NO. 8 • NOVEMBER 2016 • PRICE £1.00 • REDFLAGONLINE.ORG

Editorial: Momentum has great potential - if its members can winthe first serious struggle for democracy P3

THE ABANDONMENT of over 1,000 children in tincontainers at the squalid Calais “Jungle” refugee camp isthe culmination of 13 years of inhuman and criminal ef-forts by the French and British governments to escaperesponsibility for the refugee crisis.

After the French government used riot police andbulldozers to clear up to 10,000 refugees, up to 1,000children and teenagers remained behind. The charityHelp Refugees reported that amid the fires, confusionand chaos, around 100 minors remained inside thecamp. It said it knew of at least 49 children under the ageof 13, eligible to come to the UK, who remain stranded.

The UK is able to shirk its international treaty obliga-tions on refugee rights thanks to Tony Blair and formerFrench president Jacques Chirac. Following a vitrioliccampaign against asylum seekers in 2003, the two gov-ernments negotiated the Le Touquet agreement whicheffectively shifted the UK border to Calais.

By refusing to register refugees’ claims for UK asylumin Calais, thousands of people with a legal right to claimasylum have been abandoned to limbo in the Frenchport, subjected to harassment by police and fascistgroups.

Now Theresa May and the Tory ministers arrogantlytell the French to register all refugees in France but theywill graciously allow maybe as many as 200 children in.But even this was too much for the rabid Tory press.When a handful arrived they set up a shameful hue andcry that they were not children at all.

This is the Britain that prides itself on admitting Jew-ish refugee children from Nazi Germany in the 1930s(the Kindertransport). However even here the boasting

needs to be put in context. Courageous British Jews,Labour and Communist organisations, churches andcharities campaigned for this. But Jewish organisationscalculate that for the 10,000 children actually admitted,half a million applications by Jews were rejected.

Then as now the press stoked fears of a flood ofrefugees. A 1938 clipping from the Daily Mail read

“‘The way stateless Jews and Germans are pouring infrom every port of this country is becoming an outrage.I intend to enforce the law to the fullest.’” In these words,Mr Herbert Metcalde, the Old Street Magistrate yester-day referred to the number of aliens entering this coun-try through the ‘back door’ — a problem to which theDaily Mail has repeatedly pointed.”

Last year the same papers ran articles denouncing thefact that some refugees are given three cooked meals aday, £35 in cash each week and put up in hotels whendedicated centres are full. Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke toldjournalists: “It is outrageous that asylum seekers arebeing put up in hotel rooms at public expense. It’s thissort of soft touch that makes this country so attractive tomigrants.”

Under a headline in the Daily Express (31 October)“How dare the French lecture us about EU migrants”,regular columnist Leo McKinstry incites hatred againstrefugee children, claiming they are “hulking young menrather than vulnerable children”.

But he has a more general political message:“... Tragically parts of the French capital have been

transformed into a sprawling squalid migrant camps.Many central Paris streets are lined with rows of filthytents, put up by young men from Africa and Asia who

think that Europe owes them a living. This mess is a sym-bol of the deepening immigration disaster inflicted onthe continent by treacherous, unpatriotic politicians. TheEU has made a fetish of open borders and multicultur-alism. Now in Paris we can glimpse the destructive con-sequences of that ideology.”

The racist assumptions glare are out from every nastyword and phrase.

The Labour Party and the trade unions need to coun-terattack this racist onslaught. We must demand thatBritain – as an immediate measure at least - opens itsdoors to all the refugees in Calais or dispersed to tem-porary accomodation. We need to ensure that Labourcouncils (as some have already done) take the initiativein welcoming them, providing decent housing, food,clothing, access to schools and healthcare.

The anxieties about refugees and migrant workers,where they are not simply a product of the relentlessracism of the press, have roots in decaying social serv-ices, social housing, underpaid jobs - issues that are di-rectly related to the years of cuts imposed on all of these.Working people here have far more in common withworkers from all countries and with refugees from warscaused by our own rulers, than we do with the bossesand bankers - the real parasites on our labour.

In Britain today only the labour movement can ad-dress these challenges, and by winning power both lo-cally and nationally redress them. Meanwhile, tradeunions and local Labour parties need to take the fightagainst racism into the schools, workplaces and housingestates – educating those seduced by the racist lies andslurs, and isolating and shaming the hardened bigots

Welcome the refugeesLabour needs tooffer a workingclass alternativeto racism

PAGES 4&5

PAGE 7

PAGE 6

LABOURCOUNCILSNEED TOCHANGESTRATEGY

BRITAINCOMPLICITIN SAUDIWARCRIMES

PSOE CRISIS GIVES PODEMOS CHANCE

TO LEAD FIGHTBACK

#FEESMUSTFALLSouth African students are in the middle of a bitter but inspiring fight forfree education P6

THEREDFLAG

Join onlinewww.redflagonline.org/join

Where we standAGAINST AUSTERITY

100% opposition to Tory austerity. No cuts towelfare, services, jobs or pay.

End cruel benefits sanctions – stop forcing dis-abled people to work.

Tax the rich, not the poor: raise taxes on busi-ness and the wealthy. Clamp down on tax avoid-ance.

A PLANNED ECONOMYTake over the banks and financial institutions

without compensation. Merge the banks into a sin-gle state-owned investment bank under directdemocratic control of the working class majority.

Jobs for all. For a massive programme of in-vestment to create socially useful, sustainablejobs. End precarious working – make casual con-tracts permanent, including apprenticeships.

Share the work. Cut the hours to a maximum30 hour working week and reduce the retirementage to 60 for all.

Promote a planned shift to sustainable energy.Nationalise the top monopolies under workers

control and without compensation. This to includethe great food, water, energy, transport, infrastruc-ture, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, property, re-tail, technology and telecoms conglomerates.

Draw up a socialist economic plan throughmass direct democracy, matching production anddistribution to popular need not private greed.

Cancel the national debt to the private bond-holders and refuse to submit to blackmail from in-ternational financial institutions.

END EXPLOITATIONRaise the minimum wage to £10 an hour, for

all, regardless of age.Work or full pay. Benefits for the unemployed

and pensions for the retired at the level of mini-mum wage or final salary, whichever is higher.Pensions to be nationalised and guaranteed.

End the pay freeze. Peg wages to a people’scost of living index.

PUBLIC SERVICES Build and improve publicly owned social hous-

ing all over Britain, freezing rents, guaranteeingtenancies, stopping the sell-off of estates.

A National Education Service from cradle tograve, free at the point of delivery. Bring all schoolsand nurseries under public ownership under con-trol of parents, teachers and pupils.

Massive investment in health including mentalhealth services.

Scrap student fees and loan schemes. A living

grant for all.End PFI/PPP and renationalise privatised serv-

ices. Restore local democracy: end the cap onlocal authority spending.

DEMOCRACYAbolish anti-trade union laws. Employment pro-

tection from day one.Votes at 16 for all regardless of nationality.Nationalise the media, guarantee right to reply,

launch new mass media under democratic controlof the labour movement.

Abolish the Monarchy, the House of Lords, thePrivy Council.

For a single chamber, elected by proportionalrepresentation.

Self-determination for Scotland and Wales, in-cluding the right to separate from the UK if a ma-jority choose it.

NO TO OPPRESSIONNo to racism in all its forms, to Islamophobia,

anti-Semitism and national chauvinism.No to sexism, complete equality for women,

equal pay now.No to oppression and discrimination against

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.Free abortion on demand.24-hour free childcare facilities for all.No to discrimination on grounds of disability.

Abolish Work Capability Assessment, reinstate allbenefits.

INTERNATIONALISMCancel Trident.Britain out of NATO.Welcome refugees and migrants. Yes to free-

dom of movement, no to immigration controls.No more imperialist wars. Britain out of NATO.

Troops out of Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, Ire-land and all overseas postings.

Don’t bomb Syria – no to British wars. Solidaritywith Syrians and Kurds fighting ISIS and Assad.

Stop backing Israel, its occupations and wars.Boycott Israel and support Palestinian self-deter-mination and the return of Palestinian refugees.

Break ties with the far right Ukrainian govern-ment.

Not a penny or a person for the defence of thebillionaires’ system. Not a standing army loyal tothe establishment, but a defence force of the work-ing class majority.

No to the undemocratic institutions of the EU.No to a British nationalist walkout – for a UnitedSocialist States of Europe.

THE LABOUR MOVEMENTWe can revive the Labour Party and the trade

unions, recruiting the young and the old, the work-ing and the unemployed, the casual workers,women, black and Asian people, migrant workers,LGBT people, the skilled and unskilled, the man-ual and the office workers.

End the bans on socialists and the purge of newmembers. Restore the right of local Labour Partiesto select and if necessary deselect their local andparliamentary candidates.

Full policy-making powers to be in the hands ofthe membership, not the MPs or grandees.

Labour MPs to be under the democratic controlof the party’s membership, not the other wayround.

For a democratic and socialist constitution forLabour that sets public ownership and socialismas our goals.

For workplace Labour Party branches andmass Labour women’s, BME, LGBT and youth or-ganisations.

Labour councils should refuse to carry out Torycuts and rally nationwide resistance including co-ordinated strike action against undemocratic Torydisqualifications and any attempted imposition ofcommissioners.

All Labour and union officials to be subject toregular re-election and to the right of the membersto recall them, and to be paid the average wageof the workers they represent.

For cross-union and cross-industrial commit-tees of workers that can take action even againstthe wishes of union officials where necessary.

Workers of all countries, unite – build an inter-national union of revolutionary socialist parties.

REVOLUTIONA left-wing Labour government should not ac-

cept the sabotage of the rich, but should be aworkers’ government and take power out of thehands of the unelected civil servants, CEOs, se-curity chiefs and generals.

We need a mass party committed to revolution,which will mean the forcible dispossession of theruling class through direct action from below,breaking up their unelected apparatus of coercion,taking power into the hands of workers’ councilsand a working class defence force.

Today hundreds of thousands of people arechanging British politics. Soon millions can changeBritain. All together, we can bring down the Toriesand open the road to a working class governmentand a social revolution.

Red Flag is an organisation that campaignsfor a mass working class party with social-ist policies.

We are members of the Labour Party be-cause we believe that under new leadershipit can help the working class defeat auster-ity and put forward a radical alternative.

We want to see Labour adopt a new pro-gramme that is the product of democraticdebate at all levels of the party. We supportthe call for a special conference to adoptthe programme and institute genuinedemocracy to ensure the party’s leadersand representatives are genuinely account-able to the members.

Our newspaper aims to foster debateand promote comprehensive socialist poli-cies to meet the needs of the working classand all people oppressed by capitalism.

We stand for the principle that there canbe no socialism without women’s libera-tion and no women’s liberation without so-cialism and work to instill consistentanti-sexist attitudes and policies in all partsof the movement.

As anti-racists we oppose all forms ofprejudice and discrimination based onskin colour, religion or nationality.

Within the trade unions, community or-ganisations and progressive campaigns wework for the greatest possible unity in ac-tion.

Our goal is a socialist society in whichthe industrial, environmental and culturalresources of the world are managed collec-tively in order to meet the needs of all andabolish poverty, exploitation, oppressionand conflict.

Red Flag welcomes debate within themovement. Please email your letters, reports or articles for consideration to theeditors at contact@redflagonline.org.

REDFLAGONLINE.ORG

07478330061

RED FLAG @REDFLAGLABOUR

BM BOX 7750 LONDON WC1N 3XX

CONTACT@REDFLAGONLINE.ORG

THE RED FLAG • ISSUE 8 • NOVEMBER 20162

PREPARATIONS FOR Momentum’s national confer-ence hit a snag after the Steering Committee cancelledthe National Committee for the seventh month run-ning and asserted that the conference would take placethrough an online ballot of all members, rather thanwith delegates.

Following protests from branches and regionalcommittees, the Steering Committee has agreed toconvene the National Committee in December.

As we go to press, a vague statement from theSteering Committee appears to indicate that a fakecompromise has been reached, which will involve a

delegate conference that won’t be able to vote. Instead votes will be carried outonline after the conference.

If true this means that those who originally cancelled the National Commit-tee and tried to impose an online ballot have got their way. If the delegates sentto conference by the branches are not able to vote following their discussions,then the meeting will effectively be a talking shop and a waste of time andmoney. The National Committee in December should overturn this decision.

CONFERENCEComing well over a year after the organisation was founded, this will be the firstchance members will have to debate and decide what Momentum stands for andhow it works. 

It’s important that we get this right. Momentum has had a number of suc-cesses in its first year. Most important was the huge mobilisation of membersand supporters around the country, phone-banking, leafletting, tweeting, or-ganising rallies and meetings, to re-elect Jeremy Corbyn. 

Momentum’s 20,000 members and 150-plus local groups are a testament tothe hard work of its activists. The World Transformed event in Liverpool wasa high point, demonstrating what the commitment and enthusiasm of volun-teers can achieve. But there have been problems too.

Local groups have complained about the lack of access to databases of mem-bers and supporters. Emails have to be vetted by the “centre”. Endorsements forelections are agreed without democratic oversight. If there was a Momentumpresence at the Labour Party conference, most supporters didn’t know aboutit.  Jon Lansman’s statements that Momentum does not support mandatory re-selection get publicity - but they are not our policy.

On the two most serious political offensives carried out by the right wing -the weaponisation of antisemitism to smear anti-Zionist activists and the purgeof socialists and Corbyn supporters - Momentum has failed to give adequateleadership.

In the end these problems revolve around competing visions of what Mo-mentum is for. We believe that Momentum should be a democratic organisationthat develops socialist policies for the movement and a strategy to implementthem - a big part of which is campaigning within the Labour Party. People likeJon Lansman and Paul Mason believe that Momentum should not have policy,that it should just be a database for influential Labour lefts to mine for internalelections and twitter campaigns. This will dissipate its potential.

LOOKING AHEADThe failure to hold a national conference has left Momentum members without aclear perspective or concrete policies we can fight for. This has been a particular problem for those trying to organise opposition

within the party and in the community to local government cuts - the breadand butter work of many Momentum groups. 

It is locally, at the sharp end of the struggle, where the potential of Momen-tum is clearest, members have been working hard across the country, on theirown initiative, using their own money and resources, to draw new membersinto activity, to develop democratic structures, to discuss political issues greatand small, to revive links with trade unions, using new and traditional meansof communication. 

In short, by simply getting on with it, many Momentum groups have startedto create embryos of what the Labour Party could become if we accept the fullimplications of the new mass membership: a party run by its members thatmeasures its relationship with local communities not by vote share alone butby collective interaction and participation. Then a genuinely working class partycould develop a common vision and wage a collective struggle to achieve it. 

What we need now is to develop a national structure that enables the localgroups to build on the excellent work being done by coordinating their effortswithin a democratically-agreed strategy.That’s why we will fight for a Momentum conference which adopts a clear perspective and strategy to focus our efforts and guide the

leadership elects a collective leadership which controls the party’s office and resources

and is recallable by and accountable to the conferenceadopts a constitution which preserves the autonomy of local groups,  imple-

ments the principle of election and recall for all positions and empowers allmembers through collective decision making at every level 

TEACHING ASSISSTANTS employed byDurham County Councilhave voted overwhelminglyfor strike action against theimposition of new contractsthat would see some workerslose up to 23 per cent - or£6,000 a year.The Labour led Council in

Durham voted in May to dis-miss all of the 2,700 teachingassistants employed by theCouncil and to impose newterm-time only contractswith increased hours perweek.

But the TA’s, organised by Unison and the ATL, resistedand organised. A strike ballot in October returned a 93%vote for strike action, due on the 8th and 9th November.They will join TAs in Derby, who taken five days of actionsince June. This is significant action by a predominantly women

workforce - indeed, across the country, around 97 per centof teaching assistants are women.

Cuts to local government and the public sector have dis-proportionately affected women, who have to juggle work-ing with caring obligations and so are more likely to workin these jobs which provide flexible working patterns orfollow school hours.

But under the Tory governments, local councils havefaced devastating cuts, which have led to secure jobs beingreplaced with insecure, part time work on zero hours con-tracts in the private sector. Around 80 per cent of workersin the low paid care sector are women and women are sig-nificantly overrepresented in low paid and temporary con-tracts.

Britain remains a country where workplace inequalitybetween men and women remains the norm. Public sectorcuts have increased this inequality. The sight of a Labour

council using the threat of equal pay claims to drive down TAspay and conditions is appalling, but not uncommon.

It’s good that Unison are taking a firm stand in this struggleand fighting for TAs to have their pay negotiated nationallyand defend 52 week contracts. Trade unions have been in theforefront of fighting for workplace equality but members needto insist that union leaders use their union’s influence to bringLabour local government policy into line.

ICELANDWomen in Iceland have escalated their fight against the ex-ploitation of women in the workforce. In late October, womenacross the country walked off the job at 14:38 the time atwhich the gender pay gap means women stop being paid forthe same work done by their colleagues.

In Iceland there is a 14 per cent pay gap (18 per cent in theUK) - so women walked out of work 14 per cent early. Thisisn’t the first time they have done this - in 2005 they left workat 14:08. That’s a pitiful improvement of just half an hour ineleven years. The pay gap is increasingly gaining prominence as an issue

to challenge, but a large part of the narrowing has taken placenot because women are being paid more, but because of anoverall fall in men’s wages. We need to see an equalling ofwages where women’s pay is levelled up and workers’ overallpay is increasing.

ARGENTINAHand in hand with workplace and social inequality goes en-demic sexual harrassment and violence against women. Thehorrific murder-kidnapping in which a 16 year old womanwas drugged, raped and tortured in Argentina, sparked massprotests on 19th October from women across the country. Inthe 18 days before the protests, 19 women had been murdered- victims of so-called ‘honour killings’.

Women across Latin America termed the day BlackWednesday and took to the streets after organising massdemonstrations on the internet. These protests are a repeat ofthose in 2015, when 300,000 gathered in Buenos Aires toprotest the murder of women and girls

Ni Una Menos - not one less womanMass protests against the murder of women and girls have taken place in Argentina

EDITORS: JEREMY DEWAR, KD TAIT

PUBLISHER: RED FLAG

EDITORIAL BOARD:R. ANDERSON, R. BRENNER, M. HALABY, J. MACREADY, P. MAIN,S. SMITH, D. STOCKTON, A. YORKE

3THE RED FLAG • ISSUE 8 • NOVEMBER 2016

Momentum’s conference must

be a real decision making body,

not a talkingshop

BolshieWomenBY MARIA NICOL

Labour can’t outflank Ukip and the Tories on racism, but we can promote a working class alternative

JEREMY CORBYN told the Labour Party Confer-ence, “It isn’t migrants that drive down wages, it’sexploitative employers and the politicians whoderegulate the labour market and rip up tradeunion rights. It isn’t migrants who put a strain onour NHS; it only keeps going because of the mi-grant nurses and doctors who come here filling thegaps left by politicians who have failed to invest intraining.”

This led to “fury” among some Labour MPs. Infact this fury is a cold calculation. They sense thatplaying the immigration card (the 21st Centuryrace card) can undermine Corbyn’s leadership.

Chuka Umunna, regularly touted as a possiblefuture challenger to Corbyn, argues that immi-grants should stop leading “parallel lives” and that“not getting involved in the community is not anoption. There should be an expectation that youbecome part of the community.”

Stephen Kinnock went straight to the BBC’s An-drew Neil to denounce Corbyn:

“We must make it clear to people that we respecttheir desire for having control over our borders,control over the way our labour market works, sowe can build the kind of society we want to build.”

His answer? Quotas.“I believe we should be talking about a sector by

sector approach… Setting a number that is appro-priate and when we reach that number say, ‘that’sit, that’s all we need’.”

Rachel Reeves also attacked Corbyn’s “relaxed”approach, claiming we have to “face up fully to thisfact - millions of our lifelong supporters voted toleave the EU and voted for change on immigra-tion”. Channeling Enoch Powell, Reeves warnedthat the situation could become “explosive” and“riots could break out across the country unless aBrexit deal curbs immigration”.

Those who play with patriotism, English nation-alism and anti-immigrant racism will get their fin-gers burned.

What none of them can provide is a shred of ev-idence that Britain’s record level of immigrationhas harmed British job opportunities, Britishwages, British welfare services or the British econ-omy. Because there is no evidence.

More British-born workers are currently em-ployed than ever before – both in actual figures andas a percentage. Wages for very many of us are toolow, but migrants’ wages are also too low; they’renot grabbing higher paid jobs.

Every study proves that migrants, as a whole, paymore in taxes than they take out in welfare benefits,NHS treatments or school places. The Labour Partycan’t outflank the Tories or UKIP on immigration,it will backfire. Those Labour supporters who aretaken in by the racists’ lies about migrant labourwill vote for the real racist parties: Ukip or the To-ries. On the other hand it will also undermine

Labour MPs who want to play the race card toscore points and triangulate are worse than useless.Instead of exposing the myths about immigrationpromoted by the Tories and the media, they rein-

force them - taking the easy way out.

ALTERNATIVEWhat we need are voices in parliament and in ourcommunities who confront the prejudices of work-ers who accept the racist lies promoted in themedia: migrants aren’t to blame for poor qualityhousing landlords (and councils) are. Migrantsaren’t to blame for the lack of teachers - privatisa-tion, overwork and lack of investment is. Migrantsaren’t to blame for low pay and unemployment -

bosses are. A Labour opposition should be pointing all

these things out and building a campaign to changethis situation. A labour movement campaign couldunite British and migrant workers in a commonstruggle for decent housing, a real Living Wage anda programme of investment to create jobs by build-ing the new schools, hospitals and homes we des-perately need.

Leading a powerful working class struggle overthese issues would do more for Labour’s generalelection prospects than Reeves’ or Umunna’s racisttriangulation.

If Labour MPs don’t want to stand up for classunity as the principled response to racist scape-goating then they should resign and make way forcandidates who will.

In the meantime, let’s take the initiative. LabourParty CLPs across the country should work withtheir affiliated unions to launch campaigns that

unionise migrant workers, especially in low•paid and unorganised sectors like hospitality,care and cleaning. expose the abuses of slum landlords and ex-•ploitative bosses, whose victims include mi-grants. coordinate efforts to ensure Labour remains•committed to free movement and fights for alabour movement campaign to provide de-cent pay and living conditions for all

BY REBECCA ANDERSON

4 THE RED FLAG • ISSUE 8 • NOVEMBER 2016

RACISM & ANTISEMITISM

Playing the race card won’t work

Red Flag spoke to Naomi Wimbourne-Idrissi of the website ‘Free Speech on Israel’ about the continuedcharges of antisemitism levelled against the left in general and supporters of Corbyn in particular

RED FLAG: First, who set up Free Speech onIsrael and why?

NAOMI WIMBOURNE-IDRISSI: It was earlier this year,that a number of us from different Jewish groups had avery informal meeting to discuss the alarming increasein the use of accusations of antisemitism to attack the leftin the Labour Party. We decided that there was a quitespecific role that we could play to combat this new as-sault. I suppose we could see a coinciding set of interestshere. As pro-Palestinian activists, we have experiencedan increasing trend to demonise people who are criticalof Israel as antisemites. Supporters of Israel try to portraygrowing criticism of Israel as growing antisemitism butwe see it as a growing understanding of what Israel is upto, and how Israel is increasingly discredited.

RF: OK, but why do you think this charge isbeing levelled against Corbyn and company,who are well known as anti-racists?

NW-I: When Corbyn's name appeared on the list as a pos-sible leader of the Labour Party, immediately the Israelilobby went into overdrive because here was the dangerof somebody leading a major British political party, po-tentially a Prime Minister, who is not only on the left buthas a consistent record of supporting Palestine. Theprospect of somebody like that leading a major party,with power on the international stage, was absolutely ter-rifying to them. The red lights were already flashing be-cause Britain is seen as a hotbed of anti-Israel activism,which is clearly alarming for them. So the meetingsstarted to happen, subgroups of the Israeli foreign min-istry were set up, Mark Regev was sent to Britain as thenew Israeli ambassador. He was the attack dog of the Is-

raeli government, as its chief spokesman, during the twomajor assaults on Gaza and here he is now, playing thatrole in Britain.

RF: That would explain why Israel, and its sup-porters, would use this against Corbyn butdoes it explain why everyone else, for example,the right  wing of the Labour Party is also pick-ing up the same accuation to attack, have theyall got the same purpose? 

NW-I: No, there are clearly some who do not have any in-terest in Israel or Palestine or in fighting racism. Whatthey do all have is an interest in finding a really handyweapon with which to beat the left-wing in this country.There are some for whom the major concern is suppress-ing the Palestinian narrative and those who support it,whether they're Jews or non-Jews. The right, both in theLabour Party and outside it, all those who want to seecapitalism continue unchallenged, they've been handedthis fantastic weapon; what charge could be worse thanto suggest that Corbyn and his supporters are filled withmalice and hatred of the Jews? ... and my God it has beenquite terrifying, the extent to which the media has gonealong with this message. You would have thought thatsome journalists would attempt to at least look into theallegations and explore them, to see what foundation theyhave, but hardly anybody actually has.

RF: Is there not a danger in explaining the link-ages between these different groups, who areall opposed to Corbyn, that this could be pre-sented as a modern version of the Jewish conspiracy?

NW-I: If they were all Jews, maybe, but one of the mainpoints we have tried to get across is that not all Jews areZionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Look across thewater at the United States, there are a terrifying number,30 or 40 million, evangelical Christians who subscribe tothis messianic story about the Jews needing to return toZion for the second coming of Christ to occur, Armaged-don and all that, and they support the “in-gathering ofthe exiles” for that reason. Most Zionists are far too cannyto challenge this nonsense. Someone like Sajid Javid is asignificant figure in the Tory party and not Jewish, but heis an ardent supporter of Zionism in this country; or WesStreeting who represents Ilford North for Labour and hasbeen vigorous in supporting this agenda on the right ofthe party. There's no need for a conspiracy because thereis, simply, a coincidence of interests.

RF: You mentioned the pro-Israel movement inthe United States, do you think there is an inter-national dimension to the attacks on Corbyn,using the charge of antisemitism. Is Corbynsomeone that bothers the Zionist movementoutside of Britain?

NW-I: Oh yes, definitely. As far as the Israeli state is con-cerned, it is not only in Britain that they are trying to de-monise the pro-Palestinian movement and, in particular,the boycott movement. The reason why they have been sodetermined to push this antisemitism agenda for the lastdecade or so is because that is the period during whichthe movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions(BDS) has gained a lot of traction all over the world; notonly in Europe and the United States itself, but in LatinAmerica, South Africa and Asia. That is a global dimen-sion which obviously the Israeli state is concerned about.

RF: Final point, where does the campaign todefend Corbyn and oppose Zionism go next?

NW-I: We need to find a way of breaking through to themedia; Jews who are non-Zionist, let alone anti-Zionist,are completely invisible. We really are completely ignored,so you get the situation where, for example, in the cover-age of the row over Jackie Walker, who got into a lot oftrouble because she said the Holocaust memorial shouldcommemorate all genocides and not only the terriblethings that were done to the Jews, the fact that she is her-self Jewish, was largely ignored. So this is a huge chal-lenge for us and we need to get through to a wideraudience.

I think that by talking sensibly to people, particularlyin the Labour Party, who are very bemused and baffledto see obvious lies being told about themselves and theircomrades, gradually we are getting a wider audience andgiving them a better understanding of the dynamics ofthe campaign. We are beginning, maybe, to make our-selves a big enough voice that people will listen to us. Butwe cannot let it rest, this message, that not every Jew is aZionist and not every Zionist is a Jew, is very important.Apart from anything else, if people were to believe thatevery Jew is a Zionist and then they see what Zionism hasled to in terms of the injustices to the Palestinians, thatreally would stoke up antisemitism! This is something theZionist lobby is completely blasé about, I don't think theycare because, basically, the more they ratchet it up, thebetter for them

READ MORE: freespeechonisrael.org

“No need for a conspiracy”

THE MOVEMENT that twice elected Jeremy Cor-byn to Labour leader is defined by its oppositionto austerity. But local government cuts meanLabour councils in many of the party’s heartlandshave spent six years as the face of brutal cuts to thesocial fabric of our communities. 

Unless it is overcome, this contradiction will tor-pedo the development of a clear opposition to aus-terity and fatally undermine Labour’s generalelection prospects. 

In his closing speech to Labour’s annual confer-ence, Jeremy Corbyn claimed “each and everyLabour councillor deserves our heartfelt thanks forthe work they do”.

This statement followed a list of policies showinghow Labour councils are “putting Labour valuesinto action”, citing a handful of limited local initia-tives with varying degrees of merit.

What effect this tribute had on the 1,000 coun-cillors who signed an open letter calling on Corbynto resign is not clear. But it certainly didn’t go downwell with the Lambeth residents who are beingcompulsorily rehoused at higher rents, or theDurham teaching assistants facing a £6,000 paycut.

Corbyn’s message was intended to reassureLabour councils of their importance as centres of“power” for Labour in opposition and to absolvethem of their responsibility for cuts by blaming theTory government whose “cynical funding cuts havehit Labour councils five times as hard as Tory-runareas”.

The point was hammered home with the centraltheme of the speech: end the infighting and uniteto prepare for a general election in 2017.

This was a powerful riposte to the rebelliousLabour parliamentarians, but it was gleefully seizedupon by hardline right wing councillors to demandLabour activists stop marching to save libraries andline up behind the councils in the name of “partyunity”.

But for hundreds of thousands of members whocampaigned for Corbyn’s victory in order to makeLabour a party that opposes austerity in action, notjust words, unity on the councillors’ terms is unac-ceptable from both a democratic and a practicalpoint of view.

CUTSThere’s no doubt that Labour councils have beenput in an invidious situation by the Tories’ townhall funding settlement - whose cuts dispropor-tionately affect poorer areas with increased socialcare costs.

Communities ranked in the top 20 per cent forhealth deprivation and disability have seen an av-erage reduction in spending power of £205 perhousehold – that is 12 times more than the 20 percent least deprived.

To take the London borough of Lambeth as oneexample: Lambeth is the 22nd most deprived bor-ough in the country, but has suffered a 56 per cent,£175 million, cut in central government fundingsince 2010.

The result? More parts of the borough are in the10 per cent most deprived areas nationally than fiveyears ago. Along with Tower Hamlets, Lambeth isthe most unequal borough in the country on in-dexes of ethnic equality.

With further cuts of £55 million over the nextthree years, inequality and deprivation is going toincrease, creating a vicious circle as social andcommunity services are cut to the bone orscrapped altogether, leading to higher care bills,drawn from a diminished pot.

The Local Government Association estimatesthat the total revenue support grant that councilsreceive will have fallen from £14.5 bn in 2010 to£2.2 bn in 2020. The truth of many Labour coun-cils' claims that they have protected vital child andelderly social care services by closing libraries,parks and youth services, has worn thin after sixyears. Last year it was libraries, this year it’s youth

centres, what will face the axe next year?

RESPONSIBILITYThe reality that some within the party refuse to ac-cept is that Tory cuts have simply accelerated thetrend towards outsourcing, academies, and ‘regen-eration’ pioneered for years prior to 2010 in rightwing Labour bastions like Lambeth.

The long decades of local authority control andlack of internal party accountability have turnedmany Labour councils into fiefdoms, controlled bya self-selecting and replicating caste of officials.

The inevitable result is the atrophy of principleand imagination in the Labour groups. Vanity proj-ects, financial mismanagement and corruptionplague local authorities. Town halls are packedwith as many lobbyists as Westminster - with evenless scrutiny. Sweetheart deals with property devel-opers waive mandatory quotas for properties let atsocial rents. Revolving doors offer lucrative futuresfor council officials.

The majority of councillors are hard workingand principled people, doing their best in difficultcircumstances and, in most cities, Labour has beenable to hold onto enough of its voters to win elec-tions. But, with low turnouts, enough votes to winshows a lack of an effective alternative, not positivesupport for what Labour is doing.

Continuing to make the cuts demanded by Torypolicy will inevitably grind down support and hol-low out Labour's social base. The Scottish disastershows where that leads and the Brexit vote was awarning that the same complete collapse couldhappen in local government across the country.

In short, it’s true that Labour-run authoritieshave suffered the brunt of austerity, but the situa-tion has been aggravated by Labour’s own policies,its endorsement of austerity until Corbyn’s election,and its inability to set out a progressive alternative.

The fact that councils like Lambeth have gotthemselves into protracted and bitter conflicts withresidents, trade unions and local parties should bea wake-up call.

STRATEGYFollowing his first election, Corbyn declared thatgiving the members greater say in decision makingwas a major priority. But within weeks he and JohnMcDonnell published a letter instructing councils

to continue passing legal, i.e. cuts, budgets. This ca-pitulation to the party’s powerful council lobby wasmade with no involvement or consultation with themembers.

The rule change at the 2016 conference, makingit a disciplinary matter for a councillor to abstainor vote against any legal budget proposed by aLabour administration, is designed to make coun-cil chiefs immune from dissent.

These actions declared business as usual forLabour councils under Corbyn’s leadership andundermined one of the biggest reservoirs of hissupport - the active and dedicated campaignersfighting to defend local communities.

The idea that embattled Labour councils simplyneed to hold out for a general election victory is arecipe for defeat. If we don’t fight to stop the cutsnow, a Labour government won’t have an NHS tofix, and local councils will soon have no servicesleft to run.

This is where Labour’s new mass membership,committed to fighting austerity, comes in. Bybuilding a powerful mobilisation of the labourmovement against cuts, winning victories, we canlchange the political landscape.

We can sink roots, train activists, win over newcommunities and renew frayed relations with oldones. Most importantly, we can show that there isa force in society that can deliver meaningful vic-tories through its own actions. That will do morein a few months to improve Labour’s electionprospects than anything else.

Stopping the privatisation of the NHS, prevent-ing the expansion of selective education, defendingthe rights of refugees and migrants are all impor-tant national issues that we can fight and win on.

We’ve got the numbers; we’ve got the ambitionto win. But stopping the assault on local commu-nities by Labour councils must become a centralpart of our strategy for victory.

WHAT WE CAN DOWe need to launch a coordinated effort to makeLabour launch a major national campaign againstcuts to local government funding. We can tie thisinto a fight against the gerrymandering of theboundary review; exposing the Tories’ attack onworking class communities that vote Labour.

Forcing Corbyn and McDonnell to openly side

with those fighting local government cuts willmake it easier to gather support for the next step:overturning the undemocratic rule change thatprevents councils setting no-cuts budgets andchanging the constitution to give local parties morecontrol over council policy and make councillorsrecallable.

On a practical level, local Labour Parties andMomentum groups should work with sympatheticcouncillors and community campaigns to draw up“needs budgets”which show how much money thecouncil needs to provide decent homes, health, ed-ucation and welfare for all residents.

If we can build up a major campaign againstlocal government cuts, uniting trade unions, resi-dents’ groups and anti-cuts campaigns with theLabour Party, then we will have a social basis tostart coordinating left wing and socialist council-lors’ resistance to councils that continue to passcuts.

Apart from demonstrations, occupations andstrikes, this could take the form of publishing thecouncil’s accounts to public inspection - allowingresidents to see where the money is being spent orwasted. We would need to convene public assem-blies to demand the council leaderships explaintheir cuts or discuss a strategy to work with resi-dents to stop them.

This mobilisation has the potential to turn thenew mass membership Labour Party into a centrefor organising resistance - and going beyond thatto form the basis for a radically different vision oflocal democracy.

There’s no more time to waste, so let’s get organ-ised:

Build a national campaign against local gov-•ernment cuts.Reverse the rule change on legal budgets.•Select and elect left wing councillors.•Draw up needs budgets to set our goals.•Give local parties more control over council•policy.Make councillors accountable to and re-•callable by local Labour parties.Publish all the council’s accounts and con-•tracts.Hold public assemblies to discuss budgets and•hold councils to account

5

Labour needs to fight back against council cutsMaking cuts and blaming the Tories is not a persuasive advert for a party seeking national office

BY KD TAIT

THE RED FLAG • ISSUE 8 • NOVEMBER 2016

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

LAMBETH LABOUR GROUP SUSPENDED A COUNCILLOR FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST LIBRARY CUTS

South African students fight for free education

SOUTH AFRICA’S student movement has closeddown many of the country’s universities for nearlya month now in their campaign to abolish fees.

In one of the world’s most unequal societies, thebattle encapsulates the frustrations and anger of thevast majority of black people, who still face poverty,unemployment and exclusion, despite the fall ofapartheid over twenty years ago.

Many headlines around the world have focusedon violent confrontations between protesters andthe police. However, it is the state forces who haveupped the ante, deploying tear gas, plastic bullets,water cannon and stun grenades against the stu-dents.

Courageously, the students have fought back,often with bricks and sticks, stones and bins, butoccasionally with a form of dirty protest, symboli-cally hurling human excrement at their tormentors.At the University of KwaZulu Natal, the law librarywas torched.

University authorities have also weighed in, ban-ning protests and meetings, suspending and ex-pelling student leaders. Arrests have escalatedrecently in an attempt to decapitate the movement.

ANC ATTEMPTS COMPROMISEOn 26 October, the students took their protest toparliament in Cape Town, where finance minister(and ex-Marxist) Pravin Gordhan was deliveringhis mini-budget.

Outside the building, police meted out theirusual cocktail of violence to protesters but, inside,Gordhan had to concede a 10.9 percent increase inuniversity funding and an 18.5 percent hike in theNational Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS),spread over three years.

While these figures look impressive and extraspending totals 17 billion rand (£1 billion), it willnot solve the crisis and is unlikely to demobilise themovement.The threshold for NSFAS remains too high; most

students can neither afford the fees of some 40,000rand (£2,500) a year nor qualify for state support.This may be affordable for white families, whose

average annual income is 365,000 rand (£26,000),but for black families on an average 60,000 rand(£3,500), it’s impossible. And this is a country with30 per cent unemployment, rising to 47 per centamong young people.The system, even if it is aimed at accommodat-

ing the black middle class, will only further en-trench racist divisions and ghettoise the blackworking class.The FeesMustFall (FMF) movement wants the

total abolition of the fees system, free education forall. It wants a major overhaul of primary and sec-ondary education, which is keeping back youngblack and working class people. And it wants the“decolonisation” of the education system, whichstill stubbornly teaches to a curriculum and ethosof apartheid-era South Africa and Western impe-rialism.

GROWTH OF THE MOVEMENT Although South Africa’s students hit the headlineseighteen months ago, when they tore down a statueof Cecil Rhodes, the architect of colonialism, at theUniversity of Cape Town, it was last October's pro-posed 10.9 per cent increase in fees that led to amass movement. After weeks of mass protest andviolent clashes with the police, Blade Nzimande,the ruling ANC’s minister for higher education andSouth African Communist Party general secretary,climbed down. First he offered a 6 per cent hike,then, after further protests, agreed to cancel the in-crease altogether. But this was only a temporaryrespite. New fee rises were introduced again in2016.

A further gain of the 2015 movement came fromthe students’ alliance with low-paid, privatised uni-versity workers, like cleaners and caterers. Here,the movement demanded, and won, not only wagerises between 200-300 percent, but also the returnof services in-house. With university contracts,jobs were also more secure. No wonder the studentmovement has been emboldened and radicalisedfurther!WAY FORWARDIt is in this direction – towards the working class –that the movement must now steer if it is to makefurther gains. The ANC has, to some extent, suc-ceeded in peeling off some FMF support from the

middle class and university lecturers, who com-plain about its “impossible” demands; one profes-sor even likened it to Boko Harem. But thereremain plenty of allies in the working class move-ment itself.

After more than two decades in power, the ANCgovernment is mired in crisis. President JacobZuma is deeply unpopular and faces more than 780corruption charges against him personally. Theparty also suffered terrible defeats in August’s localelections, where its support fell from 54 to 46 perent, largely through the abstention of black work-ing class voters; for the first time since apartheid,the turnout fell below 60 per cent.The main beneficiary was the Democratic Al-

liance (DA), which is at least as neoliberal and pro-big business, but the Economic Freedom Fighters(EFF) of Julius Malema won 8 per cent. The EFF poses to the left of the ANC but is op-

portunist and unprincipled. In Tshwane (formerlyPretoria) and Johannesburg, where the EFF heldthe balance of power on the councils, it supportedthe DA against the ANC in mayoral elections.

Nevertheless, the EFF is a growing force andmany of its activists play an important role in the

anti-austerity movement and the unions.The union movement is also currently split, with

Cosatu having expelled its largest and founding af-filiate, the metal workers’ NUMSA. Despite this,South Africa’s unions are among the most militantin the world; last year the gold miners fought aheroic five-month battle against cuts and closures.

On top of this there are also many social move-ments against cuts, exclusion, corruption and pricerises. The police estimate that there were 3,300 vi-olent clashes with protest movements and strikerslast year: that is, nine a day.

NUMSA, which plays the role of a vanguardunion in South Africa, has openly called for, andclaims to be preparing to found, a workers’ party.If and when it does, the students organised aroundFMF must play an active and leading role withinit.

Only by cementing their alliance with the work-ing class as a whole in a new party that can sweepaway the ANC and the openly bourgeois Demo-cratic Alliance, can the students win their demandsfor free education for all and an egalitarian, anti-colonial and socialist society

ON 8 OCTOBER, two bombs dropped by theSaudi-led coalition in Yemen hit a funeral hall inthe capital Sana’a while it was packed with mourn-ers, killing more than 140 people and woundingabout 500 more.

Saudi officials at first denied that the airstrikeever took place, only later accepting responsibilitywhile claiming it was a mistake.

An official Joint Incidents Assessment Team re-port, produced with US and UK oversight, upheldthe Saudi assertion that civilians were killed andwounded as a result of faulty intelligence and pro-cedural mistakes. But the nature of the attack castsserious doubt on this account.The aggressors carried out a so-called “double-

tap” strike, with a second missile hitting the sametarget minutes after the first, killing those alreadywounded as well as first responders to the scene.

A United Nations report on 17 October foundthat “in respect of the second air strike, that theSaudi Arabia-led coalition violated its obligationsin respect of hors de combat and the wounded”under international humanitarian law. AmnestyInternational has warned of “a pattern of appalling

disregard for civilian lives”.Indeed, the impossibility of sparing civilian lives

did not deter the coalition from striking directly atan event attended not only by top Houthi leadersbut also by respected neutral figures such as theMayor of Sana’a, Abdel Qader Hilal.

In the twelve months since the nine-nationSaudi-led coalition began Operation DecisiveStorm, British arms exports to Saudi Arabia haverisen to £3.3 billion. Exports include so-calledsmart bombs and components for the combat air-craft that deliver them, while coalition groundforces cross the Yemeni border in British-made ar-moured vehicles.The UK has long insisted that it follows strict

rules and monitors the use of the weapons that itsells to Saudi Arabia in a trade relationship thatgoes back decades. But in July the government ad-mitted that it could not prove that international lawhad not be been violated, contradicting earlierclaims that no breaches had taken place. Underpressure from opposition politicians and rightsgroups, the government retracted four written an-swers given to MPs and deleted from the officialrecord two speeches given by ministers in Parlia-ment.

In any case, our government can easily observethe Saudi war effort from the vantage point of

Saudi mission control, where British advisors andtheir US counterparts “have access to lists of tar-gets”, according to the Saudi foreign minister, Adelal-Jubeir.

Exactly what guidance have these advisors beenproviding while the coalition has hit hospitals,weddings, schools and museums, as well as graves,tombs, and mosques during months of indiscrim-inate and often apparently deliberate massacres ofcivilians?The inhumanity of this bombing campaign has

also seen the Saudis and their allies hitting farms,water infrastructure, food stores, agriculturalbanks, markets and food trucks in a deliberate ef-fort to degrade the country’s agricultural sector.Our government can hardly claim the moral au-thority to condemn Russia for its backing of theAssad dictatorship’s bombing of civilians in Aleppowhile sustaining a war that has already killed an es-timated 10,000 people, displaced around 3 millionand left millions more in need of food aid.

Socialists within the Labour Party should there-fore commend Jeremy Corbyn’s principled oppo-sition to arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and act tocensure the 95 Labour MPs whose abstention pre-vented Labour from inflicting a defeat on the UKgovernment in Parliament over its support forSaudi Arabia’s war in Yemen

BY JEREMY DEWAR

Yemen war: Britain complicit in Saudi war crimes Saudi Arabia’s war crimes in Yemen have triggered famine and a flood of refugees.

BY A CORRESPONDENT

6 THE RED FLAG • ISSUE 8 • NOVEMBER 2016

INTERNATIONAL

#FeesMustFall

AFTER TEN months of political wrangling and twoinconclusive elections, Mariano Rajoy’s Popular Party(PP) has secured the support of the Spanish SocialistWorkers’ Party (PSOE) to form a minority govern-ment.

In a warning to PSOE MPs whose abstentionsbroke the deadlock, Rajoy said his government wouldbe one “that can govern, not a government that willbe governed by parliament.” In short, the PSOE willhave to swallow a whole menu of cuts, not considerhis measures à la carte.

During his speech, Rajoy said his red lines werepreserving the unity of the Spanish State against theCatalan nationalists, observing the commitmentsgiven to the European Union (i.e., inflicting austerity).The EU’s €10 billion austerity programme has beenstalled since last year. Now they have asked for €5.5billion in 2017.

A day before the vote ousted PSOE leader PedroSánchez announced his resignation as an MP so as notto have to vote “no” against the wishes of the PSOEadministrators who had recently led a coup againsthim. Nevertheless Fifteen socialist MPs did voteagainst Rajoy in defiance of the party bureaucracy.

But if Rajoy and the PP have solved their immediatecrisis, that of Spain’s historic social democracy, is onlyjust beginning.

In June, despite (or maybe because of) the contin-ued paralysis, the PP increased its previous lead to 33per cent and 137 seats. The PSOE came second with85 seats and 22 per cent, Unidos Podemos third with71 seats, and Ciudadanos fourth with 32 seats.The latter two relative newcomers saw their votes

and seats fall. Despite the fusion between the UnidadPopular and Podemos the combined total was 3.7 mil-lion fewer votes, a result made particularly bitter be-cause the opinion polls predicted Podemos wouldovertake (sorpasso) the PSOE as the largest opposi-tion party. June proved the turning point in the two-party political system that failed to turn.

But despite picking up an extra 14 seats, the PP wasstill unable to reach the 176 needed to secure a ma-jority. Clearly all the other parties right as well as leftrealised that coalition with Rajoy was a poisoned chal-ice, for it would give them responsibility for the aus-terity programme but without any power.The PSOE faced a dilemma; either to do as Rajoy

wished and subject the party to stresses that wouldcertainly mean its massacre at the next election, orface continued erosion by Podemos.

PODEMOS VACILLATESTo break the deadlock, the PSOE’s leader Sanchezstarted flirting with forming a three-way coalitionwith Podemos and Ciudadanos. Thus with the twopopulist forces to the left and right he hoped to pursuea respectable left reformist policy.

In this period a series of sharp disagreementsemerged between the two top leaders of Podemos, thelíder maximo Pablo Iglesias and Iñigo Errejón, theparty’s “big theoretician”, as to the exact combinationof parties to include in the coalition. This was hardlya dispute of principle. But Iglesias, who earlier in theyear had placed conditions in the way of a bloc withthe PSOE before the second election, now went over-board, declaring that Podemos was the “new socialdemocracy” and former PSOE prime minister JoséZapatero had been “the best PM in Spain’s history”.

In fact neither Iglesias’s nor Errejón’s coalitionschemas were delivered by the June elections. But thecontinuing paralysis and Rajoy’s intransigence - quiteadmirable from a hard-nosed class standpoint - hasfractured the PSOE and opens up considerableprospects if Unidos Podemos members can rein in itsleaders’ organic opportunism.

Iglesias swerved back to the left after the June fiascosaying, at the party's citizen council, that Podemosmust go back to its “revolutionary roots”. Evidentlythis is a reference to the massive square occupationsof 2011 (the 15M movement). Juan Carlos Monedero,one of the party’s academics from the ComplutenseUniversity of Madrid and a central leader until he wasousted this April, has been critical of the Podemosleadership for allowing the party’s roots in the “circles”

to wither, saying “the 15-M got out the catapults toknock down the walls of a rotten system and their aimwas sure”. Yet if, as Podemos says, 15M “changedeverything” in terms of a potential break-up of thetwo party system, it also changed nothing in terms ofwho held the power. This failure was precisely whatmade a political party that could challenge for gov-ernment necessary.

This withering was a result of the electoralismwhich, up to December, had a sectarian or ultimatistcharacter (we will take power with no compromiseswith the parties of the “casta” - the caste of traditionalpoliticians) - gave way to participating in the parlia-mentary coalition game of musical chairs. The squaresand the circulos were neglected as an obstacle to themanoeuvres of Iglesias and co. and inevitably thePodemos base started to become disillusioned. In ad-dition, the Podemos Complutense leadership beganto fall out with one another and líder maximo Iglesias(populism always requires a big leader) became moreand more intolerant of his erstwhile comrades.

Podemos’s withered internal democracy expressesitself in a leadership informed by clique rivalriesrather than reference to the membership. It would behard to find any real constancy in Iglesias positions.Earlier in the year he alienated the PSOE by remind-ing it of its support for brutal repression in the Basquecountry; more recently he turned to flattering its for-mer leader Zapatero. What is constant is his denial ofdemocratic debate and internal struggle for the rankand file. In an open letter to members, titled “Defend-ing Beauty”, he warned there was no room in the partyfor “movements or factions who compete for controlof the structure and resources” - apart from his ownthat is. Such frankness is as admirable as the senti-ment is execrable.

THE PSOE’S UNCERTAIN FUTURESanchez’s search for a coalition partner, first with Ciu-dadanos and then Podemos or both, whilst refusingan abstention deal with Rajoy for nine months, fal-tered on the opposition of the party’s right wing, whowere particularly hostile to any deal involvingPodemos, and even more so if some of the smallerCatalan nationalist parties proved necessary to builda stable coalition.This is in large measure because Podemos has the

position that Catalonia should have the right to call a

referendum on independence. The national bureau-cracy of the PSOE is not only opposed to Catalan se-cession but opposed to the democratic right of theCatalans to decide on this.The Catalan parliament now has a clear majority

for a referendum, though it was not clear the majorityof its electorate would vote for independence. But thePP and the Spanish judiciary’s repeated attempts tocriminalise expression of the desire for self-determi-nation or independence makes Rajoy a hated figure inCatalonia. Though Sanchez has never committedhimself to this elementary democratic position, evenconsidering a bloc with parties that had enraged theright wing forces in his party concentrated around theAndalucía PSOE chief Susana Díaz.

In late September, half of the PSOE Federal Execu-tive resigned, in a coup aimed at forcing the party toopen the road to a PP government under Rajoy. Afterhis failure at the party council to win a majority forcalling an extraordinary conference by 132 votes to107, Sánchez announced his resignation.

Since then the Catalan Socialist Party (PSC) voted241-0 against supporting the PSOE Executive’s subse-quent decision to abstain in favour of Rajoy. Accord-ing to polls Sánchez would have had the support ofsome 60 per cent of PSOE members and voters. Buthe has declared his loyalty to the coup leaders.The PSOE’s decision to capitulate to Rajoy and ab-

stain in both rounds of the vote of confidence willhave considerable consequences. The interim chiefadministrator Javier Fernández said “In no circum-stances must the PSOE move away from the centre-left to aspire to be just the hegemonic force on the left.If we did that, we would stop being an alternative forgovernment”.

Like opponents of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Par-liamentary Labour Party they scorn being a party ofopposition even when they are not in power. Inessence this is a rejection of even the mildest, most re-formist form of class struggle, for fear it will developinto something outside their control. In fact they areunlikely ever to get back into power in their currentform because the political space is already occupiedby a Rajoy or a Theresa May.The PSOE is now likely to haemorrhage support to-

wards the left and Podemos if it does not actually splitand or disintegrate. The one million-strong UGTunion federation, traditionally close to the PSOE is

hostile to the party’s surrender to Rajoy and there arerumours it may call a protest general strike. Iglesiashas correctly suggested that if this happens Podemoswill join in summoning the social movements ontothe streets and squares once again.

WHAT NOW?The right wing coup in the PSOE offers Podemos an-other opportunity if it learns from its past mistakes.

A split with the right in the PSOE with the rank andfile joining Podemos, and the union federations inmass strike action would be a great step forward forthe left. It could easily lead to a head on confrontationwith Rajoy and his “socialist” lackeys.

Of course older and more working class membersPSOE will not easily be attracted by the unstable, non-class politics of the Unidos Podemos leaders and theirtactical zigzags.

In order to take advantage of the PSOE’s crisis andbecome a vehicle for millions of workers and youth toexpress their frustration and organise for an alterna-tive, Podemos needs to dump both the post-modernclassless “narrative” for an openly class struggle posi-tion. Within a movement against Rajoy they shouldfight for an all-out general strike to bring down thePP government and rip up the EU austerity budgetsfor good. Anything short of this would make a mock-ery of Iglesias’ “revolutionary” rhetoric. The prospect of the PSOE’s ‘Pasokification’ requires

socialists to learn the lessons of Syriza's experience inGreece.

In such an all-out struggle, councils of delegatesfrom the workers and youth should be formed inevery city district, town and village in the Spanishstate. Any election called by the King or Rajoy shouldbe treated as a tribune for the movement, accompa-nied by huge mass mobilisations. The trade unions,working class parties and popular campaigns shouldmake it clear that they will from no coalition otherthan a workers’ government. There must no “trans-versality” which extends to the bourgeois parties – inplain language no popular front that commits to de-fending the dictatorship of Spanish and Europeancapital that enforces austerity. The major democratic questions left over by the

rotten deal struck after Franco’s fall (Moncloa Pact of1977) need to be addressed; the right of self-determi-nation by all of the country’s nationalities, the aboli-tion of the monarchy, a fully democratic electionsystem, a judiciary elected by the people.

Revolutionaries should fight for a popular actionprogramme whose goals are to kick out Rajoy, defythe austerity dictates of the EU, defend the right ofself-determination for the nationalities (but not advo-cate the breakup of a federal Spanish state) address thehuge youth and regional unemployment, advancetransitional demands that challenge both neoliberal-ism and capitalism, and ends with a workers’ govern-ment, based on the delegate councils and popularmilitias formed by workers and youth.

It’s no exaggeration to draw out these revolutionaryimplications of a concerted struggle against the PPregime.

But the immediate task is to lay the basis for aunited resistance. Podemos should offer a united frontto the local and regional committees of the PSOE, theCCOO and UGT to halt Rajoy in his tracks, isolatethe PSOE leadership, and open up the road to a gov-ernment that genuinely represents and is accountableto the workers, pensioners and youth of all nationali-ties. The turmoil in the PSOE and the turn of Podemos

to the left or at least to the streets and the squares –any follow through on the rumours of the UGT call-ing a one day general strike or the recent anti-Rajoydemo in Madrid – would create the possibility of ad-dressing another major question the need for a work-ing class party armed with a revolutionaryprogramme. T the moment left militants are scatteredover a spectrum of organisations.

Economic political and social conditions in Spainnecessitate and favour the creation of such a party.Unity in action combined with a democratic debateabout strategy are inseparable parts of the way for-ward; for Spain more, than any other major Europeancountr,y could easily face a pre-revolutionary situationduring the next crisis

7

The political crisis in Spain The PSOE faces disintegration and Podemos gets a second chance its leaders hardly deserve

BY DAVE STOCKTON

THE RED FLAG • ISSUE 8 • NOVEMBER 2016

PEDRO SANCHEZ AND PABLO IGLESIAS: NO DEAL

NO. 8 • NOVEMBER 2016 • PRICE £1.00 • REDFLAGONLINE.ORG

Editorial: Momentum has great potential - if its members can winthe first serious struggle for democracy P3

BRITAIN’S DEFENCE SecretaryMichael Fallon recently said that Nato“is waking up to the challenge ofKremlin aggression and could con-front Vladimir Putin's forces in ashowdown” within two years.

Fallon assured MPs that formergeneral Sir Richard Sherriff ’s predic-tion of war with Russia in 2017 was“too extreme”. So that’s alright then.

These comments might seem ab-surd were it not for the context of anew cold war in which Russia hasfaced economic sanctions and the in-crease of Nato air, sea and land forcesstationed on its borders. These meas-ures are designed to contain Russiaand surrounding it with a belt of Nato-aligned states and military bases.

Such moves have been shaped bythe USA’s strategy of containing itsEurasian imperialist rival Russia. Inreturn Russia has sought above all topreserve its client Assad, to exert in-fluence on the wider Middle Eastthrough Iran’s alliance with Assad andothers, and to preserve access to itsnaval base on the Mediterranean atTartus.

And it is in Syria where the tensionsbetween the world’s rival imperialistsare most on show.

The protracted nature of the Syrianconflict has been the result of the es-calation of hostilities between the im-perialist powers; between the USAand its Nato allies on the one side andRussia on the other. The weakening ofUS hegemony in the Middle East hasin turn encouraged the USA’s ownnominal allies Saudi Arabia, Turkeyand Qatar to act increasingly au-tonomously in pursuit of their own re-gional ambitions.

Putin’s blood-drenched defence ofthe Assad dictatorship has to be seenas part of this developing inter-impe-rialist rivalry, one in which all theglobal powers are pursuing reac-tionary objectives, however much theymight claim to be defending “democ-

racy” (in Nato’s case) or “national sov-ereignty” (in Russia’s). And whateverlimited aid either imperialist blocmight occasionally provide to their ri-vals’ immediate victims in the courseof pursuing these aims, this does notmake those aims any less reactionaryor self-interested.

Western imperialist policy duringthe Arab Spring in particular has beencharacterised by belated verbal sup-port for progressive revolutionarymovements and even this only whereit reinforced its interests in the region.If faced with the choice of supportinga democratic movement or sidingwith an important ally, the imperial-ists’ geo-strategic interests will alwaysprevail. This is most clearly the casewith the Saudi suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain, orthe Saudi invasion of Yemen today. Or

Israel’s horrific attacks on the popula-tion of Gaza (with 504 children killed)that did not warrant a protest, letalone the halting of logistical supportwhich could have stopped it.

The “democratic” imperialisms ofthe West are no more the championsof democracy than the “authoritarian”imperialisms of Russia or China arethe champions of national sovereignty(Chechnya? Tibet?).

Faced with the threat of war be-tween the imperialist powers, social-ists should reject all and any attemptsto give imperialist governments amandate to pursue military action,even if the ostensible purpose of suchaction is in support of progressiveaims, or of forces waging entirely le-gitimate struggles of their own. Thestruggle of Syrians against the vileAssad dictatorship and its Russian

backers will not be the genuine reasonfor any direct Nato intervention. Norwould it actually help these aims. Allimperialist powers seek democratic orhumanitarian pretexts to cultivatepopular support as cover for their ownaggressive designs.

It should be a principle for revolu-tionary socialists that we are for thedefeat of our own imperialist rulingclass in any conflict with any otherimperialist power: “the main enemyremains at home”. In a period ofmounting rivalry between the globalimperialist powers, this principle canbecome a practical necessity veryquickly.

We stand closer now to the dangerof military clashes between the twomajor nuclear armed imperialist pow-ers than at any time since the 1980s.Such a clash could have incalculable

consequences and cause immense suf-fering, far greater even than the terri-ble suffering already endured by theSyrian people at the hands of Putinand Assad.

It should be clear from the abovethat we should not only denounce theduplicitous and hypocritical role ofWestern imperialism in the wholeArab Spring in general, but also cate-gorically reject the idea that the Britishmilitary can be an agent for progres-sive goals in Syria or anywhere else.

If the labour movement worldwidehad immediately taken up the cause ofthe Syrian revolution and mobilised tocollect and transmit aid, includingarms, had it clearly and unequivocallyopposed both what Russia was doingin Syria and what Western imperial-ism was doing in Ukraine and EasternEurope, then things might have beenvery different.

When either imperialist bloc under-took its bloody attacks on civilianselsewhere, it would have been possibleto initiate “workers’ sanctions” againstit, along the lines of those imposed bytrade unionists globally againstapartheid South Africa in the 1980s,or of the actions of the British tradeunions that undermined British impe-rialism’s attempted interventions intothe civil war that followed the RussianRevolution of 1917.

Had this course of action been fol-lowed, then around the world a massanti-war movement similar to that of2001-04 could have come into exis-tence, able to check the plans of thewarmongers both East and West. Andnot only that, but it would have cre-ated the potential for struggles to re-move the warmongers from poweraltogether, in the only real answer toimperialism: socialist revolution.

It is not too late to start again – ormore correctly there is no alternativeto doing so – unless we wish to bedragged remorselessly and helplesslytowards another world conflagration

Nato-Russia rivalry risks war

#FEESMUSTFALLSouth African students are in the middle of a bitter but inspiring fight forfree education P6

THEREDFLAG