SOCIALIST UNITY

The range of anti-cuts protests which took place at the weekend up and down the country have sparked hope in the viability of a determined fightback against the diet of draconian spending cuts planned by the Coalition – economic shock treatment that will have a devastating impact on the lives of millions of people and families.

The 20,000-strong demonstration that took place in Edinburgh on Saturday, organised by the STUC, was easily the biggest demonstration seen in the Scottish capital since the massive Make Poverty History march back in 2005, which coincided with that year’s meeting of the G8 in Gleneagles.

Just like that event, the STUC demonstration on Saturday was notable for a carnival atmosphere, replete with a plethora of trade union banners, balloons, a brass band and a pipe band. It brought together mainstream politicians, trade unionists in their thousands, church groups, the usual socialist organisations and parties, and concerned citizens. The size of the march was certainly impressive, and if this is the start then the augurs are positive. However, if things fail to move beyond passive demonstrations, no matter how big, the likelihood will be a grim outcome.

The truth is that mass demonstrations in themselves will not be enough to effect a change in course on the part of the Coalition. This is borne out by recent history. The Make Poverty History campaign mentioned earlier, organised by Oxfam and supported by the great and the good from the world of pop and celebrity, caught the entire country’s imagination for an all too brief period. It did so to the extent that the then chancellor, Gordon Brown, was happy to march at the head of its one and only mass demonstration.

It was a movement that fizzled out almost as soon as it began, lacking as it did any foundation of a coherent ideology and alternative to the status quo. Instead, weakened by confusion and the lack of a sharp analysis, it attempted to win over the leaders of the G8 with an abstract moral argument in favour of alleviating poverty throughout the undeveloped world, failing to understand in the process that the system responsible for that poverty is deaf to polite entreaties or requests, and will only ever respond to power.

For in the last analysis power only ever responds to power, a fact which if anyone was in any doubt should be eminently obvious upon even the most cursory examination of the fortunes and trajectory of the antiwar movement.

Again, the euphoria rightly experienced by all those who took part in the mass demonstration in London of February 15, 2003, was premature. Most taking part in that historic event were right to be convinced that it augured the start of something, a counter hegemonic counterweight to a Blair government that was set on the path to war. Unfortunately, and tragically, it proved to be the end and not the start we all hoped it would be. Demonstration after demonstration followed. Each was progressively smaller than the one before. Eventually it became a movement bereft of ideas and paralysed by its inability or unwillingness to move beyond the parameters of passive protest, condemned as a consequence to continue running parallel to the government bearing witness instead of mounting an effective opposition.

The lessons learned from the mass campaigns of the past are not just learned by the left or progressive forces. What the Blair government was able to do in being able to sit out the pressure it came under from the antiwar movement at its peak in early to mid 2003, the Coalition will attempt to replicate when it comes to a national anti-cuts campaign. This is why mass demonstrations such as took place in Edinburgh on Saturday, and the one being organised by the TUC to take place in London early next year, must not constitute the start and end point if we’re to have any chance of winning the most important battle against the Right which this generation is ever likely to face. It is a battle which in defeat will have consequences that will reverberate through succeeding generations, rolling back most of the progressive reforms and concessions won by the working class over the previous century.

Fortunately, compelling the majority of people to join this movement and fightback will be material necessity rather than the moral outrage that was the driving force behind the antiwar movement at the height of its support. The trade union movement will be key. Its leadership must plan for coordinated industrial action that is sustained and which transcends sectional interests.  Workplaces, communities, schools and colleges must be turned into bastions of resistance, wherein local and in many cases new forces and voices will emerge to drive things forward.

No group or organisation has the right to claim overall leadership or stewardship to any fightback at this stage, though the TUC is currently in the best position to provide the coherence required in terms of the coordinated industrial action that must lie at its heart. Outwith trade union ranks the various campaigns that have been set up should try to unite as soon as possible. Sectarianism is a crime under the present circumstances, and those guilty of it should be ostracised. As the months pass an organic leadership consisting of those who are capable of providing the most effective practice based on an accurate rendering of mass consciousness may well emerge. Nothing or no one should be allowed to hold it back.

The primary objective of any mass campaign must be to bring the country to a halt if need be, thereby forcing the government to fear those it has already deemed worthy of contempt with its policy of inflicting mass destitution and despair as an economic policy.

The Labour Party leadership, in the wake of the general election defeat and the leadership election that followed, has yet to offer any firm line of march against the cuts.

Hampered by the neoliberal scars of the Blair years, and yet to muster the courage to break with New Labour’s fixation on Middle England and obeisance to the power and influence of Rupert Murdoch, it still refuses to fully embrace the trade unions and their crucial role as the tangible embodiment of collectivist ideas in society. It should and needs to if Labour is to regain the working class support it has lost over the past 13 years.

The failure of a sufficient number of Labour MPs to turn up in Parliament to ensure that the Lawful Industrial Action Bill, introduced last week by John McDonell, reached the next stage is a case in point. It demonstrates that Labour still has some way to go before it can claim to have fully emerged from the Blairite era which saw it lose half its membership along with 5 million votes. 

The anti-cuts campaign has only just begun. Learning the lessons of history will go some way to giving it a chance of ending in victory - not only for those about to be impacted by the cuts but by previous generations, who by dint of past victories in the struggle for social and economic justice, the fruits of which have been enjoyed by those who came after, have already pointed the way ahead.

by Tony Greenstein

If nothing else, the General Election has demonstrated just quite how far the socialist Left, in all its guises has sunk and the toll that sectarianism has taken. The only two bright spots were the wiping out of the BNP in Barking and its loss of council seats in Stoke and elsewhere and the election as MP in my own constituency of Caroline Lucas, the left-Green candidate.

Who could have believed that in the midst of a recession, with some 2½ million unemployed and millions living in poverty, that the far-left could become so irrelevant. What a remarkable contrast with Greece as the 3 capitalist parties, whichever permutation takes office, prepare to wield the axe over public spending.

A few statistics brings this out in all its gory detail. In 2001, the Socialist Alliance, stood 98 candidates and polled 57,553 votes, an average of 587 each. In 2010 the Trade Union Socialist Coalition stood 42 candidates, who received 15,580 votes, an average of 371 votes. In 2001 at least 3 SA candidates, including Dave Nellist, saved their deposits. This time every deposit was lost.

If we look at Scotland the situation is even more dire. In 2001 the SSP stood candidates in every one of the 72 constituencies. They polled 72,518 votes, an average of 1,007 per candidate. In 2010 Solidarity-Tommy Sheridan stood 10 candidates obtaining a grand total of 3,523 votes, an average of 352.3 (less than their English equivalents) or 1.05%. And the SSP fared even worse, also standing 10 candidates and garnering 3,157 votes, an average of 316 votes or 0.84% each.

From 6 MSPs in 2003 the SSP/Solidarity have managed to achieve votes that would embarrass the Monster Ravy Loony Party. In Coventry the Socialist Party lost one of its 2 remaining councillors and even if you count, which I don’t, Respect as a party of the Left, it too suffered heavy defeats including its only MP.

One might have hoped that even the most bone-headed member of the SWP and SP leaderships might have drawn at least some conclusions from such dire results. The tragedy is that the greater the failure the greater the illusions and myopia. If the current situation is left to the existing ‘parties’ then there is no hope of any improvement in the strength of the Left for the simple reason that their main task is to build the party, not the movement or a socialist movement.

And yet the task of consolidating the left should have been far from difficult. We were in an election where the positions of all 3 major political parties were identical. Save cuts are the order of the day in order to rescue the political and economic system we live in from the consequences of the bankers’ orgy of speculation. Privatisation is a given under all the parties. Indeed on the only 2 issues where there were differences between the parties, at least on paper, we had the spectacle of that pathetic representative of the right-wing Scottish Labour mafia, Gordon Brown, attacking Clegg for the ‘madness’ of his stance on Trident and asylum seekers.

Those who celebrate, rightly, the demise of the BNP electorally (though it is still not dead) should ponder that this may result in the strengthening of the bootboys on the street in the form of the EDL. What we certainly don’t want or need are the pathetic antics of the SWP/UAF in Brighton who called a counter-demonstration to an EDL demonstration that never was. For a couple of years a group of pissheads had organised a St. George’s Day parade. It was a family affair and although their politics are not mine they are clearly not fascists. Because some EDLers announced they would come and join it, that was enough to cry ‘Nazi’.

What is needed in Britain is a refounding of the Left and a single-minded determination to form an anti-capitalist party which can yet provide a challenge to New Labour. It won’t come from the trade unions, despite the wishful thinking of the SP, but a serious and determined venture could well get trade union support.

What is certain is that there must never again be electoral alliances, cobbled together at the last moment, joined by groups who have evinced no interest in socialist unity (SWP) and doing absolutely nothing in the way of strengthening the socialist left. On the contrary such ventures actually weaken the left. In Brighton Kemptown TUSC had an excellent candidate, Dave Hill, a former leader of the Labour Group on East Sussex County Council. His campaign was innovative and he and others worked hard. But still he didn’t gain even 200 votes. This kind of campaign, parachuting in at the last moment and out again as soon as the result is announced, cannot but increase demoralisation.

There are no simple solutions but a Convention to Refound the Left in Britain might not be a bad idea. A convention which isn’t a rally where we are lectured to, but somewhere for socialists to seriously debate the one real issue – how to rebuild the Left.

How did that happen? Is it really ten years since a cpgb-supporting supermarket worker sat down in front of a university computer, loaded up egroups.com and launched the UK Left Network discussion list onto an unsuspecting and uncaring world? Yep, it really is.

As with all things on the left, the UKLN (clunky looking initials if there ever were any) was the result of a split. The far left is not noted for harmonious relations between its constituent groups and rival activists, and this was as much the case among the few late 90s internet-traveling Trots as it is today. After graduating from uni in 1998 I spent a year on the dole unsuccessfully trying to land low paying casualised work to fund my first Master’s. With a head full of ultra-left Weekly Worker-leaning politics and a heart pumped up with rage, I was drawn into the seamy world of internet Trotskyism.

Back then Yahoo had a pseudo-bulletin board platform called Yahoo Clubs. As you might expect the interface was primitive and very limited. You could post short pieces (probably about 250 words all told) in the clubs you were signed up to. After shillying about the then biggest left clubs on Yahoo - Red Square and Internet Promotion of Socialism - I fell in with a Californian comrade called Adina Storm who ran a small and not terribly active club called Commielove. What initially united us was our disappointment with the moderating team of Red Square who had allowed an anti-communist troll of alleged Cuban descent to mess up what was a promising leftist community. Adina and I decided Commielove would become a “safe space” for lefts to debate among ourselves, so she made me co-founder and very quickly - a few months - the club became the largest left forum on Yahoo with several hundred members and a respectable posting rate of between 100-200ish posts a month.

But like all tales of Trotskyist organisation, a serpent soon crashed the revolutionary garden. As the club grew Adina moved to London after being in touch with the International Marxist Tendency. Like the Northites/SEPtics of WSWS, the IMT back then were quick to realise the openings the internet offered revolutionary politics and had built an impressive and comprehensive website. You would often find youthful Grantites popping up in clubs, ONElist/Egroup discussion lists and the like to preach the gospel according to Old Ted. For whatever reason my fellow founder was drawn to their brand of Trotskyism and ended up moving to Brussels to help renovate an office/communal flat(!) for the IMT’s Belgian section. Over a drawn out period we began to fall out. As a self-identified cpgb I was always of the opinion (still am) that differences between socialists should, where possible, be discussed openly. The tradition of the IMT has a rather different attitude. They may not be Scientologists, but Ted Grant doesn’t do a bad job as their L. Ron Hubbard and Alan Woods manages a fair turn as chief operating thetan. Over a period of time Adina co-opted a few Grantites onto the Founders’ committee and gradually discussion became more and more “guided”, despite my open protests and public criticisms. I knew enough was enough when they intervened to try and stop an interesting discussion between an AWL comrade and a supporter of the Maoists in the Philippines on the role of the peasantry in socialist revolution. It was arbitrarily announced that henceforth “Stalinists” (i.e. anyone not subscribing to a Trotskyist critique of Soviet-type societies) would be banned. I publicly registered my opposition and the ban thankfully didn’t happen, but I knew the writing was on the wall.

At the same time as all this, I was a member of an Egroup discussion list called the Cyber Communist Party. It was much smaller and basically consisted of the two “members” of the semi-comedic, semi-spartoid American Generic Trotskyist League (40% Off), and a few others including Ian Donovan and Owen Jones of Ian Donovan and Owen Jones fame. The debates were very much of the ‘my position is more revolutionary than yours’, but to my eyes it demonstrated the potential for something not too dissimilar based in a UK context. I remember canvassing the opinion of other Britain-based lefties I’d met via the CCP and Commielove, and on 26th April, 2000, the UK Left Network was born.

The legend that greets you when visiting the UKLN’s corner of the internet is more or less unchanged from the day I wrote it. It reads:

This is a forum where communists, socialists, and other left-wingers who either live in the UK, or are interested in UK politics can meet and discuss. This forum recognises that no one left group has the monopoly on the truth, and that Marxism will only be developed if we are able to discuss our differences openly, and not behind the backs of our class. Comrades from all traditions, of any organisation or none, are welcome.

And the first post of the ensuing 111,191 reads:

Greetings Comrades

Welcome to the UK Left Network, a place which hopefully will come to be an important resource not only for leftists in the UK, but comrades internationally who have an interest in UK affairs. All solidarity info is welcome regardless of country, and every member can feel free to promote their organisations and publications.

Though I loath to set down ‘rules’, there are but a few to be kept in mind and almost go without saying;

1) Racist, sexist, and homophobic comments will not be tolerated and will result in instant expulsion.
2) No platform for fascists. These filth have no place here.
3) No flames. Debate should focus on political issues and not the alleged personal habits of any particular member and the like.

And that’s all there is to it. I look forward to all future discussions.
Comradely Greetings
Phil Hamilton

List Moderator

It wasn’t long before number three was torn asunder by the development of the list. I think it was a bit of trolling by a Stalin salutin’ scribbler who went by the nom de plume of James Tait that led to the UKLN’s first bad-tempered exchange (our James, naughty man that he was, sent the predominantly Trotskyist membership into apoplectic rage by suggesting a then recently-deceased former high ranking Stasi agent was a working class hero). That more or less set the tone for the list. To say I was out of my moderating depth was an understatement. Trotskyist clashed against Stalinist. Left nationalists faced down “Brits”. Former CPGB’ers rose against contemporary cpgb’ers. SA supporters rounded on SP members. And toward the end of the UKLN’s “golden period”, comrade turned against comrade as the SSP/Solidarity split played itself out on the list.

The UKLN was a bear pit and no mistaking. It was my fault for letting it get that way and being afraid of consistently rooting out the trolls. Part of the reason for that was by the end of 2000 I had finally joined the cpgb, but was concerned with being seen to be scrupulously neutral. That wasn’t easy considering most of the disputes on the list at the time were often about what the Weekly Worker had said or done. But balance was something I managed to my own satisfaction and eventually - after about three years(!) - the list settled down into a gentle equilibrium. Most trollers had slunk off to pastures new and comrades who were once the bitterest of internet foes found a grudging respect for each other, which then became genuine affection. The moderating team moved at about this time from being just me to including well-respected Exeter anti-fascist Dave Parks; “celebrity” cpgb catch from the SP, Harry ‘H’ Paterson; Mick Hall now of Organized Rage and SSP activist Jim Carroll.

As internet forums go, the UKLN was pretty rough and I do occasionally wonder if it ever put casual subscribers off socialism for life. But despite this, the UKLN has proven to be important for the far left for two reasons. First, it showed the far left off warts and all (mainly the warts). Apart from the incessant polemic (often with unpleasantness running at an order of magnitude higher than the most fractious Socialist Unity threads), one UKLN experience has always stuck in my mind as a clear demonstration of the far left’s faults. Back on September 11th, 2001 I broke the news on the list about the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Over the coming hours, days, and weeks the disorientation and shock of this event was felt in a slew of anti-imperialist ‘the bastards deserved it’ polemic (one contributor went as far to call for “One, Two, Many New Yorks”). Conspiracy theoroids began turning up (”the jets were clearly holograms, and not very good ones at that”); and in our collective confusion debate turned away from the necessity to build a new anti-war movement against an attack on Afghanistan to … the class character of the USSR. So yes, the UKLN was a petri dish that concentrated all of the British left’s problems.

But more importantly was the overlooked role the UKLN played in bringing the far left into contact with one another. While members of Trotskyism’s 57 varieties have always been welcome on the list (as have the few Stalinist fossils knocking about), from day one the biggest contingent of members and regular contributors were the non-aligned. Whereas in the past refugees from left groups might drift into the Labour party, trade unionism or back into private life, the UKLN meant former members could still do that - but keep their connection with the goings-ons in the far left. This might not seem a big deal now but before the UKLN there wasn’t really a dedicated internet space Brit-based Trots and troublemakers could go to. To prove it, the UKLN casts a long (but often forgotten) shadow over the left’s online community today. All the following bloggers are UKLN alumni and have at some stage actively contributed to the list. There might be a few surprises:

A Very Public Sociologist
Dave Osler
Dolphinarium
Harpymarx
Harry’s Place (Yes, founder Harry Hatchet and Brett Lock!)
Inveresk Street Ingrate
Islamophobia Watch
Labour of Love
Madam Miaow
Martin Wicks
Organized Rage
Ragged Trousered Philanthropist
Random Pottins
Socialist Unity
Tendance Coatesy
The Daily (Maybe)
The Rotten Elements
Tony Greenstein
Union Futures

Apologies if I’ve missed anyone off.

There are a couple of mysteries around the UKLN that have never really been cleared up. One was the almost total absence of SWP contributors. That is apart from Geoff Collier from Leeds, who’d rarely engage in debate but often pop up with a snarky comment or two. Contrast that with SP/CWI members who were all over the list like a rash. Was the SWP’s mid-90s ban on members participating in discussion lists the reason why they never showed up to the party?

Another was the irony that despite the UKLN name, there was a very Scottish flavour to the list. Comrades from the SSP were always frequent contributors, despite being formally committed to the break up of the UK state! I never understood why the Scottish left were over-represented - was it because they were largely free of the dead hand of sect discipline?

Here are some other UKLN facts:

* Dave Nellist was an avid follower of the list, despite only ever contributing the once.
* The UKLN was targeted by the forerunners of RedWatch and the bizarre (but definitely white supremacist) National Anarchist “movement”, who used to take posts and email addresses and publicise them on far right lists and websites.
* Comrades from the UKLN exposed moves by two Green Party members to set up friendly debates with Troy Southgate of the aforementioned NA grouplet.
* Bad tempered exchanges probably contributed to Harry Steele/Hatchet (Simon Evans) setting up Harry’s Place. I remember banning him for persistent trolling against the cpgb. When he finally set up HP in 2002 I remember looking over his blog and thinking “this will never catch on”.
* The term ‘UK Left’ often bandied about on blogs and forums is derived from the UKLN.
* From the start there was a rare consensus around the need to fight the BNP politically rather than rely on ‘dont vote Nazi’-style campaigning.
* I was a cpgb from late 2000 to early 2003. While it is true the UKLN remained independent from party direction (at one point I banned Ian Donovan, then also a cpgb member, for rudeness), discussion of its goings on were often a topic in the internal ‘E-Caucus’ party list (incidentally, it never had more than 32 members and mostly hovered around the 27-8 mark).
* All of the key developments in British politics, world affairs, and of course, the far left, received ample comment from 2000-2007. Therefore the UKLN, for all its faults, serves as an historical archive for what a group of (mostly) rank and file revolutionary socialists were thinking and saying during that period.

During its height list traffic used to be upwards of 1,000 a day. Having your inbox cluttered with 100+ UKLN messages over the period of a day weren’t unknown. But now the UKLN is a shadow of its former self. These last six months traffic hasn’t even passed the 200 posts a month mark. One reason for this is the supplanting of Yahoo Groups (Yahoo annexed Egroups in 2000) by blogging and Facebook (the UKLN is far from being the only political discussion list to have declined in this manner). And I’d like to think another is there are more opportunities for left wing activism now than when the list started out.

What future for the UKLN? Who knows? Though unlikely one should never rule out a UKLN renaissance - political predictions are notoriously unreliable. But should the list forever now bump along at a hundred or so posts a month, it more than fulfilled its purpose. It did bring together socialists from wide ranging backgrounds and through the heat of polemic nurtured and facilitated networks between comrades that weren’t there before. In its own way it contributed to the shape of online socialist activism today. If that is the list’s sole positive contribution, then the UKLN should be saluted.

Time for a round-up of some of the newest blogs to hit the left-wing political scene. I don’t know if my powers of detection have grown or whether more leftists are feeling the need to enter the blogging fray, but quite a few newcomers have caught my eye this last month - so many that I’m going to have to hold some over for the next post in four weeks time. Here is what’s on offer:

Media Studies is Shit is more than what it says on the tin. MSiS sets its sights on what some Marxists still call the ‘culture industry’. Adverts, poetry, TV, video games and even Media Studies as a discipline come in for a kicking, and deservedly so.

Vengeance and Fashion is the name of a blog that, in its author’s own words, is about neither vengeance or fashion but promises occasionally to address issues other than “socialist politics, music and football”.

North Briton, the author of The Radical Blues describes himself as a “sceptical, left-wing liberal, frustrated with all politicians, regardless of political persuasion.” Sounds good. Then he goes and spoils it with “And I love cricket.” Not to worry, his blog more than makes up for his unfortunate preference

Norman Strike was a striking miner during the Great Strike of 1984-5. To commemorate 25 years of the dispute he’s uploading the daily journal he kept at the time. Recommended.

A Mole in the Ground is a rare addition to the blog round up. I hear on the grapevine there are a lot of US-based socialist blogs, but I haven’t a clue who they are! I hope the inclusion of this blog redresses the balance. Plus it’s nice to read someone who’s far from doe-eyed when it comes to all things Obama.

Pink Scare is yet another American blog. It “is a feminist blog that will often center strongly on economic and class issues, both in the United States and around the world. We’ll be taking a critical look at a broad range of issues, with the intertwined effects of capitalism, race, class, and gender (among other things) at the forefront of our analysis. We aren’t above a little American reality television, nor are we afraid to crack open the books and get seriously academic on you.”

United Left is the blog for the, well, United Left in Unite. Unfortunately nothing has been posted since 3rd April - so I hope it hasn’t given up the ghost more or less as soon as it began.

Feminazery is a group blog taking its name from the term of abuse beloved of batshitcrazy right wingers and “oppressed” white, middle class men. As the comrades put it, Feminazery blogs about “the Daily Mail, feminism and feminist issues, while reclaiming the term “feminazi” in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner. Frequently performed by Daily Mail hating feminazis from hell, who tend to spend their time being “power-hungry, man-hating, women’s libbers”, whilst secretly longing for a lovely man to come and buy us lots of nice clothes and give us babies.” Sounds good - and it is.

Confessions of a Marxist promises us “social, political, cultural and economic analysis from a Marxist viewpoint.” And quite a youthful one at that - the comrade is just 18! Proof, if it was needed, that the kids are all right.

And last but by no means least, the most proletarian and anti-revisionist communist party in the world ever has begun its own blog. CPGB-ML Blog is probably unique amongst its leftist peers for praising North Korea’s recent rocket launch and backing the regime of Robert Mugabe. Written in irascible ranty lefty style, it makes you thankful they are but a tiny blot on the far left’s political landscape.

There are a handful of other blogs I want to give a quick shout out to. First is the TUC’s Touchstone blog. It might appear overly corporate but it does a good job covering new public policy research and trade union news, and for this deserves a wider audience. The next is Mick Hall’s Organized Rage. Mick is known for his bullshit-free attitude to politics and this is reflected in his blog. He does cover a wide range of issues, but has particular interests in Irish Republican and Turkish politics. Last but not least there’s Ian’s Red Log, a blog of a similar broad range but possesses that rare ability (on the left) of getting a point across without having to pen 15,000 words.

One more thing, this last month I’ve finally discovered Twitter. Most comrades probably know it as that thing Stephen Fry keeps banging on about, but from a blogger-activist-newshound angle it’s proven very useful. It was through Twitter that comrades broke the news of Ian Tomlinson’s death at the G20 protests, for example. There are a number of socialists who do use Twitter for reasons other than talking about their dinner. So if you use Twitter too, sign up!

May 10th 2008 Conway Hall

Conference and Book Fair

Final Programme now published

The programme of talks is up on the organiser’s website now www.1968andallthat.net

The only event that needs pre-booking is Zoe Fairbairns’ ‘Short story writing course’ where places are limited. Please let the organisers know if you wish to attend that workshop.

The book fair will run throughout the day until 5pm. There will be a rally then in the main hall from 6pm to 7pm. More than 40 publishers, booksellers and campaigning groups will have stalls.

Musician Pietro Peyoti will be playing live in the evening.

There will be two three exhibitons on show: Donald Rooum’s anarchist cartoons will be on display in the Fenner Brockway [ small hall ], Guy
Smallman and Paul Mattsson’s exhibition of recent photographs will be put up for the day and Peter Kennard and Cat Picton-Phillipps will be
showing a selection of work from their most recent exhibition.

Food and drink will be served throughout the day.

Registration for this event is still open but there is strong demand so early booking is recommended. If you know of others wishing to attend please encourage them to register.

One of the best left blogs from the USA is Bob Morris’s Politics in the Zeros.

Bob observes that Ralph Nader’s entry into the Presidential context is pointless and damaging. “Nader got 0.3% of the vote in 2004, just three-tenths of one percent.He will almost certainly do even more dismally this year.”

And as another former Nader supporter has written “Nader’s critique of corporate power and its corrosive effect on American democracy is spot-on. But if the point of these third-party runs is to inject that critique into mainstream discourse — well, we’re way past the point of diminishing returns, and actually deep into some sort of anti-matter universe, in which information is literally sucked out of people’s brains at the first mention of his name. … The only debate another Nader candidacy is going to inspire is a debate about Nader himself, and I just don’t see the point”

Given the odd nature of the US Presidential system, Nader’s third party is on the ballot in just 24 states, and if he performs worse than last time (which he may well) then that ballot spot will be lost for 2012. And in between elections Nader does nothing to build a third party. For al their many faults, the Green Party does seem to be the only viable progressive project in the USA, and Cynthia McKinney is the best shot as a progressive presidential candidate who can rally activists around her.

By the way, Bob has recently been expelled from the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which is a split from the Workers World Party.

He has started writing about his experiences on his blog, first with an announcement of his expulsion (I’ve been purged!) , and the first in a series of articles discussing where the far left go wrong (Marxist groups, organizing, and clowning!), seemingly drawing on the ideas of Peter Camejo. I am looking forward to Bob’s insights and it will be well worth following the discussion.

International Viewpoint has just published in English a very interesting interview with Francisco Louça, or the Portuguese Left Bloc. Founded in 1999, this broad left has strongly consolidated itself and has established a presence in the country. Today it has become a significant force, with 4,200 members, an active presence in struggles and social movements, as well as 350 local councillors and 8 members of Parliament.The interview is quite long, so I won’t reproduce it all here, but I recommend it.

When the Bloc was formed, eight years ago, we made a political choice which I believe is still valid: to create our party on the basis of the political confrontations which define our activity and not on the basis of a priori ideological cohesion. We thus brought together very different traditions, coming from the Communist Party, Maoist or revolutionary Marxist (Trotskyist) currents, as well as people from independent social movements. The possibility of building this regroupment, in a very defensive situation, implied that we were able to formulate political proposals and to have an impact on society. So started not by discussing a programme of historical reference, but a programme of political intervention.

We defend the idea of collective ownership. But what is really important, in particular for the organizations which followed the path of small minority groups, is to find the means of expressing political ideas which fight to have an influence on the masses. So we translated our socialist ideas into specific proposals, very much linked to the modalities of political life in Portugal.

For example, we recently proposed the socialization of the services of water, energy, etc, and one of our principal campaigns this year centres on the defence, the modernization and the transformation of the national health service. That enables us to concretize our perspective of socialization on the basis of social needs and concrete struggles.

We defend the idea that the Left, our Left at least, has fight to develop the consciousness and the capacity for action of people, without limiting itself to making propaganda for socialism. Actually, the idea that the only practical alternative is socialism, which cannot be an immediate objective, leads to a perturbation of the thinking of the Left. In order to fight, you have to demand everything, and yet… everything is not possible. We have to break this crazy mirror!

By putting forward proposals that are specific, and thus possible, people can see that they are applicable. It is what we do in the fields of health and social security. For example, faced with the biggest initiative of this government with a Socialist majority, that is, the reform of social security, we were the only party to present a concrete alternative in terms of methods of financing, the role of taxation or the way services were divided up between the generations. That gave us a very big impact

There is indeed a great difference between making propaganda, developing ideas, defending a programme, even of a high quality, and being able to transform that into a political weapon by involving broader social sectors in struggle, by mobilizing them. New forces are coming to us because we have convictions, because we make campaigns, because we give examples of battles to be conducted, because we discuss new ways of organizing ourselves on the left. We reach thousands of people by posing centrally the following questions: how can we transform the present relationship of forces? Where should we concentrate our efforts in order to make the enemy retreat?

We are also making an effort to develop new means of communication, since the role played by newspapers, some decades ago, is being supplanted today by interactive means. Thus, our Internet site has developed in a spectacular way, with thousands of visits every day. We publish on it a weekly dossier on political, historical and other questions, which is aimed at a broad audience. We diffuse radio programmes by streaming. Finally, we want to develop audio-visual production – from clips to documentaries – which can be used as a basis for education and discussion, but also in the campaigns of the Bloc. In September, we will hold a study weekend, “Socialism 2007″, to discuss strategy and history, trade-union and ecological struggles, but also cultural questions.

The forthcoming elections in Pakistan, the return to the country of Benazir Bhutto, and the crisis of the military regime of General Musharaf have provided an opportinity for socialists.

Tariq Farooq has just issued a new open letter to the Pakistani left.

CALL FOR LEFT UNITY IN PAKISTAN

by: Farooq Tariq (general secretary - Labour Party Pakistan)

There has been never any other better time in the history of Pakistan for a greater Left unity than the present time. There is great urge among all the Left and progressive forces to unite on one platform.

Pakistan Peoples Party: illusions shattered

The Pakistan Peoples Party was traditionally seen as a party that will fight against militarization and for democracy. Under Benazir Bhutto, the PPP has become a party of compromises and conciliation with the present military regime of General Musharaf. She has already finalized a deal of power sharing with present military regime that has become one of the most hated among ordinary people. The price hike, unemployment, class polarization, uncertainty of future and rising incidents of mass killings have become the hall mark of the Musharaf regime.

Benazir Bhutto has tried to win over her lost support in Pakistan during the process of dealing with Musharaf by a massive show of mass power in Karachi has been disrupted by the suicidal attacks of religious fundamentalist forces. According to one report, the Benazir reception at Karachi was one of the most expensive political events in the history of Pakistan casting over 3 billion Rupees.

The illusions among many that PPP will turn to left wing ideas have been shattered. On the contrary, PPP has never been more on the right than present time. This has given the Left forces a rare chance to win over the sympathies of many who are disillusioned and disappointed by PPP character. This is a chance for the Left to win them over by taking new organizational measures and flexible tactics by coming closer and unity.

The disunity among the fundamentalists

The Mutehida Majlas Amal, the religious fundamentalist unity alliance has never been as disunited as they are today. There is an open war going on among them. This will not be seen by the masses a healthy sign. Even if they are able to continue as MMA, they have lost a precious time in fighting among them over tactics to fight the best way against Musharaf regime.

It was difficult for many of them to adjust to the present day realities that the state is not the same as was the case in the past. The Pakistani state wanted to disassociate itself under the imperialist pressure from the religious fundamentalist forces. The religious fundamentalist are on the offencive on the basis of their ability to show to the masses that they are the anti imperialist forces. But it is an anti imperialism of fools.

The Left has been fighting the influence of imperialism for a long time but during the last few years it had lost the initiative to the religious fundamentalists who had more funds and resources at their disposal. This is the right time to unite the human and material resources for the unity of the Left to continue the anti imperialist struggle in more effective manner.

Fundamentalists Suicidal Attacks: a challenge to Left

The suicidal attack on Benazir Bhutto rally in Karachi on 18th October was a warning note to all the democratic forces particularly the Left forces. It is an attack on civil liberties, right of association and assembly. This attack is to terrify people struggling to get rid of militarism and religious fundamentalism. Such attacks are the result of a calculated game of eliminating the opponents.

It is fascist tactics and we must condemn in strongest terms. We have no other way apart from uniting ourselves to fight for our right to assembly. We can not let the few individuals with a suicidal mission to dictate us their terms and conditions and to shut us up. We must have a right to organize and demonstration without fear of these suicidal attacks.

The state has failed to protect even those who compromised with the regime, how it can protect us who are totally against the military regime? The only defense of self defense and unity among our selves, the only way to fight is solidarity at national an international basis.

Many process of Left Unity

At present there are many processes of Left unity going on in Pakistan . There is Awami Jamhoori Tehreek, an alliance of seven Left groups and parties. But it has not gone very far. The Awami Jamhoori Forum is taking initiatives to call more Left meetings for unity all over Punjab . One such meeting was in Rawalpindi on 20th October attracting over 75 Left and progressive activists and radical social activists. They have formed a district committee to discuss the process in detail later. Awami Jamhoori Tehreek (AJT) Rawalpindi called this meeting on the initiative of Awami Jamhoori Forum (AJF). AJF has produced a leaflet explaining the reasons for a greater left unity at present time.

On 24th October, AJT Punjab has called a left unity meeting in Lahore to discuss the process and plan for future actions. The meeting will take place at National Workers Party office at Mcload Road Lahore .

The Tabqati Group under the leadership of Lal Khan (Ted Grant group) in association with PILER Karachi has called another Left Unity meeting on 7th November in Karachi . Labour Party Pakistan is taking part in this meeting as well. Meraj Mohammed Khan in association of Inqilabi Jamhoori Committee (Taj Marri) is calling for a new Left party in Pakistan . He is campaigning in Sind for such an initiative. Meraj Mohammed Kahn and Inqilabi Committee is already part of the AJT.

Labour Party Pakistan is holding its fourth national conference in Toba Tek Singh on 9/10/11th November. LPP will hold a public rally on 10th November and most of the Left leaders will be invited to speak at the public rally and participate in the conference.

 We call on all the radical social activists, trade unionists, political activists and advocates movement leaders to parties to take part in this process and urge for a greater Left unity.

The General Elections strategy

We must plan a strategy to take part as Left forces in the next general elections going to be held during early next year. LPP is advocating a policy of participation in the next general elections from as many seats as possible. What we need is put forward an alternative candidate in each constituency. We must not be forced to vote for a party that is in alliance with military regime or from religious fundamentalism.

There is a great anti Musharaf consciousness at present in Pakistan . We must be able to have candidates to attract this consciousness. We must fight against the discriminatory rule of Election Commission that allows only graduates to contest in the elections. We must go to the courts against this rule and get rid of it allowing our working class comrades to stand in the elections.

What we need is a percentage of the vote and not just one or two leading contestants on behalf of the whole Left. We must strive for a reasonable percentage of national votes for the candidates of Left forces. That is only possible when we have a national strategy and maximum numbers of Left candidates across Pakistan .

We need a common political and economic agenda for such a Left unity. That we can discuss in our meeting and come forward with proposals that could be agreed by at least majority.

Please comment and circulate this message with your comments to as many as possible.

These are some of my initial thoughts for discussions and hopefully we can go forward on the road to unity.

Unity is strength and Workers of the World: Unite.

The left in Pakistan have been in a process of realignment for some time, in April 2006 I interviewed Tariq Farooq about the process - you can read that older interview here.

The “Politics After Blair” conference organised by the Morning Star was a very interesting event. It was reasonably well attended, with usually between 150 and 200 in the hall, but lots of people seemed to be there for only one or two sessions, so the overall attendance was higher than that.

There were some very positive aspects to the conference, not least of which was genuine and real commitment to allowing debate and contributions from the floor. This was especially true of the fascinating session about the peace movement, where the panellists (Andrew Murray from the Stop the War Coalition, Kate Hudson from CND, and Alan MacKinnon from Scottish CND) did not lead off with speeches, but just responded to debate and questions from the delegates. Alan was able to report of the extraordinary success of Scottish CND, in achieving the rejection of Trident by almost all parts of Scottish civic society, including an overwhelming vote in Hollyrood.

The continued weight of influence of the Morning Star was also clear from the fact that Jon Cruddas, John McDonnell, Ken Livingston were on the platform, as well as Matt Wrack of the FBU, Bob Crow of the RMT and Tony Benn. Sometimes at left conferences, the “celebrity” speakers are there to play the roll of ornaments enhancing the prestige of the organisers. But the conference saw fraternal disagreements running through it about the attitude that socialists should take to the Labour Party, and the practical tasks for building the left.

The session on Social Equality and Multiculturalism became a bit muddled, partly because it tried to cover too much ground, and was not able to adequately deal with genuine controversies that became apparent, for example with Salma Yacoob from the platform and the SWP’s Sean Doherty from the floor defending faith schools against the mood of the meeting. The question of the break up of the UK, and Gordon Brown’s defence of the British union should also have generated debate, and the CP do not yet seem to have grasped the importance of this issue.

Bob Crow put the cat among the pigeons with a very forthright rejection of the idea that the Labour Party could be reclaimed, and both he and Matt Wrack pointed out that there is no appetite in their unions for re-affiliating. Jon Cruddas, true to form, gave an extremely perceptive analysis of how New Labour is failing its working class supporters, and John McDonnell acknowledged the unprecedented weakness of the Labour left, but was sceptical that an electoral alternative could be built.

The call for a new party to the left of Labour was explicitly raised by Bob Crow, and echoed by the SWP’s Nick Wrack speaking from the floor. Speaking for the Communist Party, both Star editor John Haylett and General Secretary Robert Griffiths acknowledged that New Labour is right wing to an unprecedented degree, and that the fact that McDonald failed to get on the ballot for leadership was a major defeat.

However, rather than believing that a new mass party of the working class can be built in the present circumstances, the CP are proposing deepening and strengthening the processes by which the trade unions develop political ideas in opposition to neo-liberalism. For example a think tank or foundation, funded by the unions but with the participation of the socialist left, for promoting public ownership. This idea was warmly received by Matt Wrack.

The significance of the CP’s current position is that they are uniquely situated to act as a bridge between the trade union left, the Labour Party left, and the non-sectarian left outside the Labour Party. Although the Labour Left have been crushingly defeated over McDonnell there is going to be no collective exodus from the Labour Party, and despite some excellent localised electoral results for Respect, the far left outside the Labour Party are clearly unable to attract the four and half million votes that Labour have lost since 1997, neither is Respect nor the CNWP attractive to militants and activists used to the democratic norms of the movement. Given this impasse where the left both inside and outside the Labour party are extremely weak, neither side are going to convince the other to join them.

But what we do have is a developing political opposition from the trade unions, leading the way in ideological opposition to private equity, PFI, promoting equal rights for Agency and migrant workers, etc. If a new mass party is to be founded only the trade unions have the prestige, personnel and finance to do so, but it cannot happen until they conclude they have exhausted their options with the Labour Party. The role of socialists is to encourage the unions to put the value of their special relationship with the Labour party to the test, and draw the necessary conclusions.

It is also worth mentioning that the atmosphere was very friendly and welcoming, and perhaps surprisingly the age profile of the delegates was not noticeably older than for equivalent events organised by the Trotskyist left. I had a chat with CP general secretary Rob Griffiths afterwards who said this is the first of many such events they hope to be putting on – which is good news. It was also interesting to see a meeting where the SWP were not in control or ideologically dominant, but where they felt it worth making an intervention - Sean Doherty, Nick Wrack and Pete Holborrow attended, although it was odd they introduced themselves as being from Respect rather than the SWP.

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn’t hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: “It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else.”

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps. “Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.