People’s Assembly and Left Unity.

Real Left Unity.

Marxist Dentists around the UK leave copies of The Lady and Country Life to stir up class hatred.

At least that was my theory on reading Rachel Johnson’s magazine this morning waiting for an appointment.

One article about a Lady of the British Empire who could not boil an egg,  had crossed the planet, swum with dolphins,  holidayed in the Savanna,  struck me.

I doubt if she was prepared to walk to Liddle to get 15 pence off a tin of sardines.

This, I suspect, is not a lone reaction.

Margaret Thatcher’s death and the rise of UKIP brought back a cold draft of class politics to this country.

Many realised that the Thatcher project, to make everybody stand or fall in the gales of competing on the market, and the pumped-up loathing of foreigners |(notably excepting the USA)  that went with it, is alive and well.

Like many on the left, trade unionists and anti-cuts activists, I am committed to the People’s Assembly Against Austerity.

This is a grand occasion for us to get together on issues that affect us all, to build a constructive left-wing alternative to the politics of hate and the priorities of the wealthy.

It will unite us with our fellows across Europe in opposing the financial forces that have imposed cuts and more privatisation in the UK, and destitution and mass unemployment in countries from Greece and Spain to Portugal – not to mention the misery brought upon UKIP’s bogies in Rumania and Bulgaria.

There is a serious debate to be had about the European Union, and the role of the ”Troika’ in pushing through austerity.

The French left is divided between those who think that Angela Merkel is at heart a pragmatist and will – eventually – see sense and launch an expansionist drive. French president Hollande’s intervention yesterday, in which he proposed a European economic “governance” went in this sense. Some on his side believe in federalism, a politically united Europe.

Others are sceptical. They want a radical overhall of the EU. A few want greater national sovereignty restored.

In the UK we have by contrast, as Seamus Milne noted in the Guardian this week, a debate on Europe whose agenda is set by the right.

This is a threat,

a successful Tory-led campaign to pull out of the EU would risk unleashing a carnival of reaction, anti-migrant hysteria, more attacks on social rights, and a further lurch to the right.

Milne states, rightly,

What has been almost entirely missing from the mainstream British public debate has been the progressive case for fundamental change that has been central to the struggle over the EU and its treaties in mainland Europe. In the 1975 referendum, the left case against the then common market was that it was a cold war customs union against the developing world that would block socialist reforms. But the modern EU has gone much further, giving a failed neoliberal model of capitalism the force of treaty, entrenching deregulation and privatisation and enforcing corporate power over employment rights.

He concludes,

What would be fatal would be to allow the nationalist right to continue to dictate the EU agenda and wrap itself in the mantle of democratic legitimacy. The terms of debate have to change – for the sake of both Britain and Europe.

Much of the British left remain dominated by the anti-EEC ideas of the 1970s.

They have not confronted this menace.

Indeed they think their tiny forces can intervene to make the “progressive” case for a sovereign UK outside the EU.

We need a real campaign in place of this: for a united social Europe!

The People’s Assembly could be a place to make the case of this.

Left Unity.

Some of the left think there is a mileage in the Left Unity appeal of Kate Hudson and Ken Loach.

Recent prominent members of Respect , who failed to protest against George Galloway’ s politics, they are not in a position to preach unity to anybody least of all the ‘left’.

I merely cite this report by Tina Becker from the Weekly Worker to show that this is a dead-end,

Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin (important driving forces) would have liked the proceedings to have gone differently. After all, the Stop the War Coalition and Respect – organisations both comrades were prominent in – were far more choreographed. But, ironically, bureaucratic coherence in fronts like these was provided by the likes of the Socialist Workers Party, part of the organised left to which LU is to a great extent a reaction. The politically decrepit Socialist Resistance – the one ‘insider’ group – is no substitute.

The proposed political platform written by Kate Hudson was circulated three days before; a proposal for the electoral procedure to the national coordination committee was sent out 20 hours before; the chairs seem to have been pre-chosen on the basis that they had no previous experience of handling big meetings (one chair was actually introduced as someone who had “never attended a political meeting before”). No wonder that quite a few times people in the room (the chairs included) did not actually know what exactly they were voting on. It was pretty chaotic, in other words.

This was also reflected in the rather uneven attendance. Local groups were supposed to send two delegates each, but where more people expressed an interest in coming, they were advised by the interim leadership to simply divide their group into smaller parts. For example, Manchester comrades – all sitting together in the same meeting, in the same room – selected five delegates from different parts of the city. Elsewhere, groups had not even met yet. Andrew Burgin admitted that about half of the “90 or 100” local groups exist only in so far as one person had volunteered to be the local contact. So the reality was that pretty much anybody who wanted to come could do so.

Unless, of course, you happened to be a representative of a political organisation. The interim organising committee had decided to bar existing groups from even sending observers – apart from a representative of the Red-Green Alliance from Denmark, who showed up halfway through the meeting. Obviously it would have been a little harsh to send this poor comrade packing after he had made such a long journey, presumably on a well-informed hunch.

Followed by the latest TUSC (Left involving the RMT, Socialist Party and SWP) election result.

Election of a Borough Councillor for Rawmarsh Ward (Rotherham)  on Thursday 16 May 2013

Baldwin, William George	British National Party	80
Gray, Andrew Tony	Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts	61
Meharban, Mohammed	Liberal Democrats	28
Parker, Martyn Lawton	The Conservative Party Candidate	107
Vines, Caven	UK Independence Party	1143 Elected
Wright, Lisa Marie	Labour Party Candidate	1039

France, I Year of François Hollande, 150,000 March for Alternative Left Policies.

In Paris on Sunday up to 150,000 demonstrators marched for a  VIth Republic», and against “l’austérité et la finance”.

This was their way of marking one year of Socialist Party led-government and the election of President Hollande.

At the appeal of the Front de Gauche leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon many came to bring a “new broom” to French policies with real brooms, of all kinds.

This morning on French Radio stations supporters of the governing Parti Socialiste expressed their disdain for the sometimes colourful language used by their left critics.

But it was noted that François Holllande,elected with 51,6% of the vote Holland today gets only 25% backing in Opinion Polls.

Below are some reasons for this:

France: Unemployment Up.

Hollande stands accused of failing to offer a serious alternative to financial austerity that would change these figures.

Is there another way out?

At the Paris March  Pierre Laurent Communist Party), Eva Joly (left Wing Greens) and  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (Parti de gauche) argued for new radical left policies (Here).

As the first speaker said,

Nous sommes tous Grecs, Espagnols, Italiens, Irlandais, Portugais, Chypriotes et notre ennemi c’est la finance. La finance dehors, l’humain d’abord !

We are all Greeks. Spaniards, Italians, Irish, Portuguese and Cypriots. Our enemy is finance. Out with Finance! Put Humanity first!“

March for the 6th Republic in France, Against Austerity

Thousands of people are expected to support the firebrand leftist presidential candidate Melenchon, who has shaken up France’s election campaign with a surprise jump in the polls. Melenchon, represents a coalition of leftist parties including the Communists. Supporters of French Front de Gauche candidate for the 2012 French presidential election Jean-Luc Melenchon gathered on the Bastille square in Paris, wave flags as they listen to the candidate’s speech after a march from Nation.Paris,… (from Here)

This demonstration has attracted support from the Front de gauche (le Front de gauche est une coalition de partis de la gauche antilibérale et anticapitaliste réunissant le Parti communiste français (PCF), le Parti de gauche (PG), la Gauche unitaire (GU), République et socialisme (R&S), Convergences et alternative(C&A), le Parti communiste des ouvriers de France (PCOF), la Fédération pour une alternative sociale et écologique (FASE), laGauche anticapitaliste (GA) et Les Alternatifs , left-wing Greens (Eva Joly), the Nouveau Paru anti-capitaliste (NPA) and many trade unions.

• L’appel de Jean-Luc Mélenchon
• L’appel de Pierre Laurent
• L’appel d’Eva Joly
• L’appel de La vie est à nous / Le Sarkophage
• L’appel de Christian Salmon
• L’appel du NPA
• Appel de Fabienne Brugel
• Appel de Zinn-Dinn Boukhenaïssi
• L’appel du PPLD
• L’appel de Gabriel Amard
• L’appel d’Aurélien Bernier
• L’appel de l’association l’Ange Bleu
• Appel de l’AGAUREPS-Prométhée
• L’appel du Front de Gauche

Song,

Le Roi Des Cons de Georges Brassens:
Non certes elle n’est pas bâtie
Sur du sable l’oligarchie

Il y a peu de chances qu’on
Détrône le Roi des cons.

Peuple affamé par l’austérité
Pour engraisser une bande de rentiers

Il y a peu de chances qu’on
Détrône le Roi des cons.

Il est possible au demeurant
De convoquer une constituante

Il y aurait une chance qu’on
Se passe d’un Roi des cons.

Qu’un jour on dise c’est fini
la domination des nantis

Il y a bien une chances qu’on
Se passe d’un Roi des cons.

Peuple debout et prend la Bastille
Pour la 6eme République

Il y a bien une chance qu’on
Se passe d’un Roi des cons.

You can hear this  here.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon: for “une défense souveraine et altermondialiste.”

Is Jean-Luc Mélenchon going to way of the French ‘patriotic’ left of yesteryear?

His response to the Socialist-led Government cuts in military spending certainly indicates a drift in that direction.

This is what the leader of the Front de gauche writes on his Blog.

Austérité et atlantisme sont les maîtres mots du livre blanc de la Défense remis ce jour au président de la République. Ce sont deux dangers mortels pour la souveraineté et l’indépendance de la France.

Austerity and Atlanticism are the hallmarks of the Defence White Paper presented today to the President and of the Republic. These are two mortal dangers for the sovereignty and independence of France. 

Ce livre blanc est une nouvelle preuve de l’hypocrisie des solfériniens et de l’incohérence du gouvernement.François Hollande annonce qu’il ne touchera pas à la dissuasion nucléaire mais il a accepté d’inscrire la France dans le projet atlantiste de bouclier anti-missile en Europe.

This white paper is, yet again,  proof of the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the government. President Hollande has announced that he will not touch nuclear deterrence but has agreed to include France in the Atlanticist project of ‘ a ‘shield’ of missiles  in Europe. 
François Hollande annonce des moyens préservés pour le budget militaire mais le livre blanc prévoit des dizaines de milliers de suppressions d’emplois et la vente d’actions de l’Etat dans les industries de Défense.

Holland’s announcement means  that the military budget is maintained, but the White Paper envisages tens of thousands of job cuts and the sale of state-shares in the defence industries.

Ce livre blanc marque un nouvel étiolement de la puissance militaire de la France. Il prépare les grandes phrases selon lesquelles ”on ne peut rien faire sans les autres”. Air trop connu !

This paper heralds that the military power of France will again be sapped. It claims that we cannot act alone….a phrase with all too obvious implications.

Mélenchon then digs explicitly from the midden of nationalism.

Le renoncement à l’indépendance et à la souveraineté est toujours présenté comme une fatalité indépendante de notre volonté.

Presented  as inevitable, and wished for, we are being led to abandon our independence and sovereignty.

Je refuse cette liquidation de l’argument militaire de la France. Loin de l’atlantisme et de l’austérité, la France doit construire une défense souveraine et altermondialiste.

I reject this way of abolishing the argument in favour of France’s military. In place of Atlanticism and austerity, France must build a sovereign  and ‘other’ (or ‘anti’) globalisation defence force.

One can translate ”une défense souveraine et altermondialiste” in different ways.

But clearly any kind of ‘other’ or ‘alternative’ form of defence, that rejects cutting the military budget, to that offered by ‘globalisation’ is a highly contentious concept.

Not to say utterly confused.

How can we have a military power based on global justice?

And what exactly is this ‘sovereignty’ ’ Mélenchon is talking about?

In recent issues of Le Monde Diplomatique Régis Debray has argued (La France doit quitter l’OTAN March 2013) for France to leave (again) NATO.

He has been answered by Hubert Védrine – the former Socialist  Foreign Minster (L’OTAN, terrain d’influence pour la France. April 2013)

Both of their arguments on the assumption that ‘sovereignty - France’s - is a central value of the left.

Mélenchon seems to think that ‘Atlanticist’ policies - that is aligning France to the US –  are intrinsically  bad things.

Indeed it is well-known that  he considers the USA a very bad thing.

That’s as may be.

But is ‘France’  a ‘good thing’?

Is the French military something the left should defend to make it even better?

As a French Blogger says (other critics here)  here , if we follow this ‘argument’ for the military we,

“sombre dans le non-sens voire le ridicule. “

Here we fall into nonsense,  not to say the ridiculous.

Before Thatcher: the Movement for Workers’ Control.

The 1970s and the Movement for Workers’ Control.

“Trade unions have historically bargained for better terms for the sale of labour power; they have not been able to challenge the existence of the labour market itself. Today, however, the relation between ‘political’ and ‘economic’ struggle have changed.”

Perry Anderson. The Limits and Possibilities of in: The Incompatibles. Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus. 1967.

Perry Anderson was writing about incomes policies. Attempts to impose, or reach by union consent, agreements about pay levels would be made by successive governments, Conservative or Labour, right until Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979. That is, pay disputes became political because the Cabinet and the State were involved.

These, as is well-known, featured prominently during the decade. The unions’ efforts to defend and increase their members salaries, from the late ‘sixties ‘wage drift’ to the need to adjust to inflation, led to countless disputes. Some on the left thought that the resulting “profit squeeze” of the period was a sign of growing working class strength. Other held them responsible for the country’s (relative) decline.

There is a library of literature on this subject. But Anderson could equally have referred to the way in which the authority of British capitalism was challenged from the inside. That is through demands and efforts to make real workers’ power within companies. This movement had an influential and coherent voice. The Institute for Workers’ Control was formed in 1968, with the support of Hugh Scanlon of the Engineering union (AEU) and Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers’ Union (T & G). It was influential (though never dominant) within the Labour Party and the wider left. The Institute’s conferences debated a broad range of proposals to introduce industrial democracy Above all, management’s right to manage was disputed.

In the wake of Thatcher’s death her supporters have shouted loudly about the role of the unions in the 1970s. They state that organised labour had undue influence over the Wilson and Callaghan Cabinets (1974 – 1979), that they pressured them to shore up unprofitable industries, that they stifled enterprise. It was common to talk about “corporatism”, the way in which efforts were made to draw unions, employers and the state together formally through bodies such as the National Enterprise Board (NEB).

The media has given ample publicity to those who claim that Thatcher freed them from union backed State regulation. That an open market enabled them to succeed. That they took responsibility for their own fate and succeeded. Everybody should be like me – look at my wad ! – is the boast.

Perhaps instead of pointing to the delusions of those who think so highly of their own talents, or to the victims of the same market process, we should consider the forward-looking ideas of the 1970s left. Indeed, with their grass-roots democratic hopes, it might be better to look at this not so distant past, before going further back to the 1945 Labour Government.

An Offensive Movement.

The Institute for Workers’ Control was not a defensive but an offensive movement. It asked the simple question: if democracy is such a good thing for politics, why is it not the rule at work? If individual responsibility is to forced down people’s throats (as is now happening again under ‘welfare reform’), what is wrong with people taking responsibility for the companies that employ them? Marx described the way in which in the market we are ‘free’, the “very Eden of the innate rights of man”? But at the same time, within production, factory, office or shop, there is a sign “No admittance except on business.” (Page 280. Capital Vol. 1. Penguin Edition). In this respect have we not gone beyond the 19^th century?

Workers’ Control. Another World is Possible. Ken Coates. (2003) offers valuable material from the Institute for Workers’ Control (which dissolved in the 1980s). Ken Coates article, Democracy and Workers’ Control (published in Towards Socialism. Eds. Perry Anderson, Robin Blackburn. 1965) describes the “antithetical natures of private property and democracy”. He criticised ‘paternalistic Fabianism”, that is the nationalised industries run by civil servants.