Letters

No cuts

Students at the University of Sussex in Brighton last week expressed their anger at proposed job and budget cuts by organising a series of demonstrations, culminating in a 24-hour occupation of a large conference suite on campus. This was led by a student campaign called Stop the Cuts, formed in opposition to the university’s plan to slash £3 million from this year’s budget, and £5 million next year.

The occupation began on Monday February 8, after a demonstration of around 200 students on campus marched and took the suite, with around 70 staying there overnight. The university responded by placing security guards on all entrances to the building, refusing access to everyone, and locking many of the doors. At one point even access to toilets was denied. The police were called, but left after discovering that the conference suite had not been damaged.

A second demonstration was called on the Tuesday morning, and three hours later another 200 students arrived and again stormed passed security, chanting in support of the campaign. There was a militant atmosphere amongst the crowd, with strong backing for the proposed strike by the University and College Union, with students collecting for their strike fund.

The occupation came to an end at 7pm on Tuesday, with a group of a hundred students turning up to applaud those leaving. Messages of solidarity were coming in from groups on other campuses, as well as from organisations in and around the Brighton area.

More action is promised in support of the UCU’s ballot for a strike, which began on Friday February 12. For more information visit defendsussex.wordpress.com.

No cuts
No cuts

Three-year ban

Unison has continued its witch-hunt by banning Alan Docherty, Darlington branch secretary, for three years from office. His crime was defending himself from attack from Unison northern region’s leadership for his involvement in the National Shop Stewards Network as its Tees Valley secretary.

This has occurred when Alan is coordinating the campaign to resist swingeing cuts from his employer, Darlington borough council, that intend to slash non-education budgets by 25% over the next three years and immediately reduce the wages of low-paid, mainly women workers in caring, leisure and catering jobs by up to 10%, by abolishing premium payments. Alan asked that his disciplinary be postponed until after the current anti-cuts campaign, but his request was ignored.

Despite this, the branch has waged an active campaign in the media and encouraged members to attend consultation meetings en masse, to make their views known to the council. This has had some limited success so far - particularly a victory saving the Early Years Inclusion Service, with its 11 jobs, which gives support to disabled children ages three to five to help them into nursery schools, which the council had planned to axe in its entirety.

On Tuesday February 16 over a hundred members turned out to a lively demonstration to lobby the Labour cabinet to drop their plans to cut pay. This rally, addressed by Unison NEC member Hannah Walter and trades council secretary Pat Buttle, was so successful that the leaders of the Labour group came out of the town hall to enter into a dialogue with the protesters. Both Hannah and Pat also criticised the Unison leadership for its attack on Alan and praised him as a committed activist.

The complaint that has led to Unison’s sentence to ban Alan from office arises from a year ago when Alan stood for the national executive as a Reclaim Our Union candidate against incumbent Paul Thompson. It was Paul Thompson who made the complaint against him, after Alan rang him to ask why he was proposing a motion through Durham county branch seeking punitive action against officers and members of the Shop Stewards Network, who he claimed were bringing Unison into disrepute. Alan then circulated the motion to those implicated.

This motion was backed unanimously as a statement by Unison’s northern regional committee. No further discussion on this statement was allowed within the union on the basis that it contravened confidentiality under disciplinary procedures. An NEC disciplinary committee upheld the view that Alan broke several rules associated with democratic procedures, had brought the union into disrepute and hence should be removed from office.

What type of union puts its career-seeking leaders above its membership? Alan intends to fight this decision.

Demand Unison stops the witch-hunts. Protest to Dave Prentis, general secretary, Unison, 1 Mabledon Pace, London, WC1H 9AJ.

Three-year ban
Three-year ban

Rare commodity

My previous letter to the Weekly Worker (January 28) was given the caption “Oil-track mind” - a pun on ‘one-track mind’, no doubt. Yet in a recent report by the Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security, titled The oil crunch: a wake-up call for the UK economy, one contributor - a certain Dr Robert Falkner - had this to say:

“For the UK ‘peak oil’ is no longer a theoretical debate. Ever since oil production in the North Sea started to decline just over a decade ago, the prospect of continuously dwindling petroleum reserves has become part of the country’s new economic reality. As the UK is becoming more dependent on energy imports, the parameters of energy policy are shifting. Peak oil has emerged from the fringes of political and economic debate, and security of energy supply has risen to the top of the political agenda. Will the next government face up to this reality?”

Since World War II, annual increases in oil supplies have been the foundation of economic growth. Now this is all set to go into reverse.

Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao never had to face the problems associated with the peaking of global oil production, followed by an annual decline thereafter. The dogmatic version of ‘Marxism’ followed by the left in general serves as a blindfold, precluding them from facing up to this new reality, and drawing up new programmes and strategies based on the new energy situation.

This is strange, because some form of socialism, which shuns production for profit - ie, the consumer society - seems to be the best way to mitigate the difficulties we are soon to encounter resulting from these unprecedented world energy constraints. Not only capitalism, but socialism will need energy to exist. Even the most myopic should be able to see that energy is the central issue in any debate about the future society. Call it “oil-track mind” if you wish; I prefer to call it resource-base thinking: a rare commodity on the left amongst those who do not have to face reality yet.

Rare commodity
Rare commodity

Class reality

Eddie Ford’s article about recent surveys on class and equality was an excellent analysis and critique of the interpretation of them by The Daily Telegraph (‘Us and them Britain’, February 4). It does, however, neglect a key area that communists need to challenge in bourgeois society, and that is the definition of class.

In most discussions about class in the papers, on TV and in the pub, it is understood mainly as a social and cultural marker - relating to the status and nature of a person’s job, cultural preferences and so on. In simplistic terms this often comes down to: blue collar = working class, white collar = middle class, hunting outfit = upper class.

This definition ignores the economic reality of class and masks the class interests of people. To illustrate this point, consider a plumber who employs one or two people and a salaried civil engineer who works for a large consultancy firm, both of the same age and background. Using the above definition (and admittedly some ingrained prejudice), most people would consider the plumber working class and the civil engineer middle class.

However, when you examine the economic relations the situation is reversed. The plumber owns and controls the means of production in the form of his tools, van, materials, etc, but still needs to work personally to secure enough to live on. The plumber is in fact middle class or petty bourgeois (the fact he needs to work himself means he isn’t a capitalist). The civil engineer has no control over the means of production, being reliant on her employer for the provision of a computer, specialist software and design standards; she is reliant on selling her labour-power to secure her means of subsistence. The civil engineer is working class.

It is by using such a definition that it is possible to declare a ‘classless society’ or that ‘We’re all middle class now.’ And by making such declarations the antagonism between the vast majority of people, the working class, and the minority, the capitalist class, is glossed over. The intention is to create a myth that you are middle class and therefore have an interest in the system and ‘UK plc’.

At the same time this minimises the perceived size of the working class, class-consciousness and the power that derives from it.

Communists need to argue for the definition of class on an economic basis, or at the very least make clear the difference between economic and socio-economic class. This argument needs to be won not only in wider society, but also within the left to avoid a narrow focus on ‘traditional’ working class sectors, such as manufacturing. Without a proper understanding and definition of class, communists not only fail to grasp the objective relations of society, but also effectively ignore a large section of the working class.

Class reality
Class reality

Draft comments

Thank you for publishing the CPGB’s Draft programme (supplement, February 11). It is an interesting document and I am glad members welcome comments, suggestions and criticisms.

The draft mentions education as being “of crucial importance for youth” (3.12, ‘Youth’). This is true. It is also true that education is important for old people. A capitalist division of labour excludes most workers - young and old - from the opportunity to “develop themselves and their intellectual and critical abilities” (3.12). I was therefore disappointed that the draft did not include a separate section on education comparing what a socialist system could achieve once the limits on teaching and learning within a declining capitalism has been superseded.

Moreover, the draft rules state that members “have a right and a duty to study Marxism” (article 4). I am glad the draft mentions Marxism, as I guess that people thinking of joining the group will have an unclear notion of what this is. I reckon that a section describing the social scientific nature of Marxism and how it relates to developing “the Party’s political positions” will be helpful. This will be essential to the group’s progress if activists attracted to it have religious, secular, humanist, empiricist, anarchist or social democratic intellectual and political backgrounds.

Conversely, the draft ignores the leadership’s “duty” or responsibility to plan for and organise a Marxist education for members. The draft membership articles do not expect “party life” to include an ongoing participation in teaching and learning from classics such as Capital (and other texts outlining Marx’s political economy and philosophy). Without such a commitment, I cannot see how the CPGB has the potential to become a Marxist party.

This potential requires members to be developing themselves as intellectuals as well as activists. It is therefore important, given the history of the CPGB, that new members do not confuse Marxism with Stalinism. A section explaining the nature of Stalinism and its hostility to Marxism would therefore be welcome.

Furthermore, the draft raises the issue of the nature, success and failure of Marxist programmes in the past. I understand that the CPGB models the draft on the distinction between minimum and maximum demands made in the Erfurt programme. There is an educational task here which requires research into the reasons for this choice. For example, I am not clear why the Erfurt programme is a superior model to that of the Communist manifesto or Trotsky’s more recent Transitional programme.

I agree with the draft when it states that “the struggle for socialism in Britain is subordinated to the struggle for world revolution” (6.2. ‘The CPGB is internationalist’). I suggest therefore that members continue the process of redrafting the programme in order to engage the forces for revolution worldwide in the struggle for socialism. They could facilitate this by having the present draft translated into other languages.

Members could target Marxist groups and individuals worldwide with whom they have (or hope to establish) friendly contacts. This would entail eliciting further comments, suggestions and criticisms. The process of addressing issues arising from redrafting which require further research, study, debate and discussion has the potential to form part of a campaign not only for a Marxist party here, but also for a Marxist international.

The draft contains many ideas and practical demands that can mobilise people theoretically and practically. It would, however, be a better document if members had given more thought on how to use it to organise globally.

Draft comments
Draft comments

Dictatorial

Pete McLaren calls for “all representatives elected by proportional representation and subject to recall” (Letters, February 11). Your Draft programme twice calls for PR (sections 3.1.1 and 4.2) and for delegates to be “recallable at any time” (4.2).

Can someone please say how PR and recallable MPs/delegates are mutually compatible? By its very nature, PR entails election of some representatives by a minority - unless it isn’t at all proportional, as with Labour’s alternative vote proposal (with one MP elected per constituency receiving over 50% after transfers).

Unless you recorded who voted which way (which means the end of a secret ballot), those who didn’t support a representative in the first place would be able to remove him/her, and the resulting by-election couldn’t be held by PR.

I have previously suggested that the entire government should instead be subject to recall, allowing a new general election to be triggered by a petition of some proportion of the electorate. Surely this is better, and with annual elections the need for recallable MPs would be reduced anyway.

I am disturbed by the point that “All parties which accept the laws of the new revolutionary order as binding will be free to operate” (4.2).

This reminds me of the banning of other parties by the Bolsheviks in Russia, and the resulting Stalinist dictatorship. Surely we should have confidence in the population after a revolution has taken place to put our programme to the test and win majority support. If we cannot win majority support, the revolution would be doomed anyway, and dictatorial methods to maintain the socialist state would not result in the sort of society that I would like to see!

Do other Marxist parties/organisations have similar (but hidden) programmes?

Congratulations to the CPGB for bringing these issues out into the open.

Dictatorial
Dictatorial

Not serious

There are nine lines of platitudes with regard to the Labour Party in the entire Draft programme. And the assertion that “Objective conditions in Britain require the workers of all nationalities to organise in a single Communist Party” is simply not a serious analysis.

Not serious
Not serious

Resigned to what?

Thirteen years ago I left the Socialist Workers Party for a second time - a totally insignificant fact for most of the world, but for me probably the biggest political mistake I could make.

These past few days have seen quite a few more comrades resign from the SWP - first and most significant comrade Lindsey German - 37 years a member, spending years editing the Socialist Review and serving on the central committee - and now some more comrades have decided to follow her out.

Their reasons for going are partly similar to my own, and almost every ex-SWP member you may care to meet. However, the assertion of the comrades that the use of disciplinary methods to win arguments is foreign to the SWP perhaps belies an ignorance of the SWP’s history. It has in fact expelled groups of opposition comrades over and over again throughout its history with a frequency akin to buses on Oxford Street.

Quite a lot of the left these days has some connection with the SWP and can trace its origins back to one split or another. Some comrades resign and set up their own sects, others are expelled and do the same. Some leave and join other left groups, others leave and become rightwing journalists. A large number must simply sink out of politics disillusioned and frustrated (or just plain bored?)

Where this latest batch of comrades will end up is as yet unclear, but it is my opinion that they like me have made a political mistake - comrade German included. If the SWP and indeed the whole left is to change and unite, then we need to stay inside our chosen organisations and fight the leadership, the culture and the downright bloody-minded, narrow, self-defeating, sectarian lunacy of those organisations.

Resignations are surrender - an admission that nothing can ever change. I certainly remember feeling like that, but I would urge comrades who are thinking of following them to think again, stay in and fight for the right of the minority to become the majority, to publish, to organise and to engage in the discussion and thrashing out of ideas. Because if we can’t change the left, we’ll never change the world.

Resigned to what?
Resigned to what?

Chomsky tower

Bob Potter’s defence of Noam Chomsky misses the point completely (Letters, February 11). I would be the last person to describe Chomsky as a moron. He’s clearly a towering genius. But a genius in doing what, precisely?

It goes without saying that a human child’s capacity to acquire language is part of its nature. I am a Darwinian. How could I think otherwise? On that issue, as Bob must surely know, I have always sided wholeheartedly with Chomsky in opposition to Skinner. But why leave us to choose between two insanities - extreme and absurd behaviourism on the one hand, extreme and absurd genetic determinism on the other? What’s wrong with Marxism instead?

Let me be more specific. Does Bob agree with Chomsky that the lexical concept ‘bureaucrat’ is inscribed in the human genome? If not, he is on my side of this argument, not Chomsky’s. Meanings are social and cultural rather than innate.

My second question for Bob is more fundamental. How does he conceptualise the precise nature of the relationship between Chomsky’s paid work for the Pentagon and his unpaid work against it?

Chomsky tower
Chomsky tower

Coalescing

Why did Tina Becker have to parrot the bourgeois media’s derision of Oskar Lafontaine as the ‘Napoleon of the Saar’ (‘Left in Die Linke loses its Bonaparte’, February 11)? We can all agree that he is no genuine revolutionary, but some of his rhetoric has indeed been radicalised over the past year or two.

A few years ago I thought this guy wasn’t much of a big deal. That all changed, however, when he said in 2008 that he wanted the phrase, “For exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions, [the bourgeoisie] has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation”, from the Communist manifesto, included directly in the party programme still under discussion to succeed the Key programmatic points. Was this reformist really serious?

Later that same year, Lafontaine witnessed the birth of a rather pathetic attempt to steal momentum from the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste in France: the Parti de Gauche headed by a not-so-charismatic Jean-Luc Mélenchon. However, he made a very impressive speech that mentioned constant disappointment in coalition governments. I will only quote part of the relevant section, starting at the bottom of page 10 in that document, which resembles somewhat what Mike Macnair wrote in his book on revolutionary strategy: “And this is exactly the big dilemma of these socialist parties: to formulate the principles of opposition at Epinay, and the principles of government at Godesberg. The history of west European socialist parties in power is a long list of rotten compromises” (‘Left parties everywhere’, www.spokesmanbooks.com).

In May 2009, he blew his cover and revealed his avuncular personality when he proclaimed that “We want to overthrow capitalism” (Der Spiegel May 14 2009). Again, he is no genuine revolutionary, but already here he is stepping into Chávez territory from the position of more advanced age.

From a more sentimental perspective, the left wing in Die Linke should honour his political career, as German social democracy did Lassalle’s (alas, also the real basis of the Lenin cult), with his ‘harmless’ image beside that of Karl Marx, pioneer August Bebel and anti-war Hugo Haase.

Tina Becker wrote: “He was never against taking the party into ruling coalitions - quite the opposite. But he and his supporters kept formulating ‘principles’ or ‘conditions’ which would have to be met before they would agree to government participation. Putting conditions is generally not a bad tactic. However, as a minority in a capitalist government, Die Linke would always be forced to take responsibility for attacks on the working class. That is in the nature of the system.”

Is this not the same way that Mike Macnair formulates the rediscovered Marxist minimum programme in Revolutionary strategy? That communists should not enter into governments or express confidence in governments as a junior partner unless the core demands of the dictatorship of the proletariat are achieved?

That other partners in the dictatorship of the proletariat coalition may not necessarily be communist parties programmatically - mutualists, Georgists/geoists, sympathisers of no-interest banking (such as Islamic banking), moralistic populists and other groups all united in a communitarian populist front, exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat like that first communitarian populist front - aka the Paris Commune - did?

Also implied here is that some of these partners might have -‘tough on crime’ positions like the Paris Commune’s ban on games of chance or Chávez’s moralistic ban on violent video games, such that, for the greatest good for the greatest number of workers - ie, utility - communists should be willing to accommodate.

Coalescing
Coalescing