Letters

Blazing row

In his article entitled ‘How not to win friends’, Peter Manson clearly shows contempt for John Bridge: “Comrade Bridge repeated several times that C of E property relating to acts of worship should be viewed as ‘legitimate’ - with the implication that somehow its property relating to social activity must in every case be ‘illegitimate’” (Weekly Worker May 22).

Can you imagine an article in The Socialist containing the phrase, “Peter Taaffe repeated several times …”? The article does not say that there was a blazing row between the two of them, but it is as good as one!

I don’t think The Socialist would carry a letter showing as much contempt for Peter Taaffe as Rosa Lichtenstein shows towards Jack Conrad in this letter: “… I was genuinely shocked that a leading comrade could write such a superficial and badly researched article … may I suggest that comrade Conrad refrains from passing knee-jerk remarks about my ideas without actually having read my essays” (March 13).

Peter is playing a very good role as editor (having the final say on what goes in the whole paper). Obviously I have been pleased to see the publication of several of my letters, despite my strong criticisms of the CPGB’s politics, but there are many other good contributions to that paper.

Blazing row
Blazing row

Moribund

The latest Party Notes, the internal bulletin of the Socialist Workers Party, carries a short piece headed “Tower Hamlets council”, which reads:

“Last week, Tower Hamlets local paper, the East London Advertiser, ran a story stating that our three councillors were going to leave us and join the Labour Party. Comrades have to be aware that in the current political climate our three Tower Hamlets councillors are coming under massive pressure from the Labour Party and the local community to join the Labour group on the council. Obviously we are doing everything we can to hold them and give them support” (May 28).

To remind readers, the three SWP-influenced Respect councillors are Oliur Rahman, Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum, who is (or was) actually an SWP member. The East London Advertiser reports that the “massive pressure” includes persistent telephone calls and even ministerial visits. However, a Tower Hamlets Labour councillor I talked to dismissed such stories - didn’t I know that Labour was concentrating on the “local issues”?

Comrade Rahman is down as a speaker at a June 17 Left List public meeting entitled ‘The BNP, Labour’s crisis and the left’ in Bethnal Green, where he is due to share a platform with Lindsey German. Will he show? It certainly says a lot about John Rees’s blundering Respect misadventure that the SWP’s star ally, the ‘unity coalition’s’ first elected councillor, could be on the verge of deserting the sinking ship. With or without comrade Rahman, the meeting will no doubt discuss what new name to adopt for the SWP’s now moribund project.

Moribund
Moribund

Study and learn

The Greek comrade, Orestes, is correct to suggest that Jack Conrad’s use of the term ‘bureaucratic socialism’ is erroneous (Letters, May 1). Orestes is right to point out that the fundamental aspect of a socialist society is planning.

‘Bureaucratic socialism’ is a misleading expression for two reasons. The first is that it gives a false impression of the former Soviet Union. The second is that it misrepresents the reality of the transitional period from the taking of power to the establishment of socialism.

‘Bureaucratic socialism’ implies that the former USSR was a planned society. The reality was that planning did not exist. What emerged was an irrational form of organisation. This was based on a population terrorised into an atomised state by a secret police. Atomisation created huge barriers to communication. It created workers with no incentive to work. Workers resisted social control as individuals through sabotage and alcoholism.

Despite forced industrialisation, centrally defined targets could not be fulfilled. Waste was endemic. The elite had little if any accurate information. The managers only implemented instructions if it suited their self-interest. A rational organisation of the economy based on planning was impossible.

The absence of planning is evidence that the former Soviet Union was not in any way socialist - bureaucratic or otherwise. Planning is democratic in nature. It is the conscious regulation of the economy by freely associated producers. Planning is essential to socialism and both are absolutely opposed to forms of bureaucratic control. Those who argue that the former USSR was socialist because it was a bureaucratically planned society are clearly mistaken.‘Bureaucratic socialism’ also suggests that controls over labour-power and planning are compatible during a period of transition after the taking of power by the working class. The opposite is true. Planning entails that bureaucrats and managers are elected, subject to popular recall and regular replacement. Workers would mandate administrators to ensure free flows of information between sectors - from the periphery to the centre and the bottom to the top. Bureaucracy is a form of market control over non-market sectors. It is antagonistic to planning and would disappear once every member of society was free to take on an administrative role at some time in their life.

The idea that bureaucracy is incompatible with planning and therefore with a socialist society is not new. Marx stated in Capital that planning is only possible when producers are freely associated. Hillel Ticktin revived this thinking in debates with Ernest Mandel over 30 years ago.

In a previous letter (April 24), I made the mistake of thinking that readers and writers of this paper are aware of these old, familiar ideas. Subsequent hostile and dismissive responses have made me question whether people have difficulties in studying and learning from the relevant literature - eg, Phil Kent (Letters, May 1) and Jack Conrad (Letters, May 8).

The causes of these difficulties are not congenital. They have been acquired through conditioning within a historically specific intellectual environment. This is the failure of Stalinist politicians to substitute ad hominem attacks for critical inquiry.

Study and learn
Study and learn

No apologist

Jack Conrad writes: “I say socialism is the first, lower, phase of communism. This is hardly original. I take it from Lenin, specifically his State and revolution pamphlet. I also follow in the footsteps of Marx’s Critique of the Gotha programme, where he clearly distinguishes the higher phase from the lower phrase of communism” (Letters, May 8).

But what I meant in my letter of May 1 is that there is also a transitional phase to socialism (the lower phase of communism). These two shouldn’t be mixed up.

Conrad goes on to say: “Conquest’s calculation is that some 10-20 million died because of Stalin and his system … Our comrade from Greece wants to use more realistic figures (as provided by the American school of revisionist history). He comes up with around 600,000 deaths.”

It’s not my figure: it’s what archive work has produced. It won’t hurt if you say you made a mistake. And, as for Conquest being “a good, rigorous and accurate historian”, you can ask anyone (besides cold war anti-communists, that is) studying Soviet history today. I can assure you Conquest comes out somewhere between biased and rubbish. Which “scholarship has tended to confirm Conquest’s account”? Can you point me to that scholarship, because I can’t think of any (I might be mistaken)?

Finally, Jack Conrad states: “My fear is that comrade Orestes wants to constitute himself as an apologist for Stalin and bureaucratic socialism.” His fear is totally groundless. Dear comrade, you should be more careful - not being fond of Conquest doesn’t make you a Stalinist. Soviet bureaucrats lied a lot, but there’s no need to lie back to expose the bureaucratic nature of the USSR.

No apologist
No apologist

Blanquism

Don’t blame Marxism for the outcome of the October Russian Revolution, please, Gary.

Engels gave forewarning of Lenin’s political ideas, which can be more accurately described as Blanquism rather than Marxism: “The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for” (Introduction to The class struggles in France1895).

Elsewhere Engels describes the consequences of Blanquism (read Leninism ): “... any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organised under the dictatorship of one or several individuals ...” (‘The programme of the Blanquist fugitives from the Paris Commune’, 1874).

Doesn’t Leninism resemble Blanquism more than Marxism?

Blanquism
Blanquism

Tory entryists

James Turley’s article on the latest twist in the Spiked saga was a hoot (‘Boris gets spiked’, May 22).

The Revolutionary Communist Party leadership used to critique the British left for its inveterate entryism in the Labour Party. Unfortunately, far from this being a genuine left critique (they would have been correct), it now seems they only opposed left entryism in Labour because they prefer entryism in the Tory Party instead.

It would have been nice if they had saved their overworked and much put upon rank and file all the hassle and sacrifices and said that in the first place. Still, I guess we all finally know what they really meant by “preparing for power”.

Tory entryists
Tory entryists

Virulent

Exactly what is a “virulent third-worldist strain of Stalinism”? Does James Turley know? Does anyone know?

Virulent
Virulent

Read and heed

Gary Kevinroad concludes that “The failure of the 1917 revolution has led to the total discrediting of Marxism” (Letters, May 22).

In fact, it led to the total discrediting of Stalinism. Likely a disillusioned (former) Stalinist, Kevinroad equates Stalinism (“the syphilis of the workers movement” - Trotsky) with Marxism, but this is nothing new for his stripe. Stalinists have always been equating their perversion with Marxism.

In true revisionist tradition, Kevinroad offers his recipe to “convince the world once again that communism is possible” and writes that “Marxism has to be tried and convicted, not just tried. What’s required is a new theory of communism that can be sold to the world, and that will avoid the vulgarity of the failed attempts of the 20th century. Such a theory should start with the question of whether the working class really is a revolutionary class, or whether the seeds of communist organisation may come from other sources.”

Gary, “the seeds of communist organisation” have never come from the working class, and the task of communists has been to forge a revolutionary party, programmatically independent of the bourgeoisie, with the task of developing communist cadre recruited largely from within the working class.

Gary needs to read (and heed) The revolution betrayed and Their morals and ours, both written by Leon Trotsky and available at www.marxists.org.

Read and heed
Read and heed

Fighting squad

It’s good that the debate over fascism and the British National Party is continuing within the ranks of the CPGB.

With this in mind, I must challenge comrade Phil Kent when he confidently asserts that “the BNP no longer organises fighting squads - the defining characteristic of a fascist party” (Letters, May 1) - a view emanating from the motion adopted by the CPGB at its aggregate in April, which states that the BNP has “no fighting formations” (‘Fascism and the left’, April 24). What precisely is meant by this term?

A few weeks ago, I circulated on the CPGB’s internal e-list a Searchlight article that detailed the BNP’s campaign of “harassment, intimidation and physical violence” against its opponents during the 2003 general election campaign, where individuals from the organisation “targeted anti-fascists” (www.zen26144.zen.co.uk/resources/Why%20the%20BNP%20is%20a% 20fascist%20party.pdf). If we accept that Searchlight (and this article in particular) has a validity and legitimacy within the spectrum of working class debate in Britain, then clearly some sort of “fighting squad” was being used by the BNP against the left, despite the fact that the organisation was attempting to remodel itself on ‘respectable’ politics at the time.

Admittedly, the characteristic of such attacks may not have matched the relative effectiveness of those carried out by Mosley’s Blackshirts in the 1930s, but coordinated violent actions, based on belief in a warped and twisted political philosophy where opponents of that philosophy needed to be ‘kept in place’, they were.

Have things changed since 2003? Well, “fully formed” fighting squads may not figure that prominently within the ranks of the BNP, but consciously planned actions against sections of those communities that it sees as a threat to its political outlook do. For example, the harassment and assault of lesbians and gays on Pride marches and the desecration of Jewish graves in the East End of London. Indeed, the threat of violence from BNP activists in south Wales against members of Respect early last year was enough (unfortunately) for Respect in Swansea to be forced to relocate a George Galloway public meeting to another venue in the city.

Elsewhere, what about the BNP’s campaign of intimidation via its Redwatch website, where the mugshots, names, workplace addresses and telephone numbers of the BNP’s opponents are often published in an attempt to line them up for intimidation and physical attack? What too of the likes of Robert Cottage? Remember him? He was the 49-year-old (failed) BNP election candidate who was discovered to have stockpiled explosives and bomb-making manuals in his house in Lancashire in 2007. It wouldn’t take a genius to work out what sort of mission he might have been on.

However disjointed and ineffective BNP actions against the left and other political activists deemed an enemy may or may not be, they do represent a specific strategy used by the organisation in pursuit of its aims. We kid ourselves if we think otherwise. “Unsophisticated” they may be, but organised for a political purpose they are. Surely, a type of “fighting squad” in everything but name.

Fighting squad
Fighting squad

Sick remark

Ian Donovan (Letters, May 8) points out an error in the article written by myself and Vicky Thompson, ‘Socialists and the lies they tell’ (May 1). I apologise for our mistake - George Galloway did indeed vote for the equalisation of the age of consent. This is something we should have researched before taking it on the word of other comrades.

Galloway’s voting record is far from impeccable, though. He was absent from the recent votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - clearly the most important debate and vote in the House of Commons all year, but Galloway did not show up. As the only Respect MP, Galloway should have been there to make a staunch defence of abortion rights. Galloway’s reactionary position towards the bill was highlighted in an earlier Weekly Worker article (‘George Galloway and Frankenstein monsters’, March 27).

Are George Galloway’s views on medical research and abortion representative of Respect Renewal? If they are not, what are RR members doing to bring him into line? Surely, the International Socialist Group, which is now playing the role of the SWP, should grow a backbone and speak out against Galloway’s positions on abortion and so-called ‘Frankenstein’ science?

When it comes to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender/transsexual people, Respect does not have the best record. A float at Pride does not make up for LGBT rights being removed from the 2005 election manifesto. Furthermore, Galloway’s remark that Mehdi Kazemi’s partner was executed by Tehran for assaulting young boys is sick. The likening of homosexuality to sexual abuse of minors is usually the reserve of the diehard reactionary.

Sick remark
Sick remark

Drugs section

I found Jim Moody’s article in last week’s Weekly Worker most interesting (‘Legalise, not reclassify’, May 22). However, I think it is important to point out the dangers to young people of smoking ‘skunk’, which is a lot more dangerous than the cannabis smoked by the flower power people in the late 1960s.

Research into cannabis misuse concludes that the typical GP has to section, under the 1984 Mental Health Act, on average one cannabis-induced schizophrenic every month. Members of my local community mental health team have informed me that this figure tends to be on the low side of those actually sectioned through cannabis misuse. At the mental health day centre I attend, I personally know two people who now have lifelong schizophrenia, which was triggered by smoking cannabis in their late teens.

The legalisation of cannabis, and hence its socialisation, would lead to quality control and enable the state to point out the dangers of cannabis-induced schizophrenia, especially amongst young men.

Drugs section
Drugs section

Reach out

My view is simple. Drug use is bad for the human being. Drugs are drugs, whether it is marijuana or cocaine or alcohol, the last one being the biggest and costliest drug ‘problem’ there is.

So we have to agree to see the ‘drug problem’ as a unified whole. This means that we see drug abuse not as a question of criminality, but of public health, which is what it is and the only way it should be addressed.

That said, clearly something like crack cocaine has hardly any virtues and is instantly addictive. The key to any public health problem like this is removing the criminality, so that society can address the problems and individuals are not threatened. Removing criminal sanctions on at least small amounts of drugs in someone’s possession means that people can come forward and be treated and, conversely, that society can reach out to support them.

Reach out
Reach out

Faith bridges

Recent responses to my letter (May 22) regarding socialism and the Judeo-christian tradition have stressed the betrayal of the humanistic ideals of Hillel and Jesus.

Of course, any ideology can be misused by malcontents and malevolent personalities. Stalin and his henchmen abused socialism. The point is that we must look behind the ideology to the person who applies it in practical terms. My contention is not that ideals cannot be betrayed. It is that socialists and communists need to be consistent humanists and, by so doing, form bridges to faith communities who share an authentic concern for the emancipation of humankind from class society and alienation.

The polemics against the Judeo-christian tradition are justified where it has fallen short of its ideals, but they miss the point of my political argument - how we can get our politics to become hegemonic; in short, how we can win the leadership of society by providing solutions to problems and by building bridges that unite society behind our banner, which would eventually read: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’.

Faith bridges
Faith bridges

Absurd

I write in astonishment at the absurdity of Ben Klein’s article, ‘Rebranding exercise flops’ (May 22). As part of the “so-called anti-capitalist movement” and as one of the “few anarchist types in tow” of Education Not for Sale, I am astonished that comrade Klein thinks that anarchists can “be won” to accept the principles the CPGB was proposing at Reclaim the Campus.

The main thrust of the proposals was that ENS should exist “to promote the ideas of Marxism”, which it recognises is important “as a guide to practice”. What is meant by this? Namely, what Klein thinks Marxism teaches the working class in his article, ‘Left unity not on offer’ (May 15): “that the working class is the gravedigger of capitalism ... when it is organised into a mass, revolutionary Communist Party”. What anarchist would be “won” to this? What anarchist would “accept” this, let alone proposals that advocate entering parliament, socialism as “the first stage of the worldwide transition to communism” and fighting for communism in general?

Anarchists and the many libertarians in further and higher education reject communist parties and vanguardism as alien, hierarchical and elitist. I advocated a simple, loose anti-capitalist network of student activists. I could have formally proposed that ENS take on anarchist organisational principles - ie, a total absence of hierarchy and structure, absolute autonomy of campus groups from a central body, and the consistent use of consensus decision-making. But I realise that many Marxists, including those in the CPGB, would refuse to get involved in such a network. ENS needs Marxists within it, so I did not advocate a structure or aims that would alienate them. This structure would not involve the unity of “all those committed to revolutionary change”, but neither would the CPGB’s version of Marxism.

The CPGB and its student group, Communist Students, should realise that what the student movement needs most at the moment is action, not another Marxist talk-shop. Both the AWL and Revo have realised this and they did not want to alienate those anarchists and libertarians in education who believe it too, those who regularly participate in direct action. This is, arguably, the best way that anti-capitalists can project their message. A bold, successful piece of direct action, even if it involves a handful of people, can be more powerful, far better at attracting students to the movement, than handing out a thousand copies of the Weekly Worker.

What the student movement needs is an activist network that will encourage students who believe this to coordinate their actions across the country. The CPGB does not want this; all they hope for is a few more people to hand out “propaganda for Marxism”. Such a hopelessly inadequate strategy will take the student movement nowhere and it will never attract numbers to the cause of anti-capitalism. The outstanding success rate of Communist Students shows this.

If the CPGB and CS continue on their present course, they will lose what little credibility they have left and be forced even further to the sidelines of the student left.

Absurd
Absurd