Over the last few months every edition of the Weekly Worker has carried at least one article about Workers Liberty. Headlines have included "Pro Imperialists Snubbed", "ENS must Break with AWL Social - Imperialism" and "[AWL] On the Defensive over Iraq". The main purpose of these articles seems to be to win over comrades from the AWL or ENS who support Troops Out or Troops Out Now perspective on Iraq to the politics of the CPGB (or at least to cause ructions and disruption in AWL & ENS). Members of the CPGB have tried to offer me and others "help" in our debate on Iraq. I obviously have declined these generous offers. With the CPGB trying to act as an external faction of Workers Liberty I think it is important to understand why their approach is fundamentally un-marxist and alien to working class politics.

On a superficial level the CPGBs perspectives on Iran, popular frontism and other matters seem closer to our perspectives then many other left wing groups. Yet in reality they do not play any active part in the class struggle and are disdainful of and hostile towards the existing international workers movement. When the Weekly worker bothers to talk about strikes and unions they spend their time attacking the "apolitical" & "tailist" role plaid by the left in these struggles. In an article headlined "Union Struggles need political leadership" Peter Manson argues that workers struggles will remain defensist until a marxist party is in place to lead these struggles. Comrade Manson says "We can ourselves immediately take steps towards that formation without having to rely on the union lefts. Unfortunately, however the rest of the left is far away from principled marxist unity."

The CPGB shows how it believes principled marxist unity can be built from the large amount of paper-space the WW gives to arguments within the Campaign for a Marxist Party (CPM). If anyone bothers to read these articles (which I don't recommend) you will see they often revolve around preparing detailed draft programmes. This approach goes for the CPGB itself and the HOPI as well. They criticise Solidarity for the apparent vageness and lack of detail shown in the "Where We Stand" statement. Yet this highlights their total misunderstanding of the Marxist conception of history and of the working class struggle. As Engels said in Anti-Duhring "When we reflect on nature or the history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless maze of connections and interactions, in which nothing remains where and as it was, but everything moves changes and passes away."

This change in material conditions hurtles forward through the process of contradictions being created and resolved (the dialectic). Consequently marxist's see the working class struggle as a movement, it does not stand still and its organisations are built upon the material conditions of class society. The forms of organisation and the demands of the class in struggle change. Marxist programmes must come from the class in its current state of consciousness but point to the conclusion that the working class must seize power, that is the test. The CPGBs conception of a programme is a mixture of stale dogma, posturing and abstract reasoning . This approach lacks any understanding of the objective material conditions of our class. This is why I think it can be correctly described as idealist.

Another key part of their approach is the primary importance of political organisation as opposed to "Economism". I asked Ben Lewis of CPGB what he thought was the role of socialists in trade unions, he said to act as "Communists". This in itself is something we would obviously agree with in general. However what it means to Comrade Lewis and the rest of the CPGB in practice is to use the unions to build their party. This is both cynical and utopian. The class consciousness of the working class is only born in struggle. Unions represent the basic and primary organisation of the working class and is an expression of basic class consicousness. Union action and workers struggles are always political, social and economic struggles. Marxists should be at the forefront of these economic struggles and at the same time always bring forward the political question. Instead the CPGB is indifferent to these economic questions. It criticisies those leftists involved in organising unions but then expect that the union members can be won to the CPGBs politics. Jean-Paul Sartre said "In order that there should be consciousness and struggle, it is necessary that somebody should be fighting". True marxists see that they should be at the forefront of struggles, the CPGB seem to want to benefit from the fighting done by others.

Their idealism often leads them into becoming moralistic. They see the workers movment as it is, not as the only force that will bring about a workers state. They denounce the inadequacy of the politics of Mansuor Osanloo and the iranian workers movement for not being anti war enough. They do not understand that marxists are partisans of the working class movement, contradictory consciousness and all. 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.