Letters

Spurious argument

I must take issue with one assertion made by comrade Peter Manson in his otherwise most informative article, ‘Capital backs Mandela’ (Weekly Worker April 30). Describing the African National Congress government’s ‘growth, employment and redistribution programme’ (Gear), the comrade  states: “Based on the overriding demand to limit government borrowing to three percent of the gross domestic product, [Gear] necessitates slashing public spending, axing thousands of jobs through state sector redundancies (retrenchments), the introduction of compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes, and extensive privatisations” (my emphasis).

This argument reminded me of the line taken by left groups such as the Socialist Party, Socialist Outlook and of course Arthur Scargill and the Socialist Labour Party leadership on European monetary union and - in particular - on the Maastricht treaty. One of the central planks of Maastricht is also a stipulation that budgetary deficits must not exceed three percent of each European Union member state’s gross domestic product. The groups mentioned, and others, have argued that Maastricht necessitates swingeing cuts in social and welfare spending. They have even portrayed the 1995 strike movement in France as being a fight “against Maastricht”.

The argument that capping of current account budget deficits inevitably means cuts is wholly spurious. If there were to be concurrent substantial tax increases, then deficit reductions could quite well be accompanied by increased public spending. The working class agenda should not be to argue for opposition to Gear, Maastricht, or any other fiscal policies of individual capitalist states or economic blocs. Neither, in the case of Europe, should it be to get involved in expressing preferences over where the power to determine interest rates resides, or whether national currencies should be retained. Rather, we should be arguing that the capitalist class must pay for the universal working class demands for what we need in order to live anything like a decent life - benefits, pensions and student grants at the level of the minimum wage of £285 per week, free and comprehensive education and healthcare, 24-hour nurseries, etc.

The way in which the capitalist class must pay of course, is, as the 1998 Communist Manifesto published with the Weekly Worker (April 30) correctly states, through increased corporate taxation and a heavily progressive income tax, together with the abolition of indirect taxes such as VAT, and an end to the right of the rich to pass on their wealth.

John Pearson
Manchester

Workers Power ‘solidarity’

In Workers Power (February) Richard Brenner, replying to the Weekly Worker,said that WP is a fighting organisation and the best proof of that was its involvement in the Campaign Against BP in Colombia.

John Stone (LCMRCI) pointed out that, “however worthy this might be, it only involved a handful of activists and went unnoticed as far as British or Colombian workers were concerned” (Weekly Worker February 26). Don Preston (Weekly Worker April 23) wrote that at the May 1997 general election, in Labour Party conference debates, at Reclaim Our Rights, at the SLP congress there was “no sign of WP”. In fact, it is becoming more and more difficult to find WP and they themselves have not put on any public event recently.

Stone and Preston correctly focused their critique on the fact that WP uses those anti-BP actions to cover its general abstentionism from the most important points of the class struggle. However, it is worth mentioning the way in which they are organising that campaign. They are not trying to do so in a united front way with other left groups.

The Colombian Refugee Association (Coras), one of the most militant organisations from the exile communities in London with tens of activists, is the main pillar of the campaign. WP provides its mail box and its English public leaders. Nevertheless, WP does not usually attend the important mobilisations that are organised by Coras.

On Thursday April 23 around 50 Colombians held a very militant picket against ‘their’ embassy in London. They assembled in protest at the assassination of Eduardo Umaña, probably the most important human rights lawyer in Bogotá. If WP is so keen on denouncing the paramilitaries in Colombia (and the way in which BP is financing them), they should have supported their Colombian refugee partners. Nevertheless, there was not one single member, supporter or friend of WP at that picket. The same happened some months ago when another 50-strong picket targeted the Colombian embassy in support of the Colombian general strike.

On Wednesday April 29 there was a lobby of parliament in defence of the refugees and later a picket at the Bolivian embassy in support of the strikers - no sign of WP. They are absent from the struggles of the refugees and they have deserted the Bolivian Union Solidarity Campaign, which the LRCI initially led.

In 1995 this committee organised around 150-200 people for the biggest protest picket at a Latin American embassy for years and a there was a big rally with Tony Benn. However, since the LRCI had just expelled their Bolivian section, they decided to ignore solidarity with that country’s working class.

WP is only interested in organising campaigns which they can lead and through which they can show their members that they are involved in internationalist actions. They use the Colombian refugees when they want to demonstrate that they can organise an action and make new recruits. But WP abandons their refugee allies when they organise something by themselves. If tomorrow some problem arose with them WP would withdraw its participation and would suddenly create another ‘solidarity committee’.

The WP turn towards ‘building the party’ is a shift à la SWP or RCP. They dismiss the rest of the left and concentrate on small-issue campaigns completely under the control of their supreme leadership.

Ana
London

Scargillism lives

Lew Adams, general secretary of the train drivers union Aslef has been defeated in a ballot organised to comply with the Tories’ anti-union laws.

The victorious candidate is Dave Rix. Comrade Rix is a leading member of the Socialist Labour Party who was on the NEC during its first year and stood during the general election in Leeds Central. He has also been the leader of the unofficial rank and file within Aslef and stood for the general secretary’s job on a radical left platform.

Aslef members will be expecting him to deliver on these promises when he takes over from Adams next year. As to the left, surely the Weekly Worker has proved correct when it warned that far from being finished, the SLP can provide a focus for mass discontent under conditions of New Labour. The election of Dave Rix points to the future. Scargillism lives. Away with premature obituaries.

Bill Stapledon
Halifax