Letters

No Scots

I have received the following note, dated October 10, from Dave Church, membership officer of the Socialist Alliance network:

"At the inaugural meeting of the Socialist Alliance, it was determined that we should organise on an England basis. This has now been further confirmed by a decision taken at our conference held on September 30 2000. Please find enclosed a cheque for £3, this being the return of the subscription paid.

"It is intended that our Socialist Alliance work closely with the Scottish Socialist Party. If you have not already joined them, we would certainly recommend that you do so."

If the Socialist Alliance will not permit supporters in Scotland to organise themselves, then what possible justification can the SSP come up with for keeping Socialist Workers Party members locked out? And how is it that the SSP has members and supporters groups in England?

No Scots
No Scots

Anarchists

Haven't anarchists learnt anything? The organisational structure that prevailed in Prague has only two results: infiltration (by police agents, fascist provocateurs, bandits and adventurers of all kinds) and - as a direct result of the first - the "many injuries" comrade Andrew Flood half boasts of (Weekly Worker October 12).

No-one, least of all we revolutionary Marxists, would want to impose an underhand and bureaucratic 'smoke-filled room' method of decision-making. However, an element of centralised control, on a wholly democratic basis (a directing council, composed of recallable delegates from each participating organisation, would probably suit the Prague situation best), is absolutely necessary if any political organisation is to survive as an honest force. It is precisely this lack of democratic regulation (in this case, of membership) that led to the degeneration of the gallant, if utterly deluded, Black Guard within the October Revolution.

Honest anarchists, perhaps the majority, came to be swamped by bandits and counterrevolutionaries, often engaging in action of extortion and robbery - all operating under the protection of the 'anarchist method'. A similar situation, it would seem, has arisen (on a much lower historical plane) within the anti-capitalist movement. Anti-capitalism, as a whole, is facing a crossroads. It needs a focus. The present 'anarchy of ideology' will lead, inevitably, to its internal dissolution - fizzling out, either in the sporadic, if spectacular, acts of violence seen at Seattle and the Prague 'blue' division or under the anarchistic bureaucracy of Ya Basta and their ilk.

The Marxist left also needs to assert its identity - for too long have we - CPGB/SWP et al - quietly tailed the neo-liberals of 'anti-capitalism'. The symbolic elimination of a 'red division' at Prague (pink, yellow, blue, green, white, polka-dot - anything but a 'red' division!) should be the last act of insolence.

Orientate to the wider movement - there are many who will join us from it; most definitely work within it, but no longer should we liquidate ourselves in an indistinct and ideologically schizophrenic movement.

Anarchists
Anarchists

Rightwing?

Socialist Party (GB): a "rightwing sect"? ('Tactic or strategy' Weekly Worker September 12) - I suppose it makes a change from being called ultra-leftists. Oh, how we collude with the bourgeoisie in their administration of capitalism, and their reorganisation of poverty. Or perhaps not.

After all, since we consistently oppose attempts to institute leftwing capitalism - leftwing, rightwing: both parts of the same damn bird - in favour of openly and directly pursuing one thing, socialism, we must somehow be agents of the capitalist class.

Mind, perhaps this accusation results from the sort of mindset which can see Marcus Larsen decry the SWP for wanting to attract reformists, and then go on to advocate a minimum programme which would have no other effect.

We cannot improve capitalism, we cannot make it work in the interests of the working class, so we should have nothing to do with running it, only to abolish it. What a rightwing view.

Rightwing?
Rightwing?

Cult bashing

Dennis Tourish's attempt to defend his characterisation of certain far left groups as "cults" manages comprehensively to miss the point (Weekly Worker September 21).

Of course the items on Dennis's tick-list of purportedly 'cultic' characteristics can be discerned among many far left groups. But, as I argued previously (Weekly Worker September 7), they are also often in evidence in the supposedly 'legitimate' institutions of mainstream bourgeois society, including families, the major religious denominations, businesses and academia. Charismatic leaders, dogmatism, exclusive jargon, hyper-activism, conformism, contempt for rival groups and irrational belief in the infallible rightness of one's own side are pretty common phenomena in most, if not all, forms of human social organisation. Some are arguably less common in the groups that Dennis labels 'cults' than they are elsewhere in society - surely nobody who has had the opportunity to observe Ted Grant and Peter Taaffe at close quarters would accuse either one of having the faintest trace of charisma.

Responding to my argument that so-called 'cult' members are not "brainwashed", but are sincere in their beliefs, Dennis denies that sincerity "equal[s] proof that a belief is correct" - but I did not actually claim this. He also offers up the platitudinous insight that "we all have points of vulnerability, which others cynically use for their own ends", a simple truth which all adults have to confront in every facet of their lives. It hardly follows from this that 'cult' members are all brainwashed and abused into believing and behaving as they do. Nor does it follow that, because I deny that 'cult' devotees are brainwashed, I must believe that they are "cretins", as Dennis implies I must. If anybody in this debate is talking as if 'cult' members were "cretins", it is surely Dennis.

At best, he patronises the many thousands of us who have belonged to organisations such as Militant by implying that, although we are compos mentis adults, we are not entitled to make (and learn by) our own choices and our own mistakes. At worst, he insults our intelligence by implying that we are too feeble-minded and suggestible to be capable of making real choices for ourselves.

I spent 13 years, in the 1980s and 1990s, as an active member of Militant/Militant Labour. The idea that Ted Grant, Peter Taaffe or anyone else perpetrated abuse on me is laughable. I was, I confess, called "pe'y boojwar" rather a lot. But I've been called much worse things in other social contexts (domestic, school, university, work, trade union, etc). And I certainly don't think that the experience has left me a pathetic, mentally-scarred victim in need of psychotherapy, counselling, 'deprogramming' or any of the other condescending and offensive quackery peddled by the 'cult'-bashing industry.

I can see that for some erstwhile revolutionaries, suffering from a chronic inability to take responsibility for themselves, there is something appealing about simply amending their script, so that 'capitalism ruined my life' becomes 'Militant ruined my life'. For myself, I have no desire to sign up to the 'culture of complaint', according to which everyone is a victim or survivor, nobody is ever responsible for anything that happens to them and someone else is always to blame.

I made an ideological and political commitment as an adult in full possession of my faculties. Having lived to see so many of Militant's much-vaunted political perspectives conclusively falsified by reality, and having read and studied a lot more, I changed my point of view and walked out, as I was always free to do. I used to believe one thing, and acted accordingly; now I believe another (slightly different) thing, and act accordingly - where's the problem?

Dennis persists in trying to associate the CWI's internal regime with "thought reform programmes in Stalinist states". I deplore the sclerotic dogmatism of Militant as much as the next ex-member; but can there really be any useful analogy between the conduct of a free association of sane, consenting adults and the policies of brutal dictatorships which have imprisoned, tortured and murdered millions of ordinary citizens for their failure to conform?

Cult bashing

Lesser evil?

Roger Dark's front page on the Serbian insurrection provided a useful review of Marxist principles in relation to war (Weekly Worker October 12).

The article opposed imperialist measures to 'defend democracy', looking instead to "independent working class action on an international scale" to defend "democratic rights and the capacity to struggle". Good. The 'lesser evil' method (which comrade Dark rightly condemns), backing one reactionary state against a perceived worse one, of course dovetails with the chauvinism of that state, hands hegemony to existing rulers and impedes the development of working class hegemony.

However, comrade Dark's concept of revolutionary defeatism - that defeat of one's own warring state is preferable to its victory - falls short, because it also uses the infamous 'lesser evil' method, and omits our main aim: the revolutionary defeat (overthrow) of each state by the international working class. This means, in each state, turning war for the victory of that state into civil (class) war for its overthrow. It means revolutionary defeat for both belligerent states.

That is why, in the 1991 Gulf War with which the USA announced its post-Soviet new world order, the CPGB campaigned under the slogans, 'The main enemy is at home' and 'Peace through revolution'. We did not prefer the defeat of British (and US) imperialism at the hands of Saddam Hussein, nor the defeat of Iraq at the hands of US-led imperialism. We stood for the defeat of both at the hands of the working class.

In fact Iraq's defeat certainly brought it to the brink of revolution - defeat is the mother of revolution, as comrade Dark emphasises. But Saddam's defeat meant, at the same time, not only the victory of imperialism, but also its strengthening in the class struggle at home.

If we restrict ourselves to comrade Dark's definition - "the defeat of one's own country as a 'lesser evil' to its victory in a reactionary war" - this lends itself to the error of backing one belligerent in order to defeat the other (though the comrade does not fall into this trap himself) - like those on the left who supported the Nato bombing of Serbia, or those who backed the British empire in World War II because its enemy was Nazism.

Our struggle for communism must not be buried in a futile backing for the 'lesser evil' in the meantime.

Lesser evil?
Lesser evil?

Failure

My attention was drawn to the letter which defends orthodox Trotskyism ('Distant polemic' Weekly Worker October 12), mainly because, when put to the test of events regarding developments in Serbia, it has failed decisively, as illustrated by comrade Mark Fischer's article in the same paper. The method employed is therefore of some interest.

Comrade Liz Hoskings raises the issue of the Transitional programme in opposition to the minimum-maximum approach. A revealing moment is when we are told, "Democracy is not an end in itself". Here we have a major failing of Trotskyism starkly revealed: the failure to acknowledge that the fight for socialism and communism is indivisible from the fight for democracy; and that our class is the most consistently democratic within capitalist society.

The bankruptcy of comrade Hoskings's approach has been magnificently illustrated by the Serbian working class, who have taken to the barricades over a democratic issue. The consequence of the left leaving this issue to one side is clear for all to see - it is people like Kostunica, a representative of a section of the proto-bourgeoisie, who fly the flag of democracy.

The comrade dismisses democracy on the grounds that full democracy is not possible under capitalism. The point of the minimum-maximum programme is to link the democratic struggle to that for state power. But, look at what most Trotskyite groups hold as their programme - it invariably consists of sub-minimum 'transitional' demands justified with a maximalist vision of state socialism - property forms, not social relations, being decisive. How, in and of itself, will 'taxing the rich' bring the working class even a step closer to power? The comrade notably fails to mention what programme the Bolsheviks had before the advent of Stalinism, maybe because it was a minimum-maximum one.

The fact is that Trotskyism was built as a sect. This was confirmed by the treatment of Max Shachtman. His crime was to hold a different analysis of the Soviet Union. Initially I think that you will find Shachtman was a 'defencist'. The Fourth International's main component, Cannon's SWP in the USA, brooked no opposition to its views, and so sect spawned sect after sect. The fact is that so much of a dogma were Trotsky's writings to his epigones, it led some to deny that World War II had finished because Trotsky's perspectives had not been fulfilled.

I am not surprised by comrade Hoskings's position on the 'degenerated workers' states'. Typically it manifests a fetishism of form over content. But the proletariat can only rule society consciously, not passively or in an atomised way. If you accept that it is possible for the bureaucracy to somehow rule on behalf of the working class, then you abandon Marxism. You might as well concede that Blair rules on behalf of the working class in Britain.

This analysis excludes what I would argue were qualitative turning points: i.e., forced collectivisation and the purges. The latter are particularly important because they mark an attempt to cleanse the state of its last proletarian elements.

Incidentally what is the comrade's position on Serbia? I presume the comrade must view this as some sort of 'counterrevolution'.

Failure
Failure

Mechanical

I was very interested to read your piece on 'Rotten politics and military blocs' (Weekly Worker October 12). The point that military blocs and political support must, from a Marxist viewpoint, exist in a relationship with one another now seems obvious (and is a point that in other contexts most Marxists would accept prima facie).

I am less sure about the minimum-maximum programme you advocate - especially as I have not read said programme (unless you at this stage are just talking about a possible methodology). But I do think that the mechanical application of the Trotskyist transitional programme does not take into account the period we now live in. I remember John Lister writing in Socialist Outlook some years back that the TP is as valid now as it was in 1938!

Mechanical
Mechanical

SSP bans

What actually happened was that there was a debate around the last point of a model motion aimed at defending the present SSP constitution. It was a debate about whether it was tactically wiser to defend a form of words that left sales of papers other than the Voice unaltered, with our record of having done so standing in our favour, or to actually add on additional words to the constitution making the sale of papers in public explicit. The majority in the room, including me, adopted the former attitude. I then stated publicly that I thought I had voted the wrong way (something Tom fails to mention in his article).

Whatever position one took, it represented an honest disagreement amongst comrades about tactics to actually defend the SSP status quo regarding pluralism of literature both internally and externally.

No one in the room, including me, was/is in favour of bans on the public sales of papers other than the Voice. Why would I be, as a seller of Action for Solidarity and Workers' Liberty?

SSP bans
SSP bans