Weekly Worker 420 Thursday February 21 2002
Letters
Sectarian manipulation
In the mayhem that engulfed the general meeting of the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) in Birmingham, one thing was crystal clear. An alliance of the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action, acting as the front troopers of an obscure muslim group, had planned to remove all those (including a number of progressive muslims), who have resisted the politics and practices of muslim fundamentalism, to dominate and manipulate the STWC in order to replace them with their own supporters.
In the event, however, what they achieved was to split the coalition right down the middle. Their resolution and amendments, followed by supporting speeches, portrayed us as being anti-muslim, which in reality is a retreat from their earlier position of characterising us as racist and islamophobic. Ironically, these people, who now call us anti-muslim are the same people who, during the imperialist attack on Yugoslavia, sided with the Serb nationalist thugs who massacred in cold blood many thousands of muslims in Kosovo.
Then we did not accuse them of being anti-muslim since we acknowledged it was their anti-imperialist politics that led them to side with rabid Serbian nationalism. As it was our politics which led us to side with oppressed muslims in Kosovo against both Serbian nationalism and imperialism.
By the same token, with regard to the war in Afghanistan, it is their anti-imperialist politics which has led them to side with barbaric and brutal muslim fundamentalism and it is our politics that has led us to oppose both imperialism and fundamentalism. However, to expect the demagogues of the SWP and co to acknowledge that our differences are of a political nature and not a racial one is to ask too much of these people. They would then be forced to expose some of their political positions that they have been so careful to hide from sympathisers and supporters of muslim fundamentalism.
They invite the STWC to be more sensitive towards muslims who express their resistance through their faith. While we have no objection to this broad statement, we can neither accept the SWP and co adaptation of the muslim fundamentalist definition on who is a muslim, nor can we accept the imposition of some reactionary and divisive practices as islamic expression.
In the first instance, we cannot accept the assertion that muslims who object to their religion being used for reactionary political purposes (ie, muslim opponents of muslim fundamentalism) are not really muslims or that there are no such things as muslims who are also socialist, anarchist, liberal, etc. We think muslims should feel free to consume alcohol and dress as they wish without being threatened or their muslim status denied. In short, we cannot accept that only muslim fundamentalists are muslims and resistance to their politics is anti-muslim.
In the second instance, we reject practices like that of segregating men and women or recitation of the Quran in STWC meetings as islamic expression. These practices, along with the politicisation of certain islamic prayers and their use as political slogans at anti-war demonstrations, has nothing to do with islamic expression and everything to do with fundamentalist politics, which is only one of many political currents among muslims.
Furthermore, these practices not only have nothing to do with the basic demands of the anti-war movement, but are also extremely divisive. How does the SWP and co expect people from all sections of the city to take part in building the anti-war movement, when at every demonstration and meeting they find muslim fundamentalist practices are imposed upon them? Is it surprising that even many progressive muslims have distanced themselves from the STWC?
It would be no exaggeration to say that if we leave it to the two gentlemen who proposed the controversial resolution they would ask all women attending STWC meetings to cover themselves in order to demonstrate sensitivity to muslim (read muslim fundamentalist) sentiments. They do not understand that you cannot extend the practices of the church or mosque into civil society. Places of worship have their rules; civil society has its own.
By imposing its slogans and practices on the anti-war movement, muslim fundamentalism wants to change this movement into one which is a front for their reactionary political objective - a far cry from the civil rights movement where black churches put all their resources at the service of that progressive movement. There is nothing wrong in having an STWC meeting in a mosque with a mullah speaker as long as the aims and objectives of the STWC are promoted. However, there would be everything wrong with promoting a fundamentalist political programme at these meetings even if it is held in a brewery with one of the two gentlemen as speakers.
The fact is that there are two political perspectives in the STWC with regard to the anti-war movement. The SWP and co aim to limit this movement to an anti-imperialist movement, where they can fight alongside fundamentalists or Serbian nationalists against imperialism. Whereas we are part of a new, but nevertheless growing international movement which aims to unite all the workers and the oppressed people of the world not only against imperialism and its oppressive satellites, but also for the creation of a fraternal international society where we have done away with all international forces whose only way of promoting their interests is through war and destruction.
It is the inability of their anti-imperialist politics to address the concerns of this new movement which has infuriated our opponents and has turned the tragedy of their anti-imperialist politics into a farce, where in order to justify it they have to label us as racist, islamophobic and, in their latest discovery, secular fundamentalists. We could have laughed at these comedians who in order to advance their anti-imperialist politics find it necessary to frame us as being violent towards muslim women, leaving us exposed to violent attacks by muslim fundamentalists. We could have laughed, had it not been for the fact that tens of thousands of the best militants have paid with their lives at the hands of muslim fundamentalists as a result of their politics of anti-imperialism.
Finally, let us give a helping hand to the philistine who through a method of trial and error is struggling so hard to find us a name. We should inform him that, by calling us secular fundamentalists he is much closer to reality than ever before. Just in the same way that some muslims who are for fighting the islamic state are called muslim fundamentalists, we who fight for a secular state could be called secular fundamentalists. It is only because we are fighting for a particular secular state that we would rather be called socialists.
Salman
Birmingham
Union politics
Alan Thornett doth protest too much (Letters, February 14) at what he claims is an “attack on Greg Tucker” (Weekly Worker January 31). A rather precious comrade Thornett uses the words “remarkable”, “bizarre”, “misunderstand”, “disastrous”, “wilful distortion”, etc. What I find “remarkable” and “bizarre” is comrade Thornett’s own misunderstanding of the article - or is he ‘wilfully distorting’ it? I won’t say his letter is “disastrous”, but it is certainly worrying, being so typical of much of the left’s rather infantile approach to trade union activity.
There was certainly a criticism of Greg Tucker - but what is wrong with that? It is a very shallow and fragile mentality that construes such criticism as an attack. In my experience trade union activists - especially those with firm roots amongst the rank and file - are very wary of mere cheerleaders, of those who go all gooey-eyed when someone ‘prominent’ speaks, of arse-lickers in fact. Instead no-bullshit, plain talking is best. Also best is an honest critique, a pointing out of errors, weaknesses and dangers. While some others perform the role of unthinking backslappers, we tell it like we think it is. In my view a fine working class tradition. Those who place the interests of the working class above their own particular sect, above their own personal ambitions and egos, have nothing to fear from plain talking.
Comrade Thornett accuses the CPGB of misunderstanding the dynamics of the strike and advocating disastrous tactics, but only succeeds in displaying his own ignorance of some fairly basic principles. The article did not advocate a ballot on the wage rise imposed by management. The comrade really should read sentences as a series of connected ideas, not as isolated fragments on which to let the imagination run riot. The article argued that had there been a ballot on the wage rise the offer would probably have been accepted. It went on to consider a number of reasons not to have a ballot. Then followed a general consideration of democracy as the basis of working class organisation - constant pressure and control from the membership, an argument for the self-organising activity of the working class and, incidentally, the means whereby socialists build roots amongst the mass of workers. It is comrade Thornett who, through his misunderstanding, narrows a general strategy down to the single tactic of one ballot - and then accuses the CPGB of his error.
Comrade Thornett then proceeds to accuse us of another of his errors. We are told that we either “completely misunderstand the links between politics and trade union work” or we are guilty of “wilful distortion” - because we have suggested that comrade Tucker (and Bob Crow) may be a good trade unionist first and a politician second. I won’t accuse comrade Thornett of distortion - it is clear from his argument that he does not understand the question. For comrade Thornett the link is tenuous - for a trade unionist, politics is reduced to having the guts to stand in an election. Comrade Thornett rejoices in the theory of two hats, to be doffed and donned as the occasion suits. On the one hand we have mere trade union politics and on the other general politics - two separate activities linked by an individual - not a cohesive political strategy to be carried into all spheres of life.
I agree with comrade Thornett that credit is due to Greg Tucker. However, Greg, like so many other trade union activists, is left to his own devices. There is no revolutionary party coordinating and generalising struggles, and honing the strategy and tactics of the working class. There is a political vacuum that the SA could fill, but we are failing to organise and to lead our own trade union activists, let alone workers generally. The SA trade union conference seems set to be a big affair - yet we don’t even know what trade union activists we already have. There has been no convening of SA union activists prior to the conference - we are just chasing spontaneous events - like cheerleaders.
Maybe we will persuade some more trade union militants to don a second hat and comrade Thornett will be content. I will not - we are capable, and the working class deserves, much more.
Alan Stevens
Greenwich
Offensive CPGB
Unfortunately, comrade Greg Tucker and his comrades in the International Socialist Group have interpreted my argument for maximum democracy at all levels in the trade union movement as “scabbing”. At a number of public meetings in recent weeks, they have publicly accused supporters of the Weekly Worker of being “scabs” and comrade Tucker has charmingly dubbed our publication the “Scab Worker”. This is a silly accusation.
The ISG falsely claims that in an article on January 31, I was calling for a ballot on the now imposed management proposals. I think it is worthwhile reproducing the offending paragraphs:
“The RMT has not balloted its members over the pay rise package offered by SWT management. The union, which demands 7.6%, argued that this rise was only worth just over four percent, as payment is staggered. SWT has now ‘imposed’ the rise - which would probably have been accepted by most RMT members.
“Ballots are of course very time-consuming and expensive in the middle of a dispute. It is certainly not a principle to call for a ballot whenever an employer makes a new offer. Often, they can be used to undermine a left union leader. Margaret Thatcher was famously able to manipulate public opinion against the miners’ strike of 1984-85 when Arthur Scargill refused to ballot his members.
“However, democracy must always be the basis of working class organisation. In trade unions, which generally reflect the most basic level of class struggle and are mostly defensive, democracy is best ensured by constant pressure and control from the membership. Sure, some union leaders will be to the left of their membership. But they generally exercise a pull to the right. Without constant monitoring from below, the union leadership will make bad compromises.”
No wonder the ISG have not dared to call us “scabs” in writing. They have no evidence that would stand up to closer examination. Criticising the tactic of the union leadership (or even leading militants and proven fighters such as comrade Tucker) is not “scabbing”. On the contrary, open criticism and debate about the strategies and methods employed by a union leadership are the absolute precondition for building a confident and fighting rank and file.
This particular dispute for the moment looks like it will remain ‘suspended’ - ie, it has for the time being lost. Without a strong, militant and well informed membership, this will happen over and over again. Surely, we have to ruthlessly examine our failures in order to learn from them. An urgent and overdue requirement is the coordinated action of rank and file militants and leaders in the trade unions - exactly the role the Socialist Alliance could be playing.
At the moment, hundreds of SA members are involved in dozens of ‘broad lefts’ or other rank and file groupings, some of them working against each other. These are often nothing more than election machines. It is not hard to imagine how much more effective our membership could be if they were organised in SA fractions which would not, of course, be founded in opposition to any existing rank and file campaigns and bodies. SA members in Aslef could argue with their comrades in the RMT for the long overdue unification of both unions. SA members in all unions could fight in an organised and far more successful manner for the abolition of the anti-trade union laws (which most union leaderships put at the bottom of their agenda).
The trade union conference organised by the Socialist Alliance on March 16 could be a useful first step towards this. However, at the moment there is no plan to set up SA fractions. Frankly, there is no plan to do anything after the conference - not even an organised campaign to repeal the anti-trade union laws. This situation was condoned at last weekends SA national council meeting by all organisations present (apart from the CPGB). There will be workshops and meetings of members of the same union, but nothing more than that.
The Socialist Workers Party has its union fractions and publications for union members - eg, Across the Tracks and Postworker. But, according to the comrades, there is no room for a publication of the Socialist Alliance that could openly report about disputes in all unions. But this is exactly what is needed to positively overcome the current fragmentation of working class struggles.
Tina Becker
North London
Field day
I came across this snippet from Aslef’s Locomotive Journal (February):
“The TUC has slammed Thames Trains, operator of one of the two trains involved in the fatal Ladbroke Grove crash (it was the Thames train that passed the signal at danger and collided with the First Great Western HST), for ‘abdicating responsibility for safety on the railways’.
“The train operator has announced that it is suing the health and safety executive for failing to stop the breaches of safety law that caused the disaster. TUC general secretary John Monks said: ‘By suing the HSE for not stopping them breaking the law, Thames Trains is abdicating its own responsibility for safety on the railways.’”
I might add it also indicts the Labour government for allowing these idiots to continue with their franchise and for their continued pursuit of rail privatisation. What a field day an SA paper could have had with such a plum snippet!
Peter Grant
Chair, Manchester Piccadilly Aslef
SWP favour
I’d first like to say how much I enjoy the Weekly Worker. It usually has a good mixture of polemic, and a lot more art and culture than most other newspapers.
But I would also like to comment on the February 14 edition article, ‘Cynics refuse support’. It seems that, for the first time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Workers Power! Undoubtedly, WP has based its criticisms on the basis of long-time sectarianism, but they do have valid points.
The CPGB (along with other groups around the world) has made it clear that they are prepared to uncritically support the programme of the International Socialist Organisation (Zimbabwe). The CPGB seems prepared to ignore its methods in order to curry favour with the SWP.
Undoubtedly it is a socialist group fighting the bureaucratic, racist and capitalist Zanu-PF government. But fighting solely in a liberal capitalist party like the Movement for Democratic Change, a group that has support even from an old-aged white dictator named Ian Smith, is a bad case of opportunism.
Support for the ISO is fine. But don’t ignore the tactical, theoretical and political errors of the ISO.
Bill Blake
Humberside
