Letters

AI questions

Yassamine Mather’s ‘Racing towards general intelligence?’ (September 10) and Paul Demarty’s ‘Angel or McGuffin?’ (September 17) raise questions that go well beyond the technical capacities of AI. It is to the credit of the Weekly Worker that it provides space for such arguments. I do not see the articles as opposing camps: read together, they help clarify some political questions.

Mather rightly draws attention to international rivalry. AI is not simply a contest between private innovation in the USA and state planning in China. In both countries, corporate capital, state power, public investment and strategic interests are closely intertwined. The same applies to hyperscaler projects in Europe: a local campaign may oppose a data centre because of its demands on water, energy and land, yet end up supporting a European or national competitor. Such concerns are real, but opposition to one corporation does not automatically amount to an internationalist, working class position.

This raises a second question. Demarty refers to the “iron laws of opportunism” that draw “left” organisations into popular movements. But is intervention itself opportunist? Workers and local communities do not wait until their struggles express a fully developed class programme. They mobilise over jobs, living conditions, environmental damage or the concentration of power. Revolutionary organisations should not simply follow such movements, but neither should they stand aside to preserve their political purity. They have to intervene, argue for independent working class demands and challenge the influence of other class interests. Intervention can lead to opportunism; abstention can become sectarianism. The question is what political purpose intervention serves.

Movements against hyperscalers bring together people with different interests: workers worried about jobs, residents facing environmental costs, academics concerned about the devaluation of intellectual labour, small businesses and even sections of capital threatened by stronger competitors. They may share an objection, while disagreeing about what should replace the existing system. The task is not to dismiss their concerns as merely local or middle class, but to connect them to an independent working class programme: technology developed through social labour should serve social needs, under workers’ control, rather than private profit or national competition.

How can local struggles over AI infrastructure be linked to international working class solidarity? And how can revolutionary organisations intervene in broad movements without either adapting to their existing politics or abstaining from them? These seem to me questions worth debating.

Georg Tabor
Gruppe Klassenkampf, Austria

Unfit SUTR

This letter is a provincial report on the activity (or inactivity) of the Socialist Workers Party front, Stand Up To Racism, in Kent. Two weekends ago, I attended the SUTR-organised ‘Kent unity march’ in Canterbury. Initially it went as expected - somewhat sparsely attended, with about 150 people, and I suspect the majority of attendees were locals or residents of east Kent. However, I was heartened by the presence of a choir, which sang rousingly. It was a nice surprise, as leftists do not make enough use of leftist artists’ popularity to promote their events (a recent SUTR event commemorating the Battle of Cable Street, where Michael Rosen spoke brilliantly, aside).

Anyway, the ‘unity’ march quickly descended into farce, as the Revolutionary Communist Party was positioned behind the sizeable Labour bloc. Sometime into the march, the RCP comrades fizzled (I wouldn’t say ‘burst’, as their efforts were feeble, despite their meeting prior to the march) into anti-Labour/Burnham chants, highlighting their complicity in the genocide in Gaza and their aping of racism. This aroused significant anger amongst the Labour bloc, who, one must not forget (assuming most of them were from Canterbury Labour Party), supported 2024 Labour candidate Rosie Duffield, a transphobe. One elderly Labour man got into a scuffle with the comrades. The commotion prompted the police to pull him aside, which was ironic, as the police weren’t needed to ‘protect’ us from counter-protesters, as none appeared. Instead, they had to prevent leftist infighting graduating to leftist-ish fighting.

Admittedly, the RCP’s actions in this case were entirely performative and unnecessary, as all they did was make the ‘unity’ march look ridiculous to the onlooking public (the second-hand embarrassment was strong). Nonetheless, they were voicing valid concerns, as SUTR merely aims to illustrate that anti-racists exist, rather than stopping, or even halting, the onward march of racism. Getting 500,000 to march in the Together Alliance this year was an impressive feat, but it means nothing, if fascist activity outside the major cities, where it is strongest and most threatening, is barely challenged and in fact is becoming more and more emboldened.

This was evident at the counter-protest I attended in Herne Bay last weekend. Before the counter-protest even started, SUTR was already meekly preparing for defeat. It accepted the police’s request to move our location to the car park next to the Kent Nationalist Movement event, which was perfectly designed for us to be kettled. For the first hour and a half of the counter-protest we chatted, played music, and chanted into the abyss (I can’t stand pointless chanting - it is boring and unimpactful). Simultaneously, the fascists, some of whom were cringingly dressed in all black or camo, with stab-proof vests and balaclavas, set up a gazebo and unveiled banners with slogans like ‘White lives matter’. When the fascists began marching, the only reaction of our organisers was to ask people to stop chanting and playing drums, so as not to “antagonise” the fascists walking past.

This was mind-boggling. I myself had made sure to position myself on the other side of the police and low wall that now penned our group in. Sadly, few people made any attempt to break the kettle - which was unsurprising, as few in the crowd seemed like the kettle-breaking type. As a result, the fascists were completely free to march through town, spewing their bile and intimidating people.

Then came the greatest slap in the face. The organisers announced that the counter-protest was over and people should disband, despite the fact that the fascists were coming back. The reason given for this decision was they didn’t wish to “give them an audience”. One wonders whether the poor weather and the organisers’ desire for a relaxed afternoon were the actual reasons.

Upon hearing this I remonstrated with an SWP acquaintance that we must stay and provide some opposition to the returning fascists, but this was not well-received by other SUTR/SWP organisers, who all subsequently went home. My jaw actually dropped when I heard the organiser announce again that the counter-protest was over. Having lost all faith in SUTR, I resolved with a few true comrades from Thanet Friends of Palestine to stay and provide some opposition outside of the kettled area. Alas, I couldn’t get them to march towards the now approaching fascists, so we set up directly opposite the fascists’ base, where we were joined by some people from the counter-protest who had lingered on. From there the chanting started up again and we observed them for another hour until they slowly dispersed and started packing up, at which point we decided to head home.

James Martin
Kent

Cargo cult SWP

Two recent articles in the Socialist Worker caught my eye and they provide a telling contrast between the Socialist Workers Party’s approach to the trade union bureaucracy in France, Britain and the trade union connection to the SWP’s united front operations in the UK.

I will attempt to illustrate how today’s SWP is essentially in hock to a section of the union bureaucracy and this skews its analysis and judgement. This is unsustainable for a party that claims to be revolutionary. The latest piece is called ‘Key challenges facing the movement in France’ (October 23). It robustly takes the French trade union bureaucracy to task in relation to the ongoing protest wave there and is a standard SWP diatribe against those who have been criticising the bureaucracy since the 1970s. Even the late SWP guru, Tony Cliff, is wheeled out and quoted in the article (a rarity nowadays in Socialist Worker), so you know it’s a party shibboleth.

Now compare this to a second recent SW article called ‘NEU education union leadership sinks pay strikes as prices rise’ (September 29). This bemoans the backsliding by the National Education Union leadership, but is very careful not to criticise them too hard. A rather nice photo of NEU leader Daniel Kebede, megaphone in hand - a favourite SWP ‘heroic’ pose - accompanies the article. Kebede is mentioned once in the article and tellingly only in a quote by a teacher called ‘Suzanne’ (probably an SWP member, but this pointedly is not mentioned). It’s all very milquetoast by the SWP. Gone from the pages of Socialist Worker are the once fiery denunciations of the British union bureaucracy for their sellouts, as opposed to when talking about the French.

Now why is this? The reason, I feel, is that Kebede and the NEU are major funders of the high-profile SWP front group, Stand Up to Racism. SUTR is packed with SWP full-timers who no doubt receive a wage from the money the trade unions provide. Kebede frequently speaks at SWP events and is considered close to the party.

This came out a few years later in the factional documents surrounding his scandal and it is very revealing. It illustrates that the massive time and investment the SWP places in ‘united front’ work is merely to tide them over organisationally and almost certainly financially, until the longed for early 1970s-style strike upturn arrives.

Like a cargo cult waiting for the bounty-laden ships to appear on the horizon, the SWP believes this upturn will happen. This explains why the SWP and its large (in comparison to its size) group of full-timers is essentially now in hock to the trade union paymasters - hence the watered-down criticism. This is not a good place to be for a party that claims to be revolutionary.

Paul O’Keeffe
email

War fever

Picking up on Tam Dean Burn’s reference in his letter regarding “the ‘unprecedented’ role which Scottish government officials are playing in drawing up a new ‘War book’ to prepare the UK-wide population for the potential of armed conflict with Russia by 2030” (October 22), this fits remarkably with a recent Sky production, The wargame, devised and designed by the dreadful Deborah Haynes, Sky’s security and defence editor.

They had to really scrape the barrel in trying to come up with British politicians to try and front this show. We had Michael Gove as prime minister (yes, really) and one Nicola Sturgeon as deputy prime minister in a very obviously United Kingdom government, which may generate some amusement among those who have followed Sturgeon’s career to date.

As part of the roleplay, Sturgeon had to give some press conferences in front of two enormous union jacks. Whether or not the show was attempting to tease Sturgeon, given she was leader of the Scottish National Party, and ostensibly committed to Scottish independence and the breakup of the UK, she seemed entirely comfortable in her assumed wider role and maybe she was giving some subliminal messages to the party and the country she has walked away from.

Other members of the UK cabinet included one Jim Murphy as the foreign secretary, and Penny Mordaunt, reprising a previous real role as the defence secretary. Murphy was a Scottish secretary under Gordon Brown and subsequently a fairly useless leader of the Scottish Labour Party.

The UK government was ‘advised’ by retired general Richard Barrons, who (relevant to today’s politics) co-wrote the (real) Government’s Strategic Defence Review, which the Defence Investment Plan and the Nato targets (3% of GDP by 2030, 3.5% by 2035, and moving to 5%) are all meant to be funding. All at the gross expense of things like health, education, transport, social protection, investment in vital infrastructure, green technology, etc. We can assess Barrons’ capabilities and judgements from how The wargame panned out.

Perhaps not that surprisingly, with such a cast of failed nonentities, this war cabinet rapidly got into a very deep pickle and the UK into an existential crisis trying to play silly beggars with the Russian Federation. The programme started with a number of disparate happenings and incidents, which the hawks thought could possibly be connected, with the Russian state possibly behind them (of course), possibly seeking to challenge and provoke the UK.

Andrew Northall
Kettering

DSA tolerance

As a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, who has been critical of Red Star - a Marxist-Leninist caucus, to which one of the organisation’s two co-chairs belongs - I am sometimes told that, while the faction has odious, totalitarian views at odds with the DSA’s ethos, the subgroup is a pluralistic actor within the big-tent organisation. I believe Red Star’s response to the DSA’s 2023 delegation to Cuba belies this assessment, and demonstrates that, if given the chance, the caucus would prefer to suppress opposing perspectives.

Members of Red Star - identified only as Christina W, Ron J and Andrew T - published an article on the caucus blog called ‘Cuban links: no tolerance for disorganising chauvinism’, which pilloried representatives of other factions which were part of the delegation for having the temerity to meet with opposition figures and call for reform of Cuba’s one-party system. Whether the authors or an editor chose the article’s title, I think it’s instructive. Red Star has no tolerance for differences of opinion, which it understands to be “disorganising”:

“Throughout the trip, members of the delegation from the Reform and Revolution Caucus (R&R) and the Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC) criticised the Cuban government both to our Cuban hosts and other DSA members, and skipped out on multiple delegation events. Most shamefully, both Maria (representing R&R) and Renée (representing SMC, and a member of the current NPC) skipped out on meeting with president Díaz-Canel,” the authors fumed. (‘NPC’, for those unfamiliar with DSA alphabet soup, refers to the national political committee).

The opposition figures that Red Star was so upset about Maria Franzblau speaking with were independent journalist and queer-rights activist Maykel Vivero, Marxist writer Frank García Hernández, and members of the leftist La Tizza collective. None of these people, it should be noted, were conservative figures. All of them were self-identified socialists who opposed the United States’ embargo. And yet, according to Red Star, talking with these people was too great of an affront to the ruling Communist Party of Cuba, which hosted the delegation.

“This behaviour from the R&R and SMC delegates is anti-democratic, disorganising and chauvinistic,” the Red Star authors wrote. “When we speak of discipline for socialists in office, we expect members of the DSA elected to public office to uphold the principles of the organisation, selected as they are to represent the DSA and its interests to the public of the United States. Likewise, we should expect members selected to represent the DSA to international audiences to uphold the will of the DSA.” They suggested various restrictions to prevent such behaviour in the future.

It’s hard for me to avoid the conclusion that Red Star takes advantage of the DSA’s culture of ideological tolerance to operate within a democratic socialist group that its Marxist-Leninist ideology is in conflict with, but would be happy to abandon that ideological tolerance if it suited the caucus’ purposes.

I’m hesitant to advocate for the expulsion of Red Star, as I fear it could prompt a sectarian implosion, but on my more pessimistic days, I do wonder if some kind of reckoning about what kind of organisation the DSA is and how it defines socialism is inevitable.

Jon Hochschartner
Connecticut

LFF, then CFF

Following on from Jim Moody’s article on the London Film Festival (‘Seven you need to watch’ October 22), I’d like to draw comrades’ attention to the forthcoming Cheltenham Film Festival (October 30 to November 8), which includes three Palestine-related films.

Hopefully there will be reviews in the Weekly Worker to follow!

Ken Syme
email