Sunday, April 03, 2016

Labour's right is learning from the last civil war


This is from Great Britain's SOCIALIST WORKER:



Labour's right is learning from the last civil war

As the Labour left fights to defend leader Jeremy Corbyn, Nick Clark argues that the early 1980s show how focusing on internal battles ends in giving way to the right


Liverpool town hall was a stronghold of the Militant Tendency
Liverpool town hall was a stronghold of the Militant Tendency (Pic: Miguel Mendez/Wikimedia Commons)

A battle was raging between the left and right inside the Labour Party in the early 1980s. The Labour right feared they were losing control.

Two recently re-released books, Hammer of the Left by 1980s Labour politician John Golding and journalist Michael Crick’s Militant, look at what went on then.

They are handbooks for a new generation of Labour right wingers learning how to fight old battles. The left, both inside and outside Labour, have lessons to learn from the 1980s too.

When the Labour government was booted out of office in 1979 it had spent the previous two years making workers pay for a bosses’ crisis. A cap on public sector workers’ pay sparked a series of strikes in the winter of 1978-79—the “Winter of Discontent”.

There was discontent inside Labour’s own ranks too. Party conferences and its national executive committee frequently passed motions opposed to Labour government policies.

None of this bothered prime minister James Callaghan who, in the words of Golding, saw conference decisions “merely as declarations of opinion”.

He took Labour into the 1979 general election on a right wing manifesto—and lost.

Workers were not inspired to vote for a party that had spent years attacking them, while union leaders held back the struggle.


Michael Foot
Michael Foot (Pic: National Archive of the Netherlands)



Yet anger among Labour activists produced a swing to the left. Denis Healey, the right’s replacement for Callaghan, was defeated by the left’s candidate Michael Foot.

But this wasn’t enough to satisfy the Labour left’s desire for change. They demanded the right to re-select sitting MPs before elections and a change in the way the party leader was elected.

Previously the leader was elected by Labour MPs only. But in 1981 the left won a proposal to elect leaders by a “college” of union bloc votes, Constituency Labour Parties and MPs.

This small rule change was enough for some right wing Labour MPs, who feared they would further lose control, to threaten resignation.

For the left, it was a huge step forwards. That same year, Tony Benn launched a challenge for Labour deputy leader. Benn’s campaign rallies attracted thousands of Labour party activists.

They were excited by the rise of the left—and the prospect of a Labour Party that could offer a genuine alternative to Margaret Thatcher.

This excitement reflected a genuine desire among sections of workers and trade unionists for a party that can fight for their interests against the Tories and the bosses. For many, that party was Labour.
But for Labour politicians, winning elections means having to appeal to voters from all sections of society—not just workers and the left. So they talk of governing in a “national interest”.

What they’re really saying is that they’ll try to manage capitalism responsibly—and that means acting in the bosses’ interests. Marxists Tony Cliff and Donny Gluckstein explained that this contradiction is at the heart of the tension between the left and right inside Labour.

They wrote, “Labour voices working class aspirations but only to the extent that they can be fitted into the workings of the national state.

“The balance between the two factors is represented in the split between Labour’s left and right—each side representing one aspect of the common reformist whole.”

Because the position of Labour MPs relies entirely on being elected, this rightward pull is stronger on them than the activists at Labour’s base.

Unfortunately Labour’s focus on parliament and elections also means that MPs are more powerful.
So when a group of Labour MPs broke away to form the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1981, it actually strengthened the right.

Crick described how “Foot was coming under increasing pressure from the right”. “The implied threat was that if he did not act against the far left, the ranks of Labour MPs would shrink still further,” he wrote.

Spurred on by reports in the media of a “Trotskyite” takeover of the Labour Party, Foot launched an investigation into the far left group Militant.

It was the first of many witch-hunts, but the real target was Labour’s hard left around Benn. By attacking Militant, the Labour right hoped to make it harder for the whole left to organise.

For their part, the Bennite left was paralysed. The Labour left also feel the pull of elections and the need to keep the party together, even as the right attacks them.

What’s more Labour’s near-defeat at the hands of the SDP in a by-election in the previously safe seat of Warrington shook the party. Many who backed Benn started to fear that the left had gone too far.
Benn narrowly lost the deputy leadership election, and he began to lose the support of a layer of trade union officials and soft left MPs he had relied on. In 1982 he agreed not to mount another challenge.
The truth was that while there had been a shift to the left among Labour Party activists, the working class was still demoralised and fragmented.

This led to a shift to the right and a drain on Labour’s support.

The move to the left in Labour was important—it represented a radicalisation of a significant layer of party activists.

But the left’s enthusiasm for rule changes and block votes was a world away from the actual experience of the working class.

Recent industrial defeats had left workers with little confidence in the possibility of change.

The focus on internal party battles did nothing to relate to that atmosphere, let alone start to change it.

Now, faced with the reality of electoral defeat, the left began to chase after right wing votes.

Foot backed Thatcher’s war in the Falklands in the “national interest”. To his credit Benn stood against the war, but was increasingly isolated. Even Militant refused to back the call for the withdrawal of the British fleet.


Neil Kinnock
Neil Kinnock (Pic: flickr.com/dushenka)



When Labour lost the general election again in 1983, Foot was replaced by Neil Kinnock from the party’s soft left.

He was backed by many Labour members who had supported Benn in 1981, as well as most of the unions.

Now Labour’s return to the right began in earnest. Kinnock made it his task to get rid of Militant completely.

This began with an attack on the Militant-controlled Liverpool City Council in 1985 for setting an illegal budget.

Kinnock’s plan to “modernise” Labour also included calling for the imprisonment of Poll Tax protesters in 1991—just as they brought down Thatcher.

At a time of huge bitterness towards the Tories, Kinnock managed to lose the elections in 1987 and 1992. His legacy was to pave the way for the era of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour.

There are important differences today. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow chancellor John McDonnell have spent their entire political lives on the left.

And the vote for Corbyn by more than 88,000 registered supporters—not actual Labour Party members—shows there is a radicalisation taking place beyond Labour’s ranks.

But there are similarities, and the danger of repeating old mistakes.

Faced with vicious opposition from the party’s right, some on the left are gearing up for more internal battles.

Labour conference this September is likely to see lengthy and complicated debates over party rules all with the aim of just keeping Corbyn in place.

It’s important to stand up to the Labour right.

But the lesson of the 1980s should be that focusing on internal battles eventually means giving way to the right.

More than 200,000 people voted for Corbyn as leader. Very few of them will want to take part in bureaucratic wrangling over rule changes in interminable party meetings.

But thousands of them will have joined the Stop Trident and Stand Up to Racism protests this year.

Thousands more will probably join the People’s Assembly demonstration against austerity on 16 April.

Defending Corbyn from the right will mean building on this potential—not in a fight to change

Labour, but in a fight to change society.

Read more

Hammer of the Left: the battle for the soul of the Labour Party
by John Golding
£10.99
Militant
by Michael Crick
£10.99
Jeremy Corbyn, Labour and the fight for socialism
by Charlie Kimber
£3.00
The Labour Party—a Marxist History
by Tony Cliff and Donny Gluckstein
£8.99
Available at Bookmarks, the socialist bookshop. Phone 020 7637 1848 or go to bookmarksbookshop.co.uk






Hillary Clinton greasy and bloated with oil and gas money

Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign issued the following last week:


Clinton’s Close Ties to the Oil, Coal and Gas Industry

April 1, 2016

NEW YORK – The Clinton campaign on Friday held a conference call with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to discuss Secretary Hillary Clinton’s record on clean energy and climate change.
Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign left out some important facts.

In 2001, Clinton voted to kill a measure backed by most Democrats and spearheaded by Sen. Bill Nelson that would have restricted drilling off the coast of Florida. Sanders voted for the restrictions.
During the 2006 election, Clinton accepted $74,000 from oil and gas interests while running for re-election that year. According to a scorecard of Senate votes compiled by the League of Conservation Voters, Clinton cast two votes in support of 2006 legislation to vastly expand drilling in the Gulf. Those votes put her on the opposite side of then-Sen. Barack Obama. That same year, Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against a measure in the House of Representatives to expand offshore drilling.

During the 2008 election cycle, she was the 6th largest recipient of oil and gas money in the Senate.

A year later, as secretary of state, she approved the Alberta Clipper, a tar sands pipeline that Sen. Sanders opposes. The Clinton-led department said the pipeline would “advance a number of strategic interests.” Environmental groups such as Earthjustice told Reuters: “It means large amounts of more air pollution, large amounts of water pollution and extra [greenhouse gases] because more energy is required to convert this [heavy oil] into a refined, usable petroleum product.”

In 2010, Secretary Clinton remarked that she was ultimately “inclined to approve” Keystone XL, a pipeline that would transport tar sands oil from Canada. During the campaign, after strong opposition from environmental organizations, Secretary Clinton eventually came out in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, not because of her concerns about climate change, but because she viewed it as a “distraction.”

During her time leading the State Department, the agency also signed the “U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement,” a deal it said would help energy companies expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The State Department said the pact would help energy corporations expand offshore drilling and “unlock areas for exploration and exploitation” in locations between the two countries. The agency said the deal will make “nearly 1.5 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf more attractive” to energy companies.

In her 2016 bid, Clinton has relied on a slew of current and former advocates for the oil and gas industry for fundraising support, including Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. As recently as this year, Tony Podesta has lobbied for BP, the company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. He has also lobbied for a company partly-owned by ExxonMobil. Podesta has raised over $130,000 for Clinton’s campaign, according to federal election records. According to public filings, approximately one in 15 dollars given to Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC coordinating directly with Secretary Clinton’s campaign, came from oil, gas and coal interests.
Oil and gas companies have contributed more than $700,000 to Clinton’s campaigns throughout her political career, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.



“Bernie believes it is critical that the next president acts to curb the worst effects of climate change by acting boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager. “He also believes you cannot take on an industry if you take their money. If the Clinton campaign wants to argue that industry lobbyists giving thousands of dollars to her campaign won’t affect her decisions if she’s elected, that’s fine. But to call us liars for pointing out basic facts about the secretary’s fundraising is deeply cynical and very disappointing. Secretary Clinton owes Sen. Sanders an apology.”

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.




 "Moqtada's big gamble" -- most requested highlight by readers of this site.








"The Rebranding" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.

"MY NAME IS NOT MOVIE" and "America needs a hilarious comedy" -- Stan goes to the movies. 

















Sunday, March 27, 2016

Truest statement of the week


“It takes courage for a society to address uncomfortable truths about the darker parts of its past. Confronting crimes committed by our own leaders… is essential to moving forward to building a peaceful and prosperous future in a country that respects the rights of all of its citizens.”
These were the words of President Barack Obama in praise of Mauricio Macri, Argentina’s new right-wing president, spoken at a ceremony held in Buenos Aires on March 24, the 40th anniversary of the military coup that brought to power the murderous US-backed dictatorship of Gen. Jorge Videla.
Obama could just as well have been speaking of the crimes committed by the United States against the people of Argentina and the rest of Latin America. But as the remainder of his remarks, aimed at covering up Washington’s crimes, made clear, his policies are directed not at building a society based on peace, prosperity and basic rights, but on defending the wealth and power of a rapacious capitalist oligarchy.
In his brief visit to the Parque de la Memoria in Buenos Aires, dedicated to the 30,000 Argentine workers, students and leftists who were murdered and “disappeared” under the junta, Obama was surrounded by a small army of Secret Service agents, watched over by snipers and helicopters, and kept a safe distance from the hundreds of thousands of Argentine workers and youth who took to the streets to mark the day. He was accompanied by Macri, whose basic policies are in continuity with those of the bygone junta.
What were the “uncomfortable truths” and “darker… past” Obama chose to confront in terms of Washington’s own role in the bloody events in Argentina? US officials, he said, had failed to “live up to the ideals that we stand for” and had been “slow to speak out for human rights.”
It is hard to imagine more mealymouthed and dishonest words from an American president.


-- Bill Van Auken, "Obama’s pivot to Latin America" (WSWS).





Truest statement of the week II


Ann Wilson

comment author avatar
In reply to:  PilotLight #5.2
You haven't heard a darn thing.
As a Green Party member, I'm getting sick of lazy corporate media.  Jill Stein was the 2012 candidate.  She may become the 2016 candidate.
But currently she is one of at least five candidates seeking that nomination.
Yet every time corporate media does a story on her, they lie that she is the nominee.
As an African-American woman, I'm not really impressed with Stein or her White entitlement which strikes me as not unlike Hillary Clinton.
I also don't like how she can call out Clinton for her actions as Secretary of State but can't call out President Barack Obama. She did that in 2012 as well.
I find her cowardly.
The last great nominee for my party was in 2008, Cynthia McKinney.  NBC News wasn't interested in her, of course.  But, hey, White entitlement, right?
  • 2:28



  • -- our own Ann calls out the lies at NBC's "Meet Jill Stein, the Green Party Candidate for President."







    A note to our readers

    Hey --


    A Sunday.
     




    First, we thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:





    The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
    Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
    Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
    C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
    Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
    Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
    Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
    Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
    Ruth of Ruth's Report,
    Wally of The Daily Jot,
    Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
    Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
    Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
    Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
    and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.



    And what did we come up with:



    Bill Van Auken gets a truest.
    As does Ann.  
    If they can't be honest about Iraq, it's no surprise that they can't be honest about anything.
    Ava and C.I. take on the increasingly embarrassing 60 MINUTES.
    August?  Really?  Reader Marlena e-mailed to tell us we hadn't updated this ongoing series since August.  Our apologies.
    She has none.
    Exactly.
    Oh, 'Juan' Cole, you're such an embarrassment.
    What we listened to while writing.

    Repost from Great Britain's SOCIALIST WORKER.
    Bernie on an issue.
    The press briefing from last week where we learn more US troops are going to Iraq.
    Repost from IAVA.

    Mike and the gang wrote this and we thank them for it.


    And we made it and got it all up and posted on a Sunday.  Amazing!!!!




    Peace.




    -- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.






    Editorial: They lie about Iraq, they lie about everything

    All the fakes and all the frauds, will we ever be rid of them?


    Take Iraq Veterans Against The War.

    At their website, they couldn't even note the 13th anniversary of the never-ending war.  They did a little better at their Facebook page:



    The Marines at Fire Base Bell are classified as “temporarily deployed,” which has allowed them not to be added to the 3,870 American troops that are authorized to be deployed to Iraq. One might say its a loophole that allows the White House’s message of “no boots on the ground” and a finite number of troops deployed in-country in non-combat roles to remain intact.



    A little better?


    The White House's message?

    Oh, that would be Barack Obama.

    The president that IVAW has never had the guts or spine to call out.

    Little cowards that they are, sniveling in the darkness.

    They can call out politicians and do.


    A Libyan student recently asked Secretary Clinton, "We know what the U.S. can do with bombs. What else can you do?" Given her track record with Libya and Iraq, we're curious if her decision-making process is any better then the flawed foreign polices of the Bush administration: bomb, invade, overthrow - and then think later, if ever.


    Her track record with Libya?

    You mean Barack Obama's track record?


    Not if you're the cowards of IVAW.


    And certainly not if you're the coward -- and liar -- Jill Stein.

    The 13th anniversary passed without Jill even noting it.

    We found that surprising due to all the e-mails we've received from her campaign insisting Jill has always been a strong opponent of the Iraq War and regularly calls it out.



    Then why the silence on the anniversary of the Iraq War?

    That silence includes Jill Stein staying silent on the decision to send more US troops into Iraq.









  • Now, President Obama plans to send more combat troops to Iraq.


  • The 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney can Tweet truth.  The 2012 candidate Jill Stein cannot.


    In fact, Jill lies about just about everything.


    Take this whine:








  • Jill & locked out of debate. Seems doesn't want Americans to know there's more than 5 pres. candidates.



  • You mean like Kent Mesplay?


    Jill never mentions him.

    Or any of the other candidates for the Green Party's presidential nomination.


    The Green Party of the United States notes:

    The Green Party of Ohio will be holding it's Presidential Nominating Convention on April 3, 2016 in Columbus Ohio. This year we have 5 candidates competing for the chance to lead the Green Party of United States Presidential ticket. Some primaries and conventions have already taken place but the eventual nominee has yet to be determined. 
    The five candidates are:
    Darryl Cherney
    Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry
    William P. Kreml
    Kent Mesplay
    Jill Stein



    Yet Jill -- not unlike Hillary Clinton -- keeps presenting herself as the entitled nominee.

    She did so to the idiot Corky Siemaszko (NBC NEWS) who declared, "Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president, has proposed . . ."


    Nothing.

    The Green Party candidate for president has proposed nothing.

    Because the Green Party has not yet selected a nominee.


    Jill's a liar.

    She whines about being shut out of the debates but she shuts out the reality that she doesn't have the nomination of the Green Party.


    Her staff whines that she really, really cares about Iraq but she never manages to address the topic.


    She's supposedly against imperialism but while she can call out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she refuses to call out President Barack Obama.


    She's a coward and a liar.


    She shares that with IVAW and many others.






    TV: Truth and the lack of it

    "We've just won six out of the last seven contests," Senator Bernie Sanders told Jonathan Karl this morning on ABC's THIS WEEK about his repeatedly defeating Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries and caucuses. "We have the momentum."

    It's the kind of truth you rarely get on TV these days.


    tv



    We were reminded of that as we watched NBC's latest reality hit LITTLE BIG SHOTS hosted by Steve Harvey (produced by Harvey and Ellen DeGeneres).

    Whether it was the little girl explaining to her father why she wasn't a princess or the twins with ties, they spoke their minds.

    It was truth.

    Which is partly where the humor comes from -- it also comes from comedian Harvey's facial reactions and ad libs.

    Truth can provoke giggles when it's so long suppressed.

    And if you doubt how much truth is suppressed in the United States, just flip over any Sunday night to CBS' 60 MINUTES -- or, as we like to think of it these days, BIG LITTLE SHOTS.

    Or, better yet, PUT 'EM OUT TO PASTURE ALREADY.

    Once upon a time, the program did investigative reporting.

    These days it's all p.r.

    That was made clear by Sunday's big story: Gossip columnist Charlie Rose dishes with rich people about the money they give away and how great they are.

    This was an 'update' to an earlier fawning.

    We should clarify, an earlier fawning on 60 MINUTES.

    Equally true is that Rose has repeatedly used THE CHARLIE ROSE SHOW to promote Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

    The update was about as 'in depth' as anything else Rose has done on the topic: gossip, jokes and a bunch of distraction.


    The Giving Pledge, it should be noted, is not binding.

    Anyone can sign it but they're not bound by it.

    It should be noted by us . . . because it wasn't by Charlie Rose.


    Not much was noted by Rose.

    At one point, a testimonial was offered about how Bill and Melinda were eradicating polio.

    No proof of this was offered but, more to the point, claims of polio eradication are nothing new.


    For example, polio was eradicated in China in 2000 . . . until it returned in 2011.


    The issue of taxes was never raised -- higher taxes for the rich would reduce some of these 'problems' the Gates and Buffett face.


    The issue of tax breaks was also ignored.


    People giving away money and getting gushing and praise and tongue baths but no one thinks to ask about the tax breaks they're receiving for these donations?


    In 2010, DER SPIEGEL spoke with billionair Peter Kramer:


    Krämer: I find the US initiative highly problematic. You can write donations off in your taxes to a large degree in the USA. So the rich make a choice: Would I rather donate or pay taxes? The donors are taking the place of the state. That's unacceptable.

    SPIEGEL: But doesn't the money that is donated serve the common good?



    Krämer: It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?


    Rose would say -- and did suggest -- that they have the legitimacy because they've made money.


    In Rose's hierarchy of saints, day traders and sweat shop owners rank near the top.


    Then there was the issue of the foundations.


    One billionaire wasn't too sure where to give so the obvious answer was The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Never explored was how these foundations provide (large) token payments to board members (generally family members).


    When the late billionaire Robert Wilson turned down Bill Gates' offer to join the movement/scheme, he wrote:


    Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near-billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.


    Charlie Rose's gush aired on what is called CBS NEWS and did so today, 3/27/16.  It had no serious questions to ask.


    But back in 2010, Alan Maass (SOCIALIST WORKER) could think of many issues including this:


    You'd never know--from the pledgers themselves or the media reports about them--that the wealthy could learn a few things from "all Americans" about giving.
    Every study of charitable contributions confirms the same fact--people who have the least give the most of themselves, and those with the most are downright stingy by comparison. Thus, Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for 2007 show that the poorest one-fifth of the population gave 4.3 percent of their household income to charity on average, while the richest one-fifth donated just 2.1 percent.
    You'd also search the media in vain for any hint of how the Giving Pledgers amassed their fortunes in the first place.
    Take John Arnold ($3.4 billion, number 91), who says he and his wife Laura view their wealth "not as an end in itself, but as an instrument to effect positive and transformative change." Arnold runs the positive-sounding Centaurus Advisers, a hedge fund based in Houston that specializes in investments in the energy industry.
    Okay, now: "Houston" and "energy industry." Does anything come to mind when you put those two things together?
    You guessed it: Enron. John Arnold's "instrument to effect positive and transformative change" got its start at the energy conglomerate Enron, which became the country's seventh-largest corporation by the late 1990s by taking advantage of deregulation to manipulate energy markets and gouge consumers. Then it went belly up in 2001 in a scandal that actually sent a few executives to prison.



    The fawning Charlie Rose never asked how money was made, just glorified the men -- and token women -- as hard workers who'd made their money the hard way.


    He noted with bewilderment growing resentment towards the extreme wealthy and offered that the Giving Pledger movement/scheme might lower resentments.

    Watching Rose's endless garbage, it was hard to believe that 60 MINUTES was ever a hard hitting, investigative program.

    If this is all the tired program has left to offer, let's all hope LITTLE BIG SHOTS wipes the floor with 60 MINUTES.









    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
     
    Poll1 { display:none; }