Letters

LSA future

Of the left organisations standing in May's GLA elections, the London Socialist Alliance alone has a future.

However, I am not quite as confident as some that the LSA will evade the humiliating fate that inevitably lies in store for our 'socialist' competition. Although all Marxists look forward to the LSA winning seats, we can afford to take nothing for granted. While the LSA might have more, and better, activists than the CATP, SLP and CPB put together, we have nowhere near enough. Partly as a consequence of this fact, the overwhelming majority of our potential voters will not be able to uncover the truth that the split in the left vote falls fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the three other slates. Truth will out, but, unfortunately, probably not in time for the spoilers to damage the entire left vote, including our own. To minimise such damage, we need to fully exploit all our many strengths.

The SLP and the CPB are apologists for the Stalinist states. A bigger albatross around one's neck it is hard to imagine. The LSA needs to ensure that the bourgeois press is incapable of tarring us with the same brush as these people. We need to stress our anti-Stalinist credentials. Not only must we make clear that we bear no responsibility for these dictatorships over the working class; we also need to get across that, to the extent that our respective organisations have been influenced by the type of bureaucratic centralist caricature of Leninism imported into the west by the outposts of the Stalinist states, we have left all that behind us. The LSA must make clear that it represents a clean break with the past by its tolerance of diversity within principled support for working class self-emancipation. Not only dissident individuals are welcome; factions (organised around publications) also have their place. In the post-Stalinist millennium, this is the only kind of political organisation within which young workers will feel at home. They need to be given reassurance that they are at liberty to listen to a clash of different opinions, to experiment, to make their own mistakes and find their way back. It has to be in all our interests that every left group is accorded not just the right, but the responsibility to recruit and organise workers into the Socialist Alliances - even if that does make it impossible to quarantine 'our own' cadres from 'dangerous' ideas.

Left groups involved in the LSA should be shameless in pinching each other's good ideas. There is not a single group on the left that has nothing to teach the rest, and we need to publicly acknowledge this fact. We should even pilfer the best ideas of those not yet fully committed to the LSA project, and one of the best ideas on the left has a SPEW copyright.

Peter Taaffe's group certainly made a disastrous sectarian mistake by its attempted sabotage of the LSA campaign. Yet it was always clear (to me at any rate) that external reality would force them to come knocking at the door. We need to be generous and let them back in: a sinner that repenteth ... and all that gubbins. In this week's The Socialist, Jim Horton dishes up much unappetising apologetics for SPEW's sectarianism. However, his article contains the following: "with reservations, we will also be recommending a vote for the LSA in the top-up list section". Excellent. Let them back in; let them recruit and organise new people to the Alliance; and let them try to defend their past behaviour. The majority need have no fear that their false perspectives will win the day.

Similarly, members of the SWP and the AWL, for example, need to be able to examine critically what is being said about them in relation to the war in Kosova. And they need to think about whether there is at least some grain of truth in such criticisms. Perhaps constructive dialogue before the entire LSA (and the left throughout the UK) might make the cadres of these organisations recognises that both of their fundamentally antagonistic positions suffered from one-sidedness. Where a dialogue of the deaf and mindless abuse have gotten us nowhere, fraternal debate just might do the trick. It might make possible a dialectical synthesis of their respective half-truths, identifying in the process the elements missing from both analyses, those that are key to making such a synthesis possible.

Sectarians at all levels within the component parts of the LSA will be sorely tempted to fall back on what they know best. They will want to stifle any such controversy. They can be expected to point to the 'common sense' view peddled by professional pollsters: openly expressed divisions cost parties votes! However, so long as we can accept the need for unity in action, we can make a virtue of our openness. We can become the exception that proves the rule.

We can defy this psephological 'law' provided we recognise the importance of two facts. In the first place, what will cost us votes, and (ultimately far more important) recruits, is not failing to draw a veil over unavoidable differences, but any bid to bureaucratically stifle such differences: were we to try to do such a thing, we would not even be able to capitalise on the popular lampooning of Blairite control-freakery. More important still, all our candidates can pile up votes regardless of the opposition of workers to particular candidates' views on issues of controversy. We can do so by stressing our commitment to the best idea SPEW ever dreamt up, the one that, more than anything else, got Dave Nellist, Terry Fields and Tommy Sheridan elected - 'a workers' MP on a workers' wage'.

LSA future
LSA future

CPGB history

Phil Sharpe and Barry Biddulph (Weekly Worker April 6) give us a tiresome defence of Trotskyite 'histories' of the CPGB.

As one might expect, Biddulph is comfortably the worst offender. Young Barry thinks it is news to me that Trotsky predicted the nationalistic turn of the 'official communist' movement. Not so. Whilst it would be fair to say that Trotsky does not feature very prominently on my bookshelves, I do in fact draw a clear line between his work and its bastardisation by latter-day epigones - precisely whom my piece was attempting to address.

It all goes horribly downhill from here. Apparently I am a staunch defender of 'socialism in one country' (ie, Stalin). Strange then that I criticise 'revisionist' historians of the CPGB for not addressing the qualitative implosion that the ditching of the Comintern represented. Still, don't let that stand in the way of your finely tuned dogma, comrade.

I am also accused of using "philosophical jargon" (surely not!) in having the temerity to suggest that the power of the CPSU was transcended and preserved in the CPGB. It was obviously heartless of me to me to provide some concrete examples of this in relation to the trade unions. I realise that this was inconsiderate and in the future I will do my very best to produce some old crap that you can have a good go at, Barry.

At least Phil Sharpe obviously bothered to fish his reading glasses out before replying - not that this means he is any more effective. Comrade Sharpe contends that I provide "critical justification" for localised narrative accounts of the CPGB. In fact I argued that such histories represented a disembodied, one-sided argument, analogous to that of the Trotskyites. Similarly, nowhere did I suggest that the CPGB could entirely transcend the might of the Comintern. Rather, I attempted to understand how this was worked out in British conditions. Any other approach is to indulge in the production of historical myth.

Secondly, Phil really should do some more reading on the 1939-40 period (which I did in fact mention in passing, a larger section on this being edited out). Comrade Sharpe mentions Pollitt's removal from the post of general secretary, but why did this happen? Why were Pollitt and Gallagher forced to offer humiliating letters of apology to the Party? No-one is arguing that the change to the 'imperialist war' line was not imposed, but the reaction of leading comrades cannot be squared off with Sharpe's rigid identity reasoning of CPGB= Moscow.

I am amazed that the comrade argues that no "rebellion" occurred precisely after he makes reference to that of Pollitt. Another example would be Arthur Horner, the CPGB president of the South Wales miners. Horner refused to propagate the anti-war line inside his union, presiding over SWMF debates with the impartiality of an umpire at a time when more loyal comrades argued for the new perspective. Horner chose to try and hold the 'pros' and the 'antis' together, the unity of his trade union being seen as much more important than any Party line.

It is precisely when you ask the question why that Messrs Biddulph and Sharpe scratch their heads and think about warming up their pot-noodles. A pretty poor state of affairs for a Marxist, if you ask me.

CPGB history
CPGB history

May Day

May Day - international workers' day - is approaching. On this day, workers throughout the world will demonstrate, calling for an end to exploitation, raising their voice with the International, calling for unity and solidarity. In this way they will show their strength and unity to the exploiters.

In Iran, under the rule of the islamic regime, the working class is not only deprived of its independent organisations, but it is not allowed to organise its own celebrations on this day. Yet despite the cruelty and barbarism of this regime in the last two decades, Iranian workers have not relented in their efforts to organise their own celebrations, although this has led to death and much suffering.

Over the last few years, despite increased pressure by the regime, workers have continued their struggles in the economic, political and social spheres and it is possible to predict a major upsurge in the struggles of the working class. Workers' demands against anti-worker legislation, especially the regulations for exempting workshops of five employees or less from the Labour legislation, will find expression for this May Day.

We, a number of revolutionary organisations of the left, with a realisation of this situation and the need to strengthen workers' struggles, are organising a joint campaign abroad to support independent May Day celebrations in Iran. We demand independent workers' organisation, the right to strike, an end to individual and mass job losses, equal rights for foreign workers (Afghani, Iraqi, Bangladeshi, etc), forbidding the employment of children, payment of unpaid wages, condemnation of the anti-labour policies of the government.

In order to achieve these aims we call on all the supporters of the working class, on all revolutionary, progressive forces, to join this campaign and support the struggles and demands of the Iranian working class, especially the right to organise independent workers' celebrations in Iran.

May Day

Football culture

We condemn the killings of two Britons in Istanbul, as well as the racist attacks against the peoples of Turkey who live in Britain.

Today, we are marching to salute the foundation of our hope, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front) and to commemorate our martyrs who have fallen during our struggle for freedom, independence and democracy. We are from Turkey and Kurdistan. We are struggling against imperialism and fascism. The struggle against imperialism and its collaborators means opposing its culture and morality as well. The 'culture' of imperialism and fascism is based on suppressing and depoliticising people rather than serving their development.

They use alcohol, drugs and football for this purpose. While poisoning the youth both physically and mentally, their capital grows. They benefit doubly from it. Football is only a sport. But it is also used as a tool. For years, football was used during Franco's Spain, Hitler's Germany, Salazar's Portugal and Videla's Argentina. For example, the World Cup was taking place in Argentina while hundreds of people were made to 'disappear'. The people in Brazil are suffering from poverty and inflation while football and carnivals are used to divert them.

Such popular sports are always used by the fascist regimes. While the masses were preoccupied, torture, disappearances, massacres, concentration camps happened at the same time. People were destroyed mentally or/and physically.

Turkey has been made a candidate member of the European Union. So it was essential to be 'European'. How could they be while their anti-democratic practices take place? Galatasaray became the lifesaver. Its success in the European Cup was enough to cover everything up.

The football clubs in Turkey are centres for laundering 'black money' (capital that is earned through dirty businesses like drug trafficking, prostitution, etc). The chairs of the major football clubs are either fascists, mafia mobsters or have close relations with them. 'We came here to die or win the game!' is one of the main slogans of football fans in Turkey. Nobody would die if it was only a sport. Today, professional football is not a sport which physically and mentally satisfies the needs of the people, mainly the youth. It has new social and political functions which directly influence the psychology of the masses. Degeneration is the aim: football is its tool.

The violence of the 'culture of alcohol and vulgarity' became a way of discharging the anger of the people. Those who were cast out became 'somebody' when they were welcomed to stadiums. They became members of sects. Then they targeted each other. The fans of rival teams became the main enemy. In international games, nationalistic feelings were added.

There are examples in Turkey when people from two neighbouring cities have killed each other because of a football match. The most recent example is the killing of two Leeds United fans. Those nationalist/fascist-oriented lumpens were used to teach a lesson and save the 'honour' of the Turkish nation! This killing is the consequence of the depoliticisation policy of the fascist state in Turkey and imperialism.

Those who are for democracy, human rights, independence and self-determination of nations must oppose imperialism and its collaborator - the fascist state in Turkey. Who are our friends? Who are our enemies? This must be clearly determined. Those who use the incident in Istanbul as an excuse to carry out attacks against 'foreigners' are racists. The enemy of the peoples of Britain are not those who were forced to leave their countries for political or economic reasons.

We call upon all those who are for the fraternity of the peoples of the world and against the exploitation and oppression of imperialism and its collaborators, to unite and struggle against the common enemy.

Football culture
Football culture

Correction 1

In response to your report of the CPGB aggregate (Weekly Worker April 13), the Revolutionary Democratic Group wants to make clear that we fully support the London Socialist Alliance and urge workers to vote for Ken Livingstone for mayor and all the LSA candidates.

Correction 1
Correction 1

Correction 2

As with previous reports about the Communist Party of Britain in your paper, the 'Confusion reigns' piece was a triumph of fact over fiction (Weekly Worker March 30).

London organiser Nick Wright did not table a resolution on the London elections at our March executive committee, supposedly overturning the so-called 'Haylett-Griffiths' line of the political committee. Unfortunately, this was the basis of your article, which was filled with speculation about Nick Wright's loss of patience, his challenge, divisions, etc, etc.

Nick Wright is not a member of the CPB executive committee. The successful resolution, which did not overturn anything, was in fact tabled by general secretary Robert Griffiths. Other assertions in your article, including the reference to the Morning Star's circulation, were equally fictitious.

Confusion reigns indeed. Why does the Weekly Worker spend so much time fabricating stories to promote it?

Correction 2
Correction 2

Stan Kelsey replies:

It is indeed a pleasure for the Weekly Worker to receive correspondence from the CPB - I cannot recall a previous instance.

Since Morning Star reporting of CPB affairs is so sparse, I share the ignorance of Star readers about who supported or opposed the line change in favour of Livingstone; and who backed the decision to divide the left vote with a fourth left (CPB) GLA list. I therefore speculated that Nick Wright was the instigator, in light of his trenchant Morning Star letter (March 20). My apologies then to comrade Wright for overestimating his role, and thanks to comrade Cattell for correcting this detail.

What a pity he does not deal with the substantive political points, and explain how dividing the left vote advances the CPB's beloved 'left unity'.