Letters

Stalinism works

In my previous letter I exposed the counterrevolutionary essence of Solidarnosc. I see that Gerry Downing is still defending them zealously (Weekly Worker July 13). First of all, according to him I come over as a "complete apologist for Stalinism". I am certainly a Stalinist rather than a Trotskyist. To paraphrase Lincoln Steffens, I have seen Trotskyism and it didn't work - not for revolution, anyway.

According to Downing, "The one force that could have prevented it [capitalist restoration in Poland] was the militant organisations of the working class with a revolutionary socialist leadership." Well, to borrow a phrase from another Weekly Worker letter-writer, chocolate biscuits had about as much chance of growing on trees. Where was the "Trotskyist alternative"?

As it happens, in 1991 (when I was still a member of Socialist Outlook) I met a few Polish Trotskyists or followers of the theory of state capitalism at a summer camp in what was then newly velvetised Czechoslovakia. At that time my ability to speak Polish was limited and they spoke little or no English, so I tried Russian, the only common language we had, for it had been a compulsory school subject in both Poland and Czechoslovakia until recently. However, the Poles' revulsion at the Russian language was very obvious. In fact they would rather not talk at all than talk Russian.

Visibly, Trotskyists in Poland could not shake off this nationalism, any more than their British counterparts can shake off social democracy. And if those were the Polish Trotskyists, what were the infinitely larger number of devout catholic, conservative, etc Poles in Solidarnosc like? Gerry's much-vaunted "Trotskyist alternative" was no alternative at all. I suggest people like the kind I have described could not have separated the "base" from the "leadership" in Solidarnosc even if they had wanted to.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939 was never accepted by most Poles who felt that their country was victimised by it, and Solidarnosc could even be said to be historical revenge for the pact. From the Soviet viewpoint, it eliminated a state that was hostile and it moved the frontier with German-dominated territory several hundred kilometres further to the west. Contrary to the belief held in some quarters, the Soviets accepted that war with Nazi Germany would take place eventually.

As to Katyn, the Nazis made full propaganda use of the discovery of the mass graves in 1943, but the fact that most of those found in the graves were officers rather than ordinary soldiers suggests that, in a crude way, the Soviet security police were indeed separating the base from the leadership, to use Gerry's words.

Some Polish officers captured in 1939 agreed to work for the Soviets, notably Zygmunt Berling, and later formed the core of the Polish People's Army. In today's Poland, they are largely viewed as traitors. Those killed at Katyn and other places were no doubt seen as 'hostile class elements'. Presumably Gerry is equally shocked by Bolshevik practice during the Civil War, where captured Whites would sometimes strip naked, even in mid-winter, so the Reds would not be able to tell the officers (who were almost automatically killed) from the ordinary soldiers (whose survival prospects were better).

Knowing Polish history and culture as I do, it is comprehensible to me that many Poles might reject the Marxist left, associating it with Russia and atheism. What I do not comprehend is why Gerry and such people feel the need to pretend that Solidarnosc was a movement of the left.

Stalinism works
Stalinism works

Zimbabwe

Comrade Gerry Downing accuses the CPGB of Stalinist methodology (Weekly Worker June 29).

I disagree. The CPGB has adopted a form of Shachtmanite methodology where positions are derived from morality. If, for example, I point out that a Movement for Democratic Change government in Zimbabwe will be under imperialist pressure to crush the land invasions and hence represents an immediate threat to the working class then apparently it is not my analysis which is wrong. Rather I am morally wrong for daring to make the analysis in the first place.

Having said that, there is a case for calling me a Mugabe supporter. In this case the analysis we get from CNN and the Weekly Worker would be true. If it is impossible to defend a nation's sovereignty in the face of imperialist onslaught without defending that nation's regime then, yes, I would be a Mugabe supporter.

However this analysis puts far more faith in bourgeois nationalism than even the most fanatic Zanu-PF supporter. The call to occupy plantations and moves towards nationalisation of mines are pure populism born out of desperation on the part of Mugabe. It is a dead certainty that the bourgeois nationalist Zanu-PF will renege on these important gains and just as certain that only the international proletariat can defend them.

If on the other hand we consider those sections of the workers' movement, which include the CPGB, who uncritically repeat bourgeois lies. Who raise the exact same slogans as the imperialists. Who leap to the defence of 'democracy' when and only when this bogus democracy is used as a pretext for imperialist invasion. Can we call them anything but Nato socialists? No. They share exactly the same agenda albeit with a 'left' slant. They believe that the tendency of capital towards universal integration is internationalist because it fails to be nationalist.

According to the CPGB the Blair government is characterised by 'national chauvinism' when all the while Blair is attacking British sovereignty in favour of European integration. Likewise our 'internationalists' believe that the new slave trade in the form of immigration is progressive and even call for it to be legalised.

It is therefore no surprise that comrade Donovan's solution is "transnational organisation" which will lead in its revolutionary form to "workers' control" (Letters, July 13). This makes a fetish out of the productive phase in the circulation of capital and, by itself, is reformist. Sure, I would be all for workers' control of production.

However, I fail to see how workers can control foreign direct investment or immigration or the export of commodities without using the state. It is in this context that the Zimbabwean government's decision to import its electricity from Congo is highly significant. This is an attempt to increase the strength of the local currency against the domination of the dollar.

The interview with comrade Gwisai from the Zimbabwean Cliffite International Socialist Organisation was very interesting (Weekly Worker July 6). Notice how comrade Gwisai leaps to the defence of squatters: he would defend them even if the land seizures were purely a Zanu-PF stunt. What does the CPGB have to say about that? Nothing. Would the CPGB call for their removal? My guess is that they would take an abstentionist stance. More incredibly the CPGB has no comment on comrade Gwisai's call for protectionism. Does this make Gwisai a Mugabe-supporting semi-Stalinist? Apparently not.

However, I shall make the CPGB criticism for them. Comrade Gwisai calls for the introduction of price controls and subsidies and an end to privatisation in the context of other economistic reforms. In this reformist context, these demands will tend to strengthen the national small and medium bourgeoisie in Zimbabwe. This is a concession to bourgeois nationalism even though it is easy to see how these demands arise naturally in the struggle.

Moreover comrade Gwisai, like the CPGB, has no explanation of why a party born out of trade union militancy has ended up so far to the right. Indeed the only thing the CPGB have to say is that white colonialists should have a privileged position because they are more skilled. This is 'revolutionary democracy' after the CPGB's Don Cossack turn.

I would characterise the ISO as centrist, but considerably to the left of the CPGB.

Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe

LSA slurs

The latest issue of Lalkar - bimonthly of the Indian Workers Association, edited and largely written by Harpal Brar, member of the Socialist Labour Party's national executive - contains an attempt to justify the SLP's sectarian refusal to cooperate with the London Socialist Alliance in May's Greater London Authority elections (July-August).

Comrade Brar writes: "The SLP was right not to entertain the idea of any electoral pact with this collection of incurable counterrevolutionary Trots. This unholy alliance, reminiscent of Trotsky's reactionary August bloc against the Bolsheviks, is sure to fall apart in the not too distant future. The SLP, on the other hand, is poised to take some pretty strong strides forward."

And here is what he has to say about the CPGB: "The so-called Provisional Committee of the CPGB - a dozen Trots pretending to be the Communist Party - apart from being rabidly anti-Soviet, a characteristic which they share with every other group in the LSA - oppose British withdrawal from Ireland, oppose Irish reunification and demand the repartition of the Six Counties between the protestants and the catholics. In the same vein, this group opposes the seizure of land from the white farmers in Zimbabwe and its redistribution to black farmers. Along with many other Trotskyist groups, it showed its pro-Nato credentials only too well during the recent Balkans war waged by the Nato warmongering alliance against tiny Yugoslavia."

Comrade Brar himself is of course an "incurable" ultra-Stalinite, but his polemical style reminds you of those other graduates from the advanced school of slander, the ultra-Trotskyite Spartacist League. The method of both is based not on a desire to establish the truth, but solely on the desperate need to hold onto their shrinking band of followers (the SLP is "poised" to continue its slow, sectarian death).

To this end any lie will do.

LSA slurs
LSA slurs

Our method

Phil Walden associates the demand for a republic with reformism: a "petty bourgeois reform of the constitution" (Weekly Worker July 13). He thus appears to misunderstand the method with which revolutionaries in the RCN raise the slogan.

I wish to ask the comrade the following: would you support the demand of a weekly wage of £275 per week and a maximum 35-hour working week? Would you campaign for pensions to be set at the level of the minimum wage? Would you fight for free abortion, contraception on demand and high-quality, 24-hour nurseries?

Would you campaign for the end of immigration controls? Would you involve yourself in struggle for the right of the homeless to occupy empty houses? What about gays and lesbians? Would you fight to defend and advance their rights? I would sincerely hope that the answer to these would be in the affirmative. Unfortunately, I do have my doubts. Presumably, raising them would simply mean campaigning for 'petty bourgeois reform'.

Revolutionaries do not campaign for the British ruling class to simply grant our demands. As Phil knows, we campaign for these demands to be won using our methods, ranging from protest meetings and strikes to workers' councils of action and revolutionary upheavals. Winning these rights represents a shift in the balance of class forces in our favour and a further step towards socialism. We thus fight for democratic rights on our terms and not leave their fate in the hands of the bourgeoisie. They are a means to an end and not an end in itself.

One other question, Phil. You disagreed with another slogan of the RCN - 'revolutionary democracy'. Why no comment on this?

Our method
Our method

RCN

In an article on the Republican Communist Network's missing "fourth" slogan, Dave Craig writes: "The slogan 'international socialist revolution' is not only gaining support, but seems to offer the possibility of uniting the RCN" (Republican Communist No3). There is as much chance of this happening as there is of curing a schizophrenic by sticking an elastoplast on his forehead.

In recent weeks I have inundated the Weekly Worker with letters calling on the RCN to spell out what specifically members are committing themselves to when we sign up to our four or five slogans. I had put this question to founding members of the organisation at the preparatory-talks stage - 18 months ago! It hardly takes a genius to recognise that the existing membership criteria are bringing our organisation into disrepute.

With the sole exception of the hapless Phil Walden, all RCN members who have been accused of disagreeing with one or more of our slogans by one or more other members (and just about the entire membership has faced this charge) have pleaded not guilty. Either comrades are too intelligent to admit the truth (since doing so can get you expelled) or they are to stupid to recognise the truth.

The single other alternative is that, much to the exasperation of everyone, our slogans can mean anything individual members want them to mean: they constitute, in Marxist terminology, a "purely scholastic question"; we are, in other words, building our organisation on sand.

Allan Armstrong, in one of his articles in Republican Communist No3, has (belatedly) begun to echo this refrain. Allan wrote: "If the RCN was merely to adopt the label 'communist' and the slogan 'world communism' without real debate as to their meaning, such a fudge could only result in a talking shop." I could not put it better myself.

Allan goes on to argue that the slogans 'republicanism' and 'revolutionary democracy' are likewise misunderstood by potential, if not existing, RCN members. Perhaps we need to debate these slogans also, Allan. I have little doubt that Allan, even more than myself, now accepts that this is less a case of locking the door once the horse has bolted so much as locking it once the Trojan Horse has entered. Still, better late than never.

It is essential that our annual conference votes on a document that substantially narrows the range of possible interpretations of our slogans. I am hereby giving notice to all members that I intend to produce such a document. If comrades vote it down (even in an amended form), then I expect them to come up with a credible alternative. In order for the conference vote to be meaningful, it needs an informed debate to have taken place well in advance. I propose the Weekly Worker helps us facilitate that.

If Mary Ward (or any other member) thinks that words are being put in her mouth, by me or anyone else, then she has to put pen to paper herself. She should prepare herself for the fact that my draft platform will define revolutionary democracy, workers' power and international socialism (not, yet, an RCN slogan, but one supported by her Campaign for a Federal Republic faction) in a manner incompatible with opposition to a workers' revolution in Castro's Cuba.

Also, I feel the need to comment on the relationship between these slogans, particularly on their ordering. The article in Republican Communist No3 is subtitled, "Dave Craig (RDG) argues why 'international socialist revolution' should be the RCN's fourth slogan". Given that we already have four slogans, surely we are on the lookout for our fifth? Well, yes and no.

Our slogans have evidently been drawn up in a manner akin to Mendeleyev's periodic table - with gaps for to-be-discovered elements. Our slogans refer, at least in part, to a set of chronological stages - only, where Marx's 1859 preface listed stages that belonged, with one exception, to the past, ours refer to those yet to come. We have for too long just accepted this list of stages without debating whether any can be skipped, and if so which ones, and in precisely what circumstances can such skipping take place. We need to debate this now.

Secondly, we need someone to explain what 'revolutionary democracy and culture' is doing among this list. Are we to understand that workers' power has to be preceded by a bourgeois republic (like that of the United States) and by Dave Craig's utopian dual power republic? I certainly will not be signing up to any such interpretation of our slogans. I want conference to settle once and for all that this interpretation is an invalid one.

RCN
RCN

Cleavage

It was good to read Phil Watson's review of Ben Watson's excellent book Art, class and cleavage (Weekly Worker July 13), although I don't think it was particularly clever of him to begin by calling Ben "slightly loopy". Only because in the book, Ben writes extensively about "the schizophrenic twist" in himself and others. Mad is not bad.

The main problem I have with Phil's review is when he says, "The orientation needs to be largely on artistic form and a consideration of how its relationship to society crystallises out of that form's organisation ... Putting the emphasis on the interconnectedness of art and politics ... is a daft enterprise."

The example Phil uses to prove his 'formal' point is pop-art. In contradistinction Ben Watson's method explores the notion of material, dialectic cleavage - sentence by sentence the book is suffused with cultural and linguistic debris in an effort to cleave abstract/static relationships between form and content. Pop-art's largely insipid, boxed-up (gallery) parody/reflection of commodification is a world away from the one Ben (and me) prefer. Like the Dadaists, who were not interested in parody but in scratching and wrenching away at the formal bourgeois categories like 'art', 'genius', etc.

We won't stop 'neo-Stalinism' or 'defeat the philistines' by sticking to form; instead we need to practise and demand a culture and materialist aesthetics that is overflowing with content, for in this surplus, this generosity, lie art's beauty and knowledge.

Cleavage
Cleavage

Far right

In his review of Cliff's biography A world to win, Marcus Larsen expresses his "shock" that the Socialist Workers Party, a "self-proclaimed Marxist organisation", would call for the state to intervene in the struggle against the far right (Weekly Worker June 22).

Uncharacteristically, in this respect the SWP (in their guise as the Anti-Nazi League) have been nothing if not consistent. Every past mobilisation by the British National Party was met with a routine appeal by the ANL to everyone from the local authority to the home secretary himself to ban them. Since the BNP withdrew from the streets, this policy is now being applied to the minuscule National Front.

However, in the aftermath of the Copeland trial, the SWP went a step further. Via the ANL website they have called not only for the state to ban all far right parties, but to "jail all the Nazis". For a supposed revolutionary party to demand that the state sets about outlawing and interning its political opponents (no trial, no evidence required, presumably) on the basis of their alleged extremism demonstrates either a complete inability to grasp even the most basic lessons from history or a reckless opportunism bordering on the suicidal.

Undoubtedly this latest move to the right must be seen as the logical consequence of having long since surrendered any pretence of maintaining their own independent line, in favour of tailing the agenda of Gerry Gable and his pro-state agency, Searchlight. This is despite Searchlight's public commitment, after Copeland, to work even closer with the various state intelligence services.

Adopting the Searchlight line that the BNP and NF are essentially criminal conspiracies means that the problem is addressed within the context of law and order, enabling the ANL to claim that the bombs were "evidence of [the fascists'] isolation from mainstream political society" and avoid any tricky questions about how the BNP's slow but steady electoral rise should be countered politically. But even if we cast the dangers inherent in this process to the backs of our minds momentarily and pretend that it can somehow be justified on the basis that it is curtailing the rise of the far right, it still doesn't wash.

On June 6, less than a week after the end of the Copeland trial and the demonisation of the BNP throughout the mass media, their candidate in a Bexley council by-election came from nowhere to claim second place behind Labour, with 26.2% of the vote.

Clearly, if the BNP are criminals, and the 'Don't vote Nazi' strategy currently employed by the ANL represents the sum total of strategical thinking amongst the British left in countering the 'suit and tie community politics' of euro-nationalism, then we might soon find ourselves in deep trouble. The BNP we are facing today is a far more sophisticated outfit that has ditched its former policy of 'marches, meetings and punch-ups'.

The left needs to understand this and begin developing new tactics that will not only neutralise the BNP, but win their voters to a progressive working class alternative. An obvious starting point would be for the various socialist alliances to publicly distance themselves from the ANL's approach.

Far right
Far right

Passenger revolt

Several arrests were made earlier this week at Heathrow airport, when passengers resorted to civil disobedience to prevent the forced deportation of a Zairean refugee. A British Airways flight to Frankfurt was delayed for over two hours and eventually Salim Rambo was taken of the plane.

Rambo was caught up in the civil war in the Republic of Congo (Zaire) and now fears for his life from both government and rebel forces. He was among over 11,000 people detained by the immigration service every year, and has been held in Harmondsworth detention centre and given no legal advice since the decision for his removal was made.

Before boarding the flight passengers were given leaflets by the anti-prison network, Cage, informing them about Rambo's presence on the flight. Passengers were also encouraged to delay the flight by refusing to take their seats until Rambo was allowed off the plane.

The leafleting was part of a long weekend of actions. This included the occupation of the site of a proposed women's prison in Surrey and scaling the fence at Harmondsworth detention centre.

The removal was taking place under a little known clause of the Dublin Convention, which provides for removal to a "safe third country". It is almost impossible to arrive in the UK without passing through a "third country". Thousands of asylum-seekers are deported with no consideration of their case.

Passenger revolt