If you haven’t already, try The Ruby Kid. He’s fascinating; combining intelligent lyrics with a radical attitude both to reality and rap. Out goes the macho obsession of much mainstream hip-hop, and in come repeated references to the Coleridge, gender and the relationship between the proletariat and the means of production in Marxist theory. With quite some style:

For all those claiming hip-hop’s pussy is where their cock is,
You’ve got a misogynistic Oedipal complex,
You’re raping your mother,
Just stop it.

I like this, I do…

In which I realise that Miller put much of what I meant at rather less length…

In which I find an excuse to ramble about ideology. At length.

On Liberal Conspiracy, a rather vicious comment-war has begun over Nick Clegg’s recent speech on why he was a liberal. I won’t comment on the piece as Sunny has done; it looks more of a speech about Clegg’s own ideology than party policy.

So I’ll comment on that, instead. Or, at least, the section which most exercises my irritation:

Liberalism believes fairness, fulfilment and freedom can be best secured by giving real power directly to millions of citizens.
Socialism believes that society can only be improved through relentless state activism, a belief driven by far greater pessimism about the ability of people to improve their own lives.

A liberal believes in the raucous, unpredictable capacity of people to take decisions about their own lives.
A Socialist believes in the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives.

A liberal believes a progressive society is distinguished by aspiration, creativity and non conformity.
A Socialist believes a progressive society is characterised by enlightened top-down Government.

Bollocks. To associate all socialism with a particular mode of state-control is at best unwise and at worst an actively misleading lampoon of Reagan or Thatcher. Both liberalism and socialism move from a similar origin; an egalitarian concern that individuals should be as free as possible.

Classically, liberalism seeks to achieve this through an abscence of restraint. It accepts, though, the need for some state intervention; individuals will, understandably, pursue their own interests, and so occasionally come into conflict. One individual might see, for example, that they could do well for themselves by turfing another off their land and using it for themselves. This exercise of freedom comes at the clear cost to the freedom of another. An arbiter between these interests, in the form of the state and law, is thus necessary to ensure the wider freedom of all. Liberal ideologues as far back as Locke have accepted this principle. So long as the state treats all individuals as equals, and so applies its laws to the benefit of all, then its existence is less of a tyranny than the potentially endless conflict of absolute freedom. From his Two Treatises of Government:

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Logic dictates that no individual should harm another, as if individuals have an equal right to individual liberty, then to assault another’s liberty is to concede that others can assault your own; a state Locke terms “the law of nature.” Yet a brief observation of reality highlights that this law has no means of enforcing itself, and so the prospect of actually enjoying your absolute freedom varies. Rational individuals might thus come together in a community to ensure the freedom of all is protected.

Socialism merely extends this principle, and accepts that freedom can come under threat from more than just a particularly malicious individual. To live without education would be to risk freedom; how can you compete with those lucky enough to know more, or even advance your own understanding of the world, without one? A universal education provided by civil society thus clearly advances freedom. Conflicts in the exercise of freedom likewise take place on a wider scale than liberalism in its purest form might allow for. An individual, or rather a small collection of individuals, might quite legitimately gain control of an essential service; say, the delivery of electricity. They would be perfectly free, once they did so, to drive up the prices of electricity beyond the point required to cover costs; a drive which would prevent many from heating their homes, or cooking, or indeed living, as they might otherwise. A clear exercise of freedom on the part of a few at the expense of the freedom of many. Surely better, then, for a state under the democratic control of all to control the distribution of electricity, thus guaranteering the wider freedom of all those who need energy?

The state exists in socialism as a means of guaranteeing liberty, as it does on a lesser scale for liberal ideology. But where its intervention isn’t necessary to preserve this freedom, some socialists at least would argue that it does not need to become involved. And where its intervention actively impairs liberty, then a socialist should oppose it; hence the opposition of many who’d consider themselves to be socialists to ID Cards.

This form of socialism is a far cry from that described in Clegg’s speech. Where’s the endless regulation of every individual relationship in every sphere implied in “the ordered, controlled capacity of the state to take the right decisions about other peoples’ lives?” It isn’t there. Liberal ideology and socialism aren’t the mutually exclusive behemoths of Clegg’s imagination, but nuanced and varied systems springing from similar concerns.

Some particularly statist socialists might be considered outrightly illiberal. Likewise a neoliberal fanatic who describes themselves a liberal would be considered an outright enemy of wider freedom by most socialists. But, surely the question here is not whether this makes liberalism and socialism as a whole incompatible, but whether those ideological parodies really qualify as what they claim to be? If egalitarianism can be considered the root of both ideologies, then I would suggest not.

Apologies for the absence of the SES assured post on this one. I may manage to write something at some length in the near future, but for the time being:

• We could hope for no better steerer than John McDonnell, an obvious visionary who most (or at least enough) can agree upon as awesome.
• The G20 might not have been the best early target. I understand that this is a momentum gaining exercise, but both interest and the scope to have an immense impact is low. I am all up for a foray into internationalism, though.
• The whole “Editorial Committee” thing is probably neccessary but the implementation could be problematic: who gets on it? What are their guidelines? What material gets rejected?
• When he mentioned that no groups were going to get excluded my mind couldn’t help but wander to my dear comrades, the CPGB(ML).
• Just getting a room together as we did was an achievement, one that needs to be built upon and repeated.
• Annoyingly the fact that the next time that that’ll happen being on the 12th means I won’t be able to attend. ;_;
• Miller really should have come to the pub. I’m sure somebody would have fed him and I feel sort of annoyed that I didn’t recognise him and say hello when he was sitting right next to me.
• Penny Red’s housemate looked much like I imagined one would.

I am normally not one to relish attacks of the left upon itself, although they unquestionably are much required. As far as I can see the excessive vigour and enjoyment many gain from attacking those of like mind hinders their efforts against their actual opponents (that is to say, the right). This negates the advantage which would be obtained through having a movement dissassociate itself with particular undesirable elements and leaves a far more splintered structure. This, however, is better than most.

Red Pepper’s coverage of the Convention of the Left has been truly exemplary. A post on anarchist organisational superiority was both striking and amusing. In this article an alternative to the function of the Convention to attempting yet another electoral effort doomed to failure is presented: a number of gathering places across the nation aiming to connect the shattered remnants of Britain’s true left.

This struck me as rather reminiscent of the experiences related recently by Diane Abbot and Douglas, except that these institutions would function whenever they were needed rather than once a year. Whether this comparison truly holds any water or not this development is one of the freshest and most promising development I’ve seen coming from the British left of late, as well as one of the rare instances of it actually coming from what could broadly be considered the left, instead of a singular miniscule, obscure sect.

Certainly it’s better than attempting to form a party which most of the insular, intercecinely engaged demi-parties will refuse to participate in. Indeed the prospect of any such party being formed without the level of consensual, mutual interaction which this committee devoid, de-centralised measure offers now seems faintly absurd. It is a relief to find that the far left has finally asked itself the question “What is to be done?” and not merely relied on century old wisdom to answer themselves. Whether this innovative measure flourishes lies in the hands of every leftist.

I note that this week a “New Anti-Capitalist Party” was launched in France. The idea, it would seem, is to unite the formerly disparate and scattered forces of the substantial French far-left and capitalise on an underachieving Socialist Party, a premier who the French have taken an obsessional on-off dislike to and a far-right that recently faced the absolute humiliation of selling their headquarters to the Chinese.

So far as can be determined the French can’t quite decide whether to ditch or retain their national fixation, Sarkozy, the Socialists are splintered over who their next leader shall be (although the charismatic mayor of France seems both the most likely and winning candidate) and the once startlingly popular French right seems unlikely to live beyond its figurehead Le Pen in a form that is anything other than laughable.

This means that the opportunity is ripe for the far-left, who have certainly risen to the opportunity. The Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR, or Revolutionary Communist League to us limeys) managed to secure 4% of the votes in the last Presidential election without the present amalgamation and in less favourable circumstances. They seem to have done as reasonable a job as can be expected, owing to resistance from the leadership of other left parties. More in this can be found here, with the (believable) suggestion being that in the stead of a majority from non-LCR left parties

the bulk of the people were from trade unions, colleges, women’s associations and so on.

Traningrad has a positive account of her own interaction with the new party, with its shift of name perhaps reminding me rather unfortunately of the constant front groups adopted by the SWP, but the overall project seeming like it might have as much success as the rather more benign Die Linke.

At the moment, in fact, that most objectionable feature I can find in it is the name. “Anti-capitalist” is easy enough to do, its presenting a workable, feasible alternative that always proves the tricky part for socialists (revolutionary or otherwise). Committing yourself to criticising capitalism is a far less interesting goal than stating your conviction to present a supplanter system that you will introduce in its place. Indeed, this is the reason that “Anti-reformism” was rarely anything other than a euphemism for Stalinism or intellectual vacuity.

But, it would seem, even the name is set to change when the party decides upon a new one along with its system for internal democracy next year. It shall be interesting to see how this and the rest of the edifice develops.

Warning: Long, probably unoriginal and intensely self-indulgent post focused on ideological rambling to follow. Ignore if you (perhaps justifiably) suffer a tendency to hurl accusations of pomposity at such posts; it’ll be better for us all.

The State and the Citizen: Or, Why I am a Democratic Socialist, part 1.

We move from first basics; we assume, in general, that people seek what they define as happiness, as Bentham suggests. It’s the only definition of human activity beyond the soul-destroying vagaries of genetic struggle which accommodates the more perverse elements of human behaviour. And it creates few problems; who would deny they want to be happy in life?

This should, for the most part, mean people are left to their own devices; happiness is subjective, and can only be achieved for each individual by those individuals. Anyone who pursues their own happiness and does not infringe upon the attempts of others to do the same only does what seems natural. They have every right to do so.

There are, however, conflicts likely to arise; some citizens will attempt to derive their pleasure at the expense of others. Say, if an individual chooses to steal from another the fruit of their labour; thereby furthering their pleasure at the expense of another. A state is thus necessary, with its primary purpose to balance the interests of citizens. It must seek to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number - in essence, a utilitarian tool.

Clearly, by virtue of universal humanity, we can assume certain freedoms are essential for that pursuit of happiness. The state must seek to safeguard those freedoms if it wishes to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number; and the classical libertarian definition of freedom won’t do, as it allows individuals and corporations to assault individual freedom. The state must, of course, have clear boundaries and be bound by the rule of law - but we must accept an interventionist state is necessary for greater freedom.

Instead of the libertarian definition of freedom, we should consider a doctrine of applied freedom; where theoretical liberty characterised by absence of legal restraint is useless if held back by real-life circumstances. Clearly, people aren’t free if they’re hungry; they cannot focus on the pursuit of happiness as they need to find food first. People aren’t free if a thief breaks down their door and ransacks their home. People aren’t free if they’re freezing - or suffer extreme poverty and have no escape, or lack support in their old age, or are orphaned, or ignorant, or their planet is dying through the negligence of others. They cannot act independently, and so cannot move towards happiness.

The state must guarantee these essential needs and freedoms if it’s to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Taxation becomes necessary; those who can afford it should be taxed at a level which won’t seriously impede their ability to seek happiness to allow those who can’t to seek that same happiness. The money raised funds the apparatus of freedom; state education to ensure all have the chance to pursue happiness, a police force to protect that chance and pensions to allow those who can’t work the same chance.

But even that’s not enough. The power of organised capital and corporations can be as damaging to individual freedom and happiness as any level of state power. Consider the relationship between an unskilled worker and a multinational corporation; there are many of the former, and despite the absolute necessity of many of the roles they fill, their sheer numbers ensure that employers can, in effect, screw them over. They need to work to survive, and so will work for virtually any wage - yet their employers don’t need them in particular, so can pay them any wage, no matter how low. The workers can’t refuse that piddling wage, as they’ll lose their jobs; and without those jobs, they’ll find themselves thrown on the mercies of society. In short, a clear example of certain individuals grossly profiting and the expense of others. So, the state must intervene, ensuring all employers pay a minimum wage on which it is possible to survive.

Likewise, if a group of selfish individuals control an essential and universal service, they can wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of others; witness the cruel absurdities of healthcare in the USA. Those who control an industry can take control, jack up the prices and so the profits - and if people can’t afford the service, they suffer. Universally necessary services in private hands are conducted to the benefit of those private hands - not the majority who desperately need them.

So, the state must take any essential services for which there is a universal human need, and ensure they’re universally accessible. You cannot be truly free if you’re sick; so a universally accessible national health services is necessary. You cannot be truly free if you’re freezing; so mass energy generation should be nationalised and energy - or the means of generating it at a household level - made accessible to all. This can take place on a partial basis too, if it’s all that’s needed. You can’t be free if you’re homeless but want a roof - so the state should build and control some housing. You can’t be free if you can’t reach your place of work as you don’t own private transport - so the state needs to provide some level of nationalised transport. And so on. The objective is to prevent one group of individuals gaining so much power over others as to make those others’ existence a misery; and the means of delivering this is placing the means by which life might be made into a misery into the hands of a neutral entity which exists for the benefit of all.

To ensure those services are rendered to the benefit of all, those who control the state must be rigorously accountable - and subject to regular elections. The power of the electorate to demolish any government that doesn’t act in the interests of the greatest number ensures that governments will act in the popular interest. Here, we see the superiority of nationalised essential services over the same services when they exist in private hands; democratic elections ensure those services are administered to the benefit of citizens, rather than the owners as they are when privatised.

The state thus exists to benefits citizens - and only to benefit citizens. Regular elections should ensure this; while a codified constitution setting out the fundamental rights of citizens and the barriers of government ensure the same in between elections. If, though, the state breaks that constitution, and so assaults the population’s basic liberty, then citizens have a right to legal redress; the state is as bound by the constitution as citizens are by the rule of law, and so must be answerable. If the state prevents that legal redress from occurring, it ceases entirely to act in the interests of citizens, and so becomes a Tyranny. If a state descends into Tyranny and sheds the essential manacles of democracy, then citizens in turn are no longer obliged to obey that state’s laws.  Why should they sacrifice their happiness and liberty if they receive neither security nor the happiness of others in return? They shouldn’t. They have a right to rebel, throwing off the chains of the state which betrayed them and reclaiming that happiness. This right to insurrection must be written in the constitution; for only then will potential tyrants remember their peril.

(Or: For Solidarity’s sake, comrade, don’t mention Kronstadt)

On a day where the Prime Minister appointed by his party declared himself against a return to the 1970s, a time which the far-left (and perhaps only the far-left) consider with some nostalgia, at least in contrast to the decade which followed who better to see first thing than Tony Benn?

Watching him at Marxism 2008 had a particular joy; in that it was one of the immensely rare occasions during which his audience would leave him substantially to the right. If, even after all these years of attendence, this left him unsettled it did not show an inch. I showed up very mildly late and he was in full swing; clearly in his element while speaker. His speech roamed over a broad number of points and annecdotes, distinctively Bennite in nature, covering everything from his rather surprising advocacy of rationing (the average height of the working class man rose by two inches due to it) to his ethical vegetarianism (his forward-thinking son Hillary told him fifteen years ago that if all the grain fed to animals was fed to people this would end famine).

It was obvious that the SWP presence (heavy) was left bristling by his outright suggestions that Labour was worth struggling to save and although his suggestion that Labour would swing left after a heavy loss to Cameron (something which would effectively require New Labour to end) he did acknowledge that Labour was not socialist but had socialists in it “Just as the Church has Christians in it”.

Speaking of which, he did not adopt an anti-religious tone but was opposed to religious authority. It occured to me later on (as well as the day before, when I was talking about the importance of imams concerning Respect) that Marxism falters when it comes to understanding the power of religious leaders. Its understanding being limited to wealth results in the power of a poor man standing on an upturned box and raving about a being that loves as it condemns being somewhat alien to them. Preachers often lack fortunes but are able to marshall people through belief in matters beyond the material. Although I would challenge the genuine existence of such forces as firmly as would Marxists I fear that their focus upon the tangible leads them to underestimate the might of that which is elsewhere. Even if it is merely steroid-fed speculation it gives copious power to the undeserving.

Regardless, Benn stated that his internet research had led him to the conclusion that all religions taught much the same message; which was that you should treat others as you would expect to be treated. Perhaps a rather simpler formation than the Universal Ethic tirelessly sought by renegade Catholic Hans Kung but the method of his learning struck me as interesting. When he was taken up on this point by an American concerned about the media (worse in his own country than here, he said, but perhaps America is simply more right wing I would suggest) who stated that the internet was inherently “structured” to favour the bourgeois Benn stayed firm, stating that he was sometimes uncertain why he still watched television as he got all the news he wanted from the websites he followed. A man after my own heart, clearly.

(more…)

(Or: SES at Marxism 2008, part 2)

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.

(more…)