Letters

Messy Respect

Peter Manson claims to find the fact that the Respect membership, following the lead of Chris Bambery, voted down Dave Landau’s motion on secularism at the Respect conference, “genuinely shocking” (‘The genuine article’, November 25). What socialists should find more shocking is Peter’s own questionably sincere air of political naivety and his misrepresentation of why this resolution was voted down.

A clue can be found in Peter’s article itself. After going through various questions that Respect has an ambiguous or unclear position on, comrade Manson points to one where there is no ambiguity: “Surely the clearest issue where ‘ordinary people’ are a considerable number of steps behind socialist internationalists is over the resistance to the occupation of Iraq. While probably a majority of the UK population is for a withdrawal from Iraq in the short term, that is quite a different matter from calling for ‘victory to the resistance’. Yet the Socialist Workers Party does not have any problem with calling on people to side with all the various groups taking up arms against US-UK forces (since, in the words of the successful, SWP-sponsored, motion, ‘the Iraqi resistance deserves the support of the international anti-war movement’).”

Indeed, that is what unites the chief components of Respect. It is also the position that draws the clearest line against our own government and our own ruling class in this period where politics is overarched and dominated by the imperialist invasion in Iraq, and the armed resistance to it. It is also the position on which, unfortunately, the real differences between Respect and these particular critics are manifested most clearly.

On this question, the Weekly Worker has had more positions than most people have had hot dinners. These gyrations and capitulations are analysed at some length in Ian Donovan’s article, ‘CPGB: centrism, vacillation and capitulation’, in the upcoming issue of What Next? It is notable, for instance, that at the Stop the War Coalition’s conference in early 2004, both the CPGB and comrade Landau, representing the Jewish Socialist Group, put resolutions that were counterposed to the thrust of the Respect position on the armed Iraqi resistance, calling for support to only those resisters that had a “secular” and “working class” programme.

This position is of course, a break with the communist position of unconditional support for the right to self-determination of an occupied and colonised people, in favour of a position that puts conditions on their fight for independence against our own ruling class. While communists seek to use their political influence to maximise the influence of socialist and working class forces in any anti-colonial struggle, to place conditions on our solidarity is in fact to undermine this goal. It is to undermine our key political weapon of being the most steadfast supporters of struggles against imperialist oppression, which alone can consolidate socialist and progressive influence over anti-colonial struggles.

In this context, comrade Landau’s and the CPGB’s call for ‘secularism’ was not simply an innocuous call for apple pie and motherhood, but rather an accusation. The essential thrust of this motion was: ‘This conference resolves to stop beating its wife’. Its voting down was, to continue the metaphor, not a vote in favour of continued wife-beating, but rather an indignant rejection of the notion that wife-beating was ever practised in the first place.

The real, secular thrust of Respect is actually shown by the political development, referred to in Peter’s article, of people like Salma Yaqoob and Anas Altikriti, from devoutly muslim or even islamist backgrounds, in a clear secular direction. Far from being in some way as a result of the polemical fire of the confusionist and centrist Weekly Worker, these developments are organic to Respect, as a project bringing together the secular and consistently anti-imperialist left with militants from religious and often non-secular backgrounds under the hegemony of progressive, working class ideas.

This may be at times a somewhat messy process - but then building a real movement, as opposed to a sect, is never simple.

Messy Respect
Messy Respect

Equality first

Has anyone other than me noticed a huge fault in the thinking on the part of the SWP? It is a central theme in Marxism (however much it may have evolved) that Marxists are in general atheists, yet the SWP, while strongly aligning itself with islam and the Muslim Council of Britain, still appears to support gay rights, feminism and democracy - the very things some extreme muslims are against: eg, executing gays and not allowing women out of the house, etc.

I wish they would make up their mind and declare that they are godless infidels and proud. I am not saying that we should put down islam. I am all for religious (or non-religious) tolerance, but championing equality must come first.

Equality first
Equality first

War on religion

I was interested to read the article, ‘Secularism, atheism and Bolshevik lessons’ (Weekly Worker November 18).

As somebody who would call himself a communist, I find the conclusions reached by Mr Conrad to be false. I contend that religious belief is incompatible with membership of the class party. The question of whether religious beliefs are allowed in the party is of prime importance, as it indirectly relates to what kind of party one is trying to build: a party of the whole class, or a party of the revolutionary minority.
Communists argue that the basis for membership of their party is acceptance of the communist programme (Lenin also added willingness to work under the direction of one of the party’s organisations). But the programme of the class party emanates directly from the theoretical system of Karl Marx with its three indissoluble component parts - historical materialism, the theory of surplus value and the political conception of the class struggle. Therefore, one cannot simply accept one of the component parts of Marxism: all of the parts complement one another, and one cannot criticise one part without criticising the entire system.

It has been accepted that historical materialism and religious beliefs are incompatible. Therefore it is quite evident that membership of the class party is incompatible with religious beliefs. For how is it possible to accept a programme claiming adherence to a theory of history which operates on the assumption that some supernatural being does not exist, whilst believing in this supernatural being? Marxism is about the working class taking action for themselves: “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself”. Religion, on the other hand, tells workers that the way to their salvation lies not in taking practical action, but in praying and submitting oneself to a supreme being. How can these be reconcilable? Women comrades may find this to be of particular interest: “The head of every man is christ, and the head of the woman is the man” (I Corinthians 11:3). I would be interested to read whether it is thought that such views are compatible with socialist understanding.

What I really found to be objectionable is that Mr Conrad tells us that the Communist Party should admit priests into its party. “In 40 years the Bishop of London’s Fund has built 230 churches, and I believe saved London from such a revolution as would astonish the world. If it were not for the influence of religion, perhaps the people of the East End would not take things so quietly as they sometimes do” was what the Bishop of London stated at a meeting on May 11 1909. This counterrevolutionary propaganda is the role of religion today.

How can somebody work under the direction of the class party during the week, telling his fellow workers that they must emancipate themselves, that they cannot rely on anybody but themselves, then on Sunday go into church and tell workers that the road to their emancipation is that of following Jesus Christ, and that they ought to avoid trying to take action for themselves, because poverty is the result of us being sinners?

The class party that communists are trying to build is a party of the revolutionary minority, the vanguard of the working class. It is not a party of the entire class. It is a party composed of those who understand the socialist case and are able to give a practical and political lead to the majority of workers who under capitalist dictatorship do not.

Religion is maintained by the social structures of capitalism. In the process of a revolutionary civil war, the mass of workers will develop socialist consciousness and correspondingly the vanguard, as a vanguard, will go through a process of deformation (in its real, non-Trotskyite, sense). “Both for the production of communist consciousness on a mass scale, and for the success of the cause itself, a change of men’s minds on a mass scale is necessary, a change which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution.” In the civil war the class party will grow to be a mass party, and still religious belief will not be allowed, because such belief will decline in the revolutionary process.

Religion is not a private matter as far as the party is concerned: it is a social matter, and the class party must state its unequivocal opposition to religion and its advocates, no matter what their form. A party clearly opposed to religion is not one which a religious person could join: socialism and religion preclude one another.

War on religion
War on religion

SSP morality

The article by Tom Delargy about events surrounding Tommy Sheridan’s resignation as Scottish Socialist Party convenor was one of the worst articles I have ever seen in a socialist paper (‘Bring back Tommy’, November 25). Tom accuses SSP executive members of an “unprincipled power struggle” and acting “dishonestly and without integrity”.

The SSP national council held an emergency meeting on November 27. I cannot disclose what happened, but I think I can make a few comments about what did not happen. Tom was at this meeting, he could have spoken and repeated his allegations, but he chose not to do so. There were a large number of speakers, including members of the main platforms in the SSP (International Socialist Movement, Socialist Worker platform, Committee for a Workers’ International and Republican Communist Network), but at no point did any speaker say anything remotely resembling Tom’s allegations.

Tom refers to a motion of no confidence in the SSP executive from the Edinburgh North and Musselburgh branch. There is no such branch - a reflection of the accuracy of this article. He could be thinking about a motion which the Edinburgh North and Leith branch has tabled for the December 12 national council. I do not feel able to disclose the contents of this motion, but I can say that it is not a motion of no confidence - it does not even make any criticisms of the executive - nor has any other branch moved no confidence.

The earlier article wasn’t good either (‘Rumours and leadership crisis’, November 18). It accused the SSP executive of succumbing to “hypocritical bourgeois morality” and “mean-minded attitudes of presbyterianism”. I think the SSP executive would not claim to be a particularly clean-living bunch - most of them enjoy a drink, some are living with partners in unmarried relationships, and anyway some of them come from catholic backgrounds.

Some people on the English left seem to have a stereotyped image of Scotland which is decades out of date. An internationalist paper should have known better.

SSP morality
SSP morality

WSWS Stalinism

I read with great interest Chris Marsden’s letter, ‘Copyright’ (Letters November 25).
Marsden is an eminent leader of the International Committee of the Fourth International and distinguished author of the World Socialist Web Site. I am an everyday reader of the WSWS for three years, support their outlook and am grateful to them for providing the international working class with valuable material.

This is, however, a good occasion to make public some of the practices of the WSWS itself and expose its hypocrisy, the alienated interests of bureaucratic messiahs within the WSWS and its double standards. It is impossible to do that on the pages of WSWS because of the Stalinism that rules in what should be Trotskyist party. So I try my luck on your pages, which seem to be thousand times more democratic - though, I am sorry to say, their programme is superior.

“Plagiarism is always objectionable,” wrote Marsden. Indeed, as are many other mistreatments of an author’s moral rights. I, being in a position of a hungry student in a third world country, had to launch a campaign, which included contacting an international human rights lawyer, to force WSWS to publish my name behind my letter published with the reply of Nick Beams on their site.

“We expect a correction to be made promptly,” writes comrade Marsden. But when a hungry student had to fight a protracted battle to force the arrogant monopolist - the WSWS - to publish his full name as the author it was far from “promptly”.

To this day the WSWS doesn’t dare provide any discussion forum or allow uncensored comments or letters - unlike you, whom they call Stalinists. I’d say Stalinism is more widespread and Trotskyist parties are not immune. It remains to be seen if and when the WSWS will adopt these democratic tools that the internet - which they praise in theory but are so reluctant to apply fully - made possible.

WSWS Stalinism
WSWS Stalinism

Boycott IBT

I attended your weekend school on the USSR and I was extremely disappointed at the level of petty internal bickering between the ‘International Bullshit Tendency’ and yourselves.

I cannot begin to comprehend why you allow these apologists to air their outdated opinions in regards to the Soviet Union. Their consistent hijacking of the debates in order to push their pre-prepared agenda was not only mind-numbingly boring, but to me absolutely pointless. These idiots should not be taken notice of. I can understand that these debates may be important, but 14 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union they do seem to be slightly irrelevant and archaic, to say the least. The realities on the ground - ie, Iraq - requires those of us who are active in the fight against imperialism to be addressing far more contemporary and important issues.

I have a proposition: when you are faced with a bunch of indoctrinated buffoons who clearly lack the ability to listen, simply do not pay them any attention. Now, you may consider such action as undemocratic in the same sense you consider the practices of the SWP. However, there is a considerable difference, in that, although I agree their opinions should be aired, no-one on your behalf should reply to them, thus leaving them isolated. In effect a boycott.

Boycott IBT
Boycott IBT

SPUSA

The purpose of this letter is to introduce ourselves to you.

The Socialist Party, USA was reconstituted in 1973 as a result of a split in the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation, in which the majority of that organisation decided to work exclusively within the Democratic Party.

The Socialist Party, USA is presently the only independent political party in the United States which stands for democratic socialism. We are a multi-tendency socialist party unaffiliated with the Socialist International. Our party’s presidential ticket in the most recent election was Walt Brown for president and Mal Herbert for vice-president.

In recent years, our party has experienced unprecedented growth, as more and more people become convinced of the possibility, and desirability, of an ecumenical and democratic socialist future. Our members are active in a wide number of trade unions, the professions and in academia.

The national committee of the SPUSA has recently created the international commission to provide our membership with greater involvement in the party’s international work. Our commission consists of comrades who are actively committed to international outreach, and we report to the national committee.

It is my hope that your organisation will consider exchanging publications with us, and might be open to an ongoing dialogue that might perhaps result in the establishment of fraternal relations. I ask that you review our statement of principles and also our website, which can be reached at www.sp-usa.org.

SPUSA
SPUSA

Abortion

I have been following Anne Mc Shane’s reports on the Abortion Rights campaign with interest over the last few weeks. I hope that the campaign will agree with comrade Mc Shane’s arguments for the inclusion of men and, more importantly, for a woman’s choice ‘as early as possible, as late as necessary’.

In the meantime, and whether or not men are finally invited to be involved, I for one am happy to lend my support to this vital campaign.

Abortion
Abortion