Letters

Democracy?

The articles by Stan Keable and Ken Williamson in Labour Party Marxists both concern trade unions and the Labour Party (autumn 2013).

Starting off with Stan Keable’s open letter to Jerry Hicks, I note that the Labour Representation Committee would not take a position of supporting either Len McCluskey or challenger Jerry Hicks for the Unite general secretary election, but no explanation for the LRC’s abstentionist stance is given by Stan. Will someone explain and justify that position for Weekly Worker readers?

Stan, for the Labour Party Marxists, does declare they did initially support Jerry, but now dislike his challenge to the Unite election result, basically accusing him of lining up with the Tories and the media witch-hunt against McCluskey and ex-Grangemouth convenor Stevie Deans, “as if they are ballot-riggers in the Labour Party and ballot-riggers in the union”. Stan confidently asserts, “they are nothing of the kind”, because the ballot was carried about by the Electoral Reform Society (a Tory-created body) and Unite officials did not personally stuff the ballot envelopes. That is complacent. What about the ballot addresses of members provided to the ERS by Unite?

Given how the re-election poll was sudden, unexpected and two-three years earlier than due (supposedly not to be a distraction to the Labour election campaign of 2015) and given how he asked for an increase in the number of nominating branches (and the NEC agreed) before a candidate could stand against him, that looks unprincipled to me and trying to rush his re-election through to stop any opponent having time to be able to get enough support to mount a serious challenge also looks like manipulation. Rather like the accusations McCluskey is facing over his plan for Labour Party constituency selection of 41 preferred Unite candidates!

Stan wants Jerry to change his critical attitude towards the Labour Party. Stan feels that militancy in defence of workers’ rights, wages and conditions is not enough and can only be temporary under a capitalist system. True enough. But then Stan exhorts Jerry (and all socialists and trade union activists) to “commit wholeheartedly to the struggle to transform” the Labour Party into “an instrument for working class advance and international socialism”. As always Stan readily lists how the Labour Party has never been truly socialist, has always betrayed the working class, but is short on how anyone can make it into a party it has never been and does not wish to be (for overthrowing capitalism). Stan cannot explain why so many socialists have tried this and decided it is impossible and left. They’re all wrong and the thing to do is stay in and ‘pull it left’.

In Ken Williamson’s article, looking at Ed Moribund’s attack on trade union influence, Hazel Nolan’s facile quote repeated of defending the ‘opted-in’ system of union members being automatically made to pay the Labour Party levy by saying, “When you buy a bottle of coke, you can’t opt out of paying the tax on it. Why should you be able to opt out of paying your share of your union’s democratically agreed political spending?” She then says opting out is “a legally imposed right to scab”.

Maybe we should not question such an assertion or we might have to brand McCluskey and other union leaders as scabs for following a “legally imposed right” to be balloted in a secret union election or strike ballot - isolated from your workmates on the assumption you will be influenced by the anti-union, anti-strike, anti-left mainstream media and might therefore vote against strike action or for Jerry instead of Len!

We’re all scabs led by scabs, then, Hazel. As will you be, by your own argument if you are actually a trade union activist and abide by the anti-union laws. Has Miliband committed Labour to repealing the anti-union laws? Blair didn’t. Has any recent Labour Party conference debated the issue or even listed a motion? Sounds like Labour are a scab party then, given they never declare support for striking trade unionists, and in government encourage strike-breaking measures.

Interesting words, “democratically agreed”. A union conference making decisions it expects members to follow should ensure, then, that those in attendance are truly representative of their members in each branch - and put those members’ views above factions and party lines. Deciding a policy in Labour Party conference by a block vote cast by a union general secretary, not even based on its members wishes, is not democracy as I’d define the term.

Which Labour-affiliated unions have had a recent, genuine debate on whether to retain their link to Labour or/and how much to continue to donate to the party? How many branches, in unions that have had that debate, had Labour Party activists actually raising that issue at mandating meetings - instead of having no discussion, so they can vote at conference to retain the link, putting their own wishes above that of their members? That’s union democracy.

As for Labour Party conference, it is simply a rally of cheerleaders with no power to make manifesto commitments. A sham. Given the sheer decline in voting for any of the big three parties, who do you think you are to continue to declare we must join Labour?

Ken calls for the RMT and FBU to come back into the Labour Party with not a comment on why they left (or were expelled). He calls for my union, the PCS, to affiliate. So bad was the last Labour government to civil servants, PCS Labour Party members dare not raise the issue of affiliation at PCS conferences - they know they’d be absolutely slaughtered.

Don’t tell PCS members they must join a party which in government, as our employer, shed 100,000 civil servants, brought in privatisation, closed courts, tax offices and DWP offices, continued Tory pay restraint and even brought in regional pay in the ministry of justice, attacked benefits and allowed the rich and companies to avoid/evade tax on a massive scale.

Pull it left? Pull the other one. Stan Keable, Ken Williamson, Hazel Nolan have urged, and will urge, a vote for Labour, no matter how bad. You have absolutely no evidence that Labour are ready to be pulled left and will genuinely carry out any pledges they make to get votes. Any attempt to bring some democracy back into the party will be condemned as falling under control of the left and an election loser.

Left Unity will make key decisions at its November 30 conference. Let’s look at the platform that is agreed, the direction it is to take, what accountability there will be of candidates. Here is a chance to have a left-of-centre party that is accountable to and controlled by its members, who will make its policies.

Nothing like the Labour Party then!

Democracy?
Democracy?

So there!

The Socialist Platform of Left Unity has proved ineffectual. I complained recently that the steering committee had not done much ‘steering’. This brought forth an apology from Nick Wrack, but there has been no change.

The majority of the leading figures in the SP are also in the Independent Socialist Network, which has an orientation to the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (a unity project in its own right but in thrall to officialdom). In addition, some appear content to go along with a Die Linke-type formation. How such a leadership can pose a challenge to the broad party perspective offered by the Left Platform (and probable majority group in LU) is hard to see. Certainly, the Socialist Platform - aside from collecting names - has made little political impact on the debates in LU.

Things are no better with the CPGB’s Communist Platform. Usually, when facing into the latest unity project the CPGB start as ‘best builders’ before developing criticisms and then blaming others for the failure of the project. They seem to have moved straight to the criticism phase in LU in the shape of the Communist Platform, issued as a token with little in the way of interventions to follow up. They are also content to enter a Die Linke-type operation. Consequently, their differences with the Socialist Platform were expressed over the fate of their amendments. If the Socialist Platform in LU has collapsed politically - excused by bowing to members not present to vote - then can the CPGB be far behind them?

With a different approach, the CPGB might have been able to turn the SP into something useful. As it is, I see little in LU that is qualitatively different from what the radical left has been doing for years - tailing the unions, hopping from one protest campaign to another, and dressing up Keynesianism in one country as socialism. The purported socialist and communist elements have not offered arguments for an alternative in LU.

I will not be going to the LU conference on November 30 or joining LU and I think it appropriate to withdraw support from the Socialist Platform.

So there!
So there!

Sanctioned

Both Mark Wood and Jo Russell (Letters, November 21) take me to task for stating that work is good for your health (November 14) and not specifying, I presume, that the work should be some combination of well-paid, useful, satisfying and under workers’ control. Well, I’m happy to provide that clarification and apologise for assuming I didn’t need to be so exact.

Of course, I don’t want to make light of, or underestimate, the serious damage that this Con-Dem government is doing to the most vulnerable in our society, but comrade Russell wonders if I consider any sanctions to be fair. Unprovoked and aggressive behaviour towards staff, once all mitigating circumstances have been taken into account, of course, would certainly be one. You know, even in the socialist utopia, exchanging yams for milk will probably require turning up and being polite.

Ultimately though, arguing over the stats or demonising sections of our class is wasting time. Let’s unite around a programme to smash this government’s welfare reforms once and for all and let’s equip PCS members with the knowledge, confidence and tools to lead, because a future with universal credit and virtual job-seeking, backed by non-unionised, outsourced call centres doesn’t bear thinking about.

Sanctioned
Sanctioned

Three things

Over 100 employees at the University of London have raised over £5,000 through an online ‘crowd-sourced’ appeal for funds to support their strike action this week. The outsourced staff, who work at the libraries and student halls around Russell Square, are campaigning for sick pay, holiday and pensions and against job cuts at student halls.

The strike fund, launched only one week ago, aimed to raise £4,000 in order to provide financial assistance to staff losing wages because of industrial action, but more than £5,000 has already come in. Campaigners found that ‘crowd-sourcing’ the funds has proved to be yet another use of social media for a campaign that is already well-placed and remarkably popular on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

The ‘3 Cosas Campaign’ - meaning ‘three things’ in Spanish, the first language of the majority of low-paid workers at the university, has caused controversy with university authorities. Earlier this year, a philosophy student was charged with criminal damage for writing a chalk slogan outside the library.

Three things
Three things

Moon dance

>Chris Knight raises the important question of whether the society of early hunter-gatherers has a relevance for capitalism and socialism today (‘Luxemburg was right’, November 21). But if, as “essentialist ideologues” claim, these early groups were male-dominated and not collectivist, does this mean that human nature is hard-wired for sexism and class conflict? Wouldn’t it then make it easier to change today’s mode of production if there was once a time (and a long time) when people were communist?

Even if such an egalitarian past was proved, isn’t this yet another form of essentialism? In either version, blue or red, we have to do the same as we began.

Yes, human culture “in the beginning” was probably more collective, more egalitarian, even less sexist (Engels, basing this on Morgan, reckoned it was egalitarian in being ‘promiscuous’). But it was not communist. Not in the way I hope we would define that, after the enlightenment and scientific revolution. Early humans still relied on mythology, on supernatural powers, gods and goddesses. Some may even have danced to a moon deity. We have got over the moon dancing. Is the price of gender equality then that we must recreate such palaver, even as a metaphor?

But if matrilocality (a married couple living with the bride’s mother) did mark this early society, as Chris claims, this doesn’t always correlate with equality, just as nationalisation doesn’t equate with socialism. The post-marital residence of the wife with or near her parents is often a feature of the relationship between clans within a society, as in Amazonia, with the bridegroom doing service for the family while the bride remains within it. During the Heian period in Japan, the married woman also continued to live within her own clan, a sign of patriarchal authority over the family, not an indication of women’s high status. Barbara Epstein (1991) has referred to those anthropologists who argue that “the goddess worship or matrilocality that evidently existed in many Palaeolithic societies was not necessarily associated with matriarchy in the sense of women’s power over men. Many societies can be found that exhibit those qualities along with female subordination.”

Marx’s and Engels’ point against utopian socialists was that humanity had reached a stage by the 19th century when the question could be raised practically as to what kind of human society we might maintain. Their 18th century forerunner, Adam Smith, believed that enlightened humanity (not religion) had discovered the technique, the procedure, the mode of production - capitalism - that had indeed solved the problem of freedom and productivity, the good life. Marx and Engels disagreed and asserted that there was nothing inherent in human beings that made this the best and last solution. Their historical approach supposed human nature to be continually creative. In their retelling of Hegel, matter (nature) had produced mind (in humans), mind that had used and altered, or ‘mastered’, nature, though could never escape it. In this dialectic of mind and matter, matter is never entirely surpassed and often, of course, produces a backlash, as with global warming.

Even biologists concede that humans don’t have an innate ‘original’ character. As neuroscientist Gary F Marcus writes, “Nature provides a first draft, which experience revises” (Kluge: the haphazard construction of the human mind Old Saybrook 2008).

Human beings are not hard-wired: they are flexible and creative - that’s why they’re so good at learning and inventing things. At the same time they may be scared for themselves and their children and given to accepting out-of-date arrangements and getting stuck in path-dependence (‘It worked for my dad’). But this is not immutable: human nature is a growing thing.

Our message as revolutionary materialists, to atheists and religious believers alike, is that, regardless of arcadias and higher powers, we humans can give meaning to our existence by continuing to try and make life in society better. If we give up on creativity and progress, we might as well dance for the moon.

Moon dance
Moon dance

Moon Masons

I was intrigued that India has recently launched a space probe to the red planet, Mars, ostensibly to assess the likelihood of life being able to exist there. It reminded me a bit of the sudden announcement by then US president George Bush in 2004 of a new Nasa programme to return to the moon by 2020. What was Nasa’s sudden interest in doing that, 30 years after the equally sudden termination of the Apollo space programme? Was this related to the fact that a host of other countries, like China, India, Japan, Russia and the European Space Agency, had, independently, suddenly announced their own plans for going to the moon?

On face value, an incredibly expensive inter-imperialist competition to explore and perhaps carve up two apparently dead and lifeless worlds would seem to be utterly pointless, wasteful and inexplicable. However, I wonder if some of the overlapping belief systems of some of the key influences on Nasa and the US establishment may provide something of a clue as to the real agenda.

It is well known that after World War II top Nazi scientists like Werner von Braun were secretly shipped over to America and were subsequently recruited into the American space programme. Two Masonic scholars, Knight and Lomas, showed in The Hiram key that virtually all of the Masonic rituals are derived from the ancient Egyptian stories of the gods Isis, Osiris and Horus. The Craft was not founded in London in 1717, but can be traced all the way back through the Templars, to Jesus, the temple of Jerusalem, the first builder of the temple of Solomon, Hiram Abiff, then right back to ancient Egypt.

Goodrick-Clarke in The occult roots of Nazism showed that Hitler and Himmler considered the Nazi Party to be a direct descendant of the Teutonic knights, and Hitler to be a reincarnate of Frederick Barbarossa, the founder of the offshoot of the Knights Templar. Hitler and Himmler believed the ancient Egyptian gods came from an ancient universal high civilisation called ‘Atlantis’, which was founded by ‘extraterrestrials’ millions of year ago as part of an extraordinary powerful, solar-wide and technologically advanced civilisation.

Too many of the secret societies, cults and obscure religions which underpin and cohere many of the ruling elites throughout the world seem, at heart, to be deeply obsessed with the gods of ancient Egypt. They seem to ‘know’ the true origins of the human race and what really lies out there.

The uninterrupted bloodline from Horus to the present was the ultimate source of the natural supremacy of the ‘Aryan race’ itself. This ‘divine right of descent’ gave the modern Nazis, in their view, their prerogative to rule other people on planet Earth.

Returning to Mars (Aries) would in both Masonic and Nazi ideology mean returning The Brotherhood back to the old stomping grounds of the Aryan race; to reconnaissance and return to Earth with artefacts, treasures and possible technologies from ancient solar ruins and structures on both the moon and Mars, that the Nazis somehow knew about and regarded as being left by their own ancestors.

For me, the notion of a space race between the world’s major imperialist powers to obtain sole access and control of such invaluable knowledge makes a huge amount more sense than the romantic explorers’ ideal ‘to boldly go’. For those who are able to successfully decode and understand what they may discover this time, there may surely be the prize of world domination.

Moon Masons
Moon Masons

Street talk

So, according to Nick Wheeler, Jewish Socialists are guilty of “hypocrisy” for saying we stand by those fighting racism and discrimination “here”, when the “Jewish state” oppresses Palestinians and other people there (Letters, November 21). “If only” we stood with them too, he says.

Well, if only Nick Wheeler had bothered to find out where Jewish Socialist stands politically (as stated in every issue), or attended events in support of the Palestinian people where he would like as not encounter the Jewish Socialists Group with their banner, he might not need to wonder about such things. Instead he seems to see the word ‘Jewish’ and automatically assume this means supporting the state of Israel and its policies, and not taking our place within the workers’ movement here or alongside other minorities fighting for their rights. Funnily enough, that is precisely the assumption we fight against when it comes from the ruling class and the Zionist establishment!

The Kristallnacht statement was aimed against those who purport to remember Hitler’s victims, but would have us learn nothing when confronting racism now.

And, yes, since the statement (not a manifesto) he finds wanting was signed by Jews living in Britain, he was right to assume by “here” it meant the UK, as this is where we live. That does not mean we’re not concerned, sometimes involved, with battles elsewhere. But what would really be hypocritical would be to issue bold declarations about global struggles without doing anything on our own street.

Street talk
Street talk

Greek piles

The article, ‘Looking to its right’ (November 21), is welcome, but I think for different reasons.

The general idea of transitioning from a coalition to a party-movement, considering affiliated solidarity networks, should be seen as a good thing. The organisational problem of Syriza’s left opposition is that its militants tend to prefer the status quo of coalition and not the new horizons of party-movement, which involves more dirty work.

The compromise on congress deciding each time whether to appoint presidential leadership or delegate it to the central committee should be seen as an innovative measure, though I would rather have preferred a dual leadership consisting of a presidency appointed by the congress and two co-chairs and a secretary appointed by the central committee.

An interesting part of the article dealt with the right-populist but anti-fascist Independent Greeks. Previous discussions in the Weekly Worker criticised the ‘workers’ government’ framework called for by the Comintern, but I think balanced lessons from that can be applied to this possibility - a communitarian, populist front beyond the collaborationism of popular fronts and sheer hypocrisy of united worker fronts. Their leader, Kammenos, has aspired to be a defence minister and, if lessons are to be learned from Chile, this is a dangerous concession.

Greek piles
Greek piles

Circumcised

The issue of whether to ban male circumcision might prove to be one of several important battles of late 2013-14.

The Council of Europe decreed that non-medical circumcision is a “physical violation of the integrity of children” and wants Europe to debate the issue with a view to an eventual ban on the practice. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Greenland look likely to ban the practice, as their children’s ombudsmen have taken the view that male circumcision is abusive. There have been attempts in Germany and the Netherlands to ban it, which have failed so far. Meanwhile San Francisco is considering a ban after a small American group called the Intactivists helped to get over 12,000 signatures to prompt a legal debate. Although subsequently dropped from this November’s ballot, the San Francisco ban would have led parents to spending a year in jail and the child presumably placed into social care. They would have faced a $1,000 fine and potential ruin, as society does not look kindly on those legally deemed to have ‘abused’ a child. Although a ban won’t happen this year in San Francisco, Intactivists will no doubt keep agitating for one in times to come.

To unpick the logic of the Council of Europe and the Nordic banners, as well as the San Franciscans, it is helpful to examine the literature of the Intactivists. Although the Intactivists present their arguments in a fanfare of blood and gore, wrongly conflating male circumcision with female genital mutilation and backward religious blood-letting rituals, with lots of pictures to trigger an emotional response, their arguments are the same as the Euro-professionals, even if they are not so phrased in political correctness.

Firstly, it is worth noting the Intactivists compare their struggle to ban male circumcision with attempts to end child labour in the developing world or even the historic abolition of slavery. This shows they are passionate about their cause and think a lot depends on it.

There are two strands of argument that can be discerned from a thorough review of the Intactivist online literature, although they often get mixed together in a ranting format. But separating them out and treating them as separate arguments should be sufficient to undermine their case.

The first argument is that male circumcision is harmful. I argued with Intactivists about this in the comments section of an article I wrote for The Independent. To summarise, the most respected medical authorities in the world do not consider circumcision at all harmful. Although I conceded the point that botched operations account for 0.2% of cases, this should not stigmatise the general safety of circumcision.

The second strand of the Intactivists’ argument is that babies have an inalienable natural right to ‘genital integrity’ or ‘genital autonomy’. This means that any medically unnecessary act on a male baby should not proceed because we don’t know if he would consent to it. Obviously the baby cannot consent, so to help their case, I suggest we put forward the concept of ‘delayed consent’ to understand what they mean.

With the concept of ‘delayed consent’, it means that an act is to be prohibited if, when that baby becomes an adult, there is a chance he may look back and resent his parents for making that choice. It is when the boy becomes a man and thinks, ‘I would not have consented to that if I’d had the choice’ that creates the possibility of the original act being bannable. Hence any act can be banned if there is a possibility that the child, through a projected ‘delayed consent’ idea, would object when he is an adult.

Therefore Intactivists can defend things like vaccinations that have health risks, or teeth braces that have permanently altered something about the child’s body (his teeth and jaw) for purely cosmetic reasons. In almost all instances, a man looking back on these two cases would thank their parents for having put him through the procedure and certainly not think it was wrong or abusive. So ‘delayed consent’ can be presumed. Fair enough.

However, Intactivists assume that no child would be grateful for being circumcised. Therefore, the defence of assumed delayed consent does not work, so the whole procedure must be banned. Simple!

There is an easy way to combat this idea: 30% of the world’s male population get circumcised, yet the overwhelming majority do not moan about it in later life. Indeed no-one whinged and whined until the Intactivists came along and encouraged everyone to see themselves as ‘victims’, thus giving rise to the current debate. And if the majority of people don’t complain, then it is perfectly logical for parents to assume there is ‘delayed consent’ when they get their male babies circumcised.

For all their talk of ‘autonomy’ that a baby is supposed to have over his foreskin, the Intactivists hold real freedoms such as parental and religious rights in scant regard. They specifically target religious circumcision, assuming the adult male would not be happy in the religion his parents hoped he would follow. After all, if he liked being a Jew or Muslim, presumably he wouldn’t have minded that rite of passage. So hidden beneath the Intactivists ideas here is an assumption that a child would resent having been brought up religiously at all. It’s that the Intactivists don’t want - they don’t want anyone to be brought up with a religion that differs from their own statism.

Through appealing for state bans over the heads of parents and religious communities, there is a very real danger that the state is seen as the only guiding spiritual force in society - yet it isn’t capable of genuine spiritualism. Instead parents would have to hide their religion from their kids lest they be ‘corrupted’, and only toe the statist line on any issue. This would be a dystopian nightmare.

To get a glimpse of what life would be like with only a state-based morality in society, one only has to look at its current incursions into the field of morality. Whilst David Cameron attempts to block porn from everyone’s computers, doctor’s checks now resemble Catholic confessionals, where one is asked how many units one drinks, how much exercise you do, how much you smoke, what you eat, etc. If one is honest, one is usually referred to counselling. Great morality that! And it could increase.

Already a group called the Alcohol Health Network has advocated mandatory alcohol tests in the workplace, so employers can identify problem drinkers and ‘help them’. So vast chunks of freedom get further eroded when the state takes charge of morality.

There is more to the issue of male circumcision than originally meets the eye. As the latest stage in the ongoing war between intolerant secularism and religious freedom, it should be regarded as a priority issue.

Circumcised
Circumcised