Letters

Slipped up

I am of the opinion that Jack Conrad made a bit of a slip-up when he wrote: “It is not a neat either-or. Through, or out of, the training provided by separate economic struggles, the conditions are created for the political movement through which the working class confronts the state. Strikes affect the immediate employers” (‘Classical Marxism and the general strike’, November 24).

I would say that less often that many would care to admit (up to the point of rarely) do raw political consciousness and raw political struggles actually arise from mere labour disputes - along with other economic struggles. The Occupy protests have demonstrated this, since the unions have been at the tail.

Although the iron law of wages was junk, Lassalle had a point in emphasising political organisation above collective bargaining organisation. In today’s terms, there are certainly iron laws and, agitationally speaking, an ‘iron law of disproportionate immiseration’ sounds more rhetorically powerful than the academic ‘relative immiseration’ or ‘relative impoverishment’:

1. In the ‘trickle-down’ best of times, workers’ rising incomes are worse in proportion to those above them and they are immiserated further by consumer debt slavery and the disproportionate effects of inflation.

2. When rates of profit fall during recessions and otherwise, workers fall into precarity and their incomes are subject to disproportionately immiserating pressure coming from the reserve armies of the unemployed.

3. During depressions, the absolute impoverishment of workers’ incomes towards subsistence levels is in full effect.

As for mere labour disputes, much of those can be resolved by absorbing all private-sector collective bargaining representation into free and universal legal services by independent government agencies.

Slipped up
Slipped up

Build it

Reading Jack Conrad’s article reminded me of the pre-1920s communist movement in America, which avoided involvement in ‘reactionary’ unions. It maintained its revolutionary integrity by calling for the immediate arming of those involved in struggle. It issued glittering declarations which scolded workers in the strongest terms, highlighting the inevitability of the armed revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as an immediate aim.

This was perhaps understandable in a context in which revolutionary Russia had cast off the yoke of tsarist oppression and the global imminence of a revolutionary overthrow of society seemed certain. That comrade Conrad replicates such an approach in 2011 is testament to his failure to draw any of the necessary conclusions from his ‘analysis’.

Comrade Conrad replicates the mechanistic approach of the museum pieces of old, counterposing involvement in the struggle for revolutionary consciousness with the direct struggle and involvement in the fight for day-to-day reforms (however partial) - an approach entirely at odds with the Marxist tradition. For comrade Conrad, we must presumably stop at nothing short of the European strike wave driven by a party of harden, ideologically pure Communist Party members. How, you ask? Presumably, ‘if you build it, they will come’.

Build it
Build it

Inept Stalin

Jack Conrad’s article, ‘Lenin and the United States of Europe’ (November 10) brought the usual response from the Stalinist camp: namely Tony Clark’s letter, ‘Stalin erred’ (November 17). The mere mention of Lenin’s name linked to the infamous theory of ‘socialism in one country’ (even in the most abstract sense) is enough to spark off a frenzied polemic, attempting to give credence to the political and theoretical musings of comrade Koba.

Tony then proudly announces that we should all be eternally grateful to Stalin for defending Lenin’s strategic line to the letter. But that is the very crux of the problem! By mechanically defending Lenin’s line, come hell or high water, Stalin showed us his total bankruptcy and political ineptitude by failing to develop Marxism. The result was defeat for socialism in China, Germany and Spain, and complicity in the rise of Nazism, costing the lives of countless millions of Red Army personnel and Soviet civilians.

Tony rounds off his defence of Stalin with a back-handed and crass dismissal of the criminal destruction of vast sections of Soviet society, as the remaining embers of the 1917 revolution were smothered by the final victory of the moribund, technocratic committee men.

Ironically the victims, which we ‘sensitive folk’ remember, had the imagination, enthusiasm and talent - politically, economically, militarily and in the fields of literature, science and sport - to begin to lay the foundations of a socialist society in the USSR.

Inept Stalin
Inept Stalin

Betrayal

John Bridge’s article (‘Socialism or barbarism’, November 24) does not address the issue of imperialism. Is it now interchangeable with capitalism as a term (I seem to remember it dropping out of Hillel Ticktin’s verbiage as well)? This intellectual as well as emotional disconnect between imperialism and barbarism is a betrayal. The very essence of imperialism is barbaric and so much more in the oppressed and violated countries. The very term ‘capitalism’, without such qualifications, is a suggestion of equality between nations. That is a farce that the left should have nothing to do with.

The mention of Zimbabwe as an opportunity for the working class utterly dismisses Zimbabwe’s role as a target of imperialism and therefore an opportunity for the UK to reclaim what it lost. This refusal to analyse imperialism is objectively pro-imperialist. This position only defends the working class nominally and not really, and it belittles the possible fate of both China and Russia, who are creditor nations (with many resources) for the overwhelmingly armed and increasingly debt-ridden USA.

The overriding concern of communists is not to bury imperialism as a concept but as a reality. The rise of China and Russia is an objectively anti-imperialist development. Much of the left see it as inter-imperialist rivalry but that analysis is ludicrous. Is this why the term ‘imperialism’ has been abandoned?

Betrayal
Betrayal

Distorted

We know that communism is the ultimate goal of Marxists and it is to be achieved after the transition from capitalism to socialism, when the state and all its artificial regulators wither away, to be replaced by a fully self-governing and self-regulating society, where there will be an abundance of goods and services for all: “From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs.” However, the 20th century experience in the Soviet Union and elsewhere teaches us some practical lessons which we as communists must learn from.

I once was an unashamed Stalinist who believed in a strong one-party socialist state (or a coalition dominated by the Marxist-Leninist party), crushing all opposition to socialism. I felt that this was the way class contradictions could be eliminated and a classless society created, and that through the party, the soviets and the people’s mass organisations (youth, women’s, trade unions, etc), the masses would become used to managing society and eventually all the artificial regulators of the state would indeed prove unnecessary and fade away. This enforced one-party state was seen by me as training the masses for the classless, disciplined, self-governing society of communism.

The reality was rather different. Bureaucratic Soviet-style socialism led to opportunists and careerists masquerading as communists, applying for and gaining party membership and eventually taking control. They dominated and outnumbered many genuine comrades, many of whom also became corrupted by the privileges of absolute power. This led to mass disillusionment and apathy from the masses. I saw this myself on visits to the German Democratic Republic and elsewhere - the privileged elite, in effect a new ruling clique or class, of party members and state bureaucrats with access to luxuries, while the masses were disempowered and living with shortages and often inferior goods. It is inevitable with an imposed one-party system that people with selfish motives will pose as communists, infiltrate the party and soon gain control.

The basis of a distorted form of socialism was indeed laid in these countries, with full employment, good public services, security in sickness and old age, good education and health services; but true socialism, and eventually communism, was never going to come about without massive reforms of the system.

I now believe it will take much longer to achieve such a self-governing, self-regulating society and that it must come about naturally. It cannot be enforced by a one-party dictatorship, for instance. So I now envisage a much more gradual evolution towards communism, with many different political parties and groups given the chance by popular vote, under a socialist constitution, to try out various socialist models. Eventually, class contradictions will start to wither away and these various political organisations will meld into a self-governing, self-regulating society, whereupon the state and all its paraphernalia will start to wither away. Also, by the formation of cooperatives, small communes and collectives, communism can come about gradually in smaller communities and slowly spread throughout society, with Marxists leading the way by example.

What communism requires, of course, is for the masses to take on the onerous responsibilities involved in such a society, and this cannot come about overnight or even in the 74 years that the Soviet Union existed; certainly not under the conditions of a Stalinist bureaucratic state which is not only inefficient, but riddled with corruption and full of opportunists. This became obvious after the fall of socialism, when former so-called ‘communists’ in places like the USSR and Yugoslavia clung on to power and changed their party labels and political opinions overnight - often resulting in terrible nationalistic wars, ethnic cleansing and even genocide.

As for the ‘socialism in one country’ hypothesis, this could never really work, though could the USSR ever really be described as ‘one country’? It was a federation of many countries, and indeed the Russian Federation still is. Comrades in the CPGB (PCC) fully recognise the need for a Communist Party of the EU and of working together in solidarity with comrades in other parts of the world. Without such internationalist solidarity, of course, the capitalist countries will much more easily be able to isolate and crush any attempts to build socialism, much as they ganged up against the fledgling Soviet Union after 1917.

Distorted
Distorted

30 years behind

Contrary to the official line given at the Korean Friendship Association gathering, it appears that the North Korean train may not be travelling on in quite the manner we are led to believe (Letters, November 24).

Obviously, one has little to go on, given the nature of the ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’, but the seemingly official view here in China is that ‘North Korea is like China was 30 years ago’ - a phrase I have seen written in the press and heard repeated on a regular basis while living here. Others I have spoken to have been more specific in stating that they believe North Korea will shortly adopt Deng Xiaopeng-style ‘reform and opening’ policies - possibly coinciding with the accession of Kim Jong-Un.

If the number of Chinese companies trading, both officially and unofficially, with North Korea from the border town of Dandong is anything to go by, China would have a clear vested interest in such reforms. It should go without saying that none of the apparently likely options - North Korea in its current Stalinoid form, the onset of ‘market socialism’ or unification with South Korea engineered by western powers - are particularly appealing for communists.

30 years behind
30 years behind

Tribune

I am pleased to report that People Before Profit has managed to successfully get nominated a candidate for the parliamentary by-election in Feltham and Heston, in the London borough of Hounslow. Our candidate, George Hallam, will be standing under the description of ‘London People Before Profit’.

We are keen to test our level of support outside of our home London borough of Lewisham. Following the campaign, we will take a view on standing a London-wide list for the Greater London assembly elections. We are in discussions with the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition about offering their supporters and activists an opportunity to join us and running a joint list to avoid any clash. People Before Profit note that Tusc stood in two local by-elections in Southwark and gained very poor results.

We are concerned that Tusc has a very low political profile and very narrow appeal. If those supporting workers in struggle, opposing cuts to jobs and services, can gain 5% of the vote across London, we have the chance of getting a tribune elected to the GLA, or two spokespersons if we can get 8%. We would suggest that anyone elected holds office for only a year and accepts only the ‘London living wage’. We would welcome hearing from those also considering running a list for the GLA elections.

We are hoping to build on our existing level of support in the area, with a view to offering local residents the opportunity to form a local borough People Before Profit group. Local people may also want to join us in considering standing in a GLA constituency seat.

The by-election has been triggered by the Labour Party, following the death of the sitting MP. The election will be held on December 15 and has been called in what must be the shortest possible legal requirement. I will be raising concerns with the electoral commission at the undue haste and speed with which the election has been called - giving only three days in which to get nominations in!

Tribune
Tribune

Unrepresented

If Tusc had chosen to stand in Feltham, we would have given way to them. But, in their absence, we felt somebody must stand up for trade unionists and socialists who are no longer represented by the Labour Party.

We cannot run the risk that popular anger with the political and economic establishment - which runs high especially in a constituency so poorly represented by the late and unlamented Alan ‘Mr Expenses’ Keen - should be channelled into votes for far-right fascists or populists like the British National Party and UK Independence Party. The disappointing record of Brighton’s Green councillors in refusing to set a needs budget and implementing most Con-Dem cuts also means we cannot delegate the task in hand to a party which has failed to live up to the initial radicalism of Caroline Lucas MP.

We are completely behind the totally justified coordinated strikes being mounted by public sector workers in defence of their pensions and against cuts. These are the product of neoliberal austerity, not any genuine financial crisis in any of the pension schemes. Unlike most of the Labour Party, which has followed Miliband and Balls in opposing the strikes (with the minor, but honourable exception of the half-dozen MPs and slightly more councillors who signed a letter to The Guardian), we were on the picket lines on November 30.

We are also in total support of the Occupy movement and believe that workers, pensioners, the unemployed, the disabled and others on benefits should not pay for the bankers’ crisis. We believe that those on very high salaries should not just be paying a 50p tax, but something akin to what they paid before 1979, and we are in favour of higher corporation tax, a Tobin tax and a tax on bankers’ bonuses as well.

Unrepresented
Unrepresented

Bet on war

The Wall Street Journal of November 28 informs its readers how to make money without working - a system called capitalism.

If there is a war in the Middle East, there is big money to be made by betting against Israeli bonds. The WSJ says: “A $100 million bet against the bonds for three months, combined with a hedging position in US treasuries, would cost $750,000 … the trade would make at least $5 million, and potentially much more, if a crisis erupts in the Middle East.”

War is profitable! Make your bets now! Why would anyone possibly want to protest against Wall Street?

Bet on war
Bet on war