Letters

Second coming

Dave Norman’s last letter (Weekly Worker May 6) reminds me that one man’s logic is another man’s illogic. ‘Stop Nato bombing’ and ‘Nato out of the Balkans’ are calls for action by the working class, not pleas to the government. The success of the slogans would be a defeat for Nato by the working class.

But the working class needs more than oppositional slogans if it is to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. We need a programme that leads to the liberation of all humanity. For this reason we cannot allow Nato to hijack the slogan, ‘Stop ethnic cleansing’. We are discussing a basic human right. For comrade Norman ‘Stop ethnic cleansing’ becomes a call for Nato to bomb the Serbs rather than a call on the workers, not excluding those in Yugoslavia, to take a stand against inhumanity.

On the question of how ‘Nato out of the Balkans’ squares with the slogan, ‘Arm the KLA’. Well technically Nato could withdraw from the Balkans and leave the fighting to the Albanians. But that is not the point. The Kosovars have the right to defend themselves against ethnic cleansing with armed force and to enter into deals to ensure military supplies. Otherwise they may as well stay in the refugee camps and wait for the ‘second coming’ of Christ to deliver them from suffering. Presently they are totally dependent on Nato: armed, they would have a degree of independence.

The CPGB has not described either Iraq or Yugoslavia as imperialist states. They are both reactionary anti-working class regimes. The working class should not struggle to preserve them, but take the opportunity presented by imperialism’s attack to liberate themselves from both evils. Imperialism has no convincing programme for peace. Hence its reluctance to commit land forces for fear of being drawn into a quagmire. It is in the social and political arena where communists have answers and Nato has none.

Dave states: “In the present conflict, the principle of self-determination has to be subordinated to the principle of unconditional opposition to global imperialism.” The fact is self-determination is part of unconditional opposition to imperialism.

Phil Kent
North London

What conditions?

As it has its own agenda, the KLA is certainly not simply a “tool of imperialism”, as Michael Malkin (Weekly Worker May 6) persistently points out in his endeavour to defend the CPGB’s slogan, ‘Arm the KLA’.

Malkin insists that the KLA has the absolute right to “get military aid where and when they can”, including, of course, from Nato. He then refers to the Provisional IRA acquiring arms from Libya and money from the Boston Irish, as though the former, an actual target of imperi­alism, and the latter can be equated with global imperialism, and for­getting that the IRA was struggling for the unity of Ireland against a major imperialist power.

It is not, however, just a matter of the KLA trying to acquire arms from Nato. It has consciously and deliberately become the military ally of Nato within Yugoslavia. That process began when the Kosovar Albanians signed the imperialist Rambouillet Accord in the full knowl­edge that it required the Yugoslav government to relinquish all claims to sovereignty over the whole of its own territory. In signing the ac­cord, the Albanian Kosovars, in effect, signed the order for the Nato war machine to go into action. The position of the KLA itself was summed up at a recent press conference by one of its leaders who stated that:

“The things we urgently want to ask Nato for are modern arms sup­plies for the KLA. At the same time, we are asking Nato to start using the Apache helicopters to strike the Serbian forces, and for ground troops to go with us together into Kosova. This is why we are asking for arms for the KLA [before a Nato ground offensive], so that casual­ties among Nato ground troops will be as low as possible.”

In the face of this, Michael Malkin argues that the CPGB’s “support for the KLA’s military operations (as distinct from the political cause of Kosovar self-determination)” is conditional. Where are the CPGB’s conditions? Malkin vaguely suggests a future, possible condition. If Nato occupies Kosova following a successful ground offensive and “the KLA indulges in ethnic cleansing on its own account, then it would clearly cease to merit support as a force for Kosovar liberation”. He continues that it is not too difficult to foresee other contingencies in which the KLA would forfeit the critical support of communists.

Malkin remains blind to the fact that the condition for denying support to the KLA already exists, in its military alliance with Nato, an alli­ance which began with its political activation at Rambouillet.

Dave Norman
West London

Post-Fordist

I note that your left-bashing correspondent, Eddie Ford, has at last revealed his political trajectory. In his article, ‘Guns, bombs and workers’ control’ (Weekly Worker May 6), he declares his view that it is “most unlikely that any effective opposition to Blairite ideology will come from the revolutionary left as it is presently constituted”.

This could have been lifted straight from the pronouncements that poured forth from Frank Furedi and Mick Hulme during their Revolutionary Communist Party-cum-Living Marxism-cum-LM journey into the world of ‘humanist’ pure criticism. Both are now self-confessed non-Marxists and it seems certain that comrade Ford is right behind them. I await with anticipation his proposals for a demarcatory renaming of the Weekly Worker - WW? Or perhaps Critical Criticism?

If effective opposition to Blairite ideology will not come from the revolutionary left, then where will it come from? Since the revolutionary left is the advanced section of the working class, then I have to presume that comrade Ford thinks that such opposition can only come from outside the working class, or just maybe from some elitist sect that deliberately sets itself apart from the workers’ movement.

There is also the point that opposition can only be effective when it is built around action. Since comrade Ford decries the left’s “shouting of anti-racist slogans from the sidelines”, I wonder what, if any, slogans he would have his ideological opposition shouting: anti-anti-racist ones?

John Pearson
Manchester

Peace pledge

In her article, ‘Peace or class war’ (April 22), Mary Godwin writes: “In the 1930s SWP-type pacifism was a mass movement in Britain, and millions signed the pledge of the Peace Pledge Union.” Mary Godwin may have her own quarrel with the SWP, for whom I hold no brief, but it is irrelevant and misleading to drag the Peace Pledge Union into it.

I am not aware that the SWP has ever claimed to profess pacifism and, whatever is meant by ‘SWP-type pacifism’, it has nothing to do with the Peace Pledge Union, which since its founding in 1934 has professed unequivocal pacifism - the total rejection of war, whatever the alleged cause, whatever the proposed means. Members of the PPU came from a variety of backgrounds - religious, humanitarian and political - but the politics of the latter group were those of the ILP or the Labour Party. George Lansbury, indeed, after being ousted from the leadership of the Labour Party (in what Mary Godwin calls a ‘conference coup’), became first president of the PPU. Lansbury and other members of the Parliamentary Pacifist Group, who worked closely with the PPU, could never be described as ‘quasi-pacifists’, as Mary Godwin terms those associated with the Committee for Peace in the Balkans.

As a matter of record, I would also point out that it was not “millions” who signed the Peace Pledge, but rather 140,000 between 1934 and 1940. Mary Godwin is also wrong in stating that the 1935 ‘peace ballot’ was sponsored by the League of Nations - it was sponsored by the League of Nations Union, the equivalent of the United Nations Association; and she is wrong again in asserting that, of the 11 million who took part in the ballot, “the overwhelming majority voted against war” - 6.75 million voted for ‘military sanctions’, the euphemism of the day for war.

On Mary Godwin’s protestation of the virtue of war - “Wars produce crises which can lead to social revolution” - I would simply answer with the words of another of the PPU’s founder members, Aldous Huxley, arguing against those who believe that their ends are so good that they are justified in using the worst means to achieve them: “The more violence, the less revolution”.

William Hetherington
Honorary archivist, Peace Pledge Union

Challenge

Six candidates representing the striking careworkers stood as Defend Public Services in last week’s Tameside council elections. They took about 10% of the vote and certainly had the council worried. The comments against the women in the campaign by the other groups standing, such as ‘they are only a crazy bunch of women’ and ‘they will get less than 50 votes’ vanished in the air. In fact none of the women came last in their wards and a number beat the Liberals and the People’s Alliance (disenchanted ex-Labour councillors).

The best result was Pat Hughes, who took 316 votes and came second in the St Peters Ward, beating three other candidates. Standing against the council leader’s wife, Joan Ashton took 268 votes. Rose(mary) Young took 267 votes, Sheila Carpenter took 238 votes, Liz Taylor took 189 votes and Hazel O’Neill took 108 votes.

The vote was just the tip of the iceberg and did not reflect the extent of the support the candidates had in the area. It was a brave stance to make, but now it needs to be developed. A new political organisation needs to come out of this.

In a social gathering after the elections Noel Pine pointed out that all the candidates except the Labour Party ones had expressed, opportunistically, their opposition to the housing transfer which the council is proposing. Hazel O’Neill expressed the deeply felt gratitude of the women to all those who had supported them, especially their husbands, children, the Tameside strike support group and all those who had given their time and effort. She added without the strike support group the strike would not have lasted as long as it has.

The issues in the Tameside election were council services. Labour Party propaganda made it clear that, for example, there would be no improvements in council houses repairs for many years unless a trust (semi-privatisation) was set up to look after the housing. The Labour council has set or is setting in motion the privatisation, in one way or another, of care, the entire housing stock, leisure services and education. To do this it needs to remove accountability, which was another strong point in the campaign. The council leader announced just days before the election that there would be no council committees in future. The council will be run by a small executive group of about 10 councillors. The Labour group identified completely with Tony Blair’s policies and clearly has the green light from the central government.

One comment which kept on coming up last night was “If this is what we can do in six weeks, imagine what we can do in a year”. Husbands and other strikers expressed also their desire to stand next year.

The development in Tameside shows how wrong the groups were who pulled away from standing candidates in a Socialist Alliance slate in the Euro elections. In particular the SWP, who were the first to pull away, did not consider that a Tameside striker standing in the slate would carry much weight - just imagine the political development in Tameside and the surrounding areas if the campaign for the strike and to defend public services now continued in the Euro elections. Some of the strikers did ask exactly what happened to it. Some kind of Defend Public Services/Socialist Alliance should emerge as a permanent body in Tameside after all this.

The candidates want to extend their thanks to all those who helped in the campaign but were not able to be with them last night. They are still £200 short of what they need for the election and ask if anyone can send a donation they would very much appreciate it.

The strike support group meets every Monday night in the Station pub, Ashton under Lyne.

Martin Ralph
Tameside strike support group

Appreciated

We receive regular copies of the Weekly Worker which is widely read here by the POWs, and the copies you send are much appreciated - keep up the good fight.

Rory McCallan
Long Kesh