Weekly Worker 633 Thursday July 13 2006 Subscribe to the Weekly Worker

Reports from Marxism meetings

Facing two ways on a woman’s right to choose

Summer Offensive 2006 Heads down We have broken the £10,000 barrier in this, the sixth week of our annual fundraising drive. I now have in hand £10,156 after an extra £2,069 came in from comrades. Particular thanks go to EB for her £250, CR for knocking £400 off his target, £250 from our comrade MM, JB’s £130 and £100 from TG. Also, well done to comrades who staffed stalls at Marxism, raising over £250. At roughly this point in last year’s campaign we actually had over £10,120 in and I was then making slightly squeaky noises to the effect that the campaign needed “urgent attention” over the following seven days. Again this year, I recommend that comrades get their heads down sharpish to make sure that the coming week sees the pace of the SO increase dramatically. Hopefully, I will come across a tad less ‘squeaky’ this year, however. Not only have we a relatively large number of reliable comrades with significant amounts still outstanding - people we are confident will stump up the cash - but there are also a number of projects that we are confident will yield results. We try to use the two months of the Summer Offensive to review the party’s work in the various business enterprises it runs and - if we can - to up their profile and make them more bountiful ‘cash cows’. Not always with runaway success in previous years, it must be said, but 2006 look like being a good one. Well done to all comrades involved in this important area of Party work. (....full article). Click here to download a standing order form - regular income is particular important in order to plan ahead. Even £5/month can help! Send cheques, payable to Weekly Worker, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX Donate online:

Is abortion a non-issue or a democratic gain to be defended?

Active in the abortion rights campaign of the 1970s, GP Wendy Savage was the main speaker at ‘The fight for abortion rights’ session.

She argued that the law needed to be liberalised, not tightened. Women needed to have the right to choose. Abortion must be decriminalised. It is the only medical intervention that attracts a potential prison sentence.

The debate was stage-managed and the chair, Elane Heffernan, made sure there was no real controversy. No criticism of Respect’s appalling record on this question was allowed. Last year the CPGB’s Anne Mc Shane raised this concrete problem in a forum on women’s rights. This time she was not allowed into the debate.

The meeting, by and large, had to be content with personal anecdotes related by a succession of hand-picked speakers. Leading SWPer Candy Udwin was one of the few allowed to make what could at a stretch be called a political intervention: “People in the anti-war movement don’t have a problem with abortion. It’s not muslims that are against it. It’s the cardinals and church leaders who cause the problem.”

So, while muslim speakers in one meeting tell us that this is an issue that needs discussion and even make veiled threats about compromising unity (see p5), the SWP in another meeting say it is a non-issue. The truth is that it does not want a debate. No muslim is invited onto the platform to discuss this question. The muslim role is in reality a very limited one for the SWP - its attitude is patronising and opportunist.

For Muslim Brotherhood

The struggle for democracy in the Middle East’ featured Salah Ayyad from Palestine and Rahab El Mahdi from Egypt. Both talked of the role of islamists in their respective countries.

While comrade Ayyad aimed much of his fire at Israel, of course, he also had a great deal of criticism for the PLO. He talked of the increasing role of Hamas in the liberation struggle, although he regretted its victory in the Palestinian general election. But this did not surprise him, as the PLO had operated a “one-party regime” and behaved dictatorially “like in Iran”.

Comrade El Mahdi, who is clearly close to the SWP’s International Socialist Tendency, put great emphasis on the alliance of “revolutionary socialists”, such as the Centre for Socialist Studies to which she belongs, with the Muslim Brotherhood in a “united front” fighting for democracy against the regime. Even in Egypt it was necessary to “guard against islamophobia”. In fact she even went so far as to say she would rather see an MB government than that of Mubarak.

Peter Manson of the CPGB, speaking from the floor, criticised this approach. While it can be correct to enter into alliances with forces that are at the end of the day reactionary, we should not sow illusions in them. Hamas and the MB are unreliable allies and, even when we make temporary common cause, we should never hold back on our criticisms of them and always be on our guard.

In reply comrade El Mahdi stated: “We do acknowledge we’re different … We’re not shy in exposing their very rightwing positions where we don’t agree.” However, leading SWPers such as Chris Nineham and Guy Taylor did not deal with such tricky questions in their own contributions, preferring to stress the importance of the Cairo conference in the greater scheme of things.

Friend or foe?

The bizarrely entitled ‘Why does the US hate Iran?’ meeting featured the SWP’s Elaheh Rostami Povey and Andrew Murray of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain.

The unstated, but nonetheless unavoidable, conclusion to be drawn from comrade Povey’s thesis was that on balance the islamic republic was comparatively progressive. True, the early 1980s had seen repression on a large scale, but it had also seen a distribution of wealth which favoured the working class. The regime had given priority to workers’ interests, along with those of religious muslim women, she said.

While the west concentrates on Iran’s nuclear power industry, the regime had also developed the motor industry, as well as the production of food and medicine, which were important for the poorest sections of society.

If anything, it was the reform wing of the regime that should be criticised - comrade Povey singled out former president Mohammad Khatami for having introduced neoliberal policies. But in general you could see why the US would ‘hate’ Iran.

Comrade Murray began with his now customary glowing tribute to the SWP, whose judgement and sheer graft is “essential”. He admitted he was sometimes “teased” for saying such things (and some of the comment was “malicious”). But he was happy to quote Ronnie Kasrils of the South African Communist Party, who once told him that only two British organisations had really helped the ANC during the darkest days of apartheid - the CPGB (“the real one”) and the International Socialists. The IS/SWP “understood the centrality of anti-imperialism”, which was “the key to world politics today”.

The main point of note in the substance of his speech was his contrasting of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with that of Iran. Whereas there was “no suggestion of defending Saddam” within the anti-war movement, Iran was rather different. Everyone was agreed on the brutality of the Ba’athists apparently, but when it came to Iran there were many different opinions - which clearly meant that the Stop the War Coalition and Action Iran had to take no position on the nature of the regime if they wanted to keep everyone on board.

Anne Mc Shane was eventually allowed to speak by chair Ghada Razuki. Comrade Mc Shane argued that, while there was no doubt about Bush’s hypocrisy, “we must show ourselves to be the real democrats”. A silence on our part would only give credence to the claims of the imperialists to be the defenders of democracy. We must not only oppose US aggression against Iran, but also stand against the “enormously repressive” Iranian state. It is important that we give “a strong message of solidarity to those in struggle”.

Comrade Murray was dismissive of such a notion: “Our opponent is at home”, not in Iran. He claimed to have been a long-term supporter of the Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People’s Rights (Codir), when others had kept silent on the issue of Iran. However, he added despicably: “Those who have not previously said anything have now joined the US in criticising the Iranian state.”

A clear a statement as you could wish for of the notion that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ - even if previously your latest friend had been regarded as a foe.

‘Muslims and the left today’

The ‘Muslims and the left today’ meeting emphasised what was said to be some sort of classless ‘natural unity’ between muslims and “the left” - ie, the SWP. All four speakers were keen to present a very solid united front on this question.

Abdurahman Jafar, Respect mayoral candidate in Newham, spoke of the “very good and natural working relationship” between the two. He said that this stemmed from “a common view and common objectives”. He argued that islam has historically proved itself to be a motivator for the masses.

Interestingly, the coalition formed in Iran by the left and Khomeini in 1979 was given as an example of the positive potential (although Jafar did not feel it necessary to mention the subsequent slaughter of leftists by the ayatollahs - there has, after all, “always been a very positive correlation between muslims and the left in fighting a common enemy”). His words were echoed by Nahella Ashraf, Respect candidate in Rusholme, Manchester, who related her experiences in the local election.

Anas Altikriti of the Muslim Association of Britain said he did not see much difference between muslims and socialists. Just like the latter, MAB “is waging a war on extremism and for unity with the wider society”. He was pleased that there had been such agreement after the 7/7 bomb attacks in placing the blame firmly on the war in Iraq.

Lindsey German, the only ‘left’ platform speaker, went in hard against Guardian journalists like Deborah Orr. Orr, a former supporter of the Stop the War Coalition, has recently been very critical of the hijab and has argued that women are forced to wear it against their will. Lindsey denied that this was the case and argued that Orr’s attitude betrayed islamophobia.

From the floor Michael Lavalette, SWP member and Respect councillor in Preston, continued in the same vein. Muslims “want freedom and justice - exactly the same values as socialists”. One young Asian man argued: “The left should join the muslims rather than the other way around.” And indeed it almost seemed like his wish was being fulfilled.

The only point of controversy was over a question from the floor about the degree of differences on gay rights and abortion. Jafar said that the left had to be patient - “We are a new migrant community and have never had to deal with such issues.” Both he and Ashraf said there needed to be more discussion on the question. Altikriti, however, was rather less diplomatic: “I am a muslim; you are somebody else. Of course there are differences. If you make it an issue it could compromise our unity.”

Comrade German said, despite the criticism of her infamous “shibboleth” comment at Marxism 2003, she still stood by it. Issues like abortion and gay rights “should not be a precondition for unity”. That is correct when it comes to unity in, say, the anti-war movement. But for her such basic differences of principle should not be an obstacle to party unity - we can, it seems, simply fudge such questions in Respect or ‘forget’ about them altogether.

Comrade German was disparaging about those “who go on about sexual oppression and forget about racial oppression, which is much nastier just now”. In the 1970s, however, she and others had fought hard for abortion rights, she said. The difference, of course, is that then she was prepared to raise arguments about sexual oppression with forces to her right. Now she attacks others who do the same.

‘The fight for gay liberation in the Middle East’

Speaking at ‘The fight for gay liberation in the Middle East’ meeting, the SWP’s Kevin Ovenden argued that backward attitudes towards homosexuality stem from the historical role of colonialism in the region. There had not been such a problem until the 19th century, when reactionary views were imported from Europe.

This rather ignores what it says in the Koran (or, for that matter, the Bible). In truth homosexuality was considered an abomination by both christians and muslims but was very rarely punished in the courts because it offered no threat to the ruling class. The real task should have been to explain why personal behaviour has become a major concern of the state in the capitalist era, whatever religion happens to lurk in the background.

The left needs to emphasise solidarity with the anti-imperialist movement in Afghanistan and Iraq, continued comrade Ovenden, “within which struggles for gay rights can take place”. He was against being too critical on such issues if it would undermine anti-war unity.

There was, inevitably, a lot of criticism of Peter Tatchell of the gay rights group, Outrage, who has become something of a bête noire for the SWP milieu. He was accused of “providing a left cover for imperialism”. Donna Guthrie of Unite said that Tatchell must be “racist” for campaigning against black rap artists who perform music with homophobic lyrics.

'Alienation and contemporary capitalism’

There was a big audience for István Mészáros’s talk, ‘Alienation and contemporary capitalism’. Comrade Mészáros’s conception of alienation starts with capital rather than capitalism. Capital both predates capitalism and will continue to exist after the fall of capitalism. So it is a force that is beyond the control of even capitalists themselves and controls everyone like a law of nature, even though it is just as much a human invention as a cup of tea.

However, István is confident that the working class can defeat capital, though he does not say how on an organisational level. You get the impression that he expects the sheer power of alienation to unleash the anger of the masses and drive them on until communism is achieved. A view that ties in neatly with the SWP’s own economistic spontaneity.

In the first contribution from the floor an SWPer asked comrade Mészáros if his experience of the Hungarian revolution of 1956 had inspired his politics. As part of his answer comrade Mészáros commented: “No one thought it could happen, but it did.”

While the Hungarians went straight to revolution, SWP members who came to the microphone went straight to Respect - quite a contrast to comrade Mészáros’s abstract, theoretical approach. In their attempt to concretise the question, they gave examples of hospital privatisation and other features of Respect campaigns to illustrate why workers are alienated and why they are ready to resist.

Comrade Mészáros’s view - that since the end of the post-war boom capitalism has lost whatever narrow rational basis it had ever had and can now deliver only wars and pollution - seems to contradict the SWP’s belief that fighting for reforms will work.

But Marxism is not the place where such differences are openly aired.

Print this page