File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9712, message 122


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 14:09:58 -0800
From: DSU <jwalker-AT-fs1.li.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Don Quixote...


Poor old R.C.P.

I’m not exactly a fan of the RCP (I was a member of the RCG which it 
split from) but I do think it might be a little disingenuous to describe 
it as Neo-Fascist. Such terms are rather unhelpful especially as the 
phenomena of the rise and influence of the RCP as James shows is clearly 
quite significant. Much like that of the now disbanded Marxism Today and 
the now ever present ex-Editor Martin Jacques.

Rebecca writes

‘This apparent departure of the RCP is much more than retreat. It 
indicates the tremendous opportunism of the RCP.  Such a position 
represents a complete swing from the days when the RCP where in the eyes 
of many very sectarian and self-righteous: the John the Baptist of the 
left.’

But is it such a departure, such a swing? Is it so surprising that there 
are no splits in the RCPs ranks? I think James Heartfield is telling the 
truth. I would not expect them to split (though they do get through 
members at quite a speed anyway). I think that their position, much like 
the Labour Party’s, is not new at all but like washing powder adverts 
merely the same old stuff in new packaging.

I think it would be helpful if people could offer some explanation from a 
Marxist standpoint as to why such a peti-bourgeois ‘radical’ Party should 
have arisen in these particular economic conditions. After all Marxist 
(other than the RCP) hold that ideas are a product of the material 
condition NOT the otherway round.

The RCP origin was in the old International Socialist (now SWP) which as 
the Revolutionary Communist Group (of ‘revolutionary Communist’ & ‘Hands 
Off Ireland’) it broke away from in c.1974, as well as being joined by 
members of the Trotskyist orientated International Marxist Group. A short 
time after this they split / were expelled from the RCG and formed the 
RCP.

I’m not quiet sure why THEY thought they left but there certainly were 
argument against their ‘ultra-leftism’ and peti-bourgeois nature. The 
fact that, at what was already a declining point in left politics (& the 
following 2 decade proved to be even worse !), they should set themselves 
up as a Party (ie in Marxist terms - as they still labelled themselves - 
the ‘Vanguard of the Proletariat’) does strike mean as just a little 
optimistic!

 James’ reminds us all the heroic defeat of the miner’s strike. The same 
strike in which the RCP was attacked and it paper The Next Step was 
attack and burnt by those striking miners. The resentment at the RCP 
siding with the Coal Board, the Thatcher government, the scab miners, the 
Labour Party and the TUC against the striking miners was so severe that 
they had to change the title of their paper to TNS to avoid recognition.

Also there sectarianism, which Rebecca seems to view as now been ditched, 
was still in evidence in Anti-Gulf war demonstrations where they picketed 
the marches.

I am not out to hurl abuse at the RCP but just to offer some historical 
context to their present activities especially for those not in Britain 
or new to politics. 

What interests me most is WHY they take such idiosyncratic and un-Marxist 
positions (from opposing strikers to supporting right-wing Tory MPs)? Why 
do they court high publicity (from big publishing deals in the ‘80s to TV 
shows in the ‘90s). They are a relatively small group who as far as I can 
tell have little connection to the working class (whether objective or 
eternal).
They sell their rather costly glossy magazine LM in leading retail 
outlets, outside Universities and in the smarter shopping areas.

Contradict me if I’m wrong but they do not sell them in working class 
housing estates, or outside local shops in run down areas (where I can 
say You’d be lucky to get 30 pence never mind 3 pounds!) They do not sell 
it at unemployment benefit offices, prisons or community centres.

Instead they target shoppers and students, questioning them on the latest 
‘vogue’ issues. They try to win them over to their ideas and convince 
them of the logic of their peculiar positions. This otherwise laudable 
endeavour appears odd when taken out of the context of political 
struggle.

It strikes me that this has far more in common with the Idealism Marx 
tries to counter in Hegel. His discussion of ‘class’ is a case in point. 
It is seen as more analogous to Hegel’s ‘Spirit’. He talks about the 
class struggle being eternal and is happy to quote Marx private 
correspondence. But in his and Engels published work they make quite 
clear the class struggle is not eternal. Marx argues for a Communist 
(that’s what the C in RCP stands for) Society and defines it as a 
classless society. Engles makes it clear that there were indeed primitive 
societies without classes.

I hope this whole debate can move from mere mud slinging to an analysis 
of the RCP and its continued and growing influence on the British 
political scene.

Your in comradeship

John Walker
Marxist-Leninist


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005