Vigil for end to homophobic hate crime

I found this surprisingly moving and beautiful, so thought I'd share it. The central London vigil last night was organised to make a stand against homophobic killings and hate crimes, including the homophobic murder of Ian Baynham. Thanks to MutinyTV for the video.

The Solomon's Mindfield blog explains: 'This beautiful song sung by the choir was beautifully placed and made the vigil feel very special. There was a lot of emotion; couples, LGBT or not, could all feel the emotion. I'm sure Ian's family gained strength from the solidarity. A two minute silence followed speeches by local figureheads and Ian's family and friends, and a naming of all those murdered in homophobic attacks was read out.'

Power to the posties!

Gary, a socialist activist in Sunderland reports, 'I was down on the picket line with the posties at Sunderland depot (that's me at the back holding up the Socialist Worker). We spent two hours with the strikers this morning and had a great laugh. The camaraderie is great among them. They enjoyed the chocolate and crisps we took down and several bought our paper. We'll be back next week with a cash collection.'

Photo by Ross Carbutt, who runs the NESSN website where there's more on the postal workers' strikes and solidarity with them.

Obama, US imperialism and the future of Palestine

John Rees, author of the excellent book 'Imperialism and Resistance', spoke recently at Queen Mary University, one of the 35 colleges and universities where there was an occupation earlier this year in solidarity with Gaza. Stop the War and PSC student activists in many places are finding that Palestine continues to be a major political issue for students. I spoke at a similar meeting at Newcastle University on Tuesday, attended by 45 people.

Palestine is linked, of course, to wider geopolitical issues: as Rees says in this video, "Palestine necessarily, and always has been, bound up with wider questions of war and peace in the Middle East; perhaps at no time so completely as since the Bush administration came to power, since the inauguration of the 'war on terror', since the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq". It continues to be a priority for anti-imperialists.

Clare Glenton: why Joe is right in refusing to fight

Clare Glenton, whose husband Joe is courageously defying military orders by refusing to fight in Afghanistan, will be speaking at a Stop the War meeting in Sunderland. I went to a planning meeting of 20 people in Sunderland last night to both help organise the event and relaunch the long-dormant Sunderland Stop the War group. Like many cities and towns, it's one of those places that had lots of anti-war activity before - notably in 2003, around the invasion of Iraq. There's now the potential, with growing public opposition to the occupation in Afghanistan, for building the movement's strength.

Tuesday 10 November, 7pm
Afghanistan: why we should bring the the troops home
Bangladeshi Centre, Hendon, Sunderland
Organised by Sunderland Stop the War Coalition

See the Facebook Event.

Read Clare Glenton's story HERE.

This is what capitalism LOOKS like

You can examine a rather ingenious way of illustrating the global economy - its waste and inequalities - HERE. From a website devoted to revealing the world through inventively visual methods, it's a remarkably effective way of showing up the truth of where money goes in our world, for example the awesome expense of the war in Iraq. It also exposes how affordable it actually is to feed the hungry or shift to renewable energies. However, the chaotic nature and priorities of global capitalism prevent these things happening.

In a similar vein, I also recommend the Gapminder site.

With thanks to The Sauce for alerting me to the visualisation above.

War, imperialism and the movement

There were two especially significant things about Saturday's national demonstration calling for the troops to be brought home from Afghanistan. Firstly, there's the central involvement of Joe Glenton, a serving soldier, and the relatives of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan (like Peter Brierly, featured in the video below). They were more prominent in Saturday's events than on previous occasions, leading the march and adding considerable emotional and political force to what was a powerful rally in Trafalgar Square.

This reflects something deeper: the widespread disenchantment, in the military itself and amongst those back home, with the long occupation of Afghanistan, which is expressed in growing unease in the ranks and - in this country - in angry denunciations of the war from relatives we Stop the War activists speak to regularly on stalls.

The second noteworthy feature was the extensive - and remarkably sympathetic - media coverage. A great deal of this focused on Joe Glenton. There was probably more (and, from the movement's perspective, better) coverage than for any anti-war demo since 2003 and the huge marches against war in Iraq. This is linked to my first observation: newspapers and broadcasters are aware that the war is increasingly unpopular and also a big political story, as it is generating a political crisis for the government and the political and military elites.

For them, the stand being taken by Joe and the military families is tapping something important in popular consciousness: disgust at government policy on Afghanistan and weariness with the 'war on terror' and the bogus arguments deployed to justify it. The latest polls indicate greater demand for bringing the troops home than ever before - at a time when politicians and generals are trying to prepare us for a very long war indeed (anything from five to forty years).

Those who led the march also symbolise the fact that the war is biting in largely white working class communities, from which the military recruiters find young people confronted by mounting levels of unemployment. This is becoming, more and more, a class issue - on stalls in Tyneside I find a tangible sense of working class anger at 'our kids' being sent to kill or be killed, with a vast waste of money on a senseless war while recession kicks in at home.

For these reasons it would be silly and thoroughly misguided to look only at the turnout - 10,000 is smaller than most previous Stop the War demonstrations - and conclude that this isn't a big political issue for the British Left. It most certainly is - and it's likely to become bigger.

The disaster of Afghanistan is not an aberration but the frontline of modern imperialism. War and imperialism are integral parts of the global capitalism today - Lenin's phrase 'the highest stage of capitalism' comes to mind as acutely relevant. The awful mess of the 'war on terror' is part of the capitalist crisis, not somehow separate from it. Likewise, building a stronger movement against the 'long war' is central to resistance to the whole system.



You can also see the speeches from the rally by Heather Wakefield of Unison HERE, Jeremy Corbyn HERE and former Guantanamo inmate Omar Deghayes HERE.

Photo courtesy of Shepy.

Whose war? Their war! Whose streets? Our streets!

You can try to spot yourself on here (this camera-shy blogger passes fleetingly through at 3.50). Fourman Films also produced the brilliant package of interviews with protestors, which I've linked to on a different post, and this video of Lowkey's speech on Saturday.

Sticking with Lowkey, I highly recommend THIS and THIS.

Photos - Stop the War demo, 24 October 2009

Thanks to Tom Grace for these photos of marchers at Saturday's demonstration calling for an end to the occupation of Afghanistan. They capture the dynamism, vibrancy and unity of our movement, once again taking to the streets of central London to hold our political leaders to account. The demonstration, culminating in a rally in Trafalgar Square, was organised by Stop the War, CND and the British Muslim Initiative.

A great collection of pictures from the demo, by photojournalist Guy Smallman (who visited, and reported from, Afghanistan earlier in the year), can be seen HERE.

There's a good film of interviews with marchers, produced by Fourman Films, HERE.

Also see photos of the demo HERE.

Stop the War President Tony Benn addresses anti-war rally

At yesterday's rally in Trafalgar Square Tony Benn gave a strong speech, as usual, despite being frail from recent illness. A tiny number of BNP supporters turned up and shouted "Traitor" at him from the back of the square. They were chased off by protestors and didn't show their faces again.

Tony Benn talked briefly about the history of imperialism, war and resistance in Afghanistan. You can watch a very useful documentary, Timeline: Afghanistan, in which Stop the War officer John Rees guides viewers through the country's turbulent history, and draws out some lessons for today.

You can also see the speech by Lindsey German, convenor of Stop the War Coalition, HERE.

George Galloway's speech is HERE.

Tariq Ali: "Do you want the war criminal Tony Blair as President of the European Union?"

Tariq Ali, in his Trafalgar Square speech to thousands of protestors yesterday, denounced the absurd plans for Tony Blair to become President of the European Union. Peter Brierly, in his speech, made the point even more eloquently. His son Sean died in Iraq. At a memorial service a couple of weeks ago Peter came face to face with Tony Blair and refused to shake his hand. He told Blair directly that his hands had on them the blood of Sean Brierly and that of many others killed in Iraq.

Tariq Ali also commented on the polls revealing majorities of people across western Europe are opposed to the NATO occupation. Shortly after his speech this was illustrated very well by a spokesperson for Die Linke, the left wing German party which scored excellent results in recent elections. The party's support was boosted by its principled opposition to the occupation, which tapped a nerve with the German public.

Also, a video of Seumas Milne's very eloquent speech at the rally is HERE.

See photos of the march HERE and also - courtesy of David Draper, who was on the same coach from Newcastle as me - HERE.

Video of Joe Glenton: serving soldier defies orders to speak out on Afghan war

Along with thousands of other protestors, I heard Joe Glenton make his statement in Trafalgar Square yesterday. He was instructed not to attend the demonstration by his regiment commander. He bravely ignored this demand, despite already facing a court martial, and helped lead the march. Around 10,000 people turned out yesterday, with George Galloway MP, Tariq Ali, Tony Benn, Stop the War convenor Lindsey German, rapper Lowkey and Peter Brierly (whose son died in Iraq) among the speakers.

As Andrew Murray, chair of Stop the War Coalition, said "Joe Glenton, not Sir Richard Dannatt, speaks for the people of this country". Dannatt is the former chief of defence staff who recently lobbied the government for more troops, and who the Tories have signed up as an 'adviser'. A number of other platform speakers, including Galloway, talked about why the movement must get behind Joe.

"I am here today to make a stand beside you, because I believe great wrongs have been perpetrated in Afghanistan. I cannot in good conscience be part of them. I am bound by law and moral duty to try and stop them.

I am a soldier and I belong to the profession of arms. I expected to go to war. But I also expected it would be to defend this country's interests - this nation, or the people of this nation - and it would be legal and justifiable. I don't think that's too much to ask. It is now apparent that the conflict imposed upon that nation is neither of those - and that is why I must make this stand. Thank you for coming and letting me walk around among you - and thank you for all your support."

Read an interview with Joe Glenton HERE.

UPDATE: see HERE for an excellent round-up of the media coverage of the march and rally.

84% think NATO is losing the war - new poll announced as thousands march

Channel 4 News, in 'Britons believe 'Afghan war is failing'', provides some excellent film of the Stop the War march and rally in central London - as well as reporting a new poll which shows an astonishing lack of confidence in government policy. 84% said they believe UK and NATO troops are not winning the war, while 62% want the troops brought home immediately or in the next year.

Joe Glenton, the lance corporal who has courageously defied military top brass in refusing to fight in Afghanistan, led the march. His story is the major focus in most coverage, alongside accounts of military families speaking out against the occupation of Afghanistan. Click HERE for The Guardian's report.

Photo courtesy of Tom Grace.

No recovery in sight

The BBC News site, under the headline 'Record recession for UK economy', reports that the economy has contracted by 0.4% in the last quarter (July-September). Commentators were speculating - prior to the announcement - about the figures revealing that we are offically no longer in recession, but this has turned out to be seriously misjudged.

It seems to be the UK economy's huge reliance on the service sector, which continues to stagnate, that is crucial here. Our economy is therefore lagging behind countries like France, Japan and Germany. This is now the sixth successive quarter in which GDP has fallen - that means 18 months of falling output. It's the first time this has happened since the quarterly figures were first recorded in the 1950s.

When it comes to unemployment, it's worth noting that more 'traditional' areas, e.g. construction, have been hardest hit. Manufacturing has lost 8.5% of its jobs in this recession. And it's generally the regions hit badly in previous recessions that are worst affected, for example the West Midlands and the North East. Youth unemployment is also a particularly prominent feature of the crisis - youngsters who are looking for their first job are finding it extremely tough.

The latest news reinforces the analysis and predictions offered previously by a number of left-wing economists, for example in a blog post HERE from August, explaining that the 'massive sizure' of neoliberalism lies behind the crisis - and the ruling elites of US and Britain alike have no solutions.

Protests at Nick Griffin on Question Time

'Thousands of anti-fascist protesters stormed the BBC television studios in West London tonight just before Nick Griffin, leader of the fascist British National Party (BNP), was due to arrive to record Question Time.' For more of Socialist Worker's report click HERE.

There's a good account (and photos) of the London demo from Lenin's Tomb HERE.

For ITN's footage of protests click HERE.

The picture above is by Jess Hurd, who has a superb set of photos from the protest HERE.

Report and more pics, from Harpy Marx, HERE.

For Duncan Brown's pictures of the Glasgow solidarity protest, see HERE.

For French-language readers! See Colin Falconer's blog HERE.

This is what 'liberation' looks like

This 2-minute video is not pleasant to watch, but it brings home exactly why the movement to end Afghanistan's occupation remains hugely important.

For details, and map, of this Saturday's national demonstration click HERE.

Wanted: a warm Geordie welcome for Peter Mandelson

Protest at Mandelson and Miliband
Friday 23 October, 6-7pm
Bring the troops home - Jobs not Bombs - Money for public services not war
Harton Technology College, South Shields, Tyneside

At the same time as the anti-war movement gears up for a major national demo on Saturday, postal workers are taking two days of nationwide strike action. 42,000 workers are striking today, while the other 78,000 take action tomorrow. Although there were worries that CWU union leaders would compromise, it's been confirmed the strikes are going ahead. This follows a series of local strikes in recent weeks and mounting pressure from rank and file activists for a national strike.

The strike is politically, not just industrially, significant in at least three big ways. Firstly, it serves as a focus for the wider struggle to defend public services, for the myriad anti-privatisation campaigns. The strike is in part a defence of proper public service at a time when the public sector ethos is being eroded by Labour Government and Tory opposition alike.

Secondly, it raises the question of who pays for the system's crisis: bosses or workers? The strikes answer that question by affirming that workers have already given too much, and government should intervene to force the bosses to preserve jobs and conditions. Thirdly, the failure of a Labour Governement to respond to trade unionists' needs is prompting political discussion about the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. There is a powerful mood in the CWU for radically rethinking the role it plays in the political sphere.

In Tyneside there's a great opportunity, tomorrow evening, to pull together the different issues. Stop the War has organised a protest at Peter Mandelson's visit to South Shields, when he gives the David Miliband Annual Lecture (named after the Shields MP and Foreign Secretary, who will also be in attendance). The Keep Metro Public campaign and post strike supporters are now getting on board and joining the protest - Mandelson is of course the senior Cabinet minister responsible for Royal Mail, and an arch-privatiser committed utterly to the 'modernising' agenda.

Join the protest - for more info see HERE.

Joe Glenton to lead Saturday's march

The Sauce reports the news that Joe Glenton will become, this Saturday, the first serving UK soldier to publicly march against war since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This serves as a symbol of how deep and widespread opposition to the occupation has become.

The enormous difficulties faced by the govenrnment over Afghanistan, on both military and political fronts, constitute an integral part of its own political crisis. This is not just a crisis for the current regime either - the Tories' commitment to the same policies ensures this will remain a critical political issue, and a trigger for mass protest, in the coming months and possibly years.

Who pays for the crisis?

I've recently discovered The Onion's YouTube channel, video offshoot of the well-established American satire franchise. The short vids are like Chris Morris and Armando Iannucci's The Day Today updated 15 years and shifted Stateside. This one is amongst the more overtly political, simultaneously mocking inane daytime television, the commercial desperation of reality TV and the ruthlessness of crisis-ridden capitalism. That's all in three and a half minutes. And it's funny.

We got online

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia (launched January 2001), is asked in The Guardian's slightly early retrospective of the decade how he would sum up the Noughties in just three words. His answer: 'We got online'.

There are of course other possible answers to the question, which would allude to economic or geopolitical or cultural developments, but this one captures a huge - and hugely significant - area of transformation in the past ten years.

I got it wrong

To speak of transformation is no exaggeration. A few years ago I held to the view that we were seeing noteworthy changes but there was also a mass of hype about the online revolution. I felt it simply wasn't comparable to the technological and communications revolution running from roughly the 1890s to 1914.

John Berger wrote a fascinating piece - which sadly I don't think is online - about how people's perceptions and ways of experiencing (and relating to) the world were changed by the extraordinary changes of the era: from the car to the phone to first flight to the radio to psychoanalysis. This was the basis, he argued, for the Cubist revolution in art (a revolution in seeing the world) from 1907 - and for the daring experiments of modernism more generally.

It seemed fanciful to compare our current epoch to that one. In some ways it still is, but on the terrain of technology I confess I was wrong. Anyone who knows me will testify to how rare it is for me to suggest I've been wrong about anything - and I won't be making a habit of it! But I admit to being slow in recognising the scale of development in people's Net use and the implications of this.

The ambivalent Left

Unfortunately, it is still true that the radical left - in this country and elsewhere - has struggled to grasp the implications for politcal activism and organisation. There has been no systematic attempt by Marxists to theorise the Net, or specifically the consequences for left-wing political organisation. While I'm not going to attempt such an ambitious task here, what's really required is a reformulation of Lenin's 'What is to be done?' for the online age.

There are now numerous examples of new technolgies being utilised by activists and protestors, including the high profile case of Twitter's role in spreading news about the upheavals in Iran. The mobile phone - especially thanks to its picture and video facilities - is proving to be a more dynamic political tool than we ever imagined.

The blogosphere is a major dimension of alternative media, many political radicals get their news and information principally online, and Facebook is routinely utilised for promoting campaigns and events (there's a fine example this week, with the backlash against Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir's vile homophobic slandering of Stephen Gately).

However, we need to also acknowledge the Left's slowness in engaging with the Net. Individuals have outstripped organisations, which by and large have been shackled by a combination of outmoded ideological assumptions and inertia. The Internet is still frequently viewed with distrust and suspicion - as a deviation from the proper business of paper selling or door knocking, or as something over-hyped that will pass, or as a fetish for the Chomskyist and autonomist and Indymedia types but irrelevant to the serious and high-minded Marxist left.

Socialists' engagement with the anti-capitalist movement made it as far as Genoa and Florence, but never quite made it into cyberspace.

Do networks still scare us?

One problem is a tendency to assume we know it all already and can't possibly learn from other political traditions. But if the anarchists or autonomists are doing something better than us, it might be helpful to learn from them. It doesn't mean adopting their politics too. This leads on to a related difficulty: the particular anxiety about online communications allegedly suiting an autonomistic preoccupation with 'networks', as distinct from the revolutionary left's adherence to democratic centralism.

The worry is that all those criss-crossing, overlapping networks undermine the authority of centralised leadership and the traditional vertical structures in an organisation, i.e. a national leadership at the centre, in two-way dialogue with lots of local geographical branches. Part of the answer to this is: well, so be it. We can't, Canute-like, attempt to hold back the tide - if the world is changing we have to change with it. And if it's changing, doesn't it makes sense to look for the opportunities rather than becoming straitjacketed by endless fussing about the dangers.

It is surely possible to combine decisive collective leadership with the free flourishing of all sorts of networks and new connections. The wave of student occupations in solidarity with Gaza earlier this year was greatly encouraged by the use of blogs, Facebook and other online tools. These spontaneous networks of solidarity weren't somehow useless because they had no national office making centralised decisions.

But at the same time it's a step forward when such networks find cohesive and national (or international) methods of organisation, which requires an infrastructure of sorts. The student Stop the War conference last month was attended by over 100 delegates, many of them activists involved in the occupations. National co-ordination like this should be seen as complementary.

Combining online and offline

Of course there are grand and exaggerated claims made for the Net. It isn't a 'new mode of production' and autonomists are liable to overstate the case for how 'placeless' we now are: politically, people still gather to protest or discuss or organise in specific places, and the simple realities of geography still matter (for example, I will still argue that the local branch should be the most important unit of organisation in any left wing party, campaign or trade union).

It should be stressed that political activity still happens, above all, offline. The online world is valuable for promoting those 'real world' demonstrations, public meetings etc.

Yet there's a tendency for left wing groups to obsess over the problems and miss the chances, with a negative starting point, e.g. "How do we preserve secrecy of internal debates?" or "What about the inequality in people's access to the Net?'

These are mostly now silly and superficial arguments. For example, it's obvious that socialist organisations need to be less precious about the supposedly 'internal' character of discussions - in this day and age it will be fantasically difficult to avoid the 'private' becoming public, so it is really a case of fighting a losing battle. And what, in any case, do we have to hide? Access to the Net is now so widespread that resistance to change premised on notions of the Net as predominantly middle class are simply inaccurate.

In practice

1. The Net is ideal for dissemniating pictures, video and audio. It is therefore inadequate to simply transfer printed text online and think that equals a satisfactory web operation. We need to exploit the myriad multi-media possibilities of what can be done online (I should note - before anyone else does - that the present article is not itself a model of good practice!).

2. The Net is just that: a network. So it's essential to link to other sources and build networks where people and groups support and promote each other. No site or blog exists in a vacuum.

The Left could still be a great deal better at using links to support each other. This also hints at the potential for answering the organisational questions posed by Lenin's 'What is to be done?', i.e. for rising to the challenge using online tools for permanent organisation as well as for spreading ideas and promoting spontaneous struggles.

3. The Net is immediate, urgent, responsive to the here and now. It doesn't conform to the deadlines and schedules of a weekly, or even daily, publication. Once it's happened it can go online (or even as it's happening).

4. The Net is do-it-yourself publishing, opening up opportunities for amateurs not just paid professionals. That means it's for all of us and anyone at all can contribute. Lenin's dream of a newspaper that pools the experiences of thousands of workers can be realised in a way that was much harder in Petrograd a century ago.

Readers can be turned, with ease, into contributors and participants. This also enriches the content produced through more 'offical channels', but more fundamentally it means us rethinking the whole basis of socialist publishing.

5. Online tools need to be integrated with more traditional practices into a coherent strategy, rather than being juxtaposed to them. It isn't an either/or choice.

Next steps

Anyway, these are merely some pointers, a rough draft of formulating how we can develop our use(s) of the Internet on the Left.

The challenge is twofold: firstly, to generalise and theorise from the multiple concrete examples of online activism we now have; and secondly, to outline more fully exactly how the radical (especially, from my view, the revolutionary) left can adapt its methods of organisations to match the social and politcal changes of the Web 2.0 epoch.

Anti-capitalism is still where it's at

John Holloway, for some time a prominent voice in debates in the global anti-capitalist movement, is about to visit this country. The Mexico-based writer and academic is speaking in London next weekend. Holloway became known in particular for his book 'Change the World Without Taking Power', which triggered some fascinating debate on the radical left.

Holloway, like Toni Negri and Michael Hardt (authors of 'Empire'), articulates ideas that are normally labelled 'autonomism'. His brand of radicalism was, and is, anti-systemic and influenced by Marxist concepts. Coming from a Marxist background, he has remained broadly revolutionary, but for him the meaning of this has changed profoundly. In a debate at the World Social Forum in 2005, he said 'Perhaps we can change the world without taking power. Perhaps we cannot. The starting point for all of us, I think, is uncertainty, not knowing, a common search for a way forward.'

This notion of changing the world without having to confront the question of state power is characteristic of autonomism - which is not merely a label to throw around as an insult, but a serious (if somewhat incoherent) body of ideas. It is a fairly obvious weakness, especially since the importance of strong state power to capitalism has been demonstrated conclusively by US imperialism and its military adventures in recent years. This has been accompanied, too, by growing authoritarianism in the domestic uses of the state, with new attacks on civil liberties and the increase of sureveillance.

I think we still need the traditional Marxist view that nation states need to be confronted collectively and, ultimately, overthrown. But it is easy to see why so many of those radicalised in the last ten years have held a different view. It's the ideas of Negri, Chomsky and Holloway that held sway at the time of the major mobilisations (Seattle, Genoa etc) and the giant social forums (Porto Alegre, Florence etc) earlier in this decade.

They continue to be very influential. This is linked to Stalinism and its collapse at the end of the Cold War, which was widely (but wrongly) seen as discrediting Marxism. The broader decline of an organised Left, the academic rise of postmodernism and the low levels of class struggle have also all served to promote the appeal of autonomism, while ensuring Marxists struggle to move beyond the margins.

If organised working class resistance to the system is weak, it is unsurprising if people question whether the working class can really smash the capitalist state and create a new world. If intelligent, politically conscious and humane people associate 'Marxism' with totalitarian states, we can expect them to search for apparently more democratic or libertarian alternatives.

We now have a crisis of the system like nothing seen since the 1930s. This has accentuated the political and ideological crisis of capitalism, but - due to the factors outlined above - anti-capitalist currents continue to be varied, often confused, and complex. The crisis doesn't lead to a simple transfer of people into the camp of revolutionary Marxism.

It is therefore vital that revolutionary socialists engage seriously with Holloway, those influenced by him, and everyone who is talking about capitalism being screwed but has different ideas as to why, what should be done, and what the alternative is (and, indeed, those who freely admit they simply don't know!). There are some welcome examples of this being attempted already, for example last month's event 'Money on Trial' in east London, which was organised under the Mutiny banner.

The recent debate about capitalism at SOAS also - like Mutiny - reached beyond the usual circles of revolutionary socialists, as indicated by the turnout of around 60 students. The 'Signs of Revolt' festival next month is another instance of Marxists getting in dialogue with those from other traditions (or none at all), all wanting to build up resistance to a system marked by war, inequality and ecological crisis.

The graphic art above is by Noel Douglas, one of the organisers of 'Signs of Revolt'.

Afghanistan: why are more troops being sent?

Seumas Milne has contributed a superb comment piece to the Guardian, 'In a war for democracy, why worry about public opinion?', that manages to make most of the vital points that need to be stressed about US/UK escalation in Afghanistan. He notes the growing gap between public attitudes - citing a new poll indicating a 7% rise in support for immediate troop withdrawal compared to a month ago - and the course being pursued by the government. He also mentions the growing interest in Stop the War and its demonstration next Saturday among soldiers and their relatives. Milne suggests the case of Joe Glenton (see the video of his speech during the summer) illustrates wider sentiment in the armed forces.



But the most valuable aspect of Milne's article is his exposing of the real motives behind the increases in troop deployments (with Obama expected to pour even more soldiers into this futile war). Milne observes how 'one after another, the official aims and justifications of the war in Afghanistan have failed or been discredited.' Where they claim it is to 'bring stability' the reality we're witnessing is instability and chaos.

Milne concludes: 'The last remaining argument, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would risk "undermining the credibility of Nato" and the "international community", used by Brown last month, is the closest to the truth. In the wake of its strategic defeat in Iraq, it would certainly signal that the US and its allies can no longer impose military solutions on recalcitrant states at will, as they have done since the end of the cold war.'

Indeed, at a time of economic precariousness for the world's superpower it is more necessary than ever to impose military might. Dominance has to be maintained somehow, whatever the costs and the risks. More than ever the imperialist nature of the whole 'war on terror' is exposed. Only the mass mobilising force of the 'other superpower' - public opinion and its expression in a movement against war - can offer hope of challenging this imperial project. That means taking to the streets on 24 October.

Picture: Guy Smallman
Video: Ady Cousins

Hurry, hurry, hurry: only a week to build mass anti-war demonstration

'I believe marching makes a difference. By being on the streets we get closer to the point of bringing the troops home. Everyone should bring one or two other people – people who have never been on a demonstration before, who aren’t activists. I used to be the person who sat in the chair. I’d watch the protests and think, I want to be part of that. It took my son’s death to push me into doing something. Demonstrate to show the government that we are strong.'

These are the words of Peter Brierly, whose son (Lance Corporal Shaun Brierly, pictured) was killed in Iraq, urging those who have never protested before to join the 24 October demonstration - called by Stop the War - demanding our troops are brought home from Afghanistan. Soldiers, ex-soldiers and the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to have a more significant presence than on most previous marches. For those of us who regularly do Stop the War stalls in high streets and elsewhere, the increase in support for our message from families of serving soldiers has been noticeable.

Not only have over 200 UK soldiers died in Afghanistan, it's estimated around 2000 have been seriously injured. Thousands more will have experienced serious psychological effects. Every British soldier must have known other soldiers who have been killed or wounded. The troops come back home and tell their stories to relatives and friends; the experiences they speak of touch others, influence their thoughts and feelings about the war.

It is powerful and important when those directly affected by the wars and occupations speak of their experiences, especially when they - like Peter Brierly and Military Families Against the War - have the strength and determination to channel it into campaigning for peace. There are more and more like them.

Saturday 24 October - assemble noon at Hyde Park - march to Trafalgar Square

Iraq to Afghanistan: stopping the drive for endless war

There's a powerful account from The Guardian of the meeting between over 20 relatives of British soldiers killed in Iraq and Sir John Chilcott, chair of the Iraq inquiry, and other inquiry committee members. It won't make comfortable reading for Tony Blair.

The anger felt by so many people at the invasion of Iraq is, increasingly, being seen also in public reaction to the escalating military occupation of Afghanistan. This article from the US reveals the direction 'Peace President' Obama is going in: yet another huge increase in troop deployments.

This is one more - particularly important - reason why the national demonstration in 10 days time is so urgent and necessary. There are many encouraging examples of how the movement is organising, for instance HERE and HERE.

Picture: Duncan Brown

Revolutionary leadership and democracy

'If the leaders seek only to preserve themselves, that is what they become; preserves – dried preserves. If they enter the movement, they give the impulse to five, ten, twenty others. It is more important to multiply our cadres than to preserve them, and they can be multiplied by the hundreds. Our cadres need education and experience in mass movements, and how can they get this outside the life of the masses?'
Leon Trotsky, 'Some Questions on American Problems' (1940)

These words were amongst the last ever written by the great revolutionary, before Stalin's icepick fell. While we 21st century revolutionaries are thankfully untroubled by the monstrous authoritarianism of Stalinism, it's still worth considering the sentiments here.

Trotsky is saying something about those who at least claim the status of revolutionary leadership. When they turn inwards and seek self-preservation, lashing out at opponents and stamping on dissent - rather than engaging with others and pushing outwards - they ultimately forefeit any authority as leadership. They become useless and sterile. But this is not, Trotsky seems to be suggesting, a quirk of personality or a mere temporary defect. It has a material basis.

It is, in other words, when leaders fail to absorb themselves in the real struggles in the outside world - and, in particular, when they fail to offer leadership to those in struggle - that the process of rot and decay becomes pronounced. Impotent sectarianism is what follows. The most vital corrective is an assured grasp of the united front, which Trotsky wrote about HERE.

This is, as I'm sure is obvious, intimately connected with the challenge of ensuring a healthy, vibrant democratic culture inside socialist organisations. It's John Molyneux's article on this subject - which I linked to a few days ago, but HERE it is again - that prompted me to muse on the topic. I'm not going to enter into a sustained response here, but while I appreciate Molyneux opening up the subject (and his comments on the legitimacy of factions towards the end certainly resonate) I broadly disagree with him.

While the author doesn't explicitly reject the tenets of Leninism, he introduces so many caveats that democratic centralism starts to look very dubious. But this is to get it the wrong way around. When ostensibly revolutionary parties degenerate it is not in any sense democratic centralism that is at fault - it is, instead, precisely the case that they've moved away from genuine democratic centralism.

I think Molyneux also gets things back to front in another important way too. He repeatedly implies that problems of internal democracy have been at the root of political problems in socialist organisations. But, generally, it's the other way around: political errors and wrong strategies lead to a corruption of democracy.

The reason is fairly obvious. A correct and principled politcal strategy can be articulated clearly, without evasion or ambiguity. But when the course being followed is the wrong one, it is a different matter. It then becomes necessary for leaders to lie to the members, for senior bodies to be secretive instead of open, for dissidents to be disciplined, suspended or expelled, and for a culture of denunciation and personalisation to develop.

So it is not the democratic principles associated with the Leninist model of party building that are at fault. Quite the opposite. When things go badly it is for profoundly political reasons - and the rest will inevitably follow. Lenin wrote somewhere that organisational questions are always bound up with political questions. This is something Molyneux seems in danger of neglecting.

What can appear as an internal crisis is in reality an external problem. Or, to put it another way, the real source of difficulty is how the party envisages its relationship with wider movements and with the class. Are revolutionaries just incorrigible sectarians, leeching on the movements, or are they determined to shape and lead resistance?

Are they dried preserves, or are they throwing themselves into the life of the masses?

Signs of Revolt: anti-capitalist festival

Signs of Revolt: Creative Resistance and Social Movements since Seattle
Saturday 14 - Sunday 15 November 2009
Truman Brewery, Hanover Street, London

For details of this event see the Facebook Event HERE and the website HERE.

Contact show@signsofrevolt.net for more info

This weekend festival of events, which has just been announced, looks excellent. Here's the summary you can find on the Facebook Event, but I recommend you also look at either Facebook or the website for the full timetable.

'10 years ago, in November 1999 an alliance of direct action activists, environmentalists and trade unionists shut down the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle, stopping the next trade round of Capitalist Globalisation. In the process they sparked a Movement of Movements right across the globe - its slogan became ‘Another World is Possible’.

This November, exactly 10 years from that momentous demonstration, and with most of the predictions of the movements rapidly coming true with the crisis of the economy, a permanent state of war and the collapse of our eco-system wrecking lives across the planet, the rich and powerful meet again in Copenhagen to discuss the next Climate treaty after Kyoto. Yet again activists are preparing to challenge the idea that the Market can solve the problems of the world, and take another step toward that possible world after Capitalism.

Sign of Revolt is an exhibition that weaves together the story of the past decade's social movements, drawing out the influences and connections between and across the movements against Capitalism, War and Climate Change. Using archive material and documentary photography and video from movement photographers and filmmakers, it reveals the story of how we get from Seattle to Copenhagen.

Interspersed in this narrative are works by artist and designer activists and collectives, produced during, within and for the movements, this is the first time such a collection has been brought together in the UK and it will be a chance to reflect upon and celebrate the new creative impulses that the movements spawned and the possibilties for developing the creative capacity of future movements, these issues will also be discussed in greater depth during a series of talks during the exhibition.

As capitalism threatens our very existence, Signs of Revolt defiantly maps out possible routes to a future filled with hope…

The festival is free.

Michael Moore: for socialism and bringing the troops home

Good video here from Michael Moore, whose new film 'Capitalism: A Love Story' has just premiered in the US. He's also made a welcome intervention in the public discussion about Barack Obama being awareded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Read his response HERE.

Are revolutionary parties undemocratic?

I've just read John Molyneux's article 'On party democracy' in the new International Socialism. I disagree with the general direction of his argument - which is away from the Leninist tradition of party organisation, as normally understood. I don't share his conclusions. He has, essentially, become highly distrustful and sceptical of any prospects for genuine democracy in revolutionary parties.

This leads him very close to suggesting the project of building a democratic revolutionary socialist party isn't a viable one. In this key respect I think he is seriously mistaken.

However, in the earlier sections - which seem fairly conventional for those of us in the Leninist tradition - he provides useful reminders of how utterly fundamental democracy has always been to the revolutionary tradition. He offers a number of quotes which debunk myths presenting socialist organisations as monolithic or autocratic. Quite the opposite: any organisation based on prinicples of socialism from below must, necessarily, be thoroughly democratic.

Here's Trotsky reflecting on the Bolshevik Party's history:

'Freedom of criticism and intellectual struggle was an irrevocable content of the party democracy. The present doctrine that Bolshevism does not tolerate factions is a myth of the epoch of decline. In reality the history of Bolshevism is a history of the struggle of factions. And, indeed, how could a genuinely revolutionary organisation, setting itself the task of overthrowing the world and uniting under its banner the most audacious iconoclasts, fighters and insurgents, live and develop without intellectual conflicts, without groupings and temporary factional formations?

And here's Duncan Hallas, for many years a leading member of the British SWP, in 1971:

'[A revolutionary socialist party] cannot possibly be created except on a thoroughly democratic basis; unless, in its internal life, vigorous controversy is the rule and various tendencies and shades of opinion are represented, a socialist party cannot rise above the level of a sect. Internal democracy is not an optional extra. It is fundamental to the relationship between party members and those amongst whom they work.'

These remarks represent the true Leninist tradition of party democracy. Molyneux goes on to exhibit some confused and contradictory thinking, but these quotes from Trotsky and Hallas speak to us with clarity and force.

Picture: Tony Cliff, Socialist Workers Party founder.

Military chiefs and British democracy

Over at Counter Fire there's an excellent response by Ady Cousins to the armed forces' lobbying for more troops in Afghanistan. He observes that not only are the arguments wrong, but it is unacceptable for unelected generals to think they can dictate policy to elected politicians.

Their Establishment arrogance is all the more galling when you remember that recent opinion polls in several countries consistently indicate anti-war majorities. This includes the new poll of British public opinion, which shows that arguments from Tories, right-wing press and military top brass are failing to resonate.

I notice Radio 4 has a debate, 'Afghanistan - is it mission impossible?', tonight at 8pm (repeated on Saturday at 10.15pm), which features Lindsey German (convenor of Stop the War) amongst others. This presumably reflects a recognition that Afghanistan is a source of growing concern and anger in this country. Another expression of this is the public meetings organised by Stop the War in the run up to the 24 October demonstration. Our meeting in Newcastle last night had some new faces, and was both informative and a platform for mobilising a big turnout on 24 October.

UPDATE: For an interesting twist to the tale see HERE.

24 October: make this demonstration a turning point

The steering committee of the Stop the War Coalition met on Saturday. I was the delegate from Tyneside's local group and was greatly impressed by the level of political discussion, especially about Afghanistan and the crisis it is creating for US and UK politcal elites.

Chris Nineham, one of the national officers, introduced the main session, with contributions from a wide range of people. We discussed the growing problems in Afghanistan, with more troops being sent. Top generals are talking of being there for years and demanding even more 'boots on the ground'. But this is creating a political crisis on both sides of the Atlantic, largely because the occupation is becoming more unpopular with the US and UK public. There's widespread disillusionment with Obama, while here it's clear a majority think the occupation is wrong.

Anger about Afghanistan is being fuelled, too, by the economic crisis, e.g. disgust at how much money is being spent at a time of recession. And the rising death toll adds to popular feeling that the troops should come home. It was agreed that all this creates better conditions for mobilising opposition on the streets and building successful public meetings.

The 24 October national demonstration is of course priority number one for all activists: a great chance to force the subject up the political agenda and make visible the widespread opposition to the occupation. A number of people talked of practical successes in building it, from leafleting mosques to speaking at union branch meetings. The public meetings, currently taking place around the country, are an opportunity to build the demonstration, as well as affording an opportunity to discuss the issues.

The 24 October demo will be the launchpad for a major 'Bring the troops home by XMAS' campaign. Then, from January, Stop the War will - amongst other things - seek to make the war a big elections issue. Andrew Burgin and John Rees, both national officers, commented on how Die Linke in Germany made 'bring the troops home from Afghanistan' central to its platform in recent elections and won a surprisingly high vote.

Lindsey German (Stop the War's convenor) reported on speaking in Liverpool, where a 600-strong Stop the War meeting brought together TUC delegates and local people - and raised £4000 for Palestine. A number of people stressed the psosibilities for "branching out" by doing stalls in areas we may not have organised in for a long time (or indeed ever) and leafleting mosques, colleges etc beyond the level we may have previously.

There was discussion about other things too, including support for this December's Viva Palestina convoy and our campaigning around the Iraq Inquiry, but inevitably the campaign to bring our troops home from Afghanistan is the dominant issue. In Tyneside, as elsewhere, we're pulling out all the stops for a good turnout on 24 October.

Tories and the public sector

This cartoon from Leon Kuhn, published in Socialist Worker, neatly captures the competition between Labour and Tories to slash public funding. In a way it's strange - it isn't as if cutbacks in the public sector are electorally popular. But both parties are ideologically committed to the neoliberal agenda and determined to make working class people pay for the crisis. They spin this as 'making tough choices' and 'cutting waste', making a virtue of their willingness to take 'unpopular' action.

The Tories, meeting for their conference this week, know they will almost definitely be in government by next June. David Cameron can't risk lots of false promises which can't be delivered, so increasingly we are getting a realistic sense of what they will do in office. My suspicion is that the gulf between them and Labour in opinion polls affords them the luxury of feeling they can make announcements that may alientate some voters.

Despite all this, there is simply no evidence of a shift to the right in popular attitudes and ideas. With the possible exception of a couple of issues, notably immigration, there's been no discernible change over the last few years. On subjects like public sector spending the majority of people are decidedly more progressive than the political class. Rises in the Tories' votes and poll ratings remain, first and foremost, a symptom of widespread disgust at this Labour government.

Universities: public spaces or corporate laboratories?

Students at the University of California are occupying in response to budget cuts. This important dispute goes to the core of debates about education in 21st century capitalist society. I was going to offer some comments, but Timothy Clark has said everything I want to say in this brilliant speech in support of the occupation. It is a sincere, inspiring affirmation of what education is - and what it is for - in opposition to neoliberalism's degradation of real learning. He also links the students' resistance with the broader defence of the public sphere and camapigns against cutbacks.


Find out more about the ocupation HERE.

No compromise on 'No Platform'

Since the election of two BNP candidates to the European Parliament in June, many anti-fascists have felt increasingly concerned about broadcasters giving the fascist party a platform. They are right to be concerned: airtime for the BNP provides them with greater legitimacy, allowing them to seem like another mainstream political party. The reality is that interviewers and reporters rarely expose them for who they are, and what they really represent, so it is fanciful to believe this can actually discredit them and instead benefit anti-racists.

It is therefore absolutely right that we insist on 'no platform' for Nazis, in any circumstances, throughout the media. When Nick Griffin is interviewed on BBC2's Newsnight, or Radio 4's Today programme, it is a boost to his whole project of presenting the BNP as a respectable electoral proposition. At a time when the fascists are encroaching further into the mainstream media it may be tempting to drop this principle as 'unrealistic', but that would be a mistake.

The recent attempts by the English Defence League - essentially the streetfighting wing of the far right - to intimidate Muslim communities illustrate why this matters. It is the ugly face behind the media-friendly mask: fascists like Griffin seek to use any available platform to seem legitimate, while the thugs go on the rampage on the streets of Birmingham, Luton, north London and elsewhere. Ultimately they want the confidence to smash democratic instituitons and organisations such as trade unions, community groups and left wing parties.

Part of the anti-fascist response has to be refusal to participate in any broadcast discussions or interviews also involving BNP representatives. Simply appearing alongside them gives the impression that the BNP can be debated with rationally, that they are entitled to the oxygen of publicity, that they are an accepted voice in politcal debate. It makes it more likely, too, that they will be allowed a platform elsewhere: in trade unions and student unions, at election hustings, etc. Implementing a 'No Platform' policy - without exceptions - strengthens united resistance to the fascist threat.

It is shameful that Jack Straw has accepted the invitation to appear with Griffin on Question Time (on 22 October). Whatever Straw says on the night, his mere presence in the studio alongisde Griffin allows the BNP leader a veneer of respectability. The task of anti-racists and anti-fascists is to strip any false legitimacy from the BNP, which means (among other things) refusing to in any way share a platform with their members.

Read a very strong critique of the Newsbeat appearance from Lenin's Tomb HERE.

Michael Rosen's stirring case for a consistent No Platform policy is HERE.