Weeky Worker’s ignorant misogyny exposed and denounced

April 7, 2013 at 3:54 pm (CPGB, Feminism, Human rights, Jackie Mcdonough, liberation, Marxism, misogyny, reblogged, revolution, rights, sexism, socialism, stalinism, SWP, wankers, women)

A comrade wrote this to me recently:

“I’ve only just read this article. Really really awful.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/953/swp-and-feminism-rape-is-not-the-problem

And the Weekly Worker‘s extraordinary, ignorant and frankly embarrassing, misogyny (in the name of “Marxism”!) continued:

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/956/feminism-the-world-of-women-like-the-world-of-men-is-divided

Now, someone has got their act together and replied. It’s pretty devastating:

The man doth protest too much, methinks….

April 6, 2013 by

Oh dear….

Poor old Paul Demarty. You gotta sympathise with him, he writes a piss-poor article on feminism and the SWP and he’s shocked by the tsunami of criticism. Poor lamb. Though he provides me with much comedy. Alas, poor Demarty, a fellow of infinite jest. Your flashes of merriment were wont to set Comrade Harpster a roar!

There is nothing in feminism as a core set of ideas that contradicts Marxism. Demarty, in this rather over-the-top shtick claims that the relationship between feminism and Marxism has “tortured the far left” since “at least’ the 1970s. No, comrade, it’s tortured workerists who fail to understand feminism. If you take an essentialist view in your analysis, i.e. radical feminism locates women’s oppression in patriarchy, understanding it as a monolithic entity without seeing the relationship between capitalism & patriarchy. There’s a mirror image between what Demarty is arguing and radical feminism… essentialism. Demarty’s essentialism is workerism. Or to use the phrase Barbara Ehrenreich used back in those “tortured 1970s” … Mechanical Marxism.

And Demarty is shocked I say, shocked due to the comments that ranged from supportive to mildly irked, to downright hostile. 

What does he expect?

Demarty is sloppy in his analysis but also dishonest. He fails to understand the power relationships between men and women in a capitalist patriarchal society, which is also reflected on the Left. People are angry precisely because the SWP dealt with a rape allegation appallingly, it also reflects those power dynamics between men and women, it is about the abuse of power. Something that Demarty is incapable of understanding due to his workerist politics.

Just how pathetic and insulting is this statement:  As for “other violence”, the comrades Grahl ought to try selling theWeekly Worker outside the Marxism festival, especially when things are generally tense, as they will be this July. It increases your chances of intimidation and assault a great deal more effectively than merely having a vagina.

Say what, Demarty? Merely having a vagina…

Demarty sez this about Comrade Whittle (er, that’s me): I believe she is playing dumb, but this paragraph is a little needlessly jargon-heavy, so I will spell it out.

Patronising, much?

Demarty wrote in his previous piece: Rape – and domestic violence – are not conducted, by and large, by people who explicitly hold women in contempt, but are rather symptoms of an underlying social psychopathology, a deformed consciousness that does not manifest itself in a way that it can, as the writers of the statement imagine, be “confronted” or “challenged” in a direct way.

Again, I say…  Huh?  I don’t have a clue regarding this. Not playing dumb just don’t have a scooby-do!

Where’s the empirical and rational basis for this? Psychobabble nonsense mixed with this “deformed consciousness”… Where does this fit in with a rigorous Marxist analysis, which I am sure Demarty is keen to display. And it still stands, he can still be accused of “highfalutin’ verbiage” which once picked away you are left with… empty arguments.

Oh, and “safe space” policies… Does Demarty actually understand what is meant by that because I believe he hasn’t got a … clue. Actually does he believe in the opposite, “unsafe spaces”? Safe spaces aren’t just about physical safety but about psychological safety i.e. not demeaned, not being sneered at, not undermined nor bullied. Is that such a hard concept for him to grasp? It should be a safe place where comrades can challenge each others ideas. It’s also about showing solidarity to women who have experienced violence. Again, what is so difficult for him to comprehend?

A reader’s understanding of feminism: “I have always thought of feminism as simply the belief that the liberation of women from oppression is a priority, that this oppression seeps into all the pores of our society and finds expression in multitudinous ways, and that those at the sharp end of that oppression should play a leading role in combating it.

Demarty’s understanding of the above: There are two problems with this definition. The first is that it is at a very high level of generality, which fails to tell us anything useful about what feminism does. A definition of Christianity might be offered – the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. No more precise formulation would avoid excluding one group or another of Christians. Not all believe Jesus was the son of God. Not all accept the biblical accounts. There are Trinitarians, Unitarians and all the rest.

Again, let me reiterate, say what? Sometimes you do talk about things in a general level, it’s to be as succinct as possible about a complex and dynamic form of ideas. That’s perfectly acceptable. If you didn’t go into more depth that would be a problem but the reader is giving a general indication of what they believe feminism is about. So far so good. Demarty tries to explain the problems with generalising by using Christianity as an example. It doesn’t work….

Insultingly… On the basis of the actual history of feminism as a movement, more fissile than Trotskyism and Maoism put together, this claim is transparently false, but it is still a serious motive force.

Demarty argues again in an essentialist manner. And with essentialism you hit the skids quickly.

Finally (as to be honest…. reading through this article was like wading for treacle…)

So here is the “line in the sand”. It is necessary for Marxists to fight for the class solidarity of women and men, to oppose all oppression of women and all expressions of sexist ideology, be they religious or secular, explicit or implicit. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty. Feminists, on the other hand, fight for the unity of women as women. The Weekly Worker is unequivocally on the former side of the line. The two positions are not compatible. There are no doubt many self-described ‘Marxist feminists’ who are also on our side of the line. That is all well and good, but in that case their feminism is adding nothing to their Marxism, and they may as well drop it, for clarity’s sake.

Here we go… feminism and Marxism are not compatible! Demarty and Co. have a real fear of feminism, because it’s alternative power structure, an alternative source of organisational strength. Ooh scary. To explain in simple terms to him and the rest of the anti-feminist WW crew about socialist feminism.

A socialist feminist perspective takes the position that the patriarchy is not a separate or superior form of oppression to class oppression. Rather it is a phenomenon that has developed alongside and intertwined with class society and with class oppression. As political activists we are confronted by the question of what are we going to do about the issues that we face? Do we struggle against oppression or do we shrug our shoulders? Is our cause strengthened by challenging oppression or is it better to decide as the reformists are prone to do which things we can be bothered to face. Historical materialism developed as a recognition that the capacity of things to be changed through struggle. It is part and parcel of Marx’s dicta about our role being to change things as opposed to merely understand them. Patriarchy is based on men perceiving a benefit in, for example, having household skivvies around who are also sexually available to them. Many working class men may decide (very often do decide) that this advantage outweighs the conflicting interest they have in fighting for a society of equals. Is it not to be open to women to organise against such matters?

As Heidi Hartmann argued in her essay, “The Unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism”, We must understand the contradictions among social phenomena, the sources of dynamism and the likely directions of changes, learning from our inevitable mistakes and keeping on with the struggle.

The forms of struggle that we take must reflect this dynamic complexity or the organisations that are supposed to combat oppression will end up causing it.

Unfortunately most of Demarty’s article is insulting, patronising and offensive to women. And if he wanted an honest debate around feminism he’s scuppered it with his incoherent and nasty rhetoric (you aint winning any points comrade…). Language that says, “great collective shriek” which is no doubt aimed at those “left feminists and their blind rage”…

Boy, Demarty just can’t handle angry feminists. Men.. they can get angry but not women. Yes, there’s a lot of anger around and it’s very understandable. Yet he finds these debates have distinctive features: repugnant, laughable, paranoid and hypocritical.

Bit like Demarty’s writing style….

Finally… and this is the kicker: Given that this all started with a provocative headline, let me end with another provocation: this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The trolls scream only because they have nothing to say.

And who are the trolls, feminists perchance?! Well, this troll is unimpressed if this is all WW can muster regarding arguments against feminism.

When it comes to his writings he is no wordsmith, no crafting of any cogent arguments and no elegance. If Demarty was a gunslinger he would take aim yet fire from the hip in all directions, missing his targets in this stream of consciousness manner. He’s no sharpshooting gunslinger. When he shoots from the pistol in his left hand his aim is dictated by the recoil from the shot he’s just fired from the pistol in his right hand. In other words, he can’t carry an argument rather he blunders, blathers and babbles.

Weekly Worker… you are going to have to raise your game.

[NB: the Weekly Worker/ "CPGB" people have collected the responses together and posted it all up on one page. http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/join-the-debate-feminism]

Permalink 17 Comments

Remembering CLR James

March 26, 2013 at 11:46 am (black culture, history, intellectuals, internationalism, liberation, London, Marxism, socialism, solidarity, trotskyism)

From the CLR James Legacy Project:

Friends,

The CLR James Legacy Project will be hosting our first conference in London on Saturday April 13 and we would love to see you there. The event will be preceded the evening before with the CLR James Annual Lecture (‘The Importance of the Black Vote’) at the Dalston CLR James Library. Details of this and other CLR James-related events, here.

As ever, please get in touch if you have articles/news for our website or want to offer your services to keep the legacy of CLR James thriving. We are at present working on very limited resources – both human and financial – so could do with the active help of supporters. Please email andrea@hackneyunites.org.uk if you feel you can help.

The Life & Legacy of CLR James – London Legacy Conference

Saturday April 13 11am-6pm

Venue: WEA, 96-100 Clifton Street EC2A 4TP

This free conference is organised by the CLR James Legacy Project in partnership with the Workers’ Educational Association (WEA).

The conference will involve a day of discussions, workshops and performance around CLR James’ life and his relevance today. Confirmed speakers include Darcus Howe (broadcaster, writer and activist), Mike Dibb (film maker) and Selwyn Cudjoe (Wellesley College and co-editor of ‘CLR James: His Intellectual Legacies’). There will also be contributions from Ngoma Bishop (BEMA) and Andrea Enisuoh (Hackney Unites) who led the campaign to keep the name of CLR James on the Dalston Library when the local council threatened to drop it. Friends and comrades of CLR will also be presenting and contributing to the discussions on the day.

Bookings: click here

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Free Syrian Army doesn’t really exist

March 18, 2013 at 1:28 pm (islamism, liberation, Middle East, Syria, tragedy, truth, war)

A very well informed piece from a usually reliable source:

Free syrian army coat of arms.svg
Official logo of Free Syrian Army

by Aron Lund, for Syria Comment

Is the FSA losing influence in Syria? How many people are in the FSA? Is the FSA receiving enough guns from the West, or too many? Will the FSA participate in elections after the fall of Bahar el-Assad? What is the ideology of the FSA? What’s the FSA’s view of Israel? Is Jabhat el-Nosra now bigger than the FSA? What does the FSA think about the Kurds? Who is the leader of the FSA? How much control does the central command of the FSA really have over their fighters?

All these and similar questions keep popping up in news articles and op-ed chinstrokers in the Western media, and in much of the Arabic media too.

They all deal with important issues, but they disregard an important fact: the FSA doesn’t really exist.

The original FSA: a branding operation

The FSA was created by Col. Riad el-Asaad and a few other Syrian military defectors in July 2011, in what may or may not have been a Turkish intelligence operation. To be clear, there’s no doubting the sincerity of the first batch of fighters, or suggest that they would have acted otherwise without foreign support. But these original FSA commanders were confined to the closely guarded Apaydın camp in Turkey, and kept separate from civilian Syrian refugees. Turkish authorities are known to have screened visitors and journalists before deciding whether they could talk to the officers. While this is not in itself evidence of a Turkish intelligence connection, it does suggest that this original FSA faction could not, how shall we say, operate with full autonomy from its political environment.

From summer onwards, new rebel factions started popping up in hundreds of little villages and city neighborhoods inside Syria, as an ever-growing number of local demonstrators were provoked into self-defense. The most important recruiting tool for this nascent insurgency was not the FSA and its trickle of videotaped communiqués on YouTube. Rather, it was Bashar el-Assad’s decision to send his army on a psychotic rampage through the Syrian Sunni Arab countryside. As the corpses piled up, more and more civilians started looking for guns and ammo, and the rebel movement took off with a vengeance.

While the new groups almost invariably grew out of a local context, and organized entirely on their own, most of them also declared themselves to be part of the FSA. They adopted its logotype, and would often publicly pledge allegiance to Col. Riad el-Asaad. As a branding operation, the FSA was a extraordinary success – but in most cases, the new “FSA brigades” had no connection whatsoever to their purported supreme commander in Turkey. In reality, what was emerging was a sprawling leaderless resistance of local fighters who shared only some common goals and an assemblage of FSA-inspired symbols.

The heyday of the FSA was in early/mid 2012, when new factions were being declared at a rate of several per week. But by mid-2012, the brand seemed to have run its course, as people soured on Col. Asaad and his exiles. The FSA term slowly began to slip out of use. By the end of the year, most of the big armed groups in Syria had stopped using it altogether, and one by one, they dropped or redesigned the old FSA symbols from their websites, logotypes, shoulder patches and letterheads. Their symbolic connection to the FSA leaders in Turkey was broken – and since no connection at all had existed outside the world of symbols, that was the end of that story.

The FSA brand name today

Today, the FSA brand name remains in use within the Syrian opposition, but mostly as a term for the armed uprising in general. It’s quite similar to how a French person would have employed the term “La Résistance” during WW2 – not in reference to a specific organization fighting against Hitler, but as an umbrella term for them all. With time, many people inside and outside Syria have started to use the FSA term to distinguish mainstream non-ideological or soft-Islamist groups from salafi factions. The salafis themselves used to be divided on the issue, but they aren’t anymore. The more ideological ones (like Jabhat el-nosra and Ahrar el-Sham) never used it, but at the start of the uprising, others did (like Liwa el-Islam and Suqour el-Sham).

One can’t disregard the fact that many Syrian opposition fighters will casually refer to themselves as FSA members, or that some armed factions actually self-designate as “a brigade of the FSA”. But that does not mean that they belong to some Syria-wide FSA command hierarchy: it’s still just a label, typically intended to market these groups as part of the opposition mainstream.

With time, then, the generally understood definition of the FSA term has gradually narrowed from its original scope, which encompassed almost the entire insurgency. Today, it is understood to apply mostly to army defectors (ex-Baathists), non-ideological fighters, and more moderate Islamists. But the dividing line is not really a question of ideology or organization, it is political. The FSA label is increasingly being used in the media as shorthand for those factions which receive Gulf/Western support and are open to collaboration with the USA and other Western nations.

That still doesn’t describe an actual organization, but at least it’s closer to a working definition of what the “FSA” would mean in a Syrian opposition context – a definition that can’t really decide what it includes, but which clearly excludes most of the anti-Western salafis, all of the hardcore salafi-jihadis, and, for example, the Kurdish YPG militia. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 3 Comments

Chavez and ‘post-mortem leftism’

March 9, 2013 at 8:21 am (democracy, Latin America, liberation, Marxism, populism, Roger M, socialism, stalinism)

Roger McCarthy writes:

This 2010 piece from M.A. Torres in Platypus Review #25 on Chavez is excellent, and concludes thus:

The question stands: If authentic internationalist Marxism is dead,  from what standpoint does one launch a critique of Chavez and his  followers without joining the Venezuelan opposition nostalgic for  neoliberalism? The only answer is history: The consciousness that the  present has fallen short of what once seemed politically possible, and  that this possibility could once again become available. The knowledge  that there was once such a thing as an international Left that was able  to intervene, transform, and lead social movements around the world in  the direction of the overcoming of capitalism. The awareness that the  mass politicization of the Bolivarian Revolution, which has put the word “socialism” on the lips of hundreds of thousands of working people,  will end up as yet another wasted opportunity if such a Left is not  reconstituted.

Admittedly, this standpoint is not much to start with. It is clearly  not as immediately gratifying as the self-deceiving “optimism” of  supposedly Marxist publications such as the International Socialist Review and the Monthly Review. But the game they are playing is no more than a spectator sport.  Cheering for team Chavez is a way for such post-mortem leftists to hold  on to dear life. It is how they justify their existence and convince  themselves that they are still serving a purpose: The good fight is  still being fought; even if they are helpless, they can be complacent in this helplessness, since they can always look at the next populist  strongman or, even better, wait for the next American invasion of a  Third World country to give them a new lease on life. But if we are to  reconstitute an international revolutionary Left, the first step will be to stop kidding ourselves. People continue to struggle, but the  struggle to overcome capitalism has not really been sustained.  Revolutions with a hope of actually overcoming capitalism around the  world are now a distant memory, at best. The current changes in  Venezuela cannot contribute to any real revolution until a genuine Left  challenges the regime that has instituted them. But such a feat will be  impossible if we do not finally get it into our heads that the  fatalistic slogan, “¡Patria, socialismo o muerte!” means the exact  opposite of the visionary words, “¡Proletarios de todos los países,  uníos!”

‘Post-mortem left’ is an extraordinarily useful term…..

Permalink 4 Comments

Vieux Farka Touré and the music of Mali: “spreading the news of what has happened to us and what is still happening”

February 22, 2013 at 8:08 pm (africa, anti-fascism, culture, Human rights, humanism, islamism, liberation, music, national liberation, song, terror, The blues, Uncategorized)

From Chicago magazine:

By Kevin McKeough

Since the late, legendary Ali Farka Touré first brought the music of Mali to widespread attention in the mid-1980s, the western African nation’s musicians have beguiled listeners worldwide with their trance-inducing guitar patterns and Arabic flavored keening. Tragically, Mali has received more attention lately for the violent conflict in the country’s northern region, which encompasses part of the vast Sahara Desert. After Islamist extremists recently seized control of a large part of the area, including the storied city of Timbuktu, and committed numerous human rights violations, in January France sent soldiers into its former colony to drive out the militants. While the French military has retaken most of the area, the situation remains unstable both in northern Mali and in the south, where the country’s military has deposed two successive governments and reportedly is engaging in harsh repression.

Vieux Farka Touré, Ali Farka Touré’s son and a world music star in his own right, was performing Friday, Feb. 22, at the Old Town School of Folk Music. C Notes contacted Touré, who lives in the Malian capital, Bamako, to gain his perspective of the travails afflicting his country and how he and other Malian musicians are responding.

What are your thoughts about the Islamists’ invasion of northern Mali and France’s efforts to drive them out of the country? My thoughts are the same as everyone in Mali. The invasion of the Islamists was hell on earth. It was a nightmare unlike anything we have ever experienced. We are very grateful to President Hollande and the French for their intervention. For the moment at least they have saved our country.

How have these disruptions affected you personally? I am safe and my family is safe. But there is great uncertainty in Mali today. Nobody knows what we can expect in the next years, months or even days. So it is very bad for the spirit to be living in this kind of situation.

What’s your reaction to the Islamist invaders banning music in the areas they controlled? I was furious. It broke my heart like it did for everyone else. It was as though life itself was taken from us.

You were part of an all-star group of Malian musicians who recently recorded the song “Mali-ko” in response to the conflict. Please talk about the project and why you participated in it. Musicians in Mali play a very important role in society. We are like journalists, telling people what is happening. We are also responsible for speaking out when there are problems, and we are responsible for lifting the spirit of the nation. So that is why we made “Mali-ko.” Fatoumata [Diawara] organized everyone and we all spent some time hanging out in the studio and doing our little parts. It was a very nice project. I’m happy with the result and I’m happy that it got a lot of attention in the United States and in Europe.

Aside from the song, what role do you think musicians can play in responding to the situation in Mali? We can do what we are already doing—we are going everywhere we can around the world and spreading the news of what has happened to us and what is still happening. Equally, we must continue to entertain our people and keep them proud to be from Mali. For Malians, music is the greatest source of pride so we must work very hard to keep that pride alive. Right now it is not easy for people to be proud and have faith.

What do you think needs to be done in Mali? First and most importantly, we need to continue to drive out all the militants from our country. There is no future for Mali with terrorists living amongst us. Period. Also we must move quickly to engage in free and open elections to restore the faith and the legitimacy of our country in the eyes of the world and its people. These two things are the most critical at this time.

Your music resembles your father’s but has its own distinct quality. Can you talk about what you’re trying to do in the music, how and why you combine traditional and contemporary styles? With my music I try not to think very much about what I am doing. I just let myself be open to inspiration and it will take me where I need to go. So I am not thinking “for my next album I must do a song with reggae, or I must do an acoustic album because this will be good for my career” or anything like that. I think all artists are like lightning rods for inspiration and you must be open to it or it will not strike you. If you try to do something artistic it will not be as good as if you just let inspiration decide what you are doing. So my style is just based on what influences me and what inspires me.

For a country with a small population, Mali has produced a large number of internationally recognized musicians. Why do you think the country has so many excellent musicians? This is the mystery that everyone wants to understand. I do not know for sure why there are so many big international stars from Mali. But I know this: We take our music very, very seriously. It is at the core of our culture and it is the definition of Mali as a people. There is no Mali without Malian music. So I think this inspires many young people to try to become musicians. Maybe everywhere in the world has this kind of talent but there is not as strong a push for everyone to develop their talents in music. But honestly, I don’t know. We are lucky for this great richness of talent. That is for sure.

Kevin McKeough is a contributing music critic for Chicago magazine

See also ‘The Hendrix of the Sahara’

Permalink Leave a Comment

Report from Palestine: “a conflict that does not have a simple solution”

November 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm (Guest post, history, Human rights, israel, liberation, Middle East, palestine, solidarity)

By Tom Cashman

Tom is a long-standing socialist, Labour Party member and Unite activist (on the Unite EC until last year). In September this year he participated in a ‘Labour2Palestine‘ visit to Ramallah, Jerusalem and other parts of what should be the state of Palestine. As someone who does not demonise Israel and has for many years tended to support the two states position, Tom’s pessimistic conclusion must be taken seriously. He starts off with a brief plug for the excellent film Five Broken Cameras:

Saw this film Wednesday night: a good night out in its own right but also a good initial education for those who are not familiar with the Palestine Occupation.
.
The film is distributed in Israel (as well as world-wide) and has had good  reviews there.
.
Visited Palestine last week and met among others the brothers of the  author/director at the regular Friday riot.
.
My main conclusions from the visit:
.
Israeli settlements, military exclusion zones and designated national parks have reduced the Palestinian controlled occupied West Bank to a fragmented  archipelago of cantons. rendering a two state solution a much longer term (and  for the Israeli government almost politically impossible) goal. Unless there is  a major turn in US policy to force Israel to abandon its current (de facto)  strategy there will be a one state solution:  Israel with possibly a few reserves for the Palestinians comparable to the situation in the 19th century USA for the native people.
.
The treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli army is more or less typical  of occupying armies but few military occupations last this long without a  political “solution” although not always a good one. Without in any way trying  to justify the occupation it is reasonable to say it is much harsher than the  British in Northern Ireland but much softer than the British in Kenya or  Malaya.
.
We met with sympathetic Israeli NGOs and one politician from whom I gathered  that Israeli public opinion (among the long term citizens ) on the issue was  quite diverse but that most did not consider “ The Palestinian  question” to be a high political priority Fatah and most of the  Palestinians we spoke to were quite insistent that what they wanted was peace  and the possibility of economic development to give a reasonable level of  prosperity to the proposed new state and that they were not at all interested in punishing the Israelis or taking any action that put their people at further risk. Although this may sound minimal to us, these people want their kids to grow up and have healthy and comfortable lives and they do not see themselves as having a role as undoing all the wrongs of history.
.
Many Palestinians see the British as the real villains in the story. The Balfour declaration, the way the mandate was terminated, and Suez were spoken of  in one-to-one conversations, usually as a list before going on to current UK, EU  and US support for the Israeli state. It was reminiscent of the way Irish Catholics who know no other history can give a list of the historic crimes of  England. In formal discussions a politeness to guests made the discussion less  accusatory but the Fatah / PA leadership did say it at our first meeting (and  dinner ) with them.
.
The PA would always have had a hard time in attempting to build a state in  the West Bank and Gaza but Israel withholding the tax revenue that they should receive means they can’t pay for the most basic of services.
.
For those interested in the details this is what we did:
.
We arrived on night of 16th Sept: Two Brummies of Pakistani ethnicity were  delayed about 20 minutes for questioning by immigration but let through. We went  to our hotel in Ramallah without incident
.
Monday 17th was Rosh Hashanah so the border crossings were relatively quiet  as we went to Jerusalem a late middle aged Palestinian woman was being refused  access to accompany her nearly totally blind son to a hospital for treatment  because she did not have a permit.
.
We met the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and had a  bus tour of East Jerusalem guided by Chaska from the ICAHD, including the Jewish  settlements scattered through the largely Palestinian town. We went to an  Israeli settlement of City proportions with lush gardens and greener grass than the Irish Midlands, then visited the Palestinian town of Anata, barely a village  in UK terms. Many of its houses had been demolished by the Israeli Army (IDF)  usually in the middle of the night. We visited Beit Arabiya (Arabiya’s House)  home of Salim and Arabiya Shawamreh which had been demolished five times and  rebuilt five times, it now serves as a centre for international summer camps of  volunteers organised by ICAHD who assist in rebuilding demolished houses.
.
We were later given a brief tour of the old city of Jerusalem guided by  ICAHD director Jeff Halper who gave a good run down of the ancient and modern  history of the city.
.
We finished the day with a Dinner and meeting with the Fatah International  relations committee. The Fatah leadership see their future as developing into a European style Social Democratic Party and are a sister party of the British  Labour Party in the Social Democratic International. The party still formally  holds a two states position but it is clear that many of the leadership see that  the Israeli drive for maximum geography with minimum demography is making this  unlikely in the near to middle future. They have a problem with a public  declaration for a one state solution which can be simply put. There are two ways  they see that this can come about quickly: either the surrounding Arab states  invade and drive the Israelis into the sea, creating new anomalies, new refugees  and new hatreds if they win; but in the much more likely event of a defeat have the Israelis move their border east of the Jordan or the Israelis accelerate the undeclared policy of “Judification” of the West Bank until the 1967 ceasefire line becomes the accepted border of Israel. So the current line is  likely to remain as a two state solution as the path to a confederation or singular secular democratic state.
.
Labour2Palestine agreed to sponsor and support a Fatah-nominated student in the UK who would work as an intern/research assistant for a Labour  MP.
.
Tuesday 18th (still a public holiday) back to Jerusalem. Morning meeting at  UN Office for the Co-Ordination of Humanitarian Affairs with Chris Dolphin Who  briefly stated that the UN supported the Oslo Agreement and that he was unable  to act outside of that position but that he personally saw that the Settling of  the West Bank and annexation of East Jerusalem coupled with the Israeli refusal  to allow a corridor for communication between the West Bank and Gaza had  effectively put an end to the Oslo process. He gave us a briefing on Gaza which  we could not visit emphasising that although Gaza is formally under the  government of the Palestinian authority, neither the Israeli State nor Hamas  have any intention of having that become a reality. Since the Egyptian  revolution Gaza’s economy has had a boost because the tunnels have increased in  number and capacity. Some are big enough to drive a truck through and most even  the small ones have electricity, piped water and drainage. These don’t just  allow the import of personal goods: petrol, cement, steel, arms and all  necessary industrial materials are being imported. This has led to the  development of a new Hamas-dependent bourgeois caste displacing the old  bourgeois caste based on partnerships with Israeli capitalists. Even with the  growth of the tunnel based industries the main sources of income in Gaza are the  wages paid by the UN for school staff, Hospital staff etc and the wages paid to  civil servants and functionaries who are now controlled by Hamas or who no  longer have a job at all by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. Israel no  longer shows any interest in Gaza, the settlements have been abandoned, and they  would probably be quite happy to hand it back to Egypt. Thus they would get rid  of a major problem and sabotage a potential Palestinian state while claiming  that all they are doing is returning to the pre-1967 borders as all sorts of  people are demanding.
.
Later in the same day we visited the British Consul in Jerusalem Sir Vincent Fean (he reports directly to the FO not the Ambassador as other consuls do. He is in effect the Ambassador to Palestine). His analysis was more or less  the same as that of the UN. Both were personally very pessimistic about the  current situation and clearly frustrated by the attitude of the Israeli state,  but both were very clear that they don’t make policy they only execute it. The consul did also say clearly that neither the Consulate in Jerusalem nor the  Embassy in Tel Aviv ever knowingly buy goods from the settlements.
.
Between the two meetings we toured the village of Al Walaja which is being  encircled and split by the wall. As it was still incomplete we could walk around  both sides of the wall there were a few strange decisions such as the wall going  through the middle of a Salesian Convent separating the Men’s House from the  women’s. This was at the request of the order as the monks had a vineyard so  needed to be able to supply wine to the Israeli market and the main income for  the nuns was running a school for the village. However the main impression was  of farmers separated from their fields and therefore their incomes and of  neighbours and even extended families finding themselves in different countries  with a closed border.
.
Wednesday, 19th, Briefing from Gerard Horton, International Advocacy  Officer for Defence of Children International, on the abusive treatment of  children in the Israeli Military courts and prison system. 6 of the group went  to visit the Ofer Military court to witness trials of children.
.
The rest of us went with senior PA leaders to visit the Yasser Arafat’s  tomb, a massive edifice with museum and Mosque attached, worthy of a Pharaoh.
.
We were then guided around Amari, refugee camp in Ramallah by Ahmed  Tomaleih. The camp is mainly populated by the descendants of refugees from 1948  and 1951. The original tents went long ago and were replaced by small square  single story breeze block “houses” over the years as families grew extra rooms  and floors were added so the camp unless you know what it is just looks like a  poor neighbourhood in the city. It has it’s own schools and health care system  provided by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Association) the body  responsible for caring for refugees world-wide. The camp committee run a women’s  centre, a centre for the disabled including mental disability and “learning  difficulties” and deal with internal problems. They have set up a sports &  social club in an impressive building which we were told was largely funded by  French NGOs, they said that a few of them had visited France there was a young  lad with us in the French national football shirt and that they had many  visitors from Europe mainly from France and Barcelona but none from England.  When I pointed to the big red flag on the wall with a yellow Liver Bird in the middle sharing pride of place with the French National flag next to The portrait  of Yasser Arafat and suggested that they may have had visitors from Liverpool  they said yes, we have friends from Liverpool visit us but nobody from England.  They told us that the club sports teams were good that they played football, and  many other games but football and fencing were the ones were they were  strongest. In fact their football team is and has for a number of years been the  top of the Palestinian league.
.
Last season they won the domestic treble: league, President’s Cup and the  Yasser Arafat Memorial Trophy. They are in the Asian equivalent of the Champions  League and are doing quite well but don’t put a bet on them reaching the final.  We visited the memorial (Museum and cultural centres) to Mahmoud Darwish, the great Palestinian Poet (and Communist) who during his lifetime was translated  into many languages and received all sorts of international awards.
.
Both halves of the delegation came together to finish the day with Kifah  Radaidah, who is responsible for Fatah’s dealings with the LP and her daughter  Ilia who organised a panel of NGOs to meet us. Including Wisam Ahmad from Al Haq  and Salma Duabis from the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling. Both  Wisam and Salma were highly critical of aspects of the PA administration in the  West Bank, Salma was particularly critical about the lack of protection and  support for victims of domestic violence. Fatah representatives acknowledged  that the situation was unacceptable but said without more funding they did not  have the resources to deal with it. I have no doubt that this is a serious  problem and equally I have some sympathy with the PA position on resources. Most  State employees in the West Bank are working for half pay pending the release of  the tax arrears by the Israeli state. But on women from an outsider’s position  it was noticeable that far more women in the West Bank went bare headed and bare  armed than in most middle East countries and probably than in some parts of  Bradford. Although there were no wild hen parties or drinking contests it is  fair to say that there were quite a few Ramallah women drinking in bars with  their male friends while watching football on the telly. Obviously Ramallah is  no more typical of Palestine than Dublin is of Ireland but like Dublin it is a  relaxed secular city, and like Ireland the further you go into the rural corners  the more religiously strict is the atmosphere and the worse the treatment of  women.
.
Thursday 23rd. Accompanied by Nadia and Hamdi from Fatah we were driven on the Palestinian roads to Bethlehem to visit the Aida refugee camp. Like Amari  this camp dates from 1948 so most of the “refugees” are children and  grandchildren of the displaced and the camp itself can only be distinguished  from other parts of the city by the UN signs on the schools and the UN vans  cruising the streets when strangers (like us) walk in. This is the camp that  Pope Benedict visited in 2009. The Arena built for his speech next to the  dividing wall was not used as Israel threatened to revoke the Pope’s visa if the  event wasn’t rearranged. In the event the address took place just across the  road with the wall still visible in the background and the Pope used part of his address to condemn its construction.
.
Next we went to Hebron were we had a police escort to the governor’s  Mansion were we were addressed by the deputy governor and then met the governor  and the Mayor. We had a guided tour of the boys and girls secondary schools set  up by the Young Persons Muslim Association although the sponsor of the school is a religious organisation, the director of the society made it very plain that the  school is governed by the law of the Palestinian Authority and it has to be run  as a secular institution.
.
We visited the tombs of the Patriarchs and toured the old market which is  situated in the old medieval narrow streets overlooked by Israeli settlements.  The settlers used to throw rubbish and rocks down into the market but the market  traders put up a wire mesh roof to protect them and their customers from the  missiles while retaining light and air. The settlers then started throwing  excrement and bleach instead.
.
The Israeli settlement in Hebron is in the centre of the town it has 400  settlers who are defended by 1,300 IDF troops. Around the settlement is a cordon  sanitaire from which all non Israelis are excluded. This area includes what was  the main shopping street in the city. Hebron is the biggest city in the West  Bank, it was and still is, to some extent a major industrial centre as well as a  place of pilgrimage for all three Abrahamic religions.
.
We visited Mrs Hana Abu Haikal a Palestinian woman who lives with her  children on Sheheda Street the edge of the Sterile Area is the wall of her front  garden so she is not allowed out of her front gate. The back gate leads on to a  steep hill on waste ground with a not very stable path to the flat area  below. Mrs Haikal has been constantly harassed by the settlers and the IDF. She  worries about her children when they are out. She is also in poor health and has  severe water retention that makes it impossible for her to use the back entrance  unaided and painful to use it with assistance.
.
Friday 24th: we met Meir Margalit a Meretz Party councillor and one of the  founders of ICAHD He recognised that many left organisations criticised or even  condemned him for taking part in the council but he insisted that in the role he  has been given as responsible for East Jerusalem (because nobody else wanted  it) although he has not been able to influence the policies he has been able to  mitigate the damage in some cases by tipping off residents facing eviction or  demolition early and assisting them in getting lawyers. Meir finds the  abstentionist policy of the East Jerusalem Palestinians self-defeating; legal Palestinian residents are 48% of the population and the left-wing Israelis who vote Meretz are a further 10% so in a list system it should be possible to construct  a coalition to control the council. I’m not a great supporter of abstention but  I do not see the possibility of creating a stable coalition on a single issue, nor do I believe that anybody could deliver the entire Palestinian vote.
.
Later we went to Bil’in for the Friday demonstration. The wall, as in many  places, splits the village from the land people earn their living on in order to  provide a cordon sanitaire around an Israeli settlement which is under  construction. Since the start of the project demonstrations have been organised  by the inhabitants. Retaliatory measures like curfews and random arrests have only provided more targets for local direct action.
.
It was all very reminiscent of the guided tours of the Bogside that British  lefties used to get in the 70s. Complete with a souvenir sniff of tear gas. But  it is a longstanding protest at a real and brutal continuing injustice which  needs international support.
.
Saturday: we had another run around Jerusalem.
.
The sad conclusion I drew is that the freelance colonists in the settlements and the expansionist Israeli state have made a Palestinian state alongside Israel a near-impossible dream. The current (lack of) press coverage  of Abbas and Netanyahu at the UN shows a world that is indifferent to a conflict that does not have a simple solution.

Permalink 3 Comments

Anatomy of the new Stalinism

August 28, 2012 at 4:29 pm (AWL, capitalism, capitalist crisis, democracy, economics, Europe, internationalism, Jim D, labour party, liberation, Marxism, revolution, socialism, stalinism, trotskyism, workers)

Regular readers will know that a recurring leitmotif at Shiraz is that of the new Stalinism to be found in all sorts of guises throughout the supposed left (and liberal-left) in the UK, Europe and US. The “new” Stalinism differs from the “old” in one crucial respect: The old Stalinists believed that the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe were (to some degree or another) “actual existing socialism.” However foolish and misguided, they honestly believed that they were fighting against capitalism (ie: the political system based upon generalised commodity production) for something better: democratically planned economies run for human need not profit.

The new Stalinists do not believe in the abolition of generalised commodity production – or, at least, do not believe it’s possible. In fact they explicitly accept and celebrate the capitalist mode of production, so long as it’s not “western” (aka “neo-liberal”) capitalism. Hence their enthusiam for state-capitalist China, the so-called BRIC economies, and  “Asian” capitalism . Accompanying this enthusiasm for certain forms of capitalism/state-capitalism is an almost complete disregard for workers’ rights and contempt for any recognisable form of democracy. 

In fact, they don’t believe in anything much at all: their’s tends to be a negative creed that simply opposes the “west” (aka “imperialism”/”neo-liberalism, etc) even if that means supporting anti -”western” ruling classes, thoroughly reactionary theocratic and/or nationalist movements, and denying/excusing genocides (as in Bosnia). It also means that they will refuse support to some national liberation movements (eg Libya, Syria) if they feel that the “west” is giving them any degree of support, or might benefit in terms of the ‘global balance of forces’ should they succeeed.

I wrote about this in a 2008 open letter to those who were supporting China’s oppression of Tibet. I have been meaning to develop the main themes of that piece ever since, and have touched upon the issues in various articles here about such new Stalinists as the Graun‘s Seumas Milne, ‘Stop The War”s Andrew Murray, the ex-SWP ‘Counterfire’ group, the ‘Socialist Unity’ blog and people like Galloway, Tariq Ali and Jeremy Corbyn MP. These organisations and individuals are not ideologically identical, but all share the same essentially anti-democratic and anti-working class characteristics.

So far, I haven’t got round to writing my magnum opus , but in the meanwhile I see that one Mícheál MacEoin, writing in the present issue of the AWL’s Solidarity paper (and the Workers Liberty website) has taken up the essentially Fabian nature of the new Stalinism’s domestic economic approach in the UK: “…a toxic mix of reformism and Stalinism which explains the complete absence of democracy from this “alternative” and the patent lack of radicalism inherent in its state-capitalist Keynesianism.”

MacEoin’s article takes the form of a critique of the small and not very significant ex-Trotskyist group Socialist Action, but in fact his analysis is applicable to the entire ‘new Stalinist’ mileu. It’s an important piece that repays close reading:

A United front with the Financial Times?

The tiny group Socialist Action (still formally Trotskyist but in practice highly Stalinist) has recently published an article, ‘Two classes, two responses to the crisis’ which purports to offer a working-class alternative to austerity. It does no such thing.

After decades of “entryism” into the Labour Party so deep that it has become indistinguishable from careerism, Socialist Action have long dropped any attachment to revolutionary socialism. What they offer here is a sort of reheated national-Keynesianism with a working-class gloss. It contains nothing in the way of working-class struggle, democracy or international socialism.

The article begins by offering a summary of recent Keynesian critiques of British Government economic policy from the chief economics commentator of the Financial Times Martin Wolf, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research Jonathan Portes, and the Noble-prize winning economist Paul Krugman. All argue that the Government is intensifying the crisis by cutting its investment during the current recession.

Socialist Action correctly point out that certain sections of capital are also clamouring for an increase in infrastructural investment, citing the “multiplier effect” that this would have on economic activity (adding extra demand by creating jobs in capital projects). However, the bosses’ lobby-group the Confederation for British Industry (CBI) and the Institute of Directors (IoD) are, according to Socialist Action, advocating “a broadening of the reactionary agenda, not a retreat from it.” This is evidenced by calls for greater financial deregulation, further cuts to social expenditure and the bonfire of employment rights contained in the Government’s own Beecroft Report.

This is all true but Socialist Action’s criticism that capital’s plan for the crisis “is not ‘investment, not cuts’, which summarises the necessary strategic response to the crisis [but] ‘investment plus more cuts’” draws a false dividing line which only serves to obscure an alternative working-class policy.

For Socialist Action, the “class” dividing line is “investment not cuts” versus “cuts not investment”. If this is the case, only by churlish arbitrariness can Socialist Action exclude Wolf and Portes from the “proletarian” side, even though Wolf is a keen supporter of German-style “flexible” labour markets (ie. limiting workers’ rights, mini-jobs etc) and even Krugman has no ideological objection to austerity measures besides their obvious economic inefficacy. In short, the watchword “investment, not cuts” does nothing to distinguish a working-class socialist policy from the left-wing of capital.

Another false dividing line drawn by Socialist Action concerns the question of the state.

The problem with capital’s solution to the crisis, we are told, is that despite their arguments in favour of investment, the CBI, the IoD and others “remain utterly opposed to the state itself leading that investment.”

The second dividing line is thus “state-led investment” versus “state inducement towards private investment.” The solution of the “working class and its allies” (who? Martin Wolf? the Chinese Government?) is “state-led investment, taking sectors of the economy out of the hands of the capitalists in order to provide what is socially and economically necessary, large scale investment in key sectors such as housing, transport, infrastructure and education.”

It is clear that Socialist Action means state-capitalist investment by the capitalist state. Clearly this would be preferable to austerity in the sense that capitalist growth can give better conditions to workers than capitalist slump but it has nothing necessarily in common with socialism.

As Marx wrote in Chapter 25 of Capital of the increased demand for labour power which accompanies the accumulation of capital: “just as little as better clothing, food, and treatment do away with the exploitation of the slave, so little do they set aside that of the wage worker. A rise in the price of labour, as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of the tension of it.”

In other words, while better than austerity, state-capitalist investment is not a working-class alternative to capitalism.

Although the statification of particular sectors of the economy would take certain industries from the hands of particular capitalists, nationalisation itself is not anti-capitalist and does not necessarily challenge the rule of capital in general.

This was the case in Britain after the Second World War when the Labour Government of Clement Attlee nationalised gas, coal, electricity and the Bank of England. Industries functioned in more or less the same way, often with the same managers, and the Government was no more strike-friendly than any other, using the army to break strikes on the docks in 1948 and 1949.

A second problem with calling merely for state-led investment and nationalisation is that is that there is no necessary role for democracy, let alone a socialist revolution to overthrow capitalism and create a workers’ state.

As James Connolly wrote in a polemic against Fabianism, “state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism — if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials — but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism… To the cry of the middle class reformers, ‘make this or that the property of the government,’ we reply, ‘yes, in proportion as the workers are ready to make the government their property.’

The means by which workers “make the government their property” is through working-class democracy at every level of society.

As the American “third camp” socialist Hal Draper explained, against the idea that the USSR was a “workers’ state” on account of having state-owned property but applicable here too: “The working-class is not by its nature, and never can be, an owning class like previous ruling classes. It can ‘take over’ the economy in only one way: collectively, through its own institutions. It can exercise economic power only through its political power. The expression of this proletarian political power can be given in two words: workers’ democracy.”

Being charitable, it could be said that Socialist Action missed this point having imbibed much Fabianism after years of swimming amongst the currents of the Labour Party bureaucracy. This would be tenable if it were not for the group’s favourable opinion of the viciously anti-working class state-capitalist dictatorship in China and the group’s description of the fall of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc police states as “the greatest defeats suffered by the working class since World War Two and overturn the post-war world order.”

It is indicative of a deeper problem with Socialist Action’s politics. Socialist Action represent a toxic mix of reformism and Stalinism which explains the complete absence of democracy from this “alternative” and the patent lack of radicalism inherent in its state-capitalist Keynesianism.

There is a historical precedent. In many ways Socialist Action are reminiscent of those in the British labour movement such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw who lauded the Stalinist USSR for its anti-capitalist and “rational” organisation of society whilst opposing more left-wing revolutionary forces at home — “socialism in one country; just not this one.”

In a critique of Shaw’s conception of socialism written in the 1920s for the Independent Labour Party’s newspaper The New Leader, the socialist journalist H N Brailsford explained that the difference between reformist Fabianism and working-class socialism amounts to democracy. If, as Shaw held, “‘Socialism means equality of income, and nothing else”, it has no necessary democratic component. If income equality was the essence of the system, argued Brailsford, “it might be set up and administered by a benevolent despot.” However, “if it is concerned primarily with the question of power, it cannot have a non-committal attitude to the issues of democracy. Aiming at a transfer of power to the workers (and, therefore, eventually to the whole community), democracy must be its foundation.”

As well as not challenging capitalism, Socialist Action’s “alternative” is national in scope and does not challenge the myopic failure of European social democracy to look beyond its own national frontiers. The only criticism of the Labour leadership is that it is not Keynesian enough, that its plans would not stimulate enough demand.

The crisis of capitalism we face is global in scope and the crisis of the Eurozone is particularly sharp and immediate. In narrow bourgeois terms, stimulating British household demand in the name of classless categories such as “the economy as a whole” (the reproduction of capitalist accumulation on an extended scale?) would indeed improve one problem.

As Larry Elliott has commented, “a breakdown of GDP from the Office for Budget Responsibility showed that weak private consumption shaved 0.5 points off growth and lower government consumption a further 0.3 points” in 2011, and that declining overall output was only saved by an increase in net trade. However, the British economy is not isolated and we must take into consideration the performance of the overall world economy. As of May 2012, UK trade with the EU fell to 45%, its lowest level since 1988, and a stronger pound vis-a-vis the euro will depress British exports.

Even if British capitalism could save itself in isolation from the world economy, socialists should not advocate that it does so.

The interests of the working-class are in breaking down national barriers to create larger units in order to increase the general level of the productive forces and unite the working-class across borders; we have no interests in tariff barriers, sharpened national competition, internal devaluation through crude cost-cutting and repressed wages, and the drive to war stimulated by inter-imperialist rivalry.

The working-class solution to the present crisis is to fight at home for a workers’ government and at the same time to unite the struggles of the working-class across Europe for a democratic, republican and socialist United States of Europe. We must fight for the levelling up of pay, conditions, workers’ rights and pensions, and for the taking of high finance across Europe under workers’ control.

This can only be done if we break from the national-Keynesian perspective of the social democratic bureaucracy and advocate working-class transitional demands combined with a revolutionary programme to overthrow capitalism at home and across Europe.

Permalink 5 Comments

Why is the left quiet about Pussy Riot? Панк-молебен “Богородица, Путина прогони” Pussy Riot в Храме

August 2, 2012 at 11:31 pm (apologists and collaborators, Art and design, Christianity, Feminism, Human rights, Jackie Mcdonough, liberation, music, protest, religion, Russia, secularism, thuggery, women)

“It was a sin against God and God is judging it; and all Christians should know this…

“For the Orthodox Church, like for Muslims, of course the authorities and the church are understood as one thing.  Our Ideal is the unity of the church and the authorities, and unity of the people and the authorities.

“in this way, we are decidedly different from the west. I think attempts in the west to seperate the spiritual sphere and secular sphere is a historical mistake. Such a division is not characteristic to any civilisation except the west”Vsevolod Chaplin,  Senior Priest, Spokesman of the Russian Orthodox Church and advocate of harsh punishment of Pussy Riot.

Above: The three members of the Pussy Riot band — Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, and Yekaterina Samutsevich — rejected charges of hooliganism for performing a “punk prayer” in Moscow’s main cathedral against Vladimir Putin’s return as president.

A group of brave, smart, peaceful but militant young women confront a thuggish, authoritarian President and a corrupt church hierachy and have already been jailed without trial for five months: what’s not to like about Pussy Riot?

Yet the “left” has, on the whole, been strangely reticent about supporting them: why?

A number of possible explanations present themselves:

1/ They are anarcho-feminists and conceptual artists, not leftists.

2/ (Following on from #1): they have no clear demands or programme.

3/ They already have celebrity support from the likes of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Peter Gabriel and Stephen Fry.

4/ Much of the western “left” is actually rather sympathetic to Putin, because he’s part of the pro-Assad/Iranian axis that they, more or less openly, support. Many of them also seem to have a built-in predisposition to support dictators and to despise any form of democracy.

5/ Pussy Riot are being done not just for “hooliganism” against the Putin regime, but also for “religious hatred” – a concept that much of the western “left”,  having discovered the joys of Islamic fundamentalism, now supports (in the sense of agreeing that insulting and/or criticising religion is Bad and should be illegal). The semi-literate SWP blogger Lenny “Seymour” Tombstone, for instance, recently coined the term “theophobia” and meant it as criticism (in his case, of Christopher Hitchens). Pussy Riot are nothing if not “theophobic.”

Objections #1 and #2 don’t really stand up, given that much the same could be said of the “Occupy” movement that most of the far-left had no hesitation in supporting. #3 has also never been a problem for the “left” before now: the so-called Stop The War Coalition, for instance, is very happy to accept ‘celebrity’ endorsement.

Which leaves us with #4 and #5: almost certainly the real reasons. And despicable ones at that.

Support Pussy Riot!

Here’s what they now face seven years in jail for doing (the “punk prayer”):

What’s going on with Pussy Riot, explained, here.

Good(ish) piece by Suzanne Moore in the Graun, here.

The nearest thing there is to an “official” Pussy Riot site, here.

Permalink 20 Comments

The Free Syrian Army controls border areas

July 20, 2012 at 8:37 pm (democracy, Jim D, liberation, Middle East, revolution, Syria)

Juan Cole (Informed Comment) writes:

Free Syria exists along Syria’s borders with Turkey and Iraq.  The Free Syrian Army, somewhat to my surprise, is beginning to take and hold territory, acting more like a conventional army than like a guerrilla movement.  Admittedly, the territory is in the boondocks. But these boondocks are crucial because they control border areas and roads between Syria and Turkey on the one side, and Syria and Iraq on the other.

There is an old saying in the military that everyone wants to be a strategist but real men want to do logistics.  That is, “The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of material and personnel.”  Border crossings are pivotal to this sector of war-making.

The significance of the FSA taking Abu Kamal, the border crossing with Iraq along the Euphrates road, is that 70% of the goods coming into Syria were coming from the Iraq of PM Nouri al-Maliki, who had refused to join a blockade of Syria because of his new alliance with Iran.  But al-Maliki’s attitude is irrelevant if the revolutionaries have Abu Kamal.  This development is a nightmare for the Shiite-dominated government of Iraq, since it is fighting a low-intensity struggle with its Sunnis, who predominate in the areas abutting Syria.  If Sunni fundamentalists in the FSA hook up with their Iraqi counterparts, that is trouble for al-Maliki and Iran.  And, Iraqi Sunnis can now more freely export arms and goods to their Syrian co-religionists.

The taking of the checkpoints with Turkey gives the FSA freer access to the arms and other goods provided to them by Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Turkey (and with some oversight from the US Central Intelligence Agency, which isn’t involved in supplying arms but is interested in influencing to which groups they are given).

Al-Arabiya tv of Dubai (admittedly anti-al-Assad and Saudi-owned) showed scenes from Izaz, in Aleppo governorate, of fighters who said they had taken the border town and chased away the Syrian army troops. They showed three smoldering tanks that they said they had destroyed.

I was surprised that the rebels can now destroy tanks with such ease.  They must have been provided with very powerful land sophisticated rocket-propelled grenades, as good or better than the ones Hizbullah used on Israeli tanks in 2006 to such devastating effect.  I imagine that Russian RPG-29s are freely available in the international arms market, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia could buy quite a lot of them for their friends.  The Saudis may also have American-made FGM-148 Javelins in their arsenal, and are now sharing.

The Qataris are alleged to have provided effective RPGs to the fighters of Zintan in Libya, allowing them to neutralize Qaddafi’s army, and then retake Zawiya and come into Tripoli.  Of course, they had help from NATO, the planes of which also were destroying tanks and rocket-launching trucks when they were out in the open.  In Syria the fighting is going more slowly because the rebels lack any sort of air support.  Their RPGs may give regime helicopter pilots pause about flying against them, however.  The rebels claim to have shot down a helicopter gunship last week.

But beyond this technical capability (which seems to have reached a new level of effectiveness quite suddenly), the FSA is likely benefiting from low morale in the Syrian army and substantial desertions and defections on the part of the foot soldiers and even tank crews. (Some of the demoralization comes from not being enthusiastic for the regime, which seems clearly to be faltering.  Some comes from being Sunnis serving a regime that increasingly is deploying Alawite Shiite ‘ghost brigades’ against Sunni villagers.)

In Damascus, regime forces chased the rebels out of the downtown Midan area, and fighting raged in other neighborhoods.  The rebels set fire to the main police HQ.  Witnesses reached by journalists by telephone spoke of bodies piling up in the streets.  The regime is trying to clear the capital of civilians, calling on them to flee, so its armor and artillery can get a clear shot at the FSA guerrillas.

But if the FSA is able to defeat and execute the Syrian military at Abu Kamal, the regime’s ability to come back in strongholds such as Midan does not do it much good.  Logistics.

If it is true that the Russian ambassador to France said Friday morning that Bashar al-Assad is ready to step down ‘in a civilized manner,’ it is a sign that even he sees the logistical writing on the wall.  (Don’t have confirmation as of this writing.)

The refugee problem is growing by leaps and bounds.  Thousands of Syrians are said to be streaming into Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.  (Jordan has maintained its open border policy and is setting up camps for the Syrians, contrary to what I mistakenly reported yesterday [note to self: twitter is unreliable if not corroborated].  Even before the recent, dramatic events, the UNHCR was reporting that the number of refugees seeking assistance had tripled since April, to 120,000.  If the regime and the fighting are emptying out Damascus, that number could easily grow by a factor of 10.

Reports speak of the refugees lacking bread.  Any major conflict situation produces problems of child abandonment and rape.  There is a great deal of human suffering going on in Syria, and it will be a challenge to a world community already suffering compassion fatigue and undergoing continued economic hardship at home.

**************************************************************************************************

Jim Denham adds:

Meanwhile, Assad’s supporters in the UK insist that what we are witnessing is “a new form of colonisation by the West” At least over Libya, most of these people pretended to support the rebels. Over Syria they more or less openly back Assad, if only as a ‘lesser evil’:

Tariq Ali: What is really happening in Syria?

TARIQ ALI says we are witnessing in Syria a new form of re-colonisation by the West, like we have already seen in Iraq and in Libya.

Many of the people who first rose against the Assad regime in Syria have been sidelined, leaving the Syrian people with limited choices, neither of which they want: either a Western imposed regime, “composed of sundry Syrians who work for the western intelligence agencies.

The only way forward, in the interests of all Syrians, says Ali, is negotiation and discussion. But it is now obvious that the West is not going to let that happen because they are backing the opposition groups who are against any negotiation.

From the increasingly loony so-called “Stop The War Coalition” website.

Permalink 3 Comments

Ideas for Freedom this weekend, London

June 29, 2012 at 5:24 am (AWL, capitalist crisis, internationalism, Jim D, liberation, political groups, socialism, trotskyism, unions)

I’ll be there and I see that Osler’s speaking on Sunday. Two late additions to the agenda: Dmitris Tzanakopoulos, the official UK representative of Syriza, will be speaking in the Saturday opening session, and on the Saturday lunchtime John Cunningham, secretary of the Spanish Miners’ Solidarity Committee, will be leading a discussion on the Spanish miners’ battle.

A WEEKEND OF SOCIALIST DISCUSSION AND DEBATE HOSTED BY WORKERS’ LIBERTY

Friday 29 June-1 July
The Saturday and Sunday of the event are at Highgate Newtown Community Centre, 25 Bertram St, London N19 5DQ . For the Friday venue see below.

Free accommodation and creche, cheap food. To book accommodation or creche places, or for any queries, ring 07796 690 874 or email sacha@workersliberty.org

Ideas for Freedom is an event which combines a serious, thoughtful approach to socialist ideas with a commitment to activism in the workers’, student, feminist and other movements. We emphasise accessibility, self- and mutual education and free debate. For a report and pictures of IFF 2011, see here.

As the capitalist crisis deepens and a variety of anticapitalist ideas take shape, this year’s Ideas for Freedom will focus on understanding what capitalism is and what kind of anticapitalist politics are necessary to fight and overthrow it.

AGENDA

For the full agenda, click here.
Facebook event here

On FRIDAY 29 JUNE, Ideas for Freedom opens with
7pm @ the Exmouth Arms, Starcross Street, Euston, London NW1 2HR
1972-2012: How can workers fight and win?

This year is the 40th anniversary of the magnificent working-class struggles of 1972, which prepared the way for the downfall of Edward Heath’s Tory government. We will be celebrating ’72, but also discussing the lessons of recent struggles in which workers have fought back and won. What are the lessons of the 1970s for our struggles now?
Speakers: Pete Radcliff, who took part in the successful mass picket at Saltley Gate; Jean Lane, Unison rep in the victorious anti-cuts dispute at Central Foundation Girls School; and Jayesh Patel, driver and RMT activist involved in successful anti-victimisation disputes (including his own)
Facebook event for Friday night

BOOK TICKETS

Weekend tickets brought before the event (online here) are £26 waged, £17 low-waged/HE students, £6 unwaged/FE/school students. At the event £28, £19, £7.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Next page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 261 other followers