The SPEW & the SWP - split from SEP thread [Archive]

islandmilitia

7th April 2012, 19:22

My opinion on all Trotskyist parties is that they reconcile, and merge into one large workers' party, which accepts membership from all tendencies.

Fucking no need of 1023190493049310505301954 Trotskyist parties in the US, or UK, or wherever.

Tony Cliff and Ted Grant types in one party, who gives a fuck if you think differently on what the USSR was. Use democracy to decide policy, and opinion of history can be kept out of it.

Whilst not a Trotskyist in any straightforward sense, I really don't think much of this kind of vague rhetoric around "left unity", because I don't think organizational differences are meaningless. The organizational differences within and between the different traditions of revolutionary socialism are not meaningless or irrelevant, they embody fundamental differences on tactics and strategy, and they often go right to the heart of what it means to talk about a revolution and a future communist society. To take the examples of Cliff and Grant, Grant stems from a tradition (that is, Militant) that looks to the Labour Party as the key representative of working-class politics in Britain and has an ambiguous (to put it kindly) line on the possibility of achieving socialism through the parliamentary state. The SP's support for a "new workers' party", as advertised below, is just the most recent incarnation of a basically Labourist politics, because it fails to draw a clear line between the vanguard and the broader ranks of the working class, and in particular seeks to appeal to the trade union bureaucracy. This is sharply opposed to the approach of the SWP, which, whatever its flaws, has always emphasized the need for organizational independence from Labour, and at least recognizes the theoretical necessity for organized insurrection against the bourgeois state, even if the party is often very centrist in its practice. Given these radically different approaches, what would it achieve for the SP and the SWP to become a single organization? How would it be possible to arrive at a common understanding on tactics and strategy? How would such a party be able to avoid a split over the long term? Surely such a split would produce worse consequences than if there had never been an organizational merger, by driving away a periphery and demoralizing important layers of militants?

It may not be the most attractive approach, but the most important thing for revolutionaries to do in the current period is precisely to identify our ideological differences and to demarcate ourselves from those vacillating and centrist elements who make up so much of the contemporary left. It is precisely when organizations have focused on their principles and avoided opportunist organizational maneuvers that they have been able to endure through periods of crisis (in the sense of a crisis of left-wing politics) when other layers of the left have become demoralized - the LO in France is a key example of this disciplined Leninist approach.

daft punk

7th April 2012, 21:14

islandmilitia

7th April 2012, 21:39

You make it sound like the SWP is more left wing that the SP but that's not true. Nor do the SP believe a purely parliamentary road to socialism is possible. And they havent been in the LP for many years. The SWP zigzag between ultraleftism and reformism from what I've seen. But the biggest problem with working with them isnt so much politics it's their sectarianism, ie wanting to dominate organisations they join. Plus they have a lot of shit policies.

I believe the SWP have their own version of cnwp, but I could be wrong. They do work together to some degree anyway, but not all the time.

I'm not interested in having a prolonged debate over such an insignificant entity as the SP (or the SWP for that matter) but you'd have to be pretty naive to believe that the SP has rejected parliamentary socialism. The tradition from which the current SP derives, that of Militant, was fundamentally reformist, because Militant envisaged socialism being introduced in Britain through a parliamentary enabling act, rather than through the overthrow of the state, and unless the SP has at some point produced a critical account of how Militant came to adopt such a reformist course, there is little reason to believe that the SP has departed from the basic assumptions of that tradition. This is reinforced through the SP's current activity because the "new workers' party" is basically aimed at reviving the historical role of the Labour Party, and as such ignores the fundamental transformations that capitalism has experienced in the past few decades, and encourages illusions about it still being possible to extract meaningful reforms from contemporary capitalism. The reformist politics of the SP and its antecedents are bound up with a whole set of other errors that the SP has not accounted for, such as Militant's vacillating role during the Malvinas Conflict, the SP's failure to break with the trade union bureaucracy, and so on.

As I said, I don't think me listing the SP's failings will make for a productive debate, but the discussion about left unity is still an important one, so why don't you give us an account of what you, as an individual, think a "new workers' party" means and what the SP's "campaign" to achieve? What relation would such a new party have with Labourism, Lenin's concept of the vanguard party, the current trade union bureaucracy, and other formations on the left like the SWP?

7th April 2012, 22:51

Whilst not a Trotskyist in any straightforward sense, I really don't think much of this kind of vague rhetoric around "left unity", because I don't think organizational differences are meaningless. The organizational differences within and between the different traditions of revolutionary socialism are not meaningless or irrelevant, they embody fundamental differences on tactics and strategy, and they often go right to the heart of what it means to talk about a revolution and a future communist society. To take the examples of Cliff and Grant, Grant stems from a tradition (that is, Militant) that looks to the Labour Party as the key representative of working-class politics in Britain and has an ambiguous (to put it kindly) line on the possibility of achieving socialism through the parliamentary state. The SP's support for a "new workers' party", as advertised below, is just the most recent incarnation of a basically Labourist politics, because it fails to draw a clear line between the vanguard and the broader ranks of the working class, and in particular seeks to appeal to the trade union bureaucracy. This is sharply opposed to the approach of the SWP, which, whatever its flaws, has always emphasized the need for organizational independence from Labour, and at least recognizes the theoretical necessity for organized insurrection against the bourgeois state, even if the party is often very centrist in its practice. Given these radically different approaches, what would it achieve for the SP and the SWP to become a single organization? How would it be possible to arrive at a common understanding on tactics and strategy? How would such a party be able to avoid a split over the long term? Surely such a split would produce worse consequences than if there had never been an organizational merger, by driving away a periphery and demoralizing important layers of militants?

It may not be the most attractive approach, but the most important thing for revolutionaries to do in the current period is precisely to identify our ideological differences and to demarcate ourselves from those vacillating and centrist elements who make up so much of the contemporary left. It is precisely when organizations have focused on their principles and avoided opportunist organizational maneuvers that they have been able to endure through periods of crisis (in the sense of a crisis of left-wing politics) when other layers of the left have become demoralized - the LO in France is a key example of this disciplined Leninist approach.

The major thing about this post that struck me was how you completely forget (?) to mention that a unity drive in itself will transform the organisations involved. Where there was first sectarian unity based on obeying the party order, there is now room for open debate, or democratic unity, especially if the party wants to make any real impact in society and organise our class as a class.

It is exactly the mentality of the sect to insist on "discipline" and "purity" by "lines of demarcation" on the most various of subjects. The logical end result cannot be but a continuous process of splits, splits and more splits.

Oh, and nice little addition for pointing out how your preferred group in France is so much better than the rest.

islandmilitia

7th April 2012, 23:17

The major thing about this post that struck me was how you completely forget (?) to mention that a unity drive in itself will transform the organisations involved. Where there was first sectarian unity based on obeying the party order, there is now room for open debate, or democratic unity, especially if the party wants to make any real impact in society and organise our class as a class.

It is exactly the mentality of the sect to insist on "discipline" and "purity" by "lines of demarcation" on the most various of subjects. The logical end result cannot be but a continuous process of splits, splits and more splits.

Oh, and nice little addition for pointing out how your preferred group in France is so much better than the rest.

You say I "forgot" to acknowledge the progressive nature of a "unity drive" as if the meaning of a "unity drive" is automatically clear, but I'm afraid for me it is not. You presumably do not mean that all moves towards unity can be sustainable or improve internal democracy, because there are a whole body of instances of organizations on the left moving rapidly towards unity with each other without having first established tactical and strategic agreement, and then later suffering demoralizing splits and a deterioration in internal democracy once internal differences become irreconcilable. The ongoing experience of the NPA could very well meet that description because you see that the organization is now undermined by factionalism and is rapidly losing its members to even more openly reformist formations on the left like the Left Front, because it was formed quickly by forces who lacked any orientation towards tactical and strategic agreement. So if you don't mean any and all moves towards unity, you presumably mean a more specific process - but that's something you'll have to explain.

To clarify, I am not opposed to organizational unity in any and all circumstances, I think if formations can develop a basic level of agreement it would be wrong not to work towards organizational unity, and I also that there is such a thing as an opportunist and sectarian split. However, in my experience the rhetoric of left unity is used to call for opportunist organizational mergers between formations whose ideological differences cannot be reconciled over the long term, especially once immediate struggles have receded and the broad organization is faced with the task of retaining and integrating its members. For that reason, you need to draw a distinction between principled and opportunistic moves towards unity. I cited the LO not because it is my favourite group (I am not a member of the LO or any of its partner organizations in other countries) but because its recent experience is much more favourable than that of the LCR, the difference between the two being that the LO did not rush into an opportunistic venture like the NPA.

8th April 2012, 01:30

You say I "forgot" to acknowledge the progressive nature of a "unity drive" as if the meaning of a "unity drive" is automatically clear, but I'm afraid for me it is not.
In the rest of your post it is clear that you indeed don't understand what I'm talking about. So, let me explain. I see a a genuine proletarian party-movement as focusing politics on several levels. Putting them in an order, from important to less important, it could be represented as this list:
- The programmatic level: The most important level. I was talking about programmatic unity in my last post and it would be at this level. To further clarify what I mean with "program": In many groups this is some esoteric concept where "the program" is a whole system of ideas. I once asked a comrade as to what he understood to be the program of his group, in concrete terms. He mentioned a small library of books, ranging from the Communist Manifesto via the first four congresses of the Communist International to the Transitional Programme and many more in between. This is not what I mean with a "program" as this is much more of a methodology which requires training/"integrating" and commitment to get to know. Any deviation from this large theoretical body of work is a valid reason to split, to cause a "line of demarcation" as you put it.

What I mean with "program" is a short actual document that explains how we go from where our class and the left movement is today, to working class political power and communism after that. Engels already made the point (in his critique on a draft of the Erfurt program (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm)) that a program should be very concise and to the point, any extra explanations only weaken it. The "extras" - the explanations, the context, etc - are supposed to be carried out in the media of the party: Back in the day of the pre-1914 SPD or the RSDLP this was primarily done by paper and journal. In our 2012 context we can add youtube to that, webradio and many other forms of digital content. The primary point is that "truth", in the communist and proletarian political sense of the word, can only be arrived at through debate. I describe this process here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464), so I won't have to repeat myself. This is incidentally why democracy is so important for our movement.

- The theoretical level: This is not really a separate level, but I will mention it anyway so as to explicitly separate it from the program. Whether you think the Soviet Union was state capitalist or a degenerated workers state (or neither), whether you believe the theory of Permanent Revolution is the way forward of that of the Mass Line, etc... They are not reasons for a split. Instead what should happen if theoretical disagreement is to occur (which will probably always happen to some extent), is that such groups that want to win the majority of the party for these ideas, should form a tendency within the party. Then, by patiently explaining their position, can they deepen the overal knowledge of the whole party.

An absolute requirement for this is open debates as opposed to "internal discussion". The reason for this is that bureaucratic clampdowns are much less possible under an open climate and, more importantly, that the working class at large can get themselves accustomed to such ideas, follow the debates and start to think for themselves as to where they stand. In the course of such open debate, positions tend to deepen and clarify and even get expanded as daily live throws new challenges in our faces. This process of development is continuous and only if people who disagree can express themselves without fearing to get kicked out, can unity be a practical thing and can discpline be built in times when the majority makes a decision on a certain subject of actuality (like a strike, a campaign, etc.).

- The strategical level: This is somewhat overlapping again with the previous two levels for obvious reasons, but it can well be that a strategy in one country does not work in another. A strategy - being a long term thing - must again be democratically debated as to involve the widest possible ranks of our class and to ensure unity and discipline to continue and strengthen.

- The tactical level: This is the short term, playing into concrete happenings in society such as an election, a strike, a military occupation, etc. This is also the level where perhaps the minorities have to concede a large deal, but also (given the previous levels) where discipline pays off and gets a mass following. This is the level where the party-movement, as a collective, learns and makes its impacts in society.

I agree with you that our fight must be against opportunism, but in my view this can only happen in a democratic manner if we are to build a mass movement organising our class as a class that wants to take power and thus is following a political program towards this end. For this to achieve we need a paradigm shift within the existing far left because while they are part of the problem now, they also hold the solution: The many committed militants that fight for a human society that we call communism. Thus I oppose splits within the left and instead urge comrades to stick and fight for what they believe in, which first of all means that they'll have to fight for the right to openly disagree, that is, democracy. This is because if a subgroup just splits from its mother-group, they very often tend to not overcome the basic problems of why they splitted and often cloning their former group. This in turn then causes another split after a few years, and so on ad infinitum. There are many examples to cite on the left about this.

Note: I'm not against splits in all circumstances. A split is for example valid when it is a defensive measure against bureaucratic attacks, such as in the right wing of the workers movement is common coin. In those circumstances we should still engage with them, fight for democracy, but organise independently in the mean time.

So, to sum up: Unity cannot exist without the right to disagree and within the context of an "internal" regime. It has to be open and on that basis can discipline grow and can a mass movement be built around the revolutionary program of the conquest of political power of our class.

daft punk

8th April 2012, 11:17

I'm not interested in having a prolonged debate over such an insignificant entity as the SP (or the SWP for that matter) but you'd have to be pretty naive to believe that the SP has rejected parliamentary socialism. The tradition from which the current SP derives, that of Militant, was fundamentally reformist, because Militant envisaged socialism being introduced in Britain through a parliamentary enabling act, rather than through the overthrow of the state, and unless the SP has at some point produced a critical account of how Militant came to adopt such a reformist course, there is little reason to believe that the SP has departed from the basic assumptions of that tradition.

Excuse me. I was an active member of Militant and we used to laugh when SWPers accused up of believing socialism could be established through a purely parliamentary process. We put them straight too. They were wrong, you are wrong.

This is reinforced through the SP's current activity because the "new workers' party" is basically aimed at reviving the historical role of the Labour Party, and as such ignores the fundamental transformations that capitalism has experienced in the past few decades, and encourages illusions about it still being possible to extract meaningful reforms from contemporary capitalism. The reformist politics of the SP and its antecedents are bound up with a whole set of other errors that the SP has not accounted for, such as Militant's vacillating role during the Malvinas Conflict, the SP's failure to break with the trade union bureaucracy, and so on.

Lol. Malvinas, commomly known as the Falkland Islands to the British working class, inhabited by British people, invaded by a fascist general to distract his population from his anti-working class measures at home.

The new workers party is to be specifically socialist. In it's aims it states:

"No to the capitalist profit system. For a democratic socialist society, based on public ownership of the major corporations that dominate the economy, and run to meet the needs of all, and to protect our environment for future generations, instead of the profits of a few. "

As I said, I don't think me listing the SP's failings will make for a productive debate, but the discussion about left unity is still an important one, so why don't you give us an account of what you, as an individual, think a "new workers' party" means and what the SP's "campaign" to achieve? What relation would such a new party have with Labourism, Lenin's concept of the vanguard party, the current trade union bureaucracy, and other formations on the left like the SWP?

See above for a start. I cant hand out a blueprint on all that, there is none. The first thing is to get something going, some sort of left presence again, the cnwp or whatever, anything that brings left groups together. Strength is is unity, within reason. This is aimed at being a broad left so there is no reason that all Trotskyists could not join, maybe even Stalinists and left coms. The most left wing reformists also, they can become revolutionaries.

They want the trade unions to break from Labour and back them. This will either mean new union leaders, or the current ones being pushed to the left.

They call for union leaders to only take the average wage and be subject to election and recall.

LuÃs Henrique

8th April 2012, 14:04

I'm not interested in having a prolonged debate over such an insignificant entity as the SP (or the SWP for that matter)

You write that in a thread dedicated to the discussion of the Socialist Equality Party? :confused:

Luís Henrique

Devrim

8th April 2012, 14:27

You make it sound like the SWP is more left wing that the SP but that's not true.

I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of independent observers would say that the SWP is more left wing than SPEW, even given the fact that the SWP/IS has been moving to the right almost since its foundation and that the SPEW has made a move to the left in its (involuntary) organisational break with Labourism.

But then you yourself virtually admit as such:

The SWP zigzag between ultraleftism and reformism from what I've seen.

'Ultraleftism' is a term that is almost invariably used to criticise those to the left of yourself.

Devrim

Devrim

8th April 2012, 14:31

Lol. Malvinas, commomly known as the Falkland Islands to the British working class, inhabited by British people, invaded by a fascist general to distract his population from his anti-working class measures at home.

You can see where this is going, can't you. Off in the direction of the same old nationalist chauvinism as the Militant at its worst. It is hardly surprising though. This is an organisation who advocated the election of a Labour government to 'continue the war on socialist lines', which I suppose would be somewhat like the lines on which the Blair government prosecuted the war in Iraq.

Really, this is repugnant.

Devrim

Devrim

8th April 2012, 14:34

This is aimed at being a broad left so there is no reason that all Trotskyists could not join, maybe even Stalinists and left coms. The most left wing reformists also, they can become revolutionaries.

I think one of the things that most contributes to the level of regard that you seem to be generally held in on these boards is the way that you manage to engage with people without making a single concession to the concept of listening to, or understanding any idea they express in any way whatsoever. It genuinely is impressive.

Of course left communists wouldn't join your organisation. If you had understood even the slightest thing about the ideas behind left communism you would understand why.

Devrim

daft punk

8th April 2012, 17:10

I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of independent observers would say that the SWP is more left wing than SPEW, even given the fact that the SWP/IS has been moving to the right almost since its foundation and that the SPEW has made a move to the left in its (involuntary) organisational break with Labourism.

But then you yourself virtually admit as such:

'Ultraleftism' is a term that is almost invariably used to criticise those to the left of yourself.

Devrim

I cant really be arsed going into detail on the SWP, I dont even think there are any on this forum.

However you might like to have a look at the following

SWP’s electoralism

Previously, the SWP accused the CWI of ‘electoralism’. This was never true.

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/history2/p15.html
SWP’s reformism

Reformism – a programme which restricts the workers’ struggle to allegedly “achievable aims” and fosters the illusion that society can be transformed by incremental changes over a protracted period – was energetically combated by Marxists from the time of Marx.

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

Marxists in broad formations

Materially rich, the SWP is ideologically poverty-stricken, especially when it comes to elaborating the complex strategy and tactics needed to lay the foundations for new formations of the working class.

http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/history2/p16.html

also

http://www.socialistunity.com/peter-taaffes-critique-of-the-swp/
PETER TAAFFE’S CRITIQUE OF THE SWP (http://www.socialistunity.com/peter-taaffes-critique-of-the-swp/)

for a third party view.

daft punk

8th April 2012, 17:31

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2409197#post2409197)
"Lol. Malvinas, commomly known as the Falkland Islands to the British working class, inhabited by British people, invaded by a fascist general to distract his population from his anti-working class measures at home. "

You can see where this is going, can't you. Off in the direction of the same old nationalist chauvinism as the Militant at its worst. It is hardly surprising though. This is an organisation who advocated the election of a Labour government to 'continue the war on socialist lines', which I suppose would be somewhat like the lines on which the Blair government prosecuted the war in Iraq.

Really, this is repugnant.

Devrim

I live in Britain, I am explaining my ideas to the British working class, the people around me (actually it happened just before I joined Militant).

There was no nationalist chauvinism, if there was, produce some evidence. There was none though, it's easy to say stuff, I would like to see you back it up.

If I had joined a bit earlier, but joined one of the sects, I would be saying to British workers, regarding the war which most of them believed was totally right, that we should leave these British people in the Falklands to the mercies of a fascist general.

How to get zero credibility in 5 minutes.

The Militant did not call for a British defeat nor victory either, they refused to get drawn into that trap.

I was there, I remember it, to the British workers it was a no-brainer to support the troops. Thatcher scored a big own goal when she sank the Belgrano as it sailed away from the Falklands.

Anyway, they just laughed at the sects and their support for fascist Galtieri.

daft punk

8th April 2012, 17:42

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2409197#post2409197)
"This is aimed at being a broad left so there is no reason that all Trotskyists could not join, maybe even Stalinists and left coms. The most left wing reformists also, they can become revolutionaries. "

I think one of the things that most contributes to the level of regard that you seem to be generally held in on these boards

ah, another person thinks they speak for the whole board, great

is the way that you manage to engage with people without making a single concession to the concept of listening to, or understanding any idea they express in any way whatsoever. It genuinely is impressive.

Support these claims or retract.

Of course left communists wouldn't join your organisation. If you had understood even the slightest thing about the ideas behind left communism you would understand why.

Devrim

I'm not saying they would join a broad socialist left, I dunno if any of them would. Some might. Are you saying none would, under any circumstances? Do you speak for all left coms in all places at all times? Are you god?

Well done for dragging everything down to the level of a personal attack. Well fucking done. I'm sure we are one step closer to socialism now thanks to you.

So according to you the idea that left coms and Trots can work together is laughable it is only worthy of a snide personal attack.

Well done. We might as well pack up and forget the idea. All we would do is fight each other, and you've already started.

Well done for pouring cold water and ridicule on my notion of left unity.

You are nothing but a sectarian.

Aurora

8th April 2012, 20:46

I only wrote a couple of lines, not an in depth analysis.

But the lines you wrote displayed a chauvinist position, which if you accept the Militant position of opposing both states is a mistake, now corrected.

Well, that's just one line which is simplifying things a bit for your average worker, and without much context. You have to kind of start with a concept that makes sense to someone even if it's a bit of a simplification, and then develop their understanding from there.
I don't buy this, you can't simplify the necessity of revolution down to being elected, socialists shouldn't sow illusions that theres a solution through the capitalist state but rather that it is the workers organisations that are the solution.

This was a time when the average worker still thought of Labour as a nominally socialist party.
I'm not sure workers ever saw Labour as socialist even with clause 4, Labour may have been a workers party at one point and i think Militant was right to enter it and win radicalizing workers to socialism but it was never possible to win the party as a whole to socialism and it was never possible to win socialism through parliament.

You talk about parliamentary roads and stuff but later in the same article the SP is analysing the position of the sects in comparison to Lenin's position in 1917 in some detail.

Ya i think the article as a whole is very good as was the Militant, but i think acknowledging mistakes is important even if it was only one line in an article or if it was a whole incorrect orientation. The Militant did support revolutions elsewhere but it's own view of revolution in Britain amounted to winning the Labour leadership, getting elected and introducing socialist policy.

daft punk

9th April 2012, 18:52

But the lines you wrote displayed a chauvinist position, which if you accept the Militant position of opposing both states is a mistake, now corrected.

with all due respect you are talking out of your arse. Dont put words in my mouth. I joined the Militant just after the Falkands war, it was discussed, I knew their line, it made sense to me, I agreed with it, and I have argued the Militant line against the sects many times over the last 30 years. I have argued it with one of my best friends who is what we call a 'sectarian' as in a member of a small party which called for a Galtieri victory. Were you even born in 1982? I was 22 years old. By the way what you wrote above is ambiguously worded. Are you agreeing with the militant line? Should there be a comma in there somewhere?

I don't buy this, you can't simplify the necessity of revolution down to being elected, socialists shouldn't sow illusions that theres a solution through the capitalist state but rather that it is the workers organisations that are the solution.

I wouldnt call it sowing illusions. Nobody in the Militant was under any illusions. You have to try to imagine 30 years ago the Labour Party was far more left wing than it is now. It did have some potential.

I'm not sure workers ever saw Labour as socialist even with clause 4, Labour may have been a workers party at one point and i think Militant was right to enter it and win radicalizing workers to socialism but it was never possible to win the party as a whole to socialism and it was never possible to win socialism through parliament.

as i say, nobody in Militant really believed it was possible. The slogan of a socialist Labour government is not something I ever thought too much about. We were in the LP so we had to say that I guess. It was kinda saying what should be done, not what was likely, to expose the labour right wing if anything. Anyway, a few years later they stabbed us right in the back.

bWLN7rIby9s

Ya i think the article as a whole is very good as was the Militant, but i think acknowledging mistakes is important even if it was only one line in an article or if it was a whole incorrect orientation. The Militant did support revolutions elsewhere but it's own view of revolution in Britain amounted to winning the Labour leadership, getting elected and introducing socialist policy.

No they didn't believe it, yes they did sort of say it, no I wouldn't call it sowing illusions, I would call it a little white lie, explaining things in ways workers can relate to at a specific point in time. It's not like we were saying it on the eve of a revolution.

But it's just one line, if you read their stuff generally from the same era they were clearly revolutionaries. Also we had to be a bit careful what we said as we were in the LP and not supposed to be a separate organisation, but everyone knew it was, you just couldnt go round saying so.

If it ever got to the point of revolution and the Militant were still in the LP and had a majority, then I suppose maybe the LP would have been the main vehicle to achieve socialism, coupled obviously with the organisation of the working class.

Aurora

9th April 2012, 22:23

By the way what you wrote above is ambiguously worded. Are you agreeing with the militant line? Should there be a comma in there somewhere?

I do agree with the Militant position, what i wrote should have had better punctuation.

bricolage

10th April 2012, 14:08

Labour should campaign and win on a socialist platform and make a class appeal to Argentinian workers to stop the war.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/108/falklands.html
except that's not all you said, from the link you posted (and what I think you previously denied when replying to Devrim):

A socialist government would make a class appeal to the Argentinean workers. A Labour government could not just abandon the Falklanders and let Galtieri get on with it. But it would continue the war on socialist lines. First, a socialist government would carry through the democratisation of the British armed forces, introducing trade union rights and the election of officers. Working class interests cannot be defended under the direction of an authoritarian, officer caste, which is tied to the capitalist class by education, income and family and class loyalties. The use of force against the Junta, however, would be combined with a class appeal to the workers in uniform. British capitalism will probably defeat the Junta, but only through a bloody battle and at an enormous cost in lives. Using socialist methods, a Labour government could rapidly defeat the dictatorship, which was already facing a threat from the Argentinean working class when Galtieri embarked on his diversionary battle with British imperialism.

so it wouldn't just be a 'class appeal to Argentinian workers to stop the war' it would be a continuation of the war by the British state albeit managed by a different party. do you still believe that a labour government elected then would have been 'socialist' and that there is any 'socialist' way to continue a war as clearly intra-bourgeois as that of the Falklands?

Leo

10th April 2012, 16:30

I'm not saying they would join a broad socialist left, I dunno if any of them would. Some might. Are you saying none would, under any circumstances? Do you speak for all left coms in all places at all times? Are you god?

This has nothing to do with being god or speaking for all left communists. Adherence to the left communist current is not simply about calling oneself a left communist, it means defending certain political positions and practice. Among these positions is the rejection of the idea of the mass parties of the Second International type. So joining a broad leftist mass party is against the political and practical principles of the communist left. Hence, regardless of how a single individual choses to describe himself or herself, no member of any such party can be considered a left communist.

A Marxist Historian

10th April 2012, 17:26

Daft Punk's view isn't that of the Militant, Militant opposed the war recognizing that the Junta were attempting to stir up nationalism to increase their support and recognizing that Thatcher was doing the exact same thing.
"Workers can give no support whatsoever to the lunatic adventure now being prepared by the Thatcher government"
"We are against this capitalist war."
"What position did we take on the war? We opposed both British imperialism and the Argentinean military dictatorship. Both sides were fighting a capitalist war contrary to the interests of the working class."

Militant's position of 'continuing the war on socialist lines' was mistaken only in that it was based around a mistaken view of the Labour party as a vehicle for socialism, if there had been a revolution in Britain the rationale of defence of the workers state would have been the correct position as the character of the war would have changed, it would no longer be a war between two capitalist powers but a class war between the revolutionary workers and a capitalist military dictatorship.

Yes, and if pigs had wings they could fly.

Maybe here in the USA we should call for "continuing the war on socialist lines" vs. those reactionary Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan? After all, if you had a socialist revolution in America tomorrow...

Thinking that if Labour gets elected it could be a "vehicle for socialism" isn't just a "mistaken view." Anybody who thinks that isn't a revolutionary and shouldn't be on this board in the first place.

Nowadays the SP, unlike the Grantites they split with, no longer thinks the Labour Party is even a workers party at all, a good thing I suppose as otherwise they'd be calling for "continuing the war on socialist lines" in Afghanistan, I suppose. Except that this war isn't as popular as the Falklands war, so maybe they'd figure it'd lose 'em some votes...

Yecch.

-M.H.-

daft punk

10th April 2012, 18:26

except that's not all you said, from the link you posted (and what I think you previously denied when replying to Devrim):

You think? Dont accuse me of stuff without checking it!

so it wouldn't just be a 'class appeal to Argentinian workers to stop the war' it would be a continuation of the war by the British state albeit managed by a different party. do you still believe that a labour government elected then would have been 'socialist' and that there is any 'socialist' way to continue a war as clearly intra-bourgeois as that of the Falklands?

This is like saying the Bolsheviks continued the first world war with Germany for a few months so therefore it was 'just a continuation....party'.

If you read what you just pasted again you should be able to see that they are turning it into a war to help the Argentinian workers carry out a revolution themselves.

Do I believe a Labour government elected then would have been socialist? Probably not but it could have. Militant are comparing the actual situation - Labour leaders going along with Thatcher, with what a Labour leadership should be doing.

bricolage

10th April 2012, 19:13

You think? Dont accuse me of stuff without checking it!
you wrote 'There was no nationalist chauvinism, if there was, produce some evidence. There was none though, it's easy to say stuff, I would like to see you back it up.' but seeing as you were replying to a block of text it was hard to know what bit you were talking about. Is that ok?

This is like saying the Bolsheviks continued the first world war with Germany for a few months so therefore it was 'just a continuation....party'.
no, because I think it's quite obvious the russian revolution was a very different thing to labour winning a fictional general election in 1982.

Do I believe a Labour government elected then would have been socialist? Probably not but it could have.
so it could 'continue the war on socialist lines' but then seeing as you admit it probably wouldn't have been socialist it would have been continuing the war on capitalist lines. so please, explain what would have made a labour government in 1982 socialist?

daft punk

11th April 2012, 15:54

so it could 'continue the war on socialist lines' but then seeing as you admit it probably wouldn't have been socialist it would have been continuing the war on capitalist lines. so please, explain what would have made a labour government in 1982 socialist?

If it had we would have opposed it. The point is what could or should be done. You cant back Galtieri, cant back the Tories, cant do nothing. What you can do is say what you would do if you had power, and that would be to do as stated.

daft punk

11th April 2012, 15:57

I agree, in another post i said their position in Britain was to win the Labour leadership, get elected and introduce socialism, this is clearly not revolutionary.
When Militant talked of Labour introducing socialism, what they meant was Militant introducing socialism, along with the lefts in the LP and any other socialists willing to join in, plus of course the working class itself organising.

Sometimes though, right wing leaders can be pushed to do stuff by events and the masses.

Devrim

11th April 2012, 19:41

I'm not saying they would join a broad socialist left, I dunno if any of them would. Some might. Are you saying none would, under any circumstances? Do you speak for all left coms in all places at all times? Are you god?

I think that Leo outlined this pretty well, but it is not just on the single point that he mentioned. Left communists don't believe in participating in elections. Abstentionism is something which defines all left communists today. So participating in any 'New Workers' Party formed by the CWI, which would obviously participate in elections would be out of the question also.

You would of course have realised this if you had actually took in anything from discussing with people on here, or even if you had paid attention t your Lenin.

Devrim

daft punk

14th April 2012, 09:54

Ok, so left communism rejects participation in a mass workers party. Well maybe if there was a mass workers party, some left coms might reject left communism and become Marxists.

So, do you not consider people like Rosa Luxemburg to be left coms then?

Devrim

14th April 2012, 11:07

So, do you not consider people like Rosa Luxemburg to be left coms then?

Obviously it would be pretty absurd to consider Rosa Luxemburg to be a left communist. Her ideas, particulary on economics and the national question, have been influential on some left communist though.

Devrim

daft punk

14th April 2012, 12:18

Yes it would be absurd, that is why I asked, I like asking absurd things. Thick as fuck I am.

14th April 2012, 14:30

Yes it would be absurd, that is why I asked, I like asking absurd things. Thick as fuck I am.

To elaborate on why it is absurd: Rosa was already dead before the first left-communist currents began to emerge. So, obviously she couldn't ever have been one.

daft punk

14th April 2012, 16:00

Rosa Luxemburg died in Jan 1919. On what day after that did left communism appear overnight?

Why does wikipedia say stuff like "All left communists were supportive of the October Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution) in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)", "Rosa Luxemburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg) has heavily influenced most left communists", "the historical origins of left communism can be traced to the period before the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I)"?

Again, I apologise for asking absurd questions in a thread in Learning (a place for beginners and learners to ask their political questions about theory or specific issues. Don't worry if you think your questions are stupid or pointless, ask away. Learning is not stupid and is never pointless) but I really am thick as pig shit.

You see, although I have been a Marxist for 30 years, I just never encountered left coms until I joined this forum a couple of months ago. And suddenly, here are loads of them. Incredible. I just didnt know what I was missing.

Kronsteen

15th April 2012, 19:52

daft punk

15th April 2012, 20:00

SPEW? Socialist Party of England and Wales?

I heard of them once, about five years ago, in (I think) an SP article about how everyone except the SP were sectarian. I thought the name might be a joke.

But the SPEW are real? And big enough to have a split?! That's amazing - and I speak as a sectwatcher who was once targeted for horizontal recruitment by the RCPB-ML, who have about a dozen members.

Is this post serious or a joke?

SPEW are the second biggest Trotskyist party in England and Wales.

They did have a split, but split in the title of the thread refers to the thread being split from another thread by a moderator.

SPEW have had MPs, Euro MPs, councillors, books, TV programmes, some famous names, they have sister organisations in about 35 countries, they have the best websites in the world for socialism.

Here is their website

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/main/Home

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Images/furniture/socialist_party.jpg

15th April 2012, 20:01

SPEW? Socialist Party of England and Wales?

I heard of them once, about five years ago, in (I think) an SP article about how everyone except the SP were sectarian. I thought the name might be a joke.

But the SPEW are real? And big enough to have a split?! That's amazing - and I speak as a sectwatcher who was once targeted for horizontal recruitment by the RCPB-ML, who have about a dozen members.

The SPEW is a rather large group. Just after the SWP in fact. Although some members (wink Daft Punk) hate the obvious acronym, the "Socialist Party in England and Wales" is indeed the official name. They're also the largest section of the Committee for a Workers' International.

The last split in the SPEW was under a former name. Before 1997 SPEW was known as Militant Labour and before 1991 just as Militant. In 1991 a minority in England split and took with them a large chunk of the then CWI, to form the IMT.

For a sect watcher you should do your homework more properly!

Kronsteen

15th April 2012, 20:22

For a sect watcher you should do your homework more properly!

Evidently.

So the SPEW are the party I've always known as the SP...and yes I remember they were once Militant. And they're boringly unsplit.

Does it make me a bad person that I was looking forward to a vitriolic dustup between a dozen old lefties?

daft punk

15th April 2012, 20:27

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/16/article-1120184-03153796000005DC-977_233x372.jpg

15th April 2012, 20:27

So the SPEW are the party I've always known as the SP...

Well, there is also that other Socialist Party: The SPGB, founded in 1904 and still in existence, but very small. On boards like these, full of lefties, it is convention to be clear and keep them apart.

For US lefties likewise it is convention to keep a distinction between Socialist Action and Socialist Alternative, by "SA" and "SAlt" respectively (since Socialist Action is older).

On the streets most people of course haven't heard of either, so it doesn't really matter.

daft punk

15th April 2012, 20:30

http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/leftmast2.jpg

15th April 2012, 20:33

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/16/article-1120184-03153796000005DC-977_233x372.jpg

http://www.socialistalternative.org/graphics/leftmast2.jpg

Please be aware that posting pictures like that is considered spam and against the rules. Keeping up such behaviour might get you infractions and eventually result in a ban.

Just a comradely reminder.

daft punk

15th April 2012, 20:37

what happened to a picture is worth a thousand words? Anyway, what's this thread about? Anacronyms?

Leo

15th April 2012, 21:43

Rosa Luxemburg died in Jan 1919. On what day after that did left communism appear overnight? 1918 in Russia, arguably 1919 in Germany, following Luxemburg and Liebknecht's deaths. Incidentally, many of Rosa Luxemburg's criticisms of the early Bolshevik policies are pretty close to those of the Russian left communists.

Why does wikipedia say stuff like "All left communists were supportive of the October Revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution) in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia)", "Rosa Luxemburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Luxemburg) has heavily influenced most left communists", "the historical origins of left communism can be traced to the period before the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I)"? Because people who became left communists were actually alive before the left communist current itself emerged?

You see, although I have been a Marxist for 30 years, I just never encountered left coms until I joined this forum a couple of months ago.If this actually is true, it is quite telling of the sort of party you are a member of, having people who claim to have been marxists for 30 years who've never even took but a glimpse in Lenin's famous book on left communism, or who in fact still seem to posses the maturity of a fifteen year old boy.

Kronsteen

15th April 2012, 21:54

Well, there is also that other Socialist Party: The SPGB, founded in 1904 and still in existence, but very small.

Oh yes, I've met them too. At the Marxism conference, in that 'tunnel' area next to Birbeck hall, known to SWPers as 'Spart Alley'. They told me with great pride that their 1904 constitution had never been changed, making them the only party who'd never sold out. Erm, yes.

Opposite them were the actual Sparticist League - later the ICL - and their split-off faction the IBT. The sparts started screaming rude names at me when I asked how 50 American students could afford to fly to every major protest I'd been on, while the 4000-strong SWP was constantly bankrupt[1].

There's also an SPB somewhere, distinct from the SP/SPEW and the SPGB. And a CPB and a CPGB - the latter of who sold me some Lenin speeches and claimed to have 30 members 'worldwide'.

I've yet to meet the Socialist Party of Gurnsey.

[1] We in the SWP were pretending to have 10,000 members at the time, c2006.

A Marxist Historian

16th April 2012, 23:37

To elaborate on why it is absurd: Rosa was already dead before the first left-communist currents began to emerge. So, obviously she couldn't ever have been one.

Not true. When the KPD was born, probably its majority were "left coms," which drove Rosa nuts. The KPD at its founding convention took all sorts of ultraleft positions over Karl and Rosa's opposition.

The world's first self-proclaimed "Luxemburgist" was Paul Levi, one of the the few survivors of the original Spartacusbund leadership not murdered by the Social Democrats and the Freikorps. He pretty much created "left communism" by highly undemocratically expelling the whole left wing of the German Communist Party, something Lenin and Trotsky and Zinoviev were very unhappy about. Over Levi's opposition, they tried for nearly a year to bring the KAPD back into the Communist International and the German Communist Party.

Paul Levi gathered together every criticism of Lenin Rosa ever issued, many if not most of which she had dropped by the time she died, and turned them into a platform of "Luxemburgism," on his way back into German Social Democracy.

Essentially, "Luxemburgism" as such is a form of left social democracy. Luxemburg herself had rejected the main principles of "Luxemburgism," especially her favoring a Constituent Assembly over workers councils as the proper form of workers rule, before she died.

-M.H.-

daft punk

17th April 2012, 15:57

1918 in Russia, arguably 1919 in Germany, following Luxemburg and Liebknecht's deaths. Incidentally, many of Rosa Luxemburg's criticisms of the early Bolshevik policies are pretty close to those of the Russian left communists.

Because people who became left communists were actually alive before the left communist current itself emerged?

If this actually is true, it is quite telling of the sort of party you are a member of, having people who claim to have been marxists for 30 years who've never even took but a glimpse in Lenin's famous book on left communism, or who in fact still seem to posses the maturity of a fifteen year old boy.

Why cant you quote people properly so their name appears, so everyone can instantly see who you are replying to?

Why cant you reply to me without needing pathetic personal insults?

For a moderator this is a joke. Give yourself an infraction and fuck off.

I was replying to Q, not you. What you say here is still confused, jumbled up. 'It started after Rosa died, but she was a big influence on it.' This is a bit contradictory to say the least.

If it miraculously appeared overnight in 1919, why did Lenin say (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm)

"Any Bolshevik who has consciously participated in the development of Bolshevism since 1903 or has closely observed that development will at once say, after reading these arguments, "What old and familiar rubbish! What ’Left-wing’ childishness!" "

Old and familiar.

You think I am unfamiliar with left communism. I havent studied loads. As I say, I never encountered any. I am open debate with serious left coms. I doubt you fit into that category.

No I wasnt born yesterday and in fact was familiar with one left com all my life- my grandmother was a friend of the Pankhurst sisters.

Leo

17th April 2012, 21:16

Why cant you reply to me without needing pathetic personal insults?

For a moderator this is a joke. Give yourself an infraction and fuck off.

Oh I wasn't making any personal insults, I was stating a fact. You are extremely immature. Your response to that being "fuck off" demonstrates my point enough. You are ignorant about the communist left, which is not a problem in itself, but that with your arrogance creates a comical outcome. Yet more importantly, these two elements demonstrate what sort of a party you've been a member of for like what, the past thirty years? I'm sure you're devoted and all that, but you are an example of why there is little to be taken seriously about the CWI.

If it miraculously appeared overnight in 1919, why did Lenin say (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch05.htm)

"Any Bolshevik who has consciously participated in the development of Bolshevism since 1903 or has closely observed that development will at once say, after reading these arguments, "What old and familiar rubbish! What ’Left-wing’ childishness!" "

Old and familiar.

Because he was trying to draw a parallel between the left communists and certain factions in the history of the Bolshevik Party who weren't left communists and didn't call themselves left communists, such as Bogdanov's faction.

TheGodlessUtopian

17th April 2012, 21:22

Can we try and lay off the hateful denunciations? :)

Hit The North

17th April 2012, 21:31

If this actually is true, it is quite telling of the sort of party you are a member of, having people who claim to have been marxists for 30 years who've never even took but a glimpse in Lenin's famous book on left communism, or who in fact still seem to posses the maturity of a fifteen year old boy.

Yeeeaaah, but.... It might have more to say about the tiny presence "left communists" occupy in Britain, because I've never met any either. And whilst I cannot guarantee that daft punk has been an active socialist for thirty years, I know that I have.

Who would they be, out of interest?

EDIT: More importantly, does anyone have the foggiest what this thread is about? And why is it in Learning? Can someone move it?

Leo

17th April 2012, 22:23

Yeeeaaah, but.... It might have more to say about the tiny presence "left communists" occupy in Britain, because I've never met any either. And whilst I cannot guarantee that daft punk has been an active socialist for thirty years, I know that I have.

Who would they be, out of interest?

I am not an expert on the history of left communism in England after the 70ies myself, not being from England, however, there used to be numerous organizations and there still are a several (mainly World Revolution, the ICC section in the UK and Revolutionary Perspectives, the ICT section in the UK, the former being more organized in the South while the latter being more organization in the North of England although both are pretty small). In the past, the organizations of today were of course much stronger and active, and there were other pretty active left communist groups such as Wildcat. I would recommend you ask the users Alf, Jock and Devrim if you want more information. The problem is not that Daft Punk hasn't met a left communist though, nor is it that he doesn't know about left communism, but that he is very arrogant in all his dismissals despite his ignorance.

bricolage

17th April 2012, 22:24

tbh I don't really think there are any left communists outside of london and manchester.

Leo

17th April 2012, 22:34

I know there are some in Kent, Exeter, Sheffield, Birmingham, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Durham, Liverpool etc. and this I know as someone who doesn't know the UK well and has never been there.

bricolage

17th April 2012, 22:39

I know there are some in Kent, Exeter, Sheffield, Birmingham, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Durham, Liverpool etc. and this I know as someone who doesn't know the UK well and has never been there.
no I'm sure there are a few in those places but I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that left communists in the UK are tiny and I think Manchester and London are the only places where they are big enough to be visible. for example I've seen the ICC outside the anarchist bookfair everytime I've been, handing out flyers on demos, various posters for meetings here and there, and so forth. even so this is very small compared to other groups but I don't even think that exists in any meaningful way outside of the two cities I mentioned. I think it's understandable if people from other places (including the ones you mentioned) have never encountered anyone.

EDIT: for example I lived in sheffield for three years and never saw a left communist or knew of any.

daft punk

18th April 2012, 10:43

Oh I wasn't making any personal insults, I was stating a fact. You are extremely immature. Your response to that being "fuck off" demonstrates my point enough. You are ignorant about the communist left, which is not a problem in itself, but that with your arrogance creates a comical outcome. Yet more importantly, these two elements demonstrate what sort of a party you've been a member of for like what, the past thirty years? I'm sure you're devoted and all that, but you are an example of why there is little to be taken seriously about the CWI.

Because he was trying to draw a parallel between the left communists and certain factions in the history of the Bolshevik Party who weren't left communists and didn't call themselves left communists, such as Bogdanov's faction.

Judging a political organisation by your personal opinion of one member is what is obviously not to be taken seriously.

You are not fit to be a moderator. Your opinion is not fact.

Your actual political argument which you tack on the end of a bunch of lies and insults, is weak. Parallel means similar or analogous. Ok, you win, by pedantically splitting hairs.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

22nd April 2012, 16:35

When Militant talked of Labour introducing socialism, what they meant was Militant introducing socialism, along with the lefts in the LP and any other socialists willing to join in, plus of course the working class itself organising.

Sometimes though, right wing leaders can be pushed to do stuff by events and the masses.

Horrendous politics, especially the emboldened.

Can 'right-wing leaders' be pushed to introduce Socialism - you know, the emancipation of the working class, by the working class, for the working class - by external pressure? Can you cite ANY example at all in history where this unlikely scenario might have unfolded?

But then again, given that Militant/SPEW think that Socialism is achieved by the top-down nationalisation of a few of the biggest corporations and businesses, it's not surprising that you, as a member of the organisation, are happy to go along with this daft (excuse the pun) logic.

I've always found it strange that SPEW is so determined to put itself in the centre of the revolutionary Socialist/Marxist tradition, given that it doesn't actually call for anything more than a garbled vaguely to-the-left version of the Attlee ministry of 1945-51: a few nationalisations here and there, full employment and lip service to the working class and the odd reference to Marxism here and there and it seems the SPEW are content.