Letters

Labour problem

We call on all Labour Party members to stay well clear of the Jewish Labour Movement’s latest stunt. The JLM, which is the sister party of the Zionist Labor Party in Israel, has written to Constituency Labour Party secretaries, asking them to distribute their “survey” on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party to all local members. Many CLP secretaries have quite rightly moved this email directly into their spam folder. If you have been unfortunate enough to have received the email, we urge you to do the same.

It is laughable to claim, as the JLM does, that it has “engaged, in good faith, with the Labour Party to try and solve the severe and ongoing crisis of Labour anti-Semitism”. The JLM has neither acted in “good faith”, nor has it got any interest in solving “the crisis of Labour anti-Semitism”. After all, the JLM has done tremendous work in making rare, isolated cases into a “crisis” in the first place. Hundreds, if not thousands, of supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have been witch-hunted in this campaign, which has nothing to do with fighting anti-Semitism - but everything to do with getting rid of Jeremy Corbyn, a committed friend of the Palestinians.

We have seen people being suspended for using the word ‘Zio’ or for expressing their outrage at the horrendous crimes committed by the state of Israel in a confused manner. The vast majority of these people are clearly not anti-Semitic. And yet they have been labelled as such by the JLM, the Board of Deputies and the despicable Jonathan Sacks, who has gone as far as calling Corbyn an anti-Semite. We know that the JLM has reported many cases to Labour’s compliance unit, often causing great distress to the members concerned.

Socialists in the Labour Party should show up this “survey” for what it is - a clearly biased attempt to exacerbate the poisonous atmosphere of fear and suspicion in the party.

Labour Against the Witchhunt
email

Anglo-Europeans

In his September 27 article Paul Demarty analysed “the poverty of left-remainers”, which he identified with activists supporting ‘Another Europe is Possible’. There is much Paul says that we can agree with, not least in his history of the battle for European unity. However, rather than make an account of points of agreement, let us concentrate on what is missing.

Paul’s last paragraph sums up his conclusion. He says: “We leftists are in this mess, in large part, because one such crisis has followed another, and the only constant has been the abiding sense that something must be done right now and there is no time for teasing out the treacherous subtleties of the issues before us.” Yes, we need to think about strategy and not simply what to do next.

He explains that the battle over the European Union, which “unites Michael Chessum with Tony Blair on one side, and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain and Jacob Rees-Mogg on the other, must be posed differently altogether for the workers’ movement to make any serious purchase”. Again we can agree with that.

Paul hints at a “leftist” alternative as an “argument about the relationship between the British state and an EU bureaucracy, which ignores the reality that both are in enemy hands, and that both must be destroyed, and a genuine socialist internationalism put to work replacing them”. The best interpretation of Paul’s position is surely the old SWP slogan, ‘Neither London nor Brussels, but international socialism’.

The problem incorrectly posed by Paul has another answer. The EU referendum divided England down the middle. Since 10 million people in England abstained, we should go beyond the 2016 labels of ‘remainers’ or ‘leavers’. I will use the identity of the Anglo-British and Anglo-Europeans.

On the Anglo-British side are the reactionaries and ultra-lefts (using Paul’s shorthand, “Jacob Rees-Mogg” and the “Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain). They are on the British road to socialism or the British road to neoliberalism. So far, so good.

In contrast the Anglo-Europeans are divided into liberals and democrats. Paul does not agree with this. His blinkers only allow him to see liberals, who are represented by Tony Blair and Another Europe is Possible, and because of “a hysterical sense of crisis that leads well-meaning left remainers to cash George Soros’s dirty cheques”.

Paul has awarded the contract to represent the Anglo-European trend to the liberals. Instead of highlighting or giving support to the democratic and hence working class answer to the European crisis, he has liquidated it. He does not recognise in theory or practice any democratic trend.

We may have different views about the content of the democratic programme. There was certainly a case for democrats and revolutionaries in England to actively abstain in the referendum. However, the result divided the working class and gave a majority to the reactionaries and ultra-lefts. In the face of this situation we need a clear response:

1. For a democratic exit.
2. For a ratification referendum.
3. For a democratic England in a democratic Europe.

This is not the time to elaborate on the slogan, ‘For a democratic England in a democratic Europe’. Suffice to say that if the working class is going to win the battle of democracy then we have to ‘take control’ not only in England, but across Europe. A democratic perspective is necessary.

The second bullet point on a ratification referendum has already been argued. The recent Labour Party conference showed a clear distinction between the slogan of a ‘second referendum’, designed as a rerun of the 2016 referendum, and the democratic demand for a ‘ratification referendum’. The latter is no repeat, but the first time people have an opportunity to pass a verdict on the Tory’s dirty deal.

So, whilst liberals like Blair and Chuka Umunna back a ‘second remain referendum’, the democratic demand for a ‘ratification referendum’ is supported by McCluskey, Corbyn and McDonnell. It is no coincidence that these Labour and trade union leaders supported ratification, not a repeat. A divided working class is reflected in the trade union movement. The liberals have their links to the boardrooms, not in union meetings.

The crisis in the relations between “the British state and an EU bureaucracy” is a crisis in the British union as well. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU and this is where a storm is brewing. So, in discussing “the poverty of left-remainers”, we must not forget “the poverty of the Anglo-British”, who ‘forget’ to mention the urgent demand for a united Ireland and a Scottish republic.

Steve Freeman
email

Unproductive

Just to say that Gerald Downing’s letter in last week’s edition of the paper was a goddamn blinder (October 4)! Even though I didn’t manage to grasp all of its multiple aspects (indeed, of its sniper-fire-like ricochets) very strongly, I suspect we share its core ethos, as well as agreeing upon the central message.

Namely, we share outward-looking and ultra-modernist principles, bonded to an adaptive, but still solidly communist, stance. Looked at more widely, with slightly grander horizons, freshly evolved New Thinking should never be confused with sordid revisionism: vibrancy and dynamism are not only incompatible with foolish dogmatism, but are also toxic to ignorant betrayal!

Betrayal of the working class, that is, by any prospective communist educators, carriers of enlightenment or other such socio-psychic ‘expansionists’ - whether that is the case as a result of stale and stagnant and thereby inevitably anachronistic policies, or merely due to any particular individual’s inability to embrace change; whether anything concerned be carried out inadvertently (ie, based upon that already identified ‘ignorance’), or rather with calculation and thus unarguably by ‘treacherous’ design.

For a more detailed elucidation of these ideas and positions, most specifically as they relate to the burning questions at hand in connection with Brexit, I would point to a previous letter of mine (‘Better in’ Weekly Worker August 17). Needless to add, everything expressed both here and there is intended as both comradely in tone and primarily in pursuit of mutual ‘growth’ - not to forget simple solidarity. After all is said and done, the big wide and largely capitalism-enabling, monetisation-peddling world out there rolls on regardless: that being a world typified either by ruthless taking advantage of any weakness or confusion - or otherwise of gleeful celebration towards all self-indulgently introspective and thereby unproductive crap!

Bruno Kretzschmar
email

Liar Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh is a pathological liar and in any position of power he is a danger to society. I do not say this lightly, nor am I referring to Kavanaugh’s aberrant behaviour that Dr Christine Blasey Ford and others testified about: the attempted rape, sexual battery, drunkenness, blackouts and aggressions. All of that is important too.

However, what I am reporting on is the hundreds of times that Kavanaugh lied to Congress, while under oath, about his years in the early 2000s as president Bush’s White House staff secretary. Among other things, one of his responsibilities was to assist Bush nominees for federal judges through the Senate confirmation process. During that process, Kavanaugh received thousands of confidential emails, memorandums and talking points stolen from Democratic senators’ computer servers by Republican Senate staff member Manuel Miranda.

The stolen confidential emails, memorandums and talking points related to Democratic senators’ strategies for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Bush nominations to the federal courts. Those stolen documents have now been made public, and there is no question that Miranda stole them and passed them on to Kavanaugh.

Yet from 2004 to 2006, when Kavanaugh was asked hundreds of time while under oath if he had received the stolen documents, he consistently lied and committed perjury. This all occurred during his own contentious three-year Senate confirmation hearings as a Bush nominee to the US court of appeals. He did not lie just a few times. He lied hundreds of times, and he lied about it again just a few days ago, while being questioned for Senate confirmation to the US Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh has made these same lies, obfuscations and tried to change the subject hundreds of times, all while under oath, and to the FBI and other federal agents. He told these lies in 2004, 2006 and again during his confirmation process to the Supreme Court in 2018. Lying to Congress and the FBI are serious crimes. They are punishable by large fines and up to five years in prison.

Perjury is also an impeachable offence. Not only should Kavanaugh not be confirmed to a lifetime position on the supreme court, but he should be impeached and removed from the US court of appeals. He should have to forfeit his pension, and be disbarred from the practice of law for the rest of his life.

Senator Bernie Sanders wrote a letter on September 29 to the Judiciary Committee chairman, senator Chuck Grassley, demanding that a number of “inconsistencies” in Kavanaugh’s record and testimony be investigated fully. Sanders pointed out: “In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line, ‘spying’. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?”

Dr Christine Blasey Ford gave convincing testimony of Kavanaugh’s attempted rape of her, and there are substantiating allegations from others. Kavanaugh’s drunkenness, his bad bar room and frat house behaviour, and his most recent bizarre mental and emotional meltdowns during his Senate testimony all call for a thorough investigation.

What little we do know about Kavanaugh raises so many questions that they can only be answered by an extensive investigation that should take months. There are thousands of pages of his prior testimony and other documents that need careful scrutiny. Witnesses need vetting and some should be asked to take a polygraph test. Kavanaugh for one should take such a test.

The surface of Kavanaugh’s criminal behaviour has just been scratched. There is a lot more that should come out, and it is just below the surface. Let’s keep digging.

David William Pear
Florida

On errors

In ‘Aspirations frustrated’ (October 4), there is a quote from myself on the CPGB and the Labour Party in the 1930s. The article reads: “Lawrence Parker, in his Communists and Labour: The National Leftwing Movement 1925-1929, tells us …” This has become mangled in editing. The quote forms no part of my book. This assertion was not in the original text that I agreed with the author. A simple check with myself could have eradicated this symptomatic error.

In the last two years I have privately taken up the issue of major errors being introduced into my copy on three different occasions: ranging from spellcheckers reducing text to gibberish; bad typos being introduced; and paragraphs being mangled and stripped of meaning. On four other occasions, I have had cause to be seriously dissatisfied with poor layout (ie, columns not lining up, squashed text, etc) or illustrations that were misleading and boring. Given that I’ve only written about 10 articles in that period, it’s not a great record. Over the last few months I have noticed many, many textual errors in the paper and I wasn’t looking that hard. For example, Jack Conrad’s recent supplement on the Soviet Union lacked proper proofreading.

The most frustrating part of this, from my own experience, is that it is difficult to get the CPGB to take any of this seriously. Given that one should not mechanically separate issues of organisation from political ones, I wonder what the future portends.

Lawrence Parker
London