Hysterical
Stuart Richardson's hysterical tirade cannot obscure the simple
fact that Respect in Birmingham entered into an electoral pact with
the Kashmiri-communalist (and pro-Pakistan) Peoples Justice Party
(Letters, June 17). And that the PJP produced a leaflet attacking
the Lib Dems for advocating equal rights for gays and lesbians.
As I and others have made clear throughout, it is accepted that
this leaflet was subsequently withdrawn. What we do not accept is
that this was because of any change of heart on the part of the
PJP: all the evidence suggests that it was simply because of embarrassment
on the part of Respect, when the leaflet became known to the left.
The rest of Richardson's letter is beside the point, even if his
libellous comments about my alleged support for American and British
occupation forces and hostility to working with muslims were true
- which they're not. One of the comrades regularly subjected to
Richardson's puerile sectarianism in Birmingham (alongside Steve
Godward and myself) is Arash, an Iranian secular muslim. Richardson
plainly feels more at home with the communalist PJP than with a
socialist muslim like Arash.
I'd be very angry about Richardson's libels if they came from anyone
taken in the least seriously by the Birmingham left, and not tainted
by having removed all the money from the North Birmingham Socialist
Alliance's bank account in a desperate bid to sabotage Steve Godward's
election campaign.
Jim Denham
Birmingham
Libellous
It is the commonly held view in leftwing circles that Stuart Richardson
is slowly beginning to lose his marbles. That, or degenerating into
even more of a cretinous, obsessively factionalising sectarian than
he was previously. A number of things stand out in his series of
letters to the Weekly Worker in recent weeks. In essence they add
up to a not very convincing diversion from some of the antics of
Respect in Birmingham in the run-up to the elections.
Indeed, his latest offering is his standard attack on the Alliance
for Workers' Liberty, only with one rather obnoxious addition that
he dares not say in Birmingham openly. The appalling slander that
Jim Denham is a racist is truly beneath contempt (Letters, June
17).
The fact is that Jim has been one of the few people to voice criticism
of the appalling capitulation of the Socialist Workers Party et
al to the muslim hierarchy in Birmingham, and also one of the few
to defend comrade Arash when he was under attack for making similar
criticisms of the SWP's link-up with islamist forces. Stuart says
Jim is hostile to working with working class muslims. As well as
being drivel, coming from a leading member of Respect in Birmingham
it is quite odd. Instead of trying to win muslim workers over to
working class politics they have rather made a crass, completely
unprincipled pitch for the support of Birmingham's muslim leadership,
with all the votes that was meant to deliver them.
Stuart also attempts to present the PJP as something they quite
patently aren't. For those not conversant with the intricacies of
municipal politics in Birmingham, the PJP is essentially a Kashmiri
nationalist version of the Lib Dems (although on some matters rather
more rightwing) that has been in serious decline for several years
now and lost its two remaining councillors in the recent local elections.
Their recent left turn was a last-ditch attempt to harvest anti-war
votes. Rings a bell.
Stuart of course eventually runs out of things to criticise the
AWL for, poor lamb. He turns his fire on the most recent victim
of his invective, Steve Godward. As well as deliberately miscalculating
Steve's electoral performance, he laments the political failings
of the campaign. I would not be so arrogant to say the campaign
was perfect, but it made a genuine attempt to relate to and give
voice to working class issues in Erdington. It was infinitely preferable
to the opportunist, communal Respect coalition. Steve was able to
mobilise independents and groups from around the city and beyond
for the campaign, for they saw a serious, class-based election campaign
being attempted.
James Cunningham
Birmingham
Presumption
Within hours of the recent election results, which included a strong
showing for Respect in the East End of London, George Galloway announced,
through The Guardian, that he would contest an east London seat
for Respect at the next election. We presume that a democratic selection
conference was held late on Sunday night, just after the votes were
counted, and that no one from the local community expressed any
desire to stand.
David Rosenberg, Julia Bard
London
SPGB errors
Phil Hamilton's piece on the Socialist Party of Great Britain's
website contains a number of errors ('Around the web', June 17).
First, SPGB pamphlets are on-line. Go to http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb.
Click 'Downloads' and you'll come to a list of 30 pamphlets, going
back to 1911. Secondly, it's a leftwing urban legend that the SPGB
holds that "the pursuit of class struggles for gains that can
be won under capitalism is an unnecessary distraction from propagating
the solution". While the SPGB does not seek to hijack such
struggles (as do Leninists) and does not campaign for reforms to
capitalism, the SPGB is not opposed to trade union and similar struggles,
and many SPGB members are active trade unionists (see the pamphlet
on trade unions on the site).
Thirdly, the SPGB does in fact wish fellow-workers in Palestine,
and wherever else there's not yet 'bourgeois' political democracy,
well in their struggle "to secure democratic rights against
the powers of suppression" (see p45 of the June issue of Socialist
Standard on the site). But it is true that we don't support nationalist
struggles to establish new capitalist states and don't regard suicide
attacks or any form of violence against fellow-workers as a legitimate
tactic.
Adam Buick
Brussels
Reforms
Phil Hamilton's review of the SPGB's website was wide of the mark.
For instance, he criticises the SPGB's opposition to reformism.
But look at yourselves - the CPGB has a programme of immediate demands,
though you also claim to stand for a moneyless, classless society.
But the truth is that your paper deals purely with the immediate
demands, not with the supposed ultimate goal, so you are in effect
attracting support on the basis of reforms.
Phil Hamilton also makes some remarks on vanguardism (opposed by
the SPGB, supported by the left). Well, look at the CPGB programme,
with its reference to "authoritative and influential leaders
who have been steeled over a long period of time". You may
see yourselves as would-be leaders, but a class-conscious working
class will not need or wish to be led anywhere.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has kept alive the idea of
socialism as a classless world community, and consistently denounced
the distortion that state-run capitalism has any connection with
socialism. Opposition to vanguardism and reformism has been vindicated
by the history both of the Labour Party and of the so-called 'Communist'
Party in its varied manifestations.
Paul Bennett
email
Curios
Phil Hamilton's article on the SPGB is a magnificent example of
confused thinking. One is unlikely to put all that much faith in
a writer who makes so many factual errors. It is patently obvious
that not only has he not bothered to read much about his subject
matter: he isn't even able to understand the little he did - eg,
Socialist Standard expressly stated Leninist vanguardism is not
a socialist strategy.
Hamilton claims the Socialist Party has a number of shibboleths.
What these are he does not say, let alone try and refute them. Yet
he goes on to refer to the uncontroversial nature of some SPGB contributions
to socialist theory and the correctness of a Socialist Standard
editorial point. What is it to be then?
He claims the SPGB website is full of "curios". These
are the object and declaration of principles of the Socialist Party;
its rules, conference decisions and an open discussion list - as
much a service to SPGB members as to the general public, and part
of the democratic praxis of the SPGB. The ludicrous in Hamilton's
"curios" comment is contained in the sentence, where,
commenting on SPGB principle, he writes: "... the need for
full and open democracy within the socialist movement (something
widely preached but not practised by the left at large)."
Comment, as they say, is superfluous.
Graham Taylor
Denmark
Contained
I didn't think your comments on the SPGB were completely fair.
To its credit, the SPGB is one of the few parties which consistently
sets out a clear and compelling case for socialism as a worldwide
replacement for capitalism. How many leftist organisations - including
yourselves - actually put forward the case for socialism - as opposed
to manoeuvring within capitalism?
No, the SPGB is not in favour of measures to improve capitalism,
for the simple reason it is in favour of capitalism being replaced
by socialism, and on a worldwide basis! You are right that the SPGB
has no concept of how to engage with existing class struggle, of
how to intervene in an organised and disciplined way, to transform
struggles against the effects of capitalism into a struggle for
the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. It has no understanding
of class consciousness, how this may develop, nor how this may become
socialist consciousness.
The other minor problem - judging from the fractious and offensive
contributions to its discussion websites - is that it has no revolutionary
socialists in it. Indeed, members appear to recoil from the thought
of revolution as an event. Indeed one former assistant secretary
recently asked how we would know if there had been a socialist revolution
if this had not been recorded in a parliamentary vote!
My suspicion is that, come the socialist revolution, these people
will be so horrified, they will be amongst those who will need to
be 'contained' by the new worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat
Andrew Northall
Northants
Brazen
With utter brazenness you say: "The SWP is a small, bureaucratic
centralist, confessional sect - real membership is no more than
2,000 ..." ('Exasperated voices raised in protest', June 17).
So what, may I ask, is the nature of the CPGB and how many members
do you claim? I think we should be told!
David Morgan
email
Anti-fascism
It is clear that, whilst the British National Party failed to make
a decisive breakthrough in the various elections on June 10, they
remain a major danger - a danger possibly masked by the success
of UKIP.
In the London assembly list the BNP got 4.7% of the vote - only
0.3% from the 5% necessary to get a seat. This was despite the fact
that UKIP had won two seats. There is no doubt that without the
involvement of UKIP the BNP would have won one, if not two, seats
in the London assembly. Whilst they failed to make further gains
in Burnley, Blackburn and Calderdale and failed to break through
in Oldham, they won four seats in Bradford and came second in many
seats in Oldham. Whilst they lost seats in Sandwell and Dudley,
they increased their vote in many Birmingham wards, coming second
in some. Whilst losing their seat in Thurrock, they won three seats
in Epping and came second in a couple of wards in Basildon. They
have not gone away! Neither can we!
We would add that the success of UKIP itself is of major concern
to the anti-fascist movement. Whilst we would not characterise UKIP
as a fascist party, opposition to immigration is its second major
focus; it is profoundly xenophobic and has thrust forward as its
figurehead Robert Kilroy-Silk just at the moment that he has gained
notoriety as for his islamophobic, racist outbursts.
Unite Against Fascism was formed because of the serious gains that
the BNP had made in May 2003 and the threat of a further breakthrough
on June 10 concentrated the minds of the anti-racist and anti-fascist
organisations and they recognised the urgent need for united action.
We recognise this as a step forward for the movement. However, the
speed in which it was put together as a steering committee, made
up of people from this and that body, has led to an inherently undemocratic
and unaccountable structure, which may have been justified by those
circumstances but must now give way to an organisation that is owned
by the anti-fascist movement as a whole.
One of the problems that emerged during the short history of the
UAF has been an uneasy relationship and sometimes downright conflict
between local anti-fascist organisations and the UAF as a national
body. We believe that this is largely a consequence of the lack
of democratic ownership described above. We think that it is also
due to a misconceived attempt to imitate the methods of the Stop
the War Coalition.
Whilst the success of the Stop the War Coalition in mobilising
large numbers has lessons to teach all movements, it is vital to
recognise very significant differences. The enemy that anti-racists
and anti-fascists fight is organising in our midst - on our streets,
in our estates, our schools, our town halls and so forth. It uses
the methods of community politics. It must follow that tactics,
material, emphasis and methods ought to vary from region to region,
from town to town and, in some cases, from ward to ward.
Having said that, we recognise the tremendous advantages of having
a national movement that, as much as possible, works from a common
strategy. But this can only happen successfully if all the forces
are involved in formulating that strategy, bringing the wealth of
their experiences to the table.
We therefore propose that Unite Against Fascism organises a conference
as soon as practically possible - say in the autumn - mindful that
a general election is likely in the next 12 months. We would argue
strongly that this conference be open to representatives of organisations
not currently affiliated to UAF, so that a movement emerges that
everyone can sign up to.
David Landau
Jewish Socialists' Group
ANL mark II
If we are to create one single national ant-fascist movement/organisation,
then it is essential that such a movement is democratic. Those who
play their part in anti-fascist work must have an equal voice.
To be blunt, it means that members of the Socialist Workers Party's
central committee have one vote each - no more and no less than
anyone else. It would not be acceptable if such a conference were
a disguised rally, with the speakers hand-picked in advance, or
if any steering committee were chosen in advance, or by acclamation,
or any of the other tricks that the SWP have honed to perfection.
It is better to be honest about this than to raise expectations.
If such a conference is not democratic in the widest sense, it will
serve no purpose. The Anti-Nazi League has failed to even acknowledge
that the BNP pose an increasing danger, given all the ANL 'successes'
against them. And UAF has been little more than an ANL mark II.
If the SWP/UAF are not prepared to accept such stipulations and
wish to treat such a conference/movement as another front group
to recruit from, then it would be better to organise our own conference.
Tony Greenstein
Brighton
|
