Serge's Fist

"Death to the Government" - Mass Protests and Violence in Iran

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:02:00 +0000

Presidential Mir Hossein Mousavi has called the election a "charade", comrades in and outside of Iran have said it was a farce from the very beginning. All the candidates were loyal to the Islamic Republic, and have their hands drenched in blood. The imperialists will obviously be disappointed that the pro Western candidate seems to have been cheated out of victory. The way you win an election in Iran is by winning the support of the supreme leader not at the ballot box.

The Iranian state prepared for mass protests, shutting down SMS access, blocking websites such as Facebook and the Guardian as well as deploying in excess of 100,000 security personnel. Pictures and videos are coming in from across Tehran and beyond of Mousavi supporters taking to the streets and being attacked by the police as well as members of the Basij. To complicate matters on the street, Ahmadinejad supporters have also come out celebrating and goading Mousavi supporters. From what I have heard so far, four people have been killed, many have been arrested and the police and Hezbollah are daring people to come out on to the street so that they can crack down further. Thousands have come out onto the streets as the below video shows, yet without clear leadership there can be no hope of any progress. The main slogan of the demonstrators is 'death to this government'.

The disunited colours of Iran's Bourgeois camps

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:28:00 +0000

The political and organisational disintegration of the Labour Pary may be on everyones lips at the moment, yet in Iran, our comrades are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Bourgeois factions are entering into open war on the streets and in the media. It is "Greens" versus the "Reds" in Iran at the moment, Karoubi's "Whites" have very little chance in this election, one thing can be sure whatever coloured camp wins, the people will lose in this election either way. As the main tendencies of the Iranian bourgeoisie go into battle the imperialists are desperately trying to influence the outcome of the election. This is what is behind Obama's recent appeals to Muslims.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi have taken up the colour green and have been out onto the streets rallying and demonstrating. This has caused outrage, with right wing papers attacking the use of the "sacred colour" and aiming to copy the colour revolutions that took place in former Soviet Republics. The charge of a colour revolution could actually stick, as no doubt Mousavi is the most desireable candidate for the USA. Ayatollah Khamenei has commented on this, and railed against the wests "meddling" in Iran.

In the North of Tehran, youths in sport cars are driving around waving green flags in support of leading opposition candidate Mousavi. In the South of Tehran, things are a little different. Members of the Basij are out in force attacking opposition and reformist youths, so are Ahmadinejad's supporters, they are sporting red attire, which has been denounced by Ahmadinejad's campaign manager, but is continuing regardless as young Iranians are flocking to the three political centres intent on victory in this election. One Daneshjouyan-e Azadi Khah va Beraber Talab (DAB) member has told me that the South of Tehran looks increasingly like a war zone as rival factions clash. A young Mousavi supporter in the Eastern city of Mashhad has been killed by Ahmadinejad's boot boys, comrades described him as a "boy" who just wanted to see the back of the hated Ahmadinejad. That killing goes on top of the 25 killed in a bomb attack on a Mosque and the five killed in clashes on Monday.

Ahmadinejad is at the moment is visibly losing the election along with his marbles, his behaviour in a television debate was denounced by Ayatollah Khamenei in his address celebrating Ruhalla Khomeini's life and marking 25 years since his death. Ahmadinejad supporters along with the Basij are doing everything in their power to keep him in power, it is not beyond the power or the imagination of Ahmadinjad and his conservative allies to rig the election. The only thing he needs is backing from Khamenei, whatever the number is of those who vote against him, he will remain in power.

I am backing the "Blues", which as a Villa fan, is a hard thing to do. That is the colour the democratic opponents of the Theocratic regime have taken up; they are not calling for a vote for any of the candidates. They are calling for an abstention, since none of the candidates offer anything other than repression, violence and poverty for the working masses.

You have to be this big to go on this ride...

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:26:00 +0000

Speak to any member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and they will tell you that they consistently build the United Front. They will tell you that United Against Fascism (UAF) and Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) are both United Fronts. The problem is they are wrong and are not alone in their misunderstanding. The Permanent Revolution (PR) group, join them and the majority of the Left in getting the United Front wrong. Whilst PR does not go all the way along the road with SWP’s take on the United Front, they still manage to believe that a group of 30 people with no influence in the class has managed to form a United Front with the Labour Party. A United Front where the other party is ignorant of others existence by the way! The debate can be found here.

The biggest and most obvious mistake PR have made is that they are not a Communist Party and are a group with no influence on the working class. The united front is done on a mass scale, I don’t see any section of the masses following PR at the moment. “If the use of this tactic is to advance the cause of Communism, the actual Communist Parties carrying it out must be strong, united and under an ideologically clear leadership.” [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/4th-congress/united-front.htm]

PR is not at that point. Neither is the majority of the Left. PR’s understanding or use of the United Front does not at all correspond with the theses accepted at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern.

The United Front tactic is to be deployed by parties which have won a significant layer of workers to communism. Trotsky is quite clear on this:
"wherever the Communist Party already constitutes a big, organized, political force, but not the decisive magnitude: wherever the party embraces organizationally, let us say, one-fourth, one-third, or even a larger proportion of the organized proletarian vanguard, it is confronted with the question of the united front in all its acuteness." [http://www.marx.org/archive/trotsky/1924/ffyci-2/08.htm]

The United Front tactic was introduced as workers’ were moving back towards the social democratic parties at the end of the slaughter of world war 1, it was about engaging with these workers and winning leadership of them. Over the last period the working class is abandoning the Labour Party and in the Euro elections will deal a severe beating to the Labour Party. The workers are not calling for unity with Labour Party in face of mounting assaults by capitalism, our class is having to defend itself against this onslaught led by the Labour Party.

Campaigns around school closures etc are simply campaign blocs. The United Front is a tactic of the Communist Party to win the adherents of social democracy/ labourism to socialism. In the UK we have no Communist Party. We are not even at the point communists were before the formation of the CPGB in 1920.

Trotsky is clear on what type of organisation should and can carry out the United Front tactic. Let’s look at Trotsky’s advice to the ILP, he is even more clear:

“QUESTION – Should the ILP terminate its united front with the CP?
ANSWER – Absolutely and categorically – yes! The ILP must learn to turn its back on the CP and towards the working masses. The permanent “unity committees” in which the ILP has sat with the CP were nonsense in any case. The ILP and the CPGB were propaganda organizations not mass organizations; united fronts between them were meaningless if each of them had the right to advance its own program. These programs must have been different or there would have been no justification for separate parties, and with different programs there is nothing to unite around. United fronts for certain specific actions could have been of some use, of course, but the only important united front for the ILP is with the Labour Party, the trade unions, the cooperatives. *At the moment, the ILP is too weak to secure these; it must first conquer the right for a united front by winning the support of the masses.* At this stage, united fronts with the CP will only compromise the ILP. Rupture with the CP is the first step towards a mass basis for the ILP and the achievement of a mass basis is the first step towards a proper united front, that is, a united front with the mass organizations.”[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/xx/ilp.htm]

I think looking at what else Trotsky has to say on this is helpful (sorry for the length):

“to conquer the masses – the parties are divided quite naturally and logically into three large groups:

First, there are the parties which are but at the beginning of their successes and which are not yet in a position to play a big role in the immediate action of the masses. Naturally, these parties have a great future, like all the other communist parties, but right now they cannot count very much upon the action of the proletarian masses for they are numerically weak as organizations. Hence, these parties must fight for the time being for the conquest of a basis, of the possibility of influencing the proletariat in its action (our English party is now emerging from this situation with ever-increased success).

On the other side there are parties which completely dominate the proletariat. I believe comrade Kolarov is right in claiming that this is the case with Bulgaria. What does this mean? It means that Bulgaria is ripe for the proletarian revolution and that only international conditions stand in its way. It is clear that in such a situation the question of the united front scarcely exists. In Belgium and England, on the other hand, it signifies the struggle for the possibility of influencing the proletariat and of cooperating in its movement.

Between these two extremes, there are parties which represent a power, not only in ideas but also through their numerical and organizational strength. This is already the case with most of the communist parties. Their strength may come to a third of the organized vanguard, a fourth, even a half or a bit more – that does not alter the situation in general.

What task confronts these parties? To conquer the overwhelming majority of the proletariat. And to what end? To lead the proletariat to the conquest of power, to the revolution. When will this moment be reached? We do not know. Perhaps in six months, perhaps in six years. Maybe the interval will differ for the various countries between these two figures. But speaking theoretically, it is not excluded that this preparatory period will last even longer. In that case, I ask: What will we do during this period? Continue to fight for the conquest of the majority, for the confidence of the entire proletariat. But this will not be attained by today or tomorrow; for the moment we are the party of the vanguard of the proletariat. And now still another question: Should the class struggle stop meanwhile, until we have conquered the entire proletariat? I put this question to comrade Terracini and also to comrade Renoult: Should the struggle of the proletariat for its daily bread stop until the moment when the communist party, supported by the entire working class, is in a position to seize the power? No, this struggle does not stop, it continues. The workers who belong to our party and those who do not join it, like the members of the social-democratic party and others, all of them – depending on the stage and the character of the working class in question – are disposed and able to fight for their immediate interests; and the struggle for their immediate interests is always, in our epoch of great imperialist crisis, the beginning of a revolutionary struggle. (This is very important but I mention it here only parenthetically.)

Now then, the workers who do not join our party and who do not understand it (that is precisely the reason why they do not enter it), want to have the possibility to fight for the piece of daily bread, for the bit of meat, etc. They see before them the communist party, the socialist party, and they do not understand the reason why they have parted company. They belong to the reformist General Confederation of Labor [CGT], to the socialist party of Italy, etc., or else they do not belong to any party organization. Now, what do these workers think? They say: Let these organizations or sects – I don’t know how these not very conscious workers call them in their language – give us the possibility of conducting the fight for our daily needs. We cannot answer them: But we have separated in order to prepare your great future, your great day-after-tomorrow! They will not understand this, because they are completely absorbed by their “today”. If they were able to grasp this, to them, entirely theoretical argument, they would have joined our party. With such a mental outlook and confronted with the fact of different trade union and political organizations, they have no means of orienting themselves; they find it impossible to undertake any immediate action, no matter how small or partial. Along comes the communist party and tells them: Friends, we are divided. You think it’s a mistake; I want to explain the reasons. You don’t understand them? I regret it greatly, but we are already in existence, we communists, socialists, reformists and revolutionary syndicalists; we have our independent organizations for reasons which are entirely sufficient for us communists. Nevertheless we communists propose an immediate action in your struggle for bread and meat, we propose it to you and to your leaders, to every organization that represents a part of the proletariat!” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/02/uf.htm]

As you can see Trotsky is quite clear on which type of organisation should carry out the United Front tactic, that is those parties that have won a significant section of the vanguard and have the ability to engage the reformists in serious way both organisationally and politically. Groups the size of PR or even the ILP are not at this point. They are at the first stage that Trotsky describes, that is the fight for a Communist Party. That fight should guide our actions in the movement. That is the fight the CPGB has taken up.

The united front against fascism is about defeating the fascist threat but it is also about winning leadership of the class. Again we must go to Trotsky:

“The program of action must be strictly practical, strictly objective, to the point, without any of those artificial “claims,” without any reservations, so that every average Social Democratic worker can say to himself. what the Communists propose is completely indispensable for the struggle against fascism. On this basis, we must pull the Social Democratic workers along with us by our example, and criticize their leaders who will inevitably serve as a check and a brake. Only in this way is victory possible.” [http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/311208.htm]

I don’t think it is formalistic and at the same time revisionist to simply state that a little group PR cannot form a United Front with the Labour Party. It is what is written in the theses but more importantly, it also proven by reality.

No 2 EU looks to Far Right for Votes

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:58:00 +0000

Facebook (FB) is a peculiar world occupied by office workers, students and the unemployed. On it you can follow the latest intrigues of this or that friend, stalk the weirdest sectarians and at times find out somebody’s politics by where they post. The RMT, the Stalinist CPB and the “Trotskyist” Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW) have gone to lengths to try and convince us that the No2EU campaign is not right wing, not anti immigrant and certainly is not nationalist! FB exposes these claims as nothing but lies.

Leading Cardiff SPEW member Andrew Ballard has been doing his best to promote No2EU on FB, nothing wrong in that. The problem is, he is promoting them on far right, nationalist, racist and BNP controlled pages. Pages such as ‘British jobs for British people’, ‘get foreign labour out of Britain’, ‘UK jobs for UK workers’. The demands of these groups centre around getting foreigners out of the UK. For those who think we are making this up, have a look here at a copy of some of the pages he has been posting on. On these pages apart from posting links he posted this message:

‘British jobs for british workers and Italian jobs for Italian workers. The only reason the EU has such a large migrant workforce is to drive down workers wages and increase profits for the super rich. Vote no2eu on June the 4th.’

So much for a workers’ Europe then. Such slogans would find a loving home in the BNP and nationalists parties across Europe. Did he forget about internationalism?

So many of us on the revolutionary Left have been repulsed by this campaign, we have been called sectarians and all of the other usual crap internationalists get called. It is doubtful that Ballard is the only one, and is certainly not a loose cannon, he is leading cadre. When we said that No2EU is nothing more than little England politics dressed up in trade union clothes we never expected SPEW members to campaign on nationalist, far right and BNP controlled sites and pages. SPEW members need to sit up and wake up, good socialists are being dragged into a nationalist adventure by Left bureaucrats and vile opportunists.

The Death of "Nazli" (or, The Death of Vartan Salakhanian)

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:06:00 +0000

I am usually a philistine when it comes to culture. Art generally isn't my thing, hence my distaste of an apparently Dada inspired Weekly Worker front cover for May Day. Below is a poem about an Armenian comrade who was tortured to death under the Shah, his name was Vartan Salakhanian, he refused to speak, even cry in pain, as he was being tortured to death. I put this up now, to remind comrades that we may have removed the Shah, but the torture of our comrades in Iran is going on as we speak. The Iranian regime is holding 50 comrades from May Day protests and hold many more from the social and national movements in Iran. I was told by a comrade from Iran, that when they were arrested they would recite this poem to each other.

Nazli! Spring smiled and the Judas tree bloomed.
At home, under the window, the old Jasmine has budded.
Remove [your] hand from doubt! (give up doubting)
With sinister death do not wrestle!
Being is better than becoming not being, especially in the Spring

Nazli said nothing
Head high, he clenched tooth of anger on wounded liver/heart and went.

Nazli! Talk!
The bird of silence, the chick of a tragic death in the nest, is sitting on the egg (the bird is sitting on the egg that will be the birth of a tragic death)

Nazli did not say a word
Like the sun
appeard from darkness and settled in blood and went.

Nazli did not say a word
Nazli was a star
Suddenly in this darkness, he lit up and leapt and went.

Nazli did not say a word
Nazli was a violet
He flowered and
gave the good tidings: "Winter was defeated!"
and
left ...

The Death of "Nazli" by Ahmad Shamlu

Second Statement from May Day Organising Committee

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:59:00 +0000

Workers and freedom loving people!

This is a follow up statement to the May Day Organizing Committee’s first report on the violent attack by police and intelligence forces at the May Day rally in Laleh Park, Tehran. More than 150 workers and their families as well as activists from the women’s and students’ movements were arrested. The updates for public information and appropriate actions, as of today, are as follows:

Four days after the May Day police crackdown, about 130 women and men are still incarcerated. They are detained in unacceptable conditions in section 204 of Tehran’s Evin Prison.

The families of these esteemed friends have been incessantly contacting the intelligence and judicial centres, including the Islamic Revolutionary Court on Moalem Street (Teacher Street). They have been threatened by security forces and never receive clear answers from the judicial authorities. The relatives of the arrested workers have been gathering in unity outside the court, protesting the arrest of their loved ones.
The authorities have told some family members of the detainees that they have issued heavy bails of 50 to 100 million Toman (US$50,000 to $100,000) for the conditional release of most of the arrested activists, however, many of the arrested workers have kept up their morale and are demanding their unconditional release without any bail conditions.

The May Day Organizing Committee condemns these oppressive measures and brings to the attention of all freedom-loving people of the world the fact that all these beatings and assaults demonstrate the repressive disposition of the ruling capitalism in Iran; that’s why these people are imprisoned unjustifiably and their freedom is delayed inexcusably and their families are being penalized financially. Isn’t it the Iranian government’s security and intelligence apparatus that has to be accountable for all the financial and emotional costs of these inhumane actions?

Workers, women, students and freedom-seeking people!

Support the families of the imprisoned activists who have been gathering everyday outside the Islamic Revolutionary Court protesting the cruel and inhumane actions of the police and judicial systems. Let’s join them in solidarity!

Workers and Workers’ organization of all countries around the world!

The Iranian capitalist state has not only attacked the May Day event across Iran in recent days, they have also raided the meeting of the consumer cooperative of the Metal-Mechanics Workers in Nemat-Abad of Tehran and arrested a number of workers.

As we all know, the celebration of the first of May and the declaration of workers’ demands are absolute and undeniable rights of the working class. We see ourselves in solidarity with workers of the world, and invite you all to disseminate these reports and take necessary measures to increase pressures for the unconditional freedom of all arrested activists at May Day rallies in Tehran and other parts of Iran.

1388 May Day Organizing Committee
Tehran, Iran, May 04, 2009 (Ordibehesht 14, 1388)

The May Day Organizing Committee:

- The Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Vahed Bus Company
- The Syndicate of Workers of Haft Tapeh Sugar Cane Company
- The Free Union of Workers in Iran
- The Founding Committee of the Syndicate of Building 's Painters and Decoration's Workers
- The Center for Workers’ Rights in Iran
- The Collaborative Council of Labour Organizations and Activists
- The Coordinating Committee to Help Form Workers’ Organizations
- The Committee to Pursue the Establishment of Free Workers’ Organizations
- The Women’s Council.

No2EU Launch “a fucking disaster” says CPB Stalinist Dave Hawkins.

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:00:00 +0000

On April 30 two members of Communist Students in Manchester attended the Manchester launch of the Left Nationalist No 2 EU - Yes To Democracy campaign. The attendance was a paltry eight, and of those eight three were from the Morning Star’s CPB, one from the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW), one from Permanent Revolution and a comrade from the Green Left. So out of eight in attendance 4 were hostile to the campaign. The meeting began with an unwelcome discussion on the politics of the campaign with myself and other comrades taking the CPB to task for backing immigration controls, British jobs for British workers and little Britain politics dressed up in trade union clothes. The comrade from SPEW seemed genuinely shocked when Dave Hawkins from the CPB proclaimed that immigration controls are a great British tradition and that British workers should be protected from immigrants coming over here and taking their jobs. It took but a second for the real politics of the campaign to come out. The CPB members present seemed stupidly unaware that muttering such sentiments did nothing to help the campaign and only encouraged and angered the small but hostile audience. For over 45 minutes they were subjected to ridicule and the proper communist approach to Europe. To the credit of the SPEW member he did not engage in any abusive or arrogant remarks like the CPB members did, he listened and discussed calmly taking on the points that many comrades had raised but still saw that the positives outweighed the negatives in the campaign. It was a peculiar atmosphere considering CPB bureaucrats in Unison are witch hunting socialist trade unionists who are members of the SPEW.

Further questions where raised about the establishment of the campaign and why it was done behind the backs of not just the RMT but the entire movement. There was no democratic process or discussion within or outside the RMT. Unlike the PR member and CPB members everyone else thought that this was an important issue. The claim that the RMT are backing the electoral bloc when the RMT as a union has not discussed it or voted on it has no basis in reality.

As the meeting went on CPB members became more and more embarrassed with Hawkins spending a good five minutes with his head in his hands. Hopefully he had just realised that Stalinism and its half witted adherents will face opposition whenever they climb out of the safety of the trade union bureaucracy. Tempers did begin to fray and instead of discussing with the female comrade from the Green Left, Hawkins gave a sharp one liner that ended in “love”, to which she replied “comrade would have been fine”. So not only is the CPB happily promoting left nationalism, it’s members are also happy to be derogatory towards female comrades who are critical. Sexism has always been apart of this movement, and it is no surprise an old Stalinist is intent on perpetuating it.

The meeting was brought to an abrupt end as the CPB decided they would organise the campaign via email. They quickly ran out of the building, even forgetting to pay for the room. It was one of the most farcical launch meetings I have ever been too.

Stalinists beware, internationalists are everywhere!

Students need Marxism

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:32:00 +0000

Communist Students puts forward the only politics that can emancipate humanity. Chris Strafford reports

On April 26 members of Communist Students gathered in central London to thrash out our perspectives for the coming period and to look critically at our work over the last year.

In spite of numerous apologies because of exams, essays and poor options for Sunday travel, over 20 comrades attended. Conference was opened by outgoing executive member Nick Jones, who reported on our activity over the past 12 months - not least the inspiring pro-Gaza occupations that spread across the UK. Comrade Jones also looked at various CS interventions within the student movement and our impact on the organised left, where we have consistently posed the need for Marxism in opposition to broad movementism. Although we are not exactly popular with the left groups, we have made modest progress in terms of influence and support over the last year. Comrade Jones also discussed our weaknesses, referring to our “sloppiness” in relation to NUS work, and called for a more systematic approach.

Capitalism in crisis

The first discussion was on the ‘Capitalist crisis and the tasks of communists’. I opened up the debate by giving a quick overview of the economic crisis and the response of the bourgeoisie.

We can see that across the world there have been profound repercussions, with an increase in unemployment and poverty, especially in the peripheral countries, as the capitalist metropoles attempt to offload the crisis onto the ‘third world’. One of the most striking examples is Pakistan, which has been used by the imperialists to further the so-called ‘war on terror’. Pakistan’s budget is unsustainably geared towards military spending, leaving large sections of the population in poverty and without basic services in many areas.

I argued that communists have two key tasks in the coming period: firstly to put forward a coherent solution to the crisis - millions are looking for answers and alternatives following the ideological blow suffered by capitalism. Whilst many on the left are putting forward reformist and nationalist responses, CS insists on working class socialism. As the pro-Gaza occupations demonstrated, students will respond to the big political questions - they are hungry for global answers and should not be fobbed off with ‘student issues’ alone.

It is important not to isolate ourselves and to ensure that we continue to participate in joint actions and campaigns with others on the left and those who constitute the semi-anarchist milieu. However, unlike others, we will not seek to trick people by hiding our politics - we will continue to put forward the only politics that can move our movement forward: Marxism.

Our movement is in desperate need of an organisation that can carry out the fight for socialism effectively: that is, we need a Communist Party and students too need to build a Marxist organisation able to incorporate different tendencies and traditions. CS is already such an organisation in microcosm - we should be confident that our ideas will continue to reach a wider audience.

The discussion which followed flagged up differences within the organisation over the emphasis of our work - should it be based on engaging with the organised left or do we need to shift towards greater campus activity and winning individual students who are not necessarily involved in the movement?

Gaza occupations

The final session of the morning was kicked off by Cat Rylance, who gave a talk on the occupation movement that swept the UK in solidarity with the people of Gaza, who were being subjected to a barbaric blockade and military assault.

The occupations had developed confidence among those taking part and a national network of support and advice sprung up via the internet. Speaking of her own involvement at the University of Manchester, comrade Rylance described how the occupation had generated support from unions and staff as well as fellow students - solidarity was offered in the shape of food and a range of other necessities. Security guards had put their jobs on the line when they refused to film activists and gather information which could be used in disciplinaries - which were being threatened by the obnoxious and at times stupid university management.

One of the features which concerned comrade Rylance was the generalised hostility towards the organised left because of the actions of groups such as the Socialist Workers Party, which is widely regarded as attempting to manipulate situations to its own advantage. Communists should work in such campaigns openly and honestly, while at the same time trying to convince people of the value and necessity of Marxism.

During the discussion many comrades spoke of their experience during the occupations. John Sidwell, who was involved at Kings College University, bemoaned the stifling of debate by the SWP when leading anti-Zionist, professor Moshé Machover, spoke at the occupation. Comrades from Sheffield reported the open and democratic atmosphere that had developed - despite the attempts by Socialist Action to close down debate and end the occupation prematurely.

Ben Lewis argued that Gaza had become a symbol and a uniting factor for the movement. He noted that throughout our history the big politics and international struggles such as Vietnam have always been able to mobilise students more than issues such as fees.

All contributors touched in some way on the aftermath of the occupation movement and the political confusion that was witnessed at the student coordination event, which had been organised by Revolution, Workers Power’s youth group, afterwards. Everyone except CS was happy to tail and subordinate themselves to a layer of semi-anarchist students. As a result there will be very little to show for the occupations in terms of an organisation that can provide leadership over the coming period.

Communism in the classroom

16 year-old school student Callum Williamson, now the youngest member of our executive, gave an excellent talk on the nature of education under capitalism, raising the necessity of critical thought and the promotion of communist ideas. He spoke about how young people are refused democratic rights and are fed history and ideas without being encouraged to critically think about them.

One area where he thought communists should be taking a lead is on the fight for voting rights for 16-year-olds - at the moment it is the Liberal Democrats who have been campaigning for this. Comrade Williamson also commented on the establishment and expansion of youth councils across the country and the so-called youth parliament, through which the establishment hoped to keep politically thinking students firmly within the mainstream. He explained how these bodies attempt to restrict campaigning and controversy to such vital questions as local recycling schemes.

During the discussion comrades encouraged the school students present to take a lead in organising their own campaign rather than relying on university students to do it for them. Many spoke about their experiences of coming into politics whilst at school though the anti-war movement. Sachin Sharma discussed his role in coordinating school strikes in Leeds through the now defunct SWP school student front, Spark, and the creation of unofficial school newspapers.

Everyone was agreed that CS should act as a facilitator for autonomous school student groups, helping them with materials and ideas.

Divisions and debate

The second half of the day was given over to discussing various motions and the election of a new executive.

Ben Lewis moved the first motion drafted by the executive, which outlined the direction of our work under conditions of capitalist crisis. It committed CS to continue building up support for Marxism on campuses, encouraging other left organisations to take revolutionary unity seriously and organising a day school on the crisis as well as a summer camp. At these events differences on Palestine and other issues will be discussed in a thorough and sharp way. The motion was unanimously agreed.

The second motion came from Sheffield CS, which centred on the need to tighten up our organisation and laid out some general guidelines for branches - they should elect a secretary who would coordinate and report back to the executive. This too was passed unanimously.

I moved the motion from Manchester which sought to amend the constitution to ensure that young communists who are not necessarily students are welcome to join and take part, and accepted that branches could be organised in a wider locality when the necessary forces to create campus branches do not exist.

Comrade Lewis argued that basing our branches in a town or city would not enable us to intervene in the campaigns that develop on a particular campus. He did not want to codify the experience of the London CS branch, which brings together communist students from across the capital in the absence of an active base of support in any one college. He argued that Manchester CS, which has comrades from the three universities, should aim for separate branches on each campus. He moved an amendment deleting “localities” from the motion.

Nick Jones discussed the unique position of the London branch, which has no grounding on a particular campus, as in Manchester or Sheffield. Comrade Jones argued that London should aim to change that situation as quickly as possible. However, Dave Isaacson could not see the basis of comrade Lewis’s objections, as the motion merely brought the constitution into line with current practice - it is where we are organisationally. But he also thought that splitting up Manchester CS, which had been working efficiently, would be “madness”. That did not mean there should be a shift away from campus activity. The amendment fell and the motion was passed by a sizeable majority.

One of the most interesting debates was sparked off by the motion submitted by Cat Rylance, opposing an “anthropocentric view of the world” which denied animal rights. Comrade Rylance spoke about the treatment of animals in capitalist production and the dehumanising effect that has on people as well as the ecological impact of heavy farming and agriculture. This triggered a wide-ranging discussion on whether animals can have rights, on food production, humanism and whether it is necessary for a communist organisation to take a position on this issue. Dave Isaacson pointed out that Marxism was by its nature “anthropocentric”.

An amendment submitted by Laurie McCauley, which replaced the entire motion with a practical suggestion for an ongoing debate and the production of a discussion document, was passed. CS will now seek to organise discussions internally and with comrades outside the group to clarify our views on this and then decide whether we should adopt a position.

The final two motions were passed unanimously. The first was from outgoing executive member Tina Becker that committed CS to back Hands Off the People of Iran’s ‘Smash the Sanctions’ campaign. The second was on the National Union of Students and its destruction of what was left of democratic organs. It committed the organisation to develop our NUS work by allocating one member to take prime responsibility for it and mandated the executive to create a programme for the NUS, including winning NUS affiliation to Hopi.

Comrade McCauley gave the closing speech. He stressed that we have a lot of work to do, but we should be confident nevertheless. We are unique amongst the student left, in that we openly and consistently put forward the only politics that can emancipate humanity: Marxism. CS will continue to work within other campaigns and build actions up and down the country. It will continue to fight for working class socialism and democracy.

Kettling and the right to freely demonstrate - WW764

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:26:00 +0000

From WW764

The G20 summit saw thousands of people protest outside the Bank of England on April 1. The demonstration was called by a variety of groups under the banner of G20 Meltdown.

From early on the police had protesters hemmed in a ‘kettle’, which restricted access, compacted the crowd and prevented people leaving. The mood quickly turned sour, as the police kept pushing the crowd tighter and tighter. Later riot police began to attack, hitting out indiscriminately.

The police were clearly up for a fight and had been over-exaggerating the threat of violence in the weeks prior to the G20 summit. Unfortunately, the bankers will be “hanging from lampposts” and other such “humorous” statements, however qualified, from comrade Chris Knight et al played into their hands.

Sections of the media then did their bit playing up of threat of violence for all they were worth in order to excuse the pre-planned police violence well before what the G20 Meltdown organisers called their “carnival street party” had even begun.

It was in this atmosphere that Ian Tomlinson lost his life. It seems he was not part of the demonstration, but just on his way home from work. What is clear from numerous eye-witness reports1 and now a video released by The Guardian2 is that he was caught up in the action and collapsed, apparently from a heart attack. I say ‘apparently’, because a post mortem was held with indecent haste and “heart attack” was given as the cause of death, even though medical personnel are asked not to use the phrase on death certificates because of its vagueness.

The rightwing media and the BBC did their utmost to either bury the story or push the blame onto demonstrators for preventing the police from helping the man and then allegedly hurling bottles at medics. The video footage clearly shows the opposite. The police assaulted Tomlinson and then refused to aid him after requests from protestors.

An investigation is underway by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Normally one would expect a complete whitewash, but in this case a section of the establishment has decided to weigh in against the police - not only the likes of The Guardian, but the Liberal Democrats too.

It was obvious to anyone who was at that demonstration that the tactics of the police were dangerous, provocative and at times downright brutal. So what we have to be wary of is the possibility of blame being pinned onto a single officer. The attempted cover-up must have gone all the way to the top, as the statement which was released on April 1 bears no resemblance at all to the events that occurred and have subsequently been caught on numerous pictures and video. There should be a public enquiry into Tomlinson’s death that allows us full access to all police footage and documents relating to the protests; there should be absolute transparency to enable the public to scrutinise the events.

For the best part of a day protestors where kept inside the ‘kettle’, with sporadic outbreaks of violence from the police and angry attempts to break out by protestors. Bottles and other small objects where thrown at the police and at one point several hundred people did break through, only to be quickly pushed back by reinforcements of riot police. At around 7pm the police began a concerted effort to squeeze the remaining 2,000 or so demonstrators (by this time people had been allowed to leave) into a smaller space. Again demonstrators responded with bottles ... and so did the police.

Stories of agents provocateurs are commonplace, but for the first time I saw this with my own eyes. Two plain-clothes officers were throwing bottles and were chased away by demonstrators suspicious at their behaviour. On reaching police lines they showed warrant cards and were let straight through. Presumably the aim was to justify their own brutal violence and tactics in front of the watching media.

The police could not even claim to be protecting anybody, but ‘kettling’ has been validated by the highest legal authority. As The Guardian reports, “The tactic was challenged in the courts by two people who were held for seven hours at Oxford Circus, central London, during the May Day protests in 2001. They claimed their imprisonment breached their rights to liberty, but a House of Lords judgment ruled the tactics legal.”3

The ruling on this legal challenge gives the police the power to detain masses of people without charge for hours at a time, if they suspect (or claim to suspect) a threat of violence to people or property. By this tactic the police have in effect overruled the legal right to free assembly and to demonstrate - which evidently must include the right to move to and from the scene of protest.

It also gives the police the opportunity to pick out and profile known activists. The only way you could leave the ‘kettle’ was through a police line, where surveillance officers would pick out individuals for search and/or arrest. In this way the police were able to collect a vast amount of information about protestors - relating to their political affiliation as well as their personal details.

On April 2 nearly a thousand people gathered once more outside the Bank of England to protest against the brutality meted out to G20 Meltdown and Climate Camp protestors, and called for an independent investigation into Tomlinson’s death. At first the police response was as violent as it has been the previous day, although eventually they were pulled back - perhaps it dawned on senior officers that pictures of police brutality at a demonstration against police brutality would not be good PR.

There was a further demonstration of around 600 people at the Excel Centre, largely from different exile communities. This passed off without violent incident, but saw the police stop and search hundreds of individuals.

The state is arming itself with new laws (and new weapons, such as taser guns) at a time when in the current economic climate, protests are likely to become more common. The police are undemocratic and largely unaccountable. In their place, communists pose a workers’ militia; alongside that, universal military training and service for all under democratic control.

Our movement needs to get smart and get organised. We need to be able to defend our movement, our demonstrations and our picket lines. But only a mass workers’ party can hope to do this in a consistent and efficient way.
Notes

1. london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1019
2. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-video
3. www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-tactics

I have got my ticket to the Revolution! Have you?

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:15:00 +0000

Our beloved leader comrade Chris Knight has assured us that "London will be lost" and we will see the revolution break out in London on April 1st and spread across the world. Our beloved leader comrade said this: 'If we succeed with our revolution in the capital in the next week, that will immediately spread to Strasbourg where our anti-globalisation colleagues in France and Germany will stop the Nato summit scheduled for 4 April. Our revolution will spread out across Europe so that, come June, my prediction is that planet earth will be one country.'

The media has rightly jumped on our beloved leader as the only credible leadership of the movement. It is without a doubt that he is getting so much attention and coverage in the media because he has been rightly placed at the head of our great movement.

Chris Knight is a wanker. Fact. This mad Professor is deluded and the media have jumped on him to distract attention away from the demands of the demonstrations during the G20 but also to discredit the demonstrators before a banner has been unfurled, a rock thrown or before an anarchist has heckled a bureaucrat speaker at a rally. Any street battles at the G20 will no doubt be plenty of fun as long as you manage to dodge baton charges and arrest but what will they really achieve? We do not need a new J18 or a Genoa, the Anti Capitalist upsurge of the late 1990's and early 21st century has practically died and gave no way forward for our class and our movement.

So really all that is left to be said is this:

I am for Europe.

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:22:00 +0000

Stalinists, Bureaucrats and Taafites of Britain Unite! Into one big pile of chauvinist shite.

The European elections are coming up and it is safe to say any left challenge will be a joke. The Morning Star's "Communist" Party along with Bob Crow (RMT Gen Sec) and some foot soldiers from the Socialist Party of England and Wales are embarking on one of the most backward and chauvinistic project I have saw from the Left in my lifetime. The No2EU - Yes to Democracy list which will be contesting the European elections on June 4th is nothing more than a UKIP list with narrow trade union demands tacked on. Peter Manson (CPGB) has covered this along with the usual sidelining of left political opponents from the foundation process here and here. Againt national chauvinism the left has to present something more serious, that something has to be a social Europe. A Europe of capital can only be opposed through the organisation of the working class on a Europe wide scale, our programmes, our tactics and our organisation have to take this into account. Against a Europe of capital, communists must put forward a positive programme, a programme that takes up the struggle for the democratic transformation of Europe and takes up the task of building a European wide party of opposition in the medium term as well as setting itself the task of taking power in the name of the working class and Marxism. Mike Macnair (CPGB) wrote an excellent article on the tasks of the movement in Europe with the onset of the economic crisis which can be read here. Anita Halpin, Bob Crow and Peter Taafe would do well to the best book (IMO) Jack Conrad has written, 'Remaking Europe'. This is why:

"Where they have made their bureaucratic-bourgeois Europe from above, the working class must make its democratic Europe from below. So there should be no truck with calls to pull the UK out of the EU because it is a “bosses’ club”, or because it is not “socialist”. An almost laughable case of pandering to left nationalism. One might just as well suggest pulling the working class out of Britain.

Not that such a daft programme has not been tried. In the 18th and 19th century there were those utopians who argued that communists should have nothing to do with bourgeois society. It was by definition a capitalist or “bosses’ club”. They established colonies in the Americas, which would practise liberty, equality and fraternity. Suffice to say, they were ill-fated. All failed. And not surprisingly Marxism has consistently criticised such schemas. The utopian communists’ denunciation of capitalism provided wonderful ammunition for propaganda. However, opting out of the struggle within capitalism was attacked as akin to surrender. Though they specifically insist that there is no longer an outside and therefore no possibility of opposing capitalism externally, the same must be said of Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt and their ‘postmodern’ call for “refusal” and “desertion, exodus and nomadism” and winning the battle “against the empire” through “subtraction and defection” and a placeless “evacuation of the places of power”.

On the contrary the communist-socialist project starts with working class organisation, positive and militant engagement, invasion and conquest of the specific centres of state power that manifestly exist and historically present themselves. The journey begins not with the destination, but the first step. So we can and must begin with the EU.

There can be no doubt that the EU, through the Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties, is, as the SWP says, the “central project of the European employers”. Nor can it be denied that the EU is an “anti-working class project” aimed at increasing the exploitation of European workers in order that European capital can “compete more effectively in world markets”. The EU “bosses’ club” aims to “maximise job flexibility” and “increase the power of the bosses in the workplace”. To that end EU institutions have been made as “undemocratic” as possible, with an “unaccountable” ECB, etc.
Against this “bosses’ Europe” it is right to proclaim oneself being in favour of “workers’ Europe. But, try as you might, you will find no SWP programme outlining how to achieve a workers’ Europe other than by rejecting the bosses’ Europe. There is no logically established linkage joining means to ends. Just saying ‘no’ to the bosses’ Europe does not lead to a workers’ Europe.

The EU is a quasi-democratic “bosses’ club”. There is no difference here. But, instead of joining with Michael Howard and the Tories, the Murdoch press and Ukip, the BNP and the national socialist left, communists take up the weapons of organisation and democracy. We have a positive programme. A social Europe, within which the political power and economic interests of the broad masses - albeit initially under capitalism - are qualitatively advanced. To bring forward this immediate aim the following seven demands, specifically concerning the EU, are presented:

1. For a republican United States of Europe. No to the Brussels constitution. Abolish the council of ministers and sack the unelected commissioners. For a single-chamber, executive and legislative, continental congress of the peoples, elected by universal suffrage and proportional representation.

2. Nationalise all banks in the EU and put the ECB under the direct democratic control of the European congress. No to the stability pact and spending limits. Stop privatisation and so-called private finance initiatives. End subsidies to, and tax breaks for, big business. Tax income and capital. Abolish VAT. Yes to workers’ control over big business and the overall direction of the economy. Yes to a massive programme of house-building and public works.

3. For the levelling up of wages and social provisions. For a maximum 35-hour week and a common minimum income. End all anti-trade union laws. For the constitutional right to organise and the constitutional right to strike. For top-quality healthcare, housing and education, allocated according to need. Abolish all restrictions on abortion. Fight for substantive equality between men and women.

4. End the Common Agricultural Policy. Stop all subsidies for big farms and the ecological destruction of the countryside. Nationalise all land. Temporary relief for small farmers. Green the cities. Free urban public transport. Create extensive wilderness areas - forest, marshes, heath land - preserve and rehabilitate animal and plant life for the enjoyment and fulfilment of the population.

5. No to the Rapid Reaction Force, Nato and all standing armies. Yes to a popular, democratic militia, equipped with the most advanced and destructive weaponry.

6. No to ‘Fortress Europe’. Yes to the free movement of people into and out of the EU. Full citizenship and voting rights for all who may wish it who have been resident in the EU for longer than six months.

7. For the closest coordination of all working class forces in the EU. Promote EU-wide industrial unions - eg, railways, energy, communications, engineering, civil service, print and media. For a democratic and effective EU Trade Union Confederation. For a single, centralised, revolutionary party: ie, the Communist Party of the European Union.

Armed with such a continent-wide programme, a republican Europe, a social Europe, the United Socialist States of Europe, can be realised. By taking the lead over every democratic shortcoming, by coordinating our defensive and offensive activity, by building upon our strength and extending our room for manoeuvre through securing far-reaching economic and political gains, we can change the “bosses’ club” into a workers’ club."

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Duit - Éirinn go brách

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:13:00 +0000

Luxemburg and Lenin - Thalheimer

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:10:00 +0000

Lately I have been very interested in the so called "right opposition" in Germany which rose within and then split from the KPD. To this end I have been reading everything which is on MIA from Thalheimer, I am also waiting to get my hands on texts by Brandler. I would be very happy if comrades could let me know if they have any sources to texts which do not appear on MIA.

The whole period and factional struggle inside the comintern is very interesting, I think Thalheimers attack against Trotsky whilst being wrong on many things such as the seriousness of 'Socialism in One Country' vs 'World Revolution' is insightful into the sectarian nature of the ILO and Trotsky, and is clearly of use to us today in understanding the way Trotskyist groups approach democracy, factions and centralism.

Below is the latest text I have read from MIA:

Rosa Luxemburg or Lenin?

August Thalheimer

0n the 15 January, the revolutionary working class in Germany celebrates simultaneously Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Lenin. In the imagination and the sentiment of the German revolutionary worker they stand on the same level, as the hitherto greatest champions of the proletarian revolution. Each of them with their own traits, their own achievements, their own revolutionary character, their own role. The name of Lenin shines in the clear lustre of the victor of the first proletarian revolution and its convulsive and infectious impact worldwide. The names of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht are surrounded by the gloomy lustre of the leaders of a revolution that was crushed in its first assault, of the martyrs of the revolutionary struggle, of the most outstandmig symbols of the arduous path of martyrdom and suffering, but also of the unbending fighting spirit of the German working class. If the former personifies the victorious present and true reality of the proletarian revolution, then the latter personify its future, its hope, its intention to break through to the advanced capitalist west. All three are equally dear to the hearts of the revolutionary working class.

Only the minor and ambitious fellows today at work on the shoulders of these giants, in dull ignorance, m order to misrepresent, to pervert and demolish what the others built up, now reserve the right to put the question: 'Luxemburg or Lenin?' And they decide it so: Rosa Luxemburg became stuck on the way to Bolshevism (the name Communism is apparently no longer sufficient), at centrism or semi-centrism, so to speak, that she was a - fortunately outmoded - stage towards the height to which these fellows have raised themselves.

It would, however, be just as wrong to counter-pose to this mistake the opposite one, that 'Luxemburgism' is the superior revolutionary doctrine to Leninism.

Not Luxemburg or Lenin - but Luxemburg and Lenin. Here it is not a question of an obscure mixture and obliteration of differences, but of recognising the particular role and significance of each of them for the proletarian revolution. Each of them gave the proletarian revolution something the other did not, and could not, give. The reasons can be found in the different historical role of the revolutionary movements in which they were, above all, rooted and which they, above all, influenced.

Firstly, we take the general conception of the proletarian revolution. Out of genuine revolutionary Marxism, both Rosa Luxemburg and also Lenin rescued the general conception of the proletarian dictatorship and the role of revolutionary violence within it. Rosa Luxemburg championed this conception first in the West not only against the revisionism of Bernstein, but also against Kautsky, against the 'Marxist Centre' - obviously so named because it tore the revolutionary centre from the Marxist conception of the proletarian revolution, by dispelling the proletarian dictatorship and limiting the revolutionary struggle to the democratic-parliamentary-trade union struggle.

The essence of the Marxist Centre, of Kautskyism, took shape in the years in which the struggle of the proletariat for power was felt to be approaching, and it implied that what was only a certain period in the struggle of the German and Western proletariat, the parliamentary and trade union struggle for reforms, was an absolute, the one and only way. Kautskyist thought faltered before the dialectical transformation of the method of struggle for reform into that of the immediate revolutionary struggle. For the whole of Marxism it substituted the fragment, which parliamentary-trade unionist struggle of the German social democracy during the years 1870-1914 embodied. Consequently, when history really posed the question of the proletarian revolution during the imperialist world war, Kautskyism sank back into social -pacifism and vulgar democracy, and vulgar democracy turned into naked counterrevolution.

Bernstein and Kautsky, the 'Siamese Twins', the poles of the same vulgar democratic and semi-Marxist narrow-mindedness, today logically find themselves together again on the basis of the same conception.

In opposition to them, Rosa Luxemburg rescued the whole, and thereby the true, conception of Marxism, due to the fact that she saw far beyond the German and Western European sector of the proletarian struggle and therefore also in time beyond the purely parliamentary and purely trade union period.

However, she was no more able than Marx and Engels, or anyone else however ingenious, to anticipate out of the depths of the mind, discoveries and creations which only the struggle of the proletarian masses itself was able to accomplish. Bureaucrats of the revolution may imagine that they can replace the creative power of the historical process of the revolution (yet in reality it only results in powerless caricatures). As long as the proletarian revolution had not assumed a real form anywhere, the conception of the proletarian revolution could not go beyond the degree of precision conceived by Marx and Engels from out of the French Commune, i.e. it had to remain standing at a still very general and abstract conception.

An important and decisive step beyond that was first taken by the revolutionary Marxist leader of the working class who stood closest to the Russian revolution of 1905-6 and therefore knew how to fully evaluate its results theoretically. This role fell to Lenin. From the 1905-6 revolution he conceived the idea of the significance of the councils as the embryo of proletarian state power and in connection with the 1917 revolution as the concrete _fundamental form of the state of the proletarian dictatorship.

The true creator of this form is the revolutionary working class itself. Lenin's epoch-making accomplishment consists in recognising the general significance and historical importance of this form faster, more sharply and more profoundly than anyone else, and in having drawn practical-revolutionary conclusions from this perception.

Following a different direction, Lenin concretised the conception, and with that also the plan and strategy, of the proletarian revolution: with regard to the relation between the proletarian, the agrarian-peasant and the national revolution. The powerful experimental field of three Russian revolutions also produced the illustrative material for that. (In Trotsky's description, in his 'An Attempt at an Autobiography', all that remains in semi-darkness, which might be agreeable for him, but is harmful for historical knowledge.)

As soon as the German revolution approached in 1918, Rosa Luxeinburg and Karl Lieblenecht, Franz Mehring, Leo Jogiches, and those united with them in the Spartakusbund, at once accepted this conception as their standpoint, and they knew how to use it with complete independence, in a country with substantially different class relations. In a country where the working class did not constitute a small minority of the population as in Russia, but the majority. Where the anti-feudal agrarian revolution had already been completed. Where capitalism had attained its highest level of development. Where the working class had for decades been used to broad mass organisations, etc.

Neither 'centrists' nor 'semi-centrists', not even mere pupils, not to mention bureaucratic subordinates of a bureaucratic supreme authority of the proletarian revolution, were capable of that task; only independent revolutionary brains could accomplish it. The outcome of these achievements, which continue the work of the Russian revolution on German ground, is the Spartakus Programme, is the Rote Fahne up to the deaths of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

In the bureaucratic regions of the KPD it has become customary to attribute to a subjective 'error' on Rosa Luxemburg's part, that in November 1918 the Spartakusbund was not yet a strong mass party but only a numerically weak tendency in transition to wards a party. According to this conception, she already 'failed' to 'split' in 1914 or 1915, or even as early as 1903. This schoolboy notion fails to grasp that the conditions for the building of a revolutionary party out of an already existing mass party, which assembles within it the most progressive elements of the working class, are different from those where such a mass party and mass organisations do not yet exist, but where the task is to build the revolutionary core to which the unorganised proletarian masses then adhere. That was, however, the different situation in Russia.

Regarding the national question, Rosa Luxemburg's consistent struggle in Poland against petty bourgeois nationalism remains a merit not disputed by Lenin. Her theoretical generalisation was mistaken. Lenin correctly accomplished it out of the great Russian experience.

Regarding the agrarian question, too, the different conceptions can be wholly explained by the different conditions. Where feudal or semi-feudal agrarian relations in the countryside still have to be overcome, as in Russia, but also in a series of other countries, the transitional stage in which the generalisation and levelling of the individual peasant holdings is unavoidable. However, on the other hand, the later Russian experience shows that the construction of socialist industry came very quickly into intolerable contradiction with the continued existence of the individual peasant holding, and that socialist industry must be supplemented by large-scale socialist enterprise on the land. Yet it goes without saying that from this general necessity it does not follow that this step can be made at any moment but that certain real preconditions must met. Trotsky erred in this question by ignoring these real preconditions. He erred moreover by not understanding that this transition could only be carried out not against but only together with the great majority of the small and the middle peasants. If it is correct that the transitional stage of the poor peasantry in Russia could not be skipped over, then it is just as true that under different conditions the aim of the large socialist agricultural enterprise can be attained in other shortened stages and in part by other means.

In the proletarian revolution too, indeed quite particularly in it, the historical dialectic makes itself felt, in that the very same method causes transformations in opposite directions depending on the different preconditions and that for the same purposes under different circumstances occasionally contrary means and methods are called for.

Some questions of the revolutionary organisation may serve as an example. In Russia, Lenin posed the question of the strictest revolutionary centralisation at first against the Mensheviks, in a situation where it was a matter of clearly distinguishing between the elements of the proletarian and the bourgeois revolution. The loose form of revolutionary organisation favoured by the Mensheviks was the organisational expression of the dominance of bourgeois-revolutionary intellectual elements, whereas strictest centralisation was the organisational expression of the proletarian revolutionary class character of the movement.

How different to Germany before the war! The sharpest form of organisational centralisation here was represented by the party bureaucracy, more or less corroded by opportunism. The rule of the opportunist tendency expressed itself organisationally by the domination of a strictly centralist, opportunist party apparatus. Against that the task was to appeal to the revolutionary self-activity of the members. In Russia the principle of strict centralisation was bound up with the proletarian-revolutionary tendency, while it was the opposite in Germany, where this was the principle of the opportunist-petty-bourgeois-bureaucratic tendency. The same formal organisational principle in fact combined contradictory contents regarding both the direction and, in the last analysis, class objectives. In Germany, therefore, the first task was to attack the opportunist-reformist-parliamentary centralism, to smash it, in order to create the preconditions for revolutionary centralisation. A classical dialectical course of development: from the opportunist centralisation through its abolition to the revolutionary centralisation.

However, revolutionary centralisation, too, in its turn undergoes anew a dialectical course of development.

That is shown most tangibly in the question of the 'professional revolutionary'. The 'professional revolutionary' is a necessary product and tool of the leadership of the revolutionary organisation that is illegal and is not yet a mass organisation. In the legal Communist mass organisation there is no place for the 'professional revolutionary' in this sense. Here, as the movement grows, the 'professional revolutionary' too easily changes into the characterless, politically and materially corrupt careerist bureaucrat, for whom the revolutionary movement is a source of a living, of a career, of parliamentary and other posts.

Out of revolutionary centralism the danger of bureaucratic centralism develops anew, on a higher plane, and becomes a hindrance, a fetter on the movement, and against it one must appeal to the revolutionary self-activity of the party ranks. Is this danger present today in the Communist International and its sections? Undoubtedly! Consequently, however, in this question today, too, it is not a matter of Lenin or Luxemburg, but Lenin and Luxemburg. This means that upholding the Leninist principle of revolutionary centralisation today demands a struggle against the bureaucratic, opportunist or ultra-left degeneration of into bureaucratic centralism demands an appeal to the revolutionary self-activity of the membership of the Communist Party in the spirit of Rosa Luxemburg. In this struggle, however, we can also refer to Lenin, who began the struggle against party and state bureaucratism in the victorious Soviet state. These are only some examples for a general lesson that is still suitable for a variety of practical applications.

The party bureaucracy perceives Lenin and Luxemburg as opposed to each other and thereby proves that it has not understood either. We counter-pose to the bureaucracy not only the formal but also the spiritual bond of these two great revolutionary champions of the working class and their closest comrades in arms, their mutual supplementary features as revolutionary leaders, as practicians and theoreticians. What unites them, is that they used the very same principle on different levels, situations and spheres of the great totality of the world revolution.

This whole also transcends the greatest individuals. The individual greatness of revolutionary leaders is also subject to the law of the dialectic: it exists only as much as it is not just an individual, but a general thing, as it participates in the greatness of the cause of the proletarian revolution. Where an attempt is made to bring it into play counter to, or independent from it, then the greatest individual talents and gifts shrivel up to a veritable zero, as shown by manifest examples.

With Raised Fists, Red Flags and a New World in Our Hearts!

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:44:00 +0000

On Wednesday 25 February around 600 Left wing students Marched through central London to demand free education and universal grants for all. The demo was extremely lively with a variety of groups in attendance. The speakers said the usual stuff, Mark Bergman from the SWP probably spoke the best, linking the fight for education, anti imperialism and socialism etc. Below are a couple of reports:

Communist Students - Educate, Agitate, Organise!
Socialist Worker - Students March for Free Education
The Commune - National Student Demo
Zionist Liberty/ ENS - A Step Forward

Obama Number 1 Terrorist. Fact.

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:12:00 +0000

So when those on the left poured scorn or called us "childish" when we put 'Obama No.1 Terrorist' on the front cover of the 'Weekly Worker' they had illusions in Obama, beleived he was going to do things differently than Bush. To some extent he is doing things differently, less troops in Iraq, more into Afghanistan.

We will clearly see a continuation of the policies put together during the Bush years, unsurprisingly the Democrats are dutifully carrying out an aggressive foreign policy and carrying on a grand tradition of Democrat presidents who back imperialist mass murder just like Kennedy and Johnson did.

No Jobs, No Redundancy Pay and a Yellow Union - BMW Mini Workers

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:11:00 +0000

from Socialist Worker

Union officials at BMW Cowley plant were pelted with fruit and shouted down as they dutifully read out the sacking of 850 "casual" workers. Some of the workers had been working there for years. Unite which organises workers at the plant have failed the workers time and time again, apart from being on precarious contracts, BMW bosses sacked them without warning and without redundancy pay.

Over the last decade casualisation has speeded up across Europe, Britain leads the way. The political mainstream have all backed and supported the fact that workers in Britain are the easiest to be sacked, are on the non-unionised and work longer hours. Through the storm of casualisation the union leaders have sat on their hands and stuck their hands either in the sand or up New Labour's arse (e.g. Dave Prentis!)

I remember from my time spent in the organisation that Solidarity Federation ran a campaign called 'Stuff Your Boss'. This campaign was about informing casual workers about their rights, something the unions should have been doing. The TUC unions have not taken casualisation seriously or even attempted to organise causal workers, this has left workers up and down the country even more vulnerable during the economic turmoil. It is essential that the union rank and file reach out to casual staff and bring them into the union and then move forward to fight casual contracts and all precarious work.

Urgent action is needed to defend jobs, the union leaders are not going to organise it. Workers should look towards the Lindsey oil Refinery workers, who broke the bureaucrats hold and broke the anti trade union laws in defence of jobs and conditions. The car industry across the world is under massive strain, in Britain this will speed up the slow lingering death of the car industry. A successful attempt to cohere the rank and file around a clear strategy is desperately needed.

Striking Against Poverty Pay and Stalinist Bosses

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:44:00 +0000

The Morning Star prides itself on being the only "socialist" English language daily in the world, yet this plucky little paper treats it's workers like shit. Unlike other papers of the Left, the staff is not sourced from the ranks of the party that controls it, the Morning Star copies the big papers by maintaining the boss-worker relationship. The Weekly Worker has commented on this strike earlier this year, now the ballots are in and the strike is on. Below is the statement by the National Union of Journalists.

Victory to the Strikers! Down with Stalinist Bosses!

'They've voted 11 to three in a ballot for industrial action and last night called a one-day walk-out for Monday 23 February - with a week of strike action to follow if management refuses to compromise.

NUJ Father of Chapel Steve Mather said: "We're not going to take any more of our bosses' broken promises."

Two years ago, management at the socialist daily averted strike action by pledging to boost pay as soon as money was available.

But, after a £600,000 investment from an "anonymous consortium", staff have been told that none of it will go on their wages. NUJ members have roundly rejected an offer close to 2008 inflation - effectively a pay freeze - alongside a one-off four per cent bonus, because it does nothing to address the long term issue of low pay at the title.

Steve explained: "We don't need one-off bribes, we need a step towards decent pay.

"We all work hard to bring out a decent paper against all the odds, yet our bosses won't even pay us £19,000 after the biggest investment in our history."

NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear backed the Morning Star chapel, saying: "Our members feel forced into this action by a management that is refusing to pay its staff a fair rate for their work. They don’t want to go out on strike but if that’s what it takes to win fair pay then they are clear that is what they’ll do."

Deputy Father of Chapel Carl Worswick added: "It's time for management to put its money where its mouth is. We write about workers fighting for fair pay all the time - now it's our turn."

The paper's management committee, which includes several leading trade union figures, has already unilaterally imposed an offer of three per cent on the journalists. The imposition of a pay deal has only served to intensify the dispute.

The NUJ has today served notice on Morning Star management that its members will take strike action on Monday 23 February and from Sunday 1 March to Friday 6 March.'

Derek Simpson: Wanker.

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:02:00 +0000

The over-paid bureaucrat leader of the Amicus section of Unite, helps undermine the hard work carried out by Unite stewards during the recent strike wave to move the strikes away from falling into nationalism. Along with this he is buying into the sexist use of women by the Star to sell their rag. Let us hope Jerry wins!

I Am. I Was. I Will Be. The Iranian Revolution

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:11:00 +0000

The revolutionary storm that swept away the 'King of Kings' in Iran in 1979 is still a source of much debate and mass confusion in the international workers' movement. Was it a revolution, a counter revolution? What was the involvement of the United States, the imperialists and the role of the USSR? Was it a workers' revolution or an Islamic revolution? Below are a few articles that I beleive will clarify some of the issues as well as raising more questions.

Raya Dunayevskaya - Grave Contradictions of the 1979 Iranian Revolution (1979)

Yassamine Mather - Iran: After the Revolution (2009)

Torab Saleth - Islamic Revolution or Counter Revolution (2009)

For more info and how to fight sanctions, the drive to war and the Islamic Republic go here.

Back to Work Strikers Go! - What Happened?

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:24:00 +0000

Strikers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery have voted to go back to work. This brings to an end a confusing and dangerous time for the Left. What is needed is a review of the facts so that we can draw the correct conclusions and rectify the mistakes that some have made. The strikers have agreed terms which would create 102 new jobs and would not see a single foreign worker lose their job, in spite of what Workers Power have been saying. During the strike slogans were used that was backwards, if you scratch the surface and not just watch the BBC, it was easy to see that the strike was about conditions, pay and agreements. The strikers proved their left critics and the right wing opportunists wrong when at a mass meeting they voted for unity with the Italian workers. Another slap in the face for the for the far right and the confused Left was when Polish workers in Plymouth came out in solidarity with the strikers.

The SWP has stuck to their pathetic centrist line, Workers Power have come out confused and ill informed and stuck to their guns regardless of being proved wrong many times. The AWL, made u-turn whilst they was organising a picket of unite offices, the sad effect was, a member who was told to organise the picket by two EC members was called a scab, obviously he was slow on taking up the new line! That picket was a farce, two pickets and two counter pickets! Anyone up for watching the 'Life of Brian' or 'Citizen Smith'? Socialist Fight, the new kids on the block have also condemned the strike along similar lines of Workers Power.

On the other side the Socialist Party, who have done a sterling job amongst strikers and on the unofficial strike committee. Other groups who have backed the strikers but criticised the reactionary slogans are the CPGB, Permanent Revolution, the Commune and from a more uncritical position of the slogans the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain and Respect. The slogans must have been right up the street of the CPB and their Stalinist programme, 'The British Road to Socialism'. Maybe they could of brought out placards which read 'British Socialism for British Workers' ?

The BNP jumped for joy when the saw the strikes break out with slogans such as 'British Jobs for British Workers' only to be kicked off site after site by the workers and to see foreign workers back the strike. The BNP's ability to get in and amongst the strikers was practically non-existent and their involvement and support has been over played massively. So the facsists got excited only to be left deflated as the strikers wanted fuck all to do with them and their knuckle draggers.

There was a real danger with this strike, it could have been sent along nationalist and racist lines yet through the work of SPEW and the common sense of the strikers, the strike moved decisively into solidarity with the non-unionised Italian workers. The strike was a necessary struggle against undermining conditions, contracts and agreements which are going to become more and more common during the downturn. If the working class is going to keep its dignity and move forward then we can learn from this strike.

PFLP: Resistance is Our Right

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:59:00 +0000

'Comrade Abu Wadih, spokesperson of the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, emphasized that our Palestinian people have the right to exercise all forms and means of struggle to gain their rights, emphasizing that all of our options must be kept open to people without restrictions in the face of the ongoing criminal occupation.

Abu Wadih, in a television interview on February 3, 2009, stressed that the barbaric aggression on the Gaza Strip was an attack by a brutal occupier on the entire Palestinian people, not an exchange of fire between two equal parties. He stated that the position of the Front and of AAMB was clear on the question of ceasefire - that resistance will continue so long as the occupation continues, including the siege of Gaza and closure of the crossings.

Comrade Abu Wadih stressed that the Palestinian resistance is central to people's lives, not isolated from the people, as is the case with all national liberation movements. The occupier, he noted, attempts to use this as a pretext to justify its massive bombing and massacres against our people, the attacks on civilians and the use of all forms of weaponry, including internationally banned weapons, including tanks, aircraft, warships bombs and missiles. The entire world, he said, is a witness to the crimes committed by the occupier in Gaza and exposes the utter falsity of claims to Zionist "ethical conduct." Internationally, the people of the world expressed massive popular support for our people under aggression and siege.

The occupier attempted to destroy the resistance, said Abu Wadih, however, as the Palestinian resistance is popular, it cannot be isolated or destroyed. The Palestinian resistance is struggling based on the popular masses, for the right of the Palestinian people to liberation and self-determination, and in order to attempt to destroy those fundamental rights, the occupier bombed children, the elderly, schools, homes and social institutions - yet nevertheless met only steadfastness and never defeated the resistance.

Comrade Abu Wadih stressed that the rockets of the occupation have continued despite all of the attacks of the occupier, noting that these are not made in traditional weapons factories but rather through a simple manufacturing process, and that the occupier has attempted to make up for this through fictitious victories and attempts to cover up their crimes in Gaza.

He emphasized that the U.S. and Britain have continued to support and strengthen the occupier through massacre after massacre, providing a sophisticated military arsenal, while the Palestinian people have had to develop all forms and means to resist occupation in the face of this war machine, through sixty years of occupation and displacement. He stated that there will be no need for resistance when our people are liberated and can return to our land and homes. Abu Wadih provided a summary of AAMB operations through the aggression, including launching 177 rockets, 115 mortar shells and more than 15 RPGs, in addition to much work in conjunction with other resistance groups. AAMB fighters also fought in many gun battles with occupation soldiers, sniped occupation soldiers, detonated car bombs and numerous roadside explosive devices targeting enemy military vehicles and tanks.

Comrade Abu Wadih paid tribute to the martyr Comrade Ashraf Banar, who fell in the battle against the occupier.'

from PFLP.PS

Foreign Workers back Strike Wave

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:56:00 +0000

Those who still think that this strike is against foreign workers and is chauvinist etc, are being proved wrong time and time again by the strikers. It must be obvious to those polish workers that this strike is about the undermining of conditions and pay through bringing in foreign Labour. The fact that this strike is growing and is being organised by the rank-and-file is very exciting and encouraging. The 'British Jobs for British Workers' slogan has been played up by opportunists, facsists and some on the Left so much that it s hard to get through all of the lies and confusion to see what this strike is about. It is about workers defending their jobs, conditions and agreements. Who could be against that?

I wonder how long it will take for the BNP to criticise the polish workers?

'600 workers, including hundreds of Polish workers, have walked out from Langage Power Station near Plymouth in solidarity with the wildcat actions sweeping across Britain.

When five hundred site staff had failed to arrive by 10am, the small group of other foreign labourers (mostly Polish) who had been bussed in were sent home by management, deciding it was unsafe for them to work by themselves.

Jerry Pickford, regional officer for Unite South West, said workers had walked out in “general sympathy with what’s happening in the construction industry… all the Polish workers have walked out as well, because this is not an issue against foreign workers.

“This is an issue against foreign employers using foreign workers to stop British workers getting jobs. Once they do that they will try and undermine the terms and conditions of employment in this country.”

It would be illegal for the union to support the strike or even hold a ballot, but workers are taking action off their own backs. Today strike action also spread to the Sellafield nuclear plant, while 400 contractors at Scottish Power’s Longannet power station in Fife (along with 80 workers at an ExxonMobil plant there) and 130 at the Cockenzie Power Station extended their action until Friday.'

From the Commune

Clarity over Strike Wave - Time for some Trots to Apologise.

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:27:00 +0000

The Left has been all over the place over the current strike wave. I back the strikers but I am happy to criticise any nationalist slogans or tendencies. Below is an update from the Socialist Party of England and Wales, who seem to be the only group with implantation in the strike. Workers Power, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Fight and the Alliance for Zionist Liberty should have a good read, apologise and back the strikers and their demands.

Permanent Revolution has bucked the trend amongst the Trots by putting out an excellent statement which can be read here.

'Update on the spreading strikes by construction engineers in the refinery and power industry

Report by phone from Alistair Tice (Yorkshire Socialist Party) on the mass picket at the Lindsey total refinery North Lincolnshire. Monday 2 February 2009

"The strike committee accepted the main demands of Keith Gibson and John Mckewan to put to the mass meeting today.

Keith is a Socialist Party member and on the strike committee and John is a Socialist Party supporter and victimised worker from the refinery.

The strike committee added an extra demand, calling for John to be reinstated into his job.

The demands were

No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.

All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.

Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.

Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people.

All Immigrant labour to be unionised.

Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.

Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.

Prior to the meeting Keith and John (and their wives who had came to support the strikers) had seen some BNP members in the car park and told them that they were not welcome, with that the BNP cleared off.

Socialist Party members gave out over 700 leaflets putting our position (which was now the position of the strike committee) and the leaflet was welcomed. One worker (before he read the leaflet) thought that were giving out BNP leaflets and protested that he was not a racist and didn't support the BNP and was relieved when it was explained to him that they were Socialist Party leaflets and supported workers unity.

Keith is part of the negotiating committee that is now in discussions with the management at the refinery. The strike is continuing and looks as if it is spreading throughout the country at the time of writing with Sellafield and Heysham nuclear plants out. Workers at other plants, according to the BBC, have also decided to stay out, these include Grangemouth and Longannon in Scotland. Warrington and Staythope in Newark are also out as well.

The strikes are spreading from fiddlers ferry in Warrington to the Drax power station in Yorkshire."'

From Socialist Party site.

Lindsey Oil Refinery Strike - Confusion reigns!

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:50:00 +0000

Some idiots ,morons and Workers Power have come out and condemned the strike action by construction workers up and down the country as reactionary. A lot of confusion surround the strike and I hope that the below statement by Keith Gibson GMB (pc), who was elected to the unofficial Lindsey Oil Refinery Strike Committee, will shed some light on the strike and dispel some myths that the right wing press and opportunists have spread. I may not be correct on this, Gibson is a member of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, who supposedly have two members on the strike committee. We should be actively discouraging and combatting nationalist slogans in the workers' movement, but we should also seek to understand why construction workers are coming out on strike.

I would also urge readers to take a look at Infantile and Disorderly's post on this, as I share the same position on the strikes and the BNP's involvement.

Some on the Left are calling pickets of Unite offices against the strike action, I hope that they have a read of Gibson's statement and will call off actions against workers defending conditions, pay and the right to work.

'What's really behind the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike
Keith Gibson, Personal Capacity, G.M.B. - elected onto unofficial LOR Strike Committee.

Note: At the time of writing there are plans to lobby Alstom Head
Offices on 5th February in London.

A ninety day redundancy notice had been issued around mid November 2008 at Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) for Shaws' workforce.

This meant that by February 17th 2009 a number of Shaws' construction workers (LOR) would be made redundant.

The day before the Christmas holiday Shaws' shop-stewards reported to the men that a part of the contract on LOR's HDS3 plant had been awarded to IREM, an Italian company.

The Stewards explained that Shaws had lost a third of the job to IREM who would be employing their own core Portuguese and Italian workforce numbering 200-300.

Stewards and Union Officials asked to meet with IREM a.s.a.p. after Christmas to clarify the proposal i.e. would IREM employ British labour? Shaws' workforce were told that the IREM workforce would be housed in floating barges in Grimsby docks for the duration of the job, they would be bussed to work in the morning, bussed to and from the barge for lunch.

IREM workers would work from 7.30am - 11.30am and 13.00 - 1700. On Saturdays they would work 4 hours to make up a working week of 44 hours. The normal working week is 44 hours divided by 5 days, from 7.30 -1600 finishing at 1400 on Fridays (most workers work overtime).

Normal breaks include 10 minutes in a morning and a 30 minute dinner break. Stewards were told that IREM workers would be paid the national rate for the job; to date this has not been confirmed.

After Christmas the nominated Shop Stewards entered into negotiations with IREM. Meanwhile, a National Shop Stewards Forum for the construction Industry held a meeting in London to discuss Staythorpe Power Station where the company Alstom were refusing to hire British labour relying on non-union Polish and Spanish workers instead.

It was decided that all Blue Book sites covered by the National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry (NAECI) should send delegations down to Staythorpe to protest against Alstoms' actions.

The workforce on the LOR site sent delegations. Then, on Wednesday 28th January 2009 Shaws' workforce were told by the Stewards that IREM had stated they would not be employing British labour.

The entire LOR workforce, from all subcontracting companies, met and voted unanimously to take immediate unofficial strike action.

The following day over a thousand construction workers from LOR, Conoco and Easington sites descended outside LOR's gate to picket and protest.

This was the spark that ignited the spontaneous unofficial walk outs of our brother construction workers across the length and breadth of Britain.

This worker solidarity is against the 'conscious blacking' of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K.

The workers of LOR, Conoco and Easington did not take strike action against immigrant workers. Our action is rightly aimed against company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against the other and undermine the NAECI agreement.

THE B.N.P. SHOULD TAKE HEED, U.K. CONTRUCTION WORKERS WILL NOT TOLERATE 'ANOTHER RACIST ATTEMPT' TO SEVER FRATERNAL RELATIONS WITH WORKERS FROM OTHER NATIONS

Demands for Construction Industry:

* No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
* All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement
* Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled
union members
* Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers
* All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
* Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - via interpreters
- to give right of access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members'

More Centrists than you can shake a stick at

chris_strafford@hotmail.com (Chris S) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:57:00 +0000

The Convention of the Left recall conference was on the 24 January, it was largely a disappointment. The only major positive to come out of the day was the strengthening of the Gaza solidarity movement. Below are some reports:

Weekly Worker - Convention Party Poopers

Workers Power - Centrists shield reformist leaders

Permanent Revolution - Conference Report

LEAP - Convention of the Left

Socialist Fight (In WW) - Idiots