I’m not sure I understand any of pluralprogressive’s points — he seems to be confusing an anarchist individual with the aims and principles of a whole orginisation, ‘the Left’ with something inherently of benefit to society, and non-sectarianism with an organisation so exclusive as to bar anyone outside the 500 yard radius of the University of Kent’s Canterbury campus. However, I do of course concede that all succesful transformations of society were done on the basis of a handful of students acting unprinciplied and ‘in the spirit of independence’. No doubt capitalism is quaking in its brogues.

Anyway, I think there should be some sort of joint socialist group by which to combine CCCU, UKC and the arts college – not to mention recruiting sixth forms as who else will free education matter more to? As I have some free time at the moment (read: temporarily unemployed) that’s something I’ll be attempting to set up in concert with the rest of you.

Ben said: “Student Socialists’ are not THE socialist student organisation at Kent — firstly, they are professedly not a socialist organisation but a ‘coalition of lefts’, and secondly there are the Socialist Students and the SWSS on campus.”

The point I was attempting to make is that Ben is of the assumption that a ‘socialist’ organisation should be explicitly there for socialists. Of course anarchists and other anti-capitalists can be on board. I was attempting to point out how preposterous Ben’s argument was.

Our case to break with a national organisation was in order to escape dogma and the history far-left organisations have had with one another nationally. To become plural, and to genuinely make the case that KUSS (previously KSS) was independent, we had to act in the spirit of ‘independence’, thus disaffiliation was our attempt to remove a potential shackle that may have alienated alternative socialist opinion to that of Socialist Students and the SP.

We never once invited the Lib Dems on board. We had friends who were Lib Dems, but the organisation was still profesedly ‘socialist’ in the most liberal sense being that we did not have a programme for a socialist society, but all of us were in agreement on the merits of socialism, regardless of their own opinion in best achieving that goal.

My apologies for any misunderstandings.

Generally I think your attitude to this demonstrates how little you know about the activities, theories underpinning said activism and reputations of the ‘other groups’ with which you say this group wanted affiliation.

Finally the idea that because an organisation is headed by an anarchist that it is not socialist is preposterous – little enough distinguishes anarchism from the pre-Marxist pre-materialist versions of ‘socialism’.

Where I think Ben maintains that the group ceased to be socialist is where it basically wanted to invite reformist pro-capitalists – such as Lib Dems – on board.

The reason for the disaffiliation was simple, the members at the time wanted nothing to do with being affiliated towards one political organisation. The members wished to escape the sectarian jabberings that national organisations usually have and which eventually spill over into local groups and can seriously hinder a local group’s ability to co-operate with others. Members of KUSS last year belonged to a varying number of organisations and were more enthusiastic about some groups rather than others, however they recognised how important left unity was on university campuses. KUSS wished to be the embodiment of the ideal.

As Aaron said to me in conversation last week, we would welcome anybody attached to any political party or movement into the KUSS fold, they could even have their own meetings of their respective organisations, but the necessity for one unified socialist/left group at the University of Kent was desirable, and I hope it would be for the majority of UoK leftists.

Ben’s point that KUSS was not a ‘socialist’ organisation stands in contrast to Phil’s mention of the Sheffield Uni Socialist Students branch being run by an anarchist! So Socialist Students will take on anarchists (and Greens, and anyone else) but will lay on the charge that KUSS is not a socialist organisation but a coalition of assorted leftists? Am I failing to see the difference here between the inclusiveness of both groups?

I think Aaron has thrown a positive and enthusiastic light on the emergence of three socialist organisations at the University of Kent. Yes it will make Kent far more politically active and certainly makes the left seem far more colourful, but it really is confusing. Most students don’t have time to read the histories of Militant and the SWP to get to grips with the difference of opinion when it comes to implementing a socialist programme!

I am sure KUSS will remain to be a pragmatic, plural and inclusive organisation that would not wish to deride another member of their affiliation to a national organisation. Having one forum for the whole left on campus is better than having three groups (two of which rely on the ‘shipping in’ of national members- some of which are no longer students- outside the locale) slugging it out to carve their own nichés amongst radical and progressive sections of the student movement.

No one is arguing that the anti-war movement and cuts are separable from the point of view of class analysis. Both are means of retrenchment from the point of view of the ruling class.

They are very separable from a tactical perspective however. They are after all two campaigns, and to simply say that they are inseparable is no answer – because you may as well say that we should be engaged in proactive campaigns on every issue going (as they are just as connected).

Realistically we have neither means nor time to do so – so we must engage where we can be most productive. And the thesis of this article, which no one has answered yet, either here or through facebook comments, is that we are most productively engaged elsewhere than by explicitly anti-war work.

Something else for your consideration is that, everything being connected – which we agree on – fights against cuts are also fights against the war, though this is a connection which many people will not instantly make. So all the better to direct anti-war work down that direction.