Luna17

Stop the war before it starts - #DontAttackIran

2012-01-25T13:19:00.001Z

This comes via Stop the War Coalition:

STOP THE WAR BEFORE IT STARTS - EMERGENCY PROTEST THIS SAT JAN 28

Hands off Iran and Syria
2 - 4pm, US Embassy, Grosvenor Square, London W1K 2

Called by Stop the War Coalition. Supported by UNITE the Union, War on Want, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention on Iran, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Goldsmiths Student Union and SOAS Student Union.

This is the most dangerous moment in the world since 2003. The sanctions on Iranian oil imposed by the EU on Monday are a provocation that could spark a war at any time. Iran's threats to retaliate by closing the Straits of Hormuz were answered on the weekend by US Defence Secretary Panetta saying the US would 'respond' if there was a closure and by US, British and French navy ships sailing through the Straits.

The new sanctions mark a sharp escalation in an ongoing campaign of cyber attacks, assassinations and US troop deployments in the area all designed to destabilise the Iranian regime. Such a strategy of tension isn't just deeply irresponsible. It shows the argument for war is gaining ground in the west. An article by influential US hawk Mattew Kroenig in the current edition of Foreign Affairs is headlined 'Time to Attack Iran'. His basic argument is summed up in a single subheading: 'Strike Now or Suffer Later'.

As yesterday's Financial Times pointed out, this approach is making headway. Both US Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich favour an attack. Sections of the British establishment are now talking up confrontation. Meanwhile calls for intervention against Iran's ally Syria are also growing.

The echoes of the build up to war on Iraq are loud and clear.

If you oppose the terrible prospect of a war on Iran or Syria please join the protest this Saturday. Speakers will include Tony Benn, Lindsey German, Roger Lloyd Pack, Abbas Edalat, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Sabah Jawad, Shirin Shafie.

*****************

2) TWEET-OUT TO SPREAD THE WORD, TODAY 12 ONWARDS

Please help publicise the protest by joining our tweet-out and facebook surge today, starting at 12 noon.

Tweet with hashtag #DontAttackIran, retweet our tweets, share links, share photos and anything else using this same hashtag. Copy us into your tweets if you like using @StwUK so we know what you want us to repost. Also please do include the Facebook event for the protest -http://on.fb.me/yR9Q3i .

If we can get #DontAttackIran trending in London it will be a big publicity boost for the protest.

Join the Tweet-out - #DontAttackIran
Invite friends on Facebook - http://on.fb.me/yR9Q3i
Follow StoptheWar on Twitter - http://twitter.com/STWuk

Share

Round-up: Labour, trade unions and the left

2012-01-21T10:49:00.001Z

Here are some interventions (from the past week) in overlapping debates about the Labour Party's capitulation to cuts, strategy in the pensions dispute, trade unions and the future of the left. Plenty of food for thought...

Owen Jones: A call to arms

Andrew Fisher: The Pensions Dispute and Labour Strategy

Andy Newman: Andrew Fisher on trade unions: wrong, wrong, wrong

Lindsey German: There is an alternative to Labour's latest Balls-up

Michael Meacher: We need a growth policy to create jobs, not pay cuts

Dave Osler: Popular capitalism, unpopular socialism

Share

Ed Balls: 'Labour will keep all these cuts'

2012-01-14T06:54:00.000Z

Rather than opposing the Tory-led government, Ed Balls is picking a fight with trade unions. Instead of focusing energies on stopping cuts to welfare, pensions, pay and public services, the shadow chancellor is telling us to learn to live with it.

An article in today’s Guardian begins:

‘Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, has moved to challenge accusations that Labour is not credible on the economy by telling the public sector unions that he endorses George Osborne's public sector pay freeze until the end of the parliament, and that he accepts every spending cut being imposed by the Conservatives.’

Green MP Caroline Lucas described it as 'an odd relaunch - one that makes them even less distinguishable from the Tories'. Left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell commented that 'for Miliband and Balls economic credibility means accepting Tory cuts and pay freezes. To me it sounds like capitulation to neoliberalism.'

At a time when the union movement is split over pensions – with the biggest public sector union Unison largely accepting the government’s terms for negotiations, while many other unions look to further strike action – this intervention by the Labour front bench is a clear message to accept the government’s ‘heads of agreement’. But it goes much further than that – and will trouble even the most painfully moderate of Unison or TUC moderates.

In the last two weeks there has been a series of indications that Labour’s leadership is tacking right and emphasising ‘realism’ (code for conservatism) about the economy. Liam Byrne’s provocative remarks about supposed ‘benefits dependency’ were the most outrageous, but there’s also been shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy stressing the need for cuts and Ed Miliband’s own talk about ‘accepting’ austerity this week.

These latest comments from Balls are perhaps the most important yet, offering real substance to Labour’s support for cuts from an authoritative figure. He refers, for example, to forthcoming 'tough decisions' on welfare from Byrne, making it clear the work and pensions secretary wasn't simply expressing his own maverick worldview with recent remarks.

Many Labour activists have invested hopes in the shadow chancellor, seeing him as marginally to the left of the party leader and standing for an alternative to more of the same old Blairism associated with the previous Labour governments. He has just severely dented any such illusions.

The central issue is public sector pay. Balls argues:

‘There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down. I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do.’

It is hard to be more emphatic than that: Labour now openly supports the government’s public sector pay restraint for this parliament. There is a pay freeze for the next 2 years, with average annual rises of just 1% planned for 2014 and 2015. The cumulative effect, when inflation is accounted for, is a substantial pay cut for millions of public sector workers.

It gets worse. Balls states:

"My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece... At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that."

The assumption has tended to be that Labour, led by Miliband and Balls, would deliver cuts in services, pay and pensions but significantly slower and shallower, combined with a strategy for creating jobs and thus stimulating the economy. That would be a deeply flawed approach, but clearly preferable to the current coalition policy. The shadow chancellor is now insisting on acceptance, however reluctantly, of rapid and deep cuts.

It is false to juxtapose job creation to increasing pay for millions of working people. Reducing unemployment and increasing pay are both strategies that put more money in people’s pockets, enabling greater consumer spending and helping revitalise the economy. The current pay freeze is, like high unemployment, disastrous for prospects of economic recovery.

As the European crisis deepens, it is obvious the 'tough medicine' of cuts and privatisation is not working. Now more than ever, we need to articulate alternatives to the failed economics of George Osborne - and his European counterparts who are dedicated to the same destructive approach. The Labour leadership’s capitulation to a mythical ‘acceptance’ of austerity is the wrong approach in every way.

Share

Unison: a setback for strike movement

2012-01-10T23:55:00.001Z

Unison's main service executives have today accepted the government's 'heads of agreement' as the basis for a deal on pensions. The executives of the union's local government and health sections met today and bucked the trend of unions rejecting the deals.

Yesterday, Unite rejected the same agreement in local government as Unison today accepted, recognising that the meagre concessions were inadequate. Last week, Unite's health sector unanimously rejected the NHS pensions deal, but Unison's group executive has today failed to reach a decision - it is putting the current offer to a members' ballot. Francis Maude, Danny Alexander and everyone in the Tory-led government will be breathing a sigh of relief.

This is a major setback for the whole strike movement. Unison's group executives are enabling the government's divide-and-rule strategy to work, by accepting shoddy deals and leaving other unions to fight on without the largest public sector union being part of further strike action. It has broken the fantastic unity and momentum which developed around 30 November, when over two million public sector workers walked out.

These decisions have come on the same day that Labour leader Ed Miliband has been widely reported as calling for us all to be 'realistic' about cuts. He is angling Labour even further to the right. The capitulation by Unison, a Labour-affiliated union led by officials who are loyal to Labour's leadership, dovetails with Miliband's push to persuade the whole labour movement to accept large chunks of the government's austerity agenda.

Within Unison, activists will be battling to overturn the decisions - any deals will be put to a ballot of members. Fortunately, many unions involved in the large-scale strikes and demonstrations on 30 November have rejected the government's proposed deal. Activists in these unions now need to pressure their leaders and executives to co-ordinate a day of strike action, bringing together the largest possible numbers in united action.

Thursday's TUC meeting, involving representatives of a range of public sector unions, is likely to be tense. TUC head Brendan Barber, along with Unison leaders, will be keen to avoid further co-ordinated strikes.

Lobby of the TUC on the pensions' dispute:
Thursday 12th January - at 2pm outside Congress House, Great Russell Street, London

Share

The 'Left' and the anti-cuts movement

2012-01-07T00:01:00.000Z

Liberal Conspiracy posts are sometimes both interesting and irritating (and sometimes they are just irritating). Here's an example of this combo from a couple of days ago: an article by Chaminda Jayanetti called 'How the last year shaped up for left-wing activism'.

Potential contributors to the site appear to know that calling for 'lefties' to do something differently is guaranteed to get you published. 'Lefties', it seems, is editor Sunny Hundal's favourite word. But even when that word (which nobody on the Left actually uses) isn't deployed, there's still an injunction for the Left - which appears to cover eveyone from revolutionaries to Alan Milburn - to change its ways.

The author writes:

'If the Welfare Reform Bill makes it through Parliament this month, it will set the seal on a terrible twelve months in which – sporadic successes aside – ‘the Left’ has failed to provide effective leadership and representation for those bearing the brunt of public funding cuts and austerity economics. There have been massive shortcomings in how the Left has handled the public funding cuts in 2011, especially in two of the worst-affected areas – benefits and adult care. Much of this revolves around the fact that, from the militants to the wets, the leadership of the Left is not drawn from the ranks of those it claims to represent, and is therefore not much cop at representing them.'

The thrust, therefore, is as follows:

1. The Left has failed utterly to resist cuts: last year was disastrous all round.

2. It has been particularly bad at opposing cuts which target the more economically vulnerable, e.g. benefits claimants.

3. This is because it is led and dominated by people are socially removed from those who are victims of such cuts.

The first point has an element of truth - we are getting very few victories - but overstates the case. Describing a year which included one of the biggest union-led demonstrations in British history as a disaster is stretching it.

The second point also has some truth, considering the lack of effective resistance in this area. But the final point is very problematic and means there's generally a lack of perspective in the argument.

The Left, however exactly we define it, is extremely varied, including in respect of social background. But the left is primarily rooted in the working class. It isn't some sort of detached middle class elite. Socialists are a varied bunch and live and work alongside all sorts of different people. The caricature in this post merely feeds the right-wing rhetoric about 'liberal elites' and similar nonsense.

There are other oddities in the article. Since when were library users a middle class network? Libraries are a class issue - by which I mean a working class issue - if ever there was one. We're talking about free access to knowledge and literature, not to mention places that are often integral to a working class community.

The claim that 'the Left' has also only focused on cuts that disproportionately affect women belatedly, half-heartedly and for opportunistic reasons is plain bizarre. No evidence is offered to support the claim.

The real problem when it comes to campaigning by largely unorganised groups is, well, to do with them being largely unorganised. Workers have trade unions to fight over issues which affect them in the workplace. These are mass collective organsiations.

But workers don't have such organsiations in relation to other aspects of their life. e.g. if they are disabled, a carer or any other role which relates to the impact of cuts. People who aren't in work also don't have such collective organisation. There are often groups of one sort or another, but not with the mass membership, cohesion and mobilising capacity of trade unions.

That is the real difficulty here - and, to be fair, it's something that Jayanetti pretty much grasps, but the wilder and less grounded claims elsewhere in the post could obscure this. There's ultimately no substitute for building organisations in these other areas of life and society that provide strong collective organisation. Or, at the very least, creating coalitions that reach out beyond the unions and connect different social groups.

It isn't simply a matter of urging 'the Left' to do more: self-organisation, admittedly including those who identify themselves with the Left, is required. This is a challenge, to say the least.

Jayanetti is absolutely justified in attacking the Labour leadership's right-wing attitudes and rhetoric in realtion to welfare. It also has to be acknowledged that the criticism of the student left gets dangerously close to the mark, highlighting its weaknesses quite in early 2011 quite accurately.

What is also true is that trade unions really must do more to link up with other organisations, and the communities and social groups they represent. So must the left, whether inside or outside Labour, though a little realism about the limited reach of the organised Left is necessary here.

Getting beyond sectionalism - different groups or unions focusing on their own patch, fighting austerity alone - is vital. We need sustained co-ordination and maximum unity in action, in fighting specific cuts and in offering a general challenge to the government.

Stephen Lawrence: a victory but police racism continues

2012-01-06T00:55:00.001Z

The verdict in the Stephen Lawrence case brings some overdue justice, but leaves a number of things unresolved. The convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, followed by them being given the maximium possible sentences, are welcome news. These convictions have been - over 18 years after the brutal racist muder in south-east London - a long time coming.

Although some have praised the Daily Mail because of a front page it once ran - despite its record of scare stories and bile directed at asylum seekers, Muslims and the alleged horrors of multiculturalism - this is really a victory for the persistence of the Lawrence family, and the campaigning efforts of all those who contributed to the long struggle for justice.

The justice campaign was always in the teeth of hostility from a police force later deemed by the Macpherson inquiry to be 'institutionally racist' and, to begin with, media ambivalence. The sentencing judge at the Old Bailey commented that the Macpherson findings are still valid, and described the Metropolitan police as "shamed and humbled" as a result of its deep-rooted failures in the case.

At least three other men in Norris and Dobson's racist gang, responsible for the savage murder on 22 April 1993, remain at large. They need to be brought to justice. But it goes further than that. The police responsible for a murder investigation that at times treated victims of racism as suspects, and let the killers off the hook, need to be brought to book.

The police and courts had no trouble swiftly locking up those who took part in riots last summer - inflating our prison population so there's now a record number of people in jail - but it took 18 years to put Dobson and Norris behind bars. Luke Knight, Neil Acourt and Jamie Acourt still walk free.

Some commentators have said 1993 now seems like a distant age, remarking on how much things have apparently improved. If only. Police racism was a major factor behind the London riots last summer, as documented by the Guardian/LSE research study. It was the shooting of Mark Duggan, a young black man, that triggered the initial rioting in Tottenham on the night of 6 August 2011.

Black people are still far more likely to be stopped and searched than their white counterparts. People are still physically or verbally attacked because of the colour of their skin. Whether it is institutional racism or violent assaults, casual racist attitudes or the thuggery of the EDL, we still have a set of problems to confront.

You only have to recall David Starkey's comments on Newsnight in the riots' aftermath - when the TV historian echoed Enoch Powell's famous 'rivers of blood' speech - to be aware that some racist attitudes are 'respectable'. In the last decade we have seen an increase in state racism directed at Muslims and their communities, with 'anti-terror laws' used to harrass Muslims and a climate of suspicion and distrust promoted. So there can be no room for complacency.

This is not to say nothing has changed. Justice campaigns, important in their own right, have also played a role in highlighting not only racist violence but the systemic problems in the police and justice system. They have helped shift the terms of public debate and forced issues into the open. Campaigns and protest movements more generally have in important ways created a more powerful anti-racist current in society.

We need to build on the widespread disgust millions feel at racist violence and injustice - highlighted so powerfully by this case - to further turn the tide against racism and bigotry.

First published at Counterfire

Revolutionary organisation and the 'labor-radical subculture'

2012-01-03T22:06:00.000Z

There's an exchange on 'revolutionary organization today' from 2008, featured on John Riddell's excellent blog, that I find very illuminating.

The starting point is a piece by Paul Le Blanc. John Riddell then responds to a number of issues raised in it, followed by Le Blanc's reply to Riddell, and finally there are shorter comments from a range of other socialists.

Paul Le Blanc has written or edited a number of books about the marxist tradition, including 'Marx, Lenin and the Revolutionary Experience'. Once a member of the US Socialist Workers Party (unrelated to its British namesake), he joined the US-based International Socialists Organization in 2009. John Riddell, the world's leading historian of the Comintern, is based in Canada and edited the six-volume anthology 'The Communist International in Lenin's Time'.

The whole exchange is worth reading. It is a model of constructive dialogue on the revolutionary left, with the discussion enabling a richer understanding than the original article (admittedly first-rate) can provide on its own.

One of the central issues raised by Paul Le Blanc in his article is the relationship between revolutionary socialist organisation and what he calls a 'broad labor-radical subculture'. He considers how this subculture relates to class consciousness, how it has evolved historically (especially in the US), how revolutionary organisations have sought to relate to it, and current difficulties concerning this.

It is a cluster of issues that goes to the heart of any serious thinking about prospects for building revolutionary socialist organisation - not just in the US but elsewhere - today.

What I've done here is to extract the relevant section (on revolutionaries and the 'labor-radical subculture') from the article, then followed it with the relevant parts of Riddell's reply and of Le Blanc's subsequent rejoinder. Basically, I think John Riddell's comments are correct and worth exploring in greater depth, but all in all it's a very useful exchange.

From Paul Le Blanc's article:

First of all, there is a profound difference between “the Leninism of Lenin” and the immediate possibilities that we face in a context that is, in some ways, qualitatively different from his. To transpose the texts that come from Lenin and his time into our very different reality can lead to serious political confusion.

Lenin’s Bolsheviks came into being within a very specific context. They were part of a broad global working-class formation, part of a developing labor movement, and part of an evolving labor-radical subculture. To try to duplicate Lenin’s party today, outside of such a context, will create something that cannot function as the Bolsheviks functioned in Russia, nor can it function in the way the early U.S. Communists functioned in the 1920s or in the 1930s.

The existence of a class-conscious layer of the working class is a necessary precondition for creating a genuinely revolutionary party. Workers’ class consciousness — that involves more than whatever notions happen to be in the minds of various members of the working class at any particular moment. It involves an understanding of the insight that was contained in the preamble of the American Federation of Labor from 1886 to 1955:

“A struggle is going on in all the nations of the civilized world, between the oppressors and the oppressed of all countries, a struggle between the capitalist and the laborer, which grows in intensity from year to year, and will work disastrous results to the toiling millions, if they are not combined for mutual protection and benefit.”

Not all workers have absorbed this insight into their consciousness, but those who have done so can be said to have at least an elementary class consciousness.

Such consciousness does not exist automatically in one’s brain simply because we happen to sell our labor-power (our ability to work) for wages or a salary. But in the United States, from the period spanning the end of the Civil War in 1865 down through the Depression decade of the 1930s, a vibrant working-class subculture had developed throughout much of the United States.

Often this “subculture” was more like a network of subcultures having very distinctive ethnic attributes, but these different ethnic currents were at various times connected by left-wing political structures (such as the old Knights of Labor, Socialist Party, IWW, Communist Party, etc.) and also, to an extent, by trade union frameworks. Within this context flourished the class-consciousness that is essential to the creation of a revolutionary party.

Those who founded the Trotskyist movement in the United States (which sought to build a revolutionary Marxist party — the Socialist Workers Party, the SWP) were a product of this radical workers’ subculture. And they sought to make their own revolutionary contributions to it, and to help it become a revolutionary socialist force capable of transforming society.

After 1945, there was a dramatic break in the continuity of this labor-radical tradition due to the realities that resulted from the Second World War, and the transformation of the social, economic, political, and cultural realities in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s. Essential specifics of workers’ occupations and workday experience underwent fundamental changes.

The organizations associated with the labor movement were similarly transformed — impacted by a complex combination of assaults, co-optations, corruptions, and erosions. The communities, culture, and consciousness of the working class became so different from the mid-1940s to the 1960s that only faded shreds of the old labor-radical subculture remained.

It is not the case that the working class was eliminated. The working class is bigger than ever. But there has been a combined decomposition and recomposition of the working class, and the old labor-radical subculture is long gone. It, too, needs to be recomposed, and within a very different reality than once existed.

Because of this, there was a significant disconnect between the actual working class and the organized Left (including the SWP) that sought to represent the best interests of that class. This had grave implications. Back in the 1950s, after decades of Leninist and Trotskyist experience in the United States, James P. Cannon commented:

“The conscious socialists should act as a ‘leaven’ in the instinctive and spontaneous movement of the working class. … The leaven can help the dough to rise and eventually become a loaf of bread, but it can never be a loaf of bread itself. … Every tendency, direct or indirect, of a small revolutionary party to construct a world of its own, outside and apart from the real movement of the workers in the class struggle, is sectarian.”

The experience of many activists influenced by Lenin from the 1950s down to the present demonstrates that efforts to create Leninist parties all-too-often degenerate into the construction of sects, with well-meaning activists penned up in a world of their own, separate and apart from the working class.

My generation of young 1960s and 1970s activists can hardly be said to have started out in a sectarian mode. We helped to fundamentally change the political, social, and cultural landscape of the United States.

But we saw the real social struggles of our time as involving opposition to such things as racism and poverty and war and sexism, but definitely not as the central expression of an organized labor movement. The unions had had become highly bureaucratized and relatively conservative, largely inclined to hold back from — or even oppose — the radicalization and social struggles of the time.

Little of this had changed when — as our experiences and growing awareness further radicalized us — many of us went in a Marxist direction. Although the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, and Cannon were avidly read, discussed, and internalized by young SWP activists such as myself, the context in which the revolutionary “teachers” from earlier decades had lived and the context in which the avid students of the 1960s lived were qualitatively different.

The relationship of the new radicals to the rest of the working class, not to mention the culture and consciousness of both the actual proletariat and its would-be “vanguard” in the 1970s, were far different from what was true in the early 1900s or the 1930s.

A failure to comprehend the meaning of this ruptured continuity contributed to the rise of a fatal disorientation that accelerated within the SWP as the 1970s flowed into the 1980s, culminating in fragmentation and implosion. This happened especially as we sought to — once again — fuse socialism with the working class. This did not come naturally to my generation, and many of us really didn’t know how to do it (though we were afraid to admit that).

This failure, however, more or less afflicted all Marxist-oriented organizations in the U.S. from the late 1970s through the late 1980s. Ironically, this occurred as influences from the 1960s radicalization permeated much of the U.S. population, and as negative impacts from the early manifestations of “globalization” created remarkable new openings for left-wing developments within the working class.

At the same time, much of the basis for the organized power of the working class — in the highly-unionized industries — was wiped out with the so-called “de-industrialization” of the U.S. economy. The labor movement’s ability to mount effective struggles went into sharp decline.

From John Riddell's response:

You talk of the lack of a broad labor-radical subculture. However, if I may take Toronto as an example, there is such a subculture. In terms of activism, it includes thousands of people. That’s not a mass base; it is a lot fewer now than during some periods in the last half-century, but in some ways this subculture is more advanced.

It is now largely free of the influence of Stalinism, which was so dominant in the past, and Social Democracy is much less influential. It is not marked by the ultraleftism so prominent in the sixties; its political activities are broadly speaking on the mark. Also, this subculture has links to a broader constituency: for example, the 50-odd Islamic anti-Imperialists whom we meet fairly frequently can on occasion mobilize thousands, and so on in other sectors.

Moreover, this subculture is not limited geographically. It extends out internationally into several continents, and all that tumult of world class struggle gets drawn into our little city.

In my experience, today’s revolutionary socialist groups have a conflictual relationship with this subculture. Each revolutionary group identifies its own organization with the historic interest of the working class and prioritizes its organizational purposes over the needs of the broader movement. This is widely perceived by activists and strongly resented. In addition, most revolutionary groups prioritize an orientation to the “masses” as against collaboration with activists.

You say that attempts to build a “nucleus of the revolutionary party” turn in a sectarian direction because of the lack of a context of a radical subculture. Yes, but there is more to it than that. The revolutionary groups attempt to follow a fixed model of Bolshevik organization, regardless of their stage of development. This inflexibility in organizational conceptions is actually the opposite of the Bolshevik approach.

In addition, each revolutionary group today has a body of doctrine going back a century, which provides a predetermined answer to every major question, plus an apostolic succession of guiding theorists whose views cannot be challenged. The group’s politics are fixed and inflexible. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, had less fixed doctrine. In Lenin’s time, there were repeated sharp shifts in their politics in reaction to changed conditions and the lessons of experience.

From Paul Le Blanc's subsequent response:

One fact that may not have been expressed clearly in what I have been writing is that I know the United States, and function in the United States, and my points regarding the lack of the labor-radical sub-culture that stretched at least from the Civil War to World War II is focused on the United States.

I don’t assume that what I describe in the U.S. is global. It seems to me that the opposite is true — though I suspect there may be some element of relevance in at least some other countries. I would love to come to Toronto (I was there only once, and fleetingly) and see more of Canada as well. I don’t doubt at all what you say about the existence of some such sub-culture existing there, and I imagine there would be much for me to learn.

For that matter, I do think that there are elements for the recomposition of such a sub-culture in my own country. I believe a recomposition process is already underway, although it seems to me it has a ways to go before it crystallizes on a sufficiently mass scale and with sufficient clarity of consciousness within certain segments of the working class here.

You write:

“Revolutionary socialist groups have a conflictual relationship with this subculture. Each revolutionary group identifies its own organization with the historic interest of the working class and prioritizes its organizational purposes over the needs of the broader movement. This is widely perceived and strongly resented. In addition, most revolutionary groups prioritize an orientation to the “masses” as against collaboration with activists.”

That seems to me extremely problematical. Unfortunately, within the U.S. there is all too much of that as well. It seems to me that we might have different takes on certain details and specifics — I don’t know — but what you describe in general terms seems consistent with my own point of view.

Why the left should be making demands

2012-01-02T20:15:00.001Z

I recall Mark Steel telling a story about something Tony Benn said - at Glastonbury, I think - several years ago. "I've given up protesting - and taken up demanding instead", said Benn. Huge cheers from the crowd.

There are good reasons for those cheers. Similarly, it's easy to understand why 'The People Demand the Fall of the Regime' is one of the most resonant slogans of our age.

Most demands are less wildly ambitious than that great rallying cry of the Arab revolutions, but they all suggest action. A demand has to be implemented in action to mean anything, and it requires an active movement to fight for it. It is assertive, strong, and insistent.

Demands are the basis of political mobilisation. They unite people and rally them to a cause. They say: this is what we want, and we'll fight for it.

Demanding is, in this sense, the opposite of begging. Picture the former and you see someone standing tall; picture the latter and you see someone on their knees.

And, as Benn implied, they have a positive quality to them. They aren't simply reacting to a problem, but demanding positive change. They aren't about deferring to the future: there's no 'go slow' gradualism of the kind mocked by Nina Simone in Mississippi Goddam. They are about now.

Time magazine declared 2011 the year of the protester. Following Tony Benn, our challenge is to make 2012 a year of demanding - and let's at least start to win some of those demands. We continue a great tradition: in the history of the working class movement, demands go right back to the Chartists. Their list of clear demands - ambitious but winnable - was the basis for agitation.

Chris Dillow, however, thinks the Left is wrong to talk about demands. He suggests - without any evidence - that 'people who make demands are tiresome – demanding! – and unreasonable. The very use of the word is therefore a turn-off.'

He instead suggests a number of alternatives: making offers, an assertion of rights, stressing the benefits of policies, and using the language of inevitability and necessity. There are circumstances where these can be helpful rhetorical devices, but none of them negate the need for the expression of demands.

It is odd, for example, to juxtapose 'stressing the benefits' to 'making demands'. Er, can't we have both? Don't we already do both all the time?

What seems to underpin this argument is an appeal to conciliation. This is the language of negotiation and compromise: not really aimed at winning public opinion, but geared towards appealing to government and employers.

But the government won't, for example, give concessions on pensions because we on the left have shrewdly re-framed our arguments with fresh rhetoric. They will do so because we force them to through mass strikes and demonstrations.

For the anti-cuts movement, the key challenge now is precisely to articulate a list of demands and use them as a basis for agitation and mobilisation. They are concrete means of moving us from here to there. In the process of organising around them, we also re-shape political debate - a million miles from Ed Miliband's vacillations and polite bartering over 'offers'.

Share

20 predictions for 2012

2012-01-01T19:35:00.001Z

Wukan, China, December 2011: taste of the future?

These predictions are not what I want to happen - as will be obvious from quite a few of them - but what I think, on sober reflection, will happen. If we learnt anything from 2011 it's that we live in unpredictable times, so obviously this is a reckless exercise - and no doubt at least several predictions will be proved wrong.

History is what we make it. I hope that popular movements in various parts of the world will - as the Arab masses did in 2011 - shape history in a new direction.

Let me know what you agree or disagree with - and perhaps offer a few predictions of your own.

1. Egypt's revolutionary movement will continue to battle on the streets and win some of its demands, though broadly speaking the political situation will be stabilised with moderate forces, e.g. Muslim Brotherhood, using the electoral sphere to boost themselves and undermine the movement on the streets.

2. The Occupy movement in the US will almost completely disappear, but many of those involved will develop new campaigns and protest movements, offering a longer-term antidote to the Tea Party. The organised left, however, will remain extremely weak and marginalised.

3. The Tories will succeed in dismantling the NHS, due to a deep failure by Labour, trade unions and the anti-cuts movement to get their act together in stopping it.

4. There won't be foreign military intervention in Iran, but there will be in Syria.

5. Unison and a number of other unions will capitulate in the pensions dispute, but there will be some further strike action by PCS, NUT and others. These unions will, however, still settle for a deal - by no later than February - that is more favourable to the government to the unions.

6. Labour will move slightly further to the right (astonishing as that may seem), under pressure from the Blairite wing and in the absence of a credible left-wing counterweight. Ed Miliband will survive as leader, due to the lack of a popular alternative and the disarray inside his party.

7. There will be marked increase in the use of nationalism - and to a lesser extent racism and other forms of scapegoating - by David Cameron and the Tories, as an opportunistic response to political and economic tensions in Europe.

8. Social unrest in China will grow considerably, including workers' militancy, but not to such an extent that justifies talk of a Chinese Spring or comparisons with Egypt.

9. There will be an increase in anti-austerity protests, mass strikes and riots in many European countries, in the context of a deepening crisis for the Eurozone. Portugal, Italy and Spain will be particular flashpoints.

10. There will be a very welcome, though tentative, increase in co-ordination by left-wing anti-cuts activists in the UK, with a much sharper polarisation between broadly left-wing elements and, on the other hand, Labour, TUC and moderate union leaders. These latter elements will fail to take any major initiatives - there'll be no repeat of 26 March - but the more radical parts of the movement will become more coherent and powerful.

11. There will not be a repeat of last summer's riots in the UK.

12. There will be a growth in anti-sexism protests in the UK, US and a number of other Western countries, building on the short-lived Slutwalk phenomenon last year, and overwhelmingly led by young women.

13. Those of us who are republicans will be just as marginalised as we were in 2011, with the diamond jubilee being as great a popular success as the royal wedding last April. Support for the monarchy will be more solid and secure than for a very long time.

14. There will be further protests in Russia, some of them bigger than those witnessed recently, and to some extent this will spread to a number of former Soviet republics.

15. North Korea will begin, however cautiously, to increase diplomacy with the US and other countries.

16. Boris Johnson will be re-elected Mayor of London by a significant margin.

17. The Tories will get a small boost in opinion polls from the Olympics - which will be widely regarded as a great success - but this will have been completely obliterated by October.

18. The topic of class will - following the flurry of mainstream media discussion prompted by Owen Jones' 'Chavs' in 2011 - make a full-blown comeback as a repsectable subject for discussion and commentary, although most commentators will naturally get things wrong.

19. In Scotland, Alex Salmond will confirm the timetable for an indpendence referendum, against the backdrop of opinion polls consistently indicating more support for independence than for retaining the union. We will be another step closer to an independent Scotland and the break-up of the UK.

20. The revolutionary left as a whole, here in the UK and internationally, will be the same size at the end of 2012 as it is now.

Share

Orwell Prize selection

2011-12-31T17:32:00.000Z

Growing resistance to cuts: a key feature of 2011

The deadline for submissions to the annual Orwell Prize (including the blogging category) approaches. Here is the selection I am offering. See HERE for more on the prize.

1) 5 reasons why Owen Jones is talking bollocks about language and the left (Luna17, 6 February)

2) A mass movement we can learn from (Counterfire, 15 February)

3) Letter from Palestine (Luna17, 25 February)

4) Libya, war and British politics (Counterfire, 22 March)

5) Can trade unions stop the cuts? (Counterfire, 8 April)

6) Newcastle: a picture of Lib Dem decline (Comment is Free, 3 May)

7) Class, work and politics: 'Chavs' by Owen Jones (Luna17, 4 July)

8) The Fire This Time (Luna17, 29 September)

9) Beyond #N30 - co ordinate resistance across Europe (Luna17, 6 December)

10) Labour advisers: don't mention the politics (Luna17, 30 December)

Share

Labour advisers: don't mention the politics

2011-12-30T12:41:00.002Z

Labour leader Ed Miliband

We should always be sceptical when policy wonks, self-styled 'thinkers' and political advisers focus on personnel not policies as the solution to a problem. So it is with Maurice Glasman, the apostle of 'Blue Labour' (remember that?), and his fresh advice for Labour Party renewal.

What's wrong, declares Glasman, is that too many leading Labour figures have Oxbridge backgrounds. The answer, he claims, is in broadening the range of those ascending through the Labour Party: more MPs from working class backgrounds, more leading figures who haven't been to Oxford or Cambridge. This will apparently enable Labour to reconnect with lost working class supporters.

There is no evidence that anyone has switched off from supporting Labour because Ed Miliband went to Oxford. But if you're Maurice Glasman, evidence and plausibility are less important than a provocative, media-friendly soundbite.

The truth is obvious: Labour needs policies which express the interests of working class people, if it is to inspire support among those disenchanted with mainstream politics. Most importantly, Labour needs to consistently confront the savage cuts to welfare, public services, pay and pensions.

The narrowing in educational and social backgrounds of MPs is a real phenomenon. The Labour Diversity Fund 'estimates that 80% of Labour MPs elected in 2010 are from professional backgrounds, with just 9% from manual working-class backgrounds.' As for the Tories, they more than ever reflect the privileged and powerful elite whose interests they represent: an Old Etonian leader, a cabinet packed with millionaries, and wealthy City donors funding their party.

It is certainly true, also, that leading Labour politicians tend to be disconnected from their own electoral base. But these problems are symptoms of long-term political trends: Labour's rightward-moving capitulation to neo-liberalism, and the wider hollowing out of democracy.

Politics has increasingly become an arena for professional 'career politicians', operating in a Westminster bubble with a veritable industry of advisers, researchers, lobbyists and so on. Debate is confined within narrow perameters, with Labour providing only mild opposition to a stridently right-wing government. Politics is primarily the management of the system, with minor tinkering to facilitate what is best for business, banks and the City.

We therefore see widespread popular alienation from official politics, with a democratic deficit between Westminster politicians and the people they are supposed to represent. Elections turnouts in the last decade or so have been lower than they had been for most of the previous century. Membership of the big parties is down. Those parties court donations from a thin layer of the wealthy. Labour still relies heavily on union donations, yet feels able to reject pleas to support large-scale public sector strikes.

Such secondary matters as a high proportion of Labour frontbenchers graduating from Oxbridge colleges is symptomatic, but hardly the root problem. Only a sharp break from the Labour leadership's timid centrist politics - replaced by the championing of policies which serve the majority, and challenge the dominant mantra of austerity - could reconnect it with millions of disaffected working class voters (or would-be voters).

Yet that is the opposite of what Glasman wants. Cheap populist gestures are in; a genuine change of political direction is out. The Blarites and others on Labour's right wing think Ed Miliband needs to make even more concessions to Tory ideology, become still more craven to the Daily Mail's right-wing populism and calls for austerity from bankers and corporate bosses.

A good start would be to abandon the shame and embarrassment at links with the trade unions, with their millions of working class members. Ed Miliband - still desparate to placate the right-wing press at jibes about supposedly being in the unions' pocket - is unlikely to take that course. He is even less likely to pursue policies to defend working class living standards, the NHS and the welfare state.

Share

John Riddell on the Comintern: giant and dwarfs?

2011-12-27T23:36:00.000Z

Zinoviev, Comintern president

I'm a bit late with this, but I recommend reading John Riddell's blog post 'The Comintern in 1922: the periphery pushes back'. It is based on a presentation Riddell - the leading historian of the Communist International - gave at November's Historical Materialism conference.

It challenges assumptions about Moscow dominating the Comintern in the early 1920s. Arguing that Communist parties outside Russia influenced decisions more than is traditionally acknowledged, he begins:

'Until recently, I shared a widely held opinion that the Bolshevik Party of Russia towered above other members of the early Communist International as a source of fruitful political initiatives. However, my work in preparing the English edition of the Comintern’s Fourth Congress, held at the end of 1922, led me to modify this view. On a number of weighty strategic issues before the congress, front-line parties, especially the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), played a decisive role in revising Executive Committee proposals and shaping the Congress’s outcome.

When I translated the first page of this congress, I was not far distant from the view of Tony Cliff, who, referring to the 1921–22 period, referred to the “extreme comparative backwardness of communist leaders outside Russia.” They had an “uncritical attitude towards the Russian party,” which stood as “a giant among dwarfs,” Cliff stated.

Duncan Hallas wrote of the Comintern’s failure “to emancipate the pupil from excessive dependence on the teacher.” A similar view is advanced by historians hostile to the Comintern tradition, although they regard Bolshevik influence as not helpful but calamitous.

In recent years, a new generation of historians has focused attention on the dynamics of Comintern member parties, stressing the influence of their worker ranks and the parties’ relative autonomy. Kevin McDermott and Jeremy Agnew present the view, widely held among these historians, that “strategy was defined in Moscow, but tactics, to a certain extent, could be elaborated on the ground by the parties themselves.” However, the record of the Fourth Congress suggests that at least in 1922, the influence of front-line parties was felt in determining not only national tactics but international strategy.'

Share

Hobsbawm, revolution and class

2011-12-23T19:00:00.000Z

It won't, I think, be too controversial to observe that Eric Hobsbawm's record as a historian is superior to his record as an analyst of contemporary politics.

From sticking to the official Communist line when many of his fellow left-wing intellectuals rebelled against it (and formed the New Left) after 1956, to his claims about the allegedly disappearing working class in the 1980s, he has generally fared better when his eyes have been fixed firmly on the past. This disjunction between historian and political analyst (and activist) continues with an interview he's given to the BBC World Service.

For now, I'm relying on the website article for Hobsbawm's perspective. The full interview may give a more rounded picture, though his views seem fairly clearly defined. The historian compares 2011 to another landmark revolutionary year: 1848. But he's on surer ground analysing 1848, a year of democratic political revolutions and uprisings in several European countries (which half a century ago he wrote about insightfully in his classic 'The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848') than when assessing the meaning of 2011.

He does make a few valid points. Hobsbawm is surely right to note that a political revolution's effects often show up many years later, so early setbacks or even defeats should not lead anyone to despair. Revolution is a process not an event and we have to take the long view - and it is therefore well worth examining past revolutions and their legacy.

He is also correct to note the centrality of a layer of young people to the Arab revolts - and resistance elsewhere - and the similarities between movements in different parts of the world. Many of these people have, however, been young unemployed graduates or young workers not students.

The interviewer tells us: 'with the possible exception of Tunisia, he sees little prospect of liberal democracy or European-style representative government in the Arab world.' Why is that? It's not entirely clear, but we're later offered this quote from Hobsbawm, referring to the Iranian Revolution of 1979:

"The people who had made concessions to Islam, but were not Islamists themselves, were marginalised. And that included reformers, liberals, communists. What emerges as the mass ideology is not the ideology of those that started off the demonstrations."

This appears to be why he doesn't believe a Western-style bourgeois democracy will follow the Arab Spring, i.e. Arab societies are too in thrall too Islamist ideology for that to be possible. The rise of Iranian-style Islamism, or at least a modified version of it, is presumed to be the successor of this year's uprisings.

It's a surprisingly simplistic view that ignores the fact that Islamism is itself complex and varies across different settings, e.g. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is very different to a Khomeini-style theocracy, while the balance of forces between Islamist currents and other political forces in Egypt and Tunisia today is different to Iran thirty years ago. Nobody would deny that Islamist parties have the upper hand in Egyptian electoral politics, but let's not limit ourselves to the ballot box - especially at a time when the action on the streets is, on a daily basis, challenging a narrow notion of democracy as limited to putting a cross on a ballot paper.

Hobsbawm neglects what is actually currently happening in Egypt, which is not an Islamist takeover but a battle between those wanting to extend and deepen the revolution against ruling elements (the military council, supported most of the time but not always by political leaders in the Brotherhood) who want to curtail the revolution and defend the status quo.

The real danger posed by the Brotherhood is not an Islamist dictatorship but reformist compromise. And there are considerable tensions within the Brotherhood, notably with many of the youth dissenting and supporting the ongoing revolutionary movement. Viewing Islamism as a monolithic bloc - across time and space - won't help us.

Hobsbawm locates the motor of resistance, from Tahrir Square to Occupy Wall Street, in a new middle class:

"What unites them is a common discontent and common mobilisable forces - a modernising middle class, particularly a young, student middle class, and of course technology which makes it today very much easier to mobilise protests."

It is rather jarring, in 2011, to witness someone referring to a 'student middle class'. Haven't we reached the point where it's obvious that students are not necessarily from middle class backgrounds? This is as true in Arab countries - many of which, including Tunisia and Egypt, have high student populations - as in the West. Even when students are from propserous backgrounds, it's possible for them to face a distinct lack of such propserity after graduating.

This observation is no mere slippage in terminology. It is linked to an argument Hobsbawm has put for at least three decades: the working class is disappearing. The Chinese working class is today bigger than the global working class in 1848, but I suspect that is something Hobsbawm wouldn't acknowledge - partly due to a narrow conception of what it means to be working class, partly due to confusion about 'Communist' societies. Hobsbawm says:

"The traditional left was geared to a kind of society that is no longer in existence or is going out of business. It believed very largely in the mass labour movement as the carrier of the future. Well, we've been de-industrialised, so that's no longer possible. The most effective mass mobilisations today are those which start from a new modernised middle class, and particularly the enormously swollen body of students."

This under-estimates the role of workers in resistance both in the Arab world and the West: as John Rees notes in his end-of-2011 retrospective, at key moments the power of the organised working class has merged with broad street-based movements, most crucially in toppling Ben Ali in January and again in the final two days before Mubarak fell in February. Likewise, Hobsbawm overstates the role of students - important, undoubtedly, but he seems to be assuming anyone under 30 is a student - and fails to grasp that students have been most powerful when combining with other social groups.

His comments also echo claims he's made previously which rest on assuming that 'industrial' and working class are synonymous. Someone as well-versed in Marx and Engels' writings as Hobsbawm must know that is very different from how the marxist tradition's founders defined class relationships. It's worth quoting Terry Eagleton, in his review of Hobsbawm's recent book 'How to Change the World':

'It is true that the industrial proletariat had dwindled [by the 1980s], but Marx himself did not think that the working class was confined to this group. In Capital, he ranks commercial workers on the same level as industrial ones. He was also well aware that by far the largest group of wage labourers in his own day was not the industrial working class but domestic servants, most of whom were women. Marx and his disciples didn’t imagine that the working class could go it alone, without forging alliances with other oppressed groups. And though the industrial proletariat would have a leading role, Marx does not seem to have thought that it had to constitute the social majority in order to play it.'

In any case, the really interesting and productive questions to explore concern how the working class has evolved, and what that means for the nature of resistance, rather than repeating the old line about a disappearing proletariat.

Hobsbawm also ignores the mass participation of the kind of poor people who, even by the broadest definitions, couldn't possibly be categorised as 'middle class' in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. It's true that middle class elements often (but far from exclusively) played a leading or catalysing role in the upheavals, but when millions took to the streets throughout Egpyt it was in large part because the poor joined in on a massive scale. Yet Hobsbawm seems to be simultaneously writing off the working class as an objective entity and dismissing any subjective agency from anyone who isn't identifiably 'middle class'.

Hobsbawm is also on shaky ground when he traces the Occupy movement back to Barack Obama's election campaign. I'm not aware of anyone inside the Occupy movement claiming this, so it stretches credibility. One of his reasons for making this connection seems to be the role of social media in mobilising activists. I think he has an exaggerated view of the internet's role - in relation to both the Obama camapign and Occupy - but it also obscures the political differences between these two cases, by focusing on form (social media) at the expense of political content.

An important difference is that the Obama campaign was geared entirely to the realm of established electoral politics, which the Occupy movement tends to ignore or even reject. Some of the impetus behind the US-based movement is in fact widespread disenchantment with the Obama administration - which tends not to be targeted as the problem, but it definitely isn't seen as the solution either.

It is reasonable to observe that the 'traditional left' has been marginal to the wave of protests, occupations and uprisings in 2011. It is perhaps unsurprising, considering his background, that Hobsbawm pins this on the supposed decline of the working class rather than paying attention to, say, the impact of the legacy of Stalinism on people's perceptions of socialism and left-wing organisations.

But if we simply account for the left's marginalisation by alluding to a vanished class of industrial labourers, we can't even begin to consider how the left might be rebuilt. Indeed the logical conclusion of Hobsbawm's line of reasoning is that the left cannot be built. Socialism becomes nothing more than a nostalgic fetish, a nice idea but without a material basis.

Renewing the left - and successfully building on the inspiring resistance of this year - requires a recognition of the continuing existence (and potential for collective struggle) of a changing working class. It rests, too, on an accurate understanding of what social forces are involved in today's struggles, and how they can combine to powerful effect.

There are possibilities and pitfalls in the current movements. To build on those possibilities, and avoid the pitfalls, will require strategies for winning based on an accurate view of current conditions - not the erroneous picture Eric Hobsbawm gives us.

Pensions dispute: what's going on?

2011-12-22T00:03:00.000Z

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis

Co-written with Neil Faulkner and first published at Counterfire:

‘These heads of agreement deliver the government’s key objectives in full and do so with no new money since our November offer.’ These were the words with which Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander claimed victory on behalf of the Con-Dem Government in the long-running pensions dispute.

They make a mockery of TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber’s claim that ‘since the day of action on 30 November … we’ve seen a new atmosphere in the negotiations … and the government have come into those talks in a much more purposeful way.’

What is clear is that the only ‘new atmosphere’ was that created by the determination of right-wing union leaders like Barber himself, Dave Prentis of Unison, and Paul Kenny of the GMB to surrender as quickly as possible.

A new mood of capitulation

Their apparent capitulation on Monday came as a massive shock to tens of thousands of union activists who have campaigned all-out around the pensions issue – first to win majorities for action, then to lead members out onto the picket-lines and rallies on the day.

On Tuesday, the leaders of local government unions were forced to withdraw their agreement – when it became obvious that government ministers were determined to make even fewer concessions than initially thought – and it remains unclear what the final outcome will be. But the signs are that senior union negotiators are set on accepting a rotten deal.

The government strategy has been a blatant exercise in divide and rule. The aim was always massive cuts in pensions, with public sector workers paying more, waiting longer, and getting less. None of that has changed.

What the Con-Dems have done is to rejig where the burden will fall – reducing the contributions of lower-paid workers by increasing those of the higher-paid. What they have also done is to drive a wedge between unions on different schemes – with low-paid civil servants set to be hit especially hard. A number of union leaders appear willing to go along with these divide-and-rule tactics.

Damage-limitation or mass resistance?

Christina McAnea, Unison’s head of health, gave clear expression to the ‘new atmosphere’ of capitulation among top union leaders. ‘This is the government’s final offer,’ she announced, parroting the government line. ‘We always knew this would be a damage-limitation exercise aimed at reducing the worst impacts of the government’s pension changes.’

But this is not what ‘we always knew’. This is only what McAnea and other right-wingers are saying now. Instead of fighting the biggest austerity programme since the 1930s, instead of challenging the logic of pension cuts to fund bank bailouts, instead of defending the living standards of ordinary workers as top directors pay themselves 50% salary rises and million-pound bonuses, they tell us that the entire pensions dispute has never been anything more than ‘damage-limitation’.

The contrast with the mood of resistance among the union rank-and-file is stark. Ballot majorities for action ranged from 60% to more than 90%, with around four in every five workers voting to strike.

On the day, not only did up to two million take action, but somewhere between one in ten and one in five of the strikers joined a town-centre rally. Many places saw the biggest local demos in a generation – 5,000 in Oxford, 20,000 in Bristol and Birmingham, 25,000 in Manchester and Glasgow, up to 50,000 in London. Workers from different unions marched with students, minority groups, and anti-cuts activists in a splendid day of resistance.

So why are Barber, Prentis, Kenny, and others so determined to abandon the struggle?

The officials and the rank and file

The trade union bureaucracy is a distinct layer, set apart from the workers it exists to represent. The role of the bureaucracy is to negotiate between workers and employers (including, in the public sector, the government). Its members usually enjoy considerably better pay, terms and conditions, fringe benefits, pensions, and job security than ordinary workers.

The priority for all union officials is the survival of the bureaucratic apparatus of which they are part. That is why anti-union laws that threaten the apparatus (with sequestration of funds) are so effective. Mediating between employers and workers – with a focus on formal talks, making compromises, and searching for a ‘deal’ – means accepting the parameters of the system within which negotiations take place.

The reformist politics of most union leaders provide a limit on what it is possible to achieve by political or industrial action. The point, for them, is to fight for reforms within the system in so far as the system allows – not to seek to overthrow the system and replace it with another.

In the political sphere, it is the Labour Party that traditionally embodies reformist ideology. The closeness of many union leaders to Labour is not the least reason for the strength of reformist ideas inside the trade union bureaucracy.

Trade unions are therefore contradictory organisations. They embody the resistance of workers to exploitation under capitalism, but at the same time the union machine, controlled from above by a conservative layer, acts to contain and limit the development of struggle.

Responding to the crisis

Its deep-rooted reformism influences the trade union bureaucracy to be especially conservative in a period of capitalist crisis. When the system is booming, it can afford concessions. When it crashes, it cannot.

On the other hand, a crisis can create the conditions where unions have no credible alternative but to fight back. That is true now. The scale of the government’s assault on pensions has demanded a response from unions. Any union leader unwilling to lead strike action would lack credibility.

This is accentuated by the threat to union membership and bargaining power from rising unemployment and the disenchantment that will follow any failure to resist the Tory-led government’s onslaught. By the time of September’s TUC conference, even moderate leaders had come to recognise that there was no alternative to strike action – though for them, its purpose was merely ‘reducing the worst impacts of the government’s pension changes’.

Public-sector workers face year-on-year pay cuts (in real terms), meaning that most of them will have faced a cut in living standards of up to 20% by the end of the government’s term. In such conditions, even ‘moderate’ leaders like Dave Prentis and Paul Kenny recognised the need for some sort of response.

But the wider context of crisis and austerity also encourages union leaders to lower their expectations and accept even the most miserable of concessions on behalf of their members.

Left and right in the unions

Some union leaders – especially in unions affiliated to the Labour Party – are also influenced by the vacillation and weakness of Labour’s leadership. Miliband has adopted a conciliatory ‘cut less, cut slower’ approach, and refused to support the pension strikes. Pressure from the Labour leadership pulls union leaders in the wrong direction: towards doing a deal largely on the government’s terms.

Officials and activists are typically divided into more-or-less well defined left and right groupings within each union. In the current pensions dispute, for example, as right-wing leaders rush to sell out, Mark Serwotka, the left leader of the PCS, has said, ‘We continue to oppose the Government’s attempt to force public servants to pay more and work longer for less.’

But a second expression of the contradiction between resistance and bureaucracy is also important. Ordinary workers have no class interest in holding back from all-out action. Unlike the bureaucracy, their jobs and wages are not dependent on the union machine. Especially in times of crisis – and the accompanying squeeze on living standards – they are likely to support sustained strike action to defend pay and conditions.

That is why, in periods of strong workplace organisation and mass industrial struggle, rank-and-file organisation capable of giving expression to the militancy of ordinary workers – in opposition to the conservatism of union officials – has often emerged.

One such organisation – the Clyde Workers’ Committee of 1915 – gave rise to what is probably the clearest formulation of what the ideal relationship should be between rank-and-file militants and trade union officials:

‘We will support the officials just so long as they rightly represent the workers, but we will act independently immediately they misrepresent them. Being composed of delegates from every shop and untrammelled by obsolete rule or law, we claim to represent the true feeling of the workers. We can act immediately and according to the merits of the case and the desire of the rank and file.’

Powerful rank-and-file organisation takes years to build. We are a long way from anything remotely like the Clyde Workers’ Committee today. And in the absence of such alternative leadership inside the unions, the ever-present danger is that struggles will collapse under pressure from the right.

What now?

This is the danger now in the pensions dispute. First, the right-wing officials capitulate, creating divisions, spreading demoralisation, breaking the momentum towards further action. Then, the left-wing officials, sensing the ground slipping beneath them, follow suit.

Because both right and left operate in the same organisational and social framework, they exert a powerful gravitational pull on one another. And in the absence of strong rank-and-file organisation, the pull is overwhelmingly from one direction: from the employer.

Within the trade unions, we must pile on the pressure on the union leaders to keep up the pensions fight and sustain the inspiring and powerful unity displayed on 30 November. We must also strengthen the influence of the left and of independent grassroots organisation within the unions, which is crucial for counteracting the constant pressure towards compromise in the bureaucracy.

But any strategy for resisting cuts and privatisation which relies solely on the trade unions is severely limited. Inside the unions, because the bureaucracy is dominant over the rank and file (and the right is therefore dominant over the left), the danger of sell-out is ever-present.

On the other hand, the workplace-based rank-and-file organisation we need cannot be built in short order, and not at all easily in conditions of rising unemployment, insecurity, and fear.

Our power at present is on the streets and in the movements as well as in the workplaces. It is by building broad-based campaigns that unite workers, students, the young, the minorities, and the poor in mass protest that we are most likely to create the countervailing power that we need to prevent backsliding and betrayal by official leaders. It is in this way that we are most likely to re-energise the workplaces with confidence and combativity.

We should flood the union offices with protests against the sell-out and demands for new strikes. And we should also build the Coalition of Resistance as an alternative framework for building mass, broad-based, all-out action to stop the cuts.

Share

Books and big ideas

2011-12-21T00:10:00.002Z

This is the last in a series of four brief selections of my writing published on Luna17 and Counterfire this year.

These posts are all directly concerned with left-wing books, with the exception of my fairly lengthy article on revolutionary organisation. A number of them are reviews, but there's also a short introduction to chapter one of Lenin's 'The State and Revolution' and an article examining some key ideas in David Harvey's 'The Enigma of Capital'.

Capitalism, climate change and the left (March)

Lenin: Class Society and the State (April)

The case for revolutionary organisation (May)

Class, work and politics: Chavs by Owen Jones (July)

David Harvey and the changing geography of capitalism (August)

Class Dismissed: why we cannot teach or learn our way out of inequality (November)

For parts 1, 2 and 3 in this round-up see: An extraordinary year in the Arab world, Cuts, trade unions and the movement, and Polemics and analysis

* If you live in (or are ever visiting) north-east England, I strongly recommend visiting Durham's People's Bookshop, a radical bookshop which opened in June. It is, as it happens, where I bought my copies of 'Chavs' and 'The Enigma of Capital'.

Polemics and analysis

2011-12-20T18:17:00.004Z

This is the third of four brief selections of my writing published on Luna17 and Counterfire this year.

The posts here all engage with contentious issues of one sort or another: from whether socialist newspapers are still viable to problems with the National Secular Society, from the limits of the Occupy movement's most famous slogan to the political degeneration of Christopher Hitchens.

A mass movement we can learn from: the record of Stop the War (February)

Socialist newspapers: old wine in old bottles? (July)

David Starkey, immigration and the 'new atheism' (August)

Renewing the radical left (September)

We are we the 99% - analysing a magnificent slogan (November)

Christopher Hitchens: an alternative view (December)

Also see Parts One and Two in this round-up: An extraordinary year in the Arab world and Cuts, trade unions and the movement

Cuts, trade unions and the movement

2011-12-19T12:50:00.000Z

Coalition of Resistance supporters: London, 30 November

This is the second of four brief selections of my writing published on Luna17 and Counterfire this year.

Austerity has been (and continues to be) the dominant domestic political issue. Most of these posts concern, in different ways, the opposition to cuts: from contradictions in the unions to the case for European co-ordination. A number of arguments about politics and tactics in the movement will undoubtedly become even more important in 2012.

Politics and tactics in UK Uncut (January)

Can trade unions stop the cuts? (April)

Trade union membership and the working class today (May)

Ed Balls and public sector pensions (June)

Europe Against Austerity - a call for co-ordinated global resistance (October)

Beyond #N30 - co ordinate resistance across Europe (December)

Also see Part 1 of this round-up: An extraordinary year in the Arab world

Christopher Hitchens: an alternative view

2011-12-17T14:34:00.000Z

My article on Hitchens for Counterfire:

Christopher Hitchens is being mourned by many in the media today. Tony Blair was singing his praises on the BBC. But the Hitchens I admired passed away many years ago: about 11 September 2001, to be exact.

I have numerous memories of Christopher Hitchens, a prominent representative of that motley crew of ex-socialist or liberal 'intellectuals' and writers who deploy their progressive backgrounds to give rapacious imperialism a liberal veneer. I remember some of his great writing – the defence of the Palestinians he wrote with Edward Said in the 1980s for example, or his more recent dismantling of Kissinger's reputation. But what really sticks with me, what has kept popping into my head over the decade since, is Hitchens' reaction to the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

He ranted about 'the fascist sympathies of the soft left' in the Spectator. He used the 'fall' of Kabul as an opportunity to crow about how the left had been proved wrong. I especially recall him mocking the suggestion that Afghanistan might, in any way, become comparable to Vietnam: even referring to that long and futile war, as if it could have any relevance to the present, was inexcusable.

We know what has happened since. We have been proved right, Hitchens has been proved wrong. Far more importantly, thousands of soldiers and at least tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in a long, disastrous and barbaric US-led war in a poor country, leading to stalemate and widespread talk of the fragility of US imperial power. Sound familiar?

But what really struck me at that time was the bitterness of his pronouncements: an angry, unpleasant resentment at the left for continuing to be anti-imperialist while he had caved into liberal interventionist arguments. There was something rather sad and squalid about it. His new-found zeal for bombing other people's countries brought him wealth, fame and establishment approval, but only by sacrificing his integrity, any sense of perspective on the world – and, above all, any capacity for doing something even vaguely worthwhile with his talents as a writer and polemicist.

The incident summed up everything we have come to associate with Hitchens over the last decade: intellectual contortions, dishonesty, hysterical denunciations of the left, ardent support for wars and occupations, and butchery of the English language. Those who claim Hitchens was still, in recent years, a 'great writer' are attempting to divorce form and content. It is absurd to suggest the ill-informed war propaganda Hitchens churned out contributes anything of worth to the stock of good political writing.

Hitchens had a soft spot for a neocolonial war from early on; to many people's surprise he backed Thatcher's attack on the Falklands in 1981. But his path to full support for neocon foreign policy was cleared by the crude secularism that became his intellectual trade mark. Unlike most on the left who try to understand religion in its full complexity as an expression of popular suffering as well as an ideology, Hitchens came to see it as pretty much the source of all irrationality, not to say evil. He ended up promoting the spread of civilised, enlightenment values the George Bush way – through shock and awe.

Where once Hitchens wrote with clarity, controlled anger and respect for the facts, there was now confusion, intemperate spite and a cavalier disregard for the evidence. And not once did he acknowledge that he had been terribly wrong about Afghanistan or Iraq.

It is tempting to describe Hitchens as a contrarian. But the 'contrarian' tag implies he didn't really believe his muddled diatribes. The tragedy is that he did. Along with his fellow born-again neoconservatives – clutching their Euston Manifestos, coining phrases like 'Islamofascism' (a term you can only use if you don't understand either fascism or Islamism) – he offered the masters of war exactly what they wanted: pro-war arguments that could appeal to at least a layer of those who perceived themselves as liberal or left-wing.

While persuading some of the mainstream media to take him seriously (and pay him handsomely), we should remember that he and his fellow B-52 liberals almost entirely failed. The Iraq war was opposed by a large body of public opinion; the sane and sensible left united in opposition; millions of people demonstrated; and everyone now accepts it was disastrous.

Hitchens – like most who switch from left to right – thought of himself as upholding the real traditions of the left, while all around him betrayed their principles. In fact he upheld the long, ignoble tradition – stretching back to at least the days of Victorian empire-building – of 'progressives' seeking to justify the pursuit of greater power and wealth by already powerful and wealthy Western states.

The arguments were similar: only the free and liberal West can 'liberate' backward countries from tyranny and oppression. Whatever criticisms we may have of our own ruling classes, only they – by deploying tanks and bombs – can bring hope to those suffering elsewhere in the world. Bit by bit, the proponents of such ideas make their peace with those they once railed against – and turn their inarticulate fury towards their former allies and comrades.

Stephen Fry has tweeted that Hitchens was 'envied, feared, adored, reviled and loved'. But I am not sure he roused such strong passions. The establishment appreciated his support, while despising his left-wing past and perhaps mocking his gullibility. Many people, horrified by the bloodshed of war and repelled by the arguments deployed to legitimise it, had contempt for Hitchens' politics. Those of us on the left felt the same way, with a little regret at how he could have amounted to so much more. The most common reaction to a Hitchens outburst – from all political quarters – was 'oh, there he goes again.'

'What is your idea of earthly happiness? To be vindicated in my own lifetime.' So said Hitchens. Well, he wasn't. His bellicose blunders have already been exposed as foolish. The rest of us, meanwhile, face the task – as the drums of war beat again, this time in the direction of Iran – of collectively struggling to rid our world of the sanctioned violence and destruction Hitchens sought to defend.

Share

An extraordinary year in the Arab world

2011-12-17T04:38:00.000Z

Tahrir Square, Cairo: a centre of revolution in 2011

This is the first of four brief selections of my writing published on Counterfire and Luna17 this year.

Today is widely regarded as marking one year of the Arab revolutions, so I begin with north Africa and the Middle East - including missives from my trips to occupied Palestine and post-revolutionary Cairo, and concluding with a substantial article on the progress of the revolutionary movements.

Revolution in Tunisia: can it deepen and widen? (January)

Letter from Palestine: life under occupation (February)

Qalqilya: frontline of Israeli colonisation (March)

Libya, war and British politics (March)

Cairo Conference: revolution at the crossroads (June)

The Fire This Time (September)

A revolutionary life

2011-12-15T17:04:00.000Z

Dominic Alexander, Counterfire's books editor, has written a review of Ian Birchall's 'Tony Cliff: A Marxist for his Time' which, I think, does justice to a superb biography. It is my personal Book of the Year and - while it won't be to everyone's tastes, considering its niche subject matter - if you're active in left-wing politics then I warmly recommend you read it.

Cliff was a key figure in the international revolutionary left - especially in the UK - throughout the second half of the 20th century. Dominic concludes:

'Ian Birchall, in providing a selection of personal reminiscences on Cliff from a wide range of the people who encountered him, out of an apparently very large archive of clearly considerable value, documents vividly the many years. Moreover, the selection of these recollections appears scrupulously even-handed. This is a political work, but also a meticulously scholarly one, with the depth and breadth of research lying behind it making it of permanent value.

Opinions about Cliff, his leadership and strategies, will continue to be exchanged, and debated, but this book will surely remain the reference point, and indeed a key resource, for future discussions of the politics of Tony Cliff.'

Read the full review HERE. I also recommend Splintered Sunrise's appreciation HERE.

Share

A year in the life of one local anti-cuts group...

2011-12-13T13:35:00.001Z

This has been circulated to the Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance email list. I wrote it as a little reminder of what the group has contributed during 2011...

As the year draws to a close we'd like to thank all of you for your help and support through what has been a hectic year - what a year this has been!

Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance is proud to have played a small part in building a national movement to stop cuts and privatisation. We have much more to do, and hope you will help us in 2012.

Here is a round-up of what we have contributed to the movement in 2011. Thank you to everyone who has helped, in however small a way, to make these achievements possible.

In 2011, Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance has:

- Organised public meetings in March, June and November - featuring speakers from Keep Our NHS Public, National Pensioners Convention, Occupy Newcastle, UCU, PCS, Unite, legal aid and mental health campaigns, etc - which were geared towards the massive 26 March demo, the 30 June strikes and the 30 November strikes respectively.

- Supported picket lines, marches and rallies on 30 June and again on 30 November, and distributed several hundred Coalition of Resistance free broadsheets (linking pensions with a range of other anti-cuts issues) on both occasions. Read the most recent CoR broadsheet here: http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2011/11/cor-broadsheet-november-2011/

- Organised 3 Newcastle coaches to the 26 March demo, taking over 120 people to London, and supported a coach from Hexham (with generous financial support from Unite the Union). Our mobilisation to this historic event was covered in this excellent piece by the Observer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/26/newcastle-bus-fight-cuts

- Held an open planning meeting after 26 March which brought together nearly 40 people to discuss the way forward.

- Hosted a fundraising gig in April, attended by 70 people (other fundraising included one of our activists doing a sponsored run for CoR).

- Held information stalls at various movement events including Durham Miners Gala, the demo which launched Occupy Newcastle, Newcastle's Green Festival and multi-cultural Mela festival, a big public meeting for Keep Our NHS Public, Newcastle Slutwalk, etc

- Run campaign stalls at Newcastle's Grey's Monument on numerous occasions, distributing thousands of flyers during the year as well as petitioning, engaging with the wider public and so on.

- Organised a screening of the excellent documentary film 'Debtocracy' (about Greece and the debt crisis) in September, supported by Gateshead health branch of Unison.

- A delegation of Tyne and Wear CoR activists attended the Europe Against Austerity conference, a vital event bringing together over 600 campaigners from across Europe, followed by a local activists' meeting on globalising resistance with Public Services Alliance and Occupy Newcastle activists.

- Organised a UK Uncut protest targeting rich tax avoiders in April, which had to be re-arranged as on the day CoR supporters joined with others in opposing the racist English Defence League and defending Grey's Monument as a space for anti-racists. The re-arranged protest in late May was part of a national UK Uncut day focused on the NHS, and was joined by Billy Bragg.

- Had a contingent with Tyne and Wear CoR banner on Newcastle's May Day march - the banner has also been at various events including a protest against Kenton School becoming an academy, local anti-cuts protests and the massive 26 March demonstration in London.

- Contributed CoR speakers to South Tyneside May Day, Newcastle May Day and a 'Unite the Resistance' rally on 30 November among other events.

- Established a website and twitter account as well as sustaining and developing the facebook group and email list – and developed a close link with popular Newcastle United fanzine True Faith, with thanks to Peter Sagar for providing a series of articles for the fanzine and its associated website.

- Held regular democratic planning meetings, ensuring decision-making is based on inclusive and open discussion. A huge thank you to everyone who has contributed to these meetings and our wider activities.

Best wishes to all for Christmas & the new year!

2011 - a bitesize video retrospective

2011-12-11T12:40:00.001Z

Music, humour, eloquent words, raw emotion, poetry, memorable images... it's all here in my video selection for 2011. Thank you to everyone who filmed and edited these videos.

All videos are under 10 minutes, hence the 'bitesize' in the title. Links are to the blog posts where the video was originally embedded and appear in chronological order. Learn, be inspired, enjoy.

London Vigil for Gaza

Egypt: they are not waiting for our children's dreams to become true

Yemeni women refuse to stay at home

Newcastle uniting to stop racist EDL

Dickens is not just for Christmas

Spain inspires hope of European Spring

Sanasino Al-Yemen at Stop the War conference

Jimmy Cliff at Glastonbury: We don't want another Vietnam

PJ Harvey: The Words That Maketh Murder

Tony Benn: what is true cost of the war in Afghanistan?

Sanum Ghafoor at Counterfire conference

Tom Morello: Occupy LA

Austerity vs Democracy

2011-12-10T13:08:00.001Z

I recommend reading Neil Faulkner's EU Summit: the dictatorship of finance capital and Owen Jones' The EU treaty is a disaster for the left. I especially recommend them if you are attending Wednesday's 'Austerity vs Democracy' forum in Newcastle (see below). Also, the current political crisis in Europe is a reminder of why we sorely need international co-ordination to stop the cuts, as I recently argued HERE.

Austerity vs Democracy: making sense of the crisis with James Meadway

Hosted by Counterfire - free entry - all welcome

Wednesday 14 December, 6.30-8pm

Settle Down Cafe, 61-62 Thornton Street, Newcastle, NE1 4AW

VENUE: http://bit.ly/uQC952

Facebook Event (RSVP by clicking on 'attending'): http://on.fb.me/vn1Be4

A very brief introduction from James Meadway here: http://bit.ly/uXx2f7

Sounds Like Freedom - celebrate the Arab Spring

2011-12-07T08:45:00.001Z

Sounds Like Freedom is this year's Philosophy Football Christmas Party. The evening is a celebration of protest song, verse, street art and football in the year of the Arab Spring.

Featuring the brilliant poetry of Lemn Sissay, songs from Grace Petrie and Robb Johnson, with a headline performance by the sensational Palestinian artist Reem Kelani. With contributions from photographer Jess Hurd, music writer Dorian Lynskey (author of 33 Revolutions per Minute) and photo-journalist William Parry (author of Against the Wall).

A fundraiser for Palestine Solidarity, the night is generously supported by the trade union PCS and Thompsons solicitors.

Friday 16 December at one of North London's premier theatre pubs, The New Red Lion, 271 City Road, London EC1. Tickets are just £9.99 from HERE or call 01273 471 721 to book your place.

Share

Beyond #N30 - co-ordinate resistance across Europe

2011-12-06T04:11:00.001Z

Austerity is a Europe-wide phenomenon. Resistance, too, is a common feature across the continent. Yet there's frustratingly little in the way of concrete links between different countries' movements.

One difficulty is the low level of awareness of what's happening in other countries. Owen Jones, visiting Portugal for the Guardian shortly before 30 November, commented that protestors he interviewed weren't aware that the UK was on the eve of a large public sector strike - just as very few people here would know anything about strikes in Portugal. There is, correspondingly, a tendency (even among many activists) to see cuts as basically a domestic issue. This is certainly true here and it seems to be a common weakness elsewhere in Europe.

European elites are acutely aware of the need for co-ordination on their side. There are tensions between them - reflecting the different interets of each national capitalist class - but they continually strive for agreement and common action. They are united in their commitment to making the vast majority of people pay for the crisis through cuts, privatisation and unemployment. Transnational institutions - notably the 'troika' of European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund and European Union - serve their interests.

The crisis is international and cannot be resolved purely at the national level. We need to challenge the international institutions and the power of finance capital. Austerity is a unifying strategy across Europe. The experience of austerity is remarkably similar across the continent: in some countries, like Greece, it is especially severe, but the policies are different only in degree.

Forms of resistance also have a great deal in common. The trademark tactic of 2011 - the mass occupation of public space - is associated with the Arab revolutions, the 'indignados' struggles in Spain and elsewhere, and now the Occupy movement. Several European countries have witnessed mass public sector strikes, primarily a reaction to attacks on public sector workers' conditions but linked to the broader offensive against public services and welfare provision. To some extent, movements in one country have been inspired by movements in another country.

There is, however, great unevenness. That's hardly surprising - each country has its own tempo, reflecting the domestic situation and levels of confidence and organisation in each country. One country's movement has peaked just as another country's has dipped.

The difference in tempo and dynamics across borders is significant. It means that calls for "a European-wide general strike" make - at least for now - little sense. At the European Conference Against Austerity - at the start of October - a German delegate pointed out that such a call might resonate in some countries but not in his own country, where there hasn't yet been a large strike movement.

If there is internationally co-ordinated action, the nature of the action will inevitably vary from country to country. That doesn't mean we can't have co-ordinated action, but simply illustrates the need for realism about how varied such action would be. A European day of action in early 2012 wouldn't translate into a continental general strike, but it could embolden activists throughout Europe and strengthen the connections between them.

Trade unions could play a central role in international co-ordination. From the perspective of UK trade unions, this should be integral to discussion about how to take the movement forward after the large-scale strikes and demonstrations on 30 November. This would build on existing initiatives. The Europe Against Austerity conference was an excellent step by sections of the European left, while the Occupy movement serves as an inspiration to millions.

The conference, held in London, depended on the role of Coalition of Resistance as at least a partially successful attempt to co-ordinate groups at the national level. This national co-ordination is a pre-requisite for ongoing international co-operation. The desperate need for greater international action is in fact one of the main reasons why a bigger and broader Coalition of Resistance is such an urgent necessity.

If the unions co-ordinated their efforts, these developments would become far more powerful. They would gain deeper social weight. The unions can bring millions of their own members into action, through mass protests and strikes, pulling other groups - non-unionised workers, students, unemployed people and so on - into mass mobilisations. International links tend to encourage generalising of the issues too - broad opposition to cuts and privatisation, rather than sectional struggles over specific issues.

The greater the unity and co-ordination, the greater the likelihood of overcoming the divisions fostered by governments across Europe. From dishonest attempts to divide public sector and private sector workers against each other to racist scapegoating, politicians are determined to prevent unity. International action strengthens our side and undermines attempts at divide-and-rule.

International co-ordination tends, also, to have a radicalising effect, drawing attention to the limits of small-scale attempts at reform and the necessity of more far-reaching challenges to the ruling order. Movements begin to raise demands which challenge the core assumptions underpinning cuts, mobilising for financial institutions to be brought under democratic control.

It is only through such co-ordination that we can hope to break the power of finance capital over governments across Europe and re-shape politics away from austerity.

Movement and goal

2011-11-26T00:43:00.001Z

Lenin as a Midfield General?

via Philosophy Football

"For those who desire not simply an aimless skipping from instance to instance, an integral central movement will take us forward towards a great goal."
- Lenin

The Agrarian Question and 'The Critics of Marx' might not be the most obvious place to find the tactical masterplan to re-organise a midfield drifting into non-activity. An early proponent of route one, Lenin's team kept their eyes on one step forwards, not too many backwards, towards the other lot's six-yard box.

Leninist football rejects the appeal of a talented but disorderly squad in favour of the centrality of class upfront. Never mind United, Philosophy Football's latest T- shirt features the one, only and original 'Red Army', preparing to conquer all opposition.

Available from HERE

Share

Why we cannot teach or learn our way out of inequality

2011-11-11T10:17:00.001Z

This is my review of 'Class Dismissed: Why we cannot teach or learn our way out of inequality' by John Marsh (Monthly Review Press, 2011, 255pp), first published at Counterfire.

John Marsh, now an assistant professor of English at Penn State University, opens Class Dismissed by narrating how several years ago he initiated an outreach programme through his then university – the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign – to provide evening classes for people in a deprived neighbourhood. The majority dropped out, mainly due to economic pressures such as being overworked, but he and a few colleagues persevered.

Marsh organised a small ‘graduation ceremony’ for the handful of locals who completed the course to honour their achievements and raise the profile of the initiative. At the event he was interviewed for the local news, and got chatting to the cameraman:

‘He [the cameraman] praised the program and what I had done. “If only”, he added, “people could get an education, we wouldn’t have all these problems”… He meant what everyone means by “all these problems” when they come to neighbourhoods like the one we found ourselves in that day: unemployment, crime, teenage pregnancy, single motherhood, and, as an embodiment of all these, poverty’ (p.12).

A range of social problems are linked, in most mainstream discussions, to education. But is education the way to tackle poverty and inequality? The answer is perhaps obvious: of course it isn’t. Jobs, better pay and pensions, funding of services, social housing and higher taxes on the wealthy: these are the things we need to reduce poverty and create a more equal society. The Occupy movement is currently putting inequality back on the political agenda, crystallised by the powerfully simple juxtaposition of the 1% and the 99%, and reminding us that vast disparities in living standards are far from inevitable.

Yet education, or more particularly, higher education, is often cited as not only a road to individual opportunity, but the way ahead for society as a whole. More graduates would equal, it is suggested, not just a stronger economy but a more socially mobile and equal society. The overwhelming focus on education evades discussion of policies which might inconvenience ‘the 1%’, like increased taxes on top earners, closing tax loopholes and stronger regulation of the financial sector.

John Marsh does a tremendous job of busting the myths, specifically in the context of US political and media discussion. It is not that he believes fewer people should go to university; in fact he emphatically rejects those right-wingers who peddle such a line. He also recognises that levels of education are, in general terms, connected to future earnings. He therefore remarks that he would advise any individual young person considering their future, if judging matters on a purely fiscal basis, to go to university.

Marsh also makes the non-vocational case for university as a valuable experience in itself, rejecting the dominant consensus that universities are a marketplace geared exclusively towards economic needs. He does not regret the many hours he put into his community outreach programme, which he recognises has been of value to those who have ‘graduated’ from it. Yet he increasingly came to question the dubious ideas that might be attached to it, like the assumptions implicit in the cameraman’s comments, remarking that he had, like Victor Frankenstein, ‘created a monster’.

It is the erroneous idea that more university graduates will solve America’s economic and social woes with which Marsh has a problem. He dissects this idea so forensically, with the help of a range of data on poverty in the US, that his case becomes unanswerable. The research is rigorous and the author’s handling of it ensures the book never becomes dry. Marsh teaches English literature and has a non-specialist’s eye for the need to make economic data and analysis fresh and engaging. His lively writing style is a great strength, with an ability to interweave hard data with illuminating examples from his own life, others’ experiences and history.

The title, Class Dismissed, alludes to the way class has been removed from political discussion. Marsh insists that rhetoric about educational advancement is no substitute for understanding and addressing the economic roots of problems in American society, especially inequality. He marshals his research into pursuing this case, demonstrating conclusively that bad education has not produced social inequality. Neither will more or better education reduce it.

In America, a college education has gradually become established as the definitive way to get ahead; ‘education’ is synonymous with ‘opportunity’. The mainstream arguments in the US are not identical to those here in the UK, but there is enough overlap to make this book highly relevant. Education is frequently held up as a panacea for society’s ills. Alternatively, bad education or lack of education is deemed the cause of our problems. Both of these views, which of course are two sides of the same coin, hugely underestimate the role played by economic realities.

One of the book’s strengths is Marsh’s tracing of the rise of this ideology: that education is the route to both individual opportunity and a more prosperous society. Two major chapters provide a historical account of changing ideologies, set against broader changes in American society from a century ago through to the Great Depression, Second World War, the long post-war boom and on to the recurring crises of the last four decades. During this last period the neoliberal offensive has ensured an extraordinary concentration of wealth at the top.

In the final chapter Marsh poses the question: ‘If not education, what?’ Here he makes a persuasive (and unfashionable) case for trade-union activism as a vital means of collectively challenging inequality and economic injustice. This is complemented by briefly indicating alternative economic policies. Finally he outlines the need for a vision of ‘education for learning not earning’. Class Dismissed is an extremely useful, and engaging, contribution to debates about inequality, poverty and education. While most directly pertinent to political debates in the US, we can also benefit from its insights in the UK.

Share

Are we the 99%? Yes, but...

2011-11-03T06:59:00.000Z

One of the most powerful and resonant elements of the Occupy movement is its defining, most famous piece of rhetoric. I refer to the juxtaposition of the 1% to the 99%, the power of which derives from its simplicity. It has justifiably been taken up around the world.

Speaking of the 1% versus the 99% focuses attention on the central issue of inequality, alerts us to the hollowness of capitalist democracy - we have politicians who serve a tiny elite not the vast majority - and reminds us that we, 99% of us, have a shared material interest, which is more important than anything that may divide us.

It is a magnificent slogan. It is unifying and helps us feel a sense of our power. But it has its limits when we move into analysis.

Here there are three potential problems. These matter because they all point to the danger of naively underestimating the obstacles we face. This can in turn have implications for the tactics we adopt.

It's not so much the 1% part of the equation. It's true that power lies with just such a tiny elite group. It is this group, too, that has continued to enrich itself even at a time of crisis and austerity, separating itself from even the upper echelons of the remaining 99%.

No, it's the 99% part where simplification can limit us. Here's why.

1) What about the middle class?

Our class structure is that a tiny percentage - 1% or less - forms a ruling class, while around 80% constitute the working class. In between these is the middle class, no more than 20% , which is largely made up of those who run small businesses and the managerial layers in both the private and public sectors.

This middle class vacillates between the ruling class and the working class. Politically it tends towards the reactionary. The Conservative Party articulates the interests of the ruling class, but its membership and core support base are primarily in the middle class.

Elements of the middle class can rally behind movements led by the working class. Headteachers balloting for strike action on 30 November can be seen as an example of this in the public sector strand of the middle class. Something similar applies to doctors joining with trade unions and community groups in fighting the dismantling of the NHS.

But middle class people are also inclined to see themselves as apart from the working class, and identify themselves with preservation of the status quo. This makes them unreliable allies in struggle.

The existence of a middle class is one factor explaining why the 1% maintains its wealth and power despite being numerically tiny. To a certain extent it, however shakily, maintains the broad allegiance of a substantial chunk of society. The rhetoric of 99% taking on the 1% therefore brings with it the danger of obscuring the need for class-based politics, which recognises that the working class - directly exploited by the 1% and sharing a common interest - is uniquely placed to challenge the system.

2) What about ruling class institutions?

I have noticed widespread uncertainty in the Occupy movement about where the police stand. Where the police have played an unambiguous role in enforcing the will of the ruling class - in Oakland, for example - experience has had a radicalising effect, turning protesters against the police. There's nothing like being battered by a truncheon or sprayed by tear gas to make you realise the police aren't on your side.

It has been common for occupiers to refer to the police as part of the 99%. In the UK this has been given extra emphasis by the fact the police are facing cuts - so they come to be seen as potential allies, if we appeal to a shared opposition to cuts.

But the police are not on the side of the 99%. This is an institution that is designed to enforce the wishes and interests of the 1%. Police cuts are simply part of the Tories' wider austerity agenda, but the government will continue to rely on the police to repress protest and undermine opposition. It is the social role of the police as an institution that matters - not the incomes of ordinary police officers.

This touches on a more general issue: we mustn't underestimate the role of ruling class institutions in preserving the current state of things. We need to recognise, for example, the media's role in maintaining the ideological hegemony of the elite. The ruling class maintains itself partly through institutions whose personnel reach down into the middle and working classes.

3) What about ideology?

The power of the 1% v 99% formulation lies in the way it crystallises our common interest. There may be all sorts of divisions and differences, but we have a great deal in common. We can unite and resist together.

But it is far from automatic for people to grasp who are their friends and who are their foes. Most of the '99%' have contradictory ideas: one moment radical or progressive, the next moment conservative or outright reactionary. An instinct for working class solidarity can co-exist with racism, for example.

Indeed there are organisations which give expression to the most reactionary ideas and instincts. Far right groups, like the hardcore racist EDL or fascist groups such as the BNP or National Front, cut directly against shared working class interests. They foster division over unity, scapegoating minority groups for problems which are in fact the responsibility of one particular minority group: the 1%, the ruling class.

It is therefore essential that anti-racism, and by extension opposition to all forms of discrimination and division, is integral to the politics of our movement. There can be no concessions to those who seek to divide the majority, turning us against each other instead of uniting to oppose a tiny, wealthy and powerful elite.

Why does this matter?

These three complications matter for a number of reasons, but what links them all is that they remind us the 1% has certain advantages which aren't immediately obvious: a vacillating and relatively prosperous middle class, powerful ruling class institutions, and uneven and contradictory ideas among the great majority. These are all phenomena which need to be confronted if we are to make serious breakthroughs.

Firstly, working class movements - crucially the trade unions, but also broad movements like Coalition of Resistance that articulate working class interests and demands - are indispensable. These need to have concrete organisational form - they must be ongoing, not tied entirely to a specific tactical choice like street occupations. Secondly, the power of ruling class institutions, from the police to the BBC, must be contested.

Finally, we cannot evade the permanent ideological struggle - there is a battle of ideas inside the 99%, illustrating that political argument and debate runs through everything. The Occupy movement has already made a magnificent intervention in this ideological struggle, rallying opposition to the banks, big business and their political servants while pointing to an alternative set of priorities and values.

As the movement progresses, it will be necessary to sharpen understanding of some issues - and clarify demands - to successfully pose a challenge to an ideologically weakened but still powerful ruling elite.

Share

Occupy Newcastle - video report

2011-10-24T01:38:00.000+01:00

Website: http://occupynewcastle.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyNewcastle
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Occupy-Newcastle/207646272641075

Share

International Brigades - 75th anniversary

2011-10-20T00:11:00.001+01:00

Via Philosophy Football:

'This Saturday, 22 October, is the 75th anniversary of the Spanish Republic issuing the decree to recognise the International Brigades which were forming to join the defence of Spain's Land and Freedom. In a short period of time some 32,000 volunteers from more than 50 countries joined the Brigades.

Made by Sanum Ghafoor, Philosophy Football's film of the Gala to celebrate the 75th Anniversary features Billy Bragg, Robert Elms, Jackie Kay, Tayo Aluko, Grace Petrie, one of the last remaining International Brigaders David Lomon, and many others.

It is educative, entertaining and inspiring, a fitting way to mark the anniversary.

Plus! Philosophy Football's 75th Anniversary T-shirt design features the iconic solidarity poster designed by one of Catalonia's greatest artists.'

See HERE for the shirt.

Video by Sanum Ghafoor:

Share

Occupy Newcastle - show your support

2011-10-19T23:14:00.000+01:00

This message was circulated by Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance yesterday:

Inspired by the growing 'Occupy Wall Street' movement in the U.S, across the weekend more than 950 protests took place in over 80 countries. In the City of London thousands descended on the Square Mile - under the banner 'Occupy the Stock Exchange' - for a peaceful protest against the global financial system.

At least 100 people turned up for the Occupy Newcastle demonstration on Saturday lunchtime. Many of them are now involved in an ongoing occupation at Grey's Monument. Coalition of Resistance supporters participated on Saturday and we got a great reponse to our stall, from fellow protestors and the wider public. We support the ongoing action.

Jon, a Coalition of Resistance activist, is at the Monument round the clock and is helping get the message out. He's sent us this request:

"Please show your support by visiting the occupation - everyone who is camped here appreciates people coming along and talking with us, expressing support and so on. We've had a great response from the public, with lots of people stopping and asking us questions, discussing the issues. Even if you only have 10 minutes to spare, please stop by!"

1. You can also send messages of support to this email address - cornortheast@gmail.com - and we will pass them on.

2. We encourage you to post messages of support & solidarity via the facebook groups for Occupy Newcastle: http://goo.gl/0bmAE or here: http://goo.gl/3Cvya

3. Visit the website: http://occupynewcastle.org/

4. You can contact the Occupy Newcastle group via Twitter too: http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyNewcastle

5. Photos here: http://www.demotix.com/news/881817/anti-capitalist-protesters-continue-rally-newcastle-upon-tyne

This Saturday (22 October) is also a great chance to show support, and make the connections between different campaigns. Coalition of Resistance supports the Hardest Hit march and rally in Newcastle - raising awareness of the impact of cuts on disabled people - and we will also be raising solidarity with Occupy Newcastle.

Saturday 22 October - 10.30am assemble for march to Monument, rally at 11.30am
Hardest Hit march and rally in Newcastle - http://goo.gl/9VCj0

SPEAKERS: MP for Wansbeck Ian Lavery, Clare Williams from the Northern Public Services Alliance, Kevin Rowan the TUC Regional Secretary

Coalition of Resistance is supporting, and helping organise, a series of events between now and 30 November - a day of resistance for everyone. We will be circulating further information about events soon. This Saturday - Hardest Hit and Occupy Newcastle - is the next important step.

Share

Anti War Assembly - video

2011-10-15T11:02:00.000+01:00

'This film by the Islam Channel captures the spirit and the inspiration of the Antiwar Assembly in Trafalgar Square on 8 October 2011. It features speeches and interviews with many of the participants, including John Pilger, Julian Assange, Anas alTikriti, Jemima Khan, Seumas Milne and many more. It took place on the tenth anniversary of the war on Afghanistan and the 'war on terror', which have caused so much death, destruction and suffering.'

Share

Rising Against Islamophobia - Newcastle, 29 October

2011-10-14T14:32:00.001+01:00

Disunited Kingdom - bloggers' panel

2011-10-11T17:00:00.000+01:00

I participated in a bloggers' panel called 'Disunited Kingdom' at the Guardian website today. Here's my opening salvo - and see HERE for the other bloggers' contibutions and a wide-ranging comments thread.

'An independent Scotland would be a step forward. I welcome anything that weakens the cohesion and power of the British state and undermines British nationalism. Then there is the democratic deficit: being subject to a Tory-led central government despite hardly electing any Tories to Westminster.

Scottish politics has increasingly developed its own dynamics in recent years. Take what happened in Scotland in May's elections. Labour did badly, the Tories were nowhere, and the SNP proved the big winners. Understanding that involves a grasp of the distinctive elements in contemporary Scottish politics. Scotland essentially now has two centre-left social democratic parties – and it's the SNP which is faring better, due to disillusionment with 13 years of New Labour government.

Sections of the Scottish political and business elites are comfortable with independence. The Scottish left needs to be pro-independence and anti-austerity, campaigning for a break from dominant UK-wide policies of cuts and privatisation. There's some cynical opportunism in English Labour ranks, among those who want to preserve the Union because they want to hold on to Scottish seats. But the way for Labour to beat the Tories is to deliver serious and principled opposition to austerity and articulate clear alternative policies.'

Share

Tom Morello @OccupyLA

2011-10-10T22:00:00.000+01:00

Europe Against Austerity - a call for co-ordinated global resistance

2011-10-05T23:11:00.000+01:00

Besancenot: 'the movements must converge'

I'm rather late with re-posting this from Counterfire, but here's my report of Saturday's excellent Europe Against Austerity conference.

Saturday's Europe Against Austerity conference launched a call for international anti-cuts co-ordination. The event at London's Camden Centre, organised by Coalition of Resistance, was addressed by speakers from a wide range of left wing, anti-capitalist and labour movement groups from across Europe. 681 people attended, including 150 international delegates.

The conference took place against the backdrop of a worsening crisis in the Eurozone, with contagion in the continent's financial system and the prospect of imminent debt default in Greece. Governments are committed to cuts and privatisation to make the vast majority of people pay for this crisis.

Greek trade union activists spoke of the social misery inflicted on their country, but also the explosive resistance in the form of demonstrations and strikes. There were speeches from leading activists in Portugal, Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Spain and elsewhere. This was the first major event to bring together anti-cuts groups from across the continent to discuss the crisis we face, alternative solutions, and how to build effective resistance.

UK activists talked about 30 November as a chance for a festival of resistance, a day for the whole movement which unites trade unionists with everyone else who is affected by cuts. Other speakers, including from Spain, talked about the experience of mass protests by 'the indignant' and the need to connect such street demonstrations and occupations with the union movement.

Olivier Besancenot, leading New Anticapitalist Party member and a former French presidential candidate, said: "The movements must converge - we must make solidarity with the struggles of the indignant. Today creates new possibilities. Be more radical than we can imagine because the stakes are so high."

Participants agreed a statement which stresses that the current crisis affects the whole of Europe and the need for an alternative economic strategy. It also pledges support for a number of upcoming demonstrations, plus a co-ordinated day of action in early 2012. It calls on European trade unions to co-ordinate strike action.

Workshops throughout the afternoon addressed a wide range of topics, from the roots of the crisis to imperialism and austerity, from youth movements to the defence of public health care. The level of political discussion was strikingly high, with international perspectives and numerous connections between different campaigns and issues. A recurring theme was the need to articulate alternative economic demands, such as a people's debt audit for countries threatened with default and - across Europe - greater public investment to create jobs and growth.

The conference was an important part of a landmark weekend for the anti-cuts movement, with 15,000 demonstrating in Glasgow and at least 35,000 outside Tory Party Conference in Manchester. As we face a deepening international crisis, the need for co-ordination of mass action becomes more urgent.

Share

Renewing the radical left

2011-09-30T06:38:00.000+01:00

Chris Bambery's recent article - see HERE - is a useful contribution to discussing how to build a new left. I want to think through a few of the issues he raises, but first a summary of the ideas.

Summary of the analysis

Chris Bambery makes the following points:

1) The left does not automatically grow alongside resistance to the system. Growth depends on choices about tactics and forms of organisation, an ability to relate to new movements, and a capacity for fresh thinking about a changing world.

2) There is a gap between the political upturn of the last decade or so and the state of the radical left. Mass movements, political radicalisation and widespread distrust of establishment institutions have not led to growth for the radical left. There are factors beyond our control which influence this, but it's partly because of weaknesses in the established Left. A period bracketed by emergent anti-capitalism and the start of the 'war on terror' at one end and the financial crisis and mass austerity at the other end has not led to a stronger radical left.

3) The radical left in Europe is currently struggling more than it is flourishing. There is unevenness, with the radical left in a number of southern European countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece) having greater 'social weight' than elsewhere, though there are still substantial problems in these countries. Italy provides the most powerful example of a mistaken approach and subsequent collapse, but Spain fares little better. Germany's Die Linke is contradictory but relatively successful.

4) There are both similarities and differences between the post-1968 period and the current period. It is not self-evident today that the working class - organised in the trade unions, deploying tactics of mass strikes and rank and file militancy - is central to social change in the way it was to large numbers of young activists four decades ago. The centrality of the organised working class remains a largely abstract argument.

5) Our starting point for analysis has to be the current shape and conditions of the working class. There is an urgent need to engage with contemporary reality. There will not be a simple repetition of historical experiences when new resistance movements develop.

6) Leninism remains marginal. We need a Left that relates to wider layers of the working class in resisting capitalism, but also offers a consistently anti-systemic perspective and articulates alternatives. But while Marx may be frequently cited as an analyst of capitalist crisis, Lenin is more unfashionable than ever. The organised revolutionary left is too small. The anti-socialist backlash following the end of the Cold War has been an important factor in this.

7) We can't have a 'non-ideological Left'. It isn't sufficient to declare ideology dead in the name of 'left unity'. Political questions will always emerge - and need to be addressed. Islamophobia and Libya are good examples. Political and theoretical clarity will always be essential for the radical left.

8) Cadre can be conservative. Lenin's old, familiar warning about the dangers of conservatism in an organisation's cadre is especially relevant now. This is because we've had such a long period of the radical left being on the margins and industrial struggle remaining very low. It is far from automatic that long-time socialists will be able to relate to current problems.

9) The unions remain weak. There is a particular problem with the decline of the trade union movement - with increased bureaucratisation, a low level of combativity and the casework-dominated nature of life for most reps. This inevitably finds expression inside the organised left.

10) Much of the left expresses a mixture of economism and propagandism. In his summing up in the video, Bambery cites Tony Cliff's comment about how Scottish communist Willie Gallacher operated during World War One: for six days a week he was a radical trade unionist and on Sundays he propagandised for socialism. This approach is particularly at odds with a context characterised by a high level of politics but still a low level of strikes, in which trade unionists tend to make an impact precisely when they ally with other groups and address political issues.

11) The radical left in the UK has failed key tests. Specifically, Bambery refers to failures in building out of the student protests of late 2010 and developing a credible response to August's riots. There is a particular tendency to intervene in campaigns and disputes from the outside, reduced to the level of selling publications and trying (with little success) to recruit new members.

12) The left has to relate to the most advanced sections. When new waves of resistance develop, 'revolutionaries have to base themselves within that section of the working class that is in the vanguard of the struggle'. In the early and mid 1970s, for example, that meant orienting on mainly younger militant workers - some of them union reps but some not, many of them in white-collar areas of work not traditionally associated with militancy - who weren't part of the older, increasingly bureaucratised, layers in the unions.

13) In the UK there are fresh opportunities for left unity and renewal. But it won't be done by simply cobbling together the existing fragments of the organised left. Any new electoral formations will develop out of the anti-austerity movement and involve new forces, steered primarily by a younger generation which isn't stuck in the disputes of previous periods.

Developing some key themes

I want to develop my own thoughts about three recurring themes in Chris Bambery's analysis: the shape of resistance today, realigning the Left, and internationalism.

The shape of resistance

If the left is to grow then it needs an accurate grasp of forms of resistance in today's world. A striking characteristic of recent resistance is the tactic of the mass occupation of public space: from Madrid to Tunis, Athens to Cairo, Wall Street to Santiago, youth-led demonstrations in public squares are pretty much the trademark tactic of 2011.

More generally - and this is a long term pattern - it's clear that street demonstrations have been a prominent form of resistance across a range of issues. This is true of the anti-austerity movement: the 26 March demo indicated the unions can mobilise on a large scale on the streets, at a time when there was still insufficent confidence to strike.

We have had 20 years of historically low strike levels. That is thankfully now changing, but it flies in the face of reality for anyone to think strike action is now the dominant form of resistance just because of the prospect of N30.

Union density in the private sector is 1 in 6. The power of the union bureaucracy in relation to the grassroots has, over the last 30 years or more, increased dramatically. The unions are shackled by anti-union laws. Reps are bogged down in casework, with a shift over time from collective action to individual remedies like employment tribunals. Some unions haven't had any strike action at all for many years.

The workplace is increasingly becoming a key site of resistance, but it won't replace other forms of struggle. Rather we can expect strikes to complement - and gain strength from - the protests, marches and occupations. There's still a common idea on the left that 'real power' is in the workplaces - other forms of resistance are a sort of prelude to what really matters, which is mass strikes.

Revolutionaries, however, argue that confronting (and contending for) state power is the highest form of struggle. A mass strike becomes more powerful when it rises to this level and becomes an overtly political confrontation. The fusion of economic and political struggles is especially vital.

The left has to constantly forge connections between trade unionists and different groups. The strengths in one area have to be brought into other areas: the most advanced sections must set the pace for everyone else. The emergence of strike action in the public sector is hugely hopeful, but it must be allied to a broader general anti-cuts movement that can't be dismissed as sectional, self-interested or single-issue, that isn't overly reliant on the whims of the union bureaucracy.

Realigning the left

I am, like Bambery, rooted in the distinctive strand in the history of British Trotskyism associated with Tony Cliff, i.e. the International Socialist tradition. But why would anyone in 2011 define themselves - and their relationship to the wider Left, movements or class - according to theories developed in the post-WW2 world which are now largely of historical interest?

Elements of these theories are still relevant. Most notably, Cliff's theory of state capitalism enables marxists to defend our tradition against the still widespread assumption that marxism - or more precisely Leninism - can be written off because of the legacy of Stalinism. A revised, updated and accessible version of it is therefore essential.

But you can't possibly define your political stance in 2011 with reference to state capitalism, deflected permanent revolution and the arms economy (if you aren't familiar with these terms, that perhaps illustrates my point).

The crucial issues defining today's left are different. At the theoretical and political levels there are many important issues to engage with: Islamophobia, Libya and 'humanitarian intervention', climate change, the rise of China, the working class today, struggles in Latin America, and so on.

Just as importantly, there are questions of political strategy. Sects build nothing. We need a Left that participates in and strives to influence the wider resistance that develops, identifying political priorities and locating where it can be most effective.

The development of any movement is not blind. It requires conscious intervention and organisation. And that means a stronger left, but specifically a Left that grasps current realities and can adapt and renew itself accordingly.

Internationalism

The importance of internationalism is implicit in Bambery's comments, but it's worth foregrounding this and making it explicit. There are two current political reasons for this.

One is that austerity is pan-European, and the resistance to it will be stronger if internationally co-ordinated. Tomorrow's Europe Against Austerity event is not just another conference. It is a unique opportunity to get our act together as an international movement and co-ordinate resistance.

The other reason is the continuing centrality of imperialism and the 'war on terror' to global politics. Crisis, austerity, revolutions in the Arab world, imperialism and the anti-Muslim backlash are the defining features of our epoch.

Anti-imperialism has to remain a priority for the left, not simply at the level of propaganda but as a guide to action. This means building an anti-war movement, regardless of the level of mobilisation being far lower than during its peak period. This is also, for those of us inside the imperialist countries, the most important and practical way for us to demonstrate solidarity with the Arab revolutions. The closely-related Palestinian solidarity movement is also politically important, now more than ever.

Localism and parochialism are problems in the anti-cuts movement. There are chronic problems with achieving national co-ordination, while too much of the Left is allowing an astonishingly good opportunity for international co-ordination - tomorrow's conference - to largely pass them by.

Austerity is imposed by central government. It is framed by an international crisis. National and international co-ordination and solutions are thus indispensable.

Furthermore, the Left's task has to be to make connections and raise the political level everywhere: bring anti-imperialism into the anti-cuts movement, argue within anti-war circles for participation in anti-austerity struggles, and so on. Politics remains central: not as a propaganda exercise, but as a living, integral part of every act of resistance.

Share

The Fire This Time

2011-09-29T06:30:00.000+01:00

"The bonds between 2011's islands of youth dissent remain limited. Although the root causes of anger may be similar, the levels of politicisation among those expressing that anger vary wildly. But this year could still be remembered as one in which, after many decades of moribund political and economic realities, a new narrative began to form."

Islands of youth dissent

The above quote is from an article in The Guardian on 13 August, one week after Tottenham erupted in riots. It was called 'A hunger for change - how youth-led revolts shook elites around the world.'

These 'islands of youth dissent' include the riot-torn communities in this country, but more importantly the occupied public squares of Madrid, Athens and elsewhere. Above all, the phrase refers to the sites of revolution and popular uprisings in the Arab world - the subject of this article - where the levels of politicisation and struggle have been highest.

Paul Mason, BBC Newsnight's economics editor, has referred to 2011 as the year it all kicked off. In not only the Arab world but Greece, Spain, Chile, Wisconsin and elsewhere - even here with the student revolts, the massive TUC demonstration on 26 March, public sector strikes on 30 June (and with more to come on 30 November) - there has been a shift in the level of resistance.

The Guardian article I opened with went on:

"The philosopher who coined the term "Black Swan event" - denoting a hugely consequential event that is utterly unpredictable and can only be explained afterwards - was recently asked by Jeremy Paxman whether the violence on the streets of Athens fell into that category. He demurred - and said that the real Black Swan event was that more people weren't rioting elsewhere."

Many of the root causes of anger have indeed been similar, if to varying degrees. There are both economic and political factors at work. Economic motors of revolt include rising food prices, privatisation, growing inequality and - a key element in explaining the generational dynamics - the phenomenon of rising graduate and youth unemployment.

The sense of a 'lost generation', disproportionately victims of the economic crisis and austerity, is unmistakable. It is no coincidence that anti-austerity revolt in this country first found expression in student protests and a wave of college occupations (in November-December 2010).

Political motors of revolt vary in degree. It is true that Western democracies are different to the old authoritarian regimes of Ben Ali, Mubarak, Saleh, Al-Assad and Gaddafi. In the Arab world repression, censorship and overt authoritarian rule were crucial drivers of revolt. But in countries like Greece and Spain the revolts articulate a deep sense of alienation from political structures, of democracy having been hollowed out.

The Arab revolutions are marked by the intertwining of political struggles - focused on democracy - and economic struggles. There is a fusion of economic and political, of young protesters and workers, of the streets and the workplaces. Such fusion is hardly the exclusive preserve of Arab countries.

Tunisia and Egypt

In their new book 'The People Demand: a short history of the Arab revolutions', John Rees and Joseph Daher identify three overlapping phases in the development of the Arab revolutions.

Firstly, the victorious revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. These saw rapid victories as a result of massive demonstrations. In both these revolutionary movements, strikes also played a critical role in the final days before the old regime fell. They were victories for the democratic revolution but also - from the start - raised economic demands.

US and western imperialism were helpless, incapable of a coherent response. Cracks in the ruling elite, including in the top brass of the armed forces, weakened the old order - and emboldened the revolutionaries.

The revolutions inspired uprisings in the wider Arab world. When I visited the occupied West Bank in late February, I asked one of our Palestinian hosts "Are you hopeful about the future of Palestine?" He said yes, so I asked why. He gave a one-word answer: "Egypt". Millions of people elsewhere in the region felt the same hope about not just Palestine, but the destiny of their own country.

The Tunisian and Egypt revolutions have in fact continued, beyond the toppling of Ben Ali on 14 January and Mubarak on 11 February, but with a sharp process of class-based and political differentiation. Moderate elements of the democratic revolution are now emphasising continuity rather than change.

There is a recurring conflict between the elites and the streets. In Cairo, it is between the army council (and its political allies) and the 'Republic of Tahrir', i.e. the alternative model of popular power and participatory democracy embodied by the protesters who keep returning to Tahrir Square.

The continuing struggles concern economics and politics. Workers have raised independent class demands, but there is also the ongoing movement for genuine democratic reform. Different visions of democracy are constantly in competition. The question is posed: their democracy or ours?

Imperialism and counter-revolution

Secondly, there was the imperialist, or counter-revolutionary, backlash. This took two main forms - and at almost exactly the same time.

In mid-March the western powers, led by France, Britain and the US, exploited weaknesses in Libya's revolution and - desiring influence in the revolutionary process, to curtail it rather than to advance it - moved in. The NATO intervention was undoubtedly a turning point, altering the character of the Libyan revolt profoundly, but also shifting the balance of forces in the broader Arab world.

You only have to observe the aftermath of the fall of Tripoli to recognise this is politically very different from the victories of January-February. The dominant elements in Libya's TNC are former members of the Gaddafi regime - these are the people with existing links to the Western powers, after all.

The bombing of Libya has resuscitated the case for 'humanitarian intervention' which was so discredited by Iraq and Afghanistan. Tony Blair feels confident about calling for 'regime change' in Iran and Syria. This is unlikely to happen, but it's a marker of the shifting ideological terrain.

Almost exactly simultaneous to the Libya intervention, Saudi troops entered Bahrain to help the Bahraini authorities crush that country's uprising. Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US and Britain, with close military, diplomatic and trade links.

While in Libya Western intervention played the key role, in Bahrain it was the neighbouring Gulf states which repressed the uprising - but with the tacit approval of the West. US defense secretary Robert Gates gave the 'green light' to US allies in the Gulf for the crushing of the Bahraini movement, at the same time as gearing up for the bombardment of Libya (supposedly to 'protect the revolution').

John Rees and Joseph Daher put it like this:

"The aim in both cases was the same: to crush and control the emerging revolutionary processes. In Bahrain this was achieved by straightforward repression. In Libya the military intervention was used to corral and control the revolutionary process. The result has been to impede the march of revolution everywhere - in Syria and Yemen, as well as in Bahrain and Libya. The dictators have dug in."

Freedom for Palestine

Thirdly, a new phase in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine has opened up. The turning point here was also mid-March. While NATO bombing of Libya and the crushing of Bahrain's uprising were setbacks for the whole movement, the "15th of March Movement" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was a vastly more hopeful development.

The new, youth-led, movement for Palestinian unity dovetailed with developments in neighbouring Egypt. The interim regime in Egypt is under popular pressure to break from the old cosy relationship with Israel and deliver solidarity to the Palestinians. It is an issue about which millions of Egyptians are passionate.

The Egyptian regime played the pivotal role in engineering a unity deal between Fatah (dominant in the West Bank’s Palestinian Authority), Hamas (ruling party in Gaza) and other political groups. Only Egypt has such authority in the region to do this. Recent claims about Turkey's role as a regional superpower, while reflecting real forces, need to be kept in perspective.

The youth movement inside the occupied territories and the popular pro-Palestinian protests in Egypt have called for unity between Fatah and Hamas, but often also for a renewal of resistance to Israel (sometimes dubbed a ‘Third Intifada’) and for broader unity across the whole Palestinian people and the Arab world. There is pressure on the established Palestinian leadership from within the Palestinian community (notably the 15th of March movement) and from outside, in the form of a post-Mubarak Egypt.

Egypt’s revolution has opened up space in which a post-Mubarak foreign policy can be debated. The demonstrations outside Cairo’s Israeli Embassy – with the Israeli flag twice being removed by protesters as a powerful symbol of popular support for Palestine – exert pressure on the army council, which historically has close ties with the US and a conciliatory attitude to Israel.

The debate inside Egyptian society helped form the conditions in which a unity deal was possible. There are problems with it - just as there are problems with the current bid for Palestinian 'statehood' - but it nevertheless poses a serious challenge to Israel and US interests in the region. The imperial architecture of the Arab world is changing.

What next?

We can see, then, how the Arab revolutionary wave is the most acute expression of a global revolt. Driven by political authoritarianism and economic hardship, young people have played a central role, though in a broad movement which has witnessed strike waves and the emergence of new workers' organisations - as well as the mass occupations of public spaces, which have become the signature of modern youth-led revolts.

The politics of north Africa and the middle east is being re-shaped. This has profound consequences for the West, in particular for US imperialism. The heady days of revolutionary success in January-February have been followed by three processes: political differentiation in Tunisia and Egypt; the imperialist, counter-revolutionary backlash in Libya and Bahrain; and the opening of a new chapter in the movement for Palestinian freedom.

Imperialism has been weakened, but we have learnt - if we didn't know it already - that powerful Western states won't just sit back and let revolutionary change happen in the most geopolitically and strategically important region of the globe. More optimistically, it is also clear that many ordinary people in the region, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, aren't willing to settle for a modest democratic settlement which leaves most of their demands unmet.

In Egypt the revolution continues. On 9 September there was yet another huge demo in Tahrir Square, demanding those responsible for corruption and brutality in the old regime are brought to justice, and more generally pursuing the democratic demands of the 25 January Revolution. There have also been fresh strikes, across a number of sectors, during September.

Two central questions have emerged in Tunisia and Egypt. What kind of democracy are we fighting for? And can change be extended to the economic sphere?

The latter question isn't just about driving out the 'workplace Mubaraks' - corrupt, rich old bosses linked to the former regime. It is about demands for jobs, a living wage and improved workers' rights. More deeply, it concerns fundamental questions of power in a capitalist society.

These are the questions that students of past revolutions would expect to arise. Most revolutions have been limited to struggles for democratic and political reform. The degree of political change has varied, but even in South Africa - where the scale of political change was profound, with the end of apartheid - economic exploitation has remained unaltered.

The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions have been among the deeper, more profound revolutions of modern times. Think about the vast scale of the demonstrations, the full participation of the working class, the role of strikes, the raising of far-reaching democratic demands and independent class demands, and the continuing momentum of protest since the dictators fell.

These are, furthermore, revolutions happening in a very different context to the upheavals of 1989-94. As revolts against regimes which were simultaneously neoliberal and allied to the West, their effect has been to shift the balance of forces against US imperialism and neoliberal capitalism. This is the opposite of the impact - politically, economically and ideologically - of the eastern European revolutions over two decades ago. The Libya intervention has shifted this balance in the opposite direction, but only up to a point.

In both countries there has been an element of a 'second revolution' opening up within the larger revolutionary process, one that aims at deeper democratic change and seeks to extend the revolution to economic relations, and in which the working class is central. But this process prompts very serious questions about the role of organisation and politics.

John Rees and Joseph Daher write about the necessity of two further elements, both to do with independent working class organisation:

"Working class organisation must assume a form that can challenge the state apparatus for power. And a political organisation which popularises this perspective among workers is necessary."

To focus on Egypt, since February there have been three developments which are hopeful and extremely significant in this respect. There has been growth in independent trade unions, new left-wing political parties and grassroots popular assemblies (whether in Tahrir or in local communities). These three elements are all vital in strengthening working class organisation and creating an alternative political pole of attraction to the dominant moderate elements in the new order.

The unions need to be bigger, the left wing parties need to be bigger - and the experiments in democratic assemblies, which have been extremely sporadic, inconsistent and ad hoc, need to be become systematic and co-ordinated. In every revolution it is necessary for the more radical elements - those committed to sustaining the revolutionary process - to create institutional forms which express alternative political programmes and can, at their most advanced, pose a challenge to the power of the state.

The outcome of the revolutions is yet to be settled. Just as importantly, they have inspired and informed the character of revolts elsewhere, including in Europe. In our struggles, especially in opposition to austerity, we can expect resistance to develop in new and dynamic ways. We may yet, in this country, confront some of the same challenges alluded to above.

Share

'The People Demand: a short history of the Arab revolutions' - video trailer

2011-09-25T21:43:00.000+01:00

28 September: London book launch - details HERE

12 October: Newcastle book launch - details HERE

Read an extract and buy the book HERE

Trailer by Elly Badcock

Share

Austerity, political attitudes and the opposition

2011-09-23T22:34:00.002+01:00

The tide of public opinion continues to turn against the Tories and austerity. A new Guardian/ICM poll shows that only 32% agree that current government economic policies are "essential to protect Britain's economy".

62% of those polled agree "the cuts are too deep and too fast, they will harm Britain's economy more than they help it". That's a significant majority in opposition to the Tory-led coalition's cuts programme. Despite the backing of both coalition parties and a sympathetic media, the arguments for the 'necessity' of austerity are not convincing most people.

The poll findings are issued against the background of a spiralling crisis in the Eurozone, growing domestic fears of a 'double dip' recession and rising unemployment. It is becoming clear to many people that austerity isn't working, but instead suppresses prospects for economic recovery, and disproportionately and unfairly affects the poorest.

George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, has no solutions. Nor do his European counterparts. Governments across Europe are stuck in repeating the austerity mantra and insisting there is no alternative.

51% of those polled say the coalition government is doing a bad job, compared to only 39% in its favour. It is the first time an ICM poll has registered a negative approval rating for this government.

In this context two things are surely inevitable. One is that Labour will have a clear lead over the Tories. The other is that party leader Ed Miliband and Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls will fare better than their Tory opponents in public attitudes. How could they fail to make political capital out of disenchantment with the government?

But fail they do. Labour has a lead of just 1% over the Tories. For reasons best known to pollsters and psephologists, ICM polls always produce a narrower Labour lead than others like YouGov. But it's worth comparing this with previous ICM polls:

'A year ago this month – immediately after Ed Miliband's election to the leadership – Labour was one point lower than today, the Conservatives two points lower and the Lib Dems four points higher.'

After a year of a growing backlash against cuts, Labour support is barely any better. The approval ratings for Miliband and Balls are still more damning. Miliband has a net personal rating of -14, compared to Cameron's +4. Balls is -18 compared to Osborne's -6, a result utterly at odds with the finding that a majority disagree with the Tories' austerity drive.

The discrepancy can be explained by the defining characteristic of the current Labour leadership: vacillation. Miliband and Balls refuse to step outside the narrow terms of polite debate. They repeatedly miss chances to land blows on their Tory opponents, and fail to articulate a consistent alternative to Tory austerity.

Obsessed with the mythical 'centre ground' of politics, Miliband and Balls try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody. In public perception, they stand for very little - merely a vague, semi-articulated disapproval of aspects of what the government is doing. And that's about it.

Recall the one time when Labour, briefly, appeared to command the political scene. When the hacking scandal emerged Miliband - after a tentative start - adopted a fierce oppositional stance towards the Murdoch empire and Tory collusion with it. Miliband suddenly appeared a strong leader, willing to confront the Tories and raise demands for a different kind of politics.

It didn't last. On the central issue of our age, Labour's front bench is fatally compromised by its refusal to break from the logic of austerity. Neoliberal ideology is, after 13 years of privatisation and deregulation in office, embedded in the parliamentary Labour party; shadow ministers struggle to think outside its confines.

Worst of all, Labour leaders have equivocated on the issue of pensions and not only distanced themselves from the unions but publicly opposed strike action. Their economic policy ends up looking incoherent. They are determined not to be the political wing of the anti-cuts movement, at a time when that would be a popular move. Vacillation is never persuasive.

It may be tempting for us to leave the political arguments aside - and focus purely on using our side's collective strength in the workplaces, with the prospect of nearly 3 million trade unionists potentially taking strike action. But strike action - and other forms of protest - must be accompanied by engagement in the battle of ideas.

When it comes to cuts, politics runs through everything. There is a close relationship between challenging the dominant austerity myths and people's confidence to resist. If Miliband and Balls won't rally support around consistent anti-cuts arguments and alternatives to austerity, we must create a movement - on the streets and in workplaces - that does just that.

The unfolding European crisis illustrates the urgency of that task - and reminds us of the need for a pan-European political alternative. The creation of a broad movement, with a clear political rejection of all cuts at its core, is required at local, national and international levels.

Share

Urgent: one week to build Europe Against Austerity

2011-09-23T19:58:00.000+01:00

Via Counterfire:

Europe is facing its biggest crisis since the 1930s.

Commentators are admitting the situation is desperate, and that politicians are paralysed. Austerity is driving the economies back towards recession and increasing debt - and in the case of Greece possible collapse.

A Greek default looks almost certain - and soon. In Greece this will mean mass unemployment and immiseration not seen in Europe since the 1930s. It will threaten the European banking system and will send shockwaves through the rest of the world economy.

The European conference against austerity - in London on Saturday 1 October - will now be an emergency conference on the euro crisis and in solidarity with the people of Greece.

Leading activists are coming from all parts of the movement from the German Left Party to the Indignados from Spain. The Portuguese Left Bloc is sending an MP and trade union delegates are coming from all over the continent.

Olivier Besancenot, a leading figure in the New Anticapitalist Party in France, will be there alongside striking Le Havre dockworkers. It could be a historic conference which can start co-ordinating resistance across Europe.

People are now signing up fast online. Two days ago the Greek teachers union got in touch to say that they are sending representatives. Yesterday they were on strike.

If asked, most groups here will send delegations. Cambridge trades council report there will be delegations from a number of the local unions. A delegation of at least 20 is expected from the Oxford anti cuts movement.

Westminster Unison is contacting all its members to organise a delegation as is Ipswich PCS (civil service union) and an East London teachers' union. 5000 leaflets have been distributed by the University of London Union.

Counterfire is urging all members and supporters to go flat out to build the event from now. We need to make sure everyone understands how urgent the situation is and what a difference the conference could make.

As well as ensuring local activists we know are coming and promoting the conference on facebook, e-mail and twitter we should be contacting local anti cuts groups, Stop the War groups, UK Uncut, pensioners' groups, trades councils, trade unions, student unions etc and ask them to organise delegations.

This is a chance the movement can't afford to miss.

Register for the Europe Against Austerity conference

Share

Sanum Ghafoor at Counterfire conference

2011-09-20T00:02:00.000+01:00

Counterfire had its first national conference at the weekend. Clare Solomon chaired a public event on Saturday evening, addressed by a range of Counterfire activists: Lindsey German, Sean Rillo Raczka, Joshua Virasami, Neil Faulkner and Sanum Ghafoor. You can watch video of the other speeches HERE.

Share

#N30 - students pledge to back unions with 'mass direct action'

2011-09-17T00:29:00.001+01:00

As student campaigners, we fully support the trade union movement's campaign against austerity, including the biggest wave of strike action since 1926. The government's plans for universities represent a threat to the very purpose of education, with the poor being priced out of a marketised system of private providers, while school and FE students are being robbed of basic support.

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts has now called a national education demonstration for Wednesday 9 November, and we will organise for a day of mass direct action and walkouts to coincide with the strike. We will not allow this government to abolish the welfare state and destroy our futures.

Michael Chessum National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, and NUS NEC
Maev McDaid Liverpool guild of students president
Luke Durigan UCL Union education and campaigns officer
Daniel Lemberger-Cooper Royal Holloway students' union president
James Haywood Goldsmith's students' union president
Edward Bauer Birmingham guild education officer
Sean Rillo Raczka University of London union vice-president
Alusine Alpha Bradford students' union treasurer
Mike Williamson Edinburgh students' association education officer
Alan Bailey NUS LGBT officer
Matthew Bond NUS disabled students' campaign
Alex Peters-Day LSE students' union general secretary
Liam Turbett, Aiden Turner and Liam McCombes Free Hetherington Glasgow occupation
James McAsh NCAFC national committee, Edinburgh University
Gordon Maloney NCAFC national committee and NUS Scotland executive
Bob Sutton Liverpool guild of students vice-president
Aaron Peters NCAFC national committee
Claire Lister NCAFC national committee, Birmingham University
Alasdair Thompson STUC youth committee
Alice Swift NCAFC national committee, Birmingham University
Arianna Tassinari SOAS students' union co-president for education and welfare
Amena Amer LSE students' union education officer
Edward Maltby NCAFC national committee, London
Lukas Slothuus LSE students' union welfare and community officer

Via The Guardian

Share

Cable Street: they did not pass

2011-09-16T12:18:00.000+01:00

Via Philosophy Football:

'Seventy-five years ago, on 4 October 1936, the people of the East End united to stop Sir Oswald Mosley's blackshirted British Union of Fascists from marching through their community. An estimated 100,000 gathered to prevent this parade of anti-semitic hate behind the slogan 'They shall not pass'.

After hours of confrontation, sometimes violent and centred on Cable Street, Mosley was forced to abandon his march. They did not pass!

Philosophy Football's design is based on the original 1936 street sign for Cable Street.'

Available from HERE

Share

Tony Benn: what is the true cost of the Afghanistan war?

2011-09-15T00:02:00.000+01:00

#N30 - trade unions plan united strike for pensions

2011-09-14T19:17:00.000+01:00

Marching together on 30 June

The fight is on. TUC conference today unanimously backed co-ordinated industrial action to defend public sector pensions. The country's three largest unions - Unite, Unison and GMB - formally announced they will ballot members for strikes.

On 30 June civil service union PCS, teacher unions NUT and ATL and lecturers' union UCU held a co-ordinated national strike involving over half a million people. They plan futher national strike action in November.

But today's announcement by the big battalions of Unison, Unite and GMB holds out the hope of a huge escalation in the campaign to protect pensions. Other unions balloting for action are the Fire Brigades Union, teachers' NASUWT, Scottish teachers' EIS, senior civil service union FDA and Northern Ireland's NIPSA.

There have been strikes by local government workers in Birmigham, Southampton and Doncaster. But their unions, most importantly Unison which has over a million members across local government and the NHS, have previously held back from national strike action.

TUC leader Brendan Barber announced the date as 30 November following a special meeting of public sector unions immediately after TUC conference. National co-ordination is vital to confront a concerted government effort to make workers pay more, work longer and get less.

The announcement of a ballot by Unison general secretary Dave Prentis was greeted by a standing ovation at the TUC. Prentis has recently shown he can retreat rapidly from good rhetoric. There must now be huge grassroots pressure to turn words into action. The stakes could hardly be higher.

Ed Miliband's pathetic stance on the strikes has already been thrown back at him by the Tories in prime minister's question time. This sort of behaviour by Labour leaders is bad enough at any time, but when strikes are clearly on the horizon it leaves him irrelevant - and himself part of a 'squeezed middle' who will become increasingly weak and marginal.

Unity is key - across the public sector unions and reaching out to the private sector. As PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said today: "We have always said that the more united we are, the harder it will be for the government to push through their ideologically-driven and damaging cuts. This is not just a fight for public servants, we want fair pensions for all."

Len McCluskey, Unite general secretary, has emphasised the need to link up with private sector workers over pensions, especially since the government is trying to divide and rule over supposedly 'gold plated' public sector pensions. Given the weakness of union organisation in the private sector, this is an essential part of building a movement across the whole working class. McCluskey has also stressed the need for a coalition of resistance, which can give a boost to the international conference against austerity on Saturday 1 October.

There will now need to be jointly-organised mass campaign rallies and protests throughout the country. These can be on a much bigger scale than before. Trade union activists will be campaigning for the highest possible Yes vote.

The pensions dispute is for the whole anti-cuts movement, not just public sector trade unionists. It is our movement's best chance to strike a blow against this government's austerity drive.

Also published at Counterfire

Share

Sparks fan the flames

2011-09-08T00:09:00.000+01:00

This is re-posted from Counterfire, written by Jo Gough in London and yours truly in Newcastle.

The construction workers campaign spread today with pickets taking place in London, Manchester and Newcastle, calling on workers to take action against eight companies tearing up the national working agreement.

They talked about several different problems: the lowering of general pay rates, cuts in overtime pay, the insecurity of agency work, increasing spells of unemployment, fear of victimisation. One worker talked about the 'agency culture' that involves companies continually under-cutting each other by employing workers, short-term, on lower pay rates. Growing unemployment underpins this, he said. Too many people are scared of losing work.

In Newcastle construction workers came from various sites around the region, determined to stop the all-out attack on pay and conditions they face. Everyone talked about how serious the issues are, how they have no choice now but to organise and fight back.

They fear drastic cuts in pay, an increase in bosses' power to disregard workers' rights (already flimsy), and a de-valuing of skilled work they have devoted years to. Several workers spoke of the self-worth and pride they have taken in their work, and the sense of no longer being valued.

While there were expressions of bitterness towards unions - for their inaction and slowness - there was also a strong will to pressure Unite to get behind them. As one worker said: 'Whatever you say about them, we need a union or otherwise we don't stand a chance. We need them to bring in broader support.' Several protesters said they work with people who are only now joining the union, having never seen the need before.

In London, Steve Kelly, branch secretary of the London Electrician Branch, also spoke of the need for Unite to act, explaining ‘it is good that Unite officials are here today but it is clear they are only here because of pressure from below. We must keep up the pressure to ensure they prepare to ballot all JIB sites as soon as possible.’

Yesterday saw a victory: 40 underpaid agency workers made a collective stand and forced the company to back down. A speaker from the Senate House cleaners’ campaign spoke of a similar victory when cleaners walked out and were then paid the three months wages owed to them by Balfour Beatty. They will now campaign for the London Living Wage.

With confidence increasing, there was a strong response to a call by Mick Dooley, the UCATT General Secretary candidate, to ‘stop the job’ in London next week, when construction workers will picket the Olympics site at 6.30am at Pudding Mill Lane.

In Manchester, Steve Acheson, branch secretary of the Manchester Electrician Branch, is clear there has been a magnificent rank and file self-organised response and the momentum is building for site walkouts and industrial action. He believes the fight will escalate into every city which could not only stop these attacks but could also result in construction workers having strong organisation again.

The workers who joined today's protest are committed to spreading the campaign, involving wider layers of workers, and mounting pressure on the union to throw its weight behind them. They deserve the support and solidarity of every trade unionist, socialist and anti-cuts activist.

Share

From Mahalla to Tahrir, it's all kicking off (again)

2011-09-07T00:16:00.000+01:00

As militant textile workers in Mahalla plan to strike indefinitely from Saturday, Egypt's Revolutionary Youth Coalition has called for a mass rally in Tahrir Square this Friday. This is re-posted from Counterfire:

'Strikes are growing here in Egypt. A post workers' strike is ongoing, with a number of other groups of workers joining the strike movement. It is estimated a quarter of a million workers will join a national strike this Saturday, 10th September. In Cairo the aim is to build on the momentum from Friday's street protests in Tahrir Square.

Textile workers from a number of towns and cities have announced they are joining Mahalla's strike on Saturday. Mahalla has been a major site of workers' unrest in recent years, especially the major textiles strikes in 2006 and 2008, widely believed to have helped lay the ground for this year's revolution.

Mahalla's public sector textile factory is the biggest factory in Egypt, employing 22,000 workers. They will all begin an open-ended strike on Saturday. Workers are demanding that Prime Minister Essam Sharif increase investment in the company, introduce a minimum wage in line with inflation and release outstanding pay cheques.

Mahalla workers issued a statement, declaring that their struggle is for not only themselves but also to win a decent standard of living for all Egyptian workers. A delegation of workers has gone to Cairo to present their demands directly to the prime minister's office.

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which currently rules the country prior to elections, has asked for a meeting with the labour leaders in Mahala. This has been refused by the workers. The prime minister is, however, going to Mahalla for the negotiations.

I've been going to the picket lines for the postal strikes and it seems they will continue until at least this Friday, 9th September. More generally, there are calls for increased co-ordination of strikes by different groups. There is potential for a general strike to be orchestrated, but it all depends on what happens in Mahalla on Saturday - and how effectively the action spreads to other areas - plus what happens in Tahrir Square on Friday.

Activists are preparing for big protests in Tahrir this Friday with various groups echoing the Revolutionary Youth Coalition's call for a mass rally. Some are demanding an immediate halt to military trials of civilians. There are also serious concerns that current planning for elections unfairly advantages the more conservative elements, including former Mubarak supporters.

It is anticipated there will be clashes with security forces on Friday. Youth activist groups have called for security personnel to be withdrawn from Tahrir on Friday, due to fears of 'bloodshed'. On Monday there were assaults by security forces on the families of the revolution's martyrs, while Mubarak's trial was in session.

Moderate Muslim Brotherhood leaders have, unsurprisingly, declared they won't participate in the Tahrir Square rally. Ahram Online reports: 'The General Secretary of the Freedom and Justice Party Saad El-Kataneny announced that the party, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, was not going to participate in the million-man protest to be held on 9 September 2011 in Tahrir Square'.

This isn't the first time Egypt has seen a strike movement emerge this year. In the final three days up to Mubarak's downfall on 11th February there was a rapidly growing wave of strikes, with Mahalla at the epicentre, which proved to be one of the decisive factors in forcing the president to flee. After Mubarak's downfall there were further strikes, with workers raising independent economic demands such as calls for better pay.

Mahalla workers previously played a key role for in efforts to organise beyond the limits of the state-controlled Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions. Last month growing independent labour groups forced the prime minister to agree to dismantle the executive board of the old federation. Mahalla union activist Wael Habib currently sits on a special committee designed to oversee this transition.

The majority of the labour militancy is outside Cairo, but the capital could still become a major focus. Organisation is very patchy, but there has been some development of independent workers' groups since February. There is an organised left, though it remains relatively weak. A key issue is what links can be made between the youth-led protests in Tahrir (and elsewhere) and the strikes.

Friday and Saturday are likely to be decisive in shaping the coming months. The hope is that the workers' rebellion will generalise, involving more groups of workers and greater co-ordination, representing a new phase in Egypt's revolution.'

Mahmoud Mahdy is an activist in Scotland's International Socialist Group. Additional material provided by Alex Snowdon and Feyzi Ismail.

Share

PJ Harvey: The Words That Maketh Murder

2011-09-06T23:49:00.001+01:00

PJ Harvey tonight became the first artist to win the Mercury Prize twice, with her eighth album 'Let England Shake'. The first time she won the prize was on 11 September 2001, in an awards ceremony overshadowed by news of the terrorist attacks in the US. 'Let England Shake' includes this track, 'The Words That Maketh Murder', which was featured in the Stop the War website's 'anti-war song of the week' slot in February.

Share

Unelected Oligarchy: is this what democracy looks like?

2011-09-05T22:55:00.000+01:00

I recommend reading the Unelected Oligarchy report from Democratic Audit. It is researched and written by David Beetham, a professor emeritus at Leeds University. Here is the opening summary:

'The financial crisis of 2007-8 and its aftermath have intensified the perception that the UK government works largely for the benefit of the corporate and financial sectors rather than of ordinary citizens and taxpayers. As part of a wide-ranging audit of Britain’s democracy, this paper explores the extent to which this perception is valid.

The first part traces the historical changes since the 1980s – ideological, economic, fiscal and operational – which have led to the increasing dependency of government on the private sector.

The second part identifies the different channels through which corporate and financial elites have inserted themselves into the heart of government over successive administrations, and how they continue to exercise a predominant influence over it – through the financing of political parties, think tanks and lobbying organisations, membership of advisory bodies, ‘revolving doors’ and joint partnerships with government. This situation is then assessed against internationally accepted criteria for democracy which Democratic Audit has employed over the past two decades.

The paper combines a rigorous evidential base with a principled analysis of what makes a system of government democratic. It will interest all those concerned with the current condition of Britain’s democracy.'

This brief extract is from the conclusion:

'What conclusions should we draw from this exhaustive, and no doubt exhausting, survey of developments that have taken place since the 1980s? First, that they have taken place under governments from all the main parties. Second, that they are the result of a combination of structural changes in the international and domestic economy, and active agency on the part of those best placed to benefit from them.

Third, that possible countervailing forces have proved largely ineffective against them. Trade unions have been disempowered and legally hobbled, inner-party democracy has been stifled and strong civil society organisations have at best been able to generate embarrassment and achieve cosmetic changes, such as the transfer of DESO to the business department rather than the outright abolition that had been promised. As to the new media, Reich writes that the blogosphere has proven ‘a boisterous outlet for airing views and venting frustrations, but there’s no direct or systematic link between these forums and decision makers.’

Fourth, that the large cuts in public expenditure currently under way are likely to further intensify the dependence of government on the private sector, as central departments and local councils are forced to further contract out their operations and services, and reduce their own skills base.

Most important, in terms of our ongoing democratic audit of the UK and its principles, these developments reveal a gaping democratic deficit. Instead of the public sphere constituting a separate life domain, with its distinctive values, relationships and ways of operating, it has become an extension of the private market, permeated by the market’s logic and interests.

Instead of popular control we have subordination to an oligarchy of the wealthy and economically powerful. Instead of everyone counting for one, we have the easy purchase of political influence and the well-oiled revolving door between government and the corporate sector.

In Lindblom’s terms, where democracy at best is a compromise between the power of the vote and the power of business, with government negotiating the interface between the two, the balance has been decisively, and perhaps terminally, titled in favour of the latter, as government has increasingly become its promotional agent. '

Share

'The People Demand: a short history of the Arab revolutions' - Newcastle book launch

2011-09-04T12:19:00.000+01:00

Cairo's Tahrir Square during the revolution

On Wednesday 12 October John Rees will be introducing his new book The People Demand: a short history of the Arab revolutions (co-written with Joseph Daher).

The book launch, hosted by Counterfire, is upstairs at Newcastle's Salsa Cafe and starts at 7pm.

See the Facebook Event.

The Arab revolutions have started to re-shape global politics. The People
Demand traces the major developments and includes reportage from Cairo during the 18 days of revolutionary upheaval in early 2011. It analyses the mass popular movements which have overthrown regimes, shaken US imperialism, and inspired millions around the world.

This is one of the first assessments of the Arab revolutions to encompass a range of movements. These essays analyse the complex links between Tunisia, Egypt, Palestine, Libya, Bahrain and Syria, examining how the popular revolts have dramatically affected relations with the US, Israel and the West.

Through a richly detailed and perceptive account of events across the Arab world, The People Demand addresses vital questions about democracy, revolution and imperialism.

The book is published on 16 September by Counterfire, priced £6.99. Entry to the Newcastle book launch is free.

John Rees participated in the Egyptian revolution and his eye-witness accounts are included in The People Demand. He was Vice President (Europe) of the Cairo international solidarity conferences which started in 2002.

He is a co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition and the author of The Algebra of Revolution, Imperialism and Resistance, and Strategy and Tactics. He is a member of the editorial board of Counterfire and writes and presents the Timeline political history series for the Islam Channel.

Share

Same-sex marriage and the fight for equality

2011-09-03T06:59:00.000+01:00

Bert and Ernie: just good friends

There's an interesting article on the International Socialist Group's website, asking what attitude socialists should adopt towards same-sex marriage. It is timely because the SNP administration has just launched a 14-week consultation on the possible introduction of legal same-sex marriage. A consultation in England and Wales was announced in February.

The issue also hit the headlines last month when a US campaigner called for children's TV show Sesame Street to teach tolerance by marrying Bert and Ernie (pictured) - traditionally regarded as friends rather than romantic partners - prompting a petition in support and an insistence by Sesame Street producers that characters don't have any sexual orientation.

More seriously the issue has increasingly become a campaigning focus in the US, with victories for campaigns in a number of states including New York. But the demand finds considerable resonance in Europe too. Seven European countries now have legal same-sex marriage, while fifteen (including the UK) allow some sort of civil partnership.

It is important, in my view, to think through why gay marriage has become such a central issue for the LGBT movement. One extremely good reason lies in the nature of homophobic prejudice and discrimination.

Homophobia largely isn't about economic inequality. Women workers earn less than male workers; black workers earn less than white workers. Economic inequality is integral to these forms of division and oppression. The same inequality isn't there when comparing LGBT workers with heterosexual workers.

Homophobia has a great deal to do with what is socially acceptable, normal or legitimate. What LGBT people want is to be viewed and treated as equal by the society they're part of, and by the people in it. They don't want to be seen as abnormal, viewed with suspicion or subject to completely different social conventions.

This means being able to marry and adopt kids, but it's also about being able to hold hands in public without getting funny looks (or worse) and feeling confident about booking a room in a B+B without pretending you're 'just friends'. It's all sorts of things in everyday life, like being comfortable with talking about your relationship with work colleagues or a teenager being openly gay at school.

It's also about the whole emotional field that goes with this - not having feelings of shame and guilt, not keeping secrets from family, and so on. It's about LGBT people seeing themselves reflected and represented in media and culture, rather than being invisible or subject to ridicule. Political and social equality in the broadest sense is the aim.

In this context we can easily see why gay marriage has become a central issue and a rallying call capable of mobilising large numbers of supporters. It goes to the very heart of how homophobia works, as being married is socially mainstream. Not being able to marry reinforces a sense of marginalisation and 'otherness' relating to LGBT people. The issue thus becomes representative of much more than itself.

It's also a specific legislative change - one which crystallises a number of the issues I've referred to - so it is ideal for a protest movement. Every campaign needs something concrete to fight for.

Is it enough? No. But no kind of equality is enough within the constraints of a capitalist society. Socialists fight for liberation not just equality. This is a broader vision that connects specific issues for particular social groups to a larger struggle, in which the collective power of the working class (as the 'universal class') is decisive.

Whatever the constraints, it is essential to actively support struggles for equality. In the context of shared campaigning, a more radical and thoroughgoing vision of human liberation can be articulated.

Also see: The SNP's Gay Marriage Crisis

Share

New term, new strikes: teaching unions set to escalate pensions campaign

2011-09-02T18:25:00.001+01:00

Message from Christine Blower, general secretary, to NUT members:

'Thank you for your continued support for our campaign to defend teachers' pensions. This term will see an escalation of the campaign.

We are continuing to work closely with colleagues in ATL and UCU following our extremely well-supported action on 30 June. Given the Government's position we expect that further industrial action will be required later this term. Our sister union in Scotland - the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) - is preparing to ballot their members, as is the National Association of Head Teachers.

The Government has had numerous opportunities to negotiate fairly on public sector pensions. However, Ministers have persistently refused to listen to the facts. Teachers' pensions are affordable and sustainable. We cannot and will not stand by and see them eroded for purely political reasons.

As the General Secretary of the only union to campaign consistently for one union for all teachers, I am delighted that the teaching profession is coming together against the unnecessary attacks that the Government has launched on our pensions.

Our campaign will be even stronger now. We will be in touch next week about the next steps in the campaign.'

Share

Tyneside premiere of Debtocracy

2011-09-02T00:00:00.000+01:00

'Tyne and Wear Coalition of Resistance are hosting a screening of Debtocracy – “a compelling film about Greece’s financial crisis which makes the case that the entire euro system was rotten from the start” (The Guardian).

Downloaded by millions of citizens in Greece and across Europe, ‘Debtocracy’ is spreading like wildfire. The film seeks the causes of the debt crisis and proposes solutions – solutions hidden by the governments of Europe and the dominant media.

This is a unique opportunity to see this superb documentary (75 mins long with English subtitles) on the big screen and to help raise funds for Coalition of Resistance in its ongoing campaign against the coalition government's brutal programme of cutbacks which are wrecking the lives of millions.'

Wednesday 21 September - 7pm
Salsa Cafe (upstairs), 89 Westgate Road, Newcastle

Pay on the door: £3 waged/£1.50 unwaged

Hosted by Coalition of Resistance and sponsored by Gateshead health branch of Unison.

•Email:cornortheast@gmail.com
•Telephone: 07958 635 850

Share

Five reasons why we need Europe Against Austerity

2011-09-01T04:00:00.000+01:00

1. We need unity and co-ordination, nationally and internationally. The European Conference Against Austerity in London will strengthen the links between different groups and activists, countering problems of division and fragmentation. Our government is a weak, fragile coalition which can only survive if the opposition to austerity is localised and fragmented. Much the same is true in many other countries. We need maximum unity in action.

2. The 1 October conference takes the step up to international co-ordination. The UK government's attacks on public services and welfare are part of a wider assault across Europe, an attempt to make the vast majority of people pay the price for bailing out the banks. We need to organise across borders in response.

3. This is the first major international initiative for the anti-cuts movement - it is on a significantly bigger scale, involving broader forces, than any previous initiatives. It is desperately overdue and may become the start of something even bigger in the longer term.

4. The conference is a superb chance to discuss the big political issues and talk about alternatives to the eurozone crisis and ruling class 'solutions' to it. Europe's economic and political crisis is one of the dominant themes of global politics in 2011. This is a unique opportunity to wrestle with the issues in the company of the anti-capitalist left and campaigners from across the continent.

5. The conference isn't just about activists across a wide range of countries communicating with each other. It holds out the hope of co-ordinated action. A first step will be the forums and demonstrations in France in early November, providing an antidote to the G20, but there is potential for much more. The conference can be the launchpad for co-ordinated action across Europe.

Find out more - and register for the conference - at Europe Against Austerity.

Share

It's all kicking off - but why now?

2011-08-27T09:36:00.000+01:00

Tunis, 18 January 2011

Damian Carrington shares some revealing new research findings:

'Seeking simple explanations for the Arab spring uprisings that have swept through Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya, is clearly foolish amidst entangled issues of social injustice, poverty, unemployment and water stress. But asking "why precisely now?" is less daft, and a provocative new study proposes an answer: soaring food prices.

Furthermore, it suggests there is a specific food price level above which riots and unrest become far more likely. That figure is 210 on the UN FAO's price index: the index is currently at 234, due to the most recent spike in prices which started in the middle of 2010.

Lastly, the researchers argue that current underlying food price trends - excluding the spikes - mean the index will be permanently over the 210 threshold within a year or two. The paper concludes: "The current [food price] problem transcends the specific national political crises to represent a global concern about vulnerable populations and social order." Big trouble, in other words.'

I recommend reading the article in full. While the research is focused on current developments, there is an interesting historical perspective on this too. I was reminded of this insightful post from Paul Mason in April: Revolutions and the price of bread: 1848 and now

Share

Six for Saturday

2011-08-27T07:05:00.000+01:00

Usain Bolt: is it because he is black?

A diverse selection of posts and articles for the weekend:

Matthew Seyd: Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?

James Wood: The New Atheism

Joseph Daher: What next for Libya?

Jon Rogers: Gazing up at another summit, selectively

Helen Lewis Hasteley: No, satire isn't destroying politics

Jon Lansman: Tom Harris MP - Blairite candidate for Scottish leader?

Share

Less tweeting, more talking (or blogging)

2011-08-26T22:16:00.000+01:00

"Don't talk to her - she's a colonial feminist"

If something can't be said in 140 characters or less, why bother trying to say it in 140 characters or less?

I was reminded of this elementary point today by two faintly depressing spats on my Twitter timeline. Both of them illustrate the limits of Twitter, which I recognise is handy for many things - and I'm hardly Twitter-shy myself - but inadequate for developing an even remotely coherent argument.

The first spat concerned the Home Secretary Theresa May's ban on all marches across large swathes of London, an opportunistic response to the planned EDL and anti-racist marches in Tower Hamlets on 3 September. Some tweets are at the playground level, barely more sophisticated than 'Billy Bragg is a smelly poo' or 'The SWP are fatty stupidheads'.

But even the more intelligent interventions in the debates about the banning of racist marches and how to respond to the EDL are weak. This is no surprise - you can't articulate a reasoned critique in a tweet.

The other dispute is between two fine Egyptian revolutionaries Gigi Ibrahim and Hossam el-Hamalawy in the red corner and US-based commentator Mona Eltahawy in the blue corner (or blue and white corner, if slurs about her being a 'Zionist' are to be believed). Hossam called her a 'colonial feminist', which is like calling someone 'fatty stupidhead' after reading some Edward Said. It is name-calling as substitute for political argument. The marxist wing of the greatest revolution of our times can do much better than this.

What's even worse is that Twitter means lots of other people get drawn in too, even if just at the level of reading such silliness. The adversaries retweet supportive comments - or, more likely, tweets which disparage the other side. Polarisation rapidly shuts down any space for thoughtful debate; personality clashes obscure political issues.

My grandad used to say when I was a bairn, "if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". Or, to be more precise, if you want to say something not very nice then take the time to explain, substantiate and critique. And without the personalised mud-slinging. (That's not strictly what my grandad said - let's call it paraphrasing).

It's a reminder of why those who claim Twitter's 'microblogging' has made blogging redundant are missing the point. A blog post (and the same goes for a comments thread) is a chance to - in a phrase I associate with the late Chris Harman - think things through. Subtlety and balance, not to mention scope for offering evidence to support your assertions, are possible.

Talking is even better. There's no substitute for face-to-face meetings as a way of conducting political discussion. It is possible to pose questions, interpet tone and refine ideas. And if anyone denounces someone as a 'colonial feminist', the immediate laughter of derision operates as an instant reality check.

It occasionally crosses my mind that Trotsky would have made an amazing blogger. On Twitter, I fear, it would have been different - and, with that level of distraction, there's no way he'd have finished 'A History of the Russian Revolution'!

Share

David Harvey and the changing geography of capitalism

2011-08-25T07:12:00.001+01:00

I finally got round to reading David Harvey’s superb ‘The Enigma of Capital’ recently. This post is a brief summary of a few key themes in a book which also covers several major topics that I barely touch on here (financialisation, debt, the history of capitalist crisis, origins of the current crisis etc).

My focus here is on Harvey’s analysis of the development of capitalism as a truly global system – and, correspondingly, the growth of a global urban working class.

Capitalism depends upon labour. It needs what Marx called ‘an industrial reserve army’ to do the work that generates profits for the capitalists. The expansion of capital requires a growing supply of workers. David Harvey observes that:

‘In the last thirty years…some 2 billion wage labourers have been added to the available global workforce, through the opening-up of China and the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe’.

It is possible to take issue with the assumption that China and eastern Europe were previously outside capitalist relations, but it’s undeniably true that recent decades have seen market capitalism come to dominate the globe.

There is a correlation between capital expansion and population growth. Harvey writes: ‘There is, in fact, a very general relation between compound population growth and compounding capital accumulation.’ In China the rapid economic growth since 1980 has been linked to an earlier dramatic reduction in infant mortality rates, which in turn ‘resulted in a massive young labour force clamouring for employment’.

Capitalism emerged, initially in north-western Europe, in the 17th and 18th centuries. Capitalism has grown and expanded alongside a massive increase in the world’s population. Harvey writes:

‘Since around 1700, the world’s population has grown at a compound rate that, interestingly, parallels the compounding rate of capital accumulation. Global population topped 1 billion around 1810. It rose from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 2.4 billion by 1950 and to over 6 billion by 2000. Estimates now put it at 6.8 billion. Projections put it at 9 billion or so by 2050.’

The perpetual expansion of the population – as both workers and consumers – has been essential to the flourishing of capitalism. This has been complemented by the expansion of capitalist relations into new areas.

In recent decades the growing proletarianisation of rural populations in China has provided the basis for spectacular economic growth. The transformation of peasants into proletarians which happened generations ago in the West has in recent decades become a global phenomenon, in some places happening more rapidly than during the industrial revolution in western Europe.

Urbanisation has accompanied the global expansion of capitalism. Cities numbering millions of people used to be a rarity, limited to the US and Europe. That has changed enormously, especially with the rise of mega-cities in Asia. The growth of the ‘urban’ has been closely intertwined with capital accumulation and the development of a truly global working class.

Migration for work is another characteristic of this highly urbanised, expansive global capitalism. Harvey writes:

‘Captive labour forces of indentured domestic servants, migrant gangs of construction workers and agricultural labourers vie with local populations and individuals who move in search of better chances in life… diasporas of all kinds (of both business and labour) form networks that intricately weave into the spatial dynamics of capital accumulation.’

Migration is closely linked to the search for work: migration from the countryside to the cities, or from one part of the world to another. Harvey relates that ‘while the foreign-born population of the US stood at around 5% in 1970, it is over 12.5% today.’ One consequence is the ethnically diverse character of the workforce in many countries, though there has often also been a rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric and prejudice.

Roughly simultaneous to these processes of global expansion and urbanisation has been ‘the mobilisation of women, who now form the backbone of the global workforce’. In more recently industrialised areas of the globe, like east Asia, women make up a huge portion of the workforce, but gender pay disparities are often (even) worse than in countries like the US and UK.

Such inequalities in the working class are used to suppress the interests of all workers. Harvey analyses how capitalists, and pro-capitalist politicians, have fostered divisions inside the working class:

‘All along, capitalists have sought to control labour by putting individual workers in competition with each other for the jobs on offer. To the degree that the potential labour force is gendered, racialised, ethnicised, tribalised or divided by language, political and sexual orientation and religious beliefs, so these differences emerge as fundamental to the workings of the labour market.’

There is, though, huge geographical unevenness in both population growth and capitalist expansion. As Harvey writes: ‘The more advanced centres of capital accumulation, such as much of western Europe and Japan, have slipped into negative population growth… while the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa continue to increase.’

This refers, broadly speaking, to the divide between Old Capitalism – centred in the US and western Europe – and the New Capitalism of China, east Asia and Latin America. These are the two inter-related but distinct halves of the global capitalism.

Harvey traces the changing fortunes and recurring crises in Western economies since the 1970s, but is also highly sensitive to the differences within the global economy in any given period.

Since the 1970s the major Western economies have been afflicted by a series of crises. The crisis which developed in 2007/08, and which shapes contemporary politics for many of us, is primarily one affecting Europe and the US. While it has global ramifications, there is huge unevenness across different regions. This is against the backdrop of a general shift in the dynamics of the global system, with China and east Asia experiencing long-term growth while many advanced Western economies struggle.

Harvey writes:

‘Bilateral trade between China and Latin America increased tenfold between 2000 and 2009. Is the urbanisation of China the primary stabiliser of global capitalism? The answer has to be a partial yes. But it is also the case that real estate development has been crucial to class formation in China. This is where immense personal fortunes have been made in very short order.’

Harvey is alert to the evolving balance of economic and political power between different nation states, which principally represent the capitalist and ruling class interests located inside their borders. The end of the Cold War saw the collapse of a former superpower: the USSR. Although this appeared to leave the US dominant – the sole remaining superpower, with unrivalled hegemony – the US economy has in fact been in decline relative to a number of emerging economies, notably China.

The modern world was shaped in the era of imperialist expansion, and rivalry between the European ‘Great Powers’, from around 1870 until the aftermath of World War One. The major European powers utilised their economic strength to build empires, colonising large swathes of Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and achieving global dominance. Harvey recalls: ‘Most of the world’s territorial boundaries were laid down between 1870 and 1925 and most of these were drawn by British and French imperial power alone’.

By 1945 the old European powers were in decline; a process of decolonisation rapidly developed. Rivalry between the US and USSR – each with considerable spheres of influence – dominated world politics. The US, however, was the unrivalled economic superpower, a status sustained during the long post-war boom. It shrewdly established new international economic and political institutions, at the end of the Second World War, to assert its dominance (as well as using its military superiority for the same purpose).

Harvey writes:

‘The geographical configurations of state power achieved after 1945 remained fairly stable, once decolonisation was completed. But in recent times the map of the world has changed. The United Nations originally comprised 51 states but it now boasts 192 members. A whole series of reterritorialisations began after 1989 with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the subsequent dissolution of Yugoslavia.’

The 1990s was primarily a decade of neoliberal hegemony, of unrivalled liberal capitalism, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc, reinforced by the trend of market liberalisation in China. The east Asian crash of 1997-98 scuppered the illusion of unstoppable neoliberalism, though without triggering a global crisis. Since then the emergent Asian economies have recovered and have tended to sustain higher growth levels than advanced Western economies. The geography of capitalist crisis has decisively shifted back to the West.

It is still possible that the current crisis will become the first truly global slump in history, but so far the effects have been very geographically uneven with China, for example, maintaining rapid growth while the US and most of Europe stagnate. For now there remains a clear distinction between Old Capitalism and New Capitalism.

The evolving economic situation influences changes in geopolitical power relations. It isn't obvious how this will play out in the long term - or exactly what repercussions there will be in terms of political or even military conflicts - but it is apparent that the world's economic and political geography is changing profoundly.

--------------
Links for David Harvey videos I've posted on Luna17:

Animated: Crises of capitalism
Wall Street, Wisconsin and the crisis of capitalism
The crisis deepens - what's going on?

Share

Libya - what next?

2011-08-22T12:14:00.001+01:00

John Rees on Libya:

'There will be no tears for the end of the Gaddafi regime if that is indeed what we are watching. The Gaddafi regime was a brutal dictatorship and it deserved to be overthrown just as much as that of Ben Ali’s in Tunisia or Mubarak’s in Egypt. But, unlike the defeat of Ben Ali or Mubarak, the end of Gaddafi has not been brought about mainly by a popular revolutionary rising. It has been brought about by a military victory in a civil war in which the rebel side has become largely dependent on western military fire power.

So the question now posed is this: in whose interest will the new rulers of Libya act? NATO is already saying that it will work with the Transitional National Council. This, more of a threat than a promise, should be no surprise. The point of the western intervention in Libya was to gain a foothold in the fast moving Arab revolutions and to create a compliant regime by making it militarily and economically dependent on the west in a way in which, say, the Tunisian UGTT or the Youth Coalitions of Egypt could never be said to be.

So the major powers will be looking for payback. They will want an Arab regime which is a home for western military bases. They will want a regime that is supportive of Israel (and the TNC has already made supportive statements in favour of the ‘war on terror’). And they will want a Libya that is safe for BP, Shell and other western corporations, whether from the oil industry or elsewhere.'

Read in full HERE.

Share

Populist authoritarianism - and its limits

2011-08-21T11:06:00.000+01:00

Dietrich Wagner, victim of police use of water cannon

There's a good post at Latte Labour called 'The Carnival of Reaction' about political and public responses to the riots. This is a slightly developed, edited version of a comment I posted there.

The results of polling in recent days are grim, but I don't think public opinion is as bad as it may initially appear. There is, as ever, a difference between attitudes when things are at a very abstract/general level and when it is more human.

It's like when someone is hostile to immigration in a survey but defends a family threatened with deportation in their own area. It's easy for people to say 'bring out the water cannon' or 'send the troops on the streets', but if these things actually happened many of them would soon be horrified. The more real something becomes, the more attitudes shift (see HERE for the background to the picture above).

It's also worth noting that the latest polling on cuts and the economy is good news for the left. There's also been a general shift in polls against the Tories and government, with falling approval ratings etc - a pretty steady curve for a year now. It's not like there's a broader shift to the right or in support of the government.

A key factor in public support for ludicrously disproportionate measures is a widespread view of an underclass which is a 'feral mob': something different to ourselves, apart from society. It's roughly what Owen Jones writes about in 'Chavs'. Most people don't see the rioters as being like themselves. It's thus far easier to support brutal measures against them, and not give a damn if they're jailed, evicted or have their benefits cut.

This reflects how some of the right-wing attitudes about class and poverty have become embedded in popular consciousness. Many people don't appear to be thinking 'That could be the lad next door getting banged up just because of what he put on facebook', or 'it could be one of my family getting their benefits cut'. Instead they perceive such people as 'other', as 'them' not 'us', as a threat.

This is a problem for the left, but fortunately such prejudice co-exists with more progressive instincts. There are a number of key responses, it seems to me.

Firstly, we need to articulate a clear class-based politics that cuts through the scapegoating, rejects writing off a small minority as 'undeserving', 'sick' and 'feral', and reasserts shared class interests.

We need to re-direct the fire against the real enemy. A number of good arguments are currently being articulated by many socialists, such as noting the gulf between draconian sentences for rioters and the light touch approach to MPs who fiddled their expenses or senior News International executives, or drawing attention to the hypocrisy of old Bullingdon boys like David Cameron and Boris Johnson demanding tough sentences for behaviour no worse than their own youthful escapades.

It is also a matter of re-focusing attention on the social and economic conditions - poverty, inequality, racism and austerity - which give rise to social unrest, and calling for action to tackle them instead of a punitive, authoritarian backlash.

Furthermore, we need a mass anti-cuts movement to embody those arguments and to fight for that kind of class politics. It needs to unite different sections of the working class, including those living in the most deprived communities (thus undermining attempts at divide and rule), and ensure there is broad-based political resistance to channel the widespread anger at injustice and inequality in our society.

Share

Video: Israel flag removed from Cairo embassy by protestors

2011-08-21T04:41:00.001+01:00

'On August 20, 2011 Egyptians mobilized for a demonstration in front of the Israeli Embassy demanding the removal of the flag and for the ambassador to leave. After hours of flag-burning trials, a man called "Ahmed El-Shahat" managed to climb the embassy building and remove the Israeli flag and replace it with the Egyptian one.' The Guardian has background HERE.

Share

David Starkey, immigration and the 'new atheism'

2011-08-14T23:31:00.003+01:00

David Starkey, it turns out, has a close association with the National Secular Society, which peddles a conservative version of 'secularism'. Reuben writes:

'Most of us by now will have seen David Starkey's disgraceful, Powell-esque commentary about “black culture” in the aftermath of the riot. Currently the National Secular Society proudly dedicate a webpage to him, as one of their “honorary associates”.'

It is not the society's only connection with the issue of immigration, as this link to a seasonal message from NSS President Terry Sanderson in December 2009 indicates. The whole piece is incoherent and muddled, but this passage stands out as politically significant:

'While we know that the traditional places of worship – the Church of England and the Catholic Churches - are declining rapidly, further evidence has emerged this month showing that immigrants are importing their own brands of religion into Britain. They generally take their faith more seriously than the “I’m spiritual but not religious” brigade that makes up the majority of the population in Britain (or the “fuzzy faithful” as they’ve been called).

Muslims from Pakistan and India, Catholics from Poland and evangelical Protestants from Africa and the Caribbean are bringing with them unpleasantly conservative religious beliefs that sometimes shock and repel the majority. They often seem primitive, hysterical, fanatical and alien, full of hatred and intolerance and crazy, senseless rules. Honour killings, violent, sometimes fatal, exorcisms, denial of medical treatment to children on the assumption that prayer will be sufficient, the treatment of women as chattels and the spouting of unvarnished hatred of non-believers, gays and Jews from the pulpits of mosques.

These new religious enthusiasts are still a relatively small minority, estimated at the 4.5 million mark. Among the mainstream population the move continues from indifference to religion to outright hostility to it.'

So much prejudice packed into so few words. There is elitist and ignorant contempt for the majority of non-immigrants, but the virulent hostility is reserved for immigrants. All immigrants, it seems, are indiscriminately branded as bringing evil practices with them. While it isn't stated explicitly, the only logical conclusion is that they should be kept out of the country.

There is an underlying assumption that the problems listed don't exist other than in immigrant communities. They are entirely imported problems, as if anti-semitism and homophobia, for example, have never been an issue in this country before. But of course that doesn't mean the majority of 'us' are safe from the minority of 'them', for these immigrants are bringing their evil ways into 'our' country and shocking and repelling the majority of us.

There is no suggestion that within communities there may be differences of religious practices, social attitudes and beliefs. Instead there's a simple polarisation between 'our' religion and 'their' religion: the former is objectionable but relatively harmless Anglicanism, while the latter is 'primitive. hysterical, fanatical and alien'. If someone consciously tried to use racialised language, they couldn't do better than 'primitive, hysterical, fanatical and alien'. It echoes the old colonial discourses about 'savage' Africans, used to justify empire-building.

It's no surprise, either, that particularly strong condemnation is reserved for Muslims - notice the 'pulpits of mosques' reference at the end of that litany of appalling degradations. Different 'alien' religious traditions - Christian and Islamic alike - are lumped together, but it's the Muslims who get the most fiery denunciation.

How curious, too, that no source is given for that figure of 4.5 million. It's almost like Sanderson made it up, as it certainly has no relation to the number of socially conservative immigrants who practise religion.

It isn't a mere quirk that the NSS has Starkey as a high-profile supporter. It is a 'broad church' (pardon the pun) which attracts many liberal supporters, with its honorary associates including several people I admire such as the Marxist playwright Edward Bond and Stewart Lee, one of my favourite comedians.

But the NSS represents a strand of secularism which largely uncritically adopts the conservative assumptions of 'new atheists' like Richard Dawkins (it is perhaps, in the present context, worth recalling this intervention from Prof Dawkins). It is a politicised and racialised kind of atheism which overstates the alleged threat from Islam - and indeed overplays the influence of religion on society and politics in general - dovetailing neatly with the Islamophobia and authoritarianism which have accompanied Western imperialist wars and occupations of the last decade.

Them and us: they are a minority and we are the majority. They threaten our enlightened and rational Western ways with their backward values, characterised as both archaic and, crucially, alien. Islam is the number one target and, among Christian denominations, it is the African churches who pose the greatest threat, followed by the foreign habits of the Catholic Church (far worse than toothless Anglicanism).

It's not just time for the NSS to - as Reuben suggests - abandon David Starkey. It's time for anyone who is anti-racist - whether atheist or religious - to reject the bigoted stance of Terry Sanderson and friends. The language of secularism should not be used to bolster the kind of neo-Powellite immigrant-bashing we heard from David Starkey on Friday. We need, instead, to unite in opposition to the right-wing racist backlash which has followed the riots.

Tip: Splintered Sunrise

Video: David Starkey echoes Enoch Powell in racist Newsnight rant

Share

Give our Kids a Future protest challenges right-wing backlash

2011-08-14T10:50:00.001+01:00

This is Peter Stauber's report for Counterfire:

'The response was clear and powerful. After the government and the mainstream media had been vilifying and condemning young people for a week, around 1,500 people got together to express a different view: One that doesn't blame the riots on “sick” elements within our society, which need to be dealt with “robustly”, but instead tries to take into account the underlying causes.

The organisers of the demonstration, called “Give our Kids a Future”, said they did not want to judge the events of ealier in the week, but to make a statement against the criminalisation or our kids, and to highlight the fact that it is the job of our communities to rebuild our society. The crowd assembled on Gillet Square in Dalston around midday and marched northwards to Tottenham in the afternoon, growing in numbers as it drew supporters from the areas in between.

The general feeling among the protesters was that the media and government response to the unrest completely missed the point.

“It has been dispiriting”, said Ricky, 23, who had come from Pimlico to show his support for the communities of Hackney and Haringey. “One of the most shocking things was the fact that people who were trying to explain what had happened were portrayed as trying to excuse the violence. Left-wing explanations were considered excuses, but not right-wing ones. Take the BBC, for example: Almost everybody they have interviewed has talked complete bullshit.”

Another young protester, Lorna, expressed a similar view:

“The media response has been unintelligent, just as the government's. I don't know why the government was so surprised about the riots, and I don't know what they think they'll achieve by telling people that it's unacceptable or criminal – I think people know that it's criminal. But it was also entirely predictable – it was clear that people would get very angry sooner or later because of what they been doing to public services – it's not only this government, it goes back further than that.”

There was a strong sense that the communities themselves need to put forward their own narrative – a narrative that corrects the notion that the riots were simply an expression of greed and corrupted morals. Chants and banners expressed the view that the real violence was not carried out by rioting youngsters, but by the police and our government of millionaires. Various placards pointed to the contrast between the rather minor looting of electronic equipment and food items, and the large-scale looting carried out by bankers and tax evaders.

“After the right-wing backlash against young people, it's important to put forward our own message. We can't allow Cameron to use this as an excuse to further erode our liberties and our rights. It's for the left to fight back and show support where it's needed”, said Alex, who had come all the way from Norwich to show his support for the communities in the poorer parts of London.

Above all, there was a sense of unity. People of all ages and from different ethnic backgrounds joined the march – Turkish, Kurdish, Afro-Caribbean... Everybody understood that criminalising our youth will lead nowhere.'

Share

After the riots - Newcastle meeting

2011-08-13T21:04:00.001+01:00

Here are the brief details of a meeting I'm speaking at on Thursday - I hope to see you there...

Thursday 18 August, 7pm
The Central bar (upstairs), Half Moon Lane, Gateshead

Austerity Britain: recession, riots, resistance
Organised by Counterfire (http://www.counterfire.org/)

Introduced by Alex Snowdon (Counterfire editorial board)

The riots in London and elsewhere have shaken the political establishment, which is now instigating a drastic authoritarian backlash. Politicians and press would rather condemn some of the poorest in our society than address the underlying social and political issues. Counterfire is organising a meeting to discuss what's happening, why, and what we can do.

We'll be exploring questions like: Do the recent riots point to resistance in the UK? Why are they happening? What can we do in response?

Facebook event: https://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=216174745097877

Venue info: http://www.theheadofsteam.co.uk/gateshead/

Riots: the voice of the powerless -http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/theory/37/14483

Share

Video: David Starkey echoes Enoch Powell in racist Newsnight rant

2011-08-13T10:15:00.000+01:00

David Starkey prompted outrage with last night's appearance on the BBC's flagship programme for giving racists respectability. As Charlie Brooker, mocking Starkey's own comment about David Lammy MP, tweeted: 'If you closed your eyes he sounded like a man staggering shirtless and babbling into traffic'.

Share

Tottenham riot - report and video

2011-08-07T09:45:00.001+01:00

Report by Elly Badcock and Dan Poulton, re-posted from Counterfire:

Weaving down a dark alleyway attempting to bypass police on horseback, we passed a burning pile of rubbish and police gear, abandoned arrest log sheets and DNA testing kits. Over the fences of houses plumes of smoke rose above the railway bridge.The acrid smell of burning cars filled the air.

We had left the police line to get closer to the riot which had exploded in response to the shooting of Mark Duggan, 29, in Tottenham on Friday night. For a community marginalised by cuts and racism – Tottenham has the highest rate of unemployment in the country at 8.8% - the killing of yet another young black man by the police brought an already tense situation to the boil.

Flames erupting from shop fronts formed the backdrop to groups of hooded young men hurling glass bottles at a police force which had clearly lost control, despite the rather strained efforts of one senior Met official to state the contrary. Efforts to disperse the nearby crowds were futile, as police charged forward only to be blocked by swiftly erected burning barricades.

The police assured media outlets that the fire brigade was being swiftly deployed. Not from where we were standing - shops blazed along the high road, with no fire engines in sight. A member of a family we spoke to said she knew Mark Duggan and that the police had no need to kill him. The family understood why the police had become the targets of such pent up anger.

This is the third riot Counterfire has reported in the last year- a heavy handed police raid in Bristol in April was met with a protest and police later attacked the crowd, and in Glasgow disturbances broke out when police used similar methods to clear young revellers in Kelvingrove Park during an unofficial Royal Wedding party.

One account on Twitter earlier said that Saturday’s riot was sparked when police attacked a 14 year old girl during a peaceful protest demanding justice for Duggan.But whatever the origins of the riot it is clear that there is massive public anger at a time when cuts are biting, and hitting the poorest areas hardest.

With the Met already embroiled in a corruption scandal in the wake of the News International hacking saga, and recent police attacks on protesters like Alfie Meadows and Jody Mcintyre, the British establishment has not been so mistrusted or even hated for many years. The ConDem government’s austerity measures can only deepen this animosity and increase tensions as the streets continue to fight back.

Share

Newcastle Counterforum - 10 September

2011-08-03T06:04:00.001+01:00

Newcastle Counterforum: The Politics of Resistance

Saturday 10 September - Salsa Cafe (upstairs), 89 Westgate Road, Newcastle

£4 waged/£2 concessions if you register by email: counterfiretw@gmail.com (simply send us your name).

12.30 Registration/introductions

12.45-2pm Arab revolutions: redefining the 21st century?
Speakers: Alex Snowdon (Counterfire editorial team and blogger at http://luna17activist.blogspot.com/) and Pete Ramand (Scotland's International Socialist Group)

2.15-3.30pm Crisis, cuts and mass resistance - is this a rebirth of class politics?
Speaker: historian, writer and archaeologist Neil Faulkner, author of 'A Marxist History of the World' series on http://www.counterfire.org/

3.45-5pm Organising to change the world: what kind of new left do we need?
Speakers: Lucky Dhillon (International Socialist Group) and Tony Dowling (Counterfire)

Discuss some of the big issues facing socialists and campaigners today. Each session will include plenty of time for discussion. Hosted by Counterfire - all welcome!

Also see the Facebook Event for updates.

Share

They don't make propaganda like they used to

2011-07-31T21:42:00.000+01:00

Watch this to the end - and never trust those pesky communists with your daughter.

Share

Socialist newspapers: old wine in old bottles?

2011-07-31T13:41:00.000+01:00

For readers of a delicate disposition - and with a certain political persuasion - what I'm about to write may be the revolutionary left's equivalent of pissing in the altar. Don't say I didn't warn you.

During my last year as a Socialist Workers Party member, i.e. up to November 2009, I had a habit of expressing views which the leadership, and a majority of my comrades, disagreed with. There was, however, one view I didn't express: that the age of the weekly socialist newspaper may be over. Such a suggestion is rarely voiced on the organised revolutionary left. I never expressed this view because, although it was something I occasionally wondered about, it was hardly the most pressing issue at that time.

There is a tendency in organisations to take certain things for granted. Habits form; routines become fixed. For all the commitment to tactical flexibility, a socialist group can easily become inflexible with assumptions that remain unchallenged. The assumption that any socialist organisation must have a newspaper - probably weekly - is embedded in the culture of this country's revolutionary left.

It is sometimes claimed - by advocates and detractors alike - that the practice stems from the experience of Lenin and the Bolsheviks prior to the 1917 revolution. This is rather fanciful. Iskra and Pravda may be cited as relevant historical references, but the reason is more prosaic: most current socialist newspapers were launched when newspapers were the obvious and most attractive way of communicating ideas.

Socialist Worker, for example, was launched in 1968, when running a newspaper was the natural thing to do if you wanted to convey alternative news and ideas to your target audience. Some grand claims have been made for 'the paper as an organiser', but in truth it's long been possible to build a socialist group without a regular paper.

The one thing a group really can't do without is meetings. The practice of regularly meeting face-to-face is pretty much what defines an organisation - there is simply no substitute for it, even in the age of social media. That's especially true when organising at local level (whether as an independent local group or as part of a larger national organisation).

Some kind of published material has always been vital, of course, but a regular (e.g. weekly) publication is another matter. The need for independent media isn't identical to the supposed 'need' for a weekly paper.

So, in reality, a newspaper has always been desirable for socialist groups primarily as means of political communication. It establishes key political arguments and conveys ideas and information in an accessible way, which helps inform political practice. But its role as an organiser has tended to be rather indirect (and far from indispensable).

The problem today is that there's a mismatch between the chosen means of communication and how people actually communicate. Any socialist organisation's main target audience is the young: the majority of new members will be under 30. Most under-30s today don't read newspapers. Socialists are therefore trying to reach their audience with means of communication that that audience doesn't bother with. This is an obvious paradox.

Consider what has happened in the last 10-20 years. Newspaper circulation has fallen steeply, while internet use has grown and grown. Readers increasingly get their news or politics online. This trend is most pronounced among young people, many of whom have never been regular newspaper buyers in the first place.

Expectations around news have shifted dramatically. News arrives fast. It is common for readers to feel the news in their daily newspaper is already a little stale, especially if they also read online (and if they're a Twitter user it might feel positively ancient). This is an even greater problem for a weekly paper.

We've also seen the rise of the free newspaper. The scrumpled-up Metro newspaper, abandoned by a commuter, is one of the defining features of our contemporary urban landscape. Many young people don't expect to have to pay for their news. They read it online or get it in the Metro for free.

The media landscape has changed massively. We all know this, yet much of the left carries on as if there have been only superficial alterations. Commendable attempts are made to branch out into the internet, but it's assumed the core must remain the paid-for newspaper (despite inevitably making a loss, requiring subsidy from the organisation's members).

The demands of selling the newspaper too often dictate the organisation's cycle of activity, largely irrespective of what is happening in the outside world: the weekly city centre Saturday sale is sacrosanct. Activists are dedicated and hard-working, but this routine - fixed and inflexible - can sadly have a distorting effect on what they do.

The organised left needs to speak the language of those it is engaging with, using the same means of communication. Does this mean there's no place for print? Far from it. It's just unlikely that a weekly, paid-for newspaper is the wisest of investments. Any socialist group today will benefit from a more flexible approach, able to respond dynamically to events in the world outside. The massive commitment of a weekly paper becomes an obstacle.

Anyway, the established groups will probably carry on doing their thing and ignore the observations above. They will continue mixing up the surface elements of Leninist practice and its inner essence, deceiving themselves that methods appropriate to one era are timeless truths. If Lenin did it then it must be correct - despite Lenin's own numerous tactical twists and turns, despite Lenin's repeated warnings not to claim specific methods are universal laws, despite the fact there's been rather a lot of technological change in the last century and perhaps we should let that inform our thinking.

We all agree that we badly need our own media. A left-wing organisation, able to pool resources, is well-placed to contribute to the creation of new, independent and radical media. Socialist ideas remain indispensable, but how they are communicated has to evolve.

Our media need to reflect the world as it is today, not an age which is drawing to a close, and speak to the generations who will shape the future of the Left.

Share

Five for Friday

2011-07-29T06:54:00.000+01:00

Not a regular feature - just a few good posts I've spotted and think you should read...

LEAP: Public sector pensions: the economic crisis debate in microcosm

Dominic Alexander at Counterfire: Why Eagleton is right: reviewing reviewers

Androulla Harris at New Statesman: Interview with Owen Jones

Harpymarx: The art of job applications

Splintered Sunrise: The judgement of Johann: a reflection, and a bit of a rant

Share

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: is this what counter-revolution looks like?

2011-07-28T20:20:00.001+01:00

Amid continued protest in Egypt and the formation of a new government, the Muslim Brotherhood’s position continues to be a source of debate. Joseph Daher has written a new analysis for Counterfire, which begins:

'The Muslim Brotherhood was the largest opposition party during the Mubarak era. Under the Mubarak regime, the Brotherhood was formally banned but nevertheless tolerated. The begrudging toleration, however, did not save its members from frequent arrests and trials before exceptional courts.

The group achieved its best election result in 2005 with independent candidates allied to it winning 20 percent of the seats. The government subsequently launched a crackdown on the Brotherhood, detaining hundreds of members, and instituting a number of legal "reforms" to make them illegal. During the fraud-ridden 2010 parliamentary elections, the government found pretexts to invalidate the candidacies of virtually all Muslim Brotherhood-linked independents.

The Brotherhood leadership backed the revolution from 28th January, while the youth of the party were part of the revolution since day one, from the 25th. The position of the Brotherhood towards the revolutionary process since the fall of Mubarak has been ambiguous. Many protesters in Egypt have characterized the Brotherhood’s behavior as counter-revolutionary, while others say that it is nevertheless the largest and most organised party in the country so there is a need to collaborate with it.'

Read the full article: Egypt's revolution and the Muslim Brotherhood

Share

Blame the Muslims: Sanum Ghafoor on Islamophobia and the media

2011-07-26T01:11:00.000+01:00

BNP could split after Nick Griffin wins leadership by 9 votes

2011-07-25T23:40:00.001+01:00

Former friends: Andrew Brons and Nick Griffin

While the BBC was, disgracefully, giving an EDL leader a platform on Newsnight, the corporation's website brought us something to smile about. It seems the divisions inside the British National Party run as deep as we thought. BBC News reports:

'Nick Griffin has been re-elected as leader of the British National Party, according to the party's website. It said he received 1,157 votes and his opponent, Andrew Brons MEP, received 1,148. Eleven papers were spoiled.

The website quoted Mr Griffin as saying the "time for division and disruption is over" and urging members of his party to "go forward together". In May, the BNP, which has been hit by divisions, lost many of the seats it held on local councils in England.'

June 2009 seems a long time ago. That's when two MEPs were elected from the BNP: Nick Griffin in the north west and Andrew Brons in Yorkshire and Humberside. The European Parliament elections marked a high point for the fascist party, following breakthroughs in local elections during the previous few years. Growing 'respectability' was symbolised by Griffin's infamous appearance on the BBC's Question Time.

In two rounds of local elections since then - last year and again this May - BNP support has fallen, with the party losing most of the seats it defended. Most spectacularly, the BNP lost all its 12 seats on Barking and Dagenham council in east London in May 2010. The party's activists were also disappointed by their general election results, feeding disaffection and division.

Since then the tensions have turned into open revolt, with Brons becoming a figurehead for those challenging Griffin's fuhrer status. The two MEPs have clashed publicly. Their party has also suffered a deep financial crisis, leaks of membership lists and embarrassing revelations about violent conduct by its members.

This has all been rather cheering for anti-fascists, whose activity opposing the BNP over many years helped prevent it getting more of a mainstream foothold. Defeats and disappointments for the fascists encouraged the divisions which now threaten to fragment it. Griffin's hope for an end to 'disruption and division' is likely to prove forlorn.

Share

Norway killer linked to EDL

2011-07-25T01:23:00.001+01:00

The Guardian's report 'Norway gunman claims a London connection and links to the EDL' informs us:

'Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the Norway killings that left 93 people dead, began his journey in extremist rightwing politics at a small meeting in London in 2002, according to his online manifesto, and may have attended a far right demonstration in the UK as recently as last year.

In a 1,467-page document that contains chilling details of his preparations for Friday's attacks, Breivik outlines his UK links, claiming he met eight other extremists from across Europe in London in 2002 to "re-form" the Knights Templar Europe – a group whose purpose was "to seize political and military control of western European countries and implement a cultural conservative political agenda".

The manifesto, signed "Andrew Berwick London 2011", contains repeated references to his links to the UK far right group the English Defence League. On Sunday there were unconfirmed reports from one of the organisation's supporters that the 32-year-old had attended at least one EDL demonstration in the UK in 2010.

"[B]ar one or two doubt the rest of us ever met him, altho he did come over for one of our demo in 2010 … but what he did was wrong," said an EDL member online.

In the manifesto titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, Breivik writes: "I used to have more than 600 EDL members as Facebook friends and have spoken with tens of EDL members and leaders. In fact; I was one of the individuals who supplied them with processed ideological material (including rhetorical strategies) in the very beginning."...

It reveals an obsession with the Crusades and a supposed threat to Christian Europe posed by Muslim immigrants and mainstream political leaders. Breivik predicts a European civil war will take place in three stages, ending in 2083 with the execution of "cultural Marxists" and the deportation of all Muslims.'

The Guardian's report is likely to be damaging for the EDL in three ways. It may prompt the British state to be less tolerant of EDL demonstrations. It also threatens to embarrass many of the 'softer' supporters, who could be inclined to dissociate themselves. Some supporters are more dedicated than others - bad publicity (and it doesn't get much worse than this) can separate a broad layer of casual supporters from the committed hardcore. Finally, this can galvanise anti-racists to take action to beat back the EDL threat.

The key to defeating racist movements is the collective action of the anti-racist majority. The police and intelligence services can't be relied upon to deal with violent far-right groups and individuals - not least because the state is culpable in the Islamophobia which creates the conditions in which they fester. A sustained mass campaign against the Islamophobia which provides the breeding ground for the EDL - and equivalent organisations or networks elsewhere - is required.

The appalling media reaction to unfolding events on Friday evening - with a widespread assumption among editors, journalists and commentators that it must be 'Islamist' terrorism - served as a vivid reminder of the prevalence of elite Islamophobia. It hopefully shocked people into recognising how embedded anti-Muslim assumptions have become in the media.

Islamophobia, not only in the UK but across much of Europe, is state-led. A 'respectable racism' which has become vastly more prevalent during a decade of the 'war on terror', it finds its most acute expression in EDL mobilisations - and, even worse, the horrific massacre on Friday. We need to permanently turn the tide against this racism in the media, in politics and on the streets.

Share

Good riddance to Blue Labour

2011-07-22T01:05:00.001+01:00

Lord Glasman, pioneer of 'Blue Labour'

Oh dear. It seems Blue Labour is fragmenting. The motley crew of Labour right-wingers has fallen apart because leading light Maurice Glasman went that bit too far.

Blue Labour has largely been a vanity project for Glasman, but he still needed a number of like-minded thinkers (if 'thinkers' is the word) to make it work. His extreme anti-immigrant comments to the Tory press have, however, alienated allies like Jon Cruddas - who, whatever his faults, is still anti-racist.

A vital part of Blue Labour's appeal was its orientation on the right-wing press. Just think about the name: hardly a great idea if you want to win supporters inside the Labour Party, but provocative, catchy and distinctive enough to get commentators and editors salivating. After the hacking scandal, it is no longer quite so sexy to have a direct line to influential media insiders.

So the timing of Glasman's nasty little attack on immigration was far from ideal. Not only were his prejudices unpalatable to a number of fellow Blue Labourites, but it was hardly the moment for using a right-wing rag to convey your ideas.

Glasman's whole routine is founded on shameless populism, propagating the foul idea that Labour must pander to prejudices supposedly synonymous with working class people to be electable. Flag, faith and family - but definitely no foreigners - is the core of the project. This - rather than fighting cuts, defending the NHS or redressing inequality - is apparently how working class votes can be won.

The hacking scandal has already weakened the Blairites on the hard right of the Labour Party (it is they who have previously been most shameless in their sycophancy to Murdoch). This latest episode suggests incoherence and disarray in these same circles.

If Ed Miliband has an ounce of sense he will create considerable distance between himself and Glasman, instead of vainly scampering after the latest novelty 'fresh way of thinking', however superficial, confused or obnoxious it may be.

See 'The end of Blue Labour'

Share

Hackgate round up

2011-07-20T06:06:00.000+01:00

Steve Bell in The Guardian

Some recommended reading:

David Wearing at New Left Project: Exit Murdoch, Enter the Public?

Des Freedman at Counterfire: Is the hacking scandal the UK's Watergate?

Laurie Penny: Of Pies and Circuses

Gary Younge at Comment is Free: Phone hacking: These statements are meaningless

Owen at The Third Estate: Pies in the face: For and against (but mostly against)

Share

Teaching unions meet to co-ordinate November strikes

2011-07-19T18:50:00.001+01:00

This has just been circulated to NUT members from the union's general secretary Christine Blower.

'I'm writing to update you on our pensions campaign and our negotiations with Government.

Following the recent TUC-led discussions, detailed talks will now be held on each public sector scheme including our Teachers' Pension Scheme.

Our strike on 30 June showed the Government the extent of anger within the profession. It had a positive impact on public opinion and exposed the Government's arguments about affordability as untrue.

We remain committed to negotiating an agreement on our pensions. Strike action is always a last resort. There is a real danger, however, that the Government may try to impose arbitrary constraints which prevent agreement happening. The Government has not conceded any of its demands and continues to threaten increases in our pension contributions as a first step from next April.

All of the England and Wales teacher unions met today and began to draw up joint campaigning plans for the Autumn term. We hope the Government will agree to genuine negotiations. However, if the Government will not budge, then ATL, NUT and UCU will have to consider further industrial action in November. NAHT and UCAC have also now decided to ballot their members for industrial action.

For a joint statement from the ATL, NUT and UCU on taking forward the pensions campaign, go to http://www.teachers.org.uk/pensions

The Government has lost teachers' confidence over its handling of our pensions but it now has a final chance to listen to reason.

We wish you a restful summer holiday so that we can all return renewed and refreshed and determined to protect our pensions.'

Share

What connects James Murdoch, Jeremy Clarkson, Peter Mandelson, Michael Gove, Rebekah Brooks, David Miliband and Piers Morgan?

2011-07-17T21:55:00.000+01:00

Answer: they all attended a party hosted by Elizabeth Murdoch two weeks ago (the above is just a small selection from the guest list).

'It was the highlight of the summer season for the Chipping Norton Set. Rupert Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth and her PR tycoon husband Matthew Freud threw a party of decadent opulence and excess that saw the political and media elite flock to their 22-bedroom Cotswolds mansion Burford Priory yet again.

Just 24 hours later, the news broke that murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's mobile had been hacked by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World newspaper and his global empire was plunged into disarray.'

Read more HERE

Share