After the recent HOPI Launch Meeting in Leeds I had an exchange with AWLer Dave Kirk on the AWL, economism and troops out now. We also chatted about Iraq, Iran etc It was actually quite a civil one – not that you can tell by Dave’s article. He asked me questions about what the CPGB meant by economism, party and programme. I think he is quite new to politics and his questions were genuine. No doubt being cajoled into it by the AWL chiefs, he has now written an article that is so dire that one wonders how stuff like this can be produced by intelligent human beings who have read stuff by people like Engels and Sartre. 'Dialectician Dave’s' blunt and crude assertions, although not of much length, speak volumes the state of education within the AWL and its increasingly forlorn political outlook.
Comrade Kirk, even though he disagrees with the scabby AWL line on imperialism, would rather defend the sect integrity of his Zionist leadership than actually think about politics and engage with others in a serious way. Why? Because we’re the CPGB. Beyond the pale. Untouchable. That is why the Zionists on the AWL leadership are much closer to people like Dave on Iraq than the shit-stirring, gossip-mongering CPGB...
Despite his pompous posturing about declining our “generous offers” to talk about imperialism and Iraq, it is actually one of the things we did discuss during our little talk was Iraq. He even told me how odd it was that Sacha Ismail was denying that the AWL majority had ever talked of the occupation creating a “space” within which the working class could operate, when he and other comrades in the minority know all too well that he has written this! But no, don’t write about this publicly Dave, holding such misleaders to account might damage the unity of your sect. Instead put together some excuse for a polemic against the CPGB to show how wonderfully united and politically coherent the glowing project of the AWL is.
No, it is not the “main purpose” of the articles to win comrades from the AWL and ENS to join the politics of the CPGB. It is an attempt, just like in all of our articles against other left groups, to win these comrades to the politics of Marxism as a step towards overcoming petty sect division. Only in this way can the left go anywhere.
“They [the CPGB] denounce the politics of Mansour Osanloo and the Iranian workers movement for not being anti-war enough”.
What absolute bollocks. Find me the place where we say that please Dave. What we do denounce is the agenda of the leadership of trade unions with a scabby past, and who are only interested in the plight of Iranian workers when the US is looking to enact regime change on that country – rallying all sorts of people to its cause. Our Iranian comrades in HOPI have been trying to get unions like the ITF to do stuff on Iran for ages. They weren't interested. Rather odd they are now though, eh?
We went along to this action (the AWL didn’t), and repeated our calls for the unconditional release of all incarcerated Iranian trade unionists, whilst politically distancing ourselves from the agenda of the scabby ITF/ITUC and looking to break the rank-and-file from these forces. Is this “denouncing the politics of Osanloo and the Iranian workers movement for not being anti-war enough?” If you could have the decency to recant such a ridiculous accusation then that would be helpful.
On the role of socialists in trade unions, Kirk admits that the AWL “agree in general” (!) that communists should be “communists” in trade unions. Why there is the need to qualify this obvious statement with “in general” is simply beyond me.
He then goes on to say that such an outlook upheld by the CPGB is “cynical” and “utopian” because in practice this means using “the unions to build their party.”
Well, Dave, leaving aside the fact that there is no communist party on the left today (a question you constantly downplay or ignore) it is quite correct to argue that we win trade unionists to communism and the party that stands for that. Then they cease to be train unionists in the narrow sense and become communists. Is this cynical? Well it is if your aim is to build another party like the “stinking corpse” that is the Labour Party. “Utopian”? Well… if it is “idealism” to argue that the best and most class conscious elements into a party of communists who should seek to win all workers, pensioners, school students, househusbands/wives, the unemployed etc to this project then maybe you’re right. Maybe I do misunderstand dialectics and am nothing more than a pre-Marxian idealist....
“Marxists should be at the forefront of economic struggles.” Yes. Its party should lead them. It should make demands that challenge the logic of capital, not add a few quid onto the bureaucracy’s pithy calls. Dave, in a pathetic attempt to show that he does not suffer from economism, proudly boasts about how Marxists should also raise “the political question”. But Dave, there is no one “political question”. There are lots of them. Democratic questions. One big one, which you think might rattle you a bit more than some ‘insignificant sect’ like the CPGB, is the approach the workers’ movement takes to the state and its military operations. Just one of many.
This is why programme is key, and what passes as your 'programme' is economistic because it has very little to say about how we are ruled. No demands for the replacement of the standing army with a popular militia, no demands for a federal republic with instant recallability of officials, election of judges etc etc – all this, central to the best programmes of our past, are passed off by Kirk as “dogma and abstract reasoning”. Right.
“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.”
So programmes and drafts for programmes are “meangingless” then? “Denunciations” (by which you mean hard polemic against other trends in the workers movement most of which you agree with unless they are aimed at your scabby project) are irrelevant? I know, by virtue of your quote, that you are esteemed in the dialectical method of Engels (and then proceed to quote Sartre who rejected dialectics) but have you actually read Marx Lenin or Luxemburg? How do you think Lenin amassed such a sizeable Collected Works? By telling Russian workers how the Tsar wasn’t their best friend and how, just like Gordon Brown, he robbed from the poor and gave to the rich? No. He did so through fighting for a party with a minimum-maximum programme that could enable the working class to become a hegemonic political force – necessarily coming into conflict with all trends and shades of opinion within the workers’ movement. That is the project of Bolshevism. Of course political consciousness “will be raised” in confrontations between the workers and the bosses, but this does spontaneously lead to the programme that can set out a strategy for state power. That is why there is no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory.
Programme is not just about workers in one locality or one union but politically uniting the class as a class and enabling it to politically empower itself so it can rule – i.e. it is a fully practical project for society as a whole. Dismissing the struggle for a programme and a party able to do that at the level of the European Union is simply moronic. And it is very sad that young people who purport to stand in the tradition of Marx, Engels and Lenin do so.
So Dave, please try and do better next time. And please apologise for your shite about us denouncing Ossanlou as not being anti-war enough. That really is quite an embarrassing attempt to engage with other ideas in the movement. Which probably makes you a star pupil in the AWL....
من شخصا آرم نوکیا را آتش خواهم زد!
15 hours ago
12 comments:
Why the vitriol, Ben?
You might not think that the CPGB's "coverage" of the differences inside the AWL is an attempt to woo AWL minority members, but that's what it appears to us as.
We're quite capable of resisting our leadership when we think they're wrong. Indeed, we have been doing this, and I apologise on behalf of the AWL Minority if we haven't been doing this to your high communist standards. Maybe you really aren't trying to woo us; maybe we're not good enough for hardened Bolsheviks like yourselves!
In any case, if you want to debate with us, fine; but let's keep it civil, eh?
Kit,
It's been a while. How are things?
I don't think there is much in terms of vitriol at all. Forgive me though if my piece was a bit "over-tasty" in parts, I just cannot believe that something of that quality can be passed off as an attempt to engage with other ideas on the left.
I am not out too "woo" anyone - neither in my own organisation or in the AWL/CPB/SWP etc. I might be guilty of "wooing" people when down the pub, but that is not a political question.
What the left desperately needs is political clarity - especially on key issues such as this one. That requires decent debate and, if necessary, harsh polemic - not an attitude which is "they have the same position as us but we're not like them cos they're the CPGB" and pass it off as some sort of scientific approach to the truth.
In terms of "Bolshevik standards" there is a lot I would criticise the approach of the minority on. Where is your fight for a regular space in Solidarity, or for some sort of space on the WL website? Surely ABC for a group of comrades trying to change their organisation's political trajectory?
So yes, nothing against debating in a "civil" manner. In fact that is precisely how it happened with Dave Kirk in Leeds the other night. Then I turn on my computer and see that rubbish. It is frustrating, but hey, that's the sects for you.
Yet when you read stuff about us "denouncing" Ossanlou for not being anti-war enough, then that needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves. I look forward to an apology.
How did the conference go by the way?
wcg
Ben
Wow Ben, I obviously chose a good day to check out your blog. I think possibly that for extra laughs for the uninitiated reader you should link to the original article too. And get your blood pressure checked...
Things have been a bit manic - moving about and UNISON stuff. I wasn't able to make the AWL conference so I can't comment - though I will read over the minutes and reports from comrades.
Harsh polemic I have no problem with, but you were over the top in my opinion. I think David was sincere in what he said in his original piece, and I think you went a bit too far.
I cannot comment on the accusation that the CPGB denounced Ossanlou for not being anti-occupation as I didn't know you ever did in the first place. But David is not stupid. He would, I believe, have some basis for that accusation; he's not the type to simply regurgitate what the AWL leadership tells him (nobody in the AWL does).
As for the Minority's democratic rights - we have never been denied space in the paper and on the website, and I am sure that if we wanted something published, it would be. I don't know if we could sustain a regular column or a special website, but we don't need one. Our press has always prided itself on being open. So has our organisation.
The fact that our minority is free to discuss and debate it's differences within the organisation and in it's press somewhat proves we aren't a sect. In fact, that's a part of the problem; we are coalesced around a set of ideas (the "third camp", if you like) which unites us. (I think it's less clear what core ideas the CPGB coalesces itself around.)
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 Dave's article on Workers' Liberty
Kit,
If my response came across as harsh then this merely reflects my frustration. The exchange with Dave that I had in Leeds was both sincere and productive. He asked genuine questions about what the CPGB mean by economism and what we mean by the party question, only to then go and attempt to politically attach me to positions I do not hold. If this is one big fuck-up by a comrade new to politics then fine. All that is required is an apology. Nothing of the sort has been forhtcoming.
You write:
"I cannot comment on the accusation that the CPGB denounced Ossanlou for not being anti-occupation as I didn't know you ever did in the first place. But David is not stupid. He would, I believe, have some basis for that accusation".
Well have you found any basis for this accusation as of yet? The point about this is that Dave and I did discuss the question of the ITF/ITUC's protest on March 6. He accused HOPI of equivocating on calling for the release of Ossanlou. I corrected him and hihglighted how both on our site and in the leaflet we issued, we called for his immediate and unconditional release, along with all other incarcerated trade unionists.
In terms of what politics the CPGB is based on. We are a partyist project that look to fight for a programme which all advanced workers can unite around. That is why we do not classify ourselves as a "Trotskyist" group, although we do have people who would identify with some of the basic conceptions of trotskyism (permanent revolution, political revolution in the degenerate workers'/state capitalist states etc).
Ours is a project that fights for what the working class needs - the unity of its most advanced elements into a communist party on a viable min-max programme a la Erfurt or the programmatical outlook of the Bolsheviks (who originate from and fought for the political principles of Erfurt and German Social Democracy, remember).
Sects are not defined by formally allowing people to publish critical things in the party press. They are defined by playing fast with principles and putting their own interests before those of the class. Two good examples:
1. You weren't at the PCS Conference this year. Nor was I. The Solidarity report by "a PCS member" failed to mention the fact that the Union affiliated to a anti-war campaign with an extremely principled working-class approach to questions of war and peace. Maybe the reporter was on the loo.
2. You weren't at the Reclaim the Campus Event. Did you know that the event formally adopted a "troops out now" position in relation to Iraq? Again, maybe Sofie was somewhere else when the vote was taken - it is not even mentioned in her report of the event. She was though because I was there.
What about all the workers reading Solidarity every week? Surely these are things they want to, and indeed have a right to read about? If it's not said it's not read though, eh?
More on minority rights and the supposed difficulties "maintaining a regular column" (I know it is a bit much asking for people to write on an issue of such importance every two weeks!!) when I get a bit more time.
All the best, Kit.
Ben
Ben,
You write:
"Well have you found any basis for this accusation as of yet? The point about this is that Dave and I did discuss the question of the ITF/ITUC's protest on March 6. He accused HOPI of equivocating on calling for the release of Ossanlou. I corrected him and hihglighted how both on our site and in the leaflet we issued, we called for his immediate and unconditional release, along with all other incarcerated trade unionists."
I am not David Kirk so the correction can't come from me. I am not David, and I am sure that he can speak for himself. Like I said, I never thought that you had been soft on the Ossanlou. The thought never crossed my mind.
"Sects are not defined by formally allowing people to publish critical things in the party press. They are defined by playing fast with principles and putting their own interests before those of the class."
True, which means that the AWL can't be defined as a sect on that basis. You can't imagine that we take such positions on Iraq, Isreal/Palestine for the sake of being popular, no? Maybe this requires a further debate (which I suspect we've both had in each own's head with the other many a time) but I would like to think that the AWL takes it's political positions from such principles.
"1. You weren't at the PCS Conference this year. Nor was I. The Solidarity report by "a PCS member" failed to mention the fact that the Union affiliated to a anti-war campaign with an extremely principled working-class approach to questions of war and peace. Maybe the reporter was on the loo."
Maybe they were on the loo. Or maybe because it wasn't the most earth-shattering thing that took place at PCS conference this year. I was at UNISON's Local Government and National Delegate conferences last week in Bournemouth and I think the most earth shattering thing that happened there was the fact that there will be a review into the Affiliated Political Fund (i.e. the one which gives money to the Labour Party) and that the union is angry over the NHS, and that the result over the LG strike ballot - 55% yes vote - has just come in, not that the NDC passed a rather tame "yay Palestine" motion.
Given that PCS members have a lot more to worry about on the home front, such as fighting job cuts and derisory pay offers, as much as an affiliation to HOPI is welcome, it isn't perhaps the most important thing for PCS members. Not that I'm saying that's a good thing, but I think PCS members do have other things to worry about as well.
"2. You weren't at the Reclaim the Campus Event. Did you know that the event formally adopted a "troops out now" position in relation to Iraq? Again, maybe Sofie was somewhere else when the vote was taken - it is not even mentioned in her report of the event. She was though because I was there."
I'm not Sofie nor am I involved the day-to-day running of Solidarity, so I can't comment. Maybe it should have been recognised, but again, I think that the network was launched is something a bit more significant than what position it took on this part or another. I think Marxists have to stand for troops out now but it's not a position I would try to foist on the UNISON United Left, for example, because that's not what UUL is for, and I don't think ENS is for, either. I do think that you fetishise the slogan and your programme at the expense of broad left work - which is sometimes nessecary. I hate the UUL and I do wish it had an unremittingly Bolshevik programme, but I still work within it to bring together the best militants in UNISON to push a militant, fighting agenda in the union.
Take care
Kit
Actually, reading that last comment back: I don't hate the UUL. I just get frustrated by it sometimes, just as I do with broad lefts and united fronts generally.
E.g. Stop the War - too many marches at the expense of other political action.
Kit,
Apologies for not responding sooner, have had quite a lot on.
You are very good at dodging the bullet on these questions ("I am not Sofie, I am not Dave" etc). I know you're not (at least the last time I checked anyway!)
What I am saying is that you have to take a certain responsibility for these rather shady methods of your group.
On troops out now. Why is it not within the remit of student groups to fight for these politics? Why is it ok for the AWL to uphold these principles (or not, in this case) but not fight for them in all arenas of struggle? It is not a question of forcing your views on people, using torture on trade unionists until they are weak enough to sign up to your ideas, but to patiently fight for them. But fighting them involves, surprisingly enough, raising them publicly.
If you uphold Marxism in your head and then fight for something else "in the mean time" or whatever (the practice of the left as a whole today) then you are doing nothing more than lying. This is sect politics in a nutshell.
You seem to be implying that working class politics is one thing (unions, wages, political fund) and then questions like the war and implacable and principled opposition to the operations of the British state is something else.
I am glad that that you describe the HOPI affiliation as a "welcome" one. Do you know how AWL PCS Members voted on this question? I ask because it is far from the case that many of your comrades would say that this is "welcome" (made evident in the omission from the report you ran)
Apparently HOPI is Iranian defencist - apologists for Iranian 'imperialism' etc - that is why the AWL are now setting up alternative campaigns (Middle East Workers Solidarity and Iranian Solidarity Group or something like that). We in HOPI have got it wrong you see, the main "hands" on the Iranians at the moment and the threat of war is merely a "possibility". Right.
It is disappointing that you and others opposed to the horrible politics of the AWL in the Middle East are merely keeping your heads down in this.
Like I say though, maybe you can be forgiven - it is oh so difficult to write a fortnightly article on why the US will not 'force democracy' in Iraq. And you probably have better things to do. Like Dave Kirk's shining polemic against positions I do not hold...
Communist Greetings
Ben
P.S. Nothing on Iraq/Iran at your coming school, I see. Probably another cock-up, so no need for the AWL 'opposition' to do anything, don't worry...
@Jason:
Debate is not "compromised by rudeness". It is possible to use rudeness as a chaff grenade sort of tactic, to diffuse differences precisely in the act of overblowing them. It is also possible to very rudely point to principled differences - it's not polite to call somebody a social imperialist or a scab, but it's perfectly possible for either or both to be true (cough Matgamna cough!).
And no, engaging in struggle does not provide some panacea for differences. Struggle can sharpen differences, as centrist and right groups can find themselves on the wrong side of struggle. In this time of utter disorientation, this is more likely than usual. Unfortunately, we must be rude to each other for a while.
Can I work with AWL comrades on areas of agreement? In my experience it has been difficult - and this is due to the nature of the differences we have, and the nature of the AWL as a group. You cannot defend a line as shoddy as "troops in!" via 'conventional weaponry', as it were - the sect-cohering tactics required are off a different order; hence Dave's article, but also almost all coverage of the SWP, workers power etc.
Ben - can I just ask that you change your colour scheme for your site? Dark red on black hurts my eyes and is impossible to read. Black backgrounds are good for websites (mainly because your computer screen isn't a piece of paper but a light-emitting device) but you need a light text colour to compensate. Cheers.
OK, on your substantive post:
You are very good at dodging the bullet on these questions ("I am not Sofie, I am not Dave" etc). I know you're not (at least the last time I checked anyway!)
What I am saying is that you have to take a certain responsibility for these rather shady methods of your group.
I thought such proto-Stalinist gubbins was the reserve of the Sparts and the IBT; apparently not. What you have called "shady methods" is essentially what you consider sloppy reporting on the part of two comrades. I don't consider that to be the case; I could critise the Weekly Worker for having a terrible coverage of the Local Government strike, which pritty much amounted to "Prentis is shit". No shit. So what then? The Weekly Worker article failed to prevent an alternative strategy for the strike, or to offer an alternative leadership.
This is because the CPGB's industrial intervention is quite limited. You have comrades here and there, but where were you at the UNISON conference where 2k people who were pissed off with the current leadership were coming together to discuss the union? From this flows a failure, in my view, to understand how communists operate in trade unions.
On troops out now. Why is it not within the remit of student groups to fight for these politics? Why is it ok for the AWL to uphold these principles (or not, in this case) but not fight for them in all arenas of struggle? It is not a question of forcing your views on people, using torture on trade unionists until they are weak enough to sign up to your ideas, but to patiently fight for them. But fighting them involves, surprisingly enough, raising them publicly.
This stems from your misunderstanding of how communists should operate in trade unions, and by extensions, student unions. Your constant critique of "economism" means that you focus exclusively on the "political" without offering an alternative on the "economic" front. Communists who are officials in trade unions (I don't mean paid bureaucrats but seniorish lay officials like me) can't just talk the talk, they have to offer an alternative industrial strategy in order to win workers to their political ideas. This means that we can't just be shit-hot on the political, but also the industrial. The CPGB isn't. Therefore, while you produce reams and reams of "politics" to take forth to the students, you offer nothing on the fight against tuition fees - well, not enough - and then stick yer thumb up yer bum, as my Dad says, when it comes to organisations like ENS.
The AWL's approach is the communist approach. Working with militant (but not "communist") workers in the unions, we agitate for an alternative industrial strategy based upon rank & file control and democracy. It is, to an extent, about mobilising people around a common industrial strategy, from where the political arguments can be had. Some of the best militants I have come across in the UNISON youth structures don't really give a shit about what's going on in Iran, but they do think that we need a new tack on the pay dispute. Because I offer an alternative strategy on the pay dispute, they will also listen to me on why what's going on in Iran (and the need to solidarise with Iranian workers as they fight both Iranian capital and US Imperialism) and how the two are interlinked. You might win your ones-and-twos by agigating for the full Marxist programme at every opportunity God (or other deity/being/lack of religious belief of your choice) gives, but you won't build a real layer of activists who you can work with on immediate demands in that area - in your situation, the fight against tutition fees, for free education etc - and who you can win to your wider ideas through joint activity.
It is how Marxists have always built poles of attraction; it is the method of the United Front - a method I believe you uphold, no? You build a movement around immediate demands, and then win people through joint work.
Unfortunatly, because the CPGB blinds itself through "anti-econonism", it can't see the woods for the trees. Which is a shame, because I am sure CPGB militants could contribute plenty to the debate on matters of strategy and tactics, but you choose not to because some people involved in ENS (i.e. the AWL) don't call for "Troops Out NoW" as if that slogan is a panacea for all of the current political woes in the world, from US Imperialism to why my housemate drinks all of my wine when I'm not looking.
If you uphold Marxism in your head and then fight for something else "in the mean time" or whatever (the practice of the left as a whole today) then you are doing nothing more than lying. This is sect politics in a nutshell.
Hang on, though; in the same breath you accuse us of pushing a "social imperialist" (what does that mean - that I like to take over the friendships of other people?) line in our paper, and then accuse us of pushing for "something else". Which is it? We do push our politics - enough for you to complain about in your paper week in and week out ("Oooh, it must be Thursday, the CPGB are slagging us off. Again.")
You seem to be implying that working class politics is one thing (unions, wages, political fund) and then questions like the war and implacable and principled opposition to the operations of the British state is something else.
No I'm not, what I'm saying that you conflate bread-and-butter working class issues for wider political questions; therefore, the big issue for a union conference is not what strategy it votes for to fight a rotten pay deal, but whether or not it votes to affiliates to HOPI or not. PCS passes this test, UNISON doesn't. Unions are working class issues but they are there to defend pay and conditions, it's the reason why about 90% of members pay their subs; my members care more about whether or not I can represent them in a disciplinary hearing than if I'm at some conference; my job is to give a wholly rounded explaination of why unions exist and what the class struggle is.
I am glad that that you describe the HOPI affiliation as a "welcome" one. Do you know how AWL PCS Members voted on this question? I ask because it is far from the case that many of your comrades would say that this is "welcome" (made evident in the omission from the report you ran)
I don't know how AWL comrades voted. I say it is "welcome" because I would rather PCS supported HOPI than just outsource it's opposition to the war to the Stop The War Coalition as UNISON has done.
Apparently HOPI is Iranian defencist - apologists for Iranian 'imperialism' etc - that is why the AWL are now setting up alternative campaigns (Middle East Workers Solidarity and Iranian Solidarity Group or something like that). We in HOPI have got it wrong you see, the main "hands" on the Iranians at the moment and the threat of war is merely a "possibility". Right.
Can't comment.
It is disappointing that you and others opposed to the horrible politics of the AWL in the Middle East are merely keeping your heads down in this.
Now that's a slander and make no mistake. The pages of Solidarity and our website are not the only places for debate in the AWL; there are the internal e-lists which are always full of debate, including on this question, with ripostes from both sides filling inboxes of AWL members daily. We have internal bulletins which also carry critical debate, branch meetings, aggregates etc. Just because it's not always public, doesn't mean that people aren't debating inside the AWL.
Post a Comment