Letters

Anti-communist

Excuse me again? Anti-communist Bob Harding dribbles: “There are many who don’t just assume the ‘working class’ are the chosen people. We need to make a case for using this term and question if it is the right one, because most people don’t take it as given just because it’s in the Marxist bible, Capital” (Letters, July 19).

Obviously, Bob has never taken the time to read Das Kapital, as I have electronically scanned the entire work and failed to find the term ‘chosen people’. But perhaps there’s a problem with my computer programme?

Bob babbles on: “While some religions make a fetish of the church, Marxists make a fetish of ‘the party’. Trotsky substituted the subjective factor of what workers think for ‘the party, the party, the party’.” In other words, rather than ‘the party’ being necessary, for Bob ‘the party’ is the equivalent of the catholic church.

Bob carries a lot of Stalinist baggage with him, and he’s been deeply hurt by it, which is understandable. But he apparently fails to understand that while rejecting Stalinism he nonetheless equates Stalinism with Marxism because he’s bought the lies of Stalinism - “the syphilis of the workers’ movement”.

As Bob cannot distinguish between the two, he lashes out against Marxism and its basic tenet that in order for the working class to come to, and maintain, power it must have a party, for without a party it cannot possibly hold onto power. You see, a party is an instrument of class dictatorship. So long as social classes remain there will be a need for the working class to have its own party - programmatically, organisationally and politically independent of the capitalist class.

Bob is a renegade from the workers’ movement, and you can blame this on the inevitable demoralisation that comes from being around the Stalinists. Remember, many German Nazis were former Communists (with a big ‘C’), who had been betrayed by the Stalinists, and it was this anger and fury that led them into the arms of Hitler’s national socialism.

Anti-communist
Anti-communist

SLP alibi

During a discussion on the UK Left Network email list, CPGB member Eddie Ford alleged that another political group, the International Bolshevik Tendency, had alibied the anti-democratic witch-hunt in the Socialist Labour Party during the late 1990s.

As this is a serious claim of irregularity by what I consider to be one of the better groups on the left, I was moved to investigate the allegation. What I found in the CPGB’s own archive seemed to argue against Eddie’s allegation. As a result I asked for clarification from Eddie, but he and the other CPGB members on that email list have refused to even try to explain the contradiction despite my repeated prodding.

So in the interests of political clarity and honesty, I am sending the questions Eddie refuses to answer to the Weekly Worker to see if I will get a response here. Was the CPGB report of the SLP’s December 1997 conference right or wrong to place the IBT among the democratic opposition to the Scargill bureaucracy? How could this report have been written if the IBT had been alibying the witch-hunt only a few months earlier?

SLP alibi

Fucking reds

Dear red English comrads! Sorry for my English. I want just to say, enough dream about fucking communizm. I am already was living with him. No money, no food, no freedom, nothing. Even no sex ...

Fucking reds
Fucking reds

Turkish plans

Criticism of America is widespread in Turkey, as Esen Uslu’s article points out (‘Anti-Kurd jingoism’, July 19). It goes right across the political spectrum. A survey in 2003 suggested that 90% of Turkey’s inhabitants opposed the US-British invasion of Iraq. Presumably, some did so because it was seen as imperialist aggression, while others, further right on the political spectrum, feared correctly that an invasion of Iraq would give more impetus to the Kurdish question.

I could well be wrong, but I do not believe the Turkish army will invade, at least not at this point. It would not do that without US permission, as noted in the article, and I do not think this permission will be forthcoming. There is some activity by Turkish special forces in northern Iraq, and that is likely to be as effective as any massive invasion would be, without the political cost to alliances.

While it is true that relations between Turkey’s military-dominated oligarchy and the USA are under strain, it should be remembered that few parts of Turkey’s society are as close to the Americans as the top army generals are.

Turkish plans

Omission

It’s interesting that Esen Uslu is unaware that the left and Kurdish parties brought together a joint campaign some time ago. I wonder if the reason this was not mentioned is that the campaign was arranged largely by Antikapitalist, the Turkish section of the International Socialist Tendency?

Omission

Three strands

In order to further Marxist unity and advance towards a party, “what do we do in the present?” asks Phil Sharpe rhetorically (Letters, July 19).

The CPGB’s approach has three parallel and inseparable strands:

1. Unite where we can. For example, the Campaign for a Marxist Party has proposed a set of political principles that are virtually identical to those of the CPGB. We need to come together in a pre-party formation under democratic centralism. If other Marxist groups committed to such partyist unity emerge, then so much the better. Yes, at first this might mean the existence of competing factional viewpoints, but the aim would be to rapidly reduce differences to those of nuance.

2. Combat opportunism. The biggest obstacle to the achievement of a Marxist party is the left as currently organised. Groups like the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party not only have no conception of partyism, but are opportunist through and through. In order to defeat their ideas and promote those of Marxism we must engage with them up close - in Respect, the Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party, etc.

3. Continue to develop our theory. The CPGB is about to publish the book, Fantastic reality - Marxism and the politics of religion, and shortly afterwards a pamphlet on communist strategy. Work on a further book on the communist approach to the environment and climate crisis is well underway.

Comrade Sharpe seems to believe that each of the above points (assuming he accepts point 2 is necessary at all) represents a separate process. Only when point 3 has been substantially completed (it never will be) can point 1 be achieved; and only when we have Marxist unity will we be able to challenge the SWP and SP. In fact all three are mutually dependent - part of a single, simultaneous process.

Essential to that process is the elaboration of a common programme. However, comrade Sharpe is completely wrong when he says the CPGB is demanding some kind of ultimatist “unity around the politics of the CPGB” and is “proposing a party programme that will be for the CMP to take it or leave it” - ie, one that is predetermined and set in stone.

The day after the CMP’s launch conference in November 2006 an aggregate of CPGB members decided to begin the process of redrafting our Draft programme, to “run in parallel with programmatic discussions conducted with the Campaign for a Marxist Party” (Weekly Worker November 9 2006).

It was the CPGB that proposed an initial CMP day school on programme, while at the same time inviting CMP comrades to participate in our own discussions, which have been held every two or three weeks in London and less regularly elsewhere. The invitation to participate in these meetings and to join in the debate in our paper (see Weekly Worker May 31 and p11 of this issue) is an ongoing one and we would positively welcome input from non-CPGBers at any stage.

Obviously CPGB programmatic proposals to the CMP or to a new, merged formation would be put forward on the same basis as any other - for amendment, acceptance or rejection.

Three strands
Three strands

CMP clarification

Summarising more than five hours of debate in 1,500 words or so is no mean task. However, in her report of the last CPGB aggregate, Mary Godwin ascribes to me a view that I do not hold: “Nick Rogers thought … it had perhaps been a tactical mistake to mobilise on June 23, giving some people ammunition” (‘CPGB unity over CMP’, July 19).

I did argue that the CPGB made a number of tactical mistakes at the Campaign for a Marxist Party’s conference on June 23 (see Letters, July 12). Some of these - such as attempting to impose the substance of the CPGB’s constitutional proposals after agreeing to adjourn the discussion on the constitution - certainly had the potential to provide ammunition to those who were prepared to think the worst of the CPGB. Fortunately, the leadership, realising that this was unacceptable to a large minority, stepped back from a potential split - a decision I fully support. However, I have never argued that it was a tactical mistake to mobilise on June 23 because some people in the CMP might resent a large CPGB presence.

I explicitly stated at the aggregate, and earlier in my letter about the conference, that CPGB members have every right to join the CMP and attend its meetings and conferences. If the CPGB collectively organises to assert its strength within the CMP, that is also its democratic right. On June 23 the CPGB wanted to ensure that its motion on the political nature of the CMP was passed, which was achieved by an overwhelming majority. In a sense, my criticism of our tactics is that we failed to use the strength of our presence at the CMP conference to bring a greater degree of order and clarity to the proceedings.

At the aggregate the main thrust of my contribution was to seek clarification of the CPGB’s strategic objectives within the CMP as part of its wider project of building a democratic and pluralist communist party. It is this consideration - and not a fear of criticism - that should determine the extent of the CPGB’s mobilisation within the CMP.

CMP clarification
CMP clarification

Radicalisation

In her article ‘CPGB unity over CMP’ (July 19), Mary Godwin laments the supposed decline of the Labour Party left, pointing out that “Cruddas managed to garner only 20% of first-choice votes in his bid for the deputy leadership”. In the same issue, however, Dave Craig points out that “Harriet Harman’s campaign for deputy leader was unexpectedly successful, at least in part because she took a critical line on the Iraq war” (‘Brown and a new socialist alliance’). He also notes that “she won majority votes in Labour’s constituency section in each round of voting.”

Bearing in mind that trade union voters cast more votes for the trade union bureaucrat Alan Johnson than Harman after transfers from other candidates, and undoubtedly Labour MPs and MEPs overwhelmingly voted for Johnson against Harman, her support amongst the constituency party membership must have been considerable to win the contest.

Judging by the Newsnight debate between the candidates, Harman was to the left of all the other five, including Cruddas. Harman attacked the culture of spin and the draconian ‘stop and question’ powers proposed by Tony Blair without cabinet discussion. Similar debates presumably took place in front of Labour members across Britain, and Harman’s vote therefore indicates a radicalisation of the party’s membership. Trade union members did not see such debates, and Harman’s dubious role in the past (in sending her children to a private school, for example) must have had more influence on their choice of who to support. It was particularly satisfying to see Hazel Blears, who defended the ‘stop and question’ proposals on Newsnight, come last in the deputy leadership contest.

This radicalisation of Labour Party members, which in my view reflects a radicalisation of views in society as a whole, does not mean that socialism is on the agenda. However, the opposition to a shift towards a fascist society is very welcome.

Radicalisation
Radicalisation

Musical row

Vivian Bolus, the latest combatant in the ongoing row over music, is, alongside a thoughtful response from Mike Pearn, the first to actually bring much clarity to the discussion (Letters, July 19). Still, it seems a bit shifty for the comrade to lambast Gordon Downie for sounding like Anton Webern and then cite approvingly the work of Derek Bailey, who was heavily inspired by ... Anton Webern. Has it only become “ridiculous” to be so inspired since Bailey’s tragic death in 2005?

Bolus also teeters on the brink of the one sin that unites all sides so far - a monistic view of musical form. He does not, thankfully, sink to proclaiming this or that model of tonality or harmony as the ‘progressive’ one against ‘bourgeois’ alternatives, or make much play out of the three-chord punk ethos. The moral of the story does, however, seem to be something similar: improvisation is collaborative and therefore good, whereas composition denotes an unequal division of labour and is thus bad.

This is a simplification that ignores, for example, the experiments in reverse seniority and so on practised by the Maoist Scratch Orchestra under Cornelius Cardew. Composition can be organised on a democratic basis, even on a scale as large as an orchestra. Likewise, improvisation can imply a rigid hierarchy, as numerous bands in many genres have served overwhelmingly as low-key backing for a given musical ‘genius’ who shreds away for 10 minutes. I don’t imagine that Bolus really believes all this, but in his zeal to bash poor old Gordon he appears to adopt improvisation as a ‘magic bullet’ against the pernicious influence of Anton Webern - exactly as Downie adopts mathematical tonality against ‘mediation’.

In fact, the logic reaches its extreme point not in Downie (whose elitist inclinations are essentially rooted in a very glum sort of utopianism, but not one without precedence), but in the Rotten Elements’ frankly bizarre evaluation of the Sex Pistols (Letters, June 28). Here, the pernicious influence to be avoided is “rockism” (whatever that is - power chords? tight jeans?), and those quasi-nihilist numbskulls, the Sex Pistols, were unknowingly progressive compared with The Clash because of “Malcolm McLaren’s filching of situationist ideas and John Lydon’s stage presence”. The implication is clear: dressing up and acting obnoxiously on stage will magically transform your moronic pub-rock into a semi-revolutionary act, whereas combining your own influences with styles produced in the colonial world is a “rockist” dead end. And if The Clash, furthermore, are to be condemned for “rockism”, then it must surely be possible to avoid it - that is, find a space for unmediated cultural production within capitalist society.

This is still an illusion. The revolutionary qualities of art are immanent within the mode of artistic production. They are not an external force on an enclosed edifice, like an asteroid impacting from outer space, but the laws and trends of capitalist ideology which propel that ideology inexorably and repeatedly, like all other aspects of capitalist social life, into crisis. Generic and stylistic ‘weak points’ are decided almost arbitrarily, over-determined by the combination and recombination of social contradictions. Thus the grinding electronic noises of Throbbing Gristle and Sutcliffe Jugend were ultimately less subversive than the chirpy Brazilian pop of Gilberto Gil.

James Turley
Exeter

Musical row
Musical row