ULA - How to build a broad consensus

[fluffybiscuits]

[Sam Lord] is a self-obessed Stalinist with zero understanding of Marxism [MOD CF] there is a difference between reading Marx and understanding Marx) who looks down his nose at everyone from the Trotskyist tradition.

Im sitting on the fence on that one!

No we don't - there are many in the ULA who have a reformist outlook and many within the ULA who have a revolutionary outlook. But I suspect that everyone within the ULA wants to see the ULA become a mass force of opposition to austerity.

Do you not think that is possible via reforming laws and also getting people riled up. There is so much indifference around that it is scary, we need to kick people up the arse, revolution is the only way for that. Reforms can work alongside this, change the law to tax the rich, stop inequality etc.

Again - of course there are different ideologies - the point I was making is that the difference in political ideologies are not the cause of differences within the ULA. Groups and individuals with different ideologies can and have been working together within the ULA

Thanks for clearing that up, appreciate that (Im still learning )

And there are different approaches and methods - indeed there are as many approaches and methods as there are goups and individuals. Differences of opinion and emphasis can be vigourously debated within the ULA. The difficulties arise when some people (e.g. the SWP) do not have any consistance in their approach and bounce around with the prevailing wind. It makes it more difficult to arrive at a working solution when this happens. Hopefully the recent announcement of an anti-austerity campaign by the ULA will see and newly developed consensus emerging with regards the approach and methods within the ULA.

The SWP has always had a consistent approach to the campaigns. Protest at the cuts, put in PQ's, write letters and online activism as well as engaging locally . While some methods may be more effective than others perhaps its just a learning curve also for the SWP, its all learning learening learning. The world has not been in these conditions for a while now and as such old tactics have to be relearnt. The anti austerity campaign can reinforce the ULA and lets not forget mate that we are also pretty united on social policy pretty much too.

[fluffybiscuits]

The ULA held a press conference "to launch an anti-Austerity campaign" last week.

Does it not already have one ????

The launch seems to have been a series of statements by ULA TDs, including Daly, in which only Boyd Barrett talks about austerity - the others only about the Household Charge.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/un...ust-austerity/

I can't see any indication of what this campaign is proposed to consist, in practical terms.

No call for public sector workers to refuse to implement cuts which damage health, risk life, compromise education ?

Just more of the usual language about protests and mass movements on the streets.

Didnt hear about this myself, it does seem lacking in substance...

[C. Flower]

Didnt hear about this myself, it does seem lacking in substance...

Have any members been informed of it, I wonder ? Branch meetings of the ULA called to organise it ?

[fluffybiscuits]

Have any members been informed of it, I wonder ? Branch meetings of the ULA called to organise it ?

It might be announced at the meeting at the branch I go to on Wednesday night

[C. Flower]

Have any members been informed of it, I wonder ? Branch meetings of the ULA called to organise it ?

Answers on this - (sourced from the CLR site)

from Bolshevik -

http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpr...ot-in-my-name/

who views it as a sectarian move to create a special position for the ULA in extending the CAWHT into an anti-austerity campaign without discussion and agreement with the CAWHT membership.

He disassociates himself from the decision and says it was discussed neither at ULA branches nor even at the Steering Committee of the ULA.

The WSM also says this is anti-democratic, because it cuts out everyone involved who is not in the ULA from decision making. Not aware that it doesn't seem to have been any more democratic inside the ULA.

Internal party democracy is not a new invention on the left - there are straightforward models. It doesn't have to be an Occupy model on the one hand or a centralised top down ad hoc stream of pre-emptive decisions on the other.


http://www.wsm.ie/c/united-left-alli...ld-water-taxes

A serious Anti-Austerity campaign would surely put forward a detailed, costed, alternative budget ?

[Sam Lord]

This all gets more confusing by the minute. Is that the aim?

The People before Profit (PBP) and Socialist Party (SP)are the two main constituent parts of the ULA. The PBP is a mass organisation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). So SWP members are in a front (PBP) with is part of an alliance (ULA). In addition SWP members are part of the broad campaign against "austerity" called the CAHWT. Further to this the SWP launched its own campaign against "austerity" which, I believe, goes under the title "Enough". The Socialist Party, the other main constituent part of the ULA is also involved in the CAHWT campaign against "austerity". Now the ULA has launched its own separate campaign against "austerity".

Am I the only person to find all this headwrecking?

[disability student]

This all gets more confusing by the minute. Is that the aim?

The People before Profit (PBP) and Socialist Party (SP)are the two main constituent parts of the ULA. The PBP is a mass organisation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). So SWP members are in a front (PBP) with is part of an alliance (ULA). In addition SWP members are part of the broad campaign against "austerity" called the CAHWT. Further to this the SWP launched its own campaign against "austerity" which, I believe, goes under the title "Enough". The Socialist Party, the other main constituent part of the ULA is also involved in the CAHWT campaign against "austerity". Now the ULA has launched its own separate campaign against "austerity".

Am I the only person to find all this headwrecking?

+1, 'too many chiefs spoil the broth'

[Baron von Biffo]

This all gets more confusing by the minute. Is that the aim?

The People before Profit (PBP) and Socialist Party (SP)are the two main constituent parts of the ULA. The PBP is a mass organisation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). So SWP members are in a front (PBP) with is part of an alliance (ULA). In addition SWP members are part of the broad campaign against "austerity" called the CAHWT. Further to this the SWP launched its own campaign against "austerity" which, I believe, goes under the title "Enough". The Socialist Party, the other main constituent part of the ULA is also involved in the CAHWT campaign against "austerity". Now the ULA has launched its own separate campaign against "austerity".

Am I the only person to find all this headwrecking?

[fluffybiscuits]

This all gets more confusing by the minute. Is that the aim?

The People before Profit (PBP) and Socialist Party (SP)are the two main constituent parts of the ULA. The PBP is a mass organisation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). So SWP members are in a front (PBP) with is part of an alliance (ULA). In addition SWP members are part of the broad campaign against "austerity" called the CAHWT. Further to this the SWP launched its own campaign against "austerity" which, I believe, goes under the title "Enough". The Socialist Party, the other main constituent part of the ULA is also involved in the CAHWT campaign against "austerity". Now the ULA has launched its own separate campaign against "austerity".

Am I the only person to find all this headwrecking?

Enough is not really in operation anymore but apart from that I cant disagree with you...

[C. Flower]

This all gets more confusing by the minute. Is that the aim?

The People before Profit (PBP) and Socialist Party (SP)are the two main constituent parts of the ULA. The PBP is a mass organisation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). So SWP members are in a front (PBP) with is part of an alliance (ULA). In addition SWP members are part of the broad campaign against "austerity" called the CAHWT. Further to this the SWP launched its own campaign against "austerity" which, I believe, goes under the title "Enough". The Socialist Party, the other main constituent part of the ULA is also involved in the CAHWT campaign against "austerity". Now the ULA has launched its own separate campaign against "austerity".

Am I the only person to find all this headwrecking?

You're not concentrating. The CAHWT is not an anti-austerity campaign, it is only a campaign against household and water charges.

The ULA would like it to broaden out, but many CAHWT activists and supporters are not in the ULA.

The new anti-austerity campaign is perhaps a way of avoiding the political debate in the CAHWT that would have to be held before changing its character to a broader campaign ? It would be better to have the debate I think.

[C. Flower]

Enough is not really in operation anymore but apart from that I cant disagree with you...

Had Enough of Enough ?

[fluffybiscuits]

Had Enough of Enough ?

Im that full I think I had enough....

[Jolly Red Giant]

The new anti-austerity campaign is perhaps a way of avoiding the political debate in the CAHWT that would have to be held before changing its character to a broader campaign ? It would be better to have the debate I think.

The debate has been taking place within the CAHWT - at the last National steering committee meeting (outside of Wallace's supporters) there was only one delegate who spoke against the idea of widening the campaign into a general campaign against austerity.

[C. Flower]

The debate has been taking place within the CAHWT - at the last National steering committee meeting (outside of Wallace's supporters) there was only one delegate who spoke against the idea of widening the campaign into a general campaign against austerity.

Debates at Steering Committees are not the same as debates in the broad membership.

A little less steering and a little more debate might be a good idea.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Debates at Steering Committees are not the same as debates in the broad membership.

A little less steering and a little more debate might be a good idea.

Public meetings have taken place and continue to take place.

Cf - if you actually got active in the CAHWT you might not repeatedly come out with this nonsense.