Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP slogan.

tollbar said:
I was at the STUC annual demo against racism and fascism in Glasgow on saturday and the SSP,SWP platform/Glasgow Committee To Welcome Refugees contingent were chanting "No borders, No nations, stop the deportations !". When I went to the pub afterwards, a good few of the local punters who had seen the demo passing were under the impression that the demo was about unrestricted immigration and were none too pleased. From my perspective, a slogan along the lines of "No deportations, Amnesty now" would have been more sensible given the high degree of disquiet up here about the deportation of failed asylum seekers, it doesnt seem to me that raising a maximum demand of the type that the SWIPES seem to be doing is very helpful in building a broad campaign against deportations. What do others think.

Hang on a minute, was it the SSP, or the SW platform? If the latter how do u know seeing as we don't sell the paper on demos in Scotland. Or did u know the people? Or are u saying the Glasgow committee to Welcome refugees is all SW platform or what?

(not being arsey, it's a genuine question)
 
It wouldn't be so bad if those raising the 'no borders/aslum seekers welcome here' put the same amount of effort into local politics and campaigns that actually might get the resources that the local communities need. Unfortunately for most locals their experience of the left is that it doesn't actually root itself within those same working class communities, instead it has a reputation of chasing the next 'big' thing which increasingly seems to be international campaigns or events that are anything but local and anything but winnable. This is before of course anyone coming in touch with them is then subsumed under debates about the transitional programme and the correct slogan.
 
Chuck Wilson said:
It wouldn't be so bad if those raising the 'no borders/aslum seekers welcome here' put the same amount of effort into local politics and campaigns that actually might get the resources that the local communities need. Unfortunately for most locals their experience of the left is that it doesn't actually root itself within those same working class communities, instead it has a reputation of chasing the next 'big' thing which increasingly seems to be international campaigns or events that are anything but local and anything but winnable. This is before of course anyone coming in touch with them is then subsumed under debates about the transitional programme and the correct slogan.

In your view, Chuck, would the American Left in the 1960s have been better off if they had not built a movement against the Vietnam war but simply let the ruling class get on with it (via sending the poor to fight and die of course)?
 
rebel warrior said:
In your view, Chuck, would the American Left in the 1960s have been better off if they had not built a movement against the Vietnam war but simply let the ruling class get on with it (via sending the poor to fight and die of course)?



No conscription in the war against Iraq, Rebel.

The thing is that, ever since the success of the campaign against the Vietnam war, the left has been infatuated with it and the social milieu from which its activists primarily came. While there is nothing wrong with campaigning against the wars of the ruling class, to continually prioritise this kind of campaign has seen the left pull itself further and further away from the working class. This has been particularly damaging to the left in the period of the terminal decline of the old socialist models and is one of the major factors which has hindered its activists from recognising the true position they find themselves in. While it probably isn't true of some of its individual activists, the left has no stomach for sustained campaigning in working class communities any longer. Indeed, the slogan in question is an example of a complete inability to understand where it stands in relation to ordinary working class people (as opposed to union activists and minor bureaucrats) on the part of its (arguably) most visible organisation. That is why it prefers chasing after campaigns that are, given the weakness of any organised working class movement, unwinnable at the present stage: these campaigns are, after all, made up of people with whom the left can relate. Unfortunately, they are, for the most part, not working class.
 
LLETSA said:
No conscription in the war against Iraq, Rebel.

Still economic consciption though...

The thing is that, ever since the success of the campaign against the Vietnam war, the left has been infatuated with it and the social milieu from which its activists primarily came. While there is nothing wrong with campaigning against the wars of the ruling class, to continually prioritise this kind of campaign has seen the left pull itself further and further away from the working class. This has been particularly damaging to the left in the period of the terminal decline of the old socialist models and is one of the major factors which has hindered its activists from recognising the true position they find themselves in. While it probably isn't true of some of its individual activists, the left has no stomach for sustained campaigning in working class communities any longer. Indeed, the slogan in question is an example of a complete inability to understand where it stands in relation to ordinary working class people (as opposed to union activists and minor bureaucrats) on the part of its (arguably) most visible organisation. That is why it prefers chasing after campaigns that are, given the weakness of any organised working class movement, unwinnable at the present stage: these campaigns are, after all, made up of people with whom the left can relate. Unfortunately, they are, for the most part, not working class.

Yes, this line has become something of a dogma on here - to be stressed by all and sundry and ultimately the IWCA is always held up as a great model to replicate etc etc etc ad infinitum. The problem is that it is schematic - it contains some truth, sure, but also misses out other truths and on the complexity of real situations in general Concretely, two things:

1) The success, unprecedented of Military Families Against the war so far. This is a working class campaign, indeed a section of the class that the Left has traditionally never got anywhere near close to touching in the past but are now working together with. So in the area of Glasgow where Gordon Gentle came from, recruitment to the Black Watch has fallen away completely thanks to the campaigning work of Rose Gentle and local socialists in the SSP in the area. Yet according to the IWCA 'line', such a campaign should theoretically be impossible as working class people dont do 'international issues' apparently.

2) The fact that with Respect, the Left that supposedly 'haven't got the stomach for doing local campaigning in working class areas' - are precisely increasingly doing more of that sort of work - they will have to to get elected to local councils. The electoral success of Respect which far outweighs that of the IWCA is at the moment put down (wrongly) to 'communalist voting' etc etc - but the fact is that Respect shows working class people are angry about international issues like the war and as a line it will become increasingly difficult to maintain credibly if/when Respect grows.

Indeed 41% of people in Britain think Iraq is now the most important issue politically...
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7876
 
rebel warrior said:
In your view, Chuck, would the American Left in the 1960s have been better off if they had not built a movement against the Vietnam war but simply let the ruling class get on with it (via sending the poor to fight and die of course)?

Good question Rebel. Which I am going to have to think about! My iniitial thoughts revolve around the emergence of the anti war leadreship ie Hoffman, SDS ,SACP and their relationship to the working class, secondly what did this new left do after the war protests in terms of furthering a working class agenda and lastly to what degree was the anti war movement a simply bring our boys back home campaign. I don't remember Lyndon Johnsons fall unleashing any significant gains for the working class but I will have to do a bit of reading.

I certaintly don't accept this arguement that 'economic conscription' is the same as conscription btw.
 
rebel warrior said:
Indeed 41% of people in Britain think Iraq is now the most important issue politically...
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7876
According to the Socialist Wanker :D
Give it a rest :rolleyes:

In my workplace it hasnt been mentioned once in the last six months, but immigration, crime, pay-rises, welfare state all have. I would suggest you think more about 'bread and butter' issues and you will see everything else would follow that quite naturally.....
 
october_lost said:
I would suggest you think more about 'bread and butter' issues and you will see everything else would follow that quite naturally.....
That's blatant 'economism'! Mind you, I remember when the Social Workers took that line too. (They even plugged it with some oft-repeated talk about the importance of 'taking up' the question of the quality of the loo paper in your workplace.)
 
JHE said:
That's blatant 'economism'! Mind you, I remember when the Social Workers took that line too. They even plugged it with some oft-repeated talk about the importance of 'taking up' the question of the quality of the loo paper in your workplace.

:D :D :D :D
 
Chuck Wilson said:
Good question Rebel. Which I am going to have to think about! My iniitial thoughts revolve around the emergence of the anti war leadreship ie Hoffman, SDS ,SACP and their relationship to the working class, secondly what did this new left do after the war protests in terms of furthering a working class agenda and lastly to what degree was the anti war movement a simply bring our boys back home campaign. I don't remember Lyndon Johnsons fall unleashing any significant gains for the working class but I will have to do a bit of reading.

I certaintly don't accept this arguement that 'economic conscription' is the same as conscription btw.
Whilst I agree with you that the middle-class bomb plot lot were a waste of space.

One significant shake-up of the period was in the labour movement and the AFL-CIO- the Teamsters and the Union of Automobile Workers left the AFL-CIO.
George Meany's unconditional support of the war effort severely undemined his position in Annual Congress of the AFL-CIO because he had promised there would be full productivity in key defence industries.
A number of wildact strikes also occurred where some of the anti-war lot gave support- and concessions were won.
Partly as a result of the threat of new breakway independent unions- new contracts in unionised major industrial sectors were more generous in the early 1970s.
 
Good question Rebel. Which I am going to have to think about! My iniitial thoughts revolve around the emergence of the anti war leadreship ie Hoffman, SDS ,SACP and their relationship to the working class, secondly what did this new left do after the war protests in terms of furthering a working class agenda and lastly to what degree was the anti war movement a simply bring our boys back home campaign. I don't remember Lyndon Johnsons fall unleashing any significant gains for the working class but I will have to do a bit of reading.

It's not just about the working class in the US though, what about the Vietnemese working class and the international ramifications of the US losing the Vietnam war? The anti-war movement had a significant impact in bringing about the defeat of the US.

Also how could the left ignore a war that wasn't only about anti-communist imperialism, but was sending 10,000s of poor working class people to their deaths (and disproportionate amount of black people sent to their deaths as well). As with the Iraq war, the hypocricy of the ruling classes spending billions on an imperialist war, while not paying wage increases and making cuts in public services is totally clear. The FBU brought this up again and again during their strike.

How did the revolutionary left do out of the Vietnam War? The SWP, Black Panthers etc?
 
cockneyrebel said:
It's not just about the working class in the US though, what about the Vietnemese working class and the international ramifications of the US losing the Vietnam war? The anti-war movement had a significant impact in bringing about the defeat of the US.

Also how could the left ignore a war that wasn't only about anti-communist imperialism, but was sending 10,000s of poor working class people to their deaths (and disproportionate amount of black people sent to their deaths as well). As with the Iraq war, the hypocricy of the ruling classes spending billions on an imperialist war, while not paying wage increases and making cuts in public services is totally clear. The FBU brought this up again and again during their strike.

How did the revolutionary left do out of the Vietnam War? The SWP, Black Panthers etc?


I don't recall any one saying that the left should ignore 'a war' .What I did say on another post was that if the left spent more time organising on local issues then they might be better placed to build an anti war movement.

The American anti Vietnam protests were not based on "sending 10,000s of poor working class people to their deaths " They were based against conscription and the draft and for peace. The biggest support was on the college and university campuses and there was a focus on backing anti war candidates in the Democratic Party.

I am still trying to find out if there were strikes against the war in the states. I seem to recall a story about building workers attacking an anti war march in New York.

And i ma still trying to find out if the anti war movement benefited the American working class in any way apart from the end of the draft.
 
I am sure for a lot of working class people, the anti-war movement among university students was seen as something in which people who could avoid the war acted very condescendingly towards those with little choice.
 
Chuck Wilson said:
And i ma still trying to find out if the anti war movement benefited the American working class in any way apart from the end of the draft.
Point taken about the left being obsessed about national demo's etc., (see my previous post) but here you are really barking up the wrong tree, since it should be obvious a potracted war is costly in many ways economic, social, political and even culturally.....
 
The American anti Vietnam protests were not based on "sending 10,000s of poor working class people to their deaths " They were based against conscription and the draft and for peace.

No my point was that the Vietnam did send 10,000s of working class people to their deaths, the same amount again were left to rot when they returned to the US with serious injuries, while 100,000s of working class people were being killed in Vietnam in an imperialist, anti-communist war. As such any left organisation would have to mobilise it against as a priority IMO.

And groups like the SWP and Black Panthers did raise issues of class in their opposition to the war, and in the case of the Black Panthers could hardly be accussed of not doing local work.

And i ma still trying to find out if the anti war movement benefited the American working class in any way apart from the end of the draft.

It would be pretty hard to work out the exact consequences, but it's not just question of the what impact the anti-war movement had on the American working class, but the working class internationally. The defeat of the US put a temporary halt on the imperialist exploits of the US.

I am sure for a lot of working class people, the anti-war movement among university students was seen as something in which people who could avoid the war acted very condescendingly towards those with little choice.

From what I've seen of the footage of some of anti-war movement in the USA I'd agree that sizeable sections of it did act in a condescending way.

I am still trying to find out if there were strikes against the war in the states. I seem to recall a story about building workers attacking an anti war march in New York.

Interesting point. Does anyone know how many strikes against the war took place in the US?
 
cockneyrebel said:
From what I've seen of the footage of some of anti-war movement in the USA I'd agree that sizeable sections of it did act in a condescending way.

by people who could avoid the war.
 
october_lost said:
Point taken about the left being obsessed about national demo's etc., (see my previous post) but here you are really barking up the wrong tree, since it should be obvious a potracted war is costly in many ways economic, social, political and even culturally.....

Perhaps it was bad phrasing . I take for granted that in no sense does imperialiism benefit the working class of any country in the long term. Whilst sections of the w/c might be better off financially, employment patterns can change beficially and the access to cheap minerals or scarce resources may increase in the short term, ( I always think of Shipbuilding when I try and explain this) in the long term all the things you describe above are true.

The question asked was was the left right in America to lead the anti Vietnam movement or should it have just let them get on with it. After a bit of hurried reading I am not convinced that the left actually did lead the anti war movement.Radicals yes, pacificists yes, future leaders of the Weathermen, yes, future Democratic party members yes, members of what was to become the Black Panthers yes but by and large not the left and certaintly not the revo left.
There is no doubt that the revo left was reborn out of the anti Vietnam protests in the same way it also grew out of the invasion of Czeckslovakia and other events in the Eastern bloc.1968 was a big year Martin Luther King assasinated, Robert Kennedy assasinated, the rise of international student protest, the Czeck spring, the Olympics protest. A significant number of the studenst involved were the sons and daughters of the old left and radical movements of the 1930s. In my view the fact that protests were against both capitalist and state capitlaist regimes and that the movements were smashed with such force and brutality meant that any illusions in the orthodox political movements and systems were exposed.

It is though quite interesting that those who led the 'movements' or became their spokesmen were students , I can't think of anyone who bucked this trend Rudi Dutshke, Cohn -Bendit, Tarq Ali, Mark Rudd, Tom Hayden etc.

There was opposition to the war from some unions and union members but I couldn't find any reference to strikes against the war per se, the Taff-Hartley Act made such strikes very difficult to achieve. And as has been said before their were some attempts to try and link trade unions strikes against major war companies to the question of the war itself.

Incidentially in 1970 students demonstrating against the Kent state killings were atacked by building workers and the same month saw a huge demonstrarion called by building workers union leadership in favour of the war.

A mate of mine says that Phip S Foner, (who wrote an excellent book on the IWW I think) has written some stuff about American labour and the war. Speaking of which ie the IWW I think that it was in australia they actually did have a general strike against the first world war.

l
 
From what I can find out there were no strikes against the Vietnam war.

There was a lot of anti-war sympathy in the General Electric strike in 1970 but the strike was still about economic issues. There was also a lot of anti-war sympathy among car workers.

However the union bureaucrats were very successful in honing anti-war sympathy into support for Democrat candidates. As such the revolutionary left in the US didn't benefit from the anti-war movement in any significant way, and didn't make the inroads that the revolutionary left in the UK did in the 1970s.
 
cockneyrebel said:
From what I can find out there were no strikes against the Vietnam war.

There was a lot of anti-war sympathy in the General Electric strike in 1970 but the strike was still about economic issues. There was also a lot of anti-war sympathy among car workers.

However the union bureaucrats were very successful in honing anti-war sympathy into support for Democrat candidates. As such the revolutionary left in the US didn't benefit from the anti-war movement in any significant way, and didn't make the inroads that the revolutionary left in the UK did in the 1970s.
I think the point chuck is making is that students and a liberal strata began to take over resistance efforts against the war. I remember not to long ago there was an anti-globalisation meeting and it had people like Lindsay German, Monbiot and other self-confessed intellectuals while similar meetings across the continent had grass roots militants leading talks. I think the english speaking world as alot to answer for, post-war.
 
Back
Top Bottom