Over the last few months every edition of the Weekly Worker has carried at least one article about Workers Liberty. Headlines have included "Pro Imperialists Snubbed", "ENS must Break with AWL Social - Imperialism" and "[AWL] On the Defensive over Iraq". The main purpose of these articles seems to be to win over comrades from the AWL or ENS who support Troops Out or Troops Out Now perspective on Iraq to the politics of the CPGB (or at least to cause ructions and disruption in AWL & ENS). Members of the CPGB have tried to offer me and others "help" in our debate on Iraq. I obviously have declined these generous offers. With the CPGB trying to act as an external faction of Workers Liberty I think it is important to understand why their approach is fundamentally un-marxist and alien to working class politics.
On a superficial level the CPGBs perspectives on Iran, popular frontism and other matters seem closer to our perspectives then many other left wing groups. Yet in reality they do not play any active part in the class struggle and are disdainful of and hostile towards the existing international workers movement. When the Weekly worker bothers to talk about strikes and unions they spend their time attacking the "apolitical" & "tailist" role plaid by the left in these struggles. In an article headlined "Union Struggles need political leadership" Peter Manson argues that workers struggles will remain defensist until a marxist party is in place to lead these struggles. Comrade Manson says "We can ourselves immediately take steps towards that formation without having to rely on the union lefts. Unfortunately, however the rest of the left is far away from principled marxist unity."
The CPGB shows how it believes principled marxist unity can be built from the large amount of paper-space the WW gives to arguments within the Campaign for a Marxist Party (CPM). If anyone bothers to read these articles (which I don't recommend) you will see they often revolve around preparing detailed draft programmes. This approach goes for the CPGB itself and the HOPI as well. They criticise Solidarity for the apparent vageness and lack of detail shown in the "Where We Stand" statement. Yet this highlights their total misunderstanding of the Marxist conception of history and of the working class struggle. As Engels said in Anti-Duhring "When we reflect on nature or the history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless maze of connections and interactions, in which nothing remains where and as it was, but everything moves changes and passes away."
This change in material conditions hurtles forward through the process of contradictions being created and resolved (the dialectic). Consequently marxist's see the working class struggle as a movement, it does not stand still and its organisations are built upon the material conditions of class society. The forms of organisation and the demands of the class in struggle change. Marxist programmes must come from the class in its current state of consciousness but point to the conclusion that the working class must seize power, that is the test. The CPGBs conception of a programme is a mixture of stale dogma, posturing and abstract reasoning . This approach lacks any understanding of the objective material conditions of our class. This is why I think it can be correctly described as idealist.
Another key part of their approach is the primary importance of political organisation as opposed to "Economism". I asked Ben Lewis of CPGB what he thought was the role of socialists in trade unions, he said to act as "Communists". This in itself is something we would obviously agree with in general. However what it means to Comrade Lewis and the rest of the CPGB in practice is to use the unions to build their party. This is both cynical and utopian. The class consciousness of the working class is only born in struggle. Unions represent the basic and primary organisation of the working class and is an expression of basic class consicousness. Union action and workers struggles are always political, social and economic struggles. Marxists should be at the forefront of these economic struggles and at the same time always bring forward the political question. Instead the CPGB is indifferent to these economic questions. It criticisies those leftists involved in organising unions but then expect that the union members can be won to the CPGBs politics. Jean-Paul Sartre said "In order that there should be consciousness and struggle, it is necessary that somebody should be fighting". True marxists see that they should be at the forefront of struggles, the CPGB seem to want to benefit from the fighting done by others.
Their idealism often leads them into becoming moralistic. They see the workers movment as it is, not as the only force that will bring about a workers state. They denounce the inadequacy of the politics of Mansuor Osanloo and the iranian workers movement for not being anti war enough. They do not understand that marxists are partisans of the working class movement, contradictory consciousness and all. Workers self organisation will start with confused or inadequate politics but through struggle political consciousness will be raised. This is why we offer practical solidarity to all workers in struggle against capitalism. We understand that the political organisation we want to see will be forged during economic and social struggle not through meaningless draft programmes and denounciations.
Comments
Interestingly much of the
Interestingly much of the left does not seem very interested in debate- witness the Socialist Workers' Party site and the Socialist Party site both closed to comments. However, both the AWL and CPGB do, to their credit, seem interested in debate- unfortunately in both cases it seems at least some of the time compromised by rudeness. Also here a little plug for Permanent Revolution
Dave’s piece by the standards of some isn’t too bad at all though does make the occasional sweeping statement. The CPGC have for example played a fairly leading role in HOPI now backed by the PCS and ASLEF- not insignificant.
The AWL certainly have positions on Iraq, Palestine and Ireland with which I disagree and have on occasion been labelled ‘kitsch’, ‘idiot’, ‘reactionary’ or some such label (though by no means always). Notwithstanding this there are large areas where we would have a principled agreement and in some cases a reasonable discussion over disagreements whilst undertaking joint work where we do agree.
The relative openness to debate in these organisations is a definite plus and members of both should in my opinion come to the Convention of the Left this September in Manchester to further explore ways of working together and Marxist and wider discussion on issues of disagreement.
Certainly clarification of ideas will come about through participation in struggle, drawing in new activists and openness to discussion with these and existing activists.
This debate can also be read here Ben of CPGB's blog
Where is this debate then?
Jason,
You welcome the openness of both the AWL and PR to debate. Yet every time the AWL approaches PR for a debate you refuse claiming you have better things to do. So perhaps I should take your claim with a pinch of salt?
As for the Convention of the Left, you will know that the AWL is supporting it. However as things are shaping up I am increasingly doubtful that it will produce the kind of debate that's necessary - what you describe as "Marxist and wider discussion on issues of disagreement". Last Thursday's meeting rejected a proposal (supported for their own reasons by the SWP)to have a debate on the queestion of the unions' relation to the Labour Party. PR (Bill, if I remember) argued against having it on the grounds that you could tell in advance what people would say and the debate wouldn't convince anyone. The proposal was defeated (though votes are never taken at these meetings)after the chair argued, without the proposal even having been moved by me, that we should concentrate on what unites us rather thsn the history of the left. It therefore looks like there will be little or no discussion of the relation between Labour amd the Unions - a major strategic issue for the left - at the Convention. PR went along with this - so I would be interested to know what exactly your conception of the Convention is. Mark H said he thought it should be about masking basic socialist propaganda - which seems to me to show a completely mistaken idea of who the Convention is aimed at.
So where is your debate in practice then?
Bruce R
Hello, Bruce.
Hello, Bruce.
On a couple of quick points- you're out of date on our rejecting debate with the AWL. When over a year ago PR was approached to debate the AWL on imperialism it is true that we declined due to other pressing engagements- pressing engagements there were but we did discuss in PR prioritising time to debate with other elft curretns and now are very open to it as your comrade Sacha will attest having accepted recently an invitation from him.
On the Convention due to 1) exam preparation 2) adoption 3) my partner's mother being ill I have been unable to attend last three meetings (I'm just pursuing debate here as a break from psychology revision!) though I did go to an excellent meeting on antifascist activity that came out of the Convention planning process.
There certainly is something to be said for a debate about approaches to the Labour party, new workers' party (ies), union affiliation and other matters. I for one would welcome such a debate (even if we do know in advance what people will say- the point is to tease out differences and potential points of agreement) but if the Convention organisers on a democratic vote turned it down then I hardly think it is matter for disputing the value of the whole initiative (by the way Bill may disagree with me- we do not have monolithic positions or party lines on these matters!) These points will come out in discussion anyway- more important in my opinion is developing a series of united front campaigns and action points to draw in new activists.
You write, "Mark H said he thought it should be about masking basic socialist propaganda - which seems to me to show a completely mistaken idea of who the Convention is aimed at." I presume you meant 'making' rather than 'masking' could be an interesting Freudian slip?! As I know Mark quite well I presume his point is that in the unions, community campaigns or whatever other areas we are involved we should make arguments for the centrality of class, of organisation, of linking the struggles etc. The audience will be those in the class already active (which whilst a minority is well beyond the current left) as well as those angry who can be attracted to action if the arguments are presented in the right way.
So what should the Convention do? I think that- establish some real campaigns and networks either strengthening previously existing ones or creating new ones and show in practice a left open to debate and common action to have definite results as well as further meetings down the line perhaps including the one you propose.
Another good result I think would be to begin to organise united meetings of rank and file activists from several public sector unions perhaps including looking at standing in elections but primarily looking at organising class struggle and genuine antifascist initiatives.
Another might be to co-ordinate a fightback on a particular issue uniting the left of the unions, the Labour party and the left groups to actually win on something- e.g. against welfare attacks, against evictions, against the war or whatever is topical then.
What should the Convention of the Left do?
No retreat
If the Convention of the Left is being 'shaped' so as to concentrate discussion on issues of general agreement, then it will be pretty useless. The Left has to face some facts and do some accounting on issues like the legacy of Stalinist thinking, the Labour Party, working-class political representation, independent working class politics etc... To do otherwise simply replicates the sort of thinking that created 'Respect' and which still motivates some sections of the 'Left' into cross-class alliances, an abandonment of working class politics, liberation and democracy.
Playing down the differences is a comfortable strategy for those in political retreat ... it makes the retreat all the easier. Those of us who see the need to 're-shape' the Left, who are fighting the retreat from independent working class politics, should not kid ourselves that a week long festival of consensus will do anything other than secure a few recruits for you-know-who.
TomU
I agree that there needs to
I agree that there needs to be a wide ranging discussion of issues including the whole history of the left, revolution versus reform, how we can argue for revolutionary politics, tactics to win workers away from reformism, the workers' party tactics etc.
However, Tom I think is quite mistaken to pose it as currently organised as "a week long festival of consensus". One of the main ideas behind the convention is to practically plan and begin to implement some action for a practical strategy to fight back against the attacks of the ruling class vis a vis privatisation, attacks on pay, racism, fascism, attacks on migrants- deportations, benefit attacks, immigration raids- more geenralised attacks on welfare etc.
This is not counterposed to discussion and I think it is a false polarisation to pose it in this way. We can create a movement or at least begin to take some steps towards this whilst simultaneously having these discussions. To pose it as first needing the discussionsas I fear Tom does only gives ground to those who claim we first need to build the movement. No- we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can plan action and networks of militants whilst having a discussion about representation and the need for revolutionary politics in the context of the action so planned.
Build a 'movement' on what basis
Jason,
I was involved in building a 'movement' that very quickly degenerated into popular frontism ... aligning itself with Islamo-fascists, Lib Dems, Tories - just about anyone who (yes, you guessed it) 'opposed the war'. I was politically mis-educated: I came from a reformist democratic socialist background, I had ill-defined anti-war notions. The people who (mis)'educated' me into revolutionary politics were not interested in discussion or debate. The SWP operates on the basis of a forced consensus where either you agree with the 'Party Line' or you're out. Why did the anti-war movement degenerate so quickly and in such a disturbing way? Because those leading the organisation thought they could get others to walk and chew their own particular brand of gum at the same time - with no room for debate or disagreement.
Both PR and the AWL are small socialist organisations. We both think we have something distinctive to say about Marxist politics, the direction of the labour movement, how to build campaigns etc... I want to be able to argue through these political ideas in order to purge certain ideas from the rest of the Left - to restore independent working class politics. The two are not mutually exclusive. AWL members are involved in anti-fascist, environmental campaigns ... are involved in sharp debates inside the LRC and the unions. The fact that we fight for our politics does not stop us from 'building the movement' - quite the opposite in fact.
Now - from what I understand of the organisisng process for the Convention, certain areas of discussion have been dropped (by 'consensus') in order to maintain the 'consensus' of the event. When you talk about 'creating a movement' I really have no idea what you mean. A 'movement' to do what? Based on what sort of politics? Composed of what sort of people?
When you say 'movement' do you really mean the 'labour movement' or are you takling about a 'movement' made up of the various small socialist organisations and the scattering of individuals who turn up to the Convention? If it's the former then we certainly need to thrash out our combined approach to mobilising the labour movement on a democratic and fighting basis. From what I understand of PR's politics there are some substantial areas of disagreement between our two organisations. There are even bigger differences between ourselves and the SWP and SP. Surely we should discuss them? If it's the latter then: (1) Why? (2) What? (3) When? (4) How?
Tom
building a movement on what basis
Hi Tom
Good questions which made me think about what it is precisely I am proposing.
I am talking about taking steps to recreate a working class movement- a labour movement if you like but one that links workplace struggles with community campaigns for example against privatisation, for example against a deportation, for example against a school closure.
Now if the Convention can draw together some activists from these sort of different campaigns as well as and including the various left groups, trade unionists, labour lefts etc. then this is useful in itself I’d argue.
Within these campaigns we’d argue for a series of concrete campaigning demands and of course for socialist answers to the burning needs of working class communities. You complain about drawing in just about anyone who opposes the war and I think I can see your frustration with the SWP’s approach that accommodates its politics to what it sees as leaders and thereby politically miseducates its own activists and those in its orbit.
But let’s be specific for a moment. Suppose we are trying to build a campaign against Academies. We would be for mobilising anyone in working class communities who opposes academies: for mass demonstrations, for strikes, for collections for the strikers, for walkouts by students, for connecting the campaigns. As socialists we in PR and presumably you in AWL as well as some others would argue for schools and colleges to be run by the working class- for governing bodies comprising education workers, other workers from the local community and trade union movement and students.
The Convention of the Left can begin to discuss some practical ideas and make some links but if it’s going to get anywhere it has to have a plan, a strategy to take things forward. This for example could include building a conference of labour movement and community delegates to take forward the fights against privatisation.
As part of this I am personally in favour of something like a loose version of the Socialist Alliance not as another failed flawed electoral project where we dump our politics but as an organising network of different socialist groups to discuss precisely the sort of issues you suggest, to undertake common action, not to pretend or elide real differences but to have the discussions in the real world context of actually existing struggles.
On the Labour party disaffiliation I’m not against having another meeting on this. Why not? It is a discussion that needs to be had. But I’d much prefer to have it alongside debates and active planning about how to link together the various strikes against pay cuts- can we bring out the RMT, Unite fuel tanker drivers, teachers, civil servants, health workers and others together. Can we begin to use the shop stewards’ network to really begin to organise action in defiance of the anti-union laws?
A meeting on trade union LP affiliation is fine and I’d be for including it but it needs to be a stepping stone to local and regional trade union meetings discussing representation in the context of linking struggles perhaps committed to the idea of stranding working class candidates against Brown’s Labour party. If this meeting cannot take place at the Convention then we can have this discussion out anyway here, on the convention of the left blog, on Permanent Revolution , Liam’s site , Socialist Unity at our summer school and yours, at the antifascist event in August, at the convention during other meetings and actually start practically planning and organising such a series of workers’ meetings.
Let’s aim big and let’s have as a medium term plan the construction of a revolutionary party. The AWL and PR and SWP and the ex-SWP and ISG in Respect all have fundamental differences as well as areas of agreement. I’m not for eliding them at all but I am for unity in action and for a united revolutionary socialist party- not in the immediate term but something we should be aiming to create in the next few years. But unless we are creating and recreating a labour movement that organises working class militants into community and workplace campaigns and starts chalking up victories we won’t be progressing forward. I totally agree that the “The two are not mutually exclusive…. The fact that we fight for our politics does not stop us from 'building the movement' - quite the opposite in fact. “
Jason
"not against having another meeting on this"!
I'm glad you're not against it - shame you weren't at the last COL meeting to argue against your comrades who were. But being "not against" is not the same thing as recognising that the destruction of democratic channels between the Labour Party and affiliated unions - a process that has gone unchallenged by the union leadership and most of the Left for that matter - is a massive defeat for the working class. What, exactly, makes you think that the unions will get up and fight the Govn on pay etc... if the leadership refused to fight the Govn on this issue? A discussion in the light of this defeat seems to me to be a central necessity - not something that socialists should be "not against" but an issue that socialists should be actively (and as a matter of urgency) taking up.
TomU
in favour of meetings and action
When I say I'm not against a meeting on this it is in the context of arguing for specific action. Meetings are of course necessary to plan action and one option would be to have such a meeting at the COTL. But if it can't be held there there's no reason why it can't be organised elsewhere- it's an inconvenience but not one that can't be overcome/
As I argued in my earlier post
"Can we begin to use the shop stewards’ network to really begin to organise action in defiance of the anti-union laws?
A meeting on trade union LP affiliation is fine and I’d be for including it but it needs to be a stepping stone to local and regional trade union meetings discussing representation in the context of linking struggles perhaps committed to the idea of stranding working class candidates against Brown’s Labour party."
This will require a series of meetings held by local and regional trade union bodies. And we certainly cannot depend on trade union leaders- that's why it is important to begin organising at the rank and file level and start joining up the dots.
If we're serious about this there may be a way to still hold a meeting around this at COTL- although I understand the agenda is tight there's always a way. And if not and certainly anyway we should try to progress the idea of seriosuly addressing tactics on this. What do you suggest?
I agree with all that as far
Abstract
Within the limits of our own resources, the AWL carries out all the things outlined in the above post.
What's abstract is the fantasy of transforming the COTL into an organisation that will transform the labour movement without talking about the 'difficult' issues. It reminds me of the Workers Power fantasy of establishing dual power through local, European and World Social Forums.
There's a difference between enthusiasm for a particular project - like the COTL - and fantasy about the state of the British Left.
TomU
that would indeed be abstract
Fortunately no one, that I know of anyway, is under that illusion. It's a series of meetings that will discuss all sorts of issues - power, representation, campaigns etc- and at the best it may start a process that begins to address vital questions and may lead to initiatives that can begin to rebuild the labour movement and perhaps even transform the left (in the longer term- not at the COTL but from initiatives arising from it- sorry to labour the point but I am trying to avoid any misunderstandings).
I'm not saying this will happen- if you had to bet the odds aren't great- but that it should be our aim in the longer term and at the best see the COTL as a stepping stone to planning and discussing how wuch a process could take place. I think we should be enthusiastic about it and it presents an opportunity to draw together activists and socialists and at least start having those sort of conversations.
Of course some people will make enthusiastic comments about the conference- good! It wouldn't be much good to say, "come to this meeting where we'll sit around in a room and argue and not much will come out of it". That is of course a danger with any meeting but if we collectively put in the efofort now to try to avoid that we'll have a chance. Part of that effort is surely promoting the conference. However, if anyone was making grandiose claims about it being historic or suggesting his conference will single-handed transform the labour movement it would be OTT- but as I say I don't think people are saying this.
To see what people are saying see COTL website
Ben Lewis & Chris Leary's response
Hi
Ben Lewis from the CPGB has responded to he above piece. It can be found at:
http://benjamin-edgar-klein.blogspot.com/2008/05/throw-enough-shit-and-…
I am writing a reply, but in the meantime our Comrade Chris Leary has responded.
Dave