19.09.2007

PC language and fudging differences

Marxists should not be afraid to call a spade a spade, writes Mark Fischer

On one level, it is very hard to take the letter from Paul Smith seriously (Weekly Worker September 13). On another, we have to. The comrade expresses many of the common philistine prejudices and prissy idiocies of the contemporary left. That alone makes it worthwhile replying to him.

To start with the obvious, we have here a member of the Campaign for a Marxist Party. Given this formal affiliation, he has a distinctly dodgy explanatory model for the origins of the left's sectarianism. He suggests that the leaders of the contemporary left have a direct material interest in the perpetuation of their sects - ie, the income derived from the papers, books and other literature sold by the rank and file minions and these poor dupes' dues.

This is punk 'Marxism', almost on the same level of mechanical stupidity as the earnest dope who asked Krupskaya what change in factory technique accounted for the Bolshevik-Menshevik split. However, even within its own logic the idea is a silly one. First because - whatever their flaws - the leaderships of the various revolutionary sects could do a tad better for themselves in mainstream society, or in bureaucratised mass organisations of the class such as trade unions or the Labour Party, than in the tiny and financially impoverished groupuscules of the far left. Clearly, the pernicious hold of sectarianism in our movement must have other explanations.

Second, Paul's argument is strange, given that he is in the CMP. Far from the problem being magicked away when/if the CMP is successful, surely it would present itself on a far higher level? After all, exactly what sort of party is he arguing for? I would hope he agrees with us that we should be looking forward to a Marxist workers' party many millions strong. Such a social organ must have a stable and talented team of leaders overseeing an apparatus that produces our local and national newspapers, our 24-hour web-based news service, our TV and radio stations, our social clubs and pubs, our youth and children organisations, etc. Yet, sounding more like an anarchist than a Marxist, comrade Smith implies that such organisational layers automatically produce a culture of sectarianism and rank and file passivity.

And, of course, the irony of the rest of Paul's letter is that he actually advocates a culture of party debate and polemic that would greatly facilitate the bureaucratic stranglehold of any leadership elite. The comrade tut-tuts over the "playground petulance" on display in the recent sharp exchanges over Iraq between the CPGB and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty. Instead of "honest communication between revolutionaries" we have the "taunts of bullies [which] masquerade as discussion and debate".

What is key about Paul's contribution is his political assessment of the 'superficial' differences between the CPGB and the AWL over Iraq - apparently they have generated a "false antagonism" for which there are no "objective grounds". To deploy the frequently used assessment offered by Paul's fellow Glasgow CMPer, Hillel Ticktin - nonsense. The issue is one of principle over which it is necessary to draw the sharpest lines of political demarcation.

However, it becomes clear that comrade Smith's complaints about the language deployed by both sides is inseparably connected to this dishonest or - perhaps more charitably - woefully ignorant attempt to fudge the difference between the CPGB's consistent anti-imperialism and the AWL majority's scabby pro-occupation stance. This is such a pristine example of how a politically correct approach to language and polemic facilitates opportunism, that we could perhaps include it in a future textbook on the subject.

We have written on this a number of times before, but it is worthwhile once more summarising our position under four general headings.

Openness: Communist polemics must be rigorous and clear in their language. We strive to make transparent all political relationships and causal connections between organisations, people that constitute them, their programmes and the things they do. Of course, this means trying to accurately represent the views of opponents, but pulling no punches. We call a spade a spade. The target of criticism, the angularity and colour of language, are determined by our aims.

Jules Martov - the future leader of the Mensheviks and judged rather 'soft' compared to Lenin even when they were in the same political bloc - neatly captured this approach. He, Lenin and the other editors of the seminal publication Iskra "strove to make sure that 'all that is ridiculous' appears in 'a ridiculous form'" and to "expose 'the very embryo of a reactionary idea hidden behind a revolutionary phrase'" (quoted in M Liebman Leninism under Lenin London 1985, p29).

Struggle: Therefore, truth for communists - engaged as we are in the class struggle - does not crawl out of the swamp of exclusively polite, 'constructive criticism' - a habitat comrade Smith calls a "safe environment within which workers can become intellectuals through study and the free expression of differences (including making mistakes)" without being bruised by harsh criticism. (Is there anything more inimical to genuine development than a "safe environment": ie, a playpen for political children where all the sharp edges have been covered up?) In fact, the search for truth is an active process of heated, sometimes hurtful, conflict.

Instructively, Iskra's ruthless exposure of "the very embryo of a reactionary idea hidden behind a revolutionary phrase" - a "polemical style that was destined to enjoy a brilliant future in the Bolshevik Party" - was damned by many: "On all sides, Iskra's opponents condemned the polemical methods of this journal, which was accused, to quote Trotsky's testimony at the time, of 'fighting not so much against the autocracy as against the other factions in the revolutionary movement'" (ibid).

In stark contrast to comrade Smith's laments, in a genuine communist culture such frank and occasionally violent exchange of views helped fuse those who took their politics seriously. As Leopold Trepper put it, "During Lenin's lifetime, political life among the Bolsheviks was always very animated. At the congresses, in the plenums, at the meetings of the central committee, militants said frankly what they thought. This democratic and often bitter clash of opinions gave the party its cohesion and vitality" (my emphasis, L Trepper The great game London 1977, p44).

Science: What distinguishes our political theory is its scientific foundation and - paradoxically - it is this that necessitates aggressiveness and conflict. Science moves beyond the observation of relatively simple, cause-consequence relations and surface connections to the formulation of more profound and fundamental laws of social being and thinking. It is in this context that Marx commented that if the surface appearance of things and their inner essence coincided, then there would be no need for science.

Given that the fundamental laws of science lie hidden behind what is 'accidental' and 'chaotic', how does it come into the world? Always and everywhere as the viewpoint of either individuals or extreme minorities. The majority of the earth's population did not spontaneously arrive at conclusions about the position of the planet in the solar system or the evolution of the species. The minorities or individuals that came to these understandings often had to fight a life-or-death battle (sometimes literally) against established orthodoxies, the regimes and institutions that gained sustenance from conventional beliefs and the mass 'common sense' that accepted them.

It is axiomatic that Marxist politics, as scientific truth, come first into the world as minority politics - fighting, clawing for a hearing. Thus, our politics are not for the squeamish or faint-hearted. Partisans have to develop an intellectual toughness, courage and boldness in order to go forward.

MN Pokrovsky, a Russian historian of the revolution, comments that an "essential quality of Ilyich [Lenin], when you look back at the past, is his colossal political courage ... The characteristic trait of Ilyich was that he was not afraid to assume the responsibility for political decisions of any size. In this respect he did not retreat in the face of any risk; he took upon himself the responsibility for steps on which hung the fate not only of his own person or of his party, but that of the whole country and to some extent the world revolution. Because this was such an unusual political phenomenon, Ilyich always launched all his actions with a very small group, in as much as there were very few people to be found who were bold enough to follow him" (MN Pokrovsky Russia in world history Michigan 1970, p189).

Why did Lenin always start in a minority? Because he was 'rude'? No - precisely because his politics were characterised by scientific exactitude, by a striving to grasp what was essential to a political phenomenon, and by his determination not to be diverted by "all that was external, accidental, superficial". Lenin insisted on the need to arrive at conclusions that "reached to the heart of the matter and grasped the essential methods of action" (L Trotsky On Lenin p194).

Politics is not physics, however. Marxism cannot expect its victory to simply materialise through the unfolding of the objective laws of history's development: It is not like waiting for the seasons to change or for a solar eclipse. Politics - like warfare - is an art and an essential aspect of it is polemic.

Art: Marxist polemics are required to carve out an audience, to make other, larger forces pay shocked attention. To do battle against the prevailing flow of political 'common sense', they must often be expressed in the starkest terms. It should be obvious to us as Marxists that when a political opponent starts at our use of a particular phrase, when they make demands that we 'withdraw' our accusations or try to stop us expressing them, the likelihood is that we have touched a raw nerve. Take the phrase we have used to characterise the politics of the pro-occupation AWL: majority - scab - a designation that both the AWL majority and its milksop minority opposition have whined about; and one that no doubt would cause Paul to wag his finger at us too.

Lenin is clear: "To discuss complaints or accusations on this plane would be the same as if we were to condemn the word 'strike-breaker' as being impermissible, without going to the essence of the question of whether the behaviour of the person concerned was actually that of a strike-breaker or not" (VI Lenin CW Vol 12, Moscow 1977, p429).

So what should we say about the AWL refusal to demand the unconditional withdrawal of the imperialist troops from the occupation of another country, about its advice to the world working class that it should ignore this brutal denial of the right of self-determination? Is this a crossing of class lines or not? If the answer is yes, what other word for it is there other than "scab"?

And what if the AWL's Paul Hampton behaves like an oaf in order to avoid engaging with the CPGB's criticisms? Should we desist from pointing this out because some find the word - but apparently not the behaviour to which it refers - offensive?

Should we be concerned that others find such designations rude or off-putting? Hardly. Here is Liebman once more on the political basis of Lenin's renowned 'rudeness': "Unconcerned with those preoccupations about unity which almost inevitably lead to the making of compromises, Lenin was able to give a sharp outline to his doctrine, using the incisive language that he preferred and, as he often stressed, aussprechen was ist ('to say what is': ie, to describe things frankly as he saw them), without having to worry about the feelings of any partners. This absence of ambiguity not only helped separate the revolutionary trend from the reformist one: it also maintained and reinforced the distinction between the Russian socialist movement and bourgeois ideology" (M Liebman Leninism under Lenin London 1985, p107).

In general then, the proclivity of comrade Smith and others like him who would distribute asbos to the left for their use of polemical language is an attribute of trends that seek to blur clear political lines between Marxism and opportunism; to be coy about sharp political differentiation and to let opportunists off the hook. It is an expression of a veering away from Marxism, towards bourgeois politics in the workers' movement.

The ethos of the culture being recommended to us always and everywhere favours the right and the maintenance of the unMarxist notions and prejudices that currently abound on the left. It is nothing to do with the healthy traditions of our movement, nothing to do with Bolshevism. And that, perhaps, is the nub of our disagreements.

In the final session of this year's Communist University, Matthew Jones national secretary of the CMP seemed to suggest - "amazingly", as our reporter observed - that "a Bolshevik-type party was completely inappropriate for today's epoch" (Weekly Worker August 30). Despite being pressed for clarification, the comrade simply restated the idea in his summing up. Those in the CMP such as Matthew Jones (and Paul Smith?) should perhaps elaborate a little more the party form that is suitable for this period, if Bolshevism - with the attendant culture of open, no-holds-barred ideological struggle that was an indispensable building block of this political trend - is no longer "appropriate".