Letters

G20 bastards

The G20 leaders and finance ministers, plus governors of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, are meeting in London on April 2. This could be seen as a provocation for any of us who have lost our pensions, our jobs, had our benefits threatened, our houses repossessed and now face an uncertain future.

The same bastards who got us into this mess are trying to pull the biggest April fool’s trick in history - pretending that the global economic meltdown can be fixed and they are the ones best qualified to do the fixing. To get away with this effrontery, these bankers will do all they can to mask themselves with the charisma of Barack Obama, due to arrive on these shores on the morning of April 1. We’re not fooled.

There will be a demo the previous Saturday, on March 28, called by the TUC, with NGOs and environmental groups, which many will see as a launch pad for a week of autonomous actions.

Last weekend (January 24-25), a broad mix of groups met at The Foundry in Hackney to share information and plan something more interesting than strolling around Hyde Park. Participants came from the 2012 project, anarchist groups, Climate Camp, No Borders/Rhythms of Resistance, People and Planet, Indymedia, Unimundal Collective and the Government of the Dead, plus the odd SWP member.

The meeting was very focused and quickly decided to work together to launch G20 Meltdown. This will be two days of action starting on Wednesday April 1 with a big party for Financial Fools Day at the Bank of England, from 12 noon, and carrying on to Thursday April 2, when we will converge on the G20 delegates and confront them with their crimes.

Websites with more details will be online by early February and various plans are afoot. However, street theatricals promise to include: the trial and execution of capitalism, with its final speech of repentance for crimes against our planet; the rainforest arriving in the City; and wise words of guidance from the Diggers’ leader, Gerrard Winstanley, our most knowledgeable ancestor on the global commons.

The Times fears that 2009 is going to be the new 1968. Let’s prove them right. G20 Meltdown is to be a public festival on April 1 and 2.

No revolutionary should be chained to their desks. Our job is to get out there in the spring revolutionary air and haul up these bastards to account. Our land, our climate!

G20 bastards
G20 bastards

Illusions

Phil Kent’s letter (January 22) ends with disdain for the working class and the mass movement when he proclaims: “The vanguard has no illusions in Obama; the mass most certainly has.”

Has he not been reading the left press, going to left meetings and discussing Obama’s election with anyone at all? The differences that exist within the base also exist within the advanced sections of the working class, the vanguard. The onus is on communists to fight these illusions in Obama, not by ridiculing those who have them, but by patient discussion and explanation.

Illusions
Illusions

Not capitalism

Comrade Mike Macnair presents some interesting facts (Letters, January 22), but they do not repudiate the argument that I made (Letters, January 8).

He says that 20% of rural households were landless by the mid-16th century and that this figure rose rapidly in the second half. He doesn’t say what figure they rose to, but let us say it was 30%. That leaves 70% who still owned their own plot. Indeed, were that not the case, then the landlords would not have needed the various enclosure acts, and they would not have needed the main measure that evicted the peasants from the land - the 1801 General Enclosure Act. Given that even by the time of this act a majority of people in Britain still worked on the land, the size of the peasantry compared to the urban proletariat and petty bourgeoisie can be understood.

Moreover, the fact of the landless labourers is misleading. Up until the time of the General Enclosure Act, everyone in the countryside had use of the common land, which was still extensive. We have William Petty’s testimony about the inability of employers to obtain workers at rates of pay and for durations that would enable them to make a profit, because even these landless labourers could make a living from the common land and only need to work two or three days a week.

Marx even quotes the anonymous author of An essay on trade and commerce, containing observations on taxes, etc (1770), who comments: “That mankind in general are naturally inclined to ease and indolence, we fatally experience to be true, from the conduct of our manufacturing populace, who do not labour, upon an average, above four days in a week, unless provisions happen to be very dear.” For more on this, see my blog at boffyblog.blogspot.com.

I think Mike does both me and Marx - particularly Marx - a disservice in thinking that he drew up his analysis of capitalist emergence and development by sucking it out of his thumb rather than the extensive analysis of historical documents, by which he proceeds from the historical actuality of that development, and from that theorises it, not vice versa.

Nor does the fact of the integration of peasant farming with the growing market contradict what I said. The fact that an increasing proportion of the peasant’s production is marketed - in order to raise money to pay money rents and taxes, for instance - does not change the fact that the majority of the peasant’s production went to meet his immediate needs. And, although there were merchants who took commodities to more distant markets, it was still, generally speaking, the peasant himself at this time who took products to the local market rather than that being the function of a specific merchant class. And Mike does not even seek to challenge the point I made that even in respect of this marketable surplus of the peasant, the goods he sought to exchange them with were not the product of capitalist production, not even the product of handicraft production under the control of a merchant class, but the products of artisans, of master craftsmen and journeymen - in short, of feudal guild production.

I am not at all suggesting that a certain degree of change is not taking place here - that trade is increasing, that the market is expanding, and that production for the market is expanding accordingly. I am simply pointing out that this production, both agricultural and urban, is not capitalist production and is not governed by the laws of capitalist production, not even of its primary form under the auspices of merchant capital. It cannot, therefore, be considered yet to represent that revolution in the way in which man produces which for a Marxist constitutes a social revolution.

Not capitalism
Not capitalism

Sundry soup

I am not a member of the SWP or any other party, but I am a retired worker who reads from a wide range of allegedly Marxist websites. I take plenty of interest in the International Communist Current and the International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party - both of the ‘communist left’ - but do not belong to either of them.

I happened to read your report on the SWP annual conference and was surprised to read the following statement: “In reality, it is not only natural, but desirable, that different political viewpoints should be represented on the leadership of working class parties. In fact all significant party tendencies should in general have a voice on the main committees ...” (‘Gang of three scuttle’, January 15).

Have you forgotten that there are important differences between proletarian “working class parties” and bourgeois ones? Did Lenin, main organiser of the Russian Revolution, want all and sundry viewpoints to form a soup at the centre with which to douse or smooth away contention for the sake of consensus? Revolution requires the support of full agreement on definite aims, whereas varied views might suit debating societies.

Sundry soup
Sundry soup

Doomsayers

I am writing to note two things about Tony Clark’s response to Tony Greenstein (Letters, January 22). I have almost never disagreed with Tony Greenstein about the question of Zionism. I do, however, feel that Tony Clark is absolutely correct in his rebuttal of Tony Greenstein’s view that perhaps, maybe, under certain circumstances, imperialism can be made to change its support of the Zionist state.

This is hardly a new perspective. While I support and have carried signs at recent Gaza demonstrations with the demand ‘End all US aid to Israel’, that is within the vein of our similar attitudes toward the US war in Iraq and Vietnam. Yes, one can ‘make’ imperialism withdraw, but it takes a combination of efforts by the mass movement in the occupied country and huge dissent at home. After all, this is making imperialism see its interest change: away from total defeat!

The other part of the Clark response to Greenstein I reject: I understand that ‘peak oil’ is a useful tool, but it has limitations - namely new oil discoveries that keep pushing the ‘peak’ back on any chronological-prognosticational graph on when the oil will run out. Additionally, worldwide demand for crude oil has dropped noticeably due to the continued slowdown and even reversal of economic activity around the world. Should the depression deepen, it will continue and thus the ‘peak’ again gets pushed out to the right even further.

There are good reasons to suspect that, while fossil oil may well dwindle and prices rise (or not), other forms of transportation fuel could arise (almost all with dire social and environmental consequences). Coal liquefaction is a proven - albeit energy-hungry and dirty - technology. Tar sands/oil shale - often not included by the peak oil doomsayers - automatically doubles worldwide supplies of oil (essentially the heavier oils from countries like Canada and Venezuela). Lastly, the conversion to electric vehicles and the expansion of nuclear energy both offer viable substitutes for carbon and fossil-based fuels.

In fact, with high-temperature nuclear reactors, the ability to synthesise methanol (a non-ethanol/non-biofuel produced from atmospheric CO₂ and hydrogen) as a gasoline substitute, and dimethyl ether, a ‘carbon-carbon’ synthetic diesel fuel for trucks and planes, could be developed, thereby averting doomsday.

If this happens is another question, but it’s not a technological issue; it’s a political one.

Doomsayers
Doomsayers

Anarchy in the UK

It would be easier to take Iain McKay’s letter more seriously if it contained even a hint of criticism of anarchists (January 22). From his words, comrades who do not know the history of anarchism might think this school of thought had never made an incorrect prediction, let alone taken a mistaken action.

Clearly this is not the case. The role of the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) in Spain demonstrates the failure of anarchism; although of course this does not mean that the Stalinists and moderate socialists did not also play a deeply counterrevolutionary role. As one of the largest organisations of the working class, the CNT’s acquiescence on the question of state power was fatal. Ultimately, it ended up entering and supporting a bourgeois government. Maybe McKay will point to people like Durruti? Sure, the guy was brave and could muster a few thousand people with guns, but that’s not enough to win a revolution.

What of the modern CPGB? It is hardly the case that we dogmatically accept what passed for Marxism in the 20th century. From our organisation’s radical rethinking on the nature of the Soviet Union, through the current redrafting of our Draft programme, to contributions such as Mike Macnair’s recent book, we have shown our willingness to rethink.

In particular, we call for an approach premised on extreme democracy and proletarian internationalism, not on the betrayals of social democracy and the anti-Marxist idea of ‘socialism in a single country’ and its barbaric application in Russia and elsewhere. The bureaucracy embodied in Stalin liquidated the very people who had led the 1917 revolution. Contrary to McKay’s ‘we told you so’ attitude, we think that a brutal civil war, armed and funded by the imperialist powers, and the isolation of the revolution in an overwhelmingly peasant country, were the primary factors in the revolution’s degeneration.

McKay declares the need for “popular organisations which can take the struggle onwards”. But, no, we can’t call this a party. So organisational structures that are both democratic and effective (centralised) are a no-no. The same goes for party programmes. Whether they like it or not, the anarchists do form a party. It’s just that they are very badly organised and/or undemocratic. Likewise, if they were to lead a successful revolution, they would create an anarchist ‘state’ whose lack of organisation would lead to overthrow by internal or external forces. If they did not end up supporting the bourgeois state when things got bad, that is.

Aside from offering no criticism at all of anarchism, McKay suggests nothing positive in relation to events in Greece, the subject of my article (‘A single bullet’, January 15). My point linking Greek and French ‘official communists’ was merely that in both cases Stalinists tried to put a lid on a genuine popular movement. Yet anarchist (mis)leadership does not offer a realistic strategy for Greece, or for the wider European and global context.

We argue that only Marxism - and, no, that doesn’t mean in the image of the Trotskyist sects either (with bans on factions, etc) - can guide the working class, and thus all of humanity, to genuine liberation.

McKay’s level of analysis does not rise above sticking two fingers up. If he wishes to conduct a serious polemic, we are waiting. As a former anarchist myself, it would be my pleasure to help dispel some myths.

Anarchy in the UK
Anarchy in the UK

Serious debate

Ted North suggests that Marxists should engage with those elements currently demonstrating against the Greek state. We should note that the International Committee of the Fourth International claims recently to have distributed to demonstrators a statement which encourages them to make contact with the organisation, presumably in order to initiate contact of this kind (www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/gree-j09.shtml).

Current events appear to offer many opportunities for the left that, tragically, it seems largely unable to exploit. This being the case, I would be interested to know what form comrade North thinks such contact or “serious debate” could take and whether he thinks the ICFI initiative offers a useful model.

Serious debate
Serious debate

Caveat

Many will have sympathy with Iain McKay’s letter concerning the inadequacies of the leftist parties. However, I do feel a caveat should be added.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain recognised the inherent reformism within the existing social democratic parties (hence, of course, its foundation) and therefore declined membership of the Second International or any electoral alliance with those political parties advocating reforms as a solution.

The SPGB also saw within the Bolshevik model the anti-democratic practices and policies that would prove to be power over the workers and not power for the working class. The anarchists were not alone in predicting this (in fact, many anarchists, caught up in the heat of the revolutionary moment, offered support and succour to the early days of the Bolshevik regime).

The distinguishing feature of the SPGB and one that differentiates it from the Leninist tradition is its analysis that a precondition for socialism is socialist understanding. The Marxist, Anton Pannekoek, desired workers’ parties to be “organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom”.

Likewise, the SPGB rejects comparisons with the other so-called socialist parties. For we do not ask for power, but instead exist to help educate the working class itself to take political power.

The SPGB are already the Marxist party that Ian McKay wishes to learn the lessons of history.

Caveat
Caveat

Half-democracy

A couple of points on Ted North’s article (‘Revolutionary traditions and realities of power’, January 22). Undoubtedly, Thomas Jefferson was a prominent figure throughout the era of the American revolutionary war of independence. His involvement in drafting the declaration of independence in 1776 and his fight for the incorporation of a bill of rights into its constitution in 1789 is historically documented. Indeed, along with the rest of the ‘founding fathers’, he is often sold by the American establishment as the pinnacle in the country’s revolution. Let’s not fail to emphasise, however, who fundamentally drove and thus ultimately led the revolution in the first place.

During the decade leading up to the declaration, the ruling elite in America (to which Jefferson belonged) looked to all sections and classes to bolster their authority and interests against legislation from the British parliament. As a result, through the numerous campaigns, protests, riots, revolts and rebellions against, for example, the stamp, tea and coercive acts, the political empowerment of those classes outside the corridors of traditional colonial power was established. Not only did this period see African slaves and women take an active role in politics, so too did ‘common’ white males - the small farmers, artisans, traders and labourers. By appealing to people generally for support and using a language of liberty and freedom, the elite promoted a process of political mobilisation that acquired its own momentum. It was this momentum that led to the American revolution.

With this in mind, to speak of the establishment of a ‘half-democracy’ as a consequence of the revolution is, in my opinion, somewhat generous. Fundamentally, it was a sop - and a huge one at that. In a period with continued society unrest and militancy, that the constitution was ratified on the need to balance the imperatives of popular sovereignty against the fear of ‘excessive’ democracy is clear. Leaving aside the fact that women and blacks didn’t win the franchise until last century, the new federal government in 1788 was one based on, for example, a two-house legislature, where representation would be determined by contributions to government expenses (effectively wealth), an upper house that would be selected by the lower house and a president who was to be given the power to nominate federal judges and officials.

Half-democracy
Half-democracy

Idiots

The Convention of the Left met in Manchester on January 24 and Socialist Fight intervened with the first edition of its magazine and the only leaflet dedicated to the politics of the meeting. It was in many ways an abysmal meeting, deeply sunk in the politics of both popular frontism and third period Stalinism.

There was a clash between these two views, but some groups managed to hold both positions at the same time. This is not so contradictory as it sounds: old Joe was actively promoting both Chang Kai-shek and the Anglo-Russian Unity Committee before disaster prompted the third period ultra-left turn, where class struggle and independence meant denunciations and no demands on the mass reformist parties of the working class - before the most shocking disaster of all, Germany 1933, prompted another U-turn to class collaborationist popular-frontism. It must be stressed that at all times these policies were not opposites - only obverse and reverse.

In all cases and at all times, since Stalin/Zinoviev abandoned the Comintern’s united front tactic, the existing misleaders of the working class were let off the hook. At the CL there was to be no united front tactic of subjecting the existing bureaucratic leaders to demands to fight capitalism or even the British National Party by militant, class-struggle tactics in order to mobilise the class and expose their misleaders in practice, combined with our propaganda.

For our clarification, a leading Stalinist CPBer enjoined us to read Dimitrov. Comrades will remember that he promised, in his infamous 1935 speech: “We shall not attack anyone, whether persons, organisations or parties, standing for the united front of the working class against the class enemy.” Indeed, one comrade specifically advocated uniting with the Tories to stop the BNP.

But for those comrades of Trotskyist origin who might be a little uncomfortable with Dimitrov, we now have another great ‘theoretician’ who will lead us. If we peruse the Socialist Renewal website, produced by Respect Renewal members in Manchester, we find one Murray Smith - in a piece written on January 4 2007, ‘Broad parties and narrow visions: the SWP and Respect’ - setting us straight on what revolutionary politics is for: “The role of revolutionary Marxists today is to build broad socialist parties, while defending their own Marxist positions within them, with the aim, not of building a revolutionary faction with an ‘entryist’ perspective, but of taking forward the whole party and solving together with the whole party the problems that arise, as they arise.”

Murray Smith was an opportunist faker when I knew him in the early 1990s, when he led a section out of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire to join Militant Labour. Having acted as a champion of the Scottish Socialist Party, he is now back in the LCR, busily liquidating that organisation (in his own inimitable, factional way) into the new ‘anti-capitalist’ (popular-frontist) party. Dimitrov, eat your heart out!

But the third periodists would have their say. This convention had to begin to form itself into a political party to challenge Labour from the left, insisted the Socialist Party. The comrade had nothing to say about challenging the trade union bureaucracy and, thereby, the Labour leaders from the left, let alone challenging the reformism of Mark Serwotka, Bob Crow or John McDonnell - clearly a fool’s errand.

Nothing doing, said the CPB - we are that party; nothing doing said Respect Renewal - we are that party; nothing doing said the Labour Representation Committee - we will get expelled from the Labour Party if we do that. No-one considered how real workers might be mobilised and won to revolutionary politics in class struggle. Class struggle was acknowledged, of course, and very important it was in its own way, as support for the Communication Workers Union’s struggle against privatisation showed, but the message was, ‘Get real: politics is about standing in elections and getting votes, isn’t it?’ So the motion to discuss this was lost by 87 votes to 30, with many of us in the 30 wanting to discuss but vote against.

Later Nick Wrack got up and began with supreme confidence: “There is no-one in this room who is opposed to the People’s Charter.”

“I’m afraid you are dead wrong there,” I heckled, which threw him for a brief moment. He resumed to promote this popular-frontist document, which the majority had not seen, on the basis that Bob Crow, John McDonnell and other luminaries of the left had endorsed it, so why did we need to see it? We had to get a million signatures to “make a real difference”.

But as the Socialist Fight leaflet pointed out, “We have a Labour government 90% dependent on TU funding who have now broken the miserable promises given in Warwick 2 and are about to privatise the Royal Mail. The leaders of Unite, the GMB, Unison, etc, could force Brown to halt the vicious oppression of immigrants, stop privatisation and reverse previous privatisation like rail, buses, water, electricity, etc, etc. But they will not do so because they are corrupted by their staunch defence of capitalism over the years. The recent figures from the certification officer show just how privileged they really are compared to the rest of us, and this includes all the lefts like Crow and Serwotka. We are urgently in need of a rank-and-file movement in the unions, independent of all bureaucrats, which mobilises the workers to fight for their own interests.”

Finally, this type of programme is not the People’s Charter - a useless, reformist, lowest common-denominator, Stalinist, popular front document that defends capitalism, while the crisis is discrediting it in the eyes of ordinary workers. Revolutionary socialists can ally with reformist socialists who agree that we need to get rid of capitalism. That is the bottom line for unity in struggle. We cannot tolerate popular front politics, which only has the defence of capitalism as its first priority.

Welcoming this vacuous document because it will produce broad unity is the politics of idiots. It can only demobilise the class struggle to produce its ‘unity’ and it can only lead to defeats, like the notion that voting for Boris Johnson could stop the BNP.

Idiots
Idiots