Letters

On Zafari

Their is a little mistake in the article, ‘Britain to host ESF 2004’ (Weekly Worker November 12). Sophie Zafari, who is a member of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, represents the FSU (unitary union federation), the most important teachers’ union in France, and not the CGT.

On Zafari
On Zafari

Anarcho record

In my last letter I questioned Iain McKay’s assertion that the Makhnoites “liberated the towns”, as I thought that anarchists believed liberation was achieved by workers themselves and not by self-proclaimed bands of revolutionaries (Weekly Worker October 30).

McKay indignantly responds: “Does he not believe in solidarity between peasants and workers?” (Letters, November 6). The answer would have to be, yes, comrade, I do. However, it seems that you draw an equals sign between the Makhnoites and the peasantry. In fact the Makhnoite army was only a marginal force in the Ukraine, concentrated almost exclusively in the Guliai-Pole area and numbered no more than 6,700.

In any case, talk of the Makhnoites “liberating the towns” is pure revisionism. The Makhnoites failure to understand the needs of urban workers was one of the contributing factors to the failure of the movement to survive. They occupied a single town, Ekaterinoslav, for one day (before being driven out by the whites due to lack of discipline and organisation), during which they alienated the city’s population by engaging in acts of destruction, burning libraries and archives, and deliberately shelling the city’s most beautiful buildings (see Z Arbatov Ekaterinoslav 1917-1922).

McKay asserts that in the Makhnovshchina “grassroots democracy was sometimes ignored. The point is not whether violations of principle occur: it is whether such violations are built into the new system.” So it seems then that principles are not important - just the degree of the violation. Furthermore, if grassroots democracy is ignored, we can only conclude that it was ignored from above and thereby both hierarchy and bureaucracy must have existed within the Makhnoite movement.

Colin Darch, a historian specialising in Ukraine, said of Makhno: “As an anarchist, he believed that no man had the right to command another. The story of Makhno’s struggle during the civil war is the story of the abandonment of the latter principle in favour of the conventional tactics of a war of movement” (C Darch The Makhnovshchina 1917-1921: ideology, nationalism and peasant insurgency Bradford 1994).

McKay argues: “Clearly Wills knows little about the Makhnoite movement.” I admit this is true. However, I would add that no one really knows that much. We cannot accurately gauge how exactly the structure of the Makhnoite communes and soviets worked, as “the only available accounts come from committed anarchists, who fall easily into rhapsodic descriptions of the lost paradise, and whose evidence is clearly open to bias” (ibid). McKay’s comparisons between the Bolsheviks and Makhnoites, which use no empirical data, can therefore be regarded, largely, as straw man arguments.

“The Makhnoites called soviet congresses, the Bolsheviks disbanded them,” points out McKay. Of course, the Bolsheviks too called soviet congresses. What McKay is referring to is Trotsky’s order number 1,824, which called for the disbanding of the Fourth Congress of Regional Soviets in Guliai-Pole. However, at the Third Congress, Makhno had denied the legitimacy of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, advocated the liquidation of Bolshevik soviets and called for agitation against state socialism. All this as the revolution fought for its survival and Bolsheviks were arming the Makhnoites against the whites!

McKay continues to insist that the attacks on workers’ democracy began before the civil war. Yet the date he gives for this, the spring of 1918, was well after the outbreak of the conflict.

“Is Wills implying that Bolshevik ideology played no role in the decisions made?” No, but as a materialist I believe objective social reality was the final deciding factor. If the revolution had spread, the great strains on the infant workers’ state would have been reduced and the impulse to bureaucratisation could have been curbed. For more detail on this question I would recommend Jack Conrad’s excellent six-part article (Weekly Worker September 19-October 31 2002).

“He absolves the Bolshevik leadership of responsibility for its own actions by stating ‘the real cause’ was ‘the failures and betrayals of the workers’ movement in Europe and elsewhere’. If all else fails, blame the workers, eh?”

I was actually paraphrasing Rosa Luxemburg, who had good reason to say this. In Germany, between December 1918 and January 1919, the soviets that had sprung up over the country were liquidated by the army on the orders of SDP leader, Gustav Noske. What’s more, most of the ‘socialist’ parties of western Europe had backed the inter-imperialist slaughter. Therefore I did not “blame the workers”, but those traitors in the movement that sent them to their deaths.

McKay claims that his brand of anti-statism is consistent by arguing that he was paraphrasing Bakunin. Engels said of Bakunin’s model of revolutionary organisation: “We are thus confronted with a perfect reconstruction of all the elements of the authoritarian state.” Indeed Bakunin himself admits as much when he describes his organisation as a “new revolutionary state” (Engels and Lafargue The alliance of the socialist democracy and the International Working Men’s Association 1873). Hardly consistent anti-statism!

Anarcho record
Anarcho record

Eclectic errors

Before Enrico Mandelstam writes to you suggesting you have in some way distorted the positions of the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista, I feel I had better point out a few mistakes that have arisen in the course of the Weekly Worker’s valiant attempt to transcribe my talk to the CPGB summer school in August (‘PRC - origins, problems and prospects’, November 12).

(1) What I actually said was “the PCI leader Occhetto in 1989-91”, not “the Togliatti in 1989-91” (sic). This might have struck Italian comrades as particularly strange, since Togliatti died in 1964.

(2) The third centre-left prime minister referred to should have been Giuliano Amato, and not “Arnato”.

(3) The demonstrator murdered at Genoa in July 2001 was of course Carlo Giuliani, not “Giuliano”.

(4) The war I was comparing with the Afghan war was the Second Gulf war, not World War II.

I hope that even an “eclectic independent”, who allegedly inhabits the right wing of the Socialist Alliance, can rely on you to correct these typographical errors.

Eclectic errors
Eclectic errors

Rewin Labour

As a member of the Labour Party, I read with interest discussion between comrades Vince Mills and Hugh Kerr on the ‘reclaim’ question.

It is interesting that the same people who tell us the working class can change society will tell us we cannot change a party that was built by us in the first place. There is a ridiculous number of leftist ‘parties’ in the UK right now: they all talk about ‘building an alternative’ to Labour, but, as we can see from the so-called ‘Socialist Alliance’, they are a long, long way from doing anything of the sort.

In Scotland of course the Scottish Socialist Party has done reasonably well, but unfortunately they lean heavily on the policy of Scottish nationalism. They also seem to contain more fractions than my old maths textbook, and seem reluctant to make the break with reformism. The burning question is, do we really need more reformist parties?

The reality of it all is that if everyone who spent so much energy talking about ‘building alternatives’ were to just pick up a piece of paper they could take back the trade union party of the working class very easily. If breaking the union link was such a great idea then why are Tony Blair and the Tories so up for it? Do any of these comrades really believe that this great new ‘mass workers’ party’ (which they somehow by magic manage to win the masses to) would not attract rightist elements? Would they then jump ship (again) and begin laying the foundations for the next ‘mass workers party’? Comrades, it’s not called ‘the struggle’ for nothing: we must confront the right and defeat them, not run away from them.

With the recent election of Tony Woodley in the TGWU, and left victories in the other big unions, all paths point in the direction of taking back our party. I urge comrades to remember exactly why the Labour Party was built, and remember the people who built it. Now take a look at that smug murderer, Tony Blair, and his grinning cronies - you tell me you want them to have what so many workers dedicated their lives to? I know what I’d say, and it has nothing to do with running away.

The only alternative I’ll be helping build is the new left alternative which will kick Blair and his type out of our party. I hope you will join me.

Rewin Labour
Rewin Labour

State cap EU

Methinks that Jack Conrad’s article, ‘United States of Europe - theirs or ours’, seems to contain at least two errors (Weekly Worker November 12).

Firstly, for over 200 years the British working class has demanded the abolition of the wages system. The utopian socialist, Robert Owen, wanted wages to be replaced by a system of coupons. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also wanted the abolition of the wages system. But nowhere in the seven demands can be found the call for the wages system be abolished. Why not?

Secondly, why is Jack Conrad calling for “workers’ control over big business and the overall direction of the economy”? Socialists and communists should be jointly organising for the expropriation of all business. And to argue the case for direct workers’/consumers’ control of land, labour and capital.

To me, at least, Jack Conrad is calling for some kind of state capitalism. His demands fall short of a worker’s state.

State cap EU
State cap EU

Active boycott?

I would like to offer my thoughts in response to the letter from the Workers International Vanguard League asking for comments on its proposal to launch an active boycott of next year’s South African elections (Weekly Worker November 12).

It is essential for revolutionaries to intervene in bourgeois elections, as this is a time when millions are actually thinking politically and are open to new ideas. Launching a campaign for an active boycott is one way, but, in my opinion, that tactic should be retained only for those occasions when our own direct participation is ruled out: eg, if we are banned from standing candidates, or if our candidates have been eliminated in the first round and only unsupportable bourgeois candidates remain in the second round. Another occasion when the tactic of an active boycott might be employed would be during a referendum, when the ruling class fixes the question and to vote either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would be effectively to side with one wing or another of the bourgeoisie.

However, the best way to intervene is to strive to stand our own candidates. Workers will not easily understand why we are proposing an alternative programme yet are not willing to put it to the test in the election - ‘If you know all the answers, why don’t you stand yourself?’ Workers may well judge that we are not serious if we refuse to do so. I know there are huge financial restraints in South Africa, but our starting point ought to be whether it is possible to overcome the obstacles placed in front of us by the anti-democratic electoral laws relating to deposits, etc. Besides, if our resources are such that we are unable to make much of an impact by standing candidates, then it is unlikely we will be able to achieve more with a boycott campaign. How many leaflets would the comrades be able to distribute, for example?

Of course the distribution of a few thousand leaflets might always produce a few recruits, but is that the limit of our ambitions? Like every other country South Africa needs a genuine Communist Party and the central aim guiding our political interventions should be the creation of such a party. The campaign to forge a revolutionary CP would be boosted enormously by the closest possible unity of the existing revolutionary groupings and a significant step forward would be a united left electoral intervention. All the left groups are tiny, but if they united they could produce much more than the sum of their parts. Would it not be possible to pool financial resources to make the standing of candidates less of a burden? It would be perfectly possible for the left to agree a set of working class demands to put to the electorate, leaving every group free to supplement this with their own particular propaganda.

However, nothing of lasting value can be achieved without the adoption of a serious strategy towards the ‘official’ South African Communist Party. Here is an organisation which claims to represent the working class while using the language of revolutionary socialism. Yet its leaders play a major role in implementing vicious attacks on our class. The contradiction is there to be exploited, yet, almost without exception, the South African revolutionary left refuses to engage seriously with this party. In my view this could best be done through taking out SACP membership and fighting to split the party from within.

A left electoral intervention, seen as part of such a strategy, would call on the SACP to field its own independent candidates against the ANC. We could offer to stand down if it did so. Of course the SACP leadership would refuse the invitation. In those circumstances our electoral propaganda would appeal to the SACP rank and file as well as ANC-voting workers, to back us as the genuine anti-neoliberal and anti-capitalist candidates.

Active boycott?
Active boycott?

ZCTU protest

On November 18 the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, the main workers’ federation which gave birth to the Movement for Democratic Change, was calling for mass action to protest against the crisis of capitalism, which has reached unprecedented levels, with the near collapse of the economy and the exhaustion of Mugabe’s state capitalist policies adopted since 1997. The Mugabe regime has had no choice but to embark on an intensive neoliberal assault on the Zimbabwean working class - an assault which, of course, excludes the introduction of necessary political reforms.

While the MDC has been completely hopeless in dealing with the emerging crisis, the labour leaders have not been so fortunate, with mounting pressure from starving workers in the last two months to embark on some serious actions.

The first was a poorly organised and mobilised general strike a month ago. But now the labour leaders have organised a much more serious effort, which was announced publicly at least a few days beforehand, calling for demands around bread and butter issues, especially taxation, and for the first time openly calling for civic society groups to be actively involved in the action on an emerging united front basis. This is truly exciting. We in the International Socialist Organisation have been calling for precisely this kind of action for the last 18 months, as the real solution to the economic/political crisis of Zimbabwe.

This action is of critical importance, as it comes in the wake of the apparent emerging ascendancy of the Zanu-PF state-capitalist, quasi-Stalinist intellectual petty bourgeois grouping around Jonathan Moyo/Chinamasa and sections of the army/police intelligence/war vets leaders like Chihuri and possibly the retiring army general commander, Zvinavashe, who are opting for a route out of the crisis modelled on Botha’s South Africa of the mid-1980s - a massively repressive quasi-civilian/military junta, based on a state capitalist/quasi-anti-imperialist policies and rhetoric.

The imploding Zimbabwean crisis will have to be resolved in the streets, factories and colleges of our towns and possibly farming areas.

ZCTU protest
ZCTU protest

SSP inaccuracies

Hugh Kerr should keep his sympathy for himself (Weekly Worker November 6). As the press officer for a party with no MEPs (despite Hugh’s personal best efforts), no MPs, one councillor and no first-past-the-post MSPs - all six are elected on PR - not to mention no British presence and no links with organised Labour - someone needs to take pity on him. Especially since the Scottish Socialist Party claims to be ‘breaking through’.

And readers of the Weekly Worker will note that once again Hugh makes the same omission. He is careful to avoid discussing any fundamental issues. The best he can manage is to offer to debate in the Campaign for Socialism (CFS) journal. He will have to convince the editor of The Citizen of the value of that, but if I were her I would be careful about the legal consequences of some of Hugh’s continued journalistic ‘inaccuracies’.

Not only did George Galloway make it absolutely plain that he would not join the SSP: so did John McAllion last week, when the CFS executive put out a press release, with his consent, to clarify his position. McAllion is not minded to renew his Labour Party membership, but he does not think that the SSP is the answer. As reported in the Scottish Sunday Post, McAllion said: “I have absolutely no intention of joining the [Scottish] Socialist Party ... I am, however, still a member of the Campaign for Socialism and speak at socialist conferences.”

One final point, Hugh: if you do read The Citizen, you will have noticed that in the last issue I specifically addressed the myth you repeated about the recent demise of activism in the Labour Party. I point out that the shell-like nature of Labour has been characteristic of the party in Scotland since 1932, when the Independent Labour Party disaffiliated. It is why Militant were able to infiltrate with such ease. But I suppose that, since you mould all contemporary events to shape your illusion about the imminent arrival of the SSP as a mass party of socialism, despite evidence to the contrary, I can hardly be surprised when you treat history the same way.

SSP inaccuracies
SSP inaccuracies