Letters

Splitters

Democratic Socialist Alliance comrades, at our members’ aggregate meeting on April 21, discussed Mike Macnair’s initial response to the draft programme for the Campaign for a Marxist Party which has been written by our comrade, Phil Sharpe.

We were pleased that Mike had responded and we noted that he expresses the CPGB’s fundamental disagreement with the methodology that Phil has employed in producing the document. This is a criticism that Phil will be responding to and we look forward to debating the difference on the question of programme at the CMP school, which is to take place following the campaign’s recall conference on June 23.

We were, though, somewhat shocked to read comrade Macnair’s suggestion that, “if the campaign is to define itself by a programme which includes specific and explicit formal rejection of the arguments put forward by CPGB comrades (Jack Conrad and myself, pp12-23) and by Critique - in particular Hillel Ticktin - (pp 82-95), it might as well proceed immediately to a formal split with us.”

We want to make it clear that the DSA, as one of the co-sponsors of the founding conference of the CMP, would not support any move towards a split because of another co-sponsoring organisation’s apparent initial outrage at seeing its leaders criticised. In fact we see the raising of the spectre of a split before discussion on the issue of programme has begun in earnest as ludicrous.

We have made it clear that what Phil has written is a document for discussion. Neither he nor the DSA expect it to be adopted without changes by the CMP.

The CPGB used to proclaim its support for the principle that a Communist Party would be built through open ideological struggle. Surely then, unless there has been a change of thinking, the programme of the Communist Party will be arrived at through open ideological struggle.

Splitters
Splitters

Square wheel

I would like to thank Mike Macnair in the last issue of the Weekly Worker for saving time by pointing out why Phil Sharpe’s draft programme, his basis for the Campaign for a Marxist Party, should cursorily be read. This hard work should be left to the academics, pedants and those with a curious bent.

The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the British road to socialism, the Transitional programme and the Gotha programme can be read in less time than it takes to download comrade Sharpe’s draft programme from the internet. Instinctively a programme should be short, succinct, easy to read and light enough to carry in your back pocket. Comrade Sharpe’s is none of these. Marx, Engels and Lenin did the hard work for us; our job is to carry on their method. The round wheel is better than the proposed square one.

Square wheel
Square wheel

First condition

Jim Creegan uses a discussion of Ken Loach’s The wind that shakes the barley to question a Connollyite view that “the fight against capitalism and the fight against British rule in Ireland were essentially one and the same”.

Karl Marx, of course, was of the opinion that the key to independent action by the English working class was an anti-imperialist policy on Ireland. The antagonisms between Irish and English workers were, Marx wrote in April 1872, “the secret of the impotence of the English working class”, because the English worker “feels himself a member of the ruling nation and for this reason he makes himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland and this strengthens their domination over himself [sic].”

If we now face a world where we don’t wish to support any state that supports capitalism, this should make it even more important to break with a reluctance to press for disengagement from Ireland, as shown by the ‘official’ CPGB and indeed the Socialist Workers Party in the 1980s. Such a policy is surely part of developing a working class movement independent of the British state. For this movement, the division fostered by partition, like ethnic division of any kind, is, as Marx went on to write, “not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of [our] social emancipation”(The First International and after Pelican Marx library, pp167-71).

First condition
First condition

Myopic reverence

Jim Creegan’s article on Ken Loach’s The wind that shakes the barley is an excellent and, in comparison to others I have read since the release of this film last year, a truthful and deeply perceptive review.

There is a kind of reverence for Ken Loach on the left that is sometimes myopic and quite uncritical of the shortcomings in some of his overtly political films, such as Land and freedom and The wind that shakes the barley. In Ireland naturally enough, except in revisionist circles, that respect and affection - well deserved as it is in my opinion - has, however, rendered even those on the left, as well as republicans and the general public, unquestioning in their admiration. It is the same here and elsewhere among those who welcomed the film. This is a great pity, as it leaves unexamined the conditions and opinions at the time which went beyond questions of sovereignty and national identity, such as issues of class.

A documentary, Rebel county, that was shown before a recent screening in Hammersmith, documented the making of The wind that shakes the barley and the politics of the film and of the times was explained. It showed the disturbing sectarianism unleashed by the fighting against the British - another uncomfortable facet of the otherwise heroic struggle. Also alluded to, but only fleetingly, was the virtually spontaneous appearance of the Russian-inspired ‘soviets’. That this kind of examination, fairly superficial even as it was, has been pretty much lacking simply leaves the Irish question and all treatments of it still somehow peripheral to British history, and the whole notion of empire and all that springs from it remains more unquestioned than it ought to be these days.

The wind that shakes the barley has been and gone. Although a great drama and a sincere and basically honest attempt by Loach, it is a pity it hasn’t created the debate it could have. This is in part, perhaps, because of the political and some other shortcomings of the film, which left gaping holes for the rightwing press to get their teeth into (not that the rightwing or mainstream press are overly concerned about fairness in their reporting of such topics anyway). It has to be said too that the sorry distribution pattern of the film has to bear some responsibility for that outcome.

Myopic reverence

Chauvinist CPGB

Letters and articles in the Weekly Worker about the so-called ‘Falklands’ are symptomatic of the weakness of the politics of your paper and the parties aligned to it.

I clearly remember the Malvinas issue being discussed in the 70s, when Argentina reclaimed it from the British from under the watchful eye of Margaret Thatcher. At that time also members of the Communist Party could not recognise the colonialist nature of the British occupation of the islands and, under the guise of opposing the Argentinean military junta, supported the continued colonisation of the Malvinas. These leftists hold similar positions on the occupation of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anti-imperialist struggles do not necessarily have to be the struggles of the working class against the capitalist class. Anti-imperialist struggles are always an alliance of different classes within an occupied entity. The leadership of these struggles may be different depending on the relative strengths of each of the classes within the occupied entity. Irrespective of the strength of the working classes in these struggles, it is incumbent on the progressive forces to support these anti-imperialist struggles even when they happen to be against your own country.

The Communist Party has always failed to support anti-imperialist positions (the Malvinas is no exception) and it has always adopted a chauvinist and Eurocentric position, as it does today in relation to Palestine, Iran and the Middle East.

Chauvinist CPGB

Disgusting

David Isaacson replies to my April 12 letter by affirming that “unlike most of the left, we certainly refuse to side with the small criminal against the big criminal”. I presume David is aware that he is including Lenin and the other leaders of the Russian Revolution in this “most of the left” designation. I am sure that Lenin and his comrades would not have been impressed by this disgusting neutrality in a conflict between the world’s most powerful imperialist country and what is clearly not an imperialist power.

I would refer David, and other Weekly Worker readers, to the pamphlet Socialism and war, written by Lenin in 1915, where he argues: “If tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be ‘just’, ‘defensive’ wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave-owning, predatory ‘great’ powers.”

Well, “every socialist” except those in the CPGB, it would seem. I wonder if the other forces involved in the so-called ‘Campaign for a Marxist Party’ also share this reactionary anti-Marxist position? If not, then I would advise them to be very wary about the project they are getting themselves involved in - remember that the CPGB majority in any such lash-up would put you under discipline to carry out actions to promote these shameful politics.

Disgusting

No way, comrade

In his letter on Cuba, Phil Kent babbles: “How can a country whose future is entirely in the hands of one sick old man be considered as socialist - or even the most deformed sort of ‘workers’ state’? It is so far from being a workers’ state that nobody has even bothered to wonder what the workers might think, let alone ask their opinion” (February 22).

Reading over my letter (February 15), I cannot find where I said that Cuba was socialist. I did say that it’s a bureaucratically deformed workers’ state, and I stick by this characterisation. To a Trotskyist (not to a Shachtmanite, Phil), a workers’ state is defined as an armed body of people (a coercive apparatus) that serves a society which is fundamentally based upon collectivised property forms, and which is prepared to defend these property forms. Trotskyists stand for the unconditional military defence of all workers’ states, irrespective of their deformations or degenerations, because the collectivisation of the means of production and distribution is in the interests of the working class.

Phil Kent goes on to say: “Comrade Little thinks that to let the population decide through elections would be to ‘liquidate the question of which class rules’. In fact it clarifies the issue.”

How does leaving things to the population in general clarify the question of which class rules? Phil would have us believe that Cuban society is homogeneous without class contradictions, but in fact there are elements within (and without) Cuba who would like nothing better than to restore capitalism on the island nation, and who are more than prepared to spread disinformation through the generous material assistance of their American benefactors.

In perfect synchronisation with his hero, Max Shachtman, Phil continues: “We have to overcome the mechanical materialism that treats the workers’ state (or socialist state - they are the same thing) as a distinct form of social organisation rather than what it really is: the rule of the working class.”

There are only two homogeneous classes in modern society: the working class and the capitalist class. There is, of course, the Stalinist bureaucracy, but Stalinist bureaucracies don’t constitute a class because they have no independent relationship to the means of production, which is collectivised and doesn’t exist for profit. Castro doesn’t own a company.

Trotskyists recognise that Castro is a Stalinist bureaucrat and call for workers’ political revolution in Cuba, which would take the form of arrests by armed workers’ militias to establish workers’ democracy. Workers’ democracy means rule by workers’ councils (soviets), elected by workers at the workplace, each industry having one ‘electoral vote’. So what is workers’ democracy? It is the dictatorship of the working class over all of society. Yet folks such as Phil are actually saying: ‘Hey, let’s leave it up to the public at large, and if they choose capitalism, then what the hell?’

No way, Phil. No way.

No way, comrade
No way, comrade

Silencers

Eddie Ford’s ‘Right to bear arms, not commit murder’ was an excellent article that lays out the Marxist view on ‘gun control’ (April 19). It is not, however, shared by all those that consider themselves ‘Marxist’ by any means. A glance at left blogs on this issue will reveal the truth in this.

However, I take one exception to an otherwise accurate and well argued article: there is little communist “activity” on this issue. Except for a few articles now and again on left websites, no communist groups that I’m aware of are actually active around it. It remains, unfortunately, the domain of the far-right petty bourgeoisie.

Silencers
Silencers

Prostitution

I would like to reply to comrade Jasa Slovyanski and the points he has raised on communist policy towards prostitution.

Nobody can deny that prostitution is one of the very worst forms of exploitation ever manifested in class society. The subjugation of millions of workers worldwide to the literal sale of their bodies to capital is something that any socialist worth his or her salt would want to see ended.

However, I support the legalisation of prostitution not because I wish to see it as a permanent state of affairs, but because it would be the best way to have it removed from the domination of criminal elements that prevent the unionisation of sex workers across the world. The illegal status effectively drives the trade underground, where those involved will be subject to additional difficulties and may avoid getting help - including medical help - out of fear of persecution. With legalisation many of the shadier elements of the business would become accessible and would prove a definite boon when it comes to the organisation of such workers.

Prostitution does not exist because of the criminal forces that often preside over it, but because of the role of capitalism in throwing vast numbers of our class into a situation where the only way to make ends meet is to engage in ‘the world’s oldest profession’. The best way we can help to condemn such a profession to the dustbin of history is by pushing a working class alternative for legalisation and free access to medical care and STD testing, while striving for the end of the very conditions that give rise to prostitution itself.

Don’t get me wrong, though. I would love to leave the human traffickers and ‘pimps’ who conduct such a business left scrabbling in the gutter looking for their teeth. Furious working class opposition to such foul members of the petty bourgeoisie should go without saying.

Prostitution

By the by

David Walters wrote in last week’s Weekly Worker that the left should re-examine its decades-old position on nuclear power. The left should certainly remind itself why those positions remain unchanged.

Firstly, as long as nuclear energy is in the hands of the capitalists it will never be free from profiteering cost-cutters who skimp on safety and endanger the communities who live near the plants.

Secondly, as a percentage of carbon emissions in the UK, the department for environment, food and rural affairs’ own statistics show that 37% of carbon emissions come from the energy industries. Therefore, if there was a doubling of nuclear capacity in the UK on current levels this would only contribute a net 8.1% reduction in carbon emissions on 1990 levels by 2050 (Sustainable Development Commission). This is not taking into account the carbon emissions required to build and then decommission a nuclear plant over its lifecycle.

To prevent a qualitative leap in climate change it is generally agreed by scientists that a cap on carbon emissions at 450-500 parts per million of CO₂ (compared to 380 ppm CO₂ today) is required or an 80-90% reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels.

Thirdly, at today’s prices, Sizewell B, the UK’s most recent reactor, cost £3.7 billion just to build. This does not take into account the number of times the taxpayer has bailed out the nuclear industry - money which could have been spent on alternative energy.

For advocates of nuclear generation these issues are by the by. They point to the advances in technology and it is true that demand at current levels could be matched for the next 85 years from known resources. With better technology this period could be extended for 2,500 years. However, until the workers take control, nuclear power is not an economic or reliable path to a reduction in carbon emissions.

Simon Wells

By the by
By the by

Multicultural

April 23, St George’s Day, should be a national holiday in England. We should celebrate St George as a symbol of English freedom, dissent and multiculturalism.

It is time we ditched the myths surrounding St George and celebrated the truth about his courageous life. He doesn’t belong to the far right. He represents rebellion against tyranny. St George wasn’t white or English. He was a rebel from the Middle East. His father was Turkish and his mother Palestinian. He rebelled against the Roman emperor, Diocletian, and was executed for opposing the persecution of christians by the Romans.

An early defender of human rights, he is a heroic symbol of protest and the right to freedom of belief and expression. St George embodies the values of English liberalism and dissent.

Multicultural
Multicultural

Happy-clappy

The last thing any revolutionary group should want is to collaborate with the happy-clappy, Labour Party-affiliated, Christian Socialist Movement, as advocated by Robert Miller. What next, an alliance with the Muslim Council of Britain? Oh shit, that’s already been done!

Religious fruit loops have their own ‘holy’ agenda and consequently should be avoided at all costs.

Happy-clappy

Rude elements

I’m absolutely fine with Steve Cooke being critical of our communiqués, although I notice he is back to the Weekly Worker’s old habit of putting our name in quotation marks (presumably in the hope of pretending that we don’t quite exist).

This is all a bit redundant, given that Steve and myself have already debated at reasonable length on the UK Left Network discussion list. To be honest, I don’t feel that inclined to repeat an old debate that would have already been picked up on the internet by those who were interested. Steve’s letter feels a bit pointless.

For those who want to know why we were quite so rude about Gordon Downie, www.rottenelements.org.uk/downie.html will be of some help.

Rude elements
Rude elements

Fake outrage

Neil Megson appears to have got himself all hot under the collar about the letter from Chuck Wilson published on April 12.

‘Chuck Wilson’, he claims, is not the author’s real name. What is more, the same person uses a number of aliases to ridicule leftists on internet message boards and is also responsible for letters attacking Permanent Revolution previously published in the Weekly Worker. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but I certainly don’t see it as the letters editor’s role to follow every online forum or conduct extensive research into the backgrounds and authenticity of people who write to our paper, especially if their letters make entirely legitimate points on matters of opinion.

Nor, as some previous complainants have implied, should we be expected to photographically memorise the entire cast lists from cult sci-fi series and then veto any letters that come in from people with similar names. With all due respect to his acting abilities, ‘Mitch Pileggi’ is hardly in the same league as Julia Roberts or Harrison Ford when it comes to the ‘household name’ rankings. And there are very few celebrities, major or minor, who have exclusive rights over their forenames and surnames.

Comrade Megson seems to object to us publishing material submitted by people using “false names”. Well, the use of pseudonyms is nothing particularly new in politics - in leftwing circles it is sometimes a necessity in order to protect activists from victimisation by their employer or even from their own ‘comrades’. It is the content of the letter that is important, not the name at the bottom.

I will ignore the suggestion that because our paper publishes letters which comrade Megson disapproves of it must be a “state front used to discredit the entire left”. But what is this about the Weekly Worker allegedly “copying” material from message boards to fill the letters page? Very occasionally we have suggested to people who publish something interesting online that their contribution would make a useful letter - sometimes good writing deserves a wider audience. We would only do that with their permission, of course.

Unfortunately, though, comrade Megson didn’t take the time to address the central political point made by his nemesis, Chuck Wilson. But perhaps that’s because the point - that members of Permanent Revolution and Workers Power have no other outlet to openly express their views and discuss politics - is entirely justified.

Fake outrage
Fake outrage

Dogmatic

Dave Craig’s reply to Gerry Downing on the ‘permanent revolution’ issues requires only a brief response. The substance is that both comrade Downing and comrade Craig are writing as dogmatic theologians: that is, treating the writings of Lenin and Trotsky as sacred texts which can’t be wrong. Rather, these writings should be judged as scientific texts which - if they are to be used as a present guide to action - should be judged with the benefit of hindsight in relation to our knowledge of the historical development.

The scientific case for using the writings of Lenin and Trotsky - and of the Comintern more generally - as a guide to action, is the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the corresponding failure of the German revolution in 1919. But these are necessarily judgments in hindsight. On the one hand, if the Russian Revolution had ended in defeat in the civil war, or the overthrow of the Bolshevik regime through splits in the Bolshevik Party and the emergence of political representation of the capitalist NEPmen and the employer-farmer kulaks in the 1920s, no-one would judge 1917-18 as anything more than a repeat of the Paris Commune: that is, a premature sketch of the proletarian regime.

Conversely, if the German revolution had led, not to the rise of Hitler, but directly to modern German welfare-state capitalism with a strong socialist party, no-one would judge that the defeat of the German far left and the council movement in 1919 was a historical ‘failure’: it would, on the contrary, appear to vindicate the stand of the SPD majority against the left.

In the early 21st century, we are forced to judge both events with the benefit of hindsight from now. That means recognising that the post-World War II European welfare states and strong social democratic parties were an artefact of US policy towards the USSR, and that, now the USSR is gone, the capitalists want to take back the concessions and get rid of the social democracy: hence, the post-war welfare state system is not a proof of the truth of the policy of the social democracy.

But it also means recognising that at the end of the day the Russian Revolution failed. The form of this failure calls into question the validity of both Lenin’s and Trotsky’s 1918-20 polemics against ‘classless democracy’ (comrade Downing) and of Lenin’s and Trotsky’s polemics against Bukharin and other lefts on ‘uneven development’ (comrade Craig’s latest piece). It is, in short, necessary to analyse the historical dynamics without presuming that 1917 is a guide to action or that Lenin and Trotsky were right against their adversaries. In doing so we may wind up with the conclusion that at least some of Lenin’s and Trotsky’s arguments were right. But we will take not one step forward as long as we cling to a dogmatic-theological approach to them.

Dogmatic
Dogmatic