Letters

May libels

Many people are probably aware of certain articles that have appeared in the press regarding the involvement of revolutionary groups from Turkey in the May Day celebrations in London. Also, there was a programme recently aired on Channel 5 that made further allegations against the supporters of the revolutionary struggle in Turkey. Both of these stories were creative, to say the least.

May Day is not a celebration of hooliganism, but rather a celebration of the fraternity of the working class and a proud defence of socialism. Not content with inciting racial hatred in the wake of the football killings in Istanbul, the British press now wants to portray those who defend socialism as "yobs". When people from Turkey come to Britain, because of political or economic reasons, they do not forget their culture or their class - clearly some regard this as a threat to the 'British way of life'. People from Turkey have defended their right to celebrate May Day at great cost. In spite of fascist terror and army massacres they have never submitted to those who wanted them to abandon their belief in socialism.

The Channel 5 programme, 'Hot dog wars', was again another example of the pathetic and reactionary nature of what passes for 'journalism' in this country. An allegation was made that a "Turkish terror group" called "Dev-Sol" is using the illegal hot dog trade in central London to fund its "terror" campaign in Turkey. In 1994 Devrimci Sol (Revolutionary Left) became the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). "Dev-Sol" as an organisation no longer exists, although the central publication of our party is called Devrimci Sol.

When we heard that Channel 5 was making a programme which named us, we contacted them and they denied that this was the case. We offered Channel 5 the opportunity to interview us, but they declined - clearly truth is a difficult concept for them to understand.

The British media have no idea about either our struggle in Turkey or the activities of the Turkish state. It would be correct to say that there is a media blackout in this country when it comes to Turkey. The British media, ever loyal to its imperialist masters, is allowing the British state to criminalise us through their papers and television programmes. Such 'journalism' is nothing more than a dirty tricks operation against us.

May libels
May libels

CATP May

How dare the Weekly Worker make reference to the long-standing support of a member of the Revolutionary Democratic Group for the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation (April 13)? CPGB comrades refused to step arm in arm with Peter May (the RDGer in question), as he went kow-towing to the Sikorskiites. Therefore, mused Peter (May 11), how could they possibly know about the role he played in this campaign? Well, given the rapprochement process between the CPGB and the RDG - extending to an open invitation to all their aggregates - I would hazard a guess that one of Peter's comrades spilled the beans. What puzzles me is why he chose not to attend these aggregates so he could explain himself in person.

Furthermore, despite all his protestations to the contrary, Peter's defence of the CATP clearly did not come to an abrupt halt four months ago. According to Peter, "The division between the CATP and the LSA in these elections is a reflection of the failure to struggle for unity." Yes, but whose failure? Although blame must be shared by both parties, argues Peter, the "main criticism" must be laid at the door of the LSA. Obviously Peter Taaffe and Graham Cee are not alone in thinking we can build a broad workers' party on the basis of the narrowest platform possible.

As Peter himself recognises, those behind the CATP slate have a record as long as your arm. They first came to public prominence by uniting with Arthur Scargill to set up a narrow sect, one calculated to force other component parts of the left to stand candidates against it. Then they worked tirelessly as Scargill's witch-finders general, undemocratically purging CPGB supporters and the rest of the left. When they completed the task allocated to them, when they had thereby outlived their usefulness, the great leader turned on them also. The Sikorskiites ought to have grasped this opportunity to re-evaluate their insane sectarian perspectives. But no. Instead of agreeing to unite with the non-sectarian LSA, instead of accepting their invitation to become a component part of it, one guaranteed full factional rights, they chose instead to set up yet another wrecking operation.

Despite all this disgraceful behaviour, I very much favour the LSA extending another olive branch to the Sikorskiites, and to Scargill's dwindling band as well. Despite their lower vote, and despite the pitiful forces at the disposal of both groups, the struggle for working class unity has to be an ongoing process. And it must outweigh any desire for revenge for the central part they played in depriving the left of an assembly seat. If they, once more, spurn such overtures, then let it be on their heads.

CATP May
CATP May

Nasty AWL

I have just seen Dave Spencer's letter about the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, in the Weekly Worker a few weeks back, and I hope it is not too late to respond (April 13).

Dave evidently wants to suggest that the AWL are a nasty lot, but his argument is not clear. He does "not think Sean Matgamna had a predatory intention with any of the fusions" we have essayed, and I think he means that none of us had a predatory intention, not that Sean was benign as an individual exception.

In the mid-1980s, however, according to Dave, Sean "changed his views on a number of issues - Ireland and the nature of the Soviet Union in particular". He recruited students ("hand-raisers") and expelled the remaining rump of the old Thornett group (three dozen out of a bit over 100 at the time of the 1981 fusion) so that he could get his way. Occam's Razor suggests other explanations. Maybe we changed our views on some issues - as we did in the late 1980s, though not "almost immediately" after the Thornett business - because the old views were wrong. Does Dave still think that the Stalinist USSR was a workers' state? Or that unconditional support for the Provisional IRA is compatible with the democratic programme of a federal united Ireland on which he agreed with us when we argued it against Thornett?

Maybe we recruited students because we wanted to build a revolutionary organisation. Maybe they joined us because, far from being "hand-raisers", they were revolutionaries. Why did we expel the Thornett rump? They had been defeated and had largely abandoned argument on the big political questions we had disputed - the South Atlantic war and 'class camps' in world politics, orientation to the Labour Party, feminism, Ireland. There was already a 'cold split'. But they remained a closely-knit and embittered rump, large enough to cripple our activity in the miners' strike then beginning. They could have done that precisely because the organisation had extensive democratic guarantees.

Thornett and his co-thinkers had had those guarantees in full - and more - over the two and half years of faction-fighting. But any faction-fighting creates weariness. Dave and others built on that to develop a 'middle faction', which, as Dave says, agreed with us on all the big contentious issues, but preached "a plague on both their houses". (Dave is mistaken, by the way, in claiming that the AWL retained no members from the old Thornett group, and that we lost "a large percentage" of our old leadership in the Thornett business.)

I thought that 'middle faction' was no better than the general run of groupings in the labour movement who claim to agree with the organised left on all the issues, but to be 'above factions'. And history seems to bear me out.

Dave and his friends joined Socialist Outlook - and found, so Dave writes, that Outlook was "worse on democracy"! No-one would accuse Outlook of recruiting young people or practising open and rigorous theoretical self-criticism. But nor would anyone accuse them of having an overbearing, excessively forceful leadership. Dave is actually saying here that the image he develops elsewhere in his letter - of the AWL as being dominated by people who are prepared to expel and purge just in order to ram their pet ideas through faster - is false.

Nasty AWL
Nasty AWL

Unlikely Ken

The question of the party is a vital one for Marxists. The present Marxist movement, which lays claim to Bolshevik heritage, is in fact riddled with ideas and concepts that have their basis in trends that are and were distinct from Bolshevism.

This has led to a lack of cohesion of ideology. This is the main factor in organisational splits (the link between political theory, ideology and organisation is unbreakable).

In this context, it becomes more clear what type of party is required. An alliance with all anti-Blairite forces is indeed desirable. However, we do not want to give an inch on political and theoretical identity. We want an alliance to fight for our class against our common enemy. If Livingstone and co refuse to unite with us and fight for our class they are damaging that fight and our class. The same applies to sectarians and ultra-lefts who sacrifice the interests of our class on the altar of their 'principles' which matter more than the class to these 'Marxists'.

I believe there is also a distinction between the likes of Livingstone and workers influenced by reformist ideas. We seek to win workers over to the revolutionary perspective, while accepting that winning someone like Livingstone to such a perspective is very unlikely.

Unlikely Ken
Unlikely Ken

Political porn

What? No comment on gains in Coventry and other areas? Please, more coverage of the SPEW decline - I enjoy a laugh.

The Weekly Worker is a left equivalent of the Daily Sport.

Political porn