Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

How big is the far left?

Any thoughts as to why (if you are correct) that the organised left is smaller than at any time in the last 100 years, and the comparisons with other countries are interesting

As to the 10,000 - 12,000 estimate, I was being generous. I also would suggest that WP is closer to 40-50 members - let's be realistic

Workers Power has about 30 members in London and about 10 members in Leeds. Now considering we also have branches in Manchester, Newcastle, Leicester, Birmingham, Sheffield and members in various other places (such as Cardiff, Liverpool, Coventry, Bristol) then you can see how we have about 80 members. Why you are so concerned as to whether it is 40-50 or 80 I don't know, but there you go.

If you don't count the ILP or CPB then you might be right Fisher Gate, but I was including them. I doubt the far-left in England has more than about 4000 combined today.
 
Udo Erasmus said:
In more recent history, how do you think the left compares today with for example the 80s or the early 90s?
very badly. Militant/SP & SWP were both much larger then. Well, SWP a little larger throughout most of the 80's. And the other groups were more sizeable as well.

i think it's wrong to completely omit the CPers from the 'far left' - even tho they had generally shit politics, a very large number of members would still consider themselves revolutionary socialists, which has gotta count for something.
 
i think it's wrong to completely omit the CPers from the 'far left' - even tho they had generally shit politics, a very large number of members would still consider themselves revolutionary socialists, which has gotta count for something.

I would say the same goes for the ILP, which is why I said that the far left is smaller today than any time in the last 100 years.

For instance the CPers who went out to fight in Spain in the 1930s in the International Brigades probably wouldn't have seen themselves as reformists!
 
cockneyrebel said:
Anarchist Federation about 80, Sol Fed about 30, Class War about 30.
.

solfed and classwar are both bigger than that, you're also excluding locally based groups (who are organised after all) and groups like the wombles etc
 
solfed and classwar are both bigger than that, you're also excluding locally based groups (who are organised after all) and groups like the wombles etc

Fair enough say they're 50 each, and throw in a few local groups and the WOMBLES, but that still isn't gonna add much more to the total.....
 
cockneyrebel said:
Fair enough say they're 50 each, and throw in a few local groups and the WOMBLES, but that still isn't gonna add much more to the total.....

oh yes, it's a tiny number and i agree it is smaller now then ever...i don't think that's a bad thing though...the fact is strugle against the capitalist system is going to increase with these continued attacks on our conditions and the government's desire to roll back our rights and welfare state to a pre war level. and new fresh forms of organising are needed obviously based on the lessons of the past and the new experiences of now...

you can add the iwca/community action/rank and file workplace organising stuff i'm thnking yourselves, i'm off out.
 
belboid said:
very badly. Militant/SP & SWP were both much larger then. Well, SWP a little larger throughout most of the 80's. And the other groups were more sizeable as well.

i think it's wrong to completely omit the CPers from the 'far left' - even tho they had generally shit politics, a very large number of members would still consider themselves revolutionary socialists, which has gotta count for something.

I asked the question because I wasn't politically active in this period. What do you think the reasons for this decline are (if there has been a decline)
 
I asked the question because I wasn't politically active in this period. What do you think the reasons for this decline are (if there has been a decline)

The smashing of the unions in the 1980s under Thatcherism would seem the most obvious answer. The organised working class has never really recovered and neither has the far left. Internationally the collapse of the USSR obviously had a huge knock on effect as well.

Although there has been some recovery in the TU movement recently and historically large social movements (the STW movement and to a lesser extent the anti-capitalist/anti-globalisation movement), it can't be ignored that this year will probably see the lowest number of strike days lost sicne they have been recorded (well over a 100 years ago).

It is also noticable that the left didn't grow during the STW movement, indeed the biggest organisation, the SWP, might have even shrunk.

I don't think the fact there has been a steep decline is disputed.
 
SP - vastly over-optimistic perspective following the Poll Tax, & making the break from Labour was more difficult than they thought. Some would say it was the inevitable consequence of any centrist organisation, torn between conservatives (stuck in eighties mode), left reformists and revolutionaries. And there's certainly some truth in that - they went from being probably the most influential far left force ever in Britain to......another left group.

SWP - remained fairly constant at about 4000 throughout the eighties, then grew following collapse of eastern europe, poll tax, iraq etc etc. However, the 'upturn' never arrived, and the constant ra ra ism's (& other factors) led to a very high turnover of members, large numbers of whom were never 'consolidated' into the party. I would reckon nigh on half the current membership was a member from the early/mid eighties! Following the election of Blair the SWP flapped around for a fair bit, tying to work out how to connect with the anti-blair mood, which it couldn't manage at all pre-Respect. Some would say it was the inevitable consequence of any opportunist organisation, torn between those conservatives (stuck in eighties mode), left reformists and revolutionaries. I think there seemed to be far more hope around in the nineties - that the tories were going, and we'd get something better - whereas under Blair that hope has turned to despair.

Now the question of why neither group - no group even - has gained substantially out of the war on Iraq is the really interesting one. But not one anyone seems really willing to address - some will talk of their 10 extra members, which is lovely, maybe SW get 100, but it's still bugger all. The possibility that there could be something wrong with the whole underlying premise of those groups doesnt seem to come up at all. far too dangerous an idea I suppose.

I suppose the fall of the USSR did have something to do with it to, tho not as much as the DWS'ers would say.
 
I think there's been a general collapse of confidence in socialist ideas and nobody can do very much about it for quite a long time.

I also think it misses the point to look at the particular practice of this or that group to explain why they haven't grown. To some degree it repeats their own mistake of thinking that if you have the "right" line, or even the "right" way of operating, then you will grow as a result.
 
yeah, I'd agree with both those points. Tho things can change quicker than we might think, there's plenty of inspirational stuff going on in Latin America, for example, it's too easy to be to parochial and simply look close to home.

Also, tho overall the actions and ins and outs of each group arent that important, in terms of the balance of forces between the different groups they obviously have some role to play.
 
Yeah, i'd agree. However, the overwhelming majority of people in this country support higher taxes for the rich, they support taxes being used to narrow the gap between rich and poor, most people consider themselves working class, most people disapprove of giving private school's a bigger role in state education, most people believe politicians are out of touch. (Mori and ICM polls).

So it's not all bad. :)
 
mattkidd12 said:
Yeah, i'd agree. However, the overwhelming majority of people in this country support higher taxes for the rich, they support taxes being used to narrow the gap between rich and poor, most people consider themselves working class, most people disapprove of giving private school's a bigger role in state education, most people believe politicians are out of touch. (Mori and ICM polls).

So it's not all bad. :)

Reminds me of an interesting opinion poll that I read a few years ago.

It asked a cross section of people how they would vote on a widerange of policies and then decided to match the results to the relevant parties and declared that if these results were replicated in parliamentary seats - The Green Party would be in government and Socialist Alliance would be the opposition
 
2001 Mori poll for election:

http://www.mori.com/polls/2001/e010605.shtml

Scroll down to Q6-13a.

Most people support:

*increasing income tax to 50% for highest earners (57%)
*against single currency (58%)
*against private companies running state schools (62%)
*renationalisation of railways (72%)
*ban fox hunting (57%)
*proportional representation (62%)
 
I think that the Far Left is miniscule but there are loads of people who support policies to the left of labour as mattkidd points out.
But most people dont want to join or support organisations where they are expected to agree with the leadership on every issue. And that is the one of the biggest mistakes the far left make.
 
cockneyrebel said:
Are you Bazil Brush?

basil.jpg
 
tbaldwin said:
SNIP . . .
But most people dont want to join or support organisations where they are expected to agree with the leadership on every issue. . . . .



Like the Labour Party for instance?

Gra
 
Back
Top Bottom