Workers Weekly issue975

7/27/2019 Workers Weekly issue975

1/12

weekly

worker

A paper of Marxist polemic and Marxist unity

No 975 Thursday August 29 2013 Towards a Communist Party of the European Union www.cpgb.org.uk 1/1.10

n Summer Offensive totaln Conrad and Wrackn Berlusconis arrogancen Bo Xilais trial

MarxistCenter.com launchon 100th aniversary ofAugust Bebels death


2/12

2

BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XXl 07961 713510 l www.cpgb.org.ukl [email protected]

Letters may have been

shortened because of

space. Some names

may have been changed

LETTERS

weekly

August 29 2013 975 worker

CowardiceAs the drums of war start beatingfor Syria, the Alliance for WorkersLiberty once more breaks into dance.This time, it is the solemn dutyof Mark Osborn, the consummatehacks hack, to strain a muscleoffering mealy-mouthed support forthe oncoming slaughter.

The headline, in its own way,is striking: Against Assad, fordemocracy and peace in Syria (www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/08/27/against-assad-democracy-and-peace-syria). Well, who could object todemocracy and peace? Except, ofcourse, that it is the usual substitutefor working class socialism offered

by o ff ic ia l co mm unis t fr on torganisations the world over. In anyother theatre of political struggle, theAWL would consider it a hopelesslyliberal mish-mash of a clause. Whenit comes to British and US wars,however, the AWL is ever reducedto the intellectual level of the worstkind of Guardianista.

That intellectual level is rehearsedthroughout Osborns foamingtirade. The crimes of Assad arelisted - chemical attacks, collective

pun ishme nt, sec tar ian ism ... Ofcourse, the vast bulk of the Syrianopposition forces are also sectarian,also implicated in collective

punishment and may also have accessto chemical weapons. But what doesthat matter, anyway?

No: The main problem in Syria isAssads policy, not the US. And if theUKs left wants to oppose meddlingforeign powers - and we should - itshould start with demanding Iranianforces and Hezbollah militia get outof Syria. Come again? Should weall move to the Lebanon to demandthis, or does Osborn really thinkthat we have any lever over Iranand Hezbollah - barring demandingthat our governments open militaryaction on these forces as well? That,after all, is ruled out by the AWLsincreasingly dog-eared get out of

jail free card - it is not our job toadvocate the US intervenes. We donot trust the US. Well, that clearsthings up.

In fact the only clear messagein this article is facile finger-

pointi ng. The state of Syria is thefault of Assad, not the US. Thisis theoretically impoverished to the

point of comedy. No, comrade. Thereis not a sectarian civil war in Syria

purely because Assad is a tyrannicalogre. He inherited an articial state,in a region composed of artificialstates - left in that condition byBritish and French imperialism, whoare now champing at the bit to bombSyria. This arrangement has not only

been sustained by US foreign policysince the war, but has been activelyaggravated by the decomposingeffects of the Iraq war (for which,of course, the AWL also apologisedthroughout its entire running time).

Osborns piece, at the end ofthe day, is like Tony Blairs wild-eyed rant in The Sunday Times -only without the moral courage.The AWL will not take politicalresponsibility for their de factoattempt to demobilise opposition tothe imminent war. The US does notcare if some insignicant group ofsub-Shachtmanites advocates itgoes into Syria. It is only concerned(and only mildly, this time around)that militant opposition to such anintervention does not arise. It isquite simple: if you do not opposethe war, you are in the camp of thewarmongers. The only difference

between Osborn and Nick Cohen is

the AWLs total polit ical cowardice.Paul DemartyLondon

Achcar on LibyaYassamine Mather in my opinionmissed the point when she produceda rather patronising checklist ofright-on and negative aspects ofGilbert Achcars political positions(Progressive sentiments amidstreactionary illusions, July 25). It

produced a shotgun response fromAchcar and the end result is more heatthan light.

The issue is a rather narrow one.Gilbert Achcar supported imperialistintervention in Libya. The groundsof exceptionalism do not appearsignificantly different from earliershifts by the Euston group, althoughthe political distance they had to travelwas much shorter.

His defence was worse than theoriginal error, managing to compareimperialism with the police, whileat the same sowing illusions in thesupposed role of the police. He thenwent on to draw a bizarre comparisonwith the Bolsheviks at Brest-Litovsk.

Two issues arise from this. One isthat these positions put Achcar outsidethe revolutionary Marxist tradition.

No amount of correct positions onother issues can compensate for this

basic error. The second is that thisrevisionism passed largely in silence.Yet another sign of a collapse in

political morale in the revolutionarysocialist movement.

A political discussion that focusedon the issues would be of help. Anexchange of insults will not.John McAnultyemail

LU in ScotlandHaving spent the last week visitingScotland, one thing that struck meis the dominance of the referendumdebate in all the Scottish news media.While newspaper readers in Englandand Wales are occasionally remindedthat there is to be a referendum onScottish independence in the autumnof next year, in the Scottish pressin appears to be a daily editorial/comments section debate (as well asoften the front-page story). In otherwords, its a hot topic in pubs, atdinner tables or in the queue at Tesco.

Support for Scottish independencehas stuck at around 30% for the last 30years or so and, short of any politicalmiracle, the Scottish nationalistscant seriously expect a majorityyes vote. Yet vast sections of theleft have opportunistically jumpedenthusiastically on the nationalist

bandwagon . The lef t-n ati ona lis tScottish Socialist Party, ChrisBamberys International SocialistGroup, Socialist Resistance and mostrecently the Socialist Workers Party, toname but a few, are backing the yescampaign. What is marginally morehealthy is that Left Unity in Scotlandhas agreed not to take a formal positionon the referendum campaign, leavingit up to individuals to vote how theychoose.

Of course, LU will continue to nditself at a loss for a political line onanything remotely controversial if itcontinues to duck away from debatesit considers divisive. That is why it isof the utmost importance that it adopta principled, revolutionary, Marxist

programme. It must also maintain fullrights for platforms to operate openly

before, during and after its Novemberconference (not put an end to platformsafter conference, as is being discussedin some LU branches).

It was telling that in the debate I hadwith Tim Nelson of the InternationalSocialist Network at CommunistUniversity, he commented that heis, as yet, agnostic on the questionwhether LU comrades in Scotland

should organise separately or be apart of an all-Britain organisation. Itis, in his view, a matter to be decided

by comrades in Scotland. This is, ofcourse, true. But too many on theleft today consider it axiomatic thatcomrades in Scotland should do theirown thing. Disunity is strength sumsup their bottom-up approach.

Yet it isnt true that the left inBritain as a whole should haveno say in the matter. The workingclass, after all, does have a vestedinterest in organising over the largest

possi ble terr itor ial unit s. Ther e isa historically constituted workingclass in Britain and the left shouldseek to come together on an all-Britain basis, while also aiming forEU-wide organisation. Left Unityshould avoid the traps of the left inthe past, where Scottish sections haveleft their all-Britain organisations tooperate not just autonomously, butentirely independently, as separateorganisations. This has never endedwell for the organisations involvedon either side (j ust ask Peter Taaffeor Tommy Sheridan, to cite anobvious example).

So it is important, at this edglingstage of LU, that it gets the politicsof this right, instead of appearing toplay nice and not take a position.Comrades in England and Wales dohave an interest in what happens inScotland, and comrades in Scotlandhave an interest in being in a unitedorganisation with those in Englandand Wales. Therefore comrades northand south of the border should becommitted to building Left Unity as anall-Britain organisation. I would hopethat this commitment will be adopted

by comrades from branches across thecountry in November.

Sarah McDonaldLondon

In or out?Left Unitys Socialist Platform(Resistance and socialist change,August 8) reads like a modernversion of the Socialist Party ofGreat Britains 1904 Object anddeclaration of principles (see www.worldsocialism.org/principles.php).

Capitalism does not and cannotbe made to work in the interests ofthe majority and there needs to bedemocratic, majority political action to

bring about socialism! There are somekey differences, but its not Leninist.What will happen to the SocialistPlatform when its rejected (as it will

be) at the founding conference of theLeft Unity party in November? Stay inor approach the SPGB instead?Adam Buickemail

Not uninvestedWhilst I always enjoy reading HillelTicktins writings on the economy, Ifeel it necessary to draw attention toan error in his recent piece, Decliningforms, failing system (August 8).

An orthodox reading of Marxistpolitical economy would point to anoveraccumulation of capital in manyof the western national capitals asone of the main drivers behind theircurrent malaise. Further investmentin an overaccumulated capital basewould only lead to more pronouncedoveraccumulation and diminishingreturns or losses, so capital remainshorded and uninvested.

To try and illustrate this indramatic fashion Hillel Ticktin citesthe example of the Bank of New YorkMellon holding some $25 trillion ofuninvested capital. First of all, thisis an incredible amount of money- equivalent to some 16 times theGDP of the UK economy. The $25trillion dollar holding is in fact indirectforeign investment or, in other words,the valuation of the many investment

portfolios it holds on behalf of others.

The Bank of New York is a custodybank - like its Chicago-based rival,Northern Trust. The $25 trillion gureis related to its assets under custodyand it also has approximately $1 trillionof assets under management. Wheninstitutional investment managerslike Invesco Perpetual or AberdeenAsset Management buy equities and

bonds to include in their portfolios,which is the basis of our privatised

pensions, these assets have to be heldsomewhere. So globally investmentmanagers will hold their portfoliosecurities at a custody bank like theBank of New York. The gure, then,is akin to global investments thathave taken place already, so it is notcorrect to deem this uninvested. The$1 trillion it has under managementmeans that they are actively managingthese assets (buying, selling, portfoliorebalancing, risk management,reporting, etc) and here behavinglike a fund manager rather than justa custody bank.

Critically you could say thefigure is subject to leverage andwhat Marx referred to as ctionalcapital, because the valuationof the assets under custody andmanagement is based on companiesmarket capitalisation rather than onthe realised values of underlyingcommodities - price over value ifyou like.Robert Fletcheremail

Absurd energyWhat planet does Hillel Ticktin liveon? He continues to peddle the line thatthe capitalists do not want to reatethe economy because it will lead totheir overthrow. To air such views inwhat is probably the most importantnewspaper on the British left shouldnot go unanswered.

Ticktins argument is absurd andcontradicts the facts. The truth isthat interest rates in both Americaand Britain are the lowest they have

been since the post-war years, to myknowledge. The new governor of theBank of England, Canadian MarkCarney, wants to keep interest ratesat 0.5% until 2016. Whether he willsucceed in keeping them at this levelis another matter, but rates this low donot suggest to me a ruling class afraidof reation.

What scares the leaders ofcapitalism most of all is not reation,

but its opposite - ie, the end of growth.The appearance of the end of growth,following the world entering the peakoil zone, is what the political leaders areghting against at the present time. Itis not reation, but economic declinewhich is the biggest threat to capitalistcontrol of society in the longer term.Hence the relentless campaigns to getthe economy moving again, but the

cost of energy renders this an uphillstruggle.

As I always remind people,capitalism was built on cheap energy.There are no models of capitalism

built on expensive energy. Its possiblethat many people on the left maytake longer to grasp the true natureof the present crisis than most. Thisis because the left has been wronglyeducated by Marxism to believethat modern capitalism originatesin money or, as Marx would put it,M-C-M. The truth is that moneyexisted for thousands of years withoutleading to capitalism. We must lookfor the origins of modern capitalismin the new forms and characteristicsof the energy sources which formedthe foundation of the industrialrevolution. It is problems with theseenergy sources which lie behind the

present crisis.And this is why pre-energy

economists, like Ticktin, will continueto make absurd statements about the

present crisis.Tony ClarkLondon

UndeterminedReaders of the Weekly Worker, andthose involved in the CPGBs weeklyCapitalreading group in London in

part icul ar, migh t be interes ted inthe following Marx passage that Irecently came across from the (nowvery rare) first German edition ofMarxs Capital(Hamburg 1867).

It was originally part of thenotoriously difcult opening chapteron the commodity so rich in Hegelianterminology, but did not make it intoany of the subsequent German editionsor, as a result, any of the Englishtranslations. For the moment is onlyavailable in the original German in theongoing project known as the Marx-

Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA). Asfar as I know, then, this is the rsttime that the passage has appearedin English. I would like to thankDavid Fernbach, translator of thePenguin edition of the three volumesofCapital, and Maciej Zurowski fortheir help with the translation.

Human labour plain and simple,the expenditure of human labour-

pow er, may be cap abl e of anydetermination, but in and of itself isundetermined. It can only be realised,only objectied, when human labour-

power is expended in a specic form,as specic labour, for only speciclabour is confronted with a naturalsubstance, an external material,within which it is objectied. Onlythe Hegelian concept [Begr iff -often translated in the 19th centuryas notion] is capable of objectifyingitself without external material.Ben LewisSouth Wales

Fill in a standing order form(back page), donate via our

website, or send cheques,

payable to Weekly Worker

Withdrawal symptoms

Just a note to say that the WeeklyWorkerfighting fund will beresuming next week. The paperrelies on the 1,500 we raise fromour readers every month to survive,

but during the CPGBs two-monthSummer Offensive period, whichhas just ended (see opposite), thissum is included in the overall cashraised by the organisation.

Well, now we are back inbusiness and every donation youmake to the Weekly Worker fromtoday will count towards ourSeptember fund. I expect thoseextra three days will take us wayover the top!

By the way, it seems that just

about all of our readers realised thatwe were taking our usual two weeksoff this year. Normally we get atleast one or two comrades emailingin to complain they havent hadtheir paper (although that doesntseem to happen when we have ourChristmas break!).

Anyway, lets hope readersdidnt encounter too manywithdrawal symptoms during ourabsence. Were glad to be back! l

Robbie Rix

Fighting fund


3/12

3weekly

worker975 August 29 2013

CPGB podcastsEvery Monday we upload a podcast commenting on the current

political situation. In addition, the site features voice les of publicmeetings and other events: http://cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts.

London Communist Forum

Sunday September 1, 5pm: Weekly political report from CPGBProvisional Central Committee, followed by open discussion andCapitalreading group. Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, LondonWC1. This meeting: Vol 1, chapter 19: Transformation of the value oflabour-power into wages.Organised by CPGB: www.cpgb.org.uk.

Left Unity LondonSaturday August 31, 11am: London-wide activists meeting,University of London Union, Malet Street, London WC1.Organised by London Left Unity:[email protected].

No attack on SyriaSaturday August 31, 12 noon: National demonstration. Assemble atEmbankment for march to rally point.Organised by Stop the War Coalition: www.stopwar.org.uk.

Picket for Savas MatsasSaturday August 31, 1pm: Picket and delivery of letter of protest toGreek ambassador in defence of arrested Greek Marxist Savas Matsas.Greek embassy, 1A Holland Park, London W11.Organised Socialist Fight: www.socialistght.com.

Love Russia, hate homophobiaTuesday September 3, 5pm: Protest, Downing Street, London SW1.Organised by Peter Tatchell Foundation: www.petertatchellfoundation.org.

Defend the union linkTuesday September 3, 7pm: Public meeting, Conway Hall, Red LionSquare, London WC1. Support the Labour-union link and Tolpuddlestatement.Organised by Defend the Link: www.defendthelink.wordpress.com.

Left Unity GlasgowThursday September 5, 7.30pm: Next meeting, Kinning Parkcomplex, 40 Cornwall Street, Glasgow G4 (next to Kinning Park tubestation).Organised by Glasgow Left Unity: [email protected].

EDL out of Tower HamletsSaturday September 7, 11am: Anti-fascist march. Assemble AltabAli Park, Whitechapel Road, London E1.Organised by Unite Against Fascism: www.uaf.org.uk.

Remembering victims of austeritySaturday September 7, 1pm: Protests at council and ATOS buildings.

1pm-2pm: Jobcentre, 100 Broad Street, Birmingham B15; 2pm-3pm:ATOS, Five Ways House, Islington Row Middleway, Edgbaston,Birmingham B15.Organised by Birmingham against the cuts:www.birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com.

Call for a general strikeSunday September 8, 12.30pm: Lobby of TUC conference, Hardysuite, Hermitage Hotel, Exeter Road, Bournemouth.email [email protected] by National Shop Stewards Network:www.shopstewards.net.

Rally for educationSaturday September 14, 11am: Teaching union-organised event.Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad Sanctuary, London SW1.Organised by National Union of Teachers: www.teachers.org.uk.

Stop the War CoalitionSaturday September 14, 10 am to 5pm: Annual conference, OldCinema, University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1.10 (5 concessions). Deadline for registration: Friday September 7;deadline for submission of motions: Friday August 30.Organised by Stop the War Coalition: www.stopwar.org.uk.

The crisis in EgyptThursday September 19, 7pm: Public meeting with Chris Nineham.Priory Rooms, Quaker Meeting House, 40 Bull Street, Birmingham, B4.Organised by Birmingham Stop the War Coalition: www.stopwar.org.uk.

Spanish holocaustThursday September 19, 7pm: Talk, Bishopsgate Institute, 230Bishopsgate, London EC2. AL Morton Memorial Lecture with

professor Paul Preston on his recent book on the Spanish civil war.Tickets: 2.Organised by Bishopsgate Institute: www.bishopsgate.org.uk;and Socialist History Society: www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk.

Gender and identitySaturday September 28, 2.30pm: Seminar and discussion,Bishopsgate Institute, 230 Bishopsgate, London EC2. Speaker: AnjaSteinbauer (Philosophy for All). Free admission.Organised by Bishopsgate Institute: www.bishopsgate.org.uk.

No to austeritySunday September 29, 11.00am: National TUC demonstration at

Tory Party conference. Assemble Liverpool Road (M3 4FP) from11am, for march to rally in Whitworth Park.Organised by Trades Union Congress:www.tuc.org.uk/industrial/tuc-22405-f0.cfm.

CPGB willsRemember the CPGB and keep the struggle going. Put the CPGBsname and address, together with the amount you wish to leave, in yourwill. If you need further help, do not hesitate to get in contact.

SUMMER OFFENSIVE

One of the best

Spe ak ing at the Aug us t 17celebration meal to mark theend of this years Summer

Offensive - our organisations annualfund drive - comrade Jack Conrad toldthe audience that he was pleasantlysurprised to be able to announce thatwe had achieved a little over 26,600.By the time of the SOs formal end24 hours later (as well as late pledgesthat came in up to today), we havecrept up to a shade under 27k. Thisis an impressive achievement, giventhe difcult political context of thisyears campaign and that a numberof comrades - including myself, to behonest - thought we would strugglefar more. So, although the nal totalis 3k shy of our ambitious 30,000collective target, the leadership ofour organisation is very pleasedto congratulate all comrades whotook part in this years successfulcampaign, either as full participantsor one-off donors.

A successful SO is a vital boost tothe annual nances of the organisation- like any political group worth its salt,the CPGB runs a decit budget formost of the year. Come the SO, we

pay off expensive loans, generally getourselves back to somewhere close tothe black and then start overspendingall over again. Comrades who havecontributed this year can rest assuredthat every pound donated will, oneway or another, be thrown into a ghtthat has become synonymous with this

paper and the organisation that sustainsit - for the principled, democratic unityof the revolutionary left on the basisofMarxism. And encouragingly - ascomrade Conrad also highlighted inhis speech - over the past 12 months orso our opportunities to engage otherson the left in debate and claricationaround this project have become farmore concrete.

The recurrent waves of crisis andopposition in the Socialist WorkersParty have produced considerablefluidity. While many have been

propel led towards right ist despa irand/or the swamp by the wholemess, the fact that comrades fromthe International Socialist Networkattended Communist University (see

p5) - and that a degree of mutualunderstanding seemed to emerge

both in the sessi ons and in moreinformal exchanges - is a (small)step forward. (Incredibly, the ISNsinformal leadership initially rejecteddiscussions with our organisation andcould not agree to even send speakersto CU!) Similarly, our support for theSocialist Platform in the Left Unity

project seems to be opening a spacefor fruitful debate with comrades onquestions of programme and method -again, nothing dramatic, but generallymoving in the right direction.

In this context, a not dissimilartrend showed itself in the pattern ofdonations to this years SO. A smallteam at our centre made a determinedeffort this year to directly contact farmore comrades in our reading andsympathising periphery for support.The work was instructive in two ways.Predictably, we encountered manycomrades who had lost their job orfaced the prospect of redundancy in thenear future; others who - though stillemployed - were hard pressed for sparecash to donate to even the most worthyof political causes. Not surprising,of course. But, interestingly, underconsiderable pressure though suchcomrades were, it was striking just howmany of them didbring themselves toactually make a donation, despite theirnancial woes.

There are some useful lessons inthis. First and foremost is the need forus to raise our heads from the grind

of political work and be aware thatsome new opportunities are opening.If we are being honest with ourselves,we have to say that our annual fundcampaign has become a little bitof a chore for many comrades andthat there was little in the way ofinnovation this year. (An honourableexception are those comrades whoorganised an eBay clothes auctionfor Hands Off the People of Iran -300-plus was raised from a slightlyeccentric mixture of elegant Italiandesigner items and retro punk/newwave clobber.)

The response of the comradesaround us who contributed to thecampaign when directly approachedshould tell us that - while fullmembers of the party will no doubtremain the main source of our regularfunds - there are literally hundreds ofothers out there who can be drawninto practical and nancial supportfor the project. (Put another, moremodest, way, a relatively small

percentage of the 24,860 comradeswho have accessed the partys sitesince the last paper appeared onAugust 8, just before our three-week

break around Communist University.)So, its obvious from this success

that the core tasks of fundraising anddrawing wider layers of comradesinto contributing to the work of theCPGB must become a year-roundactivity for our organisation as awhole, not simply the aforementionedsmall team of comrades. A tweakin our political culture rather than arevolution, comrades - but the resultscould be quite impressive!

Again, congratulations to allcomrades in and around the CPGBwho have contributed to making thisSummer Offensive one of our best fora number of years l

Mark Fischer

Money ... fuelling the ght for communism


4/12

4weekly


WEB

Reappropriating basic principlesOn August 13, the centenary of August Bebels death, a new website was launched - MarxistCenter.com

seeks to revive a genuinely partyist Marxism for the 21st century. Geary Middleton introduces thisnew political and journalistic project

First of all an explanation is owedas to who we are. This projectows from the Orthodox Marxist

group, which is itself a fraction of theRevolutionary Marxists group on theweb forum, Revleft.com.1 We in RM arecommonly reproached with terms suchas Kautskyite and, while we reject thereformist and counterrevolutionaryimplications of the term, it does containa kernel of truth, as we place ourselvesamong those who seek to re-evaluatethe legacy of Second InternationalMarxism - a new current, if you will,which was marked with Lars T Lihsscholarly workLenin rediscovered -What is to be done? in context. Wedraw our inspiration from this scholarlyand political current, and groups thatundertake similar work, like the CPGB.

However, we felt that we had comeup against a barrier. Some of us have a

background in diverse Marxist groupsand a need arose to claim a space forourselves to develop politically andorganisationally, lacking that space inour respective organisations.

In other words, we are anindependent group of young comradesfrom around the globe seekinganswers. And in our quest to join upthe dots, of which this website willsurely be a reection, we strive togive a more up-to-date content tothe Second International Marxismto which Lenin and the Bolsheviks

belonged, as part of the project tomerge the ideas of Marxism with thecontemporary workers movementonce more.

We are a loose writers collectivewith a common set of principles. Wedo not have a party line and thearticles will, certainly in the beginning,

be more of a result of the individualwriters own ndings than anythingelse. We are also open to contributionsfrom others and if you would like tosubmit something you can reach us [email protected].

Political basisSo how loose is loose? Dont wehave anything in common? Well, wedo, obviously. The following is a shortoverview of the views we share:l As Marxists we stand for thereappropriation of the basic principlesof the Marxist programmatic conceptof the democratic republic. Thismeans that the working class, throughdemocratic and republican principles,collectively decides how the meansof production are used against privateownership by state bureaucrats. It isthe class dictatorship of the workingclass governed by democraticworkers organs. It is the self-emancipation of the working classthrough the struggle for the workingclass to take political power.l These goals are crystallised in thecommunist programme. Because the

programme is about the political take-over of society by the working class,it stipulates the strategic, objectivesteps needed to reach our goal andovercome the undemocratic barriersthat the ruling class - a minority - putinto place to keep itself in power.l On the one hand, democratic-republican principles are, amongothers: the election and recallability ofall public ofcials; universal militarytraining and service, the right to beararms and political rights in the armedforces; the election of judges andgeneralised trial by jury; freedom of

information; and so on. It is also basedon the extension of democratic formsof decision-making like workplacecommittees and so on.lOn the other hand, these principlesstand for a truly democratic way oforganisation and discussion. It isthe purpose of this project to start toengage in a theoretical discussion on

political democracy, programme andrepublican values as a contribution toa cultural change within the left andthe whole of society. This can only bedone if we are open and respectful.

We call ourselves the MarxistCenter for two reasons:1. As we base ourselves on a re-evaluation of the revolutionary traditions of the Second International,we ght for a long-term strategy ofrevolutionary patience. This meansan active opposition to short cutson both rightwing notions that wantto enter coalitions in the name ofrelevancy and realismandleftwingnotions that seek to reach workingclass power through mass strikiststrategies.2. We seek to be a centre of debateand analysis based on these traditions.While our contribution will inevitablystart humble, we aspire to grow andhave an impact on the working classcommunity.

Our tasksFor these reasons we aim for thefollowing:lTo clarify our own ideas, firstand foremost. This we aim to do

by researching histor ical topics ofinterest, attempting to give our ownanalysis on current world events andengage in debate with each other and

with the wider (far-left) community.l To popularise the ideas ofrevolutionary Marxism. That is,

both the ideas of Marx and Engels(classical Marxism) and theideas of the early, Marxist SecondInternational that was fundamentalfor the formation of mass worker-class movements in Europe andelsewhere, notably also the RussianSocial Democratic Labour Party andthe Bolsheviks that placed themselvesin the same tradition.lTo add to, in however modesta way, a practical community. Acommon theme among our detractorsis that because we emphasise opendebate we want to set up a talkingshop. While we can only begin in ahumble and, in some respects, abstractway, we aim for an actual party-movement, and will aid any suchdevelopments, and to help answer themost important question of our times:what is to be done?

As Lenin put it, Withoutrevolutionary theory there can be norevolutionary movement.2 Anyonethat is up for this task is invited to jointhe ranks of this project.

Initial articlesWe have already put up some articles(and more are on the way):lThe Tower of Bebel: Well then, goforward, Tower of Bebel! Bebel is oneof the most brilliant representatives ofscientic international socialism. Hiswritings, speeches and works make upa great tower, a strong arsenal, fromwhich the working class should taketheir arms. We cannot recommend itenough If only we could build andestablish such a Tower of Bebel in

the brains of every worker. Becausethen, when the working class hasunderstood the socialist programme,gentlemen, believe us, your rulewould soon disappear for ever 3

l Programme: a compass toliberation: A programme is essential

beca use it serves as a compass.Where are we heading? Are we stillon course? A programme binds theleadership, and any deviation from itmust be able to be called into questionopenly, as it is in the interests of ourwhole class.4

lWhere is the class struggle inEgypt?: Revolutionary workerstoday everywhere need a commonground of debate, a democratic mass

political worker par ty, to crysta lliseour revolutionary theory, to build arich, concrete and scientic collectiveknowledge for the working class todraw upon in its practical and politicalstruggles to come.5

lTo win the battle of democracy:With the failed experiments ofthe 20th century still in their minds,

people will always be wary of thesincerity of communists when theytalk about democracy. We willnever be able to change this view ofcommunism if we keep clinging on tovague formulas of democracy.6l

Notes1. Revleft is, incidentally, the biggest online com-munity of revolutionary leftists globally.2. Can be found in What is to be done?3. http://marxistcenter.com/2013/08/13/the-tower-of-bebel.4. http://marxistcenter.com/2013/08/13/pro-gramme-a-compass-to-liberation.5. http://marxistcenter.com/2013/08/13/where-is-the-class-struggle-in-egypt.6. http://marxistcenter.com/2013/08/13/to-win-the-battle-of-democracy.

August Bebel: towering gure


5/12

5weekly


COMMUNIST UNIVERSITY

Learning to talk to each otherDanny Hammill reports on the CPGBs summer school

For this years CommunistUniversity, the CPGB returnedto the same pleasant south

London venue - aviary and all.Of course, we call our pedagogical

event a university quite deliberately.Not in order to be pretentious orelitist, but simply to denote a certainseriousness about our attitude toeducation. Despite our obviouslimitations as a small group, we aimto raise the bar high when it comesto political education and culture ingeneral. Unfortunately, this is notsomething that can be said aboutmost of the left in Britain - which at

best tends to treat its membership asmere sheep to be trainedrather thaneducated as self-condent cadre.

Just as importantly, whether atCommunist University or in its own

press, the CPGB positively seeks totease out or highlight differences ofopinion - both amongst its own ranksand the left as a whole. Once again thisdistinguishes us from other left groupsthat seem to regard disagreementsas a dirty secret - not in front of thechildren, please. The CPGB utterlyrejects this disastrous approach.Instead, only through the open clashof contending ideas can we arrive atthe closest possible approximation tothe truth. And we practise what we

preach - just ask Gilbert Achcar, toname one person. Contrary to what issometimes suggested by our critics, thisis not some sort of weird CPGB thing.Rather, it based on the entire Marxisttradition and methodology. If we areto learn anything from history, andscience, it is that todays majority orcommon sense viewpoint can quickly

become tomorrows absurd dogma.Another distinctive feature of our

school is that we struggle to makeit as all-rounded and collective anexperience as is objectively possible- a small-scale anticipation of thecommunist future, if you like. Notto mention being fun , somethingelse the far left appears sadly to haveforgotten. Meaning that CU, in nomatter how rudimentary or limited aform, should organisationally embodycommunist practicality - thereforemeals are collectively prepared by

part icipant s using a flex ible rotasystem. Childcare facilities can be

provided on the same basis too.

ConvergenceAs usual, given the ongoing natureof the capitalist crisis and the turmoilsweeping the Middle East, it is morea question of what to leave out thanto include when it comes to reportingCU. However, having said that, lifeitself has to some extent thrown up anissue of special importance. Namely,the dramatic decline of the SocialistWorkers Party following the comradeDelta case and the emergence ofvarious oppositional groups bothinternally (ie, the Revo lut ionarySocialism in the 21st Century blog)and externally in the shape of theInternational Socialist Network. Andthen there is Left Unity, due to holdits founding conference in November.

In this way, a recurrent themeduring the week was the ght for leftunity - both the actual organisationand in general - and the centrality forsocialists of the vision thing, to usethe almost throwaway remark made byMarc Mulholland in his entertainingsession on Class revolution versus

peop les revo lut ion: lef t deba tessince the 1970s. The slight irony, ofcourse, is that the phrase was useddisparaginglyby George Bush senior- why do you need it? An attitude intotal contrast to the great bourgeoisrevolutionaries of the past referenced

by Marc duri ng his int roduction

(incidentally, this was the most wellattended talk).

Therefore it was encouragingthat three LU comrades Nick Wrack(Independent Socialist Network),Tim Nelson (International Socialist

Ne two rk) and Par is Thomp son(International Socialist Network)gave openings at CU. Many thoughtthe Fighting for a mass party sessionfeaturing Jack Conrad of the CPGBand Nick Wrack (in a personalcapacity) was one of the high pointsof this years CU. Comrade Wrackgave an excellent introduction, calmand measured - perhaps partly helped

by his training as a barrister (see pp8-9). If only more on the left conductedthemselves in such a manner. Evenmore positive was the convergenceof views between the two. More likean exploration of ideas, as comradeConrad said.

In his opening, comrade Thompsonof the ISN succinctly outlined thesystematic failures of the SWP - aself-selecting leadership that retainsa monopoly over information andtheory, a strict division betweenthinkers and doers , a deeplyrooted culture of substitutionism, theorganisation of passive foot-soldiers,etc. Not for nothing, mentionedcomrade Thompson, was the SWPnational committee widely knownwithin the organisation as the Houseof Lords. The SWP tops and theirminions think they are destined to rule.

Comrade Thompson broadlyagreed with the CPGB and othersthat the SWP crisis has long anddeep-reaching roots. The idea thatthe current crisis within the SWP isthe result of institutional sexism, so-called misogyny or rape culture isabsurd. Rather, to put it in a nutshell,the organisations profound flaw -shared by many on the left to onedegree or another - derives from its

bureaucratic-centralist model of party-building: an essentially military-styleconception that has its origins in the

post-1921 Bolshevik Party, the rstfour congresses of Comintern, andso on. Indeed, during the debate,comrade Andy Wilson - a formersoldier as well as ex-SWP member- said joining the SWP was a bit like

joining the army. Ultimately, whetherthe disease took hold in 1953, 1969,1972 or whenever is an open question.The general consensus at the meeting- and beyond - is that the rot reallystarted for good in the mid-1970s with

Tony Cliffs turn to Leninism.Interestingly, during the lively

debate on Marxism and broad partieswith the CPGBs Sarah McDonald,it became apparent that comrade

Nelson misunderstood what the CPGBmeant by building a revolutionary

party top-down - saying he had aninstinctive aversion to the idea. Quiteunderstandable, given his experiencesinside the highly authoritarian,undeniably top-down, SWP - withthe control-freaks in the leadershipattempting to micro-manage everyaspect of the organisation.

But in reality, argues the CPGB,it is a myth that any political party orserious organisation is built bottom-up - it is an impossibility. Is there notinitially an individual or small groupof individuals who take the lead informing the organisation, perhapsinspired by the vision thing? Allthe CPGB means by building anorganisation top-down is that itwill be a party based on - and builtaround - a revolutionary programme,which by denition cannot happenspontaneously or by miraculousconception. The organisation itselfwill be thoroughly democratic - fullfreedom of debate, access to the party

press, right to forms factions, whethertemporarily or permanently, etc.

So there is nothing inherentlysinister or Stalinist in the idea of

building a revolutionary party top-down - quite the opposite, in fact. Agenuine revolutionary programme, asdiscussed at some length by comradeMike Macnair in his session on theErfurt programme, is not a confessionaland diabolically detailed documentwhich you have to (pretend to) agreewith, but rather something you canaccept as a guide to united action and aguard against opportunism - adocument that can hold the leadershipto account, in other words. A situationthe self-perpetuating SWP leadershipwould absolutely hate, it goes withoutsaying (and, of course, a revolutionary

programme, as history has shown, canattract millions in a relatively short

period of time). Afterwards, showingthe healthy fluidity within LU,comrade Nelson readily admitted thathe could imagine himself signing up tothe sort of revolutionary programmeenvisaged by the CPGB - certainly hesupports the Socialist Platform drawnup by comrade Wrack and others.Showing that there are grounds foroptimism regarding LU.

This theme - what party model?- was revisited by comrade MikeMacnair in his fascinating talk (at leastfor this journalist) on Lukcs, Korsch,et al: philosophers of Leninism orultra-left? - focusing mainly onGeorg Lukcs. The latter is signicant

because his short work, Lenin: astudy in the unity of his thought, andHistory and class consciousnesshaveessentially operated as organisationaltext books for the British far left.Alex Callinicos (Stalinicos) andJohn Rees have repeatedly praisedthe master-work, His tor y andclass consciousness, predicated onLukcss theories of reication and thevanguard party. Some have wonderedwhether Callinicos and Rees havedone their homework properly. Butin the forthright opinion of comradeMacnair, they correctly interpretLukcss theory of reification, thevanguard party, etc as a blueprint fora monolithic, militarised organisation- negating the realhistory of pre-civilwar Bolshevism.

Similarly, comrade MoshMachover in his informative Do weneed a Marxist party? Do we need aLeninist party? session, remarked thatthe far left is built upon an inventedor

phantom Leninism constructed afterthe civil war by the burgeoning Soviet

bureaucracy - then loyally regurgitatedby the Trotskyites. Inevi tably, ascomrade Machover commented,instead of a mass party we have a massof Trotskyite sects - that multiply likeamoebas, refusing to accept that the

post-1921 model does not work. Astate of pitiful denial.

Ur-communismHillel Ticktin, a CU perennial,delivered three talks on capitalistcrisis. Comrade Ticktin forcefullyreiterated his view that the fallingrate of profit theory (FROP) isonly one cause of crisis - theothers are underconsumption andd isp ropo r t iona l i ty (be tweendepartments I and II). It should not begiven a privileged status. You cannotnd FROP in Lenin or Trotsky, forinstance. Yet the left obsesses overit. As far as comrade Ticktin wasconcerned, there was no evidence -empirical or otherwise - that protshave been falling recently. Quite theopposite, if anything.

Comrade Ticktin outlined his long-held view that we are not witnessingthe usual cyclical phenomenon,

but rather a genuine crisis that thebourgeoisie might not be able to solve- they are running out of answers. Forhim, the capitalist system is in long-term decline and could be enteringan epoch ofpermanent stagnation.The Soviet Union, eastern Europe,the Middle East - the third worldas a whole - are falling into a voidof history, threatening total societal

breakdown and barba rism. Giventhe lack of a viable anti-capitalistalternative, thought the comrade, most

people now nd it easier to imaginethe end of the world than the end ofcapitalism - thus the rising popularityof dystopian lms, books, etc.

Following in the tradition of suchluminaries as Eric Hobsbawm andEP Thompson, Gabriel Levy in hisinteresting talk, Were all Ludditesnow, attempted to rescue the Ludditesfrom the slanders history has directedagainst them. They were real peoplestruggling under concrete historicalconditions against vicious oppressionand exploitation. Comrade Levy waskeen to counter the popular mythology,or prejudice, that the Luddites wereintrinsically hostile to machinesor technology. Actually, they onlydestroyed machines that were hurtful

to community. We should learn fromthem, contended the comrade, anddismantle destructive technologies.Machinery and technological aidsshould be developed by those whouse them. More than that, suchtechnologies should be easilyunderstandable. More controversiallystill, he made the argument for thesuperiority ofsmall-scale technology- not convincing everyone.

Chris Knight of the RadicalAnthropology Group gave a

particularly good and tightly focusedsession, entitled Why is the leftso scared of science? He quoteda piece of typical postmodernistgobbledegook (ie, Ant i-c ris is byJanet Roitman), but thought the leftwas not much better. In his opinion,the left has the habit of backing thewrong horses in science, whethermore obviously in the mad pseudo-science of Lysenko or in its knee-

jerk hosti lity to Richar d Dawkinsselsh gene theory - summarilydismissing it in true philistinefashion as reactionary. ComradeKnight repeated his convictionthat the left should embrace selshgene theory, which can be used toexplain how modern humans - unlike

pri mat es - manag ed to dev elopculture, language, altruism andso on. Previous theories of groupselection and suchlike were totallyunable to explain this phenomenon,and in the case of someone likeKonrad Lorenz put forward crackpotracist and fascistic theories of humandevelopment. All in all, summed upcomrade Knight, we see a dismal

pat ter n of to ngue-t ied sci enceafraid of politics and mindlessactivism afraid of science.

His RAG comrade - and long-time SWP member - Lionel Sims,delivered the nal session on Whatthe anthropology of human nature tellsus about the struggle for left unity. Hegave an inspirational anecdote abouthis own Samba band - the rhythmthat never stops - as a near perfectexpression of the rituals of solidarity:rituals that have their origins in thehuman revolution and primitivecommunism, and stretch right up tothe present day (ie, Durham MinersGala). Comrade Sims reminded usthat primitive communism is infact a mistranslation - it should bemore like ur-communism (originalcommunism). Which is where wewant to be, but on an exponentiallyhigher level. Theories of the humanrevolution should be fully integratedinto SWP theory - and Marxist theoryin general.

We should not forget to mentionthe two comrades from the SocialistFight group, who attended for almostthe entire week - ensuring a healthyexchange of views with the CPGB.There was also a fringe session held

by the US-based Plat ypus groupon Lukcs, even if it was curiouslyabstract, given the previous discussionson how his legacy negatively impactsupon the contemporary political

practice on the far left.Finally, it does have to be said that

attendance at CU 2011 was a littledisappointing, with just 82 comradescoming along. However, there wasless of a fall-off during the week thisyear, with at least 30 - and often rathermore - attending every session. Everyconceivable effort must be made toensure that next years CU sees a

bigger turnout, and that we get greaterleft involvement - left unity in everysense of the term.

On a more positive note, wepossib ly had our youn ges t eve rparticipant at CU - one-month-oldEmma. The future is surely red l

We can work it out


6/12

6weekly


LEFT UNITY

Communicating across thearchipelago of isolationJack Conrad puts the case for clear principles and greater boldness. This is an edited version of hisopening contribution to the Fighting for a mass partysession at Communist University

There are fundamental problemswith both the Left Party and theClass Struggle platforms in Left

Unity. Reading the rst, the LPP, itis clear that it is a combination ofbog-s tand ard left ish comme ntar y,faddish identity nostrums and devious

platitudes. It has been signed by 130Left Unity members. But it is fairto say that it is headed by AndrewBurgin and Kate Hudson - the pairtook the lead in establishing LU afterfalling out with George Gallowayand quitting Respect. Their mostimportant backers are SocialistResistance (the British section of theFourth International), the right wingof the International Socialist Network(Tom Walker and R ichard Seymour)and old hands such as Nick Long,Mike Marqusee and Sean Thompson.

LPP is inspired by and wishesto emulate parties in Europe suchas Die Linke in Germany, Syrizain Greece, the Front de Gauche inFrance, etc. A hostage to fortune ifever there was one. Take Die Linke.

One of its two main componentswas WASG (Wahlalternative SozialeGerechtigkeit), a minor split from theSocial Democratic Party. The othercomponent, by far the bigger, wasthe Party of Democratic Socialism,the organisational continuation of theruling Socialist Unity Party in theGerman Democratic Republic.

Because of where it came from,because it lacks clear principles, becauseit is not committed to working class

political independence, because itsleaders hunger for a return to politicaloffice, Die Linke would eagerly,effortlessly, unhesitatingly enter a red-red coalition government with the SDPafter Septembers federal elections.

What would happen then? A shiftto the left? Lighting the beacon ofsocial progress? Rapid moves towardssocialism? Hardly. I would guess thatthe same would happen in Germanytoday as happened in the past whenthe left joined coalition governmentseither with social democrats or somesort of radical bourgeois party. The left

is given a ministry or three. Usually,however, that includes the ministryof labour; and the said ministerof labour proceeds to intervene tostop strikes, keep wage demandsreasonable, sabotage opposition toredundancies, etc. What happens then?Swathes of workers stop voting forthe left. We get a horrendous roundof demoralisation and the return of arightwing government.

And in Germany it has alreadyhappened - albeit at a regional level.In Berlin Die Linke disastrously

participated in a red-red coalit ionwith the SDP. Inevitably it votedfor left cuts instead of right cuts.Does anyone really believe thateither Syriza or the Front de Gaucheis any different? No, in terms of their

political DNA they are basically thesame. Such parties should serve asa warning. Not be a model. And,after all, in Britain we have alreadywitnessed the abject failures of theSocialist Alliance, Respect and theScottish Socialist Party (the latter

still doggedly supported by SocialistResistance). Obviously LPP needsself-imposed amnesia when it comesto history, especially recent history.

LPP is convinced that voters inBritain are ready and waiting for aviable political alternative to theleft of Labour. This alternative is,of course, to be the Left Party, whichis to do more than just defend andrestore the gains of the past. LPPadvocates the democratisation of oursociety, economy, state and politicalinstitutions, transforming these arenasin the interests of the majority. Allrather vague, as is the claim to beinformed by the values of equalityand justice: socialist, feminist,environmentalist and against all formsof discrimination.1

So is LPP committed to supersedingcapitalism in the interests of themajority? Or does LPP want to leavethe door open for those who wish tomanage capitalism in the interestsof the majority? Does LPP reject theidea that the existing state machine

must be broken up, swept away andreplaced? Who knows? The ambiguityis not the result of sloppy drafting. Itis calculated, deliberate and in thelast analysis cynical.

The big idea is to recruit as manyas possible, as quickly as possible,as easily as possible into LeftUnity. A leftwing version of the UKIndependence Party, according tosome LPP comrades. Everyone who isagainst neoliberalism, everyone whoopposes war, fascism and racism must

be included. Socialists, yes. Stalinites,yes. Anarchists, yes. Left Labourites,yes. Greens, yes. If this improbableamalgam can be put together and kepttogether, the conviction is that this willhelp unleash a huge popular upswellthat will, stage by stage, totallyrefashion British society.

However, the attempt to achievebroadness comes at a cost. Marxism,the October 1917 revolution, theCommunist International, Stalinscounterrevolutionary terror, the declineof capitalism, the undemocratic nature

The left has become insular


7/12

7weekly


of Cuba, working class rule, socialism,etc, must be kept private, hidden away,

problemised in Left Unity. Debatingsuch big questions, learning from the

past, taking an unambiguous stand onthe monstrous crimes perpetrated in thename of socialism will fracture unityand frighten away so-called ordinary

people. As a resul t comrades inSocialist Resistance are to be found

busily opposingcalls for Left Unityto specically include working classrule and socialism as a dening aim.Maybe the organisation should renameitself once again. Sad to say, ResistingSocialism would be a more accuratedescription of its current practice inLeft Unity. The British section of theFourth International is fast in danger of

becoming the Blairites of Trotskyism.Revealing the muddle, the

confusion, the need to face two waysat once, Socialist Resistance comradeshave signed an LPP backgrounddocument, where they collectivelydescribe themselves as socialist -because our vision of society is onewhere the meeting of human needs is

paramount, not one which is drivenby the quest for private prot and theenrichment of a few.

Even this Janus stance istheoretically inadequate. I Googledthe phrase, meeting of human needsis paramount. Within 0.27 secondsI got 100 million results. First onthe list came the National Society ofProfessional Engineers and its codeof ethics.2 As for private prot andthe enrichment of a few, have thecomrades not heard of nationalisedindustries, insurance companies,

pen sio n fun ds, the Joh n Lew ispartnership and giant transnationalssuch as BP, GlaxoSmithKline andSamsung? The essence of capitalism isnot private prot and the enrichmentof the few. It is wage-labour and theself-expansion of capital.

Of course, there are thosesophisticates who now and againwhisper in your ear that what they aredoing is cleverly applying the methodof Leon Trotskys 1938 Transitional

programme. I nd it impossible tobeli eve that Trotsky would havesigned up to the LPP. Either way,what we have with the transitionalmethod circa 2013 is pure elitism.The illuminati know what the ultimateaim is. But ordinary people are notready for that yet. So they are to be led,step by step, campaign by campaign,vote by vote, strike by strike, through aseries of ever rising struggles that willeventually culminate in a Left Unitygovernment (perhaps an example ofthe dictatorship of the proletariat -though the mass of the proletariat willdoubtless remain ignorant of that tillafter the great event).

The transitional method certainlyinforms the Class Struggle Platform. Itis written and promoted by members ofWorkers Power. However, where LPP(rightly) concerns itself with aimsand principles, the CSP is fixatedon immediate issues and immediatedemands that purportedly dominatethe political stage this autumn. Eg, the

bedroom tax, benets cuts, domesticviolence, etc. Apparently these arethe very struggles which must winif we are to develop the force thatwill actually create socialism.3 Thecomrades appear to believe thatrevolution is just round the corner.Socialism will be realised forthwithif sufcient numbers get angry and getactive over the real class struggles.Delusion and bombast aside, CSP is astrange document, given that it is to be

presented to thefoundingconferenceof Left Unity in November. CSP is, infact, a feverish action programme thatwill serve Workers Power for the nextmonth or two. As a statement of aimsand principles for a new workingclass party it falls at.

Although the LPP is cringinglymoderate and the CSP is breathlesslymilitant, yes, ironically they bothderive from the same method. And

we have seen where it leads. Smallsects trying, but always failing, tomanipulate and deceive masses of

people . In essence a return to theimpotent conspiracies and fantasiesof Mikhail Bakunin.

Socialist PlatformWhat of the Socialist Platform? TheProvisional Central Committee of theCPGB welcomed its publication andhas called for Left Unity members tosupport it. However, there is room forimprovement and we have submitteda few amendments (see p9). Wisely,and very positively, the SocialistPlatform was not presented on atake it or leave it basis by i ts initialsponsors. There is to be a meeting ofthe Socialist Platform on September14, which will consider and vote onmotions, amendments, etc.

The Socialist Platform representsthe only correct approach if Left Unityit is not to be yet another asco. Beginwith a theoretically underpinnedstatement of aims and principles.From these solid foundations

pat ien tly cons truct, educate andsteel an organisation of manymillions. Naturally that party must

be democratic, encourage initiative atevery level and hold wayward leadersto account. Nevertheless, I make noapology for describing this approachas top-down. The starting point isneither current concerns nor existingconsciousness. No, it is Marxisttheory, the lessons of history and thegoal of working class power.

Yet, given their experience ofthe awful ofcial communist andofficial Trotskyite regimes, thereare honest and sincere comrades whoinstinctively object to this formula.Instead they call for Left Unity to be

built bottom-up. As with all suchwords, phrases and formulations,such as Marxism, Leninism,communism, the dictatorship of the

proletariat, democratic centralismand revolutionary programme, wemust try to understand what is really

being argued, meant and intendedhere. After all, our movement has

been tragica lly separated, divided ,disorganised into numerous parties,groups and sects over many years. Alltoo frequently then, we mean differentthings when we say the same thing.There is a disjuncture between speakerand listener.

It is reminiscent of the Polynesianpeoples and their colonisation of thePacific. They headed out from theBismarck Archipelago in 700 (orthereabouts) and settled one islandafter another. Their descendantsnally reached Tonga and Samoa 900years later. While they all remained

part of the same Lapita culture, forthe most part their 40 main languagesdeveloped in isolation. There waslittle, if any, two-way communication.Hence, although the languages spoken

by Polynes ian peoples are closelyrelated and have many words incommon, when a Niuean talks to aTahitian there is often a failure to graspnuance, frequent misunderstandingsand sometimes total incomprehension.

So when former members of theSocialist Workers Party or the SocialistParty in England and Wales hear us inthe CPGB talk about building a massCommunist Party top-down theythink Charlie Kimber, they think PeterTaaffe, they think bans on factions,they think bureaucratic centralism, theythink undemocratic expulsions, theythink unreadable papers. Of course,it works both ways. When we in theCPGB hear former members of theSocialist Workers Party talk about abroad party and building bottom-up we think that they have given upon Marxism, lost sight of socialismand do not grasp the necessity of arevolutionary programme. That might

be true for some ex-SWP members. Butit is obviously not true for all of them.

The reality is that the LPP and CSPare both top-down. It is just that their

authors want to appear to be user-friendly,unthreatening and uncontaminated by

bureaucratic practices. While that is insome ways understandable and positive,there can be no escaping the fact thatneither the LPP nor the CSP appearedout of thin air. They were presumablywritten by one or two individuals andthen amended and approved by a fewselect friends. Only after that were theylaunched for others to sign. Moreover,as already suggested, both platformshave a deep history, a history that canin fact be traced back to the rst fourcongresses of the Third International,to the International Left Opposition,to the Transitional programme andto the subsequent splits, fusions andfragmentations of the various FourthInternationals. Now, if we are to behonest, all that is top-down. And that isnot a criticism. I am not accusing thosewho wrote or signed the LPP and CSPof bad motives. I just happen to thinkthat they are wrong.

Three principlesSo what about improving the SocialistPlatform? We do not propose atthe moment to add a minimum

prog ramme to it. Tha t can wai t.We view the Socialist Platformas providing the main planks of amaximum programme along thelines of the opening section of theErfurt programme agreed by GermanMarxists in 1891.

Nowaday s it is a ult ra- lef tis tcommonplace to dismiss the Erfurt

programme as a reformist professionof faith. That is, of course, todeliberately ignore the call for thetransformation of the capitalist

private ownership of the means ofproduction - land and soil, pits andmines, raw materials, tools, machines,means of transportation - into social

property. It is to deliberately ignorethe call for the emancipation not onlyof the proletariat, but of the entirehuman race. It is to deliberatelyignore the call for the workinghaving to obtain political power.4

It is also to deliberately ignore thefact that Erfurt provided the model forthe programme of Marxists in Russia.A programme, almost needless to say,defended and developed by Lenin andthe Bolshevik wing of the RussianSocial Democratic Party. And let usnot forget that the one great faultlocated by Fredrick Engels in hiscritique was not the absence of blood-curdling references to revolution. No,it was the failure to include the demandfor the democratic republic. Therewas the fear of another anti-socialistclampdown, which he appreciated.But Engels desperately wanted aformulation to get the idea over -after all, our party and the workingclass can only come to power underthe form of the democratic republic.5

The maximum programme we areadvocating is based on three main

principles. One, extreme democracyin society, in the workplace, in thetrade unions and in the party. In otherwords, freedom of speech, regularelections, recallability, rotation ofofce-holders, etc. Two, workingclass political independence.Deals with other parties, yes, whennecessary, but no governmentalcoalitions with parties committedto running capitalism. The workingclass must be organised into itsown political party, a party thataspires to conquer political powerfor the working class and abolishcapitalism. Three, the workingclass is international. Its liberationrequires global action and globalcoordination. Therefore our partydoes not just offer solidarity to theworking class in France, Germany,Greece, Iran, Egypt, etc. They areour brothers and sisters and as suchwe envisage organising togetherin the closest unity, a CommunistInternational, in order to achieveour goal of human freedom. It isthese principles that we want to

strengthen, clarify and bring to thefore in the Socialist Platform.

We also need to be clear aboutwhat we are against. Does the 1945Labour government of Clement Attleehave anything to do with the rule ofthe working class? No, there wereconcessions to the working class, butthe Labour Party managed capitalism,tried to preserve the British empireand allied itself with US imperialism.What about Stalins USSR? Does ithave anything do with the socialismand the rule of the working class?

No, the Soviet working class wasa slave class. Nationalisation, thecollectivisation of agriculture and theelimination of unemployment is notthe same as socialism. What aboutCuba, China, Venezuela? Again, no,no and no - whatever the pretences,they are not examples of socialism.

But do we want to stop atsocialism, which, after all, must bea form of the state? No, we aim forsomething far higher. Socialism isthe rule of the working class, a classwhich is, however, already ceasingto be a class. Crucially, socialismis the transition to communism - aglobally organised society, whichknows no money, no state, no country,no womens oppression, no limit tohuman achievement. Only communismcan realise the principle, From eachaccording to their abilities; to eachaccording to their needs. In that sensesocialism is not an end to be fought forin its own right. Socialism is the meanstowards the goal of human freedom.

Why do we need the vision ofcommunism? It is both practical andnecessary. Throughout most of thenatural history of humanity we have

been communists. Class society hasbeen around for a mere 10,000 years.Our species has its origins going

back some 200,000 years. So there isnothing predestined, inborn or naturalabout greed, exploitation and sexualoppression. Indeed today withoutgetting rid of class society and movingtowards communism our species facesan uncertain future - war, pandemic,economic stagnation, global warming,etc. And, to say the least, the visionof communism would strengthen noend our current prospects in the classstruggle. Who is going to be the bestghters against cuts, privatisations,sackings, the victimisation of tradeunion reps? A class that clings tothe vain hope of returning to 1945?Or a class committed to realisingcommunism and human freedom. Oneonly needs ask the question to arriveat the answer.

Two other points.We think that the question of

Europe is of cardinal importance.The present formulation in SocialistPlatform is garbled, reads like a fudgeand is open to misrepresentation too.Replacing the European Union with aconfederation of socialist societies?6Socialist societies? Have we doneaway with the state? Do we considernations, borders a permanent featureof human life? Surely not.

The EU should certainly constituteour point of departure. We shouldorganise within and against the existingEU. Hence all perspectives based on,or which imply or pander to, the break-up of the EU - for example, through aBritish withdrawal - should be rejectedoutright. Socialism and the nationalismof official communisms Briti shroad to socialism and No2EU arecounterposed, unrelated, antithetical.

The bourgeoisie is highly unlikelyto realise a United States of Europe.It is surely impossible to form avoluntary union of capitalist statesin Europe. A Bonaparte, a Bismarck,a Hitler would be required. Hence,although we might expect German

power to increase considerably overthe coming period, the chances arethat the EU will stagger on as a highlyunbalanced confederacy with one

political crisis following another.So what should replace the EU

of the council of ministers, thecommissioners, the 28 member-statesand the treaties of Rome, Maastrichtand Lisbon? Our view is well known.The working class must come to powerover the whole of Europe. That is, itshould be stressed, an integral part ofa grand strategy for world revolution.The working class might rst movein a Brazil or a South Korea. Suchcountries could quite conceivablyconstitute themselves the globalvanguard. But, as things stand at

present, and for the foreseeable future,Europe alone offers the only realistic

prospect of a decisive breakthrough.It has the long socialist tradition, thedeep organisation and the accumulatedwealth needed for socialism. With theexample of a socialist Europe beforethem, the working masses in the thirdworld would soon be clamouring forrevolution. The working class in NorthAmerica would surely follow in quicktime and secure the nal and completevictory of socialism.

Nat ura lly, a soc ial ist Eur operequires a socialist constitution. Aconfederation is more or less whatwe have now. A loose combination ofstates. But the working class needscentralisation if it is to successfullycrush capitalist revolts and facedown the threat of US-sponsoredcounterrevolutionary war. That meansthe one and indivisible republic(Engels). Why on earth would wewant a situation where a Luxembourgor a Slovenia can opt out andconstitute themselves an organisingcentre for capitalist restoration? Theworking class would be well advisedto introduce a unified state. Yes,

power must be concentrated as far asnecessary and devolved downwardsas far as possible. Local autonomyand regional self-government do notcontradict the unied state.

Lastly, we have proposed anadditional clause to the SocialistPlatform - this came out of informaldiscussions at Communist University

betw een Left Unit y members . Acommon accusation coming fromsupporters of LPP is that the SocialistPlatform is set on excluding people.If we are honest, that contains a truth.However, all parties draw lines whichdistinguish between who can be andwho cannot be a member. Churchesand trade unions, football and chessclubs, Facebook groups and debatingsocieties do the same. Of course, theaim is to convince millions to join us

because we have convinced them, wonthem to our vision of socialism andhuman freedom.

But we are not insisting thatmembers have to agree witheverything in the aims and principles,let alone the full programme. Theremust be room for learning fromexperience, for disagreement, forthose who argue for an alteration tothis or that clause. As long as this doesnot involve a challenge to fundamental

principles, such arguments can be andshould be contained. Hence we saythat members of Left Unity should berequired to accept, not agree with,its aims and principles.

In other words, members are beingasked to view democratically arrivedat programmatic positions as the basisof joint action. That goes hand in handwith the right to form platforms orfactions - call them what you may.Members can organise together withco-thinkers and publicly argue fortheir positions. Without that LeftUnity would shrivel into just anotherconfessional sect. And that is in theinterests of no-one l

Notes1. http://leftunity.org/left-party-platform-state-ment.2. www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html.3. http://leftunity.org/the-class-struggle-platform.4. www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm.5. K Marx and F Engels CWVol 27, London1990, pp225-26.6. http://leftunity.org/socialist-platform-statement-of-aims-and-principles.


8/12

8weekly


LEFT UNITY

Self-liberation, not manipulationNick Wrackwas the second speaker at the Fighting for a mass party session

Comrades, rst of all, I wouldlike to thank the CPGB forinviting me to participate in

this discussion, and I think the waythat Jack has approached this isimportant: it is a discussion, as far asI am concerned, rather than a debatebetwee n antagon istic positions. InLeft Unity and in the broader labourmovement there is the need for anexploration of the sort of ideas thatcan arm the working class for itsstrategic objective, which is to takepowe r. So the se dis cus sion s areextremely important.

I would also like to pick up ona metaphor that Jack used in hisopening contribution. I do not knowif he is historically or geographicallycorrect in terms of the migrations of

people in Polynesia, but the metaphoris similar to one I have used in the

past concerning Darwins nches inthe Galapagos Islands. Darwin notedthat the same species was present ondifferent islands, but they had beenseparated for so long that a largenumber of varieties had developed -different permutations of tail feathers,colours and so on. Yet it was clear thatthey were all still nches.

And the Marxist left in manyways is like this. The separation ofthe different groups, for reasons thatwe do not have time to go into today- whether it is the Socialist WorkersParty, the Socialist Party, SocialistResistance, Workers Power or theCPGB - have ended up on theirown little islands. Society and eventhe labour movement is so big thateach of these groups can go alongquite happily without coming intoany proper contact - or debate ordiscussion - with the others. So welearn our own terminology and insideour own meetings we know exactlywhat we mean by a certain word. Wedevelop our own methods and tacticsand these things become habituated inour very being as socialist activists.We really need to dismantle those

bar rie rs - to bring those isl andstogether - and start talking.

And it is very important when weare talking that we dene the termsthat we use. Inside Left Unity therehas been a lot of talk as to whetherwe should call ourselves socialists,whether we should openly state thatour aim is socialism. I think it is veryimportant to understand that different

people are saying these things for anumber of reasons.

Some do so because they aregenuinely not socialists - they arehostile to socialism. One LU supporterrecently posted a comment saying heis a mutualist - he has clearly thoughtabout it and decided that he is not asocialist. If I did some research intomutualism I might nd that we haveareas of agreement, but the point isthat he declares he is not a socialist.

There are other people who,because of the defeat s and thesetbacks of our class over the last 30years particularly, think that in orderto advance we must refrain fromcalling ourselves socialist or talkingabout socialism - the word itself has

been tainted or tarnished. There is,of course, a large element of truth inthat, so it is important not merely tocriticise such people: we must engagethem in that discussion.

There are, though, other peopleexpressing similar views who aredyed-in-the-wool, committed,convinced Marxists - the words thatthey use and the discussion in theirmeetings are about the revolutionarytransformation of society. I regardsuch people as comrades, but I do notagree with them on this point. I do not

agree that in order to get from wherewe are now to where we hope to be inthe future - that is, in a position wherethe working class is able to take powerand transform society - we must arguefor less than what we believe in. I ndthis deeply disturbing, troubling andworrisome. But it actually reflectsan approach which I would like toelaborate upon.

Alternative visionBut first let me respond to Jackscontribution, pretty much all ofwhich I agree with. I think that the

proposed amendments to the SocialistPlatform statement put forward bythe CPGB are very interesting andI am completely open to discussingthese at our meeting on September14. We have already added someformulations, such as our objectionto imperialist wars and militaryinterventions, which was not in theoriginal draft. No doubt there may

be things we will have to expressdifferently or add to.

I agree with Jack on one of thecentral themes: our vision. Whatinspires us? What inspired each of usto become a communist, a Marxist, asocialist, a revolutionary? It was theidea that all the shit (which is whatit is) that we have to put up with inour daily lives, all the impediments

and obstacles that our families haveto endure - whether it is our parents,as they get older, or our children orgrandchildren with all their incredibletalents, abilities and potential - simplyhold them back in so many ways.

Yet we believe in the power ofour class and the process of change

because of our unde rsta nding ofhistory. We believe that there is analternative. And when we say that thereis an alternative, we do not mean thatthere is an alternative way of doingcapitalism (and in this connectionthere is something in the debate thatneeds to be teased out: when in theLeft Party Platform statement theywrite, There is an alternative, weneed to ask, Well, what is it?)

It is all very well talking about analternative in terms of the need to taxthe rich and spend more. Dont getme wrong: I am not opposed to that.But the alternative I am talking aboutis a fundamental, root-and-branchtransformation of the very way inwhich society is organised. So that itis no longer organised in the interestsof a tiny class - less than one percent ofthe population; so that it is organisedin the interests of the mass, of themajority, of the whole of humanity, sothat everybody can aspire to whateverit is they want.

What is our ultimate goal? It is

a classless society. It is a society ofabundance. It is a society withouta state. This is our vision of a newsociety, in which everyone candevelop to their fullest potential andwhere Marxs aphorism, From eachaccording to their ability; to eachaccording to their need, can be putinto practice.

Today children in some partsof the world do not have a hope inhell of getting to the age of five,millions of women still die in labour,two billion people live on lessthan a pound a day. Yet we have atremendous, inspirational vision forhumanity - almost seven billion peopleacross the planet - for a completelydifferent form of society. That visionis something that we should not justmeekly put forward in discussionswith the few with whom we talk aboutsocialism: we should be proclaimingwhat the Marxists of the past wouldcall the good news! It may sound a

bit religious, and I am not a religiousperson, but Have you heard the goodnews? That you do not have to livelike this? That your children and yourgrandchildren do not have to grow upin the same society as you? We arecombating an ideology - an ideologythat has been reinforced over the lastseveral decades, and this is part of the

problem we are confronting.

I think that even amongst a sectionof the Marxists condence has beendented. So we have got to go out andtell people how things can be different.We must begin a debate, a dialogue.Part of creating a new party whichaims for an alternative to austerityand to the destruction of things thatwe have grown used to surely is toactually say what that alternative is.It is not just If we tax the banks andthe rich we will have a bit more moneyfor this or that. That is merely puttinga little bit of sugar on the gruel, whenwhat we want is a full, bountiful meal.We must inspire people with our aims,our visions.

An ideological offensive hasundermined the idea of change:Things have always been like this;You cant change things, so just acceptyour lot. But there are examples of analternative throughout history and wehave to be the people who point to it,who insist that actually you can changethings and that society itself, lifeitself, is a constant process of change.And what we want is a fundamentalchange, a fundamental breach withthis system, with capitalism. If youwant to call it a revolution, then, yes,call it a revolution.

I agree with what Jack talked aboutin terms of the programme, because theSocialist Platform has been criticisedfor being inexact about the transitionfrom capitalism to socialism - as if weought to include in the programmehow we perceive the molecular

process of the revolution will progressin the future. People are critical of the

platform because it does not mentionsoviets, for example. For me that isnot something that should go into the

platform statement; rather we shouldstress the independence of the class, theclass acting for itself, armed with theideas that we have begun to elaborateand to which others can be added.

This platform is obviously part ofa discussion which is ongoing in LeftUnity. But it is not just a discussion forLeft Unity: it is for the whole labourmovement. We need to be trying tocreate a discussion throughout theentire society. We want a discussionabout the nature of the society thatwe live in, about the nature of theeconomy that dominates our lives;about the people who run our society.Let us try to have this debate andchallenge people to discuss it with us.

Imagine if a Left Unityspokesperson is invited onto

Newsnight, for example, and is askedthe question, What sort of party isyour party? Are they going to answer,A socialist party? And if they areasked, What do you mean by that?they will have to have answers. Doyou mean like the Labour Party in1945? Well, do we? No, we dont!However many reforms the Labourgovernment implemented, anyonewith eyes can see that it is all beingtaken away. Why? Because, so longas capitalism remains in place, anyreforms, any gains will be constantlyunder threat and will eventually betaken away if we do not act to preventthat. We want to live in a societywhere we do not have to get up in themorning facing another campaign tosave another hospital. Strange as itmay seem, we want a society wherethere are hospitals and medicine foreverybody.

Put people off?One of the criticisms that I just ndhard to comprehend is that if we putthese ideas forward we will put peopleoff. Let me put together a combinationof different arguments by way ofexample: You want a narrow party,

Not our vision of socialism


9/12

9weekly


it is said. Yes, I want a party of justme! That way I can avoid havingdisagreements (though even then I amconstantly arguing and disagreeingwith myself).

No, actually we want a pa rty ofmillions. We think that we can geta party of millions. Why? Becausewe are confident in our ideas. Wethink that if we explain our ideas,

pai nst aki ngl y, slo wly, pat ien tly,enthusiastically, in all sorts of differentmedia, we will be able to persuade

people. Frankly, if what we are sayingis too narrow, if those ideas are notcapable of enthusing and inspiringmillions of people, then we may aswell pack up now. Society cannot betransformed; there can be no socialisttransformation, in fact, there will beno revolution unless it is carried out

by the majority in society, the workingclass majority.

So this argument actually goes backto the comprehension of both what arevolution is and what a revolutionary

party is. Is a revolution a conscious actof the majority of the working classwho have been won to socialist ideas?Or is it the act of a minority in society,a putschist or a Blanquist approach tochange? I am not in favour of that. Ido not think it can work.

But hang on a second. Some ofthe people who say that the SocialistPlatform is too narrow are, as I haveestablished, themselves Marxists andactually probably agree with 90% ofthe platform, though they may write itin a different style (and I would haveno problem with that). But to those

people who do agree with the platformand then say that it is too narrow Iwould ask: So how are you going tochange things? Youre recruiting toyour group on the basis that you saythat your interpretation of Marxism iscorrect, but isnt it largely in line withwhat our platform says? And if youthink that the Socialist Platform is toonarrow then doesnt it follow that yourown programme is too narrow as well?And if your own programme is toonarrow shouldnt we all give up andgo and do something else? The fact isour platform is not too narrow at all.

We recognise where we are startingfrom. We are realists. (And here inlarge part I agree with the criticismsJack made of the Workers Power

platform - even from the point ofview of todays tactics I do not thinkthey start where we are in terms of theclass. I still hope that Workers Powerwill support the Socialist Platform.)So who are we going to put off?We may not persuade everybodyimmediately - in fact, I know wewill not! But I would rather startwith ideas that are clear, not vagueand nebulous and capable of anynumber of different interpretations.To build anything that will last youneed to get the foundations correct.You can always add to it in numerousways once they are in place. It is not aquestion of just laying down the bricksin any old order, using a bit of thismaterial and a bit of that material, asthough it doesnt really matter whatwe do with them because all we needto do is build something now. We needto be clear from the beginning what itis we are trying to do.

Another argument alleges:Youre only interested in abstract

propaganda. The obverse of thatis that we are not interested incampaigns. You do wonder sometimesif the people making these accusationsabout the Socialist Platform haveactually read anything that thosewho support it have written or said.

No socialist worth their salt ignoresthe active day-to-day struggle thatour class is engaged in. We supportit, we participate in it. But we try todo more - and that has nothing to dowith elitism or hectoring. If wecan give concrete tactical advice inrelation to a particular struggle, then,yes, great. But we also try to locateeach particular ght within the greater

class struggle - the battle in societyover the surplus. What about a battlewhere the end result is one where weare in control of what is produced, sowe do not need to have those day-to-day battles any more?

Let us go back to the criticism thatYoull put people off. Place yourselfin Lewisham when a few months ago25,000 people marched to save theirhospital. Now I do not know whatthe political views of the majority ofthat crowd were, but I do know thatthey were in favour of defending thehospital. So we say to them, yes, wehave to ght to save this hospital, butwe will surely end up talking about

politics in general. As communists,as socialists, we will surely explainhow that struggle ts into our visionof society as a whole - a vision of asociety where there would be medicalfacilities and healthcare freely available

because the people would controlproduction and determine how labour-time is allocated and what it produces.Presumably the person we are talkingto will then say, I cant talk to you anymore - youve put me off. Im onlyinterested in saving the hospital.

The thing is, when you begin tobreak it down, the argument is quitebonkers. I am not saying that everyconversation we have ends up withsomeone becoming a committedMarxist, but isnt that actually howwe allstart?

People new to politics read anews story or see an image. Perhapsit is a hospital closure, a policeman

beating up a student or a young blackkid. Perhaps it is Marikana or Egypt.But it makes their blood boil. Youcan imagine young kids searchingout answers on the internet and

coming across Marxism, socialism,communism and they start lookinginto it. They think, this is reallyinteresting. We want a party for themto turn to, a party that spreads thoseideas and over a period of time buildsup an army of persuaders, of activistswho will disseminate the ideas ofsocialist change.

Anti-capitalist?However, the argument continues,No, in this period, we have totailor things down so we dont upsetanyone, so nobody walks away.The Left Party Platform talks aboutanti-capitalist parties in Europe,whose example we should follow.Well, yes, I am in favour of ananti-capitalist party. But then thecomrades go on to describe them asanti-capitalist parties that stand againneoliberalism. For me, there is a

problem in that formulation. Becauseif you are standing against capitalismthat is one thing, but if you are againstneoliberalism then that is somethingdifferent. Now people would say that Iam a pedant. But it is important in myopinion to have a degree of pedantryin these things. We are not just againstneoliberalism. If we say that it givesthe impression that somehow wecan go back to a capitalism beforeneoliberalism which will allow us tostop austerity.

Maybe that is the 1945 thing -though, to be fair to Ken Loach, I donot actually think that is what his lmwas saying. Some comrades thinkthat Ken Loach is somehow callingfor a return to the post-war Labourgovernment, but The spirit of 45 isabout how the yearning for change, forsocialist transformation, was betrayed

by social democracy. Social democracyjust tinkered with things: it took theplate of gruel that you would not wantto eat and sprinkled some sugar on it,attemp

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ferneaux81
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Workers Weekly issue975

Documents