Craziest 'far-left' parties?

[Tim Cornelis]

List crazy so-called 'far-left' parties with absurd politics for our amusement.

I don't mean this thread to become filled with sectarian jabs, so do not try to 'score' by saying "This party advocates socialism in one country! How absurd," or something alike. I mean actual bizarre, or perhaps even cultish, politics.

In all likeliness, such parties are marginal and so none of the revleft userbase will be offended since they are not affiliated.

I nominate these guys of The Communist Party of Britain (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain_(Marxist–Leninist) ), from a pamphlet:

"BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS. Workers' nationalism is misunderstood as 'racist' by those who either fail to understand capitalism's tactics in the war on workers, or who connive in this war...Throughout the country, British workers have allowed themselves to be displaced by imported labour...Now every worker must take up the fight. Stop immigration! Out of the EU! Let's fight for our future!"

Straight up Strasserism.

Perhaps they are trying to tap into "popular discontent"?

[Ostrinski]

I know that a couple of the various Trot parties are extremely cultish around him, though I forget which ones.

But yeah, CPGBML is gonna be the perfect poster child for this archetype.

[Ostrinski]

I guess here in the US we have the Revolutionary Communist Party, with its cult around Bob.

[maskerade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_Party_of_Korea

These guys are pretty crazy, I suspect there is some sort of cult around their leadership as well.

[eric922]

I guess here in the US we have the Revolutionary Communist Party, with its cult around Bob.

I the RCP was in Canada, shows what I know.

[eric922]

I nominate these guys, they are based around the People's Temple and they actually seem serious. http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/

[28350]

let's be real, all of them.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1977/thesis-egocrats.htm

[Grenzer]

I guess here in the US we have the Revolutionary Communist Party, with its cult around Bob.

They can be pretty weird, but they don't have shit on the International Communist League, the US section of which is the Spartacist League. They're pretty much a self-parodying leftist cult.

[Zeus the Moose]

I the RCP was in Canada, shows what I know.

The Canadian RCP is, from what I know, rather different from the RCPUSA. They're both descended from Maoism, but the Canadian RCP didn't take the Avakian cult-turn.

[ed miliband]

I nominate these guys of The Communist Party of Britain (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain_(Marxist–Leninist) ), from a pamphlet:

"BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS. Workers' nationalism is misunderstood as 'racist' by those who either fail to understand capitalism's tactics in the war on workers, or who connive in this war...Throughout the country, British workers have allowed themselves to be displaced by imported labour...Now every worker must take up the fight. Stop immigration! Out of the EU! Let's fight for our future!"

Straight up Strasserism.

Perhaps they are trying to tap into "popular discontent"?


i think that's actually from a different communist party of britain, this one:

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

they're paper, a daily that is sold in most shops, has input from labour party politicians, greens, they have folk high up around top union people (or so i've heard).

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

They can be pretty weird, but they don't have shit on the International Communist League, the US section of which is the Spartacist League. They're pretty much a self-parodying leftist cult.
Ah, an attack devoid of content against the ICL. The ICL is an orthodox and quite serious Trotskyist group. You don't like them, fine. You want to throw mud -- not so fine. You want to discuss what you believe makes them a "self-parodying leftist cult," go ahead. I'm all ears.

[Comrades Unite!]

Past- Khmer Rouge(Not that they are Communistic by any stretch of even the most idiotic of minds)

Present- Workers Party of Korea (Same applies):drool:

[RedHammer]

Communist Party USA

It's a joke.

[Prometeo liberado]

There were cliques in the old Progressive Labor Party here in the U.S. that used indoctrinate their members with the idea that the party was their "family". Some of these people can be found in the PSL L.A. office. Hmm.

[Silvr]

This seems like a pretty stupid and hypocritical thread, considering the fact that the state and the bourgeois media generally try to paint any 'far left' organization that declares its opposition to the existing order as being a bunch of crazies.

[Panda Tse Tung]

"BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH WORKERS. Workers' nationalism is misunderstood as 'racist' by those who either fail to understand capitalism's tactics in the war on workers, or who connive in this war...Throughout the country, British workers have allowed themselves to be displaced by imported labour...Now every worker must take up the fight. Stop immigration! Out of the EU! Let's fight for our future!"
It's not an uncommon position and i dont see how it's riding the crazy train. It is a legit argument that needs to be countered if incorrect, naming it Strasserism shows how little you know of Strasserism. It does not however show how this is riding the crazy train (even if it was Strasserism).

Back on topic:
historically - Posadaism (revolution on one planet is impossible)
contemporary - RCP-usa (a cult around someone who makes marginal political contributions to the movement, and is not even charismatic)

[Tim Cornelis]

i think that's actually from a different communist party of britain, this one:

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

they're paper, a daily that is sold in most shops, has input from labour party politicians, greens, they have folk high up around top union people (or so i've heard).

No it's the (Marxist-Leninist).


It's not an uncommon position

It is not an uncommon position for right-wing parties. Even the moderate left, social liberals and social-democrats, do not say "British (or other nationality) jobs for British workers." While they oppose free migration, they do not do so on the basis of ethnicity.


and i dont see how it's riding the crazy train. It is a legit argument that needs to be countered if incorrect, naming it Strasserism shows how little you know of Strasserism. It does not however show how this is riding the crazy train (even if it was Strasserism).

It is crazy for a 'revolutionary socialist' party. Strasserism obviously was a hyperbole.



historically - Posadaism (revolution on one planet is impossible)


Those guys are not for real are they?

I do recall a revleft user posting some Dragon ball Z kind of eco-socialism, but seemed to be completely for real.

Oh right, found it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/biosocialism-t161702/index.html?t=161702

These guys, I think, are by far the most crazy socialists out there.

[mew]

that crazy pro-pol pot party that admires jim jones and thinks mass suicide is a useful tactic in some cases.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No it's the (Marxist-Leninist).



It is not an uncommon position for right-wing parties. Even the moderate left, social liberals and social-democrats, do not say "British (or other nationality) jobs for British workers." While they oppose free migration, they do not do so on the basis of ethnicity.



It is crazy for a 'revolutionary socialist' party. Strasserism obviously was a hyperbole.



Those guys are not for real are they?

I do recall a revleft user posting some Dragon ball Z kind of eco-socialism, but seemed to be completely for real.

Oh right, found it:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/biosocialism-t161702/index.html?t=161702

These guys, I think, are by far the most crazy socialists out there.
Yeah, that is pretty nuts. As for the nasty nationalist quote from CPGB, that is an example of nationalistic filth that should be an anathema to any left group. More suited to a National Socialist, than a socialist. It does remind me a bit of the RCPs line on busing in the 1970s when they united with racists in Boston who opposed it.

But I think the OP was looking for weird. It is not so weird, just politically backward and awful.

[Grenzer]

Ah, an attack devoid of content against the ICL. The ICL is an orthodox and quite serious Trotskyist group. You don't like them, fine. You want to throw mud -- not so fine. You want to discuss what you believe makes them a "self-parodying leftist cult," go ahead. I'm all ears.

Not really.

They're just another bureaucratic left sect far more concerned about defending China or what the Red Army did thirty years ago than pressing the interests of the working class. No one actually cares about that shit other than out of touch left nerds.

Their leader is just another for-life petty bureaucrat and is a notorious drunkard and chauvinist. Their line is pretty inconsistent, and depends on the whims of old Jimmy. Take their recent cry in support of the KKE. They want people to vote for, what is in their own view, a group of petit-bourgeois nationalists.

They posses all of the eccentricities of your ordinary out-of-touch left sect, but to an even greater degree. Like most left sects, they are incapable of escaping the constraints of their cult-like mentality to reach out to the working class as a whole; pretensions of such are entirely delusional.

Go back to trolling the ICC web page, you hack.

[Panda Tse Tung]

It is not an uncommon position for right-wing parties. Even the moderate left, social liberals and social-democrats, do not say "British (or other nationality) jobs for British workers." While they oppose free migration, they do not do so on the basis of ethnicity.


The Socialist Party of the Netherlands in it's olden (Maoist) days, and even today holds a similar position (see the pamphlet: Gastarbeid en kapitaal). So it should hardly be a surprising position to a Dutch leftie. And it's not an attack on the immigrants, but on immigration in all honesty. I can see why such a position would be taken, even though i disagree with the position and think equal work = equal pay.



Those guys are not for real are they?

Unfortunately they we're/are for real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Posadas

[Tim Cornelis]

The Socialist Party of the Netherlands in it's olden (Maoist) days, and even today holds a similar position (see the pamphlet: Gastarbeid en kapitaal). So it should hardly be a surprising position to a Dutch leftie. And it's not an attack on the immigrants, but on immigration in all honesty. I can see why such a position would be taken, even though i disagree with the position and think equal work = equal pay.

Those are not even in the same ball park. The Socialist Party worked from a completely different angle: fearing the lacking work and living circumstances of guest workers and arguing that guest workers should have the ability to stay in the Netherlands but that they should have provided to them courses in the Dutch language.

This is entirely different from saying something like 'Dutch jobs for Dutch workers' and 'stop immigration!', which even Geert Wilders doesn't say. Being tighter on immigration than far-right politicians like Geert Wilders should ring major alarm bells if it comes from a supposedly socialist party.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Not really.

They're just another bureaucratic left sect far more concerned about defending China or what the Red Army did thirty years ago than pressing the interests of the working class. No one actually cares about that shit other than out of touch left nerds.

Their leader is just another for-life petty bureaucrat and is a notorious drunkard and chauvinist. Their line is pretty inconsistent, and depends on the whims of old Jimmy. Take their recent cry in support of the KKE. They want people to vote for, what is in their own view, a group of petit-bourgeois nationalists.

They posses all of the eccentricities of your ordinary out-of-touch left sect, but to an even greater degree. Like most left sects, they are incapable of escaping the constraints of their cult-like mentality to reach out to the working class as a whole; pretensions of such are entirely delusional.

Go back to trolling the ICC web page, you hack.
Nice ad hominem attack comrade. And I suppose I owe you an apology, because unlike you, I haven't been busy building the Lansing Commune, with a finger on the pulse of what the proletariat want. Is the best you can do is to vituperate against Jim Robertson, for being a chauvinist and a drunkard? (but wait, not just a regular drunkard and chauvinist but a notorious drunkard) This is sub-political nonsense. Do they have problems as a group, yes. But your attack on the ICL in the context of the OP here was simply flame bait. If you want to discuss what it means to critically support the KKE in the recent Greek elections that is one thing -- but you don't. Your aim is simply to smear the ICL. And this you do seem to care a lot about. I'm not a member of the ICL -- but I've been able to observe them for about thirty years. They are honest and forthright about what they stand for. You disagree, bfd. Most people, even on the left, do. That doesn't make them weird or a cult, and until you make an argument with any more content then your own spleen, you should back off.

Could part of your ire be related to the fact that they have had a recent presence in Lansing? Have you actually read their material or spoken to members?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Stalinism and it's variants aren't really any less warped or weird than National Bolshevism or Strasserism.
Both are rooted in hero worship and characterized by a "great man" theory of history and profound misunderstanding of what socialism is.

[IrishWorker]

http://petersaintclair.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jimjones-e13008179734695.jpg

And his religious communalism/communism of the Peoples Temple,about as crazy as you can get.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

http://petersaintclair.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jimjones-e13008179734695.jpg

And his religious communalism/communism of the Peoples Temple,about as crazy as you can get.
Well, yeah, but did anyone think that Jones and his followers were leftists?

[IrishWorker]

Well, yeah, but did anyone think that Jones and his followers were leftists?

He certainly proclaimed to be a communist and an atheist. :lol:

Edit,
By spring 1976, Jones openly admitted even to outsiders that he was an atheist.[53] Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977, Jones's wife, Marcy, openly admitted to the New York Times that Jones had not been lured to religion because of faith, but because it served his goal of social change through Marxism.[20] She stated that, as early as age 18 when he watched his idol Mao Zedong defeat the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War, Jones realized that the way to achieve social change in the United States was to mobilize people through religion.[20] She admitted that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion" and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling, "I've got to destroy this paper idol!"[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

[cynicles]

The SEP and its attached organizations.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

He certainly proclaimed to be a communist and an atheist. :lol:

Edit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple
Yikes. Well, I'm glad I didn't go to their last party congress. . .:laugh:

[Terminator X]

Hands down, the SEP. A creepier "leftist" party you'll be hard pressed to find. Talk with them for any length of time, and you'll be convinced that they're all some sort of alien parasitic race living within human bodies. Joe Kishore, especially.

[Robespierres Neck]

Oh, someone already posted The Rural People's Party. Thread closed.

[RedHal]

Well, yeah, but did anyone think that Jones and his followers were leftists?

Why would you think his followers were not leftists? The whole point of the people's temple and their commune in Guyana was to build a non racist equal society. Many who died were from poor black backgrounds. Tragic event and I don't know why leftists joke about it so easily.

[Ravachol]

Those are not even in the same ball park. The Socialist Party worked from a completely different angle: fearing the lacking work and living circumstances of guest workers and arguing that guest workers should have the ability to stay in the Netherlands but that they should have provided to them courses in the Dutch language.


No, the pamphlet is far, far worse. It's downright reactionary nonsense sprinkled with some neat orientalist racism on top. I suggest you check out this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1687920&postcount=5

[DasFapital]

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

[RedZezz]

NATLFED/Provisional Communist Party comes to mind in terms of creepiness.

[Teacher]

Wow, there are too many similarly named communist parties in Britain

[Ocean Seal]

I thought that this was going to be a thread about Karl Marx passing out in the bathroom at 4 in the morning.

[eyeheartlenin]

Ah, an attack devoid of content against the ICL. The ICL is an orthodox and quite serious Trotskyist group. You don't like them, fine. You want to throw mud -- not so fine. You want to discuss what you believe makes them a "self-parodying leftist cult," go ahead. I'm all ears.

I think the Sparts are kind of a mixed bag. On the plus side, they always go after any capitulation to the Democrats by forces on the US "left," and that is very useful, since capitulating to the Democrats is the characteristic stance of very nearly the entire US "left," as we saw in the 2008 presidential election. So that's good.

The internal life of the SL/ICL may well be another matter, since, years ago, the IG, a by-product of the SL, published some devastating claims, about the way SL comrades had been treated. If what the IG once said is true, then there were some serious problems inside the SL.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Virtually anything which deviates from pure Rooster thought but in particular the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM), LaRouchites, RCP, the Stalin Society, and some others I forget.

[Liberty]

The Anarchists. They want no government... Enough said...

[28350]

The Anarchists. They want no government... Enough said...

Wow... Crazy... !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania



Ah, an attack devoid of content against the ICL. The ICL is an orthodox and quite serious Trotskyist group. You don't like them, fine. You want to throw mud -- not so fine. You want to discuss what you believe makes them a "self-parodying leftist cult," go ahead. I'm all ears.

I'd say what makes them self parodying is that they devote their energies to exposing "ostensibly revolutionary groups" -- don't get me wrong, they do a fine job of this. It's my favorite thing about them. They just have a (tiny) blindspot, and that is themselves.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The Anarchists. They want no government... Enough said...

I think it's crazy that, given the entire historical track record of governments and states, "you want government."

[cynicles]

Lol, are we going to start this?

[Positivist]

Lol, are we going to start this?

You bet we are. No gods, no masters! Except for the glorious CPSU.

[rednordman]

I don't mean this thread to become filled with sectarian jabs, so do not try to 'score' by saying "This party advocates socialism in one country! How absurd," or something alike. I mean actual bizarre, or perhaps even cultish, politicsYour an idiot!:laugh: you actually stated no sectarianism, by using a sectarian jab yourself. Best thing about it is that as soon as someone did the same against a trotsyist party, someone got arsy about it and had a go.

Another thing, just because we are not against immigration doesn't make people who are against it (or in favour of controlled immigration) as crazy and bizarre. If the statement was indeed from the CPGB (ml) than their statement has been taken out of context. They may be a bit bonkers about somethings, but they are not a bunch of racist reactionaries or...'national socialists':rolleyes:. That's for certain.

[rednordman]

Well, yeah, but did anyone think that Jones and his followers were leftists? Absolutely yes in the USA, and most of the west.

[Thirsty Crow]

Y
Another thing, just because we are not against immigration doesn't make people who are against it (or in favour of controlled immigration) as crazy and bizarre. If the statement was indeed from the CPGB (ml) than their statement has been taken out of context. They may be a bit bonkers about somethings, but they are not a bunch of racist reactionaries or...'national socialists':rolleyes:. That's for certain.
You're right, that's not crazy or bizzare.
It's plain reactionary to the bone. And funny thing that this should be taken out of context...and how exactly would some context clarify what is openly nationalist and xenophobic statement directed against "non-British" labour?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not leftist, but the most absurd mutation from US leftism that's operating now has got to be the LaRouchies. They inherited the behavior from the worst of 1970s US Maoism and wedded it to a strange hodge-podge of petty-bourgeois politics to produce something like proto-fascism.

[rednordman]

You're right, that's not crazy or bizzare.
It's plain reactionary to the bone. And funny thing that this should be taken out of context...and how exactly would some context clarify what is openly nationalist and xenophobic statement directed against "non-British" labour?the worrying thing is that to most British people, saying that falls on death ears and they see you as elitist. They just cannot seem to grasp that its the work of capitalism that causes them to struggle to get work and not immigration itself. You know things are really bad when people actually agree with what you say...and are still anti-immigration. If what the cpgb is saying is reactionary that they are probably trying win back the hoards of old left that flocked to the right-wing and far-right after start of the 90s.

Also @ Tim Corneilus: I apologies for causing you an idiot, just it annoys me when people call for no sectarianism then use all their critical examples on one particular sect.

[Tim Cornelis]

Your an idiot!:laugh: you actually stated no sectarianism, by using a sectarian jab yourself. Best thing about it is that as soon as someone did the same against a trotsyist party, someone got arsy about it and had a go.

Firstly, it's "you're an idiot."

I'm not sure which 'sectarian jab' you are referring to, me mentioning 'socialism in one country' as an example, or referring to the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (I assume it's the latter). But as I said:

"In all likeliness, such parties are marginal and so none of the revleft userbase will be offended since they are not affiliated."


Another thing, just because we are not against immigration doesn't make people who are against it (or in favour of controlled immigration) as crazy and bizarre.

Being opposed to open or no borders is not crazy. But issuing clearly xenophobic statements that are perhaps even racist (if you argue that one is entitled to a job by virtue of his ethnicity, then that is indeed racist), is crazy, and doing so as a far-left party is indeed outright bizarre. The far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders doesn't even issue such extreme anti-immigration views.


If the statement was indeed from the CPGB (ml) than their statement has been taken out of context.

But it's not. It's from the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), not the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). If it had been the latter, I would indeed not have mentioned it in this particular thread. I would have reserved that quote for another time and another discussion. But given that no one here supports the CPB(ml) I started this thread instead.


The SEP and its attached organizations.


Hands down, the SEP. A creepier "leftist" party you'll be hard pressed to find. Talk with them for any length of time, and you'll be convinced that they're all some sort of alien parasitic race living within human bodies. Joe Kishore, especially.


NATLFED/Provisional Communist Party comes to mind in terms of creepiness.

^Could you all elaborate, I'm not familiar with these parties.


No, the pamphlet is far, far worse. It's downright reactionary nonsense sprinkled with some neat orientalist racism on top. I suggest you check out this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1687920&postcount=5

It seems that it was more reactionary than I initially assumed. Nevertheless, it's still less absurd than proclaiming 'Dutch jobs for Dutch workers' and demand an end to immigration.

[Hiero]

In western society, far left usualy denotes 'crazy'.

I would also not include Larouche as a left wing party.

[feather canyons]

Evaluations like "crazy" have no real value in historical materialism. They are all necessary antithesis to exploitation.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Not leftist, but the most absurd mutation from US leftism that's operating now has got to be the LaRouchies. They inherited the behavior from the worst of 1970s US Maoism and wedded it to a strange hodge-podge of petty-bourgeois politics to produce something like proto-fascism.
Yes they are strange. I presume you know that LaRouch, aka Marcus, was in the SWP, spent a few months with the Spartacists and a few more with the ACFI/WL before founding his own group, the National Caucus for Labor Committees. He was always a cultist, but he actually authored a lead article in one of the early issues of Spartacist, The Battle for Asia. Not a bad article, actually, but a little strange around the edges. The Editors had him sign the article because of that. You can find it on the IBT website if you are interested. Of course the NCLC went from being a weird cultish left group to being a right-wing cult -- as LL got crazier, the group got crazier. I remember running into some of them on a Pennsylvania campus decades ago, the men were wearing bow ties and yammering about nuclear fusion, verrrrry creepy.

[dodger]

But given that no one here supports the CPB(ml) I started this thread instead.
"Defeat capitalism by helping the capitalist to increased exploitation? Good plan Tim:laugh::laugh:!!" By the way Tim CPBML. I wholeheartedly support them a clear question of class. As my union RMT...no stranger to battling a protracted struggle for immigrant wages and conditions. 50% British black youth unemployment--anyone got an answer? Oh import Polish labour--no one is listening to silly ideas..this is serious. I salute the CPBML for weathering the storm pushing through unions at EVERY level refusing to be silenced ideas that contradict globalization and the hated EU. Still over 80% polled by unions, member only polls too, point to mass immigration as not in our interests. I salute the British people and CPBML for their tenacity and good sense. British jobs for British Workers.


RMT takes social dumping protest to two south coast ports this week.


SHIPPING UNION RMT announced today that it is organizing two protests at south coast ports later this week to raise awareness of the impact on shipping jobs of social dumping and the exploitation of oversees workers by the shipping companies.

Friday 17th August

12 noon – Dock Gate 4

Platform Road, Southampton

Raising awareness of the impact of social dumping in the cruise industry

Saturday 18th August

0745 hrs

Portsmouth Continental Shipping Port

Specific protest targeting Condor Ferries

RMT has repeatedly warned that the coalition governments so-called ‘light touch’ regulations in the Equality Act leave seafarers vulnerable to exploitation on grounds of nationality and increases the scandalous practice of social dumping with Government connivance.

Despite new legislation, trumpeted by the European Union, it has proved to be totally ineffective and massive scope remains for the shipping industry in the UK to continue paying lower wages to seafarers from non-EU countries, and to continue recruiting crew members on that basis.

The specific case of Condor Ferries confirms that shipping companies are not deterred by the new regulations in their fondness for pay discrimination. By employing Ukrainian seafarers on £2.35 per hour (£28.12 per day for a 12 hour shift) to work 3 weeks on and 1 week off on routes between Portsmouth, Weymouth or Poole and the Channel Islands, Condor Ferries provide the latest example of seafarers being recruited on grounds of their nationality so they can be paid well below minimum wage and how the company can maximise its profits at the expense of Ukrainian and UK seafarers.

RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said:

“The super-exploitation of foreign nationals in the British shipping industry is a massive scandal that the political elite want to keep quiet. That’s no surprise as it’s their wealthy mates running the shipping companies who benefit from this scam that dodges normal employment regulations while the European Union turns a blind eye.

“Social dumping is a mechanism seized on by some of the most rotten employers in the book to dry and batter down wages and conditions. RMT members and their supporters have the full support of the union for this weeks protests in Southampton and Portsmouth.”

RMT National Secretary Steve Todd said:

“The fight to stop the scandal of social dumping remains a national priority for RMT and we will continue to step up the campaign to turn the spotlight on the shameful practices that this ConDem government continues to legitamise in the British shipping industry.”


ENDS

[Tim Cornelis]

"Defeat capitalism by helping the capitalist to increased exploitation? Good plan Tim:laugh::laugh:!!"

Is someone moving from Liverpool to London for a job "helping capitalists increase exploitation"? Or is this only the case when we are talking about foreigners, in which case you are xenophobic. Should we restrict everyone's job to their town of birth? Or is this only acceptable if we are talking about foreigners? In which case, again, you are xenophobic.


By the way Tim CPBML. I wholeheartedly support them a clear question of class. As my union RMT...no stranger to battling a protracted struggle for immigrant wages and conditions. 50% British black youth unemployment--anyone got an answer? Oh import Polish labour--no one is listening to silly ideas..this is serious.

Because that's how the economy works, isn't it? We only have a static and finite number of jobs that doesn't increase, therefore 'importing labour' means British workers go without jobs. In reality, of course, Polish workers are generally employed in industries in which there is a shortage of workers (in the Netherlands at least), such as construction and transportation. Moreover, they spend their wages on clothes, food, housing which creates jobs.

That being said, most African people in Britain live in London, so should we restrict migration from Liverpool and other cities so that only London workers will be employed in London? Or does this logic only apply to foreigners?

It is also contradictory to say you want to help British Africans get jobs while saying that migrants should have the right to be in Britain is "help capitalists exploit people." Surely, helping British Africans gets job would then also qualify as such.


I salute the CPBML for weathering the storm pushing through unions at EVERY level refusing to be silenced ideas that contradict globalization and the hated EU. Still over 80% polled by unions, member only polls too, point to mass immigration as not in our interests. I salute the British people and CPBML for their tenacity and good sense.

I don't care what majorities say. The majority of union members support capitalism.


British jobs for British Workers.

Whom are these "British" people anyway? If we were to give all those Polish guest workers a piece of paper saying 'citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain' they would certainly be British, but I suppose that's not what you mean when you say 'British'?

By the same token, shouldn't 'African jobs be for Africans' and thus by the same logic you just used, should British Africans be deported from Britain because half of them 'steal' 'British' jobs?

Your entire argument reeks of xenophobia, inconsistent racism, unsound economic theories, and gut-feelings unsubstantiated by the facts.

You may want to start explaining how supporting xenophobia and advocating stricter migration rules than the far-right BNP is not contradicting the very premises of socialism.

[rednordman]

I don't care what majorities say. The majority of union members support capitalism.Exactly! hence why the whole of the left is fucking no-where to be seen at a time when support of traditional capitalism is at it's lowest for a long time. Sadly, without majorities, we are not even close to achieving anything.

[dodger]

Is someone moving from Liverpool to London for a job "helping capitalists increase exploitation"? Or is this only the case when we are talking about foreigners, in which case you are xenophobic. Should we restrict everyone's job to their town of birth? Or is this only acceptable if we are talking about foreigners? In which case, again, you are xenophobic.
We are talking about foreigners east Europeans for the most part. Certainly not Xenophobic. It is quite acceptable to me. I said British jobs for British Workers...not Polish Jobs for British Workers.

Whom are these "British" people anyway? If we were to give all those Polish guest workers a piece of paper saying 'citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain' they would certainly be British, but I suppose that's not what you mean when you say 'British'?

By the same token, shouldn't 'African jobs be for Africans' and thus by the same logic you just used, should British Africans be deported from Britain because half of them 'steal' 'British' jobs?

Your entire argument reeks of xenophobia, inconsistent racism, unsound economic theories, and gut-feelings unsubstantiated by the facts.

Whom are the British people you ask? Come to London Tim take a look around you.If people live and work here they are British Working Class. An inclusive term class. Now you are bring forward deporting people? Why? African jobs...if a whole years nurses class grab their degrees and get on a plane to uk, that does not help a developing country. Like it or not globalization seeks to break down borders .Catastrophic affects with capital flight and migrant labour. Besides my union has given much practical assistance to Africans to organise on the railways here. Wages conditions and dignity of knowing ones rights. "inconsistent racism" sorry drawn a blank card, no earthly idea what the term means. Wifey black as a coal scuttle equally perplexed---must be our ages--We are elderly. You did make us laugh like lunes though--thanks.


I don't care what majorities say. The majority of union members support capitalism.
That much is clear.

Because that's how the economy works, isn't it? We only have a static and finite number of jobs that doesn't increase, therefore 'importing labour' means British workers go without jobs. In reality, of course, Polish workers are generally employed in industries in which there is a shortage of workers (in the Netherlands at least), such as construction and transportation. Moreover, they spend their wages on clothes, food, housing which creates jobs.

That being said, most African people in Britain live in London, so should we restrict migration from Liverpool and other cities so that only London workers will be employed in London? Or does this logic only apply to foreigners?

It is also contradictory to say you want to help British Africans get jobs while saying that migrants should have the right to be in Britain is "help capitalists exploit people." Surely, helping British Africans gets job would then also qualify as such.

Repeat folk who live and work here are British Working Class.Silly notions of race I thought had been debunked in 1945. My late Wifey a Hackney girl regarded herself and our children as Brits, her parents were W Indian. I REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT NONSENSE RACE. Surely a Dutchman does not need telling Nazis hate borders. Globalists want mass migrations, good enough reason to oppose it. No contradiction at all in class solidarity British workers have prospered on that basis. So where are the jobs TIM? We have had record numbers coming in...where are the jobs.....

580 foreigners a DAY got a job here last year... as the number of British-born unemployed soared
More than 1m women now jobless in Britain - 91,000 rise on last year
More than 530 Britons losing their jobs every DAY
Britain's overall jobless rate of 8.4 per cent is worst since 1995
North West worst hit region in last quarter with 26,000 more jobless
Union boss describes 'worst employment prospects since recession began'
Daily Mail regurgitate every day.

never said they had blinkers on. That's whats so bad about it all. Alot of the time they are actually very apt in there view of things...take this example for instance. I work in a warehouse where approx 100% of the agency is from Eastern Europe (heck the agency is Slovakian and even recruits only over there as far as I know). One day I was looking at this assignment that one of the agency staff had done and he turned out to be English. I showed this assignment to a manager and she was very perplexed as she couldn't believe how any agency was from anywhere else than Eastern Europe. She really was confused.

Dont get me wrong, to see this with my own eyes really makes me die inside, BUT with ever increasing unemployment among the general population and especially youth (who have had our own tax money spent on there education and such) how can you not expect people to get very angry about it? The problem is, in the UK, because its just the way it is, If you gave a really great honest argument blaming the real culprits (capitalists and EU that supports them) people may conceive the argument but forget all about it after five or so minutes.

Tim the above quote is Rednordmans experience. The left better have some good answers. I am not hopeful. Below is a quote from a blog....

Absolutely, the only colour the capitalists care about is green.
If we seriously want to discuss immigration as a class issue, the first thing we have to do is get away from the colour/race issue, not dismiss it merely see beyond it. For too long the whole issue of immigration has been dominated by the race arguments, the result it has become a subject which the we shy away from, the reactionaries embrace, and the capitalists hide behind safe in the knowledge that any class issues will be submerged in arguments about race.

[rednordman]

"Defeat capitalism by helping the capitalist to increased exploitation? Still over 80% polled by unions, member only polls too, point to mass immigration as not in our interestsof course it isn't, it's only in the interests of rich capitalists, why no-one can see this i have no idea.

As stated a million times before, I am staunchly pro-immigration in the sense that it brings much needed diversity to British society (Britain is definitely better of because of it), but reality is that they are being allowed over, to get exploited and increase the labor pool simple as. And in that sense, i don't support exploitation of workers of any nationality, British or foreign.

Trust me now, if there was anything altruistic to immigration rather than simply increasing competition and lowering wages, than it would not be allowed. It's all about money, and right now also seems to be used as a weapon to ignite social tension.

I despise that, but I cannot simply ignore everything that people I work with and people I know say, and just nullify them as ignorant and not worth a voice, just because I disagree with them. The path to changing their hardened views is going to be a dam hard one i'm afraid to say.

[dodger]

of course it isn't, it's only in the interests of rich capitalists, why no-one can see this i have no idea.

As stated a million times before, I am staunchly pro-immigration in the sense that it brings much needed diversity to British society (Britain is definitely better of because of it), but reality is that they are being allowed over, to get exploited and increase the labor pool simple as. And in that sense, i don't support exploitation of workers of any nationality, British or foreign.

Trust me now, if there was anything altruistic to immigration rather than simply increasing competition and lowering wages, than it would not be allowed. It's all about money, and right now also seems to be used as a weapon to ignite social tension.

I despise that, but I cannot simply ignore everything that people I work with and people I know say, and just nullify them as ignorant and not worth a voice, just because I disagree with them. The path to changing their hardened views is going to be a dam hard one i'm afraid to say.

Well said--Rednordman.

[RedskinUltra4]

I always thought the Maoist International Movement (MIM) was pretty off the chain..

I think they're best known for their creative spellings: womyn (and plural wimmin), persyn, I$srael, Kanada, and my personal favorite united $nakes of ameriKKKa.

[Thirsty Crow]

We are talking about foreigners east Europeans for the most part. Certainly not Xenophobic. It is quite acceptable to me. I said British jobs for British Workers...not Polish Jobs for British Workers.

So when something is acceptable to you then it ceases to be what it actually is?
Yeah, get over yourself, xenphobia and nationalism are what they are and clearly you advocate such views. I'm just glad that someone in BA decided it's high time to restrict a nationalist scumbag such as yourself.



Trust me now, if there was anything altruistic to immigration rather than simply increasing competition and lowering wages, than it would not be allowed. It's all about money, and right now also seems to be used as a weapon to ignite social tension.
Yes it is all about money, but the fact is that you simply fail to see this issue from the point of view of the migrant labourer, who in a good deal of cases migrates first of all because of lack of prospects for even a meager job in their place of origin, so they effectively trade a pitiful existence for insecurity of migration and exploitation in another country. Do you really think it is useful and acceptable for a revolutionary to disregard this aspect of migration patterns and focus solely on the pontetial and perceived advantages of immigrant labour from the point of view of capital? Do you really think that any perceived measure against capital is favourable from the standpoint of the international class of the dispossessed wage labourers? Do you think that capitalism can be demolished by any other means than escalating and international class struggle which absolutely necessitates solidarity and repudiation of any kind of nationalism?

And do you think that the ruling class absolutely needs immigrant labour in order to retain its profits? No, it doesn't, as more or less open class war in countries with few immigrant labourers show.
And then what? Side with the Labour Party to secure better conditions of exploitation for the "native" working class? When that fails and open class war (even if one-sided and enforced by the capitalist class) returns, then what with this nationalism which you've (not you personally) advocated all along and which will most certainly become an ideological weapon in the hands of the state and the capitalist class?


I despise that, but I cannot simply ignore everything that people I work with and people I know say, and just nullify them as ignorant and not worth a voice, just because I disagree with them. The path to changing their hardened views is going to be a dam hard one i'm afraid to say.I noticed that many revolutionaries desire so fervently to become "relevant" that they end up accomodating the existing prejudice and misconceptions held by workers.
It's not that revolutionaries should denounce the ignorance of the rabble from a self-serving high ground. But it is vital to recognize the influence and conseaquences of bourgeois ideology and act against it. It's vital to continuously struggle against this influence, and this includes rhetorical strategies aimed at this form of nationalism and xenophobia. You don't have to nullify and disregard their voice in order to arrive at a clear understanding of the negative significance of such atittudes.
In this first place, it is worth pointing out that there is wealth which could be used to provide everyone with a decent standard of living and a job (with reduced working hours, for sure). But that neccesitates research and clear argument, doesn't it? That's what needs to be done as well. Bring home the issue of the way job creation is organized under the current capitalist regime(s).

[Panda Tse Tung]

Being opposed to open or no borders is not crazy. But issuing clearly xenophobic statements that are perhaps even racist (if you argue that one is entitled to a job by virtue of his ethnicity, then that is indeed racist), is crazy, and doing so as a far-left party is indeed outright bizarre. The far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders doesn't even issue such extreme anti-immigration views.

I can see the advantages (noting that i do not agree with closing the borders).

1. No more false contradictions caused by a clash of cultures.
2. No more brain-drain for 3rd world countries.
3. Verelendung in these countries, which will in time lead to revolution or at least strengthens the unions, given that there will be no running from their problems. They will have to confront the problems of their country, which will lead to an improvement in the least for the working class there.
4. The use of imported labor to put pressure on native salaries will be halted.
5. Unemployment will decrease.

To name but a phew. Of course equal pay for equal work will have a similar effect on many of them. In fact, it will have a negative effect on immigration as well. But some of the problems closing the borders settles are not resolved with equal wages. Which is why i still contemplate it as a valid argument. If their saying that British jobs should go to British workers simply because immigrants are jucky, well then their reactionary.

[Thirsty Crow]

5. Unemployment will decrease.

Total and utter rubbish. You might as well call for a restrictive birth policy - enforced by the bourgeois state. Yet I don't see that as an argument in the arsenal of the folks who think that workers' actually have their own countries.

Have you any idea what causes unemployment?

[Panda Tse Tung]

Total and utter rubbish. You might as well call for a restrictive birth policy - enforced by the bourgeois state. Yet I don't see that as an argument in the arsenal of the folks who think that workers' actually have their own countries.

Have you any idea what causes unemployment?

On the first part:
You can pretend that cultures dont exist, but they do so we have to live with it and work with them the best way we can.
On part 2:
Unemployment can have various causes. But immigrant laborers (Eastern Europeans mostly) are one of them (i'm talking about the Netherlands in this instance, but believe the UK has a similar issue). The EU president publicly admitted they we're brought in to press the wages of native workers (which is why they can work for Eastern European wages). So even if unemployment would not drop by it (which i sincerely doubt) there's various reasons for both nations to accept such a policy in the interest of the Working class in both.

Edit: To clarify another aspect. I've worked with Polish doctors in warehouses and factories. Why the hell am i working with doctors?

[rednordman]

Edit: To clarify another aspect. I've worked with Polish doctors in warehouses and factories. Why the hell am i working with doctors?same here too. But include veterinarians, economists, accountants, law majors, electricians and specialist military men (of the new army's, not old socialist block ones) also.

[Thirsty Crow]

On the first part:
You can pretend that cultures dont exist, but they do so we have to live with it and work with them the best way we can.And you conclude that based on what? The fact that I didn't address the enitrety of your post? Talk about jumping to conclusions.
I merely highlighted what immediately came to attention, but no problem, neither do I think that culture is irrelevant/nonexistent nor that you're right in this respect.

You're assuming that a clash of cultures causes "false contradictions" (which is a theoretical novelty for me in fact, and might be a not so great a combination of the well known notion of false consciousness and inherent contradictions of capitalism; you might have made a misnomer, you might have not, I can't tell for sure).

But you haven't even examined the possibility that the whole notion of a clash of cultures (notice the Huntingtonian undertones, and replace "culture" with "civilization") is o a significant extent a false contradiction itself, and morover, that it is in good part produced through the workings of the dominant ideology.

This is surely the case when we're talking about eastern European migration to, for example, the UK or Netherlands (hey, you brought up the example). I really can't conceive of such radical cultural differences which would result in unmediated, spontaneous cultural tension. Or do you assume that any cultural differences automatically produce cultural tension to some degree? If yes, unequivocally, then I can't disagree more. If you think it is so, would you say that this is a natural phenomenon, or that it is a historical phenomenon and thus subject to change, presumably from the active intervention into the social and political discourse?

Where cultural clash might ensue, I would stress the importance of solving tensions through dialogue and negotiations devoid of any xenophobia, nationalism, or some sort of cultural supremacism. I somehow doubt that this is possible to a significant extent in capitalist society, and that is why I stress the importance of active communist intervention with the explicit aim of overturning the existing state of affairs.

But again, to return to the notion that the clash of cultures is to an extent a product of dominant ideology. The entire point is that the dominant ideology in part rests on the integrating power of nationalism. It is its pronounced aspect, and I can't see how communists could even begin to shake this up when simultaneously reinforcing it by concluding that stopping immigration, thus participating in the dominant ideology unwittingly, is actually a way forward for the working class (of a particular nation, of course; that's where the notion of socialism in one country, as a possible source of such views, might be debated, but that's tangential and I'm not saying that you hold it, but think it's possible).



On part 2:
Unemployment can have various causes. But immigrant laborers (Eastern Europeans mostly) are one of them (i'm talking about the Netherlands in this instance, but believe the UK has a similar issue).
First of all, you merely assert this, and you haven't demonstrated it. By saying that migrant labour is a cause of unemployment you're effectively saying that migrant labour has command over capital investment and employment choices. They manifestly do not. And this is precisely the point, that jobs are entirely dependent on the class of people who own capital, invest it, and decide over the pattern of employment according to such and such criteria (the issue of public sector jobs is similar, though it depends on other factors such as political power)


The EU president publicly admitted they we're brought in to press the wages of native workers (which is why they can work for Eastern European wages).
Even if you take that statement at face value, you can notice that the issue of wages is not the same as the issue of unemplyment. And to reiterate, of course that the ruling class uses immigrant labour to their own advantage, as wages are costs to be cut in order that profits might remain at a certain level or grow, but that is not the point as it has been demonstrated countless times, both the capitalist state and the capitalist class will undoubtedly wage open class war in the absence of significant immigration, against "their own" working class. Then the supposed benefits are rendered completely moot, while the "side-effects" of unwitting streghtening of nationalism are to be fully felt not only by migrant labourers, but also by the "native" working class. Nationalism doesn't aid class struggle in any way.


So even if unemployment would not drop by it (which i sincerely doubt) there's various reasons for both nations to accept such a policy in the interest of the Working class in both.Of course that expelling or not letting in more people would fictitiously lower the rate of unemplyment. But what of it when a person who would come to, say, Britain, actually doesn't and statistics don't reflect yet another unemployed? Do you think that a lower unemployment rate would act as an incentive for employment? That is obviously not the case as capital isn't invested primarily according to official employment statistics, but rather to projected prospects for profit.

But there is also another aspect to this problem. You're obviously arguing from a purely nationalist standpoint since reduced immigration would actually, according to your own logic, cause greater unemployment in the origin country of the migrant!
So tell me again, how does this not amount to simple nationalism coated in soothing pro-worker rhetoric? Do you think that the Dutch working class is better than the Polish working class?


Edit: To clarify another aspect. I've worked with Polish doctors in warehouses and factories. Why the hell am i working with doctors?
Because they couldn't land a job as doctors in Poland?
Would you rather that you worked with a Dutchman with high school degree? The Polish doctor can go "her own" Employment Office, right?

Sorry, but these are the implications I read out of your post. I'm not saying these are you're explicit attitudes.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Why would you think his followers were not leftists? The whole point of the people's temple and their commune in Guyana was to build a non racist equal society. Many who died were from poor black backgrounds. Tragic event and I don't know why leftists joke about it so easily.
Honestly, I consider them a sub-political religious cult. Agreed that it was a tragic outcome.

[Raúl Duke]

MIM, Sizpao Communism, RCP, and a few others...

Of course, to an average person, many parties too sympathetic to Stalin or Mao, parties/organizations that focus to much on history (glorifying Stalin, Mao, or Trotsky semi-incessantly and/or reliving sectarian debates of the past), and such are seen as "crazy." Here in revleft, well it's pretty normal to see them here so we don't see them as such out of hand...

[A Marxist Historian]

I think the Sparts are kind of a mixed bag. On the plus side, they always go after any capitulation to the Democrats by forces on the US "left," and that is very useful, since capitulating to the Democrats is the characteristic stance of very nearly the entire US "left," as we saw in the 2008 presidential election. So that's good.

The internal life of the SL/ICL may well be another matter, since, years ago, the IG, a by-product of the SL, published some devastating claims, about the way SL comrades had been treated. If what the IG once said is true, then there were some serious problems inside the SL.

In fairness to the IG, I think you have 'em crossed with the IBT, who did indeed make some horrifying sounding claims about SL internal life. It would be tough for the IG to make such claims, being as the IG leader had been the editor of the Workers Vanguard for two decades, and until he left one of the group's very top leaders.

Now, the IBT, they actually could get on the craziest left group themselves. Their leader, Bill Logan, is a pretty notorious psycopath, infamous in New Zealand. There was a great piece about the internal life of his weird group in New Zealand floating around the Internet, titled "Sheep Station Zero," a good while back, complete with some of the zaniest and insanest Stalinoid stuff you could imagine.

IBT leader maximo Logan got expelled from the (pre) ICL due to his misdeeds in running the Australian Spartacist League way back in the '70s, including control of the sex lives of the members, ordering them to change partners at his whims, and enforcing a rule banning women from having children. One member pressured to have an abortion ended up attempting suicide. Here's the URL for all this.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/pamph/logan/preface.html

When all this was published by the Spartacists, what was the IBT response? To the Spartacist claim that Logan was "sadistic," they responded that this was discriminatory against people into S and M! I kid you not.

So anything of this nature from the IBT has to be taken with huge grains of salt.

-M.H.-

PS: The IG has repeatedly denounced the IBT's claims about the SL as a bunch of crap.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Well firstly thanks for the elaborate response, but i think there are some misunderstandings going on here.



And you conclude that based on what? The fact that I didn't address the enitrety of your post? Talk about jumping to conclusions.

You stated something about workers having no countries. I see countries not just as their artifical boundaries, but as cultural boundaries as well. Perhaps this is the misconception.


You're assuming that a clash of cultures causes "false contradictions" (which is a theoretical novelty for me in fact, and might be a not so great a combination of the well known notion of false consciousness and inherent contradictions of capitalism; you might have made a misnomer, you might have not, I can't tell for sure).

This could have been caused by an incorrect translation. But your interpetation is correct.


This is surely the case when we're talking about eastern European migration to, for example, the UK or Netherlands (hey, you brought up the example). I really can't conceive of such radical cultural differences which would result in unmediated, spontaneous cultural tension. Or do you assume that any cultural differences automatically produce cultural tension to some degree? If yes, unequivocally, then I can't disagree more. If you think it is so, would you say that this is a natural phenomenon, or that it is a historical phenomenon and thus subject to change, presumably from the active intervention into the social and political discourse?

To answer your question; yes i do think any cultural difference usually leads to some sort of tension (though not always). But this was not what i'm reffering too, the clash of cultures is not very dominant between the Dutch and Polish (whom simply complain one side consists of alcoholic thiefs, and the other consists of greedy perverts). The clash of cultures is mostly dominant between Middle-Eastern cultures and Western European ones. Which of course the ruling class uses in order to enforce it's agenda.

On your second question: i believe culture is subject to change and we need a cultural revolution to destroy the cultural remnants of bourgeouisie society all over the world in order to create a superior proletarian culture.


Where cultural clash might ensue, I would stress the importance of solving tensions through dialogue and negotiations devoid of any xenophobia, nationalism, or some sort of cultural supremacism. I somehow doubt that this is possible to a significant extent in capitalist society, and that is why I stress the importance of active communist intervention with the explicit aim of overturning the existing state of affairs.

Thats some easy talking, but it's not going to solve any short term problems faced by this false contradiction.


But again, to return to the notion that the clash of cultures is to an extent a product of dominant ideology. The entire point is that the dominant ideology in part rests on the integrating power of nationalism. It is its pronounced aspect, and I can't see how communists could even begin to shake this up when simultaneously reinforcing it by concluding that stopping immigration, thus participating in the dominant ideology unwittingly, is actually a way forward for the working class (of a particular nation, of course; that's where the notion of socialism in one country, as a possible source of such views, might be debated, but that's tangential and I'm not saying that you hold it, but think it's possible).

I am in support of the theory of socialism in one country, if this is the question. But debating that would take an entirely different thread (in all honesty, i think the current subject should be split from the original post).


First of all, you merely assert this, and you haven't demonstrated it. By saying that migrant labour is a cause of unemployment you're effectively saying that migrant labour has command over capital investment and employment choices. They manifestly do not. And this is precisely the point, that jobs are entirely dependent on the class of people who own capital, invest it, and decide over the pattern of employment according to such and such criteria (the issue of public sector jobs is similar, though it depends on other factors such as political power)

Well, closing the borders could force the capital flow towards these nations so they can work there as well. Rather then leaving family and friends behind for a foreign country, working and living under terrible conditions while at the same time assisting the capitalists (not consciously and villain like of course) in dragging native wages down.
That is if i would fully accept your thesis, but there is a significant national bourgeouisie in most countries. They wont move easily (such as fruit growing companies and what not), who cant be moved from the spot and currently use imported labor to do their bidding (ministers saying the Dutch are simply too lazy to do this type of work). If the borders we're closed these jobs would be freed up for Dutch laborers, which would be beneficial for both countries (under current capitalist relations obviously, it is a short term demand, not a long term one).


Even if you take that statement at face value, you can notice that the issue of wages is not the same as the issue of unemplyment. And to reiterate, of course that the ruling class uses immigrant labour to their own advantage, as wages are costs to be cut in order that profits might remain at a certain level or grow, but that is not the point as it has been demonstrated countless times, both the capitalist state and the capitalist class will undoubtedly wage open class war in the absence of significant immigration, against "their own" working class. Then the supposed benefits are rendered completely moot, while the "side-effects" of unwitting streghtening of nationalism are to be fully felt not only by migrant labourers, but also by the "native" working class. Nationalism doesn't aid class struggle in any way.

Given that most western european countries have a decently organized working class and many rights gained over the past many years it is quite fair to state mass-immigration makes it much easier for the capitalists to win the battle against their own working class. I'm not a nationalist btw, i believe such a thing would be beneficial to the working class of both countries. And in the long run i do support open borders.


Of course that expelling or not letting in more people would fictitiously lower the rate of unemplyment. But what of it when a person who would come to, say, Britain, actually doesn't and statistics don't reflect yet another unemployed? Do you think that a lower unemployment rate would act as an incentive for employment? That is obviously not the case as capital isn't invested primarily according to official employment statistics, but rather to projected prospects for profit.

Obviously, the social-democratic state in itself is a farce and only slightly helps the working class (as will closing the borders). This is demonstrated by capitalism over and over again to the working class. And by this revolutions are born. When you exhaust all potential options to escape through, the only escape route is revolution.



But there is also another aspect to this problem. You're obviously arguing from a purely nationalist standpoint since reduced immigration would actually, according to your own logic, cause greater unemployment in the origin country of the migrant!
So tell me again, how does this not amount to simple nationalism coated in soothing pro-worker rhetoric? Do you think that the Dutch working class is better than the Polish working class?

I will quote myself in a previous post:

2. No more brain-drain for 3rd world countries.
3. Verelendung in these countries, which will in time lead to revolution or at least strengthens the unions, given that there will be no running from their problems. They will have to confront the problems of their country, which will lead to an improvement in the least for the working class there.

So, no.


Would you rather that you worked with a Dutchman with high school degree?

Yes. Cause they are not educated doctors who could be helping people with this education.

[The Idler]

As others have mentioned, I always thought in the west, neither CPGB-ML, CPB-ML or RCP(US) can hold a candle in craziness to LaRouche.

[rednordman]

As to the original OP topic question: I swear blind somewhere on the net a while back, there was this website that supported a Khmer Rouge style regime in the UK. I cannot remember however, whether it was the same site, that was SO anti-USA, that it used nazi-style rhetoric, talking of american citizens, in the same way as the nazis talked about jewish people. That was real batshit insane stuff tbh. Strangely enough those sites where really small and hidden away.

[eyeheartlenin]

In fairness to the IG, I think you have 'em crossed with the IBT, who did indeed make some horrifying sounding claims about SL internal life. It would be tough for the IG to make such claims, being as the IG leader had been the editor of the Workers Vanguard for two decades, and until he left one of the group's very top leaders.

First off, I appreciate the tone of your comment, but *it was* *Norden and his group, the IG,* that I was thinking of; specifically, a female comrade who was Mexican, who commented that her trial/expulsion by the ICL (Robertson's group) had been comparable to a rape. What she said approximately was, that she had been raped twice, the ICL trial being the second time. That characterization, I am certain, came from the Norden group, since I remember Norden quoting her to that effect. I had an acquaintance who was involved with the Norden group in NYC, but I never had any contact with the IBT, and I know enough not to approach any group connected with the unspeakable Logan.

[Thirsty Crow]

To answer your question; yes i do think any cultural difference usually leads to some sort of tension (though not always). But this was not what i'm reffering too, the clash of cultures is not very dominant between the Dutch and Polish (whom simply complain one side consists of alcoholic thiefs, and the other consists of greedy perverts). The point, as I see it, that in this particular situation is that the example of the Polish migrant labour is used to argue the economically destructive consequences felt by "native" labour. But as you state, not much would be done in this cultural domain by cutting Polish immigration. Even cutting immigration in its entirety would leave the possibility of open cultural tension between different groups - first that come to mind are the so called sexual minorities. Any kind of cultural tension will be used to the utmost in order to consolidate the current state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that communists should advocate either repression or restrictive immigration policies.


Thats some easy talking, but it's not going to solve any short term problems faced by this false contradiction.

And how would these be solved? By police action, by deportation? I'm of the opinion that continuous and consistent intervention by communists might contribute to a buidling of a workers' sense of community in an inter-cultural way. I do not think that we should rely on the bourgeois state to solve these problems, and sure as hell I don't think we need self-described revolutionaries in government to exact justice for the "native" working class.


I am in support of the theory of socialism in one country, if this is the question. But debating that would take an entirely different thread (in all honesty, i think the current subject should be split from the original post).
My contention is that a vital aspect of the dominant bourgeois ideology is the integrative, class collaborationist power of nationalism, is in fact aided by your approach. Advocating anti-immigration positions aids nationalism, irrespective of the belief of the concrete person whether she is a nationalist or not.

Another point is that the so called theory of socialism in one country, among other factors, may be taken to account for such abberant positions.



Well, closing the borders could force the capital flow towards these nations so they can work there as well.
Again, assertions and wishful thinking.
But then again Poles would be stealing British or Dutch jobs by attracting "native capital" which could also be invested in Britain or the Netherlands!

And that is even to disregard the dubious assumption that restrictive immigration policies would actually cause somewhat of a flight of capital and investement into these countries. Indeed, your position is very cynical in that you probably understand that prior to this imagined capital flow unemplyment would have to force the wages down to a significant extent, because that is a precondition for capital investment, especially in times of crisis.
So, your argument amounts to actually claiming that lowerd wages, worsening conditions and more or less open class war by the bossess would caused by restrictive immigration would be beneficial when unemployment would begin to decrease. Cynical, at best.



Rather then leaving family and friends behind for a foreign country, working and living under terrible conditions while at the same time assisting the capitalists (not consciously and villain like of course) in dragging native wages down.

Because it would be better to face these same conditions at home. To have your own native wage cut and conditions destroyed by the capitalist class, and await a significant investment cycle by capital which would by then secure more jobs for British workers.



Given that most western european countries have a decently organized working class and many rights gained over the past many years it is quite fair to state mass-immigration makes it much easier for the capitalists to win the battle against their own working class. I'm not a nationalist btw, i believe such a thing would be beneficial to the working class of both countries. And in the long run i do support open borders.

I don't think this is the case as the reaction to attack from the unions. And these rights had been actively undermined for a long time now - which didn't always include immigration as a pretext, as I stated, that open class war will be conducted no matter what against their own "native" working class, and by then the compromise with nationalism would have done enough.
And mass immigration is an objective obstacle only if international solidarity isn't actively pursued as a goal of the actions of labour and revolutionary groups.



Obviously, the social-democratic state in itself is a farce and only slightly helps the working class (as will closing the borders). This is demonstrated by capitalism over and over again to the working class. And by this revolutions are born. When you exhaust all potential options to escape through, the only escape route is revolution.

While the only way the said revolution can survive is in its worldwide extenstion, which brings yet again the issue of internationalism as a necessity, and that isn't aided by, conscious or not, participation in the dominant ideology.



I will quote myself in a previous post:

2. No more brain-drain for 3rd world countries.Again, conditions in which these highly skilled people cannot be put to use and will remain underemployed or unemployed will not be remedied by the act of closing the borders.


3. Verelendung in these countries, which will in time lead to revolution or at least strengthens the unions, given that there will be no running from their problems. They will have to confront the problems of their country, which will lead to an improvement in the least for the working class there.
Strenghtening the unions is ultimately strenghtening control over labour and its disciplining by the state. And again, I must note how utterly cynical of you is to advocate more jobs and better conditions for native workers while other national workers, well they better buckle up, endure, which will teach them to rebel, assuming that their success is certain.
And the most pressing problem is the problem of all countries - the problem of capital.

Apart from that, I don't know what "verelendung" is


Yes. Cause they are not educated doctors who could be helping people with this education.
They could were they provided with an opportunity for employment. So now you're going to take the moral high ground and condemn these people becasue they are not helping people in their country of origin? Well, it must be their fault.

[Skyhilist]

What about CPUSA? They're pretty much a joke. They've endorsed Obama while claiming to support communism. It makes absolutely no sense.

[Sir Comradical]

I'd have to say all the ISO parties.

"state capitalism, herp derp" & "victory to the syrian and libyan revolutions!"

Enough said.

[Per Levy]

Apart from that, I don't know what "verelendung" is

verelendung means impoverishment.

[Thirsty Crow]

verelendung means impoverishment.
So, the argument is in fact for an continued and escalated impoverishment which could potentially set of a revolution while tight immigration controls ensure better conditions and wages of British and Dutch native workers.

The old tune of getting things worse before they can get better, with a little extra of immigration control actually benefiting the working class of the migrants' origin country.

[Per Levy]

On the first part:
You can pretend that cultures dont exist, but they do so we have to live with it and work with them the best way we can.
On part 2:
Unemployment can have various causes. But immigrant laborers (Eastern Europeans mostly) are one of them (i'm talking about the Netherlands in this instance, but believe the UK has a similar issue). The EU president publicly admitted they we're brought in to press the wages of native workers (which is why they can work for Eastern European wages). So even if unemployment would not drop by it (which i sincerely doubt) there's various reasons for both nations to accept such a policy in the interest of the Working class in both.

i just want to ask, when all the immigrant workers are gone, and unemployment and class warfare from above still is there and alive, what will be the next target? women perhaps? i mean it is well known that women get often paid less then men, therefore women help the capitalists to lower wages. also women steal the jobs of men afterall, and if all women dont work anymore unemployment should be gone for good.


I salute the British people and CPBML for their tenacity and good sense. British jobs for British Workers.

in germany the npd(the nazi party) says the same thing, german jobs for germans.

[dodger]

in germany the npd(the nazi party) says the same thing, german jobs for germans.
They also say down with borders, according to Wiki, dear Per!! HAHAHA!! How jolly! What should we do? Ah yes, APPEASEMENT!!:laugh:

I repeat the slogan British jobs for British WORKERS ! ...Not rocket science..a simple transparent slogan. It says what it means on the packet.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

On the first part:
You can pretend that cultures dont exist, but they do so we have to live with it and work with them the best way we can.
On part 2:
Unemployment can have various causes. But immigrant laborers (Eastern Europeans mostly) are one of them (i'm talking about the Netherlands in this instance, but believe the UK has a similar issue). The EU president publicly admitted they we're brought in to press the wages of native workers (which is why they can work for Eastern European wages). So even if unemployment would not drop by it (which i sincerely doubt) there's various reasons for both nations to accept such a policy in the interest of the Working class in both.

Edit: To clarify another aspect. I've worked with Polish doctors in warehouses and factories. Why the hell am i working with doctors?

Your starter for 10: since the advent of mass immigration to Britain in the 1960s, has unemployment:

A) gone down
B) gone up?

Besides, if they were brought in to press down the wages of native workers, then the answer isn't to split and compete with foreign workers (because the only way we can do that is on wage, not on skills) because that'll depress wages even more. The only way to increase wages is to stand together with foreign workers...it's a little thing called proletarian internationalism, and it's not just grandstanding sloganeering, it's Economics 101.

As an aside, in Cuba doctors work as waiters because the salaries are so low. It's an issue of living standards, not of migration or employment.:thumbdown:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

They also say down with borders, according to Wiki, dear Per!! HAHAHA!! How jolly! What should we do? Ah yes, APPEASEMENT!!:laugh:

I repeat the slogan British jobs for British WORKERS ! ...Not rocket science..a simple transparent slogan. It says what it means on the packet.

Yes, yes we all know what it means, you ignorant, racist scumbag.

[dodger]

Yes, yes we all know what it means, you ignorant, racist scumbag.

The Boss, Brown ,Blair and co.open borders--not as ignorant as you might think.Scumbag? Without a doubt. Racist? Only one race.:thumbup:

[Rusty Shackleford]

So, how is a job British? and How is a Worker that is British more deserving of wage slavery than a non-British worker?

What if the slogan was Chinese Jobs for British Workers? Or, Macedonian jobs for New Zealander workers!

[dodger]

So, how is a job British? and How is a Worker that is British more deserving of wage slavery than a non-British worker?

What if the slogan was Chinese Jobs for British Workers? Or, Macedonian jobs for New Zealander workers!

I made that very point earlier in the thread an accusation that the slogan was Xenophobic!


We are talking about foreigners east Europeans for the most part. Certainly not Xenophobic. It is quite acceptable to me. I said British jobs for British Workers...not Polish Jobs for British Workers.

Yet on another occasion Polish jobs for Polish Workers! The left better find another paradigm than global capitals 21sy century migrant nightmare. Open borders will lead to genocide. Still my sons class (70) was reduced by 15...saw them go off in a Jeepney, full of the joys of spring. A dance troupe in Japan, Singapore, Korea and! and! maybe Australia the nice man who paid for travel visas and greased palms of local officials, said."Australia, Sir! That is close to lONDON where Daddy Dodger comes from, how exciting!" Very close Miss! Oh well it puts bread on the table--maybe enough to put a sibling through college. They did seem young...perhaps I'm getting too old. Thinking about it the same age as Ma was when she left home to tour as a dancer 14.
that was in the 30's.
Anyhow the Rmt struggle against social dumping is gaining pace:

International support grows as RMT takes social dumping protest to two south coast ports this week


RMT media office
15:59 (1 hour ago)

SHIPPING UNION RMT today welcomed support from the International Transport Federation for demonstrations this week against the scandal of social dumping in the British shipping industry.

Earlier this week RMT announced today that it is organizing two protests at south coast ports to raise awareness of the impact on shipping jobs of social dumping and the exploitation of oversees workers by the shipping companies.

[Olentzero]

I thought that this was going to be a thread about Karl Marx passing out in the bathroom at 4 in the morning.Round the Marx household they called that "Tuesday".

[blake 3:17]

I nominate these guys, they are based around the People's Temple and they actually seem serious. http://ruralpeople.atspace.org/

Very weird! I saw a documentary on Jonestown recently, and had no idea how influential Jim Jones or his church were on the Left. Angela Davis used to speak at it. I think they also helped get Harvey Milk elected, though I could be wrong.

[Regicollis]

Once in the seventies there was a small communist party (I believe it was called KAP, or communist worker's party). They used to organise "proletarian marriages" where members who had no particular interest in each other were told to marry. That is pretty crazy and cultish to me.

[A Marxist Historian]

First off, I appreciate the tone of your comment, but *it was* *Norden and his group, the IG,* that I was thinking of; specifically, a female comrade who was Mexican, who commented that her trial/expulsion by the ICL (Robertson's group) had been comparable to a rape. What she said approximately was, that she had been raped twice, the ICL trial being the second time. That characterization, I am certain, came from the Norden group, since I remember Norden quoting her to that effect. I had an acquaintance who was involved with the Norden group in NYC, but I never had any contact with the IBT, and I know enough not to approach any group connected with the unspeakable Logan.

Er, how was it "comparable to a rape"? That sounds to me like rhetorical overkill to the max, something I do think the IG has occasionally been guilty of. I have a higher opinion of the IG than a lot of left groups other than the Spartacists, but their stuff on the SL strikes me as not just wrong but frequently way over the top--though not in the ultrasleazy Logan fashion, I'm sure they believe everything they say, something I have my doubts about with the BT.

Do you recall what she had been expelled for?

-M.H.-

[eyeheartlenin]

The female Mexican comrade said she had been raped previously, and then she added that her trial by the SL/ICL was a comparable experience. I distinctly remember Norden quoting her on that. She was one of the comrades who formed the IG at the beginning, and I remember that she had previously gotten in trouble with the ICL for allegedly not keeping in contact with the ICL Mexican comrades during some big demonstration in Mexico City. And then the ICL charged that this female comrade had an attitude of hatred towards the ICL and expelled her. I'm not making this up, nor am I writing anything for effect. If you don't believe me, that's up to you. I never had any contact with Logan or the BT, so the recollection is not connected with the "Bolshevik" Tendency. If you go back to the published denunciations of the IG by the ICL/SL, you can probably find out her name. The polemics between the ICL/SL and the Norden group were very sharp at the time of the breakup and thereafter. I actually admire the SL when it is attacking leftists' capitulations to the Democrats, so I am not writing this as an anti-SL polemic. It's just that the SL really is a mixed bag, in my experience.

* * *


Er, how was it "comparable to a rape"? That sounds to me like rhetorical overkill to the max, something I do think the IG has occasionally been guilty of. I have a higher opinion of the IG than a lot of left groups other than the Spartacists, but their stuff on the SL strikes me as not just wrong but frequently way over the top--though not in the ultrasleazy Logan fashion, I'm sure they believe everything they say, something I have my doubts about with the BT.

Do you recall what she had been expelled for?

-M.H.-

[ed miliband]

my nomination goes to the 'british and irish communist organisation':

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

stalinists who were popular with far-right tories like enoch powell. liked nuclear weapons, israel and the khmer rouge. managed to be on pretty good terms with various parts of the british and irish establishment.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The female Mexican comrade said she had been raped previously, and then she added that her trial by the SL/ICL was a comparable experience. I distinctly remember Norden quoting her on that. She was one of the comrades who formed the IG at the beginning, and I remember that she had previously gotten in trouble with the ICL for allegedly not keeping in contact with the ICL Mexican comrades during some big demonstration in Mexico City. And then the ICL charged that this female comrade had an attitude of hatred towards the ICL and expelled her. I'm not making this up, nor am I writing anything for effect. If you don't believe me, that's up to you. I never had any contact with Logan or the BT, so the recollection is not connected with the "Bolshevik" Tendency. If you go back to the published denunciations of the IG by the ICL/SL, you can probably find out her name. The polemics between the ICL/SL and the Norden group were very sharp at the time of the breakup and thereafter. I actually admire the SL when it is attacking leftists' capitulations to the Democrats, so I am not writing this as an anti-SL polemic. It's just that the SL really is a mixed bag, in my experience.

* * *
The stuff is public -- the SL published a bulletin that contained Norden and his group's side of the split in their "Hate Trotskyism, Hate the Spartacist League," series. The series, which is probably unique among the left, publishes opponent's polemics against the SL/ICL/ISt verbatim. Granted the name of the series is infantile.

I think it highlights the serious problems within the Spartacist tendency's internal political life. Too much is top down, and political opposition, while officially tolerated, is, in practice, clamped down upon in a very heavy-handed way. I think Norden and Stamberg's expulsion was way over the top, although, it does seem that the political characterization of them and their group was not entirely incorrect. That being said, I think this represented a violation of Leninist norms of function - especially some of the stuff around "loyalty." I have not reread the documents around this split in a long time -- it might be time to revisit them. It would seem that part of the issue was Robertson being more removed from the day-to-day leadership and Parks trying to consolidate her leadership position in the organization.

[Crux]

CWI. Don't you know we're loco?

[rednordman]

my nomination goes to the 'british and irish communist organisation':

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

stalinists who were popular with far-right tories like enoch powell. liked nuclear weapons, israel and the khmer rouge. managed to be on pretty good terms with various parts of the british and irish establishment.I don't know much about that organisation, but before it became common knowledge about the atrocities of the KR. Virtually all the left supported them. The really shocking thing was that British Intelligence and thus Maggie Thatcher, knew about what they where doing loooooong before the left did at the time, yet still supported them against the neighboring Vietnamese when they liberated Cambodia. History is strange and messed up.

[A Marxist Historian]

The female Mexican comrade said she had been raped previously, and then she added that her trial by the SL/ICL was a comparable experience. I distinctly remember Norden quoting her on that. She was one of the comrades who formed the IG at the beginning, and I remember that she had previously gotten in trouble with the ICL for allegedly not keeping in contact with the ICL Mexican comrades during some big demonstration in Mexico City. And then the ICL charged that this female comrade had an attitude of hatred towards the ICL and expelled her. I'm not making this up, nor am I writing anything for effect. If you don't believe me, that's up to you. I never had any contact with Logan or the BT, so the recollection is not connected with the "Bolshevik" Tendency. If you go back to the published denunciations of the IG by the ICL/SL, you can probably find out her name. The polemics between the ICL/SL and the Norden group were very sharp at the time of the breakup and thereafter. I actually admire the SL when it is attacking leftists' capitulations to the Democrats, so I am not writing this as an anti-SL polemic. It's just that the SL really is a mixed bag, in my experience.

* * *

I know the woman you are talking about, who may live in Mexico now but is not Mexican. And I liked her when I knew her.

But comparing her trial, the documents about which have been published by the SL, to when she was raped is gross rhetorical overkill. In fact, what she did endangered people on a demo in Mexico, a place where you can get killed if you do the wrong thing at a demo.

Being expelled in that fashion, however justified it might be and I think it was, was no doubt an extremely wrenching emotional experience for her, she'd spent twenty years of her life in the organization and was a pretty prominent member. Still, that does not justify that kind of demagogic misuse of her own personal tragedy.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

The stuff is public -- the SL published a bulletin that contained Norden and his group's side of the split in their "Hate Trotskyism, Hate the Spartacist League," series. The series, which is probably unique among the left, publishes opponent's polemics against the SL/ICL/ISt verbatim. Granted the name of the series is infantile.

I think it highlights the serious problems within the Spartacist tendency's internal political life. Too much is top down, and political opposition, while officially tolerated, is, in practice, clamped down upon in a very heavy-handed way. I think Norden and Stamberg's expulsion was way over the top, although, it does seem that the political characterization of them and their group was not entirely incorrect. That being said, I think this represented a violation of Leninist norms of function - especially some of the stuff around "loyalty." I have not reread the documents around this split in a long time -- it might be time to revisit them. It would seem that part of the issue was Robertson being more removed from the day-to-day leadership and Parks trying to consolidate her leadership position in the organization.

Basically, they set up their own expulsion over what turned out to be a trivial matter, wanting to be seen as victims of bureaucratism. What they were actually expelled for was not the violations of telephone rules (rules which I suspect Norden wrote himself) but that when a trial body was convened, they told it to get stuffed.

Funny thing, I first heard about Norden's splitout while I was serving temporarily as chairman at the Chronicle typo chapel. A fellow chapel member who was a supporter of the BT called me up on the chapel phone line as I was doing my union job, and demanded that I give him the home phone number of someone closer to the SL than I was, who was also a member of our union, so that he could get the full story. I had to tell him that this would violate our union phone procedures.

So when I heard that Norden & Stamberg were put on trial for violating phone procedures, my immediate reaction was not negative.

-M.H.-

[eyeheartlenin]

Without unduly prolonging this exchange, I certainly think the female comrade who was expelled from the SL is entitled to her own reaction to what was done to her. From where I sit, she's entitled to do as she pleases with what is, as you accurately note, "her own personal tragedy."

* * *


I know the woman you are talking about, who may live in Mexico now but is not Mexican. And I liked her when I knew her.

But comparing her trial, the documents about which have been published by the SL, to when she was raped is gross rhetorical overkill. In fact, what she did endangered people on a demo in Mexico, a place where you can get killed if you do the wrong thing at a demo.

Being expelled in that fashion, however justified it might be and I think it was, was no doubt an extremely wrenching emotional experience for her, she'd spent twenty years of her life in the organization and was a pretty prominent member. Still, that does not justify that kind of demagogic misuse of her own personal tragedy.

-M.H.-

[blake 3:17]

I really wish Ernest Mandel had lived long enough to write his book comparing Trotskyists to Jesuits.

I was looking at http://www.regroupment.org/main/page_publications.html far too much today...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I really wish Ernest Mandel had lived long enough to write his book comparing Trotskyists to Jesuits.

I was looking at http://www.regroupment.org/main/page_publications.html far too much today...

LOL So much for the 57 varieties! The radical left in general has had zillions of splits.As I understand Mandel himself did not play a constructive role, although his books on economic history are good.

Out of curiosity, what was going on with the SL supporting the US occupation of Haiti? I know they rapidly backed down on this, with egg on their face. I am not bashing anyone here, just wondering.

[blake 3:17]

LOL So much for the 57 varieties! The radical left in general has had zillions of splits.As I understand Mandel himself did not play a constructive role, although his books on economic history are good.

Out of curiosity, what was going on with the SL supporting the US occupation of Haiti? I know they rapidly backed down on this, with egg on their face. I am not bashing anyone here, just wondering.

The Sparts criticized themselves about Haiti. Here's one thing: http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/index.html They were so weird about it, that it makes me think that some complicated game was involved. Probably as productive as most spam on the internet...

I don't know that Mandel was particularly divisive. The biggest substantive criticism that's been made and I'd agree with, was that we overly optimistic. The biography by Jan Willem Stutje is a very good read -- it's a bit of a thriller actually. He had a kind of crazy life. Here's a review by Michael Lowy: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1729

The video about him is quite good too. I have the DVD, but it seems to all be on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QoBfIYWdo8&feature=bf_prev&list=PL1A37B4EA2BE296BB

Edited to add: This section of the Mandel video has an interview with Tariq Ali and some great footage of Japanese student snake marches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzhwaBjXU_U&feature=autoplay&list=PL1A37B4EA2BE296BB&playnext=3

[A Marxist Historian]

Without unduly prolonging this exchange, I certainly think the female comrade who was expelled from the SL is entitled to her own reaction to what was done to her. From where I sit, she's entitled to do as she pleases with what is, as you accurately note, "her own personal tragedy."

* * *

Hey, I can accept that--but I don't think that means that everyone else ought to assume that her emotional statement really tells you much about the SL.

Also, thinking back on it, it's easy to get things and even people crossed when you're relaying stuff you've read and deductions therefrom based on personal experience from 15 years ago and more.

I may well have crossed her with another woman also one of the small handful of folk, five I think, who originally started the IG, who I also was acquainted with but not nearly as well.

If it's the person I'm now thinking of, everything I said was true except one thing. The person I'm now remembering wasn't Mexican, but was Chicana.

Not that important really, but accuracy is important.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

LOL So much for the 57 varieties! The radical left in general has had zillions of splits.As I understand Mandel himself did not play a constructive role, although his books on economic history are good.

Out of curiosity, what was going on with the SL supporting the US occupation of Haiti? I know they rapidly backed down on this, with egg on their face. I am not bashing anyone here, just wondering.

Well, they didn't support it as such, they backhandedly and temporarily didn't oppose it.

Which is the kind of distinction the SL is never willing to take seriously as applied to any other left group up to that kind of stuff. In this case they were consistent enough to give themselves the same treatment they give others.

Why did it happen? I think the SL's own explanation basically works.

Namely that we are in an extremely politically reactionary period, in which most of the population of this planet thinks "communism is dead." Which has tremendously affected the whole left in different ways, and they themselves were not immune to that.

So the reason the SL went off the rails over Haiti is the same reason that so many other left groups have gone off the rails over issues other than Haiti, backhandedly supporting imperialism in Serbia or Iraq or Libya or now Syria for example, or all the horrors of other natures committed by other left groups, like say thinking cops are workers, supporting extraditing Assange into the hands of the CIA by way of Sweden, and on and on and this paragraph could just about literally go on forever.

Difference being that the SL quickly realised what they had stumbled into and fixed the problem.

Lesson: nobody is perfect, the SL most definitely included. And the real measure of revolutionaries is are they capable of recognising when they have committed a mistake or even a crime, and fixing it.

-M.H.-

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well, they didn't support it as such, they backhandedly and temporarily didn't oppose it.

Which is the kind of distinction the SL is never willing to take seriously as applied to any other left group up to that kind of stuff. In this case they were consistent enough to give themselves the same treatment they give others.

Why did it happen? I think the SL's own explanation basically works.

Namely that we are in an extremely politically reactionary period, in which most of the population of this planet thinks "communism is dead." Which has tremendously affected the whole left in different ways, and they themselves were not immune to that.

So the reason the SL went off the rails over Haiti is the same reason that so many other left groups have gone off the rails over issues other than Haiti, backhandedly supporting imperialism in Serbia or Iraq or Libya or now Syria for example, or all the horrors of other natures committed by other left groups, like say thinking cops are workers, supporting extraditing Assange into the hands of the CIA by way of Sweden, and on and on and this paragraph could just about literally go on forever.

Difference being that the SL quickly realised what they had stumbled into and fixed the problem.

Lesson: nobody is perfect, the SL most definitely included. And the real measure of revolutionaries is are they capable of recognising when they have committed a mistake or even a crime, and fixing it.

-M.H.-
I think you make too light of the Haiti error, comrade. Yes, unlike most of the left, the SL is able to correct itself, without minimizing the error (e.g., "we were upset that Healy was accepting money from Qadaffi, so we wrote a document.") The SL correctly and vehemently labeled their line on Haiti as class treason. But this is ABC stuff -- the kind of thing that would never have happened say twenty years ago. And there was not internal fight around it, that is what is most troubling (except after the fact). I think the internal political life of the SL is stilted. I say that based on an outsider's view. I was much closer to the organization 25 years or more ago, so I also have a frame of reference.

I certainly don't believe that the SL is a cult around anybody nor has it ever been. But the leadership has had a number of idiosyncratic positions, and I am very concerned that the internal political life of the organization is somewhat moribund. Even when I was involved, there was an overemphasis on control, and not making mistakes, even among young comrades. Comrades that were having problems, personal or political, if they were not liked by the leadership were sometimes characterized in pretty nasty and subpolitical ways.

In the period where the future members of the ET/BT were expelled, their were all kinds of accusations of racism against some comrades of very long standing that I truly do not believe were racist. They just were in disagreement over some policies that did involve approaches towards political work. My big problem with the future BT comrades was that they all quit -- and among them were some comrades that I thought were pretty politically weak. Of course, then they went and spoiled it all by saying somethin' stupid like I love you, to Bill Logan -- that was their ticket to political oblivion.

The comrades I worked with back in the day were very good, though -- strong politically, and very nice, decent people as a bonus.

So the SL remains the only group with more than a couple of dozen members on the left that puts forward a Trotskyist position on most things. Their press remains excellent. I consider myself a distant supporter of the group. But I am hard pressed to believe that the IG comrades should be in a separate group (or even the non-Logan BTers, not to mention Sam Trachtenberg). And I do worry that their internal political life may be sterile.

[A Marxist Historian]

I think you make too light of the Haiti error, comrade. Yes, unlike most of the left, the SL is able to correct itself, without minimizing the error (e.g., "we were upset that Healy was accepting money from Qadaffi, so we wrote a document.") The SL correctly and vehemently labeled their line on Haiti as class treason. But this is ABC stuff -- the kind of thing that would never have happened say twenty years ago. And there was not internal fight around it, that is what is most troubling (except after the fact). I think the internal political life of the SL is stilted. I say that based on an outsider's view. I was much closer to the organization 25 years or more ago, so I also have a frame of reference.

I certainly don't believe that the SL is a cult around anybody nor has it ever been. But the leadership has had a number of idiosyncratic positions, and I am very concerned that the internal political life of the organization is somewhat moribund. Even when I was involved, there was an overemphasis on control, and not making mistakes, even among young comrades. Comrades that were having problems, personal or political, if they were not liked by the leadership were sometimes characterized in pretty nasty and subpolitical ways.

In the period where the future members of the ET/BT were expelled, their were all kinds of accusations of racism against some comrades of very long standing that I truly do not believe were racist. They just were in disagreement over some policies that did involve approaches towards political work. My big problem with the future BT comrades was that they all quit -- and among them were some comrades that I thought were pretty politically weak. Of course, then they went and spoiled it all by saying somethin' stupid like I love you, to Bill Logan -- that was their ticket to political oblivion.

The comrades I worked with back in the day were very good, though -- strong politically, and very nice, decent people as a bonus.

So the SL remains the only group with more than a couple of dozen members on the left that puts forward a Trotskyist position on most things. Their press remains excellent. I consider myself a distant supporter of the group. But I am hard pressed to believe that the IG comrades should be in a separate group (or even the non-Logan BTers, not to mention Sam Trachtenberg). And I do worry that their internal political life may be sterile.

Well, I'm an outside observer too, but one who is pretty close to them and has been so for a very very long time, probably longer than most Revleft posters have been alive.

On Haiti, the SL has been stumbling a bit politically since 1992, when the hopes of many SL'ers and people around the SL, me included, that the events in East Germany and the USSR had finally gotten the SL the opportunity to speak to masses of workers and lead them in struggle were so cruelly disappointed by the victory of reaction. I myself was quite politically demoralized for a bit, and reacted in ways I am not proud of.

So you've had a lot of internal leadership overturns and vacillations,but nothing really bad or dangerous till this Haiti business. That the SL has managed to maintain itself as a revolutionary organization for half a century at this point is actually historically unique, no other left organization I can think of has done this, ever.

In the period leading up to the Haiti disaster, first the SL for a year or two practically turned itself into a Mumia defense organization, even though the Mumia movement was stone cold dead, and then when they realized that this was destroying them, retreated into a pessimistic attitude that was basically correct, but IMHO a bit excessively so, with the Workers Vanguard in the year leading up to the Haiti disaster sometimes almost reading like an academic journal.

This was expressed in Joseph Seymour's brilliant, basically correct but one-sided theoretical statement on the period we are going through, "Critical Notes on the "Death of Communism" and the Ideological Conditions of the Post-Soviet World."

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/spc/164/criticalnotes.html

This was not long before the Haiti debacle, and has something to do with it. If you can't do anything right now about all the horrible things going on in the world, there is a temptation to look for shortcuts...

And there was no fight about this Haiti debacle in the SL, due to the fact that initially nobody opposed it, but as soon as they started thinking about it, everybody opposed it. To the best of my knowledge, not a single person in the SL opposed dropping the Haiti biz like a hot coal.

You did in fact have a faction fight within the SL during this period, which had temporarily gone on remission during the months when the Haiti debacle took place, with neither side, or rather temporarily former side, either opposing the Haiti debacle or wishing to continue.

So afterwards, the minority faction, a very small group which basically boiled down to Rachel Wolkenstein and a couple friends, tried to use the Haiti debacle which they had not opposed to revive their factional struggle, and then walked out.

The basic issue there is that she had been the one pushing the all Mumia all the time orientation. So now she has left the SL and is doing what she really wanted to do, namely be Mumia's lawyer. And more power to her, she shows every sign of being the best one he's ever had. Mumia I get he impression seems to think so too. But that may be too little and too late at this point, with the movement being dead as a doornail.

As for the ET/BT'ers, most of them quit and were not expelled as you note, and those that were expelled by and large got expelled first and then decided that the ET/BT was cool. I don't want to get too far into personal cases, but I know of a couple of cases of expulsion in the Bay Area, the main BT base, which I consider to be utterly justified. I know all the old time BT'ers in the Bay Area and they know me.

As for New York, I know the scene less well, not being a New Yorker, but yes I think that in the '80s there was a high level of racial division in New York City, and some of that slopped over onto the Left, especially after the so called "night of the animals" after the famous electical power collapse, which apparently some white SL'ers in NY did not react well to. The New York BT's main issue was arguing that a black SL leader had only become a leader of the organization through "affirmative action," and wasn't theoretically brilliant enough to be a leader in their opinion.

As for Sam T., I've heard the SL version of what happened with him, and it does sound to me as if he was acting with what one should at least call racial insensitivity in the incident he was kicked out for. Of course, that is second hand gossip, but you mentioned him.

I have some respect for the IG, as opposed to the BT, but I agree with the SL vs. the IG on all the issues that divide them, and the sad story of the Left is that when it is isolated, it splits. I would really like to see the SL and IG get back together at some point, but a lot of the points of division are real life stuff relating to trade union work, first in Brazil so long ago and now with respect to the ILWU. Not just abstract theory. So a reunification would not be easy, and would require a willingness on the IG's part to admit it is wrong at least on real live right now practical matters, which ain't happenin' any time soon.

-M.H.-