Letters

Zimbabwe mood

The International Socialist Organisation Zimbabwe will be running issues of Socialist Worker weekly to cover events unfolding in the country. We have run a special supplement to capture the current mood, as people respond to the recent piecemeal agreement between the two major political parties.

Events are fast moving, as the economic crisis climaxes. Recently the government and the main opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, agreed on a constitutional amendment deal, which is a pure elitist settlement between the Zanu-PF government and the greedy in the MDC.

The mood in the country is full of possibilities of people who feel they have been sold out revolting against the MDC. Over the weekend about one million people, including ourselves, gathered in Bulawayo to discuss the way forward. It was generally agreed that civic society must put pressure on the MDC to withdraw from the deal and declare it will not participate in next year’s elections if there is no people-driven constitution.

Meanwhile all groups are mobilising for a people’s convention which would make a final decision should the MDC refuse to withdraw. There are high possibilities that civic society will create a strong social movement, which, unlike before, will be independent of the MDC and will demean the coming elections. From that movement will come an alternative to both the MDC and Zanu-PF.

This is what we have been arguing for since 2002.

Zimbabwe mood
Zimbabwe mood

Fertile ground

I was beginning to think the Campaign for a Marxist Party had evaporated. After weeks in which the debates on its programme were the main fare in the Weekly Worker, culminating in a series of articles by Mike Macnair, we then had weeks of famine. We now have columns of ridicule about alcohol and a complaint that the CMP had the audacity to snub the CPGB (‘Sober up or spiral down further into irrationality’, September 27).

In my view, the CMP should have been about people studying and debating Marxism without being constrained by party allegiances - no need for formal membership, let alone a permanent chairman or other structures, before a consensus emerged on what sort of party was desired.

The CPGB evidently saw the CMP as fertile ground for recruiting. After all, what was the difference between a party that was open to debate and a debate that was open to all parties?

There were two major problems. Firstly, there was confusion on all sides between ‘Marxist unity’ and ‘left unity’; the CPGB made no effort to clear this up. Secondly, many of those drawn into the process have or had some affinity with the Trotskyist tradition, whereas the CPGB sought to promote a different tradition as the orthodoxy it saw itself defending. This meant digging a trench between itself and signs of Trotskyism in the CMP; that seemed to be the purpose of Macnair’s offerings in particular.

In the CPGB world all sorts of political aberrations can be represented as typical of Trotskyism, and an example found, from among the flotsam of the left, to ‘prove’ the point. Criticising dialectical materialism - bring on Phil Sharpe the ‘Trotskyite’. (Incidentally, historically, opposition to the dialectic has been an early sign of defection from Trotskyism rather than adherence.)

The nearer the CPGB gets to discussing actual Trotskyism, the more bizarre its arguments get. Hence, the demand in the Transitional programme of 1938 for a sliding scale of wages and hours is portrayed as leading logically to the politics of (the Stalinist) Pol Pot! In fact, the sliding scale and also the idea of factory committees were drawn from the actual experience of the working class internationally. Mike Macnair’s alternative to the Transitional programme is his “democratic republic”.

A central theme of Marxism is that the force that can overthrow capitalism grows within the old society. As workers have no property, the new mode of production must be based on ideas, consciousness and organisation. The workers themselves will create the organisations that will wrest control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie, and go on to form the basis of a workers’ state and the means by which the economy can be run.

Of course, we cannot dictate this or determine in advance what forms of struggle will be adopted, but, mindful of the history of past struggles, we can hardly be agnostic about it either. Moreover, if workers do not take the means of production, social change will inevitably come from above via a parliament, however that might be dressed up, leading to bureaucratic forms of rule.

This dimension is totally missing from Macnair’s argument. Also missing is another important point from the Transitional programme: that the crisis facing humanity reduces to the crisis of leadership of the working class. Worse still, his “minimum demands” are to be bargaining counters for admission to a “workers’ government” under the democratic republic: ie, a coalition with partners unknown. As with the Second International, the split between minimum and maximum demands supported by Macnair and the CPGB will mean that socialism will be deferred to the indefinite future. The CPGB appears to be in opposition to the lessons of October 1917, and nobody in the CMP seems to have noticed. To persist on this road would be to end up with a social democratic model of politics.

For the CPGB to look honestly at the history of the working class and of Marxism, it would have to look at its own roots in the Stalinist movement. Reclaiming Marxism while rubbishing the Fourth International must be a difficult task.

Fertile ground
Fertile ground

All drunk

I was sitting directly across the table from John Bridge at the CMP committee meeting he writes about in last week’s Weekly Worker. During the afternoon I drank from two pots of teas with two slices of lemon. I am teetotal during political meetings.

On Jack’s left was Phil Sharpe, who drank orange juice. On my left was Matthew Jones, who was driving back to Glasgow after the meeting. I don’t think he would drink much alcohol. Yet John Bridge says we were all drunk! And to reinforce the point there is a giant photograph of a pint of porter. What can one say? Marxists are supposed to tell the truth, as it is, not create their own reality.

John tells us that the CPGB have rules of conduct. Meetings start on time, there is no alcohol drunk before or during meetings. We know from the CMP’s June 23 conference that the CPGB vote as a bloc. Their Provisional Central Committee caucuses at the front, deciding on tactics. Whatever they decide, the members are expected to vote accordingly, whether they agree or not.

Yet John does not like rules of conduct or even the democratic discussion of rules of conduct for the CMP. He encourages comrades to abuse, insult and ridicule each other - to show contempt for the committee. But not, of course, to pick on other members of the CPGB - only targeted non-members. Before June 23 it was Phil Sharpe; now he has turned on John Pearson and myself.

And who imposes the rules of conduct of the CPGB? In the course of explaining why he should be respected and represents the majority in the CMP, John tells us that he is chair of the PCC of the CPGB. So the CPGB has a permanent chair who is presumably custodian of the rules, but John objects to the CMP having one. Double standards or what?

John says that I have threatened to boycott the CMP’s November conference and have lost faith in the membership. In fact, I have stated categorically that I intend to be at the conference and have challenged him to produce the statements where I say otherwise. So far he has failed to do so.

John states that John Pearson and myself are not fit to stand as CMP committee members in November. At the June 23 conference John proposed a seven-man slate for the CMP committee. On that slate were … John Pearson and Dave Spencer. The fact that he had not bothered to ask us if we wanted to stand on his slate is apparently of no consequence. After all, comrades in the CPGB are expected to follow the leader.

Now comrades in the CMP will be expected to do the same - provided, of course, the leader is John Bridge. Comrades can judge for themselves who is the Bonapartist.

All drunk
All drunk

CPGB censor

John Bridge’s attempt to deny me a platform on the question of the contemporary working class is nothing more than the rejection of free speech within the CMP. Do the CPGB actually believe in polemic, or rather polemic for a chosen elite? What is Bridge afraid of?

The CMP should reject his call for censorship, and treat it with the contempt it deserves.

CPGB censor
CPGB censor

Blog off

Whilst Liam Mac Uaid and Andy Newman have been a good source of information about Respect (which must be of interest only to an ever diminishing number of socialists), Cameron Richards is correct in his castigation of them (‘Pots calling the kettle black’, September 27).

But the rot is deeper. Mac Uaid has previously floated the possibility of a left political party being prosecuted in connection with the Sheridan affair and so possibly alerted the state to a course of action that they hadn’t yet considered. And Newman has accused me publicly (and falsely) of breaking anti-terrorist laws. Both of my messages to them, pointing out these breaches of elementary socialist discipline in providing material of possible interest to the state, were met with scorn.

But that is how many lefts conduct themselves in the blog world, with such things as the lazy designation of other lefts as ‘fascists’ common. Now the left hardly operates with dignity in other public forums, but at least you’d expect abuse, such as calling someone a ‘scab’, to either be backed up or withdrawn, even when it’s used between political enemies.

It’s a symptom of the disconnection of many left bloggers from socialist politics that their lack of activity other than behind a keyboard has divorced them from feeling the need to follow any of the discipline that lefts should operate to try and protect themselves from the state.

And it’s also noticeable that the British blog world has not yet used the opportunity the net presents to develop tools that could be useful for socialists. Where are the joint forums to discuss issues between the many different tendencies in the British left and that could enable us to move forward with joint actions; or a place where trade union activists could exchange information or a destination where basic socialist propaganda could be made for specific groups such as school students?

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who would like to be involved in building such a left portal project.

Blog off
Blog off

Defeat boycott

All socialists and communists should rejoice that the ‘boycott of Israel’ campaign has been defeated. The University and College Union has conceded defeat of this motion, on the grounds of academic freedom and that it is counter-productive in resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Mr Greenstein’s argument discredits the left by siding with Arab nationalism and reactionary anti-imperialism; by reinforcing a series of dangerous myths which, unwittingly or not, fosters anti-semitism (‘Solidarity with the oppressed’, September 27). Mr Greenstein’s argument is rooted in Stalinism.

To its discredit, Communist Student is repeating parrot-fashion this anti-semitic ideology, misleading and miseducating another generation of youth. The analogous (Orwellian) argument falsely equates ‘Israel/Zionism’ with ‘colonialism’, ‘Nazism’, ‘apartheid’, ‘racism’, etc, and ends by joining hands with Hamas and other gangsters in the Middle East bent on the destruction of Israel.

The Israeli government can be criticised, as in any democracy. But Mr Greenstein’s “solidarity” leads to the dead-end of violence and fruitless conflict. The defeat of the boycott against Israel should be built on, because it signals the movement of real solidarity between the democratic and progressive forces in the Israeli and Palestinian camps for a constructive solution to the conflict.

Sadly, Mr Greenstein’s pseudo-socialist “solidarity” is a gift to islamic fundamentalism and the fascists. Instead, solidarity with Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution, will enable us to achieve peaceful cooperation and movement towards a federation of democratic socialist states in the Middle East.

Defeat boycott

Patronising

Tony Greenstein should not patronise black people by suggesting that they instinctively “understand” the alleged “similarities” between Israel and apartheid South Africa. I know plenty of black people who are intelligent enough to understand that Greenstein’s comparison is simplistic bollocks.

Just because someone’s skin tone is dark doesn’t mean they are susceptible to political illiteracy, like Greenstein’s ignorant “apartheid” comparison.

Patronising
Patronising

Vote Labour?

Congratulations to Graham Bash for an honest analysis of the Labour  Party conference (‘Unions capitulate to Gordon Brown’, September 27). I watched much of it at home and was grateful that I no longer have to attend those sickening charades.

He is right: Brown is a bigger threat to socialists than Blair. So my question to Graham is, come the general election, which may be just weeks away, will Labour Briefing still be saying, ‘Vote Labour’?

Vote Labour?

Fight controls

Over the last three decades trade unionists have made a tremendous move forward in fighting racism. It is now seen as legitimate activity to support those under threat of deportation. However, fighting immigration controls is not an act of charity. This is because controls are deliberately calculated to weaken the labour movement itself.

Immigration controls split workers between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’, undermining wages and conditions. They criminalise bosses for hiring so-called ‘undocumented’ workers and transform employers into spies for the home office. They bring controls onto the workplace floor. They encourage workplace raids by the immigration service. They turn thousands of trade unionists into immigration officers, demanding the status of other workers and whether they have the correct documents. This happens in every personnel office at the point of recruitment.

But it goes further. Virtually all welfare provision - housing, hospital treatment, non-contributory benefits - are linked to immigration status. As a consequence, workers within local authorities, the NHS and benefit agencies now have the task of checking that status.

In March 2007, No One is Illegal organised a conference in Liverpool. This was well attended by over 100 trade unionists. The Finsbury branch of the RMT has called for a further conference to take place in London on Saturday March 29 2008. At a meeting to discuss this call, migrant organisations made representations that this should be a trade union and community conference to ensure that migrant and refugee communities had a central role.

We ask trade union organisations to sponsor the conference and send delegates. We are also asking for donations. Please send cheques to Finsbury Park RMT, clearly marked ‘Immigration conference’ on the back.

But it is not just about building the conference. The attacks on migrants are already happening. The need to defend people and fight back cannot wait until the end of March 2008. We want to develop a network of people who can respond or develop a response to these attacks. This is especially pertinent now that the Border and Immigration Agency and the employers will be starting to implement the new powers contained in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

If you want to get involved or would like a speaker for your branch or trades council, please email me at davidlandau9 @ a o l . c o m.

Fight controls