Letters

SA results

What's Peter Manson on? - In a leading article he trumpets: "This result [Preston by-election] ought to scotch once and for all the notion that ... the BNP are about to make a breakthrough" (Weekly Worker November 30).

Hello? While the Preston and West Bromwich results would have been a disappointment for the British National Party, Peter appears to have a short memory. Has he forgotten that the BNP scooped up 80,000 votes in May's London mayoral contest and 47,000 in the Greater London Assembly poll - double that of the London Socialist Alliance? In last year's Euro election the BNP gained 102,000 votes, edging in front of the number reached by a combined left vote. The London results were the highest for the far right since the National Front peaked in 1977, and this time around we have witnessed much lower turnouts.

Where the BNP are rewarded is at local ward level, where their hard work has gained dividends, most notably in Tipton last May, where they finished second to New Labour on 24%. If left unchallenged, this success locally could boost their performances at the next general election - and let's not forget the UK Independence Party's three MEPs.

As for the recent socialist results - Peter thinks they're "excellent" - I would suggest a more reasoned assumption would be that they avoided embarrassment. Keep your feet on the ground, comrades, and leave the triumphalism to Socialist Worker.

SA results
SA results

SP sectarianism

Dot Gibson's reply to my article of November 9 is welcome - if for no other reason than as an opportunity to engage the infamously surly Socialist Party in debate, albeit by proxy (Letters, November 23).

Sadly, Dot appears to take what the SP say at face value, rather than looking a little closer at what they actually do. Were the comrade to do this, it would become apparent that my charge of sectarianism is spot on. But don't take my word for it. Read the Weekly Worker, speak to SA activists the length and breadth of the country or, failing these, simply open your eyes. The truth is out there!

As for my failure to "understand the actual dilemma of the working class", it is precisely my recognition of this that Dotty seems to find so irritating: namely our class's attachment to Labourism and the left's to auto-Labourism. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, comrade. We need to fight for what is necessary. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, Dot, but that means, as I wrote, "the unification of all conscious revolutionaries in a single, genuinely democratic centralist party".

We see also the rather tiresome fantasia infecting the SP leadership echoed in the comrade's remarks. Namely, the SAs consist of "...a myriad of community campaigns, street demonstrations, pickets, direct actions, etc". How many? Where? Who? The reality, Dot, is that unlike the template you share with the SP (and the SWP for that matter), at this stage (note the emphasis, comrade) the SAs are overwhelmingly a convergence of existing revolutionary organisations. Your assertion that I seek to "limit" this to a party rather than an alliance is astounding (in the real world a party is an infinitely higher development than an alliance).

Of course the SA is not a party at this stage, but the SP's (and presumably your) intention to hold things back at a low level though anarcho-federalism has absolutely nothing to do with a genuine, although mistaken, analysis of the class struggle as it exists at the moment but everything to do with a pernicious sectarianism.

SP sectarianism
SP sectarianism

Liddle

I was very distressed to read, on the internet version of Weekly Worker, about the attacks on comrade Terry Liddle.

I feel a certain responsibility for his plight, in that his interpretation of 'social republicanism' - from Jean Jaurès - may possibly derive from his reading of the modern French socialist republicans around la Gauche Socialiste. Knowing Terry to be an omnivorous reader of the left press, and aware that Jaurès is not exactly daily news, I suppose that it comes from this.

Liddle is well respected in a wide variety of left circles. Everybody knows and has time for his tireless activism and adherence to basic Marxist principles. I have met him a number of times and am disgusted that anyone should mount an attack on him. A few minutes' acquaintance and you know you are in the presence of a very genuine socialist activist.

Would it be untoward to suspect that behind Green Anarchist's charges lies the dread figure of Larry O'Nutter (Larry O'Hara) - the source of so many similar charges? I was at Warwick University with O'Nutter in the late 70s, where, despite certain suggestions, he did play a positive role in anti-fascist work. But I broke off all relations with him about three years back when he began his descent into the inner circles of hell: finding conspiracies everywhere, linking 'third position' people left, right and off-centre.

Someone should deal with that lot.

Liddle
Liddle

Internet loons

Tolerant of eccentricity though I am, I have been amazed by some of the crap about Terry Liddle on the UK Left Network List. Even without psychiatric qualifications, I can tell that some of the people on it need a long rest, some nice hot medication and a straitjacket. If there are security worries, there is something surreal about debating them on a more or less open list.

The list is showing the nasty underbelly of the British left only too well, but for the time being it is not a bad way of forwarding information, even if it is going to Planet Nine From Outer Space in some cases.

Internet loons
Internet loons

Too green

My comrades and friends, Rod Hogg and Mary Godwin, find themselves in disagreement with my article on the question of global warming and other related issues (Weekly Worker November 9). The article pointed out that politicians interpret scientific questions in the light of the class interests they represent. Now both these comrades have a scientific background and are well informed, so such criticism cannot be lightly dismissed.

I agree with most of what Mary had to say ('Mastering nature' Weekly Worker November 30). She argued that US bourgeois interests dealt with environmental questions in a manner that would give the US a competitive advantage over the European Union. This is correct. The root of the problem is that the USA had, and to some degree still has, access to low-cost energy. While taking measures to protect its own immediate environment, it is utterly cavalier about damage to other people's environment and in its use of raw materials.

On the other hand the EU also has its own bourgeois interests. Both will back the theories that suit their case. Take nuclear power. It can be made to yield three products: heat, electricity and plutonium. Power stations were designed in the USA, and to some extent in Britain, primarily to produce plutonium and secondly to provide electrical power. In France it was primarily for power and then plutonium. Now that the need for plutonium is no longer there, it is not surprising that such power stations are no longer deemed economic in the USA and, to a lesser degree, in Britain. Arguments about safety are used to back up the economic case. France on the other hand finds nuclear power production both economic and safe.

It should be noted that there is a proposal before the EU to build a fusion power station - now known to be feasible. But as the projected cost was seven billion euros it was dropped and a substitute proposal costing three and a half billion euros and at a third of the output is now being considered. In general it is not in the interest of existing power producers to see such a development. One thing is certain: it would produce clean power with very little radioactive materials at the end of the process. As to the question of the disposal of nuclear waste, the problem is not difficult to solve. If five miles down into a salt stratum is not enough, we have the technique to fire it into the sun - it is just a matter of cost.

Turning to the main point of the greenhouse effect and global warming, on November 5, Robert Matthews, the science correspondent of The Sunday Telegraph, reported that researchers from the universities of Newcastle and Exeter had unveiled a record of British rainfall dating back to the Norman conquest. This showed that the recent bizarre weather is entirely consistent with natural variations that have taken place over the past 1,000 years. Matthews cited Dr James Hansen of the US Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the scientist credited with putting climate change on the political agenda in June 1988, when he told the US Congress to "stop waffling" and accept the reality of global warming. He now argues that industrialisation might not, in fact, be the source of all climatic evil. Dr Hansen points to methane as a more likely candidate. Indeed radiation absorption by carbon dioxide is at such a level that it is now probably impossible for any more greenhouse effect to come from carbon dioxide radiation absorption.

According to Dr David Stephenson, head of the Climate Analysis Group at the University of Reading, the recent weather has been in line with normal variation in Atlantic pressure patterns (The Daily Telegraph November 26). Dr Stephenson was supported by the departments dealing with climate change at the universities of Exeter, Newcastle and East Anglia. On November 23 the University of Virginia presented papers to a conference at The Hague showing that the world had not heated up since 1940. This was confirmed by ice core samples taken by the University of East Anglia from the Greenland ice cap. The sea level has fallen by 2.5 inches since 1990, according to the Tuvahla Meteorological Service (New Scientist December 8).

But it is not necessary to rely on empirical evidence of the sort quoted to show that global warming is impossible in the way generally reported to be taking place. A mathematical analysis will show that there is just not enough energy involved in the industrial processes being used at the moment to account for such alleged tendencies. Certainly fossilised fuel plays some part. But it cannot account for any significant rise in the world's temperature.

The same sort of arguments go for the rise in sea level. Where is the extra water coming from and where is there any known change in the temperature of the sea? One thing is for sure: apart from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, there is no source of frozen water to raise sea levels significantly.

I stated in my article: "The forces of nature dwarf anything that humanity is doing or can do in relation to its effect on the weather." Rod throws back at me the possibility of a "nuclear winter" - the argument that we heard so much about in the 60s (Letters, November 16). I am certainly not in favour of dropping H-bombs about the place, but a thunderstorm dropping an inch of rain over the south of England releases more energy than a 20-megaton H bomb, and that is not counting the latent heat involved in turning a billion tons of water vapour into rain or the kinetic energy tied up by a billion tons, plus cloud travelling at 40 to 80 kilometres an hour.

Leaving aside Rod's argument that flood prevention, etc is "reactionary", the point is that comrades appear to be taking in green propaganda without thinking.

Too green
Too green

Misconceptions

Comrade Sam Metcalf's contribution to the rail debate is most welcome (Letters Weekly Worker December 7). Whilst I agree with much of what comrade Sam says, I believe it contains some serious mistakes that come from an all too prevalent view on the left, most notably the SWP, that everything 'private' is horrendously bad, while 'public' enterprises were somehow better.

Comrade Sam, discussing the priority list of the rail companies, says: "In fact, it would be a guess that the public are right down there with safety." This is a common refrain, but is it true? Was BR any better? This seriously misunderstands the way the franchises operate. All train operating companies (TOCs) must, before they can operate, provide a comprehensive safety case. This is legally binding and enforced by the health and safety executive along with Railtrack. All railworkers are bound by law to work to the railway rule book. This is a national, all-UK rule book. One of the biggest costs for a TOC is its safety department. Along with this the rail unions have a network of safety reps in place who are not behind the door on these matters.

Comrade Sam says: "The rail companies rely so heavily on the working class for their profits." Again this is just not factual. Except for the intercity TOCs like Virgin, the others get massive public subsidy to run what is known as the "socially necessary railway". This is the 'service obligation grant' paid out by central government and the passenger transport executives. They are not reliant on the fare box. If they were then First Northwestern would have had the receivers in ages ago. They are famous for not collecting fares. On some routes in Greater Manchester fare-payers are a distinct minority. Maybe this is what comrade Sam means as affordable public transport!

Comrade Sam says: "The rolling stock had not been updated or renewed since the mid-80s. This was the express wish of the rail operators, who were too busy paying their shareholders." Again this misunderstands the problem. The TOCs have not been slow to invest in new trains. The problem is getting them into service. From design to ordering and getting them running is taking up to seven years. This is primarily due to Railtrack demanding exhaustive tests before allowing new trains to run, all in the interests of safety. Virgin have 900 new trains now awaiting certification from Railtrack.

The rail industry's present crisis is because of the panic reaction of Railtrack to the Hatfield derailment, imposing hundreds of speed restrictions across the network, for safety reasons. The major problem the industry faces, however, is fragmentation. This was caused by the Major government's botched privatisation. It would be a mistake to believe this cannot be addressed within the privatised railway. Already we see a couple of major players emerging through take-overs and the current franchising round - First Group, National Express and Stagecoach. Who is to say this process will not continue?

Communists need to examine these matters carefully and then explain them to the working class. Only then can correct solutions be arrived at and slogans advanced. We only do ourselves and our class a disservice by advancing half cocked facts and wishful thinking.

Misconceptions
Misconceptions

Realism

Sometimes things in the Weekly Worker get bad. When Darrell 'give it some welly' Goodliffe writes about art (Letters, December 7), things get really bad.

The following statement sums it up: "We [sic] want a working class culture which is positively expressive about its class identity, one that draws the best from its history and celebrates that, not one that reflects life as a slave." There you have it: Enid Blyton does socialist realism whilst Stalin draws up quotas for ginger beer and scout uniforms.

Using Darrell's formula, Sartre's Roads to freedom trilogy has nothing to offer the working class because a) its characters are miserable; and b) it expresses its meaning through the prism of social and mental slavery. Does the Party really want to give out such antiquated 'official communist' messages?

Of course, all comrade Goodliffe's 'theory' adds up to is an alienated demand on reality. At this stage of the class struggle to expect that "working class culture" will not express misery, angst and failure (James Kelman and Irvine Welsh, for example) is absurd. Where the bloody hell would artists get sustenance for the 'onwards and upwards' epics of social progress that Darrell wants them to produce? Nowhere, of course, which means they would fit nicely alongside Braveheart as plastic, force-fed myths.

Darrell is not for art as a sensuous object that unpicks the webs of the commodity system through imbalance, distortion and partiality (art in the Marxist sense, that is) but for agit-prop. Now the agit-prop form has a long and honourable history, but its use should be confined to times of offensive. Trying to produce such works in a reactionary period, as The Leninist did with the Workers Theatre Movement, was, of course, doomed to failure. The task now is not to subordinate art to politics, but politics to art.

But our junior intellectual has other, more heroic, ideas. Comrade Goodliffe envisages that our sort of culture "will point the way to the construction of a new society". How marvellous! How uplifting! Can you see that hydro-electric dam being built? Can you smell pipe tobacco? Did you see the machine-gun standing guard in the trees as the happy peasants gather in the harvest?

Realism
Realism

Cheka

David Moran asks for clarification on the Kronstadt protests against the attacks on the anarchists in 1918 (Letters, December 7). Two resolutions were in fact passed: one at a "monster rally" and one by the Kronstadt Soviet (from eyewitness accounts by Efim Yarchuk).

Moran seems to be very selective on his use of Victor Serge to authenticate his claims, citing Serge to state that the 30-40 people killed were not bona fide anarchists, but criminal elements. But the attacks took place in April 1918 and Serge did not even arrive in Russia until 1919. I have used the accounts of Maximov and Gorelik, there at the time, as well as Lockhart (who claims 100 anarchist dead!), also there at the time, backed up by historians like Avrich and EH Carr.

Moran lauds the Cheka as the revolutionary incisor of the Soviet power. But even among Bolsheviks there was disquiet. SI Gopner, a Bolshevik veteran, in her letter to Lenin in 1918, said about the Cheka: "This organisation is rotten to the core. The canker of criminality, violence and totally arbitrary decisions abounds, and it is filled with common criminals and the dregs of society, men armed to the teeth who simply execute anyone they don't like. They steal, loot, rape and throw anyone into prison, forge documents, practise extortion and blackmail, and will let anyone go in exchange for huge sums of money."

Other officials talked about drunkenness. N Rosental, an inspector for the Bolshevik government, reported in 1919 that, "Orgies and drunkenness are daily occurrences. Almost all the personnel of the Cheka are heavy cocaine users. They say that this helps them deal with the sight of so much blood on a daily basis."

Back to Moran's selective use of Serge. Talking about the Makhnovists, Serge says: "This fantastic attitude of the Bolshevik authorities, who tore up the pledges they themselves had given to this endlessly daring revolutionary peasant minority, had a terribly demoralising effect; in it I see one of the basic causes of the Kronstadt rising" (Memoirs of a revolutionary). And on the Cheka Serge opines: "... the establishment of the Cheka, with its techniques of secret inquisition had been a grievous error on the part of the revolutionary leadership, and one incompatible with any socialist philosophy" (ibid.).

Moran asks who were these "phantom revolutionaries" shot by the Cheka. Not phantoms, but people of flesh and blood. For example, Petrenko, non-party revolutionary, who led an armed band in the Tsaritsyn area killed around the time of the Moscow attacks; 350 Left SRs shot down after the unsuccessful rising in 1918. I could go on ...

Cheka
Cheka

No harassment

A campaign has been launched to highlight and oppose the ongoing efforts of Sinn Féin to suppress the opinions of members of the Republican Writers Group. This group publishes a political journal which has carried material critical of Sinn Féin. It is supported by individuals of mixed opinions, both republican and socialist. In numerous public statements the group has consistently opposed any resort to physical force as a means of undermining the peace process.

Following the killing of Joe O'Connor, a member of the Real IRA, on October 13 2000, two members of the Republican Writers Group were called in by the dead man's family to try to determine which republican organisation had committed the killing. After speaking to local people they issued a public statement asserting that they believed the Provisional IRA were responsible.

Since then the two writers, Tony McIntyre and Tommy German, have been subject to a tirade of abuse in the Sinn Féin press. Their homes have been 'picketed' by large groups of Sinn Féin supporters and they have been physically threatened.

In a statement carried in the American newspaper The Irish Voice (October 25), Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin said that the two writers were "fellow travellers of the Real IRA". This is absolutely untrue and put them in considerable danger. The two people concerned have never offered any support to the Real IRA.

We call on the leadership of Sinn Féin to stop the harassment of these writers and underwrite the right to freedom of expression.

Information and messages of solidarity: http//rwg.phoblacht.net

We are asking all socialist organisations in Britain and Ireland to demand of Sinn Féin that they end their intimidation of the two writers.

No harassment
No harassment