Letters

In the long run

Supporters of Workers Fund Iran will be pounding the streets in the Hamburg marathon on May 22. They will be getting their running shoes on to raise sponsorship money for the important and unique work of this charity. Can you support them?

WFI was founded in December 2005, inspired by suggestions from veteran Iranian labour activist Albert Sohrabian (1927-2004). WFI aims to reduce and relieve poverty amongst Iranian workers (both employed and unemployed). This results from both the economic policies of the Iranian regime and the sanctions imposed by other countries. The charity puts at the centre of its activities the drive to rebuild international working class solidarity, directly with the workers of Iran.

The charity is an independent organisation. Funds sent to Iran will be distributed amongst the most needy working class families who are facing destitution, regardless of political affiliation. We hope this will stop families sending their children to the streets as beggars or peddlers and selling their body parts, which is a common practice.

You can sponsor us online using Charity Choice’s website at www.charitychoice.co.uk/donation.asp?ref=154051. So far runners from England, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden and USA will participate to raise funds for this cause. You can show your support by wearing a Workers Fund Iran t-shirt and walking with us. If you would like to run the half-marathon or the marathon with us and support our cause, please email us at workersfund@gmail.com.

In the long run
In the long run

Irresponsible

I constantly cross swords with Tony Clark over peak oil. Though I agree that oil stocks are diminishing - we live on a finite planet and oil resources are being used irresponsibly. As in fact are all other resources essential to human life on this planet. It is not that capitalism has no thought for the future: it has, but this mode of production does not allow it to husband the earth’s resources. It has to constantly increase production or face political and economic chaos.

Capitalism faces many problems due to the way it treats the planet, but not imminent collapse due to resource exhaustion. There are replacements, such as nuclear power and coal, but they will be used just as irresponsibly.

Capitalists face speculative pressure and economic stagnation. The working class faces falling living standards and unemployment, but without revolution this does not amount to capitalist collapse.           

The present price of oil does not reflect its cost of production. It reflects the instability of the capitalist order and its vulnerability to speculators.

Capitalism’s biggest problem is itself. It is in systemic decline. Money is pseudo-money. Markets are pseudo-markets. The night-watchman state is long gone. Both states and businesses are increasingly under the control of bureaucrats. The capitalist owner is being increasingly bossed by the state and ripped off by its managers.

Privatisation may be the rage, but not only does this turn out to be a way of subsidising private enterprise: it is also bringing private enterprise under the direct control of the state. A kind of nationalisation.

Capitalism is becoming bureaucratised and senile.

Irresponsible
Irresponsible

Real deal

Congratulations are in order to comrade Ben Lewis for his start in translating what I consider to be the real State and revolution. Since Lenin’s pamphlet was incomplete and blindly uncritical of Marx’s Civil war in France, ‘Republic and social democracy in France’ (April 28) is a refreshing take on the Marxist view of the state.

Nonetheless, it should be stressed that certain themes are outdated, such as “abolition of the standing army” (Letters, December 9) and localism, whether of bourgeois federalism or decentralisation fetishes. Hence new themes need to be introduced, as has been discussed by comrades such as Mike Macnair, Paul Cockshott and even Moshé Machover.

The article on electoral tactics is very disappointing (‘Propaganda and agitation’, April 28). It doesn’t address abstentions versus spoiled ballots and spoilage campaigns, and ‘communal parliaments’. Spoilage campaigns help delegitimise the political system for workers, while being immune to the adage ‘If you don’t vote, don’t complain’.

It’s acknowledged around here that some kind of amplified public platform is needed to get our points across. Those who argue against participation in the parliamentary system say that such a traditional position would be instilling mass confusion. On the one hand, parliament is an illegitimate institution which must be overthrown, but, on the other hand, we must participate in parliament.

When the Bolsheviks participated in the duma, that body wasn’t an established institution and had very little power over an absolutist tsar. When the SPD participated in the Reichstag, that body too was not yet an established institution and had little power over an absolutist kaiser (that doesn’t excuse the war credits vote whatsoever).

Real deal
Real deal

Main issue

We find it quite incredible that the three main parties seemed to put their council election campaigns to one side in order to try and convince electors the alternative vote referendum is the only political thing that mattered.

As Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition spokesperson in Rugby, and Tusc candidate in Dunchurch, it seems to me almost as if the public spending cuts and other policies affecting local people were forgotten. Of course, how we elect our representatives is also important, but we believe the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour were hiding behind the referendum in order to avoid a debate about the cuts.

This does not surprise us. All three main parties suggested massive public spending cuts as their solution to the economic crisis, despite how this will hurt those who need and depend on public services. They all went into the general election last year demanding cuts of between £63 and £46 billion. The Tory-Lib Dem government very quickly put its policies into practice, with massive negative consequences for large groups of people, especially those on welfare benefits, students in further or higher education, youngsters who use youth clubs, people who need care homes, those who use libraries - you name it. All of us who cannot or do not want to go private have suffered and, once a local service is taken away, it will not be restored.

Labour is no better. Not only did it go into the general election demanding massive cuts, but also since then Labour-controlled councils implemented government cuts without a fight. They have no alternative strategy because they are no longer socialist, whereas we have consistently put forward the need to make the wealthy pay for the crisis their bankers created: introduce a 5% wealth tax on the wealthiest 10% - they won’t miss it and, in itself, this would pay off the deficit. Collecting the £120 billion per year that the rich avoid or evade would also see off our economic problems - but Labour, like the Tories and their new Lib Dem friends, would prefer ordinary working people to suffer, despite the fact that they did not cause the crisis.

It is because the three establishment parties are the same that we stood as anti-cuts candidates. We showed there is an alternative. Tusc Against the Cuts stood in seven wards in Rugby as part of Rugby Against the Cuts campaign to promote candidates in all local council seats. We may or may not have won seats first time out, but we will certainly have raised the level of debate.

Main issue
Main issue

US trembled

In my view Osama bin Laden was the only man who made US imperialism tremble in the 21st century. Whose war against western imperialism has been more powerful? That of Muslim religious organisations or that of the communists and left?

One thing is clear: without the support of the democratic, peace-loving common people - the workers of this world - the great anti-imperialist revolution won’t succeed. While the Soviet Union was fighting against western imperialism, that helped the nations struggling for liberation from western colonialism, and from military and economic oppression. The USSR had a good and unbreakable relation with these nations. It guided the liberation wars with communist education, and provided a blueprint for taking them forward towards communist revolution.

The Soviet anti-imperialist struggle was not defeated by the western imperialists. It was defeated by the betrayal of some comrades occupying important party posts, who had discarded the Marxist-Leninist philosophy for narrow revisionism and greed. If the Soviets had had leaders like bin Laden who refused to compromise their philosophy, their fight would still be continuing alongside the world’s working class.

Of course, opposition to western imperialism is still being conducted, thanks to Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Vietnam and leftwing Latin America and Africa. As the oppression of western imperialism has increased, as their war techniques have been modernised, so the people’s anti-imperialist movement led by the communist and left parties is being strengthened. It will take time to win the struggle, since most of the world’s political and legal institutions, together with modern science and technology, are still controlled by the imperialists. So the enemy can easily dismiss the anti-imperialist movements. Nonetheless, the future of this movement is bright, and the victory of the world anti-imperialist revolution is inevitable. It is the only way to save this world.

But what about the narrow anti-imperialist fight of Muslim religious organisations? Intelligent leaders like bin Laden, who refuse to compromise their philosophy, are being destroyed. Their fight has no relation to the world’s democratic, peace-loving, common people. There is no point trying to link them up. Huge numbers of people are killed by their anti-imperialist attacks. These groups do not set out to unite the common people of this world in order to counter imperialism.

We should also remember that the seeds of imperialism are hidden in religion too. If bin Laden’s al Qa’eda and other Muslim organisations defeated western imperialism, there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t give birth to a new religious imperialism or fascism.

Nonetheless, at present the world’s common working class people should give sleeping support to their anti-imperialism, since our two fights - against western imperialism - are the same. But if in the future the anti-imperialist revolution succeeded and the Muslim organisations wanted to follow a religious imperialist path, the world’s working class common people would have to resist them too.

US trembled
US trembled

Disturbing

We should be grateful to Tony Clark for stating his position succinctly (Letters, April 28). It would appear, however, he misunderstands Marx.

Apart from the issue of Marx’s supposedly “materialist” interpretation of history, which Cyril Smith discussed very appositely in his article ‘Where are we going?’ (New Interventions Vol 12, no3, spring 2008, pp40-45), surely the role of the “productive forces” is, if anything, crucial in effecting a change in production relations tantamount to the establishing of a new mode of production.

If the resulting mode is a new form of exploitation of the kinds listed by Tony then a state machine of some sort becomes unavoidable - even if the change is from capitalism to socialism, some kind of state remains a temporary necessity. As Tony rightly says, if all that is required for the establishment of a certain set of production relations is a certain set of productive forces per se, then ipso facto no armed force is necessary.

What I am trying to say is that the “productive forces” (and to some extent the corresponding “production relations”) appropriate to the new mode of production develop within the old. Maurice Dobb illustrated this in relation to the transition from feudalism to capitalism in his Studies in the development of capitalism and Giovanni Arrighi has gone into the topic in great detail in The long 20th century.

As for ‘peak oil’, an informed debate on this question on the left is urgently necessary. I too have read Vernon Coleman’s Oil apocalypse and I find his conclusions disturbing. I should like to hear any relevant counterevidence.

Disturbing
Disturbing

Monarchist case

I agree with Eddie Ford that opposing the British monarchy is just part of fighting to “democratise all aspects of society” (‘Monarchist system must go’, April 28).

Despite the recent fashion and media event, distaste for this institution is growing and even the centrist case for it is looking thin these days. That defence case has three parts: ceremonial, constitutional and ‘Calm down, it’s not that important’.

• Ceremonial. It’s good for tourism and therefore value for money. It makes for a great reputation abroad, and especially in the Commonwealth - all those trips. It brings colour and pageantry into our lives - not just with the odd royal wedding, but bright uniforms and spectacular palaces.

Whatever you think of all the pageantry and ritual (and even prince Philip in 1966 thought that the Order of the British Empire was a bit redundant), we don’t need a royal household to justify them. Most countries have soldiers who wear colourful gear, and even a people’s militia might have some rituals. Arguably, more tourists would come if Buckingham Palace was open for longer than 60 days in August and September. It’s closed the rest because prince Andrew is in residence. Even he and his cronies don’t need 78 bathrooms. And what does princess Michael of Kent do for the economy?

As for abroad, when the Australians voted against a republic, most were voting against their gang of politicians taking more power, not for more royal visits.

The queen and prince Charles own property in Britain from Balmoral to Newquay, but the royals still get an income from the taxpayer to the amount of £41.5 million pa (in 2009, that included the civil list, government grants for the palaces, various annuities and the maintenance of such essentials as equerries). The household recently asked for £4 million extra. These figures, by the way, don’t include the bill for security (just like an estimate for the Olympics). Cost isn’t everything, but at a time when even disability benefit is under pressure, dissent about expense doesn’t make you a misery-guts.

• Constitutional. The political defence is that, because the queen is sovereign, she denies power to others, as well as being head of the armed forces, so this will prevent a coup, either military or civilian-fascist.

As part of the informal constitution authority is vested in the sovereign, but as she/he “depends on the advice of ministers”, it is wielded by them - in fact by the prime minister. Ministers can “only continue to serve in that capacity as long as they retain the confidence of parliament”. This formula of the ‘crown-in-parliament’ means legitimacy doesn’t come from a people’s vote or a formal document (as in the US), but from whether the minister can command a majority in the house. With a whipped-in party and national loyalty from the Tories, this actual assumption of sovereignty enabled Tony Blair to go to war in Iraq. Margaret Thatcher only needed the cabinet to send a task force to the Falklands.

Not all royals prevent coups. In 1922 in Italy it was king Emmanuel III who asked Mussolini to take over as duce. In 1926 Mussolini even passed a law declaring he was solely responsible to the crown, not parliament. Victor Emmanuel justified his action later by citing his “fear of civil war”. Readers may not find it hard to imagine a situation in the UK held by conservatives to be a state of civil war - like the ‘wrong’ political movement getting too many votes, as in Allende’s Chile. Which way would a conservative institution like the royal household jump? Discreetly, of course.

• Calm down. Because surely there are more important things to discuss. It’s a trivial issue, a bit of fun, a bit of colour, it’s apolitical, it unifies people. This is very much an argument for monarchy and Eddie Ford dealt with much of this in his article. But with the assertion that monarchism is trivial we can agree. If some liberals think that people will care much about bunting and protocol in the polarised and self-destructive society that is being created, they really are giving into the distraction of this costly pomp. Before the ‘fairy tale’ of king Wills and Kate, we’ll have the ratings winner that is Charles and Camilla.

The royals justify privilege: they won’t save it.

Monarchist case
Monarchist case