10.05.2007
Key weapon of struggle
The task of debating the CPGB Draft programme, a necessarily protracted prelude to a full redraft and its submission to the organisation as a whole for final discussion and approval, is now well underway. Mary Godwin reports
There have so far been four sessions of debate conducted in London communist forums. These sessions are open to all, and anyone interested in helping us in this process is welcome to attend and have their say. Those unable to be present can always write to the paper or use our website to provide us with input.
The aim of the forums, or seminars, is obviously to create a lively debate and this is reflected in a simple and flexible format: advance notice of the section to be debated is given in the Weekly Worker so that everyone has time to prepare - not just by studying the text in the current version of the Draft programme, of course, but by wider reading and reflection. The best immediate source for the latter is obviously the Weekly Worker itself and the extensive archive materials available on the web, which demonstrate how our organisation has consistently done its best to come to theoretical and practical grips with all the major issues of the day as they arise. The time has self-evidently come when this body of work and experience must find reflection in a strategic vision encapsulated in an updated draft programme.
Our epoch
The first London communist forum on the subject took place on March 18 and was devoted to section 1 of the Draft programme, entitled 'Our epoch'. It was introduced by comrade Peter Manson. (The current draft can be downloaded from www.cpgb.org.uk/ documents/cpgb/draftprog.html. For ease of reference during the discussion, paragraphs were numbered.)
First a couple of obvious points. The text contains some noticeable typographical errors which will be corrected. They do not materially impair discussion, though there are some ambiguities which will need to be ironed out. Secondly, there are a couple of anachronisms, such as that in paragraph 18, where reference is made to "the dollar and the pound, the yen and the mark". The reference to "mark" obviously needs to be updated. As the comrade pointed out, there are also some ambiguous formulations.
It was felt that paragraph 7, however unintentionally, seems to rest on an apocalyptic theory of capitalist crisis, suggesting that ever deepening systemic economic crises will, as it were, bring with them the 'inevitable' objective preconditions for revolution. This paragraph needs a lot of work and some considerable refinement in the redrafting process.
On the day, our main discussion revolved around paragraph 3 of section 1, which it is worth quoting in full: "The October 1917 revolution in Russia marked the beginning of the epoch. Socialism was transformed from the realm of theory to that of practice. However the workers' state in backward Russia was, fatally, left isolated. The workers could not exercise direct control. Under these famished conditions bureaucratic deformation was inevitable. The eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 confirms that there are no national roads to communism nor any sustainable alternative between capitalism and genuine socialism. Socialism is international and democratic or it is nothing".
From the floor comrade Michael Malkin said that this paragraph appeared to represent some kind of theoretical statement about the nature of the USSR and the reasons why it collapsed. As such it is wholly inadequate because it fails (for whatever internal reasons related to Soviet defencism at the time the document was originally drafted) to come to grips with the phenomenon of Stalinism.
Of course, the comrade stated, the isolation of the Bolshevik revolution had fatal consequences - socialism in one country is just crazy (as the CPGB quite rightly points out time after time) and it is perhaps the defining dogma of Stalinism itself. But that, in an important sense, just begs the question. The workers never exercised any control ("direct" or otherwise). Why? Because they were soon robbed (the precise date is almost a scholastic question) of genuine political democracy and even the most basic of human freedoms. To speak of "famished conditions" and "bureaucratic deformations" is unfortunately no more than equivocation.
The self-identifying dogmatic mantras of the various Trotskyist sects about the Soviet Union - along the lines of its having been a "deformed workers' state", a form of "bureaucratic socialism" (socialism?) or, even more risibly, "state capitalism" - are self-deluding lies against history and against the Russian and international working classes, many of whose best fighters perished at the hands of Stalin and his epigones.
If the CPGB is serious, which it undoubtedly is, about the necessity of building a Marxist party, then it is time to tell the working class what we know to be the truth: that Stalin and Stalinism through conscious and deliberate counterrevolution destroyed the Bolshevik revolution, with consequences which we experience to this day.
Comrade Malkin suggested that paragraph 3 of section 1 should be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: "The October 1917 revolution in Russia marked the beginning of the epoch. Socialism was transported from the realm of theory to that of practice. But socialism in one country is impossible. Isolation meant that the workers' state in Russia was doomed to fail. It was, however, defeated and then ruthlessly destroyed, not by the forces of reaction from without, but by the forces of counterrevolution from within. In a grotesque, profoundly anti-human caricature of socialism, Stalinism turned truth, freedom, democracy and every other authentic human value into their opposites. The USSR collapsed because it was the embodiment of this fundamental contradiction. Without truth, freedom and democracy socialism can never exist."
Capitalism in Britain
The second London seminar in this series, held on April 8, was devoted to section 2 of the Draft programme, 'Capitalism in Britain'. Comrades felt that despite its having been written some 15 years ago, its historical sketch of the development and specific characteristics of capitalism in Britain remained basically sound and uncontroversial.
The important thing in the redrafting process, however, is to take account of obvious developments in the interim around a number of key questions: internationally, a clear, succinct analysis of Britain's contemporary role vis-à -vis integrated, globalised capitalism is programmatically essential in order politically to combat tendencies, still sadly prevalent in our own workers' movement, to see the struggle in terms of defending the interests of workers in this country, whose jobs have disappeared as a result of, or are threatened by, capital flight to cheaper labour markets. This is just one manifestation of the old British road to socialism myopia still peddled by the Communist Party of Britain and the Morning Star. It ignores the fact that the fight for the revolutionary overthrow of international, globalised capitalism can only be conducted on an internationalist basis.
Domestically, one key theoretical question unaddressed in the Draft programme, for obvious reasons, is that of the nature of New Labour and what, if only for shorthand purposes, we might call Blairism's impact over the last decade. Does it represent a genuine qualitative break with the Labour Party of the past? Can the Labour Party still be characterised as a bourgeois party of the working class? What about the role of the trade unions under New Labour and their position in the balance of political forces between capital and labour in Britain today, when the big unions seem more interested in setting out their stalls as competitive providers of financial and related services to their members rather than defending them from blatant attack by capital?
The long discussion which followed illustrated that particularly the latter problems impinge directly on arguments currently taking place on the left about what kind of party the working class needs in present conditions. The pressing need for a Marxist party committed to extreme democracy and internationalism was reflected in the contributions from all speakers. Much more work needs to be done here.
Wage workers
The April 22 forum began our section-by-section study of part 3 of Draft programme, 'Immediate demands', beginning with current section 3.1, 'Working conditions and wage workers'.
There was a degree of consensus on the following points: first, the introduction to the section at present reads: "In circumstances where capitalism is politicising the economic struggle of the working class, the communists demand ..." It is unclear how "capitalism is politicising the economic struggle of the working class" and why our demands should be dependent on this happening, as the phrase seems to imply. It was felt this introduction should be dropped altogether (or it could simply read: "Communists demand "¦").
Secondly, several comrades noted that some of our current demands appear arbitrary and/or insufficient. Perhaps we should be demanding something better than "A five-day working week and a maximum seven-hour day" (which should read 'A maximum five-day working week and a seven-hour day' in any case). Similarly "An uninterrupted weekly break of not less than 60 hours for all wage workers" is a little low - most workers enjoy more than this already. Also "A minimum of six weeks' fully paid holiday leave during the year" is not enough if bank holidays are included.
Thirdly, the paragraph on the minimum wage ends: "The minimum wage to be used in the calculation of all other wage rates." Again this is unclear and seems unnecessary, if not wrong. We do, however, need to say something like: "The minimum wage to be used in the calculation of pensions and benefits."
Finally, the paragraph on child labour came in for a lot of criticism. Firstly there seems to be some conflation between "child labour" and labour carried out by young workers. At present we are demanding: "Child labour to be illegal before the age of 14." Are we categorising work carried out by 15 (and 16 and 17) year-olds as "child labour", as this might be understood? There are no specific demands relating to the level of wages, etc for children/young workers either here or under 'Youth'. The sentence, "Child labour to be banned in any industry harmful to children", is badly in need of rewording - surely an "industry harmful to children" would be likely to harm adults too?
These are areas where the practical knowledge and experience of members, supporters and readers of the Weekly Worker would be particularly valuable in getting the redraft right in form and content.
Migrant workers
The May 13 session debated section 3.2, 'Migrant workers', and, as usual, showed up areas of contention and areas of consensus on the need for change.
Paragraph 1 (characterising immigration as a progressive phenomenon, breaking down national differences and prejudices and uniting British workers with the international working class) seemed somewhat one-sided: yes, migration is clearly progressive for the reasons given, but it frequently involves the uprooting of people, who are forced or feel obliged to leave their homelands for economic or political reasons.
As regards paragraph 3, ("The capitalist state in Britain has an official ideology of anti-racism. That in no way contradicts the national chauvinist consensus which champions British imperialism's interests against foreign rivals and sets worker against worker"), some comrades thought that, rather than this passing reference, there ought to be separate section on racism, alongside those on women and gays. While comrades were agreed that anti-racism is part of the official ideology of the bourgeoisie, some felt that the need to combat residual racism needs a section on its own. There is no mention of multiculturalism - a shortcoming which needs to be corrected, in some comrades' view.
There was some debate over the difference between assimilation and integration (paragraph 5). Does assimilation, for example, imply a one-way process, whereby migrants adopt 'British customs', but the reverse does not occur?
The discussion on bullet point demands following on from this paragraph raised a number of important issues: how far, for example, should the right to be educated in one's own language (rather than the language of the host country) be taken. Some comrades thought the balance between this right and the right to learn English - both on a voluntary basis - was already correctly expressed.
There was agreement that the demand, "No religious or separate schools" does not belong in the section on migrant workers at all. Its merits were debated at considerable length and some felt that it needs amendment and should form part of future discussion of those sections dealing with religion and/or democracy before settling its place and its wording.
Some comrades felt that the proposed three-month period after which full social and political rights should be demanded was unnecessary - why not from day one? It was pointed out, on the other side, that we do not advocate the right to vote for day-trippers. The word 'workers' should be omitted from this bullet point - we are not proposing to deny full social and political rights to non-workers.
Organic
As can be seen from this necessarily truncated summary, discussions so far at London communist forums have already ranged over a wide area and raised questions which extend beyond the formal boundaries set by looking at the Draft programme sequentially in its detail. It is clear that we have embarked on a real organic process in which many things remain wide open, including the exact methodology of how best to proceed with a complex and important task. All participants have different knowledge, experience and insights which they can bring to bear on the work and all involved will learn a great deal from the process of forging a key weapon in the struggle.