RIP Chris Harman

Very sad and totally unexpected. More at Luna 17 and Lenin's Tomb.

Capitalism and Clowns

Here's another piece by Mark Featherstone lifted from Keele's Sociology and Criminology blog. (Original here).

On Thursday 22nd October eight million people watched Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, appear on the BBC’s premier political debating programme, Question Time. The immediate reaction to Griffin’s appearance in the national press may have led one to believe that it was a complete failure for the racist right – on Friday 23rd October The Daily Express explained that ‘BNP Leader Nick Griffin is...A Complete Disgrace to Humanity’ while The Independent wrote that ‘The BBC gave him the oxygen of publicity. He choked’ – but my own reaction to his moment in the full media glare was not so certain.

It is true that Griffin’s appearance was marked by confusion, irrationality, and illogical statements. Even his racism was not logically worked out. That is to say that even Griffin’s abhorrent racist belief that Britain should be maintained exclusively for the benefit of some mythological British people, primarily made up of a mythological white working class, collapsed at various points. These points, when he made the effort to hide his racism behind the veil of a brand of ultra-nationalism able to tolerate minorities, but not displaced peoples seeking asylum, were telling because what they illustrate is what we all know only too well. That is that the BNP are well aware that their racism, the core value of their politics, is beyond the pale and must be hidden from view and never explicitly spoken about if they are ever to achieve any kind of mainstream support.

In my view it was this fact, the fact that BNP must engage in a politics of deception, a politics of deception that cannot possibly work, that rendered Griffin a comic figure on Question Time, a comic figure who had been pushed centre stage, and found himself in a situation he could not possibly cope with in the full glare of the mass media, primarily because he was forced to evade a truth everybody already knows.

However, I was also aware that Griffin’s comic appearance, his appearance as a fool, a clown, would appeal to a specific audience, simply because those already alienated from mainstream politics and turned on to the BNP were unlikely to be persuaded by a situation that could not help but show their man as a fool and the cynical discredited mainstream as a mocking audience, who were well aware of the truth their fool wanted to hide and therefore could not but appear to be to disdainful of their man. In this situation the mainstream parties really needed to resist the temptation to exploit the fool in order to confirm their own moral superiority, because this would, of course, only confirm their own bankruptcy rooted in recent events, such as the expenses scandal.

Unfortunately, I felt that this was a temptation that the mainstream parties could not resist. Herein, then, lay perhaps the main problem with Griffin’s appearance on Question Time and possibly the key factor behind the shocking result of a YouGov poll carried out hours after the broadcast that showed that 22% of British people would ‘seriously consider’ voting BNP in a future local, general, or European election and perhaps more worryingly that ‘more than half of those polled said they agreed...the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of "indigenous, white British people"’ (BBC News, Saturday, 24th October).

That is to say that the main problem with Griffin’s appearance was that the mainstream parties appeared to want to confirm their own superiority by moralising against Griffin, rather than defeating him through rational argumentation. From the point of view of Griffin’s politics this was, of course, totally unnecessary because he was already defeated by his need to hide the truth of his own position, which resulted in ridiculous statements pertaining to the tolerance of the Ku Klux Klan. Unfortunately, though, I believe that the mainstream parties could not resist exploiting Griffin’s comic persona in order to confirm their own moral righteousness, with the result that they only confirmed their own moral bankruptcy.

In my view this was the main result of Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. In other words, by over-playing their morality and tolerance and under-playing their arguments and policies, the mainstream parties have probably confirmed both their own moral bankruptcy and lack of political imagination in the eyes of those who were either alienated from or on the verge of being alienated from the political mainstream. But this begs the question, why would the mainstream parties adopt this approach to dealing with Griffin, the comedy fool?

I think that the answer to this question is that the mainstream parties wanted to simultaneously confirm, boost, or simulate their own tolerance, hide the bankruptcy of their own policies, and finally deflect attention away from the real nature of the political situation in Europe which, as sociologists such as Zygmunt Bauman and Slavoj Žižek teach us, is already closing in on a form of friendly fascism that cannot speak its name. The truth is that the BNP are amateurs and that they will be defeated if our mainstream parties engage them in reasonable debate over policies, rather than employing empty moralising about the ‘tolerant’ nature of British culture and British politics.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be a lot harder than it sounds, since the empty moralising of the mainstream parties over the blindingly obvious racist nature of the BNP has a very particular purpose, which is to confirm their tolerance and hide their intolerance regarding the flows of homeless, displaced, refugees, and asylum seekers created by the form of globalisation sponsored and advanced by the generation of neo-liberals, including Brown, Sarkozy, and Berlusconi, and the master builders of the immigration architecture of Sangatte and the Schengen zone.

For Žižek (See his ‘Berlusconi in Tehran’, London Review of Books, 23rd July, 2009), Italy, the new front line of the European battle to control immigration, is dominated by a new form of authoritarian capitalism. In Žižek’s view, the popularity of the offensive comedy fool, Berlusconi, who praised Obama for his suntan, is not coincidental, since what Berlusconi and the new Italy exemplify is a new form of state organisation that is more than happy to exploit the poor workers of the global south for their labour, so that consumers can have cheap training shoes, but not allow them to penetrate its borders, where they would become legally liable for the benefits their labour warrants.

It is the struggle against this situation, the struggle against exploitation based on racial and ethnic inequality, that must be understood as the real front line of anti-racism in Europe today. We know the BNP are racists. But we must recognise that they have, in many respects, already missed the boat. It is not that we are threatened by racism to come, but rather that the racist situation is already upon us. Given this reality, I think that we must resist the temptation to use the abhorrent nature of the BNP to affirm the mythology of the tolerance of contemporary globalisation and instead recognise the racist intolerance already pervading Europe and our own society. It is this situation that we must address if we are to really save our tolerant ideals, rather than simply use the comic fools of the BNP to kid ourselves that we live in a society that is free of racism.

One way to start to achieve this would be to break the popular support for the BNP by illustrating to the alienated white minority who have turned to them in times of need that the problem of contemporary society is not one relating to race and ethnicity, but rather one rooted in the new form of neo-liberal capitalism that plunges everybody, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or age, into a precarious world, where everything is uncertain. The effect of this approach would be to dismantle the mythological connection between precariousness and race that enables the BNP and other parties of the far right to scapegoat minorities, and turn popular attention towards the real problem, the form of capitalism that turns people against each other like never before.

However, this approach presents a utopian challenge. It presents a utopian challenge because such an approach would, of course, require that our political, capitalist, elite really want to do away with the BNP, that they really want to do away with the comedy fools who allow them to simulate their own tolerance and maintain the brand of authoritarian capitalism rooted in exploitation, and that they really want to found a society free of exploitation and racist intolerance.

RMT Conference on Political Representation

Source.

Publication Date: November 4 2009

In an important initiative aimed at shifting the political debate away from the cuts and pro-business agenda of the three main parties, transport union RMT is convening a conference on the “Crisis in Working Class Representation” in London this Saturday (7th November).

The RMT-sponsored conference comes at a time of increasing industrial militancy and will look at harnessing rank and file anger at attacks on jobs, pay, conditions and pensions into a co-ordinated political voice. The event will also bring together climate activists, pensioners, students, anti-racists and campaigners from both Britain and Ireland continuing the fight against the issues at the core of the Lisbon Treaty.

Speakers at the conference will include Bob Crow from the RMT, Brian Caton from the Prison Officers Association, Matt Wrack from the FBU, Susan Press from the Labour Representation Committee and Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.

Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary, said:

“Saturday’s conference comes at a crucial time for working people in this country. The gap between rich and poor has never been greater, the BNP are on the streets and on the TV spreading their poison and seeking to exploit the political vacuum and yet the three main parties are all spouting the same pro-bosses mantra of public spending cuts and privatisation.

“We have seen from the transport sector, the firefighters, the postal workers, bin workers, BA and the construction industry that the working class is prepared to fight. People up and down the country are angry that they are being told to pay the price for the recession while the speculators who created it are bailed out to the tune of tens of billions and are gearing up for a bumper round of Christmas bonuses at our expense.

“Millions of working class people have been disenfranchised by the political establishment. Our aim is to give them a voice.”

ENDS

Also at Socialist Unity.

South Korean Defects to the North

This was too superb not to share with the rest of the world. This press release came to me via the ever-dependable Leftist Trainspotters discussion list. When someone defects from the South to the North it's bound to be big news. Now, no sniggering at the translation. Just read, reflect and salute the Juche Idea!

S. Korean Resident Defects to DPRK

Pyongyang, October 27 (KCNA) -- Kang Tong Rim, 30, who resided in Polgyo Township, Posong County, South Jolla Province of south Korea, Monday came over to the northern half of Korea by crossing the Military Demarcation Line in the eastern sector of the front.

According to him, he served in the First Platoon of the 9th Company under the 3rd Battalion of the 56th Regiment, the 22nd Division of the south Korean army, from September 2001 to November 2003. During the military service he made several attempts for defection with his longing for the northern half of Korea, but in vain.

After being discharged he worked at the Samsung Semiconductor Company as a worker and then left it. He was employed at a pig farm in Polgyo Township before defection.

He is pleased with the accomplishment of his desire for defection.

He is now under the warm care of a relevant organ.

Party System Change

Not the sexiest blog title you'll ever read on this blog, but the changing relationship parties have with the electorate and each other goes to the heart of the malaise contemporary (mainstream) politics finds itself in. Can political science shine a much-needed light on the problem? Last Wednesday Gemma Loomes came to Keele to present her paper on developing a framework of analysis that can make sense of party system change.

Since the 1970s West European societies have undergone significant social change, which in turn has had a varying impact on their party systems. Dominant political parties have been come under increasing challenge from new rivals, election turnouts have fallen and everywhere disenchantment is on the rise. But while social change and electoral volatility has sped up party systems have proved more resistant to these developments. Why? Is it the case parties have responded to changes and therefore limited the impact social structural shifts have had on the party system? Are there other processes at work?

The existing political science literature on the topic falls into two broad perspectives. The first is the socio-structural perspective. This argues the four main cleavages bisecting Western societies structured and made stable the party systems of these societies. However the changes in advanced capitalist societies from the 1970s on have undermined the saliency of these cleavages which in turn has upset the balance of party systems. In these approaches the line of causality runs from social change through to electoral change and then political change. Party systems are a dependent variable. They have next to no efficacy of their own.

The party-centric alternative is diametrically opposed to the determinist argument. This lays more weight on the actions and strategies parties can pursue as independent agents. As opposed to a causal relationship between electoral and party system change, between the two lies institutions and political parties themselves. Whatever is being "passed down" the line is always mediated by them. This suggests a number of things. First, in contrast to the determinist model, more than just socio-structural cleavages can shape party systems. Second, the strategies of parties can mitigate change by adapting to new developments and/or sheilding the system from its most radical effects. Third, state laws that govern and help structure party systems are always open to being modified by parties themselves.

Gemma argued the roots of these approaches can be found in political theory. For the classical liberal tradition, theory locates power and sovereignty in the electorate (this, for instance, is forcefully argued by J.S. Mill). This is linked with the socio-structural approach in that the normative biases of classical theory - that parties should be responsive to the demands of the electorate and represent their interests - finds expression in the party system literature's assumption that party systems are dependent variables mechanically determined by social change.

Modern political theory has a similar relationship to the party-centric argument. Observing more contemporary transformations in democratic political systems, Joseph Schumpeter argued the conceptualisation of politics in terms of common good assumptions should be replaced. The normative idealisation of 'government by the people' should give way to a more realistic preference for 'government for the people'. Therefore parties are entitled to become rational actors in competition for votes, which of course is how the party-centric approach to party system change treats them. This does not mean parties are cut off from electorates. According to Richard Katz parties represent segments of society, but they can have independent agency vis a vis their base. They can develop strategies that improve their standing in party systems by accommodating the electorate's desires and attempt to shape them. But aside from vote seeking some parties can enhance their position and influence by securing a place in the state's institutional set up.

Therefore parties can adopt strategies that are vote-oriented or office-seeking. The former maximise their votes by developing attractive policies or new ideas. From this base they court sections of the electorate and establish relationships with other parties. The latter tries to influence electoral law, rules governing party finance, the media, etc.

In practice all significant parties engage in a mixture of both. For example, the recent MPs expenses crisis has seen the parties move as a collective to change the rules of the game so the most flagrant abuses won't occur in the future. But because these are strategies, party actions always run the risk of failure, regardless of the types of strategies they pursue.

Therefore, by way of a conclusion, the approach Gemma favoured is party-centered. How else to explain that after decades of rapid social change and the emergence of new parties, traditionally dominant parties have tended to retain their controlling positions?

In the questions and answers a number of issues came up. The first was regarding her treatment of the socio-structural tradition. There was a dispute over the extent to which parties as dependent variables possessed or lacked a strategy. Instead one can argue they pursue strategies suited to the social structures out of which they emerged. They cannot ever fully shake off these roots either. For example, New Labour may have distinguished itself by overtly reaching out to the so-called middle ground and brazenly courted British capital, but it never entirely abandoned the aspirations of its base - as several mild social-democratic measures testify.

Another problem is the role of individual political personalities. The party-centric approach tends to treat parties as discrete coherent entities who typically engage in disciplined action. But contemporary politics, perhaps more than ever, is driven by personalities. So, how to integrate this into the analysis of party system change? Should they be treated as a variable under the heading of electoral tactics?

As far as I was concerned the problem dogging the paper is common to political science as a whole: it proceeds from a high level of abstraction and is undergirded by functionalist assumptions other social sciences dispensed with decades ago. That isn't to say the discipline cannot generate insights, but as far as I'm concerned these will always be handicapped by the (unsaid) theoretical assumptions political science depends on. And so it is with this case. One can develop an ideal typical repertoire of strategies and behaviours parties can undertake, but can it provide analyses superior to the contributions of political sociology, which enmeshes together the influences of classes, class fractions, social movements, institutional actors and parties in its analysis of politics? I remain to be convinced.

New Blog Round-Up

Shall we take a look at the newest left blogs that have crossed my desk this last month?

The first of these is 21st Century Manifesto, a semi-official Communist Party blog. As such it appears most of the material comes from party publications, but overall it's worth following if you want to know what the CPB is thinking.

While we're on the CPB, another supporter has entered the fray. Five Fingered Left Punch promises to "say what I like and I like what I bloody well say." It's been a fortnight since the comrade last posted, so perhaps an influx of traffic will persuade him to carry on?

PonderBoxes is unusual fare for my round-ups. It pretty much does what it says on the tin: people are invited to submit blog posts on their heart's desire and, well ... ponder. All the ponders so far are of a distinct lefty-liberal character (hence its inclusion here). You can follow the blog and its founder on Twitter here and here.

Alienated Left is the new joint project from Kit of The Polemical Report and Duncan of In Place of Fear. They say "Alienated Left looks for the facts behind the big-parties', governments' and big-media groups' propaganda. We ask whether the issues they focus on, and the questions they ask, are the right ones - and provide alternative ones from independent, left-liberal, left, socialist, anarchist and other viewpoints. We are bloggers who reject blind loyalty to any one party or politician, based on the realisation that if the majority don't question the propaganda-line they're fed, or lobby for their interests and the ideals they believe in, the big companies and the billionaires will always control government policy in their own interest - and against the interests of the majority. We want real democracy, not plutocracy. To get that, we need to provide the facts (as best we can determine them), not what too many people think they know just because the lies have been repeated so many times."

It's probably still the case LGBT issues don't get as much coverage on left wing blogs as racism and sexism, so it's good another blog has limbered up to fill the gap. Academented promises to be "one queer girl's take on LGBT representation in the media." As a new PhD student expect a mix of this with reflections on academia too. You can follow the author, Han M on Twitter here.

Another is also helping overcome this unfortunate gap. Soho Politico has rapidly become another must-read blog for lefties, not least because of his excellent take downs of Tory hypocrisy on LGBT matters. Definitely a blog to watch over the coming year. You can follow Soho Politico on Twitter here.

Calling Malcolm Clarke's blog a new one might be stretching it a bit, seeing as it's been around since last December. But after an eight month hiatus he has returned to offer his take on internal Labour Party issues, what's going on around Durham way and of course, national news stories. You can follow Malcolm on Twitter here.

Do you think you can handle another CPB blog? One from the Plough. Why this name? "In many ways the plough is an icon for ordinary working people thoughout history. The original symbol for the Soviet Union was a hammer crossed over with a plough. In our own Labour movement in Britain, those early pioneers, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, would have worked the plough in the fields of Dorset. The inspiration for the name of this blog came from a great man, George Mitchell, who was a leader of Agricultural workers during the Nineteenth century near Yeovil, Somerset. Our shared first name, George, is derived from the Greek 'Georgos' meaning worker of the earth. So when searching for a name for my blog I thought that nothing sounded quite as apt as George Mitchell's nickname-"one from the plough"". Again it's been a few days since something was last posted, which I hope will be remedied by a few extra visits.

Next is Roots and Resilience. The author writes: "My main interest is in the establishment and protection of human rights, particularly the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (and Britain!). But I also have a deep interest in Latin America and central Africa. So my posts will echo this, but, will not be limited by it. I also have a focus on refugees, refugee law, and the asylum system, so it is likely that an emphasis on forced displacement, refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants will also come through."

And that's it for another month. Once again if you're starting up a new blog or know of other new lefty, socialist, communist, feminist, green, Labour etc. types who just have please let me know and they'll get a shout out in the next round-up.

SP Leaflet: Victory to the Postal Workers!

The national strike action has rocked Royal Mail bosses and the government to their very roots.

The strike has been absolutely solid because as postal workers know this is a fight to the finish for their jobs, their union and the future of Royal Mail as a public service and not something for the profits of the bosses.

Adam Crozier backed up by the Labour government and the unelected Lord Mandelson set out from the beginning to break the will of the workers to resist their plans to make the Royal Mail fit for privatisation.

The role of the Labour government in these attacks reinforces the call by members to stop financing the Labour Party. It also emphasises that the CWU along with other unions need their own political voice.

The CWU should join the campaign to build a new workers' party as part of their overall strategy to win this battle against privatisation and the ending of the post office as a public service.

In the management's leaked document they laid out a number of scenarios to bring the union to heel including threatening "de-recognition" with "only the legal minimum engagement" with the union and reps.

The bosses recognise that without an effective union on the shop floor then they will be able to run roughshod over all the painfully built up working conditions won over decades of struggle. They hoped to frighten the CWU leadership into accepting their plans as "the lesser evil" but it is clear that the CWU branches were not prepared to be blackmailed and the leadership were forced to accept this.

The bosses call for “modernisation” is a euphemism for job cuts, pay cuts and the introduction of a regime in the workplace of fear and intimidation.

What happens now will be determined by what tactics are adopted to win this struggle by the leadership of the union.

Sectional strikes have had a big effect so far in the sense that tens of millions of items of post are blocked up in the system much to the chagrin of management (though it still seems to mean that some workers such as drivers have been penalised for not crossing picket lines in the delivery offices) but what is required now is a clear strategy that will increase the pressure on the bosses and at the same time demonstrate that the postal workers are determined to win this crucial battle.

Discontinuous action up to Christmas seems to be the leadership's strategy as far as the CWU itself is concerned but what is required is a dual tactic of also appealing to the undoubted large amounts of support there is amongst other workers, particularly in the rest of the public sector.

The CWU should make this appeal both at national and local level by means of initiating meetings with their opposite numbers in other public sector unions such as Unison (council and health workers) PCS (civil servants) and other unions such as Unite, the FBU and the GMB.

There should be a clear call for solidarity action by other unions on the basis that the postal workers strike is their fight as well. All public sector workers are facing massive attacks either now or in the future.

Strikes are already taking place around the country, such as Leeds bin workers who have been on all out strike for eight weeks.

Fire fighters are also taking action in Yorkshire, Essex, Merseyside and London.

Bus workers are on strike in south Yorkshire.

A clear call to unite the struggles by the CWU leadership would in our opinion receive widespread support.

The union should organise city wide rallies and demos with a call to all unions to join in and back them. At these rallies the union leaders should call for solidarity action by all workers the next time the postal strikes take.

It is increasingly clear that if the bosses still prevaricate then sooner rather than later the union should prepare the members for an all out strike that will force the bosses to retreat. We cannot allow the bosses any longer to dictate the pace of events. They should be left in no doubt that we will not have another 2007-type deal that is used by the bosses to bully and intimidate workers as individuals that after all is why we are in a union.

The Socialist Party calls for:

- CWU to demand support from the whole trade union movement if Royal Mail try to break the strikes with scabs.
- No more “modernisation” deals - end the attacks once and for all.
- Defend all jobs, pensions and conditions.
- No to increased workloads.
- Defend the union, defend the reps.
- Bring back ‘in house’ all previously privatised work.
- For a united fight to defend public services across all public sector trade unions.

Mainstream Politics and Disengagement

Today our first year politics students had an audience with local Labour politician and American Politics lecturer, Michael Tappin (pictured). Ostensibly his talk was about disenchantment with politics but inevitably it turned to his career as a mainstream Labour representative.

Mike began with a potted biography of his career. He was first elected as a councillor in Newcastle-U-Lyme in 1980 and sat for four years. In '81 he was elected to Staffs County Council and remained there for the next 16 years. From '94-'99 he was Labour MEP for the Staffs West and Congleton European constituency. From 2004-8 he represented Blurton on Stoke City Council, leading the Labour group in his final year before losing his seat. In addition he chaired Stoke South Primary Care Trust from 01-06 and is currently a member of the so-called transition board charged with implementing the recent governance commission report for restructuring local government in the Potteries.

Over the course of his career there has been a marked decline in political participation (defined as voting). For example, the turnout for the 1979 general election was 76 per cent. By 2005 it had declined to 61 per cent, and fell to 34.7 per cent for this year's European elections (though, it should be worth noting, turnout tends to be much lower for 'second order' elections). For Mike there are a number of reasons for this. First is the growing fragmentation of Britain's (Westminster) two-and-a-half party system, first in its geographical peripheries (Scotland, Wales) and then in England itself with the emergence of the three main minor parties - UKIP, the BNP and Greens. The causes of declining participation and fragmentation is bound up with the disintegration of deference, which in turn was an effect of the class relationships that predominated before 1979. For example, in Stoke communities were concentrated the pits and pot banks. As the industries closed class relationships began to change, dispersing the relatively cohesive collectives they called into being.

Other long term processes were at work too. The hype around globalisation has created the impression that governmental powers have been dissolved by immense global forces beyond the reach of government - so what's the point in voting if politicians can't change anything? There's also the perception politicians are all corrupt and on the make, are socially different from the electorate (many 'younger' MPs and PPCs have gone straight from university to a career in wonkland, and from there to parliament). Finally the insatiable maw of 24/7 news has done a great deal to undermine the control parties have over their message, and the pervasiveness of celebrity culture has successfully supplanted politics, partly because it appears more relevant to many people than the rarefied goings ons in Westminster.

Having diagnosed the many ills of mainstream politics it then moved on to a Q&A session, which revolved around two points. One of these was his career. Asked about his record and what he thought he'd achieved in his five years as a MEP, he listed keeping Indian and Chinese ceramics out of the European market for five years, retaining the back stamp on pottery and securing funding for reemployment in North Staffs.

The other was the party and electoral system. Mike admitted he was unfashionable but believed the present winner takes all system (modified with transferable votes if no one scores the 50 per cent plus one) is the best of all possible worlds. He believes in "the smack of firm government" and argued you trade off effective government as a system becomes more proportional. This is not a boon for democracy as such because the subsequent horse trading that builds coalitions is between political elites. It is no more participatory than the Westminster system. As for the two party system itself, it will only survive if it appeals to the broad spectrum of mainstream opinion.

As I was wearing my sessional tutor hat (and not being a student) I didn't get stuck in, though if I had I wouldn't have gone down the route of 'isn't it time for a new workers' party' point scoring. Instead I'd have asked if Mike believed the neoliberal consensus had turned millions of people off from politics, and if so what sort of politics could begin to address the disconnect? That he stuck to sociological arguments at the expense of political explanations for the crisis was quite telling. How can we expect mainstream politics to change if it can't even look at its failings in a mirror?

Come to Socialism 2009

Good grief, Socialism 2009 is almost upon us! For readers unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the Socialist Party's calendar, Socialism is our annual weekend educational school/rally. It affords an opportunity for comrades to get stuck into a number of tightly focused sessions on a variety of topics (examples here and here) and get up to some general tomfoolery too.

Looking at how things have gone for the SP this year, Socialism 09 promises to be the biggest event yet. We have not one but three union general secretaries speaking at Saturday night's Rally for Socialism - the POA's (and SP member) Brian Caton, Matt Wrack of the fire brigade's union, and the RMT's Bob Crow. In addition the Irish Socialist Party's MEP, Joe Higgins and SP general secretary, Peter Taaffe will speak. And yes, without a doubt, it will be wrapped up in the traditional way.

Unfortunately this will be the first Socialism I've missed since my first in 2005. It's a shame because there's more than a few sessions I fancy. On the Saturday afternoon I probably would have headed to 'Britain after the general election', which will be discussing what we can expect from an incoming Tory government. Sunday morning would be a toss up between the forum on capitalism in crisis and the session on Sri Lanka. And for the final one in the afternoon it has to be the discussion on working class political representation with ourselves, the Greens, the RMT, Respect, the LRC and the SWP. I am an inveterate sectarian so what do you expect? Chances are our friends the International Bolshevik Tendency will be running a fringe meeting (see this, for example). If I was a betting man I'd wager they'll be denouncing us for accepting Brian Caton as a member. Shame the only folk who'll turn up will be their erstwhile comrades from the Spartacist League.

Just because I won't be going doesn't mean this blog will be a Socialism-free zone. I've got a couple of comrades who've pledged to guess blog a couple of sessions for me. But I want more! If you're going and fancy a stab writing about a talk/discussion, your overall impressions, the socialist party at the Saint Aloysius Social Club and what not, drop me a line.

Socialism 2009 takes place over the weekend of November 7th and 8th. Get your tickets here and come along!

Interviewed

I'm not feeling particularly inspired at the moment so here's something I did earlier with Kit from The Polemical Report. This AFAIK is the first in a series of interviews with bloggers the comrade hopes to run. I'm fully aware it is indecent virtual vanity to feature an interview with me on my own blog, but it's certainly no worse than bloggers tweeting when their next TV or radio appearance is going to be. I don't know if readers will get anything from it, but isn't that the risk us bloggers take whenever we post something up?

Yes, that is my Blogger and Twitter pic. And yes, I really do look like that.

Who are you?

I’m Phil BC, a PhD student living in Stoke-on-Trent. I became interested in politics at junior school, and have moved from the right to the left in the 22 years since. I’m a trade unionist and a member of the Socialist Party.

Briefly explain your blog

Officially: Sociology with a Militant Twist. Unofficially? An opportunity to mouth off on whatever issues that take my fancy.

Why did you start, & what keeps you motivated?

From the start I originally intended the blog to be more academic and sociological, but very quickly the focus became political. Prior to blogging I used to regularly contribute to the discussion list I founded, the UK Left Network, so I was already in the habit of screaming my opinions into cyberspace. It was inevitable my blog would be more of the same – though hopefully more structured and coherent.

How I keep myself motivated? It’s difficult to say. Once you start writing regularly you feel a desire to keep going, especially if it’s bound up in your real world political activity in some way. If you stop for any length of time it’s much harder to get restarted – as I found out when I lost interest for a few months in 2007.

What are your thoughts on the role of biographical details informing how blogs are read?

I’m not sure about this myself. Does anyone read Guido because ‘He’s Guido’, or does he attract audiences because of the tittle-tattle he trades in? Not that you can entirely separate the two. I don’t know. Would any of my present readers migrate elsewhere if I dropped or changed my political affiliation? I haven’t a clue. I would hope not. Ultimately every blogger hopes they attract an audience because they find what’s written is interesting.

What inspires your blog? Do you have any blogging role models?

Political activity inspires my blogging – the problems of developing a socialist critique and strategy appropriate to the present day animates most of what I do online. As for role models, I hope I won’t be embarrassing anyone! To name a few – Andy Newman of Socialist Unity, Louise at HarpyMarx, Dave’s Part, Splintered Sunrise, Jim at The Daily (Maybe), Stroppy at Stroppyblog, Dave and Paul at Though Cowards Flinch – all of their writing is spot on in different ways. If I could write as well I’d be chuffed!

If your blog didn’t exist, which other blogs would fill the gap?

Tough question! When I started there were no Socialist Party bloggers I was aware of and now there are loads. I’m sure they would have filled the SP’s gap in the far left blogging firmament. On the strategic thinking side of things the excellent Though Cowards Flinch follows a fairly similar trajectory as I do. The Third Estate also does some good thinking outside the box.

What are you views on blogger tools (e.g. google analytics, zemanta, etc.) and are there any that you recommend?

I don’t use too many – I’m still too paralysed by what Eddie Izzard calls ‘techno-fear’, despite being an internet user for 14 years. I use statcounter and that’s it. Once my PhD is done I have a few plans for the site, but they’ll have to wait until then.

What are your thoughts regarding the popularity of particular posts? Are you ever surprised by what people find of interest (or don’t)?

It never ceases to amaze me how some searches end up on the blog, particularly those looking for pictures of women’s body parts! It’s always interesting to see posts detailing the minutiae of small far left parties attract more attention than say an analysis of the predicament of the Labour party or a look at a piece of research. Interesting but not surprising – debates on the merits or otherwise of competing left groups always exercised the bulk of posts in the UK Left Network’s heyday.

Who do you write for? Do you have a target reader? If not, How do you decide what does & does not need explaining?

I guess my primary audiences are Marxists and other passing left-wingers. Occasionally I do write for a broader audience and that sometimes gets picked up and highlighted by bigger blogs. There’s also a small number of academics who pop by from time to time. So when I write a post I have a good idea of who’s going to read it, and from there I set the level of assumed knowledge. Even if I’m writing about something complex I try and keep it readable (either explaining or linking to explanations of technical terms as I go along). See the recent postings of my old Masters’ dissertation or last winter’s reading of Georg Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness for example.

Do you set yourself any format restrictions (e.g. length, tone, style)?

I’m very aware of TL;DR! Though it varies - 1,500 words tends to be my maximum. I also always write in Arial. Style varies from piece to piece – it usually depends on the literary merits of what I’m reading at that moment!

Since you began blogging, have you noticed any significant changes in the blogosphere?

Yes, blog designs are much better! There’s more of an intersection between blogging and other social media. Blogs are taken a bit more seriously by the political commentariat. Overall quality of left wing blogging has improved and there’s more of us about.

Is there any advice that you would like to offer to other bloggers?

If blogging is an adjunct to your political activity then you’ll never run out of things to write on. Also just ignore or ban any trolls you attract. They can be the most awful time thieves.

Anything else to add?

Thanks for interviewing me!


Original here.