HOPI denied affiliation to STWC.

[Andy Bowden]

Anyone heard about this? Brought to you from the pages of every left sectarians read, the Weekly Worker,

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/693/stwc.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sympathetic treatment of Peter Tatchell, and their stance on Islam, I think.

[Andy Bowden]

What exactly is HOPI's stance on Islam? Have they made any public statements about Islam, references to religion in their aims, objectives etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A friend sent me this:


One reason is the slogan "No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime!" which is a return to the equivocating slogans rejected at the very beginning of the StWC.

[Zurdito]

From the article:


The backdrop to this move is obviously the crisis in the SWP-Respect project. As that (un)popular front project hits the buffers (in much the manner we predicted it would), the SWP leadership is attempting to consolidate its ranks by posing left. It now articulates criticisms of Respect for which the CPGB was denounced as “racists” and “islamophobes” when we voiced them in the recent past!

hahaha, I remember when "doesn't support RESPECT" used to = "hates Muslims" in SWP speak. But now RESPECT became "communalist" overnight. So now apparently the STWC will be the new movement "for muslims", and because it can only concentrate on opposing wars, it doesn't even have to openly expell from discussion "shiboleths" like homosexuality and abortion, because they can just say "ah, we're only about opposing wars we're nota political party - if you want to campaign on that, go somewhere else, and the SWP will support you" etc. Seen it before with RESPECT but this is a more subtle way of doing it and they can claim more justification.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If you believe what you read in WW then you really are sadder than you sound.

Find an official SWP source that uses this language.

Go on; make yourself useful...

[Andy Bowden]

Rosa, I dont think saying no to war and to the Iranian regime is "equivocating" to a degree that will damage STW, or the anti-war movement.

To say that it does implies theres a section of the anti-war movement that is substantial, and supports the Iranian regime - when the reality is that this is a fantasy. Most anti war protesters opposed Saddam, the Taliban etc along with the US invasions and bombing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I think they wanted a very clear massage, and felt this did not fit.

Comrades might like to read this as an antidote to the WW smear campaign:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=855

[peaccenicked]

The CPGB/ Hopi line is really tactless. No to war....then it reads as yes to war against the goverment of Iran. It is hardly consistent with stopping the War.

It is as stupid as having the "hands off Russia and the left opposition to the Bolsheviks" of the early 1920's as a national slogan and call that principled politics.

The CPGB/Hopi are mingling two different objectives in the one slogan. It might be a little over the top to call this mistake hostile at least outwardly but it can only confuse.
Where by any logic does the slogan "Hands off Iran" have in it embedded support for the politics of the government of Iran. It is a false concern that concedes too much to the imperialist media. We have to be adamant that there no attack on Iran no matter who is in power." No to the Theocratic regime" obscures that the basic primary message.

It is hard to believe that there is no government agents behind this sabotage or any apparent dissension within the CPGB. The leadership has lost it as far as I am concerned.

I have tended to oppose expulsions, and I don't know the full story, and have lost faith in all left organisations to act in a democratic manner. The usual story is the dialogue of the deaf and entrenched dogmas will keep the left on the margins of those countries where they are largely irrelevant.

[Zurdito]

It is as stupid as having the "hands off Russia and the left opposition to the Bolsheviks" of the early 1920's as a national slogan and call that principled politics.

WTF? The Bolsheviks were revolutionary communists. Supporting a workers state against imperialist invasion is different from the way you support a semi-colonial capitalist state. And even if we're not referring to the Bolsheviks, even if we're talkign about Stalinist regimes, it's the same question. There was more "common cause" with the Stalinists in Vietnam for instance than you'd have with todays Theocrats in Iran, because of you know, this little thing called property relations.

[peaccenicked]

Iran is not run by bolsheviks that is a given. I am talking about slogans here not a world picture. Putting two battles into the one slogan is the isssue. I think it does not take much sense to see how one detracts from the purpose of the other.
The point is that the US is threatening Iran with nukes, the US president has put in legislation allowing that possibility.

Do we need in the same breath say lets topple the Iranian regime.?

If imperialism goes to threaten war with another country, do we oppose that and campaign to topple that same countries regime at the same time with the same amount of priority.

Regime should begin at home. The slogan is so ill thought out it looks to belong to the war mongerers.

[bolshevik butcher]

"Pitching two battles in one" implies that somehow class society isn't vastly complicated and that we can just see internaitonal politics as a series of different struggles fought in different places and times along differen lines. This is not reality. As you know no doubt class forces are engaged in lots of battles at once, as socialists we must of course take a stand against American impeirialism and any plans of exapansionism in the Middle East. However, as socialists we cannot forget our duty to stand by the Iranian working class in its struggle against the ruling reigieme in Tehran. These people fight and pay with blood for the right to organise in trade unions among other things. To ignore this fight would be criminal.

[Andy Bowden]

The working class is not stupid; they can process a nuanced position, saying you oppose both any invasion of Iran as well as opposing its reactionary leadership is more likely to win more support for the anti war movement than alienate it - it undercuts the argument presented by rightists and cruise missile liberals that the anti-war movement supports tyrants etc.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:56 pm
Regime should begin at home. The slogan is so ill thought out it looks to belong to the war mongerers.
Marxists are internationalists, there's no such thing as "at home". That's why we're not peacenicks who will be appeased by our capitalist state if it just respects the "sovereignity" of theocrats like the Iranian regime, for example.

peacenicked, I'm not going out to be aggressive here, I'm just asking a question - do you come from a Cannonite, Socialist Workers Party background there in the US, which refused to criticise any third world regime anywhere, ever? I don't think it's a great idea to follow in their footsteps anyway, because this line of politics based only on opposing the Empire actually ended up being pretty unilateral and isolated them from comrades abroad who were more deeply involved in struggles in the third world.

[peaccenicked]

The point I making is being totally missed. Of course,the working class are not 'stupid' but even communists can be misled.
Have a look at this example of neo-con puppetry http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/21/18455049.php.

I am not saying not to criticise the Iranian regime but in the same slogan in a campaign whose primary purpose is to stop a war, moreover potential genocide, It is blatantly counter productive.

The is such a thing as ''at home''. Living in 'internationalist fantasy', is not the same as being internationalist. An internationalist recognises that the main enemy is at home and thats where the main fight is. The enemy abroad is a figment of the imperialists countries propaganda. There is no world state, we live in national States. Our duty is to fight its war propaganda. That is the best and most proper way of expressing solidarity with those in the target nation. All else is treason to proletarian internationalism

Anywhere you are sitting it is just a bad idea to have as a slogan, that 'reads' Stop the war ,but change the regime. The focuses on the imperialist goal and uses the just complaints of the Iranian people as means to possibly wipe out millions of them.

That is grossly irresponsible. I have no allegencies to any party or dogmatic method but surely common sense stands above so called 'principled' politics.
What is principled in giving the war-mongers an empty slogan- 'No to the theocratic regime' It initself indicates very little except what the imperialists want, a regime change. The focus of an antiwar movement is peace not regime change abroad, it should be primarly regime change at home for our 'own' countries to have peaceful foreign policies.

The question might be when is it and how do we criticise the government of Iran, well definitely not separately from criticism off the USA and its torture regime, in denial. http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticl...12-50ac23ee1cab (http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1b6c4ba4-8608-4ad5-b412-50ac23ee1cab). It should only be done in the context of western hypocrisy.

There we have protestors ''at home'' if you are American. Hopi report very little of the propaganda (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm) used to demonise Iran, the misquotes about wiping out Israel and the rubbish about Holocaust denial ...here (http://www.hopoi.org/antiwar.html).

We are subjectively in the west a very weak and under staffed movement, perhaps that is because we look stupid to the working class. Giving ground to imperialism has to be done with real skill and not without using the opportunity to give our 'own' imperialism a bloody nose. That should be where our energies lie, and that is in the best interests of the Iranian people. We have to do everything productive we can to stop this WW3 threatening disaster from occurring

We have to take on board previous notions within the history of the international communist movement of revolutionary defeatism and revolutionary defencism, though there is no revolutionary situation.
We have to learn that true internationalism is about acting against one's own government. Keeping our eyes on all of its war propaganda and how state agents or those manipulated by them might wish to weaken our response and sucker us into their plans.
Our comrades abroad, historically, have usually been very grateful for these efforts. The iraqi resistance have expressed much gratitude for the troops out platform and have said nothing, I have seen, of foreign criticism of the largely collaborationist Iraqi government.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 19, 2007 04:21 pm
Rosa, I dont think saying no to war and to the Iranian regime is "equivocating" to a degree that will damage STW, or the anti-war movement.
The problem, Andy, is that the slogan in many ways buys into, probably subconsciously, the rhetoric of imperialism. It links attempts to start a war with Iran with the nature of the Iranian regime. There is NO link here whatsoever and we should be saying that there isn't.

It also presumes that having a "simpler" slogan, such as "NO WAR ON IRAN" is somehow being soft on Iranian theocracy. This is of course silly. Firstly because our opposition to capitalist war and imperialism is not predicated on whether this year's designated enemy is "nice" or not. And secondly, in terms of solidarity with Iranian socialists and communists, the first thing we need to ensure is that their country, their HOMES, are not raised to the ground and their economy incorporated forcibly into Pax Americana. That would seem to me to be our first call of duty where solidarity is concerned and all other judgements should flow from that.

[citizen_snips]

I don't think HOPI are any less anti-war or anti-imperialism just because they want to clarify that they dont support theocracy either. It's not as if they went "Boo Iran! (oh btw war is bad)". The anti war part is the main point, and it is put first. There is nothing contradictory in their position, and I don't see anyone here actually disagreeing with their position, just how they've phrased it.

Is not having a simple enough slogan really a good justification to kick a group out of any movement?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is why (Andrew Murray):


Dear Brother/Sister

Thank you for your communication re the decision of the officers of StWC to decline the applications for affiliation from Communist Students and Hands off the People of Iran. I think that three things should be made clear concerning this:

First, the Stop the War Coalition is a voluntary body set up by individuals and organisations to pursue particular political aims. As such no individual or group has a “right” to membership of it. Like any voluntary organisation (as opposed to a public body) we have the right to determine who may join us. We have an elected leadership answerable under a democratic constitution empowered to take these decisions in what we believe to be the best interests of the movement we serve. Such decisions may, of course, be proved mistaken by the course of subsequent events. But it is in no sense “censorship” to take those decisions, since nobody is thereby denied their right to publish or circulate material. Since our formation there have always been anti-war people or organisations which have chosen to stay outside StWC, just as there have been organisations to which we have denied affiliation in the past.

Second, the issue is not StWC’s view of the Iranian regime. This is merely a stick used to beat us by those wanting to divide the movement. The Iranian regime is dictatorial and often brutal and is based on the denial of many basic rights. We are no more “friends” of the Iranian regime than we were friends of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq, to recall a couple of the slanderous attacks made on us by warmongers down the years. The main focus of StWC is, however, on challenging the policies of the British government in respect of the war, which includes respecting the rights of all peoples to self-determination. There are a number of organisations working in solidarity with the Iranian people, and a number of StWC affiliates participate in such activity as well. We have never believed it is correct to cloud the movement’s objectives by placing issues of “regime change” (which are ultimately the business of the peoples of the country concerned) on an equal footing with stopping the war, or at least British involvement in it. The latter is the reason for our existence. We have no fear of debate on this issue - the sort of views advanced by Hands off the People of Iran have been debated at almost every one of our conferences, and have never received more than miniscule support.

Third, our decision in respect of these two organisations is, however, political. Both are effectively controlled by the Weekly Worker group (“CPGB”) – indeed their spokesman in the current controversy is the Weekly Worker’s national organiser. This body has been hostile to StWC from its inception. It declined to support the objectives of the Coalition, which they now pray freely in aid, when they were first adopted in October 2001.Its coverage of StWC activities is not merely critical, but usually abusive, and reflects the attacks made by our pro-war opponents. It supported the witch-hunting of George Galloway in 2003 and urged voters not to support Jeremy Corbyn in the general election of 2005. When I was myself subject to extensive attack in the pro-war media in 2003, the main lines of such attack were echoed faithfully, with if anything added vitriol, in the pages of the Weekly Worker. It seldom supports our activities – for example, the successful march held on October 8 in defiance of a police ban was neither promoted by the Weekly Worker in advance, nor attended on the day by its supporters nor reported afterwards, for reasons one can only guess at.

Indeed, Workers Weekly established Hands off the People of Iran at the start of 2007 explicitly as an alternative to StWC and because it no longer wished to support the Coalition – moves they had every right to take and which follow logically from their hostility to us. But to seek to affiliate many months later when they could have done at the time of their formation if their solidarity with us was sincere, and on the eve of a conference is, as I originally wrote, neither sympathetic nor supportive.

Even a cursory perusal of the material produced by Weekly Worker is testimony to its antipathy to StWC. This is consistent with the disruptive role it has played in a series of organisations in our movement over the last 25 years, which is why it has been praised by pro-war journalists like David Aaronovich and pro-war websites like Harry’s Place. Naturally, Weekly Worker has every right to pursue its own political agenda as it sees fit, but StWC has no obligation to provide it with a platform. If activists in the anti-war movement wish to debate the views of such groups – and I have seen very little evidence that any do – then there are no doubt opportunities available in their own publications and meetings.

From its inception, StWC has been a broad and tolerant organisation. Had it been otherwise we could not have sustained the movement at the level which has been done. Occasionally, however, we have to take prophylactic measures to protect our integrity, and this is one of those cases.

The decisions taken by the Officers Group in this respect will be reported to the next meeting of the national Steering Committee for ratification. If either Communist Students of Hands off the People of Iran wish to make written representations to that meeting, they will of course be afforded the right to do so.

Yours,

Andrew Murray

http://www.socialistunity.com/?page_id=899

More here:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=903

[Marion]

Originally posted by Andrew Murray waffles on...
The main focus of StWC is, however, on challenging the policies of the British government in respect of the war, which includes respecting the rights of all peoples to self-determination. There are a number of organisations working in solidarity with the Iranian people, and a number of StWC affiliates participate in such activity as well. We have never believed it is correct to cloud the movement’s objectives by placing issues of “regime change” (which are ultimately the business of the peoples of the country concerned) on an equal footing with stopping the war, or at least British involvement in it.
Beyond some of the usual argumentation (e.g. direct action vs large-scale marches), I think this sums up the real reasons for being against the StWC.

1) The nationalistic focus on the "policies of the British government"

2) The affirmation of the "rights of all people to self-determination"

3) The view that the priority is stopping this war ("or at least British involvement in it") and hence that internal issues in Iran (including, perhaps, genuine class struggle - although its unclear whether the phrase "regime change" could be interpreted as covering this) can be subordinated to it.

Any sort of assessment of war as the result of a global capitalist system that necessitates internationalist struggle on a class basis against it is completely absent in favour of short-term cross-class nationalist approaches.