Chris Bambery resigns from the SWP [Archive]

View Full Version : Chris Bambery resigns from the SWP

caramelpence

11th April 2011, 14:38

Letter to CC and SWP

10 April

Dear Charlie,

After 32 years membership of the Socialist Workers Party, during which I was National Secretary for 17 of them and editor of the Socialist Worker for five, I am resigning forthwith both from the Central Committee and the Socialist Workers Party.

The relentless factionalism in the organisation, driven by the leading group on the CC, shows no sign of ceasing and is doing enormous damage to the party . It is a cancer eating away at its heart.

At the special CC held on Friday 8 April I was told by Martin Smith I played a 'filthy' and 'disgraceful' role in the party, a 'foul role in Scotland' and despite the CC 'fighting hard' to integrate me I had 'spent the last year and a half organising against the CC.' Such accusations were repeated by Martin's supporters and were not refuted by yourself as National Secretary.

While not recognising the reality of such slanders, I pointed out if you believed them immediate action would be required against any CC member believed to be involved in such behaviour. None followed.

It is simply untenable to sit round a table or work with people who believe, and are spreading, such slanders.

These slanders are not just aimed at me but those who have worked closely with me in building the party and wider initiatives, particularly so in Scotland which I've held responsibility for since 1988 until I was asked to step aside this year to help prevent 'factionalism'. This step was criticised at a Scottish steering committee by some members who argued my role in the significant development of the Scottish districts, particularly amongst younger members, had been important. They too have been subject to similar slanders.

The party has been afflicted by factionalism for four years and grips the leading group on the CC who seem addicted to it.

It has damaged our united front work in all the campaigns - Right to Work most obviously but in all others. Stop the War is now treated with derision by leading CC members.

In recent weeks there has been no lead or drive from the CC in turning the party towards building the growing anti-cuts movement. The current article in Socialist Review and the post 26th party notes on the way forward after 26 March both have virtually nothing to say on anti cuts campaigns.

Martin Smith has attempted to blame me personally for the weaknesses of Right to Work despite the internal arguments which have held it back from its inception and which have brought it near to derailment.

While all of us wanted to see the party grow the stress on party building has increasingly meant 'intervening' from the outside rather than recruiting whilst working alongside those who are building the movement.

Since Friday's CC I have been made aware that a major factional attack was being once more orchestrated against myself.

The SWP prided itself on being free from factionalism and on its record in helping initiating and building strong and genuine united fronts. That has been damaged.

I was one of the only two remaining CC members who had worked with Tony Cliff in a leadership role. Having worked closely with him on a daily basis for many years with, I believe the CC's current approach goes against everything he stood for. His analysis of Lenin's ideas laid great emphasis on taking a firm grip on the 'key link in the chain'. Its been clear for some time that the question of austerity would dominate the political scene, yet we've failed to position ourselves at the heart of the anti-cuts movement and our influence is not what it could of been. This is not the place to go into detail about the party's recent history, but Right To Work was initiated in bizarre circumstances (I learned the news from Party Notes) and the CC as a whole has never applied systematic pressure to push the formal position through the party.

For all of my 32 years as a member I have given everything into building this party, even making serious financial sacrifices including loaning considerable sums of money during the financial crisis which has affected the party in recent years, money I am still owed.

A revolutionary party is an instrument for making a revolution. If it is blunted or broken another must be built. I maintain the firm conviction that a party rooted in working class struggle that fights constantly for Marxist ideas whilst building unity on the basis of action is essential for the battle for socialism. For that reason, to take this road is not an easy decision, but it is one I have been forced to take.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Bambery

luna17activist.blogspot. com/2011/04/swp-chris-bambery-resignation-letter.html

Gorilla

11th April 2011, 16:33

The SWP prided itself on being free from factionalism

lolz.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

11th April 2011, 16:41

Nothing suprising here.

Sasha

11th April 2011, 16:56

In b4 mandatory montypython reference

IndependentCitizen

11th April 2011, 17:11

In b4 mandatory montypython reference

Damn it ;(

Sam_b

11th April 2011, 20:50

The SWP prided itself on being free from factionalism

I don't know why this is particularly 'lolz'-worthy, unless you can point out to me exactly how and why the SWP has for decades or its inception had a culture of factionalism in it. This is simply not the case. The increasing factionality of the organisation, which I would argue is destroying the party, has really only set in in the last couple of years.

Kronsteen

11th April 2011, 21:49

In retrospect, this isn't surprising. Since the Rees & German faction was forced to identify itself as such, Bambery took care not to openly take sides - even though everyone knew he'd always sided with them in disputes.

So, he stayed on after they were pushed out, hoping to quietly work for their politics on the inside. And in the process he did nothing for the Right to Work campaign he was supposedly co-ordinating - essentially dumping it onto his protege, Michael Bradley - and annoyed everyone even more than usual.

Now he's become too much of a nuisance, and booted out. Presumably to join his old comrades Rees and Nineham, and his old girlfriend German.

It's a pity really. He always irritated me, but his attempts to do barnstorming speeches provided amusement for me and my comrades in all the dull conferences.

The increasing factionality of the organisation, which I would argue is destroying the party, has really only set in in the last couple of years

This is certainly true. I suspect the increase in internal democracy was an attempt to contain the factionalisation.

Kassad

11th April 2011, 21:57

I don't know why this is particularly 'lolz'-worthy, unless you can point out to me exactly how and why the SWP has for decades or its inception had a culture of factionalism in it. This is simply not the case. The increasing factionality of the organisation, which I would argue is destroying the party, has really only set in in the last couple of years.

Did you wind up leaving the party as well? I guess I might just not be up to date.

graymouser

11th April 2011, 22:22

I don't know why this is particularly 'lolz'-worthy, unless you can point out to me exactly how and why the SWP has for decades or its inception had a culture of factionalism in it. This is simply not the case. The increasing factionality of the organisation, which I would argue is destroying the party, has really only set in in the last couple of years.
Can you give any further details? Rumors on the web are that the majority of the Glasgow and Edinburgh members are leaving. Also - is this headed toward Counterfire or something else?

Sam_b

12th April 2011, 00:56

There is a statement, and no, I won't be joining Counterfire.

At this point i'm not prepared to say so much, but I will say that this morning I cancelled my subs and along with comrades in Glasgow, Edinburgh and greater Scotland formally resigned from the SWP for a number of reasons which we have purtained to in an open letter (which I imagine will be up on some of the sect blogs soon enough if they can get hold of it) to party members and the CC.

I have no animocity towards comrades in the SWP, and I have many friends obviously in the organisation, and there are great people within it; and I look forward to working with all of you in the future. But for reasons that have been outlined I can no longer be a member of the organisation at this time. I've been in the organisation for six years(ish), and it was not taken lightly at all; but it was still a necessary move to take.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

12th April 2011, 12:10

IndependentCitizen

12th April 2011, 14:47

12th April 2011, 18:59

Dammit Sam_b, what will I insult you over now?

Don't worry. Looks like Kronsteen makes for an excellent replacement.

Cue "this is all gossip!".

Seriously though, as was noted on the Leftist Trainspotters list, the Bambery-led split is not exactly the first wave of walkouts since the Rees-German split. On the list it has been noted that:

But this rees/german lulz seems unending... and when one adds up the reported numbers, they amount to between a fifth and a third of the reported 1500 party members.

If the rumors are correct about edinburg and glasgow, then it is a tenth of the remaining party, and would put the swp under 1000 members, which is the lowest number I recall ever estimated.

I'm not sure how accurate this is. The 1500 number is undoubtedly more or less correct if we only count the actually active members, as opposed to paper numbers (which still made it the largest group in the UK). But to say that of the 300 to 500 people who have walked out in waves so far, these would all be of the activist core, I can't yet accept that. It is surely true that it is mostly people who have been connected to this struggle that split, which implies the activist membership, but that is somewhat flimsy reasoning so far in my opinion as also inactive friends of these activists for example could've walked out in solidarity.

We'll see how things roll out I guess at future meetings (like the Marxism event) and demo's. One thing is certain: While such splits are damaging to the movement and I don't take joy in them, it is surely the case that such splits are provoked by an internal culture that is suboptimal to say the least.

bricolage

12th April 2011, 20:51

The CPGB must be creaming their pants over this.

graymouser

12th April 2011, 21:32

Well, Counterfire put out the following statement:

http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/news/news/11886-new-socialist-organisation-formed-in-scotland

Dear CC and Party Members,

We, the undersigned, are writing to inform you of our resignation from the Socialist Workers Party. This is not a decision that we have taken lightly: for all of us, it is an immense emotional and political strain to abandon an organisation in which we have invested countless hours.

Following the last split from the Party we were told there would be an end to factionalism. It is our position that this was not followed out in practice: factionalism persists at the very centre of the organisation. Allegations have been made against some of us and will undoubtedly continue. However, we have been committed to building the party as well as intervening in the anti-cuts movement, both on campuses and through Right to Work as well as relating to the Arab revolutions. We have not departed from the party line; indeed, we have been at the forefront of developing the organisation.

We are appalled by the factionalism which has driven Chris Bambery from the SWP. This is a consequence of a culture that pervades sections of the organisation and flows from the majority grouping on the Central Committee. This has impacted negatively on the work of the SWP, primarily demonstrated in a retreat from systematic united front work.

In particular our work around the Right to Work campaign has been confused and patchy across the country, primarily because the Central Committee - as a whole - did not drive that perspective from its inception.

In the build-up to the 26 March we could have been organising to get every possible local anti-cuts and trade union activist working together to carry out mass leafleting, but the message from the centre was to concentrate on building it through our paper sales. Those were, of course, vital; but we also needed to place ourselves alongside the thousands who were working to build the march.

Consequently the SWP's ability to influence wider layers of people provided by the biggest demonstration in trade union history was restricted. There are some very good SWSS groups, but the Glasgow students were the only SWSS group with any sizable presence on the student feeder march. Amidst arguably the biggest youth revolt in British history - and despite reports of bumper recruitment to the Party after Millbank - this should have been a massive wake-up call.

But rather than face up to the consequences and adjust our strategy, a faction on the CC has turned its attention to Right to Work national secretary Chris Bambery, who has been labelled "disgusting", "filthy", accused of playing a factional role in Scotland and of wanting to wreck the SWP. This culture means that the SWP nationally has not taken up the campaign in defence of Bryan Simpson, with the Morning Star giving it more coverage than Socialist Worker. At the time of the Arab revolutions a pre-existing factional attitude towards the Stop the War Coalition meant too often we did not throw ourselves into building solidarity actions initiated by them.

Chris Bambery's resignation means we can no longer trust a section of the Central Committee. Let us be clear, we are not leaving the organisation just because of Chris Bambery’s forced resignation, but rather because we understand as symptomatic of a disease within the party that has held back its work and development over the past couple of years and distorted its theoretical tradition.

We have fought for a non-sectarian approach to party building and our results bear this out. Our position on this will not change. We intend to establish a Marxist organisation in Scotland.

We wish to express our gratitude to the comrades in Scotland and elsewhere who have shared our frustrations but have not been willing or able to take this last step. We want to work fraternally with the SWP as we do with all groups on the Left and the Trade Union movement.

We wish those in the SWP success in building revolutionary politics. It is painful that it is not possible to move on together.

However, we are all as determined as ever to continue as revolutionary socialists and to meet the theoretical and practical challenges raised by the ruling class offensive and the emerging anti-austerity movement.
Which I guess is the one referred to by Sam_b.

I find the references to "factionalism" interesting. Does the SWP have the same rules against forming factions and tendencies leading up to a convention that the ISO does in the US? I'd been talking with some comrades about that a few weeks back.

12th April 2011, 22:08

I find the references to "factionalism" interesting. Does the SWP have the same rules against forming factions and tendencies leading up to a convention that the ISO does in the US? I'd been talking with some comrades about that a few weeks back.

I don't know about the ISO in the US (although I can imagine that they copy-pasted the rulebook from the SWP in the UK, the latter being the mothership for many years after all). The SWP only allows organised disagreements, ie factions, in the three months run up to the annual convention. After the convention any such group are required to dissolve, or face expulsion as factions are strictly forbidden the rest of the year.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th April 2011, 22:19

Difficult to know what to say. Symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the majority of the British left at this time and really, it's quite pathetic.

I can't comment on the particular situation as it would amount only to gossip on my part, but it seems that, deprived in the long-term (past 20-30 years) of any real political influence whatsoever and a declining one within the labour/union/workers' movements, the British left has becoming increasingly inward-looking, something borne out by the vast array of tiny sects and organisations proclaiming their few hundred tired old members to be the only ones capable of carrying through revolution. Really, when viewed from the outside, this is quite pathetic.
It is even more pathetic at this time; we are in the middle of the biggest Capitalist crisis for 80 years. The corporate-Capitalist economies of the developed nations are on the rocks, and the dictator-led Arab-nationalist Capitalist nations of the Middle East are being suffocated under mass popular revolt. Yet in all this, where are the left? Seemingly, many 'comrades' are more worried about 'factionalism' than about fighting the fucking cuts and the bourgeois class.

I'm very close to giving up on the left, if i'm honest. Not left politics, but those who work on behalf of the multitude of low quality, tired organisations that protrude their ugly noses into the organisational hole that is the British left. I realise this will wind a lot of people up the wrong way, i'm not suggesting that there aren't many honest, hard-working, intelligent comrades out there, but overall those who are the force behind the organisations of the British left.

As we often say: if this is Marxism, then i'm not a Marxist.:rolleyes:

EnragÃ©

12th April 2011, 22:26

if you ban all factions you wind up with one faction; the CC.

The Idler

12th April 2011, 23:47

CHRIS BAMBERY RESIGNS FROM SWP (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7983)

The 250 odd comments are interesting.

The Idler

12th April 2011, 23:49

BTW, is Counterfire a party or merely a front without a party? And what party are you going to join Sam?

Futility Personified

13th April 2011, 00:31

Despite the fact that i'm not a huge fan of the SWP, I am pissed off that this would happen when momentum should be building leftwards considering how soon the shit is going to hit the fan. It's kinda dis-spiriting thinking that the far-left party that was most prominent in the TV screens of the student protests has suffered a setback, as it means a setback for the very very broad term that "us" encompasses.

Illuminati

13th April 2011, 00:53

"In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military, and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up."

Kronsteen

13th April 2011, 01:37

divide and rule [...] The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.

This is certainly true. But they didn't divide us. We did.

Sam_b

13th April 2011, 02:45

Well, Counterfire put out the following statement:

This is our signed statement of resignation. I should stress that it is not something linked to Counterfire, we have no intentions of joining it.

what party are you going to join Sam?

I can't say anything about this at this particular moment for a number of reasons.

DaringMehring

13th April 2011, 04:16

Good luck Sam_b

From my time in the UK I could see SWP was a strong Party, but had certain possible weaknesses. Sad to hear things have been developing towards weaknesses rather than strengths.

In solidarity with you in your attempt to keep up the good fight.

Question -- we know security services infiltrate left groups in all capitalist countries. Do you think that, given the agitation around cuts, their operatives in SWP have been instructed to make a big push to tear the group apart? Or do you think the increased factionalism is truly "home grown"? Are there any political lessons to be learned, in avoiding "home grown" factionalism, or in preventing outside hijacking? Interested to hear your thoughts...

Kassad

13th April 2011, 04:22

I want to see a Spartacist Sam_b. :)

13th April 2011, 06:27

Someone made this video, which although is more Chit-Chat material, is actually ontopic ;)

sdtbMYIBQXo

13th April 2011, 08:06

I found this interesting quote from Tony Cliff from 1960 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm):

Because the working class is far from being monolithic, and because the path to socialism is uncharted, wide differences of strategy and tactics can and should exist in the revolutionary party. The alternative is the bureaucratised party or the sect with its “leader”. Here one cannot but regret Trotsky’s sweeping statement that “any serious factional fight in a party is always in the final analysis a reflection of the class struggle”. [39] This verges on a vulgar materialist interpretation of human thought as growing directly out of material conditions! What class pressures separated Lenin from Luxemburg, or Trotsky from Lenin (1903-17), or what change in class pressures can one see in Plekhanov’s zigzags: with Lenin in 1903, against him in 1903, against him in 1905, with him again (and at last breaking, it is true, with Lenin and with the revolutionary movement and joining the class enemy)? Can the differences in the theory of imperialism between Lenin and Luxemburg be derived from an analysis of their position in class society? Scientific socialism must live and thrive on controversy. And scientists who start off with the same basic assumptions, and then use the same method of analysis, do differ in all fields of research.

In order that the party should be able to conduct a dialogue with the masses, it is necessary not only that the party have confidence in the tremendous abilities of the working class in action, but also that the party understand correctly the situation in the country and the conditions of the working class, materially and morally. Any self-deceit on its part must cut short the dialogue and turn it into a boring monologue.

The party has to be subordinated to the whole. And so the internal regime in the revolutionary party must be subordinated to the relation between the party and the class. The managers of factories can discuss their business in secret and then put before the workers a fait accompli. The revolutionary party that seeks to overthrow capitalism cannot accept the notion of a discussion on policies inside the party without the participation of the mass of the workers – policies which are then brought “unanimously” ready-made to the class. Since the revolutionary party cannot have interests apart from the class, all the party’s issues of policy are those of the class, and they should therefore be thrashed out in the open, in its presence. The freedom of discussion which exists in the factory meeting, which aims at unity of action after decisions are taken, should apply to the revolutionary party. This means that all discussions on basic issues of policy should be discussed in the light of day: in the open press. Let the mass of the workers take part in the discussion, put pressure on the party, its apparatus and leadership.

How well he wrote then!

The Idler

13th April 2011, 21:38

I look forward to seeing what happens with the Glasgow signatories, but please it would be hubris to form yet another sect on the left.

Threetune

13th April 2011, 23:13

What a lode of boring peripheral non-political self-indulgent gossip. The whole tendency has always been nothing but a conveyor belt for ‘wadical’ rrrevolutionary middle class anti-communist sentiment into the working class. They once even had the brilliant idea of producing a pamphlet telling workers how to picket, which didn’t say anything about intimidating scabs. Good riddance. :laugh:

Sam_b

13th April 2011, 23:36

but please it would be hubris to form yet another sect on the left

The word 'sect' is telling here as a political term. It appears to me that you would categorise any new organisation which is founded as being a 'sect'. Also, if this were to be the case, it is a pretty dangerous political route to take. We should be understanding organisations as a tactical and theoretical machine to help organise, or play a contribution in organising, the working class; rather than fitting into some sort of group based on how much of a position we agree with and to what extent.

I firmly believe in the principles and strategy of the International Socialist tradition. I do not believe the SWP is currently following that tradition.

Kronsteen

14th April 2011, 00:57

[A tedious gobbet of sectarian wank]

We already have a 'Thank' button on the forums. Do you think there's some way to add a 'Yawn' button? Something that subtracts reputation points, or in some other way allows us to indicate the opposite of thanks to, ah, less useful posts.

Proper democracy includes the ability to recall, as well as select, our figures.

14th April 2011, 01:13

We already have a 'Thank' button on the forums. Do you think there's some way to add a 'Yawn' button? Something that subtracts reputation points, or in some other way allows us to indicate the opposite of thanks to, ah, less useful posts.

Proper democracy includes the ability to recall, as well as select, our figures.

There is a scales icon, right next to your post number (so, besides the #32) with which you can add or substract rep points according to your rep level. However, your rep level is 0 currently, so the point is moot.

Die Neue Zeit

14th April 2011, 15:24

Latest irresponsible split from SWP (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004354)

The defection of Chris Bambery and a section of the Scottish membership highlights systemic failings. Peter Manson reports

The resignation of Socialist Workers Party central committee member Chris Bambery on April 10 was rapidly followed by the departure of at least 38 comrades in Scotland two days later. These defectors are expected to formally announce their adherence to the Counterfire grouping of John Rees and Lindsey German sooner rather than later.

It is no coincidence that comrade Bambery's resignation letter was first posted on Alex Snowdon's Luna 17 blog on April 11 - comrade Snowdon is a member of Counterfire. Within an hour or so it also appeared on the sites of other leftwing bloggers. Similarly, the statement of comrade Bambery's 38 supporters in Scotland was first made public on the Counterfire website.

Their letter to "CC and party members" was introduced by Counterfire in this way: "A new socialist organisation is being formed in Scotland which is committed to building the movement against the cuts, solidarity with the Arab revolutions and the Stop the War Coalition." Counterfire has consistently claimed that the SWP has been insufficiently enthusiastic about the anti-cuts movement and has at best gone cool on the STWC (which was set up originally on the initiative of the SWP, but is now led by comrades Rees and German). And Counterfire has been particularly keen on the "Arab revolutions".

Its website introduction concludes: "Counterfire sends its greetings to the new group, which is committed, as we are, to building the widest possible movements of resistance and to building an organisation of Marxists." So Counterfire clearly knew an awful lot about a group founded just an hour or so earlier.

In truth, it came as something of a surprise when comrade Bambery - closely associated with the former Rees SWP leadership - did not follow the example of Lindsey German and Chris Nineham in stepping down from the CC when comrade Rees was dumped at the end of 2007. Comrade Bambery not only remained an SWP member after the leadership organised a 'rebellion' of Socialist Worker journalists to have him removed as editor in 2009, but he stuck it out on the CC. It was the same when Rees, German and Nineham led a walkout from the SWP of around 60 people in February 2010. Comrade Bambery stayed put, appearing to have switched sides.

But now he talks about the "relentless factionalism" which was "driven by the leading group on the CC" and has afflicted the SWP "for four years" - in other words, since the CC majority decided to place the entire blame for the Respect debacle on comrade Rees. Admittedly, Rees was the chief architect of this overtly popular-frontist episode, but the entire CC had gone along with it (uncritically, it seems).

So, after four years of biting his tongue, comrade Bambery has now begun to echo Counterfire's criticisms of the leadership. But the reasons he gives for his resignation seem insubstantial, to say the least.

In his letter addressed to SWP national secretary Charlie Kimber he explains that, despite his "32 years membership" - 17 as national secretary and five as Socialist Worker editor - he felt he had no alternative but to throw in the towel. Why? Because at the April 8 special CC meeting former national secretary and chief hit man Martin Smith accused him of having played a "filthy" and "disgraceful" role in the party. He specified comrade Bambery's particularly "foul role in Scotland", for which he had had CC responsibility since 1988 until it was removed from him earlier this year. According to the resignation letter, comrade Smith said that despite the CC's best efforts to "integrate" him, comrade Bambery had "spent the last year and a half organising against the CC". Such allegations were repeated by other CC members.

For comrade Bambery these accusations, mixed with a couple of minor insults, amount to "a major factional attack", leaving him no alternative but to call it a day. Not very convincing.

He then regurgitates the Rees-German line that the leadership's attitude had "damaged our united front work in all the campaigns - Right to Work most obviously … Stop the War is now treated with derision by leading CC members". In recent weeks there has been "no lead or drive from the CC in turning the party towards building the growing anti-cuts movement". What is more, unspecified "internal arguments" have held back Right to Work "from its inception" and "brought it near to derailment". Finally, "the stress on party-building has increasingly meant 'intervening' from the outside rather than recruiting whilst working alongside those who are building the movement".

Unlike under the leadership of John Rees then, the SWP no longer takes so-called 'united front' work seriously and instead abuses the broad alliances it sets up simply to recruit to itself - that is the Rees-Bambery accusation. Of course, seasoned SWP-watchers have noticed no change at all from the days of the ancien régime either in the organisation's promotion of broad, popular-front-type alliances or in its cynical use of them as recruiting channels.

Among the 38 comrades in Scotland signing the joint resignation letter are the Glasgow and East Coast SWP organisers and six members of the Scottish steering committee. Two of them, Suki Sangha and James Foley, were also members of the SWP national committee and comrade Foley is actually number five on George Galloway's Coalition Against Cuts list for the May 5 election to the Scottish parliament - one of only two SWP comrades nominated for the eight-person slate.

The 38 simply repeat comrade Bambery's vague allegations: "factionalism persists at the very centre of the organisation"; there has been a "retreat from systematic united front work"; the SWP did not mobilise efficiently for the March 26 TUC demo; Right to Work has been undermined; etc.

Headteacher

For its part, the CC responds in its by now accustomed way: like a tolerant headteacher who has bent over backwards to make allowances for their recalcitrant charges despite the latter's totally unreasonable behaviour. The reply was published in the internal Party Notes and should remain accessible on the SWP website until it is replaced by next week's edition.

The CC states that comrade Bambery's resignation is "very disappointing". However, "The CC has for some time had worries about aspects of Chris's work." For example, "There was criticism of his role in not effectively helping to build a broad Right to Work." Even more 'worrying' for the CC, though, is what comrade Bambery had been up to north of the border: "As Chris's letter states, the CC asked him to step aside from responsibility for our work in Scotland, and after the evidence that has now emerged of organised opposition to the party in Scotland it is obvious we were right."

But what, precisely had he been up to? The leadership explains: "The argument at the CC that Chris refers to involved him spreading information about internal CC discussions to those outside the CC. Several of us believed he was trying to stir up division in the party - a view which subsequent events confirmed."

This is the nub of the matter. Comrade Bambery had clearly been elaborating to comrades in Scotland (and, presumably, elsewhere) what the differences on the CC were - and no doubt explaining why he was right and the majority were wrong. Why is this unacceptable? It is not a question of 'stirring up' divisions, surely: rather of reporting existing ones. And surely it is better to have such divisions out in the open in order to resolve them?

In fact just over a year ago the SWP seemed to be recognising that such secrecy was not a good idea. It had set up a 'democracy commission' following complaints of a lack of explanation and openness in the wake of comrade Rees's removal from the leadership, and the commission's report to the January 2010 SWP conference contained the following remark: "For some time now the custom and practice has been for all differences within the CC to be hidden from the wider membership (except for close personal confidants), with all CC members presenting an image of more or less total unity until the last possible moment."

The democracy commission therefore recommended: "... the responsible discussion of serious political differences when they arise would help educate comrades and train them in thinking for themselves." The DC recommendations were overwhelmingly accepted and, I assume, all CC members voted for them.

"… the internal regime in the revolutionary party must be subordinated to the relation between the party and the class ... The revolutionary party that seeks to overthrow capitalism cannot accept the notion of a discussion on policies inside the party without the participation of the mass of the workers - policies which are then brought 'unanimously' ready-made to the class. Since the revolutionary party cannot have interests apart from the class, all the party's issues of policy are those of the class, and they should therefore be thrashed out in the open, in its presence.

"… This means that all discussions on basic issues of policy should be discussed in the light of day: in the open press. Let the mass of the workers take part in the discussion, put pressure on the party, its apparatus and leadership."

It goes without saying that the SWP practice is precisely the opposite. For instance, at the same time as appearing to move in the direction of the open reporting of differences on the leadership, the DC made the following comment: "If for example, the organisation decides, as it has done, to oppose the slogan 'British jobs for British workers', it is not then permissible for any member, especially a leading member, to support this slogan in a … public forum."

I commented at the time that the example was deliberately chosen for its undesirability - no genuine socialist would ever say such a thing, obviously. But, again, how can this gagging order - the banning of public expression of differences - be reconciled with Cliff's advice that "all discussions on basic issues of policy should be discussed in the light of day". Does the fact that "the organisation decides" on a policy mean it ought to be set in stone? What if the policy turns out to be incorrect?

Culture

Returning to the leadership's response to comrade Bambery, the CC states: "We do not think that the party is riven by factionalism, nor does it have a culture where it is impossible to raise political disagreement." It is insufficient merely to assert this. After all, the democracy commission report came to the opposite conclusion.

The report stated: "The main form of democratic difficulty we have experienced has been reluctance, at all levels of the party, of comrades with sincerely held doubts and/or differences to speak up. One reason for this has been the tendency to put down dissenters so severely and comprehensively as to deter any repetition or imitation." It further stated: "Nor should there be a fear as - with reason - there has been in the past, of exclusion, isolation or ostracism for the expression of dissident views."

Has the SWP now discarded these bureaucratic, anti-democratic practices? I very much doubt it. Part and parcel of them has been the attempt to put down dissent by calling on those who question the CC's wisdom to stop wasting time and get active. This was epitomised by one SWP comrade's comment on the Socialist Unity site's Bambery thread: "OK, this is all very exciting, but there are cuts to fight, so will you people please get back to fucking work? Most of us in the SWP actually have things to attend to and not much time to waste on gossip. You people remind me of the House of Lords."

The internal regime notwithstanding, the CC does make some correct criticisms of comrade Bambery in the following passage:

"If Chris believed there were fundamental problems around Right to Work and other issues, his responsibility … was to raise these questions and encourage other comrades to do the same.

"As our leading comrade in RTW, as a central committee member and as a member of the party's finance committee, Chris had the opportunity to register political disagreement about all the issues he raises in his resignation letter. In the past year he never has.

"Instead he has written key documents for the party's perspectives, introduced sessions at conference and headed up our work in a key united front - without any open political disagreements. Indeed, he said he had no differences with the perspectives document presented to Sunday's party council - on the day he resigned. He could have attended the council and argued at it. Surely the Tony Cliff who Chris mentions would have done so! But Chris chose not to attend.

"In our tradition, if you disagree, you try to win your position in the party and seek to persuade others of your case."

The final sentence is, of course, laughable - especially in view of the democracy commission's observations. However, that is how things ought to be and it is positive that the CC, however hypocritically, has felt obliged to state this. There is now just the little matter of making it a reality.

The CC has called an emergency national committee meeting for April 16 to discuss the latest crisis. As well as the situation in Scotland, it will also no doubt be considering what to do about Right to Work, whose national secretary is … Chris Bambery. Will the CC be prepared to see RTW go the same way as Stop the War? Or will it risk alienating its allies by ensuring he is replaced by an SWP loyalist? RTW is, after all, more clearly an SWP front than STWC ever was.

Readers could keep an eye on comrade Bambery's blog on the RTW website - as I write, the last entry was made on April 6. However, I would reckon that the SWP apparatus has already closed this line of communication. Clearly, the SWP leadership regards comrade Bambery's defection as a huge embarrassment. Doubtless that is why there is no mention, no hint of it in the latest edition of Socialist Worker.

For our part we do not welcome or celebrate such irresponsible splits. The left has a terrible reputation for splitting almost as a matter of routine over what are essentially secondary issues. Comrade Bambery should have fought inside the SWP and raised political criticisms. That might have got him expelled, but better to have stayed and fought than to have simply walked away.

However, one thing is for sure: until the bureaucratic-centralist regimes are broken apart - and not only in the sects, but the trade unions and the Labour Party too - the working class can make no serious, no lasting progress.

Sasha

14th April 2011, 15:52

Articles like these make me even more allergic to the word comrade I already was.
How much passive aggressiveness can one put in a word like that?

Sam_b

14th April 2011, 16:20

These defectors are expected to formally announce their adherence to the Counterfire grouping of John Rees and Lindsey German sooner rather than later.

Not the first time the CPGB has been wrong.

Dr Mindbender

14th April 2011, 16:41

I hope he doesnt set up a party of his own. The last thing the British left needs is more parties.

Kronsteen

14th April 2011, 17:16

I hope he doesnt set up a party of his own. The last thing the British left needs is more parties.

One more drop in the ocean - who'd notice?

One paragraph of the DNZ article leapt out at me:

But what, precisely had he been up to? The leadership explains: "The argument at the CC that Chris refers to involved him spreading information about internal CC discussions to those outside the CC. Several of us believed he was trying to stir up division in the party - a view which subsequent events confirmed."

This is one of the things which I've always hated about the party I'm still supposedly a part of - the idea that the CC must appear to be of one mind to look credible.

We know now that intra-CC disagreements were many and vociferous. Chris Harmon, for instance, thought RESPECT was a fundamentally bad idea, Rees sidelined Selma Yacoob seemingly out of resentment at her popularity, and almost no one trusted Galloway as far as they could spit him.

But what image did they present? Unified and quite happy to let Galloway bellow his Arab nationalism at every rally.

Despite the 'demcratic reforms', the CC evidently still doesn't trust the membership. They think we're too weak to cope with real discussion - or even the knowledge that they have them.

Sam_b

14th April 2011, 17:47

I hope he doesnt set up a party of his own. The last thing the British left needs is more parties

The word 'sect' is telling here as a political term. It appears to me that you would categorise any new organisation which is founded as being a 'sect'. Also, if this were to be the case, it is a pretty dangerous political route to take. We should be understanding organisations as a tactical and theoretical machine to help organise, or play a contribution in organising, the working class; rather than fitting into some sort of group based on how much of a position we agree with and to what extent.

I firmly believe in the principles and strategy of the International Socialist tradition. I do not believe the SWP is currently following that tradition.

.

14th April 2011, 17:58

Articles like these make me even more allergic to the word comrade I already was.
How much passive aggressiveness can one put in a word like that?

I think that is more your perception, comrade.

.

It sounds as if you're arguing against the split?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

14th April 2011, 21:50

I was wating for someone to post the weekly worker article, nothing like the left's own gossip rag.

Dumb

15th April 2011, 04:57

-Nothing-

Olentzero

15th April 2011, 10:08

As a member of the ISO who was around when the big split came down in 2000, I am very sorry to see how far our former sister party has fallen. I'd been led to understand they weren't hemorrhaging members as badly as they used to, but clearly this is not the case.

Having been around the ISO for a number of years and consequently being heavily involved in the run-ups to national conventions, I've never seen anything like the phenomenon mentioned upthread of 'factions only allowed for three months prior'. Hell, the debate around voting for Nader in 2004 took up most of the election season that year and there was absolutely no attempt to quash discussion as soon as the National Committee (or Socialism 2004) wrapped up. Granted, we did take a lot from the SWP's playbook, seeing as how our founding members all came from SWP-UK (and I'm not saying everything we took was positive, either) but from personal experience I can say that the 'three month' faction rule was not part of it.

Sam_b

15th April 2011, 15:20

It sounds as if you're arguing against the split?

I have no idea where you have got this notion from.

graymouser

15th April 2011, 15:40

I was wating for someone to post the weekly worker article, nothing like the left's own gossip rag.
Yeah, the sanctimonious tone from an organization that revels in splits and gossip comes off really foul. They say they don't welcome or celebrate a split in the SWP but they've been salivating over every one that's happened.

Kronsteen

15th April 2011, 17:07

John Molyneux's typically level-headed response here (http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-chris-bamberys-resignation-from-swp.html).

IndependentCitizen

15th April 2011, 17:14

For anyone interested in the Weekly Worker's "report" on this split (if you can highlight what the purpose of the article is other than acting as the left's Heat! magazine, let me know)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/pdf/ww861.pdf - few pages in.

Sam_b

15th April 2011, 17:29

This has already been posted.

graymouser

15th April 2011, 17:54

Sam_b:

International Socialist Group (Scotland)

Is there some connection with Socialist Resistance (who up to a couple of years ago were the International Socialist Group) or is this just meant to convey your place in the IS tradition?

Sam_b

15th April 2011, 18:01

Is there some connection with Socialist Resistance (who up to a couple of years ago were the International Socialist Group) or is this just meant to convey your place in the IS tradition?

No. This is the name of our new organisation.

graymouser

15th April 2011, 18:16

No. This is the name of our new organisation.
I get that - I just find it curious that you wound up with a name that was until recently the name of the Fourth International's section in Britain. I realize there's something of a shortage of good names but I would think International Socialist Organization would've created less confusion.

The Idler

15th April 2011, 18:31

Are there any blog posts about this new org?

Hit The North

15th April 2011, 18:32

I firmly believe in the principles and strategy of the International Socialist tradition. I do not believe the SWP is currently following that tradition.

In what sense is the SWP breaking with its tradition? If actual principles are being broken, then the Scottish comrades' decision to split is understandable. If, however, the beef is strategic, then I'd humbly suggest, the split is unwise and unjustified.

bricolage

15th April 2011, 18:39

unless anti-factionalism is part of the 'principles and strategy of the International Socialist tradition'... if so they are pretty lame principles.

Sam_b

15th April 2011, 19:43

I get that - I just find it curious that you wound up with a name that was until recently the name of the Fourth International's section in Britain. I realize there's something of a shortage of good names but I would think International Socialist Organization would've created less confusion.

I am fully aware of this, yet I find this rationale confusing. The ISG is a lquidated group, it has a website, but that's it. The name ISO is by far a worse choice, as by its usage associates ourselves with the US group that broke with the IST. This can be interpreted in several ways, especially as being a 'fuck you' to the party. We wish to work with the SWP, and we don't want to get into a petty tit-for-tat that arises with many splits in organisations.

In what sense is the SWP breaking with its tradition? If actual principles are being broken, then the Scottish comrades' decision to split is understandable. If, however, the beef is strategic, then I'd humbly suggest, the split is unwise and unjustified.

I would argue that the organisation is no longer democrtatic centralist, and this has been seen by the rise of factionalism in the party, on regional and ideological lines. This is a clear break from the IS tradition.

graymouser

15th April 2011, 19:48

I am fully aware of this, yet I find this rationale confusing. The ISG is a lquidated group, it has a website, but that's it. The name ISO is by far a worse choice, as by its usage associates ourselves with the US group that broke with the IST. This can be interpreted in several ways, especially as being a 'fuck you' to the party. We wish to work with the SWP, and we don't want to get into a petty tit-for-tat that arises with many splits in organisations.
I suppose it could be seen that way, although my impression on this side of the pond was that relations between the SWP and ISO had improved somewhat - they send speakers to each other's conferences, the ISO is putting out books by SWP leaders, and so on. I guess there's still a rift there. I would just think that ISG would be more confusing than is necessary since there was until recently an ISG affiliated with the FI.

Sam_b

15th April 2011, 19:49

I don't think much of the class is going to be confused by name association with a former obscure group that is completely inactive.

Kassad

15th April 2011, 20:11

So another organization has been created? When links and formal statements become available, please let us know, sam_b.

Olentzero

15th April 2011, 20:37

I am fully aware of this, yet I find this rationale confusing. The ISG is a lquidated group, it has a website, but that's it. The name ISO is by far a worse choice, as by its usage associates ourselves with the US group that broke with the IST.I don't wish to turn this thread into a morass of back-and-forth quibbling over what is past history now, but having been in the middle of it I wish to clarify: the ISO was expelled. We did not break with the IST. As I understand it, relations have improved between the two groups, which I welcome heartily; I honestly doubt, however, that the rift is reparable outside of an outbreak of revolutionary upheavals in Europe or the US.

Threetune

15th April 2011, 21:06

So another organization has been created? When links and formal statements become available, please let us know, sam_b.

We can’t wait, it'll be so exiting.
It’s important to see another bunch of well heeled boom-time anti- communist ‘lefts’ disintegrate in the wake of imperialist economic crises conditions and real revolutionary international developments. Unable to play the game of “a pox on both your houses” as they did in the ‘cold war’ this rubbishy pretentious little outfit is doomed. A Great Development!

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

15th April 2011, 21:49

NSSN anti-cuts strategy vindicated
On 22 January, 2011 the very successful National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) anti-cuts conference overwhelmingly agreed to launch an anti-cuts campaign (ACC).
An initial anti-cuts committee involving leading trade union and community anti-cuts activists was established (including Alex Gordon, president of the RMT and Ben Sprung, London regional organiser of the FBU).
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party deputy general secretary
Since the conference the NSSN ACC has supported and built for lobbies and demonstrations outside the Labour Local Government and Tory Spring conferences.
It also organised two very successful stages on the 26 March TUC demo, where thousands of workers heard the NSSN's call to oppose all cuts and for the next step to be a 24-hour general strike against the cuts.
The increasingly important role the NSSN is playing in the anti-cuts movement means that the debates which took place at the beginning of the year on whether the NSSN should launch an anti-cuts campaign at all now seem a distant memory.
Events have quickly confirmed that the NSSN was right to do so.

Split from SWP

Nonetheless it is worthwhile briefly commenting on recent developments in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) because they have so clearly confirmed many of the points made by the Socialist Party in the debate at the beginning of the year.
In the run up to the January NSSN conference the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) was among the most vociferous opponents of an NSSN anti-cuts campaign being launched on the spurious grounds that it would unnecessarily divide the movement to launch another national anti-cuts campaign when Coalition of Resistance (CoR) and Right to Work (RtW) were already in existence.
In the anti-cuts movement there is rightly and inevitably a mood for unity. Nonetheless, as was understood by a large majority of delegates at the NSSN anti-cuts conference, to attempt to use that mood as a reason to oppose the NSSN launching its own anti-cuts campaign was completely disingenuous.
The NSSN has consistently argued for the maximum possible cooperation between the national anti-cuts campaigns. To give just two examples from recent weeks the NSSN invited RtW and CoR to speak on its stages at the TUC demo and has taken part in joint delegations to discuss with the TUC.
However, to merge the three campaigns into one organisation would only be a step forward if the net result was an open, democratic anti-cuts campaign organised around a clear, fighting programme.

Right to Work's lack of democracy

The Socialist Party warned at the NSSN anti-cuts conference that the political approach and top-down methods of both CoR and RtW meant that this would not be the case.
Our warnings regarding the top-down approach of RtW have been confirmed by events that have taken place in the SWP over the last week.
Chris Bambery, secretary of RtW and longstanding SWP Central Committee member, has left the SWP along with a number of others. Both Chris Bambery's resignation letter and the SWP CC's reply demonstrate many aspects of the mistaken political approach and method of the SWP.
However, it is the points he makes on RtW which are of the most pressing importance for anti-cuts activists.
Bambery refers to RtW being "initiated in bizarre circumstances" and adds that he only found out about it when he read it in the SWP's 'Party Notes'. This confirms that RtW is not a broad democratic anti-cuts organisation as Chris Bambery and the SWP have claimed, but is run by the SWP.
It was founded without a democratic discussion in the anti-cuts movement, or even within the ranks of the SWP, or even it seems on their Central Committee!
RtW was set up virtually overnight, without discussion, in order to try to create a rival to the NSSN, as the SWP Central Committee stated explicitly in their 2010 pre-congress discussion documents that said that this was because the NSSN was now "dominated by the Socialist Party with the RMT's blessing".
As on previous occasions - such as in the Socialist Alliance - the SWP have taken a 'rule or ruin' approach to the anti-cuts movement. The NSSN, which was founded by the RMT in 2006, has from the beginning had an open and democratic approach, bringing together militant workplace representatives from across the trade union movement.
After RtW was launched in 2009 the NSSN steering committee passed a resolution which stated:
"We view therefore with some concern the setting up of the Right To Work (RTW) by the SWP and their allies which is attempting to occupy the same ground as the NSSN, to appeal to the same union branches and national unions.
"This will only confuse the situation in the eyes of workers and has the potential to fragment the fight-back.
"We note that previous attempts of this character have failed, because, unlike the NSSN they have not been firmly rooted in the unions and workplaces, and have not been seen as an open unifying force."
The NSSN steering committee has been proved correct regarding RtW. And when the NSSN came to discuss founding a national anti-cuts campaign, it took a fundamentally different approach, setting aside a whole day for a democratic discussion at its anti-cuts conference on whether to launch a new campaign - with equal speaking rights for and against doing so.
Chris Bambery also states that internal arguments in the SWP have brought RtW "near to derailment". The SWP CC's reply refers to Chris Bambery, as RtW national secretary, "not effectively helping to build a broad Right to Work".
While they disagree on who is to blame both parties accept that RtW has not developed in a healthy way.
Yet this is the organisation that was counterposed to the NSSN!
If NSSN activists had listened to the SWP and others there would have been no effective intervention by the national anti-cuts organisations into the magnificent demonstration on 26 March.
Instead the NSSN was able to intervene very effectively to popularise a programme to defeat the cuts.

Mistaken approach to Labour

We have dealt with the mistaken political approach of the leadership of RtW (and CoR) in detail elsewhere, in particular their determination to build up New Labour councillors as leaders of the movement.
Our view is that, where councillors vote against cuts we should fully support them. However, we warned at the time of the NSSN conference that there were very few examples indeed of Labour councillors pledging to vote against cuts and that RtW and CoR were misleading the movement by creating illusions that Labour councils would stand and fight by their side.
By contrast the NSSN has warned from the start that it would be necessary to organise a struggle against both the government and local councils in order to defeat the cuts.
For this the NSSN was attacked as sectarian. However, since then our warnings have been proved correct as every Labour council in the country has wielded the axe handed to them by central government leading to hundreds of thousands of job losses.
No wonder that, at a London anti-cuts meeting on 9 April, with fifteen local anti-cuts campaigns represented, including those led by RtW and CoR, for the first time no-one could oppose our consistent position that the anti-cuts movement cannot give uncritical platforms to Labour councillors who vote for cuts.
Unfortunately, in the same week, a RtW public meeting in Leicester had a Labour councillor who had voted for cuts as the main speaker, with the speaker from the SWP also emphasising the need to keep working with Labour councillors even though they had voted to lay off 1,000 workers.
The role that RtW has played is one of many instances where the fundamentally mistaken approach of the leadership of the SWP has acted to weaken the forces of socialism and the labour movement in Britain.
The working class in Britain is now entering a period of tumultuous struggle where the correct programme, strategy and tactics will have a decisive effect on the outcome of coming battles.
The Socialist Party will continue to argue for the maximum possible unity with other forces on the left, but around a clear programme that will increase, rather than decrease, the prospects for victories.
We appeal to members of the SWP, and to those that have left, to fundamentally reassess the programme and methods of their party in order that it can play a positive role in the coming battles.

Sam_b

15th April 2011, 22:14

All rhetoric and no argument? Good productive post that.

Threetune

15th April 2011, 23:07

All rhetoric and no argument? Good productive post that.

Truth hurts

Threetune

15th April 2011, 23:37

The SWP and its numerous daft factions and fronts and it’s forerunner the ‘International Socialists’ (IS) which I was an active member of, has never been anything other than pro imperialist anti-communist, which every serious communist worker needs to avoided or escape from asp. They are left liberal Trot twats and they love being that. All there history shouts it. Read it for yourself.

Iraultzaile Ezkerreko

16th April 2011, 01:12

Sam_b

16th April 2011, 12:11

pro-imperialist

Do users have to 'read for themselves' because you have not posted any evidence whatsoever?

Kronsteen

16th April 2011, 12:34

Not so much ThreeTune as Monotone.

Some people join the far left - or the far right - because they want someone to hate, to throw abuse at, and execrate (good word) whenever they feel like it. And if they shout at the rest of the far left (or right). they actually get a response! The ruling class don't respond, so they're less fun.

A.J.

16th April 2011, 12:50

Crux

16th April 2011, 16:22

All rhetoric and no argument? Good productive post that.
The argument being made is that we were correct in suggesting the NSSN should form a basis for an anti-cuts campaign, rather than simple tail RtW, and this primarily for the problems with the RtW that have been noted both by the SWP themselfes those that have left as well as the SP as well as the issue of how to relate to Labour (and Green Party councillors) that wish to take part in anti-cuts campigning whil making cuts themselfes.
I think the statement is quite clear on this.

On another note I am happy to see that you are still active, as splits can be quite depressing, and wish you and the ISG good luck.

Sam_b

16th April 2011, 16:30

The argument being made

My post was in relation to what Threetune was saying and not Hannah Sell.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

16th April 2011, 16:30

"All rhetoric and no argument? Good productive post that. "

Can you clarify your statement Sam b? I have tried to see the rhetoric it in and I see none and it has a very persuasive argument that TRTW and COR presented itself to the fledging anti cuts movement in a high-handed manner and that the RTW was driven from the centre of the SWP. Confirmed by Chris Bambery's resignation statement. SO what is your politcal point that you are making? Are you saying that we should not learn from the mistakes that are made; or what?

Crux

16th April 2011, 16:32

My post was in relation to what Threetune was saying and not Hannah Sell.
Oh ok. I honestly don't know why I don't have him on ignore.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

16th April 2011, 16:33

I have just read your post at 16:30 ignore my previous post

Crux

16th April 2011, 16:50

The dangers of posting at the same time, haha. So, sam_b, do you have any opinion on the criticism of RtW being made in light of what has happened?

Sam_b

16th April 2011, 17:24

I think that a lot that is said about RTW in thecontext of the post is completely non-applicable to the situation in RTW Glasgow: for instance this apparent 'determination' to put Labour councillors at the forefront. Much of this has to do with experiences, to my belief, south of the border, and this is something which we have talked about in our statement.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

16th April 2011, 20:34

"I think that a lot that is said about RTW in thecontext of the post is completely non-applicable to the situation in RTW Glasgow: for instance this apparent 'determination' to put Labour councillors at the forefront. Much of this has to do with experiences, to my belief, south of the border, and this is something which we have talked about in our statement. "

Sam b, that really is not wholly true. At the founding conference of the Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance in January the SWP orientated delegates put forward an amendment that basically wanted to only 'encourage' councillors, MSPs and MPs to vote against the cuts. In the conference debate, I was there and I do not know you in person, so maybe you were there, maybe you were not, all the SWP members argued this was needed in order to build the broadest possible campaign against the Cuts. The RTW and SWP supporters urged the anti-cuts movement should give the benefit of the doubt to local and national labour politicians who were wavering against the cuts and not exclude them from the campaign. The SWP supporters claimed the anti cuts movement risked isolating itself from the millions of workers who were looking at Labour for opposition and would vote for them in the Scottish Election. However, what are Labour politicians doing in Glasgow but Cuts before the Scottish Parliamentary Election in May. I had a discussion with my MP today in East Lothian and I challenged her on NO Cuts and for Labour politicians in Scotland and in Westminster to put forward a Needs Budget and to Oppose All cuts. She said that was gesture politics and Labour would never do that. Yet the SWP in Scotland did attempt to push what they wanted south of the border. But after a very democratic debate at the conference the SWP orientated amendment was defeated. The anti-cuts alliances will work with politicians who concretely oppose All cuts and they will condemn, and actively oppose, politicians who implement the cuts. Any labour politician who opposes the cuts will either be expelled or leave and stand on an anti-cuts programme. That is the lessons of the anti-poll tax struggle 20 years ago. When the Anti-poll tax unions had the same philosophy no support to Labour Councillors and Councils who Jailed non-payers, as down in England and Wales, or sent in the bailiffs.

Sam_b

16th April 2011, 23:16

None of what you said actually proves that it is the opposite. Encouraging broad and mass participation (and I am sure you will agree that we should be working with certain elements of the Labour party) is not the same as putting members of the Labour party up for some sort of peerless position. I would argue that a movement which doesn't work amongst certain soft-left candidates with questionable positions on the cuts is a movement which lacks confidence in its ability to argue the point and to turn these people to a more rounded and class-based position. It's better to be making these arguments than screaming from the sidelines.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

17th April 2011, 11:28

Sam b, to your previous post, you use the same smoke screen arguments that were used by the SWP at the Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance founding conference. You mix up Labour Party members and activists and Labour Party politicians, Councillors, MSPs and MPs, and that we need to work with them all.. I think this was ably argued against by a leading PCS delegate, non-aligned, when she said it was the New Labour government who began the cuts in the public services and condoned by the labour politicians on a local level throughout the country. The PCS delegate continued to argue that Labour politicians who are trusted by workers are in a minority and that Labour and SNP politicians would align themselves with the anti-cuts movement to build their careers when they had no intention of defending jobs and services. That , in my view, does not mean Labour will not get a good vote, in the Scottish Parliamentary election and the English Local election in May. Certainly in the Edinburgh Anti-Cuts Alliance there are ordinary Labour Party members who are making a contribution to the Alliance but when Labour Party councillors have come along and they have found out the Alliance opposes All Cuts and supports labour Councillors to fight a Needs Budget they have not been seen again. But to give them the benefit of the doubt Councillors are busy people and maybe that is why they are not involved! The definition of a soft left in the Labour Party now a days is an odd one. However on Saturday in Hastings there was an Anti-Cuts March organised by the local trade unions and anti- cuts activists. One of the speakers was Jeremy Birch, someone I knew 30 years ago on the hard left, and is now a soft left(!) labour councillor. I am told that he was advocating the (failed) dented shield policy Labour Policy of the 1980/90s to the ConDem cuts. (Something he argued against the first time around.) This policy means supporting good cuts against bad cuts . That is the option of the soft left, yes if we can win them over all well and good but they will be counted on the fingers of one hand.
What I find particularly objectionable is your comment about standing on the side lines and screaming slogans, etc. In my 3 decades as an activist in the labour and trade union movement I have never stood on the side-lines screaming at working people. For example when the Labour Party was a workers’ party albeit with a pro capitalist leadership I was involved in those battles with working people to change it into something that would create a new society. The SWP at the time considered this as stupid and called me a liquidadater of my socialist beliefs . Ironic now the SWP want to work with Labour representatives when it is a capitalist party. I was a workers’ representative for 3 different trade unions in my working time, I am unemployed at the moment. When the poll tax took place I help to build the anti-poll tax with working people in Kenton the basis of non-payment, for which I was jailed for. I remember that a leader of the SWP calling the non-payment strategy was like not paying your bus fare, you will get thrown off. The SWP did not get involved in the non-payment campaign until it was well under way, then, certainly in my area, attempted to take over the anti-poll tax unions and run them to their orders. Of course that SP leader was proved wrong when 18 million non-payers brought down Thatcher and ended the poll Tax. And so on through my history.
The irony of ironies is at the magnificent October 2010 Scottish TUC demonstration in Edinburgh it was the Glasgow section of the Right to Work who was screaming on the march and at the rally afterwards General Strike Now. Now is that not screaming from the sidelines a slogan that has no relevance today to the mood and consciousness of the working class. Would it not be better, as the Socialist Party Scotland did, to put forward a programme of co-ordinated 24 hour public service strike to act as a bridge to more industrial and strike action in the public and private sector against the cuts in services and jobs. Hannah Sell asks for SWP and former SWP members to reflect on their theoretical and political history I think that is one of the things your new group should do as well as be involved in the anti-cuts movement.

The Idler

17th April 2011, 17:52

Paul Cockshott

17th April 2011, 19:26

We must bear in mind that the strategic position of an anti cuts campaign is far worse than that of an anti-poll tax campaign. In the latter case the state was on the back foot since it was trying to get money from us without the effective means of doing so in the face of civil disobedience. In an anti cuts campaign we are trying to get money from the state without the effective means of doing so on our part. The probability thus is that an anti cuts campaign will fail, whereas the anti-poll tax one was a resounding success.

Olentzero

17th April 2011, 19:31

Is your contention therefore that nothing should be done towards organizing a campaign around stopping the cuts?

Jolly Red Giant

17th April 2011, 20:03

You might be a Trotskyite if your in an organization with 10 people that broke off from an organization that had 20 people after that orgranization split from another organization that had 40 people which had a schism a week prior with an organization that had 80 people after it turned to Trotskyism.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with the member of another left-wing group many years ago - it went something like this -

Me - how are things?
Him - great - we had our national conference at the weekend
Me - how did it go?
Him - very well, all 11 members turned up
Me - anything interesting happen
Him - oh yea - we expelled four of them.

Sam_b

17th April 2011, 20:59

Although i'm faced with what is basically a wall of text, i'll do my best here (protip: paragraphs are good):

you use the same smoke screen arguments that were used by the SWP at the Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance founding conference.

Well, up until last weekend I was in the SWP; but really this is pretty hollow. Particularly coming from a user who seems to take party patronage and personality so seriously he needs to put his organisation in his username. In essence this introductory sentence means precious little.

You mix up Labour Party members and activists and Labour Party politicians, Councillors, MSPs and MPs, and that we need to work with them all.. I think this was ably argued against by a leading PCS delegate, non-aligned, when she said it was the New Labour government who began the cuts in the public services and condoned by the labour politicians on a local level throughout the country. The PCS delegate continued to argue that Labour politicians who are trusted by workers are in a minority and that Labour and SNP politicians would align themselves with the anti-cuts movement to build their careers when they had no intention of defending jobs and services. That , in my view, does not mean Labour will not get a good vote, in the Scottish Parliamentary election and the English Local election in May

You've argued one line then proceeded to turn it around later. First of all, I agree there is a marked difference between Labour activists and Labour elected representatives (though the Labour party as a whole and as an elected bloc is far from homogenous), yet you go on to the argument that Labour instigated the first wave of cuts, and seem to go back again to this idea that there is a certain element of homogenity as work. Yet none of this disproved the need to work in a multi-layered manner. Labour activists are by far in Glasgow to the left of the national party, and it is fairly easy to win an argument here. Yet there are a multitude of left-leaning Labour councillors who can be taken to a decent position and they should be worked with - not necessarily within an anti-cuts organisation per se, but within an anti-cuts environment. Fighting against the cuts is not always and institutionalised position.

There is a line to be had between rejecting the 'good cuts vs bad cuts' doctine, and completely marginalising many people who still vote Labour.

What I find particularly objectionable is your comment about standing on the side lines and screaming slogans, etc.

This wasn't directed at yourself but the movement and tactics of some people/organisations in general. To be blunt, I don't need an anecdote here.

The SWP at the time considered this as stupid and called me a liquidadater of my socialist beliefs . Ironic now the SWP want to work with Labour representatives when it is a capitalist party

I don't know why this is here actually, seeing as parties can and will change position. Look at Cliff and the concept of bending the stick, for instance. I don't necessarily think your comrades still support British imperialism against despot regimes such as the Argentine Junta on the basis that Labour is 'socialist' for instance.

Now is that not screaming from the sidelines a slogan that has no relevance today to the mood and consciousness of the working class

It is interesting that you're getting all on the defensive and basically agitating for me to get into some sort of faction fight with you. Rather I would argue that large sections on March 26th showed that there is a political mood from the rank-and-file for a General Strike.

If you're going to respond I ask that you format your text into something more readable. Although with a 5,000 word report in for Thursday I don't know how often I can check back on this thread.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

17th April 2011, 23:09

Sam b, I will respond to your comments once I have read them properly. But I do note your comment on the format. I am having difficulty posting on this website, personally I am not experienced at doing this as I prefer to use chalk and slate to write my correspondence on. My original text was in paragraphs but when I transmitted it to the website it changed. I do not know if I am doing something wrong or what. I also cannot post links here for whatever reason I do not know. But I will try and do my best.

Also I do note your comment about my, what did you call it, party patronage and personality. Once again that is partly due to my naivity about this type of forum I am on and also due to the fact that I do not like using adolescent nom de plumes. I like to be up front in everything I do, which pisses people off and makes me a really horrible person. As a number of your former comrades in Kent and now Edinburgh would attest to.

Also I am aware that this may spiral into a tit for tat spiral, what did you call it, a faction fight. That is certainly not my intention, that is get into a spat between us personally. But with all due respect to you, you did raise a number of issues such as screaming from the sidelines, which seemed to be indicated to my stance. Now if you think I was being defensive that is only because I responded to your comments in a political manner. And I like to explain my political history and experience to use as an example to comrades, brothers and sisters in struggle.

And yes I am a very serious person and hence a very boring old git. Until the next time, Fraternally, Jimmy.

Paul Cockshott

18th April 2011, 21:52

Is your contention therefore that nothing should be done towards organizing a campaign around stopping the cuts?

A campaign to stop them would be good if it had a strategy with a good chance to win. In practice that can only be done by a political party with a good chance of winning power putting forward an alternative economic programme. The only alternative would be to organise so much civil disobedience as to make the country ungovernable.

Olentzero

19th April 2011, 12:18

Paul Cockshott

19th April 2011, 22:55

Not every fight is going to be won, Paul. We shouldn't assess whether we should organize around an issue based purely on whether we think we're going to win or not. If we as activists don't try to organize around everything we can (considering time, size, and resources) then we're not going to attract people to the cause - and, one hopes, to the party. The fight against the cuts may not be won this round, but we need to come out of it with more people who know how to fight, who are ready to fight, and who stand to be won to socialist politics. That's the only way to ensure that when the bigger fightbacks occur they can be steered towards revolution.

I am cautious about that approach, it can end up justifying campaigns because they lead to the chance to recruit people. I think it is incumbent upon leaders of a campaign to propose strategies that stand a chance of succeeding in their stated objectives. I have tended to rfrain from initiating campaigns under other circumstances.

Tim Finnegan

20th April 2011, 00:42

Even the Telegraph are reporting this

Crisis in the SWP: Is this the end of the People's Front of Judea ... (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100083595/is-this-the-end-of-the-peoples-front-of-judea/)

Ah, and I see they've dusted off their best thirty-two year old reference for the occasion. Good show.

Edit: Ooh, ooh, best comment:

They might find themselves even more welcome in the Lib.Dems, who no even longer pretend not to be marxists.Fucking idiots. :laugh:

Olentzero

20th April 2011, 06:47

I am cautious about that approach, it can end up justifying campaigns because they lead to the chance to recruit people.Oh yes, because God knows what would happen if we actually had more people on our side...

20th April 2011, 07:09

Oh yes, because God knows what would happen if we actually had more people on our side...

I think Paul is referring to the usual frontism in which a campaign is primarily designed not to build the movement, but as a conveyor belt to recruit more people. This is a sectarian approach towards party-building, which is also not very durable. The SWP has a goal to recruit about 2000 people this year, but given the "revolving door" effect, I doubt there will be any net growth even if this goal is achieved.

Olentzero

20th April 2011, 08:33

The only thing that would be sectarian in the approach is an attitude of "you can't be in the movement if you don't join the party", which I agree is frontism, and is stupid. Movements need to be built as broadly as possible. But that shouldn't prevent socialists from being open about their politics, advancing political arguments about which way to move forward, and talking with people about joining their organization. Building a movement and building a party are not mutually exclusive goals.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

21st April 2011, 08:49

Sam b, once again I would like to apologies for the “wall of text”. I am a novice at these things, but the more I do it the better I get, I suppose. I also do not want this to be a personal tit for tat ya boo sucks polemic between us, or your new group, but I do have some queries on how you raise certain issues. This may appear to be a lengthy comment to your comments on the 17April, but I am not one for superficial remarks.

I feel you do have some confusion on the character of the Labour Party, and its activists. The LP today is a very different beast to that say 30 odd years ago when I joined it. It no longer is a workers’ party with a pro-capitalist leadership, but it is a bourgeois party no different from the Democratic Party in the US of A. Now this is a British, Scottish and even a Glasgow phenomenon. Yes, there may be individuals in the LP who are ‘good lefts’, but they are prisoners within that capitalist party, take John McDonnell as one that comes to mind. However, Sam, the information I have from my comrades in Glasgow is that the Glasgow LP is almost moribund, no different to LP in other parts of Britain, and there is literally only a handful of lefts in that party, and with the LP Councillors being a deadweight to any sort of political action; with no Labour councillor calling for no cuts in Glasgow.

There needs to be a line drawn in the sand over Cuts in regard to Labour Councils and Labour Councillors. And any left wing LP member worth their salt should be campaigning within the LP for NO to All Cuts and no support for Labour councillors calling cuts. There is no such a thing as a good cut over a bad cut, all cuts are bad and they must all be fought. That is why the Scottish Anti Cuts Alliance has on its banner NO to All Cuts. Actually the argument you use is the same that was used at the time the anti-poll tax unions were being set-up in Scotland in 1988 and in England in 1989 about non-payment of the poll tax being impossible because it would alienated the Left politicians in the Labour party and hence the voting intentions of the working class. And it was your former organisation that argued against non-payment at the start and they were proved wrong by 18 million non-payers by March 1991 when John Major ended it. And on the 2nd May in English local election’s Labour gained majorities in a large number of councils and continued the persecution of non-payers by the bailiffs and jailings . I have a personal appreciation of a Labour Council’s action against my family in relation to the poll tax campaign, but you do not want political anecdotes Sam, do you.

Also do not mix up the voting intentions of working people with support for the Labour party. Working people will go to the polls in May through- out Britain holding their nose voting for Labour because there is no semi-/mass workers’ party. But make no mistake if there are majority Labour councils in England they will continue, and in some cases be worse, the Cuts agenda. What is needed is a political formation that represents workers’ aspirations to fight the Cuts and capitalism. This is something I have been involved in at various times since 1995, recently with the NO2the EU campaign and last year with the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, TUSC. TUSC is possibly the beginnings of the new working class formation and if there are any ‘good lefts’ in the LP who want to be involved in the anti-cuts movement I would rather attempt to persuade them to be involved in this formation than be involved in a capitalist party.

I accept that you did not directly accuse me of shouting from the sidelines. However, you comment does give the impression that the organisation I belong to does stand and shout from the sidelines at the working class. Again in the 3 decades plus I have been involved in the CWI we have never stood on the sidelines shouting at the working class. As an example is the issue over the General Strike.
My original comment was related to the Edinburgh STUC Demonstration in October last year but could have been equally related to the TUC Demo in London. You argue that “large sections showed that there was a political mood from the rank and file for a General Strike.” I am not going to argue against the General Strike per se but my anecdotal evidence on the day was that while there was a thirst from the demonstrators to take leaflets that I and my comrades had on the a 24 hour public sector general strike. The discussions I had with active trade unionists and demonstrators on the March was a General strike was a bit too far at the moment, especially with the draconian anti-trade union laws.
But the movement for a larger class action will grow and I would suggest and argue that a General Strike Now is meaningless and vague at the moment. Now before you jump down my throat and say the SWP are not calling for a General Strike now, I would argue that yes that is how it is coming over a in your propaganda. On the Thursday before you resigned from the SWP I was at the RTW meeting in Edinburgh, which I thought was a good meeting, and one of your leading Members did argue that we should have that GS today because it will stop the Condem government’s plans. All very rhetorical and vague me thinks. Too much spontaneity that could lead to defeat of the trade union and anti-cuts movement if we do not watch out.

Is it not better for trade unionists and the anti-cuts movement articulate that the public sector unions should co-ordinate balloting and proposals for a national action, with the aim of a 24-hour general strike, also involve unions in the private sector industries, such as the railways, that are also facing cuts. All part of the NO Cuts programme. With determination the obstacles posed by the repressive anti-trade union laws could be overcome.

The first public sector union national strike could be accompanied by a national mid-week demonstration against the Cuts and the attacks on pensions, and so on. This would give workers from across the public sector the opportunity of supporting strike action. Students and school students along with the unemployed could also be mobilised to join such a day of action. All the will act as a bridge to further generalised strike action against the Cuts and the Condem government.
There is a couple of other issues but that will make this post silly, so I am going to stop here. However, my next post to you will not be my words but a section from a document from the CWI covering the former workers’ parties in Europe. I post this because it is good to read other Left material as a means to gain an all-round interpretation and debate. Fraternally, Jimmy.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

21st April 2011, 09:08

Sam b, this part of a document from the European Bureau of the CWI on its website. I post this because it is part of the debate on the former workers’ parties. Fraternally, Jimmy.

Political repercussions in Europe and new formations
It is only now – in the last period – on a general level throughout Europe that the political repercussions of this deep and organic crisis of the economy are beginning to be felt. It was reflected in the general strikes and mass demonstrations last year in France, Portugal, Spain, the sustained eight general strikes in Greece, and in Italy.

This has been followed by the massive repudiation of the Irish governing party Fianna Fáil in the general election in February. The election was important for many reasons not least for us, the CWI, but also for the working class and the left in Europe as a whole. The splendid electoral breakthrough of our comrades in Ireland was a triumph for the Irish party and the work of the CWI over a long period of time. It brilliantly contrasts with the failure of others on the revolutionary left to make a mark in what is after all the most difficult terrain for revolutionaries, the electoral field. It came after the spectacular success in the European parliament elections.

If we do not shout about our successes, nobody will! Our comrade Joe Higgins brilliantly used the platform to publicise and support all workers’ struggles. In the process, this considerably raised the authority and prestige of him and us amongst workers. But absolutely no public recognition or credit was accorded to him or the CWI by our erstwhile ‘allies’ on the far left, particularly in their publications. The same applies to our success in two comrades getting elected to the Dáil as part of the United Left Alliance (ULA). For instance, an Irish correspondent, writing about the success of the ULA in a recent edition of the London Review of Books, managed the difficult feat of mentioning all the TDs elected under the umbrella of the ULA by name with the exception of Clare Daly and Joe Higgins!

The election victory in Ireland, moreover, was achieved in an alliance with some forces that, in the past and most likely in the future, in our view, have a dubious record in terms of a consistent revolutionary position. This was nevertheless the correct tactic for us to adopt, and flowed from the long-held demand of the CWI for steps towards the formation of a new mass party of the working class. The time is not yet propitious for launching such an initiative in southern Ireland but this task will be posed before us – we will be the main movers in this project – in the forthcoming period.

In Scotland also, we are participating in an electoral alliance – through Solidarity – with George Galloway in the elections to the forthcoming Scottish parliament. In England in the council elections and in Wales in the assembly elections to be held in May, we are in an alliance through TUSC with unions like the transport union RMT and others. The ConDem government is also holding a referendum on the same day to change the electoral system from first past the post to the Alternative Vote, which we oppose because we consider it is a step backwards for the working class and the labour movement. We are standing in the local elections on a much broader front than before. We are trying to form broad alliances which mean that in some council elections we will be making a much more general challenge by standing in more seats. This emphasises that we are making serious attempts to take control of councils out of the hands of what are now the three main capitalist parties.

As our experience with other attempts to form an alliance with the left, it is vital that we build not just influence but the organised forces of the CWI before such a project is launched. This is not because of any narrow, ‘sectarian’ reason as our critics suggest. Our historical experiences, including in the recent period in Greece, for instance, shows that without a firm Marxist core – with clear perspectives and an understanding of strategy and tactics – even the most promising opportunities can be squandered. There is, moreover, the experience of the collapse of the RC in Italy. If, from the outset, the CWI had had an organised group in Italy, then it would have been possible to have built a significant Trotskyist force which could have acted as a check on the opportunist leadership of the RC, perhaps even preventing its disintegration. But even if this had not been possible – because of the limited number of Marxists– at the very least we would have come out with a much more powerful force, both politically and numerically, capable of facing up to the current situation in Italy. Our Italian section – which has been a huge addition to the CWI – shows what was possible in the past but also, more importantly, in the explosive period that is opening up. The events in Ireland signify that we have now entered a new decisive period in which the ‘subjective factor’ can make a crucial difference.

One of the more striking features of the period through which we have passed is the feebleness and the tendency towards disintegration of some of the new “left forces”. When they were founded, they promised the beginnings of new left workers’ parties. This demand has been a cornerstone of the CWI’s policies for over a decade now. But ironically, the deeper the crisis and the greater the discontent of the masses, the more the leaders of these formations have abandoned their previous left positions; in fact, they have shifted towards the right. This applies to Die Linke in Germany, to the Left Bloc in Portugal and even, unfortunately, to the Mandelite-dominated NPA in France. The SWP in Britain and, to some extent, internationally have followed a similar political trajectory. This, perhaps, is the most astonishing metamorphosis given what appeared to be their unbending sectarianism in the ‘noughties’. In reality it is no surprise to us; opportunism is always the reverse side of the coin to ultra-leftism.

More important for the CWI is the broad approach that we adopt towards the new left formations. Where they have stagnated and gone into reverse – degenerated politically– then it would be foolish for us to stubbornly devote too many resources to them. In any case, when we worked in big mass organisations in the past we always had an orientation towards the masses outside that did not join them necessarily but generally adhered to their banner. We face a very complicated situation now – itself conditioned by the transition from one period politically to another – in which all kinds of possibilities can be posed. Ireland has demonstrated the attraction of an independent stand up to now, as has our position in Britain. Because of our influence in the trade unions – through the correct policy towards the National Shop Stewards Network, union caucuses, work in broad lefts, etc. – we have been able in Britain to significantly influence the left both at the leadership and rank-and-file levels within the trade unions.

We cannot pursue a uniform policy which fits the situation in every single country. This period, which has some of the features of the 1930s, requires us to be extremely flexible in our tactical orientation at each stage. The CWI needs to explain again and again, and at this important turning point in particular, the importance of new formations standing on the left as a necessary stage of development of the mass workers’ movement. At the same time, where they fail to act as a serious pole of attraction, we have to explain the reasons for this. On the one side are the intrinsic weaknesses politically of these organisations, mostly at a leadership level, and an inability to correctly understand the stage through which we are passing. This is allied to a lack of confidence in the attractiveness to the working class of an action programme of day-to-day demands but which has as its core the crowning slogan of the need for a socialist plan as an answer to the chaos of capitalism which becomes clearer almost every day. At best, they put forward a version of anti-capitalism and even then not always in a clear way. Anti-capitalism is probably the prevailing political outlook of the majority of workers although there is a growing socialist layer or awareness of socialism, particularly amongst the new generation who are moving into struggle.

Nevertheless it is vital that the opposition to the system – inchoate as it maybe – is the starting point for driving home the need for socialism, which to new layers has to be explained in the simplest possible terms, without being overtly simplistic. If this does not happen and the opportunity is not seized, then the movement will not be taken forward onto a higher plane. These are ABC points in a way but ones which are entirely misunderstood, even by those who still claim to be Marxist and Trotskyists. As we have argued many times against the ultra-left, sectarian doctrinaires, left to its own devices in time the working class will arrive through experience at socialist conclusions. But a party – particularly a mass party – enormously speeds up and transforms the outlook of the working class; in the first instance, the more politically-aware sections of the working class. It is therefore of crucial importance that we still argue for a mass workers’ party, even in those situations where the steps towards such a formation have either faltered or even fallen back. And events are helping us in this task…

…But there is still a big disconnect between this objective situation and the level of consciousness of the masses, even of the more advanced layer. The working class has not yet exhausted – in most countries – its illusions that the system of capitalism can find a way out and stabilise itself, leading to a return to the pre-crisis situation. Such illusions can only be dispelled – as far as the masses are concerned – on the basis of events, and big events at that. We are required in this situation not just to be audacious in promoting our ideas but also patient. Sometimes a more pedagogical approach, the winning of small groups of even ones and twos in the first instance, can be decisive in establishing a big presence and even a mass base later.

Given the potentially explosive underlying economic situation and growing social instability, events and struggles can develop very quickly. This can rapidly change the consciousness of workers and young people. This will not always be a slow, gradual process, but can be one of leaps and fast developments. All members and supporters of the CWI have to be ready to audaciously use these opportunities to build and strengthen the mass forces of the working class while arming them with the Marxist ideas needed to successfully fight capitalism and overcome this profit-driven system once and for all.

Paul Cockshott

21st April 2011, 22:17

There needs to be a line drawn in the sand over Cuts in regard to Labour Councils and Labour Councillors. And any left wing LP member worth their salt should be campaigning within the LP for NO to All Cuts and no support for Labour councillors calling cuts. There is no such a thing as a good cut over a bad cut, all cuts are bad and they must all be fought. That is why the Scottish Anti Cuts Alliance has on its banner NO to All Cuts. Actually the argument you use is the same that was used at the time the anti-poll tax unions were being set-up in Scotland in 1988 and in England in 1989 about non-payment of the poll tax being impossible because it would alienated the Left politicians in the Labour party and hence the voting intentions of the working class. And it was your former organisation that argued against non-payment at the start and they were proved wrong by 18 million non-payers by March 1991 when John Major ended it. And on the 2nd May in English local election’s Labour gained majorities in a large number of councils and continued the persecution of non-payers by the bailiffs and jailings . I have a personal appreciation of a Labour Council’s action against my family in relation to the poll tax campaign, but you do not want political anecdotes Sam, do you.

I think this is unrealistic. The councils are subsidiary bodies of the state dependent on centrally raised tax revenue. Their ability to resist cuts is limited by their ability to raise additional revenue from council tax. An effective response to the cuts can only come about by effecting, either by popular pressure, civil disobedience or elections, a change in central government policy.

Sam_b

22nd April 2011, 12:22

I'll try to respond to this today if I have time.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

23rd April 2011, 09:06

To Paul Cockshott, I offer an article by Tony Mulhearn who was a Liverpool City Councillor and who with the Liverpool City Council fought the Thatcher Government by mass opposition within the Liverpool area and won consessions . Labour Councils should be fighting on a Needs Budget and start building mass opposition to the ConDem government. But they will not because Labour has become a capitalist party and agrees, albeit at a slower rate, with the Cuts.

When organised mass action defeated the Tories

Liverpool city council's historic victory over the Thatcher government

The campaign built by Liverpool city council in 1983-87 to win extra funding inspired thousands of workers,

"Two unlovely black eyes" declared the Daily Mail. It was condemning Thatcher's environment secretary Patrick Jenkin for his retreat over extra funding for Liverpool.

It wrote: "The Trotskyites and others of the hard left who run Liverpool have had the best of the fight with him in their threat to defy the law on that city's overspending." That headline was just one of the reactions to the Militant-led Liverpool city council's success in securing funding worth £60 million from the Thatcher government on 9 July 1984.
Socialist Party member Tony Mulhearn, one of the leaders of that epic struggle and one of the 47 councillors, who were surcharged and disqualified from office in revenge for their humiliation of the Tories, writes.

The victory which secured the extra funding enabled the council to carry out its electoral programme. This included the building of 5,000 houses, opening six new sports centres, creating 2,000 jobs and refusing to carry out £10 million-worth of cuts. These cuts had been the legacy of the Liberal/Tory alliance which had ruled Liverpool for the previous 20 years, with a short interregnum of Labour rule.

This victory was particularly significant as, like now, it occurred at a time of national and global capitalist upheaval. An additional factor now is the mind-boggling revelations about the greedy bankers stuffing their pockets with gold.

The latest fat-cat payouts dwarf even those paid out last year: Barclays' Rich Ricci, for instance, picks up a tasty package worth £44 million, Bob Diamond picks up £27 million, and that loot is not the biggest.

Against these figures, the frame-up against the 47 by the district auditor, who charged them with losing the Liverpool rate payers £106,000 was truly grotesque.

The passage of time has not diminished the achievements of the 47, nor undermined the importance of the struggle. In spite of the distortions of establishment spokespersons, aided and abetted by the lies of right wing parliamentarians and trade union leaders, the record of the 47 remains stubbornly intact.

The Liverpool struggle had as its background the Thatcher government's dislike of local government or, more precisely, Thatcher's antipathy to locally provided public services, an outlook shared by the present millionaires' cabinet. The Tories' programme, when they were elected in 1979, included using the device of the block grant system which penalised local authorities that exceeded government's prescribed spending limits; for every £1 breach of expenditure, £2 would be lost in rate support grant.

Initially, all Labour-controlled local authorities had agreed to support a campaign against this policy. Amongst the leaders of this campaign, it is incredible to recall, were David Blunkett and Ken Livingstone.

So, the government's policies meant that in order to balance the books a local authority would either have to increase the rates, sometimes massively, to compensate for Tory cuts, or savagely cut back on jobs and services. Again history repeats itself, now on a more savage level.

The Liverpool District Labour Party's policy was to reject both of these options and instead to carry out its electoral promises. In the elections of 1983 a key component of the party's electoral programme was "No rate or rent increases to compensate for Tory cuts."
The massive financial crisis which the 47 inherited was seen as a reason for the implementation of the electoral programme rather than, as is usually the case in British politics, a reason to retreat.

But the victory was not achieved merely by slick negotiation between the councillors and Patrick Jenkin. He was conscious of the magnificent electoral support, as well as the physical support, shown by the great demonstrations that marched through the city in support of the council's policies.

The demonstration on budget day in March 1984, when a one-day strike took place, was supported by 30,000 local authority workers. 50,000 marched through the city in support of the council's proposed deficit budget

The support for the council was based on concrete changes, for the better, to people's lives. Moreover, the spin-off effect of the city's housing programme on employment had been publicly recognised by building companies who are not usually friends of Labour. In the three years from April 1983 to May 1985 it was estimated that 6,489 jobs had been generated in the private sector as a result of the house-building programme.

Also the Liverpool 47 attracted the highest Labour vote in history. Higher than any election since the war, even though the population of the city had declined from 700,000 in 1945 to 460,000 in 1983. While the turnout for local elections in previous years had ranged from 11% to 20%, the turnout between 1983 and 1987 was 45% to 55%. A clear message that if policies which correspond to the needs and aspirations of the working class are implemented, then the support will be forthcoming.

In spite of its unparalleled record of achievement, the power of the state eventually prevailed. Thatcher's district auditor, supported by the House of Lords, removed the 47 from office, cheered on by the Labour leaders. Neil Kinnock, then Labour leader, and his lieutenant, witchfinder general Peter Kilfolye, finished the job on behalf of the capitalist state by expelling the majority of the 47 from the Labour Party.

Since then many gallons of ink and newsprint, and speeches by right-wing charlatans have attempted to denigrate the 47's period of office. But the record has been written in concrete and stands as a monument to the socialist achievements of the Liverpool city council of 1983 - 87.

Paul Cockshott

24th April 2011, 17:02

i remember it well, but it was hardly a lasting success with them all being disqualified and cuts imposed anyway. The Poll Tax campaign was a success in contrast.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)

24th April 2011, 18:38

Comrade Paul, Yes the Poll tax was a significant victory for the working class of Britain, nevertheless, the events in Liverpool also have many lessons for today’s battle against the Cuts and the Condem government. To start with Councillors do not have the same sanctions against them as they were against the Liverpool Councillors. So that cannot be used as a reason not to fight.. However, I offer an article by Peter Taaffe, from the Socialist Party’s monthly journal on the anti-poll tax fight. This is actually relevant to this present thread we are on because it brings in the SWP’s actions around the anti-poll tax movement in which Chris Bambery was involved in.

The great anti-poll tax victory
How 18 million people brought Thatcher down
The majority of trade union leaders are completely unprepared to meet the coming onslaught on jobs and public services, the worst for 40 years. But that does not mean that the inevitable resistance is destined for defeat. On the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the poll tax to England and Wales, PETER TAAFFE looks back on the ‘unofficial’ mass movement which humbled the seemingly invincible Margaret Thatcher.
THE 1926 GENERAL strike and the battle against Thatcher’s poll tax in the late 1980s and early 1990s were probably the two most important events in the consciousness of the labour movement in Britain in the 20th century – although, for Marxists, the epic 1984-85 miners’ strike together with the Liverpool struggle led by Militant, now the Socialist Party, are on a par with these events. There were, of course, differences in the character of these struggles. The general strike involved the mobilisation of the mass of organised workers against the austerity programme of Baldwin’s Tory government of the day. The poll tax, while combining some of the features of classical industrial struggles – appeals to the trade unions to take action against the imposition of the tax, etc – was broader and more ‘social’ in the diverse forces that were mobilised. But the one overriding difference between the two was the vital issue of the role of leadership. The general strike, ‘led’ by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), ended in a terrible defeat, while the poll tax resulted in a splendid victory which brushed the defeated Thatcher onto the slag heap of history.

The different outcomes of these two titanic battles came down to the character of their leaderships, the differing strategies and tactics, as well as organisation, which were deployed. In the first, the union leaders mobilised the legions of the trade union movement in the epic nine days of the general strike. Victory was in the grasp of the working class, its overwhelming power displayed, and yet defeat ensued. There was no such mobilisation of trade union power or of real, official involvement in the poll tax struggle by the unions. Ironically, it was for this very reason – the absence, indeed outright sabotage of the official Labour and trade union leadership with the then Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock, at their head – that this struggle was victorious.

It remains an incontestable historical fact that it was neither the official leadership of the labour movement nor small left groups – without a feel for the real pulse and movement of the working class – that provided the leadership for the decisive poll tax victory. It was, instead, the vilified and persecuted forces of genuine Marxism gathered around Militant which played the crucial role.

This battle had been prepared by the whole preceding period, which had seen the forces on both sides testing their strength in struggle, particularly in the Liverpool campaign of 1983-87. The poll tax victory would not have been possible without the events in Liverpool, an important dress rehearsal. Liverpool city council, backed by a mass movement including general strikes of public-sector workers, first of all humbled then defeated Thatcher, forcing her to retreat and grant concessions in 1984. This was at a time when numerous other councils, claiming to stand on the left, were joined in common struggle. However, these former ‘left’ leaders, such as Ken Livingstone and David Blunkett, eventually capitulated, leaving Liverpool and Lambeth councils isolated. Nevertheless, the heroic Liverpool struggle was lodged in the consciousness of particularly the most politically aware sections of the labour movement and the working class. Eric Heffer, the left-wing Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, in a favourable review of our book, Liverpool: the City that Dared to Fight, wrote that Liverpool "was politics put to the test and, contrary to what some would say, it was a test that the Liverpool councillors and party members passed".

At the launch of this book in London, I commented on its relevance to the forthcoming struggle on the poll tax: "The vast majority are opposed to the tax, but the Labour leaders have made it clear that the struggle is to be restricted to parliament. But the history of this government is that they do not listen to parliamentary speeches. Only when a mass struggle is mobilised, as it was in Liverpool, can the labour movement force the ‘iron lady’ to retreat. Scottish councils [where the poll tax was introduced a year earlier than England and Wales] have the same choice as in Liverpool. Either they can get the odium of implementing the poll tax or, like Liverpool, say no, refuse to collect it and call a one-day general strike. Otherwise, they might as well resign their positions. There is an explosive situation developing on the housing estates. The government has made a big error".

Thatcher’s big mistake

WE RECOGNISED FROM the outset that Thatcher had made a fundamental mistake. She had abandoned her ‘salami tactics’ of taking on one section of the labour movement while seeking to mollify others, shown in the Tory government’s tactics used against the miners, print workers at Wapping and against Liverpool. This time, she had decided to take on the vast majority of the British people all at once.

With the poll tax, Thatcher achieved what the Labour and trade union leaders had failed to do in the previous nine years: she had united and generalised the struggles of the working class against her government. Previously, she had been very careful not to take on the whole of the working class or to open up an offensive on two fronts. But the poll tax affected young and old, employed and unemployed, the sick and disabled, council tenants and house owners, as well as the black and Asian populations. All except the rich and upper middle class were to be hit.

An equally fatal error was to mistake the supine position of the Labour leaders for an accurate reflection of the mood on the ground. We were still wedded to the idea, at this stage, that the official labour movement could be won over to take effective action against the poll tax. Despite the vicious witch-hunt that had been launched against Militant’s leading figures – the five members of the Editorial Board expelled from the Labour Party in 1983, the persecution of the Liverpool Militants, both by the Labour leadership and the state – we had not abandoned hope that the struggles of the working class would act to transform the Labour Party in a leftward direction. It has to be admitted that, by the late 1980s, this hope was misplaced. The scorched earth policy of Labour’s rightwing – orchestrated by Kinnock’s local apparatchik in Liverpool, Peter Kilfoyle – demonstrated that Labour was, in fact, irredeemable at that stage. (New Labour subsequently moved so far to the right that, merely by standing still, Kilfoyle has been transformed into a ‘left’ today!)

It would have been better – as some of us suggested at the time – for Militant to have launched an independent organisation in 1987, at the time of the witch-hunt in Liverpool, rather than five years later in Scotland. Politically, Militant would have been better prepared to benefit from its leadership of the poll tax struggle. Also, with the larger membership that such a stand would have resulted in, we would have been more able to withstand the hostile political gales resulting from the collapse of Stalinism and, with it, the planned economy, in the 1990s. It seems incredible to recall now that at the very time when Marxists in particular, but also others on the left of the Labour Party, were seeking to harness the indignation at the poll tax to confront the government, the Labour leadership spent all its efforts expelling the most combative and prominent fighters. Tommy Sheridan, a well-known Militant supporter at the time who headed the struggle in Scotland, was expelled from the Labour Party, and later imprisoned. As was the heroic, late Terry Fields MP. Dave Nellist MP was ‘merely’ expelled. All for offering effective leadership to the most oppressed, who were worst effected by the imposition of the tax.

Can’t pay, won’t pay
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS persecution, Militant was unswerving in identifying the poll tax battle as the key struggle from 1987 onwards and drew all the necessary political and organisational inferences from this. The Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), after initially dabbling in Glasgow in the first stirrings against the poll tax, effectively withdrew from the field of battle. Under the direction of its leader, the late Tony Cliff, it decided that the main demand of the poll tax movement from its inception, ‘Can’t pay, won’t pay’ – again, under the influence of the suggestions of Militant – was as impractical as "not paying your fare on the bus"! (Cliff, in a speech at Newcastle University) The SWP was only repeating its mistaken stance during the miners’ strike when it concluded early on that it was ‘unwinnable’ because of an alleged ‘downturn’ in the class struggle! By the time of the Liverpool battle, the SWP had become outright hostile to Militant and its leadership role in crucial struggles. Its infamous front-page headline from Socialist Worker, Sold Down the Mersey, was how it greeted the victory of the Liverpool workers. This contrasted starkly with the widely recognised view throughout the labour movement in the city and nationally that Thatcher had suffered a severe setback. As an organisation, the SWP played no central role in the poll tax struggle other than later claiming, usually out of earshot of Militant supporters, that it had led this battle! Individual SWP members and others did participate – some even being fined or imprisoned – but this was a tiny minority of their forces.

The SWP also claimed that the so-called ‘Trafalgar Square riot’ – commented on later – was decisive in defeating the poll tax. In this, it was at one with right-wing capitalist commentators who covered up the crucial importance of the non-payment campaign. Important though the ‘riot’ was, it was more symptomatic of the mood against the tax that existed. It was mass non-payment, suggested and organised by Militant and its allies, which was the real reason that compelled Thatcher and her successors to retreat and ditch the tax. Similarly, anarchist groups, which occasionally latched onto and viciously attacked the organised anti-poll tax movement, if left to themselves, would not have defeated Thatcher. The poll tax struggle was objectively determined by the character of the all-embracing attack of Thatcher on the vast majority of the working class and even the British people as a whole.

Superficial capitalist commentators see mass resistance arising from the ‘fiendish plotting’ of a handful of ‘agitators’. This is the view of the historian Robert Service, for instance, and others in ascribing conspiratorial methods to the Bolsheviks in the October 1917 revolution in Russia and the role of revolutionaries in general in all revolutions. William Shakespeare, through Owen Glendower in Henry IV, part one, declares: "I can call spirits from the vasty deep". Hotspur replies: "Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?" The mere incantation of ‘revolution’ will not result in its materialisation.

Revolution and counter-revolution, for that matter, are only possible when the underlying developments have prepared the preconditions for the social eruptions characterised by such an event. Even then, it can only come to fruition – as the history of both the successful socialist overturn in Russia and their defeat elsewhere demonstrate – if the movement possesses the organisation, the necessary leadership and clear objectives, strategy and tactics to ensure victory. The poll tax represented an element, at least, of ‘revolution’, in the sense of a mass movement – one of the greatest in Britain’s history – which effectively overturned the government and underlined the power of the masses once they move into action. Struggle was inevitable given the character and scale of the attacks. The choice, however, was between an organised mass struggle as a means of ensuring victory or an inchoate movement from below with less chance of defeating the government.

A similar dilemma confronts the working class and the labour movement today on the issue of the unprecedented attacks being prepared to slash public expenditure. The main political parties – whoever wins the next general election – will seek to slash the £200 billion government deficit through savage cuts in jobs, services and the pay of public-sector workers. Inevitably, there will be resistance to the cuts that are being proposed. But the same dilemma confronts this upcoming struggle as the poll tax battle 20 years ago
.
Scotland takes the lead
EVERYONE SEEMED TO be opposed to the poll tax. Many even initially embraced the demand ‘Can’t pay, won’t pay’, including some sections of the ‘official’ movement – the trade unions, Labour MPs, etc. But once it was a question of proceeding from words to deeds then one by one these forces peeled away. Even ‘left’ Labour MPs refused to join millions in not paying the tax. Initially, this discouraged some workers from struggling. At the outset of the battle there was indignation at the tax but little confidence that Thatcher could be stopped. Campaigners were met on the streets with the refrain: ‘She defeated general Galtieri in the Falklands war, crushed the miners and the printers. What chance have we got of defeating this tax?’ These ideas were countered with facts, figures and arguments. But sometimes the ‘propaganda of the deed’ is needed – not in the anarchist sense of terroristic action against individual capitalists, but of mass action. It was necessary to demonstrate the colossal subterranean revolt brewing on this issue precisely through deeds, and heroic deeds at that, particularly in Scotland first.

Singling out Scotland for implementation of the tax a year early was perceived by the mass of the Scottish people as a ‘colonial’ punishment for daring to defy Thatcher – with the Tories reduced to just ten Scottish MPs in 1987 out of 72. Tory secretary of state for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, in relation to the Tory government’s power over Scotland, was widely quoted as invoking Hillaire Belloc’s poem: "Whatever happens we have got; the Gatling gun, and they have not". He denied that he had said this, but the Scottish people remained unconvinced, which reinforced their determination to oppose the tax.

It was Leon Trotsky who remarked that in the veins of the British working class ran Scottish, Irish and Welsh blood, which gave it a revolutionary temper at critical moments in history. In other words, because of historical circumstances – extreme suffering at the hands of the British capitalists – revolutionary feeling was greater in Scotland, Ireland and Wales than it was, perhaps, in England.

Thatcher, however, ploughed on regardless. A labour movement campaign was launched in Edinburgh in December 1987, initiated by Militant supporters. Soon after this, steps were taken in the West of Scotland, particularly in areas like Pollok, where Tommy Sheridan lived at the time. In particular, the organisation of anti-poll tax unions was undertaken which led to the idea, promoted by Militant, for a West of Scotland anti-poll tax federation. But before this step had been taken there had been serious discussions in Militant’s ranks, in Scotland and the rest of Britain, about the programme and organisational steps to be taken to maximise the resistance to the poll tax. In April 1988, a one-day Scottish conference of Militant was organised, attended by myself on behalf of the national leadership. This meeting clarified important tactical issues and gave the green light to Militant supporters in Scotland to concentrate on the poll tax as the key issue to link the struggle and the battle that was likely to develop on an all-Britain scale later.

The conference took the decision to organise anti-poll tax unions throughout Scotland to systematically press for a programme, the central demand of which would be non-payment. At each stage, the fighting approach of Militant contrasted sharply with that of the leadership of the Scottish labour movement. There were, however, great hopes, because of the unpopularity of the measure, in persuading the trade unions and Labour Party to come in behind the struggle. One MP at the Labour Party conference in Scotland the month before had declared: "There is an army waiting to be led down the road of non-payment". Even then he could not resist comparing Kinnock to "a general leading his troops into battle carrying a white flag".

On the day that this conference had opened, an opinion poll had showed that 42% of the Scottish people favoured an ‘illegal non-payment campaign against the poll tax’. Amongst Labour voters the figure was as high as 57%. Yet the speech to conference by Kinnock was so poor that the Glasgow Herald wrote that it was "universally rated as a disaster". The conference voted two to one for a resolution opposing illegality. It was at total variance with the mood of the vast majority of delegates, particularly from the constituency parties. However, the trade union tops cast their block votes in favour of the party’s Scottish leadership. Even then it was decided to reconvene the conference in the autumn to reconsider the non-payment option.

This gave an opportunity to the advocates of non-payment to mobilise working people in action in favour of this demand. Consequently, massive meetings on Scottish housing estates showed that the workers expected the Labour leaders to take a lead. Tommy Sheridan was elected as secretary of the Pollok anti-poll tax union and reminded a mass meeting of the 47 Liverpool councillors who were prepared to stand firm and defy Tory law. ‘We need them here in Pollok’, was the audience’s response.

A defining moment in the campaign in Scotland was when Tommy Sheridan was addressing an anti-poll tax meeting and Michael, now Lord, Forsyth, then a Tory MP in Scotland, entered the fray. He was in evening dress, having come from a function in his constituency. Verbal exchanges took place which were terminated when Tommy declared: "Tell your boss [Thatcher] we [pointing to the meeting] are going to defeat her tax, her, and her government". Forsyth, shaken, turned as white as a sheet but did not respond. However, he is back today calling for savage cuts in state spending. He should receive the same warning now as he did 21 years ago from the mass anti-poll tax movement!

In July 1988, 350 delegates representing thousands of workers in 105 anti-poll tax groups, mostly from community councils and tenants’ associations, agreed to set up the Strathclyde Anti-Poll Tax Federation. This conference called unanimously for a mass campaign of non-payment and for Labour councillors to refuse to pursue non-payers. It also called for the Scottish TUC to step up its campaign and organise a 24-hour general strike. Tommy Sheridan was elected unopposed as secretary of the federation and promised vigorous leadership from the newly elected committee.

Battle joined throughout Britain
IN 1989, ONE million Scots were not paying the poll tax. Even the capitalist press, like Scotland on Sunday, estimated that 800,000 Scots were not paying out of the 3.9 million eligible to pay. This was indeed a very good mass demonstration of the ‘propaganda of the deed’! But not a whisper of this campaign appeared in the press outside of Scotland. By a thousand different channels, however, the information seeped through, particularly through leaflets and information supplied by the anti-poll tax unions. This campaign, even before it had reached the rest of Britain, had demonstrated the power of mass action, so long as it was organised and with a leadership with a clear strategy and tactics. The rest of Britain would come to the aid of the poll tax battlers in Scotland, leaving the official trade union and Labour leaderships suspended in mid-air.

Twenty thousand took to the streets of Glasgow, followed by a massive demonstration in Manchester, nominally organised by the TUC but effectively taken over by anti-poll tax demonstrators. The one million refusing to pay the tax in Scotland were used to prepare a colossal campaign in England and Wales. Lone voices in parliament, such as Dave Nellist and Terry Fields, sought to warn the government of what was coming. Dave declared in July 1989: "I give a clear warning to the secretary of state that millions of people in England and Wales will not be able to pay the poll tax and that millions more will be unwilling to... Just under two years ago the Tory Reform Group described the poll tax as ‘fair only in the sense that the Black Death was fair, striking at young and old, rich and poor, employed and unemployed alike’... That description was wrong in one basic respect. At least the rich catch the plague – the rich will not catch the poll tax".

Crucial for the battle on an all-Britain scale was the founding conference on 25 November 1989 of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation. Tommy Sheridan greeted 2,000 delegates to a body that was to play a decisive role, as events the next year would demonstrate. There was much discussion in our ranks over what proposals would be best to put forward on the structure. Such was the decisive influence of Militant in the anti-poll tax unions that it would have been entirely possible for us to take all positions on the national committee. We decided against this, to give the movement as broad a base as possible, to facilitate the drawing in of all genuine forces which were prepared to struggle in action against the tax. Therefore, it was agreed that we would pursue the policy of the united front by involving non-Militant supporters on the national committee. This was the case in Yorkshire, London and the South West.

Still the Labour leaders resisted concrete action, centring all their hopes on a general election to kick out the Tories. One incident at the Labour Party conference in October 1989 indicated how far away it was from the mass of ordinary working-class people. Christine McVicar from Glasgow Shettleston Labour Party was seen by millions on TV news bulletins when she tore up her poll tax payment book at the conference rostrum. This was not just an individual gesture. She was moving a resolution calling for Labour to back the mass campaign of non-payment. She defiantly declared to the conference: "Without the Tolpuddle trade unionists and the Suffragettes breaking the law, we wouldn’t be here at this conference... I’m ripping up my poll tax book not as an individual but as part of a mass campaign of non-payment". She was met with cheers from the socialist elements in the conference, and by jeers from right-wing Labour MPs and others. At this conference, Militant was still able to attract 200 delegates to its public meeting – despite the mass expulsions. However, the rightwing consolidated its hold in November with the removal of the last direct representative of the Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS), Hannah Sell, from its National Executive Committee. This then led to the winding up of the LPYS.

A prairie fire of protest
THIS WAS A dress rehearsal for the dramatic events of 1990. In history – at least as far as the pro-capitalist historians are concerned – 1989 and 1990, and subsequent years, were marked by the collapse of Stalinism and with it, unfortunately, the destruction of the remaining elements of the planned economy. This was used to launch an ideological campaign which allegedly ‘destroyed’ the ideas of socialism and solidarity – indeed, the very idea of the class struggle itself. But the real history of these years is not just that. In fact, 1990 was a tumultuous year of mass struggle and the early 1990s saw big public-sector strikes in Belgium and elsewhere. With 1990 only weeks old, Militant carried the front-page headline, Smash the Poll Tax, with the call of the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation for a mass demo on 31 March. Thirty-five million people were to receive their poll tax bills in England and Wales on 1 April. The campaign was given a boost by the Economist magazine which stated: "Imagine a country where more than one in ten of the adult population is refusing to pay a tax. Welcome to Scotland 1990". In fact, this organ of big business grossly underestimated the true level of non-payment which was as high as one in three in Glasgow alone. The Economist went on: "Today’s drama in Glasgow may be repeated tomorrow in Liverpool. How long before the Tories start to pine nostalgically for the much derided rates?"

The first months of the year saw a prairie fire of mass demonstrations sweep through formerly sleepy towns and villages in the south of England. Two thousand people denounced the Tory MP for Maidenhead as the ‘Ceausescu of Maidenhead’ for supporting the tax. In Hackney and Lambeth, 2,000 gathered outside the town halls. Hundreds lobbied Southwark, Waltham Forest and Haringey councils. Practically every area was affected in one way or another by poll tax demonstrations and protests in February and March.

Militant was then identified by the capitalist press as the ‘enemy within’ because of its splendid role in the poll tax struggle. Rupert Murdoch’s papers, The Times and The Sun, plumbed the depths. The Sun compared us to football hooligans: "The Militant tendency is Labour’s own Inter-City Firm". To his eternal shame, Kinnock repeated some of the wilder Tory claims. Tony Benn correctly concluded: "The Labour Party is more frightened of the anti-poll tax campaign than of the poll tax itself". Bristol, Norwich, Weston-super-Mare, Exeter, Gillingham and Birmingham saw demonstrations. However, this was all ascribed to professional protestors moving around Britain. Poll tax minister, Chris Patten, said they were all "rent-a-crowd outsiders, bussed in from Militant places like Stroud"!

Kinnock also condemned the advocates of mass non-payment of the poll tax as ‘Toytown revolutionaries’, a phrase lifted from The Sun. In contrast, Tony Benn demanded an amnesty for all those who refused to pay. Kinnock condemned him as condoning law breaking, with the clear implication that non-payers would be pursued through the courts by Labour councils. But it was Labour MPs, even some on the ‘left’, who were not sufficiently resolute in supporting the millions who could not afford to pay, who were met with public hostility.

The SWP had moved from lukewarm and passive support for the anti-poll tax campaign to opposition to the strategy of non-payment. Just prior to the 31 March demonstration it declared in Socialist Worker: "The government calculates that a passive non-payment campaign can be whittled down eventually to a level it can manage... Activists should recognise a majority of workers are likely to feel they have no choice but to pay. Many will fear the consequences of court proceedings and falling into debt. Some will fear the loss of their jobs if they are fined" (Socialist Worker, 24 March 1990). The SWP even argued that without the backing of the trade union leadership the campaign could not succeed! Some commentators in the capitalist press, however, were to the ‘left’ of the SWP. Victor Keegan wrote in the Guardian: "Judging by the experience of Scotland and opinion polls in England and Wales, the number refusing to pay will run into millions. Since enforcement on such a scale is impossible, this will not only bring the law into disrepute, but will generate a fresh backlash against the tax by those who are currently paying up".

The 31 March demo and Thatcher’s demise
THIS SET THE scene for the mass demonstrations of 31 March 1990. Scotland’s demonstration passed off peacefully, which was not the case in London. Responsibility for this has to be firmly placed on the shoulders of the government and the police. The demonstration became the lightning rod for all the discontented elements in society thirsting for revenge against Thatcher: the homeless, unemployed youth, the oppressed and destitute, miners and printers, alongside others who had felt Thatcher’s boot on their back. However, the march was completely peaceful, like a carnival, at the outset. By the time the head of the march reached Trafalgar Square there had been only one arrest. The square was soon full to capacity and the back of the march had still to leave Kennington Park!

A handful of anarchists, joined by SWP members, were involved in clashes with the police but the overwhelming majority in what was till then the biggest demonstration in British history – only exceeded by the 2003 anti-Iraq war march – accepted the decision of the federation for a huge but peaceful and democratic demonstration. The 31 March demonstration ‘riot’ was one of the most important events in labour history in the 20th century. By itself it did not finish off the poll tax or Thatcher, as the SWP and others have claimed. The honour for this belongs to the eventual 18 million–strong army of non-payers and those who welded them into an unbeatable force. But these mighty demonstrations were the visible and dramatic expression, to the British ruling class and the world, of the scale of opposition to the poll tax and the burning hatred of Thatcher and her government.

It marked the beginning of the end of Thatcher herself. She wrote in her memoirs: "For the first time a government had declared that anyone who could reasonably afford to do so should at least pay something towards the upkeep of facilities and the provision of the services from which they benefited. A whole class of people – an ‘underclass’ if you will – had been dragged back into the ranks of responsible society and asked to become not just dependants but citizens. The violent riots of 31 March in and around Trafalgar Square was their and the left’s response. And the eventual abandonment of the charge represented one of the greatest victories for these people ever conceded by a Conservative government". (Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years)

Following the actions of the police, who had deliberately provoked and attacked the demonstrators, Militant and the organisers of the demonstration were accused of being ‘anti-democratic’, while ultra-left sectarians and anarchists accused Militant supporters of ‘collaborating with the police’. This was totally false. Tommy Sheridan and the other leaders were overwhelmingly re-elected to head the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation. A 19-year-old who had gone on a demonstration for the first time, more accurately reflected the mood: "I hope that in 20 years time I can look back and be proud to have been the child of world revolution and tell my children: ‘I was there, I saw it all happen, I saw Thatcher fall!’" He will still be waiting for the first part of his prediction to be borne out, but Thatcher did indeed fall and it was not because of the TUC or the official Labour leadership. Four days after the epic mass demonstration, the TUC held a rally against the poll tax. In a hall holding 3,000 people, 800 were admitted, mostly union officials. The march to the hall was abandoned because only ten people turned out!

There could not have been a greater contrast between mass organisations and demonstrations led by Marxists and the impotence of the official trade union and Labour leadership. However, the 31 March demonstration alone did not compel the government or Thatcher to immediately retreat. It took a protracted non-payment campaign with 18 million people refusing to pay to achieve this. This was accompanied by some strikes, such as by civil servants in Glasgow. The first flashpoint in the English poll tax courts came on the Isle of Wight. The court threw out 1,800 summonses for non-payment! In effect, a protracted social ‘guerrilla’ campaign unfolded. The Guardian admitted that non-payment was running at "40-50% in several large towns and cities". In London it was much higher. A correspondent commented: "I knew Thatcher was done for when I read that according to official figures a third of the people of Tunbridge Wells aren’t paying!"

In the teeth of the campaign of mass non-payment, Thatcher was forced from office and her heirs in the Major government ripped up the poll tax. But that was not before brutal methods were used to try and impose the tax. This went from the use of sheriff officers in Scotland and bailiffs in England and Wales – met with massive resistance led by Militant supporters – and the jailing of the leaders, as already reported. Although officially declared dead, the poll tax had not yet been buried completely. Indeed, months after its end, the pursuit of non-payers for arrears continued. One hundred and seventeen people had been jailed by November 1991 by 40 councils. At least ten pensioners received sentences totalling 366 days and ten women had been jailed. Amongst these was Janet Gibson – partner of one of the leaders of the 2009 Lindsey strike – from Hull, who went to jail for two weeks.　The knot of history – broken by the collapse of Stalinism – is being retied in current battles. Other jailed Militants included Eric Segal, Ruby and Jim Haddow, and Anne Ursell in Kent, and Mike O’Connell in London. Five billion pounds was owned to local councils from accumulated poll tax arrears.

Without the campaign of mass non-payment, the poll tax would still probably be in existence. It was the mass uprising, led by conscious socialists and Marxists, which brought about its defeat and that of Thatcher. We must learn all the lessons for today in order to prepare for the tumultuous battles to come.

Paul Cockshott

25th April 2011, 14:56

A labour movement campaign was launched in Edinburgh in December 1987, initiated by Militant supporters.
I would take slight exception to that, it was me who convened the first meeting of the Edinburgh Anti Poll Tax campaign in 87. Militant were certainly supportive, but I was the convenor until I left for Glasgow in 88, and there were many non Militant people involved in getting it started. There was also at the same time an anti poll tax union set up in the Maryhill area.