Letters

Two titans?

A debate on how to fight the mounting wave of racist reaction is desperately needed. We welcome, then, the rare contribution by the Revolutionary Communist Party, penned by comrade Jack Tye Wilson: ‘Stand up to opportunism - why the SWP gets everything wrong on racism’, published on the RCP website on July 31.

As was noted by Matthew B in his July 9 letter to the Weekly Worker, the RCP is becoming one of the most prominent organisations of the far left in Britain. It claims over 1,300 members, making it about half the size of the target of comrade Wilson’s critique: the SWP. A debate between these two titans will no doubt be of great interest to advanced workers and youth, and serve to clarify the perspectives and tasks of communists. Jump in!

Firstly, let us state that we agree with the Marxist criticism of Stand Up to Racism: that it is a liberal coalition, seeking accommodation with the ruling class in the name of ‘anti-racism’, and therefore is a political obstacle to the development of the revolutionary proletarian movement. The RCP, however, wields its criticism in an incoherent and hypocritical way. It does not even propose a way forward for the movement, but is completely disorienåted by its own false perspective.

Comrade Wilson accuses the SWP of being unable to explain why racism exists, or why there has been a growth in anti-immigration politics, xenophobic assaults and a rising atmosphere of terror against ethnic and religious minorities. The SWP, Comrade Wilson argues, simply says racism exists because people are racist. The RCP’s supposedly materialist alternative explanation is that people are racist because they are angry.

Comrade Wilson’s criticisms fall flat, because there is not a thread of difference between himself and what he criticises. Where the SWP blames politicians for “normalising” racism and making it “mainstream”, the RCP blames demagogues for “whipping up” racism and misdirecting the anger of the working class. Is there any difference here? For one, the old politicians are to blame; for the other, it’s the new ones. In both cases, the conclusion that follows is that there simply needs to be a battle of ideas against the nasty racists.

Comrade Wilson makes no mention of the fact that racial oppression has a material basis in capitalist society, that it serves to divide the working class by maintaining a layer that is more exploited and more easily subject to state violence; or that this is maintained and deepened during times of crisis by state policies on policing, immigration, employment rights, etc. Perhaps he simply forgot. We look forward to the upcoming RCP pamphlet on the struggle against racism by Fiona Lali, which will hopefully show a Marxist understanding of this question.

While we hold our breath, let us examine what comrade Wilson and the RCP propose as a strategy to fight racist reaction. Quite rightly, he criticises the moralism of SUtR and its ‘peace, love, unity’ brand. This is indeed repellent to anyone seeking a serious struggle, and the simple celebration of refugees, tolerance, diversity and the like is plain old liberalism. Comrade Wilson levels the charge that this sort of politics only enhances the “culture war divides” that prevent workers from realising their true class interests. Perhaps he is right, but where does the RCP stand on this?

Is it class struggle or culture war to be on SUtR demos, hysterically shouting about how the far right are racist paedophiles? Or that refugee small boats are good, while the billionaire yachts are bad? But don’t say ‘Refugees welcome’! Do RCP comrades sincerely think it is enough to raise the slogan, “Class war, not culture war”, to transform vacuous liberal phrases into a “class-based programme”? Or that a little RCP bloc on the super-liberal Together Alliance march turns it into a “show of strength for the left”?

Once again comrade Wilson’s criticisms are hypocritical, and the RCP’s current trajectory represents no break with the methods of the SWP whatsoever. Yes, we do need class struggle and a class-independent programme to break the dominance of bourgeois, reactionary rubbish over the proletariat. This won’t be done by waving red flags.

What is most striking about the RCP’s turn towards the anti-racist movement is its long-avoided admission that rightwing reaction is a serious force to be reckoned with. This realisation is still very partial, however. For the RCP, fascism is not a particular form of counterrevolution that can be defined scientifically, but a purely historical phenomenon that can and will never be repeated. This is a dogma that has long been held to distinguish the RCP (and its forerunner, Socialist Appeal) from the SWP since the early days of SUtR and its sister, Unite Against Fascism.

To comrade Wilson the theory of fascism is junk and anyone who raises it is simply blind to the tremendous growth of the revolutionary proletariat, the rising tide of class struggle and the explosive uprisings on the horizon. The workers are “objectively stronger than they have ever been in history”. Somebody should let them know this! The total hollowing out of the working class, the near collapse of the trade unions as class organisations, the defeat or complete absence of any serious workers’ struggles, the stranglehold of reactionary conservative and liberal ideas over society - all of these are just figments of the SWP’s imagination, comrade Wilson tells us: “the blindest of the blind”.

The point of view he expresses is what Leon Trotsky termed “bureaucratic optimism”. Because the RCP is having an easy time of it, with plenty of young radicals joining the party, selling papers and raising money, the real conditions of the working class matter less and less. A sober analysis of the balance of forces in society is out of the question - until the bubble bursts, as it surely will.

Comrade Wilson boldly says that the RCP wants to lead - that it deserves to. But, for all his regurgitated blather about “the Marxist method”, he cannot show why or how. The RCP’s track record in all the mass movements of the past decade is risible. From Corbyn to the climate strikes, to the Palestine movement, the RCP has been dragged along in the wake of petty bourgeois tendencies. They were tempted by Your Party and then the Greens, before bottling it. One hopes at least some of the RCP cadre are beginning to learn.

Being a vanguard or a revolutionary leadership does not mean simply having the most radical sounding slogans, or the most well-run reading groups, or even the most accurate prognosis of events. It doesn’t mean having the biggest membership either. It means actually grasping the broadest tasks of the movement, putting forward a strategy to advance the struggle, and fighting for it more consistently than any other trend.

The RCP has to face the challenge of breaking from its path of sterile sectarianism, and prove itself as a viable revolutionary force. If it does not, then its growth will result in little more than trading places with the SWP.

RD Hogan
email

Terrorists so-called

When Nigel Farage was debanked in June 2023 by Coutts for his political opinions, it made the national headlines. Dame Alison Rose, CEO of the National Westminster Group, which owned Coutts, was forced to resign.

In July 2024 I was debanked by Nationwide Bank for “regulatory reasons” (they refused to provide actual reasons) despite the fact that I had been with Nationwide for over a quarter of a century. Then in July 2025 I was also debanked by HSBC, which closed the account that my wife and I had open for our son, who is autistic. The only transactions that were made on it were for my son’s care.

At the same time I was debanked by First Direct, the telephone bank owned by HSBC, which I had been with for 33 years, just three years less than the bank itself had been in existence. Again no explanation was provided by either bank and, unlike with Farage, my debanking has attracted no publicity from the mainstream press.

Then in June 2026 Santander froze both my personal accounts and those of the Brighton Trust - a registered charity for which I am treasurer. At the time of writing they are still frozen. No explanation has been given for their actions. In July 2026 Kent Reliance (One Savings Bank) also froze the savings accounts of my family without giving any explanation. They have now closed them.

In December 2023 I was arrested for supporting the October 7 resistance operation by Palestinians in Gaza. I have been charged under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for what is an expression of opinion - but which is classified as ‘terrorism’ today. In much the same way over 3,000 people have been arrested for supporting the ‘terrorist’ group, Palestine Action.

It is clear that some official national organisation - either the National Crime Agency or the Counter-Terror Police - has been feeding malicious allegations to the banks. Under money-laundering and anti-terrorist legislation, if banks are told that someone is suspected of money-laundering, then they are forbidden to ‘tip off’ the customer for fear of jeopardising an investigation. That may make sense when someone is involved in financing the drugs trade or Islamic State, but makes no sense when the ‘terrorism’ alleged is an expression of free speech.

At my trial, beginning on August 18, I will be pleading not guilty to supporting a proscribed organisation, Hamas. Clearly certain agencies of the state cannot wait for the trial verdict and are actively seeking to destabilise me. I make no apology for supporting Palestinian resistance against Israel’s genocidal occupation, which is now 59 years old. As far as I am concerned, Palestinian resistance is no different to the resistance of black people during apartheid in South Africa. The only difference is that conditions in Israel today for the Palestinians are far worse than they ever were in South Africa.

In the 1980s both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher called the African National Congress terrorists. However, neither of them went as far as to accuse their supporters of terrorism too. But in today’s political climate any support for Palestinian resistance against Israel’s genocidal army is called ‘terrorism’ - indeed the accusation of terrorism is being made against UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese. We live in an era where opponents of western wars and their actual terrorism are themselves being accused of ‘terrorism’.

Debanking someone because of their political opinions is ‘financial terrorism’, yet that is what the British state is doing today - not only to me, but to Greater Manchester Friends of Palestine and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The BBC and British press, who were ready to cry foul when the leader of Britain’s racist Reform Party was debanked, are, of course, remarkably silent, when it comes to opponents of racism.

Tony Greenstein
Brighton

Animal rights

I recently sought to interview some fellow members of the Democratic Socialists of America, who are interested in reforming or abolishing animal exploitation - a cause which, sadly, receives scant attention across the political spectrum, including the left, where it fits most naturally. I’m very grateful for those who took the time to answer my questions about their views regarding non-humans, how animal issues can be taken more seriously within DSA, and what plausible non-human policy they would like every leftwing candidate to support.

• Jishnu Guha-Majumdar is assistant professor in political theory at Butler University, with a focus on the relationship between animal and human liberation, and co-chair of the Central Indiana DSA chapter. He described himself as an abolitionist on the question of animal use, but he questioned the utility of the welfare-vs-abolition framework, saying the real issue was whether reforms sustain or challenge core-system logics. Guha-Majumdar argued that classical abolitionism, represented by thinkers like Tom Regan and Gary Francione, was very good at saying what we should not do to animals, but less good at outlining what a just society with animals would look like. For this, he turned to writers like Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka:

  “The majority of DSA members don’t even think of animals rights issues as on the map of the organisation, and so that will have to be a site of struggle,” Guha-Majumdar said. “A working group and/or issue-specific publication could be helpful, but it is important to understand what its goals are. I would argue there should be two: to provide a rallying point for pro-animal advocates in the organisation to acknowledge each other and to come up with a relatively unified strategy for a DSA animal rights ‘line’; [and] to shift consciousness … about the way that the domination of animals is central to capitalism and that animals are subjects of solidarity.” He suggested there might be national-level reading groups on texts like Dinesh Wadiwel’s Animals and capital.

  Guha-Majumdar believed DSA candidates should support policies focused on altering the incentive structure of food production. He backed public funding for alternative-protein development, but thought an ideal platform would fully socialise the cultivated-meat industry, as author Jan Dutkiewicz recommended in a 2019 Jacobin article. Guha-Majumdar argued that ideas like these - along with efforts to redirect farm subsidies away from meat and dairy production - should be incorporated into discussion of a proposed Green New Deal, given the severe climate costs of animal agriculture.

• Leo Neustadt is a former member of New York City DSA, who has been involved in the Madison-area chapter for approximately two years. The members believed no animal should be exploited for any reason, including human consumption. Neustadt understood this to be an extension of socialist values. While they seek to end all animal use, Neustadt recognised no profound change happens in a single step, and was willing to pursue welfare reforms. They were frustrated when the DSA’s Green New Deal Campaign Committee made no mention of the environmental impact of animal agriculture. Like Guha-Majumdar, Neustadt believed the Green New Deal was an avenue through which the DSA could address non-human issues:

  “I think a reasonable policy would be to end inhumane conditions for animals bred for slaughter,” Neustadt said, when asked what position they would like every leftist candidate to adopt. “Everything about the way animals are kept and treated is abhorrent, including the slaughtering itself. But I know people are going to continue to eat meat for the foreseeable future, so, at the very least, we should have federal guidelines and standards on how many animals can be in a certain amount of space to avoid overcrowding, allow free time outdoors for sunlight and grazing, and end the forced molestation and rape of these creatures who have no voice.”

• Ben Wendt is a former co-chair of Baton Rouge DSA, concerned with the ethical and ecological implications of animal agriculture. He approved of non-human welfare reforms, but thought they were of limited value, due to the power of industry, among other things. Ultimately, Wendt believed a socialist society, where people are educated about the harms of animal agriculture, would choose to greatly reduce it. That said, he was pessimistic about people’s views of non-humans changing, and thought an environmental or workers’ rights critique of the food system would be more effective. For this reason, Wendt was not enthusiastic about an animal-focused working group within the DSA.

  He wanted DSA political candidates to support cutting subsidies to the animal agriculture industry. “Those subsidies could be invested in lab meat, small and cooperative farming, or returning land to indigenous peoples,” Wendt said. “A few other, not very radical policies would be to ban the agriculture industry from lobbying the USDA to get their sector on the nutrition guidelines (most people are lactose-intolerant, so how can dairy be an essential nutrient?), repeal bans on reporters and union activists from going to factory farms, strengthen FDA laws on what marketing terms the industry can use, and pardon imprisoned animal activists.”

• Kiirstin Kuhi is a member of NYC DSA, within which she helped launch an unofficial vegan group, Socialists for Animal Justice (SAJ). Kuhi supported the abolition of all forms of non-human use, but was willing to advance welfare reforms in the short term. SAJ is one attempt to answer the question of how non-human issues might be taken more seriously within the DSA. Initially, her group voted to call themselves ‘DSA for Animal Justice’, but backed off, as they were not yet formally recognised as a working group or club. Kuhi thought organising locally, as opposed to nationally, was a good place to start. However, she acknowledged SAJ was still trying to find its footing.

  “We hope to continue building community through future events, including a collaboration with the Ecosocialist Working Group on a screening of the film, The smell of money, canvasses for DSA candidates who align with our values, and eventual legislation that protects our planet and all its inhabitants,” Kuhi said, noting they showed up to canvass as SAJ. “I’m not sure an issue-specific publication would be the most effective approach, since you’d still have to find people to read it. Social gatherings and potlucks, on the other hand, provide opportunities to get DSA members plugged into our work through one-on-one conversations about these issues.”

  She found it difficult to choose one plausible, pro-animal policy she’d like every DSA candidate to endorse, because one never knows what’s plausible until it’s actually done. Kuhi cited a bill put forward by New York State senator Jabari Brisport, a DSA member, that would forbid the issuing or authorising of any permits to new or expanding large concentrated animal feeding operations, as an example of something she was not sure was achievable right now. Kuhi said she felt a deep empathy for dairy cows, because she was also capable of getting pregnant and giving birth, and thus would like to focus on some reform of the industry exploiting them.

• Justin Anthony Knapp is a member of Central Indiana DSA. He believed our relationship with animals needs to be reimagined and radically changed, but didn’t think this would happen in his lifetime. Knapp emphasised the continuity between humans and other creatures. He argued, within the DSA, that animal activists should raise consciousness about non-human welfare and ‘ag-gag’ laws, which criminalise whistleblowing and undercover investigations of farm facilities. Knapp added that DSA-backed candidates should seek to overturn ag-gag laws on first amendment grounds.

  Shawna Rose Robbins Nixon is a member of Silicon Valley DSA. Her father has been involved with the group since its founding in 1982, following the merger of the Democratic Socialist Organising Committee and the New American Movement. She approved of a variety of forms of animal use, conceding her stance might simply reflect a desire to eat meat, but wanted to improve non-human treatment. Nixon thought an issue-specific publication or working group would be a good way to get animal issues taken more seriously within DSA. She wanted leftist candidates to back the abolition of animal testing, which Nixon considered inhumane and outdated.

• A member of NYC DSA, Cody Smith is a third-generation participant in the beef industry and a second-generation cattle rancher. He became committed to animal rights after majoring in philosophy in college. Smith was not sure whether welfare reforms helped or merely assuaged ethical concerns and normalised non-human exploitation. Within his DSA branch, he is primarily involved with the membership committee, the Central Brooklyn Community Solidarity Committee, the Political Education Committee and the Socialists for Animal Justice group.

  “We’re in the process of creating a formal DSA vegan group in NYC,” he said, adding that SAJ seeks to promote veganism within the DSA and turn vegan liberals into socialists. “We do this by collaborating with the DSA’s Ecosocialist group, pushing for animal rights legislation, drawing connections between animal rights and other liberation movements, and organising vegan events within and outside of the DSA. I’m not particularly plugged into the electoral elements of DSA, but I think cultured meat is worth investing in … On a similar note, if plant-based food can be produced inexpensively for schools, Meatless Mondays for schools can be an easy win.”

Jon Hochschartner
Connecticut DSA

It’s not cricket

It’s a pleasant change to have some sport in the Weekly Worker - not that I’ve ever been a keen sportsman. I’ve played all sorts, mostly at school, and enjoy watching from time to time. However, I was struck by Carl Collins’ latest piece, ‘Capitalism’s compressed game’ (July 30).

Over 20 years ago I went to India with a friend from work, who was born there. We stayed with his family in New Delhi and for a while in a place they had in Bangalore. We travelled around a lot - to the Taj Mahal, of course, and lots of other extremely beautiful and interesting places. We went by taxi nearly all of the time - amazingly cheap, compared with here.

All over - in cities, towns, villages, lone shops or other trading places - we saw kids playing cricket. I remember outside a car sale or repair shop, there was a group of lads with an old tyre propped up, a stick of some kind and a ball, playing the game. It reminded me of back home in the 1950s, when lads would play cricket in some manner all over the place and at all hours. In those days in residential areas and the countryside there was very little traffic and we kids could disappear as long as we were back home for meals and bedtime. Generally, wickets would be literally chalked up - on playground walls, garden walls, the gable end of a row of terraced house - and someone would have a bat and someone a ball.

India now has a population well over a billion more that England, so it is no surprise if they do rather better at all sorts of things - including cricket. England does, however, have a further disadvantage or two. It’s not safe for youngsters to play in the streets now and the alternatives - school playing fields and even school playgrounds - are not what they used to be.

Further, local playing fields are being closed down - along with youth clubs, sports clubs and all sorts of places (and coaches) that might have aided an upward trajectory for talented and enthusiastic youngsters. True, the ‘playing fields of Eton’ are still there and they, along with a few other spots, are a bit more green than some places at the moment - but that provides for only a few.

We need to give the kids (lads and lasses) somewhere to play again; not to mention an education and a job.

Jim Nelson
email

Unite election

I agree with Tony Greenstein (Letters, July 23), where he is incredulous that the Weekly Worker has nothing to say about the general secretary election of one of Britain’s largest unions, Unite. Despite the Weekly Worker relying on the involvement of trade unions in funding the Labour Party to justify their support for it, they give hardly any coverage to trade unions these days (the election closes on August 11).

I differ with Tony’s main criticisms. He complains of Sharon Graham’s stance on Israel/Palestine, calling her a “pro-Zionist” and “pro-imperialist”, whilst lauding her only opponent, Simon Dubbins, for having a “consistent record of support for the Palestinians” and opposing “increased military expenditure”. That is an important difference, to be sure, but Dubbins does not mention the Gaza conflict/Palestinians anywhere in his election address! Why not?

On the Labour Party, Sharon mentions having “cut funding to politicians” (yes, she doesn’t mention the cut was to the funding of Labour). However, Dubbins simply says, “Our members will decide the future of the link between our union and the Labour Party” and “Politically we will only support politicians who support us.” Note, Dubbins does not state where he actually stands on the question of Unite funding the Labour Party.

He does state he will “open the books” for complete transparency on how members’ money is spent. He says nothing about Unite’s Birmingham hotel scandal - whereas Sharon does, and says she has commissioned independent legal inquiries, and a full audit of Unite accounts, whilst internal Unite factions have tried blocking her. She pledges to get every penny of members’ money back. She issued a statement on this to all members, so it’s odd that Dubbins says nothing.

He has a right to stand, but if he wins that would remove one of the few female general secretaries of a union that we have - an equality consideration that Dubbins says nothing about. For those who major on DEI, that is an issue here.

Tony says Sharon has given “next to no support to the Birmingham bin workers”. Well, apart from making a powerful address to the said workers in Birmingham on the September 20 2025 march and rally (I was there, was Simon Dubbins?). I am presuming Unite paid those workers strike pay during their long fight? Hardly ‘nothing’ then? Dubbins makes no mention of this important and long-running dispute.

Tony, in his admirable support of international causes, seems to forget the first duty of a trade union is to its members and their jobs. Also, for a union to be strong it needs the maximum possible membership density in a workplace to be able to have maximum unity and strength in a strike. Supporting causes that divide and alienate some/many members does lead to resignations. Whilst some may say ‘good riddance to bigots’, reducing membership (and strength) should be thought through and a factor. One non-member talks others out of membership and is a future strike breaker.

I was a lifelong (44 years) civil service worker and very active member of the Public and Commercial Services union, which has the most affiliations to progressive causes of all our unions. However, most members (at least 95%) do not go on any demonstrations, not even Palestine or climate change. If unions only recruited workers who tick all the ‘progressive cause’ boxes, they’d have very few members. In the workplace, union density is crucial.

Despite having the biggest workforce ever in British history, union membership has declined from nine million in 1979 to just six million today - membership is predominantly in the public sector, with far fewer in the private sector. As with politicians, most of the working class today are utterly disillusioned with trade unions, feeling they too have lost touch with their concerns.

A final point: ‘the left’ in Unison, and especially Unite, seem to be organised by/for full-time, unelected officials. Only two candidates for general secretary in Unite - both full-timers. It should be a worry for the left that no rank-and-file members stood for this position and that the Unite left didn’t stand a non-full-timer. That suggests the left, such that it is in Unite, is under the control of unelected full-time officers.

Dave Vincent
Yorkshire

Red escorts

I would like to reply to the letter titled ‘Prostitution’ by Bill Wright in the May 7 edition (I apologise for the delay in replying). Bill makes some very good points about prostitution in pre-revolutionary Russia. However, times have moved on - prostitution in the Anglo-Saxon countries is now a minor activity on the edges of society.

My views on the need for the legalisation of brothels come from watching an edition of Whicker’s World - ‘Living with Waltzing Matilda - in 1986, where Alan Whicker interviewed the owner from Liverpool and the staff of three brothels in Perth, Western Australia.

My views on escorting come from a friend, who told me to always use a condom, as some women get pregnant to trap men into a relationship. My friend also told me that most women are not interested in the size of men’s private parts, but are interested in what makes them tick. My views also come from the website of the late Marc Perkel from Missouri, who died in 2018. Marc had had a very bad divorce, where all his wealth was taken by his ex-wife and lawyers. He wrote that escorts can help men get over divorce or bereavement.

Bill Wright’s concluding remarks about the need to abolish all sex work come from the reactionary policies of the Communist Party of the USA. Stalin’s sexually repressed Soviet Union was exposed in George Lucas’s film THX 1138, and in George Orwell’s books, Animal farm and 1984.

Escorts will still exist under communism - they will still enjoy meeting clients. There will still be married men with wives going through the menopause. There will still be shy and disabled men, and those with Aspergers Syndrome. Escorts will still exist in a moneyless society.

John Smithee
Cambridgeshire