The Commune vs the CWO

[Zanthorus]

The Communist Workers' Organisation (British section of the Internationalist Communist Tendency) has been carrying on a polemic with The Commune (A British 'libertarian' communist group). I thought it might provoke some interesting discussion. Here's (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2009-07-01/the-commune-a-radical-new-grouping-or-old-left-in-a-new-form) the CWO's original piece, here's (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/reply-to-the-internationalist-communist-tendency/) The Commune's reply and here's (https://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/comments-on-the-commune-by-the-communist-workers-organisation/) the CWO's response.

I don't have much to say since I agree with the CWO's pieces, except that I think their position on Trotskyism is a little bit strange. The SWP's popular frontism, anti-programmism, constant calls for a labour vote and attempts to form a left-of-labour party which still retains the political ideology of labourism certainly put them outside of being an objectively revolutionary organisation, but holding them up as an example of the universally counter-revolutionary nature of Trotskyism seems more than a little dishonest.

[Android]

Also in the next issue of Revolutionary Perspectives (Quarterly Journal of the CWO) that is going to be published in the upcoming weeks, is going to contribute to the debate triggered by AF's publication of 'Against Nationalism' (http://afed.org.uk/ace/afed_against_nationalism.pdf) and David Broder's critical review (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-earth-is-not-flat-a-review-of-against-nationalism/) of it. I have seen the text to be published, in general terms I'd agree with the points made in it. But I feel they caricature Broder's position into the position ('support critical or otherwise the forces fighting imperialism'), which he doesn't hold and felt there was a bit of knocking down easy targets in that it sought to critique the advocates of 'anti-imperialist struggles' ('defeat for an imperialist power damages the system'). We should not seek to use the crudest positions and generalise them to all groups who disagree with our perspective, but engage the politics and positions of groups we disagree with on the basis of what they argue. Anyway I'll post up the link to the piece I was privileged enough to get a look at in advance, when it is online.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Your third link is another link the The Commune's response, not a link to the ICT's response.

[meow]

*yawn*

the commune has some interesting ideas. the "cwo" seems to think it is useful to write an article saying that some of these ideas are wrong. the commune responds explaining that either the cwo is wrong or that they misunderstood what the commune thinks (what the position of the commune is).

certainly some of the political ideas are worth discussing. but the forum and manner in which the ideas were discussed is not useful. a apparent (though light) attack by one organization on another wont encourage in any manner revolution. of course though one organization wants all the members of hte other to see the wrongs and join the org with the correct thought...

but like thats going to happen.

[Zanthorus]

Your third link is another link the The Commune's response, not a link to the ICT's response.

I advise checking the link again. It is the Commune's website, yes, but the piece is by the CWO.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're right. I swear I clicked the link several times and got the same page, but I must have been mistaken.

[Android]

The article in the latest issue of Revolutionary Perspectives I referred to above is now available online. (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2010-09-15/the-national-question-today-and-the-poisonous-legacy-of-the-counter-revolution) As is David Broder's response (http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/cwo-polemic-on-nationalism-the-road-to-nowhere/) to it.

[Patchd]

On Broder's critique of the CWO article;



My earlier article was a review of the Anarchist Federation’s pamphlet ‘Against Nationalism’, also the main polemical target of the CWO piece. AFed claim that “all states are imperialist”, an assertion I hotly contested:
“The mere fact of international alliances or promoting ‘ideology’ does not make a state imperialist. Colombia is not imperialist but its rulers are little but proxies of US imperialism. Where is the Bolivian, or Congolese, or Afghan corporation which gets cut-price privatised resources and controls foreign governments in the manner that American ones can?”
I agree that it's a mistake to just label all current nation-states as 'imperialist'. However, capitalism is a global system as I'm sure no one in the Commune will doubt, it is in the capitalist class' interests to expand, as growth means profit and survival. If others can out-compete you, you've got the underhand within the market and that gap will continue to widen. Surely then is it not in the class interests of all capitalists to have imperialist aspirations? I agree that it is a mistake to suggest that all nation-states are imperialist, or currently acting in that manner, however I believe it would be accurate to say they all have imperialist aspirations, that is to have aspirations to outsource your competitors (global and domestic), expose yourself to a larger market and resource and labour pool.





This is characterised by CWO as:
“Seizing on the AF categorising of all states as imperialist, he rhetorically asks where Bolivian, Congolese or Afghan imperialism is to be found. Concluding it is non-existent, he opens the door for the support of these nations, and their national bourgeoisie, against the US.”
I get the impression that the CWO thinks that the only reason the Anarchist Federation opposes nationalism and nation-states is because we view them all as imperialist, and to find a 'non-imperialist' nation would discredit our critique of their national bourgeoisie. Would this be a correct assertion to make about the CWO's argument here?


Otherwise, I'd say I pretty much agree with David on the other points he has made/his positions that he had clarified.

[Zanthorus]

I suppose it's somewhat semantical but in the Marxist theoretical tradition we sometimes talk about Imperialism as a world-system rather than simply a policy undertaken by this or that nation-state. Imperialist wars physically destroy capital value and boost the rate of profit, counteracting the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. It's engendered by the modern system of nation-states, and the only reason certain nations come out on top is because they're higher up in the pecking order than any others. There is certainly a sense in which I think we could say that all modern nation-states are 'Imperialist'.

We can even look at concrete examples of the success of 'anti-Imperialist' politics - Germany in the 20's. At the time they were the favourite nation of the left in terms of being hostile to Western foreign interests, in no small part because they were in a military alliance with the Soviet Union. We can see how that one turned out. One of the points made by Loren Goldner in his critique of 'anti-Imperialist' politics is that what the anti-impie crowd will achieve at best is to move the global centre of the Imperialist pecking order further to the east/south.

There is also something of a theoretical baggage for Marxists here in that Marx and Engels supported various national movements against military and colonial opression while capitalism was still in the grip of a battle for world dominance against feudalism (It's 'ascendent' phase). This is still used by some as an excuse to support such struggles in the context of the modern capitalist world-market despite the continual history of such movements as lining up behind one or another imperialist state.

[Patchd]

Ok cool, thanks for clarifying that. Would you say that view differed with how the AF sees imperialism?

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

The SWP's ... anti-programmism ... certainly put them outside of being an objectively revolutionary organisation
I'm proud to be an anti-programmist. Anyone who thinks that all of the world's problems can be summed up in a little pamphlet handed out on street corners is deluded. Anyone who thinks they have the right to dictate to the working class exactly how to conduct their revolution - revolution is supposed to be the SELF-emancipation of the proletariat, remember - is an egotist.

[Zanthorus]

Ok cool, thanks for clarifying that. Would you say that view differed with how the AF sees imperialism?

I'm not quite sure how the AF sees Imperialism so I can't comment there.


I'm proud to be an anti-programmist. Anyone who thinks that all of the world's problems can be summed up in a little pamphlet handed out on street corners is deluded. Anyone who thinks they have the right to dictate to the working class exactly how to conduct their revolution - revolution is supposed to be the SELF-emancipation of the proletariat, remember - is an egotist.

The programme is not dictating to the working-class how to run the revolution, it's a set of positions which workers' can rally around, positive demands which we make which set us apart from just any old organisation of militant workers (As organisations of militant workers can in some cases be entirely reformist). It doesn't have to be pages of step by step instructions to achieve socialism, even something like "The Socialist Workers' Party is in favour of the destruction of the existing state apparatus and the creation of a political administration responsive to the working-class which will be the tool for transition to a classless society with democratic social control of production", would be a step up from the current situation.

The fact is that by repudiating the programme, the SWP is going against the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, who all (shock horror!) participated in the drafting of political programmes for revolutionary organisations. None of them saw their activity as being in contradiction with the principle that the self-emancipation of the working-class is the act of the workers themselves... because it isn't. Even the Anarchist Federation has a list of it's aims and principles.

[Lyev]

Zanthorus, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence you have for the SWP's purported "anti-programmism". I have searched their website in the "about us" section, and browsed through some of the relevant "where we stand" articles, but all I could find that was even a bit pertinent is this:
Long manifestos don’t win such struggles — practical unity does.I may not be looking hard enough though. Also I thought your comments below were interesting (emphasis mine).
The programme is not dictating to the working-class how to run the revolution, it's a set of positions which workers' can rally around, positive demands which we make which set us apart from just any old organisation of militant workers (As organisations of militant workers can in some cases be entirely reformist). It doesn't have to be pages of step by step instructions to achieve socialism, even something like "The Socialist Workers' Party is in favour of the destruction of the existing state apparatus and the creation of a political administration responsive to the working-class which will be the tool for transition to a classless society with democratic social control of production", would be a step up from the current situation.

The fact is that by repudiating the programme, the SWP is going against the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, who all (shock horror!) participated in the drafting of political programmes for revolutionary organisations. None of them saw their activity as being in contradiction with the principle that the self-emancipation of the working-class is the act of the workers themselves... because it isn't. Even the Anarchist Federation has a list of it's aims and principles.I think there are two things to examine here. Firstly, although this often a well-worn cliche espoused by Marxists, far-left groups have been receding in influence and size since the 80s. I guess this is partly to do with the ideological onslaught -- the "end of history", capitalists proclaiming "we won" -- following the fall of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Berlin wall. And there are complication for the UK specifically as well; principally Thatcher's implementation of the anti-trade union legislation, and near-crushing of the whole trade union movement. I think this is relevant here because it seems many organisations, when the class struggle is in retreat, like the past 30 years or so, water down their programmatic material, and oversimplify the way they approach activism. Opportunism will also increase in such a period. All in an effort to desperately claw back some sort of relevance and influence. And I don't think it's just the SWP who are guilty of this; I also think SPEW could perhaps be a bit more radical with their programme, and go beyond calling for nationalisation or whatever (a CWI comrade might find this thread and pick me up on that). But I remember in that thread that maldoror started, Devrim mentioned how he sees the current (lack of a coherent) leftist movement as merely a reflection of the objective level of class struggle. But with the recent global economic crisis amongst other factors, communist militancy is, slowly, again on the rise.

A second point is that maybe a lot of activists these days are very conscious of how they approach average working people. Without being patronising or ignorant -- which is the last thing we want to do -- many organisation will endeavour to maintain a fairly basic idiom in literature and newsapers and such. This sort of thing has been happening even since Capital. I remember Marx mentioned in a preface somewhere that he wanted to make it "popularly accessible", or something to that effect, to people without any special knowledge - he certainly did not want to it be overly academic or esoteric. And yet arguably this is how Capital how turned out. It is not a popular piece of writing. Hence why we don't immediately call for the "destruction of the existing state apparatus and the creation of a political administration responsive to the working-class which will be the tool for transition to a classless society with democratic social control of production". Anyone not familiar with the works of Marx (and disregarding the current widespread disillusionment with mainstream party politics) will understandably respond to such a demand with "WTF?". So maybe we need to find a balance. I am not an "anti-intellectual" or anything like that. I don't believe in a total lack of programme, as you rightly said, but I don't think that as soon we adopt the call for "democratic social control of production" folks are just going to suddenly converge beneath the communist banner. And I do think also that some demands made by particular leftist groups at the moment are too simplistic or economist. [EDIT: I just realised you have a rather fitting quote from Engels in your signature.] And the actual debate itself (Commune-CWO), I only skimmed through it, so can't really comment. Sorry if this was a tad off-topic; I find it to be quite an important subject.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

The programme is not dictating to the working-class how to run the revolution, it's a set of positions which workers' can rally around, positive demands which we make which set us apart from just any old organisation of militant workers (As organisations of militant workers can in some cases be entirely reformist). It doesn't have to be pages of step by step instructions to achieve socialism, even something like "The Socialist Workers' Party is in favour of the destruction of the existing state apparatus and the creation of a political administration responsive to the working-class which will be the tool for transition to a classless society with democratic social control of production", would be a step up from the current situation.

The fact is that by repudiating the programme, the SWP is going against the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, who all (shock horror!) participated in the drafting of political programmes for revolutionary organisations. None of them saw their activity as being in contradiction with the principle that the self-emancipation of the working-class is the act of the workers themselves... because it isn't. Even the Anarchist Federation has a list of it's aims and principles.
Wait - so every single thing ever done by Marx and co is in all things a model of absolute perfection? Guess I need to get me some servants, then.

The Communist Manifesto, perhaps the paradigmatic "programme", is, for me, a bit of a case in point here. That list of 10 measures in Chapter 2, for example, looks a bit bland and naive in some ways today. Technology and social changes have made some irrelevant, and a deepened understanding of communism means that others are not valid. The discussion of other types of socialists is hopelessly out of date. Now, this isn't a criticism of the Manifesto as such: it's a product of its time. Pamphleteering was a popular measure among the contemporary bourgeois because it provided a way to distance the active elite from the passive readers, and Marx and Engels were a product of the German upper middle classes. But as a description of what's happening today, or as a step-by-step plan of action, it's weak. "Programmes" have a faster built-in obsolescence than an iPod.

I would much rather that comrades spent their time working actively for the working classes than bickering over the punctuation in this week's pamphlet. The obsession with the sanctity and inviolability of a particular set of historical words, infects communist programmists just as much as it infects Biblical literalists or American Constitutionalists. It's an excuse for not thinking, and an excuse for inaction both while you draft the last version of your perfect vision and while the situation is "not quite right" for your vision to be enacted. The SWP, meanwhile, is out on the streets making a difference to working class people's lives. Besides, we already have the Socialist Worker paper, the Socialist Review monthly magazine, and the quarterly International Socialism Journal: I think that that's enough writing to be going on.

And on that note, I'm off to our branch meeting. Later, comrades!

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence you have for the SWP's purported "anti-programmism". I have searched their website in the "about us" section, and browsed through some of the relevant "where we stand" articles, but all I could find that was even a bit pertinent is this:I may not be looking hard enough though. Also I thought your comments below were interesting (emphasis mine).

It's pretty much common knowledge. If you read the Weekly Worker for long enough you'll come across an article attacking the SWP's lack of program, along with the inevitable defences of the approach in the Letters column and by every SWP supporter every time you bring it up. There's a biographical article on Tony Cliff which discusses it here:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1000812


Wait - so every single thing ever done by Marx and co is in all things a model of absolute perfection? Guess I need to get me some servants, then.

We're not talking about Marx's personal life, we're talking about his political positions.


Pamphleteering was a popular measure among the contemporary bourgeois because it provided a way to distance the active elite from the passive readers, and Marx and Engels were a product of the German upper middle classes.

I never realised that Willhelm Wietling, who also wrote plenty of pamphlets, was a member of the upper middle class. Or that the same was true of the members of the Communist League who commissioned Marx and Engels to write the Manifesto. Perhaps you're also going to dig up some new historical evidence revealing that the First International was actually crawling with middle class elites? And of course the evidence that the same was true of the SPD, the Second International, the RSDLP (Bolshevik), the Communist International...


But as a description of what's happening today, or as a step-by-step plan of action, it's weak. "Programmes" have a faster built-in obsolescence than an iPod.

Brilliant, so a Programme written in 1848 doesn't describe what's happening today, therefore we should ditch all political programmes. The iron logic of the SWP cultist...


I would much rather that comrades spent their time working actively for the working classes than bickering over the punctuation in this week's pamphlet.

Yes, we've heard it all before. We should all just turn a blind eye to our internal problems and instead go out on the streets and "get our hands dirty" in the kind of reformist struggles which the SWP loves to champion. Never mind if we have nothing positive to offer the working-class that would allow us to engineer a break away from reformist leadership. Never mind if it allows our Central Committee to take a tactical u-turn every five minutes. Marx and Engels were just ultra-left sectarians for focusing on the internal problems of the democratic movement in their articles for papers like the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

I never realised that Willhelm Wietling, who also wrote plenty of pamphlets, was a member of the upper middle class. Or that the same was true of the members of the Communist League who commissioned Marx and Engels to write the Manifesto. Perhaps you're also going to dig up some new historical evidence revealing that the First International was actually crawling with middle class elites? And of course the evidence that the same was true of the SPD, the Second International, the RSDLP (Bolshevik), the Communist International...
"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production".


Brilliant, so a Programme written in 1848 doesn't describe what's happening today, therefore we should ditch all political programmes. The iron logic of the SWP cultist...
Brilliant, so because somebody wrote a programme in 1848 we should all have to write programmes all the time and never have to go out and help the working classes. God forbid you should have to actually talk to somebody who's poor, eh? What a horror it would be for you to have to join us going around the council estates talking about socialism. How utterly beneath you to fight fascism on the streets. No, comrade, you can do all those things and more by just writing a pamphlet, and as soon as the working classes read it they will realise what a genius you are and overthrow capitalism. Perhaps they'll build a statue of you, typing away at a keyboard. The fuzzy logic of a programmist!


Yes, we've heard it all before. We should all just turn a blind eye to our internal problems and instead go out on the streets and "get our hands dirty" in the kind of reformist struggles which the SWP loves to champion. Never mind if we have nothing positive to offer the working-class that would allow us to engineer a break away from reformist leadership. Never mind if it allows our Central Committee to take a tactical u-turn every five minutes. Marx and Engels were just ultra-left sectarians for focusing on the internal problems of the democratic movement in their articles for papers like the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.
If you'd rather spend your time discussing whether the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front are the splitters, then fine. You can do that. Meanwhile, the SWP will be doing something practical. If you'd like to help out, then please, do. But don't condemn the people who are actually doing something. The SWP has more members than the rest of the socialist left put together: we can't be doing everything wrong.

And good night, comrade.

[ed miliband]

I'm proud to be an anti-programmist. Anyone who thinks that all of the world's problems can be summed up in a little pamphlet handed out on street corners is deluded. Anyone who thinks they have the right to dictate to the working class exactly how to conduct their revolution - revolution is supposed to be the SELF-emancipation of the proletariat, remember - is an egotist.

But attempting to sell newspapers to uninterested proles doing their weekly shopping really is the best way to make revolushun, right?

[ZeroNowhere]

"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production".


Brilliant, so because somebody wrote a programme in 1848 we should all have to write programmes all the time and never have to go out and help the working classes. God forbid you should have to actually talk to somebody who's poor, eh? What a horror it would be for you to have to join us going around the council estates talking about socialism. How utterly beneath you to fight fascism on the streets. No, comrade, you can do all those things and more by just writing a pamphlet, and as soon as the working classes read it they will realise what a genius you are and overthrow capitalism. Perhaps they'll build a statue of you, typing away at a keyboard. The fuzzy logic of a programmist!


If you'd rather spend your time discussing whether the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front are the splitters, then fine. You can do that. Meanwhile, the SWP will be doing something practical. If you'd like to help out, then please, do. But don't condemn the people who are actually doing something. The SWP has more members than the rest of the socialist left put together: we can't be doing everything wrong.

And good night, comrade.
Evasion. Line after line of it.

[Thirsty Crow]

"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production".

So, according to your logic, proletarians are simply numb and dumb? And this class also cannot engage in a political activity such as producing pamphlets?

Oh, the irony of mechanicist interpretation.