Skip to content or view screen version

Look on the TUC march as an opportunity

Dekho | 14.08.2012 19:42 | Public sector cuts | Social Struggles | Workers' Movements

Look on the TUC march as an opportunity







** The budget deficit is an accountancy deficit not a resource deficit

Everyone knows that the money stolen from ordinary tax-payers by bank-bailouts, by tax-evading multinationals and by the super-rich could re-pay the government's budget deficit overnight. Second, everyone knows this paper deficit has been manufactured as an excuse to privatize public services, to sell-off publicly owned resources, and to siphon tax revenues away from services like the NHS to corporate "providers" - the same multinationals whose tax-dodging did so much to help undermine public services, and the same tax-dodgers who finance the Lib-Dems and Tory Party!

The budget deficit is an accountancy deficit, not a resource deficit, as enough resources exist for us all to live well. The problem isn't a lack of resources, it's an issue of control. Control rests in the hands of the Coalition and bank bosses - the Coalition whose partners most people voted against and who broke the promises they made to those people who did vote for them, and the bank bosses who've been exposed as the biggest thieves in history.

As for the consequences of privatisation-by-betrayal, if you think your granny and grandpa's health is safe in the hands of Richard Branson, what will happen to privatised GP services is what did happen to Virgin Trains and Virgin Megastores. Virgin Trains run a shit service, and Virgin Megastores were sold off, then closed down, as soon as they stopped making a profit. This is not a recession, this is a robbery, however, as for anti-cuts protests, the last thing recent events mean is that because we havn't succeeded yet we should just give up...

** I agree with almost every criticism leveled at the TUC and Labour

In context of these extraordinary events some sections of the radical movement have achieved the seemingly impossible. Far from seeing their ranks swelled by members of the public sickened by the betrayals of mainstream politicians, Anarchist groups have seen their support-base barely rise, in the worst cases, actively shrink. As most Indymedia users know, Freedom Press recently issued a statement floating the idea that, with just 300 subscribers and 10 stockists, they're thinking of closing the print edition of their magazine. Class War gave up formally organising in 2011. Ian Bone stopped blogging in 2012. The IWW and Sol-Fed do great work, but, as a group of similar size, the Anarchist Federation still advertises "well over a hundred members"! The Freedom collective estimate the total size of the movement as roughly the 3,000 who attend the Anarchist Bookfair down in London... in contrast the TUC represents 6.5 million members.

On Oct 20 the TUC are organising a march to protest against the cuts. As for radical objections to the politics and leadership of the TUC and Labour Party, the facts are simple. I agree with almost every criticism that could be leveled at the TUC and Labour! Radicals can however look on the Oct 20 protest as an opportunity to sit in our ghetto, lecturing an audience of virtually nobody about what we think is wrong with the TUC, or we can look on Oct 20 as an opportunity to show solidarity with the hopefully hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who'll be using Oct 20 to express their disgust with modern politics. We need to support this demo, not because of the people who are behind it, but because of the people who'll be on it.

When research indicates that between 50% and 70% of the population no longer self-indentify (rightly or wrongly) as being working-class (hey, argue with them about that, not with me) it's no more surprising that attempts to reconcile Anarchist opposition to the State with the defence of State services have been as successful as attempts to engage the population with Class War rhetoric. Put bluntly, class struggle Anarchism has gone down like a cup of cold sick with the 99% of this country's 62 million people, while those radical groups that have (relatively speaking) prospered have done so on the basis of their social inclusivity.

** Right now we need to use much more subversive tactics

We need to STOP lecturing the public about why we're right and why everyone else is wrong, and LISTEN to the public, not as Anarchists, but as equals. The blunt fact is that every Anarchist or Communist symbol that's displayed on protests has, in net effect, contributed nothing to the overall growth of radical groups, while alienating more members of the public, and being used by right-wing media to demonise protests. If we work hard, box clever and sustain determined opposition, one day we might get to wave those banners on a victory parade. Right now however we need to use much more subversive tactics. To do grass-roots politics we need to blend-in, not stand out. We need to encourage people to support demos on the basis of their grievances, not ours. We need to use our intelligence to find positives in every protest opportunity, and use our creativity to find ways to make sure the public enjoy protest politics. Get down the web-caff and get e-mailing, get the leaflets and stickers and get busy on the streets. If this demo's poorly attended the Coalition will be cock-a-hoop. If we make sure the demo's well attended, we can help wipe the smile off Cameron's face.

 http://www.afed.org.uk/component/content/article/66-welcome-to-afed-website.html

 http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2012/07/19/the-future-of-freedom/

Dekho

Comments

Hide the following 17 comments

Erm...

14.08.2012 20:55

The last TUC demo was well attended, probably half a million people marched. It achieved nothing.

Can you think of a single march from A to B that changed anything?

RPG1963


Reply to genius

14.08.2012 22:45

No single march ever changed any major policy, but sustained campaigns of protest, which included A to B marches, oftentimes (but not always) alongside more militant forms of protest, achieved things like the overthrow of President Marcos in the Philippines, the overthrow of authoritarian State-Communist regimes in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Georgia, Hungary etc, the right of every man to vote, the right of every woman to vote, the abolition of formal segregation in the USA, the abolition of Apartheid, the end of British rule in India, the Orange revolution in Ukraine....

Either way a/ unless you've got a very big magic wand you won't be delivering any better alternatives anyway, b/ remind us all when ANYONE said A to B marches were the ONLY tactic movements should use? c/ you won't be attending anyway

Zx


learn to read mate

14.08.2012 22:51

no >> single > read > one << march, it says we should continue supporting these marches << plural

ambrose


@RPG

14.08.2012 22:58

David cameron has made more U-turns that any Prime Minster ever, that's because of protest, in many forms, yes we havn't defeated the fucker but with cunts like you around that's hardly surprising

An RPG is something you have never held, will never hold, and will only ever dream about

Warwick


The IWW

15.08.2012 00:44


The IWW usta call'em silent agitators

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_agitators

Matthew H


Portrait of RPG

15.08.2012 11:49


Who's most likely to post on Indymedia DIS-couraging people from attending protests?

2012


200 stickers

15.08.2012 21:08

Plus we did a couple of hundred stickers up the high-street on the way back from the pub last night

Roy


Meanwhile, back in reality...

16.08.2012 11:45

The unions have completely fucked the pensions dispute. Smaller disputes, like Remploy, are also losing as long as they stay under the control of the union tops. The class struggle isn't hopeless - the John Lewis cleaners show much can be achieved outside of the control of the union bureaucracy - but if we follow the TUC, we'll be led to defeat after defeat. This march is organised by the TUC to promote their agenda; it's not a show of power, it's a show of powerlessness. I think it's worth going to, but, as Phil Dickens wrote, it's only worth going to in order to hijack it for direct action:  http://truth-reason-liberty.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/why-october-20-must-be-hijacked.html

A


Phil Dickens

16.08.2012 18:43

The same Phil Dickens that completely sabotaged the left and anti-fascism in Liverpool by pretending a march to commemorate IRA volunteer Sean Phelan had nothing to with the IRA!

Of course we should welcome action outside of the control of union bureaucracy, but if we let the likes of Phil Dickens set the agenda then we really are going to get fucked-over on every level, and of course we should still make the most of ALL opportunities, including the this one.

Noonan


One for the morons

16.08.2012 18:47

Last time the TUC organised a big march, 500,000 people turned-up

Last time Phil Dickens organised a march, 200 people turned-up

QED

Darkness at Noon


Phil Dickens, Alec McFadden and the TUC

16.08.2012 20:48

Phil Dickens' article on the Oct 20 TUC demo (see link) closely resembles most of the comments posted on Indymedia which try to discourage people from supporting this protest against austerity and govt cuts. As various hostile comments also say (often and almost word-for-word) Phil Dickens thinks the TUC demo is "an exercise in letting off steam" and Phil repeatedly slags-off Oct 20 for being an "an A to B march". As the hostile comments have now taken to directly citing Phil's insights in support of their case as well, with these similarities this all suggests the real author of these comments has now effectively blown his cover

 http://truth-reason-liberty.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/why-october-20-must-be-hijacked.html#1_undefined,0_

Ironically, Phil Dickens' most recent project was a miserably sparse demo that Phil organised in collaboration with TUC activist Alec McFadden. Perhaps Alec McFadden should have a conversation with Phil Dickens about why Phil's encouraging people to disrupt the TUC demo?

As to the actual substance of Phil's objections, he claims, to some extent rightly, that the TUC "has been the driving force in demobilising the trade unions", but then chooses to criticise the TUC when they DO mobilise!

Phil accuses "TUC (and) its affiliated unions" of being "rusting hierarchies", but, rusting or not, they've still shown themselves capable of mobilising thousands of times more protestors than Phil himself or in fact the entire anarchist movement. Phil talks big about what he thinks "our aim... should be" - like a naive teenager, fresh to politics, talking about how "we" ought to abolish injustice and exploitation. Phil offers no practical means to achieve those aims beyond than a call for the "economic damage" that a/ landed many working-class people in jail and b/ failed just as much as the TUC failed - failing first when that damage was inflicted by the black-bloc during last year's TUC demo, and failing again when that damage was inflicted on a VAST scale during last year's riots.

Much as the prospect of ending Oct 20 with a load of speeches from TUC worthies bores me, the fact is that Phil's analysis absolutely stinks. Phil is right to say that "we are fighting a war against a class enemy intent on rolling back everything we've won" but wrong to say that "politics is not PR", because it's through the effective propagandising of cogent analysis that people are encouraged to participate in political activism. If anarchist disruption turns Oct 20 into a PR disaster it'll be just that - a disaster, which will fail again for the exactly the same reasons that the March 26 demo failed last year.

Menace


I'm not Phil

17.08.2012 08:31

I'm not Phil Dickens, I have never been to an event he organised, and as far as I can remember I haven't even been to Liverpool since 2008. Keep your fucking hat on. I'm also not RPG, for what it's worth. Can't help thinking it's odd that three posters with such a hostility to the guy would all turn up, but whatever. I posted a link to his article because it's the best article on October 20th I've seen so far. And as for the supposed similiarity in writing styles: yes, of course lots of people are slagging off the demo for being an A-to-B march and an exercise in letting off steam. That's because it is. Do you think that everyone who called N30 a one-day strike is the same person as well?
Anyway, leaving aside the issue of whether I'm Phil Dickens, RPG, Mark Kennedy or Godzilla, onto the actual argument:
"As to the actual substance of Phil's objections, he claims, to some extent rightly, that the TUC "has been the driving force in demobilising the trade unions", but then chooses to criticise the TUC when they DO mobilise!" - Mobilising for a passive, ineffectual demonstration is not the same thing as mobilising for effective strike action.
"Phil accuses "TUC (and) its affiliated unions" of being "rusting hierarchies", but, rusting or not, they've still shown themselves capable of mobilising thousands of times more protestors than Phil himself or in fact the entire anarchist movement." No-one is denying that more people turn out to TUC events than anarchist events. That is not the question at stake. The point is that politics is not some numbers game where you get enough people to go on a march and then you win. Remember the anti-war movement?
"Phil offers no practical means to achieve those aims beyond than a call for the "economic damage" that a/ landed many working-class people in jail and b/ failed just as much as the TUC failed - failing first when that damage was inflicted by the black-bloc during last year's TUC demo, and failing again when that damage was inflicted on a VAST scale during last year's riots." Economic damage does not necessarily equal property destruction. Economic damage includes the disruption to business that allowed the sparks to beat back the attacks on their contracts, and the disruption to business that forced Holland & Barrett, among others, to pull out of the work programme. It's possible to disrupt business extensively, causing major economic damage, without breaking a single window.
"Phil is right to say that "we are fighting a war against a class enemy intent on rolling back everything we've won" but wrong to say that "politics is not PR", because it's through the effective propagandising of cogent analysis that people are encouraged to participate in political activism." This is liberal as all hell, and it doesn't address the question of whether that activism takes effective or ineffective forms.
"Phil is right to say that "we are fighting a war against a class enemy intent on rolling back everything we've won" but wrong to say that "politics is not PR", because it's through the effective propagandising of cogent analysis that people are encouraged to participate in political activism.
"If anarchist disruption turns Oct 20 into a PR disaster it'll be just that - a disaster, which will fail again for the exactly the same reasons that the March 26 demo failed last year." But... but... but... but lots of people turned up and marched on March 26th last year! I thought that meant it was good, because lots of people were there, and getting lots of people to walk from one point to another is how you change things, right?

A


You're not Phil .......

17.08.2012 20:14

Points made by "A" .......

Q - Mobilising for a passive, ineffectual demonstration is not the same thing as mobilising for effective strike action?

A - FIRST a demonstration is by definition never "passive" (it's sitting at home doing nothing that's passive). SECOND your statement prejudicially presumes that big demos must be "ineffectual" while strikes must be "effective", despite (as you know full well) many strikes failing, so strike action is no guarantee of success - remember the Miners Strike? THIRD whether a demo's ineffectual is something no-one can can predict with total certainty, but the only way to guarantee it'll fail is to discourage people from supporting it; and no-one, no matter how enthusiastically they support marches, would be ever naive enough to suggest that ONE march is likely to achieve much on its own (the bit you've chosen to ignore is where the article talks about sustained opposition). FOURTH mobilising for a big demo and for strike action aren't mutually exclusive, we can do BOTH - instead however, at the moment you are choosing to discourage people from doing the former while doing nothing practical here to help deliver the latter.... congratulations!

Q - No-one is denying that more people turn out to TUC events than anarchist events. The point is that politics is not some numbers game where you get enough people to go on a march and then you win?

A - Nobody ever said that politics is "some numbers game where you get enough people to go on a march and then you win" so your argument here is just plain dishonest

Q - Economic damage includes the disruption to business that allowed the sparks to beat back the attacks on their contracts, and the disruption to business that forced Holland & Barrett to pull out of the work programme. It's possible to disrupt business extensively, causing major economic damage, without breaking a single window?

A - Agreed. Which is why we should pursue strategies like that alongside expressions of mass solidarity (but the argument you were responding did however prove the enormous economic damage caused by the riots did nothing to stop the government's austerity programme). The sparks I spoke to were very grateful for the solidarity they received from other sections of society, do you seriously think the sparks would have RESENTED it if even MORE people had turned-up to support their protests?!

As for whether or not you're Phil Dickens. maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but you parrot his words and defend his arguments, while Phil criticises people for supporting A to B marches while organising A to B marches himself, and criticises people for getting involved in TUC stuff while his last A to B march was co-organised by TUC hack Alec McFadden.

Phil's somewhat less than mustard when it comes to turning the spotlight on his own pronouncements, but, give him his credit, you can't fault the lad when it comes to, err ....... self-assurance?!

Z


Noticed how the initials for Truth Reason Liberty resemble TR-OL-L?!

19.08.2012 23:07

Having read Phil Dickens piece on Truth Reason Liberty blog-spot, as a member of one Union that contested the pensions dispute, I'd like to point out it's all very well Dickens bitching about the TUC for failing to organise more strikes, but it's hard to get members to return ballot papers, let alone attend meetings or support strikes (especially when strikes mean loss of wages). The institution I work for has over a thousand Unionised employees, but even after redundancies and attacks on pensions, we're lucky to get two dozen on pickets and half a dozen at meetings.

Phil Dickens also seems naive about how Unions make decisions. In our case members had the opportunity to elect combative reps to committees and to the post of General Secretary, but didn't. Union bosses earn alot, but mainstream Unions, unlike activist groups, offer strike pay, and when (as a retired activist) one militant offered to waive his salary if elected to the leadership of one Union, members voted for a leadership who preferred to chicken-out and cut a bad deal with the govt instead.

Point being Phil Dickens seems determined to blame the TUC for failings that are often brought on the movement by its members. There are thousands of activists in the TUC who'd love to see workers rise-up and overthrow the govt in a general strike, but when Union members elect sell-outs then even hard-line activists have to implement the policies members vote for. Ever noticed how the initials for Truth Reason Liberty resemble TR-OL-L?! The only people who benefit from anyone hijacking TUC demos are the Tories

Michael S


something to consider

22.08.2012 22:36

It's worth considering that those posting the most extreme and opinionated comments on each side of the debate may not be who they appear to be. Cops have been known to post here in the past to stir up controversy and division.

Who benefits from us being at each others' throats?

Militancy vs Inclusivity?

Both are important. Both sides of this debate need to work hard to find concrete ways to respect each other if we are going to win.

That is what diversity of tactics really means. Being willing to move outside our comfort zones and recognising that we're on the same side!

anonymous