Weekly Worker 513 Thursday January 29 2004

Letters

Nasty mood

The mood of some Socialist Workers Party members leaving the Respect convention on Sunday was positively foul. Despite the standing ovations for George Galloway and the apparent overwhelming enthusiasm some of them were very touchy indeed.

My presence selling the Weekly Worker outside Friends Meeting House at the end of the meeting was enough to bring on an attack of petulance from long-time member Gareth Jenkins. He marched up to me and shouted angrily: “Anne, why don’t you fuck off home and die!”

He was followed shortly by Elaine Heffernan, another experienced SWP member, who had spoken against the amendment to insert into the founding statement a call for the abolition of immigration controls. She had done so on the basis that she passionately believed in the need for open borders and had worked all her political life for this aim - but Respect should not campaign for it.

I pointed out to her that on the basis of her speech she should have voted for the amendment. She reacted hysterically, jabbing her finger in my face and shouting that she was trying to “make a difference”. I responded that if that was the case she should stand up for what she believes in. This brought on an even more heightened reaction and she began screaming that I was a nutter!

This kind of reaction implies a sad lack of confidence in the new Respect turn. It seems that it was not a comfortable experience for some comrades to vote time and time again against principles that they have campaigned for all their political lives. Good.

Anne Mc Shane
email

Kilroy-Silk

In his article on the Robert Kilroy-Silk ‘Arab-bashing’ scandal, comrade Manny Neira makes the comment: “Crude, overt racism, of the kind Kilroy has foolishly betrayed, is one of the few things which is culturally simply unacceptable even in reactionary mainstream politics, but it is despised more for its gaucheness that for any real concern for the peoples of various ethnicities” (original emphasis, ‘What have the Arabs ever done for us?’ Weekly Worker January 15).

I cannot entirely agree with this assessment - in so far as I understand it. Firstly, surely by definition “mainstream” politics (be it “reactionary” or not) is ideologically anti-racist/fascist: that is precisely what makes it mainstream. Conversely, to subscribe to a racist ideology, as things stand now in the post-World War II United Kingdom, is to loudly announce yourself as not part of the mainstream (ie, to be a “reactionary”, so to speak).

With this in mind, comrade Neira’s contention that “crude” racism is “one of the few things” which is “unacceptable even in reactionary mainstream” politics becomes a bit nonsensical. If you are moving in genuinely “reactionary” circles, then to be a racist could well be quite acceptable - though you might well tone it down on occasions for obvious tactical reasons. On the other hand, if you part of the authentic mainstream in UK politics, then there are many things which are “simply unacceptable”, not just racism of course - eg, fascism, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, misogynistic sexism, child abuse, paedophilia, vulgar, tub-thumping jingoism, fox hunting(?), etc.

Therefore, it seems to me that it is a mistake to posit the idea, as comrade Neira appears to do, that the real reason why Kilroy-Silk has upset the mainstream establishment is due to the fact that his daft article in the Express on Sunday has in some way inadvertently exposed the racist beast lurking behind the multicultural pieties of our leaders - or, as Manny phrases it, the errant daytime TV presenter is despised primarily for his “gaucheness” rather than for the actual ideas themselves.

Not so, I would contend. You can be quite confident that the British political establishment is very concerned about “the peoples of various ethnicities” who compose the UK population - that is, it wants to make sure that they identify with the British nation and its official values and ideologies. Official/bourgeois anti-racism exists for a material reason - to promote a culture of supplication and jobbery to the benign, Nazi-defeating UK state. (Want a new community centre? Just tick the correct ethnic box and the local government bosses will see what they can do.)

Secondly, I do not think it is the case that Robert Kilroy-Silk, odious though he is for all sorts of reasons, subscribes to “crude, overt racism” - indeed, to any form of racism at all, if we are to be serious about language. Anyone who has watched his show more than a few times should realise this. He rarely misses an opportunity to remind his viewers that his father died during World War II fighting fascism for the timeless values of democracy, decency, tolerance, etc. More to the point, Kilroy-Silk is ever keen to excoriate guests who espouses racist sentiments (or for that matter any communalist/separatist views at all) and always emphasise his belief that blacks, Asians, muslims, Jews, etc are as British as he is - so long as they accept the laws and customs of the land, which of course should be applied equally to all.

But it is here where we come to the rub. Kilroy-Silk’s anti-racism is mediated through a sometimes quite aggressive national chauvinism - hence a consistent theme on his shows is the threat posed by having just too many ‘outsiders’ (eg, asylum-seekers, illegal immigrants, so-called health/benefit tourists, etc). For Kilroy-Silk - and you can bet your bottom dollar he believes this most sincerely - if the UK is ‘flooded’ by asylum-seekers/refuges, etc, it poses a threat to the delicate multiculturalist/anti-racist consensus which generations of respectable politicians, like himself, have struggled to build (in the face of resistance by high patricians like Enoch Powell and the rather more plebeian National Front). Naturally, such a message finds favour in tabloid land, as one of its primary functions is to install a permanent siege mentality amongst it readers.

So here, I think, we come to the rather less excitable truth about the Robert Kilroy-Silk affair. His role for the Express on Sunday is to act as a journalistic ‘shock-jock’, which means you get paid per (illiberal) outrage. This in essence requires chiming in to whatever is the prevailing prejudice, or fear, that is running wild in so-called ‘Middle England’, which - yes, you guessed it - is centred at the moment on the ‘war against terrorism’, Iraq and Saddam, fanatical muslims, etc. Being a bit shameless - and maybe even genuinely stupid about these matters: who knows? - Kilroy-Silk had no inhibitions about playing to the gallery and of course cashing the very handsome cheque.

We should always think at least twice before crying ‘racism’ and we need to put clear red water between our anti-racism and theirs.

Don Preston
Bristol

Fixes

It is never a very good idea to hang an argument on a snippet of a pub conversation. I refer to Manny Neira’s article calling for improved accountability of the Communist Party’s Provisional Central Committee (‘A modest proposal’ Weekly Worker January 15). I am the unnamed “leading comrade” he mentions. According to comrade Neira, I said that regular distribution of minutes of PCC meetings and an agenda item on those minutes at members’ aggregates would “prevent the leadership from acting”. Further, I supposedly said the proposals reveal Manny to be an anti-communist and an anarchist. Blimey. What a bastard I must be.

Let us clear this up. Yes, I used the word “anarchist” in a pub kind of way. (By the way, I don’t recall calling him anti-communist … but hey, we’d all had a few. I hear he called me a Stalinist over Christmas … but what’s a few pejoratives between comrades.) But to what was I referring? Not to what Manny says. In the conversation, comrade Neira stated that the role of the PCC was merely to implement decisions of the aggregate. It is this that I said was anarchistic. His written formulation is somewhat different. He writes: “It is the role of the PCC to implement the programme and policy of the group as a whole.” This is better, but I even have problems with this. The PCC has a duty to initiate action, switch tactics at a moment’s notice, issue instructions, take and act on reports from members and committees. It must also develop the programme and policy of the group, not just implement it. It must develop theory. In fact, the PCC does not do enough of this work. Changes should, of course, be taken to the membership for thorough debate and voting.

To restrict the PCC to mere implementation of aggregate decisions would hobble the organisation. Due to time the aggregate usually only considers the most important strategic and tactical questions. It cannot and should not consider all the details and business of the organisation. While a member has the right to bring any of this up at its proceedings, it should not be the usual business. Not even week-long congresses of mass parties have the time for every detail. That is why we elect a leadership - to entrust it with the day-to-day running of the organisation.

Is this just nit-picking? I do not think so. At the heart of Manny’s argument is the need for the organised distrust of the leadership. There seems to be a desire for technical solutions to possible political problems and deviations. What are the buggers up to? Is the leadership merely a minority, albeit a special one, given the authority to carry out the instructions of the membership? Or is it representative of the entire organisation with the duty to initiate activity in between aggregates? Is it a part or a whole? I think this is the main difference.

Now to Manny’s proposals. On the first one, there is an open door. I think the PCC should distribute a report of its meeting to the membership. It is indispensable. I used to do this and was an initiator of the practice. Due to pressures of work it tended to be put down the ‘to do’ list until it eventually dropped off for a while. It is quite correct to demand its restitution. And PCC reports have now been restarted.

However, there is a difference between reports and minutes. Manny asks for minutes; I suggest reports. Minutes are a record of all decisions of a meeting. Some aspects of the PCC’s work relating to the party’s activities should be on a ‘need to know’ basis. I think this is uncontroversial. Such activities are the exception, of course. In a period of legality such as we find ourselves in, almost all of our work is in the public domain. This is a nuanced difference, but an important one.

I reject the notion that it is up to the aggregate to “formally approve” the minutes of the PCC. It is up to the PCC to approve its minutes, not some other meeting. How can people who were not there approve them as a true record?

The CPGB aggregate can take motions on any subject from members. It can recall individual members of the PCC or elect a new leadership. Its agenda is proposed by the PCC, but is open to amendment by the aggregate itself. Aggregates meet, on average, about every six weeks. In general, we have time for two or three items of discussion.

I am sure people will accept that the minutes of the PCC are for the PCC to approve. However, I would oppose a permanent agenda item on ‘What the PCC has been up to’, which is essentially what Manny suggests. Not only would it take up time unnecessarily: it would build into the functioning of the organisation an incorrect culture regarding the relationship between the membership as a whole and the leadership. Given the nature of communist organisation, the leadership is entrusted to act as the whole between conferences or aggregates. It is not merely a ‘part’ of the organisation to be monitored by the membership, but the manifestation of its totality between aggregates. Yes, the PCC is accountable to the whole organisation, but to embed in this interaction an organised mistrust is to undermine effectiveness and morale.

Notwithstanding that, any action or decision of the PCC is open to criticism and review by the aggregate. It is the responsibility of the aggregate to pursue this, which is not achieved by putting a permanent item on the agenda calling the PCC to account. That should be an integral part of our culture - at cell meetings, in the press, at seminars and any other formal or informal party forum. There are no technical fixes when it comes to developing a strong critical culture.

Marcus Ström
London

Critical support

Before reading the article, ‘A modest proposal’, I was thinking of doing my bit for socialism and at least paying to be a supporter (Weekly Worker January 22). I won’t be thinking about it now: I will be subscribing.

Being an ex-SWP member (twice now!), I support a lot of what they say, especially Tony Cliff’s knowledge of Marxism. But I’ve been reading your web page for a while and I think at least you are more open than the SWP has become.

I think you are making a lot of mistakes like the far left used to do (like the Revolutionary Communist Party) and I will be very critical of the CPGB, but being a paid up supporter is at least better than doing nothing.

Ex-SWP member
email

No association

Mark Fischer asks, “Who is Mick O’Conaill?” (Letters, January 22). He is correct that, although a frequent reader of the Weekly Worker, I have “had no association with the CPGB whatsoever”.

The reason is that your organisation has little to offer militant, working class activists such as myself. We don’t want paper sales and lengthy ideological debates, but effective activity amongst the class. If someone like me is put off joining, how do you hope to win over the working class at large?

Mick O’Conaill
email

Principled

I attended the first meeting of Manchester Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform on January 14, called by Stockport SA. The top table consisted of Barry Biddulph (chair) and John Pearson.

Peter Money of the International Socialist League stated that if minimum demands were not passed by the Respect convention then the Democracy Platform should walk and the SA should do likewise. Bruce Robinson of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty said that Galloway was a major problem and the AWL would not go into Respect.

Barry Biddulph launched into an attack on the CPGB, and particularly Marcus Ström, for the way he said we had latched onto the coat tails of the SWP. He accused the CPGB of abandoning the SA and liquidating ourselves into Respect. He was full of praise for the ‘principled’ stand of the AWL and ISL. The CPGB were the right wing of the DP and had to be watched!

Will Cross
Rochdale

Middle class

I am a member of the middle class, but I really believe in the things written under ‘Immediate demands’ in the Communist Party Draft programme, and on the CPGB website. But does my social status prevent me from joining the Communist Party?

Jon Owen
email

Print this page