Dear Subversion,
Regards the JSA and all that, here are a few points I would like to add.
Claimants are not the same thing as workers who are unemployed, and not all claimants
are necessarily working class. To the contrary, in areas like Brighton or London
quite a large number of claimants are middle class. Claimants do not struggle they
just make claims, just like commuters do not struggle they just commute and TV viewers
do not struggle they just consume TV. It is proletarians who struggle (in the social
revolutionary sense of the word struggle). The term "claimant", like "commuter"
or "TV viewer", is a term that integrates individuals into a capitalist
citizen role under
the system while concealing class differences and contradictions. It is unemployed
proletarians we should be interested in rather than "claimants".
Also, to focus primarily on the JSA is in practise a nationalistic approach, even
if this is not consciously intentional. It delineates struggle around the specific
technicalities of the national bureaucracy only. Maybe this has to do with a continuing
patriotic sentimental attachment to the british imperial welfare state. This immediately
cuts the struggle up and undermines the possibilities for internationalism. The
JSA doesn't necessarily mean a thing to unemployed proletarians in Los Angeles or
Paris or Johannesburg or Seoul or Mexico City. But things like casualisation and
workfare
and prison labour are immediately international things for proletarians in many parts
of the world. Why therefore an insistence on focussing so heavily on "claimant"
issues and the "JSA" by people like groundswell and brighton autonomists?
If unemployed workers are to coalesce and fuse together with other workers in struggle,
it is a thousand times more important for them to do so with workers like the dockers
and their community or striking transport workers or prison work strikers than to
waste time with the complete red herring and diversion of linking claimants to civil
servants. Indeed the process of subordinating the struggles of unemployed proletarians
to "claimant" activism and campaigns and then subordinating these campaigns
in a
verticalist and corporatist way to the narrow sectionalist demands of their immediate
supervisors in the bureaucracy's chain of command (dole officers) is the surest way
of keeping unemployed proletarians isolated and weak.
Yours for social revolt,
P (Reading)
Reply
We are not sure about P's use of the term "middle class", which is often
used to describe
people who are simply white collar workers. Most "claimants" are people
who would
ordinarily have no access to the means of existence except through selling their
labour power for a wage or salary, which defines them as working class at least in
economic
terms, if not in a revolutonary sense. Workers, waged or unwaged, need to go beyond
the categories of their job, or identification as "claimants" or "consumers",
to
identify as a class with common interests against the whole capitalist system. But
this is not just a matter of language. It is something that can only be forged through
practical struggle.
Many groups may call themselves "anti-JSA", since this is what spurred the
present
round of resistance, but this doesn't automatically restrict them to a narrow (potentially
reformist) outlook. Some of the groups, including many involved in the Groundswell
network, have recognised their common interests with, for example, the French unemployed
workers who recently occupied "dole" offices in France, or the Liverpool
dockers
fighting casualisation. In this last instance they have made useful contacts and
engaged in joint acivity.
We in Subversion would not suggest that any section of the working class should "subordinate"
its struggle to the struggle of any other section. We support attempts by unemployed
workers and dole office workers to fight together where this is practical, but agree
that it is important not to prioritise this over linking with other workers
in struggle.
OPEN LETTER TO SUBVERSION
Subversion
: you can’t tell the difference between tactical interventions in the working
class i.e. the Class War paper, our political beliefs. You also try to grossly
simplify a really complicated situation, & never attempt to see any positive actions
(in e.g. the IRA) because this upsets your ideological purity. You also never comment
on loyalism its loyalty to the British capitalist state.
For example during the recent wave of riots loyalist mobs were attacking working
class catholic areas with UVF gunmen for safety. The word got back to the boys (IRA)
& out came the rifles & the loyalist mob was taken out of the area. The IRA recently
historically armed because of this very reason in the late 1960s.
So, we see that the working class are at least part of the IRA & also call on it
for support in certain situations. What would Subversion suggest doing in the situation
above on the streets of Belfast? Call the IRA ìmurdering scumî like you have before? Excuse me while I laugh.
Not being personally clued up on the nature of the entire republican movement I
dare say there may be some ìbourgeois nationalistsî in it, but the ruling classes
will split in any revolutionary situation. The IRA is a broad church (a bit like
Class War) & it is unrealistic to condemn it or write off the militants within it as you do.
At its core Class War supports ìindependent action by the working class for its
own, independent class interestsî but also realises that social life is complicated
& that interventions must be made on a realistic basis. We do not support counter
revolutionaries ever.
What we do support is working class people defending themselves & their communities
by whatever means they see fit & realisable, & offer conditional support to working
class people in struggle everywhere. ìCoolî is a euphemism for ìconditional supportî, & we donít print stuff like you write because it has no relevance to peopleís daily
lives in war torn Belfast.
In an individual capacity, D.C. ( a member of London Class War)
SUBVERSION REPLY:
1) If you say something for "tactical" reasons that is not what you actually believe,
then this is lying to the working class, the sort of thing we expect from Trots and
Stalinists and is absolutely unacceptable for revolutionaries.
2) It doesn't add anything to the debate to accuse us of "ideological purity" simply
because we disagree about something, or because we think an issue is more crucial
than you do. For instance, if there was a radical organisation around that believed
in supporting the British Army ( or maybe had some people who supported it and some who
didn't) you would condemn such a view without hesitation, as we would. You would
not be impressed by the argument that this was a tactical question, and that you
should abandon your "ideological purity".
In Subversion, we firmly believe that the IRA is every bit as reactionary as the British
State and its army. We see no difference in supporting either of them. It's just
that one of them has the support of the Left for its anti-working class programme.
This is no different from supporting the Bolsheviks against Kerensky, or Labour against
the Tories.
This is the crucial question that we disagree on, and if we are right, then this is
clearly a major issue dividing a revolutionary position from a counter-revolutionary
one - not a question of "obscure pedantry" or "ideological purity", so you can't
logically accuse us of that as part of your argument, only as part of your conclusion, which
you have to establish beforehand by concrete argument.
3) We don't write about the Loyalists for the same reason we don't write about the
Tories - our readership is highly unlikely to include closet Tories or Loyalists,
and we don't want to waste time preaching to the converted. Our readership does,
however, include some people who are at least partially sympathetic to Labour, and to Irish
Republicanism, so these are important issues to tackle.
4) In a situation of wholesale sectarian division like Northern Ireland, working-class
people will often in desperation find themselves forced to turn to the paramilitary
power of "their" community for self-defence - this is just as true of Protestant
workers relying on Loyalist paramilitaries as it is of Catholics relying on Republican
ones, so in itself this is not an argument that the IRA is different from the UVF
etc. Similarly, most working class people in Britain, when faced with anti-social
attacks by e.g. burglars, muggers or rapists, would turn to the Police for (the vain hope
of) protection. In all of these cases it is the apparent absence of an alternative
that makes people seek help from those quarters - but none of this means that those
bodies are not anti-working class.
5) The working class is most certainly not "part of the IRA". It is a wholly bourgeois
organisation. It is NOT a "broad church". The fact that members may come from a
working class background does not change this, otherwise we would have to say that
at least some fascist organisations, not to mention the Armed Forces of many countries,
were working class organisations!
What determines the class nature of any organisation is its political nature, i.e.
what its programme is, what it is striving for. The IRA, like all other national
liberation movements in the world, aims at a capitalist society, differing from their
enemies only in where the borders are going to be, or which faction of capitalism is going
to be calling the shots in "their" territory.
6) The ruling classes will NOT split in a revolutionary situation. Far from it -
it is in periods of class peace that factional differences within the ruling class
have greater expression; when the capitalists feel their very existence is under
threat, they will forget their internal quarrels and unite against the working class.
7) You say that although you support class action for class interests, life is "complicated"
and we must be "realistic". Such talk is the age-old language of opportunism, behind
which countless former revolutionaries have betrayed their class and ended up supporting the vilest, bloodiest reaction. You are on a slippery slope.
8) You say you don't ever support counter-revolutionaries and in the very next paragraph
admit that you give "conditional support" to those vile capitalist scum, the "cool"
FLN of Algeria.
You need to think about what it means to give "conditional support" to the kind of
political movement which has oppressed and slaughtered members of our class in country
after country around the world.
To conclude:
People like Mandela, Arafat, Ho Chi Minh, Gerry Adams, you name it, have been prevented
by the particular circumstances in those countries from using electoral means to
achieve their aims. So they have had to use military means - to achieve REFORMIST
objectives.
You can see clearly enough that the opposition of parties such as Labour is merely
Tweedledum aiming to replace Tweedledee. But you are easily suckered by parties
and organisations whose ONLY difference is that they use guns and bombs to achieve
similar ends.
Stop looking at their guns and take a look at their politics. Then you might wise
up to the fact that these bastards are our class enemy.
Reply to Subversion
Hello again, thanks for the reply but you did not answer my other questions about
prisons, crime & football hooliganism (not an abstract question of support for all
hooligans, but a look at the good things some hooligans do).
To get to your points on Ireland, I used "IDEOLOGICAL PURITY" to summarise many
points. I will develop these here below. When I said "tactical reasons" this meant
that we do not believe in writing people off before finding out what the real conditions
are like. You do not get into people's real worlds by being an outsider & that is
what Subversion are doing. For you to say that we should only be "pure revolutionaries"
puts you into a fantasy realm of separation from concrete struggles, & also means
that we would have to question things like signing on because it implies support for
the capitalist state!
You mentioned that the IRA have an "anti working class programme". Where is it &
what does it consist of , or are you implying it (making it up)? If all members
of the IRA would agree on one, I would be surprised. Also, do you really believe
the IRA has a chance of establishing itself to become a government in a united Ireland (because
this appears to be the logic of your position). Given the huge dominance of the
British state this appears unlikely unless in a period of a highly intensified class
struggle in England, Scotland & Wales we can force the ruling class with its imperialist
mind set to get out of Ireland. If so, I would imagine that revolutionary fervour
would have gripped the Irish population so it would not tolerate authoritarian government (or any government).
A revolutionary position recognises the legacy of 300 years of British imperialism
& the necessity of entering into debate with the oppressed. Our intervention is
designed to find our what are the possibilities given the historical reality of imperialist oppression.
You still refuse to talk about loyalism & its scabby loyalty to the British capitalist
state. What a perverse logic you have. You assume your readers like the IRA (god
knows why given your record), & you refuse to talk about the transplanted loyalists
& their political beliefs & allegiances. So we have it complete. You've no strategy
& no full political discussion (& possibly indirectly a hatred of working class Catholics).
By not looking at the British capitalist state's imperialist history YOU CAN SAFELY
ignore loyalism's allegiance to the anti working class (Catholic) ideology of the
British state. You do not distinguish between what sort of actions are the ones
we would support in response to the violence by the British state.
I find your emotive language to be amusing because you are obviously would be intellectuals
with elitist views who have found themselves a niche. From your safe little homes
you deny 300 years of Imperialist history, intervention or research into the resistance in the North of Ireland. What's more, YOU are not interested. If Germany
had won World War 2 & we were subject to imperialist occupation, & we had managed
to get a huge bomb to go off in the financial heart of Berlin. Would you be happy?
I know I would. I know it is not working class self activity on a mass scale, but imperialist
occupations do create exceptional situations.
WHAT ARE the actions you would support against the next example of British Imperialist
aggressions that always lead to working class catholic deaths or injury? OR DO YOU
DENY THE OPPRESSED THE RIGHT TO RESIST?
It is not that we are gun worshippers, but it is the concrete actions of the working
class to Imperialist aggression on a mass level from which we draw our respect for
these people e.g. Free Derry, & the widespread rioting this year. Now you have no
respect & do not want to consider the concrete reality of life in the North of Ireland.
What you present is a picture of "IRA Scum" in an abstract, ahistorical (without
history) manner. Quite like that presented by the British media, & this is not a
Marxist or Anarchist position (so who are you?)
. In answering your point 5 you say that "the class nature of any organisation is
its political nature". However, you have only to look at a a lot of "revolutionary
groups" to see that this is not true. Middle class people who are in a "revolutionary
working class organisation" have been one of the greatest barriers to revolution because
REAL working class people can see them to be the fraud they are. Therefore it is
the class composition of the organisation, plus its political programme which determines the class nature of any organisation.
I happen to recognise that working class people make a lot of ideological choices.
Unfortunately, a lot join the police, or are born into loyalism, or form many armies
around the world. But this does not alter the fact that continued allegiance to
the British capitalist state (or any state) makes them the enemy of the revolutionary
working class in whichever country. It is time that a lot of people realised that
working class people carry with them a lot of ideological beliefs which inform the
decisions they make. Often you have only got to look at your own family to see that this
is true. The loyalist working class have chosen to ensure their relative economic
dominance by continued allegiance to the British state, a bit like scabbing.
Our "conditional support" does not mean we support the slaughtering of our class
& it's crass ignorance & stupidity to assert that it does. Generally, "cool" as
a word meaning "conditional support" means we respect the initiatives taken towards
self management & violent resistance e.g. to the Imperialist capitalist British state (or
any other state). Mainly by the people, & not their political leadership. This
is not "opportunistic", but is designed to discover what is the real meaning in real
conditions for the people concerned & what is the potential for revolution. This is the real
strategy of liberation.
What you are advocating is a type of ultra left imperialism whereby you indirectly
end up supporting the British state, it is Subversion who are on the slippery slope.
D.C. (London Class War)
Subversion Reply
1) The phrase ìpure revolutionariesî is yours, not ours. We DO NOT believe in separating
ourselves from concrete struggles, but we support ONLY the concrete struggles of
the working class, fighting for working class interests. The IRA is a capitalist
force fighting to maintain the slavery of our class under new bosses.
What you are doing is supporting an anti-working class proto-state in the name of
being ìtacticalî - this just underlines the points we made about opportunism in the
first reply.
2) Sinn Fein published their programme (Eire Nua) long ago. Besides, even if you
havenít read it, you canít seriously doubt that the Republican Movement is nationalist.
It hardly matters if they disagree about this or that detail. So do Labour, or
the Tories, about their own programmes. Your problem is that you donít think nationalism
per se is counter-revolutionary.
3) As to whether the IRA has a chance of coming to power, this is indeed extremely
unlikely, but so what? After all, we agree that Fascism should be opposed even though
Fascist groups in Britain have even less chance of ever coming to power.
The point about revolutionary fervour preventing an authoritarian government coming
to power is clearly not true, because there have been many ìrevolutionsî of the sort
dominated by nationalist ideas such as the IRAís and authoritarian ìrevolutionaryî
governments are the norm as a result.
Even more radical upsurges, involving a major element of independent class struggle,
such as the Russian Revolution, give little grounds for complaisancy. The Bolshevik
party was far more plausible in its radicalness than the Republican Movement (which
is why even many Anarchists joined it during the revolution) and yet we all know that
Leninís government created a brutal state-capitalist regime almost unrivalled in
its savagery.
4)Thereís little to add about Loyalism except that you yourself are an example of
one of our readers who is soft on Republicanism - we have yet to see any evidence
of Loyalist sympathisers among our readership. As to the point about us hating working
class Catholics (a contemptible remark) it is perhaps worth pointing out that I myself,
the author of these two responses plus our original Open Letter, am a working-class,
part-Irish, Catholic (by upbringing).
5) The points about Germany are a dead giveaway. The logic of one form of nationalism
does indeed lead onto other forms! You admit that if Germany had won the war you
would support Britain!
For the record, no we most certainly WOULD NOT support British bombing of Germany,
regardless of whether the German ruling class dominated Britain. We repeat: we ONLY
support struggles of the working class (regardless of country) against the ruling
class (regardless of country).
6) When you ìdefineî the Marxist and Anarchist positions and say ìwho are you?î you
give a good illustration of why we disdain labels. They encourage people to put
everyone in neat categories or boxes that can be dismissed without actually listening
to what they are really saying. We have never claimed to be Marxist or Anarchist, and
if that means people find it harder to put a neat label on us, tough.
(For a good summary of what in Subversionís view distinguishes revolutionaries from
the Left (in all its varieties), see the article ìThe Revolutionary Alternative to
Left-Wing Politicsî in Subversion 16).
7) You are right that the class composition of an organisation as well as its political
programme determine its class nature, but we might disagree about who is middle-class
and who is working class (see correspondance on this issue in previous issues of
Subversion).
But who are these middle class people in revolutionary organisations who you say
have been such a barrier to revolution? If youíre referring to Trot groups, they
are in our view capitalist organisations (with a state-capitalist programme).
8) You then repeat the same points about ìconditional supportî, contradicting yourself
by saying a) you donít support the slaughtering of our class, and b) "...'cool' as
a word meaning 'conditional support' means we respect the initiatives taken towards
self management & violent resistance to [capitalist states]. Mainly [!] by the people,
& not their political leadership.î
This correspondance was started by Class Warís use of the word ìcoolî to describe
the FLN of Algeria. Their ìinitiative towards self-managementî etc. was to crush
the working class and create a new capitalist regime (which, to my knowledge, even
the most gullible of Trots have never called a ìworkersí stateî!).
It is this casual blurring of the line between struggles of the working class and
the actions of bourgeois states or proto-states (such as all national liberation
movements) that cause us to describe Class War as opportunist.
9) Your final point about ultra left imperialism is not totally clear, but if you
mean that to fail to support one side in a war necessarily means to support the other
side, then this surely applies in all wars.
Is this not tantamount to saying that the only choices that exist are between this
group of capitalists and that group, with us workers as nothing more than cannon-fodder
on one side or another?
Is this not an utter denial of the existence of a class, the working class, with
its own independent interests separate from those of the capitalist class?
For all that they may sometimes make war on each other with the utmost savagery,
our rulersí interests are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to ours. We should
never abandon our class interest by siding with any of our enemies.
And for all that they make war on each other, the capitalists are in every country
united in support of their class interest, which they pursue when necessary with
single-minded fervour. We should be as single-minded in support of ours!
Back to Subversion #21, contents page
Back to Subversion Home Page