Can the forward march of Labour be restarted?

.

The situation that the left finds itself in after the defeat of the McDonnell bid for the Labour leadership is a complex one. A bit of a debate has broken out about this around a statement issued by Socialist Resistance (SR) This was published on Liam Mac Uaid’s blog :

The key passage is: “McDonnell’s defeat throws the Labour left into serious crisis. No spin can hide it. The project of reclaiming the Labour or the idea that the Labour Party is a fruitful arena for the left to work in have been dealt a devastating blow.

“All this has implication for Respect, which should be taking the initiative to open or re-open a dialogue with those on the left who are currently not in Respect as to how they see the way forward.

“The Morning Star and the CPB are a case in point. They are likley to find it increasingly difficult to cling to a policy of reclaiming Labour. Apparently a new discussion has already opened up on this internally in the CPB. The Morning Star had already called a conference in June on “Politics After Blair” at which the issue will now be unavoidable.

“But Respect needs to be open and flexible in this situation to any new forces from the Morning Star or the trade union left. It should do whatever is necessary to ensure that new forces have space to make their influence felt. If it can do this it could break it out of its current impasse and open up a new stage of development.
“Respect’s task in this process is to turn the tide of politics back towards the left. Rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. Work with the left in the unions to build an independent pluralist left alternative alongside the struggle to regenerate the unions and rebuild trade union strength and organisation.”

To which I posted a comment to the effect that SR are making two mistakes: i) in not understanding that Respect is not a vehicle around which left unity can be built; and less explicably ii) that SR seem to completely fail to understand the political perspective of the CP.

I concluded my initial remarks by saying that currently “the building blocks for any serious alternative to Labour are utterly absent, but where the situation isn't hopeless either.”

Given the undemocratic manoeuvrings in and around Respect, the media galavanting of George Galloway, and the dispersal of the layer of left social democrats who had aggregated around the Socialist Alliance in various parts of the country, then I would characterise Respect thus: “Who is Respect? Galloway or the SWP? Anyone else? Will either of those forces play the productive role you are calling on them to play? If there is no actually existing force within Respect who will steer the organisation to play the role you think it could play, then how could it happen?

“Even were the SWP or Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them? No-one is going to join Respect, or particularly want to work with them. The whole project is basically an embarrassment now.

“If we are looking for a left unity project, then we have missed the boat. The wave of left activists who left the labour party after Clause IV and over the Iraq war could have been attracted to an organisation that respected labour movement norms of behaviour. But were never going to be attracted to respect.”

SR are utterly self delusioonal if they believe that the CP or any significant left from the unions would touch Respect with a barge. Even were the Political Committee of the CP so minded, and I have no reason to think they are, then the membership would probably not agree to it.

The failure of McDonnell’s campaign has produced unhelpful knee-jerk reactions from Respect and the Socialist Party that the Labour Left should join them in their equally unsuccessful campaigns outside the Labour party. They remind me of the mayor of Amity, swearing that the water is safe. For example Thornett writes: "It¹s right to say to the Labour left, and those like the CPB (and some of the trade union left) who have clung to a Reclaim Labour policy for so long that after the McDonnell collapse the only rational conclusion in the cold light of day is that the Labour left has no useful future in the Labour party. There is no point in saying anything else."

In fact this approach is completely misguided. Instead of looking at whether we can reconstitute the greatly diminished left around already flawed projects, we need to take stock of the current political situation.

The overwhelming features are i) that the right within the Labour Party are utterly triumphant, and their victory is structurally irreversible. ii) The Labour party has failed to make the same shift to the right with its electoral base – the enduring progressive and social democratic attitudes of labour voters was well described recently on the SWP blog, Lenin’s Tomb ; iii) that the far left have failed to break that progressive base away from electoral loyalty to the Labour party; iv) the unions – on the whole - maintain ideological and political opposition to New Labour values, as can be seen by the way the unions make the running in opposing PFI, Academies and private equity. v) the structural problems of the unravelling British state.

So how can we seek to harness the positive aspects of the current situation to strengthen the left?

Alan Thornett has replied to me and asked whether I think Respect’s genuine electoral successes are the “wrong type of voters”. In a sense they are, but not in the sense he implies. Respect has done well particularly with that minority of voters for whom the war is the overriding political issue, but for the majority of the working class that is not the case, and opposition to the war has been subsumed into the general cynicism about politics.

This is where SR’s misunderstanding of the CP’s position is clear, because the CP are talking some sense over this issue:

As Robert Griffiths, the CP General Secretary: recently wrote : “But what is needed now more than ever is for the trade union movement, once again, to take on its historic responsibility to ensure the existence of a mass party of labour. For all the assistance that socialists and communists can render, the unions alone have the human, financial and organisational resources, as well as the class interest, to take the necessary steps.

“Together with the non-sectarian left, they need to work out a political strategy which takes account of current realities. For example, most major unions remain affiliated to the Labour Party and are unlikely to leave it in the near future.
“The first steps in this direction might be for all the major unions to affiliate and participate fully in the Labour Representation Committee. Deals between union leaders in smoke-free rooms to win resolutions at Labour Party conference are not enough. The active involvement of unions and their members in the LRC would be the clearest declaration of political intent.

“The LRC could itself go the extra mile and allow full membership status to socialist organisations including the Communist Party, respecting their right to participate independently in elections in return for an agreement not to campaign for the dismantling of the Labour Party through further union disaffiliations.
“In their relations with the Labour Party, unions should stop all financial, logistical and political support for MPs who consistently vote against key union policies. “

SR are correct to highlight the Morning Star conference as important, not least because the CP still able to punch above their weight, and alongside John McDonnell, we also have Ken Livingstone and Jon Cruddas attending. At the deputy leadership hustings at GMB congress last week Cruddas came out in favour of starting to renationalise public utilities.

The Labour Left were crushingly defeated in the PLP, but the McDonnell campaign has gathered together a nucleus of activists, who are less isolated and more motivated than they were before the campaign. It is as fruitless for us to argue with then that they should leave the party as for them to argue we should join it – comrades need to come to their own conclusions.

The way forward is for all the left, inside and outside the Labour party, to promote the trade unions in exercising their own political voice. By and large, the unions will not abandon their stake in the labour party until they have exhausted its historical usefulness. But currently they are not making enough demands on the party, and so not testing the usefulness of the link.

The Labour Representation Committee could become a vehicle for the unions to exercise collective political voice and if a substantial section of organised labour is to draw the conclusion that a party of labour needs to be refounded, as they effectively did in 1931, then the LRC could be the body around which that debate tales place.

Of course there are serious obstacles, not least of which is the LRC’s requirement for Labour Party membership, which is a serious obstacle to many grassroots trade unions and community activists. But again the way forward is for local trade union bodies to affiliate and open a dialogue about being able to send delegates who are not individual LP members.

In the meantime, we have largely missed the boat in England of building an electoral alternative to New Labour. There may still be a case of standing against Labour, but this can only be done by building grassroots links first, not by building the roof before the walls like Respect and the CNWP have done.

There is serious work that can be done, but the vehicle for that work is not Respect nor the CNWP, the focus remains where it perhaps always should have been, with organised Labour in the mass organisations of our class.

Rifondazione row over Cuba

Tensions in Rifondazione Comunista, the Italian hard left party were already high following the support of the party leadership for maintaining Italian troops in Afghanistan, as the price of maintaining the L'Unione coalition in government. As a consequence they have done badly in the recent round of local elections, losing between 20 and 50 percent of their own votes from last year.

Now there is a big row brewing over Cuba.

It started with two articles by Angela Nocioni on the 31st May in the party's daily paper, Liberazione, which attacked the Cuban government, the Five Cubans imprisoned in the US, and Giustino Di Celmo, an old Italian, whose son was killed by Posada Carriles in 1997 in a terrorist bombing in Havana.

This produced a huge response from readers, and on the Internet. For several days running, Liberazione has been publishing entire pages of letters against those articles.

On the 5th June, there was a letter by Marco Consolo, who is in charge of the Latin American desk in the International dept of the PRC, who says that the paper is breaking with the party over the question of Cuba.

However, both the paper editor, Piero Sansonetti, and some party heavyweights like Rina Gagliardi have come out on the side of Nocioni.

Cannon on socialist legality

.

The recent decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the broadcast licence of the RCTV channel has raised quite a lot of interesting debate, that has thrown light on some of the underlying political assumptions and attitudes of those participating in the discussion.

I have already posted about the facts of the dispute, and explained why the Bolivarian government are justified .

But one point came up in the debate at the Red Squirrel blog that is worth pursuing further.

One of the “left” voices joining in the chorus of criticism of Chavez was TWP from the Shiraz Socialist blog, which is loosely aligned with the politics of the British AWL , an avowedly Marxist group but which takes some eccentric positions.

TWP wrote : “How many of us have “openly called” for the overthrow of capitalism? Well apparently Tariq Ali doesn’t see the irony in his statement about Chavez’s failure to renew a TV licence for the anti-government channel RCTV. By his logic most of the newspapers of the far left could be legitimately closed down in Britain.”

As Ken Macleod points out:
“There's another troubling aspect of the Shiraz Socialist's take on this. She seems to think that the far left 'calls for the overthrow of capitalism' in the sense of calling for the overthrow of democratically elected governments! Apart from the absurdity of making such a call at present, most of the far left does no such thing, and it's quite dangerous to concede that it does. Cannon's Socialism on Trial is … very much to the point here.”

From June to November 1941, leading members of the Socialist Workers Party in the USA (no relation to today’s SWP in Britain), were no trial in the Minneapolis, MN, District Court of the United States.

James P Cannon defended the party brilliantly from the witness stands, and the court transcripts are a very valuable resource, because they contain a clear and simple explanation of socialist politics.

Some of the issues raised are very relevant to the current debate, in particular relating to the attitude socialists take to violence and the constitution, and in particular the explanation that as democrats we will always try to achieve our aims through peaceful means – but reserving the right to defend democracy by any means necessary.

Of particular interest is Cannon’s very clear explanation that even the Russian revolution was constitutional and legal.

Here are some excerpts from the book: Socialism on Trial"

Marxism and violence

Q: Now, what is the opinion of Marxists with reference to the change in the social order, as far as its being accompanied or not accompanied by violence?
A: It is the opinion of all Marxists that it will be accompanied by violence.
Q: Why?
A: That is based, like all Marxist doctrine, on a study of history, the historical experiences of mankind in the numerous changes of society from one form to another, the revolutions which accompanied it, and the resistance which the outlived classes invariably put up against the new order. Their attempt to defend themselves against the new order, or to suppress by violence the movement for the new order, has resulted in every important social transformation up to now being accompanied by violence.
Q: Who, in the opinion of Marxists, initiated that violence?
A: Always the ruling class; always the outlived class that doesn’t want to leave the stage when the time has come. They want to hang on to their privileges, to reinforce them by violent measures, against the rising majority and they run up against the mass violence of the new class, which history has ordained shall come to power.
Q: What is the opinion of Marxists, as far as winning a majority of the people to socialist ideas?
A: Yes, that certainly is the aim of the party. That is the aim of the Marxist movement, has been from its inception.
Marx said the social revolution of the proletariat—I think I can quote his exact words from memory—“is a movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority”[2] He said this in distinguishing it from previous revolutions which had been made in the interest of minorities, as was the case in France in 1789.
Q: What would you say is the opinion of Marxists as far as the desirability of a peaceful transition is concerned?
A: The position of the Marxists is that the most economical and preferable, the most desirable method of social transformation, by all means, is to have it done peacefully.
Q: And in the opinion of the Marxists, is that absolutely excluded?
A: Well, I wouldn’t say absolutely excluded. We say that the lessons of history don’t show any important examples in favor of the idea so that you can count upon it.
Q: Can you give us examples in American history of a minority refusing to submit to a majority?
A: I can give you a very important one. The conception of the Marxists is that even if the transfer of political power from the capitalists to the proletariat is accomplished peacefully—then the minority, the exploiting capitalist class, will revolt against the new regime, no matter how legally it is established.
I can give you an example in American history. The American Civil War resulted from the fact that the Southern slaveholders couldn’t reconcile themselves to the legal parliamentary victory of Northern capitalism, the election of President Lincoln.
Q: Can you give us an example outside of America where a reactionary minority revolted against a majority in office?
A: Yes, in Spain—the coalition of workers’ and liberal parties in Spain got an absolute majority in the elections and established the People’s Front government. This government was no sooner installed than it was confronted with an armed rebellion, led by the reactionary capitalists of Spain.
Q: Then the theory of Marxists and the theory of the Socialist Workers Party, as far as violence is concerned, is a prediction based upon a study of history, is that right?
A: Well, that is part of it. It is a prediction that the outlived class, which is put in a minority by the revolutionary growth in the country, will try by violent means to hold on to its privileges against the will of the majority. That is what we predict.
Of course, we don’t limit ourselves simply to that prediction. We go further, and advise the workers to bear this in mind and prepare themselves not to permit the reactionary outlived minority to frustrate the will of the majority.
Q: What role does the rise and existence of fascism play with reference to the possibility of violence?
A: That is really the nub of the whole question, because the reactionary violence of the capitalist class, expressed through fascism, is invoked against the workers. Long before the revolutionary movement of the workers gains the majority, fascist gangs are organised and subsidised by millions in funds from the biggest industrialists and financiers, as the example of Germany showed—and these fascist gangs undertake to break up the labor movement by force. They raid the halls, assassinate the leaders, break up the meetings, burn the printing plants, and destroy the possibility of functioning long before the labor movement has taken the road of revolution.
I say that is the nub of the whole question of violence. If the workers don’t recognise that, and do not begin to defend themselves against the fascists, they will never be given the possibility of voting on the question of revolution. They will face the fate of the German and Italian proletariat and they will be in the chains of fascist slavery before they have a chance of any kind of a fair vote on whether they want socialism or not.
It is a life and death question for the workers that they organise themselves to prevent fascism, the fascist gangs, from breaking up the workers’ organisations, and not to wait until it is too late. That is in the program of our party.

The Same way Lincoln did

Q: Now how do you expect the capitalists to abrogate the elections? How will they accomplish that purpose?
A: They can do it in various ways—by decree, by vote of Congress declaring there is a state of emergency which requires dispensing with election struggles, and handing the power over to the president or somebody to rule for this period, which may be long or short—but most likely it would be long.
That is precisely what was done to a legally constituted parliament elected by the suffrage of the French people, containing representatives of various parties—Socialists, Radical Socialist, Conservative, Communist and other parties. This parliament was dissolved, and a dictator appointed with power to rule the country at his will until further notice. That is what happened just like that (indicating).
Q: Supposing they don’t do those things that you anticipate, and you get yourself elected into control of the government, control of the Senate and the House, let us say, and you elect a president, too. Do you expect then that the army and navy are going to turn against you and try to resist your authority?
A: I anticipate that some of the officers would—those who are tied most closely to the upper circles of the ruling class. I would expect some of them to attempt to dispute the authority of the people’s government That happened in other instances.
Q: Yes, I know you are illustrating by that. I am talking about this country. You have got yourself elected into control of the government now. Now tell us how you expect the resistance against your authority is going to be made. Who is going to do it and how is it going to be done?
A: It would be done by the agents of the ruling class that is facing dispossession.
Q: Do you expect the army and navy of the United States government to turn its guns against you when you are in duly elected control of the government?
A: Yes, I would expect some of the officers to do it—not all of them. If all of the army and navy would be of such a mind, it would be manifestly impossible to be elected in the first place, because the army and navy are more or less in their ranks reflective of the general population, and if we are elected by a majority vote, you can be sure that our popularity in the masses of the people will be reflected in the military establishment That is always the case.
Q: Well, how would you resist this uprising against you?
A: The same way Lincoln did in 1861.
Q: Would you already have an army, or would you use the army that you find standing when you came into power?
A: We will just use what measures are possible. A good section of the American army and its best officers in 1861 revolted against the authority of the legally elected government of Lincoln. Lincoln took what he could and recruited some more and gave them a fight, and I always thought it was a wonderfully good idea.

The legality of the Russian revolution
Q: Now, can you tell us anything about the legality of that revolution?

A: Yes.

The Court: Judged by what standards?

Mr. Goldman: What I mean by that is to have him explain exactly how the revolution occurred, because counsel for the government tries to present it as a violent upheaval of the minority against the majority, and the facts are the very contrary. I want the witness to explain the nature of that revolution.

A: The czar and czarism were overthrown in March by an uprising of the masses, of the people in the big cities, and the peasants.

Q: Was the Bolshevik Party responsible for that uprising in any way?

A: No. The Bolshevik Party was a very infinitesimal group at the time of the March revolution.

Q: What is the meaning of “Bolshevism”?

A: The world Bolshevik is a Russian word meaning majority. It acquired a political meaning in the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. In the Congress of 1903 a controversy developed which divided the party into groups, the majority and the minority, the majority called the Bolsheviks and the minority called Mensheviks.

Q: Those are Russian words meaning minority and majority?

A: Yes. They split up and divided into parties. Each called itself the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party and in parentheses on the end “Bolsheviks” or “Mensheviks”, as the case might be.

Q: Now, will you proceed and tell the jury what happened during the October Revolution, or in our calendar in November 1917.

A: Well, to show the chronology: When czarism was overthrown by the masses of the people, the whole structure of that tyranny was destroyed. A new government was constituted, but the new government machinery was based on the Soviets, which sprang up spontaneously in the revolutionary upheaval. Soviets of workers and soldiers were established everywhere. In Petrograd, the workers and soldiers sent delegates—deputies—to the central council or, as they called it, the Soviet; similarly in Moscow and other places. This body was recognised as authoritative.

The government that was constituted after the overthrow of the czar was headed by Prince Lvov, with Miliukov as foreign minister; it derived its authority from the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies. In April they had a National All-Russian Conference of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets, and there they elected an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets. In May, the peasant Soviets had an All-Russian Congress and elected an All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the peasants.

Q: What proportion of the population did those Soviets represent?

A: They represented the people, the great mass of the people. I think it was impossible even to speak in terms of majorities or minorities. They were the masses themselves. The peasants and the soldiers and the workers were the people; those two bodies, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Peasant Soviets, formed a joint body which was recognised as the most authoritative and representative body in Russia. It was by their consent that the government cabinet ruled.

The All-Russian Executive Committee of the Soviets repudiated Miliukov, who was the leader of the bourgeoisie. The Soviet body opposed him because of his foreign policy, involving secret treaties that had been exposed. He therefore had to resign, because without the support of the Soviets, authority was lacking; and I think that could be likened, as an analogy, to the French system of the resignation of the prime minister when there is a no-confidence vote in the Chamber.

Q: So that the Soviets constituted the authority of the people of Russia?

A: That is right.

Q: In what way did the Bolsheviks progress to power?

A: I wish to go on with the chronology, if you will permit me. Following the fall of Miliukov, Kerensky rose—there is a popular impression in this country that he became premier with the fall of the czar. That is not so. Kerensky became premier in July. He was made a minister and eventually premier because he was a member of the Social Revolutionary Party. That was the peasant party, which then lead the Soviets. He was also supported by the worker element, because he had been a labor lawyer. That was the basis of Kerensky’s office; that is, his authority was derived directly from the Soviets.

Now in this period the Bolsheviks were a small minority. They did not create the Soviets. The Soviets were created by the masses; they were initiated by the masses. Neither the Bolshevik Party nor any other party could do anything without the support of the Soviets. In the midst of the revolution of 1905 and again in the overthrow of the czar in 1917, the Soviets sprang up simultaneously.

The most influential one naturally was in Petrograd, which was the seat of government. The Bolsheviks were a small minority in this Soviet at the time of the overthrow of the czar. When Kerensky became premier, the combination of his Social Revolutionary Party and the Menshevik Socialist Party—those two parties together had an overwhelming majority in the Soviets, and ruled by virtue of that. The Bolsheviks were an opposing faction.

During that time Lenin, as the spokesman for the Bolsheviks, said over and over again, “As long as we are in the minority in the Soviets, all we can do is patiently explain.” The Bolshevik Party opposed any attempt to seize power by a putsch.

Q: What is a “putsch”?

A: An armed action of a small group. The Bolshevik Party demanded, with Lenin as their spokesman, that the Social Revolutionary Party and the Menshevik Party take complete control of the government by removing the bourgeois ministers and make it a completely labor and peasant government, and they issued the promise that, “If you do that we promise that as long as we are in the minority, we will not try to overthrow you. We will not support you politically, we will criticise you, but we will not undertake to overthrow the government as long as we are in the minority.” That was the policy of the Bolsheviks in the March days of the revolution against the czar, and into July.

In July the workers in Petrograd staged a demonstration with arms, against the advice of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks advised against it on the ground that it might unduly provoke the situation, and tried to persuade the workers in Petrograd not to go into that action. It was not a rebellion; it was simply a parade with arms. This action, carried out by the Petrograd workers against the advice of the Bolsheviks, brought repressions against the workers on the part of the Kerensky government.

Then the Kerensky government undertook to discredit and frame up the Bolshevik Party. They accused Lenin and Trotsky of being German spies. This was the predecessor of Stalin’s Moscow trials. They accused Lenin and Trotsky and the Bolsheviks of being German spies. Trotsky was thrown into jail, Lenin was forced into hiding, and repressions continued against the Bolsheviks, but it did not do any good, because the policy and slogans of the Bolsheviks were growing in popularity. One by one the great factories and soldiers’ regiments began to vote in favor of the Bolshevik program.

In September an attempt at counterrevolution was made under the leadership of General Kornilov, who could be properly described as a Russian monarchist-fascist. He organised an army and undertook to overthrow the Kerensky government in Petrograd, with the idea of restoring the old regime.

The Kerensky government, that had put Trotsky in jail, had to release him from prison to get the support of his party to fight down the counterrevolutionary army of Kornilov.

Trotsky was brought from prison and went directly to the Military Revolutionary Committee, in which government men also sat, and there drew up with them plans for a joint fight against Kornilov. Kornilov was crushed; the counterrevolution was crushed primarily by the workers under the inspiration of the Bolshevik Party. They tied up his railroad trains, he could not move his troops; his best troops were induced to fight against him, and his counterrevolution was crushed.

As this was going on, the Bolsheviks became more popular all the time, as the genuine representatives of the revolution. They gained the majority in the Petrograd Soviet, the most influential Soviet in the country, and in Moscow and others. The Kerensky government was losing ground because it was not solving any of the problems of the people. The Bolsheviks’ slogans of “Bread”, “Peace”, “Land”, and other slogans—those were the slogans that the masses wanted.

On November 7 was held the Congress of the All-Russian Soviets of Workers and Soldiers. The Bolsheviks had a majority there, and simultaneously with the meeting of the Soviets, where the Bolsheviks had a majority, they took the governmental power.

... ...
Q: When you were tracing the history of the Russian Revolution, you said this: “The Kerensky government was losing ground because it was not solving any problems of the people. The Bolsheviks’ slogans of ‘Bread’ and other slogans—those were the slogans that the masses wanted. The Bolsheviks got a majority in the Petrograd Soviet. On November 7 was held the Congress of the All-Russian Soviets. The Bolsheviks had a majority there, and simultaneously with the meeting of the All-Russian Soviet, where the Bolsheviks had a majority, they took the power from the government.” Now, do you want us to understand from that, that the Bolsheviks took power by virtue of a majority vote of the Congress of the Soviets?
A: That is right.
Q: Do you not mean that the contrary was true?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Don’t you know that there was a planned insurrection before the Congress, and that the insurrection actually took place before the Congress met?
A: No. The Congress met the morning after the struggle had begun, and confirmed the new government.
Q: The fact is that the insurrection was started and was completed before the Congress ever met, isn’t it?
A: No, the power was in the Congress, and the Congress was the real power.
Q: Well, just answer my question, please. Isn’t it a fact that the insurrection had been planned and actually carried out before the Congress ever met?
A: No. The question was submitted to the All-Russian Congress of the Soviets on November 7. That is why they call it the November 7 Revolution.
Q: Don’t you know, further, that Lenin persistently warned against waiting for the Congress and doing it in a legal way?
A: Oh, that was one time that Lenin was overruled.
Q: And who won?
A: Trotsky won.
Q: Isn’t it also a fact that Trotsky ridiculed the notion that it was done legally?
A: No, on the contrary, Trotsky commented on the legal sanction of the action by the Soviets. That was why it was delayed to November 7.
Q: Isn’t it also true that he lulled Kerensky into inaction by pretending to wait until the Congress met, so that it could be decided legally who was to take power?
A: He did not pretend to wait. He waited.
Q: I submit that the contrary is true, in that Mr. Trotsky said so, and I would like to read to you about ten pages or so from the Lessons of October, and then you can tell me whether I am right or wrong.
(Mr. Scheweinhaut reads from pages 74 and 80 of Trotsky’s Lessons of October.)
Mr. Goldman: I submit Your Honour, that this book was ruled out of evidence. I have no objection if he wants to read one or two or perhaps three sentences, but to take advantage of cross-examination and put into evidence what the Court has ruled out, I think is going a little too far.
The Court: Well, this has to do, I suppose, with the dispute between counsel and witness, as to the facts with reference to which the witness takes one position and counsel takes an other. Now this is an attempt to impeach the statements of the witness by the means indicated. I assume he has a right to do that. He may continue to read it.
Mr. Goldman: Exception.
(Mr. Schweinhaut reads pages 80-91 from Trotsky’s Lessons of October.)
Mr. Schweinhaut: Now, am I right or wrong, Mr. Cannon, that the insurrection actually started and was concluded before the Soviet Congress put its seal of legality on it?
A: If you will permit me, I will show you where you are wrong. You misunderstood the whole thing; my authority for the evidence I gave here was Trotsky. He wrote the most authoritative and authentic history of the revolution. Perhaps I should mention several things to show where you are wrong:
First those pages you have read show that there were three different opinions in the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Lenin said they had a majority, and they should take the power without waiting. There was the opinion of Zinoviev and Kamenev who thought the Bolsheviks did not have a majority and should not take the power. And the third opinion was Trotsky’s that they could base the assumption of power on the legality of the Soviets.
Second, those pages you read prove that both the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks derived their authority from the Soviets. In November it became clear that the Bolsheviks had won the majority in the Soviets. Kerensky, who formerly had the majority in the Soviets, prepared to move troops from the capital. What did the troops do? The troops refused to go until ordered by the Congress of Soviets. The Congress of the Soviets convened on November 7. It was revealed that the Bolsheviks had the majority, and their assumption of power was confirmed.
In this All-Russian Congress of Soviets were present the other parties who had been the majority of yesterday. They spoke and debated there. When the vote was taken, the Bolsheviks had the majority. The Bolsheviks offered to give proportionate places in the government to the other parties. They refused and walked off. The Bolsheviks did, as a matter of fact incorporate into the government, a section of Kerensky’s party, the left wing of the Social Revolutionary Party.
It seems to me that here is an excellent illustration of how a revolutionary party, after long propagandistic work, succeeded in a political crisis in winning over to its side a majority of the population represented in the most authoritative body, the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. And the Bolsheviks, adapting themselves to the legality of this authoritative body —
Q: Now, just a minute. Are you still telling us how it occurred, or are you just telling us now that you think it was a mighty fine thing?
A: No, I am explaining the legality of the development as against your interpretation that it was illegal. And it seems to me —
Q: I don’t want your opinion on that. If you want to go on and tell us what happened, all right. Don’t characterise it.
A: I don’t think you will ever get a more legal revolution than that.

More debate in SWP's international

.
Back in March this year, I made a post on this blog asking where the SWP’s international group, the IST, was going, and pointing out that there had been a series of splits in most sections. This post caused a lot of debate, including contributions from Canada, France, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand from members of IST affiliates, and from the groups with similar politics but outside the IST.

The need for an open international debate about the IST is clear, given the fact that there seems to be little principled political difference between the groups within and without the IST, although there are differences of strategy and tactics, as you would expect in any living political tradition.

Earlier this month, the New Zealand affiliate of the IST, Socialist Worker(NZ), published a statement calling for the IST to have a more positive alignment towards the Venezuelan revolution, and querying some organisational changes proposed by the British SWP’s Alex Callinicos (pictured above reviewing the troops).

Today, the Socialist Worker(NZ) have issued the following call for a debate on their website, UNITYblog. They want “to start a debate among all serious socialists and revolutionaries, inside and outside the International Socialist Tendency, on how we should be responding to the Bolivarian revolutionary process in Venezuela. Please send your contributions to UNITYblog . All serious contributions to the debate will be published. Silly and/or sectarian stuff will be binned with a grin.”

This follows the reply by Alex Callinicos, which they have also published . In view of the fact that UNITYblog have issued this call for a debate about Venezuela, it seems much better that the debate is carried out there rather than here, so I will make no further comment about the specific issue of Venezuela.

However, one comment by Callinicos is especially illuminating:
“As we put it in our ‘International Perspectives 2005’ …the most important front in the struggle against US imperialism is in Iraq.’ It is the resistance in Iraq that is in the process of inflicting the most serious defeat American imperialism has suffered since the Vietnam War. By tying down the Pentagon’s military machine in Iraq, the resistance has made a decisive contribution to creating the space that has allowed the resistance in Latin America to develop and, in the cases of Venezuela and Bolivia, to develop a more explicitly anti-capitalist dynamic. Therefore we believe that the most important single internationalist task of revolutionaries today is to build the international movement against the ‘war on terrorism’. Defeating the Bush administration’s imperialist offensive is critical to the success of every struggle against neoliberalism and capitalism, including those in Venezuela and Bolivia. This is particularly important for revolutionaries in the advanced capitalist world since it gives a task that relates directly to the politics of our own societies rather than merely leave us to cheerlead for Latin American revolutions.” (My emphasis)

It is entirely characteristic of the SWP to overemphasise the significance of the Iraq war, and to overestimate the degree of political radicalism which opposition of the war engenders.

In fact, the war is not even the most important issue on domestic British politics, as housing and job insecurities are the biggest cause of friction between New Labour and its traditional electoral supporters; and pensions and privatisation are the biggest friction between the trade unions and New Labour. A correct strategic orientation in Britain on how to reverse the neo-liberal consensus would therefore be concentrating less on Iraq, and more on the issue of public ownership, and council housing. The victory of the right over these issues has largely been because of the idea, as Thatcher argued, that “there is no alternative”. The significance of Venezuelan solidarity work is of course that it demonstrates that there is an alternative. The Bolivarian revolution has started to turn the tide.

Callinicos’s comments about the IST itself are also illuminating.

He says: “The SWP in particular has argued that Seattle opened a new period of anti-capitalist struggle that has created major opportunities to renew the revolutionary and radical left. We have accordingly been pursuing dialogue with other currents and exploring the possibilities of regroupment on a very extensive scale.”

Seattle was a long time ago. What is more, the social forum movement is becoming increasingly attenuated. An Italian friend of mine who attends the European Social Forum meetings (ESF) observes that the SWP’s policy of opposing the Social Forums in Britain, while simultaneously attending the ESF meetings as the British delegates, has now given way to there being no participants from Britain.

Furthermore, within Britain the SWP wound down the regroupment exercise of the English Socialist Alliance, in favour of a creature that excluded the rest of the activist left, Respect. This process was described succinctly recently by Charlie Pottins : “As for the Left, having gathered some strength (including former Labour Party actvisists) around in the Socialist Alliance, the SWP was quick to liquidate it so they could form a local Respect, though so far it has been almost a non-runner, and at best an also-ran. The sad thing is that some of the local SWP actvists are old-campaigners, better known and respected in the area under their own flag, whereas people just scratch their heads or look away when they turn up as Respect.”

In contrast, Callinicos describes Respect thus: “Our domestic experience has demonstrated, positively with Respect and more negatively with the Socialist Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party, this process involves opening out to more than the established revolutionary left.”

I was recently discussing Respect with anti-war activists from Bristol and Oxford, both non-members of the SWP, but positively inclined towards them. They told me that in Bristol, none of the former labour lefts who were active in the SA have joined Respect, and the comrade from Oxford resigned from Respect because all decisions for the local branch were taken in advance by the SWP caucus, and if the Respect branch reached a decision about something that the SWP had not previously worked out their position on, then it would be overturned by the SWP at the next meeting. This is not what we mean by regroupment!

Callinicos then says: “The IST has a very simple structure. It consists of organizations sharing a common tradition and approach to revolutionary politics. Its meetings are devoted largely to political discussions, with very few decisions being made. These decisions are normally taken by consensus: the only real exception was the exclusion of the ISO (US) in 2001, which followed the ISO intervening to help to engineer a split in our Greek sister organization, SEK.”

We are entitled to ask, why was the ISO allegedly trying to cause a split in the SEK an offence requiring expulsion. Whereas Tony Cliff boasts in his autobiography that he split the German and French groups? And Callinicos himself sought to engineer a split in the ISO(USA). why is there one rule for the goose, and another for the gander?

We are also entitled to wonder whether this consensual model is true, given that Callinicos also says that one of the tasks of his proposed committee is “addressing problems in specific groups”. That is interfering in the internal lives of other affiliates, as Cliff used to do, and Callinicos did with the American ISO.

Callinicos claims that hitherto, the leadership of the IST has been run from London because “the British SWP … has far greater resources and partly because of the political authority its leadership has enjoyed in the Tendency.”

But on what basis has the SWP greater political authority? Surely not on the basis of achievement, as they are a fraction of their former size, with a much reduced influence in the unions and workplaces, and their activities in the Socialist Alliance, Respect and SSP have earned them enormous distrust from other socialist activists.

Indeed, the reduced authority of the SWP is one of the reasons why so many organisations that share their basic politics, such as the American ISO, the Socialist Alternative group in Australia, or the Socialisme Internationale Group in France are outside the IST.

The debate that is being opened up is an entirely welcome one.

Voice goes fortnightly

.

Due to the financial impact of losing representation in the Scottish parliamant, the SSP is reluctantly switching their excellent paper to fortnightly publication. SSV is one of the best English language socialist publications, often carrying articles that you wouldn't find elsewhere, for example in this week's issue there is a fascinating discussion of how Cuba has excelled at organic and sustainable agriculture since the fall of the USSR.

Above all the paper reflects the humanity and sense of humour that are always evident from the SSP. I would urge all socialists, and those in England and Wales in particular, to take out a subscription to support our Scottish comrades.

The editorial team has issued the following statement:

It’s only human to look for silver linings, but sometimes a cloud is just a cloud.
After a horrific two years of internal battles, centred on a shabby pantomime court case, and the splinter of socialism in Scotland, topped off with electoral wipe out for all the forces now representing the left - we found ourselves in a pretty dark and dreary place.
The financial impact of our heavy defeat in the elections sees the Scottish Socialist Party with little choice but to cut back on staff. All the party staff have discussed the situation along with the Executive Committee and agreed on redundancy.
There will be a reduced number of staff across the whole party, including the Voice, and that means, for now at least, we have to scale back to fortnightly production.
There’s no denying that’s a big setback. The Voice went weekly six years ago, in May 2001, having already established itself over four years as Scotland’s only socialist newspaper.
It was a huge achievement for the SSP - for the first time in 50 years a weekly socialist paper, printed and published in Scotland, was for sale on our streets.
It’s been a hard task maintaining that achievement over the last few years. The SSP’s star burnt brightly, a burst of light on the Scottish political scene so sudden that the party’s finances have sometimes struggled to fuel it.
At times, just three full time staff, with the sterling help of volunteer contributors, have pulled the Voice together and kept it coming out, week after week.
And the conditions haven’t been easy either. Everyone involved in the SSP has felt the stress and frustration of the tumultuous times the SSP has been dragged through.
The Voice, however, has remained dignified, political and focussed outward - on campaigning, on raising ideas to change the world.
Because all the time, struggle burnt on the streets of Scotland and the Scottish Socialist Party was involved, and the Voice was there to report. And that will remain just so.
In the current period, fortnightly production will still be a big challenge for the remaining staff - and they’ll need the support and help of everyone who values the Voice.
If you can contribute in any way, whether you’re up for writing stories, taking pictures, or just have some ideas you think the Voice should cover, please get in touch.
Or if you can offer to help out with any of the labour intensive administrative tasks, which make sure we’re not just talking to ourselves, you would be a proper hero.
Keeping the Voice coming out as regularly as possible is the driving force in maintaining our socialist campaigning presence in our communities.
The Voice won’t be changing its style or its content - it’ll still be your unmissable guide to the battles undertaken by people fighting against injustice, from Pollok to Peru. We’ll still be a space for the voices, ideas and aspirations of ordinary people, unmitigated by the whims of a millionaire owner or the pull of big business’ advertising budgets.
We need everyone to muck in, and we are sure you will.
The members of the Scottish Socialist Party have stood united through an appalling time and defended the integrity and principles of our party. New people have joined us too, inspired by our ideas, our actions and our downright temerity.
We have held together, and together now we face the future.
The thing about clouds is, they’re never permanent - the skies are always changing.

Germany - further advance for united left

.

Debates in Britain about whether the Labour party has fundamentally changed its character can be a bit parochial. The interesting thing is that there is European wide phenomenon of the formerly social democratic parties wholeheartedly adopting neo-liberalism, and a space is opening for parties to the left of them.

The election results in Bremen last weekend were of historical significance. The Left party (Die Linke) won 23189 votes (8.4%) and for the first time gained representation in a regional parliament (Landestag) outside of the regions that comprised the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR). The German result also throws, light on the relationship between the left and the Greens, and how a successful hard left challenge can squeeze out the fascist vote.

Die Linke is currently a coalition between the WASG, (led by former SPD leader Oskar Lafontaine, and comprising social activists and trade unionists mainly in the West), and the PDS (the left social democratic party that has evolved out of the former ruling SED in the DDR, led by former dissident lawyer Gregor Gysi)

Currently Die Linke have 53 MPs in the federal parliament (pictured above) having won three seats under first past the post at the last election, and 50 more on the top up list. (Interestingly, given how controversial the issue of reserved seats for women has been for some on the British left, Die Linke has 26 women MPs)

Up till now their electoral support has mainly been in the East, the breakthrough in Bremen is therefore highly significant.

In five weeks time the two parties will formerly merge into one, and as Lafontaine says “Such a good result even before the merger is a certain sign that a united left can achieve more than either the former PDS or WASG can alone.”

Oskar Lafontaine is a most significant figure, with no obvious comparison in British terms. Imagine someone with John Prescott’s position in the government and the party, but with Tony Benn’s politics and reputation for personal integrity. So his split from the SPD was a major event.

Greor Gysi is clear that not only has the SPD changed its character, but this is a European wide phenomenon. “The Left Party is an important correcting factor in society. There are parties to the left of social democracy playing such a role in the whole of Europe. Our emergence make Germany normal. The SPD has become anti-social democratic. The unemployed and low paid (Prekariat) need a voice. There must be a left party that says, yes, we will not allow the weakest in society to be forgotten”

According to Linksruck, the SWP’s sister organisation in Germany, opinions polls showed that for most people in Bremen (69%), Die Linke was seen as the party that put social justice as its first priority, compared to 39% for the Greens and 36% for the SPD. In Bremen the SPD were in coalition with thr Tories of the CDU, and Die Linke seem to have taken most votes from the SPD, but significantly they also took votes from the fascist DVU.

Linksruck also includes a detailed break down of the vote, that is very interesting:

The overall left vote was 8.4%, but they were underrepresentred among women (7%) and first time voters (7%), and their strongest support came from the 45-59 year olds (13%). There is therefore opportunity for improvement with young and women voters, but significantly the age group that as most influence in the unions is well represented, and they have significnat votes from the age group who can remember the DDR.

Apparently the Greens vote went up to 16.%, their best ever result in a Landestag (regional parliament), representing a challenge to the left, and most new Green voters turned to them becasue of the environemental issue, particularly climate change.

But as Linksruck observes this actually represents a strategic oportunity for the left. Although the Greens are identified with combatting climate change, in Germany at least, they are also indentified with using market mechanisms to acheive that. In Berlin-Brandenburg the Greens have been clearly in favour of privatisation, and have engaged in red-baiting. Unlike the Green party in England and Wales, Die Gruene are a generally centre-right party.

If the left can develop over the next few years an anti-capitalist politics of ecological and economic sustainabilty then they can replace the Greens.

More islamist attacks on Indonesian left

Katarina Pujiastuti, international spokesperson of the Indonesian left party, PAPERNAS, has forwarded the following account of an attack by Islamists, this time also involving military personel.

There is currently a systematic campaign of intimidation against PAPERNAS by the islamists, seeking to stop the left party registering in time to participate in the next presidential election.

The last few days have also seen Islamists attack pro-democracy demonstrators and socialists in Pakistan, with deaths reported now at over 41.

"Around 50 members of Islam Defender Forum (FPI) arbitrarily burst into a house that is located in Jalan Walet 1, Tangerang-Banten, and a place where the conference of Banten Branch of The National Liberation Party of Unity (PAPERNAS) was taken place.

"On Monday morning, 13 May 2007, about 25 members of PAPERNAS Banten branch gathered in Lukman Hakim’s house to elect regional leadership. At 11.45 five intelligence visited the house and tell us to end the meeting due to possible attack from FPI. Police also took Lukman and Vivi to police resort.

"Knowing that the three pick-up car and the motorcycle convoying to the location, the conference was forced to be removed to other location. While some of the members guarded the houses. On their way to location they scream “end the communist”, “The communist are hiding in this village”

"Village-head tried to held-back FPI, but failed. In the house they met two of PAPERNAS members as well as Lukman’s wife and her 2 year-old daughter. They asked “where is everyone else? “

"Then they repressively entered the house and took picture of every corner of the house. When went out they talked and yield to the neighborhood who gathered surround the houses “must end communism”, “do not let them hide among us”

"It is clearly that there is coordination between the State-apparatus and the group. Firstly they have known earlier that there would be a possible attack from FPI but did not take any action to arrest them. State rather to protect the repressive group than to uphold the democracy. There is no single police appear in the location during FPI visit means police deliberately abandon the rights of citizen to have justice and protection.

"After returning from police resort, Lukman assembled the village-head and the neighborhood to inform what is really happening. There is no any objection on Papernas program and activity after hearing the overall explanation. Some of theme even said they clearly opposed such a repressive action, and ready to blocked them from doing repressive action.

"Military members were caught for attacking PAPERNAS office

"It is around 22pm Eko, Taufik, Iksan and Wira were in the National Liberation Party of Unity (PAPERNAS) office in Palu, Central Sulawesi. Suddenly a man called to Wira mobile phone ask to met in Campus. As he refused to mention his name, Wira refused to come. The man then said that he will come to the office.

"At 12.20 am two motorcycle parked right in front at the office. In ten minutes there are 5 other motorcycle. Few minutes later, more motorcycle gathered surround the office. Most of the man are well-built , short hair and wore boots. The neighboorhood even asked ” Will it be any catched, sir?” They did not replied and went direclty to the backside of PAPERNAS office office.

"Three people who were sitting in the motorcycle waved their hand to Papernas members who were sitting at terrace, and called ” hey, you come here”. Confused who was exactly to be called, Iksan replied, ” we better to talk here”

"Then they approached to PAPERNAS office. Seeing that three people approached eko went inside to get another chair and wira made a call. All of sudden they hit and kicked Iksan who stand allone in the terrace. Ikhsan run outside the office. But he met more people who swiftly swarm over him.

"Suddenly another man come from the right and back side of the office and swarmover wira and Eko. They took Ikhsan to STQ jalan Malabar. Because of this incident , Wira, Eko and Iksan are seriously injured and hospitalized. Police came to the location afterward and catched an attacker by tracing the mobile phone numbers. Pratu Makmur, a military members from Yonif 711 Rakastama unit is caught for involving in the attack."

Islamists attack the left in indonesia

.


Physical attacks by right-wing groups on meetings of the Indonesian
National Liberation Party of Unity ( Papernas) continue to escalate.

Their objective seems to be to disrupt attempts by Papernas to get registered as an electoral party in time for the 2009 presidential elections. After the massacre of up to a million leftists and social activists in Indonesia 1965, the anti-communist hysteria being promoted by these right-wing groups is deeply menacing.

The left in Britain need to approach human rights and civil liberties groups to send messages supporting the democratic right of Papernas to organise, please send copies of them to Katarina Pujiastuti at papernas@yahoo.com.

Please spread this urgent appeal for solidarity to your friends and comrades.

Several articles from the Indonesian press have been translated by James Balowski from the INDOLEFT news service produced by the Institute of Liberation, Media and Social Studies (LPMIS) and Action in Solidarity with Asia and the Pacific.

Tempo Interactive (April 30, 2007) reports how the Papernas conference in Sukoharjo was forcibly broken up by dozens of members of Surakarta Islamic Community Militia (LUIS) in the Central Java city of Sukoharjo on Sunday March 29. Islamic groups in Jakarta have taken similar actions against Papernas.

“The LUIS members blockaded the entrance to the conference venue at the Gajah House on Jl. Yos Sudarso in the Tanjung Anom area of Sukoharjo. Members of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) even frisked a Police intelligence officer who they accused of being a provocateur.

“The head of the Papernas conference organising committee, Onang Tiyoso eventually gave in and agreed to halt the event but under the condition that all FPI members must leave the location before they disbanded. Regional governor, Riyanto admitted "In formal terms, Papernas does in fact actually have a permit for the activity, but in order that the local situation remains favorable, I have asked Papernas to cancel the event”

“Suparjo said that his organisation would continue to hunt down Papernas members that want to organise similar activities”

Radar Solo reported the same event on April 30, 2007, reporting how right wing thugs from the Sukoharjo Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) occupied the Gajah Tanjung Anom Building where the event was to be held. “The leader of the Islamists Ustad (Islamic teacher) Khoirul, said "We have come here to break up this event. We are asking that Papernas be disbanded and not be allowed to exist in Indonesia. Because Papernas is an embryo of the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party - Ed.).

“The Islamists even harrased a National Unity and Social Protection Agency (Kasbang Linmas) official who suffered a similar fate to the policeman they frisked. The FPI examined his identification papers, they also asked for the photographs on his cell phone to be erased. The FPI members even asked the man to take off his shirt and show them a tattoo on his body, claiming it was a PKI symbol”

Media Indonesia (April 30, 2007) reports Papernas flags being burnt by FPI in a different town, Bekasi.

“Around 30 members of the Bekasi Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) gave speeches and set fire to flags of the National Liberation Party of Unity (Papernas) in front of the Bekasi municipal government offices on Monday April 30. They also brought banners and posters with messages opposing Papernas.

“"Papernas, is a reincarnation of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Papernas [says it] is populist democratic. This term is the camouflage that is usually used by communists or socialist in Indonesia like the PKI. It is because of this that we don't want the party to grow and develop", said action coordinator Ustad (title of Islamic teacher)Abdurrahman.”

Liputan (April 30, 2007) reports how “Papernas demonstrators clashed with the FPI in the Dukuh Atas area on Sudirman, Central Jakarta. Several people were injured including two children and a middle-ranking police officer from the Tanah Abang sectoral police “

The same paper reports how “right-wing thugs attempt to disrupt May Day in Yogyakarta, when protesters from the Yogyakarta People's and Worker Alliance (ARPY) were unexpectedly waylaid by members of the Anti-Communist Front (FAKI) and the Yogyakarta Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).

“The FAKI and FPI members accused the ARPY of being infiltrated by the National Liberation Party of Unity (Papernas) that they claim has a communist ideology.

“The incident occurred at intersection in front of the central post
office when a man climbed up onto an open pickup truck that ARPY was
using as a platform and dragged a person giving a speech off the
vehicle. Initially the ARPY activists were too shocked to react but
were eventually able to rescue their colleague.”

Antara News (April 14, 2007) reports that in Surabaya, a “prominent Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) cleric and the caretaker of the Langitan pesantren (traditional Islamic boarding school) in Tuban, East Java, KH Abdullah Faqih has been chosen to lead a group opposing the National Liberation Party of Unity (Papernas).

“The senior ulama (Islamic scholar) has been appointed to be the dvisor to the Friendship Forum to Safeguard Pancasila and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia Against the Threat of Neo- Communism (Forum Silaturrahmi Mengawal NKRI dan Pancasila dari Ancaman Neo-Komunisme) that held a consolidation meeting in the East Java provincial capital of Surabaya on Saturday, which was attended by delegations from Sumatra, Java and West Nusa Tenggara.

“"The PKI [Indonesian Communist Party] has indeed been destroyed, but
communist ideas are resurfacing through various means and because of
this vigilance is needed", said Faqih who is also one of the founders
of the Ulama National Awakening Party (PKNU).

“Speaking separately with Antara News during a break in the event, Gus Solah explained that it would be best to invite Papernas to address the legal factors because Indonesia is a constitutional state. "But, the legal efforts shouldn't be juridical in character, rather a submission to the Constitutional Court in the form of an appeal or judicial review", explained the younger brother of former President Abdurrahman Wahid.

“Speaking in a similar vein, the deputy chairperson of the goodwill
committee, Arukat Djaswadi said that they are urging the government to act immediately against Papernas "it is time for the government to act firmly, because they are most clearly an embryo of a communist [party], because they use the principle of populist democracy, whereas if they [want to] live in Indonesia they must use Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution", he said.

“The head of the Center for Indonesian Community Studies (CICS) explained that Papernas cannot be dealt with of by juridical means because Papernas uses the ideology of logic, however Papernas has clearly violated the "rules of the game" in Indonesia and the government must be firm."

Sinar Indonesia Baru (April 11, 2007) reports how dozens of people from the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) demonstrated at Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) in the North Sumatra regional capital of Medan on Tuesday April 10 against the National Liberation Party of Unity (Papernas). The protesters believe that Papernas is extremely dangerous because it only wants to legalise and provide legal guarantees to commercial sex workers and is hiding behind the mask of the state ideology of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

“The demonstrators gave speeches and issued a statement against the
establishment of Papernas, which held its founding congress in
Kaliurang, Central Java in January. They said that this was extremely
dangerous because the denial of religious values is becoming ever more rampant and fate of the country will be to degenerate into an
uncivilized nation.

“They also called on the national and North Sumatra General Election
Commission not to verify the registration of a party that has communism as its ideology. They are also asking the police as investigators and the enforcers of
the law to have the courage to take firm action against Papernas and
disband all of its regency and municipal offices throughout North
Sumatra.”

Farooq Tariq arrested!!

...


General Secretary of the Labour Party Pakistan, comrade Farooq Tariq was arrested from his Lahore office by a heavy contingent of Punjab Police at 1:30 p.m on Friday. The Labour Party of Pakistan was previously a section of Ted Grant's CWI group, and is a serious and important socialist organisation. For example they recently organised celebrations of May Day across Pakistan involving thousands of trade unionists and activists, including 1000 marching with red flags through Karachi, and 600 marching through the town of Sawat, in a province controlled by Islamist religious fantatics.

The pictuire shows a protest by the LPP outside the karachi press club on saturday, demanding Farooq's release.

Farook has been taken to garhi shahu police station, Lahore where he would be detained. It may be mentioned that Farooq Tariq and Labour Party Pakistan has been in the forefront in the on-going movement for restoration of chief justice of Pakistan, Iftekhar Mohammed Chaudhry. Farooq Tariq was among the leading activists organizing a popular reception in Lahore to welcome chief justice Iftikhar choudhry.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudry has challenged the rule of the government and has refused to resign despite general pressure. Now the case of the government against the chief justice is being heard at Supreme Court of Pakistan. Over 90 percent of the total 80,000 advocates have protested against the action of the government. The movement has since then expanded and now it has become a movement to overthrow the military regime. Thousands were expected to rally in his support, including trade unionists. Iit is the involvementn of the LPP in this movement that seems to have led to Farooq's arrest.

Farooq Tariq was a bit aware about his possible arrest as a news item has already been published about a list of persons may be arrested in Daily Jang nespaper. When he contacted the police station about the mention of his name in list of persons who might be arrested, the police officers denied this news item. So Farooq was relaxed and was doing his work as usual at party office. But suddenly a police van reached at 1.30 pm before his office and men in uniform rushed to his office to arrest him.

Labour Party Pakistan thinks the purpose of the arrest is to stop LPP from exercising its democratic right to protest. We condemn his illegal arrest and demands immediate release. LPP tomorrow’s scheduled reception for chief justice Pakistan will be held at district courts according to the program.


STOP PRESS: UPDATE

Comrade Tariq Farooq has been released. He sent the following e-mail to Peter Boyle in Austarlia (see coments)

"I was released late last night. The police chief told me that he has three months detention order and he is sending me to one of the most natorius jail in Mianwali, around 400 kilometer away from Lahore.

"He wanted me to stop agitation against military regime. I plainly refused and told him that Human Rights Commision of Pakistan has taken my case already. I told him tha he should take of his job as he has done an illegle act by taking me in custody. We had a hot word exchange.

"LPP had announced nationwide demos for today. Yours and others letter of protest and messages had started to arrive. The electronic media was broadcasting my arrest. An SMS campaign on the mobile phone meant a non stop messages of protest.

"So he called me at 12 night again to tell that he is suspending my detention order and I can go home.

Thanks,
Farooq Tariq"

SWP's international divided over Venezuela

In a remarkable statement by the Central Committee of the SWP’s sister organisation in New Zealand, internal divisions between the SWP and its international affiliates over the nature of the Venezuelan revolution are laid bare, as well as concerns about the privaleged position of the SWP within the IST's decision making.

This statement is a response to a proposal by the SWP’s Alex Callinicos (27 September 2006) that the International Socialist Tendency (IST) adopt a new "Coordination" structure. The IST is the international grouping of the SWP. Socialist Worker-New Zealand has been an affiliate of the IST since 1995.

The full text of their statement is a welcome appraisal of the significance of the Bolivarian revolution, and is worth reading in full . (See the Red Squirrel's blog for more on this topic ).

Socialist Worker (NZ) make a very positive assessment about the significance of the formation of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) "While the initiative for the PSUV came from Chavez, it will be built "from below". Socialist militants, who played a key role in mobilising the Chavista vote during the 2006 presidential election, have become the "promoters" of the new mass socialist party. They are going out to the people to register members, who will be organised into "socialist battalions" of 200 people each. The aim is to organise 20,000 of these "battalions" across Venezuela, from which delegates will be elected to attend the PSUV's founding conference in August 2007. ”

Socialist Worker (NZ)'s appraisal is closer to that of the Australian DSP than the British SWP's. It was noticeable that Munyaradzi Gwisai , leader of the SWP's Zimbabwean affiliate and a former Member of Parliament in Harare, visited both Australia and New Zealand in the last two weeks, and his public meeting in Australian was built for by the DSP. Zimbabwe ISO is one of the most significant sections of the IST.


With regard to the SWP and the IST, the following section of the Socialist Woker (NZ) statement is very interesting:

"It is within the context of the deepening revolution in Venezuela that Socialist Worker-New Zealand responds to Alex Callinicos's proposal to create an IST "Coordination". Alex defines such a Coordination as consisting of "selected organisations" whose leaderships would consult and meet between annual IST gatherings "to deal with initiatives, problems, etc".

“Socialist Worker-New Zealand has two substantive concerns with this Coordination proposal. First, it is not intimately linked to the global political situation, and in particular to how the IST needs to engage with the mass revolutionary process in Venezuela. Instead, the proposal is couched in terms of the IST's own internal processes.

“Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the unfolding Venezuelan revolution, if it continues to move in the direction it's currently going, will reshape the socialist and labour movements in every country on every continent, just as the unfolding Bolshevik revolution did from 1917-24. Therefore, rather than looking inwards, the IST needs to be focused outwards towards the most advanced revolutionary upsurge in 90 years and the global socialist regroupments it will inevitably set into motion.

“At present, there seem to be real differences between IST affiliates over the nature of what is happening in Venezuela. At one end of the IST spectrum, Socialist Worker-New Zealand see Chavez & Co as being at the centre of the most important "revolution in the revolution" since the Bolsheviks proclaimed "All power to the Soviets" in 1917 Russia. At the other end of the IST spectrum, the Venezuelan revolution was a "non-topic" in the official discussion bulletins of the British Socialist Workers Party in the lead-up to their national conference in January 2007.

“So how do we form an IST Coordination when the IST appears to lack real political coordination over the key strategic issue of Venezuela's revolution? If we were to do it just on the basis of IST tactical organisation, any such IST Coordination would be a sham from the outset.

“The deepening Venezuelan revolution has sparked intense discussions among the world's different Marxist organisations about what makes a revolution, how to move towards socialism, what is the dialectic between the leaders and the masses, how to establish workers' control and other strategic questions.

“We all have a lot to learn from the world historic events in Venezuela. We cannot assume that any one Marxist group has readymade answers to everything. Any IST Coordination, therefore, must be based on facilitating this global debate among all Marxist groups, most of them outside the IST, in tandem with fusing the IST into a strategic engagement with the PSUV's leaders.

“It's a global debate about the Venezuelan revolution that the IST needs to start coordinating, and that requires democratic input from all IST affiliates around the world.

“That brings us to our second substantive concern. The IST Coordination proposal calls for unspecified powers to be granted to "selected" organisations. Any such "selection" would leave non-selected IST groups on the margins of IST decision-making, given the tyranny of distance over a global coalition like the IST. It would fix the bureaucratic curse of the initiating "centre" and the non-initiating "periphery" onto the IST.

“Why can't every IST affiliate have one representative on the IST Coordination? With modern communications technology, face-to-face meetings in London can be replaced by extremely cheap "virtual" meetings that link all continents. The material basis already exists for an all-in IST Coordination that interacts on a global scale as frequently as needed. The real question is whether the IST has the political consensus and the political will to bring it about”

Socialist Worker (NZ) concludes: “In Venezuela, for the first time since Lenin's Bolsheviks, we are seeing a mass movement well on the way towards establishing socialism within the borders of a whole country. The front line of the epochal war between capitalism and socialism is now in Venezuela.

“Even where there has been resistance to the neo-liberal offensive over the last two decades, the international workers' movement has been floundering on the widespread assumption that "there is no alternative". The Venezuelan revolution is putting socialism back on the agenda in a practical and living way -- the way most people will come to socialism. The IST must be an organic part of this process.

“Any IST Coordination needs to be focused on relating to forces outside the IST. That's because the forward movement of the Venezuelan revolution and the wider Latin American uprisings look likely to provide the essential material foundations for a positive regroupment of the socialist and radical left on every continent, and the parallel emergence of a mass socialist international.

“Socialist Worker-New Zealand believes the political and organisational decisions made within the IST must reflect this historic opportunity to move towards a mass socialist international. This is the first time since the early days of the Comintern that such a possibility has existed.

“This requires the IST to directly engage with PSUV leaders in the building of a mass socialist international. The IST can play a positive role in this process if we make that turn now.”

What Next?

In a timely article on how to reorientate the left, today’s Morning Star has the following article from SSP member GREGOR GALL

Gregor writes:
IN THE winter edition of Democratic Left Scotland magazine Perspectives, former Communist Party member David Purdy, now a Compass member within the Labour Party, presents a bleak and forthright analysis of politics in Britain today.

He concludes that Tony Blair has finished Margaret Thatcher's job of putting an end to labourism, with mainstream political parties now only fighting each other over minor differences on the interpretation of neoliberalism. And he finishes by saying: "No party, movement or network has developed a new policy paradigm capable of challenging the neoliberal hegemony. Or, to put it another way, there is a large hole in British politics where the democratic left ought to be."

I find much to agree with in his analysis but, at the same time, there is also much to disagree with.

Since the mid-1990s, a majority of citizens have been to the left of the Labour Party on many aspects of social policy like taxation, redistribution of wealth and spending priorities. This gap has become even more accentuated and crystallised since the Labour government is well to the right of Labour Party policy. And, since 2003, new Labour has become increasingly discredited over the way that it governs and the policy ends that it governs for. It is hard to believe that many people thought that Tony Blair walked on water in 1997 and people took seriously new Labour's use of d:ream's Things can only get better as its campaign song.

Not long ago, commentators started making the comparison of the last days of John Major with the last days of Blair as leaders of governments which had become scandalised and sullied.

The left inside and outside the Labour Party remains weak and divided. The division merely adds to the weakness and lack of credibility.

So, what we have is the left, on the one side, and the neoliberals, on the other side, with the mass of citizens standing somewhere in the middle, pretty much unconnected in any manifest sense to either.

The double-sided paradox is that the neoliberals are in power but without popular support.

Meanwhile, the views of the left have much popular support, but the left is pretty powerless and support for left views exerts no influence on society's movers and shakers. It seems that, no matter how many huge demonstrations are held and no matter how many opinion polls are conducted, the situation looks extremely unlikely to change until the next general election. This is the roadblock of politics in Britain at the moment.

It is a fundamental crisis of democracy. A body of men and women in both the Westminster Parliament and the government seem blissfully immune from the popular will and govern without an express mandate. The situation is not that much different in the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.

The left needs to develop a "road map" to get around, through and past this "roadblock," to borrow terms more commonly used with regards the Middle East.
Values giving rise to ideas and then making up the road map will not suffice in themselves. They have to be taken up and implemented en masse in many different arenas of struggle. But the ideas need to be sufficiently attractive and credible to be deemed worthy of being taken up en masse by ordinary citizens.

Purdy, like many others, is not of the view that nothing can be done on the left. His membership of the new and relatively vibrant Compass group, among others things, indicates this. But the disagreement is over what should be done and what action is seen to be realisable in the current period.

Take the issues of Trident or the renationalisation of the railways. The weakness of the left here is that the popular, overwhelming support to scrap Trident and to renationalise the rail is atomised. So, millions support these measures, but they are not organised to do something to force these matters.

Why is this? The first point might be that these people are not sufficiently committed to these views to do something practical and concrete about them.
Let's accept that, for some, this is the case. But, for others, it is likely that they don't know how to prosecute their views or that they don't currently see any available means by which to do so.

This leads to the second point. The notion of people being currently and effectively disenfranchised is a powerful one, because most people see very little point in involving themselves in the national political process.

The same can be said for other political processes of influence like through local government or community councils. For them, these arenas are alien, inhospitable and, ultimately, frustrating.

By contrast, members of the middle class have access to influence through their jobs, professions and the countless quangos that they sit on.

So, what should the left be doing in this situation? One idea springs to mind, in addition to being active and organised in trade unions and left political parties.
Community campaigns, as opposed to just campaigning in the communities about national issues, potentially allow the left to engage with new people on issues that are manifestly important to these people. Consequently, more priority should be given to them.

Such campaigns may concern bus routes, mobile phone masts, closure of leisure facilities and the like, rather than the high ideals of socialism and the class struggle. For the left, it would provide grounding in what the concerns of ordinary people are and how the left must then seek to patiently develop people's consciousness from these.

But, most importantly, it would allow people to see the left as normal, ordinary people who happen to be socialists. This would give the left some credibility so they are not just seen as a bunch of wild-eyed paper sellers.

And, next time round, when a new campaign emerges, the patient investments of time and effort of the past will be able to pay dividends. This may contribute to stronger and more successful community campaigns which should, in turn, lead ordinary people to see that there is a point in getting organised.

• Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Herfordshire's Centre for Research in Employment Studies.

Don't mourn, organise

....


Last night I was watching the election coverage on BBC Scotland, and the omens were all there. A helicopter crashed bringing ballot boxes from the Western Isles. A ship ran aground in the Clyde bringing a ballot box from Arran, and a man went berserk in an Edinburgh polling booth, smashing open three ballot boxes with a golf club and ripping up scores of ballot papers. With a golf club? It was after all Edinburgh.

I had visions for a moment that this might be an alternative strategy for the left, and was fearing that the police would issue a statement that they were looking for a tall man in his late forties, with a hedgehog of dark bushy hair and an ear-ring, but I am sure Colin doesn’t own a golf club.

Switching channels briefly to BBC England I was lucky to catch Jon Cruddas MP who I am increasingly impressed with. He did a very good interview where he managed to stay within the Labour party envelope, but also make some very telling points that if Labour doesn’t start delivering on issues that benefit its core supporters, particularly housing then it will be in trouble. Opinion polls suggest that Cruddas’s campaign for the deputy leadership is not finding a resonance with individual party members, which is a very revealing indicator of how profound the weakness of the Labour left really is.

The election coverage in Wales was dreadful, they managed to interview Trish Law AM without asking her why she was standing against Labour, or any political questions at all. And there was a very excitable and young BBC reporter from Newport who was uncritically relating that Newport’s Tories were really excited because they had had a fantastic campaign and were expecting an upset. Whereas in truth, the chances of the Tories ever winning Newport are slightly less than George Galloway becoming leader of the AWL. John Marek lost Wrexham by the way, and Ron Davis came third in Caerphilly, but with an impressive 22% of the vote. Meanwhile the BNP came just 2580 votes short of winning a seat in the Welsh assembly, polling around 5% across Wales.

(By the way, a whiel ago i conducted a very intersting interview with Ron Davies.:
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/voices/rondavies.htm)

So what about Scotland?

I am writing this before the full results are in, but unless Colin Fox achieves a significant personal vote in Lothians (count delayed due to golf club man), it looks like the SSP will have no MSPs. What is more their vote has suffered badly, and in some cases they have polled less than Arthur Scargill’s SLP. Four years ago the SSP secured almost ten times as many votes as the SLP.

Obviously there will be a degree of demoralisation, and there needs to be some reflection. The loss of the MSPs will also have a serious financial impact on the party.

These are some provisional comments of mine, based upon discussions I have had with comrades in Scotland. I offer them in the spirit of fraternal and constructive commentary, with all the humility appropriate to an Englishman living hundreds of miles away!

Elections are fought on a terrain largely outwith the control of the minor parties, both the SSP and Solidarity have probably suffered by some progressive voters switching to the SNP given that independence became the major issue.

Despite the well founded contempt that socialist activists have for Tommy Sheridan, he is a very accomplished and professional politician with an appeal to the wider electorate. Without Sheridan the electoral appeal of the SSP was diminished – this even without the negative impact of the court case and press coverage of the split.

The last four years have seen a relative loss of momentum for many SSP activists. The result of having six MSPs was to demobilise the membership to a degree, as the SSP didn’t really manage to carry through a debate involving the whole membership about the need to remain a campaigning party. That is not to say that SSP activists were not involved in several campaigns, but I understand this involved fewer of the membership. The burden for a small party of providing the infrastructure and support for the MSPs was also a factor, in pulling the party’s few resources towards Hollyrood, and away from the communities. There was no easy answer to these problems, as they were the necessary consequences of growth and success.

To a certain degree the difficulties of the SSP over the last four years were exacerbated by the SWP and CWI factions fighting a guerrilla war within the party, which further excluded the bulk of members who were not animated by the same concerns as the opposition platforms.

At the same time, there was a neglect of developing the education of party members, and promoting their inclusion in party activities, especially outside the central belt. And these less integrated members were cynically manipulated by Sheridan and the opposition platforms in the build up of the court case.

As a consequence, of all these factors the recent election campaign was fought enthusiastically and brilliantly, but with only a relatively small proportion of the SSP’s membership actively involved.

Sheridan’s shameful defection to Solidarity, and his attacks on other socialists using the mainstream press, have damaged the SSP’s electoral support.

Despite the somewhat better electoral performance of Solidarity, the model of that party is not one that can provide a long term attractive home for militant activists. Some will think I am sectarian for saying this, but the worst possible result was Sheridan being elected without the SSP winning a seat, as this would have bolstered the Solidarity organisation, which is an obstacle to the task ff building an inclusive left party. This worst possible outcome has been avoided.

The SSP remains an inclusive, activist party, and despite these electoral set backs it still provides the foundations for future growth.

Finally, thanks to Colin Fox, Carolyn Leckie, Frances Curran and of course the marvellous and inspiring Rosie Kane for their brilliant work over the last four years. They have been outstanding representatives for the socialist left, and an example to us all.