Weekly Worker 583 Thursday June 30 2005

Letters

Dutch ‘no’

In the Weekly Worker I received during the Paris conference on June 23-24, it is stated: “Dutch opposition to the constitution has, for the most part, been based on the sort of nationalist hostility to the European Union bureaucracy that is dominant in Britain - the EU being blamed by the chauvinist right for preventing the Netherlands exercising full control over the number of migrants it takes and for demanding too much in terms of the Dutch contribution to the EU budget” (June 2).

I don’t think this is an adequate analysis of the Dutch ‘no’. Of course, all sorts of motives, intermixed with each other, played a role in the victory: widely shared aversion to government policy, and to politicians in general; opposition to constant interference from Brussels; fear of loss of national identity; christian and nationalist motives; and intense irritation at the arrogance of the ‘yes’ camp. It is difficult to judge which elements were decisive and which ‘no’ won. It is clear in any event that Wilders and his anti-Turkish, anti-muslim campaign did not play a predominant role. There is also a quite broad consensus that this was not an anti-European campaign, but rather a campaign against the way the existing Europe functions. In general the outcome can be interpreted as an unambiguous rejection of the neoliberal project - and the left in particular made its mark on the campaign.

A fair picture can be gained from a survey taken barely a week after the vote. The survey showed that a week later the ‘no’ majority would have been even bigger, at 64%. The shift in support for the different political parties in the campaign’s wake gives a pretty good picture of its impact. The big loser is apparently not the right, but Labour, which declined in the polls from the equivalent of 50 MPs before the campaign to 41 now. Today 70% of Labour voters would vote against the constitution. The biggest winner is the SP (a leftwing party that campaigned for ‘no’), rising in the polls from 13 to a projected 21 seats.

For a broader analysis of the results see our ‘no’ campaign’s website at www.grondwetnee.org.

Willem Bos
Comité Grondwet Nee

Bolivia

Eddie Ford’s articles on Bolivia are useful (‘For a South American continental federation’, June 16). But support for a constituent assembly in 150 days will divert the powerful vanguard of the workers and peasants from their struggle for a workers’ and peasants’ government.

Dave Brown
Internationalist Trotskyist Fraction-Fourth International

Anti-semitism

Is the Socialist Workers Party an apologist for racism? Their statement defending the invitation to Gilad Atzmon to speak at Bookmarks on Friday June 17 was self-serving and hypocritical. No admission of anything wrong, no acceptance that in hindsight it might have all been handled differently. Instead there is a parody of what happened.

They do not even refer to the picket of Bookmarks at which some 30-35 people picketed the shop in protest at the invitation - “One or two small groups are claiming that Gilad is an anti-semite and holocaust denier.”

It is not merely “One or two small groups”, but a large number of individuals, many of them Jewish; the picket was called by Jews Against Zionism. We did not claim that Atzmon is a holocaust denier, though his relationship with Paul Eisen, a holocaust denier, is very close. In particular Gilad Atzmon has distributed Eisen’s Holocaust wars, which is a full-blooded exposition of holocaust denial material and a tribute to notorious neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel. Atzmon says he has only “slight differences” with Eisen’s article.

The only group the SWP has mentioned has been the pro-Zionist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. We made it quite clear that we want nothing to do with the AWL, who are equally incapable of distinguishing between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. We did claim that Atzmon is anti-semitic. Do the leaders of the SWP not consider the following quotes - from Atzmon’s article ‘On anti-semitism’, which can be found on his website - to be an anti-semitic and deeply reactionary outline of the world Jewish conspiracy theory?

“We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously ... They [Zionists] are especially annoyed when they are blamed for the death of Jesus ... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the Protocols of the elder of Zion are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew.”

Atzmon is a great jazz player, but this is hardly relevant. Nor is his self-exile in Britain. No one doubts that Atzmon is supportive of the Palestinians: the problem is the way he has chosen to express that support politically. The fact that the SWP has a fine record of fighting fascism and racism and that its founder, Tony Cliff, was Jewish is also irrelevant. We are not accusing the SWP of anti-semitism, but of opportunism and turning a blind eye to anti-semitic statements. Nor have we made a demand for Atzmon to be “no platformed”. We are not quite as unsubtle as the SWP is making out. We do not believe he is a fascist. What we demanded was that a socialist organisation should not offer him a platform. That is something quite different.

Atzmon is part of a group of people who, repelled by Israel’s racist treatment of the Palestinians, have unfortunately reacted to the traditional accusation that those who oppose Zionism and support the Palestinians are anti-semitic by saying, yes, if that is the case we are anti-semitic. This is a wrong-headed and deeply troubling response, which cannot build the solidarity movement, nor contribute to the struggle for Palestinian rights. Rather, it reinforces Israel’s propaganda claims.

Atzmon is closely linked to the figure of Israel Shamir, who he has described as a “unique and advanced thinker”. Shamir is deeply anti-semitic and racist, and openly works with fascists and neo-Nazis. Shamir’s website carries his own articles, such as one defending the medieval christian blood libel. It also carries Eisen’s holocaust denial article and Atzmon’s attack on Jewish anti-Zionists, ‘The protocols of the elders of London’.

We would expect the SWP to be in the forefront of those demanding that anti-semites and their supporters be marginalised within or excluded from the Palestine solidarity movement. Instead, they have managed to end up as apologists for them. Putting out a self-serving statement that obscures more than it reveals is dishonest and does not move the issue on at all. Atzmon’s response to the statement says it all: “I would like as well to thank the SWP for their support all the way through.” The SWP needs to engage in some open and honest critical self-examination. The SWP central committee are fooling themselves, and their membership, if they think their statement will deceive anyone.

Roland Rance
Jews Against Zionism

SP and Respect

George Galloway’s recent visit to Sheffield threw up a number of questions with regard to the Socialist Party’s non-membership of Respect and its stubborn refusal to do anything but remain outside and grumble.

One CPGB comrade asked the SP members in front of us why they remained outside the formation: “Because we’re socialists,” came the response from the regional organiser. Outside, another SP member expressed his legitimate concern with Respect’s reactionary elements. As a gay man, he said, why should he be part of an organisation that does not explicitly defend gay rights, and contains within it and around it elements that would curtail them? Good point, comrade, but missing the point at the same time.

Respect is certainly a product of class antagonism; it is orientated towards the working class, has a working class base and acts ostensibly on its behalf. Of course it’s messy, but as revolutionaries we must get our hands dirty, and in every manifestation of the class struggle, whether it is our creation or not, and regardless of the political hue it camouflages itself with.

George is right, as are the SWP: Respect is going places. This is why the SP’s abstention has become more and more ridiculous. I say get in there and guide its trajectory. It does not mean subordinating your own agenda to George and his cadaverous SWP minions, or ‘losing your politics’ to John Rees. Where the SWP say ‘broad’, they mean politically vacuous, and ultimately pointless. Ultimately, a revolutionary party has to be ‘broad’; but this doesn’t involve compromising politics.

Carey Davies
Sheffield

USP egos

Martin Ralph is scurrilous and dishonest in his reply to Alan Stevens (Weekly Worker June 16). Martin writes that over the course of several meetings our “democratic behaviour” shocked other United Socialist Party members. In any organisation, party or group, differences come to the fore and things can get heated!

We fought for democracy from day one. We expressed our position as to what type of a party we believed could and would fill the vacuum of leadership of the working class: a broad, pluralist party, giving platform rights to any group that joined the USP. We couldn’t get the debate - the dockers just did not want that type of party, so we were forced to try and get amendments to the constitution to force the issue onto the table.

Just before the meeting in question was called to order, the secretary, Eric McIntosh, told Iain Hunter, who had given up his job to work full-time as USP organiser, to withdraw his amendments or leave the party. This wasn’t the first time Eric McIntosh had given us this sort of ultimatum: at an executive he warned us to “get some results for the party or leave the exec”.

Martin denies that the meeting was stacked against us, yet members turned up who hadn’t attended anything for months - possibly since the very first meetings of the USP. Jimmy Nolan stood down as chair in order to vote for the disputed motion. Despite our “egotistical contributions”, as Martin puts it, we took nine members with us on the vote, which was 13-13!

I particularly take deep offence at the assertion by Martin Ralph that our group attacked the dockers or their accumulated bitter experience and struggle that moulded the relationship among them, their families and the communities in which they lived. I am the daughter, the sister, the sister-in-law and the ex-wife of a docker!

Jimmy Hackett comes from a dockers’ family. John Kennedy has lived all his life in the docklands of Liverpool. Jimmy is one of the surcharged 47 councillors, and John was adopted as the 48th because of the work he did as a fundraiser. Through his tireless work over a number of years he raised over £250,000, of which £48,000 was donated to the dockers’ hardship fund.

By contrast Martin Ralph is a lecturer at Liverpool Uni. I believe he had a one-day strike earlier this year! What does Martin know about bitter struggles, hardship and the effects of prolonged strikes on families and communities?

Martin goes on to give us all a lesson on how to build the ‘international revolutionary party’. Martin is a leader of the Liverpool branch of the International Socialist League. Since it was launched 18 years ago it has managed to keep a steady three members - enough to fill a hackney cab. “Egotistical” or what!

As previously explained, we wanted a party on the same lines as the Scottish Socialist Party, which has six MSPs and thousands of supporters and members. We were not going to hang around for another 12 months, as we had come to the conclusion that the USP, without the ABCs of democracy, was dead in the water. Therefore we resigned.

Phyllis Starkey
Liverpool

Abortion facts

Perhaps Louise Whittle would first like to check her facts before she complains that the US government withdraws funds from organisations that provide abortions (Letters, June 23). The organisation in question was the UNFPA, who were found to be involved not only in human rights abuses in China but also forcible sterilisation in Peru. This is not reproductive freedom, let alone “choice”.

I would also suggest she checks out what is involved in late-term abortions if she thinks they are somehow liberating for women. They are no more liberating for women than the torture of animals is liberating for humankind as a whole. Indeed I despise cruelty. I despise it even more when it is defended in the name of ‘women’s rights’. Besides which, late abortions are as much of a degradation to the women involved as they are to the foetus. They carry all kinds of health risks and, as Germaine Greer points out, it is not only bad medicine but also anti-feminist to insist they be carried out.

If Ms Whittle cares so much about “choice” (her favourite buzzword), I suggest she starts working to give us real ones, rather than campaigning for a so called ‘right’ not many of us actually want.

Liz Hoskings
email

Police demands

On June 20 Bristol Indymedia (IMC Bristol) received an email from the police asking to contact them with reference to a posting on the IMC Bristol newswire. On June 21, the police contacted an IMC Bristol volunteer asking for IP logs.

The subject of the police enquiry was a posting claiming that damage had been done to either some cars on a train transport, the transport itself or the railway line. Bristol Indymedia volunteers hid the post (originally posted late in the evening of June 17) from their main newswire within 24 hours of it being posted - as it violated IMC Bristol editorial policy - and well before the police made initial contact.

When the solicitor contacted CID on the 21st to inform them that they could not have the server, or access to it, the police said that they could go through data protection and legal moves to get the logs or get a search warrant, and that they may arrest somebody for obstructing the course of justice.

At this point, an IMC Bristol volunteer informed IMC UK about the events. IMC Bristol then contacted Liberty, whose legal adviser contacted the police to press them on the issue that this server was considered an item of journalistic equipment and so subject to special provision under the law. The police have yet to confirm this.

Bristol Indymedia is an independent news service. As part of our policy, we will not make non-public information we hold publicly available. We do not permanently store IP addresses. We do not intend to voluntarily hand over information to the police as they have requested, and have informed them of this.

Indymedia
Bristol

Turkey massacre

On Thursday June 16, a group of important leaders of the Maoist Communist Party (Turkey and North Kurdistan) and leading fighters in the revolutionary armed forces under its command, the People’s Liberation Army, were ambushed by the Turkish armed forces and massacred.

The revolutionaries were in the area of Dersim on their way to an important meeting and stopped late at night, around 11pm, when three Sikorsky helicopters appeared and unleashed a merciless hail of machine-gun fire on their positions. Seventeen revolutionaries lost their lives.

The Turkish media headlined news of the massacre for three days, with the rightwing press crowing that this undoubtedly had inflicted a “death blow” on the Maoists. The national daily paper Milliyet prophesised that “the Maoists have been finished with a single blow”.

The MKP Abroad Organising Committee issued a statement declaring: “We recognise this is a heavy blow. But such things arise in the course of the class struggle. Based on our scientific ideology and on our roots among the oppressed, we will recover from this blow and plant the red flag on the highest peaks of people’s power.”

Solidarity Committee
email

Iran

I think the problem of Iranian election is not lack of democracy, candidates’ policies or elimination of 1,000 candidates (‘Thousand candidates barred by theocrats’, June 23). The problem is that in this election, like any other election in the world, the false idea is propagated that a better boss solves all the workers’ problems. This wishful thinking is another form of faking left.

Behrooz Saadat
email

Print this page