Smallish demonstration in London

October 23, 2010

2–3 minutes

Not very long ago I sat through a meeting at which a very well-intentioned person tried to persuade several other well-intentioned people that today’s demonstration called by the National Shop Stewards’ Network, the PCS, RMT, NUT and FBU was the absolutely vital protest against the cuts. Not to work night and day to make it a triumphant success was to turn your back on the organised working class and, we can extrapolate, make yourself a petit-bourgeois lackey of the Con Dems

The next time someone asks you if there’s a difference between getting a handful of unions to allow their logos to be used on leaflets and those same unions actually doing very much to build a demonstration you could offer this is a confirmation that the two things just are not the same.

At a guess about a couple of thousand people were there. Very many of them were in fairly small contingents behind banners of unions and other organisations. Union branches that I know have memberships in the thousands had four or five people there to give an idea of scale.

The flyer said that we’d be ending up at a rally called the the Southeast region of the TUC. Actually we marched to an attractive Georgian square about five minutes walk from the TUC with most people eventually dispersing to nearby cafes and pubs rather than spend a hour or so with Brendan Barber or whatever bureaucrats were going to be droning on.

The NSSN organised its own rally which kicked off with Bob Crow. Bob seems to like to be the first speaker at these things presumably so that he can slip off and terrorise Daily Mail readers of whatever he does in his free time. He gave a reliably angry and militant speech as did Matt Wrack of the FBU. Matt relayed the sad news that a couple of the scab fire crews which are being used to break the FBU strike had apparently pranged their fire engines. A wave of sympathy did not run through the crowd. After that we had a number of speakers who all seemed to share very similar views on things.

On its own terms this was a reasonably successful event. Measured against the scale of what the organised left and trade union militants need to be doing it was a vivid demonstration of the limits of the "wholly owned subsidiary" version of a campaign.

53 responses to “Smallish demonstration in London”

Mark P

October 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm

No doubt if Counterfire and the ISG had been more centrally involved it would have moved from a few thousand to the tens of thousands.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Who knows. But it was small and that’s all there is to say.

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Snowdon

October 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm

I basically agree with your conclusions. Interestingly, there were 20,000 at the Scottish-wide demo in Edinburgh today (says BBC, so unlikely to be an inflated figure). That makes it about 3 times bigger than the next biggest anti-cuts demo so far in Britain.

It makes it obvious there’s a subjective failure – as well as the objective factors at work – for the weaknesses in London mobilisations. That failure is partly a failure of the big unions and TUC, partly a failure of the major socialist organisations.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 23, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Well, no Billj that isn’t all there is to say.

A demonstration of a few thousand is a pretty decent start, particularly when most of those on the demonstration seemed to be organised workers.

The peculiar thing is that the NSSN is not an example of the “wholly owned subsidiary” way of doing things Liam predictably whines about. It didn’t emerge fully formed from some party committee meeting. It wasn’t even set up by a left group, but by a national trade union. Nobody has been carved out of it or excluded from it.

Yes, the Socialist Party is the strongest influence over it. That’s because (a) the Socialist Party has paid more attention to it than other socialist groupings and (b) the Socialist Party has a lot more shop stewards in it than other socialist groupings. It’s not particularly reasonable to criticise the SP on either ground.

The NSSN is politically different from the COR or RtW (both of which actually did emerge fully formed from one socialist group’s private meeting) because it is rooted in the labour movement and focused on that movement.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 23, 2010 at 5:30 pm

Well people can always find things to say, but that’s not the same thing.
The NSSN is effectively run by the SP, not quite to the exclusion of everyone else as compared to say RTW, but the reason why you support it for example, is because its basically an SP front.
As an example of how ludicrous it all is in Manchester there was an anti-cuts demo organised by the NSSN which set off at 11.00 am at 12.00 there was another demo organised by RTW.
This was allegedly an example of “co-operation” as at least they didn’t start at the same time!
Unfortunately, the SP is not qualitatively better than the SWP in terms of its hierarchical sectarianism. So this is just as we might expect.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 23, 2010 at 6:03 pm

Well yes, Billj, people can always find things to say. Unfortunately some of the things they find to say are rubbish.

The fact is that from the perspective of a Permenent Revolution or an ISG or a Workers Power any campaign or organisation that either of the Socialist Party or the SWP takes seriously will generally seem to be dominated by that group. This is true of the campaign is a party-conceived operation, cooked up at an internal meeting and then launched upon the world fully formed, or if it’s a campaign that was not conceived in such a way.

This is in large part a question of scale. Unless there are very considerably larger social forces heavily involved right from that start, which is a rarity, or unless the SP or SWP deliberately only devotes a fraction of its available resources, that group will end up providing much of the infrastructure. And lets be clear, should either organisation decide for some bizarre reason to get heavily involved in the Coalition of Resistance, that too will look to the grouplets like it’s the property of the SP or SWP about ten minutes later.

But that doesn’t mean that there is no functional difference between an organisation like RtW and one like the NSSN. The fact is that a sect of 35 or whatever will likely be very marginal in a democratically run organisation, just as it will be in a party front. And that grouplet is likely to be cynical and grumpy about it whether they are marginal for democratic reasons or undemocratic ones.

You know how the NSSN came into being, and it wasn’t at the instigation of the Socialist Party. You also know why the Socialist Party is the dominant influence in it and it isn’t because the SP pulled a fast one, carved anyone out or used some organisational manouever. It’s the dominant force because it (a) has more shop stewards than any of the other groups involved and (b) devoted more resources to the NSSN.

I’m not opposed in all circumstances to one organisation taking on itself to launch a campaign. There are times when that is a good idea. But when we are dealing with a complex movement, with all kinds of forces involved and every group on the left scrambling for a piece of the action, I agree fully that it generally is not a good idea. The NSSN is not that type of operation.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 23, 2010 at 6:23 pm

A further point:

Neither the NSSN nor the Socialist Party is in a position to stop other people from announcing rival, clashing, marches or meetings. The SP has been quite clear that it thinks that sort of behaviour is madness and at least to my knowledge has not instigated any of the “gazumping” attempts which have marred the beginnings of this movement in a number of places.

To give an example, the NSSN decided to call a conference of local anti-cuts campaigns. At the meeting where that decision was taken, SWP stewards were present and voted in favour of holding this conference. None of them mentioned the RtW conference during the discussion and the first anyone else at the NSSN meeting found about the rival RtW event was a few days later when the same SWP members who had voted for the NSSN instigated conference were handing out leaflets for it!

Here in Ireland, the Socialist Party has been trying very hard to encourage wide cooperation on particular issues. The government here are trying to introduce a water tax. Our MEP started the process of forming a campaign by writing to every activist group, community organisation or left organisation we could think of, along with individual activists who had been involved in similar campaigns in previous years, and invited them to an open meeting to discuss founding a campaign. We didn’t come to the meeting with a name, demands and structures already in place but instead threw the whole thing open for discussion, with further meetings to discuss actually establishing a campaign.

But here’s the thing. In Ireland the Socialist Party is actually in a position with enough authority to convene a meeting like that and everyone else on the left will come and will at the very least have to come up with a good excuse for setting up a front organisation as a rival. But it still doesn’t mean that they won’t set up their own front in the end, nor does it mean that any particular group will necessarily play a useful role in the end. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t necessarily make it drink.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 23, 2010 at 9:09 pm

Well of course if they disagree with you then by definition they’re rubbish.
But then again you’re not arrogant now are you?
Tell me one left campaign you’ve ever supported that hasn’t been run by the SP?
This is typical double think.
On the one hand you deny that the NSSN is run by the SP.
On the other hand the SP take credit for everything the NSSN does.
The SP is run by a gruesome hierarchical bureaucracy. So is the SWP.
Is that a problem?
In my opinion it is.

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan

October 23, 2010 at 10:16 pm

gruesome hierarchical bureaucracy

Gruesome, lol. Hyperbole much?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 24, 2010 at 2:54 am

“Well of course if they disagree with you then by definition they’re rubbish.
But then again you’re not arrogant now are you?”

If who doesn’t agree with me then they’re rubbish? And who says I’m not arrogant? And what difference does it make if I am?

Coherency isn’t one of your stong points it seems.

“Tell me one left campaign you’ve ever supported that hasn’t been run by the SP?”

I’ve been an active member of the Stop the War Coalition, the Irish Anti-War Movement, campaigns against council house privatisation in two different housing estates, Globalise Resistance, a trade union broad left, and quite literally dozens of other campaigns that the Socialist Party played a secondary role in or wasnt involved in at all. If you like I can name a couple of dozen more. And that’s without mentioning campaigns I’ve been passively supportive of.

The worst thing about this exchange of course is that it sounds like I’m boasting, rather than responding to your demented claims.

On the one hand you deny that the NSSN is run by the SP.

I’ve explicitly and repeatedly said that the dominant political force in the NSSN is the Socialist Party. What I wont accept is your idiotic fantasy that the NSSN is simply a flag of convenience for the Socialist Party.

On the other hand the SP take credit for everything the NSSN does.

See above.

The SP is run by a gruesome hierarchical bureaucracy. So is the SWP.
Is that a problem?

“Hierarchical”? I see that the incoherence of anarchoids is catching.

As I understand it your desperate, middle aged, sect of less than three dozen has been sucking up to a couple of tiny semi-anarchist outfits in recent times. I’d assumed that your lot would be providing what passes for theoretical sophistication in those quarters, but apparently not.

LikeLike

Reply
Other Mark P

October 24, 2010 at 4:34 am

I was on that march and went to the SERTUC rally after. Both were pitifully small,

The march consisting mainly of members of groups of the far left varying in size from the small to the tiny. If this is the breadth that any campaign can muster we can be certain the battle is lost before we’ve begun , and it really doesn’t matter which group we are talking about.

The SERTUC rally audience was mainly white, male and quite old too. In terms of content whether the speakers were hard left or soft left, or in-betweeners, the content consisted almost exclusively of what you already knew and frankly mindless rhetoric. You learnt nothing and anybody fresh to such gatherings would have gone away bored to tears. You learnt nothing and the content was entirely devoid of any pleasure that would justify giving up a Saturday afternoon for. And then we wonder why so few do.

This campaign so far has all the markings those before it which following a rigid dogma shared by far left and TU bureaucrats doom it to failure. This campaign has huge potential but only if campaigning priorities are entirely changed.

Demos, rallies etc are almost entirely irrelevant. Base the campaign in the constiuencies where Lib and Cons are vulnerable. Mass canvassing on a scale previously unimaginable, in Barking and Dagenham hundreds were turned out to canvass against the BNP on a boad platform, the same again really would make a difference to a fragile coalition. In London Featherstone, Teather and Hughes are really vulnerable The 26 March demo has to be a festival, another boring march just won’t do. These set-piece events need to attract those who have never been before, not privilege the cosy world of activist-cult. An event that inspires, and you go away from having learned something from. And drop the rhetoric of the scale of the 2001 anti-war march unless you have the practical imagination and logistics to deliver.

All in all two very depressing events and while we may differ in the detail of the conclusions well done to Liam to be honest enough to admit to it.

Mark P

LikeLike

Reply
SteveH

October 24, 2010 at 8:58 am

The weakness of the labour movement is there for all to see, we knew it anyway. The French were always going to be ready to fight, British workers are totally atomised, demoralised and beaten. BUT ‘protests’ will be internalised in the UK through increased crime, increased substance abuse, mindless violence, mental illness and such like. So there will be a raction to these savage cuts make no mistake about that.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 24, 2010 at 9:01 am

The SP is run by a coterie around Peter Taafe en famille. Taafe appoints mainly very young, generally male, and very badly paid full timers around the country who he can boss about.
Why are they young and male and badly paid?
Its easier to manipulate them or “train” or “educate” them in SP parlance and increases their dependence on the “party”. This is by the way standard practice across all the left groups – as I’m sure you’re aware.
Why are they badly paid?
Partly the organisation is poor, partly it vindicates their asceticism, partly it means they are dependent on proving themselves through their social power – that is their ability to boss people around.
The role of a single General Secretary was introduced into the Bolshevik Party by Lenin in 1920. He appointed Stalin. That was a very bad mistake. Stalin remained General Secretary until he died three decades later.
The role of a single General Secretary was established in the SP many decades ago too. It similarly has been and will be owned by a single predominant leader.
Similarities anyone?

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

October 24, 2010 at 9:23 am

I’d estimate that there were about 600 at the Bedford Sq. rally and around 300 at the Sertuc meeting.
I didn’t expect a whole lot, as so many different demos and lobbies against the cuts have been happening in London recently.
But not a very impressive turnout for a TUC supported London demo.

As I’ve repeatedly said, we need a unified national leadership of the anti-cuts movement and a centralised political focus for it.
Localised actions at different times can work against each other and a fragmented leadership makes this even more likely.
Depending on which hat you’re wearing it’s possible to go on one, or several of them.
Which just confuses most people even more.

Many people assume that this will evolve spontaneously, but that’s a spontaneist conception.
It’s possible that the opportunity will be lost if the divisions aren’t overcome soon.
Many people already feel that the March demonstration is coming too late
A broad delegate-based, united front organisation needs to be created now.

The most positive thing about the demonstation on Saturday was that the FBU were out at the same time.
Likewise, the RMT were involved in their own seperate dispute beforehand.
What’s lacking is coordinated action and this needs to change before March.
The tendency to ignore the SERTUC rally is understandable, but wasn’t the right attitude.
It was more about SP-CPB rivalry than the needs of the campaing.
The meeting wasn’t full and there were numerous voices in the audience to the left of the platform, demanding an earlier national demo and a general strike.

Bob Crow delivered a very militant speech.
“If Ed Milliband recognises he was elected by the Trade Unions, he better start delivering to the Unions”,

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

October 24, 2010 at 9:39 am

“not a very impressive turnout for a TUC supported London demo”

Of course it was SERTUC supported, not by the TUC.

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan

October 24, 2010 at 1:12 pm

The SP is run by a coterie around Peter Taafe en famille. Taafe appoints mainly very young, generally male, and very badly paid full timers around the country who he can boss about.
Why are they young and male and badly paid?

You must know this is total rubbish Bill.

Over the years I’ve been in the Socialist Party I’ve been a member in five regions and have known five full timers. All five were over 40 and two of them were women. I know (but not very well) the full-timers of two other regions and they fit the same age profile. There are only 10 regions in the SP so I don’t know where all these badly paid young men have been appointed to.

Bill’s next argument: some incoherent ramble about how actually SP full-timers are all geriatrics with no connection to young people and that’s where all their faults are derived from.

Why are they badly paid?
Partly the organisation is poor, partly it vindicates their asceticism, partly it means they are dependent on proving themselves through their social power – that is their ability to boss people around.

Here Bill confuses cause with (alleged) effect. The SP simply can’t afford to pay full-timers more money. You can say that the result of this is a sort of asceticism which becomes psychologically necessary (though this would be silly) but to say that’s the cause of this low pay is a need to vindicate asceticism is even sillier.

I would guess all the tasks associated with writing and producing Permanent Revolution’s magazine plus the admin tasks of the organisation are filled by members volunteering their time. Bill, do you think that you and others are doing this because of your Stakhanovite urges and are purposely cultivating a sense of sacrifice for low or no reward to fill a deep psychological need?

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan

October 24, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Bill,

I’ve just re-read your last comment and realised that you are actually drawing a comparison between Peter Taafe and Josef Stalin and suggest this is a fair comparison.

I made a mistake, there is clearly no point engaging with you.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

October 24, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Just to annoy both of you, I thought the arguments contained in the “Fighting Back” section of this leaflet , being handed out by “Workers Power” at SERTUC on Saturday weren’t half bad.

Click to access weekly9.pdf

LikeLike

Reply
Doug

October 24, 2010 at 2:57 pm

I’m not sure why there’s all this breast beating about the turnout to a demo in London. In my area we are concentrating on getting off the ground a local anti-cuts group. Until this happens, building for national demos is pretty secondary. I suspect the same might hold for many comrades in London as well.

On the subject of the SP, the grotesque parody of the organisation as Stalinist. is laughable. Members and local branches are accountable to regional committees and nationally, as they should be. Within that there is a great deal of leeway for branches to use their own knowledge, experience and judgement, based on local circumstances.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 24, 2010 at 10:15 pm

The cuts are clearly on a class wide scale so the type of response we should be arguing for needs to be on a similar class wide basis

-co-ordinated strike action from several different unions in defiance of the anti-union laws, including building for all-out strikes and generalised strikes

-local, city wide or regional, anti-cuts committees to argue for and organise the necessary action to defend and extend services- occupations, demonstrations, strikes, blockades- controlled from and accountable to the rank and file, all under control of activists and working class communities to actually show what sort of society we are fighting for, one controlled by the working class

Of course it is disappointing if the first few demos are small and it is silly to have two demos organised by different organisations as we did in Manchester but we are starting where we are starting.

What is imperative is to organise local anti-cuts committees based on direct democracy not controlled by any particular political group to begin to tap into the mass fears and anxieties, to translate it into mass anger and action on the streets like in France and Greece to show that ordinary working class people do have the power to stop these cuts.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

October 24, 2010 at 10:41 pm

The problem with these phony fronts is not the evil intent of the people behind them. They are always on the right side. It’s that they acknowledge no distinction between the well-being of a smallish propaganda group and the confidence of the class.

Here’s an example from recent experience given to me by someone who does not tell lies and was involved in organising a successful regional mobilisation very recently.

He went along to a meeting with a couple of his co-organisers and representatives of a group. They all claimed to be there on behalf of various of the wholly owned subsidiary front organisations and then nominated each other as speakers at a public event. This may have been entirely spontaneous or they’d all met up in a cafe an hour earlier. Who knows? It does look shabby but it keeps happening.

As most speakers at yesterday’s assembly pointed out the intention of the British ruling class is to undo the post WW2 settlement. When the stakes are that high the interests of a group of a few hundred are irrelevant.

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

October 25, 2010 at 9:32 am

Don’t worry Duncan, according to billj Lenin and Trotsky were proto-Stalinists, the russian revolution was born degenerate and the Chinese state is imperialist. He makes ordinary sectarianism look Christ-like in its inclusivity at the same time he has become utterly catholic in his theoretical tastes.

However, Liam makes a good point above. When Stalin told the Chinese Communists to drop their program and join the Kuomintang in many of the places they operated there was no Kuomintang and so you had the bizare spectacle of twenty or thirty communists turning up for the Kuomintang meetings and electing themselves into various positions and then later in the evening having their CP meeting with all the identical people. Later of course, the Kuomintang slaughtered those people. Not that one would expect to end up being slaughtered by one’s own front organisation but you can see the absurdity of the situation.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 25, 2010 at 10:22 am

Ignoring David Ellis.
If its laughable you need to ask why has Peter Taafe been the general secretary longer than Stalin?
Indeed why does a Trotskyist group have the position of General Secretary, which was instituted during the bureaucratic degeneration of the Bolshevik Party and used by Stalin (initially under Lenin’s tutelage) to destroy it as a democratic organisation.
The SP are run from the top by a tiny clique of full timers who control its functioning by their local apparatus. Of course within certain narrow limits local organisations can do their own thing. But only within very narrow limits.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
After the poll tax demo when the Militant threatened to grass protesters up to the cops there was widespread revulsion amongst the rank and file inside the organisation. To such an extent that their members ship collapsed by more than 90% in the next year or so.
They went from filling the Albert Hall to being unable to fill the Albert pub.
Yet there was no organised opposition to the scabby line of the leadership from the membership. No factions. No challenges. Why not?
Because the bureaucratic tyranny is so overwhelming that opposition is effectively impossible within it.

LikeLike

Reply
chjh

October 25, 2010 at 12:41 pm

For some reason, seeing this http://xkcd.com/810/ reminded me of this site – can’t think why.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 25, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Well you would say that wouldn’t you?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 25, 2010 at 4:18 pm

Billj:

MIlitant’s membership collapsed by 90% in a year? Presumably this would be round about the same time that Workers Power secretly led a revolution in Ghana. And around about the same time your fantasy life got entirely out of hand.

As would anyone else, I would happily take Militant’s role in leading the anti-poll tax struggle to victory over the many decades long record of futile, impotent, meaningless sectarian whining Permanent Revolution/Workers Power has amassed, still uninterrupted to this day. Truly, we should all be taking political lessons from a tendency which has existed since the mid 1970s without ever once contributing anything of value or interest to any struggle, without ever once having an original idea and without ever once reaching a three figure membership. Let nobody accuse PR or WP of being unjustified in their arrogance – such consistent worthlessness is a kind of rock in this fluid and shifting world.

There were no “factions” over the poll tax in Militant, because its members were universally proud of the role the organisation played in leading that struggle. I realise that such an attitude is inconceivable to you, because being in an organisation that actually led a struggle is inconceivable to you. There have however been debates and factions and political disagreements over many issues over many years in both Militant and the Socialist Party, as you would expect in a living organisation. The Socialist Party publishes the documents from most of those debates on one of its websites. And gradually came to the conclusion that trying to keep debate internal by means of organisational sanctions was neither possible nor desirable.

Although I have to admit that the purpose of debating with the kind of demented sectarian who compares the rather mild-mannered and self-effacing Peter Taaffe to Joe Stalin, apparently in all seriousness, is somewhat beyond me at the moment. For those with less vivid imaginations than Billj, it might be worth pointing out that the job title “General Secretary” confers no particular rights or privileges on Peter, and indeed that Militant was almost unique on the socialist left for having given its founding leader the boot from the organisation entirely when he refused to abide by the decisions of the majority of the membership.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 25, 2010 at 6:41 pm

I think Liam’s point is a good one. Mark does it strike you as a little silly to say a particular tendency has no value and has done no valuable work.

Of course the socialist movement is small and there is a legacy of defeats. However, every campaigning victory against a school closure, against a deportation, against job losses are bases from which to build. Mark P is right that the left have not had great successes but neither have they been insignificant.

However, it is essential that the left change their priorities from trying to control a particular campaign and instead seek to serve that campaign and the struggle for socialism, the self emancipation of the working class.

Perhaps it a step of vivid imagination to believe it is possible for the working class to control society or believe in the possibility of a mass popular uprising and social revolt against the cuts. Perhaps it is even a wild idea but who said we have to be tame? However, it is not based on fantasy. There are plenty of examples throughout the world of workers in revolt showing their collective power against the tiny elites who seek to greedily control everything. There is such a struggle in France now for example.

These cuts will be deep and hard. There will be resistance. Our duty as socialists is to encourage this, participate in it, attempt to broaden and generalise it, and above all to form organs of struggle under the democratic control and direction of ordinary working class people

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

October 26, 2010 at 11:12 am

A lot of that will happen spontaneously Jason. Our duty as socialists is to give political expression to the movement and provide it with a program that encompasses the whole and not just the parts that interest us.

The greatest urgency is to develop that program and analysis in opposition to the New Labour mis-leaders and social chauvinists. It should be a program that poses the question of power in the workplace, in the communities, in the nations and outlines the things a socialist government would undertake immediately.

For instance, the state must immediately secure for itself the monopoly of credit so that it can direct investment democratically and sustainably and make cheap credit available to small businesses, the self-employed and first time homebuyers.

We must call for organised workplace committees covering all the staff in hospitals, schools and anywhere facing budget cuts, wage cuts, job cuts and, if publicly funded, privatisation either wholly via under private management companies. Only this way can the democratic voice of the whole of the workforce be juxtaposed to the dictatorship of shareholder or state-appointed managers. Only this way can we begin to hold these people to account an ultimately usurp them.

A socialist government would immediately instigate a regime of full employment in productive work which would necessitate both investment and sharing the work that already exists. Only this demand can prevent the working class becoming divided against itself with the employed clinging on precariously whilst abandoned masses offer themselves up as cheap scab labour. Nothing less than the fate of the class is at stake.

To achieve full employment it will be necessary to socialise the means of production currently in the hands of monopoly capital. No democracy can long survive the levels of concentrated wealth that exist today and it is the monopoly capitalists and their banking chums who are behind the Coalition’s program of job and welfare decimation and public service privatisation in the name of the fantasy of restoring profitability.

Let there be no more reformist talk amongst socialists of taxing the rich to pay the deficit. Dispropriation and socialisation is the order of the day. The very wealthy are dependent on the poor and we should not seek to institutionalise the opposite situation either in reality or in the minds of the working class.

Constitutionally, a socialist regime should offer full sovereignty to the constituent nations of Britain and propose, in place of union, federation. It should seek to renegotiate all EU treaties with our neighbours along socialist lines and completely reform out relationship with the colonial and semi-colonial world from oppressor nation to partner.

Finally this is not an ideological attack by the Tories and their coalition partners. New Labour use this to persuade us that cuts and privatisation could go a little slower. It is however the ideological expression of an objective necessity. When they say capitalism is bankrupt and cannot carry on as before we must take them at their word. New Labour of course love the idea that capitalism and imperialism can go on forever after all their positions as labour movement bureaucrats and careerists depend on it but this is a hopelessly metaphysical and idealist outlook. No it is socialism or barbarism. Capitalism is in its dotage, its death agony. It is physically decrepit and no longer reasonable or capable of reason. The ideology is only this and it is shared by the Coalition and New Labour alike: the belief that capitalism can somehow take humanity one single step further forward. It is time for the working class to take the economy into administration, kick out the real and historical monopoly, imperialist bankrupts and organise the nations’ assets in accordance with its class interests and those of society as a whole.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 26, 2010 at 11:23 am

Exactly there were no factions because the Militant’s members were “universally proud” of their leaders, Steve Nally and Sheridan, explaining that they were going to grass protesters up to cops.
Or maybe they weren’t so universally proud?
Actually I don’t think they were.
So maybe they left.
But what does it say about an organisation – a revolutionary organisation at that – who’s leaders threaten to grass people are to the police and who’s members are “universally proud” of that?
Not so great is it?
But it does rather demonstrate the bureaucratic stranglehold of the apparatus that even faced with a disaster like that there was no opposition.
Even Joseph Stalin had to destroy the Left Opposition. But there was a Left Opposition. In the Militant the regime is so monolithic its more akin to well its stretching the analogy sure but what about North Korea?

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

October 26, 2010 at 4:30 pm

I’ve said on Dave Osler’s blog that I am suspicious of attempts to say that this crisis can be avoided by social democratic policies, but David Ellis does seem to go to far the other way, insisting that we run before we can walk.

Jason – to form organs of struggle under the democratic control and direction of ordinary working class people
All well and good, but “ordinary working class people” are never without politics of their own, which is why the most militant are often in the groups that billj spends so much time deriding; perhaps a first step towards unity would be not to ignore the campaigns led by other left groups.

billj – perhaps the fact that Taafe lasted longer is a testament to the NHS. No Doctors Plot for him. I don’t think their membership dropped by 90%, I think that is the old trick of going from the highest claimed membership to the lowest assumed one. It was mostly over the failure of the Liverpool project if I recall correctly. Yes it is right to take exception to their attitude to Poll Tax protesters (though they were only threatening “violent” ones with grassing), clearly they had too conventional an attitude to the state, but I think you are a little OTT.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm

Don’t think so. They filled Albert Hall after the Liverpool debacle, the capitulation to the LPYS witch hunt, the non-fight over the expulsions from the Labour Party and so on.
The Poll Tax put the wind in their sails again. But the point is that the overwhelming majority of members – more than 90% I’m sure – disagreed with the scabby line of the leadership.
They were working class socialists who did not support grassing people up to the cops.
More to the point they regarded the movement and the demo which they had built and which they saw as organised by them as a great success.
After all it was. It got a quarter of a million on the streets, defeated the cops and got rid of Thatcher.
Yet according to the leadership the demo was a disaster and they needed to name names to the authorities.
Unsurprisingly the membership collapsed as a result.
But the illuminating point for the present discussion is that there was no mechanism for raising opposition inside the organisation.
There was no opposition expressed within the organisation.
All that people could do, the overwhelming majority who opposed the leadership, was leave.
So that’s what they did.
Hard to believe but that the Militant were more successful at suppressing dissent than Joe Stalin.
But there was no Left Opposition inside the Militant, unlike the CPSU.
And of course the SWP have a regime which is practically identical. Not the fault of the members, but of the bureaucrats.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 26, 2010 at 5:17 pm

A good example of that is the SWPs current behaviour in the anti-cuts movement. They are busy splitting local committees in order to establish their own RTW organisation.
And then rather than participate fully in the COR meeting they have called their own meeting a week later.
Of course its all under the label of unity.
But every split happens under the label of unity.
Its disgraceful.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 26, 2010 at 6:30 pm

skidmarx
“Jason – to form organs of struggle under the democratic control and direction of ordinary working class people
All well and good, but “ordinary working class people” are never without politics of their own, which is why the most militant are often in the groups that billj spends so much time deriding; perhaps a first step towards unity would be not to ignore the campaigns led by other left groups.”

Skidmarx working class people are of course not without politics- however having politics is not synonymous with being in a left group. Most militants clearly are not in the SWP, SP or the smaller groups either. We should of course not ignore the left- we were on the RTW march in Manchester and the NSNN one as well. However, anti-cuts groups need to go beyond the current left, to be based on trade unions, community campaigns, the left etc.

For this to happen it is much better that left groups co-operate. To argue this is not to ‘deride’ anyone- it is to argue for what is needed.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 26, 2010 at 7:28 pm

Billj

I see that your imagination is as diseased as ever.

Neither Tommy nor Steve were central leaders of the Militant, although both were central leaders of the anti-poll tax movement. Neither Tommy nor Steve ever grassed on anyone in their lives, nor did they advocate grassing on anyone, despite the endless lies and distortions of bitter sectarians.

The Poll tax demonstration was a relatively minor issue, and the riot an even less significant one. The Poll Tax was beaten by a campaign of mass non-payment. A campaign which Militant played the central (although not the only) role in organising.

Of course Militant members were proud of that – it, by itself, represents more of a useful contribution to working class struggle in Britain than the combined efforts of every other socialist party, sect or grouplet over the last 60 years. It wasn’t Militant’s only contribution, not by a long way, but even if Militant had never done a single other thing and existed only for those short years, it would have more than justified whatever arrogance it sometimes displayed towards the useless sects.

During the Poll Tax struggle, as during every other struggle, your worthless grouplet sniped vitriolically and idiotically from the sidelines. That more than any of the varied and incoherent positions Workers Power and Permanent Revolution have ever held defines your current – impotent, bitter, vicious, sniping from the sidelines. You have made no contribution of any significance to any struggle at any time. And that’s a record that shows absolutely no prospect of changing at any time in the future.

I have my disagreements with the SWP, many of them in fact. But it can’t be denied that they have sometimes done some useful things, providing for instance much of the infrastructure for the Stop the War movement. Even Liam’s dismal, elderly, little Socialist Resistance can look back to a time when its predecessor played a significant role in the Vietnam anti-war movement. But Workers Power / Permanent Revolution? You’ve spent going on for forty years as a less intellectually rigorous version of the Sparts.

Having given up on beating the Sparts at their own game, the more middle aged and obviously doomed wing of your idiotic split is now left crawling after tiny anarchoid grouplets, adopting their half-witted views and begging for a regroupment. Good luck with that, by the way.

By the way, the Socialist Party and Militant have a long record of internal debate, mostly constructive, occasionally not, factions and tendencies and arguments. As I’ve already pointed out, the documents from many of them are available on one of the Socialist Party websites, should someone really want to go through the minutiae of someone else’s internal arguments from some years ago. That there wasn’t a row over the drivel an infantile sectarian like Billj thinks was important tells you nothing about the internal democracy of Militant and everything about the significance Militant apportioned to the views of people like Billj.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 26, 2010 at 9:03 pm

Mark P, I think you perhaps have failed to read anything I wrote.

I am a member of Permanent Revolution. Apparently we ‘have made no contribution of any significance to any struggle at any time. And that’s a record that shows absolutely no prospect of changing at any time in the future’

I wrote before,
“every campaigning victory against a school closure, against a deportation, against job losses are bases from which to build. Mark P is right that the left have not had great successes but neither have they been insignificant”

Is winning against a deportation or school closure insignificant? Of course those campaigns had lots of poeple in but some included members of PR.

The Socialist Party in the form of Militant played an important role in defeating the poll tax through the mass non-payment campaign and the mass demonstration. The SWP played an important role in the anti-war movement. That doesn’t mean we can’t debate these things but we do recognise their importance. Our point which you seem to think ‘infantile sectarian’ is to say that the movement needs to go beyond the left and be controlled by rank and file democracy.

I have worked with many members of the Socialist Party over the years. Rarely have I been subjected to such abuse for no reason- perhaps Mark P needs to reread what has been written. Nowhere will you find on oiur website the sort of comments you seem to imagine we mght have made.

However, none of this is particualrly important compared to the tasks of building a working class movement against the cuts. Perhaps we should focus on that. Of course if you feel that our points or anyone else requires political critique fine but pelase levae the apolitical personal abuse out of it. It serves no one.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 26, 2010 at 9:08 pm

By the way, Mark, I’m sure it’s a misunderstanding- feel free to e-mail me or give me a ring. Liam knows my e-mail and if you e-mail me I’m happy to send my phone number. That’s better than ahving a public spat, isn’t it? On the politivs fine but let’s sort out the personal issues – if there any- in person?

LikeLike

Reply
Temporary Reaction

October 27, 2010 at 2:26 am

Nothing was misunderstood Jason. Worked into a series of lies and denunciations, your buddy bill calls Peter Taaffe more of a bureaucrat than Stalin (comparing Peter to Kim Jong-Il). Your buddy bill denies any internal life of SP / CWI exists, despite public debates with the former Scottish section, the testimony of ex-members (see AVPS as an example) and a continuous actually-existing robust internal life of debate.

For instance, we debate the current process underway in China. When your buddy bill “engages” on this question, he throws around insults, grandstands and shouts. Whatever your claims, it seems as if your organization, born of an attempt to destroy another group, has a bullying internal life. Just not big enough for a “bureaucracy” (a word used by bill completely unscientifically). Luckily for you, you’ll always be small enough to be too “pure” for a “bureaucracy.”On this, bill never responds to the concrete points about the makeup of full-timers in the SP.

The only misunderstanding here is your idea that the world economy is in an upswing. Interesting to see that nobody from another grouplet stands up to the insane shit being spewed by bill, who is deserving of no defense whatsoever.

A couple of your members were planning on moving to the city I live in. I was going to meet with them and let them know about various campaigns. After this thread, I’ll just hope I don’t have to run into them and have the unfortunate ensuing conversation.

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

October 27, 2010 at 9:21 am

`I’ve said on Dave Osler’s blog that I am suspicious of attempts to say that this crisis can be avoided by social democratic policies, but David Ellis does seem to go to far the other way, insisting that we run before we can walk.’

Suspicious eh? Perhaps you disagree with the state having the monopoly of credit? Say which? In reality the SWP, when they are not in full insulated ultra left mode, has never had anything but social democratic policies by which I mean left reformist opportunist policies borrowed from whoever is ally of the month. Not for them the effort of developing a transitional program for working class power that fits the circumstances. From the centrists (ideological and bureaucratic versions) through the left reformists right up to the anti-working class New Labour clique there is a common theme developing: cuts are ideological (no class or economic analysis needed), cuts should be slower and targeted (a labour cut is better than a tory cut), capitalist growth is the way out (capitalism could be working).

The ultra left centrists like billj and co. on the other hand have completely rejected politics in favour for an economistic approach involving mere urging and wishful thinking.

As for Militant during the Poll Tax struggle all I remember about them is when they couldn’t get their way, like every centrist and especially bureaucratic centrist outfit, they split city wide coalitions until they’d gained the leadership of what was left which by then was just them. I hope the SP have learned the lessons of how the sects operate a divide and rule policy from below and eschew such self serving tactics. I think they are not doing badly with the NSSN getting shop stewards and trade union reps involved and politicised and setting them against the union tops but politically they have capitulated to reformist pressure in terms of program.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 27, 2010 at 10:21 am

Temporary Reaction: Mark P was accusing Permanent Revolution of all sorts of things none of which are true. You now say Bill J allegedly called Peter Taafe Kim Jong- II! I mean really! It’s hardly worthy of reply but just for the record our analysis of the SP in no sense involves comparisons with Stalinist dictators.
Bill J did compare the monolithic party life of the SP to North Korea which is obviously hyperbole and in my opinion absurd hyperbole- I’d be a bit annoyed, it’s pretty silly, but why pretend this has got anything to do with PR?
Bill J is a member sure but we don’t actually vet every comment made on a blog- do the SP? I doubt it.
What we say is that the left should be open, not attempting to control campaigns, not attempting to hide political differences but having discussions openly and democratically. This is I believe quite a contrast to much of the current practice on the left. That’s what we say- how is this evidence of any of the bullying, insults or other stuff? It’s simply puerile. Time to move on.
David: There is something of a debate on parts of the left about how much choice the ruling class has in terms of cuts. The SWP and some Labour lefts are emphasising choice, they’re doing this because they’re Tories. There may indeed be some division in the ruling class about the pace and depth of the cuts but it’s clear that from the viewpoint of capital they do want cuts- they’re looking long term at the cost of welfare and pensions to capitalism and from their own point of view need some cuts. Whether they need them as quick or deep as the Tories is tactical on their part though once announced the government and to a large extent the ruling class cannot afford to lose. Neither are we interested in adjudicating between competing factions of the bourgeois. We oppose the cuts in order to build popular working class resistance and win workers to socialism.

David calls ideological political analysis and discussions ‘mere urging’ are actually essential if we are to win workers to socialism but we also need practical proposals of action- for example, building grassroots anti-cuts committees of union activists and working class communities (seeking but not d union branch and trade council endorsements/affiliations) and organising a national network of activists to discuss our response both what we’re against (all cuts on the working class) and what we’re for (socilism: workers’ control of schools, hospitals,factories, services, a workers’ government, mass co-ordinated strikes and blockades with pickets and demos defended by workers).

David:

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

October 27, 2010 at 11:06 am

Unfortunately Jason PR have eschewed politics in favour of sectarianism, anarcho-syndicalism, economism, apolitical ultra-leftism, proclamation and wishful thinking. The things you say you want to build cannot be built without developing the correct perspectives and program and that cannot be done, or can only be done in a sectarian or opportunist fashion, without a Marxist methodology i.e a dialiectical materialist understanding of class relations.

I notice you don’t mention anything programatic or political like nationalisation of the banks and state monopoly of credit just generalities about workers control and mass strikes.

You say about cuts:

`Whether they need them as quick or deep as the Tories is tactical on their part though once announced the government and to a large extent the ruling class cannot afford to lose. Neither are we interested in adjudicating between competing factions of the bourgeois. We oppose the cuts in order to build popular working class resistance and win workers to socialism.’

This is apolitical. Do you think like New Labour it is enough to simply say you are opposed to the cuts without presenting a rational political and economic alternative and that a thin gruel of demagogery is sufficient? If you want to win the workers to socialism you will have to critique the proposals of all competing factions not just of the bourgeoisie but also those of the left.

The point is even if the Coalition are cutting deeper than New Labour because they are tories it hardly matters because New Labour’s cuts, though perhaps not as vicious (Darling said they would be and in Spain they are) will be met as a result with currency collapse and hyper inflation which will ruin the workers and the wider economy just as surely. For us, as for Marx, capitalism is the problem not its subjective reflection in the ideology of the tories or new labour.

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

October 27, 2010 at 11:08 am

Why is that comment awaiting moderation? Is it because you disagree with it? The only other site I can leave a comment is Lenin’s Tomb. He allows any old right wing troll to comment but never accepts criticism from the left.

LikeLike

Reply
Duncan

October 27, 2010 at 11:18 am

Jason,

I think that Mark P was responding to some of the stuff bill has been reading not your comments.

You seem like a reasonable bloke though, have you read bill j’s comments? Can you see why accusing Militant members of being grasses, making up bizarre stuff about the internal life of our organisation and saying it’s reasonable to compare Peter Taafe to a man who murdered millions might annoy SP members like myself just a little bit?

I’ve met a couple of PR members in real life and they seem reasonable and able to engage in level-headed political debate without getting hysterical. As you’re few in number though, I would guess most people encounter PR first online (I did) and the prodigious output of bill j in the comments sections of many websites suggests that your organisation is in the Spartacist mould, totally detached from reality with a helping of vitriol to boot.

LikeLike

Reply
jimp

October 27, 2010 at 1:44 pm

After the Trafalgar Square Anti-Poll Tax demo, Steve Nally and Tommy Sheridan said they would publically “name names” of anyone involved in defending the demonstration from the riot police.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Duncan I think that’s a little unfair –

I only briefly read Bill J’s comments when it was suggested that he compared Peter Taafe to Kim Jong II expecting to find it completely unfpounded.

Sadly not and as I say I think it was well over the top. To repeat, I think he was wrong, over the top and yes it could be annoying but it might be better for your mental well being to just laugh it off or shrug but if it helps I agree it was a tad silly.

However, it is slightly strange, perhaps understandable but nevertheless inaccurate, to judge a tendency on the basis of comments of one member on blogs.

On the grasses thing Tommy Sheridan it is said offered to report those defending themselves against police attack on the poll tax demo to the police- if true that’s pretty reprehensible but he was only one member- however as a leading member at the time Militant should have clearly repudiated the views. However, I don’t see much point bringing this up now to be honest but as you did I thought I’d respond. Source e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots but perhaps it’s wrong of course but it is open source so may be would have been corrected if anyone disagreed.

I see JimP beaten me to it as I spell checked my post (also had a cup of tea in the meanwhile- quite soothing for the nerves I find!)

“saying it’s reasonable to compare Peter Taafe to a man who murdered millions might annoy SP members like myself just a little bit” well yes but I wasn’t defending that at all- it is silly as I said

I am pretty sure we never use vitriol in our public or indeed private debate. I’m pretty sure our online reputation is very good as well- partly due to our almost religious pursuit of politeness. Liam once said we were the e politest group on the left- perhaps you read other sites?

It is strange to be called a Spart though- may be that’s upsetting but hey let’s all get over it shall we, have a laugh (or at least a wry smile) and concentrate on the political fight ahead against these cuts and the impending all out ruling class attack on working class services, jobs, welfare and trade union organisation. We are comrades on that even if we disagree on some issues. So no doubt see you on picket line or demo somewhere or if not we’ll speak again soon on the blogs!

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

October 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm

Bill’s hyperbole was unhelpful however my experience of PR people over a number of years is that they are actively engaged in the class struggle in a number of areas and often in an examplary manner. Something that unhappily distinguishes them from other currents with which I’ve had dealings is that they don’t bend the truth or set out to manipulate things in which they are involved. They appreciate the subtle distinction between false and real.

At a Trotskyite cabal of my own in recent days it struck us that even by its own dismal standards the British far left has hit a new low. Compare the relative unity of the Stop the War Coalition to the competing variety of anti-cuts campaigns and, as I’ve said before, the dishonest, manipulative rubbish that is happening behind the scenes is just downright shameful.

Now of course the material reason for this is that the big battalions of the labour movement are still very passive and local campaigns with real social forces are only just popping up. Nonetheless people who should know better should reflect on what impact their actions are having in the real world.

David – some comments randomly go into moderation. Jason’s most recent one did and I don’t know why and it’s the same with yours. You’ll have to check with WordPress why that is.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 27, 2010 at 5:10 pm

Jason,

I was not responding to your comments, but to Billj’s. I have no objection to engaging politely with the views of PR members, but I’m not going to take his kind of aggressively arrogant obnoxiousness from somebody who has been in a particularly ineffectual grouplet of three or four dozen for decades.

(This is completely irrelevant by the way, but you are factually wrong about Tommy “offering to name those who defended themselves against police attack to the police”. He never did any such thing).

LikeLike

Reply
jimp

October 27, 2010 at 5:55 pm

Mark P-

That is what Tommy & Steve did. I remember it clearly and, frankly, I it felt like a real kick in the teeth.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 27, 2010 at 9:29 pm

Hyperbole? Whatever. I think people need to get a grip. having recently seen Hamlet I’m reminded that – “the lady doth protest too much methinks.”
Nally and Sheridan threatened to grass people up to the cops after the poll tax demo.
That is scarcely in dispute now is it?
If you want to dispute it then the tape is available from ITN. It costs £25. Not too much if you want to set your mind at rest.
The SP recently republished their editorial where they attempted to explain it away.
Threatening to grass people up to the cops is a scabby action by any definition, but one which, as I have explained, I know that most, the vast majority indeed, of SP/Militant members at the time did not agree with.
The point is that they could only demonstrate their disagreement by leaving the organisation.
What does that say about its internal democratic life?
It says to me that it is so deeply undemocratic that even when the overwhelming majority of members rightly object to a really shameful action by the leadership then they are unable to do so inside it.
And yes that means that the SP bureaucracy are more successful at quelling internal dissent than was Joseph Stalin.
It obviously does not mean that they sent their opponents to the gulag. Not least of course because there weren’t any!
Obviously during the Poll Tax our worthless grouplet did nothing whatsoever. But at least we didn’t threaten to grass people up the cops.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 27, 2010 at 9:33 pm

I’m guess that Temporary Reaction is David Ellis under another name? Can I claim my 10p?

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

October 27, 2010 at 9:35 pm

Neither Steve Nally or Tommy Sheridan were central leaders of the Militant? What a joke. Anyway its besides the point. They were only doing what they were told – by the central leaders of the Militant.
And I do apologise for multiple postings – in future I’ll read to the top first!

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

October 27, 2010 at 10:14 pm

I think it’s entirely legitimate to criticise the lack of openness on the left, though I’m not convinced this is the right forum in which to do it but fair enough I suppose.

It may well be that the Socialist Party was and is entirely democratic in terms of having majority votes but if factions are not allowed then this is a limitation as it means that the apparatus can police and control opinions by various methods up to and including expulsions of minorities when it deems necessary. But it is still in my opinion hyperbole of an absurd order to compare this to Stalin and however many ‘whatevers’ Bill J issues I’ll stick to that!

All of which goes to show we can have an open and friendly disagreement – shock horror!

However, to bring this back to topic it is important that there is scope for democracy and debate in the impending united fronts against the cuts as no one political group has a monopoly on the truth or correct tactics- only by having out discussions in the context of actions by the masses can we rebuild the left within a revitalised working class movement. The scale of the task is immense and the left and organised working class are in bad shape but unless we begin to sort these issues out we will suffer another strategic defeat similar to that Thatcher inflicted on the working class by defeating the miners.

In that context a few fallouts amongst the left looks pretty insignificant- but learning the lessons of and necessity for working class democracy is far from insignificant. It is essential!

LikeLike

Reply
Mark P

October 28, 2010 at 12:00 am

Amazing the power of sectarian mythology, the hold it has over the sectarian brain.

LikeLike

Reply
David Ellis

October 28, 2010 at 7:30 am

Thanks Liam re the moderation thing.

billj: Temporary Reaction is not me despite the sense he makes. I don’t think I’ve once posted under another name on Liam’s site.

NSSN and CoR are both led by groups who recently emerged from bruising splits from or break ups of bureaucratic centrist outfits in their death throes. If these two groups could approach this as a useful division of labour and get involved in each others initiatives as opposed to an opportunity to recreate the bad old days of sectarian divide and rule from below then that would be a big step forward. There is no doubt however that CoR will need to offer a fighting, coherent, political, programatic alternative to the New Labour narrative which left reformists and centrists of all stripes are swallowing hook line and sinker if the Coalition is to be repulsed and defeated.

e.g.Full Employment to be achieved by: nationalisation of the banks and state monopoly of credit to direct investment and lending in the interests of the working class, sustainability and of course to make affordable loans avaialble to small business, the self employed and first time home buyers; socialisation of the property of the monopoly capitalists and the sharing of the productive work in this expanded state sector; workplace democracy to end the imposition of shareholder or state appointed managements.

Support for all struggles against cuts, job losses, wage freezes and for the establishment of community anti-cuts fronts as centres of working class resistance and potentially alternative forms of governance, fighting trades councils and workplace committees to express the democratic will of workers in opposition to the chauvinist and conservative labour and tu careerists and bureaucrats. Anti fascist defence committees in every town and city and borough and demand a genuine labour government to replace this Coalition.

LikeLike

Reply