Trots: Why is ____ party a working class party, and what does that mean?

[genstrike]

I guess this question is directed mostly at the Trotskyists, because that is where I generally hear this line from the most.

And although I use the example of the NDP, it is just because that is what I am familiar with, and you could replace them with pretty much any mainstream Labour or Socialist Party in the country of your choice

Basically, I often hear the argument that the NDP is a working class party, and that somehow that means that we should support it or try some sort of entryism. I just want to know how "working class party" is defined, and how that differentiates them from any other party, particularly when a lot of the time they do the exact same shit as the other capitalist parties whenever they get in power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, that question should be directed at Grantites, specifically. Most Trotskyists thankfully regard "mainstream Left" parties as class-collaborationist:

IMT = Reformist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/imt-reformist-t90600/index.html)


Grant and Woods split from Militant over this issue as they argued that we should remain in Labour as it was still the party of the working and that the masses would fall back to Labour eventually ... They subsequently formed Socialist Appeal in the UK and the IMT internationally and are working inside Labour (and similar parties internationally) to this day. They've in effect dogmatised the whole tactic of entryism.

As for this board, the Grantites have fled it to perpetuate their real-life class collaborationism and then shout "sectarian" and "ultra-left" when exposed for such activities. The frequency of those two words being used usually exposes Grantites.

[Invincible Summer]

I guess this question is directed mostly at the Trotskyists, because that is where I generally hear this line from the most.

And although I use the example of the NDP, it is just because that is what I am familiar with, and you could replace them with pretty much any mainstream Labour or Socialist Party in the country of your choice

Basically, I often hear the argument that the NDP is a working class party, and that somehow that means that we should support it or try some sort of entryism. I just want to know how "working class party" is defined, and how that differentiates them from any other party, particularly when a lot of the time they do the exact same shit as the other capitalist parties whenever they get in power.

As Jacob Richter said, Trots would say the NDP is a "deceiver of the working class" or "so-called socialists" or something with sensationalist language.

Just curious Genstrike, did you ask this question because you encountered members of FightBack? I know that they claim to be Trotskyists, but they really love the NDP.

[genstrike]

Just curious Genstrike, did you ask this question because you encountered members of FightBack? I know that they claim to be Trotskyists, but they really love the NDP.

I don't think I've ever encountered FightBack (or Socialist Caucus for that matter) folks that I am aware of (I don't even think there are any in this city), but I've heard this line from a variety of sources including some NSG folks, a couple people who claim to be trots but I don't know if they are affiliated with any org, some people on this forum, people on another forum, and a variety of places on the internets.

My first instinct is to say that that line is a load of crap, but I just want to know where people are coming from. Especially when they say "working class party", I want to know what the definitions are of a "working class party"

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Theirs is based on plain demographics, comrade: "organized labour." However, as I have noted in my work, you cannot have a proper "worker-class" party (note the subtle difference between this two-noun combination and both "working-class" and "workers") without a firm commitment to the politico-ideological independence of the working class, with the workers coming together consciously as a class (hence the two-noun combination above).

[Tower of Bebel]

Marx characterized proletarian or workers' parties as parties aiming at the formation of an independent working class. We can think of Lassalle's efforts in Southern Germany as an example of this. The proletarian parties of the Communist Maniesto are definately not the capialist parties with close connections to bureaucratic trade unions.

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.But I don't think that the IMT sees Labour as a workers' party. I think they go back to Lenin's concept of a bourgeois workers' party.

[el_chavista]

Is it a dead end for commie parties? A Vanguard is not a workers-class party. So workers got to get their class-conscious by their own?

[Kassad]

Is it a dead end for commie parties? A Vanguard is not a workers-class party. So workers got to get their class-conscious by their own?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

[Pogue]

Is it a dead end for commie parties? A Vanguard is not a workers-class party. So workers got to get their class-conscious by their own?

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions.

[Charles Xavier]

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions.


There are no revolutionary unions in Canada or in the vast majority of the world. Don't speak out of your ass, you make a ridiculous amount of useless posts.


I guess this question is directed mostly at the Trotskyists, because that is where I generally hear this line from the most.

And although I use the example of the NDP, it is just because that is what I am familiar with, and you could replace them with pretty much any mainstream Labour or Socialist Party in the country of your choice

Basically, I often hear the argument that the NDP is a working class party, and that somehow that means that we should support it or try some sort of entryism. I just want to know how "working class party" is defined, and how that differentiates them from any other party, particularly when a lot of the time they do the exact same shit as the other capitalist parties whenever they get in power.


Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP (and most other social democratic parties) it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentary struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not participate as a policy. The working class are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. That is just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest.

Communists must always be open and straight forward, they mustn't hide their views from anyone, even Marx says this in the communist manifesto.

[Yehuda Stern]

A reformist workers' party is generally a party with a bourgeois leadership which has an organic connection to the labor movement, for example, through some sort of union control of it. The British Labor Party is (was? I'm not really sure) the best example of it.

However, I must add that just because a party is a reformist workers' party, that doesn't immediately mean that entryism in it is necessary or desirable. Reformist parties are one of the enemies of the revolution - the revolutionary organization must destroy them eventually. Entryism is a tactic which is designed to assist in that at certain times when a centrist current develops in these parties - certainly not at all times.

[iraqnevercalledmenigger]

This is far from an easy question. When does a bourgeoisified workers party stop being one? Are the CPs of the world still workers' organizations? Can we judge this based on trade union membership/support alone? I know not the answers but I do agree with the tactical considerations put forward by Yehuda regarding entryism.

As for the IMT/Grantites (or Woodies as they should be called now) their criterion for entryism is not even the party in question being a workers' party. As their entryism with Mexico's PRD and Pakistan's PPP show, if the masses have illusions to the point of following that party in some kind of action the IMT will flock like birds.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions.

Sorry, but that "strategy" has failed even more miserably:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1321

[Pogue]

Sorry, but that "strategy" has failed even more miserably:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1321

Failed more miserably than the 'socialist' states?

It doesn't really count when you source your argument to, er, your own arguments. I think you have an inflated idea of self-importance and intelligence. Alot of your work is really not worth reading.

[Pogue]

There are no revolutionary unions in Canada or in the vast majority of the world. Don't speak out of your ass, you make a ridiculous amount of useless posts.




Entryism is a failed method it has constantly failed what ends up happening if the left is any major threat to the right-wing social democrats they just purge them from the Party the NDP have done this several times already in History most recently in the 1970s under Tommy Douglas. You pretend like the NDP has a strong activist base, but really there is very little grass roots organization going on with the NDP (and most other social democratic parties) it is primarily an electoral party. There is very little Extra-parliamentary struggle the NDP engage in and what they do engage in is 100% controlled by them else they will not participate as a policy. The working class are easy to find you don't need to misled your way and be dishonest to find them.

Communists should always and everywhere be open about their views, not pretend to be a social democrat when you aren't. That is just dishonest and you will learn from experience, you will not win the trust of the masses by being secretive and dishonest.

Communists must always be open and straight forward, they mustn't hide their views from anyone, even Marx says this in the communist manifesto.

Look at your reputation bar, then look at mine. I think we see who talks out of their arse and makes useless posts more often.

There are no revolutionary parties (beyond 1 man and his dog) in most countries of the world. The point is to build them.

Political parties are not the home of the working class, though.

[Pogue]

Sorry, but that "strategy" has failed even more miserably:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=1321

From briefly skimming over this latest edition to the pile of jarognised tripe you spew out in place of (as you admit yourself) any real activism I see you thoroughly misunderstand the anarcho-syndicalist or IWW position on revolutionary unionism and workers struggle.

We don't mystify the general strike, and we specifically make it clear that occupations and actually running the factories are (obviously) completely neccesary. Anarcho-Syndicalism is the most natural form of socialism.

[alhop10]

They could do it by other means, such as revolutionary unions

All the main Unions in the UK at least are far too dominated by bureaucracy and self-serving egos to ever become revolutionary forces in their own right. They are a useful tool for economic struggle but by themselves will never mount a collective challenge to the wider power structures that they have literally bought into and are ultimately controlled by.

[Bilan]

All the main Unions in the UK at least are far too dominated by bureaucracy and self-serving egos to ever become revolutionary forces in their own right. They are a useful tool for economic struggle but by themselves will never mount a collective challenge to the wider power structures that they have literally bought into and are ultimately controlled by.

He did say revolutionary unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Failed more miserably than the 'socialist' states?

It doesn't really count when you source your argument to, er, your own arguments. I think you have an inflated idea of self-importance and intelligence. Alot of your work is really not worth reading.

There are no revolutionary parties (beyond 1 man and his dog) in most countries of the world. The point is to build them.

Political parties are not the home of the working class, though.

From briefly skimming over this latest edition to the pile of jarognised tripe you spew out in place of (as you admit yourself) any real activism I see you thoroughly misunderstand the anarcho-syndicalist or IWW position on revolutionary unionism and workers struggle.

I suppose the two of us have radically different organizational perspectives. BTW, where I live is, at the present time, tailing even the US in terms of "real activism":

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/no-left-parties-canada-sigh-0

"A lot of my work not worth reading" ( :rolleyes: ) deals with "the point of building revolutionary parties beyond one man and his dog." BTW, why are you repeating the IMT's line?

[Pogue]

I suppose the two of us have radically different organizational perspectives. BTW, where I live is, at the present time, tailing even the US in terms of "real activism":

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/no-left-parties-canada-sigh-0

Theres not a massive amount of activity anywhere, really. You have to make an effort though, like everyone else. You could at least do a few paper sales or the odd meeting here and there. How do you intend to make yourself useful to the workers movement (or whatever you personally call it) which you seem to be so interested in if you don't actually do anything to support it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Theres not a massive amount of activity anywhere, really. You have to make an effort though, like everyone else.

Were this place the US, I'd be a dual member of the SP-USA and the Workers' Party of America. Were this place the UK, I'd be a member of the CPGB.

Please read the contents of that Rabble thread in further detail. :)


You could at least do a few paper sales or the odd meeting here and there. How do you intend to make yourself useful to the workers movement (or whatever you personally call it) which you seem to be so interested in if you don't actually do anything to support it?

Yes, because selling newspapers is sooo "activism." :rolleyes:

There's a reason why people read newspapers less and less - and read stuff online more and more. :glare:

[Pogue]

Were this place the US, I'd be a dual member of the SP-USA and the Workers' Party of America. Were this place the UK, I'd be a member of the CPGB.

Please read the contents of that Rabble thread in further detail. :)



Yes, because selling newspapers is sooo "activism." :rolleyes:

There's a reason why people read newspapers less and less - and read stuff online more and more. :glare:

I don't see how you can criticise selling papers from your position. We have to start somewhere, and if it gets the message out, obviously thats great. Its definatly alot more productive than typing things in your own personal language which not even theoretically sound fellow socialists can understand. What relevancy does social proletecracy have to the workers movement, seriously? The simple fact is, if you want to spread socialist ideas and build for revolution, you have to go out in the real world. Most people don't go on the internet for politics, and more people don't take the itnernet seriously. People take strikes, people talking to them, demosntrations etc alot more seriously and find them harder to ignore.

You don't live in the USA, so its pointless saying you'd join the SPUSA. You don't live in the UK, so its pointless saying you join the CPGB (and probably pointless to join them anyway, they're pretty much non-existent but it'd be better than doing nothing).

We have a number of comrades from canada here, we have comrades from Singapore, Ireland, as far away as New Zealand. They're all active. I'm active. You have no excuse. Find a group, or start a group. Everyone else has done one of these two things.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We have a number of comrades from canada here, we have comrades from Singapore, Ireland, as far away as New Zealand. They're all active. I'm active. You have no excuse. Find a group, or start a group. Everyone else has done one of these two things.

What do you think I'm doing - not attempting to start a "group"? That's the purpose of my work! :cursing:

[Pogue]

What do you think I'm doing - not attempting to start a "group"? That's the purpose of my work! :cursing:

What relevancy does your 'work' over the internet have to forming a group which is open to more people than simply Jacob Richter and perhaps someone who is an expert in de-codifying alien languages? Attempting to start a group would mean joinging in communtiy campaigns, putting out adverts, organising meetings, etc, not typing pages of theory onto your computer.

[Pogue]

If you're really struggling to form a group, why not look no further than your workplace? Get talking to your colleagues, get involved in any union activity, join the IWW or something.

[Charles Xavier]

Theres not a massive amount of activity anywhere, really. You have to make an effort though, like everyone else. You could at least do a few paper sales or the odd meeting here and there. How do you intend to make yourself useful to the workers movement (or whatever you personally call it) which you seem to be so interested in if you don't actually do anything to support it?

I forgot that you were an experienced organizers and captain obvious and a thread derailer and all this world needed was another socialist party.

Honestly if you cannot find a socialist party that you agree with in any country you need to read more. Theres a minimum of 5 worker parties in any given country.

[Pogue]

I forgot that you were an experienced organizers and captain obvious and a thread derailer and all this world needed was another socialist party.

Honestly if you cannot find a socialist party that you agree with in any country you need to read more. Theres a minimum of 5 worker parties in any given country.

Funny, because I never forget what a muppet you are.

[alhop10]

Yes, because selling newspapers is sooo "activism."

What crap!

Any serious revolutionary organization needs some sort of theoretical and practical organ through which it can communicate with its members and to try and influence people towards its ideas and will be of little use unless it is circulated. OK, standing on a street selling papers is perhaps one of the less dramatic and immediately measurable forms of activism in terms of effect but it is still activism.


There's a reason why people read newspapers less and less - and read stuff online more and more

Perhaps this is true to an extent but there is still a significant minority of people in the UK who have no internet access at all and still a majority who get most of their information through print media. It is also significant that the lowest earners are also less likely to be regular users of the internet.

Also, i find selling newspapers just a good way of talking to people and getting a feel for the mood.

One other thing, if we found ourselves in a revolutionary situation the government would find it much easier to shut down subversive material online than it would actual paper and print. Printing presses don't have IP addresses.

[el_chavista]

Generally, workers are more patient and serious than petits bourgeoisies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Care to elaborate, comrade, or is there an age element, as well (older class-strugglists are more patient and more serious than teenagers)?


OK, standing on a street selling papers is perhaps one of the less dramatic and immediately measurable forms of activism in terms of effect but it is still activism.

In all my time here, I believe I've won a lot more people over to social proletocracy in all but name (because they don't call themselves such ;) ) - all due to my own theoretical development - than I would've won by standing on a street selling papers dedicated to one or another form of monetary socialism and extreme electoralism ("soviet power").


Perhaps this is true to an extent but there is still a significant minority of people in the UK who have no internet access at all and still a majority who get most of their information through print media. It is also significant that the lowest earners are also less likely to be regular users of the internet.

Also, i find selling newspapers just a good way of talking to people and getting a feel for the mood.

One other thing, if we found ourselves in a revolutionary situation the government would find it much easier to shut down subversive material online than it would actual paper and print. Printing presses don't have IP addresses.

Forgive me for my Canadian perspective; it's just that Canadians are the most Internet-savvy people in the world, moreso than Americans.

Nevertheless, your last point does indeed stress why some form of print medium should stand by as a backup. :)

[Charles Xavier]

The worker's paper isn't made to make you join a party, its to inform you on important working class issues. If you're in Canada I suggest you subscribe to the People's Voice, or at least go online and read the articles on the manufacturing crisis going on. I don't wish to be biased but I dont see the high level analysis of the situation from any other grouping in Canada. Or even the CPGB had a really good article on the economic crisis back in november if I recall correctly.

[alhop10]

Nevertheless, your last point does indeed stress why some form of print medium should stand by as a backup

I think a user on here has that chomsky quote saying that the majority of the world doesn't even have access to a phone.

For anyone interested in forwarding the the likelihood of the success of an international proletarian revolution the internet has to be a secondary vehicle.

[ZeroNowhere]

Honestly if you cannot find a socialist party that you agree with in any country you need to read more.
Ehm. Really? There's a socialist party in Singapore? I was not aware of this.

[Charles Xavier]

Ehm. Really? There's a socialist party in Singapore? I was not aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Singapore

[ZeroNowhere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Singapore
Perhaps you are referring to the 'National Socialist' party? :confused:

[BobKKKindle$]

There's a reason why people read newspapers less and less - and read stuff online more and moreYour point being? The point of having a paper stall in the middle of a busy street isn't just to sell papers - although a stall (or even just a single person standing by the entrance to the metro or something similar) is arguably a far more effective way of getting people to buy and read your paper than only having a presence online, given that most people do not search out socialist media, and are unlikely to stumble across it by accident, whereas a physical stall is not something you can avoid. When people come up to your stall to buy a paper or just to discover what all the fuss is about, it gives you an opportunity to start up a conversation, and provide a leftist perspective on topical events such as the financial crisis, and combat common misapprehensions - and, as a previous poster said, to evaluate the mood. If someone shows interest in what you have to say, and agrees with the kind of arguments you put forward, you can encourage that person to attend one of your public meetings, or even to become part of your organization. Your ability to do any of these things would be severely constrained if an organization only operated online and didn't have a presence on the streets, however minimal. The fact that you view a growing shift towards online media as sufficient grounds to reject paper stalls and only have a presence on the internet shows that you've never had any experience of activism in the real world and gave no grasp of how left-wing politics actually operates.


What do you think I'm doing - not attempting to start a "group"? That's the purpose of my work!Nobody reads any of your "work", because you have nothing of substance to offer. Have you searched up "social-proletocrat" on google recently?

[Pogue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Singapore

None of those parties are socialist parties, idiot.

[gilhyle]

this is as a previous poster has said a very difficult question There is no one definition of what a working class party....except the very limited idea that a working class party is a party which has the potential to represent all of the working class against capitalism, by contrast wth a party which is inescapably a cross class alliance under the leadership of a fraction of the capitalst class.

But this kind of definition may tell you why a working class party is important, but it will not tell you what a working class party is.

For a long time between the 1920s and the 1970s it was possible to speak of the organic link as the defintiion of the working class party. This idea was common in the UK and was based around the idea that Unnion membership transformed the objective character of a party which was often subjectively deeply pro-capitalist.

This idea of an objective significance different from the subjective views of the leadership is probably correct as the basis for the identification of a working class party, but it doesnt get you very far once the organic link has been so eroded by the weakness of the unions that it is no longer credible as a basis for the existence of a working class party.

It is a hard point to make that despite appearances, the union link can objectively signify a potential for representing the class as a whole against capital. Yet I think it is still marginally true.

The real problem arises not from believing in the possibility of the existence of an objectively working class party that is captured by a fraction of the ruling class. The real problem is that if you give your electoral allegiance to that party, what potential is there left for the electoral tactic ? This is the hard question. Few people are willing to give up on the electoral tactic to this degree and hence invent critques of the working class party concept to justify standing against that party in elections. But there is a more simple answer (challenging but simple ) - stand as candidates of struggle.....but of course for that you have to actually organise in one area and build struggles. Lots of socialists dont like that hard graft.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Gilhyle, I think two of my articles here (part of the second programmatic WIP) go a long way towards defining what a worker-class party is:

Class-Strugglist Labour: For the Politico-Ideological Independence of the Working Class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-labour-t95111/index.html)
Class-Strugglist Labour: “Workers Only” vs. “Workerism” (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-labour-t97028/index.html)