Weekly Worker 430 Thursday May 2 2002
Letters
Hamas apologist
I occasionally check out your website. The last couple of issues, with headlining slogans like “Hamas, Sharon’s Palestinian allies” and “Oppose Sharon and Hamas, twins of terrorism”, had me greatly concerned about the technical health of my computer. Had my browser accidentally sent me to a liberal Zionist site or maybe even the Labour Party of Israel? The even-handed denunciations of the fifth largest military power in the world, backed to the hilt by the biggest one, along with a small guerrilla army which has been forced into the horrible and desperate act of suicide bombing is remarkable in a reportedly ‘communist’ paper.
Yes, the tactic of suicide bombing is destructive, not only in the human loss of valuable Palestinian militants and innocent Israeli civilians, but also in the fight for world public opinion. However, the fundamental responsibility for its growth is the Israeli state, which has given a whole new generation no future under the PLO-ruled mini-state. The oppressed in national liberation movements sometimes do awful things. The Boxers in China massacred missionaries; the FLN placed bombs in French cafes. That still doesn’t change our fundamental approach of giving unconditional solidarity to these movements. That isn’t white guilt, but basic revolutionary politics.
Ian Donovan’s and Tina Becker’s simplified vilification of Hamas also does great injustice to explaining the politics of this highly contradictory movement and where their support comes from. Its mass support comes not from reactionary cultural/religious appeals (Palestine lacks a separate class of mullahs like in Iran or Afghanistan, which gave fundamentalism its mass base in those countries), but from its initial clear-sighted denunciation of the Oslo agreement. Whatever you think of them on any other issue, we would have to admit that they (and other ‘rejectionists’) were right on this one. While the PLO was forced to act as a policeman for Israel in the tiny West Bank ‘bantustan’, Hamas continued its resistance.
On the anti-semitism charge, it should be said that Hamas itself has written: “Hamas resistance against the occupation is not directed against the jews as followers of a religion, but rather against the occupation.” And, while claiming to be based on islam, it also states: “Hamas undertakes advocacy for the cause of the Palestinian people without discrimination between religious, ethnic groups or sects. It believes in the right of all groups of the Palestinians to defend their territories” (Hamas The islamic resistance movement).
This is not to glorify Hamas, and I have yet to find that it is a necessary entry fee in doing Palestine solidarity work in the US - quite the opposite.
But most Palestinians rightfully don’t see religious fundamentalism as their main enemy, while being pounded by Israeli gunships. The struggle for the old PLO slogan of a ‘democratic secular Palestine’ is the right one and will liberate not only the Palestinians, but also the non-European, non-English-speaking jews who are regulated to second class citizens in ‘their state’. It’s the best way to undercut fundamentalism’s appeal.
Alex Haywood
USA
Carping
I was saddened to read John Pearson’s overwhelmingly negative report of the Socialist Alliance election campaign in Greater Manchester. On top of containing a number of factual inaccuracies, I feel the tone of his report seeks to denigrate the activities of the comrades involved in the campaign, and as a result can only demoralise members rather than enthuse them.
John criticises the GMSA coordinating committee for failing to organise a district-wide meeting for activists. In fact, we did organise such a meeting. However, we chose to prioritise local selection meetings where candidates would be chosen. Where these happened, they were very successful and brought together groups of comrades who would campaign in each ward. In Chadderton South, where we are up against a BNP candidate, we leafleted the entire ward advertising our selection meeting.
In many of the wards we are contesting we have already leafleted the wards once and are doing canvassing before distributing our final leaflet. John describes our campaign as “low-key”, but I wonder what he expects us to do.
John says that no appeal for financial or physical help has been sent to comrades. Again, this is simply not true. In South Manchester every member was sent a mailing asking for support. A financial appeal was also included on the back of our newsletter, Left Turn (despite John’s claim to the contrary).
John points out that “incredibly” April’s issue of Left Turn contained no contact details of agents or organisers. This is true. However, if John had spoken to me I could have explained the reason. We expected many of the copies (some 2,000) to be distributed door-to-door in Oldham. There is understandably some concern amongst comrades about the BNP getting hold of personal details. As someone who in the past has been the victim of regular, malicious phone calls from Nazis (after my details were put on a leaflet), I can understand that concern. Since members would be sent their own copies with covering letters about activities, I felt to include such details on the newsletter would be unnecessary. Others would be able to contact us via our PO box. Now John may disagree with that decision, but I do not think it is actually “incredible”.
John goes on to criticise SWP members for not turning up on the day he helped our Levenshulme candidate campaign. Sadly he doesn’t record the many other days SWP members in the area have taken an active part in the campaigning. His omission creates a misleading impression which could create problems where none exist.
Finally John suggests that the SWP want “to avoid political discussion and debate under the SA banner”. I find this rather disingenuous, as John chose not to raise any of his objections about the campaign at the recent South Manchester monthly members meeting, nor has he chosen to write to Left Turn with his criticisms. Instead, he writes to the Weekly Worker, which he knows most SA members in Manchester will not read. Is this “debate under the SA banner”?
There are legitimate criticisms of the SA campaign in Greater Manchester. For one, we should be standing more candidates, but we have to start where we are, not where we would like to be. Honest debate will help to build the SA into the bigger, more lively and attractive organisation we all want it to be. John’s carping criticisms, half-truths and inaccuracies can only help generate mistrust and demoralisation amongst SA members. It is a shame the John, who is so committed to the SA project, has made such a negative contribution to that debate.
Clive Searle
editor, Left Turn
Vota SA
The fight against neoliberalism and warmongers. These are the two issues that unite the social forum of the whole world. They are also the essential principles and discriminating characteristics of leftwing politics. The New Labour party of Blair - who is Berlusconi’s ally - is the antithesis of these principles.
These are the reasons why the Communist Refoundation Party (UK branch) invites Italian citizens to vote for candidates who have publicly declared themselves to be against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and against neoliberalism. In particular we ask Italians to vote for the candidates of the Socialist Alliance, who have always fought against the war and whose policy of creating alliances shows how to overcome divisions on the left and build a truly alternative mass movement.
Another world is possible. Let us build it together.
Communist Refoundation Party
UK branch
Le Pen
Whither France? The French revolution has begun? Well, maybe not, but French society is clearly polarising. The centre is giving way and the ‘extremists’ of left and right are the beneficiaries, as any good bourgeois commentator will tell you. The question is, what opportunities does this raise for the revolution?
For several elections now Lutte Ouvrière have advanced and, combined with the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire, their vote is clearly very significant. However, when first Arlette got her big vote seven years ago, the LO response was to play down its significance and not attempt to capitalise at all on their new-found popularity. Clearly the LO is a sect and cannot institutionally move into active, revolutionary leadership of the working class with its present structure, nor is it likely to reform itself. It cannot provide, nor is it ever likely to become, the revolutionary leadership of the French working class or an international pole of attraction for revolutionaries worldwide.
The LCR is very different. I disagree with those who say they should not have stood. There was no concession offered by LO and they are obliged to protect the base they have won in other elections by not allowing themselves to be eclipsed by LO. They are also clearly more politically flexible and appeal to youth, to the anti-globalisation movement and other currents. They are, however, clearly centrist and not revolutionary. They endlessly tail-end other movements and are forever ceding the central issues for any serious Trotskyist - the theoretical appreciation that a successful revolution must be led by the massed ranks of the organised working class under revolutionary leadership. You could argue that the LO do appreciate this point but in such a one-sided and dogmatic way as to render this appreciation practically useless. The Lambertists manage to combine the worst of both groups, being the most sectarian and the most reformist at the same time - a feat indeed.
Despite the failings of the LCR it does contain within its ranks more of those elements that are both subjectively revolutionary and are actively orientated. For instance, their immediate call for demonstrations (largely spontaneous anyway, you might argue) does show the correct orientation in the circumstances. And if properly handled the spectacle of the extreme right v the corrupt right may give that excellent extra-parliamentary tradition in France (could we not do with a bit more of it here?) a fillip.
The main slogan to push in France now is the call for a new workers’ parry. This is not a call for a reformist party, and Trotsky did not use the slogan in that way. It is a tactic for revolutionaries to engage with left-moving reformist workers and explain to them that this new workers party must be a revolutionary party and adopt revolutionary tactics if they are to defeat the threat from the extreme right, which will eventually become a fascist one maybe sooner rather than later.
Of course one would not expect such a party to set out with revolutionary politics (that would rather defeat the aim of engagement), but the revolutionary current within it should always fight for this strategic orientation in a tactical way. I do not agree that circumstances in the USA in the 1930s, when Trotsky advanced this slogan, were so different in terms of workers’ class consciousness to France right now.
The key to the situation is the relationship between vanguard and the masses. If the bulk of the leading and most class-conscious militants are unable or unwilling to work effectively in the mass reformist political parties of the class (I do not agree that either the SP or the PCF can no longer be termed parties of the class), then a new tactic must be found to enable them to intervene in the class with revolutionary propaganda and immediate agitational slogans. Of course it would be foolish to embark on the construction of a new workers’ party - rather than agitate for one - without convincing a sizeable section of the class who were moving leftwards that this was the correct tactic.
In this instance the LCR are totally correct to get agitated about, and to agitate as many others as possible about, the rise of Le Pen and racism by the fascist Front National. And forget the rubbish about the far right fragmenting when Le Pen retires/dies/goes senile. But Le Pen is also a representative of the ruling class. There is a division of labour here and moreover such a division that the blank vote seems to me to be the only possible tactic.
However, I suspect that most workers will either vote for Chirac or abstain. They may vote for Chirac through panic or because they do not see the division of labour at all clearly and do feel more immediately threatened by Le Pen - correctly in the short term if they are immigrant/black workers, but of course in the longer term this division threatens all workers. Surely no one has missed the fact that the second most important political factor - after the treachery of Jospin - was the fact that Le Pen set the agenda for the election on law and order and Chirac, and to a lesser extent Jospin, attempted to out-Pen him whilst he actually moderated his stance.
Surely central to the building of a revolutionary party must be the prevention of the advance of the right - if the vanguard is seen as central to smashing Le Pen then we can get revolution on the agenda for a far wider audience. Arlette, the LCR and the PT have some in their ranks who are subjective revolutionaries despite differences. The centrist leaderships may not always be able to subvert those aspirations for sectarian bureaucratic advantage.
Gerry Downing
London
Youth wing
After reading the letters page of the Weekly Worker, and in particular the letters concerning Le Pen and the failure of the opposition to the National Front march in Bermondsey, I felt it only natural that I should draw people’s attention to the most famous phrase in the communist and socialist manifestos: “Workers of the world, unite!” (April 25).
Although the rise of fascism in France and Britain is not solely due to a lack of leftwing opposition (the incompetence of the current governments is another issue), I cannot help feeling that if we followed the advice of Marx and Engels we would have a united British Communist Party to oppose the Nazi threat.
At the moment there are several socialist political groups in Britain, each with little individual power. Minor differences in policy have led to the divide, but I believe that a conference of all leftwing parties will have to be called, as fascism has a history of gaining massive public support and patching up cracks within itself.
I also wish to point out the current inaccessibility to socialist party membership, through the lack of youth wings, to the younger percentage of the population and in particular students. At the age of 15 myself I know several people who share the same ideals as myself yet are not prepared to take their opinions further through lack of active groups. I am aware that with patchy at best knowledge of political systems students are not the most obvious place to look for support, yet we must remember that oppression is not limited to people of the working age and many are falling through the cracks of Blair’s Britain.
Some of my own opinions differ from those outlined in the ‘What we fight for’ section of the CPGB website, but I realise that the only way a socialist government will gain power in Britain is through a combined effort to release the UK from the grip of rightwing groups like the Conservatives and so-called leftwing groups like the Labour Party. Only then can a socialist system, free of class separation and oppression, be set up.
Jed Weightman
email
Tom Paine
It was good to see Terry Liddle’s article on the great revolutionary, radical and republican, Thomas Paine (Weekly Worker April 18). However, risking the charge of carping criticism, I would like to point out that when Paine finished his apprenticeship he went to Sandwich, Kent, where he established himself as a staymaker, without much success, and married, although his wife died around a year later.
After obtaining a post in the excise in Grantham, Lincolnshire, then at Sleaford, where he got the sack for some minor fault, he was later reinstated and posted to Lewes, where he again married, this time parting with his wife by mutual consent. It was in between these two spells of excise duty that he attended lectures on science in London.
Paine did not die at his farm in New Rochelle. He died in Greenwich Village, New York However, he was buried on his farm after the Quakers refused him burial in one of their burial grounds. However, he did not rest in peace, as in 1819 William Cobbett, who had been converted from being bitterly hostile to Paine to being a fanatical supporter, illegally exhumed his remains and took them to England. They have since been lost.
Robert Morrell
Thomas Paine Society
Updating
I would like to raise a few points concerning the ‘What we fight for’ column, which is printed within these pages on a weekly basis.
I am of the opinion that some of the bullet statements are in need both of updating and clarifying. For example: “Marxism-Leninism is powerful because it is true.” Marxism-Leninism may indeed be the cornerstone of communist ideology, and just because it provides a powerful argument, it does not follow that everything Marx or Lenin wrote/said was true. To assume so would make them infallible, and it only takes one example to the contrary to make the statement null and void.
I would therefore suggest: “Marxism-Leninism is the foundation upon which a workers’ party should be built” (followed by: “Communists relate theory to practice …”).
With regards to the statement, “War and peace, pollution and the environment are class questions”, whilst it could be argued that the capitalist system has been a major contributory factor with regards to war, pollution and the environment, there are, however, may peace/environmental campaigners who do not come from a socialist background. It would be foolish to alienate these people, who, irrespective of class, could actually be of use.
I suggest the following rewording: “That all classes unite, for the betterment of peace, and the eradication of war and pollution” (followed by: “No solutions to the world’s problems …”).
I would also be in favour of including an additional statement. That one of our principles which we fight for should be “to make the peoples free and equal, and to preserve all the people from all forms of slavery”.
I have only briefly touched upon the above three points, in an attempt to provoke a discussion, which will hopefully create a new set of principles (‘What we fight for’), based on the needs of society today.
Nick Redmond
Manchester
Dog attack
In a disgraceful attack on activists protesting against a genetically-modified crop, dogs were let loose and at least one activist required medical treatment for bites to the chest.
Last Friday night (April 26), further extensive damage was done to the huge, 40-acre crop nearing maturity at Munlochy, near Inverness. An eye witness described the events: “A lot of us were attacking the crop. It was a full moon and we were probably spotted when the clouds broke. In the early hours the police arrived and - following what seems to have been a pre-arranged plan - searchlights set up and mad dogs were let loose. Everyone scarpered!”
The police initially refused to say whether it was police dogs or private security, with whom they were colluding. Police blocked all roads nearby and questioned everyone passing by. Five people were arrested, but many escaped.
What followed was just as disgraceful as the dog attack. All five - three men and two women - were kept in solitary confinement for three nights. Soaked by rain and snow, dry clothing (delivered next day) was kept from the prisoners. Three of the five are members of the Scottish Socialist Party. The partners of two of those in the cells were only allowed to see them after the intervention of solicitors the next day. All five were denied any visits from friends, and the duty solicitor advised them all to plead guilty.
Growing concern for the welfare of the prisoners in isolation led to a hurried picket on the Sunday afternoon. At very short notice, around 30 supporters gathered at Dingwall police station and after long negotiation a friend was able to visit two of the prisoners and deliver newspapers and chocolate. The visitor was shocked to find one of them shivering in his underwear because the police had not given him the dry clothing delivered on Saturday. Another prisoner had dog bites bandaged up, but was not taken to hospital. A vegan prisoner was given a bacon roll for breakfast.
Such treatment would be no surprise in a third world dictatorship. That it is happening on behalf of the Labour/Liberal Scottish government is perhaps not much of a surprise either. Despite a mountain of scientific evidence and the decision of a parliamentary committee, the executive still dances to New Labour’s familiar tune - do as the multinationals tell us.
News of the incident has, however, only inspired more to fight. The very next night, (April 27) another large force inflicted even more damage to the crop! This time the smug defenders of international capital were fast asleep. It is believed that this weekend has seen around 30% of the crop damaged, rendering the experiment worthless.
Unfortunately, both SNP and Green Party spokesmen have “deplored” the crop attacks, saying the ‘democratic process’ must be followed. But even this flawed process is being ignored and abused by those in power, and the crop will have pollinated and seeded while Finnie stalls. In marked contrast, the SSP gives its full support to those trying to prevent this imminent, uncontrolled and irreversible threat to the environment.
Throughout the weekend a barrage of phone calls and complaints had rained down on Dingwall Police Station, including calls from Tommy Sheridan and other MSPs. At one stage on the Sunday they simply stopped answering the phone!
The five were threatened that if they pleaded not guilty the procurator fiscal would oppose bail and face further solitary in the cells or in a remand centre. A further picket of Dingwall court on Monday, with press in attendance, saw all five proudly plead guilty, to be bound over for six months and sentence deferred.
Bob Goupillot
Midlothian
SWP crisis
Let me congratulate you on your excellent paper. Over here we like to keep up to speed with what’s going on on the British left.
The Irish SWP is going through a severe crisis. Our group has emerged from the wreckage of the Belfast organisation, while an entire branch in Dublin has just seceded from the main party.
Jon Anderson
International Socialists of Ireland
