From: "Stasi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Peoples War] RCG: Communists and national liberation movements -
Same Goals, Different Paths
Communists and national liberation movements:
===========================
SAME GOAL - DIFFERENT PATHS
===========================
(Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! September 1985)
As communists in the world's oldest imperialist nation, the
Revolutionary Communist Group (RCG) has consistently fought long and
bitter struggles with the British left to establish the communist
position of unconditional support for the struggle of national
liberation movements against British imperialist domination and
against national oppression. Our record on this, especially in
relation to Ireland, is beyond serious challenge. In Britain, with
its long tradition of imperialist exploitation, its strong and well
entrenched labour aristocracy, communists have always had to
emphasise the goal we have in common with the national liberation
movements - the defeat of British imperialism.
As the crisis of British imperialism has deepened, with the
consequent polarisation of British class society, and as the tempo of
the national liberation struggles themselves have accelerated
(Ireland 1981, South Africa 1984-5) inevitably the issue of the
relationship between communists and national liberation movements
will present itself in new ways, raising new questions and demanding
answers. So today the very forces that yesterday accused the RCG of
conceding to reactionary nationalism for demanding unconditional
support for national struggles against British imperialism and
against national oppression, are now flaunting a newly
discovered 'solidarity' with liberation movements to justify their
own opportunist attempt to sustain the deadly grip of the labour
aristocracy over the working class and oppressed in Britain. It is,
therefore, necessary to restate the basis of the communist standpoint
on the national question.
Lenin and the right of nations to self-determination
Under imperialism the world has been divided into oppressor and
oppressed nations and national oppression has been extended and
intensified. A split has been created in the working class movement
in the imperialist countries. One section, the labour aristocracy,
has been corrupted by the 'crumbs that fall from the table' of the
imperialist bourgeoisie, obtained from the super-exploitation and
brutal oppression of the people from oppressed nations. The other,
the mass of the working class, cannot liberate itself without uniting
with the movement of oppressed peoples against imperialist
domination. Only such an alliance will make it possible to wage a
united fight against the imperialist powers, the imperialist
bourgeoisie, and their bought-off agents in the working class
movement. This means the working class fighting in alliance with
national liberation movements to destroy imperialism *for the purpose
of the socialist revolution*.
The unity of *all* forces against imperialism can only be achieved on
the basis of *the* internationalist principle 'No nation can be free
if it oppresses other nations'. This is expressed through the demand
of the right of nations to self-determination. This demand recognises
that class solidarity of workers is strengthened by the substitution
of voluntary ties between nations for compulsory, militaristic ones.
The demand for complete equality between nations, by removing
distrust between the workers of the oppressor and oppressed nations,
lays the foundation for a united international struggle for the
socialist revolution. That is, for the only regime under which
complete national equality can be achieved.
While the working class in the oppressed and oppressor nations have
the same goal they necessarily approach it by different paths. As
Lenin pointed out, the *actual* conditions of the workers in the
oppressed and oppressor nations are not the same from the standpoint
of national oppression. The struggle of the working class against
national oppression has a twofold character:
'(a) first, it is the "action" of the nationally oppressed
proletariat and peasantry *jointly* with the nationally oppressed
bourgeoisie *against* the oppressor nation; (b) second, it is
the "action" of the proletariat, or of its class-conscious section,
in the oppressor nation *against* the bourgeoisie of that nation *and
all the elements that follow it.*' (Lenin, 'A caricature of Marxism
and imperialist economism'; our emphasis bold)
Lenin was accused of being inconsistent in his attitude to
nationalism for arguing that the approach of the working class in the
oppressor nation to this question was necessarily different from that
of the working class in the oppressed nation. His reply to his
critics was simple and direct.
'Is the position of the proletariat with regard to national
oppression the same in the oppressing and oppressed nations? No, it
is not the same, not the same *economically, politically,
ideologically, spiritually*, etc.'
'Meaning?
'Meaning that some will approach in *one* way, others in *another*
way the *same* goal... from different starting points.' ('The nascent
trend of imperialist economism')
What this means is that the strategy and tactics necessary for
building an effective anti-imperialist movement in Britain (the
oppressor nation) may differ from the strategy and tactics required
to develop the liberation movement's struggle in the oppressed
nation. The RCG has long opposed all attempts by the British Labour
movement and British left to impose their own, usually opportunist,
strategy and tactics on the liberation movement. Equally, the RCG is
opposed to all attempts to impose the strategy and tactics developed
by liberation movements to meet the specific conditions of their own
struggles on the anti-imperialist movement in Britain. The example of
the Lancaster House negotiations on Zimbabwean independence in 1979
makes this point clear. Communists in Britain defended the right of
the Patriotic Front to enter into negotiations with and make
concessions to the British government, whist, at the same time,
attacking the British government for imposing these conditions on the
liberation movement.
Opportunists hide behind liberation movements
On the question of Ireland and South Africa opportunists are
attempting to use Sinn Fein and the ANC to attack the RCG's approach
to solidarity work. In a recent leaflet *Proletarian*, a tiny and
uninfluencial group associated with the *Morning Star*, attacks the
RCG's work on Ireland using a quote from a review in the Sinn Fein
journal *Iris* of *Ireland the key to the British revolution*. In the
same leaflet it attacks the RCG's involvement in City of London Anti-
Apartheid Group and demands the disbanding of City AA on the grounds
of 'solidarity' with the ANC. Readers should note that *Proletarian*
chooses to support the *Morning Star*, a newspaper which is
vehemently opposed to the Irish national liberation struggle. This
fact alone exposes the cynical and opportunist character of
*Proletarian*'s solidarity. We cite *Proletarian* only because it is
a typical example of the way in which British opportunists use
liberation movements for their own narrow sectarian ends.
The review referred to by *Proletarian* appeared in *Iris* No 10 July
1985. The review contains important distortions of the RCG's position
on building a movement in Britain. (See review and our reply). More
important for our argument here however, is the standpoint stated in
the review on solidarity work and the strongly implied attitude of
the reviewer that socialists in Britain should adopt the same
standpoint. G McAteer accepts our central argument that emancipation
of Ireland is a necessary precondition for the socialist revolution
in Britain. We are also in agreement that socialists in Britain
should 'build on whatever support there is in Britain for a
withdrawal'. Where we disagree fundamentally with the reviewer is the
assertion that the possibility of building an effective *anti-
imperialist* solidarity movement in Britain 'is a totally unrealistic
expectation given the political situation for the foreseeable
future'. On the basis of this the review concludes that the RCG has
adopted 'an isolationist stance that is doomed to obscurity' - the
very quote seized upon by the truly obscure *Proletarian* sect.
This position ignores the political developments which have taken
place in Britain particularly in the last five years. During the
crucial period of the hunger strike in 1981 major British cities saw
the most significant, intense and widespread street confrontations
between oppressed black and white youth and the police. These were
the most serious spontaneous revolts in Britain in the whole post-war
period. The possibility of uniting the oppressed in Britain with the
Irish people in a common struggle against a common enemy was there
for all to see. The opportunity was thrown away precisely because the
existing solidarity movement led by the Troops Out Movement turned
its back on these developments for fear of disrupting its, in any
case, futile attempt to win the official Labour movement to support
the hunger strike. Rather than appeal to a section of the working
class which had a common interest with the Irish people in defeating
the Thatcher government and was actually fighting that government on
the streets, the existing solidarity movement adapted its campaign to
avoid any exposure of its chosen allies in the Labour Party: the very
people who, in government, were responsible for the hunger strike -
by withdrawing Special Category Status for political prisoners in
1976 - and who viciously condemned the risings in Britain.
The miners' strike 1984-5 once again demonstrated that the deepening
British crisis would produce new forces that could be won to an anti-
imperialist position on Ireland. The striking miners' experience of
police brutality, government manipulation and rigged courts led many
of them to identify their own struggle with that of the Irish people.
The risings in 1981 and the miners' strike 1984-5 have already shown
that the expectation that real possibilities for building an
effective anti-imperialist movement exist in Britain is far
from 'unrealistic'. Indeed as the crisis develops and more and more
sections of the working class are forced into confrontation with the
British state these possibilities will multiply.
The growing political and social crisis in Britain has also revealed
that the official Labour movement will move further and further to
the right as its own position is increasingly threatened - a point
confirmed during the miners' strike. What is indeed a 'totally
unrealistic expectation' is any belief that the existing Labour
movement can be won to a progressive position on Ireland.
Comrade McAteer and the Republican Movement have every right to
assess developments in Britain from their own standpoint and act upon
that assessment. But neither the Republican Movement nor opportunists
in Britain claiming to act in its name have any right whatsoever to
demand that the RCG and other British anti-imperialists must accept
that assessment and any conclusions that flow from it. For while we
have the same goal as the Republican Movement - the defeat of British
imperialism in Ireland - we necessarily approach that goal along a
different path. Comrade McAteer is right to say that 'Republicans
cannot afford the luxury of waiting around until the British working
class becomes sufficiently politicised to fully support our struggle
in all its form'. But we equally are right to expose the role of the
official Labour movement and to fight against the very opportunism
which not only obstructs the struggle for Irish self-determination
but also the struggle for socialism in Britain. We are also right -
indeed it is our duty - to concentrate on building an effective anti-
imperialist movement amongst the most oppressed sections of the
working class, whilst at the same time working in unity with any
other forces whenever possible.
Similar issues have arisen in relation to the building of a
solidarity movement against the apartheid regime. The *Proletarian*
leaflet claims that Johnstone Makatini, Director of the ANC's
International Department has called for 'the shelving of differences
within the Anti-Apartheid Movement in this country and for unity on
the basis of exclusive recognition of the ANC'. This is a mis-
representation of comrade Makatini's remarks in London on 3 August.
He did urge unity of the AAM in Britain. He did say as a separate
point that the ANC had initiated a campaign for what he
called, 'exclusive recognition' of the ANC as the sole representative
of the liberation struggle in South Africa.
If the ANC chooses to campaign for 'exclusive recognition' that is a
matter for the South African people to resolve. The same would be
true if the Pan Africanist Congress, the Black Consciousness
Movement, the UDF, AZAPO or any other force within the overall
liberation movement took a similar stand. It is not a matter for the
movement in Britain to decide, or, even worse, cynically exploit for
their own narrow sectarian ends. *Proletarian*'s 'interpretation' of
comrade Makatini's remarks, in any case, flatly contradicts the AAM's
own constitutional requirement:
'to cooperate and support Southern African organisations campaigning
against apartheid' (Clause 2c)
The AAM's constitutional position is the only correct
internationalist position for organisations in Britain. That the
leadership of the AAM has consistently failed to abide by its own
constitution on this issue is something that must be opposed. For
British organisations to take it upon themselves to decide only to
recognise one liberation organisation fighting apartheid and not
others in the same fight is British imperialist arrogance and
chauvinism of the worst kind. Our task in Britain is to give
unconditional support to all organisations in their fight against
apartheid in South Africa regardless of differences which may arise
between different sections of the liberation movement.
Unity in the British AAM does not mean the shelving of differences.
Unity means the democratically organised cooperation of different
forces with different political standpoints in a common campaign
against the apartheid regime and against British collaboration with
that regime. When those in the AAM, who have attacked and
disaffiliated City AA and also attacked the RCG's involvement in the
AAM, call for 'unity', what they mean is the bureaucratic imposition
of their own narrow sectarian prejudices on all anti-apartheid
activists. No one seriously committed to the destruction of apartheid
could submit to this demand. The fact that these sectarians attempt
to use the heroic sacrifices of the South African people and the ANC
to justify their own sectarian behaviour is an insult to the people
of South Africa.
In the forefront of the sectarianism in the AAM is the Communist
Party of Great Britain (CPGB) - primarily the *Morning Star* wing of
that party. In common with their counterparts in the solidarity
movement on Ireland, they have rejected any attempt to build an
alliance with the newly emerging political forces in Britain. All
their anti-apartheid activity is strictly confined to what is
acceptable to maintain their alliance with sections of the official
Labour movement. Their 'unity' requires the separation of apartheid
in South Africa and racism in Britain, disaffiliation of City AA (now
the largest active anti-apartheid group in the country), attempts to
ban FRFI from official AAM pickets, bureaucratic manoeuvring against
anyone 'suspected' of wanting an active movement, and a foul, non-
stop campaign of gossip and lies to justify their own position. (See
reports in this FRFI and recent issues.) Any movement in this country
which denies basic democratic rights to its own supporters cannot
possibly be trusted to wage a consistent fight for the democratic
rights of the people of South Africa.
The political priority of the CPBG and its allies in the leadership
of the AAM is the election of a Labour government under Neil Kinnock.
They are prepared to subordinate the struggle against apartheid to
this opportunist end. This is why they object to FRFI being sold on
official AAM events because it contains material on Ireland and other
issues which expose the reactionary character of their chosen allies.
We remind these self-styled communists of Lenin's explanation of the
task of the working class in the oppressor nation in relation to
national oppression, which is to oppose:
'the bourgeoisie of that nation and all the *elements that follow it*'
The Labour Party's record on South Africa, and its record on Ireland,
prove beyond dispute that it is one of the elements that follow the
bourgeoisie.
As with Ireland, so with South Africa, unconditional solidarity with
the struggle against national oppression does not and cannot oblige
British communists to give up that struggle against British
opportunism. Our job, as communists and anti-imperialists, working in
the world's oldest imperialist nation, is to formulate the strategy
and tactics appropriate to the building of an anti-imperialist
movement in Britain in solidarity with *all* those fighting British
imperialism and national oppression.
Terry O'Halloran and David Reed
Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! September 1985
[italics and bold emphasis marked by asterisks]
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________
