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.

Recruitment

A while ago I was chatting to Brother T, who'd spent a few days checking out a prestigious annual education event run by a well-known far left organisation. He enjoyed most of the sessions as well as giving me a few titbits to moisten my sectarian palate. He told me of overhearing a young full timer giving a more junior activist a few tips on how to recruit during the week. Her words were something like "just get them on a standing order and worry about the rest later". Evidently the political consciousness of new recruits wasn't particularly high on her agenda. But this wasn't too surprising. A young gentleman of intimate acquaintance was once cajoled into signing on with said unsaid organisation despite professing anarchist principles and being opposed to Leninist politics.

I mention this because the West Midlands region of the Socialist Party has undergone a flurry of recruitment of late. And Stoke branch is continuing to benefit from this upturn in the fortunes of our party too. I'm not breaking any confidences to say things have been slow over the last 18 months but these last two months recruitment has really taken off. Contacts have been coming in and a pleasing proportion have turned into active members, which has made a nice change. Plus we've just held stalls at the Staffs and Keele freshers' fairs. So it seems a precipitous time to reflect a little bit on recruitment, the recruitment process and the experience of recruiting people to a revolutionary socialist organisation.

For anyone with a passing familiarity with the far left, they will be aware recruitment is always a key priority. There cannot be an active leftist in Britain who hasn't, at some stage in their activist career, been asked to 'join the socialists/communists/revolutionaries by one or more of the varieties of British Trotskyism. And it is understandable. When I think about the range of activities Stoke SP has been involved in since I joined, the mind truly boggles. Solidarity activities, election campaigns, mass leafleting, organising, helping organise and taking part in demonstrations, broad-based campaigning, public meetings, student interventions come on top of the staples of street stalls, paper sales and contact visits. And I'm sure there's plenty I've missed out. We have been able to do these things because we have a stable number of core activists. But there's only so much we can do. More members enable us to extend the scope of our work and better make the socialist case more widely.

Unfortunately, here lies the first problem with recruiting to the SP, and I'm sure it's something leftists from other backgrounds are familiar with too. Earlier on in the first Keele Socialist Students meeting of the semester, one question that was asked was what do we do? I rattled off our record for the last year and talked a bit about the things the local SP branch has done as well. What I didn't realise, on reflection, was how daunting this may sound to a first year student who's just left home. And I should know - I remember how scary the prospect of doing stuff was for me when I first got involved with the left. But on the other hand there were other younger comrades who were champing at the bit.

How do you strike the balance? It's a tricky question. You don't want to scare prospective members away, but you have to be honest about what membership can entail. In recruitment discussions, I've always encouraged new people to do as much as they feel comfortable doing. I do not push people into situations and actions, but neither am I afraid to ask. Generally we find as new comrades get used to the branch they gradually assume some sort of role. It is better to allow people to grow organically into activism than foisting it upon them. Because of this I've known no one overcommit themselves and burn out.

Recruitment may be difficult but it can be very gratifying. To get someone involved, or, to turn up to branch meetings and see new faces, can give you and the rest of the group a real lift. More than money raised and papers sold it can boost morale as much as a particularly successful action or campaign the party has been involved in. It goes without saying that in the absence of the latter, new members help boost confidence even more, especially when a relatively large number join within a very short space of time. When you know a steady stream of people are joining up and getting active, it certainly helps keep you going on those rainy, windy stalls ...

Locally, regionally and nationally the SP is on the up again. The difficulties of the nineties are well behind us and our reputation as a small, but serious force for independent working class politics has grown in recent years. So if you're a socialist without a home or new to left wing politics, why not join up?

A Working Class Face?

Last night I watched an old episode from the late-1970s hit series The Sweeney. I used to love this series and still find it watchable today. John Thaw played Detective Inspector Jack Regan who was aided in his never-ending fight against the London underworld by Sergeant George Carter who was later to change sides as Arthur Daley’s muscle and gopher, Terry, in Minder. At the time, as an impressionable young twenty-something, the Sweeney seemed to portray the gritty realities of life in London’s CID. It didn’t really. In between fighting armed robbers, Jack and George spent a lot of time drinking in pubs and trying to get a leg over. But the villains were never very convincing, usually coming across as middle-class actors wearing car-coats and throwing in a bit of cockney rhyming-slang to try and gain credibility as genuine blaggers. But it was all good fun, and it normally ended in a good punch-up under the railway arches or in a scrap-metal yard. Thaw was great as the moody, world-weary, boozy cynic who, like most TV cops, seemed to spend as much time fighting his superiors as the villains. He still had a hint of a Mancunian accent from his childhood and looked every inch a flawed working-class hero.

Earlier in the evening I watched a repeat of Inspector Morse. I don’t think I need to provide our readers with an overview of Morse as it was a far more recent series. Suffice it to say that Thaw played, as his new character Morse, a more educated and higher-ranking copper than Jack Regan (why wasn’t the series called Chief Inspector Morse or was he promoted during the series?). Now I think the series was superb and the plots were clever. Thaw again played a cynical, world-weary character at odds with authority and he played it extremely well. But although he had many a rather-sombre pint or two with Sergeant Lewis, Morse was a very different man from Regan. He would spend solitary evenings at home listening to classical music or poring over the crossword rather than unwinding with fellow coppers in the pub. Morse was thoroughly middle-class where Jack Regan was thoroughly working-class.

This brings me to class and faces. An old mate of mine once commented (on Thaw as Morse) that ‘he is playing a middle-class character with a working-class face’. At the time I dismissed the comment, but on reflection I think my mate may have been right. Thaw was playing a well-spoken opera buff but to me his face still fitted more to working-class Jack. I know that if Morse had been made before rather than after the Sweeney I might see it the other way round. But I do think there is such a thing as a working-class face, a face that portrays years of relatively unrewarded graft and resentment that it shouldn’t be that way. What do you think?

Nationalisation as Asset-Stripping

Another day, another bank collapse. This time it's the Bradford & Bingley that's hit the buffers. This last week the bank took a battering on the markets, seeing its share price plummet to an all-time low of 20 pence. No one could deny the writing was on the wall. In contrast to its dithering over nationalising Northern Rock, the government have decisively stepped in to take Bradford & Bingley into state ownership.

This development was always going to be a political football, especially in party conference season. Tomorrow the Tories are set to outline a package of financial proposals that would increase the powers of the Bank of England and set up an independent body for the monitoring of government spending. David Cameron went on Andrew Marr this morning to say nationalisation should not be the stock response to banking failure. Instead Cameron is for a Bank of England take over followed by a supervised reconstruction and sell off at no expense to the taxpayer. Cameron seems to forget the Bank continues to be state-owned, albeit with operational independence, and thereby any risks it takes on are underwritten by the tax payer. But I digress. Yvette Cooper's response on the government's behalf attacked the Tories for being incoherent, irresponsible and blasé with the financial system - a position not a million miles from the truth if a sample of the comments left on Iain Dale's post on Bradford & Bingley are anything to go by. For them adding two per cent to national debt is more outrageous than the toxic effects its collapse will have on the "real" economy. "Let it go to the wall" is their collective demand. In times like these, the only things trickling down for Bradford & Bingley staff are insecurity and unemployment, but for the Tories this is, at best, a marginal concern.

But it is far from my intention to praise Labour's latest nationalisation. Let's be clear about this. By saving the Bradford & Bingley, the government are going to destroy it. At the time of writing we are awaiting Alastair Darling's statement. But it looks as though it will be dismembered. The assets - the 200-strong branch infrastructure and savings portfolio - will be quickly sold off while the £50 billion mortgage and loans book will be assimilated into Northern Rock's holdings. Yvette Cooper on this lunch time's Politics Show said there was no other choice. The private solution found in Lloyds-TSB's takeover of HBOS was not available, despite government and FSA efforts.

It is instructive to see what has already befallen Northern Rock since it came under government auspices in February this year. To pay back a £25 billion loan it was forced to take out in September, 2007 from the Bank of England to prevent it from going under, its repayment plan wants 2,000 jobs to be shed over the next three years. Plus it will either sell half of its £100 billion mortgage portfolio. Already an "understanding" has been struck with Lloyds-TSB, allowing it to cherry-pick customers coming off Northern Rock's fixed rate mortgages by offering them new deals, minus the usual application fee. In return the Rock would receive a commission for those taken off their books. Upon nationalising the bank, Gordon Brown said "we want a successful company that we can pass on to another private sector owner in good time". It makes you wonder how successful it can be when the government are intent on letting its prime assets go, or not taking any action in bringing the £47 billion off-shore mortgage book under its immediate control.

Academics, armchair economists, libertarians and House Republicans are the only ones who take the "principles" of neoliberalism seriously. Governments here and across the Atlantic only stick with it in as far as it entrenches the rule of capital. And the way the government has handled the nationalisation of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley and waived competition rules regards Lloyds-TSB and HBOS are entirely consistent with this. The state absorbs the the bad debts and liabilities, while it facilitates a transfer of assets to the private sector. As Vince Cable, the LibDem deputy leader observed in February, "Northern Rock’s ‘assets’ include unsecured debts, such as portions of mortgages in excess of the value of the properties concerned. In other words, the rubbish."

While sections of finance capital goes under, the government has and will continue to maintain the strength of finance capital as a whole. Whatever Tories and their ilk may think, nationalisation of this character is nothing to do with socialism. It's asset-stripping by another name.

Racialising Crime: An Anecdote

Not a weighty treatise on the nature of crime in a capitalist society, but an anecdote from when E and I were out leafleting, building for last weekend's anti-fascist events.

We handed over a leaflet to one woman who was standing in her garden. She took one look at it and said she didn't want it, because "we need something like the BNP to sort out this area". We asked her what she meant. She went into minute detail of her run-ins with the local drugs gang, who happen to be young Asians. She showed us the stab mark in her head from where they'd last attacked her and told us of the number of times she'd been beaten up after dark. Her friend came out, who was interested in the leaflet, but told us similar stories about other local white people she knew had been attacked by this gang. There were times her kids had been on the local fields when one of their dogs had dug up a drugs and knives stash. And her house had been attacked by the gang as well.

Assuming they weren't pulling our legs, and judging by the time they spent talking to us and their general demeanour there's no reason to believe they were, you can see why the BNP might have an appeal. In this case the anti-social elements are a thuggish group of drug dealing Asian men. They harass and assault a number of vulnerable white residents. And the police couldn't care less. From the standpoint of these white women it appears to be a race issue. But in essence, it isn't. Socialists should not fight shy of this and issues like it because it is "inconvenient" and upsets some dogmatic view of how the axis of racial dynamics are supposed to be. To brush them under the carpet is to invite the BNP's unwelcome attentions. In situations like this socialists need to adopt sensitive local strategies that seek to empower communities at the expense of anti-social elements and overcome the racial divisions their activities foster. And one way of doing that, as much as it may stick in the gullet of ultra left pedantry, is raising the demand for greater democratic control and accountability of the police, linked with a complete overhaul of the government's counter-productive and damaging stance on drugs. Doing nothing or making hay with "anti-white racism", like the BNP do, will exacerbate racial divisions and won't stop peoples' lives from being a misery.

A Day in the Life ...

... of a Marxist PhD student.

* Got to university at about nine, climbed the three flights of stairs and settled down at my comp.

* Sent emails to Stoke Socialist Party comrades with the weekly reminder for the branch meeting tomorrow. The topic? The BNP - who they are, what they represent, and how to fight them.

* Had a couple of university admin types drop by who are supervising our removal from this cold hole of an office and our dispersal to the four winds. Turns out I'm not going where I was led to believe and, I was snootily informed, my boxes of stuff have "no place" in the hot-desking continuation office I'm ending up in. But then one of the guys piped up and said he'd be happy to get the porters lug my boxes over from where I can slowly remove my crap back home.

* Met with Keele's finest bolshevik, Brother S, for a cup of tea. He went for the peppermint option and I experimented (somewhat unwisely) with ginger tea, and both of us were scandalised by the 19 pence price hike.

* Both of us paid a visit to a fellow UCU branch committee member to sign a retirement card and find out how the land lies teaching-wise. Doesn't appear to be much going for those who have to depend on part time teaching.

* Had lunch (home made bread with quorn slices and a banana, in case you were wondering) while checking out those blogs who've been updating more regularly than I. Added the new blogs Excuse Me While I Step Outside, Pink Scare and Tendance Coatsey to the blog roll.

* Fired off more emails about job applications and next week's Socialist Students stalls.

* The porters turned up to move my office mate's boxes, and I was told they wouldn't be able to move my stuff after all - an immortal up on high had decreed it. Swore a bit.

* Determined the day wouldn't be a total waste regards my PhD, I read a paper about the (unintended) biographical consequences of social movement participation. It was a bit pointless - existing literature suggests that activists, whether "core" cadre groups or those who more casually dipped into it tended to marry later, less likely have children, more likely to define themselves as leftist and retain some degree of "non-conventional" political participation. These results were gathered at least eight years after the mobilisations that piqued the researchers' interests. Problem was the narrow range of the sample, i.e. all were involved in US New Left movements and from a similar birth cohort. The problem then can their different lifestyles be ascribed to their activism, or the rapid social and cultural change of the 60s? In the absence of research into right wing movements and/or more contemporary mobilisations, the question at the time of the paper's writing (2004) was unanswered.

* Returned a pile of library books and met up with one of my now ex-office mates in her plush room. Nice new computers, looks quite cosy too. But not enough room to swing a cat.

* Boarded the bus to Hanley to meet up with A for party-related activities. We went contact visiting. Unfortunately only one of the four was in but we had quite a jolly chat. And we managed to recruit a new Stoke comrade yesterday :)

* A dropped me off in Hanley - the supermarket beckoned as C didn't fancy cooking this evening. Luckily there were two six packs of potato croquettes going for 75 pence apiece, so bargain! I unwisely awarded myself with a kitkat crunchy and wandered home.

* Sat down and had my tea (a vegetable chilli and rice) in front of Channel Four news. Then lazily began watching half of an old Voyager episode about some rogue torpedo or something.

* Dragged myself upstairs to phone the very healthy contact list we've built up. Had some very, very encouraging responses. Spoke to one bloke who was a teacher keen to encourage a bit of political awareness/engagement among his kids. He said he had one lad the other year who supported the BNP because they stood for "giving white people £40,000/year and kicking out all the foreigners". Indeed.

* Came back down, started writing this, and then realised the cat has left me a nice, brown present in his litter tray. Better stop this and sort it out.

Stoke Rallies Against the BNP

The BNP may have been grabbing the headlines, but there was a far larger mobilisation of opposition to the fascists' presence in The Potteries, earlier today. While the BNP were able to get some 300 people to its "memorial" event they reportedly only managed to turn 80 activists out for the morning's leafleting. The 20 rendezvous points they pre-planned across the city were reduced to ten. So much for their empty boasts about 400-plus leafleters. Compare this with the numbers anti-fascists mustered after a half-arsed mobilisation. Originally Unite Against Fascism had planned to leave the organising up to its local affiliate, North Staffs Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (NorSCARF) and not go for a national mobilisation. Then mid-week last there was a volte face and all of a sudden a decent anti-fascist turn out was a national priority.

Considering the lack of time compared with months of BNP planning, 200-250 at the billed anti-fascist vigil (which, thankfully, became a rally with some half decent speakers) was a very good turn out. Most people I spoke to on the Stoke Socialist Party stall were local, most not the usual suspects, and for many it was the first time they'd attended an event of this kind. Not only that, the majority at the rally were young, and by young I mean under 25. Contrast this with Youtube vids the BNP have plastered all over their website - you'd be hard pressed to find many under 40 in the footage. Proof positive that, ultimately, the future is on our side.

Following the speeches we lined up for an impromptu march to Hanley Forest Park where the Stoke Unity festival was taking place. For reasons known only to the police they were determined to prevent the march from going through the centre of Hanley (which is strange considering the BNP rally (appropriately) took place on a scrap of wasteland near Fenton) and blocked off the road. There was a bit of argy-bargy as some SWP activists tried to push through the line, but that was about it. The police successfully diverted us away from any concentration of "normal" people (funny they never had any problem with the 500 strong march for the Burslem 12 earlier in the year, nor the 2,500 on April 2006's demo against hospital cuts) and we got to the park without incident. In sum there must have been about a thousand at the carnival already.

I do have some gripes about the SWP/LMHR full timer who liked to think she was "in charge" of the event. She tried to prevent Stoke SP from erecting our banner on the grounds "it was agreed" no parties could not have their banners and signs out. Unsurprisingly she wasn't so vociferous in challenging her comrades who came with their SWP placards. But that brief whiff of hypocrisy aside, today showed the reservoir of anti-fascism is far wider than what the BNP can draw from. But between now and next June, when the mayoral (if they happen) and the European elections take place, it is the job of anti-fascists to turn that reservoir into a weapon that ensures the BNP sees no more electoral advances in Stoke-on-Trent.

The Socialist in Colour!

You may not have realised it if you read it online, but there's a flashy new (sort of) left paper on the block. The latest edition of The Socialist is the first time our paper has been splashed with colour. And what a looker it is. The Socialist Party has gone from having what was, in my humble opinion, a pretty drab looking paper, to one of the most nifty publications on the British left. Strictly in design terms it sustains a very favourable comparison with Socialist Worker too. If you're not a regular reader of The Socialist there's no better time to pick up a copy, especially as this issue is sure to become a collectors' item!

Get your copy here.

North Staffs NSSN Launched

North Staffs branch of the National Shop Stewards' Network got off to a flying start this evening. Participants from the UCU, Unison, CWU, PCS, Unite and North Staffs TUC were present. Chairing the proceedings was AVPS's very own Brother S.

Sheila Cohen, our visiting speaker from the national steering committee of the NSSN began with a potted history of the network, of how it started as an initiative from the RMT looking to experiment with new forms of activism in the wake of that union's ejection from Labour. Its aim is to bring rank and file trade unionists together to help rebuild the strength of our movement from the bottom up. This can be done by exchanging information and encouraging solidarity between far flung workplaces. To this end another key objective of the NSSN is to act as a clearing house for workers in struggle, as a means for disseminating information about disputes and strikes and bringing solidarity to bear. But this also requires an expansion of the network into a truly mass movement, a position it's nowhere near at the moment but could become as our rulers try to make workers pay for the crisis of their making.

As if to demonstrate this, one of the Burslem 12 talked about how the self-inflicted difficulties that have been plaguing Royal Mail these last few years have been paid by increasing the exploitation heaped onto workers. Changes to work patterns, more work for no extra money, "macho" managers - they're all part of the same package. Anyone who stands up against this culture are targeted by management and picked off. This is why a movement is needed, to ensure they cannot get away with this.

Pete McNally of the NSSN SC and ASLEF (speaking in a personal capacity) suggested that the time is right for the NSSN to have emerged onto the scene. Workers are facing attacks on every front - prices are rising while wages are stagnating, in real terms. And yet the bosses tell us they have to keep a lid on wages to stop inflation rising, as if spiralling food prices have anything to do with the tens of pence per hour most workers can expect by way of a wage increase. Coupled with the steady rise in the number of strike days and growing unemployment there is a good chance the unions could be shook up in the near future as more and more workers are forced into struggle.

From the chair, S gave a short contribution on the situation at Keele, where the struggle won concessions from management. It was magnificent to see so much of the local labour movement and unions from outside North Staffs descend upon Keele on April 4th to demonstrate against management's cuts. It sends the message that instead of taking on a local association, the bosses were up against the wider labour movement. This is why solidarity is important. We need to move from the mindset that see things as 'PCS struggles' and 'CWU disputes' but as workers' struggles we all have a stake in. This is where the NSSN can come into its own.

We heard a series of contributions from the floor. One postal worker said there was nothing better than receiving visitors on the picket line, and it's something that always worries management and, occasionally, higher union officials don't like to see. For the union tops its about keeping a handle on a particular dispute, for management it's the avoidance of embarrassment and publicity. Perversely keeping an action isolated and unremarked is in both their interests. Another added that last year's successful action by the POA talk just two phone calls from the leadership - the rest was self-organising. The NSSN has the potential for facilitating this kind of action across the labour movement.

A argued we were forever being told that action is doomed to defeat, but that simply isn't the case. In Swansea at Visteon a successful struggle saw workers maintain their pay and conditions after the company was sold off, including a fiver per cent pay increase. In Greenwich, Unison was able to wage a successful fight against the local authority's attempt to reduce some workers' wages to pay for rises in others in the name of single status by winning equal pay without any losses for anyone. It shows that where a lead can be given victory is possible. A key task for the NSSN is to act as a pressure on union leaders to give that lead.

Another of the Burslem 12 made some observations about struggle. Recalling the days when he used to lug 8-10 sacks of mail per day to Robbie William's house when he still lived in Stoke, it was more a less a case of it going in through the front and straight out the back. And it's the same with petitions also. Struggle requires direct action and militancy. As valuable as initiatives like the NSSN are it's not enough in itself - a new party that speaks up for workers is needed. What this means for the NSSN politically is it should try and make Labour work, but if it fails it shouldn't be afraid of trying something else.

In short this was an excellent beginning for North Staffs NSSN. The meeting appointed a local steering committee and solidarity actions with local struggles are planned. The aim now is to reach out to greater layers of trade unionists and make our local movement into something that will give Potteries' bosses sleepless nights.