Letters

SP boat left

Your otherwise excellent LSA coverage was slightly tinged with wishful thinking (Weekly Worker February 17). Tina Becker's article describing growing insubordination within the Socialist Party clashed with my own recollection of events. The Lambeth public meeting did hear a financial appeal from Steve Nally (sat next to me), but certainly no mention was made of the intricacies of SP support for the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation, nor was any hint of a personal disagreement aired (oh, that it were true).

The strange behaviour of the SP at the moment does seem puzzling though. The rationale behind supporting the CATP should demand throwing their full weight behind the project. However, as yet nothing more than advocating a CATP vote in their paper has appeared. No great bounty, considering the SP's ability and tradition of intervening in elections. The mantra of supporting local LSA candidacies "where our strength is" either shows an organisation with precious little strength or, more likely, precious little will to engage in local campaigns.

SP boat left
SP boat left

SP riff-raff

I agree with your remarks about the membership of the Socialist Party being political illiterates. They are so desperate for members they will recruit any old riff-raff, regardless of their orientation or beliefs, without telling them what being a member of a Marxist organisation is really about. When I was in the SP there was an attitude of anti-intellectualism which pervaded them like a disease. I have even been told by a leading SP comrade, "We need intellectuals like we need nits". This is their attitude.

SP riff-raff
SP riff-raff

No platform

Your article, 'Our anti-fascism and theirs' (Weekly Worker February 10), properly scotches much of the pious liberal humbug surrounding the Haider affair.

As you point out, central to official anti-fascism, of which the SWP/ANL is such a devotee, is "the restriction of democracy in the name of democracy". However, it seems to me, there is a potential danger of stepping out of one liberal trap straight into another. Under the title 'Haider and the SWP' Tina Becker asks "Is Haider really a fascist? Has his party built street fighting gangs? Is he committed to smashing the unions and abolishing democracy? Does he fight to overcome divisions in the ruling class by force? No, no and no again. A rightwing populist certainly. But a fascist?"

Far from being a radical or original insight, this notion of Haider not being a 'real fascist', is also widely promoted within and by liberalism. Much the same was said of Le Pen, and when Blocher topped the poll in Switzerland recently, liberals were at pains to stress that he was certainly 'no Haider'.

As for the validity of the check-off method - "smashing the unions, abolishing democracy, overcoming divisions by force, no, no, no", etc - it should be remembered that Hitler, prior to power, hardly advertised his real intentions either. In regard to the absence of street fighting gangs, "If," as Anti Fascist Action has repeatedly stressed, "there is no physical danger, fascists do not have to hide behind a sinister private army." Moreover, "The battle for control of the streets need not to be fought if the streets are not being contested. If the end can be achieved without the traditional means there is no need for the rough stuff." And if in the absence of a sinister private army Haider is not to be considered a fascist, then the BNP, which publicly abandoned marches, meetings and punch-ups in 1994, must in all fairness be deemed harmless democrats too.

All that aside, there are a number of interrelated areas (one of which you mention), that remain critical. First, shouting as the SWP/ANL do, about the need to maintain the 'No platform for fascists' stance seriously misses the point. 'No platform' has, and never will be, enforced through appealing to the state. Rather the platform is denied more often than not through the use of violence, regardless of the state and as often in contravention of its agenda. Because of the methods employed, though far from a liberal concept, it is not strictly censorship either.

Secondly, it needs to be stressed that Haider began his climb to power back in 1986. At the time the Freedom Party enjoyed five percent of the vote nationally. Without any need of hindsight, this clearly was the time and the way to stop him. Not now, when he has the support of 1.5 million voters - roughly one in three in the population - behind him.

Thirdly, as Haider has been in the ascendant for almost a decade and a half, shouting 'Nazi' doesn't appear to have had much affect on his progress. Denying him bourgeois 'respectability', which is something the ANL consider strategically pivotal, has done little to damage his electoral prospects, or indeed those of the far right, who amassed 11 million-plus votes in the Euro elections, for that matter. Put bluntly, the far right are on the march across much of Europe and there is as yet no proven antidote.

Summarily, and perhaps most importantly, in all of the countries afflicted, it is the far right, not the far left, which are seen as the radical alternative to the status quo. Tellingly, in all of these countries, the far right enjoy significant, if not majority support among working class communities. It is by and large the middle classes who represent the anti-fascist opposition. This, as is often noted, is not a class physiologically equipped for the 'long haul'. Again as you remark, the anti-Haider protests that began with "50,000 marching in October 1999 were reduced to 12,000 last Thursday and 2,000 at the weekend". Even the reported 100,000 who turned out on February 19, who "blew whistles and chanted anti-Nazi slogans", cannot hope to conceal their real impotence in the face of a democratic mandate.

Though the fact of not having a single elected fascist leaves Britain practically unique in Europe (not least due to the 'use or threat of serious violence', soon incidentally to be deemed 'terrorism' under a new act), beneath the surface the reactionary reservoir and many of the other criteria necessary for an electoral breakthrough are increasingly evident. A seriously alienated working class, a record level of race attacks, an introspective and complacent left, and a recently de-Mosleyied far right threatening to pull away from socialism in national elections - all are prominent features contained in the European pattern. Overall the real danger, it needs be stressed, is not prospect of 'putsch', but the prospect of 'drift'.

Without a doubt "the fight for independent class politics" is, as you correctly state, a pivotal countermeasure, but just how many on the left are committed to fighting for it in a way that will be instantly identifiable to the working class itself will, when the time comes, prove as critical a factor.

No platform
No platform

LSA and Livingstone

The recent London Socialist Alliance rally certainly left its mark in terms of enthusiastic campaigning for socialism. But what kind of political mark will it make?

The rally was predominantly left social democratic in political tone, which was set by the Socialist Workers Party. In Paul Foot's speech, the implicit and explicit theme was that socialism was easy: no problems - it is the most simple thing in the world. There are homeless; there are empty houses - what is easier than to put them together? We are all on the same side - forget about the details and sectarian squabbles. Let us all stand as socialists with Ken Livingstone. All we need is activists to encourage workers to have the confidence to act.

We have to transform ourselves to transform capitalism. For the working class to become hegemonic in society entails immense difficulties, which can be overcome, but only if we address the problems and raise our political culture and theory to overcome the obstacles. A fighting mood is not enough. The devil is in the detail and debating our differences is not necessarily sectarian. We need agitators, but in the ideological sense of the Putney debates in the English Revolution.

Anne Murphy was the only speaker to raise the problem that Ken Livingstone and his slate might not be on our side - if Ken chooses rich, liberal Tories and less rich liberals or a rainbow coalition rather than a working class slate. The meeting ignored the possibility of "keeping the Trots out of sight", as the Evening Standard advised. This was to avoid debating complicated tactical and other political differences. But this was surely just the meeting where such debates should take place, to raise not just the mood, but the consciousness of the movement.

Pat Stack, the SWP chair, had ruled out any open debate from the floor at the outset of the meeting. So comrades could not discuss how a rainbow coalition might effect the politics of Ken as a symbol of working class discontent.

Another implicit theme of the meeting which surfaced in a number of speeches was an emotional nostalgia for a lost workers' party (old Labour). The naive sentiment that before New Labour the Labour Party was to some extent vaguely socialist or somehow belonged to us. So those who considered themselves old Labour and those outside the Labour Party who had similar values could all get together in non-sectarian unity against New Labour.

This non-aggression pact between the SWP and old Labour meant that the wider political issues of the direction and character of the LSA and the need for a new mass communist party were fudged. The new workers' party could be a resurgence of old Labour and the ousting of the New Labour leadership - with a little help from the far left.

Piers Corbyn, one of the carefully pre-selected speakers from the floor, was a symbol of this mood. He told the meeting he had resigned. Not from the Labour Party, but from his post of New Labour campaigns officer in Southwark. He could not bring himself to campaign for Dobson, but then again he could not bring himself to resign from the Labour Party. Candy Udwin also struck an emotional social democratic note when she said her New Labour personnel manager - who is her rival candidate in the elections - should not even be in the Labour Party, let alone its candidate. But New Labour is exactly where this personnel manager, who supports privatisation and witch hunts against trade unionists, should be. Where else would she be politically?

The vague emotionalism about the Labour Party being gradually stolen from us is another example of the fact that organisational independence does not mean political independence from Labourism. Anne Murphy was arguably the only speaker to systematically present a political perspective that went beyond the spontaneous politics of the mayoral campaign. Most of the speeches simply repeated points about undemocratic stitch-up and so on, which had already been made in the bourgeois media and the House of Lords. It was pitiful for those who describe themselves as the revolutionary left. But, as a leaflet outside the meeting put it, what could you expect from organisations which voted for New Labour in 1997? A fighting mood in the workplace, or rather a small number of workplaces, does not transcend the bourgeois separation of politics from economics.

We need unity based on political clarity obtained from open debate, not just emotional unity based on blurring differences or reducing revolutionary politics to confidence or the lack of it. If the LSA is not to leave a left social democratic mark (which will not facilitate a new workers' party) then there must be no ideological truce with the SWP.

In this connection, I was surprised to see the CPGB return to its previous critical view of Livingstone. Jim Blackstock has rediscovered Ken's ambition, speculating that his slate will be dictated by this (Weekly Worker February 24). As Jim says, the political make-up of the slate will be crucial. We should say, with the CPGB, "Judge Livingstone on his slate." It is most unlikely that the SWP will do the same.

LSA and Livingstone
LSA and Livingstone

CPGB line change

The Trotskyist Unity Group heartily welcomes the new change in the CPGB's position on Livingstone. The CPGB has correctly gone back to its original position that support for Livingstone is conditional on him standing as a socialist. Since he clearly is not going to do this, that means no support. We agree with Jim Blackstock that a Livingstone 'rainbow coalition' constitutes a huge betrayal of the working class.

However, we think the Weekly Worker article is wrong to give some ground to the idea that Livingstone is an anti-Blairite. This is so only in a superficial, subjective sense (they don't like each other).

Politically, Livingstone's project lies within the parameters of Blairism. It is not hostile to privatisation, but only quibbles about the form this should take. It is in favour of alliances with big business. It is all about style, to deceitfully cover its bourgeois essence. It is bureaucratic, with all decisions taken over the heads of the workers. In these key respects Livingstone could be mistaken for Blair.

Finally, we agree with Jim Blackstock that Livingstone should be judged on his slate. If we do this we are sure it will confirm the above analysis. In the interests of the working class, the LSA must stand against Livingstone's stitch-up slate. There is a real danger that the SWP will cave in and withdraw in favour of Livingstone's friends, just as it collapsed when Scargill stood.

The way to avoid this is to make sharp and constructive political criticisms of the SWP and keep them under pressure. In this way the real issues will be brought out in front of the working class, and the SWP would under those circumstances find it hard to back down from the LSA slate.

CPGB line change
CPGB line change

SSP democracy

The impression readers will have formed from recent exchanges between myself and other RCN members is of 'comrades' fighting like ferrets in a sack. I think we are all now agreed that engaging in megaphone diplomacy via the Weekly Worker has not proven an unqualified success. On the contrary, it has led to bitter recriminations where there ought not to have been any. I would though very much like (for the last time, hopefully) to address one highly misleading criticism of me which has come out of the recent correspondence.

In his latest letter (Weekly Worker February 24), Allan Armstrong wrote: "... even such a 'non-aggressor' as myself would like to see Tom pushing his politics a little harder in the SSP itself." The clear implication is that, due to passivity, I am abstaining from the struggle inside the SSP. This is the impression Allan, and many others, have because it is the one relayed to them by those who have bureaucratically suppressed all my attempts to participate in the SSA/SSP.

Ever since the polling booths closed in the Paisley South by-election two and a half years ago, my branch has gone into hibernation. That at any rate is the surface appearance of things. As a consequence of what happened at the SSP's annual conference this weekend (February 26-27), I am hopeful that the situation in Paisley can (not before time) be sorted out.

Thanks in considerable part to the last of several barn-storming speeches by Mary Ward, conference threw out the executive's proposals to curtail democracy in the party by, amongst other things, abolishing the direct participation of the entire membership at conference. Thanks to the very same speech, the RCN's alternative motion calling for a qualitative extension of democracy in the party was passed. For my money, the most significant gain to come out of our motion was the resurrection of the old SSA guarantee of the automatic right of factions/tendencies to participation on the national council. Solidarity (the AWL's faction) and the RCN can now directly (and, of course Weekly Worker indirectly) have access to the real debates which take place at leadership level, rather than having to make do with anodyne press releases. The rank and file of the SSP are going to be in a position to know who we are being asked to vote for. We will know about their real record of voting in the main leadership body.

While the factions' representatives might not be able to vote, I take it for granted that they will be able to participate in the debates and to place vitally important issues onto the agenda. I would, therefore, like Allan Armstrong and the representatives of the Campaign for a Federal Republic and the AWL to raise inside the national council what has been going on in Paisley.

SSP democracy
SSP democracy