Letters

Pardon me

Let me first of all congratulate the Weekly Worker on getting round to publishing the letters of Nick Clarke and Mary Ward. But I’m writing to comment upon some points raised by Steve Riley’s article (‘One-sided analysis’ Weekly Worker July 30).

The CPGB has made much of the failure of other groups to see the counterrevolutions of 1989-91 for what they were. Yet more recently ‘analysis’ by Jack Conrad of the USSR and other states, defunct or still existing, has tossed around phrases like “dystopias” and “freak societies”. What is particularly galling about this is that no political accounting has been rendered. Jack Conrad has not repudiated what The Leninist/CPGB wrote in the past. It is as though the CPGB has gone from ‘Down with Solidarnosc’ to ‘Down with the Soviet Union’ while still pretending that it has not changed its line.

Of course, it is still maintained that the CPGB does not have a ‘line’ on the USSR or other states. Well, as far as I can make out, the Weekly Worker does, and if I am not wrong the Weekly Worker is the official publication of the CPGB. Proof of a line existing is an episode that occurred at the start of 1995. I had just returned from Cuba, where I had taken part in a Cuba Solidarity Campaign brigade that went there. For the Weekly Worker, I wrote an article about Cuba and my stay, critical of this or that aspect of what I saw in the country but still broadly supportive of it.

My article was published, but interestingly, a ‘personal viewpoint’ rubric was placed over it. The only reason I can see for this is that what I wrote did not reflect the ‘official viewpoint’ of the Weekly Worker/CPGB, a viewpoint which supposedly does not exist ...

I agree with Steve Riley that “Comrade Conrad’s drive to distance the CPGB from anything not identifiable as the ‘pure thing’ - advanced socialism arising out of the highest achievements of capitalism - has brought the CPGB to the point of opportunism.” When I was in the CPGB, I noticed the lack of concrete support for countries like Cuba, but I put this down to a small organisation’s need to concentrate its efforts on working to affect British politics. In hindsight it is clear that the CPGB does no work to support Cuba because it does not support Cuba, not even against US imperialism.

It looks to me as though Jack Conrad has been gradually refashion-ing The Leninist/CPGB ideology to make it more appealing to Trotskyists, state capitalists and bureaucratic collectivists. In doing so, all balance is being lost. I think the word “opportunism” used by Steve Riley is appropriate. Doubtless you don’t win many friends in late 20th century Britain by defending the Soviet Union, and if the CPGB keeps losing members at the rate it is it will soon need all the Trotskyists, state capitalists, bureaucratic collectivists and anti-Sovietniks it can get.

If you wanted to draw up an indictment of the USSR and similar societies, most of the material for this was available as far back as 1981, when The Leninist current was founded. Why is Jack Conrad only talking about dystopias now? But in reality these societies contained both negative and positive aspects. The positive tends to be highlighted by what has been going on since they collapsed. The collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact has had profound effects. The CPGB (especially Jack Conrad and Mark Fischer) has to explain all manner of negative phenomena as resulting from the “period of reaction” following the collapse, yet it wants the societies that collapsed to be written off as “dystopias”. Pardon me, but if they were really so bad, wouldn’t their removal be a step forward?

During the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese troops, especially anti-aircraft crews, wore steel helmets sent by Warsaw Pact countries like Poland and East Germany.

In July 1996 in Turkey, I saw Turkish military personnel brutalising leftwing demonstrators. There was something vaguely familiar about the helmets. This year, a leftwing German newspaper, Junge Welt, reported that reunited Germany had sold or given former East German army equipment to Turkey - including steel helmets. When East Germany existed, its equipment helped a weaker nation fend off imperialism. Now that it is gone, its equipment aids the oppressors. I think this adequately indicates what damage has been done by the disappearance of the “freak societies”.

I support Steve Riley’s short article and I wish him all success in combating the CPGB’s right opportunist trend. And I hope this letter goes some way to addressing the one-sidedness of the current CPGB line.

Andrew Mackay
Brussels

CPGB in crisis

The CPGB still appears to be smarting for having its clumsy entryist work in the SLP revealed. Peter Manson (‘Political fightback’ Weekly Worker July 30) argues against establishing a supportive, collaborative SA forum in south London to help mutually assist neighbouring fledgling alliances. Working from the bottom up to build representative SA structures is the way forward, not seeking to impose from above a central committee.

Peter’s hostility to the idea of a south London network demonstrates again that the CPGB is not about allowing the SA to develop organically arising from campaigning and local activity, but imposing from above a preconceived blueprint and working to an agenda of control. Far from the idea of a south London body being rejected, a number of SA activists in south London have welcomed it. Peter, it would seem, has more in common with the Stalinists in the SLP leadership who sought to close down joint SLP branch structures and discussion forums. The CPGB’s view of politics is anchored in the past and has all the birthmarks of your political antecedents.

Importantly, Peter fails to report that a leading activist from the SLP involved in the campaign to fend off moves to privatise homes attended our meeting and reported on a recent conference held in Tower Hamlets. One of the lessons the CPGB seems to have failed to have learnt from its work in its current SLP host is the need for socialists to work cooperatively, sharing experiences, valuing others’ contribution and learning from each other. Peter’s article seems to reflect his disappointment at turning up to a meeting and being unable to have a ‘pop’ and hector other socialists.

No wonder the CPGB is in crisis with dwindling numbers, resignations, calls for liquidation and stalled unity.

Nick Long
Lewisham SA convenor

Hindsight

I would like to respond to Bob Paul’s letter in Weekly Worker July 30 in which he claims an orthodox Trotskyite pedigree for the Party’s attitude to the Soviet Union. Do we use the phrase ‘bureaucratic socialism’ simply to avoid the overtly Trotskyite ‘degenerated workers state’ tag or do we have a different understanding of the USSR phenomenon?

Comrade Paul points to our ‘Trotskyite’ understanding of the degeneration of the revolution and the Bolsheviks and the emergence of a “new bureaucratic stratum”. He then goes on the quote Trotsky: “[the bureaucracy] was forced to preserve the new, historically progressive property relations”; “the new bureaucracy had ... to defend ... a social and economic base theoretically superior to capitalism” (my emphasis).

Surely, comrade Paul, this was Trotsky’s error and not one we intend to repeat. What was “historically progressive” about Soviet property forms? Was bureaucratic socialism really “superior to capitalism”?

Under capitalism economic and political power are - formally at least - separated. In the Soviet Union they were united. Those who controlled economic life also controlled political life. Was this in and of itself progressive? Barring the current, capitalist, epoch, political and economic power have always been united. We must ask, ‘Who wields the power?’ Did workers wield power in the Soviet Union? Was the bureaucracy their servant - or their master?

Trotsky’s technocratic outlook led him to equate socialism with the statisation of property. Some 60% of apartheid South Africa’s economy was state-owned. Did black South Africans rebel against “historically progressive property relations”? Is Myanmar/Burma socialist?

Trotsky provided some brilliant insights into the birth of the Soviet bureaucracy and its historically contradictory position. However, his work also contains some profound flaws. We have the benefit of hindsight, comrade Paul: let’s make use of it.

Andy Hannah
London

Protect young

As a new comrade I find the politics of the CPGB radical and informative. However, I have to disagree with comrade Eddie Ford regarding the age of consent (‘Abolish the House of Lords’ Weekly Worker July 30).

Perhaps there is a case to lower the age of consent to 14 for people of any sexual orientation - but no age of consent? Young people need protecting, to find the orientation that suits them, emotionally, with no pressure from people who are more advanced than they are in their sexuality - just as much as people need protecting from economic exploitation. Power does not just exist economically, but sexually and intellectually as well. I think even in a socialist utopia there would be a need for protection of younger comrades who are learning who they are, and what they want.

Martin Jennings
Wolverhampton

New journal

I am writing to you to ask for your assistance in helping a publication that I have founded called Young left journal. We plan for it to appear quarterly and the first issue is out in September.

The columns are to be open to all and for this first issue I would particularly appreciate any articles on Cuba, China, Vietnam and Albania.

The cost of the journal is 65p per issue, £2.55 for a year’s subscription from YLJ.

Matthew Willgress
Peterborough