Shaping the future from the past

by Ben Soton 

What is history for – Essays in honour of Professor John Foster: Manifesto Press, 2024, 98pp; Pbk: rrp £10.00

Someone of a more pedantic temperament might have asked the question, what is grammar for? as the publishers omitted to include a question mark in the title. But spending too much time on detail can detract from what is actually a serious question. Whether we like it or not we are all shaped by history; that of ourselves, our families, whole nations and humanity as a whole. Marxists, however, have always viewed history through the prism of class struggle.
The Manifesto Press publication is a series of essays paying tribute to John Foster.  Foster was for many years the International Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain as well as Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences at the University of the West of Scotland.  Most noted for work is Class Struggle in the Industrial Revolution (1974) as well as various articles the national question, labour history and urban development.  
The pamphlet consists of eleven essays on a range of subjects.  In the first essay Mary Davis essentially writes a tribute to Foster. She discusses how in the late 1970s and early 1980s a number of academics attempted to water down Marxism into a purely analytical tool rather than a guide to action; examples of whom included Foucault, Wright and Cohen.
Well worth reading is Hyper Imperialism Today by VJ Prashad; who both defends Lenin’s thesis of imperialism as the highest state of capitalism whilst espousing the new theory of Hyper Imperialism. He claims there is a hyper-imperialist bloc of states led by the USA, which include the European Union, Japan as well as outlying countries such as Australia.  Prashad claims that for the first time since the development of capitalism this bloc is being challenged by a group of rivals from the Global South. These states may not be entirely anti-capitalist but they are, to a greater extent, anti-Atlanticist. The only way the Hyper-Imperialist bloc can respond is through military aggression; evidence is increased military spending in the United States and Europe.  
Another article of interest is James Crossley’s essay, Religion and English Radical History which looks at the role played by religion in the Peasants Revolt of 1381.  Meanwhile Jonathan White writes about more recent events such as the strike wave of 2022 -23 and David Horsley discusses the role of Black communists in Britain. Some are written in a highly academic style whilst others are more accessible.  
The final article by Gavin Brewis, Intergenerational psychosocial trauma: violence, social murder and the ‘space between’, was one of the articles I really struggled to unpick.  The article is more of a discussion about negative language toward marginalised groups; such as “chavs” and for those north of the border “neds”.  In recent years right-wing governments have attempted to create a hostile environment towards certain groups; witness migrants and the disabled.  When considering the Starmer Government’s cuts to disabled benefits I am reminded of a quote from the late Eric Trevett, the former General Secretary of the New Communist Party: “you don’t need gas chambers to carry out genocide”.

Along the British Road

by Eric Trevett

Some people within the labour Movement argue that the Labour Party is not a party of the working class but a bourgeois party that is is part of the capitalist state machine and that revolutionaries should oppose it in elections.
    We in the New Communist Party believe that these arguments are wrong and an example of good people getting frustrated at the right-wing policies of the Labour Government and anti-working class policies that pave the way for the return of a much more anti-working class government.
    We believe that automatically writing off the whole institution of the Labour Party as a result of the policies of the government arises from a subjective analysis and runs contrary to the efforts to promote working class unity in the day-to-day struggles and in the more profound struggles for revolution and socialism.
    Before the Labour Party was formed the skilled working class tended to give its allegiance to the Liberal Party. When it became obvious that party would not defend the interests of the trade union movement there was a struggle to establish the working class party.
    The socialist parties in those days joined with the trade union leaderships and founded the Labour Party to represent the working class interests in Parliament.
    Most trade union members pay the political levy and are therefore affiliate members of the Labour Party irrespective of whether they are communists or socialists.
    The right wing was also involved in that struggle and from that day to this has been in the ascendancy for most of the time in both the Labour Party and trade union organisations.
    But with all its weaknesses the Labour Party has, from time to time and under pressure from the trade union movement, achieved a number of reforms beneficial to the working class.
    After the First World War in 1919 Clause Four was written into the Labour Party constitution – calling for the working class to take control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.
    And after the Second World War the Labour government was swept into office and launched a massive council house building programme. The railways and the coal and steel industries were nationalised. And the National Health Service was introduced.
    What the Labour government did not do was to carry through a socialist revolution and give the working class state power.
    And its foreign policy served the interests of imperialism, was strictly anti-Soviet and supported the spread of nuclear weapons.
    Historically the labour movement (the Labour Party and the trade unions) has had a reformist leadership whose priority has been to perpetuate capitalism.
    The trade unions are the Labour Party’s main source of finance. Most of the trade unions and the Co-Operative party are affiliated to the Labour Party. This is the basis of why we say the Labour Party is a working class party.
    The labour movement organisationally is not divided into warring trade union groups, as in Europe where the labour movement has been formed by different elements: socialists, Catholics and communists and this has hindered the struggle for unity. The unity of the movement in Britain is very important to maintain; it is an asset we should be proud of.
    It is true that with the introduction of individual membership it has been easy for petty bourgeois elements to penetrate the party and advance their personal careers and this has reinforced the position of the right wing in the Labour Party and trade union movement.
    But the way to counter this is to promote working class unity around working class policies. It is not for organisations to contest the Labour Party’s position in national and local elections. In truth we have seen in recent years that such efforts are futile. Both the Socialist Alliance and George Galloway’s Respect Party have collapsed and so has Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party. The tragedy of that is that Arthur Scargill has isolated himself from the movement in which he was widely respected.
    From its inception the Communist Party of Great Britain has tried to affiliate to the Labour Party; this aim was abandoned only in 1975. One of the reasons why the CPGB failed to win affiliation with the Labour Party was that it stood candidates in elections against Labour and the broad labour movement.
    In hindsight we believe this policy to have been wrong even in the days when the party’s vote was high and Gallagher, Saklatvala and Phil Piratin were elected to Parliament.
    Since then and in the post-war period the bankruptcy of standing against Labour was plain to see. Since the Second World War the emphasis on campaigning in elections in the localities has gained priority over the industrial work of the party. At one time factory branches were being closed in an effort to involve more party members in electioneering.This weakened the capability of the trade unions to exert pressure on the government of the day.
    Our declared aim is to work to strengthen the working class and its political consciousness and fight for the right to affiliate to the Labour Party ourselves as communists.
    That is the way we believe and demonstrate that we are genuinely concerned to participate in the struggles for full employment, peace and socialism in a manner that unites the working class and its allies, especially student bodies.
    It would be wrong for us to stand candidates in national elections because it would be seen to be weakening the fight against the Tories and reaction. This has not led to any watering down of our party’s critique of the right wing in the Labour Party.
    Experience has shown that communists do best in industry and at the places of work because they are a genuine, integral part of the working class and are regarded as such. It is there that we often get communists elected to leading union positions out of respect for their militancy, profound wisdom and practical understanding in the unending struggles with the employers.
    In today’s struggle against the cuts and for nuclear disarmament we can see rising levels of struggle in the localities and we must remember that most class battles are won in the field of struggle and not in parliamentary debate.
    No one knows exactly how the socialist revolution will come about in this country but the struggle outside of Parliament, which is a bourgeois institution, will be far more decisive that the struggle inside Parliament.
    If and when our party succeeds in affiliating to the Labour Party it will bring the struggle for fundamental change and socialism to a new height.
    We therefore ask those people who view the Labour Party as anti-working class to re-evaluate their positions and support the struggle as we have outlined.

Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Long live the struggle for working class unity in Britain and throughout the world!

first published in 2010

Review: SPGB Proud But Flawed

Socialism or your money back, articles from the Socialist

Standard published by the Socialist Party 2004, ISBN

0-9544733-1-0, soft back, 300 pages.

by Eric Trevett

This review was published in the New Worker 

on 20th August 2004

THE SOCIALIST Party of Great Britain has celebrated the

centenary of its foundation (June 1904) and the production

of its monthly paper with a special edition of selected

articles in a single volume. On an occasion such as this it

would be churlish not to congratulate the SPGB on its

achievement, especially as it purports to be supporting

workers' struggle to end their exploitation and achieve a

socialist society.

Indeed some of the articles, such as the one about the

attack on the Tonypandy miners, are very good in exposing

the ruthlessness of the capitalist class and the betrayal

of right-wing Labour leaders. But the SPGB is based on an

ideological position that is fundamentally wrong and leads

it into a position of condemning any and all attempts

hitherto to establish a socialist society.

Not only that, but the national liberation movements are

also condemned and the valid fight for reforms within

capitalist society also tend to be denigrated. To prove the

point, let us quote a full passage from the foreword of the

collected articles. It is a long quotation but it must be

made in full in order to do justice to the SPGB argument:

"The Socialist Party is particularly proud of the fact

that one of the things we have succeeded in doing over the

past 100 years has been to keep alive the original idea of

what a socialist society was supposed to be  a classless,

stateless, frontier less, wage less, moneyless society, to

define it somewhat negatively. Or more positively a World

community in which the natural and industrial resources of

the planet will have become a common heritage of all

humanity, a democratic society in which free and equal men

and women co-operate to produce the things they need to

live and enjoy life, and to which they have free access

with the principle from each according to their ability, to

each according to their needs." Accepted

For many years it has been accepted that socialist

revolution ushers in a long period of transition before a

communist society is established and in the initial period

of socialism, the principle is not from each according to

their ability, to each according to their need. But it is

in fact from each according to their ability, to each

according to the work they do.

The seed of socialist society germinates in the womb of

the capitalist system and when through struggle  economic

and political  it breaks free of the body of its parent, it

inherits many of he faults, inadequacies and shortcomings

of the previous society. To overcome these, as well as

developing the necessary production to eliminate poverty,

and achieve a situation where co-operation is an even

greater force than competition, will certainly take

decades, perhaps centuries.

When judged by such standards as the SPGB puts forward, it

is not surprising that any attempt to break with the

fetters of capitalism is condemned by the SPGB as being

state capitalist.

In addition the SPGB adopts a position of hostility

towards such countries. For instance, during the vicious

war launched by the United States against Vietnam, the SPGB

declared that they did not support either side and said:

"Of course defeat in Vietnam and the whole of South East

Asia would have serious consequences for American

capitalism. That is why they are fighting. It would deprive

them of access to many raw materials, but more important it

would shift the balance of power around the Pacific in

favour of Chinese state capitalism.

"It is not true that the Vietcong and workers are fighting

the same enemy. The Vietcong are fighting American

capitalism. The interests of workers are opposed not only

to American capitalism but also to capitalism everywhere

including Russia and China.

"Victory for the Vietcong, as we have already explained,

would shift the World balance of power from American to

other capitalist powers. This is not something that is in

the interests of workers, or something they should support.

There is not an issue at stake in Vietnam worth a single

worker's life."

Lest there be any doubt we can include another quote:

"Politically the socialist party nailed its colours to the

mast on the nation or class issue at the outset and the

article here on the rise of Sinn Fein in Ireland is a

stinging attack on the idea that national liberation

movements against established imperialist powers are in

some way progressive and worthy of working class support."

Another crucial issue ignored in this volume is the

question of state power and the concept of the dictatorship

of the proletariat in particular. Without the working class

establishing its authority on society, having command of

its oppressive and persuasive organs of power, socialism

cannot be developed. This goes far beyond the social

democrat idea that socialism can be achieved comfortably by

parliamentary legislation. For socialism to be developed

there has to be mass involvement of the working class,

which takes political power to itself and can effectively

defend itself against the national and international

efforts to destroy it whilst at the same time taking

measures to consolidate and develop conditions for a new

society.

The extent to which the revolution will be bloody or

bloodless depends on the unity and determination of the

working class to champion the interests of the bulk of the

people. This is essential to win firm allies in support of

the revolutionary process. It will also depend on the

degree to which there is disaffection among the personnel

of the coercive forces of capitalism. This will determine

the extent to which the capitalist class, which is being

displaced, can command the loyalty of its state apparatus.

Invalid

From the standpoint of the SPGB, such an authoritarian

interpretation of socialism would be invalid. But in the

world we live in the working class needs to be aware that

it is dealing with a ruthless adversary, which as we have

seen in innumerable wars does not blink an eyelid at

consigning millions of men, women and children to their

death.

The SPGB's general negative approach to people in struggle

is often reflected in the articles published in this book.

This includes the efforts of the suffragettes and extends

to people active in the peace movement. This is a book that

has to be read very critically. It would be nice to think

that, on its centenary, the SPGB would reflect

self-critically on its ideologically flawed position. Only

in this way can it correct its practice and really play a

positive role in the fight or socialism.

Currently it is in effect opposing and impeding all real

efforts in the direction of socialism because they cannot

achieve full, perfect communism in the blink of an eye. And

this position helps to sustain capitalism.

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

ERIC TREVETT

1931 - 2014

Eric Trevett, the President of the New Communist Party of Britain, passed away on Saturday 6th September. A life-long communist, internationalist and peace campaigner, Eric worked with Sid French for many years in the struggle against revisionism within the old Communist Party of Great Britain. Eric was a founder member of the NCPB in 1977 and he was elected general secretary of the Party following the death of Sid French in 1979. He held that post until his retirement from full-time party work in 1995.

He was subsequently elected president of the NCPB, a post he held until his death last weekend. Eric suffered from Parkinson's Disease, which increasingly limited his mobility. But only this year he helped to set up a new pensioners' association in his locality while encouraging the workers to join a union at his residential care-home. He will be sadly missed.