[g8-sheffield] Re: g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue 72

Wed Jun 29 19:34:17 BST 2005

My apologies to everybody on this list. I should not have sent my message to the list, just to the relevant 2 people. Sorry.
Ian

g8-sheffield-request at lists.aktivix.org wrote:
Send g8-sheffield mailing list submissions to
g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
g8-sheffield-request at lists.aktivix.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
g8-sheffield-owner at lists.aktivix.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of g8-sheffield digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Closing the list (IAN WALLACE)
2. Re: Re: g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue 64 (Lee Rock)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +0100 (BST)
From: IAN WALLACE 
Subject: [g8-sheffield] Re: Closing the list
To: jgibbon at wimbledon.ac.uk, Lee Rock 
Cc: IAN WALLACE ,
g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org
Message-ID: <20050629172411.99982.qmail at web86602.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Agreed. Ian

jgibbon at wimbledon.ac.uk wrote:Dan suggested, maybe we shouldn't close this list after the G8. I agree -
this seems a really useful small scale forum for local dissent.
Lets at least leave it open for afew weeks after the G8 to discuss what
happens in Scotland.

Jill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/g8-sheffield/attachments/20050629/0cb1d6f2/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:59:14 +0100
From: "Lee Rock" 
Subject: Re: [g8-sheffield] Re: g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue 64
To: "IAN WALLACE" , "Dan"

Cc: g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org
Message-ID: <001501c57cd4$42ffd2a0$6df12652 at LeeRock>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Ian

Thanks for that.

In response to the three points:

1. I made no reference to the SWP doing their own thing 'via the Working Class'. I am all for the w/class struggle. Until recently I was the Regional Organiser of my union for ten years. Last month I was at my union conference. I see trade union struggle as the main area that change will come about. Though, at the moment they are much weaker than for some time.

My point is, I do not see the SWP attempts to exlude other groups of activists from the SWP led campaigns as furthering the aim of w/class struggle. I regard the SWP apporach to others on the left as sectarian. Which other groups on the far left are the SWP presently working with?
How did having StWC and Dissent having seperate events two nights running in the same city (with less than 1000 people in total involved) further the class struggle?

2. I was at the Galloway meeting. I have spoken on the same platform as Galloway and am on first name terms with him, some of his assistants (who I worked closely with in regards to the ESF at Ally Pally) and Oliur Rahman.

Happy to ask you: What are the differences in the SWP about RESPECT not supporting a position of Open Borders for example? Having been at the Founding Conference (where I was one of the few speakers from the floor) and the subsequent Annual Conference of RESPECT, what are the internal SWP debates about the fact that whilst having a majority of the delegates, positions of the SWP such as the one above and MPs on a workers wage, were not adopted?

3. Why are platforms/factions only allowed in the three months up to conference? What about the difference of opinions over the other nine months? Why are members not allowed to mandate their delegates as to which way to vote at your conference? Why is your elected leadership, elected via a slate system that is itself proposed by the leadership? When is the last time the SWP leadership was defeated on any issue at your conference? When was the last time that a member of the SWP was elected onto the leadership against the wishes of the existing leadership? Why can only the 10% of your members who are delegates vote for or against the leadership slate - what about the other 90% of your members?

All the best

Lee
----- Original Message ----- 
From: IAN WALLACE 
To: Lee Rock ; Dan 
Cc: g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [g8-sheffield] Re: g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue 64

1. "In Sheffield, for 
example, they insisted on doing their own thing via StWC with regards to the 
G8 visit." 

2. "If you have been trying to follow then you will have found it very difficult. 
You read of no debate in their publications, but instead have to try and 
read between the lines of what the leadership is saying."

3. "There is no real internal democracy for ordinary members of the SWP.
Decisions are made by a self-electing leadership."

1. 'Come the revolution' you will no doubt be saying that we insisted on 'doing our own thing via the Working Class'. Hope so. 

2. If you want to know, "what is going on in the SWP at the moment, 
with regards to RESPECT and StWC" why don't you just ask? Then come along to a meeting.
Did you come to the George Galloway et al meeting? 700 others did. 

3. Maybe you have been speaking to some disaffected former members? I might not be the best non-disaffected non-former member to relate to because I have only been a member since 1977 so I might lack your experience, but my (no doubt highly biased) view is that we are working to a direction agreed through our structures in the run up to, and at, our national annual conference. Where we also elect our leadership. 

Ian

Eh?

Lee Rock wrote:
Dan

The SWP does not operate 'democratic centralism'.

All of this is a real problem for the rest of us on the left - as the SWP 
are by far the largest and most influential group. (Many of their members would not even have been aware of the 
Dissent campaign.) How much better it would have been if there had been a 
single united campaign around this one issue, don't you think?

All the best

Lee
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan" 
To: "IAN WALLACE" 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [g8-sheffield] Re: g8-sheffield Digest, Vol 4, Issue 64

Hi,

Yeah, it's good stuff. I also got send this today, from the SWP website:

http://www.swp.org.uk/article_swp.php?article_id=305
"Democracy without centralism will fail"

It's an interesting article. The writer, for example, cites something
that both Naomi Klein and Starhawk have previously picked up on:

> At one anti-capitalist demonstration not long ago, in Washington DC, 
> demonstrators agreed to blockade all the entrances to a World Bank 
> conference. But in one area a group decided to follow their own decision, 
> ignoring everyone else, and let the bank delegates through-dissolving the 
> whole protest into pointlessness.

There are certainly discussions to be had about what kind of structure
works where. The drive toward decentralisation is something that both
certain left-wingers and most economists share. We need more argument
about is when it's really appropriate, and when it doesn't work. The SWP
writer simply says that the task of working towards revolution demands a
level of organisation that autonomistas cannot provide. I have always
believed that we must walk the talk - that our actions today must mirror
the future we want. That would mean, for example, not having a civil war
in order to give power to the proletariat, because I believe in peace -
and because too many revolutionaries have a category for 'reactionary
elements of the working class' who can also be shot. (This may be naive
of me, but I refuse to drop it just yet!)

There's also a nice bit in Mark Steel's 'reasons to be cheerful' that is
a rather amusing critique of 'the tyranny of self-organisation', about
an anti-fascist rally he was on.

"... every single person amongst the thousands who attend, as they
arrive asks the nearest person 'what's happening?' But no one ever knew
the answer. Eventually, a group of fifty or more would walk in the same
direction and everyone followed. They might have all been going for a
burger, but as everyone joined them it would go around that the fascists
were definitely this way. So even if they were going for a burger they
would now believe that the fascists are this way anyway and abandon the
burger." [Mark Steel, Reasons to be Cheerful, London, Simon & Schuster,
2001, p.39]

I'm personally still much more in favour of self-organisation, because
centralisation, historically, always leads to abuses of power. But then,
saying "there's no power here" doesn't make it so either!

A couple of other resources: the Joseph Rowntree foundation have been
funding a 'power inquiry' (see http://www.powerinquiry.org/) and they've
produced a book called "Beyond the Ballot - 57 democratic innovations
from around the world." (PDF from
http://www.powerinquiry.org/publications/documents/BeyondtheBallot_000.pdf)

Maybe we could do something at Matilda, from a much more leftie angle?
It could be an inquiry from the left - with democratic centralists and
autonomists making up two of the positions, for example. (It was
heartening to read in the SWP article that debate is so important: and I
noted that I fit in to the 'fevered dreams about the SWP being
armies...! I only hope it's not merely spin...)

And if you have time, take a look at http://www.extremedemocracy.com/ -
lots of chapters on devolving democracy until it looks a little like a
free market...

Maybe we shouldn't close this list. Perhaps it could be used for debate...?

Dan
----

IAN WALLACE wrote:

> I think Vol 4, Issue 64 might go down in history itself. Two very good, 
> thoughtful, measured, and generally excellent contributions focusing on 
> some of the real issues from Mozaz and Fabien.
> Maybe the G8 Sheffield Digest could always be like this?
> Ian
>
> */g8-sheffield-request at lists.aktivix.org/* wrote:
>
> Send g8-sheffield mailing list submissions to
> g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> g8-sheffield-request at lists.aktivix.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> g8-sheffield-owner at lists.aktivix.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of g8-sheffield digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Inside the Murky World of Make Poverty History (zerosevenfour two)
> 2. Fwd: [resistg82005] Great article in the guardian today (fabian)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:49:44 +0000
> From: "zerosevenfour two"
> Subject: [g8-sheffield] Inside the Murky World of Make Poverty History
> To: g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> a must read
>
> http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315058.html
>
> Make Poverty History would seem an unprecedented success story.
> Uniting
> trade unions, charities, NGOs and a stellar-cast of celebrities,
> its cause
> is dominating media coverage while the campaign's white wristband
> is being
> worn the world over. So why, as the G8 summit approaches, are leading
> members briefing against each other to the press and African social
> movements saying 'nothing about us, without us'? Stuart Hodkinson
> investigates.
>
> For a sun-soaked Friday in late May, there was an unusual air of
> panic at
> the British Trade Union Congress (TUC) for the monthly members'
> assembly of
> Make Poverty History (MPH). Officials hurriedly briefed reception
> with some
> last-minute security instructions: "You must make sure that only
> assembly
> members are let in," one instructed. "The meeting is open to the
> public, but
> only public members of Make Poverty History."
>
> The nerves were understandable. Two damning stories about MPH were
> about to
> break in the British national press. The cover story of British
> centre-left
> weekly, New Statesman, 'Why Oxfam is failing Africa', had exposed
> deep anger
> among members of the MPH coalition at Oxfam's 'revolving door'
> relationship
> with UK government officials and policies, accusing it of allowing
> Britain's
> two most powerful politicians, Prime Minister Tony Blair and
> Chancellor
> Gordon Brown, to co-opt MPH as a front for New Labour's own
> questionable
> anti-poverty drive.
>
> The right-wing Sunday Telegraph, meanwhile, had given notice of
> its shocking
> exclusive on how large numbers of the ubiquitous MPH white
> wristband - the
> very symbol of the campaign - had been knowingly sourced from Chinese
> sweatshops with Oxfam's blessing.
>
> Inside MPH, however, the embarrassing revelations were no
> surprise. For the
> past six months, some of the UK 's leading development and
> environmental
> NGOs have been increasingly vocal in their unease about a campaign
> high on
> celebrity octane but low on radical politics. One insider, active
> in a key
> MPH working group, argues there "has often been a complete divergence
> between the democratically agreed message of our public campaign
> and the
> actual spin that greets the outside world". He is angry:
>
> "Our real demands on trade, aid and debt, and criticisms of UK
> government
> policy in developing countries have been consistently swallowed up
> by white
> bands, celebrity luvvies and praise upon praise for Blair and
> Brown being
> ahead of other world leaders on these issues."
>
> THE RISE AND RISE OF MPH
>
> This is surely not what campaigners had in mind back in late 2003
> when Oxfam
> initiated a series of informal meetings with charities and
> campaigning
> organisations to consider forming an unprecedented coalition
> against poverty
> in 2005 to coincide with the UK presidency of both the G8 summit
> and EU, the
> first five year evaluation of progress on the UN Millennium
> Development
> Goals (MDGs) agreed in 2000, the 6th WTO Ministerial Meeting in
> Hong Kong,
> and the 20th anniversary of Live Aid.
>
> In September 2004, the Make Poverty History coalition was officially
> launched as the UK mobilisation of an international coalition, the
> Global
> Call to Action Against Poverty (G-CAP), led by Oxfam
> International, Action
> Aid and DATA - the controversial Africa charity set up by U2
> frontman, Bono
> and multi-billionnaires, George Soros, and Microsoft's Bill Gates,
> the
> world's second richest person with a fortune of just under $50
> billion.
>
> Since then, MPH has become an impressive campaigning coalition,
> boasting
> over 460 member organisations including all the major trade unions
> and the
> TUC, development NGOs, charities, churches as well as several
> faith and
> diaspora groups. Its successful mix of celebrity backers and
> anti-poverty
> message has captured the attention of both politicians and mass
> media,
> encapsulated in the near-hysteria following the annoucement by
> veteran rock
> star and Africa campaigner, Bob Geldof, that a series of free
> concerts in
> London, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, and Berlin would take place
> under the
> banner 'Live 8' to coincide with the MPH campaign to lobby the G8
> summit in
> Gleneagles, Scotland in July.
>
> But despite the success, there is widespread unhappiness within the
> coalition over the campaign's public face and its cosiness to
> Blair and
> Brown. Critics argue that on paper at least, MPH's policy demands
> on the UK
> government are fairly radical, especially its calls for "trade
> justice not
> free trade", which would require G8 and EU countries, notably the
> UK, to
> stop forcing through free market policies on poor countries as
> part of aid,
> trade deals or debt relief. MPH also says rich countries should
> immediately
> double aid by $50bn per year and finally meet 35-year old promises
> to spend
> 0.7 per cent of their national income in development aid. More and
> better
> aid, meanwhile, should be matched by cancellation of the
> "unpayabale" debts
> of the world's poorest countries through a "fair and transparent
> international process" that uses new money, not slashed aid
> budgets. With
> additional calls for the regulation of multinationals and the
> democratisation of the IMF and World Bank, John Hilary, Campaigns
> Director
> of UK development NGO, War on Want, has a point when he asserts
> that MPH's
> policies "strike at the very heart of the neo-liberal agenda."
>
> The problem, however, is that when these policies are relayed to a
> public
> audience, they become virtually indistinguishable from those of
> the UK
> government. This was brought home back in March this year when
> Blair's
> deeply compromised Commission for Africa set out its neo-liberal
> proposals
> for the corporate plunder of Africa's human and natural resources
> under the
> identical headlines used by MPH - 'trade justice', 'drop the debt'
> and 'more
> and better aid'. In return, most MPH members, led by Oxfam and the
> TUC,
> warmly welcomed the report's recommendations. As Ghana 's Yao
> Graham makes
> clear in July's Red Pepper, African civil society is far less
> enamoured with
> the Commission's report, which he argues lays out a blueprint for
> "the new
> scramble for Africa ".
>
> REVOLVING DOORS
>
> Thanks to the New Statesman exposé, much of the blame is placed on
> the
> leadership of Oxfam - the UK 's biggest and most powerful development
> agency. Despite its pro-poor image around the world, over the last
> two
> decades, Oxfam has become a feeder school for government special
> advisers
> and World Bank officials and has a particularly close relationship
> with New
> Labour. Blair's special advisor on international development, Justin
> Forsyth, was previously Oxfam's campaigns manager. Forsyth's
> opposite number
> at the Treasury is Oxfam board member, Shriti Vadera, a former
> director at
> the US bank, UBS Warburg, and specialist in public-private
> partnerships, a
> policy that litters the Africa Commission's report. Less well
> known is John
> Clark, who left Oxfam for the World Bank in 1992 to join the World
> Bank
> where he was responsible for the Bank's co-optation strategy with
> civil
> society before advising Tony Blair in 2000 on his "Africa Partnership
> Initiative" that directly led to the New Partnership for Africa 's
> Development (NEPAD) in 2001. At the heart of MPH is Oxfam's Sarah
> Kline, a
> former World Bank official who champions the organisation's
> 'constructive
> dialogue' approach with the IMF and World Bank.
>
> Oxfam's political independence from neo-liberal governance is also
> compromised by the £40m or so of its annual income that comes from
> government or other public funds. Nearly £14m alone originates

=== message truncated ===
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/g8-sheffield/attachments/20050629/41c632a7/attachment.html 