Letters

Hopi vandals

I was surprised to see your article, ‘Apologetics and violence’ (February 7), and even more amused to see the non-stop ranting of biased individuals on this and other websites about the meeting we organised at the University of Manchester.

Let me speak on behalf of the Iranian Society of the university. We decided not to post anything on our own website so as not to embarrass the offenders more than they did themselves, but, seeing these kinds of posts on the net, we will be sure to respond with full video coverage of the event on our website so any unbiased viewer can quickly distinguish the fallacies reported in the article from the misrepresented truth.

I am truly sorry that an event which was organised in good will by Iranian students was turned into the scene of irrelevant and irreverent political chanting and cheaply portrayed in some lousy media outlets as a victory. What’s surprising is that the same students who organised the event, and were abused in the process by the thugs praised in this report, are those whose rights the likes of Hands Off the People of Iran claim to defend. A rogue band of non-Iranians who for obvious political goals portray themselves as altruists and humanity-lovers.

I’m sorry for being blunt. I had never met or even known about Hopi or any of the whackos that attended the conference before the event and had no presumptions or prejudices regarding them, but their behaviour and total disregard for morality in order to convey a non-related political message has made me despise and really pity these kind of groups. Up to now I had assumed that the Hopi members present at the event were not responsible for or in any way in favour of the despicable actions and interruptions, but my eyes have been opened after reading Chris Strafford’s myopic account.

As the organisers of the event, our only aim was to establish the rights of Iran as against the international body on the nuclear issue (by inviting two pro and two anti speakers) - a point which is crucial. To have that overrun by some childish actions of a select few, who for some reason thought we were the representatives of the Iranian state, really upsets me.

Was it really worth it, guys? Was it worth destroying a golden opportunity to present a logical debate, so that the video could be distributed on the internet in order to at least unite others in the anti-war message? How cheaply you destroyed the chance of attracting outsiders to the anti-war cause, whilst achieving nothing and only stirring up disputes between us, the small number of anti-war activists in the country. Creating divisions in our own ranks, whilst much larger threats are looming over our country and the peoples of the world.

The event was solely organised by the Iranian Society. The Stop the War Coalition, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran and CND were only asked to advertise it. So please get your facts straight (or maybe you know the truth already) before trying to skew and distort the event so that it somehow becomes affiliated with Stop the War - which oh so notoriously banned you from joining their movement.

What I find hilarious is that people who so pride themselves in ‘getting the anti-Iranian government message across’ continuously abused, disrupted and engaged in the verbal offence of the audience and speakers, whilst complaining about freedom of speech inside Iran. Obviously and blatantly contradicting the sole backbone of your arguments. The actions of these vandals was so embarrassing that both the anti-Iranian-government panellists were forced to applaud the Iranian government in some form by the end of the discussion in an attempt to distance themselves from the idiotic actions of these people. Never in a million years did the crowd expect to hear Paul Ingram or Chris Rundle praise the Iranian government like that. But thanks to you guys that was achieved and you didn’t fail to aid the Iranian state.

Think about what you achieved. You showed up with 50 or so “comrades” - aka 40 non-Iranian non-students residing in London, five western communists and five Iranian communists - and chanted and disrupted and tore your throats out. How can you claim any form of victory when not only did you isolate yourselves, but amazingly managed to push all the panel members into supporting the Iranian government?

The flyers and so on of Hopi and many other groups, including Stop the War, were not allowed due to the fear of something similar to what happened actually occurring. You proved us to be completely 100% correct about banning all media distribution by your childish actions. How can you possibly boast about illegally throwing flyers into the crowd and walking up on stage to give them to the speakers? I would like to know how you felt when members of the audience tore up and threw your flyers into your faces - not because they didn’t agree with your message (I agree with parts of your cause, just differ on the practical routes to resolving them), but because you were ruining the event for everybody.

The total and complete censorship of major parts of the conference by our dear author bemuses me. Does he really not remember the things that others outside their small band said or does he believe so vigorously in his own correctness that he decides to kindly censor those parts so that the uneducated reader would not risk being misguided?

How he completely casts aside the part of the event where members of the audience stood up and talked on the microphone (like humans for once) against the irrational attitude of the vandals and were greeted with several minute-long standing ovations from every single person in the hall outside his small communist crowd (I’m not even sure you people are representing true communism - seems more like your own distorted version of it). And how he forgets to mention that at the end of the event, as soon as the chanting and holding up of slogans by the rogue group began, everyone else left the hall in a civilised manner, leaving the group of 50 (out of the 400 present) talking to the walls of the auditorium.

Believe that you are right, but also accept that there is a tiny possibility that someone else with a different view has a one percent chance of being closer to the truth than you. Without this attitude we are doomed.

Hopi vandals
Hopi vandals

Vibrant Cuba

Fidel Castro this week decided to step down as the Cuban head of state. Fidel, as a leader of the Cuban people and the Cuban Communist Party, is an inspiration to millions of poor and oppressed people around the world, including Britain. The achievements of the Cuban revolution mean that, despite the fact that Cuba is a small, ‘third world’ country, people there live longer than people in Manchester - average of 77.4 years, compared to 72.5. This is down to the massive priority given to healthcare and public well-being.

And the Cubans don’t keep their achievements to themselves - there are more Cuban doctors in Africa than there are doctors from the World Health Organisation. But education and class-consciousness are also at the heart of the Cuban process. Socialist internationalism means that Cuba stands against the brutal wars waged by Britain and the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody should be surprised by Fidel’s announcement. Debates about the future have been taking place for a long time. Cuba’s recent elections involved the active participation of the vast majority of the population. The process started at the beginning of September with more than 50,000 mass meetings and debates in communities to choose which candidates should stand. For the local election more than 95% of the electorate voted - in Britain in 2006 turnout was just 36%, indicative of how much people feel that British politics really represents them! In Cuba there is a constant commitment to renewal and to youth, with 63.22% of the national assembly members new to their posts.

Their election continues into February with the election of the head of state. This person will have faced two votes - first by their community as a delegate, and then by the national assembly as a leader. Whoever is chosen as Fidel’s successor already has the proven support of the Cuban people. While Britain’s political system is stagnant and Labour resorts to war and privatisation to prop it up, Cuban socialism is the vibrant expression of the will of the Cuban masses.

People in Britain will have a unique opportunity to hear the truth about the Cuban revolution this week when three Cuban leaders speak at a national tour organised by Rock around the Blockade. They include Orlando Borrego, Che Guevara’s deputy in the 1960s; Jesus Garcia, Cuban philosopher and elected people’s power delegate; and Yoselin Rufin, a young woman student leader. The Cubans will be speaking at the Mechanics Institute, Princess Street, on Sunday February 24 at 2pm; at Manchester University, Stopford building on Monday February 25 (also 2pm) and Manchester Metropolitan University Alsager campus on the same day at 12 noon.

The full programme of venues and dates can be found on the web at www.cubansarecoming.org.

Vibrant Cuba
Vibrant Cuba

No problem

Phil Kent finds Esen Uslu’s statement disturbing (Letters, February 14). Uslu writes that “the communists are, of course, against any bans, restrictions or discrimination imposed by the state” and then goes on to state: “Support for the rights and freedoms of fundamental islam … would be a serious mistake” (‘Riddle of the headscarf’, February 7).

I find no problem with this position, which is akin to our position on free speech for fascists. While we would not call upon the bourgeois state to pass legislation denying them freedom of speech, as the legislation would be used primarily against us communists, we would be under no obligation to defend fascists who run foul of such legislation and face prosecution.

We are no defenders of islam, or any other religion for that matter, and we know that bourgeois legislators pass restrictive legislation such as banning the wearing of headscarves in order to oppress minorities. We also know that it’s only a short hop, skip and jump from banning headscarves to banning red flags. However, to come to the defence of individuals who demand to be allowed to wear religious trappings in public schools would indeed be a serious mistake, as we would be telling the working class that we support religious fundamentalism, which we do not.

No problem
No problem

Anti-imperialism

The European Union is continuing to push for the implementation of controversial new trade agreements with many of its former colonies, in the process threatening them with extra tariff barriers if certain conditions are not met.

Peter Mandelson, the EU commissioner for trade, has been pushing for the completion of a new trading policy between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific group (ACP). The purpose of such a move, in the words of the trade commission, is to establish “new WTO-compatible trading arrangements removing progressively barriers of trade between EU and ACP countries”, as well as to create “sustainable development and contribute to poverty eradication in the ACP countries”. So the ‘economic partnership agreements’ (EPAs) are the latest magic wand in the arsenal of free trade to end inequality.

Formerly there were certain checks and balances that the ACP was able to force through to protect native capital and internal markets from being flooded with cheap produce manufactured within the EU. According to the WTO, however, this was a fetter on development which allowed Europe to discriminate at will in regards to overseas investment, something which it claims to hope the EPAs will resolve.

What is being discussed is a lowering of trade barriers on behalf of both parties. Whilst at first glance this may seem amicable, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that, with its superior economic and political clout, the advantage lies solely with the EU.

South Africa has so far refused to sign - instead wishing to stick to its own trade and development cooperation agreement. Angola has also said no, with varying other countries requesting more time to hammer out the individual details. Initially the EU trade commission reacted to such resistance by threatening to impose additional tariff barriers on ACP produce entering the European market if the EPAs are not passed.

All in all the message from Europe is clear - either agree to an unequal and potentially disastrous agreement, or be prepared to accept even worse conditions.

Whilst it’s proved incredibly difficult for one activist with limited resources to keep up with this issue, as far as I can tell there has been a very limited reaction from the left. As a point of principle, however, it’s not enough for revolutionaries to take a stand in these matters by simply taking the side of the smaller country against the larger aggressor. A victory for small capital, whilst clearly weakening imperialism, will not enhance the prospect of independent working class action in its immediacy.

One of the controversies that have long beset the left is how to relate to colonial or neo-colonial capital in the face of foreign aggression. Unfortunately for us, little seems to have been learned from the popular front disasters of the 20th century and their attempted replication in bodies like Campaign Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (Casmii).

Although clearly having nothing to do with EPAs, Casmii and its ilk remove the class content of our politics by keeping the issue solely within the bounds of what is acceptable to the mainstream. In practice this is summed up via appeals to the US and UK not to attack Iran or impose sanctions - and for heaven’s sake please try and be a bit nicer in the future.

This is not the Marxist approach and never has been. We do not ask the state for anything that we don’t intend to wrest from it at the point of industrial and political action. We clearly don’t want to see an attack on Iran, but we certainly will not abandon our comrades in the Middle East in order to cuddle up to the government in Tehran currently oppressing them.

There is a risk that the same tactic may be adopted here in the case of the EPAs. What protest there has been has never left the arena of safe and acceptable politics that involve modest appeals to the EU to be kinder, less aggressive and more understanding to African needs.

Those involved in such activities are without doubt very sincere. However, where they go wrong is in failing to understand that the attempted domination of foreign markets, as we understand imperialism to be, is not the creation of nasty politicians but is a product of modern-day capitalism in its entirety.

Our response therefore has to be founded upon understanding firstly what we are dealing with. The next step is then to agitate for a genuine, democratic policy from the ground up that will include the fullest representation of trade unions, peasants associations and workers’ groups in the EPA negotiations.

Instead of making appeals to ruling circles, while allowing them to chatter amongst themselves behind closed doors, we need transparency. Those actually affected by the EPAs - the peasant multitude alongside many waged labourers - must take the helm and have the freedom to reject the deal without fear of repercussions.

Unfortunately, the left worldwide is in no position to significantly challenge European, let alone global, capital. But by standing on a fully coherent platform of anti-imperialism, as opposed to the politics of simple protest, we may be able to act as a rallying point for progressive change.

Anti-imperialism
Anti-imperialism

Offspring

Of course, there is nothing wrong with more historic research (‘Roots of Stalinism’, February 14), but why the striking failure by Phil Kent to mention Julius Martov and his contemporary critique of the Bolsheviks in his The state and the socialist revolution? This offers a democratic Marxist analysis of the “Jacobin and Blanquist idea of a minority dictatorship” that was the true root of Bolshevism and led to its offspring, Stalinism.

As Martov says, “In Russia itself the evolution of the ‘soviet state’ has already created a new and very complicated state machine based on the ‘administration of persons’ as against the ‘administration of things’, based on the opposition of ‘administration’ to ‘self-administration’ and the functionary (official) to the citizen. These antagonisms are in no way different from the antagonisms that characterise the capitalist class state ...”

Martov demonstrates that there was no need to wait until Stalin to conclude that the Bolshevik regime had become an anti-working class force.

Offspring
Offspring