Liam redux

It's nice to be nice – buy Permanent Revolution

I know there is a strong moral obligation to be sneering, sarcastic and negative when writing blog entries about other political currents. I’m going to buck the trend both today and later in the week. As a sequel to my rave review of yesterday’s ESOL demo here’s another short one about the current issue of…

Liam
1–2 minutes

I know there is a strong moral obligation to be sneering, sarcastic and negative when writing blog entries about other political currents. I’m going to buck the trend both today and later in the week. As a sequel to my rave review of yesterday’s ESOL demo here’s another short one about the current issue of Permanent Revolution.

It’s already onto its fourth issue and for my money is becoming one of the indispensable reads on the British far left. True this is not as hotly contested a field as the most anti-social bore on the left but it’s an achievement of sorts.

Three pieces really stood out though I should add I’ve not read the whole thing yet. The first, by Alison Higgins and Clare Heath, looks at those microcredit schemes which are all the rage with NGOs and neoliberals. The article does a real demolition job on the theory behind them locating their growth in the destruction of state provision and the privatisation of health care in the developing world.

Bill Jefferies and Mark Hoskisson provide a very well argued and thoughtful response to Martin Smith’s recent major article on the nature of the working class in Britain. It must be right because I agree with it. Their judgement on the extent of the political defeat Thatcherism inflicted on the British working class is a real antidote for all the boosterism that passes for a lot of analysis at the minute.

A letter from Helen Ward on market forces and climate changes is a first class short summary of the arguments in favour of progressive taxation and the fallacies surrounding carbon trading.

It’s not just the content which is impressive. The design is terrific too. It’s a tribute to the comrades that they are able to sustain such a high level of activity and produce a journal of this quality. Try and get hold of it.

31 responses to “It's nice to be nice – buy Permanent Revolution”

  1. Nathaniel Avatar
    Nathaniel

    They don’t publish their magazine on their website? That’s strange.I haven’t read a left-wing/Marxist critique/demolition of the microcredit stuff yet, so I was looking forward to checking that out.

    Like

    Reply
  2. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    yes they do! But not the current issue.cheersbill j

    Like

    Reply
  3. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    forgot to add the linkhttp://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=category&cat=16

    Like

    Reply
  4. AN Avatar
    AN

    Is this issue better than previous ones then?I have read it on-line in the past and thought it poor.A good example being the very poor analysis of the crisis in the SSP by Mark Hosskinson published last year that (setting aside the shrill ultra left politics) was wrong on a number of really basic facts (even down to the name of the CWI’s groups in Scotland!)

    Like

    Reply
  5. twp Avatar
    twp

    I agree the article on the SSP was poor and told PR comrades exactly that, but I have been consistently impressed with the overall content since its launch. I have to agree with Liam here. I too thought the analysis of the Martin Smith article was spot on and it’s about time that the view on the far left which promotes the view that “not that much has changed” since the 1970s is eradicated. This is not simply because I live with George mind you. He will tell you how consistently I told him that the WP paper was a pile of rubbish as even articles that he wrote were edited beyond recognition with ultra-left tripe and by the time they were printed were more fit to adorn the bottom of a birdcage than be read by serious activists.Needless to say I have been impressed with PR’s step away from this type of sloganeering and move towards serious analysis of the world economic situation (usually the excellent analysis by Bill J.) and now the state of the British working class. Instead of preaching to the choir, it’s time more of the left start doing this serious analysis in the wake of the defeats of the 80s. It’s the only way the left will ever become revitalised.

    Like

    Reply
  6. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    thanks TWP!What was wrong with Mark’s article? I thought it managed to navigate its way around the mess pretty well, Notwithstanding any mistakes on names. I don’t think Mark has ever written a shrill or ultra left article. Tho plenty of others may have, self included.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Jim Jay Avatar
    Jim Jay

    The two issues I’ve read so far have been really excellent and very un-workers power-ish which was a very pleasant surprise.thoughtful with a clear understanding that its okay to be nuanced sometimes really thought provoking and useful stuff I thought.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    can someone put the stuff about the Martin Smith ‘state of the working class’ article on-line cos I’m buggered if I’m going to track one of this lot down to actually buy a paper copy..

    Like

    Reply
  9. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    Can someone link me to their article on the crisis in the SSP, as I can’t find it on their website.Does it offer any insight deeper than “they don’t read enough Trotsky” which was pretty much what the WSWS analysis was? I agreed 100% with Socialist Democracy’s (Irish USFI) article on the crisis.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Liam Mac Uaid Avatar
    Liam Mac Uaid

    Anonymous I’ve linked to the article. I really don’t like anonymous comments. I prefer some sort of name or pseudonym.It’s true PR is much less of a chore to read than WP used to be. Though I do have reservations about the pieces on Ireland and France.

    Like

    Reply
  11. AN Avatar
    AN

    The PR articlle on SSP is here (PDF)http://www.permanentrevolution.net/files/pr2/31-35%20SSP.pdfIt is very poor, as you say mainly “they haven’t read enoug trotsky”,but also lecturing the SSP on how Sheridan should have just side-stepped thr NOTW article. Without clue one that that was exactly the position that was put to Sheridan and which he refused to follow.Several times on discussion lists on the Brit eft Ii have read the same nonsense – not understanding that the decsiion to sue NOTW was entirely tommy and against the advice of the party,

    Like

    Reply
  12. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    Unfortunately, the link isn’t working for me. But if your description is anything to go by, then it doesn’t seem like I am missing much. Ta anyway 🙂

    Like

    Reply
  13. Muon Avatar
    Muon

    Ok I’ve chosen a name. I meant can someone post up the PR article, I’ve got the Martin Smith one, which seemed upbeat, but isn’t saying that ‘nothing’s changed since the 70s’ – that’s a caricature.

    Like

    Reply
  14. George B Avatar
    George B

    To the formerly anonymous visitor = this is the link to an earlier draft of the “Permanent Revolution” critique of the Martin Smith article from the website http://www.permanentrevolution.net//?view=entry&entry=1215 The article published in the latest journal puts flesh on the bones of the argument. It’s a bit of an oversimplification to state that it accuses Smith of saying “nothing has changed since the 1970s”, but then no blogger has a copyright on oversimplification or caricature.Cheers, George.

    Like

    Reply
  15. George B Avatar
    George B

    Regarding the article in PR 4 on France and the presidential elections, I’m sure I’ll hear Liam’s critique in full but I’ll start by saying that the article got it wrong in my view regarding the LCR in the first round. I thought that the piece should have called for a vote for its candidate, Olivier Bescanenot, and the actual results from 22 April vindicated that position.

    Like

    Reply
  16. twp Avatar
    twp

    To clarify on the SSP article for Bill. I didn’t think it was ultra-left but I did think the principled stand for socialists was the recognition of Sheridan’s blatant refusal to follow party discipline when he was instructed to do exactly as Mark said he should’ve been (AN is correct on this) as well as the blatant and disgusting sexism of Sheridan himself in cross examining former sexual partners on the stand, asking them intimate details, and then claiming that they were making everything up.I think Mark tried to write a “this is what we would’ve done” type article instead of recognising that the comrades in the SSP did the correct thing to the best of their ability and that it was clearly Sheridan who was in the wrong. There really shouldn’t have been a “middle road” on this one. However, I want to stress again that the overwhelming majority of the articles that I have read in PR are well informed and well written and I look forward to future editions.

    Like

    Reply
  17. AN Avatar
    AN

    Mark’s article on the SSP clearly is ultra-left unless the term is devoid of all meaning.Its starting point as a critique of the SSP is a false counterposition of reform and revolution that is very much in the mould of the infantilism that lenin attacks. Its characterisation of the SSP as reformist and parliamentarist are wrong in pronciple. Firtsly in failing to address the actualy existing tasks of socialists in the state of the class struggle today, but alsoo tries to appear wiser than the SSP, while in fact critiques of the SSP’s tendency twards parliamentarism comes also from within the SSp itself, including recognition of all the problems from the leadership itsellf, certainly from mcCombes.

    Like

    Reply
  18. muon Avatar
    muon

    Thanks for the link, and I really have a problem with this part:’Britain’s imperialist wealth is still used to pay for the privileges of a labour aristocracy.These layers form a powerful force within the labour movement for reformism. Indeed sections of this layer within the service sector today – the better paid and more highly skilled white collar workers, along with skilled workers in sections of manufacturing who barely warrant a mention by Smith – remain the core supporters of New Labour along with sections of the middle class. And Britain’s boom over the past years has bought their support.’Exactly where would the line be between those who benefit from imperialism and those who don’t? Would ‘better paid’ white collar workers have been better served by marching in favour of the attack on Iraq? Should they now be demanding an attack on Iran? There is much else in the article that I could comment on, but this part semed to me the core that I disagree with. If it’s true, then it’s not just a matter of increasing class confidence, a significant chunk of the working class would have no material interest in opposing capitalism.

    Like

    Reply
  19. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Still not convinced about the SSP. I don’t think they were principled to take the stand on the side of the NOTW either. I think a plague on both their houses was the right line to take. As for Lenin’s infantilism, I wonder sometimes how the pamphlet got such a bad reputation. It’s really not as right wing as people make out. The failure of the SSP (what else would people call it?) really does illustrate the split the difference, let’s not argue about the 20% when we can agree on the 80% has just not worked. I think that’s the basic theme of Mark’s article, which I think is spot on, I wouldn’t want to vouch for the details as frankly they were beyond me at the time and my memory hasn’t improved since.On the Martin Smith thing, this is a really important point, which at root lies in the SWP’s underestimation/denial of the parastic nature of British finance capital and the super-exploitation of the world. UK profitability today is at its highest ever level. It’s no conicidence that the UK has also got the highest foreign investments per capita in the world. These super profits allow the UK bosses to buy off a priveleged layer – or labour aristocracy – the figures are all available on the ONS website if you want to check them out yourself.Anyway I’m happy to say that we don’t demand everybody (or even our own supporters) necessarily love or even agree with every article. So cheers for the (generally) positive feedback.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    don’t think they were principled to take the stand on the side of the NOTW either. I think a plague on both their houses was the right line to takeWhat exactly does that mean, in concrete terms? The members of the SSP that testified in court didn’t take the side of NOTW. They were cited and appeared under protest. What should they have done? Lie for Sheridan, or just not answer the summons?Add to that the fact that the only reason the NOTW legal team had the names of the SSP members who were called to testify was because some smartarses decided to hand them a fake copy of the November 2004 EC meeting minutes, which was of course not accepted as evidence.

    Like

    Reply
  21. AN Avatar
    AN

    As for Lenin’s infantilism, I wonder sometimes how the pamphlet got such a bad reputation. It’s really not as right wing as people make out.What?Is there a current in the brit left who thinks that lenin’s pamphlet was rightist?If that is what PR think then i think case closed as to their ultra-leftism.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    Is “infantilism” what is better known to me as “Left-wing Communism: blah blah” ?

    Like

    Reply
  23. AN Avatar
    AN

    I take your point KOrakious that quoting Lenin doesn’t normally help very much. Infintilsm does indeed refer to “left wing” communism.For good or bad, the left have developed our own specialist vocabularly.And while it is more useful to judge people by what they do than what they say, I am still somewhat suprised to read here that Workers Power / PR regard Lenin’s pamphlet as right wing.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    As it happens, I am doing my dissertation on Lenin and the Left Communists so said pamphlet will feature prominently. I’ll probably make a long post when I’ve reread it. It’s been quite some time since I last did.

    Like

    Reply
  25. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Please at least bother to read the person you are polemicising againstI said Left wing communism is “really not as right wing as people make out.”Take for example Lenin’s summary of how socialists should use parliament;”Criticism — the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling — to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and communist manner.”Now explain how the SSP used parliament in a revolutionary and communist manner, when you both refused and opposed using the words either communism or revolution and you will understand the thrust of Mark’s critique.

    Like

    Reply
  26. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    Now explain how the SSP used parliament in a revolutionary and communist manner, when you both refused and opposed using the words either communism or revolution and you will understand the thrust of Mark’s critique.Form and content? How useful exactly would it be to use the words “communism” and “revolution” in a non-sovereign bourgeois parliament, in an imperialist metropolis, in a historical low point of class struggle?Isn’t it instead more productive, to use parliament to establish the SSP as a legitimate alternative to the bourgeois vanguards, which is also explicitly against capitalism per se, rather than against neo liberalism? The only possible use parliament can have in the concrete situation of 2007 Scotland is as an instrument for the establishment of our hegemony.

    Like

    Reply
  27. Liam Mac Uaid Avatar
    Liam Mac Uaid

    JESUS! This post was called “It’s nice to be nice”. Not “Let’s have a big row”.

    Like

    Reply
  28. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    yes soz.

    Like

    Reply
  29. Korakious Avatar
    Korakious

    JESUS! This post was called “It’s nice to be nice”. Not “Let’s have a big row”. Hoho. You can’t possibly expect not to have a row when discussing trot sects!

    Like

    Reply
  30. Jason T Avatar
    Jason T

    It may be a little unfair to call us a sect. Though we are currently very small, no doubting that!However, I think it is possible to have animated discussion and disagreement whilst still being polite, friendly, comradely and even nice.In terms of our attitude to the ssp- I can’t see how it is ultraleft to criticise another group for not being explicit about the need for a revolution. What may be ultraleft could be to refuse to engage in joint work with the comrades of the ssp but where possible we have indeed engaged in joint work- though the only practical example I know about was over the defy section 9 conference last year partly organised by members of what is now Permanent Revolution but I’m sure there are other examples. And indeed it would be good to continue the work on antideportation and other campaigning against immigration controls. As I say we are currently quite small but obviously want to extend ourt influence to build united front campaigns for action by the working class and to win militants to revolutionary socialism and debate our ideas about how we can build a revolutionary left- notice I say debate- we don’t claim to have all the answers just some of the questions and may be part of some of the answers. So let’s continue to be nice etc but not mistake polite difference of opinion and critique for having a row!Jason

    Like

    Reply
  31. josh Avatar
    josh

    Sorry but I can’t take PR seriously at all after that stuff in the Weekly Worker about texting ex partners and their reply.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

Trending