Reform and reformism

[alanjjohnstone]

Following an enforced absence on the forum (a deserved sanction so no complaints because of derailing an existing thread on Russell Brand with an attempted analysis of reformism and reforms.) I thought I resume where we left off with its own thread. I suggest people re-visit the old thread (see here, http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/russell-brand?page=20#comment-23136 ) for what has already been said.

Some forum members thought some comments too lengthy and “soporific” but I always believe people should receive the respect of a full reply as possible and I definitely make no apology to those who can’t be bothered to read them.  

This opening contribution is meant to re-engage the debate with some broad observations that I think we should base our political activity upon.

People are so disillusioned with our political and economic system that they are embracing a rallying cry for the need for change…whatever that might actually be. We have an audience that is leaving all options open and the clearest, most convincing case are the ones being listened to the most, even if they aren’t actually a solution. If we don’t make our case heard, nobody will listen to it. An important motive in why we engaged in an election campaign.

People have the power, when we choose to use it, to act on it, to dedicate ourselves to change. The best way to build political power is to organise around issues that resonate with people, engage those folks, and which begin to develop long term, real and meaningful change. This means organising politically and eventually translating this into electoral work for socialism through a mass political party. This is all hard work that takes education, time and significant resources. One reality though we must face is that we cannot dictate the issues that excite people. As I think Marx said in obtuse dusty philosophical works…socialists work with what is at hand. But he did express it more simply in the Manifesto:

 “They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement… they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole… that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.”

Political agitation and organising in most cases is about taking an issue that people care deeply about, that inspire them, and helping to bring larger numbers of people together to give them a collective voice. A larger groups’ strength does matter.

If it is not an issue that people feel strongly about at the grassroots, it is difficult to move it up the ladder of priorities for people. When people get involved in organising around issues, and they win, they get a sense of their own power to make change. They realise that their voice can – even in our flawed democracy – make a difference. People who experience wins go on to stay involved. And from defeat, they learn their mistakes and offer new lessons for others to heed in future struggles. This is how movements are built. Not from lectures from a lectern, no matter how erudite and skilled a speech it may have been.

Some members think there is some critical mass that, through the weight of belief alone, will get us where we want to go. As if when the numbers aren’t high enough, we can’t achieve anything. As if when the numbers are high enough, the beautiful transformation will magically happen all by itself or when people vote for a wonderful socialist party. But it’s not the belief of the majority or the work of the party that will change the world. It will be action, most likely the actions of a minority, as it usually has been. I’m not talking about the minority action of the vanguardists imposing socialism, but the truth that socialists will always be the minority until we are in the majority and that does not mean we remain passive and impassive to the actions of those engaged in class struggle and resistance to the ruling class. Too many of us seem far too fond of narratives of our powerlessness, maybe because powerlessness lets us off the hook.

Socialists come this far by being dedicated and deeply informed on issues and being on board with policy by regularly attending meeting among themselves. Occasionally more people will show up. But we don’t need everyone on board. We certainly don’t need anyone in Parliament to act. We need only ourselves. We might as well start engaging for the changes we want rather than waiting around for the political swing-o-meter to turn our way.

People are very confused by skillful indoctrination and media manipulation and blaming the victim for being confused by expert psychological brainwashing isn’t exactly logical.  Our media befuddle our understanding, or, as in the case of  the Daily Mail and Daily Express play upon the worst elements of our nature – from racism, bigotry, xenophobia and homophobia, to indifference, hatred, contempt and neglect. This means that we begin with dismantling the bogus beliefs placed in our heads, not easily done, grant you. Our society make victims of the innocent and part of our principles is to defend the vulnerable. The recent Scottish referendum and the general election showed how instilling fear is a successful vote-catching ploy for the privileged. Our task to coin another slogan is to dispel the fear of freedom. No one likes being lied to but it is a damn sight harder to admit you've been taken for a sucker.

I hope the above manages to elicit a critique that i hopefully can learn from. 

[robbo203]

I would go along with all that , Alan, but one thing is missing – you don't actually define what you mean by "reformism". In my view, this is a serious problem that has long dogged the Party.  It is the very vagueness of its working definition of reformism that has had a paralysing effect on the development of more imaginative – and productive – approaches to activity such as you envisage.  I agree with the argument that you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere that differentiates a revolutionary socialist political party from a reformist political party – otherwise you will simply be swallowed by the capitalist machine and co-opted by capitalism.  Contrary to Stuart's claim that the distinction is meaningless, all the historical evidence shows absolutely compellingly that if you don't make such a distinction sooner or later your whole perspective will be drained of all revolutionary intent and you will find yourself completely trapped on a reformist treadmill going nowhere.  You might just as well join the Labour Party or the Liberals and good luck  with wanting to change the world. But where to draw the line – this is the problem.  There was a circular produced by the old Islington Branch back in the early 90s, I recall, entitled  "What is Reformism?"  Is a copy available?  It might help shed some light on this important subject…. 

[alanjjohnstone]

I thought the difference has been quite clear for those in the party. Reformism is a believe that either a capitalism can be made into a system devoid of many of its social problems and/or socialism can be achieved in steps through the enactment of a series of reforms – otherwise labelled gradualism.What our difficulty is how do we approach reforms and how we relate to workers engaged in fighting for reforms.  Some on the forum know I am fond of quoting Solidarity’s As We See It

Quote:

“Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.”

On the other thread I have cautioned that we shouldn’t pigeon-hole

Quote:

“Sometimes the purpose of a reform campaign is questionable, other times it is the tactics they are using, and others it is the organisational structure running it. But we are accustomed to not expecting perfection in the union movement. My problem is how to offer critical support that does not deter what people are doing by discouraging them  nor distancing them from ourselves by not always agreeing.”

There is no point in us simply patting reformers on the back and saying, keep up the good work. I read a blog by an American prisoner who said something along the lines that, call for all the changes you want on conjugal visitor rights, parole, rehabilitation programmes etc etc but in the end you still defend a system where people are locked up for property-related and non-violent crimes. We have to be able to confront reformers without alienating them.It means we have to be selective in where we devote our efforts towards. Not merely for the sake of allocating our resources and efforts in a worthwhile manner to the literally millions of campaigns out there. I mentioned another attitude we should possess…the dangers of parachuting into reform campaigns where we have no actual connection with – but instead that individuals should preferably either have some sort personal link or the party, a pressing class concern.I think we also must make a differentiation between reformism and resistance. For instance on the thread about the proposed laws by the Tories I consider protesting against them for the party is valid. In regards to the crises concerning refugees and migrants right now coming out clearly on the side of our fellow workers and advancing an open-door reform to border control is a class response, not merely a humanitarian gesture, by the party.  To give another example of our presentation problem, I am sure in these centenary years of WW1 many of us are puzzled why despite our unwavering opposition and the personal sacrifice of numerous members, the party rarely receives a mention when it comes to reviewing opposition to the war. It surely cannot be a conspiracy by historians singling the SPGB and erasing us from history-books.I think it is to do with the fact that we ourselves distanced ourselves from other anti-war activists. Again, as individuals, I recall reading of members coaching and representing non-party conscientious objectors at their tribunals. I recall reading that the Socialist Standard re-published a call for an international anti-war conference. We could have went a lot further and acted as a conduit for anti-war activism and it needn’t have jeopardised our socialist credentials but reinforced them.To close, we have to hammer out our views on how we politically engage with reforms since I think we have already sufficiently agreed a collective position on reformism. We worked hard from our earliest years to develop an analysis on trade unionism BUT I think we still fail to communicate with the trade union movement. It is pretty much the same issue we have on both fronts – applying our ideas politically and actually giving meaning and depth to the phrase “socialist movement”.The criticism that we are not a real political party and definitely not a movement is fully justified until we begin to influence and shape the ideas and aims of the working class to make change a real possibility and not some airy-fairy aspiration far in the future when somehow the SPGB are transformed by a tremendous influx of members. My question is – and I claim no answer – is how do we achieve a mass membership. I mentioned on Libcom, that one thing confirmed by all our election activity over the years, is that all we got to lose is 0.2% of voters. Not a lot to risk if we decide to experiment or even gamble with a new way of doing our politics. 

[alanjjohnstone]

If we want further reading I suggest from our own archives we re-acquaint ourselves with this article “Revolutionary Reformism” [http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1905/no-10-june-1905/revolutionary-reform ] which may well have something to offer in the difference between reformism and reforms.

Quote:

“To dream of bettering the conditions of existence by political means is Utopia. Although the bettering of the conditions of existence by way of political reform is impossible, it is not the same as regards the conditions of fighting, and it appears to us to be possible to make easier the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist middle-class. We do not here make a specious distinction. To distinguish between the conditions of fighting and the conditions of existence is not to split a hair. The difference is real… Rebels are not made of the starved and wretched: rebellion is a luxury….”

This has to be counterposed to this later explanation of the Party position to reforms

Quote:

“the Party must, therefore, make use of, ignore, or resist, any reform as determined by the particular circumstances. Consequently it cannot seek support for or advocate any policy of reform or anti-reform, for such must always be sacrificed upon occasion for its object, while such policies might—as seen in other organisations- attract those who do not accept the object of the Party, thus weakening its definite aim. All such matters are considered by it as worthy of attention only in so far as they bear distinctly on the question of working-class emancipation.This subordination of all means to one end, and of all issues to the supreme one of the conquest of the State for Socialism, is the only logical policy for the Socialist Party. Without it, indeed, the party could not be Socialist…the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably "detrimental to working-class interest."

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-83-july-1911/socialist-party-and-reformsYet I would advise reading this observation offered by this article [ http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-87-november-1911/socialist-and-trade-unionism ]

Quote:

If, when a worker attains to class-consciousness, he ceases to require food, clothing and shelter, ceases to be a vendor of labour-power, ceases to be under the necessity which all commodity owners are under—of fighting for the realisation of the value of his commodity, in this case labour-power; if, in short, he ceases to be anything but a pure abstraction in whom even the charitable raven could find no want to minister to, no lodgement for a beakful of material sustenance, then it might be logical to say that no Socialist can belong to a trade union.But if the class-conscious worker still must live by the sweat of his brow, or rather by the sale of his potential energy, then he must resort to the instrument which make the conditions of a sale, as distinct from the conditions which environ the chattel slave’s dole.Among these instruments, for a certain number, are, under present conditions, trade unions on a non-revolutionary base. And as far as the Socialist thinks them necessary to his personal economic welfare, as far, that is, as economic pressure forces him to, he is right and justified in using them.And when I speak of economic pressure I do not mean merely the degree of it which marks the border-line of semi-starvation. Economic pressure, it is too often forgotten, commences with the first atomic offering of economic advantage, and the degree where the individual is sensible of it and consciously influenced by it, is here or there as circumstances decide.The critic who would “determinedly and consciously” fight the trade unions “out of existence” provides no alternative instrument for carrying on the struggle against capitalist encroachment now.”

Surely as we also stated [http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1938/no-407-july-1938/editorial-socialist-minority-parliament ]

Quote:

“Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party's view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism…they would vote for certain measures "as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem. Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation…”

If this is to be our practice for the future, why wait?

[Dave B]

I suspect there are several aspects to reformism that may be overlooked analytically? One is 'reforms' that benefit the, or a national capitalist class, often in the long run, and as result have to be forced through against perhaps narrow ideological and short term-ist views of the capitalist class themselves by more level headed technocrats. And as far as the working class are concerned it should be seen as that. I suppose there are more ‘problems’ associated with that when the working class 'correctly' perceive that they can directly benefit from those ‘reforms’ ; aside from the 'motivations' and  those other indirect ones of living under capitalism that is run 'efficiently'.  Another ‘kind’ of reform or something that can be categorised as reforms, or not? Is were changes, other than direct wage increases, are made that directly benefit the working class at the expense of and from the surplus value and profits of the national  capitalist class. Eg ‘campaigning’ for increased expenditure of health services above and beyond what the capitalist class think is necessary or cost effective or whatever. In my opinion the ‘funding’ healthcare is or can be seen as part of the necessary labour time required to reproduce and maintain the labour power of the working class. Therefore cuts and increases can I think be theoretically viewed in the same kind of way as decreases and increases in wages. 

---

 Left of centre politics tends to be a sort of mixture of the two? But what might be important with ‘national reformism’ is the general understanding that national reforms that fleece the national capitalist class have their limitations. As take it too far and the capitalist class will clear out. And then you have to face some ugly global capitalist realities that I think many of the ‘really pissed off with capitalism working class’ understand but leftish leaders dare not face. As with our friend Russel Brand, who fails to get off even base one with his acceptance from Ed Milliband that the NHS has been just extorted from the capitalist class who have no pecuniary interest in it. EG there are some sensible ‘technocratic’ bean counting capitalists in the USA who love the idea of a European style NHS system as the national US capitalist class as a whole end up paying more for healthcare for less. It also pans out to wage levels and health and safety etc. Eg whole factories and production moving abroad for not only direct reasons of lower wages but all the other expensive ‘paraphernalia’ of health and safety etc  Russell talks in very parochial and nationalist egocentric terms about the coming of meanness and nastiness in national privileged UK capitalism, as if it is coming from within. As far as the capitalist class and capitalism in general is concerned it is a ‘levelling process’, which will turn the global working class into an economically uniform homogenous mass. Ultimately obviating, if capitalism persists, the extant problem of the ‘bottom billion’. I think PJS in this month’s standard talked about addressing first the material conditions of the ‘bottom billion’ in the transition to world socialism.   

[SocialistPunk]

AlanJJohnstone wrote:

To give another example of our presentation problem, I am sure in these centenary years of WW1 many of us are puzzled why despite our unwavering opposition and the personal sacrifice of numerous members, the party rarely receives a mention when it comes to reviewing opposition to the war. It surely cannot be a conspiracy by historians singling the SPGB and erasing us from history-books.I think it is to do with the fact that we ourselves distanced ourselves from other anti-war activists. Again, as individuals, I recall reading of members coaching and representing non-party conscientious objectors at their tribunals. I recall reading that the Socialist Standard re-published a call for an international anti-war conference. We could have went a lot further and acted as a conduit for anti-war activism and it needn’t have jeopardised our socialist credentials but reinforced them.

Absolutely Alan. It's what I was getting at on the "Tory Legislation on "Extremism" thread.

SocialistPunk wrote:

My point is, if the SPGB constantly alienates itself from the "left", there will be no support should it ever be required. Sometimes you gotta step into the firing line, or else risk being left at the back of the room trying to get heard above the cheers for the ones who took a hit. In other words who gets the recognition, who gets remembered by the future revolutionaries?I'd be interested to know what the SPGB membership numbers were before the first world war, compared to now.

   

[alanjjohnstone]

Not too many participating in this thread, SP.Perhaps discussing attitudes to reform campaigns being different from accepting reformism as a principle for our politics is not so easily defined but i think we should try to differentiate the both of them.Opposing immigration controls and voicing sympathy for organisations that may well be advocating repeal of those laws i don't believe to be a heresy. One very pragmatic reason why i don't think we should be engaging in changing laws is that others are much better at it than we are. I vaguely remember ALB saying that the case for secularism against Islam is performed better by those already involved in it…the apostates and ex-muslims, than we ever could, despite our command of the theory.Anyways a bit more to consider.Surely a sign of a genuine social movement is that it tries to move people into action and interacts with every other positive strain of activism, no matter its origins. It does not try to dissuade people from undertaking important campaigns out of fear that they will “steal” its activists away.People are right enough in thinking the Socialist Party barely touches the great majority of fellow workers.  If we don’t have a presence in both elections and reform campaigns they aren’t going to be all that many motivated to find out about us either.We shouldn’texpect everyone in the movement to be just like us – it will never grow large if they actually were.The only way a movement grows is by doing more and that takes logistics and people. As for your question, in proportion to the growth of population and the numbers now entered into the working class, the membership of the SPGB is very much less than the original founders.In actual members, i think it was post-WW2 that we achieved the highest membership level, the 60s/70s saw a modest revival and growth but a gradual decline since then shows little sign of reversing, imho. 

[rodshaw]

Is supporting or paying money to a charity reformist? Is it always pointless from a working class perspective?I don't mean as an organisation or as a policy, but as an individual.

[alanjjohnstone]

I think many charities can be seen as protective organisations of an individual's personal interests. Various  prisoner welfare organisations such as the Howard League, for instance. I know of one party member who would correspond with Death Row prisoners and assist in campaigns for clemency for them.As Debs said, being in prison is a class issue.

Quote:

Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

[colinskelly]

The quotes from the early Socialist Standard that Alan gave show the problematic nature of our position of reforms.  We obviously wish to live as best we can within capitalism and therefore support membership of and activism within trades unions.  Most other reforms on the other hand are far trickier to make judgments on.  What is on the one hand a gain for the working class within capitalism, is on the other a palliative prolonging the system.  As mentioned already, what may seem like a shift in the balance of power to the left is in fact often a structural readjustment, accommodating improvements in living standards and health to boost productivity and profits in the longer term.  Our political cousins, the early SLP adopted a programme of reforms that they firmly tied to revoutionary intent and the early SPGB contained a wider range of attitudes on the subject than was the case later on.  If an elected SPGB MP would vote on reforms as they affected the working class as a whole then the party would in effect be making a judgment that some reforms were an immediate gain to the working class so I cannot see why, in theory,  the party could not do that whilst it does not have an MP.  You do not have to advocate reforms to make a judgment on them. However, the problem is making a judgment on whether a reform is a gain or a palliative is time consuming, difficult and divisive. Such judgments are highly complex.  It is extremely difficult to assess the impact of a reform on the working class as a whole – it is hard enough calculating the impact on parts of the working class in one country.  It would be a challenge with a mass party with a research department, for us near impossible.  Why waste time arguing over the crumbs being thrown to us?  Will we gain traction on the left by changing tack on this?  I personally doubt it.  What would be an example of a policy we would support or oppose?  We would end up arguing about this rather than about our end goal – this is ultimately what happened to the other Marxian parties in the 20th century.

[alanjjohnstone]

It is problematic as you suggest and i think it is easier to oppose governement reforms than propose our own.There are numerous bills in the Queens Speech that i believe to be openly anti-working class (even though great numbers of our fellow workers will support them and such opinions did split the labour movement in the USA and Canada. If i recollect party history, the SPGB had to distance itself from anti-Chinese racism that exexpressed by some in the SPC who echo the Left nationalists who say migrants brings down wages and working conditions and seek to stiffen controls and reduce numbers )Part of exposing this anti-worker ideas are to link peoples prejudices or misinformation to the legislation being imposed so it means sometimes going further than we intended. I recall one reply to a letter several years ago , i believe it was from the BNP Information Officer where the editors appeared to agree with the BNP that open borders would lead to chaos and we were not advocating no-borders within capitalism. Surely we should combat the misconceptions that immigration is a problem and that the "country" cannot cope with an influx of peoples as we face now from our fellow workers suffering great straits. 

[alanjjohnstone]

I thought this part of an early Socialist Standard article was of interest in what it said on trade unionism, but i think it  could just as easily be said of reforms.

Quote:

The non-revolutionary is not anti-revolutionary. To fight for present life does not delay the overthrow of the present social system. When the worker acquires revolutionary consciousness he is still compelled to make the non-revolutionary struggle.Moreover, after his conversion his methods on the economic field differ little from those he previously was compelled to follow. His greater knowledge will save him from many blunders in the field, will show him how little he has to hope for from the struggle he is compelled to make. …..All fit material, revolutionary or non-revolutionary, for the struggle on the economic field, the resistance to capitalist encroachment, can and must prosecute the fight together. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1911/no-87-november-1911/socialist-and-trade-unionism

[colinskelly]

I think that erosion of the legal right to strike action is clearly something that we would oppose as individual members, activists and officers within our trades unions.  Similarly, members in an individual capacity will be active in opposing cuts to local public services, housing issues and so on.  William Morris, in the 1893 Manifesto of English Socialists where he was trying to hold the Fabians and SDF to an explicit end goal of socialism, went along with a position which talked of defensive struggle as linked to the ultimate aim of revolution:“The first step towards transformation and re-organisation must necessarily be in the direction of the limitation of class robbery, and the consequent raising of the standard of life for the individual. In this direction certain measures have been brought within the scope of practical politics . . . as tending to lessen the evils of the existing regime; so that individuals of the useful classes, having more leisure and less anxiety, may be able to turn their attention to the only real remedy for their position of inferiority"This was, though, as I am sure Morris realised, the triumph of hope over realistic expectation.  Today such a position would be hope over experience.  As he had earlier written:"The palliatives over which many worthy people are busying themselves now are useless because they are but unorganised partial revolts against a vast wide-spreading, grasping organisation which will, with the unconscious instinct of a plant, meet every attempt to bettering the conditions of the people with an attack on a fresh side."As a party we are opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, in short any ideology which seeks to divide the human race against itslef, particularly the working class.  As such we are opposed to the  racial bigotry often involved in anti-immigration politics but there is no clear cut position as regards the costs/benefits to the working class as a whole of such a policy – some would gain, some would lose.  Borders will be open / closed according to the needs of capital. The small business interests who seem to dominate UKIP would soon change their policies if not their tune in the face of a squeeze on the labour market.  Once drawn into questions as to what policies are or are not favourable to the working class within capitalism then we are onto a slippery slope.  The point is to change the questions, to change the terms of debate.  As the party has often said, the surest way to get concessions within capitalism is to advocate revolution.

[Anonymous]

colinskelly wrote:

As a party we are opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, in short any ideology which seeks to divide the human race against itslef, particularly the working class.  

I think Peadophilia and attacks on children should be included. " Without distinction of race, sex….. and age.", perhaps.After all, children are completely defenseless and if we don't defend them then they will continue to be attacked.At the moment a sexist, reformist or racist comment would probably result in immediate suspension by the EC. Removing a peadophile is much harder.  Why? Should the party oppose the abuse of children? Is there an 'ism' we can oppose?Is it  'reformism' of seeking the legalisation of adult/child rape? 

[alanjjohnstone]

Motion 2. Motion: Kent & Sussex Regional Branch"Conference is of the opinion that the Party should not participate in demonstrations which are in support of reformist demands or of organisations to which we are hostile. Conference therefore upholds the terms of the 1938 Party Poll."Vote 2 For 68 Against 48. Carried.This recent decision still has the troubling problem of defining what is a reformist demand…i.e. the repeal of any anti-union laws and defining which organisations we are hostile to. Would campaigners for repeal of anti-immigration laws be on the list taking into account Colin's list of  what the  party is  opposed to ….racism, sexism, homophobia, in short any ideology which seeks to divide the human race against itslef, particularly the working class. I note the motion does not forbid participating in demonstrations alongside organisations we are hostile to, merely forbidding being in support of them. Again do we actually hostile to such reform umbrella lobbyists as No Borders and what they endeavour to do. We may disagree with them over their chances of success but do we actually oppose them trying to change attitudes towards migrants and asylum-seekers and on a prcatical level campaigning against existing legislation and their implementation.  So can i present this scenario.A protest is held to highlight the detention and deportation of so-called illegal immigrants. It is called by coalition of charities and the demonstration will be attended by a wide variety of participants, including Trotskyists with their banners and placards. Would the above motion forbid ourselves from being present with our own banner arguing for "World Socialism" and publically offering sympathy as fellow workers to fellow workers in socialist solidarity and join the demands that the detention and deportations should end. 

[Author]

Posts