Letters

Slate vote

Peter Manson’s report on the October 30-31 conference of Respect (‘Gerrymandering, exclusions and the farce of three-minute democracy’, November 4) implies that the Hartlepool branch’s press officer, Peter Smith, may have been proposed for the national committee rather than by-election candidate John Bloom because the latter had spoken in support of a motion against the slate system for electing that committee.

Whatever the leadership’s rationale for including comrade Smith in the slate, as opposed to others they may have excluded, I think it unlikely that this is the correct explanation. Peter spoke in support of a motion to use the single transferable vote system when the issue was discussed at a pre-conference branch meeting and I understand that he did not modify his views on the slate system at the conference itself, merely agreeing to remit the motion for consideration by the national committee due to the lack of time allocated for a proper debate on the issues. It would be wrong, therefore, to assume that these comrades were proposed or left out because of their stances on the issue of Respect’s internal democratic processes.

The fact that the general membership and the Weekly Worker is left to speculate about the reasons for the inclusion of particular individuals is, of course, one of the disadvantages of the slate system. The closed, take-it-or-leave-it nature of this method of election denies members the opportunity to consider different perspectives and vote for candidates on the basis of their ideas and track record. Likewise, it denies members of the national committee the opportunity to develop a proper relationship with the rank and file and deprives them of the democratic right to know that they have won their seats on the basis of their policies rather than patronage.

Slate vote
Slate vote

Shopping list

I was interested in the report by Ben Lewis (‘Feminism in free fall’, Weekly Worker November 11). The content of his article didn’t surprise me at all.

Firstly, he criticises the speakers for having a lack of political analysis, yet he offers anything but. The most he gives is a basic shopping list of demands: ie, supporting open borders, free movement of people and so on. Nothing I would disagree with there, but how does he propose to do this? It is also easy to tack on the end “and the international organisation of the working class”, but how does he intend to do that?

Women are the ones who are usually at the bottom of the economic and social pecking order. And explaining oppression cannot be seen through just basic economics. What about the sexual division of labour? What about the commodification of human relationships? Don’t just rely on your shopping list of demands and reiterate them automaton-like when given the opportunity. I am probably unfair to comrade Lewis, as this is only a brief report, but if you are going to criticise speakers for their lack of answers then at least back up your own solutions with some serious political analysis.
Secondly, isn’t it a fair point that people are being disengaged and alienated from the political process? And, yes, the Fawcett Society has been campaigning around getting people to vote. At least in some ways they are trying to do something to challenge the political inertia. What does comrade Lewis propose - that we all join the revolutionary party?

Finally, there is a need for an education-based programme to raise awareness around women’s oppression. I mean, for instance, look at the worrying statistic that one in five young men and one in 10 young women think abuse or violence against women is acceptable. And therefore what exactly is wrong with teaching women feminist ideas?

Comrade Lewis states the line of a democratic centralist organisation. And what a line! He snipes from the sidelines, even though some of his criticisms are actually valid. Surely it would be much more helpful to engage in a non-sectarian debate and to work alongside many of these women’s campaigns.

It is easy to sneer and throw cheap jibes, but as a socialist feminist I have worked and still work with many women’s campaigns. I believe in the ongoing fight for women’s liberation. Feminism is as integral to my politics as Marxism is. I work with radical and bourgeois feminists with whom I have major political differences. You can make the same analogy with working with people on the left: there will be disagreements, but that doesn’t stop you from working with them.
Comrade Lewis, start thinking outside the democratic centralist box!

Shopping list
Shopping list

SWP machine

May I say that I thoroughly approve of your obvious orientation towards the SWP. It is an appallingly opportunist, centrist organisation, completely lacking in democracy, yet it is the largest on the far left in Britain. As such it is a machine for effectively maiming militants.

Should the organisation be transformed by pressure from within, or should a sizeable fragment break away to form a genuinely democratic centralist, revolutionary party, this would be a major step forward for the revolutionary left in Britain. I must say that I’m not exactly holding my breath waiting for this to happen, but your constant exposure and analysis of the goings-on in the SWP (material many members would not have access to, were it not for your paper and website, such is the level of secrecy and lack of debate in that organisation) makes these eventualities that much more likely.

SWP machine
SWP machine

No satellite

Mark Fischer asserts that the Socialist Alliance cheque forgeries exposed by Liz Davies were “done in order to cover legitimate office expenses” (‘See you in court?’, November 11).

The facts are that over a four-month period (summer 2002), signatures were forged on seven cheques drawn on the Socialist Alliance account. Five of these cheques were made payable either to cash or to one of those involved in the forgery - for a total of more than £3,000. Three of these five were made out in round figures of hundreds of pounds. These may or may not, either in part or in full, have been used “to cover legitimate office expenses”. We simply don’t know. And that is one of the basic problems with the cheque forgeries - they broke the chain of accountability.

This is a principle that some members of the CPGB do not seem to grasp - probably because of their lack of experience in the wider labour movement. Mark seems to miss the key point about this affair. The deliberate and sustained practice of forging the cheques (and concealing the forgeries from the other SA officers) was not a personal attack on Liz Davies or myself but a political attack on the Socialist Alliance, its membership and principles.

I’ve been active in left politics for about 30 years, of which two were spent in the company of the Socialist Workers Party. During that two-year period, I tended to agree more often with the SWP than the CPGB, but that doesn’t mean that I was a “satellite” of the SWP. Since you cite no particular instance of me (or Liz Davies) acting in such a manner, it’s a hard charge to answer. Which is why it’s generally best, in the interests of democratic debate, to refrain from such sweeping and unsupported personal characterisations.

As an officer of the Socialist Alliance and the Stop the War Coalition I reported regularly and in full to the relevant democratic bodies on all the activities I had undertaken on behalf of those organisations. I made myself accountable. Unfortunately, very few other officers in either organisation did the same.
For the record, in editing the Socialist Alliance 2001 election manifesto or in acting as a Socialist Alliance press officer in the 2001 election, I at no time took any direction from any members of the SWP. I sought to work amicably with all the elements of the SA - not an easy task. Above all, I sought to adhere to the democratically determined policies of the organisation, and not merely insert my own preferences.

After the election I wrote and circulated a members’ charter for the SA - entirely independently of the SWP, who were extremely equivocal about it. That charter was effectively junked when the SA executive walked away from its responsibilities in relation to the cheque forgeries - after which I wanted nothing more to do with the SA.

In September 2001, I openly challenged the SWP’s idiotic refusal to condemn the attacks on New York and Washington in both the SA and the Stop the War Coalition (as was reported at the time in the Weekly Worker). Strange behaviour for a “satellite”. I could go on itemising such examples but what’s the point? Mark sneers at Liz and myself when he should be examining the CPGB’s own record in relation to the SWP.

The CPGB’s representative on the SA executive played a key role in covering up the cheque forgeries and ensuring that the culprits would not be held to account. Marcus Ström’s ‘investigation’ made Hutton’s look rigorous.

The Weekly Worker was aware of the cheque forgeries and the involvement of SA officers in them. You chose not to publicise the facts of which you were aware, nor to investigate those about which you were uncertain. Instead, you attacked the whistle-blower, Liz Davies. At the time, Marcus claimed that Liz’s objections to the SWP’s behaviour were not “political”. This ignored her actual statements about the issue and betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes the political.

Finally, two important points about the SWP’s libel threat were omitted from Mark’s article. First, our statement on the SUN website was a factual response to a direct and public challenge from an SWP member about the nature of the incident in the Socialist Alliance (it seems to be the SWP’s policy that their members can make such challenges but we are not permitted to answer them). Second, just what are the grounds on which the SWP intends to sue? Which part of our statement are they claiming is untrue?

No satellite
No satellite