14.07.2004

Marxism 2004: Private matters, state affairs

Two meetings dealt with the question of 'socialists and religion'. While SWP comrades were at pains to show the Bolsheviks' positive attitude towards the Muslim communities in 1917, the comrades' confusion about the principle of secularism was all too apparent, report Sean Powell and Tina Becker

There were many good things in Dave Crouch’s opening on ‘The Bolsheviks and religion’ on the Sunday morning. The comrade outlined the purpose of the opening as threefold.

First, to illustrate the way in which Leninism and Stalinism were polar opposites. Second, to show how “religion played an enormous role” in the 1917 revolution, how “religious people played a role in leading it and in building a new society”. Third, precisely because that revolution was the high point in human history, starting from its lessons allows us to see much further, to help us orientate politically in a period of “intensifying radicalism”.

Essentially, the SWP is attempting to equip its cadre with the theoretical underpinning necessary for a new orientation - something you could glean from the way members contributed to the debate and the repetition of certain arguments. Lindsey German had spoken of a “new working class” in the opening rally: clearly the leadership is also envisaging a new SWP. As comrade Crouch himself put it, “There is a stereotype about what a socialist looks like … possibly quite similar to me - white, male. If we are going to reach out to the new generation of anti-capitalists of all generations - of all ages, colours and creeds - then we have to get that stereotype out of our heads.”

So, given the SWP’s current work with sections of the muslim population, this session was an important one. It allows us to see the strengths and (potentially fatal) weaknesses in the comrades’ intervention in this field.

Essentially, comrade Crouch expanded on ideas outlined in his article ‘Bolsheviks and islam’ that appeared in the Socialist Review of December 2003 (see Jack Conrad’s comments in Weekly Worker February 26). In a very useful talk, he looked at the Bolsheviks’ championing of the democratic rights of persecuted religious minorities under tsarism; how this principled approach attracted a great many religious people and communities to the banner of the communists; how after the revolution, the new revolutionary government’s commitment to religious freedom saw the flourishing of many religious organisations and trends and how, finally, the heights achieved by the revolution were swamped by the dire, war-ravaged poverty of Soviet society, exemplified by the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy and its attack on religious liberties.

The comrade’s ambiguities on some key questions were telling, however. For example, he said this on the conditions of membership of a working class party: “Of course, Marxism is an atheist world view. But in no way was atheism seen as a condition of membership of Marxist parties. This was the very explicitly expressed view of the Bolsheviks in the early years of the 20th century and the first years of the revolution. The attitude was that religion was the individual affair, the private affair of every citizen.”

This mixes up two things: namely, the communist attitude to members of the party who may have religious prejudices and the neutral attitude of the state to the private views of its citizens. In fact, Lenin’s stance was that, for party members, “religion is not a private affair”, but is the concern of “the whole party, the whole of the proletariat” (VI Lenin CW Vol 10, Moscow 1977, pp84-85).

Similarly, Dave cited Lenin’s “love affair” with Father Gapon, the priest and police dupe who initially headed the nascent mass movement that led to the 1905 revolution in Russia. However, he failed to emphasise that the Bolsheviks’ relationship with Gapon - sensitive though it might have been - was not one of diplomatic accommodation. It fact, they wound “an iron ring” around Gapon, “a ring from which he could not have broken loose even if he had wanted to”, says Trotsky in his work, 1905.
Thus, because of communist agitation and pressure based on their programmatic intransigence, the petition Gapon intended to submit to the tsar contained - as well as humble pleas about such matters as workshops open to the winter weather - the revolutionary demand for a Constituent Assembly elected by “universal, secret and equal suffrage”.

As ever, the debate saw rank and file SWPers take the ambiguities in their leaders’ statement and, in their eagerness to please, turn them into political systems. Thus, we had some comrades telling us that the concessions Bolshevism was forced to make to religious groups during the exigencies of the civil war - faith schools, restoration of church property, etc - were less “tactics”, more like “principles”. This was something comrade Crouch tried to correct to an extent in his summing up.
Concluding, he also underlined that he did not “think for a moment that you can be a consistent anti-capitalist fighter and apply a religious explanation of the world to that struggle. Ultimately, we are materialists because … that materialist analysis of history is what enables an effective fightback.”
A comment that would seem to imply that the comrade does not see religion in the party as purely a “private affair”.

Don't call the devil 'angel'

"Socialists must keep their distance from secularism. Secularism is considered progressive, but it is not. The consequence of secularism is that muslim schools cannot be built. That is what secularism is all about.” Wild applause followed this particular strange contribution from a young member of the SWP’s section in France, which has recently joined the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire as a faction.

Speaking from the platform during the meeting on ‘Islam, secularism and socialism’, Antoine Boulangé reflected the complete political confusion that has been engendered by the leadership of the SWP in London and its opportunist courtship of islam. Eg, the SWP has dropped principle after principle so that Respect becomes acceptable to the Muslim Association of Britain. In France, it seems the SWP’s co-thinkers have bent the stick too far against the majority of the left, which at best adopted an equivocal attitude towards, and at worst actually supported, the ban on wearing the veil in schools.

It was not just Antoine’s stick that snapped in the meeting. His comrade, Esme Choonara (Socialist Worker platform in the Scottish Socialist Party), declared: “I do not accept that there is such a thing as islamic fundamentalism. Islam is not our enemy”. 

Both comrades were rather eloquently put in their place by the third platform speaker, Gilbert Achcar from the LCR, who gave a speech that was critical of the SWP: “There is a difference between atheism and secularism. Secularism is very important to the socialist programme,” he said. He expressed the view that “socialists are against the state ban on the veil, but we must also speak out against any attempt to impose the veil - be it by a state or by family pressure.”

He then turned his fire on Respect, warning that “we should be very wary of making alliances with forces who do not belong to the workers’ movement”. He argued that the SWP should follow the old advice of “marching separately, but striking together” (which was later ridiculed by comrade Choonara, who said that she was “proud to have been marching with muslims on the anti-war demos”, taking the quote rather too literally). Comrade Achcar then quoted Trotsky: “You can make an alliance with the devil, but don’t call him an angel.”

However, he warned against “compromising on principled policies. Socialists always have to wage the ideological struggle. Secularism and women’s rights are always of utmost importance. Marxists can underplay their atheism, but they should never sell their soul - to speak in religious terms”, he said - and predictably received only lukewarm applause from the majority in the packed meeting, with many SWP members shaking their heads.

For some reason, Elaine Heffernan was the only SWP comrade called to speak from the floor. Her criticism was pretty mild, particularly compared to the kinds of attacks we are subjected to for promoting pretty much the same view as the LCR comrade: “In Gilbert’s world view we could not engage with muslims at all, because we would have to put conditions on their involvement,” she said. I did not hear comrade Achcar mention any such conditions.