Letters

Moron

‘Oxymoron’, the title of Alan Johnstone’s letter, minus the ‘oxy’, would be a fitting description of its author, who apparently cannot get his names straight.

Lenin never advocated abandoning struggle between the international working class and the international bourgeoisie for “a struggle of all patriotic elements - workers, peasants and capitalists together - against a handful of traitorous, unpatriotic elements who would have sold out to foreign imperialists.”

That was Stalin, Alan. Stalin and his Chinese counterpart, Mao Zedung.

Moron
Moron

Contradiction

Andrew Northall misses my point somewhat. It is not the general aims of the Irish Republican Socialist Party I have a problem with. It is their method and their record.

The Irish National Liberation Army, while currently inactive, has not disbanded and the IRSP do not renounce their past. This is a past rife with indiscriminate sectarian murders and internal feuding. Even if they had been straight-up anti-imperialists using the methods of what Trotsky and others called ‘individual terrorism’, Marxists must oppose them.

To quote Trotsky: “The disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?”

Substituting self-appointed liberators with an Armalite for the hard slog of the class struggle is a false method and completely contrary to Marxism. At its best, it is Blanquism; at its worst, anarchic adventurism. The terrorist cell is not controlled democratically by the class it claims to represent; instead it places itself at the head of the movement and resists removal by force.

My other point is that in much of their literature the International Marxist Tendency reject what they call ‘sects’ as irrelevant. They clearly state that Marxists must work within the mass organisations of the working class. The IRSP is as far removed from the Irish working class, from the day-to-day struggles of the class, as can be imagined. Now I do not agree that it is correct today to try and work within the Labour Party. There are times when entryism is a valid method and there are times when it is counterproductive. However the IMT raise entryism to a principle. How do they explain the contradiction between their theory and their application of that theory to the class struggle in Ireland?

Contradiction
Contradiction

Around the bloc

Simon Keller prods me again for a response to his direct question: what sort of ‘bloc’ would the Iranian working class form with their reactionary state by directing their fire towards an imperialist attack (something I conceded would be necessary)? I would call it a ‘tactical bloc’, and would use as the general guiding perspective, ‘maximum possible independence of class fighting forces’.

But, it may be objected, is this not exactly the same as the ‘military bloc’ favoured of Trotskyist orthodoxy? Well, it depends who you ask. Simon Keller, whose position on this in many details is similar to mine, calls it a ‘military bloc’, but others who use the ‘military support’ framework would consider it no bloc at all - eg, a Workers Vanguard piece on April 13 titled ‘Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself!’ (Others still, among Stalinists and the pseudo-Stalinists in the SWP/Respect, do consider it a bloc ... with imperialism.)

Again, I do not object to that framework because it is impossible to get attractive perspectives out of it, but because it is far too vague to really provide a sound basis for anything. It does not, as a principle of that kind must, produce sound tactics reliably. I prefer the basic Marxist principle of independent working class strength.

And, no, I haven’t been politically censoring myself. What would be the point when I have Andrew Murray to do it for me?

Around the bloc
Around the bloc

Pension reward

Russ Altman, a governor at the London School of Economics and pensions campaigner who was a former adviser to New Labour on pensions, has gone on record has saying that New Labour will go down in history as the government that destroyed pensions.

When a Liberal government first introduced pensions in 1909, they were 25% of the average wage; they were not universally paid and were means-tested. Today under New Labour the basic state pension is 15.64% of the annual wage and pensioners still face means-testing in the form of pension credit. The Thatcher Government ended the earnings link in 1981, which has meant that the purchasing power of the basic state pension has fallen year by year and is still falling.

In December 2001 an EU summit held in Belgium endorsed a declaration which said: “All member states should endeavour to attain 40% of their average wage (£223.32) as a basic state pension by 2007. Upon which a target in future of 60% (£334.98) should be aimed for.” Tony Blair signed that declaration.

When Labour was elected in 1997 there was an expectancy that pensioners would be looked after based on pre-election promises by both Blair and Brown in the Tory years. Blair has gone and many pensioners already realise that Brown will continue to ignore pensioners’ just demands for security and dignity in retirement - which they are entitled to as the creators of much of today’s wealth, during their working years. Instead their reward under New Labour - a state pension of just £84.25.

Pension reward
Pension reward

Life essence

The trouble with Paul B Smith’s analysis of the Campaign for a Marxist Party is that it starts from the claim that the dispute between the CPGB and the Democratic Socialist Alliance has everything to do with Stalinism.

The DSA comrades are all from Trotskyist backgrounds. Their intentions are confused and they can only maintain unity around what they are against, not around what they are for. They are against the CPGB because of our insistence on democracy. They want a situation where the minority has a de facto right to veto majority decisions if they do not like them. Remember the Socialist Party walking out of the Socialist Alliance after the Socialist Workers Party joined. Typical Trotskyism.

The comrade gives three recent examples of the “Stalinised form of Bolshevism” on the left. I will leave the examples of the SWP and Alliance for Workers’ Liberty aside and go straight to comrade Smith’s allegation against Mark Fischer - that Mark is in favour of “aggressive rudeness”. Comrade Smith has a regrettable tendency to overlook the details in an argument.

Namely, the DSA is proposing to produce a code of conduct that will force people to use ‘polite language’ rather than being allowed to say what they think in their own terms. This would be policed by a moderator, not through the moral and intellectual pressure of the CMP membership. Yet another example of Trotskyists trying to introduce liberal christian ideas of good manners and legalism, plus their very own bureaucratic pedantry, into a revolutionary organisation.

Comrade Fischer defended the democratic rights of comrades to express themselves forcefully, as they feel necessary. It is the personal responsibility of members to conduct themselves as honestly and fully as they are able. Others are entitled to take sides in the same manner. Comrades should not waste their time arguing whether they have been insulted or not and try to get to the bottom of their opponents’ ideas.

In fact, nobody has been throwing insults around like confetti; nobody has been threatening anyone with violence. In debate, hurtful things are indeed said, but that is the necessary price of free speech. I draw comrade Smith’s attention to the words ‘democracy’, ‘free speech’ and ‘personal responsibility’ and humbly ask what role did these concepts play in Stalinism?

Comrade Smith reduces the conflict within the CMP down to the Leninism of the CPGB. While you cannot seriously discuss the nature of the revolutionary party without discussing Lenin’s contribution to the subject, Lenin’s views can be challenged and so can the views of the CPGB. In fact, if the comrade is listening to what we say or is reading what we write, he should know that.

Comrade Smith thinks that the CMP is at risk of collapse because of Stalinist bullying by “atomised individuals and groups”. No, comrade, the project is at risk because of the lack of political understanding of the party question within Trotskyism.

We are not trying to bully anybody, but everything we are discussing in the CMP is highly contentious and how the process pans out is potentially very important for the working class. Politics is about resolving conflict through conflict and can be a bruising experience. It is, however, the life essence for revolutionaries.

Life essence
Life essence

SSP exclusion

As comrades will know, some members of the CMP are also members of the Scottish Socialist Party. We have always been open about our CMP membership within the SSP, whose conference took place on October 21. There were about 130 people in attendance and I spoke on the need for a Marxist party and on the need for socialists to reject nationalism.

Since the conference I have been informed that I have been excluded from the SSP’s online discussion forum for breaching the party’s constitution. The first I knew of this was when I tried to access the forum and got this message: “Sorry Sandy, you are banned from using this forum! Ruling of Glasgow regional council, October 4.”

I am not sure if I am simply banned from expressing my views on the discussion forum or banned from SSP membership. But how can you be a member if your views are deemed unacceptable and allegedly breach the constitution and you are permanently banned from a discussion list - not because of bad language or abuse, but for your political views?

I was not told that the party’s regional council was considering disciplinary charges against me. Nor was I told of the outcome until I tried to access the forum on October 22. I have attended SSP meetings since the date this decision was made, and was even an official delegate at the conference, yet nobody told me that I had been the subject of disciplinary action.

I have now been passed the following explanation of my ban/expulsion:

“This action was taken in the light of decisions taken at the Glasgow regional council of October 4 concerning a complaint against Sandy McBurney about postings that he has made to the bulletin board which were considered contrary to article 2.1 of the constitution of the SSP.

1. The views expressed by Sandy McBurney were unanimously agreed to be ‘unacceptable’.

2. The council’s view was that Sandy McBurney should be banned from the SSP discussion site until further notice.

3. The council’s decision would be explained to and discussed with Sandy McBurney by Richie Venton as Glasgow regional organiser and Andy H as his branch organiser.

4. The council did not control the discussion site and was therefore unable to implement its decision in practice. This could only be done by the site’s administrators in the light of the decisions and recommendations made by Glasgow regional council, to which the complaint had been made, under the terms of the SSP’s constitution.”

I have to add that neither Richie or Andy have raised this matter with me despite the fact that I have been in their company since October 4. I was not shown the wording of any complaint made against me nor had any opportunity to state my case before any party body.

I understand that my views on the SSP’s refusal to condemn George McNeilage’s action in secretly taping a party member and then selling the tape to the News of the World for personal gain are what have been deemed “unacceptable”. I have repeatedly tried to get the SSP to condemn this disgraceful action but without success.

There is no doubt that I have used strong language in condemning SSP actions regarding the McNeilage affair and also the SSP’s conduct in respect of the whole Tommy Sheridan defamation case. However, I have not been informed exactly which views of mine are deemed to be contrary to the party’s constitution. It is rather ironic that I am sanctioned for my political views while McNeilage’s actions are considered ‘not a party matter’ and even praised by some leading members.

I have not been informed whether I have the right of appeal against the decision of the regional committee. I think I would have to take any appeal to the 2008 conference. It would seem that I was not told of the decision so I would not be in a position to challenge that decision in front of the SSP conference on October 21. In effect, I have been disciplined without a hearing and without any knowledge of the charge against me and then not told of the outcome of this procedure until it was too late for me to challenge it in front of the conference. Shabby stuff.

SSP exclusion

Only boycott

The analysis proffered by Alan Johnstone suggests that the conflict in the Middle East is one between two equal sides. I ask him, from which country are the Palestinians currently extracting surplus value? Further, upon which country do the Palestinians have territorial ambitions? On the contrary, they are hanging onto their survival as a distinct people by their fingertips.

Imperialism constitutes a disaster for the international working class, especially under its current US-led incarnation, which is intent on turning the entire world into a free market desert. Israel, as a US gendarme, plays a key role in this, which is why its complete and utter defeat vis-à-vis the Palestinians is vital to that international working class, weakening as it would the reach of US imperialism. It is by the same token that socialists should support the call for the break-up of the British state and the leftward trajectory taking place in Latin America.

Lenin amended Marx’s dictum of ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ to ‘Workers and oppressed of the world, unite!’ He did so on the understanding that in the struggle against its own bourgeoisie, the proletariat should support anti-colonial struggles taking place far from the imperialist centres. Marx did too, in particular with regard to Irish self-determination. Now I ask Alan and Guy, in their view, do the Palestinians constitute an oppressed people? If not, why not? If so, why aren’t they supporting the international momentum behind a boycott of Israel?

And, in reply to Guy Maddox’s letter to Tony Greenstein (October 18), yes, the Israeli people are complicit in their government’s apartheid of the Palestinians. They enjoy a standard of living in comparison to the Palestinians which places them far beyond constituting a labour aristocracy. The economic and social indicators in the occupied territories by comparison with Israel would be the same as if England were sharing a border with Bangladesh. Under such conditions, would the English people be complicit in such a state of affairs if they did not engage in active solidarity to reverse such a monstrous iniquity? Of course they would.

And as for so-called Israeli democracy, to suggest that it could ever exist in a state that is committed to Jewish exclusivity is ludicrous. Israeli Arabs who dare fall in love with and marry a Palestinian from the occupied territories are not allowed to live with their husbands or wives in Israel. Is this democracy? Is this freedom? This is a state founded on the premise of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people and which exists at their negation to the present day. As such it must be resisted by socialists and Marxists in all lands, joining hands with the Palestinians in active solidarity. This can only be in the form of a boycott.

Finally, Guy’s attempt to provide historical examples by which to justify Israel’s existence as an apartheid state stretches credulity to breaking point. The Palestinians, their role on the front lines against US-sponsored imperialism, which is the common enemy of humanity, makes our solidarity with them a matter of material necessity.

Only boycott
Only boycott