Letters

Pogrom?

Readers will have woken not so long ago to the shocking news of a pogrom. Not just a pogrom, but one in Europe - indeed in Amsterdam, the city of Anne Frank (she was not a Zionist). Zionists all over the world were cock-a-hoop, this was perhaps the best news they’d had all year. Netanyahu, Biden, Starmer and loads of good friends of Zionism (like Geert Wilders - another man to the right of decent folk) were celebrating.

Looking online, straightaway there were three articles, including comments in Jewish News and nine (!) in the Jewish Chronicle - the latter including a piece by Stephen Pollard, which had lines like: “In 2024, in the middle of a European capital city, pogroms are back.” And later, “Here in the UK the police do next to nothing, as tens of thousands are allowed their regular Jew hate-fest, marching alongside openly anti-Semitic banners and chanting Jew hate slogans.” And, rounding up: “More - and, I am sure, worse - is coming, because it always does when the authorities let it. All of the past year’s acceleration in Jew hate has been entirely predictable. As is what comes next.” So, serious stuff.

There was a lot online from the left. David Broder had an article on Jacobin on November 9. He opened with: “Maccabi Tel Aviv fans rioting in Amsterdam chanted slogans like ‘There are no schools in Gaza, as there are no children left’. Far from just extremist provocations, their slogans tell the truth about Israeli war aims.” This is not a quote that I’ve seen in full in the mainstream media.

From the left there has been plenty of description of what went on - timelines, quotes and therefore some straightforward, honest reporting. The Zionists started it, a bunch of football hooligans strutting around town as if they were in Israel, perhaps not realising that they were not necessarily in a majority outside home.

We can believe the accounts from the left (or relative left) - in Jacobin, CounterPunch, Mondoweiss, Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz … to name but a few. One reason that we can believe them is that the mainstream gives much the same account, but with gaps and with facts (but, as they say, the latter are not necessarily in the right order).

A couple of examples: on November 9 The Guardian had the headline, “Arrests in Amsterdam follow violent attacks on Israeli football fans”. The mayor of Amsterdam then spoke of “an outburst” of anti-Semitism. A little further on in the story the police chief said that there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestine flag … and shouted, “Fuck you, Palestine”. Then they’d vandalised a taxi (always a mistake - taxi drivers tend to help each other out and are in easy mutual communication).

The Financial Times on the same day reported: “Attacks on Israeli football fans visiting Amsterdam spark diplomatic incident”. They reported a vandalised taxi and a burnt flag, along with “anti-Arab slogans”, but, as with The Guardian, outrage at ‘anti-Semitism’ comes first.

The story continues in the mainstream media and online. The MSM that I’ve seen is mostly about what various people have said about the matter - usually, of course, assorted politicians and other public figures. ‘We’re giving you the news! This is what they said!’ Not an uncommon ploy; this means that mainstream nonsense can be publicised, while in-depth analysis can be left for another day (or year).

So a few football hooligans get thumped and that’s a ‘pogrom’ - so what is a few thousand children bombed in their tents to be called? Collateral damage? Human shields? Politicians and the media will be aiming to use these events, along with all their other ammo, to try to deter and repress the demonstrations worldwide against genocide. But millions will fight back against this and have yet another layer of contempt for the powers that be.

Jim Nelson
email

RCP approval?

It is disappointing that a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party feels they are being discouraged from reading outside of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky (Letters, November 14). I looked at the reading list on the RCP website and it also suggests Reform or revolution by Rosa Luxemburg and Bolshevism: the road to revolution by Alan Woods (but surprisingly nothing by Ted Grant, the RCP tendency’s founder).

If straying from this narrow bunch is met with ‘Best stick to revolutionary thinkers - they are bourgeois academics’, as claimed - then it is doubly disappointing. By way of texts by influential writers from a similar era, who are definitely revolutionary thinkers and not mere bourgeois academics, I recommend The class struggle by Karl Kautsky, No compromise, no political trading by Wilhelm Liebknecht and Leninism or Marxism by Rosa Luxemburg.

It should be obvious there are many more modern texts by revolutionary thinkers, and if you prefer modern, then you should be more concerned about drowning in the information overload of irrelevant published material these days than if the RCP approves.

Jon D White
email

Legal abuse

The British state continues to abuse counter-terrorism powers against activists in order to protect the interests of Israel’s genocidal campaign.

On November 19, counter-terrorism police raided and arrested 10 more people in relation to an action taken by Palestine Action on August 6 against Elbit’s Filton-based research and development hub. Reports of the raids undertaken include family members and room mates being expelled from their own homes by counter-terrorism police for up to three days. The mother and younger brother of one arrested on the day were also cuffed during the initial raid, despite not being accused of any offence.

These arrests were made in relation to the case of the ‘Filton 10’ - individuals who have been detained since August 6, following an action which cost Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest arms company, over £1 million in damages. Despite being arrested under the Terrorism Act, the Filton 10 were all charged with non-terror offences, including aggravated burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder. However, the police have continued to use the Terrorism Act to deploy authoritarian powers against further people in relation to the case.

Amnesty International UK has issued an alarm that British police are using these Terrorism Act powers to “circumvent normal legal protections”. The Filton 10 are being held on remand ahead of a trial in November 2025, and are subjected to arbitrary and severe restrictions.

A Palestine Action spokesperson has stated: “The British state are wielding counter-terrorism powers against those they accuse of being engaged in direct action against Israel’s weapons trade. They are acting to protect the interests of a foreign genocidal regime, over the rights and freedoms of its own citizens. The only ‘terrorists’ here are those assisting and arming Israel’s genocide. Palestine Action will not bow to this repression.”

Palestine Action
email

Kevin Bean

I was shocked and very upset to hear that Kevin Bean had passed away. I knew he was ill, but did not realise how ill he was. I want to offer my condolences to his family, friends and comrades.

I knew of Kevin for a few years, read his articles and had seen him occasionally at meetings. But I did not get to know him until relatively recently via the educational work we both got involved in through the Labour Left Alliance. Then I got to know Kevin quite well.

He was a real republican, unlike many of the Labour and Marxist left who are indifferent to democratic questions and whose republicanism is at best passive and tokenistic. He saw it as an important political question for today. He had a deep knowledge of republican ideas and a real love of history - and in particular working class history. Of all the comrades I worked with through the LLA, Kevin was the one that I felt the closest affinity with.

More important than this, he was very comradely and friendly, with a generous spirit. I have heard similar comments from some members of his own party who knew him better than I did. It was a great pleasure and indeed an honour to cooperate with him on political education.

At a time like this it is obvious that Kevin’s passing is a great loss to his family and friends. But I want to add my voice to those who recognise that our working class movement has lost a very principled comrade, who contributed so much and, sad to say, still had more to give. It is a great loss to all of us.

Steve Freeman
London

Aliens await

Like Jack Conrad in his ‘Notes on the war’ (November 14), I too think that the present situation is similar to pre-1914. But, unlike Jack, I don’t think that the Russia-Ukraine war is what could potentially trigger World War III. The real trigger for World War III may be the Israel-Iran conflict, should it escalate beyond a certain point. Also like Jack, I think the big difference between pre-1914 and now is the existence of nuclear weapons. We now have enough weapons to wipe out humanity several times over.

Unlike Jack. I don’t think the real problem is the lack of a viable socialist alternative. In Britain, for instance, a radicalisation of the Labour Party is inevitable when global capitalism falls. But we don’t need Leninist totalitarianism (ie, the banning of factions), which collapsed in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. What we need is democratic socialism.

Another difference between Jack and myself is that I consider he may be 100% Marxist, like most of the revolutionary left, whereas I consider myself to be about 80% Marxist. In other words, for me Marxism is about 20% flawed, and this relates to economics, philosophy and politics. Many, if not most, people on the far left regard Marxism as 100% correct.

As a doctrine, in terms of ideology, Marxism is, of course, 100% terrestrial. This was understandable for a doctrine which came from the 19th century. Now that we are in the space age, we can’t automatically limit ourselves to a purely terrestrial world view. It is necessary to go off-planet, if the occasion warrants this. In other words, we may need to develop an extra-terrestrial world view. This means we may need to catch up with the Christians, while correcting their interpretation of biblical text.

Christian theology speaks of the end-times. But the end of what exactly? Apparently what they mean is the end of man’s rule over the nations. Man’s rule is leading to a nuclear armageddon, they argue. Can anyone seriously deny that capitalism, which is the present form taken by man’s rule, will lead to nuclear war sooner or later? Putting an end to capitalism today, unlike in Marx’s day, is essentially about the survival of the human species.

Bible prophecies tell us of a coming great crisis, which will threaten the very existence of humanity, and that this in turn will lead to an extraterrestrial intervention. For over 2,000 years Christians have presented this possible extraterrestrial (or ‘alien’) intervention as a religious narrative, under the rubric of the ‘second coming’. Christian eschatology may contain a hidden truth in a religious guise. I would like to hear from anyone who thinks that an alien intervention in human affairs is impossible. I am sure that there must be some close-minded people on the left who would never entertain such a possibility. Although this may make me sound like HG Wells in his War of the worlds, I think we should keep our minds open, and be prepared for anything.

What communists may need to do is strip away the religious ideology, which could be concealing events that communists are unaware of: a possible alien intervention, presented as a religious narrative by the clergy. This is a “fantastic reality” of a different kind to what Jack meant when he wrote a book by that name.

Tony Clark
For Democratic Socialism

History homily

I have seen some remarks from different socialists which seem to place history and theory in opposition to each other. History, they say, is what really happened: therefore it is superior to theory.

Insofar as the word ‘theory’ is often (and unfortunately) used to denote any speculative or unsupported opinions, which have no grounding in experience, the proposition is sound. But it follows from such a definition that when these socialists compare history to theory, they are really comparing history to drivel - they compare instructive histories to the worst examples of ‘theory’: opinions which have little or no relation to experience, and which are therefore of no use to anybody.

This is not a just comparison. It would be more apt to place good history next to good theory, and to place bad history next to bad theory, before making a judgment as to which of the two is superior. But even this method would be misleading, because history and theory amount to the same thing, when they are considered as guides to future action.

If I want to learn from a history, in order to apply my knowledge to future situations, I must have some understanding of causes and effects; and I must be able to abstract from the particular historical circumstances to a more general rule. As soon as the reader of a history applies his intellect to identifying these causal sequences, to guide his future action, he becomes a theorist. The framing of general propositions from experience is precisely the work of theory; and the theory is good insofar as it is supported by the evidence of the past. Hence theory and history are indissolubly connected: we cannot have one without the other.

What, then, is the distinction between history and theory, when considered as guides to our political action? Supposing that we are comparing like with like - good history with good theory - they merely differ in emphasis. A good work of history accumulates evidence, correctly identifies causal sequences and furnishes the material for the production of theories. A good work of theory is founded upon experience - that is, historical evidence - but its object is not to narrate or to explain past events in detail: it is to bring together generalisations, and from these to infer what is likely to happen, and how we should act, given our circumstances.

Talal Hangari
London