Weekly Worker 588 Thursday August 4 2005

Letters

Islamic Party

It appears that there are no limits that the Socialist Workers Party - and its front, Respect - are not prepared to go to in order to gain support among muslims in the UK, even going as far as to link up with representatives of the reactionary Islamic Party of Britain!

Under British law, political parties are required to inform the public of the names of their major donors. A visit to the electoral commission website reveals that almost half of the money donated to Respect came from one man, Dr Mohammed Naseem. Dr Naseem was a Respect candidate in Birmingham at the last general election; he is also a leading figure in the Islamic Party of Britain, a group whose website makes for some very interesting reading.

According to the IPB, islamists were not responsible for the London bombings - “the Jews” did it, through Mossad working in tandem with the Blair government. However, the IPB’s progressive views are not limited to this issue. The ‘Question forum’ section of their site also rules out “intermarriage” between people of different religions, praises the Taliban for establishing “protection for ordinary people” in Afghanistan and advocates the death penalty for public displays of “homosexual lewdness”, which it compares to paedophilia.

That so-called socialists should apparently permit themselves to campaign with money from such a bigot is absolutely appalling! The SWP’s ever increasing affinity with so-called ‘radical’ islamists is taking them in ever more disturbing directions. It also would appear that they have learned nothing from the fate of those who advocated an alliance between the ‘red and the black’ prior to the reactionary islamic seizure of power in Iran in 1979.

I anticipate that Respect candidates at the next general election will be standing on a platform advocating the hanging of homosexuals, the stoning of women for adultery, the imprisonment of atheists and the introduction of sharia law into the British legal system! Any individual or organisation that wishes to see a secular and just society established clearly has nothing in common with Respect.

Leigh Richards
Swansea

Causes

I think the CPGB is spot on when it says that the causes of - ie, what lies behind - the 7/7 and attempted 21/7 bombings cannot be reduced to the question of Iraq (‘Why did they do it?’, July 28).

Social conditions must be the key. As someone put it - and I quote from memory - “It is not social consciousness which determines social being; rather social being that determines social consciousness.”

People do not turn to the fantastic nonsense of jihadi-type organisations on a whim. Nor do they decide to blow themselves up, along with dozens of innocent people, because of British foreign policy.

If Marxism is going to be of any use when trying to understand terrorism carried out by British people against British people, it must get to grips with why so many muslims have become so thoroughly alienated from the political system.

And it is not only muslims. In many poor working class areas quite a number have turned to fascist organisations such as the British National Party - clearly just as crazy and potentially violent as muslims jihadi organisations.

The answer must lie in despair and the failure of the left.

People turn to the fantastic when it seems like the most realistic solution to their feelings of not belonging, their feelings of desperation, their feelings of being utterly powerless to determine their lives.

Ben Harker
Leicester

Desperate

Eddie Ford shares the assumptions of the SWP and Galloway. Unlike Dr Naseem, Respect candidate and muslim leader in Birmingham, who cannot see any evidence of muslim involvement. Neither can I. CCTV footage, passports and driving licences are not evidence at all.

Could Eddie Ford explain to me by what evidence he convicts these men of mass murder? I am “desperate” to hear.

Paul Anderson
email

Black and white

Diane Abbot is quite right to oppose the shoot-to-kill policy of the police (Letters, July 28). However, I believe she is wrong to imagine that the main target is “young non-white men”.

Obviously the police will have their sights on muslims in the first instance … and the fact of the matter is that, while Jean Charles de Menezes might look black to comrade Abbott, in his native Brazil he would not been seen as any such thing. He is white.

In reality, however, all that is beside the point. The real target of the government’s clampdown on democratic rights can only but be the working class movement and the left. No other force is capable of mounting a viable challenge to the existing socio-economic order.

And that is why defence of muslims must go hand in hand with a fight to defend and advance democratic rights.

Carlos Lopes
email

Muslim wife

My wife is a non-UK national and a muslim. She does not hold a British passport. When she was young, she went to school at her local mosque. In her country, the mosque is very important in the day-to-day life of the village. The mosque functions as a place to meet people, a place to look after people and provide support, and also a place where politics and grand debates about national issues take place. The mosque in her village is a bit like the church in an idealised English village. When clerics with beards visited her mosque and did all that shouting and finger-stabbing that they do, she was most unimpressed. For her, the fundamentalist cleric is a no-goer.

These clerics cause trouble and upset the village. They bring disorder with them. Women from the village have gone to Saudi Arabia for work. My wife argues with her relatives why they should not go - because Saudi is a very dangerous place for a woman because they have no rights. One woman from her village was actually killed by the sponsoring Saudi family. Nothing was ever done about it.

My wife also argues with her relatives that sending children to a muslim school is bad because they don’t learn anything useful, as she well knows. Her aunt was thinking of getting a job in Saudi and, believe me, the look in her eyes was one of desperation: desperation to escape the poverty of life in her village and a yearning of just wanting a better life, like we all do.

None of what I am saying is anti-muslim. It reminds me of my dad and his enforced education in methodism in Wales and the local priest who would spit fire and brimstone at him every Sunday and come round to his parents to tell him off if he never showed. When I was young, I went to Sunday school, but only because I got sweets there. The whole religious thing did not take with me. Neither has it to my dad or my wife. The fundamentalist muslim clerics are the right wing in my wife’s country. They are not people to be trusted in any way, shape or form. For some reason, fundamentalists are called radical. I would rather call them mentalists.

I saw a programme on TV this week about the aftermath of the tidal waves in Indonesia. The NGOs and the Indonesian government are a bit slack about the clear-up. So in step the radical islamist groups, who do actually make a difference, in that they clear away the dead bodies. And then a Paisley-like figure (a radical cleric with links to terrorist organisations) goes to the mosque and tells them it’s all their own fault that the waves happened. Terrible.

Socialists in the west have fancy theories and programmes, and endlessly argue with each other. The CPGB does. The Socialist Workers Party does. Respect does. For christ’s sake (bit of irony there) why do we socialists fear calling a spade a spade and saying that islamic fundamentalism is a no-goer? MAB, on its website, had a debate about how best to execute a gay. For me and my wife, MAB is bad. Who do they represent? Obviously not working-class muslims who have the same social pressures as anyone else does.

When I was in the SWP, I used to sell the paper outside a mosque in South Shields. We would sell maybe two or three a week, which was good. Always in my mind though was that we were trying to break the buyers from islam to socialism, not to increase the power of the imams over the devotees. Break from the old traditions, and unite with people just like yourselves - that was the message.

Chris Duke
email

De Leon

Martin Schreader’s article on leftwing populism was timely (‘Populism yesterday and today’, July 28). The fact is that there is no ‘quick fix’ towards socialism, as the SWP would have us believe in its unprincipled and opportunist creation of the reformist and ‘populist’ Respect. Respect’s support of the likes of George Galloway and reactionary muslim clerics only furthers the causes of these individuals, and in the process diverts workers who may be becoming radicalised, from all backgrounds, away from class-consciousness and the realisation of the need for genuine socialism as the answer to exploitation, war and terrorism.

The only way to win workers to socialism, however uphill the task may seem at times, is that practised by the Socialist Labour Party of America and Daniel De Leon, who, as Martin Schreader observes, “sought to engage those workers who were ‘duped’ by the populists’ appeal and win them for socialism ... through a patient explanation of the differences of meaning between socialist and populist demands, even when they sound similar ... [and by] consistent organising of working people in their communities and workplaces.”

It was interesting to see favourable comments about De Leon in the Weekly Worker. De Leon was very influential in the socialist movement in Britain in the early part of the last century, especially in Scotland, but his works and ideas have been very unjustly neglected in recent times.

Readers may like to know that many of his writings can be accessed at www.slp.org.

Jim Plant
Sawbridgeworth

Populism

Martin Schreader’s article was great. Thank you for exposing populism for what it ultimately is - another ploy to dupe workers back into supporting the capitalist system. From a fellow revolutionary communist in the United States.

Phil Davis
email

No claim

Mark Fischer returns to the decision of the registrar of political parties in 1999 to refuse to allow Militant to register as ‘the Socialist Party’ (and the Weekly Worker to register as ‘the Communist Party of Great Britain’), suggesting this was due to bias by certain Labour MPs on a House of Commons committee (‘Fischer defects’, July 28).

This ignores the fact that any committee, judging the matter objectively, would have come to the same conclusion. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has been politically active since 1904 under the name ‘Socialist Party’, as well as ‘Socialist Party of Great Britain’ and ‘SPGB’. For instance, the front page of the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard was headlined “The general election: the manifesto of the Socialist Party”; in 1934 a pamphlet was issued called The Socialist Party: its principles and policy; another in 1938 The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour critics; another in 1950 The Socialist Party and war; etc, etc, etc. The party has also contested nearly every general election since 1945.

Militant (which had only, opportunistically, changed its name to contest the 1992 general election) simply didn’t have a leg to stand on (quite apart, of course, from standing for state capitalism and reforms rather than socialism).You must have realised that you, too, had no case. Anybody with any knowledge of working class politics in Britain could see that you had no claim - historical, programmatic or whatever - to the name ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’.

Nice try and first prize for brazenness!

Adam Buick
email

Solidarity

Peter Tatchell writes about the shocking murder of two gay men in Iran, where homosexuality is regarded as an official crime (Letters, July 28). His letter rightly expressed anger at this and outlined the methods an archaic religious dictatorship employs in its attempts to divide the working class along not just national, but religious and sexual lines.

However, where I feel the letter went wrong is that it appealed to the “international community” to impose trade sanctions on Iran and break off diplomatic relations, along with demands for them to provide support for democratic forces inside Iran. This is something revolutionaries can never rely on the capitalist state of any country to do for the right reasons.

The “international community” is generally no such thing, and instead this term is usually used effectively to describe the Nato countries, with the USA and the leading nations of the EU having the biggest influence among all these. The capitalist class of these nations has little interest in pursuing aims of support for “progressive” forces inside any country if it clashes with its profit motive in any way. Trade sanctions on Iran would be more likely to cause further attacks on already low living standards of the working class, as national capital, forced to rely less and less on foreign trade and investment, attempted to stabilise itself at the expense of the workers.

‘Regime change’, when desirable for the “international community”, is always tied up with economic and strategic interests, not ethical ones, and certainly not progressive ones, as has been made clear in the years of the so-called ‘war on terror’. Instead, it is the duty of communists and workers to provide solidarity, financial and practical support for revolutionary workers in countries like Iran, where the capitalist state sees fit to violently sow division within the working class by dividing it up into supposedly naturally unequal strata (homosexuals, women, national and religious minorities, etc), which is really nothing more than the most blatant attempts to create division and mistrust among working people.

It cannot be the role of any capitalist state, no matter how many democratic and organisational concessions it has been forced to grant under pressure by the working class, to actively pursue a foreign policy that is actively in favour of the working class and therefore communism. The capitalist state is an inherently reactionary organ, and so the role of bold action and practical support falls to the international working class, as opposed to an international grouping of nations. Internationalism is the weapon of the global working class, focused beyond petty national considerations, into a force that can stop capitalism in its tracks and trigger revolution, as was the case with the far-reaching revolutionary wave of 1917 that took the life out of World War I.

It falls to the workers and their revolutionary organisations to provide practical support for class movements (and by that I include all aspects that tie into such a movement, such as those of women and oppressed sexual and racial minorities) and to zealously fight against the encroachments of capital and its attempts to divide the working class along illusionary and backward lines. Unfortunately, no such international organisational framework for such struggles now exists - that is why it is all the more imperative that we build the basis for such an organisation now, and maintain our solidarity with workers of all countries. The ‘Remember Mahmoud and Ayaz’ protest due to take place outside the Iranian embassy on August 11 is a productive example of such solidarity.

The all important step for practical action towards real progressive social change is the formation of communist parties and a Communist International. All those who consider themselves members of the left or of progressive and revolutionary movements would do well to look into helping to make such a step.

Dan Read
email

Spoof

Mark Fischer - what a hoot spoof (‘Fisher defects’, July 28). The Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain condemns itself through its very own statements. Haven’t they learnt anything from history? It appears not.

Steffen Lippert is clearly an idiot. The CPB richly deserves him. He crassly boasts of the CPB’s fraternal links with governments such as China, Vietnam and Cuba. ‘Socialist’ China is, of course, introducing capitalism at such a rate that it is keeping the US economy afloat on cheap commodities. The working class has no political voice and the sons and daughters of the bureaucratic elite are becoming millionaires. As to Vietnam, it is trying to follow suit.

Lippert could also have boasted of his fraternal links with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. This is a red-brown political formation which preaches Russian nationalism, pan-Slavism and peddles its own brand of anti-semitism.

The bible says something along the lines of ‘By their friends you shall know them’. That is certainly the case with Lippert and the CPB.

Steven Henderson
Bristol

Puke

Mark Fischer writes: “In fact, one of my first tasks as a full-timer for the Communist Party of Britain will be to push for us to launch a campaign along these lines. I’m convinced that if only the proletarians of Birmingham had the chance to experience commensurate living standards, working conditions and democratic rights that socialism in China has delivered to the working masses, they would soon be banging down the door of the CPB offices in Croydon. To join, I mean …”

I think I’m going to puke.

Tim van Tinteren
email

SSP and SNLA

My attention has been drawn to Eddie Truman’s comments in the Weekly Worker (‘Truman’s smears’, June 16). Briefly, Truman denies that there is an established Scottish National Liberation Army/SSG presence in the Scottish Socialist Party.

Facts, Eddie: David Dinsmore and Tommy Kelly are SSP members. Both are convicted members of the SNLA - Kelly got 10 years in 1984 and Dinsmore was convicted in 1994. Both were and are close friends and political associates of Adam Busby, the supposed SNLA leader. Other SSG/SNLA members - for example, the SSG’s national organiser - are also SSP members.

Truman states that the SNLA is imaginary or “non-existent”. In fact it has been active for over 20 years and numerous people have been convicted for participation in its activities. At present one is serving a three-year prison sentence, and another is awaiting trial for firearms offences. Still another, Andrew McIntosh, hanged himself in Aberdeen prison in October last.

Is Truman denying any or all of this? He can hardly be unaware of it.

Tom Lee
email

Minimum wage

Looking back at an article that appeared in the Weekly Worker several years ago, I would like to make a contribution to the debate on the minimum wage (‘Fight for what we need’, March 8 2001). With the passage of four years since publication of that article, the figure would certainly need updating. In 2001 we estimated that a household consisting of two adults and two children required £610 per week, and this was the basis of our demand for £300 per adult as a minimum income.

It would of course be possible to simply update the £300 on the basis of inflation, which has been over the last four years about 8%, making a new total of £325. However, this would not take into account changing patterns of expenditure. Further, simple labour is a changing concept. For example 100 years ago you were not required as part of your job to drive a car, run a computer, speak a foreign language, etc. Now 40% of labour (university educated) is certainly going to be able to do all of those.

A change since 2001 concerns mobile phones: they have now become standard for young people, and without them they are socially disadvantaged. Similarly, the cost of maintaining a computer on line is around £20 a month and yet no child can really be brought up to achieve a high level of education without one.

As a result it is clearly more expensive to produce children now. The cost of raising a child who will go on to university, no matter how frugal you are, is not going to be less than £100,000. The cost to the student will be at least £30,000, to be paid back in the future.

But perhaps the most important question is housing. Housing is probably the biggest determinant in the development of children. It certainly closely determines their health and their educational achievement. However, ‘affordable housing’ usually means poor housing.

Previously we had estimated the minimum cost at £100 per week. Actually for the majority of the population, the cost of housing has gone down, with one third of all mortgages having been paid off. However, there is a substantial section of the population, particularly in London and the south-east, that has very great difficulties. A three-bedroomed house might rent at £1,500 per month or cost £300,000 to buy, and it is not difficult to understand why many young couples cannot afford to have children. This is probably why the average age for bearing a first child is now approaching 30 - both are required to work and the current minimum wage for both of them, faced with such housing costs, would not be sufficient to raise a child.

There are other factors that affect the poor particularly. Food prices are considerably more expensive for those on less than £400 per week. Whereas food prices have generally been dropping over the last four years, this has not been the case for those without access to a car who are forced to shop at more expensive local corner shops, and with insufficient space for storage and deep freezers. The poor spend an absolutely greater amount on alcohol and tobacco than the rich - commodities that have definitely not fallen in price.

All we can do is lay out a framework for the approach that, in our opinion, the labour movement and the left should take, and we can say that a £325 minimum wage would be a starting point.

One other consideration: we need a common minimum wage throughout the EU.

Tom May
Guildford

Travellers

We in the Jewish Socialists Group declare our solidarity with the gypsies and travellers of Dale Farm and oppose the decision of Basildon council to evict them from their homes.

If Dale Farm is evicted, a community will be broken up. Access to education and health services will be destroyed. People will either be separated and made to live in conventional housing or, if they stay together, be moved on from site to site, ensuring that children have no schooling and everyone loses essential services. People are not being treated as human beings with proper human rights and dignity.

Jews have much in common with the experience of gypsies and travellers. We are all diaspora peoples, who have historically have not been tied to a particular nation. So our cultures are rich and diverse, as we have absorbed so many influences. On the other hand, we have similar experiences of persecution, scapegoated as alien outsiders, moved on and ghettoised. And the Nazis tried to annihilate us.

We will assist in the monitoring of the human rights of the people of Dale Farm over the coming period when their situation is so precarious and seek the widest possible publicity and public scrutiny of the council’s actions.

Jewish Socialists Group
London

Haw protest

The Campaign Group of Labour MPs sends its congratulations to veteran peace activist Brian Haw on his legal victory, which means that he will be able to remain in Parliament Square.

John McDonnell, chair of the Campaign Group, who has been a vigorous supporter of Haw’s right to protest, tabling early motions and intervening on the floor of the House of Commons along with other Campaign Group members, as well as being a character witness in the trial, comments: “This is a victory for direct democracy. A number of MPs opposed the government’s attempt to stifle the voice of the common man which has been a centuries-old tradition. Well done, Brian.”

Jeremy Corbyn MP, who has been another vociferous defender of Haw and the right to protest in Parliament Square states that: “The only reason the government wanted to silence Brian Haw was because they didn’t like being reminded of their own culpability in going to war in Iraq.”

Campaign Group
London

Print this page