19.02.2004

Hiding their views

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels 'Communist manifesto' (introduction by Chris Harman), Bookmarks classic, London 2003, pp33, £1

This new edition of this foundational work is of particular interest because of its introduction, written by Chris Harman, editor of Socialist Worker. It is clearly aimed at the new audience the Socialist Workers Party is trying to win: “In Seattle at the end of the 20th century a new anti-capitalist movement was born,” Harman glowingly writes. “This remains the manifesto for it” (p4).

To this end, he emphasises the democratic aspects of the Communist manifesto, talking of the “clear distinction” of Marx and Engels between “those who believe socialism comes about by a few people at the top of society doing things for the majority at the bottom, and their own notion of socialism coming from below, with the people taking revolutionary action on their own behalf.” This line of demarcation has been the “central question within the socialist movement” since the publication of the Manifesto and “is a central line of division with the anti-capitalist movement worldwide today” (p4).

Of course, it really is quite deliciously ironic to read this sort of stuff from SWP leaders. These comrades head an organisation that - like others on the British left - bears more features in common with pre-Marxist, conspiratorial sects than a genuine communist party. For instance, how does this quote, taken from the Manifesto’s final stirring paragraphs, square with the SWP’s practice in Respect today, or the Socialist Alliance yesterday? - “The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social relations” (p30).

The SWP majority at the January 25 Respect convention consistently voted to present policies to the mass of the electors on ‘super Thursday’ June 10 that they quite explicitly characterise as non-Marxist, as inadequate and untrue. And who could forget the immortal words of John Rees - words that should be emblazoned over the entrance of the opportunist hall of fame? Addressing the “remarkable convention” and speaking directly to his SWP comrades, he told them that “we fought for the declaration and voted against the things we believed in, because while the people here are important, they are not as important as the millions out there … We voted for what they want” (Weekly Worker January 29).

In other words, the SWP is attempting to piggy-back its way into the European parliament simply by holding up a mirror to what it imagines is the existing consciousness of the class. Not by openly fighting for what it regards as the truth, no matter how initially unpopular. How will this represent a step forward for socialism, which is the self-liberation of the working class? Or do comrade Rees and co imagine that their new version of ‘socialism’ now “comes about by a few people at the top of society doing things for the majority at the bottom”?

Of course, this is a recurring problem for the SWP - just as it was for the Soviet bureaucracy before them. This parasitic caste sat astride a society born out of the death of the workers’ revolution. Thus, it had to make constant reference to the revolutionary origins of the society to maintain its coherence and social viability. It mass-produced the collected works of great revolutionaries - however much the vision of the likes of Marx and Engels clashed with the grim reality of the society the bureaucracy actually led.

The present-day leadership of the SWP is not the Soviet bureaucracy, of course. But the two do have something in common. Orthodox Marxism contradicts the SWP’s practice, its ideology and organisation. Yet cast an eye over any reasonably well stocked SWP lit stall and there you will see seminal works of Marxism that flatly contradict much of what weighs down the rest of the table, let alone the practice of the SWPers standing behind it.

Comrade Harman tells us that the Manifesto is “the most important political pamphlet ever written” (p1). It consists of “40 pages of often near-poetic language” (ibid). And above all, it is a “text for today” (p4). Yeah, yeah, yeah, comrade - all true, but aren’t we still missing a little something here? Like what the thing actually is: ie, a programme. Without becoming too philosophical, the significant silence of comrade Harman on this is far more instructive than his tired homilies.

It is firmly imbedded in SWP culture that a party programme is a thoroughly bad idea. The last time the organisation debated this question with any degree of seriousness was in the early 1990s. Prominent member Gareth Jenkins - in a contribution taken as an unofficial leadership reply to internal calls for a programme commission - actually went as far as to state that, just like the SWP, “the Bolsheviks were light-minded about programmes, but principled in practice” (SWP Internal Bulletin No3, November 1991).

An even more telling comment was made by Maureen Watson (subsequently expelled, oddly enough) at the session on ‘Centrism and ultra-leftism’ at the SWP’s annual Marxism school in 1990. She confidently misinformed her audience that “Lenin would be turning in his grave, at the thought of being bound hand and foot by a programme” (cited in Republican Marxist July 1990).

Comrade Watson’s foolish remark tells us nothing about the Bolsheviks - in fact, Lenin was at pains to emphasise the “tremendous importance of a programme for the consolidation and consistent activity of a political party” (VI Lenin CW Vol 4, Moscow 1977, p229). It tells us everything about the SWP, however. When you are building a sect, a programme can be not simply a nuisance, but an actual obstacle to the opportunist manoeuvres of the leadership.

For us, “the programme is the foundation for the building of the Communist Party, [in that] it firmly links our continuous and all-encompassing agitational work with the ultimate aim of communism; it represents the dialectical unity between revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice. [It] thus establishes the basis for agreed revolutionary action and is the standard, the reference point, around which the voluntary unity of Party members is built and concretised” (J Conrad Which road? London 1991, p235). As a centrist formation, the SWP must keep itself ‘free’ to adapt to prevailing moods and prejudices. Respect is simply the latest - and so far the worst - opportunist lurch of a leadership with no “standard”, no “reference point”, against which its membership can hold it to account.

Harman and co travel very light, for all their praise of the “most important political pamphlet ever written”. Who knows where they will end up? Hopefully somewhere near Marxism, and we must play our part in ensuring that they do.