27
Jan
13

What is missing from the SP analysis of the demise of the ULA?

The primary SP argument remains that nothing could have been done differently and they have no explanation for why the “objective factors” that led to working class activists being drawn to the CAHWT was happening concurrently with the “objective factors” that kept them away from the ULA.

Nothing would have been different if the promise to launch a new party made in the SP’s election manifesto and been given some concrete reality instead of almost immediately after individual membership was opened up the SP continual pouring cold water on the idea except as some abstract long-term goal, which hardly made the ULA look attractive to the working class militants in the CAHWT.

Nothing would have been different if alongside those concrete moves towards launching a new party the SP (and SWP) had made the ULA their real priority so that on demonstrations etc the ULA was THE public face of the components of the ULA instead of it being themselves in competition with each other. Why would the ULA be attractive to working class militants in the CAHWT when it barely existed in public manifestations of opposition to austerity?

I guess it makes the SP feel better to argue this as it absolves them from any critical self-analysis but it will not encourage anyone to believe their calls, that will inevitably come, for a ULA 2.0

Advertisements

0 Responses to “What is missing from the SP analysis of the demise of the ULA?”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Categories

Archive


%d bloggers like this: