In defence of the Clash?

.
I am returning to the issue of the Clash and punk, because I think this is a political topic of how socialists relate to mass culture. And in particular it is important to defend the proposition that culture enriched by mass popular participation provides a more fertile environment for individual talent, and which thus allows conventional cultural norms to be transcended.

In a comment to the post below about Punk, TWP defends the clash saying: "Have you ever heard Sandinista? The thing about the Clash is that they went beyond punk because they had the courage and musical interest to extend beyond the three chords. To me that's more punk than all the Sex Pistols put together. ... The point of punk was to do whatever you wanted to - not to fit into some "line" propogated by other punks - no matter how self-righteous."

I don't want to be unfair to TWP, and perhaps I am being by responding at length to a short comment of hers on this blog. Hopefully she will develop a longer and more considered defence of the political and cultural significance of the Clash, and their relationship with punk on her own blog, and we can continue the debate

I respond becasue I think she is actually making a dangerous argument: to defend the thesis that the Clash were a great "punk" band, and were "more punk than all the Sex Pistols put together", it is necessary to write the audience and popular participation out of punk. It is necessary to deny that punk was part of a wider social rebellion, spilling out into art, publishing, journalism and politics, and most importantly to deny that punk was about empowering young people.

Instead, the alledged individual genius of the Clash transcends the limitations of all us little people.

So let us look at the evidence - here is the Clash playing a song from the Sandanista album on American TV in 1981. I suppose whether you like it or not is a question of personal musical taste, but this is clearly a band totally at home in the context of corportate culture, and playing as rock stars to a passive audience.



In contrast, watch this clip below from X-Ray Spex in 1978, just three earlier. According to TWP, punk bands apart from the Clash were constrained because they didn't have "the courage and musical interest to extend beyond the three chords".

What we actualy see is a creative riot, bursting out of the conventional topics and style of popular music, spilling over into the audience who fully participate in the performance (it is worth persevering into the last three minutes, where we see confident, happy young women from the audience singing with Poly-Styrene) and involving a exuberant attack on consumerism and corporate values.

It was the relativley mass base of punk as a social and cultural movement that empowered such a diverse set of responses, including the genius of X-Ray Spex. The conclusion is inescapable that X-Ray Spex were empowerng, and the Clash were not.



Again, this is not a question of personal taste, this is a question of defending historical truth, that punk was a mass social phenomeon that encouraged a glorious flowering of talent. To diminish the experience by implying that punk was a constraining format and the Clash were able to transcend it becasue they had more courage and musical interest leaves the door open for elitest arguments, that seek to minimise the importance of mass popular participation in culture.

And another, shorter clip this time of the Lurkers, showing exactly what "Audience participation" meant in a punk gig. The key here is that there is that the band and the audience really are all jumbled up in a single creative event:


In any event, participation was not just gigs, becasue nearly everyone even touched peripherally by the punk scene was creatively active, making their own outfits, writing for and producing fanzines, organising and promoting gigs, being in bands, or acting as MC or DJ at gigs, or even spraying grafitti. If we allow punk to be redefined as simply a musical genre, within which the later Clash can be included, then the danger is that the real mass popular participation in cultural radicalism becomes just an audience, and not art of the creative process itself. Punk was a cultural revolution forged by participation.


(And in case you are wondering whether these performcnces were distorted by the TV cameras being there, they aren't. I saw both these bands more than once, and the Poly-Styrene clip is a pretty true picture of what X-Ray Spex and many other punk bands were like, and even by 1978 the Clash has pretty much fallen into the stale rock star mode we see in the clip above)

Smoking ban hits the most vulnerable

.
Last night I was talking to the manager of a sheltered housing project which homes vulnerable young people, often with mental health issues, many of whom have difficulty socialising after experiencing abuse, and in some cases are asylum seekers.

New Labour’s ill conceived smoking ban is shortly going to have a serious negative impact on these vulnerable young people. (Thanks to one of the comments to this post, I have checked the legislatioon, and residential care homes where nursing or personal care is provided are exempt, but sheltered accomodation is covered by the act.)

Let’s be clear. I have no problem with a restriction of smoking in public places to provide non-smokers with the opportunity to live without being exposed to smoke. The problem is that New Labour have removed all choice, and not allowed premises that provide a choice for smokers. The cheerleaders for this ban seek to impose their own lifestyle choices onto others by law.

Residential housing projects have been categorised as public places under the act, and must enforce it or face a £2500 fine and a criminal record for staff members. The stupidity of the law has already led to a one year delay in its implementation into mental hospitals, but sheltered housing projects have to implement it from 1st July 2007.

Currently these homes have a smoking ban in the bedrooms, and provide two lounges: one for smokers, and one for non smokers. This is now illegal.

Bear in mind that these premises are home for their residents. Not only are they entitled to smoke if the wish in their own home but in fact most do smoke. Smoking rates are highest in the most socially marginalised parts of society, and to be honest the potential health risks of smoking are often the least of their problems.

Under the new law, the smoking lounges must be shut, and the bedrooms must now be used for smoking. So all that has happened under New Labour’s brilliant law, cheered on by so many on the left, is that the smoke has moved from one part of the building to another.

But this is not a change with neutral impact. There is now an increased fire risk, as it is much more likely that there will be a blaze from someone falling asleep in bed with a cigarette. What is more, the smoking lounges created a degree of socialisation for vulnerable and excluded people, who will now be sitting alone in their tiny bedrooms. It gets worse, the bedrooms are small, and my friend advises me that because soft furnishings absorb the smoke and stink, the rooms will gradually have the soft furniture, carpets and curtains removed, to be replaced with hard chairs, laminate floors and Venetian blinds. This is the austere environment that the New labour zealots wish to push vulnerable people, because the Islington dinner party set don’t approve of smoking, and wish to criminalise and exclude anyone who doesn’t agree with their choices.

The anti-smoking zealots said they supported a total ban on (specious) health and safety grounds, ignoring all evidence about the efficacy of extraction systems in removing any risk from second hand smoke. But for the most vulnerable in care homes, the smoking lounges had extraction systems, but the bedrooms will not. So for the most vulnerable and at risk the situation is worse.

The class bias of the legislation is also clear froom the fact that smoking is banned in the expensive nurseries where middle class parents can afford to send their children, but not in the homes of child minders where working class children go. An egalitarian approach would have insisted instead on air extraction systems for child minders' homes, and subsidised their installation and running costs. Parental choice is an inadeqaute solution, partly because the choices people can make depend on their income, and partly becasue parents who smoke are less likely to object to a child minder who smokes.

How any socialist can support this vindictive, class-biased legislation is beyond me.

Of course common sense could have prevailed and sheltered housing could have been excluded from the legistlation, but then so could private clubs. Instead a blanket ban is being imposed as a knee jerk, socially repressive measure.

Oh Bondage, Up Yours!

As the last post was about punk, and the one before that about SM sex, here is a treat linking both themes.

X-Ray Spex from 1977. Brilliant:

I'm so bored with the Clash.

.
The future isn't written maybe, but the past is being rewritten.

As Julian Temple releases another contribution to the revisionist Punk heritage industry, I feel obliged to say that the relationship between the Clash and punk is usually considered too uncritically. The character of Joe Strummer was especially problematic, using punk as a stepping stone to being a rock star.

Punk was a profound cultural revolution that has had lasting impact. The difficulty with the narrative put forward by Julian Temple is that it reduces complex social processes into the history of “great” individuals. So in the “Great Rock & Roll Swindle” McLaren was the Svengali who created punk, while in the “Filth & the Fury” it was Rotten who was the daddy.

Punk wasn’t even just about music, it was about self-empowerment and authenticity, in an anti-corporate culture, and it extended beyond music to street fashion, the visual arts, self-publishing and fanzine journalism, and of course people making their music and their own records.

Let’s go back to the 1970s. Even for those who experienced the period it seems extraordinary to look back on the degree of cultural conformity. There were just three TV stations, and no way of recording programmes, no videos, no DVDs. In most of the country there was no competition to BBC radio, and Radio One and Radio Two were both dominated by the utterly fatuous. In contrast to today’s diversity of genres and styles, there was a cultural monolith, symbolised by that insufferably smug piece of shit Bob Harris and the Old Grey Whistle Test. There were only the major record labels, and even if something alternative was happening then information about it spread largely through word of mouth and if something new was reported in the music press then you couldn’t even hear it or buy it because you were depending on your local record shop to stock it, and it was usually run by a hippy.

Punk self-empowerment meant that people made their own fashion, by spray painting second hand clothes, and chains and safety pins. People wrote their own magazines, and the influence of “Sniffin’ Glue” has had a lasting impact. Punk music also adopted its own aesthetic. And as another lasting impact, a whole series of minor labels were born, not entirely based upon punk, but riding on the wave of their explosion: Beggars Banquett signed the Lurkers, and Stiff signed the Damned. Bands also learned that they could press their own singles, and sell them. This was an important political and cultural space being claimed outside the control of the market.

Authenticity was also important, by which I mean an experience that has multiple potential outcomes. The closeness of a punk audience and the band, the invasions of the stage, and the general lack of deference meant that there was no passivity. The immediacy of making music, or writing fanzines outside corporate culture also brought songs and writing about acne, wanking, loneliness, sexual inadequacy and all sort of other taboo subjects.

Being a punk was rebellious in a way that no youth culture could be today. Our fathers or grandfathers had fought fascism, so wearing a Nazi armband (as I did) was a total rejection of their moral authority. The hippies, just ten years or so older than us had made a safe and personal rebellion in a time of full employment, and a period of political optimism. In the 1970s, British society was in crisis, political, ideological and identity crisis. There was no future in England’s dreaming.

The paradox that our own rebellion would be commoditised and sold back to us was always known and recognised. (And the genius of the Pistols is that they exploded in the faces of the record companies who signed them.) Looking back on the early days of punk it is remarkable how different we looked from the identikit punk-clones who later bought bondage trousers from shops and wore spiked Mohican hair dos. It was very personal, and for example I used a plastic coat hanger to fasten my jacket. It was even difficult to buy straight trousers – everyone wore flares everywhere. I pinched a pair of my dad’s old gardening trousers, and hid them at the end of the garden, so I would leave my house in flares and change in the shed! I also remember having to pierce my ears and cheeks with safety pins on the bus each time I went out, because it was simply not safe to have permanent piercings due to the reaction it caused. I was beaten up twice by strangers.

But quite apart from the Pistols, punk was happening anyway. The Hollywood Brats , a homegrown version of the New York Dolls (and rather better!) had first recorded in 1973, and ex-Brat, Casino Steel was involved with the Matt Dangerfield’s basement recording studio, which during 1975 and 1976 brought together a number of punks, and out of which grew both London SS and the Boys. In parallel, bands like the Lurkers were directly influenced by the Ramones and New York punk, and the Vibrators and Adam and the Ants grew out of pub rockers Bazooka Joe. (of course it is easy in retrospect to dismiss the Ants, but the later New Romantic version has almost no continuity with the art school faux fascism of the earlier band)

Former bank clerk, Mark Perry, was so influential, he had started the Sniffin’ Glue fanzine after seeing the Ramones, and co-founded Step Forward Records, which produced Sham 69, the Cortinas and Chelsea. But Mark also formed Alternative TV (pictured below), the best British punk band, and created by far the best album, “The Image has Cracked”, which confounded all expectations of the identikit punks by including Jools Holland keyboards, and a Frank Zappa cover-version. But it also showed with songs like “Splitting in Two” that great art could be made within the minimal punk musical aesthetic.

I used to think it was a bit sad that bands like the Vibrators, UK Subs, and others are still gigging round small venues 30 years later, or that bands like the Damned, the Adverts and the Boys play nostalgia festivals. But actually it is an achievement, they opened a space where they could make a modest living out of playing their own music, they did break forever the monolithic control of the corporate music industry.

Of course some individuals like Billy Idol and Adam Ant used their brief 15 minutes of fame to make as much money as they could, but they never pretended to be doing anything else, and why shouldn’t they. Of course the insufferable Paul Weller has become the new Paul McCartney, but he could only do so by breaking from Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler, and reinventing himself.

But then there is the Clash. The only big name punk band to have an uncomplicated signing with a major label (Look at the trouble the Banshees had getting a deal). The only ones to become Stadium rockers. The only ones to aspire to being big international rock stars. Of course they succeeded because their ambitions were comprehensible and compatible with the big corporate ethos of the music industry. Their punk identity a thinner veneer. Of course they were more commercially successful because their music was more conventional and less innovative than many punk bands.

From my observation, the Clash never saw the potential of Punk as constructing a creative space outside corporate control, instead they sought to get the best commercial deal so that they could proselytise their ersatz lefty message and get rich trying. Look at the cover of their first album! It is as posed and contrived in designer clothes as any image created for Busted or Westlife!

The Clash’s relationship with its audience very soon ceased to be an empowering one, that was two way. I last saw them about May or June 1978, and many of the audience groaned and mocked them when they played “Garage band” (with no sense of self-irony) in the style of preening rock stars. Many punk bands sang songs with some integrity and authenticity about their own experience, but how could diplomat’s son Joe Strummer really be sincere that he hated the rich? How could they be sincere that they hated the USA, when they wanted more than anything to be a success there?

In "Alternatives", an open mike session on "The Image has Cracked" recorded in january 1978, Mark Perry says: "You all think we've won because bands like the Clash ... are on the Telly, but there's no way you've won brother, ok so I'm a communist, there's no way you've won sister, what you are getting is diluted shit".

Feminism: reclaiming sex

One of my favourite quotes: "Don't scream penis at me, but help to change the world so no woman feels shame or fear because she likes to fuck." (Joan Nestle, A Restricted Country)

I am advertising this blog, to show my support and because I pleased to see these feminist bloggers coming together to open up a space for women to discuss SM (and I also think these four women bloggers rock!). I understand where they are coming from 'cos as a socialist feminist who is anti-censorship on porn I know all about the “Feminist Guilt” and know how it is so difficult to have an open, honest and democratic discussion about sex, sexuality, SM and pornography as the influence of radical feminism still looms large.

We need to be able to explore, examine and untangle these issues without the threat of being insulted, lectured and condemned. Women are sexual beings. I am sick of us being made to feel ashamed of our sexual desires and fantasies.

Things don’t change and when I first became a feminist 20-odd years ago porn was central and still central to the radical feminist thesis. I have been to feminist conferences in the past couple of years and the feeling of déjà vu is strong: “porn is the theory, rape is the practice”.

What I would like to see is women being able to talk about these issues freely without the condemnation, moralism and the immense feeling of guilt. Guilt, ‘cos you not a proper feminist as you indulge in “bad sex”. I am also sick of hearing that women who enjoy SM or any form of sex that isn’t typically vanilla coated being labelled as “brainwashed” by the patriarchal order.Or daring to experiment beyond the acceptable boundaries. And of course we are capitulating to patriarchy when we use those phallic shaped dildos/vibrators. And are you selling the sisterhood down the river if you enjoy looking at porn?

Well, you sure can use that argument regarding sex about anything under patriarchal capitalism. Are we really free to choose in any given situation?

All I am saying that we cannot judge women, make our own assumptions and come to rigid conclusions. Nor is it helpful to hold the belief that women are just passive victims of patriarchy to know what desire is. We are not just saturated with sexual imagery we are also saturated by morality.

Suppressing debate is bad news. It will stunt the growth and continue the fragmentation of feminism. And as a socialist feminist I don't want to see that. Nor was it the feminism I signed up for. For me the opposite is true. I want women to be able to discuss their needs, desires, sex and sexuality without the fear of any condemnation, in an open and free way.

Good luck with the blog, which I will be reading!

Whatever happened to the awkward squad?

What staggering hypocrisy. Woodley and Simpson have managed to get both wings of 'Unite' to support Gordon Brown, having opposed support for John McDonnel, in the Labour leadership contest. For Amicus it is "a pleasure" to announce its political committee's decision to support Brown, and their choice for Deputy, of John Cruddas.

The TGWU section of 'Unite' it is "proud" to have nominated Brown ( a deision taken by the General Executive Committee) and says it will give him "our full support as Prime Minister in working to tackle social inequality" and, of course, fighting for that all important fourth general election victory!

One again this stalwarts of what was once described as "the awkward squad" are facing both ways at once. Why? Is it lack of courage? Is it stupidity? Simpson says they are supporting Cruddas because he is calling for a change of direction". The joint press release says that Unite wants to see "a move ttowards an agenda which suoorts working people" yet supports a man who wants to press on with public sector "reforms" and the essentials of New Labour's neo-liberal programme.

It says it want to see "a halt to private sector involvement in public services" and NHS cuts, so the blindingly obvious thing to do was support the author of the government's privatisation programme!

It is difficult to see this as anything other than opportunism on the part of Woodley and Simpson. Perhaps they think by supporting Brown they can gain some influence over him. But to union members who are facing the consequences of the government's programme it will look like Turkeys voting for Christmas. In taking such a position they have once again placed the interests of the link with Labour above the interests of their members, and they have let off the hook all those union sponsored MPs who lined up to support Brown.

Interviewed on Radio 4 on their support for Brown, Woodley managed to avoid answering the question about the lack of evidence of any change of direction by him. The Trade Union leaders are going to plead with 'Gordon', of course, more in hope than expectation. The consequence of that will be that he treats them with the contempt that they deserve.

Zodiac

Due to experiencing a bout of LP Leader/Deputy Leadership fatigue that has bordered onto the melancholic I decided to cheer myself up and lift my spirits by going to the cinema. So I saw the film Zodiac which is about a serial killer who was active in northern California during the late 1960s/early 1970s. Cheery indeed.

Actually, it was a very good film that deserves the positive reviews it has received. It's directed by David Fincher and frankly, he is back on form.

Unlike Seven which was high stylised with its blue/silvery hues that gave a dramatic chiaroscuro effect, dankness, drabness and the only time natural light is used at right at the end, Zodiac is grainy and gritty. Fincher is explicit in his attention to detail it has a 1970s feel to it.

A young man and woman are shot while sitting in their car. The man survived. A young couple are having a picnic by a lake when they are attacked by a masked man. The man survived. A cab driver is shot dead in his car.

The San Francisco Chronicle received a letter pertaining to be from the killer written in code calling himself "Zodiac". Some of the cyphers were cracked, others not. Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) a cartoonist and journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jnr) follow the story and become dogged in tracking down this elusive killer. The cop on the case Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) is also determined to find the faceless killer. It is an exercise in obsession and the human cost.

The three work in very different ways but their dedication borders onto obsession especially Robert Graysmith who is utterly sidetracked by the case that his partner eventually leaves him taking their kids. But you get the feeling he doesn't really notice or care.

Avery spirals into alcoholism and drug addiction (not too much of a stretch for Downey Jnr) and leaves journalism while Toschi worked for years on the case. What is also depicted is the blunders made in the investigation, lack of communication and precious behaviour between police departments. Graysmith who was alway fascinated by the cyphers but was in the background at the Chronicle was brought into the forefront of the case by Avery. He took it up as own personal investigation when Avery and Toschi dropped it. Gyllenhaal conveys quite convincingly a man on a quest who lets it take over his life and cuts everyone else out of his life even when killer seemingly invades his life.

What I liked about this film was that it put the spotlight firmly onto these characters and how it impacted on their lives. Thankfully there's none of the usual cod psychobabble about what "makes" a serial killer, instead it revolves around physical evidence though they do originally involve a shrink played by Brian Cox.

Even when the years go by evidence degrades, memories are not as sharp, people move on, and the case goes "cold" but that didn't stop Graysmith who seems stuck in the past. He needs to know who it is, "I need to stand there, look him in the eye and I need to know that it's him". A suspect looms large in the film but it is based on circumstantial evidence.

The film's timeline is from 1969-1991. Graysmith's book "Zodiac" was published around the early 1990s (film is based on it).

The acting is realistic. All the characters are believable and all three main actors are good. The women in their lives are firmly in the background with the exception of Graysmith's partner, Melanie (Chloe Sevigny) and we don't get very rounded characterisations of these women. Gyllenhaal does oddly distracted well (Donnie Darko), Downey Jnr is believable at playing a journalist losing it and Ruffalo as the hardened cop who gives up. There is not the usual standard Hollywood denouement where all loose ends tied up into a nice neat bow. Instead the ending is left open as that corresponds to the real life events.

The film is 2hrs and 30 mins but it was engrossing, well written and accuracy impressive (though I am sure the eagle eyed will have spotted some mistake). The soundtrack is good as well and part of that timeline.

NB: What did have me in mass hysterics was watching a trailer for Die Hard 4.0 where a botox knackered looking Bruce Willis is saving the USA from the Bad Guys. Yippee-ki-yah!

Ken Livingston backs Cruddas

.
Ken Livingstone has declared his support for Jon Cruddas to be Deputy Leader of the Labour party, praising the Dagenham MP's position against "Britain being saddled with the immense cost of developing a new generation of nuclear weapons".The London mayor also commended his stance on domestic issues including combating poverty, fighting racism, expressing support for better public transport and trade union links.

"I am delighted to give him my full support," Livingstone said. "He will be a fresh voice helping to renew Labour at this important time."

"Jon Cruddas has impressed me with his thoughtfulness and tenacity and I very much hope that Labour members will back him to become the next deputy leader of the party," he added.

Unite, the 'superunion' created by the merger of the T&G and Amicus, is the largest Labour Party affiliate with 1.39 millions members who will have a vote in the contest. It has announced it believes Jon Cruddas to be the best deputy leader candidate of the six, and will urge members to vote for him.

Joint general secretary Derek Simpson said: "Jon Cruddas' stated policies mirror our members' desire for better job security, decent pensions, affordable housing and public services provided by the public sector.

"Jon is unlike any other candidate standing for the deputy leadership - he alone is calling for a change of direction in order to reconnect with the Labour Party's core supporters."

Unite said it wanted a government agenda focused on supporting working people, a halt to private sector involvement in public services, an end to NHS cuts and improved rights for agency workers.

And it said it wanted to work towards 'Warwick 2', a successor to the 2004 deal between the government and the unions over labour policy and trade union law. (Although the fact that the original Warwick agreement has still not been implemented by the government may be of more relevance!)

Meanwhile it seems that the GMB and UNISON may well back Peter Hain. This is the feeling I am getting talking to officers of the GMB, and is due to the ill-advised remarks attributed to Jon Cruddas about reducing the union block vote at conference from 50% to 33%. I say attributed to Jon Cuddas, becasue I have not been able to find any original article or source where Jon Cruddas actually says this

Pensioner poverty

Up to 1.6 million eligible pensioners are still not in receipt of pension credit, therefore £2.1billion is left unclaimed. Take-up of Housing and Council Tax benefits are also declining. And I am sure Gordon Brown is laughing all the way to No. 10 thinking of the savings and inviting his private equity pals around for drinkies.

One of the many reasons for the lack of take-up is probably due to the bureaucratic, unhelpful and complex nature of the benefits system. There’s also a lack of information, support and encouragement. Therefore this becomes a massive obstacle and disincentive for pensioners to apply or indeed anyone else who is entitled to benefits. And what is worse pension credit and many other benefits are means tested.

With the current attacks on welfare there has been the stoking of the flames perpetuated by New Labour with negative stereotypes of claimants ("feckless poor") and this will have a severe impact as it will scare, distress and ultimately deter people from applying for benefits they have every right to claim.

New Labour tackling poverty? Who are they trying to kid...

Tories versus New Labour: the ideological differences

John Hutton was putting forward his proposals for welfare reform yesterday at the CBI Public Forum. CBI boss Richard Lambert who only recently was arguing that private equity is jolly fine idea:

"Private equity offers a new and compelling business model for the 21st century, free from some of the burdensome restraints of publicly-owned companies. It generates real benefits for the UK in terms of jobs, leaner and more efficient businesses, and wealth creation.”

Well, he should tell that to workers at AA, for instance......

But back to Hutton's proposals which are wedded in this idea of “rights and responsibilities”. This should be known as “guff speak” because it is meaningless spin. By creating incentives for companies getting claimants back into work, this will expose the increasing emphasis on how marketable we are for employment.

Even though Hutton warns companies from cherry picking the easier claimants it will be inevitable that they will indulge in “park and cream”, which means they will “park” people they consider hard to get into work while “creaming” off the profits of those will they consider easy to get into a job. Hardly treating people equally or responding to the needs of the claimants, is it? It will be also a complicated process as well.

But now we have Gordon Brown as LP leader who will push through reforms of the public services with further marketisation and privatisation, is he any better or worse than David Cameron? I would argue there is a distinct ideological difference between New Labour and the Tories. New Labour thinks that the working class can be integrated into corporate capitalist projects by using the state. The buzz phrase is the "enabling state". i.e. proposals about citizenship, for example.

Tories see the state retreating to a role of safeguarding property rights especially against the working class and those oppressed and marginalised by corporate capitalism (a kind of night- watchman state). Otherwise they view state activity and public spending as a fetter on capital accumulation. Low taxes and provision of the cheap and exploited labour and defending the rights of the bourgeoisie as a class.

The two ideologies can merge into one and distinction can be blurred but there is a significant difference. The Tories will accelerate and turbo charge their attacks for one thing. They don't have the contradictions and the pressure New Labour do and again the Tories have the interests of their own class to think about and supporting the poor isn't one of its goals.

I am not saying that New Labour are any better but they are an enemy with a fundamentally different approach than the Tories.

Ding dong: the bigot is dead

The fire and brimstone reactionary bigoted misogynistic homophobic American nasty, Jerry Falwell, has fallen off the perch. Good riddance, says I. He was the founder of the Moral Majority who famously quipped that, "God is a Republican"

Gee and I thought God is a DJ and life is dance floor (well, according to the singer Pink).

One less fire and brimestone reactionary but there are still plenty alive to choose from. Ian Paisley being one.....

A crushing defeat.

The next Prime Minister’s campaign manager, Jack Straw has said: "We are delighted that the party is uniting behind Gordon and giving him such overwhelming support."

Overwhelming indeed, with 308 MPs nominating him, and the speaker and deputy speaker of the house probably would have done, parliamentary convention prevented them.

MPs nominating Brown included fairly frequent left rebels like Bob Marshall-Andrews, and centre left rebel Kate Hoey nominated no-one.

Any sensible electoral strategy against Brown would have sought to split the centre away from the hard Brownite/Blairite right. But instead the hard left ran a campaign aimed only at their existing core constituency – an approach that was always unlikely to get sufficient MPs nominations.

In truth of course, there were few other options, as since the death of Robin Cook there was no credible electoral candidate for the centre left. Further evidence of the way the right in the party has structurally and irreversibly underpinned its dominance.

There was some truth in Michael Meacher’s rationale for putting himself forward on the basis that McDonnell could never get sufficient MP nominations, but he was in no better position. Indeed his policy platform was almost indistinguishable from McDonnell’s, and there are other issues that undermine his credibility with some activists.

Could the defeat for the hard left have been any more overwhelming? They have failed to achieve a contest, with a crushing majority of MPs rejecting them, and the right attracting the votes of even the soft left. This is an utter rejection of the Labour Left, even more remarkable after ten years of PFI, privatisation, inadequate pensions, imperial war, growing inequality and a terrible housing crisis.

McDonnell failed to achieve the support of any major union, and on the NEC, when a motion was moved to reduce the required number of nominations only two members voted for it. Even two of the left’s own members on the NEC voted against it. Indeed the apparently high votes of the left for the Grassroots Alliance for the NEC are shown to be illusory, because Anne Black who appears in their list is actually a right wing Brownite!

The Labour left need to seriously consider what their strategy is now. Strangley the last issue of labour Left Briefing before the leadership election was declared had no discussion of what they should do after the McDonnell campaign.

Part of the difficultly is that within the Labour Party the ideological victory of the right is almost total, that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism, privatisation and deregulation. What is more the constitutional changes in the party and reduced powers for local government make it very hard for the left to influence policy or debate or build a base.

The aspects of hope is that the Labour Party may have irrevocably been won for the right, but the political views of its electoral base have not followed and are now to the left of it. And the unions articulate political opposition to PFI, private equity and inequality.

We need to turn the tide of politics and rebuild ideological and practical opposition to the market. It is therefore vital that we work with our strengths and encourage the unions in finding their political voice.

John McDonnell: Another world is possible

As it looks more and more likely that McDonnell won’t get the nominations to get on the ballot form due to a gutless tightly whipped PLP who won’t think for themselves, and also the high threshold makes it increasingly unobtainable.

A coronation ensues for one Gordon Brown therefore democracy has been bumped off by mass toadying by the PLP.

But hey, as they say, it aint over till it’s over.

Looking at Gordon Brown’s website. His priorities include:

Britain number one for education
An NHS that earns the trust of patients and staff
More affordable housing
Every child the best start in life
Stronger, safer, more cohesive communities
Tackling climate change
Better work-life balance
The challenge of terrorism and security

That makes eight priorities: are there priorities between the priorities. More to the point how is Brown going to achieve these goals and what do they represent? What is meant by “every child having the best start in life”? As poverty increases among working age people Brown will have workfare and lifelong debt waiting for these children. That’s assuming they do not get asbo’ed and sent to prison.

What of the future? Part of the problem is the Left is so fragmented. In the LP, we need a Campaign group that works together much more cohesively and orientates towards the activist base in the unions as well, with a counter whip if necessary. We also need people to emerge from their democratic centralist shells and to push forward struggles in as united a way as possible, whether the struggles are inside either wing of the labour movement or outside in campaigning organisations. We also need a clear ideological account of what the Left is and how to fight neo-liberalism.

Finally John McDonnell has proved himself as a leader of the Left who can open up political room for the Left to put forward its ideas. There is an opportunity still to build on what has been achieved.

Socialist Film Club

.
Having a regular socialist film night has proven very useful to the left in Swindon, not only as a sociable way of keeping comrades in touch and generating some discussion, but it has also allowed us to organise joint events with other organisations, such as the Climate Change Action Network, Stop the War Coalition or even animal welfare activists, where out interests coincide.

We are just planning our programme for the next six months, and these are the films we have chosen.

it is often difficult thinking of films to show, especially as some very good films are only avialable in Region 1 format (USA) and the pub we show them in doesn't have a licence to show region 1 films. if you have any suggestions for future movies we would be very pleased, especially short documentaries by activists.

11th June - Commissar
Made in 1967 but banned in Russia for the next two decades for depicting anti-semitism, Askoldov's only film as a director is a beautiful, poignant meditation on war, religion, childhood and human nature. In it, pregnant Red Army commissar Klavdia Vavilova stays with an impoverished Jewish family during the 1917-22 civil war.

9th July - Ghosts
Famed documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield's second feature film is a dramatisation of the events in which 21 Chinese illegal immigrants were drowned whilst fishing for cockles off the South East coast in February 2004. The title refers to the term the Chinese use to describe white westerners, but it equally applies to the legions of poorly paid, non-British workers who provide for British restaurants and supermarkets.

13th August - Battle of Algiers
Powerful, dispassionate account of the Algerian war of Independence which generated huge political and aesthetic ripples. With its gripping documentary-style realism providing a very believable immediacy, it’s a compelling indictment of colonialism. Aided by Morricone's score it's a film that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and doesn't let go. Could be 1957, could be 2003, 2004... 2007

10th September - North Country
A fictionalized account of the first major successful sexual harassment case in the United States -- Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines, where a woman who endured a range of abuse while working as a miner filed and won the landmark 1984 lawsuit.

8th October - Venezuela - Journey with the Revolution
A journey into the heart of the Venezuelan revolution. Meet the midwives, nurses, doctors, housewives, teachers, gay and disability activists, who are transforming Venezuela. Visit health clinics, soup kitchens, land committees,education and micro-credit programmes… The excitement of the revolution is contagious. If you want to find out what a revolution is, this is the film for you.

12th November - Iluminados por el fuego
A wonderful Argentinian film, directed by Tristán Bauer and loosely based on the real experiences of some young Argentinian soldiers that fought in the 1982 Falklands war. A deeply moving and poignant story

Our Sufferings in this Land

.
On Monday our regular socialist film night in Swindon was lucky enough to be visited by Ed Hill from Bristol, who introduced his documentary Our sufferings in this land , which is currently DVD of the month for This Week in Palestine.
I have known Ed since we were both active in the anti-poll tax campaign in Bristol. I am pleased that we had 18 people there to watch the film, and it generated some good discussion, as well as practical suggestions for supporting the palestinians.

I have to say that as someone who has visited the West bank myself, this film is the best account I have seen for revealing the day to day oppression of Palestinians, and is also full of practical advice for activists. It doesn't assume any prior knowledge of the history or the current situation, but neither is it patronising. I strongly recommend that you buy a copy, and once you have watched it pass it round your friends.

In autumn 2005, Ed visited Palestine on a two-week olive harvest trip organised by Zaytoun (the U.K. cooperative that imports Palestinian olive oil) and the International Women’s Peace Service.

As well as visiting Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the group stayed in two small rural towns in the West Bank working with the farmers harvesting their olives. Ed also visited the northern town of Tulkarem to deliver money raised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - Bristol to an orphanage there.

Using a pocket video camera, Ed has recorded his experiences and his film aims to present a complete understanding of the history, politics, geography, and culture of Palestine. It dramatically explains the construction of the Separation Wall, the checkpoints, the Apartheid system of passes, separate road networks, the continual military oppression and the creeping ethnic-cleansing, together with the spirited culture and resistance of a brave people.

Through interviews with farmers, teachers, activists, and ordinary people, woven together with the story of the trip, Ed presents an understanding of Palestine as a case-study which unlocks an understanding of world politics and the hypocrisy of politicians and the bias of the daily media. He encourages everyone to visit Palestine and his conclusion is that one cannot rely on anyone else for solutions - everyone has the power to make a difference.

This documentary film is a valuable resource in exposing Israel’s daily suffocation of the Palestinian people, and is an excellent tool in opening the eyes of those who are not aware of the suffering that the Palestinian people endure on a daily basis.

The DVD is available for purchase online at the film director’s website .

Pakistan - the mass movement spreads

On the foot steps of advocates, till the end of dictatorship
By: Farooq Tariq

On 8th March 2007, no one in Pakistan would have thought of mass movement erupting in near future that with a potential to overthrow general Mushraf regime. A day later on 9th March, he suspended the chief justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan. He had the illusion that nothing would happen and business as usual would go on. He had done it in the past successfully.

But it was different this time. Immediately after the suspension, the 80,000 strong advocates’ community started agitation against the decision.

The peak of this agitation was on 14th May 2007. For the first time since General Musharaf took over the power in October 1999, whole Pakistan shut down. It was the first political strike in seven years. It was also the first political action that was not initiated by the religious fundamentalist forces.

On 14 May, Pakistan was united against military dictatorship and gangsters of MQM, (United National Movement) a linguistic party sharing power along with General Musharaf. From Karachi to Peshawar , all the shops were closed and there was a very thin traffic on the streets. In Lahore, the largest ever demonstration since 9th March took place from Lahore High Court to Governor House on the main Mall Road. Over 15000 participated.

The strike was a solid one and even traders associated with the military regime went on strike. A great anger was expressed against the killing of over 40 political activists who went to the reception of chief justice Iftikhar Mohammed Choudry on 12 May in Karachi . Over 200 were injured by the direct firing of the thugs of MQM who had announced that they will not tolerate the reception in Karachi .

“ Karachi is ours and we would not like the political parties to politicize the issue of chief justice” was declared by Farooq Sattar, the parliamentary head of MQM a day earlier. Karachi is in the control of this neo fascist organization that based itself on the immigrants of 1947 who speaks Urdu language. They control the local bodies and almost all the provincial and national seats from the largest city of Pakistan .

The 12 May saw some of the worst incidents of direct killings of innocent citizens and political activists from different opposition parties in Karachi . All the roads linkined to Shahrai Faisal, the main road to airport was blocked by massive containers and trucks. The purpose was to stop people coming to the main road for welcome.

Although there was hundreds of Labour Party Pakistan activists present in different routs to airport, fortunately, none of them was injured or killed. They were bringing the injured one to hospitals. Several buses load of LPP activists were snatched by the gangsters of MQM and they dragged the activists inside with their guns on their heads.

“I am at Awami Markaz hiding behind a pillar of the bridge, firing is going on from different sides, next to me are lying five person full of blood, they have been hit by bullets, there is no ambulance to take them to hospital, I am crying all the time, I can not help the injured one, and I may be hit as well” Azra Perveen, a Labour Party Pakistan activist told me on telephone on 12th May at 2pm. We tried to send the media and some ambulances, but no one was ready to go that place. It was only after two hours that the injured were rushed to hospital.

Sadly, three of them died later. Azra is in a state of shock for the last three days. She has seen the blood every where.

A private TV channel Aaj tried to show live the firing by the gangsters. So the semi fascist groups came there and fired at the TV channel building for over six hours.

The local police and rangers had given a free hand to “deal” with the opposition. The chief justice was blocked at the Karachi airport alongside with 25 advocates. They were held for nine hours at the airport. The state authorities wanted him to go by helicopter to Sind High Court building to address the Sind High Court Bar Association. This was to avoid the reception of the people outside on the main roads. He refused to go by this way.

While they stopped the chief justice at the airport, the private army of the MQM opened fire on all those who came in processions to receive and welcome the chief justice. Thus a firing drama lasted for over 14 hours, resulting deaths of over 40 till mid night.

After the incidents of 12th May, the MQM is neither united nor national. They are many resigning from MQM in Punjab and Karachi is not united anymore for MQM after nearly two decades.

The same night on 12th May, the conservative Muslim League Q had planned a “mass” rally in Islamabad in support of the sacking of chief justice. Muslim League is in power with General Musharaf. This was a rally planned weeks earlier to counter the growing sympathies for the chief justice and a growing demand of an end of the military regime.

All the state employees were asked to attend the rally. All the sanitary workers were forced to attend. The Muslim League had promised to give Rupees two to five hundred ($3.5 to $8.5) for every one who attends this “historic” rally with free mineral water and food. They are regular complaints printed for the last two days in the national media about ignoring the promises of such kind. Despite all the efforts, not more than 20,000 were in the rally. It was not a rally but a festival chance for many to see Islamabad .

Addressing this rally general Musharaf praised the MQM by saying that people of Karachi has come out today. Yes, they came out to be hit by bullets of the supporters of General Musharraf.

It all went against the regime. Their rally in Islamabad was a failure. Their strategy to stop the reception of chief justice resulted in bloodshed. They lost the support among the middle class, the traditional support for the military regime and MQM. The representatives of over 480 markets of Lahore announced and acted upon the call for a shutter down strike on 12th May. It was mainly announced by the former supporters of the Musharaff regime.

The movement of the advocates had started by the bar associations across Pakistan after 9th March 2007. The advocates historically have been in the forefront of every democratic struggle in Pakistan . They were the main force behind the movement against General Auyb Khan dictatorship in the sixties; they were also responsible for keeping the movement alive during General Zia dictatorship in the eighties.
Some of them have been cooperating with the military regime of general Musharaff. Some of them had illusions of the nature of the regime. They thought it might be a progressive military regime. But all that is gone with the wind.

The movement has developed from no where to every where. It is every where. People are talking about it. They are very angry about the bloodshed. They have all seen it on the TV by the live coverage of competing private tv channels. Mostly they have mobile phones that have helped to get the immediate information.

There has been numerous hunger strike camps, protest camps, small and big demonstrations mainly by the advocates during the first sixty days of the movement. The movement was built up slow but steadily. The consistency in the protests by the advocates convinced many ordinary Pakistanis to give attention to the movement.
The movement to end the military regime in Pakistan is in its second phase of repression. The first phase of repression was to suppress the advocates in the first week of the movement just after 9th March. Many advocates were beaten up by police and many were arrested. That did not work.

Then regime strategy was to exhaust the movement by opening up. They allowed the demonstrations to take place freely. That brought more people in the movement including the activists of political parties mainly Muslim league (Nawaz) Peoples Party, parties associated with Awami jamhoori Tehreek, the left alliance including Labour Party Pakistan, Awami National Party, National Party, Baluchistan National Party, MMA, the religious alliance and so on.

The second phase of repression has started from 4th May. This time it was mainly against the political activists. I was also detained for three days by Lahore police from 4th May to 7th May. This was to prevent the political activists arranging the reception of chief justice while he was due in Lahore on 5th May to address the Lahore High Court Bar Association. He reached Lahore from Islamabad in 25 hours instead of normal five hours. This was due to the massive turn out on the main GT road to welcome the chief justice.

Labour Party Pakistan saw the potential of the movement just after 9th March. It became part of the movement from the very beginning. Its poster “on the footsteps of the advocates till the end of dictatorship” was most hit poster among the advocates. It has printed leaflets in thousands to distribute among the communities appealing them to join the movement. It has organized public meetings and rallies to bring people part of the movement.

Who is this chief justice of Supreme Court of Pakistan who has initiated the movement? The chief justice Iftikhar Choudry was no exception than the other judges who has helped this regime to sustain. But in his two years of office, he took many sue motto notices of ordinary Pakistanis who were subject to human rights violations. He particularly helped the women victims of rape and conservative reactionary customary practices that make women half of man.

He also took notices of the irregularities of the privatization process of Pakistan Steel Mills in Karachi . He in fact stopped the privatization of this massive industrial unit of Pakistan . On the other hand, he has also given decisions against the trade union rights and so on and he has banned some strikes of the public sector.

So he was not a worthy hero of ordinary people of Pakistan , but some one who helps some times. He earned respect when he refused to resign on 9th March, when he was called at the Army House by general Musharaf in the presence of five military generals. The military generals’ immediately removed him from the post and put him under house arrest. This resulted in an absolute anger among the advocates who termed this act as an attack on the judiciary.

The movement is gaining momentum among the masses day by day. This is because of the implementation of neo liberal agenda at a faster speed. The privatization, the deregulation, the so-called free market policies meant an upsurge of the prices of every day use at a level never seen before. People were fed up of the regime but had no trust on the main political parties. So they were angry but not part of the movement.

The religious fundamentalists MMA who had the street power used this to gain more and more concessions from the regime including power in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and sharing power in another province Balushistan. But they had come out to save the regime when ever it was in trouble.

Now the religious fundamentalist are trailing behind the advocate’s movement, in the hope to hijack the movement. They have lent their support to the advocate but that are not trust worthy. They can any time go along the military regime.

So is the Pakistan People Party. Benazir Bhutto admitted last month that it is in contact with the military regime and they are ready to share power with General Musharaf as president. This sparked a great anger among the advocates who are mainly led by supporters of PPP. But the deal of the PPP is washed away in the heat of the movement. Benazir does not say any more that she is willing to share power with General Musharaf.

The movement of the advocates is led by mainly young generation. It is their first experience and they are up to the mark. They do not act upon the advices of the seniors to go slow. That is the strength of the movement.

How and when Mushraf will step down, who will take over, will it be another general to hold general elections or a transitional government of some alliances, these are some of the question discussed in the movement. One thing is absolute sure that Musharaf is weaker to an extent never seen before. He can not last long as he had planned. Many have started counting the days. He is general on his last legs.

For further background see Lal Khan's article

GMB & UNISON act together on leadership

Representatives of the political committees of UNISON and the GMB met in London today to consider the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labour Party.

Following the meeting Dave Prentis, General Secretary of UNISON, and Paul Kenny, General Secretary of the GMB, issued the following joint statement:

“The two unions, who between us represent almost 35% of the trade union vote in the electoral college, have agreed to co-ordinate the activities of both our unions around the election.

Both unions will also make nominations/ recommendations to our Labour Party affiliated members who will have a vote in this election.

Both unions will now draw up a list of issues that we will use to assess candidates covering privatisation, equal pay, employment rights, the NHS, public service workers pay and pensions.

Both unions will push for a new direction to enable the Labour Party to reconnect with the electorate to ensure that it can win a fourth successive general election victory.”

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.

John McDonnell will be taking on Brown....

The waiting has finally ended... Step forward John McDonnell. Thankfully Michael Meacher stepped down in favour of John. The media is making comments like, "hardly a household name", "just who is John McDonnell"? Well, unsuprising really but I have to say that I am very pleased John has got this far.

I saw John speak at the hustings at Labour Against the War and he was much more impressive than Michael Meacher. McDonnell at least talked about his vision for uniting the left over his campaign and to bring LP activists together while Meacher rattled off a shopping list of proposals. McDonnell was voted for unanimously. He has also got Tribune and Unison (Scotland) supporting him and by all accounts he did well debating at the Fabian Society last night.

To be honest, it will be hard work to get the nominations but fingers crossed. I will continue to support the campaign and hope comrades will do as well. At least this campaign highlights the Left, left -wing ideas and the bringing together of activists. And debate and discussion back into the public domain.

There was coverage of the Deputy Leadership contest as well on the news with bits on Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears ("she bores me to tears"..). Interestingly, there was a bit on Jon Cruddas and emphasis on his trade union backing..

I am off now to get drunk and to raise a toast to John McDonnell (well, that's my excuse)!

The Scottish Patient

Having made the film version of the book the English Patient, should we make anything of Anthony Minghella making a film that shows Gordon Brown in a blindingly good light? The Scottish Patient, like the English Patient, tells the story of a man who has suffered horrible burn injuries (Blair happily fanned the flames, but the last embers are going out).

Will Minghella’s Scottish Patient make it through to the other side? I was of the opinion that Brown was a dead cert for PM. That was, however, before learning that Mumbles "Jack" Straw is Brown’s campaign manager. Now my money’s on McDonnell, possibly even Meacher, to beat Straw’s man.

I haven’t seen Minghella’s film, but I would hazard a guess that the Scottish Patient shamelessly makes political capital retelling the death of one child and the illness of another. All of which reminds me of the title of one of Chesterton’s five Father Brown novels: “The Scandal of Father Brown”. And with Straw as "campaign manager" another Chesterton title comes to mind: "The Innocence of Father Brown", having unfortunately not written one entitled "The Complete Lunacy of Father Brown".