Letters

Silly ballerinas

I quite agree with Jim Moody’s article ‘No to SWP Berufsverbot’ (January 18). I find the knee-jerk reaction of the Jaspers and Bennetts utterly deplorable, blinkered and counterproductive. Their call for sackings and bans is a gift for John Reid. Let silly ballerinas say whatever they like. That’s the price of democracy and free expression.

We will defeat the BNP elsewhere, not at the English National Opera.

Silly ballerinas

Law school

In Scotland, every lawyer must have so many hours’ training every year. Each segment of training counts towards the yearly amount.

Tommy Sheridan will be the speaker at a March 5 seminar on defamation provided by the Legal Services Agency, an agency of the state in Scotland. The seminar, which costs £65 per head, counts as an hour and a half towards the training of Scotland’s lawyers and is described as “mainly around the layperson’s experience of defamation … aimed at anyone with a personal or professional interest on the interaction between law and the media” (www.lsa.org.uk/defamationtommysheridan.aspx).

So get saving up your 65 quid, make your way to Glasgow and you can get trained in how to perjure your way to getting £200,000 out of Rupert Murdoch.

Socialist, my arse.

Law school
Law school

Revolution or two

I agree with the analysis in Mary Godwin’s report on the CPGB aggregate, but lacking is an international perspective in building the new Marxist party which is needed (‘Debating perspectives’, January 18). I believe such a party cannot be built nationally, but only on the basis of the mutual experience of revolutionaries in many countries.

I’m not suggesting forming another ‘Fourth International’ (there are already too many), but international discussion and debate to develop a new transitional programme. I suggest an international discussion bulletin in several languages might be a step forward.

Ultimately, we need to build a new international, but that will be a long process which may be helped on by a revolution or two.

Revolution or two

Libel-read herring

As always, I read the report of the first aggregate of CPGB members in 2007 in last week’s Weekly Worker with interest.

The possibility of selling the CPGB’s print machine is well worth consideration. Any decision to sell it must be made on whether it is cheaper to have the Weekly Worker printed commercially.

For some time Socialist Worker has been printed by a commercial printer. The decision to do so was made after the Socialist Workers Party had found that it was cheaper to have Respect’s 2005 general election literature printed commercially than by the SWP’s own printing business. If the SWP can have Socialist Worker printed by commercial printers, I cannot see any reason why the CPGB cannot do the same with the Weekly Worker.

All capitalist printers, from the self-employed to the commercial printers of newspapers and magazines, face enormous, cut-throat competition. New technology in the printing of newspapers means that commercial printers can charge low prices due to economies of scale.

The argument that a commercial printer would insist that the Weekly Worker be ‘libel-read’ is a red herring. The paper is and should, just like all capitalist newspapers, always be libel-read by the editor anyway.

Of course, when the CPGB has tens of thousands of members and is seen by the ruling class as a threat to their rule, it might be necessary for the party to have its own printing press. In the meantime, the CPGB should sell its print machine and put the proceeds into improving and expanding its website, even if outside expertise has to be bought in.

Libel-read herring
Libel-read herring

More plagiarism

Dear me! Now John Smithee is stealing words wholesale from Dave Osler’s blog. See www.davidosler.com/2006/12/1976_britain_on_the_brink_of_a.html

More plagiarism

No sharia

Women’s groups, secularist organisations, trade unions and political activists - we need your help to prevent islamic sharia law being implemented in Kurdistan.

In December, we declared a campaign to repeal article 7 from the proposed constitution of Kurdistan. In our view, article 7 clearly states that islam is the main official religion and that laws should be based on it. As we said then, this will only lead to the violation of the most fundamental and basic liberties of the people of Kurdistan, and most of all undermine the rights and freedoms of women.

We thank all of you who have already signed our petition: you have been a great support for our campaign. The link is: www.petitiononline.com/15122006/petition.html. Please forward it to all your lists if you can.

Now we are asking organisations and activists to write letters in support of our campaign to repeal article 7 and in favour of the separation of religion from the state and education, as well as equality and freedom for women.

Please send letters of support to myself.

No sharia
No sharia

SYN anomaly

If Marsha-Jane Thompson is honest when she says that Communist Student/Respect members are not allowed to join the Socialist Youth Network because “SYN rules state that to be eligible for membership you cannot be a member of another political party that stands candidates against Labour”, then why are the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty allowed to be members (‘Engaging with youth’, January 18)?

They have stood plenty of candidates in elections against Labour, as part of both the Socialist Alliance and the Socialist Green Unity Coalition. Two members of the AWL are about to stand in the May local elections in Hackney as Socialist Unity candidates. Yet there has been no report of problems with AWL youth joining the SYN.

Could the difference be that the AWL, despite standing in elections against Labour, are fiercely Labourite in all they do? They happily dismiss organisations that seek to threaten Labour, such as Respect and the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party, and give a Marxist face to the Labour left. Communist Students, on the other hand, challenge the Labour left and engage with such campaigns.

It is clear that the reason for the anomaly is not because the CS members are also Respect members, but rather because of their politics.

SYN anomaly

Sci-fi appeal

James Turley by his very approach to Socialist Appeal uses the same sectarianism he condemns the Socialist Party for (‘Alphabet soup’, January 18).

He obviously has never read anything by the Socialist Appeal tendency and so ridicules their position on the Labour Party as something conjured up out of thin air. To the more intelligent observer it is clear that the SA perspective is based heavily on the history of our movement and explains that workers when activated move via their traditional organisations - first through the unions and then through the Labour Party.

Agree with it or not, Rob Sewell’s recent book, In the cause of labour: A history of British trade unionism, explains this process quite clearly and explains the situations when this happened.

What would be a real conjuring trick is to find examples in history where the many-millioned working class of this country moved towards organisations such as the CPGB. We would be entering the world of science fiction if comrade Turley could explain how this would happen in the future.

Otherwise a good, informative article.

Sci-fi appeal

Sex and drugs

Congratulations to Andrew Coates on his letter giving a class viewpoint of the tragic murders of sex workers in Ipswich. Andrew’s endorsement of Ana Lopes’s call for the decriminalisation of prostitution is to be welcomed. However, the attitude of the legislature towards (so-called) hard drugs is also partly to blame for this tragedy.

Laws that criminalise the users of (some, arbitrarily selected) drugs, creating an illegal market, simply cause their price to be vastly inflated. The addicted users of these often quite innocuous substances are then forced to extreme measures to feed their habit - including prostitution. It is high time that the laws regarding prostitution and the consumption of all recreational and other drugs were reviewed.

All the more astonishing, then, to read Robert Blatchford’s missive in the same issue of the Weekly Worker. What gives this reader the rights to assume that he has a monopoly on concepts of what the proletariat needs, and to remonstrate with members and supporters of the CPGB regarding the party’s policies? The most respectful comment on his opinions is to conclude that he is confused! If drugs are used by capitalism to “deaden the working class and allow the government to rule, fool, eat [?] and shoot us”, why doesn’t the government supply workers with the drugs, instead of pauperising them by creating an illegal market?

Does Robert really believe that abortion and the pill “turned women into sex automatons”? Can he not understand that these developments helped to liberate working class women, so that they can indulge in sexual activity if they wish to - either for pleasure or for financial gain?

It is Robert who is “serving capital” by joining the bourgeois authorities in criminalising workers for doing things that the rich take for granted - using recreational drugs and their bodies as they wish.

Sex and drugs
Sex and drugs

Second fronts

Lawrence Parker, in his review of the re-issue of Phil Piratin’s Our flag stays red, attacks communist “community activism” as “If you’re with them when they want their windows fixed by the council then they’ll be with you in the revolution”.

I don’t know when Lawrence last met a working class council tenant - they are usually quite capable of getting their windows fixed without communist intervention. But when it comes to ensuring that wholesale window-fixing does not result in wholesale rent increases out of all proportion or opposing gentrification, communist leadership does come in handy.

Lawrence appears to be an adherent of the Hillel Ticktin school of communism. Let everyone wait - for the perfect revolution, after which all will come right, unsullied by the errors of such as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Kim, etc. No wonder the Socialist Party of Great Britain want to entice Hillel into their ranks.

Why should communists help “save a hospital, defend council housing”, etc? First and foremost, because communists are on the side of the working class and the working class need hospitals and council housing. Secondly, because the struggles for hospitals and council housing in this country are second fronts against United Kingdom imperialism. Second fronts objectively support the resistance to UK imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere.

Second fronts
Second fronts

Disappointed

We were puzzled and disappointed to read of Jim Padmore’s decision not to take his place on the Communist Students executive.

Puzzled, because his stated reasons do not make much sense. He writes that our founding conference was “politically defined according to the particular shibboleths of the CPGB”. One can hardly speak of “shibboleths” when all that is required of people to become members of CS is that they accept the platform of the organisation (as opposed to Jim’s insistence that we replace ‘accept’ with ‘agree with’).

Our organisation was set up by members and supporters of the CPGB, with the aim of uniting the largest possible communist force via a highly democratic framework. Comrade Padmore made a big contribution to this during CS’s gestation, by proposing extensive amendments to our ‘What we stand for’ document, triggering many lively debates on the subjects raised. It was a shame that Jim was unable to attend the founding conference to defend his propositions, but glossed over they certainly were not - some of his suggestions were agreed, if not many.

What’s more, if he is so concerned by the political trajectory of CS, would being a member of its executive not put him in the best position to challenge this? His resignation leaves the executive with a majority of CPGB members - how will this aid in the fight against whatever pernicious opportunism it is they’re supposed to propagate?

We were disappointed, because this is more or less the first we have heard of his concerns. We attempted many times to contact him, in order to involve him in CS activities. We were hoping to make use of his experience with Labour Party work during our intervention at the Socialist Youth Network conference, for example. But we were unable to have any sort of discussion on the problems he had with CS positions. He has retreated without a fight, which is a real shame, and in contradiction to the real interests of our movement.

We hope that he will reconsider his decision, or at least continue to participate in CS in his own favoured capacity. Should he wish to slate our political “shibboleths” at length in a polemic, we will - of course - publish it on our website.

Disappointed

Excuse me not

You chose to publish my last letter under the title of ‘Excuse me’. Perhaps my overly diplomatic language gave the impression I had something to excuse myself for.

Let’s be clear - Communist Students is an extension of the CPGB. One only has to read the report in the Weekly Worker to see that (‘CS conference debates way forward’, December 14).

The conference was opened by Tina Becker who, at the time, wasn’t even a student and, of course, well known student activist Mark Fischer was on hand to make sure none of the votes went the wrong way.

So what of the politics of the CPGB? As Gerry Downing explained in his excellent article, ‘The April theses and permanent revolution’ (January 11), leading members of the CPGB are systematically attacking the key ideas of VI Lenin, whether it be on the Marxist theory of the state or the theory of imperialism and the Marxist position on imperialist wars.

But wait, there’s more! The CPGB’s notion of ‘extreme democracy’ leads them to defend ‘free speech’ for fascists. In the aftermath of the BNP court case in November, Jim Moody argued that “it is essential that those who claim to be socialists must defend free speech, not imply that it should be denied to those like the extreme right” (‘BNP acquittal heralds fresh attack on rights’, November 16).

I’ve no interest in being linked to this kind of nonsense.

Excuse me not
Excuse me not

Stalinist mythology

Lawrence Parker, your reviewer of the recently republished Our flag stays red, by Phil Piratin, correctly tells us the book, written in 1948, was intended to enhance the credibility of the CPGB in the early stages of the cold war, rather than provide an accurate record of East End struggles during the years preceding the outbreak of World War II (‘The next Stepney’, January 18).

As a work of history, vis-à-vis battles against landlords and employers during the 1930s, and recording the policies of the leaders of British communism at that time, it is grossly misleading. Today’s socialists are advised to look deeper into what happened in those years: a good starting point is Out of the ghetto: my youth in the East End - communism and fascism 1913-1939 by (the late) Joe Jacobs. The 300 pages he left us are packed with documentation and detailed memories of the events that today are tragically misrepresented in versions created by the remnants of the Stalinist myth-makers.

Joe Jacobs was secretary of Stepney Communist Party during those crucial years, which led up to and included the legendary battle of Cable Street - followed soon after by the election of Phil Piratin, in November 1937, as the first communist councillor in London. That Mosley’s infamous march was unable to even enter Cable Street was largely due to the efforts of Joe Jacobs and his colleagues, with the solid support of the local Jewish community and the Irish dockers of Shadwell and Wapping - against the line of the official Communist Party leaders (for whom Piratin was to become their local spokesman). For his efforts, Joe Jacobs was to be expelled from the Communist Party in 1938.

The incomplete fragments published posthumously as Out of the ghetto, in 1978, are a heavily documentary autobiography. As a Jewish teenager growing up in Bethnal Green, Joe Jacobs experienced first hand what the British Union of Fascists was all about. The blackshirt battalions were increasingly active, beating up Jews or ‘Jew-lovers’, hospitalising ‘lefties’ whom they caught distributing anti-fascist leaflets, physically attacking any who questioned their speakers on the street corners.

The fate of Jews in Hitler’s Reich was becoming common knowledge and a broad campaign with strong support throughout the East End demanded asylum for refugees from Germany. Most weekends in Stepney, at least half a dozen street corner meetings took place regularly, almost always under the ‘supervision’ of police with drawn truncheons.

Following Mosley’s meeting at Olympia on June 7 1934, where the unbridled violence of the fascist stewards caused universal outcry, a young, local businessman, Phil Piratin, joined Stepney Communist Party. In his foreword to Our flag stays red, Piratin implies he was a communist supporter of some years’ standing, and the first chapter of his book is titled ‘But no-one asked me to join’. The absurdity of his claim is apparent to any who attended meetings at the time (or at any time!), where every meeting appealed for recruits, where every copy of the Daily Worker carried an application form. Piratin is desperate to provide himself with a history he doesn’t possess.

A split was forming within Stepney Communist Party. Many rank-and-file battles were against rent increases and evictions. Almost weekly, campaigners were being fined and/or imprisoned for resisting the bailiffs and now, the new challenge - regular and brutal assaults on Jewish people, often women or youngsters. The internal position of the Stepney branch was getting very strained over the tactics to be adopted vis-à-vis Mosley. Phil Piratin and other committee members strongly opposed Joe for wanting to fight the fascists on the streets, combined with conducting mass activity amongst unemployed workers.

The Communist Party line was that the battle against fascism should be fought primarily in the trade unions. Phil Piratin and his side-kick, Greenblatt, were in fact both businessmen, not engaged in union work at all, but they supported King Street: Mosley’s march should not be opposed.

On September 30, the Daily Worker wrote: “… At Trafalgar Square, however, on Sunday October 4, the YCL is holding a great meeting to collect £100 for the people of Spain. A call has been sent out by the London district of the CP for workers to go in their thousands to Trafalgar Square, and after the demonstration to march through East London’s streets to show their hatred of Mosley’s support for the fascist attack on democracy in Spain.”

As Joe tells in his book, “We in the CP were supposed to tell people to go to Trafalgar Square and come back in the evening to protest after Mosley had marched. The pressure from the people of Stepney who went ahead with their own efforts to oppose Mosley left no doubt in our minds that the CP would be finished in Stepney if this was allowed to go through, as planned by our London leaders.”

Joe and Harry Cohen were summonsed to King Street to meet with John Mahon and other London district committee (LDC) members; they were lectured on the importance of “supporting the Spanish people fighting Franco”. Joe argued that “the best way to help the Spanish people is to stop Mosley marching through east London. It was the same fight.” Other discussions took place with full-time party officials in King Street and the leadership, realising the danger of losing members en masse in Stepney, announced a change in line. Members would be told not to meet at Trafalgar Square, but instead to go to Aldgate, on October 4.

But the wheels of bureaucracy run slowly. Joe tells of his horror when he opened his Daily Worker on the day before the march to read: “All anti-fascists are asked to rally to the Embankment (opposite Temple station) at 2.30pm on Sunday. There will be a march to Trafalgar Square …” The change in line had come too late for the party press. Hastily, leaflets for the Spanish rally were superimposed, asking readers to take themselves to Aldgate.

All the details of this frantic debate disappear in Piratin’s Our flag stays red, where he offers instead, a single sentence: “The LDC gave consideration to October 4.” Nothing about what was ‘considered’, nothing about the rank and file victory over the King Street leadership.

The victorious battle of Cable Street has been allowed to become part of Stalinist mythology and, as such, is still celebrated each year. The truth needs to be remembered - but it won’t be found in Phil Piratin’s scribblings!

Stalinist mythology
Stalinist mythology