Weekly Worker 589 Thursday August 11 2005

Letters

SSP Iago

As I queued up to sign the observers’ register for the December 12 2004 national council of the Scottish Socialist Party, I was approached by the party’s national secretary, Allan Green. Allan asked if I would accompany him outside the hall. Having escorted me outside the room, he led me all the way out of the building, appearing quite anxious to see to it that I had no witnesses. Once he had satisfied himself that we were both well out of earshot, Allan asked if I had seen that morning’s Sunday Herald. I told him I had. And I immediately knew what this was about.

That edition carried a factually erroneous report of the previous (top secret) national council, the one that confirmed Tommy Sheridan’s resignation. This article had patently been lifted from another written by Peter Manson, editor of the Weekly Worker. I knew everyone would assume I was the source for this story, given my long-established relationship with the Weekly Worker, and my having, in the previous fortnight, supplied it with two substantial articles on our party’s crisis. I had already complained to Peter when he first printed the story about the mistakes contained in it, and had made up my mind to do so again later that evening, given that the Sunday Herald’s plagiarising of it would cause me further difficulties. Although Peter does not think the error is important, I beg to differ.

I had put in a considerable amount of effort in the previous few weeks trying to establish a relationship of trust with Tommy Sheridan, the Socialist Worker platform and many others in the party highly critical of the executive. To the extent that these comrades assumed I bore any responsibility for this error, I was having to begin all over again. Thanks a lot, Peter.

The more Peter wrote about the party’s crisis, the more it was obvious (to me, but not to Peter) that no socialist paper could satisfactorily accommodate two such divergent analyses, at least not without some attempt on the part of at least one of us (and preferably both) to address our irreconcilable differences.

Allan told me that he had spoken on the phone that morning to journalists at the Sunday Herald, who had confirmed that the Herald group was using the Weekly Worker as valuable source material (according to Allan, his contact claimed it was their sole source: an obvious exaggeration). I don’t know why this should come as a surprise to Allan, but he told me that, given this ‘revelation’, he was advising me not to contribute to that paper any more, certainly not about the party’s crisis. Far from feeling intimidated, I found Allan’s request rather amusing. Although I had already, for my own reasons, considered not writing for this paper again, I chose not to tell Allan this. On the contrary, I led him to believe the exact opposite.

I reminded Allan that the party’s press secretary, Eddie Truman, had chosen to censor all my posts to the party’s email discussion list, and had taken advantage of this abuse of power to initiate a disgusting smear campaign against me - for what I had written in the Herald letters page, in the Weekly Worker, on the UK Left Network discussion list and spoken on the Lesley Riddoch show. While there is much that I would prefer to argue internally, it is our very own Alistair Campbell who is forcing me to wash all the party’s dirty linen in public.

I forcefully explained to our national secretary that I am happy to defend absolutely everything I have said and written publicly, since all of it is true, and I, unlike almost everyone else, had not descended to unattributed off-the-record briefings, stabbing comrades in the back. Furthermore, I felt that morality was 100% on my side. Appearing utterly dejected, Allan said, “Well, you have been warned”, and walked off.

Alan McCombes promised the BBC’s Glen Campbell that he was preparing to expose a so-called ‘Iago’ in the party’s ranks. If I am an Iago, I am the most incompetent one that has ever lived, as any objective observer must concede. Consider the following: I could have emailed Lesley Riddoch using a false name; I have been offered off-the-record interviews with the press, but have turned them down; I could have written to the Herald letters page using a pen name; I could have submitted material to the UKLN and other far left yahoo groups under anonymous email accounts. But I rejected all these options.

While Shakespeare’s Iago crept around in the shadows, I intend to keep doing whatever I can to draw the attention of the SSP’s rank and file to the strengths and weaknesses of individual members of the party’s leadership. The SSP has, on paper, extremely healthy democratic structures, and, in many respects, a relatively healthy democratic culture. Provided the rank and file are permitted access to the information they need, splits and mass expulsions can be kept at bay. Unfortunately, Eddie Truman, Allan Green and Jo Harvey (editor of Scottish Socialist Voice) appear intent on denying members access to this information.

Tom Delargy
email

Minimum wage

Tom May’s estimation of the necessary minimum wage is a timely one, as it’s an issue somewhat neglected by the left (Letters, August 4). It would seem to me to be a line of argument worth pursuing for the CPGB if it is to develop its infrastructure throughout the country.

Whilst much time is spent on polemicising with our comrades in the Socialist Workers Party, etc is indeed necessary, there is little in the CPGB canon with which to engage the non-communist majority of the country. I would go as far as to say you are positively pessimistic about the prospects of being able to convince anyone that communism isn’t dead. The Summer Offensive has not gone well and despite some progress for the organisation in the last 10 years, it still lacks muscle and continues to have to punch above its weight.

I believe a change in emphasis is called for. The arguments with the SWP, the Trotskyists and the Communist Party of Britain will not be won: they will rankle on for years and maybe even after the revolution still be chewed over in the universities of that bright red future. There is a necessity to engage more with the wider world outside the ghetto - good, well-reasoned arguments about the level of the minimum wage and many of the other issues some comrades deride as ‘economism’ should be brought to bear.

The country is full of people struggling to survive, and if we communists are really champions of the oppressed then we must put aside our Stunningly Heavy Ideological Talk and engage with the world. Karl Marx was voted the No1 philosopher by radio listeners. Now if that doesn’t encourage comrades to agitate, educate and organise, I don’t know what will.

Lenny Trotter
email

Prohibition

Tom May undermines his own case for a higher minimum wage by his argument that “The poor spend an absolutely greater amount on alcohol and tobacco than the rich” and these commodities have “definitely not fallen in price”.

One of the arguments made against increases in benefits is that the poor will only waste it on packets of fags and cans of strong lager. More money in working class pockets equals more health abuse, with the taxpayer having to pick up the NHS bill.

Let the rich smoke and drink themselves to death. But if we are to be decent social human beings, never mind efficient fighters for socialism, then we should not put into our bodies substances which are harmful and even lethal. All of us know comrades who have died prematurely from the effects of smoking and drinking. What a tragic waste of life. Meanwhile the ruling class does well from profits and taxes. The booze and tobacco companies should made to pay for the ill health and death they have caused. They should be prosecuted for conspiracy to cause serious injury and loss of life.

The working class needs higher wages to improve its living standards and level of culture. In the end it needs the abolition of the wages system and commodity production with free access on the basis of socially defined needs. What it does not need is more cancer, heart attacks and violent and anti-social behaviour. Socialists who can quit smoking and drinking should do so as an example to those who have more difficulty. And socialist organisations should agitate against alcohol and tobacco. Nicotine and alcohol are highly addictive and kill more people than heroin, cocaine and amphetamines, things which the working class should shun.

At the founding congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain there was a motion that alcohol should be banned from the Socialist Prohibition Fellowship. This was remitted to the central committee and never heard of again. Perhaps it was time it was revived.

Terry Liddle
South London

Not hated

Mr Manson’s article suffers from a number of factual errors that makes its author rather susceptible to the charge that he knows very little about the situation in Northern Ireland (‘Ireland needs Marxism’, August 4).

He alleges that the “hated” Royal Irish Regiment was the direct replacement of the Ulster Defence Regiment. It wasn’t. The Royal Irish Regiment was formed from the merger of the Royal Irish Rangers (comprised of several of the oldest Irish regiments, including the Royal Irish Fusiliers, which always recruited throughout the entire island of Ireland - not just Ulster) and the UDR. Furthermore, the UDR was not formed to replace the B-specials, as Mr Manson claims. As part of the recommendations of the Hunt report, the B-specials were replaced by the RUC Reserve, not the UDR. The military-style functions of the RUC and the B-specials were to be taken over by the newly formed UDR.

It also might be noted that the Royal Irish Regiment, while hated by supporters of Sinn Féin and the IRA, is certainly not a hated entity to the majority of Northern Ireland’s people, including many catholics, a good number of whom serve in its ranks.

Domhnaill MacCarthaigh
email

Hizb ut-Tahrir

As part of Tony Blair’s authoritarian ‘anti-terrorist’ plans, it is proposed that certain groups be proscribed. Those named are Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation), and its zealous offshoot, al-Muhajiroun - not to mention two grouplets that splintered off from the latter, the Saviour Sect/Party (founded by Abu Uzair, born Sajid Sharif) and al-Ghurabaa (formed by Abu Izzaddeen, born Omar Brooks).

Such an attack on basic democratic rights affects us all - principally, working class, revolutionary and far left groups. If political islamist groups can be prohibited on the grounds that they are ‘treasonous’, then what about communist ones? After all, the CPGB, for instance, is committed to the positive, democratic, overthrow or abolition of the current monarchical system of government - to Tony Blair, Michael Howard or Elizabeth Windsor, that must sound unmistakably like a clarion call to sedition, or ‘treason’. First Hizb ut-Tahrir/al-Muhajiroun, then the CPGB?

However, for a chilling insight into the political-theological cosmology of al Muhajiroun, and why we consider it an enemy of democracy and socialism, it is worth reading an interview that Omar Bakri gave with the magazine, Christianity Today (January 31 2005). In this he informs us: “To understand 9/11, we must go back to tawhid - the exclusive worship of god in every sphere - religious, political, social, etc. Every human action must relate to this. September 11 was undoubtedly an unpleasant moment for its targets or their relatives (muslim and non-muslim), but those committing it acted as a result of the predestined divine decree (although god does give man free will)”.

As for the ethics of suicide bombings, Bakri is quite clear: “Any weapons are legitimate in jihad. Even animals may be used as ‘suicide bombers’! It is not restricted by target - even muslims or children, if used by the enemy as human shields, can be killed.”

In all fairness, Bakri does at one moment say that in his ideal islamic state, non-muslims “will be equal” and “exempt from national service” (although they can volunteer to join the army), paying the jizya (poll-tax) “for security” - and that the jizya “need not be levied with humiliation”. However, it turns out that Bakri’s equality is extremely unequal: “No private schools will be allowed, and there will be an islamically influenced national curriculum. No new churches will be permitted, but existing ones will be allowed. Private consumption of alcohol will be permitted, but not its public sale. All state officials must be muslims, save for the caliph’s assistants to advise him about relations with non-muslim citizens. Muslims could not convert to christianity on pain of execution. Evangelistic campaigns would be forbidden, but people would be free to present christianity on TV, in debates, etc” (www.christianity-today.com/ct/2005/105/22.0.html).

For communists, such ideas are half a totally unrealisable nightmare, half a reactionary threat to encourage another 9/11. However, the only effective way to defeat backward or irrational ideas is through building a viable alternative  to capitalism and combining that with open engagement - not by bans and proscriptions, which will only force muslims, especially alienated, young muslims, further into the ghetto and hence make them more vulnerable to the demagoguery and fantastical sermons of the fundamentalists and fanatics.

Interestingly, this is the very scenario - of young muslims coming into regular contact with democratic and secularist ideas and politics - that so scares Hizb ut-Tahrir. This was made only too apparent on the anti-Iraq war demonstration of February 15 2003, which saw Hizb ut-Tahrir dish out a very wordy leaflet entitled, ‘Marching on February 15 is haram [incompatible with islamic law] and the height of political naivety’. This leaflet was concerned at drawing a strict line of demarcation between muslims and the broader anti-war movement - especially its left wing.

Shuddering with horror, the leaflet quoted - accurately - from past articles in the Weekly Worker, taking special umbrage at a passage which hopes “that a progressive movement will emerge from the contact and dialogue of the muslim brothers and sisters that are coming into contact with socialist and revolutionary literature and ideas” (Weekly Worker November 28 2002).

This led Hizb ut-Tahrir to comment: “The inability to reach a consensus on muslim involvement in the February 15 march is not surprising, given that it is difficult to reconcile the view of the communists that islam is the ‘opium of the masses’ with the view of muslims that islam represents the only ideological alternative to the decadent ideology of capitalism and the defunct ideology of communism.” As comrade Ian Donovan correctly said at the time, what this reveals is that “Hizb ut-Tahrir is less than fully confident of its ability to maintain the hold of its religious views on muslim people drawn into struggle alongside the left” (Weekly Worker March 13 2003).

Eddie Ford
email

Hijab

I was surprised to find that Council of Mosques and Imams chairman Dr Zaki Badawi has advised women to stop wearing the hijab for safety reasons because of fear of attacks from racists. He said: “In the present tense situation, with the rise of attacks on muslims, we advise muslim women who fear being attacked physically or verbally to remove their hijab so as not to be identified by those who are hostile to muslims.”

Surely he should be insisting on women’s right to wear what they want, and demanding that the state protect women from attack. People should not have to give way to racists.

Reading further in the article, however, I began to understand his logic. He was reported as saying that the Koran instructs women to dress in a certain way so that they can be “identified and not molested”. But if that dress itself leads to women being molested, the ruling is that it should not be used.

In other words, men order women to cover up so that they are protected from attacks by sexists. It is not the responsibility of the male sexists to behave properly. So, by the same logic, women should be told to change their dress as a measure to protect themselves from racists.

Both arguments seemed to be based on a deep assumption that women are inferior to men, to be ordered about for the convenience of men, even racists. As communists we should urge women to demand the right to wear, or not to wear, whatever they want.

Zoe Ellwin
email

Anti-islam

Blair is desperate to avoid any personal responsibility for the rising conflict in our society and is denying any debate on the links between our vicious foreign policy and the London bombings. By seeming to blame muslims you are only giving comfort to him. We must say emphatically that islam is not the problem; rather our country’s aggressive designs in the Middle East and central Asia on behalf of corporate greed and our moral superiority are the larger part of the problem.

It is no accident that George Galloway and Dr Naseem are again under attack, because they are part of Respect and the Stop the War Coalition - organisations that present the main peaceful political challenge to Blair; nor that Blair’s new proposed anti-terror laws are to target anyone supporting “terrorism overseas” - for that read support for Palestinian resistance to Sharon’s ethnic cleansing.

You should recognise all this and stop playing the anti-islam card.

David Morgan
email

UAF and Searchlight

The Jewish Socialists’ Group views with alarm the decision, announced in the July issue of Searchlight magazine, to leave Unite Against Fascism. We believe that this will have a debilitating and demoralising effect, just when we should all be uplifted by the fall of the BNP’s only London borough seat in Goresbrook.

The JSG argued for a decade for the kind of unity that UAF appeared to be offering and were one of the first organisations to affiliate to the UAF. At the same time some of our comrades have worked closely with Searchlight in local campaigns. So this is a painful matter for us.

Below we spell out our principles and view on the issues lying behind the split and indicate the dangers that lie ahead if this wound is not healed.

l The JSG nailed its colours to the mast at the conference/rally of the UAF in February when we issued a leaflet arguing that anti-fascist campaigns could only be successful if they were built at a community grassroots level, producing its own material to counter specific poisons that the fascists are spreading around in that locality. We focussed on this question at the conference because it was on this that we most sharply disagreed with the tendency of the UAF to operate like a top-down national campaign with national material. On this question we were more outspoken than Searchlight at the conference. This does not mean, however, that we can be placed in the ‘Searchlight camp’ on all the issues surrounding this split.

l Racism is not the only problem: the fascists attack many sections of society against whom there is entrenched prejudice. The disabled, lesbians and gays, migrants and refugees, gypsies and travellers ... And their ultimate goal is to smash the organised labour movement. Searchlight is certainly correct about this, but the main strength of the UAF conference was precisely in how it gave a voice to these communities. The JSG believe that it is therefore vital not only to challenge racism, but homophobia, sexism, abelism and ageism, defend the rights of gypsies and travellers and so forth.

l However, racism is central: the principle planks of BNP popular agitation are around racism - attacking contemporary immigration as a threat to the well-being of the settled population, attacking historic migration and the resulting multiracial society as a failed experiment responsible for crime and disorder and the corrosion of the ‘British ways of life’ and attacking muslims in particular as taking over in much the way the fascists attacked the Jews in the conspiracy theories earlier in the 20th century.

l We believe that the communities under attack from fascism should have a central and leading role in anti-fascists’ campaigns and movements - this goes beyond simply the notion of ‘black leadership’.

l Fascism cannot be defeated without a movement that can offer an alternative to despair, alienation and problems of people’s everyday material lives. We support the idea that local campaigns should try to develop demands around issues such as housing, facilities for young people, health and so on. But we believe that there are inevitable limits to this in a united front. In our view only a socialist alternative to all the mainstream parties can offer a comprehensive vision. It is unlikely that a broad united front campaign will hold together on such a comprehensive basis at this time. Then there is the question of democracy. This whole division has taken place largely behind closed doors - in a steering committee which is as yet unelected. Activists outside of this hear about the divisions through gossip, innuendo and the occasional bout of public mud-slinging. Perhaps if the movement had had the democratic conference that the JSG suggested, rank and file activists would have been able to debate these questions properly and agree a solid basis for how the movement develops.

In the Searchlight letter of resignation from UAF, Steve Silver suggests that the two will go their own way and do their own thing - he wishes the UAF well. We fear that the reality will be different: that in locality after the locality we shall see rival campaigns. Ironically this is more likely to happen if UAF takes on some of the things that we have been saying about the centrality of local grassroots campaigning. This has already happened in some areas. This is bewildering and disorientating for many activists who do not want to, nor should they have to, choose sides between two local anti-fascist campaigns.

With less than a year to go before the elections of 2006, the movement must get itself together. We need to be united, not at each other’s throats. So we appeal to Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight to urgently come together to discuss the united work, for organisations affiliated to both these organisations to fight for a united anti-fascist movement and for a conference which allows activists and organisations on the front line determine the direction of our movement.

Jewish Socialists’ Group
London

Hiroshima

Your article, ‘Creation of Armageddon’, expresses my view entirely (Weekly Worker August 4). What frightens me is the idea that modern society, which was conceived, born and matured within the folds of sexual conflict, greed and corruption, will drift towards some conclusive form of nuclear destruction. This could even be at the hands of strong idealists who follow the traditions of terrorism.

Melanie Roine
email

Housing bubble

The housing boom is soon to go bust. And the way it will come to an end will affect everyone, even affluent homeowners.

Most people don’t see housing as overblown, just benefiting from strong demand. They don’t see the weakness because overbuilding is absent, at least thus far. Nevertheless, this is a classic bubble. You know that when investors believe there’s no place else to go. The same argument was used for owning ridiculously overpriced shares in the late 1990s.

Like any speculation, the housing bubble feeds on itself. Rising prices encourage new buyers to rush in before they go even higher. And higher prices allow homeowners to use their accumulated equity to buy costlier homes. You can’t blame people for getting into home ownership. This venture is just so damned easy. Cheap money is one factor. Another is that lenders have dramatically lowered their eligibility standards. Down payments for first-time homebuyers now average three percent, down from 20% 30 years ago.

The implosion will start among first-time homebuyers with few other assets. They support the whole housing market through the move-up chain, whose links are tenuous. What will burst the bubble? Don’t look for the usual suspects - interest rate hikes or overbuilding. Look instead for a recessionary dip brought on by wealth losses and P45s, pressuring consumers to retrench. As housing demand dries up, prices will fall and the whole mechanism will work in reverse. Those with big mortgages will see their equity wiped out, forcing them to sell, pushing prices still lower.

Up to now, house appreciation has been offsetting share losses for many people. That helpful phenomenon will then be history. As already-rising delinquency rates go higher, lenders will withdraw. Bankers are reluctant to begin widespread foreclosures, a PR no-no, yet they surely will no longer be as loose with their lending as they are today.

John Smithee
Cambridgeshire

G8 appeal

At the recent G8 protests in Scotland there were some 450 people detained by the police. These are different from arrests, as the police in Scotland have the powers to detain for a set length of time. We know of a number of people who were detained and then released, so the number of arrests is far less that 450. However, we don’t know how much less, as it was difficult to get details. So we are putting a call out for a number of requests.

Were you detained then released without charge? If you were, or you know others who were, it would be really helpful for us to know. Otherwise we will be trying to find witnesses for people who don’t need them. Remember, any information given is handled confidentially and stays solely with the G8 legal team unless you authorise us to pass it on.

Were you arrested? We know of a number of people who are up in court, and we think we have most people, but we want to be certain. Let us know the following: what were you charged with, your name, when you are next in court; when and where were you arrested - please be as accurate as you can. A lot of the time we don’t have the name of the person arrested - only a description. So, if we are to tie these up the following information would be useful: hair colour and length; male/female; what clothes you were wearing when arrested.

We need any film or photos you have. Film or video evidence could help somebody stay out of prison or help with their case in other ways. There were hundreds of cameras and videos around throughout the G8 protests. Now is the time to help others. Please send copies to us at c/o LDMG, BM Box Haven, London WC1N 3XX. We also need your name and a phone number so we can contact you, as you might be needed to be a witness.

Did you witness an arrest? Cases are now coming to court. Without witnesses, innocent defendants could be fined or go to jail. If you haven’t already filled in a witness statement please do so now by going to http://g8legalsupport.info/witness-statements, then email or send us the details.

Legal Defence Monitoring Group
g8legalsupport@riseup.net

Print this page