Report on WSM Spring 2007 National Conference

?

edited to say: It looks like ya'll are doing some pretty cool stuff - but, whilst I'm reluctant to trot out the old Platformist/Trotskyist metaphor (or is it a simile?), a "call for the nationalization of Ireland's national resources" (or anything else), is a method pretty common to Trotskyism.

But maybe its something much different than what the report makes it seem, which is why i'm asking now.

Without digging or giving either argument the benefit of the doubt -- this question came up in another context recently too. I'm wondering if there is a single word that means seizing from private capital and bringing under public control when that public control isn't expected to be exercised through the nation-state?

'socialisation' is probably a bit better for that ...?

Yeah I thought that was what 'socialization' was used for...

socialise.

edit: beaten to it.

oh yeah

So did you-all mean socialize, or nationalize? I mean there's definitely something to be said environmentally speaking for keeping stuff on the island instead of being so massively dependent on international exchange, -- is that kind of delinking what you were trying to get at with this "reclaim our resources" thing?

err I guess they can answer for themselves, but I don't think the point of this is environmental at all, it is so that control of the natural resources can be subject to more popular influence than at present. Joe expounds on that theme here: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82764

Hi

Yeah terry is right. I don't have the amended motion to hand at the moment but i think it consisted of an explanation that state ownership isn’t the same as workers ownership and that there is unlikely that even if held in public ownership the resources will be used for the benefit of the public.
However we go on to say that if they are held in state ownership it would make it easier to force the government to spend the money in the interests of the working class.

These points are elaborated on in more detail in the motion itself which should be released in the next few days.

..and so as localised environmental struggles around resource extraction* can possibly be linked up with struggles around under-funding of public services.

* In addition to Rossport note the following Exxon-Mobil fields (also development of LNG terminal in Kerry):

From Sunday Independent:

The Dunquin field is being principally developed by Exxon Mobil: "With Dunquin we are planning to drill wells next year and 2009. It is deep water, and as a rule of thumb, it takes about five years to get a field into production, so we are looking at 2013 to 2015.

"The gas will be brought ashore in a pipeline and the oil tankered away," explained John O'Sullivan, Exploration Manager with Providence Resources, who have a stake in Dunquin and fields off the coast of Clare.

Further up the coast is the Spanish Point field, which is 200km off the coast of Clare. The field has known reserves of one and a quarter trillion cubic feet of gas and 206million barrels of oil, and is valued at €19.6bn.

"At Spanish Point we are looking at drilling wells next year and looking at production in that field in 2011,"explained John O'Sullivan.

Spin maybe the terrain of bourgeois politics, but clarity is something anarchists should aim for. I am sure that's why you are getting negative comments about this.

The experience of nationalisation that I am aware of has hardly been something that benefited the working class. You must be aware of the role of the British state, for example, in breaking strikes in nationalised industries, using troops to do so at times. Nationalisation has mostly been used to support capital's accumulation or to support a national capital in crisis.

Surely the issue of getting a bigger chunk of profits to support health and education is dependent on the state of the class struggle. The more combative the working class, the bigger the slice of the cake?

If they actually did that I'd support it.

Freudian slip?

I understand that, which is why I'm not making any accusations of leftism/trotskyism or whatever. I'm questioning whether the consequences of winning this demand would lead to what you hope for. Of course, if it came about as a result of mass class struggle, which is what I imagine you are aiming for, then it probably would. However, the class struggle would produce those results irrespective of nationalisation and nationalisation 's gains would be eroded rapidly if the wave of struggle dissipated.

1. What's this leftist stuff about? Sounds like the sort of stuff that those US post-leftist eejits come out with. We are, obviously, on the left, so we are hardly going to be reacting to being called leftist.

2. The practical problems thrown up by our involvement in campaigns is what drives most of our thinking, critics who call us "leftists" as an insult are probably unknown to most of our members and certainly don't form a part of our thinking at all.

3. We generally try to come up with winnable objectives for our involvements in campaigns that lead towards our long term objectives, but do not simply amount to calling for a revolution as the only possible gain. So, for example, we support all sorts of reforms which make the lives of working people better. Do you have a problem with this general approach? If not, what do you think would be a good winnable objective in this particular case? Certainly, our approach here may not be perfect and it would be interesting to hear others put forward alternative short to medium term goals, but if they're just coming from some revolutionary purist point of view where any and all reforms short of a revolution are to be sniffed at, we just aren't interested as we just disagree with the fundamentals of such an approach.

Absolutely true. However, if we want to campaign we need to have some concrete goal in mind. We can't campaign for "class struggle" in the abstract. We need to put forward some realistic (if ambitious) objectives which might mobilise workers or else we'll be campaiging on our own and it won't matter what we call for as we won't have a chance of attaining anything.

Nah, that's definitely not true. Capitalism can and has often managed to concede nationalisation but workers control of the economy is by definition revolutionary. Also, in this particular case, the resources start out as being nationalised and are being given away to private corporations - i.e. the state owns the offshore deposits of hydrocarbons and is giving away exploration licences which grant all the resources to the corporations which extract them. It's analagous to the health service where we also call for a single-tier public health service. Currently there is a mix of public and private health systems and the government is falling over itself to privatise whatever it can. In that case we would like to see an end to privatisation and a re-nationalisation of the private parts of the system as a reform that is possible without a revolution. I don't see the difference in principle.

Well I think Jack's point was in the current climate. Not whether or not capitalism can concede nationalisation - and in fact it often hasn't been a concession.

To me the usefulness of something like 'Reclaim our Resources' revolves around two things:

(1) Struggles around the under-funding of public services. There was recently a nurses strike and are sizable campaigns around hospital cut backs in different parts of the country, well at least one, and smaller one elsewhere. Obviously the government line on this is we don't have the money and we can't raise taxes cause all the investement would dry up (the Republic has the lowest corporation tax in Europe and is heavily dependant on foreign direct investment). Widespread knowledge about the prospective resources off coast would be a useful weapon in this context.

(2) It links local environmental struggles around resource extraction up with a wider discontent around the country. Obviously Rossport, but also as I posted above there are likely to be other Rossports in the future.

Like Jack however I would question whether nationalisation is realisable (probably more realisable than having an anarcho-syndicalist union in Britain though).
I'd like to read the motion in full though as I'm sure it has been thought through as I know there were varying opinions.
Personally I would have thought a higher tax rate with the proviso that the money is put into a special fund for education/health/fuel povery or some such would make more sense.

Be interesting to see if this 'takes off'.

Joe as I understand it the difference between Statoil and Ireland is that:

(1) Norway had more proven amounts of oil and gas.

(2) Its major development was in the middle of the oil crisis.

In any case Statoil is I believe slowly being privatised.

However it is the case that generally speaking oil and gas has a high degree of state participation in its extraction.

I wasn't suggesting focusing on a change to the corporation tax regime. The taxation system for oil and gas extraction is already different than that, in that there are cost write offs, royalties, and licenses - and these are the most extreme neo-liberal parts as far as I can see, or the effective abscene in the second two cases. Depends on what 'nationalisation' means, it could mean the state holds onto the field and the company pays for everything it takes out, or it could mean the establishment of a state company. I'm sceptical if the second option is a runner. Not just for what Jack says.....the day there is an A to B march in Dublin with machettes and dynamite I'll be up for demanding...sorry taking a bit more, but cause its feasibility is dependant on the extent of the resources. Which is a crucial issue. The idea of the fund I like (as in Norway incidentally) cause it directly links state participation with what the money is being spent on. Though that could be a bit naive.

Hey...how about re-unification of the Pale and Scandanavia : )

and Jack, I think you'll find it's Scotland's oil not the UKs!!! : )

...the "it's Scotland's oil" campaign was big part of the rise of the SNP, in case anyone is wondering.

I am very sympathetic to what the WSM is trying to do here, but share some of the concerns about the "Nationalization" slogan.

Why not frame the demand in a way that doesn't tie you to a concept you don't agree with or have no illusions in. The broad concept is popular control of the resources, no? Let the marxists and reformists use the Nationalization term, you'd still be part of the same general movemet without giving in to that concept.

Also if (when!) such a movement does arise -even a small movement of a few thousand, the WSM would presumably be arguing within that movement for workers/community control as opposed to bureaucratic State control, so why leave that concept for the "inner-circle", especially since many workers rightly view State control wearily?

hope these comments aren't seen as hostile or burdensome . . .

solidarity,

K.

Not at all Kdog. A few people including myself shared your concerns and did not support the motion. But we decide things by majority vote and the majority felt that these concerns were adequately dealt with in the motion. (The motion is not simply 'We Support nationalisation'.) In fact the motion was co-authored by the author of this article from Red and Black. Its an issue we are debating and the debate is far from over.

I do think its important to note that the call for nationalisation was around the issues of natural resources and Shell to Sea exclusively. And that the WSM is currently looking into helping set up a campaign around natural resources, the details of this campaign are not yet worked out and the WSM has not as of yet committed itself to that campaign. Its a kind of complicated process. The call for nationalisation amounts to a collective clarification of what the demands we should be pushing in Shell to Sea are and an endorsement of what the demands of a non-existent campaign should be.

It is not a call for mass nationalisations. It is rather a collective clarification of what demands we should be pushing in a real campaign which we are already involved in. The motion includes caveats about it not being enough, workers control etc. It was also an attempt to provide a basis for looking into the formation of a campaign based around reclaiming our Natural Resources.

To be honest it makes more sense when you read the motions themselves. Although as I said I do think this is something we need a lot more discussion about.