YouTube suspends Egyptian blog activist's account posted by bat020

"Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas has been using YouTube to expose torture in his country, but now his account has been suspended. Bloggers accuse YouTube of double standards."

via Angry Arab

Only giving the people what they want. posted by lenin

"In our country,to get that result we have a dictatorship, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. So what's your secret? How do you do it?" The implication of the market metaphysic (in which the news is dictated by carefully monitored popular desire) is implicitly 'totalitarian'. The people want stultifying conformity, lies, distraction, orthodoxy, trivialisation, hypocrisy, tedium etc, according to this outlook. But it ain't necessarily so.

Labels: 'totalitarianism', market metaphysic, media

Venezuela: hammer, anvil and pliers. posted by lenin

Entirely predictable and unshocking revelations about the CIA's anti-Chavez campaign have emerged, as I'm sure you've all seen. Chavez is to be assailed on all fronts through violent subversion, electoral chicanery, and the CIA is even looking for a left-flank in Trotskyist opposition to some of Chavez's policies. Bad news for the CIA: the polls (not those from the guys who want Chavez killed), suggest that socialism is supported by most Venezuelans; Chavez is still very popular; and he will probably overwhelmingly win the vote on his constitutional changes. Not all of Chavez's changes are to the good - it is a complex mix, with some measures to consolidate the ten percent of the economy that is common property and bolster grassroots democracy, and other centralising measures that militate against this. Yet, only in the CIA's condescending analysis could it be the case that left-wing criticism of government policy will turn the masses into a despondent, apathetic bloc. Far more worrying is the call for coordinated action with military attaches. This is unlikely to lead to a successful coup on the model of 1973, since Chavez has much of the military on his side. Yet, it can destabilise the society enough, along with contrived economic chaos, to derail the society and force Chavez into a bunkered, bureaucratic corner. As ever, only the combined power of the Venezuelan working class can save the situation: Mike Gonzales has a sharp analysis of the broader political issues here.

Labels: chavez, socialism, venezuela

The ABC of anti-imperialism posted by left turn

Reports of the death of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) are very much premature. In my local town we organsed a very successful 'die-in' and there were similar events throughout the country on Saturday and last Thursday on university campuses.

An older Iranian man came up to me as we were setting up and asked why we don't say more about how terrible Ahmedinajad is. This is the same line that was put by the CPGB, the AWL and Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI) at the StWC Conference a few weeks ago. I explained to him that it was the primary aim of the StWC to prevent any attack on Iran. At a time when the warmongers in America, Britain, France and elsewhere are creating false claims about Iran trying to build nuclear weapons (contrary to the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) and unfounded and ultra-hypocritical claims about intervention in Iraq, it is the job of anti-war campaigners to highlight the disastrous consequences any attack would have for the people of Iran as well as for the democracy, students' and women's movements there. To get sucked into discussing the rights and wrongs of the Iranian regime would only give ammunition to the warmongers. That is not to be an apologist for the regime. It is the ABC of anti-imperialism.

When an imperialist country is threatening to attack a less powerful country, anti-imperialists everywhere must focus all their energies on preventing the imperialist country from starting a war by aiming all their political firepower on the imperialist country. This is to recognise the difference in their respective capacities to exploit and oppress people around the world. This is particularly true if you happen to be living in either an imperialist country or a nation that supports an imperialist power. To criticise both the imperialist country and the country they are threatening equally is to re-enforce the inbuilt inequality in the situation and thus to favour the imperialist power. It is always in the interests of anti-imperialists to see the imperialist power defeated. Any defeat for any imperialist power is a blow against imperialism in general.

Thus the defeat of the Israeli Army (IDF) by Hezbollah last year should be seen as a victory for anti-imperialism regardless of any criticisms you may have of Hezbollah. Many of us gave Hezbollah unconditional, but not uncritical, support.

Criticism of the Iranian regime is fine, but things do not occur in isolation or in the abstract. Any criticism must be considered in the light of how it will fit in to the current debate on how to resolve the 'Iranian' question.

Labels: Stop the war Iran die in Ahmedinejad IAEA anti imperialism Hezbollah

Collaborators posted by lenin

Or, harbingers of permanent civil war.

Labels: iraq, iraqi resistance, occupation, US imperialism

"Your history, bourgeoisie, is written on this wall. It is not a difficult text to decipher." posted by lenin

Labels: Israel, occupation, palestine

Peace and its discontents: the Israeli takeover. posted by lenin

Israel and Palestinians commit to peace trumpets The Guardian, with a sick-making portrait of Bush, Olmert and Abbas holding hands. How's that commitment working so far? Well, let's not forget that having launched a 'civil war' against Hamas and used Dahlan's goons to foment war in Gaza on behalf of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas supports Israel's war on the Gaza strip. There is no 'peace' coming here. Abbas is turning Fatah into the armed wing of capitulation.

Previous peace efforts by Fatah, however limited and corrupted, were at least seriously attempting to get something out of Israel, a stretch of continuous land with Olive Trees on it and water running, the dismantling of settlements, demilitarization of the West Bank, something. Now, with settlements more in abundance than ever, with Israel's occupation expanding instead of contracting, with daily aggression against the Palestinian population, Abbas offers himself as Israel's agent. The talks now taking place are about talks that may take place in the future, that may at some point result in an idea, then a concept, then a series of hastily drawn diagrams, then a hint about a possible settlement. There is no prospect of even a remotely legitimate settlement emerging from this charade. Olmert is hasty with vague intimations about bold moves, but Israel's colonisation of the West Bank continues apace. The only promise from today that is genuine is the one from Abbas that he will take apart "terrorist" organisations, meaning rival political groups. So today, as part of Abbas' own 'war on terror', Palestinians in the West Bank who were demonstrating that they were not partial to this Annapolis hoax, were attacked with one killed, and a reporter trying to cover the demo was roughed up by Abbas' men.

This isn't exactly new, which is one of the reasons why Fatah lost the elections in early 2006. The absence of democratic credentials from these talks, led by an America president who prates ceaselessly of democracy, is striking. In fact, none of the three men meeting today has a popularity rating higher than 30%. No deal they negotiate, even if one were forthcoming, could carry the remotest popular mandate. However, that's hardly the point. The talks, aside from involving a temporary tilt toward Syria to isolate Iran, are continuing the coup process launched after Hamas' electoral victory. This is a takeover, not a makeover.

Labels: fatah, hamas, Israel, mahmoud abbas, palestine

Someone wants him to shut up. posted by lenin

Third attack on Oli Rahman.

Labels: oli rahman, respect, socialism

All Sweetness and Light posted by lenin

You'd think that after killing over 1.2 million people, driving 4 million of them out of their country, and destroying said country in every respect, it would take a little bit more before they started bragging again. Yet, here we are. The worst year of a disastrous occupation, every sordid criminal aspect of a sordid epic crime peaking in the first half of the year - and they're bragging. 20,000 refugees are said (by the puppet government) to have retured, doubtless a staggering success. (Actually, it turns out even these figures are massively exaggerated). US deaths have decreased in the latter half of the year (in part due to a horrendous increase in the use of aerial attacks - who knows with what effect on the civilian population), and so we are once again in happyland, with happy shining Iraqis holding hands and bold US troops smoking out the remaining lurkers and riff-raff. Watching some of the news reports is like being exposed to the Laughing Policeman for half an hour. The laughing gas is pumped into every sitting room in the land, not to reverse the polls (can't do that), nor to get the GOP in again (have to rig the elections for that), nor even to get the flags waving again (who's got the energy after a day of overwork?). No, it's to soften the blow when the airstrikes hit Iran - well, we pulled Iraq back together, despite the ingratitude and intransigence of its population, why not Iran? In this light, it's worth considering the laboratory of repression that is Iraq: collective punishment, mass imprisonment, sniper terrorism, the usual. To which, Iraqis respond with increasing opposition to the occupation. All sweetness and light, a joy soon to be seen in Tehran and then - ooh, Damascus, Beirut, Pyongyang, wherever the liberation train takes a stop.

Labels: iraq, iraqi resistance, occupation, US imperialism

Atrocity Reporting posted by lenin

The cruelty of Western states is reported with breath-taking equanimity. Take this, for example. Marie Colvin of The Times describes Hamas ruling Gaza "through fear" with "impressive" armouries, including the sorts of measly weaponry used by insurgents against the Megadeath Occupation of Mesopotamia. The article describes the growing "isolation" of the Hamas government there:

Gaza is growing more and more isolated. Israel controls the borders, land and sea, and has closed the crossings since June. Food prices have rocketed, unemployment is at 70% because no materials can be imported and nothing can be exported. Israel cut fuel supplies last month and has said it will cut electricity supplies from Sunday.

In the latest sign of its total international isolation, Hamas, although democratically elected in 2006, has been excluded from the Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, on Tuesday.

What the reporter is describing here are unconscionable war crimes. The starving of the Palestinian population as punishment for having elected the wrong people, the economic blockade, the cutting off of fuel supplies and electricity - all of which we have seen many times - are criminal acts designed to torture the Palestinian population into submission. The vicious doctrine of collective punishment, perpetrated by colonial and imperialist states far more effectively and bloodily than by anti-colonial combatants, is neutrally described and tacitly applauded. In fact, the logic of this approach is genocidal - it starves Palestinians to death for being Palestinians, with absolute foreknowledge. The policy is applied, that is, with intent to destroy (and Britain bears special responsibility for it). There is a raft of other examples of vindictive targeting of the civilian population, and practically every human rights organisation active there reports consistent targeting of civilians and the use of them as human shields. Only something truly evil could legitimise this aggression, and The Times does its best to produce the desired turpitude with some lurid reportage of the growing repressiveness of Hamas' rule - mainly attributable to the state of seige - and this in particular:

The organisation’s isolation comes from its refusal to recognise the existence of Israel, renounce violence or abide by any agreements signed between Palestinians and Israel.

The quoted sentence is composed entirely of lies. It is false from start to full-stop. Hamas has: recognised the existence of Israel in signed documents; engaged in unilateral ceasefires while Israel continued to attack Palestine, build settlements, harrass civilians, and murder people; recognised agreements made between Israel and the PLO despite a provocative ongoing Quad-orchestrated embargo. It was Hamas' leaders who called for a long-term ceasefire to negotiate a settlement, and the US and Israel who contemptuously dismissed it. Hamas must recogise Israel, while no one must recogise Palestine, and no one does; Hamas must renounce violence, while Israel must have the right to violence at the drop of a hat; Hamas must respect agreements, while Israel drops them from one day to the next and then casually lies about it. Israel's claimed 'rights' are unique and extravagant, while even the most minimal rights of Palestinians - even of Hamas - are completely igored. Even to this day, Hamas is exhibiting remarkable restraint as Israeli troops enter Gaza and murder people in cold blood. Of course, the Reuters report makes no mention of the fact that Israeli troops have no business being in Gaza, while Gazan "militants" have every business patrolling the street). The fact that the exclusion of one of the main political forces in Palestine makes a complete mockery of any claim that the current discussions constitute a peace process is also gently glossed over.

The US-sponsored 'peace process' in Annapolis is of course nothing to do with peace, and the exclusion of Hamas reflects both its refusal to accept the conquerors' terms in negotiations and the growing US reliance on its local attack dog. The US has conquered Iraq, but its power in the region is diminishing in the long-term. In the aftermath of the demise of Arab nationalism and the USSR, the US had every reason to be confident. In the absence of an alternative model, much of the Arab left collapsed into support for neoliberalism, and even imperialism. Even the most apparently militant Islamists could eventually be coopted and integrated into an American-led global system. The aggressive strike for Iraq, desired throughout the 1990s by both Democrats and Republicans, was supposed to finish that process, taking out a remaining bastion of Arab nationalism and turning the place into another Saudi Arabia. Iran, suitably chastened, would rush to be even more accomodating. America's puppet president in Egypt, the second largest local recipient of aid, is facing a crisis of unprecedented proportions. The pressure on Syria hasn't produced much effect. The capitulation of the Libyan regime was probably a delayed response to the end of the Cold War, and could have been had much earlier were it not for the spurious and unravelling attempt to pin Lockerbie on Qadafi. Lebanon's current crisis may produce a bloody civil war, but it is unlikely to diminish the standing of Hezbollah or produce a hegemonic pro-US regime. If we fail to end the occupation soon, Iraq could well still end up with a broadly pliable regime along with military bases, but even then it is not going to be the chump-state of Ahmed Chalabi's promises. In this context, the US needs Israel more than ever (and vice versa). Any thought that the US might pressure its Levantine mini-me into making some concessions has had to be abandoned. Even the ridiculous 'Road Map', issued when the US thought it was winning in Iraq, is well past its sell-by date. The plan now appears to be to secure complete capitulation from a Fatah-led rump, which will be no difficult matter, who will then be used to intensify the stranglehold on Gaza before eventually finishing Hamas off. Fatah is now in a unique position - it could never control Gaza on its own, and its control over the West Bank is questionable. It relies on Pax Americana more than ever before. That ensures its long-term acceptance of and complicity in crimes against the population it is supposed to represent - for which we will be invited to blame Hamas.

Labels: gaza, hamas, Israel, palestine, US imperialism

Aussie Election Shock posted by lenin

Great news: not only have Howard's Liberals lost the election, but the now former PM has even lost his seat according to exit polls and the latest count. That is only the second time it has happened in Australia's entire period of independence - the last time it happened was in 1929 when the Nationalist Stanley Bruce lost to Labour, and the Nationalists were wiped out as a party. In addition, the Liberal minister responsible for invading the Northern Territories, Mal Brough, has lost his seat. The long-awaited electoral backlash against the 'war on terror' and neoliberalism has finally happened, big time. Labour looks to have taken 53% of the vote.

Unfortunately, the new Prime Minister is one of these cretinous Third Way politicians who supports neoliberal policies and defended "Israel's right to defend itself" during its attack on Lebanon in 2006. Though opposed to the war on Iraq, he favours keeping Australian troops in Iraq for non-combat purposes, supports the war on Afghanistan and is an advocate of the alliance with the US. He wants to keep much of the present government's regressive industrial relations legislation, and business sees him as an ally against union militancy. He favours 'quarantining' welfare payments for aboriginals and extending it to drug addicts.

As to the issues behind the vote, the attack on union rights was the biggest stimulus for the Labour vote according to this research: though Rudd only pledged to roll back some of the provisions, he was presumably seen by many as a realistic block to an all-out aggressive employers' offensive. These polls from Newspoll suggest that the single biggest issue for all voters is healthcare, which Labour had a key advantage on. Labour also took most supporters on industrial relations and welfare. The Green Party, which took the most principled stances on workers' rights, the 'war on terror', indigenous rights and the environemnt appears to have had an increase in its share of the vote, but may have had some of its thunder on the environment stolen a little by Rudd's noisy support for the piddling measures in Kyoto and other initiatives. The environmental degeneration is already causing such huge problems for Australia, such as drought, that even some in the business community are calling for sustained action so long as it doesn't seriously interfere with profitability. Another problem for the Greens is that their vote is distributed broadly and isn't concentrated - despite this, they are polling strongly and likely to pick up three new Senate seats according to most reports. Some of the unions backed the Greens in the Senate for their brilliant stance on union rights, but seem to have limited this to obtaining a 'balance of power' position for them in the upper house, reluctant as they are to decisively break with the Labour Party.

At any rate, despite the huge problems with Rudd - and he will become an enemy of the Australian labour movement very quickly, I suspect - this is a very pleasurable thrashing for the reactionary Liberals and a stupendous and long overdue repudiation of their legacy.

Labels: australia, elections

Chutzpah, and Beyond Chutzpah posted by lenin

Chutzpah:

Many Israeli advocates argue that Muslim Palestinians violently harass the Christian minority, causing the Christian exodus. Justus Reid Weiner, a lawyer who is a member of the hawkish Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs think tank, equates Palestinian Christians with battered women who decline to recognize the problem.

“It’s classical denial,” he said in a phone interview from Jerusalem. “It is so obvious who is telling the truth and who is being squeezed.”

Beyond Chutzpah:

About 150 right-wing activists, including academics and Israel Defense Forces reserves officers, have signed a manifesto to be published Friday calling on security forces to refuse evacuating West Bank settlers on the grounds that it is a "crime against humanity."

Labels: chutzpah, ethnic cleansing, islamophobia, Israel, palestine

The state of the unions. posted by lenin

Two recent firings of witch-hunted trade unionists, Karen Reissmann and Michael Gavan, bring to light the pressure from the state to break the resistance of public sector unions to pay cuts, diminished working conditions, and privatisation. It also reflects the politicised way in which the Labour government is approaching the problem - both were arguably targeted for being associated with Respect, a systematic challenge to Labour's hold on the left vote. The government can't afford to back down unless it is forced to back down, because a victory for the unions will both strengthen the left and damage the government's strategy of keeping Britain's economy running as a haven for international finance. For the last year, the government has kept public sector pay substantially below inflation, something that hasn't been achieved in the UK since the 'social contract' and the winter of discontent. The run-down of the postal service and other public services is leading to a growing rebellion by workers across the country. So, what are the prospects?

According to recent figures published by Labour Research, the TUC has since 2003 gently reversed its long-term decline in members. The main growth has been experienced in the teaching unions, particularly the NUT which grew by 6%, but also the construction union UCATT, which grew by a similar level. (The figures don't appear to include the RMT, for some reason). The new super-union Unite actually lost members on both sides, and the PCS lost a small percentage probably due to recent cuts - but it has to be said that the loss of 13,000 is very short of the 104,000 Gordon Brown wanted to cut in 2004, so while the fightback has a long way to go, it is holding back the government's attack. The same goes, I suspect, for the slight fall experienced by the CWU, whose members have braved successive attacks from the government brilliantly, despite an often indecisive leadership. The main growth over the last decade is supposedly in "associated professionals and managerial workers" - but this actually includes teachers, nurses, train drivers and media workers, whose conditions are increasingly under attack. It reflects the growing importance of the public sector in the labour movement, where employment has been on the up, while manufacturing has been allowed to crumble. As these jobs are particularly susceptible to government cut-backs, union struggles are increasingly politicised. The problem, regularly now, is a Labour goverment, which is why trade unionists have to keep asking themselves why they are funding the bullies. Unfortunately, the growth isn't keeping up with the growth in the jobs, so unless there is a massive drive to recruit new members, union density is still likely to fall after having picked up slightly.

It looks like there are two models of trade unionism which are competing here. The RMT's militant model is notoriously successful, leading to extraordinary increases in membership and density. It doesn't matter how much the Evening Standard pillories tube workers, you simply can't beat success. The more conciliatory model that seek sweet-heart deals and subordinates the interests of members to those of the Labour Party is not as successful. The old batch of right-wing leaders like the repellent Sir Ken Jackson, exemplified this model until deposed by the emerging "awkward squad". Increasingly, the question is raised among TUC-affiliated unions as to what can be done to take the government on politically. Yet, it is clear - as Mark Serwotka pointed out at the Respect conference - that even many of the more left-leaning union leaders are more concerned about keeping Labour in government than fighting for their members' interests. Only two union leaders explicitly advocate a socialist alternative to Labour - Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow. And there are worries that the Unite union, run by two moderately left-wing leaders both of whom are loyal to the Labour Party, will have an overwhelmingly decisive bloc in the TUC with the largest portion of its members. Unite's leaders are fully aware that Brown's strategy is destroying the manufacturing base they represent, but their answer seems to be propaganda rather than action, and adaptation rather than militancy.

The frontline today is the CWU. The heroic example of the postal workers should inspire others, and if they now oppose the proposed deal and fight on, I believe it will. The ballot closes on Tuesday, and until then the campaign continues up and down the country to send it back and prepare for further action. As Charlie Kimber writes, the sheer audacity of the postal workers in consistently upping their game every time the government and the bosses attacked is remarkable. They haven't had the leadership that they should have had, but still took unofficial action when they felt they had to. And, despite the fact that the government has introduced private competitors, the fact that they all rely on the more efficient Royal Mail to deliver the actual letters has meant that they can't perform when the posties are out on the picket lines. So, the postal workers still have the power to beat the government and its attacks. Yet, the dispute also illustrates why it isn't enough to have left-wing trade union leaders. Even the best of them, like Mark Serwotka, are still captive to their bureaucracy to some extent. No union has engaged in coordinated action with the posties, despite the clear importance of the dispute for all public sector workers. There are encouraging moves to engage in coordinated action in the future, but the basis of this will have to be strong rank and file organisation which enables a measure of independence from a leadership that is always under massive pressure to make concessions to the employers. This point is rammed home by the attempts of the CWU leadership to deflect attention from the Labour government's responsibility for the crisis - they accept Royal Mail's claims that it is in financial peril with pensions, but make no mention of the fact that Royal Mail management created the crisis and the government has a responsibility to protect the pension scheme. Even Billy Hayes has pointed out, somewhat reluctantly, that if this was Northern Rock the government would be pouring in billions. And it follows that the question of political independence can't be resolved soon enough - the unions need a political fund, but the ball-and-chain relationship to the Labour government is proceeding from absurd to masochistic.

Labels: labour, respect, socialism, trade unions

Work Kills posted by lenin

Research confirms that one in five of the UK workforce are vulnerable to premature death due to heart-straining over-work, exposure to carcinogens and other chronic health risks. Prevalent short-term absence constitutes a healthy coping strategy, rather than the terrible problem that ministers frequently make out. The increasing pressure to work while sick may not even be rational for firms who lose out on productivity, but workplace culture continues to place a premium on working through illness. And, predictably, government ministers do not know what they're talking about. More here.

Labels: zombie labour

Colombians devastated at Chávez’s "dismissal" posted by lenin

Guest post by elpresidente:

Labels: chavez, colombia, death squads, venezuela

Happy Thanksgiving posted by lenin

Labels: thanksgiving

Witches and Russian Dolls: The Crisis in Respect posted by lenin

My piece for MRZine about Respect's troubles...

Labels: respect, socialism

The Language of Empire posted by lenin

It isn't enough to cultivate a general imperialist culture. People, however superior they may feel themselves to be to the rest of humanity, are often wary of war and its consequences. And there will still be those who don't buy the imperialist culture, or accept it with some scepticism. So you have to get the language right. This calls for a good PR operation. Everyone, say hello to Freedom's Watch. They're on a $15m campaign to sell the case for war. A neocon slush fund involving senior figures in American right-wing politics like Ari Fleischer, the group is particularly focused on galvanising hatred of 'radical Islam' for war on Iran. Well, they privatised much of the military effort, so why not the propaganda as well?

Although there was a brief moment when American public support for strikes on Iran registered 52% in polls, the latest indicate that they are opposed by 63% of the American public. So, the guys thought they'd put together a focus group or two and start devising ways to make the war appealing. Would you support it if Bush did it? What about Hilary? What about Israel? (What do you mean no? - antisemite!) How about if we use catch-phrases like "victory" and "failure is not an option"? Does that stimulate your patriotism glans? Does it get your desire for triumphalism flowing? Remember the parades? Flags on the streets, America's the greatest country in the world dooooood, remember all that? God, dontcha miss the elation? Let's get some more of that.

Meanwhile, it seems that the Iranian opposition is disintegrating under US pressure. The figureheads of the so-called Modern Right are driving a confrontation with the Iranian president, but not over the issues that appeal to most Iranians. Their concern is over nuclear power and the economic sanctions being driven by the US. They would like to get someone in who will take a more conciliatory line with the empire, although evidence is thin on the ground that it will make the slightest bit of difference in the long run. The conciliatory line that led Iran to help with the occupation of Afghanistan didn't get them off the Axis of Evil roll call, after all.

Labels: empire, iran, US imperialism

Gordon Brown's Identity Crisis posted by lenin

25 million is a lot of people to piss off. Imagine this had come out in the middle of a General Election campaign. The unanimous verdict from the various anonymous informers to the BBC appears to be - they have slashed jobs and destroyed staff morale, so a huge problem like this was an inevitability. The PCS civil servants union says that the government has cut 13000 staff since May 2005 and is preparing to cut another 12,500. Aside from this, offices are closing up and down the country. This has already caused enormous problems with the delivery of services, and anyone who needs a job centre or any service frequently has to travel much further today then before. There are fewer people trying to do more work in a recently re-organised department. No wonder Mark Serwotka argues that: "The government’s so-called efficiency programme of cut backs, office closures and outsourcing is an accident waiting to happen. It is vital that the review announced today considers the effect of these cuts and halts them while the review is ongoing." It is one of the cruel paradoxes of a state that tries to cut services while increasing its control over people's lives that it ends up wasting money, and protecting no one. Relatedly, the NO2ID guys are calling in their pledges. Anyone who signed their pledge now needs to send £10 to them.

Labels: cuts, gordon brown, new labour, trade unions

Afghanistan: 54% Taliban coverage, and the Nato+ solution posted by lenin

The pro-occupation think-tank, the Senlis Council, has another report [pdf] out about Afghanistan. It reports that the Taliban has a presence covering at least 54% of the land mass in Afghanistan, and is closing in on Kabul. Missed by polls and media coverage, the report suggests that the Taliban are rapidly winning political credibility among those who hated them six years ago. The international combatants of 'Al Qaeda' are said to be bolstering the insurgency, but ordinary people are increasingly being won over. Part of the problem, the report says, is that a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding despite massive cashflows into the country, with conditions worse than in the worst parts of sub-Saharan Africa. This is a map describing Taliban presence in parts of Afghanistan:



However, what's most intriguing is the Council's support for a very hawkish policy of the kind being pushed by the bipartisan imperialists in the US Houses of Congress. The proposal is simple: given that there is no intention of withdrawing, a huge boost in troop commitment has to be demanded of all NATO members, and the war has to be expanded into Pakistan. The Taliban is known to operate across borders, and the Pakistani army is reluctant to engage in battle with them for a variety of reasons. Clearly, part of the US pressure on Musharraf is aimed at his inability to be a reliable puppet, while Benazir Bhutto's rhetoric about 'extremists' is clearly intended to capture that vital Washington constituency. There have already been cross-border attacks, but would Bhutto or any future Pakistani government permit the US to operate extensively in Pakistan? Would such actions hinder or boost the popular movement resisting Musharraf's dictatorship? The report doesn't ponder on such questions, or the obvious answers.

Perhaps most importantly, the report states that 'foreign fighters' from across what Brzezinski calls the "global Balkans" including Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Xinjiang, are acting as force-multipliers for the Taliban insurgency. How much of this is real information and how much is 'intelligence' obtained through torture, or straightforward propaganda? Unlike other parts of the report, which comprises some independent research, much of this appears to be distilled from pro-imperialist think-tanks and Western newspapers. At any rate, though the report strikes a technocratic note, the context makes clear that the "Nato+" solution would constitute an aggressive strike to bring south Asia under US hegemony. When both Obama and Clinton make noises about potential aggression in Pakistan, we have to take it as a warning sign. This war may send the whole region up in flames.

Labels: afghanistan, occupation, taliban, US imperialism

What Happened Next. posted by lenin

If you think this is disgusting...



You should know that after Blair left the Kalandia refugee camp, the IDF stormed the place for over an hour. The Israeli PR department has apparently worked out the correct procedure: photo-shoot, then shoot 'em up.

Labels: Israel, palestine, tony blair

An Empire-Builder Dies posted by lenin

Ian Smith has snuffed his lid, about 88 years too late. I suspect that many of the obituaries will seek to obscure his malevolent influence or smother it with platitudes and inane descriptions like "controversial", "unpopular with many", "respected by colleagues" and so on. You can't talk about someone like Ian Smith without talking about the epoch and political circumstances that made him. His father had been a butcher, and arrived in the colony eighteen years after Cecil Rhodes and gang had first set foot there with mining rights. In other words, the family's fortunes were made by the growing British control of the Cape colonial system. By the time the British were in the ascendancy, the frontiers in southern Africa had been closed as colonial authorities sought to exert their authority over all territories and regulate the labour system - a network of nebulous borders marked by combat over resources and more or less free movement was untenable for an emerging capitalist regime. Partially for that reason, the territory that became Southern Rhodesia and then Rhodesia was politically separate from, but locked in an intricate economic nexus with, the three southern African republics and the German colony to the south-west in what is now known as Namibia. As in much of southern Africa, poor Europeans moved there to become rich agriculturalists, often with comparatively little government oversight. For them, as for so many other colonists, the demand of self-determination and liberty was usually co-extensive with the insistence on racial supremacy. So it was with the Smith family.

Ian Smith first entered politics during the 1948 election, at the same time that apartheid was being formalised in South Africa with the victory of the Nationalists. Smith was a supporter of the Liberal Party, who were a right-wing racist organisation opposed to trade unions and state intervention in the economy because they saw these as the basis for the organisation and advancemet of majority African interests, potentially leading to self-rule. The Liberals lost the election to the ruling United Party, and Smith moved through a succession of organisations committed to white minority rule before being elected as a Rhodesian Front candidate in the 1962 elections. The front was a successor to the Dominion Party, another organisation formed by whites to defend white minority rule, and formed a slight majority in government. It was desperate to force the British government to grant independence on the basis of white supremacy, and as the leadership of Winston Field failed to secure this, Ian Smith was made the new Prime Minister in 1964. Smith was ideal for their purposes because he viscerally hated the idea of majority rule, and insisted that it wouldn't be seen in his or his children's lifetime - a point on which Robert Mugabe in a better phase of his life helped prove him wrong.

It is obviously not coincidental that this era saw the emergence of a sustained anti-colonial struggle in the country. The anti-colonial movement in Britain had pressured Harold Wilson into adopting the position that independence should come with African rule and universal suffrage - Newsinger has argued that Wilson was unusually dependent on the Left for support, in part because of the low esteem in which he was held among the party's higher echelons. The two main African liberation groups (ZANU and ZAPU) were Marxist, and so like most white supremacists, Smith pretended that he was actually only opposed to communism - a fiction he continued to maintain in his Autobiography. This anti-communist discourse was used most promiscuously in the southern United States and in South Africa during the same period. The neoconservatives who opposed self-rule in Zimbabwe said they did so because of the communist peril. The ease with which racism was commuted through Cold War ideology is striking, but it does speak to the way in which anti-communist doctrine decouples insurgency from the social conditions which produce it - it is, instead, a manifestation of the totalitarian allure. At any rate, given the anticolonial insurgency, which was winning in most of the colonies, the white elite acted decisively to conserve its authority, declaring its independence from London on 11 November 1965. Ian Smith was the Prime Minister of this state and led the elite in a vicious civil war against the population.

Here comes an intriguing shift, then: an apparently 'postcolonial' regime is set up in order precisely to conserve the colonial nature of the regime. In some senses this is structurally analogous to those who confuse violent international political transformation with radicalism today, forgetting that such change is often motivated by acute conservatism. The Smith regime was not only an immediate problem for London. As historian Gerald Horne has shown, it was the beginning of a lengthy engagement from Washington. The Johnson administration was terrified of the growing impression of a global racial conflict, particularly given the insurgency in inner cities and in the US south. There were substantial interests in America that were corresponding with Ian Smith to shift the country to an overtly sympathetic relationship with what had become a pariah state on account of it being one of the few racist dictatorships the West didn't consistently support. Barry Goldwater had openly praised Smith in 1967. And perhaps Smith expected a bit of racial solidarity from the American elite, despite the fact that it was in the process of making strategic concessions to African Americans. The general policy toward the Rhodesian regime from the US was one of tolerance. When the British government organised UN sanctions along with the OAU, the US participated in them but didn't enforce them very rigorously. Wilson may have considered military action to reassert British command of Rhodesia, but was restrained in part because the army, along with many ruling sectors of British society, would sympathise with the 'settlers' as many Tories were already doing. The Rhodesian elite was for its own part like many Loyalists one could mention, in that it was loyal to the crown and not to the parliament - at least until 1970 when it simply declared itself a republic. Both the Wilson government and the subsequent Heath one tried to negotiate with Smith, and offer terms for eventual African rule as a distant prospect - so eager were they to appear to resolve the problem on behalf of their worried America counterparts.

Yet, the only effective compulsion for Smith was the Portugese Revolution of 1974. A classic workers revolt against a right-wing dictatorship rapidly released two countries from colonial rule - Mozambique and Angola - which became bases for insurgency into Rhodesia. Despite hundreds, possibly thousands, of US mercenaries fighting for Smith's regime, the battle was destabilising the local system of white domination. The South Africa ruling class was particularly concerned about the implications for their own system, and pressed Smith into making some sort of compromise. Through a lengthy period of negotiations, he eventually accepted an 'Internal Settlement' in 1978, which saw the inclusion of one wing of the African nationalist movement in government and gave the impression of broad popular support. In fact, the goverment was still fighting on all sides against a well organised guerilla army - the Zanu PF led by Mugabe, who had spent a decaded in Rhodesia's prisons. It became clear that the goose was cooked - the rulers of the country were facing a comprehensive military defeat which would have ended their power, their privilege, and in some cases their lives. Smith accepted a deal negotiated with the Zanu PF at Lancaster House in the UK, which resulted in elections and a massive victory for Mugabe. The corrupting element of the deal was, of course, the commitment to defend the fundamental existing property relations, particularly the rights of white owners.

Smith tried to operate in parliament with a tiny minority for a few years before retiring to his farm and his privilege. His party, the much reduced Rhodesian Front, continued to advocate on behalf of white landowners and eventually formed a small component of the Movement for Democratic Change. Smith wrote a couple of self-glorifying books about his regime, explaining that the difficulties facing Zimbabwe and other African states prove that he was right in trying to prevent black people from trying to rule themselves. In truth, the same limits of the revolt which left Smith with his privilege, wealth and media access were those that contributed to the present dilemma for Zimbabwe. (Three words for you: Deflected permanent revolution.) The pernicious colonial legacy that Smith defended will only finally be dealt with by precisely the transformation in property relations that the British opposed. And when that happens, there will be no end of fucking whining on behalf of white farmers.

Labels: ian smith, obituary, rhodesia, white supremacy, zimbabwe

Illegal Attacks posted by lenin

Labels: anti-imperialism, ian brown, illegal attacks

Darfur? What could be worse than Darfur? posted by lenin

Apart from Iraq? Somalia, apparently. You remember. It's the place where they imposed a gang of warlords they referred to as the Somali government, with the help of the Ethiopian army and airstrikes directed by the Pentagon.

Labels: darfur, somalia, US imperialism

French strikes intensify posted by lenin

France is amazing. I don't want to eulogize, but you really have to marvel at the capacity of French workers to resist not only neoliberal ideology but also its practical application. Only months after the triumph of the right in the elections, with the disgusting Sarkozy given a sizeable mandate, the French working class is doing the government a massive political discourtesy. The transport strike continues, and now the civil servants have come out - affecting everything from schools to postal services. Happily, it is now also reported that the students are back out. The government insists that this is not a "Thatcher moment", because they know what French workers will do to avoid that fate. However, this apparent moderation owes more to negotiation tactics than to the programme itself, which is indeed a Thatcherite attempt to liquidate not only May 1968, but also the Popular Front.

Not that this was always self-evident to everyone. As Emilie Bickerton reports, Sarkozy's election was greeted by centre-left newspapers like Le Monde as well as right-wing ones like Le Figaro as a stunning and brilliant repudiation of the decrepit old welfarist model of society. It was widely suggested that Sarkozy was no neoliberal - rather, he was supposedly a unique and vitalising figure who could embrace figures on the left, despite his clear record of bigotry, authoritarianism, corruption and polarising attacks on the country's poorest and most oppressed. Those who had any doubts that he was merely another aggressive neoliberal with stars-n-stripes infatuation had only to wait for his recent speech to Medef (the French equivalent of the CBI), in which he announced his intention to attack the pensions system, and cut health funding. Pensions are the key prize for all neoliberal reformers, making up not only the most vital lifeline for the poorest but also the largest part of any social security budget or worker protection. The first attack was launched against the transport workers, and they have hit back hard. The healthcare system that made the proud pinnacle of Moore's "Sicko" will soon be inundated by private insurance schemes. Taken together with the attack on the 35-hour week, these proposals amount to a serious front in the war on socialism. Meanwhile, the media can be expected to continue to back Sarkozy to the hilt because two thirds of all magazines and newspapers in France are owned by the country's biggest arms manufacturers - their primary customer being the government.

All of this makes the LCR's initiative of crucial importance. Plainly neither the PCF nor the Socialist Party are of any use at all in this combat. The anticapitalist left has been in some crisis for several years, because of divisions within it. The creation of a new anticapitalist party will not necessarily solve that problem, but at least it can unite the best elements of the movement. Certainly, it can help overcome the problem that saw the left slate fall apart in the run-up to the last presidential elections, and as such we have to wish them the best success. I hope they keep the same slogan: cent pour cent a gauche!

Labels: france, sarkozy, strikes

The Meltdown posted by lenin

I am not referring to the global finance crunch. I've had a look at the latest IPCC report, and I'm afraid we're in for worse than we thought. Forget about being boiled and cramped like cattle on the tube, and thousands dying during heatwaves. 20-30% of animal and plant species may end up extinct if global average temperatures exceed 1.5 degrees above the levels of the late twentieth century; if they exceed 3.5 degrees above, then between 40% and 70% will be lost. It is beyond my powers of imagination to describe to you what that would look like, but we are talking about a total breakdown of the food-chain. We already knew that food shortages would be a tremendous problem, and that the likely temperature increases in some parts of the world would de-fertilise crops. What would a world short of 70% of its plant and animal species look like? The report refers to "frequent coral bleaching events" with "widespread mortality". There is likely to be more frequent incidence of extreme weather events. The worst sufferers will be the poor and the elderly, particularly those in less developed parts of the globe. Many "semi-arid" areas such as southern Africa and the western United States will go dry. This comes after previous reports that by 2100 one third of the planet or half of the land surface area will be desert. Other reports suggest that a sudden transformation in global temperatures is possible, and would result in the drowning of most of the world's population centres This is a global holocaust in preparation, and the newspapers are preparing for it by urging us to fly off to the tourist hot-spots before they are underwater or unliveable.

Well, there's no point in investing hopes in the Bali negotiations, since these are merely talks about what might be talked about in future. One of the real evils of parliamentarist politics has been the inculcating of political passivity, which amounts to the exclusion of the masses from politics. We are thus in the position where almost everyone knows that there is a huge crisis brewing and that it will probably affect them in their lifetime, and yet few people know how to act. Politicians promise solutions that are not solutions at all - or as with Bush's biofuels answer, will add to the problem. And of course, there is a global industry devoted to befuddling people, which makes it fortunate that the IPCC devoted a whole section to the history and structure of advances in climate change science [pdf]. It seems to me that the IPCC's reports could do with being distilled into a brief, digestible layman's account, and distributed widely. Free, if possible. That is how urgent the information campaign is, and that is one thing a socialist government do. Secondly, we need to build environmental politics into every left-wing organisation, and every trade union. The solution cannot and will not emerge from the existing economic system, which makes its radical transformation more urgent than ever. Now is the time more than ever to be deeply suspicious of 'market-led' solutions to climate change, since these tend to punish the poor without changing the fundamentals that are producing the problem. And quite apart from anything else, it is a question of social justice: we are all trapped in this problem, especially those who have done least to cause it, and therefore we must socialise the solution. The world belongs to everyone.

Labels: disaster politics, environment

Northern Jelly posted by lenin

I hate to associate myself with one half of a proposal by the repellent Vincent Cable MP, but it seems very simple to me. If we have to pay for it, we should own it. Instead, the government seems set to indefinitely extend a £25bn loan to the company on the grounds that not to do so will leave thousands of jobs at risk. My suggestion, echoing that at the Respect conference yesterday, is to divide that money among all of Northern Rock's employees, barring the directors and managers responsible for the problems. That would leave them with about a cool £400,000 each. If you don't want to do that, nationalise the company - either buy it while its stock is exceptionally cheap or take it over and tell the shareholders to fuck off.

The credit crisis, if it is resolved in a capitalist fashion, will see large amounts of public wealth transferred to the private sector. Every previous crisis has resulted in the taxpayers bailing out massive corporations - whether it is Reagan bailing out Chrysler, Clinton bailing out the hedge funds, or Bush bailing out the airlines in 2001. The alternative of public ownership is obviously forbiden by neoliberal ideology, but there isn't a single good reason why nationalisation cannot or should not be carried out extensively. And the situation will plainly call for it as the crisis intensifies. The system has thrived for years on cheap credit, which will no longer be available. So, when companies stop investing because neither profits nor cheap credit permit, the vicious circle now consuming financial capital will extent to industrial capital. As long as the sole basis of production is what is profitable, then it will make more sense to cut staff and close offices - that contains obvious disadvantages for those of us who rely on the sale of our labour for subsistence. So, instead of subordinating our livelihoods and well-being to the profit motive, I suggest we take control of the systems of production and exchange that we depend upon and democratise them.

Labels: capitalism, financial sector, profits, socialism

Respect: Very Live. posted by lenin

"I was as happy as anyone when George Galloway won in Bethnal Green & Bow, and when the Respect councillors were elected ... I have declined to speak to the Renewal conference, and I'll tell you why. I have always believed in unity. Who is the happiest when some people split from Respect? Gordon Brown. He sees this as an opportunity. My appeal is for unity, but there can never be unity in a left-wing organisation when people attack and witch hunt other socialists." Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS union.

The scoop is that Respect isn't going away. I can tell you this with a level of confidence and optimism today that I couldn't have yesterday. There were two events billed as Respect events today. One was the national conference, with 350 elected delegates and observers, resolutions and motions to be voted on. It would have contained more people, but 90 people had to be turned away since Westminster University was unable to provide an overflow room. I was there as a press person to observe and report, and did not participate in the votes. I will provide a run-down of the votes for you, but all passed resolutions will soon be available on the Respect website. The other was a rally held at Bishopsgate, without elected delegates, to which invitations were widely sent. I am told the latter had a decent turnout, 200-300 people mainly from Tower Hamlets, which is one of George Galloway's few strongholds. Two of our speakers, Andrew Murray and Sami Ramadani - both from the antiwar movement - spoke at both conferences, urging the necessity of unity above all when it came to antiwar activity. If anyone in either conference doubts that, they are surely in the decided minority.

This is how the National Secretary John Rees summed up the political framework that shapes the present problem (this is a summary of the key points rather than a transcription - as a rule, the comments reported in this account are far more likely to be strictly word-perfect, and I also expect Adrian Cousins to have full video clips posted on Youtube soon). "There are many issues, but the central thing, the irreducible core of the debate, is how to respond to electoral pressures, especially in areas like Tower Hamlets, and Birmingham, and Preston, and Newham, and wherever we have been successful. It is a debate produced by success. Four years ago, we had no record, we had to hunt for candidates to stand for us, and we had to persuade hundreds of people to fight for a left-of-Labour candidatge simply on the basis of the political arguments - probably not even expecting to win, but believing in the principle of it. That is not now the situation in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Preston or Birmingham. It is now the case, especially in those areas, that the minute we open nominations, tens of people put themselves forward, and sometimes hundreds of people register as members to influence the selection. It is no longer the case that people are only coming to Respect because of principle - now, people are coming because the best way to be elected is in Respect. We want to select and elect people who are as committed to the original vision of Respect as an anticapitalist, antiwar coalition. There has been some cost to us in this - in Tower Hamlets, of 12 councillors elected in May 2006, we have lost two. One of them crossed the floor to become part of New Labour, and the other resigned, causing a bye-election which we won by a small margin. There has been enormous pressure from the Labour machine - several people have been approached to leave Respect and join Labour, not only to be councillors for them, but they have been told that the sitting could be deselected and they could become parliamentary candidates. Michael Lavalette was told that if he would go for Labour, they would work to de-select Mark Hendrick. Now, sometimes George Galloway has resisted those pressures, but at other times, in important and damaging ways, he hasn't. We do have to have a robust attitude toward Respect's democratic procedures - it is not good enough to just select the person supposedly most likely to be elected if six or nine months later, they undermine the project and make us look like any other party. Because the most damaging thing that New Labour has done is to take the politics out of politics - you know what they say, it is no longer about ideology, but about delivery. If you take the ideology away, what's left? Careerism, avarice and opportunism. If we do that, we cease to be a real and radical alternative.

"We know from Labour Party history that you can pass great resolutions and be committed to the best policies, but if you don't elect the people who can fight for them, the resolutions don't make a difference. Part of the problem has come from our strategy - in a first past the post system, we sought to maximise our advantage in the strongest areas, in the hope that other places could follow. But this does create problems. It's been noted that the only people elected were Muslim comrades - and I make no apologies for that. They did what they should have done, what we wanted them to do - but they also realise, as we do, that we needed to be broader. At the 2006 conference, we therefore committed to support the Organising for Fighting Unions (OFFU) conference and get involved directly in the labour movement, and I think OFFU has been one of our success stories. It's been a lie, but a constant theme of our critics, that Respect doesn't stand for gay rights. So, we put this specific emphasis on the Gay Pride parade. This is one of the things that George Galloway has been critical of, but - whatever the technical issues - it was the right thing to do. I think the other side of this debate is pessimistic about where we can go, and want to concentrate on a few areas. I think if an NUM mining official like Ray Holmes can be elected as a Respect councillor in Bolsover, there are no no-go areas for Respect. Additionally, we cannot have forty or fifty members being signed up on one night for a meeting, by one person, with £450 of his own money - that is not the way to proceed. We didn't want this fight, and we don't accept many of its terms, but we always had to face these problems. The truth is that the core of any organisation is not its leadership, whatever the contribution they have made, but the membersip."

Problems...
Members then spoke from the floor. Jackie Turner from Tower Hamlets Respect spoke on some of the issues faced by the local organisation. She spoke of the opportunism that had poisoned Respect's successes. The former Labour councillor Mortuza had signed up with Respect in a bid to be the leader of the group, and left when it didn't work out to stand for Labour (he lost to a Respect candidate). Others tried the same, and left for the Liberals when they didn't get their way. There was a lot of pressure to stand only certain candidates for certain areas - older Bengali men. Lindsey German pointed out that this involved a certain condescending attitude to Muslims, as if they would accept undemocratic practises or couldn't vote for young women - if that attitude had been accepted, Salma Yaqoob couldn't have stood for us. Paddy O'Keefe said: "I've heard us described as the SWP faction - now, look, some of my best friends are in the SWP. But I'm not. However, I value the dignity and restraint of some of the people who have been under attack personally in the blogs and in the media, and sometimes in the face of extreme physical provocation." Rania Khan revealed some of the problems she and her fellow councillors had faced locally, including the often horrible treatment of women and the difficulties working under the local council leadership. She said: "It's been claimed that John Rees was behind us resigning the whip, but I am telling you now that this is not true. He told us to stay in it, to save Respect - I'm sorry John, we tried our best, but the struggles became too hard, and we couldn't continue. The real principles of Respect were being forgotten because the committee meetings were lost to infighting." There was a general feeling in favour of wanting to preserve unity in some way: some grassroots members feeling they didn't pick this fight, and not accepting its terms. One pointed out that she had been ready to bash Rees and Galloway's heads together - until she spoke to some people in the East End and found out what had been happening. Nahella from Manchester added - "no one has asked us, and that's been really frustrating".

"I know where I am. I know I'm at home, in the real Respect." Jane Loftus, president of the CWU.

Kumar Murshid, the former Labour councillor and adviser to Ken Livingstone, provided some background. "This issue of pocket membership is important - you can't have a democratic party when one person buys a number of members. I've seen this before in the Labour Party, and it has a corroding and corrupting impact, and it strips ordinary members of their ability or desire to be active in and have an effect on the party. As far as the mainstream parties in Tower Hamlets are concerned, they have always been cynical. The Labour Party rewarded corruption and incompetence, and used divisions. And we remember the Liberals during their eight years of misrule in the Eighties and Nineties - they ruled in a racially divisive manner, with the effect that the BNP won their first ever councillor there. Respect can and should be a different story. I'm afraid what the other lot are doing is engaging in an elaborate personality cult movement. Many of the people in the other rally are people we have tried to work with, but who don't believe in open democracy. And I have seen this in Tower Hamlets, and we had to take a stand against that."

"I love Respect!" Councillor Lutfa Begum

One of the best speeches of the day was from guest speaker Karen Reissmann: I have some video of it later. I think it's important to be angry about what's happening to the NHS, and some of the details are truly shocking. The hounding of Karen and union activists like her is being conducted against the background of a wasteful PFI initiative, which has quadrupled the cost of beds. Yet, for the duration of the strike, they have sent patients to locked hospitals who shouldn't be locked up, sent them away to hospitals a hundred miles away, and paid for twenty extra beds in the private sector. As soon as the strike is over, they will no longer pay for the beds. The local campaign against cuts and privatisation has been extremely effective, nevertheless, raising £120,000 so far. The local media is sympathetic, the Green Party and the Liberals demand Reissmann's reinstatement, and the only people opposed are - well, who do you think? John Molyneux made what I thought was an extremely important intervention, urging an strong focus on climate change. The latest IPCC report shows that the rate of climate change is even worse than some of the so-called 'doomsayers' have predicted, and this is already beginning to impact on people's lives. We absolutely have to make a strong presence for Respect at the 8th December protest. I'm convinced that there is no answer to this enormous problem that doesn't begin to challenge the distribution of property and political power throughout the whole planet.

This is Michael Lavalette's speech:



Councillor Ray Holmes, displaying his rosette, introduced himself with a breezy "Hi folks!" I like this guy. "I want to say how proud I am of Rees and the others, and I think we are standing by our principles," he said. He explained how brilliant it was to be a Respect councillor and stand against policies imposed by the government, and urged us all to give it a try if we could. "The reason I took part in Respect was because I wanted the people by my side who share the same principles as me - and the attacks on the working class are coming thick and fast, and need the maximum unity to oppose them." Jane Loftus, president of the CWU, was extremely warmly received. The crucial debate taking place in the unions now cannot be overlooked: there are those who still argue that the unions should support Labour, despite all, but that is becoming a much more embattled position - "Even during a strike with 98% solidarity, we got nothing from Labour". And therefore, Respect should be at the heart of that debate, putting itself where hundreds of thousands of people are struggling. Francois Duval of the LCR didn't want to intervene in a dispute in the British left, but he did tell us a great deal about the fight now taking place against Sarkozy's reforms, a mere six months after the victory of the right-wing parties in elections. "Sarkozy is not even living up to his rhetoric," Duval said, "his campaign slogan was 'work more to earn more'. People are working more, but they are not earning more!" Comparing the current critical situation to the miners' strike, he argued that only a full general strike could win the situation. And because the parliamentary left are attacking the protest movement, because they share the prognosis and diagnosis of the right, a political re-alignment is necessary - to that end, the LCR is attempting to form a new broader anticapitalist party, which may come about in 2008 or 2009.

"I want to pay special tribute to one particular person. It's not Lindsey German this time. One person who has been especially important to the antiwar movement, and who has been a real pleasure to work with as a comrade is John Rees. And I must say I don't recognise the man in some of the things that are now being said about him." Andrew Murray, national chair of the Stop the War Coalition

Sami Ramadani spoke mostly about the war: "I waited with some anticipation when Gordon Brown made his first speech in conference, since it was suggested there would be a policy change on Iraq. He only devoted 19 words to the Iraqi carnage in an hour-long speech. Over a million killed since the invasion, 4 million refugees, the health service collapsing, Iraqi children can't go to school any more - only 19 words. They are now dividing Baghdad into thirty military zones, in tactics they learned in Vietnam. They know if they can isolate an area and surround it, they can crush all the resistance within it. 30 military zones - 19 words. They have convinced the media that a withdrawal from Iraq will result in bloody war: this is a lie. The presence of troops is the main reason for the violence. And the American idea of a withdrawal strategy is to leave a puppet regime, a network of military bases and a subdued population - that isn't the withdrawal that Iraqis want." Further, "the same multi-national corporations who are after Iraq's oil are profiting from a system that kills 2 million children ever year from hunger. So, this movement really matters, and I would appeal to you all, when it comes to the antiwar movement, to work together and keep the unity going."

Ady Cousins has posted Karen Reissmann's whole speech:



Solidarity
There was something about the unscheduled nature of Mark Serwotka's arrival and his comportment at the mic which suggested that his speech was going to be a dramatic one. I make no apologies for saying that it was by far the best speech of the day I think he set a context and an analysis that was necessarily broader than the problems of Respect, but as the quote at the top of this post makes clear, he isn't sitting on any fences. I will try and summarise as best as I can: "First of all, can I say I'm delighted to come to conference today. The context of my appearance is the need in this country for a united left alternative to Labour. And after having spoken here today, I am going to speak to the Labour Representation Committee to support John McDonnell, and also especially to urge them to look out more to the non-Labour left. We need industrial unity to resist the attacks of New Labour, but we also need political unity to give people hope. We've got to look at the opportunities today - every time I have met government ministers, and even trade union leaders, and I raise the problems faced by my members, and other workers, the uniform answer is always that no matter how bad it is, the offer from the Tories will be worse. The Labour Party think they can take working class support for granted, and this gives them a tremendous in-built arrogance: it invites them to be more right-wing and stick the boot in more. So, we have to make some important decisions now, because we don't want to be in the same situation in ten years time.

"Three weeks ago in Stirling, the churches were giving out food vouchers to people who couldn't get their benefits. The reason why they couldn't get their benefits is that there weren't enough staff to support them - they are cutting 40,000 civil servants. When it came to those who needed emergency loans, the most desperate people, what should have been available in 24 hours took five weeks to be delivered. It's not an isolated incident - among the cuts, New Labour is delegating welfare to the charities and private companies, increasingly. And I think, this is not Bush's America. It's a Labour government that is doing this to us. People are dying in hospitals because of underinvestment. They're handing hundreds of thousands of pounds to private consultants. And look at EDS - they have a clause in their contract that says if they are ever removed from a contract for poor performance or anything else, they have to be offered another contract. These are clearly corrupt contracts. And when billions are being paid in city bonuses each year, we are being told that public sector workers are the cause of inflation.

"If this was as good as politics could get, then we may as well pack up right now. But it isn't. How do we get from where we are now to something better? I think the first thing is that if you are in a union, I will say this publicly today, you must redouble your efforts to hold your union leaders accountable, especially if they are looking the other way while workers are being attacked. These are not idle thoughts. I have spent months working with comrades to defend our services, some of whom I can see in this hall, and I've seen union leaders turn their back. The PCS, from not striking for years, has now had four strike ballots in three years, and the last one we had three weeks ago had the highest level of support of the lot. And look at the members of the CWU, who showed they were not cowed. They were prepared to fight against their employers and the government, and not only in official strike action either. They took illegal action to defend their conditions. So, we have got to bring the unions together in action to produce the maximum effort. And I say this to Karen Reissmann today, it's almost certain that at our next NEC meeting, there will be a unanimously passed resolution on giving a substantial financial donation to her campaign.

"And the Prison Officers Association. I know they're not the most popular trade union, but they took illegal action. I got phoned at 6.30am when I was on holiday in Wales to be told that they were going to take an illegal strike action. And I take my hat off to them: they faced punitive fines, and possibly the destruction of their union. If the POA are fined, then my union and every other union should put their hands in their pockets and pay the fine, and show the government that we won't let our fellow trade unionists be bullied. We have repeatedly called for coordinated strike action, and a lot of other unions have said they hoped they would have unity - but you must have unity in your sector before you can unite with others. When Gordon Brown has announced that he will be imposing pay restraint until 2011, we need all public sector workers on the picket line, on the same day. if they can do it in France, we can do it here. Now, that may win victories, and we may make progress, but it won't stop the bosses coming back. We need a political alternative. I have seen the SSP prove that with a fair election system and a basic unity, you can overturn the lie that people won't vote for left-wing parties. I was as happy as anyone when George Galloway won in Bethnal Green & Bow, and when the Respect councillors were elected. I call for unity, and it is a sad irony that I am visiting three socialist meetings in London today - the Socialist Party, the LRC and this one. I have declined to speak to the Renewal conference, and I'll tell you why. I have always believed in unity. Who is the happiest when some people split from Respect? Gordon Brown. He sees this as an opportunity. My appeal is for unity, but there can never be unity in a left-wing organisation when people attack and witch hunt other socialists. And I won't hide it, I disagree with Martin Smith and John Rees on a number of things, but we have to find where we agree. We have to tolerate difference, welcome debate, but we need unity.

"We should not see today as a desperate position. We should see it as an opportunity to clear some things up, and move on stronger. And I would urge you - to avoid splits like this consuming your organisation, you need to root it in the organised labour movement. Let me tell yu about the TUC general council in July. Eighteen of us went to see Gordon Brown. I arrived about half an hour early and had to wait in the cabinet room - my son called and thought I was running the country. Brendan Barber and the others arrived, and Brendan asked all of us for a list of ourse concerns. We raised conditions, pay cuts, services and so on. And someone whose name I won't mention - well, he happens to be the general secretary of Britain's biggest trade union, so that'll narrow it down - said, 'I have to stop you all here, this is crazy: we are all forgetting that our priority is to get our government re-elected'. We have always had people in our movement who put Labour before the interests of the movement. But more people are questioning that. We see Bob Wareing standing against Labour, where he has been disgracefully de-selected so that Stephen Twigg - someone who I would argue does not know much about Liverpool - can stand as the Blairite candidate. We see Respect standing elsewhere. And today could perhaps be the day that we recognise what unites us is so much more than what divides us. We need to go out there and build an alternative that gives Gordon Brown sleepless nights, and our children hope for a better future."

You don't even have to take my word for it any more. Happily, Ady Cousins has uploaded the whole speech:



Andrew Murray, who is admired throughout the antiwar movement, and by both sides of this dispute, echoed Sami's plea that we opt for the maximum unity in the antiwar movement - splits happen, sometimes its unavoidable, but the tremendous work that had been done together by all sides including many in the Renewal rally shouldn't be rewritten. "The truth is, we have a responsibility to the British people, and to the people around the world - however big the difference between Westminster and Bishopsgate looks here, it is invisible in Beirut and Baghdad. We have to recall that we are a small margin between life and death for thousands of people" It was because in the Stop the War Coalition we learned to stop shouting at one another that we pulled millions of people beyond the left into activity and struggle in a common cause. He also paid tribute to both John Rees and to the SWP without whom, he said, the remarkable movement the Stop the War Coalition has built could not have happened. "We have real enemies - we have Tony Blair, still. The Middle East Peace Envoy whose first distinction in his role is to call for another war. In the Middle East. I understand he's going to be grilled on the BBC by David Aaronovitch - that'll be a challenging interview: 'is that your halo, my lord, or is it a trick of the light?' And there's Gordon Brown - he should be grateful to us, because we put him where he is today. He spent years wanting to be leader, not knowing quite how to catch onto successive waves of public anger, always passing up the opportunity. And it was only Tony Blair's craven support for Israel's destruction of Lebanon last year that made even the most spineless MPs realise that if they didn't get rid of Blair, they'd be gotten rid of."

Democratising and reaching out.
The procedural and electoral element of today's conference involved a number of planks - most matters to do with specific policies have been remitted to a future council, because today's conference was about setting up a workable constitutional arrangement with a fully elected National Council. I can say that despite some arguments here and there, the main bulk of the resolutions passed with a few divisive resolutions and amendments spurned overwhelmingly. The passed resolutions approved a new National Council, a chair, a national organiser and a national secretary; an amended constitution with single-transferrable vote elections rather than slates; new provisions clarifying the basis of membership to avoid people being signed up in bulk on the night of a particular meeting, and so on. So I can put this to you. We are not closing up shop and abandoning the coalition. It is clear that, despite the defection of some names, those of us supporting a democratic coalition have won over most of the membership. We are not going to turn inward: instead we have to reach out to the workers now under attack by New Labour. We aren't going to rest on our laurels or be content to work with old faces, as welcome as most of them are. We know there is a debate in the trade unions and in the Labour left about where to go now, and we intend to involve ourselves in that. We know that young people are being targeted for restraining orders and ASBOs while their services are cut and schools handed over to the Carphone Warehouse. We know that stop and search policies are targeting black people, anyone who might look like a Muslim, and also increasingly white working class kids. Pensioners are being hit hardest by the closure of post offices across the country, and still have to live with frightening, death-dealing levels of poverty. Muslims are still being targeted for racism, harrassment, curbs on civil liberties - and you better believe that whether the detention limit is 28 days or 56 days or 90 days, it won't stop with Muslims. As long as all those things remain a permanent feature of our landscape, so will we.

Labels: respect, socialism

Mike Gonzales on Venezuela posted by lenin

A great discussion of Chavez, the opposition, and socialist strategy in Venezuela:

Labels: chavez, socialism, venezuela

Respect conference posted by lenin

I hope I might be able to get a report for you on tomorrow's Respect conference. It should be good. The following speakers will be present: Francois Duval of the Ligue Communist Revolutionaire, Ihtisham Hibutallah of the British Muslim Intiative, Derek Wall of the Green Party, Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Andrew Murray, Chair of the Stop the War Coalition, Jane Loftus, President of the CWU (pc), and Sami Ramadani of Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation. I should also point out that the witch-hunted trade unionist Karen Reissman, and Respect councillor Michael Lavalette will be attending the conference. I wouldn't have to point that out, but I did receive a statement from Renewal Respect recently implying that these two excellent activists could be part of the 'renewed' Respect. Unfortunately, that really isn't the case.

Michael Lavalette, who has recently led a successful campaign to stop NHS privatisation in Preston, has appealed for all divisions to be sorted out at the national conference. I have always thought there should be one conference, the one constitutionally mandated and approved by Respect branches across the country, and all debates should be organised in it - but there is no point in complaining about this any more. We are where we are. Both Karen and Michael did recently share a platform with George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob, and I think their contributions say a lot about what the Respect coalition is about:

Labels: respect, socialism

Nakba posted by lenin

Labels: nakba, slovo, todo cambia

We create our own reality. posted by lenin

(And this is what it looks like). The neoconservative boast gains yet more corroboration from the response to the IAEA's report [PDF] on Iran's nuclear energy programme. The report says Iran cooperated with inspectors, and has enriched uranium to about 4%, which is well below the 90% required to achieve weapons-grade material. Now, the Fars news agency reports that the US has been pressuring the IAEA to alter the report, which is not only probable but close to certainty. However, it transpires that this is unnecessary. The US has simply re-imagined the report to conform with its existing policy:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Tehran was guilty of "selective cooperation."

"This report sadly makes clear that Iran seems uninterested in working with the rest of the world," she said.

"The United States will work with our partners on the UN Security Council and Germany as we move towards a third set of Security Council sanctions," Perino said.

The report is partially about compliance with provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and partially about compliance with UN resolutions. It is not a secret - though it doesn't do to mention - that the US has openly spurned the former, while Iran's development of nuclear energy falls within its rights under the NPT, and that the US routinely ignores UN resolutions and uses its veto to block Security Council resolutions it doesn't like, (such is the imperial structure of the United Nations, lest we forget). However, imperial epistemology being what it is, you don't really know that. That's something you opinionate about, or give off in boilerplate rhetorical spasms about, if you happen to be a recalcitrant ideologue. True knowledge is attained through a sort of tantric abstraction, in which the vivid reality of Islamofascist nuclear destruction bearing down on the free world is imparted. Every New York Times columnist and wire service reporter meditates yogically on White House press releases until the vision of a radically Mahdically sporadically fervid Iranian president discharging eschatologically-guided missiles into American buildings is irreversibly instilled into the old intelligence simulation unit. So, as Iranian airspace is routinely violated, sanctions are prepared for non-threatening and otherwise permitted conduct, and a casus belli is prepared by the, er, robust interrogation of Iraqi prisoners, the next reality that every neoconservative dreams of moves closer. Whether the next President sparkles or scowls, Tehran will burn.

Labels: iaea, iran, nuclear energy, US imperialism

"I'll send you to Paradise with your fourteen virgins ... you son of a bitch" posted by lenin

"Human hunt" - sweary US soldiers baiting Iraqis with detonation cords and mortar decoy. Lots of "fuckstain", "cocklicker" and "come on you little n*ggers":

Labels: iraq, iraqi resistance, occupation, us troops

Historical Materialism conference speeches posted by lenin

The Dutch International Socialists have recordings of some of the speeches at the recent Historical Materialism conference, which are worth a listen: click here.

Labels: historical materialism, international socialism

Tough Times for Iranian Blogger posted by lenin

Hossein Derakshan is an Iranian ex-pat blogger based in London, widely credited with having been a pioneer for Iranian bloggers - 'free speech' community, that sort of thing. He's currently studying at SOAS where he says he is 'unlearning' colonial habits of thought. The place seems to be improving a little bit, which may be why they've got Gilbert Achcar there now. He's going through some hard times with his friends and comrades in the exile community, and is being sued by a pro-Washington commentator who has misrepresented his writings and so on but has now taken umbrage at some of Derakshan's blog-posts. Khalaji, who has previously threatened Derakshan's internet providers with the result that they discontinued his service, has now dragged Derakshan into a $2m law suit over the latter's blog. Khalaji evidently has the cash to handle such a suit, but Derakshan hasn't, and is appealing for help.

It's intriguing that one of the reasons he is being cut out by former allies is that he has decided that, because of the hysterical demonisation of Iran, he will cease all criticism of the regime in the English-language section of his blog. As he sees it, he isn't going to corroborate the war-mongers. Having arrived in Canada in 2002, ready to experience the much-vaunted Western freedoms, he came to understand something else: the vital importance of Karl Marx:

"I never understood or had any kind of interest in Marxist theories. As soon as I arrived in Canada, after maybe six months and maybe three months of working full time in a company, I realized what he was saying."

As his critiques of western society have become more pointed, he has been heartened by supportive messages from some non-political ex-pats that echo his own journey. "They left Iran with the same hopes and dreams that when they came to Canada or the U.S., everything would be perfect there," he says. "You would have such a happy life.

"When they see the nuances and realities of things in the West, they realize it's not like what they were thinking. They start to question many of these presumptions and presuppositions."

I think it would be a pity if some neocon theologian was able to silence Derakshan's blog. There is a huge wealth of background information on it that Western leftists would do well to get acquainted with.

Labels: exile community, iran, US imperialism

US Warplanes Violate Iranian Airspace posted by Yoshie

Tabnak reports that US warplanes from Iraq violated Iran's airspace around Khorramshahr nine times in the 24-hour period from 6 AM on Monday:
"تجاوز هواپيماي آمريکا به خرمشهر در 24ساعت" (13 November 2007). That is unprecedented since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, as Tabnak notes. An ominous sign.

Labels: iran, US imperialism

Bollinger imperialism and free speech posted by lenin

The President of Columbia University is being severely criticised by much of his faculty, in part for his preposterous, bellicose remarks when the Iranian president visited to chat with the kids. His defense:

Mr. Bollinger, who likened his experience at the faculty meeting to watching open-heart surgery on himself, said that in his remarks to Mr. Ahmadinejad he was simply exercising his free-speech rights.

The fact that he has such rights is evident in the fact that he didnt' get tased, but how is this for an academic standard? No one can mark me down, because - although I have got everything wrong and presented opinion as fact - to do so is injurious to my free-speech rights. No one can hold me accountable, whatever the responsibilities of my role, because I am owed completely unaccountability by the Bill of Rights. Nothing I say can ever be criticised, because it's just, like, my opinion man. I don't have to bow down to you truth-fascists. Imagine a university that worked like that: I suspect that Bernard-Henri Levy would be at home in such an instution, as would Alan Plagiaritz. (In fact, I'm convinced they'd both be at home in another institution I have in mind.) The next time some neoconservative blithers about academic standards being in decline, I suggest people remind them that they are the biggest beneficiaries of such a process.

Labels: 'free speech', belligerati, iran

Proud supporters of democracy promotion since 1930 posted by lenin

The Guardian and the Observer have a record of supporting democracy-promotion:

The Guardian thought on September 25 1930 that the exclusion of the Nazi party from Reich government, given its electoral success, was not in the best interests of German democracy and that their involvement would "in the long run ... help to perpetuate this democracy".

On the very day that these views were published, Hitler told a court in Leipzig (where three young army officers with Nazi sympathies were on trial for preparing to commit high treason) that his movement would come to power legally, but that it would then shape the state as its members wanted it, and that "heads would roll".

The Guardian maintained its view, however, that Hitler, "while full of the verbiage of revolution", was "no revolutionary leader". It claimed that he lacked courage, and that his baleful threats before the Leipzig court raised unnecessary fears, while his assurances of proceeding legally had hardly been noticed. It dismissed him on September 29 1930 as "the ranting clown who bangs the drum outside the National Socialist circus". Few things, the newspaper had remarked three days earlier, were less likely than that Hitler would gain sole power in Germany.

By 1932, as the crisis of German democracy deepened, British newspapers devoted far more attention to Nazism. Even now, however, underestimation of Hitler was commonplace. The Observer, still on February 21 1932 seeing Hitler as no more than a demagogue propped up by financially powerful nationalists, reversed course following his candidacy for the Reich presidency in March, when it wrote (March 20 1932) that it would be wrong to regard him "as a mere agitator and rank outsider". Here, as in the Guardian (which still implied on March 30 1932 that Hitler was no more than a charlatan), the emerging view was that he was a "moderate", who might possibly develop into a statesman, but could not control his own violent and unruly movement.

This related also to anti-semitism. The Observer, in its article on March 20 1932, hinted that attacks on Hitler's anti-semitism exaggerated the danger, adding: "It must not be forgotten that the major part of the German Republican Press is in Jewish hands."

Labels: colonialism, cruise missile liberals, democracy promotion, fascism, hitler, nazism

"Fuck you very much" posted by lenin

Eric Idle's latest romantic comedy...

Labels: eric idle, fuck you very much, monty python

Demonology posted by lenin

91% of all news stories about Muslims are negative. Quite high, but still somewhat short of government targets.

Labels: islamophobia, media, muslims

No reason for gloom. posted by lenin

Despite its extraordinary successes, some on the Left are concerned about the antiwar movement's well-being - your truly on the case.

Labels: antiwar movement, doom-mongering, iran

Tower Hamlets Respect posted by lenin

I got an eyewitness account of last night's Respect meeting in among the bills and viagra advertisements, which I reproduce here with permission. It's especially important because Tower Hamlets is one of the few potential strongholds for the 'Renewal Respect' guys.

"Tower Hamlets Respect hosted its first public meeting since George Galloway's followers changed the locks on our constituency office, effectively splitting the organisation. Around 80 people packed into the historic Kingsley Hall - Gandhi's home on his visit to East London - in the middle of councillor Rania Khan's ward, to hear her and councillor Oliur Rahman, alongside Respect mayoral candidate Lindsey German, described their vision for Respect. Former advisor to Ken Livingstone, and former senior Labour councillor, Kumar Murshid, made an excellent chair - something Tower Hamlets Respect had unfortunately not seen during recent misrule. Equally it was a pleasure to attend a meeting where young Bengali women were not barracked and harrassed at the door.

"I was reminded of the first meetings Respect had in the area, and it was a relief - another sign that those members of Respect supporting democracy are gaining the upper hand in Tower Hamlets. The atmosphere was electric. Rumours had been circulated by George Galloway's followers that our meeting was cancelled, apparently making the extraordinary claim that councillors could not hold public meetings in their own wards! But nontheless, we packed the Hall to the rafters with local residents (the estates next to the hall had been leafletted over the weekend), trade unionists, community activists and Respect members, old and new.

"Oli, Rania and Lindsey all laid out their vision for Respect as a democratic, plural organisation of the Left, as it was when the organisation was launched four years ago. Councillor Rahman's speech was particularly impressive: having been attacked, within yards of his own home, by unkown assailants the night before, he assured us that the threatening emails, the sinister phone calls and now the apparent physical assaults would not deter him. Contributions from the floor showed the impressive range of political forces Respect has been able to mobilise locally: an FBU member from Whitechapel talked, with regret, about how Galloway had 'cut himself off' from the working class locally; a local teacher described the area's anti-fascist traditions, and how fighting the BNP in the early 1990s had paved the way for Respect today. It was reminder of just how far we've travelled, whatever the current difficulties. The audience was around 50% Bengali, 50% everyone else. Someone had the bright idea of phoning Bangla TV when they realised the meeting was a success, so they turned up and filmed the last twenty minutes or so.

"A few questions were rightly raised about where Respect should go now. There was a general sadness that it should've come to this sorry situation, but it was impossible not to feel a little more optimistic afterwards. Plans were made to launch a series of local meetings, across the borough, reaching places we've never really touched before, and to mobilise as many observers as we could for the democratic Respect conference on 17 November.

"We're not out of the woods yet. But the momentum in Tower Hamlets is shifting towards those who support the original Respect vision of an organisation that fights for peace and social justice."

About the attack on Oli Rahman, I can furnish the following details: three men kicked Oli to the ground, tearing his clothes and inflicting internal bruising last night, outside his home. Some weeks ago, Oli's windows were bricked. Separately, a threatening e-mail has been sent to Respect member Mehdi Hassan, which is as follows:

Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:16:02 +0000
To: mehdi@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: (no subject)

medi you and fucking oli are traitors you owe your careers to george,
without george you will all be signing on soon and if i see the pair of you im

gonna kick the shit out of you both.

I don't know exactly what this thuggishness is supposed to achieve or who is behind it, but it doesn't exactly point to confidence in open argument and debate. But then, that hasn't exactly been abundantly in evidence from day one of this dispute.

Labels: respect, socialism

Gordon Brown, neocon. posted by lenin

An overstatement, perhaps. The more precise formula is that he is a reformist who became a neoliberal. But I think it worth pointing out, in light of the delusions among Labourites that Brown is going to thumb his nose at American policy simply because he isn't quite as far up Bush's arse as Blair was, that Brown has been flirting with the neoconservatives for some time. This weird tendency manifested itself with his statements on Empire as something for Britons to be proud of and stop apologising for (shortly thereafter, Blair had to apologise for and express shame about the Empire's extensive involvement in and coordination of the slave trade). Then there was the friendly review of Irwin Stelzer's volume on neoconservatism (the volume reproduced Blair's 1999 Chicago speech). Then there was the citation of the ultra-reactionary Gertrude Himmelfarb, neocon wife of Irving Kristol, as his guru. Brown is closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, but it is the neoconservative brand of Democrat that he likes. In tonight's white tie speech in front of the Lord Mayor of London and the cream of Britain's capitalist class, Gordon Brown is to support the American government's threats to Iran, boost NATO, attack 'anti-Americanism' etc etc. The neocons are not about to go out of business in Downing Street anytime soon.

Labels: gordon brown, neoconservatism, new labour

Non-sequitur. posted by lenin

David Cameron promises to get tough on rapists. This is the problem, as the Tories see it: England and Wales have the lowest rape conviction rates of any of the leading European countries. The solution: longer sentences. They don't think much of us, do they?

Labels: non-sequitur, tough on crime, tough on the non-causes of crime

90th Anniversary Editions posted by lenin

Get these on a mug or t-shirt today:

Bolsheviks:


Czarist troops fire on protesters:

Mass protests:

Pro-Bolshevik soldiers surround the Winter Palace:

Lenin does the crossword:

Red Army troops off to fight counter-revolutionaries:

The Petrograd Soviet meets to decide policy:

Refugees of the Civil War:

Wounded Red Army soldiers:

Reservoir Dogs - Mr Red, Mr Red, Mr Red, Mr Red & Mr Red:

Labels: bolsheviks, russian revolution

Twenty Eight Days Later posted by lenin

Labels: detention without trial, habeus corpus suspended in a noose

American insurgents: caught on video posted by lenin

The kids take on the military-industrial complex:





The writers take on the moguls:

Labels: america, kids take on military, writers strike

Spectres of labour posted by lenin

Someone insisted I give an account of the meeting on modalities of political power, which discussed dual power and Negri and immaterial labour, and so on. I said it would be ugly, because I totally lack grounding in Negri, but I'll give it a shot before I head off for the afternoon sessions. And, if anyone dares to dissent, I'll give them a shot to the back of the head. First up was Alberto Toscano with a discussion of dual power (some of it reproduced here). The concept of dual power has experienced increased profile due to the uprisings in Latin America, where it is routinely bruited in the literature (see this, for example). But its use today is somewhat different to the way in which it was conceived in its original form, during the "tumultuous interregnum" between the revolution of February 1917 and that of October 1917. Lenin stressed, to the consternation of most of his Bolshevik comrades at first, the unprecedented situation in which alongside the Provisional Government, there existed another form of government embodied in the soviets. The prevailing historiographical obsession with the precise nature of the Bolshevik "seizure of power" obscures the way in which power was already sundered in two. This dual power (better termed "dual sovereignty" by Trotsky - see chapter 11 of his History of the Russian Revolution for an account of instances of dual power) can only exist as an emergency for the existing regime, because all power wielded by the soviets is incompatible with parliament. The model of soviet power is the Paris Commune, with the direct recall of officials and the active involvement and initiative of the masses. It not only produces a different locus of power, which could potentially be coopted and integrated under duress, but a different form of sovereignty. Tellingly, Trotsky considered dual sovereignty a form of "dual impotence", not a situation that merited continuous elaboration - it is inherently linked to civil which, being a deeply undesirable state of affairs, needs to end quickly. It was possible only in a revolutionary situation, and it should terminate with a revolution rather rapidly, precisely to reunify sovereignty.

Yet, today, Venezuelan activists like Roland Denis uses the term "dual power" to describe a permanent strategy (as quoted in the linked article): "The old slogan of ‘dual power’ (bourgeois and working-class) valid for the summit of the revolutionary movement today becomes a permanent strategy in accord with the need for the organization of a socialized and non-state power." The origins of this reconceptualisation of dual power are in Negri's engagement with Lenin. Negri, though hostile to dialectics, criticises Lenin's account of power as un-dialectical. Negri maintains that the workers' movements of the Sixties and Seventies introduced a new form of power, a "dialectical absolute" allowing "dual power to spread over a long period, as a struggle that upsets the capital relation by introducing into it the worker variable as the conscious will of destruction." I think this is based on Negri's account of "immaterial labour" - in which the increasingly hegemonic paradigm of work is that centred on the production of intellect and affect, so-called "immaterial" commodities. Like the industrialised working class of the 19th Century, it constitutes a minority of actual production, but threatens to become the dominant paradigm. This production of value erodes the distinction between working life and life as such, since an idea or a solution can occur to one while in the shower or on the crapper. Further, this form of value production constitutes a plenitude that the capitalist cannot ever wholly appropriate: we are all constantly producing value which we share and cooperate over in a proto-communist fashion. For example, bloggery is a form of value-production which capitalists try to capture with advertising deals and Comment is Free offers, but they can never fully penetrate it any more than they can other, more private forms of value-production. As such, the new paradigm practically demands what Negri calls "extremist gradualism": the slow but insistent destruction of capitalist social-property relations, and their replacement by eminently sensible communist networks of cooperation. This is civil war over a much longer duration, only occasionally punctuated by direct physical violence.

There have been excellent critiques of this account of value and 'immaterial labour' - David Camfield has written such in Historical Materialism 15.2. Peter Thomas extended this argument in the next contribution, 'Lenin as Bipolitician'. Biopower is one of those concepts elaborated by Foucault that I think I get the gist of. In previous forms of government, the body was something given, to be worked around and accomodated to, rather than decisively shaped by power. In modern sovereignty, the body is disciplined, constructed, remade, even destroyed (from potty training all the way to eugenics and genocide): the subject's very existence is even called into question by modern power. So, Negri offers a biopolitical version of Lenin, in which the latter is valorised as an organiser of the social body, giving form to the flesh of resistant subjectivity, rather than as the messianic figure he cuts in Badiou and Zizek (hardly much to choose between these two, really?). Lenin, it is emphasised, was able to produce organic forms that were adequate to the existing state of industry, the flesh of social life etc. So, from the late 1960s in Italian autonomism, we get not a focus on the strategic limits and weaknesses of capitalism, but of the strongest points of workers' subjectivity. For Negri, this strong point is workers' capacity as a constituting power itself, beyond its capacity for integration into the state or into the creation of surplus value. This raises the possibility of "organic sovietism". Thomas says that this reading of Lenin isn't even particularly new, however: it is actually the reading that the Bolsheviks' had of Lenin when he wrote his April Theses. He is misunderstood by Negri as a proponent of a "good form" of political power - as if his conception of dual power was to valorise 'living labour' versus parasitic capitalism and state power. Lenin, by contrast, was clear that soviet power was itself precisely a form of state power, a form of sovereignty. The source of power is the initiative of the masses, but this is still codified, institutionalised, federalised and disciplined. It is not merely an anarchistic dissolution of ordering, mediating structures. Lenin's critique of sovereignty is immanent: it is its irresponsibility and insusceptibility to the will of the masses that is criticised, not its existence as such.

Vittorio Morfino outlined the Spinozist metaphysical origins of Negri's conception of the 'Multitude'. My notes are not great for this part, because I didn't understand the argument that well, but it's roughly as follows. For Negri, there are two forms of power, 'potestas' and 'potentia': constituted and constituting power. The former is the current order and the latter is the inherent power of the multitude. For Negri, the only metaphysical horizon is that of potentia: the infinite is the organization of human liberation, and potentia is its telos. The relationship between potentia and time is not thinkable in terms of a philosophy of history - it is not a sequence of historical epochs completed by the emergence of potentia. Rather, for Negri, there are two times: the time of illusions, power, the constituted order; and the time of potentia, collective praxis etc. The first time is void, and the second is full, exuberant, living. The transition is not a historical one, but an ontological one: that is, the transition is between wholly different modes of existence, not between different historical stages. In Negri's eschatology, the multitude as the bearer of potentia becomes the "democratic living god" under communism. If I follow this argument properly, the revolution in Negri's philosophy would be much more like the Scientific Revolution than the Russian Revolution - a prolonged but profoundly transformative paradigm shift rather than a temporally concentrated overthrow of existing social relations. By elaborating and renewing modes of power that are adequate to the social flesh, the multitude can gradually attain communism and complete liberation by edging out capitalist power and making it redundant. Supposing there isn't complete nuclear annihilation in the meantime.

Labels: biopolitics, dual power, immaterial labour, negri

Fixing evidence around the policy posted by lenin

Iraqi fighters tortured for 'evidence' of Iranian involvement in insurgency.

Labels: air war, iran, US imperialism

The war on formal democracy. posted by lenin

Bush unta stimulates wave of terror in Venezuela. Venezuela is unique in that students have long been largely, though not exclusively, pawns of the right, and these ones are tied to far right opposition strong-holds with plenty of cash coming in from Washington DC. The Venezuelan government are naturally suspicious.

Now, I want you to pay close attention to this:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's proposed constitutional changes go far beyond "reforms." The 69 amendments blessed by the Chavez-controlled legislature last week would eliminate the vestiges of democracy yet remaining in the government.

Chavez could run for re-election indefinitely and concentrate virtually all state power in his hands. Democratically elected in 1998, he could rule as a dictator for decades.

Chavez could run for re-election indefinitely, and yet still be a dictator. Meanwhile, the Spanish King tells President Chavez to shut up in the name of democracy.

Labels: chavez, US imperialism, venezuela

Conjunctural Headlines posted by lenin

Not enough food. Not enough water. Air's killing us. Have a nice day.

Labels: here is the news

Democracy as dictatorship posted by lenin

I thought I'd interrupt my Stakhanovite labours to bring you a quick summary of one of the most interesting sessions at the ongoing Historical Materialism conference yesterday. It was about the relationship between democracy and dictatorship. When I arrived, Zizek was summing up a case he's made here. The argument is that a new proletarian subjectivity can emerge from the point of exclusion. Not exclusion in terms of "these disgusting liberal games where you pay, what, twenty dollars and they send you a photograph of the child and so on. You pay to feel good - even better, you feel good that the child is safely over there!" Zizek argues that forms of intellectual property, biogenetic manipulation, environmental devastation and global apartheid ('planet of slums' style) should form the basis of a new commons: this shit affects us all, so rather than focusing on market-driven or ethical solutions, why not make it common property? In this new political universe, we are all potentially excluded, including from our own genetic code. Zizek has made this argument before, with respect to multiculturalism and gay rights - for example, that we should support gay rights not because we all have narratives and we have to make space for each to tell their story, but because their exclusion says something important about the injustice of the existing political order. This exclusion has a universalising tendency, since it is about social justice rather than tolerance. There was much else in Zizek's sum up, which was more problematic, but I'll leave that aside for a second.

Masimilliano Tomba from Padua University took up what I supposed to be the main theme of the discussion: democracy is a form of dictatorship. How so? The assumptions of the modern liberal state are organised around the dual poles of freedom and sovereignty. I am free in that no one has a right to rule over me, and sovereign in that the only authority in the land is one that I consent to in some fashion. This is the philosophy outlined by Thomas Hobbes, and it contains some interesting implications - for example, since the state is authorised to act on behalf of the people by the people, its legitimacy is assured because it is unthinkable that the people would act iniquitously toward themselves. It is the unity of the sovereign, representative power that makes the multitude one. As such, there are no limits to the sovereign's power, since there is no power to limit it. And power can always exceed its own limitations. Tomba illustrated this surpassing tendency in modern states by reference to the 1941 state of emergency declared by Franklin Roosevelt: in theory a temporary suspension of certain limitations, wartime discipline became the norm thereafter. George W Bush's policies permitting the indefinite detention or expulsion of 'terror suspects' is only the beginning of the possibilities opened up by the suspension of habeus corpus. Further, Tomba argues, the suspension of the law is a normal part of police action. We suppose there is a private sphere protected from and separable from the public sphere of activity, but in any emergency, police can and do frequently invade the private sphere in quite brutal ways, and everything they do is legitimised by popular sovereignty. To imagine that the police normally act within the law is to fail to understand the nature of the polity. The conception of justice as an agent of the popular sovereignty is one of the chief blocks to rethinking the political order itself: it forecloses radical change as, of all things, undemocratic.

Peter Thomas took issue with Zizek's focus on exclusion as inadequate to a situation in which the hollowing out of democracy is coextensive with its export in the form of imperialism, and with Tomba's critique of formal democracy. The inclusions and exclusions of formal democracy have been a concern of communist movements past, exemplified by Amadeo Bordiga who, demurring from both Stalinism and social democracy, also attacked the ideology of liberal democracy. He argued that the liberal state had a unique capacity for neutralising and including dissent, as well as for composing itself against an alleged external threat. However, there is a problem with valorising the subjective position of absolute otherness toward democracy, in part because the ideology of capitalist democracy now depends on defining an excluded point and including it - hence, one sends airplanes and tanks to 'include' Iraq in the global democratic order. The terms of democracy and its exclusions become an almost sacred reference for imperialism - who can question a mission to give democracy to a hitherto excluded margin? To overcome the limits of this discourse, it is necessary to return to and rethink some older questions and formulae - such as 'direct democracy', 'participatory democracy' and 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The regnant, very bourgeois, conceptions of democracy can best be counteracted by reinvesting the notion with its class content - a transitional demand might be "for a workers' government".

The best discussion by far was by Alberto Toscano. The ubiquity of notions of exclusion and inclusion, he argued, are a function of the present philosophical conjuncture, and point to a gaping absence: any account of exploitation. The concept of exclusion splits investigation of the issue into purely political and purely social realms: one is either included or excluded from the state, or included or excluded from the market. The historical processes accounting for this absence perhaps also accounts for the fact that Ranciere and Badiou in their different ways try to conceptualise the role of the proletariat in a political contest, eschewing the social question. This has its advantages: for example, it helps to escape a certain nostalgic, or 'ethnic', account of the working class. However, there is a congruent tendency among economists and others to turn to the 'informal' sector and various forms of casualisation as a source of repoliticising economics - a gesture criticised in Mike Davis' 'Planet of Slums', which is really the book about casual labour and global apartheid. What the focus on exclusion misses is the fact that exploitation is not simply an economic transaction: it is political through and through. For example, the treatment of the Roma by the Italian state is part of a Europe-wide ordering of labour around the migrant/indigenous dichotomy. It is part of the exploitation process. Additionally, the focus on exclusion fetishises the issue of democratic means - as when Badiou argues that the name of the enemy today is not Capital or Empire, but Democracy. Zizek has defended Badiou's claim, arguing that what prevents a reinvigoration of radical thought today is the belief in the democratic form. In retort, Toscano cites Balibar's argument in his reading of Lenin: that only communist social relations can provide substantive democracy precisely because they do not try to occupy the democratic state.

Zizek was given a substantial (but for him, evidently constraining) time to retort to these contributions and questions from the floor. He took plenty of opportunity to repeat his favourite themes, with the habitural refrain that "I will probably be lynched for this, but", as if to preemptively disarm criticism. Responding to Toscano, he agreed that exploitation was political, but argued that we don't have an adequate conception of it, because (ha ha) on the basis of the labour theory of value, you could argue Venezuela is exploiting the West by monopolising the control of its oil resources to extract surplus. You may argue that there is a democratic argument that Venezuelans should control their oil resources, "but then, I am sorry, this has nothing to do with marxism!" "I love Chavez!" Zizek exulted. "No wonder Negri hates him, and thinks that Lula is the great guy. But I love Chavez because he didn't play this game of avoiding state power: be brutally grabbed for power and..." etc etc. The preference for Chavez over Lula is all to the good - however, why didn't Zizek simply raise the critique of formal democracy here? His constant refrain is how leftist nostrums are coopted (so that, for example, the language of direct democracy has been usurped by capitalism - Royal's election campaign would be a case in point). Okay, but the critique of 'formal democracy' is also usurped, is it not? Yes, Chavez is elected, but nevertheless he is a 'dictator'. Yes, there was a coup, but substantially it was a restoration of democracy. And so on. (Relatedly - yes, the Iran president is elected, but he is a 'tyrant' etc.) So, instead of celebrating in sort of macho fashion the willingness to use power, it surely makes more sense to point out the irony that it was Chavez who was defending 'formal democracy'. In the same way, Bush's opponents defend 'formal democracy' when they try to expose vote-rigging. As a defensive and sometimes offensive step in the class struggle, the defense of 'formal democracy' can be quite effective. Actually, one of the key talking points for New Labour is the lack of substantive democracy. In this discourse, 'globalisation' becomes a Blairite shibboleth explaining his caution on the one hand, and his aggressive radicalism in attacking the public sector infrastructure on the other: these impersonal forces have sucked real representative power from the nation-state, and all we can do is adapt to them. Tellingly, the Tories frequently resort to the same arguments. Asked why we couldn't tax the wealthy to alleviate poverty, one Conservative MP argued that if we did so, all the owners of capital would run away and take their factories with them. One reasonable step in the face of this is to assert the full formal powers of the democratic state: of course you can nationalise whatever you want, set a high minimum income, raise taxes on the rich and corporate profits, properly regulate the City of London, etc etc. The IMF is unlikely to come and take your toys away, and even if it tries, you don't need IMF approval. To raise this, of course, is to question the real distribution of power in a capitalist society, to test the limits of representation.

Zizek went on to claim that the antiwar movement had been trapped in the logic of democracy, detecting a "strange satisfaction" not only in the big crowds, but also in the Blairite inner circles because it would achieve no change in policy, but would demonstrate the very democratic form that was supposedly being exported. He backed this up with a reference to Bush's retort to the protests against him in London: "I like em, cuz that's what we're trying to give the Eye-rackians". I was tempted to get trapped in the logic of democracy and start a vocal protest from the third row against this absurd contrarian-sectarianism, but instead registered my dissent with a private grimace. No laughter, no applause - no matter, Zizek moves on. Commenting on Badiou's anti-statism, he suggested that the logic of a particular kind of exclusion actually undermines the anti-statist position: namely, his activism with the sans papieres, the purpose of which is to integrate refugees into the French state (this is of a piece with Zizek's previous arguments against "revolutionary a priori anti-statism"). And, in another "you're going to hate me for this" moment, he argued that direct democracy was not only appropriated by capital, but it was never universalisable anyway. It is a parasitic form: it always relies on something else, terror or a constituent assembly etc. (Did he really argue for the Menshevik position? I'm pretty sure he did, but am open to correction). I don't see it myself: that is, I don't see why direct democracy is inherently parastic. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. The finale: "I'm sorry if this was all a bit confused, but it is because the situation is objectively confusing!"

There was also an interesting meeting on biopolitics/Negri/immaterial labour, but you don't want to see me try to sum that up: it won't be pretty.

Labels: democracy, dictatorship, historical materialism, savonarola, zizek

Tous ensemble! posted by lenin

French students begin nationwide strikes to oppose the privatisation of universities.

Labels: france, privatisation, students

A swift lesson in democratic values posted by bat020

General Musharraf gets a dressing down from his paymaster:

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time, so I had a very frank discussion with him."

... says George W Bush, president of the US and, errm, commander-in-chief of the army and navy.

Labels: george w bush, musharraf, pakistan

East End balls. posted by lenin

We need a new phrase to describe the subterfuge by which a reporter has drinks with a source, is fed some bollocks, prints it, discovers its bollocks, and then - with the magic of words - shows that he was right all along. In such a category, after all, does this story fall. Those of you who are following the Respect saga a little too closely for your own good will know that the East London Advertiser recently ran a story claiming that four Respect councillors who had resigned the whip were in coalition talks with the Liberal Democrats. The liberals are a sad bunch of sacks at the best of times, but they've got a nasty reputation in Tower Hamlets. This week's Advertiser prints Oliur Rahman's rebuttal, which kills the story: "We've had discussions with Lib Dems and Labour about how to work together effectively in the council," said Cllr Rahman. "But we are not going into coalition with any party." However, the reporter's spin, which is absolutely false, is that Rahman's denial amounts to an admission that there were coalition talks under way. Councillors from different parties meet for talks all the time, and we have had this before when New Labour tried to attack Respect last year, by claiming that we were in cahoots with the Tories. The truth was that we had met with the Tories, but also with every other represented party, including the Labour Party! It comes with the territory. So why are some people pretending that this 'story' is anything other than crud? Everyone in Tower Hamlets politics knows who Ted Jeory, the esteemed Advertiser reporter, has drinks with, and they both work for a well-known local MP. Let's get this straight: we are not going into a coalition with the bloody liberals. There were never any coalition talks. The people who are putting this story out have not a shred of evidence, and they are using the Advertiser as a mouthpiece for one side of a political dispute.

Labels: bollocks, east london advertiser, george galloway

The penultimate solution posted by lenin

When the Nazis wanted to send 30,000 Gypsies to their deaths, most of them at Auschwitz and the remainder at the Operation Reinhard camps, they appealled to their 'race science' quackery, precisely as they did with others they sought to exterminate. The trouble was that according to their own categories, the Gypsies were part of the Indo-Germanic Aryan race, having migrated from northern India. Nazi racial scientists tried to find a way around this - the Gypsies, it was decided, retained 'elements' from their 'Nordic home', but had 'absorbed the blood' of surrounding peoples, thus becoming an 'Oriental, West-Asiatic racial mixture'. Evidently, this meticulous construction was still inadequate. The Nazis had therefore to rely on manipulating the common stereotype of Gypsies as "asocial elements", maximising the fears and resentments of property-owners and petit-bourgeois elements. This stereotype supplies the deadly charge to the racial category. I am reminded of this when the latest story about Gypsies in The Sun or some such rag, denouncing them as criminals and scroungers and aggressive beggars who trash up respectable neighbourhoods and reduce property prices. Quite often, the story has nothing to do with actual Gypsies, referring to travellers of various kinds, but it seems to be at its most pungent when the term 'gypsy' is prefaced by 'Roma'. Every now and again, the hysteria emerges again, and the old barbarous language is resuscitated.

What does it mean when a murder, for which a Roma Gypsy was arrested, inspires the Italian opposition politician Gianfranco Fini to gyrate thus?:

Mr Fini said Gypsies considered "theft to be virtually legitimate and not immoral" and felt the same way about "not working because it has to be the women who do so, often by prostituting themselves".

In an interview with the daily Corriere della Sera, he claimed Roma "had no scruples about kidnapping children or having children [of their own] for the purposes of begging". Mr Fini, the leader of the ultra-conservative National Alliance and until last year his country's deputy prime minister, added: "To talk of integration with people with a "culture" of that sort is pointless."

Fini has in the past been praised by the ADL for his tough stance against anti-semitism when he was Italian Foreign Minister, and not only because he is a strong supporter of Israel. Abe Foxman has cuddled him in public. Pains were taken by Western media outlets to assure us that Fini's National Alliance had shaken off its fascists roots. He has publicly said that the right must ditch racism, if only in order to win elections. He even accused those who opposed war on Iraq of "totalitarian pacifism". Yet, it seems that as soon as the sewers open up, his rodentine nostrils quiver with excitement until he can no longer contain himself. Or is it simply that the instrumentalisation of Holocaust memory for geopolitical purposes has insidiously permitted the persistence of deadly ideologies. The shame and disgust one would feel, and should feel, at the utterance of antisemitic invective is somehow absent for many people when it comes to anti-Gypsy diatribes. On the contrary, I've seen apparently reasonable people reduced to frothing lunatics the second they're mentioned. And you know what they froth about? The gypsies allegedly being "asocial", threatening property prices, engaging in criminality, ruining the place etc etc.

Labels: fascism, genocide, gypsies, nazism

Another Blair who must bite the dust. posted by lenin

New Labour's argument for not asking that [Sir] Ian Blair resign his position as head of the Metropolitan Police is that he has done nothing wrong and would be the victim of a media witch-hunt - which, even if true, would be an item of exemplary bad faith coming from that bunch of knife-artists. Ian Blair's own argument for not resigning at the moment is that there isn't a sufficient crisis for him to do so. That is, he will resign under protest only if it becomes impossible for him to remain in his position. He offers this cowardly argument as if it was a statement of principled defiance, with a Gloria Gaynor twist: "There are three options here. There is resign now and walk away. There is cling on, and be pushed out. Or there is the one that I am going to do, which is survive."

Ian Blair is not being witch-hunted, even if the criticisms from the Tories and Lib Dems are opportunistic. He has overseen not only the murder of an innocent man, when all signals indicated that he was innocent, but also a string of lies used to justify the murder. He has exposed the Met's cruel and ruthless doctrine of preemptive killing (destroying the brain instantly, utterly), with all the demented pride of a Territorial Army reject, and publicly admitted that the force came within a hair's breadth of murder on hundreds of separate occasions, although it is clear that on none of those occasions was an actual suicide bomber arrested. Arguably, it is possible that Ian Blair himself really was ignorant of everything that was going on around him, as he claims - no one really believes that, but no one questions it on television either. If it is the case, then he is pathetically incompetent, and should resign on that ground alone. And if it isn't the case, then he deliberately contributed to and arguably oversaw a strategy of lies and smears directed against the very recently deceased, not least by claiming that the man was "directly linked" to the 'terror-hunt'. And there is no doubt that he personally took the initiative, while the body was still warm, of writing to the Home Secretary to prevent an inquiry by the IPCC. So, he doesn't like accountability very much. And he sent the perpetrators of the killing on holiday, so believes that crime should be rewarded - not an ideal quality in a top cop. Subsequently, the Metropolitan Police took the opportunity to beat and detain two brothers, shooting one and almost causing his death. They beat up the neighbours as well, and then - having beaten, shot and arrested the wrong people, they leaked false claims that the brothers were paedophiles, not to mention certain other smears about them and their families. There has been no serious attempt to rectify this or any of the other lies put out by the Met, by Ian Blair. The commissioner has also been a bit of a toady, having engaged in politicised interventions to help New Labour increase the length of time that 'terror suspects' can be detained. He has secretly tape-recorded telephone conversations, and is given to puffing himself in the press (falsely claiming to have been in the thick of it during a battle with the IRA, for example). He has correctly accused the media of institutional racism, but has permitted an even more dangerous institutional racism to pervade his own force, not least in its hot pursuit of "black on black" crime.

The truth is that under [Sir] Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police has been deceitful, fanatical and violent, particularly in its handling of so-called 'terror suspects'. Perhaps this is to be expected, only a slightly more extreme example of what usually happens, but we shouldn't react as if it is. Given our present inability to overthrow capitalism and all that, we would all benefit from more restrained and more intelligent policing. While the sacking of one commissioner doesn't achieve that on its own, leaving such an evidently corrupt sociopath in charge of one of Britain's most potent armed body of men, especially after everything that has happened, encourages trends in the opposite direction. And even if you aren't as cynical about the police as I am, Ian Blair's confrontational policy has without question reduced the police's relations with Muslims to its lowest ebb. Those who think the trend ought to be in the other direction are undoubtedly the greatest friends of the police. Similarly, those who are more concerned with the Metropolitan Police's "credibility" than I am will have to pause and think about whether they want to continue to reward a man whose actions have done nothing but diminish it. Those who are banking on him being able to clean up his own mess, as a prominent London Green hopes, ought to consider how successful he has been at this so far. For the rest of us, I would have thought the record is bad enough: not one innocent man shot, but two; not one lie, but many; not one near thing, but hundreds. How much more should we have to endure?

Labels: ian blair, Jean Charles De Menezes, metropolitian police, new labour

Whiggery and slavery posted by lenin

In a certain whiggish version of events, slavery is an evil that has been with human societies for millenia, and has finally been gradually eradicated due to Enlightenment, or liberalism, or capitalism, or some vague cultural amelioration, or to all of these as expressed in the British Empire. A strange view, to say the least: who doesn't know that the enslavement of Khoikhoi took place against the background of Dutch enlightenment and bourgeois reform, or that a certain kind of Latinocentric Enlightenment was enlisted to legitimise slavery (since the Romans, by enslaving a large portion of humanity, allegedly laid the basis for modern civilization)? It is not exactly occult knowledge that European capital benefited immensely from the slave trade - and actually, as David Brion Davis points out in 'Inhuman Bondage', lost a great deal from its long-term abolition. Liberal doctrines were deeply implicated in slavery, including Locke's theory of property, for example (see Andrew Vallis, ed, Race and Racism in Modern Philosophy, pp 89-104). Precisely as many opponents of slavery disavowed the connection between exploitation and the cultural achievements of the ancient world, so they disavowed that connection during Europe's global expansion. As for the argument that slavery was always with us, it is certainly true that it has characterised class societies for a substantial period of their existence, and there are some continuities, but the differences are hard to miss. For example, as has been understood for a while, free labour played as decisive a role in Athenian society as its expansive slave labour system, even in agrarian production (the importance of slavery to the Greco-Roman world can best be understood in comparison with contemporaneous societies, where it was much less prevalent). By contrast, the colonies were often decisively founded on slavery. The Atlantic slave trade was unique in a number of other ways, in terms of scale (15 million Africans enslaved and perhaps as many killed, usually before the even reached the African coast), and of course in terms of its 'racial' dynamic, in which traditions of indenturing and enslaving 'white' labour (often Irish labour) were supplanted during the 17th and 18th centuries by the capture and sale of Africans. Some previous systems of slavery were partially for the purposes of military competition, preserving the independence of dynasties from the Iberian peninsula to Bengal, for example. The slaves of Islamic societies in the medieval period didn't contribute decisively to the surplus, but they did contribute decisively to conquest. In most such cases, the consequences of slavery were present in the domestic lives of the states that permitted or encouraged it, while for much of the period of the Atlantic slave trade, the consequences were effectively concealed by distance.

Of course, that only takes us so far. The fact is that the emancipationist movements in the early modern era were unprecedented. There were hugely significant anti-slavery currents in the Enlightenment expressed by the likes of Bentham (is any evil to be mandated simply by calling it a trade?, he wondered). The American South had to work much harder to legitimise slavery in light of the critique originating in the overthrow of the British empire, despite extensive official protection in terms of domestic and foreign policy. The British government was under waves of skilled diplomatic and political attack from millions of Britons before it first moved to abolish its involvement in the trade in 1807 and finally effectively abolished the practise of slavery in the empire by 1834. Only in part can this pressure can be explained by a moral revulsion against the extremity of British slavery, which was far less accepting of individual emancipation (manumission) than slave-owners in Latin America for example, and always had laws restricting a slaveholder's ability to free slaves. Why should it suddenly be a topic of revulsion at all, when it had been tolerated in various forms throughout various societies for thousands of years with only minimal dissent? Christian sects hammered against the slave system hard, but Christianity had been complicit in slavery until then. Clearly, the eighteenth century revolutionary tradition obviously deserves the lion's share of the credit - but in what way? It is clear enough that when Jefferson attacked slavery as "a cruel war against human nature itself", he expressed the revolution's "historic leap", as Robin Blackburn puts it, from the particularism of 'the right of an Englishman', for example. On the other hand, the revolution's founding documents referring to equality in fact meant a very diluted form of 'white' equality - democracy in American ideology was co-extensive with Anglo-Saxon white supremacy. Further, Jefferson's words were deleted from the Declaration of Independence since there was no intention of abolishing the slave system, and scholars have argued that they were really based on an acute augury about the vulnerability of slave societies to revolt (see David Brion Davis' 'The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution', 1999). It is sometimes observed that slave rebellions were comparatively infrequent and treated as patholigical eruptions rather than events with a social meaning - but then it had required sustained terror, starvation, mutilations, and the harshest punishments to achieve the required 'docility' (subsequently rendered in ideology as the 'natural' state of Africans). And after all, aren't all rebellions pathologised in this way (fanaticism, greed, lust for power etc) until the lie can no longer hold? The revolutionary upheavals contained a self-radicalising component because they were not simple top-down military revolts, because the (multiracial) masses insisted on being involved. But also because it intersected with and stimulated anti-colonial revolution, not only in St Domingue but also in Spanish America. Of course, one thing that made the property-owners of Spanish America so conservative and wary of raising democratic slogans was their propensity for spreading among free people of colour, (often inspired by Muslim beliefs). These constituted sizeable minorities in Brazil and Cuba, for example - compared with the tiny number of such people in the United States on its foundation.

One the one hand, it is true that the ideology of 'free labour' had to produce accompanying ideologies of racism (that is, cast whole populations out of the human race as such) in order to make slavery normatively consistent, and this partially explains the Christian animus against slavery - it required a narrative wholly inconsistent with biblical monogenism. Yet, as pointed out, free labour had coexisted with slavery in Athenian society, and with considerably more prestige at that. The unprecedented savagery of the emerging capitalist social relations coincided with a unique opportunity in the creation of a working class with a structural capacity not only for revolution but for abolishing class relations entirely. The ideal of what we now call socialism - high-technology, modern societies free of exploitation, hierarchy and militarism - was a marginal one in the aftermath of the French revolution, but it was for the first time becoming a possibility. This is as far from the Whiggish view of 'progress' as one could imagine: it is more like turning disaster into an opportunity, weaknesses into a potential strength. If the idea of reproducing communal forms of life prevalent in Europe during the high middle ages as the dominant form of production, without their parochial and gendered constraints, was a novelty made possible by capitalism, it is also one that capitalism has not ceased to militate against by all horrific means at its disposal, up to and including the peak of barbarism in the twentieth century. And there are no historical guarantees: capitalism possesses, as EM Wood puts it, an inherent "systemic opportunism". For example, capitalism doesn't absolutely need gender oppression in the same way that it does actually need forms of racism (because the imperialist dynamic is a permanent feature of capitalism), but it can and does make use of it despite apparent social costs (such as ). Slave labour continues to exist as a relatively small component of the global capitalist economy, and alongside it are far more substantial forms of 'sweated' or hyper-exploited labour. The states system created by colonialism in the Middle East frequently relied on effective slave labour. Kuwait was more or less a slaveocracy until the expulsion of its Palestinian residents. Who is to say it couldn't return as a mass system, given a unique opportunity or set of circumstances? It did return to German capitalism during its most barbarous phase, after all. The extent of slavery is a reasonable metric of progress, but it seems to highlight how complex and fragile even our current, unsatisfactory situation is.

Labels: capitalism, colonialism, slavery, whiggery

From the Pakistan Underground posted by lenin

Musharraf's 'emergency rule', supposedly a response to "extremism" is in part an effort to crackdown on the dissidence that has gripped the country this year. The declaration appears to have been deliberately made in such a way as to circumvent the constitution, since Musharraf proclaimed the 'emergency' in his capacity of Army Chief, not as president. By setting aside constitutional restrictions, the army gives itself more scope for repression. The Left has been driven underground already and protesters rounded up and beaten. They have already tried less formal modes of repression, arresting the opposition leaders, many of whom died in prison. Perhaps because of the swift response of protesters, we haven't had the same enthusiastic response among liberal pundits that greeted Musharraf's initial coup. But I fear opposition to Musharraf this time is likely to be channelled into support for the opportunistic Benazir Bhutto, who I suspect could easily win a fair election in Pakistan despite the attempts on her life. The US government has pursued an interesting angle in response to this, hoping to parlay the current dissent - a result of the neoliberal and pro-Washington policies pursued by the regime - into a coalition between Bhutto and Musharraf, both of whom will continue much the same policies. I suspect that this idea is more dead in the water than a Barrymore party guest. However, Washington's fears about the future of this geopolitically vital, yet combustible, area are unlikely to be allayed by a prolonged crackdown by Musharraf, which could explain why his subordinates are wooing the Western press with promises of full elections and an end to 'emergency rule' within weeks.

At any rate, the Pakistan Labour Party has issued a global petition opposing emergency rule, which I invite you to sign.

Labels: dissent, musharraf, pakistan

Historical Materialism conference posted by lenin

Well, no one can pretend that we aren't faced with important theoretical arguments. Whether it's about imperialism and how to resist in the current conjuncture when it seems Dems and Reps are determined to whack Iran, or how to build a movement, or how to understand neoliberalism, or how to relate to Political Islam, it's all a matter of urgent inquiry and re-discovery at the moment. There's a brief description of the upcoming Historical Materialism conference here, and a full programme here[pdf]. Great speakers including the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, the economist and historian Robert Brenner, Gilbert Achcar, Domenico Losurdo, the very eloquent Gregory Elliot, David Harvey, Benno Teschke, Zizek, south-east London reprobate Owen Hatherley and Owen Miller. It covers everything from And you can register for a tenner (unwaged) or thirty quid (waged) here. Online registration closes shortly.

Labels: historical materialism

Disappearances posted by lenin

John Howison in 1834, some time after many Enlightenment thinkers had given up anti-imperialism:

The continent of America has aready been nearly depopulated of its aborigines by the introduction of the blessings of civilization. The West Indian archipelago, from the same cause, no longer contains a single family of its primitive inhabitants. South Africa will soon be in a similar condition, and the islanders of the Pacific Ocean are rapidly diminishing in numbers from the ravages of European diseases and the despotism of self-interested and fanatical missionaries. It is surely time that the work of destruction should cease...

(Quoted, Sven Lindquist, 'Exterminate All the Brutes', Granta Books, London, 1996, p 122).

Labels: colonialism, disappearances, genocide

Fireworks posted by lenin

Coming to your neighbourhood soon:

Labels: 5 november

Clash of civilizations, genocide, and a large island in the south Pacific posted by lenin

The reliquaries of imperialist history are being shuffled through again. Not a single myth forged in defense of colonialism is left unexamined, in the hope of its re-usability. Whether its Ferguson and his cash nexus, neocons insisting that slavery wasn't as bad as everyone makes out, or Sarkozy (the alleged Mossad operative) restoring the doctrine of the unhistorical society, the details don't matter. All that is needed is to dust off the old theses, add a few innovations, fix the evidence around them (you know that phrase don't you?), and raunch them up a bit for televisual consumption. The BBC 2 programme 'Clash of the Worlds' has so far managed to explain two savage episodes of imperialist history in terms of a clash between "the Christian West" and "Islamic fundamentalism" (the Indian Rebellion and the Mahdi rebellion) and seeks next week to explain the Nakba in similar terms (yes, really!). It is not that colonialism is blameless, but that it is construed through a thetic frame that cannot but exonerate it of most its worst crimes: it is depicted as an 'encounter', a cultural face-to-face which is characterised by misunderstanding and fear and - oh dear - fanaticism.

I think it's worth stepping back from this particular argument and considering a broader sweep. Linda Colley points out in Captives that Europeans have historically spent much more time destroying one another than destroying the rest of the world. This doesn't diminish the savagery of colonialism - on the contrary, it highlights the fact that what was unprecedented barbarism for an aboriginal of whichever continent was being stolen, was in fact part of the means by which savagely despotic and hierarchical European states had built up their strength and conducted normal interstate as well as domestic relations. Mass murder, rape, pillage, enslavement and so on was ordinary to a European coloniser in a way that it wasn't to its New World victims. What colonialism represented to some extent was the ability to externalise the extraordinary savagery of the European states-system. It was not a 'clash of civilizations' but the expansion of decivilization. The next step in this process is obviously the construction of 'race' which takes shape as contact with indigenous people becomes increasingly characterised by military combat. This alone permits decivilization to be understood as its opposite. It legitimises forms of aggression and subordination that are increasingly under attack in Europe - so that while Europe's lower classes resist impressment, enslavement or serfdom, the attempt to drive an Atlantic (and increasingly Pacific) expansion through the enslavement of Africans is represented as itself a humanitarian process. But of course when there are things such as slave rebellions and anticolonial struggles, the mood turns sour: no longer are we assisting these people, but defending ourselves against fanaticism and obscurants and mystics. It becomes a 'race war', as per the vicious struggle between the US and Japan, for example. But their struggles succeed to some extent - the colonised acquire states, challenge racist ideology and attempt to overcome their subordinate status. Yet still we try to bomb them, invade them, IMF them, keep them in line. So now it's a 'clash of civilizations'.

One aspect of the current installation of that 'clash' drama is that (as per Sarkozy), genocide is something that happens on the other side, perpetrated by commies or 'Serbofascists' (Yugoslavia) or 'Islamofascists' (Sudan) and so on, and for which the imperial powers bear no responsibility. It is, of course, reasonably well known among those who know that modern genocide originates to a large extent in colonialism (although in fact comparatively little research is done in this vein). It includes systematic extermination not only of Native Americans (often in the form of a holy war, or 'clash of civilisations' as it might also be known), but of course also of the aboriginal population of Tasmania and the Maori of New Zealand.. And, as Colin Tatz argues, there is the matter of genocide against Australian aboriginals, fuelled by the old colonial bromides. This is what the British High Commissioner wrote to Gladstone in 1883:

The habit of regarding the natives as vermin, to be cleared off the face of the earth, has given the average Queenslander a tone of brutality and cruelty in dealing with 'blacks' which it is very difficult to anyone who does not know it, as I do, to realise. I have heard men of culture and refinement, of the greatest humanity and kindness to their fellow whites, and who when you meet them here at home you would pronounce incapable of such deeds, talk, not only of the wholesale butchery of (for the iniquity of that may sometimes be disguised from themselves) but of the individual murder of natives, exactly as they would talk of a day's sport, or having to kill some troublesome animal.

And indeed, the occupation of towns and cities seemed to follow massacres, often referred to as 'dispersals'. It was widely believed that 'the white race' could not absorbe the aboriginals and so would have to exterminate them. When the Australian colonies formed a union in 1901, it was a commonplace supposition that multiracial democracy was simply impossible - a conviction drawn from the American experience. The United States had attempted during the Civil War to expel every last African American slave, a plan that had substantial bipartisan support, but which failed because they couldn't persuade the British or any other colonial power to buy them. One of the first acts of the Commonwealth of Australia was to successfully deport bonded black labourers (many of whom had come from the United States) en masse. Actually, much of the capital and political leadership that went into the future 'White Only' Australia had come from the United States, and the colonising as well as pacifying of the country was in part an American effort, so the kinship was redoubled in various ways early on. Meanwhile, the development of the country's agriculture, whether in cotton production or sugar cane, was led by overseers and colonisers from the Carribean and parts of Africa. Those who wanted to profit from 'blackbirding' (the enslavement of Pacific Islanders and African Americans) did not agree with the 'White Australia' doctrine from its foundation, but as in the foundation of the United States, seditious republicanism in Australia was bound up with ideas of white supremacy. And there were substantial sectors of capital which feared that continuing the institution of slavery in an Australian commonwealth would produce endless social strife and eventually something like the American Civil War, which cost millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. And so, on the basis of colonial racism, fears about social antagonism and class struggle and Britain's worry that it would lose possession of Australia unless it granted quasi-independence, the commonwealth was launched and white Australians continued a genocidal process that had begun as a multinational enterprise.

In fact, some of the Australian government's worst segregationist policies in this regard were seen as efforts to protect aboriginals from white settler violence, in much the same way that American politicians considered the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII a humanitarian process, and Woodrow Wilson considered Jim Crow policies a positive benefit to African Americans. Aboriginals were made 'wards' of white men who regulated their labour, travel, consumption, sexual activity, wages (held down way below the 'basic wage') and so on. The Protectors were frequently the agents of attempted extermination. For example, O A Neville, Chief Protector of the West (1915-1940) imposed a system of managing 'full-blood' aboriginals (who would die out), 'half-castes' (who would be removed from their aboriginal parents) and 'quadroons' or 'quarter-bloods' (who could apply for citizenship) - with a mixture of policies based on race theory and eugenics, Australia would be made 'white'. Of course, even those who acquired citizenship could revert to subordinate status if a white person made a complaint that impugned their conduct as unbecoming a civilised Australian. Of course, this genocide, which took place over a prolonged period, and involved violent extermination as well as bureaucratic efforts with intent to destroy a population, is the topic of denial. Mainstream Australian politicians do not admit to such a process, and compare the 'forced transfer' of children to the sending of whites to boarding school. Restitution is as unthinkable to white politicians in Australia as it is to American senators. The structures created by the genocide are being firmly kept intact.

So, here is a process of extermination, in which are implicated not various fanaticisms, but cold egotistical calculation, exploitation, slavery, theft, and finally the construction of a modern state. It is not only one that exemplifies various trends in Euro-American world dominance, but also was decisive in consolidating it. It is not only denied by its measures are given legitimacy by mainstream politicians. Indeed, genocidal processes seem to be inbuilt into colonial wars, past and present. From Korea, Indonesia and Vietnam to Central America and Iraq, the tendency of ordinary American conquest to tip over into annihilation, fuelled by racism, is hardly disputable. And of course, of all the currently regnant capitalist states, most have a record of involvement in genocide at some level, colonial or otherwise. It's odd, the ease with which one of the most common forms of Western violence is externalised.

Labels: 'white australia', clash of civilisations, empire, racism

Imperial denialism posted by lenin

There is a minor industry devoted to studying Holocaust-denial, its tactics, its presuppostions, its origins, and particularly its goals. It is an immensely worthy enterprise, because it frustrates the efforts of denialists to pretend that they are engaged in disinterested inquiry or are free speech martyrs of some kind. At some point, we have to systematically come to grips with the modes of denialism used by supporters of imperialism, which is the direct and legitimate parent of Nazism, and which is not merely a danger but the prevailing system of global violence. For example, Vivek Chibber aptly deals with Niall Ferguson's denialism about the British Empire here, but we need a consistent, encompassing effort to understand this as a historical trend, its roots, its goals and so on. If the effort to remove the Nazi holocaust from historical memory is motivated principally by the desire to facilitate the re-emergence of fascism as a 'legitimate' and worthy doctrine, the far more pervasive and hegemonic denial of imperialist atrocities is designed to reconcile humanity to ongoing bloodbaths, and future bloodbaths. It is designed to naturalise aggression, to transfer responsibility, to undermine natural empathy, to vilify others and coarsen discussion so that we think in terms of 'ass-kicking' even while families are shredded and burned. It has structural support in the military-industrial complex, in PR industries hired by nation-states to legitimise violence, in the academia, and in the media. It has its ideological origins in European colonial expansion and slavery. It encourages us to feel at home in a world of repeated misery and abuse and torture and enslavement and robbery, and at the same time it attempts to obscure the ongoing realities in such a way that those who can not be made to feel at home in such a planet do not take decisive action to change matters.

For example, there is a way of talking about Iraq without mentioning the genocidal levels of murder there, without mentioning the death squads and the torture chambers and the corrupt autocracy behind the facade of elections, and that happens to be the way that most media commentators discuss it. In light of this, a reader or viewer might be expected to accept wholly absurd conclusions about Iraq being a 'failure' or the empire being a force for good in the world, despite the little screw-up here and there. Similarly, one could discuss the coup in Haiti without describing the genocidaires, the French-American record of enslaving the country, the despicable crew of sweatshop owners and murderers who supported the coup, even the fact that it was a coup. One could discuss the violent repression in Haiti as an extension of aid offered by a desperate international community befuddled by the country's refusal to pull itself together. It so happens that this is how it has mostly been discussed. And so on. We have some of the tools for understanding how this denialism is propagated (Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent, for example), but I think we would benefit from systematically labelling and categorising different forms of this denial, looking at its ideological and structural origins and exposing it as such. Suggestions for how to approach such a task in the comments boxes would be most welcome.

Labels: capitalism, empire, imperial denialism

For the record posted by lenin

This document is worth reproducing in full:

The record: The Socialist Workers Party and Respect

Saturday 3 November 2007
An attack on the left in Respect

George Galloway has launched a series of attacks on the Socialist Workers Party in recent documents and interventions at meetings. He has been trying to win people to sign a document claiming “Respect is in danger of being completely undermined by the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party” . It alleges that the SWP is trying to fix the outcome of the Respect conference by “blocking delegates” in Birmingham on the one hand and voting for delegates “at completely unrepresentative meetings” in Tower Hamlets on the other.

At a Tower Hamlets meeting he claimed the SWP was trying to control Respect “by Russian doll methods” and said that Paul McGarr and Aysha Ali (both local SWP members) were “Russian dolls” .

Such allegations are false. They can be refuted simply by talking to many non-SWP members in Respect, as well as the SWP members against whom they are directed. The aim of these allegations is not simply to destroy opposition to a particular course on which Galloway wants to direct Respect — a course markedly to the right in some areas to that at the time Respect was launched four years ago. It is also to besmirch the name of the Socialist Workers Party, thereby damaging our capacity to play a part in any united campaign of the left.

It is sad that someone like George Galloway, who has been subject to so much witch-hunting in the past from the media — and who has always been defended by the Socialist Workers Party on such occasions — has chosen to witch hunt an organisation of the left, using the sorts of claims that have always been used by the right against the left in the working class movement. But that is what he has done. He is told at least one person that this is a “fight against Trotskyism” .

A few people on the left might be taken in by his claims. But serious activists know that our members do not behave at all as he purports, however much they may disagree with some of our politics. For the Socialist Workers Party has a long record of working over a wide range of issues with people and organisations with different views to our own.

This is something widely accepted on the left. So even Peter Hain, now a senior government minister, recalled in a recent radio programme being able to work harmoniously with us inside the Anti Nazi League in the late 1970s. He described our party as being the dynamic driving force within it, but said we were able to work with people who were committed to the Labour Party. Today members of our central committee play a leading role in the Stop the War Coalition alongside Labour Party members like Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn, as well as Andrew Murray, a member of the Communist Party of Britain, and people who belong to no party.
A record of fighting unity and open, honest argument

There is a reason we have such a reputation. It is because we follow the method of the united front as developed by Lenin and Trotsky in the early 1920s and further elaborated by Trotsky faced with the rise of Nazism in the early 1930s. This method is based on the opposite of manipulating votes or rigging meetings.

The method of the united front arises from recognising that exploitation, war and racism hurt the mass of working people, whether they believe in the efficacy of reform to change the system or believe, like us, that revolution is the only way to end its barbarity. This has two important consequences

(a) The possibility of fighting back against particular attacks and horrors depends on the widest possible unity. The minority who are revolutionaries cannot by their own efforts build a big enough movement ourselves. We have to reach out to draw into struggle over these questions political forces that agree with us on particular immediate issues even if they disagree over the long term global solution to them.

(b) By struggling over these things alongside people who believe in reform, the revolutionary minority can show in practice that its approach is the correct one and so win people to its ideas. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote more than a century ago, the revolutionary understanding of the need to confront the present system is the best way to win even meagre reforms within it.

It was this understanding that means that throughout its history the Socialist Workers Party and its predecessor, the International Socialists, have worked alongside other organisations and individuals — from the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign in the late 1960s, through the Anti Nazi League in the late 1970s and again in the mid 1990s, the Miners Support Committees in 1984-5, to the Stop the War Coalition and Unite Against Fascism today. It was the same approach that led us to initiate a campaign in defence of Arthur Scargill in the early 1990s when he was subject to a vicious, lying witch-hunt by the media and the Labour right wing — and most of the rest of the left failed to stand up for him.

Of course, there have been times when people have attempted to throw mud at us as revolutionary socialists. But the mud has never stuck because we have no interest in manipulation. We cannot fight back without persuading other forces to struggle alongside us, and we cannot win some of those to our approach without reasoned argument. People have known we have always been open about our politics at the same time as going out to build unity with those who do not agree with us. They have known that we do not attempt to smuggle in our own views by the back door or impose them on others.

We have no interest in such manipulation, since it would act against both goals we have in the united fronts. It would restrict any united front to the minority who are already revolutionaries, so preventing it from being effective. And it would prevent us from being able to show in practice to people who are not revolutionaries that our ideas are better than the various versions of reformism. It would be like cheating at patience.

This does not mean we have ever avoided organising ourselves to put across our politics in the united front. Anyone with a particular political approach, whether reformist, revolutionary or even anarchist, does this in practice to put across the particular point of view they share, even if they sometimes try to deny doing so. We have always seen argument as important to win people to policies that make the united fronts effective.

So the founding of the ANL in 1978 involved having to argue against those in many local antiracist committees who did not see confronting the Nazis of the National Front as a central priority. Again, a few of the celebrities of who initially supported the ANL when it was a question of wonderful anti-Nazi carnivals announced they were breaking with it when the question arose of stopping the Nazis dominating the streets. If the SWP as a party had not argued with activists right across the country for the positions we had developed, the ANL would never have been able to inflict a devastating defeat on the National Front.

Much the same applies 23 years later when Stop the War coalition was formed after a highly successful central London meeting, initiated by the SWP but involving other people like George Monbiot, Jeremy Corbyn, Bruce Kent and Tariq Ali in the aftermath of 11 September and the beginning of bombing of Afghanistan. The first organising meeting after this was nearly a disastrous sectarian bun fight as various small groups tried to impose their own particular demands. It was only the capacity of the SWP as an organisation to act to draw together constructive forces round minimal demands we all agreed with that enabled the coalition to for forward. If some of the sectarian demands had been imposed (such as treating Islamism as if it were as big an enemy as US imperialism) Stop the War would have been stillborn.

Our comrades had to argue for an approach that would involve the maximum number of people in the movement while not diluting in any way its opposition to the war being waged by the US and Britain governments. Far from SWP members behaving like “Russian dolls” , our capacity to work out through debate within our organisation what needed to be done and then to win others to it was a precondition for creating one of the most effective campaigning organisations in British history. This did not stop one small group at the second organising meeting denouncing us for supposedly trying to “take over” the coalition, using much the same language that George Galloway regrettably uses today. On that occasion other people who were serious in fighting against the war could see what nonsense that was and how correct our arguments were.

In a previous incarnation George Galloway used to praise the SWP for our capacity to get things done, such as building the broad based but principled Anti War movement of which he soon became a leading member. Now for some reason he believes his own interest lies in supporting those who want to drive us out of Respect.
The politics of building Respect

This method of the united front has underlain our approach in Respect all along.

Back in 2003 the anti-war movement was at its highest point. We had seen not only the 2 million demonstration of 15 February, but also the series of demonstrations all over 300,000. Many activists came to the conclusion that there needed to be a political, anti-Blair, expression for the movement.

We shared this general feeling. But we also saw a wider need for a political focus to the left of Labour. If this did not happen, disillusion with Labour could end up as it had repeatedly in the 20th century when demoralisation within the left and the working class led to a swing to the right of benefit to the Tories and, even worse, the Nazi groups. Our duty to the left as a whole was to try to create a credible alternative electoral focus to Labour. We had tried with only very limited success to promote this through the Socialist Alliance. We now saw the feeling against the war as providing much bigger possibilities of doing this.

The left focus would not be a revolutionary one, but attempt to draw in the diverse forces of the anti-war movement — revolutionaries, of course, but also disillusioned supporters of the Labour left, trade unionists, radical Muslim activists, and people from the peace movement. It was a project that only made sense to us if we could involve large numbers of people who did not agree with us on the question of reform and revolution.

To this end, representatives of our leadership were involved in open and frank discussions with various other people interested in the same project. Then the expulsion of George Galloway from the Labour Party precipitated the putting of the project into effect.

Our approach was that of a united front. We agreed on a minimal set of points that were the maximum that our allies — and many thousands of people activated by opposition to the war — would accept, but which were fully compatible with our own long term aims. Hence the name which was given to the new organisation, Respect, the unity coalition, was less than the full blooded socialist position we would ideally have preferred but which would have put off other people who wanted some sort of anti-war, anti-racist anti-neoliberal alternative to New Labour. The initials of Respect summed up these points (Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community and Trade unions — with socialism as one clear point among them).

Respect did not set itself up automatically. Once again there had to be a political fight to get this united front off the ground, and the SWP was essential to carrying this so as to get the widest possible unity. There needed to be a political argument inside the SWP (with a few people at a special national party delegate meeting in January 2004 opposing the project or its name). Our members also had to argue much more widely, with people tinged with Islamophobia who objected to working with Muslims. We also had to argue with people on the socialist left who objected to working with George Galloway, claiming his past record ruled this out (he had, for instance, never been a member of the Campaign Group of MPs and ruled out Respect MPs accepting a salary equal to the average wage).

We said what mattered at that moment was not what he might or might not have done in the past, nor what the level of an MP’s salary was. The key thing was that he had been expelled from New Labour as the MP who had done more than any other to campaign against the war. As such he was, at the moment, a symbol of opposition to New Labour’s involvement in the US war to very large numbers of people who had always looked to Labour in the past. Precisely because the SWP was a coherent national organisation we were able to carry these arguments across the country in a way in which no-one else involved in the formation of Respect was able to. Galloway clearly agreed with this when he enthusiastically agreed to John Rees being nominated as national secretary of Respect, just as Peter Hain and others had once accepted a member of the SWP central committee being national secretary of the Anti Nazi League. Both recognised that a “Leninist” organisation could fight to build unity among people with an array of different political perspectives in a way that a loose group of individuals could not.

We have shown our commitment to this ever since. So in the London Assembly and European elections of 2004, we strove to ensure that the Respect lists were much wider than the SWP, even in areas where the SWP members were a large proportion of Respect activists. There were sometimes quite sharp arguments inside the SWP about making sure non-SWP members were candidates. We recognised this was essential to making Respect into a real “unity coalition” of the anti-New Labour left. In line with this approach we worked as hard for George Galloway in the London election for the European parliament as for Lindsey German on the GLA list. And we worked as hard in parliamentary by-elections that summer for Yvonne Ridley in Leicester as for John Rees of the SWP in Birmingham. It was the willingness of SWP members to work in this way alongside others that produced the first electoral breakthrough for Respect in Tower Hamlets, when local trade unionist Oliur Rahman became a councillor with 31 per cent of the votes, followed soon after by SWP member and housing activist Paul McGarr beating New Labour to come second in the mainly white Millwall ward with 27 per cent of the vote. No one mentioned Russian Dolls then.

In the general election of 2005 the diversity of Respect in Tower Hamlets and Newham found expression in the candidates for the seats in the boroughs — one SWP female, two non-SWP people from a Muslim background, and George Galloway. SWP members showed their commitment to Respect as a broad coalition by working for all the candidates, but especially for George Galloway. In Birmingham our members worked very hard for Salma Yaqoob.

The pattern was repeated in the council elections of 2006. We fought to make sure lists of candidates were mixed in terms of ethnicity, gender and religious beliefs. In Birmingham, Respect stood five candidates — two Muslim women, a Muslim man, a black woman and a white woman in the SWP. In Tower Hamlets and Newham the SWP members argued for mixed Muslim and non-Muslim candidates wherever possible and other people accepted the argument.

The elections results were a great success for Respect in these areas, winning 26 per cent of the vote and three council seats in Newham, 23 per cent of the vote and 12 seats in Tower Hamlets, and a seat for Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham.
Defending Respect as a project for the left

But just as with the Anti Nazi League in the late 1970s and Stop the War in 2001, the very success of Respect created political problems — and Socialist Workers Party members at meetings and conferences had to try to find ways of dealing with them.

One was in the results themselves. The successful candidates were all from a Muslim background, despite the substantial white working class vote for Respect and the mere couple of hundred votes that stopped non-Muslim candidates winning in Tower Hamlets. This led to opponents of Respect to spread the idea that it was a “Muslim party” . The other problem was that electoral success led to something familiar to people who had been active in the past in the Labour Party but completely new to the non-Labour left — opportunist electoral politics began to dominate Respect.

There were even cases when people said that if they could not be Respect candidates they would stand for other political parties — and one of the Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets did switch over to Labour after being elected.

For such people their model of politics was that increasingly used by the Labour Party in ethnically and religiously mixed inner city areas — promising favours to people who posed as the “community leaders” of particular ethnic or religious groupings if they would use their influence to deliver votes. This is what is known as Tammany Hall politics in US cities, or “vote bloc” or “communal” politics when practiced by all the pro-capitalist parties in the Indian subcontinent. It is something the left has always tried to resist.

We seek people’s support because they want to fight against oppression and for a better world, not because they stand for one group.

But it became clear in the course of 2006 and 2007 that there were people prepared to use these methods in order to gain positions in Respect. There were cases where a lot of people joined Respect just before a selection meeting, turned up at to vote a certain way — and were never seen again when their nominee failed to get a candidacy. In Tower Hamlets members were signed up in large numbers by a few individuals.

Then came the selection of Respect candidates in Birmingham in February 2007. The balanced list of the year before disappeared as seven middle aged men of Pakistani origin were chosen for the “target” seats in which it was thought Respect might stand a chance. In one seat, Moseley & Kings Heath, 50 people joined in the week leading up to the meeting and a recruitment consultant was nominated instead of a woman member of the SWP. Clearly some Respect activists had fallen into the trap of believing it could advance by doing what our opponents had always accused us falsely of doing — acting as a cross class party whose horizons were limited to representing just one “community.” In the aftermath, the Pakistan-born sister of one of our members said that although she had voted Respect previously she would not do so again because it was a “communalist party” . No doubt New Labour or the LibDems had spread this slander, but events of the ground could seem to confirm it. This is in a city which is mixed ethnically and religiously. To run a Pakistani dominated list was to put us in danger of cutting ourselves off from building a coalition that could appeal to people of all origins.

Principled socialists had no choice but to argue against such things. They represented a fundamental shift of sections of Respect away from the minimal agreed principles on which it had been founded — a shift towards putting electorability above every other principle, a shift which could only pull Respect to the right. So it was that Socialist Worker ran a short piece criticising what was happening in Birmingham, and, a week later, a letter by Salma Yaqoob defending them.

Developments in Tower Hamlets also forced principled socialists to take a stand. There was soon an argument within the newly elected Respect group on the council as to what its stance should be. A number of them, none of them at that point in the Socialist Workers Party, objected to what they saw as the drift to the right of the majority of the group and their failure to use their positions to agitate and campaign for the Respect’s positions.

The issues became sharper in the late summer of 2007 when one of the Respect councilors resigned his seat in Shadwell. There was a selection meeting which got heated when a young woman, Sultana Begum, dared to stand against Harun Miah, and the SWP members decided that she was the person with the sort of fighting spirit best suited to represent what Respect should be. Making this choice was one of the alleged crimes of the SWP referred to by George Galloway in his first missive against us in mid August — even though SWP members, after losing the vote then worked flat out to win the seat for Respect. Our real crime, its seems, was that we argued out politics openly and vigorously as socialists should, and refused to be dragooned into being “Russian dolls” for George Galloway’s friends.
Saint George and the Trotskyist Dragon

The mystery in this account may seem to be to some people why George Galloway should have turned so suddenly against us if we had not made some serious mistake.

We can only surmise what his motive might have been. But his record is clear. He behaved marvellously immediately after his election by going to the US Senate and denouncing the war in front of the world’s television cameras. But after that his role very rapidly became rather different to that of the “tribune of the oppressed” that people in Respect expected from such a talented MP. There were complaints that he tended to leave much of his constituency work in Tower Hamlets to those whose salaries he paid out of his MP’s allowances. Instead he achieved the dubious record of being the fifth highest earning MPs, after Hague, Blunkett, Widdecombe and Boris Johnson) with £300,000 a year. Some Tribune of the People!

He dealt a blow to everyone who was preparing to campaign for Respect in the 2006 local elections: he absented himself from politics for weeks to appear in the despicable “reality TV” show Celebrity Big Brother. Every active supporter of Respect was faced at work with people on the left saying they would never vote for us again and taunts from our enemies about cats.

Socialists in the SWP had to come to decision as to how to react to such things. The pressure was particularly acute during the Big Brother weeks, with leading Respect members like Ken Loach and Salma Yaqoob wanting to denounce him.

Fortunately, as a “Leninist” organisation of “Russian dolls” we had our annual conference just as Big Brother started and were able to agree on a general reaction, which every one of our members tried to argue in their workplaces, colleges and schools. It was that appearing on Big Brother was stupid and an insult to those who had worked to get him elected. But we also said that it was not in the same league as dropping bombs to kill thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had for this reason to continue to defend him against witch hunts from New Labour and the media. And defend him we did, at meetings of the Respect leadership, in an article putting the case in Socialist Worker and through statements on television by John Rees and others. We never, of course, got any thanks from Galloway for this, nor did the many thousands of Respect activists who were persuaded to stand firm because of our arguments. Yet it is probably fair to say that if the SWP had not chosen, as a matter of principle, to defend him, then Respect would have suffered a disastrous split.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Big Brother farce hit our electoral vote that May. Galloway never once acknowledged the damage he did. Instead, he seems to assume that the left can be built largely through a media career. In the months after the Big Brother fiasco he turned to a career as a late night talk show host, interspersed with jokey television appearances with people like a granddaughter of the Queen.

Yet now he has the gall to complain that the Socialist Workers Party is “undermining” Respect and that people have to sign up to help him kill the dragon of Trotskyism.

Despite his increasing preoccupation with his media career throughout most of 2006 and the first half of 2007, Galloway was still capable of letting us have occasional glimpses of his old skills at denouncing imperialism. He was still an asset to the left, even if a diminishing one, and we in the SWP reacted accordingly. We never imagined he would suddenly blame us for resisting those who were pushing sections of Respect in the direction of electoral opportunism. So we continued to try to get him to speak on Respect platforms, even if media commitments limited his availability, and defended him against a further attempted witch-hunt from New Labour.

Then he suddenly did lunge into the attack with the document of mid August, which anyone capable of looking a little below the surface could see was directed against us. The document appeared when New Labour suddenly began to hint there might be a general election as early as October. Galloway had said two and a half years before he would not stand again for his seat in Bethnal Green & Bow. But he did show a desire at the time to stand in the other Tower Hamlets constituency. That required him to win votes.

So his document was based in part on electoral arguments. Respect had done poorly in the Ealing & Southall by-election. This could be explained by people with a modicum of political analysis by the timing (it was called and two and half weeks notice), by the fact that it was in the middle of the short-lived “Brown bounce” of the new prime minister, and by our lack of roots in the area. But Galloway contrasted it with the success of Respect in the Shadwell by-election and drew the conclusion that the only way to win seats was to follow the methods which had begun to take root in Birmingham and parts of Tower Hamlets. There was no future in appealing to workers on just class or anti-war arguments (despite the success of Socialist Worker members Michael Lavallette and Ray Holmes in the May elections) and there had to be a shift towards courting “community leaders” . The Socialist Workers Party was resisting such a turn, and so it had to be attacked. So also were attempts we had encouraged to reach out to new supporters through the Organising For Fighting Unions conference.

When we in the SWP and the left councillors defended ourselves, he accused us of aggression. At a meeting in the third week in October in Tower Hamlets he told some of our members (including his 2005 election agent) to “fuck off” . Some of his supporters made it clear they wanted to drive us out of Respect. From that point onwards there was only one possible way of keeping Respect alive in its original form — for us and the left councillors to fight flat out.

There was one particular sad thing for us in this whole sorry saga. It was that three Socialist Worker Party members — two of long standing, the third a more recent recruit and former member of the Militant — chose not only to line up with George Galloway but also to help orchestrate the attacks on the SWP and the left councillors in Tower Hamlets. Nick initially accepted the central committee’s decision that he should not take the post of Respect national organiser and then, in circumstances that made clear his alignment with George Galloway’s faction, reversed the decision.

We had no choice but to part company with the three and terminate their membership of the SWP.
What next?

A fight is on for Respect. The next two or three weeks will decide its outcome.

It is not a fight over personalities, but over politics. Do we try to build a political home for all those who are disgusted from the left with New Labour. Or do we allow it to shrink into an organisation for promoting a few political careers — and one media career — in a couple of localities.

We are determined to fight for Respect as it was originally conceived and for its future to be democratically decided at its national conference in November. The fight is important, in showing once again that revolutionary socialists can not only fight for our own principles, but can defend the notion of unity in struggle over particular goals of all those who suffer from the horrors of existing society. We know there are many, many people in the unions who have looked to Labour in the past and are now considering breaking from it. We know that despite repeated obituaries in the media, the anti-war movement is alive and kicking. We know that there will be struggles over the next three years against Gordon Brown’s attempts to cut the real take home pay of public sector workers. We have to keep alive the idea of united fronts to defend these things, and bring the most active people in all these fronts acting together to build a political focus to the left, within which revolutionaries and non revolutionaries can work together.

For that reason alone, we have to stand firm in defence of Respect as it was meant to be against attempts to deform it.

Labels: respect, socialism

That's all, folks. posted by lenin

And one shall divide into two. At least this puts paid to the claim that the SWP were the ones in the business of splitting: the truth is, there was always one side calling for the preservation of Respect in its original and highly successful form, and it was us. With the best will in the world, it is hard not to be mildly disappointed by this counter-climactic terminus. I really did want to see a raging National Conference and every single important question put to a vote. Galloway's decision to "do a Kilroy" is an act of de-sublimation, par excellence. I note that a few foolish people in the blogosphere not only support George Galloway's split, but actually think it's something to appear vaguely cheerful about.

They may over-estimate their chances. I say this for a few reasons. One of them is that the unity among the splitting faction is entirely ephemeral. What holds them together apart from a conviction that they can no longer work in the original Respect coalition? The ISG, which is splitting along with Galloway, made much of the idea that Galloway's criticisms of the National Secretary were similar to ones that they had made two years ago, but it is worth noting that their coterminous criticisms of George Galloway as being someone who lacks accountability and answers only to an insular clique are likely to be more true now than they were then. (Actually, it was a slightly odd criticism to raise after over a year of coalition - George Galloway has always been something of a maverick, which is partially how he resisted the domesticating trends within New Labour). Salma Yaqoob has an excellent political life in front of her, but not as an ally of George Galloway. The second reason is the figurehead: George, of course, has at most another run in him before he retires to pursue a media career. It is difficult to see him defeating either Ken Livingstone (for mayor) or Jim Fitzpatrick MP in the current circumstances, so we're talking about a 'Renewal' that will probably fizzle out rapidly. Had there been a strong organisation with viable figureheads in place, the loss of Galloway to the chat show and columns circuit would be a surmountable difficulty, but the loss of a huge number of footsoldiers and members will certainly make this much more difficult. The third reason is the loss of members alluded to. I suspect the Galloway faction will end up with a minority of the membership - partially, this suspicion is supplied by the number of people signing the SWP's appeal (the official total so far is over 1,000).

No, there is nothing to be cheerful about for you, honeybunnies. I am reluctant to brag about what the remainder of Respect may achieve, for obvious reasons. I expect we can recover to some extent, and it doesn't do to foreclose possibilities (although rumours that we're considering a coalition with the risible liberals can certainly be written off forthwith). However, I'm not the sort to hold grudges, and if there's one thing I hate, it's doom-mongering, so it behooves me to say something cheerful. The CND, when asked to be a bit more cheerful, used to remind people that any nuclear explosion near you would probably destroy the brain before any pain receptors transmitted the boiling heat sensations to it. In the grand scheme of things, George Galloway's art of fission and fusion may seem less important than global annihilism, but one thought that will always cheer me up is Oona King's irradiated appearance on election night in May 2005. It was worth it.

Labels: respect, socialism

As long as you think you're white, there's no hope for you. posted by lenin

Gordon Brown returned to the politics of the 1970s at the last Labour conference - unfortunately, it was not to the socialist, or even the Labour politics of the period. It was somewhat to the right of that. He raised the slogan: "British jobs for British workers". The Tories have sought to reclaim their territory in recent weeks, and are taking full advantage of Brown giving this language legitimacy. And so have the papers. Yesterday's Evening Standard declared: "Britons 'lose out on jobs and housing': Race chief inquiry into claims of bias against whites". The first noticeable thing is that the article refutes the headline (Phillips says there is no evidence that "Britons lose out"). The second noticeable thing is how easily "Britons" shades into "whites". Apparently, for the Evening Standard, to be British is to be white. To be black in this country is to be un-British. Now, we expect the Standard to be viciously racist (its 'Human Sandbags' headline was an egregious example), but it strikes me that this belies the ideological justification claimed by the Standard and papers like it - that they're not against black people, merely worried by the social effects of immigration from whatever country, etc.

Anyone who thinks that discussions of immigration are about social problems such as housing, employment or overcrowding in big cities hasn't been paying attention. In the same way that the struggle for immigration rights originated in the anti-colonial movement (see Stephen Howe's Anti-colonialism in British Politics: The Left and the End of Empire, 1939-1964), the attempt to scapegoat immigrants is coterminous with the collapse of the empire and the narratives of 'decline' that attended it. The whole topic is shot through with the assumptions of white supremacy (the most basic one being that those whose labour helped make the empire rich have no right to partake of its developed economy and labour rights). More fundamentally, the idea that one is indifferent to the 'race' of the immigrants in question (usually one hears things like 'Eastern Europeans are white, aren't they?') is incredibly naive about the nature of racist ideology. Italian migrants and Jews were once as demonised as Roma gypsies, yet the former would certainly be classified as 'white' today. The Irish have been viciously racialised by the British right up until the end of the war in the North. This is what Charles Kingsley wrote on a visit to Sligo in 1860: "I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country. I don't believe they are our fault ... But to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours." Carlyle's response to the Irish problem: "Black-lead them and put them over with the n*ggers". Yet, the Irish are as pasty-faced as is possible to be without actually being dead, and are certainly today considered 'white'. David Roediger describes how various groups of migrant workers in America - Italians and Irish, for example, achieved 'whiteness' through a long political struggle and process of assimilation.

So, we're supposed to be surprised that the British papers that rant and rave about Roma gypsies in terms that mirror antisemitic discourse from the 1930s are obsessed with ubermenschen? The fear and loathing of Poles and Eastern Europeans is supposed to be innocent now? The ideology of 'whiteness' which the Evening Standard appeals to - does it really pass the Daz doorstep challenge? Obviously not. Aside from functioning as a mechanism of exclusion, 'whiteness' smuggles in doctrines of supremacy under the assumption of neutrality - 'ethnicity' is something that is almost never attributed to 'white' people, since 'whiteness' is the apparently neutral space that is guaranteed by 'racial' differentiation. The 'white race' as the norm had to be invented by positing others as subhuman. The doctrine of 'whiteness' allows the interests of a minority of privileged people to pose as the general interest. A person who thinks he is 'white' and even wants to be white, sees it as an inherently valuable quality rather than an ideological construction, is not someone who sees humanity as one, as equal. A person who sees the world in this way is trained to view vicious competition, hierarchy and attitudes of domination and submission as natural.

Some liberal commentators, confronted by racism, try to boil it down to 'legitimate concerns' about housing, integration, public services and so on. New Labour politicians such as Margaret Hodge and Gordon Brown repeat this gesture. At its best, this says that racism is simply a misguided reaction to a social problem, a mistake made by people less educated than liberal hacks. At its worst, it says that there is some legitimacy to the racist gripes, that black people have been having the run of the place due to tyrannical 'political correctness', and that it's time to 'redress' the balance. The reality is that social problems have to be discharged through an ideological machine before being expressed as racism. Before one sees lack of access to housing as a result of too many black people and Poles and Slavs and so on being let in, one has to be trained to accept 'racial' competition for resources as normal. Ironically, those who supposedly 'respond' to social problems by voting for the far right actually back candidates who are often openly hostile to the welfare state. They can only get to that stage if they accept domination as a natural condition and egalitarianism as an affront. 'Whiteness' is thus a destructive ideology that prevents people from pursuing their class interests and encourages them to accept subordination, even while supposing that this 'quality' makes them superior. This is why James Baldwin said, "As long as you think you're white, there's no hope for you".

Labels: immigration, imperialism, racism

A route to sanity. posted by lenin

Whatever happens to Respect will be far from satisfactory, but the disorienting effect of this crisis leaves us with some important work to do, whatever side of the dispute one is on. (In this regard, the highly apolitical and slightly psychotic tone of discussion on some blogs, coupled with the total failure to integrate it into a broader conjunctural analysis, reflects serious political immaturity including from people who have every reason to know better). We have a number of tasks in the immediate term, which we can separate formally as long as we recognise their interdependence in practise. First of all, the struggle against the Royal Mail deal among postal workers is crucial. If the posties accept this deal, it is a serious defeat, because the deal rolls back fundamental conditions and entitlements and reclaiming the lost territory will be immensely more difficult in the future than it is now. The postal workers need to be convinced that a) they can beat management and their New Labour backers, and b) they are far better freeing their political fund than pouring it into the pockets of the government bullies. The more successful their struggle with Royal Mail management, the more confident they will feel about breaking with New Labour. A success for the postal workers would also resonate more broadly in the organised working class, since this argument about the political fund is crucial everywhere - the crisis of Labourism is a fact regardless of anything else that happens. New Labour's strategy for overcoming this is undoubtedly to break the resistance to Brown's pay cuts and instil a deep pessimism in the labour movement, which they hope will reconcile workers to paying for the Labour Party's election campaigns. In that way they can also push through further privatisation and neoliberalism. So, the postal workers dispute taps into a whole range of issues about pay, working conditions and public service provision in Britain - it taps into the fact that workers have a very different idea about how Britain should be than New Labour does.

Secondly, the antiwar movement is obliged to kick it up a gear. Recent polls suggest that 52% of Americans would back a strike on Iran: the hysterical propaganda about Iran's genocidal nuke threat (repeated by Blair recently) is having some successes. The American election campaign has been characterised by threats to Iran from both Hilary Clinton and Rudi Guiliani, the two front-runners, and the latter's campaign team is populated by neocon purveyors of sordid Islamaturgy such as Norman Podhoretz. The Bush team clearly want to discipline the Iranian president, and the recent intensification of sanctions was a clear message of this intent. There was much hilarity at Horowitz's "Islamofascism Awareness Week", but the fact is that every week is "Islamofascism Awareness Week", because there is hardly a day that goes by without a big, mainstream publication in Europe and America attacking Islam and outlining the clash-of-civilisations thesis, or 'exposing extremism' in mosques or something of that kind, and all for the purpose of providing a spurious consistency to a foreign policy determined by the exigencies of power. Yet, the American Left has its strengths. For example, Cindy Sheehan is effectively utilising the attempt by liberals to sentimentally coopt her for a domesticated antiwar critique to push a much more radical message. And in Britain, the StWC remains very strong and very broad. Though its members range well beyond the organised left, it is the organisational lynchpin for the Left. Its 'Troops Out' call is probably the most popular political slogan in Britain today, and the antiwar movement has been the root and cause of a profound crisis of legitimacy for the governing party. New Labour's third election victory was so hollow and so inauspicious and contained so many stunning reversals (yes, indeed, not least in Bethnal Green & Bow), that it didn't look like much of a victory at all. Brown has been forced to make some concessions on withdrawal, and a quiet mutiny is being reported among the troops. Yet, Brown is likely to go along with any American attack on Iran, and so we have to be prepared for sustained civil disobedience in the event of such an action.

The antiwar movement also intersects with the need to defend Muslims and, relatedly, immigrants. David Cameron's recent rightist lurch on this is probably produced by a structural impasse for the Conservatives - Tory England is dying on its arse, but the conservatives can't effectively take the 'centre ground', and nor can they really criticise the government on any of the points on which they are truly weak. Attacks on immigrants as a source of social breakdown are vicious, but also somewhat desperate, and don't reflect the confidence of possessing an attractive political programme. (This doesn't mean, of course, that they can't be effective). The strongest riposte to establishment racism has been grassroots solidarity in the antiwar movement, which threw all the suburban car-washing bastards into the streets with the multicultural urban working class, and produced forms of conviviality and, er, respect that has acted as a prophylactic against the 'populist' (racist) right. Were it not for the antiwar movement's sharp intervention after, say, 7/7, I'm convinced that gnashers like Melanie Phillips would have the run of things (well, maybe a slight overstatement, but only slight).

Electoral activity has to be part of this, but not electoral activity as an autonomous component, independent of the attempt to break the hold of New Labour on the organised working class or of sustained antiwar mobilisation. That would subordinate important struggles to the logic of electoralism, which is a sure route to political timidity and accomodation. If one thing characterises the current period of British politics, it is disillusionment with the same-old-same-old style of the main three parties who speak in the language of different policy flavours while proposing similar policy substance. Part of the reason they do this is because they treat politics as a multi-layered psephological operation - radical politics is not an appealing option if you're obsessed with key marginals, not pissing off important constituencies, getting the newspapers onside etc. It's not possible to conduct an electoral campaign with a Beautiful Soul and clean hands, but it is essential to ensure that the politics of the movement drive the electoral campaign, rather than the other way about. If you look at Respect's campaigns, there has always been an effort to infuse them with the politics, ethics and aesthetics of the movements of which it is a tributary. (Aesthetically, holding open space rallies, and putting up handmade banners of the red and green all over the place, have been a way of accentuating the fact that Respect is a movement coming from up from the streets.) Dave Allen used to say that the first response you'll hear if you ask someone for directions in the Republic of Ireland is "I wouldn't start from here". No one would start from here, but whatever emerges from the current bitter struggle, the route back to sanity is signposted by the antiwar movement and the labour movement.

Labels: respect, socialism