WeeklyWorker

Letters

PR socialism

John Pearson criticises the point made by Nick Rogers ('A vital task', November 23), and backed up by myself (Letters, December 14), that what Nick calls "the classic Trotskyist model of indirect democracy - workers elect their local factory committee, which then elects a district committee, which in turn elects a city-wide committee, all the way up to a supreme soviet" - is "eminently open to bureaucratisation".

John criticises my use of Stalin as an example of someone who has risen up such a hierarchy, pointing out that he "did not reach his position as dictator and tyrant by moving up the hierarchy of soviets", but "via a career path in a bureaucratised Bolshevik Party, following a devastating civil war". I concede that point, but Stalin reached a position of influence long before the Bolsheviks became bureaucratised. He was coopted onto the party's central committee and became an editor of its newspaper Pravda in 1912, and was appointed commissar of nationalities by Lenin in November 1917.

My criticism of hierarchical structures is largely based on my experience of such structures in this country. I have generally found a much larger proportion of hostile members, particularly at high levels, perhaps infiltrators from conspiratorial organisations on the side of big business or rightwingers acting alone, in deeply hierarchical organisations than in less hierarchical organisations such as anarchist ones.

John suggests "the most meticulous reporting of the proceedings of workers' councils" as a solution to the problem I raised that generally it is only people on the same committees who know who the dodgy people are and what they are up to. This is a good point, but I'm unconvinced that it would totally solve the problem, especially if it is limited to the uppermost committees, whose reports would be suitable for appearance in "our class's daily newspapers". I would support some degree of workers' control of industry, in as non-hierarchical a manner as practicable, but not as the overall form of government. Allowing workers a more direct say in how their industry is run, rather than indirectly via delegates, would allow them to respond more effectively to newspaper reports.

There is a parallel between today's Marxists (such as John) arguing for proportional representation under capitalism but advocating soviets under socialism, and the Bolsheviks in Russia calling for a Constituent Assembly when the capitalist provisional government that came to power after the February revolution in 1917 failed to hold such elections, but some Bolsheviks led by Lenin arguing for "all power to the soviets".

The Constituent Assembly was more proportional than the soviets, since the latter were deliberately set up to give the working class more power than a much more numerous peasantry. The abolition of that assembly when the Bolsheviks lost the election has caused socialists, and particularly those calling themselves "communists", to be widely regarded as undemocratic ever since.

Rightwing Socialist Revolutionaries won the Constituent Assembly election due to large landowners being better organised in the countryside. I have long argued that the Bolsheviks should have let them show themselves up in practice and that the excuse that the Bolsheviks would have suffered massive repression doesn't stand up, bearing in mind that the working class led two revolutions in one year and would surely have defended them. Even better, after the October revolution but before holding a Constituent Assembly election, the Bolsheviks should have gone into the countryside and formed a unified socialist party involving both workers and peasants who supported the October revolution, which could then have won that election.

Marxists often talk about the working class taking power, but in my view it is the entire population that should really take power. It is clearly massively undemocratic to deny middle class people a say in how society is run, or give them less of a say like the peasantry in Russia. For example, in a pre-revolutionary situation in Scotland (more likely than the UK as a whole due to people in Scotland being more leftwing and there already being a form of PR for elections to the Scottish parliament), there would in my view be far more people who support the idea of socialism but agree with PR than those (mainly of a Marxist persuasion) who would advocate all power to the soviets. Marxists would then have a choice of trying to force, using "workers' militias", the will of a minority on the majority, or implementing a PR-based form of socialism.

PR socialism
PR socialism

Right sense

Mike Macnair's "Death of a nationalist" is the best article I have seen about Saddam and his execution.

My politics are to the right of yours, but thanks for speaking sense.

Right sense
Right sense

US-haters unite

The killing of Saddam by the murdering US imperialists just underscores their plan to silence any resistance to their plan for world domination. I call upon all dissidents worldwide who hate America to rally and work to derail the monster devil at work in Washington: George W Bush.

As an American my hands are tied, being of old age and devoid of weapons, thanks to the gun takers in both parties here in America. Help us, world socialists, Marxists, communists, anarchists and all who hate this country as I do.

The right to carry concealed weapons is essential to every citizen of the world. Even in America now forces are active to disarm everyone, for they know that the revolution can be stopped by this action. When I moved from Michigan - a state that permitted concealed weapons to be carried for any reason - to New York, all my weapons were confiscated and I was labelled a felon, even though I was not arrested. It took me a year to get my handguns back, all 13 of them. They gave me a hunting permit, but I hate hunting. I deserve the right to protect myself, not kill innocent animals.

This is the plan of all fascist nations - to disarm us and we are victims in the worst of situations. If we violate their laws, we are arrested and jailed. Periodic searches are now rampant in the United States, including road block and check points, just like an occupied zone, and it is!

US-haters unite
US-haters unite

Not so orthodox

Why does Jack Conrad continually refer to the Socialist Workers Party as being "orthodox Trotskyites" ('The test of 1917', January 4)? The politics of the SWP are clearly as far removed from those of Trotsky as the CPGB's are.

I can only assume that the Hampstead scribbler does this to avoid confronting the real politics of Trotsky, which are infinitely more profound than his own pathetic Kautskyite musings.

Not so orthodox
Not so orthodox

Underground giggle

I had to laugh at Tommy Sheridan's motion in the Scottish parliament regarding the London Underground. If he's so keen on Scottish independence, why does it matter to him that the LU doesn't accept euros, dollars, Albanian leks or any other currency you care to name?

Still, at least he's giving us all a giggle without having to go on Celebrity big brother.

Underground giggle
Underground giggle

Petty nationalism

I don't want to bore your readers with a non-stop SSP-Solidarity debate, but it is clear that the SSP do, the latest missive being Bill Scott's letter last week.

He cites two Solidarity motions in the Scottish parliament as examples of petty nationalism, yet the first one deals with the loss of 150 jobs in Scotland and the second deals with Scots being disadvantaged when they come to England because all cash machines won't accept their money.

Can I remind Bill that he is paid to work in the Scottish parliament and represent the interests of Scottish people? This is not petty nationalism. As he knows, Solidarity is also strongly internationalist, as well as being in favour of a Scottish socialist republic. This means defending workers' jobs and rights at home, as well as engaging in international struggles. You can do both, Bill.

Petty nationalism
Petty nationalism

CPGB archive

Comrades who are members of the Communist Party of Great Britain, or anyone interested in its history, might like to look at the Marxists Internet Archive's history section. There is now a whole sub-archive dedicated to the history of the CBGB, started by MIA volunteer Brian Reid.

Located at http://marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/index.htm, the archive is divided into the following sections: writers; documents; subjects; and party history.

The first two sections are of special interest. The writers' archive has extensive original writings by founding and leading members of the CPGB, such as Robin Page Arnot, Thomas Bell, John Ross (JR) Campbell, Christopher Caudwell, Rajani Palme Dutt, Ralph Fox and others. The documents archive includes four full indexes of Communist View, the early theoretical journal of the CPGB.

This archive is in its infancy and Brian Reid is always looking for more original CPGB documents.

CPGB archive
CPGB archive

Hungary issue

In view of Terry Liddle's comments about Hungary in 1956, comrades may be interested in the latest issue of Revolutionary History on that theme, available from Housmans or Bookmarks bookshops.

Hungary issue
Hungary issue

Culture blog

From the lyrics of Paul Robeson, Nina Simone, the Clash, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, etc, to radical poems, essays and bios of Radical poets and singers, you can get all yer culture needs at http://wwwpetepoetry-bullybuster.blogspot.com.

Please feel free to post comments, feedback and suggestions for poets and individual poems that should be included.

Culture blog
Culture blog

Council communism

On May 3 there will be elections to the Welsh assembly, the Scottish parliament, and parish, town and district councils in England.

I note from reading the Weekly Worker that the CPGB has no plans to stand members as candidates in any of these elections. I think that this is a great pity as the CPGB learnt a great deal from standing four members as Socialist Alliance candidates in the May 2 2002 London local elections.

Of course, since most CPGB members are London-based, it can use the excuse that there are no elections taking place in London this year. However, given the wide readership of the Weekly Worker across England, there must be close supporters or members of the CPGB who could stand as candidates on May 3 outside London?

It seems that since the CPGB's aborted involvement in Respect the CPGB has given up standing candidates in elections and left the electoral field open to the British National Party and UK Independence Party. How can the CPGB call on the Worker-communist Party of Iraq to stand candidates in war-torn Iraq when it will not put up candidates against the BNP and Ukip in England?

The excuse that the CPGB cannot use its own name on ballot papers because of a ruling by the electoral commission is a red herring. The CPGB could always re-register 'Weekly Worker' with the Electoral Commission and stand candidates under that name.

I will be standing on a communist programme as an independent candidate in elections to my local town council. It seems likely that I will be up against the might of the Tory Party for the two seats up for election in the ward where I live.

In 2003 New Labour could only find three candidates for the 18 seats up for election to my council, which resulted in 10 Tories being elected unopposed. The only other party planning to stand candidates is Ukip, who are likely to stand two members who were elected as Lib Dems in 2003 but then defected.

Working people deserve to be offered an electoral alternative to Blair's New Labour, Cameron's 'green' Tories, the left-fascist BNP and the reactionary Ukip.

Council communism
Council communism

Plagiarism?

Intrigued by the fact that every John Smithee letter seems to have a different style, I tried Googling a few choice phrases from his latest missive (Letters, January 4). The results were instructive - he simply posts chopped down versions of other people's articles as if they were his own words! See http://dailyreckoning.co.uk/article/25112006.html.

Plagiarism?
Plagiarism?

Apology

As we head into a new year and look back on the state of progressive politics in 2006, it's worth noting where mistakes were made and - something which is all too rare in the current left - rectifying past errors and apologising where necessary.

Back in the spring, I wrote a letter to your esteemed paper highlighting the use of 'social justice' language by religionist conservatives to mask their essentially reactionary agenda. My analysis remains the same - some groups that have attached themselves to the anti-poverty and social justice movements, such as the Bruderhof, remain authoritarians by most measures, and should be given short shrift by progressive political currents.

But in my original letter I also described the liberal christian newswire and think tank Ekklesia as doctrinaire and homophobic. In this I was mistaken - whilst I do not share the political or spiritual views of Ekklesia, they are clearly left of centre, representing a progressive christian current that is pro-gay, pro-women and opposed to fundamentalism. As such, I was in error to include them in a list of rightwing nutjobs and offer my apologies to them.

Apology
Apology

Excuse me

I was unable to attend the Communist Students conference in December but, based on the report in the Weekly Worker, it seems that it will be politically defined according to the particular shibboleths of the CPGB, including opposition to the theory of the state, as summarised in Lenin's State and revolution.

For example, we have Mark Fischer arguing that both Lenin and Trotsky "misrepresented the dictatorship of the proletariat". As Mark will remember, the Eurocommunists argued something similar before rejecting the very concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps this is where the CPGB will soon find itself?

I have decided not to take up a place on the Communist Students executive.

Excuse me
Excuse me

Ipswich solidarity

The interview with Ana Lopes ('Decriminalise sex work', January 4) is important and could perhaps be supplemented with some details from Ipswich about the social and political context and the reaction of the local people, particularly the 'Reclaim the Night' demonstration held on Friday December 29.

The horrific murders were treated by the national and international press with the expected sensationalism. There was the usual talk of 'vice girls'. Some extraordinary class hatred went with it: Guardian columnist Nicci Gerrard (December 16) talked of "unloved Ipswich" and "urban deprivation" and contrasted it with the beautiful chocolate box village in which she lives. Living nearby for eight years she was unaware that Ipswich had a "red light" district. This well-paid columnist showed her acquaintance with the town by claiming that its heart had been "ripped out" by war-time bombing - which is news to me since I live by the centre and have yet to notice that its medieval and Tudor core has disappeared.

In contrast to such class disdain for the people of Ipswich, the locals reacted with dignified solidarity. The Evening Star said that each victim was "somebody's daughter" and called for partial decriminalisation of hard drugs and prostitution. A collective organised a Reclaim the Night march, from the Corn Hill to the Portman Road/Hanford Road area. Rejecting the radical feminism of the 1970s demonstrations, the organisers called for "men and women to rise together" and safety must come from the community banding together and looking out for each other.

Around 200 marchers were addressed by Teresa MacKay from the trades council, who made a fine speech combining deep sympathy with a social analysis of the underlying problems that led to this loss of life. Sarah, from the English Collective of Prostitutes, spoke of the need for decriminalising sex work. Local socialists, communists, trade unionists, feminists, anarchists, the Green Party and the Labour MP Chris Mole paraded with councillors of all parties and with people of none, and the event was backed by the Salvation Army. A moving tribute to the victims was paid on the recreation ground by Alderman Road. The Evening Star gave it sympathetic coverage.

The issues surrounding sex workers are complex. The red light district here is also home to working class families and it is certainly deprived. It is not a dark corner, but streets where people live, often in great poverty. The social causes that drove the young women to sell sex, from hard drugs to lack of money, will remain, whatever legislation exists.

But this march demonstrates that, far from being "unloved", the people of Ipswich are capable of acting in solidarity and, indeed, show love for the victims of these crimes and their families.

Ipswich solidarity
Ipswich solidarity

Prostitution evil

Are you really serious? Whatever Ana Lopes says, prostitution is violence against women (physical, economic and mental) by men.

Prostitution is a social evil, brought about through class war, afflicting mainly working class women (and some men), worsened by poor education outcomes and drug addiction, which then, because there aren't many jobs which pay the drug addicts way in the world, leads these unfortunates into the kind of prostitution that the murderer exploited.

You really have little concept of the proletariat you claim to be offering your ideology to. Modern life, for all the bells and whistles of materialism and consumerism - twin gods of the west - really is crap for millions of people. These proles who you claim to know wouldn't benefit from the legalisation of drugs, used by capitalism along with free flowing booze, to deaden the working class and allow the government to rule, fool, eat and shoot us. They would inure themselves to the point of unconsciousness. If you really cared about the workers, discouragement and vilification of booze and narcotics would be the kind thing to do.

I had the luxury of living in a place called Wireless Cottage, directly on the paths these women walked on Portman Walk in Ipswich, for a period of nine months. Unlike many of you, I have seen these pathetic specimens of humanity and they are a miserable gang. If you imagine these women are the counterparts of the Amsterdam prostitutes, then you are wrong. Drug-raddled, scrawny, shivering, lank-haired, abused by the scum that pimps them and supplies the heroin 'n' harpic cut they yearn for (after all, I would vomit if I had some slobbering abuser shoving his cock in my mouth in the back of a Volvo on the Hadleigh Road industrial estate).

I watched a pimp punch one of the girls so hard she fell from the pavement into the middle of the road. When he had gone, she refused help because she needed the money and excused her attacker with comments like "He loves me really" and "He didn't mean it". A more wicked illustration of the fantasy land that liberals like you frolic around in.

These women who were murdered would not have passed muster to have worked in some kind of Bolshie brothel, unless scrawny junkies with track marks are what men want. These women did what they did (and paid the ultimate price) because of their circumstance, which most middle class lefties like yourselves at the Weekly Worker will never face.

The women in least danger are those who quietly rent a house and have others with them in the house and a regular client list. They are doing now what liberals are bleating for, without any Marxists in their ivory towers doling out their permission.

Just like abortion and the pill, which for men turned women into sex automatons, ready for sex 24/7 with no consequence or comeback, more men now agree and demand to legalise and encourage easier access to more sex, especially for those unable to form any kind of stable close relationships.

Do you really not get it? Of course, capitalism loves your call for the legalisation of drugs. Heroin has become the new cigarette; prostitution the new alcohol. By demanding legalisation of these two pernicious evils, you are servants of capital, leaving women free to be nothing more than a commodity.

Prostitution evil
Prostitution evil