Saturday, November 2, 2024

Letter: Anti-semitism (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anti-semitism

Dear Editors.

Your September cover and Coleman's Holocaust 2 article discredit your journal and your party — with whose aims I have been largely in agreement for a long time.

I prefer not to believe that Coleman's article was intentionally anti-semitic. But the fact remains that it is no different in tone or choice of language from those articles in scores of newspapers and journals throughout the world, whose content on the Israel-Lebanon conflict has been characterised by thinly disguised hostility to Jews.

Like Coleman, the writers of those articles are ever quick to remind readers of the involvement of prominent Israelis in proscribed organisations. "Thug" is the standard word used to describe them, usually prefixed by "Zionist". Zionists are largely "trigger-happy", except for the handful of British and Israeli soul-searching Zionists whom they all claim to know.

Like the press everywhere, the Standard. via Coleman, finds the Lebanon war more horrifying and more horrible than other wars. "Not for a long time", writes Coleman, "has the horror of war been so evident as in Lebanon." True. I suppose. Since, until the war in Lebanon, neither Press nor Television were so public-spirited as to show readers and viewers the true consequences, in human terms, of war. I daresay that there were a few horrors in the Falklands that we will never be shown — though that war was practically simultaneous with the one in Lebanon. Come to that. I have heard some pretty hair-raising stories in connection with the Iran-lraq war. That war is still going on: but neither reading nor viewing public are treated to a daily dose from that front. No Jews, no news.

The photograph which accompanies Holocaust 2 is journalistic weaseling of the worst kind. Take any old photograph, fill your caption with innuendo and let your readers draw the wrong conclusion. Your photograph could have been taken in scores of differing circumstances: and anywhere in the world. How do you and Coleman know that the clenched fist of the man in the foreground is that of (presumably Israeli) nationalism?

As for your cover. It could easily "grace" the magazines of the traditionally anti-semitic “right" or those of the new. far more anti-semitic. "left". Whatever the intention behind the cover, it will be received gleefully by those who maintain that the Jews want to conquer and possess the world — an age-old charge, but one never so "cleverly" made as on your cover.

But these are relatively minor protests. For Coleman has been unable to write of events in Lebanon without recourse to those twin gibes of “anti-Zionists" Holocaust and genocide. The first of those words was coined by Jewish historians to describe the terrible fate which overtook Jews in Nazi Europe. The second word — genocide has no long etymological history. It was coined only in 1945. for the purpose of giving a name to the crime committed against European Jews. Its meaning is: the calculated, total and deliberate destruction of one race by another. But to Jews the word is also a reminder of the terrible methods used to accomplish the deed: the highly organised transportations, the extermination camps, the gas chambers, the vile experiments on Jews and even viler tortures practised on them before they were "mercifully" gassed.

I hold little brief for military operations whatever their objectives: and I know too well that civilian populations (and soldiers) suffer in wars. But there has only been one Holocaust in our time — that which engulfed the Jews of Europe. And in the whole of recorded history, there has only been one authenticated and determined attempt at genocide the attempt against European Jews. Every writer on Lebanon whose Jew-hatred masquerades under pretended concern for Palestinians, has used Holocaust and genocide as a calculated sneer and libel, not against Israelis, not against Zionists, but against all Jews. If Coleman has any proof that the Israelis (and by implication and association, the majority of Jews in the world) have an official policy of genocide, he had best produce it. word for word and chapter for chapter.

I began by saying that I preferred to absolve the Standard and Coleman from the charge of being tainted by anti-semitism. But, I repeat, there is no discernible difference between the tone of Coleman's article and that of "anti-Israeli" writers whose motives are of the basest kind.

I believe that you owe it to yourself to weigh every single word used in the Standard and to ask yourself the precise effect it is likely to have on your readers — not all of whom are members and many of whom come to you for the first time, totally unaware of your history and aims.

Further, I believe that you ought to express regret to your readers for a serious lapse of taste in publishing Holocaust 2 and your September cover.
L de Swart, 
London N19 


Reply:
Mr. de Swart begins by stating that he has been largely in agreement with the aims of the Socialist Party for a long time. It is always pleasing to discover such people outside the Party, but what is the small reason that has kept Mr. de Swart away from the active struggle for socialism in all this "long time"? Could it be that he agrees entirely with the materialist conception of history, but for the "minor qualification" that he thinks there is something worth preserving in the religious mumbo-jumbo of Judaism or Christianity or Islam? After all, if he is not “anti-Jewish” — Judaism being a set of outdated religious beliefs and no more — we must assume that he is pro-Jewish. Or is it that he completely agrees with the socialist aim of establishing a world without frontiers and class possessions, but “in the meantime" thinks that certain forms of national chauvinism — such as Zionism — should not be attacked too severely? After all, if he is not an anti-Zionist — in the sense of opposing the nationalist aspirations of the Israelis — we must assume that he is pro-Zionist. Mr. de Swart does not tell us what his disagreements are with the Socialist Party.

What he does tell us in terms which are as clear as his "long time" disagreements with the Socialist Party are hidden — is that the cover of the September Socialist Standard and an article on the Lebanon in the same issue have offended him; he does not suggest that they did so because they conflict with our established views. Seven specific criticisms are made.

1. The article refers to members of the Israeli government as ex-terrorists. Perhaps Mr. de Swart thinks it's unjustifiable to refer to the perpetrators of calculated violence, including murder, as "thugs". We consider it a quite appropriate description. The Socialist Standard cannot be accused of using the term discriminately: as far as we are concerned, "thuggery" aptly describes killings on behalf of the Stern Gang, the PLO, the Provisional IRA or the Christian militia. Furthermore, we do not distinguish between the thuggery of terrorists and that engaged in by state armies. The terrorist founders of the Israeli state were referred to for a particular reason: it has become common in recent times for certain Zionists, such as the Poale Zion (Labour Zionists), to refer to "Beginism” as a new form of Zionism. This is a myth, based on the belief that Israeli nationalism once was, and still could be, less oppressive and chauvinistic than any other form of nationalism. The point was to show that Begin and his ruthless form of nationalism have not just arrived on the scene — they have been there from the start.

2. The article did not state that the war in the Lebanon was either "more horrific" or “more horrifying" than other wars. Socialists are not interested in making comparisons of human suffering. What the article said was what Mr. de Swart quotes in his letter. In the weeks prior to the publication of our September issue the media provided detailed coverage of the Israel-Lebanon war and the article was written because the event was in readers' minds. It is true that atrocities are committed in other wars, but if our critic is a “long time" reader of the Standard he will know that these have been dealt with in the journal. For example, the writer whose article he criticised also wrote a lengthy analysis on the Falklands war only two months earlier.

3. The statement about the photograph is entirely incorrect: it was not “any old photograph” but one taken in the Israeli town of Hebron showing a specific Israeli Zionist — a member of the Koch movement. It is true that similar pictures may have been taken elsewhere — such as a PLO rally or a National Front get-together — but the fact is that it happened to be a picture of Israeli nationalists.

4. The intention of the cover was not to imply that "the Jews want to conquer and possess the world". The point was to show that "defensible borders" (which are what the Israelis claim to be fighting for) are impossible to achieve within capitalism unless a country dominates the entire globe. We accept the possibility that anti-semites might use the same illustration to make a different point. But then, so may Tories use our anti-CND position and fascists our opposition to African dictatorships in order to make points with which the Socialist Party is in total disagreement. We regret these facts, but will not refrain from stating our case for fear that it is misinterpreted by those who have an interest in doing so.

5. The dictionary describes holocaust as "wholesale slaughter”. Certain historians may reserve the term for one particular "wholesale slaughter", but socialists do not respect such exclusivity of meaning. Thatcher insisted that the war in the South Atlantic was a military conflict, but not a war: the Socialist Standard ignored her distinction. Similarly, we refuse to accept that the murder of millions of Jews was a holocaust, whereas the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the devastation of West Beirut are merely "wholesale slaughters".

6. Unfortunately. Mr. de Swart’s letter is dated 10 September, one week before the Beirut Massacre. There is considerable evidence to prove the complicity of the Israeli government in this terrible act of human slaughter. (Even a Jewish Chronicle editorial made the point — and Mr. de Swart could not accuse that paper of being anti-semitic.) To be associated with a military operation in which hundreds of men, women and children are murdered in cold blood is close to being "an official policy of genocide". Mr. de Swart may disagree with the use of that particular term on the grounds that it does not fully match his dictionary definition (although we would inform him that the Nazi act of genocide was not genocide either: firstly because the Jews were not totally destroyed by the Nazis, and secondly because the former are not a race), but we think he should be more concerned about the act committed rather than the precision of the term used to describe it. Mr. de Swart informs us that he holds "little brief for military operations": we are glad to know that he largely opposes wars, but would be pleased to also know about the "little brief" which he does hold for some of them.

7. Mr. de Swart's final argument amounts to the claim that a friend of an enemy is an enemy: if what you write looks like what someone else writes, the two views must be the same. So, for example, if the Tories state that they do not enter elections in order to abolish the monarchy (because it is "a great institution") and the Socialist Party state that we do not enter elections in order to abolish the monarchy (because it is irrelevant to the main electoral task of winning conscious support for the dispossession of the capitalist class), does that make both the Tories and the SPGB supporters of the monarchy? When the Socialist Standard provides a Marxist criticism of the PLO we are accused of being "Zionist agents"; when we criticise Zionism we are told that we are no different from anti-semites. But if our critic did not confine himself to odd words — and he does only refer to three words, a sentence, two pictures and a "tone" — he would see that the whole article makes a case about nationalism and war which is both unique and correct. The writer specifically makes the point that, unlike others, socialists are not opposing Israeli nationalism more than we oppose other kinds of nationalist ideology. Our battle with Zionists is not because they are Jews, but because they are usually members of the working class who support the capitalist system. The article can only be seen as a "serious lapse of taste” by those whose taste is offended by the honest exposure of social and political ugliness.

The socialist attitude to all wars, including the Israel-Lebanon one, is to show, firstly, that the conditions which cause war are rooted in the present, capitalist system and. secondly, that the only way to provide security from war is by establishing socialism. “Holocaust 2" made both of those points. Since it was published there has been even more killing and suffering in the Middle East; those who are mourning the dead of Sabra and Shatila and those who live in fear on the border towns and villages of Israel and the Lebanon have no secure and peaceful option short of the immediate organisation for socialism. Today they are the victims of capitalism's war — tomorrow it may well be us.
Editors.

Letter: Spiritual needs (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Spiritual needs

Dear Editors.

Reference your recent article “Socialists Against Religion" and the letter from Ms Garwood. Your reply did not adequately cover the point raised about the spiritual uses of religion. Perhaps socialists do not understand what spiritual needs mean to a religious person. Perhaps socialists do not even realise that spiritual needs are, in fact, catered for within socialism.

Without being religious it is still obvious that "man cannot live by bread alone". With a little sunshine, food and water the tomato plant will thrive in its little pot on the window sill, it will even bear fruit and reproduce. But man is not a vegetable. To be human, in the generally accepted way, is to have feelings and thoughts. Man has emotional and moral needs as well as physical ones.

Socialism, along with all other political factions, has concentrated on man's physical needs and largely ignored his others. All religions, on the other hand, have concentrated on man’s emotional and moral needs and largely ignored his physical ones. This is why politics and religion can usually work side by side, because they concentrate on different aspects of man's needs.

When religious people refer to "spiritual" needs, they merely mean emotional needs. When religious people refer to the “soul", they are referring to the state of mind, the way a person thinks, in short, his morality. His "soul" will be saved if his thoughts mirror those of his religious dictators. There is nothing magical or mysterious about the spirit or soul, they are only terms used by religious people who have avoided serious thinking about emotions, minds and thoughts.

In my opinion socialism satisfies physical needs better than capitalism, it also satisfies "spiritual" needs far better than any religion.

Under capitalism man competes with man for everything — fame, success, property, the "right" to work, he even competes for love and affection. Man regards his neighbour as an enemy, he cannot trust him. Man is totally insecure. he lives in perpetual fear, fear of violence, fear of losing his assets, fear of failure, fear of being considered useless and worthless. Capitalist man cannot protect himself from this fear, he cannot rely on his fellow man for protection because he is a potential enemy. Man is alienated not only from his work, but far more important, he is alienated from his fellow man. His only hope of protection comes from outside the real world — he appeals to religion. God will protect, God will provide, God will consider him equal, God will relieve his fear and offer some emotional comfort in times of conflict.

Under socialism man co-operates with man, they work together for a common cause. Man regards his neighbour as a friend, he trusts him, he can turn to him for help. Regardless of abilities and potentials each man is considered equal to the next, so there are no failures. Surrounded by friends, man has no fear of his fellow man. he feels totally secure. Instead of going outside the real world to satisfy his spiritual needs, he can find emotional comfort and security from within his civilised socialist society and from his many friends.

Even the "soul" or moral needs are better catered for under socialism. Thousands die of starvation while capitalist Christians burn their surplus food. Is this right? If I were a Christian my soul would not rest watching people starve while food was being deliberately destroyed. Socialists have the best answer to this problem — produce for people's need, not profit and greed is it not the right thing to do?

Capitalism produces conflict, which inevitably leads to war, with millions of lives needlessly lost. Each side prays that "God" is on their side. Is this right? Does this not cause conflicts in the Christian soul or mind? The socialist mind is at peace, he does not want to fight his fellow man, he wants to work with him.

Under socialism your spiritual needs will be well catered for. you will feel emotionally secure and your mind will be at peace, knowing society has made the best use of its resources. You do not need to go outside socialism for "spiritual" guidance.
J. P. White 
High Wycombe


Reply:
It is no mere quibble on our part when we have misgivings about the use of the word "spiritual" in connection with socialism. We are concerned to communicate the socialist case to workers and in this struggle words are vital: there must be a consistent clarity in their use. The case for socialism is a materialist — not a moral — one. based on a materialist conception of human history, it is confusing and diverting to introduce incorrect terms like "spiritual" when there are perfectly clear and accurate ways of expressing our case without it. We also take issue with J. P. White’s persistent use of the masculine description of the human race; socialism will bring the emancipation of all humanity without distinction of sex and the way we state our case must reflect this.
Editors.

Letter: The Falklands War (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors.

L. Weidberg's letter on the total lack of economic motive in the British sending of a Task Force to the Falklands is not supported by available evidence. It is true that for some twenty years, Tory and Labour governments have been dubious about holding on to the Falklands. but there is also much evidence that capitalist interests in Britain were dubious about letting the islands go. The following extracts from a Sunday Times (13 June 1982) article are not without significance:
Looking to the future. economic development of the islands will be based on a complete reversal of previous neglect. Lord Shackleton, author of a largely ignored report on the islands' potential in 1976, is working on a new version at Mrs. Thatcher's request.

Whitehall has been reawakened to the importance of Antarctica's resources and the strategic possibilities of Britain's South Georgia Dependencies . . . This triangular sector . . . contains more than one million square miles. Over this area a large amount of revenue has been expended on maintaining a chain of meteorological and scientific bases. The surveyor's reports reveal some interesting facts. The mineral deposits in the East (soft coal seams) are known to extend over an area of many thousands of square miles, and it is likely that Uranium, gold, iron and manganese are also present.

Many states have claimed sovereignty over wide areas; Britain's being called the Falkland Island Dependencies. Argentinian and Chilean claims in 1949 overlapped the British area. The US and USSR had made no claims up to 1954. but the US would not recognise the claims of other powers and made abortive attempts to induce the interested powers to accept some form of international sovereignty.

. . . the difficulty of defending the Falklands has been recognised for some time, and British policy has been based on that reality . . . On the other hand the island base is conveniently close to the Antarctic scene of operations — some 9,000 miles nearer than Britain.
Is it likely that British interests would give up this strategic link with the FID without more sacrifices of working class blood? L. Weidberg says that Mrs. Thatcher "knows that the working class, who comprise the bulk of the electorate, would like to think that "we" were going to get some material benefits in addition to saving the world from a fascist dictator " This is turning reality upside down. More often than not the workers have been mugged into believing that wars are fought to uphold great moral principles, while the economic causes are played down.
C. Kincaid
Milton Keynes

Letter: Poland is state capitalist (1982)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

In the article "Poland is state capitalist", a quotation from a Polish journal is given, indicating the distinction between "state ownership and social ownership of the means of production".

However, our agreement with the Marxian analysis contained in this and other articles published by Jednosc (see Labour Focus on Eastern Europe, winter-spring 1981) should not draw us into the mistaken and unrealistic assumption that such views are widely held in Poland. This was, and unfortunately still is, a minority point of view.

While the article we quoted was re-published in one other workers' journal, other, more forthright articles were not re-printed elsewhere.
C Skelton 
Woking, Surrey

50 Years Ago: Demonstrations against Unemployment (1982)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

While it is desirable that the unemployed should be aggressive, yet if they get some concession (sometimes even if they get nothing but cracked heads) these movements, based on the uninstructed discontent of non-Socialists, simply peter out and leave nothing permanent behind. What happens is that if the discontent is sufficiently great the capitalist parties rush in and lead it into safe channels or buy the gratitude of the discontented with small concessions. As soon as conditions look more favourable to them, the capitalists—always seeking to keep down the burden of taxes—cut the concession to whatever limit they and their political agents consider safe.

[From an editorial The Steam and the Safety Valve, Socialist Standard, November 1932]

SPGB Meetings (1982)

Party News from the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard



Blogger's Note:
Audio recordings of the following meetings from the November 1982 Standard are available on the SPGB website.

YES – Steve Coleman, SPGB
NO – Monty Johnstone, CPGB & ‘Marxism Today’
Venue: Islington Central Library, London
Date: 11th November 1982

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made
Date: 21st November 1982
Speaker - Steve Coleman

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made
Date: 28th November 1982
Speaker - Steve Coleman