Letters

Rigid categories

Steve Freeman’s letter attempts to ridicule the Democratic Socialist Alliance’s positions of advocating the adoption of the Socialist Alliance programme, People before profit (PBP), as a template for democratic development, in dialogue with the struggles of the working class, and of arguing for the creation of a workers’ party based upon the fundamentals of Marxism.

He suggests that PBP is “a non-Marxist or common programme cobbled together in 2001 in ‘smoke-filled rooms’ and consistent with the economistic politics of the SWP”; and that “it is a non-starter as a revolutionary programme for a Marxist party”.

However, in January 2004, Steve authored the founding statement, which proclaimed: “We are for the full version of People before profit which combines demands for a democratic republic, for social change and for internationalism. We are in favour of the defence and further development of this programme”. Not a hint then that Steve regarded PBP as reflecting the economistic politics of the SWP.

Indeed, the statement goes on to explain that, “People before profit has a series of democratic demands which, taken together, constitute a democratic republic or ‘republican democracy’”. Given the preoccupations of Steve’s Revolutionary Democratic Group, one might expect him to praise, rather than damn, an organisation which is committed to continuing the SADP’s determination to “defend and develop” PBP.

Steve’s confusion is, though, easily explained. It springs from his analytical method, which utilises lifeless, rigid categories, devoid of all movement. For Steve, both the Marxist party and its revolutionary programme spring immaculate from the head of Zeus, or both have to be delivered by a communist Moses, chiselled in stone.

The founding statement went on to express the working class’s need to form “a mass workers’ party committed to the struggle for socialism”, a party which “is serious about winning political power”. The defence and development of PBP is integral to the building of such a party; and equally a mass workers’ party committed to the struggle for socialism and serious about winning political power is a party which is engaged in a class-making project: ie, a party based on the fundamentals of Marxism.

Substitute a conception of movement for Steve’s sterile generalisations and his conundrum disappears.

Rigid categories
Rigid categories

London link

I think the recent split in Workers Power originates in Trotsky’s Transitional programme, which has led Trotskyists to predict economic catastrophe almost every day - or perhaps every year. For example, Ted Grant has been predicting a slump ever since 1960. As Tony Greenstein recently noted, Trotskyists have predicted 18 out of the last three world recessions!

The development of finance capital has made London a world financial centre. Forty percent of property bought in central London over the last year has been purchased by foreign millionaires and billionaires, as London has become an international tax haven. Since most Marxist groups in the UK are based in London, the ‘London effect’ has affected the views of Marxist theoreticians.

When asked why he had won the 1996 US presidential election Bill Clinton famously replied: “It’s the economy, stupid.” The reason for the split in Workers Power can be explained with the same answer.

London link
London link

Cheap sneer

I was appalled to read the letter from Len Trotter, under the ironic headline (which I presume was added by your editorial team), ‘Glorious victory’. The letter dealt with a television appearance by Pat Stack (which I did not see) concerning a car-parking incident.

What Trotter refrains from telling your readers is that Pat is severely disabled. While I for one am generally sympathetic to draconian measures against illicit parking, it can scarcely be denied that disabled motorists (who generally have no alternative means of transport) get a very raw deal. I assume this is the point Pat was making. I would have thought that any socialist would consider opposition to discrimination against the disabled as an elementary obligation.

I have known Pat Stack for 30 years. He has shown a level of commitment, energy and cheerfulness that has been matched by few activists who did not have his difficulties to overcome. I must say that if I saw comparable determination even on the part of a member of the UK Independence Party, I would feel a certain admiration. I know what Pat Stack has done for the socialist cause; comrade Trotter’s contribution has unfortunately escaped my attention.

The Weekly Worker has of course every right to make political criticisms, but by endorsing cheap sneers of this sort, it undermines its own credibility. Readers will see that you are willing to use any stick to beat the SWP. So when you do have a substantive political point to make, don’t be surprised if nobody takes you seriously.

Cheap sneer
Cheap sneer

Sabotage

The issues at stake in the Scottish Socialist Party should be far removed from Tommy Sheridan’s personality. Sheridan at least has the guts to stand as an example of a working class hero for our times, along with many SSPers.

I doubt that the SSP will recover from this crisis. It was never likely to be united around such disparate elements and has also had to contend with sabotage from within.

Sabotage

‘Great’ stuff

Oh yeah, what Scots workers really need is a ‘Great British’ party to lead the way. As long as we are all ‘Great Brits’, we’ll be all right.

Keep undermining the SSP, keep undermining socialism in Scotland, keep the union intact. Well done to the CPGB. All hail the capitalist union of Great Britain - as a famous Scots socialist didn’t say.

‘Great’ stuff

Contradiction?

I wish to make a few points on the ‘Unity and the SSP’ article.

First, comrade Bob Goupillot writes: “In order for there to be a voluntary union the constituent nations must first experience real autonomy/independence, organise some sort of democratic and representative constituent assembly and then vote for union. This logically presupposes a period of independence of unknown length.”

If Scottish and Welsh parliaments won the right to self-determination, that does not presuppose independence. Why on earth must the Welsh and the Scots have to experience independent states in order to exercise their self-determination?

I would also like some clarification from comrade Jack Conrad. Looking back through the Weekly Worker, I came across this piece of writing from Jack: “Neither Scotland nor Wales have the right to self-determination. There is no provision for independence in the constitution. In that sense Scotland and Wales are oppressed” (‘Marxism and national self-determination’, May 20 1999). Yet in Jack’s discussion with Bob he states: “There is nothing within Britain at the moment that leads me to conclude that Scotland has become an oppressed nation …”

A glaring contradiction here, surely?

Contradiction?
Contradiction?

Elucidation

I find your pieces on the SSP and on Zionism excellent - communist journalism at is best - and without having to be paid £26,000 a year for it either.

All the same, I should appreciate further elucidation.

What had Tommy Sheridan been up to that led the SSP and Tommy himself to think he should stand down? Are the Jews a separate people in the same way as the English are different from the French? Or is it simply a matter of customs and religion?

Elucidation
Elucidation

Subtle

Jack Conrad makes some interesting points in his article, ‘No future in the past’. Personally, however, I prefer Lewis Henry Morgan’s more subtle and dialectical formulation.

Morgan concluded his great book, Ancient society, as follows: “Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education foreshadow the next, higher plane of society, to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.”

Steeped as he was in the Hegelian dialectic, it was surely not an accident that Engels chose to conclude his own magnificent anthropological work, The origin of the family, private property and the state, with these same words.

Subtle
Subtle

Sick question

How can you publish Tony Greenstein’s argument that Zionists were collaborationists with the Nazis without puking (‘Zionism and the holocaust’, June 29)?

Sick question

Tired clichés

Guy Maddox’s reply to my article on Zionism and anti-semitism repeats the same tired clichés of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and its fellow travellers.

At the same time as the most powerful military power in the Middle East is engaging in a blitzkrieg against the Palestinians of Gaza, I am accused of “attempting to legitimise terrorism against Israel”. Or maybe Maddox has failed to see the overt support for Israel’s actions by all those other brave fighters against anti-semitism - Bush, Blair and so on.

Maddox seems to have problems with my statement that Zionism and anti-semitism shared the same political outlook and territory. I thought it was a non-controversial statement of the obvious. That is what the Nazis said and that is what the Zionists of the time said. It is remarkable that he has nothing to say about the content of my article, even by way of explanation.

Jews objected to the Zionist movement from its inception. The Zionists were a small minority, primarily from the petty bourgeoisie. They could not even hold their first congress in Munich because the Jewish community there objected. No doubt Maddox would have been onside with Herzl, Nordau and co.

Yes, Zionism was a reaction to anti-semitism. The question is, what kind of reaction? Was it the reaction of the Jewish workers who armed themselves against the pogromists and flocked to the revolutionary movements? Was it even the reaction of the liberal Jewish bourgeoisie who hoped that emancipation would win out? No, it was the reaction of those who agreed with the basic premise of the anti-semites. The racists said the Jews did not belong in non-Jewish society; the Zionists agreed that the Jew was an alien.

It is precisely this racial outlook that led to the establishment of a state based on the principles of racial superiority. Where else in the world is more than 90% of the land reserved for those of a particular religious/ethnic group? Where else is civil marriage between different groups outlawed?

Yes, the left failed to turn the tide against fascism in the 1930s, but the Zionist movement was never part of that left. It was the most reactionary section of the Jewish community and it is the section that the AWL and Guy Maddox identify with. Quite rightly, the Bund and Jewish communists saw Herzl and the Zionists as scabs.

Guy Maddox and the AWL buy into all of this, to the extent of asking about the right of the Jewish ‘nation’ to self-determination. The idea that Jews form a separate nation, apart from those they live with, is the foundation stone of the anti-semitic world Jewish conspiracy theory. It is no surprise that these ‘left’ supporters of imperialism should support this idea and defend a quisling movement among Jews.

Tired clichés

Frustration

Camden’s Respect branch had its monthly membership meeting on Monday July 3. With a couple of comrades coming from the Barnet branch we had in total just over a dozen in attendance - most old hands going back to the days of the Socialist Alliance.

Socialist Workers Party members made up around half the turnout and it was their revivalist style of politics which dominated things for most of the time - eg, going to Manchester Labour Party conference with the Stop the War Coalition is wonderful, thrilling, exiting, just what is needed, will attract young people. Others showed less enthusiasm for what is another Grand Old Duke of York exercise.

However, there was a short discussion on Respect’s lack of internal openness, democracy and accountability. Camden passed a motion to that effect before the last national conference. Needless to say, not an SWP initiative and not at all to their liking.

Indeed, showing her commitment to democracy, Candy Udwin - SWP central committee member - sneakily moved and folded away the copies of the Weekly Worker I had put on the literature table alongside Socialist Worker. Later SWP members on principle - pathetic - refused to take our leaflets advertising the Marxism fringe. Others, the non-SWPers, were altogether more open to ideas.

We had Elaine Graham Leigh as an invited speaking. A former Green Party member, she is now on the Respect national executive and recently chaired the sop working party established to ‘examine’ - in other words, rubber-stamp - how we run our internal elections. Besides her there was another visitor from the executive - Chris Bambery, Socialist Worker editor. They are obviously worried about Camden.

There is considerable unhappiness with the bureaucratic, take-it-or-leave-it slate system. This allows the SWP to put in place a ‘balanced’ executive … and, of course, it also allows the SWP to exclude awkward minorities, such as the CPGB. However, unhappiness runs deeper. Those not in the SWP know the whole thing is run by the SWP from behind the scenes and they are beginning to drift away. Camden branch has recently suffered a number of important losses, including Sean Thompson, a leading activist and consistent critic of the SWP’s control-freakery.

Comrade Graham Leigh said that the slate system was the least worst system available. Her working party consisted of three executive members - none in the SWP - and were unanimous on this. Other systems would take up too much time and divert attention away from activity. She offered the opinion that the Green Party had too much democracy.

One can imagine that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour have a similar viewpoint … privately. I guess they would love to put forward a slate of 659 candidates to the electorate in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ referendum, rather than having to go to the bother of fighting a general election. But they could not get away with it, could they? The population in Britain is deeply committed to democracy and would rebel against such an outrage.

Comrade Graham Leigh also defended the fact that it takes Respect two months after executive meetings till they are reported to the membership. The office is busy and the minutes have to be agreed. Comrade Bambery forthrightly backed her up. He cited the “difficulties” tearing the Scottish Socialist Party apart … he said it was “bonkers” to have taken minutes of the meeting which forced the resignation of Tommy Sheridan as convenor.

No wonder Camden Respect members, at least those not in the SWP, are frustrated by George Galloway’s antics and bitterly complain they have not a clue about what is going on.

Frustration
Frustration

Marxist party

The political situation is crying out for a new working class political party - this has been recognised by most activists on the left. However, the real question is what kind of party?

It is not enough to recycle old reformist programmes and organisational methods. The bankruptcy and breakdown of old organisations are a symptom of the fact that their politics are inadequate to deal with the present situation. We believe that only a party which is openly Marxist, and works both to develop theory and theoretical understanding and to rebuild the workers’ movement with the aim of overthrowing capitalism, is able to deal with the present crisis.

Stalinism has collapsed and the social democracy that was sustained by it has lapsed into promoting austerity and reaction. In turn this has exposed the political bankruptcy of the fragments of the far left, most of which either cannot break away from a long-term orientation to reformism or, in the case of the SWP, have marched even further to the right in search of a popular base - Respect being a rightwing, communalist organisation - a new kind of unpopular front.

The irony in a time of economic and social crisis is to see the far left, which claims to be Marxist, trying to glue back together the fragments of a shattered reformism in an effort to reproduce versions of the old Labour Party. This is due to the belief that Marxists must appear in public to belong to a formation to their right in order to have popular appeal and can be seen particularly in the SSP and the Socialist Party’s Campaign for a New Workers’ Party.

This irony is redoubled as the capitalist class has made it absolutely clear it not only will not willingly concede reform, but wants to hammer down workers’ wages and living standards, as the economy becomes more crisis-ridden. For this reason the only way the ruling class would concede serious reforms is if it wanted to buy time in the face of a direct threat by revolutionary, Marxist organisations with a mass following. Reformism itself can deliver nothing except further defeats and betrayals.

In contrast to the limited horizons of the existing left groups, the collapse of Stalinism has removed the major blockage to the political advance of the working class - the horrific nature of the Stalinist countries, combined with the bureaucratic control of the organisations of the working class, prevented a serious challenge to the capitalist class for 70 years. Now this road is cleared, revolutionaries have the chance to advocate an alternative form of society - communism - without this being confused with the horrors of Stalinist prison camps.

Not only are reformism and Stalinism bankrupted and exhausted, but bourgeois democracy itself is increasingly discredited. Universal suffrage was only conceded in most imperialist countries in response to the Russian Revolution and, as the crisis becomes more acute, these institutions are increasingly sidelined and held in contempt by both the ruling class and the working class.

The following are some key points

l The party should be openly Marxist and in favour of the overthrow of capitalism.

l The party has to overcome the profoundly anti-democratic influences of the Stalinists and the miserable internal regimes of the sects. We are in favour of the maximum possible degree of internal democracy: the party cannot afford ‘bureaucratic centralism’, elites or self-appointed leaders. All party officers must be elected and recallable by the members, including those who work for the party. Party employees and any comrades elected to bourgeois democratic institutions should receive no more than the average wage. The lesson of the SSP is once again that the membership must have access to the maximum possible amount of information. The politics and practice of the party must emerge from the process of interaction between the experience of the working class in struggle and the memory and theoretical understanding of the class, as represented by the membership of the party.

l The party must campaign for the extension of democracy throughout society: in communities, the workplace and in the organisations of the working class. Part of this will be an effort to expose the role of the trade union and labour bureaucracies in maintaining the rule of capital and the capitalist state and a campaign to root out the bureaucracy and end the use of bureaucratic methods.

l The party has to have a serious approach to Marxist theory, starting with political economy - party policy and activity has to be informed by theoretical understanding. We must examine the process and effects of the decline of capitalism. In the broader sense we recognise that Marxism requires debate and action to develop and any serious party must support and encourage this process.

l One of the key tasks of the party will be the fight to repoliticise the organisations and struggles of the working class. The ruling class started conceding to the working class over a century ago under the framework of imperialism and in consequence was able to depoliticise and sectionalise the organisations and struggles of the working class - particularly in Britain, as the oldest capitalist country and originally the dominant imperialist power. With the decline of capitalism in general and the accelerated decline of British capitalism, workers now must have a political understanding of their situation if they are to win battles against capitalists and the state.

l The party should reject nationalism in all its colours: petty bourgeois, social democratic and Stalinist. While we defend the right to self-determination, nationalism is more than ever before a dead end. Socialism is internationalist and the working class increasingly must cooperate and organise on the international stage if it is to win against capital and the state.

l We reject the rotten traditions of sectarianism endemic in the far left for decades. In part this is due to the isolation and marginalisation of revolutionary politics in an era of Stalinism. But in any case we must consciously reject the idea that the building of a political organisation can be put before the process of developing the working class movement as a whole. In the extreme examples of the SWP and the Militant traditions some campaigns and other organisations were approached on a ‘dominate or destroy’ basis. Instead a Marxist party must cooperate and support the struggles and campaigns of the working class against capitalism and the state, while absolutely reserving the right to put our own politics forward. Firmness of principles must be allied to tactical flexibility, with no concessions to populism or opportunism.

l In academic circles we fight for the development of Marxism and against the remnants of Stalinism and the sterility of postmodernism. The party must work to create a productive interaction between the specialist knowledge of academics and the experience of the working class.

A conference of the Campaign for a New Marxist Party will be held on Saturday November 4 at Somerstown Community Centre, 150 Ossulston Street, London NW1. Please raise this call in your political organisation and trade union nationally and locally and with your friends.

For more information email Matthew Jones.

Marxist party
Marxist party