Left Unity....another way

[leveller]

The SWP as the largest group in Britain should open its doors to the rest of the british left.

dropping the requirement to believe in the state capitalism theory, guaranteeing minority rights to all organised factions, democratising the internal structure of the organisation, publishing debates within the party in the party press.

Given such rights the factions would agree to abide by the rules of democratic centralism and support agreed actions and decisions as disciplined members of the party, with the ability to change the leadership at a bi-annual congress to which all commitees of the party are responsible.

[Demogorgon]

Now why hasn't anyone thought of that before...

[leveller]

Yeah i mean the SWP love and live to recruit!
Youd have thought a big brain like Chris Harman or Alex Callinicos would have thought of it by now :laugh:

[Pogue]

I'm in, as long as AFed, SolFed and L&S can join?

[NecroCommie]

I know not the UK parties well, but it does sound like the SWP would contain a good number of sectarians. I wish thee well in thine quest, albeit I would not hope too much.

[communard resolution]

I'm in, as long as AFed, SolFed and L&S can join?

And why the hell not? I'm in too as long as factions are allowed and all the other requirements outlined by the OP are met. One big revolutionary left party would be a much more interesting project than any attempt at forming a new 'real' Labour party.

As an anarchist, are you allowed to join parties though, El Quico? And would you be willing to accept democratic centralism and act accordingly?

[redarmyfaction38]

The SWP as the largest group in Britain should open its doors to the rest of the british left.

dropping the requirement to believe in the state capitalism theory, guaranteeing minority rights to all organised factions, democratising the internal structure of the organisation, publishing debates within the party in the party press.

Given such rights the factions would agree to abide by the rules of democratic centralism and support agreed actions and decisions as disciplined members of the party, with the ability to change the leadership at a bi-annual congress to which all commitees of the party are responsible.
good idea, not gonna happen, unfortunately.
for the rest of the british left, working with the swp has, generally, ended up in the swp trying to dictate policy and led to the "minority" withdrawing.
it's not good, it's just the way it generally seems to pan out.
maybe, if us "comrades" told our varied "leaderships" we were getting a little dissatisfied with it, things could be different...or maybe... that is what our "leaderships" are waiting for us to do?

[Bitter Ashes]

While I'm a great supporter of uniting the left, I'm not sure it can be done in the way you outline, as the SWP does have a top-down leadership that would make life in the SWP a form of submission, which I doubt many would welcome.

A federation of sorts is probably the best route to go down, or at the very least a truce. We do have to be honest with ourselves, that, after the revolution we're probably going to turn on each other. The best thing we can do for revolution is to unite by our class and the best thing we can do to stop our future disagreements getting out of hand is to break down the barriers and divisions within the left as soon as possible.

I was actualy thinking the other day of something which may seem a very simple thing, which may be able to yield results. That would be to simply get together with the other leftists in the area and go to the pub every now and again! So long as the subject of "my leftist party is better than yours" is a taboo, then it could do wonders in putting a friendly human face behind these parties and also showing that we do share the same common goal of overthrowing capitalism. My one doubt about this idea is that it may end up with 2 from the AF, 2 from the IWW, 3 from CPB, 1 from the IMT and then 40 from the SWP, which could create a bit of an intimidating atmosphere.

Thoughts?

[communard resolution]

dropping the requirement to believe in the state capitalism theory


guaranteeing minority rights to all organised factions
democratising the internal structure of the organisation
ability to change the leadership at a bi-annual congress to which all commitees of the party are responsible.What do SWP members think of these suggestions? Do you want your party to become a truly democratic party for the revolutionary left?

[zimmerwald1915]

But...but...what about principle? :laugh:

[leveller]

are SWP members allowed to talk about politics with other leftists or are they all just paper sellers ?

another thought i had is that if the smaller groups were able to unite they'd form an organisation that the SWP and SP couldnt ignore.

[Pogue]

I think we should all join the ICC.



Seriously.

[communard resolution]

are SWP members allowed to talk about politics with other leftists or are they all just paper sellers ?

In fact the rank and file members do so frequently, albeit they are anxious not to criticise their party 'in public'. I've got a friend or two who are SWP and less than happy about their leadeship's ideas of internal democracy. The problem within the SWP does exist, it's not just slander dreamed up by sectarians.

Of course, the SWP rank and file are our comrades, not our enemies. It's up to them (as well as us) to challenge the leadership of their party.

Now I'd like to hear some SWP comrades speak. Do you want your party to open up to other left groups, do away with the top-down structure and become a truly democratic organisation of the revolutionary left? And if so, how about the points suggested by the OP?

[Revy]

Unity will come from the cadre not the leadership of these parties.

If we abide by the idea which is often put forward that the parties can be seen as "different factions of a yet-to-be-formed party" well there you go. The goal then can be uniting the factions, by bringing in members of different parties and creating a new one.

That is only if such a project is the best way to move the left forward. Left unity for the sake of left unity, doesn't make much sense. Maybe we are in the temporary period now different battalions on the same front. Fighting for the same thing, we don't have to force unity, until it becomes feasible.

- from an American comrade.:)

[bricolage]

My question for the SWP.

Why do you have to adhere to the gender binary and self define as 'male' or 'female' on the membership form?

http://www.swp.org.uk/join.php

[redarmyfaction38]

But...but...what about principle? :laugh:
principle is more important than unity in action?
than the chance of revolution itself?
this is where i get pissed off with rev. left politics, the prize is more important than our political principle, lenin, trotsky even uncle joe stalin pointed out how hard we have to be to win the world, we have to do what is necessary.

[communard resolution]

It doesn't look like SWP comrades on revleft are terribly interested in democratisation of their party?

Prove me wrong!

[The Idler]

The spectrum of ideologies seems too broad to unite.

[communard resolution]

The spectrum of ideologies seems too broad to unite.

In this case, I think it's more a question of certain people feeling a bit too comfortable in their positions of relative power and unwilling to give them up... and perhaps too many of their rank and file acting like sheep.

[bellyscratch]

The spectrum of ideologies seems too broad to unite.

I wouldn't of thought it would be out of the question for all the different Trot parties to have some sort of unity, but sadly it's not going to happen. From what I gather, SPEW are only interested in working in left unity projects that are funded by trade unions. So they're going to do what they can to suck up to the RMT and PCS to try use their money, which means they're going to follow what these trade unions want. Where as the SWP seem to of learnt some lessons of the past and want to start working with other groups on a grassroots level and open debate up, with SPEW not even interested in having any serious debate, just a slagging match.

Despite SPEWs influence in PCS, I'm not too sure what 'side' they will take in the SPEW vs SWP conflict that seems to of arisen.

This is just a feeling, but I'm starting to think that if PCS do go on board with the No2EU camp, then other trade unions could leave Labour (which is definatley on the cards looking at CWU, NUJ, UCU and GMB) and join in with them. This could leave SWP and the tiny sects maintaining a more radical stance and attempting grassroots coopertation, probably missing out on the platform such an alliance could give them, but maybe still maintaining some advantages. Like I said though, this is just a feeling and we will have to wait to see how this pans out.

Personally, I want to see parties working together at a grassroots level in the local communities, to build some real unity and stronger links together before any sort of electoral alliances are thought of. If they do show some real unity on a grassroots level, surely the more respectable unions would love to be involved with them.

Lets see what happens though...

[redarmyfaction38]

I wouldn't of thought it would be out of the question for all the different Trot parties to have some sort of unity, but sadly it's not going to happen. From what I gather, SPEW are only interested in working in left unity projects that are funded by trade unions. So they're going to do what they can to suck up to the RMT and PCS to try use their money, which means they're going to follow what these trade unions want. Where as the SWP seem to of learnt some lessons of the past and want to start working with other groups on a grassroots level and open debate up, with SPEW not even interested in having any serious debate, just a slagging match.

Despite SPEWs influence in PCS, I'm not too sure what 'side' they will take in the SPEW vs SWP conflict that seems to of arisen.

This is just a feeling, but I'm starting to think that if PCS do go on board with the No2EU camp, then other trade unions could leave Labour (which is definatley on the cards looking at CWU, NUJ, UCU and GMB) and join in with them. This could leave SWP and the tiny sects maintaining a more radical stance and attempting grassroots coopertation, probably missing out on the platform such an alliance could give them, but maybe still maintaining some advantages. Like I said though, this is just a feeling and we will have to wait to see how this pans out.

Personally, I want to see parties working together at a grassroots level in the local communities, to build some real unity and stronger links together before any sort of electoral alliances are thought of. If they do show some real unity on a grassroots level, surely the more respectable unions would love to be involved with them.

Lets see what happens though...
whilst a supporter of "spew", i understand the point you are making. but think you miss the point of co operation with the leaderships of unions like the rmt that have all ready ditched the "labour party".
ditching the "labour party" was a massive step forward for those unions and their membership.
to imply that spew only exists as a parasite upon the funding of those unions is ridiculous.
that implication belongs in the daily mail or the new labour party, it is not in anyway a reflection of the efforts of spew or lefts within the new "labour party" .
"grass roots" is reflected in their efforts.
the majority of trade union leaders have no interest in "grass roots", their acceptance of the "new labour" "neo liberal" agenda demonstrates this.
as for spew versus swp, in my experience, it's been the swp that has fcuked up the alliances, not the rcp, not the cpgb, not their descendants like workers power or cpb or militant or socialist party.
IF, the swp, having been reduced in numbers to the point, that they have to accept revolutionary democracy are willing to participate in another alliance AND accept their place within it, there is a chance, just a chance, given their history of waNTING TO DICTATE, that other left groups will work with them.
at the moment, i think asking the cpb, to reject stalin and ask the trots to join the cpb has more chance of success.

[bellyscratch]

whilst a supporter of "spew", i understand the point you are making. but think you miss the point of co operation with the leaderships of unions like the rmt that have all ready ditched the "labour party".
ditching the "labour party" was a massive step forward for those unions and their membership.
to imply that spew only exists as a parasite upon the funding of those unions is ridiculous.
that implication belongs in the daily mail or the new labour party, it is not in anyway a reflection of the efforts of spew or lefts within the new "labour party" .
"grass roots" is reflected in their efforts.
the majority of trade union leaders have no interest in "grass roots", their acceptance of the "new labour" "neo liberal" agenda demonstrates this.
as for spew versus swp, in my experience, it's been the swp that has fcuked up the alliances, not the rcp, not the cpgb, not their descendants like workers power or cpb or militant or socialist party.
IF, the swp, having been reduced in numbers to the point, that they have to accept revolutionary democracy are willing to participate in another alliance AND accept their place within it, there is a chance, just a chance, given their history of waNTING TO DICTATE, that other left groups will work with them.
at the moment, i think asking the cpb, to reject stalin and ask the trots to join the cpb has more chance of success.

I understand where you're coming from, but from my conversations with the more active SPEW members in my area, this is the impression I got. They have totally rejected being involved in an initiative that aims to bring more left unity in my local area, on the sole basis that it has no trade union backing. They don't even want to hear about it. We're having a meeting on Wednesday about which so far I know that SWP, RCG, AWL, anarchists, community activists, trade union activists etc are going to be attending. So hopefully some good will come out of it.

I totally agree with the history of the SWP wanting to dictate the other left groups, and I've said this to SWP activists in my local area. But the fact that they are trying to at least talk about how we can be more united is a step in the right direction. How far that step will go is still uncertain, but the way SPEW just seem to of rejected it straight away and their aggressive response to the open letter just seems sectarian to me.

[blake 3:17]

I joined a small party that had split from the IST. Varying theories on the exact nature of Stalinism was something pretty easy to do given that it no longer really exists.

Questions of strategy, feminism, inner party democracy seem much more important. My impression of the SWP/IST is they've conservatized again. The organization in Canada seems more isolated and sectarian than they have in years despite members doing good coalition work.

[leveller]

In this case, I think it's more a question of certain people feeling a bit too comfortable in their positions of relative power and unwilling to give them up... and perhaps too many of their rank and file acting like sheep.


I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head, all parties need a professional membership to form its leadership, some of the SWP leadership have outside interests but there are a good number who are probably on a stipend from the party, for some of them it has probably been a very long time since they became professional revolutionaries, and they have in effect become career revolutionaries, forming a conservative proto-bureaucracy in the movement, i suspect there needs to be a re-assurance that all full time comrades will remain full time comrades in a new organisation, because to lose them would be unfortunate as they are there on the basis of their talents, organisational, oratorical, literary...

[El Rojo]

I joined the SWP at Marxism 2009 hence am a relative newcomer to the disagreements amongst the radical left. but already I find it relativley trying.

Personally, I am happy to work with any group on the left, (maybe drawing the line at Stalininsts, im not sure) to achieve objectives that we have in common. We currently couldn't be further away from Socialism, and compared to the large neo-lib parties are membership is still minute. Yet the left spends more time fighting itself over differences that, to the vast majority of the population, appear to be tiny. At the end of the day, the sucess of one group of the radical left is good for the others, as it is a step back for the fat cats. If, hypothetically, the big unions left new labour for the SPEW, which would leave the SWp out in the dark, it would still be a v good thing. To corrupt Isaac Asimov somewhat "There is a single light of socialism and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere."


I understand the need to preserve revolutionary purity, but the radical left has been pure for decades, but realistically, getting knowhere. I reckon its time to get our hands dirty, making compromises, building coalitions, taking combined action, locking into similar organisations.We can't be consumed by our petty differences. It is do-able, look at the French NPA. The leadership needs to take a real commitment to unification, and, although i am possibly being optimistic, judging from Alex Callinicos's praise for the NPA and calls to emulate thier example, he is thinking the same thing.

Also, i like the sound of Ranma's proposal. Anyone of remotely left tendancy in the Cheshire area interested, PM me.

[communard resolution]

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head, all parties need a professional membership to form its leadership, some of the SWP leadership have outside interests but there are a good number who are probably on a stipend from the party, for some of them it has probably been a very long time since they became professional revolutionaries, and they have in effect become career revolutionaries, forming a conservative proto-bureaucracy in the movement, i suspect there needs to be a re-assurance that all full time comrades will remain full time comrades in a new organisation, because to lose them would be unfortunate as they are there on the basis of their talents, organisational, oratorical, literary...

'Conservative proto-bureaucracy' is spot on, and this applies not only to the SWP. I sometimes get the feeling that the tiny differences between the groups are nothing but excuses put forward by proto-bureaucrats just so they can be leaders of their own group. Is it, for instance, really necessary to split over the question whether the USSR was state-capitalist, a degenerated workers state or bureaucratic collectivist? I think not. This is not to say that historical questions are unimportant, but we do have to think about the future first and foremost, and how one chooses to define a bygone empire shouldn't be enough to warrant a split.

I agree that a lot of full-timers are anxious not to be able to keep their full-time positions when groups fuse, which is justified because we need these people who devote their entire time to radical politics. However, I think that this is a dilemma that breeds a culture of dishonesty, and that there is also an element of power, and of not wanting to give up power.

We were all brought up in capitalist societies that trained us to seek power, and I don't believe leftists are entirely free from this.

[communard resolution]

I joined the SWP at Marxism 2009 hence am a relative newcomer to the disagreements amongst the radical left. but already I find it relativley trying.

If you asked me I would tell you: keep up your openness and your critical attitude of your own group. The SWP needs more comrades like you.

On revleft, you will see people who virtually live to criticise other left groups - sometimes their criticisms are perfectly justified, sometimes very banal. But SWP members will uncritically defend their party no matter what and are often dishonest. It would be better if they simply said "it was a mistake, people aren't perfect, we'll try to make sure it won't happen again" or "yes, this issue is a problem in our party, we shall work towards changing it".


Personally, I am happy to work with any group on the left, (maybe drawing the line at StalininstsSame here, any group except left chauvinist/Stalinist outfits, left nationalist groups, and class collaborationists.

But the anti-democratic practices of the SWP often make me wonder: if they can't even accept democracy now, what would happen if they ever gained any actual power? What good is following Trotsky instead of Stalin when the internal party structure is essentially a Stalinist one?

It's up to you and your comrades to challenge your leadership and reform the SWP.