Socialism 2007: Rally

There were a fair number of comrades at Saturday evening's Socialism rally, and it was difficult to say whether attendance was up or down on last year. No matter, most were there to listen to what the speakers had to say rather than count heads.

The evening's star turns were provided by comrades Brian Caton of the POA, Matt Wrack of the FBU, and Mark Serwotka of the PCS. Brother S has promised a considered reflection on their comments, so I'll confine myself to offering yet another impression of what they said.

Brian Caton spoke first and thanked the Socialist Party and his comrades in the trade union movement for their support of the POA's recent action. He also mentioned that even if socialism has been abandoned by the Labour party, it is not the case with him and many of his members. He also mentioned the stupid ultra-left leaflet handed out by the IBT. He said facts had to be faced, as long as society has laws it will have prisons and people will be required to run them. It isn't an easy job, and the POA is well aware there are those who abuse their positions in its ranks. Unsurprisingly, I agree with the comrade. But he needn't have worried too much about the IBT, thankfully SP comrades tend to have a more secure relationship with the real world.

Matt Wrack spoke about the cuts in the fire service, and angrily condemned the neoliberal New Labour speak being foisted upon it. Apparently now, those unfortunate enough to require a call out are to be referred to as "customers". He also took the opportunity to pay his respects to the four firefighters who recently fell during the Warwickshire warehouse fire.

Mark Serwotka's speech was most tantalising, but ultimately disappointing. Don't get me wrong, his was the usual barnstormer but the content was frustrating. He spoke of his invitation to speak at four conferences on the day and managed to speak at three, and then went on to show how the different conferences underlined the need for left unity. At this point, it appeared he was limbering up for a significant announcement that could bring the process along, such as a union-sponsored initiative on political representation or some such, but it wasn't to come. He did advance on his previous speeches in calling for a left alternative to the Labour party but didn't talk about what role the unions could play in founding it. The comrade is a canny operator and knows a new workers' party will, at this moment in time, require that impetus. Maybe next year, Mark?

The rally also heard from Mel Mills of Huddersfield Save Our Services, who've won a partial victory over a rapacious neoliberal council who came for three nurseries, and were forced to limit their cuts to just one. Sadiq Abakar, a SP comrade originally from Darfur spoke in moving terms about the Home Office's repeated attempts to deport him, where he can expect a fate similar to that of his brother, who was murdered by the state-backed janjaweed militia. An anonymous Stoke postie then provided a bit of light relief by outlining the incompetencies and peccadilloes of the wannabe Hitlers who run his/her depot.

Peter Taaffe wrapped up the speeches with a talk about the political situation in Brazil, from where he'd recently returned. He also replied to Mark Serwotka, who unfortunately had left the hall. The comrade said left unity cannot just fall out of a tree because of the very real differences that exist between the SP, and the SWP. He noted how in this hall two years previously it was predicted Respect would come unstuck, not least because of the SWP's inability to work in genuine partnership with other leftists. And unfortunately, this has proven to be the case. He said the SP would be prepared to work with anyone in the labour movement, but not on the basis of diluting our socialist politics.

Lois Austen then took the mike for the annual Socialism fundraiser. I recall one of the SWP comrades I interviewed for my PhD asking me if we still did this, as she found it quite cultish; but I have to say I've always rather enjoyed the spectacle. Lois began asking for large donations to be given in, and gradually the totals asked for got smaller and smaller. It was very pleasing to see so many branches handing over in excess of £1,000. Stoke's contribution was no where near, but thanks to our Engelsian turn, I'm sure we'll have a pretty penny to hand over next year. In all, over £20,000 was raised.

Comrades then heard a speech from a Brazilian comrade, followed by a short film commemorating the October Revolution, and of course The Internationale. But by this time, I was outside flogging shirts once more. Overall, it was an excellent event, and once again we'll be pulling out all the stops next year. Building for Socialism 2008 starts now!

Socialism 2007: Some Impressions

This is the first of several posts on the "forgotten" event of last weekend, the Socialist Party's Socialism 2007. In other posts over the next few days Brother S and a few guest comrades will be reporting back on their experiences. In addition to this one, I'll be making posts on the Saturday evening rally and Lynn Walsh's excellent session, 'Can China save global capitalism?' For a visual impression of what went on, you can view a video diary of the weekend here.

The vanguard contingent of Stoke branch arrived around Saturday lunch time and were the first in the boozer just up from ULU for curries, fish and chips, and pints. Then we hit the union to sell the T-Shirts printed up by comrade N as an Engelsian way of raising branch funds. I don't know what this says about me, but as soon as I saw the shirts on the table my inner Del Boy was unleashed, I went from solid bolshevist to petit bourgeois huckster in the blink of an eye. Having found my calling in life, I wasn't seen very far from the stall all weekend. We had to face stiff competition from centre-sponsored 1917 shirts, and the enterprising Shropshire comrades did a roaring trade in badge sales. Late on Sunday, our paths again crossed at Northants service station and a nefarious fund raising plot was hatched. I would tell you what i was, but then I'd have to kill you.

I digress. The first session I sort-of attended was 'Who were the Bolsheviks?' with Alec Thraves. His lead off focused on the unfolding revolutionary process between February and October 1917, while the discussion for the most part dwelled on what we do in the here and now. Bob Davies (wearing a Steve Freeman hat?) of the cpgb made a sensible contribution on raising political demands, such as the abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords, while not minimising the importance of economic demands. Other comrades looked at the state of the working class in Britain and how it is slowly groping towards struggle. Unfortunately, I didn't take any notes so can't really remember much beyond that.

After a stall stint before and after the rally, I found myself with brothers N and G in Euston Street Station's Burger King. I there suffered my first whopper (tm) meal in years, and though the experience was repeated on the way home, I won't be indulging again in a hurry. But I cannot fail to mention comrade G, who kept us entertained with some of the most disgusting jokes I've ever heard. What is it with socialists and black humour? But these were truly foul. Communist morality prevents me repeating them on what is a family blog, but if Satan was a comedian, these would be in his stand-up routine.

About 11 we hauled ourselves into the Euston Flyer and managed to get ourselves served in record time (less than half an hour!) Everyone had a bit of a mingle and a gossip, though methinks some comrades were up for a scandalous old time. Before long we headed to the much loved (de)Generator, and for me and brothers N and F, and sister A, it was time we rested our weary bones. It fell to comrades TP and G to keep Stoke's hardcore creds in the black. They got themselves kicked out the Generator bar at three in the morning, and then went for a wander around central London for an alternative watering hole. They homed in on such an establishment several miles away, but balked at paying a fiver for the privilege of consuming overpriced drinks for half an hour. It seemed the bracing November air addled the comrades' brains, and they confessed to splashing out £20 on a 6 mile taxi ride back to the hostel. The cabbie must have seen them coming.

The following morning we were up bright and early. I grabbed my coco pops from the communal cereal dispensary, G moaned about "feeling like filth wrapped up in shit", and we were off to the morning session. First up was the China one, which will be dealt with separately. I was able to have a short chat with Mark Fischer to see if he had the low down on the other left meetings. Apparently the cpgb had a hostile reception at Respect (SWP) - what a contrast to ours where they had no problem getting a stall *inside* Socialism. But then many comrades have been predicting a return to sectarian type, so this comes as no surprise. As for the LRC, he didn't find it the most inspiring of events, just very business like but lacking a bold strategic vision.

In the afternoon, I went to the debate between Hannah Sell and Adam Lincoln of the IWW. Unfortunately, he didn't show so Hannah was forced to shadow box with anarchist ideas. Luckily, a Socialist Student comrade from York who described himself as an anarchist was able to take up most of Hannah's points toward the end. He argued anarchists are not opposed to organisation per se and supported workers taking power into their own hands and constructing a new society on that basis, but he had major problems with the hierarchical character of parties and their tendency to encourage situations of power abuse. I had to duck out at that point.

I missed both the closing rallies because of T-Shirt duty, but because I was always doing something instead of hanging about the weekend went incredibly fast. It seemed no sooner we arrived it was time to pack our stuff away, switch on the bangin' old school hardcore pirate radio station, and race our way back up the M40.

Branch Meeting: Economic Blocs and Money

At Thursday night's branch meeting, comrade F gave a short lead off on the history of money, financial crisis, and what would happen to money in a socialist society. I hope the comrade won't mind if I skip over his comments on money's history, and proceed to the issues that provoked discussion

F raised a few pointers about the tendency within global capital toward the setting up of regional blocs, of which the European Union is the most advanced example. He showed how the Euro is intrinsic to the EU project, and is breaking a path for the African Union, and to a lesser extent, the Asia Cooperation Dialogue, and NAFTA. It is also likely the dynamics of global capital may encourage further centralising processes. Global economic bodies could assume even greater influence than is wielded by the IMF and World Bank now. One interesting point F also picked up on was the linkage between state forms and currencies - as the Euro was as much the offspring of the EU proto-state as it was of the coincidence of continental capital's interests, moves in this direction by other economic blocs will proceed side by side with the growth of cross border bureaucracies with their own supranational, albeit regional, aspirations. This being the case, after capitalism has suffered its permanent and irreversible defeat at the hands of the global working class, is it likely that money will wither away with the state?

Beginning with the withering away of money, D thought this was likely, though J added it very much depended on the concrete circumstances in which socialist revolution takes place. For example, as we saw in the case of Russia, a moneyless society cannot be constructed within the borders of a single, internationally isolated country.

P flagged up the contradictions of the EU and AU projects. On the one hand, the EU bureaucracy is a neoliberal tool in the hands of capital, but the centralisation of political authority and capital across the Eurozone territory could open up certain political opportunities for deepening the internationalism of the European labour movement. In the case of the AU, a centralised bureaucracy and currency could open up developmental processes that have not been possible due to the continent's history of weak, semi-colonial states.

A disagreed. Whereas Marx and Engels welcomed the development of nation states in the 19th century as agents that facilitate development, broadly speaking that was in capitalism's progressive phase. From the early 20th century and the division of the world into imperialist spheres of interest, that was no longer the case. Turning to the Euro, A felt it would not be taken up by other countries because of the contradiction between the conditions inside the Eurozone and outside it. In fact, it is possible the reforms that made the Euro possible could head into reverse. So far, continental capital has reaped the benefits of a period of stable accumulation, but if that was to change, the national interests of German, French, Italian, etc. capital would reassert themselves and the financial unity symbolised by the Euro and the European Central Bank torn asunder.

Replying to this, P argued if the Euro continues to strengthen internationally and Britain's trade with the Eurozone remains on an upward trajectory, the more attractive entry will be to "our" ruling class. Up until now, what has prevented Britain from doing so is the centrality of finance capital to the interests of the British bourgeoisie, which is very much bound up with the City of London remaining at the centre of global finance capital. The second key variable is the widespread opposition of the British population to monetary union. On economic crisis, P was doubtful the Euro would fragment back into national currencies. He suggested the ruling class would find other ways of insulating themselves against any crisis, such as accelerating EU expansion to allow flows of cheap labour from the East and Turkey into the metropolitan heartlands. This itself would have certain consequences, such as anti-immigration sentiment, and, ironically, the progressive integration of the European working class. The key is socialists must have a flexible response to crisis.

The remainder of the discussion was taken up with the discussion of the moneyless society, where comrades contrasted how we fight for socialist politics with the SPGB, despite our identical objectives. Summing up, F reiterated that you could not move from a society premised on the accumulation of capital for accumulation's sake to one based on production for need overnight.

Interlude

It's a big weekend for the left in England and Wales, so AVPS will be having a nap. Currently, there's three posts in draft stage on last night's branch, yesterday's paper, and a few reflections on the latest Harry Potter (is there anything that can be said about it that hasn't already? I think there is ...). Next week this blog will be cluttered up with stuff about Socialism 2007, and maybe, if I find willing victims, there will be guest posts about the other main left events.

Have a good weekend!

Some Problems of Partisan Social Movement Research

Nerves, I've had a few, but they were completely absent when I gave the aforementioned paper to Keele Sociology dept's semi-regular dinner time forum.

In summary, I presented a few reflections on the difficulties I've had with my research. Using Pierre Bourdieu's work as an interpretative frame, I explored how the tensions between the organisational/political fields cohered around the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers' Party affected my attempts to get interviews with SWP activists. These efforts were complicated by my membership of the SP, and only knowing one SWP member personally and being vaguely acquainted with a handful. Using extracts from SP interviews, I showed how some comrades participated because I was a member *and* they had either heard of me or seen my face about at various events and actions. About half of SP comrades said they wouldn't have taken part if I was an SWP member, an independent, or in one of the 57 varieties. I have no reason to believe SWP comrades would be any different, though I hasten to add, I'm sure if I had known more SWP'ers or been seen about by them, rates of participation would have been higher.

The second part of my discussion looked at the tension between the larger far left political field the two organisations share, and the academic field. In other words, the contradiction between producing work socialist activists might find interesting and useful, while simultaneously meeting the requirements demanded of a PhD thesis. Here, I sketched how the presentation of my findings as sociological knowledge can harm the interests of the activists who took part, via a brief discussion of my concept of liberal surveillance. This refers to the knowledge effects of social science work on marginal groupings and social movements. I came up with the concept while reading Bourdieu on the scholastic point of view, and after hearing a paper on Hungarian anti-capitalists where the author failed to ask basic questions about why sociologists should study radical social movements, and who benefits from putting the knowledge out there. I quoted from transcripts where I asked comrades what they felt about liberal surveillance, about how public access to sociological knowledge built on their experiences of Trotskyist activists could be used by friend and foe alike; and the possibility they've provided me the scaffolding around which I could build a career in academia. There was a near consensus that enemies such as the state or the far right wouldn't get much from data of this character, and provided I was sensitive toward the life histories they had provided me with, no one saw any real problems with the data being used to play my disciplinary game.

The question and answer session was not unlike a meeting of left spotters anonymous at times as people were interested in the historical differences between the two organisations, their opinions of the USSR, relationships to other lefts, and attitude to Trotsky's legacy. I was also asked about my comparative intentions if volunteers from both organisations had reached parity and what will I be doing now meaningful comparisons cannot be made. One other interesting question touched on the gendered and racial dimensions of comrades' experiences. As my sample was all white, I didn't even bother speculating about the latter, but as for gender, the one thing that immediately sprung to mind were the relationships comrades were in. Female interviewees in relationships were, without exception, partnered up with a comrade. However, this wasn't the case with the men, so what does this say about our activist culture? Is 'being a socialist' more gendered than outward appearances suggest, or, is it a property of bourgeois relations generally? Can even a meaningful analytical separation be made? All this will have to be investigated in more depth when I start really pouring over the transcripts.

Overall, it was really useful to get a good grilling from my peers, and in my gratitude I promised them all a get out of the gulag free card come the glorious day!

Another Abstract

Yours truly is giving a paper on the below topic tomorrow, as part of the Keele Sociology crew's rolling programme of seminars. Here's my (very short!) abstract.

Some Problems of Partisan Social Movement Research

Participatory research produces a range of difficulties that have been well documented by the sociological literature. These problems are especially acute when the research is taking place in charged political fields where the axis of partisanship goes beyond adherence to a set of radical political beliefs and is tightly fixed to a particular organisation. Thus the researcher must confront and negotiate two potential sites of tension, that arising between activists from rival organisations, and a more generalised contradiction between the objectives of the political field and the academic, a negotiation rendered all the more problematic by the researcher owing their political allegiances to one of the groups. This paper explores these problems through original life history data on contemporary Trotskyist activists.

Decoding the academese, basically what I'll be looking at is why nearly every Socialist Party member who was asked to participate in my project did so, and why so few Socialist Workers' Party comrades did, despite being honest and open about the aims of the research. And some other things too. I'll write about how the presentation goes at some point.

Socialism 2007: A Taster

This weekend sees four gatherings of the far left taking place. Millions of key strokes have been spent on "official" Respect and Respect Renewal, and discussion lists haven't been able to move for the constant adverts for the Labour Representation Committee. In this melee, the Socialist Party's annual event, Socialism 2007 has been somewhat overlooked. This is a shame as chances are this will be the biggest gathering of the four, and will feature debate on practically every issue under the sun. It comes as no surprise that AVPS endorses the weekend without reservation. If you're planning on attending one of the others, because we're spread over two days, you could always attend on the Sunday. Still not convinced? Well, I've appended an old and slightly edited report I posted on the UK Left Network last year on Socialism 2006. Enjoy!

I've been asked to contribute my thoughts on the sessions at Socialism 2006 to tonight's branch meeting, so I hope comrades won't mind me sharing them with the good folk of the UKLN.

The first session I attended on the Saturday afternoon was Robin Clapp on materialist dialectics. About 30 comrades listened to a short lead-off aiming to demystify some of the crap that has congealed around dialectics over the years and set out in easy to understand terms what it's all about. The ensuing discussion was quite varied touching on the 'spontaneous' dialectics of scientists working in the field of 'hard' sciences, the relationship between dialectics and historical materialism, and whether there can be a place for morality in a world view that rejects outside interventions from deities, ghosts and aliens.

The second meeting was Sunday morning's question and answer session on the BNP with Alistair Tice. Well it was billed as such but what really took place were a series of short debates around a number of questions - can the BNP still be described as fascist, is the state an anti-fascist ally, is no platform still the best way of tackling them, and what can we as socialists do to fight them. All contributors to the debate agreed that the BNP remained fascist, but that it had adopted a right wing populism in an attempt to draw a simple demarcation between the white working class on the one hand and the New Labour state, the rich, and minority populations on the other. There was also broad agreement the state cannot be used as any repressive 'anti-fascist' measures it adopted would invariably rebound back onto the left (though one comrade offered a dissenting voice). Most debate however came over no platform - some argued it was out of date and no longer reflected the strength of the BNP on the ground, while others suggested it need be enforced by the workers movement wherever possible. However during the course of the discussion both positions showed some flexibility and I would suggest a consensus began to emerge around viewing no platform as a tactic requiring skillful application if we are to undermine the BNP's support. Also, Unite Against Fascism did not come in for blanket condemnation. Though it was criticised for its liberal anti-fascism comrades from SP branches not in a position to contest the BNP at the ballot box argued it was sometimes necessary to support UAF campaigns, depending on the character of their interventions. A comrade from Cumbria made this point, arguing his local UAF branch comprised a number of experienced militants.

The afternoon session saw Tony Saunois and Peter Tatchell take the platform on homophobia and LGBT liberation. As the Tatch was late Tony gave an overview of the distance LGBT issues have travelled over the last 25 or so years but also drew attention to continuing inequalities and discrimination LGBT people still experience. He also condemned those who've sought to label Tatchell as a racist for having the temerity to raise LGBT issues in relation to some Islamic countries and Jamaican dance hall music. I can't remember what comrade Tatchell said in his opening (lack of caffeine got the better of me I'm afraid) but I think he covered the same general ground. From the floor comrades raised a number of points about homophobia, but for me two questions stood out. One comrade raised the issue of biphobia and transphobia within the gay and lesbian scenes and asked what cde Tatchell thought about it. Thomas House (in a lengthy contribution ;)) challenged Tatchell about his membership of the Green party. The comrade cited the example of Brighton where Green councillors had voted for the housing stock to be taken into arms-length management. This measure would have the effect of making the material circumstances for LGBT residents less secure and therefore less able to challenge homophobia. Unfortunately I had to leave before the end so I never heard his replies (it would be interesting if comrades there could fill me and the list in).

The final session was the mighty show down between SP comrades and the massed ranks of the International Bolshevik Tendency. The provocatively-titled meeting, 'Why the Socialist Party is not Socialist' quickly assumed the trappings of an event destined to go down in the annals of sectarian lore. At first it seemed we could look forward to farely dull polemical fare, four SP comrades vs the eight or so IBT'ers, but then it soon brightened up. Five or six cpgb's and some supporters piled in, then some more SP comrades no doubt attracted by the blaze of publicity this meeting had on the UKLN and elsewhere. And then the piece de resistance - the Sparts turned up. After the collective groan had subsided Barbara Duke opened the meeting. Michael Wainwright outlined his reasons for leaving the SP, which pretty much followed his critique carried on the CWI's website. For those who haven't read it this turned around the PCS pensions issue, the character of transitional demands, the enabling act slogan, and the demand on democratic control of the police. This 'reformism' and 'centrism' was despite the 'revolutionary subjectivism' of many SP comrades, he argued. Alan of the IBT (and also self-confessed UKLN lurker) came next and recapitulated pretty much the same criticisms. Tina Becker from the cpgb spoke first from the floor touching similar points - the necessity of a revolutionary minimum-maximum programme, and so on. However much to my surprise most of her polemical fire was aimed at the IBT, criticising both cde Wainwright for the manner of his limp exit from the SP as well as hopping on board an organisation with a lot less internal democracy! Spart legend Eiblin McDonald came next with a few tame criticisms of the SP before really laying into the IBT. Needless to say no Spart intervention would be complete without an off-beam contribution, which she duly supplied in bucketloads. I can't remember much about what she said except she finished off by noting how IBT guru Bill Logan was expelled from the Sparts for gross moral turpitude (chortle). Given the Sparts' famous abusive internal practices this was really pots and kettles stuff, something not missed by guffawing SP comrades. Paul Hunt's contribution met the Wainwright/IBT critique head on. Once again cde Wainwright was criticised for not bothering to conduct a political struggle in the SP for his views. Then cde Hunt defended the SP's approach to transitional demands by noting the importance of relating them to the existing consciousness of the class. He suggested the types of r-r-revolutionary slogans the IBT favour (of the 'smash the cops' type) hardly constitute a skillful application of the transitional method.

These 3 contributions more or less set the tone for what was to come from the floor. cpgb's Phil Kent and Simon Wells spoke, the former suggesting 5 minute contributions weren't long enough to get a proper dialogue on our politics going, while cde Wells (fresh from his SWP expulsion) argued for the necessity of the rank and file to hold their leaderships to account. Another Spart chimed in, deciding the actions of the IBT at a 1,700 strong Mumia Abu Jamil rally in New York several years ago was an appropriate contribution to make at a meeting ostensibly about the politics of the SP. Colin for the SP responded to some of the points raised and IMO gave a good account of what revolutionaries should be doing in 21st century Britain. A couple of IBT'ers joined in too but I have to apologise to these comrades as I can't remember what they said. I managed to make my two pennies worth, drawing an analogy between the origins of the IBT from comrades who had left the Sparts without a political struggle and cde Wainwright's gravitation toward them after a similarly unserious exit (the Sparts loved that one - am I the only non ICL'er to have ever been applauded by them???). I also asked how the IBT implemented their unique understanding of the revolutionary method in the here and now, and how they managed to square their not participating in the Campaign for a New Worker's Party or before it the Socialist Alliance (which they denounced as 'left-populist') with their earlier entry into Scargill's SLP.

After this I had to leave. However I hear that in response to criticisms cde Wainwright argued he had "too much work on" to conduct a struggle for his views (he still found time to plunge into Militant's archives to dredge up quotes from 1981 and 1985 editions of the paper!). Also apparently Alan made an angry reply (swearing 3 times forsooth!) to the polemical mugging the IBT got. All hilarious stuff.

Debating the Russian Revolution

90 years ... and one day since the October Revolution, Keele Socialist Students organised an evening with Dave Griffiths of the Socialist Party and Pat Deutz of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to debate the events and legacy of the Russian Revolution.

Dave heralded the revolution as one of the greatest events in human history. It signalled the first attempt to wrest control of the blind social forces that had hitherto operated as if behind the backs of the human race, and as a species we stand a head higher for the experience. Dave then gave a short account of the revolutionary process in 1917. With the outbreak of the February revolution, the Russian masses entered the stage of history. The condensation of contradictions arising from peasant and workers' grievances, the continued Great Power oppression of nationalities, and the devastation and dislocation of the war saw the masses dispense with the autocratic senility of Tsarism. But the second act in the revolutionary drama, October, was not pre-ordained. History is not a script. The process culminated in the transfer of power to the soviets as a result of political struggle and the experience of the masses - the Bolshevik programme was the only one that met their aspirations. It must also be remembered that 90 years on, the Bolsheviks were quite aware Russia was far from ripe for socialism, but the revolution could be the harbinger of a Europe-wide socialist revolution - which it very nearly was. It's also worth remembering that the initial phase of the revolution saw universal suffrage, the parcelling out of lands to the peasantry, and a cultural flowering never seen before or since in Russian history. As we know, this revolutionary democracy was snuffed out by civil war exigencies, general backwardness, and bureaucratisation; but we can never pretend the alternative to revolution was a parliamentary democracy with Kerensky at its head. The brutality of the counterrevolution gave an insight into the alternative, an alternative of massacres, pogroms, and dictatorship.

Pat laid out her what the SPGB stood for, which is socialism and nothing else. The only route to socialism is for the overwhelming mass of the working class to understand what it is and be prepared to start organising society around their interests. So, returning to the Socialist Standard of August 1918, that issue pointed out 80% of Russian society was composed of the peasantry and by contrast, the working class was tiny. So setting aside the question of consciousness for the moment, was Russia ready for socialism? As Marx and Engels believed socialism could only be built on the foundations of the most advanced capitalism, Russia could not become a socialist society. True, the masses did enter the stage of history between February and October, but they were not and could not be pursuing socialist aims. This suited Lenin and the Bolsheviks fine because they held workers were capable only of trade union consciousness and therefore needed a revolutionary elite to lead them to the promised land. Unfortunately, this promised land could only be state capitalism. Other parties were banned by the summer of 1918 and the institutions of radical democracy were displaced as the imperatives of state capitalist development assumed priority. Such state-led authoritarianism laid the groundwork for Stalin and with it, the identification of his regime with genuine socialism. Herein lies the tragedy of the whole experience.

The floor opened to comments and questions. A number came up concerning the relationship between Leninism and Stalinism, the role of unions in the revolution, why Stalinist regimes tended to be extremely brutal, what concrete advice - if any - did the SPGB offer the Bolsheviks, and what does the Russian revolution mean for us now fighting for a socialist society in 21st century Britain?

Responding directly to the SPGB position, S, from India, said she'd heard many times how Russia "wasn't ready" for revolution. But then, who is ready for revolution? If capital has to be mature, are the USA and UK any more ready for socialism? She then when on to ask if backward countries are the weak links in the world chain of imperialism - if they are to break, who are we to decide whether a country is "not ready"? M, of KSS, defended the SPGB's position, noting socialism has to be international. Also, because wage labour had existed in the USSR (implying the expropriation of surplus value by the bureaucracy, acting as 'collective capitalist') meant capitalism was alive and well there under Stalinism. A of Stoke SP argued that the Bolsheviks managed to condense the anger and experience of the Russian working class, and showed his exasperation how Pat could dismiss them as "not conscious" after going through 10 months of revolutionary upheaval and struggle. If they weren't conscious, how did the one avowedly revolutionary socialist party succeed in winning the mass to its banner?

After the debate, Pat responded first by pointing to Russia's backwardness and reiterating her point that socialism requires material abundance. She also picked up on M's point on wage labour. As surplus value was being realised throughout the Soviet Union's life, the overturns of 1989-91 were not a restoration of capitalism. Furthermore, under Stalinism the bureaucracy had effective ownership and control, despite what the constitution and the statutes said. Top bureaucrats could access special shops for the elite and could pile up several salaries akin to the common bourgeois practice of possessing several part-time directorships at once. In sum, nationalisation of the means of production cannot mean socialism. Turning to the question of revolution in Britain, she evoked the SPGB's strategy of winning a parliamentary majority for socialism to mark the passing of power from the bosses to the workers, and inaugurate the beginnings of the new society.

Dave's reply looked at the nature of the revolution. He argued revolution is as much a part of social evolution as piecemeal change. But whether a revolution assumes a peaceful or violent character depends on the balance of class forces and the extent of working class organisation. The latter is really crucial - where the balance has been fairly favourable but the class isn't sufficiently organised and united, such as Germany, China, Spain, France, Iran; at best the class is defeated, at worst the revolutionary process is drowned in blood. Responding to Pat and echoing S, Dave argued the SPGB were guilty of trying to fit the revolution into a pre-conceived schema. When it didn't fit, they withdrew support. He also disputed the continuity between Lenin and Stalin - the red terror was an outcome of civil war necessity, whereas Stalin's crimes were committed in the pursuit and consolidation of power. Finally, turning to the fate of the revolution, because it ended in Stalinism and eventual capitalist restoration, need the Russian workers have bothered? The SPGB answered no. What this amounts to in practice is revolutionary abstention from struggles that don't meet its strict criteria. To finish off, Dave called on all present to study the revolution themselves and recommended Trotsky's three-volume history as an excellent place to begin. As Churchill's condemnation put it, "never has evil been so dazzlingly presented", stands it in good stead.

From the chair, I then rounded off the meeting with a revolutionary call ... to attend the postgrad bar, where comrades continued the discussion deep into the night.

Putting Sociology in its Place

There are a few loose threads dangling from my last post on public sociology, concerning disciplinary identity, the interests of sociology, and the position of the researcher.

Just to recap, the tendency toward public sociology as a political and ethical turn in the discipline (a tendency that aims to link sociology to mass publics outside the academy by seeking to assist progressive causes directly, or producing research that could attract a large audience), is potentially problematic for Fuller. In the rush to be popular and/or useful for others, he asks whether sociology risks losing something distinctive along the way. Is there a danger of 'the sociological' being annexed to whatever political project the public sociologist is pursuing?

It is a valid question to ask. For example, some in the public sociology camp appear to have embraced the problem Fuller identified. To take one example, Randy Stoecker in a 2005 paper, 'Rethinking Public Sociology' makes the case for a radical public sociology that eschews traditional practices, where research questions, methodological decisions, writing up, and dissemination were the purview of the researcher. Instead, sociology should empower by changing the relations of knowledge production. The top-down pedagogical model needs to make way for participatory research where the key decisions are made by the participants themselves, thereby building their understanding of their socially constituted circumstances and capacity to change them. Hence participatory, or organic, public sociology cannot avoid being about social change. Going further, this orientation requires a wholesale transformation of sociology. Students are not empty vessels to be filled with the nuggets of sociological wisdom, they must learn through role play and reflexive, experiential learning. One's attitude to fieldwork dispenses with instrumental and should be about building alliances with communities, community organisations, and other social movements. And most controversially, it means turning one's back on many aspects of the disciplinary field currently constituted - such as ending sociological stardom, and the practice of building careers on the back of colonising knowledges.

Whatever one thinks of such a programmatic turn, Fuller is right in so far as the sociological position is subordinate to the interests of research participants. Of course, Fuller is not the first to have highlighted this problem. A number of sociologists entirely hostile to public sociology have discerned this implication in Burawoy's original document, and have shamelessly indulged in often crude red-baiting in their attacks on him. But none are so blind as those who refuse to see. Unsurprisingly, Burawoy's critics have very little to say when the neoliberalisation of the academy puts pressure on a section of sociologists to undertake policy research for institutional and/or corporate clients. Do questions around outside interests and the subsumption of disciplinary identity not apply in these cases? Does research-for-cash guarantee scientific outcomes, while research out of political and ethical commitment results only in opinion? Motes and beams spring to mind.

That said, Fuller certainly doesn't fall into this camp, just because he's concerned with the autonomy of sociology. Returning to last week's talk, his argument was that to be an effective public intellectual in sociology, one should concentrate on the sociology and not allow the bright lights of punditry become the be-all and end-all. The notion of autonomy held out by Fuller implicitly follows that articulated by Bourdieu and adhered to many in the anti-public sociology camp. That is, autonomous sociological practice allows for truth-telling: the revolutionary quality of the enterprise lies in its laying bare social processes and power relations abstracted out and therefore shorn of the mystification wrapped around them in the everyday. For Fuller, what guarantees sociologists the ability to do this is tenure. Unfortunately, the decline in tenured positions in favour of the short-term contract seriously undermines autonomy, and therefore the opportunity to engage in sociological truth-telling. The competition for jobs combined with the Research Assessment Exercise forces all academics - not just sociologists - to play their disciplinary games. The whip hand of funding render more explicit one's interest in the "disinterested" pursuit of sociological knowledge, and its shaping according to the logics of the field.

Clearly, Fuller believes sociological autonomy is a good in itself, but what is this good? The fact this good exists is a supposition shared by all sides of the public sociology debate. Even Stoecker's vision of organic public sociology rests on an unspoken premise that the sociologist is autonomous and free to pursue the agenda his envisages. However, as Fuller has noted the decline in tenure narrows the opportunities for the bulk of sociologists. Perversely, the freedom to do participatory research is only really an option for those in commanding positions in the field. So this good is a rare resource, a key objective that career sociologists must aim for. A second and related question is do sociologists have a real interest in autonomy, even if it is a core stake? How is it distinctive from other interests outside of the discipline, and can it work to mask the interests of others inside sociology?

We've already noted how defenders of academic/professional sociology tend only to get excited about outside interests when the question of excluded/marginalised publics are raised. The policy work carried out, which takes place in the absence of their raised voices, is unsurprising when you consider sociologists occupy coordinates in social space Bourdieu terms a 'dominated dominant' position. This is to say that as part of the academic apparatus and by virtue of the privileged place it occupies in the education system, it affords position holders certain cultural and economic advantages compared with the population at large. But as dominant positions go, sociology is subordinate in the academy to most other social science disciplines (psychology, political science, and economics spring to mind). Its endeavours do not enjoy the same profile and its work lacks the same sorts of policy influence, even when commissioned by institutional actors. However, these material circumstances the discipline finds itself in have become internalised as part of the natural landscape of the field - the subordinate position of sociology, the with-strings funding ties, are more or less accepted as part of the rules of the game. To decry the role of funding elites is to kill the goose who lays the golden egg. On the other hand, some in sociology have reacted unfavourably to marginalised interests precisely because they do not appear with the same immediacy or effect on the operation of the disciplinary field.

In this regard it's useful to examine the notion sociologists do have distinctive interests not tied to elites or other groupings. Burawoy has argued that because sociology is about the study and theorisation of social relationships, we have a real material interest in defending the social from commodification and attempts to displace them by administrative systems. Sociology therefore stands or falls with civil society. For example, there is a correlation between there not being a Saudi Sociology Today or Korean Peoples' Journal of Juche Sociology and a lack of civil society in both countries. In my opinion, though one can abstract such an interest, there is nothing particularly distinctive about the need to preserve civil society when you observe the practice of community groups, trade unions, campaigns, NGOs, political parties, the media etc. demands the same thing. Rather there is an homology of interest.

What the public sociology debate has done is succeeded in laying bare the interests that structure the sociological field in stark fashion. Sociological autonomy, a key stake in this debate, can no longer be presented as a mystical ideal. While it is clear that from the standpoint of the individual sociologist the autonomy of tenure gives one a freedom to intervene and engage with a variety of issues, one can be under no illusion that autonomy means freedom from interests. Even the position of refusing to take a position remains a position, and is very much tied to certain interests.

But sociology need not be the plaything of interests from either above or below. Whether explicitly public or unashamedly academic, sociology needs to be conscious of the biases and the conditions in which the construction of sociological research takes place. It needs to be open about the interest a sociologist has in pursuing a particular research trajectory and the relation they have with the objects of the research. And it must also be aware of the likely knowledge effects of dissemination - the question of who gains? Do participants gain? Does the knowledge constitute a public good? Do hostile groups and/or elites benefit from it in some way?

This kind of reflexivity, or what Bourdieu termed 'the sociology of sociology' is something I've tried to accomplish in relation to my own PhD research, and how this pans out as the thesis finally emerges from a mountain of transcripts, scribbles, and confused thoughts will be returned to somewhere down the line.

The Parting of the Ways

I did promise Brother S I wouldn't be blogging on the Socialist Workers' Party for a while as comment and speculation has ripped through leftblogland like wildfire. But there's certainly a case for AVPS adding its two pennies worth now the camps have formally announced their intention to separate. November 17th will see two Respect conferences going ahead - the 'official' Respect conference for the SWP and its one or two hangers-on, and 'Respect Renewal' gathering for practically everyone else.

A lot of comment has understandably fixated on the minutiae of meetings and emails, but it's also heartening to note a lot of comrades contributing to the discussion  are trying to draw the necessary lessons by examining the split's roots in the politics of Respect. Well, at least that's what one side of the split is trying to do.

This certainly isn't the case with the SWP. I'm gobsmacked how the SWP leadership appears oblivious to how it's gotten itself into this situation. There is absolutely no self-reflection or awareness of its role in polarising nearly everyone in Respect against it, and it is shameless in its repetition of criticisms made of Respect from the outset, which it earlier would have denounced as Islamophobic. It whinges about Respect's trajectory away from basic socialist positions, and yet does not acknowledge the role played by the SWP leadership in systematically voting them down. And as for its recent discovery that Galloway has not been accountable to Respect, has the SWP been living under a rock? Who bares primary responsibility for letting this state of affairs persist for so long?

On all these matters there is nothing but silence. The leadership knows everything but learns nothing. Farcically, this looks set to continue. For example, the SWP's chief demand is "let the members decide" at Respect's conference, while brazenly stacking conference with delegates from its organisation. Can it not understand how some would find this sort of behaviour deeply alienating? And what will this rather sad event amount to? Something akin to a revivalist meeting with the SWP and a few fellow travellers congratulating each other about "winning" Respect and driving away the "opportunist" and "communalist" elements is most likely. You can almost see it now. In the months ahead, to save face, the SWP's Respect will be heavily pushed and probably a big effort will be made at next year's local and London elections. But in the long term, an organisation representing no one but the SWP has no future. It may be a useful bargaining chip if the SWP enters into negotiations with other left forces, but as a straight front it will not, and cannot be allowed to have any independent life.

As for the SWP itself, it has come out of this faction fight badly bruised. It's reputation lies in tatters, it's absurd Respect petition has made it a laughing stock, and most damaging it has lost a layer of experienced activists. But the SWP is not facing an imminent demise. It has proven to be an extremely durable organisation, despite the 180 degree turns and outright volte-faces it has imposed on itself over the years. Plus the SWP continues to occupy a certain niche on the far left, ensuring a steady stream of activists to replace those who have dropped out. Without a doubt, the SWP will remain a sizeable presence for many years to come.

So much for the SWP, what of the Renewing Respect grouping? It may lack a large pool of disciplined activists, but I think it has far more potential than the SWP's vehicle. Judging by the steady stream of documents on Socialist Unity, it is significant that a broad consensus has emerged around the lessons of the Respect experience and working with the SWP. In an earlier post, I speculated it was united only in opposition to Rees et al. But it seems the struggle has impressed upon everyone the need for unity on a basis stronger than lowest-common-denominator politics and a laissez-faire attitude to elected representative's behaviour. How the new formation will be able to make Galloway and the Tower Hamlets councillors accountable remains to be seen, but if they are overcome positively, this could give Renewing Respect the kind of legs among the wider left that Respect mk I lacked. 

The direction of this project will be decided on November 17th, and I think there is every reason for optimism that a step toward a new, viable left formation will be made. I sincerely hope that the Socialist Party sends a team along to offer our comradely regards, and that this is reciprocated at our Socialism 2007 event, just down the road.