Category Archives: Labour Party conference

Conference 2019, Europe, Nationalism and internationalism

Our Europe, their Europe

Marxists are by definition internationalists. Therefore we are opposed to nationalism in all its variants, whether it be the classic Little-England type or the ‘left’ version of socialism in one country (national socialism) – something normally associated with Stalinism.

How does this impact on the Brexit debate? For a very large part of liberal opinion, and the left which tails it – such as Another Europe is Possible -, the actually existing European Union has become an emblem of everything that is progressive – the cherished ideal of anti-racism harmony in marked contrast to the increasingly rancorous nationalism of the UK Independence Party, the European Research Group (headed by the weird retro-Victorian Jacob Rees-Mogg), the desperate Boris Johnson, etc. A social democratic refuge from the onslaught of neo-liberalism and the market.

Does that mean Marxists are enthusiastic about today’s EU or would consider voting ‘remain’ in any possible future referendum? The answer to both these questions is no. In reality, the bloc is committed heart and soul to market values, for all of the flummery about “human dignity”, “tolerance”, “fundamental rights”, and so on. The whole project marches according to the rhythm, requirements and restrictions imposed by capital. Indeed, the EU constitution is a paean of praise for the market and the virtues of competition.

Then remember how the European Commission – in cahoots with the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – imposed a regime of savage austerity upon Greece for daring to defy its diktats, driving millions into penury, homelessness and even suicide.

However, it does not follow that Marxists call for the UK to pull out of the EU because it is a “bosses’ club”, or because it is not “socialist” – silly and also a criminal desertion of internationalism. One might just as well suggest pulling the working class out of the “bosses’ club” of Britain. Or is the pound sterling more socialistic than the euro?

Capitalism and the capitalist state, as it historically presents itself in the here and now, is where the socialist project starts – in this case, the EU. The idea that the working class and the fight for socialism would be collectively strengthened if one or two of our national battalions aligned themselves with this or that faction of the bourgeoisie with a view to forcing a Britain, a France, a Spain or an Italy to withdraw from the EU displays a complete lack of seriousness. Disastrously, we would be weakening our forces.

Instead, Marxists argue for a positive programme. A Europe without unelected bureaucrats, technocrats, monarchies, and standing armies. Communists strive for working class unity within, but against, the existing EU – ultimately we want to overthrow it, just like the British state. Winning the battle for democracy in the EU and securing working class rule over this relatively small but strategically vital continent is the best service we can do for our comrades in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australasia – as opposed to building “Fortress Europe”.

In other words, we are for a republican United States of Europe. Armed with a continental-wide programme, the United Socialist States of Europe can be realised – the “bosses’ club” is replaced by a workers’ club. In turn, such an internationalist perspective directly points to the necessity of organising across the EU at the highest level – crucially a revolutionary Marxist party covering the entire European Union.

No to a second – or any – referendum

Referendums, by their very nature, are undemocratic. At first, this might sound paradoxical or counter-intuitive – you get to vote in an act of ‘direct democracy’, after all. But, whilst referendums have the great virtue of appearing to be the epitome of democracy, the reality is quite the opposite. They bypass representative institutions and serve, in general, to fool enough of the people enough of the time. Often complex issues are simplified, drained of nuance and reduced to a crude choice that cuts across class loyalties. Hence today, thanks to Brexit, one half of the working class is found in the ‘leave’ camp – the other half is with ‘remain’. That is hardly a situation to be celebrated.

There are very few situations where there is a simple binary choice in politics, and that can be illustrated by what followed the referendum. Yes, a relatively small majority voted ‘leave’, but on what terms – hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Brexit-in-name-only? If there had been a ‘remain’ victory, as most people had expected right to the wire, we would have been confronted by the same conundrum – ie, how to interpret the result.

Furthermore, what about the long-term validity of that result? For example, many of those who argue against a second referendum today claim that ‘the people have spoken’ and so their verdict must be regarded as final. But in fact the 2016 poll was itself the ‘second referendum’ on the subject. In 1975 Harold Wilson called one to decide whether Britain should remain in what was then called the ‘European Community’ (or ‘Common Market’), even though it had only joined two years earlier. There was a substantial 67% majority to stay in the EC. Clearly people can change their minds.

The problem is that referendums are totally inadequate compared to representative democracy. The latter is based on the election of well-tested working class representatives, who must be made accountable to those who elected them. Under such a system we should trust those representatives to take the necessary decisions – and ensure that they face the consequences if they embark on a path that is not in our interests. Referendums, on the contrary, tend to divide the working class, weaken its party spirit and produce the strangest of bedfellows. For example, in 2016 committed socialists were urging the same vote as the far right, while others were aligned with the liberal establishment. Now we find Nigel Farage on the same side as George Galloway.

In 1911 Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald called referendums “a clumsy and ineffective weapon, which the reaction can always use more effectively than democracy, because it, being the power to say ‘no’, is far more useful to the few than the many”. Yes, a couple of decades later he completely sold out by agreeing to lead a national government with the Tories, but in 1911 he was totally right.

The Labour Party should be opposed to referendums as a matter of principle.

Conference 2019, Labour Party Marxists

Labour Party Marxists goes viral

Over the last few days both Red Pages and the Labour Party Marxists newspaper have received plenty of attention from so-called professional journalists hanging around conference with time on their hands.Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun, tweeted on Sunday’s Red Pages lead, ‘How to get rid of Tom Watson’, which suggested that the role of the leader of Momentum in the affair was less than honourable: “Jon Lansman is sell out right wing splitter: the view of Labour Party Marxists (aka, the People’s Judean Front). Got to love #LabourConference2019.” What we’ve also got to love is journalists so stuck for things to say that they have to rely on jokes from a 40-year-old film, Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

Other journalists found the latest issue of Labour Party Marxists, with its headline ‘A racist endeavour’ – relating, of course, to the state of Israel – objectionable. Funnily enough, none of them mention that the article was written by the internationally respected, Israeli-born professor, Moshé Machover, who was briefly expelled two years ago after writing a similar article for LPM (and then quickly reinstated after an international campaign). This was photographed and tweeted by the Observer’s Michael Savage and picked up by Dave Rich (author of the execrable The left’s Jewish problem: Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and antisemitism), who wrote: “Of all the issues facing this country that #LabourConference2019 will be discussing, this is the one the publishers of this trash think is the most important to put on their front page.” But it’s on the front page because it’s true and the likes of Rich can’t face that – along with the fact the vast majority of conference delegates support the Palestinian struggle.

The Sunday Telegraph feigns outrage about our “leaflet”, but can only come up with the rather accurate description that comrade Machover’s article “describes Israel as a ‘colonial settler project’ involved in the ‘systematic discrimination’ against the Palestinians”. Erm, and what exactly is the problem here?

Along with puerile allegations about Labour Party Marxists being a ‘racist’ organisation, some Labour supporters have been attempting to downplay the publicity given to us in the last few days. One writes: “Not to minimise antisemitism, but ‘Labour Party Marxists’ are literally a handful of people who have probably all been expelled now.” A case of wishful thinking if there ever was one.

Conference 2019, Labour Party conference, Red Pages

Red Pages: Sunday, September 22 2019

SUNDAY 2019 PDFClick to download today’s issue in PDF version here.

How to get rid of Tom Watson
With his much-publicised motion to abolish the position of deputy leader, Momentum’s owner Jon Lansman was trying to pose left – but don’t be fooled

Abolish all private schools?
This demand is not as radical as it sounds – what about, say, those run by cooperatives? Those that are based on a working class, socialist vision of society?

Debate over Clause four: Fight for real socialism!
Despite the fact that the rule change fell far short of what is required, we urged for a vote for it, against the Blairisation of the Labour Party. Sadly, Labour’s NEC kicked the issue into the long grass.

Fast-track expulsions will make the anti-Semitism witchhunt worse
Although a majority of CLP representatives yesterday voted AGAINST a further tightening of Labour’s disciplinary system, the rule change from the NEC was accepted because the affiliates overwhelmingly voted in favour. This will make the witch-hunt much, much worse.

Anti-Semitism, Conference 2019, Democracy and the Labour Party

Fast-track expulsions will make the Anti-Semitism crisis worse

Saturday’s so-called debate on rule changes to Labour’s constitution was shambolic. It highlighted the huge democratic deficit at conference. The chair raced through the 27 rule changes and delegates only got to see the seven NEC proposals that very morning, as part of the 225 page report of the Conference Arrangements Committee.

About a dozen CLPs withdrew their motions on conference floor, most by not moving them. There is a logic here. Given the NEC opposed pretty much all rule changes that were not their own, chances of a majority for a CLP proposal were slim. There are dire consequences for a rule change if voted down at conference: It not only falls, but the subject cannot be revisited by conference for three years. Ironically, one of the rule changes not moved was an attempt by East Devon CLP (card vote 10) to reform this undemocratic rule by adding that motions supported by at least five CLPs should be discussed in subsequent conferences.

Withdrawing motions – when it is clear they will not get a majority – can therefore be a good tactic to allow the subject to come back next year. However, we cannot understand why comrades – apart from a few – did not use their three-minute time slot to withdraw in an orderly fashion by explaining the motivation behind their motion.
It was particularly sad that delegates from Ceredigion CLP and Enfield Southgate CLP (card votes 15 and 16) did not make use of their time slots. Both put forward rule changes which sought to make the disciplinary process more transparent, enshrine the right to appeal and ensure that cases are dealt with promptly. Speakers could have bolstered the powerful speeches in opposition to card vote 6, the NEC’s proposals on the disciplinary process.

A (slim) majority of CLP delegates (52% against) voted against the NEC proposals – a rare occurence at Labour Party conference.  Sadly, as the overwhelming majority of affiliates (unions, socialist societies etc) voted in favour of the proposals (98%), the rule change has now passed. This underlines once again that the democratisation of the unions and their participation in the Labour Party is a hugely important task for the Labour left.

Card vote 6 makes sweeping reforms to the disciplinary process. Momentum – on the wrong side of the debate once again – urged supporters in its delegate briefings to vote for the proposals, because “these changes are central to improving the Party’s disciplinary system.”

The new rules certainly tighten the system. For example, until now suspended members were able to participate in their branch meetings (“unless the reason for the suspension in part or in full is their conduct in party meetings”) and were allowed to attend any CLP meetings “to participate in ballots.” This has now been abolished, leading to the political isolation of the member.

The most important change is howeve on “fast track expulsions”. The NEC has given itself the right to arbitrarily expel members judged irredeemable. The key paragraph reads:

“The NEC and NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in any instance inconsistent with the Party’s aims and values, agreed codes of conduct, or involving prejudice towards any protected characteristic.”

Supposedly, this formulation is the magic bullet that will finally end the anti-Semitism smear campaign in Labour. The rule change that will finally appease the right wing in and outside the party and end their relentless campaign against Corbyn.

Of course, this will not work. The Jewish Labour Movement complained immediately that they had not been consulted (enough). Sure enough, Mike Katz – opposing card vote 6 – commented during the debate that “our relationship is at an all time low”. The “Jewish community” (defined by who?) and the JLM have asked for “independence and this does not deliver it. We don’t trust the NEC to deliver fast track justice.”

The next speaker, Duncan Shipley Dalton, found himself in the  “strange position that I agree with the previous speaker, [we should] strongly oppose card vote 6. We believe in natural justice. It is a travesty of justice. Adopting the IHRA didn’t solve this crisis and this will not solve it either.” Quite right. The comrade offered to represent any victims of this new rule on  pro bono basis.

Maggie Cosin, former chair of the National Constitutional Committee (which richly deserves its nickname, the ‘National Kangaroo Court) spoke against sidelining the NCC and assured the audience that the current manifestation of this body ticked all the required boxes. However, the power to expel members in the hands of the NEC – in current conditions – is no good either. Contrary to the media’s febrile imagination, the NEC is not dominated by the ‘left’ (even if you include Jon Lansman in that category).

Labour HQ seems set on a path of self-destruction. The leadership’s fast track expulsions is a green light for a tsunami of allegations against Labour members, with the prospect – given the low standards of ‘evidence’ generally required – of 1,000s more vexatious allegations.

We need to reiterate the truth about this McCarthyite witch-hunt. Comrades like Jackie Walker, Chris Williamson, Stan Keable et al are simply collateral damage. The specific target is Corbyn and the general aim is to put the left “back in its box”, as one despicable rightwing Labour MP put it in a rare moment of candour.
The current tactics of Corbyn and his allies will more or less guarantee our defeat. Appeasement never works. Your opponent simply grows stronger.

Conference 2019, Democracy and the Labour Party

Free Speech in Brighton!

Brighton Labour Left Alliance has pulled off an amazing feat by setting up a range of events on the theme of ‘Freedom of Speech’ during Labour Party conference. On Saturday, almost 100 activists packed into an upstairs room in the Rialto Theatre. Greg Hadfield, the key organiser of these events, spoke of the threats made against a number of venues booked by the left, leading to their cancellation. It says a great deal for his determination and courage, and that of his Brighton comrades, that we were able to listen to militant speeches from Ann Mitchell (chair of Brighton Palestine Solidarity Campaign), Tina Werkmann (Labour against the Witchhunt), Jackie Walker and Chris Williamson. The efforts of the witch-hunters had the opposite effect intended.

Chris Williamson spoke of his determination to continue to speak out honestly and to fight oppression, and of his determination that he would not be cowed, even if he was reinstated. Tina Werkmann warned of the rule change by the NEC which fast tracks expulsions. The right-wing are determined to destroy the left. But they have a fight on their hands.

Events will continue all week, click here for more info.

Conference 2019, Democracy and the Labour Party

Clause four: Fight for real socialism!

Clause four, rewritten under Tony Blair in 1995, carries a totemic status for both the right and left. Therefore it was correct to support the rule change that would have reinstated the old Fabian 1918 clause four, striking a blow against the Blairite right. The NEC, however, sensing that this might well have gotten a majority, suggested to set up a ‘working group’ instead – a recipe to kick the issue into the long grass, of course. Jim Kennedy, chair of the Organisation Committee, told the movers: “Rest assured, your voices will be heard” – while telling delegates to vote against. The rule change was supported by a slim majority of CLP delegates (56%), but as over 99% of affiliates (union and socialist societies) voted against, the constitutional amendment fell.

The rule change by Rochford and Southend East, Doncaster Central, and Wallasey (and inspired by Socialist Appeal) falls far short of what is required – leaving most of the existing clause four untouched. For instance, it upholds the current international order by talking about how Labour is “committed to the defence and security of the British people” and “cooperating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies” (presumably including Nato).

Frankly, we need to be far more radical about our vision for the future. The old Fabian clause formulations, especially the crucial fourth – “to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry” – are too often celebrated as being a defining socialist moment. Yet, when first mooted in November 1917 – amidst the slaughter of inter-imperialist war – Sidney Webb, its principle author, had no thought of promoting genuine socialism. He wanted a government of experts, elections existing merely to ratify their enlightened decisions.
Top leaders of the Fabian Society, including HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw, considered themselves social engineers of the highest order. The role of these very clever people was to slowly and courteously persuade the great and the good of the benefits of ‘socialism’.

Naturally, Marxists have always opposed Fabianism. Fredrick Engels showed particular contempt for this “well-meaning gang of eddicated middle class folk”. For them, Engels concluded, “fear of revolution is their guiding principle.”

The working class was to be lifted out of their ignorance – with the unruly sections herded into “human sorting houses” to be trained for work. The Fabians were also ardently pro-imperialists. The British empire was portrayed as a benevolent bringer of democracy and a saviour of the ‘lower breeds’. Naturally, come the 1914-18 great war, the Fabians did their best to serve the imperial cause. Europe had to be saved from the Junkers and Prussian militarism.

But then the October Revolution shook the whole capitalist world to its very foundations. Bourgeois politicians rushed to make concessions. Hence, Sidney Webb cynically calculated that his clause four socialism could be used to divert the considerable rank-and-file sympathy that existed for the Russian Revolution into safe and peaceful constitutional channels. Obviously, clause four socialism had to be implicitly anti-Marxist: the Fabians consciously sought to ameliorate the mounting contradictions between labour and capital … and thus put off socialism.

Nevertheless, the Blairising of clause four in 1995 was hugely symbolic. Socialism was declared dead. By sacrificing the old clause four in the full glare of publicity, Blair and his clique sought to appease the establishment, the City, the Murdoch empire, the global plutocracy. Capitalism would be absolutely safe in their hands.

Riding high in the opinion polls, Blair inaugurated a series of internal ‘reforms’. Conference was gutted. No longer could it debate issues, vote on policy or embarrass the leadership in front of the media. Instead the whole thing became a revolting rubber-stamping exercise.

Demands for a return of the old clause four are perfectly understandable. But why go back to a Fabian past? Instead we should persuade members and affiliates to take up LPM’s implicitly Marxist alternative:

Objectives

1. Labour is the federal party of the working class. We strive to bring all trade unions, cooperatives, socialist societies and leftwing groups and parties under our banner. We believe that unity brings strength.

2. Labour is committed to replacing the rule of capital with the rule of the working class. Socialism introduces a democratically planned economy, ends the ecologically ruinous cycle of production for the sake of production and moves towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society that embodies the principle, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”. Alone such benign conditions create the possibility for every individual to fully realise their innate potentialities.

3. Towards that end Labour commits itself to achieving a democratic republic. The standing army, the monarchy, the House of Lords and the state sponsorship of the Church of England must go. We support a single- chamber parliament, proportional representation and annual elections.

4. Labour seeks to win the active backing of the majority of people and form a government on this basis.

5. We shall work with others, in particular in the European Union, in pursuit of the aim of replacing capitalism with working class rule and socialism.
__________

Original agreed in 1918 and subsequently amended in 1959

Objects

1. To organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

2. To cooperate with the general council of the Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organisations, in joint political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and standing orders.

3. To give effect as far as possible to the principles from time to time approved by the party conference.

4. To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

5. Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.

6. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in the commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries.

7. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations and its various agencies and other international organisations for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.
__________

Blairite version agreed in 1995

Aims and values

1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

2. To these ends we work for:
* a dynamic economy, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and cooperation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper, with a thriving public sector and high quality services, where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them;
* a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power;
* an open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people; decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect; and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed;
* a healthy environment, which protect, enhance and hold in trust for future generations.

3. Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people, and to cooperating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all.

4. Labour will work in pursuit of these aims with trade unions, cooperative societies and other affiliated organisations, and also with voluntary organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies.

5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.

Conference 2019, Democracy and the Labour Party

Abolish all private schools? Not as radical a demand as it sounds

In the last few days much has been written in the mainstream media about a proposal before conference to “abolish independent schools”. It has also been widely reported that John McDonnell is fully behind it. However, things are not quite so simple.

The main motion on the subject – proposed initially by three CLPs: Battersea, Bolton and Southport – is headed “Labour Against Private Schools”, which is also the name of a campaigning group.

The motion points to the gross inequality and privilege that emanates from institutions such as Eton and Harrow – for example, while only around 7% of children attend private schools, something like 50% of judges, government ministers and university vice-chancellors – not to mention “news columnists” – were educated outside the state sector. The motion adds that “The ongoing existence of private schools is incompatible with Labour’s pledge to promote social justice” and calls on the party’s general election manifesto to include “a commitment to integrate all private schools into the state sector”.

However, when it comes to the concrete measures needed to bring about such ‘integration’, these are limited to the “withdrawal of charitable status and all other public subsidies and tax privileges”. In fact, according to the motion, Labour should “ensure universities admit the same proportion of private school students as in the wider population”. In other words, private schools would not be abolished.

Neither does John McDonnell call for abolition. In his comment in favour of the motion, he points out how “our society is grotesquely unequal”, some of which derives from “inequalities in education”. He correctly states that in public schools “large amounts of money are spent on a privileged few”, but he does not go beyond what is stated in the motion.

In fact there is also another motion, proposed by Isle of Wight, which calls on Labour to “place all private schools into local authority ownership and control”, but this is part of a much broader set of policies dealing with education as a whole – including, for instance, the abolition of “academies, academy trusts and free schools” – so it does not go into detail on what exactly would happen to private schools once they were under “local authority ownership and control”. Would they still charge fees, for example?

Despite this lack of clarity, it is clear that these motions should be supported. But what should Marxists say about the abolition of all schools outside the state sector? What about, say, those run by cooperatives? Those that are based on a working class, socialist vision of society – as opposed to the pro-capitalist, nationalistic ideology that underlies official state education?

In our view such schools would be a step forward and should be fully supported. There is nothing inherently progressive in the state as such – under capitalism it serves the interests of the elite first and foremost.