Letters

Shallow

Your article, ‘Recipe for disaster’ (May 12), is almost as shallow as a BBC report. Usually such shallow, horse-race, football-pitch reporting is the turf of the UK’s jingoistic right wing. This report is not serious analysis, or even good journalism.

‘First past the post’ gives election wins to the Tories without major changes in the Labour vote. At no time in our lifetime has the government in parliament represented a majority of its voters. None of the post-war Labour or Conservative governments had a majority vote for their ‘majority’ governments.

The popular vote tells another story. So does Labour’s municipal victory that included London. Any report on a British election that does not report at length on how the system awards seats and how many real votes each group gets is incomplete.

Don Macleay
USA

No to oppression

What is anti-Semitism? My understanding is that it consists of ideas and practices that justify the oppression and mistreatment of people of Jewish heritage. In my opinion, the forcible expulsion of Jews from Palestine would be anti-Semitic. Conversely, the establishment of a United Socialist States of the Middle East, which recognises and protects the democratic rights of Hebrew-speaking people (whilst also abolishing the present settler colonial state of Israel), would not be anti-Semitic. In other words, not all criticisms of the Israeli state’s assertion of its right to exist are anti-Semitic. Indeed orthodox Haredi Jews, who make up nearly 10% of the Israeli population, do not recognise the Israeli state on religious grounds. They refuse to serve in its army.

Similarly, I think the denial of freedoms of expression and assembly to Jews who defend the Israeli state by denouncing them as fascists is arguably anti-Semitic. Clearly, it is a mistaken way of challenging Zionism. Promulgating the false allegation of fascism to legitimate the suppression of difference of opinion, however offensive, serves to reinforce a sense of Israeli righteousness. On the other hand, to point out that, although different, Zionism and fascism are forms of nationalism is not anti-Semitic. Put differently, not everyone who maintains that Zionism and fascism have something in common is anti-Semitic.

My understanding of Zionism is that it is a false doctrine. It is not true that people of Jewish heritage constitute a nation. It is not true that Jews who choose to identify as cosmopolitan, secular citizens of the world and reject a so-called homeland in Palestine are self-hating. Zionism is based on the false idea that a Jewish state will liberate people of Jewish heritage from anti-Semitism. It is a subjective form of the nationalism of the oppressed, the objective manifestation of which is an oppressive, settler-colonial state. This state exemplifies the bankruptcy of nationalist strategies for liberating oppressed peoples. Zionism presupposes and requires an eternal form of anti-Semitism in order to justify its existence. It shares the assumption of never-ending oppression and the cross-class establishment of an ethnically or religiously homogeneous state with other forms of modern Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist nationalism found in Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Burma and elsewhere.

I think Tony Greenstein disagrees with my understanding of anti-Semitism and Zionism (‘Slurs, lies, innuendos’, April 28). This is because he denies the existence of anti-Semitism in Britain and states that in other countries, where the oppression of Jews still exists, Zionists manufacture anti-Semitism. He argues that the sole cause of anti-Semitism today is the actions of the Israeli state against the Palestinians. It follows that, were the Israeli state to come to end tomorrow, there would be no objective or subjective basis for continued anti-Semitism.

In contrast I contend that Zionism does not create Jewish oppression, but uses it to justify the false idea that the only alternative to anti-Semitism involves the oppression of Palestinians. Although Israel’s actions against Palestinians inflame anti-Semitism, within a declining capitalism people of Jewish heritage would be oppressed, whether Zionism existed as an oppressor state or not.

One of comrade Greenstein’s supporting arguments for the contemporary non-existence of anti-Semitism (or its exclusive dependence on Zionism in the west) is that Jews are no longer economically exploited in Britain. In other words, there is a tendency for proletarian Jews to be absorbed within the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. He quotes an authority who refers to the “near disappearance of a Jewish proletariat in the west”.

Comrade Greenstein here ignores the effects of a crisis of capitalism on people of Jewish heritage. When capitalism is trying to forcibly adjust the contradictions of the system, increasing numbers of individuals are thrown into the industrial reserve army of labour. A crisis-ridden capitalism loses support within a section of the intelligentsia and forces educated professionals to act collectively as part of the working class. If it is true that there is a disproportionate section of the population with Jewish heritage within the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie and professional classes (and this is contestable - there is a continuing history of proletarian Jews living in relative poverty in the west), then crises would not only declass many Jews but drive some in a proletarian direction. Competition for jobs and petty bourgeois resentment of monopoly capitalism foster political and economic divisions, within which anti-Semitism, alongside other forms of oppression, thrives.

Since the days of Marx’s involvement in the First International, anti-Semitism has functioned both as a fake form of anti-capitalism and a virulent form of anti-communism. As far as I know, Bakunin, the anarchist leader, was the first anti-capitalist to argue that there is an alliance between Jewish finance capitalists and Jewish communists to bring into being Jewish world domination. I understand that remnants of Stalinist parties in the former Soviet Union, fascists and Christian and Islamic religious nationalists still promote the forged document, ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, to popularise this conspiratorial nonsense. These anti-Semites claim to be ‘anti-Zionist’. Today, their hostility to the state of Israel is typical of those whom Moshé Machover calls the “anti-Zionism of fools” (‘Zionism and anti-Semitism’, May 5 2016).

It is therefore unsurprising that recent UK police figures reveal that violent crime against Jews has risen over 25% in the last year. As long as capitalism is not fully understood and the ruling class tolerates and promotes division between workers, there is the potential for the further oppression of people with Jewish heritage. Comrade Greenstein may well be correct to argue that Zionist policy towards Palestinians contributes to rising levels of anti-Semitism. However, he is mistaken to suggest that the latter is reducible to the former or that a political reaction to the colonial policy of the Israeli state is a sufficient explanation for the increasing number of violent crimes against Jews.

Communists are opposed to every form of oppression. They are also implacable enemies of nationalism of whatever kind. They maintain there is no nationalist solution to oppression. Jewish liberation like the liberation of every other oppressed group entails, as Marx argued, the liberation of the whole of humanity. This can only take place through a proletarian overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a classless society of freely associated producers. There is no other perspective that can end oppression and nationalism. This includes the particular forms of anti-Semitism and Zionism in existence today.

Paul B Smith
email

PCS conference

At the May 24-26 conference of the Public and Commercial Services union, for the first time in many years we will debate whether to affiliate to the Labour Party.

But first it is worth recording that PCS has survived a Tory onslaught aimed at decimating and bankrupting the union. As the government is our employer and we have exposed and campaigned against their austerity measures (either by calling for them to clamp down on tax-dodging corporations or opposing their office closures and job cuts), so they have singled out PCS, above all unions, for special treatment.

First they have kept pay down, claiming it would be wrong to give ‘their’ employees a rise, when those in the private sector were facing recession and redundancy. Then, during the supposed economic recoveries, we could not have a decent pay rise for fears that would trigger pay claims from other unions.

The reality is, ever since Thatcher scrapped the civil service pay review body in 1980 we have had pay restraint. Even the Labour government brought in regional pay to the ministry of justice in 2007, which, thankfully, has not been spread as intended throughout the rest of the civil service and public sector.

While many civil servants have had no pay rise for the last four years, private-sector pay is now rising and, even though Cameron pinched the TUC slogan, ‘Britain needs a pay rise’, his own employees are still to be kept to 1%. (Bear in mind though that in the MOJ last year 52% of that 1% went on performance pay bonuses, so many staff got nothing.)

Then our redundancy pay was attacked. First they lowered compulsory redundancy pay, so staff went for voluntary early departure on better terms, when and where it was offered (to drive through job cuts), rather than wait to be made compulsorily redundant on worse terms. It’s hard for any union to fight voluntary redundancy, when, due to demoralisation, staff queue up to go. Now the government has got rid of loads of civil servants, they are reducing compulsory terms again, ready to move to compulsory redundancies.

They increased the staff pension contributions, so staff are paying more to get less and to work for longer. PCS had achieved a united fightback with other unions over public-sector pensions and saw 2.4 million workers out in November 2011 in the biggest strike since 1926. I remember non-member civil servants almost queuing to join PCS to be part of that action. Then, within days, we saw Labour-affiliated unions settle individually and sell that fight out rather than call further action to defeat the government. PCS members to this day are bitter about that sell-out.

Then they cut facility time (when elected reps carry out their union duties during paid hours) to stop them ‘organising strike action’ - when the reality is most of a union rep’s time is taken up representing members facing disciplinary proceedings or sick absence management warnings! No rep can be on more than 50% facility time. Facility time was also no longer allowed for delegates attending PCS conferences or for members of the national executive to attend its meetings (see later).

The biggest attack came with the withdrawal of check-off (where members have their union dues taken out of their pay packets), forcing PCS to have to re-recruit every member and get them to pay dues by direct debit. The more apathetic members didn’t bother. Despite losing 15%-20% of our membership, PCS has survived and membership numbers are starting to actually rise again. We now see the check-off part of the Trade Union Bill - where it was proposed to extend this across the public sector - now not going ahead! Due to the sudden loss of income, PCS suspended NEC and departmental elections (with the agreement of conference in 2015). The Independent Left faction condemned this at the time and suggested it would be extended. It wasn’t and we’ve just had the 2016 NEC elections as promised, and the results are now out.

There were four factions. Left Unity (Socialist Party in England and Wales, Socialist Workers Party, etc); Independent Left (IL - Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and some other socialists, some Labour Party activists, some non-aligned); PCS Democrats (PCSD - centre-left, usually Labour members) and ‘4 the members’ (4tm - rightwing, so-called ‘moderates’).

For years the group comprising 100% of the NEC has been the Democracy Alliance - an electoral pact between Left Unity and the PCSD - said to be necessary to stop the right (4tm) regaining control of the NEC. 4tm have been the closest runners-up, with the IL next. However, with the reductions in facility time, the ‘moderates’ have ceased to exist - they are not prepared to give their own time up to be on the NEC or to attend conference. Clearly then they were never ‘4the members’ - they were only in it ‘4themselves’!

So governmental attacks aimed at breaking PCS have ended up making PCS more leftwing, with newer activist members willing to do some union organising work in their own time, instead of attracting those who wanted 100% facility time until they retired - terrified of ever going back to the shop floor. Now all our activists have the credibility of being on the shop floor (and coping with today’s workplace pressures) and in amongst fellow members!

The 2016 NEC results have shown that now the closest opponents of those running the NEC are the Independent Left, who managed to win three out of the 30 NEC places - and would have had another four but for limitations aimed at ensuring no one department dominates the NEC.

The Democracy Alliance electoral pact is now solely operating against the challenge to their left. The results must show that there is significant membership dissatisfaction (whether that is fair or justified is a matter of opinion) by many of the more active members with the record of the current SPEW-dominated NEC in very difficult circumstances.

On my own ‘non faction’ candidature, I did better than usual - fourth from the bottom! But you have no chance of getting on the NEC unless you are in a faction. Once again though, we are talking of the usual dismally low turnout (but I’m told that the 9.4% this time is still better than most unions!).

And now to the major conference debates that will take place. I am not going to bother analysing all the motions about our industrial strategy over pay, pensions, jobs, etc, but I will highlight one over compulsory redundancies. Motion A2 calls for a national ballot for strike action in the event of any compulsory redundancies being announced.

This is current PCS policy anyway, but we are a smaller union now and there is no mention of what the action to be taken is. ‘Day here, day there’ is unlikely to engender membership enthusiasm, but, due to low or no pay rises for years, we will not see any mood for all-out action either. The debate will be interesting.

Conference is to debate three options on the EU referendum. Motion A18 (NEC) calls for a neutral stance - to just get ‘the facts’ out to members and how they will/may be affected as civil servants, so that members can then make their own minds up. A19 is for remain and A20 for Lexit. That will be quite a debate!

Then there are the expected ‘Refugees welcome here’ motions, which are rather disingenuous, as few mention support for open borders. Bear in mind, we have SWP activists, whose policy is no immigration controls and support for open borders, but who never actually argue this from the conference floor. Then we have SPEW, who are against open borders, against ‘racist’ immigration controls, but who also never openly argue this on the conference floor - hence the disingenuous ‘Refugees welcome’ wording, which allows both sides to feel their position is reflected (instead of the more honest ‘Some refugees welcome here’, which would be SPEW’s actual stance). We will have an admirable display of ‘internationalism’ and ‘feel-good humanitarianism’ here - unless a certain activist (ahem) once again spoils the fake unity by asking whether these motions commit PCS to open borders or not.

And now the big debate - whether PCS should affiliate to the Labour Party. Motion A36 (NEC) calls for close working between PCS and Corbyn and McDonnell, and to look into PCS policy of supporting or standing candidates in exceptional circumstances, our relations with anti-austerity parties in the devolved administration and our relations with the Labour Party - including the issue of affiliation, which would be decided next year.

Meanwhile, motion A37 calls for us to work closely with the Labour Party, but to reaffirm our independence from any political party, and A38 calls for affiliation at a cost of £3 per member (another motion calls for affiliation to Momentum). I think conference will go for A36 and the NEC’s cautious approach, even though general secretary Mark Serwotka has himself joined the Labour Party already.

Personally I registered as a Corbyn supporter, was delighted at his victory, but have not joined the Labour Party due to Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s constant backsliding on so many key issues ever since. The suspension of Ken Livingstone is also very off-putting. John McDonnell is always a welcome and appreciated guest speaker to national conference, but we will also hear from Jeremy Corbyn this year. Despite their backsliding on so many issues I am sure they will get a friendly and warm welcome.

This is the year PCS survived the worst attacks seen on any union since the National Union of Mineworkers in the mid-80s. We are still calling for united action from other unions, but Unison has agreed to the local government employers’ offer of 1% over two years. The GMB (Arise, Sir Paul Kenny!) have also settled and so Unite will not take action despite TUC policy being for united action over pay. These are all Labour-affiliated unions, who have all, once again, left PCS high and dry and defied TUC policy. This will certainly influence the historic debate PCS is about to have on the question of Labour Party affiliation.

Dave Vincent
Manchester

Market socialism

Hillel Ticktin has recently written an article for the Weekly Worker about his vision of socialism (‘Society of abundance’, April 28 2016). The major problem is that he concentrates on economic issues and ignores the importance of politics. He does not address the importance of the class struggle for influencing the character of the post-capitalist society, and nor does he outline his conception of the relationship of democracy to socialism. The aftermath of the October revolution was never able to establish a satisfactory relationship of democracy to socialism. Thus the legacy of the one and only genuine proletarian revolution is not promising in relation to the possibilities of establishing a society that is more democratic than advanced capitalism.

The very process of revolutionary change will create tensions in regard to the relationship of democracy to the promotion of socialism. It is likely that the act of revolution will involve the importance of popular forms of democracy, such as workers’ councils, which will supercede the institutions of parliamentary democracy. This means there will be a conflict of political sovereignty between two conflicting forms of democracy. The Bolsheviks resolved this dilemma by dissolving the Constituent Assembly in favour of the soviets, or organs of proletarian democracy. This action was made credible by the fact that the soviets had superior prestige, and the assembly was relatively new and had not yet established its credentials.

But the situation will be different in relation to any attempt to repress institutions like the parliament of the UK. Parliament has a long history, and is respected as an expression of the democratic will of the population. Its closure will cause outcry, and could result in the undermining of popular support for the revolutionary regime. The only principled democratic decision will be to uphold the joint sovereignty of parliament and the workers’ councils, creating a contradiction between the conflicting influences of bourgeois and proletarian democracy. It will only be possible to resolve this problematical situation by a revolutionary party - hopefully with Labour Party support - winning a majority of seats within parliament. In this context the activity of the workers’ councils, such as promoting industrial democracy and popular forms of economic and political organisation, should generate electoral support for the revolutionary party.

However, if despite the increasing influence of the forms of popular democracy, victory in the election goes to the bourgeois parties, the working class must reluctantly accept the verdict. This is because the only alternative is civil war, which can have a devastating effect on society. But it is to be hoped that the revolution will continue to generate support and represent the potential for a future victory in elections.

Only if we manage the delicate task of reconciling democracy with the aims of the class struggle can we then begin to conceive of a situation of political stability that will enable us to contemplate the tasks of the development of socialist economy. Ticktin’s glossing over of the necessity of immediate political tasks assumes a situation of inherent stability that may be very difficult to realise. Until he develops a strategy of democratic victory in the class struggle his economic conception of socialism will be an unrealistic utopia.

He establishes strict criteria for the possibility of socialism: “However, there must be relative abundance or else there cannot be socialism at all, and there can be no market.” The criteria of relative abundance are problematical in this era of ecological problems. The point is that the importance of scarcity cannot be overcome with the creation of the post-capitalist economy, and how we tackle this scarcity will be vital if the aim of socialism is to be realised. Furthermore, the significance of scarcity means that the role of the market cannot be dispensed with. This means production must be orientated towards the continued importance of supply and demand. The only alternative to the market is rationing or coercion, which can only be utilised in exceptional circumstances.

The only criteria by which needs can be satisfied in the most efficient manner is through the role of the market. It is the very experience of the USSR which has proved this point. However, there will also be large sections of the public sector, because the role of the market in these areas would distort the ability to realise need. But, in relation to production of consumer goods that are able to satisfy expectations, there is no substitute for the role of the market.

Ticktin also makes another controversial statement: “Abstract labour amounts to the control and imprisonment of the ordinary worker and for that reason we cannot have abstract labour under socialism/communism.” This comment indicates the problem of conceiving reality in terms of categorical absolutes. Within the socialist society small businesses will not be nationalised under workers’ control, and so will still be subject to the law of value. In this context commodities will represent the character of abstract labour. If we applied the approach of Ticktin these enterprises will be nationalised in order to undermine the possibility of the generation of abstract labour. This development will only alienate the small business owner from the aims of socialism. The point is that, whilst the forces of socialism are establishing their hegemony, the role of abstract labour, or the influence of the law of value, cannot be immediately overcome. The very importance of the interaction of old and new economic forces means the alienated and abstract character of labour remains for an extended period of time.

But this situation is not an expression of exploitation because the domination of capital has been replaced with the ability of labour to define its own conditions of work. The ability to create cheap goods comes from the initiative and creativity of the workforce, and not because of the ability of capital to extract surplus value from alienated abstract labour.

The point is that the relationship of supply and demand can be realised in a more flexible manner in a socialist type of society. The amount of labour time will also be an important guide for prices because this is an indicator of the value of the good. However, the good is not a commodity because the relations of production are no longer those of capital and labour.

Phil Sharpe
Nottingham

Democratic unity

Do you want to live in a country called Europe? Boris Johnson says ‘no, no, no’, whereas I would give a conditional ‘yes’. If Europe was a fully democratic country, it would be infinitely better than living in the current bureaucratic European Union or the more bureaucratic British ‘crown-in-parliament’. But, of course, a democratic country called ‘Europe’ does not exist and we cannot live in it.

Johnson subsequently continued to elaborate on the same theme. He compared the EU’s aims of uniting Europe with the efforts of Hitler and Napoleon. The EU is “an attempt to do this by different methods”. He is right so far. Europe can in theory be united ‘from above’ by military or bureaucratic means. Napoleon and Hitler tried and failed. But Johnson does not consider all alternatives.

Soon he was assailed by moral outrage. He had mentioned the taboo word, ‘Hitler’, not long after Ken Livingstone had used it. Linking ‘Hitler’ and ‘Europe’ caused ‘grave offence’ or, according to Johnson, a media Twitter storm. He was told by Yvette Cooper to go and stand on the naughty step. Still it was not as bad as Livingstone, who caused John Mann to riot, by mentioning ‘Hitler’ and ‘Zionism’ in the same sentence.

Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, bomber Benn, said Johnson’s comparison was “offensive and desperate”. He continued: “To try and compare Hitler and the Nazis - the millions of people who died in the Second World War, the holocaust - with the free democracies of Europe coming together to trade and cooperate, and in the process to help to bring peace to the continent of Europe after centuries of war, is frankly deeply offensive.”

Yet Johnson is clearly on to something here. He says “the EU has changed beyond all recognition”. It is a “continuing and accelerating effort to build a country called Europe” (The Daily Telegraph May 10). Yet, in warning us of the grave danger of waking up in a new country, he ignores the fact that Cameron has negotiated an exit. Cameron’s dirty little deal ends the UK’s commitment to ‘ever closer union’. We can never wake up and find our little island is in ‘Europe’.

Voting to remain is not only voting for restrictions on migrant workers, but voting to reject a future united democratic Europe. No working class internationalist and democrat should endorse this rotten deal. There is no principled reason to vote for Cameron’s worse EU. Going backwards is the only thing you can vote for on 23 June. Should we reverse fast or slow?

Johnson has not told us the full story. For that we need to look to Trotsky. There are three ways that Europe can be united. In 1915 Trotsky identified the unification of Europe as a result of a German victory in the war. He recognised a union negotiated between imperialist powers, “an imperialist trust of European states, a predatory share-holding association”. He identified a democratic and social revolution, in which the working class came to power in one or more of the European states.

Democratic revolution is one thing Johnson forgot to mention. It is the means by which the people take power and establish government of the people, by the people and for the people. In 1830 Germany was fragmented into 36 petty states, Prussia being the strongest. The German common market, the Zollverein, had begun economic integration.

In 1848 the German people burst into democratic revolution with a popular assembly in Frankfurt. This revolution failed. Twenty years later, Germany was being united by military force under Bismarck’s policy of ‘blood and iron’. Present-day Europe can be united ‘from above’ or by democracy ‘from below’.

Steve Freeman
Left Unity and Rise

Mean-minded

It’s a shame and quite shocking that the editor of the Weekly Worker should criticise the Socialist Party for being focused on the austerity crisis (‘Making history’, May 12 2016). Peter Manson is obviously living comfortably. He is supposed to be a socialist.

The social and economic crisis is the central fact of life for millions of people in the UK. Yet Peter disparages this with mean-minded remarks against the Socialist Party. I really think he should take time off and go into the real world, where such remarks would get him crucified. He needs to do some deep reflection work.

Socialism is about the real struggle that characterises the life of millions of people. Try going without food for 24 hours. Hunger does tend to concentrate the mind. Try living in damp-infested housing, where you can’t afford to heat your home. Try living in a work environment that belts you from beginning to the end of the shift and where unemployment could mean you being deprived of the essential income you need to buy food.

I’m sorry to say this, but the CPGB/Weekly Worker rarely deal with the most important issues of the day, which dominate the consciousness of millions of our fellow citizens. In which case it can hardly be classified as a socialist/communist party.

Elijah Traven
Hull