Letters

Soccer racism

I agree with the broad thrust of Eddie Ford’s piece on Ron Atkinson’s outburst (Weekly Worker April 29).

However, I think he is mistaken in suggesting that racism might be more common on the terraces than in the boardrooms. At Aston Villa (and various other premiership grounds I have visited recently) racist abuse from supporters is rare. This is partly due to black players becoming ever more common and successful (what Arsenal fan is seriously going to racially abuse Thierry Henry?) but also because of the dire retribution that clubs threaten against anyone found guilty of racist abuse.

And therein lies the rub: efforts to rid grounds of racism have become tied up with a general assault on the democratic expression of supporters. For example, there have been constant attempts over the past few years on Aston Villa’s Holte End to make supporters ‘remain seated at all times’, leading to a number of incidents of ejection and clashes with stewards. In fact, all the vast majority of these ‘criminal’ fans want to do is get behind the team.

When ‘anti-racism’ in football is tied up with such anti-democratic nonsense it is not hard to see how utterly counterproductive this whole process is.

Soccer racism
Soccer racism

ESF translation

Tina Becker’s otherwise excellent report of the ESF European preparatory assembly in Istanbul was only marred by its failure to acknowledge the decisions taken in respect of Babels, the international network of interpreters and translators (Weekly Worker April 22).

The Babels network was responsible for bringing over 300 interpreters to the 2002 ESF in Florence at very short notice and for bringing around 1,000 interpreters to last year’s ESF in Paris. Babels expects to bring around 600-700 interpreters to London for this year’s ESF.

Babels organised interpretation for the 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai, and is also working on the Mediterranean Social Forum, due to take place in Barcelona in 2005. Recently, Babels was accepted as a full member of the international council of the WSF and is now working on the next WSF, due to take place in Porto Alegre only three months after this year’s ESF, in January 2005.

Babels asked the Istanbul assembly to agree to six points that would enable it to provide for the interpretation and translation needs of the 2004 ESF; the assembly agreed to Babels’ request. These points are, in summary:

1. Babels will mobilise 100% volunteer interpreters; there should be no discrimination between professional and non-professionals and no use of the commercial sector.

2. The ESF, through Babels, expresses its commitment to language diversity, with a special effort to use interpretation as a tool for the involvement of eastern and central Europe social movements.

3. Babels becomes an officially affiliated member of the 2004 ESF process. This is important, as it means that the ESF has officially recognised the strength of the role that Babels can play in the ESF process.

4. Babels’ volunteers will be reimbursed their food, transport and accommodation costs through the ESF process.

5. Babels should be provided with the financial means to participate actively in the ESF preparation process. This will enable Babels coordinators to attend meetings such as the EPA in Istanbul and the next EPA in Berlin and other meetings that will ensure that language needs are in the forefront of ESF-related discussions.

6. Babels should be involved in the choice of interpretation equipment. We are currently pushing to explore non-commercial, open-source software solutions for the technical aspect of interpretation.

Finally, if any of the readers of the Weekly Worker want to volunteer as an interpreter or translator at the 2004 ESF, they can do so by visiting the Babels website at www.babels.org. Or to find out more about the activities of Babels, please email babels-ukbabels.org.

ESF translation
ESF translation

NUM kettles

Non-miners will have some difficulty perhaps understanding much of Chris Skidmore’s criticism (Letters, April 29) of my recent article on attitudes to ‘the scabs’ (Weekly Worker April 8). They may have as much difficulty with this reply, for which I am sorry, but without writing an ABC of the National Union of Mineworkers internal political struggles I don’t know how I can get around it.

He takes issue with the last paragraph of my article, which refers to a delegate who was removed from office, and who, incidentally, in the process was accused of having scabbed. This then laid those who thought the deselection wrong and motivated by the power struggle within the Yorkshire area open to being slagged off as ‘scab lovers’. It was and is a smokescreen to hide the true issues behind the dispute.

The point about the alleged scab delegate (Mr Cader) was that it wasn’t an issue until he carried a nomination mandate for Jeff Stubbs, a candidate for chair of the Yorkshire area. Mr Stubbs is not one of Arthur’s disciples. Once it was known he would line up ‘with the opposition’, as it were, the ‘scab’ tag was suddenly applied. Had he carried a vote against Jeff Stubbs I have no doubt whatever that the allegation would never have been brought up. I do not know if Mr Cader scabbed or not: what I do know is that he won a branch election to represent the men at Wistow, and they didn’t deem that allegation important enough to debar him or vote him down.

The whole bitter division in the important Yorkshire area has been over who shall occupy the positions of secretary and chairman. This in turn is related the internal political direction the union will move. More than a year ago, when the elections were due, it was quite clear Mr Stubbs would be elected by a majority of the Yorkshire area delegates as chair. The only way to prevent this was to invent a new ‘Area Office branch’, which would host all the hundreds of men claiming compensation but who no longer worked in the industry. This included those who had died, and miners’ widows, together with those who had never worked in the coal industry. The ‘votes’ of these men and women would then be cast, without their knowledge or approval, against Mr Stubbs. This Area Office branch would then outvote many of the miners branches and mandates of the working miners.

We in the opposition refused to allow this to happen and claimed it to be unethical and unlawful. The area officials then summoned the advice of a leading QC as to whether they could use these limited members’ votes in this way. For 12 months nobody would let us see the advice and the elections were put into permanent suspension. It was clear, however, the QC had told the officials they could not proceed in this way. A second QC’s advice was then sought, and again we were not allowed to see his legal opinion and neither was the NEC of the union. After 12 months it was announced that limited members’ votes could not be used.

However, in the intervening period branch representatives oddly were removed from their positions and replaced by individuals who would not be voting for Mr Stubbs. The man who had been doing the area chairman’s job, Kev Malloy, could not also be the delegate from Riccall (his pit), so another official had been standing in for him. This other official had a mandate to vote for Mr Stubbs. One week before the area election Mr Malloy resigns from being chair and reoccupies his position as delegate - he would not be voting for Mr Stubbs.

In the case of Wistow, because of the run-down of that pit, Mr Cader was deployed to work at another colliery, but was still employed at Wistow (most of us have seen a letter written by Wistow management confirming this). Three branch officials used the opportunity to deselect Mr Cader and reappoint the man he had defeated in the previous branch election. This man would not be voting for Mr Stubbs. Incidentally that man didn’t work at the pit either, and neither, so far as I can tell, do the other officials of that branch. So it’s a case of the kettle calling the frying pan.

Finally it only required Kellingly to switch its support from Stubbs, and in the process gain the vice-presidency, to complete the game of musical chairs. Stubbs was defeated.

There is nothing wrong with my memory and in addition I also have the advantage of not having my perception damaged by a thirst for positions in the bureaucracy.

NUM kettles
NUM kettles

Spart hell

Looking through your archives, I enjoyed your ‘Sad but true’ article very much ({I}Weekly Worker{$} April 8 1999). As an ex-Spartacist League member, I no longer subscribe to Workers Hammer or Workers Vanguard purely out of blind terror that I’ll get sucked back into the world of hell I was in when I was with them. I’m sure others can relate.

I really only wanted to email to let you know that the decision to use the word ‘slimy’, which is how the SL/Britain described the CPGB in their polemic, had probably taken them at least three meetings of the entire British section and a long, in-depth conversation with the American section, including numerous emails and a central committee meeting, before they were given the go-ahead.

It’s nice to think they went to so much trouble for that little playground insult, isn’t it?

Spart hell
Spart hell

Respect abortion

It seems that the national executive of Respect cannot bring itself even timidly to object to George Galloway’s clear bid to push for his own reactionary politics on women’s rights.

They do, however, want to hide it. Looking at the Respect website you would never know he had even done an interview with The Independent on Sunday. The website press section contains a long list of articles about issues and individuals connected with Respect. All, it seems, except the one on April 4, where George put forward his opposition to abortion in strong and unambiguous terms.

And speaking to Nick Wrack, chair of Respect, at the London May Day demo, it was clear that he is hoping the whole embarrassing incident will just go away. I asked him what was going to happen to correct the problem and he said we have a conference in the autumn where these things could be resolved. That is, several months after the election which could see George elected to the European parliament with a pro-life position - on a Respect platform. In a parliament with representatives from a significant number of countries with very reactionary legislation on abortion - not least of all Ireland. In Ireland a woman is only permitted to have an abortion if giving birth would result in her certain death.

Presumably George is in agreement with the catholic patriarchs and their allies across Europe that this position should be generalised.

Respect abortion
Respect abortion

Respect tact

In viewing the discussion in the Weekly Worker on Respect and the abortion question, I am reminded of a passage in an article by Trotsky on how socialists can best deal with conservative attitudes among workers influenced by religion or monarchism:

“At a gathering of workers who are monarchists or catholics, I would deal cautiously with the altar and the throne. But in the programme of my party and in all its policies, its relation to religion and monarchy must be formulated with absolute exactness …. But even at a particular meeting, while using all the tact necessary in approaching a given group, one must not forget that among them are workers on different levels and that, while it may be necessary to adapt oneself to the backward ones in the method of exposition, it is impermissible to adapt one’s political position to them” (Writings of Leon Trotsky 1933-34, New York, pp203-4).

I think there is much wisdom in this passage which is still relevant today. The Iraq war has brought into political action a substantial layer of both the pacifist christian CND types and the Asian muslim population. Many of them agree with the far left on the nature of the war and imperialism. It would be criminally irresponsible not to try and engage with this layer politically. And, of course, when it does so, the far left immediately encounters conservative attitudes stemming from their cultural/religious background. Opposition to abortion by the catholic Galloway and some muslims is one such issue. The white far left (and there is no escaping the fact that it is overwhelmingly white) faces a choice. It can either retreat into its Simon-pure telephone box or it can risk getting its hands dirty drawing in the wider anti-war movement to a political alternative. That is, it can attempt to wrestle with the issues inevitably encountered when reaching out to broader forces brought into action by the war.

Some of your readers appear to reject the advice about “dealing cautiously with the altar and the throne” - given, incidentally, by the person who led a successful struggle to rid the Soviet Union of both. Instead of participating in the Respect project and arguing intelligently with its membership, in the course of a joint struggle to build a credible alternative, they prefer to stick out their tongues and pull faces from the sidelines. Instead of seeking to employ “the tact necessary in approaching a given group”, these people resort to ultimatums and denunciations that will persuade no one and build nothing.

Respect tact
Respect tact

Respect MAB

I was astonished and angered to read that some of your supporters were opposed to voting for members of the Muslim Association of Britain who stand as Respect candidates. No such blanket opposition was proposed in the case of non-MAB candidates. It looks to me like a straightforward case of barely-concealed racism.

The CPGB minority should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves: islamophobia is one thing, but this is outrageous. If MAB members stand on the Respect platform they must be treated in exactly the same way as other Respect candidates.

It is actually an incredible development that the majority of the leadership of a British muslim organisation has chosen to openly align itself with the British far left in an election. It opens up all sorts of opportunities to engage Asian militants in political dialogue and thus begin to bring to an end the abysmal lily-white composition of the British far left.

The CPGB minority cannot see the wood for the trees.

Respect MAB
Respect MAB

Lucy absent

So Lucy Anderson doesn’t think that there are any differences between her and most Respect supporters in Camden (Weekly Worker April 29).

In a way it’s hard to find a difference - because no-one has heard a peep out of her on any of the issues which have arisen in Camden since she became a councillor at the last election. There was the campaign against the closure of a local community centre, which led to a former mayor leaving the Labour Party and standing as an independent (she is now a member of Respect); council dirty tricks and libels and an occupation by local people. What did Lucy Anderson have to say? Nothing.

There was the splendid (and successful) campaign against a proposed ‘arm’s-length management organisation’ (ALMO), which the council spent over £500,000 trying to sell to tenants. Did Lucy Anderson speak up in public against the ALMO and in support of the local tenants? Nope.

Then there was the war, of which Lucy is such a committed opponent. Camden has a very active Stop the War Coalition group, which meets regularly. Lucy Anderson has never been to one meeting or activity organised by the anti-war movement in Camden. She didn’t even bother to attend a public meeting against the war at Camden town hall, addressed by Tony Benn, to which she received a personal invitation from the local STWC. Her record of opposition to the war appears to add up to a statement in her election address to members of local Labour Parties who were already vocally against the war. Gosh, I bet that took some guts.

Does she support one of our local MPs, Frank Dobson, in his opposition to the creeping privatisation of the health service? Does she support our other MP, Glenda Jackson, in her call for Blair’s resignation? Your guess is as good as mine.

Call me an old cynic, but a trade union apparatchik who gets elected to the local council, sits there not making any trouble for a year or two and then starts to flash his (or her) ‘leftwing’ conscience in order to win a parliamentary (or GLA) candidature is a familiar sight in Camden. She may well not be yet another carpetbagging careerist, but, if it walks like a duck ...

In contrast to Lucy Anderson, Liz Wheatley, the Respect candidate, is a Unison shop steward, was very active in the campaign against the ALMO and is the convenor of Camden STWC (OK, she’s not perfect, she’s in the Socialist Workers Party). Since you support Respect, why not interview her?

Lucy absent
Lucy absent

Imagined Jesus

Jack Conrad argues that the “real Jesus” was a revolutionary communist and leader of messianic party, suspiciously reminiscent of the kind of sect to which he, Jack Conrad, is ideological guru (Weekly Worker April 22).

JC (Jesus Christ), according to JC (Jack Conrad), was seeking to gain power, in order to institute the “kingdom of god”. He had support from the masses, but failed to get the divine support he expected. Consequently, his bid for assuming the title of king failed.

Jack Conrad doesn’t entertain the possibility, but christianity may not have been a mystified account of a real revolutionary leader, but mystification from the start. An alternative to revolutionary zealotry, in which the promise of resurrection depended equally on charity and turning the other cheek to the oppressor. As such, it never represented any practical threat to the status quo. That messianic and revolutionary ideas were current in 1st century Judea is without doubt. Whereas 19th century writers could only rely on the bible, Josephus and Philo for their evidence, the discovery of texts such as the Dead Sea scrolls and Nag Hammadi manuscripts has added a new depth of understanding to the background of christianity, to which Marxist writers like Kautsky and Engels never had access.

Leaving aside the question of the authenticity of the gospels, does Conrad’s account of the early christians as a revolutionary movement fit the facts? According to Acts, Paul, a ringleader of the nazarenes, is summoned to appear before the Roman governor, Festus, and king Agrippa, to answer charges of spreading religious discord and profaning the temple, brought against him by the high priest and elders. Paul mounts his defence based solely on the doctrine of resurrection. A doctrine opposed by the saducee priesthood which controlled the temple, but believed in by the pharisees (who Paul allegedly trained with). When Paul explains his case to the rulers of the country, king Agrippa says: “This man is doing nothing that deserves death or imprisonment.” It is only because he has appealed to the emperor as a Roman citizen that he is taken under arrest to Rome. Here, he is given a lengthy hearing by the Jews of the city, but gets little support from them.

Disillusioned by this frosty reception, he decides to focus on the Roman gentiles. Clearly his message is not seen as much of a threat by the Roman authorities since, despite being technically ‘under arrest’, he stays on for “two full years at his own expense”, teaching the “facts” about Jesus Christ “quite openly and without hindrance” and proclaiming the “kingdom of god”.

It’s a gross exaggeration to portray christianity as a movement from below, which won over the Roman empire, even if Engels, later in his life misguidedly used such a metaphor to compare its evolution to that of 19th century social democracy. Christianity was persecuted no more severely than any other dissident cult. It never achieved a mass following amongst the poor and christians probably made up no more than two percent of Roman citizens prior to Constantine’s ‘conversion’. Since the proletariat of the Roman empire were incapable of taking power, christianity became the perfect ideology for weak central government as the empire feudalised. The churches and monasteries became a form of social glue holding together a phantom Roman empire, consisting of a patchwork of Romanising tribes, with its own Pontifex Maximus in the form of the Pope.

Only with its adoption as a state religion did christianity gain a mass congregation. Once that happened, real, practical christianity not only persecuted all rival religions, but its own internal heretics, and censored and helped to suppress what was progressive in classical civilisation for a thousand years! Authentic communists ought to be reminding people of this.

Imagined Jesus
Imagined Jesus