South London Slavery case, Maoists implicated

Is a title I didn’t think I’d be writing for a blog when I started out but a recent case has exposed a really dark side of left wing sects? Today's revelations about the so-called 'Lambeth Slavery' case have linked those arrested to the remnants of a small Maoist group that operated in Brixton in the 1970s. The central allegation seems to be that supporters of the group formed a collective that degenerated over time into an abusive scenario where several women felt themselves to be controlled and unable to leave the house of their own free will for many, many years. Two people were arrested in a Lambeth Council flat at Peckford Place, Angell Town in Brixton - with press reports identifying them as Aravindan Balakrishnan and Chanda Balakrishnan, formerly leading members of a group called the Workers' Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought. Unless and until this case comes to court and all the evidence is out there, it's probably best not to speculate too much about the details. It is pretty clear though that this would be a unique situation arising from very particular circumstances - and certainly no basis on which to generalise about slavery in modern Britain. Clearly there are disparate cases of extreme exploitation, abuse and servitude but maybe the isolated nature of such a tiny sect becoming detached from reality in more ways than one is a case for concern.http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/slavery_in_london_an_hysterical_morality_tale/14331 A really interesting piece over at Bob from Brockley http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/brixton-maoist-sex-cult-slave-shocker.html "In some ways the Maoism of the group is irrelevant: their key features are those of a cult rather than those of a Leninist party. (As Lurdan writes in the Libcom discussion thread: "Looking at their writings now they seem to exhibit all the indicators of a classic millenarian sect based on an apparently literal belief in the immanence of global revolution.") However, there are features of Leninist parties that encourage cult-like activity. Comrade Bala's group is among a very small number of Leninist parties to degenerate into pure cults (NATLFED on the US West Coast is the classic example and the LaRouche network is the most successful) but many more Leninist groups are on a cult continuum. Being at war with the "bourgeois" (or "fascist") state is an exemplary control technique for forcing members into absolute loyalty and trust of insiders and absolute break with mainstream society. But more specifically there are two features of Leninist doctrine that lead to cult-like behaviour. The first of these is the notion of the vanguard party; the second is that of democratic centralism. Both are sketched out in Lenin's what is To Be Done?, written at the turn of the last century in the context of an ultra-authoritarian police state where open, democratic political organisation was impossible. The principle of the vanguard party came from Lenin's conviction (based on the thought of his two intellectual mentors, George Plekhanov and Karl Kautsky) that the "the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness," and not able to develop true class consciousness by itself. Thus - whereas Marx argued that the working class could only be emancipated by its own hand and that "communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties because] they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat" - Lenin saw a need for a vanguard to bring class consciousness to the workers. This means, inevitably, that an enormous investment is made in the truth of the party's positions: only the party is able to pierce the veil of illusion under which the rest of us labour. And the principle of democratic centralism (fully formulated by the Bolsheviks in 1905, with an increasing emphasis on the "centralism" bit rather than the "democratic" bit only later) is that a party can come to a decision democratically but once it does it must carry it out without dissent. These principles were passed into the hands of the megalomaniac psychopaths who have flourished in the movement since Lenin's death. Both principles are used to enforce absolute obedience to the party leadership, and to stifle all criticism. Criticism, however trivial, undermines the party's claim on truth, exposing that it lacks the true consciousness the workers expect of it. It is this stifling of dissent and total identification of the party leadership with the truth that enabled Gerry Healy, the leader of the WRP (for many years the largest Trotskyism group in Britain) to abuse countless female party members, as detailed in Comrade Coatesy's "Vanessa Redgrave and the Red Sex Slaves: A Marxist Analysis": What was the character of this sexual abuse? It was later stated that the women Healy pressurised into having sexual relations with him ‘mistakenly believed that the revolution – in the form of the “greatest” leader demanded this, the most personal sacrifice of all. They were not coerced … physically, but every pressure was brought to bear on them as revolutionaries’. The situation was ‘not so much rape but … sexual abuse by someone in a position of power and trust’. It was Dave Bruce comments, ‘wholesale sexual corruption in a manner analogous to these religious sects. There’s a very close parallel’. It is what has enabled the Socialist Party (the WRP's successor as the biggest Trot group) to attempt to sweep under the carpet up all discussion of very serious sexual abuse allegations. And it is what enabled the Socialist Workers Party (until recently the SP's successor as biggest UK Trot group) to totally cover up a series of allegations about leading member (and Unite against Fascism organiser) "Comrade Delta". In the lowest moment in the SWP Delta saga, the SWP refused to subject him to "bourgeois courts" (although it hasn't stopped their activist Professor Michael Lavelette from threatening bourgeois legal action against those making accusations about his role in getting Comrade Delta an academic sinecure in, of all the most inappropriate places for someone facing a rape allegation, a social work department). The SWP's refusal of "bourgeois courts" is different in degree and not in kind from the Workers’ Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought's view of "the fascist state"; Comrade Delta's actions are different in degree and not in kind from Comrade Bala's enslavement of Rosie and other women." Alot of murky things go on on the far left and i've been witness to some. We can’t simply brush these things under the carpet or pretend these people do not exist. We must confront them and confront our own traditions and practices on the left which allow these groups and people to get into these awful positions. My thoughts are with the women now who have an incredible uphill battle to regain their lives and start again. After 30 years of forced slavery I cannot imagine how hard it will be for them to readjust back to everyday life.

The gentrification of our towns and cities

Yesterday on the ever excellent Novara FM Aaron and James discussed gentrification and how it is changing the face of the Britain we know. You can listen back to yesterdays show on Novara at http://novaramedia.com/2013/10/regeneration-gentrification-and-social-cleansing/ The definition from Wikipedia on gentrification is as follows “Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values, sometimes at the expense of the poorer residents of the community.[1] Gentrification is typically the result of investment in a community by local government, community activists, or business groups, and can often spur economic development, attract business, deter crime, and have other benefits to a community. However, despite these potential benefits, urban gentrification often, intentionally or unintentionally, is generally believed to result in population migration as poor residents of a neighborhood are displaced by wealthier newcomers, though studies have shown this not necessarily to be the case.[2] In a community undergoing gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases. Poorer, pre-gentrification residents, who are unable to pay increased rents, and property taxes, or afford real estate, may be driven out. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. New businesses, which can afford increased commercial rent, cater to a more affluent base of consumers—further increasing the appeal to higher income migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor. Often, resident owners unable to pay the taxes are forced to sell their residences and move to a cheaper community.[3][4] Political action, either to promote or oppose the gentrification, is often the community's response against unintended economic eviction.[5] However, local governments may favor gentrification because of the increased tax base associated with the new high-income residents, as well as other perceived benefits of moving poor people and rehabilitating deteriorated areas.[citation needed]” A fantastic piece carried out by The New economics Foundation who are a little hit and miss me find but often come up with some cracking investigations and works have unearthed some startling statistics in Islington and how this is going to affect people long term. “Poverty is deepening and inequality is widening in Islington. After five years of economic uncertainty, public sector cuts, and now welfare reform, lower-income residents are under more pressure than ever. The gap between the wealthiest and the rest is growing as house prices and wage polarisation squeeze middle-income families. By 2020, Islington will be a starkly polarised and unequal borough. Despite these challenges this report shows that local actors can make a difference in the face of change. It identifies key areas in which action can make a positive difference to the lives of Islington residents, now and in the long run. This report is about poverty and inequality in Islington. Through interviews with low and high earners in the borough, as well as statistical analysis of key trends, Distant neighbours explores: • how life has changed for Islington’s lower-income residents during a period of economic uncertainty, public sector cuts, and welfare reform. • what inequality looks like in Islington, how people experience it, and what the consequences are for all of us. • how current trends will continue into the future and what Islington might look like in 2020. • what can be done locally to address poverty and inequality. In contrast to its image of boutique shops, top-end restaurants, and a thriving night life, Islington has long been a borough of entrenched poverty and wide inequalities. In 2008, Cripplegate Foundation’s report Invisible Islington painted a rich picture of the lives of the borough’s lower-income residents. It showed how people were struggling with worklessness, debt, social isolation, and poor physical and mental health. Our research suggests that over the last five years poverty has deepened and inequality has widened. • Poverty is intensifying in Islington. There have always been lower-income residents living in Islington, struggling with poverty. Today, life is much harder due to five years of economic uncertainty, public sector cuts, and now welfare reform. People on low incomes feel insecure. They feel they have no control over their lives. They fear destitution. Social isolation and mental ill health are worsening. Child poverty is particularly high, and likely to grow. Finding work is not always the answer to poverty in Islington. Our research shows that the London Living Wage (LLW) is not enough for the majority of household types in Islington. • Middle-income families have been squeezed out of Islington. Islington is fast becoming a place where middle-income families can no longer afford to live. The middle market in homes is disappearing as house prices soar. Wages are also stagnating, especially for middle- and lower-income earners. This means that middle-income families have been squeezed out of the borough and only certain groups on middle incomes – single people and couples without children living in flat shares – will be able to stay. • By 2020, only the wealthiest will be able to afford to live in Islington. We predict that by 2020 a family will need to earn more than £90,000 a year to afford market rents in Islington. House buying will be out of reach for almost all but the very top earners. This will leave Islington polarised, with very wealthy families at the top, a youthful, transient and childless sector in the middle, and those on low incomes at the bottom, living in social housing. The social consequences of living in an economically polarised borough which are revealed by the research – residents leading separate lives, lack of understanding between groups, and social alienation – are likely to grow. The issues raised in this report are both wide ranging and complex. However, action to address poverty and inequality in Islington is possible. Cripplegate Foundation, keen to learn about residents’ experiences of poverty and inequality and thus inform its future work, commissioned this report. Based on our findings we identify three broad areas for action. These range from opportunities for immediate local action, to longer-term preventative measures, to advocating for wider change beyond the borough. • Make a difference today. The most direct and immediate way in which organisations such as Cripplegate Foundation can address the issues raised in this report is through local action. Building on the success of the initiatives developed after Invisible Islington, Cripplegate Foundation could make a difference today by investing in mental health and well-being initiatives, supporting initiatives to reduce social isolation the borough, enabling lower income families to access alternative forms of credit, and supporting young people to develop their capabilities. • Invest upstream to prevent poverty and inequality. Cripplegate Foundation could play a role in ensuring that valuable preventative work continues in Islington. This could best be achieved by partnering more closely with universal service providers, such as General Practitioners (GPs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), and by working more collaboratively with local residents. • Advocate for change beyond Islington. Cripplegate Foundation can use its position as a respected local foundation to advocate for change within and beyond the borough. This could be approached on an issue-by-issue basis, including: affordable and decent quality housing; secure and well-paid jobs and apprenticeships; and access to credit, building on the successful work of the Islington Debt Coalition.” http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/distant-neighbours Clearly I am going to agree with James and Aaron from Novara FM who suggest communism being the route out of this mess but in the right here and now we need resistance to all this. Big parts of London for example are coming no go zones for the working class. A lot of people are moving south from the north in London and further east too the old docklands areas are now full of high rise posh flats and offices where before it was good solid working class communities. We can see the changing face of London under our very eyes we must organise to stop this happening in any way we can. There are a lot of difficulties in organising any sort of resistance to this but to spread solidarity and draw people into the struggles must be a start for me. The answer oh just build more homes isn’t necessarily helpful here as there is good housing all be it in need of upgrading here but poorer communities are not being allowed to stay and are having to be forced out. A culture of resistance in communities is clearly needed to combat this kind of attack. This is not going to go away and whilst capitalism is here and the transient inter capitalist class who are always on the move exist we will always have this issue.