Unwilling to debate the AWL in public, the so-called CPGB continues its snipping at us from the safe distance of its paper. In the latest WW (748) Lawrence Parker, apparently a “writer on the revolutionary oppositions within the post-war Communist Party” takes up our political characterisation of the CPGB as third period Stalinists.
Much of Parker’s article is simply personal abuse. Unable to pin the charge of drunkenness on me, they resort to insults like “oafmeister”, “dozy”, “sychophant” and bizarrely, “censor” and “silencer”. Whereas some of us were once flattered by WW guru Jack as thinkers and deemed worthy enough to speak at their schools, now we’re all stupid. It doesn’t exactly set the tone for rational debate – but then that’s not the WW’s aim.
Much of the rest of Parker’s piece is pure amalgam. Apparently members of the CPB, publishers of the Morning Star – have also called the WW third period Stalinists. So has the AWL. Ergo, the AWL has similar opportunist politics to the CPB. Parker obviously fails to see the irony in his methods – precisely the kind of logic-chopping, cut-and-paste, dishonest polemical technique pioneered by the Stalinists from the late 1920s.
What is the positive content of our characterisation of the CPGB as third period Stalinists? Two parallels spring to mind:
First, the WW witchhunting of Sean Matgamna over his article on Iran – threats to drive him and the AWL out of the labour movement – i.e. the sort of treatment reserved for fascists. This type of behaviour originated with the Stalinists in the late 1920s, when they expelled Trotskyists from the ranks of the Communist Parties, physically broke up Trotskyist meetings and attacked our militants and dubbed opponents “social-fascists”.
Second, the classless “anti-imperialism” now so widespread on the left was developed during the third period (1928-34), for example by Bukharin at the sixth congress of the Comintern in 1928. It was at variance with earlier Bolshevik efforts to understand the combined and uneven development of the world economy and the corresponding relations between states. This has been carried over by the WW today, for example by making its demand for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq instead of prioritising solidarity with the emerging labour movement. It is also evident when they make it a condition of doing solidarity work on Iran that supporters have to accept shibboleths like “troops out now” and adopt a shrill hostility towards Israel – rather than focusing on Iranian workers actually fighting the regime.
Rather than actually discuss the witchhunting behaviour, Parker simply ignores it. Rather than debate the politics of our assessment, Parker merely offers more abuse. In short all he succeeds in demonstrating is that for all the rhetoric, the CPGB really have not broken from the Stalinist tradition al all.
Paul
