(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.

It was fairly obvious that all the Socialist Workers wanted him to leave the Labour Party and join/form a new one (preferably their own) but Benn was having none of it. His reasoning for this was sound: within the Labour Party he was aware of his own position and comfortable but if he were to leave (and here he began counting on one hand) the Socialist Worker Party, the Socialist Party, Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Alternative, the Scottish Socialist Party (then again) the Communist Party of Great Britain, The Communist Party of Britain, The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

He could also have mentioned the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) who are on no account to be confused with the Communist Party of Britain or Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) who he did mention. But I think his point was well made anyway. The left is a mess of groups that barely disagree with each other; yet are more eager to tear into each other than the capitalists they supposedly oppose in earnest. This sectarianism is severe and has crippled organisation for a set of barely distinguishable groups that required a vast amount of work to regain (or rather, obtain) popularity anyway.

Entertaining as this diversity undoubtadly is (see my review of Saturday) it does little for an assorted of like-minded groups to advance their largely collective cause. Benn was correct in identifying this as a major problem and I feel that it is likely for me not desiring affiliation with any group. If the left can get its act together and forge forwards towards some massive coalition with various factions openly debating then I’d be delighted to be involved. For the time being the Greens, who Benn rather unfairly dismissed as “not political” and worth only issue reclamation from, seem far more appealing; if only for the fact that there a decent number of occasionally indecent people who won’t demand my views become the party’s.

To be fair to the Socialist Workers they had clearly taken an awareness of this and it was mainly what Lindsey Graham (perhaps still sore from the well deserved May 1st drubbing) spoke about. She more than anyone was aware of the disaster that came from division: while the neo-liberal case for the unrestrained market was crashing in flames along with the economy and Gordon Brown’s viciousness in shoving through legislation that harms the average worker was being shoved through Respect was in too shattered a state to make anything of the unique opportunity presented by the election. The only gain was a councillor who was affiliated with Galloway’s faction and since then “Left List” councillors have abandoned the party/grouping/whatever for the Labour Party and, in one instance, even the Conservatives.

So its understandable that a move towards unity was being made here, as well as a total relief. The extent of the actual movement on that day was modest but a hopeful start: the “People Before Profit Charter” was a ten point list ranging from an increase of the minimum wage to £8.00 an hour to a point against racism, the BNP and immigrant scapegoating. In short it was surprisingly reformist stuff that all commuists and socialists could basically agree was something of an improvement which they could work towards happily. Or at least endorse their support for and put their name behind.

Apparently they had gotten Benn to sign up that day, with hope to stretch the Charter from this Labour outpost to the openly communist group still leafletting outside the Logan Hall presumably the intention.

Once Benn had given a superbly rousing finale we departed. Outside I encountered a word which I had not seen before at the festival, but which struck my eyes rather sharply. A faintly folorn woman was selling a magazine entitled “Respect”. I approached her and asked which Respect it referred to and she replied “Respect”, which is the sort of absurdity one has to get used to while dealing with the left. It became quickly clear that she thought she was from the only faction with legitimate claim to the name, and that the SWP had used it for their own gain. She seemed awkward and uncertain of me, which was perhaps understandable.

So I moved on soon enough from this sad instance of someone once hopeful but since betrayed to see an altercation of sorts between the CPGB chap I had met before and talked to briefly before hurrying off to see Benn encountering a set of SWP who had the heavy-set demeanor I had seen on display yesterday when unknown dirty blonde brought up Trotskyite authoritarianism. Hyper-serious, utterly earnest, in debate mode. Meanwhile the Communist Party of Great Britain chaps seemed to be causing a fuss as they had done yesterday. Somewhat a speciality of theirs it seemed to me: although fine critics of the flaws of the left they were also swift to attack overly harshly, including here assailing efforts to unite the left.

This, however, was not the initial point of dispute: apparently the SWP had taken to a piece of Communist propoganda that accused Marxism of not being a real “Festival of Ideas” due to there being no discussion of the debarcle of Respect and what could be learnt from it. A fair point but something which the SWP deem far too harsh and had seemingly taken a rather un-Stoic level of offence towards. Which I suppose was fair enough, given that they were running an event that the CPGB had partially hijacked inbetween their insults.

Clearly CPGB chap would not have settled for anything less than a full on session dealing with the (to some extent ongoing) carnage caused by Respect, on the function and direction of a united party of the left and perhaps even how best the SWP could serve within it an avoid wrecking it. Not something that the SWP were willing to offer but matters quickly moved on to the PBPC (this acronym stuff is easy, see?). The Charter seemed to be deemed a laughingstock by the CPGB, who pointed out that it was an immensely weak start and seemed to deem it either a lift from the back of the Communist Manifesto or else rendered redundant by it. It was not quite clear, but certain that they were not up for signing on as anything but a joke.

At least they were at all, I suppose…

The fellow in question said that he would “Join the SWP tomorrow” if he could arrange himself and comrades as a faction and act as he pleased without Democratic Centralism binding him in. I could emphasise as this was the reason I had given to the SWP who asked and certainly amongst the main causes for my wariness. The SWP people (who were young and dedicated) posed it to keen CPGB man (who was wet from the rain) that this was a lot better than organising “Ten people” in a tiny group. This was perhaps a tad rich coming from a seemingly shrinking organisation such as the SWP; which is far from vast but he did have a point. Although claiming to sell 40,000 Weekly Worker’s a week the CPGB must be tiny and it is one of the more substantial leftist groups.

As far as I could tell the dispute became one over next to nothing, between a pair of groups who agreed over enough to share a party and who both seemed to at least claim to want to do so.

At least it kept them from rowing with AWL, who had set up table just across from them. I greeted one of them but was mainly speaking to another non-affiliated who shared my bemusement at the endless conjuring trick of turning a near nothingness into a row.

The next speech was on whether Britain was moving to the right and was performed by Chris Bambery. Chris is a Scottish socialist, a far more common breed than the English variety. His rhetoric was earnest, urgent and thrilling. The main thrust was that neo-liberalism alienated people from politics and the only group offering reconnection to the masses are the fascists; along with the rest of the right. He used the example of Italy extensively to show how the left implementing neo-liberalism is followed by this betrayal leading voters to the right in a massive way.

However there was also hope, in that the public largely agreed with a socialist platform and (as Tony Benn had expressed he found remarkable earlier) the masses were broadly to the left of the Labour Party. It was simply a matter of giving them a means to express their discontent with the inequality that dominated society. Where he was weaker was in that suggesting the example of the Scottish National Party and its successes in positioning itself well to the left of Labour over various key issues; as Scotland obviously has significantly less Tories (indeed, hardly any at all) and the electoral market (forgive the phrase) is far less crowded and far more agreeable to such a party. Here the result, at least under FPTP, would most likely be further vote split and a right wing MP from more constituencies.

Still, his words were fine and otherwise his points worth heeding. Rather controversially he suggested that the Unions had little to fear and much to gain from a Cameron government, pointing out the examples of Greece, South Korea and France as notable for a rightist reviving strike actions. He closed with a brief case study of the Lega Nord, which in Italy expanded its vote by a third. When asked upon the night of the result for an explanation for this success the man in charge of such matters said simply “We talked to people”. Through their stalls and their marches and their assorted activism the Lega built up a support base that either was enticed by or was willing to overlook their ranting rhetoric and give them electoral backing.

Meanwhile, as Bambery did not say but it is worth noting, the Italian far-left fell to pieces with in-fighting and failed to get represented at all.

After this speech was done I left to encounter a man of around my age with hair dyed various colours and a stretched lobe from various piercings. I took a leaflet and he offered me a handful, meaning that I had to explain I was not a member of the party. He seemed rather surprised at this and (of course) the “you should join” meme was not far away. However we quickly got into a proper, deeper talk that went beyond my by now well versed criticism of centralism. The meeting further reinforced the impression received throughout the event of the SWP being deeply lovely types arranged in a displeasing manner. It seemed that the SWP truly was for him: he stated that the ideal structure for a party trying to press for revolution (which he thought would happen) was with a good deal of democracy but a central group that were especially talented revolutionaries who could implement and suggest.

I headed away from the theatre and off to roam. I came across a group with colourful booklets named “Worker’s Fight”, who were easily the most authentically working class bunch I had encountered. Their approach was to release literature into specific groups that would then be their focus and benefit from constant releases from the group. Their primary organ is named Class Struggle and apparently for the factories targetted it is entirely part of the furniture. Other groups find this approach peculiar, though, eschewing as it does any pretence at mobilising the unions to their side. The literature is produced by the group and then distributed directly to their targets: the labourers. This removal of the standard membranes from the socialist process struck me as rather pleasing and if a new party is formed there is certainly room for this type of approach.

Why I found them so admirable I can not say for sure, but it was perhaps how distinctive (indeed, in the best possible sense of the word how simplistic) they seemed compared to the standard Trotskyite group. They were a group of people from working class backgrounds writing a newsletter concerning the working classes for the working classes and that was all there was to it. It wasn’t glamorous, they had no logos involving a clenched fist; just basic bright colours and an earnest belief in socialism. This was the only organisation I offered my contact details to and although I doubt that I shall join I certainly shall consider contribution in some way if they have anything in mind that they might request of me. I may be rather far to their right but I do not necessarily have to write that way.

This aside it was then time to return to the theatre for my first spot at infiltration proper. My earlier met SWP friend has stated that I’d most likely be allowed to stroll in, especially since he had mistaken me for a member. However my terms on attending this event were twofold: I would not pay for anything and I would not lie. Thus when asked I told the doorcomrade that I was interested in observating rather than participating and asked if it would be alright if I attended despite not being a member.

I was told that this was fine and took a seat and watched a bearded student tell us in soothing, lush tones about the anti-war movement and the expansion of the SWP and revolutionary politics in general that could follow it and had done, while a female student sat next to him in silence. This none-too-subtle infiltration ended abruptly when the one who had allowed me entry bustled over to ask if I had a ticket for the event. Wishing that I had positioned myself in a spot harder to extricate me from I replied that I had not and was escorted to the theater door.

I should, perhaps, have told them that I was a journalist.

I made my way through the area which the event was taking place in until I reached the Institute of Education. In the lobby I met the girl who I had told about the bourgeois and democratic centralism the day before and spoke to her briefly. Then I met once again the punk Socialist Worker; who was talking to a short blonde with ear-rings. It turned out that all three of us were meat-spurners and the latter was a fully fledged vegan and had been for two months. Talk moved through the Animal Liberation Front and to anarchists (the punk was annoyed that it was instantly assumed he was one) and how the two of them had met, which was at an anti-BNP demonstration. Apparently this was true of many Socialist Workers, since he received offers to join the party to which he replied that he was not certain he was a socialist and valued his freedom overly much.

The Socialist Worker Party (as with all such groups) seemed to be of the view that achieving much outside of a group was impossible. That, I suppose, is the kind of thinking which comes with a whole-hearted embrace of historical materialism. He seemed to feel otherwise and personally I reckon they underestimate the potential successes of a collective. Regardless, we were pestered by them even while eating food although they were mainly interested in him as he was the one they’d seen before. The punk had cleared off before we obtained food from the tent (the lady allowed me food for free, while my new comrade had enough money for his share).

We spoke further, with a number of topics discussed but the main thought under consideration being whether it was acceptable for a white man to wear a Malcom X t-shirt proclaiming the word “brother”. I thought it epitomised the successes of all that X stood for until he pointed out that the thinker himself had stated he had never met a white man he could call his brother. Although, of course, he claimed that Muslims that he had met visiting Mecca were not “White” on account of that being a state based around the relationship of an oppressor.

Eventually we passed by a stall which was selling t-shirts and it seemed that they had only Trotskys. He stated that he was not interested in such products and I replied “Kronstadt”, moving on past before being stopped sharply by an urgent voice.

“Did you say Kronstadt?”

It belonged to a white haired man who I replied to honestly. I find it quite peculiar just quite how pent up the followers of Trotsky get about his foul record as sub-tyrant. Their insistence in engaging quite so firmly and belligerently over a matter which is quite clearly the weakest part of their ideology is borderline suicidal. But they apparently are determined to posthumously absolve him of his copious cruelty. He told me that the historical record stated that Trotsky had attacked the sailors “With tears running down his face”, to which I replied “and blood running down his fingers”. He presented it, as they did on Sunday, as a matter of safeguarding the revolution; to which I replied “They were the revolution”.

Which sounded damn fine, especially as nobody there would have so much as an inkling that I had lifted this line directly from Douglas.

So he continued with the apparent party line that the Kronstadt sailors were in fact different ones to the crucial revolutionaries, with all of the originals being dead after wars with pro-Tsarist forces during the Civil War. The Bolsheviks agonised over the decision but it had to be taken in order to safeguard the Revolution which otherwise would have ended.

I perhaps unwisely stuck to my line on the Socialist Revolutionaries being the true revolutionary party acting with the backing of the Russian people. I say unwisely because, although that is correct, it got us sidetracked into the timing of the election I was referring to and the fact that it was scheduled by the Provisional Government (an irrelevence, it was voted for by the Russian people) and the importance of that against the Soviets (which, I was later informed they demanded new elections for) and the urban-rural dichotomy (I’m immensely pro-urban but don’t feel that we should get more votes…)

Which led us away from the fact that Trotsky had led the crushing of a crucial group of bold revolutionaries rather than accept a perfectly reasonable set of terms. This is the decisive piece of evidence in an informal dossier also consisting of his tactics against civilians during the Civil War and his instrumental role in implementing Red Terror. Trotsky was no shoddy thinker but neither was he the hero Trotskyism (in an immensely un-historically materialistic way) requires him to be. Stalin lifted many of his policies during his sharp left-turn after seizing power and these largely proved to be disastrous.

In short anyone basing themselves around the Bolsheviks are following the example of a brutal bunch and would do better to reconsider; not least because they are likely to lack the required viciousness.

Enough, the point of the matter is that I left with my new vegan friend.

Awards

‘Ending of Animal Farm’ Award - To the woman who gave me “You can leave now” vibes when I outlined why I wasn’t able to pay £1.50 for food.

‘Cuddly Socialist’ Award - To Class Fight.

‘Worth an apology’ Award - David Hilliard for talking about the Black Panthers after all. Serves me damn well right for writing about a speech I didn’t attend.

‘Person of the Day’ Award - Tony Benn. No contest.

‘Apologist of the Day’ Award - Trotsky defending chap, who did a good job.

‘Pitch of the Day’ Award - To the woman who said she had “blossomed” within the SWP.

Revelation of the Day: The SWP are openly considering Marxism a recruitment event for new members. I could have guessed, but it was nice to have this admitted in person; if not on the website.

I may well attend Marxism tomorrow, but unfortunately the only two sessions I want to go to are firstly at once and secondly at ten o’clock in the morning. So we’ll see. For the time being anyway this is a useful itinerary:

Number of meetings attended: 8

Amount of money paid: £0.00

Amount of infiltrations: 1

Amount of successful infiltrations: 0

Amount of free meals obtained: 2

Amount of offers to join the SWP: Countless.