Posts Tagged ‘Paul Mason’
Paul Mason Back in the News Again – “Bid” to run for Labour in Islington North.
Say what you like about Paul Mason but he does some good diagrams.
Mason’s old friends in the Morning Star, carry this story today, with a winsome picture: “Paul Mason addresses protesters from Another Europe is Possible outside the Houses of Parliament, London, August 2019.”
Paul Mason prepared to take on Jeremy Corbyn, according to reports.
PAUL MASON could make a bid as Labour candidate to take on former party leader Jeremy Corbyn in his Islington North seat at the next general election, it has been reported.
The journalist is considering the role, according to the Times, which spoke to a party official.
Local members have raised concerns that the Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) will impose a candidate on them without a vote.
Mr Corbyn has represented the constituency as an independent MP since he was suspended from the party whip in 2020 and barred from standing as a Labour candidate by leader Sir Keir Starmer.
He said last month: “I am proud to have been the MP for Islington North since 1983.
“If the people want me to continue, then my services are available.”
Islington North CLP voted 98 per cent in favour of Mr Corbyn in May.
Mr Mason, who followed the CLP’s Twitter account recently, has lost his previous four attempts at the selection contests in Pembrokeshire, Sheffield Central, Stretford and Urmston.
He was a supporter of Mr Corbyn until 2020 but has been supportive of Sir Keir’s leadership since.
The Tendance says: NO, Paul, NO. Born in Islington North TC takes a keen interest in the Constituency and is opposed to Labour having got rid of Corbyn, preventing him from standing. The whole affair has been a divisive act by Starmer, who has been linked to far more radical left-wingers than Corbyn has ever been (Tendance Marxiste Révolutionnaire Internationale, TMRI). Splitting the Labour vote will be primarily Starmer and his factionalist supporters’ responsibility. There is no need to add to it.
End of Story.
While waiting for Mason’s influential critics from Socialist Appeal to respond one can sample these tweets.
The wits of the Internet were quick to get in on the action:
Stop the War Coalition Goes Grayzone in Communist Party of Britain, Andrew Murray, Attack on Paul Mason, “Advocate of British Imperialism”.
Tariq Ali Boosts close Communist Party of Britain comrade Andrew Murray in Attack on Paul Mason.
The Stop the War Coalition the campaign has taken to publishing personal attacks on named political opponents on the left. The campaign, which has little impact for its stand on peace in Ukraine, has published an article attacking Paul Mason, entitled “Paul Mason, a Keen Advocate of British Imperialism”. The piece is by Andrew Murray, briefly a Labour card holder, now returned to the Communist Party of Britain fold. Seasoned Leftist Trainspotters describe it as “barking” and “out there with Workers Hammer”. Wordsmith Murray’s phrases include, “Masonic worldview”, “Mason’s left would be at the service of British imperialism”, ” wants to stuff military mouths with gold”. A veteran commented, “It’s surprising that he does not go full Spart and say, ‘Ukraine is not fighting a just struggle of national liberation but is instead fighting to enslave the country to the U.S./EU/NATO imperialists.”
The former adviser to Jeremy Corbyn on Brexit, and a supporter of a “People’s Brexit”, begins his diatribe by saying that, “He sought to promote Keir Starmer as leader of a cross-party anti-Brexit bloc in the last parliament”. No doubt regretting that Paul Mason has not “publicly recanted”. Indeed. It continues, “His devotion to NATO and his hostility to the politics of anti-imperialism have been consistent. It was one of the issues which made him a poor fit for the Corbyn-era leadership.” Worse is to come, “This year, the war in Ukraine has provided broad scope for his activities. He has been at the forefront of agitation in support of NATO policy and in opposition to any suggestion of negotiations to bring the conflict to an end.” Adding to charges against the Bloc of Rightists, ex-Far left and hard-line Starmerism, “supporting NATO and aligning with Saudi Arabia”, Murray concludes, “he represents a familiar problem on the left, dating back to the days when social democrats found excuses for colonialism and for going to war in 1914.” (PAUL MASON: A KEEN ADVOCATE OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM)
On no less an authority of Grayzone Murray says that with, “the fear of a “left anti-imperialist identity” “gaining traction” he has been working with, amongst others, “state disinformation officials to campaign against sections of the left.”
Leaked emails – he claims to have been the victim of an unproven Russian hack – show him to be collaborating with a Foreign Office propaganda expert in a campaign to undermine the anti-war movement. Even those who disagree with the anti-war movement over Ukraine would draw the line at collaborating with state operatives against it.
Full details are available on US website The Grayzone, which published the material, which Mason has stated “may be altered or faked.” “May be” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, given he would be in a position to enlighten us
Murray claims that, “Stop the War has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Its sins in the Masonic worldview are that, first, it insists that NATO’s conduct over the last thirty years bears much responsibility for the crisis and, second, it opposes pouring arms into the war zone unaccompanied by any efforts at securing a negotiated settlement.”
Many on the internationalist left note that this is not the same as saying Stand with Ukraine against the Russian Invasion. ‘Ending the war” as Stop the War calls for, is something quite different. “The conflict” Stop the War said, in February was ” the product of thirty years of failed policies, including the expansion of NATO and US hegemony at the expense of other countries as well as major wars of aggression by the USA, Britain and other NATO powers which have undermined international law and the United Nations. The British government has played a provocative role in the present crisis, talking up war, decrying diplomacy as appeasement and escalating arms supplies and military deployments to Eastern Europe.” They produced a Video, against “Nato warmongering” ” NO WAR IN UKRAINE – STOP NATO EXPANSION.“
The American magazine Against the Current puts the issue clearly,
Socialists need to be clear about our position: We support Ukraine’s war of national survival and its right to receive assistance. We do not support NATO. Thanks to Putin, in fact, NATO and U.S. imperialism have already accomplished strategic goals: NATO’s shaky unity is restored, Finland and Sweden are joining, Germany is ramping up its military spending to and probably beyond the 2% of GDP level, and U.S. “leadership” of the alliance is no longer in question.
This, which is, in broad terms, is a position widely shared on the European left, and here in the UK, indicates a major difference from Paul Mason’s more favourable views on NATO. There are no doubt there are other issues to discuss, although Mason has clearly come out against any form of Labour austerity and has defended trade unions against the party leadership’s half-hearted positions. Apart from that, as everybody knows, he is a decent chap who does not merit this kind of rabid hack job.
But it does not justify the kind of intervention made by the leading member of the Communist Party of Britain. Its aim is clear, Mason is ” in contention for the Labour nomination in Sheffield Central.” “Labour members in Sheffield Central need to be aware of this record. If they want a representative who has the practitioners of dark arts on speed dial and wants to stuff military mouths with gold, it should make that choice with its eyes open.”
Lindsey German of Counterfire and Vice-President of the Stop the War Coalition wrote yesterday of the People’s Assembly Saturday demonstration, that, “Tens of thousands marched round parliament and past Downing Street despite the rail strikes and attempts to divide the movement.”
This was the small and divisive Stop the War bloc on the less than 10,000 strong protest.
2018: Andrew Murray, Jeremy Corbyn Aide, Barred From Ukraine Over ‘Links To Putin Propaganda Network’.
“A Ukrainian intelligence officer told the paper the move was taken because he is “regarded as being part of Putin’s global propaganda network, peddling Russian lies, particularly about Crimea and the war in Eastern Ukraine”.”
Paul Mason, “Labour’s Left Needs a Serious Strategy for the Starmer Era.” Some (favourable) Comments.
On Tuesday Another Europe is Possible held a Webinar talk on the British economy, given by former John McDonnell adviser James Meadway. The economist outlined a critique of the latest Tory measures, as they unfolded like a drama played out before our eyes. The scenario acted out the analysis he had offered to a a refined audience on the New Left Review Blog, Sidecar, “should Truss’s plan fall short, as prices spiral upwards, growth disintegrates and the capital markets turn sour, there are many forces waiting to move: from the Don’t Payers to the striking workers, to those in her own party sharpening their knives for the next leadership contest”. For those present this week his message (as put clearly here) was that, in the wake of the wreckage unleashed by the Liz Truss government on the financial markets, that “the chaos and fundamental weaknesses of the British economy mean the route to anything like the “fairer, greener future” that Labour promised at its party conference is narrowing”.
Meadway made the point that Fiscal Credibility, which the Shadow Chancellor had advocated during the Corbyn leadership, was something that free-market ultras of the present cabinet has dropped in their Great Leap Forward. The wild borrowing, and the prospect of growth ‘unleashed’ by tax cuts, will leave a legacy. If Labour wins, he noted simply spending our way out of the austerity they will leave, will not be enough (I was thinking while watching, of left supporters of ‘Modern Monetary Theory and ‘fiscal sovereignty’). By contrast Meadway saw sources of finance for public spending in large “useless hoards of wealth held by our institutions” and tax reforms targeted at the unproductive wealthy and finance.
In the discussion that followed people broadly accepted that Labour had begun to offer a serious social democratic alternative to the Truss government. All seemed, as we are, encouraged and happy at Labour’s big rise in the Polls.
There were reasons to follow Meadway’s caution. One person noted the effect that the regime’s policies would hit hard on local government, where, he said, Labour Councillors were worried about the effects on their already pared down budgets. He pointed to a copy of Socialist Appeal which he had recently bought on a Solidarity Rally in his town. Meadway replied that there could be no repeat of the 1980s Militant strategy of setting illegal budgets.
Others, apart from one contributor who concentrated on the lack of support for Labour in Scotland, and the importance of the nationalists, the SNP (one might remark that the more borders pro-independence left are strong there as well) talked of creative ideas to develop Labour policy, including the Green New Deal.
You would not know it from reading books like the ‘biography by Tel’s Nipper of Keir Starmer, “The Starmer Project“, alt-left sites, or tweets by people still raving about ‘Keith’ but this kind of serious discussion is taking place across the left, from the articles of Andrew Fisher to the above Webinar.
Paul Mason offers his own, welcome, ideas.
LABOUR’S LEFT NEEDS A SERIOUS STRATEGY FOR THE STARMER ERA BY PAUL MASON
(Extracts and Comment).
” I watched Keir Starmer’s Labour conference speech last week in a hotel bar full of party activists and local councillors. When he said the words “…and yes, Great British Energy will be publicly owned”, many punched the air. Some punched the bar.
That was the moment Starmer sealed the deal – not just with the centre-left technocrats who form his natural base within the party, but with broad swathes of activists, from the left to the old Labour right, who’d been sceptical of his capacity for vision, passion and persuasion.
Starmer, long pilloried as a “wet wipe” by the left, pledged an end to austerity, repudiated trickle-down economics, launched a “mission-oriented” industrial strategy, and promised to renationalise the railways and decarbonise the electricity system by 2030. Shortly after he sat down, James Mills, a former aide to John McDonnell, tweeted: “Unpopular view, but this speech is very much a vindication of Paul Mason.”
Mason continues,
So where does this leave the left? Organisationally, Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy were trounced in most committee elections. They won a vote on proportional representation by combining with the Blairite right. And they passed conference resolutions on a £15 minimum wage and Royal Mail renationalisation with trade union backing.
This is the main point:
This polarised response to Starmer’s “statist” turn reflects a deeper problem: the Labour left is directionless, leaderless, riven into competing projects, with no guiding philosophy and – therefore – completely incapable of achieving its favoured objective: Gramscian “hegemony” within Britain’s progressive social majority.
To remedy this, we’re going to need a different left. There are some brilliant movements led by activists from the left: Enough is Enough, the Don’t Pay UK campaign, and much of the current wave of strikes – especially as it begins to mobilise the big public-sector workforces.
How to co-ordinate protests (do not forget that the People’s Assembly is still around, run largely by the groupuscule, Counterfire) is already a problem in areas where some people have ideas of their own about Enough is Enough. Getting these lefts to agree on fundamental political issues is, to say the least, hard, if not impossible. There are also micro-parties of the left some of which, however unsuccessful electorally, still present candidates in the ballot box.
Item: this, which the Internationalist left has argued for some time, is a fundamental starting point:
But there will be no synthesis, and no progress, until some fundamentals are sorted out. The first has to be a complete break with the Stalinist politics that led one delegate to denounce the leadership for supporting “US war crimes” in Ukraine – gaining a ripple of applause from the conference floor. The same politics saw Momentum pressured into refusing to support a motion in favour of arming Ukraine.
Paul Mason underlines this in his thread.
Obviously this Blog agrees with that!
But….
It not probable that the ‘astre mort’ of Stalinism, still shedding darkness over thirty years after the collapse of Official Communism in Europe and Russia, and the victory of the capitalist roaders in the Chinese Communist Party, will be wiped from the minds of everybody on the left. ‘Campism’, the ‘phantom limb’ of anti-imperialism that always sides with anything that is against the ‘West’, shows, equally, if sometimes a little dissimulating over Ukraine, few signs of having disappeared. Brexiter ultras on the left look pretty unrepentant, even if some, like Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain, are more overtly ‘red-brown’ at present.
So how exactly is this “different left” going to replace them?
One can only ask.
The next issue is open to discussion for different reasons.
The second requires overt commitment to the Starmer project. There are parts of it I do not like: the bureaucratic high-handedness over dissent; the narrow range of fiscal commitments; the tone deafness over frontbenchers attending picket lines. But it is clear now that Starmerism is how we’re going to defeat the Tories.
A Labour Party committed to renationalising the railways and decarbonising the electricity system, to redistribution through tax, benefits and increased wages, to full employment rights from day one and to a massive programme of green industrial investment is not “the lesser of two evils”. It is a project much more radical than Blairism and therefore the first chance of a “Labourist” government we’ve realistically had since Neil Kinnock squandered that opportunity at the 1992 general election.
Paul Mason does not discuss the influence of Labour First and Labour Tomorrow, in the same way he has talked of Momentum. There are big problems about the former’s project, which merges sometimes into Blue Labour. It could be said to operate as a drag on any form, social democratic or democratic socialist, of transformative commitments of the Labour Party. Redistributive taxation, a return to the Crosland commitment to equality (the strong point of 1950s Labour ‘revisionism’), and the Bevan support for democratic public ownership (his, and the Bevanite famous defence of Clause 4), are not guaranteed when these groups wield strong influence in the Party.
This is an opening to the kind of debates we are having, and will continue in journals such as Chartist.
The third task is to understand what the left brings to the project. We have the ability to mobilise from below – as with Enough is Enough and Don’t Pay UK – because we’re committed to working-class agency. Our concept of socialism is something achieved by people, not simply for them.
On top of this, we are anti-capitalists. We see the “exogenous shocks” that keep surprising the technocrats as the inevitable products of a wider crisis driven by climate change, deglobalisation, totalitarianism and the fragility of communities ravaged by inequality. For us, a party committed to the interests of working people has to fight the interests of the hedge funds, rentiers and surveillance capitalists who get rich through extracting profit from every aspect of our work, our leisure, our communications and the homes we live in.
These ideas need independent advocates. This is why critical left voices are important.
It is hard not to agree more with these concluding words:
So my advice to the Labour left is to forget the “Kieth” memes. Let’s make a brief list of things we want to achieve. Let’s mobilise the grassroots both in defence of real wages and for a Labour victory. Let’s be proud that, since 24 February, not a single Labour MP has publicly opposed arms to Ukraine, and demand that every candidate backs the party’s position publicly come election time. And let’s get some left MPs back onto the frontbench, where they can influence the leadership’s language, priorities and direction of travel. The new generation of left MPs need to stop trying to be the next Jeremy Corbyn and start trying to be the next Nye Bevan.
Tendance Coatesy 