Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

placing Red Action then the IWCA theorethically

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,...

I understand that an incident did take place, but I was in the pub down the road at the time arguing with some London organiser who had appeared, with others, to take control. The Leeds RAR group, who had been organising weekly events at the local poly, with continuous threats from local fascists, were understandably pissed off when London moved in to take over this high profile event. This left most of the local RAR group, including myself, who had worked very hard for this, sidelined and out of the loop on the day. Southern twats. :D
 
In the 90s Militant were more effective in fighting the BNP. QUOTE]


It would hugely entertaining to have someone (other than tbaldwin who increasingly comes across 'as a woman scorned') make a stab at justifying that statement.
Some from SP perhaps?
 
In the 90s Militant were more effective in fighting the BNP. QUOTE]


It would hugely entertaining to have someone (other than tbaldwin who increasingly comes across 'as a woman scorned') make a stab at justifying that statement.
Some from SP perhaps?

Fact is Joe that when you and others were printing leaflets and articles about how much better you were than the ANL etc...Militant were involved with others in closing down the paper sale at Brick Lane....Something i remember you saying could never be done!
Militant members were also happy to co-operate with others in fighting the bnp...Without insisting they should be in charge all the time......
 
Fact is Joe that when you and others were printing leaflets and articles about how much better you were than the ANL etc...Militant were involved with others in closing down the paper sale at Brick Lane....Something i remember you saying could never be done!
Militant members were also happy to co-operate with others in fighting the bnp...Without insisting they should be in charge all the time......

RA and AFA played an important role in Brick Lane TB, the Militants worked with them on the practical tasks.
 
you may be right - it was hard to work out on occasion. I am pretty sure there was definately some still AFA and still RA people involved in the 'final push' on the day.

I knew all the people who linked up with Militant on that day and i can tell you just one of them still wanted anything to do with AFA and even he admitted that they had badly lost the plot by that time.
 
... 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.

I'll have to take your word on the internal history - you are going to know better than me


My memories of meeting Militant in that period was them criticising the IS/SWP for not being proper Trots.

Sounds like a very superficial memory to me :)

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.

I would agree that it would be a falsehood. But, then again, I was not discounting the role of physically confronting the NF as one tactic. To recognise that ultimately the NFs clothing was stolen is not to say 'therefore we simply sit around and wait for it to happen'. The Militants never stood back from physical confrontation - just from confrontation to the exclusion of all else.

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.

:D - ahh, the RSL thing. The RSL simply became the Militant as it grew. if the '1917 model' is shorthand for believing everything works out to some pre-ordained schema following on from the 1917 revolution then Militants did not follow any such model. If you just mean we adopted some organisational forms from 1917 (while recognising changed circumstances and necessities) then yep, Militants did see some useful lessons to be learnt from that time. I don't think the SWP actually realise what a 1917 model actually is even now.

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.


My impression is most RA members are trade unionists. We differ on the importance and relative weight those in trade unions can still carry - even in local working class campaigns - while recognising the obvious points about the changes in those communities. The Militants/SP face the same situation and come from those self-same communities. Take Stoke as an example - probably a key one for the BNP - the localised post worker dispute alongside local issues of attacks on the nhs, education and youth facilities will involve local trade unionists in them. The recent SP candidate in local elections was a victimised postal worker from the local sorting office. There are no shortcuts to organising that local community.
 
One of the arguments that seems to be being put forward is that the Left overly focuses on certain issues to the detriments of what might connect with the everyday concerns of working class people.

This certainly has a grain of truth to it. But at the same time I get the vibe that IWCA/RA go to the opposite extreme of saying that we should just ignore issues like war or the oppressions of minorities etc and almost lower the level of poltics rather than seeking to raise things up.

The Left has in some situations managed to build a base in working class communities, the CP in the East End of London, perhaps Militant in Liverpool.

Their seems to be an argument that trade unions are finished. But I can give an example in Swansea where recently the support of unions was very helpful in a succesful community campaign against council house stock transfer (particularly in helping people take on a million pound advertising campaign from the Council by financing leaflets and giving the campaign political muscle)

But I agree with getting down into working class communities, the anti-poll tax movement seemed to provide such a bridge. Much far left organising is not based on building a base in w/c communities.
 
tax .. topcat ( though as young as you are today! :D ) was part of that so it is unfair to say he is simply bigger and better riots ..
- actually thats exactly what he said on the Reclaim The Streets threads, that he was 'spikey' and wanted bigger and bigger street confrontations with the state. I'm not having a go, but in place of saying 'red action aped sinn fein, it failed' the only thing i have seen him advocate is insurrection.

read the editions of class war around 1985 specifically 'what do we do when the cops fuck off'.
OH, but i have! What a waste of time that was too. It does nothing to actually answer the question it poses, which is mad. All it comes up with is that the bits of the community which aren't up for rioting will bring the rioters tea and cakes on the frontlines, there are actually no suggestions for what to do if the police do actually permanently leave. The article ends if i remember, with a kind of 'yeah we better think about what to do when the cops fuck off then, it's a tricky one'.

.. we were debating ideas of 'w/c control then'
debating, yes :p
 
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
Yes that certainly is one of them :)

Cheers - Taxamo Welf
 
here's a question: what of the accusation that the IWCA have a cultural or identity based idea of class?


I've heard this said a few times, generally by anarchists on Libcom. I'm fairly sure it isn't true, but the IWCA certainly seems to have dropped the idea of class struggle being neccessary cos the workers are this historical force and only they can change history etc. - i.e. basic marxism. Rather than define class by employment, where everyone who isn't an employer is more or less working class (again, basic assumptions of marxism), the IWCA seem to define things by circumstance: are you living in a working class area are being affected by class issues such as poor provision of policing, housing, etc.
 
In the 90s Militant were more effective in fighting the BNP.

It would hugely entertaining to have someone (other than tbaldwin who increasingly comes across 'as a woman scorned') make a stab at justifying that statement.

Some from SP perhaps?

Hi Joe,

Could i ask you, if you had to place the transition from Red Action to the IWCA in a broader theoretical or historical complex what would you suggest? Fair play if you don't think there is one, but often groups have thinkers or ideas that influenced them heavily at certain times. I remember reading something about marxist theories of the underclass that came from the KPD in 30's Germany on the Redaction site once that seemed to be leading somewhere....

That sort of thing anyway.
 
here's a question: what of the accusation that the IWCA have a cultural or identity based idea of class? I've heard this said lots of times, generally by anarchists on Libcom. I'm fairly sure it isn't true, but the IWCA certainly seems to have dropped the idea of class struggle being neccessary cos the workers are this historical force and only they can change history - i.e. basic marxism. Rather than define class by employment, where everyone who isn't an employer is more or less working class (again, basic assumptions of marxism), the IWCA seem to define things by circumstance: are you living in a working class area are being affected by class issues such as poor provision of policing, housing, etc.

The criticism here, again from some anarchists, is that this is poverty based, not class based and that actually very few people live in council housing and that figure is decreasing all the time. This is a bit more pertinent - the people i know who were in the IWCA don't live in council housing, and the socialists i know who do don't live in the 'sink estates' of the kind the IWCA seem to have a focus on.

very confused post
 
Can someone explain what influence SWP had on RAs politics? as there doesn't seem much similarity to me, so it's hard to envisage they came out of them.
 
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 ANL Mk1 and on a local steering committee in Oxford. I have no recollection of Militant being involved and generally speaking at that time and in my area they did not get involved in united action that did not go through the Labour Party. However they were probably the smallest of the six far left groups at that time in the City (WSL were biggest with over 100. then IMG 35, then IS/SWP 25-30, then WA, Militant and WRP in handfuls) though it was difficult to tell with a big floating student body but certainly in the general population this was the balance of forces. WSL (Thornett group) made a point of not being in the ANL Mk 1 and though they attended public meetings and handed out leaflets denouncing it as a popular front it was in all in a non-confrontational way.

IS walked out of the local anti-fascist committee c. 1976 because they were
on an ultra left binge and denounced it because it refused to accept their physical confrontation position of the time ("no platform by any means necessary"). in favour of a 'capitulation to bourgeois liberalism' ("no platform wherever possible"); though it was more to do with it being proposed by the Young Liberals (who were very left then) than any issue of principle.

But six months or so later they stunned everyone involved by simply by-passing the local anti-fascist committee and calling a rally with the obligatory Vicar on the platform (contrary to claims that this alliance with vicars was fiction, it did happen and I was at the meeting of about 500 - Paul Holborrow was very good, the vicar less so). At the organising meeting a week later about 200 turned up and the SWP were bypassed by the forces of the old Anti Fascist Committee and a majority of the ANL committee elected were not SWP stooges (The WSL attended in largish numbers but abstained from voting). However after six months or so, the ANL became a wholly owned subsidiary of the SWP and withered organisationally though there were always plenty of lollipops and stickers to go round. When the NF held a private meeting in the City after 1979, the mobilisation against it was coordinated secretly through the revolutionary groups, but predictably the SWP jumped the gun, went in first so that they could claim it was them who gave the fascists a good kicking.

The SWP vacillated between a popular front and physical force position over most of the late 1970s. While Militant were more propagandist at least they had a more coherent position. The IMG did a lot of good work but lacked their own clear position under the John Ross leadership which tended to play butterfly politics.
 
Fact is Joe that when you and others were printing leaflets and articles about how much better you were than the ANL etc...Militant were involved with others in closing down the paper sale at Brick Lane....Something i remember you saying could never be done!
Militant members were also happy to co-operate with others in fighting the bnp...Without insisting they should be in charge all the time......

RA and AFA played an important role in Brick Lane TB, the Militants worked with them on the practical tasks.

I think you will find it was x afa people dennis....

I was pretty active shall we say around that time within Militant Labour. I missed the actual shifting of the BNP on that specific Sunday but was involved in numerous subsequent strolls round the area. The following Sunday there was a sizable contingent doing a similar job and some of those who were about on that Sunday, had been about the previous successful weekend and were certainly some of them still in AFA. Yes some of them had 'left' AFA as in the organisation but they were certainly still close to them. Some on that weekend were still in AFA the following January for the Troops Out/Bloody Sunday demo in Jan 1994. Some who were about that and both previous and subsequent weekends were still involved in AFA upto 4 years later when we worked together in another area.
 
Perhaps it would be more fruitful to read what the IWCA says itself, than what anarchists say about them on the internet?

But how does the IWCA itself define ‘working class’?
Now on one level the answer is fairly straightforward. When people think of themselves in terms of class they tend to think in terms of background, education, occupation, income, and culture. According to recent research, if people are asked those questions in Britain today, the overwhelming majority define themselves as ‘working class’. And when you consider that only 7% of all school children go to private schools it is easy to see why the majority view themselves as working class and why they are also correct to do so.

While the factors mentioned earlier such as income and background naturally have a bearing, class is defined most easily by the relationship of an individual to his or her work. Now it must be said, there may sometimes be a difference between what people are and what they think they are. A managing director might work to maximise production but his income is nonetheless largely derived from the work of others. This can work the other way as well.

A recent court case witnessed an attempt to restrict the term ‘working class’ to those involved in manual work only. While by any standards to try and include the managing director would be too broad a definition, to insist on blue-collar workers only would be far too narrow. It could for instance classify those working on the checkout in a supermarket as non-manual and by default middle class, while shelf stackers under the same wage and conditions would be defined as manual and thus working class. So clearly, the thinking behind the white-collar/blue-collar grading is deeply flawed, particularly when you see that bank clerks, nurses, and even teachers, who in the past would have been considered middle class, are today in terms of pay and conditions far nearer to those occupations that are considered firmly working class.

Ultimately the core working class fall into two main categories: those whose work produces a direct profit for their employer (obviously by no means just blue-collar workers) and those engaged in supplementary occupations essential to the functioning of the economy who put in long hours for low pay. Most often these are the same people who most want change and so serve as the natural constituency of the IWCA.

http://www.iwca.info/?page_id=1001#quest03
 
Fact is Joe that when you and others were printing leaflets and articles about how much better you were than the ANL etc...Militant were involved with others in closing down the paper sale at Brick Lane....Something i remember you saying could never be done!
Militant members were also happy to co-operate with others in fighting the bnp...Without insisting they should be in charge all the time......

That wasn't typical though of Militant political activity at that time though was it?

I remember AFA (and other elements) doing lots of work around the Brick Lane paper sale
 
That wasn't typical though of Militant political activity at that time though was it?

I remember AFA (and other elements) doing lots of work around the Brick Lane paper sale

Utter rubbish like "Reclaim the Lane" i remember only too well.....
It gave AFA lots of publicity but also the BNP.....Not too suprising that the media interest renewed the SWPs interest and then they re-started the ANL....
AFA made some very serious mistakes in my view which actively helped the BNP.
 
One of the key features that differentiate the policies of Red Action from the IWCA, would be their position on recruitment.

Whereas RA would try to limit their membership, having a core of well trained, politically educated cadre, IWCA would wish to expand its membership to the wider community.
 
Its been alluded to here, but i'd still like to argue that the day the BNP got attacked at the top of Brick Lane by Militant and others (including female members of the SWP who broke thru the police barrier to deliver a kicking) was not the last BNP paper sale or demo there, although it would have presumably helped them or the police decide enough was enough. I was at an ANL demo some weeks later (which included members of the CPGB, too) where it came to a scuffle with the police (I was one of the "Bethnal Green Three" :rolleyes: for a while).

I spent a lot of Sunday's at the top of Brick Lane around that time and can honestly say that arguing that any one group was responsible for the end of the BNP paper sale would be very simplistic ...
 
If I remember it was the case that the police just turned around and said, Right, no more paper sales or political activity from anybody...
 
hmmm... AFA actively helping the BNP... must have missed that bit

I think silly stunts like the " Reclaim the Lane" demo helped the BNP massivelly.
It gave them loads of publicity. The exposure on TV and the media generally led them to gain many new recruits.
 
I think silly stunts like the " Reclaim the Lane" demo helped the BNP massivelly.It gave them loads of publicity. The exposure on TV and the media generally led them to gain many new recruits

"Criticism can be instructive, in the sense that it gives readers...some information about the critic's intelligence, or honesty or both."
Nabokov
 
Back
Top Bottom