Letters

Crocodile cheers

I received the ‘Notes for action’ bulletin regarding the 1,000th issue of the Weekly Worker swiftly approaching and I was ecstatic to hear about the landmark. Living in the United States, which is rampant with crocodilian sectarians spread out on a broader landscape than the UK, but with no less serious implications, I find the Weekly Worker to be one of my few lifelines.

Lenin said in 1899: “Because of this amateurishness the comrades’ varying views on theoretical and practical problems are not openly discussed in a central newspaper, they do not serve the purpose of elaborating a common programme and devising common tactics for the party, they are lost in narrow study-circle life or they lead to the inordinate exaggeration of local and chance peculiarities. Enough of our amateurishness!”

His sentiment regarding amateurism has certainly not stuck. While much of the esoteric, pseudo-left hawk their nearly identical papers calling for an ever-increasing ‘mass movement’ of struggle, those of us who take Marx’s dictum regarding history as “first as tragedy, then as farce” know better than to downplay issues of programmatic debate and political clarity.

Coming out of what I consider to be the post-Spartacist tradition (along with all the contradictions this infers for the ever-growing swamp of reformists and fakers who line pits of the internet left these days), I find the CPGB’s emphasis on programmatic integrity to be utterly unique on the left. This does not imply political perfection, but it does infer a significant break with the amateurishness that Lenin spoke of.

There’s not much I can say but ‘thank you’.

Crocodile cheers
Crocodile cheers

Stupid readers

We are writing on behalf of the Republican Socialist Platform in Left Unity to protest about a lapse in ethical standards by the Weekly Worker editorial board. The RS platform submitted a statement to Left Unity explaining our intention to continue to struggle for republican socialist politics after the founding conference. It was published on the Left Unity website without any alteration or doctoring.

The statement was also submitted to the Weekly Worker, not least to ensure that your working class readers get a fuller picture of the politics in Left Unity and not a biased one. Due to this lapse in standards, the statement was published on the Weekly Worker letters page (December 19) under the headline, “No platform”, which may have given the impression that we were fascists. The words, “Republican Socialist Platform statement on LU conference (2013)”, were deleted, so that readers would not understand the context in which the words, “No platform”, were used.

Of course, we understand that the CPGB and the Communist Platform are waging a struggle to defeat any alternative platforms, such as the Republican Socialists. But it does the Communist Platform no credit in the eyes of the working class to be caught using underhand methods redolent with the worst activities of the Stalinists.

Stupid readers
Stupid readers

Nazi semantics

Many thanks for reviewing the Gordon Stridiron book, Blackshirts in Geordieland (‘Fascism’s local history offensive’, January 18).

Interesting that you condemn the British Union of Fascists as ‘undemocratic’ when it was the actions of the CPGB and their fellow travellers who consistently resorted to violence to break up BUF meetings and prevent Mosley speaking - but it’s a minor point.

I’m heartened, however, to see that the CPGB shares Mosley’s belief in a “united federal Ireland” and the creation of a “United States of Europe”. Who knows? Perhaps in time, the CPGB will also adopt other Mosley ideas, such as the creation of a democratic system based on an occupational franchise, or a parliamentary system that ceases to be a talking shop and grants the elected government executive power to carry out the policies in its manifesto.

If you adopt the above ideas, this just leaves the CPGB in error about the ‘working class’ and the short-sighted Marxist interpretation of history. But these days I guess it’s all semantics. While the CPGB was busy focusing on opposing Mosley, it left the real enemy (international finance) unchallenged and free to see the demise of both.

Nazi semantics
Nazi semantics

Human duty

In reality, Ariel Sharon died on January 4 2006, but his ‘dead life’ (vegetative state) was stretched till his total collapse on January 11 2014. These eight stretched years have great similarity to the dead life of US imperialism supporting him. The US spy imperialists grab onto every dirty weed to avoid its fall into the rubbish bin of history.

All of us remember how Obama started his presidency. He took his first steps as a beggar president, collecting and injecting dollars into the US’s collapsed imperialist banking system. In all aspects he was the precise choice of US imperialism to stretch its dead life - this US imperialism which is supposed to be the leader of the other imperialists.

In this deadly stretched period, US imperialism is up to all sorts of dirty mischief. Although Obama is the cause of all the wars in the world, he is not directly taking US soldiers anywhere, but sending in al Qa’eda, the Salafi and Taliban instead. He has also replaced US soldiers in some countries like Iraq with his international al Qa’eda army. Daily mass murder by explosion has caused just as many human casualties and as much material destruction as the period of the US attack and occupation. The US pretends that it is helping the Iraqi government against al Qa’eda and once again the deceitful media report a civil war between Shia and Sunni in Iraq.

The next great wars planned by US and UK imperialists to burn down the entire Middle East, thanks to the US’s al Qa’eda, Salafi and Taliban, will also be described as Shia-Sunni wars. And this time the real aim will be to throw the nations back into the darkness of thousands of years ago, with manipulated interpretation of the real religious source.

For all this Obama has received the Nobel war (peace) prize - the Nobel management committee was captured by servants of imperialism many years ago. Receiving that prize is not only no longer an honour, but a true disgrace.

Since the year 2003, the US has not left the people of Iraq in peace. And now it wants to change the borders, to make one land out of Iraq and Syria: Shaam. This name belonged to a land which existed 1,400 years ago. Now international al Qa’eda, under the leadership of Daesh, is fighting to recreate it. As with the name ‘Israel’, which belonged to an era 3,000 years ago and which Sharon fought for in its present existence, the same line of foreign policy is repeating itself with Daesh.

That is why the two appendages of the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel, are now acting in close harmony and cooperation, helping the man-eaters, al Qa’eda, the Salafi and Taliban, in Syria. But imperialism is dead already, and its time is over. This stretched period effort will not cure its sickness and will not give it new life. The collapse of imperialism into the rubbish bin of history cannot be prevented any longer. The time for religious governments (theocracies) in all countries is also over.

The Nobel war committee previously honoured many of Sharon’s fellow fighters. Without delay it should at least send a wreath to the grave of this war-mongering and bloodthirsty soldier of Zionist imperialism. Their troops should be aware: all the miseries of the world, including in Iran under the mullahs, are ultimately caused by US and UK imperialism. US, UK and Iranian armed forces should stop being misused as misery-making tools against other humans. Standing up against the US and UK imperialists (and also standing up against the mullah regime for Iranians) is a human duty.

Human duty
Human duty

Migrants welcome

Every day, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems try to outdo each other as to how they would restrict immigration further. Political leaders are promoting myths, mistruths and lies simply to win votes. It is high time the opposite view is put. Talk of limiting immigration fuels racism and is based on false premises. Immigrants do not steal British jobs or drain our welfare or health resources.

We should welcome immigration, not try to restrict it. According to the international think tank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, immigration is worth £7 billion to the British economy. Britain’s gross domestic product has increased by 4% because of the input made by working European migrants alone. Immigrants do not take away housing: research by the UN’s Equality and Human Rights Commission shows only 5% of social housing goes to foreign nationals - under 1% to east Europeans. Asylum-seekers have no access to social housing; they are forced into hard-to-let properties.

Despite being 9% of the British population, immigrants make up just 6% of those claiming benefits. Immigrants are less than half as likely to claim unemployment benefits as UK citizens. Asylum-seekers do not have access to mainstream benefits, and only get £36.62 per week, 50% of JSA. Asylum-seekers cannot take jobs - they cannot even work until they are given refugee status, and then they face many employment barriers.

People want to move to Britain to improve their family’s finances, escape poverty or flee from war and persecution - persecution which in many cases was inflicted or supported by Britain. In the same way, British people choose to live and work abroad, either where the money is, or to retire in sunnier climes. Would those who want to restrict migration into Britain also want to stop British people moving abroad? I would hope not!

Everyone should be free to move and live where they choose. Figures will average out over time. Immigrants make up 9% of Britain’s population, which is average for Europe. In terms of immigrant populations in Europe, Britain has a lower percentage than Switzerland, Holland, Ukraine, Austria, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Belgium and France. Britain is actually 21st out of all 36 European countries in terms of its ‘non-native’ proportion of population - at 9%, it is way behind Luxembourg (37%), Switzerland (23%) or Austria (15%). In terms of asylum-seekers received, Britain is ranked 14th out of 27 European countries. One and a half million British people live permanently in other EU countries. In most years since 1840, when statistics were first kept, more people have left Britain to live abroad than have moved here.

We definitely should not make it more difficult for new immigrants to get benefits, or to have to pay for healthcare, as is being mooted. There will always be times when people temporarily need welfare support, and there are 10,000 Britons on the dole in Germany at present. The overwhelming majority of migrants want to work - that is why they travel vast distances from home to live in often unfriendly cultures.

Migrant workers make a net contribution to the country they move to, as they tend to be younger and more economically active than the home population. This saves governments money. In Britain, taxes are lower, spending is higher and the economic deficit is smaller as a result of immigration.

Immigration controls are racist, in that they are based on trying to stop the free movement of certain races. Those who support such restrictions are, unwittingly or otherwise, putting forward racist views. This needs to be challenged. Problems people face are caused by low wages, inadequate housing or lack of jobs, rather than a handful of people from overseas, who are often prepared to take jobs British workers don’t want.

Migrants welcome
Migrants welcome

Scottish welcome

The Scottish Republican Socialist Movement welcomes the decision of the Catalan parliament - which voted 87 to 43 with three abstentions - to petition the Spanish parliament seeking the power to call a referendum on independence. We deplore the Spanish prime minister’s actions in seeking to block any such referendum.

The SRSM notes that a poll showed 4.4% of Catalans think Catalonia has too much autonomy. Some 24% are satisfied with the status quo, whilst 65.7% (nearly two thirds) want more autonomy. We note also that polls show that a clear majority of Catalans now back independence outright.

We send solidarity greetings to comrades in Catalonia and back them in their democratic fight for self-determination.

Scottish welcome
Scottish welcome

Absent agent

I am afraid that Andrew Northall just does not get it (Letters, January 16). He has every right, of course, to criticise Moshé Machover, but surely not by attributing to him political positions he simply does not hold.

Let us begin with the supposed “mechanical and false separation between the tasks and processes of national democratic liberation and social emancipation”. The fact of the matter is that comrade Machover shows why and how these two tasks overlap and interpenetrate. His fundamental thesis being that the Palestinian masses cannot be liberated within the confines of capitalism. Hence, necessarily, the tasks of socialism have to be advanced. It certainly follows that the charge of erecting an “apartheid wall” between the tasks of democracy and the tasks of socialism is misplaced.

Comrade Northall goes on to attack the idea that Palestinian national liberation will have to wait for and be part of an “Arab-wide socialist revolution” on the basis of timing. That is perfectly understandable. No democrat, no socialist, no communist wants to perpetuate Palestinian oppression. The quicker change comes, the better. However, whereas comrade Machover proposes the long-term regional strategy of fighting for a working class-led Arab revolution, our correspondent sticks to the tried, and failed, call for a single-state solution. He sees this as inexorably leading to socialist demands.

Well, not only has this strategy abysmally failed: it must fail. As comrade Machover rightly emphasised, however desirable the single-state solution might be - I’ll leave aside what happens to the Israeli Jews for the moment - there is a big problem. The Palestinian masses are not strong enough to bring about this outcome. It is almost a miracle that their struggle continues in any form. But the notion that six or seven million Palestinians can overcome the Zionist state is a cruel illusion.

For well known historical reasons, the Israeli Jewish population is fanatically nationalistic. Israel is also economically an advanced capitalist state. It is militarily vastly superior not only compared to the poorly armed Palestinians. Israel is a regional superpower that has defeated and can once again defeat any conceivable military bloc of Arab states. More than that, it is closely allied to the world hegemon - the United States.

So we come to the absence of agency. Given this, comrade Northall’s picture of the Palestinian revolution gallantly leading from the tasks of democracy and national liberation all the way to the tasks of socialism is pure make-believe. In isolation it cannot happen.

The national liberation of eastern Europe by the Red Army and local partisans during World War II resulted in massive and progressive economic and social change for working people, not just the simple rolling back of Nazism or re-establishment of capitalism. A strategy that embraces the entire Arab nation - a strategy explicitly based on combining the tasks of democracy and socialism - has, yes, a chance of appealing to the Israeli Jewish working class, of dividing Israel along class lines. But the Israeli Jewish working class will not be attracted to a Palestinian national revolution that has no chance of succeeding, that is for sure.

More importantly, as a general principle, Marxist favour the voluntary union of nations. Not involuntary union, not unity through conquest, not the reversal of the poles of oppression. If that were to happen - and, as I have argued, it is highly unlikely - then one thing is for sure: such a single-state solution will not and cannot bring about any progress towards socialism.

In his defence, comrade Northall claims that most “serious advocates” of a just solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict argue that both individual and national rights must be established and defended. I am sure comrade Northall is a “serious” and dedicated socialist. Nevertheless, most advocates of a single-state solution limit the future rights of the Israeli-Jewish nation to religious and individual entitlements. For good reason they cannot countenance the right of the Israeli Jewish nation to self-determination up to and including the right to separate. Why? Because obviously that would scupper the one-state ‘solution’.

Finally, let me agree with comrade Northall. The state of Israel has “existed longer than the majority of states in today’s world” and the “Israeli nation” cannot and should not be “wished, decreed or swept away”. But - and it is a vital ‘but’ - both of us are saying that the “national rights of Israelis” [by this I mean the Israeli Jewish population] “do not include the ‘right’ to oppress another people”.

Absent agent
Absent agent