WeeklyWorker

Letters

Build Left Unity

As a delegate to the Left Unity national coordinating group, I read Dave Isaacson’s and Michael Copestake’s report of the June 15 meeting with interest (‘Policy put on hold’, June 20). Though not without problems, the meeting was, as they say, largely positive, with members keen to ensure LU is democratic and transparent from the beginning. Importantly, the NCG showed a preparedness to assert local groups’ rights in shaping LU politics. All this is welcome and almost certainly a framework from which we can build.

That said, while I don’t necessarily take issue with anything they contest, it’s equally important to note the mistrust that continues to exist towards organisations like the Socialist Workers Party. Regrettably the authors don’t mention this (granted, they accept their report is only a summary). Despite claiming to support LU, the SWP is currently instigating an effective national boycott. Yet for many, questions remain, with the fear being that an influx of SWP members would destabilise the initiative, with LU being treated as little more than another recruitment pool.

This much became apparent when Chris Strafford (Manchester Central LU and Anti-Capitalist Initiative) proposed inviting left organisations to participate in the policy commissions as observers. Undoubtedly this might have been because of a misunderstanding on the part of some as to what it would practically mean, but the proposal did cause controversy, with some speakers suggesting it would ensure LU was either wrecked or taken over.

Of course, this isn’t to discredit LU. As a local ‘coordinator’, I’m supportive of the project and believe it necessary to build a multi-tendency workers’ party based on class struggle. Yet how we tackle such fears is something we must challenge politically, but also with care. Across Britain, there are hundreds - perhaps thousands - that have involved themselves with previous unity initiatives and drawn conclusions that organisations like the SWP - ie, democratic centralist ones - will simply attempt to take over and hegemonise.

The initiative taken by the Sheffield group, of which both Michael and I are members, to publish an open letter (http://alturl.com/8xrnh) with the aim of opening a dialogue with the SWP and the Socialist Party is to be welcomed. It’s by taking such initiatives that not only can local LU groups begin to come into their own, with political questions coming to the fore; but is equally how we can, if not overnight, begin to transform the culture on the left. Though at the time of writing we have yet to receive a response from the SWP, the Socialist Party’s reply (http://alturl.com/zgmzq) has at least opened a conversation whereby discussion can be had, among other things, on next year’s elections on the local level, and on what kind of relationship could exist between LU and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition when it is again revived.

All that said, and as important as it is, we must not shy away from acknowledging the fact that LU is still a largely heterogeneous organisation, with social democrats, revolutionary socialists and political opportunists existing side by side without a common programme.

If we’re to build LU, it is important to develop local groups - before November - whereby they don’t just begin to take on a radical character in relation to working class organisations and movements that emerge, but do so with an aim of drawing out debates within LU and developing a potential relationship with those sections of the socialist left not yet involved.

It’s this latter point, with Chris’s proposal being referred back to the branches for discussion, that should be taken seriously and properly considered.

Build Left Unity
Build Left Unity

Promising

Ken Loach’s Left Unity project is very promising and has lots of potential. Leading Left Unity personnel Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin have very sensibly registered ‘Left Party’ with the electoral commission.

There is a window of opportunity for Marxists to contribute to the Left Unity/Left Party launch conference, which will take place on Saturday November 23. The Socialist Party in England and Wales is currently preoccupied with its Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, whilst the SWP is self-destructing.

Ken Loach is not an Arthur Scargill. The ‘one member, one vote’ proposed constitution will prevent the Left Party going the way of the Socialist Labour Party. Left Unity/Left Party provides Marxists with a blank sheet of paper on which a genuine Marxist Party can be built, giving hope to millions of people. The model for the Left Party should be the early Communist Party of Great Britain. Policy should be based on those embodied in the CPGB’s 2011 Draft programme.

The Left Party should use the slogan, ‘Jobs, homes and food’. These three words sum up the three most pressing issues faced by the working class in Britain today. At the same time, it should fight for a workers’ government, based on and accountable to the labour movement, and serving the working class.

A key policy which needs to be discussed is the Left Party’s attitude to the Labour Party. The Left Party, once established, should apply for affiliation. Most of the 8,000-plus people who have registered their support for Left Unity are either new to politics or are left Labourites disillusioned with Ed Miliband.

The so-called shift to the right in Britain should not be exaggerated. To do so will only lead to disillusionment, whilst millions of people are looking for a ‘Ukip of the left’. Marxists should be involved in the Left Unity groups and the launch of the Left Party. Those already involved are on the ground floor of this promising initiative.

Promising
Promising

Phobic phobia

I am worried by the term ‘Islamophobia’, which seems to be thrown about if anyone is critical of Islam. I agree anyone on the left needs to be sensitive, but the term should not just be used or misused, as it so often is, to stop debate. I sent a letter to the Weekly Worker about the SWP using the term to describe pro-secular Muslims in Turkey, arguing that it was a bit much to use it under these circumstances (June 20). I had sent the letter to Socialist Worker, but, of course, they did not print it.

Interestingly, it did obviously provoke them a bit because a letter from Irem Aksu was printed that supported their point. However, the same point was contradicted by events and recorded in their paper this week. Irem from east London stated: “Muslims are the majority in Turkey. But wearing a headscarf is banned in universities, hospitals and public services. The AKP government hasn’t resolved this, even though the AKP is an ‘Islamic’ party” (June 18). This is true, but, while I don’t consider banning the scarf a good thing, it wasn’t this present government that did it. I am sure it would love to undo the ban and intends to do that at some point, but probably believes it is a step too far at the moment.

She goes on to say: “Islamophobia in Turkey isn’t the same as in the west.” Perhaps a different word should be used then? “But the secular state has implemented Islamophobia ever since its creation, influenced by the western enlightenment.” Well, the western enlightenment had to break free of the influence of religion to usher in scientific thought as an accepted norm. Hardly a bad thing! Islamophobia is still the wrong word. The new post-Ottoman state did not want religious powers running it, a position that most of the protestors believe as well. That is not the same as stopping people from practising whatever religion they are brought up in or choose. However, it is a position that secular governments should be free from religious influence.

She then says: “The state became militant against Islam and demonised it as a political ideology.” True, but this is because they saw the problems with religious states. I personally wish the religious influence of the House of Lords was removed. Anyway, I now read in the same issue of Socialist Worker that “many protestors are angry at what they see as the increasing ‘Islamisation’ of society. In particular, they point to a new law that restricts some alcohol sales - a government attempt to show that it has not abandoned Islam-inspired morality.” Are these Turkish people Islamophobic, according to the SWP?

No, not this week: “Our interviews show that Turks and Kurds, people with no faith and practising Muslims all enthusiastically took part in protests … Ugur Gumuskaya is 24 and a literature student in Istanbul: ‘People are rebelling against the authoritarian government policies on alcohol, education, the environment and urban development. We are also angry at the police pressure used against students. People carry the national flag because of this movement’s newness. Because the movement is so new there is not one symbol’.”

Oh, so he is not a nationalist Islamophobe and merely carries it because of the movement’s newness. I’m surprised they let him get away with that! He went on to say: “We have been fighting for many years against the AKP. We don’t want their neoliberalism, and their Islamic and repressive policies.” Tut, tut, Ugur. You wouldn’t get away with that in east London.

Then, blow me down, what do I see in the Weekly Worker? The same term, ‘Islamophobia’, used in one of your own articles. It stated under the ‘Islamophobia’ heading that “many political analysts have put great emphasis on the Islamism of the AKP government in their attempts to fathom the causes of the revolt, which they interpret as a battle for secularism. Indeed the nationalist-racist forces that attempted to hijack the revolt were renowned for their hostility towards Islamists, while supporting the repressive Kemalist ‘secularism’ which was in reality a means of maintaining state control over religious affairs” (‘Istanbul revolt suppressed’, June 20).

OK, it’s a fair point that Kemalist forces are regressive, not progressive, compared to socialism from below. However, Islam is not a progressive force either, especially when it runs states. A pro-secular agenda, that allows religious freedom to exist (until it withers away, hopefully), in the struggle against neoliberalism is needed.

However, like it or not, Islam can be used to oppress people in combination with austerity, especially when a government forces laws on people in its name (as in Turkey and elsewhere in the Middle East). Islam, like Christianity, can be used to keep people in line and to prevent them from fighting for their real freedom. We need to be able to criticise it without being called Islamophobes.

Phobic phobia
Phobic phobia

Unison

Last week (June 18-21) I attended the trade union Unison’s national delegate conference in Liverpool.

Overall it was a good conference. Perhaps the highlight was Ricky Tomlinson’s impassioned address on the first day calling for support for the Shrewsbury 24 campaign, which is seeking to overturn the convictions of union activists involved in the builders’ strike of 1972.

There was a definite sense that the union leadership was positioning itself to the left of the Labour Party, with general secretary Dave Prentis stating: “For too long we’ve built the careers of Labour politicians, only to be let down when we needed them most. I don’t want to hear Labour apologising for past mistakes, I want to see a clear agenda from Labour for the future. We must not support a Labour government that does not put an end to privatisation and market madness or restore our NHS, invest in our public services, restore the facility time taken away from our activists, restore workers’ rights and remove the shackles on trade unions.”

Prentis called on the TUC, Unite and GMB to work with Unison to organise a demonstration in defence of the NHS at the Tory party conference in Manchester on September 29. TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady, also speaking at the conference, confirmed that the TUC would support the rally.

It was disappointing, however, that both O’Grady and Prentis indulged in clichéd attacks on political opponents’ physical appearance - specifically the communities and local government secretary Eric Pickles’ weight - which undermined the good points they made and alienated many delegates. Their jibes about overweight politicians were raised by delegates tweeting live from the conference and criticised by a number of speakers during a debate on hate crime later the same day.

It was good to see Glenn Kelly and Brian Debus, two of the four Socialist Party members unjustly suspended from holding office in Unison, playing an active role in the conference. Kelly had been re-elected as a branch secretary after the ban was overturned by the courts in a legal battle lasting several years.

On the other hand, there was frustration that a number of motions proposing a general strike or industrial action against government austerity policies were ruled out of order on the grounds that they would place the union in ‘legal jeopardy’ because the proposed actions would be illegal under Britain’s oppressive trade union laws. Given the general secretary’s speech called on Labour councils not to implement the bedroom tax - surely an illegal action - the apparent deference towards the law seems to be applied inconsistently.

Consequently, many of the motions deemed acceptable led to ‘debates’ with no-one against and therefore a succession of speakers saying how much they agreed with the previous speaker. Good practice for the many first-time speakers, perhaps, but not always the most interesting of discussions.

A motion that did generate some controversy, and had resonance with recent events in the SWP, was an amendment to the national women’s committee’s motion on ‘Unison women - active, campaigning, leading’. The amendment, supported by the Unison United Left group, emphasised “a particular responsibility to confront and challenge male violence against women within our movement” and argued that, “when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade union should start from a position of believing women. We believe that all women who complain of male violence have the right to be listened to and supported.” However, some delegates felt that the amendment ignored violence against men, whether by women or other men, and ultimately it was lost.

Unison
Unison

Not necessary

The public spending review announced by chancellor George Osborne is more of the same, but worse. The Tory-Lib Dem government is imposing £11.5 billion of further cuts to recently decimated public services.

These ‘savings’ will mean:

The Tories are making these and other severe cuts, with the support of both the Lib Dems and the Labour so-called opposition, despite knowing that their austerity policies are simply not working. In the last three years, unemployment has risen to 7.8%, with youth unemployment scandalously standing at over one million. Gross domestic product has fallen by 2.8% since 2008. Inflation, at 2.8%, continues to outstrip wage rises, which averaged 0.8% in the last year. Austerity measures have actually prevented the economy from growing, thus making it harder to reduce the economic deficit.

It is an absolute disgrace that Labour will not be opposing such attacks on the poor and ordinary working people. Addressing the Labour Party national policy forum in Birmingham on Saturday, Ed Miliband promised to be ruthless about pursuing Labour’s public spending priorities, accepting the need for further cuts beyond the 2015 general election. Shadow chancellor Ed Balls had earlier committed Labour to keeping George Osborne’s spending cuts if it wins that election.

Spending cuts are not necessary, as Labour well knows. A 5% wealth tax on the richest 10% would, on its own, resolve the economic deficit. There is also £120 billion per year of unpaid tax that rich individuals or companies avoid or evade. Banks could be nationalised, with profits used to maintain and improve our public services. To cut public spending is a political decision by rightwing governments to attack services won for and by the working class.

Not necessary
Not necessary