Weekly Worker 568 Thursday March 17 2005

Letters

Aussie SA
Marcus Larsen’s evidence for his wholly negative assessment of the Australian Socialist Alliance is threadbare, highly selective and uncontextualised (Weekly Worker March 10).

Yes, election results have been generally modest to poor, but the context is a historically low level of struggle and a leftward-moving Green Party that has quadrupled its vote between the 2001 and 2004 federal elections. However, there have been more respectable SA results of 3%-6% in several seats in at least three state elections, and Marcus is quite disingenuous in neglecting to mention the impressive 9%-12% in several wards in the recent Melbourne local elections.

In any case, making electoral returns the main basis for assessing a socialist party project is crass parliamentary cretinism. If Marcus was interested in a balanced assessment of the SA, he should mention, to cite just two areas: how the SA has built solid links with the militant left wing of the Australian union movement (including Australian Labor Party officials and activists, answering the rather hysterical accusation of ‘third period’ politics emanating from some quarters - for a recent example see www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/617/617p9.htm); and how the SA has initiated a quarterly journal, Seeing Red, which groups a substantial proportion of Australia’s socialist intelligentsia and which has won several thousand readers.

The letter from David Glanz of the International Socialist Organisation, which Marcus uncritically reproduces, makes an extremely weak and dishonest attempt to ‘prove’ undemocratic DSP manoeuvres in regards to the SA and Green Left Weekly. From late 2003 the SA and GLW have had an agreement for GLW editorials and an SA-specific column to conform to agreed SA positions. There’s since been over 100 examples of both columns, of which comrade Glanz can cite a problem with precisely one. He can also cite a problem with one single other article, a comment piece on the ALP (not an editorial or an SA column, as Marcus falsely states), but seems to have forgotten that the only agreement about such pieces is that they are open to the various opinions of all SA members and other leftist perspectives of interest to the GLW readership.

If Marcus was not so fixated with constructing a narrative of DSP control, he may have posed the obvious question: why didn’t the ISO simply respond to these apparently outrageous articles in GLW itself? The answer is that the ISO currently has no interest in a joint SA paper, and hence no interest in debate within GLW. The DSP has repeatedly stated that the road is completely open for the ISO and other affiliates to take an active and decision-making role in GLW, and that it is open to any proposed changes of organisation and format to facilitate this. The reason that the current SA-GLW agreement is so modest is that it is a big concession to the ISO and others, who after an initial, flurry of submissions to GLW, have baulked at the prospect of a socialist paper containing real broadness and debate, and retreated to the circle spirit. They have since argued, with none too much logic, both that it is inappropriate for GLW to be transformed into an SA paper, and that the current GLW is too much controlled by the DSP.

Ironically such a stance not only harms the broader movement, but also means the ISO is missing out on getting its specific ideas across: the comrades limp on with a monthly, 12-page Socialist Worker read by hundreds, rather than creatively and courageously seizing the opportunity to have a significant input into a 24-page weekly read by thousands (there’s also nothing stopping them both having such input into an SA weekly and keeping their own public tendency publication). They have every right to make wrong decisions, but it’s unfortunate that they are also muddying the waters through dark hints that there is some undemocratic obstacle to broader involvement in GLW, which makes an SA weekly paper inherently doomed, and it’s also unfortunate that Marcus has uncritically swallowed this factionally-inspired bullshit.

For those interested in the reality behind SA debates, all SA discussion bulletins are available at www.socialist-alliance.org/idbpage.php and the DSP position on SA at www.dsp.org.au/dsp/Congress/The%20DSP-%20and%20SA%2021stCong.htm.
Nick Fredman
Lismore, Australia

Dirty work
The article about the Australian SA by Marcus Larsen is disgraceful. It seems that he is not involved with the alliance, so how did he find out confidential information at the heart of the SA? Well, there are only two plausible sources. Either (1) through Bob Gould; or (2) from the ISO (the Socialist Workers Party’s sister organisation). Bob Gould is a dedicated member of the Labor Party (ALP) and has been polemicising against the far left for many years. His website, Ozleft, is like Harry’s place but without the humour. Gould has been happy to promote factionalism within the SA, and he campaigns to destroy the SA in favour of the ALP (comrades should remember that the ALP invented New Labour before Blairism).

Alternatively perhaps the source is the ISO itself. It is not the place here to discuss the internal debates within the SA, but obviously the International Socialist Tendency does expect its international sister organisation to follow the same path as London, and the Respect rock thrown into the pond of the English SA will have ripples in Australia. So the mischievous and exaggerated rumours from Marcus serve either the interests of the ALP or the SWP. What is clear is that they do not serve the interests of a “Socialist Alliance party” - which is what the CPGB used to say they were in favour of in England. By stirring up factionalism and giving encouragement to those who want to destroy the Australian SA, the CPGB are doing the dirty work of those opposed to left unity - here and in Australia.

I don’t know why you have suddenly discovered an interest in Australia, but you have just intervened (either through foolishness or naivety) in a faction fight in the Australian SA on the side of those who want to destroy the Socialist Alliance. But, hey, comrades - if you get a few more readers for the Weekly Worker, or if you get one more gullible soul to join the CPGB, it will all be worth it, I am sure.
Andy Newman
Socialist Unity Network

Hypocrites
In your rush to indulge in exposé journalism you forgot to mention to your readers that Marcus Larsen is now a member of the Australian Labor Party and has been no where near the Australian SA since his arrival back to these shores. Hardly an irrelevant fact in regard to his POV, don’t you think?

I remember when he was into rah-rah left unity and used it as a stick with which to beat the SWP.

Weekly Worker front page headlines like “Australian Socialist Alliance shows the way” are now all forgotten, as comrade Larsen signs on with Labourism down under. The least he could have done was join the Greens.

What a wanker! And the CPGB - what hypocrites!
Denis Olsen
email

Respect split
Ever since you passed your motion in December, that the CPGB will only call for a vote for working class anti-war candidates in the upcoming general election, I had been waiting for some clarification on what concretely that would mean. I therefore read the report on your recent ‘Communists and alliances’ educational school with great interest.

I now understand why you haven’t as yet concretised what the motion means - you yourselves don’t know! Two very important questions remain unclarified three months after you passed this motion.
Firstly, just exactly what criteria will you use to decide who is a working class candidate? If I read the report correctly, your leadership rejects the idea of presenting a minimum platform and only supporting those candidates who positively accept that platform (presumably something like your motions to the Respect conference). So how instead will you decide who to vote for?

Secondly there is a more general problem. You quite correctly recognise that the Respect project involves a rejection of the need for independent organisation of the working class by the SWP and your motion is designed to “dramatise the need for working class independence”. As I understand it, you aren’t calling for a split in Respect along class lines - between those who are for working class independence and those who are not. So how exactly will you “drive a wedge” between the working class and non-working class forces if you don’t call for working class independence to be put into practice?

How will your election propaganda highlight the importance of this central organising principle of revolutionary politics if it remains purely an abstract idea with no practical consequences when concretely put to the test of dealing with a cross-class alliance like Respect? I await your answers with interest.
John Watson
email

Imperialism
Let us return briefly to Michael Little’s original missive to discern who, exactly, the ‘babbler’ in these pages is. Mr Little stated: “Imperialism, by definition, is the export of capital to foreign countries in order to exploit their markets and labour forces, and occurs when the productive forces of a country have outgrown the boundaries of that country (the national market is saturated)” (Letters, February 24). When the amusing counter-example of the United States - a net importer of capital - is mentioned, Mr Little angrily changes his definition.

I shall not dwell long on the fact, but it is rather surprising that Mr Little’s ‘theory’ of imperialism is so poorly thought out that it is susceptible to the most obvious objection and needs hasty revision. Now, to be an imperialist in Mr Little’s new way of thinking one need only export some capital - one needn’t even be a net exporter, according to our Seattle theorist. But surely this makes a mockery of the second part of Mr Little’s original theory - that imperialism “occurs when the productive forces of a country have outgrown the boundaries of that country (the national market is saturated)”. If the United States’ “national market is saturated”, then why is it a net importer of capital? Perhaps he may like to revise this as well.

Turning now to Mr Little’s new definition of a victim of imperialism, he states: “Imperialist countries are both exporters and importers of capital, for imperialism is a two-way street between imperialist countries. However, for victim countries, imperialism is a one-way street” (Letters, March 10). Thus victims of imperialism cannot be exporters of capital. I am afraid that, much as Mr Little’s earlier thesis was innocent of empirical data, this one is too. Consider that in 2004 Russia was the third largest exporter of capital (7% of total), Saudi Arabia was the third (6%) and the People’s Republic of China was the sixth (5%). Tell us, please, Mr Little. Do you wish to now revise your new thesis also?
Karal Radek
email

Welcome?
Well done on speaking out about the SWP’s craven attitude to George Galloway. The move to the right has been going on for a long time now - ultimately linked to their desperation at finding some kind of electoral foothold. Once the SWP would proudly distribute ‘They’re welcome here’ badges. Not any more, it seems.
Sean Delaney
email

Gleneagles
The build-up to the meeting of the G8 at Gleneagles on July 6-8 has begun in earnest. The three protest networks have all announced some plans, with Make Poverty History calling a demonstration on Saturday July 2, G8 Alternatives calling for a demo on July 6 opposite Gleneagles and Dissent calling an international day of action, including public blockades of the delegates on the Wednesday plus an international day of action against climate change on the Friday. CND Scotland and Trident Ploughshares are also organising a blockade of Faslane on the Monday. For activists, it is clearly going to be a busy week.

As well as the protest networks, the state has also been busy planning, although they are somewhat tight-lipped about specific details. Chief constable John Vine of Tayside has overall responsibility for policing in connection with the event. All police leave, as they say, has been cancelled. There will be a large security cordon around the Gleneagles Hotel. Police from other parts of the UK will be drafted in - Edinburgh University is to be used as a barracks by the Met. Edinburgh sheriff court has been cleared for the first two weeks of July to deal only with G8 cases, with special Saturday sittings arranged. The former RAF Turnhouse in Edinburgh is likely to be used for holding cells.

In addition to the practical arrangements, amendments are being made to Scottish law in time for the summit. The proposed new trespass laws, modelled on the English ‘aggravated trespass’, is the first and, in the name of increased security, it will undermine the traditional right to roam in Scotland.
The official website carries this stark warning to protesters: “Under the law, all public processions in Scotland must apply to the local authority for the area and receive approval. Any local authorities receiving such an application must consult the chief constable for the area. Under the Public Order Act 1986, it is an offence for anyone taking part in a demonstration not to comply with any conditions imposed by the police. Any processions and demonstrations which take place will be policed appropriately. Anyone who breaks the law, whether on a public procession or a demonstration, will be dealt with using the full force of the law.”

The police, never known for overestimating the numbers of radical protesters, have decided that between 100,000 and 200,000 protesters will attend from all over the world, but particularly Europe. This is consistent with gatherings elsewhere in previous years. Previous gatherings have been notorious for the heavy-handedness of the state and the violence of the police. In Seattle protesters were met by ‘robocops’ and there were mass arrests, whilst in Genoa one protester, Carlo Giuliani, was shot dead. The following year in Evian, the police cut the rope from which a protester was hanging, causing serious injuries.

As well as predicting numbers, the Scottish police have clearly been engaged in the black art of propaganda, with press articles warning of “Anarchy at the G8” and containing the by now familiar tales of anarchist training camps and guidebooks. Warning the locals of the degree of disruption (not of course caused by the G8, but by protesters) is another tactic we are familiar with. Blair himself was recently quoted in the press that he did not rule out slapping the new and much contested control orders on anti-G8 protesters.

To try to counter some of this, the G8 Legal Support Group has been formed by people involved in providing legal support at Faslane and the London-based Legal Defence and Monitoring Group, which has provided observers at past May Day and anti- arms fair mobilisations. The G8 Legal Support Group began as a working group of Dissent, but has evolved into a legal support group for the protests as a whole. It has published a booklet on Scottish law for protesters, which is essential reading for anyone planning to attend any of the protests. Currently this is only available to download from our website and only in English, but translations are being prepared and a printed version will be available closer to the date of the summit.

We are also busy recruiting legal observers for the summit. We plan to field a team of legal observers, all volunteers, to attend all of the protests, to monitor the policing of the protests and to try to get witnesses to any arrests. We will also provide support to anyone who is arrested and we will liaise with local solicitors to ensure people get the best possible defence.

To find out more about the G8 Legal Support Group, or to volunteer to be a legal observer, visit our website, www.g8legalsupport.info, or email g8legalsupport@riseup.net.
Tony Martin
G8 Legal Support Group

Unison poll
Prentis - 75%; Bannister - 16.5%; Rogers - 7.5%. Speaks louder than the article! (‘Two vie to replace Prentis’ Weekly Worker January 20).
Roger Bannister
Unison

Undies
So Liz Hoskings is “a pro-life feminist” (Letters, March10).

The reactionary arguments she deploys to defend her anti-abortion stance are politically illiterate and perhaps others can find the energy to take them apart. However, there are comrades who defend the notion that people with variants on such putrid ideas should in theory be allowed to take a full part in meetings to discuss campaigns on abortion simply because of gender (presumably Liz herself would be too busy leafleting abortion clinics with her ‘pro-life’ chums). Male comrades with principled positions of consistent defence of a woman’s right to chose would be automatically excluded (see Weekly Worker September 23 and November 18 of last year for a taste of the controversy).

Clearly, comrades should be included in such campaigns on the basis of what’s in their heads rather than what’s in their undies.
Mark Fischer
London

Dangerous implications
Replying to my review of his book A brief history of 1917: Russia’s year of revolution, Roy Bainton denies that he compared the campaign to eliminate Russia’s propertied classes with Nazi genocide. However, when he writes that a particular Bolshevik policy “had ‘overtones’ of the terrible brutality inflicted upon the Jews by the Nazis when they arrived in Austria”, I find it hard to understand why he is surprised when “terrible brutality” is taken as a reference to the genocide (Letters, March 10). Jews were being killed and sent to concentration camps in 1938, although not yet in the millions. In the same year as the Anschluss the notorious Mauthausen camp was established in Austria.

The genocide of the Nazis did not suddenly appear overnight with the ‘final solution’ in 1942. The roots of Nazi genocide were laid in the 1930s, as Gleichschaltung, the Nuremberg Laws and Kristallnacht all demonstrate. I would argue that the mass deportations, murders and oppression of Jews following the Anschluss marked the beginning of the Nazi state genocide.

I maintain that it is utterly wrong to compare the desperate actions of an embryonic workers’ regime, surrounded by enemies on every front, with the cold, calculated actions of the disgusting Nazi movement. What was implied was far more than “a historical comparison” about “removing someone from their normal occupation”, whether it was what Roy Bainton intended or not.

It is true that he did not “blatantly say” that “Marxism makes too many demands on human nature”. But if he informs us that this has been argued “to great effect”, again he should not be surprised if we assume he agrees with the assertion - especially when he says nothing to counterpose this argument. I apologise if Roy feels I have misrepresented his attitude to Marxism and he actually believes in something different to what appears in the book. My psychic powers must have been turned off when I wrote the review.

As for touching on a “very small percentage of the content” of the book, I plead guilty. As a historical overview of the period it is a workmanlike (albeit not groundbreaking) piece of work - which is why I focused on areas where I disagree with his conclusions.

But don’t worry about that “2am knock”, Roy: your views warrant no more than a 12-month stay in a re-education camp.
Ted North
Sheffield

Keller’s alliance
It might seem that I am butting into what appears to be a private fight. However, the ongoing exchanges between comrades Peter Manson and Simon Keller concern vitally important matters for all socialists and communists.

Should we “support” the resistance in Iraq? Who is acceptable and who is unacceptable as an ally? And, historically, what attitude did Lenin and the Bolsheviks adopt towards Kerensky’s provisional government in 1917 in face of the Kornilov counterrevolution? Did they offer “military support”?

Marxists have no list of who is and who is not an acceptable ally. To further the struggle one can do a deal with the devil himself - as long as we do not start calling the devil an angel and water down or abandon so-called “shibboleths” for the sake of such a temporary alliance. That would be unacceptable.

On Iraq, we should therefore not tie ourselves into knots over who is and who is not an acceptable ally. The main enemy is clear - US-UK imperialism. Defeating that enemy can involve all manner of arrangements, joint actions and passing combinations with the most dubious of forces. Even Ba’athists and islamic fanatics. Those who rule this out ‘on principle’ abandon Marxist politics for the barren obscurity of sectarianism.

Here in Britain we cannot offer “military support” to the Iraqi resistance. Those who insist otherwise are either liars or fools. Writing agitational and propaganda articles and handing out leaflets is not a military act. It is political. Anyway, the claimed distinction between ‘military’ and ‘political’ support is a nonsense from beginning to end. War is the continuation of politics by other, violent, means. It is and can be nothing else.

What we should be doing is tirelessly campaigning for the unconditional withdrawal of British troops. If that coincidentally means giving a boost to one or another islamist movement or Ba’athist group, so be it.

Secondly, on the Bolsheviks. Alliances were a central means of fulfilling their minimum programme. They wanted a strategic alliance with the peasants; they had a party alliance with the Mensheviks from 1906-1912; in the same period they made practical alliances with bourgeois liberals against tsarism in the electoral colleges; they formed a governmental alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries in 1917; and in 1918 they negotiated an alliance with the German imperial high command.

But did they enter into an alliance with the provisional government, as comrade Keller insists (even if he wants to call it a “military” alliance)?

Writing in September 1917, Lenin described the opposition to Kornilov as follows: “An alliance of the Bolsheviks with the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks against the Cadets, against the bourgeoisie, has not been tried; or, to be more precise, such an alliance has been tried on one front only, for five days only, from August 26 to August 31, the period of the Kornilov revolt ...” (‘The Russian Revolution and civil war’, September 29 1917, CW Vol 26, pp35-36).

Is this, as comrade Keller claims, Lenin talking of an “alliance” between the provisional government and the Bolsheviks in opposing Kornilov? I do not believe he has proved his case.

In point of fact I think he confuses, or conflates, the Mensheviks and the SRs with the provisional government. An easy mistake, especially when one considers the political composition of the provisional government. There were no longer any capitalist ministers. Kerensky presided over a cabinet consisting entirely of socialists, but socialist who were pursuing imperialist war aims abroad and pro-capitalist policies at home.

Against this, rank and file Menshevik and SR opinion was moving sharply to the left. Jules Martov and the Menshevik Internationalists would soon win their majority. The SRs actually split into separate and distinct parties.

Throughout this period - April to September 1917 - Lenin argued for the overthrow of the provisional government. That never altered. Not even with the Kornilov revolt. But he simultaneously argued for a soviet government of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and SRs, and a peaceful revolution.

That is what he was still calling for in September 1917. He was not looking back fondly to a five-day alliance between the Bolsheviks and the provisional government in August 1917. There was no such alliance. But there was a fighting alliance between the Bolsheviks and the other socialist parties ... not in defence of the provisional government, but the revolutionary situation and dual power.
A subtle distinction, perhaps. But a real one nonetheless.
Enso White
London

Print this page