Gramsci's Grill

Steve Jobs - Silicon saints and the credulity of philosophers

2011-10-09T09:40:00.011+01:00

Death often brings out the mawkish, particularly when it comes to public figures. Unless the recently deceased is a war criminal, sexual predator or tabloid columnist people are generally willing to forgive the celebrity / politician / sportsman his or her foibles and shortcomings and instead, bathe them in the rosy light of fond remembrance. This is an entirely natural response and one can usually forgive the hyperbole that accompanies the celebration of this or that c-lister’s life.

One could argue that it is even more understandable when individuals have made a genuine impact on the world and their achievements have been remarkable. Peacemakers, scientists, novelists, artists, directors, and inventors – we quite rightly take note of such individuals, although usually the tributes are properly leavened with an acknowledgement of failings.

But sometimes, critical faculties evaporate into the ether along with any sense of proportion. Case in point: Apple founder and innovator, Steve Jobs.

The beatification of Steve Jobs is now well underway. Already, Jobs is shaping up as a secular saint for Silicon Valley, and one can assume that in the minds of the developer and venture capital community he is already installed alongside the father, von Neumann, and the holy mother, Ayn Rand. Certainly, if the fervour of the true believers is any measure, laying their votive offerings at shrines - Apple likes to call them stores – across the world, then it would be foolish not to expect an announcement from the Vatican (or Cupertino) any day soon.

But grief often robs us of our critical faculties so perhaps we shouldn’t be to hard on commentators like Julian Baggini…. But there again perhaps, we should.

Baggini was just one of the hagiographers paying gushing tribute to Jobs last week. Indeed, the Sundays are full of it as well. Baggini managed in his article to push the whole bathetic spectacle to new levels of silliness. Why? Because Jobs did not simply change the way we view technology, "the biggest change ....is to the way both its critics and cheerleaders think about capitalism."

The claims regarding Jobs' impact on design, computing and the content industries are overstated but not entirely without foundation. One argument against this view is the classic Marxist criticism that attributing achievements to a single individual ignores the collective nature of industrial creation. Like the 'great man' theory of history, the lone genius model of industrial innovation is an ideological construct that obscures its true nature and rarely stands up to interrogation. A number of bloggers and facebook posts link to Brecht's Questions From a Worker Who Reads (always worth revisiting).

There is much in this this view. Jobs would also, I think, have been one of the first to concede that he was just one innovator amongst many at Apple. If Jobs had a talent it was perhaps more providing the integrating vision and acting as a talent spotter. Much has been said of his design talent but surely that lies with chief designer Jonathan Ive and his international team, as much as any other. It is also worth saying that Jobs (and Apple) didn't always lead the way but they have been particularly good at spotting where the pioneering technologies and products fall short. There were lots of music devices and download sites around before the iPod and iTunes, but none of them brought everything together in one offer and ensured that all the parties - most importantly the device manufacturer and the content providers - worked together.

There is another criticism of Apple. This highlights Apple's questionable practices (to say the least) in outsourcing production to Chinese companies like Foxconn, the exploitation of overseas workers, and focuses upon the suicides and attempted suicides in these workplaces. Jobs own statement regarding the Chinese plants seemed at best naive: ""You go in this place, and it's a factory but, my gosh, they've got restaurants and movie theatres and hospitals and swimming pools," Jobs said. "For a factory, it's pretty nice." Such purblind boosterism is hardly atypical of Western companies outsourcing in China.

Do such factors mean that Jobs' career (and life) is unworthy of comment? I think not. It is hard not to feel queasy at all the talk of the John Lennon of tech but clearly there is something here worth examining.

Baggini's arguments are another thing. Firstly is his suggestion that Apple was different because it anticipated what customers might want and pursued excellence in design and performance. It may seem neat to position Apple as poster-child for post-Fordist, "any colour you want as long as it's black (or in the PC-industry, beige)" but capitalism has always been driven by innovation in its products, processes and practices. Modern capitalism in, "constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. ....Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones." That's not Design Week or the Harvard Business Review, in the 1990s or 2000s, it's Marx in 1848.

His arguments over brands are more simpleminded yet. Baggini's seems to have bought into the mantras of marketing theorists (and the No Logo counterargument) in fairly uncritical fashion. The former have long tended to form the (the brand) over content (the product) and too often collapse the latter into the former. No sensible observers (especially on the left) bought into this guff and certainly a rejection of brand-fetishism doesn't make one oblivious to the qualities of well-made, well-designed products.

Baggini is not daft enough to ignore the critique of the individualist theory of history. But only the vulgar form of this approach was so crude so as to ignore the importance of the individual. Indeed, Trotsky engaged with this issue directly, most notably in his History of the Russian Revolution. In short, Baggini is attacking a straw man.

And so he is too when he says that "Jobs is actually exhibit A in any case against the idea that the market is maximally efficient and can be left to take care of things by itself. A slap in the face to free-market fundamentalists, but hardly comfort to anti-capitalists either. Jobs doesn't show that capitalism is a flawed system, only that it is not perfectly self-regulating."

And ......? This is simply banal. Capitalism has never been perfectly self-regulating, nor does any sensible Marxist argue that capitalism is unable to produce compelling, commercially successful products or, for that matter, create new needs and wants.

Steven Jobs may have made a not-insignificant contribution to redesigning and creating a great many things. Capitalism wasn't one of them.

Storming Heaven: The Paris Commune

2011-05-31T08:41:00.002+01:00

My first piece for Counterfire on the 140th anniversary of the fall of the Commune was published this weekend. It can be found here. The Commune was the world's first experiment in workers' self-government. For a few short weeks the workers of Paris had given shape to a new kind of socialist politics from below.

Gramsci and Us

2011-05-21T09:56:00.003+01:00

Gramsci and Us was the title of Thursday's lecture by Pete Thomas of Brunel at a London Counterfire meeting. Thomas is author of The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism and provided an springboard for what turned out to be a wide-ranging discussion of the Italian Marxist's contribution to the theory and practice of the revolutionary left.

Thomas did not set out to provide a 'Beginner's Guide' to Gramsci, rather a perspective on his work and an engagement with certain versions of Gramsci that have been promulgated by academia. His title, Gramsci and Us comes as a sly dig at at Stuart Hall's 1987 paper of the same name which discussed how Marxists (by which Hall meant those members of Communist Party of Great Britain gathered around Marxism Today) should move beyond Gramsci to a more 'relevant' politics.

As the head of Birmingham University's Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies Hall had been responsible for importing Gramsci into cultural theory and he had become one of the chief exponents of 'cultural Marxism'. Focusing primarily on The Prison Notebooks Hall focused on what Gramsci could tell us about the ideological institutions and the 'common sense' of modern capitalism. In understanding Gramsci's notion of hegemony, Hall concentrated upon culture rather than the questions of political leadership that sits at the centre of Gramsci's work.

Thomas is interested in a different Gramsci, a Gramsci whose ideas are part of a tradition shared with Lenin and the Bolshevik tradition and is tied to revolutionary politics. The French Marxist, Louis Althusser pointed to what he saw as an 'epistemological break' in Marx's thought, between the young Marx of the German Ideology and the mature, scientific Marx of Capital. Similarly, Hall focuses on The Prison Notebooks at the expense of the Gramsci who led and theorised about the Factory Council movement of the Biennio Rosso (Two Red Years) of 1919 and 1920.

Hegemony, for Thomas, means leadership - the mobilising of the worker's movement around a programme of economic struggle and transformation. Thomas's Gramsci is concerned with building united fronts, the science and art of uniting sections of the working class and other exploited classes in the service of human liberation. For academics and the eurocommunist theorists such ideas smack of voluntarism and outdated modes of political engagement. I think Thomas is right to reject such a view. Both approaches became a dead end and ultimately, recipes for inertia.

I will not summarise all of Thomas's arguments. A video of the meeting can be found here so readers can judge for themselves. My thoughts are also somewhat provisional as I am keen to read Thomas's book and explore his ideas in greater detail.

Just a few preliminary thoughts then. Broadly, socialists in the revolutionary tradition will find little to disagree with in Thomas's corrective. A few minor reservations. Firstly, the question of what leadership actually means. For me, Gramsci's strength is the hegemony goes beyond leadership in a programmatic and agitational sense but includes the dissemination of counter-hegemonic ideas through a variety of workers' institutions from trade unions and parties to educational associations and perhaps in modern terms, radical think tanks like the New Economics Foundation. In revolutionary periods such institutions - most notably workers councils - form the nucleus of dual power and the springboard for revolution.

Gramsci has a lot to tell us about how capitalism reproduces itself and defends itself against revolutionary incursions. His discussion of the 'war of position' and the nature of civil society provides valuable insights for those seeking to develop revolutionary movements in advanced capitalist societies and parliamentary democracies.

This does not discount the importance of leadership. In Italy in the post-war period the PCI, the Italian Communist Party, developed a whole range of counter-hegemonic institutions. Many of these were created from below. The tragedy is that the PCI lacked the leadership capable of building a genuinely transformative movement. The Stalinism of Togliatti gave way to the historic compromise with Christian Democracy and the turn towards reformism. The leadership was not merely inept, it blocked the route to revolution.

The culturalist appropriation of Gramsci was not entirely fruitless. Hall has produced important work, most significantly his book from the Seventies, Policing the Crisis which explored racist ideology, panics around mugging and the role of the state during a time of crisis. In the end, however, the work of Hall, Jacques and others at Marxism today ended in vapid discussions of style and almost fawning analyses of Thatcherism which produced a sterile politics. In the case of academics like Laclau and Mouffe (Hegemony and Socialist Strategy) it ended in an abandonment of almost all the key concepts of Marxism in favour of a woolly project of 'radical democracy.'

I look forward to reading Thomas's book and will come back with a more considered view. In the meantime, watch the video of the lecture. It's well worth it.

Radical Walthamstow

2011-05-21T09:10:00.002+01:00

Most British socialists will know of Walthamstow's most famous radical, William Morris and a number of us will have read E P Thompson's biography. But few of us know about the radical figures that Morris's work inspired in the borough where he was born. Roger Huddle does.

Roger, a local activist and poet, gave a fascinating talk last night at Walthamstow's Central Library. After painting a vivid and evocative picture of the birth of the borough and its evolution from five small hamlets, Roger wove a number of strands together in a compelling story that covered the rise of chartism, the growth of the early Social Democratic Federation and the Socialist League, the role of groups like the Clarions in winning working people to socialist ideas and event the role of the socialist Sunday schools which by the end of the 19th century were attended by more than a hundred young people every Sunday and who observed the socialist ten commandments, the tenth of which looked forward, "to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one community, and live together as equals in peace and righteousness."

Roger usually gives his overview of local radical history as a walk around the borough, taking in many of the buildings and sites where the pioneering figures he introduced worked and agitated. He apologised for the fragmentary nature of his narrative. No need, it was a clear and engaging discussion of the work of people whose example we could do worse than emulate today.

In describing the radical history of Walthamstow Huddle says he wants to name and give tribute to many of those working people - labourers, artisans, trade unionists, activists - who the history books so often ignore.

Only this week the Post Office issued a set of commemorative stamps celebrating William Morris. Many like our current chancellor of the exchequer, scion of a family of wallpaper manufacturers, think that William Morris is a man who made pretty patterns for the decorating the homes of the wealthy. This lecture told the real story of those who had designs not for homes but for the liberation of humankind. Next time you see that Roger is giving one of his talks or walks go. I'll see you there.

Sweezy versus Schumpeter - knock down, drag out

2011-05-11T10:07:00.003+01:00

If the narcissist leaders of Silicon Valley have Ayn Rand, the intellectual lodestone of its academic acolytes has been the work of Joseph Schumpeter. Schumpeter's notion of 'creative destruction' and his focus on the innovator and the entrepreneur as the motor of capitalism has found its way into the work of futurists and theorists of technology, hailing from both left and right.

This fascinating article by John Bellamy Foster tells the story of the 1946 Harvard debate between Schumpeter and Paul Sweezy over the nature of capitalist development. The article features a discussion of a note, long thought mythical, of the issues discussed in the debate.

Counterforum - Discussing the Politics of Resistance

2011-05-09T11:47:00.005+01:00

The shape of the New Left, new forms of resistance to cuts and austerity, and the need for a world built around need, not profit: these were just some of the themes at last weekend’s Counterforum conference.

In the year since its creation, Counterfire, the organiser of the event, has had impact that belies its newness and - relatively - small size. It has been a prime mover behind the Coalition of Resistance, produces a lively and stimulating website, and its members have been involved in struggles from the student protests to the Arab revolutions. It has also more than doubled its number of members.

Counterfire’s roots lie in the Socialist Workers Party. It might be thought, therefore, that Counterforum would have the feel of a streamlined Marxism festival and the organisation would create the impression of an SWP 2.0.

It was refreshing to find that this was not the case. This is not intended to be a sideswipe at the SWP. There is enough SWP bashing on the left and I do not propose to add to it. The SWP has a distinguished past and plays an important and valuable role.

The refreshing and inspiring quality of the day’s discussions lay in the willingness of participants to recognise the extent of the challenges facing the Marxist left if it is to rise to the challenges before it. Importantly, the debates recognised that the revolutionary left needs to change if it is to succeed in engaging with and ultimately lead the fight against neoliberalism and for socialism.

One of the strengths of Counterforum was its willingness to engage with other sections of the left and to make a serious attempt to enter into a dialogue with those from other traditions. Socialist Resistance had a stand at the event and speakers from the floor included members of Workers Power and Permanent Revolution, and one of the key speakers, Dot Gibson, was a longstanding member of the Workers Revolutionary Party.

There is a tendency on the left for dialogues to be those of the deaf. For once this was not the case. Paradoxically, the heavy-handed chairing and facilitating habits of left organisations – the use of speaker slip processes, verbally kneecapping those from other tendencies - tend to be shaped by a certain lacking of self-confidence on the part of organisations. This too was pleasantly absent (and long may it be so).

Members of the SWP selling papers outside were not allowed in to the event. Was this a mistake? At this stage I think not. Inclusion would have, I think, distorted the discussion and turned it into an autopsy of the split away from the SWP. Feelings are, I suspect, raw on both sides but more importantly, given the fact that many participants (including myself) come from other traditions, it would have been a distraction.

One of the best contributions of the day came from Chris Bambery, now a leading member of the International Socialist Group in Scotland and, until recently, organiser for Right to Work.

Bambery argued that the new groups on the left need to engage in positive ‘critical reflection’ and that includes going beyond what he referred to as a reliance upon syndicalist politics and ‘sterile party building.’

Like others in the audience he recognised that there was a desire for the left to move beyond sectarianism. It was good, he said, that not everyone in the new organisations came from an SWP background (indeed, the majority in Counterfire do not). Organisations like Counterfire and the ISG should recognise that not every good idea comes from their own organisations and socialists need to find new ways of getting to work with and getting to know others on the left. “It’s not enough to proclaim ourselves the revolutionary party and think that at some point the scales will just fall from people’s eyes and they will follow us,’ he said.

Counterfire, in my view, is correct at this point in time in stressing the primacy of politics and of the mass movements. This does not dismiss the importance of the unions but it does mean having a sober and honest appraisal of where the union movement is and the level of confidence that currently exists.

The left, Bambery continued, needs to address a number of key issues. This includes the shape and character of the working class today. I think he is right. The working class is not the same as it was in 1871, 1917, 1945 or 1968. In many respects it is larger (certainly at an international level). As another speaker pointed out, the working class of Indonesia is today is larger than it was globally in Marx’s day.

Thanks to the shift of the UK economy away from manufacturing and towards financial and other services the modern working class in the UK and US is very different. In thinking about our constituency, Bambery argued, we need to think not just of industrial workers but those in the casualised and precarious sectors, students (who often make ends meet by working in the same sort of jobs) call centre workers, pensioners and the unemployed.

Perhaps more controversially, Bambery also argued for a critical discussion of the Leninist inheritance.

I think he is right. This does not mean a wholesale rejection of Leninism (or others from the revolutionary Marxist tradition) but it does mean recognising that we are in very different conditions and times and that it is illusory to think that 1968 will come round again, and that history will repeat itself in the same way.

Such views were echoed from the floor. James Meadway of Counterfire and the New Economics Foundation said: “We need to have a little humility sometimes and recognise that other people have good ideas about the world too.”

To some ears this may sound a little too ‘touchy-feely’ and a prescription for endless talking shops.

I think this would be the wrong conclusion draw. First and foremost, the overwhelming focus of the day was the importance of connecting up with national and international struggles. But without addressing how to effectively work with others and broaden out the movement Counterfire would be condemning itself to repeating the same mistakes the sectarian left has made time and time again and I do not think that is its aim.

It has made great progress to date and this has been by being more open and trusting its members to create initiatives and run with them.

Some in the discussion stressed the importance of creating a broad based, inclusive party bringing together the Marxist left, in the UK and internationally.

That has to be the long-term goal but small steps first. Finding a way of building a culture of collaboration would be a huge step forward and is something that has been missing for too long. Sectarianism demoralises activists and alienates potential supporters and we have to move beyond it.

In discussions about the anti-cuts movement, the Arab spring, pensioners’ struggles and the fight against Islamophobia the Counterfire forum showed some of the practical ways in which it can be done.

Counterfire has the potential to create an umbrella for Marxists who may have slightly different perspectives on key issues or aspects of theory but can combine in united action. Such a worthy aim deserves a chance and that’s why after much consideration, I’ve decided to join Counterfire.

Big Mistake Hugo

2011-02-25T08:38:00.003Z

So Hugo Chavez has come out against attacks on Libya's independence, seeing the hand of imperialism in the current uprising. This is not quite the same as giving wholehearted support to Gaddafi and does not go as far as the increasingly erratic, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, but it is disappointing to say the least and goes against the interests that he has fought for over the years, namely those of struggling against economic and political oppression.

Chavez has never been without his flaws. Although he has flirted with elements of Trotskyist thinking at times and has presided over a democratic revolution in his own country, he is not without an authoritarian streak and his closeness to Castro has helped form a politics that gives undue weight to the role of political elites. Realpolitik and the dangerous principle of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend,' has led him towards some poor choices of friend.

To be accurate, Venezuela has said that it repudiates the violence and goes on to say that "Conditions are being created to justify an invasion of Libya, and the central objective of that invasion... is to take away Libya's oil."

It may be true that Western governments are keen to see the removal of an irksome regime and its replacement by a friendly client in the region. The privatisation of Libya's oil wealth will be on the agenda of many and some on the left are disturbed that the rebels are using Libya's old monarchist flag. Too much is being read into the latter, I think and the fundamental point is surely, no socialist can support a regime that oppresses and slaughters its own people in the way that Gadaffi and his thugs have been doing in recent days (and have been doing for more than 40 years).

The international left can have (and largely doesn't) have any truck with a quasi-Stalinist model that places the interests of the state above the people. Socialism is democratic or it is nothing.

Chavez, a man that knows what it is likely to face the undemocratic forces of a state machine, backed by a vicious power elite, should know this more than many. And to his credit he has extended power to working people in Bolivia and instituted programmes that have massively improved living standards and educational achievement. But the short-sighted embrace of a tyrant is a significant blot on a good record. Let's hope Hugo thinks again.

A Very Public Gramsci

2011-02-24T21:51:00.002Z

Phil at A Very Public Sociologist is running a series of articles on The Prison Notebooks. Part of me is saying 'damn, beat me to it!' but a very useful initiative and much food for thought.

Eric Hobsbawm

2011-01-16T17:06:00.001Z

Eric Hobsbawm has long been a frustrating figure - often insightful but at the same time a prisoner of his own eurocommunist past, an individual who possesses Gramsci's pessimism of the intellect in spades but often seems to lack the corresponding optimism of the will (other in the most diffuse fashion). Like many eurocommunists he never fully engaged with the nature of Stalinism, yet at the same time his critique of Labour and other social-democratic parties was, to say the very least, unsatisfying. However, as a left historian he has few modern peers and an interview with Hobsbawm is usually worth a read.

ConDem social cleansing

2010-10-24T11:42:00.002+01:00

John Cruddas, Labour, Dagenham: "It [the ConDem proposed changes to housing benefit] is an exercise in social and economic cleansing ..... families will be thrown into turmoil, with children having to move school and those in work having to travel long distances to their jobs. It is tantamount to cleansing the poor out of rich areas – a brutal and shocking piece of social engineering."

Ralph Miliband

2010-08-09T11:45:00.002+01:00

A good article on Ralph Miliband from last week's Guardian.

Class war steps up a further notch

2010-08-03T19:34:00.003+01:00

How can anyone now doubt that this is the most ideological, most vicious government in living memory? So wedded is the Cameron-led Conservative Party to the market and to hammering working people that they are now threatening to end 'council houses for life.'

Today's attack on of social housing can only make life more insecure for those living in council houses. Britain needs more social housing, not less. The government's move only helps its allies in the private rental sector and seems designed to create a more flexible - for which read exploitable - labour force.

Strange feelings of pride....

2010-02-17T16:27:00.004Z

As an internationalist, national pride is not something that come easily, indeed, I'm not sure that was exactly the feeling when I came across this but hey.....

Rebuilding the left - the debate

2009-08-21T14:39:00.009+01:00

Some of the sessions and discussions at Marxism 2009 including Slavoj Zizek, David Harvey and the Alex Callinicos contribution referred to in the Beckett article can be found here.

Lost opportunity or wake up call? The left and the crisis

2009-08-17T22:21:00.008+01:00

It seems inevitable that Andy Beckett's feature in yesterday's G2 would receive a lukewarm reception. The comments thread at Socialist Unity illustrates the kind of mixed reception one might expect for a Guardian future on the divided and unfocused nature of today's left. For some, the article was 'vacuous and boring' or saw it as deliberately playing down glimmers of hope such as the performance of the left in Ireland, workplace occupations and community activism. For others, the scale of the defeat endured by the left has been underplayed.

While the article maintains a relatively sympathetic tone, Beckett, as a writer in the mainstream press, is writing from the outside. Beckett, like many of his broadsheet colleagues, tends to highlight the more fashionable contributors to the debate on left strategy - Naomi Klein, Hardt and Negri, Wilkinson and Pickett - and some of his sources, most notably Geoff Mulgan, formerly of Demos, are good bets if you want to see left-wing hackles rise.

But despite its faults it is a worthwhile read, and highlights some important issues (and points of contention) that the Left will have to deal with if it is to escape its current impasse. It may indeed be true that Beckett is making points that are to many on the left, axiomatic. It may also be the case that there are more reasons for hope than he suggests. Whilst the centre left did badly across Europe, new forces like the NPA in France give hope for the future.

It is hard to resist the conclusion, however, that as despite the collapse in the financial system and the exposing of capitalism's weaknesses, there is little sign that large sections of society see this as a sign of fundamental systemic failure. The left has failed to communicate an effective negative critique or a postitive alternative vision.

This does not mean that the left has been ineffective in mobilising around specific campaigns - against the war, fighting the fascists and so on. But it would be foolish to downplay the danger that on a wider level, there is an ideological vacuum which should be ours which is being targeted by conservatives, nationalists and worst still, the fascists of the BNP.

Hillary Wainwright says in the feature: "The crisis of the financial markets has become a crisis of public spending - it's incredible." She is right.

If Beckett's piece has a serious failing it is the tendency to caricature the positions of many in the debate. Alex Callinicos's arguments are positioned as councils of pessimism, for example.

A realistic assessment of the state of play has to be the point of departure for any new strategy. Neal Lawson, highlights, the way in which the left alternative has been weakened by the failure to fill the gap left by the collapse of communism and the implosion of post-war social democracy.

These two events should have been an opportunity for the transformational left - an opportunity to leave behind the crimes of Stalinism (and the increasingly sterile debates over its nature) and the dead-ends of reformism. Instead, we watched as many of the values and fundamental ideas of socialism began to be eroded. As the Stalinist and reformist tides went out, other ideas were caught in the ideological undertow.

The left needs to rebuild an alternative vision and an alternative world view. This does not have to be homegenous and monolithic. Indeed, the reverse is true. We need a vibrant, intellectual and cultural space which shares key values - empowerment, democracy, equality, diversity - and recognises that different perspectives can be applied to agreed ends.

Can we do this at a time when the industrial base of the movement is fractured and still on the defensive? There is much sense in such concerns but we cannot afford not to focus at the same time, on the political. A left movement that once more provides a critique of capitalism and begins to voice an alternative is a vital rallying point. Ideological purity and consistency is surely not the solution. There are many who feel that left unity is chimerical and risks wasting effort and resource better deployed elsewhere. Surely the opposite is the case?

Initiatives like the SWP's open letter (ignored, unsurprisingly, by the Beckett article), the Socialist Party-initiated Campaign for a New Workers Party and the People's Charter are perhaps starting points.

To make them work the left has to learn new habits and ways of working. No one says that we can agree on everything or that there will not be sharp debates but we have to build a plural, consensual left and leave behind the sectarian impulse to always dominate and control. If we can't we will be doomed to see recent left history repeat itself again and again, not as farce but as tragedy upon tragedy.

Wired celebrates socialist shock

2009-03-26T09:12:00.003Z

Wired tacks more towards Ayn Rand than socialist figures from US history but this story marks a break with the normal libertarian conservative schtick.

And this is a surprise?

2008-11-18T19:01:00.002Z

So the caring, sharing Tories are a thing of the past. That presumes that there was any substance in the Conservative claims that they would match Labour spending (such as it is) or that 'one nation Conservatism' was back in vogue) . Did anyone ever believe such nonsense? Ex-PR man David Cameron knows how to spin a story and whilst Labour's ratings may have been in free fall the Tories knew that the bulk of the UK electorate would not wear a return to the Party's default mode of service-cutting and attacks on working people. A crisis and division within the Tories own ranks has sent Cameron and co scuttling for their political comfort zone and towards an appeal to their real base: big business and sections of the upper middle class. There is one area, of course, where government could start saving - the £3.3 billion per annum spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What are the odds on that being high up the list?

The passing of a great American

2008-10-31T22:38:00.001Z

Studs Terkell, one of the great radical voices of post-war America has died. The story here.

The nightmare ticket

2008-09-05T10:38:00.004+01:00

I often find myself agreeing within Lenin (Richard not Vladimir) and this piece on the nightmare ticket of McCain and Palin is no exception. Far more rarely (if ever) do I agree (even partially) with Martin Kettle. Kettle is right, however, to argue that the US media is completely overplaying the Palin factor and have lost their judgement and sense of proportion. Kettle was talking about the US media but much the same could be said regarding the UK's commentariat. Putting a candidate up in front of a stage managed crowd is one thing, winning over the wider public is another. It certainly is the case that in the calculus of the 'culture wars' Palin may consolidate the conservative base but even that is far less homogeneous that commentators like Jonathan Friedland like to suggest. Palin's personal story is likely to play quite differently around the country and the it remains to be seen how the artificial synthesis that is the Republican programme will stand up when tested against the priorities of the US public. Today's New York times contained an interesting graphic depicting the rhetoric deployed by the two candidates. Now one can make far too much of all this, particularly as Obama's policies and promise have been similarly overstated. For the Left both have to be seen as tribunes of big business and US imperialism. However, it is significant that where the Democrats lead on the economy, business is the most important term in the Republican lexicon, similarly jobs loom large for the Democrats, taxes and God for the Republicans. As much as McCain wishes to portray himself as the maverick, the reality is that he has tacked right to please the conservatives in his party and that places him in much the same mould as his predecessors.

2008-09-02T00:22:00.003+01:00

Despite having read David Harvey's book I wasn't aware of this. Thanks to Socialist Unity for this particular discovery.

The flip side....

2008-07-25T14:00:00.001+01:00

..... of hegemony.

Good grief....

2007-06-28T13:58:00.000+01:00

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I mean really, Hazel effin Blears as Communities Secretary. Almost as laughable as Blair as Middle East peace envoy.

Postscript: If only it had stopped with Hazel Blears. The true extent of Gordon Brown's contempt for traditional Labour values and its grassroots membership became clear with the appointment of thuggish, union-hating, public-school oaf, Digby Jones as minister in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. If anything torpedoes the illusion that Brown marks a significant break with Blairism then surely it is this appointment.

Pitiful

2007-03-22T09:08:00.000Z

Why should this surprise me? Why should anything that this George Romero, New Labour zombie government does surprise me? After all, it is 12 years since Clause IV was abolished ending any illusions anyone might have had that Labour was a socialist party. But a nominally Labour party, introducing a budget that hits the poorest and rewards the middle classes? Anytime you feel yourself wavering ever so slightly and consider giving this warmongering, racist, ever so slightly, Dulux blush of pink 'Labour Party' the benefit of the doubt then remember what the darling of the Labour left - deluded idiots that most of them are - did in this his final budget. Gordon, you are scum.

Milton we hardly knew ya.....

2006-11-16T22:53:00.000Z

Well actually we did. Somehow the world seems a little brighter....

Universities and Union reject campus spying

2006-10-16T16:23:00.000+01:00

Both the Universities and the University and College Union have moved with commendable speed to reject any proposals for monitoring of students' political or religious activities. Hopefully, this one will be squashed before it can gather momentum.

UCU joint general secretary, Paul Mackney, said: 'UCU has expressed its concern to the Minister that our members may be sucked into an anti-Muslim McCarthyism which has serious consequences for civil liberties by blurring the boundaries of what is illegal and what is possibly undesirable. UCU members have a pivotal role in building trust - these proposals, if implemented, would make it all but impossible.

'There is a danger of demonising Muslims, for example by the statements of five ministers in the last couple of weeks, when actually Muslims have made enormous strides in getting more of their young people to universities and colleges.

'The government's premise is wrong: radicalisation is not the result of Islamist segregation, but government policy, especially in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq. Even so, radicalisation is not the same as violent extremism or terrorism.'

The senator would have been proud...

2006-10-16T10:29:00.000+01:00

Somewhere, in the deepest recesses of the underworld, in a dark chamber, just down the corridor from Lavrenti Beria and General Franco, Senator Joe McCarthy must be sensing a certain warm, fuzzy feeling knowing that somewhere, back in the world of the living his ideals and methods are being continued, not just in his homeland but also in the good ol' United Kingdom.

The idea of a surveillance society has seen a bad press in recent years. Spying on your parents, on your children, your colleagues and your students had slipped into disrepute. Is there no such thing as moral fibre anymore?

Well, it seems that in the Department of Education there is and with the news that 'Asian-looking' students should be monitored for signs of extremism and terrorist involvement that stiffening of resolve and patriotic vigilence is to be instilled in that notoriously wish-washy lot, university lecturers.

Oh yes, there'll be tiresome arguments about the breakdown of trust between teacher and student and universities may become a little fractious but hey, that's the price of freedom. Isn't it?

The niqab debate: cynical, opportunistic and dangerous

2006-10-11T13:40:00.000+01:00

The pseudo-debate over the niqab continues to rumble on. I say pseudo-debate because this is a noxious confection created for the sole purpose of enhancing the standing of certain politicians in the eyes of the most reactionary sections of the popular press and the public at large. One would have thought that the bottom of this noisome barrel had been reached with the Daily Express's 'poll' which claimed to demonstrate that the British public supported a ban on the full veil. The cause of Muslim women's rights will not be advanced in any way by the 'debate' initiated by Jack Straw. Indeed, it is more likely to reinforce the convictions of many who currently wear the niqab and add to the feeling of isolation felt by others. If there is a debate to be had on this issue then the only place that debate will be meaningful is within the Muslim community itself. Lectures by politicians and liberal commentators are unlikely to help (unless by help one means inflating the already pumped up egos of the commentariat).

Meanwhile, for a sensible take on the issue, one can turn to David Edgar in today's Guardian. Respect has also issued a statement.

David Aaronovitch's personal mythology

2006-04-04T21:48:00.000+01:00

David Aaronovitch is hard to take at the best of time but his performance tonight on BBC 4, decrying his former 'left-wing' self was particularly risible (if not a little nauseating). Most ridiculou s of all is Aaronovitch's claim to be a stalwart of the left. Those of us who remember Aaronovitch and his Eurocommunist pals in the CP and the YCL know what a joke that was. If there was any group that helped drive the rightward drift of Labour (and the eventual demise of their own organisation) it was this bunch. What's worse is the BBC's determination to indulge Aaronovitch in his posturing and misrepresentation of the left. You may think you moved rightwards David, those of us around at the time knew you were already there.

US witch-hunting tradition alive and well

2006-04-04T17:35:00.000+01:00

Very good - although disturbing - article by Gary Younge about witch-hunting in US academia. Okay, it's not entirely new - Horowitz and his barking buddies have been at it for some time and most of us will be familiar with the nonsense hawked on Frontpage and Horowitz's other sites, but Younge's report highlights how the US culture wars are far from abating.

The Prison Letters

2006-02-18T17:03:00.000Z

A little late this link, from last week's Gruaniad on Gramsci's Prison Letters. Of course, a piece on the Prison Notebooks would have been more illuminating, although harded to reconcile with the biographically-fixated editorial values of the broadsheet literary sections. Still, that's not to say the letters are not worth reading, they are but they remain a footnote to Gramsci's political and cultural writings.

Collateral damage

2006-01-14T09:06:00.000Z

America may have killed as many as 17 Pakistani civilians in a missile attack on village in North West Pakistan according to the New York Times today. Again, the US shows itself prepared to pursue what it deems to be its interests regardless of the potential ‘collateral damage’ and regardless of the fact that the village targeted is within the borders of a supposed ally.

The attack, launched in all probability from a Predator drone, was undertaken without the knowledge of the Musharraf regime and was apparently targeting Al-Qaeda No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Predictably, The New York Times prefers to emphasise the apparent failure of the attack rather than the murder of innocent civilians.

The SWP and the House

2006-01-12T12:46:00.000Z

The unease in Respect ranks over GG's sojourn in the Big Brother house has not, it seems, been limited to the pages of Gramsci's Grill. The unease detected at certain SWP-aligned blogs came bubbling to the surface at the SWP conference which recognised that Galloway's decision (it was, it seems, his own) has been poorly received by Respect members and supporters. John Rees says: "what matters is the stand George has taken against war and neo-liberalism. That’s why we continue to support him and Respect. We stick by our allies, even if we feel they have made a mistake." That's broadly true and one can only concur with the conclusion that, "come May, people will not decide to vote Respect or New Labour on the basis of Big Brother. Our main job is to stick to the perspective we put forward when we formed Respect and concentrate on the preparations for the May elections."

That will be true if George and the rest of Respect can go forward in tandem and not pull in opposite directions or undermine good work done in the past.

Galloway in the House

2006-01-07T12:12:00.000Z

Respect and Gorgeous George have issued a statement explaining the reasons for participating in this year’s Celebrity Big Brother. Galloway’s first reason for wanting to participate, raising money for Palestinian charities is commendable. His second, that of wanting to reach a wider audience and win new people to radical politics is more of a step in the dark. As I have said before I have my doubts on this one but I’d love to be proved wrong.

Galloway has also be accused of neglecting his constituents during this period. Respect has issued the following rebuttal to such claims carried in today’s Guardian:

“George Galloway’s office was dealing with constituents’ problems on Friday just as we do every day of the week, including Christmas and New Year. Our office was, to my knowledge, unable to respond to only two calls from people saying they wanted to raise constituency problems - one who did not leave a phone number to return their call on and one where it was not possible, despite repeated attempts, to hear the number left. And this despite the fact that we were bombarded with dozens of fatuous calls from journalists like Dodd and that BT, unfortunately, failed to install the phones in our new office which was due to open on Friday.

Most MPs did not hold surgeries on Friday because of the parliamentary recess. But we did. A dozen constituents came to the surgery which we hold every Friday from 4pm to 7pm. The issues were predominantly the same as they always are - appalling housing conditions resulting from the year’s of neglect and lack of investment by the New Labour government in Whitehall and the New Labour Council in Tower Hamlets, and immigration and asylum problems arising from this government’s iniquitous, racist immigration and asylum legislation.

It was New Labour’s propaganda before last May’s election that George would not represent his constituency properly and it has remained so ever since. And yet not only has George held surgeries almost every week since his election and taken up and vigorously pursued hundreds of constituents’ problems, he has spoken at more public meetings on campaigning issues around the constituency than his New Labour predecessor did in all the eight anonymous years of her incumbency. He has combined this with taking the Respect message around the country speaking to thousands and playing a very significant role building the international anti-war movement.”

This does not address the fact that George will not be available for parliamentary votes.

Of greater concern is Dodd’s other article in which Channel 4’s spokeswoman stated that it was obliged by Ofcom to ensure ‘due impartiality.’

This requirement is derived from Section 5 of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code which is in turn based upon requirements in the Communications Act 2003 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

If Channel 4 moves to gag Galloway on these grounds it will, in my view, be both acting dishonestly and going beyond the requirements of the Code. Of course, the Act provides Ofcom with a degree of discretion and the regulator may decide to intervene (although under the new arrangements this would take place after transmission unlike arrangements under the old ITC).

‘Due impartiality’ allows a degree of judgement to be exercised and a light entertainment programme like Big Brother is clearly not the same as a news or current affairs programme. Ofcom’s own guidelines make it clear that context is important. Galloway is not there as a reporter or a presenter and his views are clearly intrinsic reasons for his prominence as a public figure.

Section 5.11 does require broadcasters to show ‘due impartiality’ on matters of current policy and controversy. Clearly the War and Palestine would fit within this ruling. However, ‘due impartiality’ is typically measured over a series taken as a whole and any measure would have to apply to both the full coverage and the edited highlights.

Ofcom’s rules also cover authored programmes and personal views. These must be highlighted but is there any doubt that Galloway has a partisan perspective. As far as ‘identification’ is concerned he does that himself. It also has rules covering 'undue prominence' and Galloway may fall foul here.

I suspect that Channel 4 is trying to cover itself. From a programme-making point of view they would be foolish to extract all controversy from the programme and knowing the organisation I expect that they will push the regulations as far as they can. We’ll see.

There’s no upside to this one….

2006-01-06T23:28:00.000Z

Despite the best attempts of some comrades to put a positive spin on Gorgeous George’s latest stunt it’s hard to see what good can come from spending two weeks with the C-listers of the Celebrity Big Brother Household. While some over at the Tomb have been trying to see the bright side – a higher profile for GG and Respect, a chance to reach new audiences – many of the rationalisations ring hollow.

Party discipline has its place and it is true that Galloway has his share of critics on the right but the desperate determination to constantly talk the man up can be hard to take and, I suspect, does not wash with those outside of the core membership. So it is refreshing to detect a faint note of unease at sites like Dead Men Left and a implication – however muted – that this might figure amongst Galloway’s poorer judgement calls.

No one can take away the fact that Galloway put Respect on the map and no one was more delighted than me with the Bethnal Green and Bow result. Yet Galloway is a complex, contradictory character whose strengths are twinned with often serious weaknesses. His courage and ability to present the anti-war case is twinned with a residual Stalinism and a taste for poorly considered phrase mongering. His style is often explained as a manifestation of an ego out of control (although it is arguably this egotism that drives his forceful presentation of arguments).

I am not sure that this fully explains it. Galloway belongs to the school which maintains that ringing phrases are important because they strike a chord with the public and persist in the collective memory – the key objective is to always to make an impact. What better way to make an impact than through what remains one of the most popular programmes on television.

Except that impact isn’t everything, not if the price includes a loss of credibility and trust amongst one’s electorate. Even if Galloway does raise the profile of the campaigns and the party he represents he is also there to represent his electors: that needs to be seen as his principal priority. This is not to suggest Galloway has not shown himself to be a good local campaigner but that is not enough. He has to be both an extra parliamentary campaigner and a constituency MP who actively represents his constituents within parliament. Galloway cannot afford to be complacent and take his constituents for granted.

I hope George proves me wrong but whatever the outcome, Respect has to stop being seen as the Galloway party and stop relying so much on the power of stunts and rhetoric. .

Their man in Jerusalem

2006-01-06T17:19:00.000Z

The quality of the BBC's reporting from Israel and the Occupied Territories has always been uneven (and that's being charitable). I have rarely seen reporting and vox popping as clueless as that undertaken by the Beeb's correspondent outside of the Dome of the Rock following Friday prayers today. The hapless reported - whose name escapes me for the moment - was bemused to hear speaker after speaker state that no, they did not expect there to be any breakthroughs in the 'peace process' and indeed, that they did not expect anything from the Israeli's.

"But surely," our correspondent plaintively asked, flailing around for a new angle, "Sharon had become a man of peace." The expression of incredulity on the face of the Jerusalem shopkeeper indicated the perspicacity of his interlocutor.

Questioning like this gives the lie to the claim that the BBC is pro-Palestinian. Instead they cannot even begin to understand the depth of Palestinian grievances. Pitiful.

Well that's alright then ....

2005-12-19T19:08:00.000Z

Bush's illegal bugging of US citizens is nothing new and follows the illustrious example of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the internment of Japanese during the Second World War and spying on anti-war activists during Vietnam, that's according to one Republican supporting 'security consultant' speaking on Channel 4 News. By their own words.......

We're all middle class now - apparently

2005-12-05T09:18:00.000Z

One can get very bored of a select group of hate figures - Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Ann Leslie - so it's good when another one comes along, especially one as cretinous as Deborah Moggach. According to Moggach we are all middle class now; the working class has all made so much money from council house sales or the rise in taxi fares (they all drive black cabs don'tcha know) that is has decamped to the Costa del Sol. Of course, concedes Moggach, one shouldn't forget there is an underclass and let's not leave chavs out of the equation (great, let's get all the snobbish bases covered). Moggach - in a way that seems typical of simpering upper middle class pundits - finds the first appearance of 'chavs' in the work of Jane Bleedin' Austen.

Shut the fuck up. Wittering, solipsistic arseholes like Moggach make me want to throw up ( or seek out my nearest AK-47 vendor). Only those whose social orbit is restricted to Radio 4 studios, independent production companies, the Groucho and being flown Virgin Upper Class to New York - for a premiere of Pride and Prejudice as Moggach crows on her website - could come out with this crap. Has she never been further East than Farringdon Road, further south than the Embankment?

Bastard.

John Fowles

2005-11-07T23:12:00.000Z

Like many adolescent boys I was captivated by John Fowles's The Magus. The mixture of psychological thriller, romance, fantasy and would-be existential fable pushed all the right buttons.

Fowles latterly saw the book as a somewhat juvenile work and indeed, went as far as rewriting the novel. With the passing of time The Magus waned in my estimation, although not necessarily in my affections. Even now I would recommend it to any teenager (or adult for that matter). Whatever Fowles's view of its merits it at least does not qualify for the 'kidult' category.

If the appeal of The Magus declined, my estimation of other Fowles works - most notably, The Collector, The French Lieutenant's Woman and (best of all) Daniel Martin - increased.

Both of the latter two books experimented with form in intelligent and entertaining ways. The multidimensional Daniel Martin was clearly marked by the 1970s upsurge in the interest of English departments in the works of Gramsci and Lukacs, but was none the worse for that. For me, Daniel Martin was an admirable work.

Fowles's later novels were less satisfactory, the inventiveness more strained, and a certain prurience - if not misogyny - crept in. However, taken as a whole, Fowles leaves a strong body of work informed by a progressive sensibility, and for those who are not familiar with his work or have only seen the films, he is well worth investigating. Suffice to say, the film of The Magus, - unlike the Pinter-scripted French Lieutenant's Woman - is not.

Who needs Parliament?

2005-11-07T16:53:00.000Z

So now Blair tells us that 'complacent' MPs should think carefully before ignoring the views of those who know better. Rather than questioning the wisdom of the police and meddling in things of which they know little, our elected representatives should fall into line and give unalloyed support for the chief constables' preferred anti-terrorism measures.

Blair's latest remarks underscore both his natural authoritarianism and the deference to technocrats implicit in New Labour thinking. Given that the Party that now little more than a vehicle for the career ambitions of management consultants and lawyers it is hardly surprising that it should be so willing to defer to the 'professionals' of law and order. Framed within a Blairite logic the police are disinterested guardian's of public safety. The notion that the police (or army) might have a less benign agenda or have a natural predilection for heavy-handed solutions does not enter into this discourse.

I am not concerned here with questioning Blair's sincerity or whether he inhabits this ideological construct - he may do, he may not. What I am concerned with is its effect, a diminishing of the value and legitimacy of Parliament, its members and the democratic process. And for that Blair must be roundly condemned.

And the Man Played Waltzing Matilda

2005-11-07T11:55:00.000Z

.... well actually he wrote a song that, with a nod to Australia's unofficial national anthem, stands as one of the greatest anti-war songs of all time. Most people know it via the Pogues whose marvellous version can be found on Rum, Sodomy and the Lash but it was Eric Bogle, profiled here who we can thank for a moving reminder, if any were needed, of the follies of war.

The last refuge of a scoundrel

2005-08-09T14:13:00.000+01:00

.... analysed today by George Monbiot. I often find Monbiot's columns irritating - I am not sure entirely why - but today's is worth a look. As every liberal commentator works him or herself up into a lather over identity, nationalism and patriotism Monbiot advances the position that was once a commonplace on the left, that of internationalism.

It's all in God's plan...

2005-08-03T15:29:00.000+01:00

Or at least it is according to Dubya. Fresh from having involved himself in mattes of medical ethics and adding to the misery of the husband of Terry Schiavo, Bush is now turning to education, suggesting that schools should include teaching 'intelligent design' alongside the theory of evolution.

Never mind the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both opposed any such move, having concluded that there is no scientific basis to the notion of intelligent design; for believers like George W the choice between evolutionism and intelligent design is a choice between equally valid stances.

It is good to see that this is one element of Christophen Hitchen's former belief system that hasn't been jettisoned in his drift to the right and into the embrace of the neo-cons. Hitchens is right to question John Roberts' nomination. Hopefully, we will see Hitchens also turning his fire on Dubya's intervention regarding the matter of scientific education.

McCarthyism redux

2005-08-03T14:33:00.000+01:00

Last month I suggested that Charles Clarke's Spook's Charter would lead to radicals being persecuted simply because they oppose the New Labour orthodoxy on the 'War on Terror' (Jul 20 2005). It seems that the consequences of the government's announcement are already being felt with at least one Leed's bookshop being raided because it carried anti-war material.

Spanish practices

2005-07-27T16:24:00.000+01:00

The FT today notes that Tony Blair finds the Spanish prime minister 'sanctimonious and irritating' http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bf9be01c-fe3c-11d9-a289-00000e2511c8.html. This could give Blair a useful insight into the feelings of many people in the UK about him.

First rule of interviewing: listen

2005-07-26T22:56:00.000+01:00

One never expects much from BBC local news programmes, indeed they are best avoided, but Emily Witless, sorry Maitlis, provided an exemplary show of even handedness when interviewing a representative of the Muslim Safety Forum on Tuesday's programme. The Forum's representative was interrupted and hectored as he tried to explain some of the problems involved in persuading young Muslims to trust the police and join its ranks.

The Paxman-Essler technique is clearly becoming a standard part of the BBC's presenter toolkit and one can only assume that it is now mandatory within Beeb training programmes. Giving interviewees a tough ride and probing their arguments is one thing, talking them down and deriding their positions - an approach which suggests that the interviewer occupies a position that has a legitimacy the interviewee lacks - is quite another. Maitlis' interview subject was unable to advance his views, moderate though they were, without Maitlis continually interrupting.

BBC London has always been the home of poor interview technique, its reporters frequently substituting ill-informed posturing for objective reporting. There is a tendency in local reporting to frequently overegg matters in an attempt to create a story where there is none. Although there are exceptions many BBC London reporters default to this mode.

Terrorism, the state killing of innocent members of the public, and the concerns of our communities should be dealt with by a public broadcaster in a balanced fashion and with as much objectivity as is possible. That's not what is going on at BBC London.

Charles Clarke's Spooks' Charter

2005-07-20T13:24:00.000+01:00

Charles Clarke’s announcement that he plans to introduce a global database of ‘extremists’ is worrying and the implications of such a proposal, potentially dangerous.

Clarke told the Commons today that he has asked the Home Office, Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies to "establish a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated relevant behaviours".

These relevant behaviours are yet to be defined. We are told that these measures are principally aimed to exclude those from the UK whose presence is deemed “not conducive to the public interest.” Targets for surveillance and listing include radical preachers, websites and articles intended to foment terrorism.

The Government also intends to introduce an offence of “indirect incitement to terrorism.” The UK already has an offence of direct incitement. The new measures would target those who, “while not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts knowing full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn to terrorism".

On the surface these proposals may seem reasonable. No one can or should support the targeting of innocent civilians and the ideas of the Islamist extremists this measure presumably targets – organisations such as former Al Muhajiroun and its cognates – must be countered, especially by the left.

It is likely that during the coming weeks, we will hear reassurances from the Government that the measures are not designed to stifle legitimate debate, or for that matter to bring all radicals – religious or secular – under a regime of surveillance and monitoring. The aim of these measures, we will be told, is to provide instruments which are wide enough in scope to enable the police and security forces to ‘do their job’ and protect society. Safeguards will be built into the system.

The track record of the security forces in these matters is not a good one. During the Cold War, MI5 and other security organisations dedicated considerable effort to infiltrating socialist organisations and unions. Margaret Thatcher made similar use of the security forces to further her domestic agenda, most notably crushing the National Union of Mineworkers. What hope, therefore, than a new set of powers will be used in a restrained and discriminating fashion? None at all.

Yet the problem with this whole approach goes wider. Indeed, reflecting the imperialist project of which it forms a part, the mechanisms of surveillance and the denial of legitimacy that form the essence of the Clarke proposals are part of a logic that seeks to cement the interests of the US and British (and by implication, Israeli) states as the only legitimate deployers of violence.

Marxists have historically opposed individual terrorism and condemn attacks on innocent civilians. We are not, however, pacifists. The left has a tradition of supporting liberation movements around the world and defending workers’ organisations right to resist oppressive regimes. In the Spanish Civil War and other conflicts, socialists have participates in conflicts, even when those conflicts are in foreign countries.

More recently, the left has supported the struggles of the Nicaraguan and El Salvadorean peoples against US-backed insurgencies and in struggles with US-backed dictatorships. Would the FMLN be proscribed under Charles Clarke's proposals?

Similarly, many young Muslims may be opposed to violence against civilians yet support military actions against those they see as their oppressors, whether that may be in Chechnya, Kashmir or Palestine.

The problem is one of drawing the line. For George Bush, forces that are opposed to US foreign interventions can be written off as terrorists or illegal combatants. Is the British government going to define those it disagrees with as beyond the pale? Must all resistance be passive? If it takes a hard line on such matters there will be many, and not just Islamists, who will come within the scope of the mechanisms of surveillance and find themselves on watch lists.

Now let’s not be naïve. Such organisations will already be under some form of surveillance.

However, the term ‘indirect incitement’ is very broad and would, I fear, in the hands of a zealous spook, encompass many of the radical weblogs now on the Web.

And one must also ask: will such measures actually work? Applied in too heavy handed a manner, constraining debate and vigorous opposition to government policies, it could even enhance the cachet of the lunatic fringe. The solution to beating the extremists is not to be found in overly sweeping measures such as these, it is in the provision of alternative avenues for protest and involvement, and in the removal the grievances that create wave upon wave of potential recruits. Unfortunately, the government has proved time and time again that it lacks the imagination and will to pursue such avenues.

Good riddance II

2005-07-19T21:03:00.000+01:00

Already covered but when it comes to invective, nobody does it better.

Good riddance

2005-07-19T17:37:00.000+01:00

There will probably be some idiot in the national press who will try and find some good in the tawdry, sordid, miserable life of John Tyndall, racist, fascist and leading figure within Nazi organisations stretching back to the Fifties. Unlike more recent leaders of the fascist right like Nick Griffin, Tyndall made little attempt to disguise the true nature of his politics and his bids for respactability were always less plausible, even to the more gullible elements within society.

The BBC's story lets the man off lightly and allows the British National Party to praise Tyndall as a 'great man.' The fact is that the man was scum and the world is better off without him. Tyndall was an anti-semite and was involved in the founding a number of openly Nazi organisations. One site quotes the BNP as saying that the CPS and police may have hounded Tyndall to death. If only.

Good riddance.

A light interlude pop pickers

2005-07-14T23:41:00.000+01:00

When we're not being po facedly political we like a natter about popular music down here at the Grill. It's generally agreed that list programmes are a bad thing. A lazy way of filling the schedule for next to nothing but Jarvis Cocker, you've come across some cracking stuff on Jarvis Cocker's TV Rules. I thought I saw and remembered every rubbish TV music moment from the Seventies but I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Peter Glaze and Jan Francis performing Bowie's Golden Years on an episode of Crackerjack. How drug addled were BBC production staff back in those days? Fantastic!

Banged to rights

2005-07-13T22:16:00.000+01:00

Bernie Ebbers, the fraudster head of telecoms giant WorldCom cannot have expected to have received a 25 year sentence. After all, accounting scandals aren't real crimes are they? Even if the sums involve amount to $11 billion.

Ebbers, claiming health problems - usually know as the Pinochet defence - and past good works is pressing for less jail time. After all, look at the way that other fraudsters have been treated. Take that nice Mr Milkin. All that insider trading but out in a few years.

Of course, the financial press cites the thousands of shareholders who lost money on WorldCom rather than the hundreds who lost jobs. One cannot deny that there are small investors and others foolish enough to have bought into the pre-bubble hype who deserve sympathy.

The attack on white collar crime was a final component in maintaining the legitimacy of US finance capital in the wake of the 2000/1 downturn. In reality, expect Ebbers sentence to be significantly reduced in the light of a 'lesson learned'. co-operation with the court and good behaviour. After all, poor Ebbers did reliquish most of his personal wealth to compensate shareholders. Now he is estimated to be worth a mere $25 - $40 million. Poor man, what is there to look forward to, even when he does get out? Sad.

Newsnight under fire

2005-07-13T13:45:00.000+01:00

According to the television industry bible, Broadcast the BBC has once again been forced to defend Newsnight's treatment of MP George Galloway during interviews.

"Invited on the programme on Friday, 8 July, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London, Galloway faced Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler, who challenged the MP on his views on the bombings.His style of questioning attracted complaints from viewers who said it was "rude and aggressive".Newsnight editor Peter Barron himself admitted that it "became ill-tempered" butstood by Esler's technique ....... More than 100 viewers complained, but BBC head of political programmes Sue Inglish said Paxman's line of questioning was justified."

Nancy Banks Smith: Time Traveller

2005-07-13T09:51:00.000+01:00

At times like this one needs some light relief. It was provided this morning by the always amusing Nancy Banks Smith, doyenne of British TV reviewing. For once the amusement did not arise from Nancy's writing. Instead, it revealed the Grauniad at its accident prone best.

Banks Smith fillets the CSI season end Tarantino-directed double bill with her usual aplomb. Unfortunately, it had been cancelled presumably because its content was not appropriate in the light of recent events.

We look forward to seeing the postponed episodes with ......... suspense? Maybe not.

Making sense of madness

2005-07-13T00:22:00.000+01:00

The news that the July 7 bombers were British highlights a wide range of issues: too many to adequately address here.

The media, it seems, is struggling to find the right tone and language. There is a desire to preserve the liberal consensus and to highlight the exceptional and unrepresentative nature of the acts and the perpetrators. Yet repeatedly muslims are described in the language of the other. The muslim communities (I would contend that there is no single muslim community) are questioned in terms of their failure; as if these communities remain loosely appended additions to British society rather than an integral part, tightly enmeshed with its fabric.

Let us not be naive: there is a large element of truth, not because muslims exclude themselves but because it is from jobs, welfare provision, education and many other facets of British life that they are excluded. These cannot be ignored as contributory factors explaining (though, of course not justifying) the actions of these isolated, hitherto unknown, invisible individuals.

Communities are both defined and self-defining. Benedict Anderson described nations as Imagined Communities. Similarly, the borders of ethnic and religious communities have borders that have an element of the imaginary, whether than delineation happens within the minds of the majority population or those of the minority.

An interesting dimension of the nature of the the muslim community is the way that both leaders within the community, certain elements within it, and external commentators seek to define muslims as exclusively religious rather than culturally muslim. This highlights the limitations of our common understanding and a constraint and distorting factor upon dialogue and debate.

Of course, like Christians, Jews, Hindus or, for that matter, Zoarastrians there are those who are orthodox and observant, those who are moderately religious, and those who have little or no interest in the religion into which they were born, other than to make occasional observances once or twice a year. Some may have total belief, others will display none.

This latter group, larger than many in the media or the broad community would acknowledge, is largely overlooked. I highlight it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it highlights the reductive nature of the debate and of making judgements regarding a diverse group of British people.

To hear commentators speak or to read many blogs one would think that young British muslims all live in enclosed communities, are homophobic, discriminatory and their lives are determined entirely by religion. Unfortunately, this is the view of many who would see themselves on the revolutionary left. They would ignore the fact that many have extremely liberal views, have diverse friends, gay and straight, have varying strengths of religious commitment, go clubbing and with varying frequency to the mosque and feel nothing but revulsion at religiously or politically inspired violence. How do I know this? Because they are my children and their friends? I am fortunate to live in a mixed family.

My step-daughter, in the course of lively, stimulating and humerous discussions, often teases her godless atheist step-father. I sometimes do the same back but she knows I support and respect her in all she does, and that includes the practice of her faith, something she does lightly but with real seriousness. Young women like her are off the radar of the pro-war 'left' - let alone the right.

I am not saying this to contrast a more 'liberal' Islam with more traditional forms. I highlight my step-daughters case because one of the things that unites her and her more religious sisters is that the media and others will ask her to comment on or condemn the bombers, as if they had some responsibility for them and their actions, simply because they are co-religionists.

No one makes these demands of C of E parisioners because ant-abortionists bomb clinics, of catholics because of the Real IRA, or of hindus because of JVP-led violence. Nor should they.

However, for the pro-War left, Islam is all of a piece. One should not work with muslims in organisations like Respect. For these groups most politically active muslims are Islamists.

There is of course a political phenomenon called Islamism and it does have a violent wing. Moreover, there is undeniably support for the actions of resistance movements and varying degrees of support for the various forms that violence takes. Yet for many on the left there is no differentiation between those whose Islam is an inspiration for general political action and the motivations of the suicide bomber.

The morality and political consequences of terrorist practice is an issue that merits independent analysis. Yet it is worth asking the question of why young men should turn to such actions and examining the nature of the relationship between such individuals and wider Islamic political movements.

The term chosen by many bloggers and columnists is that of Islamofascism. Hitchens, Aaronovitch and Cohen have all adopted this term. Lenin examines this usage in a characteristically useful contribution. Tariq Ali, a critic of the war and of imperialist activities, suggests that Islamo-Anarchism is a more appropriate descriptor.

This is unfair to most anarchists who would see the state but not ordinary working people as a target for different forms of direct action.

But in another sense Ali seems to be on the right track. Perhaps a better analogy is the terrorist groups of the 1970s such as Baader-Meinhof, the Red Army Faction, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Weathermen. These, it is undeniable, grew out of the left and the Movement of the Sixties. The participants in such groups were frequently middle class, isolated, demoralised, pessimistic of the possibility of mass action or social transformation. Substituting themselves for a working class for which they had contempt such organisations frequently became solopsistic death cults, unable to see beyond their own limited experience and disappointments.

If anything that is where the parallels and lessons are to be learned. Not asking questions of innocent members of communities and groups who bear no responsibility for the actions of a small number of disaffected young men.

It's not what you say ......

2005-07-11T13:05:00.000+01:00

It's clearly a matter of who says it.

As a brief rider to the Friday's report of the BBC's Newsnight interview with Galloway, it was interesting to note that former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer advanced exactly the same view in the following segment. Scheuer, some may remember, published - with his employers permission - Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the Future of America.

Scheuer argues that the source of discontent in the Middle East, fuelling the murderous actions of the most reactionary elements, is rooted not in envy at Western freedoms or a desire to impose a caliphate upon non-Arab nations but instead, in bitter fury at the actions of Western governments in the Middle East and other muslim regions. For Scheuer the answer is withdrawal from Iraq, an end to propping up dictatorial client regimes and a harder line with the Israeli's. Where is the difference except in the BBC's standards of journalism.

No one accuses Scheuer of insulting the dead, of cowardice in the face of the enemy or support for the evil deeds of weak, isolated individuals. Why then do so when it comes to the left?

Protecting Orthodoxy

2005-07-09T08:18:00.000+01:00

Gavin Esler, like many of his Newsnight and Today colleagues is one of the better exponents of BBC journalism and frequently probes the inconsistencies of government policy, domestic and foreign. As a public broadcaster, the BBC is not informed by the more naked class interests that drive much of the press. However, major events - war, strikes, terrorism - have a way of revealing the role that broadcasters like the BBC in preserving orthodoxy and delineating its borders.

Such was the case with Esler's interview with George Galloway on Friday night. Galloway could not have made clearer his revulsion at the acts of the terrorists and his support for their being brought to justice and punished in the severest of terms. He also stressed that one should never - can never - negotiate with the perpetrators of such atrocities. Yet Galloway, quite legitimately, argued that the attacks cannot be isolated from British and Foreign policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Blair, Bush and other advocates on the 'war on terrorism' strive to suppress such criticism, arguing that the country must unite 'steadfastly' behind their policy. To dissent is to offend decency.

Decency insists that in a respectful manner those who dissent do so, clearly, calmly.

Galloway put it even better in his speech to Marxism 2005 and if truth be told, he allowed himself to be drawn on the question of his right to raise such issues. If Galloway has a weakness it is to be drawn from the issues to the personal. Understandable, but it weakens the message.

But the exchange highlighted the limits of the BBC's role and role it plays in maintaining hegemony.

For more on Marxism 2005, see this space in the coming days.

Fuck off Bob

2005-07-06T23:10:00.000+01:00

Yeah, you're well meaning, I don't dispute that. No one has bought your records for years so I really don't think that's your motive. But when even Newsnight remarks that you are standing in the way between those who want to change the world and those who want to preserve the status quo then perhas you should, as another Bob once said, stop "blocking up the halls." Before he started advertising underwear and coffee that is....

Socialist Unity

2005-06-21T08:54:00.000+01:00

Good to see that some in the Socialist Party seem to be still pushing for at least tactical unity around elections (see letter For socialist unity in future elections). It's a pity the leadership of the Socialist Party can't be as positive.

As an former member of Militant it's depressing to see the organisation engaging in the same sectarian behaviour it once accused others of. The decision to withdraw from the Socialist Alliance and to criticise Respect from the sidelines seems to me to have been be a mistake. This is not to suggest that others were blameless in the matter or to downplay the difficulty of creating united fronts but there seems far more benefit in unity than division.

Of course, Militant's criticism of others' sectarianism was, to an extent, disingenuous. Like others on the revolutionary left, orthodoxy (or rather, adherence to its own particular analysis) was more important than dialogue or joint action. Discussion of theorists or ideas that fell outside the accepted canon (a fairly limited one of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) were frowned upon or dismissed with faint amusement.

On the other hand, the organisation has a lot to teach others on the left. While the years spent in the Labour Party had some negative effects it also had many benefits, not the least of which were strong roots in the working class (in key areas) and a wealth of experience in local campaigning and electioneering. Respect could benefit from such experience, provided others - most notably the SWP - were able to act in a truly collaborative fashion.

One of the issues raised during the discussions over the future of the Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party and Respect, has been the task of creating counter-hegemony and what the term actually means. I would suggest that for the foreseeable future it is not so much about creating a unifying orthodoxy, rather it is about creating unity around tactical and strategic objectives, and also about creating a discursive space in which ideas with their roots in Marxism can be exchanged and refined. More importantly, it is about creating an oppositional culture that is vibrant, rather than one that is narrow and sterile.

Part of the problem is that the Trotskyist left was constructed upon a model that evolved in insurrectionary circumstances, and was refined by a core of embattled revolutionaries. Before the Civil War and the growth of Stalinism crushed it, the Bolshevik organisation demonstrated a diversity that many would find hard to imagine. Indeed, few modern revolutionary organisations demonstrate the diversity of thought that characterised the Russian social democrats during exile.

New thinking is needed for a new era, especially if were are to build an opposition to New Labour and neo-liberalism. Obsessing over othodoxy or shying away from building unity are not part of that new thinking or new future.

Waking from the American Dream

2005-06-06T18:10:00.000+01:00

Proof that the US model works in today's New York Times.

According to the Op Ed item on class mobility - the foundation of the American Dream - is a myth. The author writes: "American workers have been hurting badly for years. Revolutionary improvements in technology, increasingly globalized trade, the competition of low-wage workers overseas and increased immigration here at home, the decline of manufacturing, the weakening of the labor movement, outsourcing and numerous other factors have left American workers with very little leverage to use against employers.

Many in the middle class are mortgaged to the hilt, maxed out on credit cards and fearful to the point of trembling that all they've worked for might vanish in a downsized minute.

The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts."

Bob Herbert's comment piece in the US establishment's house journal links to a special, Class Mattters which reveals the suppressed truth underpinning Republican ideology.

Mao: Stating the Bleeding Obvious

2005-06-04T16:13:00.000+01:00

There is something I find extremely irritating about the current publicity hoopla around Mao: The Unknown Story by Jun Chang and Jon Halliday.

It may be that the authors have, indeed, uncovered previously unknown nuggets and I will be interested to see what they have produced. However, I fail to see how any of the 'revelations' in the book - that the Chinese revolution relied heavily upon Russian support, that Mao was a demagogue and butcher, that the Chinese revolution saw more deaths than either the period of high Stalinism or Nazi rule in Germany, or that Mao turned on his supporters - represent any kind of real breakthrough, or for that matter, an airing of hitherto hidden truths.

While some on the Trotskyist left underwent a period of infatuation with Maoism (and in some instance, dissolved into Maoist organisations) a large section of the left always saw Mao for what he was. The Maoist sects always acted as a barrier to advancement by the Western left and while some members of the media may be embarrassed by the 'revelations' in Mao many of the rest of us always saw the endorsement of Maoist China as either laughable or tragic.

It may be unfair to place Jun Chang and Jon Halliday in the Martin Amis category of reheaters of already known and established facts but it is certainly tempting to do so.

Trotsky's writing on China and the tragedy of the its first, failed revolution highlight how the Chinese working class was crushed due to the mistakes of Stalin and Bukharin and their misplaced faith in Chiang Kai Shek. When Mao came to power it was as the head of a peasant army, with a politics that from the outset mimicked the worst aspects of Stalinism. Personalities are not insignificant factors in the making of history but any analysis worth its salt must recognise the underlying forces at work.

Some of the reviews suggest that this is not the approach taken by the authors. Others, like Will Hutton in the Observer have sought to take a more balanced view. Even one of the more gushing reviews concedes that there is no indication of the quality of sources and it is clear that in some of the cases the authors have relied upon Nationalist sources.

In the meantime, the authors seem to be doing little more than stating what many of us knew all along.

2005-05-21T10:40:00.000+01:00

One of the most interesting aspects of George Galloway's recent testimony to the US Senate subcommittee has been the reaction of the US left and even sections of the the American media. As the Guardian pointed out earlier this week, even Fox News was forced to conclude that Galloway had made a robust defence of his position and the senators had made a poor fist of giving Gorgeous George a grilling. Fox presenter John Gibson didn't know whether Galloway was guilty but what he did know was, "that if you're going to bring Galloway in for the grilling, be sure to bring the grill, be sure to have plenty of propane in the tank and do the darn grilling. Galloway got away scot-free here. (Senator Norm) Coleman meekly sat there and got chewed out."

Maybe that's because the US position is built on lies and hypocrisy.

The reasons why Galloway has met with such a positive reception from large sections of the US left and has drawn such media interest is that he both departs from the formalised niceties the US public has come to expect from its politicans (especially in the Senate) and that Galloway is a progressive who has actually dared to go on to the offensive.

These are all points addressed more seriously by former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in a column in today's Guardian.

One of the important points touched upon in Galloway's testimony was his long-standing opposition to the Iraqi regime. What the British commentariat could never get their heads around - mainly because they chose not to - was that one could oppose the regime and oppose the war.

For the British commentariat - following the example of the late Christopher Hitchens - Galloway and his supporters are Islamofascists. In this looking glass world columnists like former Eurocommunist David Aaronovitch and his Observer colleague, Nick Cohen strive to redefine the right and centre as the new left and the left as the new right. As the Eurocommunists in the former Communist Party of Great Britain regularly used to demonstrate, despite the split with Stalinism certain practices and rhetorical devices remained ingrained. One was the third period tendency to define those who oppose a given strategy as functional allies of one's enemies (social democrats were social fascists, Trotskyists were simply fascists).

Events such as the Senate hearing and the actions of Galloway and Respect are shining a light on such obfuscation.

Galloway is not without his faults and he has undoubtedly shown poor judgement at times. His uncritical support for Cuba is one such example and some of his comments and historical analogies regarding the resistance are ill-conceived. It must also be stressed that Respect must be more than a vehicle for Galloway's political resurrection. However, the strong performance in other parts of London and the Midlands show that is what it already is. The UK needs a progressive force to the left of Labour, capable of addressing the needs of all sections of the community and uniting a range of progressive voices. Respect has the potential to be that force.

After the election

2005-04-30T12:28:00.000+01:00

There's an interesting review of Red Pepper's analysis of Respect's campaign in the run up to the election that makes some valid points, particularly regarding the challenges Respect will face after the election, however itl turns out in the current target constituencies. Good to see a more balanced view for once. The author of the Socialist Unity Network item rightly says that at last, "somebody has gone beyond the usual dichotomy between Respect as the best thing since sliced bread versus the grumpy sectarian write-off." One might that it also makes a refreshing change from the cynical, dishonest, Stalinist name calling from the ex-CPers, ex-Clause 4 members and Labour right wingers that inhabit the pages of The Observer and lurk around sites like the execrable Harry's Place.

Welcome to Gramsci's Grill

2005-04-29T12:45:00.001+01:00

Intellectual barflys have the Whiskey Bar, Leninists have the Tomb, Gramsci's Grill is opening its doors with the modest aim of providing cultural cuisine and political piatti for organic intellectuals. The menu may turn out to veer more in the direction of antipasti rather than larger, more robust dishes but hey, we're just starting out, experimenting and trying to find our feet.

The left needs places where it can exchange ideas and create a more vibrant, heterodox culture. The Grill hopes it will grow into one of those places.