home

contact

action

weekly worker

respect the unity coalition

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 559 Thursday January 13 2005

Letters

AWL and Galloway
Whatever one thinks of his theorising on the question of libel law, it is hard to see Mike Macnair’s comments on the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty as anything but an attempt by the CPGB to curry favour with George Galloway (‘Galloway and libel’, December 9).

Mike writes that the AWL “has over the past year all but associated itself with the campaign of the government and sections of the media to smear Galloway as a corrupt supporter of the Ba’athist regime”. Indeed, there is apparently a common “Telegraph-AWL view” of how to relate to Galloway politically.

How entertaining that an article on the subject of libel law should devote a great deal of its length to politically libelling our organisation! Rather than dwelling on motivations, however, let us look at what the AWL has actually said. When The Daily Telegraph broke its story in May 2003, we wrote: “There is a strong case for dismissing the charges made by the Tory Daily Telegraph and others against George Galloway ... namely, the character and bias of those baying for [Galloway’s] blood ... On principle, no one should trust those who are in full cry against Galloway” (Solidarity 3/29).

In other words, we refused to make ourselves associates of the rightwing campaign against Galloway. This was absolutely in line with the political position we have taken ever since Galloway relaunched himself as a friend of Ba’athism. In April 2003, for instance, when The Sun branded Galloway a traitor for calling on British troops to disobey orders, we responded that all anti-war leftists were in that case “traitors many times over”, that it was “an honour to be called ‘traitors’ by The Sun” and that “we wouldn’t want to be anything else” (Solidarity 3/27). At the same time, we made it clear that there was “no honour in being bracketed with Galloway”. Is this the same view as that of The Daily Telegraph?

As we commented last month in Solidarity 3/63, despite the recent court verdict, the “political issues about Galloway’s financial relationships with reactionary regimes in the Middle East and his warm political relations with Saddam’s regime remain the same”. The CPGB has yet to deal with these issues. If a Labour MP worked with the CIA-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy to “campaign for human rights in Cuba” and maintained a close relationship with the Bush administration, what would the Weekly Worker say? If, as I suspect, you would condemn that person as a stooge of imperialism, then why the double standard?

Lastly, Mike might at least have been honest enough to admit that Galloway turned down the option of a jury trial, evidently fearing even the slightest exposure to working class public opinion.
Sacha Ismail, Cathy Nugent
AWL

Incoherent
Mark Fischer’s latest offering in our ongoing debate is a masterpiece of substituting ad hominem invective for politics, trying to turn the attention of readers away from political issues, over which he has little to say, to personalist matters (Letters, January 6).

The comrade is so obsessed with speculating about my identity that he neglects to deal with the political questions I raised in my last letter. Such as whether or not Marxists should “unconditionally but critically” support the Iraqi resistance against the armed forces of our own government. Comrade Fischer refrains from giving an answer to this question. He knows that if he replied in the affirmative, that such support is an obligation for Marxists on the grounds of the right to a subjugated people to resist imperialist occupation, it would condemn outright the vacillations of the CPGB on this subject for the last year at least. It would also immediately lead to a political gulf opening up between himself and much of his own membership, not to mention the ‘third campist’ milieu from which Mark hopes to pick up recruits.

On the other hand, he cannot explicitly and openly denounce this basic Marxist position, for this would signify renunciation of the attitude of Lenin and the Communist International to struggles against colonial occupation. He has failed to avoid this by sophistry. His prattling about how Marxists should not “be indifferent” (!) to the outcome in Iraq and prefer the victory of progressive forces (as if those who disagree with him on this do not so prefer!) has failed to obscure the fact that this dispute is about ‘which side are you on?’ - a basic question for a Leninist in a colonial war.

So he fills his responses with boring and apolitical speculation about whether I am ‘really’ Ian Donovan or Chris Bambery. Stick to the politics, Mark! Likewise, he fails to respond to my elementary point that the existence of the call for a society “based on common ownership and democratic control” in Respect’s constitution signifies that this is an organisation whose aspirations are broadly socialist, and contradicts the CPGB’s head-in-the-sand assertions of Respect’s simply populist and ‘non-socialist’ nature.

I challenged the CPGB’s inability to engage with or even acknowledge this constitutional commitment of Respect to a society based on common property; Mark simply ducked this elementary political point with an outburst of personalism. He claims that he is not “running scared” of communist criticism of the CPGB’s centrist vacillations.

Yet he justifies refusing to publish comrade Donovan’s critique of those vacillations with the excuse that “All contributions are editorially judged in the light of the political project that we are in business to serve - reforging a revolutionary Communist Party”, and continues that “Ian’s material is politically incoherent and represents nothing more than the sad political degeneration of a disorientated individual”.

And yet he complains that I am being “Sparty” for pointing out his hypocrisy for engaging in baiting about my supposed ‘real’ identity while admitting writing under several pseudonyms himself. Again, silly and apolitical. What is genuinely “Sparty” is this allegation that comrades who leave an organisation over issues of principle but continue to argue politics are in some way ‘degenerate’. A classic technique of sects that substitutes the scapegoating of individuals for politics. Nothing could possibly be wrong with the hallowed sect they left, of course.

In fact the CPGB’s editorial policy is subordinated to building “a revolutionary Communist Party” on an ideological agenda that is not communist at all, but that can appeal to demoralised semi-leftists such as Dave Osler, the author of the CPGB’s original capitulationist lead article on the Galloway witch-hunt, or comrades with similar rightist views in the former CPGB Red Platform (who Mark fantastically maintains are ‘ultra-lefts’).

This kind of outlook found then and still finds a widespread echo with the CPGB.
Brian Miller
email

Military support
Yes, Paul Hampton, it certainly does matter who defeats imperialism (Letters, October 21 2004). We’d rather see the working class as a contender for power than islamic fundamentalists, but we recognise that in a war between imperialists and non-imperialists we militarily support the non-imperialists, regardless of how reactionary they may be, because first and foremost we want imperialist aggression to be defeated. The main enemy is always at home, and to see things any differently must lead one to ultimately support his ‘own’ bourgeoisie.

Again, Paul, genuine communists take a side in a military conflict between imperialist and non-imperialist forces (and ‘non-imperialist’ doesn’t necessarily imply anti-imperialist). This is not a moral issue, but a tactical one, for imperialism exacerbates national (and even religious) tensions to boiling point, uniting workers with ‘their’ class oppressors in a common effort to rid the country of the imperialist invaders. We militarily support the non-imperialists because we want the imperialists to be defeated.

Likewise, defeatism is a political tactic to drive a wedge between the workers and ‘their’ class oppressors, to counter the patriotism that is necessary to effectively regiment the workers in preparation for their slaughter. Therefore it would not be at all inconsistent for a workers’ party in imperialist country A to counter the country’s war moves against imperialist country B, while its section in country B adopts the same line against the war in country B against its war moves against country A. We are against workers slaughtering one another in the interests of ‘their’ oppressors.

Paul, you desperately need to read Their morals and ours by Leon Trotsky.
Michael Little
Seattle

KLA support
With regard to Simon Keller’s letter, morally deplorable actions, as the Kosova Liberation Army’s attacks on the Serbs and another minorities surely were, in no way defines what class they represent or what political position they uphold (Weekly Worker January 6).

Saying these actions mean they are not “bourgeois democratic” is simply a way of dodging the issue. Were the Bolsheviks not socialist because they carried out atrocities in the civil war? Was the FLN in Algeria not a genuine national liberation movement because it targeted civilians?

If Simon wants to withhold support to any group or movement that carries out morally despicable actions, then that’s fine - it’s an honest position that can be debated with. However, he should have the guts to be honest about it rather than hiding behind dogmatic platitudes (“not proletarian“, “not bourgeois democratic”, “not anti-imperialist”, etc).

For the record I think any group or movement that happily kills the innocent should be opposed. Whether it has the correct programme or not, whether it represents the right movement or not.
Ian Croft
Liverpool

ESF influence
As a participant/commentator on the World Social Forum process (global to national) since 2002, I can endorse all the CPGB suggestions except that on political parties (‘Which way for ESF?’, December 16).

The restriction on these comes out of international experience/conviction that ‘the party is over’, and that struggles over power are moving/should move from ‘the political’ to ‘the social’. This has to also be seen as a defensive measure against ‘another possible party-isation’. Admittedly it has the counterproductive effect of provoking parties to hide their lights under multiple bushels. But they would do this even if party participation was permitted!

One can recognise the valuable role played by the Fourth International (Mandelist), the CPGB, Rifondazione Comunista and yet wish to ensure a limited role for, for example, the Brazilian PT and, hypothetically, the British Labour Party (if it ever got smart). I would like to see an open but restricted space for parties (as with the inter-state International Labour Organisation!). As the WSF gains experience and confidence, I would imagine it will anyway move in this direction. I am myself (self-) marginalised from the formal WSF process, but this does not, in the age of the internet, mean people like me are without influence. Political parties may get to feel the same way.

The CPGB website has been my major source of information on the European Social Forum. All due respect. Today what matters, surely, is not control, but influence.
Peter Waterman
CPGB, 1951-1970

Refined consensus
I think we need to tread a fine balance when it comes to the ESF process. It is important that we do not revert to the traditional leaders-motions-voting model of decision-making out of impatience.

But at the same time we do need to refine the use of the consensus model to make it effective. That surely means taking minutes, so there is a proper record of meetings. It should also mean reviewing proposals made at the end of any session to see what there is consensus on - which we can then proceed to act upon. In the local social forums that are developing, this is broadly what happens, I think. Likewise at the meeting of local social forums in Sheffield prior to Paris, there was a record of what we discussed and also an agreed statement of what we wanted from Paris in terms of changes. These came about by consensus.

If there is to be an organising group it should literally be to prepare for meetings by drawing together an agenda from suggestions put in and then to execute decisions made. It should have no power of its own and no authority to speak for the ESF.
Peter Flack
Leicester Social Forum

Obscene
I think the cover of last week’s newspaper was totally, utterly unnecessary (Weekly Worker January 6).
The news has been saturated with images of this awful natural tragedy and this photograph is obscene. The use of images of dead bodies, etc is acceptable if it’s used to alert people to injustices or wars, but surely not a natural disaster? It made me feel utterly sick.
Julie Callaghan
Liverpool

Britpop
In response to Sam Metcalf’s review of The last party, I think he runs into problems when he makes reference to “an ideologically driven” indie scene falling into the arms of New Labour after “smelling the filthy lucre”(‘A different class’, January 6). The trouble with this analysis is that it tends to idealise what went on in the 1980s independent music scene.

As a teenager embroiled in this movement I clearly remember the purifying experience of buying vinyl singles produced outside the orbit of the despised ‘major labels’. Groups such as the Weather Prophets, the House of Love and the Wedding Present were widely disparaged in the indie scene for signing to major labels.

But the strands apparent in Britpop were ready and waiting in the 1980s, making it clear that the moment of punk (itself incorporated into the musical establishment) was long past. By 1984, Geoff Travis, head honcho of Rough Trade (described elsewhere as a barmy, middle class, socialist enterprise), was working hard with Alan McGee (Creation Records) to make sure the Jesus and Mary Chain signed to major label WEA.

Creation Records was always fairly uninterested in the ideology of being an ‘indie’, and most of its best groups were eventually signed by major labels. Some of them ‘smelt the lucre’, but on the other hand there was simply no way that the Jesus and Mary Chain would have produced a brilliant record such as ‘Psycho candy’ (1985) on an indie label budget.

Also, there was the actual content of the indie records produced in the 1980s. With a few exceptions, the subject matter of these recordings mostly dealt with the angst of spotty, weird-looking men who never had girlfriends - a sadistic and unfashionable inversion of the ‘me, me, me’ of Thatcherism.
My own personal favourite is by an obscure band called Another Sunny Day who produced a single entitled ‘I’m in love with a girl who doesn’t know I exist’ - hardly ‘Anarchy in the UK’ is it? Also the enjoyable (for a while) pastiche of the Beatles coined by Oasis was, in stylistic terms, not a million miles away from a hundred and one 1980s indie bands who sought salvation in reproducing their favourite records from the 1960s.

In that sense, the development of Britpop was arguably of little significance in pointing to some sort of New Labour betrayal by indie groups. The only real difference is that some guitar bands in the mid-to-late 1990s sold a lot of records; those working in the 1980s generally did not.
Lyndon White
London

Lost the plot?
What was the point of Eddie Ford’s article on Jesus (‘Greatest story ever told’, December 16)?
Over recent years, we had become accustomed to the pre-Christmas edition of the Weekly Worker containing a feature, usually written by Jack Conrad, which set out to develop an alternative Jesus story: ie, of Jesus as a revolutionary, as a communist. These pieces were original and interesting, and their motivation - an attempt to expropriate a major ruling class myth and make it our own - appeared to me to be a well worthwhile communist endeavour.

What now do we see this project replaced with? The whole of the front page and two inside pages of the paper feature Ford’s dry-as-dust and very friendly review of a book written by a catholic priest cum Judaic esotericist (what a CV!). And what story does this feature reveal? Rather than Jesus as a communist, we have ... Jesus as a Jew. Big deal!

This is yet another indication that the Weekly Worker, following the CPGB’s longevitous leadership, has lost the plot!
John Pearson
Stockport

Read by the left
Just a small point to make in the world of leftwing politics, but why doesn’t the CPGB advertise the Towards a Socialist Alliance Party book any more?

It leads me to think that Marxists look down on sympathisers not wholly dedicated to the cause of socialism. Jack Conrad’s book should be read by the left, as he explains how the left are miseducated into believing the Bolsheviks discarded their programme after February 1917. To me the left are on the flip side of the same coin and should start acting like it.
Frank Kavanagh
email

Peter Manson replies: Unfortunately all copies of Towards a Socialist Alliance Party have been sold and the book is now out of print. We are planning to put this and other CPGB books up on our website soon.

Print this page