SWP (purportedly) 'anger' FBU members

[Lyev]

I dunno what to make of this. I am not posting it here to be sectarian - perhaps more so that SWP'ers themselves can mount a defence, if they feel like it. Anyway, thought you folks might be interested in it;

24 November, 2010
‘SOCIALIST WORKER’ COVERAGE ANGERS FBU ACTIVISTS (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7224)
Filed under: FBU (http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=117), Trade Unions (http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=32), SWP (http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=24) — admin @ 3:18 pm

A highly critical letter to Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23158), by Ben Sprung, the FBU Camden borough rep and FBU regional organiser, London. To the SWP’s credit they have published it on their website, though it seems not in their paper. Ben Sprung’s letter accords with the arguments that were made by myself and others in the debate following the article on Socialist Unity here (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7224).

To Socialist Worker: In defence of the FBU
[Socialist Worker’s] coverage of the London firefighters’ dispute has angered FBU activists.

Strikes
Your reports of the first strike on 23 October were outlandish. You wrote (SW 23 October) that “the rank-and-file pickets were so militant that Wrack and the other union officials struggled to keep control of the situation.” [1] (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23158#1) It might fit your preconceived schema to paint Wrack as a typical trade union bureaucrat, but those of us actually present saw the union’s general secretary fully supporting the picketing.

No doubt fantasising that you were witnessing the French revolution, you then posted a video which was then carried by the BBC and other news outlets and used to discredit the union. You should realise that in a real struggle, it pays to think about the tone and content of reporting.

Bonfire night
Your reports on the bonfire night strikes show you neither understand the decision taken by the FBU’s London committee nor have an alternative strategy for FBU members. The strikes were cancelled because management moved on the key issue in the dispute – the threat to sack 5,500 firefighters by 18 November. Management agreed not to impose new contracts as they had planned, but to postpone that decision until late January. That movement, together with their offer of 11-13 without strings was sufficient to suspend the strike action.

Your report (SW 4 November) registered that management had made “concessions”, but nevertheless stated that the decision was a mistake because the union had “missed a key opportunity to stretch the private AssetCo scabbing operation beyond breaking point”. [2] (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23158#2) What do you mean by this? Have some people die on bonfire night to ‘prove’ the scabs are rubbish? We didn’t believe the public would thank us for making AssetCo the new objective of the action, when we had significant movement on the main issues.

Criticism within the labour movement is fine. But using the bourgeois press to attack a union is quite another. Yet Richard Seymour, a well-known SWP member used the Guardian’s Comment is Free website (5 November) to slate the FBU. He wrote: “Suspending the strike now will give the fire bosses time to regroup, get better organised and perhaps return to its previous belligerent form with a stronger hand.” [3] (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23158#3) We don’t know whether Seymour is a trade unionist, but he certainly never bothered to speak to the FBU before launching his attack.

Rank and file
Then Bro. Yusuf Timms (SW 13 November) claimed that the “key lesson” was that “a rank and file organisation of even limited numbers could have played a huge role in developing a different strategy and winning”. [4] (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23158#4)

Nowhere does Socialist Worker outline an alternative strategy. But worse, you disparage the democratic structures of the FBU. The FBU London regional committee is a lay representative body, with reps from all London boroughs. It voted 19-3 to call off the strikes. The decision was endorsed by a meeting of reps from all London FBU workplaces.

You may wish to present the decision as the bureaucracy versus the rank and file. The reality is that the union decided its strategy democratically and has the overwhelming support of its members. You should make those facts clear when you claim to support our dispute.

Notes:
[1] SW 23 October, Firefighters battle the scabs until the bitter end (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22821)
[2] SW 4 November, London firefighters’ strike called off (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22958)
[3] Guardian Comment http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/05/fire-brigades-union-strike
[4] SW 13 November, Fire union leaders call off fire strikes – as growing mass pickets turn back scabs (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22982)Thanks

[Q]

in b4 "gossip! slander!"

[Sam_b]

Oh, awesome! Another thread on the SWP/IMT where Q is on his high horse.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Who cares about any of these stupid parties and their sectarianism?

[Blackscare]

Oh, awesome! Another thread on the SWP/IMT where Q is on his high horse.


I guess you've run out of effective apologetics for the SWP so you're just whining about Q now?

[Jimmie Higgins]

After only reading the Socialist Unity article, it sounds like they are over-reacting. From my understanding the SWP argues for and wants to organize among rank and file action because that kind of bottom up class struggle is what really helps radicalize workers and these kinds of struggles are become more militant and can potentially win more than most union leaderships are willing to fight for. So based on the counter-piece it seems like the SWP coverage was merely coming from that perspective - they thought that: deep anger among the rank and file meant that people will willing to fight more and stand up to any concessions while the union leadership was not as willing so they called off the strike and offered a concessionary deal.

It seems like an honest difference in the approach to viewing the class struggle, not some kind of sectarian attack for the sake of sectarian beefs. And since I don't know the background of the players involved here, I'm assuming that Socialist Unity has members in leadership positions of the union(?)... if so, this article comes off really defensive.

[Sam_b]

I guess you've run out of effective apologetics for the SWP so you're just whining about Q now?

Bizarre that this is one of your only forays into an SWP thread. Praytell, what is your analysis of the current state of the FBU? I'm sure with your comment above you must have a deep-seated understanding.

[Devrim]

Without wanting to comment on a dispute I know nothing at all about, as a general principle when trade union officials start to criticse you, it is quite probably an indication that you are doing at least something right. Basically if you don't draw any flak from them you are probably not doing your job properly.

Devrim

[Widerstand]

Bizarre that this is one of your only forays into an SWP thread. Praytell, what is your analysis of the current state of the FBU? I'm sure with your comment above you must have a deep-seated understanding.

Pray tell, what is YOUR analysis of the topic at hand, being in the SWP and all?

[Lyev]

Well when they planned the strike for bonfire night, then purposely called it, I thought that both of these actions (calling the strike - then calling it off) were linked. I thought it was to gain sympathy, to show that they're reasonable, and, although of course they will fight sackings, attacks on pay & conditions etc., they also have the safety of the public at the forefront of their minds. On the other hand, the whole point of the FBU calling the strike on bonfire night was to make the point that, in the long run, the attacks from their bosses will be more detrimental to the safety of the public than missing out one of the busiest nights of the year, where authorities have to call in private companies that are constrained more by competition and the market and such, and often prioritize profit-making over the quality of the service they're provided. But also cutting funding for the fire-service will result in worse equipment, longer hours, less pay and so on. Oh and as regards the calling-off on bonfire night, despite what I said, the principle was "because management moved on the key issue in the dispute – the threat to sack 5,500 firefighters by 18 November. Management agreed not to impose new contracts as they had planned, but to postpone that decision until late January." There's also this (quite recent) analysis: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/11/firefighters-strike-and-criticism-from.html

[Fabrizio]

^^^Would have made more sense to call the strike on the 4th and 6th, and go through with it, than to call it for the 5th and call it off. They lost the PR campaign with the general public on the one hand with the initial threat, and let down their own members on the other by taking no strike at all.

[Sam_b]

Pray tell, what is YOUR analysis of the topic at hand, being in the SWP and all?

I would have thought that you would be able to see our analysis of events from coverage in Socialist Worker, but i'll be happy to elaborate on any specific points you wish to make. I don't agree with calling off the strike, and I agree with most of what Richard Seymore has to say in Leninology blog (thanks to Lyev for posting this, a rare balance that we do not usually see in SWP threads).

The idea that another person in the class which is facing the Tory cuts as well cannot make a response to a group or union also in the frontline shows the very real thread of action as being polarised. We support the FBU struggle but realise that this is of equal importance to the class itself. If the firefighters win, then this gives a great initiative and boost to other unions who will be going out on strike action and attacking the coalition government. In other words, the class should not be afraid in solidarity to comment and aid the direction of action. I don't think that Ben Sprung really understands this, and this is why he is flying off the handle. It's pretty ridiculous to criticise Seymore for apparently not talking with the heads of FBU bureaucracy in London where he has links with a significant number of rank-and-file: as does the party.

[The Grey Blur]

Who cares about any of these stupid parties and their sectarianism?
who cares about the various isolated leftists who reject all organisations?

anyway, this is just typical of the swp. ra ra ra, no alternative strategy, and completely out of touch with the general mood of workers. they also, brilliantly, got in a dispute with the unite over the BA strikes when an swp cadre broke into negotiations giving the bosses the opportunity to abandon talks. the swp cadre then sheepishly left the building.

[Sam_b]

So in your opinion a letter by a union organiser reflects the mood of all workers?

[Fabrizio]

who cares about the various isolated leftists who reject all organisations?

anyway, this is just typical of the swp. ra ra ra, no alternative strategy, and completely out of touch with the general mood of workers. they also, brilliantly, got in a dispute with the unite over the BA strikes when an swp cadre broke into negotiations giving the bosses the opportunity to abandon talks. the swp cadre then sheepishly left the building.

I'm not in the SWP, or even a trot at all, in fact I thinkthey are mad.

But actually your facts are all wrong. a group of protesters from Right to Work walked into the building where UNITE was meeting Willy Walsh, to protest at Willy Walsh. They didn't enter the room. UNITE tried to use this as an excuse for keeping on sbaotaging a strike they had been since the beginning. Even Willy Walsh laughed off that excuse. And most BA workers by all account did not buy that lien at all.

Regarding the "mood of most workers" in the FBU, most workers are probably tired of would-be effective strikes being called off, in return for no garuantees from the bosses. You don't have to be in the SWP or even a commie to see that. The guy writing that article is probably some jobsworth playing the "I'm a worker you're all middle class" card, when he's probably some pampered union official on all kinds of benefits paid for out of the pockets of the real workers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check this out:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/11/firefighters-strike-and-criticism-from.html

[Sam_b]

Aye, that's what Lyev posted above.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

who cares about the various isolated leftists who reject all organisations?

anyway, this is just typical of the swp. ra ra ra, no alternative strategy, and completely out of touch with the general mood of workers. they also, brilliantly, got in a dispute with the unite over the BA strikes when an swp cadre broke into negotiations giving the bosses the opportunity to abandon talks. the swp cadre then sheepishly left the building.
I don't reject all organizations. I work with different organizations on different campaigns that are worth while. That way, you do not get sucked into sectarianism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sam -- sorry, missed it!

[RNL]

I don't reject all organizations. I work with different organizations on different campaigns that are worth while. That way, you do not get sucked into sectarianism.
Surely if everyone did this then no one would have any organisations to work with.

[Widerstand]

Surely if everyone did this then no one would have any organisations to work with.

... wait what?

[RNL]

If everyone refused to join organisations, then no organisations would exist, and therefore no one could be in a position to "work with different organizations on different campaigns that are worth while."

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Surely if everyone did this then no one would have any organisations to work with.
That doesn't matter at the moment. There are organizations, but the fact that there are so many, that the left is so fragmented and that dogmatism, sectarianism and arrogance is so prevalent, I conclude that the best way for me to operate is in general movements, rather than focusing energy on parties in particular.

Time spent on broad movements and areas of action is time that could be wasted in focusing energy on raising funds for a party, or recruiting members, when in reality there are plenty of parties doing the exact same thing, with the same goals and principles (generally speaking), whilst in opposition to one another! There's no point in it.

[RNL]

That doesn't matter at the moment. There are organizations, but the fact that there are so many, that the left is so fragmented and that dogmatism, sectarianism and arrogance is so prevalent, I conclude that the best way for me to operate is in general movements, rather than focusing energy on parties in particular.

Time spent on broad movements and areas of action is time that could be wasted in focusing energy on raising funds for a party, or recruiting members, when in reality there are plenty of parties doing the exact same thing, with the same goals and principles (generally speaking), whilst in opposition to one another! There's no point in it.
Yeah, I get the reasoning behind it. Any kind of organisation has flaws and problems though, so it seems like you'd just rather let others deal with the difficulties of setting up the organisations without which you couldn't pursue your preferred approach to activism. It seems like a privileged, sort of 'above-it-all' position to me.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Yeah, I get the reasoning behind it. Any kind of organisation has flaws and problems though, so it seems like you'd just rather let others deal with the difficulties of setting up the organisations without which you couldn't pursue your preferred approach to activism. It seems like a privileged, sort of 'above-it-all' position to me.
I can see why you would think that. I just don't think I need a membership card to any of the six thousand left parties in the UK to prove my worth as a revolutionary activist.

That said, I'm happy to work with any party or organization on campaigns that are worthy, such as the anti-cuts activity that's going on right now. It includes people of many different parties, and operates on non-sectarian lines. That is what is important as it stands, there is no single organization that is able to organize independently and adequately, which leads me to stand back from party politics! Squabbles between the SWP and the SP, or the CBGB and whoever else are irrelevant in the eyes of the masses who are in desperate need of a united, radical movement.

[RNL]

Squabbles between the SWP and the SP, or the CBGB and whoever else are irrelevant in the eyes of the masses who are in desperate need of a united, radical movement.
I certainly agree with that. But still, organisations of some kind or another are necessary in order to coordinate collective activism. I think it's probably more principled to work within an organisation and take a doggedly anti-sectarian stance. Maybe exert some influence within it, etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Who cares about any of these stupid parties and their sectarianism?You don't have to be in a party to be sectarian and organizations that get into disputes are not necessarily sectarian.

As I see it, the problem with real sectarianism is that the sectarian sees it as more important to promote their party or political ideas over the general well-being of the class struggle. So when groups or individuals squabble over what is best for the working class movement, that isn't sectarianism.

This argument about the best way to view the results vs. potential of a recent labor activity is a totally legit argument for both sides to have. If SWP was arguing that Socialist Unity held this view and suggested that SU were working with the bosses (without proof) then that would be sectarianism because SWP would see it as more important to make the SU look bad than building a working class movement where workers have the right information to make the best decisions.

Laird, if you haven't found a party or group that reflects your political views for the most part - then don't join a group for the sake of it. But if there are some groups out there that are building struggle in a positive way, then spending time recruiting new people to activism and revolutionary ideas and fund-raising are actually worthwhile efforts because they help you advance towards your goal and it would help organize people.

But if trying to avoid the squabbles and arguments is the goal of not joining with other activists organizationally, then spend a weekend hanging out with a bunch of unaffiliated anarchists. I think you'll find that endless arguments (some constructive many pointless and more than a few sectarian in nature) are just a fact of politics :D

[Q]

You don't have to be in a party to be sectarian and organizations that get into disputes are not necessarily sectarian.

As I see it, the problem with real sectarianism is that the sectarian sees it as more important to promote their party or political ideas over the general well-being of the class struggle. So when groups or individuals squabble over what is best for the working class movement, that isn't sectarianism.

This argument about the best way to view the results vs. potential of a recent labor activity is a totally legit argument for both sides to have. If SWP was arguing that Socialist Unity held this view and suggested that SU were working with the bosses (without proof) then that would be sectatianism because SWP would see it as more important to make the SU look bad than building a working class movement where workers have the right information to make the best decisions.

Well said.

Of course, some SWP'ers here exactly do have this sectarian mindset whenever a certain publication has political criticism on them. Instead of tackling the argumentation on a political level so that, as you say, workers (and I guess also rank and file activists of the revolutionary left) have the right information to make the best decisions, all too often it is dismissed as "gossip!", "tabloid behaviour!" or "slander!". Not that this is a strictly unique feature of SWP members of course, but it is a bad habit nonetheless.

[bricolage]

To be fair in this case I think it is quite hard to criticise the SWP. What happens most of the time is leftist groups tail union leaders so will put Bob Crow or Mark Serwotka on a platform and expect everyone to agree with them, when someone issues a challenge its usually met with 'who are you to say that, you don't know what its like to run a union of thousands of worker' etc etc. Like Devrim said if you aren't getting attacked by union bureaucrats you aren't doing your job right and anyway what is the point in working out where you stand politically only to compromise it when it looks like you might piss off bits of the TUC? I think this is an interesting development as it is rare for a group like the SWP to be in this position as they are usually quite guilty of what I mentioned above, so for example in Right To Work union leaders will be given time to speak and no issues ever raised with what they have said. In many ways this represents the changing times we are in, as struggle (albeit on a low level) intensifies so groups will radicalise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNL:


Surely if everyone did this then no one would have any organisations to work with.

Could you explain the rationale behind this inference? I do not see how it follows from what 'Laird' says.

[RNL]

Could you explain the rationale behind this inference? I do not see how it follows from what 'Laird' says.
I explained it above:

If everyone refused to join organisations, then no organisations would exist, and therefore no one could be in a position to "work with different organizations on different campaigns that are worth while."
He didn't say he hasn't yet found an organisation that suits him, he implied he would not join an organisation on principle (and his custom text reads 'parties suck'). If nobody joined organisations there would be no organisations. I don't see where the confusion's coming from.

[Wanted Man]

It's difficult to make definite judgements on this specific situation.

In general, however, the left has a tendency to get the trade union question all wrong. On one hand, you have the ones who will tail the biggest bureaucrats to no end.

On the other, you have the ones who fail to develop any real links with the trade unions, attacking anyone who takes responsibility in the union as "bureaucrats" (whether they are real bureaucrats or militant organisers is not taken into consideration). These are usually non-worker "radicals" who think they have to save the dumb workers from their bureaucratic overlords, but consider themselves too high and mighty to get involved in the daily practical union work (which is why they never develop any real links or contacts). I can remember quite a few meetings where these people would try to incite unionists against some militant organisers ("bureaucrats"), to no effect.

The latter most commonly occurs amongst the sister party of the SWP, but perhaps it's completely different in Britain.


Surely if everyone did this then no one would have any organisations to work with.

Is he suggesting that everybody do this? It's just his own choice.

[RNL]

Is he suggesting that everybody do this? It's just his own choice.
Yes, which is why I said:

it seems like you'd just rather let others deal with the difficulties of setting up the organisations without which you couldn't pursue your preferred approach to activism. It seems like a privileged, sort of 'above-it-all' position to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNL -- yes, I see. Thanks.

[Sam_b]

Of course, some SWP'ers here exactly do have this sectarian mindset whenever a certain publication has political criticism on them. Instead of tackling the argumentation on a political level so that, as you say, workers (and I guess also rank and file activists of the revolutionary left) have the right information to make the best decisions, all too often it is dismissed as "gossip!", "tabloid behaviour!" or "slander!". Not that this is a strictly unique feature of SWP members of course, but it is a bad habit nonetheless.

Do you not have anythingh to say about the current situation at hand then?

Ps also waiting for Blackscare to come back with his thoughts - or did he run off?

[Q]

Do you not have anythingh to say about the current situation at hand then?

I agree with what Devrim had to say in post 8.

[Sam_b]

So what the fuck has this 'lies' 'slander' bullshit got to do with anything if you appear to be agreeing with our line?

[Q]

So what the fuck has this 'lies' 'slander' bullshit got to do with anything if you appear to be agreeing with our line?

It was a comment on the ensueing debate and on especially (although not exclusively) your eternal bullshit.

[Sam_b]

So just came here for a whine then? Must be a slow week on the IMT news front.

Edit RE: Widerstand 'thanked' posts: do you not want to ask me about the FBU specifics any more?

[Arlekino]

I am little disappointed, even left supporters are divided in some different groups. I am pessimist we would never united as to reach our goals for socialism. Is time to unite all left organisations and parties not gain for who is funding party and how much papers we selling

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And this is what happens when unions vacillate:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-london-s-t147969/index.html