placing Red Action then the IWCA theorethically

[Taxamo Welf]

i'm moderately well versed with RA's personal theory and the transition to the IWCA, but if was, say, writing a bullshit essay on them and needed to reference bullshit theoreticians , where would i place them?

It doesn't need to be particularly accurate, we can always established they don't really sit within a certain theoretical grouping.

So lets see what we have:

antifascism a big priority

militant action - from antifascism to republican violence

class beyond economic production - the workers not important because they can switch off production. Focus in the working class in and of itself, not as part of a grand marxist scheme to change the world. Post industrial class analysis?

might it be worth looking at the ideological background of Sinn Fein, cos that's who they were kinda based on?

Remember, much as your opinions are of interest to me, i have plenty of that and will have plenty more when i interview membes of AFA or RA first hand as i intend. What i need are some very broad, well known texts to relate them to, otherwise as far as academics are concerned the work is null and void. So, if there is a political writer who has talked about post-industrial class analysis or the community as unit of organisation or ANYTHING i can relate, please plug them. Can i tack negri on to here? Anything that a college would take seriously basically. It can be completely disproven or attacked from RA's point of view, but it needs to be there.

who's a big exponent of multiculturalism on the left....? Alibai-Brown maybe.

(this has gone on a few other boards btw)

 

[Steve Booth]

Are you connecting Red Action to the 1970s and the ANL SWP front campaign group against the NF? I think that might be a useful start in terms of history - You could also compare it to the 'Workers Against Racism' group set up by the RCP in the 1980s. Different approaches. I think there will be texts out there about this, and you'd probably get something worthwhile out of them.

Or even further back the book about 43 Group - is it by Morris Beckman? as a starting point in terms of practical militant anti-Fascism.

Ian Birchall 'History of the International Socialists Part 1', International Socialist 76, March 1985. The official SWP version of their own history.

 

[durruti02]

absolutely key to RA was the idea of w/c autonomy .. they argued you needed a w/c run left NOT one created and run by the middle class as is the case of most left groups ( and @ groups )

did you read We Are Red Action?

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Are you connecting Red Action to the 1970s and the ANL SWP front campaign group against the NF? I think that might be a useful start in terms of history - You could also compare it to the 'Workers Against Racism' group set up by the RCP in the 1980s. Different approaches. I think there will be texts out there about this, and you'd probably get something worthwhile out of them.

Or even further back the book about 43 Group - is it by Morris Beckman? as a starting point in terms of practical militant anti-Fascism.

Ian Birchall 'History of the International Socialists Part 1', International Socialist 76, March 1985. The official SWP version of their own history.

No i don't think any of that is particularly useful tbh. I'm looking at placing RA in a wider THEORETHICAL context. I have loads of intra-left comparison and critique, i need some big guns writing books about the death of industrial class or whatever.

This is not for my own interest or information.

can you think of any theorethical trend they fit in? Bullshit is completely acceptable.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

absolutely key to RA was the idea of w/c autonomy .. they argued you needed a w/c run left NOT one created and run by the middle class as is the case of most left groups ( and @ groups )

where does that place them then, theoretically speaking? Can you think of a trend or school of thought? Sounds like classical marxism to me, 'task of the working class alone' sort of thing. What about negri? I don't know - I need someone who will appeal to academics so i can look like i'm using the right sources. Not other mini leftists.

did you read We Are Red Action?

no.
But:
http://www.redaction.org/misc/who.html
This is a shit hot summary though, i might just read this then try and place them myself.

Did you ever do a degree in the end mate? I thought you might have said you'd done one a few years ago, or that might have been haggy.

 

[ChocolateTeapot]

Is this a joke? are 2 bald men still arguing over a comb?

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Is this a joke? are 2 bald men still arguing over a comb?

just fuck off please.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

from the 'shaping the future' piece i just linked to, this:

"When the level of race attacks has been likened to political terrorism."

is just bollocks. When, in 2000? I think bloody not! Political terrorism my arse. What an odd thing to say from a group which was telling everyone ELSE to stop confronting thye fascists becasue they'd hung up their boots. Race attacks are really low surely?

 

[durruti02]

where does that place them then, theoretically speaking? Can you think of a trend or school of thought? Sounds like classical marxism to me, 'task of the working class alone' sort of thing. What about negri? I don't know - I need someone who will appeal to academics so i can look like i'm using the right sources. Not other mini leftists.

ok .. miners next step? .. italian autonomism? .. but mostly a return to w/c roots i think .. if you can get hold of old RA's mr o'shea filled the centre pages with interminable and references to marx for their political beliefs .. the lefties on here might be able to link them to some early 20thc british leftist movement but i'm not sure

 

[Fisher_Gate]

There's an interesting reading list at the end of this article on the same topic.
http://uppingtheanti.org/node/383

This one time US group has an interesting archive of material:
http://www.sojournertruth.net/main.html

 

[JHE]

might it be worth looking at the ideological background of Sinn Fein, cos that's who they were kinda based on?

Yes, RA were great fans of the Irish Republican movement - and that's putting it mildly. At least one London RA member was more than just a supporter of the Provos.

I think they want the IWCA to do politics in the way Sinn Fein does politics. There are, however, very different in two respects: (i) the IWCA is obviously not an Irish Republican organisation and (ii) the IWCA, though it has had some success in a few neighbourhoods, has not taken off.

who's a big exponent of multiculturalism on the left....? Alibai-Brown maybe.

To be fair to Yasmin A-B, she has also been a critic of multi-kulti nonsense, albeit not from RA's militant working class point of view. (Also, I'm not sure Yasmin A-B is left-wing, but of course it all depends what you mean...)

 

[durruti02]

there was always a contradiction imho .. RA came out of a group of w/c anti fascists first and socialists second, many of whom had irish (republican) backgrounds .. they also had two at least top politicians in Mickey Farrell and Gary O'shea. So while WARA is a massively important document of the british left, the membership were keener on other stuff. Imho the IWCA is the product of WARA, yet it took them 15 years to get there, 15 years to work thru, that to produce the w/c politics that was intregal to WARA, they needed to drop irish republicanism ( anti imperialism) and anti fascism ..

 

[TopCat]

Aping the tactical approach of Sinn Fein hasn't worked very well. RA were best known for their anti fascist stance not doorstepping people about their concerns about local schools. Even paper candidates of the right are proving hard for the IWCA to beat in elections.

 

[d.a.s.h]

It might be that they had good ideas but not the necessary skills or resources to put them into widespread effect.

It's like lots of people have good ideas for inventions or businesses, but only some are able to develop them successfully.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Aping the tactical approach of Sinn Fein hasn't worked very well. RA were best known for their anti fascist stance not doorstepping people about their concerns about local schools. Even paper candidates of the right are proving hard for the IWCA to beat in elections.

actually i think the IWCA easily reached more prominence than Red Action, and has broken more ground. AFA is a single issue campaign done well, all credit to RA for their input, but i wouldn't be wanting to write about them if AFA was all they'd done. Your talking prominence to other left groups or leftists like yourself too, most people never heard of RA: antifascism only affected fascists and antifascists. Its not like mrs miggins cares the the NF got a doing in a car park last weekend, she does care that her house is being reposessed.

There is a seriously interesting development of politics in Red Action's transition to the IWCA, and it makes no difference that the IWCA project has now plateaued. I think you should try and appreciate the links in thought, such as communities of resistance, social class being more than economic and being organised beyond industry, that they have with Class War at its best. I know you don't really have a lot in common with CW at its best, opting for a 'bigger riots, better riots' (non)strategy, but seriously, the IWCA are the logical conclusion to what CW were saying by the early 1990's.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

It might be that they had good ideas but not the necessary skills or resources to put them into widespread effect.

It's like lots of people have good ideas for inventions or businesses, but only some are able to develop them successfully.

that's my conclusion, with a couple other things.

 

[durruti02]

There is a seriously interesting development of politics in Red Action's transition to the IWCA, and it makes no difference that the IWCA project has now plateaued. I think you should try and appreciate the links in thought, such as communities of resistance, social class being more than economic and being organised beyond industry, that they have with Class War at its best. I know you don't really have a lot in common with CW at its best, opting for a 'bigger riots, better riots' (non)strategy, but seriously, the IWCA are the logical conclusion to what CW were saying by the early 1990's.

tax .. topcat ( though as young as you are today! ) was part of that so it is unfair to say he is simply bigger and better riots ..

read the editions of class war around 1985 specifically 'what do we do when the cops fuck off' .. we were debating ideas of 'w/c control then' .. while i suspect Mr o 'shea would deny it we mixed a lot at then time and i suspect there was cross fertilisation ..

 

[Nigel]

actually i think the IWCA easily reached more prominence than Red Action, and has broken more ground. AFA is a single issue campaign done well, all credit to RA for their input, but i wouldn't be wanting to write about them if AFA was all they'd done. Your talking prominence to other left groups or leftists like yourself too, most people never heard of RA: antifascism only affected fascists and antifascists. Its not like mrs miggins cares the the NF got a doing in a car park last weekend, she does care that her house is being reposessed.

There is a seriously interesting development of politics in Red Action's transition to the IWCA, and it makes no difference that the IWCA project has now plateaued. I think you should try and appreciate the links in thought, such as communities of resistance, social class being more than economic and being organised beyond industry, that they have with Class War at its best. I know you don't really have a lot in common with CW at its best, opting for a 'bigger riots, better riots' (non)strategy, but seriously, the IWCA are the logical conclusion to what CW were saying by the early 1990's.

With respects to Class War.
Class War Organisation did go down that route with the short lived National Communities Alliance. Not particularly well organised or succesful.

 

[The39thStep]

Aping the tactical approach of Sinn Fein hasn't worked very well. RA were best known for their anti fascist stance not doorstepping people about their concerns about local schools. Even paper candidates of the right are proving hard for the IWCA to beat in elections.

where is this then?

Isn't the point that the IWCA is trying to organise within working class areas not the revo lefts memory of what they might have been doing 15 years ago?

I think you will find that ex RA members are very much in the minority of IWCA supporters

 

[Louis MacNeice]

that's my conclusion, with a couple other things.

Would one of the 'other things' be lack of interest/hostility from much of the left because of the implications that the IWCA (as a strategy as well as an organisation) had for them? There were (and there still are) substantial ideological and organisational costs to be paid by going the IWCA route; this is especially true for any democratic centralists and for those leading organisations. Of course there is also the potentially frightening prospect of leaving the 'comfort zone' of what constitues alot of left activity: the paper sale, petition, meeting, a to b march.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[dennisr]

Would one of the 'other things' be lack of interest/hostility from much of the left because of the implications that the IWCA (as a strategy as well as an organisation) had for them? There were (and there still are) substantial ideological and organisational costs to be paid by going the IWCA route; this is especially true for any democratic centralists and for those leading organisations. Of course there is also the potentially frightening prospect of leaving the 'comfort zone' of what constitues alot of left activity: the paper sale, petition, meeting, a to b march.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I think you have a somewhat overblown view of both the 'implications' and the visible successes of the IWCA Louis

RAs leadership came from one of the more ineffective grouplets on the left and in reaction to that experience they arn't above more than a little 'hostility' and 'lack of interest' themselves. They, like you, lump the entire left into one straw man block which you then spend your time knocking down. Theere is a lot of similarities in that approach to some of the worst elements of how many on the 'left' behave - they ignore anything they don't agree with and put forward their singular 'one way as the only way' regardless of the turn of events at any given moment. At least the IWCA is consistent in its version of 'one way' - credit due there - the swappie approach is to change the formula every few months or years.

39 Steps in the previous post talks about the work they do in local communities - something I am more than happy to give them credit for - but that remains the work of a few driven individuals from what I can see. The rest of the tiny organisation simply dining out on that actual work in one or two areas. 'Consistency' is not just 'consistency in talking about it'. I am sure you would agree with that last point.

The implication is that noone else is doing it. In practice the Socialist Party is doing much more in plenty more areas and more successfully if resulting elected representatives is a useful gauge of effectiveness. It always has done - both 15 years ago and today. And it still retains a flexibility to approaching that local work in the diverse working class areas of the UK it is working in - alongside and listening too those local communities, hence the re-elections, hence the ability to work alongside diverse and very genuine local campaigners (from stopping post office closures to to stopping nhs and nursery cuts), hence the small but important successes (from road crossings and housing repairs to defeating the attempts to sell off an entire boroughs housing stock), to exposing the weasel words of local politicians in power, to solid support of working people when they face mass layoffs as factories close in local boroughs (such as car workers in Coventry) etc etc etc.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

what is the exact definition/meaning of the phrase "working class autonomy"?
And how do supporters of RA and IWCA believe that its approach differs from the mainstream radical left?

I concur with some of Dennisr's thinking.

 

[The39thStep]

I think you have a somewhat overblown view of both the 'implications' and the visible successes of the IWCA Louis

RAs leadership came from one of the more ineffective grouplets on the left and in reaction to that experience they arn't above more than a little 'hostility' and 'lack of interest' themselves. They, like you, lump the entire left into one straw man block which you then spend your time knocking down. Theere is a lot of similarities in that approach to some of the worst elements of how many on the 'left' behave - they ignore anything they don't agree with and put forward their singular 'one way as the only way' regardless of the turn of events at any given moment. At least the IWCA is consistent in its version of 'one way' - credit due there - the swappie approach is to change the formula every few months or years.

39 Steps in the previous post talks about the work they do in local communities - something I am more than happy to give them credit for - but that remains the work of a few driven individuals from what I can see. The rest of the tiny organisation simply dining out on that actual work in one or two areas. 'Consistency' is not just 'consistency in talking about it'. I am sure you would agree with that last point.

The implication is that noone else is doing it. In practice the Socialist Party is doing much more in plenty more areas and more successfully if resulting elected representatives is a useful gauge of effectiveness. It always has done - both 15 years ago and today. And it still retains a flexibility to approaching that local work in the diverse working class areas of the UK it is working in - alongside and listening too those local communities, hence the re-elections, hence the ability to work alongside diverse and very genuine local campaigners (from stopping post office closures to to stopping nhs and nursery cuts), hence the small but important successes (from road crossings and housing repairs to defeating the attempts to sell off an entire boroughs housing stock), to exposing the weasel words of local politicians in power, to solid support of working people when they face mass layoffs as factories close in local boroughs (such as car workers in Coventry) etc etc etc.

To say that the RA leadership came out of one of the more ineffective grouplets on the left is a double slur. The ANL mark 1 was an extremely effective mass antifascist organisation that recorded an unprecendented run of succesful actions against the NF and BM. Militant at the time decided to work within their own silo and their anti fash operation just wasn't at the races. Admittedly they improved in the 80s but they weren't at the races when it came to the ANL.

The SWP was far from ineffective in that period what was ineffective was the Bolshevisation of the party which identified what was to be RA as a threat.

RA effectively ditched the classics of orthodox leftism ie democratic centralism, the Leninist baggage and the project being a repeat of 1917. It akso developed a unique critique of multiculturalism that restores class as central, had a refreshingly frank discussion on drugs and was the first to see where the far right were going and put what ever limited resources where its mouth was.

I know there are examples of the SP doing good work locally but essentially its still a Trot org with its project being 1917.Fair play if that's what it believes in but there are many who no longer buy in to that model.

 

[dennisr]

To say that the RA leadership came out of one of the more ineffective grouplets on the left is a double slur. The ANL mark 1 was an extremely effective mass antifascist organisation that recorded an unprecendented run of succesful actions against the NF and BM. Militant at the time decided to work within their own silo and their anti fash operation just wasn't at the races. Admittedly they improved in the 80s but they weren't at the races when it came to the ANL.

You think it was a slur? RA came from the SWP not the ANLmark1. The then very tiny Militant was a part of ANLmark1. Within the limits of the SWPs leadership, yep it was relatively effective - but the swappies made plenty of mistakes even then. Facism was knocked back ultimately though by the stealing of it clothes by the newly thatcherite leadership of the Tory party. Frankly confronting the fascists at the time was not the SWP initiative that re=written history states long after the event either - the first mass mobilisation against the then marching fash was in bradford - initiated by the LPYS (Militant) - supported by the SWP naturally and rightly. The ANL was launched in the wake of the Lewisham events - again the Militant played a major role in physically stopping the march through its marching seperately but striking together contingent. The Militants were not key players in the 'vicers against nazis' angle or similer that I agree.

The SWP was far from ineffective in that period what was ineffective was the Bolshevisation of the party which identified what was to be RA as a threat.

This is something i always find odd - the idea that the 'party' deteriorated and then you left - a similar arguement of many left splits. The SWP always contained a DC centre group as far as I know - I would be interested in finding out more about this structural chgane that you see at the time

RA effectively ditched the classics of orthodox leftism ie democratic centralism, the Leninist baggage and the project being a repeat of 1917. It akso developed a unique critique of multiculturalism that restores class as central, had a refreshingly frank discussion on drugs and was the first to see where the far right were going and put what ever limited resources where its mouth was.

It 'back to the centrality of class' critisisms are not unique at all - just overblown and sometimes as crude as those they see themselves as 'exposing'. The Liverpool battle involved a very obvious element of state multi-culti manipulation as central to the attacks on the left in the LP at the time (and its opposite in effective practice from the Militants - building those council houses, schools, sports centres - a concrete ripost to such crap). Well before RAs visible critisisms or existance. Again - like the 'lefties' you tend to tar every other genuine left with the same brush as (the shadow of the SWP v RA arguements?) - you seem to assume everyone else was a sucker for state multi-cult just because you see yourselves as alone in brakeing with such illusions. I think you overplay one tiny part of the overall situation with your critisisms of one aspect of that situation - no matter how valid they may be. And rejecting DC - well thats hardly a breakthrough or original is it?

The SWP model was always an easy one to knock down.

RAs critisisms (and the overplaying) are a result of the sterling anti-fascist work carried out - it dominated their work. But that was to the exclusion of much other work that was also needed as part of the 'centrallity of class' though. With the flip to 'building in working class communities' you now argue this to the exclusion of all else. I don't think things can be so cut and dried. Work in working class communities was always necessary, confronting organised fascism was always necessary even if I would agree on the points RA would make about the changed situation - it is still necessary to use other methods on occasion.

I know there are examples of the SP doing good work locally but essentially its still a Trot org with its project being 1917.Fair play if that's what it believes in but there are many who no longer buy in to that model.

And essentially the simple label of 'trot org' sounds a lot like the limited approach of many sectarian leftists - dc leftists or not. Thats not an adequate answer mate - you can do better than that. Simply on the basis of comparing our mutually limited resources (false though that is - it is simply to illustrate my point) - it seems our model is still doing better than yours. How do you figure that, where is the revelation from the RAs thoughts on that?

Not for the first time I will say that I think RA represent a genuine working class response to the problems we - the left as much as the working class as a whole - face. Some sound ideas that should make others think twice and re-consider some easy assumptions. I think they make a big mistake in using the methods of the sectarians though - easy labels, proscriptive writing off of tactics and startagies they consider do not fit in with 'ourselves alone' approach and a bit of an attitute towards other genuine working class responses to the situation we all face. You cannot simply write off people by calling them 'trots' or stupid throwaway comments like 'project 1917' - its meaningless. I think the biggest weaknes in the RAs arguements though are those over the role of trade unionists and organised workers. Yes, the social weight is weakened - does not compare to the wekness of the left and the now-not-left though. It is still a force in this society and one any person with a clear 'class centred approach' should be engaging with not ignoring.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

There seems a vagueness in a lot of the comments, RA/IWCA stand for working class autonomy - What is that? What does that mean concretely?
In what way have you returned to the centrality of the working class or related to working class people? How do you believe that RA/IWCA have had a superior approach to the rest of the left?

 

[The39thStep]

You think it was a slur? RA came from the SWP not the ANLmark1. The then very tiny Militant was a part of ANLmark1. Within the limits of the SWPs leadership, yep it was relatively effective - but the swappies made plenty of mistakes even then. Facism was knocked back ultimately though by the stealing of it clothes by the newly thatcherite leadership of the Tory party. Frankly confronting the fascists at the time was not the SWP initiative that re=written history states long after the event either - the first mass mobilisation against the then marching fash was in bradford - initiated by the LPYS (Militant) - supported by the SWP naturally and rightly. The ANL was launched in the wake of the Lewisham events - again the Militant played a major role in physically stopping the march through its marching seperately but striking together contingent. The Militants were not key players in the 'vicers against nazis' angle or similer that I agree.



This is something i always find odd - the idea that the 'party' deteriorated and then you left - a similar arguement of many left splits. The SWP always contained a DC centre group as far as I know - I would be interested in finding out more about this structural chgane that you see at the time



It 'back to the centrality of class' critisisms are not unique at all - just overblown and sometimes as crude as those they see themselves as 'exposing'. The Liverpool battle involved a very obvious element of state multi-culti manipulation as central to the attacks on the left in the LP at the time (and its opposite in effective practice from the Militants - building those council houses, schools, sports centres - a concrete ripost to such crap). Well before RAs visible critisisms or existance. Again - like the 'lefties' you tend to tar every other genuine left with the same brush as (the shadow of the SWP v RA arguements?) - you seem to assume everyone else was a sucker for state multi-cult just because you see yourselves as alone in brakeing with such illusions. I think you overplay one tiny part of the overall situation with your critisisms of one aspect of that situation - no matter how valid they may be. And rejecting DC - well thats hardly a breakthrough or original is it?

The SWP model was always an easy one to knock down.

RAs critisisms (and the overplaying) are a result of the sterling anti-fascist work carried out - it dominated their work. But that was to the exclusion of much other work that was also needed as part of the 'centrallity of class' though. With the flip to 'building in working class communities' you now argue this to the exclusion of all else. I don't think things can be so cut and dried. Work in working class communities was always necessary, confronting organised fascism was always necessary even if I would agree on the points RA would make about the changed situation - it is still necessary to use other methods on occasion.



And essentially the simple label of 'trot org' sounds a lot like the limited approach of many sectarian leftists - dc leftists or not. Thats not an adequate answer mate - you can do better than that. Simply on the basis of comparing our mutually limited resources (false though that is - it is simply to illustrate my point) - it seems our model is still doing better than yours. How do you figure that, where is the revelation from the RAs thoughts on that?

Not for the first time I will say that I think RA represent a genuine working class response to the problems we - the left as much as the working class as a whole - face. Some sound ideas that should make others think twice and re-consider some easy assumptions. I think they make a big mistake in using the methods of the sectarians though - easy labels, proscriptive writing off of tactics and startagies they consider do not fit in with 'ourselves alone' approach and a bit of an attitute towards other genuine working class responses to the situation we all face. You cannot simply write off people by calling them 'trots' or stupid throwaway comments like 'project 1917' - its meaningless. I think the biggest weaknes in the RAs arguements though are those over the role of trade unionists and organised workers. Yes, the social weight is weakened - does not compare to the wekness of the left and the now-not-left though. It is still a force in this society and one any person with a clear 'class centred approach' should be engaging with not ignoring.

Dennis, quite a bit here which I will try and come back to later. Just to clear one thing up though, I have never been a member of RA although I am a supporter of the IWCA .I stayed with the SWP ( whilst remaining in contact with those who left or were expelled) untill the early 90s ( I joined in 1976) but by then I had well and truly had enough. I pretty much lost track of RA untill a few years later when by chance I bumped into someone who told me about the split in AFA and the arguement about communities of resistance and progressive working class organsiation.

http://www.redaction.org/communities/contents.html

 

[audiotech]

You think it was a slur? RA came from the SWP not the ANLmark1. The then very tiny Militant was a part of ANLmark1. Within the limits of the SWPs leadership, yep it was relatively effective - but the swappies made plenty of mistakes even then. Facism was knocked back ultimately though by the stealing of it clothes by the newly thatcherite leadership of the Tory party. Frankly confronting the fascists at the time was not the SWP initiative that re=written history states long after the event either - the first mass mobilisation against the then marching fash was in bradford - initiated by the LPYS (Militant) - supported by the SWP naturally and rightly. The ANL was launched in the wake of the Lewisham events - again the Militant played a major role in physically stopping the march through its marching seperately but striking together contingent. The Militants were not key players in the 'vicers against nazis' angle or similer that I agree.

I was heavily involved in both the ANL mk1 and RAR in Yorkshire at the time - including Bradford and Militant were so small I missed them, but I don't doubt they were there.

Btw, there was no "vicars against the nazi's" group. It was the Communist Party who were courting religious leaders and they were also totally opposed to physical confrontations with fascists.

I was a member of the SWP from 1976 until 1990. I had made some contacts with the some comrades in Hatfield, but never followed it through, as I had to leave Yorkshire at the time and move to Lancashire for employment. I found out later that the fascists in Yorkshire had me on a "hit list" and I was to be beaten up if seen on the streets, as a friend of mine was. The fascist came worse off in that incident as it happens.

 

[tbaldwin]

absolutely key to RA was the idea of w/c autonomy .. they argued you needed a w/c run left NOT one created and run by the middle class as is the case of most left groups ( and @ groups )

did you read We Are Red Action?

We are Red Action was one of the best left pamphlets ever. But as we both know that was Red actions founding statement under MoF.....Populist and sensible....In later years they detoriated further and further and like most left groups concentrated too much on propaganda denouncing other left groups...In later years Red action became more and more up its own arse.
In the 90s Militant were more effective in fighting the BNP. And militant from what i knew were far more effective in getting working class people to join than RA ever were..I dont think RA ever had more than 50 members.

 

[dennisr]

everyone missed my 'ourselves alone' jest

 

[The39thStep]

You think it was a slur? RA came from the SWP not the ANLmark1. The then very tiny Militant was a part of ANLmark1. Within the limits of the SWPs leadership, yep it was relatively effective - but the swappies made plenty of mistakes even then. Facism was knocked back ultimately though by the stealing of it clothes by the newly thatcherite leadership of the Tory party. Frankly confronting the fascists at the time was not the SWP initiative that re=written history states long after the event either - the first mass mobilisation against the then marching fash was in bradford - initiated by the LPYS (Militant) - supported by the SWP naturally and rightly. The ANL was launched in the wake of the Lewisham events - again the Militant played a major role in physically stopping the march through its marching seperately but striking together contingent. The Militants were not key players in the 'vicers against nazis' angle or similer that I agree.



This is something i always find odd - the idea that the 'party' deteriorated and then you left - a similar arguement of many left splits. The SWP always contained a DC centre group as far as I know - I would be interested in finding out more about this structural chgane that you see at the time



It 'back to the centrality of class' critisisms are not unique at all - just overblown and sometimes as crude as those they see themselves as 'exposing'. The Liverpool battle involved a very obvious element of state multi-culti manipulation as central to the attacks on the left in the LP at the time (and its opposite in effective practice from the Militants - building those council houses, schools, sports centres - a concrete ripost to such crap). Well before RAs visible critisisms or existance. Again - like the 'lefties' you tend to tar every other genuine left with the same brush as (the shadow of the SWP v RA arguements?) - you seem to assume everyone else was a sucker for state multi-cult just because you see yourselves as alone in brakeing with such illusions. I think you overplay one tiny part of the overall situation with your critisisms of one aspect of that situation - no matter how valid they may be. And rejecting DC - well thats hardly a breakthrough or original is it?

The SWP model was always an easy one to knock down.

RAs critisisms (and the overplaying) are a result of the sterling anti-fascist work carried out - it dominated their work. But that was to the exclusion of much other work that was also needed as part of the 'centrallity of class' though. With the flip to 'building in working class communities' you now argue this to the exclusion of all else. I don't think things can be so cut and dried. Work in working class communities was always necessary, confronting organised fascism was always necessary even if I would agree on the points RA would make about the changed situation - it is still necessary to use other methods on occasion.



And essentially the simple label of 'trot org' sounds a lot like the limited approach of many sectarian leftists - dc leftists or not. Thats not an adequate answer mate - you can do better than that. Simply on the basis of comparing our mutually limited resources (false though that is - it is simply to illustrate my point) - it seems our model is still doing better than yours. How do you figure that, where is the revelation from the RAs thoughts on that?

Not for the first time I will say that I think RA represent a genuine working class response to the problems we - the left as much as the working class as a whole - face. Some sound ideas that should make others think twice and re-consider some easy assumptions. I think they make a big mistake in using the methods of the sectarians though - easy labels, proscriptive writing off of tactics and startagies they consider do not fit in with 'ourselves alone' approach and a bit of an attitute towards other genuine working class responses to the situation we all face. You cannot simply write off people by calling them 'trots' or stupid throwaway comments like 'project 1917' - its meaningless. I think the biggest weaknes in the RAs arguements though are those over the role of trade unionists and organised workers. Yes, the social weight is weakened - does not compare to the wekness of the left and the now-not-left though. It is still a force in this society and one any person with a clear 'class centred approach' should be engaging with not ignoring.

I am not sure whether I should have a stab at this as I have never been a member but this is how I saw it form the outside. I am sure others will have a better memory but as I remember the time the main set of expulsions were focused around an incident whilst guarding the stage overnight at the Leeds ANL festival,there were more following the arrests during the Hatfield 'riot' and from the Manchester arrests.In North West London there had always been some members who were in an out of the SWP ( I remember Joe Reilly being suspended for a while). There were expulsions as well I think in Brighton, Bristol and elsewhere.

There were a network of expelees ,oppositionalists and their mates involved in setting up what I think was called the Socialist Federation. I am not sure whether that preceded RA or was at the same time or whether RA formed a bit later.

It was probably the case that most of the RA leadership had at some time been in the SWP but as I recall what they had agreed with or learnt from the SWP was physical anti fascism, rank and file -ism, support for the republican movement. Often critics try and argue that because RA had been in a leninist organization that this informed their view point and always will inform their view point. The point is is that the Bolsehvisation of IS/SWP wasn't complete and that the IS tradition had at one time been an eclecltic mix of socialism from below and 1917. My memories of meeting Militant in that period was them criticising the IS/SWP for not being proper Trots .Again from looking in from the outside what I do recall was a discussion about whether or not the intention of RA was to become a smaller but better version of the SWP. This eventually ended up with a change of leadership with O Farrell leaving. I spoke to him about the split in the Albert in Manchester at the time of the Poll Tax and ironically he said that the new RA leadership didn't appreciate the issue of mass working class action.

To say that the NF were defeated because the Tories took their vote is simply a false hood and one that was actually put about by those who didn't support physical force anti fascism. Yes of course the Tories took some of their vote but the NF;s rise as an organisation was severly diminished by the fact they couldn't get their members out on marches with the same confidence and that at that period the NF =Nazi stuck.

The debate they had over Leninism was I think was one of the most refreshing ever and one that in my view got rid of the baggage. It may be different in the SP but my lengthy experience in the SWP told me that you have to accept the 1917 model. Now I know that within Militant this wasn't necessary as you seemed to have the revo cadre and supporters and an organisation inside the organsiation ie the RSL.

I guess the argument on unions is simply a very practical balance to the neglect by the left to organising locally. I am an active trade unionist many of the working class are no longer in unions. What is lacking is a 'trade union' for local working class communities. That after all in now where the BNP are in some cases firmly ensconced.