RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
19th Jan '02
The Socialist Alliance, not so long ago touted as the unified answer to
the lefts lack of credibility amongst the working class, has ceased to
exist. The Socialist Alliance conference on December 5 saw the organisation
adopt a constitution sponsored by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), which
effectively makes the alliance a centralised body under the leadership of
the SWP, thereby effectively disenfranchising every other organisation or
individual within it - should the SWP so wish.
This constitution was adopted, despite the Socialist Party (SP) (the only
constituent member of the alliance with councillors) making it clear it
would be forced to leave, if the SWP constitution was adopted. It was and
they did. When it came to the crunch the original objective of unity was
abandoned to meet the tactical demands of the central committee of the SWP.
By its stance the Socialist Alliance made it clear, that it no longer cares
about unity.
Given such circumstances, the condemnation of the SP for acting in a
selfish and sectarian manner is sanctimonious humbug. For whatever the
motives of the SP they could hardly be less dishonourable than the motives
of those who effectively expelled them from the unity project that the SP
had itself created. In addition, while the SA remains firmly socialist, in,
it must be said, the most unreconstructed and dogmatic sense, it meets no
objective criteria to justify continuing to call itself an alliance.
The original regional steering committees, which included, as of right,
delegates from all affiliate organisations, have been displaced in favour of
a national executive, elected by slate at an annual national conference.
Now, the only way that an organisation or individual can be represented on
the decision making body is if the SWP graciously allow them onto their
slate. Current poodles of the SWP include Workers Power, and the CPGB who
are, for the moment, on the SA executive courtesy of the SWP. As the
structure is designed to facilitate the SWP, this means the Socialist
Alliance is effectively now the SWPs Anti-Labour-League, and takes its
place alongside its other fronts such as Stop the War, Globalise
Resistance and the 'Anti-Nazi League', all of them mere feeder
organisations to the SWP without any internal dynamic of their own. Ditto
the Socialist Alliance
The pernicious potential of the SWP apart, the more pressing problems facing
the SA are self-evident: one, it has ditched the ambition to unite the
left, two it is no longer credibly an alliance and three- it isnt
working. Aside from a handful of well known individual recruits from
Labour such as Liz Davies and Mike Marquese, it has practically no
individual members. Since the December decision, its chances of attracting
new recruits have diminished: previously, highly unlikely, now,
non-existent.
For after all, who in their right mind, is going to join an organisation
controlled entirely by the SWP, if they could not bring themselves to join
the parent organisation to begin with?
Then there are the quite wretched election results. In the Ipswich
parliamentary by-election in November, the SA candidate was beaten into 8th
place by the Greens, the UKIP, the Christian Peoples Alliance and the
Legalise Cannabis campaign. Of greater significance, on the same day, the
Alliance was also humiliated by the British National Party in two head to
head council by-elections in Burnley. The BNP took 23% and 19% respectively
while the Socialist Alliance limped home with 5% and 3%. Rather than
seriously address why this is the case, the executive has decided it will
not allow the BNP to dictate to it where it should stand in future.
Roughly translated? While continuing to dismiss the far-right as one
reactionary rump we must never again allow this theory to be tested again
in practice.
The setting up of the Socialist Alliance showed to some extent that the left
collectively knew that it had a terminal problem, even if they didnt
understand or politically acknowledge it. Despite this, for the first time
for generations, most of the left stood outside the Labour Party as an
independent political force. True, it was a small step, but nonetheless
progressive. In order to try and build on that, Red Action joined the London
Socialist Alliance in the summer of 2000 in an attempt to influence at least
some sections of the alliance and inject some realism, analysis and
strategic thinking into it.
From the outset it was recognised that this would be an uphill struggle,
because for the SA to become politically viable would have heralded a
complete root and branch revision of many cherished principles.
At the time of our joining, we stated "the SA currently meets the immediate
needs of the left when the real task is to meet the immediate needs of the
class. That is the RA objective. Red Action has joined the LSA with honest
intentions. It is in short, our intention to revolutionise it from within."
We never joined the SA on a national basis nor did we have any intention of
working within the Socialist Alliances on a local basis. The main purpose of
being in the London Socialist Alliance was to provide political solutions to
the problems posed by the disenfranchisement of the working class from all
political arenas, the disengagement of the left from the working class and
the consequent threat of the BNP being able to fulfil its potential to
become the radical alternative. However it immediately became apparent
that the component parts were either far too pleased with themselves, or
alternatively so obsessively interested in promoting their own agendas, that
no quality time was allowed to discuss in a grown up way, the measures
needed to be taken to ensure the political survival of the project in the
real world.
It is true that in our eighteen months involvement RA did not do a lot. In
truth there was no opportunity to do so. In total our delegates attended
eight meetings of the LSA Steering Committee. However from February 2001 to
September the same year, democracy within the London region was suspended
for the duration of the election campaign and then apart from a brief
democratic intrusion in September, internal democracy was rejected as both
unsatisfactory and unnecessary in December.
This is not to say that our involvement had no impact. Indeed there was
evidence of some RA contributions being handled with rare sensitivity. For
example, following an early debate on the negative and dangerous aspects of
multiculturalism, it was put to the vote, and the lone RA delegate was the
only one to vote in favour. The following week in a letter in Weekly Worker,
leading LSA member, Mike Marquese, who had unreservedly condemned the RA
motion at the meeting, went on to make many of the observations introduced
by RA. Encouraged by this, the following month we followed up with another
not dissimilar proposal. While attracting support from the Socialist Party,
the CPGB and the RDG, the question of where the influential Mr Marquese
really stood was never discovered. Though continuing to play a full part
within the LSA, he would never again attend another LSA Steering Committee
meeting.
As has already been pointed out, the LSA Steering committee never met
between February and September of this year, despite the election ending in
June. The post-election discussion, such as it was took place under the
auspices of the SA nationally. In other words, the very individuals who
presided over the fiasco handed down judgement on the SA, and therefore
their own performance. As RA was not a national affiliate it meant that we
never had a chance to place our criticisms of the election campaign on the
SA table, either before or after the event.
With the suspension of the LSA not being lifted for four months after the
June election, there was to be no serious post mortem on the wretched
electoral showing.
The recall meeting in September amply highlighted this studied indifference,
where RA was generously allowed two days notice to inform delegates, only to
find it cancelled at the last possible moment in order to comply with a
Stop the War photo opportunity outside Downing Street. Apart from one
other individual, only the RA delegates turned up. When next convened any
real debate on the way forward focused on structure and constitution
entirely, as if future orientation or strategy were of no importance.
Politically, the Socialist Alliance has never made an impact on the working
class, nor, as it has made clear, does it have any plans to do so.
That said the current Socialist Alliance predicament will have raised few
eyebrows. As was publicly outlined when London Red Action sought affiliation
in June 2000, the objective was from the outset to try and save the left -
from itself. Demonstrably we have failed. The SA is now firmly in a camp
that is indifferent, when not openly opposed to immediate working class
interests.
In the past when the class interest necessitated it, we have been prepared
to work in a disciplined fashion with tendencies which we believe history
has demonstrated are inherently flawed, and with which we have no political
sympathy.
During the 1980s and early 1990s when anti-fascism demanded it, we were
happy to work alongside and more to the point, found it possible to design a
structure and a decision-making process that proved able to accommodate all
shades of progressive political opinion on the issue. From members of the
Labour Party to the unaligned, from Anarchists to die-hard Trotskyists and
from them to the most trenchant Stalinists, who all worked together from
1989 (up until the 1994 when the BNP abandoned the streets) and, for the
most part, in a comradely fashion. They did so because they had to, and they
did in what was moreover very often a combat organisation. Tellingly, with
for a limited period one exception, Anti-Fascist Action never was
democratic or happening enough to attract a single affiliate from those
who crowded in behind the SA.
In May, in what promises to be a watershed election, RA will be backing
independent working class candidates. In some cases, it is possible we will
find ourselves in competition not only with the mainstream parties, but the
SA. Had the SA leadership, which is to say the SWP Central Committee,
committed itself to out-flanking the BNP with a fraction of the zeal devoted
to settling old scores with Militant, then in a situation where a conflict
of interest was identified, it is highly likley RA would be in favour of
making some form of accommodation.
There has never been a problem in working alongside the orthodox left in a
principled fashion when objective circumstances demanded we do so. After
December 5 however, the prospect of cooperation in any form appears to be
out of the question. The Socialist Alliance is doomed to fail and deserves
to do so. Not only is failure assured, but to accelerate radical change,
absolute failure may even be necessary.
London Red Action
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: Red Action Ditches Socialist Alliance
Sent: 20 January 2002 11:58
A prize for the first SA member to notice...
From: prianikoff [mailto:xnichols@hotmail.com]
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Sent: 20 January 2002 17:11
Interesting.....
to be honest I didn't know you were ever in it.
Did anyone notice other than the "Times"?
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 17:57
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
From what I have heard all Red Action did within the SA was to turn
up to LSA steering committee mettings, move a motion, get voted down,
and then go home. Even this statement says this was the case. Not the
most serious of interventions eh comrades?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 18:06
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Actually we could indulge in a thread reminiscent of the Leftist
Trainspotters list - has anyone seen a Red Action member active in a
local SA?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: tam0shantar [mailto:tam0shanta@aol.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 20:21
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Could you tell me what it means to "active in a local SA" other than:
1) Pushing some rather dull leaflets - which read like something from
Harold Wilson's Labour Party - through letter boxes
2) Turning out to hear Mark Steel's dreadful jokes or the nostalgic
whingeing of celebrity Guardianistas
Are they any political debates, for example? Or would debating be
considered sectarianism? Could the lack of debate be the reason RA
left and no one else has joined, apart from the groups
and 'independents' who have been in and out of the SLP?
Tam
From: hickmanrp [mailto:hickmanrp@yahoo.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 20:48
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Depends what the interventions were? The RA critique of
multiculturalism seemed to resonate with certain leading SA
independents.
I expect all sides involved are relieved at RA's departure; RA won't
have to trouble themselves about how they deal with the rest of the
left, and the SA/SWP won't have to contend with RA's unapologetic
championing of a working class community based politics.
Raymond
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 21:18
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Well, during a general election in which an organisation you claim to
be part of is fielding candidates I do not feel it is unreasonable to
expect comrades to do a little canvassing or set up a stall in the
town centre, do you?
And if you don't like the style and content of the leaflets, feel
free to share your suggestions for improvement with local activists,
rather than sniping from the sidelines.
> Are they any political debates, for example? Or would debating be
> considered sectarianism? Could the lack of debate be the reason RA
> left and no one else has joined, apart from the groups
> and 'independents' who have been in and out of the SLP?
No, we do not ever have political debates as a point of principle- to
do so would be extremely sectarian.
Yes, I'm sure lack of debate is why Red Action left and it is
obviously the reason why nobody has ever joined the Socialist
Alliance nor ever will.
Next question.
Rob
From: Nick Bryant [mailto:bryantnicholas@hotmail.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 22:27
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
The Socialist Alliance has failed fairly drastically, as Red Action said it
would if it kept to the old style politics of the left, as it did. We
thought that it would have been better that the SA hadn't contested the
General Election, except in those few areas where there was some support,
eg, those areas where the Socialist Party had councillors, because we knew
that the working class elctorate would reject them. As I've said before on
this list, the elctions to the GLA will turn out to be the SA's best
electroal intervention.
The General election campaign was a mistake. It makes no sense to stand
candidates where you don't have any support. Elections should be in support
of local politics, not instead of it.
Political strategy and tactics should be based on the needs of the working
class not the left but then you wouldn't understand that, would you?
Nick
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 23:04
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> Depends what the interventions were? The RA critique of
> multiculturalism seemed to resonate with certain leading SA
> independents.
>
> I expect all sides involved are relieved at RA's departure; RA
won't
> have to trouble themselves about how they deal with the rest of the
> left, and the SA/SWP won't have to contend with RA's unapologetic
> championing of a working class community based politics.
>
> Raymond
I'd disagree. Joking aside about 'spot the RA member' I believe that
Red Action make a number of extremely telling criticisms about the
left presently constituted and these definitely should be taken up
more widely than they have so far been.
I just think that if Red Action had made a more serious intervention
in the local SA's rather than just the steering committee of the LSA,
then their impact would have been far greater. That said, I wish the
comrades all the luck with the IWCA's interventions at the council
elections and hope that future cooperation between them and the SA's
will not be ruled out, despite what their statement says.
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 20 January 2002 23:16
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Nick Bryant" <bryantnicholas@h...>
wrote:
> The Socialist Alliance has failed fairly drastically, as Red Action said it
> would if it kept to the old style politics of the left, as it did. We
> thought that it would have been better that the SA hadn't contested the
> General Election, except in those few areas where there was some support,
> eg, those areas where the Socialist Party had councillors, because we knew
> that the working class elctorate would reject them. As I've said before on
> this list, the elctions to the GLA will turn out to be the SA's best
> electroal intervention.
>
> The General election campaign was a mistake. It makes no sense to stand
> candidates where you don't have any support. Elections should be in support
> of local politics, not instead of it.
>
> Political strategy and tactics should be based on the needs of the working
> class not the left but then you wouldn't understand that, would you?
>
> Nick
I'd definitely disagree here. The SA and SSP were entirely correct to
stand in as many seats as possible so that we could put down a marker
for future activity. You stand in a seat, do crap but get the SA/SSP
known in that constituency. Then with the small amount of people who
have gravitated toward the election campaign you begin the long slog
of building up a presence in the community.
That's the theory at least and is far more likely to be the case in
Scotland than in the (comparatively weak) SA's.
But what if the SA stands against the BNP or NF in the future in
areas where there is no record of support for us? Will you castigate
it for refusing to stand as you did in the Bromley by-election?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: tam0shantar [mailto:tam0shanta@aol.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 00:39
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "kazeliot" <hfbj_parasol@h...> wrote:
> Well, during a general election in which an organisation you claim to
> be part of is fielding candidates I do not feel it is unreasonable to
> expect comrades to do a little canvassing or set up a stall in the
> town centre, do you?
> And if you don't like the style and content of the leaflets, feel
> free to share your suggestions for improvement with local activists,
> rather than sniping from the sidelines.
When did the SA ever do canvassing? Didn't the SWP says that would be
sectarian? Don't you think that if the leaflets weren't so dire, it
might be possible to knock on doors and talk to people instead of
just shoving them through the letter box?
> Yes, I'm sure lack of debate is why Red Action left and it is
> obviously the reason why nobody has ever joined the Socialist
> Alliance nor ever will.
> Next question.
I don't have one. On the strength of what you've said I'm putting my
membership application back in the drawer for further consideration.
Tam
PS Actually I do have one: isn't "SA" a bloody awful acronym?
From: davemurray101 [mailto:dmurray@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au]
Sent: 21 January 2002 02:12
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "prianikoff" <xnichols@h...> wrote:
> Interesting.....
> to be honest I didn't know you were ever in it.
> Did anyone notice other than the "Times"?
THe SP left the alliance a month ago. And every one who trusted the
SWP said that the SP "were not really involved". Rather disturbing
immitation of the past don't you think.
DAVE
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 11:02
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Nick Bryant" <bryantnicholas@h...>
> Political strategy and tactics should be based on the needs of the
> working class not the left but then you wouldn't understand that,
> would you?
And Red Action, membership probably less than a hundred, would, I suppose?
If you have all the answers don't you have a duty to stay in the SA and fight for them?
As for the fact that you only operated at all in the London Socialist Alliance (ie a meeting of the leaderships of left groups) and not in the grassroots local SAs where you might have to test your ideas amongst 'independents' in working class areas, speaks volumes. By their own statements, Red Action expose themselves not only as one of the most arrogant and sectarian groups on the left but as far and away the most elitist...
Rob
From: hickmanrp [mailto:hickmanrp@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 11:46
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Phil Hamilton wrote:
'The SA and SSP were entirely correct to
stand in as many seats as possible so that we could put down a marker
for future activity. You stand in a seat, do crap but get the SA/SSP
known in that constituency.'
Yes you get the SA known - known as you yourself acknowledge
as 'crap'. Alongside their longterm involvement in working class
community based politics - arising out of Scotish Militants
experience in the anti-poll tax movement - the SSP did well enough in
enough constituencies not to look 'crap'. The SA should not compare
itself to the SSP until it has proved it can deliver similar results - electoral and otherwise - to the SSP.
Raymond
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 12:53
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Perhaps you should have read my post in it's entirity where I said
that the SSP was relatively stronger than the SA.
While we're on this topic, despite the SSP having a far greater
degree of organisational coherence recent council by-elections have
shown voting figures no greater than the average achieved by the SA.
So of course it's entirely reasonable to compare the two.
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: gary_ohalloran [mailto:gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 15:22
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
I would just like to make a few observations on the reaction to the
RA withdrawal.
1. One criticism constantly repeated was that RA had played 'no part
in SA branches'. True, but from reports at the regional meetings
(election campaigns apart)it was perfectly clear SA branches on a
week in week out basis do -nothing.
2. RA was also condemned for not making our criticism of
the 'strategy at a local level' rather than at a leadership level.
Which is to say address the criticisms to individuals who did not
take part in the decisions - after the decisions had been made. To
what political purpose?
3. As from June 2000 it was the case RA was not a nationally
affiliated group we were denied the opportunity to play an political
role as an organisation in the discussions on strategy leading up to
the election in June 2001, as the LSA steering committee which was
the only democratic concession on the table at the time was withdrawn
in February of that year.
For the same reason RA were denied any opportunity to critique the
strategy (if that's what it was) adopted at a national leadrship
level,(see point two) as the LSA was re-instated if memory serves
only in September, and then eclipsed entirely by the December
conference decision.
4. It is furthermore claimed that RA will not be 'missed'. Neither
apparently will the SP. But given the current structure who apart
from the SWP would be? While it perfectly understandable to be
sanguine while winning to be so relaxed about defections when losing
incorporates in equal measure indifference, stupidity and
secterianism.
5. Moreover the SP and RA had each brought something specific to
the 'party', ingredients sadly lacking amongst I would say all who
remain. The SP had the practical experience of elected councillors:
the experience of having them, and how to get them. Not that that
fact will bother the leadership as an elected councillor is something
the SA is never likely to achieve now.
What RA offered was something equally unique. A totally different
persepective, analysis and strategy to the dominant and unquestioning
orthodoxy that has arguably not delivered for at least half a
century.
More significantly I would argue though (I do not intend to bore
people with repitition)that overall the RA analyis has been largely
validated by domestic events. Of course to make such a claim leads
to charges such as "arrogant" "secterian" and "elitist". From the SWP
no less! (What a strange world the left inhabit.)
But what such comments reveal is that for better or worse RA (and in
a more limited sense the SP) effectively represented the
political 'opposition' whilst in the LSA.
Of course the LSA no longer exists and I would suggest neither does
anything resembling a political opposition as all are agreed on the
priorities and fundamentals.
Again the challenge is made that RA never pressed the point home with
sufficent vigour etc.
Yet even now, it is instructive to note that our opponents who make
such play on RA's supposedly limited involvement only do so while
studiously avoiding and reference whatsover to RA's criticisms of the
structure, constitution, orientation etc probably from a fear of
legitimising such opinions. It was ever thus. To counter attack
without any political reference is defence that is forced to rely
almost entirely on remarks designed to denigrate rather than
enlighten. Charachter assasination is the phrase commonly used to
describe the tactic.
It is a revealing insight how democracy really functions within
the 'alliance'.
For Michael Gove who wrote the Times article one of the thing he was
most impressed with was that an outfit with a reputation like RA
could be incorporated within the SA, and take 'a full part in policy
decisions' and so on. Show's what he knows. Nonetheless he did
suggest that what makes the SA "potent", was the integration under
one political tent, of the likes "of Tariq Ali and RA".
Therefore assuming Gove was right and RA being in the SA was a symbol
of political 'potency', what does RA abandoning it tend signify?
From: james.carroll [mailto:james.carroll@tinyworld.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 16:18
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
well, Council by elections are one way of looking at it but it has to be said that the council by elections fought by the SSP in recent times have not been in particularly favourable areas. Another way to look on it is in terms of opininion polls where in Votes for Hollyrood the SSP consistantly polls 3%+ on the first ballot and in the most recent poll 6% on the list vote. This would certainly indicate a much higher level of visibility for the SSP in Scotland then the SA has achieved in England.
Incidentally the combined SSP-Green Opinion poll rating in Scotlan is now again ahead of the Tories.
Jim Carroll
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 16:29
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "gary_ohalloran" <gary_ohalloran@y...>
wrote:
> More significantly I would argue though (I do not intend to bore
> people with repitition)that overall the RA analyis has been largely
> validated by domestic events. Of course to make such a claim leads
> to charges such as "arrogant" "secterian" and "elitist". From the
> SWP
I think it was actually me who used the terms sectarian, arrogant and
elitist, on this list, just a few hours ago- not the SWP!
Elitist for addressing your criticisms of the SA primarily to the
leadership, in London, rather than mucking in at the base.
Sectarian for fucking off in a sulk when you lose a few votes.
Arrogant for thinking anyone will notice.
Rob, SA 'so-called' Independent, East Midlands
From: Dave Parks [mailto:davep@exeterleft.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 17:56
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Gary wrote:
> I would just like to make a few observations on the reaction to the RA
> withdrawal.
>
> 1. One criticism constantly repeated was that RA had played 'no part
> in SA branches'. True, but from reports at the regional meetings
> (election campaigns apart)it was perfectly clear SA branches on a week
> in week out basis do -nothing.
After the general election a lot of the SA branches fell into inactivity. I was very unhappy about the situation in Exeter - whilst I did moan a bit about it I (and others) did also got down to DOING something about it. Largely at the instigation of independents in Exeter we have completely turned around the Exeter SA branch which is now very dynamic and very active with everyone, including the SWP, playing a very active role. Sometimes you just have to make it happen. It is a political fight to get things going and also to overcome inertia.
> 2. RA was also condemned for not making our criticism of
> the 'strategy at a local level' rather than at a leadership level.
> Which is to say address the criticisms to individuals who did not take
> part in the decisions - after the decisions had been made. To what
> political purpose?
Well you need to argue at all levels. But I would say that demanding activity of the Exeter SA at a national meeting would be entirely absurd. If your local branch of the SA is inactive then get stuck in there and make it active. If you feel that the SA is not doing enough work in the local community then get in there and get it going. If you think the SA should be canvassing on your estate - then organise it! Do it on the ground and demonstrate some good practise *and* advocate it at a national level. Stop whinging and get on with it! What we have found in Exeter is that a positive approach of just getting on with things has drawn others into activity.
BTW below is a short article from the Exeter SA newsletter about some campaigning done by the Exeter SA in Exeter. This getting stuck in with community politics was a very welcome initiative by SWP comrades in the Exeter SA - something I certainly hadn't perceived the SWP as being very good at - but it is nice to be proved wrong.
I do hope the RA (and the SP for that matter) change their mind in time and come back to the SA.
cheers
Dave Parks
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 18:30
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
To reply to this point;
'Yet even now, it is instructive to note that our opponents who make
such play on RA's supposedly limited involvement only do so while
studiously avoiding and reference whatsover to RA's criticisms of the
structure, constitution, orientation etc probably from a fear of
legitimising such opinions'.
Criticisms of Red Action's interventions aside, one problem with your
critique is that it was only partial. Yes I think Red Action are
right on multi-culturalism and the need for local political work but
that was as far as it went. There was nothing on what structure the
SA should be itself, nothing on organising an opposition to the way
the SWP turn the SA on and off, and nothing on what the eventual aim
of the SA should be.
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: gary_ohalloran [mailto:gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 18:53
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Dave Parks" <davep@e...> wrote:
> "Stop whingeing and get on with it!"
Well,done Dave. Classic advice. No need to question where
your going, why the strategy isn't
working, why the BNP not the SA is recognised as the radical
alternative and so on. No need to speculate on why the working class
in the worst position in over 150 years. No no need for any of that
analytical stuff. Just plough on. Forelock tug to the
currrent 'leadership'. Demonise dissenters.
And eventually, as is the tradition capitulate to the enemy. Like the
other so-called independents you still go along with the pretence
that SA policy is open to discussion. Well, presumbaly you didn't
want the SP to leave. So what effect did YOUR "whingeing" have on the
SWP? I know you make a big play on this site of having been an AFA
vet and all that, but I have to say if I was to judge you on that one
sentence, I would knowing the context, conclude that in political
terms you come near to being the perfect idiot.
From: gary_ohalloran [mailto:gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 19:09
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Remind me again Phil in what forum RA should have made such a
critique? If discussed at all any concerns were in practice 'allowed'
20 minutes at the end of the meeting. So if you are accepting RA were
right to stress the danger of class being displaced by race
(multiculturalism) and need for a dramatic switch in orienation to
working class communities this would have been a useful contribution
to be going on with - had anyone been listening. Where for instance
were such strategical issues discussed once the LSA steering
committee was dissolved in February 2001? Are you now suggesting
there was a more grown-up forum that escaped us?
From: Dave Parks [mailto:davep@exeterleft.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 19:14
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> --- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Dave Parks" <davep@e...> wrote:
> > "Stop whingeing and get on with it!" Well,done Dave. Classic
> advice. No need to question where your going, why the strategy isn't
> working, why the BNP not the SA is recognised as the radical
> alternative and so on. No need to speculate on why the working class
> in the worst position in over 150 years. No no need for any of that
> analytical stuff. Just plough on. Forelock tug to the currrent
> 'leadership'. Demonise dissenters.
I have neither demonised dissenters nor argued that people should not be critical of the leadership and strategy within the SA. However, being actively involved rather than just carping from the side lines is the way to influence things. Of course what happens in terms of the policy and nature of the organisation nationally is important - that is why I have played a role in trying to bring together independent members of the SA. What do you offer except a council of dispair.
> And eventually, as is the tradition capitulate to the enemy. Like the
> other so-called independents you still go along with the pretence that
> SA policy is open to discussion. Well, presumbaly you didn't want the
> SP to leave. So what effect did YOUR "whingeing" have on the SWP?
We will see how the SA develops - nothing is set in stone at this time. The SP were mistaken in marching out. While 70 independents met at lunch time at the December conference the SP ignored us. For the SP it was a battle between themselves and their big rival the SWP. That is not the real battle though - the battle is for a new workers party which won't come about by people carping from the outside.
> I know you make a big play on this site of having been an AFA vet and
> all that, but I have to say if I was to judge you on that one
> sentence, I would knowing the context, conclude that in political
> terms you come near to being the perfect idiot.
Typical fucking Red Action response to any criticisms - insult the person making those comments. Well Gary - fuck off!
cheers
Dave Parks
From: Nick Bryant [mailto:bryantnicholas@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 20:51
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
You're the abusive one here. The point that Red Action is making has been
missed by most people on the list. The whole approach of the SA is wrong.
The article you appended is a case in point. While it is a good one off
stunt, it will get nowhere unless it is backed up by being involved in the
local community in the long term for their benefit, not that of the left.
Red Action might think about rejoining the socialist alliance put the
interests of the class before that of the left but of course this will never
happen.
As a final point, I've been involved in community work in an area where the
SA was active briefly in the past around an election, and they are held in
contempt as middle class wankers who appeared in the area once and never
came back. And who can blame them.
From: lewingtonsteve [mailto:lewingtonsteve@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 January 2002 21:36
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
-- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Nick Bryant" <bryantnicholas@h...> wrote:
> As a final point, I've been involved in community work in an area where the
> SA was active briefly in the past around an election, and they are held in
> contempt as middle class wankers who appeared in the area once and never
> came back. And who can blame them.
Who indeed. Ever been to Burnley?
In fact is there anywhere in England where the SA-SWP are held in
honour by ordinary working people?
I remembering reading on the SA-SWP's own website that the biggest
crowds the SA pulled in during the election were in the most
staunchly middle-class areas of London - is this is a coincidence?
Meanwhile in the council elections of Burnley......
Steve Lewington
From: Dave Parks [mailto:davep@exeterleft.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 21 January 2002 22:37
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Nick Bryant wrote:
> You're the abusive one here.
Indeed, but I am fed up with this nonsense. Red Action call on people to discuss their positions and arguments and as soon as anyone engages they get a torent of insults and abuse. I have had enough of it.
> The point that Red Action is making has been
> missed by most people on the list. The whole approach of the SA is
> wrong.
So where were you at the December conference with a leaflet or information pointing out the correct path for the SA? I disagree with the the SP but at least they fought for their politics - RA abstained from the whole thing and now RA give us the earth shattering news that they are leaving.
cheers
Dave Parks
From: David Welch [mailto:welch@cwcom.net]
Sent: 22 January 2002 01:14
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 07:09:14PM -0000, gary_ohalloran wrote:
> Remind me again Phil in what forum RA should have made such a
> critique? If discussed at all any concerns were in practice 'allowed'
> 20 minutes at the end of the meeting. So if you are accepting RA were
> right to stress the danger of class being displaced by race
> (multiculturalism) and need for a dramatic switch in orienation to
> working class communities this would have been a useful contribution
> to be going on with - had anyone been listening. Where for instance
> were such strategical issues discussed once the LSA steering
> committee was dissolved in February 2001? Are you now suggesting
> there was a more grown-up forum that escaped us?
>
I think the real difficulty is that there isn't very much to Red Action's
critique. The points they make against multiculturalism are undoubtedly
correct but limited in that they present it either as an apparently
autonomous development of ideas or a ruling class conspiracy; more
importantly it has the huge blindspot of failing to take a strong position
against immigration controls which, as the cutting edge of racism in
Britain, are the necessary counterpart to state 'anti-racism'.
On a "dramatic switch in orientation": there is not much hint in Red
Action's statements under what programmatic basis this might proceed, or
to put it more directly, what, when IWCA candidates reach the town
hall, they will do to solve local problems. Some of Red Action's statements
point to the unequal distribution of local council's resources between middle
and working class areas; that this is the case is incontrovertible but
redressing the balance is not a very radical solution if it accepts the
existing availability of resources (and hence the state of British
capitalism) as given but if it is not accepted then how can it be
overcome locally? The other area of action mentioned is solving
'anti-social' behaviour, which for an organisation which places so much
emphasis on the "analytical stuff", seems to be accepted as a
problem rather uncritically. If anything this is an issue which the
state, far from ignoring, places a very heavy emphasis on diagnosing and
solving, as part of a general program of disciplining the working class.
It would seem a very conservative approach to call for more police
intervention and for local councils to have more powers to evict
tenants rather than, let us say, the disbanding of the police and for
workers to deal with these problems themselves.
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 10:31
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> Remind me again Phil in what forum RA should have made such a
> critique? If discussed at all any concerns were in practice 'allowed'
> 20 minutes at the end of the meeting.
SA national meetings, local alliance gatherings, SA Press list. Going
along to LSA steering committee meetings and debating SA members on
this list is not exactly what I'd call the most effective of
interventions.
So if you are accepting RA were
> right to stress the danger of class being displaced by race
> (multiculturalism) and need for a dramatic switch in orienation to
> working class communities this would have been a useful
contribution
> to be going on with - had anyone been listening. Where for instance
> were such strategical issues discussed once the LSA steering
> committee was dissolved in February 2001? Are you now suggesting
> there was a more grown-up forum that escaped us?
And this is the nub of it. Your orientation was reminiscent of old
CPGB and SWP strategies of leaning on TU 'lefts' to get them to 'do
something', instead of going right over their heads and trying to
influence the rank and file. For example my own group, the CPGB has
intervened energetically and effectively in the SA. Even in alliances
where we have no comrades, our strategy is known and debated. I doubt
this is the case with Red Action, unfortunately.
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 10:56
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Marxist Mark wrote;
> i think the normal actions of the left should be worry rather than
> "pointing the finger to the door and good riddance attitude".
I don't think anyone has actually. While there'll probably elements
in the SA's (the SWP?) that'll be glad to see the back of Red Action,
the comments here concerning whether comrades in the SA will notice
is a perfectly valid criticism of RA's unserious intervention. For
example Mark, if a politically distinct group of workers joined the
SLP, gained representation on the NEC and limited their intervention
to just this august body then I'd doubt you'd think this is an
efficient way of changing the SLP's mind.
because RA are
> the only real working class organization on the left; attitudestaken by this
> group should at least be used as a gauge by the left.
And on what basis do you make this claim? Do you really think that no
other group has members that work shitty low paid jobs and are
politically active in their workplaces and communities?
on how the SA will be
> seen by the class the SA should be aiming to bring into its ranks and its
> not "an ard" equation to work out.that if a real working class organization
> isnt happy with the SA;then potential working class voters etc wont be either.
Again, this nonsense about 'real working class organisation' aside, I
do believe that the orientation to the class characteristic of the
SWP is wrong, has proved to be wrong, and will always be wrong. But
because the SWP does it, it does not automatically follow that the SA
does it. See Dave Parks posts on Exeter SA for example.
> you dont need to be a teacher,social worker,librarian etc to work that
> one out.theres been plenty of warnings from real working class people that
> your not relating;from the actual voters,within the SA,from a few real
> working class individuals.
If you take the election results in Bradford and Ipswich then yes,
things look pretty grim. One major problem that has been widely
identified has been the downgrading of the SA in the SWP's
priorities, in favour of anti-war work. This of course was forseeable
and therefore sitting around and moaning about it is not good enough -
again see Dave Parks' posts
> so carry on regardless and carry out a path of failure that
> even "mystic meg" could portray
So Mark can we take it then that you will be joining the SA to try
and influence it in a positive direction?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: hickmanrp [mailto:hickmanrp@yahoo.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 11:19
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> And this is the nub of it. Your orientation was reminiscent of old
> CPGB and SWP strategies of leaning on TU 'lefts' to get them to 'do
> something', instead of going right over their heads and trying to
> influence the rank and file. For example my own group, the CPGB has
> intervened energetically and effectively in the SA. Even in alliances
> where we have no comrades, our strategy is known and debated. I doubt
> this is the case with Red Action, unfortunately.
>
> Comradely,
> Phil Hamilton
Your fondness for dubious analogies shows it self once again. First we
had the SA is like the SSP despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Now we are treated to: Red Action is like the CPGB and the SWP because
they attended Steering Committee meetings of the LSA (who are
interestingly themselves compared to TU 'lefts' - the inverted commas
are surely menat to be disparaging). The idea that RA was seeking to
lean on the Steering Committee is laughable when you look at the
crticism they made of the whole project and much more importantly when
you look at their activity; this consists in going directly to the
'rank and file', not of political activists, but of the much wider
working class, and not seeking simply to 'influence' them but to
listen, learn and help in meeting the needs of their class.
Raymond
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 13:03
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "hickmanrp" <hickmanrp@y...> wrote: Of Red Action
> going directly to the
> 'rank and file', not of political activists, but of the much wider
> working class, and not seeking simply to 'influence' them but to
> listen, learn and help in meeting the needs of their class.
Apart from the fact that you make them sound like a sort of left-wing
Meals on Wheels, can you answer the other comrades criticisms that in
fact they are NOT ever seen 'going to the class' at all, outside of
steering committees, they are invisible...
Rob
From: Nick Bryant [mailto:bryantnicholas@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 13:11
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
This just shows the superficiality of your understanding of RA. While we
undoubtedly have the most working class membership on the left, the key
point is orientation. The CPGB and the rest don't orientate to the working
class. At best they focus on the issues of the middle class radicals in the
unions, at worse they echo the confused liberal ideas of Guardian readers.
Politics should be geared to the needs of the working class, not the left.
This is why we left the Socilaist Alliance.
From: Nick Bryant [mailto:bryantnicholas@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 13:17
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Again, this illustrates the diferences between the CPGB and RA. We intervene
energetically and (hopefully)effectively in the working class, you do the
same in the Socialist Alliance and before that in the SLP. What working
class community or campaign has your version of the CPGB ever been involved
in? To my knowledge none.
Your strategy, such as it is, is geared to the left and not to the working
class.
From: Nick Bryant [mailto:bryantnicholas@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 13:23
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Of course, we're 'not seen' by members of the Socialist Alliance, we work in
working class communities, they, on the whole don't. As I keep saying, the
paths of RA and the SA don't meet because both organisations are working on
very different projects. The SA is a project for the left, or now, the SWP,
and RA is involved in working class community based politics.
Using the phrase 'left-wing Meals on Wheels' shows really your lack of
understanding.
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 13:52
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> At best they focus on the issues of the middle class radicals in
> the unions,
Nick, did you mean this to read as it does, ie that workers in unions
are Middle Class?
If so it would explain a lot about RAs claim to be a working class
organisation if you are able to exclude from that category miners,
dockers, engineering workers, electricians, car workers, teachers,
nurses, council workers and just about everyone else who might
consider themselves working class
Rob.
From: hickmanrp [mailto:hickmanrp@yahoo.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 14:31
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> --- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "hickmanrp" <hickmanrp@y...> wrote: Of
> Apart from the fact that you make them sound like a sort of left-wing
> Meals on Wheels, can you answer the other comrades criticisms that in
> fact they are NOT ever seen 'going to the class' at all, outside of
> steering committees, they are invisible...
>
> Rob
Well for a start you could always try reading the reports of activity
in their magazine.
Raymond
BTW what have you got against meals on wheels?
From: kazeliot [mailto:hfbj_parasol@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 15:01
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "hickmanrp" <hickmanrp@y...> wrote:
> Does it read like that to you Rob - perhaps you are trying too hard
> not to like RA;
It does read like that and further evidence is lack of any Red Action
activity (that I have read about) in the Trades Unions. I'm happy to
be proved wrong on this one as I do not 'dislike' RA at all.
> that there are middle class radicals who are i trade
> unions is not the same as saying that all trade union members are
> middle class radicals
Precisely. But there are very few middle class people (radicals or
otherwise) in Trades Unions, except where all members of that union
tend to be middle class (in most cases these are clearly labelled
as 'professional associations').
One exception to this would be UNISON where in theory senior
mangerial grades could join. In practice this does not happen and
branch activists are overwhelmingly working class.
It sounded like Red Actions critique of TUs is based around the idea
that the defining feature of the Unions is their middle class
membership...
Rob
From: gumgumhappy [mailto:andrew.g.cutting@btinternet.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 16:02
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., David Welch <welch@c...> wrote:
> I think the real difficulty is that there isn't very much to Red Action's
> critique. The points they make against multiculturalism are undoubtedly
> correct but limited in that they present it either as an apparently
> autonomous development of ideas or a ruling class conspiracy; more
> importantly it has the huge blindspot of failing to take a strong position
> against immigration controls which, as the cutting edge of racism in
> Britain, are the necessary counterpart to state 'anti-racism'.
I'm not speaking for Red Action but I think it is clear that the cutting edge of racism is to play politics of envy around issues involving local resources.
Multiculturalism is an American ideology. Its purpose was to control black radicalism by falsely integrating black Americans.
With respect to the here and now, the state's democractic urges are strong enough to attempt integration but at once cannot properly integrate an increasingly cosmopolitan population. Hence the adoption of the US's 'solution' to a similar albeit greater problem. The problem with the 'solution' is that it only makes things worse.
I don't know if RA members disagree with above or not but I think it is at least consistent with RA's analysis - "anti-racism is not working". Either way the analysis will not be improved by a program.
> On a "dramatic switch in orientation": there is not much hint in Red
> Action's statements under what programmatic basis this might proceed, or
> to put it more directly, what, when IWCA candidates reach the town
> hall, they will do to solve local problems. Some of Red Action's statements
> point to the unequal distribution of local council's resources between middle
> and working class areas; that this is the case is incontrovertible but
> redressing the balance is not a very radical solution if it accepts the
> existing availability of resources (and hence the state of British
> capitalism) as given but if it is not accepted then how can it be
> overcome locally? The other area of action mentioned is solving
> 'anti-social' behaviour, which for an organisation which places so much
> emphasis on the "analytical stuff", seems to be accepted as a
> problem rather uncritically. If anything this is an issue which the
> state, far from ignoring, places a very heavy emphasis on diagnosing and
> solving, as part of a general program of disciplining the working class.
> It would seem a very conservative approach to call for more police
> intervention and for local councils to have more powers to evict
> tenants rather than, let us say, the disbanding of the police and for
> workers to deal with these problems themselves.
To put it in jargon, redistribution strategies are "revolutionary democratic" whereas addressing the overall shortage is "socialist". I believe it is impossible to address the latter without addressing the former first. A while ago there was a hopeless thread on why socialism is unpopular. I would say that the answer is that there are blocks on the devolpment of working class politics and that these blocks must be overcome by the working class themselves. The slogan "working class rule in working class areas" surely points to a way out, and there is no reason I can see that this should not "grow over" into "working class rule over all society".
I see no inclination in RA towards state authoritarianism. The Weekly Worker generally finishes its articles with programatic statements. A while ago it used to finish with a statement about reforging the CPGB just as Newsline finish articles with a statement about reforging the fourth international. I think David simply shows his political background when he reads in programatic commitments which simply aren't there. There is no reason to believe that program and organisation are the solution to all the worlds problems.
Finally I don't think the state does do much in the way of addressing anti-social behaviour. I think it is more concerned about making noises on these issues while taking limited (reactionary) measures.
Andrew
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 16:02
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "Nick Bryant" <bryantnicholas@h...> wrote:
> Again, this illustrates the diferences between the CPGB and RA. We intervene
> energetically and (hopefully)effectively in the working class, you do the
> same in the Socialist Alliance and before that in the SLP. What working
> class community or campaign has your version of the CPGB ever been involved
> in? To my knowledge none.
>
> Your strategy, such as it is, is geared to the left and not to the working
> class.
We have always been open about where the emphasis of our
interventions are, and this flows from our analysis of the period
which we're in. It is better to do one thing well than many things
badly, especially when you're short on resources.
And BTW for all this chest beating about community work and the like,
why are you secretive about where you do this work?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: neveradnothin@aol.com [mailto:neveradnothin@aol.com]
Sent: 22 January 2002 19:10
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
<<<<<So Mark can we take it then that you will be joining the SA to try
and influence it in a positive direction?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton>>>>>>>>
not really; because like alot of voters and more wrongly like alot
of working class people unfortunately see the SA [in general] as a "bunch of
clowns".and it doesn't matter how many excuses you lay down with the labour
party in its current mode;the SA should be cleaning up.
m
From: neveradnothin@a...
Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:10pm
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
<<<<<<In a message dated 22/01/02 10:57:37 GMT Standard Time,
mhdasein@yahoo.com writes:
> If you take the election results in Bradford and Ipswich then yes,
> things look pretty grim. One major problem that has been widely
> identified has been the downgrading of the SA in the SWP's
> priorities, in favour of anti-war work. This of course was forseeable
> and therefore sitting around and moaning about it is not good enough -
> again see Dave Parks' posts.>>>>>>>
perhaps i need to be a geography teacher then??!!!!; just a failure
in ipswich and bradford!!!!????.but again the SA were warned about the
importance of relating to working class communities rather than marching
amongst comrades on anti-war issues.look to be honest not alot of ex-labour
voters[who have voted labour for years just because of the fact there
working class and not because of supporting every damn policy of there
maifesto];would give a damn about an anti-war march in london by the SA.it
wouldnt influence them to vote for the SA in massive numbers[which was
proven].
some political groups did better than others in the
elections;so some got the plot more right than others[some went on marches
amongst themselves;others cunningly related to a new target and achieved some
success].but if it was forseeable or not[dont sound too concerned!!!!]; and
if sitting around moaning instead of doing something is the case.the
potential voters that should; and could of been flocking to the SA didnt even
blinkin bother moaning.they did plenty of sitting around and in some cases
working class people looked towards the BNP as the radical alternative.
this is the reason people dont join the local SA's and the left
to be truthful......because there fed up of banging there head against a
bleedin brick wall.
m
From: "gary_ohalloran" <gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk>
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:18:15 -0000
You really have to laugh. If you didn't know why RA withdrew from the
SA the posts from Phil, Rob, David Welch, Dave Parks to name a few
would explain it. In many ways the contributions were classics of
their kind. ll-informed, lazy,dogmatic, disingenous, blinkered,
shallow...If you didn't know why the SA project was not working, and
would never impact on the working class consciousness you do know.
Distilled, what you and the SA will continue to pursue is the fanatsy
of achieving something you call socialism but WITHOUT working class
involvement. Your 'priorities' will always find excuses not to engage
on the issues on the ground. White collar unions apart, when
propaganda is not directed incestously, the argument is fashioned
(Oldham, Sighthill, Paulsgrove) in a fashion you think will appeal to
the more progressive sections of society ie comfortably off Guardian
readers.
Your political function? No. Not the vanguard. More a liberal
mudguard.
From: nigel_irritable [mailto:nigel_irritable@yahoo.com]
Sent: 23 January 2002 18:57
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
A week ago, Phil Hamilton made the following point:
> Again, this nonsense about 'real working class organisation' aside, I
> do believe that the orientation to the class characteristic of the
> SWP is wrong, has proved to be wrong, and will always be wrong. But
> because the SWP does it, it does not automatically follow that the SA
> does it.
That's just it, Phil. That the SWP do not have any kind of
orientation towards the working class means exactly that the
Socialist Alliance doesn't either. Who makes up the majority of the
SA again? And who writes almost all of its material again? And which
organisation call the shots nationally and in most localities?
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
From: Dave Parks [mailto:davep@exeterleft.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: 23 January 2002 20:07
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
Gary, in Exeter I have described some of our activities. In terms of class balance I think around a quarter of our members are very low paid or unwaged, two of our most active members have been recently involved in industrial disputes one in the Post Office and one at the Benefits Agency. Our General Election candidate was a postal worker. Are you telling me we are all really middle class?! Well you can say what you like if it fits
*your* prejudice or preconception but it don't make it true.
Bemused!
cheers
Dave Parks
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 23 January 2002 20:24
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
And again to Gary, Nick Bryant, or any other Red Action member
present where exactly do you do your community work, and what results
have been yielded so far?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 23 January 2002 22:28
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> That's just it, Phil. That the SWP do not have any kind of
> orientation towards the working class means exactly that the
> Socialist Alliance doesn't either. Who makes up the majority of the
> SA again? And who writes almost all of its material again? And which
> organisation call the shots nationally and in most localities?
>
> Is mise le meas,
> Brian Cahill
Perhaps you've not be reading this list as carefully you might. Both
Dave Parks and Ian Donovan have provided examples of the SA being
involved on the ground on bread and butter issues. Of course you may
sneer that these are pretty much exceptions and perhaps they are, but
surely they show that SWP influence is far from being evenly
distributed across the alliance and indeed it is in these gaps where
an effective challenge to SWP hegemony can begin.
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: nigel_irritable [mailto:nigel_irritable@yahoo.com]
Sent: 24 January 2002 00:31
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> Perhaps you've not be reading this list as carefully you might.
I'll hold my hands up to that one. I've been trying to cut back on my
posting to these kind of lists. I find myself getting stuck in rows
with people I am never going to convince and whose grasp of reality
is sometimes a little tenuous.
> Both
> Dave Parks and Ian Donovan have provided examples of the SA being
> involved on the ground on bread and butter issues. Of course you may
> sneer that these are pretty much exceptions and perhaps they are, but
> surely they show that SWP influence is far from being evenly
> distributed across the alliance and indeed it is in these gaps where
> an effective challenge to SWP hegemony can begin.
I never said that SWP influence is evenly distributed across the SA.
There are a few genuine alliances still in existence. Gradually,
though, those healthy alliances are going to find themselves
overruled either at a national level, under the SWP constitution, or
at a local level by the packing of meetings. This is the inevitable
result of a constitution which gives the SWP that right. Already, of
course, most alliances are completely SWP dominated. I keep finding
myself having to ask: Do you really think that the SWP is interested
in any left unity which involves anything more than everybody else
taking their orders? After all these years and all these fronts can
that issue really be in doubt?
Dave and Ian did indeed provide examples of local alliances getting
involved on the ground. And yes, these are exceptions. The Southwark
case involves one individual SA member and a pair of SWPers, none of
whom were primarly intervening as the SA. Exeter is lucky enough to
be geographically isolated, and therefore relatively immune to SWP
swamping on a local basis but sooner or later it will find itself
coming into conflict with the SWP-run national organisation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that:
(a) The Socialist Alliance has a centralised, majority-takes-all,
structure.
(b) The SWP can muster an overall majority at any level within the SA.
(c) The SWP wants the SA to be another of its many specialised fronts.
Now to me, those hopefully accepted, facts mean that the SA is no
longer any useful kind of alliance for socialists. You seem to draw
other conclusions.
Is mise le meas,
Brian Cahill
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 24 January 2002 02:29
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> Correct me if I am wrong, but we seem to be in agreement that:
>
> (a) The Socialist Alliance has a centralised, majority-takes-all, structure.
> (b) The SWP can muster an overall majority at any level within the SA.
> (c) The SWP wants the SA to be another of its many specialised fronts.
I'm coming round to the thinking that if the SWP just wanted the SA
to be another one of it's front groups, then why the hell is it
putting up with people like the CPGB, Worker's Power, and the AWL
when all these organisations have a systematic critique of SWP
methods and politics? Afterall we all know how notorious the SWP is
with protecting its members from the ideas of the other left groups
out there.
I now strongly suspect that the SWP doesn't even know what it's in
the SA for beyond fishing for the odd recruit. Of course their CC are
well aware that the logic of the alliance inexorably points toward a
single party, and this is something which isn't in their interests
(hence the excuses around not having an SA paper and so on). How
about some SWP members on this list having a bash at this, or are the
rest of the left always going to have to second guess you?
But back to the main point, you believe that the SA became an SWP
front more or less overnight, whereas I and the rest of the comrades
who are not SWP supporting members of the SA do not. There is still
everything to play for at this moment in time, and in my view writing
the project off now just because you and yours left is premature.
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: ernestolynch2000 [mailto:ernestolynch2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: 24 January 2002 07:49
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
All this arguing about the SA - the SP, RA etc should stay in the
alliance and fight their corner to prevent the numerous, slick, spin- heavy but policy-weak SWP from running the show............isn't that
just the opposite of what SAers have been telling True Labourites to
do in the Labour Party?
From: hickmanrp [mailto:hickmanrp@yahoo.com]
Sent: 24 January 2002 09:10
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "mhdasein" <mhdasein@y...> wrote:
> And again to Gary, Nick Bryant, or any other Red Action member
> present where exactly do you do your community work, and what results
> have been yielded so far?
>
> Comradely,
> Phil Hamilton
A record of RA work in the IWCA can be found on their web site and in
their magazine; but you knew that already Phil, so why ask the
question?
Raymond
p.s. RA are not shouting to the rest of the left about their activity
because their orientation is not towards the rest of the left. And
their orientation is not towards the rest of the left, becausew they
don't believe that it offers any solutions for the wqorking class;
that will be the business of the class itself. But again you knew that
already so why ask the question?
From: mhdasein [mailto:mhdasein@yahoo.com]
Sent: 24 January 2002 19:55
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: RED ACTION WITHDRAWS FROM SOCIALIST ALLIANCE
> A record of RA work in the IWCA can be found on their web site and in
> their magazine; but you knew that already Phil, so why ask the
> question?
>
> Raymond
Unlike some Raymond I don't have bags of internet time so no, I
didn't know they had a section on their website. In fact for some
reason my ISP doesn't like the Red Action site so it's rare I get to
have a gander.
Also if Red Action couldn't give 2 shits about what the rest of the
left thinks, then why do their comrades bother to intervene on here?
And while we're on the subject, if you think their analysis and
activity is so great then why don't you join them?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
--- In UK_Left_Network@y..., "ernestolynch2000"
<ernestolynch2000@y...> wrote:
> All this arguing about the SA - the SP, RA etc should stay in the
> alliance and fight their corner to prevent the numerous, slick, spin-
> heavy but policy-weak SWP from running the show............isn't that
> just the opposite of what SAers have been telling True Labourites to
> do in the Labour Party?
Depends on who you ask of course. The CPGB has never called for lefts
to leave Labour, and I doubt whether the AWL and ISG have either. To
simply desert an organisation because you do not agree with their
policies/orientation is not a serious approach to working class
politics.
To Labour left comrades, seeing as it's pretty much certain that the
SA and SSP are not going to join en masse at any time in the near
future, what help do you think we can offer you from the outside, and
vice versa?
Comradely,
Phil Hamilton
From: rapitas2000 [mailto:Pabs47@Hotmail.com]
Sent: 24 January 2002 10:29
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: SA's, SSP, and Labour Left (was Red Action...)
A priority for all the left would seem to be campaigning against
privatisation, in all its forms (from council housing to the NHS,
Consignia), and 'contracting out'.
I would think that this is an area where the left could work together
with a wide variety of affected groups. It is unfortunate that there
are rival bodies around these issues, though there are perhaps good
reasons for this.
As a former Labour Left activist, now in the Socialist Alliance, I
have no wish to do anything but help those who feel they can pursue
such campaigns from within the Party. Obviously the majority of trade
unions feel they have something to gain from being affiliated, and
until their activities are proved fruitless it appears less of
priority to get them disaffiliated than to encourage them to take
action to get their message across. However working within labour,
and the complex system of Policy Forums, or the existing NEC, hasn't
got very far till now. And the absence of a solid left bloc in
Parliament allows Blair to do what he wants.
The SA, by contrast, can broadcast a much more unambiguous message.
Working together - one trying the internal route, the other with the
clarity of independence, could strengthen us all. This applies to
bodies such as Trades Councils which involve all sections of the
Left, from the CPB, SLP, SP, SA and the various parts of the Trade
Union Labour membership.
Andrew Coates
From: Chris Bliss-Jones [mailto:cblissjones@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 24 January 2002 10:42
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [UK Left Network] SA's, SSP, and Labour Left (was Red Action...)
To Labour left comrades, seeing as it's pretty much
certain that the SA and SSP are not going to join en
masse at any time in the near future, what help do you
think we can offer you from the outside, and
vice versa?""
First point. I would not ask the SA, SP to join the
Labour party en masse; follow your consciences. To be
frank, there is a distinct gap between the Labour left
and such groups, whatever we may agree on. The Labour
left has never been Marxist. Neither am I.
I would think the best thing any non-Labour groups on
the left could do to help socialists in the Labour
party, is (a) be judicious about where you stand
candidates, and (b) help out the Labour candidate's
campaign where you don't stand candidates.
Point (a). There are some fundamentalists on the left
who believe the SA/SP should take -no- account of the
Labour candidate's views when selecting where to place candidates. To me, this is a divisive and counter-productive attitude. All it will achieve is splitting the left vote, helping a Tory to be elected where a socialist could have been.
By all means put up candidates where the Labour
candidate is a Blairite. But where the Labour
candidate is a socialist, don't put up a candidate,
and encourage supporters to vote for the Labour
candidate.
For example, I understand the SA is contesting Ogmore,
and I wish them good luck. But if Mark Seddon had won
the nomination, then I do not think it would have been appropriate for the SA to stand a candidate.
Point (b). Where the Labour candidate is a socialist,
and the SA/SP are not standing candidates, then
comrades outside Labour could help the Labour
candidate's campaign.
I know I will be accused of hypocrisy here, as I have
said that Labour party members cannot campaign against
a Labour candidate. But Labour stand candidates in
every constituency, whereas the SA/SP don't. If Labour
wasn't standing a candidate in my constituency, I
would feel free to follow my conscience in who to
campaign for instead, but that situation isn't going
to arise.
(Gets ready for tirade of criticism ...)
CBJ.
From: gary_ohalloran [mailto:gary_ohalloran@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 24 January 2002 14:16
To: UK_Left_Network@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [UK Left Network] Re: SA's, SSP, and Labour Left (was Red Action...)
> The SA, by contrast, can broadcast a much more unambiguous message.
> Working together - one trying the internal route, the other with the
> clarity of independence, could strengthen us all. This applies to
> bodies such as Trades Councils which involve all sections of the
> Left, from the CPB, SLP, SP, SA and the various parts of the Trade
> Union Labour membership.
>
> Andrew Coates
"Trades Councils"?!!? Yep, that's probably the way forward alright.
If this discussion is to have any positive function it may perhaps be
to help clarify the use of the term 'conservative Left' around which
there previously has been confused mutterings. Well examples abound
in this discussion. But I strongly suspect Andrew will take some
beating.
Let's hear from you Phil, Rob, Dave, ....
