Letters

IWCA patronises

Doreen Webster castigates the Revolutionary Communist Group for its unilateral and abrupt decision to pull out of the International Working Class Association (Weekly Worker May 29). Quite rightly, of course, she points to the damning fact that the RCG has “failed to say why they were leaving” the IWCA and I fully endorse Doreen Webster’s comment: “If the RCG has differences, then it should fight for its views within the IWCA and allow them to de discussed ... If it has left, why does it not publicly state its reasons for doing so?”.

Anyone familiar with the RCG’s consistent record of chronic sectarianism, usually of the most petty and vicious kind, will find their latest action as par for the course. Indeed, the only thing surprising is that Webster finds it “surprising”. Then again, she also describes the RCG as having an “honourable record”, so I can only assume that she is unfamiliar with that organisation’s history.

Having said that, I do feel I have to defend - to some extent, anyway - the RCG from Webster’s criticisms. She innocently observes that the “only time disagreement arose” was when RCG comrades were “asked not to sell their paper” (Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!) in the East End after a day’s leafleting. Apparently, the IWCA thinks it is “inappropriate” to sell a 1eftwing paper, and that the working class should be “approached in a more cautious and limited way”.

Frankly, this is patronising rubbish. Doreen Webster and the IWCA seem to believe that the working class should be ‘protected’ from revolutionary socialist/communist ideas - the poor things are not ready yet’. Housing benefit problems and local issues are the ‘true’ domain of the working class in the here and now. Therefore, revolutionaries should aim to become glorified Citizens Advice Bureau workers. One day in the unspecified future, IWCA members will reveal their ‘true colours’ to the working class, who will gratefully flock to their revolutionary banner.

Presumably, though, it is OK for IWCA members to read leftwing papers, if not write articles for them - such as in the pages of Red Action,the de facto journal of the IWCA. That is fine, so long as the working class do not get to read it.

This ‘not in front of the children’ attitude is typical of anarcho-leftist groups like the IWCA, who want to impose their own limitations, lack of vision and philistinism upon the working class. In many respects, the attitude expressed by Doreen Webster is just the flip-side of the Labourite philistinism which dominates the leadership of the Socialist Labour Party - that is, a mutual distrust of theory and debate.

The splendid irony is that anarchists and anarcho-leftists like the IWCA are only too happy to describe communists/Marxist-Leninists as “elitists” - or, if you prefer, “vanguardist”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Genuine Leninists fight for openness. All debates, differences and disagreements must be fought out in full view of the working class, not behind their backs (or delayed to some future date). Communist organisations aim to become tribunes of the oppressed, not the site for localist politicians (no matter how honourable or honest).

I must hasten to add that there is nothing unprincipled about setting up advice centres, advice surgeries, etc - far from it, and it would be deeply silly to suggest it was. Ideally communists and revolutionary socialists would set up such bodies. But given the tiny resources available to us at the moment - we have “never been so weak” and “isolated”, as Webster correctly notes - our first and overriding priority must be to develop our ideas and spread our revolutionary propaganda. Yes, Doreen, this means selling “leftist” newspapers at every opportunity available to us, even if you do have some sort of semi-aristocratic objection to standing outside tube stations on a Saturday morning (always quite enjoyed it myself). Yes, we are all just “another group of leftist paper sellers” in that sense. What is so wrong with that?

Danny Hammill
South London

Veiled attacks

As a member of the SWP for about 14 years I can confirm Helen Ellis’ suspicions (see ‘Left expectations after Labour victory’ Weekly Worker May 15). Chris Harman’s article in May’s Socialist Review was a veiled attack on the SWP’s approach towards the SLP and the SSA. Hassan Mahadalle and Sean Venell have made identical attacks previously in International Socialism Summer 1996 (pages 88-89) and Socialist Review (July/August 1996, page 20).

While my attitude towards the SWP - especially the editor of the paper - is far less critical than yours, I trust you would like them to join the SSA and help establish a similar organisation in England and Wales. I hope I can count on your support.

Alan Jones
Scotland