Letters

At death’s door

I read Sarah McDonald’s report of the latest Left Unity national council meeting with interest (‘Going into survival mode’, September 10). While the article clearly warns of the oblivion that awaits LU (and Tusc and all the other ridiculous ‘halfway houses’), and the unreality of the whole affair, I do think that the headline of ‘Going into survival mode’ is a very soft way of putting things. Given what’s happening in the Labour Party, my first thought was that I was reading of a very pronounced death rattle.

I have a slightly cruder take on the disappearance of idiotic organisations such as LU than the publishers of this paper and admit that I have watched groups such as Respect go down the toilet with no little glee in the past. However, it’s not hard to foresee some of the LU leadership shower turning up in the Labour Party very shortly, washed clean by their own sanctimonious sense of self-worth, and posing as the most loyal Labourites imaginable. After all, Corbyn looks like a man who might need a lieutenant or two and I can well imagine some of the most fervent auto-anti-Labour crowd eyeing themselves in the mirror anxiously to see if they might possibly fit into the (very beige) uniform. Love, you look shite ...

Lawrence Parker
email

Kind of

Comrade Mike Belbin asks: “Are we mistaken ... in observing when something is qualitatively new in form - water into steam, ape-like into human, revolution into Stalinism?” (Letters, September 9). Yes! Such inferences, based on impressions of large difference, are often wrong. At best, they may serve as preliminary hypotheses, but to say that implies their subjectivity.

The philosophy of dialectical materialism insists that we can’t grasp reality by extracting essences. What is a difference in ‘kind’? What, in the course of development, makes something a different kind of thing? This question has a precise answer according to dialectics, which is actually a theory about what constitutes a kind. It is a different kind of thing if it results from a discontinuous change. There is nothing subjective about the distinction between discontinuity and continuity. But whether something is “qualitatively new in form” is subjective. Who is to say whether a tiny pony is qualitatively different in form from a huge draft horse? Many of our supposed differences in kind turn out to represent continuously large quantitative differences.

Vaporisation of a liquid is (or at least can be - I’m not a physicist) a qualitative change. One indication is that the transformation is instantaneous. Yes, to answer a question of Rosa Lichtenstein’s regarding the length of an interval constituting a “leap”, the transformation of quantity into quality is instantaneous. That’s what’s meant (in the unfortunate archaic terminology of dialectics) as a ‘dialectical leap’.

Now, let me ask comrade Belbin, when (in what period, in the form of what species) did ape-like creatures become human? Darwin didn’t treat the evolution of man as a qualitative change. Nor did Engels in ‘The role of labour in the transition of man to ape’. Consider this observation by Engels regarding the possession by infrahuman animals of linguistic abilities (one of the major candidates proposed by philosophical essentialists for human qualitative uniqueness): “Let no-one object that the parrot does not understand what it says. It is true that for the sheer pleasure of talking and associating with human beings, the parrot will chatter for hours at a stretch, continually repeating its whole vocabulary. But within the limits of its range of concepts it can also learn to understand what it is saying.”

More generally, according to Engels, “In animals the capacity for conscious, planned action is proportional to the development of the nervous system, and among mammals it attains a fairly high level.” Proportionality is a concept pertaining to quantity, not quality. The theory that humans were a qualitative leap in intelligence has generated all manner of false projects in philosophy and even in science, from the immortal soul to the language instinct.

It’s even worse for the supposed transition from revolution to Stalinism. A dialectical materialist would look at material foundations. Did revolutionary Russia change discontinuously into Stalinist Russia? I see no discontinuity, and no eagerness by most state capitalists to try to locate one. There was an immense quantitative change from the workers’ state of the Bolsheviks to the late Stalin regime, but at no point did the state power change hands. Dialectics doesn’t solve this issue, but it frames it correctly. State capitalists and the like have to say when the counterrevolution occurred. They almost never do (Walter Daum being an exception, but his theoretical elegance is at variance with documented historical facts).

A theory of kinds that (undialectically) prioritises structure over of process is exactly the opposite of dialectics. That’s the theory Rosa polemicises against and Mike embraces, but it’s not dialectics: they ignore discontinuity of change and instantaneity of transformation as the key determinant of whether something really is ‘a different kind’.

Stephen Diamond
USA

Make regime pay

Shahrokh Zamani, one of the most well-known and respected imprisoned labour activists in Iran, died on Sunday September 13 2015 in Gohardasht (Rajai Shahr) prison in the city of Karaj. Shahrokh was a member of the founding board of the Syndicate of Paint Workers of Tehran and the Committee to Pursue the Establishment of Workers’ Organisations.

There are currently a wide range of reports related to Shahrokh’s death. What we can confirm at this time is that other prisoners found Shahrokh unconscious on the bed in his cell. They took him to the prison’s medical centre and doctors announced him dead. The authorities claimed that a stroke was the cause of his death; however, according to Shahrokh’s daughter and others close to him, Shahrokh was generally healthy and exercised regularly. There are confirmed reports that there were visible bruises on his body. It is a well-known fact that the medical reports issued by the authorities of the government of Iran have no credibility; in addition, there is a growing belief amongst labour activists and the public, as well as in social media, that Shahrokh was killed in prison. We will issue other updates on the circumstances that led to his death.

It is crucial to emphasise that this is not the first time that labour activists have died in prisons of the Iranian regime. As we have reported previously, Rajai Shahr is one of the most notorious prisons with very high security, in which we have witnessed numerous deaths of political prisoners in the past few years. Many prisoners suffer severe torture, medical neglect and gross mistreatment by security guards and the prison authorities. Afshin Osanloo was another labour activist who died under similar circumstances in June 2013.

Shahrokh Zamani was originally arrested, along with Mohammad Jarahi, in June of 2011. Branch 1 of the Tabriz Islamic Revolutionary Court sentenced him to 11 years and Mohammad Jarahi to five years imprisonment after conviction on charges that included “acting against national security by establishing or membership of groups opposed to the system” and “spreading propaganda against the establishment”. The ‘trial’ did not meet international standards for a fair adjudication of the charges, and the charges themselves violated internationally recognised standards for freedom of association and expression and the right of workers to organise into an organisation of their choosing, free of government interference, harassment or retaliation.

Shahrokh’s most basic human rights were violated throughout the past few years in prison, and his mistreatment by authorities while incarcerated was extensive. He faced extreme forms of interrogation and was subject to physical and mental torture in prison. However, he continued to be remarkably courageous, militant and resisted ever-increasing pressures on him to stay silent. He repeatedly issued statements about his own situation and also in support of workers’ and teachers’ rights and struggles, against capitalist exploitation and corruption, and in opposition to the anti-worker policies and practices of the Islamic Republic of Iran. While in prison, he was faced with new charges from the judiciary.

We have organised a wide range of campaigns for the freedom of Shahrokh and many other labour activists in recent years. We firmly believe that we need to see much stronger and broader global mobilisation against increasing repression of workers’ rights and the persecution of labour activists in Iran. There are currently many other imprisoned workers in the country and some of them require urgent action to secure their safety and well-being. They include Behnam Ebrahimzadeh, who is facing new charges in prison, and Rasoul Bodaghi, who’s in the same situation, even though he has completed his six-year prison sentence. Many teachers are in jail, and Mohammad Jarahi, another labour activist and close friend of Shahrokh Zamni, continues to be imprisoned despite serious health problems and previous surgery for cancer.

The International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran (IASWI) holds the Islamic Republic of Iran fully accountable and responsible for the sudden death of Shahrokh Zamani. We call for an independent international inquiry not only into this, but into the conditions of other jailed labour activists and political prisoners in Iran. IASWI urges labour and human rights organisations and concerned individuals around the world to urgently express their strongest condemnation.

We are also calling on all such organisations to increase pressures on the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately end all executions, torture and mistreatment of labour activists and political prisoners, and demand the immediate and unconditional freedom for all political prisoners in Iran. We need to continue pressuring the Iranian government to recognise and respect the right of organisation, assembly and freedom of association and expression, as reflected in internationally recognised labour standards.

IASWI
email

Corbo-republic

We have heard of Corbynomics, but now it is Corbo-republicanism! The royalist press is in a ferment of fury because citizen Jeremy did not sing ‘God save the queen’, which is not popular with atheists either. “Corbyn silence sparks outcry,” says TheIndependent. “Corbyn snubs queen and country,” says The DailyTelegraph. “National anthem outrage,” says The Sun.

The country might be owned by the queen and her rich friends, but the people are not. But we are, of course, divided between royalist subjects and republican citizens. We need an amendment to the constitution, which guarantees our right not to sing ‘God save the queen’ without being harassed and hounded by the press. We need another amendment on the right to hold any office, including being an MP, without having to swear an oath of allegiance to the crown.

In the debate on Five Live radio the contradictions were argued out. Corbyn’s defenders said that he had a right not to sing the anthem - a freedom which this country fought for in the Battle of Britain. But the counter-argument was that he was not there as an individual, but as a representative of a monarchist party. When had the Labour Party ever fought any election on a programme of republican democracy? The answer was never.

So, Jeremy, full marks for not singing, but black marks for swearing oaths. The crown is central to the system of government and a mechanism of class rule. But, when they see a chink in Corbyn’s armour, their press smell blood. The Sun was jumping for joy: “Court Jezter Labour hypocrite Corbyn to kiss the queen’s hand” (September 15). Apparently he has agreed to “get down on bended knee to join the privy council - despite being a lifelong republican”.

The Daily Mail (September 15) smelt the same rat: “Republican Jeremy Corbyn will kiss the queen’s hand and pledge his loyalty, despite campaigning to replace her with a president and evict her from Buckingham Palace.” We thought only the banks could evict people from their homes, but now we learn that the people could demand their royal council house back to help solve the housing shortage.

The contradictions of Corbo-republicanism are fully on display in both of these incidents. He is an exponent of what the Weekly Worker called ‘Platonic republicanism’ in Eddie Ford’s excellent article (‘Bedrock of the British state’, September 10). The article says: “Instead of Platonic republicanism, Jeremy Corbyn should prioritise the fight to abolish the monarchy.” It would be a welcome advance for the CPGB to take a dose of its own medicine.

Platonic republicanism is the best we can find in the Labour Party, because it enables the party to support the crown and a few ‘lunatics’ like Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn to parade their republicanism from the margins, as long as they do not try to make it party policy. Now all of the sudden the ‘lunatics’ have taken over the asylum. So this week we have seen the contradiction of having a republican leader of a monarchist party.

My final point is that I stood in the general election to make case for militant republican democracy and to show its connection with Scotland and the democratic revolution. One of my central points of the election was the necessity to build an independent republican party, based on the working class. This is what is missing in the current crisis of democracy.

In Bermondsey the CPGB-Weekly Worker decided to back the monarchist-republican lash-up between the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition and Left Unity. This Labourite bloc, which you supported and told the workers to vote for, is now on its last legs. But the points I made to the working class in Bermondsey remain valid and true, even if I got very few votes for saying it.

The general election in Bermondsey showed the CPGB displaying its own “Platonic republicanism” - a lack of principle and failure to use the election to advance a republican minimum programme and the make the case for a republican party of the working class.

Steve Freeman
Republican socialist and anti-unionist

Stalinist

In all the rightwing smears and mud-flinging over Jeremy Corbyn’s political history, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that his underlying worldview is not Trotskyism - and certainly not anti-Semitism. But, rather, it seems to be a Labour Party version of ‘anti-imperialist’ Stalinism.

This was very clearly expressed in a speech he gave in a meeting at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in September 1991. In the meeting, even Communist Party speakers were criticising Stalinism, but Corbyn, in effect, defended the Soviet regime at a time when almost everyone else was giving up on it:

“There have been people in this room condemning what has been happening in Cuba in the past 30 years. Have some caution. What they have had to live with for the past 30 years is the fact that the only country in the world that was prepared to help them break the blockade of the US was the Soviet Union. Remember that and remember that the choice that now faces Cuba is to capitulate to the gangsters in Miami who want to take over and destroy the gains of the revolution, or to soldier on to build the best form of socialism that can be achieved in Cuba.

“Sections of the left attacking Cuba at the present time with all the problems it has got are, frankly, not very helpful at all.

“We should also recognise that changes that have happened in other parts of the world since it came into being. The Soviet Union supported the revolution in Nicaragua and it supported large numbers of anti-colonial struggles in Africa and other places. I am not defending everything that has happened in the Soviet Union in the last 70 years. What I am defending is the principle of anti-imperialism, internationalism and solidarity. If there are two areas where I think grave mistakes were made by the Soviet Union, it was the inability of the system to recognise the importance of the national question and the way in which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union became an extremely elitist body.

“We have to organise together in this country but also internationally. I am concerned at the break-up of the Soviet Union and the leadership it gave, and the break-up of the Socialist International, which was always very weak. It means that there is no international forum for putting forward socialist ideas and seeking to organise those.”

John Gill
email

Emotional

I felt very emotional on Saturday morning as the result came through. Jeremy Corbyn did even better than expected. Starting as the rank outsider, to get 59% of the vote in the first ballot is an incredible achievement. It has woken up British politics - 20,000 people have joined the Labour party in the 48 hours since the result, in addition to the 250,000 who joined to vote for Jeremy during the contest.

I have already been stopped by Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition supporters and others in Rugby to be told how delighted people are at Corbyn’s victory. People are tired of the predictable establishment politicians, with little political difference between the main parties. Jeremy Corbyn gives hope to those of us who want a radical new politics that puts people before profit. It is particularly significant that Jeremy Corbyn’s first political act as leader was to attend the demonstration in London on Saturday to welcome refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants to Britain, and I was proud to have been on that demonstration myself.

Jeremy Corbyn’s win was a victory for those of us who have campaigned hard against austerity, welfare and public service cuts, the war in Iraq and privatisation. To a certain extent, these are the policies of old Labour, and they are policies fully supported by Tusc. There is growing support for such socialist ideas We need to draw all this together into one party of the left. In my view, the Labour party could be a significant part of thatunder Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

However, I am not convinced that Labour will democratise itself or rediscover its socialist roots, despite Jeremy’s victory. Whether the Labour Party acts on the enthusiasm to (re)join it is highly debatable, so Tusc will continue to offer an alternative socialist programme with campaigning activity - at least until Labour is confirmed as a truly socialist party.

Pete McLaren
Rugby Tusc

Gurkha shame

I am trying to raise the issue of ending Nepali Gurkha recruitment in the British army. This outdated and racist colonial practice has now gone on for 200 years, and without seemingly any opposition or even opinion voiced by the left in the UK. The demand to end Gurkha recruitment was raised by the Nepali Maoists during the people’s war, but was dropped when the party entered into the peace process and parliamentary politics, largely due to coercive behind-the-scenes pressure from the British government - British diplomacy at its best!

Gurkhas have been partly responsible for shooting down a large number of rebellions against British imperialism, including the Sepoy mutiny (or first Indian war of independence, depending on your point of view), the Amritsar massacre, the Malayan emergency, and more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s time for this to stop.

The Nepali Maoists, during the people’s war, termed Gurkha recruitment as ‘dishonourable’ and ‘shameful’, and no amount of empty speeches by celebrities or cheap popular sentiment can change that fact. The lack of alternative employment is the main issue, from the Nepali side, to end it. However, there are many other countries that suffer poverty and lack of employment - Bangladesh, Botswana, Bolivia - that do not sell or lend their soldiers to fight for foreign armies on a systematic basis. It is a shameful practice, both for the Nepali and for the British - and worse for the British left, who try hard to not see this issue or dismiss it. One oppressed people fighting another for the benefit of western imperialism.

Some Gurkha organisations are taking the British government to court at the present time, and the problems around Gurkha recruitment cannot be dismissed forever.

An event was held at the Marx Memorial Library on August 16, where this and other related issues were brought up. It was hosted by the Malcolm X Movement and entitled ‘Black Skin, White Fatigues - Opposing Imperialist Army Recruitment’.

The British left and anti-war movement should take up the demand to end Gurkha recruitment in the British army, in conjunction with progressive forces in Nepal. That would be a real example of anti-imperialism and international solidarity. The loss of the Gurkha regiment will surely make it harder for Britain to illegally invade and occupy sovereign countries. It’s time to end Gurkha recruitment in the British army.

Roshan Kissoon
email

Return to normal

With the wave of current immigration into Europe, it’s easy to fall into the humanitarian-social world view that accepts all immigrants because of their sad situation, whether or not they are really political refugees.

But Marxists are not social workers. Capitalism has nearly wiped out several countries in the Middle East, but our working classes should not now have to pay for it. On the other hand, I disagree with those who say the refugees are ‘escaping the class struggle’. Most of them are really escaping bombs, and I would do the same!

I support open borders in a future socialist society. But that can only take place when the standards of living in every country are similar. To advocate that same policy under capitalism leads only to divisions in the working class and the growth of fascist organisations.

I believe we should support and advocate temporary residence permits for immigrants, until their countries return to normal, so they can begin the class struggle at home.

Earl Gilman
email

Sex workers

The annual survey of the Adult Workers Index, which has just been released, shows that, although the overall number of female escorts has remained fairly steady, there has been a big increase in the number of female migrants working as escorts, especially in the London area. They include 1,500 Romanians, 750 Poles, 550 Hungarians and 200 from Spain.

What strikes me is that, while abortion and gay rights are now part of the mainstream political landscape, escorting is the final taboo. Escorts should be respected, not frowned upon. The decriminalisation of prostitution is the last big libertarian campaign.

The English Collective of Prostitutes, the GMB Sex Workers Branch, the International Union of Sex Workers, Amnesty International and the Royal College of Nursing all call for the decriminalisation of prostitution. It’s also in the CPGB Draft programme.

John Smithee
Cambridgeshire

Dead end

Deciding to check what’s been going on in the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), I came across its statement on the election of Jeremy Corbyn.

As readers may know, Numsa has rebelled against the domination over the official union movement of the African National Congress, and its cheerleaders in the South African Communist Party, and has been expelled from the Congress of South African Trade Unions for its pains.

But Numsa now appears all at sea, as its comments on Corbyn show. Apparently he has “a deep appreciation and understanding of Marxist thoughts and ideas”, and his victory “renews the Labour Party’s revolutionary traditions and character”, which are “rooted in the working class and popular struggles not only for the working class and the poor of the United Kingdom, but all over the world”.

Well, that one passed me by, I must say.

Numsa exhibits seemingly boundless optimism for “growing world socialist energies” - “even in the US, Bernie Sanders, an openly confessed democratic socialist, is making waves …” A pity the union doesn’t seem to be able to tap into those “energies” - what has happened to its United Front, for instance, that was supposed to help pave the way for a new working class party in South Africa? If the UF website is anything to go by, nothing at all (last update: July 28).

It’s all very well realising that the ANC-led alliance is a dead end, but in the absence of a principled and realistic Marxist programme how can an alternative be built?

Dave Peterson
Bristol