Letters

Anti-colonisation

Daniel Lazare characterises the conflict between colonised Palestinians and colonising Israelis as one between “dual nationalism of Arabs and Jews” (Letters, February 16).

In support of this grotesquely symmetric view of the conflict - equating the nationalism of the oppressed with that of the oppressor - he has dug up a couple of quotes from the distant past that used similar symmetric language. Lo and behold, it transpires that Trotskyists and (perhaps) also Stalinists in Palestine used such language in 1948 and 1946, respectively. (His reading of the Stalinists’ text is not quite convincing.)

He apparently expects his readers not to observe that what could charitably be excused as myopia back then is inexcusable gross error now, after more than seven decades of Zionist expansion, ethnic cleansing, rampant Jewish supremacy, armed land robbery, settler gangsterism and massive, merciless military brutality. Lazare is satisfied to reuse the old facile formulas as if nothing has happened since the 1940s.

He is in denial of the imbalance inherent in a colonial conflict, which has profound consequences regarding the grounds on which workers on both sides of the divide can possibly unite. Whereas in a symmetric conflict between nations workers on each side are called upon to renounce ‘their own’ nationalism, in a colonial conflict this kind of demand is sanctimonious cant. Such is Lazare’s pious wish “to unite the working class against the dual nationalism of Arabs and Jews”.

A necessary condition under which Arab and Hebrew (aka Israeli Jewish) workers can possibly unite in revolutionary political action is through joint uncompromising opposition to Zionism and joint support for the decolonisation of Palestine and for Palestinian national liberation. The Hebrew working class would have to give up its relatively vastly privileged position as part of the oppressor colonising nation.

It is therefore obvious why such unity would be extraordinarily hard to achieve, and is unlikely to be forged under present regional and international conditions (I have elaborated on this in several Weekly Worker articles; for example, ‘The decolonisation of Palestine’, June 23 2016). Hence my pessimism of the intellect, which Lazare derides. He actually accuses me of “aim[ing] … to short-circuit joint struggle before it can get off the ground”!

Having thus unmasked my aims, he feels entitled to add some snide ad hominem barbs, which I do not wish to dignify with a response.

Moshé Machover
London

Trans and class

First of all, the Weekly Worker should be commended for publishing the recent articles by Mike Macnair on the issues thrown up by trans politics. These issues need to be discussed frankly, rather than just hurling the mindless accusation of ‘transphobia’ at anyone - even socialist feminists of long standing on the left - who raise even mild reservations over issues such as gender self-identification.

Attempting to square the circle of gender self-ID with materialist politics leads Macnair into a bit of a muddle, however. A large part of this confusion seems to arise with his focus on what percentage of the population are “fertile”. If we begin with a sound, scientifically-rooted and materialist definition of biological sex - that recognises the fact that humans, in common with all other mammals, are overwhelmingly born with bodies that follow a particular developmental pathway - it does not significantly matter whether or not this reproductive pathway is actual, potential or simply no longer functioning. Trans ideology does not like this definition, because obviously one cannot ‘identify’ as having a specific reproductive pathway, and so tend to invest every definition in vague notions of some metaphysical gender ‘essence’.

Macnair’s observation that our “common humanity” must recognise those who “do not fit neatly into a sex binary based on reproductive characteristics” overlooks the fact that the vast majority of trans-identifying people do not have any uncharacteristic features in their reproductive development. In other words, they do fit into the “sex binary”. Whatever ways these points are spun, they always come down to a conflation and confusion - evident again in Macnair’s articles - between sex, a biological reality, and gender, the cultural manifestation of that reality.

Finally, what is the political outcome of not being clear on these issues? Macnair appears to lay the blame for pursuing “culture wars” exclusively with the right. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. Cultural, identity-based politics now consume the left - and it is what can broadly be described as the liberal-left, which is currently steamrolling through incoherent policies, such as gender self-ID, with little regard to fairness or legitimate safeguarding concerns.

These issues - alongside others that he mentions, such as the right to abortion - are class issues of concern to the entire labour movement. That movement must come to terms with them in a way that defends individuals against genuine bigotry, whilst not losing sight of the reality of biological sex and the profound ways that it affects people’s lives.

Ben Rust
email

Soviets

I found Torab Saleth’s article on the demand for a constituent assembly in Iran really interesting and useful (‘Whose constituent assembly?’ February 9). I think, however, there might have been something of a contradiction between the early part - which seemed to be arguing that the process of establishing organs of people’s democratic power had to be concurrent with establishing proletarian, socialist rule - and the majority of the remainder of the article - which was much more arguing that the establishment of people’s democratic power would be a vital contested arena, in which socialists and communists can help create the conditions for socialism. This apparent contradiction may have been a consequence of the article being an excerpt or excerpts from a much longer piece.

It seemed to me that Mike Macnair’s earlier article on shoras or councils in Iran (‘Shoras, party and programme’, January 19) was also trying to argue that there was nothing inherently proletarian or socialist about such basic organs of power, as they can just as easily be taken over by bourgeois forces as proletarian. Mike’s arguments were in danger of dismissing the whole history of working people’s self-organisation and embryonic forms of working people’s power (soviets, councils, strikes and solidarity committees, self-organising, collective, cooperative networks to ensure people have access to basic food and shelters, etc), simply on the basis they might be taken over by hostile bourgeois forces.

I tend to agree much more strongly with the second set of arguments and perspectives in Torab’s article than the first - probably due to the fact that socialist and communist forces are currently extremely weak. A potential reconciliation between the apparent different positions might be to see the inherent class nature of different forms of government, rule or administration, but recognising these are also sites for struggle between contending class forces and that such institutions may indeed be taken over by opposing classes.

It seems pretty obvious from the perspective of the 21st century that the parliamentary institutions and systems which were created in the struggles of the bourgeoisies for ascendancy over previous feudal and monarchical systems are now completely and inherently bourgeois and fashioned for bourgeois rule.

Contending political parties are all completely signed up to the capitalist economic and social system, and operate to separate the masses of the people from any form of active involvement whatsoever - beyond putting a cross or set of numbers on a ballot paper once every four or five years. Supported by a mass media constantly churning out desensitising, anaesthetising nonsense and irrelevance, simultaneous, all-channel, saturation coverage of selected issues turned on and off like a tap.

However, it is possible to envisage certain circumstances, where an independent working class movement, increasingly conscious of its own historical role, of its social value and worth in creating all the useful goods and services in society, and increasingly aware of the need to establish a society run by and for working people, through building up mass consciousness and support in the wider population, could through winning elections come to dominate, take over and then transform these capitalist institutions of democracy.

The working class, through its struggles throughout its entire history, throws up a wide range of forms of self-organisation, structures and formations, which immensely add to and help express the latent power of the working class. Yes, we can recognise that these, prior to socialism being established, are still potential arenas for struggle and that hostile, including bourgeois, forces might seek to take them over. The classic example is, of course, the soviets in Russia immediately after February 1917, where the initial political majorities in the soviets voluntarily chose not to exercise their own independent power, but to support the bourgeois Provisional Government.

In both Iran and Britain, the forces for socialism are extremely weak, but this does not mean we should ‘soft-peddle’ on trying to achieve revolutionary regime change, including through the formation and development of forms of mass working peoples organisational and political power. If we are able to overthrow the capitalist state and rule, replacing it with an alternative people’s democratic power, but in advance of the conditions for socialism being in place (including mass socialist consciousness and support), then clearly such organs of people’s democratic power could then become sites for struggle between pro-working class socialist forces and a wide range of other competing, including hostile, perspectives and class interests.

Given that these structures and formations are integral and inherent forms of working class struggle and expression, they would provide socialists and communists with vastly greater space and opportunity to strengthen and build the proletarian and socialist forces than would ever be the case under even the most democratic bourgeois parliamentary democratic system.

Obviously, the sooner socialist and communist forces could build up their strength and support, thereby transforming what would in effect be a national democratic revolution into a socialist revolution - people’s democratic power into proletarian socialist power - the better. The longer this takes, the greater the opportunity for bourgeois and other enemy forces to intervene and subvert the new institutions of people’s democratic rule, and for a new ruling strata to emerge.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

Lords reform

In the CPGB’s political perspectives 2023 it is noted that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has expressed support for a constitutional convention. In fact, Starmer has merely endorsed a report which he commissioned, written by former prime minister Gordon Brown, which advocates turning the House of Lords into an elected Senate with a constitutional role in upholding new economic and social rights and defending devolution.

These convoluted proposals are clearly aimed at immediate and specific electoral concerns - namely Labour’s response to the continued dominance of the Scottish National Party in Scotland. And they are made in place of any commitment by Labour to a constitutional convention elected by the general public.

But Lords reform will be used by the Labour leadership as an alternative to the push for electoral reform which keeps coming from the party’s base at its annual conference, and increasingly from the activists of affiliated trade unions at their policy conferences. At last year’s Labour conference, Starmer insisted - on the eve of the vote on support for proportional representation in parliamentary elections - that electoral reform would not make it into the manifesto. Delegates voted to back PR anyway, assisted by the backing of the Unite and Unison unions.

In the event that Labour lacks a Commons majority after the general election, Lords reform could help seal the deal with potential coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. ‘How about electoral reform, but not for us?’ is something which would unite MPs from both Labour and the Lib Dems.

An incoming government is unlikely to encounter the benign economic circumstances of the Blair years. Rather, it is likely to face the kind of turbulence which led to the demise of the last Labour government, in which case the party’s positioning over rights will be immediately tested against efforts to end a recession. The modest workers’ rights agenda championed by the deputy leader, and backed by the unions, will come under sustained pressure from above.

In the run-up to the general election, the prospect of sweeping away the bloated House of Lords and replacing it with a smaller elected Senate will be presented both as evidence of radicalism and a path for future advance.

Marxists should insist that a temporary constitutional convention be created, not a permanent senate. For, in a constituent assembly, the property question can be posed at the most fundamental level.

Ansell Eade
Lincolnshire

Hocus pocus

As you enter the world of ideas and politics, we urge you to explore the philosophy of dialectical materialism. This is a call to embrace the power of the dialectical approach, which has been historically and contemporarily demonstrated in nations like Iran and South Africa. Dialectical materialism offers a broad and critical way of thinking about society, power and change.

We draw inspiration from ‘Political perspectives 2023’, where the principles of dialectics were discussed and agreed upon by the members of the CPGB (Weekly Worker February 16). The dialectical approach is not only a set of theoretical concepts, but a way of looking at the world and developing a concrete understanding of historical processes.

One of the important revelations of dialectical materialism is that the forces that oppose us often use the very same principles, even if they do not call it by that name. They use their own language and ideology to impose their will and manipulate the masses. Therefore, it is essential that we develop our own language and strategies that reflect the principles of dialectical materialism.

For example, the recent Nord Stream pipeline bombing and the complete silence of mainstream media on this issue can be viewed through a dialectical lens. This event highlights the contradictions and conflicts between the unipolar and multipolar worldviews, and the global struggle for resources and power. In this way, dialectical materialism offers a unique and critical perspective on global events and politics.

We urge you to think critically and creatively, to explore the potential of dialectical materialism as a framework for understanding and transforming society. We must learn from history - both the specific cases of Iran and South Africa, and, more generally, the international lessons of material struggles.

The Hersh exposé in the USA highlights the power of the media to shape and control public opinion. It is a thesis of the manipulative forces of capitalism, imperialism and hegemony. The dialectical approach provides an antithesis - a strategy for countering these forces and building a truly democratic and socialist society.

In conclusion, we call upon you, the young intellectuals of Britain, to embrace dialectical materialism and develop a new educational paradigm. We must build a new future based on authentic being, evolutionary approaches and constituent assemblies. This requires a correct political strategy, leadership and a conscious effort to drive historical processes.

Let us begin the struggle for socialism with the power of dialectics at our side.

Imad Bradley
Dialectical Materialism Collective

Defend Russia

Having decreed that Jeremy Corbyn cannot stand for Labour, Keir Starmer has also decreed that failure to support Nato is incompatible with membership of Labour - but at least Corbyn does not support arming Ukraine. As seen in the recent letter in the Morning Star, shamefully John McDonnell had signed up to Chris Ford’s ‘Nato arm Ukraine’ Solidarity with Ukraine organisation, as have five other MPs, as well as Peter Tatchell, Paul Mason, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, AntiCapitalist Resistance, the Labour Representation Committee, three rightwing trade union general secretaries, three assistant general secretaries and a president (GMB, PCS, NUM and Aslef).

All serious militants and socialists should demand UK out of Nato, an end to sanctions on Russia and no arms or support for the US/Nato-proxy, Nazi-infested Kiev regime. The defeat of the US/Nato proxy war on Russia, with no illusions in Putin, is the best possible outcome of this conflict. Peace can only come with the defeat of the US/Nato warmongers.

Daniel Lazare correctly analysed the contradictions between Germany and the US over the war in Ukraine: “something deeper is going on,” he sagely observed (‘German Ostpolitik collapses’, January 26). Now Biden’s visit to Kiev and the Munich Security Conference over the weekend of February 18-20 has brought these things strongly to the fore. And it is the course of the war itself that determines the political conflict, according to Al Jazeera on February 16.

Russian forces have almost encircled the city of Bakhmut and Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner paramilitary mercenaries, said: “If this happens … Ukrainian troops will be completely cut off from the supply of ammunition, medicines and fuel” and Bakhmut will fall by April. This serious military setback - of course, Zelensky and the western media have practically stopped reporting on this and say it is of no importance - has spread great alarm.

On the anniversary of the Russian invasion, their spring offensive is threatening not only the Ukrainian holdouts in the Donbass, but on the southern front as well. The political crisis in Moldova and the breakaway pro-Russian state of Transnistria makes the linking-up with the Russian army to cut off Odessa and Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea a real possibility.

Hence the great alarm now sounded by Zelensky and the west over the situation on the battlefields and China’s intentions in this conflict. The Munich Security Conference over the weekend of February 18-20 was alarmed as reported by Germany’s Politico. There was “more than a hint of foreboding just beneath the surface”, as “western leaders congratulate themselves for their generosity, the country’s armed forces are running low on ammunition, equipment and even men”.

They needed more help and fast. Zelensky implored; “We need speed.” Then US vice-president Kamala Harris demanded a ‘Nuremberg 2.0’ for the Russian leaders - of course, the US does not recognise the sovereignty of the International Criminal Court in the Hague over any of its own war crimes: just over those of its enemies.

In the 1968 My Lai massacre (just the tip of the iceberg of US war crimes in Vietnam), to mention just one arena of its post World War II war crimes, US troops killed between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians. No-one was jailed for those openly admitted war crimes. Pulitzer prizewinner Seymour Hersh exposed the massacre almost 54 years ago, just as he has exposed the US blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines today.

Kiev’s hero, Nazi Stepan Bandera, would have been proud of these ‘patriots’! On January 1 2023, the Ukrainian Rada (parliament), the army leadership and local officials openly celebrated his anniversary.

Clearly China understands that Russia is threatening military victory, and this will make the US/Nato projected World War III on China far more difficult to justify and pursue. Patrick Wintour, The Guardian’s diplomatic editor, reported Antony Blinken on the warpath on February 19 in Munich against the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi. But Wang made it clear that China would not back down over Taiwan. Wintour reported that Blinken had told US networks that the US had information on China: it was considering whether to give Russia assistance, possibly including guns and weapons, for the Ukraine war. “The concern that we have now is, based on information we have, that they’re considering providing lethal support,” Blinken said shortly after he met with Wang. “And we’ve made very clear to them that that could cause a serious problem for us and in our relationship.”

There were more problems: “China’s trade with Russia is increasing and it has been buying Russian oil, but probably below the US$60 per barrel price cap imposed by the EU and G7 group of states”. Disobedient scoundrels!

Wintour, in his Guardian review of the effectiveness of the sanctions against Russia on February 20, observes that “early claims Moscow would buckle quickly proved hubristic, yet Putin has also made miscalculations” and Joe Biden’s confident assertion back in March 2022 that “the Russian economy is on track to be cut in half” proved to be the opposite to what really happened: “The Russian economy contracted by only 2.2% last year … Russia is now forecast by the International Monetary Fund to grow faster in 2023 and 2024 than the UK. It is hardly financial apocalypse now,” we are advised.

And some EU countries, not to mention the global south, are rallying behind Russia against the US/Nato. Greece, Malta, Austria and Belgium are not cooperating fully, we learn. Turkey’s exports to Russia surged to over $1 billion a month - it was the route Russia used to import vital goods and Italy was using Turkey as an access point into Russian markets. The US is losing its global authority!

But there’s hope! “In the end an international sanctions war is a game of cat and mouse, in which both sides look for clues amid the disinformation to try to pre-empt the other’s moves. Ultimately it is not as decisive as the battlefield, but if the west can stay the course, Putin may yet find his options narrowing. If he survives it will be a huge blow to the power of the dollar, and one that will not go unnoticed in Beijing,” Politico concludes.

Gerry Downing
Socialist Fight

Go independent

For all his failings, Jeremy Corbyn is well rid of the Labour Party. It opportunistically pretended to oppose the abolition of the 45p rate of income tax, but it supported everything else in the mini-budget. Labour is going into the next general election as the only party that still thought that Trussonomics was a good idea. A Starmer government would be brought down by the same forces that brought down Liz Truss - and on the same grounds.

Everyone except Labour is now talking, as some of us always have been, about Ukrainian corruption, Ukrainian Nazism, the bans on opposition parties and on free media, about religious persecution, as well as war crimes on both sides, and the role of Nato and European Union expansion in fomenting this crisis - about the fact that this war has been going on for nine years, and about how any realistic alternative to Vladimir Putin would be even worse.

By the next general election, everyone will be pretending that they had always agreed with us about Ukraine. Everyone, that is, apart from the Labour Party. Corbyn should say good riddance to it, and look forward to holding Islington North as an independent.

David Lindsay
Durham