Letters

LSA balance sheet

So Dave Spencer thinks that those like myself, who have talked of the "huge success" of the London Socialist Alliance, are losing our sense of reality, or are at least engaging in "amateur spin doctoring" (Weekly Worker June 1).

Not at all, Dave. I stand by my assessment. Against the contemporary background of the almost total absence of the working class as a political force, the LSA's achievement was indeed huge.

Of course I was talking about more than just the vote we scored. That a collaboration of the left, which previously had appeared to be almost pathologically divided, endured and delivered a creditable, high-profile, polished electoral campaign was enormously positive. That the familiar old crap - the attempts at starting witch hunts and exclusions, floundered, was also a big plus.

Perhaps most important of all though was the class character of the campaign. It was 100% proletarian. There was no 'greening', no popular frontism. I have to admit that this latter achievement did surprise me, particularly in view of the normal political method of the Socialist Workers Party. To witness an array of revolutionaries occupying the platform speakers' seats at the LSA rallies was wonderful. To see Ken Loach instead of Bruce Kent as the 'celeb', likewise. To behold the complete absence of vicars, Oxfam organisers and other charity workers was refreshing.

Having said all this, I wholeheartedly endorse comrade Spencer's call for the drawing up of a balance sheet on the lessons of the LSA campaign. The shortcomings, evasions and errors that did exist and occur, should now be subjected to ruthless criticism. Paramount amongst these of course was the puny, reformist manifesto. Another was the 'don't mention your organisation' gag which was imposed on the candidates. And there are no doubt many more.

I look forward to seeing such detailed criticism, not only in the columns of Weekly Worker, where I expect to see it, but also in publications like Socialist Worker.

LSA balance sheet
LSA balance sheet

Localism first

Comrade Peter Manson gives a very partial, misleading and incomplete picture of the local election results for the left around the country and for the Socialist Labour Party in particular (Weekly Worker May 18).

The SLP in Birmingham, no doubt benefiting from the support of the Indian Workers Association, gained 664 votes (11.2%) in one central Birmingham ward and 1,468 (31.26%) in another. In Wakefield, Thomas Appleyard for the SLP gained 436 votes (19%) in one ward, the SLP gaining respectable votes in others. The SLP clearly fielded fewer candidates but with some effect in the communities they have a base in. The SLP are down but far from out. Peter's obituary for the SLP is unfortunately premature. Like the SPGB they could limp along for a 100 years!

The Socialist Party gained some impressive votes. This was evident in Newcastle's Byker ward, where SP comrades have raised concerns around the local waste incinerator. William Hopwood for the SP gained 266 votes (16.6%) in light of the growing concern regarding these toxic burners. This was clearly a golden opportunity missed by the LSA. The issue of Lewisham's waste incinerator was raised in the Grinling Gibbons council by-election by Greenwich and Lewisham Socialist Alliance comrades in support of Ian Page, helping to gain 14% of the vote.

Other component parties and groups of the Socialist Alliance network did equally well. The Left Alliance gained 1,058 (23.38%) for John Frankland in Leeds. The Democratic Labour Party in Walsall gained 3,003 votes in the 15 seats they contested, with an average of over seven percent. In one ward they beat the Labour Party; in another they gained 21%. In Hull, independent Labour candidates gained good results.

Consistently across the country, where socialists had broken from the LP, they gained respectable votes. This was most clearly demonstrated in London, where two independent Labour candidates gained 24,499 votes, suggesting that if a slate of Labour independent candidates had been put up, they would have gained seats on the GLA. The three percent gained by the LSA candidates for the FPTP seats, therefore, needs to be put in perspective.

The most spectacular outcome of the election night, however, were in the results for the Wyre Forest District Council, centred on Kidderminster, Worcestershire. The local community, fighting to save their local hospital and radical primary healthcare service, took control of the council, gaining 8,731 votes and another 11 seats, bringing their total to 19. In Stoke-on-Trent, community independents campaigning against cuts in services and redundancies gained all nine seats they contested.

The results for the left around the country suggest that the emergence of a new left party is going to take a more community, environmental and socialist (rather than revolutionary) character than Peter would care to acknowledge. This has clearly been recognised by the SWP, who in Lewisham have broken themselves up into 15 community-based branches. We may see Peter campaigning to save the local allotments yet!

Localism first
Localism first

RCN slogans

I find myself in agreement with Tom Delargy's comments on the slogans of the Republican Communist Network (Letters Weekly Worker June 1). The slogans can differentiate between communists on the one hand and social democrats, nationalists and centrists on the other.

However, they cannot always be capable of making this differentiation. The reason for this is that nobody can actually tell for certain what revolutionary politics are, short of a revolution. Although our principles can be guided by the light of theory, they can only be proved in action. I get the feeling that some comrades are afraid that the character of the RCN may change dramatically as comrades from different traditions join, while other comrades reach new conclusions. This fear must be resisted. It would be unnatural for the RCN not to change as it grows - revolutionary republican communism can only be forged through a process of polemic and rapprochement. It would be deeply mistaken to start drawing lines in the sand over this or that issue.

Comrades who accept the slogans and are willing to contribute to and sell Republican Communist are acceptable to the RCN. However, I think it might be possible to sharpen the slogans by making them focus on principles we endorse rather than stages we envisage without alienating anyone. In particular the compromise on the fourth slogan - 'international socialist revolution' - really does not mean very much and will be acceptable to almost any leftist. If 'international socialism' is not acceptable to the Communist Tendency because it suggests a fixed socialist phase, then a better compromise would be a slogan which emphasises the principle of internationalism. 'International solidarity', 'proletarian internationalism' or just simply 'internationalism' cannot be confused with "Glasgow tramcars plus cabbages" by even the most perverse surrealist.

RCN slogans
RCN slogans

Ultra-leftism

Allan Armstrong claims that "[Dave] Craig suppresses the politics behind the disputes" (Weekly Worker May 25). He is referring to a series of organisational disputes in the RCN (England). Who is eligible for membership? How often should we have meetings? Should comrades with complaints first write to the secretary or the newspapers. Is it fair to describe the contest between two comrades both trying to convene the same meeting as a "cock-up or conspiracy"?

Can anybody make head or tail of this? Was this the good guys versus the bad guys? Were the baddies a faction of malcontents out to cause trouble? Or was it mild doctor Craig, who for no apparent reason, suddenly turned into a great big hairy monster, Mr Nasty?

Allan's got the answer. He sets out to show that behind all this is the politics of the Communist Tendency against the politics of the Revolutionary Democratic Group. An excellent thesis! All this nastiness and squabbling was really about politics. Exactly! So Allan explains that behind the squabbles lies the distinction between the true or genuine communists and 'revolutionary' social democrats.

This brings me to the main point. To make sense of Marxist politics, we need a three-fold distinction, not simply the two offered by Allan. I would call them bureaucratic communists, revolutionary democratic communists and anarcho-communists. Others might call them centrists, communists and ultra-lefts. Using Allan's own terminology, these would be the right 'revolutionary' social democrats, genuine communists and left 'revolutionary' social democrats.

Clearly in raising up the real politics behind the disputes in the RCN Allan exposes a big hole in his own politics. Either he has forgotten about ultra-leftism or he is covering up for it. Doesn't he realise that ultra-leftism is merely centrism in another guise? Doesn't he realise that ultra-leftism is an anti-working class theory? And anti-working class theory will lead to anti-working class practice. We cannot fight this by pretending that left 'revolutionary' social democracy does not exist.

In Left wing communism - an infantile disorder Lenin warned us that leftist posturing is very damaging. He showed that the class roots of this trend were in the petty bourgeoisie: for example, lawyers. We cannot build any workers' party without ideological struggle against this. What could be more infantile, leftist nonsense than calling for a workers' republic as an immediate demand when there are no soviets and the working class is on the defensive?

The RCN is suffering from this same infantile disorder. It will not become a serious force in the Scottish Socialist Party or in England unless it sorts this problem out very quickly. Centrism and ultra-leftism appear to be opposites, but are two sides of the same 'revolutionary' social democratic coin. Every genuine communist is hostile to centrism and ultra-leftism. Now that it is raining in the RCN, don't be surprised if all the ultra-left elements gather together under the same umbrella.

Ultra-leftism
Ultra-leftism

Yes, ma'm

Following the article, 'Making Liz the last' (Weekly Worker May 18), I thought you should be made aware of Movement Against the Monarchy (MA'M). This is a group originating in Class War who are most definitely involved in militant and revolutionary republicanism.

With the current acknowledged weakness of an "independent, working class" republican movement, would it be heresy to suggest discussions for possible rapprochement or joint work?

Yes, ma'm
Yes, ma'm

Racism

Don Preston's reply to comrade Jim Gilbert on racism and anti-racism (Weekly Worker May 25) contains some quite preposterous comments. In my view these reveal that at least one comrade has a problem on the matter of race.

To be fair to Preston, I will first record my agreement on one particular line of argumentation where I think he is right and Jim Gilbert is patently mistaken. There is a tendency on the left to extend the adjective 'racist' to cover those policies of the governments of European Union member states which are aimed at closing the borders to foreigners, who of course include extra-EU Europeans. That the treatment of 'indigenous' Europeans by other Europeans is designated 'racism' stretches the term beyond credulity. The word only makes sense when it recognises the existence of palpable (although these are all, of course, scientifically tiny) genetic differentiations, the primary instance of such being, as comrade Preston rightly insists, skin coloration.

I do find it frustrating that so many revolutionaries eschew the application here of the correct terms, 'national chauvinism' and 'xenophobia'. It is that the others are 'outsiders' that is of importance, not that they might possess some minuscule deviation from the median genetic map of the home population. As to the motive for this flawed approach, I can also find some agreement with Preston. Yes, it does appear to be aimed at bolstering a case that the contemporary capitalist state is institutionally racist.

It is at this juncture in the discussion that I part company with comrade Gilbert's antagonist and that Preston starts scraping the barrel. In his haste and desperation to defend the state against the charges of institutional racism (which come from, inter alia, many of the chief officers of that very state) he spews out garbage that I do not expect to hear from communists. Two such ejaculations would more normally inhabit the columns of The Sun and the brains of bar-stool bigots.

"We are all aware of the pecuniary advantage to be gained from entering the race relations industry." We are not! Firstly, there is no "race relations industry". Secondly, those departments of the state which emanate from the 1976 Race Relations Act - ie, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Section 11 provision for additional resources in education to address the special needs of students from immigrant populations - have been prime targets for round after round of cuts, such that what is left is capable of window-dressing only.

Even worse is the comrade's citation of a 'race directive' recently approved, he says, in the European parliament, which will "reverse the burden of proof" in civil race discrimination cases. "Translated from the legalese," he goes on, "if accused of a 'race crime' you are guilty until proven innocent." Did the comrade write his piece in a dreadful hurry? Or is this just stupidity or plain, irrational prejudice? Come on, comrade. Don't insult our intelligence by mischievously conflating changes in civil law with hysteria about race crimes and the criminal burden of proof.

I haven't studied the 'race directive'. I will do so. But I do hold to the view that any legal change which makes it more difficult for employers, housing authorities, or educational institutions to discriminate on the grounds of race is a gain for the working class. Is comrade Preston for comrade Cecilia Prosper and her colleagues, who scored a notable race and sex discrimination victory? Or is he for a supposed hapless, victimised group of senior officials and New Labour leaders of Islington council?

Please, comrade editor, lift this debate out of the gutter and restrain the rottweiler columnists.. We need a sophisticated critique of the state, racism, xenophobia and national chauvinism. Let's make a start.

Racism
Racism

Turkey

We saw the article by Aziz Demir, 'Football and revolution' (Weekly Worker May 25), and we think that the most appropriate response is to send you the 9,400-word DHKC document, 'Fascism in Turkey'. This covers a number of relevant areas, not least the cultural impact of the fascist regime.

A major struggle is about to break out in Turkey centred on the struggle of the revolutionary prisoners against the regime's efforts to impose cell-type prisons on Turkey's thousands of political captives. Remember that the 1996 hunger strike/death fast in the prisons which cost the lives of 12 revolutionary captives, five of them from our organisation, took place principally because of similar moves by the authorities. At the time the sacrifices of the revolutionary prisoners and their supporters caused the authorities to back down, but the fascist murderers are seeking once again to implement their plans.

The forthcoming struggle in Turkey will also be fought out in Europe, including Britain. We invite Aziz Demir and all Weekly Worker readers to join us in this fight.

Turkey
Turkey