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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005