Letters
Leon Kuhn
Leon Kuhn, political cartoonist and activist, died in London, aged 59, on December 19. Leon was a regular contributor of cartoons to The Morning Star. He strove in his artwork to lampoon the rich and powerful in society and always took the side of the working class. For Leon art was an essential element in the struggle for socialism and he attempted to stay firmly rooted in the progressive movement.
In the miners’ strike of 1984- 85, Leon was an active member of Kilburn Miners’ Support Group and one of his most valued possessions was the miner’s lamp given to him by the NUM in gratitude for his support. Leon was sceptical of the art world of inflated prices and obscure meanings. For him art had to connect with the struggle of ordinary people. Leon never identified with the stuffy world of art for art’s sake.
Leon was a familiar sight on demonstrations, where he would carry his large placard of his cartoons. I was proud to walk beside Leon on the great TUC demo of March 26 2011, as we sold his postcard, ‘Cameron’s pig society’, which showed the prime minister as a greedy pig. Leon commented with a wry smile, “No offence to pigs intended”.
Leon was particularly supportive of all anti-fascist groups and his designs were used by Unite against Fascism at the time of the growth of the BNP. Leon also supported the Respect party’s electoral campaigns in east London and designed numerous cartoons and illustrations that were used to great effect. His illustrations were featured in an anti-war book, Big bang for bureaucrats, as well as Topple the mighty, a socialist analysis of statues and public art.
I knew Leon as my comrade and my friend, and what was so striking about him was his deep-seated loathing of capitalism. Leon had a profound and at times all-consuming hatred of inequality and injustice. During the movement against the Iraq war he was particularly biting in his depictions of Tony Blair and his image of the New Labour PM became famous worldwide in progressive circles.
The need for social justice inspired Leon to take the side of the oppressed. From a north London Jewish background, he had experienced prejudice first-hand and despised all forms of racism and anti-Semitism.
He won a national cartoon competition at the age of 12. He attended the Slade School of Art at the age of 17, but left before graduating. He lived in Japan for a number of years where he developed his love of karate.
As well as contributing to The Morning Star, Leon’s artwork featured in New Statesman, Socialist Worker, Weekly Worker, New Internationalist, Green Socialist and the News on Sunday.
Leon was a member of the media and entertainment union, Bectu, and the Socialist Workers Party. He recently had a display at the People’s Assembly in London, where his postcards found a new audience.
He will be sorely missed as a principled socialist artist, my dear friend and comrade.
Leon Kuhn
Leon Kuhn
Puffed up
‘Why I joined the party’ is a title used for articles where credulous new recruits eagerly praise a party’s membership figures, participation and internal democracy. Yet the recent spate of Socialist Workers Party resignation letters has slammed inflated membership figures, levels of participation, cultures of bullying and the lack of internal democracy.
When the mutually corroborating descriptions given in resignation letters are so at variance with the puff pieces, how can workers trust the openness and transparency of the party in question? It would probably be advisable to look to (or at least compare with) resignation accounts of those with more experience for a more accurate picture of any party.
Puffed up
Puffed up
Fired up
It is disappointing that Ian Birchall has decided to ‘retire’ (‘SWP: creating a desert waste’, December 19). Nothing will be served by his ‘self-immolation’. Suicide bombers achieve nothing except the destruction of innocents.
If you want to do something to help the cause, then you have to stay alive. To die a martyr may be noble in the mind, but it is useless in the struggle.
Fired up
Fired up
Hatred fuel
It is a disgrace that a supposed left group should violently attack another group (‘Autonomists in ‘feel-good’ attack on SWP’, December 19): this is what we expect from the British National Party and English Defence League, not the left.
But consider the fact that your recent coverage of the SWP internal matters may in fact be fuelling the hatred and violent antics that is described in this particular report. If the left is ever to appear credible and worthy of public support, then it needs to stop being consumed by factional hatreds and attempting to outflank each other. A precondition of social advance is to achieve a degree of unity on a common political platform.
People are crying out for change, but it seems all that the left can do is swear abuse, kick each other, tear up newspapers and turn over stalls! Truly pathetic.
Hatred fuel
Hatred fuel
Bordiga lessons
I welcome David Broder’s article, ‘Bordiga and the fate of Bordigism’ (December 19), not because of the dismissive tone, but because of the lessons that should be learned.
First, where Bordiga went wrong on the party versus other organisational forms is the need for mass. This is tied to his rejection of democracy en bloc in some clear-cut cases. Where I do think he’s spot on, though, is his upholding of Marx’s own stance on class in relation to other organisational forms. Workers cannot be a class for itself without organising into a political party of their own - that is, the class party-movement like those of the original Socialist International. This requires independent institution-building, member dues, personal commitment, participatory culture, etc.
Second, I think Bordiga should in some instances be held up as a political hero more than the likes of Trotsky. Bordiga upheld the common hostility towards factionalism shared by Marx and Engels, on the one hand, and mainstream politics, on the other. He didn’t hold secret meetings to organise non-party-sanctioned demonstrations that opposed party action, let alone do so and refuse to apologise for such stunts.
Third, Bordiga should be more relevant today because his stance on politics beyond borders is more consistent than ‘inter-nationalism’, not to mention well ahead of his time (before telecommunications technology is factored in too). His transnationalism of subordinating national and regional sections to decision-making processes beyond borders (trans), not across them (inter), should be a key model of mass worker-class organisations today.
The contrast to the original Socialist International is clear, when national and regional sections were free to enter reform coalition governments and the French section of the Workers’ International was such in name only.
Bordiga lessons
Bordiga lessons
Catalan frat
The Scottish Republican Socialist Movement welcomes the announcement by Catalan president Artur Mas of plans to hold a referendum on independence on November 9 this year.
We note that in making the announcement the president was flanked by leaders of parties that hold two-thirds of the seats in the Catalan parliament. We note also that recent opinion polls show that a clear majority of Catalans favour independence.
As such, we condemn moves by the Spanish government to have the referendum banned on the grounds that it is somehow ‘unconstitutional’. The Scottish Republican Socialist Movement supports the right of the people of Catalonia to self-determination; we send fraternal greetings in particular to the pro-independence Catalan Republican Left, which is winning increasing support.
Catalan frat
Catalan frat
Party duck
Somewhat like Hitler’s SA, the Tea Party mobilises the most backward of the petty bourgeoisie and this formation can prove unruly. I fear a fusion of this social layer with the unemployed and very low wage workers into a virulent anti-immigrant force (especially if Obama pursues changes to immigration law) like the fascistic Bulgarian anti-immigrant party.
Jim Creegan’s analysis (‘An enraged Frankenstein’s monster’, October 24 2013) is sound and he will know as well as I how far-fetched it seems that any on the socialist left can do much to create a popular movement in response to the feverish work carried on by the Palinite-Duck Dynasty right.
Party duck
Party duck
Discrimination
Watching the current events unfolding in Iraq, with predominantly Sunni protests against the government and the Iraqi army besieging Fallujah, one could easily mistake this for an ongoing Shi’ite-Sunni religious conflict.
But what is being missed by many campaigners and journalists is how current events have less to do with Islamic traditions and everything to do with decisions taken in the initial stages of the US-UK occupation.
Claims by protes tors of discrimination by the Iraqi government are based in the de- Ba’athification laws, which were introduced after 2003 and publicly sought to eliminate those in positions of authority under Saddam Hussain. The laws, which were welcomed by both the British and American governments, declared a country of over 24 million people redundant, from either national or private sectors, if workers, teachers, soldiers and civil servants could not disprove past affiliation or association with the ruling Ba’ath Party.
The same law also applied to candidates in each Iraqi election, along the rules on voting registration, whereby another voter could object to a person casting a ballot if someone was suspected of affiliation or association with Saddam’s 35-year-long regime.
The de-Ba’athification law, rather than being used to secure the rights of those who suffered under Saddam, instead became a useful political tool for the post-invasion government to consolidate power around the Iranian-aligned coalition of Nouri Al-Maliki and Moqtada Al-Sadr.
It is a bitter irony that those who introduced the policy of de- Ba’athification, thus creating an unimaginable level of paranoia and discrimination, were those who also brought to the British and American governments the now infamous claims of Saddam’s 45-minute WMD.
Discrimination
Discrimination
Pay up
The minimum wage should be increased radically, let’s say by three times over the course of 10 years. We shouldn’t be removing the low paid from tax - we should be raising their wages. It’s ridiculous that a huge amount of money is removed from the best paid by the government to be given to the low paid.
There’s growing support for a ‘living wage’. It doesn’t go nearly far enough. Paying someone only what is needed to sustain life is tantamount to slavery.
It’s wrong to focus only on low pay. It is income distribution that is wrong. Firms and the public sector can only afford to pay a few people a lot by paying a lot of people very little. If low pay is a problem, then so is high pay. The former can’t be changed without the latter being changed.
There’s little point in just appealing to politicians to act to raise low pay. The only way to radically change the distribution of income is for the low paid to stop putting up with it. It is only their acceptance of it that allows it to continue. Over the last few decades the lowest paid have fallen behind in the income distribution. I don’t think it’s surprising that this has coincided with increased passivity among them. They don’t protest, they don’t join trades unions or political parties and they don’t vote in elections. They need to do all these things and more.
Once in these organisations, they must lobby for low pay to be dealt with. There are only 134,000 members of the Conservative Party. If all five million people paid less than the ‘living wage’ joined, then they’d be able to completely take it over. I think someone ought to tell them. The low paid need to make pay an issue that prospective MPs commit to doing something about. They represent a massive constituency that punches well below its weight. When MPs have to do something radical about low pay to keep their seats, then that’s what they’ll do. Until then, nothing much will change. Individually, the low paid have negligible influence - united, their influence could be massive.
Can the country afford to pay the low paid more? Of course it can, if the average remains the same. Would the economy change? Yes, in a big way. There’d be a small market for Aston Martins and Jaguars but, if the lowest paid were paid three times as much, there’d be a huge new market there for businesses to serve.
Increasing the minimum wage substantially would have many benefits. It would make work a very attractive option for those on benefits. The low paid would be incentivised to work harder. (If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. There are a lot of monkeys in our society not doing their best and who can blame them?) It would improve the environment, since many who are now unable to maintain their homes would be able to do so. Mental and physical health would be improved among the poor. Society would be more cohesive. I suspect drug use would be reduced with a consequent fall in crime. It would reduce the demand for large homes, freeing up building land for homes the majority could afford.
I think the position of the wealthy relative to the poor in this country is similar to that of Britain relative to the people of India in the days of the British Raj. Britain kept up the appearance of being a powerful overlord all the time, knowing that with determined resistance India was just too big to control. Gandhi knew this and he convinced the people. They managed to kick out the British even without the vote. Enfranchisement puts the wealthy in a weaker position now than Britain was in at the time of the Raj.
I think all that’s needed is to open the eyes of the poor and low paid to what’s possible. They need to be as active in improving their lot as the working class was in the first half of the 20th century.
Pay up
Pay up
Dark side
Unison’s Redcar and Cleveland branch executive thanks everybody who supported ‘Wear It Black Day’ on Monday January 6.
We invited all our colleagues at Redcar and Cleveland council to wear black as an act of solidarity with those receiving final notices of redundancy that day and in protest at cuts to local government that represent yet another nail in the coffin of public services. Unison stewards distributed black ribbons, as people came into work, and many made a point of reporting for duty dressed in all-black clothing.
Two hundred and ninety-two hard-working council staff have been handed letters confirming that their posts will be deleted at the end of March as a result of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition’s decision to slash central government funding by £19.4 million. A limited number of our colleagues may find alternative posts via the stressful process of reapplying to their employer for the handful of positions, often on lower salaries, available in the council’s new structure and we wish them luck. But there will still be 150 fewer jobs at the end of this process, which means 150 fewer breadwinners for local families and 150 fewer wage packets being spent in the local economy.
We must stop disguising what has happened with euphemisms such as ‘reduced budget envelopes’, ‘synergies’ and ‘savings’, and start calling the cuts by their proper name. Redcar and Cleveland council has already shed 600 posts since 2010. This latest round of cuts will dramatically reduce its ability to deliver essential services, with the most vulnerable members of our community likely to suffer most.
It was encouraging to see so many colleagues and supporters from the community showing their solidarity. We look forward to building on our Wear It Black action and call upon elected representatives to join with the labour movement and the local community to resist the cuts and campaign for a positive alternative to the government’s austerity.
Dark side
Dark side
Treacherous
I very much enjoyed reading Peter Manson’s article on the death of Nelson Mandela (‘Creation of a cult’, December 12). He showed that Mandela’s talk of ‘reconciliation’ was in effect nothing more than class-collaboration.
What was also important in the article was his exposure of the South African Communist Party’s ‘two stage’ policy, implying that before a socialist revolution there had to be a ‘national democratic revolution’. Even though the working class was quite capable of taking state power, this had to be postponed until after the ‘NDR’ had been completed. Owing to this treacherous policy, capitalism in South Africa remains intact to this day.
It is my opinion that the opposition to Stalinism expressed in Peter’s article needs to be taken further. Stalinism constitutes a fundamentally counterrevolutionary doctrine. However, many comrades on the left express the belief that, owing to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe, Stalinism has also collapsed, or at least been rendered relatively harmless. I believe that this is not the case.
Consider the fact that both the Chinese and Vietnamese working classes are viciously repressed by their respective Stalinist governments, which have to be overthrown if the world revolution is to succeed. We also have to consider the necessity of overthrowing the brutal regime in North Korea, where Stalinists have succeeded in imposing a hereditary leadership on the working class.
In Japan there is today a massive movement against the government’s attempt to create a militarised nation. Yet this movement is being held back by the Stalinists’ failure to campaign against the US-Japan military alliance.
It is necessary for us to understand what comprises the essence of Stalinism. This is the false theory of ‘socialism in one country’. It is also necessary for us to understand that any belief in such a theory cuts oneself off from the theory and practice of Marxism.
Treacherous
Treacherous
Tristram Hunt
Predictably Tristram Hunt, Labour’s shadow education secretary, is joining Michael Gove and the Tories when it comes to marking the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I. True, Hunt chides Gove. In his notorious Daily Mail essay Gove denounces “leftwing myths that belittle Britain” and the historians who “denigrate patriotism” (January 2).
But Hunt does not want to challenge Gove’s rightwing myths about Britain’s role in World War I. No, he wants a cross-party, cross-class consensus. So he criticises the Tories for crassly sowing “political division” and spoiling what should be a “moment for national reflection and respectful debate” (The Observer January 5).
The fact of the matter is that Hunt shares exactly the same approach to World War I as Gove. Except where Gove attacks the left for opposing British imperialism - at the time and afterwards - Hunt wants to claim that those Labour politicians, trade union leaders and ideologues who supported the 1914-18 war effort were leftwing.
This does violence to standard English usage. Yes, compared with Herbert Asquith, David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, pro-war Labour tops such as Arthur Henderson, George Barnes and John Hodge were to the left. However, that hardly makes them leftwingers.
Hunt desperately wants to bury the authentic leftwing tradition in Britain. Hence those who opposed the war find themselves airbrushed out of his version of history. That includes not only Marxists such as John Maclean, Albert Inkpin, and Walter Newbold. James Ramsay MacDonald himself goes unmentioned. Although he went on to become Britain’s first Labour prime minister, he resigned as Labour leader in 1914 because of his objections to the war. MacDonald took a social-pacifist position.
So for Hunt World War I becomes a tale of British trade unionists responding to the appeals of their patriotic leaders and taking the king’s shilling. In the name of “fighting Prussianism” it really was a tragic case of volunteering to be cannon fodder for incompetent generals such as field marshal Douglas Haig.
Fittingly, being a social -imperialist, Hunt is proud of those Labour and trade union leaders who helped British imperialism recruit the human sacrifices it needed for the Ypres, Verdun, Passchendael and the Somme.
On the 100th anniversary we must expose the entire official commemorations for what they are - yet another attempt at whitewashing the past crimes of British imperialism. Towards that end we must ensure that Hunt and the other pro-imperialists who head the Labour Party are not given an easy ride. Merely because the likes of Hunt cross swords with Michael Gove, Max Hastings and co does not make them fit and proper representatives of the working class.
We on the left of the Labour Party need to go to war. We need to make war on the pro-imperialists as part of our long term fight to transform the Labour Party into an organisation that can serve the working class in its struggle to transcend capitalism and realise socialism.
Tristram Hunt
Tristram Hunt