An update on this blog

So sorry for the lack of posts of late. I've not been that active as I’d have liked. Been quite busy thinking and considering the world we now live in. Since the general election things have as predicted got harder for people including myself. Tory government intent on ripping away our rights and our freedoms in lots of ways. While the labour party my former home has a new left wing leader catching many including myself by surprise. Not least my former party the socialist party of England and Wales who still can’t understand how labour can have elected a left wing leader a proper one this time. We were told for years the Labour party is just another capitalist party just like the democrats in the US. But the election of Jeremy Corbyn by a stonking majority has forced many on the left including myself to look again. I have not been shocked at the levels of crap thrown at Jeremy Corbyn. Any glimpse of a turn to the left or anything vaguely mentioning the working class or even socialism has to be squashed and ridiculed before it gains any foot hold. I have had lots of thoughts over the last few months just not got around to putting them down on a blogpost. I've come across many people from different walks of life and continue to be astonished how much people are prepared to put up with. But we can all only take so much and people will not lie down without a fight. I'm proud to say my disabled comrades at Disabled people against Cuts continue to do fantastic work and will always have my full support. The anti cuts movement is in a bit of a mess with no real direction but small local campaigns has found victories here and there. I am still thinking along a libertarian anarchist lines with a form focus on non hierarchical organisations. I still look back at my political past of labourism and Trotskyism with levels of cringe. But I thank them for showing me what not to go for in a movement it’s a process I’m and many of us are on we learn and develop our ideas day by day. The fight against the brutal austerity continues all over the globe but in Britain we have not given up. Anarchists, including AFed and Solidarity federation, threw themselves into the struggle against cuts after the election of the Tory/LibDem coalition in 2010. We joined literally millions of others on strikes, protests, occupations, and direct actions, but after 2012 it all got a bit... quieter, and the cuts continued. That's changing this year though, but how can we make sure this new wave of anti-cuts action is more successful? What can we learn from the past five years? What contributions can Anarchists make to the struggle (and what contributions SHOULD we make)? I was close to closing this blog down but something inside me nagged at me telling me. Don’t be ashamed of your past cringe worthy ideas heck we all have to start somewhere don’t we....

British Trotskyism in 2014

Britain has never had a strong movement of Trotskyism let’s be clear. In 2014 with the two major forces on the left identifying as Trotskyist as the socialist party SP and the Socialist Workers party – SWP Both have had high points in their history to the leading of the Liverpool City Council in the 1980’s of the former Militant Socialist party to the SWP who claim to be the leaders of the stop the war movement in and around 2003 with the estimated march of over a million on the streets of London opposing the Iraq war. Both claim to hold true to the true meaning of Trotsky and his perspectives and look to replicate a Russia 1917 all over again and be the head of that movement. In the UK we have many Trotskyist groups claiming to be the one true revolutionary group yet none getting the irony that Marxism is all about a working class party which does not seek to create other party’s to oppose it. Yet in the UK we have so many little left sects who all believe they are right and all the other groups are wrong. For me I have only been a member of one trot party that being the Socialist party of England and Wales. The SP for ease of reference. This party while similar to its others on the surface likes to boost about its proud tradition in the unions and in leading mass campaigns. Trotskyists are not anything if they are not unique in explaining why they are the real followers of Leon Trotsky and that how their tradition follows in his footsteps not any other group. For me seeing the SP and the SWP go into battle for the same battle ground saddened me in many ways we were almost taught to hate the SWP much like if we were a rangers fan we were born to hate Celtic fans and vice versa. Despite many not even gaining an understanding as to why and how our party came to hate this other lot and we must oppose them wherever we can. It’s just something many did not and will not question but accept that they are not part of our party so must be against us. I did find a lot of good SWP members and I am still in touch with many now who have left their own party for all together other reasons but are still sound people and are committed to changing society for the better despite no longer being in a party like myself but most importantly not wishing to continue the SWP’s and trotskyist poisonous politics any further. For me they are better for this. The authoritarian nature of these groups is no coincidence for me. Having put a term to the experiences I came across in the SP authoritarianism is something which is think is deeply held within certain parts of Marxism and Leninism as an extension of this tradition. For me the blind loyalty to a leadership you may have elected your delegate of your branch to go to congress to decide on your behalf if its good enough or not despite not knowing much on their inn’s and out’s is something which troubled me deeply. I was once a branch sectary of a local branch and felt as though I was carrying my branch’s thoughts and opinions on my shoulders yet when I got to congress I ended up falling in line with the majority decision of our region who felt we should all vote a retain w ay. This for me was me being part of a hierarchical structure of following those on high as those higher up must understand more and I should back them. This for me was one of many points in which I found myself catching myself to ask am I doing the correct thing here. For me I felt my views my opinions were getting sub subsumed into the party line I was pumping out the party line instead of my own thought out views and opinions on things. For me a political organisation of any sort can’t have a dictated line of which all should follow us all have our own minds and thoughts which must be put forward if so desired we can’t just elect others to represent us to then vote on our behalf. This is not democracy and for me is the reason why representative democracy is a sham and will not ever worked for the many. I think in Britain due to so many failures and few success’s many identified trotskyists try to get back to what Leon himself felt to be the true path to victory yet forgetting Trotsky himself never won as such. He came under huge scrutiny from the then Stalinist dictatorship which his previous supporters of Lenin and co who formed the communist party set in motion. Trotsky eventually came to his end by a Stalinist agent who tracked him down due to his opposition to a leadership not run by him and of him. So today’s British trotskyist party’s wish to recreate a movement where they are against the so called Stalinist leadership of the “right wing trade union leaders” which for the SP was a long held up bogey man which is the eternal baddie in the struggle and only a left wing Marxist leadership i.e. a socialist party run union leadership can make things right. Of course this would not solve anything as the PCS union shows who is lead by a left wing fighting leadership we are told which is in affect a socialist party run union with many of its own members at the head of this union. Only this weekend we have been told the union is under attack from the government not surprisingly of course as it has tried to resist some of the cuts in rhetoric anyway and have been under financial attack by the go who wish to end their “check off” system of how subs are paid as a consequence the union as seen fit to suspend all group and sector elections for the next 12 months. Ok the union is under attack but to suspend elections come on this is nothing but a b bureaucratic stitch up to muffle descent in the union and to centralise the union to doing what the leadership feel is necessary which in its view is staff cuts and its own version of austerity More can be read at http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/government-steps-up-political-attack-on-pcs One of the many irritating things about British Trotskyism as I cant speak for any other country’s own version is their dogmatic approach to selling papers and this idea of hyper activity if we are not filling our free days with activity of visiting a work place or having a paper sale we were wasting vital opportunities for convincing those mystic radical workers which were out there waiting for our call to come join us in our mission for global change. I spent many a morning on a cold damp paper sale trying to flog our latest line on why we need a “24 hour general strike” while ordinary people walked past wondering why we bother while they go about saving vital cash to afford their weekly shop. We rarely sold a paper when I was involved in a sale I gave away more than I sold I have to admit. Yes the paper fascinated me I contributed the odd article even but never did me feel this was vital to our work. The idea of pamphlets and literature explaining the current situation I’m not against what I am against is the contra sending shite we pumped out the stupid repetitive slogans of “strike now” “save our NHS” “vote for a socialist alternative against the boss’s party’s” and so on. I have been guilty of similar sloganeering on this very blog from my time in such party’s but stating the obvious has rarely got us anywhere in the past so why would it now? The political traditions that explicitly look towards the legacy of the Russian revolution have to some degree or another sought to replicate the political, ideological and organisational paradigms of Leninism. What is more, attitudes towards the USSR split the labour movement, sometimes in obvious ways such as attitudes to NATO, sometimes in less obvious ways, such as the anti-Communism of some union leaders being more motivated by opposing what they saw as outside interference in their own unions. Hugh Wilford’s excellent book “The CIA, the British Left and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?” highlights the degree to which British and American Trotskyism in the 1950s reflected the impact of individualist liberalism on the left, and itself reinforced anti-communism, and common sense misconceptions of “totalitarianism” that conflated communism and fascism, and overlooked the degree to which Western liberal freedoms were themselves founded upon the crimes of colonialism, and that the political liberties were predicated upon unequal economic power. Communism itself, in its Leninist form, assumed the overthrow of existing social relations, and therefore the need to create not only a new society but also a counter-hegemonic ideological project, founded upon a disciplined party. As Pierre Bourdieu has remarked “Once a system of mechanisms has been constituted capable of objectively ensuring the reproduction of the existing order by its own motion, the dominant class have only to let the system they dominate take its own course in order to exercise their domination; but until such a system exists, they have to work directly, daily personally, to produce and reproduce conditions of domination which are even then never entirely trustworthy”. I find many Marxists who define themselves as such today do not ever put their real politics to the front in arena’s such as elections in which they believe they can gain a platform from they always water down what they stand for to the supposed understanding of “ordinary people” this often comes across as highly condescending in my experience and does nothing to further their eventual goal. I still do know many good members of various British left sects and think they have a lot of good intentions but those with good intentions have been wrong in the past and directed us in a very dark direction. Taking a section of Trotsky’s many works on where he ended up and how many of today’s party’s follow such lines “In contrast to the Right Opposition, Leon Trotsky, ever since his expulsion from the Soviet Union in 1929, had worked strenuously to build up a Leninist faction internationally. The Trotskyists saw their prime task as the reform of the Comintern, with the idea of bringing it back onto the road of Leninism as well as the reintroduction of workers' democracy in the Soviet Union. Trotsky right up until 1933 and the victory of Hitler defended this perspective. The victory of Hitler constituted an historic turning point for Trotsky. The utter failure of the German debacle, which was caused primarily by the ultra-left policies of the Stalinists, to stir up any opposition or criticism within the ranks of the Communist International, meant that the Comintern was dead. Incredibly, the leadership of the Comintern declared their policies absolutely correct. "After Hitler", they said, "our turn!" The actions of the Stalinists were comparable to the betrayal of the social democrats in 1914. Trotsky drew the conclusion that reform of the Comintern was no longer tenable, and that new revolutionary parties would have to be built and a new international prepared. "After the shameful capitulation of the Communist International in Germany", stated Trotsky, "the Bolshevik-Leninists, without hesitating a moment, proclaimed: the Third International is dead!" “ Does this remind you of anything? The SP and its co thinkers now thinking the labour party is dead for workers and we no need a “new workers party” pumped out in article after article even from me at one point who was convinced “new workers party” is all we need to forward revolutionary matters for the working class in this country. If only we had a proper mass party to represent our views I used to think. Well creating a labour party mark 2 was my eventual conclusion and well if one labour party was bad enough why on earth were we trying to create another one on similar lines backed by the same tired out reformist bureaucratic union leadership who area apparently on the same left as us hilariously. The Left today is akin to ghosts which have arisen due to an improper burial service. Trotsky was never properly buried, so all sorts of distortions and revisions of his figure continue to haunt the scene of the Left to this day. His repressed legacy returns as the return of the repressed, which is what we find as the grotesque symptom of Leftist sectarianism in the contemporary political arena. I learnt a lot from my time in the SP and will be forever grateful for introducing me to class politics but the bad parts I will not take with me and will look to expose forever more and where I find it. A better world is possible, but not if we don’t learn from our past however uncomfortable that may be. I learnt many lessons inside and outside of various political party’s I conclude by thinking hierarchical political party’s have had their day in many ways and we need to start to think beyond them whilst not forgetting the good lessons they have taught us all.

Why UKIP is gaining ground and why the left is no where to be seen

Last nights win and close second win for UKIP should be a wake up call for us all. While UKIP has come far in 20 + years the left if anything has gone backwards and here I will explain why. UKIP are not just a protest vote and cannot be under estimated as much of the current left are doing. We must be awake and alert to their advance. I confidently predict if Labour form the next government which seems most likely although this could be wrong just going by current polling figures. Labour will form a government like no other labour go they will embark on a quest of austerity and carrying on where the Tories and lib dems will leave off. This is not to rule out the Tories and lib Dems who will have a say in who forms the next gov still. This will benefit UKIP who are posing as the anti establishment and the protest vote of the day so far and are doing well with that if we’re all honest. Much of the left appear blinded by UKIP and cannot see how they will grow in this coming period. Nigel Forage who is the main man of UKIP so far has positioned himself cleverly and is able to pick up disillusioned mainly Tory but also labour voters of the north which should send shockwaves down all sides of the left that how he is able to get away with this. Well let me spell it out for those who cannot see such things. UKIP is not going away anytime soon anyone who thinks they are just a flash in the pan and will go away once the general election comes into focus will be sadly mistaken I feel. I am no supporter of UKIP and it’s hard to pin them down what they are and what they stand for. Some on the left think they are fully fascist and racist and should be no platformed others are a bit more wary and see them more than just far right nutters and actually can see them becoming the main party on the right in UK politics in the coming period given the secular decline of the Conservatives. Too many UKIP are anti European and anti immigration. But delving closer into their policies which I advise all to do if they can would appear not so anti establishment as they may like to make out. In fact I’d go as far as to say they are Tories on steroids who want to take back the right as their own and start afresh as an independent Great Britain isolated from the rest of Europe. As far as I can see the left in the United Kingdom are failing at opposing them and in some case’s going along with what they say. Take the left nationalist no to EU yes to democracy the CPB and the socialist party backed by RMT stood for in this years and also 2009’s European elections agrees with the right in that too many workers are heading to these shores and something must be done about it. This is classic left nationalism which appeals to very few on the left as it stands and is rightly rejected by the working class who vote for this. No to EU is a disaster and a car crash and I’m glad it is being tossed about like a boat in a storm and will eventually be ship wrecked with any luck. I am neither for the EU or against it to be honest I don’t know enough about the inn’s and out’s of such things but I am sure I will learn about such things given time. At present no left force in Britain gets how UKIP are doing so well. Some say they are just racist and should be ignored. Others engage with them and find themselves floundering as UKIP are able to put forward a good anti austerity argument as to why we should leave the EU. This will be put out very clearly in 2017 if we do go for an in/out referendum which the Tories are fully signed up to. A lot of people have under estimated UKIP and their influence back in the main 3 parties and are rightly or wrongly hoovering up votes for those desperate for something different however it looks and sounds. The left in Britain in or out of the labour party have no answers to the UKIP march on power the country appears to be heading more and more to the right and this worries me deeply with no electoral left to talk of with TUSC only being trotted out in local elections and no to EU in the recent European elections just gone. Who can be under any illusion that the left get UKIP and know how to take it on. Quite frankly the left are floundering and have no answers to the current crisis of capitalism apart from the old tired out dogma’s of nationalisation which to me is supporting the idea of state capitalism. For me having been in a trotskyist group and seeing for myself its failings and lack of democracy it is no wonder that now no party on the left be it left or far left can put forward any sort of alternative to the current mire we found ourselves in. Simply put the left have vacated the battle ground in favour of minor concessions just to take their place in securing capitalisms long term future which will stabilise if nothing will rock yet again. Capitalism is never far from the next crisis yet the left in the UK are blinded by their own contradictions and cannot see beyond the end of their noses. We need an alternative that will put the working class first and not rely on any so called leaders of our movement. As workers we have the power to change society if we so wished. Let’s start here in understanding where we are and beyond. UKIP can be pushed back if the left actually get to gripes with what they are. For the left seeing voters leave to join UKIP is beyond them but instead of blaming them and writing those off maybe try to chat to them ask how things could be better and how. There is a world to win out there all the best

Scotland, continue the fight for a better society

Many people woke up last friday to the news the No side had won and felt all their efforts were in vain. Here i try to explain we must not let peoples hopes which have been dashed turn in on themselves and to keep up the fight for a fairer society. "71% of 16 and 17-year olds voted for an independent Scotland, which means that almost three-quarters of the 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland have just witnessed their dreams of a better future snatched away from them predominantly by the voting habits of older generations. This referendum was the first opportunity the UK has ever given people aged 16 to have a democratic say over their own future, and they have proved that they should not be patronised by ‘adults’ who believe that young people cannot be trusted to handle politics. The defeat felt by many teenagers in Scotland right now is crushing: keeping young people engaged, treating them with respect and allowing them to keep having a say in their own future is the only way we can ensure we don’t end up with a generation lost to a pessimistic apathy. I was absolutely fascinated and taken in by the debate and discussions going on up in Scotland in the last few months. The way people talked about politics in ways we thought were long forgotten talkign in pubs in taxi's and in the workplace the idea of what future Scotland do you want to live in inspired many to come out and vote. But crucially it engaged people and shows people will flock to a campaign if they feel it matters to them and they do have a voice this time the Yes to independence campaign lost but for all those who have been through this experience young and old will have learnt a valuable lesson. Yes, there are a lot of angry and upset yes voters in Scotland right now. But there are also a lot of no voters who are already watching in horror as Westminster reneges on its last-minute devolution promises. No longer having to split people into two camps is not a bad thing, and I would personally be wary of any movement that tries to maintain a division between groups of the population depending on how they voted on 18 September. Since the referendum, there has been no shortage of writing from throughout the UK on the broken state of the Union and Westminster-based politics. People across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are calling for more control over their lives and their futures. New alliances can be formed between grassroots activists challenging the status quo, and in a post-referendum society this is only going to be easier. Leave behind the grudges – show people that the fight can continue, and it can benefit everybody. With the official turnout in the independence referendum at 85% this is above the normal turnout for elections and quite possibly was the biggest turnout for any election in post war Britain in Scotland. When was the last time you can remember that an entire nation was engaged with political debate, and people felt like they had the right to comment on issues and envisage a better society no matter what their background was? When was the last time that the Westminster establishment ran so scared that Gordon Brown was forced to help out a struggling David Cameron? When was the last time that people really felt like they might be able to stick it to the power? We can still do this – we can still make them run – and the yes campaign has shown that the way to achieve this is through grassroots engagement, collaboration across campaign groups, linking up the issues and refusing to give in to lies and scaremongering. We’ve spent the last two years imagining a better Scotland – and we don’t need to live in an independent state to start making it happen." with quotes and extracts from this brilliant novara media article by Miriam Dobson http://wire.novaramedia.com/2014/09/yesscotland-5-ways-to-continue-the-fight/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The curious case of British fascism

In Britain Fascism has always been a bit of an odd mixture and today is no different. To say there is a fascist movement at all is tricky but there has certainly been spikes in support for the far right and other such extremists in this country. Like its continental counterparts, inter-war British Fascism had deep roots in earlier movements of the 'Radical Right', particularly after 1880. These groups came from the political right. They drew much of their strength from sections of the British establishment. They were helped in this by the decline of liberalism, previously the dominant political ideology amongst the ruling classes of Britain and Europe. As Karl Marx famously said the ruling ideology of the ruling class is then seen as the overall ideology of society in perception anyway. As someone who identifies himself as a socialist and on the left of politics I am naturally a opponent of the far right and fascism in whichever form it takes and indeed in Britain it can take some very odd forms from euro sceptism to more extreme versions of white supremacy . But to imagine a far right government in Britain which is not beyond the realms of imagination however slim the chances are today is still something to be concerned about. The first year in power of a far-right government would most probably see a withdrawal from NATO, an exit from the European Union and an end to all overseas aid spending. Foreign massacres would be dismissed as "savagery". Actual military spending, however, would be doubled. There always seems to be a military element to the far right focusing heavily on a national defence and protecting what is "ours". One of the problems a government of this sort would have is that although the British people seemingly like pomp and ceremony, they don't much go in for compulsory pomp and ceremony. People of the Left recoil at widespread enthusiasm for the Royal Family, while forgetting that a good deal of it is based on little more than a detestation of the political class. The Royals are quite obviously establishment figures - they are the establishment - but when set against politicians there is a widespread belief that they are somehow less a part of the ruling class than Parliament is. Such a dynamic only works, however, so long as the monarchy is not viewed as an extension of the government. With regard to the military, huge hostility would be whipped-up, with the aid of the media, towards any figure who publicly criticised military spending or the increasing deployment of troops to quell internal unrest and break strikes. Such people would be branded "unpatriotic" and denounced as Communists. Several military figures would probably enter the Cabinet within the first year of government. All this sounding scary enough? While we can’t imagine this happening now and some even think the Tories are fascist the term has to be carefully used and in some ways it is over used and this helps the term become normalised. As this excellent website with lecture notes from a discussion on fascism and anti fascism brilliantly entails "British Fascism's first impetus lay in an ultra-conservative response to the social consequences of the First World War and the rise of Bolshevism. Mandle estimated 60% of the Fascist elite had been members of the armed forces, while over 40% had seen active service in the First World War [W.F. Mandle, 1966, pp 362-80; D.L. Baker, 1982, pp 39-72] The Bolshevik Revolution traumatised those who already held anti-Semitic and anti-Capitalist conspiracy theories, fears further aroused by the appearance throughout Europe of the (forged) Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1921. [N. Cohen, 1967, p169-70; C. Holmes, 1979, pp 49-85; idem 1977, pp 13-20; G. Lebzelter, 1979, pp 49-85; H. Blume, 1971, pp 248-50).] Initial post-war industrial unrest further heightened their paranoia and gave rise to a number of middle class and Imperial defence 'Unions'. The, post-war era also witnessed the rise of a new group of 'Diehards', an unofficial parliamentary group who admired their pre-war aristocratic forebears and campaigned for 'true conservatism' against 'Bolshevist Labour Socialism'. Thurlow accurately sums them up as 'an unarmed paramilitary group......a cross between an adult boy scout movement and a slightly more sinister defence force and strike breaking organisation' [Thurlow, 1987 p24]" For many we come across fascism in Britain with the battle of cable st in London and this famous victory for the anti fascist movement at the time. Many see Sir Oswald Mosley as the first real fascist party leader in Britain and indeed his party named the British Union of fascists BUF was seen as historically a breakthrough for the far right. The BUF was formed in October 1932 by Sir Oswald Mosley. Mosley's manifesto The Greater Britain was issued in 1932. BUF claimed to draw its inspiration from Mussolini's Italy. Mosley had founded the New Party in 1931. He had accused the 'Old Gangs' of Conservative, Labour, and Liberal politicians of abject failure to solve the problems afflicting liberal democracy and capitalism in crisis. Thurlow considers the BUF to have been 'intellectually, the most coherent and rational of all Fascist parties in Europe in its early years.' (Fascism in Britain, 1986, p93). He had finally left orthodox democratic political life when he resigned from the Labour party when his proposals to cure unemployment (the Mosley Memorandum- approved by Keynes) were rejected in May 1930 by a cabinet subcommittee chaired by the ultra-orthodox chancellor Philip Snowden. Mosley was expelled from the LP in March 1931 first issuing a Manifesto entitled A National Policy, which contained all the elements necessary for the founding of an alternative political party. Beatrice Webb dismissed the New Party, suggesting that it 'will never get born alive, it will be a political abortion'. (Benewick p73) In 1932, having lost most of the establishment figures in the New Party Mosley founded the BUF, claiming that only authoritarian leadership could respond to the immanent crisis of the British state. The youth movement which was founded drove away many of Mosley's more orthodox supporters - particularly John Strachey a former Labour Party ally. Mosley acquired a personal bodyguard - the so-called 'Biff Boys' after an attack on him in Glasgow in September 1931. By the end of 1934 the BUF's violence had drawn the attention of the authorities and Mosley was forced to exert more central discipline on the movement. Mosley's most important 'advantage' was that he was able to attract a number of formerly unattached intellectuals and anti-Semites into his BUF. These included A.K. Chesterton (journalist), Alexander Raven Thompson (intellectual) and William Joyce (orator). This by the end of 1934 Mosley's BUF was exhibiting many of the classic characteristics of an authentic Fascist Party. A leadership cult centered on an a charismatic orator who promised that he and his Fascists were the precursors of the 'new man'; a blackshirted uniformed paramilitary 'defence' force; an ideology and programme which proclaimed the 'corporate state' as its core economic policy; and the use of extreme anti-Semitic propaganda. Why did authentic Fascism have to wait until 1932 to emerge in Britain? The reason lies partly in the crisis engendered by the continuing rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union and Fascism and Nazism Italy and Germany, coupled with the failure of vision amongst orthodox British politicians of both right and left when faced with the great depression of the early 1930s. Things looked grim for British democracy between 1931 and 1933. During this period the politicians remained under attack from both the left and right for their manifest 'failure of imagination'. Disillusion with Parliament from all parts of the political spectrum was becoming common by 1931. Aldus Huxley wrote 'Wouldn't it be possible to bring a bill of Impeachment against a few of the old politicians who have landed us in this mess by their criminal negligence....(Skidelsky, Mosley, p227) Even Churchill, in his Oxford Romanes Lecture of 19th June 1930 spoke of how Parliament was better at handling 'political questions' which had dominated the 19th century, but was much less capable of handling 'economic issues' which had afflicted the twentieth century. He further argued that such issues should be handled by an economic sub-parliament: 'free altogether from party exigencies and composed of persons possessing special qualifications in economic matters.' (Skidelsky, pp 227-228). This anti politics feeling does appear a little similar to today in 2014 where turnouts in elections is falling year on year and anti political feelings are high with anger at all politicians of the Westminster variety in particular seeing their poll share fall. What was Mosley's role in the rise and decline of the BUF? • Mosley was well known as a politician and this drew initially favorable publicity • Mosley also spent over £200,000 of his own wealth on the movement. • He appealed to sections of the 'war generation' of 1914-18 and youth. • Robert Skidelsky has pointed to Mosley's significance as a public speaker and propagandist. • He provided the main arguments of the BUF and published them in 3 books and around 100 articles. • Mosley contributed to the failure of the BUF by allowing violence and anti-Semitism to take over - • He allowed the bureaucratic 'yes men' to organise the movement and isolate him from reality Mosley's initial success as Fascist leader was astonishing. While his impressive mass-meetings proved his charismatic appeal to the people, he also appeared to be capable of evoking sympathetic response from the political establishment. Right-Wing aristocrats such as Rothermere, Nuffield and Lady Houston were associated with his movement. The January Club, founded in January 1934, provided a platform for Fascist speakers, and Mosley addressed various meetings of industrialists and businessmen who favoured his political campaign. After Rothermere's withdrawal, however, these connections seemed to have cooled off. [cf. G. Lebzelter, Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918-1939, and p104] The BUF began life at least in part as a homage to Mussolini's brand of Fascism. In a parliamentary debate of 6 June 1946 the Home Secretary stated that correspondence between the former Italian ambassador in London, Count Grandi, and Mussolini had revealed that between 1933 and 1935 the BUF had received about £60,000 per annum from the Italian government. No similar assistance was claimed to have come from Berlin, and no factual documentation was then produced to prove that the BUF had indeed received financial support from abroad. But the BUF was also almost unique among Fascist movement in that its origin was marked by the publication of a coherent political programme and doctrine, in Oswald Mosley's The Greater Britain in October 1932. This outlined the rationale behind Mosley's revolt and the policies needed in his view to reverse Britain's decline. Although ideology came to play a less important role in the movement after 1935, Mosley nevertheless concentrated his energies in this sphere and in communicating his message to the British public, delegating administrative and financial organisation to others. [R. Thurlow, Fascism in Britain, p145.] Today we have organisations like the EDL, BNP, Britain First and loosely UKIP with fascist’s elements or outright fascists as members. Allot of these groups long for a bygone day of Great Britain being a world leader and being that proud strong nation once again whether that to leave the bureaucratic EU or to send all immigrants home which is a common idea of the far right today in Britain. The idea of blaming certain religions or races for economic problems is a strong theme in far right policies much like in the 1930's Jews and “foreigners " were blamed by the far right for Britain’s economic woes much like today mass immigration from the continent is seen as a barrier to British jobs. Gordon Browns speech during the time of the last labour government of British jobs for British workers fed the likes of the BNP and other far right sympathisers nicely and provided them with much needed ammunition to blame immigrants for Britains housing and jobs crisis. The link to the nation and race is cleverly intertwined in far right ideas taking some of the popular sounding left wing ideas through out the past like nationalisation of big parts of the economy has lead many working class people to be drawn towards such movements in the past. The neoliberal dominated institutions of politics, media and even economics have made strident efforts to rebrand the Financial Crisis – a clear crisis of the private sector and neoliberalism itself – into a public sector crisis. This scapegoating has affected a number of groups, but in recent months, the narrative on immigration has been ratcheted up out of all proportion to the size of the issue. I have written in detail on the reality of immigration, so will not rehearse here. In summary, the UK has a lower immigrant population than almost any ‘developed’ nation, these immigrants are mostly assessed via a Points Based System, only 7% are asylum seekers, and only 33% of asylum claims are accepted. There is no open door. Finally, the immigrant population does not have access to a vast majority of the benefits available to UK citizens, the benefits they do receive are nowhere near the same value as those received by UK citizens and they are a third less likely to claim benefits than UK citizens. Nevertheless, constant media and political attention is expended on the immigration issue – with almost no time asking the question – why are people coming here? Many migrants are economic migrants, and those who are not are political migrants – both are systemic, not personal issues. To argue in favour of ‘closing the door’ on people fleeing the system our country is so pivotal in exporting around the globe, often by force – what kind of morality if this? This is the national equivalent of first class guiding their lifeboats away from the steerage passengers after the sinking of the Titanic. The problem is the sinking ship, not the poor bastards swimming for their lives. These days British fascism seems unpopular and relatively unsupported but we must always be on our guard. I wrote this piece with just a few thoughts in my head of how we seem to be following a similar pattern to the 1930's of economic crisis followed by deep anti political feelings of mass apathy in many areas around the globe. In conclusion I’d say British fascism has a certain character which we must be aware that it can take various forms at different times With quotes and extracts taken from http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm

Could Boris Johnson be PM one day??

Could Boris Johnson be PM one day?? A terrifying thought no doubt too many of you but today I believe Boris Johnson took his first steps towards this ambition of his. Today Boris announced that he will look to find a seat to stand in for the 2015 general election currently scheduled for next year. This follows years of speculation of if he’d return to Westminster or not. So now we know he will do will just becoming a MP be enough? I suspect not. For a long time now Boris has had this oar around him which has protected him from the criticism levelled at any other Tory. He is just like David Cameron a former Etonian and was good friends with David Cameron during their public schooling days. But would Boris throw all that friendship away to become Tory party leader with a chance of prime minister? I think he would. I think he is a very driven man with lots of ambition and charisma. Let me be honest and lay my cards on the table I hate the Tories and all that they stand for. I cannot stand this current ConDem coalition government and want rid of them ASAP. But I also take an interest in politics in general and have always done so as this blog can testify. But as a bit of a passing interest I do look at what is going on on the other side such as the Tories and the ruling class. As I do feel you got to know your enemy to know how they work as to develop an idea how to defeat them once and for all. So could Boris one day be tory party leader and PM? Why not we do live in exceptional times and despite all the cuts he has pushed through in London he has still managed to regain power and was re elected in 2012 all be it on a reduced majority. He has something which most if not all current tories do not that ability to win when your party brand is toxic and even hindering you. Boris can get away with lots I believe and am a dangerous individual for the working class as a result. Due to his ability to come across as a bafoon to be frank a bit of a clown and is a little entertaining people who would ordinarily be turned off by the views he claims to stand by. But being Boris he can carry it off. I would compare this to the Nigel farage factor that has very little in the way of principles and beliefs but gets away with so much due to being very media savvy and a projecting himself as a guy you could have a reasonable conversation with in your local pub. Of course both Nigel’s and Bore’s politics are not to be supported many that are maybe not tuned in to politics can be won over to their popularism. For Boris this will become increasingly difficult if he is to fulfil his ambition of becoming PM as he will have to agree with things he may have already opposed before as London Mayor. For example if he does which is expected to stand for the Uxbrige and South Rieslip seat which is up for grabs next year he will have to balance his views of opposing a Heathrow expansion with a mixed feeling in the area who more of less are pro expansion due to the fact it provides jobs and a lifeline for the area. Before as London Mayor he was standing for all Londoners if Boris goes for this seat he will have a smaller area of people to stand up for meaning his previous policies may clash with others in this seat. So Boris Johnson will be an interesting figure to watch in the coming years. But most of all we must learn how to expose him far better. Just being a clown may show most people are politically apathetic understandably but we do need to fully explain to people the role of these dangerous people with dangerous ideas which affect us very much in a real way. Boris could become PM one day and this scares me greatly while his image of a funny guy and a likeable chap seems ok now just think what he could do with powers to destroy the NHS and our public services all because we took our eye off the ball thinking he is just a funny guy and we will vote for him because we like his personality. How this will fit with old school conservatives who believed in the traditions of the family and the old days. Boris who has a love child and various mistresses doesn’t really fit in to the old view of the conservative many of their activist base do. But maybe they will look past all that as its Boris who can win for them during troubled times. I am no fan of personality politics but you can’t help commenting on it and recent developments under line that sadly. Let’s do away with personality politics once and for all I say.

The world cup in Brazil and the protest movement

So we are now into the 3rd week of the world cup 2014 in Brazil and so far its been a very entertaining exciting tournament going rather well from the football point of view unless you are a England fan of course but we wont go there . Lots was made of Brazil hosting this world cup and would it be ready or not in time. The stadium were all completed just in time and no big troubles in terms of the organisation appears to have arisen . But the protest movement which caught everyone by surprise last year in the confederations cup has not gone away. Maybe the big numbers are not there but certainly the anger and feeling about this not being a world cup for Brazil more for FIFA the world governing body of international football. Writing for the BBC Tim Vickery who is the BBC's fantastic South American football expert detailed how much tension there was over the hosting of this world cup in Brazil and notably the cost involved which the public would take the majority of the burden. Tim wrote "In 2008 a poll by the Datafolha Agency in the widely respected Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper showed 79% support for the World Cup in Brazil. By April of this year another poll by the same agency showed this had fallen to 48%. Many people are more reluctant to associate themselves with a competition that has become a public relations disaster. The anti-World Cup protests will not go away because there is plenty to protest about. There is the poor organisation - starting with the absurd delay in naming the host cities and the insistence on 12 when Fifa would have been happy with eight, while for years there was no government representation on the local organising committee - a bizarre flaw in a tournament that has implications for public spending. And many people believe that officials have taken the support of the people for granted and made empty promises. Hosting the competition has cost the country more than it should, and in return is giving back less than it should. The cost of the stadiums is now in the region of £2.4bn, three times more than the figure quoted in 2007. Four of the stadiums - in Manaus, Cuiaiba, Brasilia and Natal - would seem to have little prospect of long-term viability, meaning that there was no chance of private funding being attracted to build them. There were widespread protests in Brazil during the Confederations Cup Support of the population was cynically taken for granted, with empty promises that all of the money spent on stadiums would be from private sources. Luis Fernandes, the Ministry of Sports representative who was very belatedly brought on to the local organising committee, has been big enough to recognise that "this speech never corresponded to reality". The lack of debate in Brazilian society about the competition and its objectives has returned to bite the authorities where it hurts. Certainly, the authorities got a massive shock last year during the Confederations Cup when Brazilians took to the streets in huge numbers to show their displeasure at the amount of public spending on a football tournament. No-one saw it coming, but the protest movement is a reality that now has to be dealt with - especially as this is election year in Brazil, and some will be looking to turn dissatisfaction with the World Cup into votes. The great hope of the authorities is that the power of the event will work its magic. This is not just a forlorn desire. The atmosphere in the country through June and July is sure to be very special; over half a million visitors from all over the planet will be traipsing across the country, giving Brazil an unusual cosmopolitan air, and with over 60% of the tickets being snapped up by Brazilians, there is clearly considerable local enthusiasm for the event also, however well hidden. " So far we have seen some protests and i can see them picking up if Brazil happen to go out of the world cup early on or if there is heavy policing of the protests which have largely been peaceful up till now. Whatever happens in the rest of the tournament the feeling of injustice of a world cup and its cost being forced on the Brazilian people is not going away anytime soon. with thanks to Tim Vickery south american football expert of the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27476602

The future for the BBC

I am no hater of the BBC for sure it puts out some questionable political lines and is in all in tenses and purposes a state broadcaster for the government of the day due to its connection with its government funding which is huge. But this week and a few weeks before have seen a debate erupt on the current role of the BBC and its possible future roll in society and beyond. At present the BBC is run as a public body funded partly by government but mostly through license fee payers who most if not everyone has to pay to watch TV in the United Kingdom. This for many years has been seen as a poll tax comparison where no matter how much you earnt you will always have to pay for the TV license and if not you would face a big fine and even jail if it came to it. For years many have seen this as an out of date system where the BBC tries to compete with the likes of SKY TV run by Rupert Murdoch who can go out and get the best programmes first before anyone else due to their independence from anyone and their shear buying power. But what about the future of the BBC. This week there has been talk of decriminalising the non payment of the TV license. I see this as a big step forward in all honesty. Whilst I am a fan of the BBC having been one of its big users in recent times with its excellent I player and its fantastic local radio services including local radio commentary of all football league games including my local side Stevenage FC which for a blind person is very useful indeed. But do the BBC loose out in this sense in not being able to legally chase non payers of the TV license. I am not so sure I do think there are many untapped funding resources the BBC could explore before having to change its own running model as it is at current. Many have said this may see the BBC loose much needed funding but I do not agree I think this is a well over due change to things and hopefully this can give the BBc the kick up the backside many and even me feel it needs. On a media and journalistic basis the BBC is falling behind the others out there offering a similar service it is slow to react to news and often is left trailing its competitors. For example Sky news hosted the first live TV debate on the EU between UKIP leader Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg leader of the Lib Dems in the past the BBc would have been the only game in town for this sort of political discussion but no longer the likes of SKY have beaten them to it and this wont be the last time unless the BBC buck up their ideas I suggest. The BBC is seen as a bloated bureaucratic monster paying way over the odds to directors and managers this must change for it to survive. In this age of austerity the BBC must be seen to be keeping in line as best it can. I do hope the BBC stays around for many more years to come and is not privatised as some in the last week are suggesting is its only way of surviving. I do not agree there is a place for public broadcasting but it does certainly need to freshen up its act without a doubt to keep not only relevant but up to speed in this ever changing society of ours.

The UK floods and capitalism in crisis

I don’t live in a flooded area I’d like to make clear but I do think the recent devastating flooding in many areas of the Uk with the South West of England being worst hit it would seem do deserve some reflection I think. Allot of people’s homes have been damaged possibly even permanently with flood waters still peaking in many places. My sympathies and solidarity do go out to all affected by these storms. A transfer of foreign aid to the flood victims is not the answer in my opinion though as many reactionaries will have you think it is the answer. Those foreigners don’t need out money we need it here. This misses the point of foreign aid and the good it does and automatically assumes it is "too high" in the first place which I’d contest. In the last week David Cameron has tried to do his savior of the people hero act by turning up with wellies and a helping hand but this symbolic gesture politics standing for photographs while cutting funding for flood defenses will do little to ease peoples anger I’d say. In fact it wills b interesting to see how much this recent storms and floods and a lack of a proper reply from the government will affect their votes in these areas. The UK has been hit by a series of strong storms throughout January and into February, with no end in sight. This offers a case study of capitalism under climate change. The current string of back-to-back storms has been described as "an almost unprecedented natural crisis". It hasn't escaped notice that the response to the storms in the south west was rather lackluster, but when severe flood warnings were issued for the Thames in the Home Counties, it was suddenly announced that "money is no object". It should come as no surprise that some peoples' misery is worth more than others. The sight of land reclaimed by the sea is also something we'll be seeing more of; as both sea levels and storm strengths continue to rise (managed retreat is proposed as an alternative to increasing reliance on sea defences). It’s probably too early to draw conclusions about the state response, as it’s likely to be still in-formation in response to emerging crises.2 However, we shouldn’t assume that destruction is automatically bad for capital. A moderate amount of destruction can be seized upon as an opportunity for restructuring, reconstruction and investment (so-called 'disaster capitalism'). As the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said, "You get a hit to GDP [Gross Domestic Product] as it's going on and then you get a recovery, you get that back later on with the repair." On a system-level, rates of profit are boosted by the destruction of capital value.3 This wasn’t allowed to happen to any great extent in the economic crisis, as state intervention propped up banks and the housing bubble. In the absence of a world war to destroy capital and make room for growth (the 1940s ‘fix’), might climate change destruction contribute to a recovery of the rate of profit, amidst secular stagnation? Clearly, if this conjecture is true, this would happen in a hugely unequal, exploitative, and potentially cataclysmic manner. But how much climate destruction is best for capital? Probably more than none. Extreme weather events will start to have an increasing disruptive impact. That might result in shifts in climate policy. But damaging the capitalist economy shouldn't be mistaken for damaging capitalist social relations. Rather, capitalist relations ensure that climate change impacts tend to reinforce existing inequalities.

The brilliance of ideas

For me I’ve always been a deep thinker questioning everything where I can. This has lead me to all sorts of troubles in the past where I’ve questioned things I may not have been right to do so but I do not regret that now. I think people with ideas are brilliant being critical of things is important in this day and age of rolling news and so much information at the tips of our fingers we should be very careful what we believe and what we don’t more than ever before. I would maybe say my political ideas are somewhat cynical now and this is mainly born out through experience of various ideas and experiences I’ve been through. Having experienced being in a mass political party in the labour party and also a much smaller party in the socialist party I’ve found that party politics whilst have their merits in terms of collective thinking and the mix of ideas I do think ultimately these can be undemocratic in their outlook and their practices. So I now am not in any political party but I do still pay close attention to the former parties I was in and watch with interest as they look to improve things. I do think however political parties are not ideal for a number of reasons and for me the arena to question and think critically of things being frowned upon does not help them develop and adapt to new situations. For example labour and the socialist party is still banging on with the same tired worn out slogans which appeal to very little people or if they do they are communicated wrongly in the wrong format or medium. I think the biggest thing to remember is that we are all still learning and even when we are older and seemingly know a lot there is always more we can learn from each other and ourselves. I think questioning things and questioning ourselves in particular is a key ingredient to becoming an outward thinking person being able to reflect on what has been and what is required in a positive yet critical fashion can prove very useful in time. Politics is a funny business. Many people just don’t get it and feel turned off by it and I can’t blame them at all in fact I’ve been turned off mainstream politics the stuff you see on television for some time. But for me what we see on TV at Westminster is not politics. Politics or political thinking is all around us. The shopping we buy every week, the newspapers we may read, the conversations we have with our friends and where we work is all political everything can be political if you choose to see it that way. I think our lives are shaped by how we see the world if we wish to affect change we can do so. Things are not static and are constantly evolving all the time. We are in affect a cog in a giant wheel where we can decide to change things if we wish to. Having a idea is a brilliant thing if it is shared by others is not the point if you wish to see how far it can go you can be challenged and tested to see if your idea has any legs by this we can tweak our thinking and come to a much more rounded out way of thinking that helps us understand the world around us much more. I should really take up critical thinking with the Open University or something as there must be something I can do with my deep thinking that can benefit others. But lastly I would just say to people don’t just accept what your being told question everything and keep on doing so. The day we stop thinking is the day we stop living.

Happy New Year

So its now 2014 and I’d like to wish you all a happy new year with greetings to all who have been kind enough to red my blog over the last year and shared with their friends. Last year was a bit of a up and down one for me politically I came out of it thinking political parties are the problem rather than the answer and that democracy and solidarity are just words to some people. The level of bullying I received when I was a member of the socialist party shocked me and eventually leads to my resignation last September. The lengths some will go to to silence you speaking out are incredible too. I will always think independently and for myself and perhaps the party form never suited me in this sense. I do not like to be told what to think I’d like to make up my own mind. One of the big things I can take out of 2013 is that we are best when we do not rely on a central committee to think for us and we are best when we act and think for ourselves at all times. Socially I have made some good friends over the last year some who came to the surface recently who I didn’t know before but all who have stood by me I thank you for that and is much appreciated. I hope for change in 2014 with austerity looking set to deepen and the cuts biting hard I look forward to bigger and more focused fight backs. I will continue to support workers in action and communities standing up and fighting back. There is much to look forward to this year and much to be aware of. Ultimately the fight against capitalism continues and is something more will join as the year goes on. Our common solidarity with our fellow workers of men and women, black or white or any ethnic background is key to uniting the fight back. Lastly we are all on a journey mine has taken me from the labour party to a Trotskyist organisation and now to a point where I’m wondering what it is all about. I will continue to look into new ideas and learn for myself what is best route to take. As Karl Marx once said it is for the workers themselves to change society I believe that I do not believe anymore a party has the working class’s best interests at heart only their own self interests of the party. I think this is wholey undemocratic and not what is necessary any longer. I think autonomous struggles will develop from below as those at the bottom of the pile feel they have nothing left but to stand up and make a stand. We are a long way from changing society but each day in our small day to day actions we can have an impact building and organising are key ingredients to making something happen. We should not rely on our so called leaders of our movement and political figures be them of a party form or of a union to do it for us their role is different to ours ours is to remove all forms of power and structured power all together. We do not want political power but to do away with it in all senses. The hierarchy of structures like political parties and unions are not helpful a lot of the time but they do exist and we must recognise them for what they are there to safeguard dissent and to moderate how far radicals can go. To go beyond this and break out of the traditional modes has got to be our target in the coming period in my opinion Thank you for reading I wish all a happy new year and keep safe and strong.

The difficulty of activism

For myself activism is a challenge constantly. I am not part of any political party or organisation of any sort but this shouldn’t exclude me and doesn’t but getting into activism is not easy. Ever since I’ve left the socialist party due to bullying and other such nastiness I’ve found myself re-examining my politics and where I go next. I have not changed my political ideas on the whole I still am a socialist and want to see a fairer society based on needs not profits. But I have not been on a protest or a picket line for a good while now for many reasons. Political parties are not for everyone and I have found myself moving more away from a formal top down leadership which many left parties use with a small group of leading figures making and calling the shots while the rest follow orders and the party line. I am someone who likes to think for myself and always have done and this I found became increasingly incompatible with a political party but I would still love a place to discussant develop my ideas. I have not found anything to replace this yet, if I ever will. Confidence for one. Since leaving a political party I have felt a little isolated and links to networks of activists is limited. Also due to being visually impaired there is a natural difficulty of reaching places and groups of people unless I had a really good friend. So as a result I am limited to online things including this very blog and my social media activity. I follow Novara fm every week which is an excellent radio show discussing radical politics and the world we live in today. I do however still challenge racism and other such discriminations wherein an and do still speak up for others who are suffering from the cuts and the austerity package raining down on many today. I see many people struggling around me and even in my town a Tory town in Hertfordshire called Ware has its own food bank which serves 200 odd people every week which is substantial even for there. There is much that I can still do don’t get me wrong but mainstream activism of attending meeting after meeting and going on every protest is just not easy for me and to be honest I do not feel that many of these events are made accessible for those with disabilities and other such difficulties. I think as a labour movement it is still very much a hallmark of the white male and I still do not see equality and a wide range of different people. This needs to change and I believe will change. For many the labourmovemnt is irrelevant and just does not speak for them and I can fully understand this this must change as I say. Likewise our language and our behaviour of becoming an open, welcoming and fair place for all to enter and participate in. My difficulties are one thing but others who are more capable to protest, stand up and fight back gains the cuts are amazing in my view and I have a lot of respect for them. I do what I can and others have criticised me for just sitting on facebook and discussing stuff but this is one way of getting the message out there and if others put themselves in my position they too would find things a challenge to make any real impact with their activism. I do think we need to be more understanding about others who have a passion to help out and get involved but feel unable to for a multitude of reasons. It is not good enough to just say oh well you can do what you can we need to be saying how can we involve more people from more backgrounds to get involved and support them in what they wish to do to help. Activism at the end of the day is not everything there are lotsof ways to be involved and contribute to a better society be that helping at your local food bank or offering support and ideas to a movement and a campaign. I do think we see activism in a very one dimensional way and we do need to broaden out our understanding to involve more of us to boost our own ideas. Lots of people’s talents and skills are being missed out on due to a movement largely white and male who marginalise others who are not like them and this is a toxic mix of disenfranchisement and apathy of totally giving up on any form of political thought or activism of any variety. We can do better, I can do better don’t get me wrong but we also must help each other out to embrace our differences and challenges and involve more of us all. Organising is not easy at all and is a lot of bloody hard work. There can be no shortcuts to changing society to benefit all but including all who wish to change is something we must start to do now not after the revolution .

Kshama Sawant wins in Seattle

Seattle City Council candidate Kshama Sawant, a “Socialist Alternative” insurgent, has unseated four-term incumbent Richard Conlin, with the latest batch of mail-in ballots nearly tripling Sawant’s lead to 1,148 votes. A year ago, Sawant was running against the Legislature’s most powerful Democrat, House Speaker Frank Chopp, charging that the “Democratic Party-majority government” had slashed billions from education programs while bestowing tax exemptions on “rich corporations.” Congratulations must go to Kshama Sawant and her campaign. While this doesn’t signal the rise of socialism in the USA it is something we should pay attention to for sure. The Sawant victory comes exactly 97 years after Seattle voters put their first outspoken radical into office, Seattle School Board member Anna Louise Strong. Strong would write about the Wobblies, oppose U.S. entry into World War I and eventually end her days in China, where she was on friendly terms with Mao Zedong. While the Occupy Seattle organizer is about to occupy an office in the council chambers, ballots are still being counted in several close races. One big ballot measure is still hanging, while other contests appear narrowly decided. The $15-an-hour minimum wage proposal in SeaTac, already under legal challenge, leads by exactly 53 votes. The margin was cushioned by 12 votes in Thursday’s count. The proposal for taxpayer-financed elections in Seattle, Proposition 1, has climbed in the late vote count. Unlike Sawant — who overcame a 6,193-vote election night deficit — Prop. 1 hasn’t quite climbed enough. The “No” side still has a lead of 2,656 votes. Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn has come up in the late count. The air went out of the room at McGinn’s election night party when returns showed him with only 43.6 percent of the vote. Sen. Ed Murray is already into transition, but McGinn has since made it respectable. He now has 47.07 percent of the vote. The campaign has captured the attention of the US left nationally, which has been looking for something to stir it from it’s post-Occupy hangover. The unexpected result has led to clamouring for more Sawant-style campaigns—could this be the beginning of a left electoral turn? Yet socialists have frequently run for office and rarely come close to victory. Was the Sawant campaign simply an isolated incident of, as ABC put it, “left-leaning Seattle, where police recently handed out snacks at a large marijuana festival and politicians often try to out-liberal each other?” The fact that fellow Socialist Alternative candidate Ty Moore ran a similarly close campaign in Minneapolis would suggest otherwise. Despite their party affiliation, it would be a mistake to view the Sawant and Moore campaigns as indicative of a groundswell in support for socialism, however defined. Sawant’s success owes itself to concrete policy proposals, such as a highly popular call for a $15/hour minimum wage—a ballot measure that was too-close-to-call in nearby Seatac. Moore, an organizer for Occupy Homes, focused heavily on the issue of foreclosures. Instead, what the results indicate is that increasing numbers are open to left electoral alternatives to entrenched Democratic Party politicians. Sawant gained ground throughout the campaign by relentless attacks on the four-term incumbent Richard Conlin, who Sawant claimed represented “big business interests.” In the post-Citizens United, post-2008 era, the Democratic Party’s corporate fealty is difficult to hide from the working class, who are increasingly financially squeezed. A recent poll indicates that 60% of voters, including half of Democrats, believe that the two major parties “do such a poor job that a third major party is needed.” With support for Congress at an historic low, much of the disgust at the political establishment can also be seen at state and local levels, making incumbents like Conlin unusually vulnerable. Prior to election, only 28% of Seattle’s voters approved of city council. While the Sawant campaign does not necessarily presage a revival of socialism, is does indicate that socialism is not a dirty word—at least in certain parts of the country. 53% of Democratic-leaning voters have a positive view of socialism, compared to 55% for capitalism and 44% for big business. In a heavily Democratic city like Seattle, to embrace the socialist label thus does a progressive candidate little harm. Not only did the label not harm Sawant, but it may have helped, by foregrounding the issue of class and attracting media attention and national fundraising. The two campaigns also demonstrate the importance of organization. Socialist Alternative brought a national organization and full-time staffers to concentrate almost exclusively on three local races (including Seamus Whelan’s unsuccessful candidacy in Boston). The Sawant campaign made use of hundreds of volunteers. Yet despite Socialist Alternative’s organizational strength, their results would not have been achievable in isolation. Critically, Ty Moore landed the endorsement of the SEIU, while Sawant received the endorsement of several unions. Sawant’s insurgent campaign posed tough questions for local progressive Democrats, with several prominent Democrats ultimately endorsing her. Sawant raised over $100,000, significantly out-fundraising Conlin in the campaign’s final weeks. This number should give prospective socialist candidates some pause; at roughly a dollar a vote, Sawant’s campaign was on the efficient side. While it is worth noting the large-scale city-wide nature of the race, this is the type of fundraising that serious third-party challengers will require. Finally, both campaigns benefited from exceptionally strong candidates, with a history of local activism, Sawant with Occupy Seattle and Moore with Occupy Homes-Minnesota. Will owe her slim victory to an impressive ability to communicate with voters on everyday issues. It was also to her advantage that she was familiar to Seattle voters, having run unsuccessfully against Washington House Speaker Frank Chopp in 2012.

Is the party over?

Political party membership is on the decline and has been for some time but I wanted to look at the possible reasons why this could be. Is it simply people don’t feel engaged by politics anymore or is it simply the political parties on offer simply are too similar and do not represent people. One of the central facts of recent British politics has been the decline of the political party. Fewer people are voting for them, memberships have collapsed, and strength of attachment has fallen away. The only party currently prospering, UKIP, is doing so because it has successfully exploited the prevailing ‘none of the above’ sentiment. Why has this decline happened? Does it matter? And what, if anything, might be done about it? It is easier to see why it has happened than it is to frame a coherent response. The great motors of the modern party system—class and ideology—has ceased to function in the way they once did. For much of the twentieth century, politics in Britain was organised on the basis of a struggle between socialism and anti-socialism (however defined) and this structured the two-party dominance of the post-1945 world. That era has now ended, and with it the leading role of the main protagonists. If politics is conducted on broadly similar terrain then it is inevitable that much of the old motive power that fuelled party adherence is diminished. For some, new passions fill the gap (getting Britain out of the EU, getting Scotland out of Britain), but for most there is a turning away from party politics of the traditional kind. It was once a source of cultural identity and pride for millions of British people. But at just over 1% of the population - low by European standards - party membership is fast becoming a minority pursuit. There are more members of the Caravan Club, or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, than of all Britain's political parties put together. There are many theories as to why this has happened. The public have grown cynical and disillusioned with politicians. We live in a more individualistic age (Why rely on political leaders to speak for you when you can do it yourself on Twitter or Facebook?). Politics itself has become too boring and managerial - the ideological red meat loved by the "party faithful" is in short supply. There have also been profound changes in the way Britons spend their spare time, since the days when the local Labour, Conservative or Liberal club was at the heart of the community. "Most people don't use politics for socialising in the way they might have done in the fifties and sixties, when you had a realistic chance of meeting your future husband or wife at a party dinner or or dance. PARTY MEMBERSHIP • 1951 Conservative 2.9m - Labour 876,000 • 1971 Conservative 1.3m - Labour 700,000 • 1981 Conservative 1.2m - Labour 277,000 • 1991 Conservative 1m to 0.5m - Labour 261,000 - Lib Dem 91,000 • 2001 Conservative 311,000 - Labour 272,000 - Lib Dem 73,000 • 2011 Conservative 177,000 - Labour 190,000 - Lib Dem - 66,000 (Source: Estimates based on party reports and House of Commons L Many people hold an anti politics and an anti party feeling out there including more and more myself. I'm not anti political but increasingly anti party. The main 3 parties Tories, lib dems and labour do largely stand for the same thing and all look to defend and promote capitalism. Most of the voters out there are far to the left of all major political parties which means many would be happy to see public ownership of our railways and energy sector for example which currently no political party would dare to put forward in fear of the reaction of the "market" In years gone by you would grow up with a tribal instinct to supporting a certain political party so for example if your parents had always voted labour you war more likely to carry on the tradition of voting for the labour party. Today there is a real drop off of people voting in their 20's it picks up a bit when people reach their 30's but I don’t think this is any coincidence as those in the bracket of the 20's who are the most hit in terms of austerity being the younger ages which over 1 million young people are out of work and struggling to pay tuition fees and have huge debt around their necks. It is clear that that many in this age group do not feel politics is for them and that also they blame politics for the plight they find themselves in and with good reason too I would suggest. SO why don’t this younger generation join a political party? Well just the thought alone can give you an answer. They don’t feel it is for them quite simply. For many who grew up under a labour government who took us to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite huge opposition on the streets people feel disenchanted with the so called democratic process in this country The cost involved in joining a political party is a turn off to I think with recent findings showing • Labour - £41 standard, £20.50 unwaged and pensioners, £1 youth, £20.50 (union or affiliate group member) • Conservatives - £25 standard, £5 (under 23) • Lib Dem - £12 standard, £6 students and unwaged I would conclude by saying that the days of the mass political party may indeed be over but this does not mean politics itself is in decline in fact more people are interested in political ideas than ever before but do not associate themselves with a party. For me it is absolutely fine to be political without being in a party and with many benefits for example like myself I can think and act for myself without having to uphold a party line all the time. I am not tied to supporting a party dogmatically so I don’t have to defend everything it says and does. I am perfectly happy to admit when others out there have good ideas that we shouldn’t ignore just as we are in a different party this is the start of a sectarian agenda of putting your own party above the interests of those you are looking to represent. Only time will tell if political parties have had their day for good but what is sure we will not be going back to 80% turnouts in elections and mass membership parties again anytime soon I’d suggest.

The bond of political economy

Politics and economics in my opinion as was Karl Marx cannot be separated and the two go hand in hand politics effect economics and economics effect politics. To some people certainly in the bourgeois media politics and the economy seem detached but they are really not. Karl Marx recognised this many years ago when he set about his work on political economy including his most famous works in Das Capital. Marx's critique of political economy was not a proposal for a new, 'socialist economics'-for Marx, socialism implied the withering away of economics. Nor was it a 'critique of capitalism'. I think that 'criticising' a social order is a bit like criticising the weather. (As Mark Twain complained, everybody grumbles, but nobody seems to do anything about it.) In any case, Marx never used the word 'capitalism'. As he explained, his critique is directed primarily against the categories of political economy, that is, against economics as such. (When Marx spoke of 'the system of bourgeois economy', he always meant the science of political economy.) For Marx, classical political economy, utopian socialism and the Hegelian system represented the attempts of the greatest bourgeois thinkers to grasp the nature of modern society. Their categories and methods of thought gave the highest theoretical expression to the contradictions of bourgeois social relations. Essentially, all of these contradictions, including the struggle between capital and the proletariat, express a more fundamental one: that between humanity-self-creation, selfconsciousness, sociality-and inhumanity-whatever blocks and perverts these. What economics took for granted as 'natural' and 'rational', Marx saw as the inhuman and irrational shell inside which human life was imprisoned. Marx's critique is inseparable from its struggle to smash this shell. Marx characterised the 'classical political economists' as those who, 'since the time of W Petty have examined the real internal framework [innern Zusammenhang = inner coherence] of bourgeois relations of production' (Marx, 1976 Vol.I/l: 174-5). As he wrote in a well-known letter: Once insight into the connectedness has been gained, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions collapses before the practical collapse. (Marx to Kugelmann 11/7/1868, in Marx and Engels, 1983:149). There clearly is a dialectical relation between politics and economics which for Marx made perfect sense. In examining the work of the classical political economists, Marx was investigating a social illness. It was like his attitude to religion: it could not be cured by correcting some logical errors, but only by overthrowing the social order whose contradictions they expressed. His critique opened the way for 'revolutionary practice', in which 'human activity or self-change' could be seen to coincide with 'the changing of circumstances' (ibid. The greatest philosophers and political thinkers tried to systematise this ordinary consciousness. That was how political economy, when it was still a science, studied the heart of the capital relation, its 'inner coherence', and that was why Marx spent forty years on its critique. Political economy took the upside-down forms within which the inhumanity of bourgeois relations seemed 'natural' to ordinary consciousness, and tried to make them into a coherent system. But because these forms were essentially a denial of humanity, this attempt could not succeed. Just as the exchange relation itself was crazy [verruckt],4 so were the categories of the very best political economy. ('Vulgar economists' were absolutely no use for Marx's purposes.) Through the essential inconsistencies in this science, Marx sought to reveal the contradictions of those social forms. The critique of this bourgeois science thus showed that the 'integument' could be broken through by the socialist revolution, to open the way for a life 'worthy of our human nature' (Marx, 1978 Vol 3. So when we think about politics we must link it always in to economics and vice versa. Marx was right on this point and we should not forget this fact.

Interesting developments on Britain’s far right

"Tommy Robinson has sensationally quit the English Defence League, saying he can no longer control the extremist elements within the organisation. "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive," Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, said in a short statement to the Quilliam Foundation. "I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.” robinson" Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson, leader of the English Defence League Kevin Caroll, Robinson's deputy, has also quit the organisation. Just one week ago, Robinson was accused of "stalkerish and bizarre" behaviour by an anti-English Defence League campaign group, for taking pictures outside what he believed was the group co-ordinator's place of work. EDL News Editor Gary Moon told Huffington Post UK he had "serious concerns," about the EDL leader "going around picking names out of a phone book." Robinson had been looking in the phone book for Moon's address and came across a Garry Moon – a man totally unconnected to the website. On Wednesday this week he then sent the site a tweet, apparently of a photo outside the property of the wrong man. Even this week, Robinson has tweeted about "sharia legalising paedophilia" and accused Muslims of "creating Islamophobia themselves". The anti-extremism organisation Quilliam who i have to confess i know very little about but i understand they are a dubious organisation themselves has claimed credit for the shock departure, saying they hope "to help Tommy invest his energy and commitment in countering extremism of all kinds, supporting the efforts to bring along his former followers and encouraging his critique of Islamism as well as his concern with far-right extremism." "We call all of Tommy’s former colleagues in the EDL to follow in his footsteps and also call on Islamist extremist leaders to follow this example and leave their respective groups. Tommy and Kevin believe the voice they have created can be channelled in a positive direction. Quilliam stands ready to facilitate such moves across the spectrum," the group said in a statement. Quilliam Chairman and Co-Founder Maajid Nawaz said: “As well as being a very positive change for the United Kingdom, this is a very proud moment for Quilliam. This represents not a change but a continuation for us, as challenging extremism of all kinds forms the basis of our work. "We have been able to show that Britain stands together against extremism regardless of political views and hope to continue supporting Tommy and Kevin in their " All this is deeply concerning as to what Tommy and his followers do now. No doubt some on the anti fascist left will be claming this as a victory I already has seen a few tweets from UAF supporters calming this as a victory. This is no such thing only the other day Robinson was a far right racist I can’t see how his views have changed that much since. I’ve always thought that any future fascist movement in Britain will pose itself as anti fascist it makes sense on many levels to gain credibility. I think this latest move should be treated with skepticism and concern. This reconfirms the need for a strong militant anti fascist organization and movement in Britain offering a physical and political resistance to the far right in any shape or form on the streets and beyond. Whatever Tommy and his followers go next we are sure to not like it so let’s not drop our guard or think we’ve won anything here as we have not. With article above with extracts from http://huff.to/17iLG5Y

Prospects for Left Unity going forward

I have paid a little attention to the progress of Left Unity in the recent period. It is something which could be really good for the left but could also turn out to be another stumbling block in the development of socialism in the United Kingdom. Only time will tell have course. I am optimistic on Left Unity but am cautious as always as we are right to be. There is two clear platforms appearing including the Left platform which is considered the more moderate position and then there is the socialist platform which contains a lot of disagreement but one that looks to replace capitalism with socialism eventually. This may sound bold but in today’s world we need to be. If we hide what we stand for or try to ride on the back of the right wing in the labour movement including left reformist ideas we will only head one way and that is to no where I’m afraid. I am not a member of Left Unity or of TUSC at this point but have always made my ideas clear that these two projects should look to work together whenever and wherever they possibly can. TUSC and Left Unity are not that dissimilar in my view. Both wish to oppose the labour party and offer a left wing alternative. TUSC clearly looks to look and lean towards the trade unions and those still linked to the labour party in particular which is having a tiny tiny affect so far. Only the GMB have made rumblings of cutting funding to the labour party so far and even Unite who claim to be a left union in action have made no noises at all on the labour party question. With their so called left leader which makes me laugh with Len Mckluseky who is an absolute fraud in my view as he likes to appear left but sucks up to Ed Miliband and the labour party as much as any bureaucrat would do? But as for Left Unity I am not involved and am watching with interest but would hope anything that comes to fruition would be pushed by the utmost democracy and openness. Of course the most democracy won’t lead to socialism but it certainly won’t hinder things. In my view the more democracy the better and cant do the fight for socialism any harm at all. Left Unity is a name and a position which air agree with I do think there is more that unites the left than divides it but as always there is much sectarian behaviour always on show from all sides of the left. This will have to be tackled and taken on head on for anything to change. The worry for me is that very few if any socialist groups are involved in Left Unity the likes of the SWP and the Socialist party who are arguably the two biggest socialist groups on the left today in Britain can barely agree on anything let alone a project like Left Unity. Just take TUSC it is clearly a thing that more interests the socialist party more than the SWP at this stage will this change in time? Perhaps but for now the left is more divided than ever. This can only be a bad thing until things change.

Capitalism is corruption

Capitalism wasn’t always like this it did play a progressive role for a time. Yet today it is hard to imagine a progressive era for this parasitical system which is more and more becoming a drag on society and our development as a human race. Corruption is everywhere we look in society now. Any falsehood of democracy is quickly fading away as bourgeois democracy crashes from crisis to crisis. In the last decade we had the expenses scandal which rocked trust in MP’s to their very foundation. The lies and deceit publically displayed by all politicians be them Labour, Tory Lib dem and now Greens who tried to pose as anti cuts and radical only to push through the cuts in Brighton City Council this year shamefully. From all parts of the establishment there is distrust and often contempt from the media to the police to our parliament and undemocratic House’s of Parliament including the unelected lords. It is no wonder society is divided with an establishment which is tearing itself apart too. With a ruling class split as explained in a previous blog post is causing a huge discourse in society where many are dies interested in politics and have good reason to be. Many think politics is not for them and it’s something that those in suits do. This is not true politics is everything and for everyone. A new workers party will have huge challenges to deal with most notably apathy and dies trust of all parties telling them they can help them. I think the point is to agree with people who tell us they hate all politicians. We do too and we are on their side one of you ordinary workers wanting to change society. Capitalism while in one of its biggest downturns possibly ever is finding it difficult to remain true to democracy. Democracy is a means to a end not a end in itself and for the ruling class is something they can do away with if need be but it is the cheapest form of control on the mass’s as the illusions of democracy hold some back from drawing the conclusions for a time. Capitalism is rooted in corruption from the labour theory of value onwards its the suction of surplus value from wage labourers that starts it all off. Corruption has grown to huge huge levels from that stage. Its time it all ends. Everywhere we look the dangers of a breakup in society is clear corruption whilst built in to the capitalist system can seep through into the labour movement and certainly this has been true in parts of the tops of the trade unions. Change needs to happen from the bottom up. Starting with the fight for the highest form of democracy at all levels starting at the bottom sweeping aside the rotten paracitical capitalist system as we go.

Call me what you want

Tonight I was politically undressed as it were with a right win landlord and a group of lads who were clearly right wing and opposing any sort of left wing idea going. This is my local pub and I felt quite intimidated to be honest feeling that I was in the minority. I took it all on the chin and brushed off any criticism which I felt was the best way to handle it. I clearly am in the minority in society and accept this fact. As I’ve said before this doesn’t as a rule make me straight away wrong and not worth hearing out. As I said before and will repeat time after time Karl Marx and Frederish Engel’s were always in the minority their entire lives and still till this very day correct on many issues so I have no shame in stating my point. I do not go into a new atmosphere looking to preach or push my own views but will defend my views when attacked. Some may say well best to leave it and let things go its not worth it but why just let things go and let the left face another defeat among many others. This all came about since Margaret Thatcher’s death where the local landlord who is clearly Tory and supports the idea of the individual spoke up about herand said what a great woman she was. Clearly I did not agree and looked to put the opposite point of view about the miners and the communities she devastated as any good leftie would. Maybe I should have shut up and said nothing and let things go but I have created a mole hill for myself perhaps by stating openly I’m a socialist and disagreed with Thatcher. I am told constantly I was not alive so how can I have any view on the matter. I reply well were you alive during the world war? So ho can you have an opinion on the war. To which it seems to escalate into all sorts of comments. Perhaps I’m speaking out of turn and I should keep my mouth shut. But I was then told I may not be welcome back in the pub. Is it the case you can be refused a drink if you disagree politically with a landlord. I’ve not come across this before I know there are discrimination laws and what not but simply disagreeing politically can you be refused entry and a drink to a pub? I will have to do more research but does seem harsh though. I always answer well you’re a leftie and all that with well I simply believe in fairness and can’t stand unfairness. Is that such a crime? As a socialist this is my basic principle that we are all equal but some more than others. We live under a capitalist system which’s deeply unfair which people find themselves marginalised by the smallest thing. In pubs and the like I hear lots of racist and homophobic comments and talk. This does offend me as I oppose any form of racism and homophobia not because I am black/ Asian or that I’m gay and even if I was it wouldn’t change anything I simply oppose discrimination. I am blind and as a result I’m disabled and face discrimination on a daily basis I could recount many incidents I’ve been through some that would shock even my nearest family fact is it goes on and will forever we live under a system of exploitation and greed. But I am a decent person I do genuinely feel I like to help people out that are my basic goal now as a socialist. I find happiness in helping others and others less fortunate than myself. Anyway I can help anyone I will. On the way back tonight from the pub I’d had a few drinks but someone was helping a friend home who’d had a few drinks themselves and was clearly struggling. I offered to help, knowing I am blind and cannot offer too much help I still went out of my way to offer support if I could. This is not to raise myself up as some sort of martyr or anything but was offered out of genuine concern and offering of help I didn’t hope to gain anything from this or anything just to see if I could help So many people have lost that basic level of human solidarity now any offer of help from someone they don’t know is alien to them and they do not know how to react. I believe many people are not alienated from society and society has as a result alienated them. Its time to reclaim good will and human solidarity. As workers we all face the same attacks. Whether your black, white, gay, straight, disabled or not you are all my fellow human beings who I stand by I do believe there are mostly good people out there and that there is good in most people but its what we do as a class which matters. Workers have the power to change society and running down of left/ socialist ideas is quite deliberate. I’ve been called all sorts, leftie, Trotskyist, commy, scrounger you name it I’ve been called it. Names are a name for a reason I personally do not worry about a name or a label it’s we do and interact with others which matters. Convincing others is no easy task that a socialist society would be better than what we have but it is certainly I’m not going to be bullied out of or intimidated out of. We all have different political views I accept that and respect others I would never revert to physical force or under hand tactics. You win a political debate on politics alone not the personal getting personal and resulting in insults means you’ve lost I’m afraid I’m not about to loose my nerve now.