Weekly Worker 511 Thursday January 15 2004

Letters

French ban

In reply to your request to respond to Peter Manson’s article, let us say first that the general tone of this piece is gratuitously insulting, while its title is intentionally so (‘Jacques Chirac’s Lutte Ouvrière policemen’ Weekly Worker January 8).

No amount of polemics between revolutionaries can justify insults in our book. In view of our past relations, which were reasonably fraternal, we want to believe this to be a slip. But we expect a formal confirmation from you on this particular point.

The many factual mistakes in Peter Manson’s article and the flimsy knowledge of basic social realities on which he bases his abstract reasoning would make a reply far too long to write at a time when we have more important tasks to attend, such as the preparation of three election campaigns on top of our usual organisational work.

So the best thing we can suggest to meet your request is that you translate some of the articles that we have written on this issue (all are available on our internet site:http://www.lutte-ouvriere. org). Then, at least, your readers will be able to judge for themselves rather than being presented with Peter’s own preconceived ideas.

The articles published on the following dates are indicative, but cover more or less the various aspects of the problem and the reasons behind the militant stand we made on this issue (as communists, not as “teachers”, as Peter puts it so naively): September 26 2003; October 10 2003; October 24 2003; December 19 2003.

François Rouleau
Lutte Ouvrière

Scandalous

I agree 100% with your analysis of the scandalous position of Lutte Ouvrière on islamic headscarves. I would add that leading teaching members of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire voted for the exclusion of the Lévy sisters from their school.

Having defended girls wearing the headscarf at the time of the first attack on them (the ‘Bayrou circular’ of 1994), may I draw your attention to a number of articles in French on this question, now reproduced on our website (http://www.le-militant.org). You will also find there an ‘Open letter to the brothers and sisters of Lutte Ouvrière’.

Raymond Debord
Militant, Paris

No thanks

We thank you for your invitation to speak at your January 18 forum. However, we regret to have to turn it down for political reasons concerning both the subject and format of this event.

Your forum is entitled: ‘Headscarves, secularism and the battle of democracy’. One would have assumed, therefore, that it would be devoted to the attitude that revolutionaries should have towards religion in general and the revival of muslim fundamentalism in Britain in particular - which would be fair enough. However, the blurb contained in the invitation focuses on a totally different issue - namely Chirac’s legislation to ban ostensible religious symbols (not “political” so far, contrary to what you write, although this may well change one of these days) in French state schools and what the left’s attitude to this should be.

This, in our view, makes no sense whatsoever. Since nobody on the French revolutionary left supports Chirac’s legislation; whose attitude to this legislation are you planning to discuss in this forum? More importantly, we find it rather strange that British revolutionaries should be arguing wisely over the attitude that communists should have towards religion in France, when so many left groups in Britain avoid making a clear stand on such issues for fear of upsetting the liberal prejudices of the petty bourgeoisie!

On the format, one has to make a clear choice, which you have failed to do. You want to discuss the attitude of revolutionaries towards a particular issue. But this attitude can only stem from the aim we pursue: ie, the revolutionary transformation of society. Despite this, some of the speakers you invite do not share this aim. As a result, the panel you selected may be adequate for a student debating society, but not for a serious discussion between revolutionaries.

These are the reasons for our decision not to speak at your forum. We must add that we were all the more surprised by your invitation, as it seems to us that a much more pressing issue is being posed to the British left closer to home: namely the Socialist Workers Party’s drive to build a rainbow alliance which aims to involve elements of political islam. Judging from your paper, you seem to be broadly satisfied with the SWP’s initiative whereas, as you probably know from the November issue of our journal, Class Struggle, we have made a clear stand against it.

We would certainly welcome a serious debate on this issue between our organisations, possibly involving other revolutionaries groups and activists.

Anna Hunt
Workers Fight

Straightening bent facts

Steve Cooke and Andy Hannah both indulge in considerable fact bending in their attempts to justify their support for my expulsion from the CPGB (Weekly Worker December 18).

Comrade Cooke tries to invent ‘previous form’ with his statements: “[Pearson’s] repeated refusal to accept the legitimacy of decisions made through our democratic structures left us in an impossible position”; and “By repeatedly letting down his comrades and diminishing the effectiveness of their interventions, comrade Pearson lost the trust of the membership” (my emphases). His account is fictional. As Mary Godwin’s report of the expulsion proceedings at the CPGB aggregate on December 7 (Weekly Worker December 11) and the terms of the indictment against me - set out in Jack Conrad’s ‘Party notes’ in the preceding week’s paper - both make plain, the charges related solely to the way I voted in three calls at the same meeting: the inaugural conference of the Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance on November 8.

Andy Hannah is even more inventive: “Having lost the argument within the CPGB, comrade Pearson arranged to be ‘mandated’ by Stockport Socialist Alliance to present his own position - in opposition to the Party majority - at various SA bodies”, he says. Comrade Hannah should be ashamed of this base fabrication. All three of the motions upon which I voted against the lead given by comrade Marcus Ström concerned the matter of how the SA should relate to the phenomenon which, at that point, carried the appellation, ‘the Monbiot-Yaqoob initiative’. It has since metamorphosed into the ‘Respect/Unity coalition’. The Monbiot-Yaqoob proposal for an electoral coalition, and announcement of their intention to approach inter alia the SA for support therefor, had only been made public, in the Guardian newspaper, on October 13. I had then won an emergency resolution of Stockport SA, two days later, seeking rejection by the SA national council of the Monbiot-Yaqoob approach. The national council meeting took place just three days later, on October 18.

Far from my engineering the Stockport SA mandate, “having lost the argument within the CPGB”, I was representing the well known CPGB position of opposition to Monbiot-Yaqoob’s previous incarnation, the ‘Peace and Justice’ proposal. There was no “opposition to the Party”. I was in fact playing a self-starting leading role in advancing what I considered to be the principled political position of the CPGB.

I arrived at national council armed with a ringing endorsement of the position I was going to fight for, in the text of the Weekly Worker editor, Peter Manson’s article. Sub-headed, “Reject latest ‘Peace and Justice’ coalition”, it advised: “Delegates must reject any notion of some green-liberal-pacifist coalition that will take the working class movement precisely nowhere. The irony of the Yaqoob-Monbiot-SWP ‘peace and justice’ hogwash is that it is likely to be ignored by voters even more than the Socialist Alliance itself was in last month’s Brent East by-election” (October 16). At the meeting moreover, I gained the support of the CPGB national organiser, Mark Fischer, for accepting into the Stockport motion an amendment by Martin Thomas of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty which “made clearer” (Mark’s words) that the Monbiot-Yaqoob manifesto described a non-socialist electoral coalition.

What I did subsequently oppose - four weeks after I obtained the Stockport SA mandate - was the presentation, on the very day of the DPSA conference on November 8, of an unprincipled volte-face in the form of the ‘papal bulls’ that were carried by comrade Ström.

No, there had been no prior argument, no democratic discussion by the CPGB membership on its attitude to the Monbiot-Yaqoob/Galloway/SWP phenomenon. Again, Mary Godwin’s report of the December 7 CPGB aggregate presents us with the truth. That democratic discussion did not take place until the same meeting at which my expulsion was executed.

To move on, an interesting development has now occurred. Commenting on the declaration of the self-appointed committee of ‘Respect’, Jack Conrad observed: “Even where we strongly disagree tactically - eg, over the European Union and voting ‘no’ in any referendum over the euro (this plays into the hands of the ‘anti-European xenophobic right wing’ and we therefore urge an active boycott) - there is room for optimism. It must be stressed that what we have in front of us is a draft” (Weekly Worker December 11).

But lo, what do we see on SA-associated email lists on December 30? A communication from CPGB Provisional Central Committee member Marcus Ström of a motion he has submitted to the SA executive committee, which contains the following proposal for submission by the SA to the inaugural convention of Respect: “We will strongly oppose the anti-European xenophobic right wing in any euro referendum. But we oppose the ‘stability pact’ that the European Union seeks to impose on all those who join the euro. This pact would outlaw government deficit spending and reinforce the drive to privatise and deregulate the economy and we will therefore vote ‘no’ in any referendum on this issue.”

Comrade Ström lays claim to a mandate from the committee of the DPSA for the terms of this motion in whose name he submitted it. (I would cast doubt on the veracity of this claimed mandate, but that is another matter.)

Well, well, well - what a blow to comrade Conrad’s hopes of seeing the Respect draft declaration amended. Can we now expect to see comrade Ström expelled from the CPGB? You can bet your bottom pound or euro that we won’t! There is a world of difference between the CPGB leadership’s treatment of a consistent and outspoken left critic from its rank and file and one of their own who embarks upon a rightward deviation from a democratically decided Party position. I have no doubt that there will be a world of difference too in the attitudes of comrades Cooke and Hannah.

John Pearson
Stockport

Selective discipline

The expulsion of John Pearson raises some serious questions about the CPGB’s internal regime.

What about CPGB comrades who failed to attend the February 2003 anti-war march in London. Despite the next aggregate agreeing that a letter of censure should be sent to all who failed to attend without prior permission, setting out the seriousness of non-attendance at the biggest class action for over 20 years, no action was forthcoming.

The internal disciplinary regime of the CPGB seems to be rather selective when it comes to handing out punishment. Comrades who fail to carry out agreed actions (SA, anti-war demo, etc) are spared the retribution of the PCC. More importantly the failure of the central committee to carry out the instructions of the aggregate - eg, reprimanding non-attendance at the February demo - is by far the most serious breach of democratic centralism and one for which the culprits get away scot free.

The expulsion of John Pearson was a mistake. A return to candidate membership or supporter status, with the responsibilities and not the rights of membership, would have been more in line with comrade Pearson’s mistakes. And I say “mistakes”, because Jack Conrad himself highlighted the low level of consciousness of the accused.

That’s not a defence you can use for the PCC.

Roger Harper
Manchester

Not leaders

I have watched the CPGB with real interest during the last three years. I was a member of the CPGB (the real one) from 1970 until its death. I hoped the people who had taken up the name might have taken up the best elements of its mantle.

Alas, the Weekly Worker, which I always read, is never concerned with how to mobilise the most class-conscious elements of the working class. It is absorbed in the NE London world of internecine ‘left’ (?) politics. And its lack of internationalism means policies adopted by the CPGB are bizarre - especially the policy on Ireland.

Now who in Ireland wants a repartition? Such a policy could only arise from those so deeply buried in the polity of the imperial nation that they don’t even notice its imperial nature: ie, telling the lesser people what to do. It could never have been formed in the context of a true workers’ (worldwide) party. If the CPGB had discussed this policy with Irish communists, I cannot imagine it would ever have been adopted. The CPGB never had such imperial lines (whatever one thinks of their policy on World War II.).

Now I read these items from the letters page: “The Respect coalition expresses the lack of confidence of the SWP in socialism from below. It is moving in an opposite direction to what the class needs - a mass workers’ party” (January 8). Yes, the working class needs a mass workers’ party - so what does the CPGB do? Support Respect. Have you read the Critique of the Gotha programme? F*** knows what Marx would have said about Respect.

“We need a working class organisation that can encourage self-awareness, confidence and solidarity within the class. After much deliberation, I’ve decided to join the Independent Working Class Association, which seems much more realistically placed to further the interests of my class.”

Does not such mail tell the CPGB that it is now losing even its close supporters? I’m not going to join the IWCA as it seems to me to be directionless: ie, not within Marx’s vision of socialism; just a rebellion against where we are now. But it is miles better that you, the CPGB. Its focus is on how to build socialist sentiment amongst workers.

The Weekly Worker is concerned with slagging off the SWP and others. They are rubbish, alas - deeply locked in the struggles of a now irrelevant past. But there is not even the beginning of an appreciation in the CPGB that we need to start building an independent, fighting, working class movement. You have become part of the ‘left’, not the leaders of the working class.

I joined the CPGB as it was the central organisation of the militant working class. You’re not even trying to get there. I truly regret that. Quo vadimus?

Richard Harris
Canterbury

Democratic

I agree with Matt Richards on the need for long-term, or even permanent, factions within democratic centralist parties (Letters, December 18).

Permanent factions are not a “disease”, as Duncan Hallas erroneously asserted. This notion is actually an insult to the memory of Trotsky and the struggle he conducted against Stalin. Trotsky’s very own oppositional faction, the International Left Opposition, in the Comintern itself lasted, in one form or another, for the best part of a decade from the early 20s to 1933, when Hitler came to power.

Was this evidence of a “diseased” political mentality? I think not. It was a necessary and indeed heroic struggle. Should present-day Trotskyists have less rights than Trotsky had? The real “disease” is, in reality, the arrogant intolerance of dissent in the British Trotskyist movement - including the SWP/International Socialist Tendency and Militant/Committee for a Workers’ International. Present-day splinters from these organisations often suffer from the same disease to one degree or another.

Why are tendencies and factions necessary? In a nutshell, because the revolutionary organisation does not live in a vacuum. It exists in class society and, for this reason, it is not immune from the enormous ideological and political pressures that the ruling class exerts upon it at crunch points in history. The British ruling class is expert in this art, having been the longest surviving, and most experienced, capitalist class in history. Revolutionary organisations in the imperialist centres like Britain are especially vulnerable to such pressures because of the enormous financial resources at the disposal of establishment and the historic weakness of the far left.

Every so often events happen (wars, civil wars, terrorist bombings) which subject the far left to severe political tests. At such times, the ruling class launches a vigorous propaganda offensive which reaches into the ranks, or even the leaderships, of left organisations and grabs hold of the minds of some of our comrades, sowing confusion and creating disarray. Tendencies and factions are necessary in order to resolve, in a civilised way, the conflicts and turmoil which such rightwing political interventions create, often via the liberal bourgeois and petty bourgeois intelligentsia and its academic institutions and press.

It is necessary to formally recognise, and give proportional representation on leading bodies to, all tendencies and factions within a given revolutionary organisation. This tradition has been lost in the British left with the exception, to my knowledge, of the former International Marxist Group and its offspring, the International Socialist Group. This has not prevented this political trend from making all manner of political errors over the years, but it has provided a framework for struggling to reverse such problems in a reasonably fraternal and comradely way. Leaderships have been replaced without splits on a number of occasions, which is rare in the British Trotskyist movement. We should be striving to make it less rare.

It is time for the SWP (and the CPGB) to consider and adopt the excellent democratic provisions within the constitution of the ISG, while rejecting the bankrupt moves to ditch democratic centralism which presently emanates from it ‘allies’ in the Socialist Solidarity Network and also from its international ‘allies’ in the leadership of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International. It is time to break with the bad old ways of Duncan Hallas and Tony Cliff and accept that the ruling class is able to wreak havoc within our ranks from time to time and that we need a tolerant, civilised constitutional framework for resolving these problems.

In short, it is time for the left to treat its supporters with respect (to use a currently fashionable term). I think the ISG should publish its constitution.

John Ellis
email

Al Richardson

I have just been sent your obituary of Mr Richardson by a fellow former pupil (Weekly Worker November 27). I wish his family the best.

I must add that Al, as you like to call him, was someone who always stuck in the mind for many reasons. Having not been raised within the leftist fraternity or any other political front, I could see he was always someone that had a thirst for knowledge and a hunger to teach. He was a natural academic and great, great historian who taught me much.

I will always treasure my experience as a 12-year-old, when a pupil ripped a page from a book and he threatened the entire class with suspension, and meant it, unless the perpetrator came forward. Of course the pupil was castigated, suspended and made to pay for a new book.

He defended the written word with an iron fist and I will always remember him saying, “History is most important because it is a great indicator of the future”. He was referring then to the former state of Yugoslavia and prophesied its intense ethnic struggle. It all seems too obvious, when said in such plain and simple terms. He spoke of the Middle East in the same way - without a solution perhaps history means nothing.

Good man. Thank you. Though a true socialist, you were not my equal. Mr Richardson, sir, I look up to you.

Darren Porritt
email

Death penalty

Why is so much of the left opposed to the death penalty? I am a communist and believe in the sanctity of human life. Therefore those who, beyond doubt, commit premeditated murder should have the privilege of their own lives taken away. It is wrong that scum like Ian Huntley are given a luxurious lifestyle at the taxpayer’s expense.

The leftwing intelligentsia can’t keep dismissing such issues as ‘rightwing’. Is this hysteria or working class common sense? Let’s start thinking outside the constraints of political correctness!

John Mann
email

R for Republican

I am coming to believe that there is something in what the Revolutionary Democratic Group say. Consider the situation:

• The productive forces in the United Kingdom have by no means outgrown the relations of production.
• Everybody in the UK benefits materially from imperialism.
• The subjective forces for revolution, particularly in England, are, in total, small in size and are split up into numerous mutually intolerant parties and groups.

This is not a revolutionary situation.

It has always been ridiculous that the monarch should play a key role in the governance of the UK simply because she has inherited a few genes from the medieval Scottish kings. The queen is no longer buttressed by a large aristocracy and the royal family is losing its popularity and even becoming an object of ridicule.

A republican movement should be able to make some progress. I can’t understand, though, why the RDG does not call itself the Republican Democratic Group.

Ivor Kenna
London

Print this page