While I've been on holiday, capitalism has been on its last legs. At least, if you are a headline writer.
In reality, it's difficult to find anyone who really believes that the current crisis, severe as it is, represents the end of capitalism. The Guardian had an interesting piece taking the viewpoints of various claimed opponents of capitalism. Not one believed that this would be the end of capitalism, and few were optimistic about any progress coming of it.
Why, in a time of capitalist crisis, are people not turning to socialism? Because socialist organisations are in no position to offer a realistic, short-term alternative. This is in part due to the still ongoing collapse of the "official" communist movement. And it is in part due to the failure of socialist organisations to build any sort of significant organisation as a pole of attraction.
For those of us who are socialists, this poses the question of a way forward. Simply waiting for the next inevitable crisis in capitalism is not sufficient. A project simply to bring together existing socialist groups will achieve little without agreement on some basic principles - as pleasant as the Convention of the Left may have been, no-one has any serious expectation of a new organisation coming from it.
Discussion and education are an easy answer, and undoubtedly correct. But then what? The only answer I have is to look at the potential of the internet. Eric Lee, who maintains Labournet, knows a lot about its potential for union organising. He has also written on how it can also threaten union organisers.
So... something which allows discussion, the building of a consensus, anonymous participation while maintaining some vigilance against vandalism and trolling. Sounds like a wiki to me. But unlike existing political wikis, something focussed on outcomes and processes, rather than description and history. Time to register wikisocialism.org?
Thursday 25 September 2008
Tuesday 26 August 2008
How to stop the BNP?
The weekend before last, I attended a demonstration against the BNP's "Red White and Blue" Festival. The BNP held an event in Codnor, Derbyshire, last year, with minimal opposition but various reports of fighting and Nazi-style antics, and held a similar event this year.
The demo was organised by Nottinghamshire Stop the BNP. They brought together a wide coalition of local activists, trade unionists, some Labour Party members, and socialist groups (primarily the Socialist Party and Workers' Liberty). At the demo, the organisers were at pains to ensure that a wide range of participants had a chance to speak - unfortunately, some of them had rather too long.
Unfortunately, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) decided to organise a last-minute protest entirely separately. The police invoked the Public Order Act, claiming that the protests brought a serious risk of public disturbance, and this had the fortunate side-effect of ensuring that UAF were compelled to join the main demonstration. They have a report on their website, which tries strongly to give the impression that they organised the whole thing.
There's a reason why the local group organised the demo, rather than UAF. Until the Notts group laid the plans, there wasn't going to be any demo. Some local residents were set against the BNP event, and asked Notts Stop the BNP to put a protest together. They asked the local group because it is consistently involved in local campaigns, and calls for a positive alternative to the BNP - for decent jobs and housing. Unfortunately, UAF doesn't - it says that the BNP are Nazis and that people should vote for someone else. It's not too awful as far as it goes, but it's not hard to see why it has had little impact.
The demo was severely limited by the police restrictions, and amounted to a show of popular opposition to the festival. It didn't attempt to directly stop the event or confront BNP activists. Should it have done? Separately from the demo, the small Antifa group of anarchists attempted to invade the site and threw some stones, to little effect. If there had been more, would this have been worthwhile? The Notts Stop the BNP group doesn't reject the idea, and did prevent a BNP meeting in Kimberley.
Fair enough, but what is needed is a strong movement for decent jobs, housing, and much more besides, showing a positive counterpoint to the BNP's attacks on people from minority groups. The Notts Stop the BNP still needs to go further - many local residents didn't previously know about the demo, and a couple were hostile - but it should be an inspiration for opponents of the BNP across the country.
The demo was organised by Nottinghamshire Stop the BNP. They brought together a wide coalition of local activists, trade unionists, some Labour Party members, and socialist groups (primarily the Socialist Party and Workers' Liberty). At the demo, the organisers were at pains to ensure that a wide range of participants had a chance to speak - unfortunately, some of them had rather too long.
Unfortunately, Unite Against Fascism (UAF) decided to organise a last-minute protest entirely separately. The police invoked the Public Order Act, claiming that the protests brought a serious risk of public disturbance, and this had the fortunate side-effect of ensuring that UAF were compelled to join the main demonstration. They have a report on their website, which tries strongly to give the impression that they organised the whole thing.
There's a reason why the local group organised the demo, rather than UAF. Until the Notts group laid the plans, there wasn't going to be any demo. Some local residents were set against the BNP event, and asked Notts Stop the BNP to put a protest together. They asked the local group because it is consistently involved in local campaigns, and calls for a positive alternative to the BNP - for decent jobs and housing. Unfortunately, UAF doesn't - it says that the BNP are Nazis and that people should vote for someone else. It's not too awful as far as it goes, but it's not hard to see why it has had little impact.
The demo was severely limited by the police restrictions, and amounted to a show of popular opposition to the festival. It didn't attempt to directly stop the event or confront BNP activists. Should it have done? Separately from the demo, the small Antifa group of anarchists attempted to invade the site and threw some stones, to little effect. If there had been more, would this have been worthwhile? The Notts Stop the BNP group doesn't reject the idea, and did prevent a BNP meeting in Kimberley.
Fair enough, but what is needed is a strong movement for decent jobs, housing, and much more besides, showing a positive counterpoint to the BNP's attacks on people from minority groups. The Notts Stop the BNP still needs to go further - many local residents didn't previously know about the demo, and a couple were hostile - but it should be an inspiration for opponents of the BNP across the country.
Friday 15 August 2008
Do people love Kingsnorth Power Station?
A report out fairly soon will show that most people support the construction of a new facility at Kingsnorth Power Station using carbon capture technology. But this won't be true - or, rather, there's no way to tell from the poll whether it is true or not.
Today, I was called by ICM and took part in a survey. It was lengthy and wide-ranging, asking which supermarket I usually shop in, which car insurer I use, and what I would look for in a new soft drink.
The political questions at the start were of rather more interest. Firstly, they asked how likely I was to vote, then which party I was likely to vote for - mentioning only Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. They also asked who I voted for in 2005, and then how likely I would be to vote for four parties - Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour and UKIP.
Most interestingly, they asked about the Climate Camp. Had I heard of it, and did I know what its purpose was. They then named Kingsnorth Power Station and asked if I knew who operated it. I was quietly pleased to remember that it was e.on.
The next question had a strong push - they asked whether I would support the construction of the new facility at the power station, emphasising that it would use carbon capture technology as soon as it becomes available, and mentioned a few benefits of this technology. I do hope that ICM tried to dissuade e.on from phrasing it this way. Then, in light of this, would this improve or lower my opinion of e.on.
No doubt this will elicit the information that - when pushed with a question phrased in the most positive manner - most respondents support the new power station and think this reflects well on e.on.
This style of questioning has been debunked on numerous occasions, and there's a good example about the Christian Institute's poll on abortion written by Anthony Wells of the UK Polling Report: "the best way to ask a survey question is to give the minimal amount of information, since for every bit of background information you provide you risk skewing the answer or, by making them better informed than other people, making your sample unrepresentative."
Today, I was called by ICM and took part in a survey. It was lengthy and wide-ranging, asking which supermarket I usually shop in, which car insurer I use, and what I would look for in a new soft drink.
The political questions at the start were of rather more interest. Firstly, they asked how likely I was to vote, then which party I was likely to vote for - mentioning only Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. They also asked who I voted for in 2005, and then how likely I would be to vote for four parties - Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour and UKIP.
Most interestingly, they asked about the Climate Camp. Had I heard of it, and did I know what its purpose was. They then named Kingsnorth Power Station and asked if I knew who operated it. I was quietly pleased to remember that it was e.on.
The next question had a strong push - they asked whether I would support the construction of the new facility at the power station, emphasising that it would use carbon capture technology as soon as it becomes available, and mentioned a few benefits of this technology. I do hope that ICM tried to dissuade e.on from phrasing it this way. Then, in light of this, would this improve or lower my opinion of e.on.
No doubt this will elicit the information that - when pushed with a question phrased in the most positive manner - most respondents support the new power station and think this reflects well on e.on.
This style of questioning has been debunked on numerous occasions, and there's a good example about the Christian Institute's poll on abortion written by Anthony Wells of the UK Polling Report: "the best way to ask a survey question is to give the minimal amount of information, since for every bit of background information you provide you risk skewing the answer or, by making them better informed than other people, making your sample unrepresentative."
Thursday 14 August 2008
A new angle on Northern Ireland
Northern Irish politics are an area I keep returning to when contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm becoming increasingly aware of the poverty of sources for some topics.
Election results and many aspects of the Troubles are well covered by ARK and its related sites (with particular appreciation going to Nicholas Whyte). The UUP and some key figures - particularly some in Sinn Féin - are covered by a number of books accessible through Google to greater or lesser extents. There are various reviews of Northern Irish politics giving general overviews, generally not very useful for adding detail to articles.
But try to find information on some other organisations, and you soon come up against a brick wall. Where are the works on the National Democrats, on the later years of the Nationalist Party, or the early years of the Alliance?
This tendency is particularly pronounced when trying to research on the labour movement in Northern Ireland. Key figures barely appear on the web, or at best as footnotes in pieces covering the Parliament. Michael Farrell's work is a more useful source, but his biases are evident in the periods he focusses on and those he ignores.
With that in mind, I'm looking forward to the release of A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party: Democratic Socialism and Sectarianism by Aaron Edwards. He appears to have also researched the politics of the PUP, which seems a logical starting point for an interest in the later years of the NILP. This should be an area ripe for research, with key figures such as Billy Boyd, David Bleakley still around, and Billy Blease having died only in May. This may be the reasoning for his periodisation, covering 1924 - 58 in two chapters, while devoting three to 1965 - 75.
Discussions of Edwards' work suggest that he is interested in privileging a class conflict model of Northern Irish society over an ethnic conflict model, a position I have considerable sympathy with. Given this, I'll be particularly interested in his analysis of the republican labour tendencies.
Here's hoping that this inspires some more research into the workers' movement - what chance something on trade unionism in the province?
Election results and many aspects of the Troubles are well covered by ARK and its related sites (with particular appreciation going to Nicholas Whyte). The UUP and some key figures - particularly some in Sinn Féin - are covered by a number of books accessible through Google to greater or lesser extents. There are various reviews of Northern Irish politics giving general overviews, generally not very useful for adding detail to articles.
But try to find information on some other organisations, and you soon come up against a brick wall. Where are the works on the National Democrats, on the later years of the Nationalist Party, or the early years of the Alliance?
This tendency is particularly pronounced when trying to research on the labour movement in Northern Ireland. Key figures barely appear on the web, or at best as footnotes in pieces covering the Parliament. Michael Farrell's work is a more useful source, but his biases are evident in the periods he focusses on and those he ignores.
With that in mind, I'm looking forward to the release of A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party: Democratic Socialism and Sectarianism by Aaron Edwards. He appears to have also researched the politics of the PUP, which seems a logical starting point for an interest in the later years of the NILP. This should be an area ripe for research, with key figures such as Billy Boyd, David Bleakley still around, and Billy Blease having died only in May. This may be the reasoning for his periodisation, covering 1924 - 58 in two chapters, while devoting three to 1965 - 75.
Discussions of Edwards' work suggest that he is interested in privileging a class conflict model of Northern Irish society over an ethnic conflict model, a position I have considerable sympathy with. Given this, I'll be particularly interested in his analysis of the republican labour tendencies.
Here's hoping that this inspires some more research into the workers' movement - what chance something on trade unionism in the province?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)