Letters
Marvellous
Jack Conrad subjects the readers of the Weekly Worker to more prattle about the marvellous Georgian, Joseph Stalin, and his definition of a nation (June 8).
Lenin did have a political weakness of politically falling in love with individuals or having temporary illusions in, among others, Father Gapon, the police spy Malinovsky and - yes - Stalin, the "wonderful Georgian". These infatuations did not last very long and did not reflect very well on Lenin - or Jack Conrad, who repeats the mistakes and continues to flatter Stalin and exaggerate the significance of his definition of a nation.
Lenin did attempt to intellectually develop the Georgian, but Stalin's definition of a nation also shows the influence of Bukharin, so it is not the "Stalin-Lenin definition". It is not only eclectic, but a dogmatic check list that rules out the definition of a nation if one element of the list is absent. In addition, those factors which Jack Conrad quotes against Davidson - common psychological make-up and an insistence that nations manifest themselves in a common culture - are an influence from Austro-Marxism.
Lenin was contemptuous of the notion of a nation's psychological make-up and was adamant that there was no homogenous national culture. Instead, Marxists supported the democratic and socialist elements of a nation's culture. In other words, Stalin's definition did not recognise class antagonism and class struggle. Therefore, it is no surprise that the gravedigger of nations, the commissar for nationalities, had little or no influence during the great debate on self-determination during World War I and immediately afterwards. There is no reference to it. And there is no comparison between his dead and lifeless textbook theses and Lenin's profound political and historical polemics on the issue of the nation and self-determination.
Nor does Jack apply the marvellous definition consistently, despite his abuse (half educated) of those he thinks do not share his respect for definitions. As he admits, he only applies 75% of the marvellous definition to the British-Irish and their supposed right to self-determination. Many comrades, including Jack, could improve on Stalin's definition, and some have already done so. Although the question of nationalities and self-determination cannot be reduced simply to definition, however clear and correct. A dialectical application of the definition in a specific historical and political context is required.
Jack's promotion of Stalin's definition is connected with his anti-Trotskyist prejudices. Trotsky was not a member of the Bolshevik Party before 1917, but the marvellous Stalin was. Unfortunately for Jack, Lenin only really developed his theory of self-determination shortly before 1917, during World War I, after he had returned to a study of Hegel's logic following the political bankruptcy of the Second International. Many of the old Bolshevik leaders did not agree with Lenin, nor did a significant section of the membership. Moreover, the slogan of self-determination became a slogan of counterrevolution after 1917 in the Ukraine and elsewhere, but that's another debate.
Marvellous
Marvellous
Absurdum
Oh dear! Someone has clearly tried to take Jack Conrad's toys away from him. How dare Neil Davidson traduce Joe Stalin's inspired insight into the national question!
Indeed, Davidson's book is riddled with extraordinarily irritating flaws, which sadly detract from the overall worthiness of the book, but, sadly, his dismissal of Stalin's thinking is not one of them.
Ultimately Stalin's symptom analysis approach is fundamentally empiricist, and thus ultimately flawed - failing to unearth either the logic at the heart of the concept of nation or its movements. The symptoms Stalin proposes are effectively merely the show of the essence of nation; and it is eminently conceivable to have the show without actuality - imagine a definition of a court witness along the same lines as Stalin's - must be able to speak, have been present at the incident, have taken the oath, etc. None of these symptoms is of avail if the witness lies (and is thus not an actual witness) and yet all may be present in an objective sense.
Likewise, Davidson's definition of nation as an imaginary community itself also does not go far enough - missing out the way in which national consciousness relates to both material communicative factors, and likewise the operations of power, such as would be highlighted, say, by a definition such as 'selected invented tradition'.
To understand what a nation is, and where it is going, it is not enough simply to look at objective or subjective factors, but instead to grasp its historical essence. The definition of nation as 'the universalisation of property' draws out the social, linguistic and authority aspects, as well as revealing the inherent connection between nation and property - ie, that nation is simply a form of commodity fetishism, the commodity of land.
In such sense, we can also see the way in which nationalism relates to the class that spawned it. As Uncle Charlie put it, "... the private interests within each nation divide it into as many nations as it has 'full grown individuals'" (Grundrisse). The reductio ad absurdum result of separatism is the end stage of 'every man a nation'.
To get wrapped up in national liberation shit is to get sucked into the logic and ideas of our masters - and thuswise their petty little disputes.
Absurdum
Absurdum
North nat
So where does Northumbria fit into this 'non-national' rehash of ethnic history?
You will be aware that Northumbria - at least as far south as south Tyneside - was of identical ethnic make-up as the Lowlands. The dialect was and still is Lalands. I thought I had resolved this apparent contradiction insofar as Northumbria, so defined, had in fact been part of the Lowlands until little Malcolm sat as boy king on the throne of Scotland. Henry II of England seized it from him in 1154. It was then taken back by Scotland, until the humiliating Treaty of Falaise which seized it for England again and put English troops in all Northumbrian and southern Scottish castles.
Wallace after his victory at Stirling Bridge struggled to retake the castles, re-entered Northumberland and attacked the last English garrison in Newcastle. The capture of Northumberland by the 'English' crown had been an open sore among the Scots and the Northumbrians. Later, despite being designated part of 'England' Northumbrians continued for the following 600 years to fight on the side of Scotland's cause against those of the English crown (or ruler in the case of Cromwell) - even to the point of seizing Newcastle in a popular revolt four years after Charlie's defeat at Culloden to declare Newcastle and Tyneside for Scotland and Charlie.
Now comrade Conrad tells me there was no Scotland! So there cannot have been any kings of Scotland. So, OK, what was that all about then? It does not take much to confuse a Geordie, but now I am really confused.
North nat
North nat
Multiple choice
One of the following statements is untrue:
- Scotland is not a nation
- The CPGB is not the CPGB
- Jack Conrad is not Jack Conrad
- Ivor Kenna is not Ivor Kenna
Which is it?
Multiple choice
Multiple choice
Cuba
It is not the first time that Tom Delargy's reports of meetings have been bordering on the fictional. Once more Tom was clearly at a different meeting from everybody else and his article 'Cuba and socialism' has made many comrades wonder why Tom finds the need to misrepresent comrades in such a blatant and hostile manner (Weekly Worker June 8).
Firstly the Alliance for Workers' Liberty did not just "put in an appearance", as Tom suggests, but were co-organisers of the event in conjunction with the Republican Communist Network and Marxist Forum. It was specifically a day school, as comrades, including myself, wanted to know more about the situation today in Cuba with a view to coming to a closer understanding of the nature of the regime there. Some people actually went with open minds, hoping to participate in a learning process from engagement and polemic with other comrades. Tom obviously felt that his extensive reading left him with nothing to learn from such a process with lesser and in his view lazier comrades who "could [not] be bothered to read Lenin".
Tom condemns everyone who would not simplistically label Cuba as Stalinist as "Castrophiles" and ignores the genuine questioning of comrades of preconceptions about Cuba, whether these were pro or anti. To my mind there were no "Castrophiles" at the meeting and no one thought Cuba should be defined as socialist.
This is why I find it particularly bizarre that Tom believes that I argued, "Workers do not need trade unions independent of the state." This goes beyond misrepresentation because it is completely untrue. I believe in independent, free trade unions under capitalism and under socialism - no argument. During the course of discussion, I merely suggested that we needed to look at the relationship between the trade unions and the Cuban state post-revolution. I also believe that Cuban workers are not all pawns and dupes the way that Tom suggests they are.
The RCN has commissioned an article from Tom for the current issue of Republican Communist to give him space to express his views on Cuba. I only hope he uses the space to deal with the politics rather than to unjustifiably slur comrades who work consistently for revolutionary democracy as a step towards world communism.
It is difficult to feel confident when in discussion with Tom, given this level of misrepresentation. Therefore, I would urge comrades to read Tom's articles with a huge dollop of salt.
Cuba
Cuba
Castophiles
In his report of the Edinburgh Marxist Forum on Cuba, Tom Delargy makes two fundamental, philosophical errors.
Firstly, he creates straw figures - "Castrophiles" - and attributes to them certain beliefs which caricature the beliefs and attitudes of the actual participants such as myself. He then aims his polemical fire at the straw figures that he has created and ignores the actual beliefs of the actual people who took part in the debate.
Secondly, he has a highly abstracted view of the process of socialist revolution. It is he who is utopian, expecting a perfect socialist society to be born out of a former American colony that was based on gangsterism and sugar cane production. Yes, Cuba under Castro is not perfect, but we need a materialist explanation of the real existing characteristics, positive and negative, of Cuban society. 'Castro is a Stalinist bastard' does not constitute an explanation.
On the first point, I for one am not blind to some of the problems that exist in Cuba today. Indeed it was me who, in my article 'Gay life in Cuba', pointed out that until 1988 gay people had been discriminated against in Cuba. Interestingly my article goes on to say: "It is now educational policy in Cuba to teach that being gay or lesbian is a normal lifestyle." It was also me who highlighted the high level of absenteeism from work that existed in Cuba during the 1970s. I did this to point out that, at that time at least, there must have been a degree of dissatisfaction with the Cuban government: ie, Cuba was not a workers' paradise.
Further, he attributes to Mary Ward the view that workers do not need trade unions independent of the state. Neither myself nor any other participant that I have spoken to recalls Mary making this statement. I do, however, remember Mary asking the question, what would be the role of trade unions in a post-capitalist society and what would be their relationship to the state?
I do believe that the Cuban working class see the Cuban revolution, with all its faults, as theirs; that it has provided them with real material gains which they would defend. Should the Cuban revolution succumb to imperialist pressure, the alternatives on offer, in the real world, would seem to be regimes similar to those in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. I do not believe that the majority of Cuban workers have simply been duped by Castro. They recognise that their own material welfare is bound up with that of the current Cuban regime.
I am quite happy to listen to evidence that refutes my current views. Until such a time I will not be joining Tom or the AWL in a call for the overthrow of the Cuban government. It is my intention to continue to investigate the contradictory, concrete reality of the Cuban revolution. I am writing an article on this for issue No4 of Republican Communist, where I will take up all of the points that Tom has raised and respond to them, in the spirit of workers' self-education, through comradely debate.
Finally, I would urge Tom to reflect on his sometimes vitriolic style. Likening comrades to 'illiterates' who cannot be bothered to read Lenin (which he knows to be untrue) is unlikely to make him friends or influence people.
Castophiles
Castophiles
No alternative
Tom Delargy raises some interesting points in his article 'Cuba and socialism', but he misses the real point. In other words his article tells us nothing that we did not know already.
We know that Cuba is imperfect, flawed. We know all about the historical errors and the incorrect positions which Castro has taken over the years. But what is the alternative? You can take a purist point of view that comrade Delargy does: workers' revolution, overthrow Castro, etc. Something like what happened in eastern Europe and the USSR, etc. Ah yes! Because Russia, Bulgaria, Albania and all the rest are now true workers' paradises. What tosh!
Delargy's criticisms are well founded and undoubtedly well intentioned, but they get us nowhere. Calling for the fall of Castro's Cuba is simply silly. Unless you live in a land where chocolate biscuits grow on trees, we all know Castro's removal will not bring about a workers' state in Cuba.
I remember hearing George Gallaway MP say once of Cuba: "Imagine if you woke up in the morning, turned on the radio and heard that Cuba had fallen? How would you feel?"
Comrade Delargy would apparently be quite chuffed, along with loads of people in Florida. For the rest of us who adopt a serious attitude to the rest of the world today, a feeling of deep sadness and disappointment.
No alternative
No alternative
State capitalist
In response to Jack Conrad's notion of 'post-capitalism', the 'state-capitalist' Chris Jones of the Revolutionary Democratic Group argues that any attempt to build or develop socialism in one country as part of the world revolutionary process cannot succeed because it will not be able to avoid being a constituent part of international capitalism (Weekly Worker June 1).
According to him, the workers' state will degenerate from a presumed higher state. The party, the state and the economic administration will congeal into 'the bureaucracy' and this will be gradually transformed into a new capitalist class. He cites the Soviet Union's first five-year plan in 1928 as marking Stalin's surrender to this unavoidable objective development, and every other country attempting to take the socialist road is dragged willy-nilly into this nihilist scenario.
In support of his argument, Jones refers to the question of self-expansion contained in volume one of Marx's Capital. For me, chapter four on 'The general formula for capital' contradicts 'state-capitalist' theory, for it is here that Marx reveals what Jones so studiously avoids: that capital bears interest and is distributed among its owners according to the competitive outcomes occurring within the sphere of circulation. Yet Jones blandly asserts that, "The Soviet system concentrated capital so that the state become a single capitalist corporation, and it was 'managed' by the bureaucracy."
In just half a sentence he resolves the old contradiction, that the monopolistic formulation of a single capitalist corporation is possible in theory but not in practice. Neither does he seem to realise that managers of production are workers who also act on behalf of the owners of industry. They are the agents of the economically dominant class, whether that class is bourgeois or proletarian.
Chris Jones is actually proffering the notion that all members of this new capitalist class who owned the one corporation in the Soviet Union also acted as its board of directors and its general management, while happily functioning without the means for sharing out their profits. This must have been the first, proletarian capitalist class in the history of capitalism.
State capitalist
State capitalist
SWP-SSP takeover?
Rumours are rife in Scotland that the Socialist Workers Party is going to merge with the Scottish Socialist Party in the autumn.
Two things come out of talking to SWP rank and file members about this: first, that they are the last people to know what their central committee is doing - nothing new there (not that they ain't a thoroughly democratic organisation). Second - that the rank and file are dead set against it. Years of being told that they are building the revolutionary party all by themselves has taken its toll.
Wouldn't merging confirm the arguments of the sectarians that a workers' party would only be built by realignment, splits and mergers? The shame of it all. Ah but wait - the wily old central committee has got the answer. It is just another cunning move in the process of 'building the party'. Merge, take over the leading positions, and leave Sheridan as the public face - clever.
In reality the post-Cliff leadership of the SWP know they cannot compete for members in Scotland with the SSP because of the latter's public profile. For anybody considering getting active in left politics it is the SSP or nothing. However, there is no way the central committee can sell this reality to their rank and file.
If the merger does take place it should mean greater left unity, which, in turn, should mean greater effectiveness in intervening in all the usual issues the left gets involved in now. It should also mean that it is more difficult than ever for capitalist parties to isolate the left in the way they have done over the last 70-odd years.
And if it means less of an emphasis on elections and an end to the current flirtation with nationalism within the SSP these will be good things. However, the voices of democracy within a new merged party will be smaller than ever. It is this issue which is still the Achilles heel of the left.
Those such as myself (a member of the AWL and the Solidarity tendency of the SSP) who stand for a cultural change within the left, promoting democratic debate, a role for dissent, toleration and honesty between socialists from different organisations and honesty about past mistakes will have to find means to ensure this is the kind of internal regime which prevails within the new SSP. It ain't going to be easy. Habits of a lifetime and all that.
SWP-SSP takeover?
SWP-SSP takeover?
Independent racists
In an otherwise reasonable letter Nick Long refers to Independent Labour candidates in Hull, suggesting that these people were deserving of our support, as well as leading people to suppose that they ought to be part of a socialist alliance (Weekly Worker June 8).
In fact the opposite is true. The Hull Independent Labour group ran a racist campaign against the accommodation of asylum-seekers. They forced me to vote Labour in my ward, where their candidate was seeking re-election. I don't know if the Hull group is still in any national network but, if so, they should be expelled forthwith. They will certainly play no part in the forthcoming creation of a socialist alliance in this city.
Independent racists
Independent racists
No, ma'm
Joint work with the Movement Against the Monarchy may not be as easy as Mark Griffiths thinks (Weekly Worker June 8).
The South London Republican Forum, which stands for socialist and working class republicanism, holds an annual event to honour the memory of Albert Standley, a founder of modern republicanism. This year's theme was the way ahead for republicans. MA'M were invited to send a speaker. They did not reply. Perhaps they were busy with their 'Moon against the monarchy', a daft stunt which convinced nobody that there is a serious case for revolutionary republicanism. A brief flash of three dozen bare bums will not bring down the monarchy.
Republic did not reply either. This is rather insulting, as Albert Standley helped found it. While it can hold big meetings, it seems to have become a device to enable its leaders to attend elite functions and rub shoulders with the great and the good.
The only organisation to send a speaker was the Republican Communist Network. The talk given and the following discussion were lively and stimulating.
Sadly, the RCN is itself not problem-free. Some comrades seem unable to distinguish between informed political debate and the unseemly exchange of jibes, insults and unfounded allegations. The RCN is, however, a step in the right direction and as such deserves the support of all revolutionary republicans.
No, ma'm
No, ma'm
State and racism
In his new book, Between camps: nations, cultures and the allure of race, the radical black academic Paul Gilroy makes an impassioned - and quite unfashionable - appeal for "planetary humanism", a "cosmopolitan-yet-to-come" which has been liberated from "all racialising and raciological thought, from raciological seeing, racialised thinking, and racialised thinking about thinking".
This more or less sums up my political philosophy and it must surely be the world view of anyone worthy of the name Marxist. It was clearly this spirit of "planetary humanism" (or proletarian internationalism) that animated my response to comrade Jim Gilbert's views on the UK state and racism/anti-racism ('Fighting the wrong fights' Weekly Worker May 25). In a nutshell, I argued that the dogmatic left hopelessly conflates the categories of racism and national chauvinism (or anti-outsiderism), so as an automatic consequence it is unable or unwilling to comprehend and critique the rapidly developing state ideology of anti-racism (instead opting for the safe but befuddling category of 'institutional racism' coined by Sir William Macpherson and his state devotees).
In a certain theoretical sense, the left's interventions have a "racialising" rather than deracialising effect on political debate. We see this with the Socialist Workers Party when it calls William Hague "a lying racist crook" (Socialist Worker May 27), when Workers Power says that "immigration controls are inherently racist" (Workers Power June) or in the Spartacist League when it denounces the UK's "racist invasion" of Sierra Leone (Workers Hammer spring - bulletin sheet). The "racialised" anti-racist left cannot resist the allure of race.
However, my (no doubt paltry and inadequate) efforts to outline a rational "planetary humanism" are described by comrade George Brooks (Letters, June 8) as "preposterous" and "scraping the barrel". My article "spews out garbage", is intent on generating a "gutter debate", is the sort of thing you would expect from Sun-fuelled "barstool bigots", is evidence of plain "stupidity" and "irrational prejudice", is a symptom of political rottweilerism, and - most absurdly of all - amounts to nothing more than a desperate attempt to "defend the state".
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that comrade Brooks is committed like me to "planetary humanism" - therefore his vehement denunciations of my central thesis are slightly curious. It would certainly not be the case if the comrade actually agreed with the left's "irrational prejudice" that national chauvinism equals racism - in which case I would obviously be guilty of whitewashing the 'inherently racist' UK bourgeois state and that would be that.
But the reality is that comrade Brooks agrees with me that "we need a sophisticated" approach to the advanced bourgeois state and racism/anti-racism. Not only that, comrade Brooks concurs that the left's "flawed approach" to racism/national chauvinism "does appear to be aimed at bolstering a case that the contemporary capitalist state is institutionally racist".
The only possible reading of this statement is that comrade Brooks thinks that the "contemporary" UK state is not institutionally racist ... but maybe institutionally or formally anti-racist? Comrade Brooks' seemingly healthy approach is in marked contrast to the overwhelming majority of the left who insist - like flat-earthers or Sir William Macpherson - that the UK bourgeois state is inherently or institutionally racist.
In effect, the left flatly deny the existence of official or bourgeoisie anti-racism. It cannot be. It is impossible. Marxism says so. The left's block-headedness on this issue is indeed very "frustrating", as comrade Brooks says.
So how come - for all the convergence of our views - the comrade still casts me into a political outer darkness which is only inhabited by drunken reactionaries and Sun-readers?
Well, frankly, comrade Brook's case against me is scanty and desperate. In a presumably damning comment, he contends that my polemic with comrade Jim Gilbert reveals "that at least one comrade has a problem on the matter of race". Evidently, I cannot speak on behalf of comrade Jim Gilbert. But as a Marxist and "planetary humanist", I do cheerfully admit that I do indeed have "a problem on the matter of race" - to be exact, I reject the bogus, pseudo-scientific category of race, and hence I am a severe critic of the divisive categories of state/official anti-racism, which aims to turn us all into meek and mild ethnic supplicants of the terrible civilised 'we beat Hitler, you know' UK bourgeois state. I cannot believe for a moment that comrade Brooks does not have the same "problem".
The bourgeoisie can pass all manner of divisive and anti-democratic measures in the name of anti-racism, particularly so in a period where we see "the almost total absence of the working class as a political force", as comrade John Pearson correctly observes (Letters Weekly Worker June 8). A prohibition on 'extremist' or 'offensive' organisations or publications would not be in our interests - any more than the abolition of double jeopardy or the introduction a 'holocaust denial' crime. That is all I am saying. It is a tad ridiculous to argue that the Macpherson report - and the subsequent edicts and commands it generated - represents a "gain" for the working class, which appears to be the logic of comrade Brook's position. Then again, I am hardly arguing that the Macpherson report represents the greatest setback the working class movement has ever suffered.
Another apparent sin of mine is to acknowledge the existence of the race relations industry. Ostrich-like, comrade Brooks tell me "there is no" race relations industry. You might as well deny the existence of the British secret services or the fact that the earth goes round the sun. Communists are duty-bound to face facts and then attempt to provide answers - not to promote our own counter-'com-myths'.
We all know that there is a veritable army of state employees to promote and enforce official anti-racism and liberal multi-culturalism in every institution of the bourgeois state - schools, police, NHS, councils, civil servants.
State and racism
State and racism