Action exposed
Socialist Organiser1983 1983-11-03Read it in the scan (PDF), scan page 13 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 13
RECENT issues of Socialist Organiser performed a useful role in exposing the sectarian factionalism of Socialist Action supporters at Brighton and their current factional manoeuvring in London Labour Briefing.
Unfortunately, if the experiences in Glasgow are anything to go by, their inveterate and destructive factionalism is manifesting itself on a national scale, in relation to the National Briefing Supplement recently launched at the initiative of London Labour Briefing.
Last month's meeting of Strathclyde Labour Briefing discussed whether or not to take the supplement. There are valid, rational arguments both for and against taking it, and no-one would have believed it to be a major issue.
Except for Socialist Action supporters that is, who, for the first time ever, made an input into an SLB meeting. Grandiose images were conjured up of the mass circulation SLB could achieve if it took the supplement; the Briefing supplement was what the Labour left was organising around; SLB could not afford to go without it; those who had the temerity to refer to technical and financial problems lacked vision, blah, blah, blah.
This was not a case of longstanding SLB activists putting forward rational arguments for taking the supplement. If it had been so, then fair enough.
What was involved, however, was a factional coup by Socialist Action supporters, forcing their latest fad onto the SLB (hitherto ignored by them), pushed through the meeting in a whelter of vaudeville demagogy delivered in the arrogant, supercilious, holier-than-thou manner which is their hallmark.
Whilst not denying the value of a national Briefing supplement, which SO, of course, has supported, on balance I feel it wrong for the SLB to take it. But the real problem is to have a genuine discussion about it when the political gadflies from Socialist Action are concerned only with dishonest manoeuvres to foist their latest political fetish onto people who have spent a lot of time, energy and money in order to make the SLB a respected bulletin.
Of course, the ultimate irony is that Socialist Action likes to profile as non-sectarian, whilst in fact being the most sectarian grouping on the Labour left today.
Like so many others, 1 impatiently await the day when Socialist Action discovers yet another "mass vanguard" as far away from the labour movement as possible, thus leaving serious socialists to get on with the job in peace.
CROOKE Glasgow