Socialist Workers Party back Labour after TUSC [Archive]

Saorsa

11th February 2010, 23:54

The Social-democratic 'Workers' Party is calling on workers to 'tactically' vote for the bourgeois liberal Labour Party in the next election in the UK.

Lenin argued in 'Left-wing communism' (perhaps the most poorly understood book on the radical left) that communists should support Labour 'like a rope supports a hanged man'. He argued they should support labour candidates in the context of a situation where Labour had not been in power before, in order that Labour could then expose itself as anti-worker once elected. Labour has been in government many times since. It has repeatedly attacked the working class, has launched imperialist wars, and has revealed it's character as a bourgeois party for all to see.

While there are still trade unions affiliated to the party, there is little or no active involvement of the working class in it, and it's internal structures do not allow for workers to influence policy from the grassroots. It, like the other bourgeois parties, is controlled from the top down.

Here in NZ, it was actually Labour that launched the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s, unlike in the UK and the US where Thatcher and Reagan and their parties played the major role.

Workers do grudgingly cast their votes for labour parties over the more openly conservative parties, but as revolutionaries we're not supposed to tail end the existing level of class consciousness. We're supposed to align with the most militant sections of the class and win them over to revolutionary politics, and the most militant sections of the class are not in the Labour Party today. Our task is to break workers away from supporting capitalist parties and by extension the capitalist system, not to reinforce the idea that the 'left' wing of the bourgeoisie is in some way preferable to the 'right' wing.

The other point here is honesty. Nobody in the SWP (one would hope anyway) actually believes that a Labour government is preferable to the working class compared to a Conservative govt. But the assumption seems to be that workers are too ignorant, stupid and backward to be capable of supporting openly revolutionary politics, and that we instead have to lie to them and tell them to vote for a political party which we know is fully prepared (and in the current period, very likely) to launch attacks on them. And if anything, a Labour government is harder for workers to fight than a Tory government.

Stop lying to workers. Stop treating them like children. Stop attempting to mislead them and stop telling them to give political support to their class enemies.

The only difference between Labour and the Tories is that the Tories stab you in the front while Labour stabs you in the back.

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20198

Who do you vote for?

Millions are bitterly angry at New Labour for attacking workers and waging war. But they don’t want the Tories. Simon Basketter looks at what socialists should say about the election

The prospect of the Tories in government rightly fills many workers with horror. The party of Eton boys and bonus-grabbing bankers, the party that openly celebrates capitalism, could soon be in Number 10.

In workplaces and communities across Britain you will hear the argument that it’s important to vote Labour at the next general election.

But for many, all support for Labour has gone.

After 13 years of bloody war, privatisation and assaults on workers’ living standards, some workers say they will never vote Labour again.

Already the Labour vote has slumped by four million between 1997 and 2005.

Millions of workers are to the left of all the main parties over issues such as privatisation, ending the war in Afghanistan and making the rich pay for the economic crisis.

For that reason some on the left, including the Socialist Workers Party, have formed a left wing coalition to stand candidates.

We will take part in the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC), and play a central role in some half dozen constituencies. We will also call for a vote for other groups – such as Respect – and individuals such as Dai Davies in Blaenau Gwent and Ricky Tomlinson in Liverpool.

Unfortunately in most areas, workers won’t have a TUSC or other left candidate to vote for.

The choice will be much more stark – vote Labour or don’t vote at all.

Socialist Worker has been at the centre of resistance to Labour’s attacks. We have not and will not cover up its horrendous record.

Class

But there is an important difference between Labour and the Tories. Basically it comes down to class.

Labour still retains a link with the organised working class through its union affiliations. And workers vote far more heavily for Labour than any other party.

Around 50 to 60 percent of workers vote Labour at general elections, three or four times more than any other party.

Of course Labour’s actions since 1997 have narrowed this gap.

But the same essential pattern remains.

Labour’s membership has also slumped, from 407,000 in 1997 to around 150,000 or even fewer today.

And the proportion of manual and routine white collar workers in the party has also fallen.

But that has not transformed the nature of the party.

The Labour Party came into being to represent trade union leaders in parliament. The unions are still important to the party, although the union leaders are remarkably reluctant to use their power inside it in any meaningful way.

The Labour Party is based on the idea that workers can collectively change society while operating within the existing capitalist system.

It is a break from the idea that everything is best left to our “betters”. But it is still imprisoned by the severe limitations of capitalist democracy.

The Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin pointed out in the 1920s that “the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because although it consists of workers it is led by reactionaries, and the worst reactionaries at that, who act fully in the spirit of the bourgeoisie.”

It was, he said, a “bourgeois workers’ party”.

Some argue that the advent of “New Labour” has fundamentally changed the nature of the party. Certainly Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have praised the market in a way that few Labour leaders would have done before.

But the party remains essentially the same. Labour’s leaders can exercise influence only by making at least some verbal concessions to working class connections.

Confidence

This hybrid character of the party has implications for socialists.

Many workers still see support for Labour as a way of standing up against the Tories and striving for a better society – despite the fact that Labour has implemented vicious Tory policies.

In any workplace or community you will find that the Labour voters are overwhelmingly less reactionary, less racist, and more open to ideas like class solidarity than the Tory voters.

A class line will open up as the election gets closer. Most workers will grudgingly line up with Labour against the Tories.

We are on the side of workers who want to stop the Tories, while making it clear that Labour’s total commitment to the existing system means it won’t deliver real change.

To back a vote for Labour, in the absence of a left alternative, is part of engaging with workers and building a movement from below.

Socialists must avoid the sanctuary of the ivory tower, where what passes for democracy can be observed with grim but irrelevant delight.

If the Tories win the election, reactionaries and employers throughout the land will rejoice – and celebrate by throwing more shit at us.

Many workers will feel depressed and less confident to fight.

This is very important for the struggles that will come – whoever wins the election.

We want the fight against the cuts to be shaped by a confident working class, not one that is on the back foot.

If Labour wins, workers will feel a little more confident, if only because the reactionaries aren’t celebrating.

Some people argue that the arrival of David Cameron as prime minister would lead to an explosion of struggle as the Labour-supporting union leaders release the reins on resistance.

But those who claim that mass unemployment and degradation are necessary conditions for resistance don’t understand social change.

Empty stomachs and hardship are far more likely to lead to despair and reaction than to insurrection.

Confidence matters in the class struggle.

When people lose confidence in themselves, they can turn to scapegoating Muslims, black or Asian people, migrant workers, women, gays and lesbians and other groups.

Our vote for Labour is not because we believe the party will act better than the Tories in government. We, and many workers, vote Labour in spite of the party’s record in government, not because of it.

Every Labour leader has promised to end “the scourge of unemployment” as Labour’s first Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald put it. Under MacDonald’s government, unemployment tripled in two years.

The Labour governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan in the 1960s and 1970s were responsible for the biggest public spending cuts ever known.

They pushed down the level of real wages.

This still didn’t stop most workers voting Labour.

Attacks on working people will grow whoever is elected this year.

This is because of the scale of the economic crisis, rather than which party is in government.

Part of encouraging confidence among workers means working with Labour supporters, members and voters in every campaign. We support them against the right wing.

All this matters because, before we have time to catch our breath, the Tory government (or a ramshackle Labour government, or some sort of coalition) will be on the attack.

It will hack away at the schools and hospitals that Labour has already weakened.

Unity

We can only protect jobs and conditions and key public services by building action outside parliament – by organising demonstrations and strikes. The confidence of the working class will be critical.

We need to encourage struggle and build a socialist organisation.

But the election will dominate politics for the next few months and socialists cannot remain neutral.

Our first electoral priority should be to make sure left of Labour candidates at the election do as well as possible. But we will also vote Labour against the Tories where there is no serious left of Labour candidate.

We also need to raise the flag of resistance in every workplace and every community.

We want struggle now, and we reject the notion that it should be held back in order to protect Labour from criticism.

And we will need much more struggle after the election.

Millions of workers will hold their breath, bite their lip and vote Labour. Every one of them will feel disappointed and indignant.

Hundreds of thousands of others will feel the same – and not vote.

In both cases their anger can be turned into action to stop the Tories’ attacks – if it is channelled into real resistance.

The key question is building and uniting networks of resistance and infusing the fightback with genuine socialist politics.

Socialists have to stand with these workers and focus on building that resistance.

That’s the way we can win real change.

cmdrdeathguts

12th February 2010, 01:39

http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialist-workers-party-t129057/index.html

cmdrdeathguts

12th February 2010, 01:40

Also, you've got to love SW - at my screen resolution, only about 3 of those 'paragraphs' are more than one line long.

It has repeatedly attacked the working class, has launched imperialist wars, and has revealed it's character as a bourgeois party for all to see.

So why do people keep voting for it if it's so thoroughly 'exposed'? These illusions never go away for good. Not in this mode of production, anyway.

Saorsa

12th February 2010, 04:04

Woops, guess we should merge the two threads.

So why do people keep voting for it if it's so thoroughly 'exposed'? These illusions never go away for good. Not in this mode of production, anyway.

A whole host of reasons, many of which the SWP raised in this article. You may as well ask why workers don't just overthrow capitalism after it's thoroughly exposed itself as a shitty socio-economic system.

The fact that workers haven't yet broken with the Labour Party doesn't in any mean we should put out the idea that this is perfectly ok. Revolutionaries are supposed to try and heighten consciousness, not reinforce bad positions that already exist.

This was particularly ridiculous in NZ when the local Cliffites election slogan was, as usual, 'vote left without illusions', and in the last elections this meant 'vote for either labour, the greens, the maori party, the alliance or the Workers Party'. The Maori Party was removed from the list of parties it's ok to vote for after they came out with a position that the dole should be abolished.

Yehuda Stern

12th February 2010, 15:08

Alastair, I really liked this part of your post:

Stop lying to workers. Stop treating them like children. Stop attempting to mislead them and stop telling them to give political support to their class enemies.

That sort of thinking is exactly what a lot of the left seems to be basing its "electoral strategy" upon.

At any rate, I'd say that the SWP's position that they are voting despite knowing the workers have no illusions in Labour is especially ridiculous - the only reason to vote for a reformist party is to bring it to power so it can expose itself as pro-capitalist in the eyes of its supporters. Without that, the SWP are just helping the reformists maintain their political hold over the workers.

Dimentio

12th February 2010, 15:36

The problem when people grow disillusioned with so-called "progressive parties" is that they turn to the reactionary parties for guidance. The problem I think is the illusion that a top-down party could become anything else than a tool for oppression in the hands of a small political elite.

Rosa Lichtenstein

12th February 2010, 18:53

YS:

At any rate, I'd say that the SWP's position that they are voting despite knowing the workers have no illusions in Labour is especially ridiculous - the only reason to vote for a reformist party is to bring it to power so it can expose itself as pro-capitalist in the eyes of its supporters. Without that, the SWP are just helping the reformists maintain their political hold over the workers.

This is still the policy of the SWP, to expose the LP as a bankrupt reformist party, as the article maintains.

The Idler

12th February 2010, 19:58

Jazzratt

12th February 2010, 20:24

Merged threads on the same subject.

I'm amazed at the SWP's ability to disappoint despite having nearly no expectations of them.

Dr Mindbender

12th February 2010, 20:54

its almost sad that Bobkkkindles isnt around to post a paragraphless 2000 word thesis in their defence.

Saorsa

12th February 2010, 23:44

Free BobK! Bring him home! Revleft just isn't the same without those walls of text :(

scarletghoul

13th February 2010, 00:12

This is still the policy of the SWP, to expose the LP as a bankrupt reformist party, as the article maintains.
You dont think Labour has already been exposed, time and time again ? I have never met a single person who thinks labour could empower the working class. No one likes labour, the vast majority of working class people recognise that they are a party of the rich and those who vote for them do so for the crumbs that they throw, not out of any genuine hope that a labour government could establish a better system or anything.
I can see why they thought of backing labour in '97, because labour genuinely were a beacon of hope to some misguided people. However now, everyone has seen the labour party for what it is and no one likes them. There is no excuse for the SWP to be doing this, its freakin ridiculous

Honestly its like someone is trying to destroy the SWP from the inside.

Revy

13th February 2010, 01:05

It is one thing to say that it's not bad if you vote the lesser evil (be that Labour ) in places where there is an absence of a socialist alternative. It's another thing to go around as if you're campaigning for Labour. Face it, a Tory victory seems likely. Get over it. Power shifts between these two parties every now and then. That's how it works in a lot of countries.

Hit The North

13th February 2010, 01:20

In Socialist Review they include an article arguing against a Labour vote (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11151), and one arguing for a Labour vote (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11150). The SWP seem to be like a big ship without a compass.

It's called debate. :rolleyes:

For what it's worth, I agree with Daniel Gott in the anti-Labour article when he writes:

Is it therefore not prudent to talk to the people on the streets about how we change the system and not the party in power?

Scarletghoul is also correct in pointing out that Labour have been exposed time and again and it seems foolish to continue to adopt this as our position.

McCroskey

13th February 2010, 01:51

I am not a member of the SWP, but I see some logic in their "support" for a labour vote. If you see the state of Britain now, the main problems for the general population are social cohesion, security, etc. The labour party will loose millions of votes because the working classes don´t see them as addressing these problems properly, and there is a general perception that, as both labour and tories will ignore the need for social reforms to suit the needs of the workers, they have to vote for whoever protects them from being mugged on the streets or whoever promises that their tax money won´t be spent in protecting criminals while hard working people have to struggle to make ends meet. As the general public including the working class are threatened by more inmediate and tangible dangers, they will shift their vote towards a party that is promising to protect them from these dangers. Now, we agree that neither party is going to protect the interests of the working class in Britain, but the difference between a tory victory and a labour victory is that the unions still have some influence over the latter, whilsts the tories would legislate against union power. By keeping labour in power (in a period of time when the current state of affairs and general population´s tendencies would keep them from see anything outside this bi-partidism), they make sure that the goverment still will be accountable for any breaches in their working class-related promises (the tories wouldn´t give a damn) and that union influence is still retained at any possible level in goverment affairs, which is much more desirable than the suck-up-to-the-rich and the get-rid-of-the-unions-to-stimulate-economic-growth tory usual stance.

I think they are just being pragmatic and acting following an analysis of British society. Even if the whole British working class decides not to vote for either of them and support a revolutionary vote, the risk of a tory victory and the lose of the influence of the unions is, in my opinion, a risk not worth taking.

Revy

13th February 2010, 02:57

FSL

13th February 2010, 04:37

but the difference between a tory victory and a labour victory is that the unions still have some influence over the latter, whilsts the tories would legislate against union power.

The unions don't have any influence over the Labour Party, the big capital Labor Party represents has a ton of influence over "unions".

This should change at some point.

13th February 2010, 09:01

The unions don't have any influence over the Labour Party, the big capital Labor Party represents has a ton of influence over "unions".

This should change at some point.

It's not going to change, I can guarantee it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 13:16

HC:

It's like saying that we should try to agitate for a Democratic victory to stop the Republicans. Democrats try to appear as pro-labor issues too. And the Democrats have the support of many unions, like the AFL-CIO and SEIU.

The LP was set up by the trade unions, and there is still an organic connection between the trade unions and the LP. This is not so with the Democratic Party and US unions. That's the difference.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 13:21

Scarlet:

You dont think Labour has already been exposed, time and time again ? I have never met a single person who thinks labour could empower the working class. No one likes labour, the vast majority of working class people recognise that they are a party of the rich and those who vote for them do so for the crumbs that they throw, not out of any genuine hope that a labour government could establish a better system or anything.
I can see why they thought of backing labour in '97, because labour genuinely were a beacon of hope to some misguided people. However now, everyone has seen the labour party for what it is and no one likes them. There is no excuse for the SWP to be doing this, its freakin ridiculous.

Unfortunately for you, there are many workers who still have illusions in the LP; their core vote in working class areas is still holding up.

Honestly its like someone is trying to destroy the SWP from the inside

Well, you'd know, considering how Mao's party totally self-destructed in the 1970s.:lol:

FSL

13th February 2010, 13:25

Scarlet:

Unfortunately for you, there are many workers who still have illusions in the LP; their core vote in working class areas is still holding up.

Unfortunately for the working class, many hard-working people also support the Tories and BNP. Let's all support these illusions as well,huh?

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 18:41

FSL:

Unfortunately for the working class, many hard-working people also support the Tories and BNP. Let's all support these illusions as well,huh?

Alas for you, there is no organic link between the working class and the BNP, or the Tories.

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:03

I am sorry but breaking "illusions" in new labour is not done by calling a vote for them. Also I think you are overstating the content of those illusions. Calling for a labour vote is a dead end, and that's part of the reason why TUSC was launched, you know.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:10

Mayakovsky:

I am sorry but breaking "illusions" in new labour is not done by calling a vote for them. Also I think you are overstating the content of those illusions. Calling for a labour vote is a dead end, and that's part of the reason why TUSC was launched, you know.

If the LP is not in office, then no one can have their illusions in them broken. They have to be in office for that to happen. So, by force of logic, such a call to vote for them makes sense.

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:13

Mayakovsky:

If the LP is not in office, then no one can have their illusions in them broken. They have to be in office for that to happen. So, by force of logic, such a call to vote for them makes sense.
No, not really. The Labour party are currently in office, remember?

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:15

Mayakovsky:

The Labour party are currently in office, remember?

Indeed, and they need to stay there to be exposed even more.

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:17

Mayakovsky:

Indeed, and they need to stay there to be exposed even more.
For how long exactly? Again, I think your idea of exposing them is completly wrong and reflects the SWP's long history of having quite a ocnfused view of the Labour party (for example still claiming it to be a "bourguise worker's party") both presently and historically.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:20

Mayakovsky:

For how long exactly?

Do I look like a clairvoyant?

Again, I think your idea of exposing them is completly wrong and reflects the SWP's long history of having quite a ocnfused view of the Labour party (for example still claiming it to be a "bourguise worker's party") both presently and historically.

While it has organic links with the unions, it is a bourgeois workers party. When that changes, the SWP's opinion of them will no doubt change too.

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:23

Mayakovsky:

Do I look like a clairvoyant?

While it has organic links with the unions, it is a bourgeois workers party. When that changes, the SWP's opinion of them will no doubt change too.
Certainly not.

As does the Democratic party in the US. Being in control of the union beaurocracy does not make a worker's party. Sorry.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:26

Mayakovsky:

As does the Democratic party in the US. Being in control of the union beaurocracy does not make a worker's party. Sorry.

I have already covered this. You need to read more carefully before you put your foot in your mouth, in future.

13th February 2010, 19:28

Please Rosa, tell me what 'organic links with the unions' it has and point to some real-world examples of this. Furthermore, show me a recent struggle where the unions have not utterly sabotaged things for workers?

I would really like to see this.

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:33

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:33

IS:

Please Rosa, tell me what 'organic links with the unions' it has and point to some real-world examples of this. Furthermore, show me a recent struggle where the unions have not utterly sabotaged things for workers?

The LP was set up by the TU bureaucracy, and they still control the purse strings of the party, and they dominate policy through the block vote, personal alliances and sponsorships.

And, unions have (in general) done this for over a hundred years:

recent struggle where the unions have not utterly sabotaged things for workers

So, why you pick on recent events is somewhat mysterious.

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:34

Because there's no difference between the labour party of today and the labour party of the early 1900's? Or, indeed, the labour party of the 60's and 70's.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:35

Mayakovsky:

Because there's no difference between the labour party of today and the labour party of the early 1900's? Or, indeed, the labour party of the 60's and 70's.

Is this addressed to me?

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:41

Mayakovsky:

Is this addressed to me?
Yes, it is.

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:43

Mayakovsky:

Yes, it is.

In which case, it is far to equivocal for me to answer.

Zanthorus

13th February 2010, 19:48

You'd think that the best tactic for exposing labour as useless would be by building a solid revolutionary left alternative instead of giving them any kind of legitimacy...

Rosa Lichtenstein

13th February 2010, 19:51

Zanthorus:

You'd think that the best tactic for exposing labour as useless would be by building a solid revolutionary left alternative instead of giving them any kind of legitimacy...

Sure, but we'd need magic wand to do this in the current climate.

13th February 2010, 19:52

I would argue that this also has, in no small part, to do with the fact that most of the unions are still under Labour control. So rather than making New Labour "more" of a worker's party, supposedly it should do the exact opposite.

But the unions are very much part of labour, they do not function alone and your support for "independent unions" will inevitably lead down the road to reformism.

The LP was set up by the TU bureaucracy, and they still control the purse strings of the party, and they dominate policy through the block vote, personal alliances and sponsorships.

Do you think the unions of today such the TUC etc are progressive? This should perhaps be the question, they still aren't controllers of labour because, as maya has said it is the social-corporatist leadership of the LP who runs them.

And, unions have (in general) done this for over a hundred years:

So, why you pick on recent events is somewhat mysterious.

If you acknowledge this, why do you support the unions and why do you support the LP?

Crux

13th February 2010, 19:54

13th February 2010, 19:57

Rosa: ..or, you know, actually try and build an resitance out in the workingclass communities and the unions. I know that's what I am trying to do, and in my experience that has been the most effective way to break illusions in the socialdemocrats. Sure, we are not as strong as we need be, yet, but calling for a labour vote isn't a shortcut, it's a dead end.

"and the unions" would you like to demonstrate the success in your tactic?

Let's face it, your party has done besst when the struggle got out of hand and you couldn't control it. In fact history points directly to the opposite of what you're saying; when unions opposed the poll tax they got little support.

When you started the anti-poll tax fed, you got loads of support and then you tried to sell them out but you failed, because the struggle got out of your control.

Naturally, I would disagree. Unions breaking from Labour provides an impetus for more militant action from below, both inside and outside the unions, in my opinion.

Nope, this is completely wrong, in fact it might make them more nationalist (a la CPB following bureaucracy).

Crux

13th February 2010, 20:02

"and the unions" would you like to demonstrate the success in your tactic?

Let's face it, your party has done besst when the struggle got out of hand and you couldn't control it. In fact history points directly to the opposite of what you're saying; when unions opposed the poll tax they got little support.

When you started the anti-poll tax fed, you got loads of support and then you tried to sell them out but you failed, because the struggle got out of your control.

Nope, this is completely wrong, in fact it might make them more nationalist (a la CPB following bureaucracy).
I wasn't around for the anti-poll-tax struggle (being born in the late eighties and all) and I am in sweden so my knowledge is pretty limited.

Well, in many countries we are attempting to build a resitance inside the unions. In sweden we are currently in the process of setting up a left opposition isnde the public servants union in stockholm. So far it seems promising.

Zanthorus

13th February 2010, 20:21

Sure, but we'd need magic wand to do this in the current climate.

Surely in the face of one of the largest crises of capitalism since the great depression which has hit worldwide and caused the current government to rack up huge amounts of debt by nationalising banks and attempting to save the system from collapse the "current climate" is positively favourable?

FSL

13th February 2010, 20:37

Mayakovsky:

Indeed, and they need to stay there to be exposed even more.

13 years are hardly enough. You'd need centuries of constant raping of workers when the left is at this abysmall level.

13th February 2010, 20:52

I wasn't around for the anti-poll-tax struggle (being born in the late eighties and all) and I am in sweden so my knowledge is pretty limited.

You're probably older than me, but I can tell you what understanding your party has taught me.

Well, in many countries we are attempting to build a resitance inside the unions. In sweden we are currently in the process of setting up a left opposition isnde the public servants union in stockholm. So far it seems promising.

Why do you think this is a good idea, why do you not push for workers to organise themselves, or do you think that everytthing has to be officially approved first?

Crux

13th February 2010, 21:02

You're probably older than me, but I can tell you what understanding your party has taught me.

Why do you think this is a good idea, why do you not push for workers to organise themselves, or do you think that everytthing has to be officially approved first?
I think there is potential power in the union movement, a movement which is being hogtied by the beauracracy. However, as I said before, that does not mean we do not take part in struggles outside of the unions as well, for example we have actively supported wildcat strikes of garbageworker's and at the alcohol monopolies warehouse in stockholm. However we are not content with leaving the unions to the bearucrats, especially since about 80% of the swedish workforce is unionized.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 01:41

Is:

Do you think the unions of today such the TUC etc are progressive? This should perhaps be the question, they still aren't controllers of labour because, as maya has said it is the social-corporatist leadership of the LP who runs them.

No, the question is: when and under what circumstances will workers re-gain confidence to take on their own bureaucrats, union and LP?

If you acknowledge this, why do you support the unions and why do you support the LP?

'Support' only in the sense that a rope supports a hanging man.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 01:42

Mayakovsky:

Rosa: ..or, you know, actually try and build an resitance out in the workingclass communities and the unions. I know that's what I am trying to do, and in my experience that has been the most effective way to break illusions in the socialdemocrats. Sure, we are not as strong as we need be, yet, but calling for a labour vote isn't a shortcut, it's a dead end.

Good luck with that; tell me when you are ready to take the ruling-class on...

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 01:43

FSL:

13 years are hardly enough. You'd need centuries of constant raping of workers when the left is at this abysmall level.

Well, you can't hurry hate, as the song says.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 01:44

Zanthorous:

Surely in the face of one of the largest crises of capitalism since the great depression which has hit worldwide and caused the current government to rack up huge amounts of debt by nationalising banks and attempting to save the system from collapse the "current climate" is positively favourable?

For what?

Leo

14th February 2010, 02:14

The LP was set up by the trade unions, and there is still an organic connection between the trade unions and the LP. This is not so with the Democratic Party and US unions. That's the difference.

On the Democratic Party and its organic relationship with the trade-unions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)#U nions

Since the 1930s, a critical component of the Democratic Party coalition has been organized labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States). Labor unions supply a great deal of the money, grass roots political organization, and voting base of support for the party (...) Despite declining membership numbers, union members and their families vote in disproportionately greater numbers than the population at large, with as many as one in four votes in the 2004 election coming from union households.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States% 29#cite_note-2) Because union members vote in high numbers, as well as the organizational and financial resources unions can bring to bear, they continue to have significant influence on the Party (...) The three most significant labor groupings in the Democratic coalition today are the AFL-CIO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL-CIO), a labor federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_trade_union_center) of 53 national unions representing 9 million public and private sector workers; the Change to Win Federation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_to_Win_Federation), which broke away from the AFL-CIO in 2005 and currently includes seven national unions representing approximately 6 million public and private sector workers; and the National Education Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association), a 3.2 million member independent union unaffiliated with either the AFL-CIO or Change to Win, which primarily represents teachers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher) and other education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education) workers (...) Prominent politicians associated with the labor wing include Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio) Senator Sherrod Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrod_Brown) (also a member of the Progressive Caucus) and Byron Dorgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Dorgan), the populist senator from North Dakota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota), as well as former Presidential candidate John Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards). Most of the members in this faction identify with the progressive faction of the party.

The mentioned Progressive Faction of the Democratic Party "is the single largest Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives" according to wikipedia.

On the point of the Labour Party, I find it rather hilarious yet not surprising at all that the SWP, the so-called champion of the immigrants in the UK, are calling for a vote for such an anti-immigrant party who carries out policies which the BNP can't even dream of doing.

Oh, but it's the dialectics, right?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 02:42

And yet, the unions in the USA do not have a block vote to control Demcocratic Party policy, nor did they set the Democratic Party up.

On the point of the Labour Party, I find it rather hilarious yet not surprising at all that the SWP, the so-called champion of the immigrants in the UK, are calling for a vote for such an anti-immigrant party who carries out policies which the BNP can't even dream of doing.

The LP support many anti-workers policies, but it is easier to expose their 'crimes' when in office. How many more times does this point have to be made?

Oh, but it's the dialectics, right?

What is?

Vanguard1917

14th February 2010, 03:08

Why the suprise? After all, we're talking about a party whose leaders effectively see the establishment as a progressive force, calling upon it time and again to suppress, shut down and even imprison their political opponents, whether scapegoated former Prime Ministers or members of the BNP. If nothing else, supporting New Labour is being fairly consistent here.

JimFar

14th February 2010, 03:37

Well in the US, the Democratic Party has long enjoyed the support of the Communist Party, USA. In fact over the past year, there have been no more avid supporters of Obama than these Marxist-Leninists. In fact a couple of months ago, the Party's newspaper, People's World ran an article which strongly endorsed the US Senate's health care reform bill (which is now dead in the water).

http://www.peoplesworld.org/senate-health-care-vote-lays-the-groundwork/

Nor is this sort of thing confined to the CPUSA, much of the left and radical left in the US, is supportive of Obama and the Democratic Party. The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) despite its great ideological differences with the CPUSA, nevertheless, takes a similar stance in regards to the Democrats. Now has all this years of support from the left helped push the Democrats to the left? Well, I think an examination of the political history of the past thirty years would lead one to answer no it hasn't. Why? I think that precisely because in the US most leftists and progressives support the Democrats, the party leadership reasons that these people have no other place to go and since progressives seem to have no other place to go, Party leaders take this as giving them a free pass to move rightwards - which obviously pleases the Party's big corporate donors to no end. The fact is that the past three Democratic presidents: Carter, Clinton, and now Obama, in office spent much of their time pissing on the interests of traditional Democratic voting blocs such as organized labor, African-Americans, the womens's movement etc. It was under Carter that the whole movement for deregulating the economy began. The Carter Administration deregulated the trucking industry and the airlines, with the consequence that the labor unions in those industries were severely injured. The Clinton Administration successfully pushed through Congress NAFTA and GATT against the objections of organized labor, and Clinton signed into law the Republican sponsored bill that abolished AFDC, which ended welfare for millions of people. And with Obama, his Administration rushes to bail out the big banks while leaving millions of workers hanging out to dry.

Is the situation different in the UK with the Labour Party? Well, certainly the Labour Party has quite a different history than the Democrats in the US. As Rosa correctly points out, the Labour Party was in its origins a creation of the British trade unions and the unions have a special role in the leadership of the party. Over eighty years ago, Lenin once characterized the Labour Party as a 'bourgeois workers party,' which sort of gave that party a kind of endorsement, in the sense that good communists were supposed to support the party while working within it to bring it over to the side of revolutionary socialism, But despite all these differences in the histories of the Labour Party versus the US Democrats, the two parties have seemed to arrive at similar destinations. In terms of policy, one would be hard put to find any significant differences between them anymore. True, that Labour politicians still from time to time talk about socialism, where no Democratic politician (with a couple of exceptions) would ever use the word except as a cuss term, but those are mere differences in rhetoric, rooted in the differing histories of the parties, with little real world relevance. Now a days, the Labour Party is just as much a bourgeois party as the Democrats in the USA, or for that matter, the Tories in the UK. I am not sure why we should expect that the SWP in the UK should be able to get better results out of its support for Labour than the CPUSA or the DSA get from their support for the Democrats in the US.

Kassad

14th February 2010, 04:16

I guess I'm just not understanding why this is surprising. Ostensibly socialist organizations endorse bourgeois candidates and parties all the time. The International Marxist Tendency has ties with the Labour Party as well. A lot of socialists in the United States endorsed Nader in 2000, 2004 and 2008. It just goes to show what parties are committed to reform and which are really working to build a party for revolution.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 04:21

VG1917:

Why the suprise? After all, we're talking about a party whose leaders effectively see the establishment as a progressive force, calling upon it time and again to suppress, shut down and even imprison their political opponents, whether scapegoated former Prime Ministers or members of the BNP. If nothing else, supporting New Labour is being fairly consistent here.

1) Where precisely have the SWP said or argued this?

a party whose leaders effectively see the establishment as a progressive force

2) Or this?

calling upon it time and again to suppress, shut down and even imprison their political opponents, whether scapegoated former Prime Ministers or members of the BNP

3) And where do they do this:

supporting New Labour

As our very own spokesperson for Big Capital, you have some cheek...

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 04:24

Jim:

Over eighty years ago, Lenin once characterized the Labour Party as a 'bourgeois workers party,' which sort of gave that party a kind of endorsement, in the sense that good communists were supposed to support the party while working within it to bring it over to the side of revolutionary socialism, But despite all these differences in the histories of the Labour Party versus the US Democrats, the two parties have seemed to arrive at similar destinations. In terms of policy, one would be hard put to find any significant differences between them anymore. True, that Labour politicians still from time to time talk about socialism, where no Democratic politician (with a couple of exceptions) would ever use the word except as a cuss term, but those are mere differences in rhetoric, rooted in the differing histories of the parties, with little real world relevance. Now a days, the Labour Party is just as much a bourgeois party as the Democrats in the USA, or for that matter, the Tories in the UK. I am not sure why we should expect that the SWP in the UK should be able to get better results out of its support for Labour than the CPUSA or the DSA get from their support for the Democrats in the US.

As you no doubt willappreciate, the crucial point here is not what policies these two parties do or do not endorse, or what the outcomes have or haven't been, but the organic connection with the working class. In the UK, the LP still enjoys this connection, whatever its history and results have been -- this is not so in the US with the DP.

Moreover, the SWP does not expect to get anything from the LP; that is the whole point of exposing them in office.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 04:26

Kassad:

I guess I'm just not understanding why this is surprising. Ostensibly socialist organizations endorse bourgeois candidates and parties all the time. The International Marxist Tendency has ties with the Labour Party as well. A lot of socialists in the United States endorsed Nader in 2000, 2004 and 2008. It just goes to show what parties are committed to reform and which are really working to build a party for revolution.

And which parties, while they mouth revolutionary slogans, end up creating states that revert to capitalism...

Revy

14th February 2010, 05:31

Rosa, socialists have a responsibility to put Labour in power in order to "expose" them? That's the same bile you spewed in 1997, isn't it? I'm sure that worked.:rolleyes:

Hasn't Labour exposed itself enough?

Who cares about the "special" nature of the Labour Party. Yeah, it's got some affiliated unions. Yawn. It's still a party of the ruling class.

Reformism is all I'm getting from you and the SWP. Not revolution. I believe you belittled that idea earlier in the thread.

The SWP doesn't have a plan or a strategy to bring any kind of meaningful change. It is stuck in the dogmatic swamp of its ideas. It is relying on faith in a future that cannot come to pass without the conscious action of the working class - instead, the SWP pins its hopes on the Labour Party as the means to that end.

Jolly Red Giant

14th February 2010, 10:44

It's not often that you come across sectarian nonsense as bad as this -

Let's face it, your party has done besst when the struggle got out of hand and you couldn't control it. In fact history points directly to the opposite of what you're saying; when unions opposed the poll tax they got little support.

When you started the anti-poll tax fed, you got loads of support and then you tried to sell them out but you failed, because the struggle got out of your control.

And it comes from someone who then admits -

You're probably older than me,

So we have a sectarian swipe from an individual that probably wasn't even born at the time of the poll-tax (never mind having any idea about what actually happened) and is believing all the crap that ultra-lefts came out with at the time about the anti-poll-tax campaign while they were standing on the side-lines in glorious isolation screaming that the CWI was selling out.

And before you ask, I am old enough to have been there and done that.

Nope, this is completely wrong, in fact it might make them more nationalist (a la CPB following bureaucracy).
And while I am not going to bother my a*se checking - I suspect this statement is from someone who regarded the Lindsey strike as xenophobic.

Why do you think this is a good idea, why do you not push for workers to organise themselves, or do you think that everytthing has to be officially approved first?
Who said that the CWI wants everything 'officially approved first'? - there is one hell of a bloody difference between working within trade union structures and supporting the bureaucracy. Organised workers take the path of least resistance when moving into struggle - and the path of least resistance is to fill-out and re-take control of their existing organisation rather than attempting to build new ones from scratch. This is not to say that workers will not organise outside union structures - but it is a significantly more difficult task to do so.

Your position is, again, typical ultra-left nonsense - workers should abandon their unions and build revolutionary unions from scratch - and when it doesn't happen it is a very short step for an ultra-left to then start condemning workers for failing to build new organisations.

Good luck with that; tell me when you are ready to take the ruling-class on...
The working class will be ready to take the ruling class on when it has developed the class consciousness necessary to understand the need for a revolutionary change in society.

If either yourself or your Marxist Humanist tutor had any real understanding of dialectics (academics don’t and are incapable of it) then you wouldn't be making daft statements like you just did. Taking as your starting point the political direction or understanding of dialectics from John Rees or the SWP (who actually adopted a social democtrat position on the Poll Tax) is hardly a good idea either.

Moreover, the SWP does not expect to get anything from the LP; that is the whole point of exposing them in office.
Excuse me which I have a good giggle.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

JimFar

14th February 2010, 11:20

Jim:

As you no doubt willappreciate, the crucial point here is not what policies these two parties do or do not endorse, or what the outcomes have or haven't been, but the organic connection with the working class. In the UK, the LP still enjoys this connection, whatever its history and results have been -- this is not so in the US with the DP.

Moreover, the SWP does not expect to get anything from the LP; that is the whole point of exposing them in office.

However, if you have followed any of the discussions concerning the Democrats that have occurred on Marxmail, you would know that CPUSA supporters assert the very same thing concerning the alleged "organic connection" between the American working class and the Democrats. We are told that the CP must continue to support the Democrats because that's where the workers are right now and that one cannot expect to reach them without supporting "their party" and the like. And it's certainly that in the US the bulk of organized labor remains strongly supportive of the Democratic Party despite its many betrayals of labor interests. (And if we had some cleverer CP apologists on Marxmail, they might also tender the argument that they are supporting the Democrats with the aim of exposing their "crimes" once in office, although one would never know that from reading People's World).

Your last statement mystifies me. How does the SWP supporting the Labour Party enable the exposing of them in office? Perhaps, you can do us the favor of spelling out the political logic of that. At any rate, this seems counter intuitive to me, since I think it more likely that the sight of radical left groups like the SWP supporting Labour would be more likely to perpetuate the illusions that British workers may still have concerning that party.

Hit The North

14th February 2010, 12:07

Although the "organic connection" between the TUC and the Labour party still formally exists and, indeed, the unions provide Labour with much of its funding, I cannot remember the last time the bloc vote was used to determine Labour Party policy. But we can be sure that the last time it did wield this power it was to support the leadership of the Party, not the interests of the working class.

Exposing the Labour Party makes sense when there are mass illusions in their reformist credentials. But that time has past. Only the most stubborn or naive members of the working class have any illusions these days.

The real task is helping to build up the independent confidence of class conscious workers and enabling workers to resist the attacks which are coming in the public sector. I can't see how calling for the re-election of Gordon Brown will contribute to this at all.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 12:34

HC:

Rosa, socialists have a responsibility to put Labour in power in order to "expose" them? That's the same bile you spewed in 1997, isn't it? I'm sure that worked.

Where exactly did I "spew" this back in 1997?

Hasn't Labour exposed itself enough?

Not while it is able to command millions of votes from workers.

Of course, we'd all prefer that you went and visited every single one and convinced them of the error of their ways, but you are far too busy with more important work here making stuff up about what I was or wasn't 'spewing' back in 1997.

Who cares about the "special" nature of the Labour Party. Yeah, it's got some affiliated unions. Yawn. It's still a party of the ruling class.

Apologies for my previous comment above: you are in fact far too busy yawning to be of much use to anyone. I'm sorry I took you seriously...

Reformism is all I'm getting from you and the SWP. Not revolution. I believe you belittled that idea earlier in the thread.

Who, from the SWP, has argued for reformism?

Perhaps, given your shortage of sleep, you are beginning to hallucinate?

The SWP doesn't have a plan or a strategy to bring any kind of meaningful change. It is stuck in the dogmatic swamp of its ideas. It is relying on faith in a future that cannot come to pass without the conscious action of the working class - instead, the SWP pins its hopes on the Labour Party as the means to that end.

Well, you wouldn't know, anyway. You are having trouble staying awake.

But, don't let me keep you up -- say goodnight to mumsy, and off to beddy-bies with you...

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 12:40

Jim:

However, if you have followed any of the discussions concerning the Democrats that have occurred on Marxmail, you would know that CPUSA supporters assert the very same thing concerning the alleged "organic connection" between the American working class and the Democrats. We are told that the CP must continue to support the Democrats because that's where the workers are right now and that one cannot expect to reach them without supporting "their party" and the like. And it's certainly that in the US the bulk of organized labor remains strongly supportive of the Democratic Party despite its many betrayals of labor interests. (And if we had some cleverer CP apologists on Marxmail, they might also tender the argument that they are supporting the Democrats with the aim of exposing their "crimes" once in office, although one would never know that from reading People's World).

Surely, Jim, you can't hold me responsible for everything the CPUSA says, nor expect me to accept what they argue, even if I were interedsted in it, which I am not.

Your last statement mystifies me. How does the SWP supporting the Labour Party enable the exposing of them in office? Perhaps, you can do us the favor of spelling out the political logic of that. At any rate, this seems counter intuitive to me, since I think it more likely that the sight of radical left groups like the SWP supporting Labour would be more likely to perpetuate the illusions that British workers may still have concerning that party.

The SWP does not support the LP (except in Lenin's sense: as a rope supports a hanging man), so there is nothing there for me to explain.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 12:45

BTB:

Although the "organic connection" between the TUC and the Labour party still formally exists and, indeed, the unions provide Labour with much of its funding, I cannot remember the last time the bloc vote was used to determine Labour Party policy. But we can be sure that the last time it did wield this power it was to support the leadership of the Party, not the interests of the working class.

I can't either, but that does not affect the point that it can be used. There is no such thing in the DP in the USA.

Exposing the Labour Party makes sense when there are mass illusions in their reformist credentials. But that time has past. Only the most stubborn or naive members of the working class have any illusions these days.

Those illusions do still exist, even if they are less pronounced and widespread than they were 30 or 40 years ago -- or how do you account for the fact that the LP can still command close on 10 million votes -- mostly from workers?

The real task is helping to build up the independent confidence of class conscious workers and enabling workers to resist the attacks which are coming in the public sector. I can't see how calling for the re-election of Gordon Brown will contribute to this at all.

I agree, but what are the chances of that happening before the 2010 elections?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 12:53

Jolly Red Giant:

The working class will be ready to take the ruling class on[ly] when it has developed the class consciousness necessary to understand the need for a revolutionary change in society.

And grass is green too. What are you, the chairman of the "State The Bleeding Obvious Society"?

If either yourself or your Marxist Humanist tutor had any real understanding of dialectics (academics don’t and are incapable of it) then you wouldn't be making daft statements like you just did. Taking as your starting point the political direction or understanding of dialectics from John Rees or the SWP (who actually adopted a social democtrat position on the Poll Tax) is hardly a good idea either.

Funny you should say that, since I have demolished John's version of that mystical theory (and that of Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Novack, Ollman,...) at my site -- link in my signature.

And what do you know of my tutor? [Answer: nothing at all, but that does not stop you pontificating about him.]

Your best 'argument' so far:

Excuse me which I have a good giggle.

Well, that shuts me up and no mistake...:lol:

Vanguard1917

14th February 2010, 14:45

Exposing the Labour Party makes sense when there are mass illusions in their reformist credentials. But that time has past.

The key point here, i think.

Zanthorus

14th February 2010, 15:00

For what?

Building class consciousness and developing the revolutionary leftist alternative.

I agree, but what are the chances of that happening before the 2010 elections?

Why are we worrying about the general elections? This just shows the hollowness of bourgeois parliamentarianism. If we can develop a solid class conscious workers movement then who really cares about elections? Our goal should be, to paraphrase the IWW preamble, to form the structure of the new society within the shell of the old. Relying on existing parliamentary institutions to get to power is ridiculous.

Hit The North

14th February 2010, 15:32

BTB:
I agree, but what are the chances of that happening before the 2010 elections?

The chances are slightly higher than nil, I suppose. At the same time, our agenda should not be determined by the calender of bourgeois elections. Why, as an independent organisation of socialists, should we be asking workers to vote for a Labour Party who are offering an austerity package, albeit one a micro-degree less harsh than the one promised by the Tories?

Those illusions do still exist, even if they are less pronounced and widespread than they were 30 or 40 years ago -- or how do you account for the fact that the LP can still command close on 10 million votes -- mostly from workers?

Perhaps this is the case, but given the small influence the SWP has within the working class, the message should be tailored not toward the 10 million or so who hold these illusions (and will vote Labour without the benefit of the SWP's endorsement), but the thousands who comprise our periphery and who, by dint of being that periphery, are themselves cynical about the role of the Labour Party. No one who regularly reads Socialist Worker will be in the slightest doubt that Brown's Labour Party offer the working class nothing but pain and demoralisation.

The SWP's message should be unambiguous: Labour offer nothing and our only chance is to rely on our own combativeness.

It seems to me that the call to vote Labour without illusion is rooted in a call to tradition which is at odds with the reality of the current situation.

It pains me that the current leadership of the SWP demonstrates such little imagination.

Die Neue Zeit

14th February 2010, 15:39

Are you contemplating joining SPEW? :huh:

Revy

14th February 2010, 15:42

Excellent trolling, Rosa.

I wasn't referring to you when I referred to 1997. Why would I? I was talking about the SWP.

Now if you and the rest of your ideological cohorts can stop thinking of yourselves as the puppet-masters of everything, and see that there is a way of thinking about things beyond hegemony and manipulation, you'll see that what's right for the working class is right in the present time. It is not right to call for a vote for Labour just so you can hope to "expose" them. If you are relying on the confidence that workers have in Labour, you are only reinforcing that confidence.

The Idler

14th February 2010, 16:53

If the last couple of decades hasn't exposed Labour, then they'll hardly be exposed by voting for them again in 2010.

14th February 2010, 17:08

And it comes from someone who then admits -

So we have a sectarian swipe from an individual that probably wasn't even born at the time of the poll-tax (never mind having any idea about what actually happened) and is believing all the crap that ultra-lefts came out with at the time about the anti-poll-tax campaign while they were standing on the side-lines in glorious isolation screaming that the CWI was selling out.

*wasn't "even" born during the poll tax.

So I guess because you weren't born at the time of the Russian revolution, you don't knw what you're talking about right.

And before you ask, I am old enough to have been there and done that.

Because you're a jolly red vanguard of the proletariat obviously and no one else knows what they're talking about.

And while I am not going to bother my a*se checking - I suspect this statement is from someone who regarded the Lindsey strike as xenophobic.

Yep, then I changed my opinion when I realised what was actually going on. A lot of people (although not everyone) in your party have a tendency to support whatever is going on uncritically, one example might be the whole thing with screws/caton and the error in calling them workers.

Who said that the CWI wants everything 'officially approved first'? - there is one hell of a bloody difference between working within trade union structures and supporting the bureaucracy. Organised workers take the path of least resistance when moving into struggle - and the path of least resistance is to fill-out and re-take control of their existing organisation rather than attempting to build new ones from scratch. This is not to say that workers will not organise outside union structures - but it is a significantly more difficult task to do so.

Good luck with that, let us know when you move away from reformism. Also, do you have any examples of this actually being effective?

Your position is, again, typical ultra-left nonsense - workers should abandon their unions and build revolutionary unions from scratch - and when it doesn't happen it is a very short step for an ultra-left to then start condemning workers for failing to build new organisations.

Unions aren't really a necessity at all if workers are forming their own councils and committees, that's not to say I don't support things like the IWW and possibly the WIIU or indeed the CNT in its very early days.

The working class will be ready to take the ruling class on when it has developed the class consciousness necessary to understand the need for a revolutionary change in society.

No, the question is: when and under what circumstances will workers re-gain confidence to take on their own bureaucrats, union and LP?

What is this about "workers aren't ready yet", it makes no sense, it's basically saying that workers need to be sellouts until they are no longer sellouts, it's a non-functional "defenceist" wrong conclusion.

'Support' only in the sense that a rope supports a hanging man.

Lenin was probably wrong about the LP even then, imagine how wrong it is to apply his idea now?

Hit The North

14th February 2010, 17:22

Are you contemplating joining SPEW? :huh:

No.

Crux

14th February 2010, 17:52

Mayakovsky:

Good luck with that; tell me when you are ready to take the ruling-class on...
Tempting as it may be I don't intend to single-handedly take on the ruling-class myself. I suppose you have heard of the working class.

Jolly Red Giant

14th February 2010, 19:42

Jolly Red Giant:
And grass is green too. What are you, the chairman of the "State The Bleeding Obvious Society"?
To start with - grass is not green - and if you are unaware of that then you need to have the bloody obvious stated to you.

Funny you should say that, since I have demolished John's version of that mystical theory (and that of Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Novack, Ollman,...) at my site -- link in my signature.
And that was precisely the point I was making - you 'demolished' Rees version - a bit like the wolf puffing down the straw house - why didn't you go after the brick house? - or would having to tackle Engles been a bit on the hard side for you?

And what do you know of my tutor? [Answer: nothing at all, but that does not stop you pontificating about him.]
I know that he is/was an academic who had no understanding of dialectic materialism and if you really wanted to understand Marxism you should have turned around and walked away, rather than let him influence you.

Well, that shuts me up and no mistake...:lol:
I doubt it - people who think they understand Marxism better than Marx and Engels like to shout from the roof tops how smart they are.

So I guess because you weren't born at the time of the Russian revolution, you don't knw what you're talking about right.
But we weren't talking about the Russian Revolution were we. Most of the sects think they understand the process behind the Russian Revolution and then pontificate from the sidelines when other organisations actually apply the Marxist method to the class struggle.

Because you're a jolly red vanguard of the proletariat obviously and no one else knows what they're talking about.
Personally I would be so arrogant to claim any such thing - but over the past 30 odd years I have been involved in many struggles - some successful, some not so successful - and in all cases I have seen so-called revolutionaries criticisng from the sidelines while never getting their feet wet, basically because they had no idea how to stick their toe in the water (and those that tried it tended to fall head first into the pool and spalsh around looking for someone to fish them out).

Yep, then I changed my opinion when I realised what was actually going on. A lot of people (although not everyone) in your party have a tendency to support whatever is going on uncritically, one example might be the whole thing with screws/caton and the error in calling them workers.
The CWI never gives uncritical support to practially anything - and when it does it is only after in-depth analysis and with full engagement with the struggle.

As for the cops, the screws and the soldiers - of course they are all reactionaries. No mention of the need to win the rank-and-file of the state forces to the side of revolution. Nothing about the fact that many of these individuals are ordinary working class people who are forced into the state forces in order to avoid poverty and unemployment and nothing about the fact that, with assistance, they can develop a class consciousness. Instead we have the mantra - cops and screws are sh*t - one brush for all strokes (irrespective of the realities and the impact of such comments).

Good luck with that, let us know when you move away from reformism.
So it is reformist to call for the overthrow of the union bureaucracy and the democratisation of the unions - and revolutionary to abandon the organisations of the workers and try and paddle you own canoe?

Also, do you have any examples of this actually being effective?
One example that comes to mind from the recent past was how the rank-and-file members of the Irish brickies union BATU removed the rotten bureaucracy that had moribound the union for a couple fo decades. During a period of intense struggle within the building industry in Ireland they dumped the leadership and re-established democratic structures within the union. Unfortunately, with the deminishing of struggle newer bureaucratic elements were able to consolidate an element of control in the past couple of years - yet, despite this, the union is still one of the most left-wing unions in Ireland. I would suggest that many comrades in Britain would also talk about the shift to the left in the PCS, RMT, CWU and other unions in Britain as they undergo a process of democratisation as a result of engaging in struggle.

Unions aren't really a necessity at all if workers are forming their own councils and committees, that's not to say I don't support things like the IWW and possibly the WIIU or indeed the CNT in its very early days.
Unions may not be necessary - but they do exist and the process of turning them into fighting democratic workers organisations (if possible) is easier than trying to build new structures from scratch.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 19:46

Mayakovsky:

Tempting as it may be I don't intend to single-handedly take on the ruling-class myself. I suppose you have heard of the working class.

Well, I'm glad you seem to have heard of them; the way you were talking, one would have been forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 19:54

HC:

Excellent trolling, Rosa.

Praise indeed from the expert; thanks!:)

I wasn't referring to you when I referred to 1997. Why would I? I was talking about the SWP.

In fact, you said:

Rosa, socialists have a responsibility to put Labour in power in order to "expose" them? That's the same bile you spewed in 1997, isn't it? I'm sure that worked.

The "you" here clearly refers to "Rosa"; you did not mention the SWP. So, blame yourself, not me, for inferring what I did.

Now if you and the rest of your ideological cohorts can stop thinking of yourselves as the puppet-masters of everything,

Oh dear, we have been rumbled! We can pretend no longer that we control the planet, the solar system and the galaxy, beyond. Curse the day HC was born...!!!:(

and see that there is a way of thinking about things beyond hegemony and manipulation, you'll see that what's right for the working class is right in the present time. It is not right to call for a vote for Labour just so you can hope to "expose" them. If you are relying on the confidence that workers have in Labour, you are only reinforcing that confidence.

But, I thought we were no longer 'puppet-masters'? If we aren't, how can we 'reinforce' certain beliefs and attitudes in the working class?

Or, do you know more about the SWP than you are prepared to say?

So many questions; so few answers...

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 20:00

BTB:

The chances are slightly higher than nil, I suppose. At the same time, our agenda should not be determined by the calender of bourgeois elections. Why, as an independent organisation of socialists, should we be asking workers to vote for a Labour Party who are offering an austerity package, albeit one a micro-degree less harsh than the one promised by the Tories?

I agree, but then the world seems to pay even less regard to us. But, whatever you say, the elections will go ahead anyway, and we have to intervene. Do we advise abstention?

[By the way, have you read Simon's argument SW? He explains why.]

Perhaps this is the case, but given the small influence the SWP has within the working class, the message should be tailored not toward the 10 million or so who hold these illusions (and will vote Labour without the benefit of the SWP's endorsement), but the thousands who comprise our periphery and who, by dint of being that periphery, are themselves cynical about the role of the Labour Party. No one who regularly reads Socialist Worker will be in the slightest doubt that Brown's Labour Party offer the working class nothing but pain and demoralisation.

You argue as if you think I am counterposing these tactics; I am not.

The SWP's message should be unambiguous: Labour offer nothing and our only chance is to rely on our own combativeness.

Sounds great, but then we could have argued this back in 1997, and we didn't.

It seems to me that the call to vote Labour without illusion is rooted in a call to tradition which is at odds with the reality of the current situation.

It pains me that the current leadership of the SWP demonstrates such little imagination.

Sounds to me as if you do not understand dialectics.:)

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 20:01

Idler:

If the last couple of decades hasn't exposed Labour, then they'll hardly be exposed by voting for them again in 2010

This has already been covered in my earlier posts.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 20:03

IS:

What is this about "workers aren't ready yet", it makes no sense, it's basically saying that workers need to be sellouts until they are no longer sellouts, it's a non-functional "defenceist" wrong conclusion.

Fine; in that case, let's go for broke, and call for an insurrection.

Let's see how 'ready' workers are for that...

Lenin was probably wrong about the LP even then, imagine how wrong it is to apply his idea now?

He could have been, but I happen to agree with him.

14th February 2010, 20:11

But we weren't talking about the Russian Revolution were we. Most of the sects think they understand the process behind the Russian Revolution and then pontificate from the sidelines when other organisations actually apply the Marxist method to the class struggle.

No, we were talking about how your organisation betrayed the shit out of a mass movement that attracted loads of different elements of people over here and was very successful. You can tell me I'm 'pontificating' all y ou want, but it doesn't change what your SPEW did does it, it doesn't change the fact they wanted people to submit to the capitalist system and fight for reforms, but not actually change anything meaningful.

Personally I would be so arrogant to claim any such thing

Ha, why does this not surprise me.

The CWI never gives uncritical support to practially anything - and when it does it is only after in-depth analysis and with full engagement with the struggle.

SPEW's actions say different.

As for the cops, the screws and the soldiers - of course they are all reactionaries. No mention of the need to win the rank-and-file of the state forces to the side of revolution. Nothing about the fact that many of these individuals are ordinary working class people who are forced into the state forces in order to avoid poverty and unemployment and nothing about the fact that, with assistance, they can develop a class consciousness. Instead we have the mantra - cops and screws are sh*t - one brush for all strokes (irrespective of the realities and the impact of such comments).

Right, so basically I'm turning off millions of cops and screws by saying "they are reactionaries and you are supporting reactionaries"?

So it is reformist to call for the overthrow of the union bureaucracy and the democratisation of the unions - and revolutionary to abandon the organisations of the workers and try and paddle you own canoe?

The union question is more complex than that, you can't take over the bureaucratic structures though, it's not going to happen.

example that comes to mind from the recent past was how the rank-and-file members of the Irish brickies union BATU removed the rotten bureaucracy that had moribound the union for a couple fo decades. During a period of intense struggle within the building industry in Ireland they dumped the leadership and re-established democratic structures within the union. Unfortunately, with the deminishing of struggle newer bureaucratic elements were able to consolidate an element of control in the past couple of years - yet, despite this, the union is still one of the most left-wing unions in Ireland.

I am not familiar with the situation, but you already point out that a new corrupt bureaucracy is in yet they are "one of the most left-wing". This is exactly what defenders of the TUC and AFL-CIO would say.

I would suggest that many comrades in Britain would also talk about the shift to the left in the PCS, RMT, CWU and other unions in Britain as they undergo a process of democratisation as a result of engaging in struggle.

You're hilarious, I've engaged with mail workers directly (including quite a few in my own organisation) and been forwarded copies of the deals struck, don't tell me what's going on with the CWU because I highly doubt you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. The RMT is only any good because workers form committees (independent of the union in many cases) that fight for their demands, because the workers are militant - but even then, do NOT tell me that they succeed all the time, the case of a certain sacked security guard from essex comes to mind, what a failure on the part of the union bureaucracy there. An example of how "taking over and using their bureaucracy" vs workers' self-organisation compares. Finally, the PCS union is very much corrupt, this shouldn't even be up for debate, dunno what made you think you could use it as a point, what a joke.

Unions may not be necessary - but they do exist and the process of turning them into fighting democratic workers organisations (if possible) is easier than trying to build new structures from scratch.

"if possible" - but it's not. Building new structures from scratch (ie a new vanguard workers' party which you call for no?) is sometimes necessary and.. right now, it is necessary. It is also necessary to make new workers' organisations that are both permanent and temporary, such as strike committees and the like, this should go without saying.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 20:13

Jolly Red Giant:

To start with - grass is not green - and if you are unaware of that then you need to have the bloody obvious stated to you.

The grass where I live is -- where do you live? Cloud Cuckoo-land?

And that was precisely the point I was making - you 'demolished' Rees version - a bit like the wolf puffing down the straw house - why didn't you go after the brick house? - or would having to tackle Engles [sic] been a bit on the hard side for you?

You seem not to have noticed this part of my earlier comment:

Funny you should say that, since I have demolished John's version of that mystical theory (and that of Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Novack, Ollman,...) at my site -- link in my signature.

If anything, Engels was easier to demolish than Rees.:)

I know that he is/was an academic who had no understanding of dialectic materialism and if you really wanted to understand Marxism you should have turned around and walked away, rather than let him influence you.

In other words you know nothing about him, and are simply making stuff up.

I doubt it - people who think they understand Marxism better than Marx and Engels like to shout from the roof tops how smart they are.

You seem to be good at this shouting lark. Or at least, at making a lot of noise.

Why do the words "empty" and "tin cans" come to mind?

14th February 2010, 20:29

Fine; in that case, let's go for broke, and call for an insurrection.

Let's see how 'ready' workers are for that...

He could have been, but I happen to agree with him.

Why? Simply because labour was "formed from the trade unions"? Don't you think a party can change completely.

Take the ILP for example - formed by Connolly himself, what do you think it is now? Capable of being "taken over"? Capable of anything now other than running capitalism?

Jolly Red Giant

14th February 2010, 21:30

No, we were talking about how your organisation betrayed the shit out of a mass movement that attracted loads of different elements of people over here and was very successful. You can tell me I'm 'pontificating' all y ou want, but it doesn't change what your SPEW did does it, it doesn't change the fact they wanted people to submit to the capitalist system and fight for reforms, but not actually change anything meaningful.
Do you have any understanding at all of the nature of the anti-poll-tax movement, its prospects and potential? It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that the CWI wanted people to submit to the capitalist system. What you are advocating was like standing at somewhere like John O'Groats while a million people were marching through London and screaming 'Come on - this is where you should be - we will lead you to revolution' and then criticise everyone for being reformist because the masses didn't flock to your banner.

SPEW's actions say different.
Maybe you can dig up an example or two?

Right, so basically I'm turning off millions of cops and screws by saying "they are reactionaries and you are supporting reactionaries"?
What you are doing is dismissing a section of society that is armed to the teeth and saying to the bourgeoisie 'here you go - take all the state forces - and all the firepower at their disposal - we are not going to make any effort to win them away from you - so you can propagandise among them as much as you want and then turn them loose on the workers revolution'

Do you not have the slighest comprehension of the bloodbath that would have occurred in Russia in October/November 1917 as the revolution was smashed into oblivion, if the Bolsheviks had adopted the same attitude?

Instead the Bolsheviks propagandised among the soldiers and sailors, won them to the side of revolution and ensured that the state could not use them as a battering ram to defeat the revolution.

The union question is more complex than that, you can't take over the bureaucratic structures though, it's not going to happen.
No one said anything about taking over the bureaucratic structures. There is one hell of a difference between 'taking over' the bureaucratic structures and 'democratising' the unions - if you are incapable of understanding this then there is little hope for you.

I am not familiar with the situation, but you already point out that a new corrupt bureaucracy is in yet they are "one of the most left-wing". This is exactly what defenders of the TUC and AFL-CIO would say.
Unions do not exist in a vacuum - the nature of the trades unions is dictated by the nature of the class struggle. At any point within the class struggle the leadership of the unions will always be to the right of the class - except in an actual pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situation. As the class struggle advances so does the nature of the unions change - as the workers learn from experience they alter their outlook to the nature and composition of their leadership and their organisations.

You're hilarious, I've engaged with mail workers directly (including quite a few in my own organisation) and been forwarded copies of the deals struck, don't tell me what's going on with the CWU because I highly doubt you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
I am quite sure you have been handing out leaflets that scream 'sell-out' - this is not a surprise and reflects the inability of the sects to remotely understand the class consciousness of the workers involved. The CWI, where it can, will assist in leading any movement and where it is not in a position to do so will offer advice and assistance to workers engaged in struggle - while at all times pointing out the inability of capitalism to provide for the needs of the working class. You on the other hand will stand up at John O'Groats screaming 'sell-out' telling workers that revolution is needed and that they must join you so that you can lead it. In the meantime the workers will have a little giggle at you, concretely judge their ability to influence a situation, act where they feel they can and then go off to the pub to discuss the next days work.

The RMT is only any good because workers form committees (independent of the union in many cases) that fight for their demands, because the workers are militant - but even then, do NOT tell me that they succeed all the time, the case of a certain sacked security guard from essex comes to mind, what a failure on the part of the union bureaucracy there.
There is a difference between the bureacuracy in the union and the outlook and activity of the rank-and-file. The class character of a trade union is not determined by the bureaucratic leadership but by the class consciousness of the ranks. Are you suggesting that the RMT, for example, is the same type of animal as the T+G? The RMT is left-leaning because the ranks of the RMT have a better understanding of the class nature of society and the methods and strategy to combat it - not because Bob Crow is a 'left'. They have not even come close to drawing any kind of revolutionary conclusions, but they do understand the need to fight and the some of the strategies need to organise that fight.

An example of how "taking over and using their bureaucracy" vs workers' self-organisation compares.
There you go on again about 'taking over' the bureaucracy - if you want to debate these issues at least have the smarts to understand what the debate is about.

Finally, the PCS union is very much corrupt, this shouldn't even be up for debate, dunno what made you think you could use it as a point, what a joke.
Of course it is and the CWI members within the PCS are the most corrupt of all.

"if possible" - but it's not.
How do you know it's not possible - any self-respecting Marxist would never write off organisations founded by workers in struggle and defended by them for decades. Again we are talking about democratising the unions and as a result of that process creating fighting democratic unions (not revolutionary structures) but fighting organisations. I can understand that for someone with such a narrow-minded understanding of marxism where everything is either black or white - revolutionary or reactionary - that this is difficult to get your head around.

Building new structures from scratch (ie a new vanguard workers' party which you call for no?) is sometimes necessary and.. right now, it is necessary. It is also necessary to make new workers' organisations that are both permanent and temporary, such as strike committees and the like, this should go without saying.And again the type of structures and the nature of these organisations are determined by the nature and pace of the class struggle and the political consciousness of workers. Inevitably workers learn from their experiences and reform, change and develop either their existing organisations or create new ones as necessary. But remember this -we are not in a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situation - we are very much in the early stages of a developing class struggle and the consciousness workers has a significant journey to go before the ultra left ranting that you engage in is even concretely on the table for debate.

Jolly Red Giant

14th February 2010, 21:40

Jolly Red Giant:

The grass where I live is -- where do you live? Cloud Cuckoo-land?
I suggest that you go and find a physics lesson on the nature of light - it also might help you get a slightly better understanding of dialectics.

If anything, Engels was easier to demolish than Rees.:)
I am sure any run-of the-mill academic could do a similar job. Well done - I am impressed - I do wonder why your musings have failed to set either the academic world or world of left politics on fire.

In other words you know nothing about him, and are simply making stuff up.
I know that he is an academic (and a poor one by the sounds of it) and that academics are incapable of understanding marxism (its the nature of the beast - and you actually prove my point).

Why do the words "empty" and "tin cans" come to mind?
Stop talking about yourself like that - simply acknowledging that you haven't a clue what you are talking about will suffice.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 21:42

IS:

Why? Simply because labour was "formed from the trade unions"? Don't you think a party can change completely.

Indeed it can; and when it does, I will let you know.

Take the ILP for example - formed by Connolly himself, what do you think it is now? Capable of being "taken over"? Capable of anything now other than running capitalism?

What has this got to do with anything I have said?

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th February 2010, 21:50

Jolly Red Giant:

I suggest that you go and find a physics lesson on the nature of light - it also might help you get a slightly better understanding of dialectics.

I think it might be you who needs a lesson; you seem to think you are Red, and a Giant.

I am sure any run-of the-mill academic could do a similar job. Well done - I am impressed - I do wonder why your musings have failed to set either the academic world or world of left politics on fire.

Easy: the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

I know that he is an academic (and a poor one by the sounds of it) and that academics are incapable of understanding marxism (its the nature of the beast - and you actually prove my point).

Can we see the original data from the sociological survey I am sure you must have carried out of every academic on the planet that allowed you to arrive at this bold conclusion?

Stop talking about yourself like that - simply acknowledging that you haven't a clue what you are talking about will suffice.

I must confess, in my amateurish attempt to copy you, I am indeed descending into a state of not knowing what I am talking about. Give me a few more months of deterioration, and I might be able to emulate you perfectly. You unfairly had a head start on me.:(

14th February 2010, 22:45

Do you have any understanding at all of the nature of the anti-poll-tax movement, its prospects and potential? It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that the CWI wanted people to submit to the capitalist system.

What a load of shit, that's exactly what you wanted people to do and you failed, you then denounced the actions, go figure.

Tommy declared "we condemn it totally" and both he and
Nally came out with the statement that "our Federation is going
to be conducting an internal inquiry to try and root out the
troublemakers" (Sheridan, LWT News 1st April) "...which will go
public and if necessary name names" (Nally, ITN 1st April).

What you are advocating was like standing at somewhere like John O'Groats while a million people were marching through London and screaming 'Come on - this is where you should be - we will lead you to revolution' and then criticise everyone for being reformist because the masses didn't flock to your banner.

Juvenile stupidity won't defend your argument for you I'm afraid.

What you are doing is dismissing a section of society that is armed to the teeth and saying to the bourgeoisie 'here you go - take all the state forces - and all the firepower at their disposal - we are not going to make any effort to win them away from you - so you can propagandise among them as much as you want and then turn them loose on the workers revolution'

Nope, I simply put forward that there is a time and place to appeal to them, you have chosen a time when they are not part of any bigger struggle, Larkin and the Bolsheviks chose this wisely and it went well. Being an opportunistic hack will achieve nothing.

No one said anything about taking over the bureaucratic structures. There is one hell of a difference between 'taking over' the bureaucratic structures and 'democratising' the unions - if you are incapable of understanding this then there is little hope for you.

You want to do the same thing, you think unions can be democratic in the first place, which is a farce in almost every case.

Unions do not exist in a vacuum - the nature of the trades unions is dictated by the nature of the class struggle. At any point within the class struggle the leadership of the unions will always be to the right of the class - except in an actual pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situation. As the class struggle advances so does the nature of the unions change - as the workers learn from experience they alter their outlook to the nature and composition of their leadership and their organisations.

Bullshit, you'll be eating your words come any revolutionary situation. There are loads of reactionary unions here and they will definitely not be siding with the class.

I am quite sure you have been handing out leaflets that scream 'sell-out' - this is not a surprise and reflects the inability of the sects to remotely understand the class consciousness of the workers involved.

Nope wrong again, you might as well stop pretending to be making an argument more than some trolling and strawmen.

The CWI, where it can, will assist in leading any movement and where it is not in a position to do so will offer advice and assistance to workers engaged in struggle - while at all times pointing out the inability of capitalism to provide for the needs of the working class. You on the other hand will stand up at John O'Groats screaming 'sell-out' telling workers that revolution is needed and that they must join you so that you can lead it. In the meantime the workers will have a little giggle at you, concretely judge their ability to influence a situation, act where they feel they can and then go off to the pub to discuss the next days work.

Oh yeah, well it's just natural that anyone who disagrees with you lives on john o'groats and tells people revolution is needed 24/7 anyways. People on here think you're a joke, because you pretty much are a joke.

There is a difference between the bureacuracy in the union and the outlook and activity of the rank-and-file. The class character of a trade union is not determined by the bureaucratic leadership but by the class consciousness of the ranks. Are you suggesting that the RMT, for example, is the same type of animal as the T+G? The RMT is left-leaning because the ranks of the RMT have a better understanding of the class nature of society and the methods and strategy to combat it - not because Bob Crow is a 'left'. They have not even come close to drawing any kind of revolutionary conclusions, but they do understand the need to fight and the some of the strategies need to organise that fight.

You start off well then go very wrong. The class that the bureaucracy of trade unions such as the T&G and RMT in this country serve is the petit-bourgeois, they rule the union and will cater to demands made by managers. The fact that tube workers are so militant has nothing to do with the RMT, nothing at all to do with their union, it has to do with the fact that their fellow workers and them have a relatively high level of consciousness and confidence in their ability to push for their demands. The RMT merely acted as a meeting point for these workers, you should understand that when given pure reign, the bureaucracy of the RMT immediately sells out any struggle.

There you go on again about 'taking over' the bureaucracy - if you want to debate these issues at least have the smarts to understand what the debate is about.

But that is what you want to do, you even have union bureaucrats in your organisation, don't deny it, full time union organisers in the CWI. Go on, I dare you to deny this.

Of course it is and the CWI members within the PCS are the most corrupt of all.

I made my position on this quite clear before, you can search my posts to find it but you would rather resort to strawmans right?

How do you know it's not possible - any self-respecting Marxist would never write off organisations founded by workers in struggle and defended by them for decades.

Off you go again with the Trot "any real marxist would" .. "any true bolshevik wouldn't do this that's menshevik" or whatever such utter crap. The labour party was "founded by workers in struggle and defended by them for decades" too were they? Even your organisation's comrades disagree and are deriding the SWP for their decision to push for a labour vote.

Again we are talking about democratising the unions and as a result of that process creating fighting democratic unions (not revolutionary structures) but fighting organisations. I can understand that for someone with such a narrow-minded understanding of marxism where everything is either black or white - revolutionary or reactionary - that this is difficult to get your head around.

"fighting democratic unions" what a joke.

And again the type of structures and the nature of these organisations are determined by the nature and pace of the class struggle and the political consciousness of workers. Inevitably workers learn from their experiences and reform, change and develop either their existing organisations or create new ones as necessary. But remember this -we are not in a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situation - we are very much in the early stages of a developing class struggle and the consciousness workers has a significant journey to go before the ultra left ranting that you engage in is even concretely on the table for debate.

Recent struggles should tell you otherwise, if they don't then you should begin re-reading your treasured marxist literature.

cmdrdeathguts

15th February 2010, 00:22

at the risk getting this lovely thread back on track - three things.

1. The Labour party is still a bourgeois workers party. Rosa is, for once, absolutely right - it has nothing to do with 'policy' being socialist or otherwise, but to do with the organic connection it has to the unions and other parts of the workers movement. Comparisons with the democrats are spurious - a democratic presidential run costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and union contributions to the democratic war chest are a distant third to bourgeois sponsors and state funding. If the unions stopped giving Labour money, it would be unable to campaign - that simple. The truth is, the majority of union tops want Labour like that. They are Blairites and Brownites...and they're not even the worst of union tops either (cf. Ireland). If you have an intervention in the unions, you want to have an intervention into the politics of the Labour party, which remains to a large extent their 'political wing'.

2. As far as voting tactics goes, the key word is 'tactics'. The key word is not 'illusions' - the fact is, you can read triumphant IMG documents by Robin Blackburn and the like exalting the definitive dispelling of illusions in Labour after the election of Edward Heath. We have been predicting this for decades, and it hasn't happened because capitalism, left to itself, constantly generates these illusions. If we want to break illusions in Labour, we have to build a powerful alternative to Labourism - that is what the SWP does not do, nor do anyone else waiting for the scales to fall from the workers' eyes.

3. The task of communists in making voting recommendations is to make propaganda for that aim. A bourgeois workers party is a contradiction - it is fissile. Voting for Labour candidates on the 'right' side of key issues of principle for Marxists makes it clear we take these principles seriously, and so should everyone - it also makes it clear that Labour is not a suitable vehicle for these principles, or why not call for a blanket vote? There are other times when an unconditional vote may be useful to make a key point. The question is not what do we do? but what do we say? The SWP isn't saying much.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th February 2010, 04:31

cmdrdeathguts:

The SWP isn't saying much.

And on what do you base this slur?

Jolly Red Giant

15th February 2010, 16:03

Easy: the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

If you did such a good job at debunking one of the central ideas of marxism I can assure you the ruling class would be praising you from a height and publishing you writings on every conceiveable forum they could access.

What a load of shit, that's exactly what you wanted people to do and you failed, you then denounced the actions, go figure.
Let's deal specifically with the poll tax riot -

Prior to the march setting off from Kennington Park a mass meeting took place involving the vast majority of the crowd that took part in the march. That meeting almost unanimously adopted a proposal from the Anti-Poll-Tax Federation for a huge, but peaceful and democratic demonstration of support for mass non-payment. This was working class democracy in action. Yet what happened - a tiny handful of anarchists, egged on by members of various fringe groups chose to ignore the democratic will of the vast majority of those participating in the demo and tried to provoke a conflict with the police in Downing Street. These groups and individuals had done absolutely nothing to help organise for the demo, turned up with their own agenda (an agenda a million miles away from that of the mass of the population opposing the poll-tax) and proceeded to provide the state with the ideal excuse to unleashed the state forces on a peaceful demonstration.

It is an absolute disgrace that you bring up this falsehood that Steve Nally said he would name names to the cops - a falsehood that has been repeatedly used in the past by the ultra-lefts who attempt to tarnish the work and committment of the CWI members who worked in the anti-poll-tax campaign. This is what the CWI said about those individuals and groups who chose to ignore the democratic wishes of the vast majority (well over 99%) of the demonstrators and attempt to provoke confrontation with the police -
...It is impermissible to collaborate with the capitalist state, even against those whose methods and actions we implacably disagree with. Disrupters and disorganisers of Saturday’s demonstration should be dealt with by the forces of the labour movement and not by the capitalist state.

People on the ultra-left like yourself have absolutely no ability to analyse and differentiate the mood of the working class resulting in you finding yourself miles head of the movement screaming for revolution and condemning anyone who doesn't - or tailing the movement and being swayed by every vacillation in the mood of small groups which result in you doing summersaults in your tactics.

Nope, I simply put forward that there is a time and place to appeal to them, you have chosen a time when they are not part of any bigger struggle, Larkin and the Bolsheviks chose this wisely and it went well. Being an opportunistic hack will achieve nothing.
Let me ask you this question -
currently in Ireland, as a result of the cutbacks in public sector pay and pensions imposed by the government, the police federation have overwhelmingly balloted in favour of strike action in opposition to the government cuts. The government are now condemning the police federation and threating any police who engage in strike action (an illegal act for the cops) with legal action. Similarly the rank-and file federation of the army have balloted in favour of strike action and have declared that they will refuse any instruction by the government to engage in strike-breaking activity as a result of, say, public sector transport workers or firemen or prison officers or any sector of the public sector taking strike action.

What is your attitude to such developments - do you continue to shout 'shoot all pigs' or do you acknowledge that this is a positive development, a development that sees the state forces (for the moment at least) threaten industrial action against the state, lining up alongside the rest of the labour movement and in many ways leading the opposition to the public sector cuts imposed by the government?

You insight will be enlightening (I'm sure).

15th February 2010, 22:54

Indeed it can; and when it does, I will let you know.

Are you saying that the massive majority leadership of the LP now is anything other than social-corporatist? Are you also saying that the leaders of most unions in the UK do not follow their line to the letter?

What has this got to do with anything I have said?

It's incredibly relevant. You based your argument partially on the fact that "labour was formed by the unions", do you defend the ILP on a similar basis because it was formed by Connolly? I want to know.

Let's deal specifically with the poll tax riot -
Prior to the march setting off from Kennington Park a mass meeting took place involving the vast majority of the crowd that took part in the march. That meeting almost unanimously adopted a proposal from the Anti-Poll-Tax Federation for a huge, but peaceful and democratic demonstration of support for mass non-payment.

The Militant's poll tax series even points out that a lot of disadvantaged people who felt marginalised were there, furthermore, there were undoubtedly a lot of agent provocateurs too and also, your Militant's series points out that the police provoked action too which is all true, at the prior protests people were suppressed without having provoked police the tiniest bit, were they supposed to wait and let it happen regardless?

This was working class democracy in action. Yet what happened - a tiny handful of anarchists, egged on by members of various fringe groups chose to ignore the democratic will of the vast majority of those participating in the demo and tried to provoke a conflict with the police in Downing Street. These groups and individuals had done absolutely nothing to help organise for the demo, turned up with their own agenda (an agenda a million miles away from that of the mass of the population opposing the poll-tax) and proceeded to provide the state with the ideal excuse to unleashed the state forces on a peaceful demonstration.

Absolute shit, at least they didn't turn on what the demo evolved into, I'm afraid anyone can check out youtube to watch the MASS action that was going on and see you're talking utter bollocks.

It is an absolute disgrace that you bring up this falsehood that Steve Nally said he would name names to the cops - a falsehood that has been repeatedly used in the past by the ultra-lefts who attempt to tarnish the work and committment of the CWI members who worked in the anti-poll-tax campaign.

It's this simple: you're a liar. Tommy Sheridan and Steve Nally said, on national TV exactly what I quoted them saying. Don't you dare deny it.

This is what the CWI said about those individuals and groups who chose to ignore the democratic wishes of the vast majority (well over 99%) of the demonstrators and attempt to provoke confrontation with the police -
...It is impermissible to collaborate with the capitalist state, even against those whose methods and actions we implacably disagree with. Disrupters and disorganisers of Saturday’s demonstration should be dealt with by the forces of the labour movement and not by the capitalist state.

What else does the Militant's poll tax series say?

I appealed to a very senior police officer who was on the [Trafalgar Square] plinth at the time to get through to control and withdraw the horses and riot police. I even said that my stewards would go in and try to restore order. This would have been at great risk to ourselves. By this time, nutters up in the scaffolding were dropping objects down indiscriminately. (2)

Also note: "ultra-lefts" flung open the main gates of Kennington Park to unite people but I guess they shouldn't have done that because the stewards would have right?

People on the ultra-left like yourself have absolutely no ability to analyse and differentiate the mood of the working class resulting in you finding yourself miles head of the movement screaming for revolution and condemning anyone who doesn't - or tailing the movement and being swayed by every vacillation in the mood of small groups which result in you doing summersaults in your tactics.

Completely wrong, a lot of 'smaller' groups end up applauding "ultra-left" tactics and it runs straight over your head. Your organisation has been shown up as being an anti-worker pro-imperialist joke time and time again, while there are undoubtedly well-meaning people in it, as a whole it unfortunately capitulates to imperialism.

Let me ask you this question -
currently in Ireland, as a result of the cutbacks in public sector pay and pensions imposed by the government, the police federation have overwhelmingly balloted in favour of strike action in opposition to the government cuts. The government are now condemning the police federation and threating any police who engage in strike action (an illegal act for the cops) with legal action. Similarly the rank-and file federation of the army have balloted in favour of strike action and have declared that they will refuse any instruction by the government to engage in strike-breaking activity as a result of, say, public sector transport workers or firemen or prison officers or any sector of the public sector taking strike action.

If there was some kind of mass strike on and you did this, depending on how you worded it and depending on exactly how you supported it, you would provoke a different response from me, I pretty much doubt you'll find a way of supporting them without capitulating to imperialism though.

What is your attitude to such developments - do you continue to shout 'shoot all pigs' or do you acknowledge that this is a positive development, a development that sees the state forces (for the moment at least) threaten industrial action against the state, lining up alongside the rest of the labour movement and in many ways leading the opposition to the public sector cuts imposed by the government?

You insight will be enlightening (I'm sure).

So far you've allowed a head of the POA into your organisation, you've cooperated with the PUP and in the past, indirectly supported British soldiers in NI, this all this rings bad alarm bells I'm afraid but we will see, perhaps for once you will show you can support the working-class and despite what you may think, I hope so - although I don't have that much hope of course.

Klashnekov

16th February 2010, 01:15

And they call themselves Leninists

Fucking Imperialist Social-Democrats

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2010, 06:20

IS:

Are you saying that the massive majority leadership of the LP now is anything other than social-corporatist? Are you also saying that the leaders of most unions in the UK do not follow their line to the letter?

You can list whatever legitimate evils you care to mention about the LP (and the TU leadership) and I'll agree with you, but that does not affect the point at issue: workers need to have these exposed while the LP is in office. That has yet to be done.

It's incredibly relevant. You based your argument partially on the fact that "labour was formed by the unions", do you defend the ILP on a similar basis because it was formed by Connolly? I want to know

And if you raise other irrelevant issues, you can claim to 'want to know' about those too, and I will simply tell you they are off topic.

Go on, try me again...

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th February 2010, 06:23

Kalashnikov-spelt-wrong:

And they call themselves Leninists

Fucking Imperialist Social-Democrats

Full marks for abuse.:)

0/10 for argument.:(

Die Neue Zeit

16th February 2010, 13:39

Well, here's a Guardian article on the platform of Blairite James Purnell:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/16/james-purnell-labour-fourth-term

Some of the policies which, according to Purnell, might flow from an ideology of balancing the state, society and markets include: a guarantee of work for all those at risk of long-term unemployment, with the state as "employer of last resort" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-employer-last-t124658/index.html) and jobseekers required to take work or lose benefits; proved incentives for saving, including more progressive tax breaks; and ensuring that anyone who works can attain a "decent" lifestyle, through the minimum wage and living wage, and possibly by offering lower national insurance contributions for employers who guarantee a higher "wage floor".

Substance: 1 and a half only.

Jolly Red Giant

16th February 2010, 19:43

well Is - did you enjoy your little rant

Absolute shit, at least they didn't turn on what the demo evolved into,
I notice you avoided adressing the issue that the anarchists and ultra-lefts ignored the democratic wishes of the people on the demo. Maybe during the next rant you might refer to it. And if the members of the anti-poll-tax federation had a problem with Sheridan and Nally they wouldn't have re-elected both of them to the leadership.

It's this simple: you're a liar. Tommy Sheridan and Steve Nally said, on national TV exactly what I quoted them saying. Don't you dare deny it.
Damned right I will deny it - Steve Nally never said he would name names to the cops - an edited interview on the media was siezed on by every sectarian on the left who then turned up to every anti-poll-tax meeting across the country (where they had never done a tap of work) and proceeded to try and score political points against the Militant. Fortunately it had little or no impact on the ordinary working class people who attended.

The entire anti-poll-tax camapign showed up the complete ineptitude of the ultra-left ranging from dismissing it at the begining to then trying to turn in into a sectarian point scoring match - after they had provided the state with the excuses they wanted to tarnish the anti-poll-tax movement. Again, fortunately it didn't have the desired impact for the state or the ulra-left.

So far you've allowed a head of the POA into your organisation, you've cooperated with the PUP and in the past, indirectly supported British soldiers in NI,
Let's take the 3 points individually -
1. Brian Caton - this goes directly back to the points I made about shifts in consciousness within the membership of the state forces - something you comprehensively ignored in your reply. Of course the fact that he is head of the POA automatically entitles him to condemnation.
2. The CWI never co-operated with the PUP. The CWI were involved in a couple of meetings with the PUP when there were indications that they might be moving to the left - but co-operation has only ever happened in the head of individuals like yourself. Over the past 30 years I have been involved in meetings with people of every political hue (except fascists) - some have resulted in co-operation - most definitely have not - the contact between the CWI and the PUP falls into the second catagory.
3. The CWI was the first (and one of the very few) left groups to oppose the deployment of British troops to the North at the begining of the troubles. While many on the far left - who subsequently jumps on the 'Brits out' bandwagon - were rolling out the welcome mat, the CWI was outlining the inherent dangers to the working class of having troops in the North. The fact that the CWI did not subsequently adopt a left republican position - like every other group on the left (with the exception of a couple of two-nation stalinists) - does not mean that the CWI "indirectly supported British soldiers in NI" and I would challange you to produce evidence for this claim.

17th February 2010, 18:50

notice you avoided adressing the issue that the anarchists and ultra-lefts ignored the democratic wishes of the people on the demo. Maybe during the next rant you might refer to it. And if the members of the anti-poll-tax federation had a problem with Sheridan and Nally they wouldn't have re-elected both of them to the leadership.

You're parroting the SP article, which later on says:

The aftermath
In the aftermath of the demonstration, Militant was full of letters from those who overwhelmingly blamed the police. One account showed that in the Strand, two policemen, when they saw the police vehicles and mounted police being deployed, stated: "Oh, no. They’re sending the tanks in!" (8)

One vehicle reversed at 50 miles per hour down the road as people scattered and as a woman with a toddler in a pushchair came running into Charing Cross Station declaring that she had never been so frightened in her life.

In Trafalgar Square the organisers had appealed to the crowd to disperse. However, many people, particularly young people had gathered outside South Africa House. But instead of waiting for them to disperse, as they were beginning to, a police commander must have given the order for vans to be driven into the crowd. Dispossessed youth with nothing to lose, many of them homeless, weren’t prepared to take this.

The decision was then taken to send in the mounted police, many of whom had smiles on their faces as they charged the crowd. The crowd fought back and forced the horses into retreat. But then the police called up the reserves. The overwhelming conclusion was that the police deliberately provoked the confrontation, seizing on the actions of an irresponsible unrepresentative group who were just looking for trouble.

But who cares about that, when you can condemn the collective expression of anger from the working-class (which is exactly what the riots were all about, they were partly infiltrated by provocateurs but there can be no doubt that it was done on a mass scale by normal, working-class people not just there - but throughout London and much of the UK).

Damned right I will deny it - Steve Nally never said he would name names to the cops - an edited interview on the media was siezed on by every sectarian on the left who then turned up to every anti-poll-tax meeting across the country (where they had never done a tap of work) and proceeded to try and score political points against the Militant. Fortunately it had little or no impact on the ordinary working class people who attended.

But you blanketly denied it even happened earlier, at least if you said it had been edited earlier, I would have probably listened and had some more respect for your argument.

There can be no doubt that the entire left had infiltration and subversion working within it to destroy the campaign, but I find it hard to believe - given CWI's recent opportunist and some of its past opportunist mistakes, to believe that he never said this. Nonetheless, I am open to more persuasion that it had been edited.

The entire anti-poll-tax camapign showed up the complete ineptitude of the ultra-left ranging from dismissing it at the begining to then trying to turn in into a sectarian point scoring match - after they had provided the state with the excuses they wanted to tarnish the anti-poll-tax movement. Again, fortunately it didn't have the desired impact for the state or the ulra-left.

Absolute crap, when did the "ultra-left" dismiss it at the beginning? Would you like to provide evidence for this claim? Throughout it, the "ultra-left" did exactly what was necessary, from flining open the gates of kennington park to defending themselves from as your party says - violence that the police had tried to legitimise by provoking the crowd. So you can just get lost.

Let's take the 3 points individually -
1. Brian Caton - this goes directly back to the points I made about shifts in consciousness within the membership of the state forces - something you comprehensively ignored in your reply. Of course the fact that he is head of the POA automatically entitles him to condemnation.
2. The CWI never co-operated with the PUP. The CWI were involved in a couple of meetings with the PUP when there were indications that they might be moving to the left - but co-operation has only ever happened in the head of individuals like yourself. Over the past 30 years I have been involved in meetings with people of every political hue (except fascists) - some have resulted in co-operation - most definitely have not - the contact between the CWI and the PUP falls into the second catagory.

A load of ducking and weaving, how typical.

3. The CWI was the first (and one of the very few) left groups to oppose the deployment of British troops to the North at the begining of the troubles. While many on the far left - who subsequently jumps on the 'Brits out' bandwagon - were rolling out the welcome mat, the CWI was outlining the inherent dangers to the working class of having troops in the North. The fact that the CWI did not subsequently adopt a left republican position - like every other group on the left (with the exception of a couple of two-nation stalinists) - does not mean that the CWI "indirectly supported British soldiers in NI" and I would challange you to produce evidence for this claim.

Yet more completely untrue slander about the "ultra-left". In fact, prove that even one "ultra-left" group said something about letting troops in on the first count? Secondly, one can search revleft itself to find whole heaps of evidence pointing to the contrary about SPEW, so check your facts again.

cmdrdeathguts

17th February 2010, 19:16

IS:

And if you raise other irrelevant issues, you can claim to 'want to know' about those too, and I will simply tell you they are off topic.

Go on, try me again...
Er, when you use a particular logic to defend a particular position, you have to be prepared to defend that logic in the instance of other cases where it would apparently apply. It is your job to show how this is irrelevant, not simply declare it in that ridiculous arrogant manner of yours.

For whoever asked - there are different 'rules' in relation to election tactics because the specific history of Ireland is such that elections do not pose the possibility of a Labour victory at all - or rather, only as the junior partner to a right-wing and thoroughly bourgeois Fine Gael. If you want to use it against 'illusionists', the real interest in the Irish case is: should Marxists call for critical votes to those organisations which do command the lion's share of those 'illusions' - Sinn Fein, etc? If not, why not - and how do you intend to make the communist case elsewise?

cmdrdeathguts

17th February 2010, 19:21

Oh, and...

Kalashnikov-spelt-wrong:

Full marks for abuse.:)

0/10 for argument.:(

1. This is an international message board, with many non-English speakers.

2. Our youngest English-speaking members are teenagers, and probably more prone to spelling errors.

3. Kalashnikov is a transliteration from cyrillic; others are possible.

4. It is perfectly legitimate to improvise spellings because they, I don't know, look cooler to you - or any other contingent reason you like.

So, in short, for your ignorant and condescending pedantry:

Full marks for abuse.:)

0/10 for argument.:(

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2010, 23:47

Cmdrdeathguts:

Er, when you use a particular logic to defend a particular position, you have to be prepared to defend that logic in the instance of other cases where it would apparently apply. It is your job to show how this is irrelevant, not simply declare it in that ridiculous arrogant manner of yours.

For whoever asked - there are different 'rules' in relation to election tactics because the specific history of Ireland is such that elections do not pose the possibility of a Labour victory at all - or rather, only as the junior partner to a right-wing and thoroughly bourgeois Fine Gael. If you want to use it against 'illusionists', the real interest in the Irish case is: should Marxists call for critical votes to those organisations which do command the lion's share of those 'illusions' - Sinn Fein, etc? If not, why not - and how do you intend to make the communist case elsewise?

May I refer the honourable perserverator to my previous reply to IS?

And:

And if you raise other irrelevant issues, you can claim to 'want to know' about those too, and I will simply tell you they are off topic.

Go on, try me again...

Go on...:)

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2010, 23:48

CmdrMartinet:

1. This is an international message board, with many non-English speakers.

2. Our youngest English-speaking members are teenagers, and probably more prone to spelling errors.

3. Kalashnikov is a transliteration from cyrillic; others are possible.

4. It is perfectly legitimate to improvise spellings because they, I don't know, look cooler to you - or any other contingent reason you like.

So, in short, for your ignorant and condescending pedantry:

It was a joke -- lighten up.:rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th February 2010, 23:52

Jolly Red Etc:

If you did such a good job at debunking one of the central ideas of marxism I can assure you the ruling class would be praising you from a height and publishing you writings on every conceiveable forum they could access.

1) In fact, I debunk all forms of ruling-class philosophy, and not just its poor, third-rate cousin found in dialectics.

2) Name me one ruling class source that lionises my work. Go on, I double dog dare you..-

3) And they won't, either, because of point one.

BOZG

18th February 2010, 09:23

Secondly, one can search revleft itself to find whole heaps of evidence pointing to the contrary about SPEW, so check your facts again.

You're making the claims. The onus is on you to provide proof not for us to have to go searching for you. I'll go to the bother of quoting our publications from the time, specifically from the September 1969 edition of The Militant. Under the headline of "Withdraw the troops", we stated that "The call made for the entry of British troops will turn to vinegar in the mouths of the civil rights leaders. The troops have been sent to impose a solution in the interests of British and Ulster big business."

And I'm aware that the onus is on JRG to also prove the position of the "ultra-left" at the time.

Jolly Red Giant

18th February 2010, 10:44

And I'm aware that the onus is on JRG to also prove the position of the "ultra-left" at the time.
Here we go

Absolute crap, when did the "ultra-left" dismiss it at the beginning? Would you like to provide evidence for this claim?
"The experience in Scotland has shown non-payment is a vulnerable form of resistance leaving it to the resolve of individuals to stand up against the law. With council officers being given draconian power to collect the tax, non-payment will be impossible anyway…" (Socialist Worker, 17 December 1988).

Yet more completely untrue slander about the "ultra-left". In fact, prove that even one "ultra-left" group said something about letting troops in on the first count?

When fighting started in the Bogside Bernadette Devlin and Eamonn McCann then leaders of the Peoples Democracy issued a joint statement headed “Westminster must act”, calling for the suspension of the northern constitution and a constitutional conference of the Westminster, Stormont and Dublin governments to work out a solution.

Just hours before the soldiers arrived in Derry, Bernadette Devlin had been on the phone from behind the barricades pleading with Home Secretary, James Callaghan, that they be sent.

The Socialist Workers Party criticised those who called for the troops to be withdrawn. This is what they said at the time:
‘The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.’ (Socialist Worker, No. 137, 11 September 1969).

The only groups on the left to call for the withdrawal of the British Troops when they were deployed were the Militant, the IMG, the WRP and USec. Practically every other group on the left adopted the position outlined by the SWP.

In relation to Official Sinn Fein - it has been claimed that then OC and future Official IRA leader, Cathal Goulding said that ‘it was up to the official forces of the British Army and RUC to defend the people’ when asked if the IRA was going to defend working class areas under attack.

And before you start - members of the Militant participated in the defence of the Bogside - and there were very few other 'lefts' there at the time.

Secondly, one can search revleft itself to find whole heaps of evidence pointing to the contrary about SPEW, so check your facts again.
As BOZG said

You're making the claims. The onus is on you to provide proof not for us to have to go searching for you.

Chambered Word

18th February 2010, 11:43

Saorsa

18th February 2010, 11:57

Instead of backing Labour, why doesn't the SWP just promote its own agenda? If Labour's elected, the workers will be pissed off with the system. If the Tories are elected, the result will be quite similar (I would think).

I don't see why they don't just preserve their dignity and not back a blatantly anti-worker capitalist party, even if just for the reason of 'exposing' them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like Labour's conservatism hasn't been exposed already.

SocAlt called on workers to vote for labour and the greens at the last general elections in Australia. You're party's New Zealand (more accurately, Dunedin) branch, which sometimes refers to itself as the ISO, called on workers to vote for labour, and/or the greens, and/or the Maori party in the last elections.

Fix the problems in your own backyard before criticising the exact same terrible political line being put into place elsewhere.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th February 2010, 12:02

Comrade Lewis:

Instead of backing Labour, why doesn't the SWP just promote its own agenda? If Labour's elected, the workers will be pissed off with the system. If the Tories are elected, the result will be quite similar (I would think).

I don't see why they don't just preserve their dignity and not back a blatantly anti-worker capitalist party, even if just for the reason of 'exposing' them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like Labour's conservatism hasn't been exposed already.

In the past they have, but you have to judge the mood of the class before you devote precious resources to an independent election campaign. At the moment, it would be unwise to do this.

And, as I have pointed out several times in this thread, the LP's treachery has indeed been exposed but millions of workers still have illusions in them.

Finally, the SWP is not 'backing' the LP.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th February 2010, 12:03

Comrade Alastair:

I don't see why they don't just preserve their dignity and not back a blatantly anti-worker capitalist party, even if just for the reason of 'exposing' them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like Labour's conservatism hasn't been exposed already.

Find me a single SWP quote that says they are 'backing' the LP.

SocAlt called on workers to vote for labour and the greens at the last general elections in Australia. You're party's New Zealand (more accurately, Dunedin) branch, which sometimes refers to itself as the ISO, called on workers to vote for labour, and/or the greens, and/or the Maori party in the last elections.

Aaaaannd...?

Saorsa

18th February 2010, 12:29

Comrade Alastair:

Quote:
I don't see why they don't just preserve their dignity and not back a blatantly anti-worker capitalist party, even if just for the reason of 'exposing' them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like Labour's conservatism hasn't been exposed already.
Find me a single SWP quote that says they are 'backing' the LP.

That's a quote from Comrade Lewis, not me. And the SWP is calling on workers to vote for a capitalist party that will fuck them over at the first chance it gets.

Aaaaannd...?

Aaaaannd that's a terrible political line.

In New Zealand the neo-liberal attacks of the 1980s weren't carried out by the Tories, they were carried out by the Labour Party. The current leader of the Labour party was part of that government, and is personally responsible for introducing student fees.

I'm not going to recommend the guys I work with to vote for that party.

Chambered Word

18th February 2010, 14:53

SocAlt called on workers to vote for labour and the greens at the last general elections in Australia. You're party's New Zealand (more accurately, Dunedin) branch, which sometimes refers to itself as the ISO, called on workers to vote for labour, and/or the greens, and/or the Maori party in the last elections.

I'm pretty sure Socialist Alternative in New Zealand is a CWI-affiliated organization seperate from the 'Socialist Alternative' in Australia. Wikipedia will help you there.

As for calling on workers to vote for Labour and Greens in Aus, how do you know this?

Fix the problems in your own backyard before criticising the exact same terrible political line being put into place elsewhere.

My opinion is invalid because supposedly the organization I am currently affiliated with - according to you - supported Labour and the Greens in the last Federal election?

Find me a single SWP quote that says they are 'backing' the LP.

You're probably right actually. I've looked through this SWP article: http://www.swp.org.uk/13/02/2010/tusc-left-coalition and it

I'm a bit tired but I can't really see anything in there that actually endorses Labour, so this thread sounds like humbug.

I need some sleep. :(

robbo203

18th February 2010, 16:39

Comrade Lewis:

And, as I have pointed out several times in this thread, the LP's treachery has indeed been exposed but millions of workers still have illusions in them.
.

So why does the SWP help to fortify these illusions by urging workers to vote labour?

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th February 2010, 17:40

Comrade Alastair:

And the SWP is calling on workers to vote for a capitalist party that will fuck them over at the first chance it gets.

Well, you need to adress the actual arguments, not vent your ultra-left spleen, impressive though it is.

Aaaaannd that's a terrible political line.

Yes, you are right; I was indeed beginning to sound like an ML-er! Sorry, I'll not try such impressions again...:blushing:

In New Zealand the neo-liberal attacks of the 1980s weren't carried out by the Tories, they were carried out by the Labour Party. The current leader of the Labour party was part of that government, and is personally responsible for introducing student fees.

I'm not going to recommend the guys I work with to vote for that party.

I won't say "Aaaannnd", but I will say "Soooo?"

I just do not see what you are getting at, unless it is to parade your ultra-left purity in front of me again.

Ok, I'm truly impressed, honest I am -- so you can stop preening now. :)

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th February 2010, 17:44

robbo203:

So why does the SWP help to fortify these illusions by urging workers to vote labour?

This question has already been answered (and repeated many times) in this thread.

And the SWP does not 'fortify' any illusions; the article to which I linked actually says the SWP has no illusions in the LP, and neither should workers.

Crux

18th February 2010, 18:10

18th February 2010, 18:56

You're making the claims. The onus is on you to provide proof not for us to have to go searching for you. I'll go to the bother of quoting our publications from the time, specifically from the September 1969 edition of The Militant. Under the headline of "Withdraw the troops", we stated that "The call made for the entry of British troops will turn to vinegar in the mouths of the civil rights leaders. The troops have been sent to impose a solution in the interests of British and Ulster big business."

What about your call for unionisation of troops? What about "Divide and Rule: Labour and the partition of Ireland".. except you were part of Labour?

And I'm aware that the onus is on JRG to also prove the position of the "ultra-left" at the time.

In fairness, he has failed much more than me here, the SWP is the ultra-left (:rolleyes:).

Here we go "The experience in Scotland has shown non-payment is a vulnerable form of resistance leaving it to the resolve of individuals to stand up against the law. With council officers being given draconian power to collect the tax, non-payment will be impossible anyway…" (Socialist Worker, 17 December 1988).

Pathetic.

When fighting started in the Bogside Bernadette Devlin and Eamonn McCann then leaders of the Peoples Democracy issued a joint statement headed “Westminster must act”, calling for the suspension of the northern constitution and a constitutional conference of the Westminster, Stormont and Dublin governments to work out a solution.

Just hours before the soldiers arrived in Derry, Bernadette Devlin had been on the phone from behind the barricades pleading with Home Secretary, James Callaghan, that they be sent.

The Socialist Workers Party criticised those who called for the troops to be withdrawn. This is what they said at the time:
‘The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.’ (Socialist Worker, No. 137, 11 September 1969).

The only groups on the left to call for the withdrawal of the British Troops when they were deployed were the Militant, the IMG, the WRP and USec. Practically every other group on the left adopted the position outlined by the SWP.

Right, of course the SWP are ultra-left and groups like Solidarity and all groups that are slightly different to you adopted the same position as the SWP. Face it, you're a political illiterate.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/611/8819 you still advocate the unionisation of soldiers today.

In relation to Official Sinn Fein - it has been claimed that then OC and future Official IRA leader, Cathal Goulding said that ‘it was up to the official forces of the British Army and RUC to defend the people’ when asked if the IRA was going to defend working class areas under attack.

And before you start - members of the Militant participated in the defence of the Bogside - and there were very few other 'lefts' there at the time.

So your articles state this too, yet there is little proof this was actually the case.

How do you defend being an entryist part of the imperial bourgeois?

And if you raise other irrelevant issues, you can claim to 'want to know' about those too, and I will simply tell you they are off topic.

Go on, try me again...

How is it off-topic? Labour was formed by the unions so you claim, yet you are supposed to understand that the unions have been infiltrated for hundreds of years by anti-communist social-democrats and pure bureaucratic deviants, so what is your defence of supporting Labour based on this?

Furthermore, how do you come to the conclusion that Labour is still even social-democratiic today? What unions do you see as 'left-wing', the same ones as our CWI friend JRG (PCS, RMT, POA etc) and do you really think that these bureaucrats who completely run these unions, just like another business, have any sort of 'organic link' with the working-class whatsoever?

Jolly Red Giant

18th February 2010, 21:26

Is - it appears that all we can expect is the usual anti-CWI rant - ultra-left sectarianism at its finest.

You asked for evidence I produced it - you haven't.

Dimentio

18th February 2010, 21:38

I dont believe it, I just dont believe it. How the hell can the SWP still take this utterly utterly ridiculous line - "back labour to stop the Tories" even though Labour are no different from the Tories. Jeezus, you would have thought they would have learnt by now. Why not just say dont vote at all or spoil your ballot. That would be far better than voting for friggin nuLabour. If I were in the SWP I would bowing my head in shame at this.

I don't really think anyone would vote Labour because the SWP say so. Its more likely that people vote the Tories because the SWP ask them to vote Labour.

Saorsa

18th February 2010, 23:09

I'm pretty sure Socialist Alternative in New Zealand is a CWI-affiliated organization seperate from the 'Socialist Alternative' in Australia. Wikipedia will help you there.

We currently do not have an NZ affiliate, we do have a pretty good relationship with the Workers Party though, partly because we share the same views on the ex-worker's parties and the need to build a new worker's party. Socialist Alternative in NZ is either the IST affiliate or a split from it, I can't remember which.

There is no group called SocAlt in New Zealand. It was briefly formed by a guy who became disillusioned with the whole Cliffite thing and left ISO in Dunedin, but it never really took off (he was selling the CWI Australia's papers in our town! :P), and eventually he gave up on it and joined the Workers Party. He's since dropped out of revolutionary activism entirely which is a bit sad, as he was the first Marxist I ever met and the guy who recruited me to WP.

The reference to SA's Dunedin branch was an ironic and typically hilarious reference to how ISO here seem to take all their political lines from SA Australia, who they hero worship. They have a few former members (they have a lot of those, typical of the revolving door Cliffite style of recruitment) who live in Aussie and are now SA members, and they fly their members over there every year for SA conference. Cheaper than having a British mothership I suppose.

As Mayakovsky said, the WP (http://workersparty.org.nz/) and the SP (http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/) have good ties. I was referring to SA (http://www.sa.org.au/) in Australia, the larger of the two Cliffite groups. And ISO (http://iso.org.nz/) in New Zealand is a small Cliffite group of around ten people based entirely in Dunedin, where I used to live. Neither of them are in the IST though, they left after the American ISO (http://www.internationalsocialist.org/) got pushed out. The IST affiliate group in NZ is a group called Socialist Worker (http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/), who probably have about half a dozen members left now.

The New Zealand left is kinda smalll. There are probably only about 70 to 80 active Marxists in the country at the absolute max, and an equal number of anarchists (although it's harder to establish how many of them there are because for the most part they consist of a big, loose lifestylist social scene, with honourable exceptions such as AWSM (http://awsm.org.nz/)). The group I'm a member of, the Workers Party (a non-sectarian revolutionary Marxist group, made up of both Trotskyists and Maoists and any other Marxist supportive of our political line, with no interest in taking a position on any 'ism's beyond that) has about 30 cadre and branches in four cities. Not only does that make us the largest Marxist group in the country (:S), it makes us the only Marxist group with a nationwide structure. No other group has a functioning, active branch in more than one city.

The only other group with a nationwide structure would be AWSM, the class struggle anarchist group. Loosely platformist as far as I can tell but would never admit it :lol:. They have branches in three cities, and while they're still a bit loose and taking a while to gather momentum, they're definitely the most active of the anarchist groups with the best politics too. We work more closely with them and frankly have more in common with them than most of the other 'Marxist' groups in this country.

Hopefully that clears up the situation in New Zealand for everyone :)

As for calling on workers to vote for Labour and Greens in Aus, how do you know this?

Um, I read your papers? I spent the first few years of my revolutionary activism in Dunedin, where the biggest show in town is ISO. I went to all their meetings for at least a year and despite their horrible Cliffite politics get along pretty well with them all, they're good people. Anyway, they always stocked your magazine and I remember getting into a massive argument with them at the time of the last elections around SA's line of a vote for the greens and labour over the Coalition government. Do you actually not know your own organisation's political line on elections? I see SocAlt's paying about as much attention to educating it's new members as it ever did :lol:

My opinion is invalid because supposedly the organization I am currently affiliated with - according to you - supported Labour and the Greens in the last Federal election?

It's not according to me. It's a fact. Look it up. And it doesn't make your opinion invalid, just kinda hypocritical. The SWP line is actually better than SocAlt's was, because at least the SWP call on people to vote for socialist candidates where possible. SocAlt Australia call on workers to vote for the greens including in seats where other socialist groups (like the SP) are running candidates. (http://communistwombat.blogspot.com/2007/09/socialists-greens-and-building-working.html) This includes council seats like Yarra, where the SP's Steve Jolly is an elected councilor. Your organisations sectarianism is breathtaking.

You're probably right actually. I've looked through this SWP article: http://www.swp.org.uk/13/02/2010/tusc-left-coalition and it

I'm a bit tired but I can't really see anything in there that actually endorses Labour, so this thread sounds like humbug.

That's because you're looking at the wrong article. Read this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1670465&postcount=6)

Well, you need to adress the actual arguments, not vent your ultra-left spleen, impressive though it is.

I'm glad it meets with your approval. While it has been phrased somewhat bluntly, that was an actual argument which you have consistently sidestepped throughout this thread. Labour have already attacked the workers. Several times. If they get elected, they'll do it again. The fact that this has not yet turned all workers off them doesn't mean that the workers are slow and stupid and need to get attacked another time, it means that the strategy of getting a party elected to expose it in practice doesn't work.

There's also another thing about this that is ridiculous. No radical group in the English speaking Western world has any mass base in the working class. Some sects are bigger than others, but they're all sects in the end. Whether the SWP calls for a vote for labour or not is quite irrelevant to whether or not it wins, because neither the SWP nor any other group like it have the ability to actually influence the thoughts of enough workers to make a difference either way. With that in mind, we have to be clear about what we can accomplish. Since what we write in our socialist papers will not actually mobilise enough people to swing a vote either way, all this writing is useful for is propaganda. And if all you're capable of putting out are ideas, then the ideas you are putting out might as well be revolutionary ones. And telling workers that Labour is the lesser of two evils, that a Labour govt is better for them than a Torie one, i.e. reinforcing any reformist ideas workers may have.... that's not revolutionary.

I won't say "Aaaannnd", but I will say "Soooo?"

If you knew people who lived through Rogernomics, you wouldn't need to say that. You'd know what it means. Still, the typical arrogance of a middle class Trot shouldn't surprise me by now.

I just do not see what you are getting at, unless it is to parade your ultra-left purity in front of me again.

My points have already been made. Labour has attacked the workers time and time again, and it is not revolutionary to try and set up a situation where it's going to happen another time because 'that's how workers learn'.

Ok, I'm truly impressed, honest I am -- so you can stop preening now.

You're not very good at sarcasm, you know that right? It really isn't either amusing or impressive.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2010, 14:11

Dimentio:

I don't really think anyone would vote Labour because the SWP say so. Its more likely that people vote the Tories because the SWP ask them to vote Labour.

Well, few probably will, but the SWP have to call for such a vote to be consistent with the sort of things I have outlined in this thread.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2010, 14:16

IS:

How is it off-topic? Labour was formed by the unions so you claim, yet you are supposed to understand that the unions have been infiltrated for hundreds of years by anti-communist social-democrats and pure bureaucratic deviants, so what is your defence of supporting Labour based on this?

It's off-topic because we are discussing the UK-SWP; go on, check the title of the thread if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, how do you come to the conclusion that Labour is still even social-democratiic today? What unions do you see as 'left-wing', the same ones as our CWI friend JRG (PCS, RMT, POA etc) and do you really think that these bureaucrats who completely run these unions, just like another business, have any sort of 'organic link' with the working-class whatsoever?

What has the 'scoial democratic' nature of the LP got to do with the state of the unions?

I must say, I'm impressed with your capacity to ask off-topic questions.

What next? "Why does the SWP continue in its ultra-left refusal to discuss 10th century Peruvian pottery?":lol:

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2010, 14:24

Comrade Alastair:

I'm glad it meets with your approval. While it has been phrased somewhat bluntly, that was an actual argument which you have consistently sidestepped throughout this thread. Labour have already attacked the workers. Several times. If they get elected, they'll do it again. The fact that this has not yet turned all workers off them doesn't mean that the workers are slow and stupid and need to get attacked another time, it means that the strategy of getting a party elected to expose it in practice doesn't work.

We know that; but countless workers still have illusions in the LP, and that's the point you keep ignoring.

If you knew people who lived through Rogernomics, you wouldn't need to say that. You'd know what it means. Still, the typical arrogance of a middle class Trot shouldn't surprise me by now

Typical prejudice of someone who worships mass murderers, since I'm working class.

My points have already been made. Labour has attacked the workers time and time again, and it is not revolutionary to try and set up a situation where it's going to happen another time because 'that's how workers learn'.

So, why quote this then to make that (already answered) point:

In New Zealand the neo-liberal attacks of the 1980s weren't carried out by the Tories, they were carried out by the Labour Party. The current leader of the Labour party was part of that government, and is personally responsible for introducing student fees.

I'm not going to recommend the guys I work with to vote for that party. ?

Unless you think that New Zealand is in fact the UK?:lol:

You're not very good at sarcasm, you know that right? It really isn't either amusing or impressive.

Indeed, as piss poor as you are at constructing a convincing argument.:(

I wonder which failing is more politically crippling...?:rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2010, 14:26

Interesting to see the CWI (in the shape of Mayakovsky) lining up with an MLM-er to bash a fellow Trotskyist...:lol:

Die Neue Zeit

19th February 2010, 15:19

Yehuda Stern

19th February 2010, 16:08

Rosa, how can the SWP be exposing the Labour party if it is by the SWP's own admission, already seen by the workers for what it really is - a capitalist party no better than the Tory party?

Chambered Word

19th February 2010, 16:47

Hopefully that clears up the situation in New Zealand for everyone :)

Thanks for that.

It's not according to me. It's a fact. Look it up. And it doesn't make your opinion invalid, just kinda hypocritical. The SWP line is actually better than SocAlt's was, because at least the SWP call on people to vote for socialist candidates where possible. SocAlt Australia call on workers to vote for the greens including in seats where other socialist groups (like the SP) are running candidates. (http://communistwombat.blogspot.com/2007/09/socialists-greens-and-building-working.html) This includes council seats like Yarra, where the SP's Steve Jolly is an elected councilor. Your organisations sectarianism is breathtaking.

The SocAlt article linked to by the page you linked to entirely does not mention other socialist groups.

That's because you're looking at the wrong article. Read this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1670465&postcount=6)

I don't really see where they endorse Labour. However effective the 'elect them to expose them' idea is this doesn't mean they're backing Labour.

If you knew people who lived through Rogernomics, you wouldn't need to say that. You'd know what it means. Still, the typical arrogance of a middle class Trot shouldn't surprise me by now.

Do we have to start with the stupid Trot stereotypes? :rolleyes:

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2010, 16:56

YS:

Rosa, how can the SWP be exposing the Labour party if it is by the SWP's own admission, already seen by the workers for what it really is - a capitalist party no better than the Tory party?

Where does the SWP say this?

BOZG

19th February 2010, 17:56

Unless you think that New Zealand is in fact the UK?:lol:

It's off-topic because we are discussing the UK-SWP; go on, check the title of the thread if you don't believe me.

It isn't off-topic at all. They belong in the same International and represent the same political ideas and trends. If the actions of one national section is irrelevant to others, then you're basically admitting that the IST is bankrupt as an organisation and that an international doesn't actually exist.

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th February 2010, 17:58

Bozg:

It isn't off-topic at all. They belong in the same International and represent the same political ideas and trends. If the actions of one national section is irrelevant to others, then you're basically admitting that the IST is bankrupt as an organisation and that an international doesn't actually exist.

But, the character you are defending did not make this point; had he done so, I'd have responded.

And recall, I'm not even in the SWP, so I cannot speak for every section of the IST.

19th February 2010, 18:21

It's off-topic because we are discussing the UK-SWP; go on, check the title of the thread if you don't believe me.

An elegant way of dodging the question posed in my last post: "the unions have been infiltrated for hundreds of years by anti-communist social-democrats and pure bureaucratic deviants, so what is your defence of supporting Labour based on this?".

I'm not sure what you believe personally and you're not in the SWP, but the SWP has union full-timers in it, I think this partially shows the collective mentality of those in it.

What has the 'scoial democratic' nature of the LP got to do with the state of the unions?

Surely this is the most obvious thing ever? If you claim that the LP has a social-democratic nature and has an organic link to the working-class via the unions, then surely the state of the unions should reflect this.............. :confused:

I must say, I'm impressed with your capacity to ask off-topic questions.

What next? "Why does the SWP continue in its ultra-left refusal to discuss 10th century Peruvian pottery?"

Sorry, but my last post was not very off-topic for this thread at all, now you are simply evading the questions and trying to make out that I'm calling the SWP 'ultra-left', where ironically I would consider that term as a compliment and certainly not something I'd accuse the SWP of!

Is - it appears that all we can expect is the usual anti-CWI rant - ultra-left sectarianism at its finest.

You asked for evidence I produced it - you haven't.

:lol: Coming from someone who calls the SWP 'ultra-left' this is just hilarious, I've produced plenty of evidence throughout this thread whereas you've parroted your organisational material, I've even provided a balanced opinion of what your party and what others did in the context of the time but you refuse to see past your own blatant bias, well by all means fine, I could care less.

BOZG

19th February 2010, 20:58

What about your call for unionisation of troops? What about "Divide and Rule: Labour and the partition of Ireland".. except you were part of Labour?

You do realise that Labour in the title refers to the labour movement and not the Labour Party?

And I'm not exactly sure how calling for the right for troops to be organised is a defense of troops in Northern Ireland.

Saorsa

20th February 2010, 00:34

Rosa, it would be simply wonderful if rather than picking out the occasional sentence I write, you actually responded to the bulk of my argument. You completely ignored these two paragraphs where I actually outlined concrete reasons why 'a vote with no illusions'/'a vote to somehow expose once in power' is a dumb political line. I shall post them again for your benefit.

I'm glad it meets with your approval. While it has been phrased somewhat bluntly, that was an actual argument which you have consistently sidestepped throughout this thread. Labour have already attacked the workers. Several times. If they get elected, they'll do it again. The fact that this has not yet turned all workers off them doesn't mean that the workers are slow and stupid and need to get attacked another time, it means that the strategy of getting a party elected to expose it in practice doesn't work.

There's also another thing about this that is ridiculous. No radical group in the English speaking Western world has any mass base in the working class. Some sects are bigger than others, but they're all sects in the end. Whether the SWP calls for a vote for labour or not is quite irrelevant to whether or not it wins, because neither the SWP nor any other group like it have the ability to actually influence the thoughts of enough workers to make a difference either way. With that in mind, we have to be clear about what we can accomplish. Since what we write in our socialist papers will not actually mobilise enough people to swing a vote either way, all this writing is useful for is propaganda. And if all you're capable of putting out are ideas, then the ideas you are putting out might as well be revolutionary ones. And telling workers that Labour is the lesser of two evils, that a Labour govt is better for them than a Torie one, i.e. reinforcing any reformist ideas workers may have.... that's not revolutionary.

Typical prejudice of someone who worships mass murderers, since I'm working class.

Lol, enough with the self righteous moralism about 'mass murderers' already. Trotsky led the Red Army during the Civil War, and had no problems with the work being done by the Cheka. What about all the fellow revolutionary anarchists and workers he brutally murdered at Kronstadt?

Unless you think that New Zealand is in fact the UK?

*sighs*

Rosa, you are trolling. You're consistently, and quite typically, sidestepping any political points anyone makes so you can then make snarky sarcastic remarks about them personally and/or play with words and/or nitpick.

Are you saying that the line of calling for a tactical vote for Labour without illusions is uniquely applicable to the UK, and not countries with similar 'bourgeois workers parties'? The IST affiliates and non-IST Cliffite parties in New Zealand and Australia seem to disagree. If they're just getting it wrong and this line is only for Britain, please say so. If it isn't, then my points about what has happened in New Zealand are perfectly relevant, and your sidestepping a discussion of them because you know you can't defend such a ridiculous political line.

Indeed, as piss poor as you are at constructing a convincing argument.

I wonder which failing is more politically crippling...?

oooh snap Rosa's on fire today

Eia

20th February 2010, 01:30

Labour has thrown its support behind the imperialist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. There is nothing more that this party can do to expose itself as a bourgeoisie party which offers nothing to the working class, certainly nothing to the workers of the world. There is also nothing more the SWP can do to expose itself as a mouthpiece for Labour and along with it a bourgeoisie liberal party which also has nothing to offer the working class but disillusionment. You say the Labour party has “organic” links to the unions, well, today what “organic” links do the unions have with the working class? Unions have broken with the working class in their continued siding with bosses and their continued siding with Labour.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 02:42

Once more, many workers still have illusions in the LP, and that's the point some of you seem to want to ignore.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 02:48

IS:

An elegant way of dodging the question posed in my last post: "the unions have been infiltrated for hundreds of years by anti-communist social-democrats and pure bureaucratic deviants, so what is your defence of supporting Labour based on this?".

Again, I fail to see what you are driving at.

Have you taken an advanced course in writing enigmatically by any chance?

I'm not sure what you believe personally and you're not in the SWP, but the SWP has union full-timers in it, I think this partially shows the collective mentality of those in it.

And, as soon as they rat on workers they are asked to resign from the party.

Surely this is the most obvious thing ever? If you claim that the LP has a social-democratic nature and has an organic link to the working-class via the unions, then surely the state of the unions should reflect this

It might afffect the nature of the LP, but it does not affect that organic link.

Sorry, but my last post was not very off-topic for this thread at all, now you are simply evading the questions and trying to make out that I'm calling the SWP 'ultra-left', where ironically I would consider that term as a compliment and certainly not something I'd accuse the SWP of!

And yet, despite me asking you several times, you have failed to show its relevance. Either you can't or you are simply playing games.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 02:50

Duplicate post!

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 02:56

Comrade Alastair:

Rods, it would be simply wonderful if rather than picking out the occasional sentence I write, you actually responded to the bulk of my argument. You completely ignored these two paragraphs where I actually outlined concrete reasons why 'a vote with no illusions'/'a vote to somehow expose once in power' is a dumb political line. I shall post them again for your benefit.

Who the hell is 'Rods'?

Lol, enough with the self righteous moralism about 'mass murderers' already. Trotsky led the Red Army during the Civil War, and had no problems with the work being done by the Cheka. What about all the fellow revolutionary anarchists and workers he brutally murdered at Kronstadt?

You are the moraliser here with comments like this:

If you knew people who lived through Rogernomics, you wouldn't need to say that. You'd know what it means. Still, the typical arrogance of a middle class Trot shouldn't surprise me by now

CA:

Rosa, you are trolling. You're consistently, and quite typically, sidestepping any political points anyone makes so you can then make snarky sarcastic remarks about them personally and/or play with words and/or nitpick.

If I am, I am trolling to your trolling.

Are you saying that the line of calling for a tactical vote for Labour without illusions is uniquely applicable to the UK, and not countries with similar 'bourgeois workers parties'? The IST affiliates and non-IST Cliffite parties in New Zealand and Australia seem to disagree. If they're just getting it wrong and this line is only for Britain, please say so. If it isn't, then my points about what has happened in New Zealand are perfectly relevant, and your sidestepping a discussion of them because you know you can't defend such a ridiculous political line.

No, read what I have said and deal with that; stop dragging in irrelevant issues.

Saorsa

20th February 2010, 03:44

For fucks sake. Rosa should have been banned years ago, if some new user came in and posted shit like this they'd have been issued warnings at the least and probably infractions. This is nothing but trolling. She's not engaging with people's arguments, and is derailing the thread.

This is my last response to her bullshit.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 04:47

CA, now retreating into the by-now-familar-bunker-of-dialectically-inspired-abuse:

For fucks sake. Rosa should have been banned years ago, if some new user came in and posted shit like this they'd have been issued warnings at the least and probably infractions. This is nothing but trolling. She's not engaging with people's arguments, and is derailing the thread.

Banned for having the temerity to disagree with Thee, Oh Holy One?

But, Almighty Master, Thee art the One who keeps introducing irrelevances. Rosa, the least of thine slaves, was merely copying Thy Divine Example.:cool:

This is my last response to her bullshit.

Er.., you said that weeks ago, and then back-sassed several times.

How can we possibly believe you mean it this time?:confused:

Eia

20th February 2010, 05:10

Of course many workers have illusions in the Labour Party. This is why they have been continuously elected to parliament. You don’t destroy illusions by saying “Vote for Labour!” and then when Labour inevitably (once again) introduces anti-working class measures go “Told you so! Now support the SWP, fuckers!” Instead, you clearly express your position: the Labour Party and the electoral system has nothing to offer the working class, the only force capable of changing your lives are your combined efforts alone. That opens the possibility of empowerment. You don’t empower people by creating further disillusionment, which most frequently leads to apathy and the view that radical politics are a dud. If that was the case then we would all vote for our respective conservative parties since they would create (1) worse conditions that would (to an extent) (2) open people’s eyes to the nature of capitalism. But supporting increased misery to “create consciousness” is opportunistic and has no historical basis of success; the converse may happen in workers shifting towards the nationalist right.

There is nothing more the Labour Party can do to “break illusions” apart from arbitrarilyy shooting people. If you want people to change their views on dialectics you don’t start advocating it and then when it fails to predict whatever, claim that it is worthless as a tool. People always find a way to wiggle themselves or something out of blame, the very nature of the ‘dialectical method’ allows for this. And just as dialectics wasn’t responsible for such a poor prediction, the Labour Party isn’t responsible for any of its measures. And that’s the nature of the political game, a game which the ruling classes are happy for us to keep playing because its very nature is one of mystification.

A few months ago the SWP had a "Rage Against New Labour" campaign. Now we're supposed to vote for them.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 05:25

Eia (big font comrade!):

You don’t destroy illusions by saying “Vote for Labour!” and then when Labour inevitably (once again) introduces anti-working class measures go “Told you so! Now support the SWP, fuckers!” Instead, you clearly express your position: the Labour Party and the electoral system has nothing to offer the working class, the only force capable of changing your lives are your combined efforts alone. That opens the possibility of empowerment. You don’t empower people by creating further disillusionment, which most frequently leads to apathy and the view that radical politics are a dud. If that was the case then we would all vote for our respective conservative parties since they would create (1) worse conditions that would (to an extent) (2) open people’s eyes to the nature of capitalism. But supporting increased misery to “create consciousness” is opportunistic and has no historical basis of success; the converse may happen in workers shifting towards the nationalist right.

Indeed, but then one can't expose their treachery if they aren't in office. The SWP is merely following that observation through to its logical conclusion.

And where have they argued this:

“Told you so! Now support the SWP, fuckers!”

You aren't going to win an argument by inventing stuff you think the SWP might say if they were as politically naive as you seem to be.

There is nothing more the Labour Party can do to “break illusions” apart from arbitrarilyy shooting people. If you want people to change their views on dialectics you don’t start advocating it and then when it fails to predict whatever, claim that it is worthless as a tool. People always find a way to wiggle themselves or something out of blame, the very nature of the ‘dialectical method’ allows for this. And just as dialectics wasn’t responsible for such a poor prediction, the Labour Party isn’t responsible for any of its measures. And that’s the nature of the political game, a game which the ruling classes are happy for us to keep playing because its very nature is one of mystification.

Apparently there is, since many workers still have illusion in them.

And, please do not mention dialectics to me; I am a rabid anti-dialectician.

A few months ago the SWP had a "Rage Against New Labour" campaign. Now we're supposed to vote for them.

Yes, so?

20th February 2010, 06:52

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 07:21

^^^You don't.:)

Saorsa

20th February 2010, 07:33

This is what heaven must look like:

http://i46.tinypic.com/2rrkmjr.jpg

20th February 2010, 07:49

Before we get too triggerhappy though on the ignore list thing, I urge to use it with severe constraint (http://www.revleft.com/vb/code-conduct-discussion-t129137/index.html?p=1674087#post1674087) as it basically shuts down debate, the whole point of this forum. Only where users add nothing to discussions and refuse to correct their behaviour should an ignore be considered as an option in my opinion.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th February 2010, 15:08

Crux

20th February 2010, 18:34

Indeed, that is the only way these two sectarian jokers can 'win' an argument with me.

But, and once again, it is interesrting to see yet another CWI clone (in the shape of Q this time) assist a MLM-er in attacking a fellow Trotskyist.
You are not in any way, shape or form a comrade of mine. Your claim to "trotskyism" is completly useless in that you reject some of the fundamentals of marxism. Further more you are a fucking troll. I'd defend trotskyism against Cmrd Alastair's attacks any day, that does not mean defending I would be defending you, however, again given your own rejection of some of the basics of marxism. Your attempt to make it a "stalinist versus trotskyist" debate is dishonest and patently untrue, given as far as I can tell most trotskyist have already stated that they disagree with your standpoint. But you being dishonest and trolling in debates is hardly something new, rather is something you do consistently and to no end. Putting Rosa on ignore would be highly advisable as Rosa is a fucking troll and debating with trolls inevitably leads nowhere. haven't people learned by now?

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd February 2010, 11:34

Mayakovsky:

You are not in any way, shape or form a comrade of mine. Your claim to "trotskyism" is completly useless in that you reject some of the fundamentals of marxism. Further more you are a fucking troll. I'd defend trotskyism against Cmrd Alastair's attacks any day, that does not mean defending I would be defending you, however, again given your own rejection of some of the basics of marxism. Your attempt to make it a "stalinist versus trotskyist" debate is dishonest and patently untrue, given as far as I can tell most trotskyist have already stated that they disagree with your standpoint. But you being dishonest and trolling in debates is hardly something new, rather is something you do consistently and to no end. Putting Rosa on ignore would be highly advisable as Rosa is a fucking troll and debating with trolls inevitably leads nowhere. haven't people learned by now?

Ah, here we see yet more dialectically-inspired abuse from someone who can't defend his beliefs.

The only 'fundamental of Marxism' I reject is that mystical 'theory' you lot have swallowed -- a theory, as I have shown, Marx also rejected:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-and-political-t118934/index.html

It's also interesting to see you siding with Stalinists and Maoists not only against a fellow Trotskyist, but siding with them on dialectics -- a 'theory' they also accept, and which they use to how that Trotskyism is anti-Marxist!

Hence, the only 'theory' I reject is the very same 'theory' you and they both acccept, but which they use to show you are not a Marxist!

What an odd lot you Dialectical Mystics are...:lol:

Jolly Red Giant

22nd February 2010, 17:19

Listen to Rosa people, she's an intellectual - she clearly has a better understanding of Marxism than any of you. :blushing:

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd February 2010, 18:08

JRG:

Listen to Rosa people, she's an intellectual - she clearly has a better understanding of Marxism than any of you.

I have already told you: I'm a worker, not an 'intellectual'.

22nd February 2010, 18:40

Listen to Rosa people, she's an intellectual - she clearly has a better understanding of Marxism than any of you. :blushing:
Don't feed the troll (just ignore her instead (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3281)) :)

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd February 2010, 18:42

Q: still scared of me...

Saorsa

23rd February 2010, 04:43

I'd defend trotskyism against Cmrd Alastair's attacks any day, that does not mean defending I would be defending you, however, again given your own rejection of some of the basics of marxism.

I'd also add that for all my occasional 'attacks' on Trotskyism, I do still consider Trotskyists to be Marxist-Leninists, political and (in a hell of a lot of cases) personal comrades of mine. I have some disagreements with them over historical matters and often in respect to tactics to be used in the present day struggle for revolution in the third world, but I have agreement with a lot of Trotskysist about how to most effectively fight the capitalist class today in a country like New Zealand, and what slogans to raise in this situation.

I have more disagreement with some Maoists (self proclaimed and otherwise) over how to work in a first world country than I do with some Trotskyists.

As Mayakovsky pointed out Rosa, you are not a Trotskyist. You're just a troll.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2010, 11:41

CA:

As Mayakovsky pointed out Rosa, you are not a Trotskyist. You're just a troll.

And what is your evidence/argument that I'm not a Trotskyist?

[I have in fact been one for longer than most RevLefters have been alive.]

Chambered Word

23rd February 2010, 11:54

I'd also add that for all my occasional 'attacks' on Trotskyism, I do still consider Trotskyists to be Marxist-Leninists, political and (in a hell of a lot of cases) personal comrades of mine.

To me, Marxist-Leninism is just a euphimism for Stalinism.

As Mayakovsky pointed out Rosa, you are not a Trotskyist. You're just a troll.

Sorry if I'm missing something glaringly obvious, but why does everybody hate Rosa so much? :confused:

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2010, 12:12

Because I challenge 1) The sectarianism of several opinionated comrades here, but mainly 2) Because I have the temerity to question a dogma that most (Marxist) comrades have accepted without much thought -- dialectics.

In fact, I was invited here just over four years ago in order to give these mystics a hard time, and they do not like it.

Plus, of course, many of the macho lefty males here do not like to be put in their place by a 'hysterical' woman...:rolleyes:

Saorsa

23rd February 2010, 13:02

To me, Marxist-Leninism is just a euphimism for Stalinism.

That's because you haven't read enough Trotsky yet. He was clear about how he saw his own politics. Come back when you've read a bit more, Trotsky's original writings are a lot more valuable than the rubbish they'll be feeding you in SA by Mike Strongarm and Sandra Bloodbath.

Sorry if I'm missing something glaringly obvious, but why does everybody hate Rosa so much?

You haven't been around long enough, and you haven't tried to have a debate with her. You'll learn.

Saorsa

23rd February 2010, 13:05

Plus, of course, many of the macho lefty males here do not like to be put in their place by a 'hysterical' woman...

Give me one, just one, case where a male user of this site has either openly said or subtly implied that you are being hysterical, and that this is in someway a result of you being a woman?

Otherwise this is just slander. Still, what better can be expected from a troll.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2010, 14:10

CA:

Give me one, just one, case where a male user of this site has either openly said or subtly implied that you are being hysterical, and that this is in someway a result of you being a woman?

Give me one example where I have shown I am not a Trotskyist and I might consider replying to you.

Otherwise this is just slander. Still, what better can be expected from a troll.

It's Ok for you to slander me, then, eh?

You haven't been around long enough, and you haven't tried to have a debate with her. You'll learn.

As I said, you 'males' can't stand to be corrected...

23rd February 2010, 14:51

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd February 2010, 15:14

Q -- RevLeft's High Priest of Sectariana:

Also, I'm beginning to see a pattern in Rosa's trollposts in that they seem specifically designed to divert attention away from the topic at hand. See how this has again moved away from the SWP backing the Labour party towards all kinds of other issues. The strategy to defend the SWP against any kind of questioning or criticism is simple, yet effective: troll away!

But, you can't see a pattern in my posts since you have taken you bat home, and are ignoring my posts.

Hit The North

23rd February 2010, 15:25

Also, I'm beginning to see a pattern in Rosa's trollposts in that they seem specifically designed to divert attention away from the topic at hand. See how this has again moved away from the SWP backing the Labour party towards all kinds of other issues. The strategy to defend the SWP against any kind of questioning or criticism is simple, yet effective: troll away!

Well this is obviously nonsense as Rosa has clearly presented the position of the SWP and attempted to defend it in the first couple of pages of this thread. In fact, without Rosa's patient explanation of the SWP position, this thread would be the usual mindless sectarian posturing and completely free of debate. It would be the sound of one hand clapping.

Further, Q, this is only confirmed by your persistent claim that the "SWP backs Labour", when this, sounding like some uncritical endorsement of Labour on behalf of the SWP, is, at best, completely uncontextualised, and, at worst, a cynical attempt to smear the SWP, in order to big-up your own "section". It's clear that you have not read or understood the SW documents or Rosa's argument.

It would be more instructive if, instead of wasting your time trying to upbraid the un-upbraid-able Rosa Lichtenstein, you told everyone what your message to the British working class is in the coming general election. Should it be:

1. Vote socialist where you can, abstain where you can't.
2. Vote socialist where you can, Labour where you can't.
3. Vote for who you like.
4. Don't vote.
5. Vote Tory (it'll make you even more miserable and then perhaps you'll revolt).
6. Other?

23rd February 2010, 16:24

Further, Q, this is only confirmed by your persistent claim that the "SWP backs Labour", when this, sounding like some uncritical endorsement of Labour on behalf of the SWP, is, at best, completely uncontextualised, and, at worst, a cynical attempt to smear the SWP, in order to big-up your own "section". It's clear that you have not read or understood the SW documents or Rosa's argument.
Where have I argued such a thing? In this thread I have so far not been ontopic, which is not proper behaviour I admit, but here you're putting words into my mouth.

It would be more instructive if, instead of wasting your time trying to upbraid the un-upbraid-able Rosa Lichtenstein, you told everyone what your message to the British working class is in the coming general election. Should it be:

1. Vote socialist where you can, abstain where you can't.
2. Vote socialist where you can, Labour where you can't.
3. Vote for who you like.
4. Don't vote.
5. Vote Tory (it'll make you even more miserable and then perhaps you'll revolt).
6. Other?
1. It is perhaps fair to say that I shouldn't waste my time with the trolls like Rosa, I'll take it into consideration.
2. I'm personally undecided as of yet as to what political tactic would be best to follow.

Labour will most likely be hammered in the upcoming election, with this in mind and with Labour in the opposition the space to the left of Labour to build a new workers party might very well soon disappear. This is because Labour can become the channel again through which workers will struggle and as such a leftwing inside the party might redevelop. You see I'm cautious in my language here as it might happen (as it did in the past), or not (given the changes Labour has been through in party organisation and politics).

Does this justify a vote on Labour in case there is no socialist standing in the constituency? I'm just not sure yet.

robbo203

23rd February 2010, 16:49

1. Vote socialist where you can, abstain where you can't.
2. Vote socialist where you can, Labour where you can't.
3. Vote for who you like.
4. Don't vote.
5. Vote Tory (it'll make you even more miserable and then perhaps you'll revolt).
6. Other?

It should definitely be 1). 2) is out of the question and in fact if you opt for 2) you have no good reason to complain should Labour get in again and carries on with "business as usual" i.e. running capitalism . The tactic of voting for the supposedly "least worse " capitalist option is cynical , opportunist and counterproductive. Im not even sure that the Tories are worse than Labour - they are both equally despicable - but voting for Labour and giving moral legitimacy to this corrupt capitalist outfit, means helping to perpetuate the endless treadmill of british politics whereby the votes swing from one capitalist party to the other and back again. You are contributing to a situation that destroys hope rather than nurtures it.

If I were in the UK the only party I would vote would be the SPGB. It is the only party with a clear socialist, and not a reformist, platform. If you cannot vote for them then something useful with your ballot paper - spoil it (6). Or failing that dont vote at all (4)

Hit The North

23rd February 2010, 17:16

It should definitely be 1). 2) is out of the question and in fact if you opt for 2) you have no good reason to complain should Labour get in again and carries on with "business as usual" i.e. running capitalism . The tactic of voting for the supposedly "least worse " capitalist option is cynical , opportunist and counterproductive. Im not even sure that the Tories are worse than Labour - they are both equally despicable - but voting for Labour and giving moral legitimacy to this corrupt capitalist outfit, means helping to perpetuate the endless treadmill of british politics whereby the votes swing from one capitalist party to the other and back again. You are contributing to a situation that destroys hope rather than nurtures it.

If I were in the UK the only party I would vote would be the SPGB. It is the only party with a clear socialist, and not a reformist, platform. If you cannot vote for them then something useful with your ballot paper - spoil it (6). Or failing that dont vote at all (4)

So, in short, you are advocating abstentionism. Fair enough.

But, if you'd read the thread or the SW documents you would know that the SWP is not arguing a vote for Labour on the basis of a lesser evil, but on the basis that Labour is a bourgeois workers party, linked to organised labour, and therefore a different beast to the Tories or Lib Dems who have no such links to the working class movement. So your charge of opportunism does not stand. But Rosa's already been through these arguments. You don't have to accept them but you should represent them acurately.

As for the SPGB, their strategy entails a first step towards socialism based on a popular vote from the working class for revolution. (See here: http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/vote-for-revolution.html) . So in order to promote this outcome they are standing the grand total of ONE CANDIDATE in the consistituency of Vauxhall! A staggering achievement for an organisation which has maintained the same strategy for over one hundred years. Let's hope the British proletariat have time to move en masse into Vauxhall, so they can exercise their mandate. :lol:

If that wasn't laughable enough these comrades are not even calling for support to other socialists who might be standing elsewhere.

Still, at least you're consistent, as voting SPGB is the closest to abstaining you'll get without having to actually abstain.

robbo203

23rd February 2010, 18:48

So, in short, you are advocating abstentionism. Fair enough. .

In practical terms, yes, although I think it would preferable to spoil your ballot then not vote at all for the reason pointed out by Ranma on another thread...

But, if you'd read the thread or the SW documents you would know that the SWP is not arguing a vote for Labour on the basis of a lesser evil, but on the basis that Labour is a bourgeois workers party, linked to organised labour, and therefore a different beast to the Tories or Lib Dems who have no such links to the working class movement. So your charge of opportunism does not stand. But Rosa's already been through these arguments. You don't have to accept them but you should represent them acurately..

I have no idea what you mean by a "bourgeois workers party". The Tory party is also full of workers. That doesnt mean we should vote for them either. Labour is a capitalist party, pure and simple. The connection with the trade union movement is not a reason for voting for them but rather a reason for voting against them! We should be wanting to sever the link completely between the trade unons and Labour. We have seen how these political parasites have used this so called "special relation" with the unions to bring them to heel and savagely inflict anti-working class measures on working people in the interests of capital. When I was in the UK and employed in the public sector I made a point of not paying the political levy. Im not sure what the situation is now but I think at the time you had to contract out of the levy. To anyone paying the political levy, opt out NOW - please!

As for the SPGB, their strategy entails a first step towards socialism based on a popular vote from the working class for revolution. (See here: http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/vote-for-revolution.html) . So in order to promote this outcome they are standing the grand total of ONE CANDIDATE in the consistituency of Vauxhall! A staggering achievement for an organisation which has maintained the same strategy for over one hundred years. Let's hope the British proletariat have time to move en masse into Vauxhall, so they can exercise their mandate. :lol:..

Well, yes, the SPGB is small, no one can argue against that - although its a veritable mass movement compared to most organisations on the left :). Most left grouplets are under 100 in number. But as for the SPGB i think its probably sensible just to contest one or two constituencies at this point in time. Otherwise its just money down the pan in the form of lost deposits. They could probably context at least a half dozen or more seats but wisely choose not to

That said, this is not really a question of size, its a question of principle. I would rather vote for a small revolutionary socialist organisation that clearly rejects reformism than a large reformist organisation that necessarily supports capitalism despite its "socialist" pretensions

If that wasn't laughable enough these comrades are not even calling for support to other socialists who might be standing elsewhere...

Do these other "socialists" stand for getting rid of the wages system or for state capitalism in the form of so called "public ownership"? I would be a little less jaundiced if you could tell me when these "other socialists" ever recommended voting for the SPGB in constituencies where they were not standing and the SPGB was...:rolleyes:

23rd February 2010, 19:23

Hit The North

23rd February 2010, 21:39

Originally posted by robbo203
But as for the SPGB i think its probably sensible just to contest one or two constituencies at this point in time. Otherwise its just money down the pan in the form of lost deposits.At this point in time? You mean a few years after the SPGB celebrated their 100th birthday? 100 hundred years of uninterrupted failure! Or does 'at this moment in time' refer to the fact we're in the midst of a deep crisis in Capitalism?

Well, yes, the SPGB is small, no one can argue against that - although its a veritable mass movement compared to most organisations on the left.
You wish! The sad fact is that the SPGB could have ten times its current membership and still not be a movement. After all, you have to move to be considered one and the SPGB do not move. They do not practically support workers struggles, except as individuals; they do not agitate inside the class, except as individuals. I have no idea what their membership size is. But given their strategy relies upon the incremental growth of class consciousness and socialist ideas within the class, the fact that after over 100 years their influence within the class is practically nil, speaks volumes for the bankruptcy of this strategy. I mean they publish quite a nice monthly journal but, apart from that, really why do they exist?

That said, this is not really a question of size, its a question of principle.
Really? Is history really about principle? Is class struggle really about principle? Is revolution really about principle? I wonder.

I would rather vote for a small revolutionary socialist organisation that clearly rejects reformism than a large reformist organisation that necessarily supports capitalism despite its "socialist" pretensions
The SPGB may reject reformism (as every Marxist organisation claims to), but they do not reject the Parliamentary road to socialism. In fact they see it as the crucial first stage: http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/vote-for-revolution.html.
In this article they even argue that the revolution should not entail workers seizing control over the means of production because:

Originally posted by the SPGB
If, on the other hand, workers voted with their feet by marching into the factories and commandeering the means of production, the factories ,the mines, all the means of communications it would surrender to the constituted authorities the legitimacy that could deter any wavering elements in the armed forces from carrying out orders to stop this. It would thus unnecessarily increase the chances of the changeover being violent and more disruptive than it need be.
In other words, the workers must vote for socialism and then allow the bourgeoisie to admit that the game is up, and hand everything over to... who?

It seems to me that one of the principles you admire in the SPGB is their stalwart defense of the principle that the revolution must be the act of the workers themselves. But, in the end, the SPGB are against this, except if the revolution is a mass vote for socialism by the working class. But they're against workers seizing the means of production, of breaking the law in their own defense. This is the revolution as imagined by people who are afraid of revolution. And I have to add that any organisation which tells workers that their power is not at the point of production, but at the ballot box, does not stand in the tradition of scientific socialism.

Do these other "socialists" stand for getting rid of the wages system or for state capitalism in the form of so called "public ownership"? Some do and some don't, I suppose. But, anyway, you sound more like a Jehova's Witness than a socialist. Are any of these tiny organisations in a position to abolish the wage system or increase "public ownership"? What are the practical implications of even asking this question, at "this point in time"?

I would be a little less jaundiced if you could tell me when these "other socialists" ever recommended voting for the SPGB in constituencies where they were not standing and the SPGB was...:rolleyes:
I doubt the SWP would hesitate to encourage the workers of Vauxhall to vote SPGB. But given it is only Vauxhall, and that the SPGB represents no political force at all, this is not a very interesting matter.

23rd February 2010, 22:38

At this point in time? You mean a few years after the SPGB celebrated their 100th birthday? 100 hundred years of uninterrupted failure! Or does 'at this moment in time' refer to the fact we're in the midst of a deep crisis in Capitalism?

You wish! The sad fact is that the SPGB could have ten times its current membership and still not be a movement. After all, you have to move to be considered one and the SPGB do not move. They do not practically support workers struggles, except as individuals; they do not agitate inside the class, except as individuals. I have no idea what their membership size is. But given their strategy relies upon the incremental growth of class consciousness and socialist ideas within the class, the fact that after over 100 years their influence within the class is practically nil, speaks volumes for the bankruptcy of this strategy. I mean they publish quite a nice monthly journal but, apart from that, really why do they exist?

Really? Is history really about principle? Is class struggle really about principle? Is revolution really about principle? I wonder.

The SPGB may reject reformism (as every Marxist organisation claims to), but they do not reject the Parliamentary road to socialism. In fact they see it as the crucial first stage: http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/vote-for-revolution.html.
In this article they even argue that the revolution should not entail workers seizing control over the means of production because:

In other words, the workers must vote for socialism and then allow the bourgeoisie to admit that the game is up, and hand everything over to... who?

It seems to me that one of the principles you admire in the SPGB is their stalwart defense of the principle that the revolution must be the act of the workers themselves. But, in the end, the SPGB are against this, except if the revolution is a mass vote for socialism by the working class. But they're against workers seizing the means of production, of breaking the law in their own defense. This is the revolution as imagined by people who are afraid of revolution. And I have to add that any organisation which tells workers that their power is not at the point of production, but at the ballot box, does not stand in the tradition of scientific socialism.

Some do and some don't, I suppose. But, anyway, you sound more like a Jehova's Witness than a socialist. Are any of these tiny organisations in a position to abolish the wage system or increase "public ownership"? What are the practical implications of even asking this question, at "this point in time"?

I doubt the SWP would hesitate to encourage the workers of Vauxhall to vote SPGB. But given it is only Vauxhall, and that the SPGB represents no political force at all, this is not a very interesting matter.

Don't you find it ironic that someone as utterly worthless as yourself is attacking a small group like the SPGB for no particular reason? Nevermind that you felt the need to write a really long post about fuck all?

robbo203

23rd February 2010, 23:31

Do you find it hilarious that you think the October 17th revolution was 'capitalist' but that you advocate voting? I know I do, does anyone else.. probably.

Regardless, please enlighten us as to what SPGB councillors would do once they assumed the position, this should make for some fun reading.

I am not a member of the SPGB but I think the position is that SPGB does not advocate reforms of any kind i.e., itis opposed to refromism but campaigns on a straight ticket of socialism "and nothing but". Delegates voted into parliament would essentailly serve as a kind of gauge of the strength of socialist commitment among the working class. While reforms would not be advocated in any way, my understanding is that particular reforms would be judged on their merits and from the standpoint of the interests of the working class as a whole.

The October "revolution" certainly was a capitalist revolution - or at any rate a moment in the Russian capitalist revolution - and could hardly be otherwise. Its outcome was state capitalism and as Lenin himself admitted on numerous occasions the mass socialist conscious necessary for a socialist revolution simply did not exist. Indeed he specifically said there was no chance of "implementing socialism" so what else could it be but a capitalist revolution? He might have wanted a socialist revolution but like the song says you cant always havew what you want

But I dont quite understand your remark about voting. Are you saying voting is incompatible with socialist revolution? Marx and Engels certainly did not think so. A revolution just means a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. How you achieve that is another matter. It could be achieved by violence hypothetically but I think that is most improbable and almost certainly suicidal given the might of the modern state

robbo203

24th February 2010, 00:08

At this point in time? You mean a few years after the SPGB celebrated their 100th birthday? 100 hundred years of uninterrupted failure! Or does 'at this moment in time' refer to the fact we're in the midst of a deep crisis in Capitalism?.

I wouldnt disagree with the claim that the SPGB has thus far failed to make any discernable progress. Its sad but its a fact. We have to face up to the fact which is why I keep on reminding starry eyed leninists that it is is also fact that if you dont have a majority of workers wanting and understanding socialism you are not going to get socialism. Not in a million years. I am being brutally realistic here.

As for the SPGB it has to be said that at least they remain a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to the real thing unlike so many on the Left. And while we are at - yes the SPGB has not done well but what of the Left generally? The entire active membership of all left grouplets in the UK would probably just about fit into a medium sized football ground if that. There is no cause for anyone to gloat here. We are all in the same boat in this respect.

You wish! The sad fact is that the SPGB could have ten times its current membership and still not be a movement. After all, you have to move to be considered one and the SPGB do not move. They do not practically support workers struggles, except as individuals; they do not agitate inside the class, except as individuals. I have no idea what their membership size is. But given their strategy relies upon the incremental growth of class consciousness and socialist ideas within the class, the fact that after over 100 years their influence within the class is practically nil, speaks volumes for the bankruptcy of this strategy. I mean they publish quite a nice monthly journal but, apart from that, really why do they exist?.

You dont understand where the SPGB is coming from at all do you? Many of their members are active militants in the trade unions. I knew one guy up in the North who was a firebrand in the shops stewards movement , Wally Preston (prior to that he was a member of the SWP!). Wally died a few years back but he made a big impression on me.

The SPGB has always supported militant trade union struggle (read their trade union pamphlet) but has also pointed out the limitations of it. The difference is that the SPGB does not intervene as an organisation in the economic struggle becuase it sees its role as political not economic. Its not reasonable therefroe to say that the the SPGB does not "practically" support industrial struggles. It is not designed for that purpose! But that does not mean it members do not engage in such struggles or that the organistaion does not support it as a matter of principle

The SPGB may reject reformism (as every Marxist organisation claims to), but they do not reject the Parliamentary road to socialism. In fact they see it as the crucial first stage: http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/vote-for-revolution.html..

Yes but the parliamentary road to socialism is not the same thing as reformism is it. Dictatorships are just as much reformist as liberal bourgeois democracies. Marx supported the parliamentary approach and welcomed the extension of the franchise as a revolutionary meausre

It seems to me that one of the principles you admire in the SPGB is their stalwart defense of the principle that the revolution must be the act of the workers themselves. But, in the end, the SPGB are against this, except if the revolution is a mass vote for socialism by the working class. But they're against workers seizing the means of production, of breaking the law in their own defense. This is the revolution as imagined by people who are afraid of revolution. And I have to add that any organisation which tells workers that their power is not at the point of production, but at the ballot box, does not stand in the tradition of scientific socialism..

Where do you get this idea from? It certainly does. Read Engels introduction to Class struggles in France and you will soon see differently. I think the point about the SPGB being critical about simply seizing hold of the means of production (anarcho syndicalism) is not becuase it opposes this on principle but becuase it is judged to be not a very smart move when the forces of the state can come down on you like a ton of bricks. In other words they criticise it becuase it is an ineffectual approach since it leave intact the power of the state

Some do and some don't, I suppose. But, anyway, you sound more like a Jehova's Witness than a socialist. Are any of these tiny organisations in a position to abolish the wage system or increase "public ownership"? What are the practical implications of even asking this question, at "this point in time"?..

Of course - this is my very point! That there is very little in way of militant socialist consciousness around so its hardly surprrising the SPGB is small and most of the left even smaller. Thats what I am saying we have to recognise just how small is the movement for radical socialist change and work to make it bigger. Unless it becomes a majority there is no way it can abolish the wages system. As Al.i G says we must "keep it real". At least the SPGB is realistic about its possibilities at the present time. Most of the left are not

I doubt the SWP would hesitate to encourage the workers of Vauxhall to vote SPGB. But given it is only Vauxhall, and that the SPGB represents no political force at all, this is not a very interesting matter.

Dont quite follow. Are you saying the SWP would urge workers in Vauxhall to vote SPGB or not?

Saorsa

24th February 2010, 00:29

Don't you find it ironic that someone as utterly worthless as yourself is attacking a small group like the SPGB for no particular reason? Nevermind that you felt the need to write a really long post about fuck all?

Dude, why was that abuse necessary?

Die Neue Zeit

24th February 2010, 04:24

1. It is perhaps fair to say that I shouldn't waste my time with the trolls like Rosa, I'll take it into consideration.
2. I'm personally undecided as of yet as to what political tactic would be best to follow.

Vote socialist where you can, *spoil* where you can't (there's a Politics thread on this, and I already covered this in my work).

Staying at home is ultra-leftist.

robbo203

24th February 2010, 08:29

Vote socialist where you can, *spoil* where you can't (there's a Politics thread on this, and I already covered this in my work).

Staying at home is ultra-leftist.

Even staying at home would be vastly better than a vote for the capitalist "Labour" Party

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2010, 09:13

^^^But, that would leave many millions of workers with illusions in the LP.

robbo203

24th February 2010, 09:26

^^^But, that would leave many millions of workers with illusions in the LP.

Urging workers to vote for the LP can only help to sustain those illusions

Devrim

24th February 2010, 09:28

^^^But, that would leave many millions of workers with illusions in the LP.

And calling for workers to vote for them as if their is any difference between them and the other bourgeois parties is going to break these workers from the Labour Party.

Personally, I think that the leftists have more illusions in the Labour Party than most workers.

Calling for a vote for a viscously anti-working class, imperialist governing party is a disgrace to the name 'socialist'.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2010, 09:35

Devrim:

And calling for workers to vote for them as if their is any difference between them and the other bourgeois parties is going to break these workers from the Labour Party.

Not if that were the only thing you were arguing (which if you'd read this thread more carefully, you'd see is not the only thing the SWP are arguing).

Personally, I think that the leftists have more illusions in the Labour Party than most workers.

Fine that's your view from several thousand miles away, but, fortunately, the SWP has no illusions whatsoever in the LP -- and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Calling for a vote for a viscously anti-working class, imperialist governing party is a disgrace to the name 'socialist'.

Leaving millions of workers with illusions in the LP is even worse.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2010, 09:36

Robbo:

Urging workers to vote for the LP can only help to sustain those illusions

Not if the call is: where there is no alternative, vote LP with no illusions.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2010, 09:38

JR:

*spoil* where you can't

And how is this any the less 'ultra-left' than staying at home?

Devrim

24th February 2010, 09:57

Not if that were the only thing you were arguing (which if you'd read this thread more carefully, you'd see is not the only thing the SWP are arguing).

It doesn't really matter what left-wing language it is dressed up in. At root it is a call for support for an anti-working class imperialist party.

Fine that's your view from several thousand miles away, but, fortunately, the SWP has no illusions whatsoever in the LP -- and I defy you to prove otherwise.

It is a pretty crass argument that people can't comment because they live in other countries. One that I don't remember anybody using when Rosa was spouting her nonsense about Islam not being anti gay based on one article from the other side of the world from her.

Whatever, it is my impression that members of the SWP do have more illusions in the Labour Party than most workers, which is reflected in their call for a vote for them.

Leaving millions of workers with illusions in the LP is even worse.

Millions of workers believe that Labour will defend jobs and working conditions after thirteen years of Labour rule and their response to the last deepening of the crisis, you have to be joking.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th February 2010, 10:06

Devrim:

It doesn't really matter what left-wing language it is dressed up in. At root it is a call for support for an anti-working class imperialist party.

1) It's not a matter of 'dressing' things up, but attending to the actaul argument, which, plainly, you haven't done.

2) Where have the SWP called for 'support' for the LP?

It is a pretty crass argument that people can't comment because they live in other countries. One that I don't remember anybody using when Rosa was spouting her nonsense about Islam not being anti gay based on one article from the other side of the world from her.

1) Do try to stay on topic.

2) Where did I say you can't comment?

Whatever, it is my impression that members of the SWP do have more illusions in the Labour Party than most workers, which is reflected in their call for a vote for them.

Ah, so an 'impression' is proof now, eh?

And, find me one SWP source that says they have a single illusion in the LP. Go on, off you go -- make yourself uselful for a change...

Millions of workers believe that Labour will defend jobs and working conditions after thirteen years of Labour rule and their response to the last deepening of the crisis, you have to be joking.

Well, whatever you say, and howsoever much you fulminate, millions or workers will vote labour, so address your incredulity to them, not me.

Saorsa

24th February 2010, 10:28

Workers vote Labour because while they know they're bad, they thing they're a little bit better than the Tories. They think they're the lesser of two evils. Workers don't think workers have faith that the Labour Party will come in and actually solve all their problems and make society way better.

With this in mind, with the fact that the problem here is that workers continue to see Labour as the lesser of two evils, how will calling for a vote for labour (with or without illusions) help to solve these problems? You objectively are telling workers that these illusions are correct, and that the Labour party is in some way preferable. After all, why not call for 'a vote for either labour or the tories without illusions'? Because to the SWP, workers need to be told that labour is that little bit better to have in government. You are reinforcing workers illusions in the capitalist parties and in the political system.

It should of course be noted that the influence the SWP has amongst workers is so minute that this really won't make much difference either way, thank god. But it is still a terrible and deeply illogical political line.

@ Rosa and co: Please, rather than just stating things like 'we need labour to be in power to destroy worker's illusions in them', could you instead actually explain why you think this is the case?

Why does Labour still need to be in power to be exposed? How is calling for a vote for labour 'without illusions' actually going to somehow destroy workers illusions in the Labour party?

Don't just say what your line is. Please explain it, in concrete terms.

24th February 2010, 10:31

Dude, why was that abuse necessary?

Because Bob his hack party is attempting to mobilise workers to vote for Labour, also, him and Rosa are clearly trying to divert the topic away from this, to some utter insignificance, which I personally find incredibly fucking annoying, I only made my post as a tiny passing point whereas Bob has filled up a big part of this page with his crap.

No response from him I see and more of the usual dodging by Rosa, more attempt at diversion of the topic, but it's not going away because this isn't OK and the SWP are a complete joke of a party.

I am not a member of the SPGB but I think the position is that SPGB does not advocate reforms of any kind i.e., itis opposed to refromism but campaigns on a straight ticket of socialism "and nothing but". Delegates voted into parliament would essentailly serve as a kind of gauge of the strength of socialist commitment among the working class. While reforms would not be advocated in any way, my understanding is that particular reforms would be judged on their merits and from the standpoint of the interests of the working class as a whole.

This is complete crap, reforms reforms.. whatever, the fact that the SPGB would vote for anything in a local council or parliament shows them up as the social-democratic idiots they are, just like they were before they were called the SPGB - the Social-Democratic Federation which Marx himself denounced.

It's funny that someone from the SWP would advocate voting for the SPGB, it's actually really bad and puts you in the same box as them, you advocate socialism by the ballot box, you and your ilk (Hyndman) turned to national chauvinism when you felt the time was right, you advocate opportunistic sloganeering wherever you can and it always comes on top. 100+ years of failure should tell you this.

The SWP and SPGB show their true colours when it comes right down to it; socialism by the ballot box, utter elitism ("the lindsey oil refinery strike was a chauvinist nationalist one"/"the october revolution was capitalist" etc). What a bunch of complete jokes to the left, making the entire left as a whole look really bad in this country, seriously I find it unbelievably ridiculous that someone from the SPGB would say socialism is possible by the ballot box then attack the SWP for arguing for a labour vote.

The October "revolution" certainly was a capitalist revolution - or at any rate a moment in the Russian capitalist revolution - and could hardly be otherwise. Its outcome was state capitalism and as Lenin himself admitted on numerous occasions the mass socialist conscious necessary for a socialist revolution simply did not exist. Indeed he specifically said there was no chance of "implementing socialism" so what else could it be but a capitalist revolution? He might have wanted a socialist revolution but like the song says you cant always havew what you want

Lenin said a lot of things, your simplistic interpretations of what he said fool no-one.

But I dont quite understand your remark about voting. Are you saying voting is incompatible with socialist revolution? Marx and Engels certainly did not think so. A revolution just means a fundamental change in the economic basis of society. How you achieve that is another matter. It could be achieved by violence hypothetically but I think that is most improbable and almost certainly suicidal given the might of the modern state

Yes, voting is absolutely incompatible with socialist revolution, I know that Rosa and many others didn't think so either - but Marx specifically denounced the predecessor to the SPGB - the Social-Democratic Federation who were national chauvinist idiots, that should be more than enough proof that this party you support are jokes.