Excellent coverage of events from Al-Jazeera. The BBC instead opted to focus upon the low drama of the day, although the police setting themselves upon protestors making their way from the city centre to the Kensington Israeli Embassy is worth mentioning. Apparently Galloway was amongst the beaten, a few SWP members were hospitalised. Doubtless certain elements are applauding this thuggery.
Anyway, I turned up around half an hour late but things were still immensely busy. The turn out was quite simply massive, in the tens of thousands. We filled the entire square and then overflowed
I didn’t get to listen to many speakers (Galloway’s speech was forgettable and a young Palestinian/Briton declared Israel an “Illegal state”, but that’s about all I caught sight of) besides the purged man Rees, who was introduced as “The delegate to Cairo” since he was unceremoniously dumped from the SWP Central Committee. His speech conspiciously failed to mention socialism a single time, but the same was true of the few others I heard.
Turning up hideously late to things is rather my calling card, as at least one of my collaborators is fully aware. Accordingly it was with some concern that I turned up to the protest against the recent and on-going Israeli action against the Gaza Strip, which was held for the second consecutive day outside the Israeli embassy, was agains yesterday at 2PM will be held for the fourth time at the same time.
The crowd was largely Muslim, with a heavy grouping towards the centre pressing against the police who seemed to be pretty much devoid of any other faction, excepting a single person waving a red flag marked with the hammer and sickle. I was in conversation with a late middle aged Asian man who wryly remarked “Which one?” when I mentioned the presence of the “Communist Party” the flag announced, alerting me to the fact I was speaking to a kindred spirit. Apparently he had been a part of a collectivist group in Iran, as well as one of the endless legion of left wing groups in Britain (I confess that I have forgotten the name of both, quite shockingly, although I believe the latter might have been the SWP).
He told me that he thought the reason no group would ever get anywhere was their excessive bureaucracy and absolute alientation with their membership. It is impossible to implement socialism, he said, without a democratic organisation attempting to introduce it.
Although they find it impossible to get anywhere beyond a miniscule groove the far-left groups in attendence also show a remarkable tendency to avoid death, as evidenced by somebody offering me an edition of Newsline. This, as I was told when asked, is the organ for the Workers Revolutionary Party. The WRP that still exists, that is, after for a time there was a split were neither was willing to lose either name and there were a pair of WRPs producing two Newslines.
I wasn’t certain if the survivors were the loyalists to the notorious molester embezzler who used to run the joint and probably should have asked.
In addition to those old timers though there was also a group I’d never heard of, and if there’s a British far-lefty group I’ve never heard of its generally because they haven’t existed for a very long time. That is certainly true of The Commune, who were founded in August/September (”There were only ten…” was the excuse given). The person handing me the leaflet described himself as a “Libertarian Socialist”, a term I had only ever heard as a euphamism for “Anarchist”. He rejected that term due to its connection to historical ideologuary, wanting to steer clear of “Bakunist faction”, “Proudhon faction” stuff, which is a tendency I often share and can appreciate entirely.
He was friends with a member of AWL, a group he left after being expected to recant his “Troops Out” views, presumably under the tenants of Democratic Centralism. His friend knew well Robin, another member of the AWL who I’d met in Cambridge during a dire Marxist note reading session which I’d expected would be more of a talk on the socialist take on global warming (something that actually interests me). Anyway, point is: the far-left is a small world.
(I could tell you about my encounter with a New Communist but to be honest they aren’t too interesting. Besides their celebration of a new Mao Museum their paper was Stalinism at its least shocking and least amusing. The man I spoke to told me that his Communist Party was the only real Communist Party, didn’t have much of an answer as to why a party with that name that had been around since 1977 hadn’t changed it yet and described Zimbabwe as “A difficult one”. Does any of that really surprise you? No, didn’t think so.)
Making my way to the other side of the protest I came across the Jews Against Zionism, a rather striking bunch given the context, but perhaps undeservedly so. Before we can get onto them, though, I should deal with the crazies:
Anything involving Israel involves the Jews and when the Jews come up certain people are utterly insane. There were four examples of this, the first being a 9/11 truther who was possibly not all that anti-semitic but was certainly a nut-job. He told me that “It was an inside job” and when I asked how exactly that was relevant to the matter at hand he replied “War on Terror”. I pointed out that the Gaza attacks were not per se part of that at all and he replied that they certainly were and…Well, it was all one big inter-connected tapestry that I couldn’t see properly. He sprouted a view events (1977 Israeli attack on USS Liberty, 9/11insidejob, Gaza attacks) and expected me to draw links, which is rather a minimalist approach to conspiracy theories really, or perhaps just a little lazy.
The second was trying to insist to a rather bemused Muslim man that they use a slogan which told the “Ruling class” Jews to return to their homes, their homes being Eastern European. Apparently having converted in the 7th century they weren’t real Jews and had no claim to Israel. He had a photocopy of an Encyclopedia Brittanica page which demonstrated as much.
The third was perhaps the most obviously deranged, wearing a rather twisted looking depiction of Christ crucified on his back dropped an early hint of this. He handed out a leaflet asserting that the “leechers” were responsible for all the wrong doing in the world and featuring on the front page a black and white photo of the IDF bundling away a crying Palestinian child. The back made a rhyme about how the “leecher usurers” had killed Christ. When I asked him to define the word “leecher” he played it coy and asked me if I knew what it meant, before saying that they were someone that would “Drain the life out of you” and that I could well be a target.
The fourth was engaged in trying to convince one of the anti-zionist jews that the bankers had caused all the woe of the world, and met with some resistance both from him and me. I pointed out that if this was all some elaborate scheme it clearly wasn’t running on course given that the financial sector is presently imploding and she replied that there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of it.
Eventually we warded her off and got talking. The perspective of the anti-zionist was that until the coming of the Messiah Jews have no claim to be the ruler of any nation. He argued that atheist zionists had “brain-washed” people into falsely believing otherwise and stated that what jews should do when people wished to purge them was to send their elders to try and convince the leaders of the area otherwise or else submit and depart.
The jews were a little aloof from the rest of the protest, in their own separate sphere. They were clearly not unwelcome though, and their presence confounded the notion that these affairs are a gaggle of frothing mouth jew-haters.
Things were not entirely peaceful, with flaming cones (filled with Socialist Workers? an AWL member speculated) being passed to the front and then promptly extinguished. But there wasn’t blood on the pavement or anything. I also suspect that the chant of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” which broke out briefly, but broadly, unsettled the two staters present.
Eventually once things ended I headed with the protestors who still seemed keen on protestors, who got edged by the police down the street. For about half an hour ample opportunities to block off the whole high street abounded and were all missed. We eventually moved down the High Street until finally a combination of riot police and horseback mounted coppers (along with the standards) got us boxed in against a shopfront and refused to allow us to leave.
Robin took the opportunity to being discussions with some Muslims, including a white convert. He struggled to understand how someone not indoctrinated from birth (indeed, a former atheist) could believe such stuff. “Look around you, this is God’s creation”, we were told. We looked around us and saw a circle of policemen hemming us in.
Some idiot through a firework at the coppers but fucked it up, an Iranian film crew with an Indian presenter was harassed by the youths, implictly for being a woman (”Come on, show us your emotional side…”) and explicitly because “Mumbai was a inside-job”. After numerous attempts she finally managed to get a decent take done and was loudly applauded by all present save the police.
Eventually we were filmed, had personal details taken down, were thoroughly searched and allowed to leave. In some database or other there is now film of me asking under what pretext I could be arrested if I refuse to be filmed, which strikes me as quite delightfully meta.
Then off to the pub. With popcorn, a libertarian socialist, two Allied Workers and (sadly, but predictably) zero Muslims.
Protests for this week are as follows, please do come along:
I think I have a pair of slightly mouldering size 12s which should just fit the parcel. Gordon may expect a package shortly, once the post sorts itself out…
Look, I tried, I really did. But when she referenced Christabel…
Penny Red heralds the 90th anniversary of women voting, a worthy event but not one reached by the activities of some she praises in connection with it. Indeed, it’s likely that it would have happened a lot sooner had the suffragette leaders not firstly engaged in the practice of intentionally getting themselves arrested (how can we tell? They arranged a press conference before the first occasion even happened) amongst other low class stunts and acts of street thuggery and then abandoning their struggle once the First World War began to engage instead in the practice of shaming the underage and industrially occupied men of Britain into the trenches.
Not that we should be surprised that a gaggle of misandrists didn’t give a fuck about male life.
The Pankhursts were a pack of needlessly and counter-productively provocative loons. Their treatment by the British state was draconic, but their methods hardly helpful towards any goal save self-publicity. Although they did not mastermind the brutal excesses of the suffragette’s movement nadir (smashing windows and arson were tactics that seemed to originate from the base and then were adopted by the leadership, instead of being imposed from above as you’d expect in an organisation with as totalitarian a structure as the WSPU) they certainly did nothing to rein in the militancy, and in fact seem to have been engaged in a sick game of catch & match.
Why exactly she would herald a young woman who let her elderly mother face constant arrest and the aforementioned abuse from the “Liberal” government while she swanned around safely in Paris concocting anti-utilitarian slogans such as “Votes for Women and Chastity for Men” is especially beyond me. Christabel was nothing other than a prototype for the foul anti-sex crusaders radical feminism would later by typified by. In The Great Scourge C. Pankhurst depicts men as nothing other than a threat, in stark contrast to the entirely rational and sane arguments put forwards by many other writers of the time, genuine egalitarians both male and female. The Pankhursts, of course, permitted only the latter in their movement, clearly more interested in brewing a war between the genders than fully uniting them. The Pankhurst agenda was one of increasing gender divisions and exacerbating baseless tensions, not alleviating and relieving them. Their methods set the movement back untold years, alienating would-be and former supporters and allowing only a quasi-Leninist coterie of the pure (or rather, the obedient) get stuck into the joyous carnage. Any branch which disagreed with the top was cast from the fold.
Not that the suffragists should be tarred with the suffragette brush, mind. Their achievement was a sterling one which other nations took far longer to reach. I have nothing save respect and admiration for the peaceful and well reasoned branch of early feminism, who carved a hard-won path through the thickest of stone.
But let’s not pretend that a cadre of fools smashing windows was productive, especially not when those have-a-go militants then did their best to aid the real military and adopted handing out white feathers instead of tossing bricks the moment the First World War started.
I’m writing to you because I’m very concerned about the Mayor’s scheme to encourage shops not to sell alcohol to those between 18 and 21. You’re my Constituency Assembly Member, so I hope you’ll raise the issue with the Mayor.
The scheme might be voluntary, but the precedent it sets is disturbing. The drinking age is 18, not 21. The young people whom they move discriminates against are adults. If they want to buy alcohol, it’s their right. The GLA shouldn’t make decisions for them - unless they want them to behave like children.
It’s also the right of businesses to sell to whom they want. Many shop-owners are feeling the pinch, at present; some may need these sales to stay in business. And yet, they’ll feel obliged to comply, or be attacked for it. Who wants the editor of a local newspaper, hungry for lurid headlines, denouncing them as soft on yobs? Small businesses face a stark choice; lose money they can ill-afford, or get a bad name.
Nor will the scheme have many tangible benefits. The Mayor believes the drinking culture amongst young people to be deeply ingrained; so how does he think this will help? The move does nothing to address the desire for alcohol which makes binge-drinking happen. It makes it harder for people to get their alcohol - so they try a little harder to get it, and probably look beyond sources where real regulation is possible.
What the move will do is further alienate young adults. The media already demonises youth at every opportunity. This just adds to their social stereotype of young people as incurable monsters. A move against 18-21 year olds to tackle binge drinking, rather than a move against binge drinkers, suggests one thing; that all adults between 18 and 21 years of age are virtually alcoholic. That’s patently untrue, and rejects the vast majority of young adults who comply with the law. Why should they listen to their elders, when those elders just criminalise them? If the Mayor wants to address
I hope you’ll speak to the Mayor about this counter-productive and unjust scheme.
Best Regards,
[Concerned of London]“
Thoughts? I’ve an increasingly large facebook group protesting, and nothing to do with them. There’s little use in gathering an angry e-mob unless you mobilise them…
This time around I got to speak to some lefties before I even got into the festival, something which had only happened previously in order for me to ask some directions towards the location back on Friday. The reason for this was a pair of men who I overheard discussing some topic revolving around the Respect meetings and the SWP all having the same agenda upon arrival. This is (rather revealingly) something which caught my interest as the application of Democratic Centralism to coalition votes seems to have caused no end of complaints amongst the groups the SWP has worked in (the Socialist Alliance, Stop The War and, of course, the Respect Coalition). In fact I went so far as to presume that they were non-Left List/Alternative Respect members. It actually turned out that they were “critical” SWP members; quite an exotic breed. They spoke jovially about the state of Respect and stated that a split was effectively inevitable at some stage owing to the division which would have arose over whether to attack or back Ken Livingstone. Affable though they were they seemed slightly displeased with their position and perhaps a tad uncomfortable with the party. The less than glowing recommendation that I should probably not join the party if I didn’t believe what it did was given as we parted, perhaps their weak gesture towards participating in the recruitment side of this event.
By some unanticipated miracle I had avoided lateness, indeed it was the first speaker who was behind time, momentarily leaving me wishing that I had instead attended the one being held on Gramsci. This was exacerbated by her use of the phrase “Gramscian” when she did arrive and I had no idea what it meant (the reason for the delay was a breakdown in service from Oxford). But it quite quickly became clear that it was entirely worth it. Deborah Cameron is a linguistics professor and one of the few writers I have found that both share views concerning gender with me and have pierced mainstream media. She had a series of extracts from her book The Myth of Venus and Mars published in the Guardian earlier this year and reading them was what could only be described as a relief.
Cameron takes to task the substantial sub-genre of “Self-help” that effectively seeks to state that there are immense differences between men and women which are entirely inherent and that these should be understood and accepted as challenging them is a waste of time. Besides the obvious and intellectually cripplingly moronic failure to distinguish between presence and source these texts invariably exacerbate differences with the sort of selective pseudo-science everyone attempting to wield research as a weapon encounters. Where Cameron focuses, though, is her specialty: linguistics.
Male humans and female humans communicate in fundamentally different ways, the divisionists tell us: men speak far less than women and women talk about their feelings far more. Men are more assertive and women communicative, the former better in positions that lead and the latter in rolls revolving around empathy and emotional communication.
These are the claims but the evidence is scanty: Cameron started through telling us of an analysis which traced the myth of 20,000 words a day for women and 7,000 for men back to its source: a less extreme number in a Christian aimed book about marriage; which seemingly plucked the figure from thin air. Although in this instance she was able to obtain a retraction of the statistic from a well-respected book many other myths litter the memetic landscape that our and every culture consists of and she rattled through them at a satisfyingly brisk rate. There is no evidence that emotional words are used unequally between the genders besides swear words, which men do use more often (she notes that this never leads anyone to conclude that men are more emotional), men and women share conversation time equally when in equal status and it is only when there are more men higher in the hierarchy than women that they dominate conversations. Women are no superior at communication and men find women perfectly coherent as they speak the same form of English.
Where this starts to become of high importance is instances such as rape trials, where rapists can use this presumptuous nonsense to say that they somehow failed to understand women due to them not using explicit wording, when in reality almost all short of the mentally handicapped can understand signals of that nature under such conditions. She quoted the occasion in Cool Hand Luke where the prison guard tells the eponymous protagonist “What we have here is a break-down in communication”. Just as this was a euphemism for disobedience so is, for example, a man refusing to remove a bag of rubbish.
But many want to hear the reassuring signals of inherent difference and gender dichotomy being deeply entrenched, even if it means abandoning critical thought and relying upon shoddy readings of science. Challenging this is a vital task for any egalitarian as the division of humanity into an assortment of interacting but mutually distinct groups invariably should be pursued solely when necessary. This is not such an instance.
Before the meeting I had had a lengthy talk with a fellow who had seemingly been checking the room for anyone on their own and not in the Socialist Worker Party, for he quickly outlined to an extraordinarily attractive girl why she should prior to us leaving. He was another one of the charming young SWP members and he certainly seemed to consider it a positive organisation. I again expressed wariness at their organisational structure and today told that I was uncertain between social democracy and socialism (still truth) and thus uncertain if I’d be appropriate for an outright socialist party.
There were no communist groups around today but a few SWP were having something of a discussion on the grass outside Birbeck College with a pair of independent socialists. As this was ongoing I spoke to an Socialist Worker on the periphery who’s name was Simon. I later found out that he was from Belgium, where the left consists of four Maoists still talking about “Armed Struggle”. He had a sharp wit and when I told him my ideal for the left (a large structure with various factions) he told me that it already existed: the Labour Party. It takes your money and your vote and expects nothing else of you, he said. He told me that he was wary of working in an organisation where Stalinists or Maoists were also operative and I told him that I had not seen any such parties present at Marxism. His response was rather unexpected: he mentioned the CPGB. He stated that although they were not avowed in their ideology they followed such positions. Unfortunately the party in question weren’t around to ask.
He said that independent socialists had a role but could not expect their position to achieve a great deal, although they could of course be worked with in a popular front against fascism or the war or the like. He was opposed however to the autonomist anarchists who operated on in Sussex. As we left he paused and said that I should think about joining, because what with the 400 other people telling me to join the SWP I probably hadn’t considered it yet.
I headed out to check for any more interesting lefties around the corner but it seemed that only the SWP tents (and Stop The War and so on) were around so I headed kback to see a talk on “Zombieconomics”. This was a topic that intrigued me purely due to the name but which I knew nothing about, indeed in the room prior to the speaker’s arrival I engaged with another socialist about how it might be pronounced (with Zombie and Economics divided instead of combined, it eventually turned out).
The talk was given by Ben Fine, who had studied matters economical for decades and come to the conclusion that the subject was firstly dead: there was no room for growth or expansion as there were three main schools and hybrids between them but nothing beyond this could be envisioned. “Economics is dead” was not his message, however, in fact it was worse: rather than simply ceasing to exist economics had instead reached out and attempted to dominate the other social sciences, just as an unliving zombie has no essence of its own and seeks to forcibly extract it from those around it.
Much of his talk, as with Chris Bambery the day before, revolved around neo-liberalism but Fine made efforts to explain that this term can mean just about anything. Either a tendency to destroy public services to reform them, either an outright rejection of Keynesianism or a new form of it, theory or application, original form or current, these are all distinct varities that bear the same title. Comparatively the Respect/Respect split seems a matter of ease to understand.
The tone of his talk was in part hopeful: social sciences had moved away from post-modernism and neo-liberalism, he told us, although the extent to which he could go into points rather than merely touching upon them was limited. He was aware that he was not talking to a roomful of economists and confined by as much; but also avoided being condescending. To be honest though I still only half understand the meaning of “Financialisation”, although I accept that its implications seem to be negative ones.
I also don’t entirely understand the distinction between a political economist and a regular one but apparently it is primarily that the former are given less respect and purged from university departments more often. Apparently one of the speakers universities (in Sydney, as I recall) currently understands them to belong in the Arts department, something which they find most inappropriate.
In short it was mind-expanding stuff and probably the sort of stuff anyone wanting to become a Marxist would have to wrap their head around. Thankfully though I don’t have to and that’s one of the many reasons why.
I was considering just heading off home but decided to stage one final raid upon the mystical white “Marxism Attendees Only” tent, since that’s where all of the revolutionaries seemed to be at.
It seemed that my West London comrades were not in attendance but I caught up with Simon; who was behind a table stuffed full of food I eventually gained access to without paying. A discussion was underway between the assembled group about the Brighton bomb factory, a delightful but grim topic that revolved around the course of action to be taken against EDO. Apparently the aforementioned autonomist anarchists had taken up the course with force and were using a series of stunts and other direct action tactics to get the place shut down. A typical tactic was to chain themselves to the gates on a Wednesday and stay there until they got themselves arrested.
The anarchists had seemingly scared off the rest of the public from involvement with the cause; however they were also deterred by the obvious consequences: as great a blow as this would be for neo-conservatives in the short term (the factory makes door opening mechanisms for bombers that have been used by the Royal Airforce and US in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Israelis against Palestine; therefore rolling a number of far-left issues into a potent cocktail) they would simply relocate and the effect upon the local economy from all the jobs lost would be disastrous.
Indeed I suspect that this was why the gentleman gently agitating in favour of action against EDO was struggling with the thus far non-commital SWP: much as they are often eager to take up a cause and take it to the streets in this instance they would be actively working in order to try and increase Brighton unemployment. But the activist in discussion with them stated that in capitalism everything was related to jobs and business and that any ethical projects would end up losing people jobs. This was simply part and parcel of operating politically within it and was unfortunate but had to be done and could be mitigated through demands including full employment for all the factory workers (who by, he did not outline).
Then there was the difficulty of methods: the suggestion of protesting on Saturday rather than the weekdays which had been done before (with the anarchists attempting to shame the factory workforce) was seen as an improvement but still considered warily. The difficulty was explained as there being no “Either or” choice between protest and direct action: the area had been cased and little willingness for factory closure found amongst the general public. Accordingly perhaps the only action possible is the sort that was apparently found legal by a judge in some similar case or other.
Just to complicate matters a little further the exact attitude of present company with regards to the autonomist anarchists was not precisely clear. They were dedicated activists and if direct action was to go underway doubtless valuable allies of some kind. But one of the Socialist Workers had heard that it was largely them that were scaring away any sort of mass movement over the issue of the bomb-delivery production plant. If so then any attempts at popular fronts would have to be formed without them and if direct action was the plan then they would have to be convinced to coalesce with socialists, at least to some extent.
In short I was receiving a quick vision first hand of just what a struggle it is to actually organise anything, even a local project with a specific aim.
The exact outcome of their in promtu meeting was indecided, but I was certainly well fed at the end of it thanks to a mixture of rolls, grapes and pasta. Stuffing the latter into the former was quite delightful, especially so because I got to do so while chatting to the chap organising against EDO. His name was Penny and he was quite possibly the result of the day. This I only discovered when probing (as one does under such conditions) his political affiliation. He was a member of Respect and told me his position within it when I told him that despite having covered it closely for a few months now and he replied that he was on its national committee and he still couldn’t.
This Respect is the Respect that isn’t Respect any more but was the Left List and now is the Left Alternative. Yes, the name is apparently around to stay, which I expressed my dismay over. Apparently he was plumping for the Left (too broad) or Left Solidarity (too close to Tommy Sheridan’s failed party for the electoral commission to handle) and the word “Party” was for some reason out entirely.
More importantly he was one of the seemingly rare Respect-but-not-SWP types I’d only met two of previously. I asked him how common his kind were and he said the split was either 50-50 or 40-60 in-not on the national committee, while on the local level the SWP bias was significantly stronger. He was not keen on Galloway but, unexpectedly, brought up Obama and expressed some considerable admiration. I told him that I also found it remarkable that he had defeated the Clinton Machine with such limited corporate backing and admired the transparency and skill that had marked his campaign, along with its top-down structure.
It was at this stage that I was approached by a Socialist Worker wearing an “Event Staff” t-shirt (weren’t they all?) who asked to see my ticket. I replied that I did not have one and he informed me that the tent was for Marxist attendees only. I replied that I was attending Marxism and he said he knew this as he was the one who had let me into Tony Benn and expelled me from the SWP student meeting. He reminded me that I had told him I had no money (perhaps presuming that I had paid for food). It was, I suppose, only a matter of time before they caught up with me. Too late. By this stage I did not even ponder resistance, when he told me I would have to leave the tent I didn’t even bother mentioning the ending of Animal Farm to him and obeyed his assertion of property rights, biding goodbye to the Respect member and then departing the area and the event.
On my way out I was stopped briefly by the Campaign Against Climate Change leafleteer, the first non-SWP sort I had encountered active that day. I mentioned the connotations of his leaflet with good humour and he laughed. We discussed the group for a short while and to demonstrate the Tony Been denying political bent of his organisation he simply pointed at his t-shirt, which declared Bush as “Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity” due to his stance on climate change. He spoke of the president now wanting to drill in Alaska and I told him how after the “addicted to oil” stuff this seemed to be junkie scrabbling. He laughed again and told me that it would make a fine cartoon; then I was on my way.
Marxism let me see a wide range of intelligent people for free and allowed me the peculiar opportunity to frequently be in a room-full of people who I was well to the right of. It allowed me to make some sense of Respect and conclude that everyone fucked up hard. My thanks to the SWP for putting on such a fine event. I’ll certainly trot along next year and hopefully can drag at least one of my SES comrades with me. In the meantime I’m still not a Marxist but I am far better informed than on Friday. Until next time, comrades…
Number of meetings attended: 10
Amount of money paid: £0.00
Number of infiltrations: 4 (Apparently the white tent counts, so my count of 1 yesterday was entirely inaccurate.)
This time around I managed to gather myself from slumbers early enough to show up in time for considerably more sessions than the day before, albeit not nearly as early as the brisk 10.00 start that the meetings began with. I actually underestimated my lateness and ended up ploughing into what I thought was Labour and Alienation soon after starting but which was in fact Historical Materialism about to finish. Consequentially entry was a matter of ease; although in hindsight I probably left a SWP doorperson or two baffled.
I honestly can’t remember a lot about historical materialism, but as far as I can tell there was somehow a conversation about ethics going on, which was topically innappropriate but entertaining all the same, if only for a chap with shoulder-length dirty blonde hair who took to the floor and began talking about Kronsdat.
Now if I was looking for a sharp start to my day here it was: once this world was uttered things seemed to ripple and the effect was as delightful as I had imagined ennounciating such syllables in a room full of Trotskyites would be. Indeed, I merely deemed it a pity that I hadn’t beaten the chap to the bunch.
He was immediately followed by a bleached-blond lass who would later turn out to be somehow important who gave it some typical blather. Safeguarding the Revolution and so on, you know the drill. Never mind that their hero had overseen and executed the crushing of the epitome of the revolution, had to be done to protect a structure that they didn’t even agree with, see? The alternative being a far more popular brand of socialism than the Bolsheviks seeing control of the country and that…Uhm…Anyway…
The room was still left unsettled. The topic moved on and it was about some other stuff, with my recollection failing me over the materialism stuff. What was interesting was that as he was headed out of the room the chap who had asked was verbally hailed by a pair of Marxism “Staff” t-shirt wearers from behind a table, who wanted to give him the Kronsdtat Chat. I stuck around to hear this and the first man was firm and pulled away quickly by duties while the second was softer but spoke to us for longer, accompanying us to the lift and staying with us for a while.
Their arguments seemed to consist of a mixture of emphasising the importance of crushing the Kronsdtat threat, claiming that there were none of the original Kronsdtat sailors left owing to attrition from the revolution(s) against the Csar and the heavy losses of the Civil War (concerning this, as with all other matters of detail, you must consult Douglas or some other historian who is of this field rather than early Medieval as I am) , launching ad hominems (those that bring this up are bourgeois or anarchists aiming to discredit Trotsky rather than achieve anything productive) and talking about how the Bolsheviks agonised over the decision.
They also stated that the Kronsdtat make up was Socialist Revolutionary rather than Bolshevik, and this irked me: even I am aware that when Lenin briefly allowed an experiment in democracy the very reason he rejected the outcome was that the SRs won in a landslide, crushing the Bolsheviks electorally and demonstrating a level of support for the militants of an immensely smaller scale than they liked to presume. This considered, that there were plenty of Kronsdtat sailors Social Revolutionaries is hardly surprising at all.
Unfortunately all Bolshevik apologists dislike you bringing up their almost total absence of mandate about as much as Trots do his authoritarian atrocities. So we didn’t get far but the people we spoke to were perfectly friendly and their response seemed more an earnest attempt to explain their position rather than intimidation or anything of the sort. As ever the SWP seemed like a misguided but ultimately lovely bunch.
As we headed outside I encountered a large number of groups that thought otherwise. This was a set of people who’d cleared off before I arrived yesterday and were in some ways who I was there for. The SWP I’d already heard plenty from and now it was time for The Rest of The Left.
Due to failure on the part of Douglas to show up (he was collaborating with the bourgeois in the most foul fashion possible by seeking a job) I didn’t bother to turn up for Friday’s sessions of Marxism until late in the day, instead opting to watch Alladin. Quite a good call, I thought.
The main event was based around a series of stalls, but sadly not as diverse a one as those I witnessed when I covered Love Music Hate Racism. No, this had SWP tents and Stop The War tents and Left List tent and a SWP table and…Well, basically all but three of the set-ups were SWP connected. The first seemed to be some climate change group which the SWP had possibly only let in due to being then impressed at the amount of protesters the Climate Camp and so on were able to mobilise. The other were selling subscriptions to an underground socialist video collection group named News Reel which I didn’t have any money to go along with. I told the man that my money was all going on groceries (the truth) and he told me he knew the feeling well.
The third group were the most interesting by far: Turkish socialists. These types are rather penned in on all sides; struggling alongside the moderate Islamists while repulsed by their neo-liberal policies and incapable of doing anything about the more conservative Islamist movement uprising, while having nothing but disdain for the secularist far-right nationalist movement which seems to have the backing of the anti-democratic Turk generals.
On top of this they suffer, as with almost everywhere, due to a fractured left. They, like the SWP, aspire towards a grouping similar to Die Linke in Germany, which has united the left successfully and enjoyed increasing electoral success. But it seems like they have a good deal of work ahead of them if they wish to manage that. Not, perhaps, as much as the British left…
Speaking of which I got to speak to more people from within Respect. This opportunity was presented to me when I stopped by at the Love Music Hate Racism tent and talked a bit about Bexley’s old school racist nationalism amongst other topics and it turned that (as Londoners) these SWPers were Respect activists. Interestingly one fellow (the second I’ve met who fulfills these credentials) actually was not a member of the SWP and never had been, due to filling the rather unpopular position (at Marxism, at least) of being a reformist socialist instead of a revolutionary. Apparently this is the source of constant arguments between him and his Socialist Worker friends, which I can well imagine but am glad has not prevented them getting along.
He still stated that Respect was now called Left List, but apparently the name “Left Alternative” is also being floated. I hope very strongly that this is not the one they run with as it is truly dire. If they haven’t gotten themselves into a position where they can call themselves “The Left Party” and be done with it then that should be their top priority. A party describing itself as the “Alternative” has never won anything.
In order to try and get my bearings of the place I headed to the entrance of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) where there was a large SWP tent. There I met a lovely middle aged woman who talked to me about the basic socialist stuff. She told me about the local level stuff the SWP get up to, I gave her a rough and weak outline of pragmatic socialism and she told me I should join. I find this an unnervingly frequent (not to mention predictable) occurrence with the SWP, but at least they make you feel wanted.
My response was perhaps not what she had anticipated: I told her that the now century old model of Democratic Centralism left me immensely wary, not only because organising a contemporary party along Leninist structures seemed to be more redolent of an exercise in historical recreationism rather than a serious political project; but also because I was less than keen on being bound in numerous ways by the majority will. She explained how as far as she could the democratic centralist structure was simply a means of getting things done but frankly I consider the continual failure of the SWP to achieve anything much is a testament to the ineffectualness of this argument. I didn’t tell her that, though.
On the upside: they did have free food. This was set up as a picnic in the green, where there was a concentrated crowd of Marxists sitting in circles and a pair of apparently illicit tents. Not a lot of it as I got there pretty late but enough to tide me over until I got home. My gratitude to the Bristol and Manchester SWP branches for the munchables. Much appreciated.
So I headed back through the area to pick up more perspectives. Another Socialist Worker seemed worth a chat so I asked him the time and then struck up conversation. As ever the gregariousness socialism demands of humanity was evident and regardless of their misdeeds as a body upon the left the SWP is characterised by a largely lovely membership. At least offline. This fellow was not from inside London but was the first from the SWP I found who admitted that there was opportunism “On both sides” concerning the Respect debacle. Indeed he went so far as to say that matters were far more complex than a “Left-Right split” and that trying to explain matters in such terms was far too simplistic.
It was now nearing 7 o’clock and I had a decision to make: Tariq Ali or Lenin. The latter was, of course, the blogger Richard Seymour, who was here under that name rather than his provocative nom de plume. The primary factor in my opting for the latter was my total lack of cash. No money to obtain tickets meant that opting for the room with spare seats was unquestionably preferable.
In the event Seymour’s room was pretty packed as well, but there was enough space for me not to be acting as a seat robber. I had a whole spiel planned involving mentioning that I was a victim of sub prime and still seeking employment in this crisis stricken economy (both true) but as it happens I turned up slightly late and the man on the door just waved me through.
Seymour was perhaps not how I’d imagined him but that was largely in the voice, which was a soft Irish one I probably should have anticipated more given he’s mentioned his origins on the blog. I was still expecting something a tad more harsh, firm, clipped and firebrand.
As for content, well it was concerning the pro-war left, who are his targets in “The Liberal Defence of Murder” (although interestingly three of his main subjects, Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and the especially despised Christopher Hitchens are all socialists or social democrats of some sort, although Hitchens seems to have shifted into not calling himself anything yet referencing Marx almost as much as before, if not more).
Both in person and in comments Lenin has described himself as “all over the place” structurally; but if this was truth instead of modesty it certainly didn’t show. There was clearly plenty he’d had planned but couldn’t get in, but this was seemingly because he’d done a vast amount of reading and research and it was to the degree that he couldn’t possibly cram it all in. He’d probably intended to say something about Yugoslavia, I suppose, but I never found that topic immensely interesting anyway so I’m rather glad he failed to. Likewise with Ol*ver K*mm.
As it was he managed to fill forty five minutes and then additional response time with a pleasingly fact dense speech that outlined the nature, power, motivations, methods and follies of the pro-war left. The talk traced how liberal interventionists of the contemporary era had directly borrowed from the colonial tradition (both of the far-right and of thinkers such as Mill and Tocqueville, not to mentioned the much-loathed Reformist Marxist Bernstein) and were now using rhetoric barely adapted from the times when you could get away with phrases such as “Adult race”.
Inbetween these two book-ends there was a discussion point where a surprisingly large number of audience members (including myself) were coaxed on stage to give views or ask questions. This felt pleasingly participative and it’s certainly a tradition I’m glad shows no signs of being abandoned.
Also in attendance was Naadir, former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and founder of Boris Watch, to which our own Gerry Fenby contributes. I had met him before at the Liberal Conspiracy “Summit” and he kindly bought me a pair of pints while we talked about everything ranging from historical materialism and its importance for Marxists to the Revolutionary Communist Party to Objectivism to the neo-liberal case for a global welfare state.
In all a very pleasing day and one I shall hopefully extend tomorrow by showing up before six o’clock. Given that I’m writing this at nearing half past twelve and haven’t had breakfast yet (let alone got dressed) I suppose that it will not be by all that much…
For those interested Marxism lasts until this Sunday and is held in a variety of venues close to the Goodge Street Nothern line Russell Square Piccadilly line stations. The official website is here.
It seems like the comments sections has been a little bit silent lately. So, our possibly imaginary readership, let us know where you spent the last day you were able to drink on the Underground - should you be from London, that is…
Konnie Huq knew she was going to be wrestled for the Olympic torch, and stopped the procession to make things easier for her attacker. She is a known Leftie, of course, so these latest anti-establishment antics are hardly a surprise. I bet her agent’s fingerprints were all over the incident, designed to push Ms Huq’s name deeper into our humble minds. The propaganda exercise has started. Reliable comment, as always, from Donal Blaney.
Alternatively, China is oppressing Tibet and its own population in a disgraceful manner, and a pro-Tibetan freedom protester managed to get in front of live cameras: his actions were beamed around the world. Not condoning the potentially illegal behaviour of the protester, it remains a matter of fact that he was a protester, not a stunt man employed to further a childrens’ television presenter’s career.
We are a bunch of writers who publish thoughts and articles on this blog.
We largely write on politics, but we do try to keep up in other areas too. There are sections on music, film, books, the media, life, the universe and almost anything on the site. Admittedly, some of them may be quite small at the moment, but we're working on it...
Please visit the About page to get a bigger picture and for details on how to join our number.
Please feel more than welcome to comment on the site: we always welcome debate and discussion.