Letters
Change the world
I was saddened to learn of the harassment of gay people on the May 15 Palestine solidarity demonstration by supposed radicals, who sided with islamist bigots rather than welcome solidarity from all sectors of society. Over the days that followed the debacle became depressingly more cringe-worthy, as certain leftist homophobes indignantly attempted to bluster excuses for their behaviour on the Indymedia activist website.
I used to disbelieve groups such as Outrage when they spoke of the persistence of anti-gay sentiments on the broad left, just as I doubted my feminist friends who distrusted the left's commitment to gender equality. Maybe I was being naive - after all, the Weekly Worker has often reported the bitter confrontations on the left (which have even involved its sellers being attacked), and most of us have occasionally witnessed such unedifying spectacles as anarchist and Trotskyist groups physically assaulting each other on demonstrations.
The question is, if radical groups cannot treat each other as human beings, what chance do we have of changing our world for the benefit of us all?
Change the world
Change the world
Appeal
Socialist Alliance members will be standing, under the name 'Democratic Socialist Alliance' and on the manifesto, People before profit, in the local council elections on June 10 in Exeter, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Stockport and Walsall.
These election campaigns unite the minority of SA comrades who reject the unconstitutional decision of SA conference on March 13 to debar SA election contests this year and who are resolved to continue with the socialist unity project represented by the formation of the SA and with the fight to win the working class to socialist politics.
The Democratic Socialist Alliance - People Before Profit election campaigns appeal to all socialists for material, financial and political support. This appeal is launched by the SA Democracy Platform, which is coordinating support for the campaigns.
To offer non-financial support, please contact the SADP convenor, Pete McLaren, at julie.mclaren@virgin.net. Financial donations should be sent to the SADP treasurer, John Pearson, at PO Box 107, Stockport SK6 7WT. Cheques payable to 'Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance'.
Appeal
Appeal
Who's left?
I can understand that Stuart Richardson is feeling somewhat peeved at the criticism of him for having single-handedly emptied the coffers of North Birmingham Socialist Alliance, in order to make a donation to Respect, in total disregard of the views of the membership of NBSA. However, that does not excuse his scandalous attack on a good working class comrade, Steve Godward.
It is not necessary for me to detail Steve's contribution to the fight for socialism. Unlike Stuart Richardson he is not an apparatchik of a dead organisation, divorced from the class. He is a class fighter who has been sacked and victimised, both by the bosses and the SWP and their ISG hangers-on.
Steven's candidature should be wholly supported by anyone who calls themselves a socialist. It is not necessary, or even desirable, for any socialist candidate to articulate every socialist policy in their literature, given the constraints on candidates. What is necessary is that the candidate is able to defend broader positions when people question him.
What is wholly indefensible is so-called socialists supporting rabidly communalist and anti-women/gay organisations in Birmingham, as Mr Richardson and Respect do. Because of the theft by Respect of the funds of North Birmingham Socialist Alliance, Brighton Unemployed Centre will be making a healthy donation to them instead.
Who's left?
Who's left?
Real world
Phil Kent may well be correct that Liz Wheatley "can be relied upon to defend socialist principles" (Letters, May 13). This is probably because she will never come anywhere near power to risk having to compromise those principles. A victory for Wheatley would undoubtedly be good for sales of the Worker but is about as likely as Scotland winning Euro 2004.
Comrade Kent would do us all a favour by tuning into the real world occasionally.
Real world
Real world
Elephant
The Weekly Worker now gives a column to someone pleading for support for the US Republicans' branch in Britain ('Labour left view', May 20). As I recall, Lenin split with the Second International parties 90 years ago because they supported war waging imperialism. Now New Labour isthe world's second war-waging imperialist power. And it is waging war under the Nazi doctrine of first strike. Yet you give their supporters space?
I have read the Critique of the Gotha programme. I can guess what Marx would say about Respect. But to give space to those in the party of the Iraq murderers? What are you about? Are you just a tail trying to stick yourself onto a Socialist Workers Party or Labour elephant?
Elephant
Elephant
Steve Godward
"Unlike some, I am not a 'professional revolutionary'. But I have been on the front line, fighting against capitalism in the workplace. As a result I have lost my job, been suspended by my union and now I am treated with contempt by comrades in the Socialist Alliance. To me it all feels like victimisation."
Those words were published in the Weekly Worker in 2001. They were written by Steve Godward, sacked firefighter, who is also vice-president of the Birmingham Trades Council and an independent socialist candidate for Erdington ward in the June 10 local election.
Steve refuses to keep quiet when he has a disagreement; he will not be 'bought' by trade union leaders or by the Socialist Workers Party, who act on the basis that 'workers are alright as long as they know their place and agree with us'!
It is because of the SWP that Steve is standing as an independent socialist in the council election. Why isn't he a Socialist Alliance candidate? Because the SWP majority of the SA pushed through a resolution at a special conference pledging full support for Respect and banning SA candidates.
So along comes Stuart Richardson, saying that some words that are in and other words that are not in Steve's election address show that his campaign doesn't have a socialist content (Letters, May 20)!
The reality is that, while Respect is making rotten agreements with islamic parties, Steve is leading a clear working class socialist campaign aimed at building the confidence and consciousness of workers for unity in multicultural Birmingham against New Labour and in opposition to the British National Party.
Steve Godward
Steve Godward
Snide letters
We, the undersigned members of North Birmingham Socialist Alliance, would like to reply to comrade Stuart Richardson's letter (Weekly WorkerMay 20). Although we know he is desperately whistling in the dark, we feel obliged to reply, as he is not only slandering our candidate, but he has sequestered all our funds (£400-plus), so that we began our campaign penniless.
Independent members are the majority of the North Birmingham Socialist Alliance branch - feminists, anti-war activists, environmentalists, ex-Labour Party members, militants, trade union activists, ex-SWP members, anti-fascist campaigners and long-term supporters of the Troops Out Movement, as well as a political performer.
In our branch's view, comrade Richardson, in collaboration with all or some of the SA executive, has abused his role as treasurer. At the conference the SA decided not to stand candidates in the local elections, so we applied to the national executive for permission to stand as 'independent socialist'. Permission was rejected. That's when the branch took the decision to suspend SA activity. We democratically agreed to divide our funds equitably between the newly-formed Respect (of which comrade Richardson is a supporter) and the majority, in order for us to support Steve Godward.
Ignoring the democratic decision of the branch, without consultation with, or the signatories of, other elected committee officers, comrade Richardson took it upon himself to transfer all our money to the national Socialist Alliance/Respect. This has been supported and condoned by the International Socialist Group head honcho in Brum, Bob Whitehead.
Steve Godward is a well-respected campaigner for people's rights in Erdington. Our election campaign is gaining tremendous support from local people seeking representation for their housing and employment rights and from those who wish to fight racism and build a socialist alternative to Labour.
During the last few months it has become evident that comrade Richardson's sectarianism knows no bounds and we find it depressing that in the middle of an election campaign we are having to answer smears, not from Tories or Nazis, but from someone who classes himself as a 'socialist'!
Comrade Richardson's attack on Steve's stand on gay rights is farcical when he himself is actively supporting the People's Justice Party, who have produced a homophobic election leaflet urging support for Respect and whose two votes enabled Birmingham Labour to push through privatisation and increase council tax.
The rest of comrade Richardson's rant is once again driven by sectarianism. Issues surrounding Iraq, sexuality, etc are addressed in our main leaflet, which was in the electorate's homes whilst comrade Richardson was penning his bile. The issue of economic migrants is to be countered in a further leaflet when we get a copy of the BNP's flyer.
Comrade Richardson's ideological guru, Alan Thornett, publicly stated he didn't know what was meant by a worker's wage. Let's help him out. Steve wants to stand as a councillor, having won back his job as a firefighter. Firefighters are paid the median worker's wage. As such all his council allowances would go back into campaign funds.
This ploy of snide letters is not one that we either admire or advocate. Instead, we challenge comrade Richardson to a public and fraternal debate: How about 'Top-down socialism v grassroots socialism' at Marxism this summer? We're sure he'll ask permission.
We would urge all your readers to offer help and support, financial or otherwise, however great or small, to promote socialism in our area. Please phone Steve Godward on 07948215584 or email steve@godwardfbu7.freeserve.co.uk if you are willing to help.
Snide letters
Snide letters
Undemocratic
John Kay says it is impossible for the Respect executive committee to adopt 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 (Letters, May 13). He further says that for the CPGB to demand the Respect executive change its position is simply undemocratic.
This is quite simply nonsense. Why can't the Respect executive clarify already existing policy? The Respect declaration says it supports "the right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices". If George Galloway can make a public statement on abortion, why can't Respect itself say what these words mean?
Since the foundation of the coalition on January 25, the executive committee has drafted and passed a European manifesto as well as a manifesto for the London assembly elections - all without comrade Kay's "national meeting", which "all members" can attend.
If an entire manifesto for a continent can be developed by the executive, why not policy on abortion and contraception? Who or what is the executive afraid of? Why can't Nick Wrack, Respect chair, make a statement? Cat got his tongue? Anti-war partisans of the working class will be voting Respect on June 10, but that does not mean we can't criticise where it is due.
For Respect to remain quiet on a woman's right to choose is disgraceful. Shame on Respect chair Nick Wrack; shame on treasurer Linda Smith; shame on Lindsey German; and shame on John Rees.
Undemocratic
Undemocratic
Woman's choice?
Eddie Ford's article on abortion came across as being highly insensitive and one-sided ('Battling for control', May 13). As a feminist I strongly believe that it is a woman's right to do what she wishes with her own body. In my opinion the right to choose means a real choice, not a 'choice' that is forced upon a woman due to poverty, lack of affordable childcare or absent partners. A large number of women would not choose to have what is an uncomfortable, risky and invasive operation, were poverty eradicated and socialised child-rearing introduced.
It is true that this cannot be brought about under the current system, so we have to conclude that abortion may be a sad necessity for some women living under capitalism. We can also conclude that the surgery should be done as soon as possible without the women in question being interrogated by members of the medical establishment.
However, it is no 'civil right' for Mr Ford to applaud. Arguments such as Ford's play into the hands of the reactionary pro-lifers, as he ignores the fact that abortion is very unpleasant for a majority of women and their partners, although most of us get over it as we must get over a lot of tragedies in this life. As he is a man, I take it for granted that Mr Ford has never had to undergo such a procedure, hence his remarkable insensitivity to women's bodies and their feelings. Perhaps if it were men that had to bear the brunt of this particular casualty of capitalism and have their insides torn then he would think differently?
Woman's choice?
Woman's choice?
Miffed
I'm sorry to hear that George Galloway (Letters, May 20) was a little miffed at my look at anti-abortion websites.
I imagine it was this that upset him: "George Galloway has the charming Society for the Protection of Unborn Children as bedfellows on this issue" ('Around the web', May 13). Come on, comrade, there is no implication (inadvertent or otherwise) you have joined SPUC, let alone its executive. Instead of claiming there is, I wish you had responded to the political questions my piece raised.
For example, are you happy that the Muslim Association is calling for a Respect vote because of your anti-abortionism? I'm sure you do not need reminding that their position is based on religious and anti-woman arguments, and not your "socialist reasons". And, while we are on the subject, were your comments in The Independent off the cuff, or a deliberate attempt to pick up an anti-abortion vote? As Respect is seeking progressive support, I'm sure answers to these questions are not too much to ask for.
Miffed
Miffed
Unforgivable
You don't quite know whether to laugh or cry at letters like those from John Davis and Abdul Mir (May 20). My instinct is mainly to laugh.
First we are told that the Muslim Association of Britain are not a reactionary organisation because they have links to - among others - the Green Party on their website, and then we are told that there is a "close comparison" between the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the hindu fundamentalist BJP. As regards this comment, it is frankly ludicrous and simply proves how incapable its originator is of dealing with the political issues at hand - so much so that he has to resort to insane and baseless comparisons.
As for John Davis, he has obviously not taken a long enough look at the MAB's website, as the fluffy, progressive links he points to are vastly outnumbered by politico-religious ones. One website that particularly jumps out is that of the Pakistani fundamentalists Jamaat-e-Islami. Jamaat-e-Islami is, like the MAB, linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a viciously reactionary organisation responsible for anti-working class bigotry wherever they have had power.
While Abdul Mir claims the MAB is "defending human rights" at home, members of the organisation they are affiliated to have been abusing them abroad. But solidarity with working class movements in the muslim world has never been on the agenda for the Socialist Workers Party and its supporters, so such disdain and disregard for the struggle of the working class against islamism in the muslim world is hardly surprising.
The fact that prominent MABers have signed up to the Respect unity coalition programme has less to do with islamists being won to leftwing ideas than with the driving forces behind the RUC creating a programme so bland that even islamists can support it. The MAB is not, as it wishes to present itself, a broad, benign community group representing Britain's muslims. It is a political organisation representing a clear political tendency and it is quite clearly reactionary.
Socialists forming electoral alliances with organisations or members of organisations that represent the religious establishment is unforgivable. Not only is the alliance with the MAB a betrayal of every socialist and working class militant who has ever had to struggle against islamism internationally. It is also an enormous slap in the face to every muslim socialist, democrat, feminist and secularist in this country who has to fight against reactionary rightwing views like those of the MAB in their own communities.
The left in this country needs to work with socialists in the muslim community to win muslim workers to our ideas. Shameless promotion of elements of the religious right wing of these communities - like the MAB - is not going to aid the growth of working class socialist politics, but reactionary religious ones.
Unforgivable
Unforgivable