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 547 Thursday October 7 2004
Letters
Centrist CPGB
Peter Manson’s reply to the recent open letter from Andy Hannah and
myself is exactly the kind of mud-throwing that he himself complains of
(Letters, September 30).
Its dishonesty is shown by the fact that he still cannot bring himself
to admit publicly that the CPGB have instituted leadership pre-vetting
over electronic discussions internally. He seems to think that objecting
to this on principle is a ‘personalist’ attack: a most curious
myopia, not comprehending that anyone could object to ‘editorial
control’ over private debate as a principle. But the fact that he
cannot bring himself to accurately state what the issues in dispute actually
were speaks volumes - he is hiding something. He meanwhile consoles himself
that material already circulating on the internet is now being circulated
in the CPGB - damage limitation under any other name.
Meanwhile, Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group seems to be
under the impression that the current that grew out of these events -
Manny Neira’s Red Platform/‘Party’ - represented some kind
of healthy reaction to ‘opportunism’ over Respect. One decisive
programmatic position that they have adopted collectively shows that this
is nonsense. They have decided to support the euro, and advise the working
class to vote ‘yes’ in a referendum. Based in the super-affluent
nirvanas of Camberley and Guildford, they are the quintessence of middle-class
‘socialism’, with a publication whose ethos is not dissimilar
to a Guardian supplement. The Red Party is socially light-years away from
the predominantly working class immigrant populations Respect aims to
address, even if it sometimes does so in a flawed manner. Their liberal
imperialism over the euro shows this.
May I remind comrades of the Marxist principle of refusing to vote any
confidence in economic measures which express the economic and political
strategy of the capitalists? It is in the fundamental interests of the
working class to take no responsibility for the running of the capitalist
economy, and to give no support to economic measures that advance the
interests of imperialist capital. A European superstate, were it born
out of the present EU bloc or Eurozone, would be an imperialist superstate,
dominated by the core bourgeoisies of Europe, whose role in the world
would be similar to that of US imperialism - a rival behemoth that would
co-exploit the majority of the world’s population in a dialectic
of partnership and rivalry.
To vote approval to the main economic-political project of the bourgeoisie
of a would-be imperialist superstate is class treason, no matter how much
‘socialist’ rhetoric and how many tinselled red stars adorn
it. The reason why many Marxists, correctly, refuse to support the ‘no’
campaign is that, implicitly, voting ‘no’ in the current context
means choosing the pound over the euro (since no one is practically proposing
the abolition of money as any kind of immediate perspective). Voting for
the euro is voting for European capitalism, just as much as campaigning
to ‘defend the pound’ is campaigning for a vote for British
capitalism. This is a decisive programmatic question that, notwithstanding
the good (liberal) intentions of some of its participants, marks the Red
Party as a rightwing, liberal-imperialist split from the CPGB. Indeed,
on this they have moved to the right of the Alliance for Workers’
Liberty, which still maintains a position of abstention. Beside this strategic
accommodation to capital, the various acts of opportunism of the SWP over
Respect pale into relative insignificance.
Comrade Manson tries to paint my resignation from the CPGB as something
driven by personal disputes. He conveniently does not mention that in
May 2004, three months before my departure, I wrote an internal critique
of the politics of the majority of the CPGB, and in particular its kind
of conciliation of the politics represented most fundamentally by the
AWL, and in the CPGB by the (then) Red Platform. In that document I accused
the CPGB leadership of centrism, of capitulating to imperialist ‘public
opinion’ on the question of Iraq, refusing to explicitly solidarise
with the popular uprisings that were taking place in Fallujah and Iraq,
vis-à-vis the occupation forces. This amounts to a refusal to unconditionally
defend the right of self-determination of Iraq - a question that I regard
as one of principle.
I attributed this to the ‘third campist’ dogma that the organisation
had extrapolated from the Cold War, which extended the (already partially
flawed) method of refusing to take a side between seemingly comparable
gangs of oppressors in that period to a refusal to take sides between
the oppressor and the oppressed in Iraq, when the oppressed fight under
reactionary leadership. Peter will remember an exchange between us, where
I berated the Provisional Central Committee majority for (correctly) siding
with the Kosova Liberation Army when a struggle against occupation took
place in 1999, even when our ‘own’ imperialist government intervened
military to give them ‘support’ (the kiss of death!), yet refusing
to solidarise with the masses fighting ‘our’ imperialist army
in Iraq. Peter rather lamely replied that there was a difference between
mere “non-working class forces” (the KLA) and “reactionary
anti-imperialism” (the shia, sunni and nationalist insurgents in
Fallujah, Najaf, etc).
Particularly on Iraq, this is the kind of politics that was most consistently
expressed by the Red Platform, though in various ways it is also shared
by most of the CPGB leadership. It is this which also drove CPGB antipathy
to Respect. Shared third-campist and islamophobic political appetites
led the ‘soft’ PCC majority to collaborate with Manny Neira
in violating democratic centralist norms, in publishing (for instance)
personalised attacks on George Galloway that undermined decisions that
the CPGB (including its leadership) had voted for in two aggregates.
The CPGB’s whole political profile regarding Respect is schizophrenic:
while claiming to critically support Respect, they often act in practice
no differently from its rightwing, islamophobic critics, in a manner that
can only outrage those who see something positive in the project. That
Peter Manson can dismiss these differences, and the blow-out/conflict
with Manny Neira that resulted from them, as ‘apolitical’ and
‘personal’ is a disturbing sign of political degeneration and
myopia.
Ian Donovan
London
Personal
I read the Hannah-Donovan open letter of resignation from the CPGB, which
you decline to print, elsewhere on the web. It appears to be a pristine
example of one of the far left’s most crippling afflictions: the
incapacity of individual leftists to subordinate their usually more than
medium-sized egos to larger political aims.
Even if Hannah-Donovan are 100% right in their claims concerning the leadership’s
overindulgence of a particular comrade, this circumstance would seem to
justify quitting only in the eyes of those whose personal standing in
the organisation is more important than the programme that they, and it,
purport to serve.
Will the disgruntled pair (at least one of whom I know to be inveterately
political) now attempt to start their own organisation on the basis of
some thoroughly contrived difference of principle with the CPGB? As a
15-year veteran of Trotskyism, I would hardly be nonplussed.
Jim Cullen
New York
A bit odd
Peter Manson claims that Ian Donovan and Andy Hannah left you for reasons
that have “little to do with the politics of the CPGB”. Yet
Dave Craig, a member of another group, manages to explain perfectly well
what the political issues were, with Donovan at least - even if he puts
his own interpretation on who is right and wrong and why. Even I can understand
what he is talking about!
Isn’t this a bit odd? Who is telling the truth?
Brian Miller
email
Creature rant
More abuse, conceit, and saccharine single-issue sentiment from Tony Greenstein,
but still not the remotest sign of any ability to discuss the political
questions raised (Letters, September 30).
This self-righteous abusiveness and shallow refusal to place their individualist
concerns in the context of the broader interests of world revolutionary
perspectives is just the sort of thing by which older communists (life-long
anti Stalin’s imbecile revisionist theories, which destroyed the
international communist movement; lifelong pro the dictatorship of the
proletariat) recognised the single-issue freemasonries of ‘the personal
is the political’ era as products of the CIA’s ‘human rights’
worldwide brainwashing campaign to halt the spread of communist ideology,
and as demented and naturally spontaneous anti-communists for every giant
CIA stunt.
So there was every Trot, fanatically cheering on every Solidarnosc move,
swearing that ‘rank-and-file socialism’ was the aim of the blatantly
anti-communist stunt cleverly dreamed-up and financed by the Vatican,
the CIA and the known Pilsudski fascist, Lech Walesa.
The outcome? Crap bourgeois ‘democracy’ which wrecked the east
European welfare states; consumerism, courtesy of exploitation by western
corporate imperialism; and Polish state forces now helping the vile imperialist
warmongering occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the ‘left’
mostly protesting in reformist terms instead of agitating for the American
empire’s defeat because their shallow anti-communist mentality has
effortlessly translated into a fully counterrevolutionary, petty bourgeois
cringing at ‘terrorism’(read Marx, Engels and Lenin on this
cringing), and at every scrap of CIA garbage propaganda about ‘Saddam’s
mass graves’ etc, etc - missing the World War III that imperialism
in crisis is now preparing.
Not a “world Jewish conspiracy”, Mr Greenstein, to create ‘Israel’
as a desperately-needed belligerent toe-hold on the Middle East in an
inevitably anti-imperialist post-war world with communist revolutionary
ideology gaining rapidly in all directions (in spite of Stalin’s
monstrous efforts to curb it), but a clever imperialist conspiracy.
And Scargill opposed the election of this “creature”, to quote
your disgusting abuse, as Socialist Labour Party vice-president, which
was achieved without the block vote of the fantasy North West, Cheshire
and Cumbria Miners Association, but because older communists, responding
to actually reading the Economic and Philosophic Science Review (instead
of just scurrilous anti-communist leaflets lampooning it) agreed there
was a chance to get back to a real Bolshevik Party. Stalinist Scargill’s
programmed expulsion of said “creature” put a stop to that hope.
Royston Bull
Manchester
Anti-semitism
It seems there’s no pleasing Royston Bull (Letters, September 30).
It is not enough for him that Roland Rance has actively supported the
Palestinians for decades, remains a consistent opponent of Zionism and
holds to the creation of a single democratic, secular state. No, in addition
to this, Rance and others must confess that the founding of Israel was
“one of the foulest acts of imperialist hypocrisy ever, and certainly
... the most endlessly poisonous colonisation of all time”.
Such a crass lack of reason and proportion cannot be viewed as anything
other than a reflection of Mr Bull’s vicarious anti-semitism (a charge
he always sneers at but always fails to disprove). Indeed, in his EPSR
rag, Bull has stated that Zionist oppression of the Palestinians makes
the crimes of the Nazis and the US war on Vietnam look “mild in comparison”.
The Palestinians need active solidarity, not shrill denunciations of “world
Jewry” from third period tanky-reactionaries like Bull.
John Black
email
Whose interest?
Well, at least no-one can accuse Royston Bull of dissembling. The two-state
solution in Palestine, he tells us, is an “evil fraud”, and
a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine is “utopian”. What,
then, is the solution? According to Bull, it means “driving this
rotten Zionist stunt into the sea”.
For decades, a mainstay of Zionist propaganda has been the lie that the
Palestinians intend to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’. This position
has been frequently and explicitly rejected, both by the PLO and its constituent
organisations, and by the islamist forces of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
We might ask, whose interest is Royston Bull serving by trying to revive
and propagate this untrue claim? It’s certainly not that of the Palestinian
people.
Roland Rance
email
Who did what
Having denounced “Jewish/imperialist colonisation”, thereby
promoting the notion that there are “Jewish” interests for Jews
and class interests for the rest of humanity, and having denounced long-standing
anti-Zionist activist Roland Rance as not having been “heard denouncing
the foundation of the state of Israel”, Royston Bull then goes on
to tell us that the issue is about political understanding, not “boasts
about who does what or grotesque distortions about who did what”.
But then his outrageous slur on Roland, I suppose, was a “grotesque
distortion about who did [not] do what”. So perhaps he is being consistent
after all.
Mark Elf
email
WRP and Bull
I’d have preferred not to waste time bothering to reply to Royston
Bull’s outbursts, but after talking about his heroic ‘revolt’
in the Workers Revolutionary Party, and those (the great majority) who
gave him and his mate no support, he finishes asking: “And Pottins?”
For those readers who are bursting to know the answer, it is simple. Pottins
had been sacked by Gerry Healy early in 1978, well before the departure
of Bull and fellow-journalist Steve Johns. It all started the previous
November, with me critically reporting Egyptian president Sadat’s
announced intention of going to make peace with Israel, and suggesting
he was betraying the Palestinians. I was given a bollocking in Healy’s
office, and removed from News Line’s international desk and despatched
to the Midlands, ostensibly to cover the firefighters’ strike, which
I did, but in effect it was attempted constructive dismissal.
When this did not work, Healy dispensed with ceremony, and just gave me
notice. I don’t know whether Bull, Johns, Alex Mitchell or anyone
else objected (I think the late Jack Gale, whose close colleague I had
been, expressed misgivings, but Jack was already ill, and was removed
from the board by other means).
By 1979, having taken a factory job and being active in the workplace
I was seriously concerned at the widening gap between the WRP’s theory
and practice and the realities of working class life and struggle. Having
experienced the autocratic internal regime, and seeing no way to challenge
it, I took my exclusion from the party then with relief, and a feeling
of freedom. I wasn’t at the congress which expelled Bull and Johns,
and knew little or nothing about what issues they raised, or whether Bull’s
version now is accurate (nor, judging from his question, did he know or
care where I was).
It wasn’t until after the expulsion of Healy and his acolytes in
1985 that I rejoined the WRP (Workers Press). To be fair, when I was working
on News Line, Roy Bull did defend me on one occasion when I was involved
in a row over tasks at the centre (I’ll spare you the details as
I’m saving it for a spot of comic relief to leaven my memoirs).
But Healy was able to turn this (and me) against him, because the sad
fact was that by then Bull and Steve Johns, who had been quite popular
in the party, were notorious for skiving. Nobody even bothered to ask
them to help either in the centre or on paper sales, etc, and they did
as little as possible on News Line. Wondering how they got away with it,
I didn’t know whether Healy just valued their journalistic skills
or they had something on him! Whatever it was, they kept it to themselves.
I was amazed when I heard they had shown the energy to ‘rebel’,
and guessed Healy had cunningly given them ‘enough rope’ to
ensure they were not missed as much as they might have been.
Johns and others soon found new berths in the capitalist media. I don’t
know about Bull - he had been quite a gain coming to News Line from the
FT (and the Communist Party), and was quite an intellect, whatever his
quirks and limits. But his original allies deserted him, and he has come
to a sad pass politically.
As for Roy’s brand-new interest in Palestine and call for ‘driving
the Jews into the sea’ (including the 30% or more Israelis hailing
from Arab countries?), I doubt anybody other than a Zionist propagandist
desperate for material will take this seriously. Certainly nobody genuinely
involved in the Palestinian struggle for their rights will. So I won’t.
Charlie Pottins
email
Refreshing
While not wishing to intrude on what appears to be some very old WRP feuding,
I must say that the charges against the EPSR of anti-semitism and homophobia
are really quite erroneous: in fact deliberate misrepresentation.
Having read the EPSR with great interest for some time now, I find nothing
of this nature in it and I would like to thank you for drawing my attention
to this publication, whose revolutionary fervour is quite refreshing.
There’s no such thing as bad publicity!
David Morgan
email
AWL and imperialism
Mike Macnair’s honest self-criticism regarding his original articles
on the AWL and imperialism was refreshing and suggests that my rather
terse correspondence was not in vain (Weekly Worker September 23). AWL
comrades welcome a serious exchange of views on imperialism with the CPGB,
particularly if it brings our respective political assessments into sharper
relief.
If readers want to read our arguments, our website (www.workersliberty.org)
has an index of most back issues of the magazine Workers’ Liberty,
though sadly not all the material is online. We are happy to provide copies
of articles to comrades interested in reading our views, including those
now out of print.
Firstly, there are some points of agreement with Mike Macnair. The AWL
believes that the ‘imperialism’ described by the classical Marxists
- the relations between the great powers, the relations between capitalist
states and the colonies, and the tendencies towards war - does not adequately
describe the present world order nor provide a guide to action for the
working class in the current situation. We also reject the political conclusions
drawn from that analysis, such as the anti-imperialist united front. We
also agree that some of the classical texts were problematic and contradictory
even for the time they were written - for example, Lenin’s concepts
of finance capital and his arguments about the aristocracy of labour in
his book Imperialism.
However, there are substantial points on which we clearly disagree with
the CPGB.
1. On method, the point is not to start with the classical texts, their
political conclusions or indeed abstract postulates - rather our analysis
should begin with the reality of modern capitalism. One of the disappointing
things about the articles in the Weekly Worker has been the lack of concrete
analysis of capitalism since 1945. The AWL view, which we call the “imperialism
of free trade”, at least has the merit of starting from the actual
tendencies of capitalism since World War II - and freer trade has clearly
been one of those tendencies.
2. The AWL argues that decolonisation was a real step forward. The fight
for national liberation in the colonies for independent national states
was a significant change. This is particularly true in relation to industrial
development, and the concomitant creation of powerful working classes
in the former colonies. Since winning independence, many of these states
have also developed a more powerful bourgeois class as well as states
that act for these capitalists. Some states have become centres of capital
accumulation in their own right. All this means that defining them merely
as ‘semi-colonies’ fails to grasp important changes.
3. Our argument about sub-imperialism follows from this assessment. I
can’t understand Mike’s assertion that the concept of sub-imperialism
has no predictive power. The concept implies that bourgeoisies in a number
of intermediate states have developed the same kind of expansive drives
(at least regionally), including the drive to war that the big powers
had a century ago. Wars waged by Argentina, Iran and Iraq, Serbia, Israel,
India and Pakistan, etc over the past 20 years, as well as the role played
by states such as China, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, etc, suggest that
‘sub-imperialism’ is a useful designation.
4. The AWL argues that the concept of ‘defeatism’ developed
by Lenin during World War I was incoherent - see articles by Hal Draper
in Workers’ Liberty. ‘Defeatism’ predates Lenin’s
analysis of imperialism and was not part of the programme of the Communist
International - until Zinoviev revived it in 1924 as a stick to beat Trotsky
with. A better method is to follow Clausewitz and define the politics
behind wars, including the class character and aims of the combatants,
the nature of the wars they are waging and the consequences for the working
class. This was the method of Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Trotsky and others
during World War I - ‘defeatism’ adds nothing to it but confusion.
The pressing practical need behind this discussion is the situation in
Iraq. The AWL does not think US and British soldiers are playing a progressive
role in Iraq. We oppose the occupation and are in favour of self-determination.
But we don’t think the ‘resistance’ are a national liberation
movement, in the sense understood by socialists in Lenin’s time,
or indeed in the wars in Algeria, Vietnam, etc. Instead we focus on the
emerging Iraqi labour movement, because like Lenin we believe the “real
anti-imperialist force” is the working class in Iraq and across the
globe.
In short we think working class anti-imperialism needs to be clarified
- and distinguished from the nebulous, classless anybody-but-the-US ‘anti-imperialism’
the SWP are advocating. I hope the CPGB will join us in this work - and
stop appearing to straddle the two opposing poles.
Paul Hampton
London
Iraq resistance
I have watched with interest the debates surrounding the so-called resistance
to the US coalition’s occupation of Iraq. Enthusiasts for these terrorists
might do well to examine some of the links on your own website, particularly
one to the Worker-communist Party of Iraq.
On one page the authors detail what they term “political islam’s
crimes against women” in the Iraqi city of Mosul and note that “mass
killing is practised against women working as interpreters or as workers
with foreign companies”. What brave men these ‘fighters’
must be to gun down women on their way to work. The applause offered these
degenerates is merely one more chapter in the long story of the UK left’s
increasing irrelevance.
Don McCarthy
email
Join later?
There are a couple of matters that require clarification regarding my
article published in last week’s Weekly Worker (September 30). First
the headline, “Boycott now, join later”, is not my own. It doesn’t
give a proper reflection of my argument.
We did not boycott the Respect founding conference. The Socialist Alliance
Democracy Platform put forward an alternative strategy for Respect called
‘Britain at the crossroads’ and a number of motions on a worker’s
wage, immigration controls and republicanism (these were formally moved
by different groups because of limits in how many motions the SADP could
submit). The alternative strategy and all the motions were defeated.
The decisions of the founding conference made it absolutely clear that
Respect is not a republican socialist workers’ party and is not a
step towards such a party. The party is the most important question. Yet
Respect has fostered massive illusions that it is a step towards such
a party. On the contrary it is a barrier to it.
I certainly said, “Boycott now”. A boycott is an absolutely
clear response. Anybody who is a serious and militant republican and socialist
must reject Respect’s royal socialism, which is nothing more than
the left wing of the ruling class. ‘Boycott’ means we didn’t
simply forget to fill in our membership forms. We deliberately did not
join and urged other comrades to do the same. ‘Boycott’ means
political hostility to Respect on the basis of a programme, whose attitude
to democracy is worse than the Liberal Democrats.
We were not alone. The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Socialist Alliance
(DP), Independent Working Class Association, Communist Party of Britain,
Alliance for Green Socialism, Workers International, International Socialism
League and Workers Power did not join.
But ‘boycott’ means a specific tactic for a specified period
of time. That boycott lasts until October 30. This does not mean we will
join Respect after that. I simply say we should review the situation in
the light of its decisions. So the headline, “Boycott now, join later”,
is misleading. We are not calling on people to join Respect in November.
Neither does the sub-heading reflect my argument. I did not argue that
“‘wait and see’ is the best approach towards Respect”,
as the introduction suggests. On the contrary I have argued for building
and strengthening the alternative socialist forces that have gathered
round the Socialist Alliance (DP). Instead of collapsing into Respect
or acting as critical cheerleaders, we put our efforts behind working
class candidates standing on a republican socialist programme (People
before profit).
My original article says: “Respect is being formed or established
between March and the October 2004 conference. This must be met with a
boycott and open criticism of the project”. But the edited version
in Weekly Worker says: “The October 2004 conference must be met with
a boycott and open criticism of the project.”
My original point was not focused on boycotting the October conference.
Rather my emphasis was the period between conferences. I am not criticising
the editor for this. I am sure the intention was to clarify what I was
saying. I merely want to set the record straight.
Dave Craig
Revolutionary Democratic Group
Sad SWP
I used to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party, and Iraq and Blair
have rekindled my interest in politics. I have scoured the internet for
all things to do with Respect and I have been dismayed. Respect seems
such a waste of energy for socialists. It reminds me of the old Revolutionary
Communist Party (The Next Step), crossed with the worst of Eurocommunism.
When I was in the SWP, the slide to the right had started and the local
organiser started becoming ever more shrill at those who dissented from
the central committee line. All debate ceased and I, like many others,
voted with my feet and stopped going to meetings. The party atrophied
and all that was left was a small bureaucracy of branch committee members
who had no-one to order around. Sad.
They hail 572 votes as a victory. It is not surprising that members of
the SWP are leaving or becoming inactive. I am not going to join the CPGB,
but keep up the good work.
Chris Richards
email
Revisionists
Hillel Ticktin writes about a matter he has never known (‘A Marxist
party without deformations’, July 15).
The destruction of Stalinism has brought him a big opportunity to build
up a Marxist party. Thus he presumes that Marxist parties have never existed!
The international proletariat have been such fools that they remained
without a party of their own. He knows nothing about the Third International
and its feats.
My view is very similar to his, but for opposite reasons. The catastrophic
collapse of Lenin’s project at the hands of petty bourgeois revisionists
pushed the world out of its historical track. Now the dominant means of
production aren’t the proletariat’s. Hence unions of Marxists,
not parties, are to be formed, for the socialist revolution is not on
the horizon. This has been suggested to the Marxist factions here in Jordan.
Fuad Nimri
Amman
ESF snouts
I noticed that there was no mention in your article of the cost for the
unwaged to gain entry to the European Social Forum (‘In safe hands?’,
September 30). Is this because the sum demanded shows just how out of
touch those are who are both the main organisers of the jamboree and those
they have slotted in as chairs and main speakers?
£20 is what these people expect the unwaged to pay: that is, more
than a third of dole or sick money. Now if any of these illustrious freeloaders
seriously believe that someone living on such a low income is going to
hand it over to hear a mixture of overpaid trade union bureaucrats, trust-fund
lefties and individuals who have got their greedy snouts in the local
and national government trough, then I suggest they think again.
Far from worrying yourselves about how you too can join the top table
of British left reformism, the CPGB comrades would be better organising
alongside those who refuse to be ripped off by paying this fee and find
ways to help them avoid doing so. You know, old fashioned activities like
occupying the buildings where the ESF is to take place and by so doing
democratise this authoritarian charade. Or are you more comfortable in
the company of political and trade union bureaucrats?
Finally on a point of information, why do you feel it is necessary to
call a snout in the trough like Mr O’Neill “comrade”? Are
you that bad a judge of socialists that you fail to recognise a freeloader
when you see one and an individual, at that, who is too devious or cowardly
to place his politics openly before the working class?
Mick Hall
email
Fake Nader
There may be many miles of ocean separating me from the US presidential
election, but I can see when some American leftists are barking up the
wrong tree.
I favour a critical vote and support for the Socialist Party USA, so I’m
not particularly bothered whether the Greens are mounting an effective
challenge to the Republicrat duopoly or not. As far as I’m concerned,
socialists in the US should use these elections to put their own independent
working class politics on the agenda, and the SP is by far the best vehicle
to carry out the job.
Is the fare Ralph Nader offers any better? True, there’s name recognition,
a decent momentum and some policies worthy of critical support. However,
despite the attacks the Democrats have made on his campaign, I was not
making up the claim that Nader is concerned with pressurising the Democrats
to return to their supposedly progressive roots, as comrade Jonah Birch
seems to suggest (Letters September 30).
For example, sifting through Nader’s voluminous open letters to Bush
and Kerry, I found a piece (dated June 22) urging Kerry to adopt John
Edwards as his running mate. Apparently Edward’s boy-next-door image
goes down well in the media, and he would not stand for the legal injustices
heaped upon the American working class, writes Nader. Such friendly advice
from one presidential candidate to another hardly smacks of serious opposition
to me: more like sowing illusions.
May I also suggest the comrade looks at my review of Nader’s website
(Weekly Worker August 5). In his reply to Democrat national committee
chairman Terry McAuliffe (dated June 18), our anti-war and pro-labour
hero attacks the Democrats for not fielding what he calls “challenging
candidates”.
Lamenting the recent losses the Democrats have made to Republicans at
state and federal level, Nader calls for “new energies and bold strategies
inside the party and parallel to it” to see off the Republicans.
What possible objective could ‘comrade’ Nader have in mind?
The Democrats “need to be pulled away from the corporate supremacists
who have so seriously weakened the party’s appeal to working families
everywhere”.
Comrade Jonah may think it’s “laughable” that the “Nader/Camejo
campaign is … about reclaiming the Democrats”, but for dear
old Ralph it is no laughing matter. Nader’s objective is there in
print, exposing himself as a fake alternative in the process.
Phil Hamilton
Stoke-on-Trent
