Letters

Internationalist

Lawrence Parker has homed in on a particular technique deployed by Ewan MacColl and his Critics Group during the folk song revival of the 60s and 70s, but he hasn’t yet been able to understand it (Letters, January 24). His conclusion that Ewan was guilty of “cultural nationalism” is both bizarre and perverse. Anyone who ever attended any of the folk workshops or concerts, large and small, across Britain at which Ewan and Peggy spoke and sang would have found them thoroughly revolutionary, class-orientated and transparently internationalist.

Ewan’s endeavour to illustrate the features and development of British folk traditions and musical styles and influences drew on the entire world’s peoples. His concerts rarely, if ever, failed to feature songs, stories and themes drawn from the world revolution, both past and current. His folk themes across, say, agriculture and industry often described those from other continents as parallel experiences or as contrasts. His whole life, as described in countless interviews and academic forums, was hugely influenced by the struggles of working people across the globe and the internationalist traditions in which he was brought up.

When it comes to his work, to save the dying culture of much of the British folk tradition he sent his students and fellow folk archivists on a mission to record their own traditions and cultures. This was to make folk enthusiasts aware that all of the regions, countries and ethnicities of the island had deep and rich seams of music and song lying just below the surface or surviving in specific trades and traditions. Irish music was still vibrant and alive, Scottish less so and Northumbrian alive but unwell. Instruments and folk traditions were in the hands of rare groups of ‘folk families’, while on the national stage ‘skiffle’ and rock and roll had taken eyes away from the culture of our own backyards.

This endeavour to discover the artistic roots and forms of the British working class in all its diversity, from travelling people and gypsies to coal miners and fishermen, had nothing to do with ‘nationalism’. MacColl’s ‘Britishness’ was to do with diversity, rebellion, difference, ancient origins, contrasting influences and everything that was the opposite of what ‘Britishness’ meant to the state, the flag, the system, petty little Englishness and The Sun (who started off all that repulsive ‘Brits’ shite). Ewan’s enthusiasts and fellow singing agitators, as well as the bulk of his audiences, were people who regularly burnt the flag, hated the system and despised nationalism.

When I took two years off from the pits (1970-72) for a sabbatical at Ruskin College, I had the good fortune to study under the tutorship of Ralph Samuel and his innovative History Workshop. He too directed working class students away from studies of captains, kings and ‘the country’ into rare and unfound paths back to our own history - class histories, regional histories of the working people, and their trades and skills.

Students were directed to study and research directly the trades’ genders, ethnic groups and the regions from which they had come, often uncovering histories hitherto buried and deliberately ignored by bourgeois and official historians. Sheila Rowbotham’s Hidden from history, disclosing the suppressed past of working class women, was one of the more famous features of this, but alongside it came thousands upon thousands of diverse trade and local histories of ordinary people. The true picture of life and labour of this island began to emerge and challenge formal state histories of what Britain itself was about. The three-volume Patriotism: the making and unmaking of British national identity, edited by Samuel, illustrates some of this (History Workshop). MacColl’s endeavours were exactly parallel and complementary to this process. It was a technique, a tactic to be deployed in local folk history, music and song.

Lawrence obviously doesn’t like this tactic, although I really think he hasn’t understood its motive or rationale. Clearly, Ewan’s work, as experienced by tens of thousands, maybe millions, of us, was nothing to do with the narrow “cultural nationalism” which Lawrence ascribes to it and this is in my view a distorted and bizarre interpretation to put on it. The point has clearly flown over his head.

When it comes to Tam Dean Burn and the Workers Theatre Movement, they were wonderful exponents of that form of agitprop. Their performances had great resonance among working class audiences, young and older. “No real impact” is a silly comment by Lawrence, which could be said of almost everyone and everything over the last 50 years of revolutionary and working class endeavour in Britain. The fact is the system is still here. Indeed, in my view, it has got worse and our resistance forces are much weaker. In that sense, none of us have had any “real impact”.

Ewan’s work throughout his life was useful, inspirational and revolutionary. Whatever Ben Harker actually said about him, and I still haven’t got the book yet, Lawrence Parker has entirely misrepresented that priceless contribution. I would guess from Hugh Kerr’s tribute to Ewan, and his view that Harker’s book is “much better than Lawrence Parker’s review”, that he has misrepresented Class act too.

On another subject, I’m amazed that in this recent review and the debate on nuclear energy you all seem to have overlooked the fact that it comes about as part and parcel of the political destruction of the coal industry. The nuclear vision was and is in contrast to the ‘country’ being ‘held to ransom’ by class-conscious coal miners who challenged the status quo to its core for two centuries.

Myron drew up a plan after the defeat of Ted Heath to rid the country of this dissident force and transfer energy supply, which in those days was almost 90% coal-generated, to nuclear power regardless of costs and social expense. It was and remains an entirely class-based decision and has nowt to do with ‘the environment’ or economic considerations.

Internationalist
Internationalist

Class distinction

Tony Roberts claims that “the real working class has never seen the inside of a campus, except maybe to clean one” (Letters, January 24).

Would he care to elaborate on who the working class are? You see, I went to a university and I find myself going to work every day to sell my labour-power for the privilege of being able to keep myself alive and able to keep on working. I have no prospect of ever earning enough to be able to escape to a wonderful life where work is just an option.

It is a gross misconception among us that the working class are the people who clean toilets, dig holes and roll their own fags. Class is an economic distinction, not one of culture. It is perfectly possible to be of the working class culture but have millions in the bank. Conversely, the opposite is true.

What defines the worker is what it does for its money. We sell ourselves - whether it is selling our ability to clean a toilet or our knowledge of brain surgery. Standing in opposition to the interests of the workers are those who have the capital.

Students are no more our enemy than apprentice bricklayers are.

Class distinction
Class distinction

Priorities

Another week, another bizarre letter from our comrade Paul Anderson (January 24). Socialism, we are told, is the “language of priorities”.

No, comrade. Socialism is the language of freedom and equality. Priorities is the language of the opportunist left, used to the detriment of our movement. After all, the only consistent anti-imperialist force in Iran is not the Iranian regime: it is the Iranian working class. Now can we have a little more internationalism, please?

Priorities
Priorities

Honoured

We’re honoured that the independent youth organisation, Revolution, has been mentioned in the last two issues of the Weekly Worker. Gerry Downing reported that “there was no sign of Revo” at the Luxemburg-Liebknecht-Lenin demonstration on January 13 in Berlin (Letters, January 17). All we can say is that we didn’t see any sign of Gerry Downing. “Signs of Revo” included a block with about 40 young people, a dozen red flags and a bright orange banner. You can see for yourself at www.revolution.de.com.

Then Benjamin Klein took me to task for my “ludicrous” claim that the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) debating with fascists in the early 1930s had anything to do with its “third period” Stalinist politics (‘Getting the BNP into perspective’, January 24).

Many leftists from a Stalinist background idealise the KPD’s resistance against the rise of the Nazis and are thus surprised to see Walter Ulbricht (a KPD apparatchik, later general secretary of the SED) sharing a platform with Josef Göbbels at a meeting in Berlin on January 23 1931.

Firstly, it should be clear that this was not some kind of joint rally: the Nazis had organised a public debate and invited Ulbricht, and right after he spoke the room erupted into a giant brawl between communists and fascists that was broken up by police. It certainly wasn’t the case that the KPD held regular political debates with the NSDAP, as Ben suggested in his original article (‘Firm in principle, flexible in tactics’, January 10). Would he care to mention his sources?

The official KPD slogan at the time was still “Strike the fascists wherever you meet them!” But the KPD’s Stalinist politics did in fact lead it into various forms of cooperation with the NSDAP. Stalin had proclaimed that social democracy was the main pillar of capitalism, a “twin” of fascism, “social fascism”, etc. One KPD representative in the state parliament of Saxony, following this logic, explained: “Bolshevism and fascism have a common goal: smashing capitalism and the Social Democratic Party.”

When the Nazis organised a recall referendum against the Social Democratic government in the state of Prussia, the KPD leadership simply christened it the “red referendum” and supported the NSDAP against the SPD! This is just one of many examples of cooperation. The KPD also adapted their propaganda to that of the Nazis, talking about a “national revolution” in Germany, the “national and social liberation of the German proletariat”, etc.

The basic problem was this: the Stalinist KPD leadership assumed that the social democracy - not just the leadership, but the millions of Social Democratic workers - was the main bastion of capitalist rule. They categorically rejected any kind of united front with the “social fascists”. Therefore, they had to concentrate their energy on winning over parts of the Hitler movement: by having NSDAP members elected into strike committees, by aping Nazi nationalism and the fuhrer cult, by participating in the occasional debate, and so on.

This is the strategic reasoning that led to the KPD, in the late 20s and early 30s, to occasionally share a platform with the Nazis. Now what is the strategic reason behind Ben’s proposal that the Socialist Workers Party share a platform with the British National Party in 2008? Should our strategy consist in winning over parts of the BNP?

Honoured
Honoured

Red-green

I wonder if any others have seen Justin Kenrick’s article in Scottish Left Review this month, in which he argues for a red-green “Transitional Alliance ... to bring together a green focus on the exploitation and destruction of human and other ecologies with a socialist focus on the capitalist process”.

He argues for its operation both in and outside the electoral arena. In the context of advancing climate change, he claims the only reasonable route is to demand the impossible.

Do Weekly Worker readers think this strategy is reasonable, impossible, or both?

Red-green
Red-green

Fair booze for all

Terry Liddle would like to “not exempt me from” a lecture on the “health and social dangers of boozing” (Weekly Worker January 17). Quite frankly, I do not think that I - or anyone else - would benefit from a lecture from Terry on this.

Terry and I both had to wait to vote until we were 21 years old. In those days 18-year-olds could drink alcohol, be killed on active service in a war or be hanged for a capital offence. They could not, however, vote in elections or get married without parental consent. An anomalous situation. The situation was remedied when the voting and age of consent to marriage were lowered to 18.

Now Terry wants to introduce legislation that dictates to young people that they can vote, marry and do almost anything they please at 18, but are not allowed to have a glass of wine with their Christmas dinner until they are 21! Apart from such a law being grossly unfair, how on earth does Terry imagine it could be enforced?

He forgets that legislation is only effective if supported by a wide consensus of the adult population: this support would not be forthcoming for such ageist laws. Even less support would be given to total prohibition, which Terry wants to gradually introduce. Of course, under socialism, no laws would even be introduced without such consensus.

The idea of greatly increasing alcohol prices advocated by Terry is equally misguided: it would simply lead to hardship for the children of alcohol users.

Then Terry states the obvious, informing us that revolutionary fighters did not fight “under the influence”. Indeed not - as is the case with numerous workers, they were not allowed to drink on duty. This is not prohibition!

Fair booze for all
Fair booze for all

Wake up

Reveil Communiste (‘Communist Awakening’) is a group of members of the French Communist Party that is struggling against the self-destructive policy of its leadership (http://reveilcommuniste.over-blog.fr).

We publish material on international matters too. For example, Die Linke is used as an argument by the PCF leadership to build “a new force on the left” that would mean the end of our party as a communist, Marxist and working class organisation.

No way!

Wake up
Wake up

Potter on Popper

Bob Potter began his spirited defence of Karl Popper quoting my remarks taken from the book Fantastic reality (Weekly Worker January 24). A line on Popper, a sentence - no more. Our friend then complains that we on the left do not spend enough time engaging Popper’s ideas.

I think Potter is a regular reader of our paper. So I am somewhat surprised that my double-page article, ‘Powerful because it coherently explains’, seems to have passed him by (Weekly Worker December 6 2007). Here I defend dialectical materialism against positivist critics, Popper included.

I hope this provides something a bit more substantial for Bob Potter to chew over.

Potter on Popper
Potter on Popper