Letters

Pregnant children

I quite agree with Sue Axon that this ridiculous law, which allows girls to have an abortion without their parent’s consent, should be challenged (Weekly Worker October 28). Parents’ rights are being stripped away on the one hand, yet they are held accountable for their children’s behaviour on the other.

If the children are being told it is OK to go behind their parents’ back, how are we as parents supposed to have any respect? Who will be left to pick up not only the emotional but physical pieces when these do-gooders are finished? If the thought of having to tell her parents that she is pregnant stops a teenager getting pregnant, what will she do if she thinks she can get away with getting rid of the evidence of underage sex?

To have rights you have to have responsibilities, and if children are allowed to hide the fact that they are pregnant they are not being made to face up to their responsibilities. This law is a farce, thought through by morons.

Pregnant children
Pregnant children

Unison challenge

I have no principled objection to you reprinting my article, even though you did not seek my view as to it appearing in the Weekly Worker (‘Why we’re backing Jon Rogers for president’, December 9). However, the article was written in the context that it would be appearing next to an article by Jon Rogers explaining why the left must challenge Dave Prentis, the current Unison general secretary, which it did in the November issue of Labour Left Briefing.

Had I been asked, I would have suggested you print the article alongside an article written by Jon or an article written by someone else explaining how the Unison leadership have failed to adequately challenge the Blairite government and the need for a left challenge. On its own, the article appears to make the Socialist Party a bigger enemy then Prentis, which was never my intention.

Peter Manson replies: We apologise for the failure to consult the author, although we did ask the editor of Labour Left Briefing. We assumed that this, together with the acknowledgement we published, would be sufficient, since the article had appeared on various email lists without any accompanying piece.

Unison challenge
Unison challenge

Street power

Pages six and seven of the Weekly Worker (December 2) contained a wonderful irony which I assume was accidental.

In the article ‘Opposite illusions’, Ted North says: “The fundamental lesson of the February 15 2003 demonstration was that we did not stop the war. Particularly in a state with such a huge democratic deficit numbers on the street alone are not enough.” On the opposite page there is an article about the ‘revolution’ in Ukraine. Although the Ukrainians are by no means changing their society in any huge way, they are proving that numbers on the streets can make a difference.

Sadly I think it is more to do with the Stop the War Coalition leaders’ inability to see or choose not to use the power of people on the street. If the million or so people who were in the centre of London chose to stop the government accessing Whitehall or other government buildings, surely a crisis would not have taken long to emerge.

Let us hope that the planned demo of March 19 2005 will give the anti-war movement the chance to prove that numbers on the street can make a difference.

Street power
Street power

Brian and Ian

Mark Fischer seems to be in a rather odd state of mind. It has not been a good week or two for the CPGB. George Galloway won his libel suit against The Daily Telegraph, forcing Mike Macnair to (finally) issue some self-criticism of the reactionary and pro-imperialist article the CPGB published most prominently when the smear was first propagated in April 2003, taking the side of the Telegraph over what it now belatedly admits was a blatant frame-up.

A pity comrade Macnair could not go further, and repudiate much of the mealy-mouthed nonsense that has been propagated between then and now by writers considered ‘on-side’ by the CPGB. Even after its ‘correction’ the most they could say was that Galloway should be given “the benefit of the doubt”. Not exactly the kind of championing the victim of a frame-up should expect from ‘genuine communists’. Only comrade Ian Donovan’s articles firmly defended Galloway; but these are now considered unworthy of mention.

While comrade Macnair is at it, he could also repudiate numerous other materials more subtly echoing the Telegraph’s themes. Such as the repeated innuendos that Galloway’s involvement in Respect was in support of personal ‘enrichment’ and the like. The fact that the Weekly Worker should have committed such a shocking capitulation somewhat belies its arrogant claim to represent ‘genuine communism’. Particularly as other forces it reviles, including of course the Socialist Workers Party, did not fail the elementary test posed by the Galloway witch-hunt.

Then there are Mark’s attempts to curry favour on the Labour left. Not doing very well at that, are we? Judging by Graham Bash’s verdict that “The Weekly Worker has become mind-numbingly irrelevant of late”. I couldn’t agree more, particularly regarding anti-SWP obsessions and often ill-informed and grossly hypocritical complaints about ‘democracy’ in Respect. It really is most unedifying to read article after article whinging about the failure of the SWP leadership to tell its members to vote for CPGB members as delegates to Respect conference. As if being outvoted was itself ‘undemocratic’!
Comrade Bash’s serious approach to George Galloway’s parliamentary candidacy in Bethnal Green and Bow is also refreshing compared to the loopy sectarian trivia that has recently filled your pages, even if his Labour loyalism prevents him from supporting the campaign itself.

Meanwhile comrade Fischer is tilting at windmills in trying to stave off left criticism of his outfit’s gyrations about Respect. Not only does he thrash around as if blindfolded, trying to make out that his critics are all the same person; he also exposes himself to charges of hypocrisy - since he himself writes under several aliases for the Weekly Worker, as indeed do most of your writers. He has been known to froth at the mouth and even demand the exclusion of people from public internet lists run by (then) CPGB members for matching up the aliases of CPGB comrades.

My understanding is that comrade Donovan cannot be bothered to write to the Weekly Worker at the moment, due to the non-publication of letters and articles for reasons that, given the CPGB’s editorial claim of ‘openness’, amount to a degree of hypocrisy.

It is, however, worth noting that comrade Donovan used to “plough a lonely furrow” in opposing the islamophobia and semi-AWLism that passes for communism in the CPGB. Till he wised up and left. Comrade Fischer is dishonest when he tries to use the CPGB’s correct demand for ‘troops out of Iraq’ now to evade another key aspect of the Iraq question - the need for revolutionaries in Britain to unconditionally but critically solidarise with those resisting ‘our’ armed forces. Mark knows very well what I am referring to here - the CPGB had no problem with supporting the Kosova Liberation Army, hardly a leftwing or communist force, when it was fighting Serbia, the enemy of ‘our’ government, in 1999.

So how about it, Mark? Once upon a time the CPGB used to say, “For the IRA, against the British army”. It also used to say, “Arm the KLA”. Why not say, ‘For the Iraqi resistance, against the occupation’? Or are you too social-chauvinist and yellow to raise anything like that?

This has nothing to do with being ‘indifferent’ to who wins out in Iraq. The best way to undermine leftwing influence in Iraq is through flabby neutrality on this struggle by the left in the invading imperialist countries. And neutrality was Mark Fischer’s gut response to the uprisings in Najaf and Fallujah last April. Sill, I suppose that is a slight improvement on the gut response of the CPGB leadership to the attack on George Galloway a year earlier.

Mark mocks the idea that there is anything socialist about Respect, quoting Lindsey German in seeming contradiction to that in saying that she would not have joined Respect “if it was just socialist”. However, as everyone who has any familiarity with the SWP knows, they somewhat cavalierly use ‘socialist’ as a synonym for their own politics - ie, what they consider to be revolutionary Marxism or communism. Comrade German’s statement contradicts the notion that Respect’s politics should simply be a replica of the SWP (or some other version of the ‘communist’ credo put forward by, for example, Jack Conrad); it does not contradict the idea that Respect is a broadly socialist formation in its aspirations and aims. Frankly, if Mark doesn’t believe that, then he should not be supporting Respect. Clause 2.4 in Respect’s constitution, which calls for a society based on common ownership and democratic control, has not even been properly engaged with by the CPGB.

As for Respect and secularism, Mark’s tirade over this only demonstrates why the CPGB did not succeed in getting elected to any delegate positions for the conference. I certainly would not vote for them. If Mark believes the purpose of Respect is to align with reactionary “muslim activists” then all I can say is: why does he persist in pretending to support Respect? Why doesn’t he name these “reactionary” activists and start a campaign to get rid of them? Or is he afraid that going so far will just make him sound like Sean Matgamna’s twin brother?

In reality, all Mark succeeds in showing is that his version of ‘secularism’ is a codeword for ‘Get rid of the nasty reactionary muslims’. That is how it is perceived by Respect members, and rightly so. Given the CPGB’s record on the Galloway witch-hunt, small wonder.

Brian and Ian
Brian and Ian

WASG and Respect

Apologies to the comrades from Arbeitermacht (Workers Power), the German section of the League for a Fifth International (Letters, December 9). I did indeed misread the main article posted on their website about the comrades’ position on the Wahlalternative (WASG) and closer inspection shows that I was wrong. As Arbeitermacht is not exactly the most important section in the WASG (or on the rest of the left in Germany), I did not spend as much time researching their position as I should have and my short reference (half a sentence) reflects that. Nothing to do with Stalinism, I can assure Weekly Worker readers - if anything, I learned my trade as a left liberal.

The mistake was easily made, though: I have undoubtedly read the article through the prism of what I know of the position of Workers Power in Britain vis à vis the Respect coalition - an organisation not dissimilar to the WASG. The arguments of the two sections on these formations are pretty identical: both Respect and the WASG do not have revolutionary programmes, the organisations contain different class forces (or are striving towards it and are therefore popular frontist), they suffer from a lack of internal democracy and they do not openly fight against capitalism. Quite right.

But, while the comrades from Arbeitermacht correctly intervene in the WASG, Workers Power boycotts Respect. There are differences between the two, of course - not least the leading role played by a small section of the trade union bureaucracy in the WASG, mainly in the form of a number of middle-ranking officials from the once mighty IG Metall. And, naturally, Linksruck, the SWP’s section in Germany, is extremely small and unimportant and therefore has no hold on the WASG, though it does participate.
Most importantly perhaps, the newly elected leadership of WASG is united in refusing to call the organisation ‘socialist’ or even a ‘left party’ and has made it very clear that they do not want to challenge the existing system (see Weekly Worker November 25). Respect at least uses the word ‘socialism’ in its name.

Both are far from revolutionary organisations and there is much to criticise about both of them. However, both provide a site for struggle. Workers Power should fight alongside other socialists and communists within Respect for the kind of revolutionary working class party that is needed today.
As to the comrade I quoted as saying, “We do not need another social democracy” - I did actually talk to him later. I asked him explicitly if he was a member of any organisation other than the WASG and he said very definitely that he was not. He most certainly did not mention Arbeitermacht - neither did anybody else at conference, for that matter (though I do admit to going to the lavatory a couple times over the two days, so maybe I missed it!).

There was no Arbeitermacht newspaper for sale, no leaflets were given out, no copies of the ‘revolutionary programme’ they are proposing. Even the comrades from Linksruck managed to have copies of their publication for sale, and comrades from the SAV (German section of the Socialist Party) made their affiliation very clear in their contributions. I suggest the comrades from Arbeitermacht step up their work in the WASG if they want outside observers to notice them.

In his letter comrade Flakin makes some rather weird assumptions about the CPGB, claiming that we would not support a revolutionary programme for the WASG, because “notably, the CPGB did not support the revolutionary programme Workers Power proposed at the founding conference of Respect”. Now, comrade Flakin could be excused if we assume that (just like me) he lives in a different country and is not too familiar with our politics. But I would be very surprised if this particular passage had not been written by one of his comrades from Workers Power in Britain. And they should really try to recall accurately what happened at the Respect conference in January 2004.

“In an excellent intervention, Mark Hoskisson moved Workers Power’s Anti-capitalist challenge for New Labour” as an alternative to the SWP’s proposed mini-programme, we wrote at the time - and carried on to quote comrade Hoskisson at length (Weekly Worker January 29). However, as our report made clear, “It was announced that the original declaration would be voted on first and, if it was passed, the others would fall.” Despite our protests, then, only the SWP’s proposal was put to a vote and “the revolutionary programme Workers Power proposed” was not.

I could accuse comrade Flakin of deliberately falsifying our position, but how about we call it quits?

WASG and Respect
WASG and Respect

New alliance?

At the time of writing, the Socialist Alliance executive committee, under the direction of the SWP leadership, have promised to organise an annual conference of the SA on February 5 2005. We encourage all comrades who can to attend this AGM.

We recognise that the Socialist Alliance has been virtually disbanded by the SWP leadership, and the SA basic aims of uniting the left and moving towards a mass workers’ party have been abandoned. We have a dossier on the sectarian and undemocratic behaviour of the SWP leadership in the Socialist Alliance and a list of 28 questions for the SA EC which are still unanswered. Both can be found on our website (www.democracyplatform.org.uk), as can the SA original policy document People before profit.

Our purpose in calling a conference on Saturday March 12 2005 is to gather together those comrades who wish to carry forward the policies of the Socialist Alliance, as stated in People before profit, and our founding aims of unity on the left and organising for a mass workers’ party. One organisational model might be the Scottish Socialist Party - a party with the right of members to belong to platforms or tendencies within it, but with no possibility of a sectarian take-over by one left group. We acknowledge that the building of such a party is a long process. We believe that the lessons and traditions of the Socialist Alliance are one important basis for this process. We are not prepared to let them go at the diktat of the SWP. We intend to hold a conference in March, whatever the outcome of the February annual conference.

The need for a political challenge to the left of New Labour becomes every day more clear. New Labour is locked into actively promoting the imperialist policies of the IMF. This means attacking the working class and smoothing the way for international big business. The ‘official’ communist parties have imploded and most left groups seem locked into the politics of a bygone age. There are of course many struggles going on internationally and locally. These need to be supported in a spirit of dialogue and learning from joint experience, not in a spirit of sectarianism - ie, using them to boost the numbers of your own group; or in a spirit of opportunism - ie, pandering to backwardness, while using the struggle to enhance your own popularity. These are difficult times because many of the issues are no longer straightforward and simple; the need for dialogue and listening is vital.

We are proposing that only policy resolutions on emergency issues are taken at the March 12 conference. The main discussion and decisions will be around what sort of organisation we want and around ideas for how we are going to get there.

We are proposing a pre-conference discussion culminating in a pre-conference bulletin on this question: ‘Building a democratic Socialist Alliance - towards a mass workers’ party’; and on how to promote a democratic and anti-sectarian culture within a new Socialist Alliance. Contributions to the bulletin can be made to the website or by sending it to the SADP convenor, Pete McLaren at PO Box 485, Coventry CV5 6ZP.

The next meeting of the SADP, on January 29 2005 in Birmingham (12 noon, United Services Club, Gough Street), will be devoted to organising for the February 5 annual conference of the SA and for the March conference. This is an open meeting for comrades who support the process. Anybody wanting more information, please contact the SADP convenor. Please sign up if you are prepared to support the aims of this conference either in an individual capacity or as an organisation. And please pass on the message. We want to make this an open and representative conference.

The Critique supporters’ group and Workers Power have both agreed to co-sponsor a conference on building a workers’ party. They have not as yet ratified this open letter. The United Socialist Party, based in Merseyside, have also agreed to send representatives to the conference.

New alliance?
New alliance?