Oh Jessica, Goodbye

 I have known Jessica for over 15 years. I am not sure if I am qualified to write this. Normally there are two types of obituaries, those written about famous people from any walk of life, anyone can write those. |Then there are those written about ordinary people, but you have to be really close to write those don't you? In that I feel inadequate. So I will write it, but who will read it? Does that matter, not really...

There were times that we were really close and would talk every single day, but there were equally times that we would not speak for long periods of time, even a year, it was never that we fell out, we just didn't pick the conversation back up, but each time we spoke we carried on again like there hadn't been a gap.

Jessica led a difficult life,, born into a world that did not understand her, and she struggled to understand herself, she struggled often with self destruction, there were times she pleaded with me to put bets on, after banning herself from registering on gambling sites, I know i definitely wasn't the only way. Mentally she had a way of convincing me it was a good idea, though i never could bring myself to enabling it.

 One of the ways in which she was self destructive, was that she was an arsehole to people around her, it's not the done thing, to say in an obituary, we sugarcoat people in death, I understand why. I don't understand why. Being an arsehole, was legitimately a part of who she was, sometimes justified, sometimes not, sometimes entertaining.

 A big part of Jessica's identity was that she was a trans woman, something she struggled with herself, not that she was ever in denial, but she struggled with both her sexuality and gender identity more because she didn't always fit in neat boxes. After writing the last sentence I felt of deleting, but then I remained one one occasion someone asking her about her gender identity at the time, the response she gave was "Oh, I don't fucking know" That was the Jessica I knew.

Her difficulties, with her sexuality, gender identity and the addictions all played a part in forming the Jessica you will likely hear of in an other obituary. She was kind compassionate, trebled amd every injustice and would not take any prisoners, sometimes clinical, sometimes knee jerk but always complete and often at her own expense.

She had become more than comfortable with the person she had become, but always craved acceptance from others, her family and her political allies, and when she didn't get it, she tried to hide it, not always successfully.

We spoke about so many different things at length, but not all the time, in fact it been 10 months since we last spoke and I found of your passing as I was about to message you. I wanted to ask you as a trans woman, how to approach trans rights in your party, you would understand the importance of both, I regret that conversation we never had.

We had other conversations about trans rights and the left, I always felt inadequate in those discussions, how could I have anything of worth to add both to your lived experience and your meticulous research? Though i will fondly remember the laughter I gave you when I coined the phrase "transphobia is the last refuge of the bigot" something you enjoyed. 

Is this the definitive truth of your life? No, probably not, but it is how I knew you.

Like so many in the trans community, you life ended way sooner than it should have, the irony being is you are the one I would have asked for the stats on that. 

Trans lives matter, but this one a little more, Rest in Power (with sparkles)

Your Party - Should we all just get along?

The announcement of the formation of Your Party on the 24th July was met with a huge rush of support, a rush of support that far outweighed the expectations of a lot of people including myself. Like many I signed up almost as soon as I heard the announcement. As it currently stands between 750,000-800,000 people have signed up to the mailing list. It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that all who signed up here will join officially, however what is clear when it is formally launched it will be a sizeable political force.

Whilst I was initially taking aback by the level of support that Your Party attracted, now the dust has settled on the initial launch it is easy to see why. A few months ago, my youngest son came rushing home from his friends house, it was the middle of the day, he told me that a man was drunk and being rude. I pressed him on what was said and I will stay with me forever.

 The friend he was playing with just happened to be of Arabic descent, she would have be roughly 11 years old at the time along with her younger sister who I believe would be around 6 years old. Eventually I was able to get some sense from my son, the man had been shouting at the two young girls along with their mother in their own front garden, calling them filthy c*** that should go back to their own country! I rushed around their without a thought, by the time I had got there though, it was all over.

Sadly, this story is far from unique, nor is it new, what is new though, is the frequency that things are happening, that there are those who feel so emboldened, that its acceptable to hurl vile abuse at small children, that its acceptable to protest outside hotels housing asylum seekers to intimidate them, that in my own community, after reports of children being followed, this quickly turned into a search for black men out at night. There are people openly saying, without any sense of compassion, they hope people fleeing persecution drown in the English channel.

The normalisation of this behaviour, is in part down to the rise of Reform, but this only tells part of the story. Reform have risen not in isolation, they have risen to prominence first under the Conservative government, because Labour offered no opposition of worth, then further under a Labour government as they simply acted as a continuation of the tories. Not only did they continue to implement further austerity, they more importantly continued the narrative that immigration was the problem and they would act hard on immigration. A sick and twisted political move on the part of the Labour right wing, but even if you remove the moral element out of it, not a particularly good tactical move, if you acknowledge immigration is the problem and pledge to address it, you will never do as good a job at addressing it as reform, so they are asking people to vote reform.

The rise of Reform on the electoral field, coupled with the demonstrations all over the country with larger numbers that previously possible, including a demonstration in London with an estimated 150,000, alongside the general change in attitude in society, has happened not by accident. This is a direct result of a vacuum on the political left, Labour do not even nominally hold this space any longer.

Of course the scapegoating of migrants and the associated racism are not the only factors which explain the immediate support for Your Party. One of the first acts of the Labour government was to go after the most vulnerable and attack disability benefits, Food banks were normalised in the sixth richest country in the world under the decade and a half that the conservatives were in power but continue to be equally necessary under Labour, austerity continues unabated, the world is watching on with a televised genocide in Gaza, and the Labour government is not only complicit but has criminalised  those protesting against this and we are sleepwalking into an irreversible climate catastrophe.

So in retrospect, I can see why I was wrong and Your Party attracted the numbers it did. Not only that there is huge enthusiasm from a huge variety of people, those who have been in labour at one time or another, those from disparate left groups, those completely unaligned like myself, and those who are entirely new to politics in anyway. With local groups springing up organically all over the country.

They honeymoon didn't last long at all and it seemed that it had all come crashing down, though in the days that have followed it looks like things are somewhat back on track, but this is where I think I diverge from the dominant opinion, or at least the opinion of what appears to be the loudest voices.

The dominant view of all onlookers appears to be either 'they just need to get along' or 'they are both as bad as each other' or some combination of those views. This take on events is understandable to a certain degree, the left does have a very deserved reputation of splitting over meaningless things, however disputes are not always meaningless, and I don't think this one is either. 

 Whilst neither side at the top of Your Party has acted well in the last few days and for that both the Sultana and Corbyn camps should be held to account. Its important to also look beyond the immediate actions that took place and what was the motivation behind their actions. 

A bit of background is required to explain this, I don't think a Your Party without Corbyn would have been possible, he retains is mass appeal and support from a huge section of society from his time as Labour leader, it was a freak accident that he was able to become leader, Nevertheless Corbyn was a breath of fresh air, a principled fighter for ordinary people, one of the very few opposition voices all throughout the New Labour years. Many joined or rejoined Labour during his leadership, he was able to hold a mass audience that no other politician could. He gained a higher real vote than labour leaders either side of him as a result, but it also went so badly. That was largely down to Corbyn's own weakness, despite his steadfast commitment, he does not like to rock the boat, he was unwilling to combat his critics, backed down on mandatory re-selection, which could have transformed Labour for the better, he was ineffective at best in combating the slurs of antisemitism. In short he was (and is) just too meek and mild mannered.

  That analysis of Corbyn is important, because it takes us to where we are currently. There is a lot that I like most people, do not know the details of, but it appears that discussions for a new party have been going on behind the scenes for quite some time, to the point for a lot of people, including myself, the eventual announcement of a new party, was no longer a surprise as so much had happened leading up to it. However it does seem like a distant memory now, but the announcement of Your Party was sped up by leaked announcements for Zarah Sultana. 

This was also the main feature of the latest spat, Zarah Sultana and those in her immediate circle acted to roll out the membership structures immediately, Corbyn's camp seemed hesitant to hand over the reigns before so much was sown up, this is where the meek and mild Corbyn, comes into his worst, because it appears he is prioritising an alliance with the MP's of the Independant Alliance, ahead of a member led party, scandalous in reality, not simply for the democratic reasons, but also many of those MP's are not really that left hence the problems.

What followed was farcical, Corbyn's camp reported a data breech, and Sultana responded with legal threats, both sides acted reprehensibly in this instance, neither came out looking even reasonable, and both should withdraw their respect complaints immediately. At the time of writing Sultana has announced she will no longer be pursing legal action, I am unable to verify if Corbyn has done the same.

Zarah's Sultana's immediate reaction to pursue a legal route to resolve this in my view, shows a huge political weakness on her part, it is good to see she has now been talked down from this avenue. Whilst both sides acted appallingly, I do not think it right to equate these as equally bad. Sultana was attempting to open up the party to the membership, has since signed and shared a position which argues from just that. Corbyn was trying to slow this process down. So when we we look at the issues at hand and put aside the methods being used, Zarah was right all along.

For many the dispute at the top came as a complete surprise, but for many others, disputes like this were obvious, even if the methods utilised were not anticipated. Some have been put off from being involved in Your Party as a result, though from what I can see, that seems largely to be those on the periphery who are likely to return in the future, those who have begun to organise in the proto-groups have largely carried on, though now with a greater understanding on the need to take ownership of the fledgling party, to engage in the debates, to shape the party now.

For me, whilst not in ideal circumstances, the events that took place have resulted in a net positive effect, it has brought the differences out into the open to varying degrees, it has shown the need for a member led party and increased the view that we should engage in the ideas that will shape the type of organisation we build. I was recently at a local Your Party meeting we a very prominent participant stated "There is more that unites us than divides as and we shouldn't focus on what divides us" Now whilst it is certainly true there is more that unites us ideologically than that which divides us, but it is precisely because of the events that happened subsequently, that at times we do need to discuss what we disagree on.

We have a chance now though, to create a culture where it is perfectly valid and acceptable to disagree, let's normalise this, Create a culture of discussion, debate & disagreement, as this will help us build a mass party of struggle. 

Should we all just get along? Absolutely not, let's discuss and debate our differences openly, only this approach will allow us to build a mass party of struggle to combat, racism, austerity, genocide and climate catastrophe. We should co-exist, getting along is desirable but not necessary. Though of course there are some political lines in the sand so to speak. Pretending we do not have differences or those differences are meaningless will in reality be crippling, it will stop of building a party of resistance and we will not be successful, but as Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn both said - There is no other choice.

Mapping out the character and evolution of todays European far right.

 I once again appeared on a guest of the Outa Space podcast, again in the 'space staion'

The rising right in Ireland and the International Brigade creative link

 Below is an episode of the Outa Space arts podcast in which I I appeared as a guest in the 'space station'

The battle of cable street

The following article was originally written for the Xekinima website

Today marks the 85th anniversary of what became known as the “Battle of Cable Street”, and is a very apt time to revisit the history and learn the vital lessons from this. Britain first, the far-right organisation have recently re-registered as a political party. Throughout much of the world we have seen both fascist and far right populist organisations emboldened and confident to act often with violence.

[ 23 October 2021 09:28 ] ⁨Glyn Matthews⁩: What became known as the Battle of Cable Street was an attempt by Oswald Mosely and his British Union of Fascists (BUF) to solidify their position by marching through the east end of London in full fascist uniform (the British fascists were known as the blackshirts). This was also a deliberate act of provocation and intimidation. It was estimated that there were 350,000 Jewish people living in Britain at the time with roughly half living in the east end of London. Yiddish was often the lingua franca in many east end communities.

This was in 1936, a time when Hitler was already in power in Germany and where it was already official policy to persecute Jews. Mussolini was in power in Italy and the Spanish Civil war was underway. It was only a few years prior to the outbreak of World War two.

***

At the time the Blackshirts had been gaining significant momentum. Two years prior they held a notorious rally in London Olympia with 12,000 in attendance including 2,000 in full uniform ready to attack any opposition which dared to turn up. They claimed to have 40,000 members and had the active support of the Daily Mail, a national daily newspaper.

Had they been able to successfully march through the east end of London unopposed it would have been disastrous for the Jewish community in the east end as well as many other ethnic or religious groups, and also all socialists and trade unionists.

In the lead up to the march the BUF held a series of meetings throughout the east end to whip up hatred towards the Jewish community. There was an immediate response from the community the Jewish Peoples’ Council which started a petition to ban the march, which gained over 100,000 signatures within only two days.

***

However, the feeling of the community and rank and file activists was not matched by the leadership. The Jewish hierarchy organised sports day events to try an ensure that Jewish youth were out of the east end on the day of the march. The Labour Party’s George Lansbury, the hero of Poplar council who was jailed for resisting cuts to the poor, wrote: 

“What I want is to maintain peace and order, and I advise people who are opposed to fascism to keep away from the demonstration.”

The Communist Party leadership played an incredibly cynical role. They were in an very powerful position, having a very strong base of support and membership within the east end. Phil Piratin, who later became a CP member of parliament said: 

“If Mosley decides to march, let him. Don’t attempt disorder”. 

The Young Communist League had organised on the same day a rally in Trafalgar Square (central London) in solidarity with the Spanish republic, without the sense of irony that the best possible support for the Spanish republic in the civil war against the fascists was to oppose the fascists on their doorstep.

***

Fortunately, opposition from below grew from within the rank and file of the CP, Jewish groups and others like the Independent Labour Party. As a result, on the day of the march 300,000 emptied onto the streets to confront the blackshirts and the police who attempted to escort them. It was a real show of working-class defiance from all sections of the working class. Barricades were erected by Irish Catholic dockers around Commercial Road and Cable Street. Children were seen throwing marbles, preventing the advance of police horses, who were unable to navigate their hooves around the marbles. Chamber pots emptied overhead of the fascists, the streets erupted with Communists, trade unionists, Jews, Irish and all nationalities of all ages and genders. 

It was an embarrassing defeat for Mosely and the BUF. They were forced to retreat, even with the police attempting to aid them. The working-class communities had shown that not only were they not welcomed, but they would be prevented from being there at all. The BUF never recovered from this and every time far right groups like this have attempted to march throughout Britain, the spectre of Cable Street hangs over them and they always meet resistance.

***

Had many particularly in the CP listened to the leadership instead of organising a united front campaign of all sections of the working class in their communities to build mass resistance to ensure the fascists could not pass, then events could had turned out very differently than they had. That is the real legacy of the heroes of Cable Street.

Letter of resignation from Socialist Alternative

 Below is a copy of the resignation letter I co-signed from Socialist Alternative which should be read in conjunction with the announcement  of disaffiliation by the Greek, Cypriot and Turkish sections from International Socialist Alternative. 

Comrades,

The signatories to this letter are clear in their commitment to building a revolutionary Marxist international organisation, but have lost confidence that ISA and the sections in EWS can play a correctly orientated role in that struggle.  

Our reasons for leaving Socialist Alternative (EWS) and ISA can be summarised as follows.

A misguided approach from SA / ISA to democratic centralism, which has produced a top-down approach to decision making and political perspectives. 

A lack of communication with and support for comrades. 

Communication with branch comrades who challenge the orthodoxy of the leadership being conducted in formal and bureaucratic ways eg, the PC, as a body, emailing individual comrades demanding a written response to issues raised, rather than by a personal telephone contact in the first instance.

Institutional bullying of comrades eg, a comrade being criticised in a PC meeting, without the comrade’s knowledge or the right to reply. The criticisms were later to be proved to be completely fabricated.

Repeated mis-characterisation and distortion of TIDU comrades’ ideas. 

Repeated misrepresentation, or even concealing of events concerning international sections, especially relating to Australia and Taiwan. 

The adoption by SA of ISA policies on neoliberalism, deglobilisation, decoupling, China etc without any involvement of branch comrades.

A low level of debate and scrutiny by the NC of the PC even in instances where their actions have been proven to be wrong.

Totally inadequate minute taking of NC and PC meetings where branch comrades would have no way of knowing which comrades were making different points. This hinders branch comrades’ ability to see where new ideas and insights are coming from.

Re-writing history. Describing the reasons for the collapse of the old CWI as around political differences, rather than as a product of over-centralised authoritarian leadership. The emphasis on political differences was clearly the CWIs position and the minority comrades in EWS, generally denied significant political differences and pointed to structural problems and the authoritarian approach of the CWI leadership in particular. 

A mis-use of power in the organisation eg, a blocking of material from publication on the website. For example, comrade Vlad Bortun from the Spanish state was denied access to the international website for articles on neoliberalism, there are many other examples of individuals or sections being denied access to the website and this has also happened with the SA EWS website.

All content on the ISA website being decided on by a small editorial team. No place on the website for discussion of different perspectives. 

Leading comrades closing down discussions on Facebook without the authority to do so.

A leading comrade claiming to speak for the International Executive when having no authority to do so, as comrade EB did in the debate over Taiwan.

The inability to admit any mistakes or to listen in a constructive way to criticism.

An emphasis on training, rather than education in the development of cadre. 

An inflated view of ideas coming from the leadership and an assumption that they are correct on all matters.

Senior comrades behaving as managers, rather than leaders. Leadership is about a fluid dialectical dialogue with the comrades.   

A lack of understanding that many of our methods around structures and building are adopted from a neo-liberal / Stalinist framework, rather than a Marxist framework.

Some of the differences between the comrades who belong to TIDU and the majority comrades have been debated within the EWS section as well as internationally. What has been lacking from all of them is any attempt from the majority comrades to find a way to really consider the ideas of the minority comrades in a way that would avoid polarisation. This debate method, rather than a more discursive approach, is a method inherited from the CWI. It was not successful in avoiding polarisation under the CWI and has proved to be equally ineffective in avoiding polarisation under the ISA. 

We believe that there has been a complete failure to learn the lessons of the CWI, a failure to learn these lessons has resulted in a repetition of the same mistakes with regards to democratic accountability and henceforth perspectives, we reject the idea that a higher quantity of meetings translates to a higher quality of democracy, it’s how you control the apparatus that counts.

We have deliberately kept this letter of resignation brief because we have become increasingly aware that the differences between us and the majority have become too great to reconcile. We had hoped that this would not be the case. It is our view that the current structures of Socialist Alternative and ISA produce loyal members rather than revolutionary cadre as was also the case in the Socialist Party.

We stand in solidarity with the comrades from the Greek, Turkish, Cyprus and Spanish sections as well as many other comrades internationally who are leaving ISA in order to build an organisation that is Marxist, reflective and democratic. An organisation that agrees with the principles of democratic centralism, but finds a balance between democracy with centralism, rather than an organisation where most of the politics come from a small centralised grouping.

If any comrade would like greater detail, please feel free to contact us at our temporary email address. 

The national question in Wales – interview Glyn Matthews

 

National antagonisms are on the rise in general in the epoch that we are going through. This has been the case for the past few decades but these processes intensify rather than subsid, reflecting the general and deepening crisis of capitalism and engulfing also “developed” industrially, rich countries. One of them is Britain which has been facing not only the Irish question, but in the past couple of decades the Scottish question and, more recently, the rise of “Welsh nationalism”.

“Xekinima” spoke with comrade Glyn Matthews from Socialist Alternative (ISA section) in Wales about recent developments there.

• Hi Glyn. It is well known that there is section of the population in Wales which is raising the demand for independence or greater autonomy within the UK. How extensive is this feeling?

The first thing to say is that, at present it is only a minority of the population who currently support independence. However, support has been rising to historically high levels, a recent opinion poll conducted by You Gov showed a third in support. In fact, 33% said they would vote for independence if a referendum were held the next day, with higher numbers stating they would support greater autonomy.

Whilst this is of course a minority of the population and a much lower level of support than for example Scotland where support for independence currently stands at 55%, it is still high, very significant and rising. One year ago, support stood at 22% and prior to that support for independence has wavered between 8-10% historically. Support for independence has more than trebled over the past few years.

• Has it taken the form of mobilisations, demonstrations, etc? What were the main demands behind them?

There have been quite a lot of demonstrations though not recently since the beginning of the pandemic, but prior to this there were some significant demonstrations. There were notable demonstrations in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, as well as demonstrations in Caernarfon in North Wales of 7,000 and Merthyr in South Wales of 5,000. These are towns with a population of 9,900 and 43,000 respectively – although it must be said, particularly with the demonstration in North Wales, this did involve wider mobilisations based of the population of North Wales.

The likelihood is once the pandemic eases and/or a vaccine is rolled out, that there will be many more demonstrations particularly as there are Welsh Parliament elections next year.

The main demands have been, in my view deliberately vague. Simply slogans such as ‘Yes Cymru’ or “A fair deal for Wales” (Cymru being Welsh for Wales)

• What are the roots of it, historically?

I hope you are sitting comfortably! I will try and give just a brief overview. Wales was taken over by England much earlier than either Scotland or Ireland. As a result, it is much more integrated into Britain or rather England than compared to Scotland. Just to give one significant example there is an England and Wales legal system and a separate Scottish legal system, similar examples could be given in other spheres. This explains why generally support for independence is lower, Wales is much more intertwined with England than Scotland is and without the North Sea oil which is held up as an example of how an independent Scotland could be economically viable.

That does not mean that there has always been a happy relationship, there were serious attempts by the ruling class, almost all of English descent, to wipe out the Welsh language. For example, in the past children were beaten in schools for speaking Welsh. In north Wales quarries workers would organise in the median of Welsh, much to the annoyance of the quarry owners and management, all of English origin, who could not understand a word being said!

Over the years there have been battles which are brought to the fore and highlight the rights of Welsh people to their identity and culture. In the 1960s a Welsh village was completed flooded to create a reservoir for the use of industry in the North West of England, in the 1980s there were successful campaigns for a Welsh language television channel and continuous battles in different local areas over Welsh median schools as well as many other issues.

The industrial decline in the UK throughout the 1980s had a devastating effect on South Wales in particular and this is where the majority of the Welsh population are located. As a result, wider political issues in the UK have an increasing impact on the national consciousness within Wales.

• To what extend is it related to the economic and political developments of the recent period?

I think this is an important question, really this is the answer to the recent rise in support of independence. Since the inception of devolved government in Wales, it has always been led by Labour, either alone or in a coalition, but never by the Conservatives. Of course, in Britain we have had a Conservative government for the last decade, and that decade has been marked by huge austerity measures stemming from the last financial crash in 2008. Whilst the Conservatives at present do have many elected representatives throughout Wales, there have been times where there has not been a single conservative MP sent to London from Wales, and there would certainly be no possibility of a Conservative government of any kind being formed within Wales.

Hatred for the Conservatives and the policies they have implemented over the last decade, and the legacy of what they had done in power previously, presiding of the industrial decline of South Wales and with it, well-paying jobs, definitely plays a significant role in increased support for Welsh autonomy. Though it is not the only factor involved. Brexit has also played a large role in this, and it is no coincidence that support for Welsh independence has sky rocketed since Britain withdrew from the EU.

• How would you describe the political characteristics of the “independence movement”? What is the impact of left ideas on this? Are there Welsh political organisations? Is there a Welsh Left?

It is hard to define, the issue has largely been boiled down to a call for Wales to have its say and to choose our own destiny, without a lot behind that. At the same time there is certainly the use of left leaning rhetoric, “Wales has been given a raw deal” in the context of the industrial decline and without the replacement of equally well-paying jobs – before the expansion of the EU in eastern Europe, Wales received category 1 funding because it was one of the most disadvantaged areas of the EU. There are certainly many politicians talking left on the issue, attacking the right-wing Westminster government and the cuts and austerity by the Labour led Welsh parliament as examples.

Plaid Cymru –The Party of Wales– is the main nationalist party within Wales. It had previously ruled out the idea of independence at all, but now many within, including the leader Adam Price call openly for a referendum. In recent years they have used slogans like “Don’t vote labour for your fathers, vote Plaid for your children”. The intent behind it is to say that they represent the social democratic values that Labour used to but no longer ring true. There is truth in that assertion.

We could talk for hours about the nature of Plaid Cymru, but to summarise it is a broad-based party which has members and representatives which range from centre-right to fairly left. Some of whom we have in the past worked closely with. Leanne Wood, the previous leader for example, took a worker’s wage, though the exact details of this are unknown. The workers’ representatives on a worker’s wage, of course is something which ISA has always prided itself on. Though she herself, whilst not smeared in the same way Corbyn was, still suffered the fate of attempting to appease the right of the party, not anyway near to the extent of Labour, but certainly diluted her socialist policies as leader of the party.

There is also a geographic divide to a certain extend where the more rural areas of Wales see a more right-wing version of the party where the more urban areas are more left.

There is not really a Welsh left as such, there certainly is a left-wing of Plaid Cymru and the same is true of Welsh Labour. There is also a much smaller Welsh Nationalist Party set up by Neil McEvoy a maverick politician, hated by activists as a breakaway from Plaid Cymru, which currently has elected McEvoy as a member of the Welsh Parliament, often talking left.

The Labour left, and the Labour party more generally do not support independence, but polls also indicated that amongst those who do support independence, a higher proportion are Labour voters. More recently the Green Party of England and Wales announced a policy change, stating that in the event of a referendum they would campaign for an Independent Wales.

Of course, aside from this you also have organisations like Socialist Alternative active in Wales which would form part of a Welsh left.

• Has the phenomenon of Corbynism had an effect on the Welsh independence movement?

This is an interesting question, I don’t think Corbyn had much effect on this to be honest.

One of Corbyn’s weaknesses was his support for the continued union and not openly supporting Scottish independence and remained totally silent on the issue of Wales. I think what is likely to happen is that since the attacks on Corbyn by the Labour leadership, support for Welsh independence will rise further from an already historically high point, as disenfranchised Corbynistas, particularly young people, will be looking for an outlet to fight back against the Westminster government.

• Would you describe the movement for independence as left-progressive, or as right-wing nationalist?

I certainly would not describe it as right-wing nationalist, anyone who would fit that mould is likely to be a British nationalist and ardently opposed to the breakup of the union including any form of Welsh devolution or independence.

I would describe it as generally left or progressive. Much of the intention behind it can often be attributed to avoiding Conservative rule from London – that’s obviously an over-simplification of the issue but it certainly plays a big part on the rising movement. Though equally, there are many on the left (the Labour left being the most notable but others too) who would oppose independence, with some sections of the welsh working class seeing the Welsh parliament as useless and ineffective, because they have been completely ineffective in their opposition to austerity measures.

• How do the Welsh workers and youth see the EU and Brexit?

A complex question to answer really, I think that workers and youth in Wales, like the rest of Britain, see the EU in a very mixed way. The EU of course is a neoliberal institution which only operates in the interests of big business. I think that was very clear in the Greek movement against the EU, however that was not clear in the Brexit referendum in the way it was understood by many, particularly many radical young people who saw maintaining membership of the EU as a kind of internationalism. As Marxists of course we would argue that internationalism is for workers organisations and not for capitalist governments, but that does not stop many from viewing it that way.

In many ways, this has probably played a part in the rise in the support for Welsh independence, the idea of an Independent Wales staying in the EU. Plaid Cymru have always been big supporters of the EU and this is the kind of thing being advocated by the Scottish National Party in Scotland (not to mention the problems created in Northern Ireland with either a north/south or east/west border after withdrawal from the EU).

Other movements across Europe undoubtedly have played a part in influencing the rise of Welsh independence as well, the movements in Catalunya to give just one example.

• Last but not least, what in your opinion is the way forward for this movement?

I am glad you asked, this of course is the most relevant question. I think the most important aspect is to look at what type of Wales we are trying to build. We only have to look at the history of the Welsh Assembly, which earlier this year changed its name to Welsh Parliament to reflect its increased powers. Since its establishment in 1999 it has presided over cuts in many areas, health and education, whilst always presenting themselves as better than London, the results were either the same or nor far off.

On this basis an independent Wales run by either Labour or Plaid Cymru would simply show us more of the same with no real change. More important than independence, would be the policies put forward – whether they are in the interests of working class people or the interests of the rich.

The key has to be forging a new left workers’ party in Wales to put forward a genuine Socialist Alternative for Wales, to hold the Welsh politicians particularly Labour and Plaid Cymru to account, and to aim to build and campaign on policies in the interests of ordinary workers and young people throughout Wales, for a Socialist Wales as part of a voluntary federation alongside England, Scotland & Ireland as a step towards building a Socialist Europe

The death agony of the Fourth International

 I have recently read 'The death agony of the Fourth International - and the tasks of Trotskyists today' A wordy title for a book to say the least. For those familiar it is an obvious play on the full title of the transitional program by Leon Trotsky - The death agony of capitalism and the tasks of the Fourth International.

Written by Workers Power - now known as Red Flag in 1983 it is a very good explanation of the demise of the Fourth Internationals origins and its ultimate demise. I do not agree with their conclusions in the book which led of course to them renaming their international the League for a Fifth International, however their insights into the Fourth International itself are illuminating and something that all Trotskyists need to back to and tackle today as the issues have not been resolved.

They start quite correctly by looking at how the Fourth International came to exist in the first place. initially a tendency within the Communist International and therefore the mass communist parties that had developed after the Russian revolution of 1917, arguing correctly at the time to reform the International and only after the huge betrayals of Stalin and by extension the International is the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany was a break and a new international required.

This historical juncture though was marked by both mass social democratic parties and mass or semi mass communist parties throughout the world and with a few notable exceptions, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Bolivia which much smaller agitational groups around the new international, struggling with perspectives and orientation, with groups of varying characteristics involved initially, including many centrist groups which later parted ways.

 This was a necessary break and with a figure like Trotsky to coalesce around able to give it a theoretical backbone the international was able to develop its own identity, but with both the assisation of Trotsky and a changed world post war in which his perspectives were not borne out. The post war boom of capitalism in the west and the expansion of Stalinism, meant that the fourth international began very quickly to loose its way. in essence, it forgot why it existed!

It became a power struggle of various factions, no figure had the political authority to carry it, so organisational maneuvers became the order of the day, from the antics of Cannon and his interference in the British section, even before the founding congress in 1938 to the split and subsequent reunification of the International secretariat and the International committee. 

This has been the legacy of not just those organisations directly descended from the fourth international but has been inbedded in the trotskyist movement throughout its history. Most recently seen in the most obvious way by the moves of the refounded CWI.

 A movement specifically set up to inject democracy back into the workers movement has been severely lacking in democracy from the offset. The Bolsheviks of which all Trotskyists would agree is the basis for their organisation, prior to the rise of Stalinism  was an open and democratic organisation with a thriving and living internal life with open disucssion and differences, which helped the organisation truly become the revolutionary and democratic force it was, a lesson that the Trotskyist movement is sorely lacking and strongly needs to relearn in order to build a dynamic international capable of the task of transforming society.

Thoughts on AEW Full Gear

This review is a bit late, better late than never. But AEW recently held its Full Gear event, which was a fantastic show.

The buy in match was an unusual one. Simply because the window to the show proper was an NWA women's title match with Serena Deeb defending against Alison Kay, it was a decent opener with Deeb coming out on top only to be confronted by Thunder Rosa at the end who recently lost the title to Deeb. Whilst this all centred on the NWA Women's championship it does suggest that all three of them are not done with AEW yet, and perhaps a deepening of a working relationship between AEW and NWA.

Those show proper opened with a bang. The tournament final for the #1 contednership of the AEW World championship. Kenny Omega vs. Adam Page.

This match could have easily main evented the card and did not fail to deliver. A real back and forth of equals with a fantastic ending. Both were still in the fight Page was desperately attempting to counter Omega's One Winged Angel, however as soon as it was hit, the match was over. Great in so many ways. Omega, was the right person to win, Page was kept strong and needs to be, he is positioned as the future of AEW and also the One Winged Angel is still that most rare thing in wrestling. A protected finisher.

Next up we saw the Dark Order's John Silver taking on Orange Cassidy. Silver is absolutely gold as a personality, this his by far his biggest singles match to date so it is interesting to see what he can do. This was the match i didn't realise I wanted. The match started off playing on the comedy strength of both competitors and was brilliant but when the match got going, it got going and both could really go, a fantastic match over all with Cassidy coming out with the win. 

Next up Cody Rhodes defended the TNT championship against Darby Allin. It was a fantastic match with an old school mentality to the match, Cody just keeps getting better an better as a character and in ring worker. In a very solid match up a very surprising victory for Darby Allin and  Cody graciously handed over the title to a very emotional Allin. 

This led to Taz coming out to cut a promo on both before Brian Cage and Ricky Starks attacked both from behind. A great use of two top performers who did not feature on the card. Setting up a future angle.

Next up was the AEW World women's championship match with Hikaru Shida defending against Nyla Rose. A solid match with Shida coming out victorious, disappointing simply because I believe that Nyla Rose should completely dominate the division for a long time.

The tag team championship match was up next with FTR defending against the Young Bucks with the stipulation that if the Young Bucks do not win they will never challenge for the tag titles again. This is not the same as when Cody won did the same, there is no likely to be a secondary tag title so I cannot see them loosing, likely to be a count out of disqualification win as I don't see them picking up the titles either. 

This was a great show case of tag team wrestling throughout. A great match with the urgency of the stakes showing through. Battling through injury the Young Bucks picked up the victory in dramatic fashion, there will clearly be a further match between the bucks and FTR and this is not a bad thing at all.

Next up was a cinematic match involving the originator of the cinematic match. Matt Hardy vs Sammy Guevara in an Elite Deletion match. Cinematic matches are obviously very different. This one did not fail to deliver, with cameos from Private Party, Santana and Ortiz, Hurricane Helms and Gangrel. The closing moments had references to recent botches, Sammy went through a table and cut the back off his head, then Hardy to him in the face with a chair a reverse of what had happened recently. A great addition to the cinematic match catalogue.

Next up was Jericho vs MJF for the rights to join the Inner Circle. This had to end in a win for MJF it is the only logical ending with MJF joining the Inner Circle to see what happens next. There was an ingenious finish, Jericho caught using a baseball bat, though he didn't and actually was setup by MJF who then used the distraction to role Jericho up for the win, which was the perfect finish for this match.

Jericho then announced that both MJF and Wardlow had joined the Inner Circle. It was disappointing to see Wardlow join as well, I thought it would have been better for MJF TO Beat him down along with Jericho and Hager and for him to subsequently break out on his own, maybe they are playing to long game with this one though.

Now it was time for the main event. Jon Moxley defending the AEW World championship against Eddie Kingston. Kingston is a veteran who up until now has not had a run in a major promotion befitting his talents. With this taking place as as no dq submission match and knowing the history of both in such stipulations I was looking forward to this match. Brutal is the only word you could use to describe this hard-core affair. It ended when Kingston quit whilst in a choke hold utilising barbed wired. This raised both competitors, Morley has not been top dog as champion and Kingston relatively new to the promotion  both had their stocks raised by the end of the night.

Overall a fantastic show, I think it really is a question of quality over quantity. AEW only have 4 ppvs per year and as a result they can build storyline and put everything into them. A great show for sure.

Old Tin Works Road

 I had planned to publish the essays I had written here, however the first piece of work I have submitted would not make any sense to a reader without the background information and reading materials so there is little point. However one part of the work. A description of a street I am familiar with can stand on its own.

Old Tin Works Road, connecting Treforest to Rhydyfelin in South Wales,  also connects people. As the name suggests it is the site of a former tin works long since gone representing the industrial decline. It has no houses or shops simply an allotment and a noticeably quiet scrap yard. The street runs parallel with the main road, it is predominantly pedestrianised, the people found here are generally either dog walkers, older people or families out for a walk or younger individuals traveling between the connected areas avoiding the busy main road. What connects everyone is the isolation and quiet they have sought, they have this in common.