Socialist Unity

Good to see that some in the Socialist Party seem to be still pushing for at least tactical unity around elections (see letter For socialist unity in future elections). It's a pity the leadership of the Socialist Party can't be as positive.

As an former member of Militant it's depressing to see the organisation engaging in the same sectarian behaviour it once accused others of. The decision to withdraw from the Socialist Alliance and to criticise Respect from the sidelines seems to me to have been be a mistake. This is not to suggest that others were blameless in the matter or to downplay the difficulty of creating united fronts but there seems far more benefit in unity than division.

Of course, Militant's criticism of others' sectarianism was, to an extent, disingenuous. Like others on the revolutionary left, orthodoxy (or rather, adherence to its own particular analysis) was more important than dialogue or joint action. Discussion of theorists or ideas that fell outside the accepted canon (a fairly limited one of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) were frowned upon or dismissed with faint amusement.

On the other hand, the organisation has a lot to teach others on the left. While the years spent in the Labour Party had some negative effects it also had many benefits, not the least of which were strong roots in the working class (in key areas) and a wealth of experience in local campaigning and electioneering. Respect could benefit from such experience, provided others - most notably the SWP - were able to act in a truly collaborative fashion.

One of the issues raised during the discussions over the future of the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and Respect, has been the task of creating counter-hegemony and what the term actually means. I would suggest that for the foreseeable future it is not so much about creating a unifying orthodoxy, rather it is about creating unity around tactical and strategic objectives, and also about creating a discursive space in which ideas with their roots in Marxism can be exchanged and refined. More importantly, it is about creating an oppositional culture that is vibrant, rather than one that is narrow and sterile.

Part of the problem is that the Trotskyist left was constructed upon a model that evolved in insurrectionary circumstances, and was refined by a core of embattled revolutionaries. Before the Civil War and the growth of Stalinism crushed it, the Bolshevik organisation demonstrated a diversity that many would find hard to imagine. Indeed, few modern revolutionary organisations demonstrate the diversity of thought that characterised the Russian social democrats during exile.

New thinking is needed for a new era, especially if were are to build an opposition to New Labour and neo-liberalism. Obsessing over othodoxy or shying away from building unity are not part of that new thinking or new future.

Waking from the American Dream

Proof that the US model works in today's New York Times.

According to the Op Ed item on class mobility - the foundation of the American Dream - is a myth. The author writes: "American workers have been hurting badly for years. Revolutionary improvements in technology, increasingly globalized trade, the competition of low-wage workers overseas and increased immigration here at home, the decline of manufacturing, the weakening of the labor movement, outsourcing and numerous other factors have left American workers with very little leverage to use against employers.

Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards and fearful to the point of trembling that all they've worked for might vanish in a downsized minute.

The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts."

Bob Herbert's comment piece in the US establishment's house journal links to a special, Class Mattters which reveals the suppressed truth underpinning Republican ideology.

Mao: Stating the Bleeding Obvious

There is something I find extremely irritating about the current publicity hoopla around Mao: The Unknown Story by Jun Chang and Jon Halliday.

It may be that the authors have, indeed, uncovered previously unknown nuggets and I will be interested to see what they have produced. However, I fail to see how any of the 'revelations' in the book - that the Chinese revolution relied heavily upon Russian support, that Mao was a demagogue and butcher, that the Chinese revolution saw more deaths than either the period of high Stalinism or Nazi rule in Germany, or that Mao turned on his supporters - represent any kind of real breakthrough, or for that matter, an airing of hitherto hidden truths.

While some on the Trotskyist left underwent a period of infatuation with Maoism (and in some instance, dissolved into Maoist organisations) a large section of the left always saw Mao for what he was. The Maoist sects always acted as a barrier to advancement by the Western left and while some members of the media may be embarrassed by the 'revelations' in Mao many of the rest of us always saw the endorsement of Maoist China as either laughable or tragic.

It may be unfair to place Jun Chang and Jon Halliday in the Martin Amis category of reheaters of already known and established facts but it is certainly tempting to do so.

Trotsky's writing on China and the tragedy of the its first, failed revolution highlight how the Chinese working class was crushed due to the mistakes of Stalin and Bukharin and their misplaced faith in Chiang Kai Shek. When Mao came to power it was as the head of a peasant army, with a politics that from the outset mimicked the worst aspects of Stalinism. Personalities are not insignificant factors in the making of history but any analysis worth its salt must recognise the underlying forces at work.

Some of the reviews suggest that this is not the approach taken by the authors. Others, like Will Hutton in the Observer have sought to take a more balanced view. Even one of the more gushing reviews concedes that there is no indication of the quality of sources and it is clear that in some of the cases the authors have relied upon Nationalist sources.

In the meantime, the authors seem to be doing little more than stating what many of us knew all along.