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
What worries me about yesterday’s foolishness is how it could negatively impact on Paul Holmes’ Unison general secretary campaign. As comrades may or may not know, the SWP are supporting Paul. By acting as they have done the SWP have gifted Unison’s right something they can use against him: guilt by association. In fact, you can already see such an attempt being made here.
Not going to do them any favours on the TUSC front, either. Can’t see Bob Crow being very keen on this, and he didn’t want to letm in in the first place.
What ever the pros and cons of this action, and from a distance it doesn’t look too smart, once they had done it someone could have at least given that turd Willie Walsh a slap.
“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 an unfavourable deal, despite the express desire of the low-paid rank-and-file to keeping on fighting, then such tactics might rightly be contemplated.
But even then, the initiative would best come from the strikers themselves. And in any case, nobody in their right minds would accuse Unite leader Tony Woodley of behaving in this fashion on this occasion.”
This is exactly what was happening. Have you seen Woodley and Simpson ebing interviewed on TV over the last few days, they have said that all they are negotiating is the jobs and ‘perks’ lost during the dispute. I.E. Total surrender!
Also are we really expected to believe that a Unison member who was going to vote for Holmes will now switch to Prentiss! Come off it. (By the way I sent my form in a couple of days ago and voted for Bannister).
As you say Dave, the world is a very different place. I offer some advice on how the Marxist left can best orientate themselves under present conditions here:
http://nextleft2010.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-should-socialists-do-now.html
Raphael Samuel once wrote that CP branch meetings acted, not as a place for politics, but as a refuge from politics. They offered comfort in the context of a British political landscape that offered little.
The Trot sects have taken this pattern of behaviour to some bizarre and abusive extremes over the years. Whereas the Stalinists reconciled themselves to the politics of piecemeal reform, the Trot sects have set themselves the task of sustaining the illusion that mass support for revolutionary politics is always just around the corner.
Such a task typically takes a heavy toll on the ability of sect members to relate to the external political world in a sober and proportionate manner.
As a UNITE Branch Chair I am not aware that the SWP has been involved in this dispute.
I even bought the SW last week and can’t say that it struck me that this was their number one campaign.
Subsitutionism is the least you can say about it.
Dean has just substantiated Dave’s point about ‘sustitutism’. I guess most poeple in the SWP are too young to have been politically conscious in the 70s when there was real mass militancy and have an idea that it can be provoked by stunts like this. I hope it doesn’t harm the strikers case.
The American term is ‘camera time.’
The SWP and its predecessor IS might well be known to the likes of Coates and even myself but wholly unknown to the general public.
This sort of public silliness, which was a brilliant coup in terms of grabbing some ‘camera time’ for a bunch of extremists totally unknown even to unswerving Trade Unionists may – may – be useful in tempting recruits out of the shrubbery.
Wait and see, as Stanley Baldwin used to say.
SueR,
I am a Socialist party supporter!!
All I am pointing out is that Woodley and Simpson were about to sign “an unfavourable deal, despite the express desire of the low-paid rank-and-file to keeping on fighting” if their utterences on TV were anything to go by. So Dave saying this wasn’t the case seems untrue.
Here is the coverage in everyone’s most-hated paper -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280583/BA-stockpiles-1-7bn-fighting-fund-WIllie-Walsh-vows-dysfunctional-cabin-crew.html
… if the link works but it seems probable that the beloved Duchess of York has upstaged the SWP as a hot news item.
I’m rather surprised that AVPS doesn’t know of John Gray’s reputation as a Blairite witch-hunter. It’s not the first attack he’s launched on Paul Holmes, and it won’t be the last.
Dean seems to be right – the negotiators had given in on everything except the travel perks and the bullying of union activists.
The protest was an initiative that occured at the end of a Right To Work Conference. Were not the same criticisms of “substitutionism” made of the Right To Work campaign of the 70s by those whose aimwas to bury Cliff not to praise him?
As we’ve been living through an era where strikes have not been an everyday feature of labour movement life, the SWP would have lost the plot if it continued to focus on them exclusively.
positions are justified by reference to the writings of Cliff, Kidron, Harman and Callinicos
aka “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Which may leave you cold, but is not the end of the world as we know it.
There are many warning signs that the SWP is rapidly degenerating politically
Such as?
this publicity stunt by the SWP shows again, that they have no respect for the autonomy of unions and social movements
I do Chjh, which is why I used him as an example of the right going in for guilt by association.
Somebody left a door open; some demonstrators got in and created a commotion; we’re all doomed! At least that’s what hundreds of posters on SU seem to think. I suppose they’re mostly visiting from Harry’s.
But when I think about it, this commotion got a lot of prime-time news coverage, so if it’s true what people are saying here ( and on form I’d expect so) – that the union is about to sell out the workers – when the workers and the ‘left’ start shouting about a sell-out, then a lot more people will have an idea what they’re talking about – ” Oh, that was that thing that was on the telly – what, they weren’t happy about the offer?” Pictures help people remember – maybe it wasn’t so stupid!
“This is exactly what was happening. Have you seen Woodley and Simpson ebing interviewed on TV over the last few days, they have said that all they are negotiating is the jobs and ‘perks’ lost during the dispute. I.E. Total surrender!”
They’re not selling out, this strike was called for the purpose of regaining jobs and ‘perks’ lost from the last strike. Woodley and Simpson have no mandate to negotiate over anything else.
Thanks Simon, so BA have won hands down and the union have capitulated, they are now negotiating over what they lost just by calling the original strikes. All they did was capitulate too late. If they had capitulated up front they would have been better off. Another great day for the Labour movement!
Well done the SWP middle class numpties you have done a great service for people that have to work for a living.
The Socialist Workers Party carries an even greater detestation for the working class than the working class do for the SWP. Not that the two ever come into any contact.
Bloodwurth. The wurking Class have not heard of the SWP.
Jimmy Glesga is 100% right; the lower orders normally live in contented ignorance of the SWP and the 57 varieties of Fourth Internationalists in general.
Stunts of the ACAS-building-storming sort are perceived as downright silly or retro-Situationist or asinine adventurism by committed Leftards but are jolly good publicity for the SWP, whatever disapproving tut-tuttery they may provoke on the part of all two hundred or three hundred ‘Morning Star’ readers.
Which reminds me to suggest that readers here ought to watch Iranian-funded Press TV as and when they can; whatever one might think of the Iranian regime and all its works and pomps, Press TV very often features prominent and opinionated members of the British extra-Parliamentary left as well as good-quality left-slanted news features and documentaries you’re not likely to see elsewhere.
Exchanges between people on the extra-Parliamentary Left seem well-informed, courteous and restained when compared to this …
http://www.mpacuk.org/story/040510/row-breaks-out-mosque-bethnal-green.html
… do, please, read every last one of the comments.
Very little suprises me about the SWP these days, though this did. I’m incredibly surprised that they organised an actual protest at the relevant site, rather than turning up and leading protesters away to an entirely symbolic demonstration on the other side of the city to listen to excerable folk music and speeches from Tory politicians, as they did at the anti-EDL mobilisation in Glasgow, resulting in neo-fascists being to seig heil on the city’s main shopping street virtually unopposed.
Yes, Yes Yes, SWP infantalism meets Edgar Broughton – “Out Willie Out!” All very well Dave, but more importantly in the scheme of things, did they sell any papers?
“Sell the Paper, Build the Party, Prepare for Power…and put down a marker for a career with C4″
If it works, don’t mend it.
Having criticised this stunt, I wonder what people think of Derek Simpson behaviour. The breakfast news (BBC) said that he was discovered texting/tweeting during negotiations, telling people outside the meeting what was going on and BA was mightily pissed off. Is it a good or bad thing?
I can agree that the SWP made fools of themselves. They wandered up, found an open door, Willie and a camera and then shouted a bit. Certainly with no thought for the conseqences, so a cock up occurred. But this is not supporting World War 1, Kronstadt, the Hitler-Stalin pact or whatever else is your particular river of blood .As Dave has pointed out,some of the comments on the left blogosphere seem wildly over the top in their denunciation of the hapless SWP. Perhaps Derek was wrong to tweet. Perhaps. on the other hand, all union negotiations should be open and transparent to the members. But the real absence in these debates, is the awareness that the key characteristic of these negotiations is that BA management do not want to negotiate but to smash the union. Willie is the enemy not dimbos like Simpson and Martin Smith.
If someone outside had been able to communicate with Derek Simpson telepathically, would Sue R. disapprove or approve?
Stormtropper Corr, I leave it to your ilk to believe in occultism. I agree with badger.
“Bloodwurth. The wurking Class have not heard of the SWP”
Not quite accurate. You often see SWP’ers on the streets of peripheral market towns under the guise of Unite Against Fascism shouting “nazi scum” at working class youths.
“Which reminds me to suggest that readers here ought to watch Iranian-funded Press TV as and when they can; whatever one might think of the Iranian regime and all its works and pomps, Press TV very often features prominent and opinionated members of the British extra-Parliamentary left as well as good-quality left-slanted news features and documentaries you’re not likely to see elsewhere.”
If you like you’re leftist politics with a touch of clerical fascism.
Rather than “good quality left-slanted news” it’s another example of those who should know better than to work for a station that is a mouthpiece for a regime where homosexuals are hanged, prisoners are routinely raped, protesters are shot, and death sentences are imposed on foreign citizens for the writing of novels.
I don’t care what anybody working for such a filthy organisation thinks.
First Robert Service with his forensic analysis of the real Trotsky, and now this latest debacle. Looks like the 2012 stuff has some reality, but it’s not the world that’s ending, just the Leninist micro-verse. Expect to see a substantial exodus of leading opportunists into the ranks of neo-labour – where you can enjoy your rhetorical cake and eat it (courtesy of corporate sponsors).
Q: (from Skidmarx): “The protest was an initiative that occured at the end of a Right To Work Conference. Were not the same criticisms of “substitutionism” made of the Right To Work campaign of the 70s by those whose aimwas to bury Cliff not to praise him?”
A (from me): NO.
James Bloodworth. Maybe there are some Nazi Scum out there. I suppose you are not a fan of Nazi Scum.
Terrible, but the SWP’s ultra Leftism is probably a consequence of the SWP falling apart.
The SWP’s leadership need to keep its troops active running around, shouting, waving, anything but a moment of thought or introspection on the SWP’s errors.
It remains to be seen who wins but the Murdoch press reports that some Unionists think BA has already won …
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7135454.ece
Wait and see
Modernity,
If you would just remove your head from your arse for just a minute you might realise that many in the SWP felt the protest was misguided.
However, the OTT hysterical reaction from sections of the left to this piece of direct action is pretty shabby to be honest. Certainly to be admired more than fuckwits who think writing a blog is the be all and end all of being on the left.
What a silly pretentious post Dave. Beware of concepts you clearly do not understand such as substitutionism.
The truth of the matter is that a small group of workers, approximately 200, held a protest in SUPPORT of the BA strikers. Of which some dozens were able to enter the ACAS building a minority of whom were then able to confront the hated Willie Walsh. The whole thing lasted half an hour and we were in the building for no more than 15 minutes.
It was, allow me to remind you, a small protest in support of the BA cabin crew. In its own terms it was, by chance, highly successful. Successful in that it won publicity for both the strikers and the SWP, Successful in that it showed that imaginative militant tactics can be used without negative consequences. Successful in that it encouraged BASSA strikers in their struggle with union buster Walsh.
The latter point is of vital importance and I note that many cabin crew have greeted SWP members warmly on the picket lines only yesterday and I’m sure will do so again today. They did so because they recognised that the action was taken to support them and knew, its obvious in any case, that there was no attempt by the ‘invaders’ to substitute our small action for their strike. Nobody on the protest of the picket lines thinks for a moment that the protest was substituting for the mass pickets needed to SHUT DOWN HEATHROW.
As for the political health of the SWP that is an interesting question. A question on which Dave has nothing to say of any interest because he lacks detailed knowledge of the SWP today and an understanding of its Marxist politics.
Allow me to inform you, as a close observer of the group, that the internal culture of the SWP strikes me as more healthy today than it has been for many years. note that even around the small action discussed above some SWP militants felt happy to dissent from the positions expressed in the groups press release. Something that has not happened in many years although I’m glad to report they have reversed their views as far as I understand. Another comrade remarked of national meetings of the SWP that “they used to be boring, just rubber stamps, but now they are interesting”.
This change in internal culture and democratic functioning, it needs must go further in my view, is of massive importance for the group. It is indicative, I suggest, of a group that is recovering from a near disastrous opportunist line imposed by a now discredited leadership. A leadership (sic) that has since jumped ship for media pastures new.
As for the positions of the SWP they too are now closer to those of the old IS, in a very different period, than has been the case for years. Hence the reorientation towards Right to Work and the militant minority. Hence the return to advocacy of workplace occupations and arguments over the need for rank and file movements.
I would continue as your factual errors are many Dave but I’ve not the time. But I will note that your claim that the SWP does not engage intellectually with thinkers from outside the IS Tradition is risible. Just take a glance at the last few editions of the ISJ, Socialist Review or look at the list of speakers invited to this years ‘Marxism’ event.
Is the SWP falling apart? No, Dave, its growing once more and growing through struggle. Struggles most of its critics on the ‘far left’ are far removed from. Deal with it.
“It is indicative, I suggest, of a group that is recovering from a near disastrous opportunist line imposed by a now discredited leadership” …Hey, All the “Ds”.
But surely “opportunist” is the history of the SWP encapsulated? The Blackpool through its rock? Never leave a trend untrended? Never leave a wagon un-banded?
Ah but with a(nother) new heroic leadership ALL will again be well.
Today’s revolutionary slogan…
“OUT WILLIE (and our old leaders)OUT!
Jim Denham – let me quote you what someone who was in the party at the time has had to say:
“Tony Cliff and Duncan Hallas were both enthusiastic supporters of stunts – direct action by a few comrades aimed at getting a cause some publicity”.
Now you might want to say that they were substitutionist then and substitutionist now. But Dave’s argument that this is not the same party is wrong, and generally I think we’re seeing a depth of sectarianism on the left that any publicity for the SWP is bad publicity. Surprisingly that hasn’t been as strong at Shiraz Socialist as elsewhere.
“to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”
Euston Towers is hardly the Winter Palace and the Right To Work Conference the Petrograd Soviet, but fuck me there seem to be a lot of Mensheviks around. If our genial host doesn’t have copyright on the phrase “sad sectarian”, there are a lot of people engaging in ritual SWP bashing who should have thought to wait until they saw how the “workers in struggle” before starting another exorcism.
There are perhaps some lessons to be learned from the generally approving attitude with which Socialist Worker has been received on the picket lines. THat a group of workers bullied and scared to appear in the media for fear of reprisal might welcome those that show public support for their struggle. That groups of workers forced into action are more likely to look to those prepared to stand up for them than the traditional labour and trade union leadership more interested in attacking socialists than bosses.
When I was in the SWP there seemed to be a general attitude that IT was the embryo of a revolutionary party. The last twenty years has encouraged the belief that it could not hope to do so without wider co-operation on the far left, but these events are making me think a little that the other left groups are too sectarian to be a fundamental part of the solution. I hope I’m wrong.
“workers in struggle”[reacted] before starting:
which would appear to be:
“As for the results—well, we have received a number of supportive emails from cabin crew, as well as a long and excited voicemail message from BA crew in Singapore saying how brilliant it was to see a show of support for them!
SWP members got a great reception on the picket lines today. Nobody tried to get us removed, or argued with us. They even let us use their toilets, a sure sign of fraternal bonhomie. One group of pickets gave comrades a round of applause for being part of the “Battle of Acas”, shaking hands with them enthusiastically.”
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/05/right-to-work-conference-ba-strike-and.html
“you might realise that many in the SWP felt the protest was misguided.”
Misguided is that your SWP inspired use of understatement ?
How charming, and how very, er, bourgeois.
It’s always marvellous to watch what happens when the SWP makes a major FUCK UP, it goes through various stages of excuses:
That’s the kind of thing that anyone in the trade union movement has been hearing for the past 30 years.
Not that most SWP members would remember back that far, as the revolving door membership, politics as slogans and juvenile idiocy tends to dominate a large percentage of the SWP’s activities.
But the excuses that you hear are very similar (not exact, just similar) year after year, after year after year.
Skidmarx,
It really makes me angry when sit on their arse ‘leftists’ slag off people who have the bottle to actually get involved in some activism. If other activists criticise the action then so be it.
. In its own terms it was, by chance, highly successful.
It really wasn’t. It was a bad choice of venue for this kind of action. That skewed the kind of publicity it got, in a way that was unhelpful. I’m largely in favour of stuntism as a tactic, but this doesn’t come across like it was that well thought through. You’d have been better advised to do this kind of stunt at Walsh’s offices or even his home.
Despite the claims of some though, the reason for that tactical clumsiness isn’t because the SWP are a stuntist organisation, it’s because they aren’t and this is an arena they aren’t that used to working in.
None of that alters the fact that some of the most shrill outrage on this is coming from people who are hostile to any action that takes place outside ‘official’ channels. And I see no reasons to take the inheritors of the CP tradition particuarly seriously on this point.
Skidders: there’s a difference between “stunts” aimed at getting publiocity for a given campaign or cause – nothing wrong with them – and “substitutionism” of the sort we saw at ACAS after the Right to Work conference.
There was a lot wrong with the IS in the 1970′s, but “subsitutionist” it wasn’t (at least not until around 1975): the likes of Cliff, Hallas and Higgens are on record vigorously denouncing people like the SLL/WRP over exactly the sort of thing we saw at ACAS.
We were never going to get ‘good’ publicity. Its not a factor worthy of consideration.
neprimerimye:
I’d agree that you’re never going to get praised for militantcy by the press, but it’s not about that. It’s the focus of the publicity that determines whether it’s a success here or not. And this action meant that the press ended up focusing primarily on the ‘disruption’ of the talks, as opposed to the issue of the strike itself.
I think it is quite laughable to call this ‘stunt’ substitutionism, or the very least it is putting a spin on events. Though I have settled on laughable.
On Cliff, if you actually read what he says closely and not rely on half remembered snippets (which could explain Denham’s entire political degeneracy) he says ““Substitutionism” becomes a reactionary, dangerous element when a rising mass movement already exists and the party tries to substitute itself for this”.
I think those condemning this action from the ‘Substitutionist’ angle should also make the case for an identifiable rising mass movement.
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.
Still, AVPS’s post has a certain perspective which is useful, from one of the speakers at the RTW conference
“I was very happy to be invited to speak at the Right to Work conf on Saturday but I left before 5pm to catch a train home.
I had no idea the conference would end with a call to ransack negotiations across the road, and I utterly condemn it.
This will make it very difficult now to get a motion through policy conference next week in support of the aims of Right to Work.
It also could set back United Left’s wider strategy of working with broad-based movements like Right to Work, something which I argued for and supported in my speech that day.
We need allies but not allies who undermine our work in the trade unions.
It’s our dispute and if we want extra demonstrators to support us we will ask for them”. [My emphasis.]
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/05/unite-speaker-condemns-swp.html
@Mod
Probably better to argue this one with counterexamples of what the SWP should be putting their energy and passion into instead.
Can you give us some suggestions of activism you’ve recently done, that you think is more productive as an approach?