National demonstration for free education
CS will have a large presence at this demo, to push the idea of a marxist and united youth movement. Unfortunately it has been the subject of infighting between the youth fronts of the SWP (AEP) and AWL (ENS), who have both tried to claim exclusive ownership of the demo. The info below is culled from the AEP facebook event.
NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION FOR FREE EDUCATION – WEDNESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2009, LONDON
For more information, to find out about transport from your town or area, or to add your union or campaigning group’s support, email studentdemo2009@gmail.com
* SCRAP ALL FEES – FREE EDUCATION FOR ALL
* A LIVING GRANT FOR EVERY STUDENT
* EDUCATION NOT PROFIT
Assembline from 12 noon at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1 (Russell Square or Euston or Goodge Street tube)
“it has been the subject of infighting between the youth fronts of the SWP (AEP) and AWL (ENS), who have both tried to claim exclusive ownership of the demo.”
This is a really, really classic example of how the CPGB makes stuff up in order to fit its preconceived political point.
ENS has never tried to claim exclusive ownership of the demo. Not once. Could you please give a single example of when and how this has been the case? The SWP/AEIP, on the other hand, have – since they stopped simply trying to ignore the movement for a demo – repeatedly tried to present it as something exclusively theirs.
Stop lying!
You only have to look at both of your reports to see how true our “lying” is!
“The SWP also show signs of wanting to take over and dominate the initiative for a national demonstration launched by ENS.”
A quote from the ENS report of the SWP/AEIP conference: http://www.free-education.org.uk/?p=563#more-563
Not at all proprietorial! Oh no!
Sorry, who needs to stop lying?
Neither are ENS (former?) supporters so convinced by your group’s squeeky clean approach. Check out this quote taken from a comment on the Indymedia report:
“As a non-alligned anarchist student I have followed and participated in the Education is Not for Sale campaign over the last two years. Whilst some universities and campus groups responded well to the call-out for an anti-capitalist/anti-marketization campaign, ENS unfortunately fell into the quagmire that is the bickering of the authoritarian left amongst themselves. The Socialist Workers Party, Alliance for Workers Liberty, Socialist students… the list goes on. The factionalism and back room agendas of the left has left student politics muted by its own infighting.”
So much so that this anarchist decided not to even bother attending the demo. You can find the full post at: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/422826.html?c=on#comments
My last rebuke in this thread for now, but I also found it interesting that the AWL/ENS is also being proprietorial about demos of the past too. The 1990s no less.
In their report of the recent demo ENS say: “It was also the first time that a national free education demo has been organised independently of NUS since the Campaign for Free Education demos of the late 1990s”.
This CFE was a group (much more successful than ENS) that the AWL set up in the 90s. No mention of course that these demos were also supported by the SWP and other groups and local unions – which they were.
Someone cites the claim that ENS initiated the call for a demo as evidence of a desire for sole proprietorship. But a) it’s simply true, ENS did initiate the call for a demo; the call was worked out in an ENS steering meeting and launched on the ENS website; and in any case b) this is not the same as claiming sole organising responsibility for a demo initiated by someone else and in any case involving all sorts of forces, as the SWP has done.
Think it through in as simple terms as possible. Group A initiates a call for a demo, and calls for other organisations to back it. Group B refuses to do so until the movement for it becomes impossible to ignore. Then it a) in a motion which doesn’t even acknowledge where the call comes from, sets a date unilaterally (a date which fucks quite a lot of things up, incidentally) and b) goes round claiming that it is the force that initiated and organised the demo, even though it knows this it not true, and even though it is still minority in the planning meetings.
I know you guys want to go out of your way to attack both the AWL and the SWP, but you’re going to have to acknowledge that on this one there is no symmetry.
Btw, I went on two of the late 1990s demo and they were basically CFE organised.
It may be true that ENS put in on their website first, yet it was pretty obvious that yourselves and the SWP beleived the demo to be of your own doing, you only have to look at your reports of the demo. I find it funny that you are attacking Tom Walker on Ednet for not mentioning the AWL whilst ENS fail to mention the other organisers of the demo in your report.
Maybe you could lay out which unions are ready to back your new union and answer the comrade on Ednet?
Sacha,
We do not need to “go out of our way to “attack” the SWP and AWL” (I love how you refer to criticism as “attacking” – like when we “attacked” Sean Matgamna for being a scab on Israel/Iran). Bless.
If you actually read our stuff and engage with the politics of it, we are quite clear that we attack the METHOD you both share with the SWP and the left more generally – “Anything but Marxism” in terms of your day-to-day politics. You all treat Marxism as a kind of conspiracy.
However your opportunism justifies itself (Bensaid’s’dialectique d’unite et debordement';’broad frontism'; something ‘not-programatically delimited between reform and revolution’ the ‘united front’ – or as you laughably implied at the ENS conference ‘1st internationalism’) these projects are cynical, frontist dead ends to serve this or that sect project. They have failed and will fail time and time again.
This ‘common sense’ on the left leads us to the oddest of situations in the student movement: we have Education not for Sale, Campaign to defeat Fees and Another Education is Possible, Revo tailing the former and arguing how what a great project it would be if the Zionists were ejected!
We are for the unity of Marxists and a national Marxist student organisation. You, the SWP, Revo etc all put forward variants of opportunism and then get all excited by pathetic little games like this.
Time for a rethink maybe? Get hold of Mike Macnair’s book and review it so we can see what you actually think. Look forward to hearing what unions are backing your call for a new union (which again is anything but Marxist!)
Cheers
Ben
Thankyou for proving yet again that Communist Students are the only organization of the far left that it would be possible to work with, if we can ever hope of presenting a united front to defeat fees.
LIBERAL YOUTH
Alex, I don’t think Communist Students would consider such a united front unless it was formed around “Marxist” politics!
Errr no, we’d partake in a united front for free education just as we did on this demo.
We just fight for our politics as well. Sorry if that offends you.
Laurie
And are honest about doing so, unlike the cloak and daggers methods of the rest of the left who are involved in competing with each other for recruits and influence, despite talk of unity. We are honest about our politics and unite for things like free education because they are in the interests of our class, not because we hope to gain some new leaflet fodder. With CS, Alexb knows where he is and fair doos to the lad.
And what we certainly do not do is peddle politics we know to be insufficient (or maybe we theory has caught up with practice?) as some sort of ‘sign post’ towards Marxism. If you think this is what the ‘united front’ is about John then I would suggest that you read some Lenin or some Trotsky.
You may also wish to analyse the laten contradiction between the Comintern’s conception of the vanguard party and the later call for united action of the working class. But let us not get ahead of ourselves…
Campaign for another education possibly not for sale national co-ordination, comrades? Such stuff is an insult to the best elements of our revolutionary traditions.
We’ve had Stalinism and Social Democracy. Let’s try Marxism instead of constantly recapitulating those two, eh?