Letters

Arrogance

In the week of George Galloway’s sensational return to the Commons, it is worth remembering that nobody is quite as indefatigable as comrade Gerry Downing in his stubborn, myopic defence of ‘Leninist’ orthodoxy on the party and democracy (Letters, March 29).

Gerry takes me to task for not providing a shred of evidence for my “anti-Leninist” diatribe. This is a bit rich, since the only textual evidence contained in his rambling letter is, firstly, a reference to an insignificant Socialist Worker piece and, secondly, a quotation from What is to be done?, displaced so drastically from its context that it might almost have washed up in Mein Kampf. Where better to start for a counterclaim than WITBD itself, the entire political thrust of which is directed squarely against Gerry’s general line; he should also have a look at Lars T Lih’s Lenin rediscovered.

“Without revolutionary theory,” Gerry reminds us in the sombre tones of all loaded banalities, “there can be no revolutionary movement.” Unfortunately, the paragraph or two of ‘theory’ offered by the comrade is laughable. He starts off well enough: “democratic centralism is necessary because of the peculiar form of oppression endured by the working class and their fightback against this”. Unfortunately, Gerry identifies that ‘fightback’ wholly with the direct shopfloor struggle against employers.

From there, the errors multiply like flying ants. The strike requires workers to ignore the law and prevent scabbing; therefore, “all talk of democracy is forgotten”. Workers’ democracy “denies democracy” to the employers and to scabs. A class of employers with the right to hire and fire, however, is anti-democratic. Scab actions by workers, equally, break democratic decisions. (If a minority of adventurists go out on strike without winning people to follow them, it is they who are closer to scabbing than the people who stay in work.)

When Gerry says ‘democracy’, he should say ‘liberty’ - but he is guilty of a thoroughly bourgeois-liberal view of democracy, believing it to consist in a set of inalienable rights which it is impermissible to deny. Where JS Mill puts a plus, Gerry puts a minus; apart from that, they are in perfect agreement. He concludes with the aforementioned Lenin quote, in which the economists are accused of tailing spontaneous and unconscious politics. Bizarrely, this is supposed to characterise the CPGB (we tail what, exactly?) and, even more bizarrely, to an academic historian like Lih. It applies with perfect precision, however, to Gerry’s political ontology of the picket line - and, indeed, to Trotskyist ‘transitional programmes’ of all kinds.

I, personally, am accused of “arrogance”, of self-assuredly “answering the philistines”. Indeed, the latter is one of my favourite activities. Gerry, however, treats all challenges, no matter how substantial, to his sub-Zinovievite dogma on the party as mere minor inconveniences to the repetition of the Revealed Truth - readers may decide who of us is ‘arrogant’.

Arrogance
Arrogance

Past our peak

Mike Macnair should repeat to himself every day the following mantra: ‘Cheap, abundant energy is necessary for economic growth and recovery under capitalism.’ Unless Macnair does this, he will not grasp why peak oil is so serious and what the implications of it are. He will remain limited to 19th century Marxist political economy, which is basically an analysis of the circulation of money - or, as Marx put it, MCM’ - independently of any consideration of energy. For Marxism, economic crisis can only originate from within this circuit. Based on this closed economic view, which excluded energy, Marx had no notion that capitalism could collapse because of an energy shortage.

Macnair uses William Jevons’ failed 19th century prediction about Britain running out of coal and thus facing industrial collapse to undermine those who are warning society about the coming energy crisis and to minimise its importance (Letters, March 22). The first thing to say here is that Jevons was ahead of Marx and other political economists at the time in recognising the relationship between non-renewable energy and the new industrial society.

Jevons’ real ‘mistake’ was not having the knowledge at that time to determine how much coal remained underground, nor being able to predict the coming energy revolution based on oil. Today the oil industry is one of the most technologically advanced in the world and petroleum geologists and researchers have the knowledge to give a reasonable estimate of when world peak oil, or Hubbert’s peak, will arrive. The most valuable work in this respect is, I believe, that done by Richard Duncan and Walter Youngquist in Encircling the peak of world oil production (1999), which places the peak around 2007. This would suggest that the world has finally reached maximum oil production, so that any economic recovery will send oil prices soaring again, as supply fails to keep up with demand, thus resulting in another recession, which will eventually turn into a permanent depression.

Finally, Macnair argues that the biggest obstacle to changing to a new energy system is the US military’s dependence on oil-based energy. It is no wonder then that the US military and intelligence establishments are the most conscious when it comes to the problems associated with the global peak. But surely it is not only the US military which is dependent on oil, but all the other countries as well. Macnair does not seem to understand the almost total dependence of modern society on oil, and so is unable to see the importance and seriousness of world peak oil, but this is a weakness he shares with most other Marxists.

Past our peak
Past our peak

Left-right

As someone who has just resigned from the Labour Party after being a member again for only six months, I have read the debates in the Weekly Worker about the attitude Marxists should take to the party with great interest.

I resigned from the party after facing the prospect of having my meagre benefits cut by one-third, thanks to the work capability assessments (WCA) introduced by arch-Blairites James Purnell and Alan Johnson when they were ministers in charge of the department for work and pensions in the New Labour government. To continue to pay money to a political party that introduced the hated WCA medicals, which are causing so much distress to hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people, myself included, is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Whilst the CPGB did carry out entryist work in the Labour Party during the 1920s and 1930s, to do so in 2012 would be like carrying out entryist work in the Tory Party and the Liberal Democrats or in the Democrats in the United States. My brief experience of attending my local branch of the Labour Party indicated to me that the active members are rightwing Blair supporters who are frightened of discussing politics just in case they face the wrath of ‘regional office’. Dialectical materialism says that all organisations are in flux and constantly changing. The CPGB (PCC) has made a mistake when they conclude that the Labour Party is moving to the left. My experience of the Labour Party is that it is moving to the right.

Perspectives for British politics in the next period can be foreseen by looking at what is happening in Greece, where Pasok has been completely discredited during its recent period in government. Pasok is hated by Greek workers and youth alike. A similar prospect will face the next Labour government, which is likely to come to power at the 2015 general election. Hence why Ed Miliband and Ed Balls do not want a majority Labour government, but one dependant on the remnants of the doomed Lib Dems. In Greece, the left is in a far worse state than in Britain. There are 40 different groups in 15 different parties. However, the Greek Communist Party, Syriza and the Democratic Left are polling between them more than 40%.

Britain is therefore in need of a party to the left of Labour, just like the ‘official’ CPGB in the 1920s. The Bradford West by-election result clearly shows that there is a large constituency of voters who are willing to support left-of-Labour candidates. Bradford West shows that Ed Miliband’s support for Tory cuts and austerity, and his lack of support for workers on strike, has little appeal. As such, Ed is likely to be replaced by his brother, David, in a Blairite palace coup, which will shift Labour even further to the right.

The CPGB (PCC), as outlined in letters and articles in the Weekly Worker, is therefore wrong to waste so much energy in advocating entryist work within the Labour Party, which is no longer a bourgeois workers’ party but similar to the US Democrats. Whilst the CPGB (PCC) is right to play the long game, the cuts to jobs, benefits, pensions, services and living standards demand an immediate response. That means taking steps to build a party to the left of Labour now, and not in the distant future.

Left-right
Left-right

Still no answers

In response to my letter of March 22, when I asked for concrete answers to my questions instead of the usual assertions, I got … the usual assertions! Those who assert that we should join/stay in the Labour Party to ‘pull it left’ have to explain whether conditions are more favourable for that fight now and why this did not happen the last time conditions were favourable.

Proponents should have the honesty to answer the questions that remained unanswered:

1. Labour Party conference no longer makes party policy or settles the election manifesto and the right has stitched up internal democracy. How will a tiny left get that back?

2. What is the calibre of those joining the Labour Party today - active or passive?

3. Why did the Labour left do nothing to halt the rise of Blair despite many on the left warning about him at the time?

4. Why could the Labour left not ensure that John McDonnell at least made it onto the ballot paper (or more revealingly, why did they not even support him) twice now?

5. Why has there been no Labour left challenge anywhere near those of Tony Benn in 1981 and 1982?

6. Is it not the case that the much vaunted ‘link with the trade unions’ is only that of the union bureaucrats forcing their union to remain affiliated by not allowing their members any democratic chance to debate the link or amount of donations (the forthcoming GMB conference alone appears to be allowing this, but let us see if the debate actually happens)? Those looking to reform donations to political parties are live to this, which is why there are suggestions that trade union members opt in to the levy rather than having to opt out.

When the Tories passed legislation forcing unions to re-sign up members every three years, the unions managed to retain, I would guess, 95% or higher. No way would unions be able to get their members to opt in to pay the levy to Labour by anything like that ratio. Members can be (and were) convinced of the need to stay in their trade union. But pay money to the Labour Party?

7. The trade unions affiliated to Labour were the last to join the pensions fight led by the Public and Commercial Services union and the first to abandon it - yes or no? Please explain.

8. What about Labour winning a landslide victory in 1997? It could have proclaimed socialism overnight, but instead betrayed nearly all its main election promises and allowed the gap between rich and poor to widen, not narrow.

What betrayal by any future Labour government would cause the remaining dullards to finally leave Labour? What principles are you standing for by staying in Labour ‘to pull it left’?

9. What is the current membership level of the Labour Party and is it growing (if so at what rate) or is it falling again?

10. Why did so-called socialists back warmonger Oona King (just because she was black and a woman?) over George Galloway - only to find most black people in Bethnal Green preferred a white man (in reality it was the policies they both stood for that determined their fate, but I put it like this because of the sheer ferocity of the Labour left attacks on Galloway for ‘causing the loss of a black, female MP from parliament’).

11. What did the Labour left do to try to stop Galloway being expelled due to his anti-war stance?

Why not try to answer these questions so we can see what basis in reality you have for continuing to demand we join/stay in Labour?

Stan Keable was the most sincere and fraternal of those who have replied to my letter. He basically reiterates his previous stance that we must challenge the control of the bureaucracy of both the trade unions and the Labour Party (Letters, March 29). An assertion then with no answers to my questions to show why it is worth staying in Labour to achieve this.

In another letter published on the same date Alun Morgan asserts that “events, events, events” will propel the working class into the trade unions and the Labour Party. He does not cite any actual event that will see this occur. The fight against the poll tax did not see either instance happen - the fight was won without the unions or the Labour Party. Roy Hattersley even called for “exemplary sentences” for the poll tax rioters. We should all have just paid the poll tax, voted Labour and waited until they won a general election. Well, the working class were propelled into fighting the poll tax outside the unions and the Labour Party and caused Thatcher to resign.

Now, thousands of non-members did join the 29 unions who took action on N30. However, is the “event” of Unison, the GMB and other Labour-affiliated unions since deserting the fight going to get thousands more joining unions or Labour now?

Next we come to stormin’ Norman Storms (also March 29). He cites the golden age of the Labour Party and the reforms brought in. But others have stated any party in power would have done the same because capitalism agreed with the need for those reforms. He failed to respond to my record of the betrayals of Blair’s New Labour (which was also the Labour of the compliant Labour left, excited at power without any principles) and can only refer to concessionary bus travel in 2007 and agency workers regulations. Is that it for 13 years of power - during a boom time, remember (what clown said we have abolished ‘bust’?), on a landslide majority? Comrade Storms should be arguing against the massive expansion of agency workers (under Labour) who would rather have a permanent job, thank you, than the limited ‘protection’ of these regulations that also craftily ensure agency workers do not feel the need to join a union!

Storms then condemns my fellow “noble members” in the civil service for requisitioning the armaments that “blew up their fellow workers in Iraq and Afghanistan”. He needs to ponder the role of civil servants and how long they would have a job if they defied any government’s orders. Remind me again, Norman - who ordered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I can inform him that I and 17 other members of my branch went from Manchester to London on the two-million-strong historic protest against the illegal war in Iraq on February 15 2003 that many of the ‘Labour is better than the Tories’ crowd ignored. Was he there?

Labour prosecuted more wars in 13 years than the Tories did in 18, so, yes, Labour are ‘better than the Tories’ on so many issues - such as war, anti-civil liberties legislation, etc!

Then there is Paul Demarty’s ‘Long view’ article warning of the twin evils of opportunism and adventurism, which is aimed at myself and Chris Stafford. Fine as far as the general advice goes - that always needs to be heeded. The main assertion (yes, another one) being basically: ‘Stay in the trade unions and Labour Party and be very, very patient. After all, you are engaged in the noble, decades-long project to pull Labour/trade unions to the left. Get the slippers out and comfy armchair, as it will be a long time coming.’

No-one mentions the Scottish Socialist Party with its six MSPs before the avoidable split over Tommy Sheridan. They should have all stayed in the Labour Party, I suppose.

I incline towards David Douglass’s constant reply to the comfy armchair theorists - we fight in the here and now, where we are and where we can, rather than tell everyone to wait until the revolution comes and all struggle is a diversion from creating a united Marxist party of the world (not that anyone is raising that demand within the Labour Party).

Now to the classic ‘oh dear’ moment in Alun Morgan’s letter: “Nothing will be built outside the mass organisations of the class. Witness the debacles of the Socialist Alliance, Respect, the SSP - all have come to nothing.” And - wait for it - his final sentence: “Only the blind cannot see that this is inevitable.”

Alun, heard about George Galloway’s stunning victory in Bradford West? Looks like one of those “events” you mentioned has just happened, but has it propelled anyone into joining the Labour Party? Now I do not want to spoil the words of wisdom that the Weekly Worker will surely publish about Galloway, his halfway house doomed project and all the rest that will surely be cited. But here is how this looks to me as a working class PCS activist of over 27 years now.

The ruling class and the Labour Party hate Galloway because he was the most known and admired anti-war speaker. He won Bethnal Green, but was condemned for appealing to the Muslim population (same charge again concerning Bradford West). But the Labour Party standing a British Asian Muslim in Bradford West was not trying to appeal to the Muslim population, was it?

One in the eye for the diversity, tick-box, identity politics gang (dominating the Labour Party) was the fact that black Muslims did not vote as they are expected to - for someone who is ‘more representative of them’. They voted for (shock, horror) a white, blue-eyed, middle class male! Labour’s leaders had planned an election celebration, so sure were they of victory. After all, as Baroness Warsi said, if Labour cannot win a by-election in the middle of austerity measures from a coalition government (or retain a seat it had since 1974 with a huge majority), when can they? For Galloway to win with a 10,000 majority is truly stunning.

Now, let us be honest here: Stan Keable, Norman Storms, Alun Morgan, Paul Demarty and half the CPGB (at least) would have been urging no left independent to stand as it would ‘split the vote’ in a key by-election held as a referendum on the coalition government. We would have been urged to vote Labour. Then they would pretend it proved the need to get inside Labour and pull it left ready for the next general election! As the build-up to 1997 proved, the Labour left would have had no influence whatsoever for fear of frightening off voters.

The genuinely sincere socialists in the Labour Party (not the liars) agree with everything people like me say about the Labour Party’s record in government, but argue that the left outside the Labour Party have no chance. I argue they should build an alternative, not take the cushy route of staying in Labour - delivering the votes, but getting nothing but contempt in return. Well, Galloway has done it again - smashed all three main pro-cuts, pro-austerity political parties on an open anti-cuts and anti-war basis and won with a majority of 10,000.

Keable, Morgan, Demarty, Storms would have been out there arguing for a vote for Labour. Well, 100,000 did not take your advice over the poll tax in 1991 and instead beat Thatcher, and 18,000 did not in the Bradford West by election and instead beat Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

I am not so carried away that I think Respect will sweep all before it in the May elections, but Galloway inspired 18,000 people. The Labour Party and the Labour left did not. He has now proved you can be openly anti-war, anti-cuts and win elections.

I am excited and enthusiastic about the chances of other anti-cuts candidates standing and winning and had already invited a Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition candidate to address my PCS branch on April 4 - before Galloway’s stupendous and inspiring result! His victory will do far more to have working class people debate politics and elections and the questions about power (who for, who by?) than urging people to join/stay in Labour. As for the line, ‘It’s all right being anti-cuts, but what are you for?’, well, I would rather be able to express my anger by voting for an anti-cuts, anti-war candidate (even if they are not sanding on a fully Marxist programme) than only be able to vote for those cuts! I absolutely share the elation of the 18,000 who voted for Galloway. They took the opportunity to say loud and clear they are anti-war and anti-cuts. Labour is not saying this and the tiny Labour left cannot make Labour say it.

Come the May elections - go along and join Labour and try to pull it left, whilst delivering votes for this pro-cuts, anti-strike, pro-public sector pay freeze, pro-privatisation party in the faint hope that in generations to come enough leftwingers might have joined to pull it left. Meanwhile Labour will carry on implementing the cuts that mainly affect working class people. Or should we help any anti-cuts candidates who stand instead? No contest - I am with the 18,000 who voted Galloway against a complacent Labour token who thought he had the Muslim vote stitched up. Ed Miliband and co will have to do some serious thinking now on why Labour lost so heavily (Galloway has already told him) - he would not have done had Labour won.

Yes, Alun Morgan - “events” do propel people, but not in the direction you thought. Labour is not the only show in town … now. In Bradford West Labour was driven out of town, along with any Labour lefts who told them to vote Labour.

Those still arguing we should join/stay in Labour should have the decency to answer my 11 questions that I have now listed twice. Let us see the material basis for your outdated assertions.

Still no answers
Still no answers

No favours

Paul Demarty makes the claim that Lee Rock argues “for the PCS to give up on the fight over pensions” (‘The long view’, March 29). I have argued no such thing.

Demarty seems to reach his rather bizarre conclusion based on the interview I did in Weekly Worker (March 22). It is bizarre, or simply dishonest, as any reading of the interview makes very clear. With regards to the leadership calling off the strike planned for March 28 I stated in the very first sentence: “I can understand the decision [of the PCS NEC], though tactically I think it is a mistake.” In other words, I thought the leadership should have called the strike action. This is hardly arguing to give up the fight. In the very same opening response I stated: “To their credit, the left on the [NUT] executive, including the Socialist Party, voted for strike action and managed to get the executive to agree at least to limited regional action in London on that day.” I am not exactly advocating a surrender there either. Again, in my opening reply: “... I made the point at the Yorkshire and Humberside regional committee last week that in my view the action should go ahead.” A reading of that by anybody, apart from Demarty, is the opposite of giving up on the fight.

In response to the second question put to me I replied: “Of course, I very much hope that joint action will go ahead.” At no time do I even suggest that if there is no joint action then the fight is over. In response to the final question put to me - “Can this fight still be won?” - I responded: “We should continue to fight and push for national action - but without the NUT our chances of winning are massively reduced, I have to admit. We urgently have to start considering other actions: the banning of overtime, for example. But also regional and departmental strikes. We need to keep the action rolling and let the government know that they can’t avoid disruption. It’s a kind of guerrilla warfare: we have to try and wear them down. That way, I think, it is still possible to win. And if not to win this time, at least to put a marker down for the next round of attacks.”

Demarty may not agree with my views, but the method of misrepresenting what I argue so as to beat down an argument I have not presented does him and the Weekly Worker no favours.

No favours
No favours