This was too superb not to share with the rest of the world. This press release came to me via the ever-dependable Leftist Trainspotters discussion list. When someone defects from the South to the North it's bound to be big news. Now, no sniggering at the translation. Just read, reflect and salute the Juche Idea!
S. Korean Resident Defects to DPRK
Pyongyang, October 27 (KCNA) -- Kang Tong Rim, 30, who resided in Polgyo Township, Posong County, South Jolla Province of south Korea, Monday came over to the northern half of Korea by crossing the Military Demarcation Line in the eastern sector of the front.
According to him, he served in the First Platoon of the 9th Company under the 3rd Battalion of the 56th Regiment, the 22nd Division of the south Korean army, from September 2001 to November 2003. During the military service he made several attempts for defection with his longing for the northern half of Korea, but in vain.
After being discharged he worked at the Samsung Semiconductor Company as a worker and then left it. He was employed at a pig farm in Polgyo Township before defection.
He is pleased with the accomplishment of his desire for defection.
He is now under the warm care of a relevant organ.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Monday, 2 November 2009
Party System Change
Since the 1970s West European societies have undergone significant social change, which in turn has had a varying impact on their party systems. Dominant political parties have been come under increasing challenge from new rivals, election turnouts have fallen and everywhere disenchantment is on the rise. But while social change and electoral volatility has sped up party systems have proved more resistant to these developments. Why? Is it the case parties have responded to changes and therefore limited the impact social structural shifts have had on the party system? Are there other processes at work?
The existing political science literature on the topic falls into two broad perspectives. The first is the socio-structural perspective. This argues the four main cleavages bisecting Western societies structured and made stable the party systems of these societies. However the changes in advanced capitalist societies from the 1970s on have undermined the saliency of these cleavages which in turn has upset the balance of party systems. In these approaches the line of causality runs from social change through to electoral change and then political change. Party systems are a dependent variable. They have next to no efficacy of their own.
The party-centric alternative is diametrically opposed to the determinist argument. This lays more weight on the actions and strategies parties can pursue as independent agents. As opposed to a causal relationship between electoral and party system change, between the two lies institutions and political parties themselves. Whatever is being "passed down" the line is always mediated by them. This suggests a number of things. First, in contrast to the determinist model, more than just socio-structural cleavages can shape party systems. Second, the strategies of parties can mitigate change by adapting to new developments and/or sheilding the system from its most radical effects. Third, state laws that govern and help structure party systems are always open to being modified by parties themselves.
Gemma argued the roots of these approaches can be found in political theory. For the classical liberal tradition, theory locates power and sovereignty in the electorate (this, for instance, is forcefully argued by J.S. Mill). This is linked with the socio-structural approach in that the normative biases of classical theory - that parties should be responsive to the demands of the electorate and represent their interests - finds expression in the party system literature's assumption that party systems are dependent variables mechanically determined by social change.
Modern political theory has a similar relationship to the party-centric argument. Observing more contemporary transformations in democratic political systems, Joseph Schumpeter argued the conceptualisation of politics in terms of common good assumptions should be replaced. The normative idealisation of 'government by the people' should give way to a more realistic preference for 'government for the people'. Therefore parties are entitled to become rational actors in competition for votes, which of course is how the party-centric approach to party system change treats them. This does not mean parties are cut off from electorates. According to Richard Katz parties represent segments of society, but they can have independent agency vis a vis their base. They can develop strategies that improve their standing in party systems by accommodating the electorate's desires and attempt to shape them. But aside from vote seeking some parties can enhance their position and influence by securing a place in the state's institutional set up.
Therefore parties can adopt strategies that are vote-oriented or office-seeking. The former maximise their votes by developing attractive policies or new ideas. From this base they court sections of the electorate and establish relationships with other parties. The latter tries to influence electoral law, rules governing party finance, the media, etc.
In practice all significant parties engage in a mixture of both. For example, the recent MPs expenses crisis has seen the parties move as a collective to change the rules of the game so the most flagrant abuses won't occur in the future. But because these are strategies, party actions always run the risk of failure, regardless of the types of strategies they pursue.
Therefore, by way of a conclusion, the approach Gemma favoured is party-centered. How else to explain that after decades of rapid social change and the emergence of new parties, traditionally dominant parties have tended to retain their controlling positions?
In the questions and answers a number of issues came up. The first was regarding her treatment of the socio-structural tradition. There was a dispute over the extent to which parties as dependent variables possessed or lacked a strategy. Instead one can argue they pursue strategies suited to the social structures out of which they emerged. They cannot ever fully shake off these roots either. For example, New Labour may have distinguished itself by overtly reaching out to the so-called middle ground and brazenly courted British capital, but it never entirely abandoned the aspirations of its base - as several mild social-democratic measures testify.
Another problem is the role of individual political personalities. The party-centric approach tends to treat parties as discrete coherent entities who typically engage in disciplined action. But contemporary politics, perhaps more than ever, is driven by personalities. So, how to integrate this into the analysis of party system change? Should they be treated as a variable under the heading of electoral tactics?
As far as I was concerned the problem dogging the paper is common to political science as a whole: it proceeds from a high level of abstraction and is undergirded by functionalist assumptions other social sciences dispensed with decades ago. That isn't to say the discipline cannot generate insights, but as far as I'm concerned these will always be handicapped by the (unsaid) theoretical assumptions political science depends on. And so it is with this case. One can develop an ideal typical repertoire of strategies and behaviours parties can undertake, but can it provide analyses superior to the contributions of political sociology, which enmeshes together the influences of classes, class fractions, social movements, institutional actors and parties in its analysis of politics? I remain to be convinced.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
New Blog Round-Up
Shall we take a look at the newest left blogs that have crossed my desk this last month?
The first of these is 21st Century Manifesto, a semi-official Communist Party blog. As such it appears most of the material comes from party publications, but overall it's worth following if you want to know what the CPB is thinking.
While we're on the CPB, another supporter has entered the fray. Five Fingered Left Punch promises to "say what I like and I like what I bloody well say." It's been a fortnight since the comrade last posted, so perhaps an influx of traffic will persuade him to carry on?
PonderBoxes is unusual fare for my round-ups. It pretty much does what it says on the tin: people are invited to submit blog posts on their heart's desire and, well ... ponder. All the ponders so far are of a distinct lefty-liberal character (hence its inclusion here). You can follow the blog and its founder on Twitter here and here.
Alienated Left is the new joint project from Kit of The Polemical Report and Duncan of In Place of Fear. They say "Alienated Left looks for the facts behind the big-parties', governments' and big-media groups' propaganda. We ask whether the issues they focus on, and the questions they ask, are the right ones - and provide alternative ones from independent, left-liberal, left, socialist, anarchist and other viewpoints. We are bloggers who reject blind loyalty to any one party or politician, based on the realisation that if the majority don't question the propaganda-line they're fed, or lobby for their interests and the ideals they believe in, the big companies and the billionaires will always control government policy in their own interest - and against the interests of the majority. We want real democracy, not plutocracy. To get that, we need to provide the facts (as best we can determine them), not what too many people think they know just because the lies have been repeated so many times."
It's probably still the case LGBT issues don't get as much coverage on left wing blogs as racism and sexism, so it's good another blog has limbered up to fill the gap. Academented promises to be "one queer girl's take on LGBT representation in the media." As a new PhD student expect a mix of this with reflections on academia too. You can follow the author, Han M on Twitter here.
Another is also helping overcome this unfortunate gap. Soho Politico has rapidly become another must-read blog for lefties, not least because of his excellent take downs of Tory hypocrisy on LGBT matters. Definitely a blog to watch over the coming year. You can follow Soho Politico on Twitter here.
Calling Malcolm Clarke's blog a new one might be stretching it a bit, seeing as it's been around since last December. But after an eight month hiatus he has returned to offer his take on internal Labour Party issues, what's going on around Durham way and of course, national news stories. You can follow Malcolm on Twitter here.
Do you think you can handle another CPB blog? One from the Plough. Why this name? "In many ways the plough is an icon for ordinary working people thoughout history. The original symbol for the Soviet Union was a hammer crossed over with a plough. In our own Labour movement in Britain, those early pioneers, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, would have worked the plough in the fields of Dorset. The inspiration for the name of this blog came from a great man, George Mitchell, who was a leader of Agricultural workers during the Nineteenth century near Yeovil, Somerset. Our shared first name, George, is derived from the Greek 'Georgos' meaning worker of the earth. So when searching for a name for my blog I thought that nothing sounded quite as apt as George Mitchell's nickname-"one from the plough"". Again it's been a few days since something was last posted, which I hope will be remedied by a few extra visits.
Next is Roots and Resilience. The author writes: "My main interest is in the establishment and protection of human rights, particularly the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (and Britain!). But I also have a deep interest in Latin America and central Africa. So my posts will echo this, but, will not be limited by it. I also have a focus on refugees, refugee law, and the asylum system, so it is likely that an emphasis on forced displacement, refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants will also come through."
And that's it for another month. Once again if you're starting up a new blog or know of other new lefty, socialist, communist, feminist, green, Labour etc. types who just have please let me know and they'll get a shout out in the next round-up.
The first of these is 21st Century Manifesto, a semi-official Communist Party blog. As such it appears most of the material comes from party publications, but overall it's worth following if you want to know what the CPB is thinking.
While we're on the CPB, another supporter has entered the fray. Five Fingered Left Punch promises to "say what I like and I like what I bloody well say." It's been a fortnight since the comrade last posted, so perhaps an influx of traffic will persuade him to carry on?
PonderBoxes is unusual fare for my round-ups. It pretty much does what it says on the tin: people are invited to submit blog posts on their heart's desire and, well ... ponder. All the ponders so far are of a distinct lefty-liberal character (hence its inclusion here). You can follow the blog and its founder on Twitter here and here.
Alienated Left is the new joint project from Kit of The Polemical Report and Duncan of In Place of Fear. They say "Alienated Left looks for the facts behind the big-parties', governments' and big-media groups' propaganda. We ask whether the issues they focus on, and the questions they ask, are the right ones - and provide alternative ones from independent, left-liberal, left, socialist, anarchist and other viewpoints. We are bloggers who reject blind loyalty to any one party or politician, based on the realisation that if the majority don't question the propaganda-line they're fed, or lobby for their interests and the ideals they believe in, the big companies and the billionaires will always control government policy in their own interest - and against the interests of the majority. We want real democracy, not plutocracy. To get that, we need to provide the facts (as best we can determine them), not what too many people think they know just because the lies have been repeated so many times."
It's probably still the case LGBT issues don't get as much coverage on left wing blogs as racism and sexism, so it's good another blog has limbered up to fill the gap. Academented promises to be "one queer girl's take on LGBT representation in the media." As a new PhD student expect a mix of this with reflections on academia too. You can follow the author, Han M on Twitter here.
Another is also helping overcome this unfortunate gap. Soho Politico has rapidly become another must-read blog for lefties, not least because of his excellent take downs of Tory hypocrisy on LGBT matters. Definitely a blog to watch over the coming year. You can follow Soho Politico on Twitter here.
Calling Malcolm Clarke's blog a new one might be stretching it a bit, seeing as it's been around since last December. But after an eight month hiatus he has returned to offer his take on internal Labour Party issues, what's going on around Durham way and of course, national news stories. You can follow Malcolm on Twitter here.
Do you think you can handle another CPB blog? One from the Plough. Why this name? "In many ways the plough is an icon for ordinary working people thoughout history. The original symbol for the Soviet Union was a hammer crossed over with a plough. In our own Labour movement in Britain, those early pioneers, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, would have worked the plough in the fields of Dorset. The inspiration for the name of this blog came from a great man, George Mitchell, who was a leader of Agricultural workers during the Nineteenth century near Yeovil, Somerset. Our shared first name, George, is derived from the Greek 'Georgos' meaning worker of the earth. So when searching for a name for my blog I thought that nothing sounded quite as apt as George Mitchell's nickname-"one from the plough"". Again it's been a few days since something was last posted, which I hope will be remedied by a few extra visits.
Next is Roots and Resilience. The author writes: "My main interest is in the establishment and protection of human rights, particularly the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (and Britain!). But I also have a deep interest in Latin America and central Africa. So my posts will echo this, but, will not be limited by it. I also have a focus on refugees, refugee law, and the asylum system, so it is likely that an emphasis on forced displacement, refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants will also come through."
And that's it for another month. Once again if you're starting up a new blog or know of other new lefty, socialist, communist, feminist, green, Labour etc. types who just have please let me know and they'll get a shout out in the next round-up.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
SP Leaflet: Victory to the Postal Workers!
The national strike action has rocked Royal Mail bosses and the government to their very roots.
The strike has been absolutely solid because as postal workers know this is a fight to the finish for their jobs, their union and the future of Royal Mail as a public service and not something for the profits of the bosses.
Adam Crozier backed up by the Labour government and the unelected Lord Mandelson set out from the beginning to break the will of the workers to resist their plans to make the Royal Mail fit for privatisation.
The role of the Labour government in these attacks reinforces the call by members to stop financing the Labour Party. It also emphasises that the CWU along with other unions need their own political voice.
The CWU should join the campaign to build a new workers' party as part of their overall strategy to win this battle against privatisation and the ending of the post office as a public service.
In the management's leaked document they laid out a number of scenarios to bring the union to heel including threatening "de-recognition" with "only the legal minimum engagement" with the union and reps.
The bosses recognise that without an effective union on the shop floor then they will be able to run roughshod over all the painfully built up working conditions won over decades of struggle. They hoped to frighten the CWU leadership into accepting their plans as "the lesser evil" but it is clear that the CWU branches were not prepared to be blackmailed and the leadership were forced to accept this.
The bosses call for “modernisation” is a euphemism for job cuts, pay cuts and the introduction of a regime in the workplace of fear and intimidation.
What happens now will be determined by what tactics are adopted to win this struggle by the leadership of the union.
Sectional strikes have had a big effect so far in the sense that tens of millions of items of post are blocked up in the system much to the chagrin of management (though it still seems to mean that some workers such as drivers have been penalised for not crossing picket lines in the delivery offices) but what is required now is a clear strategy that will increase the pressure on the bosses and at the same time demonstrate that the postal workers are determined to win this crucial battle.
Discontinuous action up to Christmas seems to be the leadership's strategy as far as the CWU itself is concerned but what is required is a dual tactic of also appealing to the undoubted large amounts of support there is amongst other workers, particularly in the rest of the public sector.
The CWU should make this appeal both at national and local level by means of initiating meetings with their opposite numbers in other public sector unions such as Unison (council and health workers) PCS (civil servants) and other unions such as Unite, the FBU and the GMB.
There should be a clear call for solidarity action by other unions on the basis that the postal workers strike is their fight as well. All public sector workers are facing massive attacks either now or in the future.
Strikes are already taking place around the country, such as Leeds bin workers who have been on all out strike for eight weeks.
Fire fighters are also taking action in Yorkshire, Essex, Merseyside and London.
Bus workers are on strike in south Yorkshire.
A clear call to unite the struggles by the CWU leadership would in our opinion receive widespread support.
The union should organise city wide rallies and demos with a call to all unions to join in and back them. At these rallies the union leaders should call for solidarity action by all workers the next time the postal strikes take.
It is increasingly clear that if the bosses still prevaricate then sooner rather than later the union should prepare the members for an all out strike that will force the bosses to retreat. We cannot allow the bosses any longer to dictate the pace of events. They should be left in no doubt that we will not have another 2007-type deal that is used by the bosses to bully and intimidate workers as individuals that after all is why we are in a union.
The Socialist Party calls for:
- CWU to demand support from the whole trade union movement if Royal Mail try to break the strikes with scabs.
- No more “modernisation” deals - end the attacks once and for all.
- Defend all jobs, pensions and conditions.
- No to increased workloads.
- Defend the union, defend the reps.
- Bring back ‘in house’ all previously privatised work.
- For a united fight to defend public services across all public sector trade unions.
The strike has been absolutely solid because as postal workers know this is a fight to the finish for their jobs, their union and the future of Royal Mail as a public service and not something for the profits of the bosses.
Adam Crozier backed up by the Labour government and the unelected Lord Mandelson set out from the beginning to break the will of the workers to resist their plans to make the Royal Mail fit for privatisation.
The role of the Labour government in these attacks reinforces the call by members to stop financing the Labour Party. It also emphasises that the CWU along with other unions need their own political voice.
The CWU should join the campaign to build a new workers' party as part of their overall strategy to win this battle against privatisation and the ending of the post office as a public service.
In the management's leaked document they laid out a number of scenarios to bring the union to heel including threatening "de-recognition" with "only the legal minimum engagement" with the union and reps.
The bosses recognise that without an effective union on the shop floor then they will be able to run roughshod over all the painfully built up working conditions won over decades of struggle. They hoped to frighten the CWU leadership into accepting their plans as "the lesser evil" but it is clear that the CWU branches were not prepared to be blackmailed and the leadership were forced to accept this.
The bosses call for “modernisation” is a euphemism for job cuts, pay cuts and the introduction of a regime in the workplace of fear and intimidation.
What happens now will be determined by what tactics are adopted to win this struggle by the leadership of the union.
Sectional strikes have had a big effect so far in the sense that tens of millions of items of post are blocked up in the system much to the chagrin of management (though it still seems to mean that some workers such as drivers have been penalised for not crossing picket lines in the delivery offices) but what is required now is a clear strategy that will increase the pressure on the bosses and at the same time demonstrate that the postal workers are determined to win this crucial battle.
Discontinuous action up to Christmas seems to be the leadership's strategy as far as the CWU itself is concerned but what is required is a dual tactic of also appealing to the undoubted large amounts of support there is amongst other workers, particularly in the rest of the public sector.
The CWU should make this appeal both at national and local level by means of initiating meetings with their opposite numbers in other public sector unions such as Unison (council and health workers) PCS (civil servants) and other unions such as Unite, the FBU and the GMB.
There should be a clear call for solidarity action by other unions on the basis that the postal workers strike is their fight as well. All public sector workers are facing massive attacks either now or in the future.
Strikes are already taking place around the country, such as Leeds bin workers who have been on all out strike for eight weeks.
Fire fighters are also taking action in Yorkshire, Essex, Merseyside and London.
Bus workers are on strike in south Yorkshire.
A clear call to unite the struggles by the CWU leadership would in our opinion receive widespread support.
The union should organise city wide rallies and demos with a call to all unions to join in and back them. At these rallies the union leaders should call for solidarity action by all workers the next time the postal strikes take.
It is increasingly clear that if the bosses still prevaricate then sooner rather than later the union should prepare the members for an all out strike that will force the bosses to retreat. We cannot allow the bosses any longer to dictate the pace of events. They should be left in no doubt that we will not have another 2007-type deal that is used by the bosses to bully and intimidate workers as individuals that after all is why we are in a union.
The Socialist Party calls for:
- CWU to demand support from the whole trade union movement if Royal Mail try to break the strikes with scabs.
- No more “modernisation” deals - end the attacks once and for all.
- Defend all jobs, pensions and conditions.
- No to increased workloads.
- Defend the union, defend the reps.
- Bring back ‘in house’ all previously privatised work.
- For a united fight to defend public services across all public sector trade unions.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Mainstream Politics and Disengagement
Mike began with a potted biography of his career. He was first elected as a councillor in Newcastle-U-Lyme in 1980 and sat for four years. In '81 he was elected to Staffs County Council and remained there for the next 16 years. From '94-'99 he was Labour MEP for the Staffs West and Congleton European constituency. From 2004-8 he represented Blurton on Stoke City Council, leading the Labour group in his final year before losing his seat. In addition he chaired Stoke South Primary Care Trust from 01-06 and is currently a member of the so-called transition board charged with implementing the recent governance commission report for restructuring local government in the Potteries.
Over the course of his career there has been a marked decline in political participation (defined as voting). For example, the turnout for the 1979 general election was 76 per cent. By 2005 it had declined to 61 per cent, and fell to 34.7 per cent for this year's European elections (though, it should be worth noting, turnout tends to be much lower for 'second order' elections). For Mike there are a number of reasons for this. First is the growing fragmentation of Britain's (Westminster) two-and-a-half party system, first in its geographical peripheries (Scotland, Wales) and then in England itself with the emergence of the three main minor parties - UKIP, the BNP and Greens. The causes of declining participation and fragmentation is bound up with the disintegration of deference, which in turn was an effect of the class relationships that predominated before 1979. For example, in Stoke communities were concentrated the pits and pot banks. As the industries closed class relationships began to change, dispersing the relatively cohesive collectives they called into being.
Other long term processes were at work too. The hype around globalisation has created the impression that governmental powers have been dissolved by immense global forces beyond the reach of government - so what's the point in voting if politicians can't change anything? There's also the perception politicians are all corrupt and on the make, are socially different from the electorate (many 'younger' MPs and PPCs have gone straight from university to a career in wonkland, and from there to parliament). Finally the insatiable maw of 24/7 news has done a great deal to undermine the control parties have over their message, and the pervasiveness of celebrity culture has successfully supplanted politics, partly because it appears more relevant to many people than the rarefied goings ons in Westminster.
Having diagnosed the many ills of mainstream politics it then moved on to a Q&A session, which revolved around two points. One of these was his career. Asked about his record and what he thought he'd achieved in his five years as a MEP, he listed keeping Indian and Chinese ceramics out of the European market for five years, retaining the back stamp on pottery and securing funding for reemployment in North Staffs.
The other was the party and electoral system. Mike admitted he was unfashionable but believed the present winner takes all system (modified with transferable votes if no one scores the 50 per cent plus one) is the best of all possible worlds. He believes in "the smack of firm government" and argued you trade off effective government as a system becomes more proportional. This is not a boon for democracy as such because the subsequent horse trading that builds coalitions is between political elites. It is no more participatory than the Westminster system. As for the two party system itself, it will only survive if it appeals to the broad spectrum of mainstream opinion.
As I was wearing my sessional tutor hat (and not being a student) I didn't get stuck in, though if I had I wouldn't have gone down the route of 'isn't it time for a new workers' party' point scoring. Instead I'd have asked if Mike believed the neoliberal consensus had turned millions of people off from politics, and if so what sort of politics could begin to address the disconnect? That he stuck to sociological arguments at the expense of political explanations for the crisis was quite telling. How can we expect mainstream politics to change if it can't even look at its failings in a mirror?
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Come to Socialism 2009
Good grief, Socialism 2009 is almost upon us! For readers unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the Socialist Party's calendar, Socialism is our annual weekend educational school/rally. It affords an opportunity for comrades to get stuck into a number of tightly focused sessions on a variety of topics (examples here and here) and get up to some general tomfoolery too.
Looking at how things have gone for the SP this year, Socialism 09 promises to be the biggest event yet. We have not one but three union general secretaries speaking at Saturday night's Rally for Socialism - the POA's (and SP member) Brian Caton, Matt Wrack of the fire brigade's union, and the RMT's Bob Crow. In addition the Irish Socialist Party's MEP, Joe Higgins and SP general secretary, Peter Taaffe will speak. And yes, without a doubt, it will be wrapped up in the traditional way.
Unfortunately this will be the first Socialism I've missed since my first in 2005. It's a shame because there's more than a few sessions I fancy. On the Saturday afternoon I probably would have headed to 'Britain after the general election', which will be discussing what we can expect from an incoming Tory government. Sunday morning would be a toss up between the forum on capitalism in crisis and the session on Sri Lanka. And for the final one in the afternoon it has to be the discussion on working class political representation with ourselves, the Greens, the RMT, Respect, the LRC and the SWP. I am an inveterate sectarian so what do you expect? Chances are our friends the International Bolshevik Tendency will be running a fringe meeting (see this, for example). If I was a betting man I'd wager they'll be denouncing us for accepting Brian Caton as a member. Shame the only folk who'll turn up will be their erstwhile comrades from the Spartacist League.
Just because I won't be going doesn't mean this blog will be a Socialism-free zone. I've got a couple of comrades who've pledged to guess blog a couple of sessions for me. But I want more! If you're going and fancy a stab writing about a talk/discussion, your overall impressions, the socialist party at the Saint Aloysius Social Club and what not, drop me a line.
Socialism 2009 takes place over the weekend of November 7th and 8th. Get your tickets here and come along!
Looking at how things have gone for the SP this year, Socialism 09 promises to be the biggest event yet. We have not one but three union general secretaries speaking at Saturday night's Rally for Socialism - the POA's (and SP member) Brian Caton, Matt Wrack of the fire brigade's union, and the RMT's Bob Crow. In addition the Irish Socialist Party's MEP, Joe Higgins and SP general secretary, Peter Taaffe will speak. And yes, without a doubt, it will be wrapped up in the traditional way.
Unfortunately this will be the first Socialism I've missed since my first in 2005. It's a shame because there's more than a few sessions I fancy. On the Saturday afternoon I probably would have headed to 'Britain after the general election', which will be discussing what we can expect from an incoming Tory government. Sunday morning would be a toss up between the forum on capitalism in crisis and the session on Sri Lanka. And for the final one in the afternoon it has to be the discussion on working class political representation with ourselves, the Greens, the RMT, Respect, the LRC and the SWP. I am an inveterate sectarian so what do you expect? Chances are our friends the International Bolshevik Tendency will be running a fringe meeting (see this, for example). If I was a betting man I'd wager they'll be denouncing us for accepting Brian Caton as a member. Shame the only folk who'll turn up will be their erstwhile comrades from the Spartacist League.
Just because I won't be going doesn't mean this blog will be a Socialism-free zone. I've got a couple of comrades who've pledged to guess blog a couple of sessions for me. But I want more! If you're going and fancy a stab writing about a talk/discussion, your overall impressions, the socialist party at the Saint Aloysius Social Club and what not, drop me a line.
Socialism 2009 takes place over the weekend of November 7th and 8th. Get your tickets here and come along!
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Interviewed
I'm not feeling particularly inspired at the moment so here's something I did earlier with Kit from The Polemical Report. This AFAIK is the first in a series of interviews with bloggers the comrade hopes to run. I'm fully aware it is indecent virtual vanity to feature an interview with me on my own blog, but it's certainly no worse than bloggers tweeting when their next TV or radio appearance is going to be. I don't know if readers will get anything from it, but isn't that the risk us bloggers take whenever we post something up?
Yes, that is my Blogger and Twitter pic. And yes, I really do look like that.
Who are you?
I’m Phil BC, a PhD student living in Stoke-on-Trent. I became interested in politics at junior school, and have moved from the right to the left in the 22 years since. I’m a trade unionist and a member of the Socialist Party.
Briefly explain your blog
Officially: Sociology with a Militant Twist. Unofficially? An opportunity to mouth off on whatever issues that take my fancy.
Why did you start, & what keeps you motivated?
From the start I originally intended the blog to be more academic and sociological, but very quickly the focus became political. Prior to blogging I used to regularly contribute to the discussion list I founded, the UK Left Network, so I was already in the habit of screaming my opinions into cyberspace. It was inevitable my blog would be more of the same – though hopefully more structured and coherent.
How I keep myself motivated? It’s difficult to say. Once you start writing regularly you feel a desire to keep going, especially if it’s bound up in your real world political activity in some way. If you stop for any length of time it’s much harder to get restarted – as I found out when I lost interest for a few months in 2007.
What are your thoughts on the role of biographical details informing how blogs are read?
I’m not sure about this myself. Does anyone read Guido because ‘He’s Guido’, or does he attract audiences because of the tittle-tattle he trades in? Not that you can entirely separate the two. I don’t know. Would any of my present readers migrate elsewhere if I dropped or changed my political affiliation? I haven’t a clue. I would hope not. Ultimately every blogger hopes they attract an audience because they find what’s written is interesting.
What inspires your blog? Do you have any blogging role models?
Political activity inspires my blogging – the problems of developing a socialist critique and strategy appropriate to the present day animates most of what I do online. As for role models, I hope I won’t be embarrassing anyone! To name a few – Andy Newman of Socialist Unity, Louise at HarpyMarx, Dave’s Part, Splintered Sunrise, Jim at The Daily (Maybe), Stroppy at Stroppyblog, Dave and Paul at Though Cowards Flinch – all of their writing is spot on in different ways. If I could write as well I’d be chuffed!
If your blog didn’t exist, which other blogs would fill the gap?
Tough question! When I started there were no Socialist Party bloggers I was aware of and now there are loads. I’m sure they would have filled the SP’s gap in the far left blogging firmament. On the strategic thinking side of things the excellent Though Cowards Flinch follows a fairly similar trajectory as I do. The Third Estate also does some good thinking outside the box.
What are you views on blogger tools (e.g. google analytics, zemanta, etc.) and are there any that you recommend?
I don’t use too many – I’m still too paralysed by what Eddie Izzard calls ‘techno-fear’, despite being an internet user for 14 years. I use statcounter and that’s it. Once my PhD is done I have a few plans for the site, but they’ll have to wait until then.
What are your thoughts regarding the popularity of particular posts? Are you ever surprised by what people find of interest (or don’t)?
It never ceases to amaze me how some searches end up on the blog, particularly those looking for pictures of women’s body parts! It’s always interesting to see posts detailing the minutiae of small far left parties attract more attention than say an analysis of the predicament of the Labour party or a look at a piece of research. Interesting but not surprising – debates on the merits or otherwise of competing left groups always exercised the bulk of posts in the UK Left Network’s heyday.
Who do you write for? Do you have a target reader? If not, How do you decide what does & does not need explaining?
I guess my primary audiences are Marxists and other passing left-wingers. Occasionally I do write for a broader audience and that sometimes gets picked up and highlighted by bigger blogs. There’s also a small number of academics who pop by from time to time. So when I write a post I have a good idea of who’s going to read it, and from there I set the level of assumed knowledge. Even if I’m writing about something complex I try and keep it readable (either explaining or linking to explanations of technical terms as I go along). See the recent postings of my old Masters’ dissertation or last winter’s reading of Georg Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness for example.
Do you set yourself any format restrictions (e.g. length, tone, style)?
I’m very aware of TL;DR! Though it varies - 1,500 words tends to be my maximum. I also always write in Arial. Style varies from piece to piece – it usually depends on the literary merits of what I’m reading at that moment!
Since you began blogging, have you noticed any significant changes in the blogosphere?
Yes, blog designs are much better! There’s more of an intersection between blogging and other social media. Blogs are taken a bit more seriously by the political commentariat. Overall quality of left wing blogging has improved and there’s more of us about.
Is there any advice that you would like to offer to other bloggers?
If blogging is an adjunct to your political activity then you’ll never run out of things to write on. Also just ignore or ban any trolls you attract. They can be the most awful time thieves.
Anything else to add?
Thanks for interviewing me!
Original here.
Yes, that is my Blogger and Twitter pic. And yes, I really do look like that.
Who are you?
I’m Phil BC, a PhD student living in Stoke-on-Trent. I became interested in politics at junior school, and have moved from the right to the left in the 22 years since. I’m a trade unionist and a member of the Socialist Party.
Briefly explain your blog
Officially: Sociology with a Militant Twist. Unofficially? An opportunity to mouth off on whatever issues that take my fancy.
Why did you start, & what keeps you motivated?
From the start I originally intended the blog to be more academic and sociological, but very quickly the focus became political. Prior to blogging I used to regularly contribute to the discussion list I founded, the UK Left Network, so I was already in the habit of screaming my opinions into cyberspace. It was inevitable my blog would be more of the same – though hopefully more structured and coherent.
How I keep myself motivated? It’s difficult to say. Once you start writing regularly you feel a desire to keep going, especially if it’s bound up in your real world political activity in some way. If you stop for any length of time it’s much harder to get restarted – as I found out when I lost interest for a few months in 2007.
What are your thoughts on the role of biographical details informing how blogs are read?
I’m not sure about this myself. Does anyone read Guido because ‘He’s Guido’, or does he attract audiences because of the tittle-tattle he trades in? Not that you can entirely separate the two. I don’t know. Would any of my present readers migrate elsewhere if I dropped or changed my political affiliation? I haven’t a clue. I would hope not. Ultimately every blogger hopes they attract an audience because they find what’s written is interesting.
What inspires your blog? Do you have any blogging role models?
Political activity inspires my blogging – the problems of developing a socialist critique and strategy appropriate to the present day animates most of what I do online. As for role models, I hope I won’t be embarrassing anyone! To name a few – Andy Newman of Socialist Unity, Louise at HarpyMarx, Dave’s Part, Splintered Sunrise, Jim at The Daily (Maybe), Stroppy at Stroppyblog, Dave and Paul at Though Cowards Flinch – all of their writing is spot on in different ways. If I could write as well I’d be chuffed!
If your blog didn’t exist, which other blogs would fill the gap?
Tough question! When I started there were no Socialist Party bloggers I was aware of and now there are loads. I’m sure they would have filled the SP’s gap in the far left blogging firmament. On the strategic thinking side of things the excellent Though Cowards Flinch follows a fairly similar trajectory as I do. The Third Estate also does some good thinking outside the box.
What are you views on blogger tools (e.g. google analytics, zemanta, etc.) and are there any that you recommend?
I don’t use too many – I’m still too paralysed by what Eddie Izzard calls ‘techno-fear’, despite being an internet user for 14 years. I use statcounter and that’s it. Once my PhD is done I have a few plans for the site, but they’ll have to wait until then.
What are your thoughts regarding the popularity of particular posts? Are you ever surprised by what people find of interest (or don’t)?
It never ceases to amaze me how some searches end up on the blog, particularly those looking for pictures of women’s body parts! It’s always interesting to see posts detailing the minutiae of small far left parties attract more attention than say an analysis of the predicament of the Labour party or a look at a piece of research. Interesting but not surprising – debates on the merits or otherwise of competing left groups always exercised the bulk of posts in the UK Left Network’s heyday.
Who do you write for? Do you have a target reader? If not, How do you decide what does & does not need explaining?
I guess my primary audiences are Marxists and other passing left-wingers. Occasionally I do write for a broader audience and that sometimes gets picked up and highlighted by bigger blogs. There’s also a small number of academics who pop by from time to time. So when I write a post I have a good idea of who’s going to read it, and from there I set the level of assumed knowledge. Even if I’m writing about something complex I try and keep it readable (either explaining or linking to explanations of technical terms as I go along). See the recent postings of my old Masters’ dissertation or last winter’s reading of Georg Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness for example.
Do you set yourself any format restrictions (e.g. length, tone, style)?
I’m very aware of TL;DR! Though it varies - 1,500 words tends to be my maximum. I also always write in Arial. Style varies from piece to piece – it usually depends on the literary merits of what I’m reading at that moment!
Since you began blogging, have you noticed any significant changes in the blogosphere?
Yes, blog designs are much better! There’s more of an intersection between blogging and other social media. Blogs are taken a bit more seriously by the political commentariat. Overall quality of left wing blogging has improved and there’s more of us about.
Is there any advice that you would like to offer to other bloggers?
If blogging is an adjunct to your political activity then you’ll never run out of things to write on. Also just ignore or ban any trolls you attract. They can be the most awful time thieves.
Anything else to add?
Thanks for interviewing me!
Original here.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Nine More Questions for Nick Griffin
In addition to Sunny Handal's 20 Questions We Should Ask the BNP, here are nine more that have come my way via Urban 75. Whereas Sunny's questions were addressed to the BNP's thinly-concealed fascism these take the BNP up on their record.
1. Why has the BNP consistently (Stoke, Burnley Pendle) voted for above-inflation increases in council taxation, despite its claims against council tax increases and property-based council tax in general?
2. Why did Broxbourne BNP vote to block free bus passes for pensioners against their pledge that "pensioners should get free bus passes"?
3. Why did Halifax BNP councillors in abstain from voting to block the closure of a primary school in Mixenden despite election literature promising to defend all primary schools in the area.
4. Why did BNP in Kirklees agree to council service cuts in Sep 2009 declaring "a lot of the silly posts can disappear. I've always advocated that you get rid of 25% of council staff and no-one would notice. We won't be able to guarantee early retirement and gold-plated pensions."?
5. You, Griffin, have expelled certain BNP members for their political actions (including ex-Conservative BNP councillor Geoff Wallace in Halifax for supporting greenbelt housing) but not those who have implemented these above actions which harm the majority whose interests you claim to further. Why is there this discrepancy?
6. Why did you oppose the firefighters' strike of 2002-2003, asserting that firefighters should not have the right to withdraw their labour to renegotiate terms and conditions of work? You declared firefighters "must be placed on the same level as military personnel and police officers and ... forego their ambiguous position of using strike action". Do you still agree with it?
7. Why did Stoke BNP exonerate chief executive Wayne Nutbeen for closing (in 2005) Royal Doulton's last factories. Nutbeen's explanation was the "company isn't owned by Stoke-on-Trent. It is owned by the shareholders. The board has to ensure it does right by them".
8. Why has Stoke BNP agreed to budgets (2004, 2005, 2007) that cut social spending including Citizen's Advice Bureaus, old people's services?
9. Which aspects of the "national good" in "Oriental countries" would you emulate in Britain first - a 2000% increase in work-related suicides, mass dismissals of workers for attending anti-government meetings or homeless nomad families working in low-wage sectors? (Your manifesto (2009) claimed "Oriental countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have managed their economies to combine private enterprise competition with the national good, and these are the models the BNP would emulate.")
Also at Socialist Unity.
1. Why has the BNP consistently (Stoke, Burnley Pendle) voted for above-inflation increases in council taxation, despite its claims against council tax increases and property-based council tax in general?
2. Why did Broxbourne BNP vote to block free bus passes for pensioners against their pledge that "pensioners should get free bus passes"?
3. Why did Halifax BNP councillors in abstain from voting to block the closure of a primary school in Mixenden despite election literature promising to defend all primary schools in the area.
4. Why did BNP in Kirklees agree to council service cuts in Sep 2009 declaring "a lot of the silly posts can disappear. I've always advocated that you get rid of 25% of council staff and no-one would notice. We won't be able to guarantee early retirement and gold-plated pensions."?
5. You, Griffin, have expelled certain BNP members for their political actions (including ex-Conservative BNP councillor Geoff Wallace in Halifax for supporting greenbelt housing) but not those who have implemented these above actions which harm the majority whose interests you claim to further. Why is there this discrepancy?
6. Why did you oppose the firefighters' strike of 2002-2003, asserting that firefighters should not have the right to withdraw their labour to renegotiate terms and conditions of work? You declared firefighters "must be placed on the same level as military personnel and police officers and ... forego their ambiguous position of using strike action". Do you still agree with it?
7. Why did Stoke BNP exonerate chief executive Wayne Nutbeen for closing (in 2005) Royal Doulton's last factories. Nutbeen's explanation was the "company isn't owned by Stoke-on-Trent. It is owned by the shareholders. The board has to ensure it does right by them".
8. Why has Stoke BNP agreed to budgets (2004, 2005, 2007) that cut social spending including Citizen's Advice Bureaus, old people's services?
9. Which aspects of the "national good" in "Oriental countries" would you emulate in Britain first - a 2000% increase in work-related suicides, mass dismissals of workers for attending anti-government meetings or homeless nomad families working in low-wage sectors? (Your manifesto (2009) claimed "Oriental countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have managed their economies to combine private enterprise competition with the national good, and these are the models the BNP would emulate.")
Also at Socialist Unity.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Roots of the Recession
Unlike those that have gone before, the present economic crisis stands unique in the speed at which it happened and how no corner of the globe has remained untouched. However, as far as Bülent was concerned most mainstream commentators are at a loss to explain why it happened (see, for example, Alan Greenspan in the BBC's The Love of Money - with his theories in shreds he is forced to blame the crisis on that hoary old canard, human nature).
For those that go beyond essentialist arguments, one needs to look at the processes and longer-term historic trends that are involved. Most immediate, of course, was a boom driven by credit, overlaid with sophisticated speculative financial instruments and the fact economic decision-making happens away from the public gaze and in secret away from the eyes of competitors. Exacerbating and causing this overheating of the global economy were the policies of successive US administrations. As the world's hegemonic power and economic policeman, through the World Bank, IMF and direct aid it encouraged global deregulation and speculative, unproductive economic activity. In so doing capital became almost footloose and seemingly able to roam the world at will, seeking out the most profitable opportunities. This way national economies overlapped and enmeshed with one another at ever greater speed. So when it started unravelling and plunged the world into deep crisis not only were all the failings of neoliberal globalisation exposed, the crisis represented a challenge to the US's leadership.
In many ways this is a crisis made in America. Sub-prime lending, which is widely blamed as the trigger for the crisis was an exceedingly speculative activity. Lending mortgages at (initially) extremely low interest rates on repayments and without the need for a down payment proved attractive to many working class Americans. The lenders naively assumed that once the higher rates kicked in, larger repayments could be met by ever increasing incomes and/or the climbing house prices. Lenders believed this was the chance for risk-free profit, and so did many others, which was why investment banks like Lehman's funneled massive funds into this sector. The other side to this was the US's decline as a manufacturing power. With US-led overseas restructuring via the World Bank and IMF it became easier for capital to uproot plant and transport it half way round the world to churn out goods at a fraction of the labour costs of the home market. But in that market itself, with a drying up of profitable productive uses to which capital could be put, fiddles like sub-prime mortgages seemed like a good outlet.
There's no need to repeat the rest of the story. But there is a danger the crisis might, at some point in the future, repeat itself. The only lesson seemingly taken on board by governments, policy wonks, bankers and economists is the need for more regulation. It goes deeper than this, it was a crisis of the structural changes inaugurated by neoliberalism that encouraged particular kinds of economic behaviours, rather than reckless actions per se. However, the powers that be have stuck with subjective Greenspan-style "explanations" because it suits them to do so. None of them would dare admit the economic policies they foisted on the world these last 30 years have been wasteful, irresponsible and extremely damaging.
For Bülent the present crisis is an outcome of ongoing tectonic structural changes. On the one hand there has been the growth of finance at the expense of manufacturing, and on the other has been the loss of US power and the rise of alternative centres of capital accumulation.
Turning first to finance, in the West and particularly Britain and the US, the switch to the economic dominance of finance capital was rooted in their response to the falling rate of profit. Up until the late 1960s capitalism was booming as it basked in the high water mark of manufacturing. The ratio of profit to (productive) capital investment increased and economies expanded, fuelling full employment and the expansion of welfare states. From the late 60s the tendency for the rate of profit to fall reasserted itself. Rather than being locked into a long-term decline, UK and US capital looked for a way out. The election of Thatcher and Reagan saw them undertake attacks on labour movements and welfare, The resulting restrictive labour laws allowed capital to hold down or cut wages while increasing working hours. Governments attacked welfare spending to fund tax cuts on profits. Privatisation of state assets allowed for new accumulation opportunities. And overseas, weak developing economies were laid open to the predations of Western capital. Productivity rose but real wages lagged well behind. The proportion of wealth coming to workers stopped growing and went into reverse. Widening inequality gaps became the order of the day. Credit assumed an ever greater role in the economy and managed to lubricate the wheels of capitalism, but they could only delay and not stop them from coming off. But at least for a period mega profits poured into the coffers of the wealthy and super rich.
The second point is hegemonic. After the end of the Second World War, the devastation inflicted on the metropolitan centres of capital outside the US (Western Europe, Japan) meant they had no choice but to accept the restructuring of the global economy in America's interest. As they recovered under US leadership they became very effective competitors. While US profit rates were declining Japan and West Germany boomed. Relative economic decline however did not set in until the end of the Cold War, at which point the economies of south-east Asia took off in a rocket of state-directed development. China and India in particular are responsible for most of this growth, and not just because of their massive reserves of cheap labour. Not only are they workshops for the world, their internal markets are growing too. Presently China possesses the third largest domestic market. For Bülent this is the stirring of a new world order to come, one where the West is no longer hegemonic.
This is why the regulatory "solutions" proposed by Western politicians are clearly inadequate. No amount of regulation is going to alter the tectonic shift in capital accumulation toward the East. The uni-polar world of US dominance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past - the world is heading toward a multi-polar phase. And in the economies at the heart of the global crisis, governments are moving to cut public spending, and companies (even ones relatively untouched by the recession) are shedding jobs and freezing wages. Holding these down - in the absence of cheap credit - is storing up more trouble for the future.
In sum, I thought the talk was very interesting, but I have a couple of issues. First, Bülent talked about the present crisis as an economic and ideological crisis. Undoubtedly that is true - Greenspan's comments are echoed in New Labour's continued neoliberal habits of mind, albeit one that has been much toned down. The Tories on the other hand (and Republicans in America) cling on to the sinking neoliberal ship for want of anything else. But Bülent did not expand on the relationship between ideology and economics and how they reinforced each other through the 80s until recently. Second there is class struggle. Its importance is acknowledged as capital (aided and abetted by the state) took on and won battles with trade unions in America and Britain. This found short-termist answers to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. But I think class struggle is the main missing actor in this narrative. Neoliberal deregulation and privatisation, and firms' ability to hold wages down while intensifying the rate of exploitation would have proven impossible had the key battles of the 1980s been won by labour movements. The credit bubble, the downgrading of manufacturing and today's economic crisis are the bitter fruits of what happened 20 or so years ago.
Will capital ride out the present crisis by successfully making the workers pay for it? Time, and struggle, will tell.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
BNP Members List Leaked - Again
According to The Guardian, here's what we knew last night:
• The BNP had 11,560 members as of April this year, including one peer.There have been rumours spinning out of the ether of an undercover BNP member sitting in the House of Lords. It is alleged Edwin Bramall is that peer. Readers might be interested to learn in 2006 Bramall was involved in a punch up with Greville Janner over reported anti-Israel remarks in the House.
• The party appears to have benefited from a surge in female recruits – one in eight party members are now women.
• The highest concentrations of members are in Leicestershire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire
Naturally the fat fuhrer, Nick Griffin is furious about the leak. "Those who are responsible for the latest attack will be tracked down and exposed" he thundered, while predicting the BNP would attract "waves of support" from sympathetic people. It's more likely there will be waves of revulsion from his own membership. Even the most knuckle-headed member must be asking how this leak could have happened again.
Some demographics from the new list to follow.
10:18 edit: 'Morus' points out in the comments below:
"Just to say we have effectively confirmed that it is not Edwin Baron Bramall who is a member. He is a respectable working peer, Field Marshall, and Knight of the Garter.
The BNP member is a man who styles himself "Lord Brian Bramhall" (notice different spelling).
The BNP members data matches that spelling of "Lord Bramhall" to a postcode. When you search on that postcode, you get this chap's genealogy website.
A version of that website database is here
Lines 37 & 38 confirm that the BNP member is this man, not the noble Baron.
If you could amend the post, that would be grand. We're trying to crush the rumour before it defames Baron Bramall."
10:35 edit: Unfortunately I haven't had the time to go through all the members' names and details. Still, the first 222 names on the list are a large enough sample likely to possess properties that are statistically significant. Of this group:
53 are described as 'activists'.
Only 39 are women.
Just seven appear to be under the age of 25.
Four live overseas (curiously, the member domiciled in the Philippines is described as an 'activist').
Three are ex-forces (excluding the Territorial army officer cadet). Interestingly there appears to be an active serviceman in the "intelligence corps".
12 of this sample live in Scotland, five in Wales and two in Northern Ireland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)