Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Nationalism

Walks Outs by “ultra-left and sectarian” Spanish and Portuguese Sections in Growing Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) Split.

with 3 comments

Image result for socialist party CWI militant

Socialist Party in Split with “ultra-left and sectarian” Spanish and Portuguese Sections.

It seems as if the international far-left is undergoing some serious splits.

The American International Socialist Organization, which is known to the present site for some serious political articles over the years), has dissolved.

THE ISO’S VOTE TO DISSOLVE AND WHAT COMES NEXT

MEMBERS AND recent ex-members of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) have decided to dissolve the organization and end publication of SocialistWorker.org over the coming weeks, but also to support several working groups and initiatives going forward, and to work toward continued collaboration in rebuilding independent revolutionary socialist organization.

These decisions followed a week of online voting that ended March 29 on nearly two-dozen proposals put forward ahead of an all-member conference call on March 24. Nearly 500 members, participants in disaffiliated branches and recently resigned members took part in the vote.

The decisions came in the wake of a severe crisis in the ISO after information surfaced about a horribly mishandled sexual assault accusation in 2013. An independent disciplinary committee at the time came to the conclusion that an ISO member had clearly violated the organization’s code of conduct and should be expelled, but the 2013 Steering Committee interfered with the committee’s work, overturned its decision and effectively

Meanwhile the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI), best known for its British section, the stridently pro-Brexit Socialist Party, and which has yet to produce any serious political articles, is undergoing a split of its own.

It seems that in its dispute with the Irish group SP leader Peter Taaffe has found himself in the minority.

This is latest (April the 2nd).

Statement from the ‘In Defence of a Working Class Trotskyist CWI’ Faction to all members of the CWI

Dear comrades,

At the meeting of the International Faction in London held on 27-28 March the Spanish and Portuguese delegations unfortunately walked out of the meeting. In a final declaration JIR made the completely false assertion that they were being excluded from the Faction because they had raised political differences.

At this meeting a series of important political differences arose. This followed a telephone conference which was held between the entire Spanish EC and members of the IS Majority on Friday 22 March. At the meeting comrades from Spain raised a series of differences relating to method, the decisions taken by the leadership of the England and Welsh section at the recent congress of their section and also a clear declaration of important differences relating to the analysis of the CWI regarding the lowering of socialist consciousness following the collapse of the Stalinist regimes and the consequences this had for the international workers’ movement at the time along with the extent to which these effects are still present today.

At the end of this telephone conference JIR made clear that these issues were of critical importance to the Spanish leadership. It was agreed that they would be discussed in more depth at the Faction meeting in London. This was done on the first day. In the debate important differences emerged in relation to socialist and political consciousness, the consequences of the collapse of the former Stalinist states and the analysis we have had on Venezuela and some other issues which JIR stated were fundamental questions. During his intervention JIR argued that these questions had not been sufficiently discussed during the process of unification and that the comrades had been “deceived”, something which is completely false. He declared that these issues would be reported back to a special Spanish CC meeting which would then decide on its attitude towards the Faction.

In informal discussion following the meeting between the Spanish, Portuguese comrades and Phillip Stott (Scotland) Clive Heemskerk (England and Wales) and Tony Saunois (IS Majority) JIR made clear that these differences were fundamental and implied that the comrades would recommend to the Spanish EC and CC that they leave the Faction. He also stated that this would mean it would make no sense to remain in the CWI.

It was agreed that he make a formal statement of the situation to the Faction meeting the next day. At that meeting he was asked to make such a statement and argued that firstly Peter Taaffe should reply to the discussion. This was not acceptable as the content of the reply would partly be dependent on the declaration made by JIR.

This approach by JIR was a continuation of the ultimatist approach which unfortunately has been the approach adopted by the Spanish leadership throughout the CWI factional struggle. JIR eventually made a declaration protesting against the alleged methods used in the meeting and falsely claiming that the comrades were being excluded from the meeting because they and the Portuguese delegation had raised political differences. As Tony Saunois was responding to this declaration, refuting the allegations made by JIR, stating that we were prepared to continue the discussion on these issues the Spanish and Portuguese delegations walked out of the meeting.

The members of the Faction at this meeting reject the false claims that the Spanish and Portuguese were excluded for raising political differences.

At the meeting it was clear that the Spanish and Portuguese delegations were arguing in our opinion from an ultra-left and sectarian standpoint. The International Faction is involved in a political and theoretical struggle against the opportunist capitulation represented by the Non Faction Faction. However, in conducting a principled defence of the methods and traditions of the CWI against this trend we are not prepared to paper over or mask important political differences with the sectarian approach adopted by the Spanish and supported by the Portuguese leadership for the sake of opportunistic expediency in the factional struggle within the CWI. The Faction openly discusses political issues and, unlike our opponents, we do not hide any disagreements that may arise. The Faction was formed to defend a principled Trotskyist approach in opposition to opportunism within the CWI. Now a sectarian ultra-left trend has also emerged which we will also politically oppose.

Signed:

Tony Saunois, Bob Labi, Clare Doyle, Niall Mulholland, Senan Uthaya (International Secretariat);

Peter Taaffe, Hannah Sell, Judy Beishon (International Secretariat and English and Welsh EC);

Paula Mitchell, Clive Heemskerk (English and Welsh EC);

OKSascha Stanicic, Micheal Koschitzki (IEC and German EC), Angelika Teweleit (German EC);

Christine Thomas (IEC and Italy EC);

Phillip Stott (IEC and Scottish EC).

Further material available here: More documents from the CWI faction fight

From Trainspotters – the texts are now in the public domain.

The sentence, “The International Faction is involved in a political and theoretical struggle against the opportunist capitulation represented by the Non Faction Faction.” already looks headed for the annals of classical Marxist quotations.

Advertisements

Morning Star Promotes the “Red Gyms” of Merrie Olde England.

leave a comment »

Image result for socialist sports

No St George’s Cross on this banner.

The Red Gyms of England — a new front for anti-fascism

A new movement of socialist fight-sports clubs is smashing misconceptions that the left is a muddle of middle-class milquetoasts, writes JAMES CROSSLEY

English identity is a ready-made collective identity that can help develop a movement for the many not the few.”

James Crossley is Professor of Bible, Society and Politics at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. He writes mainly on religion and politics in the twentieth and twenty-first century and the historical Jesus in the first century.”

I have no idea of what kind of toast is milque but this indicates something:

The story of why this happened is well known. Attacks on trade unions by Conservative and New Labour governments, and New Labour’s obsession with middle-class swing voters, alienated working classes from socialist movements…

..

Enter a socialist culture from below.

..

161 are part of a countrywide re-emergence of “red gyms.” One of the most prominent is women-led Solstar Sports Association, based at the Refugee and Workers Cultural Association, a Turkish and Kurdish socialist community centre in Tottenham, North London. Solstar run boxing, martial arts and self-defence classes for adults and kids. It is based on socialist principles and is always run by three experienced female trainers, presently Ella Gilbert, Paula Lamont and Anna Zucchelli: they argue one of the simplest ways to fight sexism is to have women in charge, especially in what are traditionally male-gendered roles.

Like all their politics, this is a subtle, rather than headbanging approach — and the gym is free of the trite and self-congratulatory sloganeering of liberal feminism: the gym is women-led but decidedly open to all. (Including liberal feminists?)

….

Last month I went to a new gym run by the Cambridge Socialist Club (CSC). The design and socialist aesthetics of the club banner (pictured) might even rival the rightly praised posters produced by Manchester Momentum. Not only is CSC grounded in socialist values, it promotes its links to the trade unions—and if you are a GMB member then you’ll get to train for free.

CSC is based at East Barnwell Community Centre and located well away from the world of Cambridge academics and assorted intellectual posers. Like Solstar, the participants come from a range of abilities and backgrounds—including people from Romanian, Lebanese, Portuguese, and Turkish families.

But Crossley then says,

GMB rep Gordy Cullum was the inspiration behind starting this new red gym in 2018. After seeing a return of far-right violence on the streets in London last year, he decided to take his gloves back off the hook and start a club for the local community. I sparred with Gordy as he trained for his upcoming fight, when CSC met up with 0161 and Solstar for an interclub boxing card in Manchester.

….

I  spoke with Gordy about the role of the St George’s Cross on the club banner—something 0161 have also used unashamedly. Isn’t a national flag and its tainted history something that makes leftists and liberals queasy?

Gordy’s response was that the England flag should not be confused with the Union Jack—the flag of British imperialism. What’s more, his take on the flag is that it does not represent the Queen and all the associated pomp and ceremony. Nor is this the England of the far right, no matter how hard they try to hijack the flag as the far right try to hijack national flags everywhere else.

Instead, the English flag points to something else that has an obvious popular appeal, and this includes a shared, ongoing and ever-changing history. Underlying his point is something important: if socialism is alien to everyday interests of local communities, who do take the English flag seriously, then how can socialism expect to win? Indeed, is it even socialism if a movement remains dominated by academia and middle-class intellectuals uninterested or even opposed to the English flag?

English identity is a ready-made collective identity that can help develop a movement for the many not the few. To succeed, this needs to be a wider cultural socialism that doesn’t just tolerate an English heritage but makes it clear that this is English heritage.

Whatever the merits of the red gyms it does not seem appropriate to tack on these claims about “English identity” to the word red.

If England has no link to the history of imperialism, then, what is this?

“This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars … This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England”.

The “popular appeal” of the St George’s Flag includes its use by the far-right English Defence League, UKIP, and other National Populists.

Saying that any one of these groups “hijacks” the banner is to claim that its rightful owner is somebody else.

Really?

The flag of the St George Cross, is a royal symbol used because St George was considered a “warrior saint” .

A moment’s thought tells you that this, a counterpart to the failed ‘left populist’ attempt by La France insoumise to appropriate the Tricolore, is riddled with problems.

Some people are not too fond of Saints, national symbols, nor, for that matter, boxing.

Taking the “the English flag seriously” as part of a socialist project…….you’re having a laugh.

Unless of course this is a further sign of the pro-Brexit Morning Star’s further descent into the identitarian Blue Labour politics of  Familyfaith and flag.

Written by Andrew Coates

April 2, 2019 at 11:54 am

Blue Labour, Aaron Banks Funded Labour Leave and ‘Trade Unionists’ Against the EU, ‘Marxists’, Plan Rallies on “Transforming Britain after Brexit.”.

with one comment

Blue Labour , Aaron Banks Funded Labour Leave and ‘Trade Unionists Against the EU’, and ‘Marxists’ Launch Speaking Tour.

Left Unity has published an excellent article.

Socialists should still oppose Brexit: Remain and Transform!

Craig Lewis and Len Arthur demolish Lexit attempts to dismiss the damaging effects of Brexit on the economy. Trade relations are central to the functioning of an internationally integrated capitalist production process. Socialists cannot afford to dismiss the impact of Brexit on trade.

The also tear apart this claim: “Staying within the single market will prevent a Corbyn government implementing key aspects of its “radical” programme. “

They state:

In a widely quoted report for the Renewal journal, Andy Tarrant and Andrea Biondi have undertaken a detailed analysis of claims that EU rules would present significant barriers to Corbyn’s industrial strategy. They looked at each of Labour’s economic proposals in the 2017 manifesto (26 in total).  17 would not fall within State Aid rules at all. 7 potentially do, but these would be exempted under current EU law. Only 2 measures would need to be reported under existing regulations and these could be structured to comply. With regard to nationalisation they suggest that little of Corbyn’s agenda would be affected, and point to the far higher proportion of public ownership in other EU countries.

The strategy Lewis and Arthur advocate is widely shared:

The Remain-supporting radical left must fight alongside those within the Labour Party and wider campaigning groups who seek to commit Jeremy Corbyn’s party to a policy of delaying Brexit to secure a second vote or a General Election. In doing so we should argue boldly for a “Remain and Transform” position.  We do not support a “people’s vote” to maintain the status quo in Europe.  The EU is as much a terrain of struggle for socialists as the individual capitalist states which comprise it.  The radical left in Britain needs to build on the emerging struggles by Europeanising and internationalising the fightback.

Internationalism also needs to be an integral part of the socialist case and action in the UK. Defending these politics is what this response is all about and in practice, on the issue of the EU working with others through organisations such as Another Europe is Possible, to ensure that the socialist case for remain and fighting for a social and democratic EU is made as opposed to the ‘business as usual’ case being promoted by others. Just as important is the active defence of working class action across Europe, against the attacks of neoliberal governments such as that of Macron in France; opposing the rise of the right, for example the AfG in Germany; and supporting social and human rights, such as the vote against the anti-abortion laws in Ireland.

The full piece should be read:

Here we review and update the socialist case against Lexit outlined in an article on Left Unity’s website last year. The article was a response to a piece by Costas Lapavitsas in Jacobin magazine in May 2018, setting out a case for Labour to pursue a hard Brexit under WTO rules. Since then Lapavitsas has developed his critique of the EU and support for Brexit in his new book (Lapavitsas 2019).

Bearing in mind the following point, “Left Unity notes the “extent to which sections of the Labour and far left have accommodated to right-wing nationalist ideas.”

The following sentences caught our gimlet eyes:

He (Lapavitas) will be the key speaker in a series of meetings planned for the run up to Brexit Day on March 29, organised by leading Lexit groups and figures including the Communist Party of Britain, Counterfire, Tariq Ali, the Guardian’s Larry Elliot and, bizarrely, Baron Glasman of Blue Labour: Transforming Britain after Brexit.

Indeed but the gathering is worse, a lot worse, than just the individual appearance of Glasman.

The tour is launched by the Full Brexit.

 

The list of Shame:

Tariq Ali
(New Left Review)
Paula Barker
(NW UNISON Regional
Convenor, personal capacity)
Chris Bickerton
(Cambridge University and The
Full Brexit)
Grace Blakeley
(New Statesman)
Kim Bryan
(Socialist Labour Party …..need we say more….)
Manuel Bueno Del Carpio
(Aaron Banks Funded, Trade Unions Against the EU)
Ben Chacko
(Editor, Morning Star)
Brendan Chilton
(General Secretary, Aaron Banks Funded Labour
Leave, “Leave.EU also secretly funded Labour Leave, the programme claimed, citing emails that suggested three staff members and office costs were paid by Banks. Guardian. 8.3.19)
Larry Elliott
(Economics Editor, The Guardian)
Paul Embery
(Anti-Migrant, anti-Multiculturalism,  Blue Labour, Trade Unions Against the EU)

John Foster (CPB, Scotland)
Lindsey German (Counterfire)
Maurice Glasman
(House of Lords, Blue Labour,
and The Full Brexit)
Bill Greenshields (CPB)

Moz Greenshields
(Derby TUC)
Malcolm Gribbin
(Trade Unions Against the EU)
Martin Hall (Counterfire)
Ian Hodson
(President, Bakers Union)
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Feyzi Ismail
(SOAS, University of London)
Jacqui Johnson
(Trade Unions Against the EU)
Lee Jones
(Queen Mary, University of
London, and The Full Brexit)
Kevan Nelson (UNISON NW)
Doug Nicholls
(Trade Unions Against the EU)
Chris Nineham (Counterfire)
Bob Oram (Morning Star)
Peter Ramsay
(LSE, University of London,
and The Full Brexit)
John Rees (Counterfire)
Arthur Scargill (SLP)

Richard Tuck
(Harvard University, and
The Full Brexit)
Sarah Woolley
(Bakers Union, Leeds)

This funding scandal remains:

Lexit and Brexit collaboration-what did the Morning Star know?

John Rogan.

And who did Banks deal with regarding this funding? Another extract from “Bad Boys…” (31 Jan 2016) –

Arron Banks is currently under investigation by the Electoral Commission for funding of Trade Unionists Against the EU (£54,000) and other organisations. Some more background to this can be found here and here.

A few days ago this came out, making the claim about Labour Leave’s funding by Aaron Banks.

Labour Leave (Channel Four)

The Banks organisation also funded an office, computers and paid for staff working for Labour Leave, a group that claimed it was “funded and staffed by Labour, Trades Unions and socialist Society members.”

Labour Leave did not declare any donations from Leave.EU or the Banks organisation.

The emails suggest that at least three prominent members of Labour Leave were also paid by Banks’s organisation. They include the former Labour MP and trade minister Nigel Griffiths, Brendan Chilton, the General Secretary of Labour Leave. and the Head of Communications, Olly Huitson.

Mr Huitson and Mr Griffiths told Channel 4 News they had expected the payments to be declared by the relevant organisation.

Mr Huitson said he worked for Labour Leave only and understood that his costs would be treated as a non-cash donation from the Banks organisation. They were not declared.

In an interview, John Mills, the Labour donor who ran Labour Leave, admitted he had failed to properly declare the office costs to the Electoral Commission. But he insisted Labour Leave was an independent organisation, and not controlled or directed in any way by Arron Banks or Leave.EU.

He said: “We were our own people, we ran our own ship, we had our own money. He did not provide any cash for us at all. He may of employed some of the people we did and paid them but they were separate from anything that was authorised expenditure by Labour Leave.”

So we have a series of meetings bringing together Counterfire, New Left Review, The Morning Star, Arthur Scargill, the Communist Party of Britain, magic money soveriegntists,  Benittes in their second youth, Blue Labour, anti-multiculturalists, raving patriots, and Labour Leave, who are embroilled in a scandal about extensive far-right funding, not to mention the other recipients of Banks’ money, Trade Unionists Against the EU.

What a shower!

Channel 4 News can reveal that Labour Leave is under investigation by the Electoral Commission.

 

Corbyn Goes Pro-Brexit with “Re-Negotiation” plan.

with 6 comments

Image result for corbyn and brexit

Corbyn on Rocky Brexit Road.

Corbyn: Brexit would go ahead even if Labour won snap election

Reuters has just clarified thess points,

“You’d have to go back and negotiate, and see what the timetable would be,” the 69-year-old told the Guardian newspaper, when asked what he would do if he won an early election designed to break the deadlock in parliament.

Asked what stance Labour would take if a referendum were held, Corbyn said: “it would be a matter for the party to decide what the policy would be; but my proposal at this moment is that we go forward, trying to get a customs union with the EU, in which we would be able to be proper trading partners.”

…..

Labour wants a permanent customs union with the EU and a close relationship with its lucrative single market. The policy has been dubbed “constructive ambiguity” by some, who question whether Labour could negotiate a better deal.

There are forces hostile to socialist internationalism within the Labour Party, many of whom believe that Brexit was a “a genuine democratic revolt,” “for self-government, identity, community, sovereignty, patriotism.” “It was the elite versus the people.”

Some of these people are close the Leader of the Opposition.

They appear to be making Labour strategy, on their interpretation of party policy, off the hoof.

Britain can, alone, be a socialist “Beacon” a shining “radical break with neoliberalism ” in a benighted world.

Perhaps from its heights Corbyn can tear up lengthy re-negotiations, begin again, and get a customs union, and who knows what other benefits?

He may find time to cast off the economy’s moorings from the capitalist world, WTO rules, and the IMF.

In fact the EU and its negotiators have made it clear that another negotiation is not on the cards at the moment.

We shall see if another one, for a Beacon Brexit, is possible.

It goes without saying that many do not agree with this strategy.

How far is Corbyn willing to share the opinions of the sovereigntist hard-liners is a matter for him.

For the Party it is of great concern.

Faced with this turn this call in the excellent Clarion, by Manuel Cortes, looks all the more important.

 

Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association General Secretary Manuel Cortes, a prominent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and opponent of Brexit, spoke to The Clarion.

You’ve called for a special Labour conference to decide the party’s Brexit policy. Why?

I think it’s very clear that if we’re going to push for a referendum, the party needs to make a decision about about what it’s going to argue in that vote. At the same time, Brexit is evolving on a day to day basis – we need an opportunity to take stock about what we’ll argue in a referendum but also how we’ll campaign to get one. Andrew Gwynne has alluded to the members deciding our position in a referendum – and the only way to do that is to call a special conference.

Is it realistic? Well, it’s been done before. In 1975, Labour called a special conference at short notice when the referendum on remaining in the European Community was announced.

And what position would you advocate at the conference?

My position remains that we should remain in the EU and work together with socialists and labour movements across the continent to create a Europe for the many. Jeremy Corbyn campaigned for this in 2016, he was right then and it’s the right position now. Clearly the kind of Europe we want to create is one that favours working people – that puts people first. We need an end to austerity and to a system which does extremely well for the one percent at the expense of the other ninety nine. If we’re going to slay the neoliberal dragon and take on global capitalism we have a much better chance in a union of 28 nations than by ourselves.

The situation in the Labour Party seems complicated and hard to predict. How do you think it will play out?

We’ve got a political and constitutional crisis in our country. We’ve had paralysis for the last 30 months at Westminster, ever since the referendum result. I think Labour has not done that badly in the sense that it’s attempted to heal a very divided country. However, it’s become increasingly clear that the party membership and the great majority of our voters no longer want us to leave the EU. In a democratic party we have to recognise and respect that. The best way to solve this contradiction is a popular vote and for Labour to make a strong case for Jeremy’s vision.

What would you say to those who say a second referendum will disillusion blue-collar working-class voters even more and drive them away from Labour?

I′m not arguing we should remain in Europe with the status quo. Far from it. We need a Labour government committed to the kind of policies we had in the 2017 manifesto. It’s been far too easy for British politicians to blame the problems that afflict so many of our citizens on Europe, when by and large they are the fault of Westminster – the privatisation and deregulation of our economy, the fact that we have the most stringent anti-union laws in Western Europe, the lack of labour rights compared to many European countries, all these problems stem from Westminster not Brussels.

I’m extremely proud that working people in 32 countries have the right to move freely. We want that right to be extended, but to give up the right we have is nonsense. I’m a union leader. I’m not in the business of giving the rights our workers currently enjoy. It’s not migrants who create low wages and insecurity, it’s unscrupulous bosses.

The Labour Party must work with our allies across Europe, in terms of democracy but also an economic program that makes the lives of working people far better. For instance we need to extend collective bargaining and ensure there’s a union in every workplace so that workers can fight for their rights. We need repeal of all the anti-union laws, and their replacement with a charter of positive rights for workers. We need to regulate our economy, ban zero hours contracts and introduce a real living wage of at least £10 an hour. We need to ensure resources are made available to enforce all those things.

Then it won’t matter if you come from Wigan or Brussels, everyone will be treated the same in the workplace.

That argument about free movement, aren’t there a lot of people in the Labour Party, including on the left, reluctant to take that on?

The majority of our members want to say and the majority of our voters want to stay. They know that you can’t stay in the EU without freedom of movement. You don’t have to win that argument with most of our members and voters. There is a minority of people we have to challenge and win over but let’s not inflate their voices.

It often seems there is widespread reluctance to criticise Corbyn. What do you think?

I think one thing Corbyn will respect, because he has been known as a rebel for most of his political life, is this – if you think something is right you should articulate your point and do so forcefully. I’m standing up for what I believe. The people of our country will be far worse off if we leave the EU. The xenophobia that’s been unleashed is a terrible poison and we can’t give victory to the people who unleashed it – Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg.

If there is a second referendum, it seems likely the dominant Remain campaign will be a bourgeois lash up similar to the first one but with a slightly more activisty buzz. In that situation, what should the anti-Brexit left do?

Actually I think we’re in a very different place from 2016, because Corbyn has now consolidated his leadership of the Labour Party. The party machine and our half a million members should be mobilised and we should have our own agenda – a firm commitment to remain and to fight to change Europe. We should not get involved in so called cross party alliances. In the last referendum I campaigned with Another Europe is Possible, and I am all for Labour members organising for this perspective, but my view now that Jeremy has consolidated his leadership is that the Labour Party itself should run a high profile campaign.

But what if it doesn’t adopt that position?

My confidence is rooted in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Labour members want this. No party can survive long term without giving its members the ability to influence its policies. More importantly still, perhaps, Jeremy and John have a strong record of seeking to involve ordinary members in decision-making. That’s why I’m calling for a special conference. I think if things are moving towards a public vote a conference will happen and I can only see it taking one position – remain and reform.

Written by Andrew Coates

December 22, 2018 at 1:16 pm

Socialist Worker and Novara Media Attack Anti-Fascist Anti-Brexit Demo Against Tommy Robinson Great Brexit Betrayal Rally.

with 11 comments

Related image

Pro-Brexit Rally Calls for Anti-Brexit Response.

The Another Europe is Possible protest “No to Tommy Robinson, No to Brexit” continues to create controversy.

Leave or Remain, We All Hate Tommy

Callum Cant and Benjamin Walters write,

Another Europe is Possible (AEIP) is an ultra-remain campaign group that positions itself as the left wing of the ‘Stop Brexit’ movement. Its support base varies from Alliance for Workers’ Liberty members to Guardian columnist Zoe Williams. AEIP have called for a People’s Vote/Stop Brexit counter-protest to the far right march.

They argue that it’s not enough to simply oppose racism and fascism – we have to specifically oppose Brexit. For them, Brexit is not just a recruiting ground for the far right, it is actually a far right project in its entirety. So, the anti-fascist response has to be to try and stop Brexit.

After having carefully established that AEIP is “ultra”, AWL backed, no less, and, apparently has a view (which is not referenced) on the Brexit basis of the “far right project in its entirety” they outline an alternative.

Cant and Walters argument appears to be that the left needs to talk to  Brexit supporters, to weed them away from Robinson and UKIP leadership.

Whereas the Momentum-backed counter-protest is using the slogan ‘No to Tommy Robinson, No to Fortress Britain’ without taking a line on Brexit, AEIP are linking together an ultra-remain position with an anti-fascist position. This is a very bad mistake.

It is a mistake because it maps the political division of the Brexit debate (48% Remain, 52% Leave) onto the political division between fascists and anti-fascists (90% anti-fascist, 10% fascist). It gives Robinson exactly what he wants: leadership.

Instead of challenging his attempt to lead Leave voters and splitting the hard core of the far right away from the 52%, it consolidates his position from the other side of a police line. Robinson is a general looking for an army. AEIP’s line, if pursued, will do much to form his battalions for him.

Yes, we “all hate Tommy”.

But, one might ask how, as they suggest,  is the left going to lead Leave voters?

By arguing for a People’s Brexit?

By saying that a Brexit Britain with a “socialist economy” will be (as a Counterfire contributor put it recently) a “Beacon” off the shores of Europe?

Brexit is not a “floating signifier” that you can moor to the left’s politics.

It is a reactionary project through and through.

Trying another tack the authors assert,

…..anti-fascist fronts should only express the limited politics necessary to defeat the fascists on the day. They should appeal to as many people as possible (regardless of what they think about Brexit). They should recognise that the goal of the front is only to prevent the fascists from taking leadership.

Just how limited?

They argue that the demonstration called by the SWP Fronts Stand Up To Racism and Unite Against Fascism is against ‘Fortress Europe” is such a step

It is against Europe, that’s for sure.

Here is the SWP:

Unite and stop the racists and fascists on 9 December

Tomáš Tengely-Evans writes,

The Another Europe Is Possible campaign has called a separate mobilisation under the dangerous slogan of “No to Tommy Robinson—no to Brexit”. The organisers link opposition to Robinson to demands for a “People’s Vote” to stop Brexit.

Racism against migrants pushed by both Tory Brexiteers and Labour ­“centrists” who want to block Brexit has added to the racist atmosphere.

So the ‘limited’ united front is also against “Labour ‘centrists'”.

The SWP view on “anti-fascists” who “send volunteers to the Middle East to fight Isis” is not known.

In the meantime back in the real world of Brexit:

 

Written by Andrew Coates

November 28, 2018 at 1:58 pm

With Tories in crisis over Europe, Brexit Left (Morning Star) Attacks “Labour’s Confusion”.

with 3 comments

.

 

May’s bogus Brexit deal should be rejected in its entirety Editorial.

The Achilles’ heel in Labour’s approach is confusion over EU membership, with the leadership’s consistent position of respecting the referendum decision — which can only mean carrying it through — coming into conflict with flirtations with a “People’s Vote” designed to thwart it.

Subverting Corbyn’s principled stance on the referendum vote would mark a deliberate weakening of his leadership.

Corbyn’s resolute determination to put an end to laissez-faire capitalism’s willingness to let entire communities and multiple generations sink into inexorable decline encouraged many to believe that they might have a future, based on interventionist socialist policies.

Were Labour to renege on these hopes, the consequences would be incalculable.

The Brexit Bolsheviks of the Morning Star hold out hopes for negotiations with EU, and no doubt other partners,. such as Donald Trump.

A mutually beneficial trading relationship, without subservience to EU rules or institutions, would still be negotiable rather than May’s corporate-driven dodgy deal that incorporates City financial domination and the neoliberal status quo.

Meanwhile Counterfire is still wittering on about a General Election, avoiding the issue, which is emerging, of a Second Referendum to get rid of those who would ‘negotiate’ with Trump, and those, like the Morning Star, who want a “go it alone” road to British national sovereignty.

Their principalargument is that a Second Referdum, “Far from bringing the country together, calling a second referendum would cause massive bitterness amongst Leave voters and judging by all the polls would do nothing to resolve the issue.”

Counterfire. Chris Nineham

While it is pleasant to see revolutionary socialists concerned about dividing the country, should be Leave or should we Stay?

This is what the pro-European left is saying:

Patriotism and Nationalism, from Orwell to Trump Mocking France’s War Dead.

leave a comment »

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "trump attaque la france twitter novembre"

Nice One Trumpy!

Comrade George Orwell wrote,

 “Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

NOTES ON NATIONALISM  Polemic, GB – London, 1945

People have debated these lines and the article for many years.

But Trump has just clarified the meaning of these sentences.

Trump Mocks France for World War Losses

First thing in the U.S. morning, the U.S. president took another — even more pointed — crack at the French leader. After a fractious visit to Paris over the weekend, Trump returned to the theme of a European army to defend the continent’s interests and took renewed offence. In a particularly sharp jab, Trump implied that the French needed the U.S. to rescue them from the Germans in both world wars.

 

The tweet comes after Trump spent a weekend in Paris with other world leaders commemorating the 100th anniversary of the end of World War 1. In an earlier tweet, the American president had called Macron’s suggestion “very insulting.” Trump’s latest broad-side was ill-timed, falling on the third anniversary of Paris terror attacks that killed more than 130 people and left hundreds more injured.

…..

Scroll down to this:

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism,” Macron said in an address to world leaders gathered for Armistice commemorations, with Trump sitting nearby.

His office later tweeted this part of the speech, which went on to say ‘by putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values.”

It was seen as a direct rebuke of Trump’s ‘America First’ policies. Indeed, Macron has used social media to mock the U.S. leader in the past. When Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, Macron launched an initiative to recruit U.S. scientists with the tag line “Make Our Planet Great Again” — a play on Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan.”

 

The President persists and signs:

 

French Army response to Trump’s fear of a dose of drizzle:

Trump is still at it:

 

For the moment this is the official French response, no comment: 

L’Elysée se refuse pour l’heure à tout commentaire après cette série de tweets, indique l’AFP.

However much one may normally disagree with Marcon, we are in in solidarity with the French President against this draft-dodging flatulent flaccid fraud US President.

Here is Plantu rendering a loving homage to the other side of America:

Written by Andrew Coates

November 13, 2018 at 5:12 pm