Workers' Liberty

(i.e. the majority's position may be described thus: "we won't adopt a state perspective, but we will, in adopting a workers' movement perspective, raise a slogan that has them, i.e. the movement, adopting a state perspective".)

... that should be 'minority's position', sorry. Also the thing about the chameleon would make more sense if the title was still in place - da mystery of chess boxin.

of what you write here.

1. Workers ownership piece by piece. I think what is problematic is workers control without ownership. Its like dual power, unstable and short lived at best. It can be fought for and supported in specific condiitons, but Marxists have to make clear that ultimately control is a function of ownership. Marx clearly had a perpsective of workers clawing back ownership piece by piece. Look at his writings in Capital about the Lancashire Co-operatives, his statement about Co-operatives being the form of transition from Capitalist economy to socialist economy, look at his arguments in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, his statement in his Address to the First International and so on. In the Grundrisse as I have argued elsewhere his comments on the nature of Labour and Capital clearly lay the basis for this approach, his argument about savings and wages etc. Other early socialists followed that perspective too look at Connolly and his account of Ralahine.

2. I don't see how you conclude that the Minority's position is statist. On the contrary it seems to me to be wholly about setting out a Political programme for resolving an immediate problem through the agnecy of the working class, a programme which unlike the Majority's position does set out the dialectical relationship between the need to build the Labour Movement from its current position, the need to change the balance of social forces, and the part such a Programme plays in that process of change. The Majorities position throughout has been formalistic taking the current relationship of social forces as a given, and proceeding as though they are forever fixed, as though the need to build the Labour Movement (in Iraq and internationally)was totally removed from the position it adopts here and now towards the Occupation! I think the Minority should develop a more wide-ranging Programme along those lines as I have tried to sketch out noit at all comrehensively here but for allthe Majorities insistence on building the Labour movement they have absolutely no Programme to achieve it, at least the Minority have considered the question. In Martin's "yes,but" its noticeable that he does not go on to say, "Provided the LabourMovement kick them out." but only says "not at the expense of..."

3. I think the focus on the slogans is a red-herring. If you have this romantic view that politics is all about the big occasion, the demo etc. then slogans might be important. But the reality is that for socialist politics what is actually important is debate and discussion, debate and discussion that takes place not on the basis of slogans, but on the basis of real ideas taken up within the Labour Movement, and within working class communities. On that basis you can have whatever slogan you like, because when it comes down to concretising what it is supposed to say that involves setting out your argument in such a way that no one can be in doubt as to what you meant by the slogan. If we beleive that real social change comes from winning the battle of democracy within the working class it is at that level of debate in the TU and LP branches, on the shop floor, in the TRA's, in the Co-operatives etc that is the means for bringing that about not the bouregois public opinion influenced by some big popular demonstration. Yet it is this latter that the majority have been cocnerned with - how the man on the Clapham Omnibus might understand a placard he may or may not see on the occasional demonstration! What I object to in the Majority's position is not the issue of the slogans, but what it brings out in their argumentation about their politics in general, and how that necessarily flows from their petit-bouregois socialist Third Camp methodology - which incidentally is the source of their statist politics too.

4. You are right that in practical terms the size of political organisations means that practically we cannot materially change events here and now. But I think it is a crude Marxism that does not recognise that correct political ideas have a disproportionate effect - especially at crucial junctures. The strike of US dockers against the war demonstrates that it is not just bouregois ideas that filter down. UNless we believe that correct socialist ideas can also be argued for and won - that as Marx put it the battle of demcoracy can be won - then socialism is impossible. I see nothing theoretical in that on the contrary its of utmost practical importance.

5. Like Marx and Lenin I am an Anarchist in relation to the bourgeois state. But I am not an Anarchist in relation to the Workers State. If workers in Iraq were able to organise to such a degree as to be able to challenge for power - agains see TRotsky's argument in relation to Italy - then the issue would not at all be of little consideration. I would be entirely in favour of the establishment of such a Workers State, just as I would at the time have supporting the Bolsheviks. That does not mean that I beleive that this is the most advantagageous means by which a Workers State comes into being - quite the opposite, and I think that its origin almost certainly guarantees, if not its demise then its degeneration - but the alternative is to simply surrender to the class enemy, and invite the worst kind of reaction. Marx advised against the insurrection of the Paris Workers because he did not beleive the material basis, nor the development of the paris Workers was sufficient at the time, but when the Workers came out in revolt he threw himself wholly behind their cause.

Socialism is only possible on the basis of the conscious self-activity of the working class in its vast majority. That is only possible on the back of fundamental changes in the material condition of the working class, in particular the establishemnt on a fairly broad scale of economic and social relations that enhance the social position of the class i.e. the establishment of co-operatives, and the ownership on a collective basis of large shares by workers in publicly listed companies. As Marx puts it in the Grundrisse nothing fundamental changes if workers have savings, only if savings are transformed into Capital is there a fundamental change.

But, history does not proceed according to such scripts. It would have been better had Marxists followed Marx's advice for the last 100 years, and in that case we might have been closer to reality fitting the model, but we have to deal with reality as it is. The truth is always concrete, and where as in Russia in 1917 or Iraq now we find conditions that are not ideal we have to use Marx's method, and his commitment to revolution to guide our actions.

Arthur Bough

In his DB article Martin says that Dan had commented that were there a button he could press that would make the troops leave Iraq, immediately, he would not push it. I would answer differently. I would answer in similar vein to Martin's "yes, but." Thatis to say I would answer "Yes, I would push the button. I would then immediately push this magical button again to defeat the clerical-fascist enemies of the Iraqi Labour Movement. I would then push it again to magically establish socialism in all the developed economies of the world. Then push it again to bring about a democratically planned and co-ordinated use of these economies resources to provide the citizens of these economies with a decent standrad of living within the context of a sustainable and pelasant environment, and to begin the task of developing the economires and resources of the rest of the world in order that they could in turn experience a similar transformation."

Such a button does exist. It is called the conscious mobilisation of the vast majority of the working class as the revolutionary agent of historical change. The problem is that the mechanism behind this button is not yet fully functioning, and the mechanism remains as yet disconnected from the button. The problem is not whether or not to press the button, but how to complete the task of building the mechaism.

Arthur Bough

Like Martin I welcome Dan's contribution, but I think further debate is required. Like Martin, I don't think it should be criticised for any inadequacy as a first darft. But I do see weaknesses.

1. National Indpendence. I disagree with martin's position. A country that achieves national independence might subsequently collapse into chaos and feuding factions - many in Africe did so - that does not change the fact that they have acheived national independence from a colonial master. A counrty has as much right to exhibit its independence by such means as by becoming a model of bouregois democracy that is a function of it choosing its own path rather than that path being dictated to it by some other power. We might not like or support the forces that achieve such a solution, but we cannot deny the reality of what they achieve! However, I do agree that if the problems of the debate over slogans are not to be repeated that this demand should spell out clearly that it is a call for the Labour Movement in Iraq and internationally to mobilise to kick out the Occupation, and to defeat the other enemies of the working class.

2.Economic Independence. Clearly, Marxists do not beleive that any economy - including largely a workers state - can be independent of the world economy. Dan sets out more clearly what he means. Martin, is right the oil industry - except in Kurdistan where Norwegian oil companies in particular have moved in - remains nationalised. As I point out in my blog - Class war Erupts in Iraq - from the standpoint of the Iraqi working class there is little of benefit in this nationalisation. Workers face a more powerful boss in the form of the State, resources are drained towards that state and used for further repression of workers, and to finance those that leach off the Iraqi workers, not to help develop the Iraqi economy, or to benefit Iraqi workers. That nationalisation is better than the oilfields being in private hands, but as a minimum it requires a struggle for workers control in order to divert those resources to meet the needs of workers. But, ultimately such ends can only be achieved if the workers themselves own those assets, not the reactionary bourgeois Iraqi State.

I agree with Martin that if their is a call for Economic Independence there should at least be a programme that offers some perspective of how the Iraqi economy should be developed, and demands that workers could mobilise around here and now to achieve that. In particular as I point out in my blog, if the Iraqi labour movement is to break out of its weakness it must begin to fragment the support for the clerical-fascists amongst the plebeian masses, as Trotsky argued the Italian Marxists had to do. That can only be done by building a United Front with those plebeian masses that currently give their support to Sadr's Jacobins.

3. Workers democracy etc. I think this is a step too far ahead. I am all in favour of workers struggling for workers control as a temporary measure, but that implies that workers have some strength to implement it. It is not a demand that can be addressed to a state, and should not be even were it possible. It is something that has to be used agitationally in the main, and in practice only where workers have developed some measure of strength - as for example in the oil industry. Workers Control is dual power at the level of the enterprise. It is workers saying we have as much power to decide as you. But such dual power is always short lived. It is a different matter with what needds to go first, which is the establishment of factory Committees organising all workers at a plant as a day to day organisation of class struggle. Such Committees form the basis of a struggle for workers democracy in the plant, and on which other forms of worker democracy stem, such as the militia, and ultimately the Soviet. It was within the Factory Committees that the Bolsheviks had their greatest strength.

I did not read Dan's programme as being a list of demands to be palced in front of the Iraqi state to be agreed to. It is interesting that Martin conceives of the Programme as beoing one addressed to the bouregois state to accede to, not one for the working class to mobilise round, and impleemnt by its own strength, which takes us back to the basis of the differences over slogans. I would recommend reading Trotsky's "Action programme for France" to see the difference in his approach. Trotsky makes clear - and this was a big ommission in Dan's Programme - that although it defends bouregois democracy it does so not be giving any credibility to that form, not by using the channels of bouregois democracy to mount such defence, but does so by the methods of proletarian democracy, by class struggle, the establishment of factory committees, peasant committees etc.

4. For self-determination and national rights. Yes provided this does not blur our focus on class struggle. Comrades should read Trotsky's 1929 article Defence of the USSR and the Opposition on this score, particularly the section on formalism versus Marxism, you will see their in the criticism of Louzon many features reminiscent of the majorities arguments. I disagree with Martin's position in respect of "national" rights. Lenin makes clear in some of his writings on the National Question that a proletarian programme seeks to be consistently democratic not just by recognising the rights of "nationalities" as such, but of recognising that within some states there are considerable differences based upon regions within the state, different traditions etc., and that consistent demcoracy requires that significant regional autonomy should be extended to those living within such regions. Marxists are in favour of the greatest degree of centralisation,a nd within the Workers organisations such centralism should be the norm, but if workers are to attract the support of groups outside the workers movement they have to accommodate the needs and aspirations of those groups of people. This is compeltely separate from Federalism, which is the most extreme variant, and certainly from National Cultural Autonomy. That the Sunnis should be wary of Federation is udnerstandable, especially considering the source of such demands. But socialists cannot boycott their own politics just because someone else uses a demand in a way that we do not intend - again back to the argument over slogans. Marxists should be in favour of extensive regional autonomy to enhance and protect minority rights, and for the establishemnt of Constituent Assemblies formed on the basis of the existence of consistent bouregois democratic rights for all - i.e. right to assembly, to strike, freedom of the press, and within the context of elections free from physical intimidation (none of which existed in practice prior to the elections for the Iraqi Parliament. Such assemblies within more homogenous communities will emphasise the class differences within them rather than the sectarian differences that national elections in a communal diffuse society engender. These regional Assemblies could then elect representatives to a National Parliament. But Marxists - to the extent that they have to accept the existence of a bouregois state at all - should be in favour of a central state with control over National Defence, a National Budget, and so on.

5. I think this could be left as something like "For a secular democratic state". The democratic being left algebraic. We are in favour of a workers state, but will struggle for bouregois demcoratic freedoms along the way. Plus a commitment to fredom of beleif.

6. I have dealt with above.

7. In addiiton to women's rights there should be a more thought out section on basic bouregois fredoms including all aspects of sexuality and gender, and reproductive rights. But rather than simply addressing these demands to the Iraqi state to be accepted there should be a Programme of how these rights could be fought for here and now by the Labour Movement. To demand that the bouregois state legalises a workers militia seems a bit strange to me. Workers militia exist anyway, we organise them whether the bourgeois state likes it or not.

In short although Dan's Programme is a good start there are aspects of it, which still too much focus on getting the agreement of the bouregois state rather than focussing on solutions independent of that state.

Martin, is right that, however, good and corect your programme it cannot substitute for real development of the Labour Movement. As Marx put it one step of real progress is worth a dozen programmes. But the issue of achieving that progress and of programme are not separate issues as marx himself was well aware. What Marx meant as Trotsky elaborated was that you cannot simply sucha programme out of your thumb and present it to the working class. No amount of Programmes produced in the laboratory can replace the real class struggle. A programme only has merit if it is a codification of the expeiences and lessons of the actual class struggle - its concrete reality. But, only on the basis of learning those lessons and codifying them in a programme can the class make real advances. That is their purpose that is the function of the Workers Party in acting as the memory of the class. Dan has made a start to that process, whereas martin's response gives the impression that he still can only see reality in the static form of what is possible now. I would suggest that "It doesn't relieve us of the duty to "face reality squarely; not to seek the line of least resistance; to speak the truth to the masses, no matter how bitter it may be..." requires precisely in this situation recognising the dire condition of the working class in Iraq, that speaking the truth to the class requires spelling that out and the chances of success, the problems to be encountered, but that in not seeking the line of least resistance we point them in the direction of such a Programme, such a struggle, as the only way of making real progress rather than palming them off with Economism, and effectively telling them to rely on the Occupation in the meantime.

Incidentally, on Ireland I do not beleive the Militant's mistake was their emphasis on building working class unity. On the contrary I think that aspect of their politics was correct as against that of Workers Fight/Workers Action/Socialist Organiser which conceded too much to bouregois nationalism at the expense of class politics. The Militant's position in that respect was consistent with the line of Lenin that whatever Programme Marxists adopt in relation to the National Question they seek within the Labour Movement to build the greatest possible centralism with no concession to such divisions. It mirros the discussion at the Second Congress of the Comintern where the position in the North of Ireland was seen as less problematic because the protestant workers saw themselves as British, and therefore Communists could focus purely on class demands. But of course what was wrong with that and with the Militant's position was that Catholics did not see themselves as British. Any programme had to accommodate the needs and fears of Catholics not in terms of "national rights", but certainly in terms of minority rights. The only way to build a united Labour Movement was therefore not to ignore the National Question - or more specifically the question of the Catholics as a Minority - but to embrace that problem, and to address it with consistent democracy. Irrespective of the question of a UNited Ireland Marxists had to be in favour of some form of governmental solution that offered even within the confines of Northern Ireland protection of the Minority Rights of Catholics, including some form of "regional" autonomy in areas where Catholics formed a majority. These could not be National Rights any more than would rights for Sunni or Shia, but they certainly would in equal measure be Minority Rights in the way that Lenin discussed them. But that solution for society does not change the responsibility of Marxists to fight for the maximum class unity in the organsations of the Labour Movement, up to and including workers militia based on those united class organisations as a secular and progressive alternative to the sectarian militia that attacked the workers of both communities.

Arthur Bough