Letter from Robin Cox

Hi Frank and all

          There was a section in Lauren's Otter's longish letter in DB 108 which sounded to me, at least, a little odd. I quote:

          "When I quoted Eddie's gloss on the Clause, one SPGB member, professedly on the extreme libertarian wing, so much so that he claims the term anarcho-socialist for the party, with whom I mistakenly thought I could work a few years back, said "well yes, the state would be overthrown that way, but then we'd have to restore it & have elections, so as to elect a socialist government. So presuming this was all done to conform to Clause Six, he envisaged that the workers would overthrow capitalism by direct action, so that there would then be no government, but then the SPGB would restore capitalism so as to be able to have a government ("..government ...exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class") & would then have elections to produce a government which would supposedly then abolish capitalism!"

          Unless I am seriously mistaken, Laurens Otter is referring to me. I was certainly in correspondence with Laurens in the early 90s when I was going through a period of disenchantment with the Party. I have also sought to promote use of the term "anarcho-socialism" because I believe it more accurately describes the nature of our objective.

          Assuming it is me who Laurens Otter is referring to, I feel I ought at once to totally repudiate his version of the events; it bears no semblance whatsoever to the reality of what took place. I would never call for the restoration of a capitalist state that had been overthrown by direct action and I would never use such an expression as a "socialist government" (which to me is an oxymoron). Indeed, why would anyone who considers himself an anarcho-socialist want to use such an expression anyway?

          Contrary to Otter's make-believe fantasy, the truth of the matter is that he was rather miffed when he discovered that I had not altogether rejected the parliamentary road to socialism as he had hoped. My view was made clear in the document, "The Road to Socialism", which I had co-authored with other members of Guildford Branch of the Socialist Party in the late 1980s. We envisaged that the growth of the socialist movement would have certain repercussions not only in realm of culture and politics but also - and most significantly - in the economic domain. This, we argued, would be represented by the invasion of "socialistic" (but not yet, properly speaking, socialist) relationships within the interstices of capitalism - much as capitalist relationships had developed within the interstices of feudalism. This scenario was not so much at odds with the traditional revolutionary scenario within the Party as complemented the latter.

          When I corresponded with Laurens Otter, I was hoping that we could work out some more inclusive approach that would permit socialists and anarchists to cooperate or federate together informally for certain purposes. To me, the primary unifying factor was, and remains, our common objective; how we achieve that objective is a secondary issue although I would say it must involve mass anarcho-socialist consciousness rather than vanguardism. I was, and am, still fairly relaxed about direct actionism (there are quite a few in the SPGB who support direct action judging by the recent conference debate) . However, I would hope that anarchists might reciprocally come to feel more relaxed about revolutionary political action. This sterile either-or debate has gone on for far too long. Unfortunately, Laurens Otter took umbrage when I pointed out that I still subscribed to the political approach. Which is presumably why he now feels fit to invent a ludicrous line of argument to stick onto me to lend his sectarianism an air of respectability. But it won't wash, Laurens - if you attempt to put words into other people's mouths don't be surprised if they spit them out!

          Fraternally

          Robin Cox