Letters
Prostrate
Louise Whittle’s letter underlines her confusion on strategies for women’s liberation (Letters, October 14).
The comrade mixes up two very different approaches. For instance, I would go along (to a certain extent) with her idea that “autonomous organisation is enabling a democratic way for women to speak for themselves about the oppression they face”.
This is precisely why I wrote in my original article that communists are sensitive to the special problems we face in mobilising women. Thus, concerning the original point of controversy, I wrote: “Women-only meetings can sometimes be a useful tactic to draw wider layers of women into the struggle, to facilitate them taking control of their destinies and educating themselves” (Weekly Worker October 7).
Our difference is that comrade Whittle makes the leap from this perfectly acceptable notion of autonomy - ie, a large degree of self-government with a unified overall structure - to the call for, yes, separation. She writes: “Marxists should go further and … recognise the leadership of autonomously organised women in the struggle for women’s liberation” (my emphasis). She even implies that the political struggle we saw in the September 16 London meeting on abortion that sparked the discussion is in some way attributable to the destructive influence of men - even though there were no representatives of that particular sex present on the night (see Weekly Worker September 23). The comrade suggests that “any new campaign to defend and extend a women’s right to abortion” will simply become a battleground for political sects, “if men are around to control it”.
Thus, it seems that the “autonomy” Louise is in favour of is in reality a strategic separation from men. In contrast, the independence that communists wish to see in any movement for women’s liberation is independence from the harmful impact of the politics of classes other than the working class.
And surely, the wretched roles played at the September 16 meeting by the female members of the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Action underlines that this malign influence is not a peculiarly male affliction, like a political version of prostrate troubles?
Prostrate
Prostrate
Homophobic anglicans
Archbishop Robin Eames was ambushed by gay rights protesters as he left the October 18 press conference at St Paul’s Cathedral, where he unveiled the Anglican church’s report on homosexuality.
OutRage activist Peter Tatchell confronted the startled archbishop and told him: “We are disappointed that you failed to unambiguously defend gay human rights. You had an opportunity to challenge Anglican homophobia and you failed”. Fellow outrage protester Brett Lock remarked that “The Windsor report is collusion with Anglican homophobes”.
It criticises the American episcopal church for ordaining gay bishop Gene Robinson. Sanctioning homophobic discrimination within the church gives a green light to homophobic discrimination in the wider society. This report is designed to appease bigoted Anglicans who oppose gay human rights. Anglican leaders stand accused of condoning sexual apartheid within the church, colluding with homophobic bigotry and denying human rights to gay clergy.
While the American episcopal church has shown great compassion towards gay people, the Lambeth commission preaches homophobic prejudice and discrimination. This is a defining moment in church history. Yet again the Anglican leadership has fudged, equivocated, appeased and compromised the christian principles of love and compassion. They have, by default, sided with homophobic discrimination and injustice - following in the footsteps of their predecessors, who colluded with slavery and the denial of votes to women.
The Anglican communion is sending a message to the whole world that lesbians and gay men are not entitled to equal respect and rights. The Windsor report suggest that gay people are morally inferior and undeserving of the same human rights as heterosexuals.
Homophobic anglicans
Homophobic anglicans
Defeatism
I don’t know what kind of Trotskyist Michael Little thinks he is, but he’s a long way from Trotsky (Letters, October 14). During World War I Trotsky criticised Lenin’s conception of ‘defeatism’ for making unwarranted concessions to the methodology of social patriotism (‘Open letter to the editorial board of Kommunist’, June 1915). In 1934, when drafting his theses, ‘War and the Fourth International’, Trotsky left out ‘defeatism’ altogether, only including the slogan after some of his followers insisted, and then he gave it a meaning consistent with his World War I views (see Joubert in Revolutionary History Vol 1, No3).
What Trotsky meant by ‘military support’ was the kind of support given by his followers and others during the Spanish civil war to the bourgeois republican government against fascism: ie, actually fighting on their side whilst seeking to organise workers’ militias independently. I can hardly imagine Michael Little and his friends going to Iraq to fight on the side of the islamist ‘resistance’, though no doubt they are having fun pretending in the fields outside Seattle.
Most of all, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty has no trouble deciding whose side we’re on in Iraq - we’re on the side of the Iraqi working class and its emerging labour movement. That means arguing for working class independence from the occupation forces and from the so-called resistance. It means understanding that the working class is the crucial agent of progressive change in Iraq, and that socialists, in Britain and the US above all, should do everything possible to make solidarity with the Iraqi workers’ organisations that have developed over the last year or so.
The central flaw in the reasoning of Little, as Trotsky pointed out during World War I, is that it matters who defeats imperialism. We positively want the victory of the working class. But for inverted nationalists like Little, who emphasise the ‘defeat of imperialism’, the consequences of a victory for the islamist resistance - for workers, for women, for national minorities, etc - don’t seem to count. This is the politics of negativism - indeed of nihilism - and it offers the international working class no perspective at all.
Defeatism
Defeatism
Resistance
People who do not support resistance to imperialism claim those that do are motivated by a belief that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. Yet this is hardly ever claimed to be the reason by those who do support such resistance.
While Ian Donovan appears to be motivated by ‘democratic’ principles and an opposition to inequality and injustice, this does not seem to be the case with the AWL and half the CPGB. If you are against imperialism, it does not only have to be because of some snide strategy with regard to the inherent decline of the ‘higher stage of capitalism’. If your socialism is based on principles, then you are naturally against inequality and oppression with regard to gender, sexuality, nationality, religion, etc, as well as class.
No one really supported striking miners as some clever tactic to get more equality for women. People did not take a neutral position after weighing up the views of miners and management on the issue of homophobia. While the miners’ struggle was predominantly related to class, the resistance in Iraq relates to domination based on nationality and/or religion. It is not that Iraqi people are born to be ‘goodies’ or ‘our kind of people’, but we should note efforts and struggles against imperialism.
Ideally the genuine left in Iraq should fight for hegemony in this struggle, but the fake left collaborate with various strands of imperialism (US-UK or UN-European).
Resistance
Resistance
Disorganised forum
My daughter worked as a volunteer at the European Social Forum. She said it was the most disorganised, badly managed event she has ever attended. The so-called leader didn’t have a clue what was going on. No accommodation organised for people and a lot of speakers did not turn up. Was it worth spending taxpayers’ money to hold this?
Disorganised forum
Disorganised forum
True murder representation
As a sacked miner from the Nottingham area, I thought ‘Murder of a militant miner’ was a good article which gives a true representation of events as they stand and not a biased opinion of miners, as is given usually in the press (Weekly Worker August 12).
True murder representation
True murder representation
Supported
My attention has been directed to the article, ‘In safe hands?’ (Weekly Worker September 30). While you are obviously entitled to your own views about my effectiveness or otherwise as a member of the trade union section of the Labour Party NEC, your example is inaccurate and I expect it to be corrected: I supported George Galloway.
Supported
Supported
No response
The Socialist Alliance Democracy Platform emailed and posted a letter to the national executive committee/central committee of the Socialist Workers Party on September 27 concerning the future of the Socialist Alliance. The SADP contacted the SWP because that organisation represents a majority within the SA, and any decisions taken by the SWP are likely to be adopted by SA conference.
The letter represents a genuine attempt to resolve the situation whereby for the last seven months the SA has basically ceased to function. This is despite the fact that the last SA national conference, in March, agreed to ‘maintain the Socialist Alliance at national and local level ... debate the future of the SA and its relationship to Respect at the SA AGM to be held before the end of 2004’.
One of the problems now, however, is that there are no longer any forums to hold that discussion. Meetings of the national council have been suspended/cancelled since January, and the SA national executive has not met since May, with the one scheduled meeting for September also being cancelled. There is no longer an SA office or office worker, and it has proved impossible to contact SA officers.
The SA executive meeting which did take place in May suggested December 4 as a date for the SA AGM, but nothing has been done to implement that decision, and time is running out for such a meeting to be organised. The main purpose of the letter was to start a discussion which could result in an amicable resolution of the impasse, even if that meant a comradely parting of the ways to a certain extent. The problem we now face is that, despite reminders, we have not received any response at all from the SWP NEC/CC. We made a final effort to speed up the process by giving the SWP leadership until October 18 to reply to our reasonable and sensitive request to at least enter into dialogue with us on these issues. They have failed to do so.
We are now therefore opening this whole process out. We have started to contact individual members of the SWP with an open letter on the lines of this press release. We have informed them that we are also releasing the contents of our letter to the left press to stimulate wider public debate. We have been very reasonable. We called for our letter to be embargoed for three weeks to give the SWP ample time to consider our request without outside pressures.
We are delighted that the left respected that embargo. That time given to the SWP leadership has now elapsed, and we appeal for support from fellow socialists.
No response
No response
Factional stick
Earlier in the summer correspondence was printed in the Weekly Worker on the finances of the North Birmingham Socialist Alliance (NBSA). Hopefully this matter has been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction by the decisions of the North Birmingham Socialist Alliance on September 9.
A brief background for comrades unfamiliar with the dispute is as follows. An NBSA meeting on April 27 decided to pass 80% of its funds to a new organisation, the North Birmingham Independent Socialists (NBIS). It also suspended the meetings of the NBSA. Almost all the NBSA members present at the meeting were due to lapse from the Socialist Alliance within a month and wished to transfer the funds to their new organisation, the NBIS. Three of those present and voting at the meeting were already non-members and thus the meeting was not in order. As the treasurer I objected and sent the money for safe keeping to the SA national executive. As I stated at the time, comrades who are leaving an organisation have no claim on the funds of the organisation they have left.
The SA national executive at a meeting in June agreed to reconvene the NBSA in September to resolve the matter. A member of the national executive, Heather Cox, attended the meeting and a supporter of the Independent Socialists chaired it. After an extended exchange of opinions a resolution was moved, an amendment from a supporter of the Independent Socialists was agreed and the amended resolution was passed unanimously. This follows below.
“North Birmingham Socialist Alliance notes:
1.The North Birmingham Independent Socialists retained £150 of the North Birmingham Socialist Alliance funds out of total local funds of £584.20 when they left the SA.
2.Only four out of the 14 making regular payments to the local account have subsequently supported the Independent Socialists.
3.The longstanding tradition of the labour movement is that comrades who leave an organisation have no claim on the organisation’s funds.
Agrees:
1.In the interests of avoiding unnecessary conflict to transfer all of our funds (including the £150 ‘loan’ held by Birmingham Independent Socialists) equally between Birmingham Respect and North Birmingham Independent Socialists. £50 of the funds for Birmingham Respect will be allocated to North Birmingham Respect.
2. To contact the Independent Socialists stating we are keen to cooperate in local campaigns on housing, against racism and the occupation of Iraq.
3. The activities of the North Birmingham Socialist Alliance will cease forthwith.”
On a related matter, in the summer Phil Kent, a member of the CPGB, made the only, rather desultory, reply to my critique of the election literature produced by supporters of the Socialist Alliance Democratic Platform. I had reported that of the ones I had seen none called for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, none had called for open borders (in the case of the campaign of the NBIS candidate, Steve Godward, the words ‘asylum-seekers’ was never used in any of his leaflets. Still less had he raised the demand, ‘Defend asylum-seekers’, as Respect had done) and in the case of the Workers’ Liberty supporter in Sheffield there was no mention of the worker’s wage.
The response of Phil Kent was that it was not appropriate to raise general political and international issues in local elections. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read these points from a ‘revolutionary communist’. Is this the official position of the CPGB?
To run an election campaign when your ruling class is brutally torturing Iraqi people (late April/early May was the period when torture in the Iraqi jails were given most publicity) and not to condemn this oppression and call for the withdrawal of US-UK troops is a betrayal of basic socialist principles. One of Steve Godward’s main leaflets contained no mention of Iraq. Phil would clearly be critical of the leaflets of Birmingham Liberal Democrats local candidates, many of which stated their position on Iraq.
I notice that the CPGB is proposing a model resolution to the Respect conference on open borders.
Why has the CPGB not promoted this resolution in the Socialist Alliance Democratic Platform?
Including urging supporters of the SADP who are standing in elections to raise this demand in their election literature. Others in the SADP clearly do not take this demand seriously except as a factional stick to beat Respect. If the CPGB is serious about the demand, it would urge its political collaborators to publicly campaign on the issue.
Factional stick
Factional stick