Apologies if you've received this twice; when I sent it the first time it was
regarded as spam by yahoo software. It's perhaps my most important message yet
and should convince most of you out there who are sceptical I am playing a
positive role that I am!


Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism

Website: www.PRsocialism.org  Forum: tinyurl.com/PRsocialismforum ⁠
Newsletter 7 (5 November 2009)


Editor's note: I, Steve Wallis, have written all the articles in this
newsletter. I would welcome replies to points in this newsletter and
articles/letters for future newsletters, posted to the forum (with the web
address above) or emailed to me personally at
revolutionarysocialiststeve@.... Various socialist organisations in
Britain (Respect, the Socialist Party, CPGB, CPB and Democratic Socialist
Alliance) and Alex Callinicos of the SWP have come out in favour of PR, and I'd
welcome the involvement of members of those organisations in the Foundation.

As with previous Foundation newsletters, anyone who agrees with the politics in
it can download it from the website (with the web address above) in Word or PDF
format, print it out and distribute it anywhere in the world (although much is
specific to the UK). It focuses on how a socialist society should operate, in
Britain and internationally, with the final section on strategy for the UK
general election due in 2010 at which socialists could make a breakthrough. 


No cuts - nationalise banks and use bailout money

The enormous amount of borrowing undertaken by the New Labour government (even
during the boom and with an estimated £175 billion this year excluding the bank
bailout) has made it very difficult to get anywhere near balancing the books
assuming the capitalist economic system is maintained. If the incoming
government after the upcoming general election doesn't make massive spending
cuts and/or tax rises, investors may lose confidence that they will ever get
their money back, hitting the value of the pound and its ability to continue
borrowing. If it does, that would probably tip the economy back into recession
and provoke massive opposition including demonstrations and strikes,
particularly if it was dishonest about the scale of attacks on the jobs and
living standards of ordinary people during the election campaign.

The scale of the economic crisis in Britain, in which there has been a longer
recession than any other Western country despite the massive stimulus package,
is so severe due to previous Tory governments decimating manufacturing and
industries like coal and steel to try to smash the trade unions, with the
economy now relying on services largely based in the City of London. After the
run on Northern Rock and subsequent nationalisation of it and other banks
exposed the failure of banking regulation, that looks foolhardy. This provides
big opportunities for the left, and the right if we fail to take advantage of
them, providing we put across our ideas skilfully, particularly with respect to
where we suggest the money should come from to avoid the cuts planned by the
mainstream parties. Whereas most socialists oppose wars, Trident and ID cards,
the scale of the economic problems is too great for such savings to be
sufficient.

Around £1.3 trillion (i.e. £1,300,000,000,000) of our money has been spent by
Labour on bailing out the banks. Socialists should argue strongly for
nationalising all the banks, but this would cost money the government doesn't
have unless we only compensate pension schemes. This would allow whatever's left
of the bank bailout money to be used for the benefit of all, avoiding cuts. We
should also argue for all banks, whether currently nationalised,
part-nationalised or private, to be run democratically from below with most
control in the hands of borrowers and savers plus representatives on the boards
of trade unions and the government. Maybe this goes against the traditional
Marxist position of workers' control, but it seems clear that those whose money
is at stake should have more control than those who happen to work at a
particular bank. Now the European Union is forcing the government to spend
another £45 billion privatising the better parts of the
  nationalised banks, probably at knock-down prices - that capitalist club would
never allow the above measures so a socialist government would need to withdraw
(unless socialists come to power across Europe at once).


Socialist carbon trading to tackle global warming

The upcoming summit in Copenhagen from 7-18 December 2009 (COP15) has been
billed as "the last best hope" to do something globally about climate change. We
should encourage our governments to take real action, particularly to invest in
renewable sources of energy such as concentrating solar power (CSP) plants in
deserts and tidal and wind power, to both reduce the level of global warming and
cut across the divide-and-rule agenda whereby our rulers divide those deeply
concerned about climate change and those who put their own living standards
first and are sceptical about scientific claims. However, it would be extremely
naïve to expect them to cobble together an adequate solution and the European
Union's estimate of €100 billion a year to fund poorer nations by 2020 (with
the EU contributing a mere €7-10 billion with £1 billion from the UK and its
planned start date of 2013) does not appear to be adequate - and is chicken feed
compared to the UK
  deficit and bank bailout figures mentioned above! 

However, a People's Summit for Climate Justice in Copenhagen at the same time
will bring together activists, NGOs and indigenous people from the global south.
We should not limit ourselves to making demands on capitalist leaders but
suggest what we would do in power, as part of the argument for changing society.
Under capitalism, carbon trading is a licence to pollute but in a mainly
socialist world we would need some mechanism to prevent escalating living
standards threatening the future of the planet. Then, allocating the same amount
of carbon per person anywhere in the world but allowing it to be traded would be
a good way for richer countries to subsidise green development in poorer ones.


Alternative Vote - Labour's con-trick not PR

The 'alternative vote' (AV) system has been proposed by the Labour Party for
electing members to the House of Commons. With AV, voters specify as many
candidates as they like for their vote to be transferred to if their earlier
preferences are eliminated, until one candidate gets over 50%.
 
New Labour politicians have justified it on the grounds that it would make
electoral successes more difficult for the British National Party (BNP) due to
the necessity of reaching 50% after transfers. AV favours moderate parties and
the left would suffer as well as the right. Though sometimes called a form of
proportional representation (PR), it is not at all proportional; a study showed
an even bigger Labour landslide at the 1997 general election if conducted under
AV!

Like the Electoral Reform Society and Liberal Democrats, I favour the 'single
transferable vote' (STV) system. With it, there are multi-member constituencies
and votes are transferred if earlier preferences are eliminated or get more
votes than required to be elected. As well as being fairer it gives voters the
opportunity to choose between candidates of the same party, removing power from
party machines. No need for the 'primaries' that the Tories have started
introducing.

Under STV, Joe Higgins was elected in the Irish Republic, twice to the Dáil and
this year to the European Parliament, despite being in a fairly small party (the
Socialist Party), and other candidates to the left of the mainstream parties
achieved victories in local elections across Ireland this year too. Keeping the
left out is surely a motivation of New Labour politicians rather than just the
BNP.

A Daily Telegraph poll suggested that 22% of the electorate would "seriously
consider" voting BNP in the wake of BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on
Question time. However, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The same poll
showed that only 3% would vote BNP if there was an election tomorrow! Media bias
can of course give a boost to fascism, and the ITV News the day after Griffin's
appearance only gave the large figure, and even more blatantly the following
day's Sun suggested that it was a setback for the BNP that two thirds wouldn't
vote for the BNP "under any circumstances" (the discrepancy explained by don't
knows) again without giving the 3% figure.

Due to the advantage a genuine form of PR such as STV gives to both extremes,
left and right, it looks very unlikely that the capitalist parties will
introduce it. Although STV remains a policy of the Liberal Democrats, leader
Nick Clegg has indicated he would not insist on PR as a condition of entering a
coalition government. We advocate STV more as a policy that should be introduced
after a socialist revolution (alongside participatory democracy and internet
referenda) than a demand socialists can expect to win under capitalism.
 

Countering BNP arguments on immigration

Part of our strategy to defeat the BNP has to be countering their arguments on
immigration. Unfortunately, the left has usually only made points without
justifying them (like the SWP slogan "asylum seekers welcome here") or used
moral arguments (like "capital can move anywhere in the world so why shouldn't
workers") - good up to a point but we need to think strategically about how to
achieve our goals as well.

It would be electoral suicide to call for 'open borders' on an election leaflet
without justifying such a position, and I would suggest that people coming to
the UK from all over the world with their wealth of experiences helps radicalise
people and, after helping us foment revolution here, they can return and
overthrow their leaders back home! Once again, capitalist politicians are not
going to implement such a policy, so perhaps we should focus discussion and
arguments on what a socialist government should do in a mainly capitalist world
or a mainly or fully socialist world. Clearly we would want visitors from
overseas to experience socialism and learn from us, but there remain questions
I'm posing for debate.

Should immigrants receive benefits, even if they aren't granted British
citizenship? Arguably the inability of Eastern Europeans from countries now in
the EU to claim them has led to many returning home when they can no longer find
work, and if a government changed policy on this it could give the BNP a big
boost. It would of course be inhuman to not give asylum seekers benefits,
especially considering they can't work legally. Should all residents (over a
certain age which I'd argue should be 16) be allowed to vote and stand for
election? I'd say yes.


Support call for new anti-capitalist party in Britain

The next general election (in June 2010 at the latest) is a great opportunity
for the left. We should take advantage of the hatred of mainstream parties
(saying our candidates would live on an average constituent's wage would be
popular in the wake of the expenses scandal), bankers and the capitalist
economic system generally. If we argue socialist politics skilfully (with some
ideas on this presented above), we can win seats and maybe even hold the balance
of power.
 
I have previously argued for a Democratic Revolutionary Socialist Party
(possibly with that name), advocating socialism with proportional representation
as well as participatory democracy and possibly on-line referenda. Since this
idea has not been taken up (with most others less keen on PR and preferring
broader initiatives) but something similar to my suggestion of a revolutionary
anti-capitalist party (inspired by such a party in France) is taking off - see
www.anticapitalistparty.org.uk⁠ for details, including a Facebook group which
has attracted over 450 people and a rally on 14 November. It should be discussed
whether the party is to be openly revolutionary, but it would be best with a
fairly minimal programme, encouraging individual candidates to put forward their
own views and vote according to what they really believe if elected, like
independents. The momentum against MPs lying and following party lines is good!

Divisions on the left are unfortunate but unavoidable. Maybe this initiative can
bring in other significant forces, but we should seek electoral pacts with the
rest of the left including the Green Party to avoid standing against each other.


--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...⁠
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve⁠
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,⁠
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk⁠[ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in⁠]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve,⁠ MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve⁠ and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519⁠
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net⁠
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org⁠
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net⁠
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,⁠
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,⁠http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-r\
evolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,⁠http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic⁠
My socialist band, Red Day:
http://www.red-day.net,⁠http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,⁠http://www.facebo\
ok.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341⁠
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist revolution
will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net