WeeklyWorker

Letters

EDL confusion

A comment on Mike Macnair’s speech at the Marxism fringe on the left’s tactics towards the far right (‘Gerbils on a wheel’, July 8).

I generally agree on the main point about the Socialist Workers Party’s class-collaboration. It seems to me to be an absolute nonsense, given the level of threat of the far right and also the dominant ideology it reinforces regarding liberal democracy.

However, I am more interested in what appears to be your absolute insistence that the English Defence League is part of the state and organised by the state. I am not implying for one moment that the state does not involve itself within the workers’ movement, conjure up pretexts for military adventures, etc, but I and I’m sure many other comrades would like to know why and how you can be so certain on the question of the EDL.

For example, there are some sections, or perhaps merely individuals, of the anarchist movement which are putting forward arguments to debate the EDL. Recently some EDL members have been turning up to various anarchist/anti-fascist discussions professing their anti-racism and wishing to talk. There seems to be a lot of confusion over how to deal with them and also over the make-up of the EDL itself - for instance, the not so scientific ‘A lot of them should be on our side’ is coming from some quarters (roughly translated this implies that many are working class who just have picked the wrong side).

EDL confusion
EDL confusion

AV confusion

Steve Cooke (Letters, July 15) correctly points out the misunderstanding about the mechanics of the alternative vote in Peter Manson’s article (‘Fight for genuine PR’, July 8). In my view, the discussion of electoral reform on the left is generally confused and also short-sighted.

I understand why most of the left, including the CPGB, supports the most proportional electoral system possible. As Peter explained, proportional representation would “allow the (admittedly meagre) support for socialists and communists to be reflected in parliament” (July 8). I have argued that this is an inadequate rationale for advocating a particular electoral system (‘Electoral reform and communist strategy’, May 27). It is also an admission of an extreme lack of ambition for a tradition that seeks to represent the working class - the majority of society. I propose that in campaigning for ‘extreme democracy’ we should raise democratic demands that “point directly towards the political structures that the working class requires to establish its political rule”.

Moshé Machover believes that making essentially transitional demands of this type around democracy are inappropriate, as opposed to demands around economic issues (‘Voting - present and future’, June 24). In contrast to Moshé, I believe that the debate around democracy has the potential to most sharply expose the vulnerabilities of our capitalist rulers. Since the working class revolution is in the first instance a political act, the class struggle becomes most acute and most dangerous for the capitalist class when it focuses on constitutional and political issues.

Therefore, even under capitalism, we should raise demands for direct and participatory democracy. It is not a question (as Moshé suggests) of taking responsibility for administering the present order, but of creating the conditions in which that order can be overturned.

I think PR falls short of this. The question of recallability is key. Even were elections to be held annually, the right to recall representatives (for reasons of politics as well as corruption and laziness) is the only method that maximises the influence of electors. It is noticeable that Peter does not refer to this issue in his article. This is all the more striking an omission, given that the mainstream bourgeois parties are making proposals for a stunted, bureaucratic version for recalling MPs that we ought to challenge.

Any system of PR in which representatives are elected with minority support (an integral feature of PR) is incompatible with a system in which electors can freely remove representatives who do not enjoy their confidence - minority representatives could simply be recalled immediately after election.

The proposal made by Jim Moody for parties themselves to be allowed to recall representatives elected on the party list is not an arrangement that empowers the working class (‘Accountable to their party’, April 15). Even a democratic communist party should not seek to substitute itself for the electorate or working class as a whole. The right of recall should belong to those who have elected representatives in the first place.

Advocates of PR, such as Moshé, Peter and Arthur - in emphasising the deficiencies of any system of voting that is not PR - come close to suggesting that that it is impossible to devise a legitimate electoral system that can produce a single representative or delegate who has majority support. Or, indeed, any democratic method for choosing between a variety of complex options. Fortunately, working class organisations over the last 200 years - from early trade unions to the Paris Commune, to 20th century workers’ councils - have managed to overcome the conundrum.

In fact AV is the system which most clearly mirrors the process by which most working class bodies have reached decisions - whether on strategy and tactics, or electing a delegate or officer. When forced to choose between more than two options where none has majority support, the least popular option is discarded and a new vote taken.

That is why I tend to support Peter’s proposal that the CPGB advocate a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum on AV. However, the context will be everything. Contrary to Peter’s understanding, the coalition proposal to equalise constituencies is less than democratic. Constituency sizes are to be based on current electoral rolls rather than population figures derived from census returns. In other words, the unregistered will not count towards determining the size of constituencies. Working class and poorer districts usually have lower levels of registration than the wealthier. The coalition proposal therefore contains an inbuilt anti-working class bias.

The most important aspect of a communist referendum campaign will not be the tactical one of how we vote on the options presented to us by our rulers, but how effectively we seize on the opportunity to advocate the full range of democratic demands. These would include the abolition of the entirely undemocratic elements of our constitution - the monarchy and the House of Lords - annual elections, MPs on a skilled worker’s wage. And, possibly most important of all, the direct accountability that comes with the right of recall.

AV confusion
AV confusion

SWP tactics

This year’s Marxism had a very different atmosphere from last year. At the previous festival, the prevailing mood was one of debate and discussion on the way forward, following the release of the SWP’s ‘Open letter to the left’, which said: “We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a leftwing alternative. But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate and begin planning to come together.”

But the purpose of this year’s event was to consolidate the SWP around central committee tactics and slogans for the post-election period. As such, there was a sectarian attitude towards the rest of the left and meeting chairs tried hard to prevent other people from speaking, selling or distributing literature outside meetings.

The use of such severe demagogy and unwillingness to engage with these debates in a serious way by party cadres shows both:

Some SWPers in the north-west appear to be in open revolt against the SWP’s reluctance to argue for Unite Against Fascism to confront the English Defence League. SWP members in the north-east are understandably concerned about party democracy after the expulsions and the mass exit of the Sunderland branch. Glasgow SWPers are concerned about stifling party structures, limiting in particular the spread of their rank and file Shopworker bulletin.

One of the meetings at Marxism relating to the new situation was presented by leading theoretician Alex Callinicos. It was designed to give a theoretical underpinning for the SWP’s turn towards united fronts with Labour Party councillors and other forces in the mass of the workers’ movement that refused to work with them previously. It was also clearly directed towards younger SWP members uncomfortable with orienting towards some of those forces who they had spent their political careers attacking.

The talk explained that, whilst revolutionaries strongly adhere to a set strategy - the need to overthrow the state through a revolution - tactics should be completely flexible and may even appear at first glace to run counter to strategy: ie, working with reformists. This is correct, but what Callinicos crucially did not explain was how tactics should be used to advance a strategic goal, so again a major theoretical weakness was exposed in the SWP’s lack of a programme.

The reluctance of the TUC, Unison and Unite to call action against the crisis was criticised, but there were no real tactics proposed to pressure these more rightwing forces in the working class movement to take action. Forcing Labour councils to fight the cuts also did not feature.

SWP tactics
SWP tactics

Rabar must stay

Help us fight the forced repatriation of Rabar Hamad to Iraq, where both his parents were murdered. He has been told that as of August 5 he will be homeless and have no money.

Rabar is 16. He was forced to flee Iraq following the murder of both parents in an explosion targeted deliberately at his home. He arrived in the UK after a long journey, hidden near the wheel arch of a truck. On arrival, aged 15, he was age-assessed by a social worker as an adult and lived in a hostel for a year with no understanding of English and unable to properly feed himself. Following a tribunal hearing, he was then correctly age-assessed as a minor and placed in a children’s home, where he has thrived.

However, Wigan social services failed to notify the home office of his change of address and he was judged to be an absconder. Because of the confusion, the home office have said all his evidence is unreliable. Anyone meeting Rabar would know he is not 20, as claimed. He is a sweet, kind and quiet boy with many friends at school. He is talented at football, having trialled for Fulham and Bury. He had almost no education before entering the UK, but he has made huge progress at school and is now working on GCSEs, including English. If he is returned to Iraq, his life would be in danger.

Please sign the online petition and send messages of support to Rabar. He is very depressed and needs your help.

Rabar must stay
Rabar must stay

Proxy hustings

Thursday July 15 saw the Labour Party leadership hustings in the Stevenage constituency and 80 party members made their way into the council chambers, of which five were under 30 and most of the rest of pensionable age. I went along in the hope of hearing the candidates put their case, but those hopes were soon dashed when it became apparent that none of them were going to attend in person and that their pitch would be presented by proxy.

Speaking for Ed Balls was the town’s former MP, Barbara Follett, for Andy Burnham a local activist and for David Miliband Mary Creagh, MP for Wakefield. Diane Abbott’s campaign was unable to send a representative and Ed Miliband’s was awol. However a statement of Diane’s position was read from the floor, and a supporter of Ed Miliband offered to make a short contribution on his behalf.

Barbara Follett, having waxed lyrical about Ed Ball’s wonderful character and political bravery, emphasised his commitment to a 50-50 male-female split in his shadow cabinet, and to addressing the need for more social housing - an issue of pertinence in the town. The advocate for Andy Burnham centred his pitch on his being the “listening candidate”, keen to involve the party members and to rehabilitate the word ‘socialism’ - or more precisely ‘aspirational socialism’.

My previous perception of David Miliband was of a fairly bland and unsubstantial politician, touted for leadership more for his image than the content of his message. So Mary Creagh’s speech came as a surprise, with its vaguely left-sounding rhetoric. David is, we were told, determined to end the charitable status of private schools and to defend the union link. Ed Miliband’s supporter highlighted his ministerial abilities, negotiation skills and his good performances on the 24-hour news cycle.

Ken Follett, author and husband of Barbara, questioned David Miliband’s support for tuition tees from the floor.That he had done so was disputed, to the extent that I am none the wiser as to whether he did or didn’t, before Barbara Follett finished the character attack that her husband had begun by claiming that David Miliband had not wanted to come to Stevenage during the election if it meant meeting voters rather than just party members - an example of political cowardice on his part, she suggested.

Apart from this, the debate never really took off - it certainly didn’t reveal any major differences between the campaigns. Perhaps if Diane Abbott had managed to find someone to speak for her things would have been livelier.

We then moved to a vote to decide the CLP’s endorsement. Under the preferential voting system Diane Abbott was the first to be eliminated - the fact that her case was not put must surely have had its effect. Next to go was Andy Burnham, followed by Ed Miliband. The final run-off scored the vote for the two remaining candidates as Ed Balls 36, David Miliband 38, the latter securing Stevenage’s endorsement.

Glancing around during the voting, I noted that quite a few ballot papers had put Diane in last place. There is very little by way of a Labour left here.

Proxy hustings
Proxy hustings

Marxism and art

Jim Gilbert is quite right in his critique of the coalition’s arts funding restructure, but I feel there needs to be a further discussion on the direct implications for radical art, as well as the wider state of the arts in general (‘Philistinism of cuts’, July 15).

It is important to note that contemporary radical theatre presents itself mostly non-politically (unlike much of the great radical theatre of modernity - Brecht, for example), but its radical aesthetic has been formed out of a contemporary understanding of those modern dramatists. There is a direct lineage, therefore, from the Marxist aesthetics of Brecht to the postmodern aesthetics of the new radical theatre. Though the avant garde theatre now manifests itself as part of theories which reject politics - and are therefore mostly ‘safe’ for capitalism - it is historically linked with ‘unsafe’ political ideologies. Additionally, the very notion of the avant garde is directly contradictory to the interests of the established order, and therefore those who are now expected to fund the arts. Radical political work is now much less prominent in the theatre than ever before (in fact it is almost completely absent), but for those artists like myself who seek to reunite the radical aesthetic traditions with Marxist theory and ideology, the new funding system will make creating new work almost impossible.

In the main, the radical work most likely affected will be of a non-political nature, but, as discussed, it is of a highly political heritage. It is through these new (but historically informed) radical aesthetics that Marxism could and should rediscover a home in the theatre. If they cease to exist because of the funding changes, Marxists will find it even more difficult to express their politics via performance.

There are a number of reasons why radical political work has become increasingly obscure, many of which are obviously connected to the reasons why radical politics in general have become more obscure. It is my view, however, that there is a lack of dedication to the arts in contemporary Marxism. If we look back at the Marxist movements in the 20th century, we find various examples of organisations (the Frankfurt School, situationists, etc) discussing and promoting aesthetics as an important part of both Marxist theory and action.

It is in light of the recent attack on the arts that Marxists should begin to develop a contemporary theory and vocabulary towards aesthetics, as well as a dedication to supporting radical work in order to both resurrect and preserve the Marxist artistic traditions, and help to develop a contemporary understanding of the relationship between socialism and art.

Marxism and art
Marxism and art

In or out?

The interview with Steve Gillan, general secretary of the POA (Weekly Worker July 16), was interesting and got me thinking about what we should accept as ‘normal’ trade unions.

Whilst generally agreeing with the view that prison officers, like cops, aren’t ‘workers in uniform’, I wonder how we would arrive at a list of those we think are ‘outside the workers’ movement’? Jobs formerly undertaken by the police are now done by civilians: eg, prisoner escort; and, of course, there are police community support officers.

And then council workers are sometimes obliged to be, in effect, immigration officers and some department for work and pensions staff interview suspected ‘benefit fraudsters’ under caution. If trade union militants are fined for their activities, then bailiffs will sometimes seize their goods and some journalists may be obliged to write what they know are smears. The latter are certainly part of the workers’ movement, but the former? I don’t know.

I suspect it is a tactical question, and one where the line between those inside and outside will vary depending on circumstances.

In or out?
In or out?

Not green

Comrade Jeff Leese no doubt knows precisely which modern environmentalists have views antithetical to Marx’s theory, but I think he means the Greens (Letters, July 8).

He seems totally unaware of the long line of environmentalists who have based themselves on Marxism, taking as their starting point that capitalism strives to achieve perpetually increasing accumulation, but the Earth and its resources are finite. Capitalism inevitably damages the planet and its ability to sustain life.

David Ricardo commented, answering Malthus, that the reason the destitute were starving was not because there was no food for them to eat, but because they had no money to pay for it. In other words, many were wageless, unemployed wretches. The subtle subtext of Malthus is not about overpopulation, but about the cheapest way to maintain the reserve army of labour, which is an absolute necessity for the capitalists to discipline the working class. Malthus was satisfied with letting them starve to death. You have only to look at the millions trying to survive on less than two dollars a day to see that this is still capitalist policy. No-one at the time disputed that in theory the world’s population could theoretically expand to the point that it could not be fed: merely that it hadn’t - and, for that matter, it still hasn’t. But it is a totally wrong way to approach the question of population.

Marx commented that every society has its own population dynamics. The massive rapid increase in population is unique to capitalism, as is its need for a reserve army of labour. In Britain this army is pensioned off into relatively benign poverty and the rapid growth in population has ceased - even gone into reverse. Presumably if this policy was extended to the third world the same thing would happen. But this answer is only marginally better than Malthus’s.

The answer lies in the population dynamics of communism. Where production is for need. The question to be answered is, therefore, what does human society need? This is, of course, a question that can only be fully answered in the future, but there are clues aplenty to be found in the present.

Radical anthropologists like Chris Knight argue that the modern human came into being as a communist and that our essential nature is to be a socially equal member of a community. Relationships, not property, are our greatest need. More time to socialise, less time spent accumulating property would make us happy. As for population, overexploited peasant families have a real material interest in maximising the number of their children (males at least), but under present-day advanced capitalism people tend to have less children because of market pressures. Under communism children would be humanity’s most precious resource. Large families would, of course, be affordable, but my guess is that family size will be small, if only because it will mean quality time becomes quantity time too.

Marx was a scholar of ancient Greek, and the Athenian Greeks used the word ‘idiot’ to describe someone who deliberately cut themselves off from civil society. I think he was referring to the isolation of pre-capitalist rural life, not the stupidity of the peasants. Anyway he favoured a solution that ended the isolation of both. In part he was following the scientific theories of Justus von Liebig, who described the British agricultural system as being one of robbery both of the land and other country’s resources. Von Liebig went on to create modern fertilisers, which from the point of view of capitalism saved the day. But the robbery goes on, in that the relationship between the urban population and the earth that supports it is still broken. Marx was looking for a social answer rather than a technological one to that problem.

Comrade Leese fears the power of nature and wants us to have exclusively technological methods of control over it. But Marx preferred social solutions where possible. Move people off the San Andreas Fault. Don’t build housing estates on flood plains. Be prepared to compromise with nature. We never will have absolute power and under communism we will not have the commercial pressures that make so many of capitalism’s projects irrational and arrogant.

Not green
Not green

Overt sexism

Dave Douglass really should read more carefully (Letters, July 15). He now argues that I quoted statistics on ‘rape’, as defined by the latest legislation. He still assumes (on the basis of no evidence) that I fully support this legislation. I don’t. “Need I point out,” he asks, “that these statistics include all activities classed by the state as ‘rape’? ... How else can we read this?”

Tell you what, Dave, it’s easier than you think. No, you don’t need to point it out, because I didn’t use those figures. Here’s how else you can read this. The statistics I used were compiled by Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid. They refer to rape and other violence against women, as defined by the women who sustain these attacks and the women who do the research. The evidence is easily available on the internet.

Should you feel inclined to research the reasons why some men are violent to women, I’m sure your work will join the extensive list of similar studies conducted by ‘socialist’ men in their tireless struggle for gender equality. Can’t find any? You don’t say.

Those readers with good memories may recall this exchange started with my criticism of an edition of this paper (Weekly Worker June 3) containing several examples of overt sexism. Comrade Douglass’s response has led to a continuing debate on his comments at the expense of any further discussion of the other points I raised concerning the overall political direction of this paper. Those issues still need to be addressed, so it appears I will have to return to this draining experience at some point in the future.

Overt sexism
Overt sexism

Alien force

Eddie Ford’s otherwise interesting analysis of the case of Raoul Moat ends up nonetheless disappointing and incomplete (‘Moat’s paranoia and the community of women’, July 15).

Eddie chooses to focus on Raoul’s relations with his former partners (the same as the Mirror and the other tabloids), his sexism and apparent intense jealousies. From this Eddie leads on to an analysis of male chauvinism, the world-historic defeat of women and communistic, matriarchal societies with the rise of male-dominated private property and capitalism. All true, of course, but it was actually Raoul’s relations with the police and the police relations with people like him that pushed him over the edge.

While sections of the left seem to recognise the response of black youth to the role of police on the streets of Toxteth or Moss Side, they are less understanding of the similar reactions of white youth in northern cities. Much of the north is still in a state of seething resentment at the police and the memories of their role in villages and cities across the north during the miners’ strikes. The police are still an alien force, still seen as waging a non-stop war on impoverished and dispossessed pockets of the region and similar regions.

At the Durham Miners Gala a couple of weeks back, the Industrial Workers of the World had some mugs on their stall, one of which carried the famous picture of a miner in a police helmet face to face with a cop. It carried the title, ‘Go on, pig, make my day’. One bloke came past and loudly shouted that we should all be locked up and banned for such an inappropriate image, given “what has just happened” (the shot cop). The crowd at once turned on him. “He should have had a bliddy machine gun instead of a shotgun” and “He didn’t shoot enough of the bastards” were two of the memorable responses - and not just from young folk either.

Moat tells us from prison that it was the police action in having his youngest children taken away which was ‘the final straw’. He had been picked up and arrested constantly for years, despite them only managing to charge and jail him once and that for a relatively minor and short-sentence offence. It was used as the reason to take his kids away. When his unfortunate latest partner decided to tell him her current boyfriend was a policeman, he really hadn’t needed another reason to hate the police, but he found one.

The attack on the former partner was cruel and unwarranted, but many, many people in the north have identified with his anti-police campaign and not at all with any male chauvinist bullying. It is this reason why 24,000 people - mostly white, disempowered and alienated youth from the north - have signed his Facebook sympathy pages.

We are on a powder keg of unorganised hostility and resentment, which could break out into a bush fire at any time.

Alien force
Alien force