Letters
EPSR not quite homophobic
Terry Starr of Bristol is not quite right (Weekly Worker July 15). The Economic and Philosophic Science Review is as hostile to the underlying politics of gay rights campaigning as it has always been to all single-issue reformist protesters (feminism, black nationalism, environmentalism, anti-racism, etc), believing this whole movement to be the last resting place of anti-communist philosophy, which hates and fears dictatorship-of-the-proletariat politics, but is too cowardly to say so.
Dream on if you think that reforms have banished racism, or reduced violence, or made for happier families, or replaced drugs and booze for discontented youth, or taught society to really value all people equally, or stopped the misery of discriminated-against minorities of all kinds, or improved the environment, or stopped international imperialist tyranny.
The EPSR believes, along with Marx and Lenin, that this imperialist world is on a course of total cultural degeneration and breakdown due to the impossible and ever-increasing contradictions in the daily global reality of its grotesquely unequal, class-dominated economic life.
Your silence on the homosexual disruption of a recent Palestinian protest in London shows you are as cowed by single-issue PC absolutism as Lindsey German was by Peter Tatchell, fearing a ‘homophobia’ branding, in the Newsnight TV studio arguing about this monstrously reactionary provocation.
You share all single-issue reformers’ contempt for the revolutionary aspects of Palestinian ‘terrorism’. But the Gaza developments show that dictatorship-of-the-proletariat politics is the future, not your infamous ‘two-state solution’, peddled by the treacherous Arafat from the revisionism he learned from the CPSU and CPGB Stalinism which spawned you too.
You should explain to Terry Starr that you keep up this not-quite-accurate charge of homophobia because you have not a clue how to answer 25 years of polemics with which the EPSR has exposed your anti-communism.
EPSR not quite homophobic
EPSR not quite homophobic
Murky world
Steve Cooke’s review of Fahrenheit 9/11 was, as the review was headlined, “powerful but flawed” (July 15).
Cooke identifies many of the important parts of the film but neglects to mention a scene which many other reviewers thought noteworthy. That is, Bush is addressing a meeting of fat cats, saying: “Some people call you the elite, I call you my base” - partisan or what?
However, it is Cooke’s attempt to rope Michael Moore into the murky world of 9/11 conspiracy theories that is the greatest disservice to what is probably one of the best people’s films ever made, and which puts Moore up there with great American writers like Steinbeck and Updike. Cooke refers to the “disputed claim” that members of Osama bin Laden’s clan were evacuated from the US immediately following 9/11.
This claim did not appear disputed to me: it was reported in the New York Times. In the film, reference was made to bin Laden clan students suddenly leaving their US college courses, and air traffic controllers were shown saying that no private air traffic occurred in that period, except the bin Laden evacuation.
Murky world
Murky world
CPGB and Labour
I’m sure Lila Patel is a well-meaning comrade, but when she says she just “cannot understand” why people oppose Respect, she is being unduly modest about her wider lack of understanding of the labour movement (Letters, July 15).
Lila says: “The only reason why Labour produced decent politicians was the influence of the Communist Party in the labour movement.” I don’t know what “decent politicians” she has in mind, but I can tell her about the influence. Back in 1957, when CND was first emerging, Norwood Constituency Labour Party submitted a resolution to Labour Party conference calling for Britain to abandon nuclear weapons. This was defeated because the ‘left’ Nye Bevan argued that without nuclear weapons we would be sending a Labour foreign secretary “naked into the conference chamber”.
My union, the ETU, had a leftwing delegate at the conference, but his vote went against unilateralism in deference to the Communist Party faction still dominating the union (though soon to be ousted in the aftermath of events in Hungary and a ballot-rigging scandal). When the Communist Party did swing members into CND, it concentrated on calling for summit talks, and opposing US and West German militarism, rather than British imperialism’ s nuclear weapons. Little Englanders? No, Great Britishers, and they brandished the union jack butcher’s apron on many a march to prove it!
Lila cannot be blamed for not remembering that far back, but she ought not to remain blissfully ignorant of real, rather than mythical history. As for producing “decent politicians”, did Lila have in mind the ex-CP John Reid perhaps, or merely the influence of the Communist Party’ s ‘Euro’, ‘post-Marxist’ and postmodernist intellects in providing ideas for Kinnock and Tony Blair, filling the ‘think tank’ Demos, and launching the journalistic careers of Martin Jacques and David Aaronovitch?
If the Labour Party “has always been about keeping the working class and trade unions as voting fodder”, as Lila says, what was the Liberal Party, and what is ex-Labour MP George Galloway’s Respect about? Labour was founded by the unions, after a long fight by Marxists such as Engels, and bitter experience had finally persuaded them the working class movement needed its own party. But the dominant ideas of the Labour Party, especially after the Fabian servants of imperialism moved in, were reformist - and imperialist. The imperialism remains - witness the Blair government’s war policies, links with business, and continuing build-up of Britain’s WMDs.
But in a changed capitalism, with the cold war replaced by ruthless global exploitation and wars, where has reformism gone? Whenever Labour talks of ‘reforms’ these days, it means dismantling welfare and education services, pushing privatisation and continuing the Tory attack on union rights. As a consequence, trade unionists and Labour supporters feel robbed, and face a historical crisis - which way do they turn?
Lila Patel and others may think Respect has the answer. I’d prefer we upheld the Socialist Alliance’s red banner, until the bigger movement for a workers’ party takes it from our hands. But, whichever way the “droves” are going, the majority of Labour supporters and particularly the unions remain with Labour, hoping they can somehow get it back on what they see as the true socialist path. In my union now there are many workers as militant and socialist as me or, I dare say, Lila Patel (indeed I’d sooner rely on some of them in a struggle than on some of the people I’ve known on the left, and in Respect). They have no time for New Labour and Tony Blair. But they were reluctant to support our conference on trade unions and the left because they are not yet convinced we offered a serious alternative. Workers in this country always try the old ways fully before turning to new ideas.
I have frequently argued with people who said they were staying to fight in the Labour Party, because I couldn’t see much of their ‘fight’. At least the Labour Representation Committee reflects an effort to do something, rather than remaining passive, feeling helpless and leaving Blair and Brown to continue doing as they please. Should we tell them they are wasting their time - “unlikely to produce vanguard material”, as Lila says - so their efforts are of no interest to us? If we are ever to assemble the forces that can take power for socialism, as opposed to just building yet another politically impotent but self-satisfied ‘left’ cult, then we must be able to draw together all sections of the working people and oppressed, not just those considered “vanguard material” because they respond to this or that campaign. We must be able to win support wherever the working class is engaged in a fight.
Impatience, petulance, writing off struggles and whole swathes of people whom we need just will not do.
CPGB and Labour
CPGB and Labour
Bridging the gap
I attended the founding conference of the Labour Representation Committee (Weekly Worker July 8) and, yes, the majority were white and pretty aged. But, in saying that, I got more out of that conference than listening to anything said by Respect. Respect a grassroots organisation? No! Populist? Yes!
So, according to Lila Patel, the Labour Party only had decent politicians because of the Communist Party? What about organisations and activists who have also influenced the LP? I agree that there needs to be an inclusive socialist and democratic movement which attracts all people and not just the usual ‘white straight man’, but is Respect that vehicle? No, I don’t believe it is. Respect pays lip service to fighting oppression and only makes the demands on an opportunistic level. Look at the various debates on abortion and lesbian and gay rights and still tell me that Respect is all about being progressive.
The left in the LP during the 80s fought for rights of the oppressed which led to black sections, the Labour Women’s Action Committee and the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights. Many of these gains have been lost (no crèche at the LRC, for instance), but this is something which the left must fight to put back on the agenda. At least there is awareness about real involvement from people from all sections of society, as opposed to some half-hearted, tokenistic attempt, which organisations like SWP/Respect do all of the time.
Essentially, what Lila Patel seems to be saying is that socialists should be putting all of our political energies into supporting Respect. And that Respect and indeed the Socialist Labour Party had the capacity to even produce a fighting alternative to the LP. How politically naive can you be? Organisations like Respect are moving very quickly away from the labour movement, which is political suicide.
Yes, LP members are leaving the party, but they are not throwing themselves at Respect! Respect does not operate in an inclusive way and is undemocratic. Something the Socialist Workers Party accuses the Labour Party of being. Oh, the irony! So, if Lindsey German had been elected, who would she have been accountable to - Respect or the SWP central committee?
Yes, the LRC has a hell of a lot of work to do, but at least it is something viable for socialists and trade unionists within the Labour Party (and also for people outside) to fight for. Incidentally, I left the LP in 1998 (having been a member for 13 years), as I was sick of New Labour. I eventually joined the Socialist Alliance and left that, because I was sick of seeing the SWP hijack an organisation which had potential. Funnily enough, I have only just recently rejoined the LP, inspired to do so by the Respect debacle. For me there has to be something to bridge the gap between New Labour and ultra-leftism, and maybe the LRC could be just that.
Finally, I assume Lila Patel is referring to the LRC when she congratulates Respect for “not boring the pants off those who engage in politics”, but, hey, at least boredom can be changed to something dynamic and energised, as opposed to pissing in the wind, which is what Respect supporters are engaging in!
Bridging the gap
Bridging the gap
Mixed bag
I voted for Lindsey German and Ken Livingstone in the mayor’s election. For all the other positions I voted Green. Why?
- The Greens had somewhat of an anti-war position.
- I thought I could safely vote for the Greens as a protest, but they had no chance of winning.
-l As an ex-SWP member I felt a residual loyalty to Lindsey and the politics she is presumably still in favour of. I did not vote for her as a Respect candidate.
Now I know there are comrades out there who will criticise what is obviously a mixed bag choice, but I know I wasn’t the only socialist who made such a decision. This is emphatically not our fault. Rather the fault lies with the failure of the left to provide us with an appropriate alternative.
Let us consider the objective situation. Obviously no serious socialist is going to vote Tory, or new opportunist Liberal Democrat. In my view, whatever the rights and wrongs of what has been said about the Labour Party and its organic links with the working class in the past, no serious socialist could now vote for Blair’s New Tories. This doesn’t leave much else, especially as, since the infamous scabbing comments, Ken has ruled himself out of further consideration.
Yet at the same time the climate has never been as good as it is now for some years, for the left to make significant headway. By this I do not just mean winning candidates in local or national elections, although this would be a good thing. I also mean the possibility of using elections to increase the profile of the left, to alert the working class that there is a new organisation on the block. One that is serious and wants change. One that is above all principled and honest.
So what do we get? The Respect organisation!
Comrade Mac Uaid says of Respect: “The momentum towards becoming a functioning party with a mass membership is almost unstoppable” (Letters Workers Power August 2002). He clearly believes that Respect has become the organisation of choice for revolutionaries. However, if I voted the way I did, and more importantly many others on the left were forced to make such a rag-bag choice, something must not ring true with the Respect message.
It has all the hallmarks of a rightwing compromise. It has little or no internal democracy. It throws such a broad net that it includes many with political and cultural attitudes inimical to the socialist project: anti-gay, anti-women, anti-abortion, anti-trades union, social conservatives, etc. It does not seem to be organising inside the trade union movement. Of course Respect supporters permit no criticism. Lindsey German recently implied in her article in The Guardian that anyone who fails to support the organisation must be in some way anti-muslim.
I have no concern with operating with muslims at all and I have no problem with cooperating with islamic organisations in a proper united front. In other words working together, but independently organised, over a particular issue such as defeating the BNP. Respect, however, is not this. It is working in the same organisation with many people who are not socialists in any sense, who obviously have their own agendas. It is not working with them over a single, clear issue, but in the complex world of local and national politics.
Muslims are discriminated against in Britain - the stop and search figures show this - and of course many are radicalised by the Iraq war, but this does not mean they will agree with a socialist programme on a whole host of other matters, which is what you have to have if you are standing in elections. Nor does it mean that they will continue being radicalised forever. The Iraq situation will end someday.
Does the SWP seriously believe it is powerful enough to overturn the hold of centuries of religious belief on its own? Will it start throwing out those muslims who openly express homophobic views, or for that matter white middle class politicians who do not agree with abortion? Or is it more likely to marginalise those socialists that are in Respect if they raise dissenting voices in order to keep the show on the road? Finally, when the SWP decides it has had enough of Respect or George goes on to pastures new, will it just quietly shelve the organisation, leaving many of us wondering what happened to another lost opportunity? Remember the Socialist Alliance anyone?
So, comrade Mac Uaid, here is why a number of us voted in such a singularly “odd” way. Respect just isn’t it and there are still no elected candidates despite a good turnout in City and East and Leicester South. Like a lot of socialists/radicals I didn’t want to compromise my politics for dubious electoral gain.
The trouble is that the objective situation I believe is still positive. Much of the working class is disillusioned with New Labour, but has not moved to the right and the Tories. There is a lot of protest voting going on, but there is no socialist organisation worthy of merit, either to vote for or to support.
There is a certain degree of talk going on within some smaller groups and with some independents about a new workers’ party or similar formulation, but sooner or later the talking will have to stop and something will have to be done. The new organisation will have to be socialist with appropriate constitution/programme but much else needs to be decided. Inevitably at first such an organisation would be small, but with open debate and democratic structures it will hopefully start to pull in new forces. It could act as an attraction for disillusioned ex-Respect radicals when their hopes begin to fade.
I welcome an open debate with all who are interested as soon as possible to assess the requirements for the above project.
Mixed bag
Mixed bag
Like it is
Peter Riordan writes: “The section of your draft programme dealing with ‘Our epoch’ is a laughable mixture of the blindingly obvious and the hopelessly idealistic. How is the working man meant to decipher all this? Communism must directly relate to the proletariat’s everyday complaints. If socialism is ever to be achieved, it needs to be practical and relate to the here and now” (Letters July 15).
This is but an example of the economistic notion that you can build a revolutionary workers’ party by confining your programme to the perceived ‘everyday needs of the workers’, and that by doing so the workers are going to say: ‘You know, they’re right! I’m going to join right now’, and when a sufficient number do, then you make your ‘revolution’. To hell with theory, what matters is numbers. Classical reformism.
What Peter doesn’t seem to understand is that to make a revolution you must have a working class that is at the point where it realises that it has a historical interest in sweeping away a system that it knows cannot possibly serve its interests, an understanding that it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by smashing the existing social order and the state that defends it. And for this to happen the working class must have a workers’ party to turn to, a party that they can say had told them so, that had been right all along.
That’s how a party builds its revolutionary credentials among the working class: by telling it like it is, no matter how seemingly irrelevant it may seem at the moment to be. Yes, Peter, the working class has a memory.
Like it is
Like it is
Not in Wales
The prospect of Respect mounting what will effectively be an anti-devolutionary campaign by fighting seats in Scotland is truly astonishing, if not surprising (‘Change on SSP’, July 15). However, the Scottish Socialist Party should not lose too much sleep over this prospect - in Wales in the recent Euro elections Respect polled a miserable 5,000 votes (0.6%) and there is no reason to believe that they will perform any better in Scotland!
In Wales - as a result of their utter contempt for the devolution process and the legitimate demand for a full parliament for Wales - Respect are completely isolated on the left, neither the Welsh Greens nor Forward Wales being willing to work with them.
In view of this, I’m sure readers would be interested to learn that the Wales Green Party and Forward Wales have recently reached an electoral agreement for the next general election. We will not be contesting the same constituencies in Wales - but there will be no such agreement with the Socialist Workers Party front: that is, Respect.
Not in Wales
Not in Wales
Marxist Party
The article by Hillel Ticktin published last week was interesting (‘A Marxist party without deformations’, July 15).
I find myself in more or less agreement with it. It was also my view that the revolutionary party should be as democratic as possible, with membership based on the understanding of the socialist case and the reality of capitalism, not a mere wish to ‘do something’. Recruitment for its own sake is a dead letter, and is either exercised by parties with a strong leadership who for some reason think the rank and file incapable of coherent theory, or the entire party is simply reformist to the core. Either way, the need for a mass revolutionary party - with membership based on acceptance of some basic socialist theory and objectives, but always maintaining a concrete link to the organic class struggle - is what we certainly need for the 21st century.
Reformism, religion and becoming caught up in nationalist struggles is also a dead issue. The party should retain firm principle but also remain as flexible as possible in the face of the development of class sentiment.
Marxist Party
Marxist Party
Predictable
As regards your coverage of Marxism 2004, yep, another predictable attack on the Socialist Workers Party. Hang on a minute: I thought it was the Labour government that has just invaded Iraq with the deaths of 13,000 Iraqis and over 1,000 invaders. No, it must have been the SWP.
Predictable
Predictable
Qaradawi
Contrary to Tina Becker’s claims, I have never called for the muslim scholar, Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, to be banned from Britain (‘Livingstone pulls the strings’, July 15).
In fact, I said the exact opposite. He should not be banned or prosecuted, but he should be challenged. In particular, it was a grave mistake for Ken Livingstone to give Qaradawi a platform at London’s City Hall and to fete him as an “honoured guest”. Even worse, Ken has since gone out of his way to falsely claim that Qaradawi does not condone wife-beating and the execution of lesbians and gay men. In interviews on Channel Four News and in The Guardian, Qaradawi has confirmed that he supports domestic violence in certain circumstances and the burning and stoning to death of gays by islamic states.
While Ken is right to defend the muslim community against racism and discrimination, he is wrong to ally himself with reactionary islamists like Dr al-Qaradawi. Why isn’t Ken building alliances with leftwing and progressive muslims like Women Against Fundamentalism? Why aren’t they being hosted at City Hall?
Qaradawi
Qaradawi