Letters

Rude words

I completely agree with the CPGB Provisional Central Committee statement upholding the principle of free speech (Weekly Worker March 9) in response to an exclusion of a comrade from the Unofficial Weekly Worker Readers’ Group Discord server that has been overseen and subsequently defended by a small group of CPGB members. I sincerely hope that the excluded comrade can be quickly readmitted.

However, there are some useful lessons around the culture of the left that can be extracted from this tawdry episode. The debate on the server has moved on to the question of rudeness and its use in political debate. This was after the following intervention from a CPGB member who was keen to justify the exclusion. He said: “… the claim underpinning the entire PCC statement is that [the excluded comrade] was banned ‘on the grounds of “transphobic” speech’… is simply false. [The comrade] was banned for being extremely rude over a number of hours during chats on a number of topics. We had never said that he was banned for transphobia; we never told the PCC this - they have simply made this up. When we strip back all of this rather dangerous dog-whistling and misquotations, the question becomes nothing more than whether or not we should moderate rude behaviour in a private space - nothing that the PCC has any remit to wax lyrical about in the pages of the Weekly Worker.”

My first thought is that this statement is in itself “extremely rude” and, when put alongside one of this comrade’s apparent attempts at humour (he’s actually about as funny as Jimmy Savile in a hospital mortuary), where he boasted that he intended on “flinging more shit than the chimps in Chester Zoo” in the pages of the Weekly Worker, one gets the distinct impression that some more rudeness is being planned. People who criticise others for rudeness are rarely able to stop themselves being rude and thus breaching their own shame-faced edicts.

This prissy and performative nonsense about ‘rudeness’ makes me wonder if the comrades actually know anything about the history of their organisation and its honourable insistence on the right of free speech - and the right, where necessary, to be offensive. My experience is that generally it is either bureaucrats or people with extremely weak politics who hide the most behind an almost constant desire to be ‘nice’ and superficially polite. It’s a useful, seemingly non-aggressive, political shield for bad politics. If one is unable to be sharp, and sometimes downright rude, then that just removes an important weapon from the armoury of those who wish to fight against bad politics. A part of ensuring that ‘right to fight’ is occasionally defending the rights of other people, in external and internal spaces, to talk bollocks, rather than setting a precedent of exclusion for mere ‘rudeness’.

Take a concrete example. Back in 2008, Alliance for Workers’ Liberty leader Sean Matgamna was busy ‘hypothetically’ excusing a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran. Having been partially involved as a CPGB-PCC supporter at that point and knowing well the comrades who were fronting up the campaign against this reactionary crap, I can state with surety the idea that we shouldn’t be rude to Matgamna never occurred to anyone. Why would he be allowed off the hook like that? Matgamna whined at the time of being “bullied” by the Weekly Worker. Good.

Excessive or constant rudeness soon becomes self-defeating and sometimes diplomacy, tact and politeness can be employed, like rudeness, as useful political weapons. Some rudeness on the left is reactionary and self-defeating. Trotskyist groups, in particular, developed a rude and abrasive cadre type, whose role was generally to police undemocratic organisations away from the other set of Trotskyist or far-left ‘wankers’ on the opposite side of the road. But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the sect bathwater.

Finally, the CPGB comrades on the Discord group really think that they can give a “private space” the branding of the Weekly Worker, attempt to talk authoritatively there on behalf of their organisation as CPGB members on all sorts of topics, and expect others to make no association whatsoever between that “private space” and the organisation and paper as a whole. This undialectical theory of ‘watertight compartments’ does not make sense.

As it stands, the Weekly Worker, which stands for the right of free speech, has an ‘unofficial’ Discord server that excludes comrades for the crime of rudeness. To expect that not to come back on the CPGB and its paper is naive in the extreme. Similarly, let us take a hypothetical situation. A comrade from the CPGB is excluded from a campaign group for the spurious reason of being ‘rude’. The Weekly Worker rightly complains at the exclusion. Comrade Smart-Arse writes in and says, ‘Well, your comrades exclude people from the Unofficial Weekly Worker Readers’ Group Discord server for the same thing.’

That’s how it works and it’s delusional to think otherwise.

Lawrence Parker
London

Zionism

I am bemused by Ansell Eade’s letter (March 9). Nowhere did I say in my article on why the Socialist Workers Party isn’t anti-Zionist that we should no-platform Zionists (‘Not a minor issue’, March 2). However, that doesn’t mean that we should allow them on our demonstrations. Should we allow scabs and strike-breakers on marches in solidarity with striking workers?

Yes, ‘democratic’ - or rather bureaucratic - centralism is a major problem in the SWP (and not only the SWP) for the reasons Ansell gives. However, that is the means by which the SWP’s opportunism is able to be expressed and implemented. Of course, its opportunism is, in itself, the product of its centrist and vacillating politics, which never hesitates to concede to the winds of social chauvinism. It was because of this political cowardice that the SWP’s forerunners took a neutral stance on the Korean war and refused to stand up to anti-communism in the 1950s. Its state-capitalist theory and its ‘Neither Washington nor Moscow’ slogan was an attempt to avoid that anti-communist witch-hunt.

I have never said that Israel-supporting groups should be banned from taking part in anti-racist work. The fact is that there is no example of such a group becoming involved. Zionism by its very nature means an abandonment of the fight against racism and anti-Semitism. That is why sections of the Zionist movement in this country work openly with Tommy Robinson’s fascists. Of course, individual Zionists may take part in anti-fascist work, although in practice this is very rare. But pro-Israel groups never do.

The participation of two far-right Zionist groups in the SWP/Stand Up To Racism Glasgow march has nothing to do with anti-racism. Does Ansell seriously believe that either of these groups supports the demand, ‘Refugees are welcome’? Israel refuses to accept non-Jewish refugees into the country. Have these groups ever campaigned against that? They participate to smear anti-racists and Palestinian supporters with ‘anti-Semitism’. Nothing more. There is no evidence that either Zionist group does any anti-racist work within the Jewish community. Posts on Glasgow Friends of Israel Facebook page supported the murder of 50 Muslims in New Zealand and talked of ‘euthanasing’ Palestinians. Both organisations are deeply Islamophobic.

The Israeli flag and the Star of David are not one and the same. I have no objection to someone taking part in an anti-racist activity with a Star of David medallion. But I do object to the blue and white Israeli flag with its symbolism of colonisation and ethnic cleansing. I’m surprised that Ansell does not understand this - the Star of David historically was a minor Jewish symbol, which Zionism misappropriated. The fact that the Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland has charitable status is irrelevant - so do many reactionary organisations, such as the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, which is a Zionist, not a Jewish, charity.

Tony Greenstein
Brighton

Attacks on me

It seems that the letters page is increasingly devoted to attacks on my work. Moshé Machover, for example, is very upset because I described his call for the Israeli working class to “give up its relatively vastly privileged position” as “reactionary” (March 9). I did so because I think his terminology is incorrect. After all, what vast privileges is he talking about? The privilege of living in a religious dictatorship? Of serving as military enforcers for an increasingly fascistic state? In the case of Jewish men, of seeing one’s children reduced to second-class citizenship because they’ve married outside the ‘faith’?

What would have been his message to white workers in the American south under Jim Crow - that they should give up their privileges too (eg, the privilege of seeing black men tortured and killed in a town square or of sinking ever deeper into poverty and ignorance)? No communist would have used language like this because the entire thrust of socialist propaganda was that such privileges were spurious and that the sole purpose was to divide the proletariat along racial lines. The socialist message to black workers was similar. Obviously, they had an unqualified right to defend themselves against lynch-mob terror. But socialists would also have reminded them that guns are of limited effect and that the only real way to defeat racism is by building an interracial, working class movement against capitalism.

I see no reason why the same principles do not apply to Israel-Palestine. I would remind Machover that the Communist manifesto does not say ‘Workers of the world unite - except for British proletarians, who must first make amends to the Indian masses; French workers, who must pay for their country’s crimes in Algeria, etc.’ Rather, it calls on all workers to unite against the real perpetrators of imperialist crimes: ie, the international bourgeoisie. Socialist revolution is decolonisation, it is deZionisation, and it also means stripping away all other kinds of nationalist ideology too, including the Arab variety that has generated nothing but social backwardness.

As for Tony Greenstein, who has a letter attacking me in the same issue, it turns out that he doesn’t believe in proletarian solidarity at all. “In a settler-colonial state,” he writes, “be it South Africa, Northern Ireland or Israel, the settler working class sees as its main political enemy not its own ruling class, but the working class of the oppressed or indigenous working class”. The settler working class is a scab class, evidently, whose role is irretrievably reactionary.

But the United States also originated as a settler state. Does that mean the 76% of America that is white is irretrievably reactionary too? Greenstein goes on: “I do not share the confidence of Moshé Machover that the Israeli Jewish working class can be won to joint struggle with the Arab working class. I suspect that, as in South Africa, the removal of political apartheid in Israel will happen when the west realises that the game is up and it withdraws support from Israeli apartheid.”

This is absurd. US imperialism will never withdraw because it believes that an alliance with a heavily militarised Jewish state is essential to the control of the region’s vast energy resources. Arab nationalism will never drive Israeli Jews into the sea, one might add, because the Israeli military is far too powerful. Since there’s also no chance of workers’ revolution, according to Greenstein, then nothing can possibly change ever. Israel is exploding due to powerful internal contradictions. But neither he nor Machover can intervene in a meaningful way, because they have nothing positive to say to the Israeli working class. Indeed, Greenstein sneers at the mass protests over Netanyahu’s proposed judicial overhaul as an attempt “to defend a racist supreme court and ‘Jewish’ democracy”, as he put it recently in his blog. So there’s no point intervening, because Israeli society is just an undifferentiated reactionary mass. There is nothing about such analysis that is the least bit socialist. It’s a nationalist viewpoint that can only end in disaster for workers on both sides of the divide.

Someone else seeking to hold me to account is Jim Creegan. “While conceding that Palestinians are unequal to Israelis,” he writes (March 2), “the major thrust of his [ie, my] writing suggests that support for Palestine against the Zionist state be made conditional upon renunciation of support from Hamas and Islamic Jihad” (emphasis in the original). I never said any such thing. What I have argued is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are more of a threat to Palestinians than they are to the Jewish state, because they play straight into Zionist hands by reinforcing Israeli Jewish fears that they are surrounded by Arab anti-Semites at every turn. This is obvious for any Marxist who has studied the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a serious way.

Creegan also says: “Nor does he insist, as Marx and Lenin would have, that any Jewish working class opposition to the Israeli government make Palestinian self-determination foremost among its demands.” This is also untrue: national rights are as valid for Palestinians as they are for anyone else. But the Israeli and Palestinian nations are interpenetrated in an area that is smaller than Belgium (which, come to think of it, has its own national divisions as well). They must therefore make room for one another on the basis of mutual sympathy and respect - something possible only in the context of a socialist Middle East.

Yet another critic is ‘GG’, who is so taken aback by an article I wrote on women’s rights and motherhood (‘Not equality to compete’, January 19), that she has fired off two letters in response - one on January 26 and the other on March 2. Mainly, she seems upset over my statement that “bourgeois feminism is at best ambivalent on family and motherhood”. But since, as a self-proclaimed feminist, she refers to “the reality of inferiority which the role of motherhood represents”, I don’t see why ‘ambivalence’ is inappropriate. She repeatedly accuses me of justifying motherhood and child-rearing because they serve the “needs of society” - a phrase I nowhere use - and says: “Lazare talks about what women ‘want,’ which is to have children.” But I never said that’s what women want in general. All I said is that “polls indicate that they would want more children if only they could afford them - but increasingly cannot” - a statement that holds true for many women, but obviously not for all. But, if capitalism deprives women of the right to have as many children as they wish, isn’t that something that socialists should denounce?

“Daniel Lazare indicates that there are differences between bourgeois feminists, radical feminists and socialists in regards to how they view the right to abortion and the right to bear children,” GG says. “I don’t see how significant distinctions are made, necessarily, except in the realm of imagination, in which case a political wedge is created between women, and serves the status quo.” This seems to be a rejection of class analysis. But then she says that “Clara Zetkin’s quote found in Lazare’s article is apt: ‘The proletarian woman ... agrees with the demands of the bourgeois women’s movement, but she regards the fulfilment of these demands simply as a means to enable that movement to enter the battle, equipped with the same weapons, alongside the proletariat.’”

This seems to be an endorsement of the class line that Zetkin fought for. So does GG believe that women should mobilise on the basis of gender or class? Perhaps she’ll write a third letter clarifying her position.

Daniel Lazare
New York

Sources of info

As a regular reader of the Weekly Worker, I have noticed that, whilst readers occasionally ask questions via the letters page, they only rarely receive an answer from either the editor or the author of an article. In light of this, I emailed Peter Manson, making some observations on, and asking questions about, Jack Conrad’s last ‘Notes on the war’ article (February 23). Eddie Ford’s article, ‘Bakhmut is hell on earth’ (March 9) is, presumably, intended as a partial reply.

For Eddie’s information, I didn’t “complain”, nor was I “upset”, let alone “miffed”. Rather, I was - and still am - puzzled as to why Jack Conrad limits himself to such a narrow range of sources for his series of articles. Taking one point I made about Russian casualties, Eddie states: “Yes, of course the mainstream media dissembles ... But the real point is that nobody knows exactly how many Russian or Ukrainian soldiers have died …” That is certainly true in the case of Ukrainian casualties, figures for which are not released by the Ukrainian authorities, as such information is classified.

Eddie goes on to comment: “... you can only go on the basis of what is out there to give an idea”. Quite so. But knowing that mainstream media outlets consistently lie should prompt one to look at other sources, because there is a lot of information out there, beyond the mainstream, if one cares to find it. Articles and videos by, for example, Scott Ritter, Douglas MacGregor and Brian Berletic provide in-depth analyses of the situation on the ground. Even the BBC’s Russian service, in conjunction with Mediazona, is a useful resource regarding Russian casualties.

As to Bakhmut itself, it is at the heart of a regional road network - part of a heavily fortified area built up by Ukraine over the last eight years into four operable defensive lines, with road and rail links between them. In short, despite what Lloyd ‘Raytheon’ Austin says, it is a strategically and operationally important geographical location: not “tremendous” - I never used that adjective, by the way - but significant. Salt is neither here nor there.

Eddie goes on to deal with another point I raised thus : “... we are told that the suggestion that invading Russian troops looted and raped is a disgraceful slur. Don’t you know that such activity is against the UN convention! This is naivety of the first order.” I don’t know where Eddie got the idea that I wrote that, as I certainly didn’t mention the UN. Nor did I describe any part of Jack’s article as a “disgraceful slur”. What I actually picked up on was his claim that, “... craving the solace of vodka, ... rank-and-file grunts looted the surrounding countryside ... Inevitably there was raping and killing.” As far as I can see, he provided no source for this assertion. As such, I wrote that it could be seen as “... crude anti-Russian propaganda of a kind which can be found in the gutter-press, where it belongs. I certainly don’t expect to be reading this in a serious communist publication.” I stand by that comment. It’s not a question of refusing to acknowledge the veracity of an accusation, but a matter of evaluating the evidence presented and its source.

Eddie concludes: “For the pro-Kremlin left to refuse to believe that Russian troops loot and rape, that Russian troops have not committed massacres and other such terrible crimes, is to desert reality.” To reiterate, it is not a question of whether one believes something, but whether the claim is corroborated and verifiable. Essentially, what Eddie seems to be saying is that anyone who questions an opinion, challenges assertions or has the temerity to suggest that there are alternative sources of information, is part of an apparently deluded “pro-Kremlin left”. Not dissimilar then to the mainstream media, which describes those sceptical of the dominant narrative as “Putin puppets”.

As for naivety, I would suggest that it is naive to accept at face value that the Institute for the Study of War provides “government-independent and open source analysis”. The ISW’s mission statement reads as follows: “The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve US strategic objectives.” Its board members include general Jack Keane, Kimberly Kagan (related by marriage to Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland), William Kristol and David Petraeus. Hardly non-partisan.

Finally, perhaps someone can explain what Jack Conrad meant by “... Ukraine acts as a militarily effective proxy in what is a (Nato-armed) people’s war”?

Jenny Sanderson
email

Wounded too

Eddie Ford relayed a complaint from a reader in his article last week. The complaint was that, whereas the bourgeois press reported 100,000 Russian casualties in or around Bakhmut or in the ‘special military operation’ (full-scale wars do not usually include a negotiated permission from an ‘aggressor’ to its opponent to continue massive grain exports), a Weekly Worker article estimated 40,000 to 60,000 troops killed, for, apparently, the same period.

One thing, however, is certain, in war as in peace: casualties include wounded, not just deaths.

Jack Fogarty
email

Our day is coming

I welcome the joint statement between the CPGB and the Communist Platform (Netherlands-Belgium) as worthy of a communist party (‘Social-imperialism is betrayal’, February 2).

The bourgeois state tries to rope us into its wars with moralistic concepts like ‘sovereignty’ and ‘right’, but that is all made-up bourgeois nonsense - ideology that expresses the material and social domination of the bourgeoisie over the territories and the peoples that they claim as their own spheres and objects of domination. We are not interested in any of that nonsense - neither their domination of us nor the moralistic concepts that they try to impose on us to reinforce it. They are not fooling anyone.

I have heard various people trying to tell me that I ‘owe loyalty’ to the British capitalist state, and I ‘ought’ to feel myself attached to it - to conform my thoughts to its propaganda lies, to promote that stuff, and to will the victory of Nato as an extension of that. They must be having a giggle. Some people may feel some ‘need’ to be some ‘sheep’ of the British capitalist state, but I feel zero inclination like that. I am not feudal-minded, I do not welcome my own domination by states, and I certainly do not worship them or ‘side’ with them.

I have zero inclination to worship the monarchy as my ‘betters’ or my ‘rightful rulers’. Frankly they can go do one. When I see the Union Jack, I see a symbol of the rule of one of the most vicious, domineering and exploitative states in history, that was responsible for practically wiping out entire continents in America and Australia, and that abused and exploited my own ancestors. The British state is our enemy, and there is zero chance of us supporting it in any war. As for these Tories, I am hardly going to support a war against Russia just because Boris Johnson felt it made him look good.

The only ‘sovereignty’ that we recognise is proletarian sovereignty - our ‘right’ to completely destroy the bourgeois British state and to replace this society with one of our own making, ordered to our own interests. The only ‘loyalty’ or ‘duty’ that we feel or recognise is to the working class. Our day is coming. We urge our brothers and sisters throughout the world to take a similar attitude, to get up off their knees before bourgeois states, to denounce their moralistic claims to any ‘right’, to end the worship, the compliance, and to put down their flags of war.

The only ‘victory’ is proletarian victory, and that is the only struggle that we support. We need to see an end to bourgeois states, and then their wars will end too - we will go beyond societies based on selfish private interests, on propaganda lies and on viciousness. We do not ask the Russians or Chinese to ‘comply’ with bourgeois states’ claims about a bourgeois ‘moral’ world order. We ask them to get up off their knees and to make a stand against bourgeois states and their wars - and for the betterment of all humankind.

John Browne
email