That was a good old march! However, there will now be lots of people saying that it didn't achieve anything. Well if you were thinking that one protest would bring down a government and transform our society, you were always going to be disappointed. What it did show was there is a large group of people (anywhere between 250,000 to 700,000 depending on who you listen to) who are prepared to say “no, there is an alternative”. The Tory government won't listen, much of the media won't listen – but the general public might.
That is what is important. Unfortunately media coverage will play a big role in getting that alternative message across, and the violent bits of the protest have, predictably dominated the front pages this Sunday. Is that good or bad? Without the violence the front pages would have been about Lybia, or Japan, with the TUC march given relatively small column space.
But what about the CPB? There were loads of us, as you can see from these few photos:
Don't worry, I'll put up more as they become available (I didn't take any as I was too busy flag waving!)
Now I wouldn't expect the Mail on Sunday to put up photos of us, but they did have this one:
So is that good or bad? The CPB had nothing to do with the UKUncut protest, nor did we smash anything, but there you have it, a party flag across two pages of the Mail on Sunday. Hooray! Or maybe not? No, I'm sticking with HOORRRAAYYYY!!!!!!
Why? Do we want to be associated with violence? Well one party flag surely shows it wasn't us doing it, there were loads of flags in the party march. But is there such a thing as bad publicity? For those of you who say yes, ask yourself if a peaceful transition to socialism/communism is likely to happen? Has it ever happened?
I'll end with a quote from the new draft edition of Britain's Road to Socialism:
“The key factor in this struggle will be the balance of forces outside parliament and in society as a whole, in particular the extent to which the popular anti-monopoly alliance—led by the organised working class—can mobilise decisively to uphold popular sovereignty and help the elected government to enforce its policies.
“The extent to which this process involves physical or military violence will depend upon the revolutionary movement having the best strategy to minimise the capacity for resistance of the capitalist class. As the working class would invariably bear the brunt of counter-revolutionary violence, it is the duty of all serious revolutionaries to devise such a strategy rather than propose simplistic notions of violent insurrection and armed struggle.”