Letters

Free association

How socialists and leftists get together to try and change their political organisations is currently being discussed: in the Socialist Workers Party, should factions only be allowed for three months before conference, and then have to disband? Should Left Unity members be allowed to publicly campaigns against LU policies but not against aims? What are we to make of all this? Should organisational form and rules be a consequence of political purpose? What context allows us best to judge these matters? Do we have available to us a wide enough range of ways of associating?

Introducing the LU session on the constitution, Sean Thompson declared: “The fundamental principle … is that … free and open political debate is the absolute lifeblood of this organisation, and that actually it should be open to all members to organise themselves in order to promote their particular views on any particular issue, and that’s the principle that underlies the clauses on caucuses.”

His very next words develop this point: “There is of course another view, which is to say that caucuses … can be harmful and disruptive … but we also know that people will always form such groups in any organisation, and what we are saying is it is their right, but we want it to be done in an open and democratic way, and not behind closed doors.”

So the draft (section 7b) allowed members to get together without the prior permission of anyone else, calling them caucuses (conference re-named them ‘tendencies’). But, contrary to almost all of Sean’s words, members weren’t to be totally free in how they chose to associate: the draft asked conference to ban permanent factions; to restrict caucuses to promoting “certain specific concepts, ideas or policies”, thereby excluding contestation of LU’s aims; and to forbid caucuses from publicly campaigning against LU policies or aims. All these restrictions were rejected by conference.

But there’s more. Interestingly no amendment challenged the need, specified in the draft, for caucus meetings to be open to all LU members. However, one speaker, Jack Conrad, did. He said “we” will have private meetings - whatever the constitution says. He was ambiguous as to whether he meant either CPGB members of LU or the Communist Platform, which they helped initiate. In either case a gauntlet.

He also vehemently opposed the idea of “the leadership being able to proscribe organisations”. I assume he’s referring to this: “Membership of [Left Unity] shall be open to any individual ... who ... is not a member of an organisation deemed incompatible with membership of [Left Unity] by national conference or national council” (section 3e).

Given his view on these two matters, it is surprising that CPGB and Communist Platform people were unable, or just forgot, to try and get amendments on this presented to conference.

Which brings us to the f-word. Much of the discussion about factions, temporary or permanent, has been more narrow than it should be, neglecting why factions exist and what their legitimate aims can be, and considering what other kinds of association of members (and supporters) are not just possible, but desirable.

In last week’s Weekly Worker, Peter Manson, discussing the final Socialist Workers Party Pre-conference Bulletin, implied that healthy internal organisation and practices encourage members to think, giving them the confidence to act, even to try to organise “a replacement leadership” (‘Another split looms’, November 28).

I think we need to step back a little and place factions within a typology of ways that members (and supporters) can associate, the overarching principle here being that organisational forms are legitimated most forcefully by political purposes.

It seems that the faction section (10) of the SWP constitution has clouded our imagination, impoverishing many of us with binary thinking about the possibilities for associating: so in the SWP we can have either an atomised membership (with, of course, the key decision-makers functioning as an undeclared permanent faction) or 30 members declaring themselves as a faction. The rule is clear, with two powerful effects: association is encouraged to be adversarial, not collaborative; the aim is to win, not lose; to destroy, not create; and it can only be in opposition to “a specific party policy, or a decision taken by a leading committee of the party”. Did the LU drafters learn from this, allowing association to be other than oppositional, to also promote concepts and ideas, but not going so far as to include advocating aims?

Two crucial possibilities are missing here: not only is it impermissible in the SWP to associate solely to promote anything new, to take the initiative and raise a new area of work (the hitherto unsaid); it is also prohibited to consider means that should help devise policy: namely strategy and programme, those themes that have been central to the workers’, socialist and communist movements, and perhaps been essential to its successes.

Discussion of these two constitutional restrictions has been absent both within the SWP and without. The first prohibition is ingrained in the ‘IS tradition’, not least stymieing the efforts of IS members, all of 40 years ago, to innovate, systematising gay work and trying to involve those outside the organisation. The apparatus came down on them like a ton of bricks. On the second, IS did have a programme - once. As the Weekly Worker showed, using Ian Birchall’s recollection. In recent SWP Pre-conference Bulletin articles a number of members have argued that the SWP needs a programme.

So how else could members and supporters organise without the permission of anyone else? Well, here’s a possible inventory.

1. Associate to explore a concept, idea, argument, topic, theme, decision, policy, tactic, strategy, part or all of a programme, area of work, areas of work currently ignored. The LU drafters did well to admit some of these possibilities. This is what we call a working group.

2. Come together to try to alter one of the above, but without the intention of changing the existing leadership. This has been termed a tendency.

3. Ditto, but with the intention of changing the leadership, because, for example, it is not believed their mind can be changed, or confidence has been lost in them, perhaps so badly that they can’t be trusted. Has been called a faction.

An association should last as long as its members want. An association should never be repressed: what may warrant disciplinary investigation is the behaviour of members, nothing else. As Sean Thompson and Teresa Delaney (Cardiff) acknowledged, members will associate - believe it or not, we’re human beings, not just political animals.

I suggest that if we are more systematic in how the f-word fits into associative possibilities then we can be less hostile to it, and use the form and the word when it deserves to be used, rather than it being the poor pejorative it has become.

Who knows, maybe the Socialist Workers Refoundation Party will be as variegated as I have sketched.

Free association
Free association

Not Marxist

A tongue-in-cheek remark by your guru, Jack Conrad, during the LU conference lunch break about me being the “leader” - presumably based on my successful amendment to the Left Party Platform to include references to striking, occupations and solidarity in order to win individual disputes and change society (making that platform and hence Left Unity much less reformist and much less focused on electoral methods than would otherwise have been the case) - suggests that your organisation is not totally unhappy with the outcome either.

However, in your supplement, Mike Macnair put forward a distortion of my other amendment that surely contributed to its defeat (but with only two minutes to propose both, that would probably have happened anyway): “Or should we seek to build a broad left party outside Labour, including both ‘reformists’ and ‘revolutionaries’ - whatever these categories mean in 21st century Britain - but with a ‘revolutionary Marxist’ pole - again, whatever that means - within it?”

Firstly, a minor correction - that amendment of mine actually said “broad socialist party” rather than “broad left party”; another paragraph of the LPP actually specified that the party is socialist - rather than just being vaguely leftwing - even if the CPGB would have preferred it to specifically refer to the working class (disenfranchising the likes of Russell Brand).

Secondly, although I want a revolutionary pole/platform/tendency within LU, I am not actually a Marxist any more (I did regard myself as a Trotskyist in my time in Militant/the Socialist Party from 1990-98, but still call myself a revolutionary socialist. I also want to involve those with (non-violent) autonomous/anarchist views, particularly if they are in favour of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism (even if the sort of society they want to replace it differs from that of most socialists).

Thirdly, it seems bizarre that Mike doesn’t understand the difference between reformists and revolutionaries. Reformists argue for gradual reforms to capitalism, perhaps with the aim of ultimately achieving socialism (although that couldn’t happen since gains achieved during a boom will be taken back during a slump or recession). I define a revolution as a ‘sudden, thorough change’ from capitalism to socialism, not wanting to specify whether it would happen through an armed insurrection, a peaceful general strike movement involving the Marxist concept of ‘dual power’ or even a victory in a general election.

The actual amendment of mine that was defeated was:

“Add new paragraph (11): ‘In line with the party being a broad socialist party, it should reflect a wide variety of views in our literature and on our website and forum. Our members will include:

(a) reformists in favour of gradual change towards socialism and revolutionaries who believe some sort of (preferably peaceful) socialist revolution is necessary, while supporting such reforms in the short term (and, of course, those who don’t know how socialism can/will be achieved).

(b) those who believe in change through elections and/or extra-parliamentary activity. Those who want to join the party, but only take part in one of those types of activity would be welcome.”

Not Marxist
Not Marxist

Barbaric

Comrade Richard Tomasson’s latest contribution to the discussion about the department for work and pensions sanctions against benefit claimants states: “... arguing over the stats or demonising sections of our class is wasting time” (Letters, November 28).

It should be perfectly obvious to anyone who reads the press, watches television or listens to the radio that it is benefit claimants who are being demonised. As to the suggestion that it is unimportant to analyse or interpret data, the Public and Commercial Services union certainly does not take that stance. Responding to the publication of the DWP’s latest figures, the PCS describes these as “truly shocking” (press statement, November 6).

Regarding the reasons for sanctions being applied, when addressing the issue of what would constitute a fair sanction, comrade Tomasson puts forward the idea that “unprovoked and aggressive behaviour towards staff” would fall into this category. I do not have any figures for this, but it seems likely that, if it were a common occurrence, then the PCS would draw attention to the issue. That this is not a notable feature of the present relationship between claimants and job centre (JC) workers is perhaps best evidenced by the PCS comment in the press statement noted above that “... sanctions are now lasting for longer and at a higher rate and are completely disproportionate to the so-called offence, which can be as trivial as being a few minutes late for an interview”. In the same statement, general secretary Mark Serwotka makes the point that “The government’s perverse and punitive approach is a collective punishment on the unemployed and disabled.” The PCS, then, is fully aware of the role of its members in delivering this barbaric system.

So what is to be done? According to comrade Tomasson, PCS members need to be equipped with “the knowledge, confidence and tools to lead” a fightback. What are these mysterious tools? Moreover, when considering the guidance given by the PCS to its DWP group members in November 2012, that “Members in job centres cannot refuse to implement the new regime without facing disciplinary action” (November 1 2012), it is difficult to see how the leap is to be made from that position - which effectively means JC workers continuing, willingly or grudgingly, to penalise claimants - to one in which PCS members are in the vanguard of an attack on the government’s welfare reforms.

I would also like to know what comrade Tomasson means when he refers to the “socialist utopia”. Does he really believe that socialism is an unattainable, impractical ideal? More crucially, are we really expected to accept that a future socialist society will be so technologically and culturally backward that it will be based on bartering in the market place? But that, as they say, is another debate.

Barbaric
Barbaric

PCS scabs?

When citing Iain Duncan Smith in support of the bald assertion that “work really is good for your health”, then, yes, comrade Tomasson, it really is necessary to state what your own position is; although why anyone should feel the need to refer to IDS is beyond me.

Comrade Tomasson states that in the case of “unprovoked and aggressive behaviour towards staff”, it would be fair for sanctions to be applied, “once all mitigating circumstances have been taken into account”. Here we go again. What are these mitigating circumstances and, more to the point, who decides what is and what is not mitigating?

Comrade Tomasson also seems to believe that the relationship between claimants and job centre workers is one in which both parties have equal power and where a genuine service is being provided for the good of the recipient, rather like attending hospital or calling the fire brigade. It is not. The power relationship and the process to which claimants are subjected is totally different. There is no haggling or debating ‘yams for milk’ at the JC. Claimants who disagree, however politely, with whatever programme JC workers are putting forward for them, will soon be told to be quiet, do as they are told or face sanctions.

As to comrade Tomasson’s notion that we should not be “demonising sections of our class”, I assume that he means we should not criticise Public and Commercial Services union JC workers. This is galling when one considers the torrent of abuse which has been directed against claimants in the press and other media. It would be very nice if, as comrade Tomasson states, we could “equip PCS members with the knowledge, confidence and tools” to lead a fightback against welfare reforms. However, whilst PCS members continue to administer programmes which are hitting the unemployed and the sick, it is like asking a scab to lead a strike.

As for comrade Tomasson’s concluding statement that “a future with universal credit and virtual job seeking, backed by non-unionised, outsourced call centres doesn’t bear thinking about”, this is nothing more than an attempt to justify the status quo. It is the same argument - now wearing somewhat thin - that says we must continue to vote for Labour, as it will be even worse under the Tories. For claimants, however, the present doesn’t bear much thinking about either.

PCS scabs?
PCS scabs?

Sikh fairness

There are important and interesting aspects of Sikhism which I believe communists could appreciate. Prior to the advent of Sikhism, other faiths did not offer several social rights. I was born into a Sikh family, and even at one time became zealously religious, but in 2012 I took a giant leap by rejecting religion and becoming an agnostic. However, one thing I continue to greatly admire about the Sikh faith is the unique fairness it promotes.

Sikhism is a faith in which diversity is fundamental. The Sikh gurus were strictly against caste oppression, they firmly condemned the greed and cruelty of the rich, provided for the poor, and elevated the status of women. For example, according to the Sikh scripture, we should not “consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the hereafter”. Guru Nanak Dev (1469- 1539), the first guru of the Sikhs, promoted female rights. He rightly says: “Why call her inferior? From her, kings are born.” The Brahmin and Islamic fundamentalists of India were left flabbergasted by these revolutionary teachings.

One of Sikhism’s pillars is Vand ke chakna, meaning sharing one’s wealth and food with the community. Every gurdwara (Sikh temple) has a community kitchen where free food is provided and all must sit and eat as equals, regardless of their background. In the 16th century, the Mughal emperor, Akbar, visited Amar Das, the third Sikh guru. When it was time to eat, the emperor received no special treatment and had to sit on the floor with the peasant farmers, shoemakers, washermen, etc and eat the simple food.

Unfortunately, caste oppression is still a major problem in India. Had Sikh philosophy been embraced by all, the matter would have been totally different. The country, which enjoys the title of ‘the largest democracy in the world’, would be almost a utopia without all the caste/class divisions. Hindu Dalits suffer the worst persecution. Dalits (untouchables) are considered even lower than the Shudra (labour caste), which is the lowest of the four varnas (social classes of Hinduism). On a daily basis, they experience inhumane treatment by those belonging to the so-called ‘upper castes’. These atrocities include derogatory verbal abuse, confined to demeaning jobs, denied access to places of worship, wells and schools, public beatings, rape, and other forms of humiliation and abuse of human rights. Sadly, many Dalits, the majority of whom have no education and ambitions, accept it as normal.

In conclusion, the only major difference I personally see between Sikhs and communists is that Sikhs believe in a god and communists do not. However, the common primary goal of both ideologies is to strive to work towards creating a fair and just society.

Sikh fairness
Sikh fairness

Wounding

I cannot believe what I have just read in the letter from Barry Curtis on male circumcision (November 28), but then I probably shouldn’t be surprised, given the cultural relativism of many of the so-called left when it comes to religion. Circumcision is an act of wounding a baby prescribed for no other reason than the parents’ irrational beliefs, which they wish to perpetuate through their children, along with all the other views of the ‘tradition’ that they were born into.

“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.” Rubbish: socialists should support the state when it rules against religious prejudice - eg, in discrimination against women, homosexuals, sharia law, etc; but this does not mean that it should be seen as the only “guiding spiritual force” (whatever that means). 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.

Ideally, yes, no-one should be brought up subjected to religious drivel; however, the right for individual religious freedom is sacrosanct, so long as it is not at odds with the democratic laws applicable to everyone.

I presume next week’s letter will be about how it’s OK to teach children that the world was created in six days or in certain circumstances adulterers deserve to be stoned to death!

Wounding
Wounding