home 
|
| contact
|
| action
|
| weekly worker
|
| european social forum
|
| theory
|
| resources
|
| what we
fight for
|
| programme
|
| join |
| search
|
| communist university
|
| links
|
| our history
|
Enjoy
the
Weekly Worker?
How about
showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial
amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from
people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not
agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of
comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press
Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928,
London WC1N 3XX or donate online:
Weekly Worker 545 Thursday September 23 2004
Letters
Patronising Bull
Royston Bull offensively suggests that my “naive delusions would
be slightly more credible if [I] could be heard denouncing the foundation
of the state of Israel and all its works” (Letters, September16).
I don’t intend here to detail my 28 years of active campaigning against
Zionism and for Palestinian rights. The fact that Mr Bull appears unaware
of this says more about his lack of involvement in this struggle than
it does about me. This lack of involvement is reflected in the remainder
of his ignorant comments about the Middle East, and about the presumed
benefit to Jews of Zionist oppression.
Mr Bull’s letter appears beneath one from my friend Tony Greenstein,
outlining the Zionist sympathies of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty.
Like Tony, I have been denounced by the AWL as an anti-semite; like him,
I have been banned from campuses as a result of Zionist pressure, backed
by the AWL; like him, I have been reviled by the Jewish Chronicle and
other elements of the official leadership of the Jewish community in Britain.
I do not need any patronising remarks from Jew-hating bigots about my
naivety and lack of involvement.
My Respect branch has now submitted a policy motion opposing Zionism and
supporting Palestinian return to the forthcoming Respect conference. Some
Weekly Worker readers may disagree with the call for a unitary, secular
and democratic Palestine; but, even if you oppose this clause, I hope
that you will back the rest of the motion. In particular, the statement
that “Respect opposes Zionism as a political movement whose aim is
the dispossession of the Palestinian people. Respect denies the false
equation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, and will oppose any attempt
to ascribe collective responsibility to Jews for the crimes of the Israeli
state and the Zionist movement.”
Roland Rance
email
Murky waters
If the Weekly Worker’s dedication to ‘free expression’
must extend to the rantings of the deranged Royston Bull, he should not
get away with slandering comrades, whether from malice or ignorance.
Back in the days when Bull was relatively sane, we both worked on the
daily News Line, published by Gerry Healy’s Workers Revolutionary
Party. Then and after the WRP was keen on supporting the Palestinian cause
(indeed I was asked to join the paper because of my interest in the Middle
East, and also wrote in the Labour Review on Zionism). But I do not recall
Royston Bull taking any active part in such campaigning, then or later.
Perhaps this helps explain his assertion that criticism of his anti-Jewish
remarks “would be slightly more credible if Roland Rance could be
heard denouncing the foundation of the state of Israel and all its works”.
I don’t always agree with Roland, but anyone involved in Palestinian
solidarity and anti-Zionist work would know his record of active opposition
to the Zionist state and “all its works”, both here and in Palestine.
He should not have to lower himself to reply to the likes of Bull, who
appears to have only discovered Palestine by way of his voyage into neo-Stalinism.
It seems odd though that Bull has not considered the part played by the
late Joseph Stalin and his foreign minister Gromyko in supporting partition
in Palestine and arming the Israeli state to drive out Palestinians. The
Soviet Union itself had used ethnic-cleansing - for instance, the mass
deportations of Chechens. Twenty million Soviet citizens perished in the
war against fascism; but in Russia today, ravaged by ruthless capitalism,
we have the obscenity of Stalin’s portrait carried alongside Hitler’s
by the brown-red alliance, and a former Ku Klux Klan leader welcomed by
nationalists and so-called communists to proclaim war on “dark-skinned
peoples” and “Zionists”. Maybe history is being rewritten.
Royston Bull’s reference to overturning the “post-1945 Jewish/imperialist
settlement” suggests he has drifted into very murky waters.
Charlie Pottins
email
Living wage
The article, ‘Mobilising against Hartz IV in Germany’, was very
good (Weekly Worker September 16). All over the capitalist world the unemployed
are being used as effectively as any policeman’s billy-club over
the heads of all workers to drive wages down and increase profits.
Here in the United States all kinds of manoeuvres are being used by rightwing
politicians to keep workers from receiving unemployment benefits; thereby
forcing workers to take poverty-wage jobs. This effectively forces wages
down for all workers.
Many politicians talk about creating ‘good jobs that pay good wages’.
These jobs never materialise. In the globalised capitalist economy jobs
move towards the lowest wages. All jobs should be good jobs. If a job
needs to be done, it should pay living wages. Workers should be treated
with dignity and respect; and all workers should receive healthcare and
vacation benefits.
Alan Maki
Minnesota
Mugabe and ISO
Someone just forwarded me Peter Tatchell’s article from the latest
Weekly Worker (‘Criticising the oppressed’, September 16).
As a Socialist Workers Party activist I’m not inclined to try to
reply to the by-now-familiar rigmarole about ‘working with the wrong
muslims’ - we’ll only go round in circles. But I’m genuinely
shocked that Peter thinks we support Mugabe! For the record, our International
Socialist Organisation comrades in Zimbabwe have not only supported but
played a leading role in the struggle against the regime, and face being
locked up and beaten up for their trouble.
I respect Peter (I remember him standing up against homophobia right back
to Bermondsey) and, while I don’t expect him to suddenly change his
mind about Respect, I do hope he’ll consider setting the record straight
on Zimbabwe and the ISO.
Ben Drake
York
Imperialism
Paul Hampton writes that “The political conclusions Macnair draws
from his view of imperialism are also clear. On Iraq he offers purely
verbal support to the Iraqi working class, whilst emphasising exactly
the kind of facile anti-imperialism that implicitly promotes the islamist
‘resistance’ to the occupation in the name of a mangled ‘Leninist’
defeatism” (Letters, September 16).
Except in an inter-imperialist conflict, Paul, genuine Marxists take a
side. While not offering even a shred of political support to the Iraqi
resistance, which consists of both fundamentalist and secular elements,
we support them militarily in their physical struggle against their occupiers.
That is, we want the imperialists to lose, while remaining quite aware
that, should the fundamentalist element manage to seize state power, the
best advice for leftists would be to clear out fast.
Marxists are opposed to imperialism primarily because imperialism exacerbates
nationalistic tensions to the boiling point, uniting the working class
with its class oppressors in the name of ‘national unity’. We
want the imperialists to lose so that the stage will be set in Iraq for
the resolution of the class question. According to Paul’s analysis
of the so-called “progressive” elements of imperialism, one
can say that a home-invasion robbery can be “progressive”, for
it can sow the seeds of vigilance in the victims.
Michael Little
Seattle
Free trade
In reply to Paul Hampton I shall address the substantive issues and ignore
the ad hominem.
The misconception is that free trade is the form taken by imperialism
since 1945. Rather the reality is that the USA used free trade to penetrate
markets, ensure financial dominance and consolidate its position as the
world’s totally dominant economic power. America used its position
of power to ensure the Bretton Woods institutions - the IMF and World
Bank - were so designed.
There appears to be some confusion as well as to the role played by the
Soviet Union and its allies in the post-war era. I am concerned that many
Marxists ‘see through a glass darkly’. The intention was to
put into effect the free trade empire we now have, but that came up against
the emergence of the Soviet Union as a rival superpower and the territory
it occupied - parts of Eurasia regarded as essential for control by the
new dominant American empire.
Richard Roper
Sheffield
Marx’s failure
Hillel Ticktin’s ‘A Marxist party without deformations’
adds nothing new to what has been said before in one form or another (Weekly
Worker July 15). It consequently fails to face the reality of the situation.
In its references to Marxism it makes many assumptions. It assumes that
Marxism, as presented by Marx, is the theoretical and political answer
to the problem of communist revolution. It fails to see that Marxism forms
part of the problem. Its contradictions and limitations must be transcended,
including the political opportunism of Marx, inherited by Lenin, Trotsky
and much of the radical left today. The serious theoretical limitations
of Marx’s theory include the failure by Marx to develop a theory
of capital in the context of the political state; the failure to apply
his critique of political economy systematically to capitalist society
in the second half of the 19th century. His ambiguity on the question
of communism and the procedure for its realisation has left open lots
of room for reformism of one sort of another.
What is needed is a re-examination, re-evaluation and development of the
thought and politics of Marx from a communist perspective. This means
the transcendence of Marx, so that a more comprehensive revolutionary
communist theory and politics is established.
Karl Carlile
email
Numbers game
For Ben Lewis’s information (Letters, September 16), my comments
about the number of members the CPGB has were in response to an article
by Ian Mahoney saying Respect was a failure, as it only had 3,300 members.
If the size of Respect’s membership is irrelevant, then why are people
always quoting it when telling us of its failure and ultimate demise?
I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways.
Personally I do not give a fig, but in the interest of honesty and openness
it is only fair we know the number of CPGB members. After all, it seems
everyone knows how many of us fools are in the failed Respect coalition.
So, once again, how many members are there in the CPGB? Although what
the size of my penis has to do with any of this I am still trying to work
out.
Shaun Tinsley
email
Price rise
I noticed that tucked away in a small corner of last week’s ‘Fighting
fund’ article was the news that the cover price is set to rise by
a massive 100% from October 1 (Weekly Worker September 16). The main justification
given for this was the increase in postage costs (from 21p to 28p) due
to the Royal Mail’s decision to scrap the reduced rate for newspapers.
I appreciate yours is not an easy task, financially and otherwise, in
producing and distributing the Weekly Worker and ensuring at the same
time a platform is given to a widest possible range of views, and for
that I applaud the efforts that go into it. However, I think both the
level of the price increase and the way it was announced is out of order.
£1 is a lot to pay each week for three bits of A2 paper, and I think
it may have the opposite effect you are hoping for by driving more people
towards using the free, online version rather than the paid version.
Otherwise, keep up the good work!
Ross Baptie
email
It can’t hurt
I have noticed from your website that you are desperately trying to raise
money to keep the party afloat. But why not take a leaf out of the largest
leftwing group’s book?
Every weekend where I live, you can see members of the SWP selling their
paper on the street and holding petitions and they are the most visible
on demo. Why can’t we communists do this? It can’t hurt, can
it?
Simon Byrne
email
Ray’s legacy
An era of South African trade unionism, socialism and internationalism
came to an end this week with the death of Ray Alexander Simons. She was
the last of a tiny group of east European Jewish émigrés
who contributed so much to the growth of trade unionism in this country.
Her contribution was, by any standards, exceptional and her legacy will
be seen every time workers stand up to fight for their rights. I am honoured
to have known her.
We first met in Cape Town in 1962 when, a young student journalist, I
was given a rapid induction into the history and purpose of trade unionism.
Satisfied that I had imbibed and understood enough, I was promptly packed
off to address workers at a waterfront canning factory at lunchtime. There
was no gainsaying Ray. “You can talk,” she said, pointing out
that I also spoke Afrikaans.
I remember being incredibly nervous, but Ray had convinced me of the need
for those who sell their labour to organise and unite to fight for and
protect their wages and conditions. I had a duty to pass on the message.
Besides, I simply did not want to let her - or the ideas - down. Somehow
the two seemed to be conflated.
And so, on a day off, I was driven to the waterfront with a parcel of
pamphlets extolling workers to join the Food and Canning Workers Union.
I don’t remember what I said, but I did stand atop a green-flecked
formica table in an atmosphere heavy with the smell of fish and the stare
of serious faces. And I remember my arm being grabbed to get me to flee
because “management” was coming. It was a rather dramatic introduction
to trade unionism, but the lessons never left me.
Ray was instrumental in building the union which eventually, through amalgamation
and much strife, is now Fawu. She was also instrumental in helping to
build trade union awareness across a wide field and this planted the seeds
that grew into many of the unions of today. That was her greatest ability:
she could organise and convince others of the need to be organised to
fight for and protect basic rights.
We had our political differences. Like so many of her generation who had
invested so much hope in the Russian Revolution of 1917, she could not
countenance the idea that the revolution may have been strangled in its
infancy; that, poisoned by nationalism, it could have become the mirror
image of the very system it had so briefly overthrown.
But, unlike so many later adherents to the concept of socialism in one
country and who lauded the supposed moral and economic superiority of
the former Soviet Union, she never allowed this to interfere with the
work of uniting workers as workers. And she was a devout adherent to debate
within the workers’ movement.
At a trade union level, Ray was never sectarian, and she held firmly to
trade union principles. As such, her views were often in direct conflict
with some of the policies of unions in which she played so great a role.
For example, she fiercely opposed trade union investment companies. Well
into her 80s, as honorary Fawu president, she conducted a vociferous campaign
against corruption in the union and pointedly criticised the government’s
policy of privatisation.
This was the woman who devoted 75 years of an activist life to the labour
movement and who convinced me that the basic building blocks of a future
society based on justice and equity lie within an organised working class.
Hamba Kakuhle, Ma Ray. Your legacy lives on.
Terry Bell
South Africa
