Moral leadership
Some advocates of a US-initiated war with Iraq will admit its illegality but argue that law and morality are not the same. This claim is true but, of itself, does nothing to establish the morality of war.
Furthermore, if people can break the law to begin a devastating war whenever it is deemed ethical, surely plenty of much less extreme law breaking must now be accepted.
There is a compelling moral case for major economic redistribution from the world's rich to the world's poor. Can we assume that those vocal supporters of Messrs Howard, Bush and Blair who accept the illegality of war without explicit UN authorisation will soon be vigorously encouraging people to follow the fine example of "illicit moral leadership" provided by breaching the unethical property rights laws prevailing in Australia, the US and UK in order to help the planet's impoverished?
Just think — the revolution keenly endorsed by the supporters of Bush, Blair and Howard!
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
US hypocrisy on dictators
After the failure of Blix to deliver all the excuses the USA wanted (to move on Iraq), and after the strength of the [February 14-16] demonstrations, a more sinister approach is emerging: that of dragging well-meaning (small "l") liberals in behind the campaign on the grounds of Saddam's "brutal dictatorships". This has already been foreshadowed by Ramos Horta's well-meaning (but politically naive) article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Alfredo Stroessner and his dictatorship in Paraguay gives the complete lie to this. To obtain the background on his rule, all people need to do is return to John Gerassi's The Great Fear in Latin America.
Stroessner was in charge in Paraguay from the 1950s to the 1980s. He allowed the most notorious Nazi war criminals (most notably Josef Mengele) to stay in Paraguay despite the constant pleading of Israeli war crimes prosecutors. There was never any genuine free press in Paraguay. Despite all this, both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations provided Stroessner with aid to the tune of over US$140 million between the 1950s and the 1960s.
Stroessner and Paraguay give the lie to the idea that the USA is on a crusade against dictatorships. To draw this argument towards the present day, the USA and Britain have absolutely no problem being in close association with Saudi Arabia (one of the lynchpins of American-British strategy in the Middle East), a country with no parliament and no free press. The American ambassador in Saudi Arabia never raises these issues with the Saudi government (ie the Saudi monarchy).
(If anyone wants to know more, they need only go to Google on the internet and type in Alfredo Stroessner in the search box.)
Eric Blair
Sydney
NTEU and the war
In an extraordinary display of political sectarianism, a special general meeting of the Newcastle branch of the National Tertiary Education Industry Union on March 15 narrowly voted to only support peace actions opposing the looming war of Iraq if these were organised by the Hunter Peace Forum (HPF) or the Newcastle Trades Hall Council (NTHC).
A motion was moved by the NTEU member — and national secretary of supposedly left-wing Progressive Labour Party — Rob Noble that the branch oppose the war. It only referred explicitly, however, to supporting actions by the NTHC and the HPF. Noble went on to oppose an amendment that I moved that the NTEU support actions organised by the "No War coalition and other appropriate anti-war groups" as well as the HPF.
He incredibly slandered the No War coalition as "unrepresentative". This is despite No War being in existence for more than six months and being responsible for organising numerous well-attended anti-war actions, including the 15,000-strong rally in February.
Regrettably the amendment was narrowly defeated while the original motion passed. In rejecting the amendment, the Newcastle NTEU also voted not to support the March 26 student day of action.
All actions should be supported that are against the war, as opposed to those nominated by certain groups and coalitions. I call on the NTEU to reverse its decision and ask other trade union and community bodies to not engage in such petty sectarianism.
Dr Ben Reid
Lecturer in development studies
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies School of Environmental and Life Sciences
University of Newcastle
[Abridged.]
Sick of war
On February 14-16, more than 1 million ordinary Australians felt strongly enough about the impending Iraq war to get out and march for peace. It will be a tragedy if that grassroots and heart-felt expression of People's Power loses momentum and dissipates.
John Howard pre-empted any democratic consultation with the people of Australia and has promised Bush that, under any circumstances, we will bend over backwards to accomodate his every whim and wish.
The proposal is that we tell our Prime Minister that we are "sick to the stomach" about his commitment to this illegal war, and express this feeling by having a day of recuperation — on the first working day after the declaration of war.
If sufficient Australians individually feel incapacitated by the horror of our participation — that will send a real and powerful message to Howard, and without any loss of pay.
Jamie Brown
Brisbane
Canada Steamship Lines
I live in Canada and I am trying to gather information on Paul Martin, who owns Canada Steamship Lines. He is now the front runner for Canadian Prime Minister. He has so much money that no-one has a serious chance of running against him.
He registers his ships in Bermuda, Panama etc to avoid paying Canadian taxes and to hire Third World workers at low wages. He won't hire Canadians. I understand he recently bought out an Australian company and fired the workers, registering the ships in another country. I also have heard that he raided the pension fund.
Any information that I could use in my upcoming articles about this man would be helpful. Contact me at <meyer@shaw.ca>.
Manny Meyer
Canada
Kandinsky
I would like to take the opportunity to reply to Jo Ellis' letter (GLW #521) commenting on my article about Wasilli Kandinsky (GLW #519). I am pleased that Jo took the time to write in to "correct" my comments about constructivism.
I have written several articles about artists for the Scottish Marxist magazine Frontline and have a word limit; this sometimes necessitates a shorthand approach to some issues. Whilst Jo is correct in most of his statements about constructivism in that it produced a new art form, it did in fact exist as a movement called Productivism prior to the revolution as did the debate as to what art should and should not be. This, alongside "Supermatism", another Russian form of abstract art represented a huge advance in modern art, which attracted the support of the Bolshevik government.
In my most recent article for Frontline on "George Grotz and the German Dadaist", I make the point that they saw constructivism as the future for art. However, what cannot be ignored is the fact that Kandinsky, and other Russian artists, were attacked for producing art that did not have a social or utilitarian propose. The debate over this issue eventually split the constructivists themselves.
Kandinsky was hounded out of many of the positions he held in the Soviet art world, and eventually left Russia. The point I was making is that in any society the main aim of an artist is to produce art, even, or perhaps especially, a socialist one.
If that art is used to promote the ideas of the revolution then so much the better. However, if one form is promoted above all others, then you will eventually end up with a moribund style serving no purpose.
Trotsky, in a contribution to the debate on art in revolutionary Russia, argued that the party had no competence to tell artists what sort of art to make. Constructivism became the unofficial art of the Soviet Union (to the detriment of other forms) until it was superseded by socialist realism, which did indeed suit Stalin's agenda better.
Kenny McEwan
Scotland
Against sexist, sectarian put-downs
It didn't take long for the "political discussion" around the Democratic Socialist Party's dissolution proposal to descend into crass name-calling. Pat Brewer (GLW #527) calls the Freedom Socialist Party "dishonest", apparently for daring to differentiate our feminism from the DSP's. In our experience the use of this term is usually intended to deflect the political substance of the debate by questioning the credibility of the debater. As such, of course, it is an inherently "dishonest" method of argument. Still, Pat does raise substantial political issues of principle. FSP will reply to these in a future Socialist Alliance internal discussion bulletin.
We had thought that the advent of Socialist Alliance would put a stop to this type of response and that debate could be carried out in a comradely manner. Not so! Our intervention seems to have struck a raw nerve amongst certain DSP leaders, perhaps because we wish to focus on the political nature of any debate around regroupment rather than simply accept the DSP's organisational proposals. Our point is simple. There is much that unites the Left, and SA is a huge stride forward for socialism in Australia. But without the resolution of genuine, principled differences, any move to a "unified" socialist party would fail in a way that would set back the cause of socialism in this country for years.
Doug Lorimer's method of "argument" is simply to shout down his opponent (GLW #528). The macho, sneering tone of the male movement leader, who "obviously" knows better, is base sexism, something many women activists are accustomed to. Lorimer's characterisation of FSP as a "sect" — on the basis of the open statement of our position on his party's perspectives for SA — is very revealing. It shows a contempt for comradely debate that must concern anyone with questions about the meaning of any DSP "dissolution" into SA. Lorimer, at least, talks like a take-over merchant.
We stand by our position on revolutionary feminism as a political platform and democratic centralism as an organising strategy. It may be that we are convinced, through comradely debate, that some other, perhaps more useful tools for revolutionary organising should be adopted.
However, until we are convinced, we will advocate our point of view vigourously. That is the nature of programmatic debate. Our comrades have been arguing the centrality of women's liberation to socialism, often in the face of similar diatribes, for half a century. We will not be deflected by the use of left "swear words" or dismissive put-downs.
Unlike some other affiliates, FSP has put a disproportionate amount of our comrades' time and our organisation's resources into building SA as a strong united front, working closely with members of other affiliates — including members of the DSP — who, in large part, are comradely, respectful and collaborative. This, we submit, is hardly the behaviour of "sectarians".
Indeed, if Lorimer wants to more closely examine the nature of sectarianism, perhaps he should reread his missive, then turn to the nearest mirror.
Peter Murray
Freedom Socialist Party executive
Melbourne
From Green Left Weekly, March 19, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.