I think it is important that the British left does not sink into passivity and despair and 'little conversations' online. For example, the anti-war movement is as important as ever and the Stop the War Coalition is organising lobbies of Brown as he goes on tour - which every socialist should help build and support - in order to get the troops out.

In terms of the wider class struggle, the Organising For Fighting Unions campaign needs to be built - we may not all agree on how socialism might come about in Britain but surely we can unite to try and build stronger links for the coming battles under Brown. Finally, there is a national demonstration called by Unison in October to defend the NHS which could be the biggest demonstration in British history (even bigger than the 2 million march against the war) if people build it.

I think we need, in short - a lot more united action and then the 'little conversations' about political representation will be more meaningful and perhaps more productive.

An excellent post Dave (and a good one from Liam too).

For what it's worth, very disappointed that John Mc didn't get on the ballot but like you say it's no shock.
The unions are a key battleground but even there the left has lost influence. A few years ago, people were talking about the awkward squad and celebrating the election of left-wingers like Simpson in Amicus. The big unions have got through resolutions at conference criticising PFI but it is quite obvious that the big union leaders prefer Brown to McDonnell eg Prentice's attack on McDonnell just a few months ago.

Dave, we try. I concentrate on working with the Trades Council on our campaigns, such as on the NHS, our T & G branch, doing some limited international work on Latin America, writing for lefty journals, and a-rantin' and a-ravin' on the Web.

Mind you talking to of my closest comrades about this result vis a vis Labour last night, she and I agreed that we would be spending more time with our allotments.

If illusions are honestly come by then theere is no shame in them. Unless naivity is a crime.

Better such illusions then than the cynicism on display in your post Dave. Cynicism that comes close ot rejecting the possibility of developing any kind of alternative project based on the working class.

Given your own past illusions in such lame projects as the SLP and SSP you actually have a bit of a cheek to posture as the voice of realism. Although to be fair you have at least seen through those other loser projects Respect and the CNWP.

Rather than looking for shortcuts through Labour or the not so awkward squad socialists should actually pick up those Marxist classics whose worth you doubt and look to the agency they point to as the uniquely revolutionary class.

Quite simply we have an image problem... We need our faction of the Labour Party to be an organised one; perhaps form a union of some sort...

I'm all for a conversation Dave - let's have the conversation on the picket lines if and when we can get joint union action on public sector pay.

And let's keep building the Labour left we have, as it is the only left we have.

Snowball

part of the problem here is that you promote the SWP's project - the Organising for fighting unions initiative instead of promoting the Shop Stewards network being promoted by the RMT, with its second conference and official launch in July.

One is promoted by a left group. the other by an important trade union body. The eft groups need to leran to work within the official movement more, insted of launching their own initiatives that only reach the already committed.

I think Matthew is worng about the influence of the left declining in the unions. Part of the trouble is that the "awkward squad" was talked up too much.

But only a few years ago nearly every union had a right wing leadership, and a model of social partnership.

There is a growing tendency towads the organising model of trade unions rather than the insurance model, and perhaos febrile links being built up between the uniosn developing more commitment to traditaional them and us trade unionism.

the key is to work to get the unions to adopt a political alternative to the market, and then use their financial and organisatinal muscle to put it on the agenda.

And Dave's pessimism is not the problem, it is the nihilism of his conclusion.

We can do more than local acivism, becasue the trade unions do present that possibility of developing ideological opposition to the market.

Andrew Coates explains in his comment about about the trades council, and T&G.

More of that sort of activity, and more coordination, and collaboration between socialists on such practical work can turn the tide.

Andy Newman is correct that the far left ought to concentrate on the RMT backed NSSN initiative. But only as a means to organising rank and file networks independent of the trade union bureaucracy I must add.

But that fals t recognise that many socialists lack such an outlet for their energies for various reasons. How do such corades fit into your view of the way forward? Another bland socialist unity prject once Respect and the CNWP are finally wound up?

Ok, again you might all see me as the cuckoo in the nest, but i think Dave's comments at the end contain a lot of sense, though I'd add that I have never seen Lenin as any sort of role model.

But, yes, we are not living in the midst of capitalism's death agony - and even in terms of the environmental crisis thera re clearly capitalist solutions to that issue.

Social democrats have faced up to the fact that the abolition of capital in the "socialist countries" was more than just an economic failure - it was a regressive step. The capitalist countries, albeit the ones that have been most decisively influenced by social democrats - Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and to a lesser but still important extent, Canada and the UK - have been the beacons of human progress in the last century.

The solutions and compromises the social democrats have made may be unpalletable to some, but so long as large sections of the Marxian or Marxist left refuse to even engage with what the social democrats have achieved then they will continue to be sects on the fringes. Telling workers that, for instance, the last 10 years would have been no materially worse for working people than if the Tories had been in power is a classically ultra-left statement.

LOTB - right now, Social Democracy would be a step forward, but you're right - nothing is going to change much until the tories are decisely crushed and the lib Dems become the second party.

BTW, anyone going to the deputy hustings in Camden tonight?

"the key is to work to get the unions to adopt a political alternative to the market, and then use their financial and organisatinal muscle to put it on the agenda."

I think that would be a complete waste of unions' time and money, since it has no practical application whatsoever. All the recent election results confirm that there is no support for political parties promising an 'alternative to the market'. So why should the unions waste time and resource on something that will never be implemented?

I would much rather see the unions spend some serious wedge on training up officials with proper financial knowledge, as opposed to marxist pseudo economics with no practical application. The massive cutback in pension provision in the UK in recent years is a major strategic defeat for the labour movement here. If we had more people who know more about trust law and accrual rates, rather than views on collectivisation during the Spanish civil war, this might have been mitigated if not prevented.

Although I'm not a Blairite I think Last of the Blairites is basically spot on. The recent election results surely demonstrate that it really is time to abandon grand utopian projects and focus on the, admittedly less glamorous, business of pragmatic and incremental improvements.

Let me just sum all that up. All tactics have been tried; all have been shown to fail

Nice conclusion there.

150 years ago I imagine all the old Chartists were thinking the same as their movement fell to pieces and no strategy they tried to rejuvanate it worked.

But, as always, times changed and circumstances swung back round in our favour. It's not blind faith, simply learning from history.

"Political Islam represents a qualitatively new form of reaction."

Well, that swiftly disposes of Salma Yaqoob, Soumaya Ghannoushi, Tariq Ramadan and numerous other Muslims whose faith inspires their political activity, all in a single sentence.

Personally, unlike Dave, I hold that it's necessary to study objective evidence and subject it to reasoned analysis, rather than rely on received dogma and blind prejudice.

But, hey, I'm just an old-fashioned enthusiast for Enlightenment values.

Robert, yes I too thought it was rather good summary. Personally I'd have added to Dave's sound judgement: "and the sycophantic stand of some groups, such as Respect, towards reaction, represents a qualitatively new form of opportunist adaption to anti-socialist, anti-worker, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-progressive forces such as the Islamicist bourgeoisie and their political vehicles."

See A.Coates, Collected Works, Volumes 27, and 28, "On the Islamicist bourgeoisie, Islamicism, Reaction, Communalism, Respect, Ken Livingstone, Socialist Action and the Correct Marxist-Coatesite Line on the struggle against the lot of 'em" . Notes and additional articles in Vols 29, 30 and 31, supplied by Dave Osler, Peter Tatchell, and the Hands of Iran Campaign. Further annexes written by Butterflies and Wheels.

It is a good question Mike

What is there to do for those not in trade unions.

Well, I think there are a lot of socialists who are not seriously involved in their union branches, or who could become H&S reps or stewards, or whatever but haven't pushed it hard enough. Generally socialists nowadays take workplace and union activity less serioulsly than the should.

Secondly, there are all sorts of community and single issue campaigns that socialists can be involved with, and arguing to link them up to organised labour.

Thridly, some sort of socialist networking with educational meetings, etc. can be developed.

"Well, that swiftly disposes of Salma Yaqoob, Soumaya Ghannoushi, Tariq Ramadan and numerous other Muslims whose faith inspires their political activity, all in a single sentence."

No it doesn't. Are you deliberately misunderstanding the original posting?

It was seeing that the Organising For Fighting Unions conference had the same disregard for serious labour movement democracy and discussion pioneered by Respect that made me leave the latter but that's another story.

I'll be spending this evening chairing the residents association meeting on my estate. Bread and butter reformism does not come any gritter than that. Eighteen months or so ago it was possible to give some of these demands a political content and organisational structure. We were fighting the Labour council's stock transfer plans. The class struggle organisation then able to build on that was Respect. At the time I wrote about the relationship between the two.

Now I will plug away trying to make sure that the paving stones are repaired and the street lights are maintained but it's in an organisational vacuum. Most of the people who'll turn up tonight would consider Socialist Resistance an artifact from an alien civilization.

Yet we have clear evidence that there is an appetite both in the vanguard, by which I mean politically active socialists, and a small but significant minority of working class voters. Again, something I wrote about during last year's council elections.

John's defeat shows that, in this period, the Labour Party is dead to socialism. It is the comrades like John and his supporters who have been absent from the previous attempts to build something better. With them all sorts of positive opportunities open up.

e10 rifles wrote: "Are you deliberately misunderstanding the original posting?"

No. The original posting reads: "Political Islam represents a qualitatively new form of reaction."

Take Soumaya Ghannoushi, for example. She's a member of the British Muslim Initiative, an outgrowth from the Muslim Association of Britain, which has links with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Soumaya is also (I'm told) the daughter of Rashid al-Ghannoushi, leader of the Al-Nahda (Renaissance) party of Tunisia and one of the leading theoreticians of democratic Islamism.

How else would you describe her, other than as a proponent of political Islam?

Which, according to comrade Osler, makes Soumaya a representative of "a qualitatively new form of reaction".

This, I would suggest, is an assertion that is based on dogma and prejudice and fails to address reality.

All tactics have been tried and all have failed? Well in once sense yes, insofar as all of the left regroupment/party building efforts beginning with the Socialist Alliance, thru Respect, the CNWP and now the McDonnell campaign in the LP have failed, but that is not to say all tactics have failed, rather that all the organisational shortcuts have.
Instead we need a political regroupment of the left, not necessarily immediately in one single organisation or party, which is clearly impossible at present, but through an open discussion about where left politics is at today and much greater ad hoc cooperation through united fronts.
A reassessment of the period we are in, a recognition it is not one of capitalist collapse and death agony, and honest re-appraisal of the state of the unions, campaigns etc. and above all the restitution of the need for principled socialist politics.

Robert

I think what I am guilty of is a loose formulation. Yes, I accept that some individuals - and perhaps even organisations - of Islamic origin can be progressive.

The obvious parallel is with liberation theology. Some Catholic priests may consider themselves 'Marxists' - but the Catholic church remains a indisputably a reactionary force.

Perhaps I should have used a form of words that distinguishes between what might loosely be called the Islamic left and democratic Islam, and Islam as a whole.

I consider my wrists slapped.

Is Soumaya Ghannoushi not a reactionary then? I always thought she was. Where soes she stand on god-given law versus man-made law?

Her position is here Sue:

"Two models seem to have ended in failure in the Muslim world. One is based on top-down secularism, the other on top-down Islamism. Turkey is the embodiment of the first, Iran of the second. Both states dictate their ideologies to their citizens, interfering even in the most personal aspects of their lives, such as dress. Secular intervention forces a woman to bear her hair in the first; its religious sibling to cover it in the second. Both are repressive in varying degrees, both have generated tensions within sectors of their societies opposed to official state ideology. Neither represents a model worthy of emulation in the region, or capable of delivering it of its many crises.

"The way out of the deadlock, it seems, lies neither in one or the other but in a neutral, non-interventionist state. For purging the state of its totalitarian tendencies begins with the humbling recognition that it is only a set of institutions and procedures, designed to adminster citizens' affairs and attend to their needs. It is neither the representative of God on earth, nor the incarnation of absolute reason. In its hands are neither the keys of people's salvation, nor those of their enlightenment."

A "neutral, non-interventionist state" - that is what we democratic leftists call secularism I believe.

"A "neutral, non-interventionist state" - that is what we democratic leftists call secularism I believe."

Or, ahem, neoliberalism. A 'neutral', 'non-interventionist state'???

I would like to know what the classical Islamic view on the state/civil society relationship is before I consider Ms Ghannoush a 'democratic secularist'. The quote you have supplied begs many questions.

I am surprised that some people are taking Dave to task for a fairly obvious (if not entirely qualified) statement

political Islam seeks the implementation of the caliphate and sharia law, and to the objective observer is clearly reactionary

I'm surprised that people allegedly on the Left are drawn in to the game in defending political Islam, the ideology

I assumed that the same people wouldn't try to defend a political doctrine based on a excessively rigid form of Catholicism? or would they?

if not, then why dance around the words trying to apologise or cloud the issues over political Islam, as an ideology

Does anyone on the left *seriously* doubt that Islamism (as opposed to Islam) represents "a qualitively new form of reaction"? Oh yes: of course, the SWP, 'Respect' and the MAB would have us believe that they are *not* ultra-reactionary, semi-fascists. I recommend Ed Husain's new book "The Islamist", which is not just about the author's experiences in Hizb, but also exposes the racist islamism of organisations like the MAB...a key component of the anti-working class "Respect".

Modernityblog is tripping if s/he believes that Political Islam is concerned with the restoration of the Caliphate. This is to mistake appearance for reality and reality is far more complex.

In fact Political Islam encompasses a varied set of politial goals depending on the class forces it is based on. It is not a single homogenous or even coherent ideology. For example in Lebanon it is an ideology of resistance to the Zionist entity and therefore progressive in so far as it resists the aggressions of the Zionists.

It can even be argued that Political Islam is a modernising force in many countries, especially in Iran, as it seeks to develop individual national capitals in a manner strikingly similar to say the Chavez experiment in Venezuala albeit in very different circumstances. The corollary of this is that however progressive it is in terms of national development it is reactionary in terms of its repression of an independent workers mvement and its subjection to theocracy. The same point might well be made in relation to its social policies in relation to women, which in some ways are appalling, given that women in Iran today are far more heavily integrated in the economy than they were before 1979.

In Britain of course, Political Islam is concerned not with the Caliphate (who but a mad man would imagine an Islamic Britain?) but with cohering the varied Muslim communities in this country into a single polity, to be led by a layer of young graduates, Muslim exploiting Muslim free from the interference of trades unions and the Workers Movement in general. In this sense the projects of the MAB,BMI and Respect are deeply reactionary as they act to divide the exploited and oppressed across class lines.

Mike - do you think it is possible for fascism to be 'progressive in terms of national development'? Serious question. It was arguably a modernising force in the development of national capital, at least in its southern European variant.

Mike - do you think it is possible for fascism to be 'progressive in terms of national development'? Serious question. It was arguably a modernising force in the development of national capital, at least in its southern European variant.

Report of the deputy leadership hustings at the Camden Irish Centre yesterday evening.

http://tinyurl.com/293cbn

Mike,

as you seem to think even Dave is a right winger, please forgive us if we don't take your grasp of politics and ideologies too seriously

"A glance at various right wing blogs such as davespart and socialistunity (sic) reveals the authors of said blogs in a state of near hysteria."

[McNonentity versus Moocher Who Gives A Shit?]

http://neprimerimye.blogspot.com/

More on the deputy leadership contest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6668443.stm

Regarding political islam, I would consider Tariq Ramadan with whose works I am very familiar. He is arguably the most sophisticated spokesperson of PoliticaL Islam, and offers a way of posing a response of Islamicism to life in predominantly non-Muslim societies. He is a good example of the error of adapting to Political Islam, and a case showing the difference between the existence of a secularist who also holds the Muslim faith, and the broad Islamicist tendencies.

In his various writings, in English and in French, Ramadan interlards various pluralist arguments about coexisting communities, dialogue, and some very general comments about Justice and the ill-effects of globalisation (as fluffy and worthy of the average C of E Vicar). But read the core and you will see there is absolute no way that his politics are the same as, say, liberation theology: there is no doubt whatsoever about the reality of the Divine, the nature of the Qu'ran as God-created - down to every word - and the claim that the Sharia, the way to the spring, is the only just law.

There is in fact no geneuine political dialogue possible with a tendency when even its most open forms rests on what is in effect a integrist rock as hard as the most rigid American fundamentalist. Ramadan states that there is "no Theology "in Islam, that is there need to argue to justify its beliefs and its rules, they simply 'are', as divine sparks present or latent in every human being. The Christian attempt to justify belief in god is therefore inherently more pluralist than this representative, and moderate (in the sense of non-violent) Islamicism. It seems as if the whole course of philosophy and democracy, a belief in truth as not a given but something discovered through reason, is by-passed by the existence of a book (one full of absurdities).

There are many types of secularism in the so-called Isalmic world. Turkey in fact is not really secularist, Sunni Islam is state controlled, and sponsered, and that is not the same as a neutral state. In Bangladesh the Alawmi League has genuine secularist members (though under Military pressure the party was forced to accept Islam as the state religion some time back). Their definition of Islam (I am speaking through personal contact) is rather the same as some types of radical Christian secularists (who exist in France in greater numbers than here, such as Temoinage Chretien): as a humanist belief in equality, in the common essence of us all in the divine, and the need to separate our individual conception of the divine from politics and, abvoe all the state.

That is a kind of Muslim secularism I can accept. I cannot accept any reactionary who attempts to impose laws which they claim are the sole manifestation of the deity. The core of the 'Muslim initiative' is grounded on this. Shrouded of coruse in the kind of language to disguise their real objectives. But...question the divine nature of the Qu'ran, and you'll see their true mettle. Class isues intervene as well (as Mike has pointed out, and Ramadan is also a bourgeois figure to say the least). Political Islam in all its diverse forms is an ideology of the pious Muslim bourgeoisie, and state petty bourgeoisie. This, combined together with its religious beliefs it is inherently reactionary.

You have to laugh at a writer who adopts a tone of pompous erudition but thinks that Tariq Ramadan supports Sharia law and can't even spell "Awami League".

Robert wrote:

You have to laugh at a writer who adopts a tone of pompous erudition but thinks that Tariq Ramadan supports Sharia law and can't even spell "Awami League".

why not deal with the substance of Andrew Coates' arguments rather some petty point on spelling and misrepresenting his argument on Tariq Ramadan?

From todays Guardian:

Dear Editor

The coronation of Gordon Brown leaves a major question facing John
McDonnell and his supporters.

How can millions of ex-Labour voters disillusioned by the Iraq war,
the acceleration of privatisation and the growing gap between the
rich and the rest now have a political voice?

Britain doesn't have a genuine debate any more on domestic or
foreign policy, for millions of people it doesn't seem like we even
have three separate parties in this country anymore. New Labour,
the Tories and Liberal Democrats act more like three wings of the
same party, vying for a middle ground that is essentially defined by
being pro-big business.

So, does the dwindling band of the Labour Left carry on like
prisoners within the New Labour machine - occasionally smuggling
notes out through the bars?

Or do they, like many of us, come to the decision that we have to
start again and build a new, independent party that can gain the
trust and support of millions of people in this country.

Already we have wide support for that discussion, including 45
sponsors on trade union national executive committees.

We urge John and his supporters to draw the necessary political and
organisational conclusions from this week - leave New Labour to the
millionaires and join the socialists fighting for an independent
political voice for the millions of working people.

Dave Nellist

The Labour Left in the PLP have no one to blame for this sad pass than ourselves. We know Brown. We know the largely craven PLP, we know the monstrous rules. The only thing we can control in the here and now is our response.

We needed at least 70 PLP members in play as friends of our campaign to get 45 IMO.

We should have had a process to reach a collective strategy for when the day came to get these 70 friends locked in.

We should have had a process to reach a collective programme that a chosen candidate would champion for the 70.

We should have had a process to select a suitable champion from within the 70 who could keep the coalition together and resist attempts to peel off supporters.

Following this kind of process this person could be one of the five most lefwards or five most righwards in the group but it would hardly matter. Policy not personality.

It would certainly need to be someone who had a reasonable amount of goodwill in and out of westminster, competent with media, trustworthy and bright, not too scarey.

Whether it is 2 years or 7 years there will be an opportunity again before very long. We need to be in better shape to take it.

It seems to me that apart from being ruthless which is a good thing in electoral politics Brown's people would have been concerned not of losing so much as of damage being done to the party.

It's the blatant, shameless abuse of democratic procedure that really outrages me. There was no conceivable reason for Brown to get himself over 300 'nominations' (or over 46) except to deprive anyone else of the chance of standing. Not for the first time, Simon Carr has it right:

t's the great cliche of speech-making: start with a joke. Nonetheless, it made me laugh out loud. "I am truly humbled," he began. It wasn't quite a laugh, more a bark. The sort of noise you might make when you finally give up the ghost.

Humility Brown. This is the man who cranked up the Labour machine to get the signatures of so many MPs that no one else could get on the ballot paper. He was, as a journalist pointed out, "personally lobbying MPs" right up to the last moment.

Brown for Britain because he's the anointed one, the biggest dog on the block, the most powerful man in Europe. And there's also your career to consider.

It's an entirely new standard of humbleness. And what of those 313 press-ganged MPs? "I think people will applaud the Labour Party for displaying unity," he told us, displaying his instinctive grasp of public opinion.
[...]
"A more open and honest dialogue" . Learning 'n' listening. Trusting. Engaging people. But voting? Another time, perhaps.

There are 100,000 Labour Party members out there who might have wanted to be listened to, engaged, offered a part in the dialogue. No speaking part for them. All they have is the chance to "applaud the display of unity". So put your hands together and belt up.

Forward to pessimisim comrades!

No actualy I'm with Chris Paul. I have no idea what he is talking about, but at least it sounds like a plan.

Also can anybody tell me which party this guy Jim Denham is a member of because I really want to avoid it.

Also can anybody tell me which party this guy Jim Denham is a member of because I really want to avoid it.

Because he was nasty about Respect or because he bought Ed Husain's book?

Dave asked me whether fascism can be a progressive force for national (presumably economic) development. That he then answered his own question won't prevent me from replying to him.

It is patently obvious that in certain circumstances fascism has proven able to develop the forces of production in a given state. This does not mean that it is no longer reactionary if one accepts that we live in the epoch of wars and revolutions, as the Comintern declared, and as all revolutionary socialists must agree. It does mean that if the proletariat is unable to appear on the stage of history as its own emancipator that other class forces will rise to a position of national hegemony - even if on a world scale the bourgeoisie is an absolutely reactionary force.

None of this is in any way relevant to Britain today where Political Islam is a tiny force that only appears as a result of the collapse of the Labourite project. It is because that project is now entering its final denouement that the McDonnell campaign cannot find any substantial resonance within the working class in this country, thus opening up a space for the charlatans of MAB and Respect.

In reply to Modernityblog I submit that Dave has by his own admission lost confidence in the revolutionary project. He shifted rightwards, arguing first for various socialist unity projects and in his most recent manifestation supporting McNobody's not so left reformist campaign, which alone marks him out as a rightwinger. But hey, it's all relative, baby!

In reply to Modernityblog I submit that Dave has by his own admission lost confidence in the revolutionary project. He shifted rightwards, arguing first for various socialist unity projects and in his most recent manifestation supporting McNobody's not so left reformist campaign, which alone marks him out as a rightwinger. But hey, it's all relative, baby!

By that logic, you could fit the number of left-wingers in the UK into a large branch of Asda. Whatever you may or may not think of left-reformism, it clearly isn't "right wing".

And to be honest, Dave wouldn't be the only person in the trot tradition to have lost a bit of confidence. Firstly, there are those who became reformists. Then there are those who went off and joined the Greens, became libertarians, whatever. Then there are those who left groups but hung around as eccentric "solo trots" having a go at everyone and anyone who disagrees with their one-man revolutionary programmes. Finally there are those who remained in the various trotskyist/trotskyist-derived groups.

On reflection I'm not sure which is sadder.

Thank you Modernity Blog: in fact my post, like all, is written in haste (public terminal only has half an hour), and in fact is stuffed full of minor errors.

In any case whoever this Robert is, he seems incapable of making any argument at all, though no doubt he would make a good sub-editor at Socialist Worker where being able to argue is a real disadvantage. Or indeed think in terms other than the ones learnt when they were Prefects at Saint Custards.

Back to main thrust of what's being said.

It's not the 'revolutionary project' that is is in 'crisis' - since I came to politics the left has been in 'crisis'. When wasn't it?

It's probably that people like Dave, myself, and many others here, have spent a very long time involved with various different 'projects', acts largely driven by will, which have not led to the more goal of building a strong left, renewed, refounded, or with some kind of political presence that counts nationally. Battering your head against a brick wall for most of your life is perhaps a way of describing it. And I'm more open to 'reformism' - hell I'd even settle for being a loyal opposition to some genuine social democracy after all of that.

But when I hear on Newnight commentators describe Brown as an "admirer of American capitalism" the old ultra-leftist beast in me lurks again.

Thank you Modernity Blog: in fact my post, like all, is written in haste (public terminal only has half an hour), and in fact is stuffed full of minor errors.

In any case whoever this Robert is, he seems incapable of making any argument at all, though no doubt he would make a good sub-editor at Socialist Worker where being able to argue is a real disadvantage. Or indeed think in terms other than the ones learnt when they were Prefects at Saint Custards.

Back to main thrust of what's being said.

It's not the 'revolutionary project' that is is in 'crisis' - since I came to politics the left has been in 'crisis'. When wasn't it?

It's probably that people like Dave, myself, and many others here, have spent a very long time involved with various different 'projects', acts largely driven by will, which have not led to the more goal of building a strong left, renewed, refounded, or with some kind of political presence that counts nationally. Battering your head against a brick wall for most of your life is perhaps a way of describing it. And I'm more open to 'reformism' - hell I'd even settle for being a loyal opposition to some genuine social democracy after all of that.

But when I hear on Newnight commentators describe Brown as an "admirer of American capitalism" the old ultra-leftist beast in me lurks again.

modernityblof wrote: "why not deal with the substance of Andrew Coates' arguments rather some petty point on spelling and misrepresenting his argument on Tariq Ramadan?"

I'm afraid it's difficult to address the substance of an argument that has no substance.

Andrew Coates' preferred rhetorical method is to present himself as an authority on subjects of which he knows little or nothing.

The fact that he pontificates about Bangladeshi politics while referring to one of the country's two major parties as the "Alawmi League" is par for the course.

And if Coates wants to point us to any of Tariq Ramadan's writings in which he asserts Sharia "is the only just law" I wish him luck.

A large branch of Asda? Surely the local healthfood store would suffice?

The reference to Ramadan's belief in the ultimate authority of the Qu;ran is from Western Muslims and the Future of islam, and the claim that he regards this, the Sharia, through the various schools of Islamic legal authority, is a summary of his discussion of a 'moritorium' on certain punishments, such as stoning to death for certain crimes. During this discussion Ramadan explictly states that human beings cannot abolish the divine law.

And as for authorities on such matters, 'Robert' -or should I call you by your real name, Bob Pitt of Islamphobia Watch? - why did you ask me for help in translating certain expressions in Ramadan's French writings for your mate Livingstone's beano at the London Social Forum?

Robert,

two straightforward questions for you, and I would welcome candid answers:

do you believe that divine law supersedes man-made law?

and if not, isn't it reasonable to argue that believers in the supremacy of divine law are essentially reactionary, if not in their pronouncements then in the underlying basis for their belief?

[I could go into numerous examples but I'm sure you get the gist of the questions]is that it's

Interesting article on Gordon Brown's 'management' of the economy by Kelvin Hopkins MP from the Socialist Campaign Group Website:

The simple reason the left has for so long been unable to land more than a light glove on Gordon Brown is that in broad terms he has been seen to succeed — at least in the eyes of most voters.

For ten years the economy has grown, unemployment is way below the years of Tory recession and house prices have continued to rise, sustaining the illusion that owner occupiers are becoming wealthier each year.

The left has rightly attacked PFI and privatisation, means-testing and inequality, but the Chancellor has been able to ride over most criticisms because most people are significantly better off than they were under the Tories.

At first look therefore the economy appears strong, but there is a dark under side with the threat of serious problems in the future. Most worrying of all is the suffering and diminished manufacturing sector and its principle symptom, the largest trade deficit in Britain’s history.

The trade in goods, showing the volume of exports and of imports and the balance of difference between them is moving into nightmare territory. The trade balance was seriously negative in 2003 at £49 billion for the year. This rose to £61bn in 2004, £69bn in 2005 and £84bn in 2006.

These deficits reflect a massive national appetite for imported goods as well as the inability of UK manufacturing to meet domestic demand, simply because the sector is now too small following years of factory closures and companies shifting production overseas.

There are occasional deceptively benign features in the manufacturing statistics, however and orders for UK manufacturers actually grew in the early part of this year. With consumer demand still booming this naturally helps what is left of UK manufacturing, while doing much more for foreign producers who export to Britain. These producers are not just in China and Eastern Europe.

Germany affords an extreme contrast with the UK. One should expect Britain and Germany to compare well as both are modern, large European nations with apparently strong economies.

But Germany has an enormous trade surplus in manufactures which it has sensibly sustained over many decades. The deflationary impact of Euro membership has depressed domestic demand, but German exports have continued to thrive.

By contrast, Britain is moving steadily towards a future where we can make little in the way of things, of material products, and will be overwhelmingly dependent on the financial sector and other services.

If the financial sector starts to falter and decline, as indeed it could, Britain could be in serious trouble, unable to produce many essentials and with too little to export to pay for imports either.

The UK’s monthly trade surplus in services was actually falling in late 2006, with the overall trade deficit in goods and services rising by £400 million in December alone so the problem is with us now.

The comparative statistics are indeed quite staggering. In 2006 Britain had a trade deficit in manufactures — importing more than we export — of £59bn. Germany by contrast had a massive trade surplus of £177bn (259bn Euros).

Something is profoundly wrong with the way Britain’s economy is being run, and our problems are not just competition from low-cost countries otherwise Germany should be in deficit to them too.

Much of Germany’s manufacturing trade surplus is actually with the UK of course, and a primary cause of Britain’s deficit. Britain has a substantial trade deficit with the EU as a whole, £2.8bn just in December 2006.

The UK trade deficit in goods alone was £7.1bn in December and on a rising trend. The truth is that Britain is increasingly unable to pay its way in the world, and finance and services exports can nowhere near compensate for the massive deficits in manufactures.

Other measures of economic performance are now beginning to deteriorate too. Inflation has been creeping up, not to serious levels but sufficient for the Governor of the Bank of England to write formally to the Chancellor as required and with a prolonged period of high interest rates forecast.

This will keep Sterling in its over-valued condition exacerbating the trade deficit by keeping prices of imports low and prices of UK exports impossibly high.

The government and Bank of England are now stuck with a high pound and high interest rates which will debilitate British manufacturing still further. If as expected, consumers start to spend less as their mortgage payments rise, the economy could start to dip towards recession.

The fear of a housing downturn may frighten consumers into more serious cuts in their spending as they attempt to reduce their borrowings. The enormous bubble of consumer debt may suddenly burst and we could be back into — guess what — the boom and bust cycle which Gordon Brown used to assure us was a feature of the Tory past.

Put all of these negatives together — trade deficit, manufacturing decline, unsustainable consumer debt, inflation creeping upwards, high interest rates and an over-valued Pound — and the economic picture is not good. If there were to be a downturn in the financial sector too, then Britain could be in real trouble.

An alternative economic strategy is needed and one which is different from Gordon Brown’s regime of the last ten years. At a Parliamentary meeting in 1997, I asked the Chancellor if his free market strategy in the end was not successful, would he consider measures of economic intervention?

He did not answer my question, but a fellow MP said to me as we left the meeting ‘Intervention? That sounds like socialism!’ The left must raise the issue of manufacturing again with Labour’s leaders and demand change before it is too late.

"'Robert' -or should I call you by your real name, Bob Pitt"

Err, I was under the impression that Bob was short for Robert?

"The reference to Ramadan's belief in the ultimate authority of the Qu;ran is from Western Muslims and the Future of islam, and the claim that he regards this, the Sharia, through the various schools of Islamic legal authority, is a summary of his discussion of a 'moritorium' on certain punishments, such as stoning to death for certain crimes."

Does this even make grammatical sense? And we're still short of a quote from Ramadan in which he argues that Sharia "is the only just law". Which comes as no surprise. There is no such quote.

If Brown really wanted "a government of all the talents", he could offer John McDonell (or even Charles Clarke) a cabinet post. Or he could carry on regardless inviting the usual criticisms of being a Stalinist control freak.

Robert,

Just in case you missed my earlier point:

two straightforward questions for you, and I would welcome candid answers:

do you believe that divine law supersedes man-made law?

and if not, isn't it reasonable to argue that believers in the supremacy of divine law are essentially reactionary, if not in their pronouncements then in the underlying basis for their belief?

[I could go into numerous examples but I'm sure you get the gist of the questions]

Ok Modernity - his two straightforward questions for you. I would welcome candid answers:

Who do you think was more reactionary - The liberation theologist Oscar Romero or the "secular" military dictatorship in El Salvador?

If you accept that the it was the latter then do you conceed that assessing who reactionary someone is solely on the basis of their religous beliefs can sometimes obscure more than it reveals?

Simon Hughes wrote:

assessing who reactionary someone is solely on the basis of their religous beliefs

If you take the trouble to read the second paragraph I am not discussing individuals I am discussing ideologies, there is a distinctive difference.

however, if you wish to argue that Catholicism as a theology (not necessarily the individuals, that believe it) is somehow not reactionary, then please do

Could Simon Hughes kindly explain why he considers the regime in El Salvador that murdered Romero to have been 'secular'? I note that the forces which had Romero assasinated are currently ranged alongside the Catholic Church in opposition to reproduction rights. So much for their secularism! The truth is that the regime that murdered Romero was not in the least secular but simply opposed to that particular cleric and his views.

As for Modernityblog what are you on about when you suggect that any given theology may or may not be reactionary? Surely any and all theologies are, as they are by nature of being ideologies, expressions of false consciousness and therefore neccesarily 'reactionary'? But other than in this broad sense why even bother to claim that Catholic theology in particular is reactionary? Reactionary in comparison to what? Braminic Hinduism? Evangelical Christianity? Theology after as such should be of no concern to Marxists.

Mike,

forgive me if I was unclear, I had assumed that most people here had fairly good reading skills, a university education and were familiar with the debate concerning divine law vs. human law.

anyway, it should be fairly obvious that nowadays there is the ridiculous situation of some atheists and a few "socialists" attempting to defend the actual ideas articulated by certain theists (see above Robert's comments and evasion concerning Tariq Ramadan)

in this instance, Catholicism was simply an example , as I doubt many socialists would feel comfortable defending it, the argument holds true for other theologies

but just to clarify, I am an atheist, I think by definition the belief in divine law is reactionary, but not being a bleeding mind reader I asked Robert a question because I didn't know what he already thought

Robert might after all have converted to some religious point of view since leaving the WRP, in which case he might have believed that divine law? who knows? I doubt that he will give a candid answer

and as for Simon Hughes he was simply piss taking, as he frequently does

but returning to Dave’s original point: political Islam or political Catholicism or political Hinduism, etc are essentially reactionary and I’m surprised that the point even needs debating here

after all any political belief whose underpinnings are religious should be an anathema to socialists and anyone of a progressive outlook, if people are in doubt look at the debate around the 17th and 18th century on the topic

What an arrogant twerp you are my dear modernityblog and no mistake. For the record I find your prejudice against those who lack a university education, the overwhelmng majority of the working class stupid and reationary. A prejudice that such socialists as Marx and Engels, both with rather good university educations, would have found utterly contemptible.

Let me be clear the fact is that your writing skills were lacking when you remarked that Catholic theology is reactionary and you by no means made it clear that you were simply using it as an example. Indeed you are obviously balefully ignorant with regard to religion and its political role in society today when you make mention of 'political Catholicism' and 'political Hinduism'. Such beasts you see simply do not exist! You really need to be more precise and explain what you mean if you attempt to enter the lists in such a contentious area.

I rather wonder if you would consider the theology that was such vital a part of the English revolution to be 'reactionary'? Again I wonder if for you Dorothy Day's theology was 'reactionary'? I could, if I cared to, multiply such examples. But I think you've got enough to get on with there as it is.

Look, I don't want to get into a big dispute with you, afterall these are rather simple issues, and its rude to Dave, such exchanges typify why ultra left cranks, like you, cannot engage with the working-classes.

You should endeavour to read with great care, most of my posts are sarcastic or have some cunning cheek comment embedded in them. Try not to read them literally.

Taking your points in reverse order, concerning the English Revolution, it is a complex subject but it's a fairly obvious that the Puritans regime was reactionary, and you might want to study the actions of Roundheads in Ireland.

I'm sure my writing skills are lacking but I think it's safe to say that your reading skills are on a par!

you write that " 'political Catholicism' and 'political Hinduism'. Such beasts you see simply do not exist!"

do I have to remind you of the BJP?? or of the pre-war Deutsche Zentrumspartei? Also you might want to study the Catholic Church’s role in Ireland since partition or in Italy post-war.

I think Trotsky may have mentioned the Zentrumspartei in passing? You should probably spend more time reading history and less on sectarian political tracts, that is if you're going to engage in some faux intellectualism.

you write "For the record I find your prejudice against those who lack a university education, the overwhelmng majority of the working class stupid and reationary. "

Again your comprehension and reading skills have let you down, quite the opposite, I think the vast majority of the working class are smarter than you and your ultraleft cranky buddies give us credit for.

You already shown that you have a distorted grasp of politics by your comment of “right wing blogs such as davespart and socialistunity (sic)”

We see through the pile of nonsense that is the politics of the ultraleft and want nothing to do them, which is why such groupets invariably comprise 3-50 middle-class rejects and malcontents (the types often found in cults such as Scientology or Hare Krishnas). or as Lenin commented "a few workers who ape the worst features of intellectualism."

which are you? oh, don't bother answering, it is fairly obvious from the use of the word "twerp"

see, that’s the beauty of being working-class, we can see through Blair, Cameron and cranks like you in equal measure :)

PS: If you wish to continue this scintillating exchange please either email me or post on my blog, I would prefer to spare Dave the excesses of your rantings.

It's a shame Modblog stalked out like that because he makes some curious points which could do with further exploration. One thinks of his characterisation of the Puritan regime as 'reactionary' on the grounds of Drogheda and Wexford. To be sure these were nasty crimes but not necessarily as outrageous to 17th century Europeans as their 21st Century counterparts. The point I'm making is that Mod seems to be using contemporary standards to judge the activities of those centuries dead - always a tricky area. If one is to take such a doctrinaire line, one might as well consider both sides of the Puritan balance sheet and note favourably Cromwell's relatively progressive attitude to the Jews.

Then there's the vexed question of Mod's insistence that such phenomena as 'Political Hinduism' and 'Political Catholicism' exist, citing such diverse bodies as the BJP and the Zentrum. If Mod is suggesting, as I think he is, that the BJP now and the Zentrum of the past can be compared to Political Islamic groups now then I think his argument falls down. For example, the Zentrum's politics were not governed by an expansionist apocalyptic theology, indeed were rather more defensive, seeking to protect Catholic minority rights from state interference.

Similarly, his citing of the Catholic Church's role in post-partition Ireland is problematic. Its worth pointing out that the preamble to the Irish Constitution struck a decidedly ecumenical note in its dedication of the nation to the Holy Trinity. While it can be said that the pre-conciliar Irish hierarchy expected to be accorded a powerful position in Irish society, it is also arguable that this expectation was relatively uncontentious in Ireland at the time. By 1972 however, the Church broadly supported the removal of its 'special position' from the constitution. Thereafter it was more remarkable for its quietism than any active intervention in Irish politics; initiatives such as the 1983 constitutional abortion amendment for example, were noteable for having been largely lay-driven.

Of course, much of this is about some of the wierder alignments on the current British political scene. Modblog started off by asking whether Divine Law supercedes Man made law. This is actually an ancient controversy, though I don't think Mod had such knotty dilemmas as Maccabees, Thomas More and the primacy of conscience in mind. Rather, he is concerned to emphasise the incompatibility of theocratic politics a la Iran and the essentially secular nature of Western society. His isn't a particularly contentious argument but it may have been expressed a little crudely.

My dear stupid modernityblog these are indeed simple issues. But simpletons such as yourself have no understanding of them given your idealist lack of a Marxist politics. Lets look at your latest post for proof of your stupidity.

But before doing so i note that you fail to reply to any of the speciofic questions put to you. the only possible conclusion is that you are too ignorant and stuopid to venture a reply. hence your descent into personalist abuse.

You declare that "the Puritans regime was reactionary". A clear position but from the point of view of Marxism utterly laughable> Lets us look at what Marx himself wrote in the 18th brumaire "Cromwell and the English people had borrowed from the Old Testament the speech, emotions, and illusions for their bourgeois revolution. When the real goal had been achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society had been accomplished, Locke supplanted Habakkuk." A very clear statement that the Putiran regime was, contrary to your assertion, progressive and indeed revolutionary despite its theological clothing.

In the same spirit it is only sensible to point out that the Hindutva uiideology of the BJP/RSS/VHP is not in the first instance Hindu as you assert, in a curious accord with the chauvinist BJP I note, but is better considered a nationalist ideology or so Achin Vanaik would have it. again the theological clothing they drape therselves in is icidental to their class character. Although ignorant as you are I would be unsurprised if you are unaware of Vanaiks work.

As for the undoubtedly reactionary nature of the Deutsche Zentrumspartei and the catholic hierarchy in Ireland post 1916 such examples do not proof that Catholic theology is reactionary. it merely asserts that in specific circumstances political forces which happen to be catholic are reactionary. It does not explain why other forces in other places payed a progressive role. For example Gransci urgsed the PCd'I to form a United Front with the Catholic PPI. Clearly that great Marxist did not consider that political party, Catholic in inspiration, to be wholly reactionary.

Moving on I repeat you are an anti working class snob when you assert that "I had assumed that most people here had fairly good reading skills, a university education and were familiar with the debate concerning divine law vs. human law." A statement that very obviously assumes that "most people here" are to be assumed to be university educated and therefore elevated above the common herd. Your statement can have no other meaning.

As for your moronic assertion that I am an "ultra-left" I offer you £1,000 pounds, to be donated to the organisation of your choice, if you can prove by reference to any words of mine your lying assertion. To clarify the previous sentence I challenge you to prove that my views are not in accord with the positions outlined at the Third and Fourth Congresses of the Communist International. For my part I'll happily accept an apology from you once you have failed to do so.

Justine's contribution is strange indeed in that she seems to believe that laws can be divided into those divine and those made by Man. Marxism asserts that all law is Man made even when religious leaders pretend otherwise. And nobody can proof anything to the contrary. For Marxists then there is no conflict between different types of law as all are Man made.

For example Gramsci urgsed the PCd'I to form a United Front with the Catholic PPI. Clearly that great Marxist did not consider that political party, Catholic in inspiration, to be wholly reactionary.

True - although the subsequent history of lash-ups between Italian [ex-]Communists and Catholics, from de Gasperi to Andreotti to Prodi, leaves room to wonder if this strategy was mistaken.

I challenge you to prove that my views are not in accord with the positions outlined at the Third and Fourth Congresses of the Communist International.

This one's been irritating me for a while (and I am ultra-left, or at least sympathetic). You know that's what 'ultra-left' means and I know that's what 'ultra-left' means - and Dave certainly knows that's what 'ultra-left' means. Trouble is, I think it'd be news to Modders, not to mention Susan and Owen. Perhaps if we ask nicely they'll come up with a different general-purpose insult for anyone to the Left of Labour.

Well I have a university education (in systems engineering, in case you wondered) but it gives me no clue what Modernity means by "the debate concerning divine law vs. human law.".

Quite apart from questioning what divine law is, what on Earth is human law? If this is law made by humans, is there another type, Klingon or Romulan law?

And I don't mind the SU blog being called right wing by Mike, I would feel I was failing to get my views across if Mike didn't think they were right wing. I certianly don't regard the fact that Mike things that Su blog is rigt wing as evidence of ultra-leftism.

I used to think mike was ultra-left myself, but that is becasue I wasn't reading closely enough what he is actually saying. He isn't ultra-left, he is just incredibly rude, which isn't the same thing at all.

I'm currently studying for an NVQ in diplomacy and politeness. I expect to fail the gruelling examination. So much for my hopes of one day setting foot in a university.

On the point regarding Gramsci I note that he urged an alliance with the PPI in opposition to the then leader of the PCd'I Bordiga. Who opposed forming a united front with the socialists let alone the Catholic inspired PPI.

Bordiga and the PCd'I under his leadership was however within the revolutionary camp even if his opposition to what his followers came to call 'frontism' was ultra-left. Later alliances between the PCI and the Christian Democrats would have been a completely duifferent story given that the PCI was by then thoroughly reformist so we would be discussing not a limited united front for struggle but a Popular Front for class treachery.