Weekly Worker 459 Thursday December 5 2002
Letters
SWP mates
My experience of the Socialist Workers Party seems to completely differ from that of other comrades, particularly Richard Harris (Weekly Worker November 28). I first came across the SWP last year after attending local Socialist Alliance meetings. I had read Socialist Worker for some time beforehand and have always been a revolutionary at heart. I decided to join, promising myself that I would leave if I was forced to conform to some paper sale targets, as some scaremongers had assured me I would.
However, I’ve found them to be extremely welcoming and accommodating, and they’re all now really good mates. The SWP have been at the heart of organising and campaigning in my area. I have them to thank for introducing me to the world of revolutionary politics and anti-capitalist activity, about which I wouldn’t have had a clue.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying the SWP on a whole are perfect. But it doesn’t deserve the level of criticism thrown at it. I would hate it if its existence in the SA hindered the ability of the alliance to progress as a powerful force in national and local politics. Other components of the SA - the CPGB in particular - do a lot of excellent theoretical work and I would be more than happy to support the elevation of their influence in the Socialist Alliance.
Keep up the good work.
Mike Brown
email
Labourite SWP?
Is the letter from Richard Harris genuine? If so, it beggars belief. If everything written by Mr Harris is true, then yes, I agree with him that we all desperately do need to stand back and have a critical review of the “role of the SWP in the SA” and where are they supposed to be leading us (because that is the present role whether we like it or not - they are leaders of the Socialist Alliance experiment).
Perhaps someone from the SWP could enlighten us about the ‘Revolution - is it possible?’ debate in Canterbury; or is it also true that they are not encouraged to write to journals published by other left groups? It is amazing that they should think that Labour left MPs (I take it they have taken over from New Labour at this time in the future) with SA MPs’ support (not the SA MPs for Lewisham or Ipswich surely?) would be able to bring about socialism from parliament.
We must remind new comrades that, although many gains were made for workers over the last century (which since 1980 have been eroded), Labourism has failed to deliver socialism. The nearest Labour came to it was the post-war Attlee government, swept to power by people who had just gone through the horrors and shortages of a war in which a mood of collective effort had been fostered.
Labour’s manifesto promised the implementation of the Beveridge plan, full employment, decent housing for all, and the public ownership of the railways, coal mines, the Bank of England and utilities. The setting up of the welfare state was indeed revolutionary, but let’s not get carried away and call those that introduced it a socialist government. Its leaders at the time were major Clement Atlee (Fabian socialist, loyal to king and country), Herbert Morrison (Churchill’s wartime home secretary who saw reds under the bed everywhere) and Ernest Bevin (rightwing trade unionist who had helped sell out the general strike in 1926, and as Attlee’s foreign secretary fell in line with US requests for the UK to develop nuclear power, thus assisting in bomb-building for Nato) - hardly leftwingers by any stretch of the imagination.
Yet they had no choice but to implement a radical programme of reform - driven on by socialists in the labour movement eager for change and thousands of returning servicemen wanting peace and security. The greatest single let-down was nationalisation (yes, that thing that ‘old Labourites’ and the SWP/ISG axis go dewy-eyed over). Nationalisation had been seen by many as the mechanism to bring about a socialist society, but it can only have done this by having workers’ committees all through the hierarchical structures of these newly nationalised industries.
Sixteen resolutions for the party conference of 1948 and 18 more in 1949 dealt with democratic control of nationalised industries, supporting workers’ participation and the inclusion of more socialists on the boards, and opposing the high salaries paid to fat cat board members. But the Labour Party tops had become fat cats now themselves: they betrayed socialism, consequently ran out of steam, and by 1951 Churchill and the Tories were back in power.
People never returned a Labour government again until 1964 (and then by a minute majority), not because of Labour’s leftwing policies after the war, but the lack of them. Once again ordinary people felt betrayed by the post-war reformists and were thoroughly sick of it. In the words of my grandparents and parents: “They are all the bloody same, feather their own nests and bugger the likes of us.” The social democrats that ruled Labour in opposition subscribed to a ‘new Fabianism’ that excused the inadequacies of the Attlee government in implementing a socialist society on the outmoded programme of ‘old Fabianism’ - instead of admitting that socialism cannot be brought about within capitalism! That ‘new Fabianism’ has now evolved into New Labour’s ‘third way’, a thread of betrayal that goes back years.
The Socialist Alliance should be promoting such ideas as socialisation (complete, democratic, workers’ control), as opposed to the failed nationalisation of Labourism. Do we really want to be dragged down the reformist cul-de-sac again, comrades?
Jimmy Miles
email
Beds SA
I attended the recent Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance meeting with Alan Thornett from the SA executive. This was the meeting which passed the infamous motion instigated by the SWP calling for the banning of two comrades and their expulsion from the SA. Of course the SWP varies quite a bit around the country in the way they relate not only to their own comrades, but to other socialists. But in the Luton area they have a record going back over a few years of witch-hunting and expelling comrades. Such methods are not a costless exercise. What is forfeited is respect and trust in the working class movement.
I opposed the motion and asked it be withdrawn for a number of reasons. First it wasn’t in the interests of the Socialist Alliance to start expelling comrades, especially after the Socialist Party had been got rid of and Liz Davies had just resigned as national chair. It would send out the wrong signals or tend to confirm people’s worst fears about where we were going. Even more outrageous was the fact that one of the comrades to be expelled was the treasurer of region 10 of the Fire Brigades Union. As if a comrade in the middle of one of the most important industrial struggles under the Blair government needed to be dealing with this crap. What would the Bedfordshire firefighters think about the SA when they heard of this?
I also pointed out that it was not in the interests of the SWP to do this. The SWP could only be damaged. It would set back their national perspective of building an open and democratic united front. It wouldn’t do the SWP reputation with the firefighters much good either. Later in response the SWP organiser said neither she nor the SWP wanted to be told by me what was in their interests. So presumably she thinks expulsions are in the SWP’s interests. She certainly spoke and voted that way.
Finally I proposed an alternative to bans and expulsions. I suggested that the SWP withdraw their motion and instead the two sides (SWP and the BSA Democratic and Republican Platform) nominate one person each (I volunteered and suggested that the SWP organiser might offer her services) plus a member of the executive like comrade Thornett. There had been a number of complaints going back from both sides and the sensible thing to do was to look at them and see if we could sort out a reasonable solution. This proposal was rejected by the SWP, although two SWP members abstained.
I am pleased to see that the national executive refused to support the banning of the two comrades from Beds SA meetings and referred the matter to the appeals committee. Now we learn that one of the BSA officers has resigned and the December meeting has been cancelled. What is certain is that the BSA is now split more deeply than ever and cannot go on the way it has. I am sure that the BSA Democratic and Republican Platform will be demanding a number of changes.
Steve Freeman
Luton
What we fight for
I recently joined the CPGB because I liked its commitment to open debate about differences in the movement and its work towards a Socialist Alliance party.
I agree almost entirely with the ‘What we fight for’ column, but take exception to the first point. Although I think that all revolutionaries should be together in one party, why should we dictate before it has happened that it should be called the ‘Communist Party’? Surely it would be up to the revolutionaries in the party to decide its name, and the CPGB contingent would by no means form the majority. I also take exception to the frankly ridiculous statement that “Without such a party the working class is nothing”. What about unions? What about a revolutionary party not called the ‘Communist Party’?
If the revolution were to come about through a party of a different name, would it be any less valid? This statement is not going to encourage other working people to join our party. It makes us sound like an arrogant communist clique telling the working class to join us or rot. In last week’s Weekly Worker the front page was dedicated to the unions (November 28). I cannot think of a better use of our front page - but how can we then tell union members that if they are not a member of our party, they are nothing? This will not give them the confidence they need to defeat the Blair government.
One other point - the CPGB does not have a monthly review like the SWP, or an internal bulletin. So we have to put longer theoretical pieces in our weekly. But can we cease the lengthy, bitchy articles about the SWP, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, etc? If we want their members to join us, or even for these parties to unite with us in an SA party, we are not going to achieve this by constantly slagging off their organisations, even if they aren’t very good. Our party looks hypocritical when we speak against factionalism but constantly whinge about other parties. We should be emphasising that we are all revolutionary socialists, and we have far more in common than we have in differences.
Although I agree that we should not shirk debate in our paper because some would say it ‘confuses the workers’, we also need to stop personal attacks on members of the SWP, etc, and quit moaning about them. Instead we need to make our paper something that union members on picket lines want to read.
To summarise: our paper should not be attacking other socialists. It should be attacking the bosses and the Blair government. Then the working class of Britain will see that our enemies are their enemies, and will want to read the paper and join the party.
Oh, and a humorous weekly cartoon would be good.
Laurie McCauley
Scarborough
Bickering
The Weekly Worker plays a good role as a democratic debating ground for the plethora of leftist groups that abound in the UK, but it is imperative that petty bickering must now give way to a unity in action against the onslaught of the most rightwing government for years.
For far too long we have contemplated our navels and split into numerous sects whilst the political arm of the trade unions has gone from ‘Labour Party’ to ‘New Labour’ and now is without doubt ‘anti-labour’. Whether you still advocate fighting to regain the Labour Party from within or believe in building an alternative to it without, the time is here to man the picket lines shoulder to shoulder, wherever they are drawn, and show solidarity with all those fighting privatisation, closures and for better conditions. We must engage with the public to promote our politics and enrol new members.
To provide an arena for open polemic amongst our groups is fine and there have been some really good articles and debates within your paper over the past couple of years; however, some of the trivial, childish whining and nit-picking correspondence that crops up on your letters page needs weeding out. Too much negativity does not help boost confidence amongst our members, let alone rank and file trade unionists in dispute, who are in need of moral and practical support. Neither will it entice much needed new blood to our ranks!
Surely our goal is to create a broad united front (all learning to work together) that will put a socialist government into power which will immediately dismantle the monarchy, the unelected upper house and all the other anti-democratic baggage along with it, bringing justice and hope to the vast majority of our people. Yes, we have our differences, but let us discuss them rationally. Continual sniping at the SWP, for example, by many that have passed through its ranks and wish to carry on personal vendettas, is counterproductive.
The Communist manifesto states what our relationship to the working class as a whole should be: “Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.” I’m all for reforging a genuine workers’ party. If we do not we will fail miserably in everything we attempt. Where socialists have recently worked together through such campaigns as Stop the War and Defend Council Housing, much trust has been generated. Let us all try harder to forget personal animosity in the interests of a socialist future!
Reg Jenkins
email
Political islam
Comrades Martyn Hudson and Ian Donovan - debating whether it is, or is not, right to join the Muslim Association of Britain in the Stop the War Coalition - are unfortunately misguided (Weekly Worker November 28). The actual debate is not whether contemporary political islam is reactionary (it is, see ‘Radical islam’ published by Iran Bulletin 1993 for details), nor that there are as many islams as there are muslims (there are).
What is proposed here is not an alliance for government, nor even one for the overthrow of government. It is an alliance for democratic rights - in this case the right of Iraqi men, women and children not to be blown to bits and to be allowed to determine their own fate. This is an alliance for a specific task and therefore the basis of the alliance is not whether we agree on, or even like or do not like, the ideology of our allies. Such an alliance is temporary and is based solely on an agreed platform and on the unquestionable right to criticise one’s allies (and be criticised). This latter means that neither side can censor or shut up the other - as seems to have happened in some STWC meetings earlier this year.
If these criteria are met you can work with anyone for a specific goal - even the devil. And you don’t have to be proud of marching with the devil - only wise. The left needs to get clear the various levels of cooperation with other groups if it is to make any impact on politics anywhere. Mixing up various levels of alliance for specific tasks with a united front for power is a grave muddle.
Mehdi Kia
Iran Bulletin
Reactionary islam
Ian Donovan’s defence of the left forming political alliances with the Muslim Association of Britain amounts to little more than pointing out that the MAB is among the most moderate and least fascistic of the world’s islamist organisations.
How much does that tell us? One can make a good case that the far-right Austrian Freedom Party is not actually fascist - but is that a justification for socialists allying with it? Whether we use the word ‘fascistic’ or not, it is clear that the MAB is an ultra-reactionary organisation.
Beyond that, what has happened to the notion of working class political independence? The Tories and Lib Dems are certainly not fascistic, but I find it difficult to imagine that Ian advocates an alliance with them. In fact, I’m pretty sure he agrees that socialists should oppose all popular fronts - so why doesn’t the far right politics of the MAB simply reinforce that principle? Or does Ian think that this is a special case - a popular front justified by the fact that muslims are involved? In which case, that is certainly inverse islamophobia, because it implies that muslim workers and young people are incapable of thinking in political terms not defined by their religion/ethnicity.
Sacha Ismail
AWL
Just admit it
As a member of the AWL, I’m obviously biased. But I think this whole Leeds matter could be cleared up if the CPGB simply admitted that:
1. It was wrong of one of their comrades to agree to ‘no-platform’ Sean Matgamna in a debate about religion.
2. That the source of the ‘no-platforming’ demand came from a self-important so-called ‘independent’ (Mike Marqusee) who has come to expect deference from the organised left.
3. Marqusee’s alleged grounds for refusing to share a platform with Matgamna (‘I’ve had enough of being called an anti-semite by him’, or words to that effect), were untrue: Marqusee and Matgamna have never had a personal confrontation on that question.
4. It is also untrue that the AWL brands all supporters of a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine question as ‘anti-semites’: if that was the case, we’d have to brand ourselves as (retrospectively) anti-semitic prior to our reassessment of this question in the 1980s.
5. That free and open debate on the left is not a luxury, but a necessity. Your actions with regard to the ‘Leeds incident’ contradicted that principle. It may have been more ‘cock-up’ than ‘conspiracy’, but it was still a disgrace. Admit to that, and we may still have a basis for talking about unity.
Jim Denham
AWL
Scary
Blunkett is doing his best to live up to his reputation as the most rightwing home secretary since Churchill - and his new extensions to the sexual offences legislation also mark him out as a most profoundly ignorant man.
The New Labour cabinet is so enthralled with America that they cannot stand anything which is significantly different to operate here. Hence we are on the first step to mark up the age of consent another two years to take it in line with the general America model of 18. So what is he saying? Modern kids of 16 are less developed, less well informed, less able to understand sex and consent than 16-year-olds in the 1940s or 1930s? Facts and science tell us quite the reverse: your average 13-year-old today is at least as mature and sexually informed as your average 16-year-old 30 years ago.
Maturity and sexuality and social awareness is happening younger and younger and yet here we have a home secretary trying to lock up puberty, and enforce laws which pretend ‘childhood’ and ‘innocence’ now extend into late teenage. In schizoid double-speak he pretends that a child under 11 cannot consent to sex. Even if they do they cannot by law because they could not possibly know what it is. However, a child under 11 can consent to murder someone and fully understand the consequences of that action.
An adult who has sex with an actually consenting under-11-year-old will now be subject to life imprisonment for rape. So a sexual encounter freely entered into between the youngster and the adult is equivalent to murdering someone. There is no distinction between actual physical rape - being dragged from the street and sexually violated - and a tender, consensual sexual encounter, no matter how voluntarily entered into or, it seems, how casual the level of contact.
The whole hoo-ha about ‘grooming’ over the internet - making contact with youngsters as a prelude to expected sexual encounters further down the track - totters on the brink of actually banning friendships between adults and children under any circumstances, on the basis that this too could be ‘grooming’ for sex at some future date. Voyeurism - just looking at an under-age girl, for example, who voluntarily takes her clothes off - is now for the first time also a crime, even without inducement, threat or bribe. Just seeing an under-age body is vile enough to warrant imprisonment.
The whole nightmare comes on the crest of a tabloid obsession with adults and kids having sex and the total reinvention of paedophilia - from murder to a tender embrace - as being one and the same thing. Brutality toward a child is the same thing as its direct opposite. From hating children to loving them too much henceforth will be paedophilia and a child will now be anyone up to 18 years old.
It seems now impossible to open a newspaper without a flurry of paedophile stories and pervert revelations - even the BBC now peppers its national news with such sexually perverted titbits for the good folk at home to tut-tut over or, worse, go looking for the baseball bat and some hapless ‘pervert’ to beat up. Britain is rapidly becoming one of the most sexually repressive and hung-up countries in the world, and it looks to me like things are going to get worse.
The prison-building business just got set for a massive new expansion and many thousands more just got set up for the slammer, with all these baying wolves at the door of anyone marked out as a ‘pervert’. This is getting a very scary place to live.
John Hughes
Hull
Rich playground
The announcement by the government’s rural affairs minister, Alun Michael, on hunting with dogs reaffirms that the rich in England and Wales will maintain the right to use the countryside as their playground.
This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from his willingness to allow some fox hunts to continue under a registration system. Hunts will be allowed to continue where they can prove they are necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops, property or biological diversity and if it can be shown that it is the least cruel way of controlling the fox population. A panel of three will be chosen in different regions.
Although the Countryside Alliance, which was formed in 1997 to defend fox-hunting with hounds, publicly reacted cautiously, saying that with regard to the registration system they would look “constructively”, they must have been privately delighted. The possibility of an all-out ban has been averted and, armed with a bucketload of cash, they will be able to employ the best lawyers to produce well reasoned arguments before any panels in England and Wales.
Amidst all the arguments, the main reason why fox-hunting with hounds can take place at all has been forgotten and ignored. I refer to the massive imbalance in land ownership which exists. In England and Wales: 25,918,370 acres is occupied by just 157,367 individuals or families. As such 0.28% of the population owns 64% of the land.
Whilst millions are condemned to living their lives in overcrowded and impoverished inner cities, whole areas remain in the hands of a small number of wealthy individuals who believe they should be permitted to use land which once belonged to all of us, or rather our ancestors, for their private pleasure.
- Ban fox-hunting.
- Return the land to common ownership.
Mark Metcalf
Revolutions Per Minute
100 dead
The death fast activist, Zeliha Erturk, has died in Sisli Etfal hospital, Istanbul. She had continued her death fast action opposing isolation in the F-type prisons for 551 days. Zeliha Erturk was put in Kartal special-type prison following the December 2000 operation ‘Return to life’. She started the death fast action on June 3 2001 as part of the fifth team and became the 100th person to lose her life.
The Tayad families said in a statement: “The resistance in which Zeliha lost her life and her death are a challenge to the whole of humanity. It is a challenge to those who are blind, deaf and have hearts of stone. Listen to how isolation kills. How long will this insensitivity and lack of respect continue? Zeliha Erturk is the 100th death. And until isolation is lifted this number can only increase. Today’s death is the responsibility of the new AKP government. Lift isolation; do not kill human beings,” it said.
Revolutionary prisoners will continue to live with their thoughts and beliefs and will not abandon their ideals and, since isolation continues in all its harshness in the prisons, a new death fast team has been announced.
Tayad
Scotland
Buy
this book
 |
The
communist manifesto Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Gareth Stedman Jones (editor) £3.99 |
Price correct at time of uploading
