Letters

Immigration

I would like to focus on how to defend democracy in the Scottish Socialist Party, how to fight the sectarians determined to bar Socialist Workers Party supporters from organising inside the SSP, why the socialist alliances need to mount as comprehensive a challenge as possible at the general election. Unfortunately, I find myself distracted into addressing Andrew Cutting's latest piece of reactionary drivel (Weekly Worker September 21).

Near the beginning of World War I, two leftwing members of the Italian Socialist Party supported Italy entering the war. The younger of the two, Gramsci, immediately recognised his mistake and matured into one of the greatest revolutionary Marxists we have ever seen. For the other, Mussolini, this was no embarrassing episode: it heralded his definitive break with the workers' movement. Much to my regret, Andrew shows signs of going down the Mussolini road, and we all know where that leads.

Andrew's shortcomings are many. He is taking a PhD in maths, so logical thinking should be second nature to him. Yet, in a single sentence, he commits himself to fighting immigration and anti-immigrant attitudes! Does he not realise that he is committing himself to fighting ... himself? If logic is not his forte, neither is honesty. He tries to exploit workerist prejudices by denouncing me as a "well-to-do" member of the middle-classes. I will resist the strong temptation to refute this with one or two facts.

I do not know whether Andrew has a middle class background and, to be frank, I don't care. If such people break from their own class, dedicate themselves to the cause of the working class (which by definition is international), then, for so long as they remain in our camp, I welcome them on board. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg are simply the best known examples of such recruits.

Andrew may or may not have similar class origins. Either way, he has not chosen to place himself at the disposal of our class. Unlike all of the above, Andrew is not choosing to "bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat independently of all nationality" (Communist manifesto). Like Plekhanov, Kautsky and Hyndman, he boasts about his first priority being to defend the interests of his own imperialist state!

Andrew is dishonest, a stranger to logic and no more at home with elementary facts of the Marxist movement. But the charge laid against him (by myself and Ian Donovan), that he is flirting with key aspects of fascist politics, is far more serious than any of that. The comrade protests his innocence. All right, Andrew, let us examine the evidence.

In your latest letter, you commend Red Action for learning lessons from the right. Precisely what lessons have you been learning? In a previous letter (Weekly Worker August 3), you condemned the SWP for defending asylum-seekers and attempting to organise the unorganised. You counterposed picketing businesses that employ immigrants - presumably legal as well as illegal immigrants. Ian Donovan has pointed out that the BNP would unite with you on such pickets. How could you prevent them dominating such demonstrations? What progressive demands could such pickets possibly put forward? You claim you would picket such businesses for using immigrants as cheap labour. Why not picket businesses that use non-immigrants as cheap labour?

In reality, your proposals are not about organising the exploited to resist their exploitation; they are designed to foment divisions inside the exploited: you want to whip up an atmosphere of hysteria against the most oppressed in our society. How would you stop these pickets degenerating into vigilante mobs, following immigrants to their homes?

In your latest rant, you commit yourself to the 'fight against multiculturalism'! For the BNP, this is code for forced 'repatriation' of people born in this country. Would you be gracious enough to grant them an amnesty, but only if they submit to a Tebbit-style cricket test? Would you close down Indian and Chinese restaurants, ban people from wearing the national dress of their parents and grandparents?

Immigration
Immigration

Oppose Abbott

I completely agree with Mike Marqusee's enthusiastic support for the London Socialist Alliance election campaign in Hackney Wick (Weekly Worker September 28). But it is strange to see how quickly his ardour subsides when the subject turns to the general election and the question of standing against Diane Abbott.

At the recent Hackney Socialist Alliance meeting Mike openned in dynamic mood: setting roots down, canvassing, press releases, public meetings - socialists swarming all over Hackney Wick. How different from his response to the next item. For Mike it's just a damn shame that Diane Abbott is in Hackney. If it could just have been someone else then of course he would love to stand.

But then there are resources to worry about. Time. Finance. In other words a lot of left Labour craven excuses to stop a challenge in a working class area with arguably the most activists in the country which produced LSA votes of up to 20% in the recent Assembly elections.

Although during the debate the Socialist Workers Party to a person mumbled the same kind of defeatist rubbish, there are big rumblings of discontent amongst the membership. A lot of them have spent a lot of time working hard in these areas in Hackney and the thought of catching a bus over to leafy Crouch End to shout at Barbara Roche during the next election feels like a cop-out and a betrayal.

Oppose Abbott
Oppose Abbott

Left mistakes

After attending the Socialist Alliance conference in Coventry, I have been thinking over a few points.

I could not help but be somewhat sympathetic to the Socialist Party's proposed amendments. They seemingly have a problem with the increased centralisation of the alliance. This is not entirely without justification. Centralisation in itself is more a characteristic of a party rather than an alliance. If the aim of the alliance is to build up a party then some centralisation will clearly be necessary. However, not everyone in the alliance wishes this to be the case. Therefore I feel that a degree of autonomy is preferable at this point. Being an alliance, it contains several different currents from different traditions who quite clearly disagree over certain issues.

Over-centralisation at this point is not only premature, but it could also lead to over-domination by particular groups within the alliance. The national committee should also be accountable to the local alliances and recallable, if need be, besides being able to reflect the current composition of the alliance itself.

I also feel that while groups should be encouraged to stand under the name 'Socialist Alliance', they should also be allowed to stand under their own names if they so wish, and to print their own propaganda at election time as well as the official SA material. Workers Power were correct to add their amendment to point three of the protocol stating this.

If the groups within the alliance are denied this right then not only would it be undemocratic, but it would also be misleading for the working class. We should not pretend there is unity where there isn't, although we should strive for unity as a goal. If the alliance wishes to become a party, it should attempt to come to an agreement on a programme. But seeing as it is not a party at the moment, it should not attempt to impose any form of iron discipline.

Being communists we should be able to learn from our mistakes. Backing Ken Livingstone in the mayoral elections last year was clearly a tactical disaster. Ken has not paved the way for a left split from New Labour as much of the left had hoped, but in fact quite clearly wants to get back in Blair's good books. He made it perfectly clear that he had no ideological difference with New Labour, as his support for the Balkans war went to show. The mayoral question, for Ken, was a question of turf rather than class. He is showing a popular front position, as he speaks on behalf of 'Londoners' and not of the working class.

Seeing as he also includes Greens, Tories and Liberals in his alliance it should be quite clear by now exactly where Ken stands.

Ken did not welcome the support he received from the LSA; in fact he did his utmost to dissociate himself from the far left during his campaign. He did not even fully oppose tube privatisation, but instead advocated a halfway scheme of public bonds. While it may be true that the working class had, and possibly still have, illusions in Ken, it is not the job of socialists to foster these illusions or play up to them. Such tactics are those of opportunists. Rather, our job should be to destroy these illusions and tell the masses the truth, whether it makes us unpopular or not.

If the alliance is to be successful, we should guard against both opportunism and bureaucracy, both of which will spell disaster for its future and alienate many comrades, along with the working class itself.

Left mistakes
Left mistakes

Stalin debate

We should most definitely accept the offer put forward by Ms Cremer (Weekly Worker September 28). There should be no reason to deny the request of the Stalin Society for a debate.

On this issue it is all too easy to fall into petty slanging matches, throwing quotes at each other. I myself have all too often resorted to glibly hurling quotes to prove a point. I was, I must admit, sorely tempted to reply to Ms Cremer's letter simply with a quote - 'Haven't we seen these through and through ... You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on: into the rubbish-can of history!' - but restrained myself.

However, I have one reservation - quite frankly, I wouldn't trust Stalinists to conduct any debate on a democratic basis, never mind one whose outcome will surely decimate their raison d'être.

Stalin debate
Stalin debate