Category Archives: Momentum

Anti-Semitism, Momentum, Witch-hunts and expulsions

Momentum branches and members in support of Jackie Walker

October 15 meeting of Momentum’s London Regional Committee 

  1. Condemns the unjust suspension of Labour Party members, many of whom are Black, Muslim, committed anti-racists and/or Jewish supporters of Palestinian rights, and many Corbyn supporters.
  2. Calls for Momentum to campaign against the purge of thousands of Labour Party members and supporters in the run up to the Leadership election, some of which were targeted for spurious reasons such as tweeting about other political parties. Free speech is a right that should be respected by the Labour Party Compliance Unit. 
  3. Calls for Jackie Walker, a Jewish Black woman and anti-racist campaigner, to be reinstated into the Labour Party.
  4. Calls for discussion on democratic structures and procedures, suspensions and elections at the national conference [of Momentum] in February. 

Barnet

Barnet Momentum defends Jackie Walker and calls on national Momentum to not remove her from her role as vice-chair of Momentum.

Rossendale

Complaint letter heading to Momentum – “Dear Comrades,

At our Rossendale Friends of Jeremy Corbyn meeting on 4th October we decided we wished to establish ourselves as a branch of Momentum, which we have scheduled for 25 October. However we wish to unanimously condemn the action of the Steering Committee in their suspension of Jackie Walker and her removal as Vice Chair, following the Anti-Semitism training day at Labour Party Conference. We assert that Jackie’s words on a secretly filmed clip at a JLM training day – which was quietly handed over to the Press, presumably by the hostile right wing JLM – did not reveal her saying anything anti-Semitic.

A couple of our members were present at the Chakrabarti debate at The World Transformed in Liverpool and came back reporting that Jackie had spoken brilliantly and had lots of support from the audience unlike Jeremy Newmark of JLM, who went down like a lead balloon. It would appear that she has massive support from Momentum members across the country.

Jackie has again been suspended by the NEC of the Labour Party, and is facing a witch hunt by the Blairite/JLM section of the Party. Instead of Momentum taking a totally undemocratic vote to suspend Jackie they should be supporting Jackie and campaigning for her to be admitted to the Labour Party.

We are extremely concerned that Momentum has also fallen into the ‘witch hunters ‘ trap by removing Jackie from her position.

We call on Momentum to reinstate Jackie and to defend vigorously any members or supporters subject to these vile attacks. Momentum should not be engaging in any ‘witch hunts’ of Labour Members expressing political opinions.”

The Manchester Momentum BAME Caucus are concerned with the undemocratic and troubling actions of the Momentum leadership in removing Jackie Walker from her position as Vice Chair of the Momentum Steering Group. Jackie Walker is a Jewish Black woman and anti-racism campaigner. Her removal from the position of Vice Chair was made by a majority white panel under immense pressure from allegations she had been anti-Semitic by groups and individuals who have weaponised Anti-Semitism in order to attack the Labour leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and his support for the right of Palestinian self-determination.
The Momentum Steering Committee in their own statement accepted that Jackie Walker had not been anti-Semitic but judged her remarks on Holocaust Memorial Day and her interview to Channel 4 News to be offensive. This was despite the many Jewish voices stating her comments were neither anti-Semitic nor offensive. The committee in coming to this conclusion seems to have ignored the fact that Jackie has faced an onslaught of not only biased press coverage but also personal attacks that included racist abuse.
The Committee also failed to respect and acknowledge Jackie’s own identity and her right to question how concepts central to the Jewish community are defined as a Jewish woman. We are also troubled by the fact that there was a media briefing against Jackie from inside Momentum with Momentum’s ‘sources’ actively misquoting Jackie and contributing to her trial by media and forces hostile to the Corbyn Leadership. Removing the lifelong anti-racism campaigner from her post in such circumstances has left BAME Momentum members wondering who is representing them within the leadership.
The Steering Committee must also accept that it has made Momentum a less safe space for BAME members, who already feel marginalised by the failure of the committee to engage positively with BAME members. The Steering Committee made no effort to contact its BAME membership in order to gauge their views.
BAME Members must have the safe space necessary to advocate for issues such as Palestine and Black Lives Matter even if that means countering prevailing views. Apartheid in South Africa was supported by the Thatcher government and many in the establishment but figures such as Jeremy Corbyn fought against such views even if that resulted in arrest; Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, the Black Panthers and the Black Lives Matter movement have also taken courageous stands against the oppresion of Palestinian people despite very similar pressure and attacks. Our concerns now are that the Momentum leadership will continue to capitulate and leave its membership susceptible to outside pressure when they take a meaningful stance.
The fight against racism and anti-Semitism cannot be selective and GM BAME caucus abhors any act of anti-Semitism or racism and extends the hand of solidarity to any comrade who has suffered such abuse. There can also be no justification for any form of latent or unconscious racism and therefore we remain perplexed at the actions of the Committee over this matter.
In order to repair relationships we call on the Momentum Steering Committee to engage in the following actions:
– Engage in positive and constructive dialogue with BAME groups within Momentum with the assistance of BAME allies within the Labour and Trade Union movement
– Draw up a clear and fair disciplinary policy that is agreed by members including the right that Liberation groups be consulted and involved in any potential disciplinary action of members of their groups
– Take on board the findings of the Chakrabarti report in terms of how disciplinary cases are to be handled
– Apologise to Jackie Walker for her treatment in regards to the disciplinary procedures used against her
– Support liberation groups within Momentum to actively engage in decision making within Momentum but also respect the different viewpoints that may bring
If Momentum is truly a peoples movement committed to transforming Britain for the better under a future Labour government, then Momentum needs to learn from its mistakes and listen to its members if it is to have any role in delivering this change.

Brighton and Hove

This emergency resolution was passed:

This annual general meeting of Momentum – Brighton and Hove condemns the decision to remove Jackie Walker as vice-chair of Momentum nationally made at the Steering Group meeting held on Monday October 3rd and calls for her immediate reinstatement.

The background to this decision was a video, circulated on social media, of a contribution Jackie made in a fringe event at Labour Party conference. The event was an ‘educational meeting on fighting anti-Semitism’ organised by the Jewish Labour Movement and, as such, ran counter to the recommendations of the Chakrabarti report into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. The filming was done in secret and the only part of the meeting to be circulated was Jackie’s contribution from the floor; which is difficult to hear due to the poor quality of the tape.

As such it is completely unacceptable for either the Labour Party or Momentum to use it as evidence or respond to it. Moreover, whatever one’s views of Jackie’s decision to attend the meeting or her comments at it, there is no evidence of anti-Semitism in anything she said and the suggestion that it is is both ludicrous and offensive.

It is clear that Jeremy Corbyn’s election, together with the unprecedented growth in membership this has generated, is seen as a threat by the establishment and mass media, together with some within the movement. They will stop at nothing in their efforts to undermine, demoralise, confuse and divide this movement and remove him from office. Accusations of anti-Semitism, like those of misogyny and bullying, are just one aspect of this ‘guerrilla warfare’.

Removing Jackie from her position will not appease these people rather it will embolden them to continue their attacks.

Further, we do not believe that a decision of this magnitude should have been made by a hastily called Steering Group but by a more democratic body and after wider consultation. We look forward to the inaugural national conference of Momentum in February and the establishment of a democratic constitution, structures and procedure.

 

Northamptonshire

Momentum Northamptonshire condemns the witch-hunt of Momentum vice-chair Jackie Walker on false charges of anti-Semitism.

Jackie is a prominent anti-racist campaigner and labour movement activist; she is no anti-Semite.

The anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party is seeking to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to undermine the Corbyn leadership: to oppose Zionism is to be anti-Semitic; to criticise the Israeli state is to be anti-Semitic; to demand justice for the Palestinians is to be an anti-Semitic.

It is the height of cowardice and stupidity to believe that by throwing Jackie to the wolves these attacks will stop. Failing to defend Jackie will only further embolden our attackers; it will give traction to their accusations of anti-Semitism.

We will undermine ourselves and Jeremy Corbyn if we abandon Jackie.

We are not thugs; we are not misogynists; we are not anti-Semites.

Defend Jackie Walker!

 

Sheffield

“We, members of Momentum in Sheffield, condemn the witch-hunt of Momentum vice-chair Jackie Walker on false charges of anti-Semitism. Jackie is a prominent anti-racist campaigner and labour movement activist; she is no anti-Semite.

The anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party is seeking to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to undermine the Corbyn leadership: to oppose Zionism is to be anti-Semitic; to criticise the Israeli state is to be anti-Semitic; to demand justice for the Palestinians is to be an anti-Semitic.

Throwing Jackie to the wolves will not stop the attackers, quite the opposite: Failing to defend Jackie will only further embolden them. This attack on Jackie is an attack on all of us!

Therefore, we call on Momentum to launch a robust campaign to defend Jackie and fight for her full reinstatement as a Labour Party member.”
Lee Rock
Ben Lewis
Dawn Teare
Bill Sheppard
Neville Wright
Abdul Galil Shaif Alshaibi
Mick Parkin
Davy King
Carolyn Jordin
Richard Chessum
Andrew Hardman
Tina Werkmann
Janet Claire Harrison
Susan Atkins
Adam Clark

 

Thanet

According to Channel Four News, the steering committee of national Momentum is considering removing Jackie Walker from her position as vice chair of Momentum.

This is based on a highly biased and distorted report of a fringe event in Liverpool at which, it is alleged Jackie made anti-Semitic remarks.

I was at that meeting and can testify she said nothing whatsoever anti-Semitic. Her remarks were taken out of context and the short fragment of film shown on TV was totally unrepresentative of the full discussion which took place.

This is a blatant attempt to smear Jackie and so damage Jeremy Corbyn by association. It is utterly unfair and unjust.

Anyone wishing to express support for Jackie should email emma.rees@peoplesmomentum.com stating if you are a member of the Labour Party, Momentum etc.

Momentum is taking its decision on Monday so time is of the essence.

Norman Thomas, Chair Momentum Thanet

 

Medway

MOMENTUM MEDWAY MEMBERS HAVE ISSUED AN OPEN LETTER

Sunday 2 October 2016

TO: JON LANSMAN, CHAIR OF MOMENTUM
RE: JACKIE WALKER, VICE-CHAIR OF MOMENTUM

We, the undersigned members of Momentum Medway, wish to show our public support for our colleague Jacqueline Walker over the increasing bullying and harassment she is experiencing.

We are distressed to hear (via statements in the Main Stream Media) that Jackie’s resignation is being sought. We hope this isn’t the case. Jackie is, as you know, a tireless campaigner against all forms of discrimination; a tireless campaigner for Momentum and therefore for Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign. This is, after all, why Momentum exists.

We stand behind Jackie and ask others join our members and share this statement.

We seek your assurance, as Chair of Momentum, that you will back us – and many members and potential members around the Country – and support Jackie Walker as fully as she supports everyone else.

Alec Price
Anna Oates
Ben Rist
Chas Berry
Dawn O’Connor
Deborah Field
Didi Bergman
Elizabeth White
Gill Kennard
Harry Keane
Jac Berry
Jaki Fox
Jez Walters
Joanna Burns
Joanne Murray
Jonathan Brind
Kevin Dyer
Kim West
Lin Tidy
Maal Dauwa
KimberleyHalawa
Matthew Kynaston
Matthew Broadley
Mike Kennard
Neil Williams
Penny Bruce
Peter Thomas
Peter Morton
Sarah Scarlet
Tricia McLaughlin

In addition, members of other Momentum Groups have asked that their names be added:

Stuart McGann (Momentum Thanet)
Isabel McNab (Corby)
Sioux Blair-Jordan (Momentum North Essex)
Mike Razzell (Momentum Falmouth)
John Beeching (Momentum Hastings)
Kate Hamlyn (Momentum Thanet)
Anne Thompson (Momentum Havant)
Heather Nicholls Doncaster)
Barbara Brown (Fareham Momentum)
Clare Dove (Thanet Momentum)
Craig Fraser (Cheltenham and Gloucester Momentum)
Eric Potts (South Warwickshire Momentum)
Gillian Potts (South Warwickshire Momentum)
Stacey Guthrie (Momentum Penzanc
Peter Bloomer (South Birmingham Momentum)
Lily Maria (Momentum Havant)
Mike Hogan ( Momentum Liverpool)
David Rhodes (South and West Dorset Momentum)
Christina McCabe, (Cambridge Area Momentum)
Norman Thomas (Momentum Thanet)
Christine Tongue (Momentum Thanet)
Di Coffey (Momentum Falmouth)
Kay Lawrence (Wales Momentum)
Philomena Hearn (Wales Momentum)
Chris Bainbridge (Momentum Bury)
Mike Hogan (Momentum Liverpool)
David Rhodes (South and West Dorset Momentum)
Gillian Jackson (Wales Momentum)
Stacey Guthrie (Momentum Penzance)
Christina McCabe (Cambridge Momentum)
Liz Milne Momentum Thanet )
Eleanor Firman (Momentum Waltham Forest)

 

Oxford

This evening Momentum Oxford meeting.

A much to0 brief view.

A full draft agenda was shared on 2 sheets of A4. Thank you to those who helped that happen. Their was sufficient for everybody.

Many items. Top of my list was and I think others as significant majority ( estimated 90% )

Jackie Walker to be re instated as Chair of Momentum.

Stephen Marks agreed to write the letter to be sent to Momentum EC.

As you might imagine people felt very strongly about this.

IMO many new attendees see the possibilities for radical changes and still don’t have as yet sufficient “space” to express such.

We agreed to delay the AGM until after October and meet again before then.

Anti-Semitism, Momentum

Defend Jackie Walker!

Defend all comrades from anti-left witch-hunts in Momentum and the Labour Party!

On September 30, Jackie Walker has been suspended from the Labour Party for alleged “anti-Semitism”. Again. Having once been cleared of the same charge by the Labour Party, national Momentum vice-chair Jackie has come under renewed attack – but this time, the attackers include, shamefully, her own comrades in Momentum.

The (unelected) Momentum steering group is trying to remove her from her post at its meeting on Monday (please send messages of protest to Emma Rees). Barbara Ntumy, billed as a “Momentum activist”, has gone further on the ‘Daily Politics’ show (September 30), coming very close to calling for Jackie to be expelled from Momentum and the Labour Party: “Her comments are not acceptable in that room, they’re not acceptable anywhere. … Momentum and the Labour Party should deal with her appropriately and that may include her not being part of either organisation anymore.”

It sounds as if the right-wing bureaucrats in the compliance unit of the Labour Party have followed her advice.

It takes a huge amount of bad faith to describe her secretly filmed comments, made at an anti-Semitic training day at Labour Party conference and chaired by Mike Katz of the pro-Zionist Jewish Labour Movement, as anti-Semitic.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Holocaust Day was open to all people who experienced Holocaust?”, she asked. She was informed that this was what the event officially stands for – the supposed ethos of the 46 governments who came together to create the Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27 2000 was to “remember the victims of Nazi persecution and of all genocides” (our emphasis), the press release ran. Comrade Walker made the uncontroversial observation that “In practice, [HMD] is not actually circulated and advertised as such.”

It is ludicrous to suggest that anything in this (accurate) comment constitutes “downplaying” the holocaust of Jewish people. Given the original ‘inclusive’ project of the initiators of the Holocaust Memorial Day, were they also guilty of making light of the suffering of the Jewish people? This is just absurd.

At worst, comrade Walker might have shown herself to be a little ignorant on the supposed scope of HMD – but many other people will be pretty much in the dark about this given the way the Nazi holocaust has been utilised to bolster the Israeli state-sponsored “Holocaust Industry”, as Jewish academic Norman Finkelstein has dubbed it.

Also, in what was obviously a critical comment on the organisers of the training day, she noted that “I was looking for information and I still haven’t heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with”. Laughable attempts torture this simple statement into the implication that the comrade refutes the concept of ant-Semitism – again, absurd. (Jackie in fact states that she subscribes to David Schneider’s definition of anti-Semitism, in case anyone is in doubt.)

Neither comment is anti-Semitic. Neither warrants suspension or expulsion from the Labour Party or Momentum. But disturbing news reaches us that a majority on the (unelected) Momentum leadership committee have apparently turned against the comrade and are intent on throwing our comrade to the wolves. Implicitly this would help to legitimise the foul slanders of the Labour right and the yellow press. It would mean:

  • Bolstering the campaign against us by the right, the capitalist press and the Israeli government.
  • Wetting the hunger of the witch hunters. Their reactionary appetites will grow if they taste blood in the water, whether we have been the ones to spill it or not. No more appeasement of our enemies!


More generally, we need to ask – Is Labour Party stuffed with anti-Semites?

‘No’ is the short answer and even the figures produced by media outlets such as the Daily Telegraph -an establishment rag that has been energetically megaphoning the idea that is badly infected with this chauvinist filth – was only able to report (May 2 2016) that a total of just 50 Labour Party members had been suspended “for anti-Semitic” and undefined “racist comments”. No more recent figures have been published – presumably, because that number has not actually grown by very much, despite the best efforts of the right.

Given the hysteria of the yellow press and its echo chamber on the Labour right – some may find this a surprisingly small figure. After all, the likes of MP Ruth Smeeth assured us that the problem was of such a magnitude that the Labour Party as an organisation was “not safe for Jews” and that shambolic muddle headed dope, Nick Cohen, writes in The Observer (September 11) that the Labour Party is now “the natural home for creeps, cranks and conspiracists”.

Utter mendacious nonsense, of course; a crude Goebbels-style ‘big-lies-work’ campaign. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the Labour Party and the wider workers’ movement will be well aware that the numbers of people who peddle any latter day versions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are infinitesimally small. They are oddities who exist on the fringes of the fringe.

In Labour Party Marxists’ submission to the inquiry headed by Shami Chakrabarti we made what should be a simple, incontrovertible point that “Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism.” Yet it is precisely this false amalgam that lies at the heart of the spurious category of the “new anti-Semitism” – ie, that opposition to the barbaric state policies of Israel, and in particular its colonial oppression of the Palestinian people equates to anti-Semitism.

LPM comrades report that they have encountered many, too many Labour Party comrades who express the idea that if we ignore it – or even make concessions to the accusers – this “anti-Semitism” problem will eventually fade away. Jackie Walker may be the highest profile victim of this craven attitude, but unchecked it will see us decimate our own ranks – the right won’t have to break sweat.

Most worryingly in this context, we have had the co-founder of Momentum, Jon Lansman, advising us “to start talking in a new language”, a vocabulary “that expresses our views about Israel, about the policies and actions of its government and about the rights of Palestinians without alienating any of those who might agree with us.”

The point being, of course, that if people “agree with us” about the oppressive colonial actions of the state of Israel then, ipso facto, they ain’t Zionists. In practice then, comrade Lansman is advocating we avoid “alienating” Zionists of various stripes, that we attempt to placate them.

Of course, we want to win all manner of people who currently hold reactionary views to socialism. But not by blurring what should be clear lines of political delineation with fuzzy, unfocussed and opaque language. Because where vocabulary leads, politics follow.

*

Here is a selection of articles that address some of the key accusations deployed by the right wing of the Party in this ‘anti-Semitism’ witch hunt:

‘Anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism’?

Weapon of choice. Author Tony Greenstein is himself a high profile victim of the right’s smear campaign. In this useful article, the comrade explains that the “new anti-Semitism” assumes that Israel is the “Jew amongst the nations”. It is targeted, not because it is engaged in ongoing colonial oppression of the Palestinian people, but simply because it is a Jewish state. Opposition to the Israeli state and Zionism therefore qualifies as anti-Semitism, in this warped logic.

Everything in socio-economic context. Having equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, the capitalist press attempts to extend the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ back into history, that the left’s ‘racist’ problem is lodged in very origins of modern socialism. Thus, Simon Schama writes: “Demonstrating that you do not have to be a gentile to be an anti-Semite, Karl Marx characterised Judaism as nothing more than the cult of Mammon, and declared that the world needed emancipating from the Jews” (Financial Times February 21-22 2016). Jack Conrad puts the record straight. (This contribution is adapted from the opening chapter of Fantastic reality (2013). A chapter which is itself part based on a reworking of Michael Malkin’s February 1 2001 Weekly Worker article, ‘Karl Marx and religion’.)

A shameful retreat. Paul Demarty explains why a clear understanding of the Labour right’s motivation in prosecuting this disgraceful campaign is necessary so that we can be clear on how to fight it. After all, lies – unlike the truth – must necessarily have an instrumental purpose. Otherwise there’s justification for the risk and expense of making things up. Tweaking our vocabulary, a la Jon Lansman, just won’t cut it …

Anti-Semitic smears employed by right. Gary Toms of Labour Party Marxists takes the right wing’s shameless shenanigans at the February 2016 Young Labour conference as an object lesson in how the left must up its game to win.

In the cause of imperialism. The right claims that one concrete expression of the left’s supposed anti-Jewish racism is the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. Tony Greenstein explains what is behind the timing of move to outlaw boycotts by western governments and its links to the scurrilous activities of right wing in Labour.

Momentum

For democracy in Momentum – Teesside Momentum

Momentum Teesside calls for Momentum to set the standards for democracy and transparency in the Labour Party.

At our meeting yesterday, we approved the following motion calling on Momentum nationally to put into practice the principles of democracy and transparency that it advocates for our party, the Labour Party:

(1) Momentum Teesside supports Momentum’s aim to “Transform Labour into a more open, member-led party, with socialist policies and collective will to implement them in government” and its stated commitment to “working for progressive political change through methods which are democratic, inclusive and participatory”.

(2) We are proud that Momentum Teesside activists have led the way in promoting these principles in local Constituency Labour Parties and branches, and have sought to organise events for Labour members to debate the vital issues facing our party where CLP leaderships have resisted these principles.

(3) We welcome the now well-developed database and communications capacity of Momentum – ie, mailing lists, social media and website.

(4) However, we note that agendas, documents and minutes for decision-making committees at national and regional level are still not published by the organisation nor distributed to members. We regret that Momentum members have sometimes learned about decisions made by the organisation, many weeks after they were taken, through media outlets that may be hostile to Momentum, without having been informed by the organisation itself.

(5) Momentum Teesside believes that the fight to democratise the Labour Party cannot be separated from the way in which Momentum organises its own activities. Momentum as an organisation should therefore practise what it preaches to the Labour Party in its own internal decision-making processes, which should be seen to be fully democratic, accountable and transparent. There must be a presumption of openness in a member-based democratic socialist organisation.

(6) We call upon Momentum to publish on its website agenda papers and minutes for all its decision-making bodies, as well as the names of their elected officers and committee members. We call upon Momentum to require that all regional decision-making bodies and local branches adopt the same good practice regarding publication, providing support and training where necessary to help achieve this.

————

Further details of motions and actions agreed at our 13 September meeting are available in the minutes published at https://goo.gl/ahETgv.

 

Momentum

Momentum: Fight for political clarity

Gallery 1 Comment

Jim Grant of Labour Party Marxists surveys the left response to Momentum’s founding national committee meeting.

Akira Kurosawa’s classic film Rashōmon is based around the narrative concept of a series of self-interested characters giving their partial accounts of the same event –  a procedure borrowed by many subsequent works in all narrative media.

It seems also to have been borrowed, ingeniously, by Momentum: its inaugural national committee this weekend was undoubtedly an important moment, but the precise nature of its significance is something nobody can seem to agree on.

So, to the good news: proposals to ban leftwing literature from Momentum meetings were resoundingly defeated. That the impulse was there at all is, alas, hardly surprising – there is nothing a shiny new movement likes less than the reality of the haggard old Trots its meetings will attract, but it was still silly. Would Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament leaflets be banned? If not, then what about slightly more contentious campaigns (Cuba Solidarity, say)? Even on its own terms, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare, and a ridiculous price to pay for the slender benefit of keeping Socialist Worker at bay. (There is, of course, the small matter of elementary democratic principle to bear in mind as well.)

That Momentum is – for now – relatively open to the participation of avowed Marxists can be gauged from the fact that its steering committee (which will take care of things in between NC meetings) included a certain Jill Mountford of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. Any regular reader of this paper will know that our criticisms of the AWL are legion; but, given that Momentum is screamed at in every paper for basically being the Militant Tendency with better social media nous, comrade Mountford’s election is a good omen for left participants in Momentum more generally. They are not yet buckling on this one. Good.

The most contentious issue, however, is related to Momentum’s membership rules. On the table were three options: Momentum is only open to Labour members; Momentum members must have Labour Party cards, but a separate category of supporters would have voting rights on all matters not directly connected to internal Labour politics; and finally, that Momentum was open to Labour members, affiliated supporters (such as members of affliated unions) and those who support the “aims and values” of the Labour Party, provided they do not support any party other than Labour.

The third option was chosen by a decent majority vote, and its vagueness is probably responsible for most of the leftwing confusion in the period since the meeting. We have argued repeatedly that Momentum should orient itself very firmly in the direction of the Labour Party, and aspects of the agreed wording fudge the issue somewhat. Talk of ‘aims and values’ is plainly lifted directly from the wording of the Labour Party’s ‘registered supporter’ category, which proved under the pressure of Jeremy Corbyn’s insurgent leadership bid to be somewhat elastic, with many of those who had left Labour for the Greens and suchlike excluded on the basis of ancient Twitter postings.

In context, the Momentum agreement is pointing in the opposite direction: it is, after all, the most elastic of the options available. Momentum members will merely have to employ the appropriate due diligence of not openly supporting opposing candidates under their own names. Yet it is still not nearly as elastic as some would like. Again – good. Momentum has chosen not to be yet another self-perpetuating campaigning mechanism along the lines of the People’s Assembly, Stop the War and sundry Trot fronts past and present. It is an (admittedly unofficial) organisation of the Labour Party, and all who sign up will at least have to stand in some proximity to the larger body.

Dogma

So, unsurprisingly, opinions divide. Many are pretty upbeat about the whole thing: “I believe the lobbying and pressure from grassroots Momentum branches won the day at the new NC on Saturday,” chirruped a triumphant Stuart King, formerly of the International Socialists, Workers Power, Permanent Revolution and the Anti-Capitalist Initiative (and possibly still a member of Left Unity, but who knows?), on Facebook.

The AWL’s Ed Whitby, who was present, used his own blog to accentuate the positive. “People should join the Labour Party, and it is right that Momentum will strongly encourage this; but there are still many people coming to the organisation who for whatever reason haven’t joined yet. We need to encourage and persuade them, not throw up an unnecessary barrier.”1 (The AWL, of course, has a longer track record of conducting Labour work, so the result is probably easier to swallow for its members.)

Many Left Unity members are … less enthusiastic. It is hardly surprising: as its membership shrivels, LU is more and more dominated by the ‘carry on as before’ tendency; those for whom the desire to stand candidates in their particular locality automatically supersedes any attention to the goings-on in wider national politics; those for whom the narrow horizon of politics is fitting in as much low-level do-goodery into a given week as possible. No doubt LU will continue to ignore the great shifts happening all around it, in favour of trying to turn out what remains of its membership on whatever demonstration is looming.

The ne plus ultra of this political approach is, as ever, the Socialist Workers Party. A headline in this week’s Socialist Worker asks: “Is Jeremy Corbyn supporters group Momentum cutting off its grassroots?”2 Beyond being a great exemplar of Betteridge’s law (which states that any headline which takes the form of a question can be safely answered with ‘no’), it differs very little from any of SW’s recent ruminations on the topic.

“Momentum’s national committee rightly agreed to support the CND demonstration against Trident nuclear missiles in London on Saturday February 27,” writes the article’s author, Nick Clark. “And it also committed to build for the People’s Assembly national demo in London on April 16. But the committee’s agenda emphasised a focus on building the Labour Party.” For shame!

Comrade Clark’s bizarre conclusion deserves to be cited in full:

“Such a strategy risks allowing the groundswell of support that grew around Corbyn’s campaign to melt away. Corbyn’s strength came from the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for him because they wanted an alternative to austerity, racism and war. Sustaining that will mean building a broad-based movement.”

Might we naively suggest that people voted for Corbyn because they, er, wanted him to be the leader of the Labour Party? Does the SWP really expect people to take no further interest in the matter now that he is Labour leader, and – worse – actually think that is a good thing?

We will not find out from comrade Clark, who refrains from anything so vulgar as justifying the claims he repeats mindlessly, like a penitent monk. For that, we turn to Mark L Thomas, writing at greater length in the latest International Socialism, the SWP’s quarterly journal:

“The key to social change remains through collective struggle from below. Every advance in the struggle creates a greater self-confidence among layers of workers, so weakening the hold of rightwing ideas. This in turn is Corbyn’s best defence of his position against the Labour right … But if the mass of Corbyn’s supporters are simply drawn into bitter internal battles over Labour policy and candidate selections, in practice their focus will not be mobilising in workplaces and working class communities, but on arguing with the right wing … Paradoxically, this can weaken, not strengthen, Corbyn’s position.”3

Things are, alas, little better here – we have proof only of the bankruptcy of the SWP’s hyper-activist tunnel vision. For decades, we have been told with increasing desperation that every passing strike or demonstration is ‘really important’ and the ‘start of the fightback’. Well, comrades, the fightback has come – and you are reduced basically to complaining that it was not the fightback you had in mind. Would a little rethinking be too much to ask?

This sort of dogma is, as we have already seen, hardly limited to the SWP, which merely presents it in its purest and thereby most ridiculous form. Indeed, even organisations that take the Labour question more seriously as part of their operative activity slip into this paradigm all too easily. Thus we find the aforementioned Jill Mountford and Ed Whitby, along with AWL stalwart Sacha Ismail, in last week’s Solidarity:

“It would be false [sic] at this stage to push for anything like a clear, sharp statement of socialist aims, but we need to go beyond Lib Dem-style platitudes and commit to goals for changing the labour movement and developing workers’ political representation. Momentum also needs a clear orientation to supporting workers’ and social movement struggles, and taking them into the Labour Party.”4

It is, we note, never the right time to push for a “clear statement of socialist aims”; nor are we certain that “supporting workers’ and social movement struggles” goes beyond the platitudinous. Mountford wants Momentum to be ‘socialist’ in some sense, still: just not clearly or sharply so. So it is somewhat odd to find comrade Whitby ambivalent on this point in his later blog post: “The basic statement of aims was amended to refer more to socialism and the working class [but] it is still, in my view, far from adequate.” It is a difficult thing, indeed, to satisfy precisely the AWL’s demand for blurry, blunt socialism!

Focus on labour

Still, we must agree with comrade Whitby that the Momentum decisions represent movement in the right direction. And there is a small nugget of truth even in the SWP’s Nick Clark, when he complains of “a focus on building the Labour Party”. However, it is clear that, left to its own devices, Momentum has a very clear sense of what building the Labour Party means, and that is to support Jeremy. At all costs, Labour must be returned to government in 2020, with the honourable member for Islington North at the helm.

So, although Clark’s crypto-Bakuninist ravings and the Corbynist electoralism of the Momentum mainstream may seem to be directly and diametrically opposed, they have in common one thing: the need to suppress political clarity. The object of working class struggle is the conquest of political power, and in fact the ‘instinctive’ class vote for Labour – as with other humdrum matters of official labour movement politics – is a distorted reflection of that reality. The existence of the Labour Party can be put down, ultimately, to the fact that even the infamously bureaucratic British trade unions of the 19th century knew that the workers’ movement needed an effective ‘political wing’ to make anything stick.

Yet there is a vast gulf between what the extant forces of the Labour left consider to be ‘taking power’ and what is actually required to break the grasp of the ruling class on society. For one thing, capital is organised internationally, as the recent Google tax scandals have neatly illustrated; ‘getting the Tories out’ and putting in a tax-and-spend budget does not change that by itself. Organising internationally, however, renders unavoidable the necessity to think at a very high level about the sort of world we want to create. More immediately, the very structures of the state are organised in ways favourable to capital and hostile to labour (in extremis, we have had off-the-record coup talk about Corbyn from army chiefs already). Again, a laundry list of worthy reformist policies gathered into a Labour manifesto is not adequate as a response.

In short, rigorous and effective political discussion is not some self-indulgent distraction from the ‘real work’ – be that getting a Labour government or nudging up attendance figures at some demonstration. The great promise of Momentum is that it provides an opportunity to fight for political clarity among greater numbers of people and, by focusing on the Labour Party – an organisation that, for better or worse, actually matters – the chance to make that clarity a practical force in society at large.

Notes

1 . https://edsunionblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/steps-forward-for-momentum-report-of-first-momentum-national-committee-6-february-2016.

2 . Socialist Worker February 9 2016.

3 . ‘A house divided: Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’ International Socialism No149, winter 2015.

4 . Solidarity February 3 2016.

Momentum

Turn the Momentum inwards

Gallery

As the hard right readies for phase two of Operation Discredit Corbyn, James Marshall outlines the tactics and strategic goals of Labour Party Marxists

Labour’s civil war is ongoing and intensifying at every level.

Using the agenda-setting power of the capitalist media, the Blairites are sniping, leaking and throwing accusations at every possible opportunity. Quite possibly a planned operation, with strings being pulled deep within the establishment.

A small sample. Lord Alan West, Labour peer and former security minister, condemns Jeremy Corbyn over his disrespectable failure to sing the royal anthem at the St Paul’s Battle of Britain service; a ‘private’ paper written by Lord Peter Mandelson comes to the barbed conclusion that electing Corbyn is like “putting two fingers up” to voters; shadow defence minister Maria Eagle rounds on Corbyn for staying true to his life-long opposition to nuclear weapons; the Nigel Farage-admiring Simon Danczuk announces he is willing to serve as a ‘stalking horse’ candidate against Corbyn; various grandees, including Chris Leslie, former shadow chancellor, condemns Corbyn over his refusal to advocate that the British police should shoot first and ask questions later; John Mann denounces Corbyn’s appointment of that “appalling bigot”, Ken Livingstone, to co-chair the party’s defence review; Chuka Umunna noisily demands that Corbyn should allow a free vote over bombing Syria; Lord John Reid declares Corbyn neither “competent, “coherent” nor “sensible”.

The first stage of the operation is pretty obvious. Discredit Corbyn. Make him appear in the popular mind a combination of prize idiot and terrorist-loving monster. The underlying assumption being that you can fool most of the people most of the time.

And so far Operation Discredit Corbyn seems to be working. According to The Times, three out of five people believe “he should stand down now”. Furthermore, only 28% want him to lead the Labour Party into the 2020 general election. Welcome news for the Tories. A recent ComRes national poll puts them on 42%, with Labour trailing badly at just 27%. A 15-point lead – the highest recorded by any pollster since 2010.

However, within the party, the right’s unremitting attacks on Corbyn have predictably backfired. It is the hard right that is being blamed for the civil war … and traditional Labour loyalists do not take kindly to anyone damaging Labour’s chances with the electorate.

Less than a fifth of Labour members and supporters think Corbyn ought to resign as leader. Even worse for the right, YouGov reports that two thirds of the party’s full members, registered supporters and affiliated trade unionists “approve of Corbyn’s performance”. This rises to 86% among those who voted for him. An approval rating that is higher than the 59% who voted for him. And the YouGov poll also reveals that he has impressed 49% of Andy Burnham’s supporters and 29% of Yvette Cooper’s. As The Times gleefully comments, this makes it “almost impossible” for rightwing MPs “to remove their leader”. All that would happen is that Corbyn would be re-elected with an even bigger majority.

Furthermore, the “present cohort of Labour members and supporters” back automatic reselection, which would undoubtedly lead to “waves of mainstream MPs” being ousted. Nearly two in five said that there should only be a vote if the MP “fails badly or is very unpopular”, while 52% agreed with automatic reselection of MPs in each parliament.1

Not that we should bank on the hard right going for a breakaway. Yes, today’s gang of ten – Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Chuka Umunna, Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt, Emma Reynolds, Shabana Mahmood, Mary Creagh, Jamie Reed and Rachael Reeves – have in effect constituted themselves a shadow shadow-cabinet. Despite that, a 21st century version of the 1980s Social Democratic Party should be discounted. Unlike the early 1980s, the political centre is not enjoying a sustained revival.2 Eg, at the last general election the Lib Dems were decimated. They remain marginalised and widely loathed. Except as an antechamber to the Tory Party, a breakaway has nowhere to go. And, of course, minor all-Britain parties tend to suffer “significant under-representation”.3 So, given the punishing logic of the ‘first past the post’ election system, an SDP mark two outcome, no matter how welcome for us on the left, is not to be expected. The abject failure of Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers is surely instructive.

It is probably true that “more than two” Labour MPs are considering defection – either to the Tories, the Lib Dems … or Ukip.4 Nonetheless, political suicide remains an unattractive proposition for most Blairites. Constituents would probably turf them out at the first opportunity. Instead of the glories of high office it will therefore be the musty corridors of the House of Lords. That is why the hard right is determined to stay firmly put and fight till the bitter end.

We should therefore expect Operation Discredit Corbyn to enter its second stage. When a Labour candidate succeeds, or otherwise does well, that will be in spite of Corbyn. When a Labour candidates fails, or otherwise does badly, that will be because of Corbyn. A case of ‘Heads, the right wins; tails, Corbyn loses’. Eg, if rightwinger Jim McMahon maintains Oldham for Labour, but – as is almost certain, even in the best-case scenario – he does so with a substantially reduced majority, this will be blamed on Corbyn.

For many in the party, and not only on the right, the sole purpose of being in politics is getting elected. “The worst Labour government is better than the best Tory government” – a well worn phrase that just as easily trips off the lips of Luke Akehurst5 as Owen Jones6. The idea of a good Labour opposition, a Labour opposition committed to socialism, being better than a bad Labour government, a Labour government committed to running capitalism, simply does not occur to the reformist left.

Unless our candidates go from one election triumph to another, which is just not going to happen, then the well prepared clamour will begin. Corbyn is a loser. Corbyn is a liability. Corbyn is hopeless. Corbyn must go. Replace him with a responsible, election-winning Blairite – a man, or woman, who can finally kill off the Labour Party as a labour party.

Of course, if – and in my mind it is highly unlikely – Corbyn leads the Labour Party to a victory in 2020, there is always the nuclear option. After unleashing a ‘strategy of tension’, MI5 – the institution that John McDonnell wants to grant “additional funding” for7 – will oversee the surgical removal of Corbyn from office. A state of emergency declared by the monarch or the privy council, charges of high treason, a fatal road accident … or maybe even blackmail and a diplomatic illness, as imagined by Chris Mullin, the former Bennite, in his A very British coup (1982). Whatever its exact form, the nuclear option will be hatched with the active involvement of the CIA, while the military high command, key leaders of the opposition and the top judiciary will give it their full cooperation and backing.

Corbyn’s much publicised admiration for Karl Marx, his campaigning against US-led imperialist wars, his opposition to Nato, Trident and nuclear weapons, his commitment to increase the tax take from transnational corporations, the banks and the mega rich, his republicanism – all mark him out as “a danger for Britain” (Financial Times editorial).8

Vital

The civil war is not only being fought out in parliament and the national media.

The hard right’s Labour First says it is getting reports from up and down the country that the left is now on the offensive.9 The AGM in Lewisham Deptford saw narrow victories for the hard right in officer elections and a 23-23 draw on Trident. Walthamstow’s AGM had mixed results – the left made gains, but some hard-right officers hung on. In Portsmouth there were three votes for the chair. Labour First complains that the left is “running full slates for every position, including positions like fundraising officer”. This shows “that every vote at every meeting is now vital.”

What is true for the hard right is true for the left too.

This bring us to Momentum. Launched in October, the organisation boasts well over 60,000 members. Despite being committed to making “Labour a more democratic party”, Momentum activists claim not to want the deselection of MPs. Instead the emphasis is on campaigning against austerity and turning outwards.10 And, funnily enough, when they turn up at Momentum meetings, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party in England and Wales and Left Unity members serve to reinforce this orientation. Typical contributions go along the lines that the PLP is dominated by the right, Corbyn is isolated and the ‘real class struggle’ is about demonstrations and strikes. Not ‘boring stuff’ like parliament, constituency Labour Party meetings, annual conferences and party rules.

No-one on the left would want to downplay the importance of fighting austerity. However, as well as street work, getting people onto the electoral register and supporting this or that action called by the People’s Assembly, Momentum needs to be firmly directed towards winning the civil war in the Labour Party. Not that members of the SWP, SPEW or LU should be turned away. But they should be encouraged to join the Labour Party and stop standing aloof from what is a concentrated form of the class struggle.

We have argued that Corbyn’s election as leader gives the left the historically unprecedented opportunity to fight the pro-capitalist hard right both from above and below. While Labour Party Marxists want the abolition of the Bonapartist post of leader, we welcome the fact that for now Corbyn has decided to keep the dictatorial powers long favoured by past Labour leaders. After all, these are extraordinary times. It is therefore worth noting that Corbyn seems to be using his position as leader to exert control over the national executive committee, supposedly with a view to “giving the party back to its members”.

Peter Willsman’s report of November’s NEC makes interesting reading.11 Amongst its decisions was to “develop a Labour Party code of conduct in relation to the use of social media”. News of this produced a rabid Daily Telegraph headline proclaiming: “Labour MPs who criticise Jeremy Corbyn online to be ‘silenced’.”12

There are also going to be “wide-ranging” party reforms covering the national policy forum, gender representation, bursaries for working class candidates, political education, youth review and the implications of the Trade Union Bill. A working group will begin meeting before Christmas and is due to report to every NEC meeting. It will be jointly chaired by Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson and be open to all NEC members. The actual members will be Angela Eagle, Ann Black, Jennie Formby, Johanna Baxter, Andy Kerr, Cath Speight, Alice Perry and Jim Kennedy. Comrade Willsman stressed that the NPF should be “accountable to the NEC”, as it once was. He further argued that the “NEC must be restored to its central position in the party that it held for some 80 years before it was downgraded and sidelined by Tony Blair”.

Showing the Corbyn effect, general secretary Iain McNicol reported that, while in November 2014 membership stood at 192,707, now it is almost 400,000, with some 1,000 joining last week alone. This makes Labour bigger than all the other UK parties put together. The largest increases in membership being in London, the north-west, south-east and south-west, and the largest increase by age are those between 20 and 29 and those between 70 and 79. I would guess that most of the 20-29-year-olds are new members, while the 70-79-year-olds are mainly returnees. McNicol also told the NEC that the “conversion rate” of registered supporters to full members is something like 30%-40%.

Finally, comrade Willsman assures us that the NEC was not “locked in combat” over the issue of Andrew Fisher. Corbyn’s political advisor was suspended because of a light-hearted tweet “supporting” Class War in the May general election. Rest assured, the matter will be “satisfactorily resolved very shortly”.

However, all is not well. Both Corbyn and McDonnell have been in full retreat over a range of symbolic issues. Refusing to sing the royal anthem, praising the bravery of IRA fighters, not bowing before Elizabeth Windsor – all have already been sacrificed on the altar of respectability. Indeed, burdened as he is with an unstable left-centre-right coalition cabinet, there is a distinct danger that Corbyn will have his whole agenda set for him by the need to maintain unity. Put another way, in the final analysis the centre and the soft right set the political limits and therefore determine the political programme. Why? Because they are quite prepared to walk.

Reorganise

So Momentum needs to respond to the hard right’s civil war independently of Corbyn. Support him against pro-Tory MPs, yes. Support him against a hostile capitalist media, yes. Support him against a coup organised by the secret state and the establishment, yes, yes, yes. But do not support his conciliationism.

Tactically, Momentum should, at least for the moment, concentrate its fire on the soft right in the shadow cabinet. ‘Blairites, out’ should be our slogan. The mass of Labour members clearly trust the Corbyn-McDonnell leadership, but they have an instinctive distrust for those who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, those who are closely associated with Tony Blair, those who threaten to quit over this or that. An obvious target is Lord Charlie Falconer.

Certainly MPs proven to be in the pay of big business, MPs sabotaging our election campaigns, MPs who vote with the Tories on austerity, Trident and bombing Syria – all should face the threat of deselection. We should take full advantage of our current rules. The ‘trigger’ mechanism allows local party units, including both individual members and affiliated organisations, “to determine whether the constituency holds a full open selection contest for its next candidate, in which other potential candidates are nominated, or reselects the sitting MP without such a contest”.13 Ironically, if it happens, both David Cameron’s proposed reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and the expected boundary changes, due to be announced in October 2018, could prove a golden opportunity for us. We should deselect hard-right MPs and democratically select tried and trusted leftwing replacements.

If that results in a smaller PLP in the short term, that is a price well worth paying.

Meanwhile, obviously, we need to set our sights on “wide-ranging” party reforms that go far beyond anything being considered by the NEC at the moment. The Labour Party must be radically reorganised from top to bottom. We need a new clause four, we need a sovereign conference, we need to be able to easily reselect MPs, MEPs and councillors.

Clearly, it is going to take time to change the political make-up of the PLP and subordinate it to the wishes of the membership. But, with force of numbers, tactical flexibility and ruthless determination, it can be done.

Notes
1 . The Times November 24 2015.
2 . From a 2.5% historic low point, the Liberal Party saw a revival in the 1970s, which saw it win 19.3% of the popular vote in the February 1974 general election.
3 . A Blais To keep or to change ‘first past the post’? Oxford 2008, p66.
4 . www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34305994.
5 . Progress February 15 2012.
6 . Left Futures March 2 2011.
7 . The Guardian November 19 2015.
8 . Financial Times November 21 2015.
9 . Labour First November 20 2015.
10 . www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34609114.
11 . Left Futures November 23 2015.
12 . The Daily Telegraph November 23 2015.
13 . www.grassrootslabour.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200:how-labours-trigger-works&catid=43:forum&Itemid=60.

Momentum

Momentum – through the looking glass

Gallery

Jim Grant of Labour Party Marxists wonders if the bourgeois press thinks their readers are sheep 

We are barely two weeks into Momentum’s existence, and already the British media is terribly excited – bringing to bear the fearless pursuit of truth, attention to detail and scrupulous fair-mindedness for which it is famed.

There is, of course, nothing more suspicious than a group of persons associating together in pursuit of common political objectives. There must, surely, be some hidden agenda. And our brave hacks have done a stand-up job assembling as much evidence as possible to demonstrate that all those participating in Momentum have, unbeknownst to themselves, joined a lunatic Trotskyist cult.

Representative of this tendency is, first of all, Dan Hodges writing in The Daily Telegraph. Hodges cut his teeth as, according to his former byline in the paper, a “Blairite cuckoo in the Brownite nest” at the fag-end of the last Labour government; though he no longer calls himself a Labour member, his agenda has not significantly changed since departing (which really ought to tell you something about how closely his ‘values’ were aligned to the labour movement in the first place).

Anyway, for Hodges, “Momentum [is] spelt M-I-L-I-T-A-N-T”.1 It seems you cannot turn over a rock in the Labour Party without finding some swivel-eyed, ranting leftie beneath, and Hodges is fixated on one Jon Lansman, associated with such sinister ventures as, er, his blog (Left Futures) and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy. Hodges’s ‘smoking gun’ is an article by Lansman noting that Jeremy Corbyn’s rightwing opponents have not gone away, and it will be necessary to defend the leftwing leadership “when they strike”. Very militant-sounding, of course – but surely little more than a statement of fact. How dare the Corbynistas not abandon their leader to the carnivorous affections of his enemies!

Momentum is thus described rather grandly as Corbyn’s “Praetorian guard”, when – inasmuch as it has any success getting off the ground – it will resemble not some elite military unit, but rather the same bundle of naive, excitable human material that so spectacularly swept aside the cynical Brewers Green machine people this summer. If one were so minded, one could call such an agglomeration a ‘mob’; and, indeed, Hodges comes close when he declares mandatory reselection of MPs to be a “protection racket” (how dare those little people in branches and CLPs presume to interfere in promising careers!). Praetorian guard, not so much.

It paints a pretty picture, though – on one side, a vast invading force of hardened warriors (or, otherwise, a Mafia family – if only Hodges could make his mind up); and the other, a rag-tag militia of simple-hearted Labour ‘moderates’, with only parliamentary salaries, corporate backing and the entire bourgeois press to defend them. Will our plucky heroes survive, against all the odds?

Hodges is not the only journo with Militant on the mind. While he can only manufacture silly conspiracy theories about Jon Lansman, however, The Sunday Times at least managed to find some kind of tenuous connection – in the person of Dave Nellist, former Militant MP, and still a leading light in Militant’s modern incarnation, the Socialist Party in England and Wales.

The first sentence – which, as any journalism course will tell you, is the most important, since it is the most likely to be read – reads: “Trotskyists are being urged to join a new group for Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters in a fresh effort to purge moderate Labour MPs and shift the party further to the left.” Those who make the effort to read a little further are rewarded with the subtle clarification that comrade Nellist supports … mandatory reselection, “which moderates fear will lead to a purge”. By “moderates”, they mean rightists; by “fear”, they mean ‘are telling the press’; by “purge”, they mean a reckoning with their treachery. Other than that, entirely fair and accurate.

Lest the reader imagine that this sort of fanciful material is restricted to august mainstays of the rightwing press, we cite, finally, the Huffington Post: a terribly modern, web-only bunch of liberal clickbait peddlers. Breaking with the pattern observed so far, HuffPo’s Owen Bennett discovers the hidden hand not of Militant, but the Socialist Workers Party. What’s the skinny here? That the SWP’s Party Notes – forced into the open by this paper – calls for its members to attend Momentum meetings, make their political affiliation clear and see if any of those present would be interested in attending the Next Really Important Demonstration.

SWP national secretary Charlie Kimber was happy to offer a few ‘damning’ quotes to Bennett (who, somewhat ungratefully, calls him “Mr Kimble” for most of the piece – whoops!), suggesting that the SWP might perhaps consider standing candidates against Labour “when you have a rightwing Labour council sticking two fingers up to Jeremy Corbyn”.3 Displaying an uncharacteristic sense of caution, “Mr Kimble” insists that any such action would have to be considered “very carefully”. Very wise – not that Owen Bennett is able to judge.

Wrong for 20 years

In truth, none of the far-left bogeypersons advanced by the media are really plausible. We may return to SPEW, née Militant: it would be a wonderful thing, truly, if it were leading its members decisively into battle against the poor beleaguered souls of the Labour right. It is, alas, doing no such thing. It is plain enough at this point that its leadership has come round – grudgingly – to the idea that the fight is worth having. Very good.

However, it has spent the last two decades committed more staunchly than anyone to the idea that the Labour Party is dead and it is necessary to break all remaining pro-working class forces from its allegiance, to form a new workers’ party in the idealised image SPEW has of old Labour. Instead of merely admitting the plain truth – that, in the light of newly available evidence, those 20 years were spent committed to a wrong theory – SPEW instead chooses to contort reality, claiming that it was correct all along, and a full and final victory for Corbyn would represent in reality the founding of the new workers’ party it had always envisioned!

This is a notably lithe theoretical dodge, but advancing it among people who have not already drunk the Kool-Aid will provoke laughter at best, and a discreet phone call to the men in white coats at worst. The confusion does not stop there – SPEW has called for affiliations to be opened up to its like, but still opposes the re-affiliation of the RMT and FBU unions, and still insists that it will run candidates against Labour in the next local elections – SPEW supremo Peter Taaffe is evidently not as circumspect as “Mr Kimble”.

In short – ladies and gentlemen of the press – Militant is not back from the dead, and is not presently the danger you remember it to be. But without Militant running things in secret, and without SWP infiltration, just what is there left to be scared of? Fortunately, Sam Coates – deputy political editor of The Times, no less – has discovered another insidious threat.

Labour Party Marxists has published a six-point plan to ensure that Mr Corbyn’s agenda is widely adopted: “As the hard right begins its civil war, the left must respond with disciplinary threats, constitutional changes and reselection measures,” it said.

Indeed, we did – and do. These people are traitors, and need to be ushered – politely but insistently – out of the Labour movement. This is not their place. It is not clear how many people are listening to us, if that matters. We do not exaggerate our influence in the wider movement; after all, we have the deputy political editors of eminent daily papers to do that for us, apparently.

There are three possible explanations for these egregious stupidities. The first is that they are honest, if severe, mistakes. The deputy political editor of The Times has mistaken our small propaganda group for a large organisation that will rise, rampant, should mandatory reselection be placed on the Labour Party rulebook. Its Sunday sister is genuinely under the illusion that the modern successor to Militant still has the wherewithal to take over city councils and get people onto the Labour benches. (Simple error, if nothing else, almost certainly accounts for the “Mr Kimble” business.)

Number two: these papers are actively and deliberately lying. Their activity is equivalent in substance and form to the forged ‘Zinoviev letter’ – a cynical and dirty trick to delegitimise the Labour leadership.

And finally, the middle way: the elementary errors of research and fact are to be explained by an indifference to the truth of the matter. This is the mode of communication defined by philosopher Harry G Frankfurt as “bullshit”.4 The bullshitter cares not if what he says is true; only that it convinces enough people enough of the time.

The common thread among all three is contempt for the readership. Either these stories are deliberately deceptive; or they are advanced in the confidence that nobody will check either way; or those commissioned to write them are incompetent. None of these options shines glory on the papers concerned. The condition for any of them working is uncritical acceptance of untruths by the people they purport to keep informed.

Well, if anybody is curious enough to find this article as a result of all this free publicity, and patient enough to read all the way to the end – socialism is, above all else, about not treating the general population like morons. It is this dangerous idea that rankles both the careerist technocrats of the Labour right and the demagogues of the press.

Notes

1. The Daily Telegraph October 10.

2. The Sunday Times October 18.

3. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/16/momentum- swp-jamie-reed-entyists_n_8312330.html.

4. HG Frankfurt On bullshit Princeton 2005.