03.10.2007

Tell it like it is

The CPGB has been much criticised over its willingness to use the enemy's media and its insistence on defending free speech. Jack Conrad explains why communists should stand against censorship and strive to expose opportunism

Free speech is vital for the working class and socialism. Why? Socialism can only be the act of self-liberation for the great majority by the great majority. Therefore it follows that the working class cannot be approached or treated as little children who are incapable of handling awkward, upsetting and complicated questions. If socialism is ever to be realised, the overwhelming majority of the population - ie, the working class - has to master the complex truths contained in and progressively revealed by Marxism.

Great revolutions of the past - such as England 1642, America 1776 and France 1789 - were carried out by, or, if not that, certainly in the interests of, a minority. If wider sections of the population were to be mobilised, used as a social battering ram, that necessitated hiding real aims, concocting misleading promises and generating intoxicating enthusiasms.

The workers? revolution, the communist revolution, is different. Being the act of the overwhelming majority, being the victory in the battle for democracy, being the triumph of popular control from below, it requires clarity. The proletarian revolution therefore strives after the unvarnished, the fullest truth in every realm of human practice. Without that there quite frankly is not the slightest chance of success.

Of course, the truth can never be established without a long struggle. Often without a bitter fight. Even with mathematics, biology, geology, physics and the other ?pure? sciences that is the case. Appearance and essence interpenetrate. Never correspond though. So moving, striving towards the truth always takes considerable time and considerable intellectual effort. Sometimes that is called genius.

Meanwhile, vested interests, those with a reputation to lose, the naturally conservative, conduct a stubborn rearguard action. Do everything in their considerable power to sideline, block and silence bearers of new discoveries and revolutionary insights. Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Ren? Descartes, William Harvey, Johannes Kepler, William Paley, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Jay Gould all faced campaigns of disinformation, ridicule and non-publication, if not outright persecution.

That being the case with the natural sciences, it is perfectly understandable that campaigns of disinformation, ridicule and non-publication, if not outright persecution, are magnified a thousandfold when it comes to Marxism. Why should that be so? The answer is obvious. Because Marxism is extreme democracy and threatens the church, the monarchy, the judiciary, the secret state, the military and the trade union bureaucracy. Because Marxism is against the market and promises to end forever the god-given power of capital and its gilded personifications and hangers-on.

Though a minority, the bourgeoisie begin with a great advantage. The dominant ideas in capitalist society are spontaneously the ideas of the bourgeoisie. Exploitation is uniquely concealed behind what Marxists call commodity fetishism. Capitalists are often admiringly believed when they boast that they are society?s wealth creators. Wage-slavery, unemployment, money, profit are all considered perfectly natural by wide swathes of the population. Marxism therefore has to hack its way through the thicket of common sense.

But there is more confronting us than that. Much more. Leave aside the police, army, MI5 and special branch. Marxism faces stiff organised opposition in the form of the many and various paid persuaders of the bourgeoisie. Philosophers and journalists, bishops and historians, teachers and media commentators, evolutionary psychologists and establishment politicians all combine together to manufacture, or disseminate, a floodtide of half truths, diversionary nonsense and cynical lies about Marxism.

Inevitably, this, together with the actuality and seeming naturalism of capitalist society, ideologically affects, colours the minds, distorts and shapes the views of many who sincerely consider themselves to be Marxists. Hence the struggle of Marxism to unite the working class against capitalism is necessarily predicated on winning the ideological battle in the working class movement itself.

There is no automatic correspondence between social circumstance and social consciousness. Indeed, Marxism must engage in a war of ideological extermination. And not only against overt anti-Marxism - social democracy, Labourism and narrow trade unionism. Even more importantly, what passes itself off as Marxism, but is patently not Marxism, must be ruthlessly hunted down. Revisionism, left communism, Stalinism, Maoism, Eurocommunism, Healyism and Cliffism being obvious examples.

So the long and short of it is that Marxism can only unite the working class by conducting a protracted and aggressive struggle to establish what is right and what is wrong, what is truthful and what is untruthful.

What are the best conditions under which to conduct the struggle for the truth? Conditions where questioning is the norm, where serious study, thought and debate are encouraged, where free speech is unrestricted and where theory is unitedly tested in practice. That describes the democratic centralist Communist Party we aspire to build. The CPGB has the name of that party, yes. But it is hardly the real thing. Our organisation is still counted in the tens. A real party must, however, be counted in the tens of thousands. Eventually in the millions.

Yet, as we all know, the advanced part of the working class in the United Kingdom is not organised. It is disorganised into countless socialist sects, stupid halfway house projects and hopeless popular fronts and campaigns. Mostly there is nothing even remotely resembling democratic centralism operating. There is definitely no serious debate. Bureaucratic centralism and anarcho-bureaucracy is the general organisational norm - and that cripples thought and stops all honest enquiry. The result can only be a cruel parody of Marxism.

Offence

Against our criticisms opponents often seek to shield themselves by citing the ?right? not to be offended. Needless to say, for communists, there exists no such democratic right. Democracy, if it is for real, if it is not just for show, means the unhindered exchange of all manner of different viewpoints, some of which will be regarded as deeply insulting, offensive and perhaps even threatening.

Marxism itself immediately comes to mind. Marxism is an insult, Marxism is an offence, Marxism is a threat, specifically to the bourgeoisie, reactionaries, racists, fascists, liberals, opportunists, turncoats, etc, and in turn is subject to insult, offence and threat by those very same forces and elements. ?First they came for the communists ?? Lenin remarked that throughout the ?civilised world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of ?pernicious sect??.¹ 

Nevertheless, neither under capitalism nor under socialism would we entertain any notion of calling for state measures to protect Marxism. In the immortal words of Rosa Luxemburg, ?Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently?.² 

Does that imply that communists are coldly indifferent about what is being published in the press and broadcast on radio and TV under the name of free speech? Obviously not. Using all our strength, we actively engage in the battle of ideas in order to win the mass of the population to make revolution. We oppose everything which divides and therefore weakens the working class: religious hatred, sexism, homophobia, national chauvinism, trade union sectionalism, opportunism, etc. We fight to overcome all that divides, all that weakens the working class. But not by prohibitions. Not by codes of conduct. Not by censorship. Our weapon is criticism.

Marx

Karl Marx himself, it can usefully be pointed out, was a lifelong opponent of censorship. Even as a young man, in 1842, he was to be found passionately arguing in favour of unrestricted freedom of the press against the Prussian state and its censors: ?Whenever one form of freedom is rejected, freedom in general is rejected?, he defiantly wrote.³ 

Marx conducted an heroic struggle, first as one of the main contributors and subsequently as editor of the Cologne-based newspaper, Rheinische Zeitung - the Prussian state imposed double and then triple censorship. Finally, in March 1843 the authorities closed it down.

Magnanimously, the Prussian king announced that censorship would ?not prevent serious and modest investigation of the truth?. Serious! Modest! Such loaded words bring to mind Jack Straw?s injunction not ?to insult or be gratuitously offensive? during the storm over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Ditto, the ever so reasonable request for ?press responsibility? issued by the US state department. Ditto, the SWP-Respect warning that ??Freedom of speech? should not be abused?. All have the whiff of censorship about them.

In an extended reply to the Prussian authorities Marx elegantly cut through the cant: ?Is it not the first duty of the seeker after truth to aim directly at the truth, without looking to the right or left? Will I not forget the essence of the matter, if I am obliged not to forget to state it in the prescribed form??.⁴ No writer can discover the truth if placed in a bureaucratic straitjacket.

Nor did Marx want anyone telling him how and what words to write with: ?You marvel at the delightful variety, the inexhaustible riches of nature. You do not ask the rose to smell like violet, but must the richest of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety? I am audacious, but the law commands that my style be modest. Grey, all grey, is the sole, the rightful colour of freedom ? the official colour!?⁵ 

Marx claimed the right to treat the ludicrous seriously and the serious ludicrously. The truth can never be what a government commands. State machines are not interested in the truth, only in perpetuating and aggrandising themselves; something which goes hand in hand with endemic suspicion, requirements to be responsible and a pathological fear of exposure. To ensure public order thought must be manacled, placed behind high walls and put under the guard of prison wardens.

During these times - the early 1840s - Marx took delight in showing how the servile deputies of the Prussian diet sought to put a stop to the regular reporting of their proceedings. They obviously regarded their debates as a private matter and of no business of the mass of the population (rather like the SWP and its conferences).

When journalists daringly lifted the veil, they were accused of irresponsible behaviour and treated as spies who had revealed vital secrets. Members of the diet could no longer uninhibitedly express themselves. They felt constrained when they knew that some untrustworthy stranger would be publishing their words. Indeed that was the case.

And over the years, as parliamentary reporting became the norm, as the democratic space in society has inch by inch been extended, professional politicians have turned to the art of lying, deception and double-talk. Marx?s glowing description of the Paris Commune serves as a criticism of both 19th century parliaments and those on the left today who exhibit the exact same morbid fear of openness: ?the Commune did not pretend to infallibility, the invariable attribute of all governments of the old stamp. It published its doings and sayings, it initiated the public into all its shortcomings?.⁶ 

Obviously, free speech comes with some unpleasant consequences. All decent people feel disgust for the bile and filth that daily pours from the pages of the Daily Mail and The Sun. The same goes for the well-researched apologetics of David Irving. He used his considerable talents as an historian to belittle or deny the Nazi holocaust.

But the last thing we should do is call for censorship and bans. On the contrary, there must be freedom, even for sick, daft and crazy ideas. The long-term interests of the workers? movement demand it. Marx tellingly writes: ?Keep in mind that you could not enjoy the advantages of a free press without tolerating its inconveniences. You could not pluck the rose without its thorns! And what do you lose in losing a free press? A free press is the omnipresent open eye of the popular spirit ... It is the merciless confessional that a people makes to itself, and it is well known that confession has the power to redeem. It is the intellectual mirror in which a people beholds itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom?.⁷ 

What of religion? In 1842 Marx was fearlessly campaigning against the Prussian state?s legal protection of the christian faith from ?frivolous? and ?hostile? attack. Such little phrases were nothing but gagging devices. Replying to the censors, Marx went to the heart of the matter: ?Religion can only be attacked in a hostile or a frivolous way: there is no third way?.⁸ 

Of course, he never thought that freedom of expression was a perfect thing in itself, some kind of be-all and end-all. Free speech is not the same as general freedom. But it is surely one of its preconditions. Free speech allows us to cast a sharp light on what lies under the surface of events and what is kept hidden away by the state. Thereby we can educate ourselves.

Against this background, what then are we to make of the accusation that the CPGB abused free speech and crossed class lines by agreeing to Mark Fischer?s appearance on BBC2?s Newsnight? Its September 21 report on Respect was fronted by its political editor, Michael Crick. He is, to put it mildly, no friend of the left, as shown by his books, such as Militant (1984) and Scargill and the miners (1985). By the same measure, what are we to make of demands in the Campaign for a Marxist Party that email discussion contributions be policed by a censorious permanent chair? He would outlaw CMP members from using colourful words such as ?twerp?, ?idiot? and ?scab?.

Critics

Frankly, they amount to one and the same thing. An attempt to curb free speech, an attempt to stop pointed CPGB attacks, an attempt to safeguard opportunism from justified criticism.

As might be expected, there are wild, almost demented, accusations being hurled against us by easily offended SWPers - that the CPGB is a front for MI5, etc. However, non-SWPers - those who might otherwise be thought to have a slightly more rational approach - they too have joined in the hysterical condemnations of Mark Fischer. Eg, bloggers Andy Newman⁹  and Liam Mac Uaid.¹⁰ 

Comrade Fischer?s appearance on Newsnight was ?appalling and self-serving?, hisses Newman. Mac Uaid, was no less vituperative: ?Having a discussion between socialists is one thing. Having one of your most prominent members collaborate with a sneering, anti-socialist BBC Newsnight reporter is beyond contempt.? In the comments section of his blog Mac Uaid goes on to lay down the law: ?The Newsnight business is very straightforward. You don?t assist the bourgeois press when they attack an organisation in the workers? movement. That?s what Mark did by giving the interview.?

Trotsky

Given that most of our Newsnight critics come from, or even still claim to adhere to, Trotskyism, it is surely worthwhile looking back at Leon Trotsky himself and his record. Eg, in October 1939 he accepted an invitation to travel from his Mexican exile in order to testify before the Dies committee in the United States. In other words, he accepted an invitation to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, chaired by Martin Dies (1900-72).

This committee of the House of Representatives should not be confused with the Senate committee later made famous - notorious - by Joseph McCarthy. Nonetheless, it too investigated, hounded, demonised and sought to outlaw the ?subversive? activities of the Communist Party of the USA and its various fronts. New York theatres and Hollywood being particular targets for the witch-hunters.

Apparently, then, Trotsky was prepared to assist an organ of the US bourgeois state in what was quite clearly a nasty and thoroughly dangerous attack on an ?organisation in the workers? movement?.

Would today?s popular frontist British SWP retrospectively describe this as doing the dirty work of the CIA? Would Andy Newman brand it ?appalling and self-serving?? Would Liam Mac Uaid denounce Trotsky as a proven collaborator with red-baiters and call him ?beyond contempt??

Naturally, such were the accusations coming from the CPUSA and the other affiliates of sustained Comintern. The Stalinites let forth a sustained barrage of protest in order to silence Trotsky. They hated what he had already said. They feared what he might go on to say in front of the HUAC.

Obviously here was a testing moment. And under the pressure of criticism it was hardly surprising that weaker elements in the ranks of Trotsky?s own organisation wobbled and buckled. Had Trotsky put his narrow factional interests above those of the class? Was it right for him to use such a platform? Should he not think again? Was he about to cross class lines?

That was the position of James Burnham (1905-87). At the time a member of the US SWP?s political committee. A little later, as we all know, he switched over to become a vicious anti-communist ideologue. After World War II he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union.

Anyway, in 1939, as a soft, but loyal, Trotskyite, he introduced a motion to the SWP?s political committee disapproving of Trotsky?s willingness to accept the invitation to appear before HUAC. Burnham?s motion politely requested that Trotsky reconsider and refuse to testify. But he urged the SWP to disassociate itself from Trotsky - if he went ahead. Burnham was defeated, however. The SWP approved of Trotsky?s plan because of the ?propagandistic value of such testimony to our movement?.¹¹ 

In actual fact, as things turned out, the invitation to appear before HUAC was first delayed by the US state department, then cancelled by Dies himself. The excuse being that he could obtain no ?assurances from Mexico that Trotsky would be permitted to return?.¹²  A barefaced lie. Assurances had been provided to the US consul in Mexico by the secretaria de gobernaci?n in Mexico City. Trotsky concluded that Dies acted out of political, not technical, considerations.

Trotsky had been contacted first by phone and then by telegram. He recounts that he ?immediately? accepted the invitation from the Dies committee. Trotsky recognised an ?excellent opportunity? when he saw one. Of course, he consulted his immediate household in Mexico. But he felt that such an opportunity should not be lost. It ?must be utilised?, he insisted, writing to the SWP in the US.¹³ 

HUAC should be considered as, firstly, a parliamentary investigating committee; secondly, as a kind of tribunal. Trotsky, asks, rhetorically, should we boycott parliament, should we boycott bourgeois courts? Obviously not.

He knew that the Dies committee was reactionary and ?pursues reactionary aims?. Trotsky wanted, however, to combat those reactionary aims. Even though a mere witness, he confidently thought he could do that ? in spades. Simultaneously, he wanted to use the committee as a tribune in order expose the history of Stalinism, counter the attacks made upon by CPUSA leaders such as Earl Browder and tell the truth about the Moscow trials. Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, etc, etc, etc, were not fascists, saboteurs or counterrevolutionaries. They were innocent victims of Stalin?s killing machine.

To sacrifice such an ?extraordinary political possibility? because of the spinelessness of backward comrades ?would be a crime?, Trotsky thundered.¹⁴ 

Trotsky had nothing in common with the reactionary political aims of Dies. He intended to use the HUAC as a public platform to oppose repressive measures and laws and not only those directed against the CPUSA. He was against the suppression of any other ?extremist? party, the fascists included. The whole of the working class would suffer as a result of any narrowing of democracy. But especially its advanced part.

Trotsky was eager to denounce the tortuous zig-zagging of the CPUSA and show that it brought persecution down upon its own head. After all, it has been demanding that the US state deal severely with the fascists and the Trotskyites. Trotsky promised to tell the truth. The truth about the Stalinites ? and the truth about US capitalism. That ?was the reason why Mr Dies dropped his plan? to call him as a witness, concludes Trotsky.

Trotsky make these highly relevant and pointed set of remarks, writing to the US SWP: ?To avoid temptation and escape the risk of sin by abstaining, not appearing, not intervening, is a purely negative, passive and sterile radicalism. To appear if necessary on foe?s territory and to fight him with his own weapons - that is revolutionary radicalism.?¹⁵ 

Today?s British SWP, along with Respect loyalists Newman and Mac Uaid, should ponder this. Our comrade Mark Fischer appeared on Newsnight in order to uphold the integrity of Marxism and expose the depths of Respect and SWP opportunism. His half-hour of tape was cut and cut again. Despite that, he did what we wanted him to do, and to good effect. The SWP leadership has betrayed its own principles. One after the other. That was comrade Fischer?s message.

To have missed the opportunity of telling that truth before millions of viewers, that would have been a crime.