Extracts
from an email received from a reader who has recently broken with a
Leninist organisation, the New Communist Party
(publishers of the
‘New Worker’)
“Act
in haste and repent at leisure.” So runs the old adage and it is
true for me, at least in respect of my joining the New Worker
readers’ group. Actually, I was debating whether or not to continue
my subscription at all and when I finally decided to do so I thought
it might be best to become more actively involved. However, the more
I read the more aware I became of too much that is indefensible.
By
no means does this apply to everything. Indeed, Ray Jones’ article,
“What have communists got against capitalism”, was a clear and
succinct summary of Marxism by which the case was well stated. I
could hardly disagree with it and shall keep it for reference
purposes. It is with the espousal of certain causes I must firstly
take issue. Jones lists a number of immediate causes to be pursued: “
. . .better wages and conditions, better education, better health
services, better housing, a better environment, against war, against
authoritarianism and injustice and for more democracy (workers’
power), and against racism, sexism and homophobia, which can divide
workers . . .”
Which
brings me to the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, i.e.
North Korea] where some of these things may have been achieved, at
least in part, but many are non-existent. Including the word
“Democratic” in the state’s title does not mean that state is
so. In what meaningful sense can the word democratic be applied to
North Korea? How can a party, the NCP, proclaim opposition to
authoritarianism and yet ally itself with one of the most
authoritarian states in the world, not forgetting Vietnam, another
country in which the popular will finds no real expression? I’m
sure there are all manner state bodies supposedly dedicated to
demotic purposes, but the Dear Leader and his beribboned and
medal-festooned generals seem unconcerned with any such institutions.
The
use of the word “progressive” in the New Worker appears to
be as part of an oxymoron as in, “progressive governments like
those of Iraq (pre-invasion) and Syria” (Editorial, 20 October) As
these two administrations were largely secular in the context of the
Middle East, women did indeed achieve a measure of emancipation
denied in more Islamic states. But this was within authoritarian
states in which opposition was (is) ruthlessly suppressed and the use
of torture commonplace. Both these states had (and probably have)
imperialist ambitions of their own. Not on the scale of the USA,
admittedly, nor do they have the military where with all, but that
does not prevent them being aggressive states. To use the word
progressive in relation to Baathist parties is to deprive it of any
meaning or worse. Like Alice’s Humpty Dumpty, it means whatever you
want it to mean. How can it be that communists are prepared to give
support to some of the most reactionary regimes and movements in the
world?
The
same editorial ran, “The Muslim community is under attack because
it is almost entirely opposed to Anglo-American imperialism’s ‘war
against terror’ which is no more than a war against Muslims.”
Capitalism, and therefore Imperialism, does not give a damn for
religion, for any race or creed. Profit alone is its motivation and
that, in a competitive world, means geo-political control over
markets and resources. Of course it will use differences between
people, race, religion, football (useful worldwide to reinforce
national allegiances), to divide and weaken potential opposition.
This can be clearly seen in Iraq at the moment, where there is a far
greater toll of the indigenous population due to inter-Muslim strife
than is presently due to coalition military action. In fact, one
group of Muslims, the Sufis who were viciously persecuted by Saddam
Hussein’s “progressive” regime, were freed from their terrible
incarceration following the fall of the Baathists.
Having
read the above the obvious questions are, why did I renew my
subscription to the New Worker and
why did I join the reader’s
group? Having posed them both to myself I conclude that I was trying
to hang on to something that has been a significant part of my adult
life. Even since I first became involved in politics in my later
teens I have been ideologically torn between two quite incompatible
understandings of Marxism, the Leninist model and the very much more
libertarian approach of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
The
attraction of the Leninist model is that it offers the seeming
possibility of immediate action and demands with the ultimate goal,
Communism, in mind. But, however laudable they may be reforms become
the political objective in themselves, they are the reason the Trade
Unions established the Labour Party. They are not and cannot be
stepping-stones to the revolution. A revolution to vanquish
capitalism and establish socialism can only happen through the active
agency of the working class; it cannot be carried out by a vanguard
party on its behalf. This is the Leninist fallacy, for if the working
class is so motivated it does not require some pre-existing party to
act as its surrogate. If a need for a disciplined vanguard party
exists then the working class is not ready to seize the moment, the
vast majority are still integrated into the capitalist ideological
mindset. Then, should the vanguard party take power it inevitably
ends up ruling a reluctant working class, the dictatorship over (not
of) the proletariat, no matter that the members of that party are
dedicated and sincere. Then the supposed final goal becomes enabler
of tragedy.
For
years I’ve intellectually, and arrogantly, justified the actions of
Stalin, Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha and their ilk in terms of their life
and death struggle for socialism with capitalist encirclement and
intrigue. I have argued that the crimes laid at their door were
largely trumped up and exaggerated or caused by a reaction to
imperialist pressure. I have been little more than a left wing David
Irving, doing injury to history, denying the victims, for the cause.
A cause that was always doomed to fail when Lenin found himself
master of a largely war broken peasant country which led him to
establish a state that would become ever more entrenched rather than
wither away. Trotsky would have made no difference had he assumed
control after Lenin’s death as he was of the same authoritarian
ilk. The state capitalism that subsequently developed did serve the
historical purpose of sweeping away feudalism in Russia and developed
a working class that can now play its part in choosing socialism. As
is the way with all forms of capitalism, state as well as free
market, this was achieved at a dreadful cost paid by the workers.
Frustrating
though it undoubtedly is, there can be no short cut to socialism.
Either the vast majority decide to embrace it or it does not occur.
Socialism is not inevitable, the conditions are ripe for it, but if
workers the world over fail to implement it, then there is also the
possibility of barbarism. Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, all serving
as paradigms of one dreadful possible future. Promoting the socialist
cause is undoubtedly hampered by
its association with totalitarian
regimes both past and present or with the reformism of Labour, a
seeming easier option of socialism without much of an effort, that has
undoubtedly brought benefits only for them to be whittled away in
the interests of profit.
Our
world is faced by major threats from war and environmental disaster,
both fuelled by the insatiable appetite capitalism has. There is a
desperate need for socialism, but it’s not to be found behind the
barbed wire in North Korea. It is incumbent on all who award
themselves the epithet communist to place their hands on their hearts
and say, to themselves as much as to anyone else, whether they really
see a future for humanity in such a place.
Dave
Alton
|