Letters
Into the sea
In reply to Charlie Pottins and Roland Rance, the issue is about political understanding, not boasts about who does what or grotesque distortions about who did what (Letters, September 23).
Millions on the ‘left’ - Jews and others - claim to be “anti-Zionist” or even for a “unitary secular state covering the entire 1945 land of Palestine” without being at all prepared to denounce the “founding of a home for Jews in the Middle East” as one of the foulest acts of imperialist hypocrisy ever, and certainly as the most endlessly poisonous colonisation of all time.
Currently, that western imperialist stunt to achieve a militarised toehold permanently in the Middle East which ‘no one can object to’ on grounds of colonialism, ethnic cleansing, etc is providing the American empire with just the sort of perpetual provocation and unbeatable armed back-up that it needs to keep its planned warmongering offensive in the region on the boil.
Without returning to these sick post-war decisions - precisely those backed by Stalinism along with all the rest of the revisionist theoretical imbecilities with which the world communist movement was destroyed - and reversing them, then nothing but a joke ‘Palestinian return’ can come about, such as that contained in the evil fraud called ‘the two-state solution’.
Utopian make-believe can pretend that one day the Jews will accept the dismantling of ‘Israel’ for Rance’s “unitary, democratic, and secular Palestine” and happily budge up, ‘supporting Palestinian return’ to their entire 1945 positions and post-colonial expectations; but the reality of the modern Zionist-imperialist juggernaut and its whole history proves this will never happen without war. But the prospect of endless Middle East warmongering is here already, relentlessly worsening, as the paranoid American empire’s economic crisis deepens.
In this uncontrollable-war perspective, the only serious anti-imperialist position is to be for the west’s defeat, including driving this rotten Zionist stunt into the sea. Lying abuse about “Jew-hating bigots” won’t alter this political understanding. Monstrous personal insults about “deranged”, “brown-red murky waters”, “neo-Stalinism” and the like only betray ignorance of the weekly output for 25 years of the Economic and Philosophic Science Review, and the intemperate immaturity of the slandering.
The actual history of Healy’s Workers Revolutionary Party tells a different story from Pottins’ wretched cover-up. Six years before its collapse in a rape, embezzlement and brutality scandal, Healy had to call a special, ‘timeless’ congress in 1979 to quell a long-standing revolt against the increasingly shallow and opportunist political degeneracy, linked to Healy’s personal corruption which was finally exposed in 1985 by his own complicit inner-party circles when the rottenness had self-destructed into bankruptcy.
Two Workers Press journalists were at the heart of that revolt, increasingly challenging Healy’s growing opportunism over the betrayal of the Portuguese revolution; backing Saddam Hussein; condoning the massacre of the Iraqi Communist Party; downplaying the ‘winter of discontent’; welcoming Khomeini’s stealing of the Iranian revolution; and so forth.
The 1979 special congress crushed the revolt and throughout it not one of the ‘heroes’ of the 1985 party-corruption showdown dared to utter a peep against Healy’s degeneracy, Banda included, all loyally backing that growing political backwardness to the end. And Pottins?
Into the sea
Into the sea
Tweaking Marx
Karl Carlile writes that “Marxism forms part of the problem. Its contradictions and limitations must be transcended ... 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” (Letters, September 23).
Perhaps, Karl, you would care to spell out what tweaking Marxist theory requires, for so far all reformists who have rewritten Marxism have subsequently refuted the basic premise that there are only two fundamental social classes in capitalist society; that the means of production can either be private or collectivised; and that the historical interest of the working class, as the only social class, lies in seizing state power in order to affect this transfer of ownership.
Please inform us of your revisionist revelations.
Tweaking Marx
Tweaking Marx
Reactionary
Now that John Bloom, the Respect candidate in the Hartlepool by-election, has made clear his own personal opposition to abortion on “philosophical, not religious” grounds, will the Weekly Worker be running a similar, personally insulting caricature of him in maternity gear that it ran about George Galloway earlier?
I doubt it. After all, it would be seen as rather bizarre for you comrades to bad-mouth comrade Bloom in this manner, given that his political profile is otherwise that of the kind of person the CPGB would regard as your natural constituency. That of a one-time Labour left comrade, attracted to the Socialist Labour Party but repelled by Scargill’s anti-democratism, and then a stalwart of the Socialist Alliance before the advent of Respect. Such shrill denunciation of comrade Bloom would rightly be regarded by many Labour movement activists as idiot hysteria, as empty vessels making a lot of noise.
Don’t get me wrong: I profoundly disagree with both comrade Bloom and comrade Galloway on the question of abortion. Lindsey German is wrong also to portray this question as a matter of individual conscience - it should be a matter of obligation for parliamentary representatives of Respect or any other workers’ organisation to vote for progressive measures such as women’s right to abortion, just as much as it should be obligatory for such representatives to vote against imperialist war. However, the two questions are not identical in weight - there has always been a significant minority of otherwise leftwing socialist and communist-inclined political people around that have misgivings on the question of abortion, from misdirected humanitarian, ethical or sometimes left-religious standpoints.
You can either deal with this in a political manner, or you can do so by means of personal abuse. I surmise that your appearing to deal with comrade Bloom in a political manner, as opposed to the personal attacks previously made on comrade Galloway, is evidence that in the latter case you were guided by reactionary sentiments, related to Galloway’s ‘second camp anti-imperialism’, that have little to do with his views on abortion.
Reactionary
Reactionary
Open Letter
The CPGB has received an open letter from comrades Ian Donovan and Andy Hannah, falsely alleging that a regime of censorship has been introduced within our organisation.
The two comrades have recently resigned from our ranks for reasons that have little to do with the politics of the CPGB. Comrade Donovan left after a bitter dispute with another comrade, who has also departed, and a sharply expressed difference of views on the Provisional Central Committee, of which he was an elected member. Comrade Hannah resigned in order to devote more time to his private life. The ‘censorship’ allegations seem to have been made in order to cover their retreat.
The comrades claim that our email discussion list is being moderated in order to suppress critical views from the likes of themselves - even though their three (unpublished) letters to the Weekly Worker and the latest open letter were all immediately posted on our internal list.
It is not the policy of the CPGB or Weekly Worker to suppress critical voices. Neither, however, is it our policy to publish submissions which are based more on personalised emotion than political debate, especially when they engage in unfounded and unsubstantiated attacks. For that reason, too, we will not print their open letter (http://memb-ers.aol.com/HannahandDonovan/).
Open Letter
Open Letter
Hypocritical
I find it rather odd that you print, without any critical comment, an article by Peter Tatchell that calls for state bans against some Jamaican reggae artists because of their lyrics, which encourage murderous violence against gays (‘Criticising the oppressed’, September 16). I think it reasonable to conclude by the lack of criticism of this that you are not averse to this approach.
Yet in the following issue of your paper you carry a large article denouncing the call for state bans against fascists, using the example of recent events in Germany and noting the benefits that neo-Nazis have gained from the German left’s crippling calls for these bans (‘No to bans’, September 23).
I don’t support state bans in either context. I think racist/fascist and homophobic violence should be fought by independent working class means, not by advocating state bans, which are invariably used sooner or later against our side in the class struggle.
But why no criticism for Peter Tatchell and Outrage, and yet a fully fledged slagging-off for the Anti-Nazi League and the SWP, using Germany as a stick to beat them with? Is it because Tatchell was criticising the SWP that you did not feel inclined to criticise his call for state bans against black reactionaries whose bigotry is directed against his community? Is this not a little bit opportunist and hypocritical of you?
Hypocritical
Hypocritical
Still waiting
It is Shaun Tinsley who is trying to “have it both ways” with his rather feeble taunts about the size of our organisation (Letters, September 23).
It is hardly a secret that we have a very small organisation - just like the rest of the revolutionary left outside the SWP (and I’m sure Shaun would agree that, measured against the numbers we actually need for a genuine workers’ party in this country, the SWP itself is minuscule).
The point is, comrade, that the CPGB does not present itself as the “fourth political party in Britain”, as leading SWPers have dubbed Respect. Comrades from the SWP have asked us to judge Respect not by its commitment to principled working class politics, but by its ability to become a mass phenomenon. I’m sure you recall the coalition’s founding conference, where John Rees boasted that his comrades had voted down “the things we believe in” - open borders, abolition of the monarchy, a worker’s wage - because the task was to reach “the millions out there … locked out of politics”. Apparently, your friends in the SWP “voted for what they [the millions] want” (Weekly Worker January 29).
Now, Respect could be making recruits hand over fist and the CPGB would still be highly critical of the nature of its politics. However, given that it remains a small organisation, cramped and stunted like the Socialist Alliance before it by the SWP’s slightly unhinged control-freakery (see the bizarre arrangements for the conference on September 30, for example), I think it is perfectly legitimate to mention that Respect has not made any sort of breakthrough on the numbers front.
Of course, the vast bulk of the content of the CPGB’s criticisms of Respect and the SWP has been of their political platforms. I have suggested to comrade Tinsley in the past that he engage more seriously with these arguments rather than moaning on and on either about secondary points made in the course of these polemics or even that these polemics exist at all.
Still waiting, comrade.
Still waiting
Still waiting
Respect motions
At the September 27 York Respect branch meeting, members resolved to support the CPGB motions on ‘Open borders’ and ‘For democracy’.
The CPGB motion ‘Abortion’ was believed to be too strongly worded for the current stage of Respect’s development. An alternative motion was supported which stated: “Respect will oppose any change to legislation to restrict access to contraception or abortion, or information on either.” The motion on a ‘Worker’s wage’ was again agreed with in principle but believed to be too divisive at this stage in Respect’s development and voted down.
Although members supported much of the motion on ‘Secularism’, several expressed concern about the demand to end state subsidies of faith schools. For this reason the motion was voted down.
Respect motions
Respect motions
Support Nadah
Phil Hamilton is really confused about the US elections (‘Stopping short’, September 23). It’s David Cobb and the right wing of the Green Party USA that is not really challenging the Democratic Party; they have decided to run a ‘safe state’ campaign, which involves not actively seeking votes in states where the election is going to be close.
Nader/Camejo, on the other hand, are running all-out in every state, and actually taking on the logic of ‘lesser-evilist’ politics and the Democratic Party - ‘the graveyard of social movements’, as it’s called by many socialists in the United States. Furthermore, the idea that the Nader/Camejo campaign is in any way, shape or form about “reclaiming the Democrats” would be laughable to any person in the US right now. You’d have to see the extent of the Democratic Party’s attacks on Nader’s anti-war, pro-labour ticket to really believe it. This campaign is, right now, the battleground over the future of the left, and whether or not we’re going to get sucked back into the back pocket of the Democrats.
Finally, you misunderstand and underestimate the politics of the campaign. Recently, I had a chance to see Peter Camejo, Nader’s vice-presidential candidate, speak at City College in New York City. In his comments, Camejo spoke out in support of the resistance in Iraq - not the sort of thing one hears from those trying to push the Democratic Party to the left. This is the ticket that socialists in the US should be supporting in this election.
Support Nadah
Support Nadah
Anti-semitism
I wish to take issue with two points in Eddie Ford’s article, ‘Revolt of reactionaries’ (Weekly Worker September 23).
He writes: “It is vital that communists in no way endorse any view which seeks the ‘revenge’ of the town over countryside - or to punish rural workers with job losses.” On the contrary: the town should exact ‘revenge’ upon the country. He pointed out that 0.28% of the population of Britain own 64% of the land. It is extremely doubtful that any attempt to nationalise the land would not be met by a campaign of violence from the rural bourgeoisie and aristocracy.
To paraphrase Mao, “A revolution is not a dinner party … It is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” Therefore a future socialist republic must be prepared to use maximum physical force against the class enemy.
The second point regards the CPGB’s position on abortion and female genital mutilation (FGM). I support a woman’s right to choose to have or not have an abortion and will also support any attempt by the state to ban FGM. But why has the CPGB said nothing about the jewish practice of circumcising eight-day-old babies? This is a barbaric practice that must be subjected to a state ban - especially when babies have died as a direct result of circumcision.
Methinks the CPGB has nothing to say on this matter because you are terrified of being accused of anti-semitism.
Anti-semitism
Anti-semitism
Lumpen
The attack on Roland Rance, a comrade and friend for many years, by Royston Bull is quite amazing (Letters, September 16). Anyone active in anti-Zionist or Palestine solidarity work in the past 20 years would have had difficulty in not coming across Roland. He was editor of Return, a magazine of Jewish and non-Jewish anti-Zionists, and active in a score of campaigns such as that to free Samir and Jawad, the two Palestinians framed for the bombing of the Israeli embassy and the Zionist headquarters, Balfour House, in London.
Indeed, strange as it might seem, I don’t seem to have come across the name of Royston Bull before in connection with Palestine. There are only two possible explanations. Either Mr Bull has never lifted a finger to become involved in solidarity work with the Palestinians and prefers to use the issue as a stick to berate others; or it is because of some variant of the world Jewish conspiracy. I leave it to your readers to judge.
What is astounding is not the anti-semitism (and homophobia) of Mr Bull, which can be found among the more lumpen and conspiratorial sections of society, but how such a creature could have risen to a position of influence within the Socialist Labour Party. For this Arthur Scargill owes us all an explanation.
Lumpen
Lumpen
Abortion stand
I too attended the September 16 London meeting on abortion and I was rather annoyed, though not entirely surprised, by Anne Mc Shane’s report (‘Dishonest attempt to derail pro-choice initiative’, September 23).
Firstly, I do agree with comrade Mc Shane’s position that a campaign needs to be organised now and not wait around and see what happens. At the same time there are many things which irked me about her report, one of them being her tendency to carve up the speakers according to which group they belong to. Funny - she doesn’t refer to anyone by name who was independent or non-aligned!
But my main concern and annoyance is comrade Mc Shane’s argument about why these meetings should be open to men. Why, oh why, do organisations like the CPGB and the Socialist Workers Party criticise women-only groups? And why are they so contentious? Is it because these organisations cannot control them? Answers on a postcard, please. There were women in the meeting who supported the position that these meetings remain women-only. One quite rightly stated that women’s autonomy and women-only spaces are disappearing.
Now, I am in agreement that this campaign should be open to men and have the widest support but decision-making and control should be in the hands of women. I was involved in FAB (Fight Alton Bill) in the 80s and many of the meetings I can recall were women-only (Alton was 1987, not 1981, by the way). Not a contentious issue in my area. I am concerned that if these meetings are open to men they will dominate them and women will lose any kind of control.
Comrade Mc Shane also criticises Abortion Rights for being women-only and for being a Socialist Action front with its petty bourgeois feminism. Now, if that’s what Abortion Rights have decided upon, then so be it. Why is it petty bourgeois and separatist to support a women-only forum? For women to be able to control and make their own demands is autonomous and not separatist. Maybe the CPGB needs an educational on the difference between autonomy and separatism? It is rather simplistic and myopic to just to see everything as divided along class lines. As a feminist (socialist, not petty bourgeois), I believe that patriarchy and capitalism are intertwined. But I surely don’t need to explain this to the CPGB, do I? Support for a women-only forum allows women to set the agenda. This is not class-divisive: it will empower women.
In the same issue as comrade Mc Shane’s ‘pro choice’ report you get an interview with Respect candidate John Bloom, with his reactionary stance on abortion. Was the intention to be ironic? His use of language such as “personal position” and “individual conscience” is highly subjective and worrying. Scratch away at that language and you get an anti-abortionist. As a socialist I would have fundamental problems with backing someone like him.
Why can’t Respect have the backbone to take these issues head-on and be seen to defend a woman’s right to choose? Stop the bland platitudes and show some socialist muscle. I certainly think that way you will get some well deserved respect in the end.
Abortion stand
Abortion stand
Conscience
It is actually not the case that all political parties regard abortion as a matter of individual conscience.
The Scottish Socialist Party decided at its 2003 conference, after a rather heated debate, that it expected its elected representatives to vote in accordance with party policy on this issue, whatever their private views. There is no evidence that this lost the SSP catholic votes in the Scottish election a few months later. Curiously, I believe that the Socialist Worker platform in the SSP actually backed this proposal - certainly none of them spoke against it.
Conscience
Conscience