|
Now it has been confirmed to me that this is the account of the
North Birmingham Independent Socialists. The money was not specifically
for “Steve Godward’s election campaign”, but the
ex-comrades of the NBSA wanted me to transfer most of the funds
of the NBSA to their new political project.
As I have stated in previous correspondence, I considered it wrong
to transfer funds specifically donated to the Socialist Alliance
to the Independent Socialists. It is also important to note that
the Independent Socialists excluded some NBSA members from participation
in Steve’s election campaign. It was not a campaign of the
NBSA.
The funds have not been “stolen”, as some wild reports
have suggested, but are now under the control of the national executive
of the SA. As I understand it, the NEC at its meeting on June 26
agreed to reconvene the NBSA in September so that NBSA members can
resume activity as the Socialist Alliance. The NBSA was suspended
supposedly for the duration of the election by the NBSA meeting
on April 27, but has not been reconvened. In my view the NBSA funds
will again be available, as they should be, for the activity of
the NBSA and not for the Independent Socialists.
By the way, the importance of the defence of asylum-seekers is again
emphasised by the disgusting New Labour campaign in the Hodge Hill
by-election. As I noted in my previous correspondence, Steve Godward’s
campaign failed to use the term ‘asylum-seeker’ and so
did not raise the slogan ‘Defend asylum-seekers’ in his
election leaflets. In contrast, Respect raised precisely this slogan
in its Euro election leaflet sent to 23 million homes.
Hodge Hill is a relatively poor working class area in the east of
Birmingham, adjacent to Erdington, where Steve stood. Part of the
constituency, Alum Rock and Washwood Heath, has a large Asian population
in which Respect received 26% of the vote in the Euro election.
In the other two wards, Hodge Hill and Shard End, Respect received
low votes.
In the New Labour leaflet circulated on the weekend of July 10-11
the main headline is: “Say ‘no’ to Lib Dems’
asylum plans - Liberal Democrats want benefit ‘handouts’
for failed asylum-seekers”. It goes on: “Liberal Democrats’
plans to give benefits to failed asylum-seekers were condemned as
a ‘damned disgrace’ by retired police officer and local
resident Roy Hunter.”
The quotes above show vividly that socialists cannot avoid a clear
and principled defence of asylum-seekers. Avoiding taking a position
on their defence shows the opportunist limitations of Steve Godward’s
campaign.
Stuart Richardson
Birmingham
LRC and Respect
I note the importance certain publications gave to the Labour Representation
Committee convention. I welcome any intervention to push the interests
of labour forward.
However, the Labour Party is full of politically ignorant and non-socialist-minded
people, who are not the best leaders or the vanguard of the working
class and will never be so. The only reason why Labour produced
decent politicians was the influence of the Communist Party in the
labour movement. That influence is now gone. Hence it is unlikely
that the Labour Party can produce vanguard material in significant
or even insignificant quantities. The Labour Party has always been
about keeping the working class and trade unions as voting fodder.
No socialist or progressive can want the maintenance of that situation.
I can’t understand why so many people are undermining Respect
and its performance in the elections. The important thing for Respect
is to keep united, keep pushing a broad socialist agenda and keep
going. Had the Socialist Labour Party managed this, then there would
not have been the need for Respect. That Respect gets a good vote
in certain key areas is good news. That is evidence that the project
is on target. I hope that the members and leaders of Respect understand
that the project is about the next three, five and even 10 years.
Respect is a grassroots organisation whose aim is to build even
more grassroots!
The LRC, by contrast, is about little Englanders - the same white,
male and English people with all their problems, wanting to dominate
the working class movement. A new movement has to be progressive
in its culture not just in its politics. It has to involve the humble
and the excluded and build a mass movement capable of removing the
fetters that crush the masses. The traditional left is dominated
by the same ‘little Englanders’ culturally and organisationally.
Three hundred or so people turning up at an event sponsored by MPs,
CLPs and unions is pathetic when that constituency is supposed to
be several hundred thousand. The oppressed are abandoning the Labour
Party in their droves, never to return. I have to congratulate Respect
in managing to keep a high profile in spite of a media blackout
and in spite of being only a few months old. And for not boring
the pants off those who engage in politics.
Lila Patel
email
Paint it red
If yellow, according to Trotsky, is the colour of rotting capitalism,
then the rainbow alliance of the Respect coalition will turn to
mud unless class politics are addressed. If some parties on the
left see their size as an issue, then why should they care what
a bunch of ‘ultra-lefts’ think? The point is, parliamentary
parties are large, but their politics are bland.
With the so-called ‘end of communism’ in the early 90s,
the left should be painting the brightest of reds, not a kaleidoscope
of colours, which will only end up as a mess, causing more disappointments.
Jim Cavanagh
email
Abortion
I thought your readers might be interested in the comments made
by Dave Crouch, a leading SWP member, at the end of his session
on ‘The Bolsheviks and religion’ at this year’s Marxism.
Responding to criticism from Toby Abse about Respect’s silence
on George Galloway’s views on abortion, Dave said: “George
Galloway says that he is opposed to abortion. Now that is his personal
opinion. It is not his policy. His policy is to defend a woman’s
right to chose … That might become a problem in the future.
Who knows? I doubt it myself.
“But I think it is healthy to have that debate in Respect.
The way we are going to convince George Galloway that he is wrong
is by confident women having the argument with him. That’s
how we are going to make sure that Respect carries forward that
fight.
“Blair is out to restrict the time limits on abortion. Respect
must be right in the forefront of the fight against that.”
If this reflects a general viewpoint of the SWP leadership, this
is a welcome development. If it is comrade Crouch’s individual
stance, I do hope he will energetically argue for this line both
inside his organisation and at Respect’s autumn conference.
The Respect executive should have made its attitude clear at the
time. But better late than never, as I hope comrade Crouch will
agree.
Alan Pryce
email
EPSR
The Economic and Philosophic Science Review must truly be a collector’s
item, if they are as fanatically homophobic as you suggest (Weekly
Worker July 8). Most radical organisations had abandoned such positions
by the middle 1970s, by which time empirical psychiatry had determined
that gay people were no more mentally disturbed, degenerate or underdeveloped
than heterosexuals.
To be fair, leftist homophobia has never been as bad as that existing
amongst the political and theological right. Even prior to the emergence
of contemporary feminist and gay rights movements, when pseudo-Freudian
conceptions of sexuality were common currency, few European leftist
groups proposed legal persecution. And even the EPSR would have
no truck with the US fundamentalist-financed scams which claim they
can ‘reprogramme’ homosexuals.
Searching the magazine’s online archive, one can find the EPSR
condemning press homophobia back in 1999 - more recent than those
wacky anti-gay quotes your article cited. Might it be that even
this eccentric corner of the left had reconsidered the evidence
and changed its line?
Terry Starr
Bristol
Obsession
What is with this obsession with the Socialist Workers Party? Here
we go again - slagging them off in one breath and then using their
Marxism festival for your own ends. How about attacking the real
enemy, Tony Blair, for a change?
Shaun Tinsley
email
Green relevance
Whither the British left? As an American communist who is concerned
for the fate of the left globally, I have followed first the Socialist
Alliance and now the Respect project with increasing cynicism and
depression.
All of the attempts by the CPGB, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty
et al to build a pluralist, open socialist party have been met with
an insuperable barrier time and again - the SWP and the cult of
Tony Cliff. One can easily see that, if one wishes to build a communist
party in Britain, the SWP cannot be ignored, as it is the largest
remaining of the ostensibly Marxist groupings. Yet, as all good
cult leaders understand, the SWP’s heads understand that permitting
real democratic debate would mean the possibility of being sacked.
They will never permit dissident factions to win control of any
group with SWP participation.
Any attempt to build a party without the SWP would lead to stagnation,
yet attempts to build a party with SWP help seem to lead towards
that grouping becoming their plaything. No, this is not a healthy
situation, and most sane leftists will grow tired of the SWP’s
myriad of old projects with new faces.
Reading Peter Tatchell’s article a few weeks back, I was struck
with an idea for a pre-emptive move that would negate the entire
need for the bond with a cult-like SWP - the CPGB and the rest of
the groups fighting for democracy within the SA and the Respect
coalition should liquidate themselves into the Green Party.
Inside the Greens, they should constitute themselves as an (eco)
socialist faction. It is far more likely that a socialist faction
within the Green Party will be able to build up a strong leftist
party in Britain than a small grouping led by the SWP. The UK Green
Party, by all accounts, seems to be receptive to an anti-capitalist
message, albeit a petty-bourgeois version.
Advantages to this are: the party has the potential after years
of grassroots efforts to win seats in the European parliament, and
perhaps in the national one as well; a socialist message would reach
a larger audience (the GP’s membership base and sympathisers);
and, if the state of the party’s internal democracy were only
a wee bit better than the SA’s or Respect’s, the socialist
faction would have the ability to challenge the mainstream Greens
for control of the party, as their support grew. Best of all, the
SWP would fade into irrelevance.
I know none of this will be welcomed by those who wish for a pure
communist party. Here in America, many of us (including myself)
have entered the Greens and begun to build a Marxist faction there
- granted, the electoral and political potential for a socialist
party is different here. In Britain, as in America, the need to
present the left as a real alternative is the first step towards
building a communist party. Engaging a new generation which has
no strong party identification and does not participate in politics
is extremely important - and the Greens will free you of the straightjacket
into which the SWP bound you. A socialist tendency in the GP will
double the old audience, consolidate the left and perhaps engender
spirited debate.
The alternative, it seems, is continuing electoral and social irrelevance
of the Marxist left in Britain.
Peter LaVenia
New York
Hijab
It is ironic that Dr al-Qaradawi was the keynote speaker at the
conference on ‘A woman’s right to choose’ to wear
the hijab, when he himself does not believe women should have a
choice. He says the hijab is obligatory for muslim women and a husband
has the right to force his wife to wear it.
Writing on his website Islam Online, Dr al-Qaradawi states the following:
“It is obligatory on muslim women to wear the hijab (ie, cover
the whole body except the face and hands, and the feet according
to some schools of jurisprudence) ... A muslim husband is to order
his wife to wear the hijab ... Muslim wives are to obey their husbands
and wear the hijab … However, if the wife does not obey him
and he has lost all hope of convincing her of wearing the hijab,
he should, rather, divorce her if they are still in the beginning
of their marital life and have not begot children yet”
(www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english).
The conference was completely one-sided. It demanded the right of
women to choose to wear the hijab, but it did not defend their right
not to wear it. Very few young muslim girls freely choose the hijab;
mostly they adopt it because of pressure from their family and community.
The conference provided a platform for religious tyranny under the
guise of human rights. We call for an honest and inclusive public
debate covering all sides of the issue, including the views of liberal
muslim women who oppose the hijab as an instrument of male domination.
For many muslim women, refusing to obey orthodox muslim expectations
can be dangerous. “Not conforming to the sexual and gender
norms of the community can result in domestic violence,” reports
Safra, a UK-based research and support group run by lesbian, bisexual
and trans-gender muslim women (www.safraproject.org/dvrrep03.htm).
It is clear the conference had nothing to do with ‘a women’s
right to choose’. It presented wearing the hijab as ‘a
choice’, while at the same time insisting that it is obligatory.
Outrage affirms the right of every individual to free religious
expression, but deplores the hypocrisy of the conference organisers
and their failure to defend the right of women not to wear the hijab.
Brett Lock
Outrage
Manchester picket
On Saturday July 11, members of the Iraq Solidarity Campaign (UK)
attended the boycott picket of Marks and Spencers in Manchester’s
city centre, in protest at the company’s trading policies towards
the state of Israel.
People from a variety of campaigns also attended in order to protest
against the fact that on Saturday July 3 the picket had been attacked
by seven men, who later revealed in a Jewish newspaper that they
were all ex-members of the Israeli Defence Force. According to witnesses
present, the seven got out of cars and proceeded to verbally abuse
people. They tore up campaign literature, which explained to members
of the public what kind of conditions Israel was placing upon the
Palestinians, and they even chased one woman trying to call the
police - who eventually turned up around 20 minutes after being
contacted!
Present at Marks and Spencers on the 11th was the Likud organiser
for Manchester, who was standing by the doors observing the picket
line. He may have approached the store’s security staff, who
complained about the sticking up of material carrying anti-wall
slogans, etc.
Our stall was approached by many people who took literature and
spoke to members of the campaign. A few Jewish young people, who
explained to picketers, that they attended a Jewish high school
in Manchester, enquired why Palestine had taken Israel’s land.
Whilst no trouble occurred on the 11th, a Jewish newspaper has stated
that a “counter-picket” has been called by a Manchester-based
pro-Zionist organisation for Saturday July 17.
Hussein Al-alak,
Iraq Solidarity Campaign (UK)
No wall
Now that Israel’s separation barrier has been declared contrary
to international law by the International Court of Justice, the
EU must act. The United Nation’s own court has declared that
the UN general assembly and security council should take note of
the opinion in determining how to bring to an end this illegal situation.
We demand that our governments - individually and collectively as
the EU - comply with their obligations under international law.
They must support UN resolutions demanding compliance with the advisory
opinion. The wall is the frontline of an invasion and a military
occupation that is now 37 years old.
It is many years since UN security council resolution 242 - calling
on Israel to withdraw from the territory conquered in the 1967 war
- was passed and many years since semantic games were first used
to defy the explicit will of the UN. Legalistic games were played
with the right of the International Court of Justice to offer an
opinion on this matter. In the meantime many Israelis and yet more
Palestinians have died, while others continue to live in fear.
It is time to end games of international diplomacy. It is time to
recognise that a court of justice is precisely the right place to
discuss something described as “illegal” by - among others
- Jack Straw, the UK’s foreign minister, and the international
committee of the Red Cross. Military ‘solutions’ such
as the barrier being built by Israel engender fear: they do not
overcome it.
European Jews for a Just Peace
London
Aslef debacle
Aslef’s current problems are a product of its elitism and laddish
culture historically, problems made substantially worse by the misleadership
of Dereck Fullick and Lew Adams in the 80s and 90s. It was perhaps
too much to expect one man, Mick Rix , to go in and sort it all
out.
There is an analogy with the Labour Party. Kinnock and Hattersley
attacked their own left wing in the 80s, seeking electoral popularity,
and in so doing paved the way for an even more rightwing leadership
in the form of John Smith and eventually Tony Blair and New Labour.
There is a need for one rail organisation to represent all railworkers.
This was graphically illustrated in the bosses’ use of Aslef
during the signalling and train crew strikes in the 90s. It would
also do a lot to undermine an internal culture that contributes
to all railworkers not being effectively represented. However, this
is not the panacea that some in the RMT make out.
There are two problems with just saying this. Firstly, there would
still be a need for a network of activists at a rank and file level
who could organise action when the leadership of the merged unions
accepted poor deals or refused to fight. Secondly, is Aslef in any
fit state to merge with? In the short term the members of Aslef
have to fight to obtain effective representation and accountability
within their own organisation and that means insisting on an annual
conference. Part of the solution lies in electing principled people
as officers and EC members, and not careerists desperate to stay
away from train driving. But it also means electing people who have
the courage and rationality to campaign for a merger with the other
rail unions in the interests of Aslef members as well as other railworkers.
The association’s slogan is ‘Unity is strength’.
It is about time they practised it.
Pete Burton
Edinburgh
SPGB
Phil Hamilton thinks the Socialist Party of Great Britain is not
part of the class struggle of the working class, and indeed abstains
from it (‘100 years of solitude’, June 17). How then can
he agree with the Marxian view that “struggles between the
interests of the existing social classes and fractions of classes
[are] caused by economic development, and ... that the particular
political parties are the more or less adequate political expression
of these same classes and fractions of classes” (Engels)?
As Mr Hamilton argues that the SPGB abstains from the class struggle,
I would be interested in knowing what material position he would
contend members of the SPGB are in. For, if you are a worker, then
you cannot abstain from the class struggle. If you are a capitalist,
you cannot abstain from the class struggle.. In fact, there can
be no such thing as abstaining from the class struggle. So, we can
see that our opponent is returning to this ahistorical bourgeois
liberal conception of society as being composed of atomised individuals.
I would also like to comment on his view that we should support
the Palestinians, as they are being terrorised by the Zionists.
This is the most utopian nonsense I have ever heard. Scientific
analysis cannot rest upon sentimental, moralist nonsense. All questions
can only be considered in terms of economic classes and material
relationships. How can you possibly say it would be progressive
for the Palestinians to win a war against the Israelis? By this
of course, I mean historically progressive, not progressive according
to Mr Hamilton’s moral structures.
Although some - and I emphasise the word ‘some’ - criticism
can be given to the SPGB for not relating socialism to the present,
I would commend the SPGB for at least spelling out in clear terms,
like Marx did, what socialism actually is. This is something Mr
Hamilton fails to do. This is indeed something which the CPGB and
all its friends on the capitalist left have never done.
R Cumming
Democratic Revolution
Michael Moore
Your article on Michael Moore’s website was very good (‘Radical
populist’, July 8).
Moore, too, has a pretty good record (for a liberal) on communists,
having featured some geriatrics from the Communist Party of the
USA on his TV Nation back in the 90s. He has also had positive things
to say about communism’s achievements. So far as I know, he
has never red-baited anyone on the left - a remarkable achievement
here in America.
Louis Godena
email
Draft programme
Further to comrade Russ Early’s letter (July 8), the draft
programme of the CPGB states in part that: “ ... the socialist
revolution must triumph more or less simultaneously in most of the
advanced countries if it is nor to suffer deformation and counterrevolution
in one form or another.”
I believe that to be correct. In fact, it does much to explain both
the degeneration and the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union, the
latter of which Russ attributes to the demolishing of the Berlin
Wall, when in fact it was the result, rather than the cause, of
the collapse of the USSR.
The Stalinist ideology that advances the prospect of building socialism
in one country is both reactionary and utopian, and served to limit
the extension of the gains of October in the interests of a self-serving
bureaucracy that flourished in the USSR. They feared losing their
political power at home to workers’ democracy abroad.
The book The revolution betrayed is both a scathing condemnation
of Stalinism and its theory of ‘socialism in one country’
and an explanation of what went wrong with the Soviet Union.
Communists seek to mobilise the working class by intersecting the
class struggle and advancing their revolutionary programme. You
cannot manufacture class struggle: you can only intersect it and
direct it. Countries represent the international division of labour,
and no system that ignores the interdependency of the resources,
both human and material, of all countries, can long endure.
You can learn a lot from the class enemy. The capitalists are well
aware that the system that serves their interests cannot possibly
survive in isolation, and the working class had best understand
that this law applies to socialism as well. There can be no strategic
‘peaceful coexistence’ because the two systems are contradictory.
One must gobble up the other, for both systems require the same
human and material resources.
Michael Little
Seattle
Laughable
The section of your draft programme dealing with ‘Our epoch’
is a laughable mixture of the blindingly obvious and the hopelessly
idealistic. How is the working man meant to decipher all this? Communism
must directly relate to the proletariat’s everyday complaints.
If socialism is ever to be achieved, it needs to be practical and
relate to the here and now.
Peter Riordan
email
Inspirational
I have just read through the ‘Immediate demands’ section
of your draft programme and what really reaches out to me is the
determination of equality and overall a better place communists
are trying to create. Very inspirational and totally acceptable!
I am in support of the Communist Party and look forward to the day
when capitalism, nationalism and other problems are finally overcome!
Sarah Wood
email
|
