Letters

BNP socialism

My letter on asylum slogans two issues ago (Weekly Worker July 27) has provoked a range of critical responses - some correct, some bizarre (Letters, August 3).

Tom Delargy makes the correct criticism of the slogan, 'Refugees welcome here', that it should in reality embrace economic migrants as well, the better slogan being 'Immigrants welcome here'. He also, somewhat confusedly, criticises myself as "economistic" for not criticising the left for failing to stand in elections in the past, and advocates standing in every area that fascists run a candidate.

I was not trying to retrospectively correct every mistake made by the left in the past 25 years, and indeed such a thing is not possible in one letter. Tom is largely correct in that the left should run candidates against fascist electoral forays whenever possible, though the question of best use of resources is in my view a tactical one.

There is a curious symbiosis between the letters - published in the same issue - of Andrew Cutting and A Ward. Comrade Cutting at least brings out some principled political objections to the views I argued, albeit from a bizarre standpoint. Comrade Ward, apparently on behalf of Red Action, engages in an opaque critique of my view that the left should not drop demands that reactionary-minded sections of the working class find objectionable. It is fairly obvious that he objects not merely to the nuances of the slogan, 'Refugees welcome here', but to the public raising of the demand to 'Abolish all immigration controls'.

Comrade Ward is at least frank in not making any distinction between these two demands: he obviously wants to drop both of them because they "alienate" and clash with the consciousness of reactionary-minded workers who are inclined to support the BNP. And comrade Ward has the nerve to accuse me of "abject capitulation"!

Comrade Ward complains that I 'return' to the question of 'ethnicity' in my analysis of fascism and how to fight it. In reality, it is not 'ethnicity', but rather 'multi-ethnicity' - ie, the multi-ethnic working class - that I was insisting on as key in fighting fascism and bigotry in society. In other words, the exact opposite of 'ethnicity'. Comrade Ward expresses his abhorrence of the allegedly "liberal" concept that "fascism is primarily a confrontation between races" and asserts, on the contrary, that "in fact it is a struggle between classes". He should argue that with those workers who consider the fascists their friends, and immigrants their enemies, because of precisely this ideology.

While it is true that in the last analysis fascism is fundamentally aimed at smashing the working class's ability to challenge capitalism by crushing all working class organisations in blood, this is not equally true at every moment in time. There is virtually no fascist activity directed against the working class as a whole at the moment: rather there is an attempt to mobilise backward sections of the working class against vulnerable minorities, such as refugees. To take a dive on the defence of such minorities of the class in order to pander to the reactionary prejudices of sections of the mainstream is a betrayal of every fundamental principle of communism. The politics that comrade Ward somewhat shamefacedly advocates can only be called a kind of ultra-economism.

This is borne out by his lament that the left has not "shown the same dogged ambition as the BNP to go mainstream". It seems that comrade Ward advocates that, since the BNP has dropped its own 'fringe' proclivities like public Hitler-worship and Toytown SA-style 'military' posturing in order to go 'respectable', the left should reciprocate by dropping the elements that comrade Ward considers to be leftwing 'fringe' politics - such 'middle class' concerns as championing the rights of unpopular oppressed minorities. No thanks, comrade: such a Faustian bargain is not 'smart' politics, but a political direction that if taken would gut the left of every shred of principle.

Comrade Ward does not have the political courage to theorise his capitulation: he justifies betrayal of the oppressed by considerations of expediency. But in rushes comrade Cutting where comrade Ward fears to tread, to provide a theoretical rationale.

Comrade Cutting has generalised his nationalist-tinged view of socialism, expressed by his apologias for Mugabe's use of the nationalist card to attack the workers' movement in Zimbabwe, into a position that nationalist opposition to capitalist globalisation is progressive everywhere, even in imperialist Britain.

From tailing Mugabe to tailing the BNP is obviously not such a massive leap as some unfortunate muddleheads may imagine! But what else can you say about comrade Cutting's identification of the coming of immigrants with "barbarism", his attacks on the demand for open borders as "reactionary" and "anti-working class" and, even more outrageously, his call for the LSA to picket companies who employ immigrants as cheap labour? Such pickets would quite likely be supported by the BNP. The labour movement should promote the organisation of sweatshop workers, not engage in anti-immigrant agitation of its own!

Comrade Cutting asks whether those sections of the working class, such as a large minority in Bexley who supported the BNP are "labour aristocrats ... all plump and greasy from the luxuries of imperialist conquest". No, they are impoverished victims of capitalism who have very little class consciousness and, seeing no hope of any real struggle at this point, have accepted the bourgeois press's arguments that immigrants are to blame for their situation. They can only be broken from this consciousness by being pulled in the wake of struggles waged by the more advanced sections of the working class, struggles that are seen to offer hope of changing their own miserable situation as part of improving the situation of the whole of the class.

Comrade Cutting, however, seems to be saying that these people are right; that open borders and immigration are an agency of "barbarism" and immigrants therefore are the enemies of these workers; that they are not victims of false consciousness, but are more or less on the right track. It is very surprising that comrade Cutting cannot see the reactionary implications of his position.

BNP socialism
BNP socialism

White worker

One of the reasons I joined Class War rather than the 'established' revolutionary organisations in the UK was that deep down I always believed those organisations, and certainly their leaderships, had given up on the white working class.

However, until I read Ian Donovan I had rarely seen anyone actually come out and say it. Now I have. Oh, one piece of news for Mr Donovan - if he really believes the rights of asylum-seekers are the major issue facing the working class in Britain (black or white), he needs to get out more.

White worker
White worker

Cultism

Peter Burton recently suggested in your columns that many left groups share characteristics with cult organisations such as the Moonies (Letters, July 27). These include a tendency to believe in the infallible wisdom of a guru; a distortion of language that insulates group members from outside influences; an undemocratic internal regime; and, last but not least, a paranoid fear of and hostility towards other groups, especially those that in reality closely resemble the cult concerned.

At the risk of self-advertisement, I would like to agree with Peter, and point out that this argument is developed at length in a new book I have co-authored with Tim Wohlforth. In our book (On the edge: political cults of the left and right, published by Sharpe in New York) we explore exactly what cults are in depth, look at the group dynamics which maintain extreme conformity and then look at a number of important groups which bear out the argument. Interestingly, two of the groups we consider are the Workers Revolutionary Party of Gerry Healy fame, and the Militant/CWI group.

These issues are important for all leftwing and political activists. An alternative to Blairism requires a reconsideration of many traditional shibboleths. Daring to face the truth about political cultism is not least among the tasks ahead.

Cultism

Still straight

Complaining about the content of Straight Left is, I realise, rather daft. It is a bit like going to a natural history museum and moaning about the fossils. However, there is an item in the June issue (which came out at the end of July) which deserves to have attention drawn to it.

'Harry Steel', in his 'Straight talk' column, discusses Brian Souter's privately financed referendum in Scotland on section 28, which is, according to Harry, a law "against local authorities popularising homosexuality". "How valid was this poll?" he asks. He is not sure of the answer, but has this to say: "Souter's 30% [the turnout] may or may not have fairly represented opinion in Scotland. But it is surely enough to justify calling for a fairly conducted official referendum."

The defining feature of the 'Straight talk' column is the absence of straight talking. Nudges and winks are the preferred method. It would seem that Straight Left's first new idea for at least 10 years is to support section 28 and Brian Souter's campaign on the issue.

Still straight
Still straight

'Democratic' Turkey

For some time now there has been conflict between the thousands of political prisoners in Turkey and the state. Early in July there was a savage assault on leftwing prisoners in Burdur, and there was another attack in Bergama Prison towards the end of the month. The authorities in Turkey are attempting to force the politicals into the 'F-type' or cell-type prisons, but the latter are resisting fiercely.

There is a struggle both inside and outside the jails. The prisoners have supporters outside the jails of Turkey - indeed, they have them in several European countries including the UK. It is an international and internationalist struggle. And as such, a delegation of journalists, lawyers, leftwingers and democrats went to Istanbul in the first week of August as part of the campaign against the F-type prisons. The delegation consisted of Scots, English, Germans, Greeks and Belgians, and also included two translators born in Turkey but resident in England or Germany.

The first noteworthy thing to happen was on August 3, when delegation members and TAYAD people went to the justice building in Istanbul's Sultanahmet district to protest against the attacks that happened on the road to Ankara. As we emerged from the building, some slogans were chanted against the cell-type prisons and we were then set upon by the Cevik Kuvvetleri (Rapid Reaction Police), and a large number of people were arrested and forced onto police buses, most of them receiving some sort of injury in the process. The attack on the demonstrators was shown on a number of TV channels. No foreign delegation members were arrested, but among those who were detained were the two translators.

After the arrest of the two translators, I took over. We tried to continue with our programme of visits to organisans concerned in one way or another with the prison situation, while at the same time seeking to ascertain the fate of those arrested.

On August 7, we went back to the justice building in Sultanahmet to read out a declaration as delegation members protesting against the attacks and calling for the release of all political prisoners in Turkey. I read out the first half of the statement, while the German journalist, Birgit Gaertner, read out the rest. There was a fairly heavy media presence, but a lot of police as well. On this occasion there was no police attack and we were able to leave without any arrests.

Turkey is being presented as a democracy fit for EU membership. Actually, the words of a prison prosecutor to some political prisoners describe the situation in Turkey perfectly: "If you want your rights, you must be prepared to die for them." The political prisoners in Turkey are prepared to die for their rights. What will the left in Britain and Europe do?

'Democratic' Turkey
'Democratic' Turkey

Cuba

Following the debate that took place on Cuba at the Scottish Socialist Party conference and the subsequent or apparent controversy within the Republican Communist Network and in the pages of the Weekly Worker, the Revolutionary Democratic Group has issued the following statement on 'Revolutionary democrats and the Cuban revolution'.

The Cuban revolution was a popular democratic revolution, led by the petty bourgeoisie (July 26 Movement) and supported by the working class. This revolution did not produce workers' power (a workers' republic or dictatorship of the proletariat) or an international socialist revolution.
The Cuban democratic revolution led to an extension of state ownership: that is, state capitalism. In 1959, for example, 2,000 firms were nationalised. In 1960 utilities, the telephone company, oil refineries and sugar mills were converted into state capital. The extension of state capita was not a result of workers' power or socialist revolution, but a result of practical measures taken to confiscate the property of the Batista regime and later to counteract the control of the economy by US multinationals - for example, Remington-Rand, Coca Cola and General Electric.
The Cuban democratic revolution produced real democratic gains and social benefits for the Cuban people, in terms of education, healthcare and the distribution of wealth. It threatened the interests of US imperialism, not only in Cuba, but by extension to the whole region. It served as an inspiration for revolutionary movements.
The Cuban democratic revolution has been under continuous siege by US imperialism and multinational corporations. We support the right of the Cuban people to self-determination and oppose all efforts by US imperialism to sabotage and blockade Cuba.
This does not mean that we spread illusions in Cuban 'socialism' or Cuban 'democracy' or in the class nature of the Cuban regime. The rights of Cuban workers to form independent trade unions, the lack of democratic rights for gay people, censorship and the one-party monopoly of political power shows the restricted nature of Cuban democracy.
The restricted nature of democracy in Cuba is a result of the policies of the Cuban and American ruling classes and the weakness of the Cuban working class. We are in favour of the Cuban working class forming its own independent party. We are in favour of this party leading the fight to extend democracy. A new democratic revolution, led by the Cuban working class, which achieves workers' or soviet power is the most radical means to extend democracy. Such a revolution would open the road to an international socialist revolution and world communism.

Cuba
Cuba

USSR and class

I, like you, believe the unity of the proletarian vanguard within the Communist Party is the only way forward. I do, however, differ from the Party on several issues.

For example, on the class nature of the USSR. This issue has, to a large extent, lost its decisive importance. The Soviet 'empire' was a grouping of degenerated workers' states - the USSR having decomposed organically, and its own peculiar brand of bureaucratic socialism having been, to a greater or lesser extent, imposed on the shadow states.

This definition flows not from some 'Trotskyist' dogmatism, but from a basic conception of what constitutes class: its relationship to the ownership of the means of production. Since the bureaucracies did not - or do not in the case of China, Cuba, North Korea, etc - occupy a fundamentally different social position, in relation to the means of production, to that held by the working majority, they cannot be defined as an exploiting class.

USSR and class
USSR and class

No mention

Has Jack improved on Leninism - and history? I quote from Jack Conrad's article 'Land and Bolshevism - part three' (Weekly Worker August 3):

"The revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat thereby peacefully grows over into the dictatorship of the proletariat, assuming internal proletarian hegemony and external proletarian aid from a socialist Europe and America. Here is Lenin's theory elaborated in his pamphlet Two tactics of social democracy in the democratic revolution."

I have just read Lenin's excellent pamphlet twice without finding any mention of "external proletarian aid from a socialist Europe and America".

Regarding Jack's previous articles on Scotland, where he found the Scottish nation to be a recent invention of Scottish nationalists and romantics, has Jack never heard of the declaration of Arbroath?

No mention
No mention