Greece: Prospect of Syriza victory raises workers’ hopes

From Socialistworld.net

Mass intervention of working class to struggle for socialist policies is vital

Interview with Andros Payiatsos, from Xekinima (CWI in Greece)

Last time we spoke you told us of the campaign of fear by the establishment to try and prevent people voting for Syriza. How has this developed?On 19 January, six days before the Greek general elections, socialistworld.net spoke to Andros Payiatsos from Xekinima(CWI in Greece).

The circus of the ruling class and its political representatives are now demoralised. They started a big fear campaign but it became absolutely clear that it would have no significant effect and that Syriza will be the next government. The question now is, will it be a minority or a majority government? Although the ruling class still try to keep the fear campaign going, it’s very weak and not effective. They have now shifted their focus to further “domesticating” Syriza, to ensure that it governs within the limits they impose.

What now seems the likely outcome of the election?

It’s generally accepted here and internationally that Syriza will win. In the last week there is a small increase for Syriza in the opinion polls – of about 1%. Really this is a stabilisation of Syriza’s lead. Including abstentions, Syriza’s support stands around 25-27%, discounting these it rises to about 30-33% – close to, but not sufficient for, a majority government.

What are the alternatives to a majority Syriza government?

The Syriza leadership see “Independent Greeks” party – a “patriotic”, populist split from New Democracy (the main right wing, capitalist party) as the most viable possibility for a coalition partner. This party took a position against the Memorandum and the Troika from the beginning.

Most of the left are not willing to cooperate with Syriza. The Communist Party rejects even the possibility of voting in parliament for Syriza to form a government - they have a disastrous sectarian position.

If the “Independent Greeks” do not have enough MPs either, then Syriza would be pushed to collaborate with parties which are considered to be “Troikan” parties (those that have accepted and implemented or supported in general the austerity policies inflicted on Greece by the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and the European Central Bank), such as “The River” or former Pasok Prime Minister, George Papandreou’s new party, “Social Democratic Movement”.

What is the response of the ruling class to the increasing likelihood of a Syriza victory?

They now concentrate on trying to make sure a Syriza government will be as stable and effective as possible for them. There are big sections of capitalist spokespeople in Greece and internationally which say “it’s time to negotiate” and that “we must be flexible” etc. This is an attempt to incorporate Syriza into the establishment and to put a break on the dangers which Syriza may represent for their interests in terms of releasing powerful mass movements and taking measures which go against austerity.

But it’s important to know that this is not uniform. For example, the German ruling class and the countries around it still have a hard-line position against any serious negotiation. They will undoubtedly be willing to make some concessions to a Syriza government in negotiations, but of a very limited character.

How is Syriza responding to this pressure?

The leadership is responding in precisely the way that the ruling class would like. The whole programme has become absolutely blurred. Even some of the reforms that have been considered very basic are now under question.

For example, Syriza leader Tsipras was recently asked in an interview about the major struggle of the people of Halkidiki against the gold mines. He didn’t take a clear position but he said “the law will be enforced” and “the contracts will be scrutinised” – what does that mean?

In relation to the minimum wage, which was one of the major points in the programme of Syriza, it’s now not clear when it’s going to be done - there’s now talk of a gradual implementation. In regard to the privatisations and the sackings of thousands from the public sector that have taken place, they say: “we shall study the lawfulness of what took place”.

Given this, there is little real enthusiasm for Syriza in society. But there is also a feeling that there is no choice, we have to vote for Syriza and give it a majority government if possible. There is a feeling that even if they do one tenth of what they promise, things will still be better than today.

How has Xekinima (CWI in Greece) participated in the elections and why?

We support a vote for Syriza and have launched a very big campaign. We produced 150,000 four-page bulletins and a special edition of our paper which sold out, so we have reproduced it, which is impressive considering the election campaign is, actually, only 11 days long!

As part of the “Initiative of 1000” (coalition of left groups united around a radical anti-capitalist programme), we discussed with Syriza about standing candidates on its lists. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do so. The Syriza leadership wanted an alliance with other forces on the Left, but of a merely token symbolic nature, in which these other forces would stand no real chance of being elected. They ruled us out from standing candidates in the areas in which we would have a very powerful and effective campaign. We said if there is going to be collaboration with other forces of the left then Syriza has to give these forces the potential to get a good result – there’s no point if you take away their strongholds and only allow them to have candidates where they stand little or no chance of being elected. On top of this, there was a very limited time to campaign. On this basis bothXekinima and other comrades in the Initiative of the 1000 decided that we would not stand.

The attitude of the Syriza leadership to this is indicative of a wider trend. For example, 50 individuals who are not members of Syriza were included in the Syriza lists across the country. Of these, only 1 is to the left of SYRIZA! They want a parliamentary group that will be very well controlled by the right wing of the party.

The main reason we support Syriza, despite these limitations, is that its victory will have a liberating effect on the working class, the movements and society in general. There is an expectation from the working class that under a Syriza government the massive attacks will stop and, at least, to a certain extent be reversed, and that some of the demands of the mass movement will be satisfied. So, despite the lack of clarity on the part of the leadership, and its accommodation to the demands of the ruling class, we believe that a Syriza victory will represent a significant shift in the balance of class forces in Greek society – it can have a catalysing effect and unleash a new period of working class struggle.

Maybe Syriza will not change the laws on the labour market, which has been completely deregulated, but workers will come out to demand their right not to be sacked, to an eight hour day, to overtime payments, and to collective bargaining. Maybe Tsipras is not ready to kick the gold mines of “Eldorado Gold” out of Halkidiki but people of Halkidiki have no choice but to come out and demand that the company stops the works on the gold mines. We expect this to take place throughout the working class movement in Greece. Maybe Tsipras won’t be willing to abolish TAIPED, the body that is overseeing all the “fast track” privatisations now taking place, but workers will feel that now they can move into action to resist these sell offs – whether they be of public utility companies or of beaches, mountains and forests.

Whatever compromises the leadership is willing to make, the workers will feel there’s a much better environment to fight to defend their rights and this is the fundamental reason that Syriza should be given conditional, critical support.

We make it very clear that we don’t just call for a vote for Syriza itself, we call for a radical, revolutionary socialist programme as the only viable road for a Syriza government.

What does Xekinima think that a Syriza government should do the day after its elected?

Of course, it should immediately paralyse the payment of the debt and rip up the memorandum with the Troika, which are fundamental to any plan to combat the misery of the Greek people.

It should immediately change the labour laws and laws for the universities (to allow for asylum on campuses, freedom of speech, free assembly etc). Raise the minimum wage to what it was before the onset of the Troika – back to €750. Close down TAIPED the body which is responsible for the privatisations of the public works and the natural beauties and resources of the country. And freeze and repeal all privatisations that have taken place in recent years. Put an end to controversial projects which are under construction now – like in Halkidiki.

This would cause a reaction by the capitalist establishment, nationally and internationally. This could only be challenged successfully by implementing bold anti-capitalist measures, nationalising the banks and the commanding heights of the economy to plan the economy on the basis of need, not profit. This should be done on the basis of democratic workers’ control and management.

And it must be linked to the struggles of the workers across Europe. We are sure that if Syriza went ahead with such a programme it would have a major effect internationally, particularly for the working class of southern Europe. This could lay the basis for an international socialist alternative to the capitalist EU and Troika rule.

In the election campaign Syriza does refer to the international aspects of their policies and to Podemos (the new left party in Spain), and other “progressive” movements internationally. Despite Syriza’s programme being so mild and compromising, it is still having a major effect on a European and international level. This shows what could be achieved if it had a more radical, socialist programme - the potential is there. At the moment, Syriza’s policies are neo-Keynesianism - for an end to austerity within the capitalist system.

In the conditions of capitalist crisis, such a programme is not really viable. Only a programme which breaks with the capitalist system can offer a way forward. This can only be achieved through the mass intervention of the working class, and the popular masses, which could, under certain conditions, push Syriza far further to the left that the leadership envisage or imagine. This is what Xekinima will be struggling for in the period after SYRYZA is elected to government.

Large turnout at South West Socialist Party conference

By Robin Clapp, http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16752?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FRpdZ+%28The+Socialist%29

"It was amazing to learn from some brilliant and thinking people yesterday. I've buried my head in the sand for too long and it was inspiring. Capitalism must end and I'd like to learn a lot more about how I can go about bringing about that change".

That was the verdict from Chris, one of three young people who joined the Socialist Party at the end of its largest South West regional conference for a number of years.

On Saturday 25 May Socialist Party members and supporters from 19 different towns and cities packed into a room in Bristol to hear Socialist Party deputy secretary Hannah Sell deliver a thorough analysis of the volatile situation unfolding in Britain and Europe.

Over 20 members followed this up with contributions that dealt with attacks in the workplaces and how we are helping to organise the fightback; a programme for opposing the far-right; lessons from struggles in Greece and Spain and the over-arching question of capitalism's chronic inability to take humankind forward in the 21st century; and why therefore a socialist alternative is imperative.

Workshops on women, youth, and building in the workplaces followed. Each resulted in practical initiatives keenly being agreed, including the organising of a regional women's meeting early in July, the stepping up of the 'Sick of your Boss' campaign from Cornwall to Cheltenham, and a trade union meeting in Exeter in September where the building of the National Shop Stewards Network will be one of our priorities.

Recruitment and finance

Robin Clapp, South West regional secretary, introduced a closing session on the progress made in the last 12 months. The rate of recruitment in the region is up by 50% over 2012 and every area has enthusiastic new people eager to take on a role in helping us to build.

It was agreed we would set up a branch in Somerset where we'll trigger fast progress by organising a Saturday 'super stall' in June with the aim of selling 75 papers and getting new members.

This follows on from the highly successful initiative in Poole where we sold 82 papers in four hours, 10 'join' cards were filled in and £46 was raised in Fighting Fund.

Conference committed itself to smashing through the new paper sales targets. This shouldn't be too difficult, given that every branch has already exceeded these targets on at least one occasion since March.

Mid-week stalls are now the norm in Plymouth and Bristol, workplace sales take place at council offices in Gloucester, and sales outside Bristol Temple Meads rail station have yielded 10-12 sales in a single session.

At the beginning of the conference, Plymouth and Gloucester branches had each recruited eight new members since January. By the end of the day, the Devonians were ahead having signed up somebody in the meeting. They have three more knocking on the door, Bristol has five who have agreed to join and this welcome infection is spreading rapidly across every branch in the region.

The viciousness of the Con-Dem attacks is polarising society, making many of those who have previously spent their evenings screaming at the television decide it's time to stand up and seek out a party that is serious about fighting for change.

The mood of optimism suffusing through the conference was expressed concretely by a magnificent collection which yielded £1,125 for our party funds.

The excellent Gloucester branch 'catering company' raised £70 towards our funds from selling their delicious food and Bev Anderson's fairy cakes went down a treat and gave us another £20.

The last word must go to Matt Stabb from Trowbridge who is new to our ranks but a veteran in the struggles of disabled workers:

"Cheers for a brilliant South West congress yesterday, comrades! Thank you for making me so welcome. It was so good to meet other comrades and feel part of the good work that is going on".

Portuguese worker and farmers fight back!!

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6191

Forbes Rich List: 0.00001% get richer, the 99% continue to pay the price

By Matt Gordon, Bristol Socialist Party

The annual list of billionaires produced by Forbes Magazine has again seen records smashed by the world’s hyper-rich. There are now 1426 billionaires in the world, 210 more than 2012, with a collective wealth of $5.4 trillion, up nearly a trillion from last year.

At a time of global recession and austerity, this bunch of high-flyers seem to be beating the odds. 80% of the list saw their wealth increase during the course of 2012. Despite youth unemployment in Spain now reaching 55% with desperation leading some to suicide, Spanish billionaire and owner of Zara Amancio Ortega has seen the biggest increase of all – an extra $19 billion on his fortune!

But some are still not happy - Saudi Arabian prince Alwaleed Bin Talal has lashed out at Forbes magazine which he says has robbed him of his rightful spot in the top ten. It placed him at unimpressive 26th in the world with a wealth of only $20 billion.

In reality these figures are scandalous at a time when global poverty is on the rise and 80% of the world get by on less than $10 a day, a stark contrast to the lavish lifestyles of this tiny elite.

World capitalism has been in crisis since 2008 and increasing concentrations of wealth at the top are not just an aberration but are one of the main problems the economy is faced with. Wealth doesn’t ‘trickle-down’ as we are told, but is instead sucked up and locked away, leaving everyone else worse off.

The latest figures show that between $21 trillion and $32 trillion has been stashed in offshore tax havens around the world by the super-rich, none of it being put to productive use. This will only be fraction of the cash hoard being held back by big business as a whole.

If this money cannot be put to good use then it should be taken into public ownership and used to create jobs, homes, infrastructure and prosperity for all, the 99% not the 1%. Next time someone says that there is no money for schools, hospitals, public services or decent housing and that we all have to tighten our belts, direct them to a copy of Forbes Magazine and ask if any of that money would do.

My Decision to Join the Trotskyist Camp in 1928

By James P. Cannon

---

This is a letter sent to Theodore Draper, a historian of the American communist movement. It was written in 1959. The entire series of letters sent from Cannon to Draper has been published under the title “The first ten years of American communism” by Lyle Stuart Inc, in 1962. It was later reprinted by Pathfinder Press, New York.

---

Trotsky in Cayoacon, Mexico 1940

May 27, 1959
It seems to me that I have already written myself out on “The Birth of American Trotskyism”—in which I played the central role because I just happened to be standing there at the time and there was no one else to do it. I couldn’t add much to what I have already written in the “History of American Trotskyism,” in my letters to you, and in the big article—“The Degeneration of the Communist Party and the New Beginning” in the Fall, 1954 issue of Fourth International.
That’s my case. If I were to write about it again I could only repeat what I have already said. You’ll find a better and fuller exposition there than I could write again today. I have the faculty, which for me is a happy one, of pushing things to the back of my mind once I have written them out. In order to write a fresh report on the origin of American Trotskyism, I would have to force myself back into a semi-coma, recalling and reliving the struggle of 31 years ago. That is too much for me to undertake again.
The only thing I left out of my extensive writing about that period, which I try to leave out of all my writing, was the special element of personal motivation for my action—which cynics would never believe and research workers never find in the files and cross-indexes. That is the compulsion of conscience when one is confronted by an obligation which, in given circumstances, is his alone to accept or to evade.

The whole damned thing was a frame-up!

In the summer of 1928 in Moscow, in addition to the theoretical and political revelation that came to me when I read Trotsky’s Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern, there was another consideration that hit me where I live. That was the fact that Trotsky had been expelled and deported to far-away Alma Ata; that his friends and supporters had been slandered and expelled and imprisoned; and that the whole damned thing was a frame-up! Had I set out as a boy to fight for justice for Moyer and Haywood in order to betray the cause of justice when it was put squarely up to me in a case of transcendent importance to the whole future of the human race? A copy-book moralist could easily answer that question by saying: “Of course not. The rule is plain. You do what you have to do, even if it costs you your head.”
But it wasn’t so simple for me in the summer of 1928. I was not a copybook moralist. I was a party politician and factionalist who had learned how to cut corners. I knew that at the time, and the self-knowledge made me uneasy. I had been gradually settling down into an assured position as a party official with an office and staff, a position that I could easily maintain—as long as I kept within definite limits and rules which I knew all about, and conducted myself with the facility and skill which had become almost second nature to me in the long drawn-out factional fights.
I knew that. And I knew something else that I never told anybody about, but which I had to tell myself for the first time in Moscow in the summer of 1928. The foot-loose Wobbly rebel that I used to be had imperceptibly begun to fit comfortably into a swivel chair, protecting himself in his seat by small maneuvers and evasions, and even permitting himself a certain conceit about his adroit accommodation to this shabby game. I saw myself for the first time then as another person, as a revolutionist who was on the road to becoming a bureaucrat. The image was hideous, and I turned away from it in disgust.
I never deceived myself for a moment about the most probable consequences of my decision to support Trotsky in the summer of 1928. I knew it was going to cost me my head and also my swivel chair, but I thought: What the hell—better men than I have risked their heads and their swivel chairs for truth and justice. Trotsky and his associates were doing it at that very moment in the exile camps and prisons of the Soviet Union. It was no more than right that one man, however limited his qualifications, should remember what he started out in his youth to fight for, and speak out for their cause and try to make the world hear, or at least to let the exiled and imprisoned Russian Oppositionists know that they had found a new friend and supporter.
In the History of American Trotskyism, p.61, I wrote:

The movement which then began in America brought repercussions throughout the entire world; overnight the whole picture, the whole perspective of the struggle changed. Trotskyism, officially pronounced dead, was resurrected on the international arena and inspired with new hope, new enthusiasm, new energy.

Denunciations against us were carried in the American press of the party and reprinted throughout the whole world, including the Moscow Pravda. Russian Oppositionists in prison and exile, where sooner or later copies of Pravda reached them, were notified of our action, our revolt in America. In the darkest hour of the Opposition’s struggle, they learned that fresh reinforcements had taken the field across the ocean in the United States, which by virtue of the power and weight of the country itself, gave importance and weight to the things done by the American communists.

Leon Trotsky, as I remarked, was isolated in the little Asiatic village of Alma Ata. The world movement outside Russia was in decline, leaderless, suppressed, isolated, practically non-existent. With this inspiring news of a new detachment in far-away America, the little papers and bulletins of the Opposition groups flared into life again. Most inspiring of all to us was the assurance that our hard-pressed Russian comrades had heard our voice.

I have always thought of this as one of the most gratifying aspects of the historic fight we undertook in 1928—that the news of our fight reached the Russian comrades in all corners of the prisons and exile camps, inspiring them with new hope and new energy to persevere in the struggle.

In Moscow, in the summer of 1928, I foresaw such a possible consequence of my decision and action. And I thought that that alone would justify it, regardless of what else might follow. Many things have changed since then, but that conviction has never changed.

---

1 Secretary of State under the Roosevelt administration.
2 The reference to Trotsky’s “army” is more than an ordinary metaphor. It had a double meaning in that it referred to his unique role as the organizer, the leader, the teacher, the general of the Soviet Red Army that led the revolutionary war in defense of the great Russian Socialist Revolution—as well as the political founder and leader of the world party of socialist revolution, the Fourth International.

'A Future That Works' - mass TUC demonstration in London on 20 October

The TUC is to organise a mass demonstration in London under the banner of 'A Future That Works' on Saturday 20 October 2012. A march through central London will culminate in a rally in Hyde Park.

On March 26 2011 the TUC's March for the Alternative attracted 500,000 people to a march and rally in London.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'The tide is turning against austerity. We were told that spending cuts were needed to get the economy growing, yet they have driven the UK back into recession. We were told that we were all in it together, yet Mr Cameron's main purpose at the G8 summit seemed to be protecting the banks against the growing international support for a Robin Hood tax - and the last Budget's centrepiece was cutting the 50p tax rate.

'It is becoming ever clearer that this government does not have the policies - or even much of a commitment - to build a prosperous economy that can generate the jobs and industries we need for the future.

'Rather than bold policies for investment and growth, the best that ministers can do is half-baked proposals to make it easier to sack people.

'That is why we expect a huge turnout from the growing numbers that want a future that works. With the USA and France now setting out the alternative, it's time the UK also changed course.'

TUC Press Release

Bristol Anti-Workfare Protest - this Saturday

Organised by Bristol Youth Fight For Jobs:

http://www.facebook.com/events/206377172809584/

"Bristol has seen two successful days of action, highlighting the use of workfare to provide free labour. Youth Fight for Jobs have organised another. This time it will be a static protest, campaigning outside one of the companies using the workfare schemes. We will meet in the centre of Broadmead at 1pm (by the Ferris Wheel/BHS) before going to the shop in question."

Bristol Socialist Party Public Meeting: Could There Be A 'Compassionate Capitalism'?

Bristol Socialist Party Public Meeting

Tuesday 28th February 2012

7.30pm

Cheltenham Road Library, Cheltenham Road, BS6 5QX

Could There Be A 'Compassionate Capitalism'?

Capitalism is in crisis all over the world. From New York to Athens, from Moscow to Cairo, inequality and poverty are being challenged by millions of people, the 99% are fighting back.
Tories Cameron and Osbourne tell us not to blame capitalism, but only the wrong sort of 'crony capitalism'. Vince Cable and the Liberals lash out at bankers, speculators and other 'nasty' capitalists. Ed Miliband and the rest of New Labour go so far as to plead for a 'responsible, compassionate capitalism'.
But who are they pleading to? Can capitalism share out the wealth from the 1% to 99% as easily as it shares out the pain? Or is capitalism itself at the root of the problem? Do we need a complete system change. These and other questions will be discussed at this open meeting of the Bristol Socialist Party. 

Newcomers are always welcome. If you would like more information email ma_gordon@hotmail.co.uk or call 07936712962

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=51.468274,-2.5926&spn=0.02374,0.054846&t=h&z=14

Socialism FAQ: Answering Common Questions

By Branon Madsen, Socialist Alternative (CWI USA) - http://socialistalternative.org/news/article20.php?id=1762

With the rise of the Occupy movement, opposition to the existing political and economic order has gone mainstream. It’s hard to imagine that the bandana-clad woman on the cover of Time magazine – representing “The Protestor,” Time's “Person of the Year” – has many nice things to say about capitalism, and the ubiquity of the Guy Fawkes mask – popularized by “V for Vendetta” – further underscores how widespread the idea of revolution has become.

However, this growing support for system change has not yet been matched by a serious public dialogue about what an alternative might look like. A new Pew poll published 12/28/2011 indicated that people who are under 30 or black are more likely to favor socialism than capitalism, but this does not correspond to clear ideas of what socialism is or how a socialist economic and political system would work. We offer up this FAQ as a contribution to the discussion.

How would a socialist economy work?

Under capitalism, institutions where immense wealth is concentrated (corporations) run the economy, exploiting working people to increase their own concentrated wealth. The essence of a socialist economy is to flip this relationship upside-down, with working people running the economy, utilizing the enormous wealth and productivity of society to enrich their lives. To do this, we would have to take over all the biggest banks and corporations and put their resources into public ownership and democratic control.

Employing those out of work and reallocating investment and jobs towards social priorities – healthcare, education, clean energy, etc. – would give a huge boost to productivity and wealth in society. Democratic planning of the economy would allow us to make sure everyone had a good-paying job, high-quality health care, free education at all levels, and, of course, basic physical necessities like food and housing. It wouldn’t be limited to just the basics, though; we could choose to invest in empowering people to make music, art, writing, film, fashion, and all sorts of other forms of cultural development.

This type of economic system would require conscious planning, but this is already true to a large extent under capitalism. Corporations larger than entire countries are able to plan out their levels of production, spread of distribution, pricing schemes and so on without falling to pieces, so there’s no reason working people shouldn’t be able to do the same.

The difference is that planning under capitalism is fractured, incomplete and undemocratic, with the goal of maximizing profit for the individual firm. Under socialism, we could structure investment of the world’s wealth with a big picture, bird’s eye view of the whole economy, with the goal of fulfilling human needs, sustaining the environment and enabling a liberated human existence.

A socialist economic system would have to be globally integrated. This is also the case already under capitalism, where we live in a globally interdependent world. Right now globalization on a capitalist basis means brutal exploitation of the weaker economies, and a race to the bottom for workers everywhere. Under socialism, global economic integration would be part of the plan to enrich people’s lives on a global scale.

A socialist economy would handle the environment very differently. Today, companies don’t care about environmental costs because they are able to externalize them onto the public. The costs associated with contaminated air and drinking water are real, but they don’t show up as a red number on Monsanto’s balance sheet. That is why no corporation will ever undertake the necessary steps to save the environment on the basis of “free market” principles.

Democratic planning of the economy would eliminate the profit motive behind externalizing the costs of pollution. Instead, efficiency, environmental sustainability and meeting the basic needs of all would form the core principles of economic decision-making. Instead of inadequate measures like energy-efficient light bulbs and recycling-awareness programs, a socialist economy could invest in completely overhauling the way everything is produced, utilizing all the latest green technologies for maximum sustainability and creating millions of jobs in the process.

How would a socialist democracy work?

As most of us currently experience it, “democracy” boils down to voting once every couple years for which wealthy career politician will make all the decisions for us. Of course, there’s nothing democratic about this at all, especially when the whole process is corrupted by corporate money.

In contrast, socialist democracy would take place day to day, week to week, in every workplace, school and community. Workers would rotate management tasks, and elected managers would be subject to recall and replacement whenever the workers saw fit. All decisions could be overturned by majority vote.

School curriculum and policy would be jointly agreed upon by parents, teachers and students, rather than imposed by distant administrators and bureaucrats. Neighborhood assemblies would decide who is and is not empowered with policing authority and instruct elected officers how to prioritize their efforts.

All investment and economic decisions should be made democratically. Workplace and neighborhood assemblies would elect representatives to massively expanded local and regional councils, which in turn would elect national representatives. Elected representatives should have no special privileges or pay above their electorate, and they should be subject to instant recall.

In order to facilitate this process of democratic decision-making, there should be space roped off in regular work and school schedules for decision-making meetings and discussions. With the increased wealth created, the work-week could be shortened without loss of pay to allow people time and energy to become engaged politically, and to pursue their other life goals outside work and school.

Wouldn’t a bureaucratic elite just take over?

Undoubtedly, in the first stages of a socialist society, a struggle against careerists and corruption within the system would be necessary. The poisonous ideological baggage inherited from centuries of class rule would not just fade away overnight. However, by establishing public ownership of society’s productive resources, eliminating privileges, and creating bottom-up structures of democratic management and control, the obstacles to prevent aspiring bureaucrats seizing power would be immense.

The main example driving fear of a bureaucratic takeover is Stalin seizing power in the Soviet Union only a few years after Russia’s working-class revolution in 1917. This tragic degeneration of the Russian Revolution is something Marxists have grappled with in numerous books. The basic conclusion supported by a serious historical analysis is that this degeneration was neither natural nor inevitable, but the result of particular circumstances.

Russia was among the poorest countries in the world at the time of its revolution, and it was even further devastated when the deposed capitalist rulers, backed by 21 foreign armies, tried to violently retake power from the democratic workers’ movement, resulting in a bloody civil war. Though revolutions took place elsewhere across Europe, most notably Germany, they were all defeated, leaving Russia poor, broken and alone.

This was not a healthy ground upon which socialism could be built. The whole basis of socialism is having enough to go around, but Russia didn’t have that. In this context, the democratic structures in the Soviets (workers’ assemblies) ceased to function. Who wants to go to political meetings when you’re worried about where your next meal is going to come from?

It was this vacuum of workers’ power from below, fueled by the isolation and economic starvation of the country, that spawned the bureaucratization of Russian society and the rise of Stalin as this bureaucracy’s dictatorial figurehead. Even then, it was not a natural progression. Stalin had to jail, murder, exile, or otherwise force into submission literally millions of people whose only crime was adherence to the democratic principles of the 1917 revolution.

This experience shows the importance of building the fight for socialism as a global movement. Because of imperialist plundering of resources around the world, some countries may lack a stable economic basis for socialism, and will need to trade with and get help from the richer countries. If Russia had been joined by a successful revolution in even one other country, such as Germany, history would have turned out very differently.

Wouldn’t it be easier to reform capitalism?

Unfortunately, contrary to official accounts, the history of capitalism is not one of consistent progress towards ever loftier heights of democracy and prosperity. Rather, every serious reform has required mass struggle, often shaking the system to its core.

Reforms are not granted out of the kind hearts of well-meaning politicians, but are concessions grudgingly granted to appease or distract rising movements of working people hungry for real change. Whether we’re talking about civil rights, the weekend off, or the right to organize a union, every one of these required an all-out fight against the profit-driven logic of capitalism, where countless innocents were murdered by elites desperate to put down their struggles.

Under capitalism, even these partial reforms are not permanent, not a foothold or new baseline to work from. As we have seen in the last few decades, the capitalists and their politicians will roll back reforms as soon as they think they can get away with it.

Social programs that people fought tooth and nail for in the past are being dismantled or undermined via budget cuts. After almost destroying unions in the private sector already – where less than 7% of workers are in a union – corporate politicians in state after state are now going after the public sector, where over a third of workers are still unionized.

A stable basis for ongoing reforms will require working people to take political power out of the hands of the capitalists and wield it themselves – that is, overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. There’s no way around it; the fight for reforms and the struggle for socialist transformation are one and the same.

Socialism sounds great on paper, but is it realistic?

The only constant in history is uninterrupted change. From ancient slave states to the feudal landowner lordships to the global capitalist system of today, people have repeatedly overthrown old systems after they became a brake on progressive development. The truly unrealistic and utopian idea is that problems like war, poverty and environmental devastation will be solved on the basis of capitalism.

Though socialism is realistic, it’s not inevitable. Again and again, crisis-ridden capitalism has forced workers and the oppressed into revolutionary uprisings. Several have happened in the last year, most prominently in Egypt and Tunisia. But while many revolutions succeed in toppling governments, few have achieved system change. Capitalism will always find a way out on the backs of workers, youth and the poor if we fail to replace it with something better.

That’s where socialists come in: We take seriously the study of history, learning from both defeats and successes of revolutions and mass movements. We aim to spread these lessons widely so that future revolutions succeed in establishing socialism. That doesn’t just mean reading a lot of books. It means actively building and engaging with the movements that exist right now, boldly bringing in socialist ideas while learning from others in struggle, working out the way forward together.

Occupy Wall Street: Tremble Ye Bankers the People Are Coming

Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world said earlier this year that “There has been class warfare going on... and my class isn’t just winning, I mean we’re killing them”.

By Laura Fitzgerald, Socialist Party

The onset of neo-liberal capitalism in the late 1970s that saw a shift away from manufacturing because the rate of profit for the corporations therein had flatlined, towards a finance capitalism in particular, facilitated a huge squeezing of the US working class, dashing the American Dream for the majority and massively increasing the wealth of the tiny minority of super-rich.

The impact of the de-industrialisation of the US has been depicted in the likes of the popular TV series “The Wire”, whereby the hopelessness of the inescapable cycle of poverty, state racism and social decay was illustrated. This process of the impoverishing of the masses and the prospering of the elite has accelerated since the capitalist calamity of an economy fuelled by bubbles, collapsed. Foreclosures of working families’ homes in the US have led to “tent cities” of those made homeless by the greed of private banks.

A great vampire squid

In some US cities that were formerly hubs of a thriving car industry, main streets lay deserted and multi-storey buildings begin to be reclaimed by plant life. This July, a record 45.3 million people in the US were in receipt of food stamps. Meanwhile, a new report has indicated that the top 147 corporations in the world control 40% of the entire world’s wealth, with the likes of investment bank Goldman Sachs that Matt Taibbi in the Rolling Stone described as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” high on the list.

It is in this context that the small number of protesters who declared that “We are the 99%”, referring to the yawning gap between the top 1% elite and everyone else, and decided to Occupy Wall Street, managed to strike a collective nerve in US society, facilitating a timely discussion about the inbuilt inequality within the capitalist system, and the unacceptable situation facing the mass of working families, students, young people, the unemployed, people of colour and so on within the US at the hands of the dictatorship of the markets and the parasitic rule of banker vampire squids and their suitably spineless, toady politician friends.

Since this action in September, fuelled by terrible state repression of protesters that only swelled the number of occupiers and their determination. Occupy Together has grown, with days of action swelling to 25,000 in New York. Occupations established, albeit very small, symbolic ones in many cases, in 100 cities across the US, and in 900 cities around the world.

Internationalism: Occupy the world

Where the Occupy Together camp has managed to coalesce with existing movements and struggles of young people and workers against austerity, and therefore find broad, active points of support, it has been able to mobilise tens of thousands, like in Chile and in Spain.

The internationalism of Occupy Together illustrates the tremendous potential for struggle and solidarity of young people, workers and the unemployed around the world, as a global struggle is what’s necessary in order to challenge the global rule and domination of the 1% who hold the wealth and therefore the power. The inspiration that the revolutions that have swept the Arab world in 2011 have provided is immense, with the occupation of Tahrir Square in particular a reference point for the tens of thousands of ‘Indignados’ in Greece and Spain, and all of these movements inspiring the Occupy Together wave of occupations.

The level of support that Occupy Wall Street has garnered is significant. According to the Financial Times, 59% of people in the US support the aims of Occupy Wall Street, and in fact even Obama has felt pressure to, disingenuously it must be said, reflect this, mentioning the 1% and the 99% in a speech.

Reaching the working Class

Occupy is twice as popular as the Tea Party, which in its own crazed right-wing manner reflects the malaise caused by the class divide in US society, and this support has been achieved in spite of the multimillionaire owned and controlled right-wing mass media. The potential for radicalised young people, for example, to reach out to the working class and oppressed in the broadest sense is certainly there. The fact that 100 uniformed Iraq veterans marched against the rule of the 1% at an Occupy Wall Street solidarity demonstration with Occupy Oakland which has experienced vicious police brutality, gives a glimpse of this.

Key to the development of Occupy Together will be the extent to which it can reach out to and engage in the fullest sense, the working class as a whole, and the organised working class in particular.

Occupation not enough

There was a spectacular movement early this year in Wisconsin against draconian anti-union legislation, that, whil­e wasn’t on this occasion victorious, illustrated the importance of organised labour and workers as a whole to changing society – there is a reason that states throughout the US are attempting to cut back on legal union rights and that reason is that the 1% fear the latent power of workers, most sharply expressed by strike and general strike action that has the power to immobilise society and the elite’s indescribably cherished profit-garnering ability.
The 48 hour general strike that workers in Greece engaged in in late October illustrates this – during which time the whole of Greek society came to a standstill and half a million workers and young people demonstrated in Athens.

The act of occupation in and of itself is not enough – in Egypt the occupation of Tahrir Square reached out to and emboldened workers who engaged in tenacious strike action which was in fact critical to the fall of the Mubarrak dictatorship.

In Oakland, California, Occupy has taken an important first step in this direction. After the police seriously injured Scott Olsen, a 24 year old Iraq veteran participating in Occupy Oakland, an angry General Assembly held that evening called a general strike for 2 November.

In its press conference to announce the latter, Occupy Oakland referred to the 1946 Oakland General Strike, evoking the proud labour movement tradition in the US and the power of workers engaging in strike action. They correctly saw the need to escalate the protest and looked to workers to take strike action to do so. Many rank and file workers supported the call – enough so to exert pressure on the union leaders to speak positively about the call for a general strike, but unfortunately not to actively call a strike or encourage their members to participate, apart from asking them to apply for a day off work. Therefore what happened on the day was limited, with only small sections of unionised teachers and longshoremen participating. The protest did manage to shut down Oakland port for up to 5 hours.

The example of the Oakland “general strike” illustrates the initial nature of Occupy. In order to be capable of organising a general strike, workers themselves must be at the heart of organising in Occupy, potentially with general assemblies themselves in major workplaces and so on to work as committees of struggle, capable of forcing union leaders to call real action and if such assemblies developed, capable of organising effective action including strike action. However, the positive sentiment from Occupy Oakland towards such a situation, is in and of itself a big plus.

Political alternative needed

The lack of an organised political force that represents the interests of the 99%, workers, unemployed, poor, young people and so on, is a question that must be addressed. Simply put, the Democrats and Republicans represent different wings of the 1%. As the winter kicks in and the difficulties of maintaining camps intensifies, the means by which the anti-corporate, anti-banker ideas that the movement represents can be maintained and organise further and more meaningful action in the future, would be aided by a new party based around such ideas, that could also assist and give confidence to workers in unions attempting to tackle the large conservative bureaucracy at the top that impedes radical action.

The broad based questioning of capitalism by Occupy is welcomed and similarly, the inspiration it takes from the Arab Revolutions. However, there is a major caveat contained in the latter. Only half a revolution has taken place in Egypt and Tunisia, for example. Dictators have been heroically overthrown, but the same system in reality exists, with the same poverty and youth unemployment as before - capitalism.

The rule of profit continues, with the key wealth and key aspects of the economy still in private hands, no genuine democracy has been achieved. In order to break the rule of the 1%, a real challenge to capitalism must be waged. Occupy would be stronger on the basis of a fulsome rejection of capitalism and a vision of an alternative.

Socialist policies, whereby the key wealth in society and means to create wealth is democratically owned and controlled, with real participative democracy at every level, planning the economy according to the needs of the majority, represent such an alternative.

In the likes of Occupy Dame St., Occupy Cork, Occupy Belfast etc., where a small but determined group of people are camping, a major discussion about these ideas would be extremely productive, and could arm the participants to have a major impact on effecting real change, and really challenge the 1%, when a broader section of society get active.

Revealed - the 147 companies that run the world

Please see this article from New Scientist that has worked out that 1318 "transnational" corporations own and control 60% of the world's wealth, and 40% of the number by 147 "super-entities". In other words, it really is 1%! That is why the Socialist Party calls for a socialist government to take into public ownership the top 150 companies and banks that dominate the British economy, and run them under democratic 
working class control and management. A democratic socialist plan of production would ensure that all the wealth and potential of the world really can go to the 99% of people in the world while safeguarding the environment.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#bx283545B1

"AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy....

Protest at Tory conference

Tories gathering for conference faced large protest demonstration
By Alec Price, Chester & Wirral Socialist Party

35,000 people travelled to Manchester city centre on Sunday 2nd October to march against the anti-working class policies of the Conservative party.

The Tory conference usually attracts a protest - but not on this scale. Last year for example, 7,000 protested in Birmingham.

The reason for the dramatic increase in numbers is surely down to the increasing reaction to the £81 billioncuts package that the Con-Dem coalition is trying to push through, but also the decision of the Trades Union Congress to organise the march this year.

Read the rest here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12918/04-10-2011/tories-gathering-for-conference-faced-large-protest-demonstration

Get rid of Cameron, Murdoch and all they represent

Editorial of the SocialistFrom The Socialist newspaper, 20 July 2011

When long-rotten fruit finally falls, all manner of grossness oozes from it and all varieties of parasites can come crawling out. And so it is with the all-embracing bushfire of the News International (NI) crisis.

In two weeks a paper, the News of the World (NoW), has closed, unfortunately with hundreds of job losses. Senior Met policeofficers have resigned and the extent of entanglement between Rupert Murdoch's empire and the police is being exposed. John Stephenson, who resigned as Met chief, told the House of Commons that ten of the Met's 45 press officers previously worked for NI.

No doubt many who have protested against climate change, against student fees and on other issues, will want their questions about police 'hacking' or infiltration of their organisations answered.

Murdoch, his cronies and Cameron should tell us whether they have ever penetrated or conducted underground work in organisations such as the Socialist Party or its predecessor Militant.

Rebekah Brooks, NI chief executive, friend to at least the last three prime ministers and Murdoch's golden girl, has not only resigned her position but been arrested. She has, alongside Rupert Murdoch and his son James, faced the parliamentary select committee. There, Murdoch senior used his son, as singer George Michael tweeted, "as a human shield".

Andy Coulson, formerly Cameron's pal and Downing Street director of communications, has also been arrested. His other previous incarnations include a stint as News of the World (NoW) editor and witness in the case against wrongfully imprisoned Scottish socialist Tommy Sheridan.

There has also been the death, as yet unexplained, of one of the first whistleblowers, Sean Hoare.

What now for Tory prime minister David Cameron? How can he pretend that he wasn't influenced by Murdoch's empire? He conducted 26 meetings with NI executives in 15 months plus apparently a number of 'undocumented' exchanges and, as Murdoch senior indicated, 'backdoor' visitors to Downing Street. How many times did he meet victims or working classopponents of his government's cuts?

Opposition leader Ed Miliband recognised that the exposure of the hacking of the phone of murdered school student Milly Dowler changed things. In his 19 July speech, he correctly linked all the "powerful people who answered to nobody", out-of-control bankers, tax-avoiding corporations, dishonest MPs who had indulged in a "culture of entitlement" and News International "which thought it was beyond responsibility".

Miliband pointed out that while "Sir Paul Stephenson [Met Commissioner] has taken responsibility and resigned over the employment of Mr Coulson's deputy... the Prime Minister hasn't even apologised for hiring Mr Coulson." Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman insisted that they wanted to ask Cameron questions. However, Miliband should demand Cameron's resignation, and that of his government as well.

All those who have been victims of Cameron's cuts - ie every one of us who works in or uses public services -every one who is not as rich as the millionaire Cabinet- will want Cameron and Co sent packing.

Cameron, having absented himself to fly around Africa with a load of bankers, is returning for one extra day of parliament before the summer recess. However, one day is insufficient. Cameron must not be 'saved by the bell'. Any opposition worth the name would call for a vote of 'no confidence' and push Cameron out. This government's downfall would strike a huge political blow against the ruling class and their cuts programme.

But Ed Miliband himself has also been quaffing from the crystal cup at Murdoch's recent summer party. New Labour in government never took the opportunity to clip Murdoch's wings. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown failed spectacularly to reverse Thatcher's anti-trade union laws or to undo vast Tory privatisations. In fact they added to those policies. Likewise there was no attempt to undo the moves towards monopoly control and political influence enjoyed by Murdoch and his ilk.

Miliband denounced the strikes against attacks on public sector pensions on 30 June, the most important day of struggle in recent working class history. Nonetheless Miliband could be brought to power, not through his own actions but through the unwinding of the crisis. From this coalition's inception, the Socialist has warned it would be torn asunder.

But an attack on Murdoch will not be enough to win an election. A Guardian/ICM poll found that while Miliband's personal approval had risen three points to 31%, Labour had dropped three points to 36%, 1% behind the Tories.

For working class and middle class people a change to Miliband's Labour would offer no solution. The trade union leaders should act. Clearly the establishment is bankrupt. Many MPs are now falling over themselves to celebrate the 'principle of free press' - but where were they until now?

The solicitor for one hacking victim told the BBC's Panorama programme that MPs hadn't stopped the scandal - but merely reacted to a scandal that had finally caught up with them.

On 30 June members of the ATL teaching union were on strike for the first time. General secretary Mary Bousted was given a standing ovation at the strike rally. She said: "I am glad that the ATL is not affiliated to any political party; Ed Miliband is a disgrace." She asked: "What has he and his shadow cabinet, which is laughingly called an opposition ever done? Sisters, and brothers, we're doing it for ourselves."

This latest crisis underlines the need for a workers' party more than ever. Steps must be urgently taken to build a party, based on a socialist programme, that cannot be bought, that doesn't seek the approval of anti-working class billionaires; but instead seeks to provide a vehicle to fight to defend all our rights, jobs and public services.

The Murdoch affair must not be allowed to fade over the summer break. Arising from this crisis, as well as questions about who we can trust to run the country, are questions about who should own and make decisions about the press.

The Socialist calls for the nationalisation of the press and all media facilities under democratic working class control and management. This has to be linked to a programme to abolish the roots of this crisis, the profit-motivated capitalist system and to fight for a socialist alternative.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12421/20-07-2011/get-rid-of-cameron-murdoch-and-all-they-represent

Bristol Anti-Cuts events: NHS Emergency!

From BADACA: http://www.bristolanticutsalliance.org.uk/

Andrew “Greedy” Lansley’s crazed plans to break-up and privatise the NHS have already started, despite Cameron’s spin that the plans are on ‘pause’.

Join BADACA supporters on the following three protests over the next week to voice your feelings about moves to turn Bristol Community Health (which provides many of our local NHS services) into a ‘Social Enterprise’, ripping up NHS contracts with staff and leaving our local services one corporate takeover away from being run for profit by some huge American health insurance company!!!

Thursday 26th May, 12 noon – 2pm: 1st Picket of Bristol Community Health Consultation – Easton –http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=105210582902542

Saturday 28th May, 12 noon – 2pm: Bristol UK Uncut – Emergency Operation – Broadmead – http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=146087172131177

Tuesday 31st May, 2pm – 4pm: 2nd Picket of Bristol Community Health Consultation – Southmead – http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=148199058586377

Spain: Video of Puerto Del Sol - 'Real Democracy Now!'

During the evening of Thursday 16 May, the opposition youth movement that is developing in Spain brought out 150,000 protesters to occupy squares in 57 towns and cities.

The youth movement - ‘Real Democracy Now’ - is continuing and spreading. Despite the attempts of the PSOE government to ban the protests, this coming weekend is expected to see a further growth of this youth rebellion. Spanish members of the CWI are intervening in the protests across Spain, for more analysis visit: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5077

UK Uncut and the anti-cuts UK movement

Article by Hannah Sell, from the latest issue of Socialism Today: http://www.socialismtoday.org/

Half-a-million participated in the TUC demonstration against the cutbacks on 26 March, a clear indication of the potential power of Britain’s organised working class. Numerous other protest movements have also emerged. UK Uncut, for example, mobilises a radicalised layer exposing big-business tax evasion. Some commentators, however, claim that this is a ‘new model’, in opposition to coordinated strike action and democratic mass campaigns. HANNAH SELL explains that this view poses a danger to the struggle to defeat the attacks of this right-wing government.

JUST TWELVE MONTHS ago, Britain was a completely different country than it is today. The political landscape has been transformed. For a few months it seemed, superficially at least, that there would be no serious resistance to the austerity assault of the Con-Dem government. But the surface calm could not last. First to break it were the students and school students. Over a month in the winter of 2010 young people took to often snowbound streets in their tens of thousands. This was the biggest student movement for a quarter of a century, characterised by audacity, inventiveness and raw class anger at the millionaire, privately-educated ministers who were tripling student fees and axing the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

If the student movement was the overture, the massive – half-a-million plus – trade union demonstration on 26 March was the thunderous opening of the main act. Drawn into activity by the winter movement many tens of thousands of students took part in that demonstration.
The October 2010 launch and subsequent growth of UK Uncut are directly related to the student movement. Most, but by no means all, UK Uncut activists are radical young people. UK Uncut says: "We start with some simple points of agreement. The brutal cuts to services about to be inflicted by the current government are unnecessary, unfair and ideologically motivated… A cabinet of millionaires have decided that libraries, healthcare, education funding, voluntary services, sports, the environment, the disabled, the poor and the elderly must pay the price for the recklessness of the rich".
"Austerity-economics is the policy of the powerful. It cannot be stopped by asking nicely. We cannot wait until the next election. If we want to win the fight against these cuts (and we can win) then we must make it impossible to ignore our arguments and impossible to resist our demands. This means building a powerful grassroots mass movement, able to resist the government cuts at every turn. UK Uncut hopes to play a small part in this movement".
UK Uncut initiates protests in banks and high street shops – Vodafone, Topshop, BHS and others – whose owners are tax evaders or avoiders. Particularly targeted are stores owned by Philip Green, boss of the Arcadia retail group and a government advisor on where to wield the axe, who enjoys a £4.1 billion fortune.
Protests organised by UK Uncut have received widespread publicity and have caught the imagination of many. Alongside others – in particular, the PCS civil servants’ union campaign pointing out that £120 billion goes uncollected in tax every year – UK Uncut has helped to counter the government’s propaganda that there is no alternative to cuts.
The most powerful weapon
THE SOCIALIST PARTY shares much of UK Uncut’s approach, in particular its understanding that a mass movement can defeat the cuts. We would not, however, agree with the view of some of its adherents who argue that UK Uncut and similar initiatives represent something completely new which, unlike ‘more traditional’ methods of organising, offer the means to defeat the cuts. Radical journalist, Laurie Penny, for example, wrote: "What we are seeing here is no less than a fundamental reimagining of the British left: an organic reworking which rejects the old deferential structures of union-led action and interminable infighting among indistinguishable splinter parties for something far more inclusive and fast-moving". (The Guardian, 24 December 2010)
Penny concluded: "For these young protesters, the strategic factionalism of the old left is irrelevant. Creative, courageous and inspired by situationism and guerrilla tactics, they have a principled understanding of solidarity. For example, assembling fancy-dress flash mobs in Topshop to protest against corporate tax avoidance may seem frivolous, but this movement is daring to do what no union or political party has yet contemplated – directly challenging the banks and business owners who caused this crisis".
Many of those involved in anti-cuts direct action would not agree. Nonetheless, the ideas she expresses represent a developing political trend within the student and anti-cuts movement. If these ideas were to become dominant among young anti-cuts activists they would disarm a generation, and isolate them from the mass anti-cuts movement that has begun.
The TUC demonstration, the biggest workers’ demonstration since the second world war, showed graphically the mobilising power of the ‘old structures of union-led action’. It was direct action on a far higher level than ‘fancy-dress flash mobs’. The demonstration should have taken place earlier – by 26 March many jobs and services had already been lost. The delay by the TUC leadership left a huge vacuum. This is one reason that UK Uncut captured the imagination of a layer of youth and workers desperate to see something done against the cuts. However, the authority of the trade union leaders among broad sections of the working class meant that, while UK Uncut has mobilised a few thousand, the TUC mobilised over half-a-million. If the TUC was to harness that power and determination into a call for a one-day general strike, there is no doubt it would receive a huge response.
The working class, and in particular the organised working class in the workplaces, is key to the movement to defeat the cuts. Big sections of the middle class will also join the anti-cuts movement. Community campaigns have an important role to play, too. But it is the potential collective power of the working class in the workplaces which is the anti-cuts movement’s most powerful weapon.
The power of the working class has been demonstrated in the revolutions unfolding in North Africa and the Middle East. In Egypt and Tunisia, the dictators were forced to flee when the working class came out on strike and threw its weight behind the movement. In Britain, a 24-hour general strike, even of the public sector in the first instance, would be mass direct action on the highest level Britain has seen in many decades. It would terrify the government and give enormous confidence to working-class people to step up the fight back.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS clear from the platform speakers on 26 March that the majority of national trade union leaders want to send the movement back to sleep, not step up the struggle. The verbal support that TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, has given for ‘peaceful direct action’ – "the days of protests being solely about unions going on strike are over" – is also a warning that some union leaders may support organisations like UK Uncut to try appear more ‘radical’ while, in reality, hiding behind them to avoid organising effective strike action. They will not succeed.
Several trade unions, including PCS, the UCU lecturers’ union and the National Union of Teachers (NUT), are planning to co-ordinate strike action at the end of June. The PCS is demanding that the TUC calls regional midweek demonstrations on the first day of co-ordinated strike action. The National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) is campaigning throughout the trade union movement for other public-sector unions to join this action. What should be the role of UK Uncut activists in this situation?
The most effective approach would be to orient towards the union movement, and to campaign for the idea of co-ordinated strike action across the public sector. Where based in schools, colleges and universities, UK Uncut activists could work to make sure that school students and students strike together with public-sector workers. Alongside this, UK Uncut could orient towards communities facing the closure of their services and assist them in their campaigns, encouraging them to organise occupations of swimming pools and libraries, etc, threatened with closure.
This does not mean that direct action by small groups (like the Topshop flash mobs) has no role to play in publicising the rich’s failure to pay tax. Long before the term was coined, direct action was part of many struggles: from the suffragette movement for women’s rights to the battle against the poll tax. When deciding if direct action by small groups will be effective or not, however, we must always assess whether it will increase support among the mass of the working class and oppressed, or undermine it. A small minority attempting to stop the cuts by acting on behalf of the mass of the working class will never succeed, no matter how heroic its actions. Direct action is useful if it helps to build a mass movement. If it does not, it isn’t.
In the aftermath of the 26 March demonstration the capitalist media initially conflated UK Uncut’s peaceful occupation of Fortnum & Mason with the small minority of protestors (not related to UK Uncut) who smashed shop windows as a means of protesting against cuts. In contrast to the TUC leadership, which wrongly condemned all violence by protestors without a word about the violence of the police in manhandling peaceful demonstrators, UK Uncut spokespeople refused to condemn anyone, saying that it is up to individuals how they choose to protest against cuts. This was honourable, but it would have been far better to have also used the opportunity to positively explain an effective strategy to defeat the cuts. This would have meant explaining that UK Uncut understood the anger of a layer of desperate young people and that smashing windows is less serious than this government smashing young people’s futures.
Nonetheless, smashing windows, in particular intimidating low-paid shop workers, is not an effective method of protest. And it gave a weapon to the capitalist media and the government to try and undermine the impact of the demonstration. UK Uncut could also have explained that it is unlikely to be a coincidence that only eleven of the ‘window smashing’ protestors were arrested, whereas 138 peaceful UK Uncut protestors were held for 24 hours. Given how politically useful it was for the government to be able to point to ‘violent protestors’ it is highly probable that there were undercover police acting as agent provocateurs among the window smashers. One demand of the movement should be for the state to reveal where their undercover officers were deployed on the day.
Lack of democracy
UK UNCUT IS limited in the strategy it puts forward because of its lack of a democratic structure through which it can discuss and agree an approach. UK Uncut operates without structures on the basis that anyone who wants to can organise a UK Uncut protest and advertise it on their website. This has advantages, making it easy for people new to protest to organise such an event. However, it also has limits. It is not, as Penny and others suggest, a fundamentally new and non-hierarchical way of organising, which is better than ‘the old structures’. In fact, similar ideas have existed for as long as there has been a struggle against capitalism. The history of the last 30 years means that they have been particularly prominent in the last period.
A decade or so ago the same kinds of direct action and methods of organisation dominated the anti-capitalist movement which developed from the 1999 Seattle demonstrations against the World Trade Organisation. In some senses the anti-capitalist movement was more developed politically than UK Uncut. Today, the profound crisis of capitalism has led to a far wider questioning of the system than existed a decade ago. But UK Uncut’s demands are more limited than those of their predecessors. The May Day anti-capitalist protests in Britain, for example, the biggest of which was around 10,000 strong, were organised around the slogans, ‘break the banks, cancel all debt’, and ‘carnival against capitalism’, considerably broader in scope than UK Uncut’s demand that the rich pay their taxes.
While the anti-capitalist movement was an important step forward, after a period of time, it came up against its political and organisational limitations. It burst onto the scene after several years of extremely low levels of struggle by historical standards. Understandably, given the legacy of the Stalinist dictatorships and the record of right-wing trade union and labour movement leaders, scepticism towards organisation and fears it would lead to bureaucracy were very strong. ‘Spontaneity’ and lack of structures were therefore held up, as they are by Penny and others today, as superior to, and more democratic than, ‘traditional organisation’.
But the lack of a democratic organisation within which anti-capitalist activists could discuss and take decisions on strategy meant that the anti-capitalist movement remained inchoate and without any clear idea on the way forward. In Britain in 2001, the biggest anti-capitalist May Day demonstration was kettled by the police for nine hours. In response, the organisers simply declared that they would not be calling any more May Day demonstrations, unilaterally deciding that the state had defeated the protests.
Effective organisation, effective action
THIS ILLUSTRATES THE fact that organisation is a vital prerequisite for democracy. It is a myth that any demonstration takes place entirely spontaneously. Every event is organised to some degree. For UK Uncut protests, for example, people update websites, write and print leaflets, and so on. However, without organisation and democratic structures, there is no way to take part in collective decision making. ‘Self-organisation’, far from preventing the development of leaders, as its advocates claim, simply means that the people taking the decisions – regardless of whether those decisions are good or bad – are not accountable to the movement.
Today, some aspects of the scepticism towards political organisation are even deeper than they were a decade ago. The experience of thirteen years of New Labour in office, followed by the Lib Dems joining the Tories in coalition, has hardened the idea that all politicians act in the interests of the rich and powerful. Of course, this is true of all capitalist politicians. But the answer is not to turn away from political organisation but for the working class to organise its own party.
The failure of the massive anti-war demonstration in 2003 to stop the Iraq war has also been embedded in the consciousness of young people and has encouraged the idea that ‘new’ methods of organisation need to be found. Yet, that demo came within a hair’s breadth of forcing Tony Blair to pull back from supporting the war. He had even warned his children to pack their bags as the family might be leaving 10 Downing Street. If, as we demanded at the time, the trade union leaders had called for a day’s strike against the war, Blair would have been forced to retreat.
This could not have been done using ‘self-organisation’, which is very limited from a purely practical point of view. Collective decision-making – where a debate takes place, a vote is taken and a majority decision reached, which is abided to by all – is a basic prerequisite for effective action. It is clearly crucial, for example, if a strike is to be successful.
Some would argue that these criticisms are merely the ‘strategic factionalism of the old left’. But there is no dogmatism here. New ideas will be thrown up by the movement, and are welcome provided that they take the struggle forward. However, the battle to defeat the cuts is the most serious the working class has faced in decades. If we fail, living standards will be driven back to the level of the 1930s. Therefore, discussion to work out the right strategy, tactics and methods of organisation is not ‘interminable infighting’, but absolutely essential.
On one level, the demands of UK Uncut are very modest – that the rich should pay their taxes. If they were to do so, as PCS has worked out, it would virtually wipe out the budget deficit. But the rich are not about to cough up. Protests in shops have the power to publicise the issue but not to make the rich pay. UK Uncut supporter, Johann Hari, was naïve when he wrote in The Independent: "The more protests there are, the higher the price. If enough of us demand it, we can make the rich pay their share for the running of our country, rather than the poor and the middle class". (29 October 2010)
Demanding workers’ control
THE RICH SHOULD pay their taxes and the levels of tax they pay should be massively increased. However, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the majority in order to maximise the profits of a few. Capitalists will never meekly accept increased regulation and taxation. In the past, when minimal measures were taken against them, capitalists in Britain threatened a strike of capital. Labour Party governments, because they remained within the framework of capitalism, were forced to retreat.
To be effectively implemented, even the demand for the rich to pay the tax they owe would require state control, the complete nationalisation of the banking and finance industry. This would need to be combined with the control and checking of the import and export of capital. Even this would be ineffective unless it was accompanied by strict workers’ control and management of these nationalised industries. Left to themselves, the capitalists will find a thousand and one ways to escape measures to control them. Hence the need to link UK Uncut’s demands to a socialist programme of nationalisation of the banks and financial sector under workers’ control and management, with the participation of consumers and small businesspeople. To achieve these demands will require that the working class has its own democratic party which can draw together the different layers of the working class and fight for a programme in its interests.
The struggle against the cuts is also linked to the struggle for socialism. UK Uncut states that the cuts are "unnecessary, unfair and ideologically motivated". There is no doubt that an ideological desire to finish what Margaret Thatcher began is an element in the zeal with which the Tories are pursuing the cuts. However, across Europe there are governments of ex-social democratic parties (equivalent to New Labour) in Greece, Spain and Portugal, and right-wing capitalist parties in France, Germany and Italy, implementing cuts that are virtually identical in their brutality. The cuts flow from the drive by the capitalists to offload responsibility onto the working class for the profound crisis of capitalism which began in 2007/08. They are determined to drive the cuts through. This does not mean they cannot be stopped. Faced with a powerful mass movement that threatens the capitalists’ rule, they would have no choice but to retreat. However, in its relentless pursuit of profit, capitalism would then come back with other ways of making the working class pay, for example, through inflation.
A new generation has been thrust into activity over the last four months. Many are looking to the organised working class in the trade union movement for a lead in the struggle against cuts. A significant minority are drawing socialist conclusions. Others, understandably frustrated by the delaying tactics of right-wing union leaders, are looking for other methods of struggle. While many are a useful addition to the struggle, if they take the form of shortcuts, aiming to substitute a small minority for the building of a mass movement, they will represent a dead end.