Letters
Mugabe and ISO
Someone just forwarded me Peter Tatchell’s article from the latest Weekly Worker (‘Criticising the oppressed’, September 16).
As a Socialist Workers Party activist I’m not inclined to try to reply to the by-now-familiar rigmarole about ‘working with the wrong muslims’ - we’ll only go round in circles. But I’m genuinely shocked that Peter thinks we support Mugabe! For the record, our International Socialist Organisation comrades in Zimbabwe have not only supported but played a leading role in the struggle against the regime, and face being locked up and beaten up for their trouble.
I respect Peter (I remember him standing up against homophobia right back to Bermondsey) and, while I don’t expect him to suddenly change his mind about Respect, I do hope he’ll consider setting the record straight on Zimbabwe and the ISO.
Mugabe and ISO
Mugabe and ISO
imperialism
Paul Hampton writes that “The political conclusions Macnair draws from his view of imperialism are also clear. On Iraq he offers purely verbal support to the Iraqi working class, whilst emphasising exactly the kind of facile anti-imperialism that implicitly promotes the islamist ‘resistance’ to the occupation in the name of a mangled ‘Leninist’ defeatism” (Letters, September 16).
Except in an inter-imperialist conflict, Paul, genuine Marxists take a side. While not offering even a shred of political support to the Iraqi resistance, which consists of both fundamentalist and secular elements, we support them militarily in their physical struggle against their occupiers. That is, we want the imperialists to lose, while remaining quite aware that, should the fundamentalist element manage to seize state power, the best advice for leftists would be to clear out fast.
Marxists are opposed to imperialism primarily because imperialism exacerbates nationalistic tensions to the boiling point, uniting the working class with its class oppressors in the name of ‘national unity’. We want the imperialists to lose so that the stage will be set in Iraq for the resolution of the class question. According to Paul’s analysis of the so-called “progressive” elements of imperialism, one can say that a home-invasion robbery can be “progressive”, for it can sow the seeds of vigilance in the victims.
imperialism
imperialism
Free Trade
In reply to Paul Hampton I shall address the substantive issues and ignore the ad hominem.
The misconception is that free trade is the form taken by imperialism since 1945. Rather the reality is that the USA used free trade to penetrate markets, ensure financial dominance and consolidate its position as the world’s totally dominant economic power. America used its position of power to ensure the Bretton Woods institutions - the IMF and World Bank - were so designed.
There appears to be some confusion as well as to the role played by the Soviet Union and its allies in the post-war era. I am concerned that many Marxists ‘see through a glass darkly’. The intention was to put into effect the free trade empire we now have, but that came up against the emergence of the Soviet Union as a rival superpower and the territory it occupied - parts of Eurasia regarded as essential for control by the new dominant American empire.
Free Trade
Free Trade
Marx's failure
Hillel Ticktin’s ‘A Marxist party without deformations’ adds nothing new to what has been said before in one form or another (Weekly Worker July 15). It consequently fails to face the reality of the situation.
In its references to Marxism it makes many assumptions. It assumes that Marxism, as presented by Marx, is the theoretical and political answer to the problem of communist revolution. It fails to see that Marxism forms part of the problem. Its contradictions and limitations must be transcended, including the political opportunism of Marx, inherited by Lenin, Trotsky and much of the radical left today. The serious theoretical limitations of Marx’s theory include the failure by Marx to develop a theory of capital in the context of the political state; the failure to apply his critique of political economy systematically to capitalist society in the second half of the 19th century. His ambiguity on the question of communism and the procedure for its realisation has left open lots of room for reformism of one sort of another.
What is needed is a re-examination, re-evaluation and development of the thought and politics of Marx from a communist perspective. This means the transcendence of Marx, so that a more comprehensive revolutionary communist theory and politics is established.
Marx's failure
Marx's failure
Numbers game
For Ben Lewis’s information (Letters, September 16), my comments about the number of members the CPGB has were in response to an article by Ian Mahoney saying Respect was a failure, as it only had 3,300 members. If the size of Respect’s membership is irrelevant, then why are people always quoting it when telling us of its failure and ultimate demise? I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways.
Personally I do not give a fig, but in the interest of honesty and openness it is only fair we know the number of CPGB members. After all, it seems everyone knows how many of us fools are in the failed Respect coalition. So, once again, how many members are there in the CPGB? Although what the size of my penis has to do with any of this I am still trying to work out.
Numbers game
Numbers game
Price rise
I noticed that tucked away in a small corner of last week’s ‘Fighting fund’ article was the news that the cover price is set to rise by a massive 100% from October 1 (Weekly Worker September 16). The main justification given for this was the increase in postage costs (from 21p to 28p) due to the Royal Mail’s decision to scrap the reduced rate for newspapers.
I appreciate yours is not an easy task, financially and otherwise, in producing and distributing the Weekly Worker and ensuring at the same time a platform is given to a widest possible range of views, and for that I applaud the efforts that go into it. However, I think both the level of the price increase and the way it was announced is out of order. £1 is a lot to pay each week for three bits of A2 paper, and I think it may have the opposite effect you are hoping for by driving more people towards using the free, online version rather than the paid version.
Otherwise, keep up the good work!
Price rise
Price rise
It can't hurt
I have noticed from your website that you are desperately trying to raise money to keep the party afloat. But why not take a leaf out of the largest leftwing group’s book?
Every weekend where I live, you can see members of the SWP selling their paper on the street and holding petitions and they are the most visible on demo. Why can’t we communists do this? It can’t hurt, can it?
It can't hurt
It can't hurt
Ray's legacy
An era of South African trade unionism, socialism and internationalism came to an end this week with the death of Ray Alexander Simons. She was the last of a tiny group of east European Jewish émigrés who contributed so much to the growth of trade unionism in this country. Her contribution was, by any standards, exceptional and her legacy will be seen every time workers stand up to fight for their rights. I am honoured to have known her.
We first met in Cape Town in 1962 when, a young student journalist, I was given a rapid induction into the history and purpose of trade unionism. Satisfied that I had imbibed and understood enough, I was promptly packed off to address workers at a waterfront canning factory at lunchtime. There was no gainsaying Ray. “You can talk,” she said, pointing out that I also spoke Afrikaans.
I remember being incredibly nervous, but Ray had convinced me of the need for those who sell their labour to organise and unite to fight for and protect their wages and conditions. I had a duty to pass on the message. Besides, I simply did not want to let her - or the ideas - down. Somehow the two seemed to be conflated.
And so, on a day off, I was driven to the waterfront with a parcel of pamphlets extolling workers to join the Food and Canning Workers Union. I don’t remember what I said, but I did stand atop a green-flecked formica table in an atmosphere heavy with the smell of fish and the stare of serious faces. And I remember my arm being grabbed to get me to flee because “management” was coming. It was a rather dramatic introduction to trade unionism, but the lessons never left me.
Ray was instrumental in building the union which eventually, through amalgamation and much strife, is now Fawu. She was also instrumental in helping to build trade union awareness across a wide field and this planted the seeds that grew into many of the unions of today. That was her greatest ability: she could organise and convince others of the need to be organised to fight for and protect basic rights.
We had our political differences. Like so many of her generation who had invested so much hope in the Russian Revolution of 1917, she could not countenance the idea that the revolution may have been strangled in its infancy; that, poisoned by nationalism, it could have become the mirror image of the very system it had so briefly overthrown.
But, unlike so many later adherents to the concept of socialism in one country and who lauded the supposed moral and economic superiority of the former Soviet Union, she never allowed this to interfere with the work of uniting workers as workers. And she was a devout adherent to debate within the workers’ movement.
At a trade union level, Ray was never sectarian, and she held firmly to trade union principles. As such, her views were often in direct conflict with some of the policies of unions in which she played so great a role. For example, she fiercely opposed trade union investment companies. Well into her 80s, as honorary Fawu president, she conducted a vociferous campaign against corruption in the union and pointedly criticised the government’s policy of privatisation.
This was the woman who devoted 75 years of an activist life to the labour movement and who convinced me that the basic building blocks of a future society based on justice and equity lie within an organised working class.
Hamba Kakuhle, Ma Ray. Your legacy lives on.
Ray's legacy
Ray's legacy
Patronising Bull
Patronising Bull
Royston Bull offensively suggests that my “naive delusions would be slightly more credible if [I] could be heard denouncing the foundation of the state of Israel and all its works” (Letters, September16).
I don’t intend here to detail my 28 years of active campaigning against Zionism and for Palestinian rights. The fact that Mr Bull appears unaware of this says more about his lack of involvement in this struggle than it does about me. This lack of involvement is reflected in the remainder of his ignorant comments about the Middle East, and about the presumed benefit to Jews of Zionist oppression.
Mr Bull’s letter appears beneath one from my friend Tony Greenstein, outlining the Zionist sympathies of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. Like Tony, I have been denounced by the AWL as an anti-semite; like him, I have been banned from campuses as a result of Zionist pressure, backed by the AWL; like him, I have been reviled by the Jewish Chronicle and other elements of the official leadership of the Jewish community in Britain. I do not need any patronising remarks from Jew-hating bigots about my naivety and lack of involvement.
My Respect branch has now submitted a policy motion opposing Zionism and supporting Palestinian return to the forthcoming Respect conference. Some Weekly Worker readers may disagree with the call for a unitary, secular and democratic Palestine; but, even if you oppose this clause, I hope that you will back the rest of the motion. In particular, the statement that “Respect opposes Zionism as a political movement whose aim is the dispossession of the Palestinian people. Respect denies the false equation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, and will oppose any attempt to ascribe collective responsibility to Jews for the crimes of the Israeli state and the Zionist movement.”
Patronising Bull
Patronising Bull
eMurkey Waters
If the Weekly Worker’s dedication to ‘free expression’ must extend to the rantings of the deranged Royston Bull, he should not get away with slandering comrades, whether from malice or ignorance.
Back in the days when Bull was relatively sane, we both worked on the daily News Line, published by Gerry Healy’s Workers Revolutionary Party. Then and after the WRP was keen on supporting the Palestinian cause (indeed I was asked to join the paper because of my interest in the Middle East, and also wrote in the Labour Review on Zionism). But I do not recall Royston Bull taking any active part in such campaigning, then or later.
Perhaps this helps explain his assertion that criticism of his anti-Jewish remarks “would be slightly more credible if Roland Rance could be heard denouncing the foundation of the state of Israel and all its works”. I don’t always agree with Roland, but anyone involved in Palestinian solidarity and anti-Zionist work would know his record of active opposition to the Zionist state and “all its works”, both here and in Palestine. He should not have to lower himself to reply to the likes of Bull, who appears to have only discovered Palestine by way of his voyage into neo-Stalinism.
It seems odd though that Bull has not considered the part played by the late Joseph Stalin and his foreign minister Gromyko in supporting partition in Palestine and arming the Israeli state to drive out Palestinians. The Soviet Union itself had used ethnic-cleansing - for instance, the mass deportations of Chechens. Twenty million Soviet citizens perished in the war against fascism; but in Russia today, ravaged by ruthless capitalism, we have the obscenity of Stalin’s portrait carried alongside Hitler’s by the brown-red alliance, and a former Ku Klux Klan leader welcomed by nationalists and so-called communists to proclaim war on “dark-skinned peoples” and “Zionists”. Maybe history is being rewritten.
Royston Bull’s reference to overturning the “post-1945 Jewish/imperialist settlement” suggests he has drifted into very murky waters.
eMurkey Waters
eMurkey Waters
Living wage
The article, ‘Mobilising against Hartz IV in Germany’, was very good (Weekly Worker September 16). All over the capitalist world the unemployed are being used as effectively as any policeman’s billy-club over the heads of all workers to drive wages down and increase profits.
Here in the United States all kinds of manoeuvres are being used by rightwing politicians to keep workers from receiving unemployment benefits; thereby forcing workers to take poverty-wage jobs. This effectively forces wages down for all workers.
Many politicians talk about creating ‘good jobs that pay good wages’. These jobs never materialise. In the globalised capitalist economy jobs move towards the lowest wages. All jobs should be good jobs. If a job needs to be done, it should pay living wages. Workers should be treated with dignity and respect; and all workers should receive healthcare and vacation benefits.
Living wage
Living wage