The Glasgow Herald (David Leask) reported on the 30th August that ‘It now appears some two-thirds of Glasgow tenants – in 46,272 of its current 69,395 houses – will remain in a “rump GHA”.’

The details are:

• 3% (=2,097) of Glasgow Housing Association houses are up for ballot (November 2008) on second stage transfer to a community based housing association.
• 30% (=20,985) of GHA houses are in Local Housng Organisations that are still progressing (at a snails pace) through the various stages of the GHA’s processes towards potential second stage transfer someday.
• 67% (=46,272) of GHA houses are in LHOs that the GHA regards as being ruled out of the case for second stage transfer. They (lucky them) get to stay in a “rump GHA” forever.

This movement on second stage transfer is being hailed as a great victory of the SNP government. A closer look at the numbers indicates there may be some over egging of the pudding going on. Although, in fairness, even 3% is more than the old Labour/Liberal government managed to achieve. But it is still very, very small beer.

And if, when the whole process finally draws to a close, 2/3rds or more of GHA remains as a “rump GHA” until the end of time, what then for the promises made to those tenants during the stock transfer ballot?

A “rump GHA” might end up suiting a lot of the community based housing associations, who would effectively have been given cherry picking rights to the best 1/3rd of the stock. But it won’t suit the 50,000 tenants left behind. Nor will it suit those, such as Glasgow City Council, who are, or ought to be, attempting to deal with the wider housing issues in Glasgow.

If realities dictate that there must be a large “rump GHA” left in place, then serious consideration should be given to simply returning that rump back to Glasgow City Council control. The rump will be all the multis and other flats in deprived areas, and will always be the destination for most all of Glasgow’s many homeless referrals from Social Work. Glasgow City Council has an obvious interest in it functioning correctly, in a completely different way to the Council’s interest in the city’s many little run-of-the-mill housing associations.

Alternatively, the “rump GHA” could be made more open, democratic, accountable, and responsive to the needs and concerns of its tenants and owner-occupiers. That would mean substantial constitutional changes – devolution of financial power to LHOs, fully open elections, no ‘independents’ on the board. Which, as a pre-requisite, would require drastic changes to the current composition of the GHA board.

Either of those would need action from both Ministers and Parliament. In the absence of that, GHA and its rump will continue on, as they are now, forever.

—

Of course the movement on SST is being milked for all it is worth by everyone.

What matters is that GHA have convinced all stand alone LHOs that there is no alternative because of this mysterious funding black hole and a lack of will on the part of chairs, committees and their staff to push for fulfilment of the promises made in the original transfer agreement. It is amazing what a trip out of the city can achieve.

The chairs forum now lines up as:

• Group A = 67% non aligned = no SST.
• Group B =30% aligned = still to be confirmed.(amber)
• Group C = 3% aligned = ballot (green)

Group A are negotiating their way through the future business plan which GHA will present to the Government and Council when trying to re-negotiate the terms of the original transfer.

This has a threefold agenda:

• Firstly it allows GHA to exist till the end of time;
• Secondly it allows GHA access to HAG Funding and Supporting People Funding;
• and third but not least would allow GHA to perform as an arms length company of the Council in terms of all statutory requirements incumbent on the council i.e. homelessness, NASS, resettlement and provision for migrants.

—

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2436496.0.Housing_giant_begins_to_meet_2003_pledge.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7588816.stm

http://www.gha.org.uk/content/default.asp?page=s4_1&newsid=1049&back=s4_2

Quick Guide to Employment Support Allowance (ESA)

ESA comes into force on 27th October 2008. It:

• replaces Incapacity Benefit for new claimants; and
• replaces Income Support on the basis of being unfit for work (only)

for new claimants as of 27th October 2008.

So note this makes it important to appeal if rejected for IB or IS unfit to work before the 27th October – because if you win your appeal you will be backdated onto the old benefit.

Remember only 28 days time is normally allowed to lodge an appeal.

Who will still be able to claim Income Support?
Income support will still be available for single parents and for carers.

There are two types of ESA

1. Contribution based ESA (= old Incapacity Benefit)
2. Income based ESA (= old Income Support unfit for work)

Contribution based ESA can be topped up with income based ESA (which is normally higher).

A claimant needs to satisfy all the basic conditions:

• Have a limited capability to work
• be at least 16 years of age
• be under pension age
• be in Great Britain
• not be entitled to income support – so if you would qualify for income support as a lone parent or as a carer, then those would take precedence and you wouldn’t get ESA. That may mean in some circumstances it would be better to keep quiet about carers duties you are performing.
• not be entitled to jobseekers allowance – including even just being a member of a joint claim JSA couple

Additional contribution based ESA conditions
For contribution based ESA, you must also satisfy the contribution conditions:

• Paid class 1 or class 2 for one of the last three complete tax years;
  and
• Paid or been credited with class 1 or class 2 contributions in the last two complete tax years;
  or
• You qualify via the relaxation in the first qualifying condition (regulation 8(2) – which especially lets carers qualify.

Additional income related ESA conditions:

• Your income must be less than your applicable amount, which is what the law says you need to live on.
• Your capital is not over limit of £16,000
• You are not entitled to pension credit
• Neither you or your partner (if you have one) are engaged in renumerative work – although ‘permitted work’ and voluntary work is allowed. Note that you can keep all permitted work income, rather than just £20 per week as in the old income support rules.
• Not in full time education
• Not subject to immigration control

ESA Initial Period

• The first 13 weeks of your claim are the ‘initial period’ assesment phase.
• Paid ESA at basic rate only (£60.50 if aged 25 or over, £47.95 if under 25, for 2008/09)
• You must attend a work focused interview
• You must undergo a work capability assessment
• That assessment decides if you qualify for ESA (appealable) and if so which of the two ESA groups you fit into (also appealable).

You are exempted from the ESA initial period if you are:

• terminally ill; or
• your claim is linked to an earlier ESA claim

An ESA claim requires you to complete an EA50 form. This is like the old IB50 form, except is much bigger

The initial Work Focussed Interview during assessment phase:

• Is carried out by a ‘personal adviser’ – who could be DWP staff or could be contracted out to a private agency
• He assesses your work prospects
• And identifies activities to assist with work – these will often be compulsory, just like in JSA, either do them (or convincingly pretend to do them) or face sanctions of benefit reductions
• The WFI can be waived or deferred.

Work Capability Assessment during assessment phase:
Test is for ‘limited capability for work’
Is carried out by a ‘health care professional’, which is a:

• registered medical practitioner (doctor); or
• registered nurse; or
• occupational therapist; or
• physiotherapist.

Is similar to the old personal capability assessment – but is tougher.
Changes from old personal capability assessment are:

• fewer exemptions than in old IB50
• no more 3 point tests
• mental health test altered
• 15 point threshold for each test, rather than just 10 points
• simplified combination of points

The points system

• You must obtain a total score of 15 points either by a single activity or through a combination of descriptors.
• You are assessed as if wearing any prosthesis that you are fitted with, or other aids or appliances that are normally used.
• Where more than one descriptor applies to you, only the descriptor with the highest score in respect of each activity applies.

Physical Health Test
There are now three grades of severity only – 6, 9, or 15 points. The old 3 points scores are gone.
The old ’sitting’, ‘rising from sitting’, and ’standing’ activities have been merged into one.
The ‘walking up and down stairs’ activity has been removed.
There are three sets of descriptors for continence.
The wording of the descriptors has been changed.

Mental Health Test
Replacement of four sets of activities with ten.
New activities include ‘initiating and sustaining personal action’, ‘disproportionate reactions to events or criticism’, ‘ability to visit new places or engage in social contact’.

You will be automatically counted as having limited capability to work if:

• you are pregnant and there is serious risk to your health or the health of your unborn child; or
• you are entitled to maternity allowance and you are within your maternity allowance period; or
• you are between the sixth week before date of confinement and the fourteenth day after the date of confinement; or
• You are being treated as an in-patient in hospital, or recovering from such treatment; or
• you are terminally ill; or
• you are otherwise suffering from some severe disease, disablement or undergoing major treatment (for example, chemotherapy).

If the assessment phase rules that you do not have limited capability for work, then you would cease to receive ESA and would instead make a claim for jobseekers allowance, or income support for lone parents, or income support for carers.

You can (and should) appeal that decision, within 28 days.

If instead the assessment decides that you do have limited capability for work then it will also to decide to place you into the

• support group (good); or the
• work related activity group (less good)

You can also appeal that decision, again within 28 days.

Had a benefits decision go the wrong way? Remember to lodge an appeal. In most circumstances you have nothing to lose from an appeal, and appeals often win. You normally only have one month to do that though, so be quick. (There are many exceptions allowed, so consider still appealing even if outside the time limit).

For residents of Glasgow, Glasgow City Council Social Work Services Welfare Rights Unit offer a free service where they conduct the appeal on your behalf. They are very good and have an excellent record in winning appeals. They will do most everything for you, but note that independent medicals can be paid for through the legal aid scheme, so it can be worth making an appointment with a lawyer also for medical related appeals.

This online form will generate their standard appeal letter for you to print off and give to the JobCentrePlus, telling them you want the Welfare Rights Unit to handle the case for you: http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GettingAdvice/WelfareRights/Appeals/LetterOfAppeal.htm . You can also phone them on 0141-287-2000, ask for Welfare Rights Unit – but they generally won’t give you any advice over the phone until they’ve got the appeal letter paperwork through.

More info at http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/Residents/GettingAdvice/WelfareRights/Appeals/ and http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/BeginnersGuid

Quick Guide to Local Housing Allowance of Housing Benefit

From a discussion at Glasgow Residents Network Community Organising Event 1^st June 2008.

Note

1. 1) That Local Housing Organisations are rumoured as of June 2008 to be under threat of abolition by Glasgow Housing Association..
   

Glasgow Housing Association

Glasgow Housing Association is a quango (Quasi Non Governmental Organisation) under the control of the Scottish Government.

It was established six years ago, in 2002.

It owns and manages the houses which before then had been Glasgow’s Council houses.

It is said to be the biggest landlord in Western Europe.

It has around 70,000 houses currently.

That is down from 84,000 six years ago, and is forecast to drop further to 60,000 six years from now.

Council staff employed by Glasgow City Council Housing Services were TUPE’d (Transfer of Undertakings / Protection of Employment) across to Glasgow Housing Association in 2002. Many additional staff have been
hired since then.

It does not own the land upon which the houses stand – Glasgow City Council retains ownership of that. When houses are demolished, the land reverts to Glasgow City Council. Any proceeds from the sale of land go to Glasgow City Council.

How the GHA is Governed

The GHA is presently controlled by its 15 strong Board of Management, comprising:

• Six tenant members, elected in six constituencies by postal ballot of all tenants from a list of pre-selected candidates (candidates must be nominated by a Local Housing Organisation);
• Four ‘independent’ members, appointed or co-opted by the rest of the GHA board. One of these is the powerful vice-chair, Fred Shedden;
• Four councillors nominated by Glasgow City Council – currently two labour, two SNP.
• The GHA Chief Executive, who currently is Taroub Zahran.

The GHA board of management is dominated by its Vice-Chair, Fred Shedden, a retired corporate lawyer and investment banker. (The chairperson is, according to GHA’s rules, always a tenant member. But tenant members on the GHA board, like tenants in general, are treated with contempt by the GHA and are permitted to attend meetings under sufferance. The tenant chairperson is a figurehead, taking guidance from the vice chair and from the Chief Executive. In effect, Fred Shedden is the chairperson, not the vice-chair). He chairs the sub-committee responsible for recruitment and remunerations, which decides on who is to be Chief Executive, and what her pay is to be.

He is a busy man however, with only time to give direction to GHA on major issues. His Business Week profile reads:

A. C. (Fred) Shedden, MA, LLB serves as a Consultant of DLA. Mr. Shedden is a Solicitor with over 30 years experience, following 15 years as Managing Partner with McGrigor Donald (a leading Scottish law firm). Mr. Shedden served as a Senior Partner of McGrigor Donald until 2000. Mr. Shedden has been Non-executive Chairman of the Board of Halladale Group PLC since March 2001. He has been Chairman of Martin Currie Japan Investment Trust PLC since October 1, 2003. Mr. Shedden … serves as Chairman of Wisdom IT Holdings Ltd. and Good Practice Ltd. He has been Non-Executive Director of Iomart Group PLC since 2000. Mr. Shedden has been Non Executive Director of Equitable Life Assurance Society and Equitable Life Finance PLC, a subsidiary of Equitable Life Assurance Society since May 1, 2002 and is a Member of Legal Audit and Investment Committees. He has been a Director of Martin Currie Japan Investment Trust PLC since October 24, 1995. He has been Independent Non-Executive Director of Murray International Trust PLC since October 23, 2000 and a number of unlisted companies. Mr. Shedden has been Director of Halladale Group PLC since March 2001. From 1992 to 1999, Mr. Shedden served as a Non-Executive Director of Standard Life Assurance Company.
He served as a Non-Executive Director of The Scottish Metropolitan Property PLC. Mr. Shedden serves as member of The Scottish Further Education Funding Council, a Governor of Glasgow School of Art and a member of the management committee of Glasgow Housing Association.
[http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=1833841&capId=919599&previousCapId=877750&previousTitle=Savills%20plc
]

Day to day control of the GHA lies with its Chief Executive, Taroub Zahran.

From the central GHA in Granite House, command flows to the seven local shared services managers – the Local Shared Services Manager for the Maryhill Corridor is Jim McCabe – and from them to the 63 community housing managers in local GHA offices across Glasgow.

Local Housing Organisations

Before transfer six years ago, government ministers stated that Glasgow Housing Association would deliver tenant empowerment and community ownership. In order to be seen to progress towards this, Glasgow Housing Association went on to set up Local Housing Organisation committees of local tenants (mostly) and a few factored owner-occupiers. They have no significant decision making powers however: local housing officials are all employed by GHA centrally, and investment plans and priorities are also determined by GHA centrally. They have functioned simply as glorified tenants associations and consultative committees.

GHA has not stressed this lack of powers of the LHO’s. The main motive for GHA in setting up LHO committees was to use their existence to head off demands for any serious tenant or community control, or for any of the dreaded second stage transfer which could see the GHA out of a job. It is in the interest of the GHA to pretend that the LHO committees amount to something, while at the same time keeping them powerless. The LHOs are for the GHA, potemkin villages – sham creations designed to fool politicians, journalists and the public.

Another group guilty of talking up LHOs, but for completely different reasons, are the old community based housing associations, such as Queens Cross Housing Association. Many LHO Committees are sub committees of an established housing association management committee. That doesn’t mean anything in itself today, but those housing associations have been hoping that relationship could eventually turn into an opportunity for them to take over the housing stock in that area (called ‘second stage transfer’). It is in their interest also to pretend that LHO committees are something that they are not. So Queens Cross Housing Association and Maryhill Housing Association have had their names inserted into the names of the LHO committees that they have claimed as sub-committees of their own management committees. Being given the name is a consolation prize for not getting any of the actual housing stock. Sadly for them, the name is all they have, the GHA centrally continue to run everything. But if it ever comes to a vote on second stage housing stock transfer, pretending they’ve been involved in running the housing stock will help the old community based housing associations win the vote, so they keep talking up that idea now.

In reality, the LHO committees have the power to decide not much more than what type of biscuits they eat at their committee meetings. The GHA centrally – meaning Taruob Zahran in person – retains powers including:

• Central GHA decides who is hired to be community housing manager, and all other housing staff.
• Central GHA control promotions of the community housing manager and other housing staff.
• Central GHA can discipline or even fire the community housing manager and other housing staff at will
• Central GHA negotiates on pay and conditions for the community housing manager and other housing staff.
• Central GHA signs off on all investment plans, and often decides on investment plans on its own without involving the LHO committee.
• Central GHA decides on legal proceedings for evictions – who is to be evicted, when, why.
• Central GHA controls letting policy (although community housing manager has some discretion over
  individual cases. But LHO committee has no role in that).
• Central GHA controls repairs policy (although community housing manager has some discretion over
  individual cases. But LHO committee has no role in that).
• Central GHA decides rent levels
• Central GHA decides which companies are given contracts for investment work, and on what terms.

LHOs do not employ any staff.

Community Housing Managers

Each GHA local office is run by a community housing manager. He or she is responsible for decisions on whether or not individual repairs go ahead, so they are worth pursuing for those issues. He or she is also the line manager for the housing officers in that local office. However their power is very limited, as all investment decisions are made by GHA centrally in Granite House. Most eviction decisions are also made by GHA centrally in Granite House. Be aware that many GHA community housing managers will not emphasise their powerlessness, and so you can find yourself wasting time engaging with them on issues over which responsibility lies at a higher level. In reality, for all but specific individual repairs, the GHA Chief Executive, Taroub Zahran, tends to have retained decision making power to herself alone.

The structure of Community Housing Managers maps to the LHO Committees, and the Community Housing Managers attend their LHO Committee meetings. But they are not responsible to the LHO committees – the committees can only advise, question, and scrutinise. The community housing managers are employed by the GHA and are responsible and report to the central GHA management structure alone, not to the LHO committee in any way. They also have no responsibility to other housing associations such as Queens Cross.

Joining your LHO

LHO committees have no formal power. But they are nevertheless worth joining. Why?

1. The LHO committee gets a face to face meeting with their community housing manager once every two to four weeks. That’s very useful for buttonholing them on individual repairs, evictions, waiting list issues, and so on.
2. The LHO committee members get posted out to their homes the plans and financial details of what the GHA is proposing in their area.
3. The LHO committee is allowed to nominate people to run for election to the central GHA board of management. Often those elections are uncontested. In a contested election, all tenants get a postal ballot, and each candidate gets an election address sent out to all the tenants at GHA expense.
4. LHO committee support would add prestige to local campaign. If, say, the LHO committee agreed to call publicly for new kitchens to be high priority, or for a reduction in demolitions, then that would embarrass the GHA centrally and would also help grab the interest of press and politicians.

To get on the your LHO committee, contact their chairperson asking if and when you would be allowed to join – they could co-opt you on right away. If they won’t do that, you have to wait until their next annual general meeting to be voted in. All tenants and factored owner occupiers are allowed to attend the AGM, and any of them can stand for a place in the committee, provided the nomination is submitted in writing two weeks before the AGM is held (you generally won’t be allowed to be nominated for election on the night). The cliquier LHOs like to keep their AGMs secret, so be prepared to ask your community housing manager, in writing or email, for the date and location of the next AGM. As always, complain immediately to Taroub Zahran if you don’t get the information and assistance you want.

One drawback of LHO committee membership is that you cannot publicly criticise your LHO committee or (unless your LHO committee ok’s it), the wider GHA. So you have to either speak from under a different hat, or have someone else put their name to the public comments.

The standard of LHO committee varies widely: the worst are cliques of lackeys who agree with whatever their community housing manager tells them, the best are community activists prepared to take on the GHA power structure for the benefit of their fellow tenants. If you’re unlucky to be living where one of the

There are 63 LHO committees across Glasgow, which means a total of around 600 active tenant and owner occupier members.

LHO Committees in the
North West are:

1. Balmore HA LHO, Mansion Street (for Possilpark, Parkhouse, Springburn)
   Community housing manager: Joanne Diamond
2. Queens Cross HA LHO (Burnbank/Cromwell/Dundasvale), Firhill Road.
   Is a subcommittee of Queens Cross Housing Association
   Community housing manager: Colin Weir.
3. Queens Cross HA LHO (Hamiltonhill), Westercommon Drive.
   Is a subcommittee of Queens Cross Housing Association
   Community housing manager: Ewen Gilmour.
4. Lambhill Housing Association, Knapdale Street,
   Community housing manager: Irene Campbell
5. Maryhill HA LHO, Gairbraid Avenue (for Valley, Botany, Gillshochill, Cadder)
   Is a subcommittee of Maryhill Housing Association
   Community housing manager: Bill Lanigan.
6. Milton Community Homes, Ashgill Road
   Is a subcommittee of Cube Housing Association
   Community housing manager: Rosanna Connolly
7. Queens Cross HA LHO (South Maryhill), Firhill Road
   (for South Maryhill, Anderston, Woodside).
   Is a subcommittee of Queens Cross Housing Association
   Community housing manager: Karen McLaughlin
8. Summerston Acre LHO, 1 Gairbraid Avenue
   Community housing manager: Frankie Fox.

Raising issues with GHA

1. First (applies to repairs only) log your issue with the emergency repair number 0800 595 595.
2. Then, simultaneously with that, write or email your Local Housing Organisation manager with details of the issue. Ask them for an expected date of when it will be resolved.
3. They have 10 working days to respond (simple acknowledgements or holding replies do not count)
4. If they have not responded by then, or you are not happy with the outcome of their response (so in most all occasions), write or email the Chief Executive Taroub Zahran asking her to investigate and get back to you with her findings.
5. At least at the start, you will have to go to Taroub Zahran almost every time on almost every issue. For urgent issues, write or email her direct at the very start without waiting.

Evictions

GHA have been far more vicious than City Housing were or other Housing Associations are, over evictions for rent arrears. As soon as they threaten eviction, get a lawyer involved. If you live in Greater Govan, Govan Law Centre are good to use. Otherwise, consider using the Legal Services Agency.

GHA will (reluctantly) agree to a slow gradual arrears repayment if you state that you are in “financial hardship” and say that you want to draw up an affordable repayment plan. You can draw up an income/expenditure plan to support that.

If housing benefit overpayments or delays are involved, consider involving GHA’s own welfare rights advisors (a free service for tenants).

Landlords have a legal duty to provide a wind and watertight home. The mutuality of contract principle in Scots law means a landlord cannot insist on rent if it is in breach of contract – so where landlord has failed to carry out notified repairs it could be argued that some rent is not lawfully due. From Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre http://www.afraser.com/housing/legal.pdf

Glasgow City Council’s continuing power over Housing

Although they have little influence over GHA, GCC retains powers of strategic direction and finance for housing in Glasgow.

1. Glasgow City Council’s Executive Committee allocates out the Scottish Government’s Housing Association Grant. New social rented houses are only built when funded through the HAG, and GCC ties its release of funds to specific projects for specific housing associations, so this gives GCC total control over who builds what where in the social rented sector. In practice, GCC DRS staff are involved in a leading role from the earliest stages of any suggested new build social rented housing.
2. GCC determines land use through its planning committee – what types of housing are approved and where.
3. GCC owns much of the land in Glasgow, most especially ownership of all cleared GHA sites reverts to GCC.
4. Glasgow City Council Social Work Services Department decides who is counted as homeless, and which of those are counted as priority homeless, and which of those are quickly housed in GHA or community controlled housing associations by being listed under section 5 of the Housing Act. Note that Social Work Services have an appeal process for

Glasgow City Council is in favour of a decline in social rented housing. They hope to instead increase the proportion of private housing, especially expensive private housing, to encourage economic development.

For more information, see Glasgow City Couincil’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2008/09 to 2012/13 at http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FA2099CA-CC59-4D71-9F07-8B133A7C72E9/0/SHIPFINALPart1.pdf

Key People involved in this are:

1. Steve Inch, Executive Director of Development and Regeneration Services.
2. Councillor George Ryan, Executive Member for Development and Regeneration.
3. Councillor Steven Purcell, Leader of the Council.

Praxis is currently meeting fortnightly in Glasgow, and our members are involved in numerous different projects. The primary focus currently is on building tenants/residents associations in the North of Glasgow, as part of the Glasgow Residents Network. This includes campaigning around the issue of water pressure problems in the high flats, an issue that applies throughout Glasgow.

Praxis members have also been heavily involved in the Industrial Workers of the World locally, nationally and internationally. These activities have included being central to building the IWW’s presence at Glasgow University after the Crichton Campus campaign, and running successful local IWW events. Praxis members have been pushing within the union for the adoption of strategic goals, have been successful in arguing that the union should focus on a couple of sectors, healthcare and education, and our members are active in the IWW’s main campaigns within these sectors.

Glasgow Anarchists, a broad anarchist group primarily concerned with promoting class struggle anarchism through propaganda, has also seen the involvement of Praxis members, specifically in coordinating and running It’s street stall. We’ve also been involved in preparing for the Mayday events in Glasgow, including offering finance for the event.

[A praxis discussion document presented on 14th November 2007 .
Note here that 'working class' is used in its wider economic (=proletariat) sense.
Also note that while the risks of co-option from becoming involved in popular struggles are not dealt with here, the idea is that the Praxis organisation will not itself directly engage in reformist struggles, and will rather leave that for non-revolutionary popular organisations, which albeit may include Praxis members in an individual capacity.]

As socialists we propose the revolutionary transformation of society.  We propose to run our communities, our industry and our planet directly through a system of assemblies and councils.  We hold that it is not enough simply to institute democracy, but that a fundamental overhaul of the ecomony is necessary.  We believe in the abolition of class society.

As workers then we form a minority position within the working class as a whole, most of whom (if they consider these positions) currently reject them.  Even those workers who agree with socialism do not necessarily have the confidence or the capacity to act on those beliefs, or they consider such ideas impractical in the realworld.  We are therefore faced with a very complex problem.  We could convince workers in the abstract that socialism is a good idea.  That the abolition of class society is necessary.  We could win the hearts and minds of millions to our ideas, and yet we would find that we had still very little power to implement our ideas and programmes.

This problem is twofold.  First there are few extant examples of workers in the UK who have changed their conditions through being powerful.  There are also no current examples of socialism in practice.

Many workers too have little or no experience of collective power.  They have no concept that collectively we have power, or they have no faith that if they do something others will to (and rightly so because at the moment, those others won’t).  So we have some false consciousness and a prisoners dilema that keeps our class from taking action.

More than this we also face an ever present problem of clientellism.  The numbers of people queing up to do things ‘for us’ are endless.  While someone else is being paid to sort things out for us why should we take action?  This kind of thinking reinforces passivity and helplessness, and amongst those of our class with the lowest social capital it becomes a negative cycle of reification of powerlessness.

If we really want to build socialism this is the major battle we have to fight – not armies, tanks, guns or thermonuclear warheads (although we will need to fight those too at some stage) but in the here and now we have to fill our fellow workers with the confidence, skills, capacity and determination to take action collectively on our shared interests.  It is only in doing so that we transcend our otherwise hegemonic special interests, and meet as proletarians.

What this means in practice is fighting for shared objectives and goals collectively in a way in which we can develop a positive feedback loop for the participants.  We must turn “If I fight I will lose,” into “We won the last time when we stood together, we can win again.”

If this is done systemically and programmatically throughout mass worker organisations in our workplaces and communities then we can raise the ambitions of the class, and move beyond the struggles of defence to an offensive programme, collectively determined.

As participants in these struggles and in the movements of the class we can add our input to create a systemic drive towards victories which are most likely to increase the confidence and capacity of our fellow workers.

If through programmatic involvement in struggles we can pick the campaigns and battles which are most likely to enhance the collective power and confidence of our fellow workers and provide a platform for further struggles we can begin to move towards a strategy of attack.

No one fight is going to emerge which will lead the charge to revolution.  Even very radical movements which are successful will not collapse capitalism.  Capitalism has proven itself a very adaptable system.  The only way we are going to crush it is through developing the kind of powerful mass organisations which are capable of strategically seizing industry and civil society on a vast enough scale to be able to withstand the repression that will follow.  Revolution is on such a scale that all we can hope for in the current period is to work towards it by building ever more powerful movements.  A more powerful movement of workers could be on the cards which could force the repeal of anti-trade union legislation through a programme of direct action.  A community movement could force the state to build X thousand new council houses, and an economic programme with enough backing could force the rescinding of the TINA (There Is No Alternative) mantra over privatisation and the hegemony of neoliberal economics, but in the here and now our involvement in mass organisations should be in giving the capacity for those organisations to really fight and win which will programmatically advance our class towards greater and greater power as we try and convince through the evidence of the victories in the struggles of our own making, that we really are capable of seizing the means of production and advancing towards socialism.

Too often the politics of despair dominates the discourse on the left.  It was remarked earlier in the year by many participants on the libcom forum that the wobblies claims that the IWW in the UK will have 1000 members by late 2008 were ridiculous and impossible.  This is despite somewhat silly ideological organisations on the continent being capable of boasting memberships much higher than this, and despite the fact that the IWW now stands at around 350 members (an advance on the 100, the organisation had this time last year).  We can be very defeatist and self-limiting.  This can lead to flights of fancy, where the decades of agitation required to build the movements necessary to challenge capitalism in this country are reduced to ’sparks’ which will throw the workers headlong into workers councils circumscribing all that work.  That’s a convenient fantasy, but it is fantastic.

The work that went into building the Spanish CNT before the revolution in 1936 started in the 19th century.  It was built up not through calls towards uprisings or spontaneity, nor by calling for revolution, but by systematically working on single issues, building up power, showing workers that they collectively had strength and linking the struggles in the here and now with a vision of a better future, in a down-to-earth practical way.  Those who favoured skipping this necessary work of building confidence and capacity and winning struggles and reforms in favour of advancing from one victory then to the revolution were inevitably destructive towards the organisation of this task.

In the UK context that means fighting on a reform ticket in the here and now and at the same time being open that our vision is not just for new council houses, or the odd community land trust, but that we want social control of housing.  It means saying we must smash social partnership and begin building union militants while we organise a parallel synicalist union and at the same time calling out to the new rank and file that we must build worker controlled industry unions that will hand us more power, but that we think are capable of and eventually will seize industry.

Now just as we believe it is necessary to be strategic about which struggles to involve ourselves in, it also becomes important to be strategic about how we believe struggles should be leveraged.  Victory Y may be impossible at the moment, because it might rely on the procurement structures for public sector contractors to be changed (or whatever).  It is not reformist to acknowledge this, and to say that to achieve victory Y we must first achieve victory Y, because for us nothing short of world revolution is the endgame.  It becomes reformist, in the sense of counterposed to revolution, when the political organisation decides it no longer aspires to revolution.  There is no sense in lying to people, or saying that we do not need to consider these things because they are ‘bourgeois’.  In terms of strategic planning they are necessary to enable us to make advances, otherwise we risk alienating people by not explaining what it would mean if a given struggle or path were chosen.

The early socialists had minimum and maximum programmes to deal with this issue.  The craven failure of the second international was that it liquidated itself by abandoning the maximum programmes in favour of reformism.  The concept however is not a failure even if the early advocates of this methodology later abandonned socialism in favour of social democracy; there were structural reasons for this failure, and we are not out to ape these structural faiilures, but the concept that a socialist organisation can hold a position for a reform demand which will enable more radical future reforms is not a new one, and is more honest than Trotsky’s transitional demands, or the anarchist movement’s failure to engage with reality by not assessing how we can build real power for our class and always holding out the ultimate goal as immediately realisable.

The concept however that there is a (one, singular) minimum programme is dogmatic and undialectical. The reality is rather that a list of reform demands articulated by mass organisations will give way to more and more radical demands as these organisations grow in power and confidence, provided victories and struggles are fought and won by workers directly and not in a clientellist manner, and that revolutionaries are active in these preceding struggles putting forward a vision of a better society.

That is why popular victories should give way to more and more popular victories and why reform demands must be agitated for in a programmatic manner.

Author event – reading and discussion.

Sunday 7th October
6.30 – 8.30
Quaker Meeting House
38 Elmbank Cres
(opposite Charing Cross Station)
Glasgow
G2 4PS

Free entry – all welcome.

Marina Sitrin will be reading from her book,
Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina.
published by AK Press.

December 2001 marked the beginning of a popular rebellion in Argentina. After IMF policies led to economic meltdown millions of Argentineans poured into the streets to protest the freezing of their bank accounts, the devaluing of their currency and the bankruptcy of their state. This rebellion – of workers and the unemployed, of the middle class and the recently declassed – erupted without leadership or hierarchy. Political parties and newly emerged élites had no role in the movement that toppled five consecutive national governments in just two weeks.The social movements that exploded in Argentina that December not only transformed the fabric of Argentine society but also highlighted the possibility of a genuinely democratic alternative to global capital.
Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina is the story of those movements, as told by the men and women who are building them. Come and hear from the people who created the neighbourhood assemblies involving tens of thousands of active participants, who occupied the hundreds of factories run directly by workers.

Another world is possible!

…this event is co-hosted by

AK Press – www.akuk.com
City Strolls – www.citystrolls.com
Praxis (Glasgow) – www.praxisglasgow.wordpress.com
RIB – www.ribproject.org

[N.B. Much of this is in draft form.]

Background To Praxis

* Brief Historical Background
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhdp5mfw_60dg5qfk

* Founding Statement
http://praxisglasgow.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/founding-statement-is-there-a-need-for-a-new-glasgow-scotland-wide-anarchist-group/

* Our Current Mission Statement
“We will coordinate our involvement in existing class struggles with the dual aim of improving people’s lives and building truly democratic social movements and institutions of and for the working class. We hope that these can become the basis of a new, classless, society. We want a serious approach to combining theory and practise where we set targets and assess ourselves against those targets, and build new theory based on what we learn. No bullshit – let’s just see what we can actually do to help, and work towards more working class power. Our strategy and tactics will be based on what works. The community and workplace are both sites of struggle against the ruling class, and struggles in both must be fought. In some workplaces a “red” union such as the IWW may be the best option, in others a democratic network of trade union members may be the better option. These are tatical decisions, not unbending principles. We will settle strategic and tactical disagreements by vote, and act in unity once the issue is settled. We are very interested in involving anyone who agrees with these principles and is serious about the struggle.”

* Preamble and Constitution
These are in final draft form and will be on their way in the next week or so.

—
Discussion Papers

Discussion papers by Praxis members:-

* Residents Associations – Latter-day Parisian Sections Or A Distraction From The Struggle For Socialism – Nick Durie
http://praxisglasgow.wordpress.com/residents-associations-%E2%80%93-latter-day-parisian-sections-or-a-distraction-from-the-struggle-for-socialism/

* Maryhill – The Future Of A Working Class Community In North West Glasgow – Nick Durie
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhdp5mfw_503jrrg9

* Exaggerated Privatisation – A Fraser
http://praxisglasgow.wordpress.com/exaggerated-privatisation/

Internal Praxis Discussion Documents

* Discussion Document – What To Do About The GHA – A. Fraser
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ddxz3sbn_3f5p9p9

* Discussion Document – Real Social Housing – Nick Durie
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhdp5mfw_45cddxn8

* Discussion Document – IWW and Workplace Strategy – Nick Durie
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhdp5mfw_59cf4whh

* Discussion Document – Total Tactical Flexibility – Alistair Davidson
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhdp5mfw_61f56wb3

Principles / basis of a future programme

Local media / media of a popular democratic movement *

Housing ~In Draft~

IWW / Trade Unions ~In Draft~

Economy ~In Draft~

Direct Democracy *

Popular Management *

Technology -In Draft~

To do with approach of the organisation:-

Organisational Approach / Tactical flexibility ~In Draft~

Marketing ~In Draft~

An open Praxis workshop was held on Saturday 12th May 2007 in Glasgow City Centre. Thanks to Glasgow’s Radical Independent Bookfair for kindly hosting that. There was good attendandance and a positive and encouraging open discussion loosely based around the workshop talking points below.

Post a comment to let us know how you found it.

Praxis workshop

key points – the struggle at large.

- independent organisation

- political autonomy of the class

- capacity to struggle

- material / assessable gains in the past years

- membership of organisations for struggle – levels

- political significance of socialism

then address the state of working class organisation based on these criteria

key points- the anarchists

- numerical strength

- relevance to the class struggle

- retention

- level of political coherency / organisational coherency

- level of internal debate and education

political vision?

* the state, then of anarchist organisation

-> how things can be different?

* programme

* relevance

* visibility

* what can be achieved with few people, some people and thousands of people etc.

-> the strategy and aims of Praxis

what would this mean for the struggle defined in the aforementioned terms.

-> what are the benefits of this approach? (as compared with other groups)