Letters

Common sense

Please find enclosed a cheque for £25 towards the Weekly Worker fighting fund.

I do have some issues with my fellow comrades. One is your support for migrant workers in the construction industry. It’d be all right if they charged a comparative rate for their equally good work instead of putting us all out of business. They do not have mortgages and I’ve never met one who pays income tax or council tax. They run from any responsibilities like having a national insurance number.

This only makes our employers even richer and more self-interested. Some common sense must be applied in this matter.

Common sense
Common sense

Coercion

The letters from Liz Hoskings and Terry Liddle can be answered together.

The first point I will make is that they both make factual errors. Liz says that there is never any need for very late abortions. That is not true. If the baby is stuck in the birth canal there is sometimes no alternative but to destroy the baby, although she is right in the sense that, in a country like Britain, neither that nor other emergencies would normally occur.

Terry is wrong when he argues that the only benefit from taking alcohol occurs as a result of the chemicals extracted from the skin of red grapes. All the evidence that I have seen suggests, if anything, that beer is slightly better than red wine and in reasonable amounts also acts against strokes. However, these are factual matters that can be checked. If I am mistaken and am shown evidence to the contrary I will gladly apologise.

However, this is not the only problem in their letters. Both of them, in one form or another, want to know where one draws the line. But that is a problem in virtually every social issue we have to decide on. What is murder, what’s manslaughter, what’s euthanasia, etc.

Moreover, there is also the question of proportionality in dealing with any particular problem. Liz wants draconian legal action. Terry wants to hose people down. Do either of them suggest that we deal with the problem of double parking by shooting the drivers?

Terry has a very interesting point: “Socialism is not about doing what you like.” Really? If he wants a society where you get told to do what you do not like, we have got one of those already. The trick is obviously to create a society in which what people do is also what the rest of us like.

Liz says there is not a hierarchy of beings. I don’t agree. People are more important than ants. I think that most of us still agree with the slogan ‘Women and children first’. Liz says that a new-born baby is the same as a grown human being. That is not true. Because, although like the ant it may feel pain, it has not developed consciousness (awareness of awareness). And people getting to my age are going to move fairly quickly into senile decay.

The real problem with their arguments is that they do not treat people as if they are adults. Some people aren’t adults - such as very young children. But by and large people must be allowed choice. Would either of them outlaw smoking? Taking too much salt? Climbing mountains? All of these are dangerous but at what point do they draw the line? Liz asks why I describe her position as irrational. That is because the word ‘rational’ is connected to ‘ratio’ - that is, knowing where to draw the line.

However, irrespective of the exact problems in Britain of abortion and alcohol laws, it is only necessary in the same issue of the Weekly Worker to read Louise Whittle’s article to recognise that we have a global struggle on our hands about alcohol and abortion and to look at South Dakota and Saudi Arabia. By the way, Terry, would you ban catholics taking mass?

We have a political task and in that it is not what the future might be in some communist society, but what changes we demand in the law and society in order to build a communist world.

In this respect, I have a minor disagreement with Louise Whittle. The problem in Britain is not the legal inadequacies of the law on abortion, but the lack of medical and social facilities. The law in England does not markedly differ from the law of the Netherlands, where Louise points out that they have a very low abortion rate.

Behind all these questions, there lies a moralising approach to the issue of social organisation that really has its roots in religious belief - backed up with coercion. This is interesting because Liz thinks that doctors and nurses should be exempt from coercion in conducting abortions. It is not necessary to use coercion anyway - there are plenty of volunteers. Particularly if mad American anti-abortionists are stopped from shooting the doctors.

What would Liz say if a fireman decided he did not want to go into a building because it was full of homosexuals or blacks? He takes his wages and does his job like everyone else. If he does not want to be a fireman then he can be something else.

Lastly, when it comes to reproductive questions, more unhappiness is brought about by infertility than by abortions. So I would have thought that our main concern should be to solve the problems rather than moralise about them.

Coercion
Coercion

God alone

Tony Blair’s expressed view that he is answerable to god stands some analysing. Usually when people say they are answerable to god, they mean only to god, and that is shorthand for saying they are not answerable to human beings. That’s plainly the case here.

Blair’s theological pronouncement therefore shows all the signs of vaingloriousness, hubris and messianic possession. He cannot possibly be wrong, even when people die, since god guides his moves.

Also we can here see Tony Blair’s neo-Americanism and effective naturalisation into the American nation. No other British politician would have said this, but any American one would (no American politician would dare say he didn’t believe in god, and no-one not a practising christian could hope to be elected president). This shows Blair’s domination by his master, George Bush.

God alone
God alone

House maths

Five years ago a woman I know bought a terraced house on a new estate for £50,000, paid for by a deposit of £5,000 and a mortgage of £45,000. The great news is that the house is now ‘worth’ £100,000.

For the last couple of years she has been renting it out to tenants, but the glut of rented accommodation means that the rent does not cover her mortgage payments. She also has a bank overdraft of £2,000 and credit card debts of £5,000, for which she is paying interest of nearly £20 a week.

What should she do? My advice is to sell her ‘investment’ property before house prices collapse, and pay off her credit card debt and bank overdraft. If only she can get outside the almost universal conception that house prices (and rents) can only go up, she will see that the maths speak for themselves.

House maths
House maths

Great site

Great site

British-Irish

The concept of self-determination always causes problems in people’s minds because it starts off by recognising that in certain circumstances unity along class lines cannot be achieved for some reason. The reason does not have to be rational: it merely has to be real.

As communists we do not seek out or promote separation, but seek to overcome its cause. In the case of Northern Ireland it boils down to deep distrust of catholicism amongst the protestant population - particularly the working class element: the element that we most seek to win over.

Joe Craig is concerned that self-determination for the British-Irish would mean that the protestant enclave would remain part of Britain. I am certainly not in favour of that. I am against all imperialist involvement in Northern Ireland. The struggle for self-determination for the Irish people cannot be separated from the struggle for working class power in Britain and Europe.

Negotiations surrounding the parameters of the British-Irish province - not led from the top down by bourgeois politicians like Paisley and Adams, but from the grassroots - should not just be about borders, but should take into account the practical concerns and fears of all those directly affected, both catholic and protestant. A serious hurdle, there is no denying, and it may not be possible in practice to separate protestant opinion from their bigoted leaders. But the catholic minority would need to feel secure and protestants would need to be convinced that self-determination was not just a cynical plot to trap them inside an unviable ghetto.

Finally negotiations starting off full of distrust and hatred may lead to a growth of mutual respect and trust that negates the need for separation. That, after all, is the purpose of the policy.

British-Irish
British-Irish

Nationalist scorn

Joe Craig’s scorn for Ulster protestants does much to explain the lack of success so-called socialists - who are in reality Irish nationalists - have had in unifying the working class in Ulster.

Give up, Mr Craig, and join Fianna Fáil; or perhaps even they are too tolerant of protestants for you.

Nationalist scorn

CPGB liberals

I read Lawrence Parker’s article on art (‘Shades of Stalinism’, March 2). Funny, but I was always under the impression that Stalin himself preferred Balzac to Zola, as Montefiore confirms in his recent biography. Pity to see the CPGB using ‘Stalinist’ as a catch-all condemnation of anything they do not like - to my mind it just betrays sloppy, lazy analysis.

As far as the topic goes, I am on the side of Mao, who said: “There is in fact no such thing as art for art’s sake, art that stands above classes or art that is detached from or independent of politics.” A belief in an abstract ‘freedom of expression’ is the mark of a liberal and not of a communist. “Let a hundred flowers blossom”, but if we cannot tell the difference between a flower and a “poisonous weed” then we are half way already to defeat at the hands of our enemies.

Of course Wagner was a brilliant musician despite his anti-semitism, but to give such an accolade to the gutter-press of racists is to disarm us in the face of those who would seek to divide us.

The acquittal of the BNP leaders shows the backwardness of our class not its maturity. Get out of your ivory tower and get real. In this case the SWP is right and more class-conscious than you.

CPGB liberals

No alternative?

‘A Capitalist’ asks us to look at the living standards of China and USSR, so I will and it is obvious that living there was no slice of paradise.

In response I would call our capitalist friend’s attention to living conditions in capitalist Africa, capitalist Russia and even capitalist America - and everywhere in this world of capital he admires. If he ever leaves his room then surely he must see that living conditions here in England are far from splendid.

He also tells us happily that we have the opportunity to work our way out of poverty. Gee thanks! How about not having poverty in the first place? Then maybe people could put their energies into doing something worthwhile rather than killing themselves to live in a vain attempt to escape it.

In this capitalist world we are all impoverished - even Bill Gates! We are impoverished because we are not living up to our potential. The purpose of civilisation, of society, of life is to make our existence comfortable - from effective sewage works to fast cars.

No civilisation has ever really completely worked, and nothing will ever be perfect. Capitalist civilisation works if you look at it from a certain point of view, as do the communist, feudal, classical and primitive systems. Communism too works from a certain point of view, and none of it is logical (we human beings are not logical).

Regardless of points of view, there is a common undercurrent in all social systems: they all strive to be better than the one that came before, and they almost always achieve that. That the future may be better than the present is everybody’s expectation.

As for what history has shown, what has it shown for his precious capitalism? How many died in the holocaust? I believe IBM were helping to keep count! How many lives were cut short by the wars of the 20th century? How many have been literally worked to death to keep the money machine rolling? How many functional illiterates are there in capitalism’s wealthiest land, the USA?

So, please, my capitalist friend, take a look at history and tell us, why on earth do you cling to capitalism? Is it because it offers so much? Or is it because you can see no alternative?

No alternative?

Stop the bill

Around 200 people, mainly teachers, marched from Westminster cathedral to Parliament Square on March 2 for a rally in defence of comprehensive education - currently under attack by the government’s Education Bill.

John McDonnell MP stated that the “idea that the bill, in its amended form, has ruled out selection is rubbish”. He added that if it goes through with Tory votes then there will be a price for their support - still more selection. He said that this government was elected in 1997 to abolish grant-maintained schools, not to introduce more of them through trusts.

Mark Serwotka of the PCSU drove the point home that the current attack on schools should not be seen in isolation. Campaigns need to link up around the country. Local groups of activists need to be set up that bring together those fighting privatisation in the schools, hospitals, housing or wherever.

Christine Blower of the NUT quoted Blair, who, back in 1997, said that poverty was not an excuse for underachieving. She highlighted the latest research which shows that children’s success at school is not determined by teachers or heads, but by the class background of the child.

Clearly we will see greater segregation under this new bill. Working class children will be further disadvantaged and a national campaign is needed to oppose this. The bill is based on free-market competition as the key to improving services. The Socialist Teachers Alliance, which helped build the rally, states that “Schools must be under democratic control rather than dependent on market forces. Without this, individual schools and colleges will be under constant pressure to put their own interests before those of the community. Competition must be replaced by cooperation.”

Stop the bill

Linkspartei

It’s not true that the Aachener Appell “refuses to launch a fight against PDS government participation” (Weekly Worker December 8 2005).

In fact, it says: “We expect the Berlin Linkspartei [former PDS] to hold public discussions on their participation in government, which for many people makes them indistinguishable from neoliberal parties. Participating in governments does not automatically mean you can avoid worse. Often there is more power and potential in an opposition role.”

Next time, please read our texts before criticising them. The writers of the Aachener Appell, which by the way are not Linksruck, never promoted continuing the Berlin coalition with the SPD, but demanded a true change in the politics of Linkspartei.PDS to build a basis for cooperation with the Berlin WASG.

Therefore the writers of the Aachener Appell now stand in solidarity with the Berlin WASG, which decided in a democratic vote that they do not see a basis for cooperation with Linkspartei.PDS for the Berlin elections in autumn 2006.

Linkspartei
Linkspartei

Faith schools

Faith schools have become the subject of much recent debate. While many socialists oppose the increase in faith schools and take a principled stand to support secular education, some are now suggesting that muslims should be allowed to have their own government-funded faith schools.

Some in the Socialist Teachers Alliance seem to be supporting this view and I believe, though it isn’t entirely clear, that this includes the SWP. This is not a reason in itself to oppose it, but if this is the case, I think the SWP have got it wrong, just as their position on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill is wrong.

The argument roughly goes: muslims are under attack, islamophobia is increasing; muslims will want faith schools to feel safe, so why shouldn’t they have them like christians and jews? The problem is that, although it isn’t fair on muslims that the christians and jews have their faith schools while muslims don’t, it is a backward step in terms of integration if there are more muslim schools.

School is the place above all others where integration takes place. It is here that different races learn tolerance and respect for each other, as well as having the opportunity to challenge different views and think for themselves. OK, the argument goes, there won’t be that many muslim schools anyway - the population is fairly small compared to christians. This is true, but do we really think that the increase in faith schools would stop at that? It certainly won’t! There will be more and more faith schools of every type on the back of this until there are far more than the 25% or so that we currently have.

Let’s think where this demand for faith schools came from in the first place: Tony Blair. He opened the door by suggesting as part of the new white paper that there should be more. It is part of his attack on comprehensive education to have more ‘diversity’ - this includes faith schools and, of course, academies. How long before there are more faith academies? We slag off creationism and Vardy; will we slag off the muslim version of this, or will that be islamophobia? How can we support faith schools and attack the white paper when the white paper wants more faith schools? Perhaps we are going to argue for fully comprehensive education - but not for muslims who want to set up faith schools with government money!

Wouldn’t it be better just to argue that socialists oppose all faith schools, including the existing ones? We should support secular education that is fully funded. We would also like the tax funding for all faith schools to be taken away over time. That doesn’t mean that we support attacks on muslims. On the contrary, we must defend them by supporting integration and a system where all races are integrated. We know that some muslims will feel isolated right now, but do we want them to be more isolated in faith schools? It will be self-fulfilling because, the less that other kids mix with them, the more isolated they will become in our society.

Surely we don’t have to destroy the village to save the village, as a general in Vietnam once said.

Faith schools

Islamophobia

Ian Donovan is quite right to take me to task for my mistake in associating the islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, with the February 3 London demonstration where protestors carried placards calling for the death of those who insult islam (Letters, March 2).

Comrade Donovan is taking things too far, though, when he claims that my error “can only help Blair ban the organisation”. This false information did, after all, appear first in the bourgeois media (I failed to check what I had read) and I would have thought Blair is much more likely to have picked it up from The Daily Telegraph, for example, than the Weekly Worker (in the unlikely event that the government were to found its latest legislative attacks on such untruths).

I really do not think I can be accused of fingering muslims in any case, since the previous week I stated that the February 3 demonstrators had been “engaged in empty rhetoric” rather than the ‘incitement to murder’ that was alleged - any case against them would be “slender in the extreme”, I noted. By contrast, the Socialist Workers Party milieu, to which comrade Donovan now belongs, has been at pains to draw a sharp distinction between such unrepresentative extremists with their “vile slogans” and the mass of respectable muslims (the implication being that the former can be sacrificed).

What is most remarkable about comrade Donovan’s letter, however, is his truly astonishing claim that the CPGB has “belatedly been forced to discover that there is such a thing as islamophobia”. Immediately after September 11 2001, we predicted that Bush and Blair would use the attacks in New York and Washington to justify, among other things, discrimination against, and persecution of, minority groups.

We have consistently opposed all such acts and specifically denounced on many occasions the islamophobia that is part and parcel of the imperialist ‘war on terror’. Unlike the SWP, however, we have combined our condemnation of islamophobia with a principled position on islam and the muslim establishment. For example, in 2003 we wrote:

“While there is undoubtedly islamophobia in Britain, the imams generally represent conservative and backward-looking politics … Defend muslims against discrimination and chauvinist attacks, yes, but no compromise and no concessions to the mosque’s politics” (Weekly Worker July 24 2003). This is a stance we have maintained all along.

How about this, from 2005? “Quite clearly muslims are under attack from some sections of British society …Even in sections of the ‘respectable’ broadsheets, islamophobia has clearly risen to the surface … Equally clearly, since the ‘war on terror’ identifies islamist terrorism as its primary target, there can be no doubt that muslims, or those perceived to be muslims, will be and are being disproportionately hit by the state’s repressive measures - not only stop and search, but detention without trial, banning orders, deportations, etc (January 13 2005).

Or this? “Islamophobia is of course a real phenomenon, particularly in the context of the government’s newly revised proposals for anti-terror legislation. Many of those who might soon be held indefinitely under house arrest without trial and denied access to telephone and internet will undoubtedly be from a muslim background - with a darker shade of skin” (February 24 2005).

No, there is nothing ‘belated’ about our recognition and condemnation of islamophobia - which, readers will recall, comrade Donovan has on numerous occasions accused us of being under the influence of ourselves. In fact, as his most recent letter once again confirms, it is comrade Donovan who is suffering from an affliction - it is called ‘CPGB-phobia’. His old friends wish him a speedy recovery.

Islamophobia
Islamophobia