Letters
Extremism
As you are no doubt aware, the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party is mostly about “expelling the Trots” so they cannot “raise their evil standards on the parapets of the Labour Party” (quotes are from none other than the Party’s former Head of Disputes, Mike Creighton.)
However, you may not be aware that there are even more worrying attempts to extend this McCarthyite witch hunt by targeting almost all anti-capitalist ideas.
Two pioneers of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign, Daniel Allington and David Hirsh, have now had their ‘research’ published by the Home Office’s ‘Commission for Countering Extremism’. In their paper entitled ‘Violent extremist tactics and the ideology of the sectarian far left’, they seek to redefine many leftwing and anti-capitalist ideas as somehow inherently violent and therefore requiring surveillance and containment. The implications for all left wing activists - including leftist academics - are serious indeed.
The intensity and effectiveness of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party took us all by surprise. We need to be better prepared for the extension of this onslaught.
Please publicise this disturbing document as widely as you can. It can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/violent-extremist-tactics-and-the-ideology-of-the-sectarian-far-left
Chris Knight
London
Brexit
What should Labour policy be on Brexit? I think the left Brexit position (Lexit) of some (Communist Party of Britain, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party Scotland, etc) is politically bankrupt and has been shown to be so by the growth and dominance of a British nationalist far-right Brexit movement- now led by Johnson and Farage.
This project is a coherent far-right project which aims to link up with Trump and further attack the living standards of the working class. A working-class exit from the EU would be very different from the Brexit movement we now face. It would be part of a European wide fightback by the left against nationalism, militarism and austerity.
That is some way off in the future and we have to lay the grounds for such a movement now by attempting to link up socialists on a European scale. The Corbyn movement should use its strength to initiate and support such a project. Socialism in one country is a fantasy.
Should Labour simply call for the revoking of article 50 and enter the coming general election with that policy - a clear remain position? I think not. It is not a sensible policy to simply ignore or disdain those workers who voted leave. Many did so in reaction to the last 40 years of neoliberalism and the last ten years of austerity. These voters are not hardened British nationalists or racists. They oppose the establishment consensus of Blair, Brown and Cameron and don’t want a return to the status quo.
They are mistaken in believing that Brexit offers a way forward for workers. The left needs to win them to support a programme of pro-working class reforms. By simply overruling the EU referendum result we are likely to drive them further into the arms of the far-right.
Better to offer the democratic option of another referendum but this time with concrete proposals for leave and remain. In this Corbyn is correct. However, I would suggest three options on the ballot in a single transferable vote system. (1) no-deal Brexit, (2) a deal negotiated by the Labour government and (3) remain.
If 2 does not transpire we then have a straight choice between a no-deal Brexit and remain. This is the most democratic way forward and it is the choice that is most likely to puncture the bubble of the growth of the far-right.
If a Labour government simply withdraws article 50 it provides a platform for the growth of a far-right opposition to a Labour government. Of course, it would have been far better if the EU referendum had never happened. But we are where we are and we need to map a way forward that stops Brexit while removing any democratic rallying point for the far-right.
I voted remain because I thought that Brexit would produce a carnival of British nationalist reaction. And so it has turned out. No one could claim that the present movement for Brexit is a pro-working class movement. I agree on the need to build a European wide socialist movement because if we don’t we are not going to make any big step forward. To leave under the Tories was always going to be a disaster for working class people. It sets off a reactionary dynamic which is difficult to stop. But stop it we must.
The idea that it is not possible for a leftwing leader to propose pro-working class amendments to the treaties underpinning the EU is simply wrong. The important point would be that, for instance, Corbyn should put forward amendments or opt-outs that are in favour of the working class.
We would be trying to amend the treaties in favour of the working class, not the UK state. So, for instance, we would be demanding that rules barring state aid to workers’ co-ops be removed and competitive tendering should favour workers’ co-ops in any bidding or indeed that competitive tendering is abolished entirely in key industries. This could be in the form of an opt-out for the UK (which would encourage other workers in Europe to follow suit) or a proposed amendment to the treaties which would apply across the EU.
There are many other pro-working-class reforms that could be advanced by Corbyn while attempting to negotiate a new pro-working class ‘Brexit’ which maintained a customs union and the single market but with pro-working-class reforms in place.
Free movement would need to be fiercely defended. It is unlikely the renegotiations would produce a result (since the ruling classes of the EU will resist pro-working-class reforms to the treaties or any pro-working class opt-outs). But it would be a useful propaganda process and help kick start a European wide movement for pro-working-class reforms.
Unless you are of the view that the role of the labour movement in Britain is simply to defend the EU status quo (as do the Labour right, etc) using the Brexit crisis to highlight the need and possibility of pro-working-class reforms throughout Europe seems sensible.
If Corbyn has the stomach for it is another matter. Given that he has not been willing to launch a serious fightback against the Labour right there has to be serious doubt. However, for socialists, the main aim of any Brexit related policy should be to build a European wide movement for pro-working-class reform.
Sandy McBurney
Glasgow
Banner
It was I who put up the banner at Labour Party conference whose removal by police was covered by numerous papers on Monday. Sadly, all failed to note that my banner had earlier been repeatedly attacked by Zionists who slit it from top to toe. Each time I repaired it, each time it was ripped apart again.
Eventually a dozen extremists from the Sussex Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement made such a furore that the police took the banner down, thereby undermining my right to freedom of speech. Readers can see the slashed banner at tinyurl.com/bannerbanned.
Rabbi Ahron Cohen of the Neturei Karta told me that he cannot fathom any way that it is anti-Semitic. We are dumbfounded at Corbyn’s tweet describing it as such. And he has seen the Al-Jazeera documentary on which the banner was based, ‘The Lobby’ (tinyurl.com/thelobbyp1). It shows how Israel funds the takedown of politicians sympathetic to Palestine. The film’s fairness and accuracy was supported by Ofcom and Corbyn called for an investigation. So he knows that Israel pumps millions of pounds into Zionist defamation activities in the UK with the sole aim of shutting down any debate on Israel’s racist treatment of those who are not Jews.
Because, according to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism adopted by most political parties, to say that Israel is a racist endeavour is now seen as prejudice against Jews. My banner says: “IHRA: tell the NEC how you feel”, because we want Labour members to tell our National Executive Committee to abandon the IHRA definition they adopted a year ago. An action Corbyn himself objected to. Labour Party members are now beholden to a definition whereby any activist criticising Israel becomes an anti-Semite, a plainly ludicrous claim.
Most of these accusations come from a group within our Party, the JLM, a Zionist society we are seeking to disaffiliate from Labour. It was shown in the documentary to be conspiring with Israeli agents to attack Corbyn and others for their pro-Palestine stance. We at Labour Against Zionist Islamophobic Racism (LAZIR) see Zionism as racism and want to end their influence.
Our party stands for fairness, equality and social justice. The JLM shares none of these values when it comes to Palestine.
Pete Gregson
Chairperson LAZIR
Down the pan
A friend mailed me recently thus: “Do not know if u have seen it yet, but if you Google Daily Maverick guardian security services. It is extremely interesting.”
So I did. I’d never heard of The Maverick which is based in South Africa.
It is, in my view, a very interesting and important article about The Guardian, in large part because, as it says part way through,
“Given its appeal to traditional Labour supporters, the paper has probably done more to undermine Corbyn than any other. In particular, its massive coverage of alleged widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has helped to disparage Corbyn more than other smears carried in the media.”
There is not a lot of choice regarding daily newspapers now and The Guardian still carries some good stuff such as the Windrush articles and the war of attrition against the welfare state. However, my wife and I and friends have been saying for some time that it has been going down the pan, which I naively thought might just be the new editor and their attempts to become profitable. There is a lot in the piece on the anti-Semitism crap, for which Tony Greenstein rightly excoriates them regularly, but also on the wholesale departure of investigative journalists.
Jimmie Walker
email
Corbyn’s victory
Today (September 24) two major Brexit battles came to a head. The first was the vote at the Labour Party conference won by Corbyn and his allies. The second is the verdict at the Supreme Court that the Crown’s decision to prorogue parliament was illegal.
Republicans have views on both but I will concentrate on Brexit.
Corbyn won an important victory at conference which should help defeat Tory Brexit and by occupying the centre ground have more chance to win the next election. As republicans and socialists we should critically support Corbyn’s battle against the ultra remain position of Watson, Thornberry, Blair and Starmer etc.
Labour’s position is clear enough despite the Tories claiming that you have to be a genius to understand it. Vote Labour and if Labour wins there will be a new set of negotiations and any deal will be put to the people in a referendum with a remain option. Once the deal has been done Labour will look at the facts and decide how it will campaign.
Republicans can identify three ways to leave the EU - Tory Brexit, Labour Brexit and Republican Exit. It is important to draw sharp lines between them. Strictly speaking ‘Brexit’ means the exit of the whole of the UK state. By contrast, republicans support the right of nations to self determination.
The Tories are determined to take the whole UK out of the single market and customs union. This is essential to their plan to impose a new and more hostile immigration regime on working people and open up the NHS and the UK domestic market to US corporate raiders and trade deals and to keep the City of London beyond EU regulation. There was no mandate for any of this.
A Labour Brexit was promised in the 2017 manifesto. In 2018 Labour conference added a ratification referendum. This should keep the UK in the single market and the customs union, both on democratic grounds and because it is in the best interests of the working class to oppose Tory Brexit. Current Labour policy only speaks of ‘close alignment to the single market’.
A republican exit recognises that England and Wales voted to leave and Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain and therefore supports a deal which delivers the mandates from the UK’s constituent nations. This rejects the imposition of a UK exit on Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Republicans point out that nobody voted to leave the single market or the customs union because it was not on the ballot paper. Furthermore republicanism supports a ratification referendum making government more accountable to the people. It should be noted that a republican-exit for England and Wales is a republican-remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland. English exit and Irish remain are united by recognition of the rights of nations to self-determination.
Republicans should support a ratification referendum which is quite different to a second referendum or the inclusion of a remain question to reverse the 2016 decision. This is a matter of tactics and timing. Put simply, there is no point in refighting the last war and coming up with more or less the same result. It is a dangerous gamble with the unity of the working class.
Since 2017 three trends have been fighting it out - ultra-Leave, remain-democrats and ultra-remain. Some object to the term ‘remain-democrats’ so we could call them the ‘centre’ ground between the two extreme positions. Nevertheless I still think the political centre is best identified as ‘remain-democrats’ who are in favour of remaining but accept the 2016 result (or some version of it).
The centre (remain-democrats) include a broad range of views from Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve, to Stephen Kinnock and Lisa Nandy who are on the right-centre. Jeremy Corbyn and Len McCuskey stand at the centre of the centre. Republican exit should be located on the left of centre, as left remain-democrats.
In parliamentary terms the important difference is between Kinnock and his right-centre allies (40 MPs) and the Corbyn centre. Kinnock is prepared to support an anti-working class Tory Brexit in order to get Brexit done. He may back another Theresa May deal or a Johnson deal (May Mark 2). If Johnson delivers a Tory deal, Kinnock and his Labour allies will line up with the Tories in parliament to deliver victory for Johnson. This will make Johnson’s victory in the subsequent general election more likely, if not certain.
The Labour conference was the battle ground between Corbyn’s remain-democrat approach in the guise of Labour Brexit and a broad array of ultra remainers led by Watson, Thornberry, Starmer and the Blairites. As conference recognised, Watson saw ultra remain’ as a way of undermining Corbyn and making sure he could not win the election. Fortunately Corbyn carried the day.
Had the ultras’ remain succeeded in defeating Corbyn’s Labour Brexit it would have liberated the Kinnock group to back a Tory Brexit, like the May Deal, if Johnson can find one. The consequence of an ultra-remain victory at the conference would therefore increase the likelihood that the UK would leave the EU on October 31.
Corbyn’s victory has cut down or reduced the likelihood of the Kinnock group of MPs being able to betray the working class in the name of the 2016 referendum. It increases the possibility of Labour winning the next general election as the only party that will let the people decide. Labour will have a case to appeal to both parts of a divided working class.
The reckless ultra-remainers see tactics not as an assessment of the balance of forces, but an opportunity for virtue signalling. Look at me, the ‘Peacock of Remainers’ who don’t mind if the UK leaves the EU on October 31 as long as we can parade and preen like Emily Thornbury, Tom Watson or Jo Swinson.
Republicans in England should position themselves in the remain-democrat camp or on the centre ground and to the left of Corbyn within the same political space. Republicans should give critical support for Corbyn against ultra-leave and ultra-remain whilst criticising Corbyn’s inconsistent democratic stance and the danger of a remain question on the ballot before the case has been won and public opinion has shifted significantly.
Steve Freeman
London
Population
John Smithee is very worried about population growth and worries about being mistaken for a follower of Thomas Malthus (Letters September 19 2019). But he goes on to advocate a tax-free £500 for voluntary sterilisation and the abolition of benefits for people with children. I’m sorry John, but this looks to me like restricting the numbers of children of the poor. I do not think Jacob Rees-Mogg would be impressed with the offer of £500.
Many years ago I saw a retired Pakistani interior minister on TV. He spoke about population control and the attempts at it in Pakistan and India, using things like free condoms and transistor radios for vasectomy – not forgetting forced sterilisation which has also been popular in Germany and the USA among other countries. He said that the only correlation with smaller families was female education.
George Monbiot in an article a few years ago said that the carbon footprint of the average American was 27 times that of the average African. So, as he wrote, “whose population needs controlling?”. I might have slightly misremembered the numbers which may also have slightly changed - but you get the picture.
John also attacks Jack Conrad for failing to consider “what effect robotics, lasers and artificial intelligence in the advanced countries will have on the demand for labour”. Having read Jack’s articles and hearing him speak. I’ve got the impression the capitalist “demand for labour” is not his most pressing concern.
When we get rid of capitalism I’m confident that there will be sufficient jobs for many years clearing up the mess. We will need scientists, industry workers plus those who want to learn and join in to clear nuclear waste, including old submarines and missiles, toxic waste, plastic and other wastes that we know of as well as those we do not yet know of. We will need people for sustainable agriculture and energy – it will be a long time before we have worry about “jobs”.
John ends his letter with the plea that “It is time the radical left woke up and recognised that population growth is a problem.” No John, capitalism is the problem and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are not part of the solution.
Jim Cook
Reading
Empowerment
In answer to John Smithee I could counter his interpretation of facts and challenge their implication, but bandying figures back and forth rarely, if ever, achieves any change of opinion.
Even though it might sound counterintuitive, for stabilising and lowering the population forget all about population policies and instead simply help each and every woman bear a child in good health, whenever she herself chooses to have a baby.
Ending population growth starts by saving the children of the poorest women. Giving women control of both their lives and their bodies is what will control population growth. The best family planning and contraceptive is the empowerment of women.
Alan Johnstone
Socialist Party of Great Britain