Defend Adrian Swain!

Adrian Swain, a school teacher and NUT rep, is being victimised for refusing to adhere to a new dress code, imposed by the head teacher without consultation with the union. The school´s NUT group is backing Adrian, seeing this as a dangerous attack on a vocal trade unionist, designed to weaken trade union organisation. However, the campaign defending Adrian suffered a setback when ELTA (East London Teachers Association) failed to back it, after prominent Socialist Teachers Alliance (STA) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP) members argued against a motion of support. For more info, click here.

Opium anyone?

Last time I checked Socialist Unity, a report on a Respect meeting about Pakistan had a handful of comments, including Andy Newman's best attempt at explaining away gender-based segregation in meetings (in this instance, all the women were at the back of the room) by accusing all those who don't advocate segregation of "sectarian secularism". Three days later, that same post has nearly 400 comments, although admittedly only a third or so consist of Socialists attempting to explain why exactly Marxist materialism doesn't apply to Islam. For those in an especially self-hating mood, here's the post.

Times readers turn to Marx

This week the news arrived that Das Kapital is leaping off bookshelves everywhere; now it seems the credit crunch has inspired even readers of The Times to hop onto the proverbial bandwagon and turn to Karl Marx. In yesterday's paper, readers were asked if Marx had got it right. And by today, it appears that 50.9%, over half, of respondents had answered with "yes".

Domestic Violence- The Facts

The day after discussion of amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill, including those extending abortion rights to Northern Ireland, was denied, it strikes me that the question of women's liberation is just as crucial (and distant) as ever. On that theme, I bring you the statistics on domestic violence, so often ignored by the government and media. The stats are from the UK- just one country today's world, where it's estimated that more than 60 million women are "missing" as a result of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide, and patriarchy is rife.

In the UK, domestic violence accounts for between 16 and 25% of all recorded violent crime.
1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives.
Each week, ten suicides are ascribed to it and two women are killed by their partners. This is not, as the media likes to portray it, a tragic accident. The deaths of these women are usually the culmination of weeks, months or years of harrowing violence, trauma and intimidation.
167 women are raped every day- 45% of these rapes are carried out by current male partners.

Statistics taken from Amnesty International and the F-word.

More Student Arrests in Iran!

From the Students for Freedom and Equality in Iran-

Once again, at the start of the new semester, the Iranian security forces are closely observing and arresting members of Students for Freedom and Equality in Iran (SFEI). The Islamic regime has fabricated evidence in order to arrest activists, who are accused of organising demonstrations on Student Day, May Day, Women’s Day, etc. This is part of a new wave of attacks on students, which has seen five arrests in October alone.

Those detained include: Amir Mohsen Mohammadi, Neda Asadi, Arsalan Sadeghi, Habib Alaei and Maziyar Masoumi. Amir Mohsen Mohammadi, a well known journalist, was the first to be detained, on October 6. Following his arrest, we set up a committee to demand his release. The other four students, three of whom are active members of the SFEI committee, were arrested on October 13 and are being held in Dastgerd prison in Isfahan.

We call for international support and solidarity to argue for their release and to oppose these crass attempts to silence our movement.

Abortion Rights- the Fightback!

At lunchtime in Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester, between fifteen and twenty feminists and socialists, gathered to protest against the lack of abortion rights in Northern Ireland. The protest came just two days before the third reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in parliament. The protesters were from Feminist Fightback, the Riveters (the women's rights collective at Manchester Uni), Permanent Revolution, the Marxist Radical Forum and Communist Students. Five, including myself, were chained to the railings, bearing the words "Extend Abortion Rights to Ireland" across our backs. Similar stunts were held in different cities across the country; in London, feminists chained themselves to the Department of Health and obstructed access to the building. Photos here

While most of us take for granted the 1967 Abortion Act, few realise that abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland. Women who wish to have an abortion, either have to risk a dangerous backstreet attempt, or travel overseas and pay on average £2ooo for something they should be able to access easily and for free at home. The cost means that terminating pregnancy is simply not an option for many working class women; regardless of their age, financial situation, or even whether they were raped, poverty can force them into having a child. And even if a woman can afford to travel overseas for an abortion, she will receive no follow up health care on her return. Talking to people at today's action, there was widespread disbelief that this is still the case.

There are some positive amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, meaning that for the first time in forty years we have a real chance to extend abortion rights, and make concrete gains in the fight for a woman's right to choose. As well as Northern Ireland, positive amendments could end the need for two doctors to give permission before an abortion can be carried out, as well as prevent false information on abortion from being distributed. However, neither the Minister for Health (Dawn Primarolo MP) or the Minister for Women (Harriet Harman MP) have expressed support for these amendments, and it looks as if today a programming motion might have been passed, preventing discussion of these issues.

A women's right to choose when to have children, or indeed whether to have them at all, is integral to her sexual liberation and to women's emancipation as a whole. This means we not only have to mobilise to defend and extend abortion rights, but also that we must fight for proper social provision for childcare, so that a superficial choice, to have kids or not, becomes a genuine choice.

Fascists, Fighting Squads and No Platform

A quick visit to the UAF website reveals that they did not make a single mention of yesterday's demonstration against the BPP. Why? We can speculate that this has something to do with the fact that Workers Power were the dominant force in the organisation and execution of the protest, but really this is not the most important issue at hand- what we should be questioning is whether UAF has any genuine interest in fighting fascism wherever it appears, or only where it can build its own ranks at the expense of other anti fascist forces?

This is something I wrote, a couple of months back, for the magazine Communist Student. They didn't print it, so I'm putting it here.

Fascists, Fighting Squads and No Platform- How the student left should tackle fascism

The term ‘fascism’ was first coined by Mussolini in Italy 1922. But what exactly does it mean? Like many of the -isms thrown around the murky world of the British Left, not all who use it are clear as to its precise meaning. Fascism is this: the creation of a mass populist movement, designed to be the "shock troops" of the most reactionary sections of the ruling class against the organised workers' movement, mobilising these forces through an illusory "socialism" that bears no resemblance to the real thing. [1] In times of crisis, the ruling class will resort to fascism- in fact it is the last weapon in their armoury, in this, the imperialist epoch. That the fascists are not in a position to take power in the UK today is not testament to the strength of the present antifascist movement, but rather a result of the success of neoliberalism.

One question I have been asked is whether or not the British National Party (BNP) can be considered fascist? The answer is yes. An absolute and unequivocal yes. Many people who vote for the BNP are themselves not fascist, many are part of the disenfranchised working class in fact, but the fascist nature of their cadre is indisputable. Quite simply put, just because the BNP hides behind a respectable façade, just because they have - temporarily - assumed the face of a democratic party, just because they claim to not be fascist, does not mean we should believe them. BNP leader Nick Griffin says it all: “Why do nationalists (meaning fascists) alone insist on spelling out in words of one syllable where they are coming from and where they want to go. Is it really honesty or is it just plain stupidity? This is a life and death struggle for white survival not a fancy dress party. A little less banner waving and a little more guile wouldn’t go amiss.” [2]

So what exactly is the relationship between the BNP- between Nick Griffin’s clean-shaven “suits not boots” acolytes and the violent thugs that we are so used to thinking of when we hear the word ‘fascist’? Well, fascist-motivated attacks are certainly not a thing of distant memory- only this year in Huddersfield a prominent student anti-fascist was subjected to a horrifically violent attack (she was pushed to the floor, kicked in the ribs and slashed with a knife) after campaigning to No Platform the BNP on her campus. During the attack she was called a “Dirty red”, “Lesbo”, and “Britain-hater”. This should serve as a warning to those who believe in the electoral respectability of the British National Party; since these thugs could have attacked any anti-fascist activist, you or me, we absolutely must stand together. Those who say that the BNP have abandoned violence, are, I’m afraid, living in fantasy land.

The Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) majority position holds that the creation of independent fighting squads is an integral characteristic of fascism. This is where many socialists, including those holding their own minority position, would disagree. When fascism comes to power, in Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy for instance, the fighting squads in question are assimilated into the state mechanism; so, following the CPGB’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, these forces cease to be fascist. Very strange indeed. To their credit, however, the CPGB permits open discussion in the party, and gives space to their minority position in their newspaper, the Weekly Worker. This notwithstanding, at their summer school they held a debate on the topic entitled “Fascism and fighting ghosts”- it seems to me that labelling the vast majority of the left, those who appreciate that the BNP is a fascist organisation as fighters of ghosts is a rather disingenuous move, not likely to foster the intended open and honest climate for debate.

A debate that frequently arises on the left is what approach to take towards Redwatch, Noncewatch, Stormfront and similar fascist-motivated websites. Many of us are on Redwatch- I am and I imagine most of the people reading this are too. Redwatch is a website containing images and personal details (including addresses and telephone numbers) of so-called “reds”- communists and socialists, peace campaigners, human rights activists, anti-fascists and anarchists, even children. The people featured on Redwatch’s pages can be subjected to harassment and, in some cases, violence. The latter happened in the case of well-known Merseyside anti-fascist Alec McFadden who was stabbed on his own doorstep. But what we absolutely must not do, is appeal to superficial knee-jerk censorship, by calling for a government ban of these websites (and in the process the sort of new legislation that could so easily be used against the workers’ movement). This approach was taken by a member of Workers Power’s youth group, Revolution, at last year’s National Union of Students (NUS) conference. Revolution later said they regretted the decision.

The first step to fighting fascism in Student Unions is an active defense of No Platform. No Platform can be summed up quite simply: refusing to grant fascists the space to air their views, “a platform” in other words, to speak in our Students’ Unions. There are a number of common (and easily refuted arguments) leveled against No Platform. The first argument is simply that by refusing to debate with fascists we appear cowardly- this, however, is patently untrue. If No Platform is done correctly it is not a cowardly display; it is a show of strength and unity. Moreover, as has clearly been demonstrated before, the BNP does not deal in the language of rationality and plain common sense; one need only look at behind-the-scenes documentaries such as Young, Nazi and Proud or Nazi Boy, to hear vitriolic racist and anti-Semitic views aired. At this summer’s Red, White and Blue festival in Derbyshire local residents reported seeing BNP members performing “Hitler salutes”- hardly the actions of people who are going to be won round with a nice bit of calm intellectual discussion.

The second argument used against No Platform goes like this: “You can’t say you’re in favour of freedom of speech and then advocate No Platform…” In response let me say this- No Platform is not a freedom of speech issue. Fascists, and racists for that matter, continue to possess freedom of speech, something which they exercise on a daily basis, when they spread their hate in meetings, on the internet, on TV (Nick Griffin appeared on Panoroma the week before this was written), in newspapers and in the streets. Not permitting the BNP to speak in our unions is common sense. Wanting to keep your home free from discrimination, violence and intimidation against ethnic minorities, LGBT people, Jews and Muslims, women and the disabled, you wouldn’t invite Holocaust-denying fascists through the door? So why would you invite them into your Students’ Unions?

Waiting for the BNP to grow larger is not an option we have; neither is waiting for them to gain the confidence to mobilise publicly in ever-greater numbers. With plans to march publicly in Stoke and Leeds in the near future, the days of fascists on the streets of Britain are certainly not numbered. That the BNP hold stalls in different towns around the country is something that the left should be ashamed of. All of which me to my last point- the importance of militant direct action. Physical confrontations with the fascists (yes, violence!) and the sort of mass blockades reminiscent of Cable Street will be part of any revival in the workers’ movement. In that sense, it is crucial - absolutely imperative in fact - that we build an antifascist movement that is fierce, united and deeply rooted in the politics of the proletariat; we need this in order to give the working class the necessary space in which to reorganise. Unfortunately, this is a movement which we currently lack. The Socialist Workers’ Party front group, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) simply doesn’t cut it. Any campaign that routinely subordinates the interests of the working class to the interests of the organisation (the textbook definition of sectarianism, in other words) can never be strong enough to provide a serious challenge to fascism. Weak, vote-for-anyone-but-the-BNP tactics will never lead to a serious political alternative for the working class. After all, David Cameron has signed up to UAF? Does that mean he’s on out side? Absolutely not.

[1] “Fascism” here

[2] Debate between PR and the CPGB here

British People's Party... But where were the people?

Between 150 and 200 anti-fascist protesters assembled in Leeds today, to demonstrate that the British People's Party, a fascist organisation headed by a man recently imprisoned for making nail bombs and downloading child pornography, is not welcome on the streets of Leeds. Initially, there were to be two demonstrations, both closing in on the fascists in a pincer movement, the workers from one side and the students from the other. As it happened, the fascists appeared to lack timekeeping skills and only showed up to their "protest" (8 of them, including two children, in a pen outside HMV) four hours late. In the mean time, it had become apparent that the main threat to democracy on that day was going to come from the police- they attempted to force the demonstrators into pens, and failing to get the majority of activists in, they brutally broke the protest into parts. Those outside HMV, including myself, were subject to a lot of police brutality. I was punched in the stomach.

When the police had finally moved the forty or so protesters who had managed to stay put outside HMV the longest, it was still several hours of tedium before the tiny fascist contingent moved into their designated pen. They had a rather weedy megaphone that couldn't be heard over our chanting. But still, hiding behind a grand total of 39 police officers, surrounded by many more, and penned in, they managed to look pretty brave. Well, brave for roughly an hour, after which they were sheepishly escorted away by yet more police.

As far as recent anti fascist demonstrations, this one was reasonably successful. The BPP failed to hand out any leaflets, their banners were not visible at all, and their words could not be heard. The fascists were outnumbered twenty to one. UAF and the SWP were largely absent - I spotted 2 of their members in the five hours I was there - and Workers Power's youth group, Revolution, led the demonstration. They did a good job on the whole, refusing to cooperate with police where Weyman Bennett would have been been eating out of their hands and not once suggesting that we should all just sit down.

However, one thing did strike me as bizarre: the number of people, including socialists and anarchists, who innocently questioned why the police were protecting the fascist scum. In doing so, they failed to understand the relationship between the capitalist state and the fascists. They failed to grasp that when there is a strong workers' movement (which of course, we lack in the present day) the capitalists may well turn to fascism as their last option- that, faced with socialism or fascism, their answer will invariably be fascism. Although the preferred weapons in the hands of the capitalists are the police, the judiciary and the army, sometimes state oppression alone is not enough to suppress a burgeoning workers' movement. Italy, Spain and Germany in the twenties and thirties taught us the exact price that socialists can pay if they fail to take power. And so, the police do not protect us because it is in no way in their interests to do so.

Can’t cook, won’t cook... or can’t think, won’t think?

There’s praise aplenty for Jamie Oliver and his new ‘Ministry of Food’ show in this week’s Socialist Worker, as Amy Leather (Manchester SWP) ‘welcomes his take on food and class’. Now, food I understand. But class? Did I miss an integral part of the programme? Or is Leather exaggerating (or downright fabricating) when she writes that ‘the programme shows that we have to challenge the structures of society and big business that limit so many of our choices’. Because it seems to me that the programme was a teensy bit heavy on the whole social engineering factor as St Jamie - evidently coming one step closer to his cushy government job and/or knighthood - invited us to gawp at the working class Northerners feeding doner kebabs to their six year olds.

Channel 4 alleges the opening episode, largely focusing on the poor, was supposed to show the influence of poverty on diet. But it wasn’t those responsible for the poverty who were treated badly (or fairly!) by the producers of this show; it was the working class who fared the worse. When we weren’t treated to shots of overweight unemployed mothers, it was miners who thought that cooking was “women’s work”. Portraying this poverty-stricken northern town as full of “numpties” and “thickos” (and a few misogynists to boot) the ‘Ministry of Food’ directly appealed to the audience of so-called Middle Britain, comfortably well off and desperate to marvel at the wonders to be found in this human zoo of the impoverished, the disenfranchised, the victims of Capitalism. And no, most of the working class don’t feed doner kebabs to their six year olds, anyway.

Rotherham is the obesity capital of Britain. But it’s also not short on a lack of opportunities and aspirations- the direct result of poverty. And Jamie Oliver, poster boy for the supermarket Sainsbuy’s, seeks to solve all this with some cooking tips (delivered in typically patronising “sweetheart” fashion). But as for the omelettes, meat balls and fancy chicken dishes, what sort of solution are they in a society where long hours mean half of workers can’t find the time for anything aside from ready meals, and the other half can’t afford much else? Criticism should fall on the supermarkets and the state, the profit-makers and profit-grabbers, not the working class. And Socialist Worker shouldn’t be acting as cheerleader to this human zoo broadcasting, designed to produce good TV aimed at Smug Britain, not real solutions to real problems.

"They say bankers, we say wankers!" Channel 4 meets the hard left

I'm sure there aren't many people who haven't yet seen this, but just in case, here is Channel 4 interviewing two groups on the revolutionary left, the CPGB and the SWP...

Stop the War- plenty of time for Conferences but where's the AGM?

Stop the War's last e-bulletin advertises a London-based Stop the War conference on November 22nd. Right around when you would expect the Annual General Meeting to be, in fact. But no, Stop the War office insists that there is "too much going on" to fit it in before February.

How disappointing that there is time and resources for Conferences but none for motions, voting and an actual chance to shape the direction of the Stop the War movement. After all, the greatest weapon in the hands of the politicians, generals and profiteers who make war is a weak anti war movement, precisely like we have in Britain today. Stop the War's AGM is the only real chance for voices outside of the SWP-dominated leadership to speak up; so why is there no time for democracy in Stop the War, but endless opportunities for semi-celebratory meetings referencing the glorious 2,000,000 that marched in 2003, and resolutely ignoring the dwindling figures that are still waving our placards five years on? Marching everywhere is taking us nowhere.

Imprisoned and tortured. Iranian student leaders are coming to Manchester

BNP leaflet Saturday shoppers in Manchester

There are reports of the BNP leafleting shoppers on Manchester's Market Street yesterday afternoon. This is deeply worrying news, with activists saying they have not seen this since the days of the National Front. Apparently, a dozen BNP supporters showed up but were sent packing by members of Respect, the SWP and a few non-aligned socialists. This is a welcome change of tactics, following the recent Peace and Unity Vigil against fascism in Stoke.

Obama's terrorist links

Sarah Palin has once again entered the realm of the far-fetched, accusing Obama of "palling around" with the Weather Underground. So what did Obama do to warrant this accusation? He once served on a charity board with an ex-member of the Weather Underground.

Please note: this is not a pro-Obama post. It's just an anti-Palin one.

For information on the Weather Underground, the film "The Weathermen" is excellent. You can view it here.

The Perils and Pitfalls of Consensus Decision Making

Using jazz hands means you are in agreement. Forming an L with one hand means you wish to query a term. Making a tea shape - the universally accepted sign for “I want a cup of tea” - doesn’t mean you want tea. It means you have a technical point to make. And a fist means you want to block a decision- or maybe that’s two arms crossed across your chest? Yes, comrades, welcome to the perils and pitfalls of Consensus Decision Making- a process that I can only imagine was designed by an especially malevolent mind, with the intention of holding up otherwise straightforward meetings for hours.

I know that by posting this I will probably the incur the wrath of some Consensus converts but I beg to be indulged in my scepticism, because I have lost more minutes of my life to the dictatorship of the facilitator than I care to remember. So forgive me if I don’t want to hear that the use of Consensus Decision Making began in the twelfth century or that it’s widely used in anarchist or women’s liberation movements. You see, the bloody thing is killing me… Slowly. So here, for your reading pleasure, are my gripes with Consensus Decision Making. I hope you will excuse the rather ill-disciplined rant.

The method itself is based around the idea of working towards a common agreement. It is a group decision making process that seeks to overcome minority objections and resolve conflict, by seeking a proposal of action that is permissible by all. Essentially, where there are disagreements, you should aim towards compromise. And instead of a chair, there is a person known as the “facilitator” whose job it is to help the process move smoothly. The diagram on the right explains the process neatly. Those who argue in favour of Consensus say it is inclusive and egalitarian. But, to most outsiders it is complex and confusing; in reality it is actually a difficult process to get your head around, and nigh on impossible to do well. And I can’t imagine there will be many reading this who will be surprised at the way a very tiny bit of power goes to some people’s heads- I suspect I’m not the only one to have witnessed a rather lovely person morph into some sort of Bonaparte figure at the very mention of the title “Facilitator”.

When everyone agrees, Consensus decision making can be rather jolly. But when there’s a disagreement… Well, that’s when the real pain starts. For the benefit of anyone who hasn’t yet been the victim of this particular form of organisation, let me explain: anyone in the group or meeting has the right to a veto of a proposal, known as a block. If this happens, there will be more discussion. And ultimately, the person who used the block may come up with an alternative proposal, which may well be accepted. Or they may stand aside, registering disapproval but allowing the meeting to continue. Or, alternatively, they may well hold up the meeting. Let’s say ninety-nine people are in agreement but one wishes to block. Why should the one have the right to hold up the many?

A friend and proponent of Consensus informed me that blocks are very serious, so serious in fact that you are only permitted five blocks in your entire lifetime! Errrr… Okay. And this is enforced how exactly? It isn’t. What if you have to use five blocks in one especially bad week of meetings… Do you spend the rest of your life avoiding Consensus Decision Making? Stepping aside on a decision that might be the antithesis of everything you believe, because you’ve used all your blocks? Or do you cheat? You see, Consensus Decision Making is aimed at overcoming what is sometimes referred to as “the tyranny of the majority”. Yes, you heard that right. The tyranny of the majority. But when did democracy turn into tyranny? Ahhh, that’s right... It didn’t. I can tell you what is undemocratic, however- the right of any member in a group to a block. When one person is capable of overruling the will of the majority, democracy (yes, pure and simple democracy- it’s not a dirty word, folks) can never exist.

And then there’s Groupthink. In a cohesive group, where Consensus can sometimes appear to be working well, the group as a whole could become subject to Groupthink- this means that, since no one wants to break the flow of consensus, no one is actually raising objections to anything, or giving proposals the scrutiny they might deserve. It means that, situated in a Consensus bubble, where everything’s all candy floss and care bears, it’s very easy to become complacent.

Creating an obscure visual jargon of hand signals (or other methods such as coloured cards) does not make the group more welcoming. Instead, it makes it overwhelming for newcomers. It means they are less likely to come back to the group and, if you choose to overcome this by having a detailed introduction to consensus at the beginning of each meeting, they’re still less likely to show up. After all, who wants to listen to a twenty minute introduction to the ins and outs of hand signals and consensus procedure at the start of every meeting? Moreover, Consensus decisions are best reached (and here I mean with a minimum of pain) amongst groups who are already well established, where members are comfortable with each other and well-practiced in reading not merely hand signals, but also body language and group mood.

But like many things that can just about work when done by a handful of people who know each other well, it usually breaks down completely when done by large groups. In fact, when 300 students occupied a building in Manchester last year, protesting at the commercialisation of education in Manchester University, it took 3 hours to come up with a series of proposals. And by the end of that 3 hours, there were only 50 students remaining. Ouch.

This brings me neatly back to where I started. Meetings where we always aim for a consensus take so much longer than meetings where we have a discussion, take a vote and move on. So I’d like all the wasted minutes of my life back… Please?

I'm not your sister. I'm your comrade.

For a long time, the common way of referring to Comrades as "brothers and sisters", especially in a trade union or anti war context, has bothered me. There is no need to differentiate between men and women in this regard. We are all comrades and neither sex nor gender should have anything to do with it. But, as any woman who as spent any time at all on the British Left (and been talked down to) will know, patriarchy is every bit as rife amongst this group of people, as it is in wider society.