Letters
Open dialogue
I am dismayed, writing from North America, to hear that the opposition in the Taaffe Socialist Party, organised around Phil Hearse, has chosen to leave that organisation. In this period, one where the subjective factor - ie, the explicitly communist and revolutionary organisations of the left - are in a state of overwhelming disarray, and where the objective factor of class versus class seems to be picking up momentum - South Korea, France, even the United States - the further fragmentation of the socialist movement is something to mourn.
In a truly democratic centralist organisation, the position of Hearse and colleagues would have been to stay in the party, keep organising around their positions, and try to win a majority to those positions.
What now, Phil? Another sect on the far left? A bloc with some other tiny grouping? Your work has been extraordinary over the years; I, for one, speaking as an internationalist, am loathe to see you expend your energy in some endeavour that will, in the end, prove as empty as a Spartacist’s posturing.
But, the break’s been made. Perhaps some good can be culled from it. How about a detailed analysis of the state of the SP and Committee for a Workers International under Taaffe’s leadership? How about a perspectives document on where you plan to go with your supporters politically and how you see the general situation in Britain and internationally? And how about opening dialogue with those, like the CPGB, who are sincerely committed to rebuilding a multi-tendency revolutionary left movement in Britain - and, one can hope, some day, around the world?
Chris James
United States
More laughs
There is only one thing worse than being talked about - and that is not being talked about, as some obscure Irish socialist once said.
So thank you for mentioning Cymru Goch - the Welsh socialists - in last week’s Weekly Worker (‘Cracks begin to open up’, October 23), even if we are “distasteful anti-English nationalists”.
At first I thought there was a missing hyphen - we are against English nationalism in its xenophobic racist form. For the record, we’re also against narrow Welsh nationalism, which seeks cross-class unity on national lines - that’s why our political criticisms are levelled equally against Labour and Plaid Cymru.
I look forward to seeing Weekly Worker readers at the Walsall gathering of English Socialist Alliances on November 29, where we’ll be sending a delegation to share experience and learn from our comrades in England. We will do this on an equal footing rather than as some obscure province of empire, which is where the Weekly Worker would doubtless like us to remain.
Readers who want to find out how distasteful we Welsh can be should read the Welsh socialist monthly, Y Faner Goch. It might be crap but it’s got more laughs than the Weekly Worker. Have you ever considered a jokes page?
Mike Davies
Wrecsam
Proud supporter
In response to the letter from Aaron Ison (‘Lost support’ Weekly Worker October 16), why did you ever consider communism when you are obviously a liberal? Do you not realise that capitalism is a system controlled by imperialists who enforce their views on a weak people who are trapped by capitalist economies? So why shouldn’t socialism be enforced, as it gives a decent life to all people?
If you allow the establishment to continue the way it is, you will have capitalism - and in the future fascism - for the rest of time. Only revolution can demand a change to society.
You should consider joining the Communist Party of Britain instead - they are a ‘modernised’ party who, like yourself, believe sitting down and talking to one another makes a difference. Perhaps you should look at the reforms that have taken place in Russia - mass unemployment, homelessness, poverty and crime.
A decent society requires fighting for and protecting. I, like the CPGB, believe that evil needs to be destroyed. Evil destroys decent people, so decent people need to stand and fight. If they don’t, they become supporters of the establishment. Only the courage of revolutionaries can change this system of capitalism that has done so much damage to the human race.
Long live the CPGB. Small the Party is, but its supporters are the bravest in this sad, dirty, corrupt country.
Ron Harris
Maidenhead
Apologise
The document entitled ‘Theses on communist rapprochement’, by the CPGB (PCC) and the Revolutionary Democratic Group (OC), was placed on the agenda of the Republican Worker Tendency aggregate on September 13. Part of the ensuing discussion covered Jack Conrad’s pamphlet entitled Blair’s rigged referendum and Scotland’s right to self-determination.
Reference was made to the following words used to describe the RWT: “This sect - despite its nano size - is ‘organised’ on a federalist England-Scotland basis.” The pamphlet then refers readers to a footnote which states: “The RWT did have two members in England till 50% of them joined the SLP, only to adopt a right centrist position.”
Attention was also drawn to the words, “an SML councillor, Tommy Sheridan (the most extreme enthusiast for national socialism)”. The term is also used in reference to other SML comrades and politics.
We object to the term “sect”. We are a tendency and have never claimed to be more than that. The insult is compounded with an unsubstantiated claim, when we are described as a “federalist” organisation. We are not: we are a unitary organisation.
We can also assure you that we have no illusions about the limitations imposed upon us by our size. You gain respect by the methods you practise in the communist/socialist and working class movement. Neither does our size prevent us being involved in significant republican and industrial developments in Scotland and England.
The RWT is deeply disturbed by what we see as an extremely serious breach of political confidence and ethics, when you publish what you think are our numbers in England. What concerns us is that this is done when our secretary finds himself the subject of a political conspiracy. Your attempt to reveal such information is tantamount to fingering him politically and can only have the effect of giving succour to those attacking and trying to isolate him.
We also find your reference to councillor Tommy Sheridan offensive and - despite pretences otherwise - unscientific. We all know, particularly on the left, the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his followers in the name of ‘national socialism’. As a result this term will indelibly linked to Nazism for the foreseeable future. Unlike the term ‘communism’, which has been grossly abused by a whole array of left social democrats and sullied by tyrants such as Stalin, there is no need to try and claim the term ‘national socialism’ for the left. There are other terms you could use, such as ‘social nationalism’, which would better follow the tradition of Marxist categorisation, as in ‘social democracy’ (as it was understood after 1914) and ‘social imperialism’.
Your feeble resort to smear tactics with reference to Tommy Sheridan, to induce a split in the ranks of Scottish Militant Labour, only serves to cement their ranks more closely. Given your failure to win a single vote on this issue, outside your own ranks, we get the distinct impression that Jack’s resort to the term is more aimed at the CPGB’s own membership. It appears designed to keep an artificial (ie, real sectarian) wall between your members and all others working in the Scottish Socialist Alliance, perhaps the better to maintain centralised control.
To sum up, we find some CPGB members’ attempts to deal with political debate by subjecting opponents to insult and smear to be outside the bounds of genuine communist behaviour. Instead it betrays all the hallmarks of superior and arrogant middle class ‘intellectualising’.
We therefore demand an unreserved apology in the Weekly Worker from Jack Conrad for his extremely serious breach of political confidence and ethics in his publishing of membership information on the RWT. The RWT feels that unless an apology is forthcoming, there is really no future for the rapprochement initiative.
Despite these and earlier unresolved setbacks we gave the rapprochement initiative further consideration at our aggregate because of the comradely manner the RDG have approached us.
Brian Higgins
RWT
Attached to results
I would like to tell you how I feel about the debate around the result of the Scottish referendum boycott campaign.
If members thought that the boycott was right and they did their best, then, regardless of the result, we don’t need to get too attached as to whether it was a success or not. So I can’t understand some members who think that kind of argument is “flippant”. Comrades such as Linda Addison regard achieving ‘some result’ as far too important. Personally I think the campaign was a success, and frankly the argument of some that the boycott campaign was a failure means they considered it a mistake all along.
Generally I find Jack Conrad’s estimation quite correct, but unfortunately he too is pretty attached to whether it was a success or not. He writes: “There is every reason for us to ‘measure our success’ in terms of tens of thousands of abstentions and thousands of spoilt ballot papers” (Weekly Worker October 2). I think this was an unreasonable attempt to talk up a bad result. Comrade Conrad is too keen to see ‘some evidence’, ‘some measurement’ as well. The best way would have been not to mention this at all. Otherwise you need to talk about the relationship between the boycott campaign and abstentions much more precisely.
Despite the boycott campaign there was no mass action. But that does not mean that it was a failure, because we had no other option. Rather the absence of mass action reflected the objective situation and the state of our movement at present.
After the referendum I went to a fundraising party organised by a member of the Socialist Party, where I met a member of Scottish Militant Labour. He seemed very offended when I tried to talk to him about the boycott campaign and was unwilling to talk to me. It wasn’t me that affected him, but the boycott campaign itself. Perhaps that is part of its impact.
But one thing is clear: there are differences over method and practice in the CPGB. I doubt if there was clear, practical agreement about the boycott tactic before the campaign. The confusion now reflects this point.
My comrades in Korea think we can learn from Lenin, but your strong sympathy and respect for him sometimes makes you blind, I think. Nevertheless, although you use Lenin’s method, you have your own method too, based on Marxism. I enjoy reading your paper and attending your group’s seminars.
Diane Lee
London