Letters

Farewell TUG, hello Healy

The so-called revolutionary left of Britain and internationally is generally indifferent about the development of the philosophy of revolutionary Marxism, which has traditionally been known as dialectical materialism. Instead the 'left' has concentrated on questions of practice and programme, and has ignored the supposedly irrelevant question of the need to develop dialectical materialism.

As a result of this situation 'revolutionary Marxism' has done nothing to oppose the prevalence of modern scepticism and idealism of hegemonic philosophical postmodernism. Then the various groups wonder why they are met with bemusement and cynicism within the working class and youth, who are dominated by the idealism of bourgeois ideology.

For the 'left' has not recognised the dynamic and practical significance of ideas and the importance of the conflict of the competing and antagonistic world outlooks of idealism and materialism.

Instead the left does not discuss issues of morality, ethics, the concept of being, the relationship between being and thought, and the nature of history, which are the issues that interest the most conscious sections of the working class.

Hence the left is content to let religion and new ageism provide idealist philosophical answers to the enquiring questions raised by the workers and youth.

The 'left' prefers to try and restrict and reduce the many different ideas within the working class into questions of programme and tactics, and so the most imaginative workers are repelled by the closed minds of the various 'revolutionary' groups. Consequently, the 'left' is unintentionally making the workers and youth turn towards religion and anarchism for the answers to the 'big questions' posed by social reality, science, philosophy and culture.

The only Marxist group that seems concerned to tackle the important 'big ideas' posed by social reality is the Movement for a Socialist Future, which is dedicated to developing Marxist philosophy and historical materialism.

In particular the MSF recognises the significance of the contemporary philosophical trend known as critical realism. The MSF aims to intervene within critical realism and to thereby strive to defend materialism against idealism.

For example, the need to uphold a materialist conception of the universe and social reality. Phil Sharpe and Phil Walden hope to have an active part in this philosophical intervention by the MSF within critical realism.

In order to be fully integrated into the MSF, PS and PW have dissolved the organisation they previously belonged to, which was the Trotskyist Unity Group. We have been forced to recognise that our attempts at unity with other Trotskyist groups have been rejected.

Furthermore, the TUG's unity initiative with the CPGB (Weekly Worker) was utopian. The CPGB has proved to be a bureaucratic organisation, as shown by its repeated attempts to monolithically control the Republican Communist periodical.

No doubt our detractors will suggest that we have joined a 'Healyite' organisation. We reject the supposed theoretical validity of this type of subjective labelling.

We do believe that the International Committee of the Fourth International (led by Healy) was the closest expression to the continuity of the Fourth International established by Trotsky.

But the ICFI was tragically fragmented in the period 1985-87. It is not possible to resurrect history, and it has become pointless to use past history in a manner that obstructs the tasks that are posed for the present.

In contemporary terms the revival of Marxist philosophy is a vital task, and it is within the MSF that it will be possible to collectively develop Marxism as a philosophy and world outlook of the international proletariat.

Farewell TUG, hello Healy
Farewell TUG, hello Healy

Errors about Welsh SA

Errors about Welsh SA
Errors about Welsh SA

No religion too

I was a bit surprised that your article on religion (though making some good points) did not relate the discourse to ideology (December 21). I would not argue that religion exists as a fixed point of reference - nor does asserting that to call oneself a Marxist and at the same time to believe in god is a 'philosophical absurdity' (!) make it so.

In fact the Nicholas Lash book you quote from is one attempt to do just that! And then of course, tangentially, there is the whole work of Hegel who, I would strongly argue, in his articulation of the dialectic attempts to overcome the tension between idealism and materialism.

Furthermore I was a little appalled to see Feuerbach praised as a development in the Marxist critique of religion.

Feuerbach must surely be one of the most static materialists ever ... and I would suggest a materialism which is at root static is, in fact, no kind of materialism at all, but is purely an idealist philosophy using the terminology of materialism (again - Feuerbach measures up very poorly to Hegel's seeking the concretes of human history).

Overall, though I agreed with most of it, I cannot see what practical consequences flow from it - religion as theology will (artistic expression aside) wither like any other ideology under communism ...

No religion too
No religion too

Cult-bashing for beginners

If I recall, the subject of cults was not that long ago debated on the pages of this paper, yet it has been brought up again (Letters, December 21).

I would be inclined to agree with those comrades who stated that they wished not to succumb to the victim culture, and made it clear that nobody can be coerced into believing something they would not be inclined to believe otherwise.

Coming to the idea of what a cult is, I have gathered my own impression. While it may be true that some groups on the left may have these elements, the term should not be bandied about too easily.

Such a tool could well be used to simply discredit one's political opponents rather than to answer them politically, as indeed it has been.

Comrade Lee seems to play to the victim mentality by claiming that these political cults target "vulnerable people". While religious cults may target such people, to apply the term to political groups that are not politically in line with the CPGB seems to be implying that such comrades have no brains and are simply dictated to by the whims of whichever organisation.

Such a tone sounds almost identical to that of an ex-Mormon who has seen the light and found Jesus, and wishes to warn others of the 'errors' of Mormonism and the truth of mainstream Christianity. Extremely patronising!

Cult-bashing, in case one hadn't noticed, is a popular method of the mainstream 'Christian' bourgeoisie. It is often used as a tool to scapegoat any belief system that differs from the norm of the status quo - hence the term 'mainstream'.

It is also a method used by religious sectarians in order to belittle their ideological opponents. We all know religion is nonsense, so it would be a sad thing indeed if the left were now to degenerate to such an extent to merit comparison with bible bashers.

As adults, we are free to choose whichever world view we choose to hold. We find fellow thinkers wherever, and if we are politically minded people we are bound to find groups that share our perspective - some we will agree with more than others. If not, political groups would not exist, full stop, and that would go for the CPGB, as well as the International Bolshevik Tendency.

To brand any group who wishes to win people to its ideas (any leftwing person would naturally wish to win people to the cause of revolution) is a narrow view.

Never have I come across any organisation that promises 'miracles'. From what I gather, religious cults:

• have a grossly undemocratic internal structure - guidance comes from the guru;
• are extremely sectarian, refusing to mix or engage in dialogue with other groups; they are not ecumenical;
• use some form of reverse psychology, along with attempting to control every aspect of its members' life.

While it would be stupid of me to claim no such groups exist in politics rather than just religion, I think the comrade in question exaggerates the matter. According to mainstream bourgeois ideology, the left itself could easily be defined as cultish. A cult is something that is not 'mainstream' and surely this could apply to a movement as a whole.

As for these 'cults' fragmenting the left, I think the blame for that lies more at the door of the bourgeoisie and the alienation that is caused by capitalism. We are in a reactionary period, and have been for a long time now. Therefore the fact the left is fragmented should not surprise us in such an epoch, as it is largely confused and unsure due to the onslaught of the bourgeoisie.

To lay the blame for such phenomena at the door of leftwing 'cults' rather than the actual class enemy is infantile.

So let's leave aside cult-baiting and get onto the real issue - the politics behind the fragmentation the comrade speaks of.

Cult-bashing for beginners
Cult-bashing for beginners

Miserable art snobbery

I solidarise with Darrell Goodliffe, who is subjected to a vitriolic attack by Phil Watson (Weekly Worker December 14). Darrell had had the audacity to assert, "We want a working class culture which is positively expressive about its class identity, one that draws the best from its history and celebrates that, not one that reflects life as a slave" (Weekly Worker December 7). This is an admirable sentiment, to which I would lend my full endorsement.

Contrarily, comrade Watson pours ridicule upon Darrell's statement: "There you have it: Enid Blyton does socialist realism, whilst Stalin draws up quotas for ginger beer and scout uniforms."

Being acquainted by now with comrade Watson's claims upon profundity, I have read and re-read his verdict, searching for its meaning. I remain convinced that it is meaningless drivel, in which I can recognise only elitist territorialism - the 'keep off my patch' cry of the art snob!

Later, in response to Darrell's perspective that the sort of culture he advocates "will point the way to the construction of a new society, not back down the pits", Phil levels, without any substantiation whatsoever, the charge of Stalinism.

So just what is eating Phil? "Darrell is not for art as a sensuous object that unpicks the webs of the commodity system through imbalance, distortion and partiality (art in the Marxist sense, that is), but for agitprop," Phil charges. He goes on to assert that, although agitprop has a "long and honourable history, its use should be confined to times of offensive".

So, "art in the Marxist sense" is no more than a medium for unfolding the contradictions of the commodity system: a specialised tool rather than a battle front, is it? But why should it be the case that Marxist art is circumscribed by boundaries that do not exist in Marxism as a whole?

Marxism is not just a critique of capitalism. It is, above all else, a programme of action for the suppression of the capital relationship, of the commodity, and of the alienation of humanity, by means of working class victory in an unbroken class struggle.

But Phil is not finished yet: "At this stage of the class struggle, to expect that working class culture will not express misery, angst and failure (James Kelman and Irvine Welsh, for example) is absurd," he insists.

So what is so special about the present period that individualistic, nay nihilistic, miserabilism should totally displace inspirational, uplifting visions of the potential of the universal class, and of the new society?

If art cannot inspire us by envisaging the realisation of that maturing potential, then we surely need to ask ourselves why it should be that one sphere of human activity should be so restricted and repressed. The answer of course is that the problem is one of ownership, of private property. The working class's tasks include that of liberating art.

I really do think that Phil Watson and his co-thinkers have a problem with the concept of class and class struggle. I sense a fear of the tiger of revolution, which has them clinging to their highly personalised art collections like a security blanket.

Comrade Goodliffe might be a "junior intellectual" and I might be a mature philistine, but, like millions of others, I will continue to seek inspiration in works such as Alexander Cordell's Rape of the fair country, AJ Cronin's The stars look down, or Howard Fast's Spartacus.

All of these fit admirably within Darrell's parameters, in my estimation. Yes, they all depict misery and defeat, but above all else they are magnificent affirmations of the potential, and of the necessity, of working class socialist revolution.

Miserable art snobbery
Miserable art snobbery

Misunderstood revolutionary

In response to the article in the Weekly Worker (December 21), I must say I was disappointed to see a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the purpose of the statement I had drafted for the Notts Socialist Alliance.

The statement, as I thought the CPGB members had understood at the meeting, was not intended to be a programme for the NSA either generally or for the general election. The NSA has no formally agreed policies other than those agreed by the NSA well over a year and a half ago.

At this point we should not wish to exclude anyone generally on the left. If a 'left Labourite', however the term is defined, wants to fight against this government we certainly should not, on principle, oppose fighting with them.

I hope that Liam Hughes does not consider that the SA electoral campaign should exclude such people. Or is the CPGB's view that the SA should be explicitly revolutionary?

If you believe that it should, then I frankly do not believe policies such as "abolition of the monarchy", "self-determination for Wales and Scotland" (with no mention of Ireland??), etc are ones that even my grandmother would "blanch at" (if she were alive) and these were the amendments brought by the CPGB to the NSA.

Such policies do not, in my view, make the statement any more revolutionary. A real, explicitly revolutionary, socialist programme would have to include the need to overthrow the bourgeois state machine and replace it with a workers' state, arm the workers, etc, etc. That is after all what is 'revolutionary' about the programme of revolutionary Marxists.

The CPGB suggestion to include something about racism and asylum-seekers is a worthwhile addition to the short statement of invitation to the campaign, that my draft was supposed to be - it makes it more roundedly leftwing perhaps but, in and by itself, it makes the statement not one dot more 'revolutionary'.

I would like to include in our eventual policies opposition to all immigration controls, but until we have had a full discussion in the NSA I think we have to leave the formulation on this matter open. The reason - virtually all of the far left was agreed on this issue throughout most of the 70s, 80s and 90s.

The one organisation that always fought against its adoption was the CPGB (not your CPGB admittedly, but the one whose reputation your organisation, surprisingly to me, wishes to keep alive by the adoption of its name). The International Marxist Group (forerunner of the International Socialist Group), and others, conciliated with the Stalinists of the CPGB, I think wrongly, and adopted compromise policies on immigration (such as 'opposition to racist immigration controls', etc).

I do not know whether there are still people around that would want to argue that issue before they would support the SA electoral challenge. If there are, I would argue that we do not exclude those who were miseducated by the CPGB of the time, but argue with them by inviting them into the SA, until we have to adopt our electoral programme.

So, Liam, I do not think that the preliminary statement I drafted for the SA was "left Labourite". Nor was it implicitly revolutionary either. The only thing that could make it genuinely revolutionary was if it was a part of a revolutionary programme of a revolutionary party.

I do not believe others in the SA, including the CPGB, fully share the Alliance for Workers' Liberty's concept of what 'revolutionary' is. Clarification on the matter of what constitutes a revolutionary programme is one of the tasks in front of those in the SA considering themselves revolutionary. But it is a matter different to, and more difficult than, agreeing a common electoral intervention.

Our work in the elections is one of a united front with other working class forces. That was what we, in the AWL, were doing in the Labour Party in a different way.

That is what we are doing in the SA. Fighting alongside those who are subjectively revolutionary, others who are 'reformists' maybe, but all of whom wish to see the working class run society. They will have different views of the details of how to get there and the problems that will then result.

But as long as when we fight alongside them we do not deactivate and demobilise our class and, of course, retain our right to put forward our own views, then this is the principled approach for a revolutionary to take. The early Communist International, the only one deserving the name, in 1921 called this the fight for a workers' government. I would be interested in your, and the CPGB's, view of this part of our history.

Finally, my statement was economistic? Well I frankly do not understand the CPGB's use of this term. Economism was the term Lenin used to describe the policies and approach of revolutionaries who excluded themselves from the political struggle in Russia at the turn of the century and merely concentrated on trade union agitation.

I fear the CPGB's, and your, use of the term in this situation is to play down an orientation to the working class and their concerns and consciousness (Trotsky was to clarify this orientation in his articles about transitional demands, a programme that starts from where workers are, instead of where we would wish them to be).

A final point of minor disagreement: I do not think it is good idea to denounce those who may not wish to see their views appearing in your paper as people who are "ashamed of their views", for two reasons.

1) Unfortunately there are such things as bureaucratic organisations on the left and in the labour movement. I welcome the opportunity of talking in confidence with their dissident members. I wish they had the confidence and the strength to break with those organisations, and being able to make that break is not always a simple matter of courage. The Labour Party and some of our unions use coercive measures that would make many a police state look liberal. It is important that genuine socialists do not allow themselves to be needlessly victimised. So it is vital that we respect that some comrades may not be able to speak completely openly. I would respect their desire for a degree of confidentiality in my discussions with them. Either that or I would expect that they would not talk to me any more.

2) I welcome the CPGB's (and the internet's) promotion of accountability in the labour movement. But I understand that those less experienced, or less confident of their politics, might find this 'anything you say will be taken down and used in evidence' an intimidating atmosphere in which to develop. Representatives, delegates, experienced members I would excuse from that, as long as they had an adequate right of reply and as long as socialist journalists who report them do so accurately and objectively. A feature that was unfortunately missing in your report.

Misunderstood revolutionary
Misunderstood revolutionary

Cyberspace thought police

My thanks to comrades too numerous to mention for their solidarity against the smears and unsubstantiated allegations of the witch-hunters and wannabe thought police. I am now happy to fully abide by the London Socialist Alliance resolution of December 12.

I have no knowledge of the mental health of my accusers, but suggest they learn the difference between an allegation and a fact proven beyond all doubt. Furthermore, they should learn that the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty is not a bourgeois deviation, but a basic concept of justice which should apply to all.

I do think that there is something sad and sick about those who pour out the vials of their wrath, including implied threats of violence, into cyberspace, instead of doing the common sense thing, which is to contact those accused first for their version of events.

Sadly, despite having fallen victim to Stalinism with its false accusations of collaborating with fascism, some Trotskyists and anarchists have employed the methods of Stalin, Beria and the NKVD.

Have they forgotten what happened in Spain, or that during the third period Stalinists smashed up meetings of the Independent Labour Party and during the imperialist war denounced anti-war socialists to the police?

For those who believe the battle of ideas to be more important than macho boot boy postures, may I commend the words of Rosa Luxemburg?

In her sympathetic critique of the October Revolution she wrote: "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of justice, but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom becomes a special privilege."

In the former German Democratic Republic socialists were imprisoned for distributing leaflets containing these words.

It is a poor reflection on our movement that there are many who have failed to learn the vital truth of Rosa's words.

Cyberspace thought police
Cyberspace thought police

Recording Shostakovich

Apologies to comrades who may be Shostakovich devotees.

My article in the Christmas issue of the Weekly Worker features a couple of howling mistakes (December 21).

They are:

1. The issue of Pravda referred to was not September 1936, but January 1936.
2. The "grotesque parody of a military march" mentioned in the 5^th Symphony is heard not, as I wrote, in the moderato but, of course, the allegretto (second movement).
3. To the comrades who have already mailed me their observations I am, of course, well aware of the Emerson's recent reading of the string quartets, but with only 2,500 words to play with I decided to concentrate on some of the historical recordings that have appeared and/or re-appeared during the course of the last year. A review of the quartets will be surfacing some time in the early part of the New Year, but a word to the wise: at between £40 and £60 for the Emerson's set, comrades would be better served by purchasing the marvellous budget set (around £20) from the Shostakovich Quartet on the Olympia label.

Recording Shostakovich
Recording Shostakovich

Exposing blue murder

"It is an established principle of English law that when a man honestly believes that he is facing immediate risk of suffering serious injury, even if that belief is mistaken, he is entitled to use such force as is responsibly necessary to defend himself."

This was the justification put by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when announcing, on December 4, that they would not be charging the two police officers who shot dead unarmed grandfather Harry Stanley on September 22 1999 in Hackney, east London.

Scottish born painter and decorator Harry was walking home in the early evening, intending to watch a football match on TV. In a plastic bag, he was carrying a coffee table leg which his brother, Peter, had repaired.

The police challenged him from behind. They were 15 feet away. As Harry turned round, both opened fire, hitting him in the hand and the head.

Harry was within 100 yards of his front door. He had his passport in his pocket.

Yet his wife, Irene, was not told for 18 hours that her husband was dead. In the meantime, the police did a post mortem - which broke the law, as coroner's rule 7 says the family can have a representative at the post mortem.

For three days, Surrey police, who had been appointed to 'investigate', camped in Irene's home, virtually holding the family under house arrest. Eventually, she managed to sneak out and call a solicitor to get the police out of her home.

Three days after the CPS's announcement, the Justice for Harry Stanley campaign called a public meeting. Over 100 people attended, mainly family and neighbours. The meeting's mood was very positive.

Irene said: "I won't stop fighting until I get justice." Harry's brother, Peter, pointed out that the police have a similar shoot-to-kill policy to that of the army and police in Ireland.

Irene's lawyer has applied for a judicial review of the CPS's decision, after which there will be an inquest. If that returns a verdict of unlawful killing, the CPS will have to review its decision.

On December 14, the campaign, along with other justice campaigns, such as that for Roger Sylvester, pushed through security and got into a public lecture being given by David Calvert-Smith, director of the CPS, to judges and lawyers.

They held up placards and banners, heckled him, made speeches, and spoiled his night.

Cops on mainland Britain have shot dead 25 people since 1990. Most were unarmed or holding a toy gun. Over 1,400 people have died in custody since 1990. This is literally blue murder. The police stations hold mass killers and at the end of their shift they go home.

The Justice for Harry Stanley campaign is going on a national speaking tour. If your union or organisation wants a speaker, phone or fax 020 8507 0657, or write to Justice for Harry Stanley, PO Box 29644, London E2 8TS.

Exposing blue murder
Exposing blue murder

Errors about Welsh SA

The article in the Weekly Worker (December 21) was seriously flawed and factually inaccurate, in that it is not the Socialist Party that has submitted the motion to the forthcoming annual conference of the Welsh Socialist Alliance.

The motion was, in fact, submitted by the Merthyr branch of the WSA, the confusion probably arising from the subject of the motion. The supposition which then follows the introduction of the article would then be presumably different.

The article also states, again incorrectly, that no attempts have been made by the Socialist Workers Party to unite socialists in the unions. In the summer, joint work was undertaken by SWP and Socialist Party Unison members to firstly organise a hustings meeting in Cardiff in respect of the election for general secretary for the union, with both Dave Prentis and Roger Bannister speaking at the meeting.

Following this, a meeting was built in order to attempt to pull the left in Unison in Wales together. Although not huge, this brought together socialists in Unison in South Wales to discuss the direction of the union, how best socialists can fight for our viewpoints and to generally coordinate some coherence on the left in Unison.

The SWP has initiated this type of work in other unions also. It may be that the CPGB is unaware of this work because of your lack of members in the trade unions. This said, the meeting which is being held for NUT members who are socialists is welcome, and the more socialists work together, the better.

It would, however, be more helpful if, rather than stating something as fact, when it is not, because of lack of members or knowledge, that comrades confer first with other socialists to attempt to find out what's been happening.

Errors about Welsh SA
Errors about Welsh SA