25.08.2010

Striving for clarity

Report on the debates, the disagreements, and the comradeship at Communist University 2010

The CPGB welcomed something approaching 150 comrades to its annual Communist University, held in south London over eight days earlier this month. As usual, the emphasis was on the clarification of differences among the left and the raising of our overall theoretical understanding.

While the above figure refers to the number of individuals who attended at least one session (there were mostly three a day), there was a hard core of around 35 who were in residence for the whole week and attended most of the debates. What was encouraging was the number of first-time participants - mostly less experienced comrades - but almost without exception they had nothing but positive things to say (see below).

Unlike the schools of other left groups, CU aims to encourage the exchange of ideas between revolutionaries belonging to different organisations, giving precedence to speakers from the floor who are not CPGB members. This year we were pleased to engage throughout the week with comrades from the Labour Party, Socialist Workers Party, Committee for a Workers’ International, Workers Power, International Bolshevik Tendency, Socialist Fight and Revolutionary Democratic Group (although not with the blessing of their respective leaderships in every case). Ideological differences within the Marxist tradition ought not to prevent organisational unity among revolutionaries - that was one of several important lessons to be learned. Similarly differences that arise are no respecters of organisation, nor should they be.

There was a combination of old favourites and speakers new to CU addressing the sessions. One of those we are always pleased to welcome is Hillel Ticktin of Critique, who led three important morning discussions on the capitalist crisis. Covering the decline of capitalism, the crisis in historical perspective, and what follows from the current economic downturn, comrade Ticktin gave exhaustive introductions that prompted excellent responses, ranging from the form and stage of capitalist decline, the role of the falling rate of profit and the increasing irrationality of wars to the likely working class response and the collective preparedness of the capitalists.

Sunday’s sessions on permanent revolution (led by Mike Macnair), socialism and democracy (Moshé Machover), and the CPGB Draft programme (Jack Conrad) brought particular disagreements into the open. Gerry Downing (Socialist Fight) and comrades from the IBT took the opportunity during these sessions to repeat yet again well rehearsed Trotskyist myths that ought to have been laid to rest long ago: the ‘strategic gulf’ between Lenin and Trotsky up to April 1917; Lenin’s ‘conversion’ to permanent revolution and the need for a completely different type of party; his ‘realisation’ that the failings leading to Kautsky’s betrayals had been there all along.

Another highlight of the week was the return of North American scholar Lars T Lih, who introduced three separate sessions based on his archival researches. Under the general heading of ‘Lenin rediscovered’, comrade Lih covered a great deal of ground and demolished some more shibboleths along the way. Once again comrade Downing and others responded in dogmatic terms, unwilling to actually engage with the details of comrade Lih’s thesis.

His third and final session contrasted the central role ascribed by the Bolsheviks to political freedoms before 1917 with their downplaying afterwards. It was pointed out that, while it was totally understandable that the Bolsheviks were forced to retreat after the October revolution, it was most unfortunate that they began to justify the decisions arising from that retreat in generally applicable theoretical terms. In the middle of the week, Marc Mulholland, fellow at St Catherine’s College, Oxford, introduced a discussion on Marx’s expectation that the proletariat would be socialistic in terms of its inclinations.

There was a ‘debate’ (or rather non-debate) between Chris Knight of the Radical Anthropology Group and Hagit Borer of the University of Southern Carolina, who was supposed to be responding to comrade Knight’s critique of Noam Chomsky - the complete separation of his science from his progressive politics, which comrade Knight contends arises from Chomsky’s work for the US military, and the resulting profound weaknesses in his theoretical work on the origin and role of language. But Hagit Borer would not bite and was content merely to give a lecture on generative linguistics that explicitly and intentionally failed to defend Chomsky’s views.

Chris Knight took up a related theme two days later when he introduced the session on Marxism and science. Starting out by stating that one’s politics should be informed by science, Chris denied that there was a ‘science of Marxism’. However, he contended that Marxism helps in doing “good science”: it has the advantage of being able to explain the bigger picture.

An ongoing discussion on all aspects of the CPGB’s Draft programme, which is in the process of being redrafted (see www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002562), was given added depth in a discussion led by Jack Conrad over two sessions. These were intended to set the scene for a weekend school for CPGB comrades to be held in October, when it is expected many of our own programmatic differences will be thrashed out; followed by a CPGB conference in January 2011, when we hope to adopt the new version. Jack contrasted the CPGB and its current Draft programme with both the SWP’s anti-progammism and the reformist programme of the Socialist Party in England and Wales.

The working class could not be tricked into taking power - which is why we do not shy away from stating what is necessary. While SPEW’s version of national socialism will be legislated in through an enabling act, implying trust in the police and army, the CPGB is aware that the state’s forces will not abide by the democratic decisions of the working class. This is why we raise the issue of a people’s militia at pertinent times. However, we also know that a successful revolution cannot occur in Britain alone: our programme recognises that the international unity of revolutionary forces, crucially across Europe, is a key strategic question.

Comrades raised numerous serious questions relating to what they saw as shortcomings in the redraft proposed by the Provisional Central Committee and an insufficient PCC engagement with criticisms of it. Comrade Conrad dealt with the arguments raised in broad terms, noting that many suggestions for inclusion in the Draft programme may well be added - it would be up to the membership to decide.

Stimulating and provocative discussions were also prompted by sessions on Iran; English Defence League and British National Party; bourgeois elections; ancient Greek democracy; the outstanding intervention of Grigory Zinoviev at the 1920 Halle Congress of the German Independent Social Democratic Party; the Labour Party and socialism; primitive communism and the matriarchal family; and prostitution.

The last substantive session of Communist University saw Hillel Ticktin, Mike Macnair and Moshé Machover take part in a panel debate and floor discussion on bureaucratic centralism and confessional leftwing sects. Comrade Macnair decried the left sects’ thrust toward mass mobilisation on the basis of social democracy: 90% of the time, people come out of such actions the same as when they went in. Moshé derided so-called Leninism as being invented under Stalin; in this crisis, greater than any in living memory, we need a party of a new type. Comrade Ticktin saw the existence of sects as understandable, but not an inherent problem, and would not want them all in one organisation: SPEW is reformist; neither should we regard the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain as part of the left, he said. He felt that, with more authoritarian rule looming, the sects would be shoved to one side and should be ignored - the class itself would spontaneously look to socialism for answers.

Responding to the extensive floor discussion, comrade Ticktin insisted that the legacy of Stalinism remained and it had to be comprehensively rebuffed. Moshé Machover was keen to utilise new means of communication over the internet in organising our forces, while comrade Macnair reminded comrades that local activity on the ground was carried out by several competitor organisations, almost all suffering from a severe lack of democracy. That is why the CPGB regards itself as a campaign for a Communist Party, which will not arise from linear growth, but will be produced through struggle involving the existing groups. However, while comrade Macnair strongly disputed the contention that the sects could be bypassed, he accepted that ideological polemic with the far left alone would not produce a mass revolutionary party: left unity would have to proceed in concert with the mass movement as it develops, as the working class takes action as a class for itself.

As usual, Communist University concluded with an evaluation by participants. This year’s was longer than usual, with many thoughtful contributions, including from a number of first-timers, about how to improve the event in future years, both politically and culturally.

There was virtual unanimity on the pleasing degree of comradeship generated over the week, arising not just from the thoroughgoing debates in the formal sessions, but from the informal lunchtime discussions led by Jack Conrad, from the numerous heated exchanges between comrades in the evening and from the close cooperation needed for our communal catering.

Many of the suggestions related to the need to allow comrades whose turn it was for kitchen duty to participate more fully in the sessions; and for videos of the sessions to be more ambitious and more speedily available on the internet. As a result, many went away already looking forward to next year’s Communist University.