This is the editorial from the upcoming issue of Socialist Resistance.

image Other than a Tory majority this Conservative-Liberal coalition is the worst possible outcome of the general election, since it is the most effective platform available for cuts, austerity and unemployment. Cameron and Clegg tell us that the coalition has been formed ‘in the national interest’. That’s the code phrase for their own class.

The façade of equality within the coalition projected by making Clegg Deputy Prime Minister is a deception perpetrated by a Tory leadership which was determined to get their hands on the reins of power by any means necessary. It is an embrace of death which is already tearing the Lib Dems apart.

In return for the trappings of office the Lib Dems have decided to underpin a reactionary coalition and sign up to the onslaught on jobs, pensions and services which the Tories have been preparing.

The cuts agenda and deficit reduction are the cornerstones of this anti-working class coalition. Yet in the election campaign the Lib Dems supported Brown’s approach to the crisis, which was for a limited level of government stimulus and quantative easing in order to maintain demand in the economy for another year. This was inadequate, and did not avoid cuts, but it had temporally cushioned the crisis — though it was based in the illusion that the economy would recover next year and that the working class could then be made to pay the bill.

However this was an important difference which would have kept more people in work and created better conditions for a fight back. It has now been junked in favour of Tory proposals for an immediate £6 billion slashing of public expenditure with much more to come. This can only make the economic situation worse and a full-scale double-dip recession more likely.

The backdrop of crisis across Europe throughout the election period should have served as warning on this. There was rioting in Athens and so-called ‘contagion’ was threatening Spain, Portugal, and Italy. To this mix was added fresh instability in the banking system and the markets and the threat by Sarkozy to pull France out of the Eurozone unless Merkel accepted the EU’s €750bn bailout fund for the single currency.

The Lib Dems capitulated to the Tories knowing that there was alternative deal with Labour and the nationalist parties on offer — the so-called progressive alliance.

Unprincipled Liberals

This was not a project that we would have called for or supported but we are not neutral on whether the Lib Dems line up with the Tories or against them even though neither of these parties represents the interests of the working class. Caroline Lucas put it well, saying that neither side was progressive and that she would have supported any measures put forward on a case by case basis.

For the Lib Dems this represented a spectacular betrayal of their own principles. The Labour offer held out a real possibility of replacing Britain’s bizarre and corrupt electoral system, which has under-represented them for so long, with some form of Proportional Representation (PR). This is something which the Lib Dems have correctly called for over many years. It would completely change the scandalously anti-democratic “first past the post” system which deprives millions of voters of representation in parliamentary elections.  It does not represent workers’ democracy, of course, but it is an extremely important working class democratic demand.

A Labour-Liberal coalition would have been a less effective platform for cuts which is one of the reasons the Lib Dems gave for rejecting it. Such a government would have come under massive pressure from the media to implement a cuts agenda. It is true that the arithmetic was tight with the Labour option and that it would probably not have lasted 5 years. But it could have lasted long enough to ensure that the next election would not be under the “first past the post” system.

What the Lib Dems have ended up with is a coalition in which all the cards and the key ministries are in the Tories’ hands. The Tories have offered them a referendum on the Alternative Vote system. It is not PR since it is not proportional and is arguably no better than first past the post since it would have no effect on the constituencies dominated by Tory or Labour inbuilt majorities which are the distorting factor in the first past the post system.

One thing the Lib Dems extracted from the Tories was early legislation on fixed term Parliaments. This would mean that the next general election is scheduled to be on Thursday May 7th 2015.

This is a very important electoral reform measure in itself, although five years is too long for a government to hold office. Its purpose in these circumstances is a good illustration of the Lib Dems’ cynicism. They wanted to make sure that the Tories did not use them to get into power only to spit them out again when they thought they could win a full majority. The outrageous proposed change of parliamentary procedure to require 55% of the vote to pass a motion of no confidence in a government is another example of the Lib Dems’ desperation to be in office. Whether these safeguards can guarantee a stable government for five years of economic distress and attacks on the working class is another matter.

There are some limited progressive measures in the deal between the parties: the abolition of identity cards; the postponement of the inheritance tax relief and a rise in capital gains tax. Most of the rest of the coalition agreement is Tory policy. Trident, the one issue on which the Lib Dems were out of step with establishment politics, is to stay. There is an unspecified commitment to raising the tax threshold, which is sure to be kicked into the long grass. It is also clear that a substantial rise in the regressive VAT is in the offing.

Aiding the racists

On immigration the Lib Dem proposal for an amnesty after 10 years has been junked in favour of the reactionary Tory proposal for a cap on non-EU immigration. One of the vile features of the election campaign was the repeated racist attacks by both the Tories and Labour equally over their amnesty proposal. Behind these attacks was the bankrupt attitude which rendered all three main parties unable to tackle the far right during the election campaign other than to compete with them on how many migrants they could stop coming in and how many they could throw out.

This makes them directly responsible for the advances made by the BNP and UKIP in the campaign. The reason why both the BNP and UKIP won worrying scores at the national level was because the main parties insist on competing with them rather than opposing them.

The war and the environment were marginal issues in the election campaign and nothing has changed with the coalition agreement. The Lib Dems have also collapsed on nuclear power. The Tory policy of a new generation of nuclear power stations is coalition policy with the Lib Dems having the right to abstain when it comes to a vote. The agreement is against a third runway at Heathrow and other London airports — but there is nothi
ng about Boris Johnson’s proposal for a new airport in the Thames estuary.

The most divisive issue facing this coalition government is that of the European Union (EU). It means the Euro-sceptic Foreign Secretary William Hague sitting in Cabinet alongside life-long EU enthusiast Lib Dem ministers. The agreement not to go into the Euro zone in the current Parliament and a referendum on any transfer of powers to the EU is unlikely to contain this issue even inside the Tory Party.

The coalition is hugely controversial in both of the parties involved. The right-wing of the Tory party regards it as a sell-out as do most of the rank and file of the Lib Dems. This means that the coalition will come under massive pressure once the decisions on cuts start to be taken particularly since neither party has a mandate from the electorate for the cuts they are intending to make.

Labour is already indicating that it is unlikely to oppose the cuts in general but may object to some of the details. They say they want to be a ‘responsible opposition’. This would be a scandalous capitulation to the concept of “national interest” peddled by the Con/Lib Dem coalition and the media but it is in line with the way they have governed and fought the election in the interests of business.

The performance of the left in the election was a disaster. It is true that the two great positive outcomes of the election were the defeat of Nick Griffin in Barking and the election of Caroline Lucas in Brighton. We congratulate those involved in both campaigns. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) result was weak. It made no impact on the election at national level and is unlikely to be the basis for anything after the election.

Respect polled far better than any other part of the left but lost its MP and most of councillors. It will need to regroup and revisit its strategic approach.

The need for an effective party to the left of Labour remains a crucial element of the fight back. One lesson this the 2010 election is that the left should redouble its effort to create a united and pluralist party of the left.

This makes the response of the trade unions to the situation of first class importance. Most unions have so far remained largely passive in the face of cutbacks. This has to change as a matter of urgency. The unions must demand that gaps in the budget created by the banking crisis are tackled through the cancellation of Trident; ending the war in Afghanistan; withdrawal from Iraq and energetic collection of taxes from big business, the banks and the rich. As a minimum corporation tax should be raised back to at least the levels levied under Thatcher and the key demand for a million green jobs supported.

We must seek to build a mass campaign in the trade unions and Labour Movement to press for the rapid implementation of progressive electoral reform based on PR.  The Labour movement must also rally against the dangerous slide towards racist, anti-immigrant policies. Years of the unions trailing meekly behind Blair and Brown have brought us to the very brink of a Tory government. Only the movement of the working class and the creation of an effective coalition against the cuts can save the working class from fresh, massive and damaging attacks.

We call for:
•    Local anti-cuts campaigns to defend public services.
•    Local and national protests on the day of the emergency budget.
•    National unions and the TUC to call national demonstrations to defend public services.

This is the editorial in Socialist Resistance issue 60. It was adopted by the SR national committee on May 16, 2010.

19 responses to “Resist government by the rich, for the rich”

  1. “Respect polled far better than any other part of the left but lost its MP and most of councillors. It will need to regroup and revisit its strategic approach.”

    What does this mean? It fails to answer the question as to wether Respect is viable in its current form which I think it is not. The results were not just bad but fatal as far as East London was concerned. Respect was reduced to 3rd place in both seats with the Liberals being the challangers now not Respect. Had Respect came a good close 2nd then “regrouping” (whatever that means) may have been possible but when you have a swing of 19% against you in Bethnal Green and Bow (our “heartlands”) then it will be very difficult over the next five year with Lavour in opposition.

    In Birmingham Hall Green Respect did better but are still the same 3000+ votes short as we wre before and again with a Labour government this is likely to remain the picture.

    “The need for an effective party to the left of Labour remains a crucial element of the fight back. One lesson this the 2010 election is that the left should redouble its effort to create a united and pluralist party of the left.”

    On this I agree 100% and have supported this within Respect but as you are aware this is opposed by the current Respect leadership. You cant ride two horses at once can you?
    Those of us that wanted to try to build such an alliance were called “Ultra Left” at the last Respect conference. Like Respect TUSC in its current format is unsustainable and a poor reflection of what is required but at least those involved tried for a time (even if most unions and parties/groups then bailed out leaving a hollowed out centre over dominated by the Socialist Party).

    There is no easy route forward for the Left outside the Labour Party but Respect as “The Alternative” is not the way forward and was never intended to be so when it was set up.

    More of the same from Respect and a mayor election in Tower Hamlets is just not good enougth is it?

    Like

  2. tamworthalternative Avatar
    tamworthalternative

    Neil, I could agree with every single word you write but still be at a loss as to what you propose to do if it involves abandoning or by-passing Respect…

    Like

  3. The soft-left in Labour and Respect will be annoyed to find out that John McDonnell has announced that he intends to stand for the Labour leadership. Along with Cruddas ducking out, this shows something about what kind of politics represents the remaining genuine left in the LP. Cruddas as the main public representative of something claiming to be the left conscience of Labour, then turns around and declines to stand for leader saying he does not have the ‘personal qualities’ for the job. Ironically, by his very action in not standing, he proves that assertion correct. But if the main leader of a putative left-wing current is unsuited to stand for leader, he is also unsuited to be a leader of that would-be left.

    Presumably, he considers either or both of the Milliband brothers have those qualities of leadership. His concept of leadership is pretty clear from that.

    We will see if Cruddas’ followers – or anyone else who claims to be on the left – have the guts to nominate McDonnell to allow a genuine left-winger to take on the neo-liberals.

    Events like the BA injunction show there is no difference between this coalition government and New Labour. Deja vu anyone? I’m beginning to lose count of the number of times this has happened. I wonder if any of the candidates will have the guts to back Unite on this? I know McDonnell does, that is not even news or in question. The silence of the other declared candidates speaks volumes.

    The answer to the question as to what other perspective is there other than Respect may begin to be answered if McDonnell is able to stand make a decent fist of a campaign, hopefully generating support from trade unionists. But I suspect that the logic of such a campaign, polarised around basic trade union questions and of course the upcoming cuts, points outside the Labour Party, though the timescale of this is not clear. How can New Labour even pretend to oppose cuts when they announced in the pre-election debate that their cuts would be harsher than Thatcher’s? How can New Labour oppose such things as the BA injunction when such things happened repeatedly on their watch?

    McDonnell can and will make a decent fist of these issues. No one else will, that’s for sure!

    Like

  4. If anyone is attending the next Respect National Coucil I would appreciate a report back on this site.

    Like

  5. Neil – just what exactly are you proposing Respect do. You’ve stated a number of times that more of the same is not good enough. But what would you like to see happening? What would your strategy be in Tower Hamlets. In 5 wards Respect came second. We won one seat in Shadwell. In Newham Respect came second in two wards. Here I suspect that the Lib-Dem vote may come under some pressure over the next period as the Orange Book is brought to bear on public services. Will Labour defend it’s voters or be a loyalk opposition to wield the axe. How does the left make common cause with those in Labour who wish to resist? What do you propose Respect does in these wards where we are second? Who are we uniting with? What is your vision? You don’t seem to like the Greens – who do you like? These are complicated times for Respect. Surely we need a serious strategy – of that we are all agreed – but calling for one may be somewhat easier than formulating one. Positive suggestions welcomed.

    Like

  6. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Neil – have you looked at what happened in Manchester in the general and local elections?

    Under the SWP – the ‘socialist heart’ of Respect as you described it – Respect concentrated on building exclusively in a narrow southern quarter of the city, particularly in the student areas. Since the SWP departed in 2007, Respect has been able to pursue a broader and more successful strategy and one could argue a more pro working class strategy. Respect decided to prioritise standing in Blackley and Broughton constituency in the working class north of the city (student population 5%). Kay Phillips achieved the fifth best Respect result with 996 votes and 2.9%. This compares favourably with Tommy Sheridan’s results in Glasgow of 931 votes also 2.9%. Only Dave Nellist in Coventry among TUSC candidates won more votes (3.7%). Dave Nellist was an MP for 9 years in Coventry and is also a longstanding current serving councillor. Tommy Sheridan has been both a councillor and was an MSP for 8 years in Glasgow. Kay Phillips has never been a councillor or stood as an MP before and has just one previous electoral candidacy, in a local election in 2008. Yet she managed by the standards of the left in the elections a very reasonable result in a very working class deprived constituency.

    Part of Respect’s approach was to work with the Greens in Manchester and Respect was supported by the Green Party in Blackley and Broughton. Respect members were also involved in the campaign to support Green Party member David Henry in the neighbouring Salford & Eccles constituency against Hazel Blears. Respect

    Like

  7. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    and Greens supported David who was also backed by the SP and SWP. David stood under the TUSC umbrella and won 1.8% – the fourth best result for a TUSC candidate. David also supported Respect and attended the national launch of the Respect manifesto.

    In Manchester Central, Respect backed the Green candidate Gayle O’Donovan, a very active member of the Green Left. Gayle, David and Kay appeared several times together to support each other in the campaign.

    The SWP meanwhile – the ‘socialist heart’ Respect lost according to you – backed the Labour Party candidate in Manchester Central; a Labour MP who refused to support an inquiry into the Iraq war and has backed most New Labour initiatives in parliament.

    Among the SWP members living in Manchester Central and voting for New Labour against a left winger was one Karen Reissman, SWP/TUSC candidate in Gorton. The SWP unilaterally announced Reissman as their candidate in this constituency – one with a student population of 21%, the highest in Manchester and one of the most student influenced constituencies in the country.

    Respect also announced a late candidacy in Gorton following the breakdown of negotiations with the SWP over a joint candidate. Despite being announced at the last minute the Respect candidate still won significantly more votes than the better known TUSC candidate.

    Now who do you think had the right approach to working class issues – Respect who prioritised the working class constituencies, did reasonably well by comparison with far better know left wingers and consistently worked with other left forces … or the former ‘socialist heart’ of Respect, the SWP, who were consistently sectarian, opportunistically advocated voting for Labour where there were better left wing candidates, concentrated on the most student dominated areas, and were rewarded with electorally much poorer results?

    Like

  8. Dress it up anyway you like. But you both did terribly. And the decision of Respect of oppose Karen Reissmann in Gorton was not good.

    Like

  9. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    By comparison with Labour, yes Bill you are right.

    But by comparison with the rest of the left, I still think there’s a qualitative difference between 996 votes for Respect in an area they are working hard in, and (say) the 75 or 109 votes for the AWL or Workers Power.

    Of course when looking at London local elections you have to appreciate the impact on the Labour vote of the general and locals being on the same day. No less than six political parties were completely wiped out, including the BNP and SP and other smaller parties like the Christian Peoples Alliance, and the only representatives of parties outside the main three among the whole of the1,800+ London councillors across 32 boroughs and a population of 8 million people now is two councillors for the Green Party and one for Respect. At least Respect and the Greens managed to hold on to something, and as TLC says Respect managed a significant number of second places – something that can be built on for the future, unlike the joke votes of some the leftwingers Neil wants Respect to liquidate itself into an alliance with.

    Like

  10. I agree Workers Power and the AWL votes were a joke.
    But even when compared with the Socialist Alliance the votes of the left were a disaster. And at the time no one thought the SA’s poll was good.
    I don’t consider the Greens a left party. If they were any larger they are well capable of doing a “Liberal”, in other words joining a coalition with the Tories. And indeed they have in local government in Leeds for example.
    The whole concentration on elections is very damaging and a diversion for the left. The attacks on public services are happening now. They will happen which ever government is elected. Derisory left votes only demoralise and weaken our side further.

    Like

  11. Bill J’s is a syndicalist position than hands over ‘politics’ to the Labour Party, in effect to New Labour and the Milibands. The left has to find some way to confront the neo-liberals for the loyalty of the class, necessarily including in elections. Support for McDonnell’s challenge for the leadership of the Labour Party is one way of doing this, but it is unlikely to be fruitful because of the changed nature of Labour, the hammerlock that neo-liberal politicians and their backers in sections of business have over the party, which probably means he won’t even get on the ballot.

    If the ‘opposition’ to the coalition is led by one of the Milibands or Balls – people who can’t even bring themselves to defend the right to strike, and someone like McDonnell can’t even get on the ballot, then as far as I can see the political vacuum to the left of Labour yawns as wide as ever. They will be a non-opposition, quibbling over secondary matters while agreeing on fundamentals. Labour cannot oppose cuts from any position of principle – before the election they stated that their cuts would be worse than Thatcher’s were they to win. The only difference was they would be postponed for a year, for reasons of bourgeois economic convenience.

    The objective basis for a broad left-wing alternative to Labour is just as much there now as previously. The main obstacle to that is subjective – in the political flaws of the left in this country, which are excaserbated by the undemocratic electoral system which gives undue influence to opportunist and sectarian trends. The genuine left – class struggle socialists – have to get their shit together and unite to provide a real alternative to New Labour, and draw others who have a left reformist consciousness but want to fight for working class interests against neoliberalism – behind them.

    The sneering of Respect people at the electoral performance of TUSC etc just underlines their break from that aspiration. In declaring that Communists and Trotskyists were an ‘electoral liability’ and should be shunned in favour of alliances with Jon Cruddas (who seems to regard himself as a liability – hence his refusal to stand for the LP leadership!), George and Salma in effect repudiated Respect’s own origins as a bloc between Trotskyists, an expelled Labour MP and anti-war/Muslim activists.

    We still need a party that starts off by organising the same categories of people – no need to reinvent the wheel, just do properly what has been fucked up before. Assuming one of the three neo-liberal candidates wins the LP leadership – which is a virtual cert – there won’t be any real opposition to the latest neo-liberal coalition government – and it is up to the left to provide it.

    Those who want to kow-tow to those like Cruddas who in turn kow-tow to New Labour will either break from that and resume playing a positive role, or end up as part of New Labour (or whatever brand name the new New Labour leader decides to use for basically the same thing).

    Like

  12. TLC you and many in the current Respect leadership are seeing everything in terms of elections and electorial success. While this is important it should only be part of what a Socialist/Progressive Alliance should be about. Right now a Coalition against the cuts is called for (you asked for ideas) involving trade unions and progressive supporters from many parties or none at all. The SWP have their Right To Work Conference this weekend which is at least a step in the right direction. The problem is this is seen by all on the Left as the “baby” of the SWP (that need to control again) so will have limited success but good on them for trying (will any Respect leaders be attending, will George and Salma be there? – I dont think so, But why not (you dont always have to be on the speakers platform do you)?

    Respect could with others and as many trade union supporters as possible call such a conference to resist the cuts but up to now Respect has avoided work in detail with trade unions ( I do accept its hard with very limited resouces and membership) – this would be one stage in creating a progressive coalition against the Con Dem governemnt policies which is required. Respect “doing its own thing” concentrating on elections (the Tower Hamlets mayor election being next) with such a small membership can achieve little.

    For what its worth I have always felt thats Respects work in Manchester and Southwark was the best example of what was possible by Respect working across a geographical area and across communities (not just one) – all credit to them but I understand we no longer have a Southwark Respect branch any longer.

    I was not my intention to imply that the SWP were on their own were the “Socialist heart” of Respect but I for one valued their work, socialist ideas and energy. Many idependent Socialists stayed in Respect and these are just as much the “Socialist heart” of Respect ( even if some have since left) . I hope that clarifies that matter but I think you knew what I ment all along.

    I have given you one example of what Respect could do (call an anti cuts conference with others but not on its own) and I have plenty of other ideas but I dont for one moment believe i have all the answers and there are other members who will have ideas and suggestions that need to be listed to (and we do need a debate about Respects way forward for sure). BUT we have a problem if like some in Respect you see the SWP, Socialist Party, Commnist Party (Morning Star) + some trade union leaders all of whom are as big as Respect and in some case many times bigger as irrelevant to buiding a new Left outside the Labour Party then you have created a block even before we start. Yes I would like to see a “Left block” far bigger than the current Left parties which must include trade unionsists and the many independent Socialists but “what we have is what we have” (including Respect) and that is our starting point as hard as it is.

    Like

  13. “And the decision of Respect of oppose Karen Reissmann in Gorton was not good.”

    Really – don’t think Respect mentioned karen Reissmann in our literature and I wasn’t aware that she was the sitting MP. Anyway, it’s a bit rich from Bill to carp since Permanent Revolution’s vanguard backed Gerald Kaufmann did they not?

    As for neil’s points they are so full of inaccuracies as to be silly.

    Let’s look at a few.

    “Respect has avoided work in detail with trade unions.” – this is simply nonsense. We operate where we can but as you recognise there is a limitation based on the size of our membership. However, one of our members is standing for the GS of UNITE and last year many of our members were involved in datailed and systematic work around Jerry’s previous campaign. What is the ‘detailed work’ you require of us? Give us an example of good practice from Milton Keynes?

    “Respect “doing its own thing” concentrating on elections (the Tower Hamlets mayor election being next) with such a small membership can achieve little.” – well since you’ve decided that this is the strategy and it’s can achieve little then forgive us if we disagree. 1) There is no strategy as you describe it. 2) Tower Hemlets have not decided whether to stand or not – but since we pushed for the election it would be foolish not to say anything about it. 3) Putting “doing it’s own thing” in speech marks – even if the only person you are quoting is yourself – doesn’t prove a point. Respect has never just done it’s own thing in elections. We’ve on many occasions supported other candidates – eg ken Livingstone in Mayoral elections, etc.

    “we no longer have a Southwark Respect branch any longer” – simply not true. We have a Southwark branch – it’s just without some of your fomrer allies who wanted us to jump on board with the doomed N02EU. Your knowledge of how other branches operate is simply fantasy. The idea the we only operate across one community is nonsense.

    As for the right to work conference – neil you are having a laugh. it will be attended by almost exclusively SWP members who are no more interested in your broader campaign now than they were six months ago. Stop deluding yourself.

    GG and Salma won’t be there as you know there is a Respect NC. No doubt you can give us a report.

    Like

  14. Neil Williams Avatar
    Neil Williams

    “GG and Salma won’t be there as you know there is a Respect NC.”

    It never stopped them attending many other conferences in the past on the same day did it ? (but i accept they would not be wish to be seen at this conference – the point i made about not always being the key speeker on the platform and just attending as a rank and file delegate at appropriate conferences is still relevent – such as Defend Council Housing)

    “No doubt you can give us a report.”
    And no doubt you can also on the Respect National Council.

    Like

  15. Yes I did vote Labour. No I did not vote Green or Liberal.
    As for whether you mentioned Karen Reissman or not that’s really beside the point. Your candidate was and is an unknown on the left. I’ve no particular love for TUSC but that is not true of Karen Reissman.

    Like

  16. Expressing your love for Karen Reissman is very touching Bill, but I don’t think this is the appropriate place to do it,

    Like

  17. Bill loves Karen? Touching …

    … but a debate over how well Respect did in this election as compared to TUSC or Workers Power is surely less relevant than a debate over why, after 13 years of New Labour, three elections and five “broad organisations” the left’s overall vote was risible, Labour’s vote amongst workers held up, the middle class Greens got a candidate and the country ended up being ruled by Old Etonians.

    I think one element of the reason for this is because the entire left (me included for a time) used the project of building an alternative to New Labour to further their narrow sect interests. Much that was positive was hijacked for recruitment purposes and much that was negative was exaggerated for polemical purposes.

    The result was the shrivelling of the sects and the setting back of the project to build a unified socialist movement that could put itself forward as a credible rival to New Labour – the mutual ruin of the contending sects as workers turned their back on organisations that were irresponsibly spurning the chance offered to them.

    Now we need to rebuild the socialist movement, the unions’ workplace organisations. a network of class conscious militants and the germ of a credible opposition to New Labour. Much of this will have to be done from scratch. Don’t believe me?

    Anyone go to a BA picket line today?

    Like

  18. Two points in reply to Mark H.

    Presumably two of the five “broad organisations” were the SLP and Respect mark 1, i.e before the split with the SWP. Both experiences demonstrate that bureaucratic behaviour is a fatal weakness for such formations, and if we do have to build from “scratch” we have to get a democratic cornerstone in place first.

    Secondly, socialists do have a nasty habit of trying to organise themselves, and so the existence of left groups within such formations cannot be wished away, whether you call them sects or not and whether they are or not. Just because the SP and SWP have caused so much damage we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Like

Leave a reply to JFK Cancel reply

Trending