'Never seen a linebacker punt a senator': Critics agree Cruz lost debate in a 'landslide'

Erik De La Garza

RAW STORY
October 15, 2024 


The debate performance between Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and his well-funded opponent, Democratic Rep. Colin Allred, lit up social media Tuesday night and the majority of it wasn’t positive for the state’s junior senator – with even longtime Republicans criticizing Cruz.

“Wow, @ColinAllredTX just destroyed @tedcruz in the debate tonight,” wrote former George W. Bush strategist Matthew Dowd in a social media post. “Showed Cruz has zero integrity, is not a principled conservative, and only looks out for himself. Look forward to voting for Allred during early voting.”

“Never seen a linebacker punt a senator before,” conservative lawyer George Conway wrote on X.

Conway’s post was a response to an exchange in which Allred, a former NFL player, said: “When Cruz starts talking about teen sports, you gotta watch out because the onlyposition he ever played was left out. I’m not trying to be mean but sit this one out.”

“Colin Allred is having a remarkably effective debate against Ted Cruz. Just eviscerating his all hat and no cattle views on immigration,” according to Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott.

Scott Dworkin, co-founder of the Democratic Coalition, wrote in his own social media post that “Ted Cruz lost the debate to Colin Allred in a landslide,” adding “It wasn’t even close. That was embarrassing for Cruz, even for him. Pathetic. Vote Allred.”

The Senate race’s first and only debate in Dallas came as polls show Allred is gaining ground in the steep hill to become the first Democrat elected to statewide office in the traditionally red state since the 1990s.

'Cruz just looked into a camera and lied': Sparks fly as Democrat unloads at Texas debate

Matthew Chapman

RAW STORY
October 15, 2024 

Senator Ted Cruz (BILL CLARK/POOL/AFP)

Sparks flew at the Texas Senate debate on Tuesday night, as the Democratic opponent of Sen. Ted Cruz, former NFL player, civil rights lawyer and Dallas-area Rep. Colin Allred, hammered the firebrand senator repeatedly over his abortion stance in light of Texas adopting one of the most extreme bans in the nation.

Polling has shown that Cruz retains a slight lead in the race, but Allred is fighting to be the first Democrat elected to statewide office in Texas since the 1990s.

"Senator Cruz just called himself pro-life. You’re not," said Allred. "It’s not pro-life to deny women care so long that they can’t have children anymore ... To every Texas woman at home ... when he says he’s pro-life, he doesn’t mean yours."

Cruz tried to brand Allred as the candidate with the radical position on abortion — but Allred was having none of it.

"It's time to finally tell the truth here: Senator Cruz just looked into a camera and lied to Texans about my position," said Allred, as Cruz visibly shook his head and snorted with laughter.

"Let's be very clear: you should look into the camera and speak to Kate Cox, who's watching right now, and explain to her why you said this law that you said is 'perfectly reasonable,' why she was forced to leave her two children behind and flee our state to get the care that she needed.," Allred said. "Or look into the camera and talk to Amanda Zurawski, who's watching right now, and explain to her why it's perfectly reasonable that because she had a complication in her pregnancy and was denied care so long that she may never be able to have children of her own, or to the 26,000 Texas women who've been forced to give birth to their rapist's child under this law that you called perfectly reasonable. It's not."

"This is not freedom," he continued. "I trust Texas women to make their own health care decisions. Now Aly and I had two baby boys here in Dallas in the last five years. You're scared the entire time, you don't know what they're going to say. But I can't imagine if a doctor came in, said there's a problem with the baby, or a problem with Aly, but there's nothing I can do, because Ted Cruz thinks he knows better. That's not who we are as Texans. When I'm in the United States Senate, we'll restore a woman's right to choose, we'll make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again, and we'll make these stories of seeing these horrific experiences going on all over our state something of the past. That's my commitment to Texans."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

'Spectacular turnout': Georgia voters cast record number of early ballots

DAY ONE: 300,000 VOTES

Erik De La Garza
October 15, 2024 

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. (AFP)

Georgia election officials were encouraged Tuesday by the record number of early voters casting ballots in the critical battleground state that faces challenges from Hurricane Helene and litigation over controversial election rule changes.

Over 300,000 ballots were cast Tuesday, the opening day for early voting in the state, Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling announced on X.

“For those that claimed Georgia election laws were Jim Crow 2.0 and those that say democracy is dying…the voters of Georgia would like to have a word. Over 300,000 votes cast today! That’s 123% higher than the old record for the 1st day. Great job counties & voters,” Sterling said.

Earlier in the day, Sterling called the quarter of a million votes cast by 4 p.m. a “spectacular turnout.”

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger wrote in a social media post that Georgia voters “have surpassed all daily records for any day of early voting in 2022.” He added that “Georgia voters are energized!”

“No matter how you look at it, these are huge numbers,” said CNN’s Erin Burnett on her show “OutFront.” She asked veteran Democratic operative David Axelrod to analyze what he saw in the numbers.

“To me, this is a statement on the part of people across the state that, ‘Hey we’re coming, we’re going to vote, we’re not going to be discouraged’ and that, I think, is great.” He added that he believes the turnout is “mildly encouraging for Democrats."

"And certainly it's encouraging for democracy that a record is being broken," Axelrod said. "But it looks like we’re heading for another big election.”

Voters in US state of Georgia hit polls in record numbers as early voting begins
Americas

Almost 1 in 7 voters in the state of Georgia officially submitted their choice for the next US President on the first day of early voting on Tuesday, as Republicans' appeals to vote ahead of election day materialize in the vital battleground state.


Issued on: 16/10/2024 - 
By:NEWS WIRES

Campaign staff members move a sign before a rally for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump at the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre on October 15, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. © Kevin Dietsch, Getty Images/AFP

Voters in Georgia turned out in record numbers as the battleground state opened early voting for the Nov. 5 presidential election between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, state officials said on Tuesday.

At least 252,000 voters had cast ballots at early-voting sites as of 4 p.m. EDT (2000 GMT), nearly double the 136,000 who participated in the first day of early voting in the 2020 election, said Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's No. 2 election official. "Spectacular turnout," he wrote on social media.

Trump, at a campaign event in Atlanta, expressed enthusiasm for the early vote in Georgia.

"The votes are coming in, and they're coming in at a nice level for us," he said.

Early voting, either in person or by mail, has become increasingly popular with US voters. Nearly 1 in 7 voters cast their ballots ahead of Election Day in 2020, according to the University of Florida's Election Lab. However, many Republicans opposed the dramatic expansion of mail voting that year, saying it was less secure than in-person voting, and Trump cited false claims of mail ballot fraud as he sought unsuccessfully to overturn his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden.

Some Republicans continue to insist that voters should be able to cast their ballots only in person on Election Day, though party officials are encouraging supporters to vote ahead of time.

Nationwide, 5.5 million Americans have already voted this year, according to Election Lab. By contrast, 27 million people had cast their ballots at this point in the 2020 election as voters sought to avoid crowded polling places during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Like some other states, Georgia has tightened its mail-voting laws since then, requiring voters who want to cast an absentee ballot to provide proof of identity and limiting the number of places they can deposit their ballots.

Georgia is one of the seven competitive battleground states expected to play a decisive role in deciding the election.

(Reuters)

'Feeling the heaviness': Federal workers fear mass firings under 'vindictive' Trump

Maya Boddie, Alternet
October 15, 2024 

Environmental Protection Agency employees worry "they might soon get fired" under a second Donald Trump administration, according to a Tuesday, October 15 Politico report.

Per Politico, the 2024 GOP nominee "and his allies have singled out certain agencies — including those that issue environmental rules — as prime targets," in the case he defeats Vice President Kamala Harris next month.

Furthermore, the news outlet notes that "Trump has pledged to 'demolish the deep state," while 2024 vice presidential nominee JD Vance "has said Trump ought to fire “every civil servant in the administrative state.”

With this in mind, federal employees like one Department of the Interior employee and their spouse "are handling their finances" by putting off buying a new car," according to Politico.

"We’re both feeling the heaviness of this right now," one of them told the news outlet.

"We have stopped doing any money-spending things because what if we’re without jobs in the next year? We need all the savings we can get."

Additionally, Politico reports, "That employee and others interviewed for this story spoke to POLITICO’s E&E News on condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation if a Trump administration takes over in January."

The Interior official added, "They’re so vindictive, I can see them going back through E&E News articles and saying, 'You’re fired.'"

Politico's full report is available at this link.

Meaningful, long-term change cannot be achieved unless we fix our political system too

Labour won the election with promises to partially reform the Lords, clean up politics, and improve access to elections.

Grace Barnett 

Yesterday

Left Foot Forward

Change begins. That was the slogan on Keir Starmer’s lectern as he delivered his first conference speech as Prime Minister. In this speech, Starmer made no secret of the scale of the economic challenge his government faces, and was frank about how long it might take to fix. Whether or not you think the government is cynically overdoing the gloom to justify painful cuts and unpopular policy decisions, the economic challenge we face as a country is formidable.

For the sake of the country, I wish the government luck as it tries to fix the finances. But I would also remind them of this important but often overlooked point: Meaningful, long-term change cannot be achieved unless we fix our political system, too. The Labour manifesto seemed to agree with me. Labour won the election with promises to partially reform the Lords, clean up politics, and improve access to elections.

But we all know that manifesto promises don’t always survive contact with reality in government. As Labour approaches its 100th day in office, it feels like a good time for a progress report on their plans to start fixing our politics.

House of Lords: A (small) step in the right direction

House of Lords reform is in Labour’s DNA, so it’s no surprise that this is one area where we’ve seen tangible progress in the first 100 days.

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill gets its Second Reading in the Commons soon. If passed, this would end the presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. This is a long overdue reform, finishing up what the last Labour government started nearly 30 years ago.

The Labour manifesto also promised to introduce a retirement age for the House of Lords, but no further details about how this might work have been announced since the election.

Almost any Lords reform is better than no Lords reform, but these proposals are tinkering around the edges. The House of Lords performs its vital scrutiny role well, but it is woefully unrepresentative of the population and lacks democratic legitimacy.

That’s why this government must commit to meaningful reform of our Second Chamber. Labour’s Manifesto hinted at this, saying that it will consult on proposals to replace the Lords with a more representative alternative. This consultation process, ideally including a Citizens’ Assembly, should begin before the end of Labour’s first year in office.

Elections: A chance to give millions their voice back

Elections in the UK are free and fair, but there are still some significant ways we can make them better. Improving access to the ballot box is a powerful way for the new government to show that they are serious about reversing some of the democratic backsliding we’ve witnessed in recent years.

The government has publicly committed to a system of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR). This means that all eligible voters will be added to the Electoral Register by default, rather than having to apply to be added by their local authority. Right now, around 6.5 million eligible voters are not on the register. That means they are missing out on their right to vote in every election, because of an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle. AVR would make our elections dramatically more open and fair. The government already has all the data and tools it needs to implement AVR. What is it waiting for?

The Labour manifesto also included plans to give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, but there has been worryingly little mention of these plans post-election. Giving them the vote is simple to implement, and could help restore trust in politics among younger people, at a time where disenchantment and alienation are rife.

Finally, on Voter ID, the government has said it will look at expanding the list of IDs that will be accepted by polling stations. I applaud any attempt to make voting more accessible, but this is a disappointingly weak response to the wasteful and pointless voter ID experiment launched under the last government. The implementation of the scheme has been an abject failure, with reports from The Electoral Commission and Democracy Volunteers both finding evidence that hundreds of thousands of voters were turned away at the General Election because they didn’t have the right ID. This new government should stop throwing good money after bad, and scrap the photo ID scheme completely.

Ethics & Integrity: What are they waiting for?

No one expected Keir Starmer (aka “Mr Rules”) to be marking his first 100 days in office bogged down in a scandal about ethics and standards in public life, but “Freebie-gate” is not going away. Defenders of Starmer argue that no one in the new government who accepted freebies has broken any rules. It’s also fair to point out that some of the behaviour tolerated by previous administrations has been many times more serious, and contemptuous of the public.

Unfortunately that is not the point. Trust in politics and politicians is desperately low, and this government was elected on a promise to reform and clean up our system. Any whiff of hypocrisy only reinforces the widely held perception that all politicians are up to no good.

Luckily for him, there is a way that the Prime Minister can draw a line under this episode once and for all, and show voters how our politics can be better.

Before the election, Labour promoted plans for a new Ethics and Integrity Commission. This new Commission would help to regularise the somewhat confusing rules around standards in government and parliament, and implement many reforms which have been long recommended by experts and campaigners. Despite promising “to restore service and respect to politics” on day one of his premiership, little progress has been made on the new Ethics and Integrity Commission since the election. Establishing the Commission without delay would send a clear signal that this government is serious about getting a grip on standards in public life.

On a more positive note, the government wasted no time in establishing the Modernisation Committee which will look at improving working practices in parliament. One of the Committee’s areas of focus will be reviewing the rules around MPs’ earnings from sources outside parliament. Decisive action on this would see an end to part-time MPs, who leave their constituents unrepresented, whilst chasing more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. When it comes to restoring trust in politics, that can only be a good thing.

No time to lose

In its first 100 days in office, the new government has made some positive steps that will reform our politics. After years of democratic backsliding, this is a welcome change. But in order to really make a difference, Labour needs to move faster and more decisively to implement its manifesto promises on democracy while it still has the political capital to do so.

Grace Barnett is Head of Membership and Database at Unlock Democracy

Would proportional representation in the UK benefit the far right?

Claire Jones 

Yesterday

LEFT FOOT FORWARD


Proportional is clearly more democratic than first-past-the-post. But European far-right shifts and the growth of Reform UK are not good optics

.

The 2024 UK general election has strengthened the call for proportional representation (PR). Labour won 63% of the seats with 34% of the votes, an absurd disproportionality that wouldn’t have occurred if Westminster used PR.

PR is clearly more democratic than first-past-the-post (FPTP). But European far-right shifts and the growth of Reform UK are not good optics. It is ‘challenging’ to claim that 97 Reform MPs (under PR) is as acceptable as five (under FPTP). To promote PR as a compelling alternative to FPTP, these concerns need to be addressed.
Europe

European far-right parties can’t now be dismissed as peripheral minorities. With youth support, the AfD’s anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, pro-Putin, climate change denialist, Björn Höcke, performed spectacularly in East Germany’s recent elections. Far-right parties have also polled strongly in Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden.

Underlying these European shifts are socio-economic problems such as poor living standards, anxieties about immigration, cynicism about politics, and impatience with previous coalitions. According to the NAOC, it’s these kinds of ‘social factors lying outside of the voting system itself’ which largely determine the positioning of Europe’s parties. On this view, PR mirrors socio-economic trends but remains structurally able to withstand far-right take-overs.
Vulnerability and open questions

One defence of PR’s resilience is to claim that Trump, Belarus, and the Tory far right, show that FPTP is also vulnerable to extremism. But this is ‘whataboutery’. It merely presents PR as ‘no worse’, not ‘better than’, other systems.

The appeal to thresholds is also questionable. Thresholds keep out fringe parties but are regularly breached. Meloni’s FDL in Italy, Germany’s AfD, the Dutch Party for Freedom all made the grade.

Far-right popularity waxes and wanes. Support for Spain’s Vox party and Finland’s Finn Party recently dropped. But, in the context of Europe’s general rightward shift, this direction could reverse and, in Italy and the Netherlands, far-right support has increased. The current chequered picture is a snapshot in time and doesn’t show that we’ve reached the high watermark of far-right influence.

The UK potentially has two far-right parties: Reform UK and the Tories, capable of growing independently, merging, or forming a coalition. Under FPTP, Reform UK could gain power with a disproportionately low number of seats. But treating PR as the safer option assumes that the UK has an innate centrism which distinguishes us from Europe, that, regardless of our economic fate under Labour, we will retain our progressive majority, and that left and centre parties would work together, be jointly strong enough to retain power and firewall far-right parties. In the current unstable international political climate, with the rapid growth of far-right disinformation, these are open questions.
Sunlight

But PR remains the safer option, it’s argued, because, once extremist parties get proper political representation in PR systems, they become accountable. The greater number of Reform UK MPs yielded by PR would be drawn out from the shadows of their extra-parliamentary activities for full scrutiny.

But this, too, is questionable. Farage, for one, is under closer scrutiny regardless of which voting system is used, by virtue of being an MP. Exposure, if it happens, isn’t the sole prerogative of PR.

The defence also ignores the ability of parties to camouflage themselves as centre-ground. Marine Le Pen has backtracked on radical policies such as retirement reforms, banning the headscarf in public and backing Moscow. The Sweden Democrats, the Risdag’s second largest party, claims to have reformed to the centre, but its attitudes to the family, culture and ethnicity remain fully compatible with its far-right origins. Despite its moderate face, the party is deeply ambiguous and, arguably, positioned, in opportune circumstances, to gravitate back.

‘Centrist’ positioning also tends to be upheld by the mainstream media. The anti-Muslim views and PopCon involvement of Tory leadership contender, Jenrick, have largely been side-stepped by the press. That far-right parties can camouflage themselves in either voting system tells against the idea that PR has special powers to disclose their true nature.
Self-correction

But, it’s argued, the compromises required for inclusion in PR coalitions correct extremist thinking towards the centre. Moderation is protected because the extremist voice is subordinated by the necessity for co-operation and negotiation with other parties. Therefore, since decisions are consensual and power negotiated in PR, Geert Wilders is unlikely to play a role in running the Netherlands.

But, as Israel demonstrates, PR systems are not inherently centrist. Extremist parties can compromise to gain acceptance by a dominant centrist coalition but, equally, centrist parties can be pulled further right. They don’t have to do business with extremists like Wilders and the AfD but, as the far right is licenced to grow, so it can increasingly call the shots: “The mathematical truth … is that the stronger the AfD becomes … the harder it will be for centrist parties to avoid [collaboration]“, the German journalist Constantin Eckner says.

Across Europe, centrist European People’s Party members have adopted stricter immigration policies to secure trade deals with the far right. Similarly, far-right parties are coercing the centre by capitalising on rural resistance to ‘elitist’ green policies.

Since the far right also has significant pulling power, then it can’t be argued that, in PR, parties typically self-correct towards the centre: “When the far right organises ambitiously, coherently and internationally, across borders to win the big battles, [and] tells more compelling stories of loss, nostalgia, blame and fear, then it pulls the right, the centre right, and the centre left with it,” Neal Lawson, the Director of Compass has argued.

This rightward pull can also destabilise centre-ground coalitions. As far-right parties gain support, coalitions formed to oppose them are often unnatural bedfellows, hindered by chronic tensions over matters such as the extent of immigration restrictions, national fiscal autonomy vs the single market and the speed of net zero programmes.

France doesn’t use a PR system as such, but Macron is currently trying to co-ordinate the Left Alliance, a mishmash of parties to work together in a PR-style coalition against Le Pen. Moderate left parties are rubbing shoulders with pro-Russia, pro-conspiracy parties. 90% of socialists don’t want Jean-Luc Mélenchon as PM.

If the strategic grouping of centrist and left coalitions to counter far-right extremism can put the delicate centrist balance ‘in the balance’, then it isn’t a steadfast recipe for stability.
Normalising discourse

PR also lacks resilience where the far-right voice is legitimised via absorption into the official domain of government. PR helps to shape rightward political shifts because formal inclusion lends far-right content respectability and a new platform. Racist, Islamophobic and other hostile narratives insidiously become regular, accepted parts of the political discourse.

This process is accelerated by the demands of collaboration. María Guardiola, president of Spain’s People’s Party (PP) formed various coalitions with Vox, despite condemning Vox’s anti-woke values. By normalising Vox these pacts inclined the centre-right to vote for PP.

Social media is also critical. Far-right rhetoric shared by influential far-right commentators reaches millions across the ‘wild west’ of social media, but is also ingested by far-right political parties, bolstering their presumed right to purvey extremist content themselves.

PR’s inclusion of the far-right voice parallels the issue of freedom of speech. Both are democratic but give authority, new meaning and officialdom to harmful content. We grasp the need to ban harmful content online, yet cling to the idea that disallowing far-right political representation is an affront to democracy, despite its obvious harms.

This progressive ‘generosity’ also overlooks the tendency, illustrated by Orban’s long-standing ‘electoral autocracy’, of far-right parties to destroy the democratic ladder, once climbed, that led them to power.
Re-appraisal needed?

I’ve suggested that we can’t defend PR’s resilience against extremism by saying that FPTP is also vulnerable, that PR is protected by thresholds, or simply reflects external socio-cultural factors. Nor can we claim that centre-ground firewalling generally prevents extremist parties from getting a foothold, or that, where included, the process of negotiation necessarily tames them.

The idea that, in PR, far-right parties are centred by the need for consensus and negotiation, ignores their ability to camouflage themselves, to pull the centre rightwards, and to acquire majorities that liberate them from centrist constraints.

Furthermore, PR bears some responsibility for perpetuating extremism by legitimizing far-right narratives in ways that shape the political environment and culture. The relationship between PR and socio-cultural factors isn’t one way, but interactive.

Until recently, it we could safely assume the centre will hold. Now we can’t. We have to measure the implications of PR’s democratic inclusion of far-right parties in the current context of “profound menace” (Matthew d’Ancona). This is not to endorse FPTP, only to suggest that now is the moment to be careful what we wish for, and to re-think how, as advocates of electoral reform, we should present PR.

Claire Jones writes and edits for West England Bylines and is co-ordinator for the Oxfordshire branch of the progressive campaign group, Compass

This article is adapted from a piece published in West England Bylines

FABIANS

Who were the Webbs?

OCTOBER 15, 2024

Ahead of an on-line talk for the Socialist History Society, Michael Ward looks at their legacy.

Today, Beatrice and Sidney Webb are mostly remembered for two things: their contribution to the founding of Britain’s welfare state, and their fascination, in their later lives, with the Soviet Union.

They certainly helped to define the programme of the 1945 Labour government, and helped to shape a Labour Party that was preoccupied as much with social policy as with economic management. But although Britain pioneered social security, the British benefits system is now weaker than the arrangements in other advanced economies.

And the Webbs, disillusioned with the absence of an effective policy to combat unemployment in the two minority Labour governments of the 1920s, placed their hope for the future with the Soviet Union. They – and others – turned a blind eye to the economic and political shortcomings of the USSR; when they toured Russia and Ukraine in 1932, they saw what they were supposed to see, met who they were supposed to meet. And they submitted the draft chapters of their book to the Russian Ambassador in London.

Beatrice and Sidney’s enthusiasm for Soviet Communism was the final stage in their political evolution. For the first twenty years after their marriage in 1892, their creed was permeation: influencing other political parties to put their ideas into practice. They ran a political salon at their home on the Thames Embankment. MPs, ministers, trades unionists, and writers came in droves, lured more by the sparkling conversation than by the frugal food.

They had a great success with education policy: In the 1890s. Sidney, a member of the Liberal/Labour Progressive group that controlled the early London County Council, presided over a massive expansion of secondary education. After 1900, he worked, successfully, with the Conservative Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, and the leading Liberal, Richard Haldane, to replicate the system across England.

They hoped to repeat that success with welfare policy: Beatrice, appointed a member of a Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, wrote a Minority Report calling for the abolition of the Poor Law. But, although she and Sidney mounted what they called a “raging, tearing campaign” in support of the Minority Report, they could not persuade the Liberals Government to act.

So, in 1911, Sidney and Beatrice took a year’s sabbatical to go round the world. When they returned, they committed their energies to Labour. As Beatrice wrote, “The Labour Party exists, and we have to work with it. ‘A poor thing but our own.’”

Sidney re-wrote Labour’s constitution (including the famous Clause IV) and its programme, and recruited staff to run its Head Office. In 1922, at the age of 64, he became an MP for the first time, and then a minister in the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929-1931.

The 1924 Government, ruled by a narrow adherence to Treasury orthodoxy, had no effective policy towards unemployment. No new thinking took place between 1924 and 1929 within the Labour Party. Faced with the after-effects of the Wall Street crash of 1929, and strident calls for spending cuts, the Government collapsed in August 1931. The Labour Prime Minister, MacDonald, emerged at the head of a National Government with Conservatives and Liberals.

It was then that Beatrice and Sidney turned towards the Soviet Union. But they never joined or supported the Communist Party of Great Britain; they had a low opinion of its leading members, and thought that people in Britain would not vote for a party controlled from abroad. They remained active in the Labour Party. They were appalled by the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, and when, in 1941, Hitler invaded Russia, Beatrice, in her last years, became a vociferous supporter of the alliance between Britain and the USSR.

Sidney, supported by Beatrice, played a leading role in both the Labour Party and in Parliament. But, beyond the structures of formal politics, they played a critical role in building up a network of institutions which together form the infrastructure for broader movements of ideas.

They did not found the Fabian Society – but Sidney was an early member, along with his friend George Bernard Shaw. Beatrice became a member after her marriage, and from 1912 onwards was a member of the Fabian Executive Committee.

In 1894 a benefactor, Henry Hutchinson, left the Fabians £10,000 in his will, for “the propaganda and other purposes of the said Society and its Socialism.”

Beatrice and Sidney decided to use this windfall “to found, slowly and quietly, a ‘London School of Economics and Political Science’.”

The LSE opened its doors the following year. By 1904, LSE had 1,300 students and 20 professors; the trustees concluded that LSE was now a “leading educational institution.”

Sidney chaired the LSE Board until 1911; he stayed a Board member until the 1930s. He chaired the interview panel which appointed Clement Attlee as a lecturer in 1912; in 1919 he appointed William Beveridge as Director – and in 1937, in one of his last interventions, persuaded Beveridge to leave.

When the Webbs returned from their round-the-world trip in 1912, and made their decisive commitment to Labour, their first action was to start a magazine; Beatrice felt “a clear call to leadership in the labour and socialist movement to which we feel we must respond. For that purpose we are starting a new weekly.”

They enlisted George Bernard Shaw as an ally, and through the winter of 1912-13, managed both the commercial and the editorial sides of the operation. They appointed Clifford Sharp, who had edited the monthly newsletter of the Poor Law Campaign, as editor. By the time the first edition of the New Statesman appeared in April 1913, they had signed up 2,300 postal subscribers. Sidney chaired the New Statesman board for the first ten years.

A think tank; a university; and a weekly publication: the infrastructure of a political movement.

Over a hundred years later, these three institutions are still flourishing – independent of governments. In the 1940s, it was hoped that the Attlee government’s welfare measures would end poverty. LSE, the Fabians, and the New Statesman carried out or published the research in the 1960s and 1970s that ‘rediscovered’ poverty.

Yes, the Webbs made a terrible mistake in their uncritical praise of the Soviet Union – but the Soviet Union has been gone for thirty-five years, while the Webbs’ institutional legacy persists.

In different ways, LSE, the Fabian Society, and the New Statesman can speak truth to power. The need for them remains urgent.

Michael Ward is the author of Unceasing War on Poverty: Beatrice & Sidney Webb and their World, Conrad Press, 2024. He has written more about the Webbs here. His talk for the Socialist History Society is at 7pm on Wednesday 16th October 2024. Register here.

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sidney_and_Beatrice_Webb_%284624489497%29.jpg. Source: Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Uploaded by Oxyman Author: Simon Harriyott from Uckfield, England, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Labour Hub Editors

The Leo Panitch Leadership Programme 

 October 15, 2024

The Leo Panitch Leadership Programme is an annual programme dedicated to training up the next generation of socialist organisers and leaders.

Named after one of the most incisive, creative, and committed Canadian socialist thinkers of his generation, Leo Panitch developed an extensive analysis of global capitalism and the challenges faced by socialists. He argued that any successful political strategy for the left must be rooted in developing the skills of working class people.

Across two weekends over the summer and a final graduation day the following year, participants gain the skills to develop their organising and political education knowledge whilst working on a number of exciting campaigns and projects. They learn from some of the best organisers and thinkers across our movement and network with like-minded activists who are ready to take the next steps. This year there were thirty participants and the average age was 25 years old.

Applications for each year’s programme open in the spring. Not sure whether to apply? If you’re a committed activist and want to step up and take on more responsibility in the movement – then this programme is for you. 

Who Runs the Leo Panitch Leadership Programme?
Momentum in collaboration with experts from across the movement have come together to develop a syllabus of educational materials that draw from the experience and knowledge of a wide variety of thinkers, including academics, trade unionists and community organisers, from across the left both within the UK and internationally.

For the past four years, the Programme has welcomed facilitators such as Professor David Wearing who leads the Programme’s exploration of Imperialism and UK foreign policy, Steve North an experienced stage and TV performer and public speaking coach, and Councillor Santiago Bell-Bradford who developed the Programme’s material on class politics with comrades from Socialist Youth Austria. In 2024, with thanks to the Barry Amiel and Norman Melburn Trust, the Programme expanded to include sessions on State Violence and Racism, facilitated by Suresh Grover (founder of The Monitoring Group) and Climate Justice, facilitated by Asad Rehman (head of War on Want).

Interested in finding out more? Check out our FAQs here, and watch the round-up video of the Leo Panitch Leadership Programme here.

 

How the German left failed to understand the 7 October attack

Oct

08

2024

comments

From Integration Nightmare

One year after the Hamas attack on Israel, I think it is important to take a look at how the Islamist group's escalation of the conflict that has been going on for generations has once again shown how the German left fails to understand international politics. As a result, we see how the left and many anarchists in the country can't find a reasonable approach to the war in Israel/Palestine and now in Lebanon. This text will hardly come as a surprise to activists in Germany. At the same time, I think it's important for anarchists and leftists in other regions to understand the German “Antideutsch” and not just see it as a joke version of some kind of political correctness, but rather as a political movement with its own ideals.

No time for history?

There is no point in delving too deeply into the history of the antigermans – a movement born out of authoritarian K-Groups (Communist Groups) critical of German reunification, the antigermans developed their ideology as a mixture of anti-nationalism and pro-Western stance. Antigermans not only stand for solidarity with Israel – more radical and reactionary parts of the movement support US imperial projects around the world in various forms. The pro-Zionist part of antigerman ideology can be seen as part of the struggle against antisemitism, but also as an attempt by certain parts of the communist movement to distance themselves from national liberation movements, including the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel.

Over the years, with the decline of national liberation movements around the world, the main project of antigermans became support for Israel and their own version of the struggle against antisemitism. Support for the Israeli state very quickly turned into support for all the policies of the Israeli government, no matter how horrible they were. I've met quite a few antigermans who would describe themselves as pro-Zionists, and even some who call themselves “Zionists” without any connection to the Jewish community. Even though some of the criticism of Zionism is outright anti-Semitic, antigermans will put aside any criticism even if it comes from within the Jewish community itself. To label such criticism as anti-Semitic is an easy way out of any discussion or the need to critically examine one's own political views.

Quite often within the antigerman scene you can find racism against Arabs who are eagerly put into the “muslim” box. Relations with the Jewish left and anarchists are complicated. While most of them prefer to ignore anti-Zionist Jews, some parts of the antigerman movement do from time to time attack “wrong” Jews in an attempt to fight antisemitism.

Although the antigerman movement originally appeared among authoritarian communists, its ideology has spread to almost all left-wing and anarchist groups. In a few decades it has managed to become a dominant position on Middle Eastern politics. And even though there are fewer groups today that would describe themselves as purely antigerman, most anarchist and left-wing groups integrate an antigerman agenda into their politics. From the FAU to local anarchist organisations, a pro-Zionist approach can be found as the norm.

From the past into the future?

There was no deep analysis nor attempts to understand the whole complexity of reasons behind attack on 7 October by the german left. Support went straight to the state. Those killed by Hamas and it's allies automatically became “victims”, regardless of their political views on the situation. It was easy for the German left to ignore the calls for de-escalation from the families of the murdered.While the Israeli left and liberals were pretty sure that Netanyahu would escalate the violence in his own interests. While the families of the hostages were protesting against a right-wing government that was trying to use their families as a pretext for war, the German left was eagerly looking for an escalation against “Hamas”. The collective responsibility for Hamas' actions was easily placed on the shoulders of all those living in Gaza Stripe. “They voted for Hamas”, “If they want freedom, they should rise up against Hamas”, “They are anti-Semites who want to drown all the Jews” – these are just some of the ways in which people have been talking about the Israeli operation in Gaza. And I'm not talking about right-wing political movements, I'm talking about a lot of people who consider themselves left-wing or anarchist.

The war crimes committed by the IDF, which were broadcast live on Tiktok, were mostly ignored or made people feel 'concerned', but the general tendency to support the Israeli state continued. The attitude towards Palestinians within the German left remained hostile, while the gap between the reality of what is happening in the Middle East and the made-up world of politics in Germany grew wider. At this point, it is quite common for the German left to justify every questionable action of the Netanyahu government on the grounds of self-defence by the Israeli right. War crimes are considered fine as long as Israel is fights the bad guy – the collective Arabs who are all responsible in one way or another for the anti-Semitic past and present of Europe and the Middle East.

Interestingly, many political positions within the left-wing movement on Israel are in line with the ideology of the German state on this issue. With political parties changing in power, but hardly any of them critical enough to influence the situation in the Middle East in any way. In many ways, the demands and values of the antigerman movement are translated into state policies that ban certain events, withdraw funding from those supporting the boycott campaign, or deny entry to “undesirable” activists. This also applies to educational work – it is quite common for German left-wing projects on Israel to be funded by the German state. Obviously, these educational events are often an extension of political support for Israeli state policy extending it's influence to left-wing and anarchist circles.

With all this in mind, it is only logical that the German left these days prefers to ignore and sometimes proactively isolate leftists, anarchists and even liberals from Israel or Palestine who have something to say on the matter. Events of such activists are sabotaged or struggle to find space to speak [1] (despite the massive infrastructure of the left). Repressions of activists organized by the German state in solidarity with the Palestinians or in protest against the policies of the Netanyahu regime are generally ignored, and foreign activists are left to their own, as the local left movement prefers to ignore the massive pressure building up on the Jewish and Palestinian diaspora. It is more common to see local antifascists protesting with Israeli flags at Palestinian or anti-Zionist Jewish demonstrations than to see them in any way showing solidarity with oppressed people in different parts of the Middle East.

The situation might have been different if the German left had had allies in Israel or Palestine to support in the struggle against Netanyahu and his war machine. But years of antigerman politics, mixed with ignorance of the situation in the Middle East, have put the German left in political isolation: they aren't really needed by the Zionist right, but they don't want to get close to any progressives from Israel or Palestine. The generational development of antigerman ideology makes cooperation with Israeli Jews or Palestinians even more difficult: the leftist and anarchist movement today mostly accepts young people who follow antigerman narratives and pushes those who might question them into the hands of authoritarian communists whose ideological approach to the situation in the Middle East hasn't changed since the death of Mao. As a result, there is very little chance that the situation will actually develop in a reasonable direction in the coming years.

After a year of violence and death, we're seeing pretty much the same mistakes that we've seen in relation to the war in Ukraine – ideology wins out over reality, while very few actually make an effort to understand the situation and develop a serious approach to it. The shock of the war and it's mobilization passes very quickly and most people within the left and anarchist circles fall back to ideological dogmas that were there when they joined political movements. In such an atmosphere, both the left and the anarchist movement are doomed to repeat mistakes and fall into the same trap again and again, unless we decide to make an effort to understand the crisis and develop answers to it according to our political values. Otherwise, in the coming storms of the future, we risk handing the world over to reactionary forces that don't hesitate to use violence and destruction to gain political power.

Through this crisis we can also see the growing gap between the German left and its possible comrades in the crisis zones. As wars and protests demand more solidarity and effort, we witness many abandoning critical politics in favor of the comfort offered by more and more reactionary governments of the so-called “first world”.

But I want to end by actually focusing on those who are trying to break with the antigerman past. There are groups all over the country who work on education, solidarity and cooperation with different Jewish and Palestinian groups. They invest their time in traveling to the occupied territories to get to know the local population and their struggle against state violence. These people, although very small in left and anarchist circles, still give hope that radical and revolutionary politics are alive even in Germany.

1: A lecture by the Jewish anarchist Uri Gordon, organized in Leipzig a few years ago, took place in a private room because no left-wing project agreed to allow him to give his lecture.

 

Book Review: Architecture and Anarchism: Building without Authority

Oct

10

2024

comments

From Anarchist Studies Volume 32 (2024) Issue 2

Paul Dobraszczyk, Architecture and Anarchism: Building without Authority
London: Antepavilion in association with Paul Holberton Publishing, 2021; 248pp; ISBN 978913645175

Paul Dobraszczyk is a collector, and his recent Architecture and Anarchism: Building without Authority is another example of his research methods in the history of architecture. He lists, categorises, taxonomises, and contextualises. The book is thus structured into eight thematic chapter, each of which uses seven or eight case studies to detail a particular motivation and/or method for architectural invention. Such methods are useful for the way in which the categories and case studies might serve future research, and because they prompt the reader to identify omissions and other possible categories, frames for thinking, and contexts in which the examples or categories might be evaluated. Throughout my reading of Architecture and Anarchism I found myself wishing for further inclusions or, indeed, worrying that some examples should be excluded. This is both the blessing and the curse of Dobraszczyk’s methods.

Chapter 1, ‘Liberty’, emphasises self-governance and organisation and aptly insists upon anarchism as a theory of organisation, an art of living, and a model for thinking and acting: ‘a delicate balance between freedom and control’ (p27). The focus is on intentional communities: ephemeral, such as Rainbow Gatherings, or more permanent, such as Christiania. Here, the book’s tensions are already evident. Burning Man, which has come to represent a form of ‘tech bro’ libertarianism, is ill-placed in a collection that otherwise celebrates more mutualist or communitarian models. The inclusion of Vienna’s Hundertwasserhaus also poses the question of whether it is appropriate to include work which is anarchistic rather than explicitly anarchist, though Dobraszczyk does make a case for doing so.

Chapter 2, ‘Escape’, groups projects that seek to reimagine social relations in new landscapes – separatist or informal settlements and intentional communities. Drop City and the anti-airport ZAD near Nantes make the list, as do the Essex Plotlands and junk playgrounds. Chapter 3, ‘Necessity’, extends this to settlements brought together by shared need. This includes The Jungle in Calais and Kowloon Walled City. Again, some blurring of the categories happens. A squat might have equal measures of need, ideology, and social experimentation in evidence. Migrant camps are a more extreme category: there were sterling examples of mutual aid exhibited in The Jungle, but predation by gangs and organised crime poses the problem of differentiating between anarchism and lawlessness. Dobraszczyk’s inclusion of The Jungle is problematic, but usefully so: the tensions are food for thought

In Chapter 4, ‘Protest’, anarchist ideas and social and architectural experimentation are clearly aligned and expressed in protest camps such as Grow Heathrow or Occupy Wall Street. Here too there are fruitful tensions. Can the protests in Tahrir Square or Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement be seen as anarchist? They draw from a toolbox crammed full of anarchist actions and theories, but when the intention is limited to replacing or reforming the state, questions arise.

Ruin and reuse tie together Chapters 5, ‘Ecology’, and 6, ‘Art’. In the former, Dobrasczyk returns to more recognisably permanent architectural forms, presenting buildings which fit Murray Bookchin’s model of social ecology. What stands out is the fully anarchist Ruin Academy in Taipei, which employs ruination as an ecological tool. As the building disintegrates it becomes host to ever more species. At the intersection of art and architecture is Gordon Matta-Clark, whose methods were clearly anarchist (‘anarchitecture’). His 1975 ‘Conical Intersect’ carved an entirely new architectural order out of a condemned building in Paris’s Marais. Its titular cone-shaped voids penetrate the walls and floors, providing a neat metaphor for how anarchism concerns itself with both order and disorder.

Many of the projects here arise from the detritus of capitalism and consumerism as adaptive reuse and creative reinvention, a continued theme in Chapter 7, ‘Speculation’. This chapter presents speculative or utopian projects. My favourite amongst these is Clifford Harper’s 1976 drawings for the ‘Autonomous Terrace’. It re-envisions a British terrace as a communal dwelling with shared facilities. Adaptive reuse of existing architecture as an anarchist practice could form the theoretical basis for further work, tying together histories of squatting, protest, and urban, social, and architectural invention that take place with minimal means but an abundance of shared effort.

The book finishes by foregrounding mutual endeavour in Chapter 8, ‘Participation’. Dobraszczyk perceptively identifies a key quality of anarchist architecture: ‘there is no such thing as building without a community; and there is no freedom for oneself without, at the same time, there equally being freedom for others’ (p209). Buildings (both edifices and landscapes) are here processes rather than products, which is immensely fruitful as the most cherished social goods – freedom, equality, democracy – are practiced and mutually assured in (architectural) space.

This sensibility is the backbone of Dobraszczyk’s Architecture and Anarchism. Following Colin Ward, he shows the potential of bottom-up power and mutual aid, seeing ‘revolution as an emergent process that is already evident in the world, observable in practices of all kinds’ (pp16-17). These practices are forms of citizenship in which people are participants, not recipients. If this book is also seen as an open-ended practice, in which it is up to readers and future researchers to chase down the gaps and omissions and pregnant possibilities, then it will have justified its collector’s methods admirably.

Tim Waterman, University College London

------------

Anarchist Studies 32:2 (2024) is out now!
The latest issue of AS features 4 original articles, 2 review essays, and 6 book reviews.

Contents

About this Issue’s Cover: Ben Benn’s Portrait of Hippolyte Havel, pages 5‑6
Allan Antliff Free to download

Colin Ward: An Ambiguous Legacy , pages 7‑14
Matthew Wilson Free to download

The Story of Czech Anarchism: Ideas and Practices of Czech Libertarians, 1883-1930, pages 15‑43
Ondřej Slačálek, Michael Polák

Politics Walking The Tightrope Of The Law: The New York Criminal Anarchy Act Of 1902, pages 44‑74
Claire Aniel-Buchheit

Insurrectionary Anarchism in Poland: The Case of the People’s Liberation Front, pages 75‑102
Grzegorz Piotrowski
Review Articles

Three Recent Introductions to Anarchism, pages 103‑108
Robert Graham

The Spanish Revolution, Revisited, pages 109‑113
Morris Brodie

Reviews, pages 114‑127
Kathy E. Ferguson, Letterpress Revolution; The Politics of Anarchist Print Culture Reviewed by Constance Bantman
Benjamin Franks, Anarchisms, Postanarchisms and Ethics Reviewed by Iwona Janicka
Paul Dobraszczyk, Architecture and Anarchism: Building without Authority Reviewed by Tim Waterman
Tom Wetzel, Overcoming Capitalism: Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st Century Reviewed by Nathan Jun
Tim Waterman, The Landscape of Utopia: Writings on Everyday Life, Taste, Democracy, and Design Reviewed by Rhiannon Firth
Richard Gilman Opalsky, The Communism of Love: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Exchange Value Reviewed by Koshka Duff and Chris Rossdale

 

Indonesia: Fundraiser for Page Against the Machine

Oct

12

2024

comments

From Crowdfunder

Why translate and publish Indonesian anarchist literature in English?

Translation and publication of Indonesian anarchist literature into English sheds light on the unique development of anarchism in Indonesia.

The dominance of European and American anarchist narratives has led to an imbalance, with non-Western perspectives often marginalized or overlooked. Translating Indonesian anarchist and critical literature helps to rectify this imbalance, offering a platform for voices from less privileged regions and contributing to a more equitable language cultural exchange.

By incorporating Indonesian anarchist literature, we want to introduce different viewpoints that challenge the dominance of European and American narratives. Indonesian anarchism emerges from a context marked by post-colonial struggles, economic disparities, and indigenous practices. Understanding these differences highlights how anarchism adapts and evolves in diverse environments and reveals the distinct ways in which it addresses local issues.

By translating Indonesian anarchist and critical texts, we can uncover how these colonial legacies affected the local expressions of anarchism and how Indonesian writers responded to and transformed these influences into local narratives. This is not just about making texts accessible; it’s about enriching the global discourse on anarchism, challenging dominant narratives, and acknowledging the complex interplay of colonial legacies. By doing so, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of anarchist movements worldwide and different contributions of Indonesian thinkers and activists.

Who we are…

We are Page Against The Machine, a small independent publisher in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

One of our key objectives is to elevate the narratives from non-academic writers who are first hand witnesses to events. This focus is important because many writers and activists here do not have the privilege of higher formal education. Our publication seeks to address this issue by providing a platform for these direct voices from the grassroots.

As a cooperative, we are collectively managed under mutual cooperation and solidarity principles. We plan to collaborate with local authors and publish a greater number of texts focusing on critical literature, social struggles, feminism, anarchism, and queer topics.

Page Against the Machine was initiated by three individuals: Mila, Mita, and Muhee. We are not only friends and comrades who have known and collaborated with each other for a long time but are also dedicated activists.

Your support

For Indonesian anarchist literature to reach a broader audience, financial support is essential. Publishing and distributing books, journals, and other written materials requires resources that many Indonesian anarchist publishers and authors simply do not have. Financial backing will cover costs including production, translation, marketing, workspace rent, working equipment, and distribution. This support is crucial for making our works accessible to global readers.

The first books under translation are in the image.

Projected budget

The following budget outlines the necessary costs to establish an initial foundation for the project:

1. Initial production cost for first books: 15.000.000 IDR / £735

2. Translator, editor, lay-out wage for first books: 15.000.000 / £735

3. Working equipment - scanner and printer: 4.000.000 IDR / £190

4. Yearly workspace rent: 12.000.000 IDR / £590

Total Required Funding: 46.000.000 IDR / £2,250

By contributing to this call, you will play an important role in enhancing the visibility of Indonesian anarchist ideas and fostering a more inclusive global dialogue on anarchism and other critical topics.

Help us to amplify voices and perspectives that are still very rarely heard and known in the literacy scene and anarchism movement globally.

In solidarity,
Page Against The Machine

Reach us on:

Email: pageagainstthemachine2024@gmail.com
Email: pageagainstthemachine2024@riseup.net

IG: @patmpenerbit