Letters

Respect label

Stuart Richardson makes some interesting criticisms of SADP candidate Steve Godward's election campaign in Birmingham, but at the end of his letter still calls for a vote for him (Letters, May 20). Fair enough, but surely this is contrary to the national SA position that local SAs should only stand in the council elections with the blessing and under the label of Respect?

Respect label
Respect label

IWCA

I read with interest your article, 'Our vision for London' (Weekly Worker May 27). I noticed you omitted to mention the manifesto of the Independent Working Class Association candidate, Lorna Reid, who will be standing for mayor.

The manifesto is titled 'We live here too!' and is aimed at establishing a strong, political voice for working class Londoners. It offers progressive, realistic approaches to issues such as London's housing crisis, crime and anti-social behaviour, the unfair nature of the council tax, poverty wages and privatisation.

The best thing, for me, about the IWCA is that it is not saddled with the ideological cat-fighting, dogmatic orthodoxy or grand delusions of the so-called leftwing groupings. You can read the manifesto for yourself at www.iwca.info/news/news0024.htm.

IWCA
IWCA

Animal welfare

In excess of 10 million animals are transported live across the European Union each week, and even from Europe to the Middle East. 
This process is one of the cruellest parts of the meat industry, as the animals are crammed into trucks in which they have to stand for journeys as long as 90 hours; there is no compulsion for producers to give them food, water or ventilation, except for their own desire to keep them alive. Yet before three weeks ago, the legislation from the EU on the matter was uncharacteristically brief - the only requirement, which is not enforced, is that pigs can only travel 24 hours without a break, while for other livestock, there must be a one-hour break in every 29.

Furthermore, the 'break' hardly serves to compensate for chronic dehydration and exhaustion, particularly when it is considered that these animals remain on the vehicle during it - given the high stocking densities, there is never enough room for the livestock to lie down. Yet the European commission recommendation of last July that every nine hours' travel would be followed by 12 hours' rest was rejected by the council of agricultural ministers, since France, Italy, Spain and Ireland felt that this would damage their markets. This was despite the fact that the commission set no maximum journey time, so the significant trade with the Middle East (which needs live animals for halal killing) would still have been absolutely possible.

Of course, our ideology has no real commitment to this specific issue - hardly surprising, given that in Marx's time there was such a lack of human rights, so there was little concern for animals. Even so, this should be absolutely no barrier to the party taking an active interest in the issue, given that it is clear that this is a case where several EU member-states are totally willing to neglect morality in order to become more profitable, taking advantage of free trade without care for the consequences. Indeed, just as the 19th century capitalists could use the loom to force the machinist to work for them for longer, modern meat producers have been able to take advantage of continental transport links to increase their ability to distribute their product, at the cost of animal suffering.

It is apparent that the council of ministers has become entirely separated from public opinion, doing nothing to affirm the views of MEPs, who overwhelmingly voted in favour of overall eight-hour time limits - far in advance of even the commission recommendation. This issue has indeed become somewhat of a fiasco, with the council's decisions totally at odds with the position of the public and their representatives, and entirely ignoring consumers and animal welfare in the pursuit of extending the grip of EU trade.

Indeed, these events have made it clear that this issue has become directly linked to the changes which our party stands for - it has demonstrated the need for democracy at all levels of government and, even more so, the need to separate the democratic process from business interests, which have so severely impacted upon animal welfare in this case. Of course, it is clear why ethical treatment has been ignored by the EU: this kind of negligence is absolutely inherent to the capitalist system. For the transportation of animals is totally geared towards profit - there is no real need for transportation at all, let alone with such appalling conditions - since it is entirely based on the attempt to out-compete local producers, particularly in the Middle East.

Of course, the more observant will have noticed that I earlier referred to live transport as "abhorrent to consumers" - while somewhat offended by live transportation, however, consumers have little knowledge of the full extent of cruelty. Any information on the issue is very rarely featured by the bourgeois media, while there has been very little attempt by any of the rightwing bloc in parliament to increase awareness - after all, it is not deemed to be in the 'national interest' to sacrifice such valuable revenue. None of the European attempts to legislate were even vaguely acceptable, though; for there was, of course, no consensus to sacrifice the capitalist aim of transportation entirely, given the institution's nature.
Indeed, the only party standing in the European elections with any commitment to animal rights is the Green Party (although Respect's manifesto dedicates an entire four lines to environmentalism), despite the fact that the EU spends a surprisingly large amount of time on the issue. 
Yet we know that this sort of treatment is detestable, and absolutely no-one would ever condone such cruelty: this is the very crux of the problem, since the quest to drive down costs has blinded producers and consumers from recognising how dire the situation really is.

Animal welfare
Animal welfare

Birmingham SA

In their reply to my letter, the North Birmingham comrades manage to avoid dealing with any of the political points I made (Letters, May 27).
They start with a blatantly false statement: "We, the undersigned members of the North Birmingham Socialist Alliance". Five of the 14 are not members of the Socialist Alliance, since their membership has lapsed. One female comrade who is listed stopped paying in February and has freely admitted that she is not a member, while Steve Godward's membership lapsed on May 1.

The second false statement is: "In our branch's view comrade Richardson ... has abused his position as treasurer." But the branch has been suspended by these comrades, so it has not had a meeting to establish "our branch's view".

But, returning to the key issues of politics, the comrades' letter does not explain why they have not raised the demand for open borders or the defence of asylum-seekers in both leaflets distributed in the campaign. In the debate on Respect it was argued by these comrades that these demands were essential and Respect was wrong not to raise them. But they fail to raise them as well!
Dot Gibson essentially accuses me of nit-picking. She says that, for me, "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". But these are not any words, but the essential content of the critics' opposition to Respect! Respect could not be supported because it did not call for open borders or opposition to all immigration controls. Dot was one of the advocates of this position.

But when a leading figure in the SA Democracy Platform runs an election campaign which deliberately avoids such advanced demands, she forgets what she was saying a few weeks ago. The only conclusion one can come to, is that open borders and opposition to all immigration controls were used merely as a convenient factional stick to beat Respect - the comrades had no intention of fighting for these demands in their own political work.

There is no reply to my point of how one could produce an election leaflet at the beginning of May and make no mention of the torture or the brutal occupation of Iraq. A later leaflet has a totally vague formulation on Iraq and it is given no prominence. It states: "An end to the Iraq war that has squandered billions for local services." The second part is fine, but Tony Blair could agree to the first phrase! If the 'insurgents' laid down their arms, US-UK troop numbers could be reduced and money saved for "local services". Why is there no call for the withdrawal of US-UK troops and for the right of the Iraqis to determine their own future? Even the Green Party makes such a call, but the firmly socialist campaign of Steve Godward cannot make this elementary democratic demand.

The other characteristic of much of the text of the two leaflets is the rather empty populous nature of the demands. For example, the second leaflet states: "Schools and colleges that do our young people justice." What does this mean? There is no class content to this statement. Politicians of all colours could make it. Why is there no answer to my question as to why there was no defence of lesbians and gays in the original red leaflet? Despite this silence by Steve, he attacks "a homophobic leaflet" from the Birmingham-based People's Justice Party.

The Peoples Justice Party is not a homophobic organisation, as is illustrated by the recent action of its Birmingham leadership. The PJP is a significant organisation, mainly based in the Asian community, which has two elected Birmingham councillors and is standing 15 candidates in the June local elections. It holds public meetings with hundreds of supporters and has clearly moved to the left under the impact of the Iraq war. It originated in the mid-90s as a result of the long-term closure of Labour Party branches in the inner-city areas and a campaign against the jailing of a Kashmiri activist. Recently a number of Asian leftwingers have joined the party and this has reinforced its collaboration with the socialist left. It is calling for a vote for Respect and Respect is calling for a vote for the PJP in the local elections.

A draft leaflet, produced by two PJP candidates in Saltley, carried a homophobic comment. I am informed by Raghib Ahsan, a leftwing, ex-Labour councillor and candidate for the PJP, that leading members of the PJP ordered the leaflet to be withdrawn and a version without the homophobic comment was distributed to the public. I have seen the amended version and it does not contain any homophobic comment. Given the widespread opposition to equal rights for lesbians and gays by leaders of religious communities - whether catholic, jewish or muslim - the fact that the leaders of the PJP overruled this leaflet is a considerable advance.

Some comrades want to write off the working class activists in the PJP as "homophobic", while others want to work fraternally with these comrades in campaigns against the war and privatisation, hoping to accelerate their evolution towards revolutionary socialist politics, being politically critical where necessary.

All the political points in my original letter are avoided with an exaggerated rhetoric about smears and sectarianism! It is far easier to talk about smears than answer sharp political criticism which has been posed in a fraternal manner.

The letter makes reference to my transfer of the funds of the North Birmingham SA to the national office. This is the national office of the Socialist Alliance and not, as falsely described by Steve et al, the "national Socialist Alliance/Respect" or, as Tony Greenstein (does he live in the same world?) states, "emptied the coffers of North Birmingham Socialist Alliance, in order to make a donation to Respect". The funds have not been transferred to Respect.

As noted above, five of the signatories of the letter are not members of the SA, despite their statement to the contrary. Others are due to have their membership lapse shortly. They have formed a new organisation, the 'Independent Socialists', with their own regular meetings and separate bank account.

I was requested to transfer 80% of the funds of the NBSA to the bank account of this new organisation. In response to this I consulted a number of comrades, including Will McMahon, the SA full-time worker, and another member of the SA national executive. They all agreed it would be wrong for me to hand over money specifically donated to the Socialist Alliance to a separate organisation.
These funds are now in the hands of the SA national executive, but Will McMahon has stated that in his view they should be held in trust for the North Birmingham SA for when it is properly reconstituted. The NBSA meeting on April 27, which took place with non-members voting and was therefore out of order, decided to suspend the meetings of the NBSA. The request for the transfer of funds was made as the comrades were leaving the SA.

It is a traditional practice of the labour movement that if individuals leave an organisation their contributions remain with the existing organisation. Did Steve ask for the return of his contributions when he left the Labour Party?

Birmingham SA
Birmingham SA

Transitional

I agree with a good deal of the statement by Marcus Ström, 'Fight for US-UK defeat' (Weekly Worker May 27). I welcome its avoidance of the dual defeatist nonsense presented by assorted confusionists elsewhere. I also welcome its clarity about the need for working class organisations and the left in Iraq to play a leading role in the Iraqi resistance, to maintain their political independence and to attempt to win the leadership of the anti-imperialist struggle away from the islamists and Ba'athists.

Some criticisms: the working class must be armed with more than a "consistently democratic and secular programme". Is this formulation deliberate or accidental? In the current situation there is surely a need for a transitional programme. This, as you undoubtedly know, begins from the reformist and democratic demands that address the immediate needs of the working class, but which also raises transitional demands that point towards organs of dual power, the arming of the working class, the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a workers' government. A democratic programme not linked to these demands implies that bourgeois democracy, and its corollary of semi-colonialism, can solve the problems of the working class and other oppressed strata. While welcoming any democratic openings, it is the job of socialists to present a perspective that goes beyond bourgeois democracy.

Secondly, I agree that a (very) critical, but unconditional, vote for Respect is necessary in the coming election. We must criticise the numerous limitations, inadequacies, fudges and silences of the Respect manifesto (including on abortion). It is also necessary to counterpose to it a complete, revolutionary socialist manifesto to highlight these limitations.

But what about the many wards where there is no Respect (or other left) candidate standing? Your traditional position of opposing a vote for Labour in such circumstances is absolutely wrong-headed in my opinion. You may well ask, why should revolutionaries call for a vote for New Labour, when it so obviously rotten to the core? The reason, clearly, is not because we agree with its policies or because we wish to give it any political support. However, it is perfectly possible to make it clear that we strongly oppose Labour's politics while calling upon workers to vote for it tactically: to put it in office where it must either deliver the goods or (in this case) continue to expose itself to the world as the sham that it is.
As Lenin put it, we support Labour like a rope supports a hanged man. This is not "auto-Labourism". It is the classic Leninist electoral position on the Labour Party. They say that sectarians are opportunists, afraid of their opportunism. In order not to risk the charge of opportunism, they frequently abstain from tricky political choices. I am surprised that the CPGB should be guilty of this crime when it has managed to avoid it in its position on the Iraqi resistance movement.

It is much easier to create a left alternative when Labour is in power. The return of the Tories to government would be a tactical setback in this regard.

Transitional
Transitional

SWP quandary

If Simon Walker is correct in his view of the "real world", he will no doubt be voting Labour in Barnet and Camden on the grounds that only Labour's Lucy Anderson has a realistic chance of beating the Tories (Letters, May 27). If, however, you want to move politics to the left, and create the basis for a Communist Party, other factors need to be prioritised. Namely, how do you weaken the bourgeoisie and unite the working class over the long term?

If comrade Walker had my sense of irony he might have chided me with the fact that the SWP have actually not promised to resolutely defend socialist principles if elected. And by choosing 'ordinary people' instead of professional political people, it seems we get someone like comrade Wheatley, who is so lacking in confidence she does not feel able to talk to the Weekly Worker. She is as much a creature of the SWP as comrade Anderson is of the Labour Party.

The problem is that the SWP is mimicking bourgeois politics in saying whatever it thinks is necessary in order to get votes, but has no clear programme that it is committed to if any of its candidates get elected. How can you trust them?

Nonetheless, a vote good enough to get Lindsey German and George Galloway elected in London, and one or two others around the country, would boost the left in a big way. And it would also place the SWP/Respect (or whatever replaces it) in a quandary: opportunism or socialism?

SWP quandary
SWP quandary