Marching with the Shrewsbury 24

Yesterday a trio of Stoke Socialist Party comrades attended a march and rally organised by Shropshire and Telford trades council in solidarity with the Shrewsbury 24. For those not aware of this famous case, the campaign site takes it up:

After the 1972 Building Workers’ National Strike 24 Trade Unionists were tried at Shrewsbury in a hostile act perpetrated by a Tory Government to criminalise picketing. A number of these men were given severe prison sentences. Best known of them were Des Warren and Ricky Tomlinson, who became referred to as the “Shrewsbury 2.” Des died as a direct result of the treatment that was meted out to him during his lengthy incarceration. Successive Governments both Tory and Labour, have remained unresponsive to the calls for these perverse judgements to be set aside, and for these men to be cleared. There is now a renewal of the campaign, even after all this time, and the death of some of those involved, to secure justice for these Trade Union Comrades. The campaign is also calling for a Public Inquiry to expose the role of successive governments and the secret services in the events surrounding this important time in labour history.

This march was the first in what will be an annual event to mark the struggle of these comrades and will carry on until all their names have been cleared. About 200 assembled at the car park just by Shrewsbury Abbey and took off up the hill to the massive war memorial outside the Shropshire county council offices, which itself is a stone's throw from the very court that banged the Shrewsbury's pickets up. I don't know how long it had been since a demo last wound its way along one of the main routes into town but it was able to draw a lot of interest from residents, workers and passersby as well as pull some of them along in its wake.

At the memorial we were treated to a number from the ever green Banner Theatre and then came the speeches. The first speaker (apols to the comrade, I didn't catch his name) spoke of the monstrous frame up the government and secret state concocted in an act of petty vengeance against a labour movement that had forced Heath's Tories onto the back foot. The next speaker was Unite convenor Rob Williams, fresh from the magnificent victory at Linamar where the workers saw off management's attempt to sack him. Rob spoke of the injustice of the anti-trade union laws, of how he could be sacked unlawfully and the company suffer no consequences, whereas the shift who came out in his support could have lost their jobs and worse for defying those laws. He talked about Visteon and the victory at Lindsey oil refinery, outlined in broad terms the way forward for our movement and got one of the biggest cheers of the day for calling on union leaderships to stop funding Labour.

Ricky Tomlinson talked about the recent attempts made to clear his name and described his correspondence with Jack Straw, the so-called justice minister. After much wrangling and petitions for the relevant files to be released under the 30 year rule (requests denied by Straw on grounds of 'national security'!) Ricky was finally allowed to see some pertaining to the case. He sat down in a room with a keeper of the records and began turning the pages ... only to find huge junks of the reports redacted. If these don't suggest a cover up, he didn't know what does. He also described the appalling treatment he and especially Dessie received inside, a treatment that saw Dessie serve his three years in no less than 17 prisons.

Arthur Scargill finished the day off with a call for workers to sweep away the anti-trade union laws and rally to the banner of socialism. We will keep on struggling until what he called the 'gleam of socialism' has been achieved.

Overall it was an excellent day - though more bar staff could have been done with laying on at the Salop Unison club for the social! Politically it was important as it linked the memory of past struggles to those erupting today. It was good this event came together after three victories for our movement - let us hope we meet again to mark the Shrewbury 24 this time next year under even more favourable circumstances.

Branch Meeting: National Committee Report

In the Socialist Party the highest decision making body is the annual party conference. But obviously an assembly of the membership on a regular basis is impractical and would throw a huge burden onto our limited resources. Therefore decision making devolved to two bodies inbetween conferences. There is the executive committee which meets at the very least on a weekly basis, which is in turn immediately responsible to our national committee. This meets less frequently but is comprised of a mix of lay delegates from branches and full timers plus visitors. The EC is overseen by and is subordinate to this body. Meetings of our NC are therefore very important to the functioning of our party.

Brother A attended the last NC meeting over 20th-21st June on behalf of Stoke branch and reported back at last night's meeting. There were seven items on the NC's packed agenda - where is Britain going?, prospects of a left challenge at the general election, the SP's approach to countering the BNP, problems around transitional demands in industrial disputes, the importance of trade union and workplace activity and finally, building the party. Given the length of proceedings A focused his contribution on two items - Britain and party building.

As tentative as it may be, it was the opinion of the NC that we could be seeing the re-emergence of a confident industrial working class. Though at the time of the meeting the Lindsey dispute hadn't been won, the unofficial action the oil workers took back in winter and recently - in conjunction with sympathy stoppages elsewhere - demonstrates the potentiality the industrial working class still possesses. In effect the anti-trade union laws do not exist when masses of workers start to move. There was also some discussion of the roles played by the SP at Lindsey, Visteon and Linamar. The latter demonstrates what can be achieved after very patient and consistent work. The reasons why Rob Williams became site convenor and was successfully defended by Linamar workers was on the basis of him being effective and giving workers a lead. In the cases of Visteon and Lindsey the SP was able to play the role it did because official union leadership was either lacking or non-existent.

Nevertheless it must be remembered that each of these disputes were of a defensive character. But there results, particularly Lindsey because it received some national media coverage could help embolden layers of workers well removed from the environs of the refinery and construction industry. These seeds of victory fall on a shifting ground of consciousness. The political crisis stemming from MP's expenses have established an inchoate but widespread anti-establishment feeling - sentiments that have been deepened because of the recession. There is also a general acceptance of the bosses argument that belts have to be tightened and jobs shed, a matter not helped by the absence of a mass independent working class voice. Again union leadership has been lacking at British Airways and Corus as wage freezes and job losses have been allowed through almost on the nod by the relevant trade unions.

Internationally there is increasing volatility to. The explosion in Iran over the presidential elections does not challenge capitalism, but it could be a foretaste of what is to come elsewhere.

When it came to party building, A told us about some of the workers who've recently joined the party off the back of our involvement in the aforementioned disputes. He said we're not recruiting hand over fist, but we are making good progress. The same number had joined in the first six months of this year as had in all but the last two months of last year. If the rate remains at least the same we'll pass the psychological target of 2,000 members. A new comrade recruited from the shop workers' union, USDAW was reported as saying he'd joined the party after watching its activity for a long period of time - there could be hundreds of trade union activists doing the same thing.

During the discussion a number of points were made on consciousness, Labour's backtracks on rail nationalisation, Royal Mail privatisation and ID cards and the situation in Honduras. C asked about the discussions around No2EU and a couple asked A how the position now compared with Militant at various points of its development.

I tried to have a stab at the latter. Militant's size and the things it did represent the pinnacle of Trotskyist influence in Britain. However, though it did have some industrial muscle its base was in the CLPs and Labour Party Young Socialists. Now where the SP makes its strength felt is in the trade unions. A agreed. During the Miners' Strike Militant nationally recruited some 500 miners but for the most part, the rest of the far left played important and constructive roles among the miners and in the solidarity movement. As the labour movement rallied around the distinctive parts played by each were lost amid the efforts of everyone else. But now the SP's trade union work stands out and offers a positive class struggle alternative - as Lindsey demonstrated. Thus there is a qualitative difference between Militant's and the SP's union base.

On the son of No2EU unfortunately little progress had been made. Despite the positive comments Bob Crow made in the aftermath of the election he now believes a challenge is only really worthwhile if more than one union can get involved. Furthermore, as far as comrades were aware the Communist Party's executive does not meet until July 11th and so are waiting on what the comrades have to say.

But overall A reported a real mood of confidence at the NC in the SP's prospects. Undoubtedly, things are looking up.

Socialist Activism and Responsibility

At the moment I'm still working on the penultimate chapter of my PhD. The thesis is, among other things, looking at how a sample of activists from the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers' Party got involved and remained committed in what were tough times for socialist politics. That's not to say things now aren't difficult, but there are certainly more openings for our activism today than was the case for most of the 90s and a good chunk of this decade. I digress.

I thought I would share this short extract from an interview with one of my SP comrades. I asked what it meant to him to be a socialist and a member of our party, and I think his reply is possibly the best answer to the question I received. It might be of interest to readers:

I heard this question earlier on and I still haven’t prepared myself for it. Two different questions. What it is to be a socialist – I don’t think there’s an answer to it because often socialists come from different backgrounds and can have very different ideas and methods, principles, and come to them from very different places, so I’m not going to answer that. To me what it means to be a socialist ... it’s a difficult question to answer. It’s about not giving an inch. First and foremost not letting anyone else dictate where your life goes. It’s about taking responsibility for yourself. It’s about not letting yourself be exploited or being taken advantage of. About sticking two fingers up to the man, it’s about taking responsibility for your own life, where it’s going and not letting anyone get in your way or dictate where you’re going to end up ...

Whenever I hear quotes is something that brings to mind something said by Trotsky, which said “every revolutionist is a soldier in the proletarian army” Every time I read that I smirk. It’s about the place you have in the movement and the class struggle, and I think my place will change year in, year out. At the moment I seem to have designs on being the young, sharp Bolshevik who tells everyone else where they’re going wrong, but I’m sure that will evolve and change as I evolve and change. The reason why I’m not a soldier in the proletarian army … you know those guys who work for noodle houses, who stand in the street pointing signs in the direction of the nearest one, that’s me. My sign says ‘socialism: this way'. Being a SP member for me is quite similar to my first answer, the difference is being a SP member means taking responsibility for the party. I know it’s been a red thread through this interview. It’s every member’s responsibility to build the party, maintain the party, to recruit, educate and integrate new people, and most importantly at the moment, to develop themselves so all these things can be best achieved. Comrades who don’t so that, and so-called socialists and Marxists who don’t take any responsibility for the party have no grounds to dictate to the party how it should be built, or how things should be done differently. If every young comrade in the organisation develops themselves into an organiser, a cadre within the next year, we would double at least the number of capable, grass roots organisers. The number one attribute of being a party member is responsibility.

Conspiracy Files: 7/7

We will never accurately know why Mohammad Sidique Khan, Germain Lindsay, Hassib Hussain and Shehzad Tanweer felt it necessary to blow themselves up. A conventional search for a scientific explanation might analyse their angry opposition to what they saw as a war against Islam. It would consider their adherence to a set of fundamentalist beliefs that morally justified their attacks. It would look into their individual biographies and try to divine how they came to hold such views. But unfortunately for some this complexity is too mundane, too tedious - they prefer simple and yet exotic answers.

Tonight's Conspiracy Files: 7/7 examined some of the alternative "answers" proffered mainly by the conspiracy film 7/7 Ripple Effect. Like all conspiracy theories it picks on alleged inconsistencies in the official narrative, exposes them and spins off all kinds of conclusions - most usually in the complete absence of any evidence.

A typical example of conspiracy theorising comes courtesy of Dr Mohammad Naseem of Birmingham Central Mosque. He, like a reported one in four British Muslims, doubts that four young Muslim men met at Luton station early on July 7th, 2005 and went on to murder 52 people and injure a further 780 between 8.50 and 9.50 that morning. One item that planted the seed of doubt in his mind (leaving aside, of course, the desire of wanting to believe the British government were behind the atrocities) was the retrieval of documents identifying the bombers from the scene. He reckoned these could not have withstood an explosive force responsible for the bomb damage. They had to be like the hijacker's passport recovered from the scene of the Twin Towers: planted evidence (yes, Dr Naseem is a 9/11 Truth'er too). That both attacks used similar documentation to establish the identities of the terrorists is too much of a coincidence - it had to be an inside job. The more sensible explanation that the bombers left documentation nearby identifying themselves (after all, they wanted the world to know what they had done) does not appear to trouble the good doctor.

A second string to the idea 7/7 was an inside job is Tony Blair's statement, delivered eight hours after the bombings. He noted:

I welcome the statement put out by the Muslim Council who know that those people acted in the name of Islam but who also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do.

Did you see what Tony Blair did? He mentioned Islam before any evidence had been recovered implicating the four men. It might have been politically unwise to immediately and publicly assume Muslim extremists were behind the bombs, but nevertheless it was a reasonable assumption to make thanks to Blair's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However for Ripple Effect this was no heat of the moment slip but damning evidence he had foreknowledge of the attacks.

And so the charges go on. The official report originally claimed the bombers caught the 7:40 train from Luton, but it was later discovered not to have run. A miscommunication on the part of the police? Or evidence of a lazy cover story, as the Holocaust-denying Nick Kollerstom likes to claim? And how about that dodgy CCTV? (drag down to the fourth chapter title). Are the railings that appear through the face and body of one of the bombers evidence of fakery - as Kollerstrom claims - or a result of taking stills from a low resolution camera?

Another absurdity spun by Ripple Effect is its belief the bombs were planted beneath the train. This is based on eyewitness interviews with The Graun that claimed the explosions appeared to erupt from under the floor. The film argues these were set off remotely and the men then framed. There are a couple of problems with this thesis. First, according to the testimony of 7/7 survivor, Rachel North the trains were packed that morning - so much so two went by her before she could get on. Presumably our shadowy conspirators knew this too - so they must have had preternatural cunning to guess in advance which trains the "patsies" were going to board. Second, it turned out the eyewitness statements were contradicted by those closer to the explosion, who said the opposite. Plus all photos of the craters left behind show the direction of the explosions pointing downwards. But best not let the facts get in the way of the theory, eh?

These are just some of the theories comprehensively debunked in the documentary. Unfortunately, as I've noted before programmes of this sort are required viewing for socialists because of the influence organised conspiracy-mongers try and exert in radical and anti-war politics. But this is not the only danger. Rachel North has taken a stand against the conspiratorial accounts of 7/7. Not only does she find it disgusting and upsetting to be told her experience is not valid and that criticising the truth'ers makes her a government stooge, an islamophobe and a zionist, she believes the conspiracy theories help legitimate the arguments of extremists in Muslim communities. Ripple Effect's claim 7/7 was orchestrated by the British government and/or MI5 and Mossad to demonise Muslims and win support for an unpopular war is music to extremist ears.

Everyone leaning toward the conspirtorial understanding of 7/7 should see this documentary. I'm pretty sure anyone who doesn't believe the evidence presented here by the BBC is part of the cover up will find the case for the official account compelling.

Lenin once likened nationalism to the outer shell of an immature Bolshevism, and the same could be said of conspiracy theorising. Raising doubts and subjecting government pronouncements to detailed critique is welcome in as far as they illuminate what's really going on. Unfortunately the weaving of conspiracies on the flimsiest of pretexts wraps existing accounts and evidence in an extra layer of mystification, which can by association serve to discredit genuine criticisms of a government's or institution's actions over a particular matter. It also offers nothing but a council of despair. They conceive history not as a set of complex social processes as Marxists do, but as the outcomes of an unceasing sequence of manipulations by an all-powerful shadowy elite. If they can assassinate JFK, fake the moon landings and pull off the 9/11 attacks, what hope for their overthrow? As a radical and anti-establishment narrative, the conspiratorial view of history is risible, potentially dangerous and should be shown no quarter.

Breadbasket Africa

Here's an interesting piece from the latest New Scientist:

DOOM-MONGERS have got it wrong - there is enough space in the world to produce the extra food needed to feed a growing population. And contrary to expectation, most of it can be grown in Africa, say two international reports published this week.

The first, projecting 10 years into the future from last year's food crisis, which saw the price of food soar, says that there is plenty of unused, fertile land available to grow more crops.

"Some 1.6 billion hectares could be added to the current 1.4 billion hectares of crop land [in the world], and over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and Latin America," concludes the report, compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

If further evidence were needed, it comes in a second report, launched jointly by the FAO and the World Bank. It concludes that 400 million hectares, straddling 25 African countries, are suitable for farming.

Models for producing new crop land already exist in Thailand, where land originally deemed agriculturally unpromising, due to irrigation problems and infertile soil, has been transformed into a cornucopia by smallholder farmers.

As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.

Proof, as if it were needed, that the chaos of producing for markets dominated by foreign-based multinational capital is the root of the continent's food crisis.

The Limits of the Individual and Authority

In the previous discussion of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty we talked about the deleterious effects unchecked erosion of individual liberties has on human development. In the penultimate section of the essay, Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual, Mill asks a series of interrelated questions. Are their limits to individual sovereignty over one's self? At what point does the authority of society begin? Where does the individual and society exercise shared sovereignty - are the poles apart? The starting point for Mill is this; "to individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society" (1929, p.92). Easier said than done.

Unpacking this Mill turns to a social contract perspective. Despite its encroachment upon liberty society manages to afford individuals a measure of protection, in return for which it can reasonably expect a certain mode of conduct. This expectation does not injure individual interests, the sorts of responsibilities he had in mind - bearing a share of social responsibility and sharing the costs of society - can be unproblematically justified by the very act of preserving society. But also they can act as a benchmark for judging conduct. If the harm or injury caused by someone's conduct is less than the inconveniences social responsibility burdens the individual with then the appropriate sanction is punishment by opinion. If it is greater, then it's a matter for the law. What this means for individual conduct is as long as someone is "capable", they have the full freedom to act in a manner harmful to their self-interests, even if it is more damaging than the responsibility society levies.

This for Mill isn't a recipe for hard-heartedness - quite the contrary. He believes it's part of our general responsibility to promote good over ill and favour the cultivation of our higher faculties while avoiding the debauched and the degrading, and this includes a benevolence towards others. But that is where the line is drawn. We can promote good living, we cannot make it compulsory - even against those damaging themselves. For Mill the principle can be justified in terms of self-interest. The individual is the person most interested in their well-being. The interests others have in this, apart from close friends and family, is comparatively small. Therefore the interest society has in this well-being is less than even this and is necessarily indirect. The individual then has a greater understanding of the self than any other, meaning that not only do they have the right to exercise their spontaneity within generally accepted limits they are also the final judge of things that pertain to them. Regardless of how damaging or self-destructive they are, forcing behaviours on them is more injurious to liberty than anything they could do to themselves. Others are perfectly free to warn them and others of the dangers of their conduct, free make known their disapproval, free to avoid them, free to enforce customary (non-institutionalised) sanctions, but no freedom to force them to look after themselves. The flip side of this is (provided the individual is capable) there is no one but themselves to blame for their situation, and they have no cause to complain about the opprobrium they call down on their heads.

Obviously if the conduct injures others and infringes their liberty society reserves the right to apply legal sanctions. But, Mill asks, what if their behaviour causes to heap burdens indirectly onto the shoulders of others? Examples here would include making life difficult for dependents, causing unhappiness, reducing resources held in common by the community, and setting a damaging/subversive example. For Mill if it violates a distinct obligation then the demands of the obligation outweigh the liberty to discard it, but punishment and correction is a matter of those to whom the obligation is owed. Society should, as a rule, avoid getting enmeshed in such disputes.

A good example of this is religious liberty. While there should be freedom of religion, it should be accompanied by an equivalent freedom from religion. Communities of believers only have the right to morally enforce their doctrines on other believers. Sanctions that go beyond this, or attempts to extend them to non-believers is not in their interest as it invites resentment and opposition.

Mill's overall argument in this section is pretty simple and speaks for itself, but one problem is the vagueness he treats authority and society with. Society has a right under the social contract to enforce certain expectations, but what is society? Is it the state? Is this the only body with the legitimacy to compel people to meet the basic obligations of the social contract? And what about liberty and authority in a society riddled with conflicting classes and fractions of classes? These issues will be explored in the last piece in the series as Mill attempts to theorise practical applications for his philosophy.

Idolaters, Fornicators, Murderers ... Repent!

After doing regular Socialist Party stalls on Saturday mornings for a while, you get to know who the local mad heads are. Sometimes the entertainment is provided by a goggle-eyed charity joke book seller who approaches the great Potteries public with the line "I'm not a weirdo!" Or by a woman who often drops by our stall who credits Stoke SP for getting her laser eye treatment sorted on the NHS(!). We get the occasional fool who thinks things would have been better off under Hitler - cue much firm but patient explanation. There's another lad who drops by and insists on signing all our petitions stretching right back to our solidarity work with the Burslem 12. And from time to time a Workers' Power supporter tries to sell us a copy.

Unfortunately, our favourite devil-dodgers, Park Evangelical did not grace Hanley with their saintly presence today. But this isn't to mean souls weren't saved! That cross was bourn aloft by a solitary middle-aged woman who doled out fundamentalist Christian leaflets with meek abandon. And we're talking fundamentalist with a capital F here. She is to Park Evangelical what the cpgb-ml is to the Communist Party. 

While reading her leaflet I was struck by a stark similarity between it and much ultra-left propaganda - neither pay any attention to framing their ideas intelligently or relating them to existing (religious, political) consciousness.

But I was so taken with her compromising message (and grammar!) I couldn't resist preserving the leaflet's text for all eternity. Behold!


ULTIMATE
Time is running out on you
REPENT

Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. No one knows the date, month or year this world was created, no one knows the ending.

Gen.1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Rev.1 verse 8: I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending. Repent.
Rev 20: God has appointed a day in which he is going to judge the world, all nations.

What God is going to judge you for is sin. Stealing, lies, racism, adulterous fornication, idolatries, evil thoughts, murderers, drug users and pushers, lustful and rejecting Jesus Gods gift to you. Occult involvement such as fortune telling, witchcraft and palm readings. Repent or perish the choice is yours. This is a warning Jesus is coming soon. Repent. The animals in Noah's days went into the Ark and were safe, run to Jesus for safety because he is the only one that can save you. It does not matter what you have done for the love of God is more than your sins. He is waiting for you with open heart to receive you. Turn to him before it is too late. Time is running out on you. Repent.

You cannot say you have not been warned on the judgment day. Repent.

Lessons of Lindsey, Visteon and Linamar

The news of the clear victory at Lindsey Oil Refinery may have been lost among yesterday's coverage of Michael Jackson, but it will not have escaped the notice of labour movement activists. The dispute demonstrates how tightly organised workers backed by solidarity action can brush aside the anti-trade union laws and win a battle against a seemingly intransigent management.

Even before Thursday's welcome news the latest Socialist Party pamphlet, Lindsey, Visteon, Linamar: Lessons from the disputes of Spring 2009 was a timely publication. And though in a sense dated because it does not carry material from the recent events at Lindsey it remains a must read for all trade unionists and socialists.

The separate sections on Visteon and Linamar provide background to what's going on in the car industry. In short falling sales and overproduction are being seized upon by bosses to force through an industry-wide offensive determined to make workers pay for the crisis. Their favoured methods are slow downs and wage cuts - lays offs are supposed to be a last resort. Unfortunately most unions have accepted these measures without question, an acceptance that could weaken workforces when it comes to collective bargaining and defending existing conditions now and in the future.

Visteon, which was spun off from Ford in 2000, closed down its loss-making UK operation this year. It attempted to circumnavigate previous agreements with the workforce over the size of redundancy payments by simply tearing them up. Workers in Belfast, Enfield and Basildon were given just six minutes notice and were expected to melt away as Visteon/Ford paid over a measly redundancy and made off with their pension pot. In the pamphlet, Frank Jepson (Unite site convenor at Basildon and now SP member) gives a stirring account of the struggle to win back what Visteon/Ford owed them.

Linamar purchased its Swansea operation from Visteon less than a year ago. Rob Williams, Unite convenor and SP member threw himself into solidarity work with the occupations and struggles that broke out at the three remaining Visteon sites, and for his pains was summarily dismissed by Linamar management on grounds of an "irretrievable break down of trust". This of course was merely a pretext for getting rid of a trade unionist who had the temerity to not only stand up for workers' interests, but also had scored some important victories against management. Linamar believed that by removing Rob they would succeed in beheading the union in their factory. They were wrong. Thanks to impromptu wild cat action, strong union organisation and astute tactics Linamar caved in completely and Rob won his job back. The discussion in the pamphlet shows us how.

Finally, the Lindsey Oil Refinery dispute earlier this year was, from the standpoint of the left, probably the most controversial strike for many years. There is no use raking over the coals here seeing as this blog commented on the controversy at the time and is extensively discussed in the pamphlet itself. But is is suffice to say that this week's successful defence of the national agreement would not have happened without the winter stoppage. That's something those who were opposed or at best were luke warm toward the strike ought to consider when hailing this victory in the pages of their journals.

But above all, what all three of these successful struggles show is that where socialists are present or have an influence over the work force, the small forces of the far left can have a decisive influence.

The pamphlet is £1.50 or £2 including postage and packing. Buy online from Socialist Books, or order at PO Box 24697, London E11 1YD. Or ring 020 8988 8777.

Marxism and Michael Jackson's Death

Michael Jackson, the self-styled King of Pop is dead.

But why should a socialist bother caring? Aren't there better things to write about? Why not leave the coming orgy of retrospectives and comment to the hypocritical media?

It would be a mistake to ignore the passing of Michael Jackson for the same reason why the deaths of Jade Goody and Diana Windsor were analysed and commented on by Marxists: his life and death says a great deal about contemporary celebrity, which is a major hegemonic prop of advanced capitalist societies.

From a celebrity point of view, Michael Jackson's person was more or less in a league of his own. When I was growing up in the 1980s, the only other two pop megastars that could touch him in the fame stakes were Madonna and Prince. But Jackson was always a more alluring figure as far as the media were concerned. A household name from the age of six, his star shot into the stratosphere off the back of groundbreaking records that help define modern pop music - not least because Thriller remains the best-selling album ever. His celebrity assumed cult of personality proportions.

But celebrity began taking a darker turn at the moment Jackson reached the height of his powers. The Gods among us were placed on pedestals by the media, but this self-same media found began realising it was more in their commercial interests to knock it away. This was different from the gossip and muck-raking columns of the past. The new capriciousness achieved two seemingly contradictory but simultaneous moments of celebrity: of destroying its deifying aura, of using the media lens to cut celebrities down to size by revealing their all too human foibles; but paradoxically making celebrity more obtainable and more seductive, as a path to an easy life that trades the pressures of mundane life for a seemingly effortless existence in the spotlight.

And Michael Jackson's celebrity epitomises this shift. At the unassailable heights of his 80s career, tabloid stories began circulating about his erratic behaviour: Neverland, the oxygen chamber, the childlike behaviour, surgery, Bubbles - all rumours parodied by Jackson himself in his 1987 single Leave Me Alone. But as long as he churned out the megahits Jackson was able to incorporate the eccentricities into his aura, which served to mark him a star apart from the rest.

Though his career was past its peak by the time he released 1991's Dangerous, the almost crippling blow came from the initial set of child abuse allegations. Jackson never really recovered from this - partly because of the depth of the coverage, partly because the allegations were never comprehensively refuted in court. Though HIStory performed creditably, the media feeding frenzy around his life was matched only by the growing hubris of Jackson's celebrity, a hubris that saw him humiliated during his Christ-like performance of Earth Song by Jarvis Cocker on 1996's Brit Awards. His two year marriage to Lisa Marie Presley (widely seen as a cynical move to boost his "straight" credentials) was followed by a short-lived relationship to Deborah Rowe, the bizarre appearance of three children, the exposures by Martin Bashir and Louis Theroux and the second round of child abuse allegations finally and fatally compromised Jackson's aura to all but the most devoted die hard fans.

The passing of the corporeal Michael Jackson is a phase in the evolution of his celebrity. Already comparisons are being made with the late and very much lamented Elvis Presley, and it would be very surprising if he doesn't "ascend" to the disembodied state his ex-father in law has led these last 30 years. His celebrity will continue as it has done - it will fascinate, it will dazzle, it will feed the myth of individual (celebrity) redemption.

Friends, hangers on, journalists, and biographers will profitably mine Michael Jackson for many years to come. But peel away the artifice and grotesqueries there lies a real tragedy behind the fame. His death is a personal trauma for his family and young children, but marks an end to a deeply alienated life.

Model Lindsey Trade Union Motion

Please circulate as wide as possible and act on it.

Model TU resolution

Support Lindsey workers!

This union branch notes with utter disgust the mass sacking of 647 skilled construction workers by Total at the Lindsey Oil Refinery site.

Hundreds of Lindsey contract workers walked out on Thursday 11 June to stop 51 redundancies being imposed without consultation or the opportunity to transfer to another contractor, in breach of the NAECI national agreement.

This branch believes Total’s refusal to enter into negotiations and their mass sackings in response to the walk-out represents a conscious decision to take on unionised construction workers and break the NAECI agreement.

This branch fully supports those construction workers at other sites across the country that have downed tools and walked out in solidarity with Lindsey contract workers – this dispute is not just about getting all jobs back at Lindsey but is about defending trade union rights, standards of pay and conditions across the construction sector. It is a fight against the ‘race to the bottom’.

This branch affirms that this is a struggle every trade unionist, across the workers’ movement must support. Total are attempting to break a union so that they can run rough-shod over workers hard won rights and conditions, if they are successful it would set a precedent for other employers. If, however, the workers in Lindsey win it will set a shining example of how workers can stand up, organise and take on the bosses – an example we all hope to see at a time of economic crisis and recession when workers, more than ever, need strong trade unions to defend their interests.

This branch resolves to:

1) Send a message of support to Lindsey strikers at geminis@geminis.karoo.co.uk and doyle_a5@sky.com.
2) Make a donation of (insert amount) to the striker’s hardship fund.
3) Circulate a copy of this resolution to all union branch members and urge them to send personal messages of support and make personal donations to the strikers' hardship fund.
4) Participate in or organise a local blockade of a Total petrol station to raise the profile of the dispute and help show public support for workers at Lindsey and across the construction sector.