Why am i in the Labour Party?

[Kez]

Why am i in the Labour Party?

Because this is where the Trade Unions are:

*When people see discontent, and become sick of a situation, they naturally seek to make change through their trade unions
*If we are there in the Trade Unions then we can become elected as Trade Union leaders from the shop floor to the Gen Sec of the union
*The Unions still have a significant voice and power in the LP, and with this can shift the Labour Party. The shift itself is not the end all of the situation, however, a more left wing LP creates more situations for marxists to have a better voice to be heard

Because the LP is the traditional Party of the workers:
*This is still the case, that workers vote for Labour at the elections (cue twat A-level students to quote bullshit from textbooks saying dee-allignment, embourgeoisment etc etc). Fact is workers still vote for Labour, or dont vote because theyre sick of blair.
*If we are in the labour party, we pass throu resolutions at the grassroots level, and boot out the right wing of the party at constituency level. Eg Socialist Appeals "club 300" scheme where 300 trade union members enter a constuency branch and boot out the right wing twat, and with the new socialist (hopefully, if were there) as leader of the constituency u get socialists in power, paid by the Labour Party! not by the few hardcore deddicated who unfortunately pay SWP money, but buy LP members!

i hope this explains

Lenin and Trotsky both said that we should go where the workers are, and the workers are still in the LP

[Kez]

also, Lenin always mainted Labour Party wasnt Workers Party, but a bourgeois-workers party, made from the workers, ledd by the bourgeois, this has always been the case...

[Saint-Just]

This is still the case, that workers vote for Labour at the elections (cue twat A-level students to quote bullshit from textbooks saying dee-allignment, embourgeoisment etc etc). Fact is workers still vote for Labour, or dont vote because theyre sick of blair.

De-alignment is still valid in arguing worker's are not voting for Labour. De-alignment means that not only does Labour have many middle-class voters but that there are many working class voting Conservative. Although Labour still tends to win urban areas with high working-class population. De-alignment is not an absolute theory, but it still exists.

[crazy comie]

labur was a good party but now it is run by dickheads

[YKTMX]

Why I am not in the Labour Party

-I am a socialist.

[blackemma]

Why I am not in the Labour Party

-I live in Canada.

[Kez]

On your point X, i think you find that i also am a socialist, the reason ive joined the LP is not an ideoloogical one, but a organisation one, ie in terms of how i conduct my struggle for socialism

[Scottish_Militant]

I'm also a member of the Labour Party

[redstar2000]

Why am i in the Labour Party?

Because this is where the Trade Unions are

Well, I'm sure all the leaders are...it would be interesting to know how many ordinary workers would bother to piss on the "Labour" Party if it was burning to death.

Especially lately.


When people see discontent, and become sick of a situation, they naturally seek to make change through their trade unions

Sometimes. Other times they bypass their unions altogether and act directly for themselves.

And sometimes they even create brand new workers' organizations.

It varies.


If we are there in the Trade Unions then we can become elected as Trade Union leaders from the shop floor to the Gen Sec of the union

And then what? Why won't you sell out the ordinary members and sign rotten contracts like all the rest?


The Unions still have a significant voice and power in the LP, and with this can shift the Labour Party

Yeah, yeah, yeah. History is just full of capitalist parties than have been "re-captured" by workers.


Fact is workers still vote for Labour, or don't vote because they're sick of Blair.

Or maybe not just Blair, smarmy bastard that he is. Maybe they're just sick of all politicians...even the "socialist" ones.


If we are in the labour party, we pass thru resolutions at the grassroots level, and boot out the right wing of the party at constituency level.

How often has this actually been tried? How often has it succeeded? What measures have the LP executives taken to put a stop to it?


Lenin and Trotsky both said that we should go where the workers are, and the workers are still in the LP

Aren't there also workers in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and even the British National Party?

Though unimpressed by either one of those icons, I nevertheless think it likely that their analysis would be a wee bit more sophisticated than "go where the workers are".


labour was a good party but now it is run by dickheads

Crude, but to the point. A vote for "Labour" is definitely a vote for "dickheads".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Scottish_Militant]

Redstar, in 1997 almost every person in Britain voted Labour in the general election landslide, now I did say you were an ultra-left winbag who stands on the sidelines of the movement - the fact that you can call so many millions of people 'dickheads' goes to show that I am correct in calling you this.

Do you know anything about the building of the Militant tendency?

[kylie]

Labour recieved 13,518,184 votes out of an electorate of 36,516,505, with the actual population of Britain being around the 60 million mark i think.
Oh, i'm not a member of the Labour party by the way, i like YouKnowTheyMurderedX am a Marxist and don't support Capitalism.

[Scottish_Militant]

13,518,184 is still alot of dickheads, 60 million is the rough population but how many of these people are under 18?

BTW I am a Marxist and don't support capitalism so what is your point?

[redstar2000]

...now I did say you were an ultra-left windbag who stands on the sidelines of the movement - the fact that you can call so many millions of people 'dickheads' goes to show that I am correct in calling you this.

"Ultra-left windbag" I may be...though considering your own difficulties in comprehending written English, I wonder how you could possibly make any determination on that question.

Here is what I wrote...


A vote for "Labour" is definitely a vote for "dickheads".

I think most people on this board would readily grasp the fact that I was calling "Labour's" candidates dickheads...not the people who voted for them.

But since you ask, I think most of the people who voted for "Labour" thought they were voting for the "lesser evil"...like Americans who voted for Gore.

It is a common-enough illusion in bourgeois "democracies"...the idea that electoral politics is actually about something of substance.

They voted for Blair because they didn't know any better. And the same thing would have been true no matter who won.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Scottish_Militant]

It's not simply about 'voting' Labour, it's about being inside the Labour Party and the trade unions, this is where organised workers are.

You don't know much/anything about the Labour Party Redstar, you have made a great sceintific analysis....'Blair is a capitalist so Labour must be capitalist'

Shortly before the founding of the Labour party Engels wrote

"the time is rapidly approaching when the working class of this country will claim… its full share of representation in Parliament... the working class will have understood that the struggle for high wages, and short hours, and the whole action of the trades unions as carried on now, is not an end in itself but a means towards the end, the abolition of the wages system altogether."

Labour was founded by the trade unions, and it was founded on the following principles...

"We reaffirm our belief that the earth's resources should be employed in the service of the community and that this can be assured only if it is the community which commands their employment. Only in this way can we avert the pitiless paradox of unused resources and unsatisfied needs; of unemployed millions living in need of the very things they themselves could produce; the unemployed coalminer in need of coal; the unemployed weaver in need of clothes; the hungry farmworker, the ill-shod shoemaker, the homeless builder. Where human needs exist and where the resources of labour, raw materials and equipment required to satisfy those needs also exist, we believe that no intermediate interest, whether it be commercial profit or bureaucratic power, should stand between the two."

The first Labour MP, Keir Hardie, stated that

“A working man in Parliament should go to the House of Commons in his workday clothes..he should address the speaker on labour questions, and give his utterance to the same sentiments, in the same language and in the same manner that he is accustomed to utter his sentiments, and address the president of the local radical club. Above all he should remember that all the Conservatives and Liberals joined together in the interests of capital against Labour."

[Invader Zim]

However communist_revolutionary, (shocking as it may sound) Redstar is (for once) bang on the nail.

Labour is capitalist and always has been, it has never been a socialist party, it has just been made worse than it used to be by Blair and his quite litteraly 100's of cronies.

The labour leftwing is a shrinking minority and a joke.

[The Feral Underclass]

Tav: What you describe is nothing but SWP opportunist tactics, it does nothing to advance class consciousness.

Although the Trade Unions do have some power, which was obvious during the postal strikes. it has also taken on a more impressive role with co-ordinated class action from public sector workers in solidarity for each other. The TUC is controlled by right-wing, rich, blairite sell outs and no matter how militant you want to be the government is going to through it right back at you, ten fold, using people who are supposed to be championing you cause.

[Kez]

Tav: What you describe is nothing but SWP opportunist tactics, it does nothing to advance class consciousness.
-what? surely if that was the case i would comprimise my marxist ideas to gain popularity instead of winning the minds of people with my ideas???

Although the Trade Unions do have some power, which was obvious during the postal strikes. it has also taken on a more impressive role with co-ordinated class action from public sector workers in solidarity for each other. The TUC is controlled by right-wing, rich, blairite sell outs and no matter how militant you want to be the government is going to through it right back at you, ten fold, using people who are supposed to be championing you cause.
-You are correct in saying the TUC majority are righth wing, bbut they are less riught wing than before, that it because we are working inside it to boot the right out. Such as SIR Ken Jackson, who we beat the flying fuck out with Tony Woodley. tony Woodly did not sell out the workers as REdstar would like to suggest would be the case. Instead he bought workers to the Labour conference in protest against the Blair leadership. He could have gone on a sulk and said "were quitting the party" but he didnt, because he knew we can and will win the fight.


Labour is capitalist and always has been, it has never been a socialist party, it has just been made worse than it used to be by Blair and his quite litteraly 100's of cronies.
-Comrade Enigma, you are right in believeing that Labour is not a workers party, hwoever it not a capitalist party either. It is (as lenin explained) a bourgeoise-workers party, ie one that has worker make up, but Capitalist leadership. I think you will agree with that comrade?

The labour leftwing is a shrinking minority and a joke.
-I would be interested to see your evidence for this.
-I would arguie the opposite, and the unions are proof of this. And this is only the start.
The brilliant wild cat action should now be directed in kicking out the CWU leadership and putting in a real voice of the workers. THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE. We should be getting up high in the ranks of the unions and building up socialism and socialist theory within the ranks. So that the union has a socialist direction. The same goes for the Labour Party, however the LP movements are slower as our work is bottom up, and the shocks in the unions takes time to reach the party itself.

"I nevertheless think it likely that their analysis would be a wee bit more sophisticated than "go where the workers are"."
Go where the mass of the workers are...why must you make petty points when there are serious discussions going on?

[redstar2000]

It's not simply about 'voting' Labour, it's about being inside the Labour Party and the trade unions, this is where organised workers are.

So you say. But it strikes me as most likely that it is the union leadership that is inside the "Labour" Party and not the ordinary worker.

Of course you guys want to be "union leaders" yourselves...so the appeal of "Labour" to you is not unjustified.

But don't forget what your "job" as "union leaders" is going to mean...signing and enforcing contracts that by their very nature are exploitative.

And you will have the same excuses as the guys you replaced: "this is the best we could do", "this is a realistic and practical improvement", "this is a step towards better contracts in the future", "at least we didn't give back everything".


"the time is rapidly approaching when the working class of this country will claim… its full share of representation in Parliament... the working class will have understood that the struggle for high wages, and short hours, and the whole action of the trades unions as carried on now, is not an end in itself but a means towards the end, the abolition of the wages system altogether."

Engels wrote several things towards the end of his life that may be construed as friendly to the notion of the parliamentary road to socialism. I think he was quite surprised and impressed by the early successes of the German Social Democratic Party...and perhaps thought the Labour Party would do the same.

That was then; this is now.

Historical experience has made it overwhelmingly clear that bourgeois parliaments are not a viable path "to socialism". Even if the current "Labour" Party was pure Leninist-Trotskyist and had a majority of parliament, it would be unable to deliver on any of its promises. The civil service and the judiciary would sabotage its efforts; the army and the police would refuse to carry out its orders; the ruling class would go on a "capital strike"; etc., etc., etc.

And even much of the working class would probably vote Liberal or Conservative in the following election...because things actually got "worse" with your Leninist-Trotskyist Labour Party in power.


A working man in Parliament should go to the House of Commons in his workday clothes...

Wouldn't that be a sight to see? Actually, "Labour" MPs do dress in their "workday clothes"...business suits. They're in business, aren't they?


You don't know much/anything about the Labour Party, Redstar, you have made a great scientific analysis....'Blair is a capitalist so Labour must be capitalist'

Well, it's crude perhaps, but it hits the essential point. Even some of the present union leadership grumbles about it. "Thatcherism with a human face" or something like that, right?

Do you wish to argue the point?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Scottish_Militant]

“So you say. But it strikes me as most likely that it is the union leadership that is inside the "Labour" Party and not the ordinary worker.

Of course you guys want to be "union leaders" yourselves...so the appeal of "Labour" to you is not unjustified.”

‘It strikes you’ ok, good guess but you are wrong. Many trade union branches are also Labour branches, and every trade unionist is not a ‘union leader’ are they?

And why do you imagine I want to become a union leader? Again this isn’t true, you have pulled it out a hat. You are correct however when you say the appeal of Labour to me is not unjustified, my trade union is affiliated to the party and many of my fellow workers are members, so of course I will fight for workers representation.

“But don't forget what your "job" as "union leaders" is going to mean...signing and enforcing contracts that by their very nature are exploitative.

And you will have the same excuses as the guys you replaced: "this is the best we could do", "this is a realistic and practical improvement", "this is a step towards better contracts in the future", "at least we didn't give back everything".”

A fundamental rule of Marxism is to explain that union leaders, when faced with enough pressure, do tend to sell out. This is where the socialism part comes in, and it’s a good way to engage fellow workers in a discussion and introduce them to revolutionary socialism.

“Engels wrote several things towards the end of his life that may be construed as friendly to the notion of the parliamentary road to socialism. I think he was quite surprised and impressed by the early successes of the German Social Democratic Party...and perhaps thought the Labour Party would do the same.”

What are you talking about the end of his life, he died in 1895 didn’t he? I remember you palming of a few of Marx’s opinions with the same ‘end of life’ rubbish, no harm in disagreeing of course, but you could be less patronising and just admit you think he was wrong…

I don’t.

“Historical experience has made it overwhelmingly clear that bourgeois parliaments are not a viable path "to socialism". Even if the current "Labour" Party was pure Leninist-Trotskyist and had a majority of parliament, it would be unable to deliver on any of its promises. The civil service and the judiciary would sabotage its efforts; the army and the police would refuse to carry out its orders; the ruling class would go on a "capital strike"; etc., etc., etc.”

Our main goal is to build a Marxist tendency inside Labour in order to distribute revolutionary ideas to the masses. Of course socialism cannot be ‘voted in’, we can have left reformist governments but this is not our main aim. Our aim is for socialist revolution.

One thing ‘historical experience’ has shown, is that the masses mostly turn to their ‘traditional’ organisations in times of revolutionary struggle (social democratic parties, trade unions etc). They look to the old familiar organisations for answers, again this is where the Marxists must be. If we’re not then the right wing will...

“And even much of the working class would probably vote Liberal or Conservative in the following election...because things actually got "worse" with your Leninist-Trotskyist Labour Party in power.”

Just like 1945?

“Well, it's crude perhaps, but it hits the essential point. Even some of the present union leadership grumbles about it. "Thatcherism with a human face" or something like that, right?

Do you wish to argue the point?”

The leadership is a capitalist one, the party is not capitalist, the leadership does not represent the party or the masses and in a matter of time it will be removed by the TUC as it moves to the left. Enigma also states that “Labour is capitalist and always has been” he obviously ignored the quotes I posted above then….

[YKTMX]

I suppose this boils down to one question. What exactly would be the diffirence if every Labour Party MP was a committed Marxist? What diffirence would that make? The answer unfortunately is none. The only possible advantage would be Marxist ideas would be more open to the general public. Nothing changes through parliament, everyone knows this, it's designed to preserve the status quo. The only way we can affect any real chage i.e revolutionary change, is through building a mass party of the genuine left.

Do I criticise genuine socialists in the Labour Party? Yes and no. The Labour party has always been seen as a good vehicle for building class consciousness. It has mass appeal amongst large populations of the working class, this gives it an adavantage over any other party. It seems easier to try and usurp another party than building one of your own.

And also, for comrades in the Labour Party, yes we want Blair out, obviously. For what though? So we can have the Iron chancellor Gordon Brown instead? The idea that Brown represents any sorts of progress is a sorry statement for anyone on the left.

[Kez]

"I suppose this boils down to one question. What exactly would be the diffirence if every Labour Party MP was a committed Marxist? What diffirence would that make? The answer unfortunately is none. The only possible advantage would be Marxist ideas would be more open to the general public."

Well, lets take the pakistani situation, where they started with 1 marxist MP (from our section in pakistan), from this he has converted 3 others to marxism, and has a membership of thousands, this is with taking the route of entryism. With this he can bring about a transitional programme, which will explain to reform but that reforms are meaningless in a bourgeoise democracy, and that only workers democracy will seal and guarantee the welfare of the people.

"Nothing changes through parliament, everyone knows this, it's designed to preserve the status quo. The only way we can affect any real chage i.e revolutionary change, is through building a mass party of the genuine left."

Obviously reformism is a pointless aim, and one no real marxist would subscribe to, and as youve correctly stated " it's designed to preserve the status quo. The only way we can affect any real chage i.e revolutionary change,is through building a mass party of the genuine left."

How do we go about building a mass party?
Do we make a shell and wait till workers arrive to us?
Or do we go to the workers?

[YKTMX]

How do we go about building a mass party?

Good question. Presuming that the Labour Party remains to the right, the gap will be there to engage with people who are disillusioned with it. The SA obviously has tried this and hasn't been a great success for various reasons. I think the anti-war movement can certainly be a massive tool for us if we can use it properly.

[redstar2000]

The leadership is a capitalist one, the party is not capitalist, the leadership does not represent the party or the masses and in a matter of time it will be removed by the TUC as it moves to the left.

It seems to me that a party that is led by capitalists is capitalist. The sentiments of ordinary workers have no actual effect on policy.

I could see (some of the) TUC leadership being upset on occasion...they have to at least "look" like they're speaking on behalf of workers' interests.

But, as I understand matters, even in the unlikely event that the TUC unanimously wished to change the course of "Labour" policy or the personnel of its leadership, they no longer possess the right "in law" to do that.

That is, the by-laws of "Labour" are now structured in such a way as to prevent the TUC from determining the course of that party.

As with state power, the bourgeoisie has no intention of allowing a "legal" overthrow of their domination of the "Labour" party.

The TUC could indeed "move left" and will probably do so in coming years regardless of any efforts by "leftists" of any particular stripe. But that will not be reflected--except perhaps in a few verbal concessions--in "Labour".


How do we go about building a mass party?
Do we make a shell and wait till workers arrive to us? Or do we go to the workers?

What do you want a "mass party" for?

If you want one in order to win a majority in parliament, you've already admitted that such a majority would be effectively powerless. So what's the point?

If you want to make a proletarian revolution, than a "mass party" is useless. Don't forget that both the French and the Italians had "mass parties"...which, if anything, were counter-revolutionary rather than revolutionary.

A "mass party" is a tool for winning elections.

What is obviously required is a mass movement that is explicitly opposed to capitalism itself...including its fake "democratic" state apparatus.

That is something that is very different from a "mass party" both in purpose, in manner of organization, and in what it actually does.

It seems to me that you guys are trying to "have your cake and eat it"--that you want an organization that will successfully compete in bourgeois elections and that will also be able to make a working class revolution.

That's a chimera...it doesn't exist in the real world.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

how tiresome...

"It seems to me that a party that is led by capitalists is capitalist. The sentiments of ordinary workers have no actual effect on policy."

-hmm, i dont even think you know what your talking about.

"What do you want a "mass party" for?"
-To build a mass movement

"It seems to me that you guys are trying to "have your cake and eat it"--that you want an organization that will successfully compete in bourgeois elections and that will also be able to make a working class revolution."
-I believe in the threada ive stated 3 times that the point is to use it as a platform, ive even used examples of the Pakistani scenrio to demonstrate this, if your not willing to read and understand whats been written then its not worth the bother of replying...

[redstar2000]

"What do you want a "mass party" for?"
-To build a mass movement

Why the detour? If a mass movement is what you really want, why not try to build that?

And why do you think a "mass party" will be a particularly effective "platform" for your ideas?

The actual historical record suggests that so-called "mass parties" drift to the right over time. How would that "help" us?

Look at what happened to the Greens in Germany? They started out small and "radical"...now they're relatively big and increasingly conservative.

In a way, you could say that's what the bourgeois electoral process is supposed to do.

It works.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

A mass party is a vehicle to achieve a mass movement

A party would only drift to the right if it had opportunist and theoretically bankrupt leaders and "rank and file".

Once again you show now hope for the workers, only in yourself as being a hero

[Scottish_Militant]

"Why the detour? If a mass movement is what you really want, why not try to build that?"

Why not indeed, that is the words of the SWP, SPEW, CPB, CPGB, SPGB, CPML, AWL, WRP..... I could go on and on, trust me....

The reality here redstar, is that these parties cannot reach the masses. You can only reach the masses by fighting alongside them in their everyday struggles where you can offer them genuine revolutionary theory, where you can link their struggles directly to capitalism!

You also talk about if we want to "make a proletarian revolution" - that is absurd. No one 'makes' a proletarian revolution apart from the proletarians themselves. It is the question of what happens during/after a revolution, where do people turn.

These 'parties' I have listed are irrelivant to the masses, they are emptey shells. You cannot build a revolutionary party simply be proclaiming it.

But perhaps Kamo and I are wrong, maybe we should found our own 'mass' party :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

You can only reach the masses by fighting alongside them in their everyday struggles where you can offer them genuine revolutionary theory, where you can link their struggles directly to capitalism!

Well, that's reasonable enough.

So you would naturally participate in trade union activities that involve direct resistance to capitalist hegemony.

But I don't see how it would help you to become the leaders of a union...you would be painted into a conservative corner, sooner or later. You would have to sign those crappy contracts and help enforce them.

Can you imagine a "union leader" calling for a wildcat strike, an unauthorized walkout?

It seems to me that if and when there is a "mass movement", it will only come from below and will, as a matter of principle, remain outside of the "formal channels" of "conflict resolution".

It does not seem to me that you guys are at all clear about this. You want to achieve goals that are fundamentally contradictory.

Even if it were possible, restoring the "Labour" party to its traditional mild social democracy is not going to inspire anyone to consider the alternative of proletarian revolution, is it?

Why should it? Just because you tell them that...after you've spent all your time and energy making it happen?


You also talk about if we want to "make a proletarian revolution" - that is absurd. No one 'makes' a proletarian revolution apart from the proletarians themselves.

I apologize for my "terminological inexactitude". You want to lead a proletarian revolution, not make one.

I just don't see how you can do that after spending many years becoming trade union leaders and building the "Labour" party.

Those are different tasks that require different aptitudes, different talents, different ways of looking at the world.


Once again you show no hope for the workers, only in yourself as being a hero.

Actually, what I've said to you repeatedly is that there is indeed no hope for the workers in bourgeois electoral politics.

None. Zero. Nada. Nichts.

You admit in words that I'm right; but your actual practice contradicts this.

If it makes me a "hero" to point this out, then hand me that laurel wreath and I'll wear it proudly.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

i give u a fuckin wreath, and shuv it up yar arse ya bastard! :P

i shall reply when i am not quite so intoxicated

toodaloo dickstar!

[ComradeRobertRiley]

someone kick Kamo's arse

[Scottish_Militant]

yes, buy him an island ;)

[Kez]

back to the topic in hand....

ignore riley, hes not there in the head...