ACAS sit-in: the future of the Socialist Workers’ Party
Posted on Sunday 23 May, 2010
Filed Under Socialist Workers' Party
THERE might be times and places in which it would be warranted for the far left unilaterally to disrupt talks aimed at settling an industrial dispute; it’s just that yesterday was clearly not among them.
Whatever justifications the Socialist Workers’ Party advances for invading the headquarters of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and staging a sit-in, one claim it cannot make in truth is that they did so because those involved in the British Airways strike wanted it to do so.
The irony is that several generations of socialists schooled in the IS tradition will be well aware of the dangers of what SWP founder Tony Cliff used to call ‘substitutionism’; the tendency of the revolutionary party to substitute itself for the working class. What we saw at ACAS last night was absolutely a (small-scale) case in point.
It’s not that anybody on the hard left has got a problem with direct action. If we were in a situation in which easy-lifer trade union bureaucrats on six-figure salaries were about to sign a shockingly unfavourable deal, despite the express desire of the low-paid rank-and-file to keeping on fighting, then such tactics might rightly be contemplated.
This time round, nobody in their right minds could accuse Unite leader Tony Woodley of behaving in this fashion. Sure, he is looking for a compromise; but then he’s a general secretary. General secretaries look for compromises. Let’s assume – for the sake of argument – that he was about to sell out the cabin crew. Even then, the initiative would properly rest with the strikers themselves, not the paper-sellers.
Sure, the press reports will inevitably be exaggerated. There are discrepancies between the various versions available online, but as far as I can make out, only around a dozen Trots got onto the floor where the talks were taking place.
They chanted for a bit and then – much like Elvis, I suppose – left the building. It will have been a minor league pain in the arse for all concerned, but no biggie in the wider scheme of things.
But what has rendered me bewildered is the sheer bloody pointlessness of it all. There seems to be no obvious rationale, far less any intelligent assessment of how such a move fits in with wider efforts to win the BA dispute. Unless I am missing something, the reasoning more or less comes down to ‘we are SWPers, this is what we do, innit’.
Perhaps the perpetrators are congratulating themselves on the publicity they have secured, in the hope that it will make them attractive to some layers of youth. Perhaps. But to most of the population they will come across as a bunch of berks determined to undertake occupations just for the sake of it. In the eyes of many ordinary union reps, the SWP’s standing will be even more tarnished than it is already.
As the terms ‘Socialist Workers’ Party’ and ‘revolutionary left’ are synonymous in many people’s minds, the rest of us can expect to get flak for this when we get back into our workplaces tomorrow.
In truth, I’ve still got a soft spot for the SWP. I have in the past been a member, and I think that the left as a whole would benefit from having a sizeable Marxist formation outside of Labour, with a base among the most combative sections within the working class.
But it is increasingly apparent that the SWP is not that kind of a party, and there is nothing in its current practice that so much as hints that it has the potential to become that kind of party. That ‘workers in struggle’ – to use the almost anachronistic jargon – are not attracted to the SWP in the way that they once were to the Communist Party of Great Britain tells you everything you need to know on this point. What is more, even at the level of theory, signs of disorientation are increasingly apparent.
During the era when post-war consensus social democracy dominated politics, strikes were an everyday feature of labour movement life, and international relations was characterised by the Cold War, the far left had answers on a postcard courtesy of the classic Marxist texts. Yes, the SWP tweaked those texts, but still operated within a recognisably Marxist framework.
We now live in a very different world, and the SWP has patently lost the plot. Since the death of Cliff, it has increasingly oriented away from the working class and towards both ‘the movements’ on the one hand and openly rightwing and bourgeois Islamist forces on the other.
Mutatis mutandis, this is the precisely the same sort of mistake that the Fourth International made in adapting to student vanguards and radical third-worldism in the 1960s and 1970s. The IS was among the FI’s sternest critics, and understandably so. But look, it’s way beyond my pay grade to act as keeper of the Cliffite flame.
Just as many Trotskyists who entered the Labour Party in the early 1980s ended up going native, so the SWP is increasingly infected by the quasi-situationist bad habits it has picked up from its latest turn. And to this day, the organisation remains in denial over just how much of a fiasco the Respect debacle truly represented.
International Socialism Journalism still sometimes carries impressive articles. But more and more it instantiates an internalised system of thought, in which positions are justified by reference to the writings of Cliff, Kidron, Harman and Callinicos rather than engaging with any ideas from outside this constellation.
It is difficult to engage the average SWPer in friendly informal Marxist-to-Marxist political discussion, as once might have occurred over a pint after a union meeting, for instance. Even those who would once have relished arguing for their politics against other leftist viewpoints now simply shy away.
There has been a lot of gloating on other blogs about the ACAS occupation. Socialist Unity speculates that the SWP is ‘finished’, which it very obviously is not. Harry’s Place is predictably jubilant at having its prejudices confirmed. I am not inclined to join in.
But can I just say – more in sorrow than in anger – that the comrades badly need to get their act together. There are many warning signs that the SWP is rapidly degenerating politically, and some of the obvious historical parallels leave me feeling more than a little uneasy.
<<Go back
Comments
65 Responses to “ACAS sit-in: the future of the Socialist Workers’ Party”
Leave a Reply
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
WS,
It is probably best if people try to avoid obvious political errors.
It is probably better if people can gain a bit of political maturity, as thus far the current crop of tactics don’t seem to have been working.
I wouldn’t dream of telling people who are ***professional*** politicos, that is they do it 60+ hours a week for a living, what to do.
However, if they are there in that position and they find they can’t stand a bit of mild criticism, or they lack the introspection to see when they make a major FUCK UP, then possibly they should find another line of work, or at least relegate what they call politics to a hobby, better still they should take up stamp collecting
It’s a pretty big indictment of the left in itself that a blogpost about the largely irrelevant actions of a largely irrelevant group have attracted more comment here than stuff about the nuts and bolts of the actual BA dispute.
How do people see it panning out, now that we’re into another wave of action? What sort of meaningful and effective solidarity can we offer?
I think the actions of the protestors can be criticised but the form most of that criticism has taken is utterly preposterous and very unpleasant. You have sneering fuckwits, who do fuck all themselves, spreading misinformation and making up their own conclusions even before anyone has been allowed to speak for their actions.
Then you hear those same fuckwits who rush to judgement coming out with drivel such as this,
“There is a certain mindlessness to those who defend the SWP’s recent actions.
There is and ignorance of politics in the excuses that we hear.
And above all, there is an incredible amount of juvenile adventurism in this mindset.
I doubt it is coincidental that the British Left is probably the smallest that it has been for 100+ years”
the form most of that criticism has taken is utterly preposterous and very unpleasant. You have sneering fuckwits, who do fuck all themselves, spreading misinformation and making up their own conclusions even before anyone has been allowed to speak for their actions.
Sounds like a dictionary definition of modernityblog.
No doubt I’ll get accused of being a ‘university graduate’ or ‘professional politico’ for saying that.
There is something peculiar about the attitudes demonstrated here.
On the one hand, the SWP, its members and supporters are often excessively critical of others, and they are quick to put the political boot in.
Yet on the other hand, they whine and almost scream when **they** are subject to mild criticism of their stupid conduct.
That’s a bit of an immature attitude to have, if you are going to be active in British politics, as the SWP are….and have been for 30+ years…
Again, the SWP are hypercritical of others, but can’t take it when their own FUCK UPS are pointed out.
Todays Guardian describes the SWP as “anarchists” as in “Anarchists broke up the talks by breaking into ACAS” (or similar). Hahaha.
Having set the precedent on the Thailand thread, maybe Dave could conduct an interview with someone who was on the protest, putting some of the criticism’s above directly to them and inviting us to also pose some questions.
Personally I think the reaction has been predictably OTT but to be honest my first reaction was “What were you thinking!”. On reflection I feel all of us on BOTH sides of the debate need to cool down a little. Because this issue has highlighted all our failings and the general failings of the left.
“James Bloodworth. Maybe there are some Nazi Scum out there. I suppose you are not a fan of Nazi Scum.”
No. That’s why I do not associate myself with those such as Unite Against Fascism who are soft on anti-Semitism.
“On reflection I feel all of us on BOTH sides of the debate need to cool down a little. Because this issue has highlighted all our failings and the general failings of the left.”
That’s a very considerate and moderate view when you think about it.
You could read it as meaning that certain types of discussion are off-limits, or not desirable.
IF that is the case then surely that highlights a wider problem that occurs occasionally on the British Left, that is, the inability to critically and objectively look at activities and learn anything from them.
So things will happen, major mistakes, there will be some dispute, some argument and yet few of those responsible for the mistake will ever admit that it was a mistake or that there is something to learn.
It seems to me that in the past 30+ years that bits of the British Left has almost made a virtue never learning from past mistakes and so the quality of those discussions on the British Left around these issues is often very poor, defensive, negative, etc, which in turn reflects on the culture of debate found on bits of the British Left, again almost dire.
“You could read it as meaning that certain types of discussion are off-limits, or not desirable”
Only if you are a total idiot it should be added. What is needed is considered discussion, not jumping to conclusions etc etc.
“So things will happen, major mistakes, there will be some dispute, some argument and yet few of those responsible for the mistake will ever admit that it was a mistake or that there is something to learn.”
Depends on the point of view doesn’t it? One mans major mistake is another mans raging success! You have judged it a major failure before you can possibly assess that. Which frankly is dire!
It is rather amusing to see that we are being counselled not to jump to conclusions, and how this topic really needs a considered discussion.
Amusing, because the people arguing it are the least moderate, least considered and often the quickest to jump to hasty conclusions or shout abuse.
Aside from the unintended humour, it does tell us how even childish and juvenile actions (if done by the ‘right’ people) are defended by those who should know better. No wonder the British Left is in such a paltry state.
Still, the Daily (Maybe) has an intelligent take on the matter:
ops the link, http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2010/05/ba-occupation.html
On the one hand, the SWP, its members and supporters are often excessively critical of others, and they are quick to put the political boot in.
Yet on the other hand, they whine and almost scream when **they** are subject to mild criticism of their stupid conduct.
I’d say it was almost exactly the reverse. Or is that too mild a way of putting it, when I should be whining and screaming to fit your stereotype?
It seems to me that the SWP’s decision to back the egotistical poseur Jerry Hicks against the United Left’s Len McClusky in the Unite GS election, is a much more important sign of their degeneration than the nonsense at ACAS last weekend.
We are longstanding Morning Star readers and supporters from Manchester.
There have been some improvements in our paper recently, but it is dominated by the backwards, revisionist CPB clique; we would like to see less sports and TV, and more regional, industrial and international reporting.
We would like to see some Marxist education in the paper.
And crucially, the Labour Party is now a spent force, but the CPB still think they can reclaim it.
If the conflict between the NUJ Chapel and the CPB led Peoples Press Printing Society does come to a strike which could destroy our paper after 80 years, we think the loyal Morning Star readers and supporters across the country should have a say.
Not just the few mainly loyal CPB supporters who recently attended the stage managed and fixed PPPS AGM’S.
We think it encumbent on Tony Briscoe (CPB fixer) and PPPS Secretary to reconvene a special PPPS AGM and invite all shareholders (1,000′s of individuals, unions and progressive bodies) to sort this matter out in a comradely way.
We will be looking at the rules and will write to Briscoe suggesting such a course of action.
Yours Fraternally, Manchester Morning Star readers and supporters.