The majority of mainstream NGOs in the UK (that have heard of the ESF,
anyway) will be keeping a careful eye on ESF UK but still regard it as an
embarrassing side-show that has nothing to do with them, although privately
they would concede that it might well do in the future. Their commitment is
to evolving their new relationship with New Labour and subsequent
governments, and the last thing they want to do is to get their tender parts
caught in the wringer by appearing to become involved in what I'm sure a lot
of them will regard as a meaningless lefty fringe cabaret.
Which is why fighting to stave off a 'Night of the Undead Marxists' in ESF
UK becomes so important; if the exclusionary cartel that runs STWC/SWP/GR as
its personal fiefdom can claim the ESF UK as another toy then not only does
the sort of NGO involvement you're calling for become unlikely, it becomes
impossible - that would be supporting a political movement that runs in
direct opposition to the government and which would be likely therefore to
lose them their charitable status. Additionally, in the event of a take-over
by the Terminator Tendency of the UK left ("you cannot reason with it, it
will never stop..." (copyright A. Schwarzenegger)) then they'll be right -
the UK ESF *will* be a meaningless lefty fringe cabaret. So much for Chris
Nineham's call for inclusion, eh? But then we all knew he was talking
bollocks anyway.
Which kind of sadly brings us to the voice of reason excuse for the
behaviour of the Manichaeans..."Well you may complain about them but at
least they organize things, they have resources, they get things done". Well
of course they do - it's what they exist for and how they live. Many of them
are full-time or part-time trades unionists who use their branch/executive
funding and time off to attend the sort of meetings the rest of us have to
lose income and work out child-minding arrangements for; many of them belong
to organizations that have existed for years and that have (comparatively
speaking) large amounts of funding to send them to each and every one of the
meetings the ESF UK ever has, with the proviso that they stick exactly to
the party line; they have a built-in advantage.
But to turn round and say that, well, why don't you all have the resources
to attend that we do is saying in effect more resources gives you more say -
isn't that naked capitalism? Aren't we (and even them, white middle-class
public school elitists that they are) supposed to stand for something
different? Or is what we're really saying "Another world is possible, but
only if you let us run it just like the last one"?
Just a few thoughts,
Jon Cloke
anyway) will be keeping a careful eye on ESF UK but still regard it as an
embarrassing side-show that has nothing to do with them, although privately
they would concede that it might well do in the future. Their commitment is
to evolving their new relationship with New Labour and subsequent
governments, and the last thing they want to do is to get their tender parts
caught in the wringer by appearing to become involved in what I'm sure a lot
of them will regard as a meaningless lefty fringe cabaret.
Which is why fighting to stave off a 'Night of the Undead Marxists' in ESF
UK becomes so important; if the exclusionary cartel that runs STWC/SWP/GR as
its personal fiefdom can claim the ESF UK as another toy then not only does
the sort of NGO involvement you're calling for become unlikely, it becomes
impossible - that would be supporting a political movement that runs in
direct opposition to the government and which would be likely therefore to
lose them their charitable status. Additionally, in the event of a take-over
by the Terminator Tendency of the UK left ("you cannot reason with it, it
will never stop..." (copyright A. Schwarzenegger)) then they'll be right -
the UK ESF *will* be a meaningless lefty fringe cabaret. So much for Chris
Nineham's call for inclusion, eh? But then we all knew he was talking
bollocks anyway.
Which kind of sadly brings us to the voice of reason excuse for the
behaviour of the Manichaeans..."Well you may complain about them but at
least they organize things, they have resources, they get things done". Well
of course they do - it's what they exist for and how they live. Many of them
are full-time or part-time trades unionists who use their branch/executive
funding and time off to attend the sort of meetings the rest of us have to
lose income and work out child-minding arrangements for; many of them belong
to organizations that have existed for years and that have (comparatively
speaking) large amounts of funding to send them to each and every one of the
meetings the ESF UK ever has, with the proviso that they stick exactly to
the party line; they have a built-in advantage.
But to turn round and say that, well, why don't you all have the resources
to attend that we do is saying in effect more resources gives you more say -
isn't that naked capitalism? Aren't we (and even them, white middle-class
public school elitists that they are) supposed to stand for something
different? Or is what we're really saying "Another world is possible, but
only if you let us run it just like the last one"?
Just a few thoughts,
Jon Cloke
Comments
Display the following 6 comments