Letters

Good billionaire

Graeme Kemp asks how much a genuine socialist should own (Letters, March 8). As much as they can!

In the class struggle the more capital there is in the hands of the socialist, the more capital there is to wage war. If a comrade can own 10 homes or run a business, then he is a good socialist if he uses his profits to advance the cause.

If a socialist were to become a billionaire? Now that could be really interesting!

Good billionaire

CMP caricature

Peter Manson’s report on the Campaign for a Marxist Party’s March 10 meeting demands a response (‘CMP steps up a gear’, March 15).

Firstly, the Democratic Socialist Alliance is seriously committed to the CMP project, and this has been indicated by the admirable work that Matthew Jones and Dave Spencer have done to keep the show on the road.

However, there is concern that the CPGB is trying to dictate to the CMP, and this was expressed at the meeting by John Pearson, Phil Walden and myself.

Secondly, the various disagreements between CMP supporters at the meeting only go to prove that we are not some homogenous democratic centralist organisation.

Thirdly, Peter Manson’s article revealed that the real worry for the CPGB is the possibility that the eventual programme of the CMP will not be their Draft programme. This is precisely why Peter was so determined to caricature my arguments.

It would appear that Peter has never heard of the Russian Communist Party’s 1919 programme, which was essentially a propaganda tract against the opportunism of the Second International and also analysed capitalist development and why it represented the possibility for world socialist revolution. Lenin, Bukharin and Trotsky recognised that if people are to be convinced about the necessity of communism it is vitally important to show why present society represents the potential for a historical alternative to capitalism.

Presumably Peter thinks such a task is superfluous, and all we require are a collection of demands. Consequently, he does not seem to recognise one of the most important political contradictions of contemporary social reality: on the one hand, most people recognise the need to improve society, but, on the other hand, they do not consider communism to be an historical alternative.

The DSA draft programme seeks to address this contradiction and elaborates a strategy of workers’ control in order to connect the impulse to challenge the limitations of the present with the potential for the communist future. This strategy shows that the draft programme does not reject an action component, but that this aspect is linked to an attempt to understand contemporary capitalism. Does Peter think that such an analysis is futile and unnecessary?

Fourthly, the draft programme is not meant to be the egotistical projection of some supposedly great theoretician. Indeed, the draft programme will be substantially revised in the democratic process of discussion about its contents.

The DSA is about to start these discussions, and the draft programme will soon be on the DSA and CMP website. We will welcome any serious comments about its contents.

Also, an article on the method of the draft programme is in the first issue of Marxist Voice (the CMP periodical) and a pamphlet about the principles of the programme has been published by the DSA. If the CPGB is serious about discussing the question of programme why not evaluate the contents of these published items?

Fifthly, I am mystified as to why Phil Walden and I are effectively called uncritical cheerleaders for the Socialist Party’s Campaign for a New Workers’ Party. We will be supporting the DSA and CMP intervention at the June 13 recall conference of this campaign and the call for it to be made democratic and accountable.

Furthermore, the draft programme calls for a workers’ party with a revolutionary programme - not the same stance as the Socialist Party!

CMP caricature

Build trust

I expected Peter Manson’s report on the Campaign for a Marxist Party’s last members’ meeting to treat comrades who spoke at it in the same way that CPGB members are treated when they speak at aggregate meetings - an approach recommended by Mary Godwin in her letter in response to Dave Craig’s complaints about his ideas being described as “eccentric” at a previous CMP meeting (Letters, March 8). Mary wrote that in adopting this approach, which would build trust and confidence and hence unity, she would try to avoid polemic. Instead, Peter took a hackish, narrow polemical approach.

Comrades John Pearson, Phil Walden and Phil Sharpe are dismissed as being too undisciplined for a Marxist party: “The discipline of a communist fighting formation is not for these comrades.” Comrade Sharpe’s ideas are described as “eccentric”.

Recently, Hillel Ticktin made the point that if we are going to succeed in the CMP we would need a different culture from the Leninist/Trotskyist sects where personal enmity between group members reproduces the political hatreds within bourgeois political organisations. Some goodwill is needed.

It is not true that Phil Sharpe has been uncritical of the Socialist Party and their Campaign for a New Workers’ Party. He has criticised their lack of democracy and running the campaign as a party front, to be turned off and on at the diktat of the party leadership. Phil’s conception of a workers’ party is different from the Socialist Party’s.

He does not agree with their method, which is to build a reformist organisation that will somehow acquire a revolutionary programme. His position is to build a workers’ party through the conscious struggle to develop a revolutionary programme. His model of the programme is the ABC of communism by Bukharin and Preobrazensky.

My criticisms of some of Phil’s formulations about what kind of party is needed did not appear in the ‘report’, which should have been about the political positions of various comrades in order to clarify the differences, not a personal attack on comrades. We could have done without the gleeful focus on the fact that the Democratic Socialist Alliance comrades expressed different views. There are differences between CPGB comrades. There should be toleration of differences.

I suspect that behind Peter’s polemic is the factional use of unity as a tool to split other organisations. Let’s bury them, as Plekhanov would have said.

But the correct approach is to build trust by discussing differences and taking part in joint action, despite past animosity.

Build trust
Build trust

Anti-semitism

Considering the fact that Tony Greenstein’s motion was brutally rejected by 96% of those at the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign’s annual general meeting, I wonder why exactly the Communist Party provide the man with a platform (‘Solidarity and the SWP’s favourite anti-semite’, March 15). Isn’t the CPGB marginal enough?

How come the Communist Party lets Greenstein, a man who has been banned by various institutes (NUS, LSE, etc) for being associated with racial hatred, defame Gilad Atzmon, a man who has a clean record and who has never been banned? He is a man who fights racism day and night.

These are Greenstein’s words: “SWP members in PSC like Sabby Sagall voted to support the executive, whilst Ray Sirotkin of Socialist Action and Ben Soffa of the soft-Zionist Jews for a Just Peace for Palestinians spoke in its support. They all provided a fig leaf of Jewish support for their crass tactics. Having never once raised the issue of DYR [the Deir Yassin Remembered group - ed] or anti-semitism, keeping their heads down in the tradition of the Jewish misleadership, they played the role of Judas.”

Comrades, in case you are asleep, the above is crude anti-semitism. You better get on with your editorial team. You have given a platform to a racist.

Anti-semitism

Ignorant drivel

Tony Greenstein’s sectarianism is matched only by his arrogance. When the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which is supposed to be a broad-based movement in solidarity with the Palestinians, correctly voted overwhelmingly to reject Greenstein’s ideologically narrow and long-winded thesis on Zionism he denounces the membership for having an “extremely low level of political consciousness”. What a way to win support for a minority position, comrade.

Greenstein then infantilises those with a different viewpoint to him as being susceptible to anti-semitic ideas. This sort of ignorant drivel means Greenstein will spend the rest of his political life on the sidelines - which is almost certainly a blessing.

Ignorant drivel

Copy editor!

This is a comment I placed on my blog, http://peacepalestine. I realise I am addressing those who are hostile in an a prioristic way, but, all the same, I will post my comment here for any who may wish to read it.

The indomitable Tony Greenstein had to get in the last word on the voting (talk about not being able to handle defeat ...) and he wrote his own opinion about it in a piece on some online political paper, the Weekly Worker. It doesn’t say anything new, actually, but these two bits raised my brows.

“Immediately the resolutions from JAZ were defeated, both the Zionists and Atzmon/DYR proclaimed that there had been a famous victory for anti-semitism.”

Huh? Where did anyone in the Atzmon/DYR camp (let’s call it that for simplicity’s sake) claim that there was any famous (or infamous) victory for anti-semitism? You and Engage did that. I think you need to rewrite the paper, Tony. This time use a copy editor. There are some good ones around.

“They all [the Jews at the meeting who voted against the motion and did not support Tony and Roland] provided a fig leaf of Jewish support for their crass tactics. Having never once raised the issue of DYR or anti-semitism, keeping their heads down in the tradition of the Jewish misleadership, they played the role of Judas.”

Double huh? I thought it was taboo to use the roles of those of the principal narrative of christianity to explain value judgments, especially when they are being attached to Jews. Tony, you must understand that if you and your allies do not accept these analogies, you should be careful when using them. Copy editor!

Copy editor!

Baseball batty

Stuart King is of the opinion that the “battle of ideas” with the BNP can only be won by “baseball bats” and that the policy of no platform is the only way that reactionary ideas and counterrevolutionary movements can be defeated. He may now be a member of Permanent Revolution, but it seems that the almost frantic revolutionary Nostradamism of Workers Power has not quite left his system.

I do not deny that some in the BNP dream of an openly fascist organisation that will eventually rise to power. Many have violent records. However, in its attempt to become ‘respectable’ the BNP no longer organises armed gangs. Rather, its policies revolve around getting votes by blaming muslims and every recent migrant for social problems in Britain.

Nor do I deny that fascist organisations can exist outside a revolutionary situation, as comrade King claims I do - I merely asked whether it was still correct to define the BNP as fascist in view of its changed nature. The point about defining fascism - as opposed to fascist organisations - as “the victory of counterrevolution in a revolutionary period” is to locate its source: it arises out of capital’s last-ditch urge to survive, and must have the support of at least a substantial section of the bourgeoisie. In other words, our main fire should be aimed at the system and the ruling class itself, not marginal organisations that do not attract much support at the present.

That is not to ignore the possibility of the BNP gaining ground amongst backward sections of the working class - it has proved itself perfectly capable of getting more votes than the far left. It can do so because its ‘solutions’ are of the kind that are often spontaneously reproduced within capitalist society: defend our ‘common British interest’, uphold the traditional values of ‘law and order’ and fight foreign competitors. As I pointed out in my original article, the BNP’s ideas “are not so far removed from those of the mainstream” in any case (Communist Student February).

Which brings us back to our main difference with comrade King - his frankly ludicrous notion that it is possible to defeat constantly reproduced reactionary ideas with “a couple of baseball bats”. It is possible to take out an individual in that way, but will it eradicate the ideas? To ask the question is to answer it.

If comrade King were to focus on this point, it might lead him to question his tactical dogmatism regarding how the far right should be fought. Counter-violence can be an effective tactic. But it cannot substitute for winning the argument. I am fully aware of the idiocy of Stalinism in its approach to the threat of fascism, and I can assure the comrade that neither I nor the CPGB are of the opinion that preventing confrontation in order to have a jolly good debate is the way to defeat the right.

The main point is not to show individual fascists the error of their ways, but to demonstrate to our class the false nature of far-right ideas. The mass of workers must be won against those who seek to divide us and the wielding of “a couple of baseball bats” by a self-appointed elite is no substitute for that.

In my article I asked: “If a popular elected officer of your student union suddenly announced they had joined the BNP, what would you do? Organise a boycott of the union premises? Try to stop the officer getting into the building? Or would you demand an emergency general meeting, where everyone - including the new BNP recruit - could have their say, and propose a motion on no confidence and call fresh elections?”

Comrade King’s response is simplistic and pathetic in equal measure: “Drive them from office and off the campus.” Excuse me, but don’t the mass of students - they have just elected the officer, remember - have any role to play? In such circumstances it would be essential to win them to think again - and being seen to deliberately deny them such a role is a sure way of alienating them. If the BNP recruit refused to abide by the vote of no confidence or recognise the result of fresh elections, that would be the time to “drive them from office and off the campus” - with the support of the majority!

Under concrete circumstances (eg, the known support of the majority, the possibility of mass mobilisation) it can be tactically correct to demand no platform for fascists. Yet to insist that we should adopt the same tactic on every occasion is to weaken our anti-fascist armoury and can actually play into the hands of the far right.

Baseball batty

Taxing business

Over-reliance on the corporate media can often lead to possibly otherwise well-intentioned commentators accidentally misrepresenting the position of other parties. Mr Liam O Ruairc quotes Marc Coleman of The Irish Times in saying that Sinn Féin’s position is for a corporation tax rate of 17.5% north and south of the border in Ireland (‘Province of permanent instability “normalises”’, March 15). This implies a position calling for a cut in corporation tax for business in the north from 30% to 17.5%.

In fact, the party’s position is to increase corporation tax in the south from 12.5% to 17.5% and to reduce the lower rate of corporation tax in the north, currently at 19% and applying to smaller companies with profits from €50,001 to €300,000, to the same level. Sinn Féin would maintain the rate of 30% for larger companies with profits of over €300,000.

The reason for the small reduction for smaller businesses is to encourage the development of indigenous small and medium enterprises. The detail of this, along with proposals for developing sustainable worker cooperatives (mentioned in Mr Coleman’s article and surprisingly absent from Mr O Ruairc’s piece, yet one would have thought applicable) is contained in the party’s enterprise policy document, A strong economy for an Ireland of equals.

Taxing business
Taxing business

What abolition?

Word is getting out that the people of the United Kingdom have a cause to celebrate - 200 years since the abolition of slavery. But how can the abolition of slavery be celebrated when slavery hasn’t been abolished?

The system we are forced to survive in, the capitalist system, is based on exploitation, where a majority of people are condemned to servitude for a minority, which capitalism not only protects, but encourages to pursue more profit without a justice system to discourage or stop them. For a system like that to thrive, slavery is a vital component.

Many people will shake their heads on this and think: what are you talking about? We have wages. Wages for what? People on the minimum wage are on a rate of pay issued by employers and backed by a state that is driven by this system. Marx warned workers about this in the Communist manifesto over 150 years ago!

Has anybody heard of an award wage? A wage where people can not only afford to buy the barest of essentials, but they can also buy nice things to eat from the local delicatessen, they can go to the theatre, they can buy brand-new products instead of constantly buying second-hand ones, to save money for future things like travel, a deposit for a house, etc. These are impossible goals for those working full-time under the minimum wage.

When the word ‘slavery’ is mentioned, people like to give it some distance from the times in which they live in today. It is far easier to conjure up images of African people shackled inside the wooden hold of a ship, suffering sickness and utter misery while being sent off to the plantations of the new world. This is not to put that important aspect aside, nor is it intended to forget the disgusting and despicable nature of slavery within that context. We need to remind ourselves that slavery is much more insidious and far-reaching than many people want to admit - and racism plays a part in this.

When you end capitalism, you end a system of exploitation. And when this does end, under what circumstances will slavery end once and for all? When working people are aware that the capitalist system is not there to serve us but, rather, we are there to serve it.

When we uproot and abolish the structures of hierarchy in this capitalist, monarchist United Kingdom, we will begin to create circumstances for ourselves that will enable us to create the society that will benefit and enrich our own lives. We will set an example and bring hope and inspiration to many enslaved working people across the world.

The countries in South America have got a head start on us. It is now time for this country, a country symbolic of the ‘developed’ world, to show workers in other developed countries what can be done to improve our lot and set an example by abolishing slavery, by eradicating the sub-citizenship status which working people have had forced upon them. That is when we will have cause to celebrate.

What abolition?

Reid response

Now another agent of capitalism and western imperialism, home secretary John Reid, says that foreigners come to Britain illegitimately and steal their benefits, use their services and undermine the minimum wage by working (‘Reid whips up xenophobia’, March 15).

Yes, it is true, but doesn’t he know what compels those workers to come to the first world? Through globalisation, western multinational companies are destroying the third world’s national industries, small industries and agricultural systems. Unemployment problems are therefore increasing in third world countries, which compels the workers to migrate to first world countries.

Actually, the main cause of the entire problem is the ideology of ‘modern capitalism’ which Reid advocates. If Reid really wants to solve these problems, I suggest he should stop serving the globalisation of capital and withdraw British soldiers from third world countries.

Workers have no country in this capitalist system. We believe in international socialism. We are internationalists!

Reid response
Reid response