Letters

Militant silence

Militant (February 17) published a useful article on the split within the Maoist-led Philippines Communist Party by Phil Hearse - a recent recruit, previously editor of Socialist Outlook.

The article upholds the “Leninist principle of freedom of internal debate coupled with unity in action”. It is therefore ironic that Militant Labour has not seen fit to publish any of the contending viewpoints within its own organisation regarding its decision to stand a candidate in last week’s Tower Hamlets by-election (see ‘Militant hushes up election stand split’, Weekly Worker 81).

ML members have told us they think our article was “out of order”, because internal debate did take place. The point is that this was restricted to a minority of members who attended the relevant meetings and that the existence of differences over the important election tactic question was suppressed - the announcement of the decision to contest even appears to have been delayed.

Democratic centralism means the fullest possible debate, openly conducted before the entire working class.

Both ‘official communism’ and Trotskyism have tended to see internal differences as a sign of weakness, not to be aired in public. The most notorious example of this, as far as ML is concerned, was the refusal to publish discussion around the 1991 Ted Grant split - ‘open ideological debate’ took place on that occasion in the pages of The Guardian.

Peter Manson
South London

Take the biscuit

The comments of Assad Rahman, of the Newham Monitoring Project, in Weekly Worker 81 really take the biscuit.

Now, let me see if I have got this right. Assad apparently agrees with us that Labour is “part of the problem”, yet he is quite happy to hand out leaflets which simply say, ‘Don’t Vote BNP’, which - as we all know - means ‘Vote Labour’ (by default). Furthermore, he has the sauce to tell us that the job of the NMP “is to combat racism and fascism here and now. It is up to you to offer the long-term solutions.”

So, Assad and his chums in the NMP stroll around Newham casually handing out leaflets which implore workers to vote Labour (or worse), while we in the Communist Party have to rush about like blue-arsed flies trying to undo the damage, telling the very same workers not to vote Labour.

Hmmm... no wonder that the masses are not exactly queuing up to join leftwing organisations.

Robert Martin
Halifax

Stalin erred

With regard to comrade Hammill’s letter (Weekly Worker 81), I would like to make some points about Stalin’s role in the purges.

The common view that Stalin had a long range plan to consolidate power for himself is a gross oversimplification.

The true scenario was that of a divided and indecisive leadership in constant conflict with the various regional Party organisations. From 1929 until 1935 the central authorities carried out a series of purges against the regional bureaucracies. These were aimed at fighting against the increasing cases of nepotism, favouritism, Party apparat high handedness and remoteness with the rank and file membership; as well as combating the lack of self-criticism among regional Party secretaries and the low level of debate of Party policies and local issues at primary organisation level.

During the course of industrialisation and collectivisation, Party records had become out of date, members who had been expelled still held Party cards and cards were traded on the black market. Careerists and adventurists joined the Party; vast numbers didn’t bother to attend meetings.

Stalin had little to gain from the death of Kirov. He was in fact (along with Zhdanov) closely associated with Kirov’s policies of maintaining Party unity and tackling the above-mentioned problems, not by mass purging, but by a comprehensive policy of political re-education, propaganda, agitation and increased Party democracy.

As late as the February 1937 plenum of the central committee Stalin supported Zhdanov’s criticism of the regional Party set-up. He also cautioned against root and branch expulsions of Trotskyites.

The fate of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin and Rykov were sealed by the readiness of the regional secretaries to mark them down as scapegoats and as fronts for Trotskyite opposition (Zinoviev and Kamenev actually did have links with Trotsky). Their expulsion from the Party mirrored a central committee split on whether to accept the Zhdanov or Ezhov programme.

Only slowly did Stalin err towards the disastrous programme advocated by Ezhov, which led to the massacre of many innocent communists running out of control.

Colin McGhie
Glasgow

Confusion

Once again I see the Weekly Worker is not only failing to give leadership to the workers, but actually creating confusion within their ranks. No 83 carries two reports regarding South Africa: one a critical report on Mandela and the second an uncritical report of an interview between Harry Gwala of the ANC and your reporter Peter Manson.

The first correctly states that communists must “... now ... organise against the bourgeois state, whether it is fronted by black or white faces ...” In the second uncritical report we read exactly the opposite! Gwala states, “I don’t think we have reached the point of breaking with the government yet.” So, what is the policy of the CPGB on these contradictory positions?

Actually the two stages theory of revolution offered by Gwala reflects the opportunism and Menshevism of the SACP. I hesitate to suggest that it is a hangover from ‘Stalinism’, as this theory and concept is embraced by the world Trotskyist movement, but in a more subtle ‘left’ form. They call for a bourgeois parliament (constituent assembly) and, where workers’ councils are mentioned, they are given the task, not of overthrowing the capitalist government and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, but of organising the bourgeois parliament in order to complete the democratic ‘stage’ of the bourgeois democratic revolution (BDR). So much for permanent revolution!

What is the BDR? Quite simply it is a revolution to install the bourgeois class and system to power, with broad democratic rights for the working class at the expense of autocratic feudalism.

The capitalist class, with the assistance of imperialism, has ruled in South Africa for many years. The fact that the masses of black people have not had full democratic rights does not question the nature of class rule in South Africa, but rather reveals the class against which one must struggle in order to obtain freedom to organise, strike, speak, vote, etc. In other words an anti-capitalist struggle - for working class state power, as opposed to class collaboration.

P Conlon
South London

Eternal life?

All those ageing centrists who dream of discovering the elixir of youth (so they can repeat their mistakes ad infinitum, god forbid) must be looking to North Korea for salvation at this moment.

The North Koreans, guided by the infallible scientific methodology of Juche, are reputedly seeking elixirs made from bird droppings to prolong the life of the Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il. All the latest research indicates that Taiwanese swallow droppings and birds’ nest are particularly effective with regards to longevity.

True to the spirit of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism, the state media - ie, all the media - has claimed that the Dear Leader descended from heaven. Naturally, twin rainbows were reportedly seen on the ‘holy’ mountain where he was born.

Welcome to ‘hard line communism’, North Korean style. Who needs religion when you have got so-called ‘Marxism-Leninism-Jucheism’?

Terry Dunbar
Cardiff