SP's reply on the SWP call for unity [Archive]

View Full Version : SP's reply on the SWP call for unity

22nd June 2009, 19:03

The SP executive committee recently replied to the SWP's call for unity (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/06/socialist-party-replies-to-swp-on-left.html). While I can understand the sceptic tone of the article, I do think the tone was too aggressive and this was not tactful; even if the SWP is merely making a token gesture, we should - in my opinion - always accept the invitation for discussion (then again, I guess the invitation for Marxism 2009 got lost in the mail?). So yes, I think the SP made a bit of a blunder with this reply.

Discuss.

Socialist Party Replies to SWP on Left Unity (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/06/socialist-party-replies-to-swp-on-left.html)

The Socialist Party (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/) replies to the Socialist Workers' Party open letter, Left Must Unite to Create an Alternative (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18114).

To the Socialist Workers’ Party

Dear comrades,

Your open letter, entitled ‘It’s time to create a socialist alternative’, poses the important question of how a left alternative can be created to contest the general election. The Socialist Party has always been prepared to support genuine left unity, provided it is on open, pluralistic terms. Unfortunately, in the past your organisation has not done so. You have taken a sectarian ‘rule or ruin’ approach – your own party’s narrow organisational dominance has been put before the interests of the workers’ movement. This is not just our experience, but the experience of a host of other organisations and individuals. If this open letter represents recognition of your past mistakes that would be welcome. However, there are a number of points in the letter that give the impression that this is not the case.

The need for such a left alternative in the general election is clear. However, you make no mention in your letter of the attempt to provide such an alternative in the European elections, No2EU-Yes to Democracy (http://www.no2eu.com/). No2EU was set up precisely in order to provide an alternative to both the three establishment capitalist parties, and to the far-right racist BNP. In the coming weeks the components of No2EU will discuss trying to build on the campaign in order to create a broader challenge for the general election. To put out an ‘appeal for unity’ which writes No2EU out of existence – with no prior formal or even informal approach to its constituent organisations – will not be considered serious by those seeking a way forward.

As you know, No2EU was initiated by the transport workers’ union, the RMT (http://www.rmt.org.uk/), and involved ourselves, the Socialist Party, as well as the Communist Party of Britain (http://www.communist-party.org.uk/), the Alliance for Green Socialism (http://www.greensocialist.org.uk/), and others. This was the first time in over a century that a trade union stood on a national basis independently of Labour (http://www.labour.org.uk/). Its candidates included many of the most militant fighters in the trade union movement today – including Rob Williams, Linamar car plants convenor, the convenors of Basildon and Enfield Visteon plants, and members of the Lindsey construction workers’ strike committee. Yet you make no reference to it in your letter, saying only that, when SWP members were asked who people should vote for, “the lack of a single, united left alternative meant there was no clear answer available”. We find this incredible. As you know we have argued in favour of the development of a new formation to the left of Labour for many years. Whenever attempts have been made in that direction we have called for a vote for them, including for Respect, even though we had criticisms of it. Yet many of your members called for a vote for the Greens (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/) rather than No2EU in the European elections.

If, as seems to be the case, you were opposed to No2EU, you should honestly and openly explain why, in order to allow a discussion to take place on what the basis for a new left alternative would be. To try to ignore the existence of an initiative as significant as No2EU undermines your stated aim of opening a discussion on creating an electoral alternative for the general election. Nor is your dismissal of its vote in Socialist Worker a serious analysis (which, incidentally, was only the second time No2EU has ever been mentioned in Socialist Worker). You state that “despite Labour’s vote collapsing, overall the radical left did not register gains in last Thursday’s elections. Between them the Socialist Labour Party (http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/) and No2EU gained two percent of the vote nationwide, the latter trailing Arthur Scargill’s party. Five years ago Respect (http://www.therespectparty.net/) polled 4.84 percent across London, beating the BNP. The combined left vote in London was down this year to 2.1 percent.”

No2EU received 153, 236 votes, 1% of the total cast. Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party (SLP) gained a marginally higher 173,115 votes, 1.1%. Given that No2EU was founded only weeks before election day, we believe its vote was creditable and, particularly when taken alongside the vote for the SLP, gives an indication of the potential to create a fighting left electoral alternative. In 2004 you struck a very different tone than you have this time, when you declared that: “Respect [which you were then part of] got the best votes the left has seen for many years” (Socialist Worker 19 June 2004). Yet Respect’s national result was 252,216 or 1.65%, less than the combined vote of the SLP and No2EU this time around.

Unfortunately, we believe that your brushing aside of No2EU is an indication that your methods have not changed. You claim that: “Unity is not a luxury. It is a necessity” but as a party you have never been prepared to countenance working together with others in an honest and open fashion unless you hold the reins; hence your wrecking of the Socialist Alliance and your splitting from Respect. Far from playing a positive role, your approach has actually complicated and delayed steps towards a new mass workers’ party in England and Wales.

More recently you have almost completely withdrawn from electoral politics, except as an echo of the mainstream capitalist parties appeal to ‘vote against the BNP’. However, you have continued with the same high-handed ‘rule or ruin’ approach in the industrial and trade union fields. Your organisational high-handedness has been combined with a completely mistaken political approach to the significant struggle of the Lindsey construction workers, which you have dismissed as nationalist. We, by contrast, as Mark Serwotka pointed out at PCS (http://www.pcs.org.uk/) conference, were able to intervene in Lindsey and win the strikers to a clear, class programme.

Your organisational methods were starkly demonstrated at the Fight for the Right to Work (http://www.righttowork.org.uk/) conference (which itself was called in direct competition with the conference of the National Shop Stewards’ Network (http://www.shopstewards.net/) conference taking place two weeks later, despite the SWP having members on the NSSN steering committee). The NSSN has been established for three years and has national backing from the RMT and POA (http://www.poauk.org.uk/) trade unions. Yet your members voted on bloc at the Right to Work conference to defeat the following motion moved by a Socialist Party member:

“To recognise the important position of the National Shop Stewards’ Network (NSSN) in acting as the central coordinating body for rank and file union members, unorganised workers and the unemployed in the fight against unemployment. The NSSN, open to all workers, in its three years of activity, has brought together militant workers from many political traditions with a recent history of defeating the bosses’ offensives and has national backing from the RMT and POA trade unions. As such, conference resolves to direct its efforts through this body.”

Our approach to working with others is very different to yours. We have worked together with trade unionists from different political backgrounds to build the NSSN. And we enthusiastically took part in No2EU, despite differences between ourselves and other participants on some issues, because we saw it as a serious attempt by a national trade union to try to build a left political alternative. This does not mean we abandoned our own programme. No2EU was an electoral bloc that brought together different organisations around a common programme in order to maximise its electoral impact. The programme of No2EU was inevitably limited as a result, although not, as at least some of your members have suggested, nationalist. On the contrary it called for “international solidarity of working-class people”.

At the same time, the different component organisations had complete freedom to produce their own material. The Socialist Party, for example, was able to produce leaflets putting forward our socialist programme and explaining that our candidates, if elected, would only take a workers’ wage. This is a considerable advance on the position you adopted in the Socialist Alliance, where you opposed such latitude being allowed for constituent organisations. Have you since changed your position on this?

A new electoral alternative will not be created simply by any of the existing socialist organisations declaring their initiative to be ‘the’ alternative for workers, as the mistakes of the previous fifteen years demonstrate. Only the active participation of broader sections of militant workers and young people in any new electoral alternative will mark it as a significant step forward. This was the importance of No2EU, which we believe should now be built on, with a new name, for the general election, with the aim of involving, first and foremost, larger numbers of militant trade unionists and young people. However, as part of such a broad project we would support the right of all socialist organisations, including the SWP, to take part.

The election of two BNP MEPs does add even more urgency to the need to create a genuine mass voice for working class people. The BNP vote in Yorkshire and the North West actually went down, but the collapse of New Labour’s vote allowed them to get MEPs elected. Moreover, the BNP’s vote did increase markedly in some areas, all of which were working class communities which historically were bastions for Labour. As a recent YouGov poll of BNP voters concluded the BNP made gains “because many voters feel insecure and let down by the main parties”.

As we have repeatedly argued against yourselves and others, the BNP will not be undermined just by campaigns denouncing them as Nazis. Alongside the development of mass demonstrations against the BNP by the trade unions and young people, a crucial part of undermining the far-right will be building a political alternative.

If you were serious about creating an electoral bloc for the general election, why did you not approach the Socialist Party or, as stated before, any of the other component parts of No2EU, for a discussion on the way forward? Selected individual Socialist Party members around the country, largely members of our party in prominent positions in the labour movement, have been sent copies of your open letter, yet you did not approach the democratically- elected National Committee of the Socialist Party to discuss your appeal. Nor have you invited the party to debate these issues at Marxism (http://www.blogger.com/www.marxismfestival.org.uk) this year, despite us debating with you (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/11/sp-and-swp-debate-revolutionary-party.html) at our national event (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/search/label/Socialism%20Weekend), Socialism 2008 last year, and our request that you reciprocate at your event. This method has elements, albeit on a smaller scale, to the approach of the Communist Parties in the early 1930s, who made declarations for a ‘united front from below’ but who refused to engage in negotiations with the leaderships of other workers’ organisations.

Our experience, and the experience of others on the left, regarding your party’s willingness to engage in serious collaboration, is not encouraging. However, if you have reassessed and changed your methods, and are now willing to work together with others towards the creation of ‘a socialist alternative’ for the general election, we will of course welcome this. Unfortunately, all the indications are that this letter is an attempt to convince your own members, who must have doubts on your previous approach towards working with others, that you stand for ‘unity’, rather than a serious proposal to facilitate a step towards independent political representation for the working class.

Yours fraternally,

Socialist Party Executive Committee

bellyscratch

22nd June 2009, 19:35

I can't see the SWP reacting too well to this, and after the meeting I went to in Gateshead, this just confirms what I thought then. There isn't much of a chance of there being a united left electoral campaign. There are going to be 2 groups forming, and its going to go tits up once again.

Sorry for the pessimism, but thats just how I feel.

scarletghoul

22nd June 2009, 19:59

I agree with SPEW on this. the SWP is lame, and really has no right to call for left unity, unless theyre trolling

Pogue

22nd June 2009, 20:10

Maybe you guys should unite into one big party. Then you can both ***** about the IMT together.

JammyDodger

22nd June 2009, 20:14

We need unity, but unity without full democracy of the members will only lead to splits in the future.

The capitalist wolf licks its lips in the sight of this easy meal.
If I ever start to think why the hell we bother (just briefly), its not hard to work out why I get those thoughts.

Our leadership in large part stinks:cursing:

22nd June 2009, 20:54

We need unity, but unity without full democracy of the members will only lead to splits in the future.
Indeed, this is the crux of any successful unity project, for only with full democracy we can come to political agreement, a political programme and a platform of action.

JammyDodger

22nd June 2009, 21:07

Indeed, this is the crux of any successful unity project, for only with full democracy we can come to political agreement, a political programme and a platform of action.

Q your a smarter man than I, how is it the big wigs seem to miss this?

Do they have some kind of lust for faliure?

If they bolt this very simple idea between them combine resources and activities, a combined SWP and SPEW could unite most of us, and be a huge weapon in the fight.

Holden Caulfield

22nd June 2009, 21:18

I eagerly await SWP members comments on this.
I feel the SP are yet again bang on the money with the criticisms and comments in this letter.

teenagebricks

22nd June 2009, 21:27

I also have to agree with SP, if SWP are going to have their unity ideas taken seriously they need to change their attitude about a lot of things, that would start with acknowledging their mistakes, mistakes which the entire left paid the price for). I don't have a problem with SWP inparticular - I'm not a fan of any Trotsky party - but I don't see how they think they can get away with attempting to create a united left party which would inevitably be almost entirely controlled by SWP, in other words, trying to buy votes from some of the more honest parties like SP and CPB when everyone knows that only SWP stand to gain. But if the left is gullible enough to believe in what SWP are proposing, then I guess they deserve each other. Like JammyDodger said, unity requires democracy, there will be no democracy in a group led by SWP.

The Ungovernable Farce

22nd June 2009, 22:43

Q your a smarter man than I, how is it the big wigs seem to miss this?

Because full internal democracy is not in the interests of the "big wigs".

redarmyfaction38

22nd June 2009, 23:01

JammyDodger

22nd June 2009, 23:07

Because full internal democracy is not in the interests of the "big wigs".

Revolution within then seems logical, strike action on party dues, everyone stop paying there dues until the big wigs buzz off or mend there ways.

It might have an adverse effect in the short term, but the long term will reap the benefit maybe.

As it stands this is getting us nowhere very good,

Stop a thousand people in the street and show them the initials, SPEW, SWP, BNP and see how many guess what each set of initials stands for.
Ive not done this ofcourse but id bet good money on a disappointing result for the left.

That is just pure scandal.

redarmyfaction38

22nd June 2009, 23:21

Maybe you guys should unite into one big party. Then you can both ***** about the IMT together.

the imt doesn't need to adopt that attitude either, that makes the imt part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
i have a lot of respect for the imt comrades and their thankless task working within new labour to try and turn it around from a capitalist party to a reformist party once again, i accept that they are following trotskys original analysis that workers will turn first to their traditional parties and trade union organisations in times of struggle.
*****ing gets us nowhere.
the members of all the parties/factions want unity in action, understand the real threat posed by the bnp and generally understand, given the level of political consciousness of the average worker in the uk, that a reformist socialist party is more likely to attract support than a purist revolutionary party.
so there is the basis we can work from, if we've got the balls to stop slinging shit, being pedantic and going my god (in marxist terms) is bigger than your god.
imo.

redarmyfaction38

22nd June 2009, 23:24

Revy

23rd June 2009, 02:38

The need for such a left alternative in the general election is clear. However, you make no mention in your letter of the attempt to provide such an alternative in the European elections, No2EU - Yes to Democracy. No2EU was set up precisely in order to provide an alternative to both the three establishment capitalist parties, and to the far-right racist BNP. In the coming weeks the components of No2EU will discuss trying to build on the campaign in order to create a broader challenge for the general election. To put out an ‘appeal for unity’ which writes No2EU out of existence – with no prior formal or even informal approach to its constituent organisations – will not be considered serious by those seeking a way forward.

Maybe No2EU shouldn't be taken seriously as a project in "left unity".....when its campaign did not even try to do that, rather, it organized around two issues, anti-EU and anti-immigration sentiment. Sure, the idea was to provide an alternative to the racist BNP, but by only mimicking UKIP! Not a left-wing and certainly not a socialist alternative.

If the SP continues to support the idea of No2EU transforming into a national political party then I sure hope they bring genuine internationalism and support for open borders to the table instead of merrily going along with whatever Bob Crow says, as if socialist issues were "vote losers" and not IMPORTANT DEMANDS...

Maybe some of the SWP called for a vote to the Greens in the Northwest to defeat the BNP. So? It is true that a mere few thousands of votes would have done the trick and elected a left-leaning Green instead of a far-right rabid racist. However, assuming we should stick to our very core socialist principles instead of engaging in tactical politics we have to look at No2EU, did it present itself as left? Did it even mention socialism? No. Therefore, one could argue that the Greens were in fact a more left campaign than No2EU even wanted to be. After all, who could argue against the fact that the Greens have a much more rational and sane position on immigration? No2EU presented the issue as if "foreign workers" represented some huge threat to "workers' rights". This was horrific, indeed, coming from "left" ideologues.

No to opportunism and reformism. Yes to a REAL socialist alternative.

Die Neue Zeit

23rd June 2009, 02:48

Bob Crow and the RMT are the figureheads, though. The real programmatic driving force is the CPB ("Britain's road to socialism").

The Ungovernable Farce

23rd June 2009, 12:12

Stop a thousand people in the street and show them the initials, SPEW, SWP, BNP and see how many guess what each set of initials stands for.
To be fair, "spew" is a really, really unfortunate acronym anyway.

i have a lot of respect for the imt comrades and their pointless, futile task
Fixed.

working within new labour to try and turn it around from a capitalist party to a reformist party once again, i accept that they are following trotskys original analysis that workers will turn first to their traditional parties and trade union organisations in times of struggle.
*****ing gets us nowhere.
Given that reality bears absolutely no relation to that analysis, and this crisis is seeing a fall in support for the "worker's party", maybe it's time to consider that perhaps old trotters got it wrong? *****ing for the sake of it is one thing, but I don't think trying to "reclaim the Labour party" (whatever that means - do they want to bring it back to the glory days of 1980s old labour, when Kinnock refused to support the miners? Of Ramsay MacDonald and his alliance with the tories against the working class?) is actually going to achieve anything, so those leftists who still advocate such a self-defeating strategy are wasting good, committed people's time, energy and resources. That does deserve to be criticised.

Coggeh

23rd June 2009, 15:29

As an SP member in Ireland , I do believe many (if not all) of the criticisms hit the nail on its hit . Then again we do need a real alliance and I believe the SP should have taken a more open approach to discussion rather than shutting out the swp once again . Though I couldn't really blame them from seeing the track record of the swp in the past .

Sam_b

23rd June 2009, 15:38

In 2004 you struck a very different tone than you have this time, when you declared that: “Respect [which you were then part of] got the best votes the left has seen for many years” (Socialist Worker 19 June 2004). Yet Respect’s national result was 252,216 or 1.65%, less than the combined vote of the SLP and No2EU this time around.

Wasn't the RESPECT and SLP vote in 2004 greater than this?

Anyway, I think the CWI's reply is poor - basing all its emphasis on No2EU, which of course the SWP would not join due to its nationalist tones and certain members quoted in speaking about 'British jobs for British workers', and indeed the arrogance they display when stating "If you were serious about creating an electoral bloc for the general election, why did you not approach the Socialist Party or, as stated before, any of the other component parts of No2EU, for a discussion on the way forward? Selected individual Socialist Party members around the country, largely members of our party in prominent positions in the labour movement, have been sent copies of your open letter, yet you did not approach the democratically- elected National Committee of the Socialist Party to discuss your appeal". This is despite the letter being addressed to the British Left at large and reproduced into our newspaper! You would think that logic would suggest that this letter should be given to several leading members of the CWI, who would discuss it wqith their NC and with their EC before deciding what action would be taken?

It is a shame that the CWI would reply in this sort of manner, especially when you consider that their Campaign for a New Worker's Party has been stagnating for a number of years now, and the rhetoric they take on it is similar*. Or are the SPEW even more hypocritical these days?

*Thats not to say that there are very real differences here, with the SPEW seemingly wanting to create a 'Labour mark 2'.

Forward Union

23rd June 2009, 15:51

The Socialist party is one of the most respectable and genuine Socialist organisations in the UK, and I am including Anarchists in that equation.

In my experience of the SP, their members are sensible, dedicated, and genuinely nice to talk to, not to mention that they seem to be very much rooted in the traditional working class. Not only this but the general strategy of the SP appears to me, to be far superior to that of the SWP.

I do however feel that the Campaign for a new mass workers party, along with the rest of their electoralism is a misguided application of efforts, and I oppose them in attempting to lead the NSSN down that road to oblivion. Anarchists need to propose a more productive alternative for the NSSN and militant trade unionists, and lead a coplete rejection of the TUC and Parlimentry democracy.

We ought to be building a new confederation of labour rather than a new mass workers party.

Pogue

23rd June 2009, 16:02

Forward Union

23rd June 2009, 16:29

I think we have to be careful to build a new conederation of labour with something more in mind than just becoming the new TUC - to me this would be as dead end a strategy as the CNWP has, in that you'd replace one old thing with a new one which would just end up the same.

Yes, as Anarchists our role in creating any new confederation must also be to ensure it is democratic and politically Anarcho-syndicalist whether we use that term or not. I don't mean they all have to call themselves anarcho-syndicalist* and adopt red and black as their official colours. What I mean is that the unions who participate in it ought to; a) be non-partnership b) be Non-political (no support for any party) and c) hold that it is capable of reorganizing society itself. I suspect the existence of two union blocs would lead to competition for membership, which would mean appealing to the working class by showing strength.This may lead to increased militancy in the TUC partnership unions (as a response to the new confederation), though they would not be revolutionary - it would give us a new political climate where our ideas would be far more appealing.

This ought to be our political alternative to the SPs tired old "lets do the labour party all over again" or the swps "lets get a million people to walk to trafalgar square"

*I want to make it clear that I am not proposing the formation of a new anarcho-syndicalist union. I am proposing that all union militants leave the TUC and form another Trade Union Congress based on more radical principals. This would be a non-sectarian coalition, and could involve anyone. The two unions I could imagine being involved, the RMT and the IWW are explicitly not anarchist.

Pogue

23rd June 2009, 16:34

Forward Union

23rd June 2009, 16:45

yeh i agree with this

You're such a yes man.

Pogue

23rd June 2009, 16:46

You're such a yes man.

ban for assuming i'm male

Saorsa

23rd June 2009, 17:07

Ban for building false distinctions between 'male' and 'female', concepts created by the ruling class to divide and rule the workers.

Pogue

23rd June 2009, 17:14

Ban for building false distinctions between 'male' and 'female', concepts created by the ruling class to divide and rule the workers.

ban for saying female at all.

Joe Hill's Ghost

23rd June 2009, 21:09

Yes, as Anarchists our role in creating any new confederation must also be to ensure it is democratic and politically Anarcho-syndicalist whether we use that term or not. I don't mean they all have to call themselves anarcho-syndicalist* and adopt red and black as their official colours. What I mean is that the unions who participate in it ought to; a) be non-partnership b) be Non-political (no support for any party) and c) hold that it is capable of reorganizing society itself. I suspect the existence of two union blocs would lead to competition for membership, which would mean appealing to the working class by showing strength.This may lead to increased militancy in the TUC partnership unions (as a response to the new confederation), though they would not be revolutionary - it would give us a new political climate where our ideas would be far more appealing.

This ought to be our political alternative to the SPs tired old "lets do the labour party all over again" or the swps "lets get a million people to walk to trafalgar square"

*I want to make it clear that I am not proposing the formation of a new anarcho-syndicalist union. I am proposing that all union militants leave the TUC and form another Trade Union Congress based on more radical principals. This would be a non-sectarian coalition, and could involve anyone. The two unions I could imagine being involved, the RMT and the IWW are explicitly not anarchist.

Unsurprisingly I also agree, though I never did ask you whether the FBU and PCS would possibly be involved with this. I know the FBU is the only other union that's growing in the UK, and I know that the PCS is supposed to be socialist and angry with Labour. However we never ended up discussing the PCS. They any good? Or just a bunch of big talk officials with no militant action or shop floor power?

bellyscratch

24th June 2009, 12:15

Unsurprisingly I also agree, though I never did ask you whether the FBU and PCS would possibly be involved with this. I know the FBU is the only other union that's growing in the UK, and I know that the PCS is supposed to be socialist and angry with Labour. However we never ended up discussing the PCS. They any good? Or just a bunch of big talk officials with no militant action or shop floor power?

PCS have a lot of influence from SPEW

Farther Lee

26th June 2009, 21:42

There is a problem with this as it’s presented. None of these parties say a word about the need for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or the need for the defeat of the British capitalist military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is all just a continuation of ‘left' reformist sectarian infighting that has been going on since the end of WWII in Britain. They are all wrong about the weight they give to danger of the BNP. It is the dominant capitalist parties who are managing the class war against workers internationally, not the BNP who can only ever be auxiliaries of already existing imperialist fascism.

Correction: It is the dominant capitalist parties who are fronting for the capitalist state in the class war against workers internationally, not the BNP who can only ever be auxiliaries of already existing imperialist fascism.

Farther Lee

26th June 2009, 22:07

Sorry gang I sent a repeate

Sam_b

26th June 2009, 22:12

None of these parties say a word about the need for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism or the need for the defeat of the British capitalist military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you're talking about the SWP with these examples, you are totally wrong.

Farther Lee

26th June 2009, 22:40

Thanks for that. Now show us all where and when the SWP in Britain argued for the defeat of British imperialism in occupied Ireland, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Sam_b

26th June 2009, 23:25

Thanks for that. Now show us all where and when the SWP in Britain argued for the defeat of British imperialism in occupied Ireland, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Funny, so in the space of a post you have called off your assertion that the SWP does not call for a revolutionary overthrowal of capitalism?

And where do you want me to begin? To be honest I 'm not going to spend so much time highlighting what should be the bleedin' obvious to most people, but try some of these:
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=1061
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=5970
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=1855

Iraq demonstrates imperialism is in a vicious stage. But there is also the potential for the Iraqi movement to open a period of liberation and defeat for imperialism.

Farther Lee

27th June 2009, 15:59

Sam_b

27th June 2009, 17:35

The gist of all your examples including you 'What we stand for' stuff, is that 'communists' don't confuse national liberation struggles with communism.
However the Leninist understanding is that the best outcome in these struggles is the defeat of 'our own' imperialist ruling class and the need to explain that to workers in the imperialist states.

I don't see how the SWP does not take this line, we always have done and thats why we are staunch anti-imperialists. This can be seen for example in Phil Marshall's Intifada where he makes the connection of British imperialism in the Middle East and outlines our support for such struggles. Also consider the founding Solidarity conference where the SWP group proposed a motion to affiliate to Stop the War and to explicitly call for troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and to support the Iraqi resistance in its defeat of British and US imperialism.

I feel it takes a certain amount of ignorance to ignore when Basketter explicitly says 'defeat for imperialism' and ignoring the chain of meetings we had earlier this year on Gaza, and earlier on about Iraq and Afghanistan, and insinuate that the SWP does not call for imperialism to be defeated.

The Ungovernable Farce

27th June 2009, 18:22

However the Leninist understanding is that the best outcome in these struggles is the defeat of 'our own' imperialist ruling class and the need to explain that to workers in the imperialist states. Sorry if I missed that in you examples and if you can direct me to where the SWP actually calls for such a defeat you will win this argument and all readers, including me, will be better informed and grateful to you and the SWP. Ireland, Falklands, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan?
To be fair, the SWP does put a massive amount of its time and resources into anti-war stuff. Or are you saying that their platform should actually be to openly call for the killings of British and American working-class kids who were unfortunate or misguided enough to sign up for the army due to the total lack of other opportunities capitalism offers?

Farther Lee

27th June 2009, 21:50

Thanks for that TUF but It would be good if Sam_b gave us the definitive answer , don’t you think.
Your capitalist masters are already “actually” killing hundreds of your precious “British and American working-class kids” in their imperialist wars along with the thousands of kids and others in the target territories. That’s what imperialism dose, it kills. And the sooner it is totally defeated the better.

"To be fair", as you say, why pick out the Brit and Yank kids for special favorable consideration in all this?

Sam_b

28th June 2009, 04:19

I think a book referance, articles and even a quote calling for a defeat of imperialism is pretty definiative.

Spud

28th June 2009, 07:19

Patchd

28th June 2009, 08:22

Lol party bickering, but it was funny how the SWP began calling for a new workers' party after the elections, whilst before the elections, the NO2EU lot were looking to make itself into this new united group ... seems a bit like an attempt by one group to undermine another's.

"To be fair", as you say, why pick out the Brit and Yank kids for special favorable consideration in all this?

What are you from the Spartacist League or something? :blink:

The Ungovernable Farce

28th June 2009, 10:30

Thanks for that TUF but It would be good if Sam_b gave us the definitive answer , don’t you think.
What, like he's just done?

Your capitalist masters are already “actually” killing hundreds of your precious “British and American working-class kids” in their imperialist wars along with the thousands of kids and others in the target territories. That’s what imperialism dose, it kills. And the sooner it is totally defeated the better.
What do you mean by saying you want to see imperialism defeated, though? Do you mean a political defeat, where class tensions in the imperialist countries make it politically impossible for them to carry on sending troops abroad? Or do you mean a military defeat, where Iraqi workers kill enough British and American workers that they can't go on fighting any more? If you mean the first, then I completely agree with you, and I'm sure the SWP would as well. If it's the second, then that's a pretty unsupportable position for an internationalist to take.

"To be fair", as you say, why pick out the Brit and Yank kids for special favorable consideration in all this?
Cos they're the ones you seem to want to kill. Yes, in a military defeat of imperialism, lots of working-class Arabs would inevitably be killed as well, which is another reason why I can't support such a tactic, but those deaths are accidental by-products, and so I'm guessing you wouldn't actually welcome them. On the other hand, the deaths of the British and American kids would bring a military defeat of imperialism closer, and so they'd be something that anyone calling for a military defeat of imperialism would actually welcome.

Farther Lee

28th June 2009, 13:10

I think a book referance, articles and even a quote calling for a defeat of imperialism is pretty definiative.

Is it any wonder that the Socialist Party rejected the advances of the SWP who will not call for the defeat of imperialism in any war against the world-wide anti-imperialist rebellion?
I asked Sam_b for evidence of the SWP’s call for the defeat of British imperialism in Irland, Falklands, Yougoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan and got this:
“.I feel it takes a certain amount of ignorance to ignore when Basketter explicitly says 'defeat for imperialism' and ignoring the chain of meetings we had earlier this year on Gaza, and earlier on about Iraq and Afghanistan, and insinuate that the SWP does not call for imperialism to be defeated.
” But the full sentence at the very end of the Simon Basketter article, from which this three word snippet was cut reads as follows :
“Iraq demonstrates imperialism is in a vicious stage. But there is also the potential for the Iraqi movement to open a period of liberation and defeat for imperialism.”
Hardly a ringing call from the barricades. In fact it’s not a call at all is it, it’s a tentative speculation about what the "Iraqi movement" might do.
Is this the only “pretty definiative.” evidence that the SWP can find in print, to justify Sam_b’s claim that they call for the defeat of imperialism?

Can any SWP supporter actually find us the evidence in print ?
Then we can start talking about 'unity' etc.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th June 2009, 14:09

Is it any wonder that the Socialist Party rejected the advances of the SWP who will not call for the defeat of imperialism in any war against the world-wide anti-imperialist rebellion?
What is it that made you decide the SP share your fetish for calling for the defeat of imperialism? The Socialist Party spend their time campaigning around public services stuff and making dodgy electoral alliances with Stalinists, the SWP spend much more time than they do talking about imperialism. How about this (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15811)?

The Indian independence movement, the Vietnamese struggle against the US in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation today are all examples of national liberation movements that the left should support. These movements further the struggle for democracy and their successes strike a blow against imperialism...
That is why socialists today should back the resistance movements in the Middle East, whatever differences we may have with the Arab nationalist and Islamic ideologies that inspire them.
A defeat for US and British forces in Iraq today, for example, would be a major blow for imperialism – just as the defeat of the US in Vietnam in the 1970s was.I completely disagree with that conclusion, btw, but I found it in about 5 seconds by going to the SW website and typing in "imperialism" in the search field. It wasn't hard. Seriously, there are 101 good reasons to criticise the SWP, but attacking them because they don't spend enough time calling on workers of one country to kill workers of another country is just mad.

ETA: Also, look at the SP's actual reply (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1473696&postcount=1). They don't mention imperialism once. They talk about stuff that's actually relevant to them. So how do you square this with your idea that the SP won't work with the SWP because the SWP don't talk about imperialism enough?

Farther Lee

28th June 2009, 14:45

What are you from the Spartacist League or something? :blink:

No, I'm trying to get evidence that the SWP has been calling for the defeat of imperialism in Ireland, the Falklands, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because behind all the 'Troops Out' and 'Stop the War' posturing I think the SWP are actually as national chauvinist as you appear to be with your touching consern for British and American troops.

Farther Lee

28th June 2009, 16:14

TUF

Once again the extract you choose dose not call on the British workers to engage in a struggle against its own ruling class in times of war against third world targets. It leaves that task to (in the this case) the Iraqi resistance. But it makes good copy when their trying to recruit Muslims in Britain as long as no one scrutinizes it to carefully.

The SWP concentrates on shouting 'Stop The War' and 'Troops Out' slogans exactly in order to avoid the Leninist policy on imperialist war, and not a fetish as you say.

It is impossible to stop war before ending imperialism which has been the main cause of war for some considerable time.

Patchd

28th June 2009, 16:16

No, I'm trying to get evidence that the SWP has been calling for the defeat of imperialism in Ireland, the Falklands, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Iraq and Afghanistan.

You may have got it in the post above yours ;)

Because behind all the 'Troops Out' and 'Stop the War' posturing I think the SWP are actually as national chauvinist as you appear to be with your touching consern for British and American troops.

As I appear to be? I'm not in the SWP, in addition, I at least realise that many working class people do join the Armed Forces for economic reasons, yes, they are wrong in doing so, and yes, while they are in the Armed forces they are my class enemies, however it would be ignorant to reject economic reasons for why so many working class kids do join up.

We have to realise that even the soldiers of Capitalism are exploited by the very same powers that employ them, any work with the homeless will show that.

Sam_b

28th June 2009, 16:21

I think the SWP are actually as national chauvinist as you appear to be with your touching consern for British and American troops.

This is priceless.

Thanks to TUF for injecting some sense into this debate, I don't often see eye-to-eye on this board with this particular comrade but his replies to Farther Lee's barmy accusations are appreciated. It seems that this particular poster will only believe what we say if 'defeat to imperialism' is carved into the back of a dead soldier.

It is common knowledge, amongst the left in Britain anyway, of the SWP/IST's staunch anti-imperialism and our line on how to fight it, which groups we give critical support to etc. Indeed we receive a fair amount of criticism for it, as we rightly should - all political organisations and comrades have a right to scrutinise each other's positions and tactics, this is why we have boards such as this. So if we are to believe what you are saying, Farther Lee, is to be taken as true, then the plethora of users on this board are either deluded or missing something huge as we are not an actual anti-imperialist organisation.

Excuse me if I think this is absurd. Get back to me after you check out Marshall's book and tell me again that we are national chauvenist.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th June 2009, 16:22

TUF

Once again the extract you choose dose not call on the British workers to engage in a struggle against its own ruling class in times of war against third world targets. It leaves that task to (in the this case) the Iraqi resistance.
See, this is the first time you've explained how you actually think imperialism should be defeated. If your criticism is that the SWP doesn't put enough effort into calling for British workers to make the war unfightable by raising class tensions at home, then that's a perfectly legitimate criticism. But just saying they don't "call for the defeat of imperialism" or "the defeat of the British capitalist military expeditions" makes it sound like you think it is foreign armies who'll defeat imperialism.

Farther Lee

28th June 2009, 17:28

This is priceless.

Thanks to TUF for injecting some sense into this debate, I don't often see eye-to-eye on this board with this particular comrade but his replies to Farther Lee's barmy accusations are appreciated. It seems that this particular poster will only believe what we say if 'defeat to imperialism' is carved into the back of a dead soldier.

It is common knowledge, amongst the left in Britain anyway, of the SWP/IST's staunch anti-imperialism and our line on how to fight it, which groups we give critical support to etc. Indeed we receive a fair amount of criticism for it, as we rightly should - all political organisations and comrades have a right to scrutinise each other's positions and tactics, this is why we have boards such as this. So if we are to believe what you are saying, Farther Lee, is to be taken as true, then the plethora of users on this board are either deluded or missing something huge as we are not an actual anti-imperialist organisation.

Excuse me if I think this is absurd. Get back to me after you check out Marshall's book and tell me again that we are national chauvenist.

Can you give us a reference for this "Marshal's book" of yours. Is it an official party publication? And will its anti-imperialism turn out to be as limp as the other references that you now avoid mentioning because you can't defend them as Leninist anti-imperialist policy.

As for the rest of your post above it is all bluff and bluster. All you needed to do was to point to your party publications like 'Socialist Worker' or your leaflets or placards. Alas that would not help you would it.

Sam_b

28th June 2009, 17:52

I thought I already did. Intifada - Zionism, Imperialism and Palestinian Resistance. Bookmarks:1989. Outlines our position perfectly, written by an SWP member and printed by our publishing house.

All you needed to do was to point to your party publications like 'Socialist Worker' or your leaflets or placards

I'm starting to think you're either an idiot or an easily spotted troll. Several comrades have linked Socialist Worker articles to you now, and you refuse to accept any of the hard evidence put to you. Explain exactly why we should continue indulging your warped ideas of what is and isn't anti-imperialist sentiment?

If you can't see the facts for yourself thats your own problem.

The Ungovernable Farce

28th June 2009, 21:24

As for the rest of your post above it is all bluff and bluster. All you needed to do was to point to your party publications like 'Socialist Worker'.
You have to admit, it is an unbeatable line of argument. Asking your opponent to provide proof of something, and then ignoring them when they do it, is a pretty genius tactic.

BobKKKindle$

28th June 2009, 21:38

Farther Lee, you seem really strange. The SWP is generally criticized for the rest of the British left for giving too much support to anti-imperialist forces, because anarchists and members of other parties like the SP regard this as synonymous with apologizing for reactionary organizations like Hamas and the Taleban and not taking the side of the working-class. It's genuinely odd that you think we don't take a principled position on imperialism, as Sam_b and even posters who are obviously not fans of the SWP have given you various articles and other forms of evidence to show that we do indeed call for the support of all imperialist forces. I have fond personal memories of shouting "victory to Hamas" and "more rockets for Hamas" at the national demonstration against the Israel invasion of Gaza in January of this year, and it's mainly because of the SWP's position on imperialism that I decided to become a member of that organization.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone has quoted this yet, but here's (another) good statement of our position from a recent article on national liberation in Socialist Review:

"We want to see British and US imperialism defeated in Iraq. That means we stand with the Iraqis trying to achieve that aim, regardless of their politics and without preconditions. But at the same time we want to foster international workers' unity, so we reject outright the Salafist murders of Shia civilians. Unconditional but critical support of national liberation movements is as important to anti-imperialists today as it was when European Marxists were grappling with the issue a century ago"

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10469

but attacking them because they don't spend enough time calling on workers of one country to kill workers of another country is just mad.Incidentally, we don't see the deaths of soldiers from any country as good in and of itself, especially in light of the fact that many of these soldiers are drawn from working-class communities and have decided to enter the armed forces because there are few other options open to them. Rather, our position is that we support the withdrawal of occupying forces from all countries that are currently under imperialist occupation by whatever means possible. This means that if the British and American governments decided to carry out complete and unconditional withdrawal tomorrow so that no more soldiers would be killed by the resistance we would support that. However, that's probably not that likely to happen, given the important role that the occupation plays in allowing these imperialist countries to maintain their economic and strategic interests in the Middle East. So, we acknowledge that withdrawal is likely to occur as a result of anti-imperialist forces putting sufficient pressure on the occupiers so that the human and financial cost of retaining their forces becomes too great to bear, which is what happened in Vietnam and basically every other country that has ever been occupied by an imperialist power for the duration of capitalism's existence. That's why we support the resistance - it's not because we celebrate the deaths of anyone.

2nd July 2009, 19:29

Workers Power recently replied (http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47%2C2046%2C0%2C0%2C1%2C0) to the response of the SP:

Opportunism, sectarianism and the new workers' party

A reply to the Socialist Party on the SWP's open letter 29 June 2009

Dear comrades,

Your reply to the SWP’s Open Letter fails (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18114) to address the urgency of the situation facing the working class today.

We face an acute economic crisis and a historic crisis of leadership in the Labour movement. Labour’s meltdown does not only show the historic need for a new working class party but the need to begin building that party here and now.

We know you believe that the No2EU platform in the European elections were one step in this direction. But neither of your main partners in that project - neither Bob Crow of the RMT nor the Communist Party of Britain - want to create a new party before the next election. That need not be an absolute barrier. A positive reply from your organisation to the SWP’s letter could have electrified the left, drawing many thousands of workers and youth to a conference to discuss mounting a united challenge to Labour.

The SWP’s letter does not propose a new party, some might object. The SWP has not been democratic in the past, others will say. And? In your reply you could have said yes to their proposal, and have used that to press for an open democratic conference and the formation of a new workers’ party.

You chose to do otherwise. (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7477) Some might take your rejection as a sign of renewed confidence in the prospects for your organisation. Most will see it for what it is – an act of outright sectarianism.

The SWP is the largest of the socialist groups in Britain. It has significant forces in the unions and is able to mobilise more activists in anti-war, anti-imperialist and anti-fascist campaigns than any other group. Their proposal for unity of the left was one any group serious about building a new party should seize with both hands. (http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=47,2017,0,0,1,0)

Instead you deliver a list of what are frankly petty grievances. They did not post the letter to your national office. They sent it to prominent individual members of your party. So what?

Replying positively to the SWP’s letter would not have implied backing their policies or tactics. As you know we share some of your criticisms of the SWP (Respect), just as we reject others (especially on the first Lindsey strike). But unless the programme of a new party is going to be imposed in advance – as Crow did with No2EU and as the People’s Charter has been by a meeting of 20 reformist MPs, union leaders and lawyers – then the process of forming the party will be a debate around its programme, one in which differences like these would be discussed out openly.

In our view any party based on “famous” MPs and trade union leaders – a Galloway, a Sheridan or a Scargill – will be open to the sort of ultimatums, disruptions and splits that such celebrities inevitably bring unless the party has a mass base that can discipline them and hold them to account. Similarly if you are worried about the effect of the SWP leaders engaging again in sectarian manoeuvres as during the time of the Socialist Alliance, these could be dealt with by ensuring that a future party has a much larger membership than the SWP and the other socialist groups combined (as in the case of the New Anticapitalist Party in France) , and by ensuring these members have to protect them a democratic constitution combined with a centralised decision making process and that every member (however famous) is bound by its discipline.

No2 EU – Not the Way
You criticise the SWP for making no reference to No2EU in their Open Letter. You are right – this was misplaced diplomacy. We won’t make the same mistake, which is why we say openly: like Respect, NO2EU was a complete diversion from the road to a new workers’ party.

Just like Respect, No2EU was a break from principled class politics and presented an obstacle to building a new working class party rather than a step towards it. Its platform farcically blamed all the ills facing British workers on the EU and, amazingly at such a moment in history, had hardly a concrete demand addressed to workers’ needs in the biggest crisis for decades. Its opposition to the free movement of labour put it firmly against the needs of migrant workers, whether the SP agreed with that element of its programme or not. And in an indication of where some would like to take it, No2EU included, amongst the “others” you coyly mention in your letter, the tiny capitalist Liberal Party.

We guess that Bob Crow and his CPB allies foisted these features on you, together with the dreadful name. After all they have been the stock-in-trade of British Stalinists for decades – ever eager to wrap themselves in the union jack. But they were unprincipled for anyone calling themselves a Trotskyist. You say it was intended “to provide an alternative to both the three establishment capitalist parties, and to the far-right racist BNP.” In fact it plainly set out to provide a nationalist alternative to these forces on the wretched principle “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

A vote of one per cent for a fighting working class programme against the economic crisis and a real internationalist alternative to Labour, the Tories, UKIP and the BNP would, for all its modesty, have been worth celebrating and something to build on. One more per cent for British nationalism and Europohobia was quite the opposite – just a fifth wheel on the cart of backward-looking Little England.

An RMT supported list of candidates – including reinstated Linamar convenor Rob Williams, the convenors of Basildon and Enfield Visteon plants, and militants from the Lindsey construction workers – would have been a major step forward if its basis had been to defend the working class and force the bosses to pay for the crisis. But it did not. The presence of excellent class militants on its list couldn’t change its character, because the political platform they collectively stood on was not working class.

Your suggestion that you participated “despite differences between ourselves and other participants on some issues” is evasive. You had to put out your own socialist leaflets because the No2EU platform did not have a whiff of socialism in it. Your claim that it could not have been nationalist because it called for “international solidarity of working-class people” is a joke. Internationalism means more than that – it is an explicit rejection of nationalism and the building of solidarity in action between workers from different countries, not blaming foreign bosses for British capitalism’s ills and backing strikes like the first Lindsey strike, and like South Hook, that try to replace foreign workforces in Britain with “local” ones. (http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=193,1995,0,0,1,0) And it is incompatible with opposition to migrant labour, which was exactly how some of its candidates interpreted its position against the free movement of labour.

The way forward
It would appear the SWP is still debating internally whether to simply form another electoral bloc or a party closer to the model of the New Anticapitalist Party in France. We believe, as you know, that what the working class needs is a party. We do not believe that socialist propaganda societies - whether of 50, 500, or 5000 - are serious parties, really able to contend for the leadership of the working class.

During general elections, when there is a struggle for political power, the broad mass of the people expect those waging this struggle to be parties, not rag-tag and bobtail alliances that they never saw until election time and will not see after it. A party is not just for elections but for the class struggle, every day and in every arena: in their trade unions and workplaces, in the local communities. Wherever the BNP is putting down its poisonous roots, a mass working class party can rip them up, by showing that the most consistent opposition to the rich elite is not divisive nationalism but working class socialism, and by showing that the socialists are serious about fighting for power.

The long and deep effects of this recession on employment, public services, youth attempting to enter employment and the working class as a whole makes this a task too important to be set back by sectarian horseplay, including from the Socialist Party. We urge you to change course, accept the SWP’s proposal for a conference, build it and attend it as a mass democratic convention, and push the key questions of the day onto the agenda. The convention could discuss:
• New party or electoral alliance?
• How can we break the hold of the Labour Party over key unions?
• What should be the basis for an immediate action programme to meet the crisis?

At the same time this conference could launch a nationwide discussion – not only in England and Wales as you say but in Scotland too - on what kind of programme the party should have and what sort of party it should be. This could draw in people from all the struggles and from all working class communities, including immigrants and youth. In this way thousands could be rallied to the process, including many who would be ready for a radical anticapitalist and internationalist programme and for revolutionary change.

Dazzled by momentary success
We know the SWP’s letter came at a time of renewed confidence for your organisation. After some years of decline and stagnation following the collapse of your very own electoral schema of taking over the Labour Party in the 1980s, you are currently recovering your strength. Whereas the SWP is nursing its wounds after the collapse of Respect, your trade unionists were well placed to build exemplary solidarity with the Visteon occupations; Rob Williams’ courageous support for Visteon drew a fearful and vicious attack from the bosses and a tremendous display of solidarity from the workers themselves, securing a great victory.

Notwithstanding your shocking error in backing the first Lindsey walkout which, despite the demands your comrade succeeded in winning on the strike committee, began as a walkout against the hiring of foreign labour and ended when that labour was replaced, the second Lindsey strike this month against mass sackings was fought on the right lines - jobs for all - and won after a wave of unofficial solidarity strikes swept the country, forcing the bosses to back down. You have recruited key militants from these disputes and appear to have drawn the conclusion from these successes that this is not the time to compromise or strike alliances with other socialist organisations.

If this is your attitude and you persist with it, then you will be committing a huge error. There has been more than one occasion in the past when socialist groups, dazzled by momentary successes, misread the bigger picture and rule out the effective use of united front tactics. Your opportunism towards Crow and the CPB’s No2EU will only get you a new workers’ party if it is tied in advance to an entirely inadequate social democratic programme - or even an outright reactionary platform, such as the one you stood on in the Euro elections this summer. But an open conference, called by agreeing publicly to the SWP’s proposal, could draw in thousands of workers and youth who sense that Labour’s days are numbered and that a new party is the way forward.

Will you change course? Or will the crisis of 2009 be yet another example of a missed opportunity, in which that combination of opportunism and sectarianism so characteristic of the socialist left is allowed to thwart the possibility of a political breakthrough for the class as a whole?

With communist greetings,

Workers Power

Pogue

2nd July 2009, 19:52

redarmyfaction38

2nd July 2009, 22:42

So SWP sent a letter to the SP who then sent a letter back to the SWP which WP criticised. What I want to know is when the IMT will get involved and whether this will draw the AWL out into the battle.

TROT WARZ TURBO
i'm beginning to get confused, the anarchists seem to like the sp but are critical of building a new workers party if it partakes in parliamentary "democracy", the swp doesn't like being criticised full stop:D but one of its members accepted that they gave too much support to "anti imperialist forces" rather than support the international working class.
the thing that most confuses me about the swp stance is that they seem to not understand that supporting foreign racist and religious bigots encourages our own.
the sp is spew, even though it is firmly rooted in the working class and trade unions.
the cpb is still a stalinist lie machine despite working with trotskyists like the sp in no2euro etc.
now, the way i see it is quite simple, mr. or mrs. average british worker is NOT flocking to join our myriad revolutionary parties, in fact 930,000 of them voted for the fascist bnp.
so what we have to do is find some way of building an alternative left party, a "real labour party" as opposed to the "new labour party".
like the militants in old labour, it has to have a clear social programme that workers can understand and relate to, jobs, housing, food prices and production, it has to find an echo within all our everyday experiences.
i'm sorry, i like the anarchists, i wish their purist non parliamentary approach could work, but it won't.imo.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd July 2009, 02:13

i'm beginning to get confused, the anarchists seem to like the sp but are critical of building a new workers party if it partakes in parliamentary "democracy"

[...]

i'm sorry, i like the anarchists, i wish their purist non parliamentary approach could work, but it won't.imo.

Allow me to suggest this tactic based on the overall strategy of organizing the class: in the British case, the united left party should engage in electoral activity *and* in spoilage campaigns even in the same ridings (spoiling ballots then protesting).

I'll deal with this soon, but the basic idea is that the party organizes the class in a way that leans towards civil disobedience as much as possible. So, if voting were made mandatory (hello, Australia), electoral activity and spoilage campaigns would be complemented by campaigns for those refusing to pay some sort of abstention fine.

Revy

3rd July 2009, 02:22

3rd July 2009, 07:26

That response-to-the-response from Workers Power contained the same points I've been making about No2EU since before the election.

I had sympathized with the SP before, but that really turned me off of them. I just thought there was so much potential with what SP was doing with the Campaign for a New Workers' Party (even though it had stagnated for so long) and it went and jumped opportunistically on the No2EU bandwagon with the CPB Stalinists and RMT bureaucrats who together crafted a populist/nationalist campaign, with, most controversially, anti-"foreign workers" rhetoric (which the SP reacted to with "well, I don't agree [with that obviously reactionary BS], but let's support them anyway. wtf!)

Characterizing the No2EU's false pretensions of being a "leftist" alternative to the BNP as "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" was brilliant, and while Workers Power has its own faults with undemocratic behavior, they're absolutely right here.

So I'm absolutely dumbfounded about how the SP is supposedly (according to some comrades here) the most principled party in Britain, even though I have quite the outsider's perspective (though I did much to keep myself thoroughly informed).
I think you're being too hard here. From the perspective of the SP the No2EU initiative was the first serious step in attempting an independent working class position since a long time. And in that regard I agree that it was a step in the right direction that deserved our critical support. But No2EU's programme was far too narrow, far from socialist and the SP should have openly criticised this and defend a socialist platform. This was not done properly (they merely stated to have "issues" that they disagreed with). I do think this caused unnecessary confusion among a wide layer, not only within the workers movement as a whole, but within the SP itself aswell.

redarmyfaction38

3rd July 2009, 21:57

That response-to-the-response from Workers Power contained the same points I've been making about No2EU since before the election.

I had sympathized with the SP before, but that really turned me off of them. I just thought there was so much potential with what SP was doing with the Campaign for a New Workers' Party (even though it had stagnated for so long) and it went and jumped opportunistically on the No2EU bandwagon with the CPB Stalinists and RMT bureaucrats who together crafted a populist/nationalist campaign, with, most controversially, anti-"foreign workers" rhetoric (which the SP reacted to with "well, I don't agree [with that obviously reactionary BS], but let's support them anyway. wtf!)

Characterizing the No2EU's false pretensions of being a "leftist" alternative to the BNP as "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" was brilliant, and while Workers Power has its own faults with undemocratic behavior, they're absolutely right here.

So I'm absolutely dumbfounded about how the SP is supposedly (according to some comrades here) the most principled party in Britain, even though I have quite the outsider's perspective (though I did much to keep myself thoroughly informed).
i understand how you arrived at your conclusions, but, i would argue, that like workers power, you've misinterpreted what was actually happening.
the whole no2euro, opposition to the use of migrant labour etc. was based in what the lisbon treaty will mean for workers.
it allows capital to use migrant workers to undermine hard won national agreements between unions and employers, it gives the green light to every employer across europe to undercut the wages and conditions of each nations organised working class.
it sounds "nationalist" but in action it is "internationalist", that is why there was support from the italian trade unions for the stance of the lindsey oil workers, that's why polish workers in britain walked out in support of the lindsey workers, no2euro could not have happened without the lindsey oil workers struggle or visteon.
the struggle of those workers pushed differing leftist forces to combine on a common platform and try to offer an alternative to the rest of the bullshit parliamentary politics and the fascist scum like the bnp that were turned away or ignored on lindsey and visteon picket lines.
an industrialy active working class needs an active working class party to represent their political view.

4th July 2009, 16:25

The CPGB replied aswell (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/776/unityfor.php) to the statement of the SP and other socialist organisations. It not only criticises SP's and other replies, but also questions what kind of unity is needed.

Unity for what?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/776/images/unityfor.jpg
In the latest ‘broad left’ initiatives, Marxist politics are once more being forgotten, argues Peter Manson

As was only to be expected, the Socialist Party in England and Wales has reacted in a sullen, resentful way to the Socialist Workers Party’s “open letter to the left”. The SWP has called for a “conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election”, in the hope of establishing a non-specific “united left group”.1

You might have thought that SPEW would view this development as a step forward. After all, it has been campaigning for several years now for a new, broad “mass workers’ party” to replace Labour, and the SWP’s proposed conference would, at the very least, give SPEW a platform to agitate for this in front of various sections of the left. But not a bit of it. While the statement from SPEW’s executive pays lip service to what it considers the outside possibility that the SWP leaders have “changed [their] methods, and are now willing to work together with others” (which SPEW would “of course welcome”), most of its 2,000-word reply pours cold water on the very idea of such a thing.2

In a sense SPEW’s knee-jerk response is understandable. Following the SWP’s disastrous Respect adventure and the humiliating experience of its Left List in the 2008 London assembly elections, Alex Callinicos, Martin Smith, Chris Bambery et al had written off the chances of any viable leftwing electoral intervention as being “more modest than ever” - there will just not be any space for us to contest until “after the next general election”.3

This absurd position seemed to leave the way open for SPEW. Not that its Campaign for a New Workers’ Party had been making any headway whatsoever, but when Bob Crow and the RMT union decided to launch a platform, drawn up by Brian Denny of the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain, to contest the June 4 European Union elections, SPEW was able, thanks to its good working relationship with comrade Crow in formations like the National Shop Stewards Network, to get in on the act.

SPEW chose not to see - and later even deny - the blatant anti-EU British nationalism of ‘No to the EU, Yes to Democracy’. No2EU was, after all, “the first electoral challenge to New Labour initiated by a national trade union, the RMT, the most militant industrial union in Britain”.4

Left nationalism

The SPEW leadership calculated that No2EU’s left nationalism was a price it had to pay to regain the initiative after June 4. It had secured a commitment from Bob Crow that - despite the CPB’s insistence that No2EU was not an attempt to launch a new party and would be wound up after the elections - a conference would be convened in late 2009 to discuss how to take the process forward. Peter Taaffe, Hannah Sell and the rest of the Socialist Party leadership were convinced that this would put SPEW in the driving seat for the 2010 general election and beyond. They thought the SWP could be written out of the equation.

However, the SWP had been quietly observing No2EU and planning its counter. Obviously No2EU could be dismissed as any kind of serious, permanent force - it did not take a genius to work out its results would be just as pathetic as were the Left List’s the previous year. So the SWP timed its “Time to fight back together” move for the week following the EU poll as a way of pulling the ground from under SPEW’s feet and attempting to win back hegemony over a dispirited, fragmented left and the thousands of despairing, unaffiliated socialists - the flotsam and jetsam.

No wonder the SPEW leadership is so upset. That is why it makes a big song and dance about the SWP’s failure to even mention No2EU in its open letter. After all, “Given that No2EU was founded only weeks before election day, we believe its vote was creditable and, particularly when taken alongside the vote for the SLP, gives an indication of the potential to create a fighting left electoral alternative.”

There must be very few people who believe that No2EU’s 1% of the vote is “creditable” - especially when it is quite likely that a fair proportion must have come from people believing an organisation named ‘No to the EU’ might be a rightwing nationalist group. Surely the SWP should have made special mention of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party too - it did poll more votes, don’t forget. And if the SWP is to be criticised for its failure to highlight No2EU, then what about its omission in not mentioning the only marginally less “creditable” Left List? Its 0.9% in London in 2008 actually translated into a few thousand more votes than No2EU, because of the higher turnout for the assembly elections (22,583 for Left List, as against 17,758 for No2EU in the capital). But not even the SWP thinks that Left List’s successor, Left Alternative, has any credibility.

And, oh dear, the SWP had the cheek to launch its open letter without consulting with SPEW first, complain the comrades: “In the coming weeks the components of No2EU will discuss trying to build on the campaign in order to create a broader challenge for the general election. To put out an ‘appeal for unity’ which writes No2EU out of existence - with no prior formal or even informal approach to its constituent organisations - will not be considered serious by those seeking a way forward.”

So what’s the problem? How about writing back to the SWP proposing a joint conference? Well, you see, the “importance of No2EU” was that it enjoyed the “active participation” of “broader sections of militant workers” (the RMT bureaucracy) - isn’t that much better than “any of the existing socialist organisations declaring their initiative to be ‘the’ alternative”? The experience of No2EU, therefore, “should now be built on, with a new name, for the general election”.

Clearly all this whinging is just about jockeying for position. SPEW does not want to be part of any electoral alliance in which it is not the biggest organised left group - the very accusation it makes against the SWP. That was exactly what the Socialist Alliance demonstrated - SPEW walked out at the first opportunity, when the SWP refused to accede to its demands for a federal constitution and the right of any group (ie, itself) to veto decisions of which it disapproved.

But SPEW holds up the top-down No2EU as an example to emulate and compares it favourably to the Socialist Alliance under the SWP. In No2EU, “the different component organisations had complete freedom to produce their own material. The Socialist Party, for example, was able to produce leaflets putting forward our socialist programme and explaining that our candidates, if elected, would only take a worker’s wage.” This freedom to operate, claims SPEW, is “a considerable advance on the position [the SWP] adopted in the Socialist Alliance, where opposed such latitude being allowed for constituent organisations.”

All this is a complete misrepresentation. For all the bureaucratic faults the SWP was guilty of in the SA, it never tried to stop component groups producing their own material. What it argued for - correctly - was for each component to distribute SA material, and there was no ban on the various groups supplementing this with their own propaganda. In fact, as far as I can tell, a parallel situation applied in No2EU - except that the content of the website, official leaflets and election addresses had been largely determined by the CPB and Crow before SPEW came on board.

In the SA, however, SPEW demanded the right to distribute its own material instead of that of the alliance itself. In the 2000 London assembly election, for example, SPEW’s Ian Page was the official London Socialist Alliance candidate for Lewisham and Greenwich. But the material put out by SPEW did not even mention the fact that the LSA was standing across London and called for a vote for a rival group, the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation!

By the way, SPEW itself brings up the inadequacy (to put it mildly) of No2EU’s platform, which it says was “limited” simply because it “brought together different organisations around a common programme in order to maximise its electoral impact”. However, that programme was definitely not “nationalist”, SPEW insists, despite the accusations of “some” SWP members. And, of course, we get the usual assertion that No2EU “called for ‘international solidarity of working class people’”, which is supposed to prove it.

In short, SPEW’s response to the SWP’s open letter does not show itself in a good light. By contrast, the SWP is bending over backwards to appear reasonable and cooperative. Socialist Worker is running a series of short responses from individuals who are either SWP members or those to its right. Some warn about the lack of trust that previous left unity initiatives have generated, but national secretary Martin Smith warns: “Now is not the time to rehash old arguments or settle old scores.”

He reveals that the SWP has “begun the process of holding meetings with other organisations and individuals on the left” (including the Socialist Party?) and looks forward to a conference that is “open to all and with no preconditions, to talk about the possibility of united electoral work” (Socialist Worker July 4)

For its own sake?

All the Socialist Worker contributors talk about the urgent need for unity - almost for its own sake. Bill Kerry wants to “keep any formation as broad as possible” - it “could be based on the simple ‘golden principle’ of believing in the need to narrow the gap between rich and poor”. And Michael Rosen pleads: “We desperately need to make the things that unite us count more than the things that divide us” (June 20). Meanwhile, Kumar Murshid looks forward to the “red, black and green platform crying out to be created” (June 27).

But what is this unity for? The idea is exactly the same as what has been propagated for the last decade: we all come together in some vague way, which must be better than staying apart - mustn’t it?

Well, actually, it depends on what we do. We could form a leftwing pressure group that hopes to get some exposure in the media. Or we could aim for a Labour Party mark two - only one where the revolutionaries are allowed to operate. Or we could simply cooperate more closely in a series of single-issue campaigns, as Permanent Revolution suggests: “… a stronger unity can be forged through common struggle and solidarity” if everyone works together constructively in the National Shop Stewards Network and Unite Against Fascism. And how about the SWP’s Right to Work campaign uniting with SPEW’s Youth Fight for Jobs?5

For its part, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty simply welcomes the call for a united left and conference of those on the left intending to contest the general election: “This is in line with our call for a new Socialist Alliance.”6
As I write, the International Socialist Group has not yet publicly responded to the open letter - although the latest Socialist Outlook (spring 2009) is still talking about “building Respect as its central project”. However, this “could mean at a later stage arguing that Respect should became a part of something bigger and broader which could do the job more effectively”. However, the ISG-sponsored Socialist Resistance is due on July 1 and its website promises a headline which “sums up the mood across the left: ‘Election disaster! Now the left must unite’”.7

Workers Power too welcomes the SWP call, while slating SPEW for its “outright sectarianism”. It goes further than the other groups in insisting on “the historic need for a new working class party” and “the need to begin building that party here and now”.

WP proposes a “nationwide discussion … on what kind of programme the party should have and what sort of party it should be”.8 Of course, Workers Power itself advocates a revolutionary party, yet poses as a key task the need to “break the hold of the Labour Party over key unions”. So what sort of party do the comrades think those key unions would want to launch?
The truth is that the left seems intent on a repeat of the ‘left unity’ debacles of the last decade - the SA, Respect, Campaign for a New Workers’ Party and now No2EU. All of them insisted that unity had to be ‘broad’, based on the “80% that unites us” - the “us” being made up of both reformists and revolutionaries. That meant watering down our own programme in order to appeal to Labourites as Labourites in the SA and ditching even more of our principles in Respect.

Yet, funnily enough, neither succeeded in recruiting many Labourites - what you had was the ‘revolutionaries’ pretending to be reformists (sometimes they did not have to try too hard). So are we set for a rerun? It seems both the SWP and SPEW want to control initial moves towards whatever new formation is eventually created - whether it be a mini-Labour Party mark two or a mere electoral alliance – crucially so as to be able to recruit from it to their own group.

But the only left unity worth fighting for is one that unites us in a democratic centralist party based on the principles of Marxism - what the SWP, SPEW, AWL, ISG, WP and PR all claim to uphold. Why won’t they fight for this unity?

Notes

Socialist Worker June 13.
‘Workers’ party must be built’ [I]The Socialist June 24.
See my report of the Left List/Left Alternative conference Weekly Worker November 13 2008.
SPEW statement, www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7070 (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7070)
www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2747 (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2747)
www.workersliberty.org (http://www.workersliberty.org/), June 10.
socialistresistance.org/?p=566 (http://socialistresistance.org/?p=566)
www.workerspower.com (http://www.workerspower.com/), June 29.

robbo203

4th July 2009, 18:34

i think, unfortunately, that the socialist party has told it, the way it is.
it is way past time the swp got off its "high horse" and started working with other left parties rather than trying to dictate to them, it is not a mass party anymore, this isn't the '70s and it hasn't got 200,000 plus members.
in britain, a rev left socialist alliance will have to be based, in the first place, in a broad reformist party that reflects the belief in parliamentary democracy ofthe majority of workers.
it will have to have a clear refomist socialist platform based on renationalisation of key industries in the "national interest", building council houses etc.

Oh dear. Its not as if we havent had the whole history of the so called Labour Party to learn from which sought at the outset to take on the running of capitalism in the interests of workers and ended up somewhat to the right of the Conservative Party under Cameron. How much more evidence do you need to see that reformism doesnt work, the capitalist beast cannot be tamed and the leopard cannot be induced to change its spots.

But at least you are honest about it. Many on the left - like the SWP and SPEW - pretend to be revolutionary organisations when they too are no more than reformist political outfits who, like old Labour , aspire to run their version of capitalism (which they confusing call socialism) allegedly in the interests of the workers....

scarletghoul

4th July 2009, 19:37

Argh, fucking trots, falling out over their statements regarding left unity. Do they know no irony?

redarmyfaction38

4th July 2009, 23:59

Oh dear. Its not as if we havent had the whole history of the so called Labour Party to learn from which sought at the outset to take on the running of capitalism in the interests of workers and ended up somewhat to the right of the Conservative Party under Cameron. How much more evidence do you need to see that reformism doesnt work, the capitalist beast cannot be tamed and the leopard cannot be induced to change its spots.

But at least you are honest about it. Many on the left - like the SWP and SPEW - pretend to be revolutionary organisations when they too are no more than reformist political outfits who, like old Labour , aspire to run their version of capitalism (which they confusing call socialism) allegedly in the interests of the workers....
mmmm. i propose that "militants" experience within the old labour party led the majority of "militant members" to leave or be expelled from the old labour party.
as a consequence, we have a myriad of well educated and politically aware trotskyist parties, all revolutionary, but all understanding the need to build a new mass workers party.
the disagreements revolve about the past behaviour of parties like the swp when part of a broad lefty alliance.
the spew is willing to be part of an alliance that allows individual parties within that alliance to put forward their own standpoint and analysis.
i actually agree with spew, in this country (britain) a "revolutionary party" that bases its political programme in purely revolutionary terms, has no chance of connecting with the average or active worker it needs to carry out its revolutionary programme.
the creation of a new workers party, has to be based in the reformist history of british labour.
it is the "militant" worker that will be attracted to membership of such a party, it is the "militant" worker that will subsequently become part of a revolutionary leadership of such a party and lead his or her fellow worker into the revolutionary struggle we all aspire to.
imo.
the imf, will tell you they can win back new labour to old labour and carry out the same programme, workers power will tell you we should ally ourselves, once again with the swp, only to end up having to leave the alliance once again when the swp returns to type and demands sole control of propaganda etc.
it's bit like being a battered wife, you want to believe your partner when he tells you it won't happen again, but in the end, you have to accept, that if you want a life or opinion of your own, you have to leave.

Hydro

5th July 2009, 17:14

i actually agree with spew, in this country (britain) a "revolutionary party" that bases its political programme in purely revolutionary terms, has no chance of connecting with the average or active worker it needs to carry out its revolutionary programme.
Having so many reformists in revolutionary garb drowning out those who are actually putting the case for socialism does make things more difficult.

the creation of a new workers party, has to be based in the reformist history of british labour.
it is the "militant" worker that will be attracted to membership of such a party...
It's the reformist that will be attracted to it.

...it is the "militant" worker that will subsequently become part of a revolutionary leadership of such a party and lead his or her fellow worker into the revolutionary struggle we all aspire to.
The more likely outcome is that you'll get a bunch of reformist leaders like you have in all your currently existing leftist parties.

it's bit like being a battered wife, you want to believe your partner when he tells you it won't happen again, but in the end, you have to accept, that if you want a life or opinion of your own, you have to leave.
The real victim is the "average worker" you're leading along by cynically preaching reforms that are only designed to boost your numbers.

Die Neue Zeit

5th July 2009, 18:00

redarmyfaction38

5th July 2009, 22:40

Having so many reformists in revolutionary garb drowning out those who are actually putting the case for socialism does make things more difficult.

It's the reformist that will be attracted to it.

The more likely outcome is that you'll get a bunch of reformist leaders like you have in all your currently existing leftist parties.

i post it the way i see it.
you are quite entitled to disagree, but, truth is, militant created a revolutionary base out of a reformist party.

The real victim is the "average worker" you're leading along by cynically preaching reforms that are only designed to boost your numbers.

really.
so tell me how many members have you recruited to the cause on a purely revolutionary programme?
not many would be the answer.
how much influence do you have in the traditional organisations of the working class? little, would be the answer.
so, in reality, what does your "revolutionary programme" do? apart from satisfy your own version of being politically correct?

redarmyfaction38

5th July 2009, 22:55

I prefer a consistently "revolutionary-centrist" political program that emphasizes class struggle by the workers. RAF38 doesn't seem to know much about the history of Marxist programs, which I should comment on soon.
so quote... don't keep us all in suspense.....tell me how wrong trotsky and lenin were with their transitional programme etc.
state and revolution and the role of the proletariat etc.
class struggle created the very organisations that you and others now dismiss, the old labour party and militant weren't born out of thin air, they were born out of the need of more advanced workers for an alternative platform within the liberal party and then old labour and the trade unions, the cpgb had failed to provide this alternative politically as a party, individual members excepted.
i would suggest your preference for a consistent "revolutionary centralist" approach ignores the workers rather than emphasises the gains their political struggles have given us as a base to work on.
i suggest a large dose of humility as oppossed to political theory, imo.
or you could just kiss my ass!
"i wish i had an arse big enough for the world to kiss" eminem.

6th July 2009, 09:38

redarmyfaction38

6th July 2009, 23:22

I must say, I'm disappointed by your posts redarmyfaction38. Not only are they through and through reformist, but also very sectarian.

For one, it isn't relevant if we can gather 2000 or even 200 000 people under a reformist banner, it will still be a reformist banner and as such counter-revolutionary. Your logic is based on the assumption that copy-catting Labour will provide the rich feeding grounds Labour 1 once provided for Militant. The eventual failure of Militant should point out otherwise: once we do get a stronghold, the rightwing forces will move heaven and earth to kick us out.

Well, we got kicked out besides a tiny minority around the IMT (about 150 activists) that still thinks they can resurrect Militant, despite their failure at doing so for the past 20 years. In this respect the SP was more successful doing open work and this is why I think it was fundamentally a good step.

However, we're still tiny with just under 2000 activists in our ranks, so the argument that we're doing so much better then many other left organisations is bollocks. The fact that we're holding these ideas is I think more of a brake on the development of a revolutionary alternative then a step forwards. "Long term entryism" has failed as a strategy of building a revolutionary alternative, but this lesson is still not learned as we still strive to build a new reformist mass party in which we are the revolutionary (or is it left-reformist?) wing.

That is not to say that I don't understand the reasoning why Militant build inside Labour, given the historical circumstances. However, Labour is no longer a mass party. So we don't have to calculate our tactics any longer with the handicap of working inside a reformist party. I think we need to take a good look at ourselves: what are we trying to accomplish and how should we get there? And frankly, I don't think a Labour Party mark 2 is going to get us towards the revolutionary taking of power by the working class, to put it mildly.

And please, stop pretending this has anything to do with a transitionary approach as the central goal of this is to build a clear revolutionary alternative, to lead the working class to making revolutionary conclusions through action and selfemancipation.

i don't actually wish to be sectarian and take that criticism very seriously and will examine my posts and thinking accordingly.
as an aside, i sometimes just *****, it's not useful and will watch for that also.
maybe i failed to make myself clear on some points regarding the transitional programme for instance.
the need for a new workers party is paramount, in order to connect with the active workers, in the first instance, that parties programme has to be couched in parliamentary political terms, each one of the reforms it demands has to be affordable under capitalism or reformism individually. as a whole, the programme can only be realised by socialist revolution, i believe, that reflects trotskys transitional programme and fully reflects the need to represent the present level of political understanding of those active workers that can be won over to the revolution.
i might be being "dogmatic" on this, but it makes sense to me.
this is what chavez is doing, i think, he keeps pushing the boundaries.
is that any clearer or just mindless repitition?

6th July 2009, 23:41

i don't actually wish to be sectarian and take that criticism very seriously and will examine my posts and thinking accordingly.
as an aside, i sometimes just *****, it's not useful and will watch for that also.
maybe i failed to make myself clear on some points regarding the transitional programme for instance.
I appreciate this move :)

the need for a new workers party is paramount, in order to connect with the active workers, in the first instance, that parties programme has to be couched in parliamentary political terms, each one of the reforms it demands has to be affordable under capitalism or reformism individually. as a whole, the programme can only be realised by socialist revolution, i believe, that reflects trotskys transitional programme and fully reflects the need to represent the present level of political understanding of those active workers that can be won over to the revolution.
i might be being "dogmatic" on this, but it makes sense to me.
this is what chavez is doing, i think, he keeps pushing the boundaries.
is that any clearer or just mindless repitition?I agree that the need for a mass workers party is paramount. The fundamental question is on what program? Here I disagree that Chavez is a shining example of a reformist approach. In fact, as long as Chavez continues his reforms within the boundaries of capitalism (as I'm sure he will because he quite simply has no other choice due to his balancing act position within the state apparatus), all reforms are at immediate danger of capitalist reaction. The imploding oil price is a fine example of the weakness of Chavez's reformist program.

And yes, you're correct on your assertion that the transitional program is a bridge between current consciousness and revolutionary conclusions by the masses. Socialism from below so to speak. How you deduce from this that we therefore need a reformist program - socialism from above - is however a mystery to me.

As a sidenote, you're wrong on the point that any single point in a transitional program is affordable by capitalism. Logic dictates that if one point can be achieved under capitalism, then so can the rest of the program and thus the whole point of a revolutionary overthrow is lost. Therefore you need to look for points that the working class will fight for but are not at all achievable within the framework of the system.

Die Neue Zeit

7th July 2009, 04:47

And yes, you're correct on your assertion that the transitional program is a bridge between current consciousness and revolutionary conclusions by the masses. Socialism from below so to speak. How you deduce from this that we therefore need a reformist program - socialism from above - is however a mystery to me.

As a sidenote, you're wrong on the point that any single point in a transitional program is affordable by capitalism. Logic dictates that if one point can be achieved under capitalism, then so can the rest of the program and thus the whole point of a revolutionary overthrow is lost. Therefore you need to look for points that the working class will fight for but are not at all achievable within the framework of the system.

Long time no see, comrade!

Actually, he would be correct. For example, unless you mean sliding scale of wages to occur on a daily basis like in the Weimar Republic, my musings on non-deflationary COLAs and living wages are achievable. The revolutionary overthrow is political, and not economic, hence the minimum program submitted in Article Submissions. ;)

Class-Strugglist Democracy and the Demarchic Commonwealth (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-democracy-t112390/index.html)