'All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign'?

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Feb 25 2011 01:08
'All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign'?

Does anyone know what went on with this?

Yeah yeah I know, Trots dishing out old lines etc, it's true, I'm sure like its sort of loose predecessor the all-britain anti-poll tax fed it might lead to trot selling outs (although, 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap' seems like an appropriate line here what with sheridan's recent complete fall from grace, not that he had any to begin with ofc).

The talk seemed nice, 'cameron is easy-peasy compared to thatcher', not a bad line I guess along with the history connected.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Feb 25 2011 11:19

It's a Socialist Party thing, came out of their de facto takeover of the National Shop Stewards Network a few months ago.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Feb 25 2011 14:49

duplipost

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Feb 25 2011 14:49

Wasn't sure where to put it really.

Still wondering what particular harm this proposal would do though, would someone explain to me what was so bad about it?

If anything it seems like an incredibly intelligent idea on the face of it, I know what the SP are all about don't worry and I would like to know more about just why it was opposed. From the looks of it that thread says running local anti-cuts candidates/supporting them being defeated was considered a bad thing.. what the hell is that all about? That is not a very good start to be quite frank.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Feb 25 2011 17:38

Well you can't create a federation from the top down, this is just the SP's attempt to gain the leadership position of the anti-cuts wave of resistance that is building. This their rival to the SWP's Right to Work and Counterfire's Coalition of Resistance, This is not primarily about stopping the cuts, but about growing the Party and it's influence and profile. You need to look beyond the rhetoric and focus on the practise and process to see why this will be damaging to any meaningful resistance if it gains any traction.

Quote:
From the looks of it that thread says running local anti-cuts candidates/supporting them being defeated was considered a bad thing.. what the hell is that all about?

i am not sure what you mean here, are saying this thread (the one linked to above) was broadly in favour and advocating standing of anti-cuts candidates (I didn't read it this way)or that you are?

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Feb 25 2011 20:05

Maybe you are right, but that doesn't somehow mean it couldn't have been powerful as a movement.

I mean if you have a better idea for building an anti-cuts movement that unites across the whole country (and preferably beyond) then "make it so". Really, I'm not just saying that, I mean it, I would love to see something of that description!

If not, then why oppose this idea? Surely the other two are dogmatic attempts at leadership of the anti-cuts movement by other parties and groups.

Oh and I reaally hope you're not going to tell me isolated localism with local groups going out and protesting a bit then joining the official trade unions march in embankment cuts the mustard, even if that is in actuality, the effect of what you advocate.

And finally, I meant the threadheader not the thread's body; wherever that was pasted from clearly attacks people who haven't supported parliamentary 'class-struggle'

Uncreative's picture
Uncreative
Offline
Joined: 11-10-09
Feb 25 2011 21:03
communal_pie wrote:
Surely the other two are dogmatic attempts at leadership of the anti-cuts movement by other parties and groups.

Yeah, you can tell this one is going to be different, because its done by the Socialist Party. I hope its as independent of party control as the NSSN was, that'd be killer.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Feb 25 2011 21:17

To be fair, the only people who honestly believed that were probably the anarchists and misguided SP newbies sucked in by the NSSN.

Apart from that, yes, the ABACC was obviously an attempt at control of the cuts movement by SP, that still doesn't mean it couldn't have had a progressive role ultimately though.

devoration1's picture
devoration1
Offline
Joined: 18-07-10
Mar 8 2011 03:00
Quote:
the ABACC was obviously an attempt at control of the cuts movement by SP, that still doesn't mean it couldn't have had a progressive role ultimately though.

Sounds like that's exactly what it means.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 8 2011 08:34
communal_pie wrote:
To be fair, the only people who honestly believed that were probably the anarchists and misguided SP newbies sucked in by the NSSN.

NSSN was relatively a grass roots led thing, with a large independent syndicalist presence.

communal_pie wrote:
Apart from that, yes, the ABACC was obviously an attempt at control of the cuts movement by SP, that still doesn't mean it couldn't have had a progressive role ultimately though.

I am not sure what your saying. If it was genuinely grass-roots led and a UK federated organisation it would be amazing, but its not. Any real advancement it makes would only serve to bolster the SP in making a 'workers party' further down the line.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Mar 8 2011 11:15
devoration1 wrote:
Quote:
the ABACC was obviously an attempt at control of the cuts movement by SP, that still doesn't mean it couldn't have had a progressive role ultimately though.

Sounds like that's exactly what it means.

seconded.

Plus if all the crap about unity, non-sectarianism and working together towards a common goal then why do these opportunsts all set up their own campaign rather than work together? Simply because, as has been said above, they are doing it to recruit or, they hope, to be able to somehow assume control of a powerful working class movement which they can parlay into power for themselves at the expense of fucking up the movement.The reason these groups try to set up these umbrella groups is so they can draw in as many people as possible to recruit or at least do work for them that they can take credit for.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Mar 9 2011 09:51

Yes, they want to 'make another workers party further down the line' and control any movement they are a part of, the old poll tax movement was led by a similarly inclined organisation started by the SP, the point was that it had a progressive role though, even if it did go on to betray workers it was instrumental in actually starting the poll tax movement. Is this deniable?

welshboy's picture
welshboy
Offline
Joined: 11-05-06
Mar 9 2011 10:11
communal_pie wrote:
t was instrumental in actually starting the poll tax movement. Is this deniable?

Am pretty sure that organised resistance to the Poll Tax was actually started by the Edinburgh Anarchists.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Mar 9 2011 15:07

The idea that this or that action is progressive just leads to confusion. To understand the role The Militant Tendency played in the development and retardation of the anti-poll tax movement means a criticial examination of the factors involved and an understanding of why it was able to "go on to betray workers ". To isolate one moment in history to explain the appearance of the 'anti-poll tax movement" is to leave oneself stranded in quicksands of history, where those 'things' most easily visible now, are mistaken for a map of the past. The 'Militant Tendency played an important part in spreading (as did anarchists and others) the 'message' but also limiting it's content. And once it had established its grip on the 'movement' it actively acted against effective organising where ever it thought it did not conform to it's own agenda.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Mar 9 2011 15:45
communal_pie wrote:
[...] the old poll tax movement was led by a similarly inclined organisation started by the SP, the point was that it had a progressive role though, even if it did go on to betray workers it was instrumental in actually starting the poll tax movement. Is this deniable?

Absolutely that's not only deniable, it is the complete opposite of the truth. A total lie.

Firstly the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation (such as it was) was only set up after the mass of local anti-poll tax groups in both Scotland and England & Wales had already constituted themselves. Secondly, the idea that the ABAPTF ever "led" the movement is rubbish. It was simply a device for the self-appointed Millie heads (Sheridan, McNally, Julie Whatserface, et al) to claim some mandate in the eyes of the media. I actually attended the first (and only, iirc) ABAPTF congress which was packed out with Militant supporters from Liverpool who were handed out delegate credentials for non-existent paper APT groups in Mersyside to support the North Korean-style stage-managed conference. Thankfully the whole thing was irrelevant by that stage, in any case.

The history of the real APT movement has been recorded elsewhere (e.g. Danny Burn's account). But the main points are 1) Militant's original plan was to use the Poll Tax as an excuse to stand independent "Labour against the Poll Tax" candidates in local elections (sound familiar?). It was only the intervention of Glasgow and Edinburgh anarchists who forced non-payment onto the agenda. Without that major change of strategy, there never would have been an Anti-Poll Tax movement in the first place. 2) In the setting up of groups in England & Wales, there was a race between the Militant and the Anarchists + independant libertarian lefties and fellow travellers, for territory and groups. Where the Militant were able to get an initial group founding meeting in an area with no anarchist presence, they held a public meeting and asked the meeting to elect a Commitee (consisting of the Millies who'd organised the meeting) and the group effectively became a dead paper group, another front hat for the existing Millies. Where anarchists and similar were present, we were able to prevent the formation of committees and insist on direct participatory decision making by all APT activists - these groups became the real motors of the movement, in the sense that they brought in the hitherto unorganised and created the basis for a real mobilisation. Again, had the Millies been unopposed the end product would have been a foreclosure of any possibility of mobilising mass support, resulting in just a pointless collection of paper front groups with no real active power.

And this is exactly the same mistake that the SP are now doing with the Anti-Cuts Thing. An exact replica copy of the same failed strategy without learning a single lesson from experience of the Poll Tax campaign at all. Mainly because they rewrite history as propaganda, believe the lies that their leaders tell them and are as in touch with reality as Muammar Ghaddafi. Actually a good deal less than Ghaddafi, given that the latter, despite his mentalist prounouncements, is still in touch with reality enough to be capable of winning battles.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Mar 9 2011 19:13

Appreciate the replies.

Alright, I think it's fair to ask: if the Edinburgh and other anarchists and other affiliated types like left-communists could all go it alone, why didn't they (and if they did, why did they need to work with SP types in the first instance?). The fact is that they opposed SP types within a mass organisation which didn't have a centralised leadership, they (sp bureaucrats) knew that they couldn't just build the anti-poll tax party or something daft like that in the first place because it would sink like a led balloon, right?

Bear in mind that I am not viewing any one event in isolation, I think that a wholesome approach to the situation is in order here, otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread.

At the end of the day, most organisations with some 'clout' have at keast been some mixture of left doctrines, does that make more sense now? I am nto saying that anarchists should just bend over and take it from some daft trotskos, but that perhaps a more pragmatic approach could at least repeat past-style successes..