Letters
Workers schools
I agree with the general thrust of Christina Black’s article, ‘Their schools and ours’ (October 31), and it is a refreshing change from the Lassallean/Fabian attitude so commonly found on the left in respect of such issues. As you rightly say, such an attitude has nothing to do with Marxism, and is simply a reflection of the dominance of a trade unionist, reformist mindset.
However, I cannot agree with the argument that “the state should fully fund schools, teachers’ and other employees’ pay, facilities, buildings and resources.” That is also to call for the state to run the schools, because, if I am a powerful capitalist state, and I own the buildings, resources, etc, and pay your wages, you are my employee and, like every other employee, you will have to do as I say. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Like any other employee, you may from time to time object to that; you may even take industrial action to express that objection. Occasionally, your action may even be temporarily successful. But only ever temporarily. A few weeks later, I can come back again and, sooner or later, the very fact that you are a worker, and therefore in a weak position vis-à-vis capital, particularly state capital, means that you will lose. I only have to threaten a reduction in wages, a cut in jobs, and some of your members will weaken. I can use all of the resources of the state to create a division between you and the parents and so on.
In short, what you are expecting is either that the capitalist state will simply roll over and die, and pay up for things over which it has simply conceded control, or else you expect that workers could exist in a perpetual state of war with that state, and thereby impose their will over it. It is, in other words, simply a demand for nationalisation under workers’ control. But, as Marx, Pannekoek and Trotsky, amongst others, point out, there is no reason that any owner will simply cede such control outside a revolutionary situation.
As Trotsky put it, “… a bourgeoisie that feels it is firmly in the saddle will never tolerate dual power in its enterprises. Workers’ control consequently can be carried out only under the condition of an abrupt change in the relationship of forces unfavourable to the bourgeoisie and its state. Control can be imposed only by force upon the bourgeoisie, by a proletariat on the road to the moment of taking power from them, and then also ownership of the means of production. Thus the regime of workers’ control, a provisional transitional regime by its very essence, can correspond only to the period of the convulsing of the bourgeois state, the proletarian offensive, and the falling back of the bourgeoisie: that is, to the period of the proletarian revolution in the fullest sense of the word.”
Maybe in a pre-revolutionary situation, where a workers’ government is in place, and it’s possible to demand it carries out such actions, such a transitional demand could be raised, but until we arrive at such a situation, in reality all it does is to sow illusions in the state, and misleads the workers. We have to start from where we are, and demand greater control, but we should do so in the context of explaining why the capitalist state, as with any capitalist employer, will not grant it on a permanent basis, and why, therefore, we have to instead focus our attention on building our own independent, worker-owned and controlled alternatives.
That would include paying taxes, etc, into worker-owned and worker-controlled social insurance funds to cover the purchase of buildings, payment of wages, etc, rather than handing over those funds to the capitalist state, for it to spend as it chooses.
Workers schools
Workers schools
Theres no limit
The point made in the introduction to the article on free schools - that “the left’s demands should look beyond what seems possible right now” - is an important one, but it does not summarise what appears below.
It’s not a matter of avoiding limitation to what’s possible: more controversially, it’s favouring measures despite adverse short-term (or even medium-term) consequences. It applies (it would seem) to the issue of gun control (and even ‘stand your ground’ laws) in the United States.
Theres no limit
Theres no limit
Just friends
Just a correction to the passage about University of London Union (‘Siege mentality’, October 31).
It’s definitely not the case that either Dan Cooper or the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (“underhandedly”) cancelled those rooms for Marxism 2013. In fact, within the ULU leadership, Dan was consistently the most forthright in arguing against their cancellation - publicly and privately. To back this up, there was very recently a big and even more fierce argument about the potential cancellation of the rooms for Socialism 2013 on the grounds of their cover-up of allegations against Steve Hedley; all agreed that the behaviour of the Socialist Party was disgraceful, but Dan was again the person who argued most fiercely against their cancellation.
Say what you like about that article (and, by god, I’m not going to defend a word of it), but this stuff about rooms and underhand tactics simply isn’t true.
Also, you describe me as a “close supporter” of the AWL. I have many friends in the AWL and work closely with them in various ways (they are by far the best and most open group for independents to work with, in my experience), but I very definitely have political disagreements with them (on Palestine, for example). The AWL has a system for ‘organised sympathisers’ of the group, and I’m not in that category.
And what’s this nonsense about being “soft on feminism”? Socialists should be feminists - sort it out.
Just friends
Just friends
Cliffs nose
Paul Demarty writes that over a suggested boycott of the Socialist Workers Party by feminists at ULU, he smelt “the AWL’s hand”.
Tony Cliff used to portray himself as having a “nose for the struggle” - meaning a political instinct. In fact, Cliff’s ‘nose’ was about opportunist adaptation to what he thought the class was thinking or would be likely to do (often incorrectly, but that’s another matter).
Demarty’s ‘nose’ is different. It can mystically sniff out the hidden hand of some devious and underhanded conspiratorial clique, in the sort of language more associated with rightwing populist demagoguery and witch-hunting. No evidence, not even any argument for his case; simply presumption, assertion and slippery, emotive language.
Of course, if we already ‘know’ - or assert that we know, without evidence - that the AWL is ‘guilty’ of numerous past crimes, we are right to treat it in this way: after all, this is not bourgeois justice or ‘freedom of speech’ we are talking about, so any sort of third-hand hearsay, politically-motivated allegation, and ‘instinct’ or ‘smell’ is fully justified.
Cliffs nose
Cliffs nose
Condemn both
A plague on both your houses’ would be a good political position on international conflict for the AWL to hold, if they do actually support the third camp position. Instead, as the AWL demonstrate, ‘third camp’ ends up as a reverse of the support for ‘anti-imperialism’.
One-sided silence, or being critical of one party to the conflict, is insufficient. If third camp supporters can condemn ‘anti-imperialists’ (and they should), then they can condemn their opponents too.
Condemn both
Condemn both
Point-scoring
Here we go again. This time it’s not prison officers, but hardworking and low-paid Public and Commercial Services union members, who get compared to concentration camp guards, with all the taste and nuanced argument usually seen in the rightwing tabloids (Letters, October 31). Perhaps comrade Smithee could let us know which trade unionists are ‘unbarbaric’. Local government workers collecting rent from council house tenants? Dinner ladies, complicit in feeding processed garbage to kids? Nurses aiding creeping NHS privatisation by carrying out their day jobs?
As much as we’d all love job centre staff to resist welfare reform, get sacked, join whichever Left Unity platform we all currently support and overthrow the government, perhaps our time would be best spent directing anger at this government, policy wonks and the capitalist class.
It may surprise John to learn that most PCS members actually want to help people. As incompetent and driven by rightwing zeal as Iain Duncan Smith is, he has got one thing right: work really is good for your health and good for our communities. Welfare delivery in privatised, virtual job centres without PCS members would be significantly harsher and more barbaric.
That’s not to say there won’t be many unfairly sanctioned, of course. For a moving and complex portrayal of this very issue, I urge all comrades to tune in to ‘The Archers’, of all things, where a former skilled carpenter, Darrell, acted with skill and subtlety, is battling with mental health issues and homelessness, whilst trying to overcome the perceived stigma of signing on. It’s far more informative, meaningful and real than obscurist, hard-left point-scoring.
Point-scoring
Point-scoring
Not token
A few weeks ago the local news in south Wales reported the demolition of a mural in Newport depicting the Chartist uprising of 1839. Knowing of the Chartists through Marx’s writings, I thought, what’s next in line for the ruling class assault on the working class? Will libraries remove Marx’s Capital for warping young minds? Or, worse, the dreaded blacklist of anyone with left leanings preventing them working?
If anyone from Newport has photos of the mural, I have the painting skills to recreate what was destroyed, if the wood and canvas can be funded. We should campaign for the council to put it in the local museum. This may be a token effort in the fightback, and one which I think Marxists feel a bit awkward about. Art to most of the left would probably seem at best colourful and a bourgeois hobby, or at worst not relevant to galvanising the working class for world transformation.
But if the working class is to rule, apart from knowing Marx’s concepts of economics, it will also have to learn to be creative, especially regarding environmental problems. The brain doesn’t take naturally to creativity - it has to be systematically cultivated.
Another issue Marxists should take up is the primacy of private property over the right of the public to see important works of art.
Not token
Not token
Not like the SWP
Both the CPGB’s Mark Fischer and I went to the November 2 session on ‘What is the role and relevance of a revolutionary party today?’ at Socialism 2013, an educational event organised by the Socialist Party in England and Wales.
In the session Mark said some positive things about the SP, but accused it of operating on the basis of “bureaucratic centralism” rather than “democratic centralism”. I agree with many of the points made in various articles in the Weekly Worker over the years about a large democratic deficit in the Socialist Workers Party, entailing much more centralism than democracy, and consequently “bureaucratic centralism” is a fair term for that organisation. This is a major reason, on top of the terrible handling of the allegations of rape, for a split earlier in the year (to form the International Socialist Network) and the probable expulsion of another faction (Rebuilding the Party) after the SWP’s next conference in December.
However, I must disagree with Mark’s assertion that the SP operates in much the same way, based on my experience in that party (and its forerunners, the Militant Tendency and Militant Labour) from 1990-98. Mark’s justification for his assertion was that debates took place almost entirely internally (in particular in factional documents and meetings, internal bulletins, branch meetings and aggregates, with debates between opposing factions in which there was equal time allocated to both) rather than in publications read by “the class” (he specifically mentioned The Socialist) - with an exception made in the debate to leave the Labour Party in Scotland, where a debate also took place between the opposing factions in the pages of The Guardian.
Just because the Bolsheviks had such discussions in public 100 years ago, before the Russian Revolution in October 1917, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily the best way to conduct such discussions nowadays. In these days of the internet, it is very difficult to keep internal discussions private and a number of blogs have been used to conduct debates within the SWP against the wishes of the leadership. But the fact that this isn’t happening as far as the SP is concerned is surely a sign of lack of dissent due to it being a much more healthy and democratic party.
In the period during which I first joined the Militant Tendency (in June 1990), there were some serious problems democratically, it must be said - including the fact that annual conferences (as required by the constitution) had repeatedly been postponed (supposedly due to the urgency of current events).
In fact, in early 1991, my region (Manchester/Lancashire) had an aggregate at which the representative of the executive committee with responsibility for the region, Nick Wrack (now the main leader of the Socialist Platform of Left Unity), proposed that Militant should stand candidates against Labour in the council elections in Liverpool (where Labour Party branches had their democratically elected candidates vetoed) and that an independent organisation should be set up in Scotland.
One of our members opposed the EC proposal that Nick put forward, and suggested instead that a special conference should be held to debate the ‘Scottish turn’ (as it became known). He argued, however, that we should support standing in Liverpool because that was urgent. This resolution was carried, and I am proud to say that I voted for it, due to it being a much more democratic way of operating.
After about six months of discussion - as well as conducting political activities, including standing in Liverpool - we discussed the Scottish turn in my branch of Militant. Since eight of us supported the Scottish turn and four opposed it, we elected two delegates (including myself) who supported it and one who opposed it to the special conference. Contrast this very democratic approach with the way the SWP operated before their March conference, with the opposing faction given much less time to speak and with a situation whereby, if the leadership line was narrowly voted for, no-one from the opposing faction was allowed as a conference delegate.
One thing that Mark Fischer was unaware of was that there was an unofficial Committee for a Workers’ International mailing list that was completely unmoderated. In fact, it was me who set it up (I ran it until I resigned in 1998). It was known about by the British centre, but, judging by the proportion of members on the list, only particularly promoted in Belgium and the USA.
There was even a faction fight (the only particularly serious item of disagreement) that largely took place on the list between two factions in the USA. In the end, six members were expelled from the CWI and set up their own organisation called Labor’s Militant Voice. The only time I was asked to remove anybody from this list was when a leading member asked me to remove those six comrades due to their expulsion. Contrast this with the way the SWP has historically strongly discouraged their members from taking part in internet debates.
Later on, there was a debate about changing the name of the organisation from Militant Labour to the Socialist Party. As was pointed out in the discussion at Socialism 2013, there were a lot of internal documents discussing this issue, to which any comrade could contribute.
Not like the SWP
Not like the SWP