Letters

No tears

I have to confess that comrade Vic Turner’s comments on clause four (Weekly Worker 89) left me scratching my head somewhat - was it directed towards the left of the Labour Party or the Communist Party?

Apparently, comrade Turner was “confident that some sort of real socialism would come to the fore”, as a result of the clause four furore. This is a bit odd. How could “real socialism” (ie, Marxism-Leninism) emerge from within the Labour Party?

Comrade Turner then states, “There will no longer be even the pretence of socialism”. Does he think this is a good or bad thing? From a communist perspective, I would argue that the fact there is no longer even a “pretence of socialism” is a healthy development in the long run. The less illusions militants and workers have in Labourism the better, I say.

More seriously, Vic says that the left are “naturally” very concerned about the dumping of clause four (sure, the Labour left!) and then concludes on what is presumably a ‘cheerful’ note: “There is going to be a real fight, whatever the leadership says”.

I do not believe that communists should encourage, or support, the Labour ‘left’ in attempts to salvage clause four or, in the future, introduce some sort of neo-clause four, mark two.

However, it does appear that comrade Turner identifies with the struggle of the Labour left to retain some influence within the ‘new’ Labour Party. He says that “the last thing we wanted was to have to devote our energies to that”.

I believe that comrade Turner should devote his energies to reforging the Communist Party, not rescuing the ‘soul’ of the Labour Party.

Therefore, I strongly disagree with Vic’s final comment that “the kickback from the left has to come quick and has to come strong”, as the whole tenor of the article is directed towards the Labour Party, not the Communist Party. In reality, such a conclusion obscures the real issue: do we devote our energies towards sowing socialistic illusions in the Labour Party (past, present, future) or building the Communist Party (in the here and now, for the future)?

If Tony Blair’s ditching of clause four ends up making our job easier, then good, and let us have no more tears for the Labour Party.

Danny Hammil
South London

Poll tax riot

I see that last week's issue of Militant carries an article commemorating the 5th anniversary of the anti-poll tax riot in Trafalgar Square.

Militant is rightly proud of the role its organisation played in mobilising 200,000 to the demonstration. But even today it cannot find a word of criticism over its non-organisation of any form of self-defence, either in advance of, or during, the vicious police attack on the marchers.

It states, “Militant, whilst not approving of looting and rioting, stressed the rights of self-defence against physical attack ...” (April 7 1995)

But where is the dividing line between “self-defence” and “rioting”? For the ruling class there is none. Any attack on the police is viewed as criminal, and at the time the leader of the anti-poll tax federation, Militant member Steve Nally, was drawn into that same viewpoint. He condemned “deliberate attacks on the police” by demonstrators (Militant April 6 1990).

On television he went further, promising to “name names” in response to a gutter press campaign to identify those who fought back.

Militant wants it both ways. It wants to claim the credit for the demise of Margaret Thatcher, in which the Trafalgar Square riot played no small part. At the same time it wants to distance itself from the ‘rioters’.

Roger Dickson
North London