Letters

April fool

There is an apocryphal story, probably a joke, about a Kremlin clerk, who on April fool’s day decided to anonymously send to government offices a message to the effect that Trotsky had pulled off a military coup and was leading a detachment of the Red Army to capture the Kremlin and arrest Stalin. The bureaucrats immediately ordered that pictures of Stalin in their offices be taken down and be replaced by ones of Trotsky. This story tells us more about the nature of bureaucracy than Trotskyist musings on this issue. The moral of the tale is that bureaucracy will generally serve any master who takes control.

So it is very convenient for Ray Rising to argue that there was a qualitative difference between the Soviet bureaucracy under Lenin and under Stalin (Letters, March 25). Trotskyists need to establish this difference so as to justify the ultra-left slogan calling for a political revolution to overthrow the ‘Stalinist’ bureaucracy, which Trotsky seemed to have arrived at from political events in Germany, rather than developments within the Soviet Union itself.

However, Trotsky had previously recognised the potentially counterrevolutionary nature of the ‘political revolution’ slogan in relation to the Soviet Union, arguing in Bulletin of the Opposition No33, that if (what he called) the bureaucratic equilibrium in the USSR “were to be upset at present, this would almost certainly benefit the forces of counterrevolution”. It is therefore no surprise that many of the forces opposed to the new socialist order welcomed the split between Stalin and Trotsky and took the side of the latter.

Comrade Rising argues that bureaucracy, like any concept, is not a fixed thing with unalterable characteristics, and not to recognise this, he implies, would be to de facto turn Leninism into dogmatism by upholding the view that communists had to fight bureaucracy while using it at the same time. In other words, he is arguing that by the time Stalin became the leader the Soviet bureaucracy had degenerated to such a degree that Lenin’s strategy for simultaneously fighting bureaucracy and using it was no longer applicable. If the Soviet bureaucracy was as degenerate as the Trotskyists claimed, it would have collapsed ignominiously following the Nazi onslaught, a development which Trotsky had expected. Trotsky’s prediction failed because Stalin had removed anti-Soviet, fifth-column elements from the bureaucracy and the general population: ie, they were interned in the labour camps.

Rising, venerating Lenin as a god, asks whether he was a dogmatist. The answer is no, but that doesn’t mean we have to be uncritical. For instance, the view shared by Lenin and others that bureaucracy was simply a product of backwardness in my view is wrong. It can equally be argued that bureaucracy is a product of social development. Therefore, following a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist country, no-one can rule out a spontaneous tendency for a bureaucracy to usurp power if given the chance. The division of labour does not disappear under socialism. Thus to continue to argue, as the Trotskyists do, that bureaucracy is a product of backwardness only serves to disarm the communists and the working class in general.

We need to recognise that Stalin had a contradictory relationship to the Soviet bureaucracy. Retrospectively, as a critical supporter of the Stalinist regime, I have no problem with agreeing with comrade Rising that the Soviet Union had certain problems and negative features, which, of course, we will never be allowed to forget, but I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

April fool
April fool

Flawed

The CPGB’s support for Abjol Miah in Bethnal Green and Bow shows the flaws inherent in your decision to back anyone who opposes cuts and the war in Afghanistan (‘Critical vote for Abjol’, March 25).

Surely, you would want to make election endorsements based on whether or not support for a candidate advances either the best immediate interests of the working class (which I think you are doing through your correct call for a Labour vote in most places) or the cause of the unity of Marxists as Marxists (ie, you might support comrades from the left standing candidates on weak but inoffensive platforms rather than denouncing them). Candidates who profess to be against cuts and the Afghan war might not even be very leftwing, let alone Marxists, and Miah is a good example.

To my knowledge, not even the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty have accused Miah or anyone else in Respect of being open clerical fascists; nonetheless the links that Ben Lewis adumbrates between Miah, the (far from ‘liberal’) Islamic Forum Europe and Jamaat e Islami confirm this candidate’s long-held reputation as a populist religious communalist. He has a history of sectarian manoeuvring against the Socialist Workers Party, arguing strongly against John Rees’s selection as a council candidate in Whitechapel in 2006, and seems to have been a champion of male, Muslim candidates in all such selection discussions (see Chris Harman’s article here: www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=396).

Comrade Lewis offers some criticism of Miah’s apparent scant regard for women’s rights issues but, strangely for a leading figure in Hands Off the People of Iran, doesn’t mention if Respect as a whole endorse Galloway’s support for Ahmadinejad. Doesn’t the CPGB think it might be embarrassing to find out later that you have supported an apologist for the Iranian regime, given your profile in this area?

Finally, to suggest, as Lewis does, that Miah is ‘similar’ or even more supportable than comrade Jill Mountford of the AWL is simply absurd. Miah’s ‘socialist’ vision (if it is one - he doesn’t seem to describe it as such) is of an entirely platitudinous nature; a better world, solidarity, etc. Your own article exposes his class collaborationist history. Mountford is standing on the slogan of a workers’ government accountable to the labour movement. You may think this is inadequate and that a democratic republic, workers’ militia, etc, are vital slogans and demands. Fine. But to equate these two candidates’ platforms shows how inadequate your own requirements for critical support are in this election.

Flawed
Flawed

Self-critical

A number of your articles, including Mark Fischer’s ‘Unity of Marxists around Marxism is urgently required’ (March 25), correctly identify the characteristic of sectarianism and its corrosive effect on anti-capitalist unity.

However, I would suggest that calling for an end to sectarianism is a necessary but insufficient proposal for solving the question. Practically all left groups at one time or another use the term and they usually apply it to other groups but never to themselves. This phenomenon - of seeing it everywhere else but not in oneself - can often be a symptom of sectarianism itself. My view is that it requires a serious discussion of what constitutes sectarianism, along with how, why and from where it arises, for it is certainly endemic among the anti-capitalist left.

Not that I have the complete answer by any means. Indeed, thinking one has the complete answer is in fact another symptom of sectarianism, for sectarianism, among other things, presupposes an unshakable conviction in correctness; along with (as Marx noted) dogmatic certainty. Marx himself criticised ‘Marxists’ and even emphatically declared he wasn’t one; a claim substantiated by Engels, who declared that Marx’s method was not a dogma, but a method of research. The claim to be ‘scientific socialism’ misled many followers of Marx into thinking it revealed the ‘truth’ and could create an ‘exact’ correspondence to reality. Yet the concept is never the reality and reality is never the concept. Concepts embodied in programmes and articles are abstractions from reality and can only get as close as possible with the greatest care and attention; always bearing in mind that reality is constantly changing, so even the closest correspondence will not always remain so.

It always struck me as a fundamental contradiction that the numerous sects which had as part of their programme a call - in some form or other - for the ‘unity of the working class’ could never manage very much unity for themselves. The working classes, made up of different ethnic, gender, cultural and religious tendencies, were/are expected to overcome these differences, whilst the anti-capitalist left could/can not overcome a much smaller spectrum of differences in their views on how to unite and oppose the system of capital.

In my experience, the smallest disagreement, over-analysis or procedure on the anti-capitalist left is often elevated to the level of a principle and people are attacked mercilessly, showing no respect for the fact that in many cases there could be well over 90% agreement between the disputing parties.

The idea that 100% agreement will ever be achieved in any area of life is ridiculous. Even more so on such a complex question as the revolutionary transformation of a global system of production protected by a powerful class. Indeed, it would be counterproductive to even wish for that, for constructive disagreements can be a source of further (and more accurate) analysis and evaluation.

In contrasting bourgeois revolutions with those of workers, Marx remarked: “Proletarian revolutions, however, such as those in the 19th century, constantly engage in self-criticism and in repeated interruptions of their own course. They return to what has apparently been accomplished in order to begin the task again; with merciless thoroughness they mock the inadequate, weak, wretched aspects of their first attempts” (Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon).

Is it not the case that Marx frequently called for a “criticism of everything” and always subjected his own and others’ researches to self-critical reflection? Yet his rigorous criticism of Hegel did not alter his respect for Hegel’s contribution to critical thinking, as the afterword to the second German edition of Capital, written 30 years later, indicates. In contrast, I suggest that in the 20th and 21st centuries, on the anti-capitalist left, self-criticism has often been entirely missing or limited to minor, unthreatening aspects of their theory and practice. Also, mockery of inadequate attempts has generally been directed exclusively against other groups and during the all too frequent splits within them.

So the question arises of how the anti-capitalist left can accommodate comradely respect for each other - perhaps the first step, despite small differences on certain issues? And, before that, questions such as the concepts and motives which so strongly energise the sectarian mentality perhaps need to be addressed. For, as is obvious, if the anti-capitalist left does not eventually get its act together (particularly in this present episodic crisis of capitalism - and the others that will follow), its divisive activity will merely leave the ground open for further rightwing reactionary movements.

Some years ago, I wrote a book which tried to make a start on such an analysis of sectarianism, but very few on the anti-capitalist left seemed interested in exploring the question, let alone giving it serious consideration. Perhaps there was then too much of a “dread” of “the fatiguing climb” (Marx again) of re-evaluation and fear of what it might eventually reveal. I wonder if anything has really changed?

Self-critical
Self-critical

Split it up

I’ve been giving some thought to your Draft programme and have some friendly criticisms and suggestions to add to the ongoing debate.

The new draft shares a fault with the previous draft in being somewhat poorly structured, making it a more difficult document to read than it needs to be. I think this is because it addresses three distinct purposes without separating them out into distinct parts. These three purposes are a general exposition of Marxism and analysis of capitalism; the setting out of a political programme; and outlining the proposed constitution and rules of the CPGB. I think that there would be merit in splitting the programme into these three parts, or even separate documents.

Part I would be a high-level statement of the theory of Marxism and the general principles that guide communists. This would be a fairly fixed section, reflecting all that is best in Marxist theory and requiring only very intermittent revision. It should be sufficiently general that it could be adopted by communists in almost any time or place, with minor amendments.

Part II would be the meat of the programme, containing concrete proposals. I agree with the division into maximum and minimum, but don’t think that currently this division is clear enough. The idea that communism can simply be transplanted overnight following a revolution ignores the lessons of history and complexities of society. A min-max programme reflects reality by setting out a starting point, in the minimum programme, with the ultimate goal of social revolution set out in the maximum programme. In practice, the maximum programme is unlikely to contain much detail, as the organisation of society under communism cannot be predicted and will evolve during the transition to communism.

Part II would be much more fluid than part I, as it needs to reflect the existing current conditions of the society that communists operate in. To this end, it would vary by country and need regular updating to maintain its currency. This would be the ‘election manifesto’ and the basis for interventions in coalitions, etc.

Finally, part III would address the internal organisation of the CPGB, outlining the constitution and rules of the party. It would sit somewhere between parts I and II when it comes to revisions, giving a firm basis for organisation, whilst allowing the need to react to external or internal factors.

I hope that this criticism is of use.

Split it up
Split it up

Juvenile

James Turley’s juvenile writing style and immature pontificating has long been a source of irritation. His latest comments on the British Airways dispute, the Unite union and the Daily Mail’s ‘sting’ operation on one of its officers are equally so (‘International fightback, not “race to the bottom”’, March 25).

What I think causes him real angst this time is his grudging recognition that, despite what might be gleaned from fairly constant snide and negative reporting by the Weekly Worker, the Communist Party of Britain actually does have a genuine and legitimate basis within the trade union and labour movement, which, despite its small size has real clout, influence and support within the organised working class. Something which has obviously been recognised and understood by the Daily Mail, representing as it does interests which are diametrically opposed to those of the working class.

The idea that the CPB wishes to encourage the trade unions, the mass democratic organisations of ordinary, hard working people, to pursue more ‘left’ policies - ie, those which would benefit the majority of working people at the direct expense of the minority parasite capitalist class - should hardly be shocking or outrageous.

The Communist Party’s strategy to win a left, socialist and communist majority in the country, and to strive for this to be reflected in parliament, is not only deeply democratic, but openly and perhaps too fully described and published in its programme, Britain’s road to socialism. Hardly the source for any conspiracy.

It is to be expected that an organ of the class enemy should heap vitriol and seek to undermine decent, honest and principled partisans of the working class, but we should expect better standards and behaviour from the Weekly Worker and its writers. Shouldn’t we?

Juvenile
Juvenile

Heavy-handed

The conviction and £1,000 fine imposed on a homophobic Christian street preacher in Glasgow is an attack on free speech and a heavy-handed, excessive response to homophobia.

Shawn Holes, an American Baptist evangelist touring Britain, was fined £1,000 for telling passers-by in Glasgow city centre: “Homosexuals are deserving of the wrath of god - and so are all other sinners - and they are going to a place called hell.” In court, he admitted breaching the peace on March 18 by “uttering homophobic remarks” that were “aggravated by religious prejudice”.

Shawn Holes is obviously homophobic and should not be insulting people with his anti-gay tirades. He should be challenged and people should protest against his intolerance. However, in a democratic, free society it is wrong to prosecute him. Criminalisation is not appropriate.

The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality. Only incitements to violence should be illegal. Mr Holes’s £1,000 fine is totally disproportionate. Even people who commit robberies and violent assaults sometimes get off with lighter penalties. This prosecution was heavy-handed and an inappropriate use of the law.

If I had known about this prosecution in advance, I would have gone to court to defend Mr Holes’s right to freedom of expression and to urge that the charges against him be dropped. Even though I strongly disagree with his views on homosexuality, if he had decided to appeal against either the conviction or the sentence, I would have supported him.

I urge the police and prosecuting authorities to concentrate on tackling serious homophobic hate crimes, instead of wasting public money on petty, distasteful, homophobic ranters.

Heavy-handed
Heavy-handed

Condescending

It is quite surreal to pick up a serious Marxist publication only to be presented with Eddie Ford’s ‘political’ analysis of the English Defence League as “happy-hour hangers-on”, “pissed-up football hooligans”, “a bunch of boneheads”, “brain-addled thugs” and my personal favourite, “assorted semi-criminal riff-raff” (‘Weyman Bennett should be criticised, not charged’, March 25).

This sort of reporting you would expect to find in the bourgeois media alongside articles condemning ‘chavs’, ‘hoodies’ and benefit fraudsters, declaring Britain to be broken and calling for a crackdown on crime and a return to family values.

In referring to them as “semi-criminal riff-raff”, comrade Ford has framed his criticisms within the bourgeois state, appealing to his readers’ supposed respect for law and order and conviction that those who break it do so purely because they constitute some nasty, irrelevant “riff-raff” of society. This sort of moralistic and condescending language has no place in the communist media.

His analysis, at times, suggests that he has never actually attended an anti-EDL demonstration or had any experience with EDL members (forgive me if I am wrong, comrade). He fails to acknowledge the absolutely demoralising feeling of seeing elements of the working class, some of whom ought to be our strongest class fighters, out on the streets in support of divisive, anti-working class politics. I have found a patronising, superior outlook is not what you come away with after events like Bolton.

Comrade Ford is absolutely right to point out that this is our failure. It is our failure to present a Marxist party that can be a serious force for the organisation of the working class. And yet he does not seem to take this idea to its logical conclusion in recognising that we will have to engage with these very same “unappealing” types and win them over to the politics of the working class. This is obviously not done by ignoring backward expressions of the class, but neither is it done by doling out comrade Ford’s bourgeois insults. It is done - surprise, surprise - politically: by exposing the hollow and reactionary politics of nationalism and arguing tirelessly for the genuine politics of the class.

Condescending
Condescending

Silly

The coverage given in your organ to the recent anti-fascist demonstration in Bolton was more than a little silly.

Both of your correspondents make great play of the incorrect tactics employed by Unite Against Fascism, which you attribute to the Socialist Workers Party. However, the only ‘tactic’ you see fit to recommend to combat the threat of fascism is the construction of a mass Communist Party consisting of hundreds of thousands. Might I suggest that your mobilisation of these hundreds of thousands of comrades against fascism would be a good place to start in constructing such a party?

Silly
Silly

Strategy change

The reaction of the police in Bolton, pointed to in the G20 protests, surely demands a change in strategy.

Firstly protests need to be aggressively defensive. By this I do not mean taking on ranks of riot police - we are not prepared for pitched battles with the police and we will lose propaganda-wise. I mean professional protesters investing in body armour and protection. They should form the frontline and protect the others.

Secondly, we should prepare for kettling by organising for a siege - having medical people available; having a crèche; having food, drink and toilets. Demonstrate not only our capability for practising what we preach, but for self-organisation.

Secondly, perhaps we need to challenge them legally. Contribute to a fund that supports people arrested; so why the fuck did you beat the crap out of them?

Thirdly, we should demand a people’s commission to govern the police. Finally, and this will take time, transplant them with a workers’ militia.

Strategy change
Strategy change

Amok

In ‘Weyman Bennett should be criticised, not charged’, you fail (as is common in Weekly Worker articles) to specify what alternative strategies the left should adopt against fascism.

The SWP and UAF were rightly criticised in Edinburgh when they and the rest of Scotland United tried (but failed) to demobilise activists and avoid a confrontation with the Scottish Defence League, the EDL’s sister organisation.

Although I agree that more emphasis should be placed on mobilising local people, and disagree with the strategy of appealing to capitalist courts (who could take similar measures against the left), surely UAF were correct to confront the EDL rather than letting them run amok unchallenged. Furthermore, the EDL had a national mobilisation and attracted some 1,500 protesters, so UAF had to do likewise to avoid being hopelessly outnumbered.

I attended an SWP meeting in Manchester on Thursday evening and couldn’t disagree with anything that speaker Chris Bambery said!

On a different subject, I argued (Letters, February 18) that proportional representation and representatives being subject to recall are not mutually compatible. Somebody suggested that they could be subject to recall by their party rather than the whole of the electorate. Adding this to the current electoral system for the European parliament would have allowed the UK Independence Party to recall Robert Kilroy-Silk rather than letting him set up his own party and remain an MEP for the rest of the electoral cycle. More relevant to the left, the Scottish Socialist Party could have recalled Tommy Sheridan when he went against the party’s wishes in suing the News of the World over allegations about his sex life - or at the very least when he set up the Solidarity split-off party.

Doing this would not get round the problem of the left vote being split (as it was between the SSP, Solidarity, the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Great Britain in Glasgow at the last Scottish parliamentary elections). Someone once emailed me to suggest a national list with no cut-off, so a party with 0.5% of the vote gets 0.5% of the seats, as an alternative to the single transferable vote form of PR that I have been advocating, which tends to squeeze smaller parties (especially if there are a small number of representatives per constituency). However, removing the link with constituencies reduces the accountability of representatives and makes it hard for individual parties to have a democratic selection procedure.

The best electoral system for the left under capitalism is rather academic, since we can hardly expect the government to give us an ideal system, however much we argue for it. Far more useful is to decide what sort of electoral system we are proposing for a socialist society. For that, I am still inclined to advocate STV for the parliament, with the whole government subject to recall. What do others think?

Amok
Amok