22.08.2001
CU 2001
Debate and controversy
Around 60 comrades - including members of the Labour Party, Socialist Workers Party, Green Party, Socialist Party in England and Wales, Workers Power and the Alliance for Workers? Liberty - attended the Communist University over August 4-11. Besides CPGB contributions, a wide range of openings were provided by leading members and thinkers from other traditions. In all there were 22 sessions.
The school began with the launch of the Party?s new booklet, Towards a Socialist Alliance party: a communist contribution, by Jack Conrad. This was followed by a three-way debate on ?After the general election: where now for the Socialist Alliance?? between Rob Hoveman of the SWP, Dave Church of the Walsall Democratic Labour Party and the author. Comrade Conrad summarised the CPGB position: the Socialist Alliance needs a practical programme for the liberation of the working class and humanity, a culture of constant debate in which the left groups can overcome their divisions, move beyond the existence of sects and act together, aiming to become an effective weapon for the working class to use against its enemies - in a word, a Communist Party.
Speaking for the SWP, comrade Hoveman agreed the SA needs a more democratic, accountable and inclusive national organisation, and stated that the SWP has no wish to dominate: it wants to be part of a much larger structure. But comrade Hoveman was reluctant to describe what he envisages as a party - although he did say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ? Unfortunately however, what prevents him calling such an organisation by its name is the fact that the SWP perceives itself as the revolutionary party, and conceives of the SA and whatever might evolve from it as a ?united front? within which the SWP can work and from which it can recruit.
Several other sessions during the week were concerned with the future of the Socialist Alliance, the programme and organisational structure it should adopt, its attitude towards the Labour Party and relationship to the trade unions and the working class.
Bob Pitt, editor of What Next?, a familiar speaker at Communist University, repeated his opposition to the establishment of any alternative to Labour. He insisted the time has not yet come to split the Labour Party, and that the role of Marxists is to work within existing mass-based movements. He claimed that within the Labour Party opposition to Blair is developing at all levels, and socialists should articulate, organise and focus this opposition. CPGB members agreed with comrade Pitt that revolutionary socialists within the Labour Party should remain and organise opposition there, but argued that their duty, first and foremost, was to organise themselves on the basis of democratic centralism.
Socialist Party member Matt Wrack, a prominent Fire Brigades Union militant, spoke on ?Breaking the link: the unions and the Labour Party?. He said the key question at present is how the trade unions should respond to the Blair government. Four SA candidates in the general election were FBU activists, and comrade Wrack described the support they received from FBU members. He outlined the history of the successful struggle in the FBU to democratise the political fund to enable the union to finance candidates other than Labour, and the debate among the left in the union about whether to call also for disaffiliation from the Labour Party.
CPGB comrades were pleased to hear that the left in the FBU seems to be adopting an approach similar to that which we have long been advocating: challenging Labour candidates on where they stand in relation to the union?s key policies, rather than automatically giving them a blank cheque - or automatically standing against them. The CPGB proposed before the June election that the SA should put its ?priority pledges? to Labour lefts, but our suggestions were met with apparent incomprehension by many of our alliance partners.
Comrade Wrack?s opening raised a number of questions for the Socialist Alliance. It is important for workers to be organised politically as well as industrially, and for this reason several comrades argued that calling for disaffiliation from Labour would be a strategic mistake: it would in all likelihood strengthen the hand of those who say unions should have nothing to do with politics, and both Blair and the right wing in the unions would welcome this.
Another question that arose concerned the nature of the unions? relationship with a future Socialist Alliance party. Comrades were aware of the danger posed by such a party being financially dependent on the unions, or vulnerable to domination by bureaucratic block votes. Comrades concluded that unions and an SA party should a be organisationally separate but politically united. Revolutionary socialists and communists should seek to influence and lead union struggles. These questions need to be taken up in the Socialist Alliance itself.
Steve Freeman of the Revolutionary Democratic Group opened the session on ?The Socialist Alliance and programme?. In contrast to the CPGB position of working to build the SA as a revolutionary party, comrade Freeman believes that all that can be achieved in the current period is a ?communist-Labour? formation. He calls for the Socialist Alliance to become a ?republican socialist party?, adopting something like the RDG?s minimum programme. A communist minimum-maximum programme (or, in the case of the RDG, a ?minimum- transitional-maximum? programme) whose minimum section can simply be detached and made into the new maximum programme is worryingly reminiscent of ?official? German social democracy.
In debate, Marcus Larsen of the CPGB pointed out that the RDG shared the SWP?s method: hiding away its revolutionism and presenting only what it thinks acceptable to the electorate: specifically disillusioned Labour voters who, it imagines, are almost irredeemably reformist people who can only be won over to the Socialist Alliance as reformists.
In a Socialist Alliance party a correct programme is essential, as regime and structure flow from it, argued Mark Hoskisson of Workers Power in his opening on ?What sort of regime for an SA party?? He outlined three possible models. Firstly, a democratic centralist revolutionary party on the Leninist model. Unlike the CPGB, he is of the opinion that such a formation would necessarily impose severe restrictions on the rights of factions, particularly their public face. He thought this the most desirable, but least likely outcome.
However, if the majority embraced a centrist or reformist programme - the second possibility - he would advocate a highly factional regime, to prevent the growth of a reformist bureaucracy and give revolutionaries scope to argue their case. The third possible outcome arising from the SA?s organisational conference on December 1, according to comrade Hoskisson, is the continuation of the present loose alliance structure in which groups can work together while agreeing to differ. At the conference Workers Power will fight against any retreat towards federalism, and at the same time seek to preserve the rights of the principal groups.
Building the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party is the central area of work of the CPGB at present. But that does not blind us to the importance of the growing anti-capitalist mood. For us, in contrast to the programmeless SWP, the two must be linked into the fight for a democratic centralist party. Accordingly, the school heard a report-back from Tina Becker, Sarah McDonald and Lee Rock on Genoa as part of the CPGB?s ongoing debate on the way forward for the anti-capitalist movement and the challenge it poses to the organised left. We want to build a Socialist Alliance party that can initiate, organise and win hegemony over this movement, rather than uncritically tailing all spontaneous outbursts against capitalism.
Unlike some elements of the Socialist Alliance, the CPGB does not seek electoral pacts with the Green Party or want to include non-socialist greens in the alliance, but we are certainly open to debate with them. Communist University included a talk by Margaret Wright, joint spokesperson of the Green Party, on the theme, ?Saving the planet: green politics and human survival?. There followed a useful exchange of views during which productionism and technocratism was roundly attacked. Margaret Wright also showed that she stands on the extreme left of the Green Party - for her, saving the planet depends on establishing proper social relations between people.
Internationalism is vital for communists. As at previous Communist Universities, sessions were given over to addresses by communists from Iran and Turkey. Aziz Demir of the Communist Party of Turkey spoke on ?The politics of the death fasts in Turkey?. Comrade Demir said communists should support the political prisoners undertaking death fasts, while criticising the tactic of revolutionary suicide - a waste of dedicated and resolute cadre. Revolutionary possibilities could well develop in Turkey, said the comrade. Along with countries like Brazil and Argentina, it remains one of the weak links of imperialism, where the working classes have the potential to overtake those of the metropoles in making revolution.
As before, CPGB comrades urged comrade Demir and others in the Turkish left in Britain to join the Socialist Alliance and end the isolation of the Turkish community from the workers? movement here.
The same suggestion was made to comrade Mehdi Kia of the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran, who spoke on ?Iran and internationalism?. He said Iran exhibits the first example of a mass movement for the secularisation of an islamic society. The state is paralysed, with thousands of people defying islamic law with impunity - for example, women showing their hair and walking hand in hand with men. He criticised the left in Britain for failing to support the struggle for democratic rights in Iran, or even to be aware of it.
CPGB comrades agreed that it would be good for us to work more closely with comrades from the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran, but pointed out that the first duty of internationalists consists in building fighting organisations in the country where they live. Comrade Kia agreed that people like himself could further the international struggle within the Socialist Alliance, and that as SA members he and his comrades would be better able to secure effective international solidarity from workers? organisations in Britain.
Leninists believe that without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement: that is, our tactical interventions in the Socialist Alliance and other forums must be based on sound revolutionary theory. This does not, however, mean the mechanical application of the writings of Marx and Lenin to the present day: theory must be continually developed and argued. Therefore an important part of the school, as at previous Communist Universities, were the openings on theoretical subjects.
This year Michael Malkin spoke on ?Marxism and ethics?, and Al Richardson provided a fascinating insight into Marx?s category of ?The Asiatic mode of production?. A talk on ?Karl Kautsky and the agrarian question? by Ian Donovan led on to a debate about what should be our attitude to the countryside and the rural petty bourgeoisie.
Hillel Ticktin, editor of Critique, spoke on the Bolshevik revolution, and used the occasion to take issue with Weekly Worker writers over questions of democracy and the right of nations to self-determination. In a stimulating debate several CPGB members voiced a number of disagreements with the comrade. We intend to publish comrade Ticktin?s speech, and other openings, in future editions of this paper.
Another strand was provided by debates on cultural themes, including subjects as diverse as ?The Politics of cricket? and an illustrated opening on ?Politics and art? by Sarah McDonald. For many comrades one of the highlights of the week was an excellent speech by Mike Marqusee about William Blake. The comrade revealed how Blake hated poverty and injustice, and can be an inspiration to modern Marxists.
One characteristic that differentiates communists from sectarians is our belief that open discussion of differences in front of the working class is a strength rather than a weakness. Exploration of disagreements is an important function of Communist Universities, and this is done publicly - all sessions were open for anyone to attend. Different shades of opinion emerged in most discussions, and several of the sessions introduced by CPGB members were deliberately designed to provide scope for debate of issues on which there are longstanding disagreements amongst members.
Once again Ireland and the British- Irish was a source of many animated arguments. A session devoted to Europe and the euro, introduced by Jack Conrad, provoked some disagreement on the question of how communists should respond if the Socialist Alliance changes its principled position of ?Neither the pound nor the euro? and decides to campaign instead for a ?no? vote in the referendum on the single currency. Some comrades had been calling for a ?principled rebellion? in such a situation, but there now appears to be a consensus that as long as such an inept action was preceded and followed by full and open debate we would be right to guard the still fragile organisational unity of the Socialist Alliance. As the advocates of democratic centralism in the Socialist Alliance, the CPGB would not stand aside from a democratically adopted action we do not agree with.
Marcus Larsen?s opening on ?Multiculturalism? defended the article ?Class politics, not multiculturalism? by Darrell Goodliffe in the Weekly Worker (July 12). Some comrades thought a headline objecting to multiculturalism risked being misconstrued as a rejection of integration. In actual fact the CPGB is seeking to expose the new forms of ideological domination over the working class erected over the last decade, especially in local government, by New Labour. Much of the left tails the liberal bourgeoisie on this issue instead of developing independent working class politics.
Another controversial opening at the school came in the shape of the talk on ?Israel and anti-Zionism? by Mark Osborn of the AWL. Instead of expounding on the AWL?s call for a democratic solution based on separate Israeli and Palestinian states - a call with which many in the CPGB would concur - the comrade chose to stress the claim that the British left was, and still is, permeated with anti-semitism disguised as anti-Zionism. He was criticised by CPGB comrades from a number of angles.
Overall it was a successful school, with almost all sessions producing useful discussion in response to high-quality openings. Perhaps the main weakness was our inability to properly mobilise our growing periphery and even our full membership to attend. Future Communist Universities must see greater efforts to overcome this weakness.
Mary Godwin