Letters

Forever Upward

Readers may be interested in a new website (www.edwardupward.info/index.html) dealing with the life and work of Edward Upward, who passed away last year. Upward’s out-of-print trilogy The spiral ascent is available for free download, which includes the two legendary volumes - In the thirties and The rotten elements - dealing with the author’s membership of the CPGB.

Something free that’s definitely worth having.

Forever Upward
Forever Upward

Conventional

For those comrades who read Nick Rogers’ report of the February 13 Republican Socialist Convention in London (‘Debating with left nationalists’, February 18) and my reply (‘Left mirror of UK state’, March 4), my original contribution to the convention can be found at republicancommunist.org/blog .

Conventional
Conventional

Anti-imperialist?

Assaf Kfoury’s article highlights an interesting dilemma facing the left (‘Whither Hezbollah?’, March 4).

There is no doubt that on the international scene Hezbollah has allied itself with progressive forces (as has the Iranian regime). But to call it anti-imperialist is to misunderstand what social forces can be truly anti-imperialist. It is undoubtedly true that Hezbollah provides social services and security for the Shia poor. But then so do the drug gangs running the flavelas of Brazil, to name but one.

What I think is missing in this, and many articles relating to the Shia Islamist movement, is the central role expediency plays in Shia ideology. This is critical for a minority religion trying to survive in the midst of Sunni dominance over the centuries. Khomeini crystallised it in his addition to the constitution of the Islamic Republic when he introduced the concept of velayate motlaqeh faqih, which proclaimed that the supreme leader can do anything, and bring in any laws, to strengthen “the Islamic government” - even including the suspension of the fundamentals of religion, such as the daily prayer, fasting, etc.

In other words what you say and who you ally with should only have one long-term aim - to consolidate the rule of Islam. It is in this light that we have to accept Khomeini’s pronouncement in Paris that in the post-revolutionary regime communists would be free to organise and that the choice of female attire would be entirely voluntary - only to retract the latter within three months and the former once the Tudeh had served their purpose in 1983. This is how we should view Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s ‘progressive’ pronouncements.

At its base, the Hezbollah is a top-down, totalitarian movement that splits the working class of Lebanon along Shia, Sunni and Christian (not to speak of male-female) lines. Such an organisation is not in any sense anti-imperialist. Indeed in the long run it will help imperialist domination on the region - as the Islamic regime has done.

This should not stop us supporting its legitimate opposition to Israeli rule in the region. But let us spread no illusions over its true historic role - which is to slow down progress, not aid it.

Anti-imperialist?
Anti-imperialist?

Distasteful

Having won a national ballot to sit in on the Iraq inquiry on March 5, and as someone who spent eight long years campaigning against the invasions and subsequent occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I was delighted to be able to watch while the prime minister spent four hours trying to defend his role in these events.

Gordon Brown stated from the start of the first session that the invasion of Iraq was the right decision for the right reasons. He cited Saddam’s refusal to abide by international law, the threats to world peace caused by aggressive states like Iraq and intelligence evidence which suggested in March 2003 that Iraq was a threat and possessed weapons of mass destruction. What he forgot to say was that the WMD clearly did not exist, and, according to international law, there was no basis to invade.

Gordon Brown claimed UN resolution 1441 gave the authority to act, whereas legal opinion back in November 2002, four months before the invasion, stated that this UN resolution did not authorise the use of force by member-states, and that the UK would be in breach of international law if it were to use force against Iraq without a further security council resolution. Ironically, Gordon Brown actually informed the Chilcot Inquiry that it was because some countries which had supported 1441 would not support military action in any circumstances that Britain had to act.

One other aspect of this whole affair I found particularly distasteful was the way billions of pounds can be suddenly found for wars, when hospitals, schools and public services generally have to face an uphill struggle to gain essential funding and constantly face cuts. Brown admitted at the inquiry that the initial estimate for the Iraq war was £2.5 billion, which was revised to £4 billion, with £1 billion as a special reserve. The total cost ended up being £8 billion, revised to £9.2 billion, and over three years the special reserve was raised to £3 billion. If Afghanistan is included, the prime minister admitted the total so far was nearly £18 billion.

Although Gordon Brown said little that was not already known, it was useful to be able to watch, as he tried in vain to justify a war which has cost thousands of lives and done little to help the daily lives of the ordinary Iraqi people. He actually let the cat out of the bag towards the end of the day when he announced that British businesses were now being encouraged to invest in Iraq - such companies are only able to make profits for themselves because Britain invaded and conquered another sovereign state.

Many questions about Iraq remain unanswered, and I doubt the Chilcot inquiry will get to the truth. However, as with previous inquiries, it helps make government accountable, and it will put further pressure on the establishment to come clean. This, eventually, should lead to judgement on those responsible for an illegal war and occupation - at least, that is what should happen.

Distasteful
Distasteful

Better out

Whilst it is easy to sympathise with John Masters (Letters, February 18), his advice that comrades who are thinking of leaving the SWP should “stay in and fight for the right of the minority to become the majority” is simply not possible in an organisation which expels members for ‘factionalising’.

In fact, John identifies the real issue when he concludes that, “if we can’t change the left, we’ll never change the world”. It is not the Socialist Workers Party, or any other individual group, that needs to change. If it really is going to “change the world”, what is needed is a completely radical review of how ‘the left’ in its entirety breaks out of its sectarianism and presents a cohesive alternative to capitalism.

Better out
Better out

Open letter

The forthcoming general election will be a very important one for the working class and the ability of workers to fight back against Labour, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and the growing danger of fascism. It is important that as socialists and trade unionists we unite behind or lead whatever fightback we can.

At this time the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition is the only possible vehicle for socialist and trade union unity. I am for a socialist unity candidate in Camberwell and Peckham. This must be and can only be a Tusc candidate. To make this point I have offered to stand as a Tusc candidate, notwithstanding the fact that I put much more emphasis on the importance of democracy.

This letter is an appeal for discussions and negotiations between the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and the ad hoc group of Southwark socialists, with members from a variety of socialist organisations. We have to fight for socialist unity behind one Tusc candidate. If we could get agreement on a Tusc campaign in Peckham, I would withdraw in favour of adopting Jill Mountford.

The Socialist Party is the key to resolving this situation in terms of what they do or don’t do. The SP is now the leading organisation on the left. Will the SP look at what is needed by the socialist movement or will it simply pursue its own narrow self-interest? A Tusc candidate in Peckham would help the movement as a whole, with spin-off benefits for Lewisham, where the SP has its priorities.

Open letter
Open letter

Proportionate

Eddie Ford points out that a national government of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories would massively attack the living standards of working class people (‘National government danger comes with hung parliament’, March 4).

But so would a Labour or Tory government if either party got an overall majority. The only differences are how soon and severely the government would try to impose the cuts and tax rises, whether they lead to a double-dip recession, and how effective the masses would be in their resistance to such measures.

Eddie points out that, due to Ramsey MacDonald’s national government, “the Labour Party was politically decimated - taking a decade or more to recover”. The question arises: do we want the Labour Party to recover? Or do we see people getting disillusioned with Labour as a positive thing, helping lead to a new mass revolutionary socialist party capable of challenging for power?

The current political discourse is dominated by the three mainstream parties, whose policies differ very little, with anodyne debates in the media. A new polarisation between those supporting cuts and those opposing them would be very welcome indeed, and a national government or Labour-Tory coalition would aid that polarisation.

But bear in mind that a hung parliament does not necessarily lead to a coalition. There could be a minority government, like in Scotland, with parties and MPs deciding how to vote on different issues according to their merits (arguably an improvement on the previous Labour-Lib Dem coalition, where the parties cobbled together compromises and MSPs voted for things they didn’t necessarily agree with). This could be an improvement too on a Labour or Tory victory.

Proportionate
Proportionate

Michael's right

I think that all these discussions in the socialist press about the deep cuts in public spending that will take place after the 2010 general election are just so much hogwash.

Recently, ex-Tory cabinet minister Michael Portillo explained on the BBC’s This week programme that it is more likely that the next government will introduce tax rises rather than make cuts in public spending. Portillo uses the example of the Thatcher government in the early 1980s, which tried very hard to introduce cuts in public expenditure without success. The public expenditure books at that time were balanced by introducing tax rises, including a hike in VAT and increased taxes on alcohol, tobacco and petrol, and other indirect taxes.

This time around, given the recent experience of Greece, it is almost certain that VAT will be raised to 20% or even higher in the UK. At the same time, there has been widespread talk in the capitalist press about the possible introduction of VAT on food and children’s clothes. Whilst indirect taxes such as VAT disproportionately hit the poorer sections of society, they are less likely to cause a backlash than would cuts in the jobs of civil servants and local government workers.

So, come on, comrades. Let’s stop all this talk about cuts in public spending. In this debate, I side with Portillo’s view. The books will be balanced through tax rises rather than cuts in public spending.

Michael's right
Michael's right

International

I write this letter as a simultaneous critique of the Committee for a Workers’ International and CPGB on the question of left unity.

Last week, the CWI published an open letter addressing the recent split in the opaque and sectarian International Marxist Tendency.

At the same time, Mike Macnair wrote another article on left unity, but one that is too steeped in idealism and not materialism. He critiques the concept of broad unity and contrasts it with Marxist unity: “Because it insists on broad unity as a panacea for Marxist disunity and the bureaucratic rule in the groups, it refuses to confront the actual strategic political differences in the broad, mass workers’ movement about the state, nationalism and political democracy” (‘Bureaucratic centralism and ineffectiveness’ Weekly Worker February 25).

As a bonus, Macnair even quotes the Communist manifesto to critique its commentary on sectarianism. However, he ignores the crucial part: “The immediate aim of the communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”

The first part refers to the ‘class for itself’ concept, something which bourgeois workers’ parties for obvious reasons don’t do. The second part refers to the concept of hegemony, both in the Gramscian sense and the pre-Gramsci sense of ‘leadership of the people’ above other classes - as noted in Lars Lih’s commentary on German social democracy’s influence on What is to be done? The third part serves as an unintentional critique of the CWI’s broad economism, since:

1. The struggle for socialism is economic and not political.

2. Not every party striving for this “conquest of political power” is necessarily a communist party. Hence the proletarian-not-necessarily-communist parties, flanked by bourgeois workers’ parties on the right and communist sects on the left. Broad unity defined under these parameters is crucial, since exclusively Marxist unity is sectarian.

3. “Conquest of political power” is total, ranging from policy-making participation to legislative power, to executive-administrative power. Here, the specific achievements of the not-so-Marxist Paris Commune and past democratic experiments come to mind.

Which brings me to the topic unifying both the CWI’s open letter and Macnair’s article, but addressed by neither: Chávez’s call for a new international. The CWI says that the PSUV has no “real active workers’ base”, yet this same party is taking actual steps towards forming what the entire ‘Marxist’ left has failed to do over the past decade with regards to unity.

International
International