23.01.2003
Origins and revolutionary tradition - part 7
In the last article of this series we shall deal with 'origins and revolutionary tradition'; put in other words, where we come from in terms of happenstance and where as revolutionaries we choose to look in the past for inspiration, ideas, values and norms of conduct. Marxists have always taken the question of tradition seriously. For Lenin one of the key sources and components of Marxism derived from France and the tradition of Jacobin communism dating back to the years of the great French Revolution. Marxists in Russia, announced the first Manifesto of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, consciously carry on "the cause and traditions of the whole preceding revolutionary movement" ... Lenin, ever the consummate practitioner, adds a helpful comment: "The tradition of the whole preceding revolutionary movement demands that the social democrats shall at the present time concentrate their efforts on organising the party, on strengthening its internal discipline, and on developing the techniques of illegal work" (VI Lenin CW Vol 4, Moscow 1977, p181). So we do not adopt the philistine attitude of the pseudo-radical who in the name of a completely spurious 'originality' refuses to recognise any tradition. Of course, the working class only needs tradition in the sense of learning from the past, learning from the broad political culture and experience of leaders such as Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Vladimir Lenin, August Bebel, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, etc, and the generations who made the Commune of 1871, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the 1926 General Strike, the events in France of 1968 and the miners' Great Strike of 1984-85. Such a tradition, sythesised into a common heritage, allows us to better understand our present-day conditions and tasks. Moderate and revolutionary democracy Suffice to say, Sean Matgamna - the patriarch of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty - argues that our organisation has its roots not in the authentic tradition of Marxism, but in Stalinism and, with our "operational" emphasis on "democracy", we apparently continue the tradition of what he disparagingly calls "rightwing communism" (unless otherwise stated all Matgamna quotes are from 'Critical notes on the CPGB/WW'). This is a charge we completely reject and which should be treated with utter contempt by any thinking partisan of the working class. However, to prove it, and for the sake of the argument, we must fully outline his case. According to the patriarch, the CPGB, and its Provisional Central Committee, was "formed in Stalinism and still displays the patterns of Stalinist politics". Ergo, the CPGB is "still recognisably an ex-Stalinist formation". He pictures us emerging from the wreckage of Stalinism "politically perplexed and clueless about authentic communist politics, but still hypnotised by the democratic and 'national liberation' slogans, demands and concerns which, from the mid-1920s onward, have formed the 'operational' politics of the Stalinist parties". Conventionally, but not inaccurately, comrade Matgamna describes the post-World War II politics of 'official communism' in the advanced capitalist countries as follows: the communist parties campaigned, for example, for "national independence" from the USA and other such "democratic" demands, which completely fail to challenge the existing social system; meanwhile the Soviet Union and its state allies provided a glimmer of hope because they were said be building "socialism". To all intents and purposes the 'official communist' parties were, yes, reduced to diplomatic pawns by the fake communist bureaucratic elite in the Soviet Union when it came to high politics. Comrade Matgamna correctly locates this bifurcation as beginning in the mid-1920s. By highlighting political questions such as abolishing the British constitutional monarchy system and winning Scotland's right to self-determination the comrade believes that we de facto constitute ourselves as a continuation of this rotten tradition. Here is how he reasons: The "real" CPGB "were the pioneers of Scottish, Welsh and regional self-government - in fact, curiously, of much of the Blairites' programme on such things. The sort of stuff you come out with, about, for example, Scotland, is the direct continuation of the politics of the organisation whose name you are inexplicably proud to claim as your own and of the Stalinist tradition in which it was rooted! And in which you are, despite everything, still rooted." In fact when it comes to the "pioneers" of "Scottish, Welsh and regional self-government" within the constitutional monarchy system it would be more accurate to credit the Gladstonian Liberal Party and Kier Hardie's Labour Party. That aside, for the patriarch, if there are "differences between you and the real CPGB on these questions, they are only differences of detail". In other words the comrade is incapable of distinguishing between a programme of liberal reform, in this case the miserable perspective of securing a sop royalist parliament, and a revolutionary programme for extreme democracy that touches the limits of capitalist social relations and points beyond. In this thoroughly left economistic spirit he then observes that "democratically inclined ex-Stalinists" habitually "wind up as some species of bourgeois democrat". Either way, the only saving virtue of the "old" CPGB was that it "had other irons in the fire". They did "unfortunately" organise in the labour movement. A totally one-sided, and typically sectarian judgement. Seemingly things would have been far better in Britain in the absence of Communist Party organisation in the trade unions. A view that would doubtless have been echoed by Ted Heath, Barbara Castle, Harold Wilson, Roy Jenkins, Robert Carr and other such ministers of the crown - Tory and Labour alike - who in the late 1960s and early 1970s saw their draconian anti-trade union bills and acts come crashing to grief in no small part due to the extensive networks of CPGB militants. Certainly in the assessment of Richard Clutterbuck - a soldier turned rightwing academic - "by far the most effective" of all the left groups in the 1960s and 70s was the CPGB. And almost in spite of himself this cold war warrior is forced to admit that the main reason why in 1976 some 15% of the executive committee members of all the biggest trade unions were CPGB members must be explained by the "confidence" which the average CPGB militant tirelessly "earns" on the shop floor (R Clutterbuck Britain in agony Harmondsworth 1980, pp241, 245). Comrade Matgamna goes from one-sidedness to downright falsification. Having effectively and irresponsibly handed what he dismissively calls "democratic questions" to the liberal bourgeoisie (the quote marks are his), the comrade maintains that we display a "bigoted neglect of the economic class struggle and the bedrock labour movement". Yet, as any half attentive reader of the Weekly Worker will testify, this is nonsense. Glance over the last six months and our coverage of the firefighters' strikes; the Scottish train drivers' boycott of munitions; Mark Serwotka's success in securing himself as PCSU general secretary; the London PCSU dispute; the ousting of pro-Blair rightwingers by Bob Crow and Derek Simpson; Greg Tucker's appeal against a witch-hunting demotion; Arthur Scargill's brutal curbing of democracy in the NUM; etc. Then there is the lead our comrades provided in getting the Socialist Alliance to organise fractions in trade unions and across industries. Amongst others the Socialist Alliance's March 2002 trade union conference was addressed by the CPGB's Lee Rock, PCSU London secretary, and Peter Grant, chair of Manchester Piccadilly Aslef. This selective, though by no means unrepresentative, list is presented not in a stupid attempt to boast. That can safely be left to puffed-up sectarians. No, what we are doing at this present moment in time, and have done in the past, is woefully inadequate and shockingly primitive - as is the trade union and industrial work of all the existing left groups taken together, let alone singularly. I simply want to show once again that the patriarch talks rubbish. The CPGB has no "bigoted" attitude towards economic struggles. These skirmishes with the employers play a vital role as a training ground for the working class. But they cannot in and of themselves produce communist consciousness. Savvy? That in our opinion requires Marxism, which is developed outside the employer-employee loop. Needless to say, virtually the entire spectrum of the existing left worships spontaneous trade union struggles and, like comrade Matgamna, downplays or dismisses the necessity of massively extending democracy. In such circumstances, in order to overcome the economistic contagion, the CPGB stresses, and stresses again, politics, politics, politics. For that corrective we make no apology. As a last resort comrade Matgamna is forced to claim that our "operational" communism is only a "thing of names, symbols and fetishes". This is either plain silly or downright dishonest. It is true that we proudly call ourselves 'Marxists', 'Leninists' and 'communists'. As explained on a whole number of previous occasions we see no need whatsoever to give up these historically established and scientific names for our politics. Neither the Morning Star Stalinites nor the Eurocommunist Marxism Today factions had any legitimate right to them. The same goes for the hammer and sickle symbol, the red flag and the title of our party for that matter. Comrade Matgamna gets very hot and bothered by this essentially superficial and secondary aspect to our politics. He finds them profoundly objectionable. That surely explains why after the November 2002 European Social Forum in Florence, Solidarity, the AWL's fortnightly paper, carried a very pained report complaining that the left in Italy marched in their hundreds of thousands carrying the red flag with the hammer and sickle emblazoned upon it. Poor things, the AWL comrades felt decidedly "uncomfortable". Such fawning before rightwing Labourite and little Britain prejudice is regrettable. But one should at least expect consistency. Do not cleanse and renew, but discard and surrender everything that might possibly have been 'tainted' by the Stalinites. That should be the practice. Of course, being totally inconsistent, comrade Matgamna does no such thing. So the AWL stands alongside us in elections under the shade of the Socialist Alliance's red flag. It too employs, when it suits, the clenched fist salute and symbol - invented by the (Stalinite) Communist Party of Germany and popularised throughout the world by the (Stalinite) International Brigades in Spain. In private comrade Matgamna calls himself a 'communist'. Indeed the factional name the AWL once gave itself was 'International-Communist League'. And today the AWL's youth franchise is entitled 'Bolshie'. Clearly the patriarch and his lieutenants elevate what is of secondary importance virtually into lines of demarcation ... but in a highly selective, quirky and hypocritical fashion. Party names Comrade Matgamna is prepared to grant that CPGB members are "subjectively revolutionary". However, because we prioritise politics and the struggle for democracy he is of the opinion that "you stand curiously close to the right wing of the old (that is, the real) CPGB" - ie, the Marxism Today faction and the Eurocommunists, whom he concedes cannot be considered revolutionary. As a result of this peculiar, not to say bizarre, 'analysis' he reckons that our political tendency cannot subsist for long "on such a basis". The contradiction "between what you are subjectively" and what you are in "objective political terms", will resolve itself "one way or the other". Obviously the signs are bad. In comrade Matgamna's account our concept of the revolutionary party has been allowed to "shrink down" to an "ahistorical fetish". Hence the party we envisage is nothing more than "the bearer of anointed symbolic things". After all, the "measure" of whether an organisation is communist is not "what it says it is", but "what it is in practice; its real programme is not only stuff written down somewhere, but the sum total of what it is and does". And what do we do? - nothing: nothing, that is, apart from promoting what he calls rightwing "democratic questions" and excitedly parading our exotic collection of fetish objects. The problems with comrade Matgamna's 'analysis' are legion. Let me highlight just three points, however. Firstly, blinkered by economism, he appears completely incapable of recognising the fully rounded nature and the significance of our programme. Not least how the struggle for extreme democracy under capitalism is linked to the realisation of socialism and in due course communism. To prioritise this struggle for democracy does not in any way imply a "bigoted neglect of the economic class struggle and the bedrock labour movement". As argued above, the pages of the Weekly Worker prove that. Secondly, if anyone "fetishes" symbols and names, it is comrade Matgamna and his acolytes. For example, while - along with Marx, Engels and Lenin - we consider that the "scientific name" of our party is, and should be, "communist", we are quite prepared to accept the transformation of the Socialist Alliance into the Socialist Alliance Party; though SAP is undoubtedly a pig of a name if there ever was one. Thirdly, and most importantly, no secret has ever been made of the fact that, while the name Communist Party has been won from the Marxism Today liquidators, we are no party. Take a look at our 'What we fight for' column in the Weekly Worker. By 'party' Marxism implies part of a particular class, in this case the advanced part of the working class. That is why, if the Socialist Alliance suddenly agreed at its next conference in March to change its name to SAP, or even CPGB, that would not constitute it a party. To be a party in the meaningful sense of the word would require the influx of thousands - many thousands - of class-conscious workers. The merger of five small left groups and a few hundred, often directionless, generally backward and typically confused independents hardly equates to a party - though it might represent a welcome aspirational move towards that necessary goal in the first place by launching a weekly common paper, developing a healthy political culture and pooling existing resources and efforts. At this primitive stage of development none of the groups in Britain operates as a party or anything like one. Their main sphere of activity, or practice, is composing and promoting propaganda ... good, bad or indifferent. Eg, Solidarity and the Weekly Worker. No one of us leads a strategically important section, or speaks on behalf of an influential layer of the working class, or even possesses anything more than the most shallow and tenuous roots. The Socialist Party in England and Wales has three or four councillors. The rest none. Under these circumstances there is undoubtedly an abnormal imbalance between "theory" in the groups and the participating in real movement of the working class - nonetheless at present both exist at an abysmally low level. Comrade Matgamna might like to pretend that he and the AWL possess the fully perfected Marxist programme and are busily carving out the future that the AWL alone proclaims through magnificent victories scored in the thick of the class struggle. But this is hardly the case. His smug, self-satisfied, buffoonery which claims otherwise is surely to constitutes oneself part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I am full of admiration for the sterling work conducted by individual AWL comrades or tiny, artificially concentrated knots of AWL comrades (the same goes for members of other groups and non-aligned militants too). Given the severe limitations that exist in terms of personnel and resources, no one can dismiss what has been achieved on the London underground or in the post office. After all the AWL has no more than 100 members nationwide. But let us not kid ourselves with vainglorious chatter. A sober assessment of where we are now organisationally is a precondition for any real, meaningful, advance. Before proceeding further it will be useful to elaborate upon comrade Matgamna's prognosis for our organisation. He dismisses the coherence of our ranks and characterises us as "a variegated collection of individuals" - the same "description which Lutte Ouvrière comrades used to describe the 'pre-Leninist' (pre-1968) International Socialists (the forerunner of today's SWP)". It has dawned upon comrade Matgamna that the CPGB has managed to recruit relatively experienced comrades "from all over the spectrum of the left". Of course, for us this is a sign of strength. Yes, we have comrades in our ranks originating from a diverse range of backgrounds. Comrades have come to us from one or the other 'official communist' factions of the old CPGB: eg, the Morning Star and Straight Leftism. Besides that we have, just as significantly, won over people from Gerry Healy's imploded Workers Revolutionary Party, the now defunct International Marxist Group, the SWP, the Spartacist milieu, SPEW, the Socialist Labour Party and, not surprisingly, the Labour Party. Most recruits nowadays, we should add, no longer come from the fragmented left, but are fresh to politics. Where thinking partisans of the working class and the left would sincerely and wholeheartedly celebrate and seek to emulate and generalise this achievement, comrade Matgamna mourns, or at least pretends to mourn. After all the fact that we can democratically unite and organise in common actions comrades from such a diverse range of backgrounds is surely good news for a movement which has had such a ruinous and debilitating history of split, followed by split, usually on the basis of nothing more substantial than questioning the ruling orthodoxy or the proprietorial mood swings of aspiring sect builders. Of course, our membership is no mere "variegated collection of individuals". We have hammered out a draft programme which all are expected to accept. There is also an expanding body of generally agreed theory. Upon these solid foundations we proceed. Naturally there are differences. Old ones and new ones. That should come as no surprise, nor is it something to worry about. Unlike yesterday's hard but brittle sects we understand that constant questioning and the ongoing search for clarity are both necessary features of any healthy political organism. Democracy and open polemic provide the best way to achieve disciplined unity in action and the best way for advanced ideas to overcome backward ideas. Here in the microcosm of the CPGB is a glimpse of the future. And it works. Comrade Matgamna refuses to look at this positive development on the left as what it is. He wants to believe, must believe, that our organisation is united around what he dismissively dubs "rightist" "democratic questions" and mere symbols and fetishes. He cannot, will not, admit that what characterises our membership is tested and constantly retested unity around the programme of extreme democracy and communism. Presumably that is why, for his own dubious reasons no doubt, he is so insistent that we claim for ourselves the entire heritage of the old 'official' CPGB. It hardly needs saying, but say it I must - this rather desperate contention is simply untrue. Over the 10 years covering 1981 and 1991 our faction fought all forms of opportunism and revisionism in the CPGB (in 1991 we took the name, CPGB, from the liquidators). Using our publication The Leninist we dragged the Morning Star, Marxism Today, Seven Days and Straight Left factions from their hidden, troglodyte existence out into the eviscerating glare of daylight. Publicity both enlightens and destroys. However, we did not attack the opportunist factions simply in and of themselves. We sought to show where they had come from theoretically in terms of the history of communism. The rot began not in 1929 or 1935, let alone 1951 or 1977. From the beginning we located Stalin's 'socialism' in one country and the subordination of the world revolution to the interests of one state as a fundamental problem and a deviation from the basic principles of Marxism. Such a stance was in full conformity with the tradition we looked to for inspiration and ideas: that is, the tradition of Leninism. This is obviously very confusing for comrade Matgamna. He cannot quite get his head round the specific origins of the Weekly Worker and what he calls the core membership of today's CPGB, and the fact that as an honest, aggressive and open oppositional faction we rounded upon the dominant tradition of 'official communism' in its totality. It is not at all complicated. Surely, with a little help, comrade Matgamna can solve what he seems to regard as an impossible paradox with reference to his own tradition. From the mid-1930s Trotskyism sought refuge and relevance in the parties of social democracy, not least the Labour Party. Until recently, for example, the AWL was safely burrowed away in the Labour Party. Now it is true that there was a certain political accommodation. This was taken to its furthest point perhaps by the Militant Tendency of Ted Grant and Peter Taaffe. These comrades publicly and repeatedly identified themselves with the tradition of Kier Hardie and the early Labour Party. Nevertheless, putting that chameleon-like behaviour aside, there was nothing inevitable about such crass opportunism. Theoretically it is quite possible to pursue principled work inside the Labour Party, all the while basing oneself on an altogether different tradition. It would be stupid to dismiss the Labour Party in terms of its formation, history and future as inherently and necessarily reactionary. Besides the revolting string of leaders and the thoroughly pro-capitalist government, there is another side to the Labour Party. Establishing the Labour Party, first as the Labour Representation Committee, marked an historic break by the mass of the organised working class from political dependence on the Liberal Party. A great step forward in British conditions. And the fact that the trade unions still constitute the foundations of the Labour Party is a constant irritant as far as the capitalist class in concerned. So the Labour Party has two sides. It is not only perfectly principled but necessary to engage with and win over the working class pole of Labourism and break it once and for all from the bourgeois pole. Concretely how this should be done is, of course, a matter of tactics. Nevertheless that communists can work within the Labour Party as Marxists even today cannot be doubted. Why then has comrade Matgamna such a monumental problem when it comes to the CPGB which, when it was founded, unlike the Labour Party, was a genuinely revolutionary organisation? Indeed the formation of the CPGB was one of the highest achievements of the working class movement in Britain, if not the highest. Despite the small size of the CPGB - 2,000 members at the first proper count - it combined in its early years the attempt to assimilate Leninism and Bolshevism with growing influence that went into the heartlands of the trade unions and the Labour Party - affiliates to the CPGB-led National Minority Movement and the National Leftwing Movement were counted in the hundreds of thousands. What we lay claim to was that side of the CPGB's tradition. A tradition denied in theory and practice by opportunist factions, yes, but a tradition that should never be dismissed as dead and buried, simply because, cleansed and renewed, it is full of rich lessons for today's fragmented left. Note, the CPGB was formed through the merger of the British Socialist Party, the Communist Unity Group and a host of smaller groupings, including the left of the Independent Labour Party. Quite evidently it is necessary to separate specific origins and revolutionary tradition. For example, the specific political origins of Sean Matgamna lie in the 'official' Young Communist League and Gerry Healy's cult in the 1960s. After that, in the early 1970s, we find him fronting his own micro-group which then briefly secured itself a home in Tony Cliff's International Socialists as a recognised faction. Expulsion in 1974 was followed in 1975-76 by a merger and an almost instant split with Workers Power and then Allan Thornett's Workers Socialist League. In 1982 the Socialist Organiser Alliance was formed with Ken Livingstone and other Labour leftwingers and a phase of particularly deep entry work followed. Only after Tony Blair's May 1997 election victory failed to bring about the predicted 'crisis of expectation' did a thoroughly discredited and dumbfounded AWL leadership stumble out of the Labour Party. Half-heartedly and without a clear perspective, the AWL found its way into the Socialist Alliance. These specific origins of comrade Matgamna and his group have had their impact on what we shall call ascribed tradition. Practice is after all primary and, albeit through a series of mediations, always operates as the final determinant. Nevertheless the effect must be two-way. Ascribed tradition, because it is a form of consciousness, informs and impacts upon practice. The final determinant is itself thoroughly determined. In light of the above argument let us ask an obvious question. When the AWL comrades were beavering away in the bowels of the Labour Party and calling for a new Labour Representation Committee, would it be fair, or accurate, to categorise their ascribed traditions under the heading of Labourism and Kier Hardie, let alone Philip Snowden, Ramsay MacDonald and Clement Attlee? With this and that caveat, certainly not (though comrade Matgamna has on occasion blurted out very Labourite formulations: eg, the 1945 government was a "workers' government"). Nevertheless the ascribed tradition of the AWL quite clearly goes back to Max Shachtman and then before that to Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin, Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx. That does not imply that in some way there exists some unbroken, direct, organisational linkage joining Karl Marx and Sean Matgamna. The revolutionary tradition has undergone a whole number of ruptures and interruptions. There is no unbroken thread, except in the imagination. Those present-day organisations that claim some direct organisational inheritance that miraculously comes down to them from the Communist League of 1848, or the Bolsheviks of 1903, are in my mind the equivalent of medieval warlords, parvenus all, who attempted to lend themselves legitimacy and status that they would otherwise sorely lack by inventing family trees for themselves which went back in a perfectly straight line to progenitors such as King Priam of Homer's Troy and even the legendary gods of Mount Olympus themselves. We have no need for revolutionary romanticism. In terms of our specific origins - that is, myself and those whom comrade Matgamna calls the CPGB's 'core' - yes, all of us cut our political teeth as youngsters in the ranks of 'official communism'. I joined the Young Communist League in the 1960s and then, by way of the 'official' CPGB, New Communist Party and Communist Party of Turkey, I helped form the Leninist faction in 1979. Two years later we were ready to announce our public existence and publish our journal The Leninist. Those two years were spent in study, debate, clarification and reorientation. Whatever the limitations of The Leninist - and there are many - our ascribed tradition shines through. In terms of inspiration, ideas, values and norms of conduct we look not only to the CPGB of 1920, but to Russian Bolshevism and German communism and before that the physical-force wing of Chartism, the Leveller party of the English Revolution and even back to the Great Society envisaged by John Ball, Watt Tyler, Jack Straw and other leaders of the 1381 peasants' revolt. Comrade Matgamna insistently demands that I insert Trotskyism into our tradition as if it were some kind of vital missing link which joins today with Leninism and Marxism. My refusal has met with indignation, outrage and incomprehension. And yet we experienced no problem whatsoever - for example, speaking in 1983 - in assessing the "left groupings" in the 1920s Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which prominently featured Trotsky, as the "go-forward tendency" - because it corresponded "broadly to the long-term interests of the proletariat". The left and united oppositions called for the "restoration of party democracy" and a determined push for industrialisation through planning and "banking on the world revolution" (J Conrad From October to August London 1992, p35). And that, of course, met with our full, retrospective approval. It is also true by the same measure that, while long holding Trotsky in the highest esteem, I have many criticisms of him and his record. Leave aside his pre-1917 anti-Bolshevism and the technocratism displayed as the 'prophet in power'. What are the three defining characteristics of Trotskyism as opposed to Leninism? Firstly, the dogmatic insistence held till the end of Trotsky's life, that the Soviet Union remained some kind of workers' state, despite the complete absence of elementary democracy, because of so-called "property forms": ie, universal nationalisation. Then, secondly, there is the abortive 'Fourth International' - an international sect which drove out dissenters like Shachtman, Hal Draper and others who dared doubt the socialistic credentials of the Soviet Union. Thirdly, there is his economistic and apocalyptic Transitional programme, which nowadays excuses the most pathetic tailing of existing consciousness. Personally I find no advantage in adopting Trotskyism. On the contrary I consciously reject the bulk of that tradition and have indeed found it necessary not only to criticise Trotsky's formulations on the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' - where he ignorantly counterposes it to democracy - but Lenin too. What of Shachtman and co, and their 'theory' of the Soviet Union as 'bureaucratic collectivism'? Though they exposed the all too evident flaws and fallacies upheld by Trotsky their 'theory' of bureaucratic collectivism is in fact little more than a label. Like Tony Cliff's 'state capitalism', it really does not deserve to be called a theory. In terms of how Marxism has struck out various sub-branches throughout the 20th century, I therefore find myself compelled to cut back towards near the base. My Leninism is stronger and more rigorous because it has been reduced. To reject everything of what came after Lenin would be stupid, but to simply go in for some minor cosmetic pruning would, I believe, be totally insufficient. Marxism can only be advanced by lopping off the counterrevolutionary tradition of Stalinism and cutting back to the trunk the completely inadequate alternatives of Trotskyism, Shachtmanism, Cliffism - and, for that matter, Matshachtmanism. Jack Conrad * Leeds, lies and Owen MacThomas - part 1 * Afghanistan and Owen MacThomas - part 2 * National questions and the AWL patriarch - part 3 * Sectarian amateurism and the complacent world of Sean Matgamna - part 4 * Matgamna's platonic republic - part 5 * Bourgeois revolution and Walter Mitty polemics - part 6
Worker