Trotskyist storm
1
Give us some hard evidence of genocide, exploitation or the like, but to target ‘the Trots’ (Worldbeaters, NI 367) for being good at getting their numbers out and selling papers... It is hardly surprising that they lack a sense of humour when faced with such silly resistance. At peace rallies and other such demonstrations there is always an amazing array of views on how to make the world a better place and in the end all ‘the Trots’ are guilty of is having a different view of what’s wrong and how to fix it. Rather than seeking common ground with such groups the NI is guilty of giving the real authoritarians with all the power and influence in our world something to laugh about: the ‘left/greens’ ability to squabble and self-destruct with precious little prompting from the obedient mass media.

Neil Smith Richmond, Canada

2
The writer expresses sympathy for a ‘horizontalist’ position – no doubt held by a group of people with a political barrow of their own to push. Not able to win the global justice movements to their perspective(s) or non-perspective perspective, which they valiantly are doing on our behalf (thank God for these morally superior democrats that protect others from dangerous opinions and their own credulity), they turn to some venomous red-baiting of groups that are honest about having a position, winning people to it and frankly introducing internationalist politics to a sector of the population beyond the rarefied ranks of the ghettoized global justice movements in the West.

These high priests and protectors of democracy seem to think there is something repugnant about leadership. Boosting union membership in my workplace didn’t happen by us not overburdening people and respecting their autonomy to self-organize. The horizontalists seem to be privy to information denied the rest of us, that they clearly see the danger of ‘leadership’ while the rest of us dupes get ‘hijacked’ by other groups, like brainless automatons. If the argument is that the presence of the Trots is an impediment to building the movement, I ask you, could ‘horizontalism’ and all the other wankology in the global justice movements be deterring union militants who understand the need to organize in the face of attacks. Or aren’t they welcome?

David Latham Thornbury, Australia

3
What disturbed me about the article’s line of argument is that similar conspiratorial accusations originated under McCarthyism. Are we to believe that socialist activists are as bad or worse than corporate executives that kill for profit? Surely the NI would not make the same accusations against the women’s movement, the queer rights movement, or ethnic and cultural minorities who have all played an active and positive role in shaping and transforming the North American component of the global justice movement into a more inclusive, progressive and diverse resistance. What alarms me most is that the article condemns those who ‘breeze in on the latest “Protest of the Month”’. Is the NI arguing that activists should only focus on single issues or that we should only focus on concerns relevant to ‘us’? I hope NI will present fairly the merits of many different political ideologies within our movement, rather than focus on the irrational fear that activists do not have opinions or minds of their own with which to judge future direction and strategy.

Alex Lisman Toronto, Canada

4
Whatever your views on our political philosophy, SWP members work tirelessly campaigning against war, fascism, workers’ oppression and capitalism. Surely we should be working together towards achieving these aims and campaigning against the common enemy of capitalism, rather than attacking each other.

Andrew Collingwood York, England

5
I have been an activist for over 30 years and have always wondered why there was so much silence about these groups you so aptly call the ‘Authoritarian Socialists’. It’s not Socialists that are the problem, but those who presume to take control of our movements. Here in Britain, such groups have been a constant obstruction to real social change. We wouldn’t mind working together with them, so long as they stop trying to take over. Thank you for taking on the hard targets.

Chris Wright London, England

No same sex marriage yet
I would like to highlight one error that I noticed in Eduardo Galeano’s otherwise excellent article ‘Rainbow Warriors’ (View from the South, NI 367). No version of legal marriage exists of same sex couples in Britain. Legislation to that effect is being put forward, but as yet there is no agreement or ceremony which grants any legal rights to same sex partners. The belief that the law has changed is very common, with friends assuring me that of course my female partner and I can get ‘married’. The campaign continues, don’t let’s believe we’ve won it yet.

Sarah Hagger London, England

Fine line
Sometimes there is a fine line between hard-hitting political caricature and caricature as a means of political propaganda in the tradition of the Nazis’ rag Der Stürmer. In his hateful depiction of the Jew in Big Bad World (NI 367) Polyp definitely overstepped this line.

Reiner Luyken Achiltibuie, Scotland

Stolen words
I’m pleased to see there’s been criticism of your use of ‘libertarian’ to describe the ideology of neo-capitalism (Letters, NI 366, 367). The word was actually coined by the 19th century Anarchist movement – at the time the leading variety of revolutionary socialism. Until the 1980s the word was almost entirely confined to the leftist lexicon, and I can find no trace of it in right-wing discourse before about 1969-70.

The fascist movements of the 1930s were formed to resist and destroy the mass socialist, syndicalist and communist movements of the time. But they called themselves National Socialists in Germany, National Syndicalists in Spain, National Bolsheviks among White Russian exiles. The idea was simple: take your enemy’s name and you share in its positive associations; use their language and you subvert its meaning; co-opt and modify their ideas and you muddy the entire discourse.

Embattled authoritarians suddenly began to waffle on about 'liberty'

In the 1960s and 1970s when our rulers felt threatened by an upsurge of amorphous anti-authoritarianism, Fascist organizations dropped the ‘Socialist’ and started using names like ‘National Democratic Freedom Movement’. Embattled authoritarians suddenly began to waffle on about ‘liberty’. From 1979 we had Thatcher claiming to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’ while actually expanding police powers, increasing military spending, curtailing civil liberties and bureaucratizing public services.

It was around this time that laissez-faire theorists began calling themselves ‘libertarians’ and over the last 20 years they seem to have successfully appropriated the word. This is more than a minor semantic issue: if you can make words mean their opposite you confuse people’s thinking and deprive them of the language to express their aspirations.

Paul Roberts Halifax, England

What the world needs
Re: West goes East: Life after Communism, NI 366. The ruling class of the USSR operated with a form of state capitalism, where the economy was geared towards the accumulation of capital under state control. This is neither socialism nor communism, ie a classless, moneyless society based on production for need. The subject of Russia being a communist society seems only to be something talked about in the West. No Soviet leader claimed to have developed communism; however they did claim to have developed socialism. That claim is certainly a Leninist distortion to Marxism, and thus served as an excuse for an authoritarian élite to retain control indefinitely under the guise of some twisted ideological mandate. Promises of developing communism were made, but I can only imagine this was to rein people in with a promise of some day bringing about what the world needs: real communism.

Dan Read Media Department, The Socialist Party of Great Britain

Look beyond GDP
I agree with you that in many (but certainly not all) countries in Eastern Europe, the standard of living has deteriorated (‘The Facts’, NI 366). Nevertheless, you often use Gross Domestic Product growth figures to back up this argument. GDP measurement ignores equality, which you rightly mentioned, but there is another issue, equally important, that you fail to take into account.

The communist regime was well known for its blatant disregard for the environment. To at least partially undo the damage – the legacy of four decades – countries in Central and Eastern Europe had to spend billions of dollars. Though spending related to restoration or protection of the environment ironically boosts GDP in the particular year, it is not ‘productive’ in the limited economic sense like, say, investing in fixed capital assets.

To give an example: in the Czech Republic in 1990, the percentage of population living in locations with the worst air quality was close to 30; by 2000 that figure was down to nearly zero. In many places one can see fish that were not there a few years ago. In contrast, by looking at a level of GDP alone, one could suggest that we are in effect not better off today than we were then – which is of course absurd.

Marek Rybar Prague, Czech Republic