Letters

Popular front

I feel that Bill Jeannes was a little too quick to dismiss the presence of Mr Simon Hughes MP and other "middle class" people at a recent anti-racist event (Letters, April 12). In addition to being critical of Hughes's presence, I infer from Bill Jeannes's choice of words that he has reservations about the attendance of people from various religious denominations on the platform.

While Mr Jeannes may be able to reflect on such great ideological matters with greater clarity than many of the rest of us, I would suggest that it does the cause of anti-racism/anti-fascism no service to knock the support of the cause given by people such as MPs and those who hold religious convictions.

There is almost a sense of ego-centred objection to the presence of Hughes and co, when one reads Jeannes's letter. It is as though some of us are not good enough to oppose racists and nazis, or that, if we want to oppose them, we have to oppose them like Bill Jeannes does. If we don't, there is almost a sense that we are rubbish, futile people who are all wrong.

I feel that this is divisive. Unity at any and every level is desirable, when facing fascists. I also feel that religious people may have something to say about fascism every bit as important as Bill Jeannes. After all, I can't say for sure, but were there any people from historically persecuted groups on that recent platform? Their presence seems to send out some courageous signals as far as I am concerned, certainly not the wrong ones, whatever Bill Jeannes may think those are!

The final paragraph reveals all - Bill Jeannes wants a credible left alternative to the fascists, on the streets, organising and targeting the communities which are in the sights of the British National Party/National Front. He appeals to the Socialist Alliance to organise into a party structure, etc. What concerns me here is that this line could be taken as the writer giving more space to the power and influence of the BNP/NF over working class people than they deserve - something he accused the popular frontists of earlier on. Secondly, it would imply that some working class people are potential easy meat for fascism. Now, that's worrying, isn't it?

I infer from the terms of this appeal that such a tactic and policy have yet to translate into political, organisational reality. On this basis, I think the project Bill Jeannes speaks of is one that remains rhetorical as yet and therefore I would urge the popular frontism to continue: people to complain in their hundreds/thousands to the police every time there is an NF parade and all existing legislation against hate material is used. These things are all actual possibilities, ingrained in law. True, they need a lot of effort to see them work, but they are real - as opposed to the future-based yearnings of Bill Jeannes, which would appear to dismiss the sincere intentions of well-meaning people here in the present.

Popular front
Popular front

Oversight

I am sure it is an oversight that Peter Manson and the Weekly Worker can interview Louise Christian without asking her to account for her role in Dominic Hehir's ill-fated legal action against Brian Higgins, secretary of the Building Worker Group, from 1996 to 1999 (April 12).

It seems that despite considerable publicity in this matter hardly anyone on 'the left' wishes to bring Ms Christian to account for her actions and as such she can continue to spout nonsense such as "you must accept that people will disagree and must be allowed to speak".

For those unaware of the situation, Ms Christian legally represented and supported Dominic Hehir, a full-time Ucatt official in the London South East region of the union, when he took out a high court writ with the threat of an injunction against Brian Higgins on November 9 1996. This was a clear attempt to remove the latter's right to freedom of speech. It was also a blatant attempt to silence Higgins and those he represents in the Building Worker Group and Ucatt (he is secretary of Northampton Ucatt).

Of course if Hehir and Christian had succeeded it would have had extremely serious consequences for the same rights and freedoms of all rank and file trade union militants and activists. In fact, faced with a determined defence campaign, supported by a range of organisations, Hehir and Christian lost and Hehir withdrew before going to the high court.

I am aware that Brian Higgins has written to the Socialist Alliance, challenging Ms Christian to a debate on the issues and principles at stake. I am sure the CPGB will ensure that this challenge is taken up.

Incidentally, the very same allegations, and more, against Hehir will be repeated in a new history of the Building Worker Group to be printed by RPM Publications in May. Readers wanting to find out more about the case can write to RPM, BCM Box 3328, London WC1N 3XX, or see: www.red-star-research.org.uk

Oversight

Amorphous method

In his desire to combat what he rightly characterises as old Labourite economism in the Socialist Alliance comrade David Craig unfortunately trips over his own shoe laces (Weekly Worker April 19).

The comrade consistently avoids and distorts the essence of the conflict he details, thus misdirecting his fire. The conflict between the minimum-maximum and the economistic transitional programmatic methods becomes a conflict between 'new republicanism' and 'old Labourism' in the comrade's eyes. When the comrade states that the Socialist Workers Party could live with the federal republic, he is quite right: it proves that the conflict is not over a form of words, but over a much more fundamental issue - it is a conflict over method, which finds expression in disputes of this nature.

The words of the SWP full-timer who was afraid of losing the royalist vote did not necessarily arise from her monarchism. More likely it was the same 'broader is better' approach that inspires comrade Craig to pursue 'republicanism' as opposed to communism. The comrade makes a republic and republicanism an end in itself. Thus there is nothing programmatically to distinguish the comrade from the liberal bourgeoisie. A republic is not per se socialist in character. The political struggle for it by the working class is. The upshot being that in our common struggle against economism comrade Craig cripples himself with one-sidedness like our opponents - a one-sidedness that leaves the comrade siding with the economists when it comes to organisation.

On the party question the comrade joins the SWP and their allies in the swamp: there is little difference in essence between a "communist-Labour party" and a "united front of a special type" (Weekly Worker April 5). True, according to comrade Craig, the "communist-Labour party" would not be formed on "the basis of a Labourite programme", but how then can you call it a communist-Labour party? That Labourism and communism are antagonistic opposites means that any attempt at a 'third way' ends up in a tangle between the two. In a non-revolutionary situation objectively most concessions are given to reformism, whereas in a revolutionary one the fluidity is greater.

The comrade rightly criticises slackness with regard to membership (April 19). However, barely two columns earlier he decries "abstract notions of democratic centralism". It is stretching credibility a little to then invoke the "Bolshevik tradition" around membership: the Bolshevik tradition was democratic centralist. Comrade Craig's amorphous views on the future programmatic direction of the Socialist Alliance find clear expression in the organisational field. The way forward and indeed the way to further the political struggle against the economism of the SWP is to abandon the 'neither communist nor Labour' approach and fight for the programmatic method of Bolshevism and the attendant organisational forms.

The comrade warns that a "fetishisation of 'party' and 'democratic centralism', regardless of the actual reality, would lead communists to abandon republicanism". We might well warn that a fetishisation of republicanism would lead communists to abandon communism.

Amorphous method
Amorphous method

Bullshit factor

In his letter about recent advances in the North Korean economy, Stephen Edwards increases the amount of bullshit on the letters page by a factor of 75% (Weekly Worker April 19).

This is a magnificent achievement which ought to be more widely publicised on the left.

Bullshit factor
Bullshit factor