Letters

In between

In response to Ben Lewis (Letters, October 28), I would say that if the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) had been formed before 1917, during an earlier phase in the revolutionary period, then its existence could have been more justifiable.

German workers did look to the Russian Revolution as a model, but did they look to the Bolsheviks or the Menshevik Internationalists? Along with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, the MIs won the soviet elections in 1918, which the Bolsheviks - having lost majority political support from the working class - reacted to with Milrevcom takeover substitutions, gangster-style shutdowns and Cheka arrests. In short, there were Bolshevik coups, but not in 1917.

The insulting slogan, ‘Moscow dictatorship’, was quite valid. I don’t have extensive information on all the figures of the Independent Social Democracy (USPD) centre, just that the likes of Theodor Liebknecht and Georg Ledebour were hostile to both the Social Democratic Party and the KPD/Comintern. They were consistent realos.

To say that the USPD was “an outstanding role model for left politics today” actually says more about today’s situation than the more revolutionary situation back then. On the left, the participatory economists have called for a Participatory Socialist International, but let us not forget the call from Hugo Chávez for a Fifth Socialist International (damn delays) and, more importantly, the potential for a new workers’ international in between the two proposals (ie, ideologically positioned like the International Working Union of Socialist Parties) as a result of bold initiative on the part of Die Linke’s international commission, headed by Oskar Lafontaine.

In between
In between

No to unity

On Sunday November 1 around 400 students and lecturers (mainly the former) filled King’s College Strand campus to attend the Education Activist Network conference. EAN is the latest ‘broad front’ group of the Socialist Workers Party in the student movement following the short-lived experience of Another Education Is Possible and, before that, Student Respect.

The event was backed by the National Union of Students and a number of individual student unions. With students bussed in from around the country, the turnout was very encouraging, as was the fact that this conference could bring together the student left as a whole. The student movement suffers from the very same problems as its ‘adult’ organisations: sectarianism, a narrow and uninspiring vision and a near-criminal duplication of activist effort.

We now have five student ‘broad front’ campaigns with almost identical politics, activism and focus. The only thing that really distinguishes them from one another is the particular group or set of groups pulling the wires behind the scenes: EAN (SWP); Youth Fight for Jobs (Socialist Party in England and Wales); National Coalition Against Fees and Cuts (Workers Power and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty), Progressive Students (Socialist Action) and the Coalition of Resistance (Counterfire).

Encouragingly, all the above groups were present, which allowed the possibility of a proper and frank discussion about how to, as a first step, get these campaigns together - even on the woefully poor politics they currently espouse. Yet a cursory glance at the timetable made clear that the SWP wished to preserve its sect interests, as opposed to that of the movement. As with previous such student ‘conferences’, we saw keynote speeches from ‘big name’ MPs, trade unionists, left academics and NUS officers. Then we were split up into ‘workshops’ before finally coming together again for an incredibly pinched session on the network’s actual politics and leadership.

The current rightward trend of the SWP is obvious from a quick look at EAN’s ‘Defend Education’ motion passed at the conference. It does not contain any demand for free education or grants set at a level for students to live decent lives. This reflects the fact that the SWP is currently doing ‘united front work’ with Labour Students and the NUS bureaucracy (ie, letting these forces write its programme). Now is the “wrong time” to argue for free education, apparently. In justifying the omission of such demands and opposition to the Communist Students motion calling for an open fight for socialism, one SWP activist even invoked the words of John Rees, the recently decamped SWP leader: “It’s not about what we in this room think, but the millions out there.” Yes, comrade, that approached really worked out well in Respect, didn’t it? The SWP want “the broadest possible unity” in the fight against “Tory cuts” - disappointed Lib Dem voters, Labourites and so on. This means pretending to have their politics - at least until they are behind closed doors or in SWP meetings ...

A combination of this opportunism and sectarianism saw a farcical final session. In response to amendments from the NCAFC and the Coalition of Resistance regarding a merger of the existing campaigns, and different amendments from Communist Students and Workers Power talking about the need to convene an open, democratic conference in the new year, the SWP put forward its own spoiler amendment to the motion.

Desperate to justify not taking unity seriously, leading SWP students and lecturers alike insisted that what we need is a “network” open to as many forces as possible, that is. According to SWPer Sean Vernell, “It’s not about uniting the left - we need to get that idea out of our heads.”

It goes without saying that CS amendments on the need to unite around Marxist politics, to fight for free education and a living grant (at least £300 per week) and to combat the ideology of the capitalist cuts with our own socialist alternative were soundly defeated. However, an amendment from Simon Hardy of Workers Power committing EAN to supporting the “free education bloc” at the NUS/UCU demonstration on November 10 was passed. We will see whether the SWP actually bother with this though. Also encouraging was the fact that many of the comrades present from NCAFC voted for our amendment. The meeting finished with a very poor political statement and the continuation of a situation where the student left has competing campaigns all essentially singing from the same hymn sheet. The SWP are fully in control: all of ‘their people’ were elected onto the new steering committee, although with no open count and no publishing of the actual votes each candidate received, we cannot tell how some of the far-left candidates, like CS’s Callum Williamson, actually fared at all.

At the end leading SWP student Mark Bergfeld got very excited about “bringing France to Britain” and doing what they did in 1968. Either from the need to cover for the narrowness of the EAN statement, or simply through confusion, he then talked about the need for a “vision of an alternative education and society” - just what the CS amendment (admittedly somewhat more specifically) that he and his comrades voted down minutes earlier had proposed.

No to unity
No to unity

Murderers

On October 20, casual railway workers were demonstrating at Avellaneda Station in Buenos Aires for the right to be hired permanently and to join the railway workers’ union (Unión Ferroviaria or UF).

Before violence broke out, UF leaders in Avellaneda had vowed it would stop the outsourced workers and the activists from blocking the railroad tracks. In the past, pickets have stopped trains from running and the union complains that they then have to “deal with complaints by commuters”. The UF, which is headed by the old guard Peronist José Pedraza, is currently involved in the management of the railway system, which is heavily subsidised by the state. The railway workers’ union has been accused of pocketing state subsidies by outsourcing cheap labour to companies that it also controls.

About 120 members of the Peronist Union Youth, armed with clubs, were filmed approaching the pickets. Faced with superior numbers, the demonstrators tried to retreat, but were pursued. Witnesses say that two, possibly three, of the thugs then pulled revolvers and began firing at the workers.

Two workers received non-critical wounds. But a bullet pierced the liver of 23-year-old Mariano Ferreyra, who died. Young Mariano was a militant of the Workers Party (Partido Obrera), the Argentine section of the Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International. The response of the working class in Buenos Aires and other cities was an instantaneous outbreak of strikes and mass demonstrations.

The comrades of PO will maintain the struggle for justice. Messages of solidarity can be sent to po.org.ar.

Murderers
Murderers

Irish initiative

A conference on ‘Marxist perspectives for Irish society’ was hosted by Limerick Marxist Reading Group last weekend.

This very welcome initiative brought together representatives of the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, as well as a number of other political activists and academics. It showed the potential for regroupment on a revolutionary basis and how easily barriers can be broken down when comrades are involved in serious debate.

The positive response to the call for papers meant that it was a very packed agenda. In fact some sessions had speakers on very divergent subjects, which created unfortunate confusion. However, it is fair to say that it also reflected the fact that the organisers wanted to have an inclusive approach.

The main themes focused on the current crisis, with speakers from the SWP and SP, together with Hillel Ticktin, who spoke on the global crisis and its relevance for Ireland.

I unfortunately missed the first day, but it seemed to have gone very well. Kieran Allen of the SWP had been the opening speaker with a talk on the Irish economic crash and the global recession. There were also a number of other sessions on the demise of the Celtic tiger, as well as a discussion on both historical and contemporary socialism in Ireland.

Saturday began with a talk by Dave Hill of University of Middlesex on privatisation in education. He emphasised particularly the need for a united Marxist response to the current attacks. Dave was a candidate for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (Tusc) in the last election and told me afterwards that he had been sympathetic to the CPGB application to join Tusc and was against all bans and exclusions.

Clare Daly of the Socialist Party spoke on what she termed the “ideological underpinning” of privatisation in Ireland. She addressed the current crisis and the full-frontal attack on the working class, including the assault on public services and semi-state bodies. Her main solution for the workers’ movement was to defend such services - while fighting for public ownership under workers’ control. She wanted to make clear that the Socialist Party has an internationalist, not a nationalist, agenda and that Joe Higgins MEP has taken the lead in fighting for a European-wide fightback.

Other debates included an interesting talk on modernism in Ireland by Sinead Kennedy of the SWP and an unexpectedly controversial discussion on use and exchange value and the dynamics of capitalism by Conleth Hussey.

Hillel Ticktin was the last speaker of the conference. He explored the various theories around the present crisis and argued that the decision to impose massive cuts was a conscious one by the bourgeoisie. It is premised on their determination to control the working class and prevent a repeat of the militancy of the 1960s and 1970s. They are taking a major risk in imposing this crackdown, both because of the deflationary effects and because of the mass resistance it is bound to provoke. But, according to their rationale, there is no choice. Keynesianism does not appear to be an option, as it would mean stimulating the economy and thereby strengthening the working class. In these circumstances it makes no sense for the left to call for nationalisation. A call for socialism is the only real option.

The debate that followed was stimulating and saw a range of views. There was a dispute about the impact of the falling rate of profit on the turn to finance capital in the 1970s. Others questioned the belief that the bourgeoisie were acting collectively and consciously. There was also a discussion about the relationship between finance and industrial capitalism. Comrade Ticktin welcomed the different arguments and stressed the vital role of controversy and sharp differences in the Marxist movement.

At the beginning of the day I raised the need for the left to take the initiative to build a mass revolutionary party. Anti-cuts campaigns are not enough. A number of people approached me privately afterwards to agree with me on this.

The SWP and Socialist Party have at least agreed to join forces in a common slate for the general election. Its political programme has yet to be revealed, but one SP member told me that the SWP had objected to including a call for socialism. It seems it has still to learn the lessons from all the failed ‘lowest common denominator’ unity projects. The platform of the People Before Profit campaign, within which the SWP is the leading force, is woefully inadequate and barely mentions the word ‘capitalism’, never mind ‘socialism’.

Events like Limerick need to be replicated. We need to take ourselves seriously as Marxists and seek out debate on the highest level. We must change or become inconsequential. Coming together to discuss and act as revolutionaries would be a major step forward. It would give the working class some hope, leadership and inspiration. And at this time, when workers are facing unprecedented attacks, such inspiration is vital.

Irish initiative
Irish initiative

Grandiose?

Clive Power’s ironic barb aimed at the current CPGB is misplaced (Letters, October 28).

Comrade Power notes our comment in the ‘Our history’ series about Sylvia Pankhurst’s “mischievously misnamed” Communist Party (British Section of the Third International), to the effect that it was “neither a Communist Party nor the British section of the Third International” (‘Two open letters’, October 21). He remarks: “I’m sure that no-one nowadays would be pretentious and grandiose enough to call themselves the ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’ when we have no more than an assortment of left groups, would they?”

Clearly comrade Power has never read our ‘What we fight for’ column (p11 of every issue and prominently featured on our website), which describes our “central aim” (first bullet point) as the organisation of communists and revolutionary socialists into “a Communist Party”. The second bullet point explains: “The Provisional Central Committee organises members of the Communist Party, but there exists no real Communist Party today.”

By coincidence, the same issue of the Weekly Worker that contained the ‘Our history’ comment also featured a report by myself of the previous weekend’s aggregate of CPGB members, which was discussing our revised Draft programme. I quoted the remarks of CPGB national organiser Mark Fischer, who “reminded comrades that, even after its adoption, the new draft would remain just that - a draft. The document is intended as a CPGB proposal to be put before a future founding congress of a Communist Party. We are absolutely clear that the current CPGB does not constitute such a party, which must be created by the coming together of the most advanced militants, most of whom are currently members of the various left groups” (‘A programme to unite all Marxists’, October 21).

We, the former “Leninists of the CPGB”, rose to the challenge created by the liquidation of the ‘official’ Communist Party in 1991 to reclaim the name, ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’, from a body which, as comrade Power accurately states, was “not communist for the large majority of its existence”. We regarded this as a service to the revolutionary movement as a whole, preventing the best and most accurate name of the party our class needs falling into the hands of another gang of opportunists in the future. That title is now available for a future Communist Party.

The problem is not the fact that a small group of comrades has safeguarded the CPGB name, but the fact that there are no moves at all by the “assortment of left groups” to emulate the achievement of 1920 that is being drawn out by the ‘Our history’ series - uniting all the best militants in a single Marxist party, as this paper campaigns to bring about week after week. Where does comrade Power stand on that issue?

Grandiose?
Grandiose?