subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Luna17: Lenin's 'The State and Revolution'
Luna17: Lenin's 'The State and Revolution': "This is my introduction to Counterfire's re-publishing of chapter 1 from Lenin's classic 'The State and Revolution' (1917)... It is impossi..."
Why i dont foresee a left turn for labour
So before i start this may be a contravertial post for some who read this blog and if you are a labour member and easily offended by anything that isnt wholely in support of labour then you may be best not reading this.
Also these are all my own personal views and if you wish to challenge me to a debate i'd be happy to do so. I dont intend to upset anyone and if i do that is not my intention.
Firstly i like many last year after the genearl election as a reaction to the tories gaining power with the aid of the lib dems joined labour. So you may have views on me joining then now leaving labour a month or so ago but i will explain why here.
Now labour in opposition have always tried to play to the mass's and try to appeal to all. This time they are trying to appeal to this so called "squeezed middle" with a new leader since the departure of Gordon Brown after he was forced to stand down last summer has presented labour with a leader in Ed Miliband. I did have a vote in the leadership elections and chose Ed Balls que the critisism which i will take on the chin firmly as i was lead to believe he was the most opposed to cuts and at the time had a no cuts position i thought. I later discovered this was not the case and like all polititains was using this to gain votes from the left. It worked to a extent. I was fooled. I know how lib dem and student voters feel now to be betrayed but this was just the start of a long list of betrayels for me on a personal level.
I take aboard all the critisism thrown my way for leaving labour not even a year into my membership and not staying to fight back against the blairites but i feel like many others labour can no longer be regained by the left.
There is still a element of labour members and supporters who do genuinely believe labour is a left wing party and is socialist . Neither of these terms could be further from the truth. Yes as Tony Benn once said labour may have socialists in it but is no way a socialist party in any shape or form.
Ed Miliband labours new leader has had a slow start and i felt he wasnt making the right noises in changing the direction of the arguement on the need for cuts.
My own position is no to all cuts which i feel goes along with my socialist views and approach to politics. I dont feel the working class should have to pay a penny or loose any services that they depend on due to the mistakes of the bankers.
I should have known better really with labour. I have to admit now that although i'm very involved now i was not always into politics much at all and my decision in joining labour was probably a rushed one and one i put down to my nievity in politics and not discovering what else is out there.
I personally do not see labour party turning left at all in its attempts to regain power and reach out to disaffected voters. Let me explain why.
For many years the left in labour and the left in general have been pushed back and back. One example of this is the purge on the left by Neil Kinnock who expelled many fine comrades from Militant who later went on to form Militant labour and now the Socialist Party as they are known as today.
Any attempt by the left even when it did have more of a base in labour not like today when it is just made of idealists and centrists from the LRC who make good noises in terms of socialism and may well want things to change but do very little about helping it to happen. People in the LRC and left wing members of labour i believe are being quite misleading in their attempts to draw people and socialists back to labour. After the outrageous decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and new labours attempts for privatisation of the NHS, Royal mail with consignia we all remember that especially those in CWU and who cannot forget the way Tony Blair tried to cut the link with the trade unions with labour to move to a party much like the democrats in America today.
We can also not forget how Tony Blair and his new labour government of tories in disguise failed to untighten the anti trade unin laws imposed on the British trade union movement today from Margret Thatcher all those years ago.
Labour are a social democratic party apparently but support changing things within the capitalist system we currently live in. I feel this is reformism in all honesty and quite simply you cannot make the capitalist system fair while the few at the top have the economic power and wealth and the rest have to do the best with the rest.
This was reconfirmed to me when a recent interview with Ed Miliband on labours so called alternative to the cuts and the tories program was
“We’re not about to replace it, but there are different forms of capitalism we can have . . . My socialism is not about a blueprint for the perfect society, but it is about saying we can have a more equal, just and fair society.”
How is that even possible when your still working within the capitalist society and trying to reform it ? capitalism cannot be reformed in my view and only its over throw and a move towards a socialist society will make things truely fairer. This coupled with a worker controlled planned economy with real political democracy will lead to true fairness not this muffled version polititians like to throw about like they know the meanin of the word.
I wont go into my critisisms of Ed Miliband personally here but i dont believe he is against cuts and his apearance on the big TUC demo on March 26th was just insulting quite frankly when his party support the need for cuts and would be carrying out cuts right now if they had won the election last year.
In recent months labour has tried to appeal to disaffected lib dem voters who feel betrayed also after Nick Clegg sold them out to the tories to join the coalition. It would appear especially after one of the four labour MP's who quit the party back in 1981 David owen who left over not being prepared to accept decisions on the EU, on nuclear weapons and on the structure of the party, and so he left The SDP is a lot like labour and new labour especially so we may end up seeing a party in the shape of that in the years to come under Ed Miliband he did always say one of his great politics inspirations is Roy Jenkins. Says alot about where he wants to take labour now.
As for the labour left argueing that there will always be a place for the left and socialists in labour while the trade union link is kept ensuring a link to the working class is a vaild arguement it doesnt stand up when the leadership for years has repeatably ignored the union link and appeared to take the unions funding and said thanks very much leaving the unions with their hands ringing. You do have to question what the unions get out of the labour link these days as it certainly isnt much or anything near a voice if you ask me.
Ed Miliband won't be taking Labour into general, or principled, opposition to the cuts. In his first TV interview as Labour leader, shortly after the shadow cabinet was named, he warned he would not support public sector strikes over pensions, and that industrial action would alienate the wider public and undermine Labour's efforts to fight other spending cuts.
"I don't think we should be talking about industrial action. I think it is very premature to be talking about that", he said. Didn't take long, did it?
So when would be the 'right time' for Labour to respond? When would supporting workers and communities resisting the cuts be the "right thing to do"?
The election of Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet, even if containing many of 'the Next Generation', has not fundamentally reversed the direction that Labour has taken over the last 20 years. Labour is a party now happy to manage the market economy, and accept all its limitations, even if that means being embroiled in the sacking of thousands of workers across the country.
The coming cuts battles will be the catalyst in town after town, for the idea and building of a new party, firmly rooted in the organisations and communities of working people. The idea will grow that, let down by the three main parties, working people need their own party that will properly defend the idea of public services and public ownership against the current common agenda which accepts that the victims of the recession further punished, rather than the culprits.
The weakness of the labour left to even get their own superstar as some on the labour left like to call John McDonald, on to last years leadership ballot and not recieve 33 nominations faling short and Diane Abbot then taking the token left candidate on the ballot is another clear sign the left within labour is dead and beyond repair and must be abandoned and a new workers party formed.
Diane Abbotts record as a labour left winger doesnt look great.
Through the wonders of Google, I came up with this word to describe her: 'tergiversant' (to change sides or loyalties; apostatise to be evasive or ambiguous; equivocate). Like most Labour MPs she puts herself and her career above all else.
On her own website, after pointing out that in 1987 she made history by becoming the first black woman to be elected to the British parliament, it egotistically states: "She has since built a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, broadcaster and commentator".
Last summer she wrote an article supporting Gordon Brown as party leader, whilst in 2007 she was listed as a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs and supported McDonnell in the last leadership election. She is not listed as supporting the 'People's Charter'.
She opposed the 'Blair wars' yet voted against an inquiry.
Today in 2011 she has now been part of the strong majority in the commons who voted for western intervention in Libya against Cornel Gadaffi so how left is she really ?
She also most notably sent her son to a private school to the outrage of many of her Hackney constituents. When questioned about this she replied: "In 2001, when my son was facing secondary transfer, the average numbers of boys nationally getting five GCSE A-Cs was 42%. In Hackney the average number of black boys getting the same result was 9%. And the school in Hackney that we were actually offered was so poor that it closed shortly afterwards.
But since then: a Labour government has poured money into Hackney schools; a series of excellent academies has opened in the borough; attainment levels overall in Hackney have gone up. So if he was transferring to secondary school now, I would not face the same dilemma." So she presumably supports academies.
Did I also mention her cosy late night - on the couch - TV slot with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo up till recently.
Many within labour on the left argue for this join labour and turn it left approach this is doomed to fail in my view and is creating false illusions of being able to change the party from within.
Of course, the fact Labour did so well in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election has Labourites all excited that the party looks electable again so soon. Such people are not allies of those wanting to fight the coalition government's cuts. For these Labourite working class betrayers why build for a strike (harms Labour's electoral chances) or go on a demonstration - unless there is a Labour MP addressing the crowd on the need to vote Labour
As has been said, the attitude to the Labour Party and the relationship and role of socialists and revolutionaries to it is an old argument. We have the dismissive sneering of those in the Labour Party that the left outside cannot get decent votes. Well, that depends, doesn't it? The Scottish Socialist Party had six MSPs for a time and Respect had one MP before the usual left splits. I wonder where the Socialist Alliance would be today if it had stayed together. Their policies of MPs on a worker's wage and recallability are even more relevant today in the wake of the electorate's disgust over the MPs' expenses scandal.
We saw all trade union strikes condemned under Blair and Brown. Now Ed' Miliband has recently condemned any idea of unions uniting in strikes against the cuts to bring the coalition government down. This from a man whose election depended on those unions affiliated to the Labour Party and who made a pitch for the votes of workers during the leadership contest.
The gap between the rich and poor widened more under New Labour than it did under the Tory governments before them - fact. We have seen the Labour Party in government take Britain into war in Iraq despite the largest ever demonstration in British history. That dwarfed the anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s. How many Labour MPs voted for war ?
We saw none of the privatised utilities brought back into public ownership - in fact we saw more privatisations - despite the pledges made against by Labour in the lead-up to the 1997 general election. Private finance initiative extortions continued under the Labour government and anti-union laws were retained. A drive towards funding by big business to move away from reliance on union funding was only set back by the cash for honours scandals!
We soon saw what happened to the promises of an 'ethical' foreign policy, of the government being 'whiter than white' and sleaze-free. We saw increasing attacks on civil liberties, the draconian and misused 'anti-terrorism' laws and a drive for compulsory ID cards - actually revoked by this coalition government! Labour got us involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, remained committed to the renewal of Trident and signed us up to the production of two aircraft carriers (destined to be without planes for 10 years).
New Labour did nothing to restrain the irresponsible gambling by the banks and finance industries and, to top it all, Brown claimed to have abolished 'boom and bust'. How many people because of those grossly irresponsible proclamations (made by a Labour leader, not a Tory) - and in the belief that property prices would forever rise - took out second mortgages or massive credit card debt?
The marketisation of the NHS and education went further under a Labour government than it did under the Tories. Privatisation of our public services were added to by attacks on final salary pension schemes. All the while most Labour MPs acted like they were to the manor born and constantly voted themselves large pay rises, pension enhancements and expenses, whilst urging restraint on the working and middle classes.
New labour were a reformist government wedded to trying to moderate capitalism. But one with a landslide majority and benefiting from a buoyant economy that produced so little gain for the working class Where was the left in the Labour Party during all this? Backing Blair, then Brown in the name of 'unity' and for a Labour victory 'to keep the Tories out' - that's where!
The Labour right have learnt enough to ensure the left will get nowhere near gaining control. Look what happened to the leadership bids of John McDonnell, a good friend of PCS. He could not even get enough nominations to stand as a candidate against Blair, and then Diane Abbott headed him off by playing the diversity card to magnificent effect: she kept John off the ballot, but not the other middle-aged, white males. A far, far cry from the Tony Benn-Eric Heffer challenge of 1982!
Internally, clause four was jettisoned and party democracy crippled, with the result that Labour conference cannot make manifesto policies; MP selection procedures were changed, allowing candidates to be imposed from above; and the Parliamentary Labour Party is not accountable to the organisation as a whole. How will the left be able to operate today? Every democratic change that the LRC argues for will be voted down if those in control (with eager media support) assert that it will hinder Labour's electoral chances.
Labour-affiliated unions will think twice about strike action against the cuts, now Miliband has argued Labour will not support them. Remind me, how many such unions called strikes under the last Labour government? What does anyone think Labour would do back in power with a massive deficit after arguing for cuts at the last general election? This will not be 1997 all over again with the cheerful optimism, seemingly justified at the time in the context of an economic boom.
There will always be those within labour who see things through rose tinted spectecles despite every betrayal. Look at the typical Labour Party membership today - either those who always justify support for Labour, no matter what the betrayals of the working class, with 'the Tories will be worse'; or those seduced by meaningless babble from Blair, Brown and now Miliband.
Those wanting to participate in the LRC and the Labour Party are aiming to engage with people whose loyalty is 'to the Labour Party, no matter how awful'. Instead we should be engaging with those disgusted with all three main political parties, not fostering illusions in Labour all over again. It is not up for change, never really was, and is even less open to socialism today.
It is, of course, far easier to mix with 'socialists' in the LRC than to engage with the mass of the working class outside the Labour Party. It is easier to stay in the Labour Party and have a pint in the bar, commiserating over every betrayal, than start a real working class party all over again. But the LRC is misleading millions of working class people into once again looking to the Labour Party rather than to a real alternative fighting for real socialism with workers faith restored in politics .
The alternative to labour
As socialists on the left we argue for the need for a new workers party.
A century ago trade unioniss and socialists came together to fight for independent political representation for the working class: the result was the Labour Party.
In the past the Labour Party, however imperfectly, provided a voice for the working class. Today, however, New Labour is a party of the giant corporations, its policies a continuation of Margaret Thatcher's attacks on the lives and living conditions of working class people.
Public services are being sold off; the occupation of Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and over two thousand 'coalition' soldiers; democratic rights are being undermined in the name of fighting terrorism; and the Tory anti-trade union laws, the most repressive in the European Union, have been left almost completely intact.
We believe that the chance to reclaim the Labour Party has long passed and there is no point in continuing to fuel false hopes. The recent success of the new Left party in Germany, winning 8.8% of the vote and 54 MPs, gives a glimpse of the potential for a new left force. We pledge to do all in our power to bring a new workers' party into being in England and Wales.
We believe it would be wrong, at this early stage, to attempt to predetermine the structure or every aspect of a new party. That can only be decided on the basis of democratic debate leading to agreement amongst the forces involved.
However, if it is to be successful, it is crucial that a new party, and any pre-party formations, be open, democratic and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the neo-liberal onslaught on the working class. This means that all groups and individuals, provided they are in agreement with the basic aims of the party, should have the right to democratically organise and argue for their point of view.
This also reaches out to all who do good work within labour and consider themselves left wing and socialist but are feeling disenchanted by Labours neo-kliberal record of the last few decades. We will always welcome all that was good about labour into a new movement for a new workers party. We are not totally against labour for the sake of it we do recognise Labour did do some good things but it is not enough for the working class to live off concessions it needs real representation.
This approach will help ensure the new formation is attractive to trade unionists, community and environmental campaigners, and anti-war activists. Most importantly it will assist in reaching out to workers and to young people who are not yet active in struggle. In this way we can unite the strongest possible forces to build a powerful working class party that is capable of effectively opposing the anti-union laws, cuts, privatisation, environmental degradation and war.
We believe that such a party would represent a fundamental break with the big business parties which currently dominate politics, giving workers the opportunity to resist the neo-liberal capitalist agenda and fight for a socialist programme - including a living minimum wage, full trade union rights and for fully funded, democratically controlled public services.
So i hope if you are a labour member or not you have found my little piece interesting and i hope to have explained a bit more of my position at present. If you would like to discuss anything i have wrote here further do let me know and i again apoligise if i have offended anyone at all that is not my intention at all with this post.
Also these are all my own personal views and if you wish to challenge me to a debate i'd be happy to do so. I dont intend to upset anyone and if i do that is not my intention.
Firstly i like many last year after the genearl election as a reaction to the tories gaining power with the aid of the lib dems joined labour. So you may have views on me joining then now leaving labour a month or so ago but i will explain why here.
Now labour in opposition have always tried to play to the mass's and try to appeal to all. This time they are trying to appeal to this so called "squeezed middle" with a new leader since the departure of Gordon Brown after he was forced to stand down last summer has presented labour with a leader in Ed Miliband. I did have a vote in the leadership elections and chose Ed Balls que the critisism which i will take on the chin firmly as i was lead to believe he was the most opposed to cuts and at the time had a no cuts position i thought. I later discovered this was not the case and like all polititains was using this to gain votes from the left. It worked to a extent. I was fooled. I know how lib dem and student voters feel now to be betrayed but this was just the start of a long list of betrayels for me on a personal level.
I take aboard all the critisism thrown my way for leaving labour not even a year into my membership and not staying to fight back against the blairites but i feel like many others labour can no longer be regained by the left.
There is still a element of labour members and supporters who do genuinely believe labour is a left wing party and is socialist . Neither of these terms could be further from the truth. Yes as Tony Benn once said labour may have socialists in it but is no way a socialist party in any shape or form.
Ed Miliband labours new leader has had a slow start and i felt he wasnt making the right noises in changing the direction of the arguement on the need for cuts.
My own position is no to all cuts which i feel goes along with my socialist views and approach to politics. I dont feel the working class should have to pay a penny or loose any services that they depend on due to the mistakes of the bankers.
I should have known better really with labour. I have to admit now that although i'm very involved now i was not always into politics much at all and my decision in joining labour was probably a rushed one and one i put down to my nievity in politics and not discovering what else is out there.
I personally do not see labour party turning left at all in its attempts to regain power and reach out to disaffected voters. Let me explain why.
For many years the left in labour and the left in general have been pushed back and back. One example of this is the purge on the left by Neil Kinnock who expelled many fine comrades from Militant who later went on to form Militant labour and now the Socialist Party as they are known as today.
Any attempt by the left even when it did have more of a base in labour not like today when it is just made of idealists and centrists from the LRC who make good noises in terms of socialism and may well want things to change but do very little about helping it to happen. People in the LRC and left wing members of labour i believe are being quite misleading in their attempts to draw people and socialists back to labour. After the outrageous decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and new labours attempts for privatisation of the NHS, Royal mail with consignia we all remember that especially those in CWU and who cannot forget the way Tony Blair tried to cut the link with the trade unions with labour to move to a party much like the democrats in America today.
We can also not forget how Tony Blair and his new labour government of tories in disguise failed to untighten the anti trade unin laws imposed on the British trade union movement today from Margret Thatcher all those years ago.
Labour are a social democratic party apparently but support changing things within the capitalist system we currently live in. I feel this is reformism in all honesty and quite simply you cannot make the capitalist system fair while the few at the top have the economic power and wealth and the rest have to do the best with the rest.
This was reconfirmed to me when a recent interview with Ed Miliband on labours so called alternative to the cuts and the tories program was
“We’re not about to replace it, but there are different forms of capitalism we can have . . . My socialism is not about a blueprint for the perfect society, but it is about saying we can have a more equal, just and fair society.”
How is that even possible when your still working within the capitalist society and trying to reform it ? capitalism cannot be reformed in my view and only its over throw and a move towards a socialist society will make things truely fairer. This coupled with a worker controlled planned economy with real political democracy will lead to true fairness not this muffled version polititians like to throw about like they know the meanin of the word.
I wont go into my critisisms of Ed Miliband personally here but i dont believe he is against cuts and his apearance on the big TUC demo on March 26th was just insulting quite frankly when his party support the need for cuts and would be carrying out cuts right now if they had won the election last year.
In recent months labour has tried to appeal to disaffected lib dem voters who feel betrayed also after Nick Clegg sold them out to the tories to join the coalition. It would appear especially after one of the four labour MP's who quit the party back in 1981 David owen who left over not being prepared to accept decisions on the EU, on nuclear weapons and on the structure of the party, and so he left The SDP is a lot like labour and new labour especially so we may end up seeing a party in the shape of that in the years to come under Ed Miliband he did always say one of his great politics inspirations is Roy Jenkins. Says alot about where he wants to take labour now.
As for the labour left argueing that there will always be a place for the left and socialists in labour while the trade union link is kept ensuring a link to the working class is a vaild arguement it doesnt stand up when the leadership for years has repeatably ignored the union link and appeared to take the unions funding and said thanks very much leaving the unions with their hands ringing. You do have to question what the unions get out of the labour link these days as it certainly isnt much or anything near a voice if you ask me.
Ed Miliband won't be taking Labour into general, or principled, opposition to the cuts. In his first TV interview as Labour leader, shortly after the shadow cabinet was named, he warned he would not support public sector strikes over pensions, and that industrial action would alienate the wider public and undermine Labour's efforts to fight other spending cuts.
"I don't think we should be talking about industrial action. I think it is very premature to be talking about that", he said. Didn't take long, did it?
So when would be the 'right time' for Labour to respond? When would supporting workers and communities resisting the cuts be the "right thing to do"?
The election of Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet, even if containing many of 'the Next Generation', has not fundamentally reversed the direction that Labour has taken over the last 20 years. Labour is a party now happy to manage the market economy, and accept all its limitations, even if that means being embroiled in the sacking of thousands of workers across the country.
The coming cuts battles will be the catalyst in town after town, for the idea and building of a new party, firmly rooted in the organisations and communities of working people. The idea will grow that, let down by the three main parties, working people need their own party that will properly defend the idea of public services and public ownership against the current common agenda which accepts that the victims of the recession further punished, rather than the culprits.
The weakness of the labour left to even get their own superstar as some on the labour left like to call John McDonald, on to last years leadership ballot and not recieve 33 nominations faling short and Diane Abbot then taking the token left candidate on the ballot is another clear sign the left within labour is dead and beyond repair and must be abandoned and a new workers party formed.
Diane Abbotts record as a labour left winger doesnt look great.
Through the wonders of Google, I came up with this word to describe her: 'tergiversant' (to change sides or loyalties; apostatise to be evasive or ambiguous; equivocate). Like most Labour MPs she puts herself and her career above all else.
On her own website, after pointing out that in 1987 she made history by becoming the first black woman to be elected to the British parliament, it egotistically states: "She has since built a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, broadcaster and commentator".
Last summer she wrote an article supporting Gordon Brown as party leader, whilst in 2007 she was listed as a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs and supported McDonnell in the last leadership election. She is not listed as supporting the 'People's Charter'.
She opposed the 'Blair wars' yet voted against an inquiry.
Today in 2011 she has now been part of the strong majority in the commons who voted for western intervention in Libya against Cornel Gadaffi so how left is she really ?
She also most notably sent her son to a private school to the outrage of many of her Hackney constituents. When questioned about this she replied: "In 2001, when my son was facing secondary transfer, the average numbers of boys nationally getting five GCSE A-Cs was 42%. In Hackney the average number of black boys getting the same result was 9%. And the school in Hackney that we were actually offered was so poor that it closed shortly afterwards.
But since then: a Labour government has poured money into Hackney schools; a series of excellent academies has opened in the borough; attainment levels overall in Hackney have gone up. So if he was transferring to secondary school now, I would not face the same dilemma." So she presumably supports academies.
Did I also mention her cosy late night - on the couch - TV slot with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo up till recently.
Many within labour on the left argue for this join labour and turn it left approach this is doomed to fail in my view and is creating false illusions of being able to change the party from within.
Of course, the fact Labour did so well in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election has Labourites all excited that the party looks electable again so soon. Such people are not allies of those wanting to fight the coalition government's cuts. For these Labourite working class betrayers why build for a strike (harms Labour's electoral chances) or go on a demonstration - unless there is a Labour MP addressing the crowd on the need to vote Labour
As has been said, the attitude to the Labour Party and the relationship and role of socialists and revolutionaries to it is an old argument. We have the dismissive sneering of those in the Labour Party that the left outside cannot get decent votes. Well, that depends, doesn't it? The Scottish Socialist Party had six MSPs for a time and Respect had one MP before the usual left splits. I wonder where the Socialist Alliance would be today if it had stayed together. Their policies of MPs on a worker's wage and recallability are even more relevant today in the wake of the electorate's disgust over the MPs' expenses scandal.
We saw all trade union strikes condemned under Blair and Brown. Now Ed' Miliband has recently condemned any idea of unions uniting in strikes against the cuts to bring the coalition government down. This from a man whose election depended on those unions affiliated to the Labour Party and who made a pitch for the votes of workers during the leadership contest.
The gap between the rich and poor widened more under New Labour than it did under the Tory governments before them - fact. We have seen the Labour Party in government take Britain into war in Iraq despite the largest ever demonstration in British history. That dwarfed the anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s. How many Labour MPs voted for war ?
We saw none of the privatised utilities brought back into public ownership - in fact we saw more privatisations - despite the pledges made against by Labour in the lead-up to the 1997 general election. Private finance initiative extortions continued under the Labour government and anti-union laws were retained. A drive towards funding by big business to move away from reliance on union funding was only set back by the cash for honours scandals!
We soon saw what happened to the promises of an 'ethical' foreign policy, of the government being 'whiter than white' and sleaze-free. We saw increasing attacks on civil liberties, the draconian and misused 'anti-terrorism' laws and a drive for compulsory ID cards - actually revoked by this coalition government! Labour got us involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, remained committed to the renewal of Trident and signed us up to the production of two aircraft carriers (destined to be without planes for 10 years).
New Labour did nothing to restrain the irresponsible gambling by the banks and finance industries and, to top it all, Brown claimed to have abolished 'boom and bust'. How many people because of those grossly irresponsible proclamations (made by a Labour leader, not a Tory) - and in the belief that property prices would forever rise - took out second mortgages or massive credit card debt?
The marketisation of the NHS and education went further under a Labour government than it did under the Tories. Privatisation of our public services were added to by attacks on final salary pension schemes. All the while most Labour MPs acted like they were to the manor born and constantly voted themselves large pay rises, pension enhancements and expenses, whilst urging restraint on the working and middle classes.
New labour were a reformist government wedded to trying to moderate capitalism. But one with a landslide majority and benefiting from a buoyant economy that produced so little gain for the working class Where was the left in the Labour Party during all this? Backing Blair, then Brown in the name of 'unity' and for a Labour victory 'to keep the Tories out' - that's where!
The Labour right have learnt enough to ensure the left will get nowhere near gaining control. Look what happened to the leadership bids of John McDonnell, a good friend of PCS. He could not even get enough nominations to stand as a candidate against Blair, and then Diane Abbott headed him off by playing the diversity card to magnificent effect: she kept John off the ballot, but not the other middle-aged, white males. A far, far cry from the Tony Benn-Eric Heffer challenge of 1982!
Internally, clause four was jettisoned and party democracy crippled, with the result that Labour conference cannot make manifesto policies; MP selection procedures were changed, allowing candidates to be imposed from above; and the Parliamentary Labour Party is not accountable to the organisation as a whole. How will the left be able to operate today? Every democratic change that the LRC argues for will be voted down if those in control (with eager media support) assert that it will hinder Labour's electoral chances.
Labour-affiliated unions will think twice about strike action against the cuts, now Miliband has argued Labour will not support them. Remind me, how many such unions called strikes under the last Labour government? What does anyone think Labour would do back in power with a massive deficit after arguing for cuts at the last general election? This will not be 1997 all over again with the cheerful optimism, seemingly justified at the time in the context of an economic boom.
There will always be those within labour who see things through rose tinted spectecles despite every betrayal. Look at the typical Labour Party membership today - either those who always justify support for Labour, no matter what the betrayals of the working class, with 'the Tories will be worse'; or those seduced by meaningless babble from Blair, Brown and now Miliband.
Those wanting to participate in the LRC and the Labour Party are aiming to engage with people whose loyalty is 'to the Labour Party, no matter how awful'. Instead we should be engaging with those disgusted with all three main political parties, not fostering illusions in Labour all over again. It is not up for change, never really was, and is even less open to socialism today.
It is, of course, far easier to mix with 'socialists' in the LRC than to engage with the mass of the working class outside the Labour Party. It is easier to stay in the Labour Party and have a pint in the bar, commiserating over every betrayal, than start a real working class party all over again. But the LRC is misleading millions of working class people into once again looking to the Labour Party rather than to a real alternative fighting for real socialism with workers faith restored in politics .
The alternative to labour
As socialists on the left we argue for the need for a new workers party.
A century ago trade unioniss and socialists came together to fight for independent political representation for the working class: the result was the Labour Party.
In the past the Labour Party, however imperfectly, provided a voice for the working class. Today, however, New Labour is a party of the giant corporations, its policies a continuation of Margaret Thatcher's attacks on the lives and living conditions of working class people.
Public services are being sold off; the occupation of Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and over two thousand 'coalition' soldiers; democratic rights are being undermined in the name of fighting terrorism; and the Tory anti-trade union laws, the most repressive in the European Union, have been left almost completely intact.
We believe that the chance to reclaim the Labour Party has long passed and there is no point in continuing to fuel false hopes. The recent success of the new Left party in Germany, winning 8.8% of the vote and 54 MPs, gives a glimpse of the potential for a new left force. We pledge to do all in our power to bring a new workers' party into being in England and Wales.
We believe it would be wrong, at this early stage, to attempt to predetermine the structure or every aspect of a new party. That can only be decided on the basis of democratic debate leading to agreement amongst the forces involved.
However, if it is to be successful, it is crucial that a new party, and any pre-party formations, be open, democratic and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the neo-liberal onslaught on the working class. This means that all groups and individuals, provided they are in agreement with the basic aims of the party, should have the right to democratically organise and argue for their point of view.
This also reaches out to all who do good work within labour and consider themselves left wing and socialist but are feeling disenchanted by Labours neo-kliberal record of the last few decades. We will always welcome all that was good about labour into a new movement for a new workers party. We are not totally against labour for the sake of it we do recognise Labour did do some good things but it is not enough for the working class to live off concessions it needs real representation.
This approach will help ensure the new formation is attractive to trade unionists, community and environmental campaigners, and anti-war activists. Most importantly it will assist in reaching out to workers and to young people who are not yet active in struggle. In this way we can unite the strongest possible forces to build a powerful working class party that is capable of effectively opposing the anti-union laws, cuts, privatisation, environmental degradation and war.
We believe that such a party would represent a fundamental break with the big business parties which currently dominate politics, giving workers the opportunity to resist the neo-liberal capitalist agenda and fight for a socialist programme - including a living minimum wage, full trade union rights and for fully funded, democratically controlled public services.
So i hope if you are a labour member or not you have found my little piece interesting and i hope to have explained a bit more of my position at present. If you would like to discuss anything i have wrote here further do let me know and i again apoligise if i have offended anyone at all that is not my intention at all with this post.
The Socialist Way: The fragility of the world economy
The Socialist Way: The fragility of the world economy: "Two years into a ‘reckoned’ recovery, not only have none of the inherent contradictions that triggered off the deepest economic and financ..."
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Social class's in britain today
So as we find ourselves in the struggle today battling against cuts and attacks from all sides of society where the working class are most at risk. We as socialists try as ever to raise class conciousness in terms of the struggle we face today . This is no easy task at all and can be very time consuming and very little reward for it but we must do this. I will examine how we can go about doing this in more detail in another post but i thought i'd take a general look at class concious ness in todays society and where we find ourselves today.
STATEMENTS SUCH as "the working class has disappeared" or "the barriers between the classes no longer exist" have been repeated for many years. This is often backed up by pointing to the de-industrialisation of Britain especially over the last two or three decades.
In fact there are still around four million workers in manufacturing industry in the UK. It is true that increased globalisation of the world economy has meant a large number of manufacturing jobs being transferred to areas such as Eastern Europe and China. But manufacturing jobs lost in the west have often been replaced by low-paid jobs in the service sector, for example in retail, finance and tourism. The fastest growing job sector in Britain is those who clean, shop, child-mind, garden etc for others.
In "white collar" jobs, measures such as performance related pay, imposed targets and casualisation have been increasingly introduced. Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) members in Revenue and Customs for example, have been fighting the introduction of 'lean processing' which breaks down tasks into small repetitive parts to create assembly line type work. Civil servants organised in the PCS have been one of the most militant sections of the working class in recent years and have elected a left union leadership.
politicians and academics tend to talk of the poor being the 'underclass' living off benefits on council estates, or about 'social exclusion', thereby trying to separate the unemployed off from the rest of the working class. Effectively they repeat the old Victorian idea of the 'undeserving poor' and want people to be 'encouraged' into work by the threat of benefit cuts, such as with David Camerons "s latest proposals to beat the poor back into work whetehr they can or not.
It is a strange solution to poverty - to cut the income of the poorest! And by forcing people into low paid work, they do not eliminate poverty. Millions are now described as the 'working poor'.
Capitalist definitions of class confuse the issue. The term "middle class" is often used very broadly, from a white collar worker on low pay in local government or the civil service to a rich businessman.
Official classifications also obscure the real class divide. The highest category according to the Office for National Statistics is 'professional and managerial' which includes people such as teachers and nurses. These certainly do not constitute the ruling class!
Marxists however say that the main class divide in society is between the ruling class - big businessmen and financiers who own "the means of production" on the one hand, and those who have to work for a boss to earn a living and actually create the wealth (value) on the other.
In the past, the average worker sold their "labour power" in a factory. Today, in addition to the millions who still do this there are others working in different fields who also produce new value. Others again, such as many public sector workers, do not strictly fit into this category but are part of the working class because of their social outlook and economic situation. The working class is not homogenous; far from it, there are many sections and layers. There are also middle layers in between the working class and ruling (capitalist) class, what Marx called the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly the self-employed, including small farmers, shopkeepers etc - altogether a wide and varied range of people. Many of them however are in debt to the big banks and have much in common with "workers".
The wealth gap
THE LATEST survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation confirmed again what we already know about the growing gap between rich and poor. It says that it is now greater than it has been for the last 40 years. There has been an increase in the number they define as 'breadline poor' to around a quarter of all households.
Another survey conducted by Save the Children pointed out that 1.3 million children (10.5%) live in 'severe poverty'. They say: 'for a couple with a child that means living on an average of £7,000 a year, or less than £134 a week'. As a result, 'children are missing out on basic things like living in a warm house, having a proper diet or going on a school trip'.
By contrast the wealth of the richest in society has vastly increased. This year's Sunday Times 'rich list' shows that the increase in wealth of the top 1,000 people in Britain has been 20% in one year to around £360 billion. You have to have £70 million just to get on the bottom rung of that list.
Rich list compiler Philip Beresford said: 'The past decade of Labour government has proved a golden age for the rich, rarely seen in modern British history'. This is no overstatement when you realise their wealth has more than tripled in a decade!
The same trend exists on a world scale with the total wealth of 'high-net worth' individuals rising 11.4% to £18.6 trillion in 2006. There are 94,970 people with assets worth more than £15 million. This layer in society with enormous wealth and power is a minute proportion of the total population.
Whilst socialists support the demand for increased taxes on the super rich, this alone would not end the vast inequalities in society, nor solve the problems caused by capitalism. The rich don't even pay the low levels of tax they are currently supposed to (
Exploitation and inequality are built into the system. To get rid of them, capitalism needs to be removed and replaced with a socialist society. The multinational companies owned by the rich need to become publicly owned.
An end to the chaos of the market and the introduction of socialist planning would mean an overall increase in the real wealth of society, not just a redistribution of the wealth that already exists.
IN THE last 20 years, there has been a relative lull in trade union struggle in Britain. In the wake of the collapse of Stalinism in the USSR and eastern Europe, there was a shift of former working-class based parties such as the Labour Party, towards being openly bosses" parties with a full acceptance of the market. This, together with the effects of a long period of modest economic growth, led to a drop in consciousness of socialist ideas.
Despite this, there is still clear recognition of the existence of classes. Surveys have consistently shown that the majority of people in Britain describe themselves as working class. The latest British Social Attitudes survey shows 57% of people consider themselves working class.
The report authors call this 'remarkable' considering that only 31% of the workforce is in traditional "blue collar" sectors. In reality it gives the lie to the idea that class politics is no longer relevant. How much more sharpened will class-consciousness be in the future when big workers' struggles take place and when economic downturn has an impact on millions of people
Even those who see themselves as middle class, or who are on relatively comfortable incomes, have plenty of reasons to oppose the capitalist system, run for the benefit of big business.
Many problems created by capitalism affect them. The rising cost of university tuition fees for example, or the cutbacks in public services such as the NHS. For the vast majority of people who have private health insurance, it is very limited, only covering routine things.
The state of Britain's infrastructure affects all layers in society; for example if we experience the sorts of floods we felt back in parts of the last decade.
For socialists it is not just that the working class is exploited under capitalism and therefore has good reason to end it, but also that it has the power to do it. Through struggles to defend and extend their own livelihoods, working-class people develop a greater class-consciousness. On a mass scale this can go together with a growth in socialist ideas.
But in particular, workers have the power to change things because of their role in society - their position in relation to the functioning of the economy and the "means of production". Even small groups of workers taking strike action, especially in an era of high technology, can have a massive effect. This power will be decisive when the working class moves together.
The removal of capitalism, led by the working class and with the support of most of the middle layers of society, can create the beginnings of conditions for a genuinely classless society.
This would be a socialist society where, for example, you would not have a higher chance of dying early simply because of where you were born, and where the resources of society would be democratically planned and used for the benefit of all.
So as i have outlined i feel there is still a underlying class conciousness there in society but we as socialists need to redefine this and make it a popular thing to discuss again. The dumbing down of any form of class in todays society has not helped this but to further peoples understainding on class we must first reintroduce it into peoples minds. Only then can workers begin to understand the wider world at large and the contridictions in the system we currently live under which is capitalism which we encourage workers to challenge and debate and eventually to overthrow!
STATEMENTS SUCH as "the working class has disappeared" or "the barriers between the classes no longer exist" have been repeated for many years. This is often backed up by pointing to the de-industrialisation of Britain especially over the last two or three decades.
In fact there are still around four million workers in manufacturing industry in the UK. It is true that increased globalisation of the world economy has meant a large number of manufacturing jobs being transferred to areas such as Eastern Europe and China. But manufacturing jobs lost in the west have often been replaced by low-paid jobs in the service sector, for example in retail, finance and tourism. The fastest growing job sector in Britain is those who clean, shop, child-mind, garden etc for others.
In "white collar" jobs, measures such as performance related pay, imposed targets and casualisation have been increasingly introduced. Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) members in Revenue and Customs for example, have been fighting the introduction of 'lean processing' which breaks down tasks into small repetitive parts to create assembly line type work. Civil servants organised in the PCS have been one of the most militant sections of the working class in recent years and have elected a left union leadership.
politicians and academics tend to talk of the poor being the 'underclass' living off benefits on council estates, or about 'social exclusion', thereby trying to separate the unemployed off from the rest of the working class. Effectively they repeat the old Victorian idea of the 'undeserving poor' and want people to be 'encouraged' into work by the threat of benefit cuts, such as with David Camerons "s latest proposals to beat the poor back into work whetehr they can or not.
It is a strange solution to poverty - to cut the income of the poorest! And by forcing people into low paid work, they do not eliminate poverty. Millions are now described as the 'working poor'.
Capitalist definitions of class confuse the issue. The term "middle class" is often used very broadly, from a white collar worker on low pay in local government or the civil service to a rich businessman.
Official classifications also obscure the real class divide. The highest category according to the Office for National Statistics is 'professional and managerial' which includes people such as teachers and nurses. These certainly do not constitute the ruling class!
Marxists however say that the main class divide in society is between the ruling class - big businessmen and financiers who own "the means of production" on the one hand, and those who have to work for a boss to earn a living and actually create the wealth (value) on the other.
In the past, the average worker sold their "labour power" in a factory. Today, in addition to the millions who still do this there are others working in different fields who also produce new value. Others again, such as many public sector workers, do not strictly fit into this category but are part of the working class because of their social outlook and economic situation. The working class is not homogenous; far from it, there are many sections and layers. There are also middle layers in between the working class and ruling (capitalist) class, what Marx called the petit-bourgeoisie, particularly the self-employed, including small farmers, shopkeepers etc - altogether a wide and varied range of people. Many of them however are in debt to the big banks and have much in common with "workers".
The wealth gap
THE LATEST survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation confirmed again what we already know about the growing gap between rich and poor. It says that it is now greater than it has been for the last 40 years. There has been an increase in the number they define as 'breadline poor' to around a quarter of all households.
Another survey conducted by Save the Children pointed out that 1.3 million children (10.5%) live in 'severe poverty'. They say: 'for a couple with a child that means living on an average of £7,000 a year, or less than £134 a week'. As a result, 'children are missing out on basic things like living in a warm house, having a proper diet or going on a school trip'.
By contrast the wealth of the richest in society has vastly increased. This year's Sunday Times 'rich list' shows that the increase in wealth of the top 1,000 people in Britain has been 20% in one year to around £360 billion. You have to have £70 million just to get on the bottom rung of that list.
Rich list compiler Philip Beresford said: 'The past decade of Labour government has proved a golden age for the rich, rarely seen in modern British history'. This is no overstatement when you realise their wealth has more than tripled in a decade!
The same trend exists on a world scale with the total wealth of 'high-net worth' individuals rising 11.4% to £18.6 trillion in 2006. There are 94,970 people with assets worth more than £15 million. This layer in society with enormous wealth and power is a minute proportion of the total population.
Whilst socialists support the demand for increased taxes on the super rich, this alone would not end the vast inequalities in society, nor solve the problems caused by capitalism. The rich don't even pay the low levels of tax they are currently supposed to (
Exploitation and inequality are built into the system. To get rid of them, capitalism needs to be removed and replaced with a socialist society. The multinational companies owned by the rich need to become publicly owned.
An end to the chaos of the market and the introduction of socialist planning would mean an overall increase in the real wealth of society, not just a redistribution of the wealth that already exists.
IN THE last 20 years, there has been a relative lull in trade union struggle in Britain. In the wake of the collapse of Stalinism in the USSR and eastern Europe, there was a shift of former working-class based parties such as the Labour Party, towards being openly bosses" parties with a full acceptance of the market. This, together with the effects of a long period of modest economic growth, led to a drop in consciousness of socialist ideas.
Despite this, there is still clear recognition of the existence of classes. Surveys have consistently shown that the majority of people in Britain describe themselves as working class. The latest British Social Attitudes survey shows 57% of people consider themselves working class.
The report authors call this 'remarkable' considering that only 31% of the workforce is in traditional "blue collar" sectors. In reality it gives the lie to the idea that class politics is no longer relevant. How much more sharpened will class-consciousness be in the future when big workers' struggles take place and when economic downturn has an impact on millions of people
Even those who see themselves as middle class, or who are on relatively comfortable incomes, have plenty of reasons to oppose the capitalist system, run for the benefit of big business.
Many problems created by capitalism affect them. The rising cost of university tuition fees for example, or the cutbacks in public services such as the NHS. For the vast majority of people who have private health insurance, it is very limited, only covering routine things.
The state of Britain's infrastructure affects all layers in society; for example if we experience the sorts of floods we felt back in parts of the last decade.
For socialists it is not just that the working class is exploited under capitalism and therefore has good reason to end it, but also that it has the power to do it. Through struggles to defend and extend their own livelihoods, working-class people develop a greater class-consciousness. On a mass scale this can go together with a growth in socialist ideas.
But in particular, workers have the power to change things because of their role in society - their position in relation to the functioning of the economy and the "means of production". Even small groups of workers taking strike action, especially in an era of high technology, can have a massive effect. This power will be decisive when the working class moves together.
The removal of capitalism, led by the working class and with the support of most of the middle layers of society, can create the beginnings of conditions for a genuinely classless society.
This would be a socialist society where, for example, you would not have a higher chance of dying early simply because of where you were born, and where the resources of society would be democratically planned and used for the benefit of all.
So as i have outlined i feel there is still a underlying class conciousness there in society but we as socialists need to redefine this and make it a popular thing to discuss again. The dumbing down of any form of class in todays society has not helped this but to further peoples understainding on class we must first reintroduce it into peoples minds. Only then can workers begin to understand the wider world at large and the contridictions in the system we currently live under which is capitalism which we encourage workers to challenge and debate and eventually to overthrow!
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa at a cross roads
Recent days have again shown that, despite the masses' yearning for real change, freedom and the heroic events of the past months, none of the revolutions in North Africa have so far secured a certain victory.
In Egypt and Tunisia, the countries where dictators were ousted, the ruling classes are making desperate attempts to hang onto their wealth and power.
While Tunisia has seen three governments since Ben Ali's flight in January and been forced to agree to elections for a constituent assembly, the regime is using what means it can to maintain the rule of the elite. For example, forced to dissolve the old secret police, the State Security Department, they have appointed a new Interior Minister, Habib Essid, who was "chief of cabinet" in the Interior Ministry between 1997 and 2001. As such, he was obviously involved in the tortures, repression and dirty work of the Ben Ali regime.
There is a growing mood among workers and youth that the revolution's future is at stake which is preparing the ground for new struggles to secure their demands.
Similarly in Egypt the military government that replaced Mubarak has been waging dogged resistance to stem the revolution's tide. But, as in Tunisia, increasing numbers of workers and youth are seeing, as the CWI warned from the moment of Mubarak's overthrow, that the military tops are no friend of the revolution. Already the military has announced plans to criminalise many strikes, protests, sit-ins and gatherings of workers and youth.
As seen before in many other countries' revolutions, Egyptian workers and youth feel that control over events is slipping away and that the old order is attempting to reassert itself.
They poured into Tahrir Square again on Friday 8 April in an attempt to regain the initiative. Hundreds of thousands, numbers not seen since immediately after Mubarak's removal, of workers, youth and some military officers rallied for a "Friday of Cleansing".
The presence of army officers, disobeying orders not to participate, is a sign that a call to the military rank and file to support the revolution would get a strong response. In the Square calls were made for the replacement of the military regime by a civilian council, the arrest and trial of Mubarak and other gangsters and torturers from the old regime.
Textile workers present put forward their own demands including removal of the old, state run, Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions; renationalisation of privatised companies; a LE1,200 (Egyptian pounds) minimum wage (US$ 200) and trial of the corrupt gang including Mubarak and the former head of the official textile workers' trade union.
The military regime's response was, after the mass of demonstrators had temporarily left the Square, repression. Denouncing some of the protesters as "thugs" the military brutally attempted to clear the Square late on the Friday night, killing at least one protester. Significantly the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bayoumi, supported the military's move saying nothing should "jeopardise the unity between the people and the army".
What he really meant by "unity" was the continuing attempt of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership to reach a deal with the military tops. The crackdown continued afterwards. On April 11 a blogger, Mikel Nabil, was sentenced to three years in jail for "publishing false information" and "insulting the armed forces" by publishing an article quoting international news reports that the army had tortured detainees during the revolution.
The military tops may be forced to retreat a bit, Mubarak and others may go on trial, but their main aim is to safeguard their privileges and the reign of the ruling class. This is why, from the very moment of Mubarak's removal, the Socialist Party and the world socialist organisation to which we are affiliated, the Committee for a Workers' International, warned: "No trust in the military chiefs! For a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor" (issue 658).
Building the working masses' independent power is the key to these revolutions succeeding in transforming the lives of the majority of Egyptians and Tunisians. Without this, control will remain in the hands of the ruling class and elites, who will inevitably move sooner or later towards repression to maintain their rule.
Only through building mass organisations, including free, combative trade unions and especially an independent party, can the genuine revolutionaries, workers, youth, small farmers and the poor create the instruments with which to fight the old guard's attempts to retain power and to create a real alternative, namely a government formed by representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor.
Libya
The absence of such organisations in Libya has contributed to the present derailment of the revolution there as February's initial mass upsurge did not succeed in the western part of the country around Tripoli. Partly this was because the Gaddafi regime still has some basis of support, but mainly as a result of the revolution having no clear leadership.
An important factor was when some of the rebels in eastern Libya adopted the old monarchist flag. The former king had come from Benghazi, and the flag had limited appeal in Libya's largest city, Tripoli, and was seen by many as opening the door to renewed foreign control, not just in Libya but throughout the region.
The sidelining of the more radical elements in Benghazi and the formation of the self-appointed, imperialist backed, Interim National Council (INC) by a combination of pro-capitalist forces and defectors from the Gaddafi regime also limited the revolt's appeal to those who, while opposing Gaddafi's gang, feared a loss of the improvements made in education, health and other areas over the last 40 years.
With only limited anti-Gaddafi movements in western Libya, where two-thirds of the population live, there is, for now, effectively a stalemate. While the African Union's peace plan was rejected it is now increasingly likely that, for at least a limited period, Libya will effectively be divided.
Despite the original claim that it was intervening to defend civilians, it is now increasingly clear that the UN/Nato intervention is supporting the more reliably pro-imperialist side in this conflict in an attempt to remove Gaddafi who, at best, they previously regarded as an unreliable ally.
The Financial Times, a strong supporter of the intervention in Libya, accidentally revealed its real motives when it argued that "further military action in the region to protect UK interests" is possible (Editorial, 8 April, 2011). As the CWI previously argued, Tunisia and Egypt showed that tyranny can be overthrown by mass movements.
The world powers' near-silence on the continuing repression in Bahrain, and their only limited criticism of the Syrian regime's increasingly bloody crackdown, shows how their concern for civilians is limited to when it is in their own class imperialist interests.
In different ways the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East are at or approaching new turning points. In countries like Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen the immediate questions are how to move forward, overthrow the dictatorships and what then needs to be done to meet the demands and aspirations of the mass of the population. How the latter can be achieved, along with removing the remaining vestiges of the old regimes, is the central issue facing the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
The answer to these questions, and saving the revolutions, lies in the hands of the working masses. Tunisia and Egypt have already shown that determined struggle can overthrow dictatorships. However the events this year have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough.
The working masses need to independently and democratically organise in trade unions and a mass party of workers and the poor with a clear programme, to be able to struggle to prevent the gains of their revolutions being snatched away by remnants of the old elite or a new elite in formation, in collaboration with imperialism.
Genuinely revolutionary forces of the working masses need to reject any alliance with pro-capitalist forces or reliance on the UN or Nato. To defeat dictatorial regimes workers and youth need to build their own forces that can carry the revolutions to victory, victories that not only win democratic rights but which ensure that society's wealth is genuinely owned and democratically controlled and managed in the masses' interests.
This would lay the basis for liberation and a genuine democratic socialism, not the fake versions of Gaddafi and Syria, that could then be an example to the working masses in the Middle East, Africa and beyond to follow in order to end the rule of autocrats and the misery of capitalist rule.
In Egypt and Tunisia, the countries where dictators were ousted, the ruling classes are making desperate attempts to hang onto their wealth and power.
While Tunisia has seen three governments since Ben Ali's flight in January and been forced to agree to elections for a constituent assembly, the regime is using what means it can to maintain the rule of the elite. For example, forced to dissolve the old secret police, the State Security Department, they have appointed a new Interior Minister, Habib Essid, who was "chief of cabinet" in the Interior Ministry between 1997 and 2001. As such, he was obviously involved in the tortures, repression and dirty work of the Ben Ali regime.
There is a growing mood among workers and youth that the revolution's future is at stake which is preparing the ground for new struggles to secure their demands.
Similarly in Egypt the military government that replaced Mubarak has been waging dogged resistance to stem the revolution's tide. But, as in Tunisia, increasing numbers of workers and youth are seeing, as the CWI warned from the moment of Mubarak's overthrow, that the military tops are no friend of the revolution. Already the military has announced plans to criminalise many strikes, protests, sit-ins and gatherings of workers and youth.
As seen before in many other countries' revolutions, Egyptian workers and youth feel that control over events is slipping away and that the old order is attempting to reassert itself.
They poured into Tahrir Square again on Friday 8 April in an attempt to regain the initiative. Hundreds of thousands, numbers not seen since immediately after Mubarak's removal, of workers, youth and some military officers rallied for a "Friday of Cleansing".
The presence of army officers, disobeying orders not to participate, is a sign that a call to the military rank and file to support the revolution would get a strong response. In the Square calls were made for the replacement of the military regime by a civilian council, the arrest and trial of Mubarak and other gangsters and torturers from the old regime.
Textile workers present put forward their own demands including removal of the old, state run, Egyptian Federation of Trade Unions; renationalisation of privatised companies; a LE1,200 (Egyptian pounds) minimum wage (US$ 200) and trial of the corrupt gang including Mubarak and the former head of the official textile workers' trade union.
The military regime's response was, after the mass of demonstrators had temporarily left the Square, repression. Denouncing some of the protesters as "thugs" the military brutally attempted to clear the Square late on the Friday night, killing at least one protester. Significantly the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bayoumi, supported the military's move saying nothing should "jeopardise the unity between the people and the army".
What he really meant by "unity" was the continuing attempt of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership to reach a deal with the military tops. The crackdown continued afterwards. On April 11 a blogger, Mikel Nabil, was sentenced to three years in jail for "publishing false information" and "insulting the armed forces" by publishing an article quoting international news reports that the army had tortured detainees during the revolution.
The military tops may be forced to retreat a bit, Mubarak and others may go on trial, but their main aim is to safeguard their privileges and the reign of the ruling class. This is why, from the very moment of Mubarak's removal, the Socialist Party and the world socialist organisation to which we are affiliated, the Committee for a Workers' International, warned: "No trust in the military chiefs! For a government of the representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor" (issue 658).
Building the working masses' independent power is the key to these revolutions succeeding in transforming the lives of the majority of Egyptians and Tunisians. Without this, control will remain in the hands of the ruling class and elites, who will inevitably move sooner or later towards repression to maintain their rule.
Only through building mass organisations, including free, combative trade unions and especially an independent party, can the genuine revolutionaries, workers, youth, small farmers and the poor create the instruments with which to fight the old guard's attempts to retain power and to create a real alternative, namely a government formed by representatives of workers, small farmers and the poor.
Libya
The absence of such organisations in Libya has contributed to the present derailment of the revolution there as February's initial mass upsurge did not succeed in the western part of the country around Tripoli. Partly this was because the Gaddafi regime still has some basis of support, but mainly as a result of the revolution having no clear leadership.
An important factor was when some of the rebels in eastern Libya adopted the old monarchist flag. The former king had come from Benghazi, and the flag had limited appeal in Libya's largest city, Tripoli, and was seen by many as opening the door to renewed foreign control, not just in Libya but throughout the region.
The sidelining of the more radical elements in Benghazi and the formation of the self-appointed, imperialist backed, Interim National Council (INC) by a combination of pro-capitalist forces and defectors from the Gaddafi regime also limited the revolt's appeal to those who, while opposing Gaddafi's gang, feared a loss of the improvements made in education, health and other areas over the last 40 years.
With only limited anti-Gaddafi movements in western Libya, where two-thirds of the population live, there is, for now, effectively a stalemate. While the African Union's peace plan was rejected it is now increasingly likely that, for at least a limited period, Libya will effectively be divided.
Despite the original claim that it was intervening to defend civilians, it is now increasingly clear that the UN/Nato intervention is supporting the more reliably pro-imperialist side in this conflict in an attempt to remove Gaddafi who, at best, they previously regarded as an unreliable ally.
The Financial Times, a strong supporter of the intervention in Libya, accidentally revealed its real motives when it argued that "further military action in the region to protect UK interests" is possible (Editorial, 8 April, 2011). As the CWI previously argued, Tunisia and Egypt showed that tyranny can be overthrown by mass movements.
The world powers' near-silence on the continuing repression in Bahrain, and their only limited criticism of the Syrian regime's increasingly bloody crackdown, shows how their concern for civilians is limited to when it is in their own class imperialist interests.
In different ways the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East are at or approaching new turning points. In countries like Bahrain, Libya, Syria and Yemen the immediate questions are how to move forward, overthrow the dictatorships and what then needs to be done to meet the demands and aspirations of the mass of the population. How the latter can be achieved, along with removing the remaining vestiges of the old regimes, is the central issue facing the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.
The answer to these questions, and saving the revolutions, lies in the hands of the working masses. Tunisia and Egypt have already shown that determined struggle can overthrow dictatorships. However the events this year have shown that, on its own, willingness to struggle is not enough.
The working masses need to independently and democratically organise in trade unions and a mass party of workers and the poor with a clear programme, to be able to struggle to prevent the gains of their revolutions being snatched away by remnants of the old elite or a new elite in formation, in collaboration with imperialism.
Genuinely revolutionary forces of the working masses need to reject any alliance with pro-capitalist forces or reliance on the UN or Nato. To defeat dictatorial regimes workers and youth need to build their own forces that can carry the revolutions to victory, victories that not only win democratic rights but which ensure that society's wealth is genuinely owned and democratically controlled and managed in the masses' interests.
This would lay the basis for liberation and a genuine democratic socialism, not the fake versions of Gaddafi and Syria, that could then be an example to the working masses in the Middle East, Africa and beyond to follow in order to end the rule of autocrats and the misery of capitalist rule.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
No to nuclear power - nationalise the environment-unfriendly energy giants
I've just been reading this excellent article below from our weekly paper the socialist which you can read more articles like this online at www.socialistparty.org.uk
After the tsunami hit on the reactors at Fukushima power plant, the Japanese government is raising the nuclear alert level to seven, on a par with the horrors of Chernobyl a quarter of a century ago. Before that, in scenes reminiscent of BP's desperate attempts to stem last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, emergency workers took emergency measures.
They resorted to pouring sawdust, absorbent polymers and newspapers into a pit connected to the damaged nuclear reactor in a desperate attempt to stop leaking radioactive water pouring into the ocean.
Tragically the bodies of two workers have been recovered from the site, yet as workers from towns in the shadow of the plant face lack of food, water and shelter and the invisible threat of radiation, the world has been split on the issue of nuclear power.
In Germany mass protests have led chancellor Merkel to close seven of the country's oldest reactors and announce a freeze on the development of future power stations. But in the UK the Con-Dems' energy bill is due to underwrite nuclear power stations with yet more public money. And liberal environmentalist George Monbiot has said: "As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology."
Monbiot believes that renewable energy is not a realistic alternative under capitalism. Coal, Monbiot argues, is "100 times worse" for the environment and industrial health than nuclear power.
If the world's energy is left to the anarchy of the profit-driven free market, then Monbiot may be right. Profits from carbon and nuclear fuels mean there has been relatively minimal investment in renewable energy. Yet why should the issue of energy, fundamental to modern society yet potentially disastrous for the environment, be entrusted to a system which puts millionaires' profits before the needs of the millions
Consider Tepco, the Tokyo Electric Power Company that owns Fukushima nuclear plant. It holds the monopoly over power to Tokyo and eight of Japan's prefectures. Tepco, the world's fourth largest power company, has a deplorable record of placing short term profits before safety.
In 2002 it was revealed that Tepco had forged safety inspection reports for its nuclear plants while, claims CNN, the seismologist Yukinobu Okamura warned Tepco safety executives that the ageing Fukushima plant was vulnerable to damage from a tsunami.
The solution is to reject the free market in favour of a socialist plan for energy as part of a wider, democratically planned economy. The nationalisation of the energy giants, under democratic workers' control, would allow for a massive investment in renewable energy.
We should reject the technology which has threatened and failed communities from Chernobyl to Three Mile Island. We should also reject the mismanagement of our energy supply, inherent under capitalism, in favour of a socialist alternative which fulfils the needs of both our society and the environment.
Nationalise Tepco and the giant energy corporations under democratic workers' control and management.
For huge investment in renewable energy, based on needs not profit.
For a socialist plan for energy as part of a wider democratically planned economy.
After the tsunami hit on the reactors at Fukushima power plant, the Japanese government is raising the nuclear alert level to seven, on a par with the horrors of Chernobyl a quarter of a century ago. Before that, in scenes reminiscent of BP's desperate attempts to stem last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, emergency workers took emergency measures.
They resorted to pouring sawdust, absorbent polymers and newspapers into a pit connected to the damaged nuclear reactor in a desperate attempt to stop leaking radioactive water pouring into the ocean.
Tragically the bodies of two workers have been recovered from the site, yet as workers from towns in the shadow of the plant face lack of food, water and shelter and the invisible threat of radiation, the world has been split on the issue of nuclear power.
In Germany mass protests have led chancellor Merkel to close seven of the country's oldest reactors and announce a freeze on the development of future power stations. But in the UK the Con-Dems' energy bill is due to underwrite nuclear power stations with yet more public money. And liberal environmentalist George Monbiot has said: "As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology."
Monbiot believes that renewable energy is not a realistic alternative under capitalism. Coal, Monbiot argues, is "100 times worse" for the environment and industrial health than nuclear power.
If the world's energy is left to the anarchy of the profit-driven free market, then Monbiot may be right. Profits from carbon and nuclear fuels mean there has been relatively minimal investment in renewable energy. Yet why should the issue of energy, fundamental to modern society yet potentially disastrous for the environment, be entrusted to a system which puts millionaires' profits before the needs of the millions
Consider Tepco, the Tokyo Electric Power Company that owns Fukushima nuclear plant. It holds the monopoly over power to Tokyo and eight of Japan's prefectures. Tepco, the world's fourth largest power company, has a deplorable record of placing short term profits before safety.
In 2002 it was revealed that Tepco had forged safety inspection reports for its nuclear plants while, claims CNN, the seismologist Yukinobu Okamura warned Tepco safety executives that the ageing Fukushima plant was vulnerable to damage from a tsunami.
The solution is to reject the free market in favour of a socialist plan for energy as part of a wider, democratically planned economy. The nationalisation of the energy giants, under democratic workers' control, would allow for a massive investment in renewable energy.
We should reject the technology which has threatened and failed communities from Chernobyl to Three Mile Island. We should also reject the mismanagement of our energy supply, inherent under capitalism, in favour of a socialist alternative which fulfils the needs of both our society and the environment.
Nationalise Tepco and the giant energy corporations under democratic workers' control and management.
For huge investment in renewable energy, based on needs not profit.
For a socialist plan for energy as part of a wider democratically planned economy.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Making the case against anti trade union laws today
So as we move into a uncertain era of the labour movement in the United Kingdom the role and ability of trade unions will becoming under increasing pressure to act in their members interests and to call industrial action. But as a trade union member myself i am repeatably reminded of the defeats on a daily basis from years gone by. The movement feels so weak and delicate to me with little umpf if you like. This i feel is down to some of the harshest anti trade union laws in the whole of Europe. Not something i feel we as a country should be proud of at all. As a British citizen and a proud socialist i believe the role trade unions do and can play in peoples lives is hugely important. The laws brought in over the years to clamp down on militancy and workers gaining too much power by the ruling class is very evident today.
The media do not help this i feel either with constant barrages of union bashing in most daily papers weekly.
The anti union laws introduced by Thatcher and Tebbit in the Eighties and made worse by New Labour have been used repeatedly and with increasing frequency by employers to undermine effective trade union action.
As a result of the legislation, the main function of trade union officials is no longer to support and defend the members who pay their wages, but to police the membership on behalf of the bosses. When workers at Heathrow struck in solidarity with their brothers and sisters at Gate Gourmet in 2005, the employers got a court order against this “illegal secondary action,” and the TGWU promptly pulled out every stop to bring the dispute to a rapid and unsatisfactory conclusion. Defeat was once again snatched from the jaws of victory.
The legislation works by allowing the courts to undermine the finances of the union involved. For the union bureaucrats, the defence of the union’s financial apparatus is far more important than the defence of the union members, since it is from the apparatus that they derive their privileges. So instead of confronting the judiciary and taking on the law (and if the T&G had pulled out its entire membership in 2005 to defend itself from the attack of the judges, it could have put paid to the legislation once and for all), the bureaucracy in almost every instance takes the path of disciplining its own members instead of leading a determined fight back.
New Labour made the legislation far worse by requiring unions to submit details to the employers of the workplaces of all those who have been sent ballot papers. Since it is almost impossible for unions to maintain membership records that are 100% accurate at all times, this gives a carte blanche to the employers to challenge ballots, even when the ‘discrepancies’ wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the outcome anyway. This was how the RMT signallers’ strike – which was called against rail cuts and in the interest of safety – was undermined last year.
Judges have even had the arrogance to decide whether they think a strike is ‘proportionate’ to the issues in dispute. In passing judgement against BA cabin crew in December 2009, Mrs Justice Cox declared, “A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.” So the judges now no longer restrict themselves to arcane points of law and procedure, but have taken it upon themselves to ban strikes if it looks like they might be effective!
Unions don’t always cower before the law however. When the Prison Officers Association struck in 2007 it did so without even holding a ballot. Ministers declared the action illegal, but in the face of such determined action they didn’t dare to take the union to court. There is a lesson in that for all of us
The RMT tipped the scales a little way in our favour last month with the landmark decision in the Court of Appeal to overturn the injunction that had been granted in the High Court in January preventing a 48 hour strike on Docklands Light Railway. As Bob Crow explained: “The Serco Docklands injunction on balloting process would have taken the anti-union laws in this country to within a whisker of effectively banning the right to strike if it had been allowed to stand and would have tightened the noose around the necks of nurses, firefighters, ambulance crew, home helps and others engaged in fighting back to the point of strangulation. This victory today helps clear the path for those workers to take action.”
John McDonnell’s Private Members’ Bill is an attempt to tip the balance further still in our favour. The bill proposes reducing regulatory burdens on trade unions in relation to the balloting and notice requirements for lawful industrial action. It would extend the provision for small accidental errors contained in section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The burden of proof in applications by an employer to restrain strike action by injunction would be changed, so that the employer would have to show that the union has failed to achieve ‘substantial compliance’ with the ballot and notice requirements. The Bill is unlikely to be passed into law however. It ran out of time in its first reading last October and is unlikely to achieve a second reading.
Personally i feel people are being actively discouraged away from trade unions it seems by our media barrons who control the papers and the tv and radio alot of the time influencing the way a lot of us think unfortunatly. When you begin to break out of that mould of thinking like i have and think independantly you begin to realise workers rights and trade union rights are so tight now you wonder if this was 30 + years ago workers would not have stood for what we stand for now. Complete union victimisation is not uncommon in big workplaces across the land. We read about this weekly in our paper - The socialist with excellent industrial news from workplaces across the country. It is almost like they are making it almost a crime to be in a uniona nd to have rights. With the oncoming cuts the roles of a union will become more accurately defined hopefully with impending action on the horizon.
One of the best unions going Bob Crows own union who the socialist party enjoy good links with, the RMT, points out that British trade unions are restricted by some of the worst anti-union laws in the western world. Whilst not unnecessarily jeopardising union finances, painfully built up over previous decades by members' sacrifices, the union leaders need to be flexible and be prepared to act when required.
The RMT does not make a fetish of the law and does not use the law to block their members taking action if it can help it. But that is not the case in many other unions.
Unison does not allow its branches to initiate strike ballots, maintaining that only the regional officers can do so. Far too often the result is that branches either never get the ballot authorised, or it takes so long that the original reason for it has long been forgotten and the employer gets away without opposition from the union. This leads to demoralisation and members' lack of confidence in their own union.
But this will not always be the case. Tens of thousands of workers in the public sector, in councils and the health service, face massive attacks on their jobs and conditions.
They will not stand idly by whilst the employers do what they want. If the union leaders do not give a lead and organise official strike action from above then it will happen from below, without the union backing and despite the anti-trade union laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media do not help this i feel either with constant barrages of union bashing in most daily papers weekly.
The anti union laws introduced by Thatcher and Tebbit in the Eighties and made worse by New Labour have been used repeatedly and with increasing frequency by employers to undermine effective trade union action.
As a result of the legislation, the main function of trade union officials is no longer to support and defend the members who pay their wages, but to police the membership on behalf of the bosses. When workers at Heathrow struck in solidarity with their brothers and sisters at Gate Gourmet in 2005, the employers got a court order against this “illegal secondary action,” and the TGWU promptly pulled out every stop to bring the dispute to a rapid and unsatisfactory conclusion. Defeat was once again snatched from the jaws of victory.
The legislation works by allowing the courts to undermine the finances of the union involved. For the union bureaucrats, the defence of the union’s financial apparatus is far more important than the defence of the union members, since it is from the apparatus that they derive their privileges. So instead of confronting the judiciary and taking on the law (and if the T&G had pulled out its entire membership in 2005 to defend itself from the attack of the judges, it could have put paid to the legislation once and for all), the bureaucracy in almost every instance takes the path of disciplining its own members instead of leading a determined fight back.
New Labour made the legislation far worse by requiring unions to submit details to the employers of the workplaces of all those who have been sent ballot papers. Since it is almost impossible for unions to maintain membership records that are 100% accurate at all times, this gives a carte blanche to the employers to challenge ballots, even when the ‘discrepancies’ wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the outcome anyway. This was how the RMT signallers’ strike – which was called against rail cuts and in the interest of safety – was undermined last year.
Judges have even had the arrogance to decide whether they think a strike is ‘proportionate’ to the issues in dispute. In passing judgement against BA cabin crew in December 2009, Mrs Justice Cox declared, “A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.” So the judges now no longer restrict themselves to arcane points of law and procedure, but have taken it upon themselves to ban strikes if it looks like they might be effective!
Unions don’t always cower before the law however. When the Prison Officers Association struck in 2007 it did so without even holding a ballot. Ministers declared the action illegal, but in the face of such determined action they didn’t dare to take the union to court. There is a lesson in that for all of us
The RMT tipped the scales a little way in our favour last month with the landmark decision in the Court of Appeal to overturn the injunction that had been granted in the High Court in January preventing a 48 hour strike on Docklands Light Railway. As Bob Crow explained: “The Serco Docklands injunction on balloting process would have taken the anti-union laws in this country to within a whisker of effectively banning the right to strike if it had been allowed to stand and would have tightened the noose around the necks of nurses, firefighters, ambulance crew, home helps and others engaged in fighting back to the point of strangulation. This victory today helps clear the path for those workers to take action.”
John McDonnell’s Private Members’ Bill is an attempt to tip the balance further still in our favour. The bill proposes reducing regulatory burdens on trade unions in relation to the balloting and notice requirements for lawful industrial action. It would extend the provision for small accidental errors contained in section 232B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The burden of proof in applications by an employer to restrain strike action by injunction would be changed, so that the employer would have to show that the union has failed to achieve ‘substantial compliance’ with the ballot and notice requirements. The Bill is unlikely to be passed into law however. It ran out of time in its first reading last October and is unlikely to achieve a second reading.
Personally i feel people are being actively discouraged away from trade unions it seems by our media barrons who control the papers and the tv and radio alot of the time influencing the way a lot of us think unfortunatly. When you begin to break out of that mould of thinking like i have and think independantly you begin to realise workers rights and trade union rights are so tight now you wonder if this was 30 + years ago workers would not have stood for what we stand for now. Complete union victimisation is not uncommon in big workplaces across the land. We read about this weekly in our paper - The socialist with excellent industrial news from workplaces across the country. It is almost like they are making it almost a crime to be in a uniona nd to have rights. With the oncoming cuts the roles of a union will become more accurately defined hopefully with impending action on the horizon.
One of the best unions going Bob Crows own union who the socialist party enjoy good links with, the RMT, points out that British trade unions are restricted by some of the worst anti-union laws in the western world. Whilst not unnecessarily jeopardising union finances, painfully built up over previous decades by members' sacrifices, the union leaders need to be flexible and be prepared to act when required.
The RMT does not make a fetish of the law and does not use the law to block their members taking action if it can help it. But that is not the case in many other unions.
Unison does not allow its branches to initiate strike ballots, maintaining that only the regional officers can do so. Far too often the result is that branches either never get the ballot authorised, or it takes so long that the original reason for it has long been forgotten and the employer gets away without opposition from the union. This leads to demoralisation and members' lack of confidence in their own union.
But this will not always be the case. Tens of thousands of workers in the public sector, in councils and the health service, face massive attacks on their jobs and conditions.
They will not stand idly by whilst the employers do what they want. If the union leaders do not give a lead and organise official strike action from above then it will happen from below, without the union backing and despite the anti-trade union laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)