British parties

[crisispoint]

Hi, I've been thinking of joining a party to get more involved with local activism, I know both the swp and socialist party have some active members in my area and I know they're both trotskyite but not much else. Anyone able to give me an outline of the differences between these parties?

[Tommy4ever]

What area are you in?

[daft punk]

Yeah, the Socialist Party are miles better than the SWP. If you go to the SP website and search for SWP you can see some of the differences of opinion and tactics. In a nutshell, the SWP can be a bit reformist and also a bit (a lot actually) sectarian, eg they messed up the Socialist Alliance. I would hate to be in the SWP.

[crisispoint]

I've always been under the impression the socialist party were more reformist, huh, I'll have a look around their website a bit more, thanks

also I'm in cornwall

[Rooster]

I've always been under the impression the socialist party were more reformist, huh, I'll have a look around their website a bit more, thanks

also I'm in cornwall

I'm pretty sure the SPGB are part of the impossibilists movement.

[Blake's Baby]

Right:

@ Crisispoint: Daft Punk is in the SPEW (part of the CWI) which is why he's telling you that the SPEW is miles better. I'd advise consulting the Weekly Worker archives over the events around the shipwreck of the Socialist Alliance if you care, they may not bear out Daft Punk's (sectarian) opinions.

@ Rooster: The SPGB (Socialist Party of Great Britain) is indeed impossiblist; the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW) is Trotskyist (sometimes referred to as 'Taafite' after Peter Taafe, its one-time main man) and was formerly 'The Militant Tendency' of the Labour Party (grouped around the newspaper 'Militant').

[Nox]

Have you tried the Anarchist Federation?

[The Idler]

I know you said you want to join a party to get more involved in local activism but what aspects would make a difference to you? Are you only considering SPEW and SWP for example?

[crisispoint]

Well I'm mostly considering the SWP and SPEW because I know they're large parties and have some active members in my area, I'm open to other suggestions (they don't have to be trotskyite, I don't really identify with any particular tendency) but if the nearest branch is somewhere like bristol then it's a bit off putting. I'm also interested in a party that's not too rigid ideologically, as I say I don't identify with any specific tendency I'm currently reading about the various schools of thought.

I'll have a look at the Weekly Worker's site and get both sides of the story but tbh it's not the first time I've heard people say the SWP is overly sectarian.


Are the SPGB still active? I got given one of their leaflets by someone at the TUC demo last march, but it seemed like it was written in the 70s. As for the Anarchist Federation, I don't really know a lot about anarcho-communism, I've got a copy of ABC of Anarchism but I've not got around to reading it yet.

[Blake's Baby]

...

I'll have a look at the Weekly Worker's site and get both sides of the story but tbh it's not the first time I've heard people say the SWP is overly sectarian...

Oh, no, please don't get the idea that I'm claiming the SWP aren't sectarian.

It's just that there isn't one sectarian organisation and the trick is to find it and join the other one. I think they're both horribly sectarian, and was merely pointing out that Daft Punk's 'oh we're great they're shit, look at this' was a bit nauseating to be honest. In my recollection of events, the official SPEW position was to pull the rug out from under the Socialist Alliance 18 months before the SWP got bored. I was very indignant at the time (when I still thought that there was any reason to be interested in Trotskyism).

The reason I mention the Weekly Worker was because it ran a series of 'whistle-blower' articles from members of all the different organisations, crticising the way groups both inside and outside the Socialist Alliance were behaving. The SPEW, the SWP, the SLP, the SSP... all of them had maverick members criticising the sectarianism, cant, hypocrisy, double-dealing and general crapness of all those organisations.

Weekly Worker is the publication of the CPGB(PCC) not to be confused with the CPGB-ML or the CPB. The CPGB(PCC) were in the Socialist Alliance as well. The CPB weren't, the CPGB-ML didn't exist but some of its members were in the SLP at that point, which also wasn't in the Socialist Alliance.

But anyway, the point is the Weekly Worker won't give 'the oposite' story to the SPEW. It'll give the opposite story about the SPEW, for sure. It'll likely give the same story about the SWP, pointing out how shit they are as well.


...
Are the SPGB still active? I got given one of their leaflets by someone at the TUC demo last march, but it seemed like it was written in the 70s. As for the Anarchist Federation, I don't really know a lot about anarcho-communism, I've got a copy of ABC of Anarchism but I've not got around to reading it yet.

The SPGB has been going since 1903, I doubt it's going to have packed up in the last couple of days.

[Firebrand]

Am I the only one who thinks the party situation is getting completely ridiculous
It brings to mind that bit out of life of brian

[Blake's Baby]

I used to. I was quite pleased with the Socialist Alliance, though I was actually claiming to be an anarchist at the time, because I figured if 'the left' could get its collective head together it might be able to renew itself and become something worthwhile.

I have a rather different appreciation of 'the left' these days.

But I'd happily see greater unity between organisations of the Communist Left. As to the Trotskyists and Stalinists... I really don't care, I think they're all terrible organisations. Staying disunited is actually doing the working class a favour in the long run.

------------------

@ Crisispoint: what do you actually believe in? It might help us all point you in the right direction if you said what you thought was wrong with society and what you think should be done about it.

[robbo203]

I've always been under the impression the socialist party were more reformist, huh, I'll have a look around their website a bit more, thanks

also I'm in cornwall


Crisispoint

Personally I consider the SPGB to be far and away the best of the bunch in terms of their ideas - though I have one or two criticisms of some of their ideas

Their website is http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

I know they have members in Cornwall, having lived in Cornwall myself prior to emigrating to Spain. There was even a branch that met regulatly in St Ives. There is a regional branch now, I believe, which covers Cornwall

The SPGB is small although probably bigger than most but then, when you are talking about the Far Left, no organisation is particularly large. Even the SWP which has a high turnover rate.

The important thing is not size but the quality of the ideas they present. You really need to make a disappasionate assessment on that basis rather than just opt for the first thing that comes your way

Hope this helps...

[daft punk]

The Socialist Alliance was set up by the Socialist Party. It was a sort of federation. But when the SWP joined they tried to dominate it and silence all the other parties, so that basically ruined it.

Hannah Sell, Socialist Party deputy leader, writes:

"In the last two years however, following the decision of the SWP (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/SWP) to join, the SA has moved away from the inclusive, federal basis on which it was founded. Of course, we want maximum unity between socialists and welcome the decision of any left organisation, including the SWP, to take part in alliance work, provided that it is done on a principled basis. the SWP have not taken a principled attitude to the SA. Instead they have sought to dominate it by using weight of numbers to ride roughshod over the rights of the other component parts.
Consequently many organisations and individuals (the Leeds Left Alliance, the Preston Independent Labour councillors, the Leicester Radical Alliance etc) have become disillusioned with the SWP's approach.


Front organisation

Unfortunately, where it has been dominated by the SWP, the SA itself has taken an equally arrogant attitude to forces moving into struggle, such as the Hackney council workers, the CATP, and others.
The SWP imagine that declaring the SA as the electoral alternative for the working class makes it so. They then accuse groups of workers of 'sectarianism' for failing to recognise the SA, with around 1,800 members, as the only legitimate voice of the working class."


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/9254


I would urge people to stop the tittle tattle, and read this article in full.


"We do not object to the SWP's right to organise or to build their own party. On the contrary, we have fought for the rights of all organisations within the SA to do so, including ourselves. By contrast the SWP have accused anyone who dares to raise the rights of organisations within the SA of being 'sectarian', summarised in a constitution that does not even recognise the existence of different organisations within the SA.
Of course, the rights of the SWP will be protected because, in effect, they take the decisions in the SA. The only conclusion is that the SWP is not prepared to respect the rights of any organisation, including the SA, other than the SWP itself."

[daft punk]

SWP’s reformism

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/history2/p18.html


"whenever Socialist Party members visited picket lines, they were invariably met with the demand: “You are not members of the SWP, are you?” Only after assuring these workers that we were not, were our comrades able to get a hearing! The SWP’s attitude was, in the past, accompanied with an extremely derogatory approach towards left leaders. They were denounced as “sell-outs” by the SWP in a most vicious sectarian fashion. This, of course, was during Cliff’s 1990s period of “Back to the 1930s in slow motion”. His hyperbole led the SWP to the ludicrous claim that if they had 15,000 members and 30,000 supporters on the mass miners’ demonstration of 21 October 1992 – probably 100,000 people participated on this demonstration – the SWP could have led a march on Parliament, Tory MPs would not have dared to support Michael Heseltine’s pit closures programme, and John Major’s government would have collapsed!25

As we have seen, with some delay, this clash with the reality of the 1990s has, in turn, led the SWP to swing through a 180° arc over their own heads to a total adaptation to left figures under a newly-discovered need for “unity of the left”. This involves a political kow-towing to radical and left figures in the ‘Stop the War Coalition’, and in their latest front, Respect."

here is a thread on the SP book about the SWP
http://www.socialistunity.com/peter-taaffes-critique-of-the-swp/

the 'OP' lists strengths and weaknesses so presumably it is written by someone who is in some other organisation.


Socialist Books (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/bookform7.pl?ordernumber=64886&cat=%200&nextten=1&findword=0&sortby=)
Socialism and Left Unity


A critique of the Socialist Workers Party

Peter Taaffe
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Images/furniture/covers/medium/342.120.jpg
This book is for socialists who are aware of the policies of the SWP, including SWP members who can still be won to a genuine Marxism. The wrong methods of the SWP hinder the task of rebuilding the labour movement on socialist and Marxist lines.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/index.html


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books/index.html

Socialist Party review of the book.

"This is not a point-scoring exercise. The issues discussed in the book are vital questions: How can we rebuild the workers' movement? How should Marxists work with others? How do we raise socialist ideas? How do we approach political differences?
Peter deals with a range of issues, from the historical roots of the SWP (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/SWP), to their analysis of the political periods we have been through, the anti-capitalist movement, the attitude to the Labour Party, work in the trade unions, anti-racism/fascism, building new workers' parties and the internal democracy within the party.
The book shows how often the SWP has jumped from one approach to the opposite and back again. Its participation during recent years in attempts to build a viable and broad alternative to the capitalist political parties shows this."

[human strike]

Sounds to me as if you'd be better of not joining a party, for now at least. That doesn't mean you can't involved yourself in local struggles though, not at all in fact. Whereabouts are you based?

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, wow, look, Daft Punk has posted a load of stuff from SPEW to prove that SPEW is better than the SWP.

Well, that's totally convinced me because it's from a totally unbiased source, I take it all back, it must have been a different SPEW that imposed its own candidates on the SA in Lewisham and elsewhere (saying 'we will put our candidates in place where we have significant support, we expect other groups to do the same') and refused to come to any agreement with the Democratic Labour Party people in Wallsall.

Funny, I was involved witht the Radical Alliance in Leicester, but I'm not aware that it was the behaviour of the SWP that caused its failure. Perhaps Hannah Sell, who wasn't involved, knows something I don't.

[robbo203]

SWP’s reformism

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/history2/p18.html





Sounds like pot calling kettle black. SPEW is equally reformist through and through - and pro-state capitalist in its advocacy of nationalisation. Perhaps it should merge with the SWP and be done with it

[daft punk]

Oh, wow, look, Daft Punk has posted a load of stuff from SPEW to prove that SPEW is better than the SWP.

Well, that's totally convinced me because it's from a totally unbiased source, I take it all back, it must have been a different SPEW that imposed its own candidates on the SA in Lewisham and elsewhere (saying 'we will put our candidates in place where we have significant support, we expect other groups to do the same') and refused to come to any agreement with the Democratic Labour Party people in Wallsall.

Funny, I was involved witht the Radical Alliance in Leicester, but I'm not aware that it was the behaviour of the SWP that caused its failure. Perhaps Hannah Sell, who wasn't involved, knows something I don't.

Oh, something bothering you? SPEW wanted the candidates most likely to win to stand? I don't know the details, obviously it makes sense not to stand against each other, that is the whole point, and obviously there are gonna be disagreements over who is likely to get the most votes. SPEW would not stand against another socialist who was likely to get more votes. I cannot comment on Leicester as I do not know the details. If you wish to give details, feel free.


Sounds like pot calling kettle black. SPEW is equally reformist through and through - and pro-state capitalist in its advocacy of nationalisation. Perhaps it should merge with the SWP and be done with it

why is nationalisation state capitalism? Was Lenin a reformist?

[Q]

At the OP: I suggest this somewhat complete list (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_Kingdom) of UK based organisations. They have links to their respective websites too.

I'm a member of the Dutch section of the Committee for a Workers' International, which has the aforementioned SPEW (http://socialistparty.org.uk) in England & Wales (and the Socialist Party Scotland in the North, not to be confused with the Scottish Socialist Party though). The organisation has relatively many active and good members. The SPEW focuses a lot on trade union and grassroot struggle. Their paper, The Socialist, is a reflection of this, featuring pretty much the same headlines week in, week out.

Another group worth considering, although I don't know if they have any presence in Cornwall, is the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk) that Blake already mentioned. Their weekly paper, the Weekly Worker, takes a polemical stand in an effort to reach political clarity. So, you can for example write a letter how full of shit their are and they'll most likely publish it. This open platform is, I believe, of tremendous worth to the left. But since the polemics are also against the diverse left groupings, they're often just disregarded as a "gossip sheet", which is a pity.


why is nationalisation state capitalism? Was Lenin a reformist?
Let me quote Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch03.htm) where he deals with the nationalisation question (although he calls it "state aid", as presumably the word "nationalisation" wasn't mainstream at this point):


Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" [in the mind of the Lassalle followers] from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!

From the remnants of a sense of shame, "state aid" has been put -- under the democratic control of the "toiling people".

In the first place, the majority of the "toiling people" in Germany consists of peasants, not proletarians.

Second, "democratic" means in German "Volksherrschaftlich" . But what does "control by the rule of the people of the toiling people" mean? [B]And particularly in the case of a toiling people which, through these demands that it puts to the state, expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!

It would be superfluous to deal here with the criticism of the recipe prescribed by Buchez in the reign of Louis Philippe, in opposition to the French socialists and accepted by the reactionary workers, of the Atelier. The chief offense does not lie in having inscribed this specific nostrum in the program, but in taking, in general, a retrograde step from the standpoint of a class movement to that of a sectarian movement.

That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
(Emphasis mine)

Also, I find this letter (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=877) (incidentally in the Weekly Worker) by independent socialist Arthur Bough to be interesting on this subject:


There are a number of things I would take issue with in James Turley’s article (‘Politics of press freedom’, July 28).

Firstly, in relation to the position of the Socialist Workers Party, and its call to break up the Murdoch media empire, I would argue that this is a reactionary or at best a naive, reformist demand. Marxists do not respond to the existence of such monopolies by calling for a return to some previous, ‘free market’ form of capitalism. Lenin made that clear in Imperialism, in responding to the advocacy of such a course by Kautsky. Such monopolies arise out of free competition. Our solution is not a move backwards, but forwards towards socialism, which in the here and now can only mean arguing for workers to take over these monopolies, and to run them as worker-owned cooperatives.

Secondly, in relation to the position of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, you say that its position is better than that of the Socialist Party in England and Wales, because it is based on writings by Lenin in November 1917, and because it says that it is only advocating nationalisation under the auspices of a workers’ government. Let’s take the latter first. Its calls for a workers’ government here and now are meaningless. The whole basis of Trotsky’s Transitional programme is that the demands within it can only fulfil their function as being transitional between a reformist consciousness and a revolutionary consciousness if they are adopted within the context of a revolutionary situation. On the workers’ government, he says:

“Is the creation of such a government by the traditional workers’ organisations possible? Past experience shows ... that this is, to say the least, highly improbable. However, one cannot categorically deny in advance the theoretical possibility that, under the influence of completely exceptional circumstances ... the petty bourgeois parties, including the Stalinists, may go further than they wish along the road to a break with the bourgeoisie. In any case one thing is not to be doubted: even if this highly improbable variant somewhere at some time becomes a reality and the ‘workers’ and farmers’ government’ in the above-mentioned sense is established in fact, it would represent merely a short episode on the road to the actual dictatorship of the proletariat.”

In fact, if we look at what the AWL is arguing for, it is that the Liberal-Tories be kicked out, and that a Labour government replace it. That is not a workers’ government, and nor could it be in Trotsky’s terms, for the simple reason that we are not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation! What the AWL’s demand actually means for those living on planet Earth is for a Miliband government and the existing capitalist state to nationalise the mass media, and that is a thoroughly reactionary demand. You yourselves accept the idea in principle of nationalisation by the capitalist state, not just in this instance, but in others, but Trotsky says about such a position:

“It would, of course, be a disastrous error, an outright deception, to assert that the road to socialism passes, not through the proletarian revolution, but through nationalisation by the bourgeois state of various branches of industry and their transfer into the hands of the workers’ organisations” (www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/xx/mexico03.htm).

And this is the problem also with the first part of the AWL’s argument, basing itself on Lenin, writing about the situation in Russia in November 1917. It seems to have escaped the AWL’s attention, and you do not seem to have picked up on it, that Lenin was writing at the time of a workers’ revolution, of the establishment of soviets, of an actual workers’ government and indeed of a workers’ state. There are many policies that are appropriate to such conditions, but which are not acceptable for Marxists to raise within the context of an existing capitalist state. The Bolsheviks, under the conditions of a workers’ state, for instance, argued for the implementation of import controls via a monopoly of foreign trade, as well indeed as the introduction of immigration controls. But it is not acceptable for a Marxist to raise such demands within the context of a capitalist state.

When Marx, in the Critique of the Gotha programme, opposed the statist policies of Lassalle in relation to the demands for the capitalist state to intervene in this way, he also pointed out that such demands were not made any better by tagging on to them the call for democratic control, which was meaningless. Trotsky echoes Marx when he points out that it is ridiculous outside a revolutionary situation to demand workers’ control over bourgeois property - and property owned by the capitalist state is bourgeois property. He writes:

“If the participation of the workers in the management of production is to be lasting, stable, ‘normal’, it must rest upon class-collaboration, and not upon class struggle. Such a class-collaboration can be realised only through the upper strata of the trade unions and the capitalist associations. There have been not a few such experiments: in Germany (‘economic democracy’), in Britain (‘Mondism’), etc. Yet, in all these instances, it was not a case of workers’ control over capital, but of the subservience of the labour bureaucracy to capital ...

“... Workers’ control through factory councils is conceivable only on the basis of sharp class struggle, not collaboration. But this really means dual power in the enterprises, in the trusts, in all the branches of industry, in the whole economy ... What we are talking about is workers’ control under the capitalist regime, under the power of the bourgeoisie. However, a bourgeoisie that feels it is firmly in the saddle will never tolerate dual power in its enterprises” (www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/310820.htm).

Now again I ask, is there anyone resident on planet Earth who believes that we are in such a situation of dual power?

The reality is that in practical terms the only way that workers can exercise control is if they are the owners of the means of production, and the only way that can be achieved in the here and now is by the workers establishing their own cooperative property. They may do that by a variety of means - from obtaining credit and buying them up, to occupying existing firms and obtaining the transfer of that property legally into their hands, as the workers at Zanon did. But any attempt to make workers believe that a socialist transformation can be achieved by the capitalist state nationalising property is, as Trotsky says, “an outright deception”, and any attempt to persuade them that workers’ control is possible whilst ownership is not in their hands, can only lead to class-collaboration, not class struggle.

Arthur Bough
(Emphasis mine)

I hope these quotes clarify why "nationalising the top 200 companies" or similar slogans are rather problematic. They do not aide to workers self-emancipation and instead lead to class collaboration via the trade union bureaucracy. Thus the road to socialism via nationalisation is non-existent and a dead end.

[daft punk]

At the OP: I suggest this somewhat complete list (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Left-Wing_Parties_in_the_United_Kingdom) of UK based organisations. They have links to their respective websites too.

I'm a member of the Dutch section of the Committee for a Workers' International, which has the aforementioned SPEW (http://socialistparty.org.uk) in England & Wales (and the Socialist Party Scotland in the North, not to be confused with the Scottish Socialist Party though). The organisation has relatively many active and good members. The SPEW focuses a lot on trade union and grassroot struggle. Their paper, The Socialist, is a reflection of this, featuring pretty much the same headlines week in, week out.

Another group worth considering, although I don't know if they have any presence in Cornwall, is the CPGB (http://cpgb.org.uk) that Blake already mentioned. Their weekly paper, the Weekly Worker, takes a polemical stand in an effort to reach political clarity. So, you can for example write a letter how full of shit their are and they'll most likely publish it. This open platform is, I believe, of tremendous worth to the left. But since the polemics are also against the diverse left groupings, they're often just disregarded as a "gossip sheet", which is a pity.


Let me quote Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch03.htm) where he deals with the nationalisation question (although he calls it "state aid", as presumably the word "nationalisation" wasn't mainstream at this point):


(Emphasis mine)

Also, I find this letter (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/letters.php?issue_id=877) (incidentally in the Weekly Worker) by independent socialist Arthur Bough to be interesting on this subject:


(Emphasis mine)

I hope these quotes clarify why "nationalising the top 200 companies" or similar slogans are rather problematic. They do not aide to workers self-emancipation and instead lead to class collaboration via the trade union bureaucracy. Thus the road to socialism via nationalisation is non-existent and a dead end.

Surely the point is we replace the trade union bureaucracy with socialists on a workers' wage?

"“It would, of course, be a disastrous error, an outright deception, to assert that the road to socialism passes, not through the proletarian revolution, but through nationalisation by the bourgeois state of various branches of industry and their transfer into the hands of the workers’ organisations”"

Well nobody is talking about nationalisation by the bourgeois state.

"“Is the creation of such a government by the traditional workers’ organisations possible? Past experience shows ... that this is, to say the least, highly improbable."

Nobody is talking about the 'traditional workers organisations'. That is why there is a campaign for a new workers party.

I'm not sure why you are criticising the slogan of your own party, or what the alternative is. I could find plenty of quotes in favour of nationalisation eg Marx:

"The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/04/nationalisation-land.htm

[Q]

I'm not sure why you are criticising the slogan of your own party, or what the alternative is.

Is there some rule against critique I am unaware of? I was under the impression that to "question everything" was a basic trait of any Marxist in order to reach true knowledge (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464).

Anyway, the alternative is already posed in both quotes of Marx and Bough: A working class movement that is based on its self-organisation through cooperatives and the like. I'd like to extent that to include a party-movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6681).

As for your Marx quote: Note that he doesn't argue for the state to nationalise the land. Today we understand "nationalisation" to be carried out by the existing state. This is not quite how Marx intended it, as becomes clear in the Critique on the Gotha Program.

As for that no one is talking about nationalisation by the bourgeois state, good! But that is not immediately clear when one reads the demand to nationalise the "top 200 companies". So, perhaps we can formulate it more clearly?

There is another problem with "nationalisation" though, and this lies within the word itself: If we are to mean that we want to cut apart transnational companies into national parts, this is obviously very problematic. Surely we should be arguing for the taking over of these transnationals on an international level by the working class movement. This, again, implies a cooperative movement that is politicised into fighting for working class political hegemony.

Anyway, this is getting rather offtopic, so I'll leave it at this point.

[daft punk]

Well, the word nationalisation has it's good points and bad ones.

Good - people know what it means and many support renationalising the utilities.

Bad- sounds restricted to a nation and sounds like the old nationalisation repeated.

So it's ok to use now and then but you do need to clarify. Eg the Socialist Party booklet by Hannah Sell says

"For a socialist government to take into public ownership the top 150 companies and banks that dominate the British economy, and run them under democratic working class control and management.

Compensation to be paid only on the basis of proven need. A democratic socialist plan of production based on the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and in a way that safeguards the environment.
No to the bosses' neo-liberal European Union! For a socialist Europe and a socialist world!"


"The trade unions and organisation (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/organisation)s of the working class should demand nationalisation of all the financial institutions, with compensation paid only to small shareholders and depositors on the basis of proven need.
This should be just a first step to the unification of all the banks into one democratically controlled system.
The labour movement should demand majority representation at all levels of these banks, drawn from workers including from the unions in the banking industry and the wider working class and labour movement, with the government also represented."


"In the Socialist Party (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/party) we link the immediate demands such as those listed above to the need for a socialist transformation of society."


"A socialist plan of production is also the only means by which it will be possible to save and restore our environment."


"Instead, at every level, in the workplace, locally and nationally, elected representatives would be accountable and subject to instant recall and would also only receive a worker's wage, unlike today's privileged and cheating MPs."




even better if you read the whole thing...


http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books_pamphlets/The_Case_for_Socialism

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pic/2/2710.jpg

[Firebrand]

In dark moments I sometimes wonder if we'd all be better off if the bourgeosie just banned all leftist parties. That might unite leftists in the name of survival, less room to argue about tendencies when you're crammed into someones basement. Then I realize that what would actually happen is that the various tendenciest would take it in turns to sell each other out, causing suspicion and further division and basically making stuff even more sectarian.

[MotherCossack]

Am I the only one who thinks the party situation is getting completely ridiculous
It brings to mind that bit out of life of brian

i was having a shifty, cos i, too, have long since thought that it was about time i made an effort to stick me oar in and test the current political waters about these parts...
sure am glad you made the comment... its like...
"CARRY ON UP THE COMMIE COMRADE.' i want to upset anyone but....[obviously it is all done with the best and most admirable intentions... i believe that...]
realise
But here's the thing.. I have a vague notion that if we, on the left, were to consolidate ourselves somewhat... maybe even work together and focus ourselves... after all it was from somewhere at our end of the political spectrum that unionism originally emerged.
we more than anyone should remember that there is strength in numbers, and, at least, try not splinter off into countless little groups and dwell on infinitesimally small differences... it only gives the real enemy an easy ride and denegates our effort .


In dark moments I sometimes wonder if we'd all be better off if the bourgeosie just banned all leftist parties. That might unite leftists in the name of survival, less room to argue about tendencies when you're crammed into someones basement. Then I realise that what would actually happen is that the various tendenciest would take it in turns to sell each other out, causing suspicion and further division and basically making stuff even more sectarian.

it is too important to just give up. we just need to collaborate more and listen to each other. anyway who'd want to hand it all to the big, bad , tories... at least make them pay!!

[MotherCossack]

oh yes ... but i would still be interested to know what parties are around and reasonably active, tolerant [of potty mums like me], and what the differences are politically or whatever.
in, london, of course. north london.

[-NW2-]

Maybe we should all just join the Labour Party then? At least then there would be some relevence to working class people. Im far from an expert on socialism, hence me posting on the learning section, but didnt the German Communist Party dissolve itself in the 20's and join the Social Democratic Party en masse?

From the outside, the state of the British left looks farcical. Its sad because there is probably dedicated, intelligent in all the groups letting minor differences get in the way of achieving things.

[daft punk]

As I have said, you can read up on all these differences. There are loads of them, I cant list them all here. I am giving you the CWI as the best in my opinion. You have to look up the differences between that and others.

The main thing are political perspectives and tactics, and general sectarianism. I think the CWI are the lest sectarian and have the most straightforward Marxist perspectives and tactics.

So, if you want to know about another party, I suggest comparing them to the CWI. I have a good mate who is in a different Trot party, and we have argued all the differences out many times, this is what you have to do.

If you want a few random examples there are loads, eg when 911 happened, some left parties didn't condemn terrorism, in the Falklands war some called for a defeat for the British troops, when Britain sent troops into Northern Ireland in 1969, most left parties supported that, many left parties opposed the Lindsey Oil Refinery dispute, some supported NATO intervention in Libya recently, some shy away from mentioning socialism in some of their campaigns, the list is endless. Maybe we should try and do some sort of comparison on here of the main left groups on different topics.

The CWI condemned terrorism after 911, did not support either side in the Falklands war, opposed British troops going into Northern Ireland, supported and in fact helped lead the Lindsey strike, opposed NATO intervention in Libya, always mention socialism (not in every article obviously). All these and many, many more are the sort of thing which separates the left parties.

I am not officially CWI, I cant speak for them, you can look all this stuff and more up though.

The worst mistake people make is believing the first things they are told, joining the first organisation they bump into. If you don't agree with the things I just listed, look them up on the CWI website, read their arguments, and then see what you think.

[daft punk]

All the left parties are listed at a website called broadleft.org, but it was only updated up to 2005.

here is their list of Trotskyist Internationals

http://www.broadleft.org/trotskyi.htm

as you can see the main ones are:

CWI in England and Wales, Socialist Party
IMT in Britain, Socialist Appeal
IS - Socialist Worker
USFI - ISG
ICFI - SEP

The last one there has a good website in America, wsws.org, good for historical stuff anyway, but they did not support the Lindsey dispute and I have never encountered them in the UK.

Another reference point is Socialist Unity, a blog/forum for all the left groups.

http://www.socialistunity.com/

[robbo203]

There is a very old pamphlet I came across on my internet travels - Nationalisation or Socialism? - published by the Socialist Party in 1945 (when the capitalist Labour Party of Attlee took power advocating nationalisation measures) which makes the argument why socialists cannot support nationalisation in any way, shape or form


Here's the link
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/nationalisation-or-socialism-1945

Its still a good read after all these years..

[daft punk]

Ah here you go, videos of a debate between the Hannah Sell of the SP and Martin Smith of the SWP, with comments from others

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6614

and a brief summary of it by a socialist blogger

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2008/11/sp-and-swp-debate-revolutionary-party.html

[robbo203]

oh yes ... but i would still be interested to know what parties are around and reasonably active, tolerant [of potty mums like me], and what the differences are politically or whatever.
in, london, of course. north london.


Hi MotherCossack

You might perhaps want to look up the Socialist Party which I believe has an branch near you. Here's the link anyway...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

[daft punk]

There is a very old pamphlet I came across on my internet travels - Nationalisation or Socialism? - published by the Socialist Party in 1945 (when the capitalist Labour Party of Attlee took power advocating nationalisation measures) which makes the argument why socialists cannot support nationalisation in any way, shape or form


Here's the link
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/nationalisation-or-socialism-1945

Its still a good read after all these years..

This is not the Socialist Party, it is SPGB, a very different organisation..

wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain

they are a small, rather strange outfit.

someone on the Socialist Unity blog:

"One of the most curious groups on the far left are our friends in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. In one sense they are the most fundamentalist of all the organisations that claim Marxist inspiration as they are committed to arguing for socialism and nothing but. They alone have the strange position of disavowing any links between workers’ struggles in the here and now, the confidence the labour movement has in its collective power and the movement for socialism. Instead abstract propaganda on why socialism is nice and capitalism nasty is the order of the day. Which leads to another curiosity – the existence of a relatively large number of SPGB bloggers, despite offering very little variation on this theme. Perhaps new SPGB blog Free Times 3x (http://freetimes3x.blogspot.com/) will be a departure and offer something more? We shall see. You can follow Free Times 3x on Twitter here (http://twitter.com/freetimes3x)."
http://www.socialistunity.com/?s=SPGB

In a nutshell, why do they oppose nationalisation?

[robbo203]

This is not the Socialist Party, it is SPGB, a very different organisation..

wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain

they are a small, rather strange outfit.


Incorrect.

The SPGB is legally recognised by the electoral commission as "The Socialist Party" as I understand it - the title being decided upon by a democratic Party conference decision before your group even existed - this despite the blatant attempt by your group (ex Militant Tendency and part of the capitalist Labour party at one time) to nick the name and for which reason you rather appropriately decided to call yourself SPEW

[daft punk]

Incorrect.

The SPGB is legally recognised by the electoral commission as "The Socialist Party" as I understand it - the title being decided upon by a democratic Party conference decision before your group even existed - this despite the blatant attempt by your group (ex Militant Tendency and part of the capitalist Labour party at one time) to nick the name and for which reason you rather appropriately decided to call yourself SPEW

It is highly confusing to call them that in this thread. The Socialist Party is not called SPEW, and it is only called England and Wales because the Scottish one separated.

[hatzel]

oh yes ... but i would still be interested to know what parties are around and reasonably active, tolerant [of potty mums like me], and what the differences are politically or whatever.
in, london, of course. north london.


Hi MotherCossack

You might perhaps want to look up the Socialist Party which I believe has an branch near you. Here's the link anyway...

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

That was the first thing that came into my mind, too, so I'm glad to see robbo agreed. Not that I necessarily agree with their politics, but they seem like an amiable enough bunch and certainly aren't just a bunch of 20-somethings, so you wouldn't stand out at all :lol:

[Blake's Baby]

It is highly confusing to call them that in this thread. The Socialist Party is not called SPEW, and it is only called England and Wales because the Scottish one separated.

Daft Punk; what you have to realise is that the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been in existence since 1904. It has been legally recognised as 'The Socialist Party' since 1996.

The Socialist Party of England and Wales has been in existence since 1997. When The Socialist Party of Great Britain became 'The Socialist Party', the Socialist Party of England and Wales was still called 'Militant Labour'.

So, for those of us who have a knowledge and an interest wider than your party (obviously, that doesn't include you) it's confusing if you use the term 'Socialist Party' about the Socialist Party of England and Wales, rather than about the Socialist Party. I suggest you call your party either SPEW or, as most of us have done for most of our political lives, 'Militant'.

[daft punk]

Lol! Everyone knows 'SPEW' as Socialist Party,
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Images/furniture/socialist_party.jpg
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Images/furniture/masthead/yffjdemo6.jpg

and those few who have ever heard of SPGB know them as SPGB and their website is headed
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sites/default/files/zeropoint_logo.png
http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/spgb.png
this image from different source but they do have it on their front page in black and white, but not as a pasteable image

so stop confusing everyone.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZAn-ABmM9m4/S9DBqqKzLyI/AAAAAAAAJP0/I3573oUfWCg/s400/SPGB.jpg

wiki sheds some light:

"The SPGB is vehemently anti-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Leninism) and currently fights to protect its identity against Socialist Party of England and Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_England_and_Wales), the relatively new name of the Trotskyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyist) former Militant tendency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency) (in propaganda and publicity material the SPGB often styles itself simply The Socialist Party whilst SPEW uses Socialist Party (without the definite article) and contests elections as Socialist Alternative).[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain#cite_note-29)
The party was founded at an inaugural meeting of 142 members. In 2000 the membership of the party stood at around 500 members (although there are some indications that the figure may be lower now). Currently around 150 members regularly take part in party elections and polls."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain

it's all down to the word 'The' then. Allegedly.

see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_England_and_Wales



*other Trotskyist parties are available

[Blake's Baby]

So what you're saying is, your party is the Socialist Party and the SPGB is The Socialist Party?

But, at the begining of a sentence, the Socialist Party and The Socialist Party would be written thusly:

The Socialist Party is an organisation with shitty politics.

Which one did I just refer to?


It is highly confusing to call them that in this thread. The Socialist Party is not called SPEW, and it is only called England and Wales because the Scottish one separated.

Oooh, oops, you used the term for the SPGB ('The Socialist Party') not SPEW ('the Socialist Party'). Kinda shoots your contention in the foot, doesn't it?

[daft punk]

Regarding the IMT, these bascially split off from the CWI, so are fairly similar. The disagreement was over staying in the Labour Party and similar parties a few years back when the majority in Britain decided the LP had gone too far to the right. I remember those days. I was at a party full of young doctors and the conversation turned to Militant, they all slagged them down, I said 'I'm in the Militant', you could see the LP shifting, well before the Blair Project, New Labour.

Anyway, Teg Grant, RIP.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Ted_Grant.jpg

their website has some good historical articles btw

http://www.marxist.com/

http://www.marxist.com/templates/imt/images/logo.png

[daft punk]

So what you're saying is, your party is the Socialist Party and the SPGB is The Socialist Party?

But, at the begining of a sentence, the Socialist Party and The Socialist Party would be written thusly:

The Socialist Party is an organisation with shitty politics.

Which one did I just refer to?


Lol! Yours, obviously!

Yes it doesn't get rid of all the confusion. Or should that be 'no', it doesn't?





Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2368533#post2368533)
"It is highly confusing to call them that in this thread. The Socialist Party is not called SPEW, and it is only called England and Wales because the Scottish one separated. "

Oooh, oops, you used the term for the SPGB ('The Socialist Party') not SPEW ('the Socialist Party'). Kinda shoots your contention in the foot, doesn't it?

Just stick to SPGB or everyone will assume you mean SP and get confused. Ok, so they nicked your name, maybe they didn't realise you had just dropped the GB bit.

[hatzel]

So shitty interparty sectarianism has now gone beyond arguments over politics and into arguments over who can legitimately call themselves this or that name. Fucking hell somebody kill me now...

P.S. fuck the Left and this shit's why. OP please never join a party because then you might turn into this and that would be a horrible waste of a still vivacious spirit. Destroy the Left and let people have their lives back, that's my advice to you.

[daft punk]

Happy days. So, what's your advice to avoid this confusion, apart from someone killing you, socialists not joining parties, and fucking and destroying the left? The fact is SPGB changed it's name and nobody noticed.

[Blake's Baby]

Lol! Yours, obviously!

Yes it doesn't get rid of all the confusion. Or should that be 'no', it doesn't?

You're a piece of trash Daft Punk, and if I were in the SPEW, I'd be embarrassed to have you advertising the fact you are too.

I'm not a member of the SPGB. I do however support them in their dispute over names with the SPEW, because they were calling themselves 'The Socialist Party' before your party had founded - when it was still called 'Militant Labour'. It's not 'they (the SPEW) nicked your (the SPGB's) name' as you're in the SPEW and I'm not in the SPGB. So what you should have put is 'we (the SPEW) nicked their (the SPGB's) name'. And yeah, you did. And now you want them to stop calling themselves 'The Socialist Party' because it's confusing?

How about, to avoid confusion, the SPEW changes its name to 'Intellectually Bankrupt Ex-Labourites' and we'd all be clear?

[daft punk]

You're a piece of trash Daft Punk,

Thank you



and if I were in the SPEW, I'd be embarrassed to have you advertising the fact you are too.

Yeah, each to his own



I'm not a member of the SPGB. I do however support them in their dispute over names with the SPEW,

There is no dispute. I never even heard of it until today. I thought it was confusing calling SPGB the Socialist Party, and I still think that.



because they were calling themselves 'The Socialist Party' before your party had founded - when it was still called 'Militant Labour'. It's not 'they (the SPEW) nicked your (the SPGB's) name' as you're in the SPEW and I'm not in the SPGB.

I'm getting confused here, can we move on to the politics?



So what you should have put is 'we (the SPEW) nicked their (the SPGB's) name'. And yeah, you did. And now you want them to stop calling themselves 'The Socialist Party' because it's confusing?

Basically, in this thread, because most people still think of SP/CWI and SPGB, and if you say Socialist Party, most people will think you mean what you call SPEW.



How about, to avoid confusion, the SPEW changes its name to 'Intellectually Bankrupt Ex-Labourites' and we'd all be clear?
if you insist


Politics, anyone?

[Q]

As for the "SP" question: It is common use to use "SPGB" and "SPEW" on the left, as to distinguish both groups from one another and avoid confusion. Perhaps if the SPS in Scotland merged again into SPEW, it could become SPUK?

Likewise, in the USA "SA" in left circles means Socialist Action, while Socialist Alternative is referred to as "SAlt". Why? Because Socialist Action was earlier.

Of course, in daily life, non-leftists will barely have heard about any one of these groups, so this is not much of an issue.

[daft punk]

As for the "SP" question: It is common use to use "SPGB" and "SPEW" on the left, as to distinguish both groups from one another and avoid confusion. Perhaps if the SPS in Scotland merged again into SPEW, it could become SPUK?

Likewise, in the USA "SA" in left circles means Socialist Action, while Socialist Alternative is referred to as "SAlt". Why? Because Socialist Action was earlier.

Of course, in daily life, non-leftists will barely have heard about any one of these groups, so this is not much of an issue.

It might be common on forums to call the SP SPEW, but SPEW only appears once on the SP website, and in a quote.

The SPGB website is called http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/

if you google SPGB first result is:

The Socialist Party of Great Britain | Companion Party of the World ... (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/)

www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/
Party made up of people who have joined together because they want to get rid of the profit system and establish real socialism.


If you google Socialist Party first result is:

Socialist Party (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/)

www.socialistparty.org.uk/
Socialist news and socialist policies, with Marxist analysis, socialist campaigns, anti-war campaigns, support for workers' struggles, Socialist Books and more.

[Firebrand]

"The only people we hate more than the Judean peoples front are the Peoples Front of Judea.
Wait, I thought we're the Peoples Front of Judea
Oh yeah"
This is just the kind of petty bickering that puts people off leftism completely. It makes us look like obsessive nitpicking dinosaurs out of touch with the actual issues that are affecting people at the moment. Its certainly what decided me against joining a party.

[hatzel]

So, what's your advice to avoid this confusion, apart from someone killing you, socialists not joining parties, and fucking and destroying the left?

That is exactly my advice. Socialists, don't join parties, whatever you do, because they're shitty waste of space ideological pillars of the bourgeois order. Socialists, wholly destroy the Left wherever you find it. Raze it to the ground and salt the Earth and do anything you can to make sure those putrid seeds never sprout again. That is exactly my advice. That and very little else, actually...

Oh and FUCKING STOP ARGUING OVER NAMES AND AT LEAST TRY TO BE VAGUELY ON TOPIC BECAUSE THIS DISCUSSION IS ALMOST AS BORING AS YOUR 1930'S POLITICS!!! Is that clear enough for you all?

[Q]

It might be common on forums to call the SP SPEW, but SPEW only appears once on the SP website, and in a quote.

I'm not sure where you are looking, but the name "Socialist Party in England and wales" appears over 9000 times on socialistparty.org.uk (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:socialistparty.org.uk%20socialist%20party%2 0in%20england%20and%20wales#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:socialistparty.org.uk+%22socialist+party+in +england+and+wales%22&pbx=1&oq=site:socialistparty.org.uk+%22socialist+party+i n+england+and+wales%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=10922l14168l0l14456l2l2l0l0l0l0l74l126l2l2l 0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f3d9d3beb1be4870&biw=1280&bih=647) (if you put the "" around the name, which the link for some reason cuts away).

[daft punk]

"The only people we hate more than the Judean peoples front are the Peoples Front of Judea.
Wait, I thought we're the Peoples Front of Judea
Oh yeah"
This is just the kind of petty bickering that puts people off leftism completely. It makes us look like obsessive nitpicking dinosaurs out of touch with the actual issues that are affecting people at the moment. Its certainly what decided me against joining a party.
Dont blame me I was just trying to avoid you confusing the two.


That is exactly my advice. Socialists, don't join parties, whatever you do, because they're shitty waste of space ideological pillars of the bourgeois order. Socialists, wholly destroy the Left wherever you find it. Raze it to the ground and salt the Earth and do anything you can to make sure those putrid seeds never sprout again. That is exactly my advice. That and very little else, actually...

Oh and FUCKING STOP ARGUING OVER NAMES AND AT LEAST TRY TO BE VAGUELY ON TOPIC BECAUSE THIS DISCUSSION IS ALMOST AS BORING AS YOUR 1930'S POLITICS!!! Is that clear enough for you all?

calm fucking down


I'm not sure where you are looking, but the name "Socialist Party in England and wales" appears over 9000 times on socialistparty.org.uk (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:socialistparty.org.uk%20socialist%20party%2 0in%20england%20and%20wales#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:socialistparty.org.uk+%22socialist+party+in +england+and+wales%22&pbx=1&oq=site:socialistparty.org.uk+%22socialist+party+i n+england+and+wales%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=10922l14168l0l14456l2l2l0l0l0l0l74l126l2l2l 0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f3d9d3beb1be4870&biw=1280&bih=647) (if you put the "" around the name, which the link for some reason cuts away).


But never as SPEW




Listen, I dont give a fuck, if Blakes Baby wants to go round confusing everyone, who cares. What does it matter if the reader thinks he is talking about a different party, with completely different policies? Lets just all fucking waffle on and on.

I did not know the SPGB had changed their name, alright? I doubt many people do.

[Q]

But never as SPEW
"SPEW" is a logical, albeit unfortunate, acronym of Socialist Party in England and Wales. I didn't make up the name in 1997. I just live with it.


Listen, I dont give a fuck, if Blakes Baby wants to go round confusing everyone, who cares. What does it matter if the reader thinks he is talking about a different party, with completely different policies? Lets just all fucking waffle on and on.
To be honest, the only one who seems confused is you.


I did not know the SPGB had changed their name, alright? I doubt many people do.

The SPGB never changed their name. See? Confused.

[crisispoint]

Sounds to me as if you'd be better of not joining a party, for now at least. That doesn't mean you can't involved yourself in local struggles though, not at all in fact. Whereabouts are you based?

Probably the best idea for now, I'm living in Cornwall atm.

I've signed up for the free subscription of the SPGB's Socialist Standard and I'll get a subscription to SWAP's The Socialist as well as looking into some other parties.



One question on the SPGB's opposition to reformism and activism, I understand where they're coming from with that but by distancing themselves from strikes and protests it almost seems as if they're isolating themselves from workers struggles, how do they plan to build support amongst the working class?

[daft punk]

The SPGB never changed their name. See? Confused.

He said they did


Daft Punk; what you have to realise is that the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been in existence since 1904. It has been legally recognised as 'The Socialist Party' since 1996.

The Socialist Party of England and Wales has been in existence since 1997. When The Socialist Party of Great Britain became 'The Socialist Party', the Socialist Party of England and Wales was still called 'Militant Labour'.

[daft punk]

Hi, I've been thinking of joining a party to get more involved with local activism, I know both the swp and socialist party have some active members in my area and I know they're both trotskyite but not much else. Anyone able to give me an outline of the differences between these parties?

ah, but which socialist party?

You see, we were all having this discussion, mentioning the Socialist Party.

In post 6, Blakes Baby jumps in with


Right:

@ Crisispoint: Daft Punk is in the SPEW (part of the CWI) which is why he's telling you that the SPEW is miles better. I'd advise consulting the Weekly Worker archives over the events around the shipwreck of the Socialist Alliance if you care, they may not bear out Daft Punk's (sectarian) opinions.

@ Rooster: The SPGB (Socialist Party of Great Britain) is indeed impossiblist; the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW) is Trotskyist (sometimes referred to as 'Taafite' after Peter Taafe, its one-time main man) and was formerly 'The Militant Tendency' of the Labour Party (grouped around the newspaper 'Militant').

so far, straight forward.

Then later he starts calling the SPGB the Socialist Party without any warning.

This is not a hard issue to understand, it was confusing. I was confused, and I'm a genius.

[daft punk]

Weekly Worker is the publication of the CPGB(PCC) not to be confused with the CPGB-ML or the CPB. The CPGB(PCC) were in the Socialist Alliance as well. The CPB weren't, the CPGB-ML didn't exist but some of its members were in the SLP at that point, which also wasn't in the Socialist Alliance.

quote of the day


http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/pfj.jpg

[Blake's Baby]

ah, but which socialist party?

You see, we were all having this discussion, mentioning the Socialist Party.

In post 6, Blakes Baby jumps in with

Right:

@ Crisispoint: Daft Punk is in the SPEW (part of the CWI) which is why he's telling you that the SPEW is miles better. I'd advise consulting the Weekly Worker archives over the events around the shipwreck of the Socialist Alliance if you care, they may not bear out Daft Punk's (sectarian) opinions.

@ Rooster: The SPGB (Socialist Party of Great Britain) is indeed impossiblist; the Socialist Party of England and Wales (SPEW) is Trotskyist (sometimes referred to as 'Taafite' after Peter Taafe, its one-time main man) and was formerly 'The Militant Tendency' of the Labour Party (grouped around the newspaper 'Militant').


so far, straight forward.

Then later he starts calling the SPGB the Socialist Party without any warning.

This is not a hard issue to understand, it was confusing. I was confused, and I'm a genius.

I was of course, replying to Rooster's confusion, as I'm sure you can see:


I'm pretty sure the SPGB are part of the impossibilists movement.

Which was caused by the ambiguiity of the opening statement:


Hi, I've been thinking of joining a party to get more involved with local activism, I know both the swp and socialist party have some active members in my area and I know they're both trotskyite but not much else. Anyone able to give me an outline of the differences between these parties?

So Rooster, reading that the Socialist Party was Trotskyist, said 'I thought they were Impossiblists'.

I replied, the SPGB are Impossiblists, the SPEW are Trotskyists.

You, and the OP, refer to SPEW as the Socialist Party; Rooster refers to the SPGB as the Socialist Party; I refer to the SPEW as the SPEW, and the SPGB as the SPGB, while recognising that the SPGB has been legally recognised as 'The Socialist Party' since before the SPEW existed. Not that 'it changed its name'. 'It has been legally recognised'. Different things, and if you read what I posted you'll see that I don't claim they 'changed their name'.


Daft Punk; what you have to realise is that the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been in existence since 1904. It has been legally recognised as 'The Socialist Party' since 1996....

So, what follows from that is if there is an organisation that can can legitimately call itself the Socialist Party, it is the SPGB, which has been using that name since before SPEW even existed. The SPGB has always called itself the Socialist Party in its literature, and it has been legally recognised as being The Socialist Party, and then your organisation decided it would also call itself the Socialist Party (with or without the definite atricle) after the SPGB had spent 80 years or so calling itself the Socialist Party and been legally recognised as having the right to use the name The Socialist Party. You don't think that in terms of confusion, Militant bear some responsibility for calling themselves the name that another party was using?

Personally, I think the SPGB should call itself the SPGB, and the SPEW should call itself the SPEW, or maybe 'Militant', and we have done with the whole sorry business.

[Q]

To be honest, I don't think using the legal argument of the electoral committee is a very strong one. I certainly don't give a shit about the electoral committee and they are only interesting insofar that they ruled that the SPGB may run in elections as "the Socialist Party" and SPEW has to run as "Socialist Alternative".

Likewise, they ruled that the CPB may run under "the Communist Party", while other groupings may not use that name.

Apparently the electorate is too stupid to keep a distinction? I think not.

[Blake's Baby]

To be honest, I don't think using the legal argument of the electoral committee is a very strong one. I certainly don't give a shit about the electoral committee and they are only interesting insofar that they ruled that the SPGB may run in elections as "the Socialist Party" and SPEW has to run as "Socialist Alternative".

Likewise, they ruled that the CPB may run under "the Communist Party", while other groupings may not use that name.

Apparently the electorate is too stupid to keep a distinction? I think not.

I agree.

But in terms of the name, the SPGB has been using it since 1904, and the legal recognition of the name dates to before the SPEW changed its name, so whether one limits enquiry to what the SPGB calls itslef, or to what parties are legally known as, the SPGB claim to the name The Socialist Party in either case predates the formation of the SPEW.

[daft punk]

I was of course, replying to Rooster's confusion, as I'm sure you can see:
Rooster was confused, but when you started calling the SPGB 'the Socialist Party', when people in the thread, from the OP onwards, had been using that term for SPEW, you just made it more confusing. Actually it was Robbo, but then you joined in and subsequently never mentioned it was Robbo who first said it, not that it matters much.

Ok, I dont wanna persue this any more so have the last word, but the subject is done.

From the OP up to post 31, Socialist Party had been used to mean SPEW, as is the norm.

[Blake's Baby]

Ok, I dont wanna persue this any more so have the last word, but the subject is done.

From the OP up to post 31, Socialist Party had been used to mean SPEW, as is the norm.

In post 5, Rooster believes that the OP in post 1 is referring to the the SPGB as 'the Socialist Party'.

It may be the norm in the SPEW to refer to itself as the Socialist Party. Equally it is the norm in the SPGB to refer to itself as the Socialist Party, or The Socialist Party.

If you want to continue to refer to your party as the Socialist Party, what you have to realise is that other people will refer to the SPGB as the Socialist Party. This has been going on for 108 years, get used to it.

[daft punk]

I agree.

But in terms of the name, the SPGB has been using it since 1904, and the legal recognition of the name dates to before the SPEW changed its name, so whether one limits enquiry to what the SPGB calls itslef, or to what parties are legally known as, the SPGB claim to the name The Socialist Party in either case predates the formation of the SPEW.

Well, in 2005 the SPGB only stood one candidate so I dont think it's a pressing issue for the public.

And there is of course the well known splinter group. In 1991, 16 members left, claiming they were victims of an anti-socialist conspiracy. They publish a magazine called Socialist Studies.

http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/

Socialist Studies oppose the struggle of workers in Stalinist states for democracy.

[daft punk]

In post 5, Rooster believes that the OP in post 1 is referring to the the SPGB as 'the Socialist Party'.

It may be the norm in the SPEW to refer to itself as the Socialist Party. Equally it is the norm in the SPGB to refer to itself as the Socialist Party, or The Socialist Party.

If you want to continue to refer to your party as the Socialist Party, what you have to realise is that other people will refer to the SPGB as the Socialist Party. This has been going on for 108 years, get used to it.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/pic/4/4220.jpg

What We Stand For (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/partydoc/What_We_Stand_For)

The Socialist (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/socialist) Party fights for socialist change - a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also fight, in our day-to-day campaigning, for every possible improvement for working-class people.
As capitalism dominates the globe, the struggle for genuine socialism must be international.
The Socialist Party (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/party) is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), a democratic, socialist international that organises in over 40 countries.
Our demands include:


see link above

[daft punk]

here are Socialist Party members on BBC2's Newsnight programme recently (on Friday) opposing government policies (work for welfare), people keep mentioning SWP but it is mostly SP, I'm not sure if the SWP were involved. Big companies have been pulling out since the campaign started. Report plus studio debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ckx2z/Newsnight_24_02_2012/

QY5ZDwmVVuw


FIGHT SLAVE LABOUR!

Note how he manages to bring in the need to scrap capitalism

[robbo203]

here are Socialist Party members on BBC2's Newsnight programme recently (on Friday) opposing government policies (work for welfare), people keep mentioning SWP but it is mostly SP, I'm not sure if the SWP were involved. Big companies have been pulling out since the campaign started. Report plus studio debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ckx2z/Newsnight_24_02_2012/


FIGHT SLAVE LABOUR!

Note how he manages to bring in the need to scrap capitalism


Except, of course, that by "capitalism" SPEW only means private or laissez Faire capitalism - not capitalism per se. SPEW wants to nationalise the top 150 (or whatever it is but then, who cares) corporations - is if this is gonna make any real difference to the position of workers in capitalism. Ask any worker working in a currently nationalised or state run firm how they feel about it, if you doubt that.

SPEW, Im afraid, is just another left-capitalist reformist outfit advocating the timewasting dead-end distraction of state run capitalism - despite the earnest endeavours of our lonely SPEW supporter trying to flog this outfit here for all its worth - like those pesky Jehovah Witnessses on your doorstep who just wont take no for an answer and insist that you take the latest copy of Watchtower:rolleyes:

[crisispoint]

Sounds to me as if you'd be better of not joining a party, for now at least. That doesn't mean you can't involved yourself in local struggles though, not at all in fact. Whereabouts are you based?

Probably the best way for now, I'm in Cornwall, just this morning got a flyer through my door today for a save the NHS rally.



Sorry for any ambiguity in my first post, while I'd herd of the SPGB I didn't realise they were still active, I'll be calling them SPEW and SPGB from now on.

I've been reading around on SPGB's website, I really like a lot of what they have to say and I've taken out a subscription to the Socialist Standard. The issue I have with them is their opposition to reform. I understand where they're coming from and totally agree that capitalism is an inherently flawed system which needs to be brought down rather than patched up. The problem is that just doesn't seem like that's going to happen in the immediate future and in the meantime I feel we're better off with things like the NHS than we would be without them.

Not only that but it seems like participating in struggles such the save the NHS, the right to work campaign and the public sector strikes seems like the best way to build a working class movement. To me the SPGB's position here seems a bit high minded and it's almost like they're isolating themselves from workers struggles, how exactly do they intend to build a working class movement?

SPEW's policy of working for achievable short term goals and concessions may not deal with capitalism as the root of our problems, but it seems like the best way to build a movement which will eventually be able to overthrow the capitalist system.

[daft punk]

SPEW wants to nationalise the top 150 (or whatever it is but then, who cares) corporations - is if this is gonna make any real difference to the position of workers in capitalism. Ask any worker working in a currently nationalised or state run firm how they feel about it, if you doubt that.

But a state run firm in a capitalist system is quite different from what it would be with a socialist one.

The long term aim is pure communism, where there is no state and no government, no bureaucracy, and everyone is part time worker, part time planner.

But talking the top 200 companies into public ownership and democratic control is a start.

These companies would have elected boards of directors including representatives (on a workers wage) from the workforce and the consumers/public.

What do you propose instead?

[daft punk]

I've been reading around on SPGB's website, I really like a lot of what they have to say and I've taken out a subscription to the Socialist Standard. The issue I have with them is their opposition to reform. I understand where they're coming from and totally agree that capitalism is an inherently flawed system which needs to be brought down rather than patched up. The problem is that just doesn't seem like that's going to happen in the immediate future and in the meantime I feel we're better off with things like the NHS than we would be without them.

Not only that but it seems like participating in struggles such the save the NHS, the right to work campaign and the public sector strikes seems like the best way to build a working class movement. To me the SPGB's position here seems a bit high minded and it's almost like they're isolating themselves from workers struggles, how exactly do they intend to build a working class movement?

SPEW's policy of working for achievable short term goals and concessions may not deal with capitalism as the root of our problems, but it seems like the best way to build a movement which will eventually be able to overthrow the capitalist system.

Compare the two, compare their policies. SPGB is anti-Leninist. It has 150 members nationally.

Why do they "disavow any links between workers’ struggles in the here and now, the confidence the labour movement has in its collective power and the movement for socialism" as the blogger on Socialist Unity put it? Seems odd. And "didactic methods take the place of participation in struggle".

I dont get it.

[robbo203]

Compare the two, compare their policies. SPGB is anti-Leninist. It has 150 members nationally.

Why do they "disavow any links between workers’ struggles in the here and now, the confidence the labour movement has in its collective power and the movement for socialism" as the blogger on Socialist Unity put it? Seems odd. And "didactic methods take the place of participation in struggle".

I dont get it.


I think the blogger on Socialist Unity is talking complete crap. Its typical of the misinformation given out about the SPGB. I am not a member - I strongly disagree with one or two of their policy positions - but I have considerable sympathy for them overall. They are far and way the best organisaton on what might be called the Far Left. Their membership. by the way. is not 150 but I believe somewhere between 300 and 400. Pathetic, I know, but no one on the Left is in a position to be smug in such matters

The SPGB actually stongly advocates militant worker action on the industrial field and historically some SPGBers have been highly prominent in trade union activity. One guy Wally Preson was a firebrand in the shop stewards movement in the Midlands. I once had the pleasure of meeting Wally/

The subtlety of the SPGB case is lost on peoplle like Daft Punlk who, in his case. lives up to his name by drawing quite inadmissable inferences from a few impressionistic statements. He should read their pamphlets and other publications before jumping to such silly conclusions

The fact that the SPGB as a political organisation does not get involved in trade uniion struggle - which is actually a very sound poilicy in my view - does not mean it does not support such struggle or that individual members do not engage in it

Same with reforms. The SPGB does not oppose refroms . What it opposes is reformism - the proactive advocacy of reforms . Again, there is sound reasoning behind this - you cannot strive to both mend capitalism and end capitalism . Its is one or the other at this fundamental level.

The history of the Second International proves the correctness of the SPGB approach. Social Democratic parties like the Germam SDP - unlike the British Labour Party from which SPEW emerged, was reformist from the word go - had both a maximum (revolutionary) progammme (authored by Kautsky) and a minimum (reformist) programme (authored by Bernstein) What happened? Inevitably - just as the SPGB predicted at the time - the maximum programme was eventually abandoned and the SDP became a thoroughly capitalist reformist organisation like the British Labour Party.

People who sneer so casually and flippantly at the SPGB forget that it has long history and a very deep well of hard won experience to draw upon. Ignore that at your peril when you see fit to criticise

[leon T]

The International Marxist Tendency is the only genuine LEFT Organization here in the UK. Visit Marxist.com:)

[daft punk]

The fact that the SPGB as a political organisation does not get involved in trade uniion struggle - which is actually a very sound poilicy in my view - does not mean it does not support such struggle or that individual members do not engage in it


Please explain some more, the subtlety is wasted on me.



Same with reforms. The SPGB does not oppose refroms . What it opposes is reformism - the proactive advocacy of reforms . Again, there is sound reasoning behind this - you cannot strive to both mend capitalism and end capitalism . Its is one or the other at this fundamental level.

The history of the Second International proves the correctness of the SPGB approach. Social Democratic parties like the Germam SDP - unlike the British Labour Party from which SPEW emerged, was reformist from the word go - had both a maximum (revolutionary) progammme (authored by Kautsky) and a minimum (reformist) programme (authored by Bernstein) What happened? Inevitably - just as the SPGB predicted at the time - the maximum programme was eventually abandoned and the SDP became a thoroughly capitalist reformist organisation like the British Labour Party.

People who sneer so casually and flippantly at the SPGB forget that it has long history and a very deep well of hard won experience to draw upon. Ignore that at your peril when you see fit to criticise

No, bollocks, to win over the working class you have to be involved in their struggles for reforms, not standing at the side tutting.

"The SPGB does not oppose refroms . What it opposes is reformism - the proactive advocacy of reforms ."

What does this even mean?

You are gonna have to explain this better. Give some examples or something.

SPEW are not reformist, they fight for reforms because reforms are better than nothing, and are a way to win the advanced workers.

Why do you twice seem to separate the party from individual action?



The International Marxist Tendency is the only genuine LEFT Organization here in the UK. Visit Marxist.com:)

You were proved wrong years ago, get back in the CWI where you belong, all of you!

[robbo203]

No, bollocks, to win over the working class you have to be involved in their struggles for reforms, not standing at the side tutting.

"The SPGB does not oppose refroms . What it opposes is reformism - the proactive advocacy of reforms ."

What does this even mean?

You are gonna have to explain this better. Give some examples or something.

SPEW are not reformist, they fight for reforms because reforms are better than nothing, and are a way to win the advanced workers.

Why do you twice seem to separate the party from individual action?!

Amazing. The contradiction is right there in front of your very nose:

"SPEW are not reformist, they fight for reforms because reforms are better than nothing".

If you are fighting for reforms then you are reformist. Thats what "reformist" means. But I can see this is going to be a long haul trying to get you to see that SPEW is in fact a fundamentally reformist organisation and that reformism is actually a dead end as the far as a revolutionary socialist political orgaisation is concerned. You may "win over the working class"on the basis of promoting refroms - though that is extremely unlikely given that the main political parties have well and truly cornered the market in reformism and tiny like outfits like SPEW are two a penny - but you will certainly not "win" the working class over to transform society . Thats for sure

Perhaps a clarfication of the basic terms is in order.

What is a reform? A reform is a measure enacted by the state ostensibly to address one or other problen arising out of capitalism. In other words, reformism pertains the the political sphere - that is to say its "field" is political (e.g. lobbying on the state to do this or that) This is important to bear in mind. Reformist activity is quite different from, say trade union activity, that, (ideally) operares within the economic or industrial field alone - though trade union bureaucrats via their link with the capitalist Labour Party will often seek to foist reformism on the membership. You I think probably see workers organising on the indutrial front as an example of reformism but this is a mistake

Can reforms benefit the workers? Of course they can. If you look at its pamphlet "The Market system must go!" - particularly chapter 4 (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/market-system-must-go) you will see that the SPGB acknowleges this to be the case. However , the nature of reforms granted under capitalism is that they are all too often transient and ephemeral. Not only that, some refroms can be highly divisive - pitting one group of workers against another. But above all, reforms cannot really alter the fundamental postion of the working class as the epxloited class in capitalism - and all that flows from that - and usuually such reforms are only implemnented insofar as, and to the extent that, the capitalists themselves envisage deriving some benefit from them. For instance, the Beveridge Report during the war repeatedly made the point that a welfare state would be a much more cost effective than the peicenmeal pre war approach to welfare

Point is - once you accept the basic premiss of regromism where do you stop? If the refroms are not going to significantly alter the position of the workers in capitalism ior remedy the basic problems they face and you sincerely believe that socialists need to promote refroms to "win over the working class", then you are essentially admitting that reformism is simply a futile treadmill going nowhere. Failure is certain in that sense so encouraging false hopes of success is very likelyt to lead to cynicism and disnchantment. You wont "win over the working class". You rapidly lose their support if you were ever to gain it in the first place by effecvtively inviting them to bang their heads against a bricvk wall. You will very soon come to be regarded as just another bunch of opportunist politicians out to catch votes. Growth for the sake of growth fits in with the capitalist ethos very nicely

Think about it for a moment . If reformist activity was successful or capable of achieving what the reformist suggests it can then what on earth would be the point in trying to organise to get rid of capitalism. You might just as well strive singlemenidedly to refrom capitalism and forget about socialism altogher. Seriously. Its really becuase refromism cannot succeed that the need for a revolutionary transformation becomes imperative

This is why the SPGB draws a a line in the sand so to speak. Its a hard and unpalatable choice but you have to accept that there is no way in which you can simulteneously strive to mend capitalism while claiming to want to end it. It has to be one or the other. The history of the Second Internationa, like I said, completely vindicates the SPGB position on this. All of the social democratic parties sooner or later gave up any pretensions to being revolutionary and became ouright reformist capitalist parties -like the German SDP

This what will happen to SPEW if it ever took off - which it wont because along with so many other high minded and well meaning reformist organisations it is quite redundant from the point of view of capitalist politics. All it can do is come across a little more shrill, a little more earnest , a little more ambitous in the scope of its reforms - instead of nationalising the top 10 companies, say, nationalise the top 150! - but workers are just not going to buy this any more They know untuitively that it is not going to do anything for them at a fundamental level. Which is why you are wasting your time and your energy when you need to bite the bullet and say enough is enough and uncompromisingly stand for a genuine socialist alternative that rejects both the market and the state altogether

Ironically it is more likely that the growth of a genuine revolutionary movement will elicit reforms as a way of buying off and containing that movement than any amount of campaigning for this or that reform. Campaigning for this or that reform may occasionally result in something that is of benefit to the workers but the opportiunity costs of all that campaigning to achieve something which cannot even be guaranteed in an uncertain economic climate, is to give up the struggle for revolutionary change more or less completely

[Firebrand]

Someone kill me now. Is this what the left has descended to. Honestly, does it really matter? As long as we are in broad agreement that Capitalism= Bad and we should work for a working class revolution we can work together? You know why the far right is ganing power. Because people who are pissed off with the status quo look at the left and see a bunch of fragmented squabbling children, and they look to the right and see a unified group that they can sign up to. By caring more about our differences than our similarities we are indirectly helping the cause of the fascists.
Please someone scrap this thread. I can't see any productive discussion happening here.

[Blake's Baby]

While I certainly think you have a good point, and it's well made, I'd favour leaving the thread up as a stark warning, to be honest.

[daft punk]

Someone kill me now. Is this what the left has descended to. Honestly, does it really matter? As long as we are in broad agreement that Capitalism= Bad and we should work for a working class revolution we can work together? You know why the far right is ganing power. Because people who are pissed off with the status quo look at the left and see a bunch of fragmented squabbling children, and they look to the right and see a unified group that they can sign up to. By caring more about our differences than our similarities we are indirectly helping the cause of the fascists.
Please someone scrap this thread. I can't see any productive discussion happening here.

I disagree. I think it's important to have honest and open debates at all times, to thrash out differences, not paper over cracks.

Trotsky and Lenin slagged each other off for years and ended up with identical stances in 1917, each having convinced the other on various points.

Robbo, interesting post. First thing I would say is have you read the CWI stuff? They are a revolutionary party, not a reformist one. Most of what you said I already knew in 1984, that reform can be given with one hand and taken back with the other etc. I've seen it happen.

Joining in a fight for reforms is not reformism. Reformism is attempting to reform capitalism and do away with any need for socialist revolution.

Lets give a practical example. Students are demanding lower tuition fees. Do you stand on one side, shaking you head, or do you join in, and explain to the students that any gains can soon be lost, and the need for socialism?

You talk about rejecting the state, does this include a workers state?

[bricolage]

Someone kill me now. Is this what the left has descended to. Honestly, does it really matter? As long as we are in broad agreement that Capitalism= Bad and we should work for a working class revolution we can work together?
yeah it does matter, everyone from ahmadinejad to the icc has said 'caitalism=bad' (although not in those moralistic terms) at some point, can they all work together? of course not. aside from intra-trot wailings which half the time come down personal grudges, there is an enormous amount of difference between the various poles of 'the left'. why should everyone 'work' with each other (whatever that even means in practical terms) just cos they've all at some point shouted about capitalism?

left unity's a joke anyway, as if having a bunch of esoteric groups joining together will really make any difference and as if social revolt has anything to do with 'the left'.

just do your ting and stop worrying about everyone else


Because people who are pissed off with the status quo look at the left and see a bunch of fragmented squabbling children, and they look to the right and see a unified group that they can sign up to.
tbh the right is far from unified.

[daft punk]

Actually the Nazis said capitalism = bad in their early days. And the German Communist Party did form a short alliance with them in 1931. Marvellous, lots of people claiming to be anti-capitalism. Just great.