Letters

Stand alone

The Socialist Party will be standing a candidate in Vauxhall, London, in the coming general election, just as we did in 2005.

We are standing on a straight socialist ticket, opposed to all the other candidates, including ‘Workers Power’ (or the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, if they get the endorsement).

We do not support the idea of a ‘new workers’ party’ - ie, a Labour Party mark two. That’s been tried in the last century and failed, and would fail again because it is built not on support for socialism, but on leadership and reforms of capitalism.

Further information is available at http://spgb.blogspot.com.

Stand alone
Stand alone

Politically correct

Far be it for me to nit-pick the otherwise excellent review of my book The wheel’s still in spin but rather let me take up the reviewer’s suggestion about “editing and fact checking” (‘When the sweets were taken away’, February 18).

I was “at one stage” on the central committee of the Revolutionary Workers Party - and not the Workers Revolutionary Party (splitters!). Likewise, I was and still am a member of the Industrial Workers of the World, not the International Workers of the World.

It has been suggested to me that the text was correct on submission and somehow between submission and publication the mistakes got allowed through. Have no fear - it’s all absolutely correct in the actual book.

Politically correct
Politically correct

Iraqi fiasco

Few words can describe the shining example of western democracy better than the fiasco that is the Iraqi elections, with over 500 candidates already banned by Ahmed Chalabi and the joke that is the election manifesto of the current prime minister, Nouri Saad Al-Maliki.

It is normally the case that politicians run from the fear of being associated with negative publicity, but, in the good old traditions of a puppet, Iraq’s democracy in fact does the complete opposite, as its present speed of running into the arms of disaster parallels that of a car speeding into a brick wall.

Never before have I encountered a government whose election pledges are such an open incitement to violence and terrorism as the promises by the Iraqi PM to “prosecute the former regime” and “punish Ba’athists” and those associated with opposing the occupation, as well as planting more palm trees.

I would love to inform people in Britain that their taxes have helped to rid the world of dictatorship and fear and diminished the strength of organisations like al Qa’eda but, sadly, this government has spent billions of pounds establishing a regime that cannot provide basic amenities.

With the occupation of Iraq having been in place since 2003, it now looks as if the people of Iraq are going to have to wait until 2014 before the occupation government can ‘promise’ to give them an ‘uninterrupted electricity supply’. With the pledge of a new sports stadium and 12 new hospitals, it appears as though progress may have finally arrived.

Only last year the United States handed over a brand new hospital to the Iraqi government, who had to close it by the end of the day because they could not provide it with electricity. But more astonishing was the fact that it had no staff. With the government rejecting United Nations calls to abolish the death penalty, coupled with ‘democratic’ Iraq’s appalling record on human rights, is it any surprise that over four million people have fled in terror?

It comes as no shock that Britain should wish to be associated with another government like the one they helped to establish in Iraq, when neither are capable of recognising the facts about Iraq’s occupation: the ethnic cleansing of Christians, five million orphans, the dramatic increase in poverty, post-traumatic stress disorder and the four million war widows, all created since ‘liberation’. But, just like the empty promises made by the British government to the Iraqi people, these facts don’t get a mention in Maliki’s manifesto either.

Iraqi fiasco
Iraqi fiasco

Say sorry

A comment someone leaves in a comments block is not a “post”, nor does it represent the views or opinions of the site editors, as Tony Greenstein seems to think (Letters, February 11).

Despite his repetitive, inflammatory accusations, the Weekly Worker has yet to show us any article whatsoever on the Palestine Think Tank website that can even remotely be described as Jew-hating or anti-Semitic.

If you fail to do so, and fail as well to provide an apology, it only indicates that you do not have any interest in substantiating your claim, and thus anything you claim can be false, misleading or erroneous.

Say sorry
Say sorry

Unique oil

The issue of whether classical Marxism contains an ecological aspect is a long-running debate. In my January 28 letter, I went too far in saying that such matters as environmental degradation “did not exist” for classical Marxism. My oversight here has obviously given Phil Kent the opportunity to present classical Marxism as containing a fully developed ecology, based on a few isolated quotes from the classics, while withholding page numbers (Letters, February 11).

My letter, however, was not about the ecological status of Marxism, or even about resource depletion in general, or environmental degradation, but rather about the global peaking of oil production and the consequences which follow from this, which have already started, and has resulted in the first peak oil economic crisis, when oil prices soared to $147 per barrel in July 2008. This triggered a credit crisis because sub-prime mortgages borrowers defaulted, not being able to afford interest rates which were high in order control inflation.

For Phil Kent to argue that peak oil is not unique betrays a lack of awareness of the role of oil in maintaining industrial society at its present level of complexity. Peak oil may not be unique in the rather banal sense that extraction of all finite resources from nature will tend to peak and decline, but it is unique from an energy perspective. Kent, like most of the left, does not seem to be aware that the world is facing a looming energy crisis and what the implications of this crisis means, not only for capitalism but also for the socialist project. He seems to imagine that capitalism can make a painless transition to a new energy system and continue with business as usual, rather than the need for industrial society to power down, as oil supplies decline, because the present energy alternatives being touted do not come near to replicating the various and unique characteristics of oil.

If Kent can grasp the fact that industrial capitalism grew out of fossil fuels, structuring a whole way of life and a whole economic view based on their availability, he may just begin to appreciate the uniqueness of oil in our social order, and therefore the world significance of its historic peaking and coming decline. But I am not holding my breath.

By the way, Kent mentions gas, which can help substitute for declining oil, but he seems to be unaware that globally gas is set to peak only a few years after oil, and the depletion process of gas is not gradual, but sudden.

Unique oil
Unique oil

Brits out

What right does Britain have to a colony in the South Atlantic 7,800 miles from London? Britain claims it has the right to defend ‘self-determination’, when this seems a convenient cover for British interests in the expansion of its capital. In keeping with this, the legislative assembly of the Falkland Islands announced on February 5 that it would oppose any Argentine firm exploring for oil in the territory.

The British, French, Dutch and United States governments have no business maintaining colonies in South America, or anywhere else on the globe. The Malvinas are properly Argentine territory and workers in Britain have no interest in maintaining the old empire’s territorial claims that Labour and Tory governments have vigorously defended.

In this sense, the Falkland Islands are no different than returning Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China, India to the Indians, or Ireland to the Irish. What seemingly complicates the matter is that there are virtually no Argentine nationals on the Falklands. The local residents vigorously support continued British control, much like the reactionary unionists of Northern Ireland.

Central America, South America and the Caribbean are dotted with direct colonial possessions of the US, Britain, the Netherlands and France. With the century-long occupation of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as examples, it is clear that the US has no genuine inclination toward the establishment of democracy or independence for the remaining subjugated nations of this region.

Administration after administration prattles on about democracy in countries with which it is interested in interfering. Yet the actions of the US government, whether those run by Democrats or Republicans, while courting figures like the Dalai Lama, are intractable in their overlord status in Puerto Rico. The disgusting example of Vieques, an island off the coast of Puerto Rico, comes to mind. The US has shelled the island for decades as a military training ground and refuses to clean up the dangerous waste, which includes carcinogenic pollutants and unexploded ordinance. This has led to absurdly high levels of cancer on Vieques.

Meanwhile, against this backdrop of unresolved colonialism, a new social power is emerging, the resurgent continental resistance to imperialism by Central and South American working people in recent years. A prime example of this is the movement that has thrust the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela to move sharply to the left in the direction of socialism. The spectre of social revolution is haunting the oligarchies of South America and the imperialists of the northern hemisphere. The crisis in the south Atlantic cannot be seen outside the context of one imperialist provocation against this process: the military build-up in Colombia against Venezuela, the US-backed separatist movements in Bolivia, the US-sponsored removal of president Zelaya in Honduras, and the influx of US and other imperialist troops in Haiti.

The overwhelming anti-imperialist sentiments of the Argentine working class could be ignited into mass action by the British provocation. Given the historic militancy of the working class in Argentina, which propelled hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets to demand relief from the government in response to the economic crisis of 2000-01, one president after another was forced to leave office. Consequently, the Kirchner government will have to act boldly if it is to stay in power.

However, the capitalist government of Argentina is tied hand and foot to the imperialists it is attempting to challenge. President Cristina Kirchner, whose political support includes businesses and bankers in large part dominated by British financial interests, may find it difficult to be successful with her government’s diplomatic efforts or with an attempt at a semi-military blockade of the islands.

Argentina has long been dominated by British capitalism. The direct occupation of the Malvinas Islands by the British only serves to underscore the position of Argentina as a neo-colonial subject nation. A working class upsurge opposed to further British machinations would in all likelihood expose the country’s subjugation at the hands of British imperialism and lay the blame squarely on the Argentine government’s inability and or unwillingness to seize the islands.

Imperialism can be defeated and will be defeated only when workers politically unite and act independently of their own capitalist-controlled governments so as to lead their respective nations in taking successful actions in defence of the right of all countries to self-determination. One possible action that could be promoted would be to attempt to unite American, British and Argentine dockworkers with other South American port workers in refusing to load or unload shipments of oil equipment or military-related cargo to or from the Falklands. If the British and US workers do not take a stand in support of their Argentine brothers and sisters, that is no reason Argentines should wait. South American workers could demand a halt to all these type of shipments.

It is unlikely that, once pushed into independent political action, the working class will resume their subservient political role in Argentine politics. The question of working class power was raised in recent Argentine history when workers in 2000-02 took over many workplaces, the streets, the national plaza, highways and even towns.

As for the Falkland residents themselves, they too are unfortunate victims of British imperialism. Although many families have lived for generations on the islands, the illegitimacy of Britain’s claim has been well known for over a century. Falkland laws against Argentine interests must be voided by the Falklanders themselves if they wish to be on the right side of history.

The Falklanders’ parochial interests are secondary to the basic question of national self-determination and the sovereignty of Argentina. The Falklanders are not a separate nation from Britain. They are its colonists. Their fear of domination by Argentina is a foil for British economic interests. Britain’s capitalist elite has little regard for its subjects when its economic interests are at stake. It did not grant the millions of residents of Hong Kong the right to elect its own leaders when it was in its interests to secede the territory to China. Nor ultimately will it consider the interests of the residents of the Falklands equal to their own economic interests.

A victory in the Malvinas for the Argentine working people would be like a beacon for South and Central America’s long and incomplete fight for territorial and political independence from imperialism.

Brits out
Brits out

Misquoted

Nick Rogers is quite wrong to draw an equal sign between the position put forward by Colin Fox and the Republican Communist Network’s Allan Armstrong at the Republican Socialist Convention (‘Debating with left nationalists’, February 18).

For a start, Allan did not call for an alliance with the Scottish National Party in furtherance of the aim of Scottish independence. Indeed, Nick derides the call for the ‘break-up of the UK state’ out of the assumption that, in reality, the Scottish nationalists could realise this objective. But he also admits Allan’s argument that they would not do so: in fact, the SNP favour a Catalunya or Quebec-style ‘independence-lite’. And then Nick calls on workers to demand a European republic. That is, a European capitalist state, as opposed to the UK state (or, should I say, integrating that state into a larger one): a tighter-knit European Union.

Communists could only advocate the full integration of the EU on the understanding that this would facilitate the workers’ movement uniting more effectively than the capitalist class can - and in a degree that our side could not do anyway. Is this plausible? I think not, and nor does it ‘flow’ merely from the organisation around the demand. Not only do US imperialism and sections of the bourgeoisies of individual states constantly advance the integration and expansion of the EU, but also in the past our movement threw up three (and tonnes of fourth) internationals outside of any such state bodies. The lack of real workers’ unity across the continent, and indeed across different parts of the UK, is not a facet of our rulers’ petty squabbles in Brussels.

Moreover, the mere fact that it would be the European working class demanding full union of our rulers would not thereby fill this with any social content nor advance our own organisation. Indeed, Nick writes that “the working class across Britain - and preferably across Europe [should raise] the demand for a European republic”, which is hardly a strong advocacy that the working class could force this change on our own terms (my emphasis).

I did not say that I “could not see why unity with Europeans was more important than, say, with Bolivia, where British multinationals were just as involved as in many European countries”. Which Europeans are these? Who in Bolivia? Someone reading this might be misled to believe that I meant I think ‘we’ (the imperialist UK state) should be nicer to Evo Morales, whereas in fact I meant that ‘we’ (communists and the workers’ movement) should not see the struggles of workers in developing countries as somehow lesser in importance, given that many are fighting multinationals tied to the UK state.

See you in Strasbourg.

Misquoted
Misquoted

Blank sheet

I welcome the updated draft of the CPGB’s Draft programme (supplement, February 11) and look forward to the coming months of discussions on the purpose, method and outlook of a communist programme. The question of programme is a source of confusion among the far left, given the political sterile and dogmatic approach by so many esteemed leaderships. An open and frank discussion should be enlightening for everyone involved.

Sections 1 to 5 give a rounded out view of our epoch, a good action programme and explain the transition towards communism. I have issues though with the introductory text, with section 6 and with the party rules.

Reading the introductory text is quite frankly hilarious. It basically claims to be the same CPGB as the one established in 1920 and talks in all its grandeur, as if it still has a big membership. This is ludicrous. The current CPGB has at most 60 members and should behave as such. On this note, there is no mention whatsoever in the whole programme of leftist unity; it offers no strategy for unity, but acts as if it operates on a ‘blank sheet’. This is sectarian behaviour.

Section 6 and the party rules are quite transparently the stinking legacy of Zinoviev-style top-down organisation, although it must be said that it makes explicit mention of the need for open discussion and the right for minorities to organise (in section 6, but not in the party rules), which is a certain improvement to many other existing far-left organisations, which treat dissent as a purely internal matter, of no concern to the rest of our class.

Maybe these rules were designed with the old Stalinite CPGB in mind, in which case such rules would undoubtedly be a progressive step forward? As such a consideration is no longer necessary, more thought should certainly be given to how we organise. We have a unique historical opportunity to start a new, radical democratic tradition regarding party organisation and, while the article wasn’t specifically written for this purpose, Paul Cockshott’s ‘Democracy or oligarchy?’ (October 8 2009) could serve as food for thought.

Another major lacking is a near total absence on the matter of political education of the membership. Yes, there is a mention in the party rules that all members have “a right and a duty to study Marxism and develop the Party’s political positions”, but it offers no organisational structures for systematic political education, the offering of ‘workshops’ to educate communists in practical abilities (such as public speaking, organisational skills, accounting, etc) or the need to form a tendency for all members to become capable theoreticians in their specific field of interest or at least have the scientific method at heart. On this important matter, I agree with Paul Smith (Letters, February 18).

Blank sheet
Blank sheet

Encouraging

As most readers of the Weekly Worker will already know, the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the strident claim, made by journalists, politicians and others, that communism and Marxism had come to a definite end. Unfortunately this poison has seeped right through society as a whole, including the working class. The fact has to be faced that, in many countries, the working class does not see communism as a viable alternative to capitalism. With this as background, it is encouraging that the CPGB has been able to set forth a draft programme

However, the present writer feels that a number of comments need to be made. These are made in a comradely spirit.

The question of world revolution is raised in section 1.6. This is very positive. From this it can be deduced that a new Communist International is urgently needed. Unfortunately this real need is not mentioned in the programme. It is the duty of all communists, wherever they may be in the world, to build communist parties in their respective countries and at the same time contribute to the building of a new Communist International.

Readers should note that positive attempts to rebuild a worldwide communist organisation are now being carried out. Workers Power is building the League for a Fifth International. The Japan Revolutionary Communist League (of which the present writer is a supporter) has linked up with the International Leninist Trotskyist Fraction, composed of communist organisations in Latin America, USA and South Africa.

The programme correctly draws attention to the degeneration of the Russian Revolution (1. Our epoch). It also correctly points out that “In the late 1920s Stalin oversaw a counterrevolution within the revolution.” However, this leaves much unsaid. For the degeneration of the Russian Revolution found its reflection in the degeneration of the Communist International as a whole. The manner in which the programme fails to mention the influence of the Comintern on the CPGB is a serious omission.

In the section on soviets (3.9. Councils of action) it is pointed out that “In any decisive clash of class against class, new forms of organisation which are higher, more general, more flexible than trade unions emerge ... Embracing and coordinating all who are in struggle, such organisations have the potential to become institutions of the future workers’ state.” This is indeed very positive. Councils of action, which arose in the British general strike of 1926 and which were mostly led by the young CPGB, are likely to arise again in Britain and elsewhere. The basic Marxist teaching that the class struggle must give rise to the dictatorship of the proletariat is given structure in the conception of councils of action or soviets.

It is likewise very positive that the programme should call for the creation of a workers’ militia. (3.10. Militia). This is of course closely linked to the concept of councils of action or soviets.

It is indeed unfortunate that, having given support to the establishment of councils of action and to a workers’ militia, the programme (3.1.1. Winning the battle for democracy) proposes to keep the House of Commons and universal suffrage intact. Further, in calling for the disbanding of M15, M16 and special branch, it is made clear that the main body of the police should also be kept intact. There is no doubt that this section of the programme stands in sharp contradiction to the perfectly correct calls for councils of action and a workers’ militia.

If the CPGB were ever to win a majority of seats in parliament (which is very unlikely) the capitalist class would use the army to destroy it. As indeed happened in Chile in 1973. The capitalist state machine (army, police, prisons, etc) has to be smashed and replaced by a workers’ state.

A further weak aspect is to be found in 3.10. Militia, where it calls for “officers to be elected ... in the [capitalist] state’s armed bodies”. This is dangerous nonsense. The function of the armed forces is to defend the capitalist class against its enemies - in the first place against the working class. It is a delusion to think that the capitalist class would ever allow the officers in its army to be elected.

One final point. All those studying the programme are urged to read or re-read Lenin’s Leftwing communism. Here Lenin, writing about the young CPGB, stressed the vast superiority of soviets over parliament. He urged the British communists to fight to get into parliament in order to disrupt it from within in favour of soviets.

It is hoped that this will contribute to a comradely discussion.

Encouraging
Encouraging