No War But The Class War

On 26th January Surrey ACG jointly hosted a No War But The Class War meeting with the Communist Workers' Organisation in Dorking. Fifteen people were there which was a pretty good attendance. Members of the SPGB came down from London and the CWO had members attend from Surrey and London. It was a decent discussion and after the formal meeting, people stayed on for some beers. The meeting was part of the ongoing NWBTCW initiative by the ACG and CWO and we agreed to produce a brief statement to attract other internationalists to future meetings around the UK.

Windrush – Tories, Labour, LibDems all guilty!

Thanks to Windrush, Amber Rudd has fallen. She became the necessary sacrifice to save the Theresa May government. She has been replaced as Home Secretary by Sajid Javid, the first Black, Asian Minority Ethnic member to sit in one of the three most important positions within the State. 

 

Rudd was forced to resign because she was caught lying about targets for deportation and to save Theresa May herself, the previous Home Secretary.

In 2016 almost 40,000 people were removed from the United Kingdom or left “voluntarily” after receiving threatening letters. Many others have been detained at ferry terminals and airports and sent to another country under the “deport first, appeal later” process. In addition, at least 10,000 others have waited for more than six months for decisions on claiming asylum and because they cannot work, live on an allowance of £37.75 a week, which reduces them to extreme circumstances.

This hostile environment, this intimidating atmosphere did not originate under Rudd and neither did it under Theresa May. We have to go back to the Labour Party under Blair for that. In fact “hostile environment” was first used as a term in February 2010 in a Home Office report which said: “This strategy sets out how we will continue our efforts to cut crime and make the UK a hostile environment for those that seek to break our laws or abuse our hospitality.” This was the Home Office presided over by Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson. He gloated over the destruction and clearance of the “Jungle camps” by the French authorities in 2009. When asked in Parliament “Would you deport a family whose children know no home other than the United Kingdom?” Johnson replied: “It is not my personal job to do the deportation. If that was the judgement, having gone through due process, then yes”.

It ended up with the Labour election campaign of the same year with the slogan “Controls on immigration. I’m voting Labour” on mugs and badges. And only 18 Labour MPS (including Corbyn and Diane Abbott) voted against the Immigration Act in 2014.

The hostile attitude to immigrants continued under the coalition government with the nodding complicity of the Liberal Democrats and then under the Conservatives ruling alone. Rudd escalated the policy as she had promised to the previous Home Secretary and now Prime Minister Theresa May. This was all done knowingly, with an awareness of the terrible consequences for so many working class families.

The destruction of thousands of documents related to Windrush incomers also points to a hostile environment, making it more difficult for people to prove their status.
Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry backed the checks on people looking for jobs, homes and healthcare, which were brought in by the 2014 Immigration Act. She defended Alan Johnson by saying that “The words were used but the culture was not!!"

We should also recall that after the referendum on the EU in 2016, Corbyn stated on several occasions that immigration controls would remain in place under Labour. Diane Abbott went on to state that Labour did not condone an amnesty, and when questioned, remained silent on what Labour would do about illegal immigrants.

So far, the controversy has centred on Windrush migrants but already tens of EU citizens have been refused permanent residence. We should resist the attempt to divide people into “good migrants”, those who emigrated to Britain from the Commonwealth from the 1940s onwards and “bad” migrants, those from the EU. In particular Boris Johnson is pushing this line with his hard Brexit politics which envisages the re-establishment of better relations, both economic and trading with the Commonwealth countries.

So will the appointment of Javid make a blind bit of difference? The answer is a categoric NO! Many residents of the UK are under the illusion that they have the right to live in Britain. They are kept in the dark about the need to apply for “settled status” whilst others under threat include all those family dependents like children and the elderly who believe that other family members are UK citizens just because they live here!

Javid will change the language from emphasis on targets and deportations but in fact it will be business as usual. He has already been caught out after denying that any members of the Windrush generation had been illegally deported. In fact, this went beyond them and included someone originally from Somalia who was a legal British citizen. The head of Home Office Immigration, Hugh Ind, admitted that such illegal deportations had taken place and said he did not know why Javid and the immigration minister, Caroline Nokes, claimed to be unaware of this.

It should be remembered that in the past Sajid Javid has supported every aspect of the “hostile environment” policy including voting to extend powers to deport before appeal on human rights grounds.

Meanwhile members of the Windrush generation are excluded from Britain after having gone away on holiday, are interned in camps like Yarl’s Wood, are illegally deported and are harassed with threatening notices and denied work and access to health services after checks. Some have lost earnings because their employers sacked them after immigration checks.
At the same time we heard of the women who went on a hunger and work strike at Yarl’s Wood after being detained there indefinitely. In response to the strike they were issued with letters threatening them with accelerated deportation if they continued with their protest. This was all condoned and enacted by Caroline Nokes.

Capitalism and the State use racism and xenophobia to divide and weaken us. We should resist the increasing levels of racism and xenophobia that both the May regime and the mass media are peddling. We should argue against the false divide between “deserving” and “undeserving” migrants. We should mobilise against the “immigration removal centres” like Yarl’s Wood run by companies like Serco, where conditions are appalling and detainees are treated abysmally, and we should fight for the closing down of these centres.

The treatment of the Windrush generation is appalling but we can’t just say that and forget about those who have not been here for as long who are suffering the same treatment. We should not draw any difference between which refugees and immigrants we show solidarity with.

Oppose All Borders! For Internationalism!

 

Bristol Radical History Group

Check this excellent website by the Bristol Radical History Group. As they say themselves: "Since 2006 BRHG have organised over 250 events; staging walks, talks, gigs, recreations, films, exhibitions, trips through the archives and fireside story telling. We have several active research projects, publish a range of books and pamphlets and host an archive on this website.
BRHG projects and events are organised by local people from Bristol and are NOT funded by universities, political parties, business or local government. To break even we rely on members giving their labour for free, donations from the audiences and the sale of publications.
BRHG are associated with several other history groups in Bristol including Remembering the Real World War One, Eastville Workhouse Memorial Group and the Counter-Colston Group. BRHG have also recently become a member of the International History From Below Network."

Bristol Radical History Group

The New London Plan

The new London Plan: more of the same- profits for the rich, crumbs for the rest of us. 

 

The draft London Plan was released at the end of November 2017 and is open to ‘consultation’ until the beginning of March. Given how little the Mayor and his officers listened to those consulted whilst formulating the draft, it is unlikely that any major changes will be made.  

It is easy enough to understand the reality behind the new draft London Plan once we ignore the meaningless phrases such as ‘good growth’, ‘affordable’, ‘resilience’ and ‘inclusive’. Firstly, the Plan is only a framework and the word ‘should’ is the most used word. This means that even if the aims are desirable, they can be ignored if they turn out to be economically unrealistic. In addition, most of the planning powers lie with local boroughs. The London Plan is only a series of guidelines which again can be ignored by local councils if deemed ‘necessary’. So even if some aspects of the Plan seem positive, it is effectively meaningless if they are only guidelines. Local boroughs are prone, as we have seen again and again, to do what is ‘economically necessary’.  

The main reason that the Plan lacks any real substance is that the key assumption underlying this Plan, as all other previous ones, is that the future of London is to be dominated by the needs of private corporations. Instead of remaining in public hands or being transferred to community co-operatives, land is being handed on a plate to private corporate interests. This is because it is assumed that this is the only way to get the needed finance. This immediately limits the ability of the Plan to deliver any of its objectives. The goal of private capital is to make profit not to create the kind of city that Londoners want to (and can afford to!) live in.  

This can be shown by considering the implications for housing and the environment. In order to increase the number of houses councils encourage private property developers to either take over estate regeneration or else provide land on which to build residential properties. Or else, the developers can buy the land themselves from another private owner. However, they get hold of the land, the next step is to get planning permission to build homes. The new London Plan 

wants ‘densification’ and ‘intensification’ of land use. This is the same as what has already been happening. It simply means that in order to make the most profit out of a piece of land, as many properties as possible need to be squeezed into a piece of land. This will include a combination of tall building, more dwellings squashed together and/or less floor space per property. Tall buildings have the added advantage of being able to offer ‘views’ which can be marketed to the very wealthy. (How many of the world’s rich have a penthouse suite in London? To offer this to all the wealthy of the world means a hell of a lot of tall buildings!) 

The new privately-built developments are the main way of getting new homes. It is already admitted that the vast majority of new homes built in the past few years are not affordable for the vast majority of Londoners. The new Plan attempts to address this issue. However, despite having new definitions of ‘affordable’ (below the current 80% of market rents), the rents will still be above council or social rents. This means that they will still be higher than what the majority of Londoners can afford. And, this will be only 50%, at the very most, of the new properties being built. If we look at the figures in another way, we can say that between 50 and 100% of new properties built in London will be unaffordable for the vast majority of Londoners. So just like now, the new Plan means we will be getting higher and higher buildings, less green and open spaces, smaller flats, and no family homes with gardens. This is all so that we can provide more and more properties for the well-off and the buy-to-let or the buy-to-leave investor 

In terms of land use, this focus on enabling property developers to make as much profit as they can on London land makes it difficult to fulfil other aims such as for more green and open spaces and reducing pollution. At most, developers will tick the ‘green box’ by planting some trees or putting in a few green patches, squeezed in between the high buildings. Despite developments supposedly being ‘car-free’, those who can afford the high prices will find some way of having their car in London, creating even more traffic-congested streets. 

This plan, like plans before it, is a gold-mine for the property developer and landlord and a disaster for the majority of Londoners. However, it is not by more lobbying of the GLA that we will get any change. We must continue and intensify our grass roots campaigns and direct action, including protests against property developers, squatting and occupations. We must not only campaign for public housing but also for more green and open spaces and less pollutions, in general for the kind of London we want to live in.  

Written by London Anarchist Communists and originally posted on their blog:
The New London Plan

What is Communist Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman

Alexander Berkman's classic book What is Communist Anarchism published in about 1929 is now available in epub and mobi file formats from Libcom.org

https://libcom.org/library/what-is-anarchism-alexander-berkman

alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism.mobi

Iran - The Working Class Raises Its Head

An analysis of the situation in Iran from an anarchist communist perspective.

After the “moderate” cleric Hassan Rouhani was re-elected in the Iranian presidential elections of 2017 his regime which had been pushing neo-liberal ideas continued on the same course.  The public health service has been slashed so much it hardly exists, and job and workplace security have gone. Many jobs are now precarious (short-term contracts etc.) whilst the professionals-doctors, technicians, etc. have seen their living standards pushed down drastically. Whilst the capital Tehran has been allowed to grow, many regional cities and towns have seen conditions deteriorate, and the same goes for provision to the various ethnic groups within Iran.

Many people have been forced to cut back drastically on foodstuffs they had previously considered as essential (dairy and meat products). Unemployment is rampant. There is a whole swathe of young people born in the 1980s, many of whom are college and university graduates who have not been able to get jobs, or if they have are earning very low wages. Unemployment runs at 40% or more among young people.

The past year has seen a number of low-key and little reported demonstrations, rallies and sit-ins. These include bus drivers supporting their independent organisations, pensioners protesting against increasing attacks on their allowances, teachers and nurses protesting against their conditions, and students opposing the privatisation of education.

Rouhani pushed a new plan for unpaid internships which was strongly opposed by students. A leading activist among the bus drivers was imprisoned and treated appallingly.

This situation was aggravated by the earthquake of November 12^th.  Those who survived were treated contemptuously by officials which brought a wave of widespread disgust amongst the Iranian population. This was further aggravated by the annual budget announcement of the Rouhani regime. Damage from the earthquakes ran at $600 million but the government failed to provide a reconstruction programme, leaving this up to donations from individuals! On the other hand various propaganda bodies of the regime received a budget of $15. Fuel prices were increased by 50%. No funds were provided for state construction programmes.

In addition to this there was a growing awareness of widespread corruption and embezzlement among officials of the regime.

Matters came to a head with the first protest in Iran’s second city Mashdad on December 28th. This city is a stronghold of the mullahs and has been a tax haven for the regime’s functionaries. At the same time has seen a huge growth of slum areas.

It seems that the initial Mashdad protest was set off by fundamentalists of the political establishment opposed to Rouhani’s “reformist” line- that is in opposition to his opening up Iran to foreign investment and a comparatively softer line to the West. However the protests quickly spread from Mashdad to other towns and cities and took on a different character. Heavily involved in the protests were many young people, those between the ages of fifteen and thirty, with no jobs and no job prospects or in precarious work situations.  The protests centred on economic conditions, the corruption of the elite and the budget. Initial slogans of “Down with high prices!” were soon supplemented by “Down with the dictator” and “Death to Khamenei”- Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran. In addition many were concerned about the regime’s involvement in armed intervention in Syria and Iraq. This attempt by the regime to increase its influence in the region has resulted in growing anger about not just lives expended in these ventures but vast amounts spent on wars whilst poverty and unemployment increase dramatically at home. This resulted in another slogan chanted on the streets:” Forget about Syria- think about us!”

Another factor at play has been the threat of climate change with drought severely affecting crops. Two summers ago, the oil town of Bandar-e Mahshahr experienced a temperature of 163 degrees Fahrenheit. It is predicted that if worldwide emissions are not reduced drastically then  by 2070 the Persian Gulf could experience temperatures impossible or humans to survive.

But the protests have been riddled with contradictions with politicians pushing bourgeois democracy attempting to hijack the protests, as well as supporters of the overthrown Shah and various reactionary religious currents. This was countered by many among the youth taking part in the protests. Reactionary slogans that appeared like “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I will die only for Iran”  and “We are Aryans, we don’t worship Arabs” were countered with “From Gaza to Iran, down with the exploiters”. Other slogans referred to the setting up of people’s councils and against the false division between reformist and fundamentalist tendencies of the regime.

Tens of thousands have taken part in protests and at least twenty one have been killed by the brutal security forces, and many arrested. The regime claimed victory, with General Mohammad Ali Jafari, leader of the Revolutionary Guards, a paramilitary force that has kept the regime in power for decades, saying “Today we announce the end of the sedition”. However, since then protests have continued to break out.

The regime has attempted to blame the protests are being managed by the USA and its regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. Indeed Trump has tweeted his “support” for the protestors. The emergence of the Iranian working class in these protests contradicts all of this. Trump has overseen the rich in the United States being rewarded with huge tax cuts. To pay for this means huge attacks on health care, social security and other welfare benefits. And of course there are the many allegations of corruption against the Trump regime. How different is the situation for American workers from that of Iranian workers?

Similarly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised the protestors. Again, how different is the situation of workers within the Israeli state when thousands have protested there against the corruption of the Netanyahu administration at the same time as the protests in Iran?

We also have “anti-imperialist” leftists chiming in, especially in the USA, implying the protests are manipulated by the CIA and tacitly supporting the theocratic regime in Iran.

For ourselves, as anarchist communists, we support the developing protests of the working class in Iran. Repression may temporarily stop this movement but it is a sign of the working class re-asserting itself as crises continue in all the political institutions around the world, including within the left parties. The 2008 financial crisis resulted in massive attacks on the working class around the world, attacks on pensions and social benefits, the slashing of public services, increasing divisions between rich and poor and a constant threat of war. Now these pressures are resulting in re-emerging revolts.

Finally, the 1979 revolution in Iran which overthrew the Shah saw huge demonstrations, the occupation of factories and the development of workers’ councils. It was thought impossible that such a heavily armed regime as that of the Shah could be overthrown, yet it happened. This was betrayed by the Stalinist Tudeh party, which had great influence among the working class. Tudeh’s decision to ally with the Shia cleric the Ayatollah Khomeini because he was seen as a progressive leader of a democratic revolution, enabled him to come to power. As a result Tudeh was silenced as were all left and progressive groups. The strong secular traditions in Iran were smothered. Khomeini recuperated some of the demands of the 1979 Revolution with pseudo-socialist rhetoric whilst at the same time calling for national unity and creating illusions in the common interests of the rich and poor.

Ayatollah Khomeini was a misogynist of the first order. The Family Protection Law enacted under the Shah’s regime was suspended and women once more were at the mercy of men within the family. The Islamic dress code was imposed on women including girls from the first grade in school. At first pushing for population growth, the regime later reversed this policy and brought in a highly successful family planning programme, which resulted in Iran having the lowest population growth in the region. The regime reversed this again when it cut off funding to the programme in 2012.

The marriage age for girls was reduced to puberty, the age of nine under Islamic law. Punishments of flogging, stoning and payment of blood money were introduced in 1981 for crimes like adultery and violation of the Islamic dress code.

Government funded day centres were closed down, making it difficult to stay in work.

Women had played an important role in the 1979 Revolution. Khomeini used cooption to tame this development. Women’s right to vote was retained as was right to run in elections and women served in government positions at a national and local level. However they were often demoted or dismissed or given early retirement from these positions.

During the first ten years of the theocratic regime, women in work fell from 13% of the population to 8.6%. The Iran –Iraq war meant that women came forward as nurses, doctors and in other support roles. Rafsanjani, one of the founders of the regime was able to mobilise women’s votes and portrayed himself as a comparative liberal as regards women’s rights. It was he who installed the family planning programme. These policies were continued under the next president Mohammad Khatami. With the coming to power of Ahmadinejad these trends were reversed. The family planning programme was closed down.

Under Rouhani a loosening of attitudes as regards dress code was allowed, but this was against the move by security forces to clamp down on any development of feminism. But now women are involving themselves in the protests. One brave woman removed her hijab during a recent protest and waved it around on a stick to protest the dress code. We hope this is a sign of things to come. A successful revolution in Iran depends utterly on the role of women within it. The liberation of women must be a major motif of that revolution.

The rule by mullahs has lasted almost four decades. It rests primarily on the subjection of women and of the working class. Next time the working class moves into action in Iran it has to sweep away the mullahs, be they “fundamentalist” or “reformist”.