Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Morning Star Attacks “Unhinged” pro-Europe Trotskyist Left’s “alliance with CBI” and David Cameron.

with 30 comments

‘Unhinged” Leftists Say yes to European Unity. 

The Morning Star has published and extraordinary article, EU Referendum: Vote to Get Out, by Brian Denny (No2EU spokesman)  in support of the Campaign to vote to withdraw from the European Union.

It is headlined with a sentence containing this, “the EU functions as a cheerleader for unconfined monopoly capitalism.”

Younger readers may not have heard of “monopoly capitalism” which is known partly from Harry  Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974) but owed its currency in Orthodox Communist circles under the name of “State Monopoly Capitalism.”

Elaborated by post-war Soviet, Eastern European and Western European Communist party economists ideologues, it is one of the planks of ” Marxist–Leninism”. The  thesis is that big business, having achieved a monopoly or cartel position in most markets of importance, fuses with the government apparatus. A kind of financial oligarchy or conglomerate therefore results, whereby government officials aim to provide the social and legal framework within which giant corporations can operate most effectively. This is a close partnership between big business and government, and it is argued that the aim is to integrate trade-unions completely in that partnership.” (Wikipedia)

State monopoly capitalism formed the foundation of the programme of the  1960s French Parti Communiste Français, and other orthodox Communist Parties. It featured in the Communist Party of Great Britain’s programme, such as Britain’s Road to Socialism (1968).

At present the Communist Party of Britain, CPB  (best known for the Morning Star) believes that the emphasis has shifted.

The European Union and Marxist theory and practiceRobert Griffiths, Communist Party of Britain general secretary 2004 (Extracts)

The drive to construct a monopoly capitalist United States of Europe with a common foreign and military policy has the same three-fold purpose identified by Lenin in 1916: to promote monopoly capitalism and suppress socialism at home, to exploit neo-colonies abroad and to compete against rival imperialist powers and in particular the US. At the global level, it should be no surprise that the EU is a champion of privatisation, the free movement of capital, GATS and other archetypal ‘globalisation’ measures aimed at the developing and former socialist countries.

It is the drive to a United States of Europe which threatens, in our assessment, to undermine and circumvent the democratic institutions of EU member states. More specifically, EU laws and treaties have sought to limit the powers of democratic national parliaments – themselves the product of long working class struggle – precisely in those areas where they might limit the power and freedom of capital. Meanwhile, such unelected EU institutions as the European Commission and the European Central Bank acquire powers to initiate and enforce policies of privatisation, deregulation and monetarism enshrined in EU fundamental law.

In the present day, popular sovereignty is the struggle to impose the will of the working class and its allies – the vast majority of the nation – over monopoly capital. In Britain, the campaigns against participation in imperialist wars and in the US Star Wars programme are embryonic expressions of the aspiration for popular – and not just national – sovereignty.

Our party does not see anything progressive in the drive to construct an imperialist military United States of Europe. We do not believe that the creation of a rival imperialist super-power bloc, even if can be achieved despite its internal contradictions, would be a valuable ‘counter-weight’ to US imperialism. The two super-powers would collaborate with one another, and do rotten deals with each other, in their joint interest to suppress the working class movement at home and exploit and oppress other peoples around the world.

In the immediate future, as Communists and internationalists in Britain our responsibility is to ensure that the referendum campaigns against the single European currency and the EU constitution are imbued with the same spirit.

Imbued with this ghost of the call for ‘national sovereignty’, not to mention the phantom of the old Soviet Union,  as ramparts against international monopoly capitalism, Brain Denny launches into a tirade.

After an all too brief critique of  the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Brian Denny follows it up by this:

The EU has also been openly financing a junta that has violently grabbed power in Ukraine and which is led by fascists and revanchist groups promoting a cult around former Nazi collaborators.

This cult focuses particularly on Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, which joined forces with the nazis during the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Numerous monuments to Bandera have been erected, particularly in western Ukraine, including a statue in the city of Lviv, site of one of the largest anti-Jewish pogroms in WWII.

The Kiev regime even saw fit to pass a law under which wartime nazi collaborators, who carried out these mass murders, are officially recognised as “fighters for the freedom of Ukraine.”

At the same time it banned communist symbols and socialist thought across Ukraine.

This repressive, anti-democratic far-right regime is enthusiastically backed by its EU allies. Meanwhile Dmitry Yarosh, the neonazi leader of the Right Sector fascist party, has just been appointed as advisor to the chief of general staff of the armed forces.

This is how the EU projects its power externally on the international scene.

There is more in the same vein about the EU’s crimes, ranging from youth unemployment, privatisation, ” and so-called “free-market competition,” which is actually institutionalised monopoly capitalism”, to the, inevitable issue of fish.

Ultimately, the EU is a Tory project. The Tories took us in, campaigned to stay in, virtually wrote the 1986 Single European Act and supported the Maastricht Treaty and every right-wing, neoliberal treaty ever since.

Europhile Tory leader David Cameron claims that he wants to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership before holding an in-out referendum, probably next year.

But after a private meeting with the prime minister, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said Cameron wants to use the upcoming EU referendum to “dock” Britain permanently to Brussels.

Cameron has no intention of fundamentally changing Britain’s relationship with the EU, mainly because finance capital does not want it altered.

There is no sign that he will end the supremacy of EU law over British law or even that he will keep Britain out of the eurozone in the long run.

Denny then evokes the spectre of ‘Trotskyism’ and its alliance with the Conservatives – perhaps an improvement on previous Stalinist claims about links between Trotskyists and much less pleasant political forces.

Cameron is already building an alliance for his strategy which stretches from the CBI to the more unhinged parts of British Trotskyism.

But, ultimately, by campaigning for a Yes vote you are effectively endorsing all of the above crimes inflicted on Europe and further afield by fundamentally anti-democratic EU institutions.

It is without doubt that this does not refer to the SWP or the Socialist Party, both of which intend, like the CPB, to mark their ballots in the same way as UKIP,  the Tory ‘Eurosceptics’ and their big business supporters.

The “unhinged” left is without doubt here:

Campaign for a workers’ Europe!

This letter will be circulated to gather support for left opposition to UK withdrawal from Europe.

With the formation of “Conservatives for Britain”, the right-wing campaign to exit the EU has begun. Unfortunately, it is likely to be mirrored on the left.

A number of Labour MPs and trade unionists and the Morning Star newspaper will group themselves behind the banner of “Labour for Britain”, saying life will be better for British workers outside the EU.

Far-left groups are likely to dissociate from the nationalist name and from Labour. They say they will organise an internationalist anti-EU campaign, one that defends the rights of migrants.

They are all setting themselves an impossible task: the automatic right of EU workers to migrate to the UK, and of UK workers to migrate to EU countries, will be ended by UK exit. Those that do arrive after a UK exit are likely to come on worse terms than workers currently do, and they will arrive to a climate poisoned by the xenophobia of the referendum campaign, an atmosphere in which the left itself cannot thrive.

A UK outside the EU will offer worse prospects for fighting for workers’ rights than we have staying in. The nationalist right, no friends to workers, will have the political upper-hand in a post-exit UK, and UK workers will lose the possibility of organising a common struggle for better rights by workers across Europe.

The left cannot be anti-EU without being dragged behind the right-wing and anti-migrant backlash. It will raise a tiny voice, inaudible against the right-wing anti-EU campaign which has money, press backing, and establishment support, a campaign that is all about putting up borders and actively restricting migrants coming to the UK. The left-wing voice will be drowned out in the growing nationalist gale.

The concessions Cameron is seeking from the EU also threaten workers’ rights: in the first place, migrant workers’ rights to in-work benefits. He is also likely to seek further opt-outs from those European regulations that benefit workers. Many other EU governments will be sympathetic to Cameron’s vision of the EU: less regulated, more ruthlessly neo-liberal.

The Tories that want to get out and the Tories that want to stay in offer no choice for workers. But we should not be indifferent to the question posed in the referendum. The integration of capitalism results naturally from the process of outgrowing national boundaries, and workers do not have any interest in seeking to turn back the clock of history or re-erect national barriers. We oppose UK exit from the EU.

At the same time, we recognise that the EU, like its constituent member states, is organised primarily in the interests of capital, an increasingly pressured capital, forced to compete with growing industrial powers such as China and India, and therefore looking to liquidate those elements of “Social Europe” that still remain. We should not join any cross-class alliance with pro-EU Tories or business leaders: we do not positively support bosses’ Europe.

Instead, voices on the left are discussing a campaign for a workers’ Europe in the coming referendum. We will:

• defend migrants’ rights and oppose racism;

• vote against UK withdrawal from the EU;

• campaign for a workers’ Europe, based on solidarity between working people.

A reply to Denny by Jim can be seen on Shiraz.

The Tendance has signed the Campaign for a Workers’ Europe declaration.

Yes to a United Social Europe!

Against the chauvinist anti-EU left!

Update: a serious discussion of the problems of the EU, Britain and Europe after the general election: An interview with John Palmer.

Party of the European Left:

…..the Left, if it wants to channel its resistance against the demolition of the social state and of democracy into political alternatives, has to express itself as united at the European level and develop necessary concrete and alternative proposals for a different EU, and a different Europe together.

Why should it not find and determine the common political denominator – not the smallest, but in face of neo-liberal social destruction the largest – in order to successfully exist as an independent political force, and, at the same time, as a partner to  social movements, in order to be recognised as an actor capable of influencing and changing European politics?

In the light of the strength and tradition as well as the expectations of the feminist, ecological, and peace movements, it is high time for the political Left to live up to its responsibility. We want to contribute to the creation and realisation of new political strategies.

This is, without any doubt, the central challenge to left parties in the EU and in Europe, in a situation where neo-liberal thought is occupying ever more space in the minds of the people, a situation of apparent absence of alternatives to capitalist market logic, cost reductions, rigid and outrageous social demolition, and even the economic market sale of the whole society.

The Party of the European Left demands another Europe:

 

  • a Europe that says no to war and militarization. The European Left is an anti-war Left;
  • a Europe that defends the social states, and renews it, as well as redistributes wealth, power, and influence;
  • a Europe of diverse cultures, of freedom of spirit, and open to the world. The European Left is a cultural Left, which refuses historical revisionism, because it is capable of dealing with its own history critically and respectfully;
  • a Europe open to a world that resists capitalist globalisation. The European Left is critical of capitalism: It is anti-capitalist and aims at a transformation of societies beyond the rule of capitalism;
  • a democratic Europe. The European Left wants to get politics out of the backrooms of power and back into society, onto the squares and streets, into the debates of citizens, men and women of all ages. Politics is a part of movements and it forms parties; the parties act in parliaments and in governments, in initiatives and in extra-parliamentary protests; it is counter-power and a designing force. It is ready to be held accountable, which is what distinguishes parties in the broad social discourse.

We have to work seriously and honestly with all of the people who want to walk this path with us. In the sense of “Carpe diem!” we say: The social, peaceful and solidarity-based Europe needs our intervention! It is just the beginning!

Written by Andrew Coates

June 25, 2015 at 11:46 am

Your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.

with 4 comments

 

As a young French learner I had the honour of apprehending some handy formulas for addressing his Majesty, which readily translate as I am your groveling servant.

Apparently the same exists in English.

Humble and obedient? How ministers defied etiquette in replies to Charles

 

I have the honour to remain,

Sir,

Your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.

French examples:

(Prince)Je vous prie d’agréer, Prince,

 

 

Hautes autorités religieuses  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Les religieux (euses)

  Pape=Très saint père

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cardinal = éminence

 

 

 

 

 

 

Archevêque=Monseigneur

Evêque =monseigneur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mon père

Ma sœur

Monsieur le curé

Monsieur l’abbé

 J’ai l’honneur d’être avec le plus profond respect, de Votre Sainteté, le très humble et dévoué serviteur. 

Daignez, Votre Éminence, agréer l’expression de mon très profond respect.

 

Daignez, Votre Excellence, agréer l’expression de ma très respectueuse considération.

 

Je vous prie d’agréer, (titre), l’expression de mon respectueux souvenir.

 

 

 

Written by Andrew Coates

May 14, 2015 at 1:19 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

George Galloway Contests General Election Result.

with 30 comments

Galloway in a Pickle. 

George Galloway to challenge election result.

Former MP George Galloway has announced he has started legal proceedings to challenge his general election defeat.

Mr Galloway, leader of the Respect Party, lost his Bradford West seat to Labour’s Naz Shah, who he has alleged made “false statements” during the campaign to affect the result.

He also claimed “widespread malpractice” involving postal voting meant the result must be “set aside”.

A Labour spokesman said the action was “pathetic and without any foundation”.

Mr Galloway won the Bradford West seat in a by-election in 2012, but lost to Ms Shah – who secured a majority of more than 11,000 in last week’s general election.

However, the bitter campaign was dogged by claims and counter-claims between Labour and Respect over a number of issues – particularly relating to Ms Shah’s family background.

Labour accused Mr Galloway of breaching election law by making false statements during the campaign.

‘Divisive politics’

A spokesman for Mr Galloway said the legal action was at an early stage.

A complaint had been made under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which related to candidates making false statements during campaigns, the spokesman said.

In a further statement, Mr Galloway – a former Labour MP – said: “It has come to my notice that there has been widespread malpractice in this election, particularly over postal voting.

“We are in the process of compiling the information which will form part of our petition to have the result set aside.”

A Labour spokesman said: “George Galloway should accept he was booted out by the people of Bradford West.

“They saw through his divisive politics and made a positive choice, by a majority of well over 11,000, to elect a brilliant new MP, Naz Shah.”

Mr Galloway was reported to police on Thursday for allegedly sending a tweet about exit polls before voting closed – which is banned under election law.

His spokesman called the allegation a “storm in a thimble”.

Speaking from his bunker in Berlin Mr Galloway, the leader of the East London based ‘Green Shorts’ party, added,

That was an order! Steiner’s assault was an order! Who do you think you are to dare disobey an order I give? So this is what it has come to! The military has been lying to me. Everybody has been lying to me, even the SS! Our generals are just a bunch of contemptible, disloyal cowards… Our generals are the scum of the German people! Not a shred of honour! They call themselves generals. Years at military academy just to learn how to hold a knife and fork! For years, the military has hindered my plans! They’ve put every kind of obstacle in my way! What I should have done… was liquidate all the high-ranking officers, as Stalin did!

Written by Andrew Coates

May 11, 2015 at 9:25 am

The Very Political Nudity of Golshifteh Farahani.

leave a comment »

La comédienne a été chassée d'Iran en 2008.

The Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani, has posed nude in the irregularly published  French photography magazine, «Égoïste».

Libération has just published the picture.

This gives some background.

Exiled Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani has sent a message of defiance again to the ruling Ayatollahs in Tehran by appearing completely naked on the cover of French magazine Egoïste, French media reported on Thursday.

“France has liberated me,” the 31-year-old actress told the magazine, according to the daily 20 minutes daily newspaper.

Paris “is the only place in the world where women do not feel guilty. In the East, you are that [guilty] all the time. As soon as you feel your first sexual impulses,” she added.

The winner of Silver Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival and Best Narrative Feature at Tribeca Film Festival in 2009 was reportedly informed by Iranian authorities in 2012 that she was not welcome home anymore.

Days after the video was released an official of the supreme court of the Islamic Republic reportedly called her family in Tehran and shouted at her father, telling him, according to The Guardian, that she would be “punished, that her breasts would be cut off and presented to him on a plate.”

Her ban from returning to Iran came after she revealed her right breast in a black-and-white video with 30 other French cinema “young hopes” to promote the Césars, considered the “French Oscars.” Farahani had been nominated for her role in “Si Tu Meurs, Je Te Tue” (If You Die, I’ll Kill You). The Iranian actress has also posed nude for French magazine Madame Figaro.

“I was told by a Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guide official that Iran does not need any actors or artists. You may offer your artistic services somewhere else,” Farahani said, according UK daily The Telegraph.

Farahani is known for her role opposite American stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe in “Body of Lies” and is the first Iranian woman who starred in a major Hollywood movie since the country’s 1979 revolution.

Al Arbaiya News. 

In Libération, the Iranian sociologist Chahla Chafiq, author of Islam, politique, sexe et genre (PUF) is cited.

She states” The obligation to wear a veil symbolises sexualised boundaries. It confirms in this way the body of a woman as a place upon which the community places its honour, denying the freedom and autonomy of women. Golshifteh Farahan’s act has broken that wall. “…l’obligation du voile symbolise les frontières sexuées. Il confirme par cela la conception du corps de la femme comme un lieu où s’inscrit l’honneur communautaire, niant ainsi la liberté et l’autonomie des femmes. L’acte de Golshifteh Farahan vient casser ce mur).

More from Egoïste.

Wikipedia (English): Golshifteh Farahani.

AN URGENT CALL FOR THE LEFT IN BRITAIN AND THE WORLD TO UNITE!

leave a comment »

AN URGENT CALL FOR THE LEFT IN BRITAIN AND THE WORLD TO UNITE! From Nov 2013- DEc2014 A Balakrishnan has been politically persecuted using completely unfounded allegations that he was keeping slaves! From the start his name and that of his wife were slandered all across the globe using the media blitz and bail terms were used to restrict his right to communicate and travel anywhere outside the borough.

Now these allegations have been quietly dropped because there was no evidence and instead even more poisonous allegations of rape and indecent assault have been thrown at him -the whole world now has been informed as to where he is living- the judge says it is “in the public interest”-

BUT in Britain its meant to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY-how can he be accused of a crime when he is not found guilty?!!!!-does this not prove beyond any doubt what A Balakrishnan has said long time ago about the nature of the state in Britain–that it is FASCIST! Where is the outcry on the Left as to how he has been treated-where is the solidarity?- it can happen to anybody! so surely it is in everybodys interest to defend Aravindan Balakrishnan! People can stand there and jeer but it may happen to them next!

Then all they can say is–“I never thought it could happen to me!” why wise after the event! (too true – comment)

 

Interesting to note is the case of members of the British state-former Ministers, ex -spy chiefs etc involved in the Westminster paedo ring and alledged(with a lot of evidence to back ) to have committed child sex abuse and even murder against innocent children in the same period -80s and 90s- their names and addresses are protected I presume “in the public interest”

Is it not crystal clear that this is acute class struggle going on!!!! The British state is trying to make an example of A Balakrishnan!

Maybe soon we might all be agreeing with him (too late)

Nobody can say he didn’t try to warn us !!!!!!!!

Indeed comrade!

 

Written by Andrew Coates

January 5, 2015 at 5:11 pm

Robert Kurz: a Theorist Now Making his Mark in the English-Speaking World?

with 8 comments

Reading Marx in the 21st century-Robert Kurz

‘Wertkritik’

In the latest Historical Materialism there are two articles on Robert Kurz (24 December 1943 – 18 July 2012) was a German Marxist philosopher, social criticism publicist, journalist and editor of the journal Exit!. He was one of Germany’s most prominent theorists of value criticism.  His works have yet to be translated into, and published in, English.

They are worth signaling.

The late Robert Kurz was one of the principal theorists of ‘the critique of value’ in Germany. This paper uses the recent release of a collection of his essays in French translation and his posthumously published Geld ohne Wert [Money without Value] (2012) as a starting point for a discussion of the critical project that Kurz undertook over a period of 25 years. Kurz was exemplary in returning to the most radical insights of Marx, even when these went against some of the other ideas of the master. He was an ardent proponent of a crisis theory of capitalism: that the categories of the capitalist mode of production have reached their ‘historical limit’ as society no longer produces enough value. On this basis Kurz argued that none of the proposals for dealing with this crisis within the framework of capitalism are feasible. Kurz demonstrated that the basic categories of the capitalist mode of production, such as money, are not universal but that they developed at the same time, towards the end of the Middle Ages, with the invention of firearms and the states’ need for money that this fuelled. In Geld ohne Wert, Kurz asserts that money in pre-capitalist societies was not a bearer of value but a representation of social ties. He wonders whether, with the current crisis, we are seeing a return to a form of money without value, but now within the framework of a social sacrifice to the fetishistic form of mediation. The paper concludes by suggesting that Kurz has not yet reached a wider public outside Germany because for many his ideas still prove too radical to face.

And

Satanic Mills: On Robert Kurz  Author: Esther Leslie

A critical overview of the contribution of German Marxist Robert Kurz (1943–2012), focussing in particular on The Black Book of Capitalism: A Farewell to the Market Economy (first ed. 1999) and War for World Order: The End of Sovereignty and the Transformations of Imperialism in the Age of Globalisation (2003). This review explores the genesis and the main tenets of Kurz’s theory – especially his concept of value, the automatic subject, crisis and anti-Semitism – and tracks how they are mobilised in his writings over time. It also touches on the legacy of these ideas in political groups such as the Anti-Germans.

Both articles are of great interest and importance.

Kurz seems, to put it mildly, a tosser.

He seemed to think that anybody that didn’t hold to his idea that the critique of the ‘value form’ revealed  an incipient crisis was wrong.

But then I am an Althusserian who has always loathed ‘Wertkritik’.

Mind you Esther, an ex-SWP loyalist, seems to think he was also wrong because he was opposed to Islamism.

So he couldn’t have been all bad.

There is one minor point.

Can I be, no doubt not the first, to mention that apart from what Esther thinks is his unique contribution to the topic, there is another Black Book of Capitalism: the title of a French book, Le Livre Noir du Capitalisme (The Black Book of Capitalism) a French (collectively edited) book published in 1998 which has an entry in the English language Wikipedia. It was a major media event with an impact in the Hispanic speaking world.

Kurz’s Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus: ein Abgesang auf die Marktwirtschaft (The Black Book of Capitalism: A farewell to the market economy) published in 1999 passed almost unnoticed outside of the German speaking sphere.

One can read one of his articles here:  Reading Marx in the 21st century-Robert Kurz

Written by Andrew Coates

December 31, 2014 at 1:08 pm

Thoughts on the LRC Conference.

with one comment

Bruther Miffed Me Forty  Years Ago.

Well over forty years ago a young Tendance Coatesy was denounced in a ‘self-criticism’ session (this is not made up by the way) as a ‘negative element’ at a Woodcraft Folk International  Camp.

The person who said this, Ken Keable, was well known for ‘fiddling’ – waking us at the crack of dawn with his tuneless melodies played on his ‘fiddle’ – outside the tents of us who got off with girls.

The stalinist shite who  did the denouncing was one Stan Keable – a sosie for an East German Youth.

His brother Stan Keable was prominent at the weekend meeting of the LRC.

Well he may have defended Graham Durham, the Cricklewood Pauper, born in a tin bath, brought up with the Four Yorkshiremen, but we say:

Rebuild  the Woodcraft Folk anti-Revisionist Front!

Written by Andrew Coates

November 11, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Posted in Uncategorized