Letters

What’s the rush?

I agree with Jim Moody that we need to look at the redevelopment of airships as a means of transport. Modern welding techniques, plastics for the skins and helium would make them far safer than the hydrogen-filled Zeppelins of the 1930s. They would not be as fast as jet airliners, but would require energy for thrust, not for lift. And why should people be in such a hell-fired rush to get anywhere?

However, I disagree with him on nuclear fission. This has the problem that it creates radioactive waste which remains dangerous for thousands of years. The material can also be used in the manufacture of atomic weapons. Nuclear fusion may provide an answer, but would have the problem of thermal pollution (although cold fusion may solve this). Its development would require the type of massive investment that capitalism, which has invested in fossil fuels and fission, is unable to provide. Again developing wind, wave and solar power requires investment.

As a bus user, I welcome the congestion charge. It has cut pollution and made the buses run more efficiently. And, whatever else he has done, Ken Livingstone has put more of them on London’s roads. I have never had an overseas holiday and don’t feel deprived because of this. Nor do I want a stack of shiny consumer products. Most of what I have is second-hand.

We need new values, where what people are and do is far more important than what they have and consume; where solidarity and mutual aid replace myopic individualism and consumerism. People must be encouraged to reduce both their consumption and their numbers.

Humanity’s choice, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, is socialism or barbarism. And, if capitalism is allowed to continue destroying the environment, the barbarism will be far worse than we can imagine.

What’s the rush?
What’s the rush?

Jim Moody responds: What’s the rush?

During the drafting of my article ‘nuclear fusion’ was at some point changed to ‘nuclear fission’ - a mistake for which I take responsibility.

Terry is, of course, correct in what he says about nuclear fission, which presents much greater risks to humanity than nuclear fusion.

Jim Moody responds: What’s the rush?

Reminder

In reply to David Connor on the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat (Letters, February 8), might I remind you of what Engels said. Writing on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune, Engels stated:

“Of late, the social democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Reminder

SSP mish-mash

The Scottish Socialist Party’s leadership has had an interesting relationship with the historical events of ‘Red Clydeside’. There have been a number of attempts to romanticise the events of 1910-1919 - presenting John Maclean as an infallible hero beyond criticism and representing Glasgow as the west’s Petrograd.

The position has been bound up with the party’s policy on the Scottish national question - Maclean’s Scottish workers’ republic being the theoretical and historical underpinning and rationale for the policy of an ‘independent socialist Scotland’.

There is a lot of irony here. If Red Clydeside showed anything, it is that without a unified Marxist leadership that takes positions on domestic questions with an international context very much in mind, one is guaranteed to fail.

The main forces on the far left at the high point of Red Clydeside were the Independent Labour Party, the De Leonite Socialist Labour Party and Maclean’s British Socialist Party. Then, as now, it was divided.

The ILP were the great networkers, who worked hard to establish coordinating links between the Clyde workers’ committee, the trades councils and rent strike committees. Without them there would have been no Red Clydeside to speak of, yet their politics were reformist.

They believed that parliamentary democracy could be made to concede reforms on housing, rents, etc, through extra-parliamentary pressure - the reforms being an end in themselves. The ILP’s best known figures were Davie Kirkwood, the shop steward at Parkhead’s Beardsmores, and his mentor, John Wheatley.

The De Leonites dominated the Clyde workers’ committee. Their principal concern was to protect the position of the skilled craftworkers in the heavy engineering and shipbuilding plants on the Clyde - a position threatened by new technology and the introduction of large numbers of women into the munitions factories during the war.

In fact their key demand in 1918 was for the return of women to the home to protect the position of the male skilled worker. Their focus in 1919 was for a shorter working week - the strike over 40 hours aimed to reduce the impact of unemployment at the end of the war - but a strike that was wrongly focused and “premature” in John Maclean’s view (he supported it once it broke out).

The Maclean group in the BSP - James McDougal, Peter Petrov and Maclean himself - viewed the events as part of a series of actions that had taken place at the end of World War I, as capitalism went into real crisis, and put forward demands and tactics as part of an internationalist perspective. Maclean’s Marxist education classes were central not just to the struggle against capitalism, but, linked to that, a struggle against the reformism and syndicalism of the far left on the Clyde workers’ committee.

Maclean in January-February 1919 was in England and Wales setting up unofficial rank and file miners’ reform committees in preparation for a UK-wide miners’ strike- a strike he thought would be both generalised and political in nature.

But it was not the Maclean group’s aims and tactics that prevailed - it was the syndicalism of the De Leonites and Gallagher in particular that dominated the Clyde workers’ committee - with disastrous effect.

The British ruling class were well aware of the divisions on the far left and exploited them to the full. Lloyd George and Churchill were careful to mix repression with concessions and marginalised Lord Weir on the munitions committee (Weir wanted all strikes on the Clyde to be treated as seditious).

They conceded on the rent strikes and issues of municipal housing so central to the ILP’s aims. There was also a reduction in the working week from 54 to 47 hours in the wake of the 40 hours strike in 1919 - concessions aimed to pacify the ILP and SLP and increase division between them and the Maclean group. In contrast, for the leading Marxists - Maclean , Peter Petrov and MacDougall - there was heavy repression, particularly for John Maclean.

The SSP ideologically now is a mish-mash of Scottish nationalism, reformism, Latin American populism and Cuban Stalinism. It is everything other than Marxist as a biodegrading Militant continues to jettison its kitsch-Trotskyist past.

People have been recruited to this mish-mash of ideas over a seven-year period and as a consequence there is a real hostility to Marxist ideas, not just on the Scottish national question, but on a whole range of issues, from Marxist education to industrial strategy, to the nature and role of the paper.

While it may be possible for such a mish-mash to work together on specific policy issues for a certain amount of time, the party is doomed to suffer the same fate as the Red Clydesiders and the Maclean group unless this situation can be turned around inside the party and Marxism made the dominant force.

SSP mish-mash

Contradiction?

I was amused to read the verbose denunciation of Sinn Féin written by Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity party press officer, John Wight, for their alleged capitulation to the Brit state.

This surely can’t be the same John Wight who makes the banning of airguns in Scotland the centre of his campaigning work in this particular province of the British state? I think we should be told.

Contradiction?
Contradiction?

Counterrevolution

In her letter in last week’s paper, Zoe Ellwin moans:

“Why are socialist societies so fragile, and so undemocratic, that their stability relies on the continued public appearances of elderly leaders? Surely, at 80, Castro should be allowed to retire and a new government should be elected by the population. It creates a poor impression of the quality of democracy under socialism that its enemies eagerly await, and its friends dread, the consequences of the death of a single sick old man”.

Cuba is not a socialist society, but rather a bureaucratically deformed workers’ state. It is a workers’ state because it defends collectivised property forms, but to call Cuba ‘socialist’ is to accept the Stalinist theory of ‘socialism in one country’.

I totally agree that the future of the Cuban state should not depend upon the survival of one man, and this is why Trotskyists recognise the vulnerability of Cuban society to counterrevolution. A healthy workers’ state would be based upon workers’ councils (or ‘soviets’ in Russian).

However, to advocate that “a new government should be elected by the population” is to ignore the fact that, albeit refracted through the bureaucracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat exists in Cuba, and to advocate elections by the population at large is to liquidate the question of which class rules.

While I’m no apologist for Stalinist bureaucracy, neither am I an advocate for inviting counterrevolution in Cuba. The class question is ultimately decided by the bullet, not by the ballot (you saw what happened in Nicaragua).

Us Trotskyists stand for the unconditional military defence of the Cuban state against imperialist counterrevolution, which includes US meddling in Cuban politics through the power of the dollar and political subterfuge.

Delusion

Kevin Murphy seems to suffer under the delusion that in politics it’s the numbers that matter, as opposed to the ideas.

This is shown by his claim that the Campaign for a Marxist Party represents “nothing” by the fact that its meetings are small.

If such logic holds, then we might as well all give up on Marxism right now and become obedient rank and file Blairites, as clearly the validity of ideas in a given society is only made apparent by the number of people following them.

Personally I’m very optimist about the CMP and can certainly appreciate the Weekly Worker’s commitment to genuinely ironing out theoretical issues, as opposed to the numerous papers on the left all attempting their own brand of populist economism.

Delusion

Various thoughts

“... please stop the CMP nonsense. You represent nothing,” wrote Kevin Murphy in last week’s Weekly Worker. Ah, but we could!

No party (yet) represents people who live in the free, fluid, modern world in which a good 10 million Britons are firmly atheist and many more undecided; in which there are people are of mixed race, mixed faith, mixed ideology, people for whom sexual and racial equality aren’t issues and to whom the homogenous blocs of identikit people that exist in the minds of politicians are alien.

There can be no claim that Marx, Lenin or Engels were infallible or that all they said is true for all times and all places; Marxism is a rational doctrine. Today’s politics abounds with dinosaurs and rampant irrationality and these are tiresome.

The Marxist equation contains a number of variables. One of them is the raising of consciousness. Unfortunately Marxists generally have a limited, going on negative, understanding of levels of consciousness, which is perhaps the primary reason why the revolution hasn’t happened and will not happen and why attempts to make it happen have ended in tears.

I think that the solid citizens of east London should screw both the BNP and Respect by electing communist MPs, dedicated to the grassroots problems of the working class, opposed of course to religion other than as a private matter, committed equally to anti-racism, to women’s and gay rights and to total freedom of expression, and against the war.

Various thoughts

Ignorance

Given the current interaction between the left and religion, I suspect that articles such as that by Gerry Downing ‘The sigh of the oppressed’) and Alan Debenham’s letter last week are inevitable. Perhaps to those unfamiliar with the study of religion such articles might seem impressive.

To those who have studied religion, Gerry’s assertions seem antiquated and irrelevant. The idea that Marx was any sort of authority on the origins of Judaism is laughable. Almost as laughable as the economic reductionist approach that Marxists have sought to impose on religion. The sycophancy of the Socialist Workers Party to some variants of islam is but the different side of the same coin: at root a profound ignorance on the left about religion.

Alan’s assumption that religion is symbolic projection of some kind of emotional yearning for meaning shows how Marxists try to understand all religions - as if they are at root the same as some kinds of christianity.

If people want to genuinely understand religion rather than embarrass themselves with thinking that Marxism has somehow explained religion away, they might have to actually read books by religious people. CS Lewis’s Mere christianity is fairly basic and, for islam, Chris Hewer’s Islam: the first 10 steps would be a start.

Ignorance

Heroes?

In reply to Peter Manson, I would say that Ruth Kelly accepted the cabinet post - how she squares this with her conscience is her affair, so long as she does the job. As comrade Manson says, people should be judged on what they do, not on what they think. However, she is not opposed to equal rights for gays before the law, including their right to adopt. Anyway, the debate was in cabinet and a Labour cabinet shorn of hypocrisy would be inquorate.

Now, to look at comrade Manson’s heroes - the cabinet majority. Most of their debate was covered by confidentiality and so was not open to full, democratic accountability. Furthermore they are not opposed to religious bodies taking state money, so long as it is exclusively on the state’s terms.

So they are not arguing for secularism, but for bureaucratic control. They are not particularly concerned either how catholics following the teachings of their church exercise their judgement over homosexual clients, so long as they keep their opinions to themselves.

Homosexuals need to be confident that they are dealing with people that are not prejudiced against them. In my last letter I argued that specialisation would be the best way to ensure that (February 1).

So the cabinet majority is not primarily concerned with delivering a prejudice-free service so much as with the usual Labour Party bureaucratic target-setting and window-dressing. In fact, as we now know, the compromise that was worked out behind closed doors - namely that the catholic church is to be allowed a transition period while it adapts its practices, and that the transition will not end until after the next election - means that what has been agreed may be changed or even ditched altogether.

On the subject of ministering to their own flocks, what if, for example, a catholic woman asked her priest to help find a suitable home for her child and he did so? Should this be illegal? Babies may be born into no religion, but they are social products. Do parents, even dead ones, have no rights as to what happens to their children? Is not the tendency of the state to make itself the arbiter of all things social, when often they could be left to individuals directly concerned? If this was not the case, homosexuals would not need a legal right to adopt - they could do it anyway.

We should be suspicious of state power and restrict it - in this instance to ensuring that the welfare of the children is their sole concern. The question of homosexuality is an irrelevance and only raises its head because prejudice is a social reality which needs to be positively fought against. While the law can give homosexuals the right to adopt, it is incredibly ineffective in dealing with prejudice. Prejudice in practice is overcome by political debate and the ever changing material realities that informs human existence. Banning things has a long history of failure.

A further small quibble with Peter Manson’s reply. He says I imply that churches should for instance “be allowed to distribute state security to their own communities”. I did say that religious bodies should receive no state funds. Also the argument about advocating that people “use separate shops”, etc. I am in favour, as a rule, of people having the right to choose, if that is what he means.

Heroes?
Heroes?

Right track

Peter Manson is undoubtedly on the right track compared to your correspondents, Phil Kent and Denis Wellbeck.

Whether or not they discriminate against gays and lesbians, no religious institution ought to have an official imprimatur when it comes to running adoption agencies. This is not what communist regard as a legitimate religious activity. Let them pray, fast, sing and evangelise, but local authorities should stop placing babies and young children with religiously motivated charities.

No-one wants to stop a couple or a single parent getting either friends or relatives to look after their children. What is being debated here is the idea that it should be considered normal for the church, mosque, temple or synagogue to act as the subsidised and preferred intermediary. Only an anarchist would, as a matter of principle, oppose having the state play the leading role here. We do, after all, demand state education, state healthcare and state pension provision.

As for Ruth Kelly, exposing this bigot who passes herself off as minister for equality hardly amounts to supporting the majority in the cabinet who opposed her and Tony Blair. Yes, in the name of equality they want to force catholic agencies to recognise the right of homosexuals to adopt children. But we oppose such equality.

To the extent that communists stand for equality here, we are for the equality of believers and non-believers - and that means communists are actually against both sides when it comes to this particular cabinet spat. We are for secularism … put another way, the separation of church from the state and what should be its social functions and obligations.

Right track
Right track

Not so gothic

With regard to the obituary of Reg Weston in last week’s issue (‘Farewell to veteran communist activist’, February 8), surely the German defensive position was the Gustav Line, not the “Gothic Line”?

Not so gothic

Geo-interest

I think that the editor of the Weekly Worker should kindly ask all correspondents to its letters page to include a geographical location as to where they live when sending their emailed letters.

I find it of great interest to learn where correspondents live, whether they be located in the UK or around the world. I’m sure other readers of the Weekly Worker must have the same thoughts.

Geo-interest
Geo-interest

Good for UK

In relation to Peter Manson’s article, ‘For workers’ unity, for open borders’, if readers of the Weekly Worker are keen to know more about defending immigration and asylum, then I strongly recommend Philippe Legrain’s latest book: Immigrants: your country needs them.

Legrain’s highly readable and factual book demolishes the myths surrounding these areas and makes a positive case for allowing both high and low-skilled workers into the UK.

It’s a convincing read!

Good for UK

NCADC appeal

Those facing detention and deportation need the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns more than ever. For the last 12 years, NCADC has remained the only national organisation with a mandate to stop deportations. Many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘failed’ asylum-seekers who were facing deportation now live legally in the UK because NCADC empowered them to campaign.

But NCADC still faces a funding crisis and may have to reduce staff further. Already forced to reduce staff from four to two in the last few years, we will have to lay off one more in this year if we do not receive more funds.

NCADC is not a registered charity (being a charity would preclude political campaigning) and as such is not able to apply to most charitable trusts for funding. NCADC’s work is seen as unpopular by many and, despite strenuous efforts, we failed to attract any new ‘core’ funding in the last year.

NCADC closure would be a victory for the home office and an insult to the ‘communities of resistance’ and it would deepen the despair of ‘failed’ asylum-seekers. NCADC must stay!Please send any donations to the address below. Standing order forms can be downloaded from www.ncadc.org.uk/donations/donate.htm

NCADC appeal
NCADC appeal

Lacuna

Jim Moody rightly highlights the fact that the capitalists will avoid doing anything to tackle climate change that gets in the way of their profit-taking (‘Socialism or catastrophe’, February 8).

However, there is a lacuna in the article. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group I is probably the most conservative of climate predictions that has been released in the past couple of years. The scientists who contributed to it had to compromise on their more radical findings to arrive at a consensus. Yet the overall scientific consensus on climate change has been overwhelming for 10 years and more. Why did the politicians agree to the Kyoto protocol in 1997, if not to acknowledge there was a problem? But there was no mention in the working group’s report of the possible slowdown of the north Atlantic current and the release of tons of carbon dioxide from melting permafrost - the ‘tipping points’.

This report is only the end of the beginning, as the capitalist-friendly media, front organisations and hawks start producing propaganda and reasons why there should be business as usual. So they will jump on stories that put doubt on the human causes of global warming, such as recent evidence that shows the sun may have a greater influence on climate change because of the effect of cosmic rays on the atmosphere.

However, despite all of the column-inches devoted to climate change, there are other potential catastrophes for humanity, such as chemicals that mimic the female hormone, oestrogen, and uncontrolled releases of radiation. The challenge for socialists is to show up the capitalist arguments and make use of the best science has to offer.

Lacuna