Nick's party

I note that our pugilist, Ian Donovan (Weekly Worker February 24), has started hitting his keyboard rather than women - long may it continue. For the record, Ian, I would gladly settle for a party comparable to the Scottish Socialist Party - even if it did include you as a member.

Your political allies, the CPGB, despite huffing and puffing concerning the internal regime inside the SLP, which in reality was rather open, failed to gain a single recruit during their entry work over four years. The CPGB's organisation in Scotland collapsed when it came in contact with SSP! The AWL, after almost 20 years inside the Labour Party would appear to have gained the grand total of 110 members! The newly launched AWL fraction 'Solidarity' in the SSP is, I understand, making little headway.

A new socialist party has little to fear from the Leninist revolutionaries.

Nick's party
Nick's party

Socialist poverty

In her article 'Charity and socialism' (Weekly Worker March 9) Mary Godwin writes: "The real blame for the current desperate plight of the Mozambiquan people lies not with western consumers, but with global capitalism." Why does she let the western consumers off the hook in this way? We are all benefiting from global capitalism in the western world. How else do we maintain high lifestyles compared to the people of Mozambique and elsewhere?

In the same issue John Bridge is prepared to sacrifice "a few Pacific atolls and some low-lying farmland in Bangladesh" to the floodwaters.

Which side are you lot on?

Socialist poverty
Socialist poverty