So much for British Trotskyism

[Die Neue Zeit]

It has been said that the KKE in Greece is a sort of "pan-Stalinist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pan-socialismi-t134908/index.html)" party:


This is an attempt to unite tankies of the "Brezhnevite" variety, supporters of Cuban and Vietnamese anti-imperialism back in the day, and the three tendencies claiming the "Anti-Revisionist" label: "Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Only-ists" like in Russia, Hoxhaists, and most Maoists (probably excluding Three Worlds Theory activists).


"Pan-Socialists" are only really split on issues like China, wherein some call it capitalist, and others socialist. Other than that, they basically accept everyone as socialist (except usually Tito and Pol Pot).

Well gee, if "pan-Stalinism" can accommodate allegedly "serious" political differences on the nature of some states, why can't British Trotskyism unite into a single political organization with distinct differences on the nature of some states (hello Cliffite "state capitalism" vs. Militant "degenerated workers state")?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Well gee, if "pan-Stalinism" can accommodate allegedly "serious" political differences on the nature of some states, why can't British Trotskyism unite into a single political organization with distinct differences on the nature of some states (hello Cliffite "state capitalism" vs. Militant "degenerated workers state")?

More importantly, why does it matter?

Nic.

[The Idler]

Well gee, if "pan-Stalinism" can accommodate allegedly "serious" political differences on the nature of some states, why can't British Trotskyism unite into a single political organization with distinct differences on the nature of some states (hello Cliffite "state capitalism" vs. Militant "degenerated workers state")?
Egos

[KC]

Well gee, if "pan-Stalinism" can accommodate allegedly "serious" political differences on the nature of some states, why can't British Trotskyism unite into a single political organization with distinct differences on the nature of some states (hello Cliffite "state capitalism" vs. Militant "degenerated workers state")?

The events unfolding in Greece have quite obviously compelled it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The KKE has been around since well before the 1990s. Ludo Martens is just icing on the cake for "pan-Stalinist" unity.


More importantly, why does it matter?

Nic.

Unity is strength. That is the lesson of the 1875 formation of the SPD, the unity between the "Eisenacher" Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany and the Lassallean German General Workers Association.

[Lyev]

Here's some speculation on why the two groups don't join together:

I really don't understand, with the fragmented state of the left in Britain at the moment, why the left in Britain doesn't unite for a second, and stop bickering? TUSC is definitely a step forward, but lets face it, even though everyone's putting loads of their time, money and effort into getting the election campaign of the ground, TUSC are gonna do pretty crap in the upcoming election. We are leftists, socialists and anti-capitalists, so why don't we all just join together? (I know the main SP-SWP thing is state capitalism vs deformed workers state; but really how relevant is that to your average voter??)
Alas, there's more to it than that. Even between two organisations like that, there are significant differences - the SP are not nearly as absolutist on no platform as the SWP, and it would be difficult for them to take part in something like UAF, which consumes an awful lot of the SWP's energy. As socialists, we all agree that fascism is a Bad Thing, but disagree on what should be done about it, which means that we can't be united on that question, because we would be paralysed on it. That is, unless minorities were willing to submit to the will of the majority - but it is difficult to imagine either Taaffe or Smith doing that. Indeed, in the last situation where he was outnumbered by the SWP, in the Socialist Alliance, Taaffe bailed out. The organisational regimes in place are another serious block on the road to unity. If it was really that simple, we'd have done it already.

[Sam_b]

(I know the main SP-SWP thing is state capitalism vs deformed workers state; but really how relevant is that to your average voter??)

I wish it were that simple.

[Zanthorus]

I was under the impression that the state-capitalism vs degenerated workers state thing was tied into defence of the "socialist" states from Imperialism, state-capitalists being the ones who don't care and DWS'ers being the ones who advocate active defence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's the ugly twin of the equally ugly "Social Imperialism" debate, if you ask me, since similar "anti-imperialist" lines come out of it. Those Greeks who scream "Social Imperialism" in historical debates are somehow capable of working with those who don't scream such, yet the British Trots can't get their act together.

[Raightning]

Well gee, if "pan-Stalinism" can accommodate allegedly "serious" political differences on the nature of some states, why can't British Trotskyism unite into a single political organization with distinct differences on the nature of some states (hello Cliffite "state capitalism" vs. Militant "degenerated workers state")?
It's my impression at least that the feuds between the SP and the SWP often delve into the personal more than the political. That's always going to be a difficult bridge to build particularly when any attempt by either side to build it is seen half the time by the other side as trying to break it.

[scarletghoul]

I think that if a revolutionary situation arises these differances will have to be put aside, or the parties themselves will be cast aside by the masses who cannot be arsed with that shit.

Already this is happening a little. As the worldwide class struggle seems to be picking up now, people are paying a lot more attention to the 'stalinist' parties leading revolutionary movements than the trotskyist parties who are pretty irrelevent. On RevLeft for example you can see more discussion of these stalinist parties than there was a year ago and less discussion of trot stuff. Its because the trot discussion becomes more and more irrelevent and boring as the real revolutionary movements take off.

[Crux]

It's my impression at least that the feuds between the SP and the SWP often delve into the personal more than the political. That's always going to be a difficult bridge to build particularly when any attempt by either side to build it is seen half the time by the other side as trying to break it.
I think there are definitely some very real political differences, in fact I don't agree with the "personal conflict" angle at all, although of course past conflicts might create mutual mistrust et cetera.
As for "pan-stalinism" it's easy to be united if you're moving to the right. This goes for other supposed unity attempts too. There's no such thing as unity for unity's sake, different programs have to be tested in front of the working class. In short, and in response to that other thread on a virtually identical subject, we are not weak because we are divided, we are divided because we are weak.
Any successful unity projects that I know of have been forged at the upturn into actual struggle.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Unity is strength.

This is a pure abstraction. In reality the question left unanswered is strength for whom, ie. for which camp in the class struggle?

We don't need 'left unity'. The left and the working class have nothing in common.

Nic.

[Lyev]

I think that if a revolutionary situation arises these differances will have to be put aside, or the parties themselves will be cast aside by the masses who cannot be arsed with that shit.

Already this is happening a little. As the worldwide class struggle seems to be picking up now, people are paying a lot more attention to the 'stalinist' parties leading revolutionary movements than the trotskyist parties who are pretty irrelevent. On RevLeft for example you can see more discussion of these stalinist parties than there was a year ago and less discussion of trot stuff. Its because the trot discussion becomes more and more irrelevent and boring as the real revolutionary movements take off.Excuse me? I think this is a tad unfair. What did the Stalinist CPGB-ML do for the recent UK election, in the way of agitation, propaganda, education and organisation? Not a lot, I think it's safe to say. Stalinism in the UK is absolutely irrelevant. And what were the "boring and irrelevant" Trotskyist groups doing? Forming a coalition, with just over 50 candidates.

[Yehuda Stern]

In fact, what people here are suggesting has been tried many times and has ended time after time in a miserable split, from the days of Healy-Lambert to the days of respect. Opportunists trying to reconcile completely different positions is old news; so is what comes of such attempts.

And this

Unity is strength. That is the lesson of the 1875 formation of the SPD, the unity between the "Eisenacher" Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany and the Lassallean German General Workers Association.
Excuse me, is this not the party that deteriorated into reformism, whose programme (you know, the Gotha one) Marx and Engels criticized so severly? Is that your model?

[Palingenisis]

Excuse me? I think this is a tad unfair. What did the Stalinist CPGB-ML do for the recent UK election, in the way of agitation, propaganda, education and organisation? Not a lot, I think it's safe to say. Stalinism in the UK is absolutely irrelevant. And what were the "boring and irrelevant" Trotskyist groups doing? Forming a coalition, with just over 50 candidates.

Where are Trots waging armed struggle?

[Palingenisis]

I was under the impression that the state-capitalism vs degenerated workers state thing was tied into defence of the "socialist" states from Imperialism, state-capitalists being the ones who don't care and DWS'ers being the ones who advocate active defence.

To be fair though the Socialist Party which is the direct descendent of MilTout even though they saw the Warsaw Pact countries as degenrated workers states (what is a degenerated worker? does that mean that all those workers there were listening to pop music? ;)) were pretty dismissive of them and actually welcomed their fall as the fall of "Stalinism" so in practice the SWP and them could easily enough work together...Of course it would be a bit different with the Sparts.

[Lyev]

Where are Trots waging armed struggle?No of course we're not. But, the success of a revolutionary workers' movement is not always measured by the amount of people it can shoot. And just because some people run about some mountains holding red flags (e.g. Shining Path) does not automatically make then Marxist. Nor does armed struggle immediately change a social relation; if I were to run into the street with an AK47, right this second, and start shooting those I deem "counter-revolutionary" then it doesn't suddenly make me revolutionary.

I think it's fair to acknowledge that the material conditions in every separate country are wide and varied. The Greek, English and Nepali culture, economy, landscape, demographic and society are all quite different. Nepal only got "democracy" in 1990. There was a civil war there for 10 years. It's the worlds youngest republic. Britain is one of the oldest countries in the world. It is nonsensical to expect the same from a country that's just defaulted on it's credit rating to junk status, and then Britain who are still AAA. As for Nepal, it is largely feudal, with mountains suitable for guerrilla warfare.

I don't understand the fetishization of revolutionary movements abroad, by leftists in the first world. Isn't it enough to be content, and occupied with, activism in your country? Of course, I'm not saying those that support foreign movement do nothing in their country. In other words, I'm not sure it's totally accurate to say your ideology is successful just because some people in another country have taken up arms in the name of it, if that makes sense. I find it hard to get my words across sometimes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In fact, what people here are suggesting has been tried many times and has ended time after time in a miserable split, from the days of Healy-Lambert to the days of respect. Opportunists trying to reconcile completely different positions is old news; so is what comes of such attempts.

And this

Excuse me, is this not the party that deteriorated into reformism, whose programme (you know, the Gotha one) Marx and Engels criticized so severly? Is that your model?

You're just not willing to stomach the massive bureaucracy that's needed to implement a party-organized alternative culture for workers: cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, etc.

Wilhelm Liebknecht went too far, especially when the Lassallean ADAVers were at breaking point and themselves willing to accept unity on any terms. Unity around the Eisenach program, which did include the kind of "producer coops with state aid" implemented right now in Venezuela, would have been much better.

I stretched my polemic a tad too much, trying to bend the stick the other way.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for "pan-stalinism" it's easy to be united if you're moving to the right. This goes for other supposed unity attempts too. There's no such thing as unity for unity's sake, different programs have to be tested in front of the working class. In short, and in response to that other thread on a virtually identical subject, we are not weak because we are divided, we are divided because we are weak.
Any successful unity projects that I know of have been forged at the upturn into actual struggle.

How exactly is the KKE "moving to the right"? The 1990s turn is easily seen outside the organization as "ultra-left" and "Third Periodist."