13.01.2005
Charity-mongering
The Socialist Workers Party's response to the disaster has been utterly pathetic. In its new incarnation as Respect it urges members to uncritically support the Make Poverty History campaign - a lash-up between over 100 charities, trade unions and 'celebrities', which also enjoys the support of chancellor Gordon Brown. Alex Callinicos makes a feeble attempt in Socialist Worker to raise some minor criticism of the campaign, which "is not exactly getting tough with the government", despite its "many excellent demands" (January 8). Many of the charities involved "are in fact heavily dependent on the state" and "can give credibility to New Labour's neoliberal economic agenda", he warns. However, comrade Callin-icos merely laments the close relationship that some of them have to the government. But he does not even touch on the integral, structural problems of the politics of charity. The SWP pays lip service to the role of global capitalism in worsening the effects of the tsunami, but when it comes to positive, independent, working class solutions, the comrades are silent. Callinicos's timid column is drowned out by the various Respect press releases and other articles in the same edition of the SWP's weekly, which, taken together, give an overwhelming encorsement of the MPH campaign. Rather than fighting for demands that would aid the self-liberation of the oppressed in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand, the comrades merely put a leftwing gloss on the mainstream demands of the bourgeois charities - and readers are left with the distinct impression that Socialist Worker would like SWPers to be seen putting their money into Oxfam's collection tins. So, the old (inadequate) favourite, "Drop the debt", is embellished with the demand that the British government should "divert funds from killing people in Iraq to saving lives in the disaster zone". Meanwhile, the "stingy" George W Bush and Tony Blair should put up more money for aid, while the "big corporations" operating in poor countries should "be taxed at a higher rate". As none of these demands, however, are linked with the fight for democracy and political freedom for the workers and peasants in those countries, their effect would be merely to hand over more money to corrupt and unaccountable governments. The SWP's pathetic, apolitical approach certainly reflects once more its attempt to cosy up to the Muslim Association of Britain, its largely phantom partner in Respect. Giving a percentage of your income to islamic charities is, of course, an integral part of the muslim religion. Zakat (charity) is the third of islam's 'five pillars', as outlined at the very beginning of the Koran. Traditionally, that obliges each muslim to donate 2.5% of their income to islamic charities. In addition, there is the moral pressure of sadaqa (optional charity). "Tally it all up, and some estimate the total would top $10 billion annually," says Kareem Irfan, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of North America (www.beliefnet. com). Just as with western charity, the money does not always finds its way into the hands of 'the needy'. The Aga Khan, for example, leader of the world's 18 million shia Ismaili muslims, presides over nine foundations and charities in his name. In the proceedings of his forthcoming divorce it has emerged that he has personal wealth of more than £1 billion - half of which is now claimed by his soon to be ex-wife (Mail on Sunday January 9). In reality, though, it is not MAB or the 'muslim community' that demands such charity-mongering opportunism from the SWP. The comrades 'modify' their own programme and indulge in self-censorship to suit the perceived opinions of 'muslims' (who are apparently not divided along class lines). Interesting in this context is the January 7 email circular to Respect members in east London, penned by leading SWP member Rob Hoveman. He reports that "in Tower Hamlets, to their collective disgrace, not one Labour councillor has agreed to support the call from Respect councillor Oli Rahman for a special general meeting of the council to debate Tower Hamlets holding its own day of action. Councillor Rahman is now contacting representatives from the mosques, churches, etc to discuss holding a day of action anyway and keeping the pressure on the council. We urge all Respect members and supporters to take the Preston motion, send it to councillors urging them to raise and support it. We also and crucially need to get support for it from local faith communities, charities, etc" [my emphasis]. If comrade Hoveman thinks that the involvement of trade unions or secular organisations might be a good idea, he certainly does not show it. Maybe they are included in the two "etc". More likely though, we are witnessing a truly opportunistic attempt to shed any kind of programmatic baggage that (in the SWP psyche) might stop MAB and similar organisations from joining Respect. Tina Becker
Worker