30.08.2006

Scientific socialism, not 'follow my leader'

Mary Godwin reports from the Communist University, which took place from August 12-19 in south London

Critique, the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran, Workers Left Unity Iran and the Communist Party of Turkey. Over 51 hours of debate in 22 sessions covered a wide range of subjects, linked by the common thread of how to unite communists into a party that can seriously challenge capitalism and begin the long task of creating a communist world.

Each sponsoring organisation provided principal speakers for at least two of the sessions, and there were also speakers from the Scottish Socialist Party's Workers Unity platform, the John McDonnell campaign, the Green Party's Revolution group and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty.

Human revolution

The first weekend of Communist University, which featured speakers from the Radical Anthropology Group, was something of an innovation, in that it was given over to the theme of the first human revolution and its lessons for today's struggle for emancipation. Comrade Chris Knight said he became a Marxist when he realised that the dialectical process of overcoming contradictions was an example of the Marxist method of understanding the world. He hoped that, the more we understand about what worked in the past to achieve the human revolution, the more we can understand about what we need to do next time to get rid of class society.

Before that, Camilla Power began CU with a talk on 'Engels and the first human revolution'. She described how Marx and Engels were fascinated by Darwin's work - they recognised that it was ideology, but knew that it was also science. Darwinian selection explains all the variation of life on earth in a materialist theory. In his book The descent of man Darwin grappled with the problem of how a generous and unselfish individual can enjoy reproductive success. Once it became clear that it is not groups or individuals, but genes which are selected, the mechanism by which cooperation could emerge and evolve to human levels became clear. Comrade Power was sure that if Marx and Engels were alive today they would be fascinated by the 'selfish gene' theory, as it is modern science and also the science of cooperation.

Many comrades described comrade Luc Steels's talk on 'What robots can tell us about being human' as one of the most interesting of the week. The way his robots are able to invent 'words' to communicate between themselves sheds light on the various theories about the origins of human language, which, as comrade Knight said, is the truly unique feature of human beings.

Ana Lopes described how her anthropological study of sex workers in Britain inspired her to help set up the International Union of Sex Workers to fight for better working conditions. She said there is no contradiction between being an objective researcher and wanting to give something back to the people she studied. She described the achievements of the IUSW, its affiliation to the GMB union and its immediate goal of a sex industry in which all workers have full trade union rights and control over their working environment. This is difficult to achieve in those areas of the industry that are still illegal, which is one reason to fight for the full legalisation of prostitution.

The weekend was rounded off by a talk by Jack Conrad of the CPGB on 'Why we need a second human revolution and how to get it', which discussed the decline of capitalism, the necessity of winning a majority for the communist project and the CPGB's view on how the themes so far debated should influence our practice.

Hillel Ticktin

Transition and party

Critique editor Hillel Ticktin gave a series of three talks on socialism and the transition to communism. He analysed the process in four stages: the problem of how the working class can take and keep state power; the challenges of the transition period, which he said will be more complex and difficult that was at first imagined; the period of phasing out the market; and socialism itself. This discussion of stages led to a debate about how they related to what Marx called the lower and higher stages of communism, and the Stalinist claim that what existed in the USSR was socialism, the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Comrade Ticktin rejected this claim, and said it would be better not to use the term 'socialism' at all, preferring Marx's 'lower phase of communism'.

Of course, changing the terms we use solves neither the problem of their actual content nor how to avoid repeating the mistakes of history. In reality, comrade Ticktin said, since 1917 the whole world has been in a period of transition, characterised by capitalist crisis and a conflict between the law of value and planning, and a range of aborted and distorted forms of society which will continue to appear and disappear until the transition is completed. Events in places such as Venezuela can be described as such distorted forms, as was the USSR (in relation to which the question to answer was not why it came to an end, but why it lasted so long).

Comrade Ticktin's opinion that the fall of the USSR will make it easier to win people to support the ideas of Marxism is well known, and comrade Tina Becker asked him whether he still regarded the end of the USSR as a victory. As she pointed out, to many people it seemed like an ideological defeat for the notion of any post-capitalist alternative and we and the rest of the left are still suffering the effect of the demoralisation which resulted. Comrade Ticktin answered that it was a victory, in that Marxists no longer have to argue, "usually in vain", that we are "not the same as that". Discussing why it is taking so long to convince people that socialism will be preferable to the market, he said what is needed is an objective change in reality, a party which will be able to take advantage of this, and more intellectuals to write about it.

Marxists accept that working class power in one country cannot exist for long and comrade Ticktin described the conditions which would need to be in place for a successful transition to socialism. It would have to happen in a developed country with a clear majority of the working class in favour of the change. As the working class cannot act blindly, there will need to be support for it among academics, intellectuals and the media. It will also need a highly developed Communist Party, with non-corrupt leaders and no cult of personality, he insisted. When challenged on this, he repeated: "We do need a party, I fully agree, even though I am not a member of one."

What sort of party we need was discussed in the longest and perhaps most important session of the week - on communist unity. All the sponsoring groups contributed to this, as well as Boris Kagarlitsky from the Institute of Globalisation Studies in Russia. He said the stage we are in (whether comrades like the term or not) is the stage of communist recomposition. All speakers emphasised the importance of internationalism, and the speaker from ORWI said Iran Bulletin was an attempt to start an international dialogue. He accepted criticism from CPGB speakers that comrades from Iran and Turkey need to take a full part in the working class movement in Britain, as well as involving themselves in the struggles of their countries of origin. He urged British Marxists also to support these struggles, but recognised that "to the extent that any principled solidarity campaign succeeds" the Socialist Workers Party will try to take it over.

Comrade Ticktin disagreed with the CPGB view that it is impossible to organise Marxists without engaging with the existing left organisations, not least the SWP. When asked outright by comrade Peter Manson, "Can we ignore opportunism?", he answered, "Yes." His view is that the left groups are either "crazy" or reformist, and certainly not deserving of the title of Trotskyist. "Most Marxists are outside the groups. We need to organise these Marxists, not worry about idiots. Why go into Respect? You only tarnish yourself." He praised the CPGB for "having moved from Stalinism", but "you still have a small distance to go."

In a situation where the working class is weak, divided and dominated by Labourism, it is premature to talk of building a Marxist party now, comrade Steve Freeman of the Revolutionary Democratic Group claimed. He says our goal should be to combine with non-revolutionary leftists to build a broad socialist party of which Marxists could form a distinct wing. On this comrade Freeman is at one with virtually the whole of the opportunist left, which also insists on the need for some kind of halfway house.

Internationalism and solidarity

Bringing Marxists together was the general theme of Communist University, including internationally. In one of his own talks, on Marxism in his native Russia, comrade Kagarlitsky described the encouraging growth of interest in Marxism there. Both the anti-communist propaganda which was all-pervasive after capitalist restoration and the official Soviet propaganda of the previous period asserted that the only alternatives were capitalism or the Soviet system. Workers in increasing numbers now see this is not true. Despite the legal obstacles the current regime uses in its attempts to prevent Marxists from organising in political parties, there is a growing leftwing current.

Comrade Mehdi Kia of ORWI spoke about 'Iran, the theocratic regime and the tasks of the solidarity movement'. He gave a brief outline of the history of Iran since the islamic revolution, and said the government is now increasingly in the hands of the military, which is in the process of taking control of the wealth of the country and preparing for war. Their aim is to militarise the economy, and simplify the political structure to get rid of the power of the mullahs. Comrade Kia repeated a disagreement with the CPGB that he has expressed at previous meetings. He thinks the left cannot successfully take state power from the bourgeoisie at the moment and should not attempt to. What it should do is make things ungovernable.

Debate following his talk focused on what sort of solidarity movement is needed and how to get it. As comrade Becker said, we need an anti-war movement which clearly states that imperialism cannot bring democracy and that the Iranian theocratic regime is not in any way progressive, as the SWP now implies. Comrade Mike Macnair outlined the arguments used by the SWP to justify their support for reactionary regimes - that islam is a form of resistance to imperialism which communists should support, and the various counter-arguments put by the AWL, that the period of imperialism, as described by Lenin, has ended. This is not correct, and the SWP is following a bastardised version of the 'anti-imperialist front' strategy. However, this strategy has never achieved anything progressive: all it does is set up a national counter-oppressor. In comrade Macnair's view, the answer is that the way to bring down imperialism is to bring down capitalism, rather than the other way round, as is generally believed.

In his second talk comrade Kia focused on the struggles of shanty town-dwellers. He emphasised that these people are part of the working class, and the left should not ignore them - without their support the revolutionary movement cannot make progress. The growth of shanty towns is a result of structural changes in world capitalism, as it goes further into crisis, and their economic activity, outside the system of exchange relations, weakens capitalism further. In the past leftwingers supported the shanty town-dwellers materially and attempted to win their support; now, unfortunately, it is the islamist movement which has the resources and dynamism to do so.

Comrade Kagarlitsky in his talk on '1917' discussed the Russian Revolution, its consequences and its influence today. He described how the collapse of the tsarist state led to the collapse of the landlordist system, because capitalist and pre-capitalist structures were so interlinked they collapsed together. The same thing may happen in Latin America: reforms which are not specifically anti-capitalist could lead to a real revolution which goes beyond social democracy, he said.

Conversely, the research done in the 1970s on Latin America can shed light on what happened in 1917. Although the working class and the Communist Party were small, they were able to take power because no other group was able to fill the vacuum. The Bolsheviks were confronted with the problem of how to make revolution in a country which was not ready for socialism. Comrade Kagarlitsky stated: "We have not yet had a revolution in a country ready for socialism." But he accepted that unless the revolution spreads to the capitalist centres it will be impossible to have socialism.

After the civil war the USSR became increasingly authoritarian, comrade Kagarlitsky stated. The Bolsheviks had set up a one-party system in order to survive. Their original aim was to be authoritarian outside the party and working class, but democratic inside. But as the 'inside' became smaller and weaker, the need for a bureaucracy became more obvious. How can you deal with this problem of a hostile outside world, comrade Kagarlitsky asked. The degeneration of the workers' state was fairly inevitable. But was Stalinism the only possible outcome? His con-clusion after studying the archive material is that it need not have been.

Strategy

In the 20th century the horror and tragedy of Stalinism in the east coexisted with the farce of Trotskyism in the west, and comrade Mike Macnair's opening focused on 'Revolutionary strategy and the failures of Trotskyism'. He outlined the history of Trotskyism as an organised movement and the confusing proliferation of Trotskyist sects with their splits, absurdly grandiose titles, and often obnoxious gurus.

What comrade Macnair has been engaging with in his recent series in the Weekly Worker are the various ideas about how the working class can come to power. The strategies advocated by Trotskyists such as 'All power to the soviets' do not work. There are many examples of strike committees and councils of action emerging when the class struggle intensifies, and these can represent the power of the working class counterpoised to the existing state power of the bourgeoisie. The strategy envisages the formation and national coordination of these bodies first to achieve duel power, then 'All power to the soviets'. In reality this strategy end up with sectionalism, as Marx said  against Bakunin.

Comrade Macnair argued that Trotskyist distortions of Marxism had to be rejected: we must go back to what Marx and Engels wrote about the programme for a democratic republic.

In the debate comrade Ticktin stated that he did not agree with comrade Macnair's "tone" in focussing on the strategic failings of Trotsky the Trotskyists, most of whom in his view were no such thing: "When you campaign against Trotsky you put yourself in the camp of Stalinism."

The theoretical discussion on the nature of the Soviet Union continued in the session on 'Capitalism, socialism and communism', introduced by a comrade from the Communist Party of Turkey. He described capitalism as the last stage of a 5,000-7,000-year transition period from primitive communism to future communism.

Pressing issues

Sessions dealing with Marxist theory, the tasks of Marxists internationally and the history of the 20th century were complemented by those dealing with some pressing issues and how Marxists should respond. Jack Conrad debated with Green Party member Derek Wall the question of 'How to save the planet: technological or revolutionary Prometheanism?' Comrade Conrad said the logic of capital means endless self-expansion based on the rape of nature. We should listen to the warnings of scientists about the damage this is doing to the environment and develop Marxist answers. Labour should master nature by learning its laws. The Green Party, however, has a petty bourgeois programme which harks back to the past, replacing multinational capitalism with small businesses. Comrade Wall replied that unlike some bourgeois greens who are opposed only to the big corporations, left greens like himself fully agreed that it is imperative to get rid of capitalism, and to find an alternative not just to big business, but to the market itself. Where he disagrees with the CPGB is on the agency for change - he is highly critical of the Leninist model of the party (or at least what he understands it to be).

The question, 'How do we win students to Marxism: economics or politics?', was debated by CPGB comrade David Isaacson and AWL member Daniel Randell. Comrade Isaacson said the low level of student politics is a reflection of the low level of class struggle in society in general, and argued that students should take up all democratic questions, as members of a Marxist party. The AWL limits student politics to economistic demands only. Comrade Randell defended the AWL approach of intervening in existing campaigns to win anarchist-influenced activists to Marxism. In response to the charge that the AWL tails spontaneous movements, he said the CPGB method of making revolutionary propaganda and "swimming in the SWP tail stream" is a dead end which will not reach activists.

The AWL has a more democratic culture than most of the British left, and is willing to engage in debate. It took part in two sessions at Communist University, in marked contrast to other left groups, who came to CUs in the era of the Socialist Alliance but now stay away. In his session Steve Freeman outlined the history of the Socialist Alliance and recent efforts to relaunch it. Unfortunately, attempts to form a loose platform against Socialist Workers Party control-freakery have resulted only in a further proliferation of splits, with people organising together on the basis of who they are against.

Comrade Paul Hampton of the AWL debated with comrade Nick Rogers 'Venezuela - Bonapartism or social revolution?' Despite disagreement over terminology, there was an overlapping of opinion between the two, but comrade Hampton accused the CPGB of not having a clear line on Venezuela. He said the CPGB positions itself between fans of the regime and "serious critics" such as himself. In reply comrade Rogers said his view was his own, and CPGB members during the debate emphasised that even if comrade Rogers were a CPGB member he would still be entitled to his own view. The CPGB does not adopt rigid lines on such questions. Weekly Worker editor Peter Manson admitted, however, that the paper should have more articles on Venezuela, which is causing such confusion on the left.

Theatre director Stephen Unwin spoke about 'Bertolt Brecht - the dilemma of a politically committed artist'. He gave a history of Brecht's life and work, and discussed the problem of how we should view a great artist who combined genuine commitment to the cause of the working class and socialism with a tendency to avoid overt criticism of the Stalinist East German regime in which he worked and thrived. The debate explored the role of radical artists in a world in which we are all damaged by capitalism.

Labourism and opportunism

Owen Jones of the Labour Representation Youth Group and Labour Party Young Socialists spoke about 'The John McDonnell campaign and the role of Marxists in the Labour Party'. He argued that, while the link between the Labour Party and the trade unions remains, there is no electoral space to the left of the Labour Party and Marxists should support leftwinger John McDonnell's campaign in the Labour leadership election expected in September 2007. He said New Labour is trying to liquidate the working class nature of the Labour Party, but if this happens it would be a disaster - socialists would have to start again from the beginning.

In the debate comrade Conrad said we would welcome John McDonnell's election, although we have no illusions that in the last analysis he is anything other than a bourgeois politician. Also it is a mistake to think that New Labour is entirely different from old Labour: all Labour governments represent the interests of the ruling class. Graham Bash of Labour Left Briefing was outraged. It was absurd to call comrade McDonnell a bourgeois politician, he said - for him this was an example of left sectarianism. CPGB comrades pointed out that this definition of McDonnell did not preclude giving him critical support. Comrade Macnair predicted that after the next election Labour will either be in opposition or will not have a parliamentary majority; it will shift to the left, and those who say New Labour is a break from the past will forget all that and fight for a Labour victory in the following election.

Sandy McBurney, of the Scottish Socialist Party Workers Unity platform, spoke about 'The crisis in the SSP and the lessons for Marxists in the UK'. He said the behaviour of Tommy Sheridan after his court victory meant he has put himself outside the socialist movement and McBurney and his comrades feel they could never be in the same organisation as Sheridan. CPGB comrades urged comrade McBurney not to burn his bridges. Comrade Fischer observed that those who said the SSP was a model for us politically or organisationally have been proved spectacularly wrong, as we always predicted.

The SSP represented opportunism, comrade Conrad said. If we thought short cuts to socialism such as left nationalism could work, what would we need a Marxist party for? He predicted that Respect, the Socialist Party's Campaign for a New Workers' Party, and all such formations will foul up, demoralise people and discredit socialism. We are in a new period, but we still face immense difficulties.

As comrade Fischer said in his contribution to the debate on communist unity, we are at the beginning of a long process, but beginning in the correct way is essential. The preparatory period to building a party is the period of argument between small groups to clarify positions, and this is the stage we are at.

Communist University 2006 provided an excellent forum for such arguments to continue, bringing together Marxists who are trying to think their way out of the crisis affecting the left in Britain and internationally.