Letters

Back to school

I totally agree with Jim Moody when he glances at the political ‘programmes’ of some major organised Marxist forces out there (‘Accountable to their party’, April 15). Jim wrote that “there is blank incomprehension all round. For these organisations it is as if the historical record of working class on these democratic questions has been expunged”.

First of all, I agree that we must be critical of those who refuse to address politics and democracy seriously. Yet we cannot forget how much has changed over the years and what a devastating role capitalism has played in terms of political consciousness inside and outside the workers’ movement. Over more than 25 years, neoliberalism dealt a major blow to the political strength of our class. This too has implications for working class experience and hence (political) consciousness.

Just ask any revolutionary socialist or militant worker what socialism will look like and you’ll hear - especially among younger, inexperienced people - at best they talk about organising themselves into councils: ie, soviets. The democratic republic and its principles have almost totally been removed from collective memory. This explains why in our vocabulary (if I’m allowed to speak for the left as a whole) there is a lack of any content in the words ‘politics’ or ‘democracy’. If the left itself is unable to explain those words patiently, we will never be able to erase the negative influence of bourgeois politics on the minds of many people.

It is really an interplay of revolutionary amateurism and neoliberal policies. So there is no reason for the left to be ‘modest’ by tailing trade unions. It must play an active role. It cannot simply wait for a more favourable situation. Capitalism won’t be defeated that way. I would say that one of the major lessons to be learned from the Communist manifesto is exactly the one about politics and democracy. Marx summarised it as follows: “... the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class; to win the battle of democracy.”

At the present time, there is hardly an organisation where the working class can gain the experience necessary to fight its political battles. That’s why I support the CPGB’s Draft programme when it states that communists should do all they can “to make trade unions into schools for communism”.

Back to school
Back to school

AV, not STV

In his article on democratic accountability, Jim Moody states: “Were a single transferable vote (STV) reform to be put in place, and Labour is proposing a referendum on that issue, recall by the electorate would be just as problematic.”

I feel that Jim’s description could unintentionally mislead readers as to the nature of the proposal that the Labour Party wants to put to a referendum. Whilst the system being proposed does indeed involve electors having a single vote that would be transferable, the term ‘STV’ refers to electoral systems that use multi-member constituencies - ie, with several MPs representing each constituency. That is the means by which STV achieves a rough proportionality, albeit sometimes with quirky results, as Moshé Machover has pointed out (‘Proportional representation and Brown’s opportunist ploy’, April 1).

However, Labour’s proposal for the House of Commons is to introduce a system called the alternative vote (AV), which would retain the existing single-member constituencies. Although AV is probably the best method of electing a single office-holder - eg, a president or a party leader - it should not be confused with STV.

The Brown administration is quite happy for such a confusion to exist, of course, because it wants to attract votes from people who favour electoral reform and therefore will not mind if some misconstrue its proposals as proportional representation. But we should not assist Labour in perpetuating such a misunderstanding.

AV, not STV
AV, not STV

First preference

Congratulations on adopting a very good position on supporting proportional representation with a list system and representatives being recallable by their parties.

I came down narrowly in favour of the single transferable vote form of PR, as advocated by the Electoral Reform Society and the Liberal Democrats, over that system in a recent letter (April 1), arguing that the whole parliament should be subject to recall rather than individual MPs (which, as you point out, doesn’t really work under that electoral system).

I have been arguing for the reconciliation of Marxism with proportional representation for a number of years, and it’s great that one Marxist organisation has finally come to a good position. May others follow the CPGB’s lead!

First preference
First preference

BNP promotion

The April 15 article by Eddie Ford, ‘The obligation and means to resist tyranny’, ostensibly argues that in opposing Nick Griffin’s views on the use of violence sections of the left have adopted a pacifist and legalistic position and have failed to support the right to revolt against oppression. But, no doubt unintentionally, it appears strongly to present a covert promotion of Griffin.

The article serves to give the BNP respectability by putting the case that Griffin’s views on violent struggle have been misrepresented, that in fact his position is one of reasonable defence and the use of violence only as a last resort, similar to that expressed in the American constitution. The accompanying picture even shows a smiling Nick Griffin backed by a US flag. This treatment is exactly what Griffin is trying to achieve with his ‘nice guy’ approach to being the face of the far right.

No matter what Griffin’s views may or may not be, no mistake or weakness of the anti-fascist movement justifies this level of promotion of the BNP in a left newspaper. It can only undermine the struggle against the extreme right. The infiltration of fascist (or just far-right) respectability into the left movement, unintended or otherwise, is a real danger; the left should realise its obligations in this area above all and remain vigilant.

BNP promotion
BNP promotion

Disillusionment

The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty have launched a Socialist Campaign to Stop the Tories and Fascists. The logic behind this is as tortured as its title. I’ll come to that in a moment. They, have, however, published an article in which they ask why the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party refuse to support their latest front organisation. Since the AWL proclaim that they are in favour of open debate, and all comments that are not offensive, etc will be published, I responded to this article.

As I experienced some time ago, I found that the stock response of the AWL, when they come across comments they cannot answer, is simply to delete the comment. Stranger still, the AWL published a further article setting out their position in 1976 - supporting Labour rather than left candidates. Strange, because the contents of that article spoke in clear terms against the AWL’s decision to stand its own candidate in Peckham, and still more so against its decision to call for support for other “socialist” candidates - of its choosing - through the SCSTF, even where they were standing against Labour.

That article had already provoked a response from Dave Broder, though most of the discussion was diverted to a different discussion. I did manage to get a couple of comments published that not only stayed up for a couple of days, but one actually provoked a reply from Sacha Ismail. However, when I then replied again, referring to the fact that my other comment had been deleted and repeating its main point - you cannot expect ordinary Labour Party members to believe your claim to desire a Labour victory if you stand your own candidates against them - not only was this comment deleted, but the other two were deleted as well!

There is a lesson here not just about the Stalinist nature of the AWL, which should cause everyone on the left to treat it with the greatest distrust, but about such sects in general - indeed, I would argue, about the legacy of ‘Leninism’.

A look at the signatories to the SCSTF shows that most of them are current or past members of the AWL, with a few other ex-revolutionaries for good measure. They do have the signature of John McDonnell, but any Labour member signing this is asking for trouble, because as a campaign which calls for, and includes support for, anti-Labour candidates they are breaking LP rules, which forbid, quite rightly, such a flagrant breach of democratic principles. Any consistent democrat would have to demand that the rules are upheld, or else how can we rationally argue that others should not be able to simply defy democratic decisions when it suits them - for example, scabs?

But this is precisely the way that sects operate, and is part of that heritage of ‘Leninism’. For example, the AWL rightly criticise others who have signatories to their campaigns with doubtful politics. Yet, as Dave Broder points out, one of the SCSTF signatories, David Drew MP, has the same kind of reactionary, nationalistic politics on Europe that the AWL criticise in others - for example No2EU. Yet they reply that they cannot be responsible for the politics of those they get to sign their campaign. But what would happen if another 100 David Drews signed up, being able to outvote the AWL? would they simply succumb to basic democracy, and allow the campaign’s position on Europe to be changed? No, of course not - or, if they continued down the road of other centrist organisations, maybe they would in order to retain the support of bourgeois politicians.

In reality, the experience of sects that have attempted to maintain their ‘revolutionary purity’ tells us what they would do in such a circumstance. Whenever any such an organisation has seen a minority become a sizeable portion of its membership, let alone be able to win a majority, either they have been expelled or else a split has been engineered. Unfortunately, that goes back to Lenin himself. It demonstrates a willingness to play fast and loose with proletarian democratic principles.

Marx said that the task for communists was to win the battle of democracy within the working class, but the legacy of ‘Leninism’ is an overriding desire to simply be the majority at all costs, even if that means reducing the realm in which you are a majority to an ever smaller circle.

The lunacy of the AWL’s position, and the point they don’t seem to like see being made, is that in order to maintain the fiction that their campaign desires a “Labour victory”, they have to answer the question about their own candidates frustrating that by telling us that they know they will get a derisory vote! But, what if a ‘Nick Clegg moment’ occurred, and they did not get a derisory vote (unlikely, it’s true)? To avoid that they should print on their leaflets, ‘Vote for us, but not too many of you, please’!

Last September, I wrote a blog calling for the left to establish a Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory. Soon after the AWL wrote an article saying why it was not possible. A few weeks before the election they launch a campaign that they try to pass off as being an SCLV, but which clearly is not. The call to stop the Tories and fascists, even whilst dressed up in socialist verbiage, can just as easily be used to justify tactical voting for Liberals, Greens and others where that would deny the Tories or fascists seats. In the past the AWL have argued that themselves. They do not do so now for their own sectarian advantage, arising from having decided to stand a candidate, which is a clearly wacky and adventurist act for such a tiny sect.

Marxists have to be consistent democrats. Our task is to win the battle of democracy, and that starts from accepting that workers in the main not only do not agree with us, but hold quite reactionary ideas. Unless we tell that truth to ourselves, we cannot begin to change that reality. For now, it also includes recognising that Labour does represent approximately the level of class consciousness that workers have, and it is only through it that we can begin to change those ideas.

Disillusionment
Disillusionment