Letters

Ouija politics

Contrary to Ian Spencer’s letter in last week’s Weekly Worker, I was not “defeated in a vote to liquidate DSYP”. In fact, quite the opposite occurred. I moved a motion to transform the Democratic Socialists of Your Party into a Campaign for a Democratic Socialists of Great Britain.

This was defeated, not because it was necessarily unpopular, but because the meeting which decided the organisation’s future was raided by members of RS21’s Marxist Unity Caucus (hitherto inactive in DemSocs). It was they who failed in their attempt to liquidate the organisation into RS21 and, having failed to do so, voted en masse for a motion that effectively pushed for something akin to what I was proposing, put forward by Tina Becker - albeit a proposal significantly weaker and lacking substance to the one I had put forward. With the comrades from the Marxist Unity Caucus seemingly having no desire to actually help carry out such a policy, they turned up to vote for it and, with much of the previously active membership now inactive, what remains of the organisation is nothing more than a rump of what it once was.

For what it is worth, I never left the DSYP to try my “luck with the Members’ Charter” either. That’s just bollocks and the comrade knows it. Whatever gave him that impression I do not know, because I certainly did not mention it when I resigned my membership of the organisation some time ago. There’s a tendency within the Democratic Socialists that thrives on rumours, half-truths and, to be frank, plain delusion.

Shortly before I left the organisation a rumour was going around that I had defected to the Green Party. This is despite me not having done so, and never once saying anything that would suggest I had any desire to do so. It’s not the first time people from the said tendency have conjured up conspiracy theories about me, but I imagine that, when you seemingly draw your political analysis largely from the outcome of a late night session with a Ouija board, you can’t expect much better than that.

I’d request that in the future Ian gets his facts straight before spouting gibberish as if it were the truth. The comrade, who I much admire, does himself (nor the organisation on whose executive he serves) no favours in failing to do so.

Max Shanly
email

YP IoW

On June 5, England’s first-ever official Your Party branch was formally set up in the Isle of Wight (a Scottish one was formed two hours before!) But it was not as if YP comrades on the Wight had needed any prompting: many of us had helped set up and run, and been active in, the island’s proto-branch since mid-August last year. A dynamic committee had been elected, from within which the various posts required to run the organisation were assigned by the committee itself: a salutary democratic method, if ever there was one.

Unfortunately, Your Party officialdom has its own fish to fry - at a lower level of democratic functioning. Disregarding existing democracy on the ground, YP nationally refused the IoW proto-branch any contact information for those locally who had joined, leaving proto-branch officers as best they could to organise using social media, word of mouth, and local nous. And these officers’ work was effective, allowing branch meetings to be held and discussions to proceed.

Despite this, the national bureaucracy wanted to pretend that their branch would be the first organised manifestation of the local membership, which is a lie. All that these YP tops have done so far is to hinder a real, strong enthusiasm for YP locally, leading some comrades previously committed to YP to leave it in disgust.

And so to the weekend’s official branch launch. HQ membership officer Cassi Bellingham ran this, the national leadership’s meeting (for that is what it clearly was). She reported a membership of 113 on the Isle of Wight, of whom up to 20 attended in person and four by Zoom link, which, helpfully for the leadership, came to slightly over 20% of the membership - the formal qualification for establishing a branch, according to the rule passed in Liverpool.

Cassi declared the event a “pilot launch”, along with a Scottish and a Welsh branch the same weekend; apparently, more branches will be launched by the leadership, using the experience of the trio of pilots and attendees (the experimental mice). Magnanimously, comrades in the Isle of Wight are permitted to choose whether to continue with one all-island branch (the IoW is a county) or split into two, reflecting the fact that there are two IoW parliamentary constituencies (the UK’s smallest).

Cassi went on to announce the results of individual elections for five branch officers. These elections were held several days before this official meeting and were online only: neither nominations nor voting were in front of an in-person meeting of YP members. And, although there were hustings, these too were online. It was thus impossible to discuss face to face with those who put themselves forward (or others who might have been nominated beyond those nominating themselves). Crucially, lack of in-person presence meant being badly hampered in asking questions of clarification or determining whether nominated comrades could even operate in a normal, in-person meeting context. Online statements were all some members had to go on.

Thus, all members were excluded from being able to take part in a process that is the norm in branches of working class organisations - whether trade unions, political parties or any other body. In the case of the IoW branch, as four nominees had been unopposed for the positions they sought, there was only an election for chair; this had taken place online a few days previously and was won by Christopher White. But almost a quarter of the local membership did not vote; that is, 77% took part, which does not bode well in a party only now setting up its official branches, nearly a year after it was born. Luckily for local comrades, those now in post in the official IoW branch have long had the confidence of local YP members, having already proved themselves within the IoW proto-party over the last year. We did not need a national imprimatur to anoint them for us.

Tellingly, there was no mention of branch autonomy at this baptism by those on high. However, in answer to a question from the floor (floor speakers’ words were inaudible to those of us online) about branch funding, the national officer alleged that the Electoral Commission will take up to a year to fully accredit Your Party, so we shall have to wait that long before branches get their share of members’ dues. But a charitable YP leadership will, she assured, be providing enough for branches to be set up, plus a little to eke out a modest existence (presumably until next year’s local elections, this year’s having been missed. So far, no-one has suggested collecting members’ dues at branch meetings, which would surely help alleviate the Electoral Commission ‘problem’, if indeed that is a real thing. A future branch meeting agenda item for many around the country.

Then up popped Jeremy Corbyn, introduced carefully as “our parliamentary leader”, speaking live from Ireland. JC gave congrats to all, etc, telling us he is soon jetting off to western Europe for a meeting about “working with the Belgian Workers’ Party” and others. Emphasising the need for the branch to have “regular, open events in which anyone can come” (what, class enemies too?), he touched on how “we need political education”, and stressed how YP was “very serious about our campaigning”.

That, it appears, is campaigning for others, as YP materials sent to local members before the branch meeting say: “Official Your Party branches will be hubs for community organising, supporting the campaigns and struggles already happening on the ground. Whether that’s industrial action, housing campaign, Palestine solidarity or fighting the far right - our branches should exist to amplify and support that work.”

And that’s it, as far as the leadership goes. Heaven forfend that branches might like to consider ideological questions and how to prepare ourselves and our class for revolution. The real political discussions, such as they might be, are only allowable for the leadership faction (à la SWP, etc). Well, we have seen the dire level to which YP bureaucrats are able to sink: trying to sound radical, but with a mangled form of neo-auto-Labourism and reformism. JC sounds like someone waiting for a call back to the Labour Party.

After these less than scintillating proceedings and more than an hour into the meeting, the newly elected branch officers were still not running the meeting, though they were at this point given the mic in turn to introduce themselves briefly. Several of the new officers confidently described themselves as “revolutionary socialist” or “communist”.

In response earlier to a question from the floor about YP being a revolutionary party, Cassi had assured members: “Don’t think everyone in backrooms is going to tell you what to do! … I think you can be revolutionary without spending your [personal] capital …” Whatever that meant precisely, clearly the leadership’s aim is to envelop and smother individual comrades with excellent intentions, but preventing them doing anything in unison with like-minded others as a group (party managerialism’s dreaded ‘factionalism’ (see below).

There was a desultory end to the meeting, when in-person participants went off to get food, to be followed by informal discussion with putative ‘others’ (non-members). Needless to say, these ‘others’ were not visible to those still online … and their actual existence has yet to be established.

Branch members now await news of their first real meeting. In the interim, important questions arise. Financing the branch’s work is clearly going to be a problem if the national misleadership is going to drip-feed money from members’ dues to good and obedient (to the leadership) branches, with less or none to the truly revolutionary or simply less biddable branches. What degree of autonomy will branches enjoy? What are the limits to acting autonomously, as seen from on high? Basic branch organisation requires the branch committee and its officers to have direct access to all branch members via email, text, phone or post. Will this information be made available to them? We know that the YP leadership tried to strangle proto-branches by refusing to give access to lists of members. So there must be no reversion to this approach: all branches must be immediately given members’ updated contact information. We must strongly resist any suggestion that branch officers only communicate with members via a YP HQ email system, which would replicate the foul Labour Party model of supervision and control of branches.

Many of us have seen left party leadership factions before, of course, whether in the old CPGB, SWP, SPEW, Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party, or now in Your Party. These leaderships’ hypocrisy is a recipe for disaster, and completely against any claimed internal democracy: their dishonest factional command approach is the antithesis of what is needed. Openly operating factions, on the other hand, are a sign of a healthy democracy in a working class party. If YP honchos cannot stand that particular heat, then they should get out of the proverbial kitchen. Workers viewing from the outside parties with healthy debate are far more likely to trust, to join and to actively take part in political struggle within society, with this template of extreme democracy to marshal all our forces for revolution in unity.

YP members shall not be slaves to a bureaucracy - something many of us escaped from in the Labour Party. Branches have to determine their own priorities, using finance from a large portion of members’ dues. Branch members everywhere are not children to be taught: we know our local conditions better than anyone and can and must be able to determine through debate and discussion how our branches shall operate. Our meetings must be declared sovereign by us, depending only on the support of members about how we prioritise and deprioritise tasks and the overall way forward - baldly, they must be truly ours.

Your Party is our party or it’s nothing.

Jim Moody
Isle of Wight

Common ground

Last Saturday I attended the Connections Convention, where around 150 socialists from across the political spectrum, including independent socialists, members of new groups such as the Socialist Federation, and those still navigating the remnants of Your Party came together to debate how to rebuild the left following bureaucratic manipulation that led to heavy expulsions from YP.

Clearly, there were differing views on the way forward. However, as Tina Becker argued, we need a different culture on the left if we ever want to be able to build the kind of party we need - where different views are allowed to openly compete. She also noted that those present had no illusions about the Green Party.

Ultimately, attendees found common ground, agreeing a consensus statement to network local branches, organise an all-Britain conference by early 2027 to prepare for local elections, and lay the groundwork for a democratic, member-led socialist party. The meeting also committed to continuing to build and connect local socialist branches, and to organise regional meetings to strengthen these networks, regardless of whether they remain affiliated with YP.

Farzad Kamangar
email

Modern Greens

Jack Conrad’s description of the history of the Green Party of England and Wales is certainly fascinating (‘Our flag stays red’ June 4). However, in future articles about the party I suggest comrade Conrad focuses on its more recent history. The wacky origins of the party, while interesting, ultimately, have not had much influence on recent events.

It is important to properly understand the modern Green Party and what purpose it serves politically. The fact of the matter is that its real political orientation is that of a social democratic (ie, reforming capitalism) workers’ party. Yes, the Green Party is a workers’ party, in the same sense that the Labour Party was for most of the 20th century - a workers’ party that aims to advance the interests of workers as much as is possible within the limits of capitalism.

The manifestos of the Green Party, for at least the past decade, have all indicated that its preferred society is essentially a post-war social democratic welfare state with green energy - effectively the same as a Corbyn manifesto (or for that matter the immediate aims of most British socialist groups). The average Green Party supporter is now a young working class voter - that is, if we understand the working class to consist of people who must labour to live.

Exit polling by Survation for the recent Gorton and Denton by-election indicated that the Green Party won about 49% of the vote of workers, while Reform and Labour managed 28% and 21% respectively. As much as some readers may think that Green Party voters are all leafy, wealthy ‘middle class types’, this really isn’t the case. It may have been true a decade ago when the party was trying to appeal to a specific ‘pro-EU, anti-Corbyn’ electorate (which seemed to amount to 1.6% of the vote in 2017 and 2.6% of the vote in 2019 - a completely insignificant amount, compared to its recent polling of anywhere between 10% and 19%), but the fact of the matter is that it has over recent years transformed itself into the party of Britain’s class-conscious (albeit at the level of ‘trade unionist’ consciousness) working class.

That doesn’t mean that leafy middle class Greens don’t exist - the main battle within the party is between those ‘traditional’ Greens and the Corbynite workers that have joined recently. The recent controversy about former party leader Caroline Lucas endorsing Andy Burnham is indicative of this battle between the liberal Greens, many of whom were elected as MPs or councillors before the tens of thousands of Corbynites joined, and the (more numerous) social democratic faction. The Weekly Worker’s reporting should be more focussed on this aspect of the Green Party - the ideologies that actually influence the modern party.

This isn’t an argument for entryism into the Green Party - with Marxists being so divided into so many different groups, I don’t think we’d really have much impact on the Greens at all. Instead the focus of Marxists at the moment has to be unification, even if that’s initially an incomplete unification, where all the various groups retain their independence, while being part of some alliance or federation. Marxists were defeated within Your Party partially because of this lack of coordination, despite the very valiant and heroic effort of establishing the Grassroots Left slate in time for the CEC elections.

We need some sort of united Marxist party and, when that party is established, we have to make our case to British class-conscious workers why we are more worthy of their support than the Greens. That case has to address the problems of the modern Green Party, not ideologies of the 1970s that don’t influence them.

Dovah
Oxfordshire

Illusory sun

The letter headed ‘Christian lens’ (May 28) seeks to reconcile “religious traditionalism and historical materialism”. While an individual may be able to accommodate both perspectives within their own lives with some degree of (at least to them) harmony, a sober philosophical analysis makes it more difficult. That we can hold two different perspectives - harmonious or antithetical, parallel or orthogonal - with each other at once is not in question. It may even be ‘easy’ for an individual, but is it correct or coherent?

Biologist Richard Lewontin wrote that “the reason that people do not have a correct view of nature is not that they are ignorant of this or that fact about the material world, but that they look to the wrong sources in their attempt to understand”. I take this to hold, when considering the social world. Lewontin goes on to say: “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

Scepticism over reconciling religious tradition and historical materialism is not a value judgment of the individuals attempting such accommodation, but rather of the utility and philosophical coherence of such an enterprise. There is, of course, a rich tradition on the left of those who found deep inspiration in their respective religious traditions - liberation theology, Catholic worker, etc. Their existence isn’t indicative of their correctness. In JH’s letter it’s asserted that some have an “innate drive toward spiritual life” - this I assume can mean one of two things:

(1) It’s genetic (but I’m not sure what bits of DNA would/could make spiritual life innate) and/or

(2) It’s a non-material, dualist force.

I’d take issue with both, but maybe the letter-writer had something else in mind and I’m reading it too literally.

Anecdotally, evidence of left flirtation with religious traditions are popping up on my social media feeds, and I’m curious as to why this is happening. Several decades of working class defeat, despondence, terror-management? I’m not sure. Because some on the left find solace or meaning in religion, which is clearly the case, it should not mean we make a virtue out of such apparent necessity to them. There’s an old joke I’d hear back home in Belfast about navigating the sectarian binary as a non-believer:

“Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

‘I’m an atheist.”

“Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”

Well, I suppose I’m a Catholic atheist in that sense then. However, the fact that the religion of my upbringing still brings meaning and solace to many is no evidence of its coherence or truth value. Indeed “the criticism of religion is the foundation of all criticism”.

Marx wrote in A contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right that the “struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” There is no reason to interpret this - or any sensible, humane critique of religion - as a denial of the sincerity of those who feel a spiritual or religious pull. It is an acknowledgement that the earnest draw to religion that some feel is historically contingent.

Calling for the “abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people” is, necessarily for Marx, a “demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

A principled materialist critique of religion plucks “the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true sun. Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”

Marx’s words from the 1840s are less about criticising religion because it’s ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ per se, but rather because the task of transforming the world has to be preceded by confronting and understanding it as it is.

So the question remains not whether we can hold both perspectives at once, but rather whether we should.

Conor McC
London

Exaggeration

Tony Greenstein decided to boycott the talk he was due to give at Palestine House last weekend because I was also on the bill (talking about my ongoing campaign to get Hamas deproscribed, which you can sign at www.tiny.cc/hamas).

Tony told the organiser that he could not speak alongside someone who said the holocaust was exaggerated. I’d like to set the record straight, because I never said this, as Tony well knows. I had said that “Israel exaggerates the holocaust for political ends” to my GMB union boss, Gary Smith. This was when he was suspending me for breaching the IHRA definition - for saying Israel was a “racist endeavour” (one of the seven criticisms of Israel that is used as an example of ‘Jew hate’). I was setting out to show that this ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism was bogus and politicised, and was used to protect Israel, not Jews.

According to the Merriam-Webster definition, to “exaggerate” can mean to “overemphasise” and it is in this context I used it. Israel exaggerates the holocaust for political ends to paint its own ‘victim status’, to justify its existence and its protection by the west - and, of course, its ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, who most Israelis like to think are intent on carrying out another genocide of their own - which, of course, is not true: Hamas has declared repeatedly that it would live alongside Jews in a democratic Palestine, if they gave up their Zionist aspirations.

Pete Gregson
Edinburgh