Weekly Worker 601 Thursday November 17 2005

Letters

CWI Pakistan

Jim O’Mahony adds some interesting detail regarding the 1992 split of the Militant organisation in Pakistan (Letters, November 10). Perhaps it will help comrades understand why co-working with other socialist groups in relation to the Pakistan earthquake is so hard - despite Ted Crawford’s plea (Weekly Worker October 27).

It is my understanding that the tiny group of Pakistani comrades who remained loyal to Taaffe saw our printing press destroyed by the police rather than hand it to the Grant/Woods majority during the original split. Earlier this year Taaffe’s Committee for a Workers’ International established the Trade Union Rights Campaign Pakistan (TURCP), resulting from its influence in a small trade union involved in the dispute over telecom privatisation. Clearly this was designed to be confused with the Pakistan Trade Union Defence Campaign (PTUDC), set up by marxist.com in 1998.

This was the CWI’s first significant influence in Pakistan for some 10 years and they almost immediately used their website to slag off the role of the PTUDC in the telecom dispute. This was not that long after Tony Saunois from the CWI had written practically a whole pamphlet slagging off marxist.com’s work in Venezuela. This followed not that far behind Taaffe’s own three-chapter ‘reply’ to Ted Grant’s book on the history of British Trotskyism. Taaffe was not happy that the book only really covered up until 1950, and his heyday was consigned to a postscript.

Despite remaining on good terms with a number of Socialist Party members, we find the prospect of working closely with a group which directs so much venom towards us very limited. From our viewpoint we have just got on with the job, and the results are there for people to see on marxist.com and the PTUDC websites.

Ted Crawford may think that Socialist Appeal is a tiny group of “old buffers”. If so he is poorly informed. Many of us may be in our 40s, but we also have younger layers. In a difficult period for everyone on the left in Britain and we have used our resources wisely in the international field. But we have not gone away in Britain either.

Ray McHale
Socialist Appeal

Confusing

While wanting to thank Jim O’Mahony for putting me right on some of the confusing details of the Pakistani Trotskyist left, I am still a wee bit confused and perhaps someone can help me. This is not just idle curiosity - I do really think that the cry of ‘Workers of the world, unite’ is rather important and that any group which claims to take it seriously should look at the divided state of the left in their own country as a preliminary.

Now I recognise that people have genuinely different views and perspectives on the tactics to be used in the struggle, but strategically surely we work within and try to unify the trade union movement, where disunity will invariably and swiftly lead to disaster. Within the unions we can argue for different policies, but we do not split! So I want to ask: is the TURCP a separate union, a campaign outside the trade union movement for its rights (as its name suggests) or possibly a faction within another bigger and broader union? If it is the latter, which one? And if it is the first - the building of a separate union - why the bloody hell? Surely the poor, weak and threatened Pakistani working class movement can do without yet another federation?

A report on the web of the telecommunication workers’ strike by the Struggle group says there are eight different unions for telecommunication workers - ye gods! It is said that the “the APTUF is the largest union in Pakistan” and in that union both the few Lambertists and the few Maoists of the CMPK also work. There may be other tendencies working within this too. That would seem the correct thing to do, unless, of course, like the Grant/Woods International Marxist Tendency, you are working in the large PPP-affiliated union or the PTUDC (these confusing acronyms!).

There may be certain advantages in doing this at the moment and I do not want to be too critical. But how do they all operate in practice? Is it a bit like the French unions, where they compete in the workplace? Or is it more the case that third world, middle class organisers from one or another political tendency appear and organise a workplace (doing their best to keep out all the other buggers)? Or are there slogans like ‘March separately, strike together’ and attempts to link up the different workplaces and unions in joint struggle?

In all this I seek enlightenment. And it is, in my experience, the nitty-gritty of what happens on the ground rather than broad, all-embracing rhetorical statements that can tell us most accurately where this or that tendency and, rather more importantly, the class is going.

Ted Crawford
email

Popular fronts

In denying that Respect can be likened to a popular front, Ian Donovan writes: “I have repeatedly pointed out … that no popular front in history has ever fought for support for armed resistance to its own imperialist ruling class in a colonial war. Nor can one do so, since by its very nature a popular front is a bloc with a wing of that ruling class aimed at heading off radical and potentially revolutionary challenges to the rule of its own bourgeoisie” (Letters, November 10).

It is gross exaggeration to claim that Respect has “fought for support for armed resistance to its own imperialist ruling class in a colonial war”, as comrade Donovan would like to believe. Nowhere will he be able to find a single sentence amongst Respect campaigning material or official public statements that urges support for, or victory to, the Iraqi resistance - or calls for the occupation to be defeated militarily.

Indeed, when in July George Galloway strongly implied just that in a series of interviews and meetings in the Middle East, and was roundly condemned and threatened by the British media and establishment for his pains, the Respect website did not even report the episode, let alone issue the kind of unequivocal statement that resides only in comrade Donovan’s head.

It is true that, if you search hard enough, you will find, buried amongst Respect’s policy documents, the correct observation that “the defeat of the US-led occupation of Iraq is critical”. The document, derived from the 2004 conference resolution proposed by the national council, also states that the resistance, which is “engaged in a battle to liberate the country”, “deserves the support of the international anti-war movement”.

But even here the two halves of the equation are not unambiguously pulled together along the lines of ‘Respect supports the defeat of the occupation by the Iraqi resistance’. This year’s national council motion on Iraq, by the way, omits explicit mention of the need to defeat the occupation or support for the resistance, merely stating that Iraqis have “the right to resist foreign occupation” (motion 21).

When it comes to actual campaigning, such as during the general election, Respect prefers to stress the fact that British troops are being put at risk by Tony Blair and the money would be better spent on the health service. There is no point in alienating patriotic voters, is there? This is totally in line with the Socialist Workers Party’s policy of watering down its own principles in deference to those to its right.

And that, of course, is the very essence of a popular front. Comrade Donovan’s definition is inaccurate - a popular front is not necessarily a “bloc with a wing of [the] ruling class”, since that can hardly be said to be the case with the CPGB’s version of the 1930s, which was an alliance with a smattering of bourgeois elements.

Similarly the Muslim Association of Britain can hardly be described as part of the British ruling class in any meaningful sense, but it is indisputably a bourgeois organisation. Its leaders are capitalists and businessmen and its political positions are unmistakably bourgeois. None of which prevents it opposing the occupation of Iraq and expressing sympathy with sections of the resistance - many of its members are of Iraqi or Arab descent, after all.

Comrade Donovan’s CPGB-phobia seems to be blinding him to the continuing rightward march of the SWP, for which he is acting as a completely uncritical ‘left’ apologist.

Peter Manson
South London

Dishonesty

Ian Donovan states: “Hal Draper … made the point that a struggle against national oppression is a democratic struggle even if it results in an undemocratic government.”

However, Draper goes on to say: “But Marxists see no more reason to give political support - to a government, to a party, or to any other political organisation - in wartime than in peacetime, and do not believe that basic differences in social policy become irrelevant just because policy is to be carried out by arms rather than by ‘normal’ means.

“On the contrary, it is precisely basic (especially class) differences in social policy which may make the difference between victory or defeat in the armed struggle itself … or may determine just what it is that is won and who does the winning, after victory is achieved” (H Draper The ABC of national liberation movements section 3).

Ian claims to support all forces that are genuinely fighting US imperialism, but makes an exception when it comes to Zarqawi - who, despite Ian’s denials, is not only fighting “to foment a sunni-shia conflict”; he is also fighting, as part of his islamist agenda, “to expel the imperialists”. In other words, he is striving, along with a range of other islamists, “to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc”. Which is why Lenin advises us to “combat”, not support, “pan-islamism and similar trends” (‘Preliminary draft thesis on national and colonial questions’, June 5 1920).

However, Ian has rejected Lenin’s advice as irrelevant and so, to be consistent, should support those actions of Zarqawi (there are many of them) that directly target the imperialists, while condemning his acts of terrorism aimed at civilians. Why is it only in Zarqawi’s case that Ian withholds support from reactionary anti-occupation forces whose actions “can only help imperialism to maintain its control”?

Despite his dishonesty in ‘overlooking’ Zarqawi’s anti-imperialist side, Ian is correct to refuse support - he is a reactionary bastard who must be defeated. You cannot avoid having preferences as to how the imperialists are defeated, because who wins decides what comes next. We need to fight for the most democratic, secular outcome possible - which simultaneously provides the best possibility to defeat imperialism.

I think it is probable that the American-British forces will be pushed out of Iraq with egg on their faces, but if they leave behind a Balkanised Iraq split along religious and ethnic lines it will not be long before they are back as arbitrators. It is only a secular, democratic victory that can ensure this doesn’t happen.

Phil Kent
Haringey

Working time

I am pleasantly surprised by your advocacy of the measure, “For annual parliaments with instantly recallable deputies” (Weekly Worker November 10).

That’s something concrete, revolutionary, progressive and realistic - a combination we seldom find on the left. I wonder could you add to that the reduction of working time to four hours (more practical than six hours, which is a frightened half measure, unfortunately dominant at present). You would maybe be the first to support such a revolutionary, but like the above one fundamental, concrete and realistic measure.

On Donovan, I appreciate his persistence and critical attitude, as well as the editor’s respect for freedom of speech, but the subject he has chosen I find totally unattractive. Why can’t he pick up something that really concerns working people like working time reduction, etc?

PCF advances

Oh dear - another thinly disguised attack on the Parti Communiste Français from a so-called communist (‘State of emergency against youth revolt’, November 10). Here are some questions your correspondent may wish to actually look at - but probably not, as he seems devoid of any desire to actually understand the situation.

What was Jacky Hénin’s position on the Sangatte centre, and what exactly were the events that led up to intense police action in Calais? Secondly, exactly why were the Haki - Algerians who sided with the French against the FLN - dumped in predominantly communist-controlled areas? Did the communist authorities receive any extra resources to deal with this wave of rightwing, poor immigrants? Who is responsible for the massive cuts in funding to the cités in the last three years? Who called in the CRS? Which authorities have refused to use the curfew powers Sarkozy has rushed through? Which region has spoken out most strongly against them? Questions a journalist might want to ask, but yours clearly either doesn’t know or chooses not to reveal, because it opens some rather difficult questions for an anti-communist to deal with.

And, yes, we communists have suffered major setbacks in the last 30 years but at the same time in my little area, the Aude, we have just passed our thousandth member - back to our 1980 level. Our vote is on average 15%, we have rewon leading positions at a village, town, departmental and regional level and we have convinced the local Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire to disband and join us. Our last public meeting on saving rural post offices had over 700 people.

Our cadre in the CGT Cheminots are leading the fight for defending the railways, our cadre in EDF are leading the fight against privatisation, our cadre in La Poste have built community campaigns to save rural post offices, and our cadre in the CGT are leading the fight for union rights in the retail sector. We built the coalition for the ‘no’ vote and organised 40 public meetings at a town, village and workplace level, attended by nearly 8,000 people in all. We collected 20,000 signatures against the European constitution - all not bad in a department of only 298,712 people.

I am sure that this compares very badly with a vibrant party such as the CPGB and I look forward to seeing your 20 MPs, your MEPs, your local councillors, your leading positions in the trade union movement, the peace movement, the anti-globalisation movement, and the student movement in the very near future.

Pete Shield
Aude, France

SSP and unions

I apologise to Ian Woodland for assuming he was in the Labour Party: his spirited defence of Graham Bash and Labour Left Briefing clearly misled me.

As to what members of the RMT and the FBU are doing politically now, well, I can tell him about Scotland. There the RMT are well integrated in the Scottish Socialist Party, send delegations to our conferences, move resolutions and plan joint campaigns to defend their members’ jobs and conditions. The FBU in Scotland are now considering affiliation to the SSP and the Edinburgh branch of the CWU has already affiliated. I understand it is more difficult in England with a more fragmented left - I have some experience in trying to unite it! However, I believe the RMT and parts of the FBU have given support to Respect, as have other trade unionists.

I also agree with Ian that the working class struggle is much wider than elections and certainly agree that people shouldn’t waste their time stuffing Labour election leaflets through the door. But elections remain an important arena where we can get socialist ideas over and the fact that the SSP won six seats in the Scottish parliament was important for the left in Scotland. With the advent of PR for local government elections, the SSP are likely to win socialist councillors across Scotland at the next council elections. This will be an important part of rooting ourselves in working class communities.

Of course again it is more difficult in England, since you don’t have democracy - maybe the left ought to give a higher priority to electoral reform.

Hugh Kerr
email

Repudiation

Bob Purdie was to my recollection one of the most knowledgeable and principled members of the International Marxist Group, whose views on the war and resistance in Ireland were highly influential within his organisation and the movement at large. So it came as rather a sad surprise to find that he repudiates the support for the republican movement which he offered so publicly, and in my view correctly, in the 70s (Letters, November 10).

Perhaps Bob might give us an insight into what has changed his view of where he and many of us stood in those days? Maybe I am missing something.

Dave Douglass
Doncaster

Laughing

Matthew McLean’s claim that capitalism is “terrified” of Marxist ideas managed to inject some humour into an otherwise serious letters page (Weekly Worker January 20). At least I assume he intended this claim to be a kind of joke?

The truth is that capitalists (and social democrats) are laughing. Marxism is currently about as terrifying as a dead parrot! How serious a challenge is even presented by ‘official’ communist regimes like (starving) North Korea, or Cuba (nice health service, shame about the ‘democracy’)? At least the US blockade of Cuba lets communists believe the Cuban economy would be otherwise successful (yeah, right!).

Capitalists like George Bush really must enjoy sleepless nights over the threat of Marxism! Tony Blair no doubt quakes at the thought of Respect’s one MP!

Personally, I’ll keep reading my Oliver James and Polly Toynbee. The only real game in town is social democracy with ‘human characteristics’. If we want a viable model of society, let’s look at the ‘actually existing’ social democracy of the Nordic countries.

Terrified of Marxism? No, just of wasting time.

Graeme Kemp
email

Climate change

Tina Becker writes: “By putting forward, and fighting for, a minimum programme of demands that could be realised under capitalism, we prepare the working class to become the hegemon of society” (Letters, November 10).

This is perfectly correct. However, Tina dismisses the Campaign Against Climate Change and the December 3 demonstration. She needs to get her facts correct: the campaign is not SWP-inspired - it was set up by an independent who has been organising these demonstrations for a number of years. It has to be admitted the title of the campaign is stupid, but this is immaterial to its demand to bring non-signatories into the Kyoto protocol. There is no reason why this cannot be a minimum programme demand. We are talking about the future of humanity.

Tina Becker also writes that it is difficult to make assumptions. As with any science, there is a margin of error. Nature is chaotic in general, so to pick out future predictions regarding climate change as requiring special treatment is nonsense. Models can be built and past events can be compared to current events. Humanity is not 100% culpable for climate change, but, as our understanding of our dialectical relationship and metabolic interaction with nature increases, we have a responsibility collectively to ameliorate the most pernicious effects that cause climate change.

Gavin Anderson
London

Perverse ruling

The tribunal ruling to the effect that Sean Grady was wrongly dismissed from his post as Aslef general secretary was unexpected and will cause some difficulty. The ruling is perverse in the extreme and seems to lend credibility to the arguments that Aslef has been subjected to a major conspiracy in order to destabilise it, emanating from New Labour. The chair of the tribunal is a former legal officer of Nalgo who lost her lucrative job when Nalgo became Unison. She has built up a reputation for hostility towards trade unions.

As all trade union reps know, a ‘wrongful dismissal’ ruling does not mean Aslef have to give Brady his ‘job’ back. It just means that the scumbag could get more money (Aslef are considering their position and could appeal). But the ruling is a major interference in the democratic running of a trade union. The position of general secretary is an elected one and is not the same as a ‘normal’ employed position, so the ruling attacks the very basis of the union’s accountability.

Brady was ‘sacked’ due to a number of ‘offences’, not least the unauthorised spending of large amounts of members’ money on commissioning Blagborough to report on the union’s finances without the necessary authority of the EC and contrary to rule. He also used his union credit card for unauthorised purchases. Bringing the union into ‘disrepute’ at the barbecue was a bit of a side show that the press went to town on.

Brady was disciplined under the union rules after the EC had tried to get a working relationship with him. Brady had no intention of doing this, as he came to head office with an agenda of confrontation. It must not be forgotten that he threatened head office staff, who had balloted for industrial action, with the sack and the recruitment of a scab workforce.

Aslef has now moved on from this malevolent presence and has democratically elected a new general secretary. EC elections have taken place in a number of districts, not least district no1, which was Brady’s power base. The incumbent, Graham Walker, was defeated by Simon Weller from Brighton, a well known leftwinger and implacable opponent of Brady.

Aslef members are not going to let Brady back at any price.

Don Quinn
Preston

Respect plague

Is it possible that Dave Craig will write an article without resorting to sophistry? There are some statements contained in his November 3 article that he knows not to be true. Here are some corrections.

Firstly, the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform was liquidated without the knowledge of most of its members - and by a simple majority, not the two-thirds majority demanded by the constitution.

Secondly, the Democratic Socialist Alliance is in favour of a democratic republic, socialism and internationalism. But, unlike the Revolutionary Democratic Group, the DSA does not place an equals sign between republicanism and socialism. Nor does the DSA place an equals sign between socialism and ecologism.

Finally the DSA is committed to fighting for independent working class politics. The DSA is keen to work with other organisations and individuals who share the same or similar political goals.

But the populist Respect party is dominated by the SWP, which has a history of sectarianism and has often been infiltrated by MI5 and fascists. Therefore it is dangerous to urge membership of Respect. Revolutionary socialists and communists can do much worse than trying to avoid Respect like the plague.

Phil Maguire
Wolverhampton

Print this page