Farewell, Comrades
(Scribo Ergo Sum at Marxism 2008 - part 4)
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.)
Number of successful infiltrations: 3 (NOMNOMNOM)
Amount of free meals obtained: 3
Amount of offers to join the SWP: 400 a minute.
Posted in: Activism, Extremism, Political Ideology, The Economy
Sorry comrade, but I had to do what a team member had to do! Put Away a pound a week and you’ll be able to afford it next year!
In what way is Iran a vulnerable flank with the SWP?
and i’m delighted to realise some people can recognise our loveliness!
“Amount of money paid: £0.00
Number of infiltrations: 4 (Apparently the white tent counts, so my count of 1 yesterday was entirely inaccurate.)
Number of successful infiltrations: 3 (NOMNOMNOM)
Amount of free meals obtained: 3″
What is it about rightwingers, eh? They’re always after freebies and handouts.
My SWP branch always helps out people who want to go to Marxism but have difficulty paying.
.
So if you want to go next year and genuinely can’t afford it negotiate with your friendly local SWP branch.
Or you could always carry on being a shameless blagger
Ben Fine is, in my (fairly limited - I slightly shamefully have an undergraduate degree in economics) experience, absolutely spot on about the discipline. I’d never heard of him, so thanks for the inadvertent recommendation. I wrote a fairly tedious comment on this article on the New Statesman website a while ago that summed up my (pretty similar, it seems) views.
“The trouble with pop econ (in fact, you can almost lose the word ‘pop’) is that it suffers from two main problems: it explains some things that have blatantly obvious reasons with a veneer of economics, and it seeks to explain everything else that doesn’t have such obvious explanations within the self-contained world of economics. Rather like writing on homeopathy, creationism and suchlike, once underlying assumptions have been established, no end of unquestioned nonsense can be built on top of this. The rise of pop econ might be ‘cool’, but it’s perhaps not the fantastic thing this article paints it as. The trouble with (sections of) economics, and particularly with the rise of pop econ, is that it has become a pretty arrogant discipline, seeking to extend its reach into all areas of policy and analysis.
This is not how science works, but it seems to be how social sciences seem to want to operate. I am reminded of a quote whose provenance and wording I can no longer remember, but it was something along the lines of a recommendation that an economist should seek to be no more than a physician: to be consulted only in his field of expertise. It loses something in translation. To bastardise another quote, if your only tool is an economic model, every issue looks like a set of abstract and inaccurate equations. ”
JK Galbraith’s son is similarly damning: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_economists_got_it_wrong .
Sorry if that’s a bit OT, but er it seemed interesting.
Greets to Rob, Roobin, Dan & Hanif. Welcome to the blog.
Hanif - As I didn’t have a job this year one pound of my wages a week would have amounted to £0. Which was what I brought. If you’re saying that the chronically poor don’t belong at your event then I struggle to see what you are doing calling it “Marxism”. Also, “I was only following orders” is a line that I think it is unwise to make, given historical connotations. An Ending of Animal Farm Award to you, sir.
Iran is a weak flank owing to you not taking up a very strong line against the brutal theocrats in charge of that glorious but oppressed nation. Feel free to make some posts on Left Now! condemning him to prove me wrong, though. If they already exist then I apologise and please link me to some.
But yeah, you were all lovely.
It was also an hell of an event. Not quite a Revolution but still a stimulating and exhausting event.
Roobin - I don’t know, dear. You’d have to ask one.
rob - Cheers, I didn’t know that that was an option owing to not being a member of the SWP (as I think I mentioned). Next year I should be fine for money, as long as everything goes according to plan. Or maybe capitalism will collapse before then, who knows?
Thanks for letting me know, though.
Dan - Thanks for the links and copypasta. A link to Prospect is always appreciated.
It seems like there was a lot of truth in that “Dismal Science” line. I really need to read up on the topic before I can write anything on it that is anything other than laughable, but that seems worthwhile.
“Or maybe capitalism will collapse before then, who knows?”
Ye gods, you’re smug.
James - So what did you live on all year? I’m a student and have had to manage on a student loan this year. Aren’t I chronically poor? And as another comrade said, branches always help people out all you had to do was ask. And I let you in the Tony Benn meeting knowing you didn’t have a ticket so it’s not as if we don’t make allowances even when people don’t seem to have made as much effort as they could in getting a ticket.
And I didn’t say I was following orders I said I had to do what I did. I wasn’t ordered to let you in the Benn meeting, I wasn’t ordered to ask you to leave the tent and I wasn’t ordered to point out to an organiser than you shouldnt be in our student caucus. We can be lenient sometimes but we can’t let someone free ride several events when many other people are just as badly off but have made sacrifices. Amd the student caucus was for SWSS members and close supporters.
RE: Iran - Imperialism as an advanced for of capitalism is clearly the biggest enemy of the working class. It is therefore paramount that we put all of our energy into stopping our imperialist government from launching a war on Iran. This doesn’t mean we aren’t clear about oppression in Iran, but it does mean that we do not spend time denouncing the regime because it confuses and weakens the anti war movement.
“Iran is a weak flank owing to you not taking up a very strong line against the brutal theocrats in charge of that glorious but oppressed nation.”
It’s not up to ANYONE in Britain to take a strong line on Iran, especially the British government, who would like to build momentum for a war on Iran. Such a ’strong line’ on Iran would be a gesture, welcome or not, but still a gesture. Putting the demand Don’t Attack Iran on the British government (don’t attack Iran, don’t participate in an attack on Iran, don’t aide, abet or justify an attack on Iran by another state) is practical. Britons can have an effect on the British state.
Now, go on, say something smug.
James - So what did you live on all year?
If you must know largely EMA, state money. That and my mother. But she’s barely had an income for a long while owing to the property crash and immense, overwhelming, all-consuming debts. Just in case you were going to push the irony to the hilt by arguing personal responsibility I should point out here that almost all of the latter are in fact us paying off mortgage money that was covertly sent to off-shore accounts, rather than amounting to being anything which we actually enjoyed. Indeed there is only one (former) family member who has relished the benefit and he is long gone.
I’m a student and have had to manage on a student loan this year. Aren’t I chronically poor?
I don’t know the full details of your situation so I shall not comment on it. I would simply point out that as a university student you have access to a loan money in a fashion which I do not. Our conditions are thus distinct. My own one is as follows: all the money which I have been given by the state over the past two years has been spent covering family debts and all that comes in is now spent on groceries. If it doesn’t get spent on that it is fed into Oyster cards. This is a consequence of a variety of factors, including my father surreptitiously emptying the joint account before he left my mother a few years ago and us recently becoming amongst the few British victims of Sub Prime. In short one bank somehow “sold” our loan to another. The consequence of this was doubtless ample profit on their part; but for us amounted to a financial fuck-over. This has crippled our family economically but really served more as the coup de grace as we have been in equally dire states before and have struggled for years. Now is seemingly the nadir of our condition, though, for we are seriously struggling even to buy bread.
In short I’m feeling the crisis within capitalism first hand.
At the moment I’m seeking employment but given I finished my A-levels a mere fortnight before Marxism it wasn’t something I’d at that stage had success with. Hopefully it shall be shortly but at present and at that stage I had no wage. So when I turned up at your door whatever money I had had either been given to debtors, supermarkets or TFL already and there was none of it left.
And as another comrade said, branches always help people out all you had to do was ask. And I let you in the Tony Benn meeting knowing you didn’t have a ticket so it’s not as if we don’t make allowances even when people don’t seem to have made as much effort as they could in getting a ticket.
Cheers for that.
And I didn’t say I was following orders I said I had to do what I did. I wasn’t ordered to let you in the Benn meeting, I wasn’t ordered to ask you to leave the tent and I wasn’t ordered to point out to an organiser than you shouldnt be in our student caucus. We can be lenient sometimes but we can’t let someone free ride several events when many other people are just as badly off but have made sacrifices. Amd the student caucus was for SWSS members and close supporters.
Right, I misunderstood your argument there. You acted from a sense of duty rather than in pursuit of an authority’s instructions. There is a distinction there. The fact remains that while attending Marxism I was in a tent marked “Marxism 2008 attendees only” and you expelled me on the grounds that I had no ticket. The only reason that I had no ticket is that I had no money. This was the only thing which distinguished me as an attendee from the attendees around me. Therefore, on the grounds of me not having enough cash you told me to leave. Sounds fairly similar to your foes, that sort of conduct does.
RE: Iran - Imperialism as an advanced for of capitalism is clearly the biggest enemy of the working class. It is therefore paramount that we put all of our energy into stopping our imperialist government from launching a war on Iran. This doesn’t mean we aren’t clear about oppression in Iran, but it does mean that we do not spend time denouncing the regime because it confuses and weakens the anti war movement.
HOPOI (an organisation to which I have no affiliation and had not even heard of prior to Marxism 2008) uses the slogan “No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime!”
What exactly is it about this that you find confusing and weakening?
It’s not up to ANYONE in Britain to take a strong line on Iran,
Peculiar…Most peculiar.
Firstly I did not speak of “Iran”, but of “Brutal theocrats”. The gentlemen in question being the type that hanged a pair of gay men or committed other such atrocities; as they are willing to enforce a theocracy in a brutal fashion. I am by no means suggesting that anyone speak out against Iran, which is a glorious place that it would be the height of idiocy to somehow attempt to “oppose”. If you were using “Iran” as shorthand for “The Iranian government” then I would suggest that you do not.
Secondly I find your focus upon the arguer, besides being an obvious ad hominem, to be very hard to square with any notion of internationalism. Why should I restrain my condemnations of any horrific injustices to when they occur within the national borders of Britain? Why, especially when the internet allows my words to be read by anyone not hindered by corporate or Chinese firewalls, should I restrain my rhetoric to matters local and parochial? Perhaps I have misunderstood you here (and forgive me for the unintentional sophistry if I have), but your argument appears to be that by dint of my being in Britain I am not allowed to challenge the barbaric treatment Iran metes out upon the innocent and am only allowed to attack the lapdogs of American neo-conservatism.
A particularly muddled point.
especially the British government, who would like to build momentum for a war on Iran. Such a ’strong line’ on Iran would be a gesture, welcome or not, but still a gesture.
In my view it is the only way to make a coherent argument concerning this matter. The supposedly “Revolutionary” Iranian regime is in fact immensely reactionary and uses political Islam to justify the brutality it uses to defend tradition. It is, as such, the enemy of the left and no campaign should offer it support.
Putting the demand Don’t Attack Iran on the British government (don’t attack Iran, don’t participate in an attack on Iran, don’t aide, abet or justify an attack on Iran by another state) is practical. Britons can have an effect on the British state.
In all earnestness after the failure of StW last time and since I have my doubts about this. We are a lapdog state and the grand Atlanticist jingoists of both the Conservative and Labour Party are forces far too strong to be defeated no matter how many millions are mustered, mobilised and put out onto the streets. This, if anything, is the grimmest lesson of February 2003. Perhaps they are in a sufficiently weak state after their absolute empirical defeat over Iraq for this to no longer be true for Iran, but I am afraid that I suspect otherwise.
Pessimism aside I also suspect that you underestimate the extent to which globalisation means that the tone of a campaign here will have upon Iran (which has a substantial bl*gosphere) as well as the hinderence which the appearance (correct or otherwise) of being “useful idiots” will have upon the likelihood of success for any campaign which runs against war with a viciously theocratic regime. The latter is perhaps the most substantial: it is impossible to mistake HOPOI for a pro-Iranian regime organisation. Would the same be true of a campaign staged exclusively against imperialism? Could we be assured that no pro-Khamenei forces would be attracted to the opportunity to assist Tehran and thus allured discredit the movement? Or is the intention that this popular front would include such forces?
We must learn from the failure of Stop the War’s attempt to prevent the Iraq invasion: if the impression is given that there is somehow being support given to a foul regime then it weakens the efforts of the movement immensely. If there is a better way to prevent this from taking place than making explicit the contempt which the current participants feel towards the present Iranian order then I would be delighted to hear it.
Now, go on, say something smug.
There aren’t enough genuine social democrats left in Parliament or the rest of the world for me to be smug.
That’s better (smug oven on half-bake). Anyway, you’re weaving two separate strands of argument. There was actually no way of mistaking Stop the War with a pro-Saddam lobby group. Its ‘failure’ had nothing to do with not placing Ba’athism on an equal level with American imperialism. The fact of a mass anti-war movement, which did change many things about national and international politics, is the most effective counter. In terms of mobilising people through the right kind of organisation and correct slogans (plus a lot of hard work) nothing as beaten the StWC.
The war went ahead because executive power in Britain had effectively sealed itself off from democracy. Stop the War was limited by a key fact. StWC could only cut so deep. There is no tradition of politically motivated industrial action in Britain and Stop the War wasn’t in a position to conjure it up.
The proposition is simple, Don’t Attack Iran. That’s all that needs to be put by anyone in Britain.
Actually, I’ve thought about it. Here’s a simpler way of putting it:
“We are a lapdog state and the grand Atlanticist jingoists of both the Conservative and Labour Party are forces far too strong to be defeated no matter how many millions are mustered, mobilised and put out onto the streets.”
Defeats:
“We must learn from the failure of Stop the War’s attempt to prevent the Iraq invasion: if the impression is given that there is somehow being support given to a foul regime then it weakens the efforts of the movement immensely. ”
If said forces are too strong to be defeated then it matters not a jot what slogans are used.
i’ve been through this agrument a million times but John rees sums it up very well in this short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-jqRtag0Do
And HOPI’s shit understanding of imperialism is shown by their constant citing of the alleged case of those two boys being hanged for sodomy. Human rights watch and amnesty international never said this, it was only outrage who claimed it.
The war propaganda machine seeks to exaggerate and hijack every human rights abuse in Iran and HOPI and the rest of the 3rd camp follow like useful idiots.
also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZYGpcn7THY
If said forces are too strong to be defeated then it matters not a jot what slogans are used.
You seem to have misunderstood my argument, although that could well be my fault. A summary of my last post would be this: I would be surprised if StW succeeded in removing an attack on Iran from the agenda, but would be especially surprised if it managed as much while still refusing to criticise Tehran.
Hanif: a very uninspiring pair of speeches you linked to. Both of them apologise and made the crude “We’ll deal with our lot, they deal with theirs” suggestions that basically amount to nationalism. Britons can’t do anything against Iran (what, not even protest the embassy?) and apparently Iran gets a free pass because we aren’t Iranians.
And HOPI’s shit understanding of imperialism is shown by their constant citing of the alleged case of those two boys being hanged for sodomy. Human rights watch and amnesty international never said this, it was only outrage who claimed it.
…How is this indicative of a “shit understanding of imperialism”? It has nothing to do with imperialism. It is related to their opposition to theocracy, which you are now acting for an apologist for instead of condemning. Which is rather what your critics accuse you of.
The war propaganda machine seeks to exaggerate and hijack every human rights abuse in Iran and HOPI and the rest of the 3rd camp follow like useful idiots.
You seek to minimise the injustices committed by the Iranian regime, you’ve done it already here. This is precisely the approach that results in failure. You look like a pack of pro-Iranian hypocrites defending a theocracy (it was worse with Iraq when you were associating with Galloway but I suppose that that’s less of a problem now).
I think that the mistake you Trots are making is that ultimately stopping the war amounts to convincing a roomful of people that it is unwise to authorise an attack. That’s all you need to do. With Iraq you would have gotten further if you’d focused at least partially on a letter writing campaign to MPs. Why? Because if every MP who lost their seat due to voting for the war had known that they were going to then they would have voted against it. That’s just the way the parliamentary system works.
Likewise with Iran if you go around defending the Iranian regime’s thuggery (which the neo-conservatives don’t actually need to do that much to exaggerate) then you are not going to be crippled by being the apologists to a particularly nasty bunch. StW decided to keep the pro-regime sorts on board and avoided being “Divisive” by not coming out all guns blazing at Tehran. This is a bad call because it opens them up to claims of being pro-Tehran, which actually doesn’t seem unreasonable given that plenty of their activists (yourself included) are apologists for the theocrats.
Not only do you have no solutions for ridding that troubled country of reactionaries, but you are unwilling even to condemn them. That’s going to hamstring your efforts.
A question for Hanif:
Workers organising in Iran frequently face attacks by the state, including harassment, police violence and imprisonment (see http://libcom.org/news/iranian-sugar-cane-workers-enter-sixth-week-strike-16062008 and http://libcom.org/news/repression-continues-iran-20102007 for a couple of examples.) Should workers in the UK:
a) Abandon internationalism and turn a blind eye?
b) Act in solidarity with them (pickets, information, etc.) - which you seem to equate to “supporting the war machine”?
“I think that the mistake you Trots…”
Less of the insults. Trot in this conext is an insult.
“With Iraq you would have gotten further if you’d focused at least partially on a letter writing campaign to MPs.”
Shows how involved you were. At the height of the movement all of the local groups I was active in actually had letter-writing and mass lobby campaigns of MPs… and local demonstrations… and direct actions…. AND took people to national marches. Mass demonstrations didn’t work so what you propose is DEmobilisation: counterposing individual effort to mass action.
Which explains all the drivel about equating Iran with America. Your proposals for improving slogans will demobilise people.
And you say you’re not rightwing?
Actually, Roobin, you’re right-wing too. As are you all. Imperialism is an extension of capitalism; so the only way to stop imperialism once and for all is to smash capitalism. Once we smash capitalism in this corner of the world, international revolution will follow. As it nearly did following the 1920s, and might have done were it not for the crippling incompetence of the socialist movement of the time. But first we must smash capitalism.
To smash capitalism, we must focus on class-struggle. Temporary anti-imperialist struggle - embodied by StWC, whose only success was to show the inadequacy of British parliamentary democracy as a means of representation - acts as a distraction from class-struggle. It draws attention and material away from the class struggle that will smash capitalism, and so prolongs it, and the imperialism that follow.
You all serve the purpose of the bourgeoisie with your anti-imperialist deviationalism. At a time when capitalism is potentially weak following sub-prime, etc that’s criminally right-wing. It’s almost as if you’d entered the workers’ movement on behalf of the capitalists to slow it down.
Then again, virtually everyone at “Marxism” (yeah, right) was middle class. Coincidence much?
Less of the insults. Trot in this conext is an insult.
Why?
Shows how involved you were.
Well excuse me for being 13.
At the height of the movement all of the local groups I was active in actually had letter-writing and mass lobby campaigns of MPs… and local demonstrations… and direct actions…. AND took people to national marches. Mass demonstrations didn’t work so what you propose is DEmobilisation: counterposing individual effort to mass action.
Did I ever say that mass demonstrations should be halted?
Which explains all the drivel about equating Iran with America.
The…What?
Your proposals for improving slogans will demobilise people.
…Why? International solidarity with your fellow workers, much?
And you say you’re not rightwing?
And you say “Less with the insults?
“Why?”
If you don’t know what a word means, don’t use it.
“Well excuse me for being 13.”
I will, if you defer to what I’m saying (if you really are 13). I don’t pretend to know much about politics. I know what I’m talking about when it comes to this topic.
“Did I ever say that mass demonstrations should be halted?”
Or are you just a quotemachine spitting out firstthoughts? You are the person who said (1) it doesn’t matter how many people you mobilise and (2) you would have gotten (eww, hate that word) further if you concentrated on a letter writing campaign.
“Why? International solidarity with your fellow workers, much?”
Indeed, how about Don’t Attack Iran for starters. Dear Empire, we unequivocally insist you don’t bomb our Iranian brothers and sisters back to the stoneage.
“And you say “Less with the insults?”
How is calling you rightwing and insult, unless you are ashamed of your own politics? Rightwingers demobilise people. I’ll use another example:
“There aren’t enough genuine social democrats left in Parliament…”
Let the good people in parliament do the job: that’s an old, old argument. Rather moot, I think, considering:
“We are a lapdog state and the grand Atlanticist jingoists of both the Conservative and Labour Party are forces far too strong to be defeated no matter how many millions are mustered, mobilised and put out onto the streets.. ”
If ‘we’ (and I don’t remember being part of any state) are a lapdog state then it doesn’t matter if parliament is filled to the rafters with social democrats.
SW: if by a mans works shall ye know him then the man who says revolution or nothing is truly right-wing. Revolution and smashing capitalism means nothing to the majority of Britons. If that’s you measure of what’s worthwhile then you will never engage with anybody, leaving people who might want to fight against wage cuts or the war on the sidelines. Besides, in terms of a revolution in Britain:
“StWC, whose only success was to show the inadequacy of British parliamentary democracy as a means of representation”.
Then gawdbless th StWC because the illusion of change through parliament has been one of the biggest drags on workingclass politics.
If you don’t know what a word means, don’t use it.
What is your understanding of that words meaning, then?
I will, if you defer to what I’m saying (if you really are 13). I don’t pretend to know much about politics. I know what I’m talking about when it comes to this topic.
I was thirteen at the time.
Or are you just a quotemachine spitting out firstthoughts? You are the person who said (1) it doesn’t matter how many people you mobilise and (2) you would have gotten (eww, hate that word) further if you concentrated on a letter writing campaign.
I never said the first point but you may be correct about the second being untrue.
Indeed, how about Don’t Attack Iran for starters. Dear Empire, we unequivocally insist you don’t bomb our Iranian brothers and sisters back to the stoneage.
That must be said. But you have no words for the tyrants of Tehran?
How is calling you rightwing and insult, unless you are ashamed of your own politics?
It was clear that you meant it as an insult. It’s also nonsense.
Rightwingers demobilise people.
Like Mussolini? And the organisers of the Nuremburg Rally?
I’ll use another example:
“There aren’t enough genuine social democrats left in Parliament…”
Let the good people in parliament do the job: that’s an old, old argument.
Ultimately this country is run by Parliamentary Sovereignty. Its not the optimum of set-ups by any means but it is the one which exists and is undeniably in place. From the Scottish Parliament to the General London Assembly all government bodies are given their authority through an Act of Parliament which (as we saw with centralisation through slashing of local authority power and the destruction of the GLA’s precessor in the 1980s) can, just as easily, take them away. If parliament was packed with social democrats Britain would operate in a different fashion to the way that it does at present (as it is filled with Tories and social liberals at the moment). I also note that you cropped my words there, which had a distorting effect upon my meaning.
Rather moot, I think, considering:
“We are a lapdog state and the grand Atlanticist jingoists of both the Conservative and Labour Party are forces far too strong to be defeated no matter how many millions are mustered, mobilised and put out onto the streets.. ”
If ‘we’ (and I don’t remember being part of any state) are a lapdog state then it doesn’t matter if parliament is filled to the rafters with social democrats.
I also said:
“Perhaps they are in a sufficiently weak state after their absolute empirical defeat over Iraq for this to no longer be true for Iran, but I am afraid that I suspect otherwise.”
I do suspect otherwise. That doesn’t mean that trying to stop the war is doomed to futility, just that that much is my suspicion. You certainly failed to stop the first one.
I did make the doom and gloom unqualified though, which was foolish of me. Left the whole passage looking rather muddled, I’d imagine. After Iraq, as I said, perhaps a chance is stood. But the meaning of Atlanticism in application is following America to the hilt, even when no assistance is required or requested. So either the British government will cease being Atlanticist or it will ignore Stop the War completely. I’d imagine they’ll opt for the latter, but exactly why is beyond me.
“I was thirteen at the time.”
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘the time’. Even so I knew lots of teenagers active in Stop the War branches.
“Ultimately this country is run by Parliamentary Sovereignty.”
Britain is run by a conglomeration of organisations representing the collective interests of British capital. If there was one organsiation they have decided to bypass in recent years it would have to be parliament.
“That must be said. But you have no words for the tyrants of Tehran?”
Maybe I do. At best it is beside the point, at worst it muddies the issue and gives aid to the pro-war movement coming from government. The French left took your tack in the run-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. Their slogan was “No to war - No to terrorism”. The French anti-war movement was small and stayed small. This is saying something, because the French left have a talent for mobilisation.
“Like Mussolini? And the organisers of the Nuremburg Rally?”
I kind of thought right-wing of the socialist/union movement, but, as an aside, that is why nazis are so dangerous. They mobilise against all of us.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘the time’. Even so I knew lots of teenagers active in Stop the War branches.
Yes but what would my mother have said?
Britain is run by a conglomeration of organisations representing the collective interests of British capital. If there was one organsiation they have decided to bypass in recent years it would have to be parliament.
Funny, I’d have said the SWP. Perhaps if there were as many
Maybe I do. At best it is beside the point, at worst it muddies the issue and gives aid to the pro-war movement coming from government. The French left took your tack in the run-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. Their slogan was “No to war - No to terrorism”. The French anti-war movement was small and stayed small. This is saying something, because the French left have a talent for mobilisation.
Terrorism and state crushing of the workers are two distinct things. The latter is by no means associated with imperialist rhetoric: there was no “War” waged against it, for instance.
I kind of thought right-wing of the socialist/union movement, but, as an aside, that is why nazis are so dangerous. They mobilise against all of us.
Ah, the Relative Right. Then I suppose so. I could tell you about all the things I want the world rid of (nations, races, genders, etc) and argue for some length that the right is characterised by some degree of desire for stability but I really cba to get involved in that sort of an argument. I’ll just call this a novelty and leave it at that.
But agreed about the Nazis.
“That must be said. But you have no words for the tyrants of Tehran?”
Maybe I do. At best it is beside the point, at worst it muddies the issue and gives aid to the pro-war movement coming from government. The French left took your tack in the run-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. Their slogan was “No to war - No to terrorism”. The French anti-war movement was small and stayed small. This is saying something, because the French left have a talent for mobilisation.
Two questions.
One is the question I posed to Hanif earlier on this page. The Iranian state is engaged in a brutal campaign against workers rights - see, for example, the treatment dealt out to striking bus workers, police violence against demonstrations, etc. As a socialist, do you choose to:
a) Abandon internationalism and turn a blind eye to fellow workers being attacked, due to their country of residence?
b) Condemn the Iranian state and, as you appear to be arguing, help the “war machine”?
The second is this:
In what way do you feel condemning the Iranian state harms the anti-war movement? Simply accepting reality - namely, that it is brutally authoritarian - does not in any way equate to supporting invasion, and I hardly see how it could be taken as such.
Also, I feel you are being misleading regarding the stance of the anti-war movement around Iraq. While the major slogans at demonstrations may not have condemned Saddam’s regime, publicity was put out detailing some of Saddam’s crimes and the role the US played in them when the two were allies. Further, many local groups were accused of being pro-Saddam, leading to rejection - and accompanying condemnation - at various events, in newspapers, and so on. Do you feel this was a hindrance to the movement you’re so positive about?
The earlier anti-war movement had few apologists for Saddam - indeed, few exist - leaving little need to distance the movement from support for the regime unless, on occasion, if challenged. However, the protests against the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 saw a number of groups with Hezbollah flags, chanting “We are all Hezbollah!”, while at least two people I saw were handing out literature for Hamas.
This is the consequence of your approach: with the view of the “other side” an open-ended question, apologists for all kinds of atrocities can make their way through. And I can see this happening should a war with Iran seem imminent.
FWIW I was involved in the anti-war movement on a relatively regular basis from September 2002 till sometime in autumn 2006, and still pop in on the demonstrations occasionally. I was led to withdraw due to a mixture of refusal to be used to further other groups’ political agendas, the above-mentioned Lebanon demonstrations, and complete inertia in the anti-war scene as a whole.
James, I enjoyed your report. I never got to go so it was nice to read a report from someone with no affiliation. The accusation that the CPGB is stalinist is a common one, because of two reasons the first one is innocent confusion as the old CPGB was very much Stalinist, the second reason is simple shit slinging. Did the Belgian comrade explain which positions of the CPGB were stalinist?
Again Hanif and Roobin show the SWP’s complete inability to tell the truth and to act as consistent internationalists.
Workers, Students, Women, LGBT people and national minorities are all struggling against the Islamic Republic and the overwhelming majority are also absolutely against the Imperialists hence the student demonstrations against the war during this period. I think Post 14 deals with the SWP’s scab line very well as well as dealing with the problems you encounter when you decide to go quiet on the atrocities in Iran.
The first task of the British anti war movement is to take on our own state, it is build opposition to war, sanctions and the ongoing occupations. Something that those of us in HOPI have always been very clear about. Hanif, HOPI can only be third campist if you view solidarity with the social movements of our class in Iran as something which should not concern us socialists in the UK.
The idea that speaking out against Tehran gives ammo to the Imperialists is nonsense, the best of example of this is highlighting and supporting the anti war demonstrations in Iran (which Tehran surpessed). Surely exposing these demonstrations in the west only helps the anti war camp.
People can make up their own mind, you can back our comrades in Iran against war and the theocracy or you go down the SWP/ Campaign Iran route and not support the struggles of our comrades. It is a simple question of whether you are willing to accept the duty to internationalism as a socialist.
Hello Serge’s, welcome to the blog.
The Belgium comrade mentioned a few points, the most prominent (i.e. the one which I can recall properly) being your commitment to State Capitalism. To be honest I can’t really be bothered to find out what the SWP thinks that means but your response would be valuable on that point, at least.
I agree entirely with your points concerning Iran: there truly is no excuse for not being aware of anti-theocracy resistance in Iran. Why, a large quantity of it is plastered over webpages not too dissimilar to this one!
Thanks, nice blog you got here.
CPGB state capitalist? I can honestly say, i have no idea where that criticism could come from. Usually we get attacked for being ‘ultra leftist’. Maybe the comrade thinks our min-max draft programme has some continuity with the social democratic programmes of the second international?
Students in Iran are brilliant at getting things out onto blogs. It is one of their biggest strengths. Abbas Edalat from Campaign Iran said last year that no student demonstrations were taking place and that students who have been kicked out were just lazy. Which was easy to demonstrate as false when their are thousands of pictures and hindreds of videos on the demonstrations.
Thanks for clearing that up SF. If any actual SWP members want to start criticising so we can get the proper arguments up instead of my garbled, jumbled rememberings then please do feel free.
And I too have been very impressed at the political state of the Iranian youth. The “Islamic Revolution” seems doomed, so far as I can tell. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but it certainly at very least has a struggle for survival on its hands. Such a pity that so few of the supposedly internationalist socialists here in Britain have failed to back the right side.
It is doomed, it has failed to deliver the most modest living standards, the youth are not supportive of the regime, they hate it’s intrusion into every area of their lives. The regime will fall, it is just a matter of when?