Letters

Editorial cuts

I think that in cases where letters or articles are published in the Weekly Worker in an edited/censored form, the CPGB editor should indicate that this is so at the end of the particular piece. You should also publish the unedited text elsewhere on the website, so that people can judge for themselves if the editor's decisions were appropriate. The web page for unedited originals could also be printed at the end of every letters column in the hard copy version.

There is also a strong case for arguing that heavily edited letters/articles should not be attributed to their authors, since alterations and omissions may significantly, and sometimes mischievously, distort the original viewpoint. There is always a case for editing articles, especially long ones, on grounds of lack of space. But the case for editing letters, which are almost always short, on these grounds is not obvious to me. This exceeds the editor's brief and amounts to tampering with a correspondent's expression of their opinion. An example was the unnecessary truncation of my quote from Trotsky in last week's edition, which undermined the full sense of what was being argued (May 6).

A little more transparency in the way you publish submissions is in order, I believe.

Editorial cuts
Editorial cuts

US left

As an American, I have two comments on Manny Neira's otherwise depressingly accurate take on the presidential election here ('God, Mammon, and the American way' Weekly Worker May 6).

First of all, our peculiar local superstitions are somewhat mischaracterised. As I understand it, come the rapture, the born-again are not supposed to float bodily up to heaven naked. Rather, happily for the aesthetic sensibilities of those of us who will be left behind, they will simply dematerialise à la Star trek, leaving their clothes, watches and possible false teeth and the like behind. Such scenes have been a staple of evangelical trash like the wildly popular Left behind novels.

Secondly, it's worth noting that it is not entirely accurate to lump together the various socialists Neira parenthetically mentions. There are important quantitative and qualitative differences that affect how seriously their electoral efforts are to be taken. The Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Equality Party are basically confessional micro-sects that demand adherence to their precise ideological 'lines' by members. They have little interest in working with other sects who don't share their precisely correct views. The SEP in particular is notorious for conspiracy-theorising that other left groups (especially the SWP) are secretly controlled by intelligence services as a method of breaking the real revolutionary left. Their voluminous pronouncements on 'Security and the Fourth International' make British equivalents like Healy seem like paragons of sanity by comparison.

Given their happy embrace of the constraints of life as micro-sects, the SWP and SEP don't take their electoral campaigns terribly seriously. The SEP is headquartered in Michigan, but is not even bothering to make the attempt to gather signatures to appear on the ballot here. The SWP is notorious for not bothering to 'campaign' outside of the occasional 'campaign meeting' at the book stores they run.

By contrast, the Socialist Party, while still microscopic in a country of 280 million people, is, at over a thousand members, gigantic by comparison to the other groups. Not surprisingly, it differs from the others in being an inclusive, multi-tendency party that doesn't require members to sign on to any precise 'line' or pretend to agree with the party's decisions in all areas, although people do generally agree with the consensus reflected in the party's solidly revolutionary statement of principles, 'Socialism as radical democracy'. Similarly, the SPUSA differs from the other groups in its willingness to cooperate with others, reflected in its outreach to other groups to form a 'United Left Front', a proposal explicitly modelled on Socialist Alliances in the UK and Australia.

US left
US left

Bread and butter

We would like to thank Pete McLaren, convener of the Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform, for his comradely letter inviting the CPGB to rejoin, and express our disappointment that the invitation was not accepted ('Damaged credibility' Weekly Worker May 6).

In declining it, comrade Peter Manson wrote that "the main site for … struggle is at present within Respect" ('Sectarian delusions', same issue). We agree entirely: but main is not the same as only. As comrade McLaren made clear, there is no conflict between membership of the SADP and engagement with Respect. It is worth noting that comrade Dave Landau, who contributed his report of his work to raise the issue of abortion in Islington Respect, is also in the SADP ('SWP vote down women's rights', same issue).

Comrade Manson emphasises the differences between the partyist perspectives of the CPGB and that of some members of the SADP: "For some, the SA was an end in itself - a loose network was all that was needed. For others a federal structure … was sufficient". But at Respect's founding conference, Paul Holborrow of the SWP, urging members to vote down the principle of workers' representation on a worker's wage, announced: "Respect is not a socialist organisation". We agree that we should be engaging with Respect, but if we can engage (and even recommend unconditional electoral support for) Respect despite such statements, what holds us back from simple membership the SADP, and support for its more modest campaign?

Ultimately, what it is seems to boil down to is that the SADP is rather smaller than Respect, and simply not worth the trouble. But this is a risky rationale. In quite properly attempting to engage with the central movements of the moment, we should be cautious of simply dropping, and needlessly alienating, those comrades we have cooperated with along the way. Rejoining the SADP is not a central plank of our position, but it is perhaps indicative of a greater emphasis we would like to see on the longer-term, gradual accumulation of respect and cooperation between socialist groups and comrades. A little bread and butter solidarity with an organisation which we helped to found, and which is also standing socialist candidates on June 10, whom even comrade Manson "wishes well", should not be left entirely neglected, as we chase the 'bigger fish' - particularly when it zigzags the way this particular fish does.

Bread and butter
Bread and butter

Extremely rightwing

John Davis argues that the CPGB's Red Platform is racist for opposing a vote for Anas Altikriti and other members of the Muslim Association of Britain standing as Respect coalition candidates (Letters, May 6). But what Manny Neira et al seem to be opposing is not a vote for candidates of muslim background or even religion, but a vote for supporters of a specific, extremely rightwing political organisation. If the BJP had a British section and its supporters were part of Respect - unlikely, I admit - would it be anti-hindu racism to oppose voting for them?

The real issue is the inconsistency of the Red Platform comrades. How can an organisation which includes such rightwing reactionaries on its electoral lists be worthy of support? The presence of MAB members at the heart of the Respect coalition is simply another reason why socialists should not support it.

Extremely rightwing
Extremely rightwing

Build CPGB

Firstly, once again, an excellent Weekly Worker (April 29). The level of intelligent, open debate one can find inside is to be commended.

I found the article 'Red Platform founded' of particular interest. Now the initial excitement regarding the founding of the Respect coalition has died down, the challenges ahead seem huge. Having attended a local area meeting of Respect recently, I left feeling, well, almost fooled. What this appears to be is basically a well-meaning, centre-left vehicle for the next generation of careerist politicians. There was no mention at all of how genuine leftist politics could address problems both nationally and internationally. Instead, all that was heard was basically a small group of SWP people promoting Gorgeous George as the champion in the red corner.

I cannot support this movement. Engage with it? Yes. Vote for it? No. Point 3 ('To build the CPGB') in the Neira/Richards article was spot on. Not only is it heartening to hear comrades speak of republicanism being absolutely necessary, but I am utterly convinced that the CPGB could and should be "winning individual comrades to the CPGB banner" and be the main party of the left in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England. Recruiting individuals to become politically conscious members of the CPGB and building a solid, electable party seems to make nothing but sense.

Build CPGB
Build CPGB

Responsible sex

Abortion is a messy issue - almost 180,000 were performed last year, whilst there are couples that want to adopt children. And it isn't an easy option - women are left scarred by the experience.

The problem is society and attitudes. Sex sells commodities. It is accepted as a recreational pursuit rather than something more profound. When people engage in relationships, without understanding what it involves, or what it means, than undoubtedly all sorts of problems are created. Casual sex is one of the worst things created by the west because it demeans women and leads to other nasty results, like child sex. Western societies, particularly Anglo-Saxon ones, have demeaned family relationships, women and sex.

The real problem is that childcare and raising children need to be socialised because the burden on parents - financially and in terms of time and other resources - is too onerous. Most get on with it because they have to. Families, by keeping the social requirements of society on a private basis, reinforce capitalism and its values. Moreover, the nuclear and westernised families don't produce adults that are balanced, all-rounded and properly functioning individuals.

Socialised families and childcare - that is the solution for the 21st century. Unless you have buckets of money, the modern world causes too many problems for parents and children, who end up being victims at the mercy of anti-social governments. And no amount of charity-mongering can ever alleviate the social problems of capitalism - that's an obvious fact.

Women should be encouraged to give birth, and not feel guilty about handing the child over. But, more importantly, the culture of casual sex should be replaced with the culture of meaningful and truly adult relationships. If men and women don't know how to relate to each other and treat each other, than the fallout from that does have far-reaching consequences.

Responsible sex
Responsible sex

Small-minded

It would seem that Anne Mc Shane, along with too many others on the small-minded British left, is more interested in seeking out and emphasising divisions within Respect than in building on, clarifying and developing the policies that already unite its members (Letters, May 6).

Why is this, I wonder? Respect does not hide the fact that it is trying to bring together a diverse spectrum of the highly successful anti-war movement. Mc Shane tries to make cheap political capital out of the fact that Respect has not yet been able to establish policy on some critical issues like abortion. Yet she knows that the coalition has, of necessity, been established on the hoof and thrown into an election campaign with little time to do so.

She also knows that many of the leading members of Respect (eg, the SWP and International Socialist Group) are long-standing and well known pro-choice advocates. She disingenuously attributes to their motivation cynical opportunism, instead of honestly recognising that the conservative prejudices of some religious-pacifist anti-war activists (both christian and muslim) will not be changed overnight. It requires a little more time than the few months that have elapsed since Respect was formed.

Mc Shane also mischievously speculates about the possibility that Galloway might be elected on a pro-abortion position. She glosses over the inconvenient fact that Galloway, and every other Respect candidate (including Muslim Association of Britain members), will be standing for election on the Respect founding statement which says: "The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices." Cryptic and in need of clarification and elaboration? Of course. Anti-abortion? I think not.

Establishing a political organisation out of the huge anti-war movement requires time, patience, tact (shock, horror) and, yes, sensitivity to the conservative cultural prejudices of newly active anti-war militants, both christian and muslim. I am not talking about adapting politically to these prejudices, but of dealing with them with a degree of caution necessary to avoid the needless squandering of novice activists. The British left is well known for its arrogance: plenty of self-important, cultist organisational egoism. Lots of intellectual chiefs, but very few Indians.

Any fool can blurt out the blindingly obvious about Respect's political shortcomings which stem from its incipient stage of development. But, as one of your previous correspondents pointed out, political clarification not linked to the building of a political alternative is an unimportant exercise. Ensuring that Respect survives and develops is just as important as developing its policies.

Unfortunately, there is little sign that Mc Shane and her ilk understand that particular dialectical interrelationship.

Small-minded
Small-minded

Vote Lucy

Sean Thompson's letter attacking Lucy Anderson, the Labour candidate for the London assembly seat of Barnet and Camden, only serves to underscore the brain-dead sectarianism that characterises the outlook of many Respect supporters.

Thompson says of Lucy that "no-one has heard a peep out of her" since she became a Camden councillor two years ago (Weekly Worker May 6). He obviously doesn't read his local paper, the Camden New Journal. If he did, even over the last couple of months he'd have found reports of Lucy clashing with the council leadership over nursery provision and speaking out against the privatisation of a local sports centre.

If he went back further, he'd find coverage of Lucy's participation in a delegation organised by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, which visited the occupied territories and issued a report condemning abuses by the Sharon government. This made the national press and was the main argument used against Lucy by the Labour Party right wing in opposing her selection as an assembly candidate.

But Thompson, like all sectarians, thinks the only campaigns and organisations that have any merit are the ones he and his friends are involved in. So he finds it reprehensible that Lucy Anderson didn't join the local Stop the War Coalition group. But the group was run by the Socialist Workers Party and its allies in the Socialist Alliance and reflected their politics. For that reason, very few Labour Party members did join. They felt that handing out leaflets demanding the TUC organise a one-hour general strike when war broke out, or standing outside Alastair Campbell's home banging on pots and pans and frightening his children, were not effective ways of opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

With her support and involvement, Lucy's constituency party, Holborn and St Pancras, found other ways of opposing the war. They sent their banner and large delegations on all the main anti-war demonstrations, including the protest against Bush's state visit. They submitted a contemporary motion to the Labour Party's 2002 conference condemning plans for the attack on Iraq, and last year the Holborn and St Pancras delegates supported the RMT's attempt to get an emergency motion on Iraq onto the conference agenda.

The party organised a public debate on Iraq on the eve of the war, and immediately the invasion began they convened a mass meeting for party members at Camden town hall. This was addressed by local MPs Frank Dobson and Glenda Jackson, who roundly denounced the war. In response to members saying they felt like resigning in protest at Blair's actions, Dobbo declared: "Its not Tony Blair's party - it's our fucking party!"

This was splashed all over the front of the Camden New Journal, received national press coverage and made more impact on public opinion locally than any of the activities of Thompson and his friends.

To any Marxist, the fact that the local STWC group failed to attract many Labour Party members, despite their overwhelming opposition to the Iraq war, would be seen as a failure on the part of the group and its politics. According to the topsy-turvy logic of sectarians like Thompson, however, the refusal of Labour Party members like Lucy Anderson to follow his political lead is just proof of their political treachery.

I could go on at length demonstrating the ignorance of Thompson's charges against Lucy, but the real problem with his letter is what it leaves out. He doesn't mention that the Barnet and Camden assembly seat is highly marginal - Labour lost it by a mere 551 votes four years ago - or that the present incumbent, Brian Coleman, is a paid up adherent of the Tory Party's loony right. A recent characteristic statement by Coleman was: "The influx of asylum-seekers from countries which have no connection with Britain, such as Somalia, must be halted." And he objected to plans to expand Middlesex University with the comment: "Why should the people of north London suffer in order to attract hundreds of foreign students?"

Lucy Anderson, by contrast, was selected as a Labour candidate in part because she condemned what she called "the illegal and shameful war on Iraq", and has received the backing of the RMT council of executives, having signed up to the union's four-point programme, which includes repeal of the anti-union laws and renationalisation of the rail network. Writing in the current issue of Labour Left Briefing, Lucy has stated that, if elected, she will "work closely with all the London trade unions to ensure that their concerns are raised on the London assembly" and "energetically support policies that promote the equality and diversity that my Tory opponent so provocatively rejects".

Lucy Anderson is the only candidate standing in Barnet and Camden who has a chance of beating Coleman. From whose election would the labour movement benefit more? As Ken Livingstone remarked in a recent letter to the Camden New Journal urging support for Lucy, it's a no-brainer. Yet Sean Thompson and his comrades have insisted on standing a Respect candidate despite the fact that they'll be lucky to get three or four percent of the vote, which in another close-run contest could be enough to let Coleman in again. Indeed, in response to Livingstone's article, Respect supporters have flooded the correspondence columns of the New Journal with letters fiercely opposing a vote for Lucy. It's the sort of ultra-left lunacy that split the German labour movement in the early 30s and allowed the Nazis to gain power.

As far as Labour Party members in Barnet and Camden are concerned, they regard Sean Thompson and his friends in Respect as the political equivalent of scabs. And you'd have to say they have a point.

Vote Lucy
Vote Lucy

Vote Liz

Sean Thompson's timely warning against voting for candidates like Lucy Anderson, who stand on platforms that do not reflect their real political views, but are chosen principally to ensure their election, is to be welcomed (Letters, May 6).

To my mind the fact that Liz Wheatley is a member of the SWP is not a drawback, but a positive reason for supporting her. I would much sooner vote for a dedicated communist who can be relied upon to defend socialist principles than for a Labourite career politician. I, too, hope she will interviewed in the Weekly Worker soon.

Vote Liz
Vote Liz

Abortion row

Weekly Worker readers will be interested in a recent exchange in the Camden New Journal, the widely-read local paper.

Following a day of high-profile campaigning by Respect and George Galloway in the borough on April 20, local Labour Party supporters felt the need to strike back. George's comments on abortion gave them the perfect opportunity.

In the April 29 issue, Camden Labour Party member Kate Purcell writes that Galloway was in truth just "passing himself off as a leftwing alternative to Labour". Actually, this just "doesn't exactly square" with his reactionary comments on abortion, she said, quoting the notorious comments he made to the Independent on Sunday.

Even more worrying for Respect members is the conclusion she draws about the coalition as a whole: "We can only assume that the people who selected Galloway to stand for the European parliament, despite his disgraceful stand on this issue, attach rather less importance to women's rights than Labour Party members do."

Back came a worryingly limp response in the May 6 issue from Una Doyle, a local Respect supporter. Una, ex-SWP and president of Camden National Union of Teachers, simply wheedles that "this issue is one where freedom of conscience is exercised by politicians of all political parties". Then - idiotically - the comrade tells us that Respect is a "broad coalition", which means that "George Galloway is one individual who has the right to his own opinion. However, his has no more importance than any other members."

Er, apart from the fact, Una, that George Galloway heads Respect's London list for the EU elections and - if enough people vote for him - he will be in a position to vote on issues affecting women's reproductive rights.

Abortion row
Abortion row

CPGB opportunism

George Galloway has made his position quite clear in a recent press release and I cannot speak for him, but your use of this issue is downright offensive and should be disregarded as rank opportunism, by women especially ('Fight for abortion rights', May 6).

My personal view, for what it is worth, is that I detest abortion (but that does not mean I would support withdrawing it as an option for women). Abortion is a capitalist solution to getting rid of 'unwanted children' (what an obscene phrase that is) and free-market morality is just as bad as free-market economics. It amounts to the same disrespect for human life as is now being demonstrated in the emerging US-UK-run gulags in occupied Iraq.

Typical that you should side with imperialism once again, even at this moment, when the organised barbarism of the war against terrorism is at last emerging in full public view.

CPGB opportunism
CPGB opportunism

Undemocratic

You should know that:

1. National Respect (as in the policies decided by the majority of people at the launch of Respect) has no position on abortion. It is neither anti-abortion or pro-abortion.

2. Some members of Respect (such as George Galloway) have anti-abortion views, and some are likely to have pro-abortion views.

3. It is impossible for the Respect executive committee to take on a pro-abortion, pro-choice policy, as this would need to be decided at a national meeting, where all members of Respect would be invited. Otherwise known as democracy. It is also impossible to change every leaflet, where the programme of Respect is visible before the European elections. The CPGB's demand to the national executive to suddenly change its position is simply undemocratic.

4. The Guildford branch should understand that Respect has no national position on abortion, and should wait until a national meeting, where such a motion may be voted on by the mass of members. If Respect was to adopt what the Guildford branch calls for, then I'm sure every branch would be willing to campaign on this issue. What we don't want is a small, rogue branch campaigning in contradiction to the national campaign, as it is more effective for us to have a single, unified campaign around the entire country.

It seems that, if CPGB members can't get what they want on a national level, they resort to anarchist-style decentralism.

Undemocratic
Undemocratic