A Reply To "Dave" On The Politics of The SWP & Fighting Fascism

This post is a reply to "Dave" following on from a discussion we have been having here


”For those of honest mind please read the following article (Daly Mail vs the Nazi’s) in the current edition of socialist worker, I think it makes my point:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19454”

What point exactly is it making??? For one thing its confused. I think there actually has to be a debate about the nature of the BNP, as the Weekly Worker suggest. On the one hand, I have myself pointed to the fact that the BNP has within it many thugs, and you do not have to look far to find thuggish behaviour from BNP members. Until recently, I too stood by the classical view of the BNP as a fascist party. However, having read some of the articles in the WW recently, I am prepared to take a more open view. I think to be saying to people that this is a classic “Nazi” party, when it has NOT been going out in an organised way to smash up Left meetings or Trade Unions as the Nazis did, when it is speaking out vehemently, against groups like the EDL, who are engaged in such activity, could simply undermine the left, in the eyes of workers, who look at those statements and compare it with the reality and find a mismatch. Certainly, we can make the point that it is doing this in order to win electoral support, but does not the fact of how such a process changed the Front National – and in a different context Provisional Sinn Fein, or in yet another the way in which electoralism changed “Socialist” parties, and changes individual “socialist” politicians – cause us to engage in a more in depth analysis of what the BNP is?

At the same time the SWP’s position is thoroughly confused. At the same time as running such stories attacking the bourgeois press and bourgeois parties, it then puts the leading representatives, like David Cameron, of that same bourgeoisie, on its platforms, or attaches their names to its campaigns. It even advises people on demonstrations, it has called, not to attack the racists of UKIP! Trotsky referred to such bankrupt politics when he said that once you start down this road you always end up giving your support to, or going into alliance with, ever more reactionary politicians, because there is always some “greater evil”, measured against which these politicians are themselves the “lesser evil”.

What is more such politics reflect the fact that the SWP does not operate on the basis of class politics, but works on the basis of a world in which politics is compartmentalised. Over here there is “industrial politics”, over here there is “Anti-racism”, over there there is “Women’s Work” or “LGBT Work”, over here there is “Anti-Imperialism”. And what it does is to say different things in each area. When its working in the “Women’s Work” area, for example, it will promote itself as the champion of women’s rights. The same when it is working in the LGBT area it will be the greatest proponent of Gay and Lesbian rights and so on. But, when it is working on anti-racism it will refuse to pursue these issues, for example as it did in Bradford a few years ago over the question of grooming, and will even accuse others of Islamophobia, for doing so themselves. When it is working in the area of anti-imperialism, for example supporting the murdering mullahs in Iran or Iraq, it will refuse to challenge the fact that these same people are murdering socialists, trade unionists, women and gays and so on. The reason it does this is quite clear. Rather than locating its politics on the basis of class politics, it bases itself on “building the party”, and in each area of work simply says whatever it thinks that particular milieu wants to hear. It acts in accordance with your policy of “diplomacy”, subordinating its politics to the need to not upset possible recruits. But, what this “diplomacy” actually amounts to is nothing more than the kind of Opportunism that the adherents of the Second International were guilty.
The piece also is politically inadequate for another reason. It attacks – quite correctly – the racism of the gutter press (which for reasons I set out in my blog I don’t think necessarily DOES reflect the interests of the Capitalist class, which requires social stability, and cheap imported labour). But, it is arrant nonsense to suggest that the support for the BNP is based solely on the ravings of the Daily Mail, or the reactionary politics of mainstream parties. The BNP have been picking up workers votes, because many of the least well-off sections of the working class feel that they have been shat upon from a great height. They believe they don’t have jobs, decent houses, school places and so on, because of immigration. They are, of course, wrong, but simply telling them they are wrong is not enough. They need someone to provide them with a solution to those problems – a political solution.

But, and this was one of the main points I have previously made, it is quite clear that neither the UAF, nor the other anti-fascist organisations that base themselves on trying to build Popular Frontist opposition to the BNP can possibly provide such a solution. The SW article certainly offers none does it? The UAF etc. cannot offer such solutions precisely because doing so means advocating CLASS politics, and if the UAF did that then the David Cameron’s, the Teddy Taylor’s, and all the Bishops, all the bourgeois Nationalists who want to oppose the BNP by pretending to be better Nationalists would disappear in an instant.

“Imagine how they feel when you present your immigration ideas! Imagine what that does to the image of socialism in their eyes but you are correct not to pander to ignorance and the SWP are correct also.”

What on Earth are you talking about? How can my position of holding to a clear class politics and arguing against Immigration Controls cause any confusion? My position is clear. I see workers as the revolutionary class. It is the job of a Marxist to stick with the workers even where they hold reactionary ideas, precisely because the task is to divest them of those ideas. I do not make acceptance of my ideas a precondition for sticking with the workers, but I do insist on the need for Marxists not to abandon their ideas. Compare that with the sectarianism of the SWP over the LOR strikes, where they recognised that those who argue for “Import Controls”, and “British Jobs 4 British Workers” are “proponents of racism”, and on that basis refused to support workers in struggle against the bosses!!!!! In fact, one reason they did that – along with many of the other sects whose natural recruiting ground is amongst the petit-bourgeois, student and intellectualist milieu where having “right-on” politics in respect of racism is paramount – was precisely fear that they would lose support and potential recruits.

“I am not sure they do anymore actually. They have evolved into banter, that is my impression. Just like the jokes against the Germans.”

I think you are deluding yourself if you do not believe that these jokes were only possible because they took as their starting point entrenched stereotypes. Its rather like the bloke who said to me down the gym the other week that he was not a racist, and then went on to tell me that he’d been reading Obama’s book, and related that “his father was like all these blacks and couldn’t keep his dick in his trousers.” I suppose that’s just banter too!

“As I said shame some do not see through this sham!!!”

I think it’s a shame you are not prepared to consider whether more analysis is required.

“Your response to my Bakunin jibe was thoroughly confused. I will try to summarise as best I can my take on this immense topic.”

I’m not confused at all, its your politics that are confused, because you start from some principal, and then completely abandon it when it comes to its application!

”I do not agree with the pro imperialist position of the AWL for a variety of reason, but I think Marxists should have opinions on international matters.”

Who would disagree with that?

“Of course those opinions must be based absolutely on the interests of the class struggle. We should also distinguish a conflict between imperialists and those wars of domination by imperialists against weaker states.”

But, the SWP does not do that. On Ireland back in the 60’s it started from a thoroughly workerist position refusing to take on the National Question and British involvement, because it was unpopular amongst British workers at a time when bombs were going off. Then it completely changed course and became cheerleaders for the Provos. Its statements about “We are all Hezbollah Now”, i.e. we are all a bunch of clerical-fascists, have nothing to do with basing yourself on the class struggle and everything to do with basing yourself on trying to win recruits in its currently chosen milieu!

Moreover, what does imperialism against weaker states mean? Was Germany a weaker state when it had been occupied and placed under domination by Britain and the US, for example? Moreover, even having made this distinction what are the political conclusions that flow from it. I’ve given the quote from Trotsky about a war between Brazil and Britain. But, his more detailed position is illustrated by his position in relation to Japanese Imperialism and China. The SWP’s position on these issues is effectively that of Stalin. That is they subordinate their own politics in order to enter a Popular Front with bourgeois nationalist forces – “we are all Hezbollah”. Compare that with Trotsky who opposed submersion of the Communist forces in the KMT, whilst at the same time arguing for support for the KMT and Chiang Kai Shek against Japan. But, what did that “support” consist of. It consisted of offering to forge a military alliance against Japanese Imperialism, whilst maintaining the clearest political and organisational demarcation from the KMT, in fact, sharpening the criticisms of the KMT, pointing out that it could not be relied upon to fight a battle to the death with Japan, that it would turn on the workers and so on.

He was, of course, absolutely correct, because having used the Communists, just as the Stalinists and Communalists used the SWP in Respect, Chiang turned round and massacred the Communists, just as the Stalinists and Communalists turned on the SWP. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

”Marx allowed himself to have an opinion on the war between Germany and France that led to the Paris Commune and at the same time he tasked the international to “put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland”.”

But, Marx’s solution was not to submerge class politics in bourgeois Nationalism. Marx was a Centralist. He was only reluctantly in favour of the separation of the Irish and British workers in order to resolve this problem. Even then he favoured a federal Ireland and Britain in order to try to maintain the unity of the class. And start to finish, even though he was writing before the much fuller discussion of the National Question by later revolutionaries like Lenin, his solution was based on the working class providing the answer. Compare that with the SWP’s kowtowing to the reactionary politics of all kinds of clerical-fascists and bourgeois Nationalists at the expense of class politics.

”On the Second World War I agree with many of your factual observations but looking back after the event we should see the differences in the warring states and recognise that for many people this was seen as a ‘just’ war against the evils of fascism. Here I am not talking about the people who fought in the war but subsequent generations who look back with hindsight. So bringing this back to the debate in question I regard the word Nazi as synonymous with ‘evil’ Fascists and not ‘evil’ Germans.”

And I have said I disagree, but apart from that disagreement, I would suggest to you that the concomitant of that is to give credibility to the very idea that this WAS such a War. It is to give credence to the idea that there WAS a common cause between British Workers and British bosses against this evil Nazism. In going along with all the crap about trying to deny the BNP Nationalist symbols like the Spitfire and Churchill, the SWP does lend credence to the idea that there was something to be proud of in such an imperialist War, and does suggest that the Spitfire and Churchill were “ours”. But, of course, the job of a Marxist is to do the exact opposite, to shatter that myth. The SWP, cannot do it, because today in its Popular Frontist organisations it IS in bed with those very same bourgeois forces!!!

“I do not think Marx would have looked at this conflict and concluded that they were all as bad as each other so it didn’t matter what the outcome was. He often voiced his preference of sides in such conflicts.”

Firstly, Marx was writing prior to the world being divided into competing imperialist powers. Secondly, he was writing prior to the fuller discussion of the National Question by socialists at the beginning of the twentieth century. And yes, in any particular conflict Marxists have to take a view based on what furthers the interests of the working class. Lenin gives the classic example of that when he speaks about subordinating the bourgeois democratic freedoms that might be fought for in a small state to the interests of the workers in two larger states who might be dragged into a war, as a consequence of a struggle for those freedoms.

”To quote Marx verbatim “You see what a caricature he [Bakunin] has made of my doctrines! As the transformation of the existing States into Associations is our last end, we must allow the governments, those great Trade-Unions of the ruling classes, to do as they like, because to occupy ourselves with them is to acknowledge them.””

This has nothing to do with the argument you are trying to make. Of course, Marxists do not simply throw up their hands, and say what Governments do in International Affairs is none of our business! Who is suggesting that??? Of course, Marxists oppose Wars and so on, but Trotsky was, of course, correct, and Marx I’m sure would not have contradicted him, when he said that such wars may not be OUR wars, but we will have them unless we are strong enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish our own state, because at the end of the day control over the military flows from control of that state!

”Your interpretation of my position I think shows you do not look at these events with the class struggle in mind, as your absurd implication that I would support the USA against Vietnam shows. Actually the opposite would be true.”

But, given what you said in your previous post about not being neutral between “fascist” and “democratic” regimes, and what you have repeated above there is nothing absurd in that conclusion at all. It flows logically from your position. Was not the US a bourgeois democracy of the kind you see as a lesser evil compared to fascism. Was not North Vietnam a Stalinist dictatorship, and didn’t Trotsky describe Stalinism as differing from Fascism only in its greater brutality? As you approve of the “diplomatic” alliances between workers and bourgeois to fight fascism then why should that not include an alliance with democratic bourgeois from other countries prepared to help in fighting the good fight? That is the logic of your position even if you are reluctant to accept it.

”For example, I wouldn’t support an attack on Iran but I would welcome an end to the clerical dictators by an uprising within Iran, even if the outcome was a more liberal ruling class. This would allow us to establish better links with the advanced workers in Iran. An attack by the West would set back that possibility for generations.”

That is exactly what the Stalinists proposed in their stages theory, and upon which they advocated the Popular Front. But, as I said, if this liberal bourgeoisie can be allied with in this way, then why not the liberal bourgeoisie of Britain and the US. Those who have taken your argument to its logical conclusion such as the Labour Friends of Iraq, argued precisely that, and like you pointed to the fact that we should not have been neutral between a victory for “democratic” Britain as against “Fascist” Germany in WWII. The AWL, whilst not completely taking the argument to its logical conclusion like LFIQ, at the same time, argue that this democratic imperialism was trying to establish some form of bourgeois democracy, in Iraq, as it had done in Germany and Japan. They too argue that this will allow “better links with the advanced workers in Iraq”. It is, of course, all nonsense, but it is far more consistent nonsense than the argument you are trying to make.