Stoke Mayoral Referendum: Vote Yes

This Thursday the people of Stoke-on-Trent are being asked to attend their local polling station. Should they do so, they will be met with this question:

Are you in favour of the proposal for Stoke-on-Trent City Council to be run in a new way, which includes a councillor, who will be elected by the councillors of Stoke-on-Trent to lead the Council and the community which it serves?

As far as Stoke Socialist Party is concerned, the vote should be yes. Earlier this year we wrote a letter to the anti-mayor Democracy 4 Stoke campaign, which explains some of our reasoning:

As socialists we believe democracy and socialism go hand in hand. We stand for the fullest democratisation possible, at international, national, regional and local levels. We also believe democracy needs to be extended, taking in everything from the workplace to the management of public services.

In Stoke and across the country, wherever there have been moves to set up presidential-style local mayors the Socialist Party has opposed it. This is because elected mayoral systems are the least responsive forms of local democracy possible. As we have seen in Stoke this has allowed the mayor’s office to dominate the council chamber to the detriment of the city’s education and local services provision.

The alternative offered by Democracy 4 Stoke is a step in the right direction, but does not go far enough. We would like to see the mayor’s office dismantled and replaced by a council chamber with increased powers, but subject to annual elections on a ward-by-ward basis. It is far less likely councillors will vote for cuts, school closures and privatisation if they have to get themselves re-elected more regularly. The Socialist Party also stands against the system of privileges available to councillors; such as generous expenses, large allowances for sitting on committees and so on.

Whilst democratic structures are of course important the policies of councillors and political parties are far more important. Therefore, whilst we support the fullest democratic structure we are totally opposed to job losses, cuts, closures and privatisation.

There are two main reasons for opposing the mayoralty, aside from the disastrous record of the office's two incumbents. To begin with the council leader and cabinet system is far from perfect, but is far more accountable to public pressure than an elected mayor. There are no mechanisms for accountability in between four-yearly elections and under the mayoral system councillors have little power. The mayor can safely ignore them and drive through whatever policy they wish. The only way the 'no' campaign can pretend their preference is more democratic is due to the appearance of greater democracy afforded by direct election, but in reality electing a mayor is choosing between who gets to dictate policy in Stoke for four years.

Then there is the anti-fascist argument. Put simply, it is more difficult for the BNP to win control of Stoke-on-Trent if we bring back the council leader system. And the fascists know it too, which is why they're opportunistically backing the 'no' campaign. If the council leader option is rejected then the BNP is in with a shout of winning the mayoral election due to take place May/June next year. Therefore the principled anti-fascist position is to vote yes. It won't stop the need to fight against their influence, but it will make the task of turning Stoke from the jewel in their crown into their political graveyard that little bit easier.

Short Adventures in Marxist Economics

I've been lucky enough to attend two discussions on economics these last couple of days, and I'm sure they won't be the last before the month is out. First of all was our weekly Socialist Students discussion, which we billed as 'what could a socialist economy look like?' Unfortunately, most of the discussion was spent on what one wouldn't look like, which, nevertheless was quite useful.

He gave us an introduction to some of the more sophisticated market-based objections to socialism. Going back to Marx's labour theory of value (last week) this theory was disputed by Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises in what came to be known as the economic calculation debate, and it turned on different theories of value. For Marx, though it is true the capitalists leach off the value realised by their expropriation of workers' surplus labour, it remains the case that the value of commodities is determined by the (simple) labour socially necessary for their production. Marx's critics however argued value could not be determined objectively. What counted was the usefulness of a commodity to consumers and it was this that determined value. Because value is subjective, it is impossible to set prices through any kind of economic planning. Such an agency cannot possibly know everyone's preferences, but the decentralised interplay of the market can, which is why, as far as they were concerned, the state needs to keep out of the economy. Any intervention would disrupt the delicate equilibrium and throw the whole thing into crisis.

Some of these issues have been addressed before. One interesting point came up in discussion about the ideological effects of the subjective theory of value. The labour theory of value has the advantage of simply determining the base value of any commodity at any given time, whereas marginal utility hides it behind a cloak of complexity. This confers capitalists an enormous amount of latitude on determining price. They can push price way above value or, when there is a glut, slash the price beneath it to either recoup costs and/or drive out rivals with less of a capital cushion. Price is a weapon for pursuing their material interests. Market forces and "complexity" is so much waffle to cover this.

Earlier today I attended an economics day school on the contemporary crisis. We were treated to sessions on sub prime lending, and theories of the American labour movement. Not being an economist I found them challenging to follow. But luckily they were ended by a session more suitable to a lay audience. Keith Tribe gave a talk entitled 'Marxism as a Critique of Bourgeois Economics', which was really one for Marx geeks and bibliophiles. His argument was quite simple. Back in the day when the Spiked/LM crowd traded openly as the RCP, they were said to argue one could not understand Marx's Capital unless it was read in the original German. Tribe had a different take. The 1872-5 French edition was the last revision Marx worked on that was published in his life time. What is important about it is the revision deals with material not incorporated into the translation widely available in the English-speaking world. Also, in his opinion, a 'Marxist economics' as such hasn't really been developed, which he defined as an enterprise engaging and critiquing mainstream economic theory. He approvingly cited Bukharin's 1919 book, Economic Theory of the Leisure Class, and Paul Sweezy's The Theory of Capitalist Development (1942) as examples, but that was all. As far as Tribe was concerned, a big gap in Marxist thinking needs to be filled. Perhaps we'd better start cracking then!

Riding High Upon a Deep Depression?

I guess our blogs might be documents future social historians could refer to when they talk about the great stock market crashes of 2008. In general left blogs have acquitted themselves well, in my opinion. There are no hostages to fortune, no predictions of imminent economic apocalypse or an unravelling of capitalist relations of production. Most I've seen have soberly analysed/commented on the crisis, noting its immediate impacts, the strategies open to governments and how capitalism might be reshaped in the longer term.

But what about left bloggers themselves? We're very good setting out what we're thinking, but what are we feeling? I guess it's something we're not used to talking about seeing as we are part of an activist culture that always tempers moral outrage with scientific analysis. But then there's the question of how to feel when it comes to something as large as this crisis. For most of our class at present (and leaving aside the ridiculous increases in food prices this past year) it is something intangible and abstract, and whatever we might be feeling right now is not yet coloured by the misery and despair crisis drags in its wake. But I am going to stick my neck out, and say a few things that might come back and haunt me at a later date.

Despite the scale of what's unfolding before our eyes, I'm not feeling the same sense of foreboding that clouded my brain in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. I cannot avoid schadenfreude. It feels good to see the arrogant financiers, bankers and other witch doctors of voodoo economics despair as their world crashes around them. Its pleasing to see Thatcherite dogma disintegrate in the face of great events as the free marketeers of yesterday go cap in hand to previously neoliberal governments for bail outs. And very, very satisfying to see these former masters of the universe thrash around for some kind of explanation, no matter how absurd.

But there's more than a touch of self-satisfaction. I'm filled with a sense of political optimism I haven't felt in a long time. Can one have the audacity to hope, again? What is sure is the old neoliberal certainty is gone, even if its rotten stench might linger around for a while yet. But there is a new space for ideas. Keynes has been disinterred from his crypt and the necromancy of the 'new' state intervention is reanimating his ideas. But more importantly the spectre of Marx is abroad once again, haunting the nightmares of the bourgeoisie. The attempts at exorcism by the likes of Simon Heffer and Rowan Williams just go to show how anxious they are.

In this period of ideological flux there is an opening of political space that hasn't meaningfully existed in Britain since Labour's defeat at the 1992 general election. There are new opportunities for socialism to provide answers and alternatives to new audiences, and deep down every socialist knows this. If you do have a bit of a spring in your step, there's no need to feel guilty about it because millions are facing unemployment and hardship. Embrace that feeling, get active and organise!

Socialism and the Law

Recently Jim did a tally of the socialist books that had the biggest impact on him, sparking off a short meme followed on several other blogs. I was too busy to join in the fun at the time, but, if you would be so kind to indulge me, there's one book (among others) that has left a lasting impression on my appreciation of socialist politics, and that is Ralph Miliband's Socialism for a Sceptical Age. I don't think its publication received much comment at the time, probably because academic leftism was plumbing the depths of postmodern nihilism, neoliberalism was hegemonic and socialist ideas were in retreat. But now capitalism is convulsed by its most severe crisis in almost 80 years and its favoured ruling ideology lies in tatters, there's no better time for socialists to set out our stall. And, in my opinion, Miliband's book can help us do just that.

Its also worth noting Marx and Engels avoided speculating about the course future socialist societies could take, with good reason. Both grew up in a political context dominated by the schemes and blueprints of utopian socialists. Unlike the utopians, Marx and Engels argued socialism is a real movement in capitalist society, which is negatively realised in increased corporate and state planning (which the system as a whole is dependent on), and the consciousness of world wide labour movements today. We cannot predict in detail the conditions under which socialism becomes victorious nor the specific problems it has to overcome. But this doesn't mean revolutionary socialists should avoid thinking beyond sloganeering and 'building the party'.

There are three key chapters in Miliband's book dealing with socialist democracy, politics and economics and he teases out a series of general problems and contradictions the building socialist societies are likely to encounter, despite the different contexts and political traditions that vary from country to country. These for Miliband are the relationship between law and democratisation, the tension between the need for strong governance, democracy and constitutional checks and balances, where public (socialised) property ends and private property begins, and problems of bureaucratic organisation. In this short piece I'll take a quick look at some general issues regarding socialism and the law, and leave other matters for future posts.

As a classless society will not be ushered in over night, a variety of contradictions and conflicts will remain when power has been won by our class. Law in some form will be needed for all kinds of reasons - to institutionalise and legitimise the new constitutional set up for one, specifying the remits of democratically constituted bodies, individual and collective rights, definitions of socialised property, etc. This is in addition to the more 'mundane' functions it performs in the present day regarding crime, redress, adjudication of disputes and remedies. Miliband suggests this will require we retain a feature of capitalist jurisprudence - an independent judiciary.

However, though this will be superficial in form (we cannot say whether wigs will be retained) it will be very different in content. For starters it must be *democratically* expunged of the reactionary politics and prejudices the judiciary have accumulated over the decades. It must go from being a bastion of the old order to the legal guarantor of the new, while nevertheless preserving its independence. No doubt this will be difficult, but it is an important principle to retain. One danger a fledgling socialist society could face is the arbitrary exercise of power. If a government is to be more democratic and accountable than anything capitalism can devise, the power of judicial review can be built into this accountability process. In other words, instead of acting as a break on democratic aspirations it can act to enhance them.

But how to ensure an independent judiciary do not over reach themselves and become an organised political opposition? There are a number of lessons from the US experience with elected judges that may be useful. For example, fixed term elections and/or the banning of the judiciary from political activity might be considered. Also as the law is revised to reflect the passing away of class society, its arcane and overly complex character could be simplified, making it more accessible to the lay person. Making everyone a legal professional so there are no legal professionals may be a long way off, but it is a first step on that road, and it opens judicial decisions to wider scrutiny.

There are other ways of administering the law that could bypass the need for a judiciary. For example, it is possible there may be a rotation of magistrates in the same way juries are randomly selected from the population for minor cases, and an expansion of the remit of juries and maybe an increase in grand juries. Whatever the case, the building of socialism will be a time of legal experimentation and innovation likely to draw millions into determining the rules of their self-governance, a process so far unparalleled in history.

SWP Demand Stoke Anti-Fascists Pay £1,800

I write the following in my capacity as an individual member of North Staffs Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (NorSCARF).

Back in late July, when a posse of UAF (i.e. SWP) visited Stoke for a leafleting session in Bentilee (one of two wards in the city where the BNP have all three councillors), Weyman Bennett delivered Stoke Socialist Party a lecture on anti-fascism. We weren't comfortable with the liberal finger-wagging tone of the leaflets, and said we'd be handing out our own. Weyman replied the bottom line for him was the building of a broad-based coalition against the fascists.

Since then the SWP in its UAF and LMHR guises have been coming up to Stoke for the odd event. UAF have had a stall at Stoke gay pride, spoke at meetings of the local anti-fascist group, NorSCARF, played a part organising the September 20th rally and carnival against the BNP, and last weekend's 75-strong discussion of anti-fascist strategy. Unfortunately, far from aiding the cause of unity the SWP/UAF/LMHR have done everything to rub NorSCARF activists up the wrong way.

The first problem has been the question of personnel. The SWP's two local activists are friendly and well-liked comrades, who have tact, patience, sensitivity and local understanding; in short, the qualities needed for coalition building. Sadly, neither were in a position to work for the UAF and/or LMHR full time. I say sadly because the SWP sent up a party worker totally devoid of these attributes. Bunny Laroche, a full timer who previously excelled herself by making the SWP's name mud in Kent, has spent the odd week in Stoke as a 'LMHR organiser'. At the gay pride festival a local activist was selling UAF t-shirts she had personally purchased to raise funds for NorSCARF. As this was in direct competition with her own similarly decked out UAF stall, she accused the activist of stealing them from her. She then changed tack and said she was "not allowed" to sell the shirts and demanded they be removed. She was ignored.

Bunny came into her unpleasant element again when she ran up against Stoke SP comrades. She went from sweetness and light at the founding meeting of North Staffs NSSN to an aggressive bully at the anti-fascist rally held a few days later. When we turned up at the rally with our banner she *commanded*(!) we take it down because "it was agreed" no party banners or placards were allowed (we refused). Needless to say her concern for this spurious agreement (if indeed it ever existed) evaporated when her fellow SWP'ers disembarked their coaches and broke out their SWP-branded 'Smash the BNP' plaques. Then at last week's debate, she harassed our paper sellers and leafleters by telling them where and when they could/couldn't sell/leaflet, led the charge in shouting down - with some Labour people - one of our comrades who pointed out the rise of the BNP in Stoke might have something to do with the identikit policies of the mainstream parties, snapped at the coffee attendant to make sure one of our comrades paid for his drink, and curled her lip at the activist on the NorSCARF stall - for the crime of daring to carry Searchlight material. It beggars belief someone obviously unsuited to this kind of work, let alone a full time position in a socialist organisation, has been so appointed. What does this say about the SWP?

Weyman Bennett hasn't exactly covered himself, the UAF or the SWP in glory either. At the debate, he took a local Labour activist to one side and told her to "be careful" because "the SP will try and take NorSCARF over". Physician, heal thyself! Seeing as NorSCARF and the SP/Militant branch have a history of consistent activity in the Potteries going back 30+ years, you might think we would have done it by now if we were so minded! But far more serious than Weyman's silly sectarianism is the SWP's bypassing of local anti-fascists when it comes to the actions of the day. At the last NorSCARF meeting Weyman attended, he assured us UAF were going to take a back seat on the 20th September. They were going to be there to support its decisions. But in practice, it was very much the other way round. Two routes were agreed from the vigil/rally point to the carnival with the police, depending on the numbers turning up. One meant going through the city centre if there were under 50 people, and avoiding it if more came along. Approximately 200 went on the march, which meant the latter route came into play. However, it seems the SWP had other plans. As it set off its activists rushed to the front of the demo without any consideration for the NorSCARF banner (where has that happened before?) Then in defiance of the agreed plan the SWP tried to break through police lines to try and march through Hanley. As well as trampling on NorSCARF's wishes, there were children on the demo too, so trying to provoke the police into a ruck wasn't the wisest of moves.

The icing on the SWP/UAF/LMHR cake was announced at last Monday's NorSCARF meeting. During the debate a couple of days before, the PCS rep announced to much applause that the union would be donating £2,000 to NorSCARF in recognition of its vital work against the BNP. It seems the announcement was noted by Weyman and Bunny too, as an itemised bill bearing LMHR's name was received by NorSCARF on Monday morning demanding almost £1,800! Of course, it was the first anyone heard we were going to be charged for LMHR's assistance. After all, the far left isn't in the general habit of getting involved in solidarity actions and campaigns and billing them for our work, so why is this different? A trade union rep who regularly attends the Stoke LMHR group has confirmed its deliberations have never discussed charging NorSCARF. Only those who compiled and sent the bill know why they did, but whatever the reason they have successfully pissed away the goodwill of the majority of NorSCARF activists. Another job well done, comrades!

You can almost see it now. Undoubtedly some will feign offence and incredulity that I bring this story to public attention in times such as these. But tough. There is a real political crisis in Stoke. If the BNP's ambitions aren't thwarted here the city can be their springboard into the political big time, which, given the political volatility that is sure to follow the economic crisis, could be dangerous for us all. To be blunt the stakes are too high for the SWP's arrogant and alienating shenanigans, and until it learns to act differently its shoddy behaviour deserves exposure in front of the entire movement.

Crisis Talk

Keele Socialist Students got together on a wind swept Tuesday evening to talk economics, Marx and the crisis. Due to a cock up it fell to me to provide some talking points for the discussion. As someone who hasn't opened my copy of Capital for some time nor has anything but a rudimentary knowledge of economics, I gave my advanced apologies for mangling basic Marxist concepts and my understanding of Neo-Classical economics and Keynesianism on crisis.

I began with the observation that bourgeois economics believes buying and selling tends toward an equilibrium. Take the relationship between profit rates and interest rates, for example. If investment falls, so does the demand for investment funds (i.e. loans), which drives down the cost of credit and makes investment an attractive option. It is therefore the job of monetary policy to stand guard over this balance. If it does become unbalanced and go into crisis, then some external event has upset it, which can either be government policy, the distorting effects of monopolies, "unscrupulous" individuals, etc. Keynes did not differ that much from the Neo-Classical position, except for him weak institutional arrangements cause disequilibria in markets, therefore all that is required is occasional nudges here and interventions there by the state to ensure things remain rosy.

Marxism has a different view of crisis. It rejects the neo-classical assumptions of economic behaviour, which treats its as an aggregate of individual buyers and sellers. Instead it analyses capitalism as a system, an interconnected totality that goes beyond the immediate buying and selling of the market place to the class relations of capitalist production that underpin it. Therefore crisis is a sytemic property of the type of society we live in.

For example, one Marxist approach to crisis - underconsumption - looks at the position of the working class in capitalist production. The working class, generally speaking, sells its labour power for a period of time to their employers (capitalists) in exchange for a wage. Legally speaking, this is a relationship freely entered into by both parties, which can be terminated by either at any time. It is an equal relation. But as far as Marx was concerned, the legal fiction of equality obscures the very unequal relationship between the two. This is because the worker is not paid the full value of their labour power. To illustrate, assume Brother S gets a factory job at the minimum wage working part time for 10 hours a week. In that time our comrade earns approximately £58 while producing commodities worth £174. Also assume £58 is enough to keep Brother S in green tea and ciggies for a week, in other words, an amount sufficient to reproduce himself as a worker. Therefore if Brother S was paid the full value of his labour, he would only need to work for around three hours and 20 minutes. But because he doesn't and works for ten hours, that's six hours and 40 minutes unnecessary surplus labour. The £116 surplus value accrues to the employer, who uses it to pay off loans, rent, bills, etc. The remainder minus other costs is profit. It follows that no matter how hard Brother S works for his employer, even doing overtime at time and a half, he will never be as wealthy as the firm nor will he be able to buy back all the commodities he's produced, only a proportion. If we extrapolate from Brother S to the working class at large, there comes a point where the disproportion of proletarian purchasing power and the realisation of surplus value by the capitalists become so great that the system is thrown into crisis, firms go to the wall and capital and commodities alike are destroyed.

Related to, but not entirely identical to this approach are Marxist theories of overproduction. This emphasises not the relation between labour and capital, but between rival capitals. In their competition with each other over market share they are compelled to make their operations more efficient and profitable by introducing new technique and intensifying the rate of exploitation. For example, Brother S may be required to work on a new machine that produces more, realising more surplus value; or he might have to work an extra hour for no additional pay or take on other tasks in conjunction with his basic duties. As competition intensifies between firms they are compelled to out produce their rivals or face going to the wall. Those that manage to develop some kind of edge, in terms of efficiency savings, technological advantage and/or superior market position will win out. The problem here is two-fold. The forces of production are developed without a direct relationship to markets, leading to a tendency to produce beyond actual demand and glutting them with cheap or unsaleable commodities. And the production arms race demands greater funds are sunk in the latest technique, leading to a diminishing proportion of surplus value that is realised as profit. Production becomes less profitable and the squeeze is put on wages, once again circumscribing proletarian purchase power, meaning the tendency to crisis is organic to the way capitalism operates.

There are ways of postponing capitalism's crisis tendencies. One is finding new markets, another is extending cheap credit, and, as we know, it is the faltering of the latter that has brought the present crisis upon our heads. Having a stab at explaining it, I suggested that if you look at Britain under the Neoliberal consensus disproportionality has come to a head. It has been boom time for big business and the super rich but real wages have stagnated, bumping along with the rate of inflation. But credit has been very cheap and has allowed millions - businesses and people - to live beyond their means. The paralysis in finance can be traced to the creeping fear that as wages have continued to stagnate, question marks over credit, loans and mortgage repayments. The banks have realised their financial position is quite precarious and are no longer inclined to lend out of fear of defaulting. Without this lending the financial system as a whole has frozen up, and those that needed loans to continue trading have either been nationalised, taken over, or met a sticky end.

It's not difficult to see the negative impacts on the "real" economy. Credit becomes more expensive, which threatens the profitability of business and hardship to millions as they struggle to meet mortgage and/or other credit repayments. And this is without factoring likely sharp increases in unemployment. Plus from a stock market point of view expectations of future earnings are depressed, which will wipe billions off the price of shares and shrink the value of pensions.

Social disaster is the epitaph history is chiselling on to Neoliberalism's grave stone.

The discussion was very wide ranging and took in a number of issues. For example, the plight of working class people who find themselves thrown onto an increasingly competitive labour market with "obsolete" skills; whether governments should at all be stepping in to save the financial system; and, in light of each country's panicky scramble to save their banks, if the European Union can author a collective response to the crisis.

There were a couple of points I found particularly interesting. First is the hunt for new markets. The invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan afforded new business opportunities to Western firms - will the demand for new markets realise itself in more acts of "humanitarian" imperialism? And what of conflict between the great powers? How will rivalry between the EU, USA and China play itself out in Africa, for instance? And while everyone is busy talking up the latter as a new global hegemon, what about the maturation of India's giant economy? Will there be renewed rivalry between it and its neighbour to the north east?

And what about the future of capitalism itself? No one is saying the system itself has collapsed, rather what has gone down the tubes is a particular way of organising capitalism. It is too early to tell what could replace it, though a number of participants flagged up the possibility of a more regulated capitalism, albeit it without the welfare and full employment commitments of post-war Keynesian capitalism. It's also likely that Neoliberalism will continue to cast its shadow. Nationalisation may have made an unwelcome comeback in the mainstream political lexicon, but there's no sign New Labour's creeping privatisation of the state assets remaining in the public domain is letting up. In fact the need for new markets may be such that the process could be sped up, with the state dangling a few sweeteners capital's way to entice it on board. That is unless an increase in class struggle prevents them from doing so.

Politically, there will be moments when the crisis will be an opportunity for socialists. But the same applies to the far right also. The situation is fluid, but, the meeting agreed, the way forward for socialist politics now is by rebuilding the trade unions, assisting in workers' struggles, rooting ourselves in our class and publicising the socialist message as far and as wide as we can.

Another Black Monday

The question is, how many more will there be?

FTSE 100 - 4589.19, -391.06 (-7.85%)

Dax - 5387.01, -410.02 (-7.07%)

Cac 40 - 3711.98, -368.77 (-9.04%)

Dow Jones - 9955.50, -369.88 (-3.58%)

Nasdaq - 1862.96, -84.43 (-4.34%)

NorSCARF Debates Strategy

Feels like all I blog about these days are sex shows on TV and anti-fascist stuff. And I see no reason not to continue, especially as the movement in Stoke against the BNP seems to grow by the day. For instance, who could have envisaged 75 people would turn out for a North Staffs Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (NorSCARF) discussion about fighting the BNP in Stoke? Proof again the forces of anti-fascism far outnumber those available to the local BNP - but how can we organise this numerical superiority into a decisive strategic advantage?

I must say the contribution of Mark Fisher, Labour MP for Stoke Central, was surprisingly good. He got straight to the heart of the matter – it is not enough we have a broad united coalition campaigning against the fascists, we have to win the support base of the BNP away from their politics. Just fixing the Nazi pin on the fascist donkey is not up to the task. The likes of Elly Walker, a BNP councillor for Abbey Green, might go on television and own up to being a ‘racialist’, and Steve Batkin can openly question the Holocaust in the local paper, but the majority of their support already know this. It doesn't mean thousands of BNP voters have become out and out fascists, instead their profile has beeen built on a combination of appearing to stand up for white working class people and pursuing pavement politics on the ground. Challenging them requires calm and patient explanation (had Fisher been reading an old Militant training manual?) Also, we should not be shy of pointing out the damaging effects of BNP support. There are signs newly trained teachers and local government workers are starting to give Stoke a wide berth, including some in the council who are already moving on. That’s not counting the business case against the BNP – more councillors and/or a BNP mayor will not do investment in the Potteries any good.

Jason Hill, NorSCARF president, said we shouldn’t be under any illusions about the character of the local BNP’s leadership. When the party was run by the absurd figure of John Tyndall, it traded as an openly racist and fascist outfit. The core cadre, people like Batkin and Michael Coleman were recruited under this regime, so there is still some utility in using the fascist and Nazi labels. Jason then moved on to the question of the mayoral referendum and election. At present a directly elected mayor and an unelected council manager run Stoke city council. The government has demanded this system changes, so on October 22nd the question of local governance will be put to referendum. The options are the retention of the mayoral system with a cabinet made up of councillors, or a council leader (elected from the chamber) and cabinet. The BNP have opportunistically supported the former option, because they know they can better concentrate their resources during a mayoral campaign than fighting many separate contests in the council elections. Though NorSCARF cannot have any position on the referendum, this is worth keeping in mind.

We then heard from a collection of trade union speakers. Ann Jarvis from the Midlands NASUWT said a silent majority in Stoke were opposed to the BNP’s bigotry. Confronting them means challenging racism, not letting Islamophobic stories in the press pass without comment and getting trade unions back into community organising. Fi Woods of Staffs Uni Students’ Union said she was working toward making students aware of the responsibilities as citizens and using their votes to keep racism out. Andrew Lloyd of the PCS said unions have to face up to the reality that trade union members are voting for the BNP too. To this end the PCS is putting on courses to educate work place reps about racism and the far right so they are better equipped to take on the arguments in the workplaces, doorsteps and pubs.

Atica Rahman, a local youth worker argued that the best way of challenging the BNP is by taking on racism, as this can indirectly eat into their support. But to do this we must understand what the BNP are saying, how they put their arguments across and what we can do to counter it. He also singled out The Sentinel for the favourable coverage the BNP receives – for example despite the BNP’s “protest” a couple of weeks ago being dwarfed many times over by the anti-fascist counter mobilisation and carnival, guess who got the headlines?

The final platform speaker of the day was Weyman Bennet, once again wearing his UAF hat. He began by noting there were many more on our side then theirs. And when you look at what's on their side, it isn't pretty, supporters like Robert Cottage (who stood as a BNP candidate three times) convicted for possessing a large haul of explosives. But we also must be clear the BNP see Stoke as their launching pad. If they win the mayoralty it will give them a national platform far above anything they've so far achieved. Those are the stakes. Our job is to make NorSCARF the focus of the resistance to the BNP, and called for a conference to plan the necessary work.

Contributions from the floor were a mixed, but nevertheless interesting, bag. Some argued that we have to spell out why the BNP are bad news, but at the same time we have to avoid putting out a relentlessly negative message. Another activist who works with Stoke Forum of the Faiths complained the aggressive language of "fighting" and "smashing" the BNP was putting off more involvement from faith groups. If one wasn't feeling charitable, you could suggest this is an *excuse* not to do more. After all, what's stopping the forum from putting out their own anti-fascist literature? I was more inclined to agree with a SWP comrade who observed we can't "tickle the BNP into submission".

Other contributors complained about the disgraceful behaviour of the council bureaucracy toward anti-fascist activity. One teacher told the meeting that an email was sent from Child Services to the city's head teachers directing their staff not to attend the 20th September anti-fascist rally and carnival. A similar message was sent out to youth workers too. One activist reported how a council boss prevented her from leaving anti-racist and anti-fascist literature at a local youth club supposedly because it was "political". It seems as the BNP's councillor tally grows so do the predilections of the petty-minded bureaucrat.

We also heard from local LibDem and Labour councillors. A couple of LibDems complained about declining rates of voluntary community participation, which has given the BNP something to exploit, while a Labour member launched into a defence of their record in office. But this was nothing compared to the storm called down upon the head of A from Stoke Socialist Party. He made the innocuous and undeniable observation that BNP support can in part be traced to pro-cuts, pro-privatisation policies of the three mainstream parties. Power doesn't like truth spoken to it and he was forced to curtail his contribution under shouts from Labour hecklers, none of whom are noted for their regular attendance at NorSCARF meetings.

The meeting broke up resolved to organise a coordinating conference and continue campaigning in the mean time.

It seems to me NorSCARF is caught between two anti-fascist strategies. The first favoured by Labour, most trade unions and the UAF/LMHR/SWP is about mobilising non-BNP voters in an attempt to swamp the latter's support. Hence the liberal anti-Nazi pleas and lowest common denominator politics. The evidence is very patchy whether it succeeds in doing this, though it is worthwhile noting the BNP wins councillors on the basis of low turn outs. There's no reason why this electoral-based strategy shouldn't work, especially if sharper material is used. But we need to be honest about its limitations. It is a stop gap, a sticking plaster and will not "smash" the BNP.

The second strategy, articulated here by Mark Fisher, long backed by the Socialist Party and pioneered in the Labour party by Jon Cruddas is about winning support away from the BNP, addressing the concerns of the people who back them and articulating positive, progressive policies. This is an explicitly political strategy and one which cannot be assimilated by a cross-party grouping like NorSCARF.

They can compliment one another to a degree, but one is about checking the BNP and the other aims at decisively defeating them. At some point down the line every anti-fascist has to ask themselves which it is to be?

Introducing Leon Trotsky

It was my turn again to deliver a lead off at this evening's branch meeting of Stoke Socialist Party. For the occasion I dusted off a two year old lead off and subjected comrades to an introductory look at the life and work of Leon Trotsky.

Trotsky was – along with Lenin – a principal leader of the October revolution. Born in 1879 as Lev Bronstein, Trotsky came from a well-to-do peasant background and was, according to his autobiography, attracted to revolutionary politics at a young age and these activities swiftly caught the attention of the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police. Trotsky was imprisoned and exiled to Siberia for helping organise a union among workers in Odessa in the late 1890s. A couple of years into the exile Trotsky escaped and made his way to London, where he met Lenin for the first time. He was present at the historic split between the Bolshevik and Menshevik wings of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903.

The split between the two was over a question of organisation. Lenin favoured a centralised party characterised by a disciplined approach to activism (a tradition the Socialist Party and others on the revolutionary left stand in). The Mensheviks on the other hand advocated a looser form of organisation regards the level of commitment the party can expect from its members and the extent to which members are bound by its collective decisions. A more or less laissez faire attitude to discipline is historically associated with labour and social democratic parties. As the Lenin wing of the party managed to secure the majority of delegates at this debate (though only just), they assumed the name ‘Bolshevik’ to denote their being the majority.

Trotsky’s position on the party question was sympathetic toward the Mensheviks, but remained independent of them by virtue of their contradictory perspectives on the coming Russian revolution. For the Mensheviks the coming revolution was to be bourgeois in character. Their starting point was that early 20th century Russia was a backward nation ruled over by an autocratic monarchy dependent on an aristocracy whose power rested on land ownership. Mechanically applying Marx’s view that advanced nations showed backward countries a vision of their future; the Mensheviks argued Russia had to head down the road of capitalist development before it would be ready for socialist revolution. Therefore the role of Russian socialists and the working class was to assist the emerging bourgeoisie in overthrowing the Tsar, allow the capitalists to set up a parliamentary democracy, and wait for socialism after a period of development.

For Trotsky this was naïve, abstract, and paid no attention to the actual play of class relations. Whereas the working class was small but well organised, the capitalist class was even smaller and compromised by its ties to the aristocracy and Tsarist state bureaucracy. How could the bourgeoisie possibly lead a revolution against its sponsors, partners, business cronies, and friends? This led Trotsky to predict that in the course of a Russian revolution, the capitalists would act as a brake on the unfolding process. The working class would have to take leadership of the revolution themselves because the bourgeoisie were incapable of doing so. Once in power the working class would be responsible for developing the forces of production. To secure their power private property in land and the means of production would steadily be eroded as greater proportions of the economy come under working class political control. Capitalist counterrevolution recedes as more property is socialised and the revolution is made permanent, hence Trotsky's term ‘permanent revolution’.

In 1905 this perspective informed Trotsky's activities, and was borne out by the events of that year. In the aftermath of Russia’s disastrous war with Japan the country was convulsed by revolutionary crisis. In St. Petersburg it assumed the form of dual power, whereby the local apparatus of the Tsarist state was challenged by a soviet – a workers' council elected by and directly responsible to the workers of the city. It was to Trotsky’s credit that he saw this soviet as a workers' state in embryo and sought to intervene in it. Upon his arrival from Finland Trotsky was quickly elected chair and proceeded to organise for the overall assumption of government. Unfortunately the soviet was broken up by Tsarism and Trotsky was arrested just as the revolutionary tide began to ebb. The following years between 1905 and 1917 were, after yet another escape from custody, a long period of exile. But what Trotsky took with him was a confirmation of permanent revolution and the need for the working class to organise itself independently.

When revolution broke out in Russia in February 1917 Trotsky made back in St. Petersburg (patriotically renamed Petrograd) from New York. In July of that year he believed the Bolsheviks had come round to the theory of permanent revolution when the party raised ‘All Power to the Soviets!’ as their slogan, and so he joined and was very rapidly promoted up the ranks. When the Bolshevik deputies had secured a majority in the Petrograd soviet, Trotsky was once again elected its chair. As a party member and in his capacity as the soviet’s chair, he was responsible for planning the seizure of power against the weak provisional bourgeois government, and on November 7-8 (our calendar) it was under his command that the military units at the soviet’s disposal stormed the government’s headquarters in the Winter Palace and dispersed it.

The revolution in Petrograd was an almost bloodless affair – famously more people were injured in Sergei Eisenstein’s film adaptation of the taking of the Winter Palace than the actual event! But elsewhere the uprising was more bloody – Moscow for instance was the scene of heavy fighting before the Bolsheviks finally prevailed. However the emergent red army successfully fought off an attempt to retake Petrograd by the Cossacks and loyalist troops and the Bolsheviks were installed as the soviet’s governing party, in coalition with the left wing if the Socialist Revolutionary peasant party.

Initially Trotsky was awarded the People’s Commissar for foreign affairs. His first act was to publish all the secret treaties the Tsar and the provisional government had entered into, exposing to the world Allied war aims, which were a territorial redivision of the world to suit themselves at the expense of the Central Powers. This act simultaneously repudiated any treaty obligations Russia had entered into during the conflict, including the loans secured by the Tsar to pay for armaments. Trotsky’s main task during this period was to negotiate with Germany and Austro-Hungary a Russian withdrawal from the war.

This was the topic of much debate. The left of the Bolsheviks, headed at that time by Nikolai Bukharin and backed by the Left SRs advocated a revolutionary war against Germany, and were absolutely opposed to a peace treaty. Lenin and the majority on the other hand argued for drawing out the negotiating process as long as possible for maximum propaganda value. But in the event of Germany issuing an ultimatum, they were for a treaty because at that time Russia was too weak to fend off an attack and the German working class were not in a position to overthrow their bourgeoisie. Trotsky’s own position was somewhere between the two: he agreed with the majority that Russia was in no fit state to continue the struggle but also recognised a peace treaty – complete with indemnities, ceding of territory, and so on, would constitute a blow against soviet power. Therefore he argued that the government should refuse to sign, and hope German soldiers would refuse to fight their working class sisters and brothers. Events cut the debate short. After pursuing Trotsky’s policy Germany and Austria warned they would resume hostilities unless a treaty was signed. Upon resumption of military activities and the poor performance of the Red Army in the field against them Lenin was able to win a majority vote on the central committee in favour of a peace at any price. Trotsky resigned his position a month later.

With the weaknesses of the Red Army laid bare for all to see Trotsky was immediately appointed People’s Commissar for Army and Navy affairs and set about reorganising the military, controversially appointing generals from the old Tsarist army (albeit under strict supervision from officers loyal to the party). Trotsky also became famous as a revolutionary strategist and was a regular visitor to frontlines throughout the long and bloody civil war. His armoured train became a potent symbol of the red army. Once again Trotsky’s tenure was not without difficulties. Among the controversies was a clash with Stalin (who at that time occupied a junior position vis a vis Trotsky) over strategic and personnel issues.

By 1921 the civil war was more or less over and found Trotsky at the height of his influence in the Soviet Union. But almost immediately he was embroiled in what became known as the ‘trade union debate’. With Russia’s transport infrastructure in ruins Trotsky was tasked with restoring them to full working order. For this to be done he argued the militarisation of labour was necessary. This meant the trade unions would be incorporated into the state apparatus and be the bodies responsible for instilling discipline and carrying out orders. Lenin was opposed to this, arguing labour discipline was only possible via the consent of workers and not through bureaucratic feat. Because the debate was particularly fractious some feared it could lead to a split in the party, so after Lenin’s victory at the 10th party congress delegates voted to temporarily ban factions. Though Trotsky supported this measure at the time, he came to realise his folly as Stalin used the measure to censure and ban his political opponents. In addition at the end of the congress Trotsky rushed to Petrograd to coordinate the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising: a rebellion by anarchist influenced sailors.

Shortly thereafter Lenin’s health significantly deteriorated and was forced to spend more time away from Moscow. In his absence Stalin in his capacity as general secretary of the party was able to build up his base of support in the state apparatus via a system of favours and patronage. Stalin and his allies' chief target was of course Trotsky, who due to his stature and popularity with the armed forces was widely seen as Lenin’s heir apparent. The ensuing intrigue and struggle reached Lenin’s ears, who offered an alliance with Trotsky to use the 12th party congress in 1923 as an opportunity to remove Stalin over his brutal invasion and incorporation of Georgia into the USSR. However though Trotsky agreed, he instead made use of his time at the congress to discuss inner party democracy without criticising Stalin and his cronies. It was a fateful mistake.

Almost immediately the issue of party democracy became a political hot potato. Trotsky, marginalised from effective decision making, took the lead in building a network calling for the restoration of democracy and a halt to the bureaucratisation of state and party. Stalin and his supporters though were able to use their positions to ensure party decision making bodies were for the most part staffed with placemen. This ensured votes on proposals put forward by what came to be known as the Left Opposition were, with one or two exceptions, defeated across the party.

The ideas that were associated with ‘Trotskyism’ on the one hand and ‘Stalinism’ on the other rapidly crystallized and set the tone for the next phase of political struggle in 1924. Whereas Trotsky argued the orthodox Marxist view that socialism could only happen once capitalism had succumbed to workers power internationally, while Bukharin and Stalin fundamentally revised Marxism by arguing the building of socialism in one country was possible. Furthermore the publication of Trotsky’s Lessons of October sparked controversy over the roles various Bolsheviks had played during 1917 and after. Unfortunately for Trotsky an illness prevented him from answering the slanders Stalin and his allies flung at him, and was, as a result removed from his Red Army posts. He was quickly appointed to several minor ministries overseeing science and technology, and took a year-long break from politics.

Again this was another mistake. During his absence two of Stalin’s key allies – Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev fell out with him, but Trotsky due to his isolation was unable to take full immediate advantage of the split. Eventually they pooled their forces and came to be known as the ‘United Opposition’, and acted as an anti-Stalin faction in the party between 1925-7. The main issues again were party democracy, and the inept advice given to Chinese communists during the course of the 1925-31 revolution. Again Stalin’s firm grip on the apparatus meant the opposition was never really a danger to him, but as a foretaste of what was to come its activists were subject to harassment, visits from the secret police, and in some cases arrest. By the end of the struggle Trotsky and Zinoviev were expelled from the central committee, and then from the party itself. Kamenev suffered a similar fate, as did the tens of thousands of opposition activists across the country. That year’s 25th party congress decided that holding the opposition’s views were incompatible with party membership. Shortly thereafter Trotsky was exiled to Alma Ata in Kazakhstan, followed by his expulsion from the USSR itself in February 1929.

From then on Trotsky spent the last 11 years of his life shuttling from country to country. Initially he stayed in Prinkipo, a small Turkish island, but was then invited to reside in France. Two years later it was made clear he was no longer welcome and sought refuge in Norway. His time there was little happier as the government took to a campaign of low-level harassment, under the pressure of the USSR. Finally in 1937 he was granted leave to reside in Mexico.

Though marked by isolation and tragedy (family members in the USSR disappeared into the gulag, while those at large abroad were hunted down and murdered) it is during this period Trotsky wrote his most influential works, elaborated his critique of Stalinism, and lay the groundwork for a Fourth International – a new world party of that sought to carry on the best traditions of Bolshevism.

He penned a memoir, My Life and the breeze block-sized History of the Russian Revolution, which remains among the very best works on the subject. He was also among the first Marxists to analyse and clearly foresee the dangers of fascism in Europe, and particularly the rise of the Nazis in Germany. In dozens of articles he urged the German communists (the KPD) to enter into a united front with the other main workers party, the Social Democrats (SPD) to drive the Nazis from the streets. However at that time the Communist International under Stalin was pursuing the ‘class against class’ perspective: the belief revolution was imminent, and therefore it was necessary for communists to sharply distinguish themselves from other mass parties of the working class. In Germany, where communist loathing of the SPD was very real because of the role it had played the 1918 and 1923 abortive revolutions, this perspective fell on fertile ground. So while the KPD was often in violent confrontation with the Nazis on the streets, its anti-fascism was compromised by its violent hostility to the SPD. When Hitler came to power without so much as a shot fired in the KPD’s defence, nor a word of criticism of the Comintern’s perspective, Trotsky declared Stalinism to be a counterrevolutionary force and put forward the need for a new international of communists independent from Moscow.

As the 1930s unfolded Trotsky’s prognosis of Stalinism’s counter-revolutionary character was confirmed time and again. After the disaster in Germany the Comintern moved to a policy of uniting with social democratic and so-called progressive bourgeois parties to see off the fascist threat. In Spain this entailed the communist party opposing the revolutionary aspirations of the peasants and working class, and contributing toward its eventual defeat. Similarly elsewhere – in France for example where a Popular Front coalition of the Socialists with the bourgeois Radicals (and supported by the communist party, the PCF), the interest of “unity” in the face of fascism meant abandoning one workers' struggle after another. For example the mighty strike wave of 1936, where France was the closest to socialist revolution as it’s ever been, was sacrificed on the alter of such spurious unity.

Trotsky’s opposition to Stalinism however was not simply on moral grounds. In a number of works, but especially in his famous book, The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky provided a sociological explanation of the rise of Stalin. He argued during the 1918-21 civil war the most class conscious workers and peasants had rallied to the Bolshevik banner, and had disproportionately perished in the conflict. In addition many activists were drawn into the administration and so lost their roots in the class. With the absence of these layers the soviets as organs of workers' power shrivelled up, remaining workers' councils in name only. Compounding this the dire economic situation called for increased planning on the part of the state. Hence bureaucratisation proceeded apace just as democracy was withering on the vine. Trotsky goes on to argue the position of these officials was privileged compared with the mass of Russians and developed interests at odds with the workers and peasants on whose shoulders the bureaucracy rested. It was Stalin that emerged as champion of this layer, and it was the furtherance of their interests (which neatly coincided with his pursuit of absolute power) that coloured his domestic and foreign policies.

However Trotsky argued all was not loss. Though under Stalin the USSR was basically a police state, he famously suggested that the economy was theoretically more progressive than capitalism. The argument goes that to all intents and purposes private property in the means of production was abolished by the revolution. Though capitalist property was partially introduced in the 1920s New Economic Plan to help stimulate agricultural production, it was again ruthlessly broken down with the onset of Stalin’s first 5 year plan. For Trotsky this meant that despite everything, the Soviet Union was a workers' state, albeit one that had degenerated. Therefore the first duty of communists was to defend it from attack from bourgeois states, who in comparison to the USSR were socially regressive, but at the same time promote the cause of a political revolution against the Stalinist bureaucracy.

Therefore running like a red thread through all his work is the theory of permanent revolution. The political independence of the working class was a crucial principle to be defended if socialist revolution is ever to come about. And it was to this concern Trotsky returned toward the end of his life. He spent much of his final years debating, cajoling, and trying to hold together his fractious followers and hone them into the nucleus of a fighting combat party of the working class. The Fourth International - or World Party of Socialist Revolution – was founded in 1938, and adopted Trotsky’s Death Agony of Capitalism and the Task of the Fourth International document as its programme.

Finally Stalin caught up with Trotsky on August 20th, 1940. Ramon Mercader, a Stalinist agent who’d infiltrated Trotsky’s home-cum-fortress in Mexico City plunged an icepick into Trotsky’s head as he was hunched over a desk reading an article. Amazingly Trotsky was able to call his guards and even managed to wrestle his assassin to the floor. But the injury proved too much and Trotsky died the following day.

Since his death Trotsky has been a point both of authority and controversy for the revolutionary left. His political legacy in the Fourth International has never really realised its potential: Trotskyism has splintered into a hundred and one different currents. Typically disputes between Trotskyists have assumed an almost biblical character. Some ultra-orthodox groupings have frozen his works into tablets of stone instead of seeking to build on the analyses he pioneered. Others have gone back to Trotsky and critiqued him, principally over the issue of the USSR.

The point to remember is that like the rest of us Trotsky was a human being, quite capable of mistakes. But he was also a Marxist of genius. Our job as socialists is to emulate his spirit: to creatively develop Marxism to provide answers for the millions turning against capitalism, and build a new world party that can make our class, the working class, into the new ruling class and thereby abolish class society.

In the discussion, G2 suggested that Trotsky remains a relevant figure for socialists because, in his works, he provides a series of strategies that are still useful with regard to basic party building. P looked at the advantages bureaucratic state planning afforded the USSR and its client states. Despite the enormous waste and political repression, they have proven effective in concentrating resources in particular areas to great effect. The Soviet space programme, the North Korean nuclear programme, China's swift response to the Sichuan earthquake in July and so on amply demonstrates this. G1 asked about the events of the Kronstadt uprising, to which P replied the need for looking at the episode in greater depth. But nevertheless he suggested it was a regrettable event that took place in a context where a certain bureaucratic habit of state craft had already been adopted by the young Soviet state. But given the balance of forces internationally plus the Kronstadt call for 'soviets without the Bolsheviks', it was probably a necessary action. A concurred, likening it to "sacrificing a finger to save the body". But with regard to Trotsky's legacy, for him Trotsky's contribution lies in his writings on Marxist politics, of his analysis of any given situation and taking into account all the relevant processes as they were changing. Also, Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution remains the only realistic basis for socialist advance in underdeveloped and unevenly developed countries.

Overall I found revisiting Trotsky a useful experience and hopefully the comrades present came away with an appreciation of why he remains an important resource for socialists everywhere.

Dawn Porter: Free Lover

I don't know. You go ages without a populist sex show fronted by a telegenic woman, and then all of a sudden they start popping up as regularly as the banks come crashing down. We've seen Lisa Rogers literally waxing about vaginas, and Anna Richardson is on our screens to get us uptight Brits talking about sex. Dawn Porter (pictured) adds her two pennies to this Channel 4 fad with Dawn Porter: Free Lover, an exploration of 'alternative' sexual relationships.

Dawn's mission on last night's programme was to see if she could step outside the monogamous sexual norm and whether she'd get comfortable with "sharing". Her journey into polyamory begins in California - where else? Here Dawn drives to the house of a married couple, albeit a married couple with a difference. Michael is a self-described "shaman" (and has one extra lover) and Kimala is a "bliss coach", with two regular extra-marital partners. Both of them have had numerous one night stands. To try and get Dawn to understand their lifestyle, they persuade her to undergo a ritual to get her in touch with her "shakra". This saw them drape their bodies all over Dawn and make bizarre humming noises.

Now the vessel that is Dawn's body was duly "opened" she was invited along that evening to meet the rest of the free love community. If Dawn was harbouring polyamorous thoughts she probably was disabused of them very quickly. We must be thankful that the men who introduced themselves as "I'm Adam and I'm EMERGING" and "I'm Brad and I'm GROWING" were only speaking figuratively. Dawn got into the spirit and submitted herself to group intimacy, which wasn't sexual, but would have been unsettling to most. I mean, would you be comfortable having a middle-aged hippy stroking your forehead, staring into your eyes, and saying they loved you after knowing them half an hour? Thought not, and neither did Dawn. She found she couldn't get into it and felt slightly violated.

This was only a taster of what was to come. The second part of the show saw Dawn turn up for a week at Zegg, a famous free love commune on the site of a Stasi compound in the former East Germany. Akim, Zegg's chiselled-faced guru gave us a potted overview of the commune's philosophy: the idea that monogamy cannot be our "natural state" and that it's damaging to pretend one person alone can satisfy all the needs of another. There's nothing original in this observation - it's been the guiding thread of many an experiment in communal living. But philosophy alone has not overcome the destruction and dispersal of similar arrangements of the past. Despite the commitment of others to free love, many have foundered on the rocks of jealousy and anxiety.

We are shown two strategies Zegg has developed to overcome this problem. Aware these feelings cannot be wished away, the commune has learned to talk openly about them at regular forums. For example, Dawn befriends Tamara, who was previously in a serious relationship with Ingo. Both remain at Zegg. But painfully for Tamara Ingo has moved onto another (non-exclusive) partner. Obviously it is difficult for them to continue see each other every day - after all the norm both parties grew up in was total separation following the end of a relationship. But both have stayed on because they have been able to share their feelings with the collective. This atmosphere helped Tamara realise that her emotions were partly rooted in her own insecurities and fears of loneliness set down in early life, and the sharing meant, in a sense, they became communal property.

Their other practice was the source of hostile publicity when Zegg tried to set themselves up in the Black Forest - the so-called oil ritual. This is a communal activity involving lots of oil, lots of people, and lots of nakedness. And, in this instance, our intrepid reporter. Overcoming an initial objective to filming it the cameras go to the basement, everyone removes their towels, the oil is poured and very slowly, the bodies begin to move and slide and almost merge. Afterwards Dawn couldn't stop laughing, she described it as "losing myself". Another Zegg inmate earlier described it as a born again experience. Undoubtedly this kind of mass intimacy does help keep the group together.

At the end, Dawn concluded that free love sounded fine on paper but for her at least, Tamara's experience showed the emotional price was too high. She'd certainly stick with one man at a time in future.

This programme interested me for a number of reasons. Firstly, this was very much in the tradition of Fortean TV sociology the likes of Louis Theroux excels at. Unlike Theroux who delights in sending up his subjects, Dawn Porter at least treated the residents of Zegg with respect. Their lifestyles may be unconventional, but they didn't come across as particularly unusual or unappealing - could you imagine a documentary on dogging and/or swinging in Britain getting sympathetic treatment?

Second is the change in sexual and familial relationships. The standard Marxist argument - crudely put - during the period of post-war Keynesian capitalism was that the heterosexual married nuclear family of the male breadwinner, the stay-at-home housewife plus children were a set of relationships that best reproduced the next generation of workers, ensured the smooth passing of property between relatives, and was the root cause of women's and LGBT oppression. The shift to neoliberal capitalism, the increase in working hours, the movement of more women out of the home and into the labour market, individualist forms of consumption and leisure among other things have put pressure on the hegemony of the nuclear family. Greater numbers choose to cohabit and have children without marrying. Others through accident, break up, or design, find themselves single parents. The difficulty in obtaining mortgages has seen a movement of (mainly single) adult children back to their parents. Some sections of the BME communities have several generations living beneath the same roof. No doubt the coming period of capitalist restructuring may see other patterns of living emerge.

What's interesting about a commune like Zegg is the extent to which its commitment to polyamorous and socialised living could pre-empt the familial relationships of a future socialist society. The one thing all of the above have in common is the essentially privatised character of child care. The rise of the welfare state represents, via tax credits and various benefits, a limited and bureaucratised form of the socialisation of family life. But the expansion and democratisation of this provision would be a key task of any fledging socialist society. Its guiding ethos would be to support whatever forms of child rearing parents prefer, with the state acting as the final guarantor of child welfare - a principle already well-established in contemporary capitalist society. Whatever the case is, the socialisation of familial responsibilities will result in an explosion in different ways of living. Many might be scornful of Zegg-type experiments in the here and now, but in the future their experiences may prove a useful lesson from history.

Drawing back from the socialist future to the depressing present, my final interest lies in the unwritten rules of, for want of a better word, mainstream sex TV. Dawn Porter: Free Lover is not Dawn's first foray into this kind of programme. Her previous escapades have seen her try to slim down to size zero, explore nudity and give lesbianism a try. Like Lisa Rogers and Anna Richardson, Dawn is an adventurer in corporeality. Their shows may be marketed at women, there is more than a hint of More and Cosmo about their treatment of sexual issues, and they seek to inform rather than judge. But I cannot get away from how it could reinforce gender distinctions.

Post-war feminism has railed against the traditional ways 'woman' is constructed in Western culture, as the "weaker" sex prone to emotionalism, irrationality and dependency. For women, biology is the marker of destiny in ways that isn't the case for men. Not least because of the feminist movement this second class status has been attacked time and again and welcome advances have been made. Unfortunately, capitalism is flexibly resilient. Despite progress, if anything there has been a renewed emphasis on corporeality, albeit of a new kind. Women's bodies are no longer positioned as inherently inferior to men's. Instead prevailing hegemony prescribes different and unique gendered laws of style, presentation, shape and sexuality; and promotes a particular body image most will never be able conform to. Of course, in the world of neoliberal consumerism every woman has a choice not to follow it, but the weight of hegemony is such that its pursuit is the source of misery and depression for untold millions of women. Dawn Porter's shows fall fully within this remit. Her works explore the limits of the hegemonic (young) female body, but ultimately fights shy of subverting it. Whether it's going gay or polyamory she pulls back from the brink and finds her way back to conventional 21st century embodied femininity by the end of each programme, ready for her next foray.