The character of the labour party and its contradictions

Whilst I was a member of the socialist party I was taught to hate the labour party and that I still do till this day. I was a member of the labour party for at time yet fell out of love with them very quickly indeed in my naive days of not knowing much on politics they seemed the best place to defeat the Tories and indeed they still may be if you solely rely on electoral politics and simply beating the other side. But I have now left the labour party and spent some time in the socialist party formally the militant tendency who were hammered by the Labour party leadership again and again until the main editorial board of the militant paper were expelled. I joined the socialist party hoping for a good analysis of the party I’d just left and on the whole I agreed with a lot of it at first holding a dismissive attitude towards the Labour party . But was the socialist party’s analysis of the labour party correct?? The one they still stand by today which leads them to set up such sectarian projects like the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition due to the fact they have written off the labour party and now consider it a fully capitalist party. But to my mind the Labour party has never been a fully socialist party even the late Tony Benn could recognise this. For militant the predecessor of the socialist party the labour party was always described as a capitalist workers party and indeed I do still think this is the case despite everything. It is very evident to me looking back at Militants history and how it became militant labour and now the socialist party it seems to me from someone now on the outside that Militant and its leadership almost overnight decided the labour party was no longer a mass body of the working class as soon as its main figures were expelled. Almost like a bad ex lover it set upon hating its ex party and throwing all sorts of accusations its way despite following in its old tradition itself. Indeed every time the labour party do not come out and support strikes you will see no end of socialist party and TUSC representatives mostly with the twitter follower ship of Dave Enlist condemning the labour party for not backing strikes. Yet history will show us that the labour party or should I say the leadership of the party are not known for backing strikes and indeed in the biggest strike in British history the famous general strike of 1926 which the likes of the Socialist party heap such inspiration on did not back this strike eithr. Indeed you can look all through history did the labour party which still at the time contained the likes of the Militant back the miners strikes in the 1980’s ?? No they did not and there was not the scorn poured on labour at the time like today. The fact is despite labours awfulness and don’t get me wrong I am not fan of the labour party what so ever and would not think of rejoining at all the analysis of this party is crucial for understanding where we are and where we need to go as a class. The labour party has always had a capitalist leadership and a working class base all be it today it has been hollowed out and its democratic structures eroded. Don’t get me wrong I get all that and is no longer place for mass workers struggle but thinking back to a time when the labour party was ever worth struggle is a fantasy dreamt up by various trotskyists who like to cover being in the labour party by looking to recruit. The union link is key for many if that link ever goes that will be the end but until it is closed off for good which I highly doubt as it keeps up the idea that labour can still be for workers even if it wont ever be now still is a distraction for workers looking to reclaim labour. I don’t believe the labour party to be able to be reclaimed as simply due to the fact it was never ours to reclaim. It’s always been a huge contradiction and to win we must look past the labour party itself for change in my opinion. Lets not beat around the bush Trotsky always said for his followers to join mass organisations of the working class to spread their ideas and gain influence and this was all the militant wherein the labour party for. Any pretence to say they supported the labour party are nonsense they clearly only were a part of it for their own ends as was most Trotskyites who ever join such mass organisations they are in it for themselves over the working class itself and their own eventual goals. They may sell you bullshit but the truth is always out there to find. The labour party will be a feature in the coming period as like it or not it is still about and needs to be dealt with as a organisation whether you see it as a vehicle for change or not it cant be wished away.

Can men be feminists?

I'll try and cover this best I can given I’m a white male. Personally I don’t think men can be truly feminist but they can certainly have solidarity with women and do much to help the fight for gender equality. Many feminists welcome men's championship of the cause, but there's much debate over their entitlement to call themselves feminists Any movement for social justice would be doing itself no favors if it deliberately excluded its own supporters from the ranks, but while many feminists welcome men's championship of the cause, there's still a great deal of debate over their entitlement to call themselves feminists. The argument rages even amongst pro-feminist men, with some arguing that gender should be no barrier to full and active participation, and others arguing that as feminism is rooted in the women's liberation movement, a movement founded by women for the advancement of women, men have no right to lay claim to the tag. Brian Klocke of the National Organisation for Men against Sexism has argued: "Although I believe that men can be pro-feminist and anti-sexist, I do not believe we can be feminists in the strictest sense of the word in today's society. Men, in this patriarchal system, cannot remove themselves from their power and privilege in relation to women. To be a feminist one must be a member of the targeted group (ie a woman) not only as a matter of classification but as having one's directly-lived experience inform one's theory and praxis." Women feminists have also voiced misgivings about men's involvement in the movement. Some men, they argue, automatically assume a dominant role when they become activists, claiming to be better feminists than feminist women, and failing to recognise and challenge their own sexist behaviour. These so-called fellow travellers merely reinforce the tired gender stereotyping that feminism seeks to subvert, and by their domineering behaviour, they silence women's voices and perpetuate existing male power and oppression. They jockey for control and appoint themselves as spokespeople, in a diverse non-hierarchical movement that neither needs nor seeks figureheads or leaders. Men have to realise their position in society and that however much solidarity they portray they must always be aware of the historic role of men and that breaking down these boundaries is key to moving forward . For example you can't call yourself a feminist and then go home and beat your Partner; you can't call yourself a feminist and in the next breath deny your Daughter the right to decide her own future; you can't call yourself a feminist While at the same time you're patting women on the head and telling them how to Think. But treat women as equals and they may reciprocate. There's still a long way to Go, but we'll get there much faster together. Feminist issues is something I follow as I support gender equality in society and feel we are still a long way from that goal. There are lots of militant women in the workplace and allot of new feminist campaigns sprouting up all the time the coming years will be interesting to follow and as always women fighting back against the system have my full and humble solidarity. As in most matters, I think one is defined in life by what one does, how one lives, not what we claim to be. Labels mean little. Actions speak loudly.

What is Privillage theory and how can it help us understand the world around us

Privillage theory is something i've been looking into a bit of late and thought i'd jot down a few thoughts here on its meaning and how it can help us understand things going on around us. "What do we mean – and what do we not mean – by privilege? Privilege implies that wherever there is a system of oppression (such as capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, heteronormativity) there is an oppressed group and also a privileged group, who benefit from the oppressions that this system puts in place The privileged group do not have to be active supporters of the system of oppression, or even aware of it, in order to benefit from it. They benefit from being viewed as the norm, and providing for their needs being seen as what is naturally done, while the oppressed group is considered the “other”, and their needs are “special considerations”. Sometimes the privileged group benefits from the system in obvious, material ways, such as when women are expected to do most or all of the housework, and male partners benefit from their unpaid labour. At other times the benefits are more subtle and invisible, and involve certain pressures being taken off a privileged group and focused on others, for example black and Asian youths being 28% more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white youths The point here is not that police harassment doesn’t happen to white youths, or that being working class or a white European immigrant doesn’t also mean you’re more likely to face harassment; the point is that a disproportionate number of black and Asian people are targeted in comparison to white people, and the result of this is that, if you are carrying drugs, and you are white, then all other things being equal you are much more likely to get away with it than if you were black. In the UK, white people are also less likely to be arrested or jailed, or to be the victim of a personal crime Black people currently face even greater unemployment in the UK than they do in the USA4. The point of quoting this is not to suggest we want a society in which people of all races and ethnicities face equal disadvantage – we want to create a society in which nobody faces these disadvantages. But part of getting there is acknowledging how systems of oppression work, which means recognising that, if black and ethnic minority groups are more likely to face these disadvantages, then by simple maths white people are less likely to face them, and that means they have an advantage, a privilege, including the privilege of not needing to be aware of the extent of the problem. A privileged group may also, in some ways, be oppressed by the expectations of the system that privileges them, for example men under patriarchy are expected to not show weakness or emotion, and are mistrusted as carers. However, men are not oppressed by patriarchy for being men, they are oppressed in these ways because it is necessary in order to maintain women’s oppression. For women to see themselves as weak, irrational and suited only to caring roles, they must believe that men are stronger, less emotional and incapable of caring for those who need it; for these reasons, men showing weakness, emotion and a capacity for caring labour are punished by patriarchy for letting the side down and giving women the opportunity to challenge their oppression. It makes sense that where there is an oppressed group, there is a privileged group, because systems of oppression wouldn’t last long if nobody benefited from them. It is crucial to understand that members of the privileged group of any of these systems may also be oppressed by any of the others, and this is what allows struggles to be divided and revolutionary activity crushed. We are divided, socially and politically, by a lack of awareness of our privileges, and how they are used to set our interests against each other and break our solidarity. The term “privilege” has a complex relationship with class struggle, and to understand why, we need to look at some of the differences and confusions between economic and social class. Social class describes the cultural identities of working class, middle class and upper class. These identities, much like those built on gender or race, are socially constructed, created by a society based on its prejudices and expectations of people in those categories. Economic class is different. It describes the economic working and ruling classes, as defined by Marx. It functions through capitalism, and is based on the ownership of material resources, regardless of your personal identity or social status. This is why a wealthy, knighted capitalist like Alan Sugar can describe himself as a “working class boy made good”. He is clearly not working class if we look at it economically, but he clings to that social identity in the belief that it in some way justifies or excuses the exploitation within his business empire. He confuses social and economic class in order to identify himself with an oppressed group (the social working class) and so deny his own significant privilege (as part of the economic ruling class). Being part of the ruling class of capitalism makes it impossible to support struggles against that system. This is because, unlike any other privileged group, the ruling class are directly responsible for the very exploitation they would be claiming to oppose. This doesn't make economic class a "primary" oppression, or the others "secondary", but it does mean that resistance in economic class struggle takes different forms and has slightly different aims to struggles based on cultural identities. For example, we aim to end capitalism through a revolution in which the working class seize the means of production from the ruling class, and create an communist society in which there is no ruling class. For the other struggles mentioned, this doesn't quite work the same way - we can't force men to give up their maleness, or white people to give up their whiteness, or send them all to the guillotine and reclaim their power and privilege as if it were a resource that they were hoarding. Instead we need to take apart and understand the systems that tend to concentrate power and resources in the hands of the culturally privileged and question the very concepts of gender, sexuality, race etc. that are used to build the identities that divide us. A large part of the resentment of the term "privilege" within class struggle movements comes from trying to make a direct comparison with ruling class privilege, when this doesn't quite work. Somebody born into a family who owns a chain of supermarkets or factories can, when they inherit their fortune, forgo it. They can collectivise their empire and give it to the workers, go and work in it themselves for the same share of the profits as everybody else. Capitalists can, if they choose, give up their privilege. This makes it OK for us to think of them as bad people if they don't, and justified in taking it from them by force in a revolutionary situation. Men, white people, straight people, cisgendered people etc., can't give up their privilege - no matter how much they may want to. It is forced on them by a system they cannot opt out of, or choose to stop benefiting from. This comparison with ruling class privilege makes many feel as if they're being accused of hoarding something they're not entitled to, and that they're being blamed for this, or asked to feel guilty or undergo some kind of endless penance to be given absolution for their privilege. This is not the case. Guilt isn't useful; awareness and thoughtful action are. If you take nothing else away from this document, take this: You are not responsible for the system that gives you your privilege, only for how you respond to it. The privileged (apart from the ruling class) have a vital role to play in the struggle against the systems that privilege them - it's just not a leadership role. Answering objections to privilege So if they didn’t choose it and there’s nothing they can do about it, why describe people as “Privileged”? Isn’t it enough to talk about racism, sexism, homophobia etc. without having to call white, male and straight people something that offends them? If it’s just the terminology you object to, be aware that radical black activists, feminists, queer activists and disabled activists widely use the term privilege. Oppressed groups need to lead the struggles to end their oppressions, and that means these oppressed groups get to define the struggle and the terms we use to talk about it. It is, on one level, simply not up to class struggle groups made up of a majority of white males to tell people of colour and women what words are useful in the struggles against white supremacy and patriarchy. If you dislike the term but agree with the concept, then it would show practical solidarity to leave your personal discomfort out of the argument, accept that the terminology has been chosen, and start using the same term as those at the forefront of these struggles. Another common objection to the concept of privilege is that it makes a cultural status out of the lack of an oppression. You could say that not facing systematic prejudice for your skin colour isn’t a privilege, it’s how things should be for everyone. To face racism is the aberration. To not face it should be the default experience. The problem is, if not experiencing oppression is the default experience, then experiencing the oppression puts you outside the default experience, in a special category, which in turn makes a lot of the oppression invisible. To talk about privilege reveals what is normal to those without the oppression, yet cannot be taken for granted by those with it. To talk about homophobia alone may reveal the existence of prejudices – stereotypes about how gay men and lesbian women behave, perhaps, or violence targeted against people for their sexuality. It’s unusual to find an anarchist who won’t condemn these things. To talk about straight privilege, however, shows the other side of the system, the invisible side: what behaviour is considered “typical” for straight people? There isn’t one – straight isn’t treated like a sexual category, it is treated like the absence of “gay”. You don’t have to worry about whether you come across as “too straight” when you’re going to a job interview, or whether your straight friends will think you’re denying your straightness if you don’t dress or talk straight enough, or whether your gay friends will be uncomfortable if you take them to a straight club, or if they’ll embarrass you by saying something ignorant about getting hit on by somebody of the opposite sex. This analysis goes beyond worries about discrimination or prejudice to the very heart of what we consider normal and neutral, what we consider different and other, what needs explaining, what’s taken as read – the prejudices in favour of being straight aren’t recognisable as prejudices, because they’re built into our very perceptions of what is the default way to be. It’s useful to see this, because when we look at oppressions in isolation, we tend to attribute them to personal or societal prejudice, a homophobic law that can be repealed, a racial discrimination that can be legislated against. Alone, terms like “racism”, “sexism”, “ablism” don’t describe how oppression is woven into the fabric of a society and a normal part of life rather than an easily isolated stain on society that can be removed without trace, leaving the fabric intact. Privilege theory is systematic. It explains why removing prejudice and discrimination isn’t enough to remove oppression. It shows how society itself needs to be ordered differently. When people talk about being “colour-blind” in relation to race, they think it means they’re not racist, but it usually means that they think they can safely ignore differences of background and life experience due to race, and expect that the priorities and world views of everybody should be the same as those of white people, which they consider to be “normal”. It means they think they don’t have to listen to people who are trying to explain why a situation is different for them. They want difference to go away, so that everybody can be equal, yet by trying to ignore difference they are reinforcing it. Recognising privilege means recognising that differences of experience exist which we may not be aware of. It means being willing to listen when people tell us about how their experience differs from ours. It means trying to conceive of a new “normal” that we can bring about through a differently structured society, instead of erasing experiences that don’t fit into our privileged concept of “normal”. It should be remembered that privilege theory is not a movement in itself but an analysis used by a diverse range of movements, liberal and radical, reformist and revolutionary. By the same token, the rhetoric of solidarity and class unity is used by leftists to gain power for themselves, even as we use those same concepts to fight the power structures they use. The fact that some people will use the idea of privilege to promote themselves as community leaders and reformist electoral candidates doesn't mean that that's the core reasoning or inevitable outcome of privilege theory. For us, as class struggle revolutionaries , the identities imposed on us by kyriarchy and the politics that go with them are about uniting in struggle against all oppression, not entrenching social constructs, congratulating ourselves on how aware we are, claiming special rights according to our background or biology, and certainly not creating ranked hierarchies of the most oppressed to put forward for tokenistic positions of power. We have to challenge ourselves to look out for campaigns that, due to the privilege of those who initiate them, lack awareness of how an issue differs across intersections. We need to broaden out our own campaigns to include the perspectives of all those affected by the issues we cover. This will allow us to bring more issues together, gather greater solidarity, fight more oppressions and build a movement that can challenge the whole of kyriarchy, which is the only way to ever defeat any part of it, including capitalism." With thanks to the A fed Womens Caucus over at http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/state/327-a-class-struggle-anarchist-analysis-of-privilege-theory--from-the-womens-caucus-.html

The potential for the IWW and revolutionary unionism

During this time of massive upheaval I do believe there is a time of reassessment all that has gone before has not worked up till now and new ideas and tactics are to be re looked at and rightly so. For one I think revolutionary unionism as a movement may make a comeback of sorts. The idea that people will continue to look towards the bureaucratic and hierarchical trade unions of today such as the TUC in the United Kingdom will always be the case is somewhat missing the point. Workers will not stick blindly and loyally by a system of organising that is not producing any progress or results. While the IWW is a small movement and is a long way from making a big comeback I do feel however the conditions for horizontalism and non bureaucratic unionism is possible as we stand today. Where many political parties from the mainstream to the non mainstream including left sects on the fringes are becoming more and more discredited why cant revolutionary unions make a comeback and start to influence the workers movement? It is entirely possible and entirely necessary in my opinion. To organise away from the huge bloated bureaucracy of traditional unions of the TUC is sometimes desirable but also quite necessary. The example I give is the IWGB who at the university of London have organised away from Unison the recognised union there at the workplace but have don little to nothing and often become a obstruction on struggle for the workers involved who have been out sourced to a private company who are not recognising the new union there and their demands still till this day. However big strides have been made in their struggles a and I do firmly believe they will win and win well and shine a light to other workers in similar positions across the land. Each step the class struggle takes forward owes itself to the step taken before it. As Rosa Luxemburg related waves of struggle in revolutionary Russia in her essay The Mass Strike, each wave recedes but leaves “sediment” behind for the next wave to rise from. As it is for Wobblies. The last few years of struggle have washed to shore a great deal of sediment packed full of invaluable "nuggets" of organizing wisdom. Revolutionary organizers would do well to mine these nuggets out, analyze their content, and synthesize the best of it. They can compare these nuggets from different waves of struggle and single out some similarities which they can apply to practice. They test them, share them with other organizers, synthesize what they learn, and develop a distinct, transmutable organizing approach - or method - over time. We believe that we are beginning to establish this method now. The IWW has in recent years made a long-overdue return to the stage of history. Since the 1950s, we Wobblies barely plodded along - almost for the sake of just existing - but gradually got back on our own feet as an organization that organized. Small skirmishes with employers - and some victories - occurred here and there over the last decades of the 20th century. Wobblies made short-lived but impressive advances in the courier industry and among restaurant workers; put the IWW on the map for non-members when they organized low-wage baristas into the Starbucks Workers Union; developed an organizer training program to share past organizing lessons and improve organizers’ skillsets, and engaged in much other significant activity. The generation of Wobblies who established these developments broke new ground on a long-dormant tradition of revolutionary union organizing. Alongside an uptick in membership and activity in the late 1990s and early 2000s came the prominence of "Solidarity Unionism,”5 a grassroots organizing approach which put workers themselves in charge of their own struggle for justice in the workplace. A relative flurry of activity and a wave of new members accompanied this significant new development. Naturally, this activity waxed and waned, but the IWW and its practice of solidarity unionism established itself in the contemporary labor movement (even if it’s still on the margins). Much has happened in and around the IWW in the last several years. New high-profile organizing drives have taken off, some won, and some failed (though we challenge rigid discernments between victory and failure). The Starbucks campaign, for example, inspired new organizers to establish similar unions in several low-wage workplaces that most other unions ignored. Where Wobblies worked in unionized workplaces, they organized among the rank-and-file along IWW principles, winning gains through direct action that their “official” union could not or would not pursue. On the national scale in the US, IWWs played visible roles in both the Wisconsin Uprising and the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country and brought an unprecedented many thousands of everyday working people onto the streets and into political life. Through all this, the IWW has learned much, and organizers have improved their skills a great deal. The IWW is not what it used to be. The organization has gone through stages of historical evolution, and in order to understand the current situation it’s necessary to be aware of its place in this history. The early IWW of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Vincent St. John, Ben Fletcher and so on, from which Wobblies draw so much pride and tradition, no longer exists. It is a memory - one that is essential to hold on to because of its importance to the history and culture of the working class, but as an organization it is no more. Decades of ruling class repression, containment of working class rebellion through state (legal) channels, capitalist advancements in managerial control and internal IWW conflict--subjects critical to an understanding of how the IWW got here, but which are beyond the scope of this piece--drove the IWW to a point in the 1980s where it could claim few members, little activity, and almost no power in the working-class. Though the union still held on to relics of the original IWW in the form of Joe Hill's ashes and membership records, and on paper the organization was technically the same one that was founded in 1905, its content had drastically changed. What was once a powerful, revolutionary force for organized class struggle, stretching across the continent with influence throughout the world, had long since faded to a withered husk - an organization better characterized as a labor history club than a revolutionary union. Let's stop to note that this observation is not meant as an attack on anyone who was a member during the 80s, or an attempt to say that everything after World War I isn't the “real” IWW. It is just as real of an organization, but a different organization, which changed over time due to a multitude of historical factors, not least of which being the relative strength and consciousness of the American working-class, which had reached a similarly low point in the 1980s. Individuals who were members of the organization had ultimately very little capacity to do much within those limits, and can't be held responsible for what was the product of historical dynamics far out of their control. But it's important to recognize that the IWW had reached a demise. Though not a final demise, since it was brought back from the brink and into a new stage of development in the 1990s. Rising class-consciousness and growing interest in “radical” politics attracted more members to the IWW starting in the 1960s, with membership spiking in the mid to late 90s. The spike in the late 90s was largely activists - some of them politicized workers - immersed in the anti-globalization and anti-war protest movements. But while the organization’s membership scale increased, its content was still fundamentally different from the content of the union that led the Bread and Roses strike8. Those traditions of struggle had been broken and the union was forced to re-establish itself in a barren terrain. The 90s IWW largely functioned as a history club of greater size, but took on another dimension that sharply diverged from the union's organizing roots; increasingly (but not exclusively) the IWW became an activist organization. Here we use the term “activism” critically, in our examination of a kind of activity that is not rooted in class struggle, but instead devoted to expressing moral outrage at the capitalist system's superstructural contradictions. At its most basic, a union is “an organization of workers formed to protect the [...] interests of its members”11 over time. Where an instance of self-activity could dissipate or pass, unionism is the practice of consolidating workers into an organization that acts to protect their interests on an ongoing basis. In recent decades, this has often meant that union representatives do the “protecting” in the form of negotiating with management on the workers’ behalf, thus “unions developed a life independent of their membership and began to operate over their heads”. Solidarity Federation calls this tendency the representative function of unions as we know them now, in contrast to the (once more prevalent) associational function of workers relating directly to each other without the mediation of an entrenched bureaucracy12. This distinction is useful as it demonstrates that unions can have diverging trajectories, leading to them playing very different roles in society. While many ultra-Left positions13 take the representational function of unions for granted, understandably portraying them as backwards institutions who have a stake in maintaining capitalism, clearly there have also been many workers’ organizations throughout the history of capitalism that have retained their associational function and represented a genuine threat to capital. Whether we call it a council, a union, or anything else doesn’t change the fact that it is possible to create and maintain “an organization of workers formed to protect the [...] interests of its members” - and that such a formation can retain its autonomy from the State and its allied institutions, can win improved conditions for workers under capitalism, and, further, can facilitate the development of a revolutionary politics amongst the workers. The fact that such formations must come up against limitations under this system does not render them irrelevant, ineffective, or “infantile”. Clearly, we believe self-organization is the cornerstone of unionism, and it is the premise upon which we base our argument for Wobblyism. We draw on a rich tradition of working class self-organization in the US, from the Knights of Labor14 Its true that the IWW is small and largely unheard of in the UK but I do believe its method of organising and the idea of revolutionary unions is something all revolutionaries should revisit and take a moment to think can this be of any use to our struggle or for us wishing to change society as I believe it can be if taken seriously. I’d encourage all to read up more on this via this excellent new document put out at http://libcom.org/library/wobblyism-revolutionary-unionism-today

What is holding the working class back?

Is an interesting question in many ways? I do not subscribe to the theory that it is simply due to those pesky trade union leaders putting a block on all out class warfare and if only we had better leaders all would be fine. This is frankly delusional and a position a lot of the Trotskyist groups hold tat there is a mass militancy just waiting and bubbling under the surface waiting to get out. This is just not the case. For the most part the working class’s are scared today, scared of what the future holds. While many have seen their fellow workers jobs go and they now fear for their own many are keeping their head down in fear of loosing their join job. I think this can be one of the major reasons for a lack of activity from workers in struggle. A factor of fear that if we do take strike action we will just be crushed and this can also be put down to a lack of confidence in their leaders who will more often than not try and sell them out. The TUC and the union structures in particular have done their job almost too well from a ruling class point of view they have policed workers and put breaks on movements that may develop. I’m not saying that any other leadership would be any better it is the structures that link the unions into the capitalist system and play a certain role for capital. For sure the leaders of the unions have been a block on action but I don’t think we can put the lack of action and the lowest amount of days lost to strike action solely down to that I think that is far too simplistic if we’re honest. I do think we have to start looking at different and new ways of organising. If the union structures re not offering way forward for workers we should look at other ways of going over the heads of the unions and their leaders or looking at new ways of organising such as pop up unions which was tried down at the Sussex University occupation. Workplace and non workplace networks should be taken up in my view building links in the community and beyond. We do have to remind ourselves of the important victories the workers have won in the past to build confidence among other workers to spread the idea we can win and by struggling we can get somewhere and it isn’t a dead end strategy as some like to make out. Take the sparks dispute from a few years back workers were only victorious in the end due to independent workers action from below forcing the union leadership to recognise a struggle was taking place and eventually backed the strikes and actions. This was all orchestrated from below and militant workers action not from the tops of the unions. I do think further struggles in the future will be forced from below with workers finding new ways of organising and trying new things that they may not have tried before just to fight back. There is no grantee on winning any battle but if you don’t fight you have no chance of winning. The working class of today is a very different beast to the past as is the labour movement we have to recognise this before we can move forward in any meaningful manner.

Rebuilding the trade unions

When you mention trade unions to Joe public you’re either met with abuse or complete bemusement. Far fewer people are part of a union these days and we have to ask why. Of course the deindustrialisation played its part with far less manual labour jobs being about the highest density of union membership is in the public sector where you’re in the minority if you’re not in a union. It’s interesting to find out why this is. I think a lot of peoples jobs now are not seen as jobs for life and quite often you’re in and out of a job so joining a union even if you knew about what union is for you may not join simply as you don’t have the time or the funds to do so. I think unions must change and look to reach out to these workers. But as socialists I do think we could be doing more too. Instead of calling for 24 hour general strikes which may be the right thing at some point but doesn’t look likely anytime soon with the current leadership of our unions. I’d suggest focusing on rebuilding the trade union movement from the bottom up. For example we could be on the work gates at the start and end of the working day looking to recruit to the union explaining the benefits and that we are stronger together. This will not only boost the union membership but will also show we ourselves are serious about rebuilding the unions too. If we are actively getting involved in recruiting instead of raising slogans like a 24 hour general strike when some workers are not even involved in a union it’s difficult to link the two together. It’s quite a jump for some workers new to the movement. Not that many don’t want to fight back but we must be patient with some who may be coming into unions for the first time. I don’t see why we cannot have a due pronged attack with a rank and file level trying to raise the agitating and propaganda at a bottom up level and also having that appeal putting demands on the union leadership to struggle to improve things for the members. A 24 hour general strike with further action is totally necessary but the more I hear the slogan I do wonder if it’s being pitched in the right way. Are we explaining what we men when we say it? I think many are scared off by the slogan in some ways as they automatically think of a all out general strike which the last one in 1926 led to a huge defeat so workers are naturally wary of such terms. I think we must be explicit in explaining what we mean and what generalising all the fight backs would mean for the struggle we face. I do think we need a new rank and file movement the NSSN which we participate within is good but is not a proper rank and file body. It does support rank and file workers don’t get me wrong but it doesn’t at this point have representation in all unions with a commanding influence as yet. Workers do not see the NSSN as a genuie rank and file movement as yet maybe they will but certainly it’s a factor in the movement but not yet a decisive one. So far its been used by the socialist party and other leading union officials to put pressuer on the TUC. This can be one role of a organisation like the NSSN but it could also be building ral links in the bodies of theseunions generalising struggle linking disputes together and lending solidarity. In this day and age of workers being divided it must be for bodies like the NSSN to draw workers closer together from different sectors and try to destroy barriers tat are put up to divide us and look for common struggles to link workers together. Solidarity is key here too. Of course having a union which fights for you is member lead and does what it’s supposed to will have better success in recruiting to its union but even not so good unions can still recruit. Even during a time when most unions have abandoned the idea of struggle and some have even a no strike agreement with the labour party to save them any embarrassment before the next general election some unions have still seen a growth in membership. I know Unison has had a recruitment drive with television adverts and a big push in the media too which has given them a boost. Every so often this is necessary even for a right wing lead union like unison as the bureaucracy at the top fears a declining membership for its own selfish reasons as the members pay their highly inflated salaries so a falling membership is in their interests even if just to cement their own comfy positions at the top. There is positive news though out last week. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS] says union membership in the private sector increased by 63,000 in 2012 to 2.6m, after falling sharply – by 450,000 – between 2007 and 2010. The proportion of female employees who were in a trade union was around 29% in 2012, compared with 23% for male employees. This marks a significant gender shift. In 1995, 35% of male workers were union members and 30% of female workers were in a trade union. The annual BIS report says in total around 6.5m people were trade union members in 2012, which is up by 59,000 from 2011. According to the report, the proportion of employees who were trade union members was highest among Black or Black British ethnic groups at 28% in 2012, compared with 26% for all employees. Officials say the rise in trade union membership follows four consecutive annual falls in membership of more than 100,000 following a period of broad stability between 1995 and 2007. The report also notes that the economic downturn has had an uneven effect on membership. The BIS says union membership levels have kept pace with an overall increase in the numbers of UK employees between 2011 and 2012, because the number of private sector employees who were members increased faster than the numbers who were non-members. Union members continue to enjoy a wage “premium”, according to the BIS. Of every £10,000 earned by a non-union member in the public sector, on average a union member earned around £1,690 more in 2012 and an additional £430 in the private sector. In the public sector, union membership levels were broadly stable in 2012, after falling sharply by 186,000 in 2011. A long-term decline in private sector membership had been blamed on the loss of jobs and union members in the UK manufacturing industry, where membership is now around one third of the level in the mid 1990s. In addition, around 0.5m members have gone from the construction, finance, transportation and storage industries. Historically, large proportions of workers in these sectors had been union members. The report also notes that the average age of union members is rising. About 36% of trade union member employees were aged over 50 in 2012, compared with 22% in 1995. People working in professional occupations were more likely to be trade union members last year than employees in other occupations. The BIS says employees in the professional occupations account for 49% of all union members, although only for 20% of all employees in the UK worked in this sector. With reference to union news Uk and the office for national statistics

Some initial thoughts on left unity

Over the last month or so groups have been popping up on the back of Ken Loach’s film the “spirit of 45” getting all nostalgic over the labour government of 1945 and trying to recreate this as if 1945 is 2013. Left unity a new political party/formation whatever you want to call it has been dropped from the sky. Trying to create an alternative to the labour party. Already 80 odd groups have been set up from the top down local organisers have been appointed by who I don’t know as no meetings have taken place yet as such. Democracy seems to be a odd concept when you have no members, no organisational structures yet local and regional organisers are being appointed from up on high. You could say this alternative electoral project is already happening with TUSC standing widely and having been backed by a major trade union already in the RMT and bob crow among others. Will left unity crash and burn like other previous left party projects? In fact, doesn’t TUSC already occupy the territory that Left Unity wish to operate within? My initial cynicism was exacerbated by the announcement of the countless local groups that popped up almost overnight. All of which had ready-made, centrally appointed organiser’s parachuted in – before any local meetings or discussion had taken place. Left Unity has been created following an appeal by the film director, Ken Loach, to build an alternative to the Labour Party. His recent film ‘the Spirit of 45’ apparently – “Gives us a perspective on the achievements of the post-war generation, transforming the lives of ordinary people by bringing improved health, housing, education and social security to the people of Britain”. What Ken Loach, Left Unity, and the many people who report being “brought to tears” after watching his film (phoney emotion if I have ever heard it), fail to mention is the true spirit of 45…… Comparisons of the 1945 economic circumstances to the current ‘deficit’ are disingenuous at best. Whilst Labour and their apologists may ‘wax lyrical’ about the 1945 government, about Clem Atlee, the NHS, the welfare state, the house building programme – and then question why the Conservatives cannot achieve the same in similar economic circumstances – they do not mention how in 1945 the UK had access to several cash cows, ripe for milking. At the time Britain was making the most of its colonial powers taking as much commodities and resources from the iconologies as they possibly could. In the years of that first Atlee government over 60% of all exports from the UK to the US were commodities such as rubber and tin, stolen from the colonies. There is no mention in the film of how the UK was able to hugely augment its GDP in the post-war period, by subjecting the working class of the colonies to horrific oppression, and stealing of their produce. There is no mention in the film, of the Atlee sanctioned concentration camps in Malaya, used to house disruptive trade unionists that had the audacity to complain about the UK stealing all of the rubber they produced, which was then sold at a 1500% mark up in the international market? Is there any mention of how Atlee’s government sanctioned the massacre of striking workers on a plantation in Malaya, so that the flow of money into the UK did not slow down? Another key feature of the true Spirit of 45 that is omitted is how on at least 18 occasions Clem Atlee sanctioned the use of troops to attack workers in order to break their strikes. Such the friend of the working class I see. It is difficult to see what the left unity project can do it seems like a bit of nostalgia for a by gone e era of social democracy capitalism with a human face in affect. This today is simply utopian given the scale of the global economic crisis. There is no nation or industry which could drag capitalism out of the mud on this occasion and sewing illusions in a better form of capitalism does nothing for workers facing austerity right this very moment. A new workers party is needed of course but not sent from high above and with centrally controlled top down non democratic movements. New parties and formations will be thrown up during the class struggle they will be put to the test against the situation and thrown on to the rocks if not the strategy for taking the class forward. I fear that left unity may be another one of these from the early signs.

TUC- the Useless congress

This week the NSSN lobbied the TUC general council and again made the appeal for a 24 hour general strike which would be the start of rolling action not simply that and nothing else which is what some ultra left’s think we are calling for. It would only be a start. But given that at the most the TUC would call a one day of controlled militancy with a very top down approach are our attempts to lobby this bureaucratic body really having an affect? No doubt more know about the ideas of a 24 hour general strike now it is still largely misunderstood I think and many rank-and-file union members are still unaware of the in’sand out’s of what it would actually mean. I still don’t feel we have explained what it would mean very well despite a number of comrades best efforts. We are simply to small to gain that amount of influence within work places. We do some excellent work but I do think we are missing a trick by only appealing to union tops and most of which are right wing union leaders very few are left union leaders those that are do a good job but are still wedded to the bureaucracy despite their best rhetoric. The simple truth is that the TUC is there deliberately as a block on workers taking action I can see this very clearly so I can fully understand comrades frustration when lobbying some very well to do union leaders. In my view it should be the rank-and-file we should be looking to win over to build and support action from below to go beyond the structures of the TUC if need be. Only by forcing action will union leaders take note if you’re simply appealing for them to lift their tiny finger a slight bit it may happen but asking them to take subsequent follow up action would be even harder. Their answer will be we’ve gone out on strike once and we did not win so we can’t win. Much like on November the 30th many union tops will say we went on strike and the government didn’t back down. Well no they didn’t as many of you sold out and thought it was more about damage limitation than actually trying to win. The old saying if you don’t fight you can’t win but if you do fight at least you got a chance to win is very apt today. I don’t think we should have one strategy of simply lobbying the TUC every few months its clear its not having much affect at all despite my part the socialist party thinking it is I see very little evidence for this. I do think we have the tendency to talk up a situation being better than it is sometimes I think its sub continues that we’d like to think we’re far stronger than we actually are. This is not very Marxist as we are always told to tell things how they are and if we are not very strong we should recognise that fact. Then if you recognise where you are you can then start to build from there not from where you’d like to be. Union density especially in the private sector is terrible and calling for a general strike when most of the population are not in a union may draw more towards you but could also alienate many too if we’re not careful. The way this is posed is very important. Considering only 6 million out of a working population of millions more could create more divisions than unity if it is not carefully explained and won over the best layer of workers who can bring their colleagues along with the on any action. I don’t think lobbying the TUC is a total dead end it can be a good propaganda tool to bring militant workers towards us but many will soon come to see the difficulties I feel as I have done now. I will always support our actions but have now realised their limitations and difficulties. The fact is the TUC is not a vehicle for struggle like it once may well have been the TUC takes in militant workers and tries to pay them off into comfortable positions of bureaucracy where they are watered down and restrained from action. It takes a strong vanguard with an organised cadre of militants to gain any affect. At present our rank-and-file movements are far too weak to call any action on our own at this stage. Deepening our links and our influence in unions should be our priority winning positions but also gaining influence among the rank-and file should be key to rebuilding the trade union movement. I meet many young people especially who do not even know what a trade union actually is and often believe the views of the capitalist media that all unions do is go on strike and disrupt things. Well that is just one side of them and knowing the actual background is just not there for many. It’s our job to re educate the class to popularise the ideas of struggle once again. Explain what unions can do for you and how you can fight within them for change. Unlike the labour party unions can be reclaimed for their members as the all be it limited democratic structures in some unions do still exist today. This will not be a short term fix and there will be moves forward and backwards in the struggle but winning back our unions is key. Working outside the TUC structures must not be ruled out either the working class when blocked off on one route can take any number of other routes to fightback we should not dismiss this if it happens but look to be there when they do move and look to arm workers with ideas of socialism and what is needed at each stage. Workers will come to their own conclusions no doubt so a calm patient tone is always necessary. But certainly I can fully understand many workers dis-trust and even anger at the TUC and its representatives it’s been a long time since they have represented workers. For us to appeal to that can feel very disheartening but it’s a means to an end not an end in itself which is why I haven’t completed written it off. We will have to see if from under pressure any action is called the pressure is building from below no doubt and union leaders may have to act to let the steam off from below. But this can be done in many ways. One thing is for certain workers are waking up slowly and will look for their traditional structures at first if they are not there or not working for them several options will present themselves. We must support them all the way if we are to win influence and ultimately change society towards a socialist society.

Union rank and file rejects rotten “Croke Park 2” deal a Paul Murphy Irish MEP statement

www.socialistworld.net, 20/04/2013 website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI ‘No’ vote puts Labour Party on the ropes Statement by Paul Murphy, Socialist Party (CWI in Ireland) MEP • Workers in Ireland not passive supporters of austerity • Labour will seal electoral meltdown if they attempt to push through pay cuts Speaking following the ‘No’ vote on the Croke Park II deal (which included attacks on public sector wages and conditions demanded by the Troika) Paul Murphy MEP commented: “I warmly welcome the decisive No votes from SIPTU (Irelands biggest union), the INMO (nurses and midwives) and the INTO (teachers) announced this afternoon, which alongside the No votes from several other unions have killed off Croke Park II and has knocked the government and the troika onto the ropes. I congratulate those union activists and leaders who campaigned against this disastrous deal. “Internationally the government and the troika like to give the impression that workers in Ireland are passive supporters of austerity policies. This vote and the large protest in Dublin against the hated property tax last Saturday have dramatically exposed this lie “This vote is a key turning point, public sector workers have had enough of austerity, which has meant pay cuts and the destruction of the services they deliver. It shows that they are not prepared to take any more and are prepared to stand up to the bullying from the government, the troika, and the media together with strong pressure from the conservative trade union leaders. “Any attempt to legislate for pay cuts must be met by effective industrial action to defeat this weakened government. The Labour Party claims to be the party for working class people and the trade union movement. This lie has been well and truly exposed with their viscous austerity policies. Should Labour attempt to force through pay cuts for public sector workers, it should be made absolutely clear to them that it will seal their fate and guarantee electoral meltdown in local and European elections in 2014. “This year marks the 100th anniversary of the 1913 Lockout. Then, workers rose up against attacks on their living standards and discarded the old conservative trade union leadership in the process. If the union leaders fail to mobilise now against austerity policies they should face a similar fate as their pre-1913 counterparts.”

The simple ideas of socialism

People often ask me what do you mean by socialism is it the brutal dictatorships that have been held up as failed states where the condemnation of socialism cannot work? I say no these are gross distortions undemocratic and not what we’d define as socialism. I’m told I’m splitting hairs and I can’t decide what is and isn’t socialism well I don’t agree to me many people in the labour movement will call themselves socialist but for me it is the simple feeling that the current system we live under capitalism does not work for the many and that we need system change. The system I stand for would be socialism democratic socialism with the highest form of democracy. I stand for choicer not less, greater participating in running of society from the bottom up and a society based on the meeting of people’s needs not the blind drive for profit. Eliminating the profit motive would instantly mean we could produce for people needs a fundamental reorganisation of society would be necessary. I do not believe we can reform the system out of existence either I think only fundamental revolutionary socialist change can see us on the path towards human enlightenment. I do not feel that humans have even began to tap into their thought and learning potential there is so much we could achieve in a more advanced planned economy where the need to make profit was not the deciding factor in if we produce something. This would not lead to mass waste or things we didn’t need as opponents would have you believe if anything it would be far more efficient as we would only produce for what we need not spend huge amounts on waste for marketing purposes and duplications of the same product. Socialism for me has always been a simple idea and something that i feel many people can understand. It is based for me on a deep sense of fairness and a complete hatred for unfairness. Understanding and discovering there was an n alternative to the madness of the market has opened my eyes up to all sorts of possibilities that could be possible if our economy was under the democratic control of the working class. I dream and fight for and a society where there are no class’s as class’s have been abolished this would mean the working class coming to power internationally and realising their potential latent power. We do not need boss’s but the boss’s need us, the wealth today created is created by the workers why should we not own and control this instead of our wages and profits being creamed off for profits of a few. Putting socialist ideas in plain everyday language is good it helps us connect with those who have not yet seen the light so to speak. Having a class consciousness is key to understanding the world and what needs to happen to change society. Once this has been awoken in people things can change very quickly indeed. Socialism is the future and the way forward, the march to power of the working class begins here.

It’s no longer enough just to get angry

With the rising tide of austerity washing over us in Britain and across Europe it is starting to dawn on people how big this is. This is not the 1980’s and could surpass even the great depression. The crisis has already lasted longer even if not as deep quite yet. The crisis capitalism finds itself in is huge and fundamental. This is not simply a cyclical crisis which a few temporary fix’s can fix this is a crisis of the actual system itself. Not structural but fundamental and this crisis is not going away anytime soon. So I ask you are it enough just to get angry shout at your TV moan with your mates in the pub going on a few demonstrations. Sadly it no longer is bigger bolder action is going to be needed to stop austerity and go further to ending this crisis ridden system of capitalism for good. While the 1% increases their wealth as a result of the crisis the poorest in society are suffering hugely under the weight of cuts, privatisation and an onslaught on their living standards. We can’t simply vote this system out of existence either. I do support the campaign for a new workers party but that alone will not be enough we need to arm people with the ideas and the hope to change society. Show people victories are possible and things do not have to be this way. Sometimes it does feel like the trade union leaders and society is fixed and cannot be changed but society has changed in the past and will again in fact it is under the surface all the time. Marxism the political guidance of revolutionaries gives us a guide to changing society. While things feel and seem quiet on the surface big seismic changes are going on beneath the surface and bubbling under waiting for that “straw that broke the c camels s back” this is the breaking point which turns quantity into quality and produces a shift in consciousness and things at that point can change very quickly. The working class is stunned in many ways under the weight of cuts and austerity and while suffering huge defeats in the 80’s and the collapse of Stalinism has set it back decades in consciousness. It’s for us Marxists to reinspire workers to show that struggle is the only way not hopelessly relying on MP’s and our leaders to do it for us. Only by struggle from below can we affect change. Peoples thinking can catch up very quickly we must be aware of that. I think this April may be a turning point in the fight against austerity. We must be prepared to step up the fight for a 24 hour general strike within the unions and take the fight to our union leaders as well as the capitalists themselves. As more often than not the union leaders are acting as blocks on the movement and holding back struggle. If the leaders won’t budge we will have to go round them or remove them I’m afraid. You cannot halt the progress of society history and the idea of system change is reappearing on the scene and the working class will pick up the mantle of trying to change society. People won’t take this laying down but also we need to provide direction and examples of struggles. It’s no coincidence Trotsky once described Marxists as the memory of the working class looking to speed up the process of drawing workers ideas to the idea of changing society towards a socialist society b asked on the needs of the many over the few.

How the ruling class uses divide and rule to effect

Over the years divide and rule has been tactic or a strategy you could say which the ruling class’s across the globe have used to quell dissent and divide us all the working and popular mass’s. Be it on racial, gender, in work or not, sexuality and nowadays private or public sector and so on its been a way of getting their policies through while distracting us from the bigger issues. While we are focusing on fighting our next door neighbour for claiming benefits they shouldn’t the ruling class and the rich are literally laughing all the way to the bank. We are also divided by the nation state too the working class as Karl Marx rightly told us in the community manifesto has no nation so creating false nation boundaries it leads the workers to nationalistic lines which are muddied all the time. Nation states arose from the development of capitalism. To the rising capitalist class in countries like England and France fell the lot of sweeping aside feudal particularise, knitting together their national territory and attaining recognition as a separate nation. To replace the power of the feudal heads of society with those of the capitalist state, the bourgeois drew behind them all the oppressed social orders. Having used the lower layers of society as a club to lay waste the vestiges of feudal power and consolidate their own class rule, the bourgeoisie set about curtailing the activities and demands of these layers, very often re-imposing the superstructure of the old system in order to do so. Dividing workers is to distract them from the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current system of capitalism and replacing it with a democratic socialist society based on the many not the few. Anyway the ruling elite can distract working people from drawing these conclusions and uniting on class lines they will try and try they have done successfully over the years. Socialists oppose all forms of division and discrimination and stand for the rights of all oppressed people to have representation. We say no to the boss’s divide and rule and call for class unity based on the advancement of the working class and middle class. Society can be changed but not if we fall for classic divide and rule tactics. The Tories are good at it we must be equally as good at resisting their cynical divide and rule tactics and unite against our class enemies.

Lull before the storm

Perspectives for 2013 Extracts from a statement on Britain agreed at the Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales)National Committee on 19 January. AS 2013 BEGINS many commentators have suggested that 2012 was a ‘groundhog year’. "British politics has got a bit stuck", declared Andrew Rawnsley (Observer, 30 December). While this was true on the surface, in reality society, and particularly the working class, underwent profound changes which will accelerate in the coming year. In 2012 the majority of the working class, and wide sections of the middle class, suffered a battering. An avalanche landed on our heads, including benefit cuts, dramatic cuts in local services, hospital closures, the attack on pensions, the headlong rush to turn schools into academies. This is, however, only about 20% of the government’s planned cuts. At the same time, a majority of households saw a marked fall in their income. The Bank of England’s chief economist, Spencer Dale, noted: "The harsh but inescapable reality is that households and families are worse off – much worse off". Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show that average wages rose by an annual rate of 1.7% compared to an official inflation rate of 2.7%, meaning a real-term fall of 1% in the last year. This comes on top of years of belt tightening. The Bank of England estimates that the pay packet of the average worker is now worth 15% less than it was in the pre-crisis period. No wonder that Christmas spending was down. Increasing numbers of people cannot afford the necessities. Three new food banks open every week and the numbers using them over Christmas doubled. Since the recession began people are buying 20% less fruit and vegetables, and far less milk, bread and fish. The Children’s Society reports that 72% of teachers have pupils who not only skipped breakfast but had no lunch or the means to pay for one. Cases of rickets, previously considered a disease of a long-gone Dickensian past, have increased fourfold. The government has had two stated aims for the misery it is imposing: eliminating the deficit and maintaining Britain’s AAA status. Neither will be achieved. Chancellor George Osborne is being forced to endlessly move back the target date for eliminating the deficit, now to 2018. All three major credit ratings agencies have given official warnings that Britain can expect to be stripped of its AAA rating. The 2012 budget, particularly the cut in the top rate of income tax, was a tipping point in how the majority, including most of the middle class, perceived the government. It is now widely seen as a government of the rich. Rawnsley summed up the mood with ‘one of 2012’s best political jokes’: "Why did 80,000 people boo Osborne at the Paralympics? Because that’s the maximum capacity of the stadium". At the same time, the conspicuous consumption of the ruling elite is creating a burning rage. The 2012 Sunday Times rich list revealed that the combined wealth of Britain’s richest 1,000 people swelled by almost 5% to £414 billion, the highest amount ever recorded by the 24-year-old survey. That the growing class anger was not fully given voice in 2012 was primarily the result of the failures of the leadership of the trade union movement. Consequently, the latest round in the war against austerity was another defeat for the working class. It was huge pressure from below, channelled by the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN), in alliance with the RMT, PCS and the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) unions, which led to the TUC congress taking the historic decision to back the POA resolution ‘to consider a general strike’. Afraid of appearing conservative to their own membership, even the right-wing leadership of UNISON backed the motion, while openly admitting that they did not really support it. Since then, thanks primarily to the general secretaries of UNITE and the RMT, Len McCluskey and Bob Crow, attempts by the TUC leadership to rule out a general strike have been blocked and unions are being consulted on the possibilities of a general strike. At this stage, however, only the PCS has concrete plans to ballot for strike action and to call for other unions to coordinate their action alongside them. It is likely to take further pressure to force wider coordinated action. A 24-hour general strike is still firmly on the agenda but could be delayed for longer than many expect because of right-wing union leaders dragging their feet. As the last two years have shown, the working class will find the means to fight back despite the faults of its leadership. The question is whether that struggle is organised into a powerful force or will be inchoate and disorganised due to lack of leadership. Lack of leadership can also lead to struggles developing on a sectional or local level without the workers involved, in the short term, necessarily understanding the need for making common cause with other sections of the working class or not being able to find a route to do so. The government has succeeded temporarily in increasing the divisions in the working class, particularly between workers and the unemployed. There is also potential for other divisions to grow, including between the old and young and the public and private sectors. Nonetheless, Britain has entered a protracted period of class struggles, as the working class attempts to resist endless austerity. This flows from the continuation of the economic crisis, the worst British capitalism has faced in at least 80 years. Economy in crisis FIVE YEARS INTO the crisis, UK gross domestic product (GDP) is still 12-15% below the pre-crisis trend. Mervyn King, retiring governor of the Bank of England, has predicted a decade or more of economic misery. British capitalism is in a dead end, its best scenario being to keep ‘bumping along the bottom’ as it has since the autumn of 2010. Britain has become a new Japan, with its lost decades of stagnation, except that the Japanese crisis took place against the background of growth in the world economy; Britain today is one of many Japans in a stagnant, crisis-ridden world. Larry Elliot wrote (The Guardian, 30 November): "Japan ended up with a zombie economy in which zombie banks were lending to zombie companies. Worryingly, the UK is showing signs of heading in the same direction. One in twelve companies are able to repay only the interest on their debts". Britain is paying the price for its refusal to invest in industry over decades. The weakness of British capitalism is summed up in the ‘mysterious’, dramatic fall in productivity figures since the crisis began. In the private sector, productivity per hour worked fell an incredible 4% in the first nine months of last year. UK productivity has long lagged behind other advanced capitalist countries, as British capitalism has relied on cheap labour rather than investing in developing technology. During the crisis investment has fallen to record lows, with £750 billion sitting idle. The productivity gap is the biggest since 1990, with UK workers 20% less productive than the G7 average. Economists have deduced that the latest fall in productivity is largely as a result of the crisis in the finance sector, which drove UK economic growth during the last boom, as it "adjusts from the unsustainable business models of the last decade" (Financial Times, March 2012). In other words, Britain’s previous productivity figures were artificially high because they were based on the massive bubbles in the finance sector which dominates the British economy. The small decrease in unemployment figures at the end of last year will not last. In any case, the real numbers are disguised by the huge levels of under-employment, which has increased by at least one million since the crisis began to a massive 8.1 million. This includes workers who have been kept on by employers on reduced hours, in the hope that the crisis will be short. Many of these will be laid off in the next period. This part-time army is made up predominantly of millions of workers trying to exist on a few hours of casual work every week. This is now a permanent feature. Karl Marx’s conception of a ‘reserve army of labour’, designed to keep wages down because there is always someone desperate enough to work for less, has been recreated. There is a burning need for the trade union movement to organise the part-time casual workforce. The disastrous effect of government austerity in exacerbating the economic crisis has even led the IMF to call on Osborne to switch to ‘Plan B’. David Cameron and Osborne have rejected this, saying they are adopting ‘Plan A+’: continued austerity and measures to ‘assist business’. It is not excluded, however, that the protracted crisis could force the government, under pressure from business particularly the construction companies, to carry out increased investment into infrastructure. Nonetheless, this would be combined with further savage public-sector cuts. Former Tory chair, Lord Ashcroft, let the cat out of the bag when he blogged that the odds were stacked against his party winning the general election, and that New Labour leader, Ed Miliband, "ought to be able to put together 40% of the vote without getting out of bed". Knowing that they stand little chance of winning, the Tories are attempting a scorched earth policy, knowing that Labour in power would not reverse their policies. In doing so, they have the support of short-sighted British capitalism. The CBI continues to "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the government on austerity. Clearly, there is an ideological element to the government’s cuts and privatisation programme. Recently released papers show that, 30 years ago, the Thatcher government considered almost every policy that is being implemented by the Con-Dem coalition in the name of ‘austerity’. Margaret Thatcher, however, did not dare to go so far. But Miliband’s ‘one nation’ Labour would not have pursued a fundamentally different policy. Miliband defends capitalism which sees the road to increasing profits to be over the living conditions of the working class, particularly by driving down the ‘social wage’ – benefits, pensions, the NHS, etc – despite the fact that this will further shrink the UK market. At the same time, the capitalists are clamouring for the further privatisation of public services to find profitable fields of investment. One section of the ruling class, voiced by King, has been pushing for even harsher austerity, arguing that the Tories are too worried about electoral popularity! King has talked in brutal terms about the Japanisation of the UK economy, saying that ‘deeper readjustment’ is needed. The Financial Times (13 November) summed it up: "Bank of England insiders fear that the recession did not generate sufficient destruction to enable the creation of more productive companies in the upswing… At the heart of the new thinking lies the remarkably low mortgage repossessions and corporate liquidations in this downturn". King argues that not enough outmoded value has been destroyed in the recession to create the basis for new investment, leading to a new upswing with a higher rate of profit. He is making a call for more companies to close, more people to be thrown out of their jobs and homes so that, trampling on our misery, capitalism might find a new stability. In attempting to carry this out, however, British capitalism would face powerful resistance by the working class. John Maynard Keynes himself said that his theories were designed to ‘avoid revolution’, and the capitalist class could be forced to move in a Keynesian direction under the huge impact of the workers’ struggles against austerity that are coming. Concessions would be given, which the capitalists would attempt to take back at a later stage if the working class had not yet succeeded in taking power. The working class faces a weak, divided government, ultimately reflecting the capitalists’ inability to find any way out of the crisis and, flowing from that, the increasingly weak social base for the capitalist institutions in Britain. All of the capitalist parties, including Labour, are inherently unstable, with internal tensions which could become splits later on. Politicians lead in unpopularity polls, but trust in the capitalist media, church, the police and even the BBC has been markedly undermined as scandal after scandal has revealed their feet of clay. The Leveson phone-hacking inquiry, for all the timidity of the final report, has exposed the corrupt relationships between different sections of the capitalist state. The renewed attempt to popularise the royal family, via ‘Kate and Will’, is partly a conscious attempt to strengthen the social reserves of the capitalist state. The queen attending cabinet is a deliberate politicisation of the monarchy’s role. The government’s weakness will not prevent it stepping up its assault on the working class, unless it is stopped by the working class. The cuts experienced so far, devastating as they have been, are small beer compared to what is coming in 2013. The need to generalise the struggle, through a 24-hour general strike against austerity in the first instance, is absolutely clear. In the meantime, we could see explosions on a multiplicity of issues. Where the organisations of the working class fail to give movements an organised cohesive form we are likely to see inchoate rebellions, including further riots, perhaps even on a bigger scale than the summer of 2011. Socialists do not condone rioting, which gives the capitalists a whip to strengthen repression, as well as damaging working-class communities and small businesses, but we understand why they are inevitable if a generation of youth are left with no future. We could also see social protests and movements including the kinds of raids on supermarkets and occupations of empty properties that are starting to take place in other European countries. Public-sector flashpoints THE PUBLIC SECTOR was previously a relative haven of job security. No more. Over one million public-sector jobs will have gone if the latest round of cuts is implemented. Already, 7,000 nurses’ jobs have gone as the NHS faces the worst spending squeeze in its history. After two years of austerity, the money hospitals will receive for treatment in 2013 is a 4% cut in real terms. The next year is going to see a series of hospital cuts and closures. In London seven out of 32 A&E departments are already marked for closure by 2020. The remainder will have to cover an extra 120,000 people on average. The chief executive of the Health Federation, Mike Farrar, declared that the public must accept "the closure of many hospital units and live healthier lives if they want the NHS to survive". The public show no signs of doing any such thing! In November around 10,000 demonstrated in the pouring rain against the closure of Lewisham Hospital’s A&E department. Many more such demonstrations could take place in 2013. Alongside cuts public services are facing wholesale privatisation. Education secretary Michael Gove is leading a mad dash to academies, which were first initiated by New Labour. More than half of secondary schools and many primary schools are now academies or have plans to convert. Gove’s latest assault, demanding that head teachers dock the pay of teachers who take part in industrial action, shows his vitriolic determination to smash effective trade union organisation in schools and move to performance-related pay. However, it was demonstrated at the end of 2012, by the successful strike at Stratford Academy in East London against a head teacher doing what Gove had demanded, that teachers will respond to the whip of counter revolution, and can win the support of a majority of parents and pupils. What is needed is to mobilise for a similarly resolute campaign of strike action at national level. It is not yet clear that the National Union of Teachers’ leadership is prepared to do this, as it appears to be hesitating in the face of the onslaught on its members’ rights. If the teachers’ unions do not fight back their ability to organise effective action will be in jeopardy. But the government could overreach and provoke a reaction from below. Lack of enthusiasm for Labour ON THE NHS Labour is 30 points ahead in opinion polls, and is generally ‘more trusted’ to run public services. However, it is not lost on workers that most of the policies now being sledge-hammered through originate in New Labour’s period in office. It is the Private Finance Initiative that is directly responsible for a number of hospitals going bankrupt. Labour has promised to repeal the Health and Social Care Act, although Miliband was reluctant even to commit to this, but has made no promise to reverse the wholesale privatisation of the NHS. The lack of enthusiasm for Labour was demonstrated in the 2012 parliamentary by-elections. Labour won them, but the turnout in Manchester Central was the lowest ever in peacetime, at 18%. Even Corby, which was a battle between Tory and Labour, could only summon 44%. In every election a majority, and a big majority of the working class, did not vote. It will be different in a general election. Larger numbers of workers will turn out ‘holding their noses’ to get rid of the Con-Dems, but this does not represent positive support for Labour, and will not automatically take place on a big enough scale to guarantee a majority Labour government. It is not only a question of what Labour did in government, but what Labour local authorities are doing now. In total, local authority spending has been cut by 29.7%. This is leading to the annihilation of countless essential services. Recognising the horror these cuts will bring, leaders of three Labour councils – Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield – wrote a joint statement over Christmas begging the government to change tack because "forces of social unrest are starting to smoulder". The possibility that they should mobilise and organise those forces into a mass campaign against the cuts is utterly foreign to them. On the contrary, they were really begging the government to rescue them from the social unrest they can feel developing underneath them. The pro-capitalist character of New Labour can be summed up by the tiny number of councillors who have so far refused to vote for cuts. The Southampton Two have been summarily expelled from the Labour Party for this, but their stand has received enthusiastic support from workers. Southampton UNITE and UNISON trade union branches have, under pressure from their members, pledged support for the councillors’ stand. UNITE has also backed them nationally. Its general secretary, Len McCluskey, has pledged that UNITE will demand that Labour does not stand against the Southampton Two or any other councillors who have taken the same principled position. Battles against the coming round of local authority cuts are inevitable. In 2010 the leadership of UNISON, the biggest local authority union, avoided sanctioning many ballots for strike action by arguing that anger should be channelled into the national campaign in defence of pensions. This will not work so easily again. We have to demand national action on pay, linked to building for a 24-hour general strike. Equally important is the fight for local action in defence of pay, conditions and services. We also have to be prepared for more widespread community campaigns, including occupations, than have taken place up until now. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) has played an important role in providing a banner under which anti-cuts and trade union candidates can stand. It has begun to popularise the idea that it is possible to have anti-cuts councillors, which had a real effect for example on the struggle in Southampton. The growing trade union support for TUSC, particularly the RMT’s unanimous support at its last AGM, gives it potentially far more social weight than any of the previous attempts to build a new electoral formation in this era. Nonetheless, it is still at an early, fragile stage. Electorally it has not yet made a qualitative breakthrough. However, we have to be prepared for the possibility of the anti-cuts struggle leading to much wider support for workers taking the fight against cuts to the electoral plane. While it may be under a Labour government that decisive steps towards a new mass workers’ party take place, we cannot preclude earlier electoral breakthroughs. 24-hour general strike ELECTIONS ARE ONE facet of the struggle against cuts. In the short term, the most pressing issue is the campaign for a 24-hour general strike. There is a glaring need for decisive action against austerity and the attempts to undermine union strength by slashing trade unionists’ facility time. The trade union movement needs to put the defence of union rights at the heart of the struggle against austerity, making clear to workers – in propaganda and, more importantly, deed – the essential role of the unions in defending their pay and living conditions. If the government manages to force through the attacks on facility time it will weaken the trade union movement in the short term. In the longer term, however, it could rebound on the government as new, younger, more militant fighters develop in workplaces across the country. In 2012 we already saw more militant methods being adopted by sections of workers, particularly in the private sector. The mass picket lines of the London bus workers were combined with blockades against those bus companies that had obtained a court injunction against the strike action. Crown saw three unofficial 24-hour walkouts and electricians won major concessions via unofficial demonstrations and blockades which, in turn, put pressure on UNITE to act officially. A new generation will tend to adopt these kinds of methods as they see that they cannot let themselves be hemmed in by the law if they are to stand up to the employers. Of course, even a 24-hour general strike against austerity would not be guaranteed to force the government to retreat, never mind to precipitate a general election, unless it was linked to a serious strategy for further action. Nonetheless, unlike Southern Europe, Britain has not had even a warning general strike for over 80 years, and it would have a gigantic effect on boosting the confidence of the working class and its sense of its own power, while it would terrify the capitalists. Millions of unorganised workers would be attracted to the trade unions. The right-wing leaders of the TUC will do all they can to prevent a 24-hour general strike taking place – it frightens them as much as it does the capitalist class! In 1972, the last time the TUC was forced to set the date for a 24-hour general strike, it was the strikes developing from below which forced them into reluctant action. Today the anger and bitterness of workers is as great, if not greater. The working class, however, lacks confidence in its capacity to win. It is not aware of its own power. At the same time, the trade union structures remain relatively empty. While there is widespread support for the idea of a general strike – over 80% in one Guardian survey – at this stage it does not occur to the majority of trade union members to attend their branch meeting to demand such action. Instead the current trade union leaders are seen by many workers as, like relatives, perhaps infuriating but unchangeable. But this outlook is not permanent. In 2011 we saw the working class enter the field of battle for the first time in years, with mass demonstrations, strikes and picket lines. On the basis of experience workers will fight to force their union leaders to act or, if they can’t, to push them aside. The potential for genuine trade union broad lefts, involving fresh layers of workers, is likely to grow in the next period. The right-wing leadership of the TUC holds up the anti-trade union laws as a means to avoid action. Socialists are not in favour of taking unnecessary risks with union funds. But workers are facing the biggest attack on their living standards since the 1930s. To fail to lead a serious struggle in defence of workers’ rights would be far more damaging to the trade union movement than anything the law courts could deliver. And it is possible to go a long way towards a general strike even within the straitjacket of the anti-union laws. If the TUC was to name the day for a 24-hour general strike against austerity, and to use all of its power to mobilise workers, it would get a huge response. All unions with live ballots could plan to strike on the named day. Other groups of workers inspired by the call would want to ballot over the real issues in their workplace, which would also allow them to take part in the general strike. Without doubt other workers not currently in unions would flock to take part. Whether the government or employers could use the law – either against those who had not balloted or to invalidate ballots – would depend on the balance of forces. Faced with the threat of a popular general strike, with a clear threat to immediately strike again if any workers or trade unions were victimised, the anti-union laws would be worthless. The limits to how far the employers can use the anti-trade union laws are shown by the situation in UNITE. Since Len McCluskey became general secretary not a single group of workers has received a ‘letter of repudiation’ from the union for unlawful action. Yet the government and employers have not dared to threaten UNITE with sequestration. Nor has the POA been threatened for its action in defiance of the law last May. Many European countries have seen general strikes, despite also having varying degrees of repressive anti-trade union laws and restrictions. These have been swept away by the struggle. Prospects for the Con-Dems IT IS STILL an open question whether this government will last its full term. But it may not be the cuts which act as the immediate trigger for a collapse of the coalition. There is a whole number of possibilities. Europe has once again become a nightmare for the leadership of the Tory party. John Major’s ‘bastards’ are back with a vengeance! Desperate to appease the Tory right, and also to cut across the growing electoral support for UK Independence Party, Cameron and Osborne are ‘talking tough’ on Europe. Osborne has gone further than Thatcher ever did, threatening UK withdrawal from the EU. His statement, however, horrified the majority of the British capitalist class, including representatives of finance capitalism. The president of the CBI, along with the chairman of the London Stock Exchange and others, wrote an open letter warning that the dominant powers in the EU – Germany and France – are extremely unlikely to accept Cameron’s attempt at renegotiation. The British capitalists fear that in that situation, having played the nationalist card, the government would end up holding an in/out referendum which could result in Britain’s exit from the EU. This would have negative effects for British capitalism. Companies would be less likely to set up in Britain, and the City of London’s global position as a centre of finance would be eroded. It is also a very dangerous situation for the eurozone as it could deepen the divisions within it. Not only German chancellor, Angela Merkel, but now representatives of the US government are trying to make Cameron back-pedal. Cameron’s fear of a split in the Tory party makes it extremely difficult for him to simply retreat. This issue can escalate further. It will drive the Lib Dems wild. In the main, the ‘Orange Book’ Lib Dems chose their party over the Tories only because of its pro-European stance. In the event of a collapse of the government, the Tories could play the nationalist card to try and win the general election. In recent opinion polls, 51% of people want to leave the EU compared to 40% who want to stay. This is a dramatic shift. While it can swing back under the impact of a campaign, it is a clear sign of how events could develop. In such a situation, the labour movement and the working class must have an answer which poses issues from a class point of view, in particular to cut across the dangers of nationalism. The current position of the leadership of the TUC, that the capitalist EU’s ‘social Europe’ is a progressive force, is increasingly ludicrous against the background of the nightmare facing workers in the countries of ‘the periphery’. Socialists argue for the trade union movement to campaign for a referendum, but on the issues of our choosing: the class questions which are at the heart of the neoliberal project of the ‘modern’ EU. This would be a referendum to oppose the EU’s Lisbon treaty agenda of privatisation, cuts in wages, etc. We need to reassert total opposition to the bosses’ club of the EU. We must come together, not in a narrow nationalist fashion but in solidarity with the workers’ movement across Europe. At the same time, the need for a confederation of democratic socialist states must be brought to the fore. Next general election WHENEVER THE ELECTION comes it is most likely that Labour will come to power, either with a majority or as part of a coalition with all or a section of the Lib Dems. Miliband would prefer the latter in the hope the Lib Dems would act as a cover for a Labour government’s pro-capitalist policies. However, like Tony Blair before him, he might lead Labour to a majority despite himself. Labour has no answer to the burning problems facing working-class people. The failure of a new Labour government could pave the way for an even more right-wing Tory government at a later stage. Nonetheless, the building of a new mass workers’ party would also be firmly on the agenda. Work done before the general election to campaign for a serious electoral force to the left of Labour is vital preparation for the development of a mass party of the working class. On the basis of socialists’ intervention and their own experience workers will draw the conclusion that ‘we need our own party’. Consciousness in Britain lags well behind the objective reality of 21st century capitalism. However, workers’ illusions are progressively being stripped away. Many who previously hoped that the crisis was temporary are beginning to understand that this is the ‘new normal’. While all kinds of divisions remain within the working class – between benefit claimants and others, young and old, migrant and non-migrant, public and private sector – there is a growing unity in a burning hatred of the tiny elite at the top of society. There is not yet a mass socialist, never mind Marxist, consciousness but there is a growing minority of workers and young people who are looking for an alternative. An anti-capitalist outlook is becoming widespread. Struggles can develop, possibly very suddenly, on a qualitatively higher level than anything which has taken place over recent years. Capitalism is putting every gain won by previous generations into jeopardy. There is no possibility of the working class meekly accepting this. On the contrary, we will see ferocious opposition. On the basis of experience the working class will draw the conclusion that the only alternative to capitalist misery is socialism and the democratic planning of society’s resources.

Are workers apathetic? Reasons to struggle

I hear a lot of comment on the left not all of it positive. Some I won’t mention who have quite a negative outlook and think we’re all doomed and there is nothing we can do to fight back. Yes it is deeply frustrating we haven’t had more strikes, demonstrations and our election results as anti cuts candidates haven’t been fantastic but does this mean workers are apathetic and will no longer struggle? No I don’t think so. As Karl Marx described many years ago class struggle is as natural to capitalist society as the air we breathe. Indeed class war and class struggle pre dates capitalism believe it or not there was a class society under feudalism but we find class still a difficult idea to get our head round it seems. The ex social democratic parties like the Labour party run a mile when the term class is mentioned they’d rather talk of a mythical group like the “squeezed middle” whoever they are. But as Marxists we are as confident as ever that workers will struggle and struggle they will have to to defend their living standards, jobs and services. They will have no option. Even if the mass strikes have been few and far between they have still been ground shaking when they have occurred in Britain. It’s quite true the British Labour movement are the slowest to act but when they do act the world stands up and watches. One of the oldest working class’s in the world Britain does have a militant history and a history of revolutions people who say oh Greece, they know how to strike and strike they do with magnificent numbers totalling over 18 general strikes in the past few years with many 48 hours. The difference being the Greek labour movement leaders use these more to let off steam than really struggle to win victories. So I do think we in Britain can protest, demonstrate and strike we are not unique workers across the world have the same issues facing them from the UK to America to Europe today austerity is the common enemy and something we can all unite against. The coming year, like 2012, will be one of intense struggles by the working class in Britain, Europe and the world. Five years into the most devastating capitalist economic crisis since the 1930s, the ruling classes continue to unload the burden for this onto the shoulders of the working class. Because of inadequate and faulty leadership, working-class people have paid a terrible price: in mass unemployment numbering 18.5 million in the European Union, a slashing in living standards and the appearance of poverty that the present generation have up to now only been able to read about in books like George Orwell’s ’The Road to Wigan Pier’. ’Civilised’ Britain now experiences some of the conditions once confined to the neo-colonial world with the appearance of food banks, where middle-class people who have fallen on ’hard times’ rub shoulders with the destitute in the lengthening queues for the bare essentials of food. Today, the economic and political fate of each country in Europe is linked together as never before. Intensified globalization ensures that not just Europe, but the world is now bound together with iron hoops. If Greece was forced out of the euro, it could trigger a spiral of decline which would intensify the already catastrophic crisis and drag the whole of Europe into an economic abyss. If Spain, Portugal and Italy were to follow, it has now been estimated that the cost of the default by 2020 would be the equivalent of 180% of eurozone annual gross domestic product (€17 trillion!). Britain is not far behind; it is presently Greece in slow motion! Yet the collapse of the euro could speed up the process enormously. Hence the nervousness of Cameron about the fate of the euro, despite the fact that Britain is not a member of the eurozone. There is not an atom of pessimism in this. We socialists and Marxists are very confident in the ability of working-class people - especially when they have a farsighted leadership and a fighting mass party behind them - to not only resist the capitalist offensive but to provide an alternative to outworn and failing capitalism, in the form of a democratic socialist planned economy. Proof of their combativity is to be seen in the titanic general strikes, one of the highest forms of struggle of the working class, in Greece, Portugal, Spain, India, Romania and other countries of Eastern Europe. And here in Britain we saw the huge October demonstration of 150,000 marching in opposition to the austerity coalition Con-Dem government and with the major trade union leaders calling for a 24-hour general strike. Yet austerity - planned poverty - will not only be continued but worsened, with 80% of the planned cuts of the government yet to be implemented. There is therefore every likelihood - with the required militant leadership - that 2013 will see a heightened movement of the working class in Britain. This, of course, partly depends on the national leadership of the trade unions giving the necessary lead in preparing for one-day general strike action. But if they don’t act then a movement from below can develop, as in South Africa with the marvellous movement of the miners who came out on strike in opposition not just to the bosses but their own union leaders. New Labour local authority leaders in the North of England have warned that "civil unrest" could take place if the government continues to force through their cuts agenda. These council leaders and others could avoid this if they refused to act as agents of the coalition by not carrying through cuts and instead lead a mass movement of opposition which could defeat the government on this issue and undoubtedly prepare its downfall. With thanks and extracts to the CWI and socialist party general secretary comrade Peter Taaffe from http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6104?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter