Last Saturday I wandered outside the University of London Union building, only to find the pompous Stuart Richardson laying into our comrade Sofie Buckland.
Stuart, a leading member of the International Socialist Group (British section of the “Fourth International”), had the Respect Renewal newspaper on him, which led me to assume that he was having a go at Iranian gay people, or perhaps substantiating his leader’s claim that embryo research “blasphemes against the very idea of God”.
After all, since the ISG joined up with George Galloway and disbanded its own newspaper in favour of the RR organ, it has not written a single word in criticism of the Stalino-Catholic MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, and its members have somersaulted through all sorts of logical contortions to justify Galloway’s bigotry.
But no, Stuart was telling Sofie about her alleged support for a US attack against Iran. Funny, she’s never said or written anything to that effect, and plenty to the contrary. Not a very interesting argument.
Anyway, I hadn’t seen Stuart for a while, and I always enjoy a chat with him, so I took the opportunity to ask him about his theft of over £400 from the bank account of North Birmingham Socialist Alliance four years ago. Stuart was defensive about this ‘Mariam Appeal moment’ – after pretending for a while that the allegation that he had taken money from the SA was simply untrue, he then said that he hadn’t done it for personal gain. Rather confirming my initial claim that he wanted to transfer the funds to Respect.
Of course, I wouldn’t dream of casting aspersions on the financing of Respect Renewal – I’m sure that Galloway’s massive salary and expenses are quite enough to keep them going, and the Iranian regime probably doesn’t even need to pay Galloway to be their useful idiot. It is the politics of the ISG comrades which are disappointing – is this really the continuation of the Left Opposition and the Fourth International?
For what the ISG were getting up to inside ULU was even worse than the arguments they made on the steps. Having written nothing in response to two articles in Respect by Galloway calling for a first preference vote for Ken Livingstone, not even on their own website, the ISG decided to make an independent stand at their conference. A stand which, I might add, has only been publicised via an eight-line “article” on the blog of ISG fellow traveller Liam MacUaid.
The stance they took, amazingly, was to call for a first-preference vote for the Green Party candidate Sian Berry in the London Mayoral Election. Seems funny, given that the social base of the Green Party is the petty-bourgeoisie and they have not one union affiliation. Seems funny given that Jenny Jones – one of their two London Assembly members – voted against the sacking of police chief Ian Blair.
Of course, we all know that the reason is the ISG’s shift to “eco-socialism” - largely characterised by cosying up to the leaders of the Campaign Against Climate Change and having nothing to say about the working class or transitional demands – and presumably they think that they can tap into the wishy-washy liberal Green vote if they boycott their own politics. This closely parallels their reason for immersing themselves in Respect Renewal – namely that the ISG has nothing to say and no reason to exist, and after tailing the SWP for a while has found a niche for itself by licking the boots of Galloway, now that the rest of the left wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole.
We might recall that the first line of Trotsky’s Transitional Programme, cornerstone of the Fourth International, reads “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat”. This was always a bit of a red herring (even in 1938 it was hardly the case that the proletariat was chomping at the bit but constantly sold out by reformists), although that’s hardly cause to give up on the working class altogether.
I’m sure that Sian Berry is sincere and probably quite left wing. But that’s the answer to the wrong question. How does backing the Greens (I’m sure it will be essentially uncritical support) serve the cause of working-class political representation? How will it help the ISG relate to workers disaffected with New Labour? What does it do to further the cause of left unity?
The ISG doesn’t care. They are only interested in surfing on the wave of popularity for the not-so-great-and-good, like Galloway and the Green liberals. They have dismantled their own public presence. They mask their own existence. They abandon all of their own analysis, ideas and understanding of the world. They try and find a niche in bourgeois politics. They become a pisspoor impression of Socialist Action.
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour. Show all posts
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Labour and Tories race to attack benefits
David Cameron has launched a fresh offensive against single parents, unemployed and disabled people with plans to force them into work. The Tory leader’s proposals include making the unemployed participate in “community work”, penalties for those who turn down “reasonable” job offers and cutting the number of people receiving incapacity benefit by 600,000 over the next five years.
At the heart of the Tories’ plans is a vast overhaul of the incapacity benefit system, which caters for 2.6 million ill and disabled people, most of whom suffer from either mental disorders or musculo-skeletal diseases. Writing for the News of the World, David Cameron claimed that “I don’t believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all. What we have is a culture of despair, where kids grow up without any idea that for our society to function everyone has to pull their weight if they can.” In order to get these people to “pull their weight”, Cameron suggests a reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants which will force some onto the lower-rate Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), an “allowance” received dependent on actively seeking work. Conveniently, Cameron says that these cuts will raise the £3 billion necessary to fund his “helping hand” for married couples.
But it is not just the Conservatives who are stressing the need for people with mental disorders to get a crap job on the minimum wage. Gordon Brown told viewers of the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that New Labour’s plans to get people to work were “far more revolutionary” than the Tories’ suggestions. “Today the issue is people don’t have the skills, even when there are 600,000 vacancies in the economy… the next stage is not what the Conservatives are talking about but giving people the skills to get into work.”
Rather than presenting the Tories’ plans to slash incapacity benefit by billions of pounds as an outrageous attack on the ill and disabled, New Labour claim that the Tories’ plans are just a half-hearted imitation of their own idea that what people on incapacity benefit really need is not benefits but… training.
Indeed, this row serves as part of a generalised attempt to undermine the welfare state. The Tories have also proposed compulsory (privately or voluntary-sector organised) “community work” projects for those on JSA for two years and removing JSA for up to three years for those who turn down three job offers.
The bourgeois parties’ “welfare into work” agenda is a thinly veiled attack on the disabled, are scapegoating them for ‘wasting money’ that could be better spent on strengthening the institution of marriage.
But it is not our only argument that benefit claimants really are unable to work, or that maybe they don’t much like living on a pittance. We also contest the idea of compulsory employment, when most of the jobs out there are alienating, tedious and badly paid — why should anyone have to do a demoralising job where they get bossed around for £5.50 an hour? We oppose any plans which make benefits dependent on claimants’ willingness to work.
At the heart of the Tories’ plans is a vast overhaul of the incapacity benefit system, which caters for 2.6 million ill and disabled people, most of whom suffer from either mental disorders or musculo-skeletal diseases. Writing for the News of the World, David Cameron claimed that “I don’t believe that there are nearly half a million young people in Britain with a disability which prevents them from doing any work at all. What we have is a culture of despair, where kids grow up without any idea that for our society to function everyone has to pull their weight if they can.” In order to get these people to “pull their weight”, Cameron suggests a reassessment of incapacity benefit claimants which will force some onto the lower-rate Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), an “allowance” received dependent on actively seeking work. Conveniently, Cameron says that these cuts will raise the £3 billion necessary to fund his “helping hand” for married couples.
But it is not just the Conservatives who are stressing the need for people with mental disorders to get a crap job on the minimum wage. Gordon Brown told viewers of the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that New Labour’s plans to get people to work were “far more revolutionary” than the Tories’ suggestions. “Today the issue is people don’t have the skills, even when there are 600,000 vacancies in the economy… the next stage is not what the Conservatives are talking about but giving people the skills to get into work.”
Rather than presenting the Tories’ plans to slash incapacity benefit by billions of pounds as an outrageous attack on the ill and disabled, New Labour claim that the Tories’ plans are just a half-hearted imitation of their own idea that what people on incapacity benefit really need is not benefits but… training.
Indeed, this row serves as part of a generalised attempt to undermine the welfare state. The Tories have also proposed compulsory (privately or voluntary-sector organised) “community work” projects for those on JSA for two years and removing JSA for up to three years for those who turn down three job offers.
The bourgeois parties’ “welfare into work” agenda is a thinly veiled attack on the disabled, are scapegoating them for ‘wasting money’ that could be better spent on strengthening the institution of marriage.
But it is not our only argument that benefit claimants really are unable to work, or that maybe they don’t much like living on a pittance. We also contest the idea of compulsory employment, when most of the jobs out there are alienating, tedious and badly paid — why should anyone have to do a demoralising job where they get bossed around for £5.50 an hour? We oppose any plans which make benefits dependent on claimants’ willingness to work.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
"Bourgeois workers' parties"
On Saturday 30th the Alliance for Workers' Liberty held a day school in London on the topic of "Marxists and the Labour Party". This is indeed an apt topic for debate, coming at a time when Gordon Brown has shut down the last vestiges of democracy in the Labour Party - stripping the right of trade unions and CLPs to debate party policy at conference - with not a whimper of opposition from the trade union bureaucrats.
Much as Tony Woodley had promised that the Brown reforms would go down in flames at conference, as the GMB's Paul Kenny claimed that he would "never" vote to hand away his members' influence over Labour, when push came to shove they did nothing. They accepted all of Brown's attacks, in return for a flimsy "concession", that the changes would be reviewed in two years' time. As if the Blair-Brown coterie who fought for thirteen years to eliminate the labour movement voice within the Labour Party would welcome it back come 2009.
This is not just another example of the unions' cackhandedness, lethargy and capitulation in the face of the "partnership agenda". Marxists can (could) intervene in the Labour Party to show up the collaborationist union leaders, de facto allies of the bourgeois-modernising wing of the Labour Party, for what they were. They failed to make sure conference policy was put into practice, they sat idle as Brown announced the public pay freeze, and could be shown for the bureaucrats they are. Now even that is impossible - they have willingly given up their own right to be able to fight.
The CWU, engaged in a bitter struggle with the Royal Mail bosses and the Brown government, did, shamefully, participate in the capitulation; but with a militant rank-and-file who are largely unaware (like most members of affiliated unions) as to what has happened, this sell-out must be exposed and a campaign mounted to win back the union voice. There is some chance to fight the reforms, above all at the 2008 union conferences. Members will be asking: what is the political fund meant to be for?
Yes, of course, labour movement control over the party has been in steep decline for years, and Labour is now very openly business-friendly, outpacing the Tories on their own terrain. But these reforms nevertheless represent a profound change in the underlying character of the party. The hypothetical working-class centre of control in the "bourgeois workers' party" is now gone, and if what Brown - and the union leaders - have done is not soon reversed, it will be fair to say that the Labour Party is finished, a British imitation of the US Democrats. And consolidation of the reforms is by far the most likely possibility.
You might point to examples of "bourgeois workers' parties" where the unions do not have formal ties such as those between Labour and the British unions. True - the Parti Socialiste in France or the German Social Democrats do not have affiliated unions. So Marxists should remain working in the Labour Party, no matter what its structures, then? It will always be a bourgeois workers' party because of its traditions. That is the position of Labour Left Briefing and Socialist Appeal, the Labour lefts who did absolutely nothing to fight the Brown reforms on the grounds that there was no democracy in the party anyway, rather putting under question why exactly they have remained as deep entryists.
But "bourgeois workers' party" was not a title handed down to Labour from heaven. If the party's structures change, its character can too. Furthermore, it should be noted that "bourgeois workers' party" is a term used for any number of different set-ups; and useful not as a scientific schema to be fitted onto a given party, but for understanding the relation of a given organisation to the working class. Whether or not to relate to such formations is essentially a tactical question, depending on their situation and that of the far left. For example, as discussed at the AWL event, in 1970 when the far left was growing rapidly and the Labour left shrinking, electoral opposition to Labour could stick down a marker for independent working-class politics. In 1979, when Trotskyist forces were weak and great industrial militancy channelled (somewhat) through party structures, with major fights to be had in the CLPs, it would have appeared sectarian to stand aside and turn our backs to radicalised Labour members.
Unlike some of his latter-day epigones, Trotsky did not have rigid schemata for this question. The "French turn", when the French Trotskyists intervened in the SFIO, was only a short-term tactic, and upon changes in the political situation it became time to call it a day, having picked up some young activists. Similarly, he counselled that the (non-Trotskyist) POUM should intervene in the social democratic PSOE at a time when its left was in ferment in 1934, but later that the POUM should work with the anarchist CNT union. Sadly, it ignored him on both scores, handing over its union fraction (FOUS) to the Stalinists' UGT federation. But it is highly questionable that the emasculated "Labour Party" offers any opportunities which might render Marxist intervention worthwhile. The McDonnell campaign did not lead to a rebirth of the Labour left, and the Labour left youth - Socialist Youth Network - has a bureaucratic-parliamentary orientation to campaigning meaning that it has tiny forces and minimal grassroots activity. I cannot even see the possibility of a "raid" to win over disillusioned members.
The problem here is the lack of an alternative - the proposal that RMT-backed candidates stand in the London elections in May 2008 is one positive development however. With Respect in meltdown thanks to the Galloway-Rees ego clash, and the Labour left paralysed, the RMT London Regional Council's decision to stand a slate of independent working-class candidates on a broad platform of working-class issues represents the most meaningful opening to the left of Labour. It is by no means certain that the rail union will actually put this resolution into practice; but if a broad range of activists from other unions support the call for such a campaign, it will become all the more realisable. The risk, of course, is that if Marxists cannot stop the Bob Crows, Mark Serwotkas and Matt Wracks of this world from determining its programme, then we might just end up with a Labour Party Mk.II.
Much as Tony Woodley had promised that the Brown reforms would go down in flames at conference, as the GMB's Paul Kenny claimed that he would "never" vote to hand away his members' influence over Labour, when push came to shove they did nothing. They accepted all of Brown's attacks, in return for a flimsy "concession", that the changes would be reviewed in two years' time. As if the Blair-Brown coterie who fought for thirteen years to eliminate the labour movement voice within the Labour Party would welcome it back come 2009.
This is not just another example of the unions' cackhandedness, lethargy and capitulation in the face of the "partnership agenda". Marxists can (could) intervene in the Labour Party to show up the collaborationist union leaders, de facto allies of the bourgeois-modernising wing of the Labour Party, for what they were. They failed to make sure conference policy was put into practice, they sat idle as Brown announced the public pay freeze, and could be shown for the bureaucrats they are. Now even that is impossible - they have willingly given up their own right to be able to fight.
The CWU, engaged in a bitter struggle with the Royal Mail bosses and the Brown government, did, shamefully, participate in the capitulation; but with a militant rank-and-file who are largely unaware (like most members of affiliated unions) as to what has happened, this sell-out must be exposed and a campaign mounted to win back the union voice. There is some chance to fight the reforms, above all at the 2008 union conferences. Members will be asking: what is the political fund meant to be for?
Yes, of course, labour movement control over the party has been in steep decline for years, and Labour is now very openly business-friendly, outpacing the Tories on their own terrain. But these reforms nevertheless represent a profound change in the underlying character of the party. The hypothetical working-class centre of control in the "bourgeois workers' party" is now gone, and if what Brown - and the union leaders - have done is not soon reversed, it will be fair to say that the Labour Party is finished, a British imitation of the US Democrats. And consolidation of the reforms is by far the most likely possibility.
You might point to examples of "bourgeois workers' parties" where the unions do not have formal ties such as those between Labour and the British unions. True - the Parti Socialiste in France or the German Social Democrats do not have affiliated unions. So Marxists should remain working in the Labour Party, no matter what its structures, then? It will always be a bourgeois workers' party because of its traditions. That is the position of Labour Left Briefing and Socialist Appeal, the Labour lefts who did absolutely nothing to fight the Brown reforms on the grounds that there was no democracy in the party anyway, rather putting under question why exactly they have remained as deep entryists.
But "bourgeois workers' party" was not a title handed down to Labour from heaven. If the party's structures change, its character can too. Furthermore, it should be noted that "bourgeois workers' party" is a term used for any number of different set-ups; and useful not as a scientific schema to be fitted onto a given party, but for understanding the relation of a given organisation to the working class. Whether or not to relate to such formations is essentially a tactical question, depending on their situation and that of the far left. For example, as discussed at the AWL event, in 1970 when the far left was growing rapidly and the Labour left shrinking, electoral opposition to Labour could stick down a marker for independent working-class politics. In 1979, when Trotskyist forces were weak and great industrial militancy channelled (somewhat) through party structures, with major fights to be had in the CLPs, it would have appeared sectarian to stand aside and turn our backs to radicalised Labour members.
Unlike some of his latter-day epigones, Trotsky did not have rigid schemata for this question. The "French turn", when the French Trotskyists intervened in the SFIO, was only a short-term tactic, and upon changes in the political situation it became time to call it a day, having picked up some young activists. Similarly, he counselled that the (non-Trotskyist) POUM should intervene in the social democratic PSOE at a time when its left was in ferment in 1934, but later that the POUM should work with the anarchist CNT union. Sadly, it ignored him on both scores, handing over its union fraction (FOUS) to the Stalinists' UGT federation. But it is highly questionable that the emasculated "Labour Party" offers any opportunities which might render Marxist intervention worthwhile. The McDonnell campaign did not lead to a rebirth of the Labour left, and the Labour left youth - Socialist Youth Network - has a bureaucratic-parliamentary orientation to campaigning meaning that it has tiny forces and minimal grassroots activity. I cannot even see the possibility of a "raid" to win over disillusioned members.
The problem here is the lack of an alternative - the proposal that RMT-backed candidates stand in the London elections in May 2008 is one positive development however. With Respect in meltdown thanks to the Galloway-Rees ego clash, and the Labour left paralysed, the RMT London Regional Council's decision to stand a slate of independent working-class candidates on a broad platform of working-class issues represents the most meaningful opening to the left of Labour. It is by no means certain that the rail union will actually put this resolution into practice; but if a broad range of activists from other unions support the call for such a campaign, it will become all the more realisable. The risk, of course, is that if Marxists cannot stop the Bob Crows, Mark Serwotkas and Matt Wracks of this world from determining its programme, then we might just end up with a Labour Party Mk.II.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
)