Monday, August 22, 2016

Reasons to vote for Corbyn

As the voting starts in the Labour Party leadership election, it is even more important to emphasise the extent of the socialist alternative that he represents, and could start to implement, when elected as Prime Minister.
It is more than just being able to answer the question ‘what does Corbyn represent?’ It is about seeing that his position comes embedded in a view that our society and economy can work for us all and not just the rich: that people and the survival of the planet are central, not profit for the few.
Corbyn’s manifesto, his speeches since being elected and his performance at the hustings are a testament to this and make Owen Smith’s 20 points and statements sound like rhetorical sound bites that they are.
The Labour election results over the last 12 months show that this radical vision is not unpopular and that level of support provides the basis of winning over more of the population. Don’t forget the working class - those of us who can only exist only by our ability to sell our labour - is a growing and increasingly exploited majority of our society in the UK and internationally.
As Shelley so graphically put it:
“Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many - they are few."
Share and comment on these links far and wide over the next few days:

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Owen Smith MP and austerity - an email exchange.


Attached is a brief email that I received from my MP Owen Smith in May of last year, just after the 2015 general election.

As the then convenor of the People’s Assembly Wales I had re-circulated an email from Adam Johannes about the Cardiff People’s Assembly and made an appeal to continue the fight against austerity and the Tories.

You can see that I received a brief response from Owen as follows:

“Dear Len,

Please take me off this email list. I can take no more.

Owen”

I was appalled at the time that my local MP would wish to be so dismissive about continuing the fight against austerity after the election, and to such an extent that he no longer wished to know about the PA in Wales. However, knowing the MP, I considered it par for the course and just filed it away.

The situation today is different. Owen Smith is standing against Jeremy Corbyn and claiming he is opposes to austerity, although has also been equivocal. Well in my book there is nothing equivocal about this email given the context he was responding to.

Given the shortness of the email it could leave it open to other interpretations and he was just fed up with the election result.

But so were we all: and as the People’s Assembly we were trying to help provide people a way of continuing to oppose austerity.

So should someone who now wishes to lead the Labour Party.


The email exchange:

RE: Peoples Assembly Wales: March on Saturday

12/05/2015 18:50

To: Len Arthur;

Dear Len,

Please take me off this email list. I can take no more.

Owen

From: Len Arthur [mailto:len.arthur@phonecoop.coop]
Sent: 11 May 2015 09:36
To: Left Unity Wales info; People's Assembly Wales
Subject: Peoples Assembly Wales: March on Saturday

Sorry for much cross posting but needs must

All

Please support everything in this email. We must continue to speak out, criticise and argue for a radical alternative to austerity on behalf of the majority of the population – no matter how they voted! – who will now be getting in the neck.

Well done to everyone for organising the demonstration on Saturday – it was just the act of defiance and unity that was needed to lift us all.

Will not succumb! We will keep the vision of a humane, equal and just society going and act to bring it into reality.

All the best

Len Arthur – People’s Assembly Wales convenor



Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 3:42 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: March on Saturday

CARDIFF PEOPLE'S ASSEMBLY
END AUSTERITY NOW: COMMUNITY MARCH AGAINST THE TORIES
Demonstrate Saturday 16 May. Assemble at 1 pm, Aneurin Bevan Statue, Founder of NHS, Queen Street

"Whether you win or lose isn't the final determinant of whether it was worth fighting. You have to fight or you lose" - Tony Benn

We are ordinary people. We are like you: people, who get up every morning to study, work or find a job, people who are sick or housebound, people who have family and friends. People, who work hard every day to provide a better future for those around us....

We are all very concerned and angry about the new Tory government and the situation which we see around us -

- A million people forced to resort to food banks in the sixth richest economy in the world.
- One in four parents in Wales who have skipped meals for days so they can put food on the table for their children.
- People working long hours who still struggle to pay bills or rent because their employer is too greedy to pay a living wage.
- A housing crisis denying too many a stable secure affordable home.
- Poor and disabled people targeted by benefit cuts.
- Libraries, youth services, play centres and other community facilities being cut back and closed down.
A new government promising twice as many cuts this term including £12bn welfare cuts targeting the very poorest.

I could go on...

This situation has become normal, a daily suffering, without hope. But if we join forces, we can change it. It’s time to change things, time to build a better society together.

For all of the above, I am outraged.
I think I can change it.
I think I can help.
I know that together we can. I think I can help.
I know that together we can.

Please forward on this email and invite people. Bring friends, neighbours, and families. If you are a member of a community group, trade union, club, or any kind of network please get them involved. We're all in it together!

PEOPLE'S ASSEMBLY AGAINST AUSTERITY - NATIONAL (UK) DEMONSTRATION
The People's Assembly is calling a national demonstration in just 6 weeks time:

Tell the new government: End Austerity Now
National demonstration, Saturday 20 June
Assemble: 12pm, Bank of England

We will be organising buses there and back. Details to be confirmed soon.

WALES PETITION AGAINST AUSTERITY

Please sign and share our declaration. We can build it into a referendum on austerity in Wales


THE PEOPLE'S FILM CLUB
Thursday 28 May. The Abacus, Wood Street (across the road from the bus station)
Doors open 6pm. Screening starts 6.30 pm. Bring food to share.

Documentary screening: The Take: Occupy, Resist, Produce by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis.

Join us for the second in our series of documentary film screenings around the theme of “Disobedience!”, exploring resistance movements around the world and throughout history

“The Take looks at Argentina after its spectacular economic collapse in 2001 when Latin America’s most prosperous middle class finds itself in a ghost town of abandoned factories and mass unemployment. In suburban Buenos Aires, thirty unemployed auto-parts workers walk into their idle factory, roll out sleeping mats and refuse to leave. All they want is to re-start the silent machines. But this simple act–the take–has the power to turn the globalization debate on its head.”

Come and watch the film and then discuss how we can organise now for social change and economic justice.

Adam Johannes
Co-Convenor
Cardiff People's Assembly
07940108146

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Vote remain to sustain higher and further education in Wales

As a retired academic I would like to to make a special plea for people to support higher and further education by voting to remain.


During my career I was involved in teaching in both sectors, had responsibilities in a business school, and was involved in the funding of higher education in Wales. In addition I was a trade union activist throughout, at all levels of my union including a UK negotiator.


Over that period of time this sector of education became increasingly international. Not just in relation to students but totally in relation to research. All academic disciplines and knowledge are now international.


In Wales higher and further education is a major employer, it is the among the largest 'industry’ and in many of our towns, makes a major contribution to new high value industries as well as being a world leader in key areas of research.


Being part of the EU has enabled the UK to play a full role in this process. Wales, as the rest of the UK, is highly integrated into systems of student and staff exchange, like ERASMUS. Overseas student income basically keeps many of our Welsh universities going.

Possibly even more significant is the E70bn EU 2014-20 research fund, one of the largest single projects of the EU, which integrates research endeavour across the EU and which in many areas, universities in Wales and the rest of the UK take the lead. Consequently, our universities draw down a significant part of this fund running at £836m alone in 2014-15. Outside the EU applications for this funding and to the European Research Council will become very difficult and UK universities will lose their leading role.


For higher and further education in Wales to continue to flourish for the sake of all of us, we have to be part of the EU.


Please don't allow our lead and this great potential to be put in jeopardy.



Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Overseas students and returning British citizens impact on UK migration

Overseas students and returning British citizens impact on UK migration

Len Arthur 14 June 2016

You may be surprised, as I was, when I first discovered that overseas students coming to the UK were considered as part of the migrant inflow figures. When I looked a bit deeper I also discovered that returning British citizens were also included in these figures.

Now this is not to argue that this shouldn’t happen. When counting something lines of definition have to be drawn somewhere and infinite graduations of meaning don’t help the maths. So this is not to suggest that the definition of who is a migrant is wrong or needs updating - though I think there may be a good case for this - it is just that raw data can look very different when seen from a qualitative view that social meanings do have graduations.

My surprise about both categories being included in the migrant definition was that I started out with a common assumption that migration meant someone from another country moving to another for a longish period of time for family or work reasons. Overseas students are in the UK to study for a defined period of time and make a major contribution to our education system, particularly universities, both in terms of income and intellectual input. If they go on to work here the UK reaps the benefit of this education. Again returning British citizens do not fall into the common assumption of a migrant being a person with citizenship of another country.

So, without making any changes in definition, it is possible to use current data to assess what impact it would have on the net migration figure to the UK, if we put to one side overseas students and British citizens as part of the migrant inflow to the UK.

First some basics. Migration to and from a country is assessed by taking account of total inflows and outflows over a period of time. The difference in the two figures is defined as net migration and tends to be the figure the debate homes in on ‘millions coming to the country’ etc.

Taking the 10 year period from 2006 to 2015, the latest information available, we have a total inflow figure of 5.770m coming to the UK. The total outflow figure is 3.478m making a total of net migration of 2.489m. This net figure is larger than if you do the calculation as adjustments were made following the 2011 census.

Now, of the total inflow figure of 5.770m 1.875m are overseas students, and 0.829m are returning British citizens. Adding the figures for overseas students and British citizens together we arrive at 2.704m for the 10 year period.

You can see where this is now going. If you follow the argument about putting to one side the categories of British citizens and overseas students we can set deduct the total of these two figures from the starting inflow figure of 5.770m. This results in a different inflow figure of 3.066m.
Using this adjusted inflow figure of 3,066m a different net migration figure can be arrived at. Total outflow of migrants from the UK over the same period is as quoted above 3.478m. Now the surprise, take this from the adjusted flow figure of 3,066m and the result is minus yes minus 0.412m.

Numbers are important in the arguments about migration but so is getting a human and qualitative understanding of what the figures mean. What these calculations indicate is that net migration to the UK is not what is commonly assumed either in numbers or in terms of people and we should be more critical of the case made by the right.

Hopefully, using existing data and not wild projections these calculations can help make the point.


Period covered is the ten years 2006 – 2015

Total net inflow of migrants                    5.770m
Inflow adjusted for BS+OS                     - 2.704m       
=3.066m
Minus total outflow                                -3.478m
Net flow of migrants to UK as result        - 0.412m



Monday, June 6, 2016

Taking back real control

Take back control – what a good idea.

Ukip won’t be please but I’ve been converted!

Starting with the

Nationalisation of...
The banks
The railways
Water, electricity and all the privatised public utilities
BT
Royal mail and the post office
Restrict media ownership to 15% of the market, democratise the BBC.
Bring all schools back into local authority control and abolish charitable status on public schools.
All land except personal dwelling houses
Cancel all PFI type contracts and all privatisations of the NHS
State support for all forms of cooperative start ups and succession takeovers
Of course the list should go on, but you get the drift.
And of course control and governance shared between workers, consumers and the state

Real democracy...
The European Parliament to have powers to initiate legislation and a veto of the decisions of the Council of Ministers and the ECB
The renegotiation of the Treaty of Lisbon to remove all neo liberal and anti social elements
British General election at least every three years
Abolition of the House of Lords
Power and resources returned to local authorities
Immediate introduction of the most representational form of proportional voting
The first ever British constitution based upon the European Convention of Human rights and establishing a republic and equal powers to devolved assemblies and parliaments

Democratic social emancipation...
Removal of anti trade union legislation and the establishment of the constitutional right to strike and to have collective recognition in all workplaces
The absolute right to be employed with at least a fair wage and all workers to have a legally enforceable negotiated contract
A progressive system of taxation which is aimed at redistribution so there is at least only a 1 to 3 ratio between lowest income household and the top

Well you can add to the list but this is taking back control with a real purpose: putting you and me in democratic control of the centres of power so we can invest for needs of people and the planet, not profit.

Oh, it isn’t what UKIP, the bosses and the Leavers mean – I thought so.

I’ll just have to vote remain and continue to join up with workers across Europe who support really taking back power.


Thursday, June 2, 2016

The European Left and Left Unity – what’s it all about?

The European Left and Left Unity – what’s it all about?

Len Arthur – LU Wales

Left Unity is an international political party. We are socialists as our aim is to end capitalism, and we recognise that we have to fight for this transformation at an international and national level; both are terrains of struggle and are interlinked. It is not possible to prioritize one over the other.

Our first step in taking this aim forward has been to join the Party of the European Left (EL) as an observer member. From the current year we have been sending two delegates to EL meetings and delegates will be attending the fifth congress in Berlin in December.

This article provides a brief overview of the EL, its politics, how it works and what it is like being a participant.

Background

The EL was formed in 2004 over two separate conferences first in Berlin then in Rome. Talks about establishing a radical left and green alliance had started in 1998 between communist, socialist and green parties from across Europe, in part influenced by changes in Russia and East Europe, the communist parties and the coming together of the European Social Forum.

The link to the founding document with the full aims follows but here is a key part which reflects closely those of Left Unity.

“Therefore we refer to the values and traditions of the socialist, communist and labour movement, of feminism, the feminist movement and gender equality, of the environmental movement and sustainable development, of peace and international solidarity, of human rights, humanism and antifascism, of progressive and liberal thinking, both nationally and internationally. We work together in the tradition of the struggles against capitalist exploitation, ecological destruction, political oppression and criminal wars, against fascism and dictatorship, in resistance to patriarchal domination and discrimination against "others".”


In the European Parliament the European Left Unity/Nordic Green Alliance (GUE/NGL) existed in various forms before the foundation of the EL, evolving from a Communist and Allies group and first using the GUE bit of the name from 1989. http://www.guengl.eu/group/history and from 1995 the NGA became part of the group.

Following the 2014 European Elections 52 MEPs are now part of this group, including 27 from parties of the European Left. The group includes Podemos and Sinn Fein and here is a full list:  http://www.guengl.eu/group/delegations 

The EL currently

Membership of the EL is currently made up of 32 parties covering 23 different European countries with another 15 parties under consideration for membership. Left Unity is one of these 32 member parties and the only one from the UK. We are ‘observer’ members which although we are defined as ‘consultants’ means that we have full participation rights, except at the level of the Council of Chairpersons.

Not all parties who a members of the EL are from countries that are part of the EU such as Turkey, Moldova and Belorussia. Here is a list of the parties but it is a little out of date:  http://www.european-left.org/about-el/member-parties.

Collective individual membership of the EL is around 500,000. There are considerable variations across countries so in the UK as Left Unity we have around 1250 members whereas the two EL affiliated parties in Spain have around 107,000. Individual membership figures are important as they indicate the number of activists across Europe that can be mobilised in campaigns, solidarity and struggles at the national and international level.

Political influence can in part be gauged through votes. In the national election taking place in 2014 - 15 EL parties had around 11m not including those for other parties in the GUE/NGL group of MEPs. In terms of direct action, in France, the CGT trade union which is closely allied to EL member the French Communist Party, is taking a leading role in the direct action against the proposed anti labour legislation and other austerity measures.

Theoretical developmen is coordinated through Transform which is funded by the various political research foundations of EL parties, such a the Rosa Luxemburg foundation in Germany. http://www.transform-network.net/home.html. Kate Hudson and Felicity Dowling of Left Unity have both had articles in recent Transform publications.

EL’s latest political statement from 2013

“For us, there is no question of waiting for the European Union to crumble, and for the monsters that could emerge from the rubble, nor of promoting nationalist solutions setting the peoples against one another. The European Left, which we represent, is internationalist and stands together in solidarity. We strive towards a socialist alternative, a civilisation freed from capitalism, exploitation, oppression and capitalist violence. Ours is a vision that guarantees not only a distribution of wealth that supports work and an advanced social and economic development model, but also democracy, equality, democratic and social rights for all European citizens.

It is to this end that we fight for a re-foundation of Europe, in other words, for a new definition of its objectives, policies and structures; an economic, productive, social and ecological model that is totally different, and that is based on solidarity, social justice and popular sovereignty.”


It is worthwhile reading through the statement as there is much to give heart to someone who supports the argument that another Europe is possible, especially when the organizational size and scope of the EL and the GUE/NGL is taken into account.

Within the European Parliament the GUE/NGL has taken positions and made proposals which go some way toward putting this political statement into action:


Next steps

A new political statement is currently under development heading toward the Berlin conference in December 2016.

As Left Unity we have been fully involved in the process of developing this statement and the action and campaigning priorities that will follow from it. I was one of the elected LU delegates to a recent meeting of the EL executive board in Porto toward the end of April. Here is the report of that meeting that I produced for LU. It provides what I would like to think is an insight into current policy and campaigning concerns of the EL as well as a ‘feel’ for how it all really works: http://chwithunedigcymru.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/report-of-party-of-european-left.html.

Developing this political statement is not straightforward and the acceptance of the austerity programme by the Greek Syriza government was a defeat, having very serious consequences for the Greek people and on how, as socialists, we see a social transformation from capitalism taking place. The EL is prepared to have that debate but it is yet to take place.

Conclusion

We argue as Left Unity that ‘another Europe is possible’ and for a remain vote in the referendum. We argue that case whilst being very critical of the EU.  We don’t believe in pipe dreams or grand rhetoric but in working with socialists across Europe, taking real steps toward this aim. It is hoped that this article can help provide some confidence that this can and will happen.

Left Unity, being a member of the EL, is central to our argument.



Sunday, April 3, 2016

The EU debate: for a yes vote and internationalism - written November 2015

The EU debate: for a yes vote and internationalism

Len Arthur – LU South Wales branch

The Left Unity conference will be discussing the position to take in the European referendum. This is a contribution to that debate, arguing that we should support a yes vote. It builds upon the points made by Felicity Dowling and Luke Cooper on this website a few months ago.

A considerable discussion has started across the left on this issue and two of the better contributions have been made in the International Socialism Journal issue 148 as a debate between John Palmer the European editor of the Guardian and Alex Callinicos editor of ISJ.

Both articles provide a detailed historical background on the evolution of the EU and are worth consulting for this alone. The article by Callinicos has the following key statement, making the proposal that the struggle at the national level should be prioritised, it is that position this contribution seeks to challenge:

“Strategically the problem is that since the 1980s, but more especially as a result of the eurozone crisis, a Europe-wide neoliberal regime is being constructed. Breaking that is most likely to happen at national level. To make successful resistance dependent on a coordinated movement at the EU level is to postpone that resistance indefinitely. The process of uneven and combined development implies that struggles are most likely to succeed at national level but can then be generalised.

Dialectically, then, for internationalism to advance there have to be breakthroughs at the national level.”

There is a general level of agreement among socialists that the problems posed by capitalism require an international level solution, the debate, it seems is how best to get to the position to make that challenge and carrying through transformation.

The EU terrain of struggle

Historically the EU has been a post 1945 project primarily for the interests of capital. In the previous 60 or 70 years before that date capital, faced with increasing international competition, often sought to ally with nation states to secure its competitive interests: securing home markets and worker compliance, whilst supporting imperial policies to secure markets beyond the reach of the particular nation state. State capitalism remains a useful way of describing this process and period.

The Second World War confirmed the emergence of world domination by the US economy, ?a trend which was strengthened by the outcome of the First World War. Faced with state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe - with a different historical root to those in the west - and US domination, European capital realised that the size of western European states, weakened economies and blocked imperial expansion required a different form of state capitalism: one based on a closer cooperation across state boundaries. Surprisingly, given their political backgrounds John Palmer and Alex Callinicos in their different ways, describe this history by avoiding using the idea of state capitalism.

As all of us on the left seem to agree, the EU is a capitalist and even imperial project. However, as with all expansions of capital, which still does require the cooperation of workers who produce the wealth, there is a unifying social flipside which potentially provides the source of an internationally challenging contradiction. It is this feature which is widely ignored by many socialist commentaries.

First, possibly due to the need to have social and Christian democrat cooperation in the European parliament and at the council of ministers to make the EU work, a range of measures and reforms have been adopted that seek to ameliorate the social consequences of some market forces. The Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the EU, its incorporation of the European convention of human rights and legal back up through the work of the court of justice of the European union as well as development through the European parliament, is one outcome, as are the various financial support programmes for regions, areas of deprivation, support for certain economic sectors and the huge £77 billion research fund. These measures have specific benefits at workplace and local level such as on working hours, agency workers and freedom of movement; on basic investment in places such as Wales and in over £7 billion that comes to UK higher education.

Of course these measures are under pressure from the dominant neo liberal pressure of EU policy but, nevertheless, they are international reforms socialists should defend as we defend other reforms on a national basis. They provide a basis for mobilisation.

Second, as socialists, we recognise that the problems of capitalism are international and can only have international solutions. The existence of the EU means that as its policies operate across national boundaries so the challenges faced by the working class constantly have international dimensions which provide opportunities for solidarity and action on this basis. The fight against austerity in Greece, and now Portugal, is much more obviously our fight as being part of the EU than if we were outside. Similarly the politics of right wing governments in Hungary and Poland require to be challenged as much as our own UK government for the same reason.

The European Left: the socialist organisation that no one mentions

Left Article after left article on the EU makes reference to the need for an international struggle, often with vague reference to possibilities such as in the recent Red Pepper article by Leigh Phillips.

Hello, smell the coffee! A socialist organisation that is linking campaigning and politics across the EU and wider, does actually exist: the European Left (EL). Here is a policy statement agreed at the EL conference last year stating why it is central for there to be an international opposition to neo liberalism and austerity, together with a programme of campaigning demands and including alternatives.

The EL is composed of 21 European parties and through the European United Left / Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) has 51 MEPs. With the Green MEPs with whom they regularly cooperate, they are the third largest section in the European Parliament. Left Unity now has observed membership of the EL.

The last EL congress policy statement, referred to above, covers the ground that most socialists could support. This is not so much the case with some specific decisions such as the lack of criticism of the final deal reached by Syriza. However, centrally it argues that another radical and democratic Europe is possible and thus provides an international basis for socialists to debate and agree what this means and how we can act to make it happen.

The existence of the EL adds an absolutely key dimension to the referendum debate, particularly in challenge the right. UKIP, and the like, attempt to frame the debate in terms of the UK and people taking back power almost as a form of liberation. This becomes the peg on which to hang populist policies such as scapegoating migrants and refugees for causing all the problems experienced by workers: low wages, housing, NHS queues, unemployment - even motorway traffic jams.

Of course, as with all populist arguments they are opportunist and hypocritical, as the taking back of power the UK right are really after is the freedom to dump all the social charter and introduce even more attacks on workers, exacerbating all the problems they seek to champion.

Having an internationalist alternative programme and strategy which addresses how these problems are related to the failures of capitalism and their neo liberal policies, backed up with a real international political organisation, provides a direct and internationally based challenge to the right and their nationalistic populism. Ignoring this possibility, as many on the left are doing, at best weakens the internationalist case and, at worst, plays into the hands of nationalist populism.

And at the very worse, if Brexit happened and the neo liberal right have the free reign they are after, socialist who argued the exit case will be saddled with that responsibility. Hair splitting over nuances of difference and meaning will be a very poor fig leaf.

Personal plea

The history of the UK is inextricably linked to world history and in particular, Europe. The development of capitalism and the various forms of imperialism over the last 400 years have accelerated this process. The last 100 years have seen two European wars of utter annihilation, which are of also part of a world conflict. Like nearly every other family I know, mine and that of my partner’s have been scarred by the deaths and experiences of these conflicts. The consequential wars have continued since 1945. Working class support for these wars was justified and won in nationalist terms, weakening the solidarity and international links that may have prevented them and challenged capitalism at the same time. This was, let us not forget, the key failure of the second international. That nationalism continues to undermine us, with potential fatal co consequences.

Conclusion

It is not dealing with this reality to argue that a UK or perhaps just an English answer to the problems posed by capitalism and imperialism exists. Just as states cannot abstract themselves from the world, neither can we as socialists and as a working class: we have to engage on an international basis within the terrain of struggle we find ourselves: unlike Callinicos, as socialist we need to organise and fight on both national and international fronts, not prioritise one against the other.

Not to do so when the chance actually exists could set back the socialist case in the UK for a generation. We have to argue for a yes vote to continue with the internationalist struggle; to argue that another Europe is indeed possible and to point to the programme and existence of the EL to show how it could happen.


Friday, April 1, 2016

Pontyclun Hub - a review of the EU debate so far.

EU referendum briefing for the Pontyclun Facebook Hub

Len Arthur

Recently there was a long string on the Pontyclun Hub about voting in the EU referendum. It was started by a post that was rightly pointed out, by others, not to be correct, however a huge range of points were raised. As part of the discussion I volunteered to produce some background information and references to help the debate running up to the referendum on 23 June. This will be posted on my personal blog and can be updated in response to comments and questions during that time.

It is a personal work and cannot avoid being influenced by my academic background and personal commitment to internationalism and a yes vote. I’ve tried to be rounded in the comments but clearly it is not possible to be totally impartial. This should be countered by the document being in the public forum and can be added to as the debate progresses.

I’ve been through all the comments and pulled out what seem to be the key issues raised by people so far:

1. Migration

Hub comments

Concerns: asylum seekers; Turkey; pressure on services; pressure on our ‘civilization’ ‘culture’ ‘society’ ‘being overrun’; undermines conditions, jobs, benefits; security.

Benefits: free movement good for all; freedom to travel; existing agreements lost; migrants benefit economy; what is the future for of British people living in other EU countries?; Turkey not being fast tracked; talk of subjective factors racist.

Numbers

Net migration – is the difference between people who leave the UK for more than a year against those who come in for more than for a year. The latest confirmed figures are for 2014 and these show a 641,000 inflow against a 323,000 outflow so a net migration of 318,000.
Putting these figures in proportion - the population of the UK in 2015 was 64,680m so 318,000 represents an increase of 0.5%.
The net figure for 2014 is the highest for 10 years but during that time has been as low as 163,000.
In 2014 193,000 came for study purposes and 284,000 for work and 83,000 were UK citizens returning. So of the 641,000 inflow 276,000 were students or returning UK citizens.
50% of migrants only intend to stay for 1-2 years.
Migration from the EU accounts for 42% of the inflow. 46% of non EU migrants were for study.

24,914 claimed asylum in 2014.

The latest information shows that the UK population is composed of 13.1% foreign born and 8.5% non British citizens.
By contrast in New Zealand 25.2% of the population are foreign born and is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.

In contrast about 5.5 million British citizens live abroad, around 10% of the current UK population, many taking advantage of the freedoms to live in Europe with over 750,000 in Spain alone.

It seems in terms of the numbers it is important to see the issue in proportion and that if students and returning British citizens are taken into account there is a smaller net inflow of migrants. Most come to work or study and there is a high turnover with around half leaving again after two years. The freedom to migrate cuts both ways with the equivalent of 10% of the UK population choosing to live and work in another country.


Migration Economic costs and benefits

It is very difficult to come to any definitive short conclusions but most evidence points to a plus benefit of just under 1%.

A more HMRC report shows that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. 
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tax-contribution-of-recently-arrived-eea-nationals-for-2013-to-2014

However, in the longer term the Office of Budget Responsibility in its most recent estimates, proposes that higher migration will make a large contribution to the reduction of the public sector deficit.

Pressure on services

Public services are under pressure across the UK due to Government austerity policies. These cuts are affecting all areas of the UK and are the main source of the problems of provision.

0.5% of NHS spending is on overseas visitors – those from the EU balanced by reciprocal payments arrangements. As argued by the King’s Fund the contribution of trained medical staff from overseas more than outweighs any costs.

Housing provision is in crisis due to the way the private sector fails to provide sufficient homes to meet the demand and social housing to fill the gap is discouraged by government policy.  Migrants’ experience of housing is the same as UK citizens in the long run. In the short term they rely on rented accommodation.

Benefits - foreign born migrants as a proportion of the UK workforce receive less out of work benefits but more in tax credits - but see next section. This largely relates to EU residents as stronger restrictions apply to people from outside the EU.


It also cuts both ways - with UK workers receiving benefits in the EU

Jobs, pay and conditions

Foreign national workers make up 10.5% of the workforce in 2014.
Most are in low skill occupations and live in areas with the lowest levels of unemployment.
A new report from the LSE shows that migration had little affect on wage levels compared to other factors: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/20/reality-check-are-eu-migrants-really-taking-british-jobs
Employer pressures to cut costs through wages, conditions and job opportunities exist all the time. The most pressing issue is thus ensuring all workers have protection not blaming migrants.
A real living wage - not a re-named minimum wage - should be made a legal requirement; trade unions should be given back the protection to strike and organise; and enforcement of this actually take place.
Legal protection at work supported and aided by EU law and regulation significant employment rights gains that continue to accrue to UK workers as a result of our EU membership. These are wide ranging in scope, including access to paid annual holidays, improved health and safety protection, rights to unpaid parental leave, rights to time off work for urgent family reasons, equal treatment rights for part-time, fixed-term and agency workers, rights for outsourced workers, and rights for workers’ representatives to receive information and be consulted, particularly in the context of restructuring: https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UK%20employment%20rights%20and%20the%20EU.pdf
This is what is happening now:
And

Turkey

Talks have been re-opened for Turkey to join the EU and have a long way to go.
Easier visa restriction talks have also started and could take some time.
Visa arrangements already operate of course - check for yourself:

Security

The UK is not part of the Schengen agreement on open borders for EU citizens. The argument that our border controls and security are weak was countered in the article below, pointing out that the UK carries out security checks on all people entering the UK and has turned 6000 away since 2010. As ever the issue of why terrorism takes place and what can be done cannot be reduced to issues around border controls.

Subjective issues

Concepts of ‘civilisation’ ‘culture’ ‘society’ are subjective and difficult to define in an agreed way. They overlap with people’s understanding of their personal identity which is subject to change and can be contradictory. We should be careful therefore, of ascribing fixed attributes to other individuals and groups of people. When associated with terms such as being ‘overrun’ by others to whom these concepts have been ascribed in this way it opens the door to being racist:
We should be very careful in using these terms and clearly define what we mean when we do so.

2. Costs and benefits of EU membership

HUB comments
Concerns: it costs us too much; money get back is ours; not spending on EU will mean less cuts; protect steel; big enough economy go by ourselves
Benefits: general economic growth; Wales has benefitted; no evidence Government  will spend instead of cut; economic dangers in leaving.


UK EU payments and returns

Our current 2016/17 gross contribution to the EU is £18.4bn. However our current net contribution following rebates and redistribution of funds to the public sector - like Welsh Government - leaves a figure of £9.4bn or around 0.5% of the UKs annual gross domestic product (GDP).

In Wales we receive around an additional £700m per year from the EU over and above the budget allocated by the UK government.

There are also other returns which may not be included in the public sector payments. For example one of the largest spending items of the EU is on research. Horizon 2020 is the EU research and innovation budget of E79bn.
British Universities pulled down £687m for research and innovation in 2013, a figure that is growing and other sums are pulled down to fund their international work. This is vital as all knowledge is now global.
The employers organisation the CBI, also points to other benefits and additional economic growth that are not so obvious.
There are different views on the extent of these wider benefits
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-sending-350m-week-brussels/21733
The House of Commons Treasury Select Committee is currently reviewing all the evidence so currently we have to make our own judgements.
Perhaps we should take into account the reports that the referendum is already adversely affecting investment and the exchange value of the pound as an indicator of what might follow during the two years of negotiations that would follow a no vote?

Big enough economy to go by ourselves?
 ‘Ours’ is an interesting term as over 50% of the shares in Britain’s biggest companies are foreign owned - giving huge control over the distribution of profits and future investment. That situation will remain whether we were in or out of the EU and will have a key effect on future investment decisions, flows of finance in our import and export balance of payments.

The only way this could become ‘ours’ is through nationalisation and democratic control.

Our dangerously wide deficit on imports and exports raises questions about how successful our economy really is.

Return of the EU payments would also mean a loss of the money flowing back - so the net figure of around £9.4bn is what is at stake and we probably see back some of that as well. This is 0.5% of GDP and about 13% of the current UK deficit of spending between tax income and public spending. With a Government determined to ‘roll back’ the state and having problems of their own making in covering the deficit, they are very unlikely to use any additional money on public spending. That would need a change of government.


3. Democracy and power

HUB comments
Concerns: rule by Brussels not UK - % of EU laws; elected governments overruled e.g. Greece; too much bureaucracy; MEP gravy train; voted for trade agreement not EU; we obey, they don’t;

Benefits: Human rights legislation e.g. privacy battle; redistribution to less rich areas; % of EU laws small. Elected MEPs.

EU democracy - basics

The Treaty of Lisbon is the fundamental document of the EU, virtually the constitution.

Council of EU - composed of the elected ministers from each EU country ‘Voice of EU member governments, adopting EU laws and coordinating EU policies’. Together with the European Parliament the main decision making body.
Presidency of the Council - is held by each EU country on a 6 month rotating basis.

European Parliament - composed of 751 directly elected MEPs. Wales has four. Elections are held every five years - the last ones were in 2014. It passes laws together with the Council of Ministers on proposals from the European Commission. It cannot initiate its own legislation. President of the Parliament is elected by the MEPs. It elects the President of the Commission and approves the Commission as a body.

The European Commission is the politically independent executive of the EU - it proposes and enforces legislation and policies. Run by a President elected by MEPs - currently Jean-Claude Juncker - together with 28 Commissioners from each of the member states with specific areas of responsibility.

Court of Justice of the European Union - ensures EU law is interpreted and applied the same way in all EU countries and ensures EU countries and institutions abide by EU law. It applies only to the 28 members countries and is composed of judges from each EU country. http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice/index_en.htm

The Court of Justice is the last resort court for cases brought under the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

European Court of Human Rights is quite separate from the above, covering 47 countries, has a longer history and is responsible for enforcing the European Convention of Human Rights.

The EU is directly accountable to elected representatives from each of the 28 countries both in terms of ministers and MEPs. Civil servants and Commissioners are employed proportionately to member countries. Both courts above involve judges from all member countries. Accountability and democracy does exist but could be much improved, for example MEPs could have the right to initiate legislation; there could be much more openness in decision making and the Treaty of Lisbon will need changing to allow more bottom up democracy and social as opposed to economic legislation.

UK democracy and the EU

Estimates of the proportions of UK law affected by the EU vary between 6.3% - 84% it all depends on what kind of laws you are talking about. Completely new Acts of of the UK Parliament include the lowest proportion of direct effect of EU legislation.

Democracy and accountability works both ways, with the UK having democratic representation in Europe as can be seen above.

For many the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights are seen as a beneficial outcome of the experiences of the first and second world wars. Some of the basic rights such as a ban on capital punishment and the rights to free speech, privacy and association, including the specific right to join and be involved in a trade union come from these organisations. See the reference above.

It is difficult to estimate what is too much regulation or bureaucracy. It often depends on what you wish to see happen. The EU limitation on mobile phone roaming charges in the EU would probably be widely supported whereas the working time directive might not be. Animal welfare and public health requirements again would generally be supported but require considerable enforcement and inspection.

Trade agreements all involve restrictions and limitation on the UK government; see the debate over the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).
Norway and Switzerland are not part of the EU but have to abide by the trade agreement restrictions without any democratic recourse through elected or ministerial representation.

It is difficult to be definitive about the UK abiding by EU rules and others not. The rebate of the UK payment to the EU would probably be seen by other countries as us not playing the game. It is probably the case that Britain could make a stronger case and push harder in the EU but that depends on commitment for it to work.

It is generally acknowledged that MEPs and employees of the Commission are well rewarded. Personally this has never bothered me as it provides a benchmark for all of us to argue for.

Finally of Greece, as well as Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland where democratically elected governments were forced to accept austerity cuts, hitting workers hard in order to save the Euro and the banking system. The inability of the EU to deal with the human refugee crisis is another example of the humane treatment of people not being put first.

Both these situations go to the heart of the dynamic tensions that exist within the EU and the Treaty of Lisbon: an organisation established to support private business and come to terms with international competition whilst at the same time try to bring along the population with democracy and social benefits. At times of crisis banks and business comes first and nations retreat into nationalism.

Personally I would argue that we should work with people across the EU to put people first and argue to improve democracy as an antidote to nationalism. The vote on the EU is not really something that is either this or that but what is the best way of achieving the changes we all think are required. For me it is about pushing back the market and the rich and increasing our power through democracy and not nationalism.

Finally a personal plea that relates to points made about the first and second world wars:

"The history of the UK is inextricably linked to world history and in particular, Europe. The development of capitalism and the various forms of imperialism over the last 400 years have accelerated this process. The last 100 years have seen two European wars of utter annihilation, which are of also part of a world conflict. Like nearly every other family I know, mine and that of my partner’s have been scarred by the deaths and experiences of these conflicts. The consequential wars have continued since 1945. Working class support for these wars was justified and won in nationalist terms, weakening the solidarity and international links that may have prevented them and challenged capitalism at the same time. This was, let us not forget, the key failure of the second international. That nationalism continues to undermine us, with potential fatal co consequences."


This is taken from a longer article I wrote giving my position last November:

An internationalist argument to vote yes.









Wednesday, March 16, 2016

From here to socialism: bridging the gap (2013)

A long post that is composed of three separate posts originally on Welsh Labour Grassroots blog late in 2013. They are intended however, to be read together.
Bridging the gap (1) – Len Arthur
 
In a recent discussion blog Darren Williams analysed the limits of Welsh Labourism, suggesting a number of forms of political action that could be initiated to start to move beyond these confines. This discussion piece will come at the same problem, drawing upon our earlier discussion relating to the possible ways of understanding the current crisis of capitalism, and how the power of capital can be confronted. Climate change can also be seen as being inextricably connected to these two contextual issues, consequently this discussion relates to and draws upon the experience of the green movement.
 
Darren’s blog drew upon issues raised by Mark Drakeford’s contribution to our WLG AGM. This current piece has been inspired by the recent contributions of two other Marks (must be an age thing!): Serwotka at a recent Cardiff TUC meeting and Seddon at our last WLG meeting in Swansea. Mark Serwotka made three points. First, he emphasised just how serious and ideologically driven were the Tories’ attacks on welfare, the public sector and trade unions. Second, he argued that the Labour Party should be taking a longer term economic view, being prepared to propose fundamental structural change on how the economy works, consequently leading the attack on the basics of neo-liberalism, not looking for a weak compromise. Third, he argued that the trade union leadership was central to challenging the neo-liberal consensus, but they themselves were in a crisis and were behind the pace. This was his big picture, and he then proceeded to describe the gap between the present state of the movement and what needs to be done. He was in no way pessimistic and provided an example of how the PCS was aiming to mobilise around pay and conditions – now that other unions had neutralised the pensions issue – but also described how the PCS had to retreat on pensions as a consequence, and how mobilising had to start again from a low base.
 
Mark Seddon argued that despite the worst and most obvious crisis of capitalism for decades, politics were not automatically coming to the left. In fact, it was possible that a populist drift to the right was taking place, as seen in the rise of UKIP. Like Serwotka, Seddon argued that there is a crisis of leadership that was really a crisis of confidence, resulting from the defeats of the trade unions in the 1980s, consequently no real opposition was being offered to the scorched earth policies of the Tories. He described their version of neo-liberalism as ‘market Leninism’ and argued that the Labour Party needed a big idea to challenge this consensus, based upon a massive jobs and investment programme developed with the support of the trade unions and the public sector and, secondly, to ensure that addressing inequality was central to all activities. Working toward this vision would provide the basis of taking power back in the Labour Party as would linking with affiliated unions, such as Unite, to support a recruitment drive. He then specifically outlined an alternative policy agenda, such as a commitment to full employment; a financial transaction tax; relating to the global economy by arguing for a different social and democratic EU; and supporting workers and consumer cooperatives.
 
Both contributions aimed high, at the essential need to confront neo-liberalism and the power of capitalism; both ackowledged that there is a gap between where we are, and having the power to achieve this alternative vision; what can nevertheless be done, if we have theconfidence and consciousness to go forward with a commitment to action, informed by a clear political narrative; and both had some practical suggestions, as did Darren in his blog. Interestingly, a version of the same issue ignited a recent debate on the Labour Briefing Facebook groupwhich has had 92 contributions. And in the Guardian last Friday, Anna Karpf discussedhow she tries to avoid ‘tuning out’ when dealing with a similar gap in relation to the issues of climate change. All these contributions reveal a narrative that needs addressing: both capital and climate change stand exposed like never before; frustration and anger exists and is growing, and in Lenin’s terms, the flammable material is there, along with the possibility of a spark that could set it off: and yet the struggle could be in retreat in the UK.
 
The problem is fundamentally one of scale between the size of the challenge and our consciousness and confidence in our ability to do anything about it. As Anna Karpf suggests, the gap can seem so daunting, that each comment or exposure just makes people feel more impotent and powerless. Every time we expose the disastrous consequences of the Tories, capitalism, climate change and neo-liberalism in this situation it can have the unintentional consequences of increasing the size of the ‘gap’ : we can become seen as prophets of doom instead of beacons of hope. What can be done?
 
A classic reformist approach to this problem is to reduce the scale of the challenge. First, as in management babble, emphasise the positive and neutralise the negative, such as the ‘dented shield’ argument: we may have to stop all the arts funding but at least we saved many social workers’ jobs. Second, as argued at a recent WLG meeting by Mark Drakeford, is a form of managing down expectations along the lines that it may be unfortunate, but we have to be realistic and accept that we live in times of austerity. It could be argued that ‘with you in good times and bad’ and now ‘one nation Labour’ is an example of this approach. Third, is the Fabian reformist argument, that it is not possible radically to change or confront power in our society, so let us concentrate on small but hopefully incremental gains – well, at least they might last until the next Tory government blows them away. Fourth, there is the Blairite Progress position: what is wrong with neo-liberalism, we should embrace it so that at least it will be Labour version. There are other variants but the picture is clear: reduce the scale of the problem to action that fits the budget and the realistic social democrat possibilities.
 
In the first two blog discussion pieces we covered the economic thinking that may support these reformist approaches – basically a‘muddling through’ or traditional Keynesian perspective. The pieces then went on to explore the overlaps between some Marxist and radical Keynesian approaches and finally, the Marxist approaches that are rooted in the structural contradictions of how capitalism works and the problems of the falling rate of profit. If the latter two approaches are those that you personally find convincing and now need tackling, then the scale of the current ‘gap’ problem remains and cannot be minimised by reformist measures. So, if that is where you are, what can be done to bridge the gap?
People personally faced with the direct consequences of the Tory neo-liberal policies, and not knowing how to fight back, will tend to retreat into individual solutions if at all possible, or perhaps escapism or even just pulling their blankets over their heads. In fact, this is nothing new, as this is the usual daily reaction of most people when faced with adversity. Even when it does not seem possible to retreat any further, retreat still happens. Anyone involved in TU organising will know that individual and collective possibilities always vie for attention. The main task of a TU organiser however, is to continue to provide a collective answer to issues or grievances experienced by members. The task is made much easier if successes can be pointed to as examples of what can be achieved. It is at this level of local scale discourse, sometimes one to one, on which a collective fightback is built but it requires hard, consistent work. The danger is that the populist right can fill the vacuum, if the political leadership minimises the problems and the answers seem complicated; with easy solutions, that scapegoat others and arguments about leaving it to the strongman, the extreme right can easily come to the fore.
The collective approach based upon unity and solidarity in action and, in conjunction with politics, provides a way of rebuilding confidence and consciousness and answering the ‘what can be done’ question. So now you’ve got this far – and are probably thoroughly depressed! – you’ll just have to suggest your own answers as part of the discussion and I’ll add my bit next week! 
 
Bridging the gap (2)
 
The last discussion piece suggested that possible answers to the ‘what can we do about capitalism’ question would appear within a week. Well, as Harold Wilson once said ‘a week is a long time in politics’ and in this case it has stretched to four!
In that time, Peter Rowlands has made a useful contribution which adds politically to the issues. Another reader has suggested that what may have been depicted in the first piece was a description of ‘hegemonic fatalism’, where through lack of confidence or consciousness a transformative challenge to capitalism is not considered possible: critical analysis is all that can be achieved. Unsurprisingly, this second piece will draw upon previous WLG blogs and suggest that the transformative gap between where we are and would like – or need – to be, can be bridged and, moreover, that there may be more unity of left ideas than at first seems to be the case.
 
As has been intimated through this blog, there are a range of contemporary left discussions on how we can confront the challenges of capitalism and climate change. Unfortunately, the discussions seem to dance around each other, often dealing with parodies or at best, incomplete descriptions of each other’s alternative forms of transformation. Consequently, an unhelpful dichotomy has arisen which can, and must, be overcome in order to lay the basis for a renewal of confidence in our transformative possibilities. In order to consider a possible basis for this renewal, it will be helpful to describe some of the main ideas involved.
It is difficult to come up with acceptable labels, but there are a group of arguments that could be described as deriving from social movements or social forums and are associated with the terms ‘autonomy’and ‘horizontalism’. Essentially they are about prefigurativechange or creating ‘the future in the present’, through the contemporary establishment of alternative spaces, some of which seek to challenge and transform the effects of contextual problems such as climate change and capitalism. Works by Hardt and NegriJohn Holloway; and Michael Albertreflect those with a left background writing in this area; and some of their key arguments overlap with those coming from the green movement such as Molly Scott Catoand Richard Douthwaite; together with those reflected in organisations such as Compassand the Transitional Towns movement.
A recent book by Marina A. Sitrin called Everyday Revolutions: horizontalism and autonomy in Argentina, which is reviewed in the latest edition of Red Pepper, relates to some of the writers already mentioned, is one of the most clear and recent statements of the thinking behind horizontalism and autonomy and, most importantly, draws upon the extensive experience in Argentina. The following six criteria based upon the Argentinian experience identify the effects of these ‘everyday revolutions’and consider their implications for issues of consciousness and confidence in the possibility of transformation:
·the centrality of horizontal decision making – ‘they do not use hierarchy or will not work with political parties’ and ‘show the centrality of direct participatory decision making’:
 
·new conceptualisations of power – not as a noun but a verb, ‘that is active, interactive, and can be dynamic when used together, as ‘power with’ rather than‘power over’’;
 
·the importance of affection and emotion – ‘without acknowledging a shift in their own subjectivity, their own understanding, and without their movements being based upon trust and affection they would not be as militant’, regaining dignity features strongly in the analysis;
 
·the creation of new value production – ‘what is being produced is being done outside the frame of capitalist market production’;
 
·the non-contentious political framework nature of the new movements – ‘within the creation of alternative ways of producing value, one can begin to see the seeds of an alternative economy that is central to the total transformation of society’; and,
 
·rethinking the meaning of revolution – ‘the meaning of revolution for those in the autonomous movements is not that of taking over from the state, the ways in which revolutions are perceived also should be different, subtler, and perhaps quieter’.
 
Socialists who come from the Second or Communist International tradition of party building will often not engage with or acknowledge these movements or their ideas, and if they do, refer to the arguments of ‘islands of socialism within a sea of capitalism’,unable to withstand the dominant power that surrounds them and doomed to failure or incorporation. It is a shame there is not more of an engagement as, at a personal level, I recognise many of the features described above occurring in my trade union experience and, moreover, have carried this across into some researchwhere the concept of ‘deviant mainstreaming’ is proposed. It can also be argued that a study of first four conferencesof the Communist International will also reveal a much more subtle approach to resistance in these forms –particularly cooperatives – as will alternative readings of Lenin’s What is to be done?such as that recently produced by Lars Lih.
 
Some parts of the left in the UK have started to relate to these arguments. For example: the most recent edition ofISJ, the quarterly journal of the Socialist Workers Party, has two significant articles; one engaging with the ideas ofJohn Hollowayand the other, part of a debate about Syriza in Greece and the role of ‘transitional demands’. Articles in Red Peppertend to develop the ideas of autonomy and horizontalism but also explore how these movements may relate to socialist party organisation and trade unions. Recently also, there has been some consideration about how these movements may evolve toward existing forms of resistance, such as that by Jodi Deanin the Guardian. My intention is to have a third section to this ‘bridging the gap’ discussion piece, exploring the extent to which it is possible to build on synergies across the left: perhaps even building left unity. To set that scene this piece will conclude by briefly evaluating the ISJ articles and recent Red Pepper contributions.
 
The article on John Holloway, by Paul Blackledge, recognises that Holloway usefully places an emphasis on the link between socialism and human self-activity and criticises the idea that the capitalist state can be used to bring about socialist change. Blackledge agrees with Holloway and, indirectly with the autonomist and horizontalist case, about the necessity of having a criterion of what a change to an alternative – socialist – society means. Blackledge goes on, however, to identify serious flaws in Holloway’s arguments by exploring his central idea of the“scream”, making the case that there is a real limitation to just producing‘use values’ and attempting to separate these from their marketable ‘exchange values’, as a way of overcoming alienation: an idea that is reflected in the fourth bullet-point in the summary of the writings of Marina A. Sitrin given above. Blackledge argues that, under capitalism, the need for capitalists to realise surplus value as money – ‘exchange value’ – through sales of products as commodities in the market, feeds back and determines what is produced as ‘use values’, thus blocking the scope for alternative spaces to exist. Holloway, in turn argues, that the outcome of trade union struggles just perpetuates the exploitative and alienated relationships.
 
Both writers thus recognise the difficulties of overcoming the power inherent in the social relationships of capitalist production: Holloway argues that breaking this has to go beyond trade union struggles toward alternative forms of ownership and control now, whilst Blackledge makes the case that trade union struggles lead to a political tension with reformism (which seeks gains for working people within the framework of existing ownership and power relationships)and thus can provide the basis of the political argument that capitalism and its state needs to be challenged, if the problems experienced by the working class as a result of continuing exploitation are to be overcome. A challenge to the system, Blackledge argues, needs to be made by socialists who can make that case, and they must therefore be prepared to take leadership positions in trade unions so that it can happen: thus, within the terms of this blog piece, the socialist leadership provides the consciousness, and the confidence that come from taking direct action, such as strikes. Blackledge argues that, as Holloway does not recognise this role of socialist leadership, he ends up, by default, supporting compromises with reformism to preserve the alternative spaces. This argument is then extended to include UK activists such as Hilary Wainwright, to which we now turn.
 
Late last year we offered a blog discussion piecethat evaluated Hilary Wainwright’s arguments about how transformative power might be able to bridge the gap between where we are and need to be. As Darren has also pointed on our Facebook page a version of the paper is now availableon the Red Pepper web site. There is no question that the Red Pepper magazine has made the major contribution in the UK to exploring not only how the ideas of autonomy and horizontalism can be translated into practical resistance and prefigurative transformation, but also to how these might relate to a wide range of forms of resistance, including those led by trade unions, while also relating to the existing parties of the left. In a recent edition, there was an excellent articleby a Syriza activist on how they are working to combine both the traditions of being a social movement and a socialist political party, demonstrating that it may be possible to overcome the dichotomy between the different forms of resistance. Also, interestingly, back to the current issue of ISJ, there is a discussion pieceby Richard Seymour, where he takes up the role of Syriza and suggests that what they are arguing for and trying to achieve is worthy of support and examination in more detail, and that this may mean giving more thought to the politics involved in social and political transformation. He suggests that there may be more possibilities available than have previously been argued in the ISJ, among which might be further consideration of ‘transitional demands’ and what is ‘left reformism’.
It is these possibilities and the contribution they could make to left unity, which will be discussed in the third and final piece on bridging the gap. 
 
Bridging the gap (3): a way forward?
 
‘Bridging the gap’ discussion posts 1 & 2 argued that if, as socialists, we agree, to a large extent, that the structural problems of capitalism underlie the current economic crisis and drive climate change, there is nevertheless a huge gap between where we are now in terms of our effectiveness and capacity for resistance, and the need to transform the power of capitalism. Further, it was suggested that a key to taking on this challenge is a question of the relationship between our consciousness of the issues involved and our confidence to act. In short, the challenge is to attain greater understanding, unity and solidarity between those who accept the need to make such a transformation possible. This post will tentatively propose a possible way forward.
 
The second post suggested that a dichotomy exists within key current political debates about how this gap may be bridged, between those who would place an emphasis on being able to effect transformation through ‘prefigurative’ action (sowing the seeds of a future society in the present) and those who would emphasise large scale collective mobilisation. It was indicated that issues about the role of reformism, leadership, autonomy, horizontalism, transitional demands and party organisation are affected by this dichotomy.
 
Since the onset of the financial crash in 2007, it has become increasingly clear that those who support capitalism are committed to a brutal project of making the working class pay for the crisis. They need to re-establish their control and power over the working class in order to sustain their systematic exploitation of humanity and the planet. During the last six years, their intentions and methods have been more exposed than at any time since 1945, as the reality of systemic failures have been open to all, eroding the legitimacy of neo-liberal arguments. The financial crisis has revealed more than a bank-supported lending bubble; criminal behaviour and market fixing is seen at the very heart of the system, even being described by the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England as a‘cesspit’. Writers such as John Cassidyand Naomi Klein, who are not Marxists, have found an eager audience in their exposure of the myths that underpin the economic arguments used by those who rationalise capitalism.
 
Despite this exposure, our ability to resist and fight back is weakened if we, as socialists, cannot provide both an explanation for this trajectory of capitalism and, critically, also offer an alternative and reasoned counter trajectory, thus enabling us to challenge, contend and move toward transformation. Drawing upon a key idea of Antonio Gramsci, this final blog post will propose that it is possible to work toward a new synthesis, thus overcoming the dichotomies of the transformation debate and, in so doing, so perhaps move the discussion about the related contentious and divisive issues – such as those relating to‘reformism’ etc – into a constructive mode of discourse, aiding left unity.
Gramsci, in his writings between 1929 and 1935, later collected in the Prison Notebooks, developed a useful distinction between the ‘war of movement’ where the capitalist state is under direct revolutionary threat and the ‘war of position’ where, like siege warfare, neither the working class nor the capitalist state, can strike decisively against each other. Alternative forms of hegemony, in terms of both ideas and organisation, are required to sustain the ‘war of position’, and critically for this post, Gramsci points to both Italian history and revolutionary history more generally, to indicate how difficult it is to move back from a ‘war of movement’ to one of ‘position’.Moreover, he argues that a war of position is not easy to sustain and ‘is concentrated, difficult, and requires exceptional qualities of patience and inventiveness’. In making this analysis, Gramsci, was also drawing upon the debates of the first four conferences of the Communist Internationaland Lenin’s consideration of similar issues, as in “Left-Wing”Communism– an infantile disorder, as well as the contemporary writings of Trotsky.
 
As Gramsci indicates, socialists are aiming for a ‘war of movement’ but have to recognise that this may not be achievable, given the balance of forces at one particular time. Therefore the idea of a trajectory toward transformation is critical but what can be done often falls far short, creating difficulties, recriminations and accusations: going forward can be easy but deciding when to defend, realise and accept that the advance is at an end, is fraught with political problems. However, a conscious and collective decision about when, how and whether to act is greatly helped by a political understanding of the balance of power. It helps to provide confidence about the process of how and why a particular decision was made, whilst still retaining a connection to a longer-term trajectory toward the prospects of transformation.
 
To what extent, then, is it possible to handle a war of position better, and what implications could this have for contemporary issues such as the experiences of Labour councillors facing Tory-imposed financial cutbacks? What is suggested here is that the war of position can helpfully be seen as having three forms, each dialectically relating to each other.
 
Forms of the war of position
 
1) The struggle for ideas and understanding 
 
I remember a socialist Cardiff shop steward called Carl Cave once describing capitalism to me as being like an octopus, with the tentacles of power of capital reaching down and sucking away at all aspects of our lives. Working for a dreadfully dangerous company using asbestos in oil seals and brake linings, he vividly knew what this meant in his everyday existence. Exploring and explaining how the hegemony of this octopus works – the ideological struggle, if you like – is an important part of the war of position. It is composed of a huge, international and extremely rich body of texts – such as can be found in the Marxists Internet Archives– and, for most of us on the left, reading, consulting and discussing around these issues is probably what takes up most of our time. Recent and effective examples are Owen Jones’ book Chavsand Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine,referred to above, and I’m sure your personal list is endless.
 
Constantly exploring, exposing and explaining how capitalism works is essential and a guide to action but, paradoxically, can also contain the very real danger of reinforcing hegemonic fatalism: it can explain a monster that just seems too large and powerful to challenge. Hence, the best writings will contain some reference to the possibilities of how to challenge and, of course, our own reading and discussion can turn a critical analysis into an argument for resistance and action.
 
As socialists, we are committed to change through contention and transformation. A historical perspective is thus central to our process of critical analysis, enabling us to understand the shifting fortunes of our past struggles and those of capitalism and its defenders. Just within the UK we celebrate, among many other movements, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Chartists and the Rochdale Pioneers; and we still draw upon the lessons of the 1926 general strike and 1945–51 Labour government. It is not possible to imagine how we would conceive of the socialist project without these references. International working-class history also provides central lessons and inspiration such as the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Russian Revolution of 1917 – and perhaps even more so today, when the current crisis can only be understood in its international dimension. So, for example, people have recently argued that our current public sector situation is like the 1980s: we applied the ‘dented shield’ then and today we just repeat the formula.I would argue it is not the same – the balance of forces have changed; capitalism was then ‘on a roll’ intellectually, associated with a series working class defeats and political reversals: now, as argued above, the capitalist raison d’ĂȘtreisexposed and therefore potentially more vulnerable and if we are serious about transformation, we should take account of this historically different situation.
 
Despite being an essential part of the process, transformation does not come about through ideas alone but also through practice; through action. As in the famous quote of Marx – his eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach– ‘Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it’.
 
As in all dialectical processes, some links to action can be closely associated with the role of ideas. Most recently, the UKUncut campaign against tax avoidance and evasion has drawn upon an analysis of corporations, recognising that those who rely on direct sales to the consumer value their public persona or ‘brand image’ as being central to their ability to sustain sales. So UKUncut, by directly undermining these brands through well-targeted public action, has hit at the value of these brands. Similarly, the Occupy movement, particularly in the US, has put inequality back on the political agenda. Mike Marqusee recently describedhis own experience in this area from the US in the 1960s. However, most forms of action that have a chance of influencing the process of transformation require greater collective work and effort and it is around these actions that the most difficult discussion revolves.
 
2. Boundaries, reformism, compromise and“selling out”
 
As Gramsci indicated above, sustaining a ‘war of position’ when it is difficult to move toward transformation and the ‘war of movement’ is fraught with sensitivities, even though it is clear that the power of capital reaches right down into everyday life. These sensitivities are often expressed in debates around the issues of reformism, compromise and ‘selling out’. It will be suggested here that perhaps thinking of boundaries as ‘frontiers of control’may provide a unified way through the debates.
 
Paul Blackledge, in his assessment of John Holloway discussed in the previous post, argues that the power of the market and the pressure to reduce all economic relationships to ‘exchange value’ as a market price, prevents the carving out of an autonomous space of ‘use value’, that is protected against market price pressures and commodification. Blackledge goes on to say that Holloway, in not recognising this pressure, ends up compromising with reformism, instead of following a trajectory toward transformation. In making this argument, Blackledge comes close to arguing that effective resistance is not possible, other than that directly leading to transformation and a war of movement. Moreover, suggesting that compromise can be reformist confuses what is a tactical argument with a strategic argument about the nature of transformation. He ends up downplaying the rich history of socialists’ debates around coping with the problems of the war of position and, in effect, takes the debate backwards toward hegemonic fatalism.
 
As socialists, we are possibly more aware of trade union struggles and it is perhaps helpful to explore the ‘war of position’ tactical process of compromise, boundaries and the frontier of control within this context. Most trade union struggles, although they have the potential to move toward transformation and reveal the wider forces at play within society, actually end up with an agreement or compromise. This is not the necessarily the original intention of the struggle, but a question of the balance of forces. Mark Serwotka’s speech reported in the first of these posts, described the current difficulties in the public sector pensions dispute in these terms. Two key aims are essential in assessing whether a compromise needs to be reached with the employers. First: are the members affected fully and truthfully informed of the current state of play in the negotiation and level of resistance, and are they in democratic control of the decision making process? Second, do the terms of the proposed agreement take forward the benefits and the control of the members over their work and contracts and, if not, does the agreement still allow for a resumption of the struggle at a later date?All trade union leaders face this situation and it can create a false division and pressure on militants if this is not recognised as a possible outcome, especially if the process is described as a ‘sell out’. 
 
An example from my own experience relates to the early 1990s when, at the end of a two-year struggle to sustain our existing contract in higher education, the employers wanted all members to sign individually to accept the new contract. We argued that we would sign on behalf of the members and they would just sign to say they had received it. This may seem like a small point and some representatives, keen to get an agreement, couldn’t see the problem but it would have meant that the employer could argue, disingenuously, that the members had signed– not us, as a union. However, what was at stake was the chance to come back: by signing as a trade union, we preserved the collective agreement and retained our collective control over policing and interpretation. It was clear that we could have re-started the dispute over the principled issue of recognition and under this threat the employers backed down. Small, difficult, but important in the longer run, and the argument came from our wider socialist understanding of the longer-term strategy and the balance of forces.
 
Carter Goodrich, writing in 1920, described such an outcome as a ‘frontier of control’: the line at which the battle had temporarily stopped. In the case cited above, the collective agreement and contract described in detail the terms of employment and associated procedures, forming a boundary between the rights of the employer and those of the workers. In this case, the boundary, or frontier of control, is another way of expressing what is meant by the ‘war of position’. It represents a temporary outcome of an ongoing process of resistance, struggle and contention. It forms an essential part of sustaining the possibility of a war of movement and transformation. It is not helpful to have this difficult process of reaching a compromise described as ‘reformism’ or a ‘sell-out’.
 
I have suggested in my ZCommunications blog, using the term‘deviant mainstreaming’, that there are prefigurative similarities between the boundaries arrived at through collective trade union struggle and those arrived at in establishing ‘alternative spaces’ (such as co-operatives), as recognised by the ideas of ‘autonomy’ and ‘horizontalism’, described in the last post. I suggest that recognising these similarities, through the ideas of boundaries and alternative space, might help us to overcome the dichotomy between trade-union and social movement type struggles, and thereby lay the basis for united action between the socialist left and the green and cooperative movements. Perhaps the main difference is that, where a boundary is established by a collective agreement, it requires constant defence and the exploration of improvement. It is not so easy to see the pressure to push out and generalise in social movements like cooperatives, where the boundary is one of ownership and interface with the market. But the key point, perhaps, is that the boundaries and the alternative space are not an end in themselves: they form democratic and collective organisations that can move in different directions. What is important is that the strategy pursued within the organisation can determine the future direction, either toward or away from transformation – both trade unions and co-operatives are examples of terrains for this struggle.
 
3. Leadership – the role of transitional demands and actions
 
Finally Paul Blackledge, in the ISJ article quoted last week, argued that socialist leadership, particularly in the trade union movement, was central to ensuring that the potential for transformation inherent in all workplace struggles, was brought to the surface. If, as argued in the earlier part of that article, the power of capital is difficult to challenge short of transformation and if compromise can be seen as reformist, life must be very short and difficult for those with leadership positions this side of the revolution! What is not explored and needs to be, to properly engage with the issues raised by John Holloway, is how those in leadership need to act once that position has been achieved.
 
The answer that is being suggested in this post is that there is nothing wrong with socialists seeking leadership positions in any organisation of struggle, so long there is complete openness about how politics links with the issues faced by the members, and that the problems of leadership will necessarily mean engaging with the difficulties of a war of position as well as movement. I am suggesting that it is possible to cope with these difficulties and maintain a trajectory toward transformation, not just as an idea but also in practice, in three inter-related stages. First: constantly engaging with the social and economic context, through discussions about how a range of ideas and understandings can help to clarify the issues and shape possible solutions. Second: accepting that compromise may be necessary, but it should take place openly and, as far as possible, move the ‘frontier of control’ – the boundary between ourspace and theirs – in our direction. Third: the aim should always be to move through these stages whenever possible from a war of position to a war of movement: and that this can be achieved by always looking for the opportunity to raise transitional demands and actions.
 
Transitional demands have a long history but the clearest statement is still that of Trotsky writing in 1938where he defined them as a ‘…bridge between [the] present demand and the socialist program of the revolution. This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.’ The language is of its time and context but the core idea remains valuable. So, for example, given today’s crisis, which has clearly been brought about by a failure of capitalism and in particularly the banks, the demand that we ‘will not pay for the bankers’ crisis’ enables a link to be made between every issue over cuts, job losses and wage loss and the failures of the system: preparing the ground for radical change and transformation: a war of movement.
 
Going further, and making links between prefigurative social movements that emphasise autonomy and horizontalism and those that emphasise collective generalisation, it is possible to use the core of Trotsky’s definition and argue for transitional actions as well. So, for example, an alternative space that significantly reduces carbon emissions or a cooperative that controls the use and distribution of the value created and has an influence over the use value of its output, is a prefigurative challenge to climate change and capital. Moreover, if this alternative space is linked to a horizontal movement to replicate and expand, the challenge is greater, as is the direct link with transformation. A related argument was made recentlyby Hilary Wainwright.
 
Developing transitional demands and action, as has been argued here, is not always possible and we often find ourselves doing our best through developing our conscious understanding, or forced to accept a ‘where the battle has temporarily stopped’ compromise. Transitional demands and actions provide a means of keeping the debate open about the possibilities of moving toward transformation in terms of practice. In addition, while developing transitional demands and actions is not necessarily straightforward, the collective process of debate is in itself worthwhile. The key importance for our current time, however, is that an openness about such an approach helps to relate to the‘exceptional qualities of patience and inventiveness’ of a war of position as described by Gramsci, without losing sight of the need always to work towards a war of movement. By indicating that resisting capital and climate change is not easy, that there is potentially a fundamental unity about the role of capitalism across a wide range of issues and grievances, and that there is an underlying similarity between different ways of fighting back; we may be able to help promote greater understanding on the left and a more effective unity in action.
 
What, if anything, you may ask, does this have to do with the Labour Party, committed to change through elections and social democracy? Owen Jones, writing in the Independentrecently, raised similar issues. Well, working through the three stages outlined above, an answer may sound like this. First, what is Labour’s analysis of the current economic situation? In an earlier post it was suggested that there may be an overlap with radical Keynesian thinking on inequality and the thinking of Marxists, such as David Harvey. In any discussion about policy within the party, socialists should at least try to make a link with these debates and the questions about who pays for the bankers’ crisis. If this type of contextual issue cannot be raised directly, then it should at least inform discussion on specific policies. So, for example, on the role of AMs and councillors in relation to the Tory cutbacks: if the issues are only tackled from the basis of technically balancing the books, then the Tory cuts will just be made. However, if the political context is taken seriously, then it becomes a different question, of whether it is possible to develop transitional demands and actions or, on what grounds can a compromise be reached that will still sustain a forward trajectory toward transformation? If the issues are not resolved in this way, we as socialists should still work in unity with organisations that are resisting, whether they are made up of party members or not.
 
And finally – left unity?
The key argument in these three posts is that the political consciousness of the trajectory to transformation is key, sustaining confidence and potentially providing a guide to action in whatever contexts socialists find themselves in. The implication is that a form of political organisation is required to encourage and support leaders – for the want of a better term – to facilitate the discussion and help coordinate action, with transformation as the aim. It is for us in the Labour Party to consider how this might relate to us but we should also be involved in discussions beyond the party. So, for example, many writers have started to look to Syriza in Greece as a good example of how socialists could come together in a way that facilitates debate and action across all forms of resistance – a consideration that has received increased attention with the recent problems of the SWP. Do you think what has been suggested in this post helps clarify issues and provide a means of reaching out and developing unity with all those who recognise transformation is required?