Letters

Fight now

The crisis within the Socialist Workers Party has, I think for many comrades, sparked a variety of emotions. Those on the outside of the party looking in, such as myself, are terrified that the largest revolutionary party in the UK is about to splinter, to dissolve into a sea of small, competing sects. At the same time, we are hopeful that the party will instead be rebuilt, from below, that the central committee will be recalled and that a new and open democratic system will replace the bureaucratic centralism that currently exists.

The interesting thing about this duality is that, at this moment, it could go either way. The rapidity of the evolution of the crisis has been commented upon countless times. And it’s still surprising me. As a former member of the SWP, I now have one huge political regret: that I did not stay in the party after I had discovered its true nature.

After attending the 2010 conference, and witnessing the expulsion of Claire Solomon; after observing the slate system in action; after watching a comrade from the CPGB being bullied and physically hassled at Marxism 2010; and after countless ‘chats’ from full-timers, insisting that I was naive, stupid, easily manipulated and two-faced when I spoke out against the party line, I lost my nerve and left. A coward’s way out? Maybe, but also understandable, given that I was isolated, even within my branch (Hackney East - notoriously populated with CC hacks).

If I had stayed, however, how I would have revelled in this opportunity (despite the grim tale of comrade Delta) to fight against a CC which has for years kept its cadre in the political shadows. It will be a dirty fight, the CC has already expelled comrades and it has tried to edge out others. It has reverted to its stance, typified by Callinicos in the early 2000s, that the internet is not the ‘real world’ and that blogs, such as internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk, set up to organise comrades in opposition, do not count. Pure paranoia, clearly, and comrades must use every channel available to them to organise a coherent and bold opposition.

I have concerns that the opposition is not growing fast enough, so I urge everyone who wants to fight to do so now. Follow Miéville and Seymour. Follow comrades who set up opposition at conference. If I was still in the party, I would be doing just that.

If we want to challenge the current system, we must get our own house in order first.

Fight now
Fight now

Residual

It is time for Jack Conrad to stop calling the former Soviet Union “socialist”. In his recent article on the crisis of the SWP he refers to the USSR as a socialist society on six separate occasions (‘The Soviet Union question’, January 10). Is this coherent?

I agree with the main thrust of his argument. This is that the USSR was neither capitalist nor socialist. It was an unviable historical freak - the product of a defeated revolution. It enslaved workers and peasants. It denied them democratic control. It was unplanned. It was a society of scarcity and shortages.

How was this socialist? He gives no answer. When I have challenged him in the past he has quoted the section in the Communist manifesto where Marx criticises ideas of socialism prior to his own. The implication is that Stalin and Bukharin got the idea of national socialism from thinkers such as Proudhon, Owen and Fourier. Is there any evidence of this? I doubt it. If there were, how would this be relevant to understanding the nature of the Stalinism? I do not know.

Does Jack Conrad’s thinking determine the line and profile of the CPGB? If so, I can find no reference to the alleged socialist nature of the Soviet Union in the group’s 2011 Draft programme. Does this mean that, on this issue, he in a minority? Or does it just reflect a residual attachment to Stalinism he can easily break free from? I guess readers would be interested to know.

Residual
Residual

Dogma dies hard

Adam Buick wonders what fundamental socio-economic change occurred in the Soviet Union in 1928 that would justify taking that year as a watershed (Letters, January 17).

The answer is obvious: it was the ending of the New Economic Policy. Following the introduction of the NEP, the USSR’s economy was - as Lenin frankly pointed out - state-capitalist, operating (initially) under a bureaucratically deformed workers’ state.

The ending of the NEP market economy by Stalin in 1928 ushered in a new, thoroughly bureaucratic, economy; and by that time the workers’ state had been ‘deformed’ out of existence.

Trotsky clung until his death to one half of Lenin’s description; Tony Cliff clung to the end of his life to the other half. Both halves were out of date by 1928. But dogma dies hard.

Dogma dies hard
Dogma dies hard

Feminist space

Paul Demarty says that “‘feminism’ today does not mean the same thing as it did when Zetkin, Kollontai and the others were attacking it” (‘Opposition emboldened as demand for recall grows’, January 17). What did it mean then? Or, what’s so different now?

If the “depredations of Stalinism” left open the space for feminists to take up the struggle for women’s liberation, why shouldn’t socialist women have joined in and developed ‘socialist feminism’? Or do you intend ‘feminism’ to be exclusively concerned with separatism?

Feminist space
Feminist space

Detritus

Arthur Bough seems to think that Marx’s criticisms of the Gotha programme were in fact a ringing endorsement (Letters, January 17).

I called for full employment by sharing the productive work, with everybody receiving at least a living wage, however short their hours as a result of this sharing (January 10). He says this is a capitulation to ‘bourgeois right’, but one can only assume that by opposing this demand he thinks it is precisely on the basis of ‘bourgeois right’ that he envisages the social surplus being distributed, and he says as much in his various responses.

He is especially anxious to tell us that the workers’ state will not be able to pay a living wage, or distribute the social surplus according to need, because we are too economically backward and the only basis for distribution of the social surplus will in fact be ‘bourgeois right’ - ie, a wage based on the efforts of the individual. I’ve seen people twist the writings of Marx to make him say the opposite of what he was actually saying before, but this was a particularly fine example from Bough.

In any case, I’m more interested in when the CPGB are going to produce the ‘min-max’ programme around which Marxists are supposed to organise and behind which they hope to win the working classes and its allies. Is there any sign of this forthcoming? I’m not talking about your Draft programme of broad principles and strategy, but your programme for intervening in the day-to-day lives of the class, which addresses its immediate concerns and which points the way to the transition to socialism and working class power.

I think Marxists everywhere are anxious for the appearance of something of that nature, which has been promised for some time and which, since the epoch-changing events of 2008, has become an urgent, urgent necessity. I have my own ideas on the subject, as witnessed by this recent exchange of letters, whereby you and Bough have opposed the demand for full employment by sharing the productive work, but it is time you came up with some proposals. I fear that, if you do not, then the fate of the CPGB will not be to lead the struggle to occupy the ground now being ceded by the opportunist colonisers of reformism, but sectarian degeneration.

That would be a shame, as it would leave the field clear for the detritus of Stalinism and ‘decency’ to pick up the reins and fill the vacuum with their own opportunist brand of warmed-over Keynesian hogwash. Already these forces are coalescing around Socialist Unity, the Morning Star, No2EU, etc, with Owen Jones as their poster boy.

Detritus
Detritus

Real men

I read Alan Johnstone’s response (January 10) to my letter (December 20) and all I can say is that the Socialist Party of Great Britain should keep on doing what they are doing ’cause it sure is working! After more than 100 years of teaching the working class, they still fail to get it. Maybe it’s time the ‘teachers’ had a look at their methods and stopped blaming the ‘pupils’.

But, the song will always remain the same with the SPGB. If a leftwing party fails to get its candidate elected, but gets, say, 1,000 votes, they will sneer and put the reason down to the working class seeing through their message as false. Yet on rare occasions they put up a candidate, who will get 75 votes if they are lucky. Have the voters seen through their policies? Not a bit of it! The comrades are told that the time is not yet right for socialism. As Kipling said, “there are six million excuses for failure but only one reason”. Perhaps, as they have the correct policies, they are absolved from trying to win elections?

If you read the latest issue of the Socialist Standard, you’ll see they are perhaps too busy writing letters of complaint to the BBC. Someone should tell them that real men and socialists don’t do this!

Real men
Real men

Genuine vanguard

This is written to draw the attention of readers to an important international development. This is the growth of a significant communist organisation in Japan, the Japan Revolutionary Communist League.

This organisation has been able to build deep and extensive roots inside the Japanese working class and has won the support of thousands of rank-and-file trade unionists. Last July the JRCL was able to hold a rally in Tokyo of 170,000 workers and students. This was followed by a similar rally in Okinawa attended by 100,000. The demands made were against increased taxation, an end to nuclear power stations, an end to the Japan-USA military alliance and the overthrow of the government.

It is important to understand some of the factors which have contributed to the successes of the JRCL. The first of these is its relationship to the working class. Members of the JRCL initiate or join in class struggles, such as those against victimisations or wage-cutting. They organise what are known as ‘fractions’ - organisations composed of militants who are willing to take part in the struggle. Parallel to the setting up of these fractions, JRCL members also set up classes in basic Marxism. Members of fractions are invited to come to these classes and the best are recruited to the JRCL.

It is in this way that a significant proportion of the JRCL’s membership is composed of militant workers who are or have been leading class struggles. What this implies is that the JRCL is a genuine vanguard party. This compares favourably to those many communist organisations throughout the world who consider themselves vanguard parties simply by self-proclamation.

Struggles such as these, in which recruits are made to the JRCL, have to be seen in context. In Japan, as in Britain, the powerful working class has for many years been held back by the conservative and counterrevolutionary trade union bureaucracies. The significance of the setting up of fractions is that it turns rank-and-file trade unionists against the bureaucrats and thus helps to reorganise the working class movement on class-struggle lines. It can thus be said that, as the JRCL leads a fight against the trade union bureaucrats, so it builds itself.

The second factor that deserves mention is the self-revolution of its membership. All recruits are encouraged and expected to rid themselves of the worst aspects of bourgeois ideology. Examples of this are arrogance, hero worship of the leadership, petty bourgeois pride, failure to help others in the organisation who may need help, cowardice in the face of repression and so on. Of course, those who undergo self-revolution are also expected to study basic Marxism.

At some internal JRCL meetings the thinking of individual comrades is often discussed in a comradely manner. This, of course, helps comrades to develop their self revolution. The self-revolution expected of members is closely linked to a constant attempt by the JRCL to close the gap in political understanding between the leadership and what are termed the lower echelons.

The declared aim of the JRCL is the victory of the Japanese revolution as one link in the world revolution. This finds expression in the establishment of comradely relations with a number of other communist organisations - principally in Russia, the Ukraine and Latin America. These relationships take the form of a discussion on differences and fundamentals. Such discussions take place in the open, in full view of the working class.

It is clear that the successes of the JRCL in both its relationships with the working class and in its good relations with communist organisations outside Japan provide important lessons for us in Britain. It is hereby suggested that comrades study those JRCL books that have been translated into English. It is also useful to read the JRCL English-language website, which gives a summary of the contents of the group’s weekly paper. This can be found at www.jrcl.org/english/e-top.htm.

Genuine vanguard
Genuine vanguard

Ticket to hide

The World Economic Forum will be meeting at Davos in Switzerland between January 23 and 27.

Davos is a town in the mountains that is difficult to reach, thus discouraging protest. There will be 4,000 Swiss soldiers to prevent the few protestors who can get there making an impact. There will be 2,600 delegates. Admission is only $20,000 each, plus hotel, food and transportation. Among the sponsors are the presidents of Coca Cola, Dow Chemical, Toshiba and UCB bank.

Buy your ticket now!

Ticket to hide
Ticket to hide