2014 and what will the new year have in store for us?

Allot more of the same I should imagine. With a general election being many political thinking peoples main source of interest for me it is completely not. A period of sustained bullshit being pumped out from all sides and angles. Where party leaders are analysis in all different ways does their hair look good? Are their prime ministerial whatever that means and so on? I can’t wait as you can clearly tell. For me I am asked who do I want to win the election and would either side winning make any difference. Whilst I think it might change the land we fight on if it’s a Tory or labour headed up government it would be different we can’t ignore that. But the programmes both are signed up to are not different at all. "In the UK, I don’t think there have been many big, definitive moments that sum up the year as a whole: just like in 2013, life for most people has mostly continued gradually getting worse, and my real pay, just like yours, is probably worth less now than it was 12 months ago. Still, there have been moments of really inspiring resistance: in particular, the emerging movement against police brutality and white supremacy in the US has been amazing to see, and the amount of organising that seems to be happening around housing in London at the moment is also very encouraging. 2014 in feminism, gender and misogyny (content warning for discussion related to sexual violence):" "Just like in previous years, when thinking about themes that run through a lot of the year’s big stories, sexism and patriarchy have come up again and again. On the left, there’s not been anything to rival the SWP’s rape coverup and subsequent messy split, although Russell Brand’s continued interest in radical politics has, once again, raised the question of prominent lefty men with dodgy attitudes, most recently with the discovery that he endorsed pick-up artist Neil Strauss’s book. To his credit, Brand himself seems able to accept that his behaviour has been sexist and he needs to work on changing it; as I don’t know the man personally, I can’t judge his sincerity very well, but I do think that, when Brand is discussed, his sexist record needs to be part of the conversation. While I can’t say how much I do or don’t trust Brand as a person, what I do know is that, after all we’ve learnt about Great Men and their defenders, after Healy and Galloway and Assange and Sheridan and Smith and Hedley, anyone who’s still so desperate for an idol to look up to that they try to shut Brand’s problematic gender politics out of the conversation is definitely not to be trusted." "More generally, I feel like, compared to a lot of other movements for progressive change, feminism seems to be doing quite well; it’s hard to measure, but feminist voices certainly seem quite prominent in pop culture, and it feels like an encouraging number of people are growing up with feminist ideas as part of their “common sense” worldview. It’s always tricky trying to draw direct comparisons between one struggle and another, but I do think it is at least worth asking what other movements could learn from the progress that feminists have made in the culture wars. But while some progress has been made, there’s a long way still to go. This year hasn’t seen much in the way of big, high-profile national disputes. For my money, probably the most significant workplace action of the year was the 90 days of strike action taken by care workers in Doncaster, but the Care UK strike never really managed to break out of its isolation – Unison, let alone other unions representing care workers like the GMB, never wanted to treat the dispute as worth national attention, the left groups who got involved just pushed a strategy of calling on Unison to deliver solidarity, and other, more rank-and-file tendencies who might have been able to suggest a more practical strategy for relating directly to other care workers never really got involved. Now that it’s ended with the strikers accepting a deal that’s a tiny bit less bad than Care UK’s original offer, but far less than the wage they’d been on previously – roughly speaking, a cut of 30% rather than 35% – a worrying precedent has been set for care workers across the country: if the Doncaster strikers could display such exceptional determination, but still end up being ground down and picked off in isolation, what hope is there for any less militant groups of care workers?" "On the fringes of the workers’ movement, some progress has been made with organising in non-unionised workplaces: the cinema workers who’ve been organising at places like the Ritzy, Curzon Cinema and Everyman Cinemas, the hospitality workers who’ve been organising in Brighton and Norwich and Sheffield, and the ongoing organising effort among warehouse workers in West London. These efforts are mainly very small-scale, but they’re still a welcome step in the right direction." It is hard to not feel depressed at all is going on in the world and the lack of any meaningful fightback but there is always stuff going on which doesn’t get the attention they deserve. The highpoint of class struggle in the UK this year has probably been the steady growth of a self-organised movement over housing. Two particular highlights from the start and end of the year were the effective scrapping of the Bedroom Tax in Scotland in February and the victory won by New Era tenants who forced Westbrook Partners to pull out of their estate – a temporary victory, but a victory nonetheless - but there’s been a lot of other important action around housing throughout the year: the Carpenters’ Estate occupation, tenants in Bristol pushing landlords into making repairs and reducing rents, Glasgow tenants winning refunds from rip-off letting agents, the Poor Doors campaign pushing Redrow into pulling out of 1 Commercial Street, and, perhaps most impressively, direct action preventing evictions in a lot of different places – Nottingham, Newcastle, Liverpool, Southwark & Lambeth, Newham, Salford, Queens Park and beyond. Eviction resistance has to be one of the most powerful forms of (relatively) small-scale direct action. In a better society, of course, it wouldn’t be needed at all, but while evictions continue to happen, it’s good to see so many people willing to turn out to block them. In particular, it’s worth comparing the results of ground-level eviction resistance to the attempt to ban revenge evictions, which was sabotaged by two Tory MPs, both landlords, just talking the bill out. This shows the difference between top-down and grassroots solutions: trying to change the law ultimately depends on relying on the property-owning class, and even actual landlords, to act in our interests. Tenant-led action like eviction resistance allows us to act for ourselves, without relying on anyone else. The New Era and Focus E15 campaigns have been hugely inspirational, but what’s most important is that they aren’t just isolated outliers, but just the most visible tip of a movement that includes many other, less well-publicised groups, like Housing Action Southwark & Lambeth. While a lot of the most impressive anti-austerity action this year has been about housing, worthwhile action has taken place on a lot of other fronts as well. Near the start of the year, there was the wave of claimant protest that led to Atos pulling out of the Work Capacity Assessment contract, while the direct action campaign led by pensioners and disabled people in South Yorkshire has won full reinstatement of disabled travel passes, partial reinstatement of elderly travel passes, and beaten attempts to break the campaign by using the law against key activists. They now intend to continue until the cuts to travel passes are completely reversed. Recent months have also seen a partial revival of the student movement, with a large and unruly demonstration not sanctioned by the NUS as well as a number of occupations, and more marches for free education planned at the end of January. The long-running campaign against workfare has also continued to make steady, small-scale progress, with a number of workfare users pulling out after being targeted. Meanwhile, over in Ireland this year has seen an impressive campaign of resistance to water charges, with huge demos just being the most visible point of a campaign that’s also included widespread direct action to stop water meters from being installed. Elsewhere, there have been other important struggles against repression: in just the last few months, there’s been huge protests in Mexico after the police-linked kidnapping of 43 students, along with the shooting of several others, and Greek anarchist prisoner Nikos Romanos has won the right to education after a hunger strike backed by a massive solidarity movement across the country. Meanwhile, the Operation Pandora crackdown on anarchists in Spain has triggered an angry response, and Operation Pandora is just part of a larger repressive trend that’s also seen a new “gagging law” with the introduction fines of 100-600 euros for offences such as filming police, lack of respect for the police, and unauthorised gatherings in public places, as well as heftier fines of 601-30,000 euros for preventing an eviction, resisting authority, or refusing to dissolve a protest, and incredibly high fines of 30,000-600,000 euros for “organisation of events or recreational activities despite prohibition by the authorities”. In the UK, we’ve seen survivors of a number of historical cases of repression continuing long-running fights for justice: from blacklisted construction workers like Dave Smith, and the surviving members of the Shrewsbury 24 still continuing their fight against the state that fitted them up, to the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and the women tricked into long-term relationships with undercover cops. In all these cases, their persistence and determination has been admirable, and I wish them all the best for the New Year. Looking to the future: The next few months will be very difficult for anyone committed to independent working-class politics. As much as I dislike the various political parties, it’s still the case that a lot of good, committed activists are drawn to one party or another, and it’s often possible to work productively with individual party members on a local level. If you’re involved in an organising project alongside party-affiliated activists, then get ready to take on a disproportionate amount of responsibility or else put the whole thing on hold for the next few months, as the odds are that they’ll suddenly find their union or community commitments are completely eclipsed by the need to go out door-knocking to spread the good word about their favored candidate. Conventional political wisdom has it that elections are an important opportunity for activists to “get their issues on the agenda”, but, to take an example that’s so obvious it’s practically a cliche, students did a pretty good job of getting tuition fees on the Lib Dem electoral agenda last time around, and it didn’t do them a whole lot of good. We might be able to get politicians to talk about the issues that matter to us in the weeks leading up to the election, but once it’s over that still doesn’t leave us with the power to actually make them do anything. The challenge is not to try and influence politicians – a strategy that inevitably ends up with our schedules and priorities being set by the politicians we want to try and appeal to, rather than worked out collectively from below – but to work out our own agenda, and stick to it – not to push a particular electoral candidate, or even to push an anti-electoral message as such, but to push the same issues and problems that mattered to us six months ago, and will still matter to us in a year’s time. To take housing as an example – if we can “put housing on the agenda” for politicians this election season, we’ll get some fine-sounding rhetoric out of it, and a few more politicians posing for photo-ops with New Era tenants and Focus E15 Mums, but that in itself doesn’t mean anything in terms of policy changes. In contrast, if we organise together with our neighbours, then we can apply our energies right now to preventing evictions, or pressuring crappy landlords into making overdue repairs, or getting unfair fees back from rip-off letting agents. And the best bit is, because our power to do this is something we create together, not dependent on any outside source, we’ll still have the same collective power to do these things long after the electoral circus has packed up and gone home. Whatever your main priority is, that lesson is worth bearing in mind through the weeks and months of electoral distractions that are coming up ahead. with extracts and quotes from the excellent blog over at Cautiously pessimistic http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/12-months-that-mostly-didnt-really-shake-the-world-that-much-2014-in-review/

What is meant by a rank-and-file organisation?

The rank-and-file in a union or a work place truly hold the power in a struggle if they decide to flex their muscles and act independently of the union leadership they can be a very powerful force within the work place. Over the years various rank-and-file organisations have been set up and have had their day but today in 2013 there is a need for them once again. I am less than convinced with the left wing attempts at rank-and-file organisations with much emphasis being put on being taken over and run as anti cuts groups which in themselves are fine and do a job but workers are still left with little to no organisation to join or to lean towards if they are in struggle in a workplace or a community. If they do not wish to blindly follow their union leaders line if they wish to control and own their own struggles there is no organisation there they can turn to right now. The NSSN the National Shops Stewards Union could have been this but is now another anti cuts group which is up to them of course but does not negate the need for a truly rank-and-file owned and controlled movement if not organisation operating from below. The NSSN which has turned itself through the leadership of the socialist party has turned itself into a propagandist group organising regularly lobby’s of the TUC to call for this or that recently it has been to call on the TUC to call a 24 hour general strike. This as I’ve explained before is a failed strategy which’s quite frankly going no where anytime soon. Why appeal to the TUC in the first place who are a load of highly paid bureaucrats and secondly if this so called 24 hour general strike actually happened which I admit is highly unlikely in the coming period although if it happened I would welcome it of course what would it actually achieve? The socialist party actually admit that a 24 hour general strike will not stop austerity although reading much of their recent literature on the lobby’s and the like you’d be forgiven for thinking one day all out will see off this government and the cuts in one fail swoop. No no no comrades where do they get all this from? A genuine real rank-and-file organisation would start from the premise that we are at a very low period of class struggle pretending anything else like some left groups do that we are just on the verge of mass class struggle and anger is to dress thins up as fiction I’m afraid we are not in a pre revolutionary period and are as far off that than ever in my view. Of course things can change but recognising where we are not where we want to be has got to be a start and that for me is a very low point and must be built on. Building workers confidence in taking action and actually winning is key. Pointing to the likes of the sparks and the Hovis workers who have won against 0 hour contracts recently is key to winning the argument for acting and action from below.  Decision-making by mass meeting  Recallable delegates, not representatives, where necessary  Local control of strike funds  Rank-and-file controlled strike committees  Direct action On which basis, people can learn the power in their own hands and to act on their own initiative. Mass meetings on a democratic basis are just a start any workplace any area of struggle must be held accountable from those below. Handing power and representation to those above loose’s you that power. Do beware of those looking to act and represent you. DO they really have your best interests at heart? Ultimately, if the aim is to have ordinary people taking action for themselves, then the ideas are the most important part of the equation. We can promote a culture of resistance, but by the nature of the beast we cannot produce a formula or a rigid programme. If people are to take control of their own struggles, they must decide how for themselves. The role of militants within the workplace is simply to be part of that, and to argue and demonstrate that it can be done.

What has the TUC ever done for us?

What has the TUC ever done for us? Is a very good question indeed right about now with attack after attack coming all the time the TUC which over sea’s the trade unions and keeps them in check has done much to prevent struggle I would argue and in my view is a barrier for change in a big way. Before I get labelled ultra left I think it’s worth bearing in mind since 2010 anyway since modern austerity has begun what role the TUC has played. In many ways the TUC has been that lever that has let off steam from workers anger from below. That’s not to say that there’s a constant and an ever bubbling class anger as some on the left like to constantly claim. If only those pesky trade union leaders would just call a 24 hour general strike their minds tick over and over. Yet the TUC has had its role historically as a mediator in the class struggle it is a capitalist body which was absorbed into the system many moons ago. It is there not to facilitate struggle but to actively police it. In September 2012, TUC Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for co-ordinated national action, up to and including a general strike. It’s nearly 88 years since the last General Strike in Britain was sold out by the leadership of the Labour Movement. Countless times since then, trade union leaders, like the Grand Old Duke of York, have marched us up to the top of the hill with fighting talk and the promise of victory, then marched us down again, demobilising struggles and selling out rank-and-file members. We must learn from history, not repeat it. As workers, we need to directly control our own workplace and community struggles by organising direct action (e.g. indefinite wildcat strikes, solidarity pickets, occupations, blockades). That means having confidence in our ability to take matters into our own hands and organise resistance to austerity and exploitation, without relying on the ‘official’ channels. I am a firm believer in workers controlling their own struggles once you allow a bureaucrat to decide what is best for you you loose all sense of power and identity in the struggle all attempts to co opt power in the hands of a bureaucratic elite must be resisted n my view. Histories shows, the only way to ever make a difference are by direct action, whether it is on the streets, or in the workplace. Posturing and words alone achieve nothing. We all know that any fightback will not come from the Labour Party (or any other party); it’ll be from workers, public service users, parents, pensioners, students, the unemployed. If we see a mass working class fightback, we can expect the trade union leaders to be there, at the rallies and demonstrations, urging us forward. But looking at the struggles of the past few years, should this fill us with confidence? Are these union leaders behind us? Some recent defeats and ‘almosts’ In 2009, Visteon factories in London and Belfast were occupied. After dragging its heels and giving poor legal advice, Unite encouraged workers to leave the occupied factories. Eventually a deal was done behind closed doors and the union recommended acceptance of a partial offer that left the crucial issue of pensions untouched. In 2008, strikes were prepared across the public sector. Workers in Unison, NUT and PCS all took action against the government’s 2% pay-cap, sometimes even on the same day. After only two days of strike action Unison, the biggest of the three unions, took its dispute to ACAS. The arbitrating body’s decision being legally binding, this effectively removed its members from the dispute. The other unions soon followed suit. In 2007, as the government threatened 40,000 job cuts at Royal Mail and attacked pay and pensions, wildcat strikes spread across Britain with postal workers refusing to cross each others’ picket lines. The CWU soon called off all action to enter ‘meaningful negotiations’ which lasted weeks and came to no firm conclusion. Demoralised and demobilised posties accepted an agreement basically unchanged from the first one. But the CWU declared victory: they were guaranteed a ‘consultation’ role in the cuts. These are just some examples; you can pick many more from recent and not- so-recent history. And they all raise the question: why are our unions so bad at what we expect them to do? Not being a force for revolution or anything, but bog-standard, Ronseal-advert, doing-what-it-says-on-the-tin, fighting for their members’ interests. Union troubles, outside and in.. Trade union officials will blame the membership, saying they don’t want to fight. This might be true sometimes but didn’t the wildcatting posties want to fight? The Visteon workers, after occupying their factories, didn’t want to fight? There’s more going on than just the ‘workers aren’t up for it’... It’s not all the unions’ fault. Since the Thatcher years we’ve seen so many new laws restricting strike action that British industrial relations legislation is amongst the most anti-worker in the developed world. Where once wildcat strikes and secondary picketing were common, now they are a rarity. Even things like forcing ballots to be done in secret, posted from home, where workers can’t sense the solidarity of their workmates, is intended to discourage militant action. But there’s a problem with this argument too. These laws were pushed through as a result of working class defeat, a defeat that the unions were complicit in. Unions had been disciplining their members for decades before these laws were even a twinkle in Thatcher’s eye. Whether it be NUM official Will Lawther’s 1947 call to prosecute wildcatting miners “even if there are 50,000 or 100,000 of them” or the UPW slapping members with fines totalling £1,000 and threatening expulsion from the union (thus losing their jobs, as it was a closed shop) for refusing to handle post during the 1977 Grunwick strike, one thing seen time and again is union leaders moving against the militant action of their members. Putting it down to legislation passed in the last 20-30 years does nothing to explain such actions before then. Bureaucrats So the problems aren’t just external: we can’t just act like proud parents and say they fell in with a bad crowd. The fact is the unions have come to resemble the companies we expect them to fight with highly paid executive decision makers, a downward chain-of-command and a career ladder that goes beyond the union and into the halls of social democratic governing institutions (think-tanks, Labour Party etc). Such a structure needs people to fill it: bureaucrats, who by definition are separate from the lives of the workers they represent. This is true even of former shopfloor militants. Having left the workplace, their everyday experiences are not the same as those they used to work alongside. Their priorities and, more importantly, their material interests are not the same. A victory for a worker means an improvement in working conditions; a victory for a bureaucrat means a seat at the negotiating table. But this seat for the bureaucrat doesn’t necessarily mean any improvement for the worker, as the CWU’s consultation ‘victory’ proves. To say union bureaucrats have different priorities and interests is not just spite. It’s to underline that it’s not about them being “baddies.” Many committed militants become union officials because they want to be employed spreading struggle rather than just working for some arsehole boss. But the trouble is that ‘struggle’ and ‘the union’ are not the same thing and spreading the latter does not mean encouraging the former. This has always been the case. The contradiction between workers and union bureaucrats has been going on in the UK for over a century. One such example was with the anarchist John Turner, an unpaid leader of the United Shop Assistants Union for seven years who in 1898 became a paid national organiser, travelling up and down the country recruiting to the union. Though it grew massively, Turner had also started to change his approach. As conflicts flared up so would branches of the union; but as conflicts died down so did the branches. To keep a stable membership, he introduced sickness and unemployment benefits as perks of union membership. The plan worked. A stable membership was established and by 1910 the Shop Assistants Union was the biggest in the London area. But the nature of the union had changed. And even if Turner couldn’t see it, the workers could. The union bureaucracy became seen by many as an interference with local initiative and in 1909 Turner was accused of playing the “role of one of the most blatant reactionaries with which the Trades Union movement was ever cursed” . The tragedy of John Turner1 is not as simple as him ‘selling out’; he remained an anarchist to the day he died. But as a full-time organiser paid by the union his priority began to be perpetuating the union rather than organising conflicts and soon his union was no different from the other unions. This is because in the eyes of a trade union official, the union is not just the means to encourage struggle but the means through which struggle itself happens. Building the union is top priority and stopping things which get the union in trouble (like unofficial action) take on the utmost importance; after all, if the workers get the union into too much trouble, how will struggle happen? Of course, an individual can take on a full-time union job and concentrate on organising conflicts rather than just recruitment. But full-timers aren’t freelancers, their bosses (the union they work for), like any other boss, needs to see results. And ‘results’ doesn’t mean class conflict, it means membership recruitment and retention. Because without members, official trade unionism can’t do what it most needs to. Meeting employers half-way Criticisms of the bureaucratic nature of the trade unions are not uncommon on the far-left. Many conclude that we need to democratise or ‘reclaim’ the existing unions, while others more radically conclude that we need new unions, controlled by the rank and file. However, this misses the point about what bureaucracies are and why they happen. Unions don’t play this role because they’re bureaucratic, they’re bureaucratic because of the role they play. That is, they try to mediate the conflict between workers and their bosses. The primary way this happens is through monopolising the right to negotiate conditions on behalf of the workforce. What is crucial when trying to do this is maintaining as high a membership as possible, regardless of how detached from the workplace such a union becomes. As union density drops generally, unions solve this problem with endless mergers as high membership figures help maintain their influence with management (not to mention the TUC and the Labour Party). If a union is to secure its place as the negotiator in the workplace, it not only has to win the support of its members but also show bosses that they can get the workforce back to work once an agreement is reached. By having membership figures which they can point at to make sure management recognise them as the body able to negotiate wages and conditions, unions are also able to use this position to retain and attract members. Equally, this influence with the workforce is what’s useful to management. Union bureaucrats offer stability in the workplace, diverting workers’ anger into a complex world of employment law, grievance procedures and casework forms. As Buzz Hargrove, leader of the militant Canadian Auto Workers union, wrote in his autobiography: “Good unions work to defuse [workers’] anger – and they do it effectively. Without unions, there would be anarchy in the workplace. Strikes would be commonplace, and confrontation and violence would increase. Poor-quality workmanship, low productivity, increased sick time, and absenteeism would be the preferred form of worker protest. “By and large, unions deflect those damaging and costly forms of worker resistance. If our critics understood what really goes on behind the labour scenes, they would be thankful that union leaders are as effective as they are in averting strikes.” The legal restrictions on unions mentioned earlier are often called “anti-union” laws. However when looked at like this, it becomes apparent that these laws are not so much anti-union as anti-worker. If anything, it strengthens the union’s hand by giving it a total monopoly on all legally recognised (and therefore protected) forms of action. The same laws which help employers maintain order in the workplace can also be seen helping the union maintain its half of the bargain with the employers. As a result, pro-union radicals often propose the ‘wink and nod’ strategy: that is, the union officially saying “come on, back to work, the union doesn’t condone this...” while giving a sly little wink while the boss isn’t looking. But if bosses don’t think a union can keep up its end of the bargain then they won’t recognise them as negotiating “partners.” Why would they? Why would anyone repeatedly reach an agreement with someone else if they knew that person wouldn’t uphold their side of the bargain? In order to function as representatives of the workforce, unions have to play by the rules including, where necessary, policing the workforce and directing militancy into the “proper channels.” The anti-strike laws reinforce this pressure by threatening unions with financial ruin if they don’t rein in legally unprotected actions. This is where the pressure to discipline members comes from. It’s not a question of the right leaders with the right politics or of having the right principles written down in a constitution. It’s not about individuals, it’s about how structures work to fulfill their needs. From John Turner through to today via the French CGT, American CIO, Polish Solidarnosc and countless others, unions have turned, through their role as mediators, away from their origins as expressions of class anger and into organisations disciplining the working class against its own interests. Notably, the unions that avoided this fate are those that adopted explicitly revolutionary perspectives and consciously refused to play a mediating role, such as the Spanish CNT’s refusal to participate in works councils and union elections2. So what then? This article is just the start of a wider criticism of unions. But where unions seek to act as mediators and representatives they necessitate the creation of bureaucracies to take on this task and bureaucrats, separated as they are from workers’ lives, have different interests from them. They need primarily to maintain their seat at the negotiating table. Therefore it’s no surprise that where gains have been made (even within a union framework) it has been through the threat or actuality of unmediated direct action: from the Lindsey Oil Refinery strikes to the wildcat-prone refuse workers of Brighton to the solidarity of truck drivers not crossing Shell truckers’ picket lines. And most recently the sparks dispute which won big gains was won through rank and file organisation. These strikes, which ended in unqualified victories for the workers, pushed the boundaries of trade union action, breaking anti-strike laws and taking place outside the official union structures (even if organised by lay-reps at local union level). Our task is to encourage this sort of independent activity, to encourage the control of struggles through workplace meetings of all workers affected (regardless of union affiliation) and to encourage the use of direct action to get results. These should be the guiding principles for us in workplace organising. Leave ‘reclaiming the unions’ to the ones who have time for that sort of thing , they can build career ladders for bureaucrats. If union density is what creates militancy then the UK (at 27%) would be far more militant than France (8%). Clearly this is not the case. We’re done building new bureaucracies; we need to take action without them. With thanks and credits to http://libcom.org/library/red-flags-torn-brief-sketch-some-problems-unions-ed-goddard

Why theory matters

In the day to day struggle of making a living and just getting by the matter of theory can sometime seem abstract and not relevant. I think this is a mistake I. Recently I’ve been shocked and surprised at the level of political understanding that your average socialist party member has when it comes to Marxism. Whilst I don’t think this is uncommon the left due to the driving back of workers consciousness is at a very low point as we stand. No amount of talking ourselves up and saying things are good just around the corner will do I’m afraid. Things are very poor for us and we must face up to that not continuously con ourselves into thinking if only the trade union leaders were better and more militant we would have a chance. This completely fails to understand the role of trade union leader’s labour aristocracy if you like in the class struggle. Very few if any are revolutionaries and most are out and out reformist and some have even brought into the idea there is no alternative to the market and capitalism. What saddens me most though is the attitude towards theory. Of course our day to day struggles are important probably more so at the moment with the bedroom tax and the other huge cuts on their way. But even within more so called advanced members of our party I’ve found a big lack of theory and understanding. Most get that capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced that’s a g even or should be at least. # Yet you start to talk about Marxist economics and many run a mile a sort of fear of Marxism a fear of theory and economics. Few I know have actually read or even tried to read capital one of Karl Marx greatest works. I’m currently working my way through volume 3 myself and I haven’t found it easy but I believe it is fundamental and absolutely necessary for a comrades understanding of the system we are looking to over throw. I genuinely feel you cannot over throw something you have very little understanding of. Few comrades I note have even tried to read capital fearing its s size and its complicated language actually it isn’t that bad once you get into it I found. Some parts are hard there is no getting away from that but you must endeavour and once I finish reading it there is much to understand from it I will no doubt read it again at some point as it is a very rich text with plenty of lessons for workers today. Take for example Marx’s theory of labour value most comrades know the workers are being mugged but mention surplus value or necessary labour time they mostly haven’t a clue. An understanding of theory doesn’t have to be academic far from it it is the basic under pinning of any good party and membership. A failure to grasp what we’re up against will result in coming up short I have to say. This is not a plea to start reading everything Marx ever wrote but a plea for the party to take the idea of theory far more seriously than it currently does. There is always time to read and read some more. We even try new member’s schools which need to be developed for more advanced comrades too who want to develop their ideas further taking on bigger and bigger ideas if they can. Whilst some will say to me we need to be relevant and talk to workers in ways they can understand this misses the point I’m not saying we are about to go out and start talking in Marxist terms about excess surplus value or variable capital on the picket lines no not at all but this is something we as a party must get to grips with. If we can understand things better about the way capitalism works or doesn’t work depending on your point of view the better chance we have of convincing workers putting things into a way they can understand things as I do believe many workers can understand Marx it is not something that is way out or very hard to read. Sure Marx wrote it in a day where language was very different but there are so many help books lectures by the likes of Prof David Harvey who help you understand things much better from capital that there really isn’t any reason why ordinary workers could start to get this sort of stuff. Also understanding and learning the lessons from history is key reading and learning workers struggles from the past including the Russian revolution the Spanish and what happened in Chile is also key. I think understanding Trotsky’s writings on fascism what it is and how to fight it will become key in the future too but that’s for another post. Theory is important and should be given more time and thought certainly for me a good Marxist understanding should be fundamental to any good revolutionary worth their salt today. I mean I am starting to understand a bit more why can’t others?

The real meaning of May Day

A press release from the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) Millions of workers around the world will be marking May Day today (1st May) and over the next few days. The media and the mainstream politicians will attempt to gloss over the real meaning of this holiday. But it will be a celebration of the struggle of workers and ordinary poor people through the ages for a decent life. The NSSN believes that this 2013 International Workers' Day must be more than a memorial. NSSN national chair Rob Williams said: "The first May Day in 1886 was the first general strike in the USA, called to fight for an eight hour day. "The bosses' reprisals saw four of the workers' leaders executed. May Day isn't some quaint holiday but a celebration of the struggle undertaken by working people for the basic necessities, none of which were given willingly by the employers or their governments. "In that sense, nothing much seems to have changed, with the huge Con-Dem austerity offensive which is attacking the poor, the sick and the unemployed - young and old. "For those in work, more is being demanded for less. 60% of those being affected by the cuts to welfare are working and there are 1 million workers claiming housing benefit - a figure that's doubled. 40% of the civil servants administering the new Universal Credit will be claiming it! The NSSN will be attending the countless May Day rallies to call on the TUC and the unions to name the date for a 24 hour general strike" At last week's TUC General Council meeting, lobbied by the NSSN (video-nssn-lobby-of-the-tuc/) it seems that the TUC agreed to organise a meeting of all unions currently engaged in strikes and those planning ballots. With 250,000 civil servants from the PCS taking action plus some 700,000 teachers about to recommence their dispute plus innumerable other smaller disputes currently taking place, this could be significant. Also, the government has made its final pay offer to millions of council workers confirming its 1% pay cap - effectively a 2% pay cut in real terms. The NSSN believes there is a basis for joint strike action on a similar scale to that of 30th November 2011, when up to two million public sector workers went on strike to defend their pensions. The NSSN was initiated by the RMT in 2006 and is holding its 7th annual conference in London on 29th June 2013. Speakers include PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka and the leaders of the CWU and the POA. Email - info@shopstewards.net Website - www.shopstewards.net Phone Rob Williams on 07816134690

Days lost to strike action up, times are a changing

I’ve noticed it as I’m involved in following workers disputes and supporting workers in struggles but for others out there it may not be obvious but there has been an upsurge in industrial action in the last few years. This doesntsurprise me at all but it may surprise some who are not aware of what’s going on out there. Ever since the global financial crash in 2008 and governments across the world bailed out the banks to the tune of billions possibly entering the trillions globally ever since the debts have been transferred to sovereign debt and we the working and middle class’s are being made to pay for a crisis we did not create. Understandably many workers are not taking this lying down and strikes mainly in the public sector as that has been where the attacks are concentrated most have shot up but now we are seeing a rise in private sector disputes as private sector companies see a chance to drive down wages in the private sector even further still. Official figures show that nearly 1.4million working days were lost to strikes in the first eleven months of 2011, a four-fold increase on 2010’s tally. Nine out of 10 days lost to strikes last year were because of unrest in the public sector. Official figures show that the number of working days lost to strikes in the first eleven months of 2011 was 1,373,200, up from 365,000 in 2010. The days lost to strikes are now at their highest since 1990 when 1.9million working days were lost to strikes. Most of the strike days – 93 per cent - were lost in the public sector unsurprisingly. In this year 2012 not a day goes by without a new dispute opening up and a ballot being held in that area of work be that on pay, victimisation of a union rep which has shot up I might add, conditions, pensions, privatisation and much much more in between. This post may seem a bit like stating the obvious but sometimes that obvious point is not even made the likes of the BBC and Sky are reluctant to publish such reports due to the affect it could have on the wider society its no coincidence bourgeois media sources have been reluctant and have been successful in blacking out any news of industrial unrest in Spain with the recent Northern Spannish Miners strikes and battles with police. If this sort of news story got across Europe the ruling class know all too well it’d light a spark in workers minds who are struggling by themselves. Europe is a tinder box with a tiny spark is all that is needed to set the whole thing up in flames. With Spannish bond yields creeping over 7% regularly now it is only a matter of time before Spain requires another bailout a possible full scale bailout this time. With Spain being the 4th biggest economy in Europe this could be huge if Spain defaults on its debts which is entirely possible still going into the autumn and the later part of 2012. This is not bearing in mind the ever likely exit of the Euro by Greece which is becoming more and more likely and inevitable as time creeps by. But the main point of this post is that if the ruling class think they can impose endless austerity on big nations like Spain and Italy which I see being crucial in this coming rough period they have another thing coming. Industrial disputes which are up anyway will shoot up from now on with workers welland truly taking to the stage. The European Working class has been stirred it will now react in the only way it knows and that is in class struggle. Fighting to defend all the gains it has made including various welfare states, wage increases, pensions and a better life under capitlism in the better years which for many was still not great is all under threat now and everything is up for grabs. Many workers know if they don’t fight now they stand no chance of defending their gains the only chance they have of stopping the onslaught is to fight and fight they will. I have faith in workers across the globe. Where workers enter struggle we support them as they are our class and the global workers movement supports and stands in solidarity with you as you will support us when we move into struggle. Workers of the world unite. A better socialist world is possible !