North Staffs TUC Public Meeting

North Staffs TUC is organising a public meeting against the cuts 7pm this Wednesday (August 18th) at the Hope Centre, Garth Street, Hanley. Confirmed speakers are listed below. I'm told one of the speakers not trailed is a local Labour councillor who is prepared to vote against cuts in the council chamber. Interesting.

Speakers include:
Jason Hill (N Staffs TUC President)
Neil Singh (Communication Workers’ Union)
Tony Conway (Public and Commercial Services union)
Liat Norris (Youth Fight for Jobs)
Andy Bentley (UCU)
Chris Bambery (Right to Work)

All welcome.

Internal Class Divisions and the Party

As we have seen in previous pieces in the series on Gramsci's Selections from the Prison Notebooks, building a revolutionary party - the modern prince - is a vitally necessary precondition for the seizure of state power by the working class. But building the party is one thing, the path to power is another. It's not enough to proclaim a party (any bunch of misfits with a passing knowledge of Marxism can declare themselves the vanguard): the key political task is overcoming the divisions within the working class itself.

For Gramsci, in an abstract sense politics is about leaders and led. More concretely, by virtue of the different roles millions of individuals play in the division of labour, some sections of the class are more predisposed to leadership/intellectual/organising positions than others. However the existence of leaders and led does not mean the latter will automatically follow the former, especially when the locations they inhabit in the division of labour can put them at loggerheads. Often a departmental manager or supervisor is in conflict with their staff, the shop floor may resent the office, and on it goes. The authority one group has over the other is based on the lash of economic necessity.

The relatively privileged positions of some workers confer certain skills that lend themselves to most kinds of political organisation. But here lies a problem. The division of labour casts a cultural shadow over life outside the workplace: the language, culture, forms of activism, expectations of commitment and so on may not gel with the culture of the led. Similarly the mass can appear as a dark continent to the 'leaders', especially when the class stubbornly refuses to follow their lead or act in ways contrary to what is determined to be its interests. This is particularly problematic for existing Leninist organisations in Britain as they disproportionately draw its cadre from this layer. Marxist politics has to be sensitive to divisions within the working class and avoid compounding the problem by reducing every problem of proletarian politics to a question of leadership.

Class divisions among the opposition are worth paying attention to as well. In any given country, parties are divided along fundamental lines corresponding to classes. i.e. a bourgeois party, a workers' party, etc. More often than not the fundamental bourgeois party is split into factions for a variety of historical and ideological reasons. In Britain it is split between the Tories, LibDems and Labour (the latter itself an instantiation of a cross-class alliance between sections of capital and the labour movement). Following this line of thinking the main parties are really factions of the fundamental party of capital. Each of the factions are formally independent and may vigorously and bitterly oppose one another, but at times of crisis (sometimes during capitalist crisis but especially during a revolutionary crisis) the situation brings out their identity of interests. Existing differences are comparatively trivial set against what unites them. At times of crisis they can and do form united fronts and therefore become the de facto ruling class party. Where the main workers' party has its feet in the ruling camp its organising nucleus can pass over to capital. This can lead to a temporary immobilisation as the workers' movement reels from the shock but it does prevent an opportunity for socialists to fill the vacuum. But it is an opportunity: there is no guarantee such an eventuality would set the class on the path to firmer consciousness. In addition to these, some sections of their class can exist apart from and appear to be independent of party politics. Monarchies and ceremonial presidents are typical examples, but so are "non-political" pressure groups and bosses' organisations.

Therefore Gramsci is arguing for a wider definition of a party, he's referring to the complex totality of how a class organises politically. It follows that writing a history of a political party is simultaneously charting the historical capacity of a class to act in its own interests. This is a difficult but necessary task for getting to grips with the political situation.

The political party of the working class - the organisational complex through which it acquires consciousness - is unlike the party of capital. Whereas the latter is formed and reformed as it preserves the system, as long as the working class party remains trapped by the confines of capitalism it is never fully developed. It incubates within the womb of capitalism and becomes conscious through action and learning from action. Today it's a protest, tomorrow a decisive election campaign, the next day forming the first socialist government. In line with received Marxist thinking on the subject, the full maturation of the revolutionary party only happens when the new society is being constructed. The complete party is the one that begins abolishing itself.

The revolutionary party begins formation at a certain level of historical development when it becomes "necessary", i.e. when the path to power is a real (objective) possibility. This requires three elements: the masses themselves; a "cohesive element" (a leadership) that can inspire the masses to follow them, place themselves under their discipline, innovate and seize opportunities when they arise, and learn the lessons of previous struggles; and a mediating element between the two, the sinews of the political party (conventionally defined).

Gramsci may have been writing in a very different context with mass communist parties and much greater levels of class consciousness, but his wider identification of the party with the organisational complex of a class seems useful for the predicament socialists find themselves in today. In the historical absence of a sizable revolutionary party and a Marxist left seriously interested in patching up its differences, and given the traditions of the workers' movement, it seems very unlikely a mass Leninist party will ever be built in this country - even at a moment of revolutionary crisis. This isn't a counsel of despair, just a realisation that the route to class consciousness will not conform to the vague Trotskyist blueprints that are knocking about. For Marx, the task for socialists is to organise the class as a political party, which implies he used 'party' in Gramsci's wider sense of the term. Despite the many problems plaguing the labour movement we still have the advantage that the institutions it has built remain and still organises masses of workers, economically and politically. Therefore socialists must work in them, build them, democratise them, and work to ensure our ideas come to the fore. It's not an easy task, but this seems the only realistic way of realising a Gramscian strategy in Britain today.

A list of posts in this series on the Selections from the Prison Notebooks can be found here.

Fancy a Neoliberal Mortgage?

Imagine receiving this from your bank.

Dear Sir/Madam

I'm writing to offer you a once in a lifetime mortgage opportunity.

With the shortage of suitable properties and prohibitive prices preventing many people from getting on the housing ladder, we are prepared to offer you one of our very special products. Because we value your custom, we will build you a bespoke house without a prior credit check or proof of income. It requires no deposit or down payment. And you can move in immediately.

All we require is you take out a mortgage repayable over 20, 30 or 40 years. The total monies you will pay will be approximately six times the value of the build. We think this is a reasonable deal, and no doubt you will too.

Don't hesitate to get in touch!

Tempted?

Such an offer was made to NHS bosses up and down the land in New Labour's early years. And it was an offer they could not refuse. Given the choice between taking out a rip-off mortgage for a new hospital, or muddling through with leaky, crumbling buildings from a century ago, few could blame them for taking the first choice.

I know many party members are proud of Labour's hospital-building programme. But would they have been had they'd known the mechanics of Private Finance Initiatives?

Still, it is annoying the great PFI rip off has only become national news only now. From the beginning the left has called PFI for what it is: a means of transferring public funds to private coffers. One can speculate why the BBC have only just "discovered" this. Perhaps bosses think buying into the Tories' 'Labour's legacy' narrative will protect their positions from the axe. Note how supine the BBC has been reporting public sector cuts elsewhere. They wring hands while hammering home how painful but necessary it all is. Even Pravda during the period of high Stalinism showed more editorial independence.

But the NHS PFI scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. Blair and Brown insisted new school, community, public and council buildings be built under the same scheme (and some roads!). In their attempt to make New Labour the preferred party of British capital they saddled the public sector with mortgages a house buyer would be insane to take out. One wonders how many more billions will pour into construction company profits for the next 40 years?

TUC Must Call Demo!

Tonight's meeting of North Staffs TUC decided to back this initiative of the National Shop Stewards' Network. With a national campaign against the cuts launched and trades councils making the running in many localities, it's time the TUC nationally took more responsibility for organising the resistance too. To this end, the NSSN is distributing a leaflet (text below) calling for a lobby of the TUC General Council on Sunday 12th September at 12 noon outside the Manchester Central Convention Complex. North Staffs TUC will be organising transport - if you're local and interested please get in touch via the website. If you're from outside the region but would like to know what the transport facilities are from your area, get in touch with the NSSN here.

TUC Must Call Demo
The Coalition government dominated by millionaires is driving a juggernaut over workers’ lives. They announce one lot of cuts after another. 25% becomes 40% cuts. Some schools could be privatised by September. The NHS is made ready for greedy private profiteers. Meanwhile profits keep rolling in for the banks and the rich. With each vicious attack on living standards workers ask what our trade unions are going to do about these threats. Unfortunately so far the TUC general council has been ominously quiet.

It’s time to break the silence. We cannot wait any longer – otherwise the government will draw the conclusion that we are buying into their idea of long-term poverty wages, unemployment and reduced pensions – and start piling on more cuts. We need a national demonstration to kick-start a mass campaign to stop this government in its tracks.

A national demonstration would serve two purposes. It would signal to the government that the organised unions will put up resistance; and it would act as a beacon to all workers that a fightback has begun.

• Demand that the TUC calls a national demonstration against the ConDem government's vicious cuts!
• Join the lobby of the TUC General Council: 12:00noon, Sunday 12th September, Manchester Central Convention Complex
• Come to the NSSN Fringe Meeting at the TUC: 5:30pm, Wednesday 15th September, Friends Meeting House, Mount Street, Manchester (5 mins walk from conference venue).

Speakers include Bob Crow, RMT general secretary

Fight ConDem Cuts!
Hundreds of trade unionists, along with unemployed and retired workers, community campaigners and young people, attended the National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) Conference in June just a few days after the Coalition budget was announced; the following statement was put as a guide to action:

“800,000 public sector jobs to go; child benefits frozen and housing benefit cut; pay frozen for three years; VAT increased to 20%.

No matter how they try to dress it up as “fair” and “progressive” this is a massive attack on the working class by the rich. These cuts will axe jobs and reduce services. Cuts will impact upon the lives of millions of ordinary people in every community and workplace up and down the country.

We say the working class should not accept these cuts, and we the NSSN will organise to assist in the fightback.

The working class should not and will not pay for a crisis caused by the bankers and the capitalist system.”

We appeal for maximum unity in defence of the public sector and support the PCS call for a national demonstration on October 23rd, supported by CWU and NUT, and further endorsed by general secretaries of FBU. BFAWU, NAPO, NUJ, POA, RMT, and URTU.

However, the General Council has so far not gone for this initiative. Instead it has proposed a week of activities around the Comprehensive Spending Review including a lobby of parliament on 20th October. Whilst the NSSN will do everything to help make these events successful and lively, they are just not enough!

We need a national demo in London on a Saturday with all TUC affiliates giving it top priority.

A national demo could set the tone for a one-day public sector strike, marking the beginning of a serious fightback against these vicious cuts.
We urge trades unionists and campaigners everywhere to lobby the General Council with us at the start of TUC in Manchester Convention Centre on Sunday 12th September at 12 noon.

Also at North Staffs TUC Blog

Top 100 Worst Blogs Update

It's a close run thing. Just who will come out top in the 2010 AVPS poll of the UK's worst political blogs? Can a Tory or so-called libertarian grab the prize? Will fratricidal warfare on the left see one of its own take the crown? Could the LibDem blogosphere get noticed for once? We've seen some fierce battles for the title here and many a blogger has pleaded for the support of their following, and now the competition is nearing its climax. The anticipation is making me go weak at the knees ... and I know you too, dear readers, are on the edge of your seats. It's almost all over. There are now less than 24 hours to go before the polls close at midnight, so here's a reminder on how to make your voice heard!

* Rank order the ten blogs you love to hate. Number one will get ten points, number two nine points, etc.

* Only one set of votes per person.

* No anonymous voting.

* Nominate at least three blogs. Votes with less will be discounted.

* Votes can either be cast in the comments box or confidentially at top100worst at yahoo.co.uk

As I've said before a conflict of interest prevents me from taking any votes for this blog ;) Still, there's plenty more crap blogs readers can choose from.

Results and analysis will be posted on September 1st.

Socialism and Space

Stephen Hawking's argument that humans have to colonise space or be doomed to extinction provided a bit of filler for the papers today. He is right of course. The Earth could get blasted by an asteroid, comet or gamma ray burst any second and it will be lights out for everything but a few inconsequential microbes scrubbing an existence out of the sea bed. I don't know about you, but I for one would like to see our species carry on and not perish in some horrific global catastrophe. So building a rocket, travelling to another planet and colonising it seems a neat (if technologically challenging) way of ensuring humanity's long-term survival. But present day space programmes not only fall well short of science fiction's promise, they, like any other technology, offer repressive and progressive potentials.

The argument is often made - as it was during the Apollo Moon landings - that it's criminal to sink resources in technologically sophisticated circuses while so many are for want of bread. That's an argument that can't really be contested: there is something morally abhorrent about packing people off to space when society cannot meet the basic needs of those at the bottom of the pile. But then, this could imply that if capitalism dumped its space programme it would suddenly convert itself into an altruistic social system. For instance, since that nice Mr Obama dumped Bush Jr's ambitious Moon and Mars landing programme we have not seen the US evolve toward a gentle, Scandinavian-style social democracy. Under the new management American capitalism remains as rapacious as it ever was.

As far as socialists are concerned, it's infinitely desirable monies be directed toward stuff like space probes and rockets than lining the pockets of the rich in tax cuts or, worse, feeding military budgets. Like any other form of state-directed economic activity, space programmes have their multiplier effects. They provide skilled jobs and drive high-tech innovation. Of course, you could say military projects do the same thing. But then again, space technologies provide the sort of use values that could be genuinely useful later on. Whatever spin you like to put on it, military is only good for war, and we know what that's good for. But we shouldn't forget there is overlap between the two sectors. Our friends the Neocons would love to see the planet ringed with orbiting missile platforms to maintain American supremacy and, since becoming a viable option, no US administration has ruled out weaponising space. So while its okay to cheerlead NASA's efforts in mapping Mercury and pinpointing ice deposits on the Moon, such dazzling technological achievements should never blind us to the militaristic uses space programmes can be put.

Then there is space exploration as ideology. Generally, non-dystopian science fiction hasn't moved on from Jules Verne's day. This is best exemplified by Star Trek. Set in a socialist society that dare not speak its name, we are presented with a technotopian realisation of progress and Enlightenment values. Kirk, Picard, Cisko, Janeway and Archer used a combination of wits, diplomacy and gadgetry to overcome problems, resorting only to force in the final instance. The idea of hope through technology is rammed home in the cringeworthy opening credits to Star Trek: Enterprise. NASA doesn't mind this romanticisation, and the US networks and Hollywood are only too happy to oblige. Whether exploring the solar system, destroying threatening space rocks or whatever, space ideology promises a better tomorrow today.

What is interesting is how space demarcates the (very blurred) political boundaries between the Republicans and Democrats. It was a Democrat who committed the US to the Moon, and a Republican who cancelled the programme. Since the 80s the positions have reversed. Reagan and Dubya were mad keen about all things space related. Clinton and Obama much less so. One doesn't want to read too much into what the former represented, but there is something about the final frontier that appeals to bootstraps/self-reliance conservatism that doesn't connect with the managerial liberalism of mainstream Democrats. Absurdly the party of intelligent design and climate change denialism is also the party of space colonies and interplanetary flight.

Returning to Stephen Hawking's interview, the chance of a meteor smacking into the Earth and causing mass casualties is ridiculously low. But the ecological damage capitalism is wreaking unfortunately isn't. Climate change may not spell the end of our species, but in what sense can we speak of human civilisation if capitalism condemns billions to a brute existence of starvation, water shortages and turf wars over scarce resources? As far as I'm concerned, the starting point for securing our future involves moving beyond this antiquated and irrationally destructive system, and unless we get rid of capitalism we run the risk of taking the same old crap to the stars.

How Labour Can Win Again

Everyone's probably seen or heard about this report from Demos by now. Much of the media and blog comment has focused on the spin Demos has given the results, which claims Labour lost the election because it was too leftwing and wanted to save public services. The way back into the electorate's good books, it argues, is to embrace the Big Society and join the Tories in butchering the public sector.

You could be forgiven for thinking Demos were attacking the Labour manifesto of 1983, not that of 2010. While it may not have been to the taste of the Tories, for whom the deficit and the Big Society are foils for bombing Britain's welfare provision back to the stone age, by any measure A Future Fair For All was no radical break with the status quo. It was an amalgam of Brown's late conversion to Keynes-lite, a dose of creepy illiberalism, interesting stuff on arts, communities, and the environment, and rounded off with a superficial dusting of mutualism.

Nor could the election campaign be described as leftist (or even leftish). I did not imagine Brown's defence of Trident or competition with the Tories to see who could be most beastly to immigrants. I *wish* I had hallucinated Alistair Darling's claim that cuts under a re-elected Labour government would be worse than Thatcher's, but I didn't. For all intents and purposes this was a campaign fought on the centre ground of the neoliberal consensus, which is a terrain far more congeal to the Tories and LibDems.

My intention however is not so much to pooh-pooh the Demos recommendations, but pre-empt its reception among the more right wing elements of the party. You can almost hear the arguments now as triangulators and technocrats fall over themselves offering leadership contenders (and anyone who'll listen) the same advice that has seen party membership, standing and support tumble over the last 13 years. This is the worship of accomplished fact at its most stark, of the (contradictory) flipside of New Labour's arrogance and elitism, that ultimately we must bow to the wisdom of the crowd.

I don't accept this for one second. Beatrice Webb is said to have noted "there is no such thing as spontaneous public opinion. It all has to be manufactured from a centre of conviction and energy". Even if we accept the Demos findings as gospel (and I do not), it also means acknowledging this is the product of the social and political changes of the last 30 years. It rests on the realisation that public opinion can be changed. Setting out alternatives to the cuts, renewing the trade unions, active campaigning at the community level, attacking the Tories' 19th century agenda, rebuilding, reorganising ... all of these things and more is what we need to do for Labour and the labour movement to win again. Labour shouldn't follow public opinion: it should seek to *lead* it. That's the path back to power, not pandering to prejudice or tailing received wisdom.

Weird Science

Something very wrong is happening in Japan:



David Cameron denies he's already acquired one to stand in for him during Prime Minister's Questions.

2009 Party Accounts

Every summer the political quiet time begins with the Electoral Commission's release of party accounts for the year previous. For political anoraks it's an opportunity to pick over the financial standing of one's opponents during the previous year, and for those of us specialising in the ultra-niche domain of the leftist trainspotter, it provides a chance to see how the Trots and Tankies who've embraced bourgeois legality are doing in terms of members and funds.

2009's accounts continues the established tradition of fining the BNP for late submission, again. Unfortunately it means income and expenditure for their "breakthrough" year remains clouded in smoke until the Commission have finally received them. You could be forgiven for thinking something crooked's going on ...

Before the main course of far left party accounts, I know some readers will be interested in the starter: the incomings and outgoings of the three main parties and the 'major' minor parties:

Conservative Party Income £41,984,000 Expenditure £37,154,000

Green Party Income £813,841 Expenditure £813,382

Labour Party Income £26,798,000 Expenditure £24,732,000

Liberal Democrats Income £6,497,013 Expenditure £6,679,089

Plaid Cymru Income £798,805 Expenditure £768,982

Scottish National Party Income £1,842,127 Expenditure £1,737,609

Sinn Féin Income £1,177,727 Expenditure £1,183,693

Ulster Unionist Party Income £392,868 Expenditure £357,430

UK Independence Party Income £1,221,422 Expenditure £1,201,617

You can compare previous years at a glance on these charts. There's nothing really to note except the Labour party were in dire financial straits - but we knew that already. And I see the LibDems had to sell some of the family silver to fight the European elections.

But anyway without further ado, let's look at the far left's accounts. All +/- are on 2008 figures.

Alliance for Green Socialism Income £11,864 (-£658) Expenditure £12,582 (+£4,226)

Alliance for Workers Liberty Income £63,856 (N/A) Expenditure £65,544 (N/A)

Communist Party of Britain Income £102,499 (-£84,034) Expenditure £149,073 (+£10,853)

Left List Income £15,967 (-£87,806) Expenditure £3,040 (-£81,513)

Respect Income £32,852 (-£3,385) Expenditure £40,277 (+£126) (Members 1,085 (+591))

Scottish Socialist Party Income £72,228 (-£5,939) Expenditure £69,258 (+£324)

Socialist Labour Party Income £11,705 (+£2,450) Expenditure £9,466 (+£3,342) (Members 3,194)

Solidarity Income £38,424 (-£8,285) Expenditure £37,494 (-£8,814)

The major decline in the CPB's income isn't as bad as it appears. In 2008 their monies were temporarily boosted by a one off legacy of 70-odd grand. However, going over the accounts show an absence of Halpin's millions. Of course, it's up to her how she spends her cash, but she could afford to give the party she's been a member of all her adult life a nice wadge of dosh. It begs the question, why ever not? Is it because she has no confidence in the dozy old outfit?

SSP folk gearing up to refight the fratricidal battles of the Scottish left ahead of Tommy Sheridan's court appearance will find welcoming ammunition in the accounts. The SSP and Solidarity finances have more or less stabilised and neither are looking down the barrel of bankruptcy. Well, financially at least. I was struck by a particularly stupid and arrogant comment in Solidarity's accounts. Quite why they had to boast to a faceless Electoral Commission bureaucrat that they are the biggest force on the Scottish far left is beyond me. Especially as a comparison shows their income is approximately half that of their erstwhile SSP comrades. For those surveying the scene without sectarian blinkers fixed, it is entirely reasonable to assume the members' base is half theirs too.

The SLP's submission tickled me. It claims to have 3,194 members in total - 150 affiliated and 3,044 individual. I'm pretty sure the comrades are being a little economical with the truth. Swapping the individual for the affiliated figures around is closer to the mark. Long-time sect watchers will remember how Arthur Scargill wielded the 3,000-strong bloc vote of the North West, Cheshire, and Cumbria Miners' Association to see off pesky oppositionists. It's fair to assume this is now clumsily being used to give the impression the SLP has a sizable membership (by far left standards) rather than being the hollow shell it actually is.

The accounts give Respect some cheer. Despite a minority who were switched onto No2EU in last year's European elections (incidentally, no No2EU accounts were filed), 2009 was a period of consolidation. Finances have stabilised since the catastrophic split with the SWP and its membership more than doubled over the course of the year. Now Labour are in opposition I wonder if Respect can maintain this momentum under the coalition government? I doubt it.

This brings me to the Left List, the SWP's electoral front that contested the London Assembly elections in 2008 as an anti-Galloway spoiler. Its accounts make confusing reading. For all intents and purposes the front ceased to be after the elections. The Left List didn't rear its head in the European elections nor at any time since. So what campaigns did it spend £3,040 on in 2009? Also included are a number of general office costs - again, for what? And lastly, some £13,600 came in as individual members' donations (this is put under the 'donations below £200' category'), implying there was a Left List appeal of some sort. But there's been nary a mention of it in Socialist Worker since the 2008 contest. What's going on?

New Left Blogs

It's time for the regular round up of left and leftish blogs, and again this month sees a bumper crop.

1. Big Chief Tablets (SPGB)
2. Beyond the Transition (Unaligned)
3. F For Philistine (Greens) (Twitter)
4. Huntingdon and St Neots TUC (Unaligned)
5. Red Iron (Labour)
6. Tamworth Alternative (Respect/Socialist Resistance)
7. a thousand things I want to say to you (Unaligned)
8. Ron's Blog (Labour) (Twitter)
9. Teacher Talks (Labour) (Twitter)
10. Chameleonchat's Blog (Unaligned) (Twitter)
11. The Hooleys Blog (Labour) (Unaligned)
12. Quiet Riot Girl (Unaligned) (Twitter)
13. The Great Unrest (Unaligned)
14. Genii Cucullati! (Unaligned) (Twitter)
15. A Most Curious Planet (Unaligned)
16. Bookling (Unaligned)
17. Levenshulme Green Party (Greens)
18. Mark's Blog (Labour) (Twitter)

That's it for July/August. If you know of new blogs (a year or less old) that haven't been featured before, drop me a line via email, the comments or on Twitter. The new blog round up is posted on the first Sunday of every month.