Letters

No joke

I am not familiar with the demonology of vegetarianism, but if ‘speciesism’ means that I regard human beings as more important by far than other animals then I am guilty. If we treat animals well - and I think we should - it is for our benefit, not for theirs. I do not agree that animals have rights, but humans have the imaginative and cultural capacity to care for the entire planet rationally. The ‘natural’ environment Mark Field (Weekly Worker 94) refers to is a man-made environment.

Someone said, “What is good for General Motors is good for America”. I believe that what is good for the working class is good for the world.

Mark kids himself if he thinks his view is not based on a “sense of moral superiority”. “All creatures have a right to a pain-free life” is clearly a moral judgement. He seems to say that the reason we need to get rid of capitalism is because it encourages us to eat meat.

Communists fight for human freedom, not “for the right to a pain-free life”. Mark rejects the spiritual dimension of mankind for a narrow, mechanical definition of the meaning of life which even underestimates the social complexity of the domestic sheep.

What animal rights activists of all shades have in common is the view that humans are the cause of other creatures’ suffering. Animals deserve compassion because they are innocent. Humans, by contrast, are guilty and deserve what they get. So the protesters at Dover are prepared to do more for animal welfare than they did to protect the miners in 1984-5.

If you want a bad joke, Hitler treated people like animals, but today’s animal rights protesters wish to treat animals better than people.

Phil Railston
Kent

Which evil?

Some leftwing organisations seem to have an ideology based upon pure sado-masochism. Take Militant Labour for an example.

Following a report in The Guardian that “a group usually seen as close to Militant Labour” in the TGWU is supporting Jack Dromey in his bid to oust Bill Morris as general secretary, Bill Mullins, Militant Labour’s industrial organiser, put the record straight. He wrote to The Guardian and The Independent reaffirming that “Militant Labour is supporting Bill Morris in this crucial election”, due to the fact there is “clear blue water between Mr Morris and Mr Dromey” (rather unfortunate imagery, I thought).

No surprises there, of course. However, the ‘leftwinger’ Bill Morris has been making political capital out of ‘red-baiting’, claiming that Jack Dromey is backed by an unholy “alliance of extremes” - which combines “Trotskyists” (i.e. Militant Labour!) and Labour ‘modernisers’.

So this is where the ‘lesser of two evils’ approach gets you. You give your support to a candidate who is actively attacking you, just because he is a ‘leftwinger’. Militant Labour are content with the ‘leftwing’ anti-communism of Morris, as opposed to the rightwing anti-communism of Dromey.

What a miserable state of affairs. Who - except people who have very low horizons and are feeling down in the dumps - would want to be a member of such an organisation?

It is about time the left cheered up!

Danny Hammill
South London

Flush

I am thoroughly puzzled by the letter from Tom Cowan, advocating we send pencils and chalk to the beleaguered revolutionary state of Cuba (Weekly Worker, May 18).

There are essentially two distinct approaches to what could broadly be called ‘international solidarity’ - that of proletarian internationalism and that of charity mongering.

Proletarian internationalism places at the centre of all of its work the revolution in Britain as our greatest service to the world revolution. Such an approach can certainly encompass tangible immediate international support in the form of money or goods. But everything - including such proletarian ‘Red Aid’ - would be subordinate and linked to the fight to raise the working class to the position of ruling class. Then it would be in a rather stronger position to deliver some real effective solidarity to the isolated and emaciated revolution in Cuba.

In contrast, Tom seems to suggest that individuals send small amounts of money. But if that is actually a solution, why did he go to Cuba in the first place?

After all, he must have spent around £800-£1,000 getting to the island. He arrives home aflame with revolutionary passion advocating people send ... £10 each: £20 if they’re feeling flush. If such pitiful amounts stumped up by individuals actually made a difference one way or the other, why didn’t he just stay in South London and send a proxy donation on behalf of 100 or so would-be punters?

From the standpoint of either charity or proletarian international-ism, the working class of Cuba can be forgiven for being somewhat underwhelmed.

Mark Fischer
East London